City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, we'll go ahead and get started. Welcome to our pre-council meeting today at 4 o'clock here in the Lehigh City Council Chambers. We do have a full council currently. We have Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Stallings, Council Member Freeman, and Council Member Lockhart. So we're welcome... each of you to the dais. Also, we welcome those who are with us in the room today. We welcome you. This is a pre-council meeting. Just a reminder, there will not be public comment during this portion of our meeting, so we do appreciate that, and we appreciate that you're participating with us. Before we get started, we've asked Council Member Newell if she'll offer an opening prayer.

Our dear Heavenly Father, we're grateful to be here together as a council and with our staff to be able to discuss the things pertaining to Lehigh and be able to make decisions that would best impact our city and our residents. We ask the Heavenly Father that to be with all of our staff members and those who work through the city, that they may be safe and protected. We ask you to have thy spirit to be with us, that we can make good decisions, that we can show empathy, and that we can listen. Again, Heavenly Father, we're so grateful for the opportunity to serve, and we say these things in Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you, Council Member Newell. Okay, we'll jump into item number two, 2.1, the Power Purchase Adjustment Calculation Report. Mr. Jules.

All right. Just wanted to get with you like we had talked about and give you an update on the results from the power purchase adjustment clause. So that's, as you recall, a calculation we do at the end of the fiscal year to see how our collection of our rates ended up being as compared to our wholesale market costs. Additionally, just to remind you, we had adopted the rate study that was discussed in... When did we do that? I think it was June, May or June. As you recall, there's a proposed rate increase for this year, and that's about a 4% rate increase. When we did the calculation on... the power purchase adjustment, the calculation came back that the effective rate will actually be a 2% decrease. So although those are two separate buckets, so you have your rate and then you have the power purchase adjustment that only deals with the wholesale cost. Although our rate increase went up to cover everything operationally in the power department, our wholesale energy costs came down enough because of purchases we made, the way things performed, that the net effective rate was going to go down by 2%. So those are the results. As compared to other cities and Rocky Mountain Power, we stayed about the same as what we were before. And that's without the fact that they may have raised their rates or lowered them, but that's where we're at. So that's the report. You don't need to approve anything or do anything different, but we'll just move forward with that. Just want to give you a heads up.

Any questions for Mr. Eaves?

It's good news.

It is good news.

Thanks, Joel. Thank you. Okay, item 2.2, quarterly financial report. Mr. Lundell.

waiting for something to come up quarterly report for financials I'll just let you know where we're at now we still have a few entries to get in so any numbers I give you are mostly finished, but they're not subject to some change. We'll have our auditor come in. It's still a few weeks out, so we have a few things to get done. I sent out the printed report last week, and I have a few slides to go through. And if you have questions, let me know. If you have questions on the report, we can talk about those. We'll just go from there. So the first one is on sales tax for the year. Came in a little ahead of budget, and I'll show you that on the next slide By and large it's just been a year where I think it's been pretty close to what we anticipated Our last month was almost right on if you look at that graph. There's a little variation in that blue line which is last year and We had kind of that weird thing where we weren't getting our online sales taxes for a while, and they gave it all to us once in one big lump sum in April. But other than that, generally as we expected, if I look at last year compared to our budget compared to this year, you can see last year our total revenues were $25.2 million. Actual revenues this year is 26.3 with a budget of 26, so about $250,000 above budget, which is actually probably closer than we've been most times. Sometimes we've been a little bit more. Property tax, I just went back and looked at the last four years of property tax growth. This is one area. So our actual came in a little bit less than we'd budgeted. I'm still working and getting some numbers from the county on that to see if it has to do with collections rates and things like that. Realized that when we get revenue, it's just based on actual dollars received, not necessarily what was assessed. So we're going to look into that. But you can see our growth, 25 to 26, was very, very little, almost flat, which surprises me. We're looking into that, but that's an area where our actual revenue came in lower than budget. Our general fund fund balance. So the blue part is things that are encumbered or restricted for other things. So if we have money that we received from Class C road funds, that can only be reduced for roads. It's not available for general things. Or park tax that we've received. That's what most of that is. So that's a balance of 7.2 million. Our unencumbered balance is around 27 million. So it grew a little bit. I don't anticipate us having a problem with the 35%. We're all familiar with that, right? We can only have 35% of one year's revenues as a general fund fund balance.

I think we'll be around 32 or 33%.

And then I'll go back and redo that calculation that we did before where we said how much is related to economic benefits variability, how much is related to natural disaster kind of things. And that should leave a little bit of room for capital money to be used for that. I think our general fund overall fund balance will go up by a couple million dollars. And then some of these are a little bit random, but they're just things that I thought would be good to point out. One thing that's been a big financial project for the city the past few years is the PI meter installation. So the total project was $33.8 million. That's a lot of money to put in meters throughout the city. I will say, well, I'll say that at the end. So of that, $23.6 million was given to us in grants through the state. They also gave us some low interest 1% loans, $8.6 million, and our match was $1.5 million. And just, I did want to give a plug to our water department. I know when this started, Several years ago they said if everything goes well and we do 50 a week or something like that, I think we can get it done by the 2030 deadline. And it's basically finished now. And if we wouldn't have been able to do it faster, we wouldn't have been able to get as much money from the state because it was money that had kind of an expiration date at the end of this year. So them getting that done faster probably brought us in several million dollars in grant money. So it saved us a lot. Just a quick report on results for all of our enterprise funds. So the blue line is revenues. Yellow line is expenses, cash expenses. It doesn't include depreciation. When you look at our actual financial statements at the end of the year, If anybody ever looks at them, you see most of the time we have an operating loss, net operating loss, because depreciation is so large. And I know you need to fund your depreciation, but if we had our rates where they needed to be to have that be zero, it'd probably be too high because we'd be Generating a big cash balance, and I think a lot of that just has to do with we'd appreciate things over Maybe 30 years, but a lot of this infrastructure lasts for 30 years, so maybe That's where it goes, but all those look good sewer fund and is the one where we had more cash expenses and revenues, and this goes back a few years when we had that really large increase from TSSD. And that gap is shrinking every year, and I think by next year it probably won't be a gap. But luckily we, I mean really we use reserves to kind of gradually impose that increase on our rate payers rather than do it all at once, which I think was hopefully a good thing. That's where we've, remember the sewer rate, we've kind of been raising about 15% every year until things get caught up and hopefully we're about there. But it's interesting. Now the rate that you pay on your utility bill for sewer probably almost, it's 85% of that goes right to TSSD. So it's almost the whole bill is treatment. Fiber fund I think we have an item on this on the agenda in the work session October But I just want to put a few things up there because we're finally getting to the point those systems all built We're seeing revenues come in Our revenue in the fiber fund was a little over four million dollars last year operator costs what that is is what we pay the third party to to monitor and operations of the system is 1.5 million so that leaves a margin of 2.6 our internal city costs were 775 000 the interest on the debt last year was around 2 million so we're almost to the point where we're covering that i'm i'm really anxious to see where we get to next year and we'll have a more detailed report next month but Really the fact that we've gone from zero customers to 7,000 in a couple of years is very encouraging and it's been a huge, huge project. I put this in here just related to what debt the city has. I think you get asked questions on that sometimes. So I just put it in four categories. General city debt would be things like city hall, station 83, station 84, the police station, our leases on large equipment like fire apparatus and 10-wheel snow plows and things like that. It's all in that $50 million category. Water sewer revenue, that would be some of our infrastructure projects that we did a few years ago. The PI meter project, the new public works building is all in there. The fiber is the largest one at 67 million. Power revenue, we have two bonds outstanding on that for the building that was built and for some generation. And those are big numbers, but if I put it in perspective a little bit, our total revenue Last year, it was a little over $212 million. Debt service payments was $12.5 million. So that's about 5.9% of our revenue that goes for debt service, which ideally, maybe it's zero. But I think anywhere between 5% and 10% is usually a pretty common number. Last slide is on park tax. So last year's 2026 park tax revenue, a little over $2.1 million. So we have the 70-30 split. The fund balance at the end of the year, just under $1.6 million. $1 million of that is capital things. So we had the first project was $5 million towards Family Park, which has been used. There were a few things in the budget that I think are there now, but could be changed if we use them for something else. But that's money that will be designated for something based on what the council decides. Program reserves at the end of the year, $562,000. So we gave out grants of 861 last year, which makes sense. So the 30% above, the 654,000, we gave out grants higher than that because we had reserves. And so when that whole process comes up next year, we'll be looking at those same things. And that's all I came up with. Do you have any questions on that or the report or anything else?

Any questions for Dean?

Okay. Thank you, Dean. Okay. Thanks.

Okay. Item 2.3, Justice Court Operations and Cost Report and Discussion. Mr. Boyle.

All right. Mayor and Council, thank you for your time in allowing us to discuss the Justice Court today. We have representatives from our court, Jody Neer, who's our court administrator, is here with us today. Craig, of course, from legal. We have Jim Peters, who is from the administrative office of the courts. And then our public defenders have representatives here as well. So you can see there's a lot of investment in this discussion. We have collaborated as we have met Regarding discussion on the courts, Ben and Mariah have helped us with a lot of the analysis, the cost analysis, and then we've collaborated with the courts and with legal as well on this. So, are you seeing my presentation? No?

Am I plugged in into the wrong place?

You were seeing it just a second ago. There we go. Yes? No?

Yes? Okay.

Okay. Slideshow.

Okay. So what I'm going to do is talk through an analysis of the revenue and expenditures for the courts. And then as we talk about the Justice Court, I want to talk about the different considerations that we have moving forward with those. So we'll talk about continuing operations as we have been, maintaining the status quo. There is an option to move the Justice Court to the Utah County Justice Court. And I'll talk through that when we look at the expenses and revenue. We have the option to renovate our existing property, specifically the old City Hall building, to place the Justice Court there. And the reason that we're looking at those is because of discussion for potentially rebuilding Station 81 in the near future. And so we're looking for options for the court to be housed. There is the possibility that we could lease out space in a private building and then And then, of course, constructing a new Justice Court building. So this slide shows you Lehigh City Justice Court, the fiscal year 2026 expenses and revenue. With one exception on this is down towards the bottom, there was a request for an additional full-time court clerk this last fiscal year that was not funded. So we've included that, assuming that in the next year or two that that will need to be funded. So to give us a whole picture of what it costs to operate the courts versus the revenue that is collected. So revenue comes from fines, from fees and forfeitures. Also on here, you can see there's traffic school fund revenue, debt and bail fund revenue. that are collected through our Justice Court. So total revenue minus the expenses, we come out with about $223,000 in extra revenue once all of our expenses are paid for the Justice Court. So Ben and Mariah, as they've looked at this, we looked at what would it take or what would that revenue look like if we were to dissolve our justice court and have that go to the Utah County Justice Court the the fees collected were remained the same but our portion of those fees changes so if we were to have our cases tried through the Utah County Justice Court they would keep about five hundred and thirty eight thousand dollars of those of that revenue that is collected And our portion would be about $475,000. But there is also additional costs that we need to consider, which include vehicle costs for our attorneys to travel to Utah County for hearings, gas for the PD and for our attorneys, overtime for our officers, and then paid time for legal. We also would assume that because if we were to go to Utah County, there's a possibility that we would need two prosecutors in court simultaneously. So we would likely need to hire an additional prosecutor and then another part-time legal secretary to help cases would be heard at least four days down there at Utah County versus now where we're able to balance that caseload with one prosecutor. What we don't see on this that we haven't found is if there would be any additional fees to our public defender costs. And that is likely because we have been able to work with our public defender's office to be able to have them come down here to Lehigh just twice a month to manage their business down here and then have weekly Zoom or WebEx meetings. and hearings. That could change. They would be traveling possibly more frequently and a further distance for those. So we would expect that that public defender cost would likely increase as well. However, given the numbers that we have here, with that exception of the public defender, the remaining revenue would be about $227,000. So pretty similar to what our revenue is now if we were to go to Utah County. So this just kind of lays out what justice court services, if it's moved to the county, what we may be responsible for covering if they needed to hire additional employees. They've indicated that they might need to increase their judge's time or hire an additional judge, potentially some judicial assistance. We think that the revenue that they would collect from our cases would likely cover that. But that's a little bit of an unknown. At this point so that just kind of gives you an idea of what those different wages are Wages and benefits for each of those different positions there at the court So a third option that we have is if we were to renovate an existing facility so Steve has had a Consultant to look at the old City Hall and has come up with two different possibilities for renovating City Hall for the Justice Court The first is that they would renovate the south portion of the courts, which is the original old part of the building where the main entrance is. The two-story north portion of the building would remain for our other services, community development, HR, IT. That, Steve estimates, would be about $875,000 to renovate that. And what that would do is we'd have a clear separation between the courts and the other functions of that building. We would have a separate entrance for the community development services and other functions of that building with ballistics separating. It also would allow for a more secure operation for the courts, where the judge would be able to go from his chambers to the court without, or his office to the court without crossing the path of the public. Option B is a little bit less of an expense for renovations. What this would do is it would take the east side of the building, so the main entrance would be shared. But then we would separate and create an entrance for the court, the chambers, and then down on the east side of the building, down where finance used to be, is where the court offices would be. So there would be some shared function of that building. The judge would not have a secure private access to the court in this option. He would have to cross a public entrance exit area to get to the court, along with his staff as well. But this is estimated to be about $500,000 for that. Yes, Emily.

And if my memory serves me correctly, we already have some money allocated to the renovations, right?

Yes, I think there's $200,000 currently budgeted.

Is it right to look at these in minus $200,000 for the additional ask?

Yeah, I think so. This is kind of a rough estimate. There will be some things that still need to be worked out to make sure that we have all the offices for our other department as well. But yeah, I think that that's a fair estimate. All right. So, then another option is if we were to look outside of Lehigh's properties to house the court, what is kind of the going rate for renting, an annual rate for renting a space that would be large enough for us? This doesn't include any sort of improvements to that property, but this would be an annual cost. So Ben has gathered some numbers on some properties that we're aware of that could house the courts, and this gives you an idea of what that would cost. So anywhere from $87,000 to $150,000 a year for leasing space for the courts. So one thing that we want to consider also when we're having this discussion is that it's not just about the dollars, but there are quite a few qualitative considerations to having the court in Lehigh versus having the court in Utah County. One is the impact that it would have on our patrons. We estimate between 10,000 to 13,000 Lehigh residents were either a defendant or a witness in 2026. So about one in four Jody, I think that's traffic. One in four traffic cases are Lehigh residents, and one in three on criminal. However, when there is a hearing, we expect that there would be at least three to four witnesses that may need to attend that hearing. So that's where we get our 10,000 to 13,000 residents. If it does go to a trial or a hearing, those would need to go down to Utah County in person. So that is a large number of Lehigh residents that would need to travel to Provo for a trial. There is an investment in the community that needs to be considered. Because we operate a court here in Lehigh City, there is a rehabilitation and recidivism consideration that the judge makes and the prosecutor makes when considering outcome of trials with the kind of looking forward to how it is going to benefit our community moving forward to make sure that we don't have repeat offenders There also is, because we operate as an independent court here in Lehigh, there's just this idea of how can we make our community better. We can see what kind of trends we're seeing in our legal process, what crimes are being committed and maybe what areas those are being committed and how can we improve those areas of the city to make sure that we are making our community better. Some of that may be lost at a county level because there is less of a direct impact to the courts in having people from outside of their community coming in to hear their cases. There's other impacts here with our public defender, with the police, with legal. A lot of that will have to do with travel costs and time outside of the city. Specifically, our police officers won't be available for any active calls, whereas right now they are able to leave court and respond if necessary. And they'll pause court until those officers can return, where that would be less likely to be able to happen. Utah County, again, our public defenders are currently here twice a month and virtually weekly. And that could potentially increase, which then is an increased cost. There's some operational efficiency and collaboration that happens between the legal department, the courts, and the PD. Because we are all in close proximity so that could potentially be lost as well and then as the city grows Our population grows we would expect that that revenue would probably grow as well. And so the lost revenue would would likely Grow over the years as we see more more cases and more of a resolution to those cases in our community. I The final consideration is that if we were to dissolve the justice court, it's a permanent decision. So once it's dissolved, the court cannot be re-established. It would be maintained through Utah County Justice Court. If Utah County were to dissolve their court, then those cases would go to the district court. So that's our presentation, our considerations on the court. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. As a reminder, we are in need to hire a new judge. So if it's your desire that we continue to maintain the Justice Court in Lehigh City, it would be helpful to have an idea of that so that we can post for a judge. But I'm happy to answer any questions that you have, or if Jody or Craig can help answer questions as well.

So are there, when you were taking into account the cases and the revenue, I think it was one of those first slides, are there cases that come to us now that would not come to us if we were part of the county, that they would not be tied specifically to Lehigh? Is that additional revenue factored in of like revenue that we would also lose because we're not, they're handled by, you know, other county areas, but typically, but they're coming to Lehigh right now because it's part of I-15 or NRS area.

Sure. Sure. So there is a split on the revenue between Lehigh where the court is housed, and then who prosecutes those cases. And so we would get the portion of the prosecution. And then wherever the court is where that hearing is heard, they would receive that portion. So that's where that amount that goes to Utah County comes from. There are also, as are identified on this first side of the slide, the traffic school revenue and the debt and bail fund revenue are specific to Lehigh City. So we would not be collecting that traffic school or that debt and bail fund revenue if we did not have our own justice court, correct?

Yeah, and I'm thinking maybe somebody gets pulled over on I-15 within Lehigh. If we have our own court, it may come to us. But if not, it may just be assigned to somebody else. Is that the case?

I think if it's the Lehigh Police Department.

But if it's Utah?

If it's a misdemeanor or an infraction that occurs in Lehigh City, it either comes to our justice court. If we don't have a justice court, then it goes to the county justice court. If there's no county justice court, then it gets spread out to all the judges in district court.

So if somebody gets pulled over on I-15 within Lehigh jurisdiction, And we do not have a justice court. Does that revenue, do we prosecute those or does somebody else prosecute? We would still prosecute that.

And what if we're with the county, but it's not our officers who pulled them over? Then it's still because we're doing the prosecution.

Because it happened in Lehigh. So we prosecute any post-certified officer that writes a ticket in Lehigh City, we prosecute it if it's a misdemeanor.

Okay. And then the other question I have is that if we were considering this with the county, because it would be such a large increase for the county, which you're showing, is there any, and there's other cities as well that are now with the county, is there any appetite from the county about having a north district court where Lehigh, maybe there could be more of a partnership, so it could be something where It's still Lehigh, but we're growing it. But there could be more there.

Yeah, so I know Eagle Mountain currently, their cases are tried at Utah County. Saratoga Springs has their own justice court. I think that those, and maybe Jim might be able to answer that question a little bit better than I can, but I think some sort of interlocal agreement would need to happen for that, and I think that is a discussion that could happen, but it would just take probably some time to work out those details.

This could be an even bigger win for Lehigh, that if we are going to build another Justice Corps stand-alone, that there could be opportunities there for Some cities that are in the same position we are, where they have to travel far distances to get to Provo.

I know talking with Utah County, they indicated that at some point in their 10-year plan, they expect to have a Utah County Justice Court in the North Utah County area. I think there's probably also some possibilities of having some discussions about a district court in the area. But those would have to be worked out with the state legislature to make that determination. Thanks. Does that sound right, Craig?

Yeah.

No, I really appreciate this data. I appreciate the qualitative aspects as well because those are hard to quantify, right? One of my biggest concerns was if we have our police officers going to Provo on a regular basis on duty, right, how does that affect how many officers we have here in Lehigh? Does it affect headcount? So if you added up all the hours in Provo versus a quick stop here in Lehigh, over time, I think that would represent maybe a full headcount or two of police officers if we want as many officers on the streets patrolling here in Lehigh as possible. So I know that's hard to quantify, but I appreciate you laying that out. I really like option three. I think that's kind of, I mean, to Heather's point, I think there's future opportunity around District or North Utah County Court, but until we get to that point I think for the taxpayers it makes a lot of sense to kind of use what we have and be able to keep the benefits of the revenue coming into Lehigh and Then it doesn't stop us from building a court down the road if we need to but I think in the near term it certainly beats Any sort of bonding or increase in taxes to pay for it? So I appreciate the numbers you put out

The estimated cost to bond for a building like that, do we have the number for that?

I don't think we do, but Steve, do you? We have asked a consultant to look into that, but we just have not had enough time to get an accurate number of what that would be.

Millions. Yeah, we're talking the building that's next to the police station, right, in the plan we talked about last month.

But we don't have like maybe 10 15 10 to 15 million probably I would 13 okay, I said 10 to 15 that was right in the middle Sounded right to me.

Okay, cool. Thank you. I appreciate it Dean.

What's the annual debt service on a? bond of that size do you know It's set it in stone now Can't change.

Just wondering for this, we're looking at option three, the secure path from the judge, from the chamber to the courts. Is that a requirement of?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think it's a requirement. It's just for his safety and the clerk's safety as well. So the more secure we can make it the better, right? Requirements are actually pretty limited in what we need It has more to do with with space. He the judge is supposed to have his own Office those kind of things we need to have a place for a jury to deliberate We can meet those needs. It's just maybe needs for the court and the perception of the other public that might be entering into the same building to go and get a building permit as they are for somebody that's going in for a trial or a hearing. So the perception is a little bit different there. We have in the past had some concerns and risks with the judge and the public that have created a desire to have some more security at the courts. But I don't think it's a requirement.

OK, thanks. I have some questions. So yes, Heather, that was a good question. Something I asked about if we can get them to build the building for us and save on the travel costs.

We'll give them the land, right? I know.

Well, there's a lot of pros. Secure parking, the details right there. But maybe in the future, I guess, is the thing. Because it didn't, even in my conversations, they weren't keen on that quite yet. Do we have room? I know there's concern. Some people in the old city hall finally get to spread out a bit, and now we're cramming them in. But is there room in this building, if needed, that some of those departments can move over?

