City Council - Regular Meeting

We welcome you here. We welcome those who have joined us in the council chambers. Council Member Freeman, can I call on you for some opening comments?

Our dear Father in heaven, we're thankful for the opportunity we have to meet tonight and for the positions that we hold and the responsibilities that we have to take care of the city and the residents who represent them and the different decisions that we have to make. We're thankful for all the workers of the city and for their efforts as well to help us and and the residents. We ask thee please for guidance and direction and discernment in all that we do. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. Amen.

OK, that's item one. Item two, working discussion items. We don't have a lot of items tonight, so we'll work through this one. Item 2.1, transportation funding resolution discussion. This was tabled in January 27th of 26. Along with this item, I know it was transportation and housing, if I remember correctly, Tisha. With that, Councilmember Harrison, I'm going to turn some time over to you on this. If you want to lead on that, that would be great.

Sure. So back in January, we passed two resolutions, one on transportation and one on housing. And then we tabled. A copy of that but built for a multi-city resolution for each topic so and correct me if I'm wrong Tisha But we we tabled those multi-city ones just because we had just come into office We didn't have really enough time to coordinate with our cities surrounding cities to get their buy-in. So I think now we're just discussing the multi-city resolutions for housing and transportation. And if we're good with the current language, then I think the plan was for the mayor to kind of coordinate that with the surrounding mayors. So I guess the main question is, are we good with the language in both The resolutions that we passed and if we are We're still good to move forward with the multi-city resolution. So I think that's it

Any questions on that? I know Councilmember Harrison on that, that it will come to me eventually, and we'll go to our neighboring mayors for some follow-up on that. I don't know where we'll get on that, but I will leave that if the council opts that that's something we want to do.

guess for the other council members are we I mean we did pass our own version earlier this year so I don't know if anything has changed but is everybody is everybody good with the language that we had in both of those resolutions did we pass both of them or did we just pass one I felt like we just table

housing passed? Because we have an individual one and then the city one. So we had four in January. The housing one passed and that was sent. And then these two were tabled.

And the transportation one for the city, I think, was not sent or something. I recall just one, but maybe I'm

Yeah, well, I mean, we have four. Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah, that could be the case, too.

So we passed the housing one. Yeah, that's right. No, you're right.

My understanding is housing passed, both multi-city and Lehigh. Transportation, both multi-city and Lehigh, was tabled so that staff could work with us on developing Right, like process and numbers and all of those things, and then we were going to revisit now. That's what I remember.

Yes, that makes sense. That's my recollection and kind of what the, I think the minutes reflected that.

Yeah.

Okay.

So I guess now we're just discussing for, I guess, both of those for a multi-city resolution. And I'm good if we want to sign the transportation one as just an individual city as well. But I think it's more powerful coming from our neighboring cities that agree with our strategy and preferences. So... So I think I guess the goal is for the mayor to take both the housing and The transportation one once we're good with the language and the transportation one and then work with other cities is my understanding then Yeah, I think my concerns on the housing one and also on this one is just the mentioning of Davis and Weber County I know we pulled it from housing and

If there's consensus, I'd like to pull it from this one, too, just focusing maybe more locally instead of comparatively. But that's just consistent with my input from last time. But other than that...

I'm good with that.

Okay.

Yeah, I'm good with that.

I guess who would, members of staff, who would be willing to help us with some of the language and the numbers and the transportation one? Would that be Jason? I guess Jason, what's your preference?

Yeah, we could make that assignment. Yeah, we could make that assignment. Someone will work on that.

Did we receive any response? Do we typically receive any responses when we send resolutions?

I think it was Cameron that sent those. I don't know.

I don't know if Cameron heard that.

Mr. Mayor? Yeah. Brad. If I may, I would just suggest that if we choose to do this, we should make some fairly significant changes on the transportation one. A fair number of changes have been made. For example, I think you attend the MPO meeting this week, Mayor, where you will vote from Lehigh's behalf. But I do believe that this round of funding through MAG the recommendation is that um that american fork will receive funding from mag for another 20 or so million to extend our pony express extension from where we're leaving it off in american fork seventh west over to the interchange So I think we'd want to update that wording. Also, as you'll notice, it talks about the east-west freeway connection between I-15 and Mountain View Corridor. Based on our presentation a month ago to this council, I think we would like to make some revisions to that, too.

