City Council - Regular Meeting

Pre-council meeting today on July 14th 2026 5 p.m. Here in the Lehigh City Council chambers We have a full council council member Newell council member Harrison council member Stallings Council member Freeman and council member Lockhart and we welcome you to our meeting today reminder that this is a pre-council meeting so there is no public comment during this meeting and But we are grateful that you're here to participate with us. So with that, we'll go ahead and get started with item number one. We've asked Council Member Freeman to offer our opening prayer.

Our dear Father in heaven, we're thankful to be gathered here today to discuss the needs and wants of our city. And we're thankful for all of those who put in the hard work every day to make our city a better place. We're thankful for the residents and for all the city staff and officers. And we ask for blessings upon them and their families and upon this council to stay and the staff that are here supporting us. We love you and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Thank you, Council Member Freeman. OK, item number two, we'll start with presentations and report. We'll start with 2.1, with the Children's Center presentation. Welcome. If you will state your name when you get there, we'll thank you very much.

Good afternoon. I'm Rebecca Dutson. I have the pleasure of serving as the president and CEO of the Children's Center Utah and the honor of being with you today to tell you a little bit about what we're up to in Lehigh.

Just get connected here.

All right. And I want to just do a time check. We've got about 10 minutes, is my understanding. OK. Well, thank you again for your time, mayor and council members. It's our pleasure to be here today and tell you a little bit about the Children's Center Utah and our new center located here in Lehigh on the Intermountain Primary Children's Hospital campus, the Larry H. and Gail Miller Family Campus. And it's our pleasure to bring some really critical services to the families and specifically children and their caregivers in Utah County. The Children's Center Utah has been around for 63 years now and serving mainly the Salt Lake County area. However, we do have a lot of families who travel to us from adjacent counties and even further away. And so together with our board, we have been working to provide more services statewide, specifically our outpatient clinical services and our day treatment services for really young children. And our mission is to enhance the emotional well-being of infants, toddlers, preschoolers, and their families. And so I'll tell you a little bit about how we go about doing that. Please, if you have questions, I'm happy to take them as we go along. So the Children's Center Utah, as I mentioned, is a licensed outpatient mental health treatment center and day treatment center. And we serve in our Salt Lake County location, which is located in West Valley. About 1,000 children. and their families every year through family therapy and then intensive outpatient treatment and group therapy for children ages two through five who need more intensive treatment. I want to talk just a little bit about that before I go on to explain some other aspects of our organization. One of the questions that I'm most frequently asked is, do children that young have mental health concerns and challenges? And yes, they do. And yes, there are evidence-based and trauma-informed treatments that can help that child and their family so that we can give them the tools that they need to overcome the challenges that they're facing so that they can enter school ready to learn and experience life's joys and also face the everyday challenges that that we all will experience throughout our life. So you can see that we have a full complement of outpatient mental health treatment services that we provide for kids and families, including mental health assessment, psychological evaluations, psychological testing. Of course, all of those supporting the outpatient family therapy. And then for children who need more intensive treatment, we do refer them into our therapeutic preschool program. Now, it's not academic, but it looks a lot like a preschool, and it is designed to help children function well in traditional settings like childcare, preschool, and, of course, entering kindergarten ready to learn. The Children's Center does many things beyond our outpatient treatment services, and many of those are geared toward supporting providers of all backgrounds who are working with young children. These services are free to providers, and we provide these services statewide. We offer 100 hours of training per month to providers of any background who are working with young children. So not only can they get on to our website and participate in webinars and training by our clinical professionals, but we also offer consultation services where they can speak directly with a trained clinician about a specific child to get help and direction. We also offer some unique programs. Some of them are serving Utah County specifically. Our infant toddler court program is working with two of the court districts in Utah County right now. And this, of course, is putting the child at the center. It is involving welfare and also the judicial system, often around families being reunited or if they're working through really complicated things, but it is a child centered approach and Our team helps facilitate all the parties who participate in that in addition We have a program that is titled our trauma program for young children which is also statewide and that is designed to help reach children in rural portions of our state and We are very focused, of course, on the workforce and developing that population of providers. We do have a shortage and I'll share some statistics in a minute that help you understand some of the challenges our state faces and I'm sure you're more aware than most of the mental health challenges and also the provider shortage that we do have in the state. But we focus a lot on that, as well as working together with municipal, county, state, and even federal leaders on policies that support children and families with the mental health of their young children. One of the things that we do and have done, we'll be doing again for the seventh year, is providing training. This is a statewide conference where people can earn CEUs and MCEs. We have several hundred people from across the state travel to attend this conference, but it is also hybrid. So we have hundreds of providers who join us virtually for the day. We bring in an international speaker. And again, want to make you aware of this so that you're familiar with the services that we are bringing and that we do currently have to support your residents and also the professionals who are supporting children and families in your community. I mentioned that public awareness and program and policy development is something really important that we work on. And part of public awareness is being out speaking to you tonight about our services that we're bringing to support children and families in Lehigh and, of course, in the Utah County area. Wanted to just give you a quick peek at our board of directors. It does include Senator Heidi Baldary, of course, who's representing your city at a state level, but a very committed group of leaders from throughout the region. who understand the importance of infant and early childhood mental health. And it's together with our board and our team that we have this vision to expand and do more in the communities around our state. Just a couple of quick statistics. In our state, as many as one in five children ages birth to eight will experience some mental, emotional, behavioral, or developmental challenges in their earliest years before they reach age eight. That's a lot of children who could use support. And of course, we're sitting in Lehigh and the county with the fastest growing population and the youngest median age in the nation. And you all know these things, 60,000 children ages birth to six in Utah County. Now, one of the most troubling things facing our youth, ages 3 to 17, is that nearly 60% of children that age in Utah who have a diagnosed mental or emotional disorder are not receiving treatment. That is in part due to a shortage of providers that we have in the state. We have one-third fewer providers per 100,000 people than the average across the rest of the nation. So it gives you some context for why we're so focused on helping to build the workforce and train providers so that more people can meet kids and families where they are and connect them. I just wanted to let you know that we have a great partnership at the state level. Our legislature has made an appropriation into the center that we just opened a week ago, Monday, of $6.4 million. We've had significant contributions from the private sector. We will match that state contribution two to one. And we're very excited, again, to be bringing these services to your community. I wanted to give you just a sneak peek of the look and feel. It's designed very specifically to be welcoming, to help families experience and feel the hope and healing that our team of experts brings to them, to bring some peace into their lives and really some hope. Our ribbon cutting for the new center on the Lehigh campus is October 1. We'd love you all to come. And I would like to just let you know that this center is named for the Collart Foundation. It is our Collart Children's Mental Health Center. And we're so thrilled with their investment and their commitment to the understanding of the importance of infant and early childhood mental health and bringing those services. So I would love to just, if you have any questions, I do have something I would love Mayor to provide to the council. It's just a quick handout and give you an idea of the types of things that our organization treats. But I would be happy to take any questions.

Any questions? I know I was over at Pioneer Children's the other day on your soft opening, and it looked like you had stuff going on over there already. So if you don't mind bringing those up, we'll distribute those amongst the council. And if there's no questions, we appreciate what you do. We appreciate how you work and take care of the business that you're involved in. Awesome.

Great.

Well, you know where to find us and we'll send you an invite to the ribbon-cutting if there are no questions be great any questions Okay, thank you very much.

Thank you very much Okay, we'll go to item 2.2 water conservation update that's Matt Hello everybody

A handful of water conservation and water supply updates since we last met. All of them positive at this point. First, want to touch a little bit on water conserved so far. I think, did you send out, Cameron, your, everybody's had a chance to look at that. That's a great illustration as of so far, our water saved. I really like the one per connection. It was about 5,000 gallons per connection so far over last year, what we've saved. As of yesterday, it's 1,316 acre-feet for the same time period as last year, and that's about 430 million gallons. So our conservation effort so far is really good. That's about an 18% savings. I mentioned way early back when we started having these conversations that I figured we would have to see a 30% savings. I think some of the things I'm going to talk about here in a minute will ease your mind on that percentage so far. I think we're doing a little better than we think we are. First of all, I want to talk about our stored water. When we first met in April and May, Provo River Water Users Association, our stored water out of Deer Creek, they had issued a 50% allotment on that water. When we met in June, they had bumped that to 70, and now, as of last week, they sent out a final allotment, and they've issued an 82% allotment on all stored water. Those early rainstorms that we got in May and June, late May, early June, brought more water into Deer Creek than... They expected it would, so they bumped that to 82%. What that means for us is in our total water received from them, that's about a 575 acre foot difference, which is huge. The way we've been using that water, that source, that's about two to three weeks worth, depending on what weather does, that we'll be able to extend our use of that flow with the rate that we've been pulling it. So good news there. That water will come in handy latter part of July and September. That water is going to be pretty important. Lehigh irrigation is performing better than I thought it would. For July, our portion that we're receiving from Lehigh irrigation is about 20 acre feet a day. That's the split at the mouth of American Fork Canyon on the American Fork River. That's way better than I thought that was going to be as well. So that's a piece of positive news. There are some concerns that that flow will drop drastically once Silver Lake and Tibble Fork are empty around the middle of August. So those flows will go down, and that's when that 575 extra acre feet that we're going to have is going to be pretty important for us. Ocala Well, that's the original well up on Traverse Mountain, the source up there. It's been a source of a lot of headache for a lot of us at Lehigh City over the years, and it underwent some pretty serious rehab over the winter. I was planning from the very beginning of the year to be without that source throughout the entire season. That source went into service about two weeks ago and just in time for this heat wave which has been extremely helpful as well. It's pumping about 800 gallons a minute. That's far less than it was designed to do 25 years ago, but it's better than nothing, and we will never get that out of that well again. There was some pretty serious concerns over the integrity of the well, and those were addressed, but the flow rate will be much lower than it used to be from moving forward as we go forward with that well. The Cedar Hollow Well is another great source. It's a new source. It was originally drilled for the D.R. Horton develop up in Inverness. Lehigh City participated in the drilling of that well to oversize it and to get some use for us out of that same source. That well went into service about five weeks ago and we're pumping it right now at 2,200 gallons a minute. And it's been a great source for us as well and took a lot of heat off of some of our stored water that comes out of out of Jordan L. So a lot of good news so far. With all that being said, I would like to reiterate that this year is different. We are getting by, but I would like to congratulate the citizens and the rest of the water users in the city for a job well done on their conservation efforts so far. But we need to stay the course. We are in historic drought. But I do think we're going to survive it. And I'm pleased so far with how things have went. Any questions?

I don't think there's questions, but thank you for the great report. I think that's important that we're adhering to those things, and we have it, and hopefully we learn to conserve as we move into the future.

I was really impressed with this last week. I really thought the wheels would fall off last week. The wind was blowing. It's 100 record heat, and we were still about 140 acre feet below what we were on the same week last year. This same week last year, this past week, was the highest week last year, coincidentally as well. Pretty good conservation effort so far.

Great. Thank you.

You bet.

Okay. Item number three, 3.1, the Lehigh Public Safety Impact Fee Study Discussion. I believe that's Dean.

I just have one graphic I'm going to pull up here. Okay. All right, so this is just leading into, on the 28th, we'll have a public hearing on the public safety impact fee, which is really two fees.

It's police and fire.

As you know, we have nine different impact fees. These are the smallest ones by far. But we're trying to get to the point where we're updating these regularly, at least more often. And we've just recently gone through with a consultant on this. So I'm going to cover some of this, answer questions if you have them. I guess maybe even more important, we'll have the consultant here in two weeks. If there's things you'd like me to reach out to them to bring when they come, let me know. By and large, public safety fee impact fees are simpler than the others. They're less complicated because there are not tons of engineering. By and large, our infrastructure is buildings. You can also include as your infrastructure fire apparatus that's in excess of $500,000. So they look at all of that. And with this specific one, we're not looking to build more buildings or add a lot of infrastructure. It's just the idea that we have this infrastructure now It's going to allow additional growth. We'll be using that same infrastructure. So it's OK with the impact fee study to essentially buy into the existing infrastructure. So if we look up there now, our current impact fee for fire single-family residential. So if it's just a single-family home, right now it's $198. This would move it to $292.98, which as a percentage increase is fairly large. As a dollar increase, it's not that much. The police impact fee would go from $98.35 to $246.87, which again is a pretty large percentage increase, but not a large dollar increase. The consultants have gone to kind of a format with going forward. So the proposed is what would take place. Assuming the impact fee study is adopted in two weeks, there's a 90-day implementation period. So we'd have to wait 90 days to charge those fees. And then there's kind of an escalating feature on all of the impact fees that they've been doing lately, which I think is helpful. A lot of that has to do with the idea that if I pay this impact fee in 2027, because these studies cover a 10-year period, and so if I pay this impact fee in 2027, I'm paying the impact fee, then I'm also paying property taxes that supports that same infrastructure. And so it goes up over time, because if I'm paying that fee in five years, I'm not paying those impact fees during that period. The studies cover a 10-year period, but ideally we will review these sooner than 10 years. I'm happy to talk more, but I don't know if you have any questions or things you'd like to discuss or things you'd like the consultant to discuss when they come.

So we're going to hear from the consultant about the study, about the 10-year projection and all of that? Is that what I understand? And why they got to this dollar amount? Yes.

And again, this is the maximum. We can charge up to this rate. We could not charge that rate. But this will actually help us with, because we have debt on the police station. We have debt on two fire stations. So this would help cover that.

Go ahead. Oh, thanks, Mayor. I'm not sure how to word my question. I'm going to try. It looks like the burden of the impact fee is falling onto the residential community, not the commercial community.

Well, so we have non-residential. That is going up a lot, right?

Yeah, but it's still significantly less than the residential community.

Well, it's per square foot.

Okay.

It's designed differently. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Okay.

So with residential, like it would be, some of what we're trying to do is have these implementation not be so super difficult, right? So if we said every house was going to pay a different fee based on its size, that makes the calculation a lot harder. So they kind of take averages and say, okay, a single family home, we're going to take an average and it's just going to be the,

$292 for commercial there's a fewer of those so let's just look at the square footage of the building and do it based on that okay, but are the underlying assumptions like Property tax residents get a discount right, but are there any underlying assumptions? Between commercial and residential in the model that place the burden More or less Yeah, I'll have them address that okay.

Yeah, I'm just curious. I I mean, for example, a 4,000 square foot commercial building would pay $3,000. And a fire where a home would pay $300. So it's almost 10 times. So it's on commercial? Yeah. Yeah.

Dean, one question real quick. When was the last time we updated this? 2018. OK. Thank you. Any other questions for Dean on this item? Okay, Dean, I think you're staying right there, right? We'll go to item 3.2, the certified tax rate discussion.

Yeah, so if you remember, when we adopted the budget, we adopted a tax rate, but we didn't know what the tax rate, what our certified tax rate was at the time, because just the way the calendar falls, we usually get that around June 12th, and we adopted the budget before then. So I have another graphic here I want to show, and another piece of paper, so... The certified tax rate this year actually went up. So it went from .001163 to .001242, which means that overall the assessed taxable value of property in the city went down a little bit. That kind of surprising because it doesn't happen very often. It happened several years in a row back in 2009 to 2010 because property values were dropping. I looked at a lot of different properties. I don't really have a database of everything, so I just started looking at a lot of commercial properties and looked at a lot of residential properties. What I found is a lot of commercial properties, office buildings went down a fair amount. I looked at a lot of residential properties and some went down a little, some were pretty flat, some went up a little bit. This happens from time to time. If you remember, when we look at property taxes in the city, they look at total assessed value. But residential and commercial properties don't necessarily go up or down at the same time and the same rates. Sometimes it goes back and forth. Sometimes as a resident, you benefit because commercial property values go up higher than residential properties. And it shifts a little bit, but sometimes it shifts back. So on the consent agenda today, it just has the resolution to adopt the tax rate at 0.001242, which is the certified tax rate. I did put this graph together because I just thought it was interesting. I took kind of the cities we look at and said, I went to the county and asked for what's average home value in each city. Took that number and said, if I took that rate or that average value times their tax rate, how much were they paying in dollars? So usually we look at this in rate. This is by dollars. So you can see in Harriman or Vineyard, you're paying a little over $1,000. a year for the city portion of the property tax. Lehigh is a little under $400. If you're in Orem, it's just barely over $200. So there's a fair amount of variance. And I did want to say that this chart includes, like if you're in a fire district fee or a police district fee, or not a fee, fire district area or police district area, I put those in because I think that's comparative. It also includes cities like Pleasant Grove or Highland or Provo charge a transportation fee. So I kind of added that into where we don't. And again, the y-axis just represents dollars paid, not necessarily a percentage. Everyone that's in blue actually did go through Truth in Tax, or has proposed to go through Truth in Taxation this year. So they've proposed a tax increase. And those don't happen until next month. So that could change a little bit, too. Any questions on that?

Thanks, Dean. OK, item 3.3, discussion of the Bellevue parking issue and Lehigh's parking requirements, including lease parking, educational facilities in the historic district. So we will, Matt, welcome.

So, hello, my name is Matt Seal. I'm the traffic engineer here for the City of Lehigh. I'm here to bring you a couple or some information regarding the Fox Hunt neighborhood and some of the parking issues that's happening currently there now. And then I'd also like to talk a little bit about the parking calculation that we use to calculate the number of spots that each business needs to provide. Just a little background. Sorry I didn't label these streets. The street on the far left side of this is 1200 West. The street on the top is 3200 North. And the neighborhood that we're talking about is that S curve there in the middle. The north-south one on the left is 1120 West. It goes up to 3100 North and 1050 West. So kind of what's going on here is residents of the Fox Hollow neighborhood came and expressed their concerns to you guys about the parking that's happening in their neighborhood. So we, as staff and engineering firm, we went out and did some spot checks, and we did confirm that they're parking between 20 and 40 vehicles on the streets there. So it is a problem. There's a couple of things, like safety. Do we have enough room for emergency vehicles to go through? Like if an emergency vehicle couldn't turn around, there is a gate. That's the Bellevue Assisted Living. There's a gate there that can just be opened, and it's fairly easy to open that. The regulation, the parking regulation that I'm talking about is a code regulation. It's found on, where is that? Yeah, it's table 37.080. It's how we calculate how many spots are needed. Right now, they are listed as a daycare. And so they have 4,800 square feet. And for each 300 square feet, they need to provide one parking stall. So they needed to provide 16 parking stalls. They have four on-site parking stalls and then 12 additional parking stalls that they've leased from. the Bellevue development. So there is a little loophole that may need to be closed. The Fabian House business is not really a daycare. It's more of a special needs kind of facility where they operate on a one-to-one or one-to-three ratio. It needs to be calculated off the number of enrollees that that are in there so that we can tell how many or be able to to let them know how many parking stalls that they need um the next slide is some some solutions and enforceability i chatted with um with Chief Paul, and he said that without proper codes, we can't enforce anything here. So we need to, in order to be able to enforce something, we came up with a few different options. The first one you can see in the top right is no business or employee parking. That's not enforceable. It would be really tough to find out if the person parking there is indeed an employee of the business. The next two options are, they are enforceable. The one with the residential permit you guys are aware of by the high school, it's kind of tough to enforce, but it's kind of a nightmare for everyone to come in and get their passes. It's tough to police. And then there's the two-hour parking. That would be another option that you could do, but you would have to pass an ordinance designating this as a time-restricted place in order for that sign to go. Chief Paul said that patrolling this kind of stuff is really taxing on his resources. Having a sworn officer do this kind of work is tough for him. The staff is limited, and he would rather see a civilian code enforcement team. I know that Lehigh doesn't have that, but some other larger cities do have code enforcement. And with that there are just some questions just some rhetorical questions you don't need a Hands from now or anything, but there are there are a few options you could do You know nothing and allow on street parking just to continue as it is It is a public street, so I mean if that's if that's what you choose, then you're able to do that You know should should we should we Come up with a signing option where we can have enforcement officers go out and patrol this I also think we need to to visit that that table and maybe update it, but I'm not sure I mean the Vivian house or that type of Business is pretty unique, and I'm not sure how many Times it will actually be used, but we just need to keep in mind that for a development like that we need to recognize when it comes through. They are opening a new location just right here by the pool. And I don't know if there's any other avenues or things you guys would like us to look at. We'd be more than happy to. So if you have any questions, I'll take them.