Yeah, so talking with Steve today, he feels like we can make it work for everybody involved. We may need to make some adjustments, maybe moving some people over into this building or into another building If option A were the plan, option B, it's probably less likely that we would need to move people out of that building and over here. But I think between here, Public Works, and the new building they're building up there, and then other properties that we have, Steve felt like we could make it work for all parties.

So just throwing this out, my inclination right now is to go with the option A, the more secure separate facilities. I think that would be great to provide more security to our judge and staff and also other departments, like you said, that public perception to keep them apart. So that's where I'm leading at this point. Okay.

Okay.

Just a quick question on timeline for option A and B. Is this something like a large-scale project that takes three years, or is this a six-month project? Do we have any estimates on timeline for each option?

So each option, I think with option A, we can start renovations. I think most of it would be done without a lot of downtime on staff or anything. You could do it weekends and that. Option B, the same thing. I'm guessing it's probably a three or four-month turnaround.

On both?

Yeah.

Okay, cool.

A lot of it's similar work. Option A is there's a little bit more planning that needs to be done. Well, both of them, frankly, we need to actually dive into. But option A, we're going to have to meet with the other departments and make sure everything fits and works and how that's going to, there's going to be more space planning.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? If there's no other questions, it would be based off what I've heard tonight. We are good then to post the judge's job and move forward then as if we are going to keep the court. Is that? Okay. I think that's where we needed to be. So let's head in that direction, and then we have options moving into the future. Okay. Thank you. Item 3 3.1 lehigh city general plan overview and discussion Kim I think you're leading this one

Okay, so we just want to give you a quick overview of our current general plan. The idea is just to present you or maybe remind you what's in the plan. We just want to spend maybe like 10 minutes at the most. And we've got the last thing that we have as part of this presentation is a map that shows what areas of the city are still yet to develop. And I think that might be the most interesting part of this. So I'll run through some quick slides just to give you an overview of the plan. It was adopted in January of 2022. So we're four years into it now So it feels like it was just yesterday though. It's crazy how time flies So what this slide is just kind of talking about? What is the purpose of our land use element and when we say general plan? I think we always kind of gravitate to the land use element but there are other elements as Brad's going to talk about with the transportation element of the general plan. But this is the land use element. So it is supposed to be long range, kind of identify what is our vision? What do we want Lehigh City to look like? How do we want it to function land use wise? And this is looking at build out, right? We're looking at long range planning. There are a whole section About almost half of the plan is a policy guide. It has a lot of written goals and strategies. I'll talk a little bit more about that in a second in depth. So yeah, it lays out where do we want to see the growth and what type of intensity does that growth happen in in different areas of town. We have some goals on environmental. It's a pretty broad reaching document And then just a reminder that this is different than our zoning map. And it is intended to be broad brush. I know we have some, there's some zoning and general plan amendment items that come up on a regular basis. The general plan is supposed to be a little bit more broad brush. The zoning map is very specific, you know, related to a parcel. And it has, you know, they'll have a legal description that says this is the area that zones this particular zone. But the general plan, is intended to be a little bit more flexible so that if it splits through a property, it's not like the zoning map where it's definitive based on a legal description. This is just right out of the plan, the table of contents. So you can kind of see, and I'll kind of walk through some of these, but yeah, the first part of the plan in 2022, when we adopted it, we just kind of looked back at where have we been, what's our demographics, what's our median age, what's our statistics for income and education, all those things. And then we looked at several scenarios. I'll show you those. just you know what if we did these different approaches to our general plan and then we came out with a preferred scenario the public outreach section just goes through in detail what we did to reach out to the public how we gave notices, what meetings we held, workshops, open houses, all those good things. And then when you get into Chapter 5, that's when you really start to get into the meat of the plan. It identifies the different land use classifications that we have on the map. And then six and seven kind of go hand in hand. That's where we set goals, and then each goal has about five to ten strategies that we have identified. And that is about almost 48% of the plan in those two chapters in six and seven. And then at the end it has an implementation section, and I'll show you a page out of that. And then the appendix just has all of the documentation of how we prepared the plan. So as I went back through the plan, it was interesting to remember that this was kind of the starting point of the plan, that we didn't want to just completely hit the reset button. So we said, okay, what are... areas within the city that we foresee that we could have change, and what areas do we want to just remain the way they are, status quo, kind of protect those. And so this generally shows, you know, you have the northeast corner up by where all of the Inverness and, you know, the sky development's happening, the spine of I-15, and then some of the undeveloped areas in the south, and then out as you go along 2100 north. Those were what we identified as areas of change that we focused our efforts on the general plan. So these were the, we looked at four scenarios. The first one was just what if we just kind of stick pretty much to what we already had at that time, which the plan before our current one was 2011. And so we analyzed what if we just ride this out and keep going with what we have. Number two was more of a focus on TODs and transit and those areas along the I-15 corridor. What if we really just intensified things in those areas? Number three, this was when we were starting to really kind of see the big housing crisis. And so we said, OK, what if we really try and increase housing in many, many areas of the city? And then four was somewhat of a hybrid between those three. And the one we chose was actually a hybrid of all four. So, yeah, we just took what we felt like were the most successful components of each of the scenarios. But it did really kind of create a focus on the TOD and trying to create areas of growth where we felt like they were most needed or necessary. Okay. One of the overall goals of the plan that it states in there is to try and create what we would call a complete community. It's not just focused on housing or jobs or the commercial. We want to really create a city where people can live and work and have a range of housing types. We have parks close by. We have the services that they're looking for within Lehigh so that they don't have to travel outside of Lehigh for those things. And then this is just the legend off of the land use map. So this now gets into, we identified these different land use classifications. You're probably pretty familiar. We've had a lot of different amendments and things come through. This is kind of all of the different land use types that we deal with. And really the main core of what we deal with the most is this land use map. So this now takes those designations and we say, okay, where do these now apply throughout the city? And yeah, you can see the purple and the red are the more intense, the commercial, the TOD, the mixed use, and then the greens and the orange and the tans and things are where we have the residential. And then this is just a snapshot. So there's actually 16 goals, and I just kind of clipped out the little icons for these, and it has a little description. But, yeah, we have goals in the plan about commercial development, residential, you know, where do we want to see these, what scale is appropriate. We have some goals about the environment, about placemaking, creating places where people really want to be and spend time. How do we make our city sustainable, which ties into some of the stuff we're doing right now with water, conservation. We have a section on TODs, neighborhood centers, urban centers, where those... We feel like those would be well-planned. We talk about the historic downtown, which we've since taken a deeper dive with our update of our downtown revitalization plan on that one. How do we keep the public involved in the plan? We have a little bit on parks and recreation. We didn't go too deep on that one because we have a separate parks element of the general plan. There is a whole section on parking, which I know that's come up in the recent past with discussions we had about parking. So there's a section in there that we have a goal to provide adequate amount of parking. while limiting excess parking providing alternatives to traditional parking minimum requirements and then there's several strategies and like i said we don't have time to go into detail on all of these but just to kind of give you a snapshot so this so there's we had an environmental goal and then this is just an example of one strategy for environment where it talks about we want to try and locate our lowest density and lowest intensity land use designations adjacent to environmentally sensitive areas. So recently we met, there was a group that's interested in putting some fairly intense development along the Jordan River, and we could point to this and say, hey, we want to keep those areas lower density. You're near the floodplain. It's environmentally sensitive that we want to keep that our lowest intensity. So we should and we can go to these policies to direct, you know, when we have those kind of decisions that come up. This map was a key part of the general plan as well. So these yellow areas are where we really, this is basically where we added new density in significant amounts. And this shows where those are at and what the cap is. Some of that, we had the, this is a little bit outdated. We need to take Pioneer Village, which was that 500 units down off of Pioneer Crossing. So you can see a lot of the new density is where we have TODs and this focus on transit and the downtown. But yeah, a lot of these are right where we have the transit stations. And then the last section in the plan is this implementation matrix. And this identifies all kinds of tasks that we should be working towards. And as I did a quick scan, and this is just one page. I think there's one or two more pages of this matrix. But I was actually quite proud we'd done number one, or at least partially, we did update the downtown revitalization plan. We've adopted stationary plans for a lot of our TOD areas. So anyways, we're making progress on the plan. So the last thing, and I'm going to let Mike kind of speak to this, because he prepared this using our GIS system. But as you look at this map, so this is our general plan map, and the areas that are a little bit darker in color are the areas that have not been developed. So you can kind of see what is left. So everything that's muted already has development on it. And then we've got some tabulations of what What is our total area, which is 23,464 total acres within our city boundary? But anyways, I'll let Mike kind of – there's some interesting stats on that. And if you need, here's the – Oh, cool.

I was going to say, I love data, so that doesn't mean I'm a data nerd, but I don't know if you guys are too. Going through the plan, I was actually very surprised, like Kim said, that – When I started here, like, 15 years ago, we were only 40% developed, but we only have 16% of our city left that has developable acreage. Now, there's always the possibility of infill and stuff elsewhere, but kind of more your raw land. That's actually not that much anymore. So I think the city's going to enter a new phase of its life now that the big developments are kind of going to be calming down. We have a lot more of these smaller pieces everywhere. But it's interesting to note that... Our total city non-residentials, a little over 13% on the general plan. Of that 13%, we have 29% left that can still be developed commercial. So we actually have a pretty considerable amount of commercial property left. And you can see on the map a lot of that falls kind of that north area around Thanksgiving Point. There's quite a bit of it up there. And some still left over in, like, the Cold Spring Ranch area. And then public facility, that's all your schools, the city, buildings, things like that. Camp Williams falls under this as well. I think partially because of Camp Williams, this number is pretty large too, 15%. That's probably more than what a typical city would see. Then I guess something to be proud of is that over 20% of it is open space or environmentally sensitive area Just because it's so important to have access to nature and open space to have a high quality of life So we're doing a great job trying to preserve more Open space along the river and the foothills the mountains the best we can so I think that's a really great thing to have for the city then residential 46% which is actually A little lower than a lot of cities, but that's typically the highest category for cities. Cities are primarily residential. Then about 3.7% falls within mixed use or TOD. One caveat to that, so if you look in the undeveloped area, it says there's 245 acres of mixed use and TOD left to be developed. But it only says 129 in the built-out. Some of the mixed-use areas like in Sky, they've used the density so they can only go commercial. So I put those under the non-residential undeveloped. So there's some of that mixed-use. TOD is actually either going to be just commercial or one of them is going to be just residential. So I kind of took that into consideration for the undeveloped area. Those percentages, let me go to the table. So those percentages in the undeveloped area, those are the percentages So like the 1126 of non-residential, 29% undeveloped, that's of the total non-residential, not of the total city. So of all the commercial we have planned on our plan, we still have 30% or a third of it left that still is undeveloped. Residential... Let's see, 64%. I'm thinking my numbers are off right there. Yeah, we have 2,470 acres undeveloped and a total of 10,000. So that should be 20%. We have about 20% left to go. So sorry, my table is wrong there. And then as far as the percentage is built out, you can see down there that's more accurate. 77% of the residential is already done, whereas commercial we have a bit more. of that acreage left to go as far as the total acreage goes. So yeah, that does give an idea of what we have to work with. In the big picture, all those kind of brighter parcels is really what's not totally developed yet. And even since this data has been updated, there's a couple of these parcels that have since been entitled.

The only other thing I'd add is so the percent built out, we get that question asked a lot. What percent of build out are you? And it would actually be because Mike took out the open space and ESA. So if you add those in, we're about 80% because we just figured the ESA and open space would not have development.

we're 84 built out or area that cannot be developed in the future because the open spaces the parks we're not going to be developing on that so we're like 84 build out for city which yeah based on this general plan that could always yeah i could change but that's based on this point

So anyways, hopefully that gives you just kind of an overview. And we're happy to take whatever direction. I mean, I guess this isn't really an action item. I think there's maybe some idea that should we be updating this at some point?

you know it has been like I said we're going on we'll be five years in January which is only four months every five to ten years yeah we should be updating this so last time we went 11 years because we're from 2011 to 2022 but we're just about at the five-year mark but yeah usually it's every five to ten years we'll do some kind of update

Any questions? Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, can I ask? OK, so you're saying if you say about 84%, is that by acreage or by population? That's by acreage. OK. And I believe red's commercial. I think I know that one off the top of my head. What is pink and purple?

Pink is the mixed-use, purple is the TOD. Okay.

And green is residential?

Yeah, a lot of the green is, there's different colors of green, though. Yeah, there's different colors of green. Some is residential, and then I don't see DLBRA on this.

Oh, I think it's, yeah, that one got flipped out.

I was like, I don't see the group. Yeah.

You got it.

There you go. Yeah, a lot of that green on the south end, that's all that VLDRA, so that's mostly that half acre kind of density down there. That's obviously our lower density part down.

I just wanted to give a comment. I have yet to attend a Jordan River Commission meeting where the ESA zone is not praised as the state standard, and they talk about how Lehigh's ESA is just, Phenomenal and amazing and everyone should copy and paste it so great job on that Yeah, they they talk about it every meeting And encourage all of the entities involved in that commission to like I said copy and paste so great job September 17th, we have a commission bike ride that came to host itself guys want to come check it out.

Oh

Yeah, thank you, Mike and Kim, for this. Just a couple questions. So one of the reasons we've seen agenda items come up where the general plan, I was reading the description on the website And it's like it's not supposed to be specific. But when it comes down to it, a home property is very specific. And so I think my goal is to ensure that when you move into a neighborhood or you have a business coming in, ideally they're looking at both the zoning, so they can actually build what they want to build, but also the general plan to know the future of that particular area of the city. And I think my very Just a wild guess I'm sure you know well over 90% of it is not going to change or it's it's already well thought out But as we've grown so quickly as you said five to ten years I think you know for a city that's landlocked and fully developed and and stuff It's probably it can be a little bit longer for cities that are rapidly growing like us I think I would probably tend to lean more toward the five-year side so that's that's why I asked for this agenda item to be put on but a couple of A couple of questions. So if we were to decide, and maybe Jason, you can help, you know, if we wanted to move forward with a new general plan, what the process would be. But at least with the 2022 plan, you know, what was the timeline on that and I guess the overall cost for a general plan? And the second is... How much of that plan was handled by an external consultant versus in-house? Because I think, I mean, that can be pretty flexible, right? If we want to opt toward more in-house or if we want to outsource more of it, I think we have a lot of control over that, right?

Yeah. Do you want me to take the first step? Yeah. So the 2022 plan, we got hit with COVID right when we started. and we were trying to have some of the open house and workshops, and we had to transfer all that online. So it took, I think we started in mid... Yeah. So it took almost two years. That's not typical, though. I would say an update, you know, usually you're maybe six months to a year. I think the cost, gosh, I'd have to go back. But we did hire, it was an outside consultant, Fregonesi Consultants. They're a land use planning firm. This is kind of what their bread and butter is, is to help cities update their plan. I think it just depends on how deep you want to dive into it. If it's just you want to kind of refresh and maybe revisit the goals and modify some of the strategies, things like that. probably do that in-house. But if it's like, no, we do want to kind of deep dive and let's reanalyze where our housing and things like that are, we probably want to go outside just because we have enough workload day-to-day that it would be challenging, just like we're trying to do with our bike and pedestrian plan right now it just it would just take longer we could do it we have the capability it's just the hours of time it would take but yeah I'm guessing yeah in the hundreds hundred thousand ish maybe

if you do an extensive overhaul it would definitely be over a hundred thousand and did we plan on that i guess from the beginning or did we did we approach it like okay let's let's see how far we want to go as city staff and council and then you know bring in a consultant or was the consultant involved from the very beginning

Oh, on this one, it was definitely right up front. We just said, hey, we can't do this alone. So we put it out for RFQ. And then, yeah, we had five or six different firms that submitted. And then we picked the one that we liked the best.

So we've got a bargain on it compared to what we pay now. I think we paid $80,000. Yeah, I mean, it was about $80,000. But there's no way you could get it for that price nowadays. But yeah, probably like Ken said, you're over $100,000 if you're doing a comprehensive update. The biggest thing with the comprehensive update, too, is you want to get a really good public process, you know, one-houses and surveys online and all that stuff. So that's really what helps to drive the plan and ultimately what the scenario is. That's part of the big cost is doing all that work. reaching out to the public and collecting data and all that.

So to answer the other part of your question, We probably would just ask that you either give us a budget amendment or put it in next year's budget to say, hey, we want to put some money aside for this. I don't think we need to spend it all, but at least it's there and gives us more clear direction.

And that cost is mostly for that external consultant, right?

Yeah. So you could say, yeah, we'll budget $100,000, but we want XYZ included or not included. Hopefully it comes in under that number.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, because I think from my perspective, I'd love to look at, at least start with how comprehensive we want to do it. I think, again, I don't know if we need to do a full rewrite. I think 11 years between general plans, especially in like the fastest growth decade in Lehigh, I don't know if we have to go that far deep. But it would be nice to determine which, you know, look at the goals for sure, and then, you know, Look at areas that especially the undeveloped areas. I mean the percentages on the screen now that's based on the current general plan, right So those I mean potentially we could add more commercial or we could we could change some commercial to residential whatever it is those numbers could change and then and that's that's kind of what I'm thinking is because when I look at this we'd still have quite a bit of undeveloped land. And now that there's more homes, it's very different from five years ago. think there's probably some areas where it could make a huge difference for those neighborhoods to ensure that it's zoned correctly or the general plan has the right designation for the future use and I know even you know you look at Holbrook and how the initial concept versus how it changed repeatedly over time right I think that that kind of affects certain areas where maybe we do want to add some commercial that's currently designated as residential in the general plan so I think personally I would be in favor of at least having a discussion on where we want to start and how comprehensive we want to go and then depending on that discussion I think it would guide us in okay how much budget do we want to put toward this in the coming year

Can I say something? So something that's important to me, and I think a lot of residents, is water. And I know you listed the different elements, and I think water's integrated in there. And I know at the state level, there's an adjudication process going on where they're seeing how much water do you actually use, and do you need, and can you return some of that? Because what has been found is that the water rights don't always match up with the physical water that we have and I think that we've this has been discussed at state levels that also like our level and to me that's important to try to get a good hold on before maybe I see that as kind of as a precursor before redoing the general plan just because The reality of our water might change some of this. We've talked about this with the, we went to that conference with the Growing Water Council. Yeah, and the Water Council. I mean, what are your thoughts on that?

That was my perception. No, I think that was one of the big takeaways from that conference was that there's a little bit, well, not a little bit, a disconnect between land use planning and our water planning. We need to make sure that they, yeah, that we have the water to supply what we're planning for for residential and commercial growth.

One thing I've always wished on that front, too, is having a little more, I guess, help from the state. Because sometimes it's like, all right, guys, putting all this housing, but then, well, you've got to figure out your water yourself. So we know there's going to be certain growth, and we need some help in figuring this out. Instead of sitting just kind of all in on our own.

Yeah. I know one of the main challenges is getting water up to the bench area, kind of the traverse area. Water flows with gravity, so everything has to be pumped up and then be able to flow down. And I found out that we're one of the only cities with our fire hydrants on pressurized irrigation. Which, yeah, just changes things a lot. Anyways, we have to have bigger pipes for that than we would have otherwise. So I just think it's something to consider and think about. And I don't know how we can get a good grasp of that. But I know that's a future goal I've talked to the water department about to kind of be able to figure that out.

I may be able to provide some kind of guidance on that. I think it was just three weeks ago that I met with our water rights attorney. And we met with the state engineer about water rights. And so I got a much better idea as to how comfortable they feel about our water rights. I believe we also have a meeting that we're trying to set up with the state engineer and Dave Norman and I to go up and meet with them also. The general feeling that I got from the state when I met with the state engineer is that we are solidly placed with respect to our water rights. But one of the things that we need, one of the things we are checking into is to making sure that we continue with our build out within the city you know following the general plan and the zoning ordinances that is that we're that we're getting enough water as these new developments come in you know each development that comes in we require them to bring water to the table and so that's something that we're checking into even kind of more feverishly just to make sure that we're getting the right amount And so we are continually meeting with them. I do agree that it's important for us to look into, but it was just really comforting to meet with the state and feel like that we felt like that from their standpoint, Lehigh was, we were solid and that we just need to make sure that we kind of continue along the same process of making sure that our developers bring the water that they need to per our general plan, so.

So with the density maps that you have, especially mixed use, are you keeping a running count of – because we change things around, right?

Yeah, there have been a few. We've moved units here and there. Yeah, this map has been updated, this one right there. It has or – It has. I grabbed this out of the – off. original text and I should have grabbed but there is an updated one yeah yeah we are keeping tally in fact we've moved a couple of the ones downtown out to that little project on 1100 West anyways there hasn't been major shifts in the units but we are keeping tally so we don't over allocate yeah and then so the next question then it kind of relocating your use

How much of an impact, does it depend on the area or can we shift the density around? How does that impact our infrastructure, our plans for what's in there, our plans? I mean, I've seen over time drastic shifts, right, or additions or whatever, but. Yeah. I mean, can we do that, like maybe the 500 units from the village, whatever it was called,

Pioneer Village, yeah.

Yeah. Moving those somewhere else, I mean, is that going to impact our sewer system, water, and electrical?

Yeah, that's a great point. And it sounds like Brad might have an answer to this as well. But yeah, I know we couldn't just, for example, move those 500 units over to the east side of town. It's got to stay within the same, you know, where the same trunk line for sewer is probably the biggest critical thing. But Yeah, we'd have to look at that if we were going to move things around.