Yeah. I think a lot has changed just in the last six months.

It's crazy how much has changed in six months, right?

Yeah.

With that said, I would also mention that I feel like we've made some good strides in six months with this. So I think in a resolution that we include, I think we'd be very specific to numbers and to progress, but to make sure that those are part of that resolution as we go forward. I would hate to stick something in an eye when there's progress that's working in our favor. So I think that resolution's got to be good enough to make sure that there's clarity

as to kind of where we're headed to so I would throw that in there I really like that point mayor to recognize what's being done that it's how you know important it is the you know the benefit to us we see the continued growth I think that that would be received really well too is almost an acknowledgement of what's happening and that you know we see some light at the end of the tunnel and we want to keep moving on that progress

So yeah, and I think that's a great idea. And I think on number three, where it talks about UTA, now we have that on-demand service. I do think we need to recognize the investments they're making in our area. So that's probably just another one to add.

I guess sorry I was just gonna say for the housing one the I think the one factor that's hit us pretty hard in the last few months is the water issue and I think I would be okay if we modified the housing one for a multi-city resolution at least to reflect concerns around you know considering water if the state does have certain mandates hopefully Any mandates are funded, but that's a wish. Regarding these state laws coming down on affordability or whatever, I think we should include the consideration that we would prefer that the state consider the water situation as they push down these mandates.

Yeah, I think that's a great point, Councilman Harrison. What I see here is just the transportation funding resolutions. It looks like I don't see the housing one. So maybe that's something to bring back at another time. Because I just see.

Those were approved and sent.

Yeah, we had our one city one, but we didn't do a multi-city one. Oh, so I see.

The multi-city one was approved, but I'm not sure if it was circulated to the other cities. But we can certainly look at redoing.

Yeah, I think we ran out of time for that one.

I understand we're just talking about the transportation resolution at this point, but maybe I'm not understanding it correctly. I just want to clarify, just on the agenda, I clicked on both of those resolutions that I looked over were just for housing. I mean, I'm sorry, just for transportation. I don't know if we want to bring back the housing one, too, if we want to redo something else with that.

Think the goal is still because we didn't really pursue the multi-city resolution either for housing or transportation Just because of timing, but I would be okay if we if we added something around water in the housing resolution and then Defer to staff on kind of getting us a solid resolution with some good numbers and a balanced approach as Heather mentioned and Michelle Then I guess the only other thing would be when would we want this to? to come back up. I imagine they're putting together their bills, and they're already kind of well into that process. So I would imagine probably at least by October would be a good time to publish those.

So I'm understanding that we should probably re-look at the housing one and look at some water additions, adding some water things, which I think would probably be, my opinion is it would be received favorably because I know that right now there's an adjudication process going on at the state where they're trying to reconcile water rights with physical water because they recognize there is an issue with that. So I think that would be really wise and smart to add in there. And the transportation one, what I'm understanding is that that needs to be workshopped a little with staff. Yeah. Okay. I'm good with that.

We should definitely get it out before October or by October. Yeah. For sure.

So I will probably bring this back September in the pre-council in September. We'll have some drafts by then. That gives us a few weeks to put the drafts together. At that point in time, we can put them together and then we can go to work with the neighbors and see where we're at. And then by October, we should be in that slot.

Mayor, the one thing I might suggest to you, if this is going to be multi-city, I think it would be more successful if you start reaching out now and that you get their buy-in, their input, that they're involved in the creation of this. I think if we present something to them September,

They'll probably just push it back, but if they're involved and it does become a joint city yeah I was thinking the same thing so I will begin that outreach as we speak so All right any other questions on this item Jason we're good there. We'll get that together great work on that Okay, we'll move to item three agenda questions for this evening any agenda questions that are Anything that's on the agenda this evening No? OK, good. Jason, administrative report?

I don't have anything at this time, Mayor.

Great, thank you. And item number five, Mayor and Council reports. Any reports?