Yeah, I have questions. Yeah, so I was approached by some residents. It's been a while, at least a month or more for all this. So how many parking spots do you say the code requires a Fabian house to have?

The code requires 16.

16? And there are 16 because they lease 12 of them? Yes. Is that what you're saying? Okay. And so could it be that some of this other parking traffic is from other businesses, like some of the neighborhood commercial or the construction that's going on there or whatever?

We're not sure what... It is possible, but I was there this morning, and I was there for about 15 minutes. When I first pulled in, I pulled into the neighborhood, and there was 20 cars there. And then I pulled out, and I parked in one of the slots that they lease out, and I watched 20 more cars come in, and I counted 19 people walking. So I didn't watch to see where they were actually going, but... I don't know.

Well, and I think part of it is that there's a little sidewalk that connects this neighborhood to that neighborhood commercial. Is that what I understand? At least when I've been driving, when I've driven down there a few times and seen it. Because I just want to make sure that the Fabian house has adequate parking. It seems like, I called them, I left a message, called a couple times, they never heard back. However, there's a It looks like they interacted with some of our city staff and explained that they did have a higher parking need and they had leased some additional parking in the past, but that option had gone away due to changing ownership or changing management. So I mean, I would still like to work with them. And my understanding is the neighborhood wanted to work with them, and they want them to have a solution. But the multiple residents I talked to, and I had them take a poll and whatever, is to have a combination you know if there's not a solution that can that can the phoebe house can can meet the needs of the residents and the and the commercial development was to kind of do um a combination of one of these parking permits something of So like the one around Sky Ridge High School says parking by permit, but it's only certain hours and it's only certain days, right? So that's kind of a combination factor. And I know that enforcement can be a challenge. However, you have a very motivated neighborhood to report. Also, we do have a civilian code enforcement officer. We do, okay. and i'm not i i don't think that it's necessary to initiate that at this point but i think that unfortunately i mean i've only been on the council for what six seven months and i've had three serious parking traffic problems come to me um even to the point where there are businesses seeking litigation from each other over parking spots like that's that's the problem that i'm seeing so i don't know if it's our table of our parking um requirements or what it is but there are this is just like this is one example of a multitude of problems that have been become evident to me yeah so that's that's what i'm seeing yeah but i do think we need to kind of be careful on just looking at this specific location and saying we need to

know help help these certain residents which i would be frustrated too but you know we just need to be careful we're not opening a box where it's like okay we're going to do this in every single situation but i mean i've seen the parking there i read the newspaper article that was just put out about this exact thing it is a problem so yeah i would love to have these i would love to bring these people to the table the commercial development and the

residents and be able to find a good solution because I haven't been able to get a hold of the commercial development so I've also watched the neighborhood with neighbors and have been out there and I noticed the same problem One of the questions I have is, they said that they made an agreement to do shared parking, but then they just aren't honoring that. And what are the actions that are available to them to make them honor the shared parking agreement? Is that civilly handled?

No, I've heard of that. The Bellevue development has recently changed management, and it's willing to work with the parking. And I don't know the rules on that.

Yeah, I guess I'm just curious how, if they've made an agreement for development, why do the new owners get to ignore the agreement that that development is based on? And maybe that's a Ryan question. I'm not sure.

I mean unless it was recorded unless that agreement was recorded on the property and binding on subsequent property owners It would have just have been a civil agreement a contract between the two at the time. I don't know if the development approval Contingent upon that shared parking agreement that would be something to look at okay Yeah, just my understanding I haven't seen the actual agreement, but when they developed all of that new retail

So the same group owns all of the new retail and the Fabian House building. They're just leasing that for their business. And so my understanding, like I said, I haven't seen the actual agreement between Fabian and Bellevue, but they do have the 11 spots. That was part of when they approved that commercial site plan. They have, I think it's actually five and 11. Okay, five and 11. Yeah, anyways, I think they have one handicap of four standard behind the Fabian House. And then there's the other 11 that are identified on the site plan. And so I think there's maybe some disagreement about what was actually promised or not. But they do have 11 stalls in the new retail part that are labeled. They have signage, you know, Fabian House parking only. So... There is some recognition that they're providing some parking besides what's on Fabian House property. That's my understanding, but like I said, I haven't had an opportunity to get into the agreement or anything.

And one more question, if I may, to Kim. So the miscategorization of the... Fabian House being a daycare, what should it be labeled as? Instead of a daycare, what would be the proper label?

Yeah, I don't think it... really the use is the issue. It's just the nature of this particular business. And I'd have to look. I think daycare and preschool are similar parking requirements based on the size of the building. It just happens that this business model is very unique because they serve a special population where you need very high ratio normally you know you could have one teacher for I don't know 10 students and this is a like Matt said almost a one-to-one or three-to-one they just need a lot more teachers for the type of students that they're serving so I think know we our code doesn't right now distinguish you know this special specialty preschool versus you know any other preschool and i think that's where this parking discrepancy is happening is our code just says if it's a preschool here's your requirement well this preschool happens to be a very unique one that needs a lot more parking okay

comments I guess I don't know if I have questions thank you for taking the time to look into this I know you out there and appreciate that looked into the options so thanks for your time there the feedback that I I got from residents there are several different options that you presented One was business-only parking, which I think would be hard to enforce. How do you know who's a visitor who's actually working there? The other one is limiting it to two hours. The residents didn't like that option as well. So I'm thinking the permit part is probably where we go. I do like the idea of maybe certain hours or certain days to just prevent the commercial employees from using it. And I think it's a big enough problem just from what I've heard from residents that something probably should be done. It's interfering with their use of their own property, parking in front of driveways and that sort of thing. So that's an immediate solution to the problem to help the residents there. But I think there needs to be some broader issues. I like the idea of updating our code. where it's maybe daycare, preschool, where it's based on the number of employees versus square footage. And I know we, I think Council Member Friedman mentioned this, that we have, and Kim knows about this because I've talked to him a lot, I guess, too, but it just seems like it's a really hot-button issue in different parts of the city, kind of for the same reason. We have an event center that... um they have the required parking but it's more based again on a commercial use in the square footage than the actual use of what it is and it's causing problems for the neighboring business owners we have another um kind of restaurant situation that has high turnover and again like rachel mentioned it's come to like lawsuits or litigation kind of to solve the problem so i think Good fences make good neighbors. I think in retail and commercial, maybe good parking requirements make good neighbors too. So I would like to look at those things. Another thing I've mentioned to one of our planners is, and this might be a question for you or Kim, but do we ever, when a use of a building changes, do we ever look at new parking requirements based on the new usage? and tie that to maybe their business license or something?

Yeah, I mean, if it went from office to retail, like a completely new shift. But if it's one type of retail versus the other, or just general commercial, and I know that gets into, we'll talk a little bit more about that, like the coffee shop, for example. We did not re-review that. change of use it was a gym it went to the coffee shop but that building was approved for just general retail which allows a lot of different uses yeah it's a tough one i mean i don't know if we'll ever completely solve you know you you look at um you know a little strip center and if they put a swig in it just it goes crazy you know I mean there's certain uses that are just very traffic generating uses that I don't know it's hard to legislate something that fits every single situation so I but maybe when big problems arise maybe those things we can look at a little more carefully like this this one I suppose and maybe an event center kind of thing

And the other concern I have is it sounded like they had some kind of agreement. They met the requirements without the agreement, but they had one and they lost it, and this is kind of causing the problems. So again, it goes back to kind of a broader issue of entering into these contracts for parking or leasing agreements for parking, especially, and this is in the case here, but especially when it comes to meeting our parking requirements, things change. Plans change. And I believe in the past, we had something in our development code or municipal code, I can't remember, where it said that when they do that, it has to be a perpetual easement. And I tried to find that again and couldn't find it. Have we taken that out?

And so are you talking if they have, like, a shared parking agreement between two uses, like an office that might share? Or access.

Or access, yeah. Two different ones. A leasing where... They leased space from somebody else, but it does go back to the shared parking agreements too.

Yeah, we do require a shared parking agreement to be recorded so that it's, like Ryan said, that would be how it's legally binding or enforceable.

And what about the leasing of parking space?

Leasing, like we've leased stalls to other people, and I believe, I don't know if Marlon's here. He's going to speak to that in a minute. But I believe there are written agreements, yeah, that are put in place that we agree. We can't change it? I think our lease agreements are amendable, yeah. And, yeah, he can speak more to that.

But if we had that or if anybody had a leasing agreement with somebody else and they amended that, would that business owner still have to meet the parking requirements some other way? so if they if they decided they weren't going to lease as many stalls okay so an example somebody leases parking at the legacy center from us and we're like you know we want to expand the legacy centers we're going to get rid of this parking so we have to amend this agreement yeah then is it on that the business owner to find new parking to meet their requirements or how do we address that um i think in and again i don't want to

go too deep because Marlon knows a lot more about this, but I think in our agreement we do allow the parking to shift and we've identified some alternative locations. So if we decide we want to use our city-owned parking here, we could re-look at other parking in another place. But I think the way we've signed those is that we do have some kind of an obligation to help them re- You know, we can't just pull the parking rug, so to speak, out from under them.

So do we ever have any agreements between two private property owners for leasing parking? And if so, do we require that if they're going to amend the contract and not provide that parking, they have to provide it somewhere else? Do you know?

That's kind of a... No, it's probably more of a private party agreement, like Ryan had said, between the two parties. I mean, in this case... when they came through for their approvals for the Bellevue commercial, which on Fabian, they had been leasing some of the vacant land where now the commercial buildings are. When that went away, we said, okay, well, you've got to at least keep their minimum, the 16 stalls. And that's why Bellevue said, okay, we're going to, they have five that we've already, we're providing for them on their site. We're going to designate 11 more so that by our code and our city standards, they were met. But then there could, I think there's another, other agreements that they had made previously that said, hey, we, we have more than more need than that or and i think at one point they were leasing property from the south which now has sherwin-williams has filed a site plan to the south so that they you know they're all of their options have kind of been taken up now other than the 11 and parking on the street okay so that helps so that if it's required that that part leased parking space

Is it a little more honored, I guess, or protected?

Yeah, yeah, we can enforce our own code. But if, you know, say they had an agreement previously with the Bellevue folks that said we're going to lease you 30 spaces, we can't, you know, legally at least we couldn't enforce that, or that's between the two private parties. Okay.

It's almost like if you own a home and you're renting – basement right like once that owner moves or the owner can sever that agreement and it's it's just between two parties right but the burden of staying within code city code lies with the business that has to have X amount of stalls yeah okay and I think I mean my personal my personal view I agree with Michelle I think we for this immediate issue around Bellevue I would be supportive of the permit parking during certain hours and days just to solve it for them. I think any time we have Neighborhood commercial, this is going to be an issue. We protect the residents around the high schools as well, just to make sure that they can access their private property. So I think we're going to deal with this. Sometimes we're just going to have to deal with ad hoc situations. There may not be a simple fix-all across all of city code for some of these. And with the coffee shop situation, I see that in a little different light, because there are two I mean, if you have a retail company that's failing and they don't have any customers, right, parking is really not an issue. If you have the coffee business come in and they're doing great, it's a great problem to have. I mean, they still have to – it can't interfere with public infrastructure and emergency vehicles getting through. But I see this as more of a zoning challenge, and I think the precedent is that we ensure the residents are protected.

I really like the designated permit time, hours, and days. I feel like that would be least impactful to residents who would have weekend visitors, night visitors. Hopefully they don't have to worry about as many permits. And my concern, as I've driven through the area to look at it and just blown away by the number of cars that are there, this is not a five stall under shortage. This is... like well beyond that. And so I worry as we focus on this area, where are they going? Like this is going to expand into other neighborhoods. And so I think we need to be really mindful of, okay, what's the plan then for this parking and working with the owners? Because otherwise next month, it's now the neighborhood that's just a street below where it's going. So I think it's going to need to cover a significant area, make sure that residents all through there have access to the permits as this grows and trying to figure out where is the solution going to be. I'm hopeful, too, that as the construction dies down, I don't know how many of the vehicles that were there were construction I know as I've gone through, it's much larger impact during the day, go over at night. And it's, you know, so it is related to more of the daytime, which makes, I think, the permit during those kind of business hour daytimes and not needed as much at night or on the weekends. At least that's good. But I feel like this is the first step and there's, we're going to have to keep looking at this to make sure that we don't impact new neighborhoods now.

It does appear like they're not construction vehicles to me anyway. And so I think that they're going to have to go somewhere.

Construction worker vehicles is what, yeah.

I mean, they could be.

Mr. Mayor, two things. I'm wondering if we could have maybe Chief Paul talk about the enforcement of this issue. And then also maybe Kim can talk about rachel mentioned that sidewalk going there i know it's a private property and maybe why that sidewalk was put in there and then if you're interested in is it possible to maybe close or remove that sidewalk and maybe that will also help prevent people from parking and creeping down the road as as heather is talking

Thank you. So as was mentioned, we do have a permit parking program in the books right now. We've used it at both high schools. And we can put those kind of stipulations in that neighborhood. It would just be a matter of designating where it's most appropriate. And as far as enforcing it, it is a civil. We did change our parking enforcement to a civil process. meaning that it doesn't require that a sworn officer issue a criminal citation or whatever, but we can use a civilian staff to do that. There were some gaps on the back end of the ordinance as far as adjudicating and resolving the issues with the city. I know our legal team and Craig Chambers are addressing those gaps right now. So we can fix all of that, and we can... time stipulations during business hours, similar to during school hours, stuff like that. It does tax our manpower if we don't have civilians that can help out with that. So that's something we can work through as a department. We just need to close the gap on the adjudication portion, and then we need to designate which areas we want to put in, and then we can help. We have also reached out and red-curved some of the hydrants. It hasn't solved the problem, but I do think that it has helped at least people be mindful that if I'm going to park on this public street, at least I'm not going to block hydrants and stuff like that. And we've also responded to cars that are blocking driveways and things that are applicable to state code that's in place. So we are trying to help with the enforcement. And I wouldn't say it can't be done. I would just say that it is taxing on our workforce. And sometimes we have to prioritize based on the workload and the calls that we're dealing with.

Thanks, Chief. Mayor, may I ask a question? So what does that civil enforcement look like? I mean, would there still be some kind of a penalty?

So just in a nutshell, anybody we designate to represent the city in these enforcement, they would just fill out a civil notice, leave it on the car. It has a lot less information than a criminal summons or anything like that. One concern that people had was, Leaving information on the car that can jeopardize their identity or stuff like that. So we took a lot of that out of it. But just leaving a notice on their car and then having a hearing officer or someone that can help adjudicate disputes. If someone wants to just come in and pay a fine, they can just come in and pay. If they want to dispute it, then there has to be a mechanism for someone to hear the dispute and resolve the case, and then an appeals process, which I believe we would just handle through the Justice Court. But some of that just has to be filled in the ordinance. And like I said, I know the legal team is working on that as well. I did have one more thing I wanted to bring up, and I just threw a blank. So maybe I'll remember as I stand here.

I was going to ask you another question, and I forgot it too. I guess we're done. Do you use this around the high school, and is it working well, or have you not?

It's challenging. It is still challenging for us because, especially at the high schools, kids come and go all day long. And it's not that we... It's not that we're not sensitive to the homeowners, but we also have other calls that we're trying to deal with as well. So it presents challenges for us, but we can work through those things too.

I guess just a quick question for Kim. So who owns a sidewalk that connects the neighborhood? Is that a city? No.

Yeah, that's what I was getting ready to say is it's a private sidewalk. So on that knuckle that's right there, the sidewalk that takes off and goes west, goes right into the back of the Fabian House building, is on private property. But it is a city requirement. So if you look at this street, that's probably well over, probably almost 1,500 or 2,000 feet. We normally don't allow that long of a street to be built without a cul-de-sac or some other, some exit. And so when this commercial area was developing, we required at a minimum the pedestrian connectivity so that people can at least have a way to get out on foot or bike. So it is a city requirement. But we looked at that. It's a detention basin that serves for all the stormwater for the commercial area to the north and also the assisted living center, I think, all drain into that. And the Bellevue folks own that basin. So yeah, I guess it would be kind of the equivalent of closing off a private street. I mean, I think we could do it if there was an eminence danger or something, some compelling reason. But I think long-term, it would need to be there to meet our connectivity standards. So normally there would have been a street that punched out to 1200 West, but there was existing development at the time. And I think now with 1200 West, as wise as it is, we wouldn't want a street connecting, but we do want people to be able to circulate and get around, like I said, at least walking, biking, especially with the school across the road.

Can I ask a question, Chief Paul? I'm just familiar with the one around Sky Ridge, and I talked to some of those neighbors, and it seems like they worked pretty well for that area. I don't know why, but do you find more challenges

It's more challenging at Lehigh High School. Because they just don't have as much parking. Yeah, there's just not enough parking on campus, and so it's just more of a challenge.

Okay, okay. And then, Mayor, if I may, I just want to point out, so I don't know if Fabian House is classified correctly. Sorry, Jesus. But I just wanted to point out something just medically. So ABA insurance in Utah was, there was a change in state code And it came into effect about 2020, where health insurances were required to cover ABA therapy, which is autism therapy. And that typically is oftentimes one-on-one. And so there is another place like this. It's called Breaking Barriers that we have here in Lehigh. But for that type of thing, I'm just wondering if this is more of a medical establishment than a preschool. I know that it serves both purposes. I looked up their information. But because they have that going on, So anyways, because of that state code change, a lot of these places kind of popped up where APA therapy is kind of more of a thing because health insurance covers it. So that's just something to note. Another thing that I did hear from residents was that Fabian House had approached this idea of turning the detention basin into a parking area. The residents were very against it because they were worried if we changed the zone to commercial, because right now this is detention basing is zoned residential they were worried that if we approve that that in the future that could be commercial imposing on their neighborhood III see that I also wonder if part of it could be made into parking like this little strip here that's darker on the what is that the west side I think Because a lot of this is just filled with rocks. Even if you took a little strip of that, you could make additional, I'm estimating eight spots, I'm not sure. But I'm just saying, it doesn't have to be all or nothing. There could be some kind of, compromise because I mean right now we have neighborhood commercial by residential it's it's not heavy commercial it's not white industrial it's just an idea that I don't know is would that be possible to eat split and use part of that basin is that is that you know

Yeah, definitely. That's something that they could pursue. And I think it's been six or seven years ago. They actually did pursue exactly what you're saying. They wanted to move that line back a little ways. And they had to amend the general plan first to put it into neighborhood commercial versus residential. And it was denied by the city. And because of a lot of neighborhood opposition, There was a second request filed just, I think, within the last year, and it went to DRC, and then they withdrew. I think, I don't know, maybe they sensed the same opposition that they were going to face, so that application was not taken to the full extent. So who owns this? You said Bellevue. Yeah.