Yeah, we do definitely need to use great care when we start shifting things. As we've seen these come in, we get really concerned, right? I mean, the sewer and water systems that we have now are currently sized for the densities in these areas, and these are the areas that we've kind of run the models and checked to make sure that they work. So our guidance would be that we use a lot of care and that we move them very judiciously. We can't just willy-nilly say, oh, we're going to move them from the village up to Traverse Mountain area, for example. You know, all these areas, they're served by different sewer lines, so we have to be really careful in doing that. But I think it is important to note that though we're not talking ADUs and DADUs here, we do have, you know, we have some variability in our utility systems and they are designed to handle, for example, ADUs. But definitely, we need to be careful in how we move any density and where we move it. Because that was a big part of what we discussed when we worked on these plans. We had extensive conversations with the planners as we started looking at the maximum densities we could put in these areas. And a lot of these densities were controlled by utilities.

I guess you brought up ADUs, and that got my brain moving a little bit. So how does that count toward? I mean, if you have an ADU that's occupied, people are living there, it's essentially adding to the density. It's a whole new unit that takes toll on sewer and everything else. So is that counted against these units that have already been allocated?

I know with utility planning, they've estimated, so they've basically taken this general plan map and ran their models and said, okay, you know, for example, the VLDRA is 2.5 units per acre, let's say, for example. But when they modeled it, they've assumed that Is it one and a half?

Yeah, an additional 50% could potentially be developed in the areas where we do have ADUs allowed. Those are really rough numbers, but generally speaking, we've considered that if we have an area that's developed, a certain percentage of that may develop into an ADU. A certain number of the units could and likely would develop as ADUs. And so we have used rough numbers like that.

Yeah, that makes sense. Just because I know the state has been pushing legislation on ADUs and making it kind of across the state so that cities can't restrict them too much. So I was just curious. So thank you.

Yeah. We can still restrict them on 6,000 square foot or less so that a lot of the medium and high density, you don't have to worry about it, at least today.

Any other questions? Thank you.

Sorry, just a comment. Personally, I would like to take a look at maybe some minor updates at least and If we dig into it and see we need to rehaul it or whatever, then go that direction. But my personal feeling is a lot of things coming towards us, there's still some conflicting zones. So I'd like to look at those and see if there's some kind of solution there so we don't have to always go to development agreements. So I'd like to take a look at it. That's my thought.

Yeah, we're happy to do what, if you want, I'm thinking maybe a work session dedicated or at least partially to, we could start diving a little bit deeper into, okay, this goal, what are our strategies? Do you like these or not?

The map of GPS, do you want to get a closer look? Or GPS, GIS. Yeah. Do you want to take a closer look and make notes and stuff in there?

So this was a question I had kind of passed up, but the goals and strategies, To me, and I haven't read the whole thing, so I don't know them all, but there are some that I felt kind of conflict where you want lifecycle housing where it's a mix and they can just live there and go to different types of housing versus how does high-density housing impact very low-density housing and having it right next to each other, there's that compatibility issue. So to me, it kind of conflicts and it It might be good to iron that out or figure that one out. But I think that would be great to look at each of them or have more of a discussion. And maybe as a council, we can take a look at it and see what we think needs, how to approach it best, I guess, minor update versus more comprehensive. Yeah, I think that would be helpful for me.

Okay. One other thing, too, is just keep in mind there's a lot of nuance in this, too. So sometimes if something does conflict, it might be good to clarify what we mean by certain things. So, you know, you don't want, like, a 10-story farm building next to a house, for example, but maybe there's ways to still get that lifecycle housing without such a big difference in the way it's built.

That'd be great. So how... Does the goals and strategies influence, where does that influence come in? Is it staff level when applicants come to you and you kind of talk them through things? I know it probably should be something, our findings of fact, how it adheres to the general plan, maybe a little more specific. The specific goals might be appropriate to bring up then.

Yeah, I think mostly when we really try and look at these as if we have a general plan amendment. And then this will help give us maybe some direction. Or what was the other example I was thinking? If there is a general plan amendment, we try and identify what are the related goals and strategies. If it's property already zoned, if they already have a development right, then we just accept an application for a site plan or a subdivision. But it's really at the time of zone changes, making sure it complies with the policies or if they're trying to amend the general plan would be the main times that we look at this. Or conversations with developers. Like I said, it was developers that reached out to staff and said, hey, what is it? what do you think the city's response would be if we wanted to put this higher intensity and we were able to go to this and say well this is the adopted policies related to that so good point too as well like look our plans is we have more of a tod focus so putting all the density in the environment sensitive area doesn't make sense and we were able to point to the plan so the

Goals and strategies basically guide the policy, whether it's somebody else proposing the policy, basically trying to change general plan, or it's just us as staff and council working together, like, hey, we see this goal, we'd love to work on a code amendment to work towards that, and that can guide us as well. Okay. Thank you.

I just have a request. If we do do that work session, if you could come, if it's not too much to ask, I don't know how much the GPS map takes, but if you could find those incompatible use areas on our current general plan and highlight them, and we could work through them and talk through each of them. I don't know if that is possible or is practical, but that would be super helpful because I Also would love to address that and get away as much as possible from the development agreements. But if we could see it visually and go through and kind of see the areas and talk through them, it might be a little bit more productive.

What we would need is maybe a little direction on what you think the capabilities are. Incompatible is? Like if it's heavy commercial next to residential directly, you can just apply a little buffer and just see wherever it overlaps residential. If you want to go farther than just next door, we could look at that too. So it kind of depends on what you guys want us to put, but it's not hard at all to put it on the map.

Okay. Okay. Yeah, I would say anything heavy commercial or industrial near residential is an alarm for me. I mean, do you guys like that idea? And do you have any other incompatible uses you want them to look at?

I think that's a big thing. Also, I think transition zoning with residential. too i know there are some plans that have come through that are awesome where you have it's integrated really well and it's planned well to be able to have this life cycle housing but there's other ones where maybe it doesn't make us yeah and where it's hard like we're going from half acre lots to to high density right next to it i think there needs to be more transition so i i think if if we're looking if you're using the gis to go and say like we need to have Here's maybe some rules that there could be a transition from residential to commercial if there's proper planning, but not residential to heavy commercial, those kind of things. I was just going to say, too, from going back and during that time before the general plan was implemented and watching city council meetings, It was almost like they were shooting from the hip every time. Somebody would come in. They'd have a request. It's like trying to figure out, well, maybe this is where we're planning. And then it was almost like night and day when that general plan passed and went into place. And developers were still coming through. They were still wanting to change their planned low density to high density. But it was never going through because that was such a solid piece that everybody was operating from. But I think I agree with the heartburn that we're feeling now that maybe they were feeling back before 2022 is we kind of have some of these non-transition zones where things just don't feel as compatible. And maybe it's hard for us to really know what is compatible and what can be mitigated versus, but yeah. And maybe if we just come up with some of those rules of these are zones that can naturally transition because there's some, Busy roads, I don't really like the idea of putting residential on to Main Street or residential on to State Street. I want to have some kind of buffer there, but I don't want to have some kind of industrial, heavy commercial usage thinking that it's buffering. Yeah, if that's not too much to ask, I appreciate it.

Give you a road to run up. We'll work a session together. Perfect. Thank you. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay, 3.2, Lehigh City Master Plan, Transportation Plan, Overview Status Report, Discussion Regarding the Update. Mr. Brad.

Okay, let's see if we can get this to... Okay, thank you, Mayor and Council. Last week, I was made aware that you would like to have at least some form of an update as to where we are on our transportation master plan. So I put this together. I don't have 23 slides like the planners did, so sorry. I just have this one. Much like what Kim talked about, a lot of what we do with this plan is related to the map. And generally speaking, when I look at the general plan map, I'm looking at Kim's map that shows the density. It doesn't show the densities, but it's showing me where all the different zones are. So this is kind of our guidebook in the transportation world. This is our transportation master plan map. So I put together some proposed changes that we're looking at as part of our transportation master plan update. And I'll just go through some of these. This is slightly different than the one that I submitted as part of the packet, and I'll be able to explain why in a moment. But let me just start probably on some of the easier sections along the southern section of the city. 300 East was originally planned to tie into 1900 South. This section between 1630 South and 1900 South runs right past Dragonfly Park. And also a few things have changed with the way that UDOT has reconfigured Pioneer Crossing. And so with those changes, we are proposing to take the connection from Third East down to 1900 South off the map. Currently, UDOT has changed 300 East so that it's a right in, right out off of Pioneer Crossing. And so we're feeling that there's not that need to tie that roadway down and that we want to concentrate the traffic onto Center Street. And so we're proposing to take this small section off. I remember probably three months ago, we also talked about this subdivision, I think it was called Spring Meadows, where you granted as much as an extra 10 units of density for them to dedicate that property down through there. So we do expect a connection there, but not that it would be an arterial connection like we show here. It's more of a local connection onto the roadway. So we are proposing that change. Another change we're proposing is to change the section of 700 South. This road used to, before Pioneer Crossing came in, the road used to connect over to 850 East and go across. I think that's probably something that we've missed on our last connection. There's no reason for this to be a collector roadway. It doesn't go anywhere. It ends in a cul-de-sac at the gas regulator station. So we're proposing to change this to a local road cross section only. The other thing that changes this one, remember the front runner double track? Comes through here. It takes a significant portion of where we would put that road So we have negotiated with them. They will be putting in curb and gutter And a trail section along the railroad so so it seemed to make sense that we run that as a local road instead and Also, as we go up to Trinnaman Lane, as Trinnaman Lane ties on to 900 North, currently it ties in and we kind of have that dangerous, almost five-way intersection. We've met with our traffic engineers and wondered whether we could put a five-lane type of a roundabout situation right there. And the guidelines from them is that that would not be advisable just because of the high volumes of traffic, specifically on 9th North going eastbound and the North and South Lakes on 5th West. So we're proposing more of a change to kind of swing Trinnaman Lane and tie it in at Leo Lane. So that's just to fix those safety concerns that we have there.

And that smaller section will go away?

This small intersection, yeah, the small leg off of Turnamon would go away, yeah. So it would become a four-leg intersection just north and fifth west. We've currently sought for appraisals on that parcel that's on the southwest corner to at least purchase the right-of-way, and I think we'll probably come to you in our next budget cycle to make those roadway improvements along there. It'll just be, just so that we can get sidewalk along the south side of 9th North to 5th West. I think BJ has felt like this is probably our most, one of our most dangerous intersections in the city. This is where the four-way stop sits now that was recently installed. And kids walk to school along there. Yeah. So we want to do what we can to get curb gutter and sidewalk there. But right now, we're just working to buy the property and would probably come to you next year for some money. It would be one of our budgeted projects, I believe. What was that?

Have we also applied for a grant for Safe Routes?

We have in the past in this area, and it has not been granted. Actually, I think most of our grants have been on the east side of 500 West. So that's a good option we could apply for. We are looking to apply for Safe Routes to School in this next round along 17th West and 3rd North. But that project is already on the master plan. So that's probably going to be our highest priority, to see if there's a school there. Also, this change right here, this just brings our plan into compliance with what we're currently doing. This 1850 North road widening, the city completed, and we're waiting for UDOT to put in the signal right there. That was to fix this very dangerous intersection of State Street and tournament where we closed that down this past year, so that's a change. We're looking to make there We move over to our cross sections oh in that course of time We've generally on some of our major arterials and our major collectors We've had 14-foot two-way left turn lanes on these roadways. And after looking at these a little bit more in depth, we feel like that we can change these two-way left turn lanes to 12-foot instead of 14-foot. We wouldn't change the width of the road, but it allows us to put a shoulder stripe along the side of the road, which tends to keep the traffic away from the sidewalks on the side. helps you feel, and I think it truly does help our pedestrians feel more safe along the roadway. So those are some changes that we're looking to make. We wouldn't make it on all of the major arterial roadways. We would still, on these higher speed major arterials, And principal arterials, we'd still keep the wider two-way left turn lanes because we still have higher percentages of truck traffic and higher speeds. But in those major collectors and smaller arterials, that's what our proposal would be. 2300 West, for example, is one of those that we would propose to restripe with a one-foot shoulder along the entire road, which kind of keeps the traffic more centered in the roadway and away from the curb and gutter. You see we have we've I've presented this in the past to you This 2300 West going underneath the railroad tracks we proposed to bump that up to a six-lane cross-section and in doing so because of the existing UP and UTA About months we would need to remove the sidewalks in In that case, the good part is that front runner trail that Mike's talked about in the past is funded. We're looking to get that project started. It's federally funded, but we would definitely have pedestrians off that busy road. I'm not sure how many of you have been on that road, but it's kind of scary. Yes, did you have a question?

Yeah, I have pondered this particular idea since we had the discussion a couple of months ago. And every time I drive it, which is almost daily, I just get so much anxiety imagining those sidewalks gone, not necessarily for the pedestrians, but more for traffic calming reasons. And just imagining six lanes down there.

I'm worried.

Is there an example somewhere in Salt Lake County or Utah County? I mean, I'll go to Davis County where I could see a similar concept in action. I guess maybe I'm just overly worried.

With the vehicles that close to the abundance?

That close together and at those speeds with that kind of congestion.

We have looked at some of those situations. And so when we bring this back to you, I'll do my best to remember to bring some of those examples to you. We had the same concerns, right? I mean, we could design it, but what other options do we have and what other examples do we have? So we do have some examples where barriers are close.

And if you have an opportunity to shoot me over a couple of things, I'm happy to take some time on a weekend to go drive them and just see how they are. But, yeah, I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

I'll just add for that. Like, since we had that discussion, all of a sudden I start noticing pedestrians on that road, right? When I go past where before I just didn't notice them, obviously. I think, and I personally got some feedback after our last discussion from several people that do walk that. So I think if it's the trail, I'm just thinking of that neighborhood on the southwest side of the train tracks where if we want to encourage people to walk to the train station or to the college or in that general direction, I just wonder if we can come up with Maybe a couple other options on how to, I don't know if it's pedestrian bridge or whatever it is, to get people so they're not taking a 20-minute detour where before they could just walk along the sidewalk and get directly there.

Yeah, we can look into that a little bit more. Oh, yeah, come on up, Mike.

I was just going to say, as part of the bike-ped plan, there are some ideas to look at some other alternative routes as well, just kind of like what you're saying. So we've been kind of reviewing that internally to see what it would take. In the ideal world, if you can what we call disentangle the primary road from where people are walking or biking, that's the best-case scenario. In some cases, it's hard if the road's the most direct path, so you'd need to provide some other kind of direct path to go. That's definitely something we can look at with the bike pet plan.

OK, just moving on. We've talked in the past about the removal of Clubhouse Drive from the plan. So that is being planned, as well as removing this roadway coming off of 2700 North as a collector roadway. in more in favor of the of the what we were calling the point of the mountain connector arterial versus the freeway You will notice that I'm different from the map that I showed you and showed in your packet that that roadway showed in the packet showed both the option A and the option B, or maybe it was, I think we called them option one, option two, right? The reason I have pulled that off, at least for this discussion, is related to a meeting that the mayor and I and our traffic engineer had at MAG. So MAG is working on their 2055 Regional Transportation Plan. In that meeting today, we had representatives from Camp Williams, Bluffdale City, UDOT, UTA, and Mountainland Associations of Governments. Specifically Camp Williams stressed how important it was that they felt like what we called option two should be the option versus the option that kind of came through this area right here. They're concerned about that they have the Memorial Park up there that's just north that's in this area right here. Yeah, right in here. So they own property on both sides of where this corridor was planned to go through. Maybe I can let the mayor speak, but the overwhelming feeling that I had was it needs to be in this location right here, particularly with Camp Williams support only of this option. But maybe you can weigh in, Mayor.

Sure, there's actually some security issues with Camp Williams. With option one, they're still looking at it. Option two is obviously better for them, but there are some security issues with nature to the base, with the road going through the middle of the... I don't know what you'd call it, face, I guess. So there's some talk about that right now. It's still very, very conceptual by design. They're going to start looking at some of these things to kind of pull through at this point in time. That's the concept, but there's no hard line onto any of it. They'll start looking at and pulling some of those through, but there is some security issues with Camp Williams that will come into play based on roads down the road.

Mayor, if I may, I just want to chime in. And obviously, I think it's been made clear through public comment informally, as we've held no formal comment, that the neighborhood around here would prefer option one strongly. And I've had neighbors in that neighborhood tell me that they will fight option two harder than they fought Clubhouse Drive. So that's reflective of that area and the way in which they feel. So I just want that information to be shared with the council as well as the team here.

And honestly, the mayor and I also voiced those concerns that the residents had, that even though these on a map may look like the best options, but we do have a great deal of public interest. outcry against the option two so we did we did share that with them but at this point in time I think we are we are high level we do need to work through the details so thank you for you didn't need to remind me of that but I appreciate that right I mean that that's definitely on our minds as we do the design too

Yeah, and thanks for sharing the message with Camp Williams. I appreciate that.

Yeah. Also, you'll notice that a slightly different change on the transportation plan would be the inclusion of this roadway here that's on the Wasatch Regional WFRC. I'm trying to – I have to think about what that means. But the WFRC plan shows – they call this the – sorry, they have a connection to Port Rockwell. So they also call it the Point of the Mountain Connector Road. This is on their regional plan. It makes sense that we would put it on ours. The biggest challenge right now that we see, and we're trying not to get in the weeds too much on the exact layout of how these tie together, but Geneva Rock owns this property. The Clyde Company owns this property here. They have master plans that have to be taken into account. So these are very high-level conceptual drawings as to where these roads would go And then you'll notice that on the other side of I-15 on the other side of the new interchange I've also shown this connection to Traverse Mountain Boulevard this more closely matches the connection that's shown on the transit orient development plan that came through what was that called exactly Kim the other North Lehigh yeah the TOD so anyways that this line on the map kind of more closely represents what they showed on that plan so I'm including it on this one is that is that green line would that come along with a full interchange or could that be built out

TO A EAST SIDE ONLY INTERCHANGE INITIALLY?

IT COULD BE, BUT BUILDING THAT OUT, IT WOULDN'T TIE INTO ANYTHING, RIGHT? WITHOUT AN INTERCHANGE, THERE'S NOT A ROADWAY INTERSECTION FOR IT TO TIE INTO. SO MY GUESS IS THEY WOULD COMPLIMENT EACH OTHER WHAT?

You are talking tying it into I-15, right, is an exit. Yeah. But you could only go to Traverse. You couldn't go west. Yeah.

As a phased approach, that could possibly be done. We somewhat did that when we essentially forced UDOT to build this interchange right here at Triumph, right? We built the road to both ends.

and it kind of forced them to take that into account as an interchange and which is part of it so that's a good point yeah it could be a phased approach to help push udot to get the interchange yeah and all of our traverse residents further up the hill you live i mean it's you're going through some pretty narrow roads i mean it's a long drive all the way around it would probably relieve quite a bit of traffic on sr92 as well which is a great thing but

So, bottom line, these are just some really high-level changes that we're looking to make in the Transportation Master Plan. Yes.

Oh, I just was wondering if we could remove the X's from the future I-15 freeway-to-freeway connector. I know that it feels impractical or maybe impossible due to funding, but I'm aware of conversations happening at a state level for creatively funding mechanisms that could possibly work. And so I would hate for Lehigh to remove it from our plan and signal out that we've given up when there are things happening that could make it possible.

So based on what we heard today with all of the major players from both UDOT, UTA, UP, Camp Williams, Bluffdale, Bluffdale does not support this plan for the freeway to freeway corridor. And a good portion of that is actually in Salt Lake County. It's in Bluffdale City. So they are not supportive of it. I don't know what your thoughts are, Mayor.

Yeah, that's exactly right. So it falls on the Salt Lake County side of jurisdiction. And I can see where Councilmember Lockhart's talking about it. Because it's associated with them, I don't know that we just remove it from our side showing no Xs. But obviously, it's a dotted road. It may or may not ever happen. According to a meeting today, it's probably not going to happen simply based on cost. But Councilmember Lockhart, I can understand why there's whether it's private funding and people looking at it. From the government side right now, it's zero, depending on how the private sector pulled it. I can understand what she means there with just removing the X and leaving the dotted road as a potential, but again, it's just potential.

I think part of the concern, too, is with both MAG and WFRC working on their 2055 plans, the freeway-to-freeway is not supported, and I'm positive they won't keep it on the plan. um so it seems very unlikely or it doesn't seem wise for us to keep those on that keep that on there when it's not supported by the by the rtp plan we can't get funding for it we wouldn't be able to get any quarter preservation funds for it if it's not on their rtp plan so my recommendation is still that we remove it may i ask a follow-up sure so um when there's you know 500 000 people west of redwood road

will they support it then right so i i think that at some point they may not be able to oppose it um and so i i don't know i i i hear you and and i totally like i hold space for that while also saying that lehigh should signal out that we need help and that we at some point something is going to have to give But I know you know more context.

Again, I think remembering that we do have some major changes to the RTP plan that we are still proposing, and those are being worked through with the PEL study. Currently we still very strongly support and feel the need for the future offshore freeway Which is what we feel like that we will help solve this problem Yeah, I don't disagree with your question, but I think that's the that's the purpose here is we're thinking and mags thinking 2055 and beyond and so the feeling is that this may be part of it as part of that Pell study, but again, I I would just I guess I just need your direction from the council, but I just don't know how I can put a plan, put a roadway on a plan that's not supported by MAG or WFRC, particularly when I know a good portion of the reasoning for that is that that road, I think Eric Rasband, who did the study, reported that that was a $3.5 billion roadway. And he told us today that it could be another 500,000 or a million, or sorry, 500 million or a billion on top of that for ancillary roads on the outsides. So, I mean, just remember, I think UDOT's operating budget in Utah is something like 2.5, 2.6 billion. So this would be a roadway that would be one and a half times what their yearly operating budget would be for all roadways and maintenance. But anyways, I... I don't mean to argue the point, but it's just hard for me to feel from Lehigh's standpoint that we can put a roadway on a map that's not supported by our regional representatives or UDOT.

Do we have an estimate then on the North Interchange Road? What do you see in that cost?

Yeah, we haven't done those studies to determine what it would be, but My guess is that it's probably less than a billion to do the roadway and the interchange and everything. Those are just throwing numbers out, but I think it's even less than that, but we don't know for sure.