Mayor, if I may, I just want to remind the council of the day of service. It's going to be on September 12th, which is a Saturday. Lehigh serves, which I've been working with. They are doing it a little differently this year. They're going to have morning sessions from 8 to 11, and then the memorial service will be at noon. which gives everyone who's working on outside projects an opportunity to attend, which is different than years before. And then the inside service projects will be, I believe, 9 to noon. So they're also looking for project captains. So if anyone has availability to just kind of help be there and run a project, you don't have to be an expert in the project, but really it's like, crowd management and guiding people to places and just being of service on the day of service, let me know and we can get you involved. And Mayor, thank you for offering to speak at this service. That'll be really special. So anyway, just wanted to share that. Thanks.

Thank you. Other reports?

Sure. The fire department hosted Call to Courage, which was great. And my daughter was able to participate. It's where young women go and they get a train for two days and kind of experience some of the hoops of fire service. She had a great time. I was able to stop by. I know some of the others of us were. And I was really impressed. And I know my daughter at least wouldn't stop talking about it for a couple days and her friends. So I think they do a great job. And what I love is that they bring in other firefighters from other units that also help. So it kind of brings together, you know, it has a good camaraderie there. um also just to note shout out to the little league team from lehigh competing at the world series they're representing utah and right now they um it's fighting for the mountain region championship to go represent at the national championship so they lost today they're two and one but they're still going they're still in that's right yeah they're still going on so um And then something that I noticed, I know that there's discussion about maybe counseling this September work session. And I would submit that we continue to have a work session, but we just move it. I looked back on our agenda in the notes, the minutes in January, and it looks like we decided to have it on the second Monday. Those are the work sessions. And so the original calendar had it on Monday September 14th, and I'm happy with that I'm happy if we if someone wanted if it doesn't work for people if they want to do it 21st I just Was looking at some different items and even just tonight with this transportation or with other things I think it'd be helpful to have that time. So that's me. But just based on what we have. And then just looking at the calendar, for some reason the calendar kind of changed in our meetings. But it would be the same with December unless we want to keep it before that first meeting. But actually the second Monday is the 14th also, not the 7th. So I was just kind of Noticing that those details and wanted to to bring that up so we make sure we're available and have the same meetings schedule Great any other reports I

Yes, Mayor. First of all, again, just to remind you, we have Heritage Days on Saturday, August 29. And if any of the council members, I know, Mayor, you mentioned you'll be out of town, but if you would like to participate in the parade that we have, Just let me know by today So just so I'll send this out a new email, but just so you know, the the parade is from 2 30 to 3 p.m 3 to 4 p.m. Is the honoree celebration and We'd love to have the City Council members be involved in that and I could let you know more about that later and then From 4 to 6 lots of fun events. We have a classic car show Donnery reception and we're going to have a Lehigh historical marker quest So, yeah, just let me know. They want to know today if you can participate so we can get some cars lined up for that. And I also got to go visit the Call to Courage event. And Council Member Harrison was there, too. And I was... I was so impressed by what they do. And it always gives me good insights and appreciation for our first responders and the training they received. And I like what Chief Kraft said is that It doesn't require courage to be a firefighter. It requires training. So it was fun to see how they taught the girls how to bust in a door or get the car door off of a car and those kind of things. I think in the movies they just ram it through, but there's a little bit of science to it. I still think it requires courage. And then I think a lot of you also got to attend the National Night Out Against Crime. And then the police department for the canine unit had a fundraiser on Saturday. So I was fortunate enough to be able to go to both of those. And as always, very much appreciate our first responders and all that they do for us.

I'll just add Michelle was very excited about repelling she tried to repel, but they wouldn't let her that's where the courage comes in Now just we had the people's co-op Historical marker unveiling last week. It was excellent I'm always just so impressed with our Historical Society and all the work that Michelle and Heather do in making that happen and just making it cool and unique and So thank you guys for that. And then also just an update on the Small Business Advisory Council. We passed that resolution earlier this year. We got a good number of applicants by the deadline at the end of June. And so now we're just going through Those applicants, I think, were aiming for a late September first meeting of the Small Business Advisory Council. So thank you to staff for making that happen. I know, Tisha, you worked really hard on it, Jean-Tiel and Marlon.

