Municipal Council - Regular Meeting

Schedule is the first and third Tuesdays at 5 30 p.m. here in our council chambers. The next meeting will be August 18th at 5 30 p.m. We do also have a truth and taxation hearing scheduled for Tuesday, August 11th at 6 p.m. here in the council chambers. And then we do also have, it's not on the agenda, but we do have our data center open house for those interested in attending immediately after this meeting at approximately 7 p.m. in the community conference room. Now's the time on our agenda for anyone who has questions or concerns for the mayor or the council to share those with us. We do ask that you keep your comments to three minutes or less. Please state your name and your city of residence, and please keep them to things within the purview of the council or mayor. And with that, I will open a microphone.

Hi, I am Suzanne Janicki. I live in North Logan. I'm an emeritus geoscientist, river scientist, and community activist. And I'm here today to formally ask Logan City to pause your sponsorship of the Logan River Watershed Project. I sent you all emails about it. Anyone in the press here, I'll send you a copy as well of my objections. This is on behalf of the Two Rivers Coalition and community members. This project suffers from many, many major flaws, including extreme cost overruns, conflicting statements about who pays the $2 million of operating budget for staff, vehicles, machinery, and office space. There are zero affordable options except the do nothing option. And it risks turning the Little Oven River that flows past two high schools and through a dozen public spaces into a ribbon of pathogens and toxic algae. It is also a dry riverbed in one in three or four summers. It is really severe. This project has such a narrow focus that it harms our community, especially as we are navigating the crisis of decades of drought and the collapsed Great Salt Lake and all the dangers that that poses for us. The Logan River Watershed Project proposes to use more river water, almost twice as much, mostly to irrigate turf. And this is precisely when the collapse of the Great Salt Lake, our health, the state economy, requires that everyone use half as much river water going forward. Instead, this project proposes to use more. It would also consume almost half a billion dollars of our tax money and fees. This is a huge amount of money. and in the process, damage our communities. So I encourage you to pause this and please consider whether you want to sign on to a document that I think makes false claims to the federal government. For example, they need to ask your contractor to explain the budgeting snafu Flood prevention is supposed to represent 55% of the total budget, $170 million, which is enough, by the way, to build another wastewater treatment plant. It's a huge amount of money. And only $20 to $25 million are described in the county where I just managed the fleet division there.

July 1st is starting the unmodified group and kind of came out to talk to you. First off, thank you for the partnership that we have with Logan City. The unmodified group is proud of the partnerships we have with our Honda, Toyota, and Powersports stores. And I also want to talk to you just briefly about some of the new things that we're doing that can benefit you guys as a municipality. And the first thing, you think of Young's, we typically just think of like the automotive sales and things. But we've got a great relationship with you guys and you buy a lot of vehicles from us. We're able to get you some good pricing and help the city with that. The other thing that we have is we have a fully up and going upfitting department that can assist with police and fire vehicles, put lights and sirens and decals. We do that in-house now. You order your police car from us, you pick it up, it's all done and ready to go. Second thing that we have going that you may not have heard about is we have a collision contract for Davis Weaver in Cache County for building a new collision center in Cache County that will open up in January. One of the headaches I have as a fleet manager is I get a police car crash. I couldn't get that car in for weeks of time. Then the auto body ships will do bid games. So Young's jumped on that. We have a state contract, a state contract in pricing. And any vehicle you have, not just police or fire, but you have a public works vehicle or something, you can't go to Enterprise and rent. If you look at, through me, we're able to give you a first available bay. We'll give you free towing from wherever that car's crashed at. We'll put it to a site, get it fixed. We'll fix the police lights, the sirens, the firing lights, the sirens, whatever issues there are. Fix the auto body mechanical. And then we have a delivery team that will return it to you. So you don't have to have employees shuttling vehicles around and doing things like that. The other thing that I decided to talk about is we are now a towing fire truck distributor. We have a dealership with them and we're just now rolling that out where we're able to sell four towing fire trucks and we're just sending all of our service techs back to be trained. So then you can order a fire truck or a fire apparatus through us. We'll get help you get it built all the order put together when you get the vehicle. You'll not only have a great vehicle, but you'll have a service department that will be located. That's an hour away in case though, or we can send tax up to fix anything that goes wrong with it. And we can also. if it need we take it down there or have a service right here at some of our our uh cash county facility so like i said on behalf of the young automotive group thank you for having such a great public private partnership with us we're happy to be start working with you and we're always looking for new ways that we can help you guys in the future and that collision repair the toy fire truck and the upfitting are just a few of the things that we've added to our our dealership and our automotive group to help you guys out I'm going to flyer the guys in the uniform. Thanks, Danny.

How are you, Josh? All right. I'm Josh from Logan. So at the middle, or in the middle of the block at the side of the clock, you guys, anybody remember that jingle?

Oh, yeah.

Local TV going on. I was... So, heading down Main Street, grabbing a cup of coffee and I look over the building. I think it was Needham's that originally owned that. I had a run in with the, you know, the eldest Needham when I was a skater, young skater on my team for skateboarding. Me and some friends went up and hit that blue tile, you know, on the skateboards, did a little skid on it, and he came out, you know, and it, you know, he wasn't happy about it because he's had to do a lot, he's responsible for the repairs, but he was an absolute gentleman when he came out and proceeded to talk to us about, please don't destroy this, you know, it costs money to have to repair this. And so he did, at the end of the conversation, he said, I would really love to see you guys skate. We were, you know, we were, and that's kind of hard to explain in our group. But so we proceeded to go down the block and behind, I can't remember what store it is, but spent about a half an hour, you know, skateboarding for him. And he was just like blown away. I can remember the expressions, you guys are good. And he was so blown away that back, I think this was 1988, he said, you know what, if we got a skate park together, you know, if the city decided to do a skate park, I would be willing to chip in a substantial amount of money for it. But we were like 15, 16 years old. We skate park here back then. Yeah, I don't think it would have happened. So nothing really happened about it. But it got me thinking, as I'm walking past that building and looking down at the concrete that they've done, making it look like full brick, I was thinking, is this the preservation that Main Street has really been investing into? I remember those iconic dark blue tiles there. And I think that when it comes to the historical factor of downtown, we need to up it a bit. And I mean, it'd be great to see them replace those tiles, those iconic new tiles there. So I think that when it comes to historical nature of Main Street, we really need to do better. We've got a lot of storefronts, you know, those those things coming out and just so that they can add on to other properties. It's really sad to see this. I mean, I come from an era of this place where we used to have decorations that went over Main Street for Christmas, and they were incredibly magical, you know, back then. But I think we need to do better with the historical society that's going on, the decisions going on here. So, thank you.

Thank you, John.

Thanks, Josh.

Good evening, all workers of Logan who are here. I'm Linda Johnson, and I live in Logan, and I work for Logan City School District. And that is what I mainly came to comment on, but I did like what he said about skating and the fact that there, I don't think, is a skate park in Logan, is there? It's by the pool. By the Aquatic Center.

By the Fairgrounds and the Aquatic Center, yeah.

Really? Just west of that. It's very busy. Yeah, I was like, man, I'm sure tons of people use that. We moved here from Hiram and the Blacksmith War Coin. So I'll use it in an amenity sometime. Anyways, I came to talk. I work in the IT department for the school district. And by a show of hands, how many of you guys heard that we had our surplus tech sale this last week?

Two.

I think that's a probably optimistic representation of how many people in Logan actually heard about the tech sale. And they did send it out through parents first. So anyone who has... Kids who go to the schools. I should add my name. Okay, I was like, there should be a free representative bunch, but I feel like there's a lot of people in Logan who could use those computers before they go to recycling and are munched. And they sell them for as low as $5.00. for Chromebooks that are used, you know, that still have like three years of good life in them. I use them for my kids at home. And I'm not a huge like, oh, my kids are on a Chromebook all the time or anything like that. But I feel like it's been very useful for my kids to do Lexi at home or to use Google Classroom for their homework. And I think a lot of Logan schools don't necessarily assign a lot of homework, but I know that there are a lot of students whose families could use those. And I try to get my boss to do other forms of advertisement and such, but I think the overall feel is one that I've seen in a lot of places in the Valley is that a few people who are really invested communicate. They're there. They cooperate. They do stuff. They pay attention to all their emails. Good job. And And then there's so many people who just don't have the time or the energy to, and I want us to try and find ways to reach out to those people. And I know you guys have invested so much in trying to do that. I've seen the newsletters. maybe news articles and things like that. But I don't know if we can do more like micro community events. And I know that there are a couple of neighborhood events per year, but I feel like there's some of those neighborhoods where if we can collaborate as a city and the school district, maybe we can help get resources out there that really literally are just going to molder and go to waste because there was only two hours when people could come home. I would love to see that, sorry.

Thank you, Linda.

Seeing no one else, we will close our questions and comments for the mayor. And your agenda shows that there's no mayor and staff reports. But Mayor Innocent has requested a bit of time for questions.

Something.

Something.

I'll leave in suspense. As you all know, we had a significant fire event over the weekend in Logan. And I just want you all to know how fortunate we are that we have staff and crews that were able to stop that fire. Because it could have gotten much bigger and much worse damage than what we had.