So the key to remember in the new connection, you can build a grade, which takes the majority of the cost out. The connection to connection, you cannot build a grade. That's part of the issue. So this road that you're looking at, Brad and I went to today, they can build that entire road at grade. and they only have to build one bridge over the Jordan River. So there's major cost savings when you start breaking it down that way versus the 3.5. Virtually it's $4.5 billion to build that because there's going to be additional artillery roads that would have to tie into that, basically a sky over connection. So that's where the costs then come into play is, When you can build a road at grade versus a road up, that'll help. Now, with the PEL study, and I was going to ask this, did I interrupt?

No, I think that's an important piece to talk about.

So my question, Brad, and you may have some insight on this, as the PEL study is completed, some of these will naturally update through that study as information then comes out, right? And that study begins January of next year, as they have now already started combining all that. They will start digging in, I believe, January, February, March.

Actually, I think we started our meetings, our collaborative meetings between the cities this month.

Wow. Okay. So we're there. So more information as this starts to tie into the north end of the county and transportation. These will become far more realistic as we start to have those discussions as the group at the table will start to drive some of those decisions into the future.

And just one comment. So just looking at 700 south, does that extend so the blue highlight, that's eventually going to extend?

Oh, that's a good point. We should make sure that we – I'll put that on there. That's what we call phase two of the sudden south cycle track, so I'll add that one in there too. Okay. I'll do that offline, but thanks for pointing that out. Yeah, well, I live there, so I always – I mean, we show it on the side. On the other side, this is what we consider phase three. This is the section, Phase 3 is the section that was approved through MAG this year for funding in four years. This section that you're talking about where we extend 7th South over and then tie it into the Jordan River Trail, I believe that one, we probably can start design on that one in January.

Yeah, and that'll relieve especially the connection from 7th to Pioneer. That's going to relieve a lot of traffic.

Well, it's not a roadway connection. It's just a cycle track. The expansion, yeah.

Yeah. And then, yeah, just the other issue with the previous option two, I mean, I know it's just kind of highlighted, right, just kind of as a concept right now. But I would be interested to kind of figure out maybe, you know, even if generally that direction is where it's going, it goes south, As soon as it hits neighborhoods in Holbrook, I just want to see if there's any other options. Because I know on the south end of... Are you talking the roadway now?

Yeah.

Okay, sorry. Yeah, so once you start hitting neighborhoods, I think that's where I'm concerned as well, just because... The neighbors don't like it, and it really feels more like a regional connection than a local traffic relief solution at this point. And that's fine if it's regional or whatever we want to call it. It's just I don't want a regional connection to cause damage to property values and quality of life in that area. So I'm just curious, is there any flexibility on Camp Williams on that southern end of their property? Because I know the northern end, I think that's where they said no on option one, right? Because it just went straight through their property and part of Salt Lake County. But for the southern end, I'm just trying to think of any other creative solutions.

Yeah, as we were meeting with Camp, as we were in that meeting today, let me get my bearings here. Okay, yeah, so we're talking right here. Camp Williams was very, they wanted to make sure that we realized I'm not sure what's going on with my image. But there's a new building here. They have master plans for the buildings that are right here. And so they definitely have a vast majority of the planning done, or at least well underway in this area right here. So there's obviously a lot of coordination between Camp Williams, between the Clyde companies up in here. But anyways, they were quite allowed to make sure that we heard that they also have development potential and plans in their area. Maybe in the interest of time, if I could really quick go to one project that I forgot about. It's down here along Pioneer Crossing. We used to have on our plan this connection from Jordan Willows down to Pioneer Crossing. UDOT has since, with the flex lane changes that they have, they've moved this intersection over to this location. And so it's one of the reasons when we did Main Street, we installed the light right here on Riverway because we knew that we may be introducing a little bit more traffic here. So the plan would be to put this connection on this roadway as part of the map.

Is this where Saratoga extends over Pioneer Crossing?

Yeah, you can kind of see where they're.

That's Saratoga. Yeah, it is.

And what kind of road is that going to be? It's a collector roadway. It would be much like these other. I don't expect it to be an arterial by any means just because it doesn't have the connectivity north and south that other roadways do. So I'm showing it right now as a collector roadway.

And it's, I think, regional commercial zoned, right? Yeah, so it's going to have to be lower speed and friendly for future development. Okay.

Can I ask for the north part? It looks like you were talking about the Porter-Rockwell connector there. And then this part here, is that going around? It's pretty much going around Camp William, so it's going around the Holbrook area, not quite through it. Is that what I understand? Correct. Okay. So I really appreciate that, that it's taking that into account instead of going through subdivisions going around it. Something I was looking at, I also do know of some state-level discussions about this possible freeway-to-freeway connector. I don't know how to reconcile that with what's happening with UDOT and MAG at this point, but even if we take off the Xs or take out the label as a possible dotted line, I mean, that's not really completely in our jurisdiction, but I know that those conversations are happening as well. So I don't know how to reconcile that. I'm just saying...

just that's that's just something that you know I don't how that will work with legislators getting involved or not yeah I can just say that for example I've worked with mag for 18 years now I've been on the committee for the longest time I've chaired that committee attack committee and the thing that to me that's really important is to make sure that as as we're designing our roadways through the city that we have the ability to get them funded. Remember, as we fund these projects, remember, we're only paying 7% of the total cost. So a $100 million project, we're paying $7 million for. These roadways that we're getting funding from MAG, we're paying 7%. They're the cheapest roads we could ever build. And so I just feel a certain sense of duty to make sure that what we're doing matches their plans. Because without matching their plans, and we obviously are very, very much included in how they put their plans together, without having the ability to get these projects funded, they would never get built. Not that big of a project.

okay and i appreciate that um something down at the 700 south area where that said there's a local road only um i know uh if i'm oh this one right over here yeah if i'm referencing the general plan right that we just looked at and remembering right i think we had that zone that was a potential commercial zone so maybe that's just something for planning to look at too if we have you know reconsidering commercial right next to residential and possible access and whether we want to change it to neighborhood commercial or something, because is someone going to want to build commercial there? I'm just saying. Right now, there's no intersection at Pioneer, but I know there's a potential for 700 South to have one. It's on the plan. This isn't feedback for you, but this is just for planning. And then when I was looking at this, I kind of was, you know, it was a bit much. So I was kind of breaking it down to quadrants. And I just started with the northeast quadrant because that's what, that's where I started. So with the bike lanes, and I, this is just for future, I think, discussion. Maybe we look at, look at, reevaluate some of this. You know, along 3200 North, we have Sky Ridge High School. We have Petrobras. that are parking there. We have some condominiums and people that. And from what I understand, it's illegal to park in a bike lane. So if we institute bike lanes, we're effectively making it illegal for anyone to park along these routes, as well as the fact that there is a traffic circle. And I see it as really challenging to try to ride a bike around that. I don't know if I would want to take that risk. or my children to take the risk of that. And then just there's some other areas that I think if we are looking at this, we kind of look a little bit closer at where the bike lanes are sort of. I mean, I think that a roundabout is a struggle to have a bike lane at. I think that if we're going to be taking away parking and then we're possibly looking at parking code violations coming up, things like that, where a kid's driving their parents or parking their parents' vehicle, they get a ticket because they parked in the bike lane, and then we're making it a Class C misdemeanor because they didn't pay it and they didn't tell their parents that they had it for 15 days. Like, I mean, there's just some ramifications there, I just think, to look at and consider maybe, like, if we're looking at a shared use path option or the fact that we have the Murdoch Canal Trail or, because I know that if we were doing a similar thing, you know, We're looking at the high schools that have some parking issues. That's something we're looking at. I just want us to carefully consider the bike lane placement with some of these issues. So anyways, yeah.

You heard bike lane, and you came up like liars.

I was going to say, there's a lot of ideas of how we can deal with this, and I'd definitely like to talk through some of that as part of the bike-ped plan, especially the transportation plan, I think, just reflected what the bike-ped plan had shown. So I think it would be great to go through, because there's a lot of roads in town that we're going to have to think about the best way to do it. And I hate always going at things that it's either this or this, but maybe there's ways to accommodate all kinds of needs rather than one versus the other. But it's not always possible. But I have thought a lot about 3200 and other roads in town. I think there's some options we could consider. But, yeah, I totally agree with the point and figure out how we can do that.

Well, yeah, and just like 300 West, a lot of, The east side of that is just a fence. But on the west side, you have a lot of homes. And I was driving there looking at this thinking, all these people couldn't park a car out anywhere if we have a bike lane there, which is a fact. And so, yeah, I guess that's a different discussion, kind of. That's the bike ped plan. But I don't know if it's integrated into the master transportation plan. It's just...

Yeah, I think there comes a time sometimes when we have to decide that yes, we're going to now enforce the plan that we have and parking may not be available where it has been available in the past. Currently, 3200 North is a prime example that we with 3200 North not having been built out for the longest time and now it's probably more built out to where it could be striped as per this plan. I think that The discussion needs to be had. We need to make the decision to some degree. Are we going to enforce the bike lanes and not allow the parking or vice versa? Right? It's hard. It's a hard decision.

You've got a lot of high school kids you're going to have to deal with. Yeah, I know. You're going to park in the neighborhood. Is that all, Rachel? Yeah. OK. So just a couple of questions I have. I call it the clubhouse drive alternative. Are we still doing a study on that before? Can we get the study done before we put it on the plan?

The study, we talked this morning in our meeting that there's a fair amount of money that we could seek and get assigned to this so that we could study it. I suppose it's a possibility that we could do that study before we update this plan. it just delays how long it takes for us to get this plan adopted. But we talked about different ways we could get it funded. We could get started on that design.

So what would this study entail? My understanding is it would give us better numbers. Because right now, I mean, it's easy to throw out, oh, no, this road's going through the neighborhood. But we don't know much about it. I think it was a little premature to To talk about it at this point, we don't know the numbers, and it looks like one of the connectors has taken off. So the claim that 8,000 trips per day are going through the Holbrook Farms neighborhood doesn't seem like it's going to happen. I guess I just thought that study would give us more numbers, or was that study just looking at the two options? And since one is pretty much off the table, I'm just going to go with this one.

Yeah, I think the study would determine the best options for for this roadway in this basic alignment and the design options we could do to mitigate some of these challenges we're talking about. Whether it's talking about what could we do to limit access so that we don't have four different local roads trying to access this major roadway. would help us determine some of that so the study would determine that yes the study would help us determine the availability for access or no access onto the roadway and would help us determine the more secured alignment of where it could be as well as anticipated costs it would also give us the opportunity to work with Camp Williams specifically and Clyde Company specifically to see how this roadway would be aligned to, you know, to work through all of the different concerns we have, whether it be the Hoboken residents or the Hardman residents, right, the future Hardman or Camp Williams or Clyde Companies.

So my thought on this is we can do an update and then after that study we can choose to add this or not. I know Clubhouse Drive, originally the road, the extension through the neighborhood was added separately as like a standalone addition to the master transportation plan. So I'm wondering if we can go to that route. I would really like more information on that road before we put it on the plan.

This road here?

Yes. Option two. North Interchange. Connector. Or the interchange or? I'm reading the title. North Interchange, Redwoods.

wood road connector is that what you're calling this right yeah the the again this is the old plan so okay we we've always for the longest time we've planned on this new interchange here so i i'm just it's still intended to be a new interchange okay i just see this road as the alternative to clubhouse drive extension um but i are the alternative to the freeway to freeway connector yeah it's an alternative one way or another

Hopefully, I think it's kind of a better one than what Clubhouse Drive was. It's probably more the alternative to the freeway than it is Clubhouse, yeah. OK. That's my preference, I guess, is to get more information on that, work through those issues so that the residents can feel comfortable that it's going around their neighborhood, not right through it, as kind of has been presented. But I do have a question, well, a couple more questions. some of your discussions with camp williams were they willing to give up some of their property for this road they seem to be willing to give up some property or at least share in the property in the property dedication for that roadway yes okay and then the the connector going to puerto rockwell um i've seen that in past plans but that is that something that makes me nervous because i I can see that putting even more pressure on that road. Is that something we need to put on our plan, even if it's Salt Lake County or WFRC that wants it? I'm wondering if it's beneficial to us. Whether we should put it on or not.

Right now, I know it's on the WFRC plan coming right to the county line.

Does it have to be on ours? I mean, that's the thing. This changes a lot. And again, maybe that's why that study will be useful. But I get to see that people from not only our east-west traffic, right? Now we're going to have some north-south that would try to find the shortcuts through there is what I'm afraid of.

And from a standpoint of connectivity, which they pushed really hard in our meeting today, that that's very much desirable. You know, they have connectivity. They've done grid studies and connectivity studies that they feel like that this is a critical and crucial connection to have. So I guess your question to me is, could we just not include it?

Yeah. I mean, this is our Lehigh City master transportation plan. you you talked about other cities that didn't like the the freeway to freeway connector bluffdale didn't like it i don't know the reasons but um you know they fought against it is this i'm just seeing is this helpful for us is it something that we want on our plans that we're going to push for or not and maybe the study can help with that but i it just changes things a lot you know it adds so much more onto this road that i i'm concerned about now um

Yeah, that's something that, let me do this. Let me speak with our traffic consultants on this. We have talked to them briefly, and they did indicate that they did feel like that it would bring more traffic to this roadway, mainly in this section that goes between where the connection is and I-15. But I don't think there was a question as to whether they felt like this could at least bring some additional traffic. But again, we can work on that The other challenge that I see, when you mentioned, can we just move forward and not put this on the plan and continue with the Transportation Master Plan, my general feeling is that as we run the models, we need to be able to make sure that our Transportation Master Plan works with the models and that we're not creating or allowing failure. And I think that this would. Something either the freeway to freeway or this arterial I think we would definitely show failure in the city though that we wouldn't want to put on a plan Knowing that we're creating and allowing for failure, so I'd need to need to look at that and look at our options But so how long does this with the study take? Well the study of the roadway. It's more. I would imagine it's probably something if we get started We could probably get it. I would I hope in a year

How soon do you need the master transportation plan updated?

I don't know that there's any impetus to do it. We have to do it right now. We've done small little minor updates in the past without, for example, I think this update here to add the offshore freeway I think was done as a minor update. I don't know that we've just started it and we'd like to kind of come to the finish line on it. But what do you think, Jason? Is there any reason why we, that you know of? Again, I'm a little bit new in the position, right? With Lauren, I know he was working on it for a couple years. We had a lot of things that changed it by the time we started looking at front-runner double track and the 2100 North Freeway. But I'm just curious what your thoughts are, Jason, if you have any that that the transportation master plan needs to be adopted soon.

I don't know that that's the case. Yeah, I don't know that there's anything pressing other than, yeah, just to have a set direction to march in, you know, because some of these studies and other things need to come, need to start going. You know, we have funds set aside, so. Yeah. But no strict deadline, I would say.

Will it impact the Pell study at all?

I'm sorry, what was that?

If we, whether or not we update it, if we choose not to update it yet and wait for a study, the study results or information, does our master transportation plan affect the Pell study?

I don't believe so because the Pell study is already studying the corridors that we have on the plan.

Okay. Well, I was just going to say, like, if, I mean, you mentioned that Camp Williams is willing to give a little bit of land to be able to make this happen. I mean, if it's truly a regional connector, instead of having it come down and connect to 4200 West and go on to 2700 North, what if it's parallel? And so those neighborhood roads stay neighborhood roads. There's no way for cars to filter into it. And so you get off I-15, the next opportunity to get, you know, just connect straight to Redwood. Right? Does that make sense? So it's actually impossible, unless you go over the barrier, to actually feed into that neighborhood.

It's possible. I mean, we need to do the study. But, again, in the meeting today, Camp Williams was pretty firm saying, remember, we have our own master plans. We have buildings planned up against our eastern corridor. So, yeah, we'll work with you. But I didn't get any kind of indication that we could just move the roadway entirely on their property.

No, and quite honestly, that roadway is just drawn like that. There's been no, they just wanted to know at what point do we start to study this. So that by no reason is, I know we show it, I know Brad's put it on the map as that's the road. That is not the final product of the road. There will be input and a lot. This is a concept that's on the 2055 map. So I think we're probably getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. I think With MAG, MAG looking at it, and WFRC looking at it, I think now they have some directions in which way they can go with Camp William seated at the table, with UDOT seated at the table, and we're seated at the table. So there are some input that we can give. Council Member Harrison, I think that's And Councilmember Lockhart on that. Those are some instructions that we can give. But by no means is this, as it sits, it looks fixed. It's not fixed. And so as the studies begin, and again, we're a year or two, potentially maybe even three out from this even really getting started. And so with your question, Councilmember Stallings, I think there's some things that the Pell study will give. There's a lot of information that will be coming that will allow to stretch on this item. So again, it's not a hard road. There will be a lot of input moving forward on it. But anyway, that's based on the meeting Brad and I attended today. Sorry.

Just a word of caution with that. I've heard that before where it's just a line on a map and it's not set. with the clubhouse drive extension, but residents were fearful of it and concerned about it. In my mind, just fully so. I supported that. I came and spoke against that. I had concerns about it. I think that's why we need more information is to allay some of those fears, put them to rest. I think some information got out that isn't entirely correct or that we know at this time. So that's why I support doing a study. I think it's a great alternative. But we need more details, I think. And again, the residents were able to stop Clubhouse Drive Extension, and I supported that. But do you understand my concerns there?

Yeah, again, but I don't think you're going to get details for another year or two or potentially three. So I'm with you in your concerns for details. The details of when this will come are still very timely out. So with your concern to the road on the map, then, Brad, maybe we remove this from our transportation map at this point, seeing that it's still coming at some point. And then as it comes through MAG and as it comes through those studies, then we add it as information comes down the road.

I guess the concern that I have right now is that we're being pushed very hard by MAG as far as a regional transportation plan goes. And when we told them that the guidance that we had was to take Clubhouse off the map, they said, well, what are you going to do now then? And when UDOT provides their costing that the freeway is $3.5 billion, everyone says, oh, that's never going to happen. How are you going to get the traffic through? And so my concern is we're being pushed by WFRC and by MAG to at least comment on their plan.

Do they want to include it in their RTP?

Yes. They're proposing to include what we have talked about today on their RTP plan on the 2055.

So basically it's clubhouse drive or what this is. What the yellow line is, I'm not sure what to call it.

Option two. That's how the neighborhood goes.

There's not an option one, so it's the option. It's the option.

I do want to add some clarity. Council Member Stallings, I think, mentioned that this blue line with the red X, that is not the 8,000. from the option two. That is a different road completely. The 8,000 is still a part of the deeper dive of that orange line. That's what that 8,000 is, where his cursor is. So that red X on that blue line is not the 8000. And then it's really important. A couple of statements have been made that this orange line does not go through the neighborhood. And I just want to clarify. So 3600 West, which Clubhouse used to connect into, divides the neighborhood east and west. But 2700 North, that this thick orange line draws into and brings to Redwood Road, is That divides the neighborhood north and south. So when you bring that dark, thick orange line onto 2700 North, you are bringing regional traffic into the neighborhood for the north and south quadrants. So I think it's really important. And I'm happy to have you guys out there and show you the area. But you can think of Holbrook really as four quadrants. And we have two major roads that divide us up.

So I just want you guys to see that. I get that. Well, I just think of like, you know, again, 3200 North looking here, I mean, or you have SR 92, like, yeah, you potentially have that bringing traffic to those neighborhoods. However, The way that it's designed, it kind of bypasses people's backyard sort of thing instead of actually, it might be bringing traffic to you, but it's not directly cutting through. Do you know what I mean? So it's a little different of bringing traffic versus cutting through.

I mean, yeah, I just think it's different. Yeah, it's not one road. It's two major roads, five lane, big roads. that will be cutting through Holbrook, and Holbrook will be taking all that regional traffic.

And then it'll help Holbrook also, too, to be able to get out in some of these other neighborhoods, potentially, because some of them, like, we don't want to be in a position either where these people are stuck without a place to get out. That's a concern to me, is we want to create opportunities for them. I know, you know, you see some of these frontage roads along I-15 crossroads, And people here at Thanksgiving Point are trying to use some of those because it's difficult to access. I've seen some people from Traverse use the frontage roads. So there's some opportunities there because if we're only relying really on 2100 North and potentially Mountain View, there's just some other opportunities that we might need to have as this gets developed. That's just what I see.

So I'm looking at the map right now and I see... Kemp Williams is to the north of the road. It goes around Holbrook Farms. It does not go through it. It goes around it. So again, I get your point. We need solutions, right? I mean, just looking at some of the past transportation studies, 2100 north is going to fail at 3600 west. So just for the sake of Holbrook Farm residents, we need a solution for them. And this, to me, seems like a much better solution than the Clubhouse Drive extension and option two, or the freeway-to-freeway connector, which probably aren't feasible at all or buildable. So I'm not saying I don't support this, but I think the residents deserve to know really what it entails and get some good information on it so they can feel comfortable and not end up having to feel like they have to go to MAG and protest it and all that sort of thing. So that's where I'm coming from. It's not that I'm not supportive of it. I just like more information. And I think the residents deserve that as well. I think it would be helpful for them.

So I can see on this, on 2700 North and 4200 West, that there's not a ton of residents, but they are, and it would feel really close. to that road so I can understand the concern of something where it's pretty quiet right there to then have a road. But I don't know if there's something, I really like going back to what James said originally, like how can we show the buffering and, you know, it's almost like I just want to cut diagonally through the EVO range, you know, and it just kind of like cut right around them. But something where, I don't know if it's frontage roads or some other kind of solutions, because I know that we want to help support this area, but I also don't want to be fighting battles that aren't even the battle to fight. Like we're already arguing against potential things and how it's going to impact. And we don't even know because we don't have the studies to do it. So I'm also leaning towards what Michelle brought up too, that, It's hard to put it on and then you get the public outcry when you don't even have the lines drawn up of what it should be. So if we're going to put a line on there, I'd drive it through the EVO range. Almost like this is where it's going to go. We're going to add a lot of buffering. This is what we're solutioning to do. Yeah, but I'm just like, you know what I mean?

