Municipal Council - Regular Meeting

interested in. It makes it a little bit more digestible. The rebates and incentives, that second one, is going to be all the information about the Landscape Incentive Program and any of our other rebates. We do have the Smart Controller Replacement Program and the Toilet Replacement Program to also help out with irrigation and lowering water use with the indoors. We do a DIY webinar every month, the last Wednesday of every month, just going over hallmark landscaping kind of activities. So even if you don't have a water-wise project that you're working on, oftentimes we'll go over something that's applicable and then over on our YouTube we have everything recorded. And then that last one is a landscape guide. It's just about like I think 30 or 40 pages going over hallmark aspects of the Landscape Incentive Program and any kind of water-wise project that you're doing. So anywhere from mulch to setting up your irrigation to talking about rain gardens and edible gardens really goes over quite a bit. And then lastly, yeah, the last thing I'd like to shout out is the Utah State Water Plan. If you are someone who is interested in how the state develops and how we use water, we are writing a five-year plan every five years for the state and how we're going to develop, how we're going to change our yeah, how we're going to go forward with our water development. And the public comment period opens next week. So if you are interested in putting a public comment in, we'd love to hear from you all, especially anyone who works in the water industry here. Yeah. Yeah.

Thank you, Blue. I appreciate your time. And thank you for coming. Thanks for spending time with us last week too, Blue. Absolutely. Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you. Ernesto, if you'll lead us in a pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Ernesto, and thank you, Blue, and to your coworkers there for coming. And they've been meeting with council members one-on-one and met with the mayor and myself recently over the last couple of weeks to make sure that we're all up to date on the programs they offer and the possibilities for the ordinance. I think, has everyone had a chance to meet with them at this point? Yeah, perfect. Okay, we will move now on to acceptance of our minutes from our last two meetings, our June 16th meeting as well as our data center meeting on June 30th and the approval of the agenda tonight or any questions or thoughts on either of those.

I'll move that we accept the minutes from June 16th and 30th and approve the agenda.

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes. Our minutes are accepted and our agenda is approved. Our 2026 regular meeting schedule is the first and third Tuesdays at 5.30. Our next meeting will be August 4th at 5.30 PM. Of note, we also have a truth and taxation meeting on August 11th at 6 PM here in the council chambers. And then I'm going to add on to that as well that we have a data center open house. We originally announced that as July 28th. We've actually moved that to August 4th at 7 p.m. So those are the next couple of meetings that we have coming up. Now is the time for questions or comments for the mayor and council for any items not on the agenda. This is the time for the audience. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, you're welcome to come to the microphone. Please state your name and city of residence. Please keep your comments to three minutes or less. And with that, I will open up the microphone for anyone who has comments or questions.

I did say non-agenda items.

Hi, I'm Lee Lesholtz. I'm a resident on Canyon Road. It works, just walk out. Okay, and you've all seen me before. I am coming to you with a little bit of new information. I've had JUB and city engineers come to my end of my driveway to talk to me twice, which is great. But this year, the boundary that they said would be the edge of the sidewalk was about three feet further into my property than the boundary that was set last year. So I'm confused. And we've gotten through pretty much through our part of the installation of the water pipe. The people on the street have been great. The construction people have been really helpful and moved out of the way when we're backing out. Of course, didn't have access for a week. I've got pictures that I took this morning. Is it all right to? Sure.

I feel your pain, Leila. It's been brutal at my house, too.

We all do. This is such a hard issue on Canyon Road. Thank you. I just took these with my cameras. You can see my cute dog. I do see your dog.

What's your dog's name? Ollie.

Ollie. But there's a little flag on the boundary that I was shown on May 20. I think it's 27th. We don't know what the effect of removing the ash trees is on the trees remaining. They're certainly more exposed to sun, and this has been a pretty bad summer. My request, I'll just be upfront with it, is that we table this issue until we know what the damage is to the trees. Rex Davis is going to come out and meet with Sydney Elwood on Friday and start trying to assess things, but it's just establishing a baseline. We don't know until the trees have been there a while. Two big issues are still liability if you cut into that hillside. I suffered a mudslide in my backyard in 2016 as a result of some engineering. It's a problem, so there's liability. There's also the will of the people. You know there have been tremendous response to surveys about this issue. And if you go back and look at what Matt Vance wrote, the survey that he did showing that five, I think it's all five districts, Logan, shall the majority of voters say no sidewalk on the north side, improve the one on the south? I've said everything so many times, I'll stop. But I leave you with some questions, and I just hope we can put things off for a while.

Thank you. Thank you, Ellen. Can I answer one of your questions on your paper briefly? Is that allowed?

Oh, yes.

Who's responsible for sidewalk maintenance? Sidewalk maintenance is responsible. That's the city's responsibility. But bushes and weeds growing into the sidewalk, that's the property owner's responsibility to maintain those off of the sidewalk.

Correct? I don't know. Correct. That's good to know.

Yeah, so if there's weeds growing into the sidewalk, the city can go out and enforce that on the property owner that's living there, but it is the property owner's responsibility to keep the weeds off of the sidewalk.

Interesting.

Because I have a neighbor that does this all the time, too.

Just so you know, your side neighbors have been really good. Everything has always been maintained. I've paid for the trimming of the trees. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Layla.

josh how are you i'm john smaller from logan so i don't know if you've been following the uh the planning and zoning with the thing with the um wetlands but i was at the last one and i wanted to get up here because i kind of feel bad for the last time i was there I wanted to apologize to Russ for putting him on the hot seat. The very first time that, you know, it came up, the first meeting, when you came out, you said, oh, I feel the hot seat coming up. I was like, when they decided to continue it, I was like, I'm gonna put you on the hot seat next time. So, I just wanted to apologize to you, you know, because I got pretty dramatic at that with my comments, and yeah, I was full-on, full-drawn clean going on. I feel passionate about, you know, what was going on, but yeah, I kinda, yeah, I put you on the hot seat. So, I have mad respect for your for your position and that of your staff too. So, all right. That's all I wanted to do. So, Gina was there.

She saw it. Thanks, Josh.

It's very nice of you, Josh.

It's an emotional subject that I've had many conversations about, but it takes a lot to... Thank you. Appreciate that, Josh.

Hi, I'm Riley. I live in Logan. I'm a fairly newer resident. I mostly have a question if we could maybe have more direct communication with residents regarding construction. There's some construction in front of my building recently and we received no information in it. I did talk to Mr. Lindhart and he did explain that it did only block half of our driveway, but the whole building in front of half of my driveway, which is the only way to get out, was deep, like deep enough to sink a car. So it wasn't safe. We received no communication other than a knock on the door, but the knock is about as effective as knocking on the outside of an apartment building because they live in a complex. So it was super ineffective and it felt a little disrespectful to the residents because had I not gotten my shift covered the day they started, I would have been late to work. And I've received good communication about other less significant events happening in the city. So I know that it's possible. I'm just wondering if we can maybe enforce it for construction other than just knocking on doors.

I got your email and I talked to Public Works about it. So absolutely. Great. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Definitely one that falls in your realm. So thank you. We are already on it. You are already on it. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you, Riley.

Matt. Matthew I live here in Logan, Utah. I am going to be parking my plant here. Your guys' ordinance is, I don't care whether they say you can do that or not, but we need to start considering planting edible stuff on city property, because if cities don't allow for edible plants to be planted in city limits, then what the fuck is a city even good for? You're exploiting the peripheries or something like that, but we're not really doing that good of a job. uh yeah uh make sure that you also take into account what she was saying as well because you know you're not that poor but anybody that's late for work usually actually is running the risk of getting on the street um also as far as parks are going i think we need to remove the curfews on them because otherwise we actually probably should instead of doing construction on the north side of that where we could have construction detour signs to firms specifically which also probably should be illegal you know using an advertising sign that looks like a city construction warning sign We should probably, instead of that, build fences around the parks like we do with graveyards to make sure that no kids get the impression that on summer when they get to play night games and everything that they get to go to the park or anything. um what other elements are there for you guys to randomly consider um oh right i was on a service sermon basically today with some real estate agents and gosh i hate real estate agents it's crazy it's interesting how the number of title insurance not title companies but title insurance agencies are increasing in the valley while our poverty crisis in that regard is increasing i wonder who's uh you know expediting the rising prices because they're insuring the title free sale and everything like that. You know, because underwriters, I would love to know who the underwriters are for the eight different title insurance agencies inside of this valley because they're the ones that are ruining our housing situation here. I really just, you guys are so bad at your jobs.

I fucking hate it. I fucking hate it.

no anyways raspberries i have more raspberries if you guys want to start planting them on city property library would be a pretty great spot i was thinking over there by the benches you know with the reading stuff that way you can you know read your kids books to your kids and not have to have them sitting down doing nothing they can get their hands sticky or whatever with the stuff but i guess you'll have to start doing a uh calling ordinance oh right i want to just uh do the weed stuff so the sidewalk i'm curious are you responsible for the as a homeowner for the parking strip outside on the other side of the sidewalk between the sidewalk and the road yes for maintenance there's a homeowner yes okay do you know about the stump house out of my house There's been a stump. You guys took down a tree and then left the stump there. And it's been there since before my grandma died. I don't know if you care where my grandma died. I came here and talked about the Confederate flag meeting that was over at the construction, the housing construction. We have a problem here. I hate you guys. I hate you guys.

You're crazy volunteers.

Anyways, I'm gonna go park my tree outside and forget that it's there and you're all gonna forget that. I even said that because you have principles and you know when to actually hold them. Have a good one.

Thanks, Matt. Seeing no one else, we will close the questions and comments for the mayor and council. And we will have some time over to Mayor Anderson for some Mayor and staff reports.

We have one report from Russ Hawley about our River Crossing affordable housing project that is finishing up. Please, Russ.