So Bellevue, like the development? Okay.

Yeah, it's Bellevue Commercial, Bellevue LLC. Anyways, they own it.

yeah all of the piece of the Fabian house all the new retail in that basin so they own all of it even though the basin is right classified residential yeah okay yeah okay just point that out mr. mayor I know during work sessions we don't take public comment but I've seen a resident raise her hand several times and just wanted to bring that to your attention

I am aware, so I just want to make sure we get our comments in prior to. Kim, one of my concerns is Fabian House is also building a house now off of 2nd South. We already have a parking problem at one location. What's going to be the future parking of a, we're only adding to a major issue that's there already. So that's concerning also with, because the structure on 2nd South will be far larger than the structure on 12th West.

Yeah, on that facility they do have a, and I can pull up their site plan, but they have a lot bigger parking lot. And I think they, knowing what their demand or their requirements for parking, I think they've sized it appropriately. And I don't want to steal Fabian House's thunder. Corey is the one that's here, and she might be able to tell you a little bit better. But I know that Being aware of this parking issue, they are looking at maybe re-proportioning how many teachers they have at the different locations and downsizing this one. So I think they're looking at solutions on their end as well. And the other piece of this, there's a new women's center. It's called Levada. It's under construction right now. That's just east of the new retail. And I'm hoping that, you know, they had to provide their own parking, and I'm hoping that that doesn't have as much demand. Usually uses don't quite fill, you know, we require more than what they normally use. So I'm hoping as things are completely built out, that might help alleviate a little bit. Maybe Bellevue is willing to rethink. I don't know. I can't speak for Bellevue either.

So anyways, there's still some moving parts. Any other questions for Matt? Corey, I know you're here. Do you want to come take the mic for a second? I'm sure that might help all of us a little bit. Yep, come on up. If you don't mind just stating your name for the record. Thank you.

My name is Corey Fabian, and I own Fabian House. Kim, thank you. Rachel, I owe you an apology. I heard that you called, and somehow you slipped out of my calendar. I have spoken with at least three different residents multiple times. I've been in communication with Kim. I've been in communication with Brittany. I'm in constant communication with my landlords, and yes, this parking issue has been an issue, and it's been an issue for the whole six years that I've been there. I knew going into this that 16 parking spaces was not going to be enough. At the time, the property was represented by George Borey. George Borey is... In order for the Bellevue project to move forward and in order for the project to move forward through the city, George had to be able to show that he was going to be able to give me the amount of parking that I needed. And I knew that I needed more parking than 16 spaces, but we had a handshake deal, so it was not recorded. I thought that it was, and it is not. that if I advocated on behalf of Fabian House to the city, that the parking that was available were the, I'm forgetting the name of it now, the Mother's Retreat.

Levada.

Levada, yes. So at the time, Levada was also, it was a repurposed building that was also being used as a small schoolhouse. And what the solution was is that there was an agreement between George Borey and the city that they would put in a driveway between the property that I lease and the existing school that was up top. So I had the parking there. And with that agreement to have that temporary situation, I was promised that once the construction was done, parking would no longer be an issue at all, and we wouldn't have to worry about anything, regardless of whether or not I had my 16 spaces, because we'd have this big sea of parking lots. Well, when you fast forward, they restructured the way that they presented themselves to the city, and they now present themselves as Bellevue. George Borey still is a major owner in Bellevue, but he... There were a lot of problems, and I think that they had to restructure the way that they presented themselves in order to stay in good favor with the city. That being said, once the construction started, I lost basically all of my parking. And initially, Bellevue secured the lot that was to the south of us. That's that empty lot. Through a series of discussions, that became conflictual. And so I picked up the lease on that lot. Like I said, I've been in communication with the neighbors on a regular basis. Anybody who has ever reached out to me, I have met them on the sidewalk. I've explained the problem. I've explained tentative solutions. I'm so committed to being a good neighbor and running a quality business that That just to give you some perspective, the lease on that lot was $1,200 a month and I leased it for over 10 months. That's $12,000 out of my revenue pocket in order to help mitigate this parking issue. Also, I understand that there's a lot of people on the city streets. I want you to know that I verified with the city prior to storming the city streets to make sure that what we were doing was perfectly legal and within our rights. So the other thing is that when you're out there counting cars, I appreciate that you're recognizing that some of those vehicles do not belong to us. It's the same reason why the 16 spaces that we have right now are not being used by the majority of our employees. And the reason for that is because I need to make sure that we're maintaining enough parking spaces for our clients to come and go. And unfortunately, even with the parking that's designated for us with signage in the Bellevue area, those are continuously being taken by construction workers and the workers of the new businesses that have come into that whole Bellevue area. So I know that some of the overflow that's in the neighborhood is coming from that. I believe, just in talking with the landlords and with Bellevue, that as Levada becomes an open and functioning program, then there will be more parking. The people who are currently pushing us out of our parking spaces will no longer exist because there won't be. That's a large project. I can tell you that with the second project that I'm working on right now, you can drive by there at any given time. We don't have parking lots yet. And you're going to see that there's probably anywhere between three to six or seven vehicles that are parked that are literally just for that small project. It's easy for me to imagine that there's probably no less than 30 parking vehicles that are there at any given time for the construction of Levada. So that's going to alleviate itself. Another thing to note is that one of the major reasons that I took on the challenge and the financial strategy of creating a new schoolhouse, which is also in Lehigh, was because I am a community player. That being said, So two different things with that. I know that you also referenced that the new schoolhouse is in an area that also has parking problems. And I agree with you. The Carl Malone Rec Center, they have been struggling with parking issues for quite some time. Bree and Bree and I are now friends. And I approached them at the same time that I knocked on the door of the house that was next door, because I knew that needed to be our schoolhouse. And we have an official parking agreement, which has been filed with the city. So to answer your concerns about the Carl Malone Center and my program consuming that area, they require additional parking from 4 to 10 p.m. and on Saturdays, and I require additional parking from 8.30 a.m. to 3.30 p.m. So the parking agreement works out beautifully. I'm going to be providing close to 30 new parking spaces and they will also be providing me with close to 30 new parking spaces, which should put us at roughly plenty. So that issue has been solved. solved with the fortitude and the intentionality that I've put into all of this. That being said, the schoolhouse that exists next to Bellevue, mid-November, I will be moving the majority of my the majority of my program over to the new schoolhouse. That in and of itself will vastly eliminate the need for all of the extra parking and the 16 parking spaces at that point should be sufficient. I appreciate that you guys are open to and willing to and should represent the residents of Lehigh. I just want to note that I too am a resident of Lehigh and my program that sits adjacent to this neighborhood serves 80 of the residents in Lehigh and it also serves I'd have to do a little bit more of a deep dive, but I would say probably 30 of my team members also reside in Lehigh. So when you talk about protecting the residents of Lehigh, we're talking about more than just the residents that live on that city street. The people that I represent are residents here, too. And what we provide is a unicorn. You're right. We fall under the category of child care And so we are zoned accordingly. We're following all of the rules, all of the state licensure rules. So as you keep thinking about all of those things, and you were talking about ABA therapy. ABA therapy is fantastic. What makes us unique is that we are a professional early childhood education program. And a third of our clientele are on the autism spectrum. And we do subscribe to Best in World Practice, which makes our ratios absolutely phenomenal. But we're doing big and meaningful things. And if you guys can just hold out and be patient until the middle of October, then all of these problems are going to end up solving themselves and everybody is respected and everybody is protected. That's what I have to say about that.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Counsel, any other questions on this topic?

Is it all right to ask Corey a question? Sure. Thank you. So I really appreciate everything that you said. Thank you for additional context and for coming tonight. One question that I had is when I was on-site walking it, I did notice that some of the employees were leaving your facility and – Maybe being a little antagonistic with some of the pets that were behind Kate, like their fencing and things like that. In this period of time between now and October, what efforts are you making with your employees to about decorum parking, the way in which they treat the surrounding neighborhood, as I witnessed, you know, some of those issues?

That is always an ongoing conversation. As a matter of fact, one of the residents had reached out because there was one particular pickup truck that was parking literally on the corner. And so we put that on the agenda for our next team meeting. We had meetings. We have large team meetings once a week, and then we have micro meetings throughout the weeks. So the way that we're parking and the way that we're representing ourselves within the community has been absolutely on the forefront, for sure. Thank you. For sure. We've even been in communication with the other local businesses and have asked them to please respect our autonomy with those parking spaces.

Can I ask one more question?

Like you, we can't police where everybody's parking and determine whose car belongs to who. And that's a full-time job.

Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead. So are you saying after October or November, you're thinking there'll be less parking requirements at Fabian House off of? I do.

My intention right now. based on how quickly we finish construction at the new project. But right now, if everything is true to projections, we'll be moving the existing program over to the new building over our fall break, which is, I believe, like the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th of October. And then as soon as I get that settled, I'll turn my sights back onto the original schoolhouse and and possibly rebrand it and rebuild it as primarily early childhood education. And if we do any ABA therapy, it will be minimal. But I do hold a lease that allows me to be there for another 10 and a half years.

So do you think you will have enough parking after that movement of programs, like come December? You think that you will have adequate parking with the 16 spaces you have?

I prefer to live a peaceful life.

I mean, so some developments, they've had to go amongst the other commercial owners or whatever leasers, and then they've marked their parking.

That's a private thing.

That's not me. That's not just the city doing it. But I'm just saying that has happened.

I can totally speak to that. First of all, this little schoolhouse was supposed to be, the schoolhouse before this little schoolhouse was supposed to be my pre-retirement project. And this thing has just been, we serve such a great need in the community. What we do, we're wildly successful at it. And consequently, we have a lot of waiting lists and that kind of thing. But to answer that for you, for me, I'm trying to squeeze grandbabies and get on the ski slopes a lot more. My goal right now is to maintain the ABA program with the new and improved schoolhouse, and then still be able to provide the community with a quality early childhood education program over at the other schoolhouse. So not that money isn't a factor, because it's a play to pay game. I have to generate income in order to provide the services that I have. But for me, it's also not about being filthy rich. It's about there being enough for everybody.

Any other questions? So we have, thank you, Ms. .

I have one other question if you guys don't mind.

Please.

If you restrict my parking on the city streets, how do you imagine, what do you imagine that I'm supposed to do at that point?

That is definitely up for discussion.

Because the traffic isn't going to go away. Right. All you're asking me to do is move to a different neighborhood at that point. Like, you're really going to have to dig deep and take some time to really push me out of my parking at this point. And at this point, too, you're looking at August, September, and half of November, or August, September, and half of October. So I think that that's a valid question. I've been chasing this parking issue for a long time.

I think you've given us some good information. I think that the council can come together, and I think we can come up with something that will work for both parties. So I do appreciate you coming. adding that to the meeting because I think that adds a lot of content that will help us over the next two and a half months determine how to help both you and the residents that live there and equally come out with a solution that will help everybody so we do appreciate that okay and I am willing to speak with anybody Rachel again I apologize for not getting back to you I'm realizing that that that that totally slipped through the cracks

Somewhere between running a business and opening a new school and blah, blah, blah. But thank you for reaching out. Thank you. Thank you, everybody.

Thanks again. Obviously, there's some more discussion with parking. I know there are some prepared parties tonight, but due to some time, I know Councilmember Stallings was wanting to discuss some of these things. I have made the proposal to her that we make a work session out of this in the coming meetings, because I think it's going to take a good hour. Kim of going through some codes and whatnot. I know Marlon's prepared. So are you guys okay if we set aside this other topic for a separate work session on parking? Are we okay with that? Great. With that, do we have any administrative report, Cameron? No, nothing today. Any questions on the agenda this evening?

Mr. Mayor, I was just wondering for... items 5.9 and 5.10 if we were able to move that up it's the last two items on the agenda if we were able to move that up just prior to the development code amendments there's a slew of them I just would like to tackle that a little earlier in the agenda

I think in January we talked about having decision fatigue and how we need to preserve our brain power.

So you're making a suggestion, Council Member Harrison, that we make it 5.5, 5.6, and then move everything down?

Yeah, just because if... I mean, I don't know how long that topic would go. I know a couple months ago it went until almost 1 a.m. And so I think I'd much rather have...

that earlier on the meeting just for our own sanity i guess if the council is good with it the only concern i have is we did do that before and we had some poor lady stay past that discussion to speak to code amendment so maybe ask if anybody's here for 5.6 through

We could, so maybe what I'll do is I will start at 5.5. If there's some people here that are for 5.5 through 5.8, we may move theirs and then we can adjust, but I can adjust that as we go. Okay. Any other questions with tonight's schedule?

Mayor, I do have a, I don't have the RDA agenda pulled up, but I, this has come up before we usually start with the soccer field parcel. I would, prefer to start with the Cornbelly's parcel.

Which we will. That's first on the agenda.

Oh, is it? OK. I misread it then. Good.

No, it's not actually. But I will make it go there. It's 2.2.

It is FIFA right now, guys.

Any other questions? Great. Any reports from the council?

mayor if i may i just wanted to thank council and um the mayor and then of course all of staff for the involvement in roundup week it was incredibly successful and a huge shout out to all the staff members who made the rodeo watch party happen that was a really exciting event to go to and i just am very very grateful for those team members who went above and beyond to provide that activity for our residents so thank you to everyone involved and for everyone's participation in that

Thank you. Any other comments?

Just from the Environmental Sustainability Committee, they had a booth at Roundup, and that was a success, I believe. They are excited that the WaterWise Parade of Homes is coming up in August, and I'll have more information about that at another meeting.

Great. Any other reports? With that, I will take a motion to close this meeting, go into closed session.

Do we need to read this? Yeah, we need to read that. May I move that we close this meeting to include, let's see, to move it to a Discussion of purpose, exchange, lease, or sale of real property, pending or reasonably imminent litigation, the character, competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. Yeah. That's a closed session.

Do we have a second?

Second.

I have a second. All in favor? Aye. All right. Okay, we'll move to a closed session. Welcome to our City Council meeting tonight on July 14th, 2026, here in the Lehigh City Council Chambers. It's 7 p.m. and we're getting started. Our roll call tonight, Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Freeman, Council Member Lockhart, Council Member Stallings has been excused. We welcome staff who's with us tonight. We appreciate you being here. More importantly, we welcome you as the public who have joined us tonight. We're glad that you're here. We'll go ahead and start. If you'd please stand, and Council Member Newell will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, Councilmember Newell. We appreciate that. To start our meeting tonight, I'm going to take a personal lead on something that's happened in our city in the last two weeks. And I feel it's important to share this tonight. We lost an employee and one of our public service police officers in the last two weeks. Sergeant Robert Glenn Marshall, the age of 59, passed away on June 2, 2026. at the Utah Valley Hospital in Provo, Utah, following a courageous battle with cancer. Sergeant Marshall dedicated more than 35 years to serving and protecting his communities, including 22 years with the Lehigh Police Department and an additional 13 years with the University of Utah Police Department and the Ephraim City Police Department. Throughout his distinguished career, Sergeant Marshall made a lasting impact through his commitment to service, leadership, and mentorship. One of the hallmarks of his career was his work as a NOVA officer, where he inspired and educated countless young people, helping them develop the skills and competence to make positive life choices. Most recently, he served as a patrol sergeant in the Lehigh City Police Department. leading by example as he supervised and mentored a team of patrol officers with professionalism, integrity, and compassion. His legacy is reflected not only in his decades of dedicated service, but also in the lives he influenced and the officers he mentored and the community that he faithfully served. Sergeant Marshall leaves behind five children. Sergeant Marshall was laid to rest Saturday in the Spanish Fork Cemetery. I would ask that you join me for a brief moment of silence as we honor Sergeant Marshall. Thank you. We will continue with our city council meeting tonight. And we'll start with item number two, the presentation reports. And we'll start with 2.1, July's Water Wise Yard of the Month presentation. Come on up.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, staff. Appreciate the opportunity to get up here and humble myself in front of you every once a month. No, I'm grateful that we have with us tonight Cindy Kramer. I'm trying to get this to work so everyone can see what... There we go. Okay. So it gives me great pleasure to introduce Cindy Kramer of 2950 North, 50 West. A close neighbor to Councilmember Freeman. For her awesome landscape. Cindy, a little bit about Cindy. She's from California. Don't hold this against her. She's been here for about four years now, four or five years. And when she moved here from California, she realized the significance of an arid environment. And knowing that Lehi was kind of a desert, started to install a beautiful landscape. And interestingly enough, when I approached Cindy for this award, I came up to her house and I had my Lehigh shirt on. And she immediately said, you work for Lehigh City? And I go, yeah. And she goes, are you a cop? And I said, no. Water police, that's what she said. And I said, no, I'm here, ironically, for the exact opposite reason, to award you for being water conscious. And so anyway, we have just a little, I hope this isn't redundant, but the purpose of the mission and the mission of the award is to help us grow water smart. It's through encouraging water conservation that we can make a big difference in our community, especially in the drought situation that we're in now and the temperatures hitting 105 degrees and whatnot. But individuals like Cindy, who have gone over and above with her landscape. And all of these pictures are pictures of her home and her landscape, are just phenomenal, inspirational for people, for neighbors, for anyone trying to make a difference with what we have. And we know that water that we irrigate with is probably the largest consuming source draw on our water supply. And so to have landscapes like this is really inspirational.

What we really appreciate is using the drought resistant plants And I actually have just fixed a little spot in my yard and they're beautiful and I think sometimes when we talk about Changing your landscaping. I think most people think I'm gonna have rocks in my front yard And that's not the case and we're so thankful that Cindy can show us a beautiful landscape that really conserves a lot of water

And so the efficiency of using mulches and permeable landscape pathways and whatnot are hallmark to her landscape and landscapes that are water-wise. And that's why we like to promote them and let people know that you can have a beautiful landscape and conserve water. Just by way of announcement, we have a waterwise landscaping workshop coming up in September. It's a three-week workshop. It'll take place on Tuesdays, the 1st, the 8th, and the 15th. And so... Anyone who is thinking about trying to redesign their landscape and making it waterwise and whatnot, this is an awesome course. It will be taught by Casey Finlinson of the Central Utah Water Conservancy District. He's their educator, does a fantastic job. We have a living example of Steve Rall Park. And then we have informational materials here at City Hall for anyone who is interested in pushing and saving water.

And a plug for our WaterWise Parade of Homes. We'll be doing that in September, and we'll highlight the homes that have earned this award in the past. And we're awarding Cindy with, of course, a kneeling pad, because that's what you need, and several other items in this bag for her. So thank you so much.