And

I was evacuated with the first group of evacuees from the area, and I'd just gotten home from our city employee pool party at the pool, and I still had my shorts on and my T-shirt, and we got the word to get out, and we ran. And we ran fast because we saw the fire coming already. And that's how close it was. So I had firsthand experience of how amazing our response was because we saw them go and how amazing the police were because they evacuated us in a very timely but very kind, urgent fashion. They were not forceful, but they were very encouraging to get us to move along very quickly. and we really appreciate the work that they did. My neighborhood and my family will be forever and eternally grateful for the work that they put forward because it not only saved our property, but it saved all our neighbors' property and our neighbors' businesses and basically our community and our city because it could have been a much, much larger fire. We could have lost homes. We could have lost lives. And because of their quick response, We have a very, very good outcome. No homes lost, no injuries, minimal damage. And it's because of the quick response and the way our fire crews attack the fire. And because of all the help that came from all over the county and from the state to come and help us. So we had amazing support from our neighbors, The fire stations that Chief chose to have come, they were very, very selective on who they asked to come because they didn't want to deplete resources from all over the county. And we had the help that we needed when we needed it, and they were able to stop the fire. A year or so, well, it was actually a little bit longer than that, council funded an emergency manager, and that's Ron Gonsalves. And I want you to know how important of a role Ron played in making sure our citizens who were evacuated had somewhere to go, had somewhere to take their pets, had some food, had some water, had some support. And what a difference that he made as well, too, because he made it so that the people who were evacuated could get through this and did such an amazing job. So thank you for funding that position. Ron was worth his weight in gold this weekend. He put in at least 48 hours on two hours of sleep. and really, really put a lot of work in. And it's not just RAW that did that. It's a lot of our fire crews that were out working, they went home and got a little nap, and they went back and they worked again. It's like we had so many people sacrificing time and effort. Having Ron made a huge, huge difference. And what's interesting is Ron and I met on Thursday and we were talking about Ready, Set, Go and how to promote that in the next couple of months and let our community know about that program. And then a day and a half later, we're implementing it. know in real time and mine wasn't ready set it was go we had no no ready or set in between and so in the next four to five months you're going to see us promoting ready set go you're going to see us talking about each step along the way and and then talking about it some more we really want to get all of our residents participating in this so that when the time comes and the phone call hits that you need to leave you know what you're grabbing And you're prepared and you're ready to go because we had to decide in five minutes what we were taking with us. And it's not a fun decision. It's hard. And you know what you should take and you still, you freeze in the moment. You're just not sure. And so... Thanks for funding Ron. He made a huge difference for our community along with the rest of our teams. Our light and power were hunkered down at that transformer station the whole night to make sure it was protected. Public Works was there with backhoes to help support our crews. We just had a team effort from everybody who was called upon. They were there in the middle of the night to make sure that this was taken care of. And a couple bad bounces, a couple bad breaks, and that fire goes to the short dugway, or it goes to Merlin Olson, or it goes across the river, and it's up on the other bench. And they did what they had to do to get that stopped and get it stopped in time. Otherwise, we could have a very different situation that we're talking about right now. So we did some debriefings and identified some things that we could really, really improve on despite the huge... successes that we had. There's some things that we really could work on. We definitely do better with our communication. We feel like our communication system that we pay for and that we maintain and that we've had our residents sign up for failed us. I've heard from multiple people. They did not get contacted. They signed up for Enbridge and they did not get contacted. And so we're going to try and find out what the break in that system is and see what happened there and find better ways to communicate with our people. Because I've had so many people say, I didn't find out until my neighbor sent me a message or I didn't find out until they knocked on my door. And that's unacceptable. But the process was in place to take care of that, but it didn't work the way it's supposed to. So we're working on that. We'll meet with them next week. I know there's been a lot of discussion about the water line and the water tank and how disruptive it is and how much destruction it's caused. And I have also personal... involvement in that because it's right in front of my house. I'm going to share with you that that fire consumed over 30% of our water reserves. And that was a small fire. The tank is going to give us double the capacity that we have right now. And it's going to equalize the pressure across our city. And this is the reason we're doing that tank. All right. because of where that fire was located we were able to utilize all of our hydrants public works was able to turn up the springs turn up the pumps we had plenty of water there was there was zero decrease of pressure across the city to make sure that happened if it had happened on the south side we would have run out of water and we would have run out of pressure and we would have had to turn people's water off to make sure that they could still fight that fire. Next year after the tank is done, that will not be a problem anymore. That will not be a problem. We will have extra capacity. We will have extra pressure. We will be able to equalize that pressure across our city. This is a really, really critical component to what we're doing in the city. We don't build that tank. We do not build that line. We have a fire on the south side. We have different results than what we had Friday night. So thank you for funding the water tank and the pipeline. It's not just for growth. This is to protect our residents and to provide for the emergency services that we really need. And if we don't have that water tank and that water line as much as I hate it, have problems we have problems in the future so thank you for for funding that next week we have some decisions to make with our truth and taxation we're funding another fire station we're funding more resources for manpower we were pushed to our limits with our resources with this fire every firefighter was out every police officer available was out and we still had deficiencies and so funding that extra those extra officers funding this fire station that will just make us stronger it will make us stronger it's a really important decision to make i know it's hard it's hard to ask for more money But we really, really need it. And we found out this weekend why we really need that. So I would encourage you to really think hard about the need of this fire station in a portion of our city that is understaffed and undercovered. And having those extra police officers would really, really make a big difference. Communication-wise, we're looking at some new software for utility billing, and it has some amazing capabilities in it, whichever direction we go. And that will solve our communication problems because it will utilize our utility billing, and we'll be able to contact geofeds, our residents, in specific locations, contact them through cell phone, through landline, through email, through text, And we'll be able to do it all instantaneously in the areas that we want. So we could have set up a zone that was get out now, get ready to go in case, heads up in case things get worse. And we could have shrunk that circle of impact that we had on our residents because we had to do a bigger area. than what we probably needed to, but it's always better to be safe than sorry. And so I'm glad we evacuated a larger area, even though we didn't really need to, but our people were safe, our residents were safe. With our new billing system, which is going to be expensive, um it will help us drill down to get in specific neighborhoods specific streets and individually notify people if we have a similar situation in the future and be very precise in what we're doing it will be a great tool and so we'll be coming to to the council about that sometime in the near future as well too so just some some things i wanted to highlight for council and say thank you for funding these projects because they are critical for the safety of our community and we are so grateful for our teams and our crews and our neighbors that all came to our help because without them we are in a different situation, a very different situation. So thanks to police, top building, fire, light and power, public works, parks, Everybody involved, emergency management, amazing job. Thank you. We've saved our homes, saved our residents from a lot worse than what we had. So amazing job. Thank you. And thank you, council, for helping us do it.

Thanks, Barry. I think from the whole council, we can say thanks to the ones who do the real hard work. Thank you.

Stressful night for sure, right? Some of those firefighters burned 5,000 calories in like three hours and Chief was higher than that because the stress level was on him. I don't know if he's gonna sleep for another week.

Thank you, Mary Anderson. We'll now move to council business and we'll move to a planning commission update.

The only item that was on the planning commission agenda last week was something that we will be discussing and voting on later on. So I will just wait until we talk about it.

Voting in two weeks, but discussing later.

Pardon me?

Voting in two weeks, but discussing later.

Excuse me.

Workshopping today.

Workshopping today.

Yeah.

So. Thank you, Jeannie.

We'll now move to council announcements. The only two announcements I have on here are both on your agenda. They're both our data center meeting tonight and our truth and taxation meeting next Tuesday. So the thing I was going to share, if any council members have anything that they would like to share, I'll just ask that we keep it a little brief so that we can get to that open house. But if you have anything, time is yours.

I assume everyone did, but I received an email from a gentleman who was concerned about the fire and evacuation and the status of the access to the trail. I know that we have allocated money to do some litigation, which I know is not a public comment sort of thing, but I didn't know where we were in terms of finding that access should we ever need to get on that trail to find another fire, so.

Yeah, that's an important point too. Negotiations are continuing. We did hire two firms, Spencer Fane out of Salt Lake City, and have been exploring all possible angles to get this resolved, so it's not stale or dead. We're pursuing, still trying to get this trail open and work on that, but that's about all I can tell you at this time.

Okay, that's fine. Thank you.

Anything else from any other council members?

I will say we went to, I was at CMPO last Monday and there was a lady who came from the governor's office who is establishing a new planning tool called centers. and I don't know exactly how that will impact anything that we do, but she was very excited about it and wanted every community in every place in the state to create centers and identify them and there was going to be funding later and all that stuff. I'm happy to share all the information, but I just don't know. I felt like most of the communities that here are doing general plans and are really establishing all of those things without calling them that. So I didn't know. Anyway.

Send over the info if you're interested.

Okay.

Thank you, Jeannie. If there's nothing else, we'll move on to our action items for this evening. Our first one is a budget judgment with Rich. If we can start with you tonight.