Yes, thank you, Mayor. And it's 99.9% complete. They are working on... uh some playground equipment uh otherwise uh it is completed so this is uh river crossing town homes is approximately first west and 600 south quick history A few years back, the intersection looked like this. So First West dead ended at 6 South and then the city constructed a new bridge and intersection and realigned the entire area. Now First West swings east of the church. in doing this there were three homes that were removed and there were three residual properties the area was already zoned mr12 there was some extra right-of-way associated with the old first west that required vacation once vacation was completed the city decided to partner with a builder to construct eight affordable units. So that's four town homes east of the road and four town homes west of the road. We went through a request for qualifications process. We formed a committee and reviewed three submittals. Ultimately, we chose visionary homes based on five grading criterias. And they constructed the Medford unit, which is a almost 1500 square foot unit. It's three bedrooms, two baths, and they have a rear loading alley fed garage that's large enough to hold two cars. So they just finished up and they just sold the last unit a couple of weeks ago. And so the final pricing was at 279. The appraisals came in at about 320. That equals $189 per square foot, which is a really good value in today's market. All of the units sold within a month. All of the buyers qualified with the AMI thresholds. Part of the project was a deed restriction that the city drafted which requires them to be owner-occupied for five years. Once the five years transpires, then that deed restriction is lifted and they can sell the property free and clear and can realize that value and extra money because if you try to sell that before, you're required to pay the city back. Now it is transferable. We understand that folks have to move once in a while. And so if you transfer it to a new owner occupied family or individual, then it can continue to run its course. The city provided about $40,000 in values, the land value and some fee reductions. There's a lot of kind of privacy rules and so we don't want to get into all the buyer information. But again, they all qualify for the AMI. Most of the buyers would typically have not qualified for maybe a market rate unit. And then the age demographics vary. So there are older, younger folks. Some of the issues expressed. The deed restriction had an issue with foreclosure clauses and federal lending laws. So if we do this in the future we may want to make some adjustments to that. And then the builder had a desire for maybe a larger project because of economy of scale and then just logistics was kind of difficult to mobilized, things like that. So here's the rear garage that's from the old First West. Here's an interior photo. And here's a front facade photo.

So they stay affordable units after five years?

The deed restriction is lifted after five years, and so it's no longer suppressed. So it will be based on market values in five years, but it can be sold free and clear at market rate in five years. The idea was a first time buyer could get into the market, stay here for a while, maybe they're eventually going to outgrow it and they could sell it and move on and keep that equity or transfer it to a new home.

Right. I guess I thought for some reason we were going to be able to keep them affordable over a longer length of time.

Well, the deed restriction is only owner occupancy. It's not anything to do with price, correct? Correct.

Yeah, I've seen some of these types of projects in other cities where there is a sort of cap on the gain.

But we did not do that. We did not do that. Moab has a restriction in perpetuity, so they always remain affordable.

But we could do that for other projects. We could. We could. Absolutely. There's a good test run to see how this would work. And from the numbers and the excitement about it, it's something we should

Was it $40,000 in value per unit or for the entire project? Per unit. Per unit, that's what I thought. Yes.

I think it's great that we took the opportunity with this. this land and redesign, you know, to test it and see. I think it's the fact that we're in this scenario and a city that we have this demand and then now we've shown the demand, the response for this kind of thing allows us to think about that for other

We don't have a lot of properties. No. Looking at the market, similar town homes are selling for $350,000 to $375,000. They have a little bit more amenities because they're in a larger section. Under $300,000 is amazing. It's a good place to start. Shockingly. It's a good place to start.

Did you have to turn people away?

so visionary homes and their preferred lender lenders handled all of the purchase process they had they told me they had a very long line of buyers it was first come first serve but they also had to meet all the qualifications so some folks didn't meet the qualifications so they were replaced in line but yeah from what i heard there was a long list of folks that were trying to purchase these

Anything else for Russ or Mary Anderson? Thank you, Ross. Appreciate it, Ross. Mayor, anything else? No, that's it. Thank you. Thank you to both of you. We'll now move on to Council Business and we'll start with a Planning Commission update from Councilwoman Simmons.

Planning Commission reviewed two items at their last meeting. One of them we will workshop later on. The other one was a tower relocation for cell towers. And the interesting part about those things is when you relocate something, you have to bring it up to code. If it's not up to code where it sits, it's called legally existing nonconforming. So there was a lot of discussion about the fact that it now needed to conform to the current regulations within the variances that we could allow. And it's something that I don't think sometimes people think about. But anyway, that's all we talk about.

Thank you, Jeannie. We'll now move to council business. If any council members have something they feel like is important to bring for the public or the council, this is your opportunity.

Very briefly, the Forestry Advisory Board postponed their meeting, but there are a few updates that the public may be interested in, in terms of the America 250 tree planting. They now have 150 trees planted, so there's still a hundred But they're trying to get planted by the end of this year. So there are some parameters. They've tried to focus on Logan and public spaces. There's also, with park strips, a minimum heat. i think is what they were looking at but to the public if there are areas in the city that could use shade in our parks or along streets or that you notice send an email to rex davis and he will come check it out and then they were doing some fire mitigation up in logan canyon cutting some trees as well and some mosquito abatement. That's it.

I guess two brief things. Well, I guess I'll keep it one. We'll keep it short. I went to a lot of meetings for last month, but I think the only thing that I mentioned this earlier, I just want to make sure that it's mentioned again, is we did have a data center open house tentatively scheduled for the 28th. We have moved that to August 4th. here at City Hall at 7 p.m. So obviously, maybe not obviously, but we are currently in a data center moratorium where we write code. This is your chance to meet with council and staff in the community conference room in an open house format and talk about what is on that code and what you'd like to see from data centers inside Logan City Limits. And to get information about them and to get the opinions of our expert staff in our planning department. So if that's something that interests you, August 4th, 7 p.m. It's immediately after council meeting in the conference room. That's the only thing I have. Nothing else, we will move on to our action items. And we have four action items today. And the first one is resolution 2624 with Russ Akina. regarding a parks and rec fee adjustment. Do I see Russ?

Russ is not here.

Do we know who's filling in for Russ?

Dan, can you fill in for Russ? Dan, are you filling in for Russ?

Can we put you on the spot? If not, we can read through the ordinance and have our public hearing. That's why you're here. He sent you here and didn't tell you that he wasn't coming and that there was an action item, huh?

Yeah. Sorry about that. No, you're good. I can address the inflatable amusement device fee and the A-frame rental fee for special events. Those are two fees that we are... hoping to get implemented. The inflatable one, basically it's to cover the cost of having an irrigation bag go out, check the area where an inflatable may be put in, make sure no stakes go into irrigation lines and so forth. The other one is the special event A-frame rental. So a lot of special events that were occurring on Center Street or other areas in the city, we were going out with A-frames and signs, no parking signs and such. just at when we had the availability to send somebody out. So that basically the cost for that is to cover staff time as well.

And if I'm not mistaken, there's no change to these fees? No. Yeah. We just left these off our fee adjustment earlier, but they are staying the same from what they currently were. Correct, Jeannie?

No, no. I was just going to say in Center Street now, he's got ballers. He doesn't have to do nearly as many.

Yeah, they won't be using them as often. And then the four-hole golf loop fee, Jeff could probably address that. Yeah, and the other one that was on here was the Pioneer Parade fee.

It was left off your original one. I don't really know what that is.

Yeah, I was saying, yeah, there's two other fees on here that are not changing. They were just accidentally left off our fee adjustment.

Or hold it with something we had invented about 10 years ago, and it's holds 10 through 13.

And we started out at $6. Now it's up to $10. We just forgot to put that on the adjustment when we did it last, whenever that was.

250 a hole.

It's not bad.

And then the bucket of balls. And the parade entry fee, that was just implemented a couple of years ago. Last administration just was trying to control the number of commercial entries in the parade. So that fee was introduced and it was left off the fee. Thank you. Sorry to call you up on the last.

No, you're good. You can give Russ a hard time for that. This is a public hearing. So unless the council has comments or questions, we'll open the public hearing.

I just have one question. Do we have to, the fee for the inflatables, that's like a bounce house, correct?

Correct.

And somebody is bringing that to their event?

If they're reserving a park pavilion or something for a birthday party and they're bringing that, they're required to fill out a special event permit, carry insurance, and pay the fee.

Okay, so they carry their own insurance for it. Correct. Okay, thank you. That was my question.

Okay, with that, this is a public hearing. So anyone from the public who has any questions, comments, or concerns on these four parks and recreation fees is welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, please take three minutes or less, and I will open the microphone. Nobody has strong opinions on fees that were accidentally left off a fee chart and are not changing. So we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the council, hopefully for a motion.

I move we approve resolution 26-24. I'll second that.

We have a motion to second. Any further discussion? Seeing none, all in favor of approving resolution 26-24, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Resolution 26-24 passes. That's a big one. We'll now move to resolution 26-10. And Amy is here. I thought we were going to throw another employee.

I'm quite confident that Russ invited Dan here for that specific reason, but neglected to inform him what that reason was.

Sure. Amy, take us away on a little update on this.

All right. So our first one is Ordinance 2610, Residential Improvement Reason. So this residential improvement rezone is located at 595 West, 200 North. It's right on 200 North and 600 West on this corner. They are asking for a rezone from NR6 to MR12. Here's just closer pictures. Currently, the zoning is in R6 all through here. Commercial services here and mixed use right here.

The property's right here.

Our FLUP, our Future Land Use Plan, calls it all out as mixed use with lower density residential to the east.

Can you go back one slide? I can. It's all commercial services and our FLUP says it's supposed to be mixed use. That's a little odd. But that's besides what we're talking about.

So currently we have single-family homes here, a fourplex here. This was the recently approved Brio offices that will go in here, gas station, those apartment buildings that came in a couple years ago. The property is 0.31 acres and they would like to convert, they're currently converting this home to have an ADU and they would like to also convert the garage into like a studio apartment. That's why they are asking for a room zone to MR-12.

And they're going to live in the other side?