That was a major part of the challenge with option one is... Camp Williams is not supported going through option one. And can you imagine us trying to condemn through the federal government? It just doesn't happen, right? And they've been very clear that they're supportive of what we called option two, running along the edge of their development, you know, along the edge of their property.

They're not okay with this coming in with so many feet and just being able to curve it and give us some buffering to the property.

According to them this morning, they are developing that just so you know that EV car range or the track there is their property. They are developing that entire portion. With the moving of Fort Douglas to Camp Williams, all that will be developed into their buildings. They're also building their entrance into the base will be off of 2700 North. So it will be no longer down Fredwood Road.

So it will be no longer coming into that corner one way or another. Right. Roads are coming. To the corner, correct. To the corner of that area. If this area is now going to be more developed than just a range, then there's going to be more coming here no matter what. Correct.

And that's why I think if the residents understood, had all the information, or even that much, that they understood, you're going to get traffic through your neighborhood with this entrance, but this road might alleviate some of that. I think it would. So I just think The more information, the better for the residents.

Well, I can support that. The more information for the residents, the better.

I would agree. It's a matter of getting that study started, right?

Yep. OK. Thanks, Brad. Thanks. Due to time, we are going to not kick 3.3, but we may put 3.3 at the end of our meeting simply because we need to go into a closed session. And we start at 7. Is the council okay with that?

Yep.

Yep. So with that, just real quick, let's take care of any agenda items, questions that you have questions about. Jason, any administrative report that you might have? Nope. Any reports from the council?

Mayor, Lehigh serves us on Saturday, and just hope that the council will spread the word through their social channels if they find that to be appropriate, and hope that you get involved and participate.

Awesome. Big day coming Saturday. Thank you. Any other reports?

Just one with the library. Mayor, you're already aware, because I know Christy's spoken with you, but right now on the library board, it allows for six to be on the board. which means that to be able to vote and take any action, there needs to be four there. So we're discussing about making that board seven just to be able to give. Hopefully then we can be able to have meetings and have a full quorum there. Just to put that out there, that's something that would require code change to have happen.

We're aware. Thank you. Anything else? Michelle, I know tomorrow night's a big night.

Yes, I have so much. I'll keep it short. Yes, tomorrow is another unveiling North Branch Meeting House, and Mayor Binns is speaking at that. The address is 1190 North, 500 West at 7 p.m., so we're looking forward to that. We had a great turnout at Heritage Days. Thank you to city staff for letting us use the council chambers when we got rained out. It was really nice to be in the shade and air conditioning and not in the rain. Anyway, thanks to all who helped with that. Just a note, the Hutchings Museum is displaying the John Haas Presidential Collection. It's the first time. It's been out of the basement and forever, as far as I know, on display. So it would be great to take a look at that. Had an interesting, good information at the UAM's conference that you were there, too, so you know about that. One thing that I did want to bring up, so I got to attend the UTA kind of the ribbon cutting of their on-demand service. So I spoke to Jason about this. I think it would be great to have UTA come and present to the council on how that works, how the fees work with that, but also how important it is for our city to encourage people to use that, because that's what they use. The data they collect there is what will help determine where BRTs are located in the future where light rail goes and that sort of thing.

We have them tentatively scheduled for the 21st.

Awesome. Okay. And I also talked to them about promotional videos, and they have some produced already. If you just want to post it on our social media accounts, it would be great to get the word out. So I'll leave it there. Thank you.

Any other reports?

I believe the Waterwise Parade of Homes is this Saturday as well, but I don't know if Todd's going to be here for the Waterwise presentation. I don't believe he is going to be here for coming up for the council meeting, but that's something we'll get some more information out about from the Environmental Sustainability Committee.

Great. Okay, with that, I would happily take a motion for a closed session.

So I move that we go into a closed session for the purposes of, I believe,

for exchange, lease, or sale of real property, and pending or reasonably imminent litigation. I believe those are the only two.

There might be character and competence based on the selection of the...

Okay, and the character, competence, or physical or mental health of an individual or any other lawful purpose. So the whole thing.

So I have a first from Council Member Harrison. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Council Member Newell. All in favor? Aye. Aye is... So we will go ahead and go into closed. Tonight, September 8th, 2026, in the Lehigh City Council Chambers, we have Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Stallings, Council Member Freeman, and I believe Council Member Lockhart is joining online. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. So we do have a full quorum tonight, a full council. We welcome you to our chambers tonight. We're glad that you came. Before we get started, we'd like to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll be led by Council Member Harrison. Thank you, Councilmember Harrison. All right, presentation reports will start. Actually, 2.1 has been removed because I think they're coming to our next meeting, so that won't happen tonight. That's the September Waterwise Yard of the Month, so that'll be presented on the 22nd. So with that, we will open it up to citizen input. Let me give you some ground rules on how this works. If you have something to share, we would invite you to come to the microphone.

You will have...

Oh, see, that's the problem. We don't have an attorney here. That's our official timekeeper. You will have three minutes to share what's on your mind. If for some reason your item is on our current agenda tonight, we will give you a chance as we get closer to those items. If it's not on the agenda, we would welcome that you come to the mic and share that. As you come to the mic, we do require that you state your name so we have your name on the record. So with that, it is... 722. At 722, we'll open for public comment.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Appreciate the opportunity. You're going to hear from me later tonight on something that's on the agenda. But something that's not on the agenda is my concern with the city's general plan. Just to stop you real quick, what's your name? Oh, my apologies. Sorry. I do this for a living. I should know. Harry Hansen. I'm a Lehigh City resident. I live just about 1700 North in Trenum and Lane. Apologies. Anyways, so back to the general plan. So I have concerns with the way that it was designed. It's a current artifact of the previous administration that Lehigh citizens voted out this last election cycle because of favoritism towards developers. And the general plan is built off that very foundation that Lehigh Citizens voted out, and yet it still lives on. So it needs to be revisited. Maybe not the whole thing, but at least pockets of it, especially where it requires heavy commercial developments being butted up against residential units and lots. With or without development agreements, citing heavy commercial against residential lots is just bad zoning policy. So we need to fix the bad zoning policy right at its root. And right now, it's in the general plan. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hanson.

Good evening, Mayor Binns and council members. My name is Camille Perchert. Over the past 21 years living in Lehigh, the Legacy Center has been a huge part of my life. I'm a regular patron. I've taught yoga there for 16 years, and I spent five years as the assistant program coordinator. Because I experience it as both a resident and a city employee, I see firsthand how the facility runs day to day and what it means to our community. Tonight, I'm asking the council to consider retiring an outdated policy from when the building first opened 25 years ago, our member-only hours from 5 AM to 8 AM and 9 PM to 11 PM. 25 years ago, this policy served a clear purpose. Lehigh was the only community in our corner of Utah County with modern recreation and workout facilities. while Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain were expanding rapidly. Restricting morning and evening hours was a necessary defense against regional overcrowding. Today, our neighboring cities have built their own municipal centers, and private gyms and fitness studios are established across our area. The regional spillover that this policy was created to stop no longer exists. And if you look across Utah County, Aprovo, American Fork, Springville, et cetera, not one of them closes their doors to paying non-members at the start or end of the day. Yet at the Legacy Center, we are still paying patrons away at the front desk twice every single day. In our early morning group fitness classes, our instructors are teaching in rooms with available capacity. We have patrons walk through the door ready to pay drop-in fees to attend, only to be turned away in the late evenings. Shift workers, students, and residents looking for track or open gym access are locked out unless they hold an annual pass. Meanwhile, the lights are on, the building is staffed, and the instructors are paid. Turning paying customers away leaves high margin revenue on the table at a time when city budgets are closely managed and membership fees continue to rise. Worse, our only high residents who subsidize this building through their taxes cannot even pay to bring a workout partner, an adult child, or visiting family members, especially during the holidays, with them. So restricting access is not a membership perk. It is a resident penalty. The solution is straightforward. Eliminate the restricted hours and replace them with a real membership perk, allowing pass holders to sponsor guests at a discounted rate alongside a tiered pricing structure that charges non-residents a fair drop-in fee. Legacy Center staff, including our fitness management, have been asking to retire this policy for the last 10 years. I ask you to finally lift this restriction so the facility can welcome paying patrons, support its instructors, and fully serve our community. Thank you.

My name's Sari Christensen, and I also have concerns with the Legacy Center. I'm here because I want to bring to your attention the possibility of the Lehigh Legacy Center offering indoor pickleball. I've been talking with some of the Legacy Center staff studying the gym schedule, visiting other recreation centers, talking with members of the community and trying to understand what the actual issues and concerns are. There seem to be two main concerns. The first is that adding pickleball lines to the gym floors, the argument was made that it would be too confusing. The second concern is finding enough time in the schedule that would not disrupt existing programs or take away from open basketball. What I have found that is neither of these concerns presents a significant obstacle. The lines are something other recreation centers have successfully incorporated into their facilities. I recently visited the Pleasant Grove Rec Center and saw how they've added pickleball lines in their gym floors. The facility and setup are very similar to what we have, and theirs works beautifully. The other concern is the schedule. So as it stands right now, there are approximately 120 hours of open basketball time available each week between the three gyms. We're suggesting that just 20 hours be designated for open pickleball play. I've looked closely at the schedule and there are pockets of time when multiple gyms are available or the space is being lightly utilized. I believe we can find those 20 hours without eliminating basketball or disrupting other programs that are currently running. And we know there is a demand. In a very short period of time, we've collected over 250 signatures from Lehigh residents and Legacy Center members saying they would like to see indoor pickleball offered at the Legacy Center. I also think the cost to benefit ratio is extremely compelling. Based on the information I've gathered, painting the pickleball lines would cost roughly $2,000. Nets, paddles, and basic equipment would cost around another $1,000. So we're talking about a $3,000 investment to make indoor pickleball possible in a facility that we already have. For what that could provide to the community, that's a very small investment. There's also the potential for it to generate revenue. Some people would pay the daily admission rate to come play. Others may decide that having indoor pickleball available makes a Legacy Center membership worthwhile. But beyond the financial side, pickleball provides another opportunity for people of different ages and abilities to exercise, socialize, build relationships within the community. I'm not asking for anyone to solve any problems, all the specifics tonight, but I am asking that we do keep the conversation going, that we can move forward seriously, consider whether this is something that we can make happen. We already have the facility. We have the available hours. We have a lot of interest, and the initial investment is relatively small. I believe this is a simple opportunity to make better use of a facility and provide something that a significant number of people in our community are asking for. So thank you for your time and considering this.

Thank you.

My name is Kevin Woodruff. I've been a resident of Lehigh since 96. I hold a gym membership at our Lehigh Legacy Center for the past five years. And just wanted to speak in support of the Pickleball motion. I hold memberships at Kern's Ogre Fitness Facility and go to leagues there every Thursday. because they provide pickleball opportunities. I go to the Provo Fitness Center on Tuesdays and play on Tuesday evening at that fitness center. I just find it discouraging that our citizens of Lehigh have to go to outside venues and the Kerns-Oker Fitness Center just built 16 outdoor facilities to support their pickleball. And I have to say that if they're able to put that kind of investment into their facility, it's got to be profitable. And I believe that there could be a fair profitability for the rec center to support pickleball as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Woodruff.

I'm Steve Seeley, and I kind of represent or volunteer at Willow Park. And I've had a few of you guys have a tour there. From what I understand, we got a grant of a half a million dollars that's coming through. I don't know if that's true, but that's what I've been told, that that grant has come through. And a couple months ago, I built a design for an entrance of Willow Park. And they asked me to present this to you guys. And this is what I got here. So I'm going to show you this. But I'm very interested. I've put in over 150 hours of service at Willow Park this year. And I want to keep that park as a campground. I hope you guys realize that we're one of the only cities in this country that have a campground inside the city limits. And I don't want to see it going, too. I've heard rumors of ice skating rink or rodeo grounds or whatever. We want to keep that as a campground. inside the city and make it a special place for you know we can make that quite profitable uh having uh glamping wagons a kind of sewer wagons you know we were known as the lehigh pioneers and we can really make that park a pretty awesome and incredible uh uh campground so i want to present this here and just show you it's just a my idea of an entrance That entrance at Willow Park right now that stands there has been there for about 8,000 years. And part of this grant was they said that they were going to make an entranceway and do some improvements for bathrooms and facilities and stuff like that. So I want to show you this here. It's just an idea and a thought to kind of get your mind rolling and thinking of an entranceway. I'd like to make it an outstanding entranceway where, wow, when you go into this park, you go, whoa, this is Lehigh City. This is a campground that, you know, it could be a special place. And right now, you know, no one really. The park's used by a lot of people, a lot of walking, a lot of people jogging, biking. It's got the bike trail. It's got the Jordan River. I mean, this could be a really special thing. So let me show you this. I built this at home. And it comes out this way. I don't have to take it. But these here are 12 by 12s. This entranceway would be 16 feet long.

But, you know, kind of built this way.

Now, when I presented it to the park committee, or the people there at the park, he was a little concerned because it was us building it. And it's something I told him. Thank you, Mr. Seeley. I appreciate it.

Good evening, Mayor Binns. My name is Lyle Swapp, and I'm going to come in in support of the two initiatives that we presented as far as the fitness center goes. I haven't been a resident in this community for very long because I've been serving the country for 26 years in the Air Force, and I just retired. And I'm very thankful to come back to a community that is very vibrant and very productive and very resident and family-centric. I can see the deliberate planning that is going on with all of the city council and the representatives and the offices and see the deliberate planning, and I'm very thankful to see that because it's been 27 years since I've been here, and it has grown. I understand that there's an individual in the end that really enjoys pickleball, so I think we have an ally in trying to bring that into the fitness center. I can tell you throughout my Air Force career, we were very interested in fitness. And we saw the challenges within the Air Force to change from the different types of fitness opportunities that were offered to our airmen and to meet the needs and the wants that they had. And I can tell you that Pickleball is growing very fast in the Air Force because they saw the need and the draw from the younger airmen that were coming into the Air Force from the younger generations. They love it. And they want to play it a lot. And so the Air Force is changing and adding it to their fitness centers also. I can tell you that pickleball indoors is very important during the cold months. But it's also very important during the windy days. Because we love to see our pickleballs go straight instead of outside because the wind is taking them, right? So we do see the pickleball course on the outside. Thank you very much for that. But there is a lot of interest to bring it into the fitness facility. at what we determined to be a pretty reasonable cost. And opening up the hours is something that, for example, my family would thoroughly enjoy because we do have a lot of family and friends that come and visit us here and want to use the facility but can't during those hours that they are available to them. So I would really appreciate the consideration given to these two initiatives. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, there's no further public comment. We'll close public comment at 7.37, and we appreciate those who have made comment tonight. We'll go to item four, the consent agenda. Is there any questions on the consent agenda?

I just wanted to, I had questions, but I got them answered. I just wanted to point out to everyone, the purchase orders, there's three purchase orders in there for power. And one of them was a bathroom remodel, which is almost $150,000, which looks a little ridiculous to me, but I got into it. And it's to more than double, most likely, it's actually four times, it'll be more than double the amount of bathrooms for the power department. So that's where that purchase comes from. I just think it's important to note, since it's a large amount.

I'm happy to entertain a motion.

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

Do I have a second? Second. So I have a first from Council Member Newell, a second from Council Member Harrison. Any questions on that motion? So we'll start with you, Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. Thank you. Item number five. Oh, I am sorry, Council. Yep. I now remember you're there, Council Member Lockhart. Thank you. Don't let me forget, Council Member Lockhart. Okay, item 5.1, consideration of ordinance 37-2026, approval of a development code amendment to chapter 19, renewable energy systems, updating the maximum allowable kilowatts for residential systems. Joel, you have some information on that.

Yeah, just real quick, I'll highlight the reasoning for this change. We're changing the renewable energy systems for rooftop solar from 10 kW to 15. The main driver behind that is many of the systems being installed now are 12 kW. So we just get a lot of frustration with the application process. It's a negligible amount. It shouldn't change much of anything, but it will. make the process easier for staff when residents are upset when they can't put that type of inverter in that's been popular. So you'll see those changes reflected 10 to 15 in the chapter 19 as stated. And then also our net mirroring policy needs to be updated too to the 15 KW. So that's what that is.

Is there anyone from the public who's here to speak to this item? Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions on this item?

I don't have a question about the kilowatt change. I was kind of wondering on, it talks about not being, on page 19-3C, it talks about something not being built on a ridgeline, the wind energy facility design standards. Can someone explain that to me? Isn't that where there is a lot of wind? Is that just like a design thing? We just don't want, we don't want, I don't know if this, I think this is more planning probably question, but it talks about wind energy facilities and not having them built on wind, on ridgelines. I'm just kind of curious as I was reading the entire chapter, is that a design standard? Is that because there's less power there? Is that the reason?

As far as energy-related, I don't have any input on that. It's probably a design thing, but I don't know, Mike, if you could speak to that.

It's more of an aesthetic thing than anything. Yeah. So it's more minimizing the feasibility of it to the neighborhood.

That's kind of the idea behind it. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I don't really have any questions for you, Jules. Okay. As I was looking over the chapter, some things that stood out to me that I think that we should consider as we're going through all of the code is looking at what is the legislative and what's administrative decisions. Like, again, on 19-3, under 9, I believe, it talks about how the planning commission may modify this requirement. And some things in this chapter talked about how the director of power could make some changes to some of these things. With that, I think that might even be something that the zoning administrator could do. And that's to look at in the future, or to possibly delete that section. In addition, if you look at 19-4-2, it talks about some exceptions that can be approved by planning commission. That's a legislative decision, and that should go to city council. I think that needs to be looked at. And with 2B and with just some of those other areas in the chapter, that's again mentioned. There's some other places, 19-69. There's some places that are administrative where probably the zoning administrator could make the decision instead of planning commission. And if there's exceptions, Like in 19-7-1, exceptions would be by city council not planning commission because it's a legislative decision. 19-8 to exception should go to City Council as a legislative decision as well so I think that's something that I would like personally like to see throughout the entire code looked at but this is just something that I pointed out in this chapter because I think it's important this is just a small case study and of some of those decisions that that we have codified and I think we can we need to kind of relook at that again so

Mr. Mayor, if I may ask a question of staff. I know in the agenda it references the Planning Commission, but we don't see any of their notes or minutes. Can you, how did that vote or discussion go if you were there?

Sorry, I believe Kim was at that meeting for Planning staff.

Okay. I was just curious. I assume they made a positive recommendation. I just don't see that.

Yeah, I don't believe they would have a problem with it. Now, if there's, I guess, maybe a little direction from Rachel, if there's some stuff you want us to look into on this, we're definitely happy to take a look and make some considerations. Is this something you want us to do on this draft before you want to approve it, or is this something you want us just to look into subsequently?

I can't direct you by myself. I mean, are there city council members to support or not, so... I mean, I'm open to, there's a few options. You could approve this and say, hey, let's look at some of these modifications and updates in the chapter. Or we just say, let's wait and table this and come back in two weeks with some of these other things updated.

Can that be a separate, like a work session thing where we discuss it more at a work session and pass this? This is...

Good thing I think to pass it help our residents, and it's a small thing, but maybe we can come back and address some of the other concerns That's fine with me I can also send you my notes of all the where it says whether it's something that You know maybe that just we have the zoning administrator look at versus what we look have the City Council approve Point out those areas Because it might be other places in the code I mean that might be something separate to look at more in depth and other parts of the code as well so yeah I just looked at this one this one chapter where we were updating this yeah yeah we're definitely happy to take a look at that and just kind of whatever the majority decides I'm just pointing out some discrepancies here is there any other questions on this specific item

Mayor, I kind of have a question in relation to what Councilmember Freeman brought up. When we make changes like that, do we only address what was on the agenda? If we want to make other changes, is that something that needs to come back and be noticed and that kind of thing?

Correct. So this would be this item. However, Ryan, I do believe that they can make a motion to approve this with... Yeah, so the purpose of the noticing is just so that people can show up and say,

department okay yeah yeah there's not an appetite to talk about it saying that's fine I'm happy to bring it back later because I I don't think that might be stood out to other people as much as me but I'm yeah I just think it needs to be brought to a discussion at some point I'm happy to entertain a motion councilmember Freeman Well, I move to approve Ordinance 37-2026, Privileged Development Code Amendment to Chapter 19, Renewable Energy Systems, updating the maximum allowed kilowatt for residential systems. And I hope that we, I would like to direct, hope that we as a council can ask that staff brings back this to look at some other changes, updates to this code.

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

There are a couple of DRC comments on it, if you'd include those, too. Oh, yeah.

And please include all DRC comments. I do not see the Planning Commission meeting minutes. Otherwise, I would see that. Are you OK with that, Council Member Stallings? Yes.

Any other questions? So we'll start with you, Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Council Member Lockhart. Council Member Newell? Yes. Council Member Harrison? Yes. Council Member Stallings? Yes. Okay. That takes us to item 5.2, consideration of resolution 2026-51, appointing members to serve on the Lehigh Small Business Advisory Council, the SBAC. Any questions to this item?

No questions, but I'm really excited about it. I know we gave the mayor a lot of work in interviewing several dozen applicants for this, but I'm very excited to see it kicked off.

Mayor, I'm wondering if you or Councilmember Harrison would want to explain to the public what kind of what it is?