Absolutely. Several items to consider. First is a request to appropriate 50,000 of public works funds received from UDOT for the 4th North and 6th West intersection and corridor improvements. $18,000 grant for the ICAC, the Internet Crimes Against Children, which we've received in the past with the police department. 10,710 funds received for the Bolt-Proof Vest grant, also through the police department. A $40,000 grant received from Select Health to promote wellness for employees, activities, newsletters and other things throughout the year. We've received this in the past from Cigna. 2,500 of donated funds received for police department supplies. And lastly, a request to appropriate 22,000 additional funds coming from golf cart rentals toward the Visage software package GPS locating and gives us some abilities with the golf carts.

makes them stop when they can't, when they're going where they're not supposed to.

There are some protections. It's expensive, but in terms of overall revenue, $400,000 versus $20,000.

But I hear you can't order a burger from the cafe. That's really what I need.

And they deliver it right to your cart.

That's what I want to get. I'm trying to get them to order it. Have Jeff zip it out for me.

I'm kidding.

It would be nice. Any questions for Rick? Sorry.

Is this a yearly fee then?

It is. Yeah, it's not a one-time. This is annual. But we can always decide in the future if we don't feel like it's worthwhile. We don't need it to run the carts. It just gives us some extra functionality that sometimes is kind of nice. Yeah.

So do you need to sign a multi-year agreement to get that pricing?

I believe it's an annual agreement. We do have to sign an agreement, but I think it's an annual. In fact, we stop paying when they shut us off.

And if they shut it off, the screens just stay there, but they don't function.

They have some functionality, but they don't have the GPS functionality. It doesn't tell you where the next hole is. It doesn't tell you where the next hole is. I don't think it gives you the flashing or the shutdown.

I like it to show the distance.

And all the funding for this is coming out of the car rentals.

It is. Now, there is an opportunity to do some advertising and get some advertising revenue. We'll see if that materializes. In between holes, it flashes up some advertising. Yep.

I love that. Our golf pro was quite adamant that it really does save a lot of money because of the controls that they have over the cards. So we are hopeful that it will improve our maintenance costs and help offset some of that as well, too.

It does pinpoint where people are and when they were there. Yeah. That may help us with some claims and other incidents that happen. Yeah.

As with a lot of software applications, is there a data privacy type of component to that agreement?

There is supposed to be through the state of Utah where required, but I don't know what, I don't think there's any I don't think there's any personal stuff in here. Maybe the personal score. Don't put it in here.

It doesn't show how bad of a golfer you are.

Trust me, I already know. But with all agreements, there's supposed to be data privacy restrictions in those agreements. I'm not sure if it made it into these because it's a new requirement, but it shouldn't suspect you. But again, I don't think there's anything really shared other than where the car is, it's not who's playing it. We're the ones that know that.

Can I ask one more question? If I remember correctly, this $50,000 from Public Works, to Public Works from UDOT, that's for pedestrian improvements. On that 4th North?

They're not here, but it was for everything to do with the project. It's a fairly middle of the map. So you could say it's for...

Oh, and I'm sorry I'm mixing this up because we got the one for 200 North, 6 West, but that was from National. This is for, sorry, two blocks north.

Same concept.

Scratch my question.

It's UDOT paying for things that are related to UDOT, but also things that we're trying to improve on the portion that we own.

Any other questions for Rich before? This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public who has any comments or questions on resolution 2626 is welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence, and please take three minutes or less. Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for action.

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

With motion and a second, all in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Resolution 2626 passes. We'll now move to Ordinance 2613 with Amy from Community Development for a rezone proposal.

Amy snuck in there like really fast. She was really quiet. I like her looked up.

She made me jump.

She's like a ninja.

That's right. That's what happens when you have joy.

A ninja.

All right, so we have ordinance 2613, the Honey Rezone. Came to workshop two weeks ago, came in front of city council last fall also. It's located at 165 North 200 East, approximately 0.21 acre parcel right across the street from the temple. It is currently zoned in our six and they would are asking for a rezone to TC2 to town center two. You can see that all to the west and mostly to the north is TC2 just to the south of it is still in our six Our future land use plan calls that whole block downtown and then across the street no longer NR6 but public. The house is split in two basically with the canal. There's the primary home on the front and then behind is a garage. The house was built in 1909. There was an apartment built above the garage in 1979, and in 1980 a studio apartment was built on the same floor as the garage. It was grandfathered as two units when it came. The 3rd unit was not the studio that's on the main. Floor of the garage was not grandfathered because there was no permit pulled. So we considered it an illegal unit. When the current homeowner bought it, they didn't do their due diligence, I guess, and didn't know that that 3rd unit was not legal. And they were. There was a complaint about meters and electricity and high bills that brought this to our attention last year. And that's when we found out that that third unit was being rented when it shouldn't have been. And he is trying to correct that by asking for TC2 so that it can have three units. TC2 on 0.21 acres would allow for six units, but he would like just the three. Questions for Amy? Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval, 4-1. The one didn't really state exactly why, but he had concerns about future development.

Amy, I'm going to ask a question. We often talk about legally existing non-conforming uses. Yes. This, the way it is built, is non-conforming in terms of setbacks to the canal. If we are asking to add to that non-conformity by adding another unit, is that appropriate? Because we usually don't do that.

I mean, technically with their two apartments in the back, if they kept it to the occupancy limit of three, they would still be able to use it like that.

Is the house owner occupied?

No, the house is a rental. So, but what I'm saying, I mean, Technically what will happen is they have a studio apartment which they could put three people in and the other apartment they could put three people in. So they have essentially doubled their nonconformity with respect to... So I'm just asking, do we take that into consideration when we consider a rezone? because I would think they would have to repair the nonconformity if they rezoned it. If they rezoned it, it would no longer be nonconforming. It still doesn't have enough setback from the canal.

Yeah, but it was built at a time when we didn't have that setback.

So if it were torn down and rebuilt... What I'm saying is we have another issue where someone is asking for a different zone. And because they do that, they have to bring everything up to conformity. And so this is the same to me. So I don't know why it's different. This will bring conformity.

That's what they're asking for.

I have to jump in really quick. So there's two types of nonconformity. One is a structure. And that would be the issue with the canal setback.

Right.

That is grandfathered as per the 1979 building permit. So they can work within that structure and reconfigure the use within and not create an additional nonconformity. The other nonconformity is considered use and that's what goes on inside the structure. So the up zone would allow for the use to change if they wanted to change the structure they have to follow current setbacks so that current structure couldn't expand closer to the canal they may be able to go the other way but that would all be looked at as per current setback so does that help yeah kind of two types of non-conformities structures and uses

What he said.

What he said actually made sense to me, so.

Can you explain to me with the new plan, why don't we go to that?

um code like it does it does not automatically go to downtown because of the new plan or do we have to rezone everything so the general our general plan has this but we haven't adopted these zones yet okay yeah so we would have to come to you guys with a code change to to come to have these zones and what they all entail

It doesn't automatically happen because we want it in the future and we anticipate this is the desire. We don't come to each purchase. Yeah.

Property owner has to come forward and say, I want to change his own. Yeah.

Okay. All right. Yeah, that's why we're not calling one of those newbie. That's interesting.

We've all asked them.

Yeah. Okay.

And they have plenty of parking. If they have three in each unit, do they have plenty of parking? They have enough parking according to the requirements of our code.

Would they still have enough parking if it was absent according to requirements of code?

For three units? Yes. Okay. That's a good question.

Do you see any code issues if it was up zoned, as is?

No.

Anything that stands out to you that's like, oh, well, now this is a problem?

No, staff recommends approval. We don't see any issues with this.

We denied it once.

I know. Should we roll it? Do you guys have any other questions before we open for public comment?

Why did you deny it?

Oh, Jeannie?

We denied it because we weren't sure that that was appropriate given the fact that we were working on the general plan and we didn't really feel like that sort of skippity-skip, bot-zooming kind of thing was appropriate.

Because once again, you're living in an island of NR6. Well, it kind of is, but you already have that yellow one up above it. What is that? That one was more of an island.

I thought you said that's the island. That's the island, yeah.

Yeah, that's the island.

It's because the property north of this one requested a rezone like two years ago when we approved it. You guys okay if I open public comment? Yeah. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public who would like to come comment on ordinance 2613 is welcome to come to the microphone. State your name, city of residence, and please take three minutes or less.

hi good evening everyone i'm george honey the homeowner there and i just would encourage you to vote yes on it for all the reasons that amy has conveyed and um yeah i think she put it pretty well that it complies once the zoning is changed and if you have any questions for me i'm happy to answer

Thanks, George. We'll see if there's any other comments, and then if the council has questions afterwards, yeah. We'll circle back to you, okay?