And they will live in, yeah, the main floor.

So the hope is to have essentially three units, one being owner occupied, is that correct? Correct.

That's their plan. So the intent of the mixed use is to foster a vibrant pedestrian friendly environment with commercial and residential. So the applicant Even though our future land use plan calls out for mixed use, he is asking for MR-12. The size of this property would only allow, an MR-12 would only allow for three units. The size of the property in mixed use really wouldn't be able to produce what mixed use is asking for. With the transition zone between mixed use and NR-6, there just wouldn't be any room for anything really commercial and parking and everything with this small property. So it would have to be this whole idea would have to be something where these houses eventually want to all sell and yeah, transition into something. The mixed use or the MR-12, they feel like it's a good transition right now between all of this commercial and this residential that's surrounding because it's not really changing. It wouldn't, the looks wouldn't change at all. Really, it would still just look like a single family home with a little more, well, I mean, this is a single family home with a lot of cars in this. It wouldn't look much different, but. So the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval. They had a big discussion between should they do MU or mixed use or MR-12. one of their things was, you know, well mixed use requires commercial, but that was only, it really only does if they were to demolish the building and rebuild, then we would require commercial, but as it stands, just an inside remodel would not require them to add commercial to that. And MR9 was not appropriate account number, why? It wouldn't have enough. That would only allow two. Because of the size of the parcel. Because of the size. Yeah. Okay.

um long term when it's a owner occupies an adu that stays with the property correct yes uh so but if it's rezoned mr12 i don't think adu stays with a property i think it's a business license landlord license that they would have to if they sold it

ADU doesn't go with the property, just STI.

ADUs have to be owner-occupied regardless of current property owner or future property owner.

So if it's... So they would have, if someone new moved in, they would have to reapply because it would be under a different name.

But if they sold the property, it can just be three units.

Yeah, it wouldn't technically need to be... Yeah, as MR-12, it could be three units, non-owner-occupied. Correct. Yeah. And they could eventually move out and have it.

And just rent it. They don't have to sell it and move out and rent it. At MR-12, they would have to live there.

Right now, they have to live there because that's the only way to get it divided. Here's just some pictures of the house and the surroundings. Any questions?

You guys have got a better camera since those one photos.

I just climbed a tree and got that.

That was impressive. You can jump really high. Any other questions for Amy before we open up for public comment?

You might have already addressed this, but I see that it was a close decision, 3-2.

Yes. It was mainly between should it be MU or MR-12. They didn't really have an issue. They kind of understood that it would be a good transit, like it's a fine transition with where it is with what's all surrounding it. They really didn't have a problem with that. Their discussion was like, well, the FLUP says MU, so should we do MU or should we do MR-12? And the applicant is fine either way, whatever.

which Craig correct me if I'm wrong, we could rezone MR to MU as this action if we wanted it since the applicant has stated they're okay with that. If they said they're okay with it. Which they have in the packet.

Yeah.

Okay. There's no real difference in current usage between MR-12 and MU.

No.

It wouldn't change anything under current conditions between the two. Obviously if it was demolished, then they'd have free commercial on the site.

Would that legally existing nonconformity under mixed use go with the property if it were sold?

Well, I don't know if we would call it non-conforming since it's not been demolished and rebuilt or anything. It would just... I mean, yeah, it would be non-conforming to mixed use just like anything we rezone for whatever reason. Like basically all of Town Center 1, that includes a ton of homes downtown. When we did, you know, the blocks on the east and the west of Main Street.

Okay.

Are we okay with public comment? Thank you, Emmy. This is a public hearing, so anyone from the audience who would like to comment on Ordinance 2610 is welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence, and please take three minutes or less. The microphone's open.

Perfect. Yeah, just to, I guess, talk and I guess speak on top of what Amy has already said.

Can you state your name? Sorry, for the record.

Oh, yeah, sorry. My name is Stetson Anderson. Thank you, Stetson. Moving to Logan City once we get this remodel finished, which is taking forever. But yeah, just... in line with um what the future land future land use plan is and uh an mu designation or mr quote we'd be fine with you either of them and then hopefully i'll be able to provide some additional housing for some of the students and young married families in the area and then obviously take some of that cash and deploy back into the property because obviously there's a lot that needs to be fixed up there and make it look a lot nicer for the city and the people that are here so and then something that you mentioned as well mike um in the last City Council meeting just talking about with that developer not seeing the same exact cookie cutter essentially housing and whatnot. And this would be something that would add, I guess, some variety without changing or adding any changes to the landscape in the area and whatnot. So thank you guys for your time.

Thank you. Seeing no further public comment, we will close the hearing and bring it back to the council for discussion. Can I ask you a question Stetson? Do you have a preference MR-12 or mixed use? I mean, does it?

Not necessarily. I mean, just because, I mean, if it's easier for you guys to do the MU just because that's what it's going to be later on down the road so you don't have to do something when somebody comes in and wants to do a large development. I mean, either way would be fine.

Thank you. Council? What you thinking?

If indeed there is no requirement to make any substantial changes to the existing structures within the mixed use category, I would just assume designated as mixed use rather than MR-12. MR-12 does only allow three units on that size of property, however.

How many units could you get on that size of property at mixed use?

Double that. Double it?

But you'd have to demolish. But you'd have to demolish and rebuild, which means you'd have to have commercial, so you wouldn't really...

It could have six technically.

Technically six. It'd be tricky.

But to get six units and parking on that small of a lot, I mean, they're going to barely squeak it with three.

Yeah. I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other, personally. I think it's a great spot to have some extra housing, especially if it's owner occupied and they want to do some updates. That's my opinion.

I mean, I tend to lean a little bit towards also staff recommendation if there is, because with the FLOP and kind of like the procedurally, like what,

I mean, if it's ever, in my opinion, if it's ever going to develop as a big mixed use, someone's going to have to come in and request a bunch of rezones anyway. So I don't think it really makes a big difference in the long term. And it sounds like he wants to do some improvements to the property. So I would assume that he's not looking to sell and demolish in three years. So I don't really think it makes a big difference either way, personally. Sure, MU fits the FLUP, MR-12. fits the neighborhood better in terms of how it feels and looks probably but real world there's no big difference and i'm pretty sure most people don't look at our zoning map every day like i do so i don't think so i'll move we approve ordinance 26-10 as written a motion i'll second that motion a second any further comment or discussion seeing none all in favor of approving ordinance 26-10 as presented

Aye.

Aye. Please say aye. Thank you. I was reading it again. It's dinner time, guys. It's always dinner time. Any opposed? Seeing none, the board is 26-10, passes.

Thank you, Amy.

Thank you, Stetson. Good luck. I drive by it all the time because I live just west of here, so I'll keep an eye on it.

We'll get it cleaned up for you.

It'll be exciting.

next resolution or sorry ordinance 2611 amy yep all right so i have ordinance 2611 old man project rezone i guess that was the name of the theater that was there at one point uh so it's on the former mall site they want they would like to rezone from commercial from commercial to mixed use They did go to Planning Commission with a rezone and a conditional use permit to have a bar license, a full service bar for a 21 and over crowd. The whole, so this is DeSite. Currently it's, the underlying zone is commercial, but we have a PD overlay for the Cache Valley marketplace. And our future land use plan has mixed use around with commercial. We've got that PD overlay right here. So mixed use, they would like that mainly for the bar because we can only have the 21 a bar license in mixed use. So far, the few licenses we have for that are just all here downtown near Center Street. They would like that. Be able to bring that up farther north for those up there. With all of the housing going in, that will be going in with the Cache Valley Marketplace and all around and close to USU. They feel it's a good place. People can walk. They don't have to drive. the planning commission forwarded a recommendation of approval. And that was, I thought I wrote it down. That was like 41.

50. Oh, 50.

I'm like, I know I wrote it down somewhere, but now I don't remember who wrote it. Their only discussion with it was whether mixed use required residential and because this didn't have residential could they really do it but because they're not changing the building they're not same as building anything new they wouldn't need residential although tony the owner has come in before with design reviews for residential on the second floor. He's looking maybe possibly at some point doing that, but that doesn't matter.

Not when Paul Mitchell's there. When they move out. Yeah, but that's all just could-be's, right? We don't go off of... So, Amy, I remember one part of the discussion was the parking lot. Yes. You had conditions with respect to the changes that needed to be done at the parking lot, and those stayed with the recommendation, correct?

Yes.

Okay. Yes. So they have to put some landscaping and change the parking lot? Yeah. Yeah.

They would have to make the parking and do the setbacks correctly. Okay. And landscape it along.

More parking? Less parking? More landscaping? Less landscaping?

More landscaping. Yeah, more landscaping. The landscaping buffer onto the east is what they would do.

So they would need to up their landscaping, no change to parking.

Because, yeah, there was pictures, cars go over, going over the sidewalk. So the CUP required conditions that they would need to have a landscape buffer between the parking and the sidewalk on 200 East.

And they had to have some landscaping within the parking lot as well, too. Yeah.

Landscape islands every 20.

And that was okay in the long run? Because I know there was a little pushback about that.

Well, they won't be able to get what they want. They won't be able to change, like that's conditioned in the CUP. So when they turn in the building, when they turn in to engineering for a building permit or to the building department, they will have to meet those conditions to get that building permit.

And did I understand from the conversation that the restaurant will close? The Greek Street? Yes, they said Greek Street would close and it would become a 21 and over bar of some sort. That's only going to open at 3 o'clock in the afternoon or something?

It would open, yeah. So that would kind of take away the congestion of parking. When I went, there was like an A-frame sign saying, hey, you can park over. It was like a full parking lot and it was like middle of the day. It pointed to parking at the Megaplex.

Paul Mitchell parks a lot of cars.

Yeah. So Paul Mitchell would close by the time that the bar really opens and gets, so that would help with parking congestion.

So will it be a restaurant bar or just a bar bar?

A bar. They'll probably sell a little bit of food, but I don't think that's, from what they said, that's not their main. Okay. Yeah.