Well, thank you. I appreciate this. As he mentioned, I'm from California, and I was a great gardener in California. And I arrived here and was humbled very quickly with soil and weather and situations. So I immediately took the Master Gardener class and did my service at Thanksgiving Point. And the first area I worked in was the Waterwise Garden. And so suddenly I went, oh, there are some pretty plants that are water-wise. And so that's what I've implemented at my own home. Lots of ground covers, lots of mulch, perennials that look good and spread, and all of those things. And this was a pleasant surprise.

But anyway, thank you. Thank you for me.

It just keeps getting better. Thanks, Todd. Thanks, Cindy. Congratulations. Okay, we'll go to item three, citizen input. We will open citizen input for 20 minutes. There are a couple rules that go along with this. You have three minutes. You'll see three minutes appear on the clock above me. If you get to three minutes, I would ask that you wrap up your statement. I won't ruin it. interrupt you unless you get to four minutes but if you're at three minutes we'd ask that you wrap up your comment as you come up we do need you to state your name for the record you will be on record as you look throughout the the schedule tonight if you do have an item that does not fall on the schedule we will open a portion of the schedule as we go throughout it so if you have something that's not on the schedule tonight that you would like to discuss I will open that so at 713, we will open the mic for public comment. Okay, we will, at 713, we will also now close citizen input. We'll now go to item four, the consent agenda. Any questions on the consent agenda?

Mr. Mayor, I don't have any questions. I was able to get my questions resolved with staff. It seems like we have some standard contracts here, and we talked about the certified tax rate previously, right?

Correct.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve the consent agenda as presented.

So I have a first from Council Member Newell, do I have a second? second i have a second council member freeman any questions on that motion so council member lockhart we'll start with you tonight yes council member noel yes council member harrison yes council member freeman yes thank you Okay, item five, 5.1, consideration of approval for a change to the storm drain system located at 4218 West, 1700 North. Our practitioner tonight is Albion Development. Are they here? Come on up. I remind you to speak good into that microphone so all that are present can hear.

Yes, thank you. My name is Jared Morgan. I'm representing Albion Development. We've gone through two iterations of DRC with staff, and this is a requirement per the plat to bring this storm drain amendment to you as council. We are under contract to purchase this property. Currently the property is being used as a detention basin, an open ground detention basin. Our proposal is to bury that detention basin as we're going to be developing that parcel. We have several other parcels that we're retaining the water for. And so as discussed in DRC, I feel like we're meeting the capacity requirements and

and um now we're seeking approval to amend the plot to allow us to bury the detention basin great is there anyone in the audience who is here to speak to this item tonight okay great council any questions for mr morgan

Mr. Mayor, I have a question for staff and you as well. So it says that the Lehigh, this has to be approved by both the council and the city engineer. And I just, Brad, is this something that you are going to approve?

Yes, this is something that we've checked the volumes. The new volumes match or exceed the existing volumes. So we're in support.

And I guess this that might resolve my next question But it said the DRC red line comment that this design does not leave enough room for sewer and water mains in project and I did that comment get addressed and Yeah, our civil engineers addressing that comment and we were making room for all the needed utilities. Okay. Thank you.

Thanks Any other questions

If there's no other questions, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion. I move that the City Council approve item 5.1, consideration of approval for the change to the storm drain system located at 4218 West, 1700 North. With the findings that it does conform to the goals and policies of the general plan, and that our city engineer has signed off on it. I would also include all DRC comments.

So I have a first from Council Member Lockhart. Do I have a second?

Second.

I have a second from Council Member Newell. Any questions on that motion? Okay, we'll start with you, Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Great. Thank you, Mr. Morgan. Thank you. All right, item 5.2, consideration of ordinance 27-2026, approving the Walker zone change on 2.58 acres located at 915 West State Street, changing the zoning from R18 to CH heavy commercial. The petitioner is Deborah Walker. Come on up.

Mr. Mayor, members of the city council, thank you for the opportunity to address you this evening. My name is Deborah Walker, and as the mayor just stated, I am here to request a zoning change for 915 West State Street. The reason for the request at this time is that our parents have passed away, and we need to sell the property in order to complete the terms of the will and dissolve the estate. I just want to say what my parents moved here 60 years ago. Lehigh was considered a very small town. And it was even dubbed a bedroom community. We supplied workers to Salt Lake and to Provo. And over the time, of course, it's grown. And now we attract workers and businesses from those areas and beyond and bring commerce with the entertainment and the educational opportunities. Since I grew up in that house, we've seen the two dairy farms in the area are gone. The neighbors with their livestock have passed away or moved. And that big field where we used to all play now has a gas station. And I don't even know how many homes and businesses and warehouses on that what we consider just a little playground. Honestly, my parents had horses, and they probably should have moved away with those horses a couple of decades ago, because it's just not as friendly for animals as it used to be. But my parents stayed. They loved being involved in the community right from the first. In fact, my father's name is on that monument down by the fire station. Sorry. He was one of the very first to join the all-volunteer Lehigh Ambulance. And he served for over 25 years. And as a child, I remember helping out with the fundraisers to raise enough money to buy the first ambulance and other emergency equipment. And I also remember that the Lehigh Ambulance was originally sponsored by the Lehigh Police Department. And so to be part of the ambulance, my father had to join the Lehigh Auxiliary Police. He had to buy a uniform and equipment. And he had to volunteer to patrol a few hours each month on top of the ambulance duties. And my mom fully supported my dad, even to the point that a couple of times she got tapped to drive the ambulance. because they were short-handed with volunteers. So as we come to sell the property, we want to honor our parents' legacy. their legacy of supporting Lehigh City and all the growth and the vision. So what we did before selling is we checked the Lehigh City's master plan and saw that the property is envisioned to become heavy industrial to support all the growth. Since we must sell, this seems like the right time to make the transition of this property from residential to commercial so that we can support the city's growing community and honor our parents. If I may, there's a discrepancy in one of the documents. And I'm sorry we didn't catch it sooner. But the area right next to me, the 901 West State Street, is listed as residential. But I was to the city council meeting where everyone approved it going heavy commercial. So there's already heavy commercial right next to me. In fact, I have a gentleman that was kind enough to actually research and track down the notes to those meetings. And if it's all right, I'd like to turn a minute to him so he can show what he has found. And then also I have a prospective buyer that I feel like has a project that I believe respects the current neighborhood and also supports Lehigh City's vision. And that's what I have. OK?

Great. Before we have them come up, is there anyone in the audience who's here to speak to this project tonight? Because there's quite a few. So Mrs. Walker, we'll have you have a chair for just a brief moment. We will open it for public comment. We will keep those public comments to three minutes. I would ask that if someone has already made comment that you would like to make, that we don't reiterate the same comments. So if you would respect that. We would appreciate it. And so we'll go ahead and open it real quick for some public comment. And it is 723.

Mayor and city council, my name is Chris Brainberg. I'm a resident of Lehigh, and I'm here in support and favor of the Walker zone change to a CH zone. based off of the information in the City Council agenda for today, July 14, 2026, on consideration of the Ordinance 27-2026. If you'll note the Walker Zone Change City Council report, on that City Council report it shows that south of this property is listed as an R18 single-family residential. But based off the city council meeting agenda, April 22, 2025, ordinance 22-2025, approving the Tronson zone change on 0.91 acres of property located at 901 West State Street, which is right next door to this property, changing the zoning from R18, residential, to heavy commercial. The roll call was made by the Mayor Pro Tem Albrecht, and all the council voted yes, and the motion passed with all in favor. So right now, there exists, right next to this property in question, THIS EXACT SAME PROPERTY OR THE EXACT SAME ZONE. AND AS DEBORAH WALKER STATED, IN CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, WHICH WAS DONE IN LAST WEEK CHANGES, MODIFIED IN JANUARY OF 2022, THIS DOES FALL UNDER THAT EXACT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. I ALSO WANTED TO NOTE i know there's been a lot of discussion you know about different things that would happen in those areas you know as i looked up the table of uses the permitted uses for that area you know some of the and i know the city council is aware of it but there's churches and schools and public and civic buildings things like that whereas a lot of the discussions that happened um with the neighborhoods even in the planning commission there were people that said lots of traffic and things like that but i think based off of the facts based off of what the plans are for lehigh city that i would highly recommend that the city council vote in favor of moving this to a ch zone thank you

Thanks for this opportunity. My name is Kenny Sperry. I'm a local real estate agent and a property owner just down the street from the proposal on this piece of property. The parcel that has been proposed to be changed to heavy commercial Borders Trinnaman Lane. Trinnaman Lane is a residential area. My concern is not the bordering of State Street. I think that's fine, but the way that this plat is laid out, it borders State Street and Trinnaman Lane. So depending on what the purchaser of this property were to do, if they did have a zone change, that could permit unnecessary traffic and degrade values of the homes that are across the street and on Tournament Lane. So for me personally, and I know a number of the neighbors around this, that's a major drawback. We purchased in that area, hoping that the intent would be to keep it a residential area. And with this change, not only would it affect the State Street, which is not the bigger issue. There's lots of commercial down State Street, but it would encroach into that residential area, which would ultimately affect values negatively. So I'd ask for your consideration on that.

Thanks, Mr. Sperry.

Good afternoon or evening, whatever time it is now. wherever you're at. My name is Lawrence Snow, resident here in Lehigh. I've been working with the Walkers. I'm a, I guess, retired and turned into a real estate developer, and working with them on this property. Now, I understand the concerns, big time concerns. One of the biggest things is a connotation of the heavy commercial. Heavy commercial to me means we're going to have a steel plant back there or a Lehigh brick that's going to be going 24 hours a day. And you're like, uh, every time they compress the brick. I don't know if you ever heard that or not. It's annoying. Batch plants that go all night long or start at 3 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock in the morning. Those are what I envision heavy commercial. Heavy commercial also means office warehousing. And what we intend to do, or what we'd like to do, is do light commercial, which means office warehouses, roughly 2,000 square foot office warehouses, because Lehigh has a lack of that. There's very little of that around. There's one just down the street on Truman Lane, a very small operation. But our idea is that we met with the state, UDOT, last week about where we can put an entryway into that property. And because that stoplight's going in on that intersection, on the little, wherever they're working there, And they agreed to let us put that entryway far enough away from the stop sign, or the stoplight, so we will not have any unless the city requires us to have access onto Trentham Lane. It wouldn't be a peaceful access because I wouldn't like it that way. We like one way in, one way out, for security reasons as well as neighborhood reasons. We have an office building I used on Valley Plumbing. I sold it to my son recently. And we have an office building in West Jordan real similar to this. It's vacant. If you were to log into the cameras right now in the parking lot, there's nobody there. And that's very common. People we have there now, I don't know if any of you read the email I sent. We have a couple of machine shops there. We have a flooring company. We have an epoxy that does your garage floors, those kind of things. Typically, the Valley Plumbing Bunch are the only ones that show up at 7 o'clock in the morning. Everybody else is at 8 or 9 o'clock. So you kind of get the idea. But if everybody's entering in off of State Street, I think it eliminates the problem that most of them spoke to. The noise, traffic, lighting, lighting up there, lighting directed appropriately. It doesn't go throughout the neighborhood. And I encourage you at this point to vote for the change to heavy commercial, like it or not, what the name connotates to you. So I appreciate it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Schnoll.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. Great to be here with you. My name is Tanner Pulsifer. I am a born and raised resident of Lehigh, live here. I am also the representative for Lawrence Snow in the transaction at 915. Lawrence and I have been working together on various projects across the Wasatch Front to create these 2,000 square foot flex office warehouses to support to support the local entrepreneurial spirit. I know Lehigh has vastly changed rapidly over the last 20, 30 years. I've seen that personally. And I think to echo what Lawrence said is a lot of the connotation around the heavy commercial could be confusing and quite daunting. In our proposed project, and we are under contract on the property with the Walkers, I think we eliminate the majority of those concerns, as they are going to be office warehouse flex units that could have, like Lawrence said, flooring. contractors, various subcontractors could have retail sales components to those flex spaces. And so long story short is we want to see this area support local entrepreneurs who want to have a office warehouse to house their business. So I would commend and love to see this get approved with the city council and no further comments.

Good evening. My name is Jen Black, and I live right across the street from this property. And although I understand what these people are saying, none of them are really affected like we are. Right now, I have the luxury of sitting on my front porch and seeing a field across from me and being in a neighborhood. And this would drastically change the neighborhood feel of Trentham and Lane. I do have animals. I have livestock. I have goats. And I have chickens. And I have dogs. And we bought this home four years ago from my mother-in-law. And we bought it because we loved that we still had a little bit of that Lehigh feel without being surrounded by industrial things. And so I do have all those concerns with the lights, the noise. And I know that those gentlemen brought up that it would be coming from State Street, but also it would be in my front yard. And so I just think that Treneman Lane is going to get a whole makeover by this being done. Because right now, it's a neighborhood. We all walk. Kids ride bikes. And I feel like it would drastically change the feel of that neighborhood.

Thank you, Ms. Black.

Good evening. My name is Dean Kazarian. I am a resident in the same community. I live just off of 1800 North. And my concern is, well, first off, I should just say that I'm against the Walker rezoning. I think one of the issues that our community has been facing particularly is the encroachment of development as well as business on all sides. We're faced from the north with the increased noise and proposed increased issues with the expansion of I-15 and the 2100 North project. Many years ago, HADCO came in under light industrial and now have encroached in their sound and has finally, thankfully, the city has come down on them on that. But since then, they've put a very ugly wall up. My concern is that this puts on the other side of our community the potential for a business that we have no idea eventually what will be there. I think that the city council should forego approving this until an adequate plan has been presented for the specific use of that property rather than just generalities because I think that that's where we've seen a lot of issues in our community where promises are made in one direction and And then 20 years down the line, it said, well, we approved it this way. We can't really deal with it anymore. I'm worried about property value. I'm worried about the noise. I'm worried about the aesthetic, especially as that property is right at the entrance of our community. And overall, I just don't have a good feeling about it personally. So that's my thought, and I'll leave it there. Thanks, Dean.

Hi, I'm Sheena Welch. Sorry, I get nervous. I'm not sure what's the right way to address everyone, but thank you for listening. I live directly adjacent to this property on Trinnaman Lane on 1708. And my whole northern side touches this property. My backyard, my house, my front yard, the entire part of it would be directly affected by this. Sorry, we just bought our house exactly a year ago, and we did not expect this to be part of what happened. And I'm also kind of shocked to hear that the other property is heavy commercial because it says residential on everything you look at online. And so that's kind of a little iffy there to me. I don't know if that could be double checked and how we know if that's really what is going on. But I have... A neighbor next to me, they couldn't be here today. I have so many neighbors in our neighborhood who couldn't be here at summer. People are on break. But I don't know if we can just have the people stand up who are actually here and does not want the Walker purple to be heavy commercial. And so thank you. These are just a handful. There's so many more people I've talked to. I've talked to over 200 people just the past two weeks. And I haven't met a single person who didn't feel like this was encroaching in their neighborhood and their family. Sorry. We have everyday little kids going on that street with their roller skates. We have bikes. We have a little park that goes down by the church. And everyone goes down to that route. This would directly affect the field. It would affect our families, the neighborhood, and everything that Lehigh says it stands for. And so I feel extremely, extremely confident. I'm not confident in what's it called. Sorry, English is my second language. Opposed to this, it would influence every single one of us who lives there. And like our other neighbor said, it's becoming just encroaching in. And it's going to be to the point where we don't want to live here and we don't want to be part of it. And that's not okay. We just moved here. We have these kids. We have these families. We have people who actually want to improve it, renovate, do new things to this, and make it beautiful. There's a lot of older homes, and they're getting flipped. They're getting renovated. People want to make this better constantly. We need these homes. We need this land for residential. And I do not see how a simple wall or eight feet of bushes or whatever it is would solve my problem with how And even if they say they would only use the State Street to come in, we all know people are going to go around whenever anything is happening, and they're going to be speeding through and coming around anyways. There's going to be so many things that would hurt our family and our environment and our neighborhood. Sorry, I am so nervous. But I hope you listen to us, and I hope you see us as a huge unit, not just what is here today, because this would affect so many people. So thank you.

Thank you. Hello, Mr. Mayor and City Council. My name is Mitch Manley. I'm with Manley & Company Real Estate, and I'm representing the Walker family that is in the sale of their home and the property. And most of the things have already been said by those who are in favor of the change. But I wanted you to take a look at the Walker family right here. And I wanted to let you know that they rejected offers that were higher because of what was going to get put in. much more money in all their pockets, but they rejected it because they care. So like I said, most of the things have already been said that I was going to say. I don't want to be repetitive. But after Lawrence Snow, what he proposed that he's going to do with this flex space, I feel like it should calm the nerves of a lot of the people that have come to voice their concerns. And I do appreciate both sides showing up. That's what our country is all about, right? is being able to voice our opinions and be able to talk like this. Definitely doesn't happen around the world in many places. And I also wanted to thank all of you for being here tonight. And also a huge shout out to Kim Struthers and his team, Mike West and Jacob Curris. They've been very kind and helpful and responsive. So thank you very much, everybody. Appreciate it. Thank you.

Adam Olson, I live two doors away from the property across from John Adams Park. It is appalling to me that this is even up for debate. It is a neighborhood. I know there is progress. Liberty is for everybody. It's their property. They can do whatever the heck they want with it. I get it. But it is still in the common good of everyone else that has to live there after the fact. It has been noted 20 years from now, who knows. Once we switch it to heavy commercial, who knows. Buildings can be torn down, rebuilt to situate other things. The Treneman Lane has already been messed up enough as it is with the block. and a light going to go in like it's going to fix any problems. I have increased traffic all the time in front of my house now. I feel things are not being thought through all the way. They're very reactive instead of proactive, and we need to settle down and keep in mind all the implications of doing such things to the properties.

I'm, you know...