That helped, too.

The analysts helped a lot. Yeah, and the analysts. They're the ones that make everything work. So thank you guys for that. I look forward to that when the time comes.

I think we covered it all. James did awesome with his speech. So that was great. Great event to attend it for the co-op. And then, Mayor, are you speaking at the next one? When's the next one? The Lehigh Branch one. Is that sometime in September?

Yeah, I think I am on that one.

They'll be fun. I was gonna wait to our next meeting so I don't want to overload you I only look at a week forward.

So if you said September September 9th Okay, there are no closed session items tonight so I'd be happy to Take a motion to close our pre council meeting so moved Councilmember Newell second councilmember Harrison all in favor Okay, we will be adjourned until 7 o'clock Welcome those we all welcome all who are with us this evening and We're grateful that you're here to participate in our meeting today. We'll start With the Pledge of Allegiance that'll be led by councilmember Lockhart. I Thank you. All right, item two, presentation reports. Todd, it looks like item 2.1, presentation of the Water Wise Yard of the Month.

I don't know what's going on. Anyway, we had a very nice conversation with the recipient of the award. And we're going to try to make it. And I guess they didn't make it. So I'll go ahead and just go through their little PowerPoint. And then I'll send it to the free press tomorrow and get it out. And hopefully, people will start zero scrape landscaping. After today, though, holy cow, we had Quite a bit of rain. And the reports coming from Matt Dalton are very promising as well. So we're doing well with our water consumption. And that's not showing up. I heard something, yeah. Okay Anyway Greg and Anita Bushman live up behind Lowe's and they have a beautiful landscape that they they live on a corner and so About three years ago Anita decided to start looking in the landscapes and change their grass out. And she's the architect of the corner. She's done a fantastic job with the shrubbery and the grasses. It's just a very appealing corner as you come by. And you notice it real well. And it's engaging. functional, she's taken her parking strips, and she even took a tree out that was causing the sidewalk to buckle, which is something I would like to see a lot of residents do. That becomes a liability. But it's just a very beautiful, simple landscape that she did a great job with. So we congratulate her and her husband, Greg, for doing the water-wise landscape of the month. So do you guys have any questions at all? This is, I guess, getting a little redundant, but there's nobody here.

Can you tell us more about the Water Wise Parade of Homes that is coming up?

Yeah, we have 10 homes that we're going to highlight next month. And it will be on a Saturday. And these are previous winners of the Water Wise Landscape Award. And they will be highlighted between 10 and 12 o'clock. drive around and look at what they've done with their landscapes. And if they're available, they'll be there to help answer any questions and whatnot if people approach them. Just kind of like a Parade of Homes type format. But we're just trying to get this thing going so that we can become more water conscious. And I think it's really helped. This is our third year doing it. And we're getting great feedback. And now the Free Press has really been picking up the stories and highlighting them a lot. And so that's been very helpful. And so we're trying. Every little bit helps. And thanks for indulging me every month.

Thanks, Todd. Any questions for Todd?

The other thing that came up, and I didn't mention it during the meeting, I was able to attend that for Rachel, the environmentalist, is they talked about having Lehigh City on social media also talk about the Waterwise Home of the Month. So I don't know who best to ask that to, to see if we could do that, that it's great that the Lehigh Free Press is doing it, but if we could also highlight it on our Lehigh City social pages, too.

It's a feel-good outreach to help. So anything we can do.

Thank you, Todd. Thank you. Appreciate it. Appreciate it. OK, item three, citizen input. Just a couple of things for citizen input. If there's something that's not on the agenda tonight that you'd like to give input on, we welcome you to come to the microphone. When you come to the microphone, we would appreciate it if you'd state your name. A clock will appear with some time on it. If you'll go ahead and give us your thought within that time allotment, that would be great. If the clock does go to zero, we would ask you to finish your comments. So with that, it is 7.08, and we'll open citizen input. OK, it's still 7.08. We'll close citizen input. And we'll go to item 4, the consent agenda. Any questions on the consent agenda? If there's no questions, we're happy to entertain a motion.