All right. Thank you.

Other questions for Amy?

How many bar licenses do we have currently?

I think we have four available or four issues, four or five issues.

How many available?

Yeah, Aaron's the guru on the bars. So I'm pretty sure it's only just the ones downtown. Well, he's the one that was dealing with the code part of all that. I'm not even sure we have.

I thought we had one or two available.

I think we have six or seven. We have the one that's by the credit union.

Really descriptive.

There's that one that's in Logan. I don't know what its name is.

There's another one. You're not frequent then? Also enough.

Is the cidery considered a bar? It's by a car. It's not, is it?

A cidery?

On the west side? I have no idea. I think so. I'm not sure it's a bar.

I think there's not that many.

Yeah, there's not very many. Because it's kind of a unique category because it doesn't require... A restaurant with a bar is a different thing than this.

Yeah, and a restaurant with a bar requires 70% of the sales to be food. So that's why they're not interested in that kind of license. Because they don't want that as their name.

Okay. Any opposition to opening the public hearing? This is a public hearing. If you are here in the audience would like to comment on ordinance 26-11, you're welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence, and please take three minutes or less. The time is yours.

Josh from Logan. So I think we've got 346 units going up next door. So I'm thinking, yeah, this is probably a good idea. I'm kind of looking forward to seeing what the apparel journal and the , start publishing with things happening in the Target parking lot and things like that. Yeah. I'm for it.

You're for the excitement. Sounds good. Noted, Josh. Thank you.

Dan Hanson. I am from, do I have to say where I'm from?

Yeah.

Nibley. Sorry. Sorry, Dan. It's already kind of incorporated into Logan anyway, so. We won't tell Nibley that you're like a suburb. That's okay. I'm going to be one of the owners on this, if we can get everything approved and passed. Just wanted to go over just a little bit. I apologize, I was working all day and didn't have time to print off stuff for you guys. But some of the stuff we wanna give options to is there's no bar, everything's like on Federal or Center Street pretty much. So there's nothing really North and the idea is the farther out you get, the more you have of that chance that people do the bad thing and drink and drive and go long distances and we don't want that. Some of the things that we want to do is have a driving service part of the business. A drive-in service? Drive-in. So you can call in.

Drive-in. Drive-in.

Sorry, Dan, but I'll swing on by, grab your drinks. I mean, they do that in other countries.

That's why you need the landscaping in the parking lot, so you can enjoy it.

Sorry, give Dan an extra 40 seconds here. That's my fault.

I was a little shocked for a moment. I reclaimed my time. I've seen that.

Just kick that off.

So we want to have a driving service. So you can call in with a big group and say, hey, you know, all of us want to go have some fun tonight. Come pick us up. Take us back when we're all done. Another thing, like we want to have bar food, but we want to do it kind of more fun. If you do have that six top, think of like a crab oil. We obviously can't get crab or, you know, crawfish or anything like that, but we can do nachos. So you get nachos across the whole table of six and you can just eat right there while having your drink and everything. Overall, with the area and non-competition, I believe 185 bar can be a valuable asset to the community and be respectful. That's a big thing for me. I'm LDS, don't drink, but I also know that every time I'm on a forum, it says, oh great, a bank or a car wash or something. So we're trying to bring something different. We want to give people a fun and safe environment and options to enjoy an adult night out away from your kids or whatever you want to do. And also keep the patrons safe and the experience at the forefront of our expectations. So that's kind of the goal. Yeah, Mario back there, he's Greek Streak. I might have to tell him to keep some stuff on the menu or I'm going to miss Greek Streak. but um yeah that's kind of our goal we want to have a good environment and a good place and i think just being off on its own like that believe it or not that parking lot is small during the day but it's by far the biggest fur car that we have in town during the night so i like the idea that it's kind of encompassed takes a while to get out to your car so there's a lot of opportunities for safety measures to be put in place. So anyway, Dan Hanson, thank you.

Thanks, Dan. It's good to see you.

So this is not the only hurdle they have. The rezone is one step.

Right. Rezone will allow them to even go forward with what they want to do. The conditional use permit has conditions that are going to be a little difficult with the parking landscape buffer.

But they also have to get a license with the state of Utah. So we're not the only permitting authority in this process. It's a problem. There's a few hurdles to jump through. Yes.

Seeing no one else from the public, we'll close our public hearing. and bring it back to the council for further discussion.

I move we approve Ordinance 26-11.

Motion.

I'll second.

I was trying to make sure there's room for discussion if people want it and Jeannie's always like, let's go.

I figure we can talk.

Any further discussion before we vote? Okay. All in favor of approving Ordinance 26-11, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Ordinance 2611 passes. Good luck.

Yep.

Yep. Best of luck.

Yeah. Getting the license is the hardest part. Yeah.

Our next item is a public hearing with no action from the council. Just a update from Sam and Paul and an opportunity for the public to weigh in. Sam? Correct. Dick is away.

So this is our 2026 COG grant application. What is COG? So COG is the Cache County Council of Governments. The 19 mayors plus the county executives sit on this and every year award out approximately this year it's about eight million dollars for transportation funding. There is specific state guidelines on how this funding can be used. Transportation is the only option. But we paid for it with our 0.25% countywide sales tax that was passed back in late 2007. A requirement, you see that bottom bullet point, a requirement of the grant application is that you have to have a public hearing where you discuss the project, the scope, and the budget. So tonight's meeting fulfills that for Logan City's grant application. Our applications are due in August, and we will find out in November if we're awarded. This year, Logan City has two projects that we are seeking grant funding for. Both of them are traffic signal projects. The first here is at 1400 north, 1200 east. So think Foothill Mar, Mountainside Estates, the new vet building at USU is that northwest corner. We are looking for, to put a traffic signal here. There'd be no improvements to the asphalt or curb and changes there. truly just dropping the poles down for a traffic signal. I put on here that it'll benefit Logan and North Logan residents. This is one that we've coordinated with North Logan on. They're excited for and it's on our master plan for a traffic signal here. It also has warranted, so there's an engineering study due to determine if a traffic signal is It's the green light. And it has warranted since 2021 for a traffic signal here.

Well, this is pretty quick for us to get it in there. I think the one on 2nd West and 10th North had warranted 20 years before we got in it.

The connection between Logan and North Logan is critical in this too. That's what makes the difference.

I'm just teasing.

The finance summary, traffic signals are cheaper than our normal big projects, but maybe more expensive than you think. Total budget, we're estimating around $400,000 for the total project. We don't have an exact number. Again, these are estimates, but $400,000 for the total project. So we would be requesting somewhere around $325,000 from the COG, which would leave us $75,000 for our match. The minimum match required per the COG is 8%, and we are proposing somewhere in the neighborhood of 23% match. For you, Katie, we...

we almost always exceed the match. And that usually gives us a little better opportunity to get our projects funded because we've got scum in the game.

And like I said, these numbers are kind of, Travis signals are a little bit different than our normal projects where we can like price out every line item. These, the way they work is we can get them off the state contract. So it's just that whenever we go to build it, we'll be able to pull it off the state contract. so these are rough numbers but we will tighten them down when we go to build it is there a lot of electrical that has to be done yeah it's mostly electrical okay all the conduits in that is the plant to install next year if i funded um so planned construction 2028 the only reason for that is this funding the way the cog is cycles now work we cannot do anything on our project until january 1st of 2028 so It's an easy project to do, but we have to wait until the slide agents become available. The second traffic signal is at 1200 north, 200 west. So this is behind Sam's Club. If you remember, two blocks, well I guess four blocks east of this, we just put a signal behind the new target. So it's the same corridor. As this corridor becomes busier, we recognize that this intersection will need help. This intersection as well has warranted a signal for multiple years now. We've held off on installing it. We wanted to wait until 10th North, 2nd West was built to see how that signal performed and make sure that we were doing the right thing. And now that signal's been in place and operational, we warranted it again this last month and it again warrants a signal.

So it's only two blocks?

Two blocks apart, yes. Correct.

That's pretty close.

That, yeah, in our... I guess urban core, the denser, that's kind of the spacing we're comfortable with on this because it's two blocks to 14th North on the North and two blocks to 10th North on the South. And that's one of the warrant criteria for a traffic signal is the adjacency to other signals and that is taken into account and that criteria was meant for this signal as well okay because i know we had a big to do about seventh south and main street yeah and we do we do look at it a little different based on the type of road so a collector is different than an arterial we'll try to space out farther on arterial closer on a collector or minor minor collector or local critical street so we do treat those a little bit different 1200 just as a consider 1200 North. It would be less than a collector. It'd be like the local street designation or like the 66 foot. It's not even a collector. Okay. 200 West would be the collector in this scenario. Okay. Same thing, no changes to the asphalt, to the curb and gutter. We might have to take up a panel sidewalk and put it back down. And... similarly this would be a 2028 construction budget-wise they're essentially the exact same so we're planning on the exact same dollar amounts for the projects so we're not putting anything in for have we already applied for money for second east Second East at 1,200 North.

Between 1,200 and 1,400 North?

No, we have not. North Logan applied for 1,400 North to 1,800 North. That's in, it crosses our city boundary there. There's a portion of that in Logan City boundary that was awarded last year. Okay.

We anticipate

200 East, you saw in our budget presentation this year, is where we're focusing a lot of our capital money in the next five years. So as those dollars start showing up as we get closer to a project date, then I do anticipate 200 East being on our COG application radar.

So the work that's being done over there now, this is a little off topic, sorry.

is mostly electrical yeah correct our electrical department needed to move some poles and some some infrastructure for the north logan project and so they elected that while they were there they would do a little bit more than that project required in preparation for a future project from us they're not burying any of it though right um i honestly do not know what this what their plan is i just know they're moving it out of our way okay Any questions I can answer on either of these projects? They're a little bit smaller than our typical cog projects, but we feel really excited to get these done. Smaller than typical.