Being it's up dividing it differently having homes on treatment lane and business on the other I get it whatever that's not my prerogative, but and I guess Promises can be made and not kept so it's easier to just Error towards caution and not rezone it heavy. Thank you for your time Thank you

Good evening. My name is Kyle Welch. I live right next to this property. We know Debbie. We love Debbie. And her family has every right to sell the property. My main concern is that rezoning is functionally a one-way door to heavy commercial. And even the plan in place is not permanent. As you're aware, last month the Planning Commission voted against this rezoning. And former Mayor Greenwood also weighed in with an article agreeing with the Planning Commission's decision In terms of this being in alignment with the general plan, the general plan itself states that where there are discrepancies between the written guidelines and the map itself, the written guidelines take precedent. And the written guidelines or the definition for heavy commercial is that somewhere in my notes that I don't see anymore. Essentially a property that that must not have undue effect on existing residents and I believe this does meet that definition of undue effect on existing residents Thank you Thank You mr. Welch Hello, my name is Cassandra Morgan I have lived in my home for about 13 years I am actually right behind the blacks home and

I'm nervous about the change because me and my husband, we walk around the neighborhood every afternoon. Something I have noticed is an increase of cutting through our community to get either to Eagle Mountain or to find a new way to get to Saratoga Springs and things like that, which gets really hard when I want to let my kids walk down to the gas station, which is about two blocks away, I think. I get nervous with people I don't know going down our streets all of the time, especially when I've got young teenagers and now a brand new 16-month-old. To be totally honest, the things that have gone in, they have had light approach, like kind of going towards our neighborhood. It makes it feel like we live in a city. which is definitely not what we moved there for. We're right next to a wonderful goat farm. We can walk down and see horses. And we like that. Things I would love is new sidewalks. I mean, it's really scary to try to walk on that road when there's such beautiful farms that we'd like to look at, but the sidewalks are falling apart. And we want to fix that stuff. We want to live in a place that feels prideful. And it seems like the more and more that comes onto State Street, the less and less it seems that there is for our community. But like I said, I do like to walk around with my husband every afternoon. all the way down to the park, all the way around to that memorial. I even looked up the memorial and explained it to my kids and talked about the dangers of certain things that sometimes happen. I like to educate them on things like that. But I don't want them to live in a community where people are coming into our neighborhood that I don't know or that don't live there. And we're right next to that exit for the freeway. It's getting nervous already. And that makes me really sad because I like my home. I like my trees. I like my goats that are not mine, but I get to enjoy them, which is the best, honestly. Thank you for your time. But I am very much against having high commercial go right next to my home, especially when there's so much already. Thank you.

My name is Evan Howlett, and I do not live in this neighborhood. But I've been attending these council meetings for two years, and I can tell you that despite living in Lehigh for two and a half years, I can never remember the name of any city streets outside of, you know, like, Main and State, except Trinnaman Lane. And I don't live there. And I know it because it comes up so often in these meetings. And so while I don't live there and this kind of thing wouldn't affect me in any way, shape, or form, about the 10th time this street came up, I was like, where is this? I need to go and drive it myself. And I did. And I almost got hit. It was laughable. It was a joke. And I'm a very safe, defensive driver. And it was scary. And so I think, I don't know what gentleman said it, but It seems like there are existing issues. And it's kind of like almost putting a Band-Aid on different things. And there are obviously so many different factors that are affecting this neighborhood, this street, this community. And this rezoning seems like it would create new ones when this street is already so beloved but needs thought and care.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Charlotte Sims. I live just off of 1870 North, which is just off of Turnham and Lane. If you guys are all apparently very familiar with that. Sorry, I did not plan to stand up here and speak today. But seeing all of my neighbors and my community come up here just inspired me to come up and say, strongly hope that you vote against this rezoning. I can appreciate the family that wants to honor their family's legacy and rezone. And I can appreciate the fact that they did turn down offers for more money. But that's not what our neighborhood's about. That's not what our community is about. 1870 was just blocked off recently within the last year, year and a half to make our neighborhood safer. I personally was in a wreck trying to pull out of my neighborhood onto State Street. I thankfully was all right. The woman that T-boned me unfortunately was sent to the hospital. There are so many accidents that were on that road that it was blocked off to make it safer. Rezoning that area into heavy commercial, I do not believe would be best for our community. I do not believe that it would be best for our neighborhood. I believe it would make our neighborhood unsafe, not just with having potential strangers in our neighborhood, but as many have said, excess traffic. And we have already tried to do something to make our neighborhood safer from excess traffic. And those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kristin Goodwin. I also live in the neighborhood. I'm also in opposition of the Walker rezoning. I will simply re-echo what's already been said. While this family has already rejected offers, they still have to gain monetarily. And they're not affected like those who are going to stay in the neighborhood. We moved into this neighborhood three years ago because Lehigh was one of the only areas we could afford that had a neighborhood, and that still felt like a neighborhood where kids ran around. And as we've lived there the past three years, we've dealt with HADCO, like it's already been mentioned, the noise of I-15, 2100, the park and ride, and now this. And I just feel like this is just one of those one more things of like, should we even stay in the neighborhood? We want to stay. our area better um but it just feels like we're constantly being encroached on um so yeah just re-echoing the sentiments i've already been shared thanks thank you

Is it OK for me to speak again? I would just like to say that my parents moved in there 60 years ago. I used to be able, as a teenager, to ride my horse down Trinnaman Lane. As more homes have gotten in there, the last time I rode my horse down Trinnaman Lane, some kid on a big wheel went underneath my horse. Thankfully, it was my show horse, and she probably handled it better than I did. As far as the neighbors, I haven't enjoyed July 4th or 24th for years because the neighbors aren't doing anything wrong. They're enjoying themselves with the fireworks, and they sure there weren't any. But I've had a lot of extra expense in bringing out the veterinarians and everything. I just, it's not the same as it was when everybody had cows and everything. And yeah, there's a few people that have some smaller livestock now. But, and the other thing too, if you go down Triniman Lane, it's supposed to be residential in some of the areas and agricultural. But if you look at what's really there, it doesn't look agricultural or or residential. There's definitely little businesses being run from these little places. And Trennaman itself, like they say, it's mixed. It's not just homes anymore. There's businesses there. There's the government housing, and then there's a little strip mall, and then there's a couple more houses. And we took into consideration when we were going to ask for this that more residents on that piece of property would really increase the traffic and make it more dangerous. We felt that going with what the city had in the master plan and putting a business there that didn't face Truman Lane would actually be much more friendly to the neighborhood.

Are there any other comments? Go ahead.

My name is Andrew Sims. I also live behind the neighborhood with the proposed location. Some of my concerns that I would like to bring up are in regard to the slippery slope that happens with these rezonings. The problem is you have these agents, these companies that have already got this huge plan that have been implemented that they're pushing for, and the only reason why most of these citizens are here is because we got a knock on our door a couple of nights ago. There was no notification, no information given, and we've just been bombarded in our neighborhood. We have lived there for eight-plus years. We love the neighborhood. I love the location. And I actually love Lehigh. I grew up in Farmington. when it was small, and it's so different now than what it was. But having that small town feel, being able to relocate to a place like Lehigh, but then being bombarded by these changes that are so close to home. If you haven't looked at the UDOT 2100 proposition, they're going to add an entrance to the park and ride, which then connects to Trinnaman Lane. This right here is going to be another entrance that they can bring in their heavy commercial. They can bring whatever trucks, trailers, and they can blast through that intersection. We've already had the road closed there for safety, but this just opens a whole other door to bring into our neighborhood these issues. So I'm against this. I'm not against them selling their property. I want them to be able to do what they need to. They've been there for years. They're the heart of Lehigh. But just going and changing and then vacating the city and being gone and not understanding how that affects those that are around there that have been there for years, that have loved the neighborhood, to now have more traffic, more industrial infrastructure, We've already had the EV dealership come up. We've already got the property across the street that's coming up for more commercial. We just need a break somewhere. We need help. We need to be able to at least have something for us. You look at the park and how it S-curves around that property. How can you really put in heavy commercial there and integrate... All that together. So we would hope that you can see how many people here have showed up. I've never showed up to a council meeting, ever. But I'm here because it's important to me and my family, to our neighborhood, to the residents that are around us. And we want to feel heard because I can guarantee any one of you, if you had in your backyard a heavy commercial that came up, you'd be vehemently against it. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Austin Rickley. I also reside in this residential just down the street from this property. And my family and I have lived there for about six years now. And just in the six years that we've been there, the rapid growth, traffic, and danger that flows through that neighborhood no longer fills. like what you would imagine old Lehi to feel like. I know Lehi is growing and everybody has their right to sell their property and grow it, but it just feels more like we care more about money and shopping, you know, which businesses have to go somewhere, but we can only put it in so many places. And this neighborhood is so closed off already. You know, we closed off the intersection there for safety, and now we're just opening it up and counteracting that in different ways. I can't tell you how many times a week I have big rigs and car haulers from the dealerships already that aren't supposed to affect us, as we're told, but they do. They're constantly swinging wide and going right almost near into my driveway. And with our 12-month-old, like... i don't feel safe at all it's scary all these businesses and work vehicles dump trucks construction hadco even flows through there it does affect all of us it's dangerous these workers and people trying to reroute through our neighborhood constantly and all the attention that that that little residential area is getting is just, it's too much. It wasn't designed for that. We don't have speed bumps anywhere. We don't have anything. People that don't live there, they don't see it. They don't think safety. They don't think look out for people and how many people in this room will agree nine out of 10 people that you see on the road have a phone in their hand. what happens when that truck driver's swinging that corner and he crashes into our house or he runs somebody over i almost see kids get hit a couple times every month the neighborhood just can't handle any more of that infrastructure it's affecting all of us and this is my first council meeting Nervous being up here, but it's very important for the safety of my neighbors and my family, my son. And Lehigh is just unfortunately feeling not so girl-wold and retire there anymore. It just feels competition for money and at what cost. So we love Lehigh. But safety is a major concern. And what is proposed is never promised. It's never guaranteed. And once that door is open, there's no closing it. So please just take that into consideration. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

I'm Kathy Sunderland.

I live on Trenman Lane, Kitty Corner from the Walker property. My husband and I sent an email to the mayor and the city council outlining our concerns. Almost all of those have been talked about tonight. And the one additional concern I have that I wanted to share was, first of all, I appreciate how much the Walkers have done to try to make this work. We dearly love the Walker family, and they're good people, and I know this is really hard for them. But my big concern about zoning, yet heavy commercial, just as the gentlemen who are advocating for that have stated that heavy commercial gets a bad connotation. Well, it does, because if you read all of the stuff about heavy commercial, it encompasses a large amount of things. The definition is putting heavy commercial where it doesn't encroach on other areas like residential. So I'm very concerned if what they're doing is not heavy commercial, then that's definitely not what we should rezone it as. If they have a plan for something that is... less invasive to our neighborhood, then that's great. That's wonderful. But heavy commercial is not acceptable, even if it just opens too many doors down the road next week. From what I understood from planning and zoning, there's no restrictions that the city can put on traffic coming from that property into Treneman Lane. So I'm really concerned about making... something like that that's so legally binding when there's so many concerns and so many other options. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, so I will close citizen input at 8.03, and I'll bring it back to the dais for discussion.

Mr. Mayor, may I ask some questions? Yes. So probably, Kim, this is a question. So for the surrounding area, is it mixed use or heavy commercial on one of the sides? I'm going to ask a few questions, so I'll just ask them and you can answer. What does the access look like to the park and ride, the UDOT park and ride? Let's see. Those are some main questions there, and then I don't know. I have some other points of discussion.

If you can answer those, that'd be great. Okay. I'll answer the first one and maybe Brad can handle the second one because he's been a lot more involved with the parking right. So I did verify while we were sitting here to the south on Trinnaman Lane, those homes, I think both owners were here, are ZONED R18, WHICH IS THE SAME ZONING AS THIS PROPERTY. THE BRAD TRONSON PROPERTY, WHICH IS 901 WEST STATE, WAS REZONED LAST YEAR, AND THERE WAS A DELAY GETTING THE ORDINANCE RECORDED, AND IT JUST HASN'T BEEN UPDATED ON OUR MAP, BUT IT WAS APPROVED FOR HEAVY COMMERCIAL. AND THAT PROPERTY FRONTS OUT ON TO STATE STREET. IT ACCESSES OFF STATE, BUT IT'S A LARGER PIECE. point nine one acres so anyways our general plan does have all of this area everything from trim Elaine to State Street up through where the the park is the memorial and things is on our general plan for heavy commercial so even some of the existing homes are on the on our long-range plan to you know they could have the same ability to transition to heavy commercial um i know when we updated our general plan three years ago we this area has been on our general plan previously as mixed use but as we went through the update we looked at what some of the existing uses are in that area and the decision was made you know for for better or worse depending on what your current position is but yeah we put it as heavy commercial because that you have existing businesses and things that have come in and it to the south so we do have it designated as heavy commercial and I guess I just have a question

So I know the question now is the zone change, right? And the issue with the zone change is that it's not specific to the property owner, it's specific to the land, right? Correct. For the concept, Kim, I guess based on what you know of what they plan to do, and I know that's a future conversation, but is it light, medium, heavy, based on what they want to build?

I think they're looking at different options. The heavy commercial does allow office warehouse, which is what I've heard is the proposed use. We haven't seen any plans definitively or anything, just some ideas that have been presented. uh the when you go to the so you know we have a commercial zone and then we have the heavy commercial the commercial zone starts to restrict a little bit on how big the office warehouse can be it still allows it but a little bit more limited so the heavy commercial allows you know there's no limit on how big the buildings could be as far as square footage that we do have our buffering standards and if you remember we just amended those to where Wherever you have any kind of non-residential that's adjacent to residential, they now have to put in an eight-foot masonry-type fence, and then there's also a space that they have to reserve for landscaping and buffering. So those would definitely apply. Whatever comes in on this property, they would have to meet those buffering standards.

And as I know Mr. Snow mentioned, they don't plan any access to Trinnaman. Is there any city restriction on access to Trinnaman if they already have a State Street entrance?

So just to repeat your question, you're questioning whether or not if they were to have, if UDOT were to grant them an access on State Street, would we allow them to have that as their only access?

Right.

I think, obviously, we need to see the site plan, but generally speaking, I would say that we would approve. It's a big project, but generally we would approve that being the case. However, that being the case, we would still expect them, as a developer, to develop the roadway on all three corners of their property. Sorry, State Street and Tournament. So even though they wouldn't be required, I don't believe, to access Tournament, we would still require them to improve the roadway because it's still part of their frontage. Does that answer your question?

Yeah. Yeah, thank you. I think, again, if anybody followed the election, I think people know me and several others up here. are very supportive of commercial and retail development because that type of revenue in the city actually keeps property taxes low for residents. And at least the early concept plan sounds less invasive to the surrounding neighbors. But I still have some concerns. Again, I already mentioned the rezoning. would be for the property itself, not for the owners. So 10 years down the road, if ownership changed, they could go a much heavier commercial route than what you're proposing. This also is a very good reminder that we do need to update the general plan. This is something I've wanted to do for the last seven months, and I think there's, you know, a lot of it doesn't need to change, but there are certain aspects of the general plan that do need to change for better expectations for the For the community and residents, I mean, the Walker family, I very much empathize with you. You're fully within your right to request this change and this proposal, and it's a hard time for you. I lost my mom a year and a half ago, and I understand it's rough. And so I appreciate your situation, and I'm grateful that the residents here are being civil and understanding, and they're just expressing their opinions. But I think for me... If we were to change this property at all I kind of like I think a couple residents mentioned it if there was a division of the property that protected Trinnaman maybe Along Trinnaman would be residential homes and along State Street would would be commercial. I think that's more palatable for me just because it protects the residents along Trinnaman a little better and it keeps you know any sort of commercial traffic and But, you know, it's a tough situation. I've thought many times if I could go back in time, I would go back to the 90s and maybe help zone the property where there's light industrial to the to the west that has caused a lot of headaches for residents and it's really no no fault of the of the of hadco or the residents it's it's simply it was a zoning um oversight and so i think we're in an opportunity here to to be able to come up with a better solution that protects both the residents and the walker family who have every right to to sell and develop this property but those are my thoughts

yes kim just to double check so before the general plan updated in 2022 this was residential is that right and then it was mixed use around it but i believe this parcel was residential um i can pull the previous general plan from before 2022 but my recollection was that it was mixed use but if you give me a minute at all i can pull that older version so i i can i can understand concern from the neighborhood that this is now a very short period of time where even if it was mixed use, that it is a pretty big change to the development. I think that's the one thing with the general plan, too. Even if we were to open it up and change it now, who's to say that in five years, ten years, we're not going to have the same situation of something like this? I watched the planning commission meeting. I agree with Greg Jackson that it feels ahead of its time. I can understand it. Things are coming in now that are more commercialized. And even talking about the Tronsons to the south, the difference with that property is it is divided. So the Tronsons property that faces onto State Street, but then it's residents that back up to that property. So it is a little bit different where this one brings the heaviest commercial zone and places it right on a residential road. So I totally get that. Same time, I'm a huge, you know, favorite property rights and people should be able to do what they want their property if you want to say how they should do something with their property you should buy it and then you get to determine what to do with it but at the same time the reason we're all living here and the city is because of the benefits that you have being part of a city and part of that does mean that we have stones and zones or protections and for this purpose to be able to protect and the different types of property and be able to make sure that we can all live here together and be able to enjoy our property, what we have. So it's pretty difficult when you have something that has been designated this way on the plan, but then you actually look at it and what's going on in the neighborhood and it just, it doesn't fit right now. And I get that you're saying that this is what we're gonna develop it with, but once we change this zone, that is a full entitlement to do the heaviest of commercial, that you would have the rights to be able to do that at any point in time. The only way that we could prevent that would be to do a developer agreement and lock down what can actually be on that zone. But I feel I have a hard time seeing anything in heavy commercial so close to residents. I think that when You know, I do prefer and like to be able to have the commercial along State Street. And it's nice, though, with the other ones that there is a residence to be able to have the buffer. Because as we've seen with the light industrial zone, that even though there's 75 feet of extra property and 75 feet of a park, that open space is just not the same as being able to fill that your residential neighborhood is enclosed. So that's why I... i support the general plan i think it's something that we should follow but at the same time it's a guideline that's there for us and it's sometimes things that we put on the general plan are just a little bit ahead of its time so heather really quick i did just check and in 2019 it was commercial so i'm mistaken it wasn't mixed use but it was commercial it was commercial okay

Sorry, Brad, can you just answer my question about the park and ride? I just want to make sure I get it.

Yes, sure. Actually, two comments. First of all, when we talk about the nature of Trinnaman Lane, it's, I think, one thing to keep in mind, and you can take it for what it's worth, but Trinnaman Lane is designated on our Transportation Master Plan as a minor collector roadway and has been since at least 2004. And then I just wanted also, you asked the question about the park and ride. It is true that UDOT, as part of their six-lane freeway widening, is intending to, as part of their eastbound lanes, the lanes that tie into State Street, they will be creating access into that kind of northwest end of the park and ride. So there will be an additional access off of 2100 north to the

Mayor, if I may. So zoning is kind of what you have and the general plan is what you can become. And that without objection, essentially, right? That's what these documents give property owners is here's what you have and this is what you can do in the table of uses. This is your zone. Here's what you can be and you can have access to these without objection. And when that general plan was passed, those were given. And it's really hard for me to, I hear and empathize and absolutely agree with the concerns of the surrounding neighborhoods. And I'm bound by constitutional property rights for the applicant. And so I wanted to ask the applicant if they, and it's funny that I would bring this up as I'm not a fan of developer agreements, but would the applicant be open to one so we could put in some mitigations for the surrounding neighborhoods? Would you be open to a developer agreement that would narrow the scope of the heavy commercial and would give us the opportunity to negotiate some mitigations for the neighborhood and for you. Would you mind coming to the mic and telling me your thoughts?

Well, we want to be good neighbors even when we're gone, because I want to be able to drive back and say hi to people. So yes, we would. And I'm sitting here thinking. You know, along State Street, we have businesses. And I know you're talking residential on the back and commercial on the front. But the businesses don't set off firecrackers, and the residents do. So if I had horses, I'd put them on the State Street side and not the other side. But yeah, to answer your question, of course,

Well, and thank you for that. I think the neighborhood understands this would be the Walker family coming to the table when this is an option to them, but they're showing that they want to be a good neighbor. And so if every council member has felt heard, and the mayor is willing, I'll take a motion. Or I'll make a motion.