Good evening. My name is Robert Sims. I live here in Lared. And I'm the person who lives in that area. little studio apartment. I'm a U.S. veteran. I served in the Air Force for five years from 1955 to 1961. I'm 18 years old. I'm very comfortable living there. I would appreciate it very much if they would let them rezone that so I can continue to stay there. Otherwise, I've got to find somewhere else to live. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

I've listened to back and forth arguments about this thing and, you know, both sides actually have shown a good case. But the thing that is, it is what it is and Honestly, we need housing and I, you know, I was readily part of help decision with the property, you know, just for there, not happy about that decision, personal reasons, but I am familiar with this property and I mean, yeah, rezoning for one apartment, is a tough one to put in but I actually do support this because I know there is there's need for it even though it is you know a small need we have a veteran in an apartment and taking this out you know making it so that he has to go in for another place right now housing Housing is difficult to find. I'm reading about housing all over, and most of the places are high density, which, you know, this is a really cute neighborhood. I know you live there, Jeannie, and it is a really cute neighborhood, but I don't see it being altered. I think we're just making it what it was, so I do support it, though.

Thank you, Josh.

Linda Johnson here. I, too, understand your reluctance, because it does seem like a lot of things end up getting flip-flopped. And where someone's built an illegal secondary apartment, you kind of want to nip that in the bud overall, you know? And it's hard, because there is a canal there. But I think looking 50 years down the road, or even looking at the general plan, like, you guys, this is already over a 100-year-old home. I don't know what quality of the back And structure was built with, but it's pretty much already surrounded by medical Plaza stuff. And if that becomes an area where Logan wants to maintain a medical presence in 50 years, maybe even that will be medical rather than residential. And so, and who knows if the canal will remain open for another 50 years? I don't know what future councils will decide to do. But in this case, I would encourage you, they've paid the fee, right? Isn't there a fee that they just have to pay to have it looked at by the council? And they've now paid it twice. Is there a fee that they have to pay to propose rezoning?

Is there a fee for a rezoning? Yeah.

Yes, there is.

Yeah, to apply for a rezoning.

So to apply twice, this homeowner who's bought it and didn't actually do this is already kind of paid for that. Like, I mean, obviously they'd have to apply for a building permit if they wanted to change anything in the future and it would have to apply to all of the new rules. But in this case, I feel like it is in alignment with all of our future plans and purposes and is not going to make a huge negative impact as one person rather than three is even occupying it. And it sounds like likely will for at least the next few years that he wants to stay there. So I think, and it sounds like that's going in that direction, but I understand the not wanting to just let people make illegal things and then grandfather them either, but that wasn't done by him. So I do think in this case, that's fine.

Thank you, Linda. Seeing no further public comment, we'll... Okay, I was like, threw me out for a minute there, Josh. I get seconds. You're good. Seeing no further public comments, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for further discussion or a motion. Well, I'll make some comments then, unless you were...

I can make comments, but I'm just gonna go for a motion. Go for it. I would make a motion that way approve this request for the rezone. I think given the future land use plan indicating the direction where this is likely to go given the structures that are there currently. I'm... I'm fine with that. So I would move to approve, but I can also hold my motion if you wanna make some comments.

No, we have a motion. We have a second. I'll second the motion. A motion and a second. Is there any further discussion before we vote? All in favor of approving ordinance, I almost said resolution, ordinance 2613, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Nay.

Motion passes 4-1. Ordinance 2613 passes. Thank you, Amy. Russ. Wetlands. Yes. It's a little one. Just give us a... Yeah, this is, you know, we haven't spent any time on this one. So just give us a quick 30 second recap. Yeah, can you just run us through the changes? I'm assuming everyone on the council is familiar with where we are. So for the sake of time, based on what we did two weeks ago, Where are we at now? Is that clear? Yeah.

I'll give you some quick feedback on the changes. Thank you. I did meet with Melissa and then received emails from the four of you. So I got some great feedback. That was very helpful. And it was all different, so then you had to make it all work together. Was it helpful? So the summary is basically, I went over all these, so I don't need to go back through this. The issues were the different setbacks for the different types of development. Essentially, Planning Commission voted to separate public and private and give public a little bit lower setback. Council last meeting didn't feel that was appropriate and rather than separating public private, let's look at maybe different types of structures and structure sizes. I did some research on pavilions in different parks and 1200 square feet was. a typical size, they did vary, and so I created a category of 1200 square feet or less that could be pavilions, restrooms, pump houses, well houses, other types of public works facilities, and created a different setback for them. The other issue was the intersections with roads and wetlands. And this is very conceptual because all of the green shade is what we call national wetland inventory. It's where possible wetland may be located, but those would be determined through a delineation process through the Army Corps. If you look at our adopted master plan for transportation, we try to maintain a grid pattern out in those west areas where we have higher concentrations of wetlands. We're looking at a two-block grid pattern. That's all these kind of gray dashed lines. There will be some conflicts. And in some cases, we're just going to have to mitigate in order to build a road. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. UDOT had to do that for Highway 33. Logan City will probably have to do that for some of these intersections. But different setbacks allow a little bit more, I guess, flexibility for these road constructions. So essentially there's three categories or three setback numbers. I also wanted uniformity so that we had a 50, a 25, and a 15. And so for projects with sidewalks, trails, landscaping, stormwater facilities, those can be set at 15 feet. If it's a street, it's 25. And the way that would work is you could measure to the curb and then you could have a park strip and a sidewalk that went up to 25. And a lot of our cross sections are designed about 10 feet for the park strip and sidewalk, so it actually could work out pretty well.

So then it would be 15?

15 for the sidewalk, but the actual street would be 25.

But the whole circuit would be 15?

Yeah, but there would be park strip, landscaping, things like that.

Could there be a scenario where there's no park strip and there's a five foot sidewalk?

and now you're starting the street at 20-ish nope because the way it reads is the streets are 25 period and that's measured from the edge of asphalt or the curb so if they did a design where they took the park strip out then the street would have to remain at 25 and the sidewalk might go to like a 20. because these are minimum setbacks you can obviously go higher than these Any sort of large building, whether it's residential, industrial, multifamily, 50 feet, parking lots, 50 feet. Katie, did you have a...

I did, yeah. Just before you move on to the 50 feet, on the 15 foot per storm water facility, can you describe what that could be?

Those typically look like landscaping, but they're depressions. They fill up with stormwater during certain storm events, and then they percolate through. So most of the time they're a dry depression. They can be grass, different types of landscaping surfaces.

I think the term facilities made me a little, that's why I wanted just clarification because I... It's not a natural ability. It's not a, yeah. I know what a stormwater, you know, like...

Some of them do have structure. There might be some pipes or tanks that's typically underground.

Just want to make sure I understood that correctly. Thank you.

So the next category includes more public types of developments and this allows for the restrooms and the pavilions at 25 if they are a smaller type structure. The trails and sidewalks and landscaping and stormwater, that's all the same. There is an exemption for boardwalks, and the Army Corps actually has an exemption for certain types of development. You can have a one-tenth of an acre disturbance allowance to the Army Corps. That would allow you to put posts for boardwalks and things like that. So the setbacks would not apply to boardwalks. Same setbacks for larger buildings and parking lots and streets. And then the last change was the subdivision section or the residential section. This was bumped up. Originally, it was a 10-foot setback for a lot line just to better uniform things. And also, a lot of the starter homes are pretty similar to a 1,200 square foot footprint. I did some analysis there. And so it's a similar structure. And if you calculate both a rear yard setback and a lot line setback of 15, that would place the homes at about 25 feet. So when you're laying out a subdivision like you see in the bottom left, you're putting up new lot lines. And so a building lot would have to be at least 15 feet away. The 15 feet and inward would be an HOA. Part of that would be the do not disturb area. And you cannot build on that. But a building lot that's set 15 feet away will have additional setbacks. And so the home on that lot would have to be at least 10 feet away from the property line.

On all sides?

Side is eight. So it could be less. It could be 23 at the smallest. But yeah, 23, 25 would be a typical nearest.

So why did we not leave it at 50?

Why did we not leave the subdivisions at 50? Just the same logic of the smaller structures could be a little bit closer.

The smaller structures could be like, you mean the public structures?

Right.

But they're a one-off. They're not a subdivision.

Right. They would be less frequent. The proposal two weeks ago showed subdivisions at a 10-foot setback.

I don't.

Still don't like it.

The other thing is a homeowner... doesn't have as much flexibility as like maybe an apartment developer or a commercial developer where they have, let me go back to this one. So if you have a bigger site and you're required certain amounts of open space or landscaping, you can kind of manipulate your project a little bit to work around a wetland. When you're talking about individual owners, they don't, or individual homeowners that are trying to build a home on a lot, That lot may be a quarter acre, maybe.

But if it's a subdivision, the developer has already had to delineate the wetland and they already have to have a 50 foot setback. Right? Like you showed in the picture before.

The current rule would be streets, sidewalks, lot lines, everything has to be 50 feet away. So with the allowance of, well, with the debate over streets having a lower setback, sidewalks having a lower setback, I thought it was appropriate to put lot lines at a similar setback.

See, I think it defeats the purpose. Because I really believe, you know, I believe, and I'm sorry, I know we're trying not to talk this to death. But I really believe that in that situation, the developer has a wetland. He has to have a 50 foot setback from that wetland. Everything else isn't in the wetland. If there's like one lot over there that has a wetland, a delineated wetland, you can't build out anyway. And it just doesn't seem, it seems contradictory. because we're applying the 50 foot setback to the delineated wetland. And then we're saying, oh, but if it's a subdivision, it doesn't have to be that way.