Our asks are usually bigger, and so we're trying to be good neighbors this year and let somebody else have a little bit more money. I'm sure we'll have a big one next year.

And 10th North and 6th West is scheduled to start. That's been funded, right?

Yeah, 10th North, 6th West, and fourth north six west have both been funded by cog and by our budgets um right now our plan pending permits from the railroad is for construction next summer

And we are doing some improvements on 6 West, 200 North on the crosswalks as well, isn't that correct?

That is correct. On the north side of that intersection? We have a grant from UDOT to help us with that, as well as UDOT just participating. Similar, we're waiting for the railroad.

It'd be real nice to just put a rail trail right on top of that railroad.

Like I said, we're not looking for any council action tonight. We just need an opportunity for the public to have a public hearing on this.

Any other questions for Paul? Sorry, Sam or Paul. Sam. Paul's sitting over there smiling. Before I open the public hearing?

Just for my own, I'm sure I learned, read about this at some point being on the Hillcrest Neighborhood Committee, but I don't remember. For the 12 and 1400 intersection, putting the light there, obviously you have the amount of traffic to warrant that. And you were just mentioning the adjacency of other traffic signals and relative to the type of road and et cetera. Can you just remind me and the public maybe for the argument of a light there in addition beyond the numbers. And where I'm coming from is remembering when we did the partnership with USU, the roundabout and the peanut about. And we're looking at that whole plan. And so now we're saying, oh, this is time for this light. Because I think there will be questions Potentially, you know, so that I can be reminded of for the, while we're doing it.

So if I understand correctly, kind of like beyond just the engineering, why now, why there? Why light, not roundabout?

Why light, why not roundabout? Why, what justifies a light in that section now? Is it just the numbers? Is it numbers in addition to these other factors?

Yeah, so we do watch the numbers in the city and to see when these intersections hit points where there's enough volume to consider improvements to them. We partner that with our transportation master plan that kind of looks at the, you know, beyond just our budget feature, but the 10, 15, 20 years in the future, what should we look at? This signal is on that master plan. So that gives us kind of our first check mark of like, we should be looking at this. And so as we start seeing volumes increase, like we do traffic counts throughout the year, Various intersections rose throughout the city. So we've watched this one. Like I said for at least last five years. It's Justified a signal and again, why didn't you put it in the day it warranted? you know, maybe there wasn't the external like the vet center in the subdivision nearby or Budget is the reason that we don't always pull the trigger immediately So why now? like we just talked about, all the external factors in that area. And also, as we see the growth, having 1,200 east and 1,400 north are two major roads in the city. And as we see that growth happening, we know that this is going to be an intersection that has the potential to be a hotspot of traffic delays. And so it warrants it. Let's get ahead of it.

Great. Thank you.

Other questions for Sam? This is a public hearing, so if you have any questions, comments, or concerns on either of these two projects, you're welcome to come to the microphones, state your name, city of residence, and please take three minutes or less.

My name is Linda Johnson. I live in Logan. And I really appreciate that there is this grant project that Cash County has worked for and $8 million is a lot and I think that this is then about 8% of that total budget, which is pretty small considering that Logan is in the central portion of the valley and experiences, I'm going to say like 70% of our congestion. So this is pretty modest overall. Very, very modest I think for what we're looking at and Well, I do think it's a nice gesture to say that it's small. I do think that most everyone in Cache Valley would agree that a major portion of the problems, and because this is earmarked specifically for transportation, I think we could go a little bit bigger here. And I do think that these are both great places to put lights, but let's be honest, there are probably a lot of places that don't currently have a light that could use a light. And I'm wondering if it was looked at putting in turn lanes and things like that. I think particular areas along Second East that I know of, I've waded through like three and four lights, both north and southbound, and there's no even right turn lane where there's the Culver's if you want to turn on to 1400 and it clogs it all the way back up past the middle school and when school gets out, it's very, very... very busy all along there and impossible to get out of the walmart you have to go back on main street or turn right you don't want to turn left anywhere or you will probably die and um i'm just wondering what the cost associated with doing something like adding a turning lane where there's not a turning lane i don't know what our right of ways are or if we'd have to eminent domain I know that that is a catchy situation. And whereas this is very, very clean cut, we can add a light. There's no fuzziness here. And I feel like particularly the light at 14th North and 12th East, could probably wait another year. I've gone through that life a lot. And you do sometimes have to wait a few cars, but compared with the number of cars deep waiting at other stop signs, I don't feel like it is quite as pressing or quite as dangerous as some of the other areas that are really critically clogged. And so I do want you to then consider, and I'm sure you have considered, but that we look at things like adding turn lanes and other things rather than just clean cut just tears of light as part of the projects that we can ask for.

Thank you, Linda. So let's let everyone make a public comment and then let Sam respond. Is that OK? Just because I saw others coming. Linda, we'll have Sam respond to some of your comments. Sam, take notes.

Hi, my name is Anna Darley. I live in Logan. I'm just wondering if this does pass, will it be a left yield to turn left?

Let's let Sam, can you answer these at the end? Is that okay if we should answer all the public questions at the end? Do you have any other questions?

No, thank you.

And which intersection specifically are you asking if it's a protected left? Both. Both? Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Sam to answer? And just for clarification on that last comment, there is no vote on this. It's just a presentation from Public Works. Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing. Jeannie, you had a comment or question and then Sam, if you're okay answering both those questions.

No, I was just gonna say that one thing that's kind of hard to wrap your head around sometimes is the fact that these projects second north the intersection that you were talking about was discussed by the council of governments two years ago and they've done some funding that will come as the cycles come. So it's not that we don't think about it. It's just that it sometimes is further back in the planning process than we, a lot of people recognize. They see it happen and they think it happened yesterday. Because I know that one of the things that North Logan was requesting with respect to Second East is a light at that, I don't even know what that road is. The road on the north side of Walmart?

Yeah, it's like 16 height.

So there'll be a light, that's part of their expansion that they are, they requested money just like this to help fund. But they requested it, I think this, Paul, is it this year they get to build that or is it? I think it's next year. Is it next year? But they requested it like two years ago. So it's sometimes hard for us to understand when we're living in it every day that it takes a really long time sometimes to get all this. It's in the pipeline, but it takes a while.

Well, even these ones will take two and a half years to construct after.

Yeah, it just takes a long time to come out of the pipeline.

Sam, I'm sorry.

If you're willing to answer those questions.

all good points we definitely absolutely look at our transportation network and see where left turn right turn lanes are needed the specific example culver's is a part of that north logan project so that is planned for and going to be built when north logan builds that 200 east section as we mentioned right away is a lot of times a limiting factor on these having to buy more right-of-way to add these lanes and what's the cost-benefit of that. Specifically to these two projects, the designs are not complete, so I can't say for sure, but knowing that we are, our goal is to not have to widen these intersections or add more asphalt, adding dedicated left-hand turn arrows is probably not going to be a part of these signals. That would require us to widen out these approaches. I'm assuming they'll have right turns, though. Yeah. Because there's room for that currently. Yeah. I was just looking at some of the sketch-ups. There's room for two lanes, so that would usually mean a dedicated left turn and a through right. Like I say, the signal location and signal configuration isn't set, but we will look at it, but I can't promise that we'll do it.

Hopefully that answers some of those questions. Anything else, any other questions for Sam from the council? thanks guys you guys do a lot of hard work i went out i don't know if the other council i think some of them went i went out and saw a chip zoo yep this week i missed and it was uh like i went out at like 11 a.m and it was already like 100 degrees on the road well yeah air temperature 100 i'm sure the road was 120. and those boys were working their butts off and the thing that i'm on a tangent now the thing that i was most depressed with though i stood in the intersection watched them for a minute They handle that traffic so efficiently and pretty. Like I know everyone's like, Oh, construction, this sucks. But your boys and girls were out there like talking to people and helping people. I was just, I talked to Reed about it for 10 minutes that like, I'm impressed.

Yeah, they do a very good job.

So I know it's hot as Hades out there. Thank you. And thanks to all your guys. They're really good at it. They're really good at it.

Yeah. I just stand there watching how efficient they handled. I drove on some roads today that they have sealed already, which they're doing at night. And they look like they're brand new. Yeah, they look awesome.

And they don't have that gravelly thing. They clean up. Yeah, they go sweep there.

They're so much more efficient with their gravel. Saves a lot of money.

That's our public hearings and action items. Rich, give us our first workshop item here because you've already got a budget adjustment 21 days into the year, so kick us off. You're already making adjustments to that spreadsheet.

Request to adjust the fiscal year 27 budget $50,000 for public works for a UDOT grant for 4th North, 6th West. a request appropriate 18 000 for the police department icac internet crimes against children grant that we receive most years ten thousand seven hundred and ten for police department best grant forty thousand for the city's select health to promote wellness for employees grant we used to get this from signal we're now getting it from select health approximately the same amount, and a request to appropriate $2,500 of donated funds toward police supplies. And lastly, this one's a little different than the others, but a request to appropriate $22,000 toward the Visage software package for the golf carts. This is the GPS functionality for the golf carts. That is a lot of money. It is coming from, or it's anticipated to come from, golf cart rental. it is going to be tight. And so we'll see this. And this is a big request from the golf fund.

They feel like it's important and so we'll just have to see. Is this a subscription fee? Is this a one-time fee? Is this monthly, annually?

I think it's monthly for eight months, approximately.

They left.

So it's monthly because we demoed it when we got the new carts. This does give them the ability to control the carts to see where they're at and also for the carts to see the distances from back and middle to

Was this anticipated in the purchase of the cart that this was going to be part of the ongoing fee and thus offset by parental fee increases? It was.

And it's not $22,000 a month.

No, it's $22,000 in the season.

Okay. I was like, because you kept saying a month and then I was like, wait a minute.