Yeah, we've got one more comment.

I don't know if in planning commission, and this might not be true for council, but if you come in late in the mid-item, you don't vote on it. I don't know if that's true for council.

So she came in during comment. Right, she was here for the entire portion of discussion.

Yeah, I just am clarifying because of what I'm used to.

I don't I don't know if we have anything in our procedures that talk about that. Yeah, okay councilmember Stallings. Do you have a comment?

Wow? Yeah, I do Well questions first Brad what is the status of the sound wall? Do you know? If I remember right there they looked at a possibility of putting it.

Yeah, I would say that the last time we heard from you dot on the sound wall they were they were Restudying it they had to set out new sensors and I think they were doing two more sensors within the subdivision I have not heard back an update from you dot but if I'm not mistaken I I think that they felt like that that those studies may not come to fruition until maybe August or September do you remember because I can't whether or not one of the

potential locations of the sound wall would affect this property or not?

I don't remember exactly, but I believe that any of the sound walls, I believe, were more on the southern side of Turnamon Lane if they were worn today. I don't think they came across Turnamon and affected this property by the park, but we'd obviously have to check into that, but I don't believe so.

Okay. I just wondered about that. Ryan, I Trying to pull up state code here, but as far as the development agreement, can we require development agreement for something they might be entitled to?

Can you say that again? I just can't hear you.

Yeah. I guess it's not rezoned heavy commercial, but usually, yeah, maybe that'll change it. My understanding was that if they're entitled to property rights, based on the zone that we can't enter a development agreement. But they're not really entitled to those rights at this point, because it's not zoned. It's just the general plan. Yeah, you got it. OK. So my comments are the general plan is just a general plan. It does not vets property rights. I think to deny it, we might have to have a little more findings to support that. But my opinion is that This is heavy commercial next to residential. And I'm a strong supporter of transitions between zones and buffering and to go down in uses, so more intense uses to less intense uses and have it transition. So having heavy commercial right next to residential, to me, is a conflict of interest. And so I do not support changing this to heavy commercial. And I think the point was made that I don't think we could take public comments.

Thank you.

Sorry. I lost my train of thought. I think the point was made that we rezone this heavy commercial. It will open it up to any of the uses allowed in heavy commercial. So we just need to keep that in mind. Though I do appreciate the potential purchaser not wanting to do very intense things but we can't ever guarantee that it could be sold or plans can change so again just want to reiterate the general plan does not vest rights property rights it is just a general plan and i i i would be open open to looking at the general plan and making some adjustments there to provide that transition so i i am not in favor of the reason thank you

Mr. Mayor, if I may, no offense was meant with my comment. I'm just used to other procedures, and so I want everyone to have equal opportunity here. It was just used to a different procedure.

I hope you're totally fine. Thank you, Councilmember. Any other questions? Councilmember Freeman?

I don't have any more questions. I just have a comment, if that's okay. Sure. So, Tournament Lane is a challenge. It's like a microcosm of Lehigh zoning issues, and I feel like it's a pressure point. Some of you can nod or not, but I feel like there's a little PTSD from the Hadco situation there. I walked those streets last year at the campaign, and my son has a good friend who lives over there. I remember taking him to the park, which is a little scary when you're talking about a six-year-old by State Street. That's busy. But it is a challenge. It is interesting because Trenneman Lane has residential areas, but it also does have some commercial businesses. There's a gym there. There's some other things further south on Trenneman Lane. And it is this interesting diagonal kind of piece of property, or not diagonal, triangular piece of property that we don't see often in Lehigh. And that is kind of squeezed. And it's kind of a transition property. between residential and the busy State Street. In the best of circumstances, you would have this kind of feathering situation where you go from low density to medium density to high density to light commercial mixed use, something like that. And instead, we've had these incompatible zones where we have the light industrial by the residential, and then there's a buffering system put in place that has created a lot of issues. I am concerned that if we do something like heavy commercial without a development agreement, that we could have some similar issues where we... I really am so grateful that the walkers are here. and that there was Mr. Snow here and multiple other people that are in support of them, because I think it's so important to hear their perspective. But I kind of tend to agree with the Planning Commission on this one and with other council members up here who find that if we just change the zone, that it can potentially open it up to other things that might not be comfortable or compatible with the current situation with the residents. i was going over the table of uses and i was talking to one of your neighbors today and right and i said okay so tell me the exact problems with heavy commercial and it's like construction services is there or um well bar bar isn't heavy commercial actually office warehouse um some of the more intense some of the more intense zones and And I think that is what's concerning, whereas a lot of the uses in heavy commercial are not a concern. But there were certain ones that, and having young kids myself, imagining what it would be like, I can see the concerns when there's not maybe some safeguards in place to ensure that the entrance is just on state or off of the roads where it is planned. So a development agreement is something that it allows a developer to kind of, kind of come to the table and, and us as a city council and like some of the staff is to kind of advocate on behalf of the residents to find a common ground for what the use intended uses with safe, more safeguards in place than just changing the zone. And it stays with the property so that if. you decide to sell the property in six months or a year or something or whatever, for heavy commercial, it won't necessarily, like if we change it to heavy commercial, then it could go to whatever is in that table of uses. So I would also, I would be in favor of exploring the idea of a development agreement. I would also be in favor of looking at the general plan. And I would also not approve the Walker zone change. At this time, with the caveat that I am open to approving a zone change of another kind in the future. I'm sorry.

I have one more question that came up. Go ahead. Sorry. Kim, in the past, we had an applicant come with a proposal to do kind of an office warehouse, if I remember right, in a commercial zone. What is the status of that? And would that, we did that change, would that flex?

Yeah, you're probably referring to that. It was ex-development was the applicant. And they had a new use that they were trying to add to the table of uses that was the flex commercial, which was kind of a little bit of a different twist on what we currently allow as either just regular office warehouse or light office warehouse. And theirs was kind of just a different definition of that. And I think they were adding it to the commercial zone But, yeah, that could be something that we could look at to incorporate into a development agreement. But, yeah, to answer your question, we've reached out and just have never heard back. It was tabled back in, I think it was March or April. You gave them some feedback. You said we kind of like this, but we're not 100% on board with what they were proposing. And then, yeah, they've just never come back with anything.

kind of like that idea I'm wondering if it wouldn't apply to this the proposed use here and maybe that can help with our this issue without having to go to a development agreement yeah we could

I don't know if we can get away from the development agreement. If we rezone it to heavy commercial without something that restricts some of the heavier uses, I don't know. I mean, we could add that other use in, but we can't force them to choose that use other than through, you know, if they're willing to restrict themselves, they could do a development agreement.

If we made that code change and it fit what their desired use was, it would

right away for them without having to go all the way to heavy commercial because it sounds like there's a disinclination to approve it prove that zone change so um yeah i think what we'd have to do is we'd have to change the general plan commercial yeah and then that would be their new you know potential zone instead of heavy commercial but anyways that would take that would take quite a bit of process

Well, couldn't we just give direction with a development agreement that would include having the zone changed to commercial rather than, I mean, and that would still change, that would still make a general plan change. But it seems like the underlying plan would need, or the underlining zone would need to be commercial, not residential with some heavy commercial use. Yeah.

Yeah, I think development agreement lays out a lot of different options. It's just how you want to tailor it.

Yeah. Yeah, I guess a development agreement would be a quicker path forward, but I'm going to throw this out there that I did like that idea, so maybe the city can pursue it on her own. I don't know. Yeah, I like Flex Commercial too.

Any other questions or comments? With that, I'm happy to talk about a motion.

Mayor, I move that on the Walker zone change, item 5.2, ordinance 27-2026, that the city council table the item and direct staff to work with the applicant on a development agreement that narrows the scope and captures the discussed development that they've talked about tonight and also puts mitigations in to mitigate the impact on the surrounding properties.

So I have a motion from Commissioner Lockhart. Commissioner, how about Councilmember Lockhart? Do I have a second? Second. Second from Councilmember Freeman. Any questions on that motion? If there's no questions, we'll start with you, Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Okay. We'll table that, and Kim, that's back in your court. Okay. Great. We will now go to Item 5.3, consideration of preliminary subdivision approval for the Courtsy subdivision, an eight lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 North in the R-122 zone. And grow development, we'll wait for grow development. yeah we'll wait for half a second okay why don't you come on up

Mr. Mayor, Council, my name is Jay Cohn with Grow Development. Our application tonight is for the preliminary plat for our residential subdivision. We were before you guys a little over a month and a half ago, and there were some concerns regarding the Farm study and agricultural study and the impact of our subdivision on the neighbors, as well as working on things such as the irrigation ditches that are private ditches along some of the borders of our property. We did go back before staff and got the preliminary plat all passed off through the DRC and then it went before Planning Commission and was given a positive recommendation based on the solutions we presented and so we also have since purchased the property so we're now property owners and happy to be here tonight and see if we can cross the bridge of preliminary and get moving on final and hopefully develop this property this fall. Great, thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience here to make comment on this item? If you'd come forward, state your name. You have three minutes.

Hello. Is it all right if we both jointly? My name is Dania Trapp. This is my husband, Zach Trapp. We live directly west of this property. We're Lehigh residents born and raised. We love Lehigh. We've served Lehigh. But we also welcome new growth. We just want to make sure it's done the right way. And I feel like this isn't quite done the right way. Our main concern is it's not ready for this, even preliminary approval. With the Lehigh irrigation concerns, with the red lines that were addressed in the proposal to Planning Commission, we are shareholders and users. And we haven't been contacted by development at all. regarding this and how we could get a solution. And there is no solution right now that we feel would help the affected users, not just us. This includes headgate access. We need permanent access to the headgate. Where and how will we access it in this plan, we don't know. I also think walking through private backyards isn't a solution. And then I'm also concerned about the agricultural fence, where it will be for this. We own horses. We will always own horses. With that fence also being the current fence that is protecting that easement is over 30 years old. We just want to be heard. We want this done the right way. Irrigation problems need to be resolved. The fences need to be clear in this plan. It is not. And then the water easement that is on the west side that shares our property was created for a reason. It's for us to access that ditch, that head gate, and we believe that it should stay accessible to us as an easement.

Yeah, being that my biggest concern is, like she said, the fence has been there for 30 plus years. The easement is there to give myself as a user, Bart as a user, anybody that's a user, whether that be one or 10, needs to have access to that easement so that we're not cutting through people's backyards. A lot of times we get water at two, three, four in the morning, and up that easement you're safe. You know that nobody's going to shoot you, nobody's going to call the cops on you, nobody's going to cause issues. One player has talked about having access to this new development's yards. Well, I wouldn't be very happy about people accessing easement through my yard, and I don't know why these people would as well. So again, my biggest concern is leave the easement that was put in place for a reason while there's still people using the water and irrigation, and we plan to continue using the water and irrigation for as long as we're there. So that's my biggest concern. I would like, my biggest thing is I'd like them to table it for now, and if they can come up with a way to redo the plot that leaves the easement in place, that would be, I think, the best idea.

Thank you. Thank you.

Bart Peacock, I live just kitty-corner across the street from this property that's being developed. And you've heard some of my concerns, talked in planning and zoning. Me and Jake did not get off on good terms last time meeting. I have never been in contact from Grow Development. I've made the calls to them to find out any of my questions. They have not reached out as yet, other than a text to Tony Train, which has asked for some clarification and what's going to happen. Appreciate that. But with that said, we still have lots of unanswered questions. How are we going to access the diversion, the head gates? How are we going to get to them? In one of the texts that was come from Girl Development yesterday, it states that basically He's going to put on the plot plan that we'll have to access through that yard of lot seven, I believe. I don't believe that's a healthy situation. I wouldn't want somebody coming in my backyard at 2, 3 o'clock or whenever, 2, 3 o'clock in the afternoon. I don't care when it is. That's not a healthy situation to have to ask somebody or let them know that you're going into their backyard to get your head gate. There's got to be – there is some different options that could be discussed and looked at, but – I don't believe it's totally my responsibility or Zach's responsibility to contact them. I've been to the city, to the planning department. I made the phone calls to Grow Development. Zach's never heard from Grow Development. We don't really know what some of these plans are. I don't know what the survey's showing. don't think anybody does there's no survey stakes out there that I have been able to find we need some definite answers of what's going to happen there is some alternatives there is some solutions but we need it discussed I'm not the only one I'm the only one well me and Zach use the ditch going north and south Danny Gutierrez does have a share of water, but I don't know where he uses it or if he even uses it now. But if he was to use his water, he would be using the ditch. The Du Boises do not use the ditch going north and south, but in the north end of it, where a head gate needs to be, they do use that head gate. We've got pictures of them showing that they put their head gate in and water their hay fields. So that needs to be discussed, what's going to happen there. So I propose that this gets tabled until we get some of these answers verified and what's going to happen. Thank you.

Thanks, Mr. Peacock. If there's no other comments, we will close that citizen input and bring it back to the dais. Questions?

Yeah, I just would like Grow Development just to come up and explain. I saw your email on the new proposal. Can you just explain what progress you've made, what kind of access? Do they have to go beyond the fence?

Yeah. Yeah, great question. Thank you. We have shared our plans and engineering plans with the irrigation company. The irrigation company does not have jurisdiction over these lines, as these are private lines. But we are meeting the standards that they have asked us to meet. We did have to upsize the pipe on the most recent plans from 15 to 24 inches, so on and so forth. On our plat, we have a note as well as a clear irrigation easement that's 20 feet. In the note, it says that property owners cannot install fences or structures that would prevent access to the ditch. We're also piping the entire length of ditch and putting a new head gate in. We've also shared this information with the irrigation company, with the contact information we've been given from the irrigation company, from the landowners, and to Kim and the DRC. I'm absolutely open to continuing to talk with the neighbors and sharing continual insights. We are maintaining and preserving the irrigation easement that's in place, as well as improving the ditch to today's standards to be a much better, more efficient ditch. They will also have access to utilize the head gate and do the turns on the water that they need to. On the northern portion of our property, the ditch is beyond our property. And so we will do everything we can within the bounds of our property, but there are certain things we can't do on other owners' private property without their permission and written acceptance.

I think toward the west, so the northwest corner, the ditch doesn't line up perfectly with the property line, right? So part of the ditch is out, and like... at least from the imagery i saw in the last meeting some of the property line went right through the ditch is that correct yeah so some of that we will have to operate within the existing irrigation easement as an irrigation maintenance to install the new sections of the pipe okay and so and then on the west side you're saying there's 20 foot easement where the property owners technically own that property outside their fence line for that 20 feet that's where the ditch is but what about the head gate

So the head gate would still be within the easement. It would still be on private property, as it is right now. But we have to provide access. And it's unhindered access. So they can't put a shed in front of it. They can't put a fence on top of it, those sorts of things that would prevent the ability to access that head gate. We can have a fence along the property line, along the back. They can put fences down their side property lines, but it cannot restrict access. It has to be a gate that's unlocked, has to have the ability to go in and out of there without permission because it's an irrigation easement that those users have the right to go in and enter. Unfortunately, That is part of what a ditch on another private property owner's property is. And so that is what our presented solution is. And again, we'll have it recorded on the plat. We'll have the notes and instructions on the plat. We'll have all those notes and instructions with the future homeowners that they'll have to abide by.

So how far in the fence line is the head gate?

The head gate will sit in, and if the fence line is on the property line, we'll have to go around the head gate, and it will be on the opposite side of the fence line.

Do you know how far into the property within that fence is the head gate?

It'll be depending on the head gate size, and I think it's a 42-inch head gate or something like that, so it'll go in four or five feet.

Are you done, James? Yeah. OK. So it looks like you responded yesterday at 5.17 PM to Kim and all of them. Because I know that I was waiting anxiously for you to respond and to give the city some information. Something that I've noticed as I walked the property was there is an existing fence that's there that's been there for 25 to 30 years. And Mr. Trapp and the previous owners of the Trapp property Mr. Peacock have maintained that area where the ditch is for many years and prior to them. And there's something where if there's an existing fence that's accepted as a boundary line between two owners, which the owners who have that property, that Cortese subdivision property, that fence was there for years. So it could be up for debate as to who actually has that property, where the ditch is. Because it hasn't been maintained by the owners of your property that you're representing. It's been maintained by other people. And there is a fence line that, for all intents and purposes, some of the surrounding neighbors felt like was the property, the boundary line. And if the boundary line changed, then it would actually change the entire plan. the entire subdivision because they wouldn't be able to be R-122, right? Because each of those sites would be smaller. Probably they wouldn't be the 22,000 square feet. So I'm conflicted. I see what you sent. It says the requirements for irrigation is no fence. All landscaping or other improvement shall be constructed within the private irrigation easement. a manner that restricts access to private irrigation structures I'm concerned because you just said that they could construct a fence along the property line that you see and how would that not how would that not restrict them because if I'm a homeowner and I know how irrigation works that they have to come check it twice a day sometimes it's at 2 a.m. they have to open the head gate sometimes it's at 3 a.m. If some guy is going through my property, my backyard, and I have little kids or have a dog that's out there, there's some conflicts there with me having property and my property rights and allowing them that with their water rights. And in fact, I feel like there's some property disputes that could be argued, and from what I've heard from some of the neighbors. So I'm a little concerned about this, where the fence is, how they're going to get access to their irrigation, to their water rights that they have, at all times of day and night, which I'm not, you know, that's not a lot of, we're in this kind of transition phase. phase where we have agriculture and we have residential that are going to have to figure out how to get along. So some of the unresolved questions I have is the access to the head gate. It's not reflected accurately on the current plot, what I'm looking at. I'm also concerned about possible property disputes, maybe the pipe ditch. I know that you said that you're going to, pipe the ditch and change that. But the property on the north, if that is over the ditch, and I see that there might be a road there, but what's to stop them? Again, they're going to need access to that. And if there's a fence there, I see that as another potential issue. So I just think that I don't feel like this is quite ready to go through. We have this possible boundary of acquiescence issue. And property rights are very important, very real. But what people fought over years ago more was water rights. And that is so important that these people have access, and the surrounding residents, that they have access to their water rights, and that we protect that too.

Yeah. Great comments and concerns. Thank you for sharing those. In regards to the actual property line, there's years of records of surveys, including our previous property owner who lived there over 25 years, when they purchased the property, as well as paid taxes on that property for over 25 years. And now we own it, and we're paying taxes on it. And so that is their fence that has recessed and inset on their property, but it's still their property. that is across the fence that they paid for taxes for years and years and years. And there is not a property dispute currently filed or anything like that. So we'll cross that if that happens. But we also know that that's our property. Next thing is on the regards to the water We have not presented anything that would say we are restricting the access to the water, that we're restricting the access to the irrigation, or that we're restricting access to the maintenance. We're following the direction of the city code and ordinances to improve that, as well as we're here multiple times over presenting solutions and communications in order to do that. My fear in just dedicating a 20-foot strip there is that it won't get maintained. And so where it remains as private property, private property owners, it is their property. They're paying taxes on it. It's part of their lot. They're also required to maintain it in addition to ditch maintenance, which brand new ditch will be buried in the ground. And so that would be another aspect to that that raises concern of a large 20-foot property strip easement of property that needs to be maintained and taken care of as well as its own privately. And so again, if we need to restrict fences or anything in there, so be it. It's going to become a weed patch that's back there behind their fence that's 20 foot setback. So I have concerns over that as well. So hopefully I can clearly answer some of those questions and concerns.