There is some overlap, though, because if we go back to this slide, let's say a developer is building apartment complexes, and there's not individual property lines. They're simply measuring from the edge of that apartment building to the edge of the wetland, which would be 50 feet. In a subdivision, if that developer laid out a lot at 50 feet, the house would actually be 60 feet. So it would be an even larger setback.

Can you repeat that? Yeah.

Again, I'm trying to strike a balance between all these different . So the answer is 40 feet for residential. We could. We could. And I'm happy to adopt any number you want.

Right.

But there's two sides that are competing. The development community is saying your current standard is unworkable. This all development doesn't work because I can't do sidewalks. I can't do a kayak ramp. I can't run a sewer line. I can't do anything in the 50 feet and it's difficult to develop. The other side of the story is we want to protect our wetlands and I think that's a valid argument. We do need to protect our wetlands. And so I'm just trying to strike a balance so that we can move forward.

Well, it just seems that there, to me, this picture in the lower left-hand corner of the development is contradictory to two slides ago when you had the picture of the development project and the delineated wetland.

Correct.

Because it's, you know, once you have the only houses that are going to have a greater, you know, if the wetland is that bottom left corner, The only houses that are going to have a larger setback than 50 feet are going to be two or three of them right there on the edge. And the rest of them can be just regular houses. They're not in the wetland at all.

Correct.

And so it seems to me that we just keep the 50 and subdivisions.

Do you think of a 50 foot setback for a street for a subdivision? Because if we're okay with a 25 foot setback for a street, why wouldn't we be okay for a 25 foot setback for a lot line?

I think, see I thought the street part, my thing with the street part is public streets. It's not interdevelopment streets.

yeah well most subdivisions are developed with public streets now because of our standards which says if you want to build a private street you have to build it to public standards and when developers hear that they say we're dedicating the street to you russ can you repeat um you talked about an apartment structures and the setback for that

being 50 feet from the building correct because there is no lot line right effectively is what the is that what you're worth because there's a street i guess just to make sure i understand that so when you develop commercial multi-family warehouse you don't necessarily need individual lots for each building sure you could have one big parcel

You could have a wetland in the middle of the parcel and then all these buildings around it. And so this is measured from the edge of the delineated wetland to the edge of the structure.

So would moving in that direction encourage more multifamily type of development?

No, the zoning will encourage or discourage multifamily. And that will be determined as we move forward and zone areas of the city.

And for the residential 15-foot setback, let's say we were to consider a 50-foot setback for residential. Could a developer still, and I know the answer is yes, I think, but still request a variance or no?

So a variance would not be the right term. There's a thing called a reasonable use exception, which has a process similar to a variance. They have to prove that all value is being taken from their property, which would be a tough standard to approve because You're probably going to have other areas where you can lay out building lots and homes, but that reasonable use exception remains as proposed here. For certain properties, this setback is so cumbersome that it robs all economic value of the property.

No, it robs all development value of the property. Yeah. Not all economic value.

Yeah. It's different.

I have a hard time with the street and sidewalk and trail type of, I feel like we're putting them all kind of on the same type of, not the same setbacks, but it almost seems like we're assuming that all sidewalks are But I feel like sidewalks that are going to be next to streets or busier roads will probably have a bigger impact potentially on wetlands than a trail that is kind of meant for people to recreate on. So I almost feel inclined to...

Does that impact come from the road or from the sidewalk?

From the road.

Yeah, so it's more of a road issue than the sidewalk. I'm assuming it's salt and road chemicals. I don't know, is that your thinking now or is it the sidewalk?

I feel like sidewalks have a different impact than trails. That's what I'm feeling.

Because they're connected to a road.

Exactly, because they're connected to a road.

Sorry, Russ.

No worries at all. And I'm happy to make further adjustments and come back in two weeks, but whatever the council would like.

Do you guys feel like it's close enough that we can make a few tweaks and get there tonight? Or you want to kick it again? What's your thoughts?

Well, the interesting thing to me is the reason that we talked about this at all was because Rhodes all of a sudden realized they had to comply with the 50 foot and they didn't watch it.

If they're not here, you can say what you want.

Pretty much what happened.

Yes, we heard complaints from Public Works Department.

Right. I don't know, and their issue was more with the sort of collector kind of street that would be outside of a development. They were not as concerned with what was inside of the development. So I don't know how we can accommodate the desires of both without cutting the wetland short, so to speak. So that's where I'm sitting. I think the structure should be 50 feet from a wetland.

I know it's a financial burden, which will glare at me, but I think the answer is streets and the city follow the code for roads or they mitigate the wetland, which costs a lot of money. But it's the same thing we require of anyone else.

I know.

He's not glaring. He's wide-eyeing instead.

Is our point there to make it all 50 feet?

I do think Russ has a very good point that residential at 50 feet is different because of the lot setback. So at max, I think 40 foot on residential would be by far the highest that we go. because it is a greater burden because then they are at 60 or 58, but it's hard. I don't know. That's my... Are you guys all here for data centers? We'll do that after we finish our meeting, but you can listen to wetlands first.

Yeah, the rest of the meeting. Sorry.

We're behind schedule.

I don't see, I mean, I guess, and maybe this is just, you know, my lack of experience, but I don't see 40 feet as a burden Like, I guess, and what I mean by that is I'm thinking about residents who currently have issues pumping water out of the basements that are, you know, like where we have a water table, and I know a water table on the wetland is not the same thing, but adjacencies to land, like 40 feet is...

I think the issue is it does drive up. the price per lot on a set acreage. And as someone who lives in the wetlands, surrounded by wetlands in my neighborhood, I'm surprised that the houses that somehow have a high water table and they're nowhere near a wetland. And then myself, who's only one house off of a delineated wetland, and we never have water issues. But I have friends down the street who are. It's less intuitive than you would think on where that water comes into base.

I am sure, yeah.

But the alleviated wetlands are like actively water.

Right. But I think the water table is very high right there. Can I throw something out?

Sure.

And see how you guys feel. And then if we don't like this, let's kick it and do it again in two weeks. How do we feel, Russ? Whatever you'd like. I'm looking for a compromise here, so here's a thought. What if... So single families are at 35. If we put them at, I'm sorry, they're at 25. We put them at 35. That puts the house 45 feet away from most delineated wetland and your commercial developments at 50 feet away.

And your multifamily at 50.

And your multifamily, yeah. But so commercial multifamily, industrial is all 50. If we bump the single family to 25, I mean from 25 to 35, that essentially sets them at 33 to 30, 43 to 45.

That's one more number to remember.

But that doesn't change the building lot, the 15.

No, that's not what I'm changing.

So keeping the 15 foot setback on building lot lines.

Well, it would move your building lot line to 25 in here. Because it would change that.

Yeah.

If you move that to 25, a home would be 35.

Would you guys be happy with something in there?

You could restate exactly what you're talking about because everything is 25-45. It is.

And I mix it up when I'm saying it. If we bumped it so that single family homes were at 45.

Subdivision.

And that would put the lot line at 35.

Subdivision.

Subdivision would be at 35.

Why don't you just bump the lot line to 25 and then it automatically moves. Okay.

I'm just looking for a...

No, to be honest it's... That would align with the street setback. It would. So they could build a street or a lot line at that same position. And then there would be... Happy to do whatever you'd like.

Don't forget this is a public hearing though. I know, I know. Yeah, so bumping your lot lines to 25. Yep. And that puts your house at 35 because of the setback required in the condoning code.

Okay, I've got one more.

Would you guys be okay with that change?

Yes.

You have one more and then you have sidewalks.

I don't think we should allow concrete patios within that setback.

Why are patios and decks allowed in the setback?

Is that? Because in our code, patios and decks are categorized as open space and landscaping. So that's why that's included.

But they're concrete.

But they would be. They are concrete. But they would be outside the lot line. I mean, they'd have to be inside the lot line on a single family.

But it would be like if your rear lot had to be 25 feet. You know, if your rear lot line had to be 25 feet from the.

You could build your patio up to 25 feet. Because that's where your lot line ends. Yeah.

But you can't build your patio up to the lot line.

Yeah, I was going to say, you can't build your patio up.

How close can you build a patio to a lot line? Two feet is as close as you can be to a paved patio.

But your rear setback is only 10 feet. I don't know if residents have a deck 27 feet from a delineated edge of a lot line. Yeah, that's what I think.

There's a different impact on them.

Honestly, it's probably a lower impact than a lot where they're spreading fertilizer.

Yeah. Yes. A deck is different than, I think, the concrete.

Well as long as they're not dumping their RV black water on their patio there then.

Now we're really getting there.

I'm just saying. It's been a few weeks since I've talked about sewer systems okay. Sidewalks are you okay with?

Yeah I'll be okay with that.

Sidewalks what's your

I don't like that they're in the same category as trails. I feel like they have completely different impacts. I feel like a sidewalk that is next to a high traffic road.

Are you okay, can I, this is me trying to clarify your issue. Are you okay with a sidewalk that's inside the wetland, well 15 feet from the wetland buffer, if the road is further and there's a bigger park strip? Or you still don't want that sidewalk that close to the buffler?