So it's eight months worth of usage. We anticipate four months between now and October and then four months on the other side. and we recognize its significance, and the golf course is going to have to make trade-offs, and they may come back next season and say, we don't want to do that. Instead, we'd rather do something else. But this is our request for now, and so we're bringing it to council. As a rampant and addicted golfer, I have somewhat split. It's a lot.

Well, you won't be able to drive your golf cart where you're not supposed to.

That's right. It will keep carts out of the bunkers. It will keep carts out of the bunkers. It will keep carts out of the water. I mean, so it should help protect.

Knowing fully well.

But we are fully aware. It's a lot more than we really wanted to spend. Hoping that it was less. Yeah. For sure.

Is it an annual contract?

Yeah. So we could do the...

This is just software.

It's the GPS software. First year, see how it goes and have that all reviewed.

I'm not sure if it's annual or if it's just we don't pay the monthly fee, they shut it off.

But this is to pay for the month, the year. Are they the only vendor?

Well, it's probably built into the carts that we purchased.

That's a good question. I don't know. But it is built in, and it is part of the cart.

I'm assuming the carts we bought have a... It's like when you buy a cart that has OnStar, right? I don't know, my grandma used to have one, but I've never had a cart with OnStar.

You'll have to pay extra for OnStar.

Well, I know, but it's not like you could get OffStar when you always built with OnStar. I mean, I don't know. I'm assuming that the carts... We're at that time in the evening. We haven't started wetland yet, so talk a lot.

That is true, we haven't.

Um... Let us know if cart fees need to, because that's obviously I think where you'd offset this, is if the golf course really wanted it, but it was hurting budget, then you're going to increase golf cart rentals.

So I can give you just a quick explanation there. Golf cart fees last year were about $15,000 more than we put in the budget. It just finished the year. We anticipated the budget in February, updated those when we brought in the account. $15,000 more income. About $15,000 more than we're currently budgeting. However, remember last year was also the epic, amazing winter. It was golfing's dream. It was golfing's paradise. We thought we were in there as well. But we also raised golf cart rental fees. And so this is going to be tight. So we may have some decisions to make in the future. Again, this is our request.

Wow, he's being so... Tell him they can put it on half the cart. Any other questions for Rich before we... And then you'll see us again in two weeks. Okay. Thank you, Rich. uh amy ordinance i say i saw you walking over there but then you disappeared ordinance 26 13. take us through a rezone request surprise yeah me getting up and walking forward was like all right let's get this going and we've seen that i said we saw this one did they withdraw is that what happened no uh no last year 2025 with you guys Is this exactly as we saw last time?

Yes.

And we said no last year.

Yes. Yeah, I'll get to that.

Are you feeling different? No, I'm just kidding.

All right. Sorry, Craig.

You do have two different council people.

I just watched Craig cringe at half the jokes.

I know. Amy, please go. It's my fault.

Okay, I have Ordinance 2613, the Honey Rezone. It is a .21 acre lot at 165 North, 200 West. They are asking for a rezone from NR6 to Town Center 2. This is the proposed zoning. So they would be surrounded by both basically. This is the current zone. And our new future land use plan calls it as downtown with public across the street instead of NR6. Is that public? Huh? So like we talked about this came in the end of 2025 and was denied. in September 2025, some of the concerns were most of the council was just like, well, we're getting a new FLOP, let's just wait till that's done. And so that was like the main concern was, well, let's see what the new FLOP is gonna say. So let's deny it and then we'll see what the new FLOP says. So this, the primary reason they're asking for the rezone is to allow the legal establishment of a third residential unit in this detached garage right here. This house was built in 1909. In 1979, the garage was built with an apartment over the top of it, or the apartment was built, I think both. And then a year later, the homeowner built a studio apartment on the main floor of the garage without a permit. And so a couple of years ago, the new owner of this home got a code enforcement action for having an illegal unit, that third unit. And so he brought it to city council for a reason in order to bring the enforcement action to not be a problem anymore, to legitimize the third unit. And then, like I said, it was mostly denied because the concerns were, well, what will the future land use plan?

And if I remember correctly, I think part of the concern was we didn't love that you break ordinance and that we change your zoning. Is that?

The what? We didn't what?

I think part of the reason we didn't like it a year ago was we didn't like the idea of, oh, you're not conforming, so we'll change the zone so that you are conforming. Yeah, anyway.

I mean, if you look at that, if you look back there, they built over the canal.

So I looked into that deck and built as far back as we have.

Satellite photos. Satellite photos of it.

They refinished, like they made it like a newer material, but that deck has existed for 30 plus years, 40, I mean before 1980. So I guess that's more than 20, 30 years now.

Feels like yesterday.

We won't do the math for that. But it was before 1980 that the deck was even put there and the canal company has never told them to take it out. The canal company hasn't told them to?

Well, both of those, I mean, those existing structures are sitting in the canal setback. Yeah, yeah.

Because I don't think we have that setback back. In 1909, we didn't have any type of building code, any land development code.

So it looks like Commissioner Lewis voted not to approve this.

Yes. It was a 4-1.

The rest voted to approve. Reason for the recommended denial from Lewis?

He didn't really state it. He was just asking... He just had questions about... like if the house were to be demolished and rebuilt what could go there i mean nothing really right now with our current uh canal things if they demolished it it'd be like well now you have an empty lot so it's exciting okay there would really be it would be hard pressed so just the setback issues yeah okay so his thing was just yeah other questions for amy

I really don't like rezoning the middle blocks. So I'll just say that. There's residential on both sides.

Well, in defense of it, is that the one to the north? Is that the?

That's the one.

Yeah, what's her name? The museum.

Yeah, the Bloomsbury. That has never been finished.

I know. But that's what's directly north here, correct? Yeah. So it's not really- And we rezoned that to town center like a year and a half ago.

It's been like two or three years now. Has it been that long?

Yeah, it's been two or three years.

Feels like just yesterday.

Uber's not finished yet either, so. Yeah, but he said Christmas. And everyone's joking, it's Christmas.

So 2020 were a while. I know. It was actually 2020 when that was rezoned.

No.

No?

2020. Wait. I wasn't on the council in 2020.

No, no, never mind. That's when the current owner-

uh bought the property it was probably two years yeah it was like two years ago because i was here and i have not been here more than oh 24 march 5th 2024. yeah that sounds right you remember that thing i remember the emails any other questions for amy see you in a couple weeks okay thanks amy yup Okay, our last exciting thing for the night. And it looks like we've got 40 minutes to spend on this. I mean, I told my wife, hey, because I started to realize that I blow Teresa's times. And I think Teresa is trying to keep them short and I keep trying to push them long. It's a subtle unspoken until now.

How about you just...

we'll just let him go let him go yeah i'm waiting for him to get his papers ready i don't want him like you ready russ i'm ready now thank you mr chair i tried to like do the time to get him 30 seconds he is so ready could have made fun of richard pink shirts did russ please go thank you amendment for wetlands quick background in 2023 the current wetland

regulations were adopted in the critical lands overlay section of the code. So this is chapter 24. It has a lot of different categories, flood plains, riparian, geologically unstable, wildland, fire interface, and wetlands. That established a blanket 50 foot setback for all development, no exceptions. In 2025, staff came back to city council with some amendments to make some reductions or some clarifications there. And also part of that, amendment was riparian corridors and establishing new regulations for annexation area essentially in 2025 council adopted some riparian changes and they did not make any changes to wetlands they just said we're not going to make any changes at this point they also said bring it back at a later date and we'll look at it And this was Mike Desimone, and I get the pleasure of now bringing it back. So what I did prior is I met with Public Works, Parks and Rec. We had several staff meetings. I also met with several developers, had some phone calls with developers, and they had a list of suggestions. Obviously, developers want setbacks to go down to zero. And each department kind of has their own perspective. I don't think the pendulum should swing all the way back to zero. This is obviously a balancing act. We need to protect these resources. It makes our valley unique. They're very aesthetic and they're important from an environmental standpoint for water quality, wildlife habitat, We're reaching 100 degrees almost every single day. These types of features will help cool our valley. So I think they're very important. I don't think we should swing the pendulum very far at all in my professional opinion. But as I look through other areas of the valley, they don't have additional setbacks. As I look through the state, there's only a handful of cities that have additional setbacks. Now, we're unique, we're Logan. I think we should stay unique, but that's just some quick context and background. How I approached it was looking at trying to categorize different types of developments so that some things might have a different setback versus other things. One thing I did quickly, or one thing I recommended was how and who determines when a delineation is required. There was a little bit of confusion of when staff could require the delineation. This clearly states that if it's listed on the NWI, you will get the delineation. It also gives staff the opportunity to walk the site and if we see certain things, then we can say, get a delineation. The delineation is prepared by a professional and then reviewed and approved by the Army Corps of Engineers. So there's multiple jurisdictions here. The Corps, once they determine it to be a wetland, they are the jurisdictional authority of the wetland area itself. So anything inside that, they are responsible. But they also have a zero setback. They have no jurisdiction or responsibility outside. So that falls back to the city. So you may have a property with multi-jurisdiction. City will only process permits after the delineation is completed. In some cases, a delineation results in zero wetlands. They'll say there's no wetlands here. There might be some cattails there, but there's no wetlands. And then it clearly places the wetland or the setback area under city jurisdiction. It clarifies when and excuse me, how a setback is measured. So currently it talks about a high watermark and it's a little ambiguous of where that watermark is. This simply says it's the delineation line to the nearest edge of the development. So it clarifies the setback. Did you ask a question?

Would you like us to ask questions afterwards or interrupt paragraph by paragraph as you go through?