I think just to add on to that, Rachel, I agree with Rachel's concerns. I think from the surrounding property owners with rights to that water, I think the main question is the practicality of it. So making it as, I mean, the property owner's gonna own it, right, but if they need to go and ask permission or inform them for their own safety every time they need to access the head gate, if there's some sort of an emergency, if we're having flooding or whatever and something needs to be done they don't even have time to do that i think that that becomes just a impractical solution for them um to be able to access it so so i know in the email like it says unfettered access but it is fettered you know um because because they can't just simply go in i mean even if you even if it's within the deed with it and that's what the homeowners understand when they purchase the property hopefully they do understand that and it's made clear to them as they sign those documents. I think the concern is if there is a conflict or if they don't really like it, and then you have neighbors who have to call the city to try to get permission or try to resolve. I mean, what I don't want is to create this perpetual conflict between the maintainers of the water ditch and the owners of the property. And so... And I did send an email. I think it was... I can't remember. I don't think you were on it, but I know. I think Tony was. I didn't hear back on any solutions, and I wish we could have maybe discussed this a little more before it came, before the council, just because I think there's still work to do. And I understand you're... You've... You've already done a lot, at least with some of these efforts, but I don't think we're quite there yet, in my opinion. And I want it to work. I want you guys to start breaking ground and doing what you have to do as quickly as possible.

As a clarification, that is a proposed final plat. There's still final engineering, final items that we have to go through with the city. What's tonight is the preliminary plat. And so I would request and ask that you vote and hopefully give approval on the preliminary plat. And I'm willing to offer the condition, if you guys are willing to accept it, that we restrict anything in there. We'll have a 20-foot gap. It'll be open. But once the water is no longer in use, those property owners would have the right to revert to utilize that property. But obviously, those shares would have to be turned in and then the ditch be abandoned. So that would be my proposed solution, is leaving that just as an open space. If they do put up a fence, it has to be on that 20-foot easement. It is a substantial square footage that's taken away, but yeah.

I would go for that. So the headgate would be on the outside of the fence? Yep.

And I think that... What about on the north side? That's not our property. It's an existing ditch that's on the neighboring property.

Doesn't the property line go through that?

There is a five, six-foot section that our property lines align over the ditch, essentially. And so we will have to ensure that the ditch makes the correct corner into the new pipe ditch. So that may be an on-site design that we're working with the city engineer on to ensure that it's captured correctly, as well as the irrigation company that's designed correctly.

So you would pipe it, or you're saying that you would Move the fence line or something on the north side or what?

We would pipe it up to our property line, but if it wasn't capturing the ditch water correctly, it may have to extend slightly to make the corner into the existing ditch. But again, we haven't talked to Mr. Du Bois about that solution, but we would need to if we incurred that problem.

So you're saying you would redirect the pipe to stay outside the property?

So again, the ditch comes across the north side and then makes a turn and goes south.

Right.

And so at that corner... on the northwest corner of the property, where it makes that turn, the property lines also fall right in that area, essentially in the center line of the ditch. And so where we've shown and designed to the edge of our property line. If it does not catch all the water where that new well gate comes in, then we'll have to improve that ditch further to ensure that it makes the turn and all the water is captured correctly.

Okay, so that's the north end. For the west side, I like what you just said as far as keeping the fence or keeping the head gate and access to the entire ditch outside of the homeowner's fence line, right? Because I think, and I don't know if I can get a head nod if that's a better solution for Bart. I don't understand what they're saying. Okay. I think what they're saying is the fence line would be pushed toward the home until your head gate is no longer within the fence. So is that correct?

Yeah, so we would have a 20-foot irrigation easement. No fences, no structures, no nothing is allowed in there. Only the owner's new fence would be reset on the easement. So 20 feet back from the edge of the ditch.

You're talking about where the existing chain link fence is, right?

Yeah, it's closer than 20 feet. It'd be even further. The chain link fence meanders 5 to 8 feet.

So the new fence would be closer to the homes? Yeah.

Council members, if I could add, I met with a concerned resident who I don't see in here tonight. I've met with several. And they actually described that they had a similar situation happen just off Main Street several years ago, and that they did what he just mentioned. I was going to mention it, but they moved the fences, created this easement, and then it was overgrown, full of weeds, and That just was the consequence. But then as soon as they no longer, people were no longer using that ditch, then they moved those fences. And that was how they solved that problem. It was just off Main Street. And so that has happened before, is what I'm trying to say.

Okay, that's a question just to understand this better. So if the pipe is going to be buried and under, Why would we need to have an easement? Was there any reason? I understand the head gate to have access to that if there was like no fencing or anything full open access to that. So no one has to enter a backyard. But I don't understand why we'd want to protect the ground on top of a pipe.

So to access the head gate, you'd either have to walk on someone's personal property or you'd have to walk up the easement. Well, get the head gate. Yeah, and the head gate's halfway through the property, like through that. So you have to walk up through Lot 7. Is there any way to screen share, Kim? And you can't.

Is there any way to screen share?

You'd either have to go through Mr. Trapp's property. So Mr. Peacock wouldn't be able to access it unless he goes through. Oh, so you'd need to walk to the head gate. That's what it is. And at 2 AM or 3 AM, you don't want to have to go jump the fence on your neighbors that you don't really know.

But those who are going to access it are the ones who are on the other side of the property, right? So it would be their property. No, there's some that are south. South of it? OK.

If I could, another reason for the purpose of that easement is it's a private easement. So the other reason for that easement is if something ever happened to that ditch that's been piped and those private owners needed to go in and replace the pipe or clean the pipe, then they have access to it. So that's the other purpose of the easement is for maintenance of the pipe in the future, not just access to the pipe and to the headgate.

Yeah, so as you can see there, the ditch meanders along the property line. We would put the pipe essentially near the property line in a straight line as it's piped. And then the head gate is 2 thirds of the way up, as it's shown there.

four by four box so it'd be yeah solution scenario that dotted line is where the residents would put their fence until the line was no longer needed then that pipe closes and they move there they had the opportunity to move their fence 20 feet West yep guess my question is does it need to be a 20-foot easement

all along that entire property line if the only thing they need to access is the head gate do they just need a walking path to be able to get to it i will refer to the irrigation users at this point okay you need access if you have to work on it so you need like you need wider to be not just walking

So you're asking what kind of fence the developer's proposing to put in?

Yes, it is. So the developer would have to put in that six-foot no-climb fence. I guess just for everyone's clarification, that essentially means that these landowners that own those lots that face west, they essentially own property that they cannot use, 20 feet of property that they cannot use until such time that the irrigation facilities are no longer needed, and then their use reverts back to... having that ability. Yeah, that's what we're proposing.

So the fans will be where the dotted line is.

Mr. Mayor, can we have people come to the podium if they're going to talk? We can't capture that.

Yeah, if you're going to speak, you've got to come to the mic so it's on recorded. So Mr. Peacock.

Sorry.

You're OK.

So what I'm understanding, I mean, I just want it all clear before I say yay or nay. The fence is going to be where the dotted line is, correct?

Dotted gray line.

Yes. Huh?

Yeah, six-foot agricultural fence.

So, and then the ditch will be on the west side of it, piped. brought up to standard with access to your so that I can come up off of 1220 in the rock straight up the easement and get to that head gate you will have weeds and stuff you'll have to march over but yes

Basically the same as now. Same as now. But you'll actually have more space. My understanding is right now it's not a full 20 feet to where the existing fence is. There's going to be actually more space for you to maintain that. Okay.

I don't know. We measured it out when I was out there, and it was about 20 feet.

Close, yeah.

Yeah.

Well, I think, you know, if Bart and the Trout family, if you guys are good with it, I'm much more comfortable with it. Because that was my main concern, so that you wouldn't have to deal with property owners and getting inside their fence line. I think this helps solve the problem if you guys are comfortable with it.

Yeah, I mean... I can't discuss the property if there's a property dispute. That's not my property. That's the traps and that. But it leaves it basically the way it is, but with an upgrade on the ditch and access to the head gate. The head gate will have to be put in as Lehigh Irrigation's requirements. The ditch will have to be, the pipe will have to be to their requirements. Okay. Then in the one email it talks about the access on the north coming in from the road that's stubbed in there. Right there. We're going to need access to that ditch that runs east and west coming in off that road. Rather the... Leave a gate in their six-foot no-climb fence or whatever they decide to do there.

So how much is that going to be under? Is it all going to be buried or only partial?

You're asking about the north or west? The north. So it's 0.9.

Because I remember from the last discussion, I think that's all going to be still open, right? So he'll need to maintain it.

So if you could address that. OK. So these are proposed public roads that get dedicated to Lehigh City. And so we would stub the road and the infrastructure to the property line. And it would get dedicated with the plat, at which time Lehigh City would own that. And so you would have public access across the public road adjoining the existing irrigation ditch that's on the north. And we would be able to fence our northern property lines, but we would not propose fencing across the right-of-way. They would just be stubbed improvements to the property line.

Sorry. Go ahead. And that's offset, right, for burning? I think we dealt with that the last time we met.

We have structures restricted on that offset for burning.

So how close is the fence to the ditch? that you're proposing? Because it looks like it's pretty dang close. How far is the fence to the ditch? On the north side. The fence would be on the property line on the north side. Is it that dark line with the X's? Yes.

Wouldn't you have to maintain the easement there too? Even though the ditch isn't on your property, the easement is, correct?

So we've got the other easement that we've defined that would restrict any structures being close to the fence. because of the burn concern.

What kind of fence would be put in there?

We have identified on the plants currently as, I believe, a precast fence. If I may. It's the city standard. Our plan was a precast fence.

Mr. Mayor? Yes. If I may, just to clarify that there is no easement. There is no irrigation easement on the north side.

Is there a canal?

There is no easement on the north side because the irrigation ditch is off the property of the subdivision, so it's north of it.

Okay, so it's on the north side of the fence now.

Yes, the easement is on a different property, so the plat does not show any irrigation easement on the north property line, but it does show a building setback of eight feet.

okay okay gotcha I'm just concerned that there's a fence close to a ditch that could get burned or moved back from the potential burn site

I think it's more for the property owner, right? It's not on your property and you can still burn the ditch, right? You just don't want to melt their fence. So I don't know if there are requirements or if you you can put in a different like a cinder blocker or something that's non burnable yeah just to protect those yeah we'll look at the other options that are non flammable within the no climb definition in the code is there a way that we can make sure that what's being said is done staff

like having the fence yeah I think we have a clear enough idea that when this comes through at final we can include these comments as part of the DRC comments I mean I can I can go over them but essentially we're basically saying on the west side then no climb fences to be offset 20 feet into the property so Even though those western property owners own property, they don't have the use of it for that 20 feet. And then on the north side, it needs to be a no-climb fence. It's a chain-link fence. No burn? Well, it is chain-link, so with the top rails. And then on the north side, there are also the building offsets, you know, sheds or whatever. I think...

i feel comfortable that this is something that we can evaluate it at the final plat and kind of understand those comments but maybe there are more others that you have no i think it could be worked through that's why we're here for is to work through these things and get some questions answered i just know that the there's a piece of property that adjoins me my hayfield on the east side that has a precast fence that's flammable. The no-quite fence is there, but then they come in right next to the no-quite fence and put in the precast fence.

think just just one more question with we talked about at some point in the future i think there's three users of the water is that right park yes okay so for this one section okay for the section going north and south there's three okay um So at some point in the future, if it's no longer being used, if the ditch isn't being used, obviously the property owners will be able to extend their fence and utilize all of their property. But, I mean, if two of the three no longer use it, is it – and maybe this is for you, Brad, or Kim – It has to be zero users, right?

I mean, generally speaking, if there's even one user that needs to use the ditch that has that access, then everything still holds until the use of that ditch is no longer needed at all as an irrigation ditch.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure.

As a correction, those lower sections drop users. For example, anyone below the head gate that stops using... the head gate could still service, but the one lower user, the pipe would be abandoned. Tony Train, do you want to say something, Tony?

To be fair, I've been asking Jake to give us this information for quite a long time. Those plans you're seeing are still not correct for what needs to happen. So that's the frustration, I guess, is how it's being presented that these things have come to the irrigation company and come to the users. I mean, I've had conversations with Mike today. He still hasn't been contacted. So that's the frustration. I'm still shaking my head at why it went this direction. But what Jake's proposing has some validity to solve a big problem on that west side, but just some coordination with a couple of these neighbors. I mean, that's the disadvantage is we're trying to get the developer to come to you guys with that coordination from the neighbors, not from me. I really don't have, other than protecting But to help the three users, I said I'd come tonight. We'd love to work with a plan. As soon as we can get a plan that actually shows those things, we can help and get you back our comments as to why that wouldn't work. On the north side, it's required to have a no-climb fence. Without an agreement from that landowner, I'm not sure you can propose another type of fence if they request a no-climb fence. that way so there's just things being said that I guess come across the wrong way that should have been worked out way before this moment is all but I'm glad those discussions are happening I'm glad that the users were very proactive in trying to reach out it would just be good I guess to make sure we're seeing the right thing before There's vesting granted and make it work that way.

That's just my opinion Any further questions There's no further questions, I'm happy to take a motion I Guess I have one more question Okay, so so are we?

I mean, for the stipulations, obviously we can table. Or can we approve with stipulations that solve this problem? OK, Kim's nodding. OK. Because as long as we have it in the motion, then it will be solved before the final comes through.

He came from Florida.

I just, personally, I would prefer to table it a little bit because, as was said, we didn't get this plan until 5.30 last night. Now, you know, I finally have this plan. I could have looked at things, could have done myself, you know, a service looking at everything where, I mean, this is kind of the first we've really been able to get explained, talked about or anything. So I guess that's my request is that we be able to now go home and look at our property, look at the ditches, the fences, whatever it be, and make sure that we are comfortable with what's going to be other than just having it thrown at us right now, last night. That's all. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, there won't be any more comments. We'll take this up here and move forward. Any other questions?

Yeah, I guess just to make sure that they understand, like, even if we were to move it with conditions, it's not done. Like, they would still have to, this is just one step. So, yes, we could table it. It would slow it down, but there's still more steps to go. The one thing I'm hearing right now tonight is that he is willing to dedicate 20 feet of his land, pay property tax on it, to give an easement that they cannot access. Property owners would not be able to build on or access, but they'd be paying property tax for it. That's a pretty big offer. If we table it, that offer's gone. That's something we can put into this and say, hey, we want to move it forward with these conditions. That's pretty big, but it's not putting it to the point where they have their plat, they can move along. There's still other steps that have to happen. but just putting that out there that he's made a pretty big compromise on this that he is not required to do just to make this work for everybody and so that's my only thing of just to continue to stop it here in the middle we're not stopped anywhere near where they have finalized an approval but i do absolutely get this those who have the rights to the water need to be on board and everybody needs to come to an agreement and compromise on that would be My only suggestion of not tabling it for that reason.

Mr. Mayor, if I can ask him. So, like Heather said, I think there's an advantage to move it along with those conditions so that they can still be addressed and, like, you know, Mr. Peacock and Mr. Trapp expressed, I think that'll require them to deal with it, right? So they can move forward with their project, but they can't do much until it's resolved, right? So, Kim, can you explain the process? So if we approve with these conditions, can you explain the processes for the residents?

Yeah. So for the final plat... If you base it on just our standard process, it would just go to DRC. The DRC is the approving body for final plat. So that's what I was getting ready to tell you is you just have – it's really up to you if you feel confident that you can articulate the conditions tonight. And if they're spelled out, you know, the DRC has their marching orders. Either it meets what you condition it on or not. Otherwise – Yeah, you still have the option to.

Jim, can you also make a condition that the final plaque comes to city council on this item?

Is that? I guess we did that with preliminary, so. Well, I am. I mean, I don't have a problem tabling it for two weeks and just having an updated drawing that comes back. Because I just don't feel like it's reflective of what's being said. And I'm one of those people that needs to be in writing. We have it. It's on a record. It's recorded. Staff understands what we want. And I think everyone here, we're all kind of coming to an understanding. But the little lawyer in me that I'm not says, put it in writing, and then I will Then we're all locked in, like, let's rock and roll two weeks. So that's what I would opt for.

I support Council Member Freeman's position.

Okay. I'm fine with that as well. I just want to thank the developer for taking the efforts you've made. I think that's come a long way. I mean, last time I talked to Mr. Peacock, that was the main thing. He didn't want to be... knocking on doors and climbing fences or whatever in the middle of the night or early morning hours. So I think that solved a huge part of the problem. But if we did table it just to finalize and clarify those last items, I want to move it fast for everyone here, but I think that might be a good step to take. As long as everything presented tonight will stay on the table.

Well, and I just want to say I would like to move it along. And I think the developer, if we wanted to move it so fast, then we could have received some of this information much sooner than last night. So it just shows how fast all parties want to move. And if not all parties are moving quickly, then it's not moving quickly.

I just a quick comment I'm fine tabling it or putting in the conditions but I do appreciate the developer and it's come a long way since last time it was presented to us and I appreciate the you know piping and the effort you went in to make sure that these people have right access to their water they have those rights to so either ways I'm fine but again appreciation to the developer for sure happy to entertain a motion there's no other comments

Okay, Mr. Mayor, I move to table item 5.3, consideration of the preliminary subdivision approval for Cortesi subdivision for till July 28th. Well, and with hopeful that the developer will bring back an updated plot that reflects the agreements made tonight, verbal agreements.

I can second that.

So I have a first by Council Member Freeman, a second by Council Member Lockhart. Any questions on that?

Mr. Mayor, sorry, you know that I'm not part of the council, but I guess the question that I have for you is just knowing that this means that the DRC would not have reviewed this, right? It would come back to you, but without DRC review, but with the understanding that at least some agreement has been made or some understanding has been made. And an updated plan would be provided. Yeah, that's correct. As in the motion. And I would hope that when the developer resubmits the plans that we see some of those utilities on there so that we're not just seeing the plat but seeing the utilities that we can also review.

So I have motions up here.

Can I make a question on the motion then? Yes, you can. Would you include what Brad just stated with having the utilities also?

So those of you who have made the motion, would you include?

I would be amenable to that, but I would be amenable to also just have something written from the developer saying that I will do xyz i will do these steps that we we discussed if if updating this plot is too much for two weeks just as long as we can have in writing what was said tonight about moving the fence about piping the ditch about access to the head gate about no climb fence about no preventing some burning whatever those sort of conditions in writing that's what i'm looking for so however we can meet that second stance

Any other questions to that motion? Do we need a new motion, Ryan? We're good. You got that, Tisha? OK. Any questions to that motion that's by Councilmember Freeman and seconded by Councilmember Lockhart? OK. Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman? Yes. Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Great. OK. Let's go to item 5.4. After 5.4, we will ask for a recess for a bio break. We'll go to item 5.4, consideration of ordinance 2026-28, approving the press switch zone change on 1.9 acres, 1.09 acres, located at 2004 north, 900 west, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2. And the petitioner is TN Contracting LLC. Are they? Come on up.