Mayor, sorry. If I may ask a question on item 4.3. It's such a significant payment. I was just wondering if we could get a little bit of explanation from staff on that.

Welcome, Dave.

Thank you. Which item is the 4.3?

The Hughes contract. OK.

So that is the excavation and dirt work for the building that we're going to be building here in the near future for our storage building up at the Public Works site. So what we have is our site up at Public Works is a historic landfill. And so we have a lot of garbage underneath the site. So each of the buildings we've had to build that we have built up there, we have to excavate first down to native soil. And so that's what we didn't have to buy the property, but it is a significant amount of money to get the site prepared for the building itself. Because if we don't do that, then the building will settle and we'll have major problems. So this is removing all of the historic garbage that's there. And we have done a couple of test fits and found bottles so far from the early 1900s. So it is historic. There is some interesting stuff that we may find. But I don't know what kind of condition it will be in as we dig it up. Yeah, we have to haul all of that material out to the landfill out in Cedar Fort area, Fairfield area actually. And then we have to import material in and bring that compact and bring it up. The one nice thing is we keep concrete and things like that that we do from our projects and then every year or so we grind that up. into what we call a road base or a good compactable material. We have quite a bit of that on site that we're going to utilize all of that, as well as they'll have to bring in additional material as well. But that's saving us quite a bit of money. And then the purchase order that's on there tonight as well, that's for the dump. We're going to pay the landfill directly, because we already have an account with them. And so rather than having the contractor pay that and then paying their market fees, we're just going to pay the landfill directly for all of the dump fees.

Okay. Does that make sense? Yeah, and I appreciate the explanation. It's just a big number. Oh, it is. I agree with you completely. I was trying to figure it out.

So I was a little bit surprised. I was like, it's kind of quiet. There's not questions. I'm surprised. Yeah, no. I'm happy to answer those. And any time you have questions, feel free to reach out to me. I'd be happy to explain because there is history and background and reasons why. So absolutely.

Thank you. Appreciate you.

Yep. Mm-hmm. Any other questions?

Any other questions on the consent agenda? OK, happy to entertain a motion on that.

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

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

Second.

Second from Council Member Newell. Any questions on that motion? So we'll start with you, Council Member Newell. Yes. Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Yes. Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart. Yes. Great. Thank you. All right, item number five, the regular agenda, we'll go to 5.1, consideration of ordinance 35-2026, approving a comprehensive development code amendment to chapter 23, signs, updating requirements, and simplifying the text. So before we start this, I will happily entertain a motion to untable this and bring it back to the dais.

So moved. Second it.

Okay, so I have a first from Councilmember Newell, a second from Councilmember Freeman. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So with that, we'll start the discussion on this one. Kim, it looks like you're our representative tonight.

yep jacob is coaching his son's soccer team tonight so at the beginning of the information your packet jacob has done a great job he summarized all of the changes that were brought up at the previous meeting and and we've made all those changes i think the one that was still somewhat undecided was the 23080, which is where it designates who approves different types of signs. And there was some discussion about whether that should be the Planning Commission or the City Council as the approving body. And this would be for The large, the pylon signs, electronic message display signs over 50 square feet. If a billboard was going to be converted from static to an electronic billboard, those types of signs. So if you have any other questions, I'm happy to try and field those. But yeah, I think that summary that you have on that first page In the packet, all of the other signs we've, or excuse me, all of the other, you know, references and code language that you asked us to change, we've made those changes in the draft that you have. And right now the draft, I believe he's got it as city council as the approving body. So if you want to keep that or we can keep it or change it to planning commission as it currently stands, so.

Yeah, so I reviewed it, and it looks great to me. I think Jacob's done a great job. My understanding was that it was a legislative decision for exceptions, since they're changing. He presented that the conditional uses present a challenge and have continually historically presented a challenge. Also, recommendation by Utah League of Cities and Towns is to try to minimize any conditional uses we have in our code. And I would support that going forward with other additional code changes. So yeah, I support it as is, and especially with the legislative decisions go to a legislative body, which is the city council. So I support that.