Let's probably wait until after. I'll be as quick as I can. And then this also establishes project categories or different standards for different types of development. It also introduces do not disturb boundary rather than the current percentage disturbance. So right now you can disturb up to 20% of that 50 foot setback. And that disturbance may be right at the zero line. And so I didn't like that because I feel like the closer you get to the wetland and disturb it, the more impactful that is. And then this also exempts certain things like boardwalks or underground utilities, which the core exempts as well. Okay, so I took this to Planning Commission twice. They continued it. They wanted some further information for size categorization. They ended up keeping the 50-foot setback for all private development, regardless of size. I originally proposed it with a smaller size project would have a smaller setback. I'll go over some graphics in just a sec. They recommended keeping public recreational developments with a smaller setback. So these are things like streets, parks and rec, The smaller setback allows for better street alignment. Sometimes you'll have a wetland that will be near an intersection, and if you have to swing a road out 50 feet, you can screw up an intersection and have this weird offset.

Oh, it might have a curb.

it might have a curve to make them more fun these are things that the the different city departments expressed as being problematic i know uh and then it also deals with single family lots a little bit differently because they have additional setbacks so you couldn't build a house right at the lot line so i'll go through these in just a second So this is some graphics showing private projects. So if you have the wetland in the middle of the graphic there, any sort of building, whether it's commercial, multifamily, industrial, is a 50 foot setback. And again, that would be measured from the nearest edge of the building to the delineation line. Parking lots, 50 foot setback. Things like trails, sidewalks, patios, landscaping, stormwater facilities, those could be set at 15 feet. So that is a change. Currently those all would have to be 50 feet away. Public projects. 15 foot setback for streets, sidewalks, trails, landscaping, stormwater, rec facilities, and then no setbacks for four blocks underground. Things like buildings and parking lots would be 20 foot setbacks. And then residential subdivisions, 10 foot setbacks for new lot lines, which would equate to homes being no closer than 20 feet. And then trails 15 feet, streets, sidewalks 15 feet. They wanted to look at where most of the wetlands are concentrated. And so this graphic shows that NWI, that's the kind of light green shade. 99% of our wetlands are west of 10th West, or 95%. There's a few between 10th and 6th West. Once you cross 6th West, there's very few in the eastern parts of the city. And then they really wanted better graphics on why we broke down size requirements. They thought it was completely arbitrary and I said it wasn't. So 10 acres is a standard city block and it's rooted in the township section and range surveying system. Just to give you some idea for size and acreage, FedEx building, this is the new FedEx facility on 10th West and 10th North. That building is a five acre footprint, 220,000 square foot building. It's one of the larger buildings in the city. It sits on a 20 acre site. And because of our landscaping requirements, landscaping environments are great, they're required for acres of open space. And so you see that develop mainly on the west side, but they have a large kind of perimeter Gosner's is 19 acres for their northern campus. And then Costco is a 17 acre project site. If you look at it from a context of scale, if you have a subject property of 10 acres and you're required two acres of landscaping, regardless of wetland, because of the 20% landscaping requirement, it's easier to absorb those landscaping requirements inside a setback area of 50 feet because two acres is easily accommodated in here so this this setback is about three quarters of an acre if you look at this site more specifically And so it's not that much of a burden on the property because you're already required that 20% landscaping. When you start looking at smaller properties, the ratios increase pretty dramatically. And so if you've got a setback area on a two acre property, now it's about half of an acre and so that setback area is you know greater than 30 percent so ultimately though planning commission said let's just keep it all as private development and 50 feet So here's just some graphics of how the delineation works. So you hire a professional, they go out, they dig, test it, they conduct data research. They're looking for basically three criteria, soil types, aquatic, and then plant types. Here's just a quick example of an approved delineation. This is the Willow Lakes and it will clearly show the exact area of where wetlands are and where wetlands are not. And then in some cases you'll get the letter back from the Army Corps that says these are not waters of the U.S. and these are not considered wetlands and then it's developed as a property without wetlands.

So it says that, but it says that last sentence says 2.22 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands are not waters of the United States. So they're still wetlands.

But they're not delineated wetlands? Is that what that's saying? Correct. They're not protected wetlands. They're wetlands, but we don't care about these ones.

We don't care about them?

Well, our code doesn't currently care about them.

Why? I mean, the wetlands.

That's a discussion we could have. But in the past, the only wetland delineation or protections are for Army Corps recognized wetlands. If the city decided to protect wetlands outside of that scope, we would have to define how we categorize them.

Does the state define wetlands?

Not to my knowledge. How often does it happen that you get a letter that says, we found 2.2 acres of emergent wetlands, but they're not protected wetlands? I mean, is that a common thing?

The more common thing is the professional will do the analysis and report and say, there's no wetlands here. And then the Corps will agree with that report. I've seen several of those. In some cases, I've seen this where they say, There's wetlands as per those three criteria definitions, but then the Corps has to tie that wetland to the waters of the U.S. And a lot of this is based in Supreme Court rulings. And there was a landmark case, Wilhite out of- Craig has them all memorized, so keep going. Yeah, and I'm not going to put them- He's looking at Craig like, come on. Yeah, I'm not going to put them on the spot, but they have to be tied to waters of the U.S. Connected to sunset. To be protected wetlands, yeah. And that gets a little bit gray because, I mean, all water is connected underground in some shape or form. But in that case, they were too far away from either the river or the lake. And so anyways, I'm getting off topic. That's a debate. This is off topic. Well, I'm sorry. I guess I'm getting, we as a city could look at categorizing but we it would take we would have to define what's a non-army core jurisdictional wetland and and how we would treat those or we just define all wetlands and then they could be can't build anywhere yeah i don't think there might be the other thing i've learned is sometimes wetlands are created because Sorry.

We have to see if federal law preempts what we could do with city code.

Let's just try it. I don't think we want to play that game.

I think it could be just good exercise for your brain.

Let's just give it a go. It's not enough exercise.

The other thing I found is some farmers in the past have diverted irrigation ditches in certain ways and they've created wetlands. And so now a property has a artificially created wetland. Sometimes that property owner will then re-divert the ditch for a period of time. I want to say it's three years. That area dries up and now it's no longer a wetland. And then they develop it. So what I'm saying is they're dynamic and fluid and can be ruined easily. It's like water, it flows. Okay, so back to the ordinance. um planning commission voted five to one commissioner craig mon did not like uh eliminating the smaller project category with the smaller setback he he felt like it should be more developer friendly and so he voted no the other five commissioners like the idea of keeping the larger setback This also has a section that's called reasonable use accommodation. And so, excuse me, reasonable use exception. And it allows for a property that might have so many wetlands and the setback is so restrictive that it robs all economic value of that land. And so it can go through a case specific review to apply for a reasonable use exception where setbacks could be adjusted for that one particular property. But that means there's no economic value for that parcel and we'd have to review those case by case. Who reviews that? It depends on the application. It might be a land use appeals board. It might be a planning commission board. But those reasonable use combinations are available for a lot of different scenarios. They're meant as a they're similar to a variance process where it's so encumbered that you can go through a process to try to amend the rules.

I'm not sure that I've ever participated in that.

They're rare. So we should continue not to talk about them. In a case where you've got a small property and a large setback, the point I'm trying to make is there is an avenue that might allow them to reasonably develop What else? Any questions?

I've got some, but I'll let others go first if they want to go first.

I know you've got yours ready. No, go for it. Unless Janie wants to add.

No, go ahead. Okay. I think this was briefly mentioned. Wetland delineation, how far back? I mean, I guess the crux of my question is years like this year where there's basically no water anywhere. You could go delineate wetlands, but three years ago it was a flooded field for the entire summer. Yeah. And obviously that changes over time with wetlands, but...

that's why they have those three criteria it might be a dry year but if they dig a test pit and they have that soil composition that shows oh there's been a wetland here for 20 years then that's triggered and identified i'm not a professional but even though you may have a dry year you still may have wetlands so can i ask the dutch brothers question when they they

Did they have to delineate the wetland? It was determined there was no wetland and then they dug a hole and there was a river.

So the Dutch Brothers is a water table issue, not a wetland issue. They did have a delineation. The Corps determined that those were not waters of the U.S. That area does sit low. There's a very high water table. The highway also acts kind of as a dam there for the Spring Creek. They sit in a floodplain, so they went through some engineering floodplain mitigation. Yeah, that site is challenging, but it's more of a water table issue than a wetland issue.

Okay.

If it were delineated as wetlands, they would have had to mitigate that if they were going to build there.

Correct. And that's a great point. So you have an option to mitigate with the core. So let's look at this site. If you just couldn't work around this and you wanted to mitigate and mitigate means we're going to replace this wetland somewhere else. And depending on the value of this wetland, it might be replaced at a two to one value. So if you've got 0.87 acres, you may have to build, you know, 1.6 acres. But then that allows you to develop this site as a whole 10 acres without any wetlands.

So if you've got a spring that is creating your wetland, there's no way you can delineate?

There are limitations to mitigation, yes. If it's a natural flowing spring, you can't just pick that up and move it.

And you can't drill it in?

Yeah. Is there a proximity to, like, do you have to delineate? It's supposed to be in the same watershed. So UDOT actually mitigated a lot of wetlands for Highway 30, and they're placed just north of the Logan River between 6th West and 10th West. So they created new wetlands, same aquifer, watershed, and that's how they widened Highway 30. Mitigation is always an option. In some cases, it's expensive. It requires additional land. But if your development requires the entire site, let's say Costco wanted to build here and they needed that to fit their building, they have to mitigate. In some cases, you just have to do that.

So why was it determined that 15 feet was the right amount of separation from a wetland for a road it seems to me that a road is a i mean i was there when i told darren he had to comply with the 50 foot setback just like we did you know just like everybody else yeah and can i add to that if that's okay to that question if you're building a road inside the 15 foot setback does it go to the back of curb or does it go to the back of the sidewalk can you can't have the sidewalk inside the 15 feet

Correct. So you'd have to, to get the road 15 feet away, you'd have to build a road without a sidewalk or push the road further away, correct?

Yeah, and it would depend on that road right-of-way and the road cross-section, but it's the edge of the right-of-way which is a sidewalk 99% of the time. The 15 feet came from the series of meetings and discussions that I had from different development or different city departments.

But if they put in a sidewalk, The 15 foot starts at the delineation edge of the sidewalk, right?