Yeah. Yeah, so, you know, the FIBUS plus the mayor, we felt a need for small businesses in Lehigh, especially representing 50 or fewer employees, full-time employees. These businesses being represented and have a better channel of communication between the city and the businesses because we all know the Adobe's and the and the large companies in Lehigh for which we're grateful. But there's so many entrepreneurs and small businesses out there that are paying a lot of taxes. They're playing workman's comp. They're doing the best that they can with their resources. And sometimes dealing with government regulations and red tape can be somewhat burdensome. So the goal for this is for the Small Business Advisory Council to be able to get together, have subcommittees and come up with solutions to problems that they see that maybe we don't see as a council or maybe the staff doesn't see in their positions. Ideally to make the city a better partner with those businesses and remove unnecessary red tape or burdens on those small businesses and vice versa helping through the city and coordinating with this council to be able to help them understand those regulations, to know how to go through an application or DRC process for a new building or anything similar to that. So this council consists of between 15 and 21 individuals. I think we have a final list of 20. And they'll be meeting every other month on average to be able to discuss and have these subcommittees to discuss what matters to them as small business owners. And then they will bring recommendations based on how they decide to vote and bring those recommendations to the council on a regular basis so that we can consider how the city can make entrepreneurs and business owners here in the city make their lives a little easier and help them facilitate their revenue and their success as a small business. So I think that was the concept behind it, and we all supported it and passed it earlier this year, and it's been a few months of applicants and interviews, but we're there now, so we have our list of 20.

I'll go ahead and share that list of 20. I will tell you that as mayor, not a lot of people answer their phones when they see my phone number, which is OK. So I learned real quick that as you call the first five people on the list, not one of the five answers because they don't know your phone number. So that's good to know. And so email was the way. So we appreciate those that responded. So the current members are Mr. Paul Baird, Brianne Beckstrom, Cody Black, Karen Blaylock, Martin Bolter, Lisa Cummings, Lisa Evanson, Jennifer Fairbanks, Curtis Graham, Dale Guthrie, Robert Hunt, Brent Knudson, Cody Larson, Jeffrey McHenry, David C. Morales, John David Rennertz, Marcy Robison, Alan Tolopi, Nick Wenzel, and Dax Williamson. We did have 36 applicants. If you weren't chosen, we or I will keep your resume and your email because there will be alternates and whatnot into the future. So we appreciate all those who have applied for this. This should be a great thing moving forward. So with that, I am happy to take a motion on a resolution.

Sure. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-51, appointing members to serve on the Lehigh Small Business Advisory Council.

I second that.

So I have a first from Councilmember Harrison, a second from Councilmember Freeman. Any questions on that? Councilmember Lockhart, we'll start with you.

Yes.

Councilmember Newell?

Yes.

Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. Item 5.3, consideration of resolution 2026-49, approving a charitable grant agreement between Lehigh City and Mill Pond Water LLC for the Mill Pond property located at approximately 1300 East, 700 South. Is someone here from the, there they are.

How are you? Greg's for meatness. This is my sister, Megan. You can come up. So this has been a long road, and I have to tell you, Loren Powell was instrumental. Because of his insight and what he can offer the city, the Peck family desires to donate the water portion, or most of the water portion, of the mill pond. And I believe I've been out of town, so I don't really know what you have in your packets. Oh, sorry, I'm Colpec. So I'm not really sure what you have. I think my sister wrote a letter, and I believe our trust attorney wrote a letter. And there's a very strict rule of how this charitable donation happens. So there's things that you just have to do. It makes zero sense to me, but that's what we have to do. So we hope that it's beneficial to the city. We believe it is. If you want to read the history of the mill pond, it's quite interesting because it was just a bunch of springs and really no direction. And I know that something Molnar combined them all and then he ended up having a water wheel and a grist mill and things like that. And then in like the 30s, I think a sportsman group built some dikes creating the pond and it was for It was used in the sugar beet era also. So we believe it'll be beneficial to the city. And if you knew my father, He always wanted places for families to come together to enjoy each other's company. And so we don't really want to change too much. Of course, you know, there's things that need to happen to make it useful to the city because this is not only for the local farmers, it's for the residents. It goes into, I know, and Lauren would have to comment on that, but... But it goes to all the residents for their pressurized irrigation. So we believe it's a good thing, and we hope that you'll make it into something special. So we hope you'll accept that donation and hope it just works out. Thank you. Awesome. Go ahead.

Yeah. So my mother had a stroke in February, and she didn't want to come today. She's kind of changed her personality a little bit. She was also instrumental in agreeing to donate this at this time. And I just want to thank all the members that have looked at this and worked with us. We had some people who had to work a lot of, I don't know, it's been years in the making. And I just want to thank all of you and members of my family and also members of the city that have been instrumental in making this happen. So thank you very much.

And this is an extension of the entire Peck family. I mean, the Peck family is quite large, but a lot of them have passed on, and my mother happens to be the only one left of the original owners. But I couldn't forget Tony Train also, because Tony and Lauren give us all the information of what you need as a city. So the Peck family would like to thank them because they've both worked their butts off and been to multiple meetings, and we just hope that it's beneficial to you. So thank you.

Thank you. Is anyone here to comment on this tonight? Council, any questions on this item?

Well, I'm looking here at number four. It says naming rights. And I love that there is going to be, you know, a plaque or a monument that says recognizing the donation of the property by the Anthony T. Peck and Janice A. Peck family. It does, one of the requirements of this donation is to designate the property as the Peck Mill Pond Recreation Area. And I think that's a very honorable thing to name after, you know, recognize the property as the Peck Mill um, pack area. One thing that I, I do question just because I did talk to the water people and parks and that are going to have to, um, maintain it, build it, maintain it. We're talking about a possible walking path or, or things like that. Um, is just the recreation area point of it, because I'm a little concerned that we have, are going to set ourselves up for disappointed expectations if people are considering it like a boating area or something like that. But I love everything else about recognizing the Peck family. So to me, just the recreation area aspect of it, I consider that more like a tibble fork, strawberry, or something. Those are the kind of names you have around a recreation area. So that's the only thing that I have just to comment on. But everything else, I really appreciate the Peck family, and I'm grateful for this.

I guess, Rachel, would you, I guess maybe for Cole as well, I tend to agree with that. I think naming it after the Peck family is great. Sounds good to me. Are you okay if we maybe name it the Peck Mill Pond instead of the Peck Mill Pond Recreation Area? Is that something that you're comfortable with? I don't think we care. Okay.

Okay. But you want to have it be Peck, would you be satisfied with Peck Mill Pond or area or what? Peck something.

Okay. I like the Peck Mill Pond. Just keep it short.

Okay. That's a good solution. I was hesitant to name it a recreation area because that, again, places expectations and We don't know when it would be developed or if future councils might not decide to do that. Who knows, right? But it is a donation. The city appreciates it. I've talked to Water Department, and it'll be helpful to the city. So I appreciate that. So yeah, I support just naming it Peck Mill Pond. And I think a plaque is appropriate. And I know there's been interest in putting a historical marker up at that location as well. So you might get named twice. Who knows? I don't know. I think it's worth honoring those who give generously to the city.

So it's a good solution. And once we have it, I would love to go really view the property in person since I haven't been able to. So we could hopefully do a little city council field trip down there.

Yes, he is in agreement.

Okay, thank you.

With that, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-49, approving a charitable grant agreement between Lehigh City and Mill Pond Water LLC for the Mill Pond property, located at approximately 1300 East, 700 South, with the change on number four in the contract naming rights to have the name be Peck Mill Pond.

So I have a first from Councilmember Newell. Second. I have a second from Councilmember Harrison. Any questions on that motion? So with that, we'll start with you, Councilmember Newell. Yes. Councilmember Harrison. Yes. Councilmember Stallings.

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman.

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart.

Yes.

All right. Thank you, and thank you for that donation. Okay, item 5.4, consideration of resolution 2026-52, approval of the Nancy Walker development agreement on 2.581 acres of property located at 915 West State Street, allowing certain restricted heavy commercial uses on the property and other site restrictions for commercial development. Ryan, remind me, was this a tabled item?

It went to a development agreement instead. Oh, it did. The zone change was tabled. So that's the next one.

Oh, it's the next one. Okay, so we will go ahead and...

If we get to that one, then we'd have to untable it.

Correct. Okay. So with that, who's leading the discussion on this one?

It says petitioner Lehigh City. Oh. Mike? Come on up. This is water. OK. I don't know. It says petitioner Lehigh City, so.

Hi, Miss. Good evening.

Good evening, Mr. Mayor and the council. My name is Deborah Walker, and this is my sister, Barbara Hollingshead. We are here to represent the Nancy Walker Estate and the proposed development agreement for the property located at 915 West 8th Street. And if we may, we'd like to go ahead and share a view of what the property looks like and the surrounding area. Great. Are we able to, okay, to hook this up?

Yeah, can someone, should be able to plug in. There you go.

Okay, we're just trying to show that the surrounding areas. So you can see there's a very busy corridor around there. It's close to I-15, 2100 North, which is currently going under construction to become a freeway. So there's a lot of traffic in the area. And this slide here kind of shows the master plan. Outlined in yellow on the map is the Walker property. So it kind of shows the master plan, what was planned for that area, heavy commercial. So asking for the zoning and agreeing to the development plan fits in with the city. You can see on this how most of the plan has already taken place. If you go up and down, let's see, I'll turn the mouse on. If you go up and, you know, up here on 1800 North here, all the way to 1500 North. Both sides of State Street, except for this Walker property, is already all businesses. So this fits into what the plan is and corresponds with all of that. Up here is also that intersection has been shut off. And the lights have already been approved for this intersection here. that there is a lot of traffic on both sides, at this site and that site. And Trenman is very narrow. So this shows you, if you were standing just north of our property on the west side of State Street, all you see is businesses all the way down. With this proposal and the development agreement, all access would be on this side of the street, on State Street. There wouldn't be any added traffic to Trenman, so it protects the property owners on the tournament side. Here it actually shows that UDOT has pretty good easement here on the property. It makes it nice because you have all this traffic here, all the traffic on State Street, and we're trying to divert the traffic away from all these mixed-use properties over here. Also, we've heard that there's been proposals to do a split zoning on that, which we've had actually some of the neighborhood say they're opposed to that. Some of the reasons are they like the blanket zoning because it prevents additional traffic on Trinnaman Lane. It makes the evenings quieter, because if you have businesses here, It's been proposed, or well, the city requires a wall would be there. Right now, it's a very narrow street. But with the development, it would actually put in curb and gutter and sidewalks, making this area a lot safer for people that live in the area. And so with the wall and the parking lots proposed to be right up against the wall on the inside, It provides buffer to make it quieter for the people that live there. Also makes the evenings quieter when the businesses close up and go home. Some of their current concerns about putting residents on this site is because it's already a restricted space, and then you've got all this traffic coming around the corner. So adding more driveways is just going to congest it. Most likely, if you put houses there, there's going to be children that move into the area. And you have all those driveways that are adding to it, creating safety hazards. There's probably going to be more cars parked along the way. And we've listened to the concerns of the neighbors as well as the builder. Some of the original plans were changed because taken into consideration to what the neighbors liked or wanted. This is an example. This isn't necessarily the exact what it's going to be built, but this just kind of gives an example of office warehouses and what they look like. Right here, this is just such a narrow street. This is right behind the property. As you can see, there's no sidewalk. There's no curb and gutter. Two cars can barely pass each other going there. So if somebody is trying to walk along and two cars come along, they kind of have to step into the weeds. Curb and gutter and sidewalk can will make it a lot safer. It really is a mixed-use area. As you can see, there's a business right there. It's 24-7. It's behind the property with heavy equipment stored there. They do have a website that advertises that they operate 24-7. And this is kind of a view behind the property so you can see it's not all housing It's kind of mixed use you do have houses, but you have businesses mixed in so this conforms to what's already in the area Okay, so The property in question belong to our parents and for years.

We've watched as the city has grown around us residential agricultural along State Street and also many Properties on have been replaced by businesses. And based on the city's long-term master plan, And also, this change that we've seen through the years, we came to you in July to request the zone change so that we could finally settle our parents' estate. And when the neighbors raised concerns in July about our request, we listened. We went back to the drawing board with the city's planning staff. We spent several weeks crafting a restricted development agreement limiting the types of commercial enterprises that can be allowed on the property in order to give the neighbors peace of mind. We agreed to completely keep the access to Trinnaman blocked off so that that little two-lane commuter road could be as safe as possible. We agreed to increase the buffer between the residential and commercial properties by changing the layout of the original building. Originally the building on on the property was going to go on the outside of the boundary lines. But instead, there'll be parking that would be next to already the walls that are required. And then inside the walls, there would be that extra buffer and then the buildings. And also, the development agreement restricts the types of commercial businesses that can be allowed on the property. It went through and cut out quite a few things that would have been allowed but now will no longer be allowed. And those are listed on the chart. It gives the neighbors protection from additional traffic. It gives the additional buffers between commercial and residential properties. And it allows our family to close this chapter and move forward. Again, we're aware of the petition to make it a split zone. We feel that would not be the best option, because two of the main concerns raised by the neighbors are the proximity of residential and commercial to each other. Putting more residential and splitting that would make it so that additional four to six families have to back a commercial property. Also, the traffic is probably the main thing. If you put in extra driveways right there, then it's going to go ahead and make more obstacles for people that are walking down the street, and increase the traffic. We feel the development agreement is a better option because it restricts the traffic. There'll be no access on Trenneman. There'll only be the access from from State Street. I currently am living there. And I'll tell you, I go to Trinnaman if I'm visiting someone on Trinnaman, but I don't really have a reason to go onto Trinnaman except for that. And also, we feel like the added buffering between the residential and commercial, because you would have, between the residents, you would have the street itself. then you would have the curb and the gutter, you would have the sidewalk, then you would have the wall, or there was maybe proposed for aesthetics a berm, but whichever went there, and then on the other side of that there would be parking, and then the businesses would be facing State Street. And right now there's no sidewalk on either side of the road, so I think the addition of a sidewalk without any Other things like driveways would actually make it a lot safer. And those residents that are already there would actually, it would be easier for them to use that area with a sidewalk and make it over to the park like they would like to. So thank you.

We might, but what we're going to do, I'm sure there may be a folk here that want to speak to this, so we're going to open it for a thought, then we'll have you come back up, okay? Thank you for your presentation. Thank you, we appreciate your time. Is there anyone in the audience who's here to speak to this item? So as you come up with this item and item 5.5 being similar, we'll open the conversation just for these two. Go ahead and state your name.

My name is Sheena Welch, and I live right against the entire north side of the Walker property is where my property meets. I decided not to try and cry this time, so I'll be reading part of it here. I have here over 100 people from the immediate neighborhood only. that have signed that they do not wish to have heavy commercial commercial on that property.

And I'm going to hand that to you.

And that's just the immediate people who care. And so I am speaking on behalf of those 100 people who definitely do not want it. OK. We're not just names on a petition. We are families who put our life savings into our homes because this city's owned this street residential. We bought in good faith, and my family, we already know, and several others, what it means to have an unbuffered heavy commercial next to you. It's stacked right up on my fence right now. Some of you saw it when you came to my house. This is the truth that we're living in and have been living in for 18 months. So we're asking for something specific and something fair, the same idea that Councilmember Harrison, you mentioned in July, a split. Keep the Trinnaman side residential, four or five family homes facing the homes already there, and let the state street side become commercial, appropriate commercial, not big warehouse offices. It is still not appropriate. It is still not functioning for us. The State Street side is large enough to stand on its own. I've compared it to the other lots all the way down State Street. This is twice as big as many of them. Something and someone will build there. It doesn't have to be this developer. It doesn't stop the property from developing or selling. It just helps shape it. into what we need. There's three quick answers and concerns you may have heard. The traffic in Trinnaman, today it's mostly all the overflow from the state corridor. The answer is to route it back out to State Street, not adding commercial driveways to our residential lane or anything else. The U-DOT right-of-way along that road is a sliver. It does not take away this council's option to keep that side residential. I truly believe that there's space for some driveways. And if we reroute that going out, which it should have been. I don't know why so much money was spent on doing something that's not functional on that top. It really wasn't thought through. But if you take those people driving from UDOT and just reroute them straight out to State Street, we'll not have a busy road. We'll not have the traffic that you're concerned about. We'll have our fine, nice, little home street again. And that property that we're showing you, it's not heavy commercial on that side. Yes, he's using it inappropriately, and we can fix that. We can fix that truck standing there. We can fix the sidewalk. We can fix these things. But we're asking that you keep it residential and that you make it so that we can keep living there and enjoying what we've paid for. The families, the second thing is here that the... The families who would buy those new homes, they would choose them with their eyes open, well knowing what they're buying. There are people who would rather have that and be closer to their jobs. Lehigh is not able to sell spot. This is a popular spot. People are looking for homes. People with open eyes would choose that.

Mrs. Walsh, we'll ask you to wrap up.

Sorry?

We'll ask you to wrap up. Go ahead.

Okay. Last November, the city voted for exactly this. Councilmember Harrison, you told the Lehigh families and town that you want to keep it that way, and you promised to help us and ask every vote whether it helps or hurts Lehigh's long-term livability for us. Councilmember Freeman, you ran on being a voice for residents, on people over politics. Mayor Benz, you campaigned on protecting Sorry. I'm protecting the family neighborhoods that brought your own family here. We heard you. We voted. And tonight, that promise lives on our street. This is not the easiest path that I'm asking, and I know that. But it's fair to everyone. The Walker family keeps a valuable commercial property. Future families gain homes. And 100 of our U residents that have spoken keeps the neighborhood they paid for, hoped for. So please deny the heavy commercial on the Trinnaman side. And if you can, please direct a split. Our written amendment shows exactly how. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Welch. No, thank you. As you come up, I'll remind you, you do have three minutes. When you hit three minutes, please wrap up.

Yes, thank you. Again, Mayor and Council, thank you for your time, and thank you for taking the time to talk with us over the last couple of days and weeks. I appreciate it. My name is Harry Hansen. Again, I live on 1700 North Truman Lane. In the introduction, my property and Sheena's property were blown over as if they were already heavy commercial. They are not. They're residential. I've got my four kids here with me. We bought the house two years ago, just a few months previous to Sheena buying her property. I just want to go back to the code. In the code, section 12.070, it says that all development shall be compatible and sensitive to the immediate environment and the site around the neighborhood. And the development's proposed use shall avoid conflicts, including noise, odor, dust, light, privacy, and safety, among other things. And this proposed development does neither of those things. The strength of shall in that particular provision is a must. It's not a voluntary thing. It's not an optional thing. It's a must. And this development agreement does not satisfy those requirements. The development agreement will be a heavy commercial rezone. It's not going to be residential with some heavy commercial. It will be a rezoned heavy commercial. And I've been in politics long enough that I understand that when there's development agreement that comes in and says, this is what we're going to do and we won't change it, that's a lie. They'll change it down the road. If a profitable enough opportunity comes, they'll say, hey, city council, remember that one development agreement that we had like three years ago? We want to change it. We want to modify it to include a couple more things. That's really easy to change. That's really easy to change after the change has been already made to a heavy commercial rezone. So I have concerns with the actual... Sorry. I have concerns with the actual... Proposals the items that are in the proposal most of them in fact about a third of the total offer Allowed uses would be would allow for additional and increase additional semi truck traffic on Truman Lane on State Street right at the mouth of I-15 so that would gum up traffic and that would convince people to Move over through that corridor on 1800 north into Truman Lane to try to avoid that semi truck traffic They also produce additional sound, pollutions, and other issues with semi-traffic in the area. The other thing is they've got a crematory in the actual proposed use as a crematory. I don't know if any of you have ever lived near or been near a crematory, but I went to high school near one. And you could smell every morning right before lunch. It was ridiculous they did this, but you could smell every morning when they started burning the DEAD bodies. And it's not a very pleasant smell. It's actually... Disgusting. And so that's one of those allowed uses. This development plan has not been thought through enough to have this serious consideration for the residents' health, welfare, and safety. It's also concerning to me that the actual resolution has in there an admission or confession by the city that the proposed development, before it's even determined what is actually going to be there, is already a blanket state of health, safety, and welfare guarantee to the developer, which I think is, I don't know why the city is removing that burden of proof from the developer. So I'm out of time. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Andrea Hansen. I live two houses down from the Walker property. I'm here tonight with my husband and four children. We bought our property two years ago and have been pouring ourselves into fixing up our yard and our house to beautify the community. We have quite a few concerns with the Walker property turning heavy commercial. Even under this development plan, I have appreciated the time you as council members have given us I know some of your minds have already been made up, and you've already made your decision. And my comments might not do anything, but I ask you all to keep an open mind. We had one council member make a comment to our neighbor asking her to just imagine what Trenum and Lane could look like in 50 years, how all the land could be developed, and we could make a lot of money by this property turning heavy commercial. Let me be clear. We are not here fighting for money. We are here fighting for our livelihood and the livelihood of future generations. Now, I want to ask each of you to come on a journey with me. 50 years ago, this land by Trinnaman Lane was farmland. Not just any farmland, though, a dairy farm. My grandpa owned this land. He donated the land for the LDS Church. to build their chapel. Then he started building single-family homes around it. Now there is a community of single-family homes and a park for children to grow and play. He also had created a plan for the road system along 2100 and Treneman Lane, but he wasn't listened to. He was just a farmer." Instead, the city council went with the city's general plan. Since then, there has been a lot of problems arise with the traffic on 2100 State Street and Treneman Lane. Now, let's switch gears. Come with me 50 years into the future. We have two choices here. We can have a future of concrete jungle, lifeless office buildings, and huge warehouses producing more smog, dust, and traffic. Or there is a second option. We can have a beautiful community filled with grass and trees, pretty gardens, houses lining the road, and children laughing and having fun. As we come back to our time, us residents don't mind neighborhood traffic. Five to ten more cars coming to and from work won't make a difference in our traffic patterns. But the five to ten more semi-trucks... Turning right will gum up traffic on State Street, which will make more cars want to turn down Trenman Lane, making more non-residential heavy traffic. In closing, I want you to know it's okay to change your mind and to fight for Lehigh families. We don't care about the money. We care about our children's future. We want them to grow up knowing they will be able to live the American dream. They will be able to own property. There is space for them. 50 years ago, uh... constituent wasn't listened to because of the city architect and it has created 50 years of headaches for residents and the city this body doesn't have to make the same mistake please consider what you want your 50-year legacy to be thank you thank you