Mayor, I have a question. So on that section 23.080 on B, I believe this is the language makes it a discretionary. Is that correct? I mean, it says the following signs may be approved by the city council. So that's discretionary, right?

It's not like the problem we run into with conditional uses where it's like... Yeah, and that's why we moved it to an exception versus a conditional use. Conditional use means that it needs to be approved, but you can impose reasonable conditions. As an exception, you could deny it if you don't feel like it's worthy of an exception. You could just deny it.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify that because sometimes, I mean... that may be approved as the original language, may be approved as a conditional use, but it really can't. I mean, it has to be approved kind of thing. So I just, if that's adequate language to just ensure that it remains a discretionary decision, then I'm good with that. And I just support bringing it to the council for the reasons I expressed, I think, at our last meeting when this was brought up, is that we are the legislative body and I think it's our duty to enact code pass code and then if there are exceptions I think it should come back to the same legislative body to make those decisions I understand that with very technical issues our city engineers and What not can make exceptions. But again, that's because you have the knowledge and I don't. So I'm okay with that. But when it comes to, I guess, lay people, I'd rather have it come back to legislative body. And I will just add, I do appreciate the work Jacob. I know he's not here, but he did a lot of work on this. I do appreciate that if you want to.

I'll pass that on.

Yeah, thank you.

I don't know why every time my microphone does that. Sorry, it's like so dramatic. Mayor, if I may, I really, I also appreciate the work done. And I think just my one caution is moving it to, from the planning commission to the city council. Yesterday we had a discussion about eliminating the park tax committee. And today we're having a discussion about eliminating roles and responsibilities of the planning commission and bringing it towards us. And I'm just worried about the centralization of power. I think it's really important that our residents are involved in every level, that they have input beyond just public input. And yes, the five of us have authority to the extent of which the Constitution and the code allows. But I really value the input of others. And I want to hear and be a part of and have as many residents as possible involved.

So I like everything but I am concerned about the centralization of power at this level This would still even though if it comes to planning or to City Council for exceptions It would still go through the process what it goes would it still go through if there's exceptions they would apply and go through like DRC and then Planning Commission and then Or what how would that how would that go? It would just go through DRC and then to City Council now we can you know tonight if you want to add any part of that I mean it would streamline it to go, you know, just a City Council and what I love is the mayor bins Let's there be public comment on items and and we do And we have a public comment period so I've received many emails and and comments from the public and and Yeah, and I love that there's that responsibility there and surrounding decisions to grant exceptions to the code. So there's more accountability when there's elected officials. There's more accountability because the voters have made them accountable. And I appreciate that. And the fact that the public will still have opportunities to comment, to email us, and to let their voices be heard because that is important.

I guess one really quick thing I would point out. In the previous language, I guess the current language before this change, whatever we do tonight, because it was a conditional use, that automatically triggered a public hearing. The way this is worded, it would just go to you, and it would be optional whether you want to allow public comment. You could add, you know, you could say, The following signs may be approved by the City Council following a public hearing. We could make that a requirement or leave it as is and then it's a discretionary. It would be up to the Mayor and you as the Council if you want to open it for public comment or not.

Can we also add that we get recommendations from the Planning Commission on the exception?

Sure. You could send it through.

And find some middle ground?

Yeah, it's really however you want to structure the process. But as it's worded right now, it would go to DRC and then straight to city council. No public hearing required. It would just be case by case.

But we could say it's going to go through DRC to the planning commission for a recommendation and then to the city council with a mandatory public hearing.

Yeah, or you could have the public hearing occur at the Planning Commission, and then you could read the minutes or watch the meeting. And then if you're satisfied that you've already had sufficient public comment, then you wouldn't need to open it here. There's a menu of ways that we could do this.

I could support that. I'm finding a hybrid.

Yeah, I've heard from residents that sometimes it's confusing to them to have the public hearing at Planning Commission because they don't realize that that's their chance. And I love that they have the opportunity here to have public comment at the beginning of the meeting. So, I mean, yeah, we need to hear from them. We need to give them the opportunity to speak. And I'm happy to have them do it here. If there's strong feelings about doing a planning commission, that's fine too. I just have heard that from residents that they like to be able to speak at city council.