Yeah, it'd be the delineation to the sidewalk and then the park strip and then the curb and gutter and then the street. So the street might be 25 feet away.

Are there other numbers that people liked as far as that?

Sorry, please say that again.

What were other numbers as far as the distance go that people liked? For roads, especially.

Again, developers want zero. Folks that email or might be here in the crowd, Josh wants 50 plus. 100. 100. You look at some other cities and they're anywhere from 50 to zero. Again, no cities in the valley have an additional setback. I think there's five in the state that do.

I think we have a lot of the wetland. Yeah.

We do have a lot of... Yes, we do.

Exactly. And we will as we add.

I think we have these because we actually have to address it and deal with it. And they're also important.

They're important to the ecosystem.

For me, and of course I'm the new one here, so I'm trying to understand. So we have had a 50-foot setback. um and we are it is being proposed that we keep a 50-foot setback for private development but that as well as including the structures parking lots driveway and then but public buildings i get Why do public buildings have a lower standard for setback? Or why would a paved parking lot have a lower standard for a setback. But only a public paid parking lot. A public paid parking lot. Or why would a recreation facility, now when it's shown as parks and rec, we're looking at a soccer field, that's very different. But when we're talking about a rec facility, we're talking about a structure that is effectively a public building. And why would that have less of a setback than another private project. I guess I'm trying to understand why, like, you know, let's theoretically, Logan City needs to build a building and there's a wetland being considered and or there's property that potentially has wetlands on it, and Logan City's holding itself to a lower standard, is what's being proposed, than what we would require of another private developer. Is that, that's what it, that's, I mean, one of many different scenarios that, you know. But that's your problem. Well, I mean.

That's what the property could mean. Yeah. I think, so I have this concern. I think part of it is, correct me if I'm wrong, what if you want to build a bathroom in a park or a boat ramp into the river or a, like a parking lot near the blue trail so you can load and unload your kayak. I think there's reasons. I don't love the way it's written. I feel like it's broad enough that we could Not to pick on Paul, but slap a public works building right next to a wetland, which I think is drastically different than saying, yes, we need to protect wetlands, but people want to be able to get in and out of the river. So we're going to put a boat ramp at a parking lot.

But that's what we have that exception for. I was going to say, what is it called? Reasonable use exception. Reasonable use exception.

So we can go through that every time we want to put a boat ramp in at 18 parks. How many are on the blue trail? Seven?

Eight parks? We did debate this and that's a really great question, Katie. Two answers we had were the different types of public structures. Maybe it's a public restroom, maybe it's a park pavilion. The use of that serves a larger population than private development. So it serves citywide populations. That was maybe the reasoning that we came up with.

But when you have a graphic like that, it makes it look like we don't want the same rules as the developers.

It does. And Planning Commission essentially said that. They said private development is treated this way, public is that. Whether that's right or wrong, that's up to you folks.

I think perhaps maybe that exception provision is the more appropriate path to take because I really feel like we need to be as stringent if not more stringent than we require of developers. And when it comes to, you know, you showed the one two acre piece with the big wetland, I don't know anywhere, and Craig you may tell me I'm wrong, but I did not understand ever that we were required to create a scenario where people got to develop their land the way they wanted to. It just had to be the highest and best use, and maybe that is farming. They don't have a right to do all these other things. It depends. I can't pretend my house is 3,500 square feet.

Are you talking about regulatory takings?

No, I'm talking, well, we're not, no, no, I'm just saying if we put the 50 foot setback and somebody comes and says, well, it's only two acres and you're doing this to me, we're not doing anything to them. It's the existing

Geological conditions.

Conditions of the property that they own and it is now currently at its highest and best use.

As a pond. As a what?

And that kind of steers towards what a regulatory taking is. You regulate the property so much that it loses all value. We don't have to allow the highest and best use of the property. You just can't deprive it of all economic use or all that kind of thing.

Right. And we would not be doing that with a 50 foot setback, even on a two acre parcel. Because they can still continue to do with it as it has been always done.

Unless there's still some economic use of that property. Right. It's not valueless.

OK. All right. I just wanted to make sure I was still really clear about that.

And I think zoning has to be considered there, too. So if it's zoned ag, yeah, farming is a viable economic use.

But they can't come to you and say, oh, it's zoned ag now. I want it zoned NR 52.

Right. That's a legislation decision. But if it's an existing commercial zoned property, what's a reasonable economic use there? So obviously all I'm saying is that it might be a little bit different if the zone is different.

But you'd also, I mean, you also have the situation where somebody says, well, I can't get enough houses on this piece of property because of this.

Yeah.

And I don't think we have to worry about that. I think that our responsibility is to protect the wetland more than it is to make things pencil.

I agree. You're not guaranteed maximum density for every parcel.

Okay. Thank you. Russ, can you take me back? I know you started this presentation with the context of we, you were asked to, they looked at the area but didn't address wetlands.

They were the same proposal that we said no.

It was too much. Now we are trying to address wetlands. And I guess what I'm wondering with the, just as it was written in terms of like the 50 foot sort of general setback, along with, sorry for my, ignorance but the special you the the ability for someone to propose a reconsideration of that properties um that we have sort of a variance and a variance kind of situation you know i guess for me i'm i'm wondering if like why are we looking at this why are we setting these these 50, 20, 15, 10 scenarios that I anticipate are going to have some sort of issues versus the 50 with the variance opportunity where we can, what often happens is we're looking at a proposal and the situation for that proposal, like many, are unique and maybe best served for- Can I give you an answer? Yeah, sure. Is that okay? Yeah.

One, we don't want to do a variance for 20 properties a year.

Of course, but how many do we have along the river?

My opinion, too, is there's a lot of trail that we want to build along the Logan River, and there's a lot of boat ramps in and out of the river that we'd like to build in the wetland areas so that people can float the river easily. I think there are reasonable... not on this slide as much as the other slide with the public projects but i think there's a lot of things that we want to build within wetlands and river setbacks that benefit the public and are really in my opinion very low impact could we start then with those that we care like that we know that we have an interest in relative to like because i can't just do an invariance on those ones no i like when we're looking at boardwalks and um

Trails. Could we create a separate definition that excludes an actual building building?

I mean, I think we could just amend this to say no large buildings within 50 feet, but a bathroom. There's a way to write that. It defines a large building.

What I was saying is how many more toilets do you need? So service structures, we could call them service structures because a boat ramp and a bathroom is a service structure.

But it says a car wash. Yeah, I think defining them by a square footage might be easier. And I'm happy to break down this buildings into subcategories and have different setbacks that way.

And I think the other thing that I like about where we are currently, there's things I don't love about this to be honest. transparent, but there are things I do like. I like that we don't allow any disturbance within 10 feet. And I like that we've reduced that 20% allowance.

That's a nice new addition.

There are further protections in here that weren't before. So in my opinion, are there things that I think we need to figure out in here still? Yes. But I think that the

this is going in the right direction might be better than where we were before and i think the reason that it came back we weren't we didn't want to change it right before but because of the road issue and the public well and the trail and the trail issue because i know the trail around that's when we decided to revisit it and so i think if we can create a tighter definition of public service facility or something like that, or use square footage or use something, it would come closer and put the rest of it at 50.

So here's my thought, Russ. You're the boss here, really. So how about each of us give you our thoughts on where we are and what we like and don't like, and then it's coming for a vote in two weeks if you get what you get from each of us and say hey let's take another month let's take another month if you look at it you're like yeah i think these are things we can fix in the next two weeks and bring it back how do we feel about that craig's got a hand raised if i just add one thing um your question about regulating wetlands that haven't been designated as wetlands by the army for state code especially prohibited staff okay well i think my backyard's a wetland so can i just And there's no state delineation for wetlands?

No, it has to be the Army Corps or some other federal agency has to designate it as wetlands.

Russ, do you like that idea rather than us running in circles right now?

What's your thought? There's no hard cut that we have to decide in two weeks. Let's create what you would like.

I kind of feel like at this point we're just kind of like... I don't like this and I like this.

I agree with you.

Does someone want to go first? Would you like me to go first? Do you have anything to say?

I think it would be a good idea for us to write our thoughts down and send them. Do you want to write them and send them? Yeah.

Would you prefer that? A written form would be better, I think. I have a speech. It's a lot easier for staff to go for written. Transcribe what was said.

Can I ask that we get it to him in the next couple days so that he has some time with staff over the next two and a half weeks? Don't take two weeks to write in because then it'll be a little late. And then we'll just end up continuing. It needs to get into the packet. I also want to make sure you guys have time to review. So the next few days, get your thoughts to him. Obviously if the public has issues, you're welcome to write to us or meet with us or whatever you want. Because it's obvious that there's going to be some refinements. So if you have thoughts or concerns, and then hopefully we can get it together and come back in two, maybe four weeks and put it on an action item and get public comment and Sounds great. Unless you guys want to take the extra. I mean, if we do that, then Teresa is on point here. Teresa's always on point. Which, shocker, Teresa knows what's going on. Let's just be clear. I know.

Even with all of that, she was right.

Thank you, Russ. Thank you. Okay. Any other considerations? We have to fill two minutes so that Teresa can be exactly right.

No, we don't.

I will not bang this gavel until Theresa is accurate. Oh, my God. Any other considerations?

You can talk about the celebrations this Friday. Oh, yeah. Mayor.

Anything you want to tell us about Friday?

There are some great things happening on Friday. So we've got a fun run in the morning. We've got activities at Willow Park. We have concerts. We have kids activities. We have the parade at 10 o'clock. We have fireworks in the evening. We have music, live entertainment. It's a full day. I was like looking at it this morning and I'm going, parks are going to be there from 5 in the morning till midnight. They'll have a long day. But there's a lot happening on Friday. So even more so than on the 4th. So we're celebrating.

Awesome. Anyone else have any other considerations for 27 seconds? No. This is going to be a really awkward 20 seconds. One minute early. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.