Should the sidewalk have the same as a patio and a street?

So my reason I said that and me and Russ talked about specifically that I did not want sidewalks and streets to have the same setback is I figured at some point there would be a situation where we need the street so we get rid of the sidewalk to get through here and now there's no pedestrian access and then four years from now we're trying to build a sidewalk next to a wetland. Whereas if the road and sidewalk have a different setback, that the road always allows room for a sidewalk, then we're not giving up pedestrian access because of a wetland at some point, which probably will happen if we set them to the same setback. So I think sidewalks should have less of a setback than roads. They have less impact, but also I want to make sure that they have their space.

That was my... What if you did them the same way you just did the houses?

25 for the sidewalk and 35 for the road and the road's currently at 25. okay we're getting do we have any other issues on this i'm just trying to get us moved along too Okay, let's do a public hearing on wetlands, not data centers. Sorry, guys. For anyone in the public who would like to comment on Ordinance 2614, our wetland setbacks, Josh, I'm gonna be picky. Can we try to keep comments to two minutes or less and state your name and city residents, please?

Craig, what is it to you? Thank you. I think we're passing up a good opportunity for the subject that's going to be coming up here at 7 o'clock. Can you imagine with the commercial going on 50 feet away from the wetlands at the placement data center, that close to one? so i think that we need to push this back probably a given month and i would love if there was somebody that i could work with with um you know russ you have to be fun to work with you dude don't worry i won't get but i think we're passing up an incredible opportunity too with this net with the with trying to protect this place from data centers with this project. So I think we should put it on hold for probably for a month. And I mean, I'll brainstorm some things that we can do with, you know, maybe using this to help with the problems that we're facing with data centers.

Thank you, Josh.

I appreciate that you guys have debated this and that there is definitely great care on all sides both to honor people who want to buy land and build their beautiful wetlands and live near beautiful wetlands and also people who want to preserve those as natural as we possibly can and to keep chemicals and things like that away from them. A tough issue. And I really appreciate what you said, Mark and Ernesto, both about the sidewalks and the setback for homes. Yeah. In that, I do feel like that 25 foot setback for roads does grandfather in enough space to build a sidewalk next to a road and still honor the 15 foot setbacks for sidewalks and trails. And I noticed that sidewalks and trails doesn't necessarily differentiate whether they're paved or not. And I was wondering if Ernesto felt like there was more impact from something that was paved because a lot of trails are paved. But would there be less setback for ones that aren't paved? And is that maybe a compromise that would be lower impact? And then for the home setbacks, I think that changing the lot size up 10 feet so that a home would be 35 feet away would, people wouldn't be able to build in that 25 foot, no deck, no nothing in that 25 foot space. I mean, they could probably have a little like footpath or something that is not on anyone's radar, you know, that they've Build through the weeds or whatever to the wetlands if they wanted to to drag a kayak or something in if that's how they are using this space. But I feel like, um, giving that 25 foot buffer still does give 35 feet away from homes. and still allows people to really love and use the land while still honoring the people who are trying to, the land owners themselves who do, they want to build a home on the land. I think that the 50-foot setbacks for the commercial buildings and large ones is a good one to keep and that will allay people's worries about data centers and stuff more.

Thank you, Linda. Okay, seeing no one else, we're going to close the public hearing portion for Ordinance 2614 and bring it back to the Council for further discussion or a motion.

I would like to move that we postpone this for two weeks so that we can see the writing that we discussed. See the words on paper. I'll second that. We'll motion a second.

All in favor of continuing this for two weeks to August

18.

No public hearing.

I always say public hearing, but she has a motion.

I say no public hearing.

No public hearing.

Okay.

All in favor of continuing to ordinance 2614 to August 18th with no public hearing, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Thank you.

I'm sure we'll have more meetings about this.

We like to see you so much. We want you to come every time.

For those of the public that are wondering in, we are going to do our data center open house. It's actually going to be in the community conference room, but obviously we're still here finishing up other business. So we'll try to get through our agenda and then come and chat with you guys in a more open house style format. Informal format. More informal. So please bear with us as we finish our other agenda items. Yeah it's a cross style but you know we're more entertaining than staring at a wall in the other room so.

Do you want them to just go ahead and start?

We need Aaron.

We need Aaron.

We need Aaron. So we'll just keep them for a minute. We'll start that around seven but or I guess Ross is going to go start with them. Russ, you're going to take him? So if you guys want to talk data centers with Russ, he's our community development director, you totally can. We'll be there as soon as we can.

Out there.

Yep, it's just out in the community conference room. Okay, Craig, 26-15, 25, 26-25.

I understand that there are several other things on the agenda we're going to get through, so I can be brief.

Will you go either, maybe just close one door? Is that okay? Thank you. OK, Craig, sorry.

So this is a repeal resolution to repeal the resolution 2546 that was passed in December of last year. I'll give you some quick background on how we got there and how we're here. So in December 1992, the city and the county entered into an inter-local agreement. We created the airport authority to run an airport. The city has been making financial contributions to the airport over the past several decades. In December 2025, the city passed Resolution 2546, withdrawing the city from the airport authority. And one of the purposes of the city's withdrawal is to restructure the airport operations and to relieve the city from any financial contributions and liabilities in the future. A short time later, after that resolution was passed, we learned that some federal grant funding could be compromised if Logan City was in the part of the airport authority. And so that's why we're back here today, is the airport authority needs this federal grant funding to continue to operate. We still wanted the ability to, or wanted the city to be relieved from making financial contributions to the airport authority. So we're getting there a different way. We are amending the inter-local agreement that was signed in 1992. And in the amendment it provides that the city is not going to make any financial contributions to the airport authority. And it also restructures the way the airport authority is governed. And I can tell you a little bit about that too, and also the solution. So if the airport authority is ever dissolved, no longer is it an entity, and neither party continues to air for operations, then all the airport authority assets are split equally between the county and the city. If the airport authority is dissolved and the county continues to operate the airport for at least 20 years and then it dissolves, then all the assets would go to the county. But if the county only operates the airport for less than 20 years and it dissolves, then it splits 50-50 between the city and the county. The governance of the airport changes a little bit. There will be a sponsor board and an airport authority board. The sponsor board, its function is kind of general oversight and budget of the airport authority. It also appoints members of the airport authority board, except for one Cache County elected official. The sponsor board receives quarterly and annual reports from the airport authority board and must approve any long-term debt. There are seven members of the sponsor board. Three would be members of the cash bank council with at least one of those members being a Logan City resident. Two would be Cache County elected officials, then there'd be the Logan City Mayor or his designee, and a member of the Logan City Council. So that's the sponsor board and the City's representation on the sponsor board. The Airport Authority Board, its function is they're responsible for all technical oversight, operations, management, maintenance, enters into contracts, establishes airport rules, regulations, that sort of thing. There are seven members of the Airport Authority Board, one county-wide elected official, and six members from the general public who have expertise in aviation, finance, business development, law, engineering, that sort of thing. So that's kind of the new governance of the airport authority board. This amendment to the international agreement has been discussed and negotiated with the county and I think we're at a position ready to sign it. But that's how the city continues with its involvement in the airport but without making financial contributions.

So does the, do the amended rules and regulations, I don't know what you call them, excuse me, come to this body as well, or is it just the dissolution of the dissolution?

It would just be the dissolution of the dissolution. I got it right. The rules of the airport, that would be the airport of the airport.

Okay, they would handle all of that. None of that would come through us. Okay, that's fine. It is a public hearing, so I won't do anything.

Very good. So what was the problem that the FAA, what did it require that a city like Logan be part of?

So looking at grant awards and the grant agreements, there were certifications on there that both Logan City and Cache County could continue as members of the airport authority. So we found the county and does 99% of the work with the airport count that certification on a grant agreement and said, oh, we need to still have Logan to be a member.

Will you be my friend still?

Yeah.

So it's not necessarily for future, it's for current.

It would be future as well.

Yeah. But the new agreement.

Yeah, it could be amended. Yeah, an application to the FAA could amend that. Yes, but currently the way it's written, no.

But the new agreement distances us from any financial responsibility, but it still allows us to have some influence and interest and oversight over the airport since it It is technically in Logan, so it gives us more possibility for control. So this is actually ultimately what we kind of wanted in the first place.

You've also written that it inflates the city even a step further from any liabilities that could come our way. So that was another thing that was attractive to us.

Do they pay for fire service from what we've seen here?

We already asked that question.

Did we?

I did.

I did.

I did match in the meeting.

The answer is yes. Does anyone else have anything else before we open public hearing? We're going to open public hearing for resolution 2625. I'm going to keep dropping our time down. I'm going to give you guys one minute if we have public comment. But if anyone has any comments on this resolution, you're welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence, and take one minute, please. Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing. And we'll bring it back to the council for a motion.

I move we approve resolution 26-25. Can I second?