Will you give us your name? Joel Dyer with 10 Contract. And we're looking to change the zoning to medium density residential, basically in an attempt to utilize the acre plot more efficiently and provide more housing for the locale. Any questions?

I read here that it says that you originally requested R3, but you moved it down to R2.

Correct.

And can you just talk to me about why you chose to do that?

Well, the R3 would have been a more financially equitable solution, but R2, to be within the means and bounds of the city, it's what's allowed is what's allowed.

Okay. Thank you.

i don't have i don't have questions i just have a comment um so on the i drove past there that looks like udot's purchased some nearby land for future interchange and tore down some homes that are nearby so um i talked to a resident who lives there they don't they don't have any issues with this development it seems like the neighborhood is favorable and there will be a little bit of increased kind of noise or traffic but i think it's a I'm in favor of that. I'm not in favor of the increased noise and traffic.

I'm in favor of the sound change. To clarify. That's going in the paper.

I can send my kids by your help.

I have a lot of kids, so they have a lot of noise and traffic.

Any other questions? If no questions, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve. Item 5.4, consideration of ordinance number 2026-28, approving the press switch to zone change on 1.09 acres located at 2004 North, 900 West, changing the zoning from RA1 to R2.

So I've got first from Council Member Freeman. Do I have a second?

Second with questions. Will you include the DRC? Yeah, and include DRC comments, please. Second stance.

So I have a second from Council Member Newell. Any questions? So we'll start with you, Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. And Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Great. Thank you. Have a great evening. Real quick, before we get to the next items, is there anyone here tonight to discuss item 5.1, excuse me, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, or 5.8? Jessica's here. Jessica, but she's a sitting employee. Jessica is. Which one? Thank you.

Can you do that one? Which one? Do hers. 5.6. She had two of them.

5.6.

Oh, does it? Okay.

I think she's got two. With that said, let's go ahead. I would take a motion to take a 10-minute break.

Yes. So moved. We'll just take a break. You don't need a motion.

Oh, I took a motion to take a break.

I second it. I seconded my motion.

All in favor?

Aye.

Okay, we'll take a quick 10-minute break. Let's make sure we're... approving a development code amendment to Chapter 12, Chapter 39 of Table 05.030A and Table 05.030B, adding a neighborhood exchange structure use. Kim, I believe this one is you. Okay. Okay.

So between Jessica and I, we will try to answer any questions. I believe this came to you at a work session not too long ago, maybe a month ago. The parks department, some of the parks staff are the ones that initiated this. We don't really have a policy. What these are, the little, you know, like a mini neighborhood library where like a book exchange where you can go leave a book. But I think there are other versions of that that exist or could exist. So they just really wanted to create a policy so that as a city we knew how to deal with these, especially in particular if somebody said, hey, I want to put one of these up in a city park or on some kind of city property in the park strip. that type of thing. So that's what this code amendment is intended to address is just to add some new language for those types of structures. That's my knowledge of it.

Any questions for Jessica or for Kim?

Mr. Mayor, I do. I just want to clarify that no permit is required for these. It's just this is how they are compliant with code once installed.

that's my understanding yeah it's just placement so that it so if somebody put one up and it was in violation we could have something that says you can't have it here yeah they don't have to apply for a permit or anything like that okay thank you so in the description it says it also talks about install or installing a variation of it at least seven times but in this in the in the definition it talk doesn't talk about installation So the only thing is I want to just make sure that we say that the structure is installed so that we're not talking about a lemonade stand. We're not talking about some other thing. I just think that in the definitions in Chapter 39, I would just say an enclosed or unenclosed semi-permanent structure installed for the exchange because that was a big point that Trent was making about it being installed.

More like a permanent fixture versus...

So that we know what we're talking about, not like... Yeah. Yeah. I like that. So I just think that would help clarify it if we just say that it's installed and then continue on for the exchange or distribution of items. That's the only change I would make. And otherwise, I think this is great.

Any other questions or comments? If there are none, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Murray, I move to approve item 5.5, consideration of ordinance 2026-29, approving a development code amendment to chapter 12, chapter 39, table 5.030A and table 05.03B, adding a neighborhood exchange structure use, including to chapter 39 definitions that the structure is installed for the exchange or distribution of items, et cetera.

So I have a first from Council Member Freeman. I have a second.

Second.

Council Member Lockhart with a second. Any questions? We'll start with you, Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman. Yes. I started with you, Council Member Lockhart, correct? Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Item 5.6, consideration of ordinance 2026-30, approving a development code amendment to chapter 35, community forestry, adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds, and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list. Come on up, Jessica.

These changes are recently, with the new website being changed, we redid. We used to have a landscape guide on there, and it had a lot of trees in there that are no longer allowed in a park strip. So we changed it to a recommended trees, street tree list, where it's broken down dependent on the width of the park strip. So we're getting the right tree in the right location. And so it's broken it out into four different lists instead of just one all list of trees that you wouldn't even plant in a park strip. So that's minor changes through there so that we can be consistent with the website now. The next thing on that is the migratory birds. This is added in to help. protect a nesting hawk or whatever type of bird for the state or federal laws that are there. We're not enforcing those laws. It's just I'm the one that gets the call. from a resident that says somebody's tearing down a tree. This gives us the ability to go in there, halt it. It also advises the developers that they need to have an environmental consultant done beforehand. So again, we're not enforcing the law. It's just helping to protect the migratory bird. And that's it. However, the document that you have, there was a change on that. And Kim can pull this up. And I would like for you to read exactly what it's going to say to make sure that we don't have any questions and you're not reading the wrong document.

So yeah, just a quick explanation. The packet had already gone out for publication. Craig, with the legal department, took one last look, and he had just, it really just reads a little bit more clear about how this migratory bird, I'll pull up his, if I can get somebody to connect me. I don't know if that's, yeah, it should be connected. Maybe nobody's in there. in the IT room. It's the same content. There we go. This came from Craig. It's this item C. Like I said, the content itself is there. He just had some tweaks. I wish he didn't really give us the red line version. But he just read this one section and said he felt like this would read just more clear. So yeah, it still prohibits nest disturbance. And there's the survey requirement. These are all elements that are already in there, but just some wordsmithing before any tree removal. Developer needs to obtain a written survey from a qualified environmental consultant. and then it talks about what the survey needs to include and then yeah they have to identify whether development or tree work can proceed without destroying or disturbing so me you know maybe the nest is way down on in a row of trees and they can keep working to a certain point that would be what the environmental consultant would need to determine or maybe they just have to stop all activity and then Three, gives us the enforcement authority for us to halt any activity if they haven't provided the survey or if we can obviously see a nesting site.

So this would be in section 35.120 of the code, I believe, is what we're talking about? Yeah.

Yeah, the draft in your packet. Let me see if I can find it. So this would go in. Yeah, it's all the way at the bottom, isn't it? So in place of this, we would have that. Yeah, so he's really just kind of taking that information and put it more into, let me zoom in, a better organized format. So the intent is all still the same. He just took that and modified it.

Can you just pull up the new version?

Oh, yes.

And Jessica, you like this? You approve of this, Jessica? You approve of this version here?

I do.

It sounds better than what I had.

What is a qualified environmental consultant? What would be qualifications? Like who are we looking for?

So they would actually have to have that degree and have that particular. It's not part of like the city or anything like that. We're advising the developer that they need to have that ahead of time. And then if they don't, when we get the call, we just send it. Usually by that time, even if I'm getting the call, the person's already called DWR.

But we're not defining what qualified environmental consultant means in the code?

There's multiple companies that do that. Okay. So it's actually like a company that has that.

Like it's an industry standard kind of thing. Okay. Just wanted to make sure we didn't get people without a specific cert. If we wanted a specific certification, I would want it listed. Yeah, they would have to have those certifications on it.

And their company would have that.

Okay. There are specific consultants that we often hire that evaluate for threatened and endangered species. Okay.

Okay.

And this applies equally to the city, right? Okay.

I'm fine approving it with the finding it will protect migratory birds and leaf.

Are any of you here to comment on this? No. Okay. Any other questions? I'm happy to take a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve ordinance 2026-30, approving a development code amendment to chapter 35, community forestry, adding requirements for trees affected by migratory birds and clarifying the city's recommended public tree planting list.

So I have a first from Council Member Harrison. I have a second.

Second with question. have a second from councilman renewal with quite which question can specify that we would like to insert the language prepared by Craig chambers yes for the migratory and then were there DRC comments I didn't look

Yeah, there's some. There would. Yeah, so I'm good with both of those.

Second stance?

And can we include the findings that the proposed development code amendment will protect migratory birds in Lehigh and, yeah. And with an add yeah. Yeah, yeah, and is in conformance with the purposes, intent, and provisions of the general plan.

Sure.

Stance.

Okay, any other questions? Great. So we'll start with Council Member Nolan.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Great. Item 5.7, consideration of ordinance 2026-31, approving a development code amendment to chapter 26, accessory uses of the development code updating the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units. DADUs to meet 2026 state legislation. Kim, I believe this one's yours, correct?

Yes. So yeah, I think the title of the item is pretty self-explanatory in this last legislative session. And I think we have until September, October of this year to come into compliance. We just thought we'd get ahead of the curve and But yeah, bottom line, I think we've been ahead of the curve for quite a while. We've actually been allowing these detached accessory dwelling units for a number of years. Just like they did with interior accessory dwelling units, the state stepped in on this issue and said cities shall allow them. We'd been allowing them on 14,000. If you remember, we tweaked it to where it was exactly... a third of an acre. So now the state said you have to allow them on anything 11,000 square feet or greater, so it's going to reduce that lot size a little bit. We had them as a conditional use just to make sure everything looked like it would work before we approved them. That no longer can apply, so they have to be a permitted use. There's some other things about parking. required two stalls the state has I'm trying to remember the exact language let's see and then it the state does still allow us to require owner occupancy and we can still require our own setbacks and height and things like that so we've kept the standards that we can that we already had and then we're just amending what we have to and to comply with state law. So basically, detached ADUs will be a little bit more allowed in various areas.

Any questions for Kim? Kim, do you have a rough idea how many additional homes in Lehigh this would open up to?

We didn't do a GIS analysis or anything. know i would think it's going to be a significant number of lots if you think about you know anything that's zoned r112 we have our r18 r110 r112 and then the ra1 was where we used to allow them which was the third acre but yeah it does open up you know any of the r112 or Or even sometimes in the R18 zone, you have on a cul-de-sac, you could have bigger lots that go up to 11,000 square feet. So it's not insignificant by any means. I hate to even venture a guess. I would say maybe of all the single-family detached units that are out there, this might increase it by 20% if you look at all the lots. I don't know. Maybe that's a little bit...

too much yeah because yeah you know anything yeah anything now ra1 r122 already allows it so yeah thank you mr. mayor I have a question for Kim I'm worried about item let's see D where it says located at least six feet away from the primary dwelling Is that enough? Six feet? I guess if it's what state code says, but I'm concerned that that's really close.

Yeah, and that's actually our requirement for the setback. And that's what we currently allow, whether it's a garage, just a shop or a garage, even if it doesn't have it. And the six feet is just to make sure for... know emergency services and stuff that they can circulate around it if they had to take a gurney or something back there so that's been a pretty long standing i mean as long as i can remember we've always required a six foot separation from the home to any kind of a detached structure yeah is it enough like i i wonder if it should be more but yeah have we noticed any issues with six feet Uh, no. And it's, you know, the, whoever lives in the home is going to be the ones that rent out or maybe their kids live there or whatever. And so if they don't want them quite that close, they can always, you know, if they have a bigger lot, they can push it back. But six would be the bare minimum.

Okay.

And it's, you know, for fire access, it's more for safety.

Yeah. Yeah.

we try some lots it does get a little tight to you know even if you did want to do a detached garage so I think that's what we determine is kind of the bare minimum okay so I think with the quarter acre lot you're you don't have much space to go beyond that anyway right yeah we're setbacks and things can I ask do we charge impact fees

What's that? Is there impact fees charged for this?

Yes, and they have not restricted that yet. So we do still charge an impact fee. It's about $4,500 for a detached ADU. You can't charge them for internal, but yeah.

Mayor, I have a question. So can we have some requirements about the placement of windows near adjoining properties, but it doesn't look like it applies to these. Is that correct?

We left those the same. We've talked through those previously. I think it was when we amended it to go from half to third. But again, if you want to make additional changes, now would be a great time if you want to.

Number two, it says ADU, so that applies to DADUs too. What's that? Okay, number two, it cannot be within five feet, so five feet. It has either no windows or two small opaque windows.

Yeah, I think the intent there is... just to protect the privacy of the adjacent homeowners. Right. We were okay if it was, you know, like a lot of bathroom windows, you'll see they're up high, and it's just that, basically the two square feet. So it's still, because by code, you have to have windows in certain, like, bathrooms and things.

Yeah, I'm just wondering if that applies to the detached taters.

Oh, and there's two sections in here. One of them is... if you're converting an existing building, and then the other one is if it's new. And the existing building, I think, is a little more lenient on the side and rear yard setbacks and the windows. And so let's see, I can read. Let's see, are you looking under three? Two, number two. Two? Let's see, new build construction.

I guess it's on three as well.

And which letter? A. Yeah, so 2A, if it's a brand new building, it can be within five feet of the side or the rear. the wall within five feet hasn't either no windows or the small window and then if it's a conversion let's see let's have a minimum setback of five feet from the property line and six feet from the primary dwelling if the building is built within the required setback for the Zone, no windows.

Oh, OK. Sorry, I misread. The six feet is away from the primary dwelling, not necessarily the property line.

OK. Yeah.

So that's from the- We have larger setbacks for the property line. OK. I was thinking it would be that close, and then we might want to do the same thing so you're not peering down in the backyard.

OK. OK, sorry about that. No. It's good to be clear now. If we need to change anything.

Other questions for Kim? Anyone from the public here to make comment on this item?

Hi. My name is Holly Rollins. We have lived here for about 10 years, and we are so excited for this change and hope that you pass it, because we are looking for a way to care for my aging parents. And we live on 14,418 square feet, which I guess hearing you speak that we could have built something, but we thought that it had to be 15,000 square feet. And so we're just looking for a way to help provide care while also allowing my parents to be independent but being close enough that we can help them out and i think where developments are putting homes so close together 10 feet apart i am a huge advocate for open space but i feel like this new state requirement of 11 000 feet will still allow for open space especially with the requirements that the city is putting on so i appreciate your consideration of passing what the city is or what the state has asked thank you thank you

okay any final questions for kim before i entertain a motion hey kim how do we reconcile having this increase increases with the density caps we have it's a fair question with whether it's internal or detached

And I'll let Brad speak to it in more detail, but I know we've tried to take our best guess at how many residents would actually create an internal or external ADU. And I want to say it was like our assumption was, was it 50%? So it's built into our utility modeling and things. We know that there's going to be an increase in demand when you start infilling You know, you have two families on a piece that only had one before. I guess as time goes on and if we see, you know, the demand is just exponentially growing, we probably have to reevaluate how we plan our utilities. I know some areas, you know, Portland and some of those areas in the northwest were some of the first communities to start allowed, and California has allowed these for quite a while. And I think there are certain parts where it's over 50%. I mean, I've heard of some areas of Portland where 70%, 80% have some kind of a detached or internal ADU. So it's a fair question. Yeah, it's hard when the state, you know, that's the frustration is these, I guess you'd call it an unfunded mandate, right? You have to allow these, and we're not going to chip in on the infrastructure.

I think maybe if I could just weigh into, like Kim said, I think our general thoughts were that we have definitely built into our models 50%. You know, that 50% of the homes had an ADU or a DADU. I guess the thing that I wanted to make sure of, and I believe this is the case, that it's not like someone can have an ADU and a DADU. They can only have either or. So even though the DADUs we expect may be bigger than internal ADU, which means you can have bigger families and a heavier load on the utility systems, we feel like we're generally speaking able to carry that same 50% load.

Sorry, just to clarify, is it 5-0 or 1-5? The 15 or 50? 50. 5-0.

Yeah. Okay. So in essence, what that means is we consider that we have enough built into our utility systems so that if 50% of those lots that could have ADUs do have ADUs, then we feel like that we are adequately sized.

Any other questions? Happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance 2026-31, approving a Development Code Amendment to Chapter 26, Accessory Uses of the Development Code, updating the requirements for detached accessory dwelling units, DADUs, to meet the 2026 state legislation and include all DRC comments and the findings by the Planning Commission.

So I have a first. Council Member Newell, I have a second.

Second.

Second from Councilmember Freeman. Any questions on that motion? Councilmember Stallings, we'll start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Great. Item 5.8, consideration of ordinance 2026-32, approving a development code amendment. to both table 05.030-B and section 12.130, updating the regulations for automobile sales businesses.

Kim? Yep. Okay. I'm hoping there's no surprises or anything unusual that we've had. I think it's three, maybe even four work sessions on this. And each time, you know, we receive feedback, we refined it. So this is just the final compilation of what you've asked us to do as far as automotive sales. It removes a lot of requirements that Previously been there some of it the requirements already existed in other sections of the code so we're taking out redundancy Probably the biggest single change is that we used to require one acre to have an auto sales business that that is no longer the case We've taken that requirement off of the table of uses so yeah, if there's any questions or final adjustments I

open to that but yeah I hope it's for the the last round of discussions we had at your work session is there anyone here to speak on this item good great any questions for Kim yeah I was just wondering the DRC comments talks about the tree requirements and how you know we want to make sure they're not not exempt from tree requirements but then when I'm looking down the code I'm trying to figure out this green strike through the landscaped area shall include street trees is this getting rid of this is this ad like do you do you know or because they the recommendation is to have them have the tree requirements but then i see the screen strike through so i'm a little just wanted to clarify that yeah i think that was why they made that comment they saw that we were removing this tree requirement but but that goes to

of what i spoke to a minute ago that we already we still have lance basic landscape requirements a certain number of trees per site acre so this was just one of the you know why do we need that tree any kind of a tree standard in two different places that should just fall under the same standard that all commercial sites do for trees and i think the parks representative on the drc He put that comment on, and I remember in the meeting we talked through that, and he said, oh, okay, that makes sense. But then he left his comment on there, so anyways.

For the 10-foot setback, is that gone altogether?

uh let's see like is there there's no other parts of the code outside of this that requires it uh there is a general standard for any commercial development that behind from the sidewalk 10 feet in you it it has to have some kind of landscaping now it does allow the planning commission flexibility like if there's i guess an auto sales could qualify but there yeah just to be clear on that there is still a that's another one of those where it's in It's in Chapter 37 where it talks about parking lots and landscaping. Any parking area, you've got to have a 10-foot separation. So they can get an exception. The Planning Commission would be the one that would grant that.

Was that granted to the new auto sales business on Main Street and 23rd? Because I know that's, I mean, honestly, I kind of like that they don't have it because they can market their cars better. Yeah. Because it's a gravel lot with just sidewalk and then the cars park up to the sidewalk. So I just don't want to, I just want to make sure if that was an exception granted, then great. But I don't know.