I'm Kathy Sunderland. I live on Treneman Lane. My husband and I have lived in that area for 40 years. Actually, my husband's lived on Treneman Lane for more than 60 years as we built next door to his parents. We're very concerned about protecting this area, this residential area on Treneman Lane, as well as the two subdivisions that are... to the West. We appreciate all the efforts from the city and also the property owners and how they really tried to address the concerns that we brought to the last city council meeting. As my husband and I reviewed the development agreement and the city development code in great detail, we just had three concerns. And we wrote a letter to all of you and addressed that. So I won't go into great detail, because you have that. But there are three things on Exhibit B that we were concerned about as approved. Construction services, equipment sales and rental, and outdoor storage of materials, products, and equipment, which those are kind of contradictory to the statement that there will be no outdoor storage. The other concern we had was about the fire code. Michelle Stallings explained to me that that shouldn't be a problem the way it's been proposed. handled in other areas. 1.4 of the agreement is a big concern. It discusses the buffering and screening requirements. What we're mostly concerned about is if we could have it in writing that this buffering would be along the Tournament Lane property, along that 1500 corner, We would appreciate if that is in writing. I think that this would really help any questions that will arise in the future. as the property during the building process of what happens on the property, if it's resold, and also with future maintenance issues. I think it's important that we have some of these things in writing and not just assumptions. We've read the development code. Think there might be a gray area there, and I would just like to see that in writing unfortunately our areas had some problems in the past where we've been told one thing and and and and Just by word doesn't always hold so we were hoping for these Just couple little things to be in writing so that that protects our community in every way possible, our residential community. I appreciate your time. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you guys so much for everything you do for the city. It's actually my first council that I've actually been to, and my wife and I recently moved right down the street of Trinson Lane. I'm going to stop you real quick. What was your name? Cole Pulsifer. Cole Pulsifer, thank you. Yes, sir. Yes, we are on 1200 West, and we just recently moved there a couple months ago. I grew up in Lehigh City, and so my family has a lot of roots here, and we love this place very much, and As we were searching for our home, one of the biggest things about the place was the property that we were discussing here today and the lack of curb appeal. Driving by it, it has a lack of maintenance. And one of the biggest things is there's no clean sidewalks. And that is something that me and my wife would love to be able to enjoy. And as we bring family into this world or get into this world, that is one of the biggest things we look forward to. is to be able to enjoy the area with safe sidewalks. We've seen many people parking on that sidewalk that are clearly non-residents, one I've actually confronted, and was wondering why he was parked there, and he said he was just there for the night, just sleeping because it was obviously a very unkept area. And that concerns me, as I don't want random people in these uncomfortable areas sketchier, for lack of better words, vans parking on that street. And then that same van ended up parking near, or actually directly in front of my home that I had to call law enforcement for because they were just sleeping. Again, I would love to see this area better kept. And I don't love the idea of splitting the zoning. I think as we have more homes on that street, it will cause more traffic. I hear what they're saying about the trucks, but there will be no access on Truman Lane, as they clearly stated. And I would just love to keep it as quiet as it is with a better kept area. sidewalk i'd love to see more shrubbery and and just a safer place for our home and obviously for curb appeal um as we're all trying to um trying to do what we think is best for our families i would love to see this place um developed in a way that it makes everybody safer and and better established so thank you guys so much for all you do thank you

Hi, my name is Kristen Goodwin. I'm just going to be reiterating what a lot of people have already said, but I felt like I should at least add my voice to a lot of the neighbors. So I live on 1184 West, 1870 North. And first, I think the Walker family is welcome to share their point of view of the neighborhood, but it's just that, a point of view. There are many more homes than what were depicted in the photos that they shared, more homes than actual businesses. My husband and I moved to Lehigh because it was one of the only places we could afford where homes weren't being built on top of each other. Our home had a yard instead of a strip of grass, a neighborhood where people were friendly and cared about each other. Living in the neighborhood after three years, we've just found that our poor little community is accosted on almost every front. As the Walker sister showed earlier in the neighborhood, And earlier in the photos, our neighborhood has been dismissed time and time again as we're surrounded by traffic, noise, and continued development. Some people would say, well, just move. OK, where would you like us to move? We spent a year looking for this home. We're a dual income family without any debt. And the options to buy homes are very limited, as a lot of people know. We want to live here. We want to make this neighborhood a good place to live. We're fighting to make this neighborhood a good place to live. But now this, a potentially heavy commercial business just around the corner. It's just one more thing. Promises have been made in the past that have already been mentioned that there will be buffers put in place. But just this last zoning commission meeting where this topic was discussed, we literally found that the city has made promises without falling through. Last meeting, actually, I'll just skip that. I just, you can say you put buffers in place, but how do we know that you actually happen? It didn't happen with the last plot of land. And there have been comments made by this body and the city commissioner body that haven't been helpful. For example, last city council where this topic was discussed, one city councilwoman said something to the effect of, if you don't want to turn into heavy industrial, then buy it yourself. Comments like these are out of touch and not helpful. Another comment was, it's only two acres and you want us to split it? And this body has approved much denser housing on smaller plots of land. I'm not saying I want high density housing. I'm just making a point. I understand the Walker family wants to sell this plot of land for the max profit they can get. And I understand, because in a world that is ever increasing in cost, I understand wanting to make a bit of money. But maybe if we put people before profit, we'd have a better neighborhood, a better city, and a better state. I just ask that you reconsider this plot of land being used as heavy industrial, at least on the treatment side. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Lawrence Snow here with the Walkers. I don't know if anybody, if you all received the email I sent you. Okay. You may want to check. I sent it to the, on the website that says all members. Nobody got it. I had to resend it today. So you may want to check where that's going. Maybe that's why nobody gets any emails anymore. I'm just saying. Quick thing. You already went through that thing. Let's go through it real fast here. Let's do some assumptions. State recommendations is 9.3 trips per day per home, two-bedroom home or larger. Larger homes, of course, have more. That's 9.3 trips per day. If you put six houses in there, it may be five, it may be six, it may be seven. Let's just go with six. You put about 1,500 square foot of retail space, averaging about 500 to 550 per day into that area. That was, again, retail space. Traffic assumptions still, if the proposed project includes 18 2,000 square foot office warehouse spaces, you'd get about 350 to 400 trips per day. And let's say 10% of those went down Trinnaman Lane. It's a far-fetched, if somebody went down Trinnaman Lane and had to go out on State Street, circle around to go down Trinnaman Lane, they're lost. And also, a semi that goes out on State Street to go down Trinnaman Lane, something's wrong. I've driven semis before, and that'd be out of their mind. The net difference in if you have residential and split usage would be 70 less trips per day with a commercial property versus residential and commercial mixed use. Cons for split usage, added traffic on Tremont Lane. Six homes, including the Welch's home, would be bordered on the retail property, which may include 24-hour retail business. Six properties or more would now be back-to-back to the commercial development. Unknown tenants in the six homes, possible unkept homes, lots of on-street parking. You never know. And let's say there's, again, that last statement. What if the development were to put in 18 homes per acre and a half like there is in some parts of West Lehigh? Not going to happen, but you do the math. The pros of the CH zoning, development agreement in place. Yes, as I've talked to you, there's some things we need to define. Let me address, I'm a plumbing contractor. I've done plenty of crematoriums. The old crematoriums, yes, every morning. Now there's triple burners. You don't see it. You don't smell it. Thank goodness. I'll ask you to go ahead. There is the traffic in Freneman Lane. It fills the need for residents in Lehigh, Eagle Mountain, and so forth. It creates a buffer between the current four homes adjoining the property. Sidewalks and curb and gutter will be installed for the city specifications. Let's go through this real fast here. There you go. You can see that. Here's just some, Uncle Google helped us with this one, an AI. This is our favorite design, or a fascist. Again, these were done four months before we even looked at buying the property. This is our least favorite. Again, I put it all out there. And here's concept four, similar to two, and so forth. So anyway, here's a... have up in West Jordan. There is an anchor tenant up there. There is no anchor tenant at these facilities. But you can see, here it is. You can see the timestamps on the cameras. At roughly 6 o'clock, the place is virtually empty. So that's what we're looking for. Those are the kind of tenants we want. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Maxwell Welch. I live on Tournament Lane where me and my friends ride our bikes and scooters. Please deny a heavy commercial and keep my neighborhood safe. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, we will go ahead and close that comment session, bring it back to the dais. Council, any questions?

i do have a question um with the current application i feel far more comfortable that this fits into commercial zoning with an exception rather than we go heavy commercial and eliminate so many things it's more of a commercial product but that's not the application is that something that if There was more appetite to go that way for a piece of it to be commercial that we could say that's the zoning rather than say we're trying to do a development agreement to change it to heavy commercial and then eliminate almost all heavy commercial uses.

Yeah, I think they'd have to come through with an application for when you want to rezone the property commercial.

If we were to say it was commercial, yeah.

Yeah, I think that would require another application. If you're not going to do it by development agreement, then they'd have to apply. Is that right, Mike?

In the developer agreement, we changed it to say that it was going to be zone commercial. My concern would be that if it's heavy commercial and that's the zone that's seen on the map, even though there's a developer agreement tied to it, that other things in the future would look at that and say this is heavy commercial. It's allowed other uses that we aren't. intending to allow. It fits more appropriately with the commercial zoning.

Oh, okay. So if you want to change it by development agreement, right, change it to commercial by development agreement, you could do that. I think it would have to come through. It would have to go through again. Yeah, just because the notice and everything was for heavy commercial, but that would certainly be allowed in an amended development agreement, a new draft of a development agreement, but they'd have to go to DRC again and start the process.

Okay. And then just to make a correction, since we have the press here, I was the one that did state about learning through planning commission meetings that if you want to control how a property is zoned or developed, that you need to buy the property, but then also went on to talk about that's why we have zoning rules within Lehigh. That's why we allow things like developer agreements so that we can add protections in, and that's the whole process. So I apologize if that was taken in a way to think that it was solely saying to you as residents to buy the property, just to state that that was really the only way that you can control what a property is. If you want to have the view or anything like that, you need to own it, but we are incorporated within a city. That's why we have the zoning protections in place that are different than the property rights.

Ryan, just to clarify, we wouldn't have to change the general plan?

for to make it commercial or something that's a good question what's the current designation for the general plan the general plan currently calls it out as heavy commercial but because zone changes are uh they're not uh administrative decision they could be something different so the development agreement directed that it should be a commercial zone i don't see that the council couldn't approve a commercial zone here wouldn't necessarily be consistent with what the general plan has but it's not more intense than the heavy commercial. It's less intense of a zone. So I would see that as a benefit. It could be done.

Yeah, we don't typically use development agreements to change the general plan. But again, once you go with the development agreement direction, you can change both the general plan and the underlying zoning by development agreement. It becomes the zoning document for that property. Sorry, the zoning regulation for that document. That way they don't get any of the additional Yeah, you can limit to whatever uses or add whatever uses you're comfortable with in approving the development agreement, so yes.

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with changing the zoning to heavy commercial. I've said that before. It's incompatible with surrounding residents. But I do think I would have considered some commercial uses, and I do think that a development agreement is the way to go. I don't know if this development agreement is... ready for satisfactory to what everything that I am looking at. The berm idea on Trinnaman, I talked to the developer to question what that was, and he said it was a suggestion by a resident, but it would need to be agreed upon by the three residents across from Trinnaman. So I would like that to be nailed down, and we needed some specifications for the berm, how high. still buffering requirements and things like that. To be honest, it's cheaper for the developer to do a fence, and it does create a little bit more safety as far as you're talking about an eight-foot fence versus however many feet berm. If you're looking at children possibly crossing into another property or something. But I know aesthetically the berm is nice, because I actually lived behind a Walmart with the berm for a while, for five years. So I've seen the difference. I do have some concerns about some of the table of uses, such as manufacturing, processing, and assembly, the welding shop. And I think that we need to look a little bit closer at that. And I appreciate the kind of concepts that we were shown tonight. And I think I would, we don't need some fully engineered drawings, but in the development agreement, I'd like to see kind of a general concept sketch of what is, because like someone said tonight, if it's not in writing, it's almost like it doesn't exist. So it's kind of just a concept I think would be appropriate. as well as a few more details there. That's where I'm at. I'll just...

I was just going to add on to that. Specifically with the concept, I would like to see the setbacks, the parking, where the buildings would actually be. I think that would really help the residents to see maybe these buildings are going to be set back so far that they wouldn't want residential because we're now, it's more of an open space there rather than putting the homes there. But I would like to see that too.

I think I share a lot of the same concerns. I don't think it's ready under this current development agreement, just because it was a first stab. I think there were some improvements, but there are, like Rachel mentioned, some permitted uses that I'm still concerned about. And so I think we could work on removing some of those. some of the Yeah, the I want to get some clarity on the landscape buffer So I think under the development agreement since our the last time we were meeting and talking about this agenda item The good news is under this one. There's no tournament access so Basically tournament would be improved my understanding is there would be at least a 12-foot buffer Mike fish That's the typical requirement. Right. So there would be curb, gutter, sidewalk, plus a 12-foot buffer of landscaping on Treneman, plus an 8-foot masonry wall.

And that's part of the development agreement that you could look at some of those kinds of considerations. So you put the landscaping and the softening over on the street side. So all these options can definitely be looked at.

And the sidewalk, and I think it would widen the road probably three or four feet, which that's very narrow. I try to avoid driving down that road just because it's very, very narrow. So I think safety-wise and traffic-wise, I think that's a pretty big improvement. I'd like to see maybe some additional language in there to show that there's no in a commercial building that there would be no windows facing the residents so they could face State Street they could face to the north and to the other commercial property but not toward residents and I do like at least based on the concept from the developer there's you know based on other similar now that I think the picture he showed of the West Jordan development I think our design standards are a little better than the orange and yellow and, you know, so I think it would look a lot better. But the point is that the hours would be good, so it would be fairly quiet after 5 p.m. and on the weekends, generally speaking. So those are positives. But I do share, I think we have a few options, so we can... We can table to strengthen the development agreement. We can choose not to rezone and still have a development agreement. So the underlying zone for any future property owner or anything, they'd have to, again, go through the rezone process even with a development agreement, which is a much higher standard, a little more difficult. You know we could we could look at the split again, but but with additional Additional homes on that Lane. I think it actually objectively adds more traffic Which is for such a narrow road that that's concerning to me even though it would bring in curb and gutter and sidewalk, so I think that's That's where I'm at. I want us to work for the property owners and their Property rights I wanted to work for the neighbors and So I'm kind of open. I don't think I'm prepared to approve anything tonight. I think there's still some improvements. I think it's just a matter of do we table with the assumption that we'd still rezone, or do we table with going a different route, either to rezone at a lighter commercial zoning or just not rezone at all?

So I have a couple thoughts. One thing I want to address is the idea that was presented of the split zoning. And I just want to try to articulate why I don't think that's a good solution. One, it will put more residents next to this unpleasant use that really nobody wants to be next to, right? It will put more traffic on to Trinnaman Lane. And the other thing is when we enter a development agreement, that's the that's the way i want to go because it blanket rezoning you're not going to get the protections you'll get it with a development agreement we could add things in there that you normally want to get but with the development agreement it's a contract between the city and the property owner and both sides have to agree to it and the the applicant already indicated that they're not interested in a split zone so it it's a compromise but i think there's some good solutions um I would not approve heavily commercial. I stated that originally, and I wouldn't. I would keep it residential, if anything, if we're just doing a blanket rezone. But even that, that's not a good solution. That's a lot of traffic on Trinnaman, plus you're putting residents along State Street. And that's a busy road, and residents don't belong there. So this is a tough situation that the council has had to deal with in the past. and try to work through the best compromise we can get. Because we want to protect current residents, but also future residents. So I can't kick it down the road and say, oh, people are moving here later. We'll have to deal with that. So that's why I'm not supportive of the split zone idea. The other thing is I appreciated talking to the property owners, talking to the residents. Part of the problem here, I think the big concern is what you're dealing with now with heavy commercial. We've talked to staff about that, and they're aware of the problem, and they're working on that. It's probably not appropriate to bring up now, but there is enforcement in place, and it's a process. But there are things happening there that probably shouldn't be happening, but we're going to let our code enforcement officer deal with that. But I get your problems, and that needs to be fixed for sure. But I see this development agreement as, again, hopefully a compromise. And I have to say that the potential purchaser or developer of this property, he's been trying to be accommodating. The fact that he put in a berm as an option, which would increase his cost, he did that at a request of a resident. He doesn't think it's a good idea. I don't think it's a good idea, so we're probably not going to go that way. But he is making attempts there. So I kind of want to do this as best we can, and I also think we all want it done, so you guys don't have to come back another time. But if we need to table it to get it right, I'm open that too. I have concerns with the uses. Some of them aren't as bad. I think Kathy, I think is her name, brought up the construction services. That's very different than a construction yard So it's like a plumber, and this is where he keeps his supplies, and he goes out and he does plumbing or whatever. So it's a service that he goes out and does. So it's not as impactful. So I was concerned at first and looked up the definition and checked with staff on that, and that might be okay. Crematorium, yeah, that's probably not a good use. So I went through the whole table of uses, and there's things I definitely would take out. There's some that I would put. Back in, there's professional offices that was taken out. I think that's appropriate to put that back in there. It's minimally impactful. Again, welding shop we'll probably take out. But I think this is a good route to put in protections that we can see that would benefit the neighbors. And again, speaking with the residents, asking them, what would you want in there? I get it. You want to protect your privacy. That's why you want the fence. You don't want the windows facing your property. And a suggestion I brought up and got OK with staff that we could put in there is to have the, there's a 12-foot buffering requirement when it's against adjacent residential uses. Now, there's a street, Treneman, so that's not immediately adjacent, I guess is the word. So We can require it there, which normally wouldn't be required there. So we can require that in the development agreement. And then put that landscaping between the sidewalk and the fence. So it kind of buffers. It's more aesthetically pleasing. I know there was concern about trees. You want to keep the trees. And we have in code already that any trees they can save, they need to save. But again, those big trees are right where the sidewalk's going to go. So they're probably going to go down. But we have a 30-tree-per-acre requirement that I would want. That's normally required in the code anyway. I would put it in the development agreement. So you'll get your trees. We can ask that the majority of those trees be put in that landscape buffer. And by putting that in the development agreement, the developer can't come back and ask for an exception. So there are some things that I want to put in the development agreement so they're solid, that you know that They can't come back to the Planning Commission and ask, well, you know, this is hard. Can we not do this kind of thing? So it's – I mean, I have a whole page of things I would add to the development agreement. No overnight parking. Have the dumpster be enclosed, which it needs to be anyway, away from the adjacent residential parking. The trees, you know, look at the uses more carefully. And then we also have – This property is located in our urban village district. So there's specific design standards there. And there's some of those standards that I want to look at that I've written down. One of them is that the building orientation is supposed to be, if it's on a corner, it's supposed to be facing the street that is most conductive to pedestrian traffic, which would be Trinnaman Lane. So we don't want the building facing there. I would add some exceptions there. Required that to be an exception, I suppose. There's a few other things that I would add as well. And it is required in our code. I think maintenance was a question. Under these design standards, landscaping shall be maintained in good condition according to the approved landscape plan. And it talks about the maintenance that's required. So it's in there. Of course, we need to do a good job enforcing these things. So at this point, again, I'll leave it up to the council if you want to table it or if you're prepared to put in the conditions or things you want to change in the development agreement. I just hate to draw it out because I know it's a pain to come here.

My thoughts are that we...

talk about what we want in there and get it going so that when it come can it come back in two weeks if we do that yeah my my only concern is I really liked where Rachel had talked about with having so residents could see what it was gonna look like maybe nail down the berm versus the eight-foot fence if that's good and the trees I I just get that the residents are concerned we start trying to pass it now and they're worried about like it's not in writing they don't see it i'm with you i want to move this for the you know that's the dilemma always right do we do it by motion and include everything in there do we have it come back and see it in writing so i'm i'm open to that for sure yeah and i i hate delaying this out i know they've already been here through two meetings um and we did miss one a meeting too so i'd delete it longer but that would be my preference just because I know this neighborhood has gone through a lot and that they would like to have something more tangible but sure that makes yeah absolutely we've done that right um I'm just our council member in the ceiling right now I don't know if she has any thoughts before we move on

really important for the neighborhood and for us and for the property owner to have it in writing and see the concept plan. I appreciate the opportunity to have walked the property and have seen those concepts, but I would love to get it more concrete. I guess my one suggestion would be in our motion, if we choose to table it, that we get a clear direction to staff and the team on what we are looking for in two weeks so we don't have

I agree. So I have a question. The development agreement, do you want it to include a concept plan?

Just like a little concept sketch. I don't think it needs to be fully engineered drawings, but I was talking to their planning director about this, and he said that we could definitely ask for something, like some kind of sketch, some concept sketch. Nothing... that's gonna cost a whole lot to be done. But I think that we were presented some four things tonight that could be easily put into the development agreement.

So I guess the question would be, I think we're moving toward tabling, but do we table for a lower commercial zoning or table without a rezone? So essentially a development agreement on rezone. perpetual residential zoning.

Well, if we're just talking about item 5.4, we're not talking about rezoning. So if we're talking about 5.5, it's rezoning, and I said that I would not be in favor of rezoning to heavy commercial. So we're checking our development agreement at this point.

There is some language on the current item that references the heavy commercial, so we'll have to address that on this item as well. So I think I'm generally leaning toward no rezone, so deny the commercial item. heavy commercial rezone and move toward just a development agreement on the current zoning. And I think that provides an extra layer of protection down the road for additional uses that could come up, you know, 15, 20 years from now.

So then it becomes very specific about what is allowed, like a light office warehouse, like listing the things that would be allowed and not with the residential. And then I prefer that so much more than trying to think of everything we have to eliminate. So I like that direction a lot.