We have motion to second. All in favor of approving resolution 26-25 please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you. Craig, I've heard that you and the county and Mark and Janie and Katie and county council members have spent a lot of time on this. And a really good discussion. But I've heard they've been long meetings so thank you for sorting that out. Aaron? think we're all fairly familiar with this one yeah so give us a brief update here's my unless you're opposed to this or the council's opposed give us like a two minute update brad has asked for a brief amount of time tonight and i've told him he can have some i know i told you three to five minutes if we i'll give you three to five but if you'll keep it as short as possible um and then we'll let the council talk through the

all right is that okay yeah so this is the one you hit the highlights so you know this is the maple view subdivision pedia overlay uh the highlight here plan development overlay the action for the city councils to adopt a rezone overlay map and a code amendment that governs what can go on what changes with that overlay. So we all know are familiar with the project and zone in our for the overlay will alter the in our force. So the inner force the underlying zone, all the codes and regulations that are in place, stay in place unless modified by the code amendment. Future land use plan is low density residential. You're familiar with our new general plan. Low density residential is our primarily single family zone, though it can accommodate multifamily small attached housing. and densities ranging from one to nine acres uh slight context so i this is probably the biggest point so we have the uh as applied for with the planning commission site plan here there were alterations required by the planning commissions the commission this is a 51 lot subdivision planning commission approved it with 46 lots and increasing the number of larger lots from 9 to excuse me up to 9 now instead of 6 and then 15 have to be medium-sized lots and then the remainder could be smaller lots essentially it's a 33% of the land area for each one of those categories is what it came out to be. We still have the same connections that we discussed or that you may have heard discussed. We discussed them in the concept process. The Conditions require a street connection to 290 South, there'd be a stub South, and then on 14th West as part of the main area of interest, they have to dedicate a minor arterial width, construct a collector road, and then they have to construct a 24-foot two-lane travel asphalt road up to 200 South, essentially connecting the subdivision to 200 South. that is page it's not currently paid no but it would be it would yes require 24 feet of asphalt up to that not a full cross section of the street but not for two travel lanes okay those are the cross sections if there's any questions on those uh another condition is the landscaping buffer requirement marcode This is along 14th West. Here are some examples of this landscaping buffer on other similar roads. This is 600 south, just south of this project. In this case, it's conditioned to have a larger sidewalk, an 8-foot sidewalk and then 25 feet of landscaping between essentially the curb and the back of the lots. These are very close to what would have to be done here. So the code amendment, this is sort of what alters it. It specifies the allowed uses. Current version of this, so it has that 46 single family lots, the 9 for 10,000, another 15, that would be 6,000, and the remainder It can be less than that. There's also language in there to reduce setbacks for the smaller, 5,000 square foot or smaller lots can be 20 foot front setbacks. Excuse me, it just says setbacks. Those are front setbacks and those along 14th West, essentially to provide better building envelopes. We discussed the 14th West issues, the residential street connected to 290 South. There's also conditions for public trails through the open space connecting to the adjacent park and crossings at those trail intersections and that the open space should be managed by the HOA. That is, I have some notes in here on our plans. Probably the most, we talked about the general plan. You're aware of the moderate income housing plan, trying to provide more affordable housing options. And the Woodruff plan outlines vision statements and recommendations. Those are generally centered around attracting families to the area, the value of diversity of people, and development that matches existing character. And then the recommendations are to ensure we have a balanced housing policy, zone additional area in R4, and that the area west of 10th Glen West should be primarily the same family detached. That, I will rest.

That sounds great. That was good. You ran through that quick. I'm impressed you can talk that fast. I'm sorry, I probably just moved by. Does the council want to talk to Erin briefly or do you want to hear from the Belver briefly? What's your thoughts right now?

My thought would be, go ahead. I just want the 20 foot front setback, is that width or is that depth?

That's depth. That's the front setback. So from the street to where the structure can be. This is what we've approved in some of these other small lot subdivisions. So smaller, to the south of this, we rezoned to MR9 so they could actually have a 20 foot front setback in that.

So like Sugar Creek, I could go look and see what that 20-foot driveway is.

And we insist on the 20-foot, not going smaller than that because then people can't put vehicles in their driveway.

That's what I was going to say because you're still going to have a sidewalk and you don't want to park it over the sidewalk.

That's right. And our parking dimension is 9 by 18. Even, you know, some trucks stick out past that. So 20 is where we're planning an uncomfortable going down to, no shorter than that.

Okay.

so with the changes the planning commission requested we would see a new site plan that would be the hope yes these these have substantially changed this layout we would have to see one to approve this Or I think the council would want to see one to approve this.

And so it doesn't have to go back to Planning Commission, correct?

Not necessarily. As the subdivision was conditioned, as long as it's meeting those conditions, we could approve it. Oh, a couple of the notes I skipped over. Removal of no private drives. There's that three lots that were served by a private drive. That was recommended to be removed by the Planning Commission. That was just another one. Now I'm looking at this that I skipped over. But those conditions are all in the permit. If they bring forward a design that meets those, we could staff to approve that without having to go back to. And obviously the Planning Commission is adopting the code.

And then we would adopt it based on the new design. Okay. Thank you for that clarification.

Erin, I thought I saw 14 West and some map being a major material.

The transportation master plan, that's why it's being dedicated as a major arterial, but Public Works fills with the amount of, with the changes to 14th West, especially going south, it now runs into a lake that wasn't there before. The need to build this arterial at this time or in the near future is not, is non-existent, so it won't be needed, so they're asking for a collector street.

Collector or minor arterial?

Dedication of a minor arterial, construction of a collector, which is nice because that leaves them additional space for that landscaping buffer.

Thank you.

I failed to mention Planning Commission recommended approval three to two. One dissent was they wish there was, they had a desire for more mixed in structure types. One dissent was wanting more larger lots.

Brad, can I give you just a couple minutes? Thank you. Sorry that we're behind schedule by so much tonight.

We'll be here. Thanks for your time. And I think what we all want here is something uh you know we can be proud of something special and i know that's hard to pin down for me and for you and and identifying what that is um we did have some other um site plans with the meandering path and you know a pump track and connections up to the to the other park and um some other connections across 1400 based on feedback from some of the neighbors And so just to say that we're trying to listen and trying to be responsive and get something the community's happy with. I'm just asking if we can come away with a target that we can hit if all that sounds good and we bring that back in two weeks. if that's what we're shooting for, because kind of have been a little bit of different opinions. Some of the planning commission's like, why didn't you do this? I'm like, that's what, you know. So anyways, I know it's a tough spot to be in, but, you know, we believe we can, with those, we can get something as special as you can do in, you know, 10 acres. So any questions for me?

Well, we have a new site plan. Do you have that already?

Not with the . Sure. We've done 13 of them so far and I didn't know, you know, if it's a moving target. So I can get one done as soon as, you know,

if you're like do that i'll get that done you'll have it this week so i mean we haven't seen 13. we've only seen two so that's why i wanted to say i know i've seen three or four at some point so i think i would just like to see a more update yeah with these yeah because i mean it's hard to say yeah we're gonna prove it in two weeks without a site plan um i think here's

I think here's Brad's hesitation. If the council is going to have him make a new site plan and then look at him and go, yeah, we still don't love it at all. I get that.

I know.

Is he close enough that we want him to keep going? I think that's his concern.

Well, the problem is this is a workshop.

I know. I'm just... or explaining why he probably hasn't made one this week for us.

And I would say that for me this is not close to what I would want to see. I know that there have been other iterations after whenever this was put together. So I'd love to see something more up to date that has taken into consideration some of the feedback that has been given.

So this list is kind of how it came out of Planning Commission with the 46 lots, the increase in large and medium density is, were there changes that council would direct towards this code amendment at this time? So this is a collaboration with the proponent and staff coming out of Planning Commission.

That's a tough one. That's tough.

And that allows Brad to be reactive in preparing the final site plan.

I hesitate to say the final site plan because for me this is the nature of the plan development process.

The one you'll be seeing in the public hearing.

Yeah. But that's why I'm saying I hesitate.

Yeah, I'll use the word the next site plan.

Okay.

I'm having problems with it looking anything like a subdivision. I don't care what we do with it, it looks like subdivision, just looks like a regular old subdivision. And so I am having a problem with that and the underlying zone of NR4 is what we had gone through the Woodruff plan with and everything else and I believe that We either have to get really darn close to that, or I just don't like all the little lots and all the little, you know, driveways every 20 feet, and it just is just ordinary to me. And I don't think it respects the neighborhood, and I don't think it's what we need right now. But that's my opinion.

To kind of echo or some of what Jeannie is saying is that I feel like we've spent so much, so many resources gathering feedback through the different plans. And many times we've said the further we are away from the major arterials, the less dense you should get. And to me, at least what is on that map, on that plan, doesn't reflect that. And so I have a hard time telling our citizens, yeah, we're listening to you. We're spending all this time and money in these plants and then turn around and vote yes on something that is going kind of against what they're gathering. Right in the middle of the meeting. So what I said last time, I would love to see larger lots, I meant that. More larger lots, I really meant that.

Like I would like to see more than nine lots, minimum 10,000 square feet.

So do you not feel that the, the unit makes the planning commission recommending, feels like more lots? On our side, it feels like a huge concession. We're barely able to make it work. What we're trying to provide is a couple of things. One is housing is sustainable, which If we do all big lots, that's not in the equation. And I can't do anything about that. But also, we're trying to have a good, stable neighborhood. And one of the people in the neighborhood meeting said they want to see places where people can stay and have their kids go through high school past sixth grade. And I did some research on that. One of the best ways to do that is to have neighborhoods where people want to stay, where they can filter out from a small house to a bigger house. And while this is only 10 acres, that is an attempt at doing that. And I know this is not a mall or 180 acre development of the lake. We can't quite provide that level of special. You know, it's hard. We really have made an effort, you know, and we discussed things that, you know, would feel different with a private street. So we did a private street, and then the Planning Commission said, no, we don't have a private street. Okay. And, you know, I think this... It is a subdivision. We can't build something besides a subdivision. But I think that this, we feel like this is still going to be a win for the city.

Further comments or questions? Sorry to step aside for a minute. I was telling Mark Montgomery he can probably go home if he wants. Let's see if you guys are willing to continue our next workshop. I think Brad, you and I have talked obviously at length and I feel like I've taken a ton of your time and I appreciate all the emails and phone calls and meetings. You've been great to work with. I think the last kind of email conversation, I think my two biggest concerns right now, and one of them is our fault, not yours, is that I feel like this is not the best way to do a PDO or a neighborhood plot layout.

You mean as far as the process?

Yeah, as far as the process. I don't love the corner you're being painted into by Planning Commission and the City Council, and I feel like it's not necessarily the most ideal way to build a development and to use our PDO code, but that's not your fault. I know I've expressed to you a couple times that I still... I think the neighborhood has some... good reasons for their concern about the amount of density. And I know it's a balance between trying to make the lots affordable, make the homes affordable, and balance the density. To be frank, I think it's still a little more dense than I'm comfortable approving as is. We'll come save you soon, Russ, or hang out with you. I don't know if it's saving, but we'll be in there soon. Thank you. Yeah, I don't know. It's still a little more dense than I love.

Even at the 46 lots versus the 51? I mean, I understand that you've taken out five lots.

Yeah. It's just hard to picture. Well, I know. It is hard to picture. And I think this is a dimension to you. I know the park in the corner with the landfill overlay is... There's plans for that to be a pump track or something. If I'm being completely honest, I worry about how necessary that is with the big park that's already right there and with the city's plan to put some sort of pump track or mountain bike path on top of the landfill. I think it might be a good opportunity to try to find some bigger lots using, because the landfill overlay can be inside someone's lot line. It just can't have a house on it. I don't know. That's where I'm at.

If we were to reduce it to 30 watts or something, is there a different outcome that you think there would be?

I think the big thing that we're running into is, and we've talked about this with you and other developers, is that it feels like we're not building homes for families to live in Logan. for the next 20 or 30 years. Logan is building a lot of starter homes right now, which is great. But I think the pushback that we're feeling from our residents and from ourselves and staff a little bit is we need some homes for that family with three teenagers. And we don't have a whole lot of those that are being newly constructed. And Nibley and Smithfield are building them left and right right now and so people do start in Logan and then they move to the county and it's a problem with the school district and I think Logan sees that as a loss in value to our city so I think there is a real benefit if Siri's listening to me now that's creepy I think there's a real benefit if you know you're down to 30 lots and some of them are bigger homes because that does provide something that we really don't have a whole lot of this being built right now I don't know. That's my initial response to you.

And is that based on empirical data? No.

Right. Right.

But it's listening to the citizens, you know, and listening to the neighborhood.

And I would say listening to our superintendent who took the time to come to the community meeting and effectively saying, as a superintendent, This is what we need in the city. Paying attention to development because he is seeing the impact it's having on our schools. That was really quite notable to me in alignment with an interest in having, I mean, there were other factors as well in terms of residents. adjacent and lot sizes desiring some larger lot sizes nine nine does feel i mean i'm looking at the current plan and seeing how that would be carved out and how i mean it's going to be a it would be a total um it'd be nice to see more um than nine but i also think it's gonna require There's not an easy solution when you look at the current plan to get there. Like I was looking at that south side, you've got the 4,000 square foot lots, which doesn't accommodate or accomplish your 10,000. Like if you were to take double up on those.

The geometry is tough.

So I'm just looking at it trying to think about, I do, I 100% agree with Planning Commission on the private drive getting removed because of issues. I've seen over in Hillcrest with private drives and I think that's a very practical and good recommendation. But as in alignment with others and with what we've heard, I'm not sure nine lots as our larger lot sizes. And 46 overall is what we were, what I would like to see either. You proposed 30? I mean, he just threw it out. Like, is there a number, right?

Is that what you're asking? Is there a direction? Right, some direction to give you.

Thank you, Brad. I said thank you. I know you've been...

I don't want to extend the conversation too much longer, but I did want to highlight just real quick. The proposals in blue here, that's the six lots, nine, 36. The planning commission adopted proposals, the nine, 15, 22, are essentially based on lot area. A straight split of number of lots is in green. This would be 14 large, 13 medium, 13 small. That might fit on there. That's just... if we're looking at another way of breaking this down.

I think that for me adding more, when I look at the neighborhood and look at like the adjacencies of the larger properties on that south adjacent side.

There's no properties to the south. No, to the east, I'm sorry.

I apologize. To the east, you know, the south. Half of this on the east side are larger lots. That looks better to me in terms of the balance, and I think in accommodating the different things that we heard.

Yeah. I like that too, the green better. I like the idea of instead of the pump track, try incorporating some of that land as a backyard. for some of those laws. I don't know I mean I like that you're bringing something new like a pump track the only thing with it in my mind is I think if it's a personal HOA for that one little subdivision it's gonna be full of weeds and no one's gonna use it and because there's a park right there with trails all through it well unless it's HOA maintained yeah but again if it's an HOA that's maintained by that little subdivision

It depends what the HOA fee is. I don't have a lot of faith in them. Don't condemn me for other bad HOAs. I've seen good ones and bad ones.

Yep, I have too. And that's, yeah, where I just, I don't know. You could just get more lots by doing that, you know, or bigger lots by incorporating that area. Be something to look at.

Where are we at with breath? Good for now. Talk to them over the next week or two and have them bring it back in two weeks or do you want to... Do you need more time to... Do we want to continue the workshops to... More than two weeks to...

If you say 14, 13, 13, I can see if I can do it and we can have it ready by two weeks. How hard is it to try both of them, the 46 and the 40?

Because planning commission recommended the 46th.

If you want to see that, I can have it done. What I don't have in my contract is let's do a few more of these meetings and drag it on. Sure.

If he brings a 46 and a 30, though, are you going to say yes to the 46 instead of the 30? No. I mean, to be frank.

Just do the 40. Yeah, you're right. My sense, but tell me what you want, is that the 46 doesn't incorporate enough 10,000 square foot or larger. That's how I feel. So if that's the case, then I don't want to waste his time in providing a 46 scenario. I'll just do the 40 scenario.

This map is at 40, Erin. Excuse me? How many is in this map at 40? Is that what you said? How many is in this map that are current?

No, that's 51. That's 51. That's 51.

That's the 51.

Planning Commission's proposing voting on 46.

46.

And you guys want to make a 40? I would like to see.

I would like to see the 40.

Can you show us a 40? Is that possible? I can't. I want it right now. Start drawing quickly.

And I think another thing to add is that it would be nice to see somehow the lots incorporate the overlay. The backyards of the lots be able to incorporate the overlay.

The landfill overlay?

Yeah.

I agree.

Sorry, I know you like that.

I know.

I'm looking for ways to get you bigger lots without losing lots.

It's okay.

Yeah.

I don't have money to build a track anymore.

Sorry. We'll build a big one for you next door.

Wait a minute. You told me all you did was the ropes and the lots.

Well, it depends. I do have to do landscaping, or if I promise something like that.

Thank you. We'll watch for that. Send us some emails and we'll talk to you inside the next week. Thank you, Brad. I appreciate your patience tonight. I know Mark Montgomery doesn't love this. I'm going to propose that we continue our last workshop for two weeks. I'm sorry, Mark. Are you willing to accept that? Do we need to workshop it? Can we just? Do we need a motion to do that? Yeah, we do. We need a motion.

How soon do you need that rate schedule? Right. Change.

Can we workshop it and vote on it next week?

No.

No. Yes, we technically can. We technically can workshop it and vote on it next, in two weeks. But it is a rate change, yeah.

It's a rate change. You have to notice it as an action item. But we can do that.

Can I propose, Mark, that you meet with us two-on-two over the next two weeks? We notice it as an action item and vote on it in two weeks to meet your schedule. With a public hearing, yes. So everyone gets their workshop.

You okay with that, Mark?

Yeah.

All right. Then I'm fine with it.

Okay. I'll make a motion that we continue Resolution 2627 to two weeks as an action item with a public hearing.

I'll second.

we have a motion to second all in favor please say aye aye any opposed any further any further considerations so we can go save russ holly quick question max occupancy of that room is 100. there's about 90 folks over there it's standing room only move some things out of the lobby too

We could move them back here. This is 240. Why don't we move them back here?

I don't want it microphoning. I wanted this open house talk to them. I don't want microphone speeches. We can move it in here and just open house style it here.