No. Okay.

I think my only caveat was that, according to Spice, I mentioned keep it residential, but to the staff, the exception could be used. My only caveat is just to make sure that the applicant has the opportunity to fully engage in that exception, even if they, I know you guys know, but just that they agree to it as well, I wouldn't want them to feel

So I talked to the potential developer here. And just to clarify for his sake, he was concerned. I guess the intent is to rent out the office warehouses and each individual one. And there might be different uses in those. He talked about maybe having a hobby shop where somebody works on their cars. And he was concerned about the welding. So that's why welding shop was in there. But welding shop is an entirely different use. So with office warehouse, I just want to clarify if you would, how do you say that, incidental to allowed uses or provided?

If you're doing like auto repair, I'd probably classify that more as an auto repair type of a use, but it might include some of the incidental welding. But there are other uses in the code. They may have an incidental part of it. But a welding shop is like specifically getting in there. There's one over on State Street, a little farther down from here. That's all they do is weld and fabricate, so that would be a whole different story. And probably much more impactful than if they were doing some welding as part of another use. But all that could certainly be spelled out in the development agreement. Another thing, just listening to comments tonight as well, that could be addressed in the development agreement is also hours of operation. Rather than saying, let's put uses that may not operate later, you could put that into the development agreement. Our neighborhood commercial zone, for example, automatically has hours of operation limited So that is something that you could look at. Now, again, the development agreements between the city and the property owner, the property owner would have to agree to that. Otherwise, it kind of defaults back to where it is unless some other action is taken.

Okay, so just to clarify what the council would do, I would like your input. Would you prefer to limit it to office warehouse or take off some of the uses that are in this exhibit B that we're not comfortable with?

I would take off some uses, but I guess I have to go look at the definition of office warehouse and then those uses. What's your recommendation planning?

I was going to say it would be preferable to, at least to us, to detail which uses are or are not allowed and certainly I think there's a lot of them that could be taken out to minimize potential future impacts but if it's just office warehouse alone that's a specific use you know hobby garages or auto repair is a different use so if it's only office warehouse in the development agreement that's literally just storage of stuff in the warehouse and an office space but if you're actually doing Anything within that warehouse space that's a different use on our table, then that should be spilled out.

And I think if we, assuming that we don't rezone, right, it's all in development agreement, I think the current list of permitted uses could be a good starting point because we've already expressed like crematory and others that we don't necessarily want permitted. I think that would be a good kind of standard and baseline for Mr. Snow to, If you have any additional ones for us to consider, or there's some that you don't ever envision being used in that development, I think that's kind of a good starting point, right? And then we can go from there into the development agreement.

Yeah? Yeah, and I also want to just bring up, this is a multiple time, but the flex commercial idea that was brought up before us, I think several of us were interested in that. That might be something to look at in the future for the city, just because I think it might, it could have fit nicely in here. So just consider it. So if we're looking at article one is where there's a lot of the regulations, kind of the requirements. And it says exhibit B, references exhibit B. So should we just look at the exhibit B and kind of edit that?

Do you want to do it as part of the motion or hash it out now?

I don't know if we should.

We've got to give direction. Yeah, okay.

Well, maybe we should discuss it before we motion it.

Another thing, sorry, I don't know if I'm supposed to speak up and ask questions to you guys, but just on the concept plan thing, I just wanted to maybe get clarification, maybe when you give us direction, just to let us know what you're thinking on that. If you put a concept plan in the agreement, is it concrete that you have to build it with this layout, or is it more of a figure? Because I'd hate for a concept to be out there, and then someone comes along and wants to do something different. If it's just figurative, just to give an illustration of what it could be, that could mislead expectations. If it is very specific that you should build your development to this exact concept and it doesn't work, then they have to come back and try and change the agreement later, which maybe everyone's okay with. Anyway, I just want to make sure we clarify on the concept what...

My biggest thing with the concept is I want to see the buffering and where the parking lot is and kind of an idea of where the building is. But I think that's important to show buffering on the sides and also the screening. But I know that maybe where they're actually going to build that may be a little bit different. I just don't want it to come back and change that, oh, we're going to put the building in the back here or it's not going to be as far away from what they were saying before. I just want a rough layout.

That's great. know just helpful to us we can specifically say these are the elements we're after you know the concept can represent those elements but we can make the language reflect that as well like we're going to have this buffer we're going to have the fence the trees any of those things that's like it was brought up the parking lot was going to be in the back i like what i did towards state street do you have a

I think that's okay. I think that's good to put in the setbacks, put in the elements. I kind of want to know where the parking is because I know the concern was expressed that the adjacent resident didn't want a hangout area, which I get because I had that when I lived in an apartment. I know what it's like to have teenagers out there smoking or whatever. So one thing I thought of, so maybe we could just talk about elements and then come up with a design. I don't know. That's a good question. But I know what I was thinking, like, do you want the building closer to you or do you want parking? That's a question for the residents, I guess. But if we have the drive aisle right there and there's a line of sight, maybe that could stop bad things from happening. if it's open and people can see back there.

There's those crime prevention through environmental design principles that you look at, which is what you're referring to, more of that natural surveillance.

So we could just give direction on those kind of things to consider, put it in there or apply it to a concept plan, but.

Yeah, I know one thing that will come up with us in our design standards is typically it requires the building to street. Are you okay with the module of parking between the building and State Street, but still generally having the buildings towards State Street? But the concept could represent that. Maybe there's points in the concept saying, hey, here's the language in the agreement that says these are the things that are required, and the concept can kind of represent some of those elements.

Just a reminder to speak in the microphone. I know there's some that are having a hard time hearing. That's for everybody.

So maybe, so back in the day, back in the day, content plans would come before the city council. And it was kind of just general direction. And what I understood at that time, it didn't grant vested rights, but it gave everybody a kind of general idea of what they would work towards. So maybe just a general concept plan where you kind of work through those things, the design standards and where exceptions might need to be made. But also, I know one of the issues, we want to minimize sound. So what's the best way to do it? But we want to maximize privacy. And so maybe we could put it on you to figure out the best way to do that. I don't know. Thoughts on that?

Yeah, we're happy to do that. Yeah, and I think the concept, I mean, it still has to go pre-construction, right? It still has to go through the full process. So there might be changes, but as long as we're requiring in the development agreement the basic standards, like if they... you know, add an extra garage or whatever. That's not as big of a deal, but we have to have the baseline concrete. This is what it must include. And then there's also the curveball of UDOT. I mean, there has to be approvals by the developer for some UDOT permissions on State Street, which I don't think it would be an issue because there's already an entrance from the Walker property onto State Street. So I don't think that'll be an issue, but there's a couple more hurdles.

But yeah, I think...

you know, if it's still, even in the concept phase, let's say we approve the development agreement with all of our standards, it goes through everything and things change significantly to where it doesn't meet the spirit or the letter of what we're going to put in this motion, then it can still be denied, right, at a future date. So I think we can hold a pretty high standard there.

Yeah. One thing I wanted to clarify was in item 1.2, or item, I don't know what you want to call it. But in Article 1.2, it talks about approved uses do not include any outside storage of materials or goods. And a resident brought up that there's a little discrepancy there with some of the uses. When I talked to the developer, he clarified that he meant long-term outside storage of materials or goods. So I don't know if we want to define that. We probably should add long-term.

but i don't know if i'd even want that i'm just pointing that out because that's something to note to that note we would want to clarify that in the language of the development agreement because to me that is a conflict because in the code where it says outdoor storage of materials to me that is long term it's an approved use you know maybe that's not the best idea to have that there so that would be something you could consider striking out of the table

OK, I prefer striking it. But if you're going to keep it in, like if it's the hill to die on for the developer, I would definitely define it and make it temporary, like overnight, period.

Yeah, I'm saying that I think residents would appreciate not having materials and things stored like that outside on a regular basis. So what is, since this is an agreement, this is an agreement between us and the developer, right? Development agreement. So what is the developer intending or wanting to do? That's what I think we should clarify with that. Because that might affect the uses.

Yeah, and we can, of course, discuss this between meetings as well, unless he wants to talk about it now.

I was going to say, do you want to come up? Is that appropriate to ask the applicant to come up, ask questions of the applicant? It is now. He's coming up anyway.

It is now. I remind you that...

I asked you.

Yeah, after you asked him. That's okay. Go ahead. Hi, Mr. Snow. Welcome back. Thank you.

Can you address the storage of materials or goods? It says approved uses do not include any outside storage of materials or goods. Are you okay with that? Yes. We don't allow it anyway.

OK. That was easy. If somebody leaves a pallet outside overnight, I'm OK with that. Because they normally don't have a spot inside for it, or somebody hasn't picked it up. So that's all we'll allow anyway.

OK. Just trying to clarify. Thank you.

By the way, strike out the crematorium. We left it there. I wouldn't allow it. Because you have to cut holes in the building, and we don't allow that.

OK. Strike crematorium. What about manufacturing, processing, and assembly?

I think there's a light and there's a regular.

Yeah, just the regular one. We allow light. We don't allow heavy. I mean, you can have 2,000 square foot facilities, and if you can have any more than three parking spaces or four, it's going to be too much for us, and we won't allow it. We just don't want to have the parking.

Yeah, I looked at the definition of light manufacturing, and that seemed appropriate, but the

general manufacturing processing assembly seemed like that would probably not be appropriate there that's correct okay and just clarify for the public that the light manufacturing has stipulations that it can't be impactful as far as the noise and the smells and that kind of thing so i like that we don't allow i mean we don't allow people to cut holes in the building so they're going to have to

It's rare to see a door open at our place. It's really rare. Spring and fall, occasionally somebody will leave a door open. But they're closed because they're conditioned inside. So I don't know if that.

Yeah. And one thing we talked about also was keeping the operations indoors versus outdoors.

Again, you can't bring stuff outside.

OK.

There's your suite inside. Your parking's outside.

You're great to work with.

We just don't see that. You're talking one or two employees in a building is really all we ever see. Our landscape contractor in our building now, I mean, he has three or four employees show up, but they all ride in the same car. So I'll leave it at that.

When I asked you about the berm earlier this week, you said that had been a suggestion by a resident adjacent on Treneman and that you needed to strike. Talk to some other residents about it. Have you been able to do that?

I haven't. I would just as soon strike it. I mean, from what I'm hearing here, noise is an issue. Put the eight-foot block wall up.

Yeah.

Noise is eliminated. I mean, you're going to have some noise. I mean, you're going to have somebody that has a muffler on their car, but you're not going to hear anything out of the suites. If somebody has that much noise coming out of one of their suites, the next door neighbor is going to shut them down. Just as simple as that.

And the landscaping requirements with trees in that buffer zone, whether they're old trees that are in a position where they can stay or they're newly planted trees, that's going to add to the sound buffer.

All those trees on trim have got to come down. They're on the street side of the sidewalk.

So the sidewalk will go in.

And we drilled holes in some of them. Most of them are hollow. Let me grab my tablet. I wrote down a couple of things that you guys brought up real quick. Hang on a second. We addressed long-term storage, the crematorium. The 12-foot buffer, we did talk about being a hangout for kids. You don't want a 12-foot buffer. You know, a property I sold in West Jordan, we had a 12-foot buffer. I won't, anyway. Daily, we were cleaning up shot needles. If we weren't cleaning up shot needles, it was all the monster drinks and stuff like that. It was a disaster. Police were out there all the time. They got rid of the drug problem. It didn't get rid of the teenage problem. The short of the buffer, I think today the city is a six-foot buffer. I'd recommend keeping it a six-foot buffer. I may be mistaken. Is that correct?

Our standard buffer, when you have residential and commercial together, is 12 foot. But it requires on the... Is that back of sidewalk or back of curb? So it's from back of the position where the sidewalk would be. Okay. That would be typically 12 foot, but the difference is normally have a fence on the back of walk two and the buffers on the inside of the fence. Kind of the suggestion was maybe swap it and the fences closer to the building and the buffer space gives a little bit more vegetation and open feeling along the sidewalk versus an eight foot wall next to the sidewalk.

Okay. And that's something we work out with you guys. I'm just saying from my past experience, it is what it is.

And I think on the inside of the wall, definitely, right? They're enclosed. They're private and things would happen.

And you're going to have around the whole facility. The problem with it is giving a design, my architect goes on vacation tomorrow.

No, I think mostly looking at the layout, right?

The layouts we've got are really, really close. Now, we can strike out the one that's in a big yellow shape. I said, this is my not favorite ones. But the other one, except the Mr. Google and AI, the ones in color, we can strike that one out as well because it goes into Treneman. But the other two have parking around the entire exteriors. And that's kind of what we want to do. The reason we struck out the professional usage, we don't like traffic. We don't like customers coming in and out of the property. And that's what that does for us. And that keeps traffic down. You're just not going to find a doctor or an attorney or accountant using this type of facility. It's going to cost them too much to do the tenant improvement to make it so they can use it. And then they steal a big garage door out front. So we just don't see that, nor have we ever had anybody ask us for that kind of space. So we can put it back in there. I have no problem with that. It's just we don't like that kind of traffic.

And you could just develop it, the office warehouse, right? I'm looking at it in the future. So this development agreement's tied to the land. So unless I hear strong opposition between now and when it comes back, that no, we don't want professional offices to go there. I think maybe it might be an acceptable future use someday, maybe, if somebody wants to.

I have no problem putting it back in. We won't allow it. You're not going to do it. We won't allow it. Just too much traffic.

Yeah. So my point is we just have to look to the future, too, and

For future, I would put it in. There was a lot of things that we, when I talked to Kim, we just said, ah. And so some of them we left in, some of them we took out. It was just... Yeah, and then we had to go through and read the definitions of all the stuff and say we're going to leave the welding in because of this, this, this, and this, and leave the automotive in because of this, this, this, and this. So, yeah, but again, our insurance company won't let a welder in there, nor can we put a, I mean, the city, at least West Jordan, has a very strict policy on auto mechanics. We don't allow it. So, and I don't know what the city would or not. I don't really care because we won't let them in there anyway. But we left it in there for the hobby shop, for a hobby kind of like me that builds hot rods.

Yeah.

So because it fits in that bill.

Yeah, what about equipment sales and rental? That would just be equipment and those sort of things would be inside pretty much, right?

We have to define what equipment is. Equipment, my dad was a doctor. He had all kind of equipment.

Yeah.

Unless we're talking scaffolding and things like that, that's not our, you can't have that kind of facility at our place because there's not enough room and we don't allow it outside. So they have to, whatever they have, they have to confine it within a 2,000 or 4,000 square foot space. Awesome. And nobody's going to rent equipment, especially construction-type equipment, in that small of a space. OK.

So outdoor sales and display, again, is outdoors, so probably would remove that.

I can't remember why we left that in there.

OK. I just threw it out, just having a conversation. I appreciate you working. OK.

Anything else? So take out that because it's outdoor. That's a good point. I'm good.

Happy to entertain a motion.

Is there some legal counsel that we're needing right now?

Tell you what we were discussing.

Yeah, we were just having a discussion about whether... Because typically a development agreement has to go to planning commission before it comes here. You're changing, right? The currently proposed agreement was for heavy commercial. The new one would keep the zoning the same. I'll speed to the end here. I think we are comfortable that it doesn't need to go back to the planning commission because you're actually doing... less restrictive things with the excuse me you're taking away uses right that would have been proposed currently so it's going to have a it's going to have less of an impact so maybe if your motion would just reserve that for us to do a little bit of research but i think as we've discussed it it wouldn't need to go to planning commission before it comes back to you but i'd like to make sure that that we're comfortable with that answer does that make sense okay okay

I'll try it. Are we good? Does anyone have any more input? You can ask to amend my, or add to my motion. So listen carefully, and if you have other things, add it. I did take notes. Okay. So we're tabling this, yeah. Mayor, I move that we table Resolution 2026-52, approval of the Nancy Walker Development Agreement on 2.581 acres of property located at 915 West State Street allowing certain restricted heavy commercial uses on the property and other site restrictions for commercial development and give direction to staff to amend the exhibit be the table of uses removing I need your help crematorium, outdoor sales and display, outdoor storage of materials, products, and equipment incidental to allowed uses, excluding junk yards and salvage yards, cabinet and woodworking shop, manufacturing, processing, and assembly, warehousing and wholesale distribution, welding shop and then to let's see amend section 1.4 to include or to specify in the development agreement that there will be 30 trees per acre with the majority of trees in the landscape screening and buffer areas nearby the residential uses. To include an 8-foot wall or fence and 12-foot landscaping buffer on the side of the property at Budding, Trinnaman Lane, and the sidewalk section of 1850 North, with the landscaping being between the sidewalk and the fencer wall. To include a 12-foot... landscaping requirement adjacent to the residential property with at least seven feet of that landscape buffer to be on the outside of the wall or fence. Let's see, to present a concept plan that shows, well, scratch that, that the buildings would have no windows facing onto the adjacent residential property. that the dumpster is to be enclosed and be placed away from the adjacent residential property, that there be no overnight parking, that would require that there only be indoor operation, no outdoor operations, that outdoor storage is prohibited, and then provide an exemption exception to the urban village design standards that requires the building orientation that buildings on properties with more than two street frontages be placed on the corner most conductive, sorry, conducive to pedestrian travel. And under those standards require that the parking areas be constructed of a pervious hard surface material. the standards it's just required I'd like every encouraged I like it required see and that the landscaping be maintained in good condition according to the approved landscape plan the other Yeah, I think that's what I have. Suggestion before a second?

Sure.

Also, remove any language around the rezoning to heavy commercial since we're not going to do that. And then also, I would remove language around a fence because they already have a masonry or concrete wall in the agreement. You mean the barrel?

remove the berm include we said wall or fence so I was just saying let's just say wall just so that so change that to an 8 foot tall masonry what's in there now or concrete wall yeah and you want you understand what I the landscaping so it's not just the adjacent to the property owner but at the other I guess cherries doing the motion Um, and yes, what council member Harrison said about the, the zone change. Um, and 1.3 that addresses the vehicular access, um, as required by the fire code, I would keep that so that it's not public access, a crash gate or something like that.

If it's required?

If required by the fire code. I think that's all.

Can I ask a question?

So I got a first. Do I have a second?

Then I'll ask questions. Second. I want questions before I second anything. That's fine. I already have a second.

So I have a second. Council Member Newell?

Can I also... There's a couple of things. The drive-through facilities is permitted. And then also a shooting range. Are those? OK. Those were two I think we should take out, too. OK.

I will amend my motion. Are you OK? So we'll amend that to the motion. So we have a first by Councilmember Stallings, a second by Councilmember Newell. Councilmember Freeman, what was your question?

It looked like you removed warehousing and wholesale distribution. Can you explain that? Because I have seen that even in neighborhood, like even in home.

in-home commercial where they just like store bath bombs or you know something like that in the definitions and i can pull it up if i can find it um it's it has to be a certain size i thought it wasn't certain no i was wrong um but office warehouse already allows Warehousing is that right?

So the biggest difference is the office warehouse requires an office component to it and a warehouse whereas warehouse Distribution which oftentimes are like those huge Amazon centers where you might typically think of but it is possible Maybe to have a small scale, but it allows warehousing only So there's no office component. So that might mean you don't have somebody there all the time Anyway, that's probably the caveat is full warehouse versus something that requires the office component.

So it doesn't seem to be something the applicant wants, but again, future uses it could be.

big warehouse well it's yeah I mean this could be storage of goods materials or products you know I mean it could be someone who just just wants like a store wants like like the good of the beautiful stores a bunch of their books or some clothing facility stores things which they would still allow be allowed to do warehousing in office warehouse

It's just not the... But you'd require an office.

Technically an office space of some sort would be required.

I just don't see it as that incompatible use next to residential. That's all I'm saying if we're having these office warehouses.

I just think it would bring a lot of traffic onto State Street, but I mean like trucks in and out, but if you... I guess it depends on the applicant. Does the applicant care?

Would want that?

I don't care for me, but

And I didn't include professional offices, but future owners can come back and amend the development agreement or start from scratch. So if somebody really wants that, they could change it. But I'd rather limit it more right now than open it up to more things.

So does that answer your question?

Yeah, that's fine. And then can you explain the seven-foot buffering you were talking about? Yes. In your motion.

Yes. Because I know it's 12-foot buffering requirements. So there's two problems. And I hope this is OK if I share this. But in my conversation with the developer, there's a question about where their property line is. And right now, the current home is right up against the property line. And so he said he's willing to let that go and put put his wall where it is I didn't really originally I thought the 12-foot buffer next to the resident would be a good idea but then we have encroachment issues a future you know somebody buys a house in the future they can just assume that oh that's my property this is where the fence is that's my property so I kind of wanted to avoid that situation but it seems like it's kind of already the case and And again, you can talk to, sorry, I'm supposed to address you, I guess, or the chair. You can work on that if that's not appropriate. But he's already willing to concede that. It's already been encroached upon from my understanding. So that's why...

I left it as what it is. Just seven foot buffering outside the wall on the south side adjacent to residential. Is that what you're saying? Well, is that what I said? Is it south? I don't know.

I think I said 12 feet total, which, again, you can work on this, but with at least seven feet being outside the wall.

Just for all sides?

No, just the... the residential use adjacent to the property, which is immediately next to that property. So it's only the resident on the- I'm just trying to clarify.

Sorry.

Okay, so back to our motion. We have a first with Councilmember Stallings, a second from Councilmember Newell. Any additional questions? If not, we'll start with you, Councilmember Newell. Yes. Councilmember Harrison. Yes. Councilmember Stallings. Yes. Councilmember Freeman. Yes. Councilmember Lockhart. Okay. That takes us to item 5.5, which is currently tabled, consideration of ordinance 27-2026, approving the Walker zone change on 2.58 acres located on 915 West State Street, changing the zoning from R18 to CH heavy commercial. This was tabled on July 14 in the city council meeting. So I'll take a motion to untable this. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

No. I would prefer to leave the table until the development agreement is done.