And I would support the public hearing coming to the city council. We are the elected representatives and I feel like the people have the right to petition their elected representatives. I'm going to question this idea of a consolidation or centralization of power. We get our authority from the state. And the state requires that we have a planning commission. But they are an administrative body. And, again, they are not elected, and they have the final say. And I think it's much, much better for, again, if we're granting exceptions to legislation, that it should come to those that are elected for that purpose and that are accountable and responsible to the residents. So if we want to have a recommendation by the Planning Commission, That's absolutely fine. I hope they don't hate us for that. But I'm open, welcoming public hearing, but I would like it to be at the council level.

I really like the idea of having the recommendation from the Planning Commission on that. I would think that would help us be consistent. And that's my biggest concern with exceptions, that if we're going to make exceptions, they should be consistent. And if we're making exceptions, Exceptions often that means our codes not right like I would hope that we got our code right to the point that we don't feel That we need to make exceptions and so that we're seeing that I think having more eyes on it helps with that I do like having the public hearing at the Planning Commission just because I Want to make sure they hear from any public who does come? both mayors I've served under all even though it's not a public hearing do I invite the public to come up on those items. So I would want it at both. I want to make sure anybody who's at either meeting does have the opportunity. So I would want to make sure there is a public hearing at the Planning Commission. Plus, I feel like that helps me prepare better for this meeting because I watch those meetings. If I can hear from the public and get ahead of it rather than hear from them and then I'm going to vote five minutes later, I feel like if they bring up points during that meeting, I just want to make sure that they have the chance to talk during planning commissions. So however we need to do that, I want to make sure they can speak at whatever meeting they're at.

Yeah, I'll just add, I do, I mean, the law is very specific in this being a legislative action, and that's why I would support the City Council having the final say on exceptions. But I also agree, I think it would be good to have the Planning Commission have input, just because they've... They have background and context that we may not have. I'm kind of agnostic on whether the public hearing is before the council or the planning commission. I do like watching the commission meetings and kind of hearing that. And those public hearings may actually change the recommendation on the planning commission. So if, let's say, some of that input comes to the planning commission and it changes their vote, right and if that makes sense so i'm good either way i think just as long as the council has the the final legislative action then i'm good with it so heather just a question would you like a public hearing in both or just at least the planning commission i think at least the planning commission with the expectation that our mayor would hear

comments from them who are there? I don't know if, can we have it at both? Do we require it at both? Or is it usually, I don't mind having it required at both.

Is it an overkill? I don't know.

But I mean, I feel like, Maybe it's a good reminder if it's on the agenda that it's a public hearing. And then to speak to the point where Rachel's had residents talk to her and say, like, I didn't know I missed my opportunity. If we say it actually is an official public hearing at the council, too, then maybe they feel a bit better they didn't miss their chance. So I'm totally good with that, too.

Just one question on that. Do we have, are there other instances where the Planning Commission makes a recommendation and the City Council gets the public hearing? Because in the past it's always been the public hearing at the Planning Commission meeting, right?

Yeah. Yeah, I think because of kind of what you've described in the discussion, it's helpful for you to already have, you know, be able to see what the public comment was at the Planning Commission before it gets to you. So, yeah, I can't think of any where the, but I, unless Ryan has a different opinion, I think you can structure it however you want. You could hold it at the Planning Commission or the Council or both. It might be overkill to do both, and I think it would be, this is just my personal opinion, but yeah, maybe the Planning Commission would be the better with the understanding that if there is additional comment, you're always welcome to take that. If you know there's people in the audience, you can open it up, even though it's not required.

Mayor, how do you feel about that?

I feel like most of our public hearings are on the commission side. So I'm fine with that. But I tend to follow what Mayor Johnson did, where we give each item an opportunity for the public to speak. And I don't mind doing that. So I do think if you if you set up as two public hearings, I do think that's Probably a hair much, but knowing we're gonna open it Here and there's a 20-minute period anyway, so I you know public's always welcome to come and share so I Kind of both it's a little much, but I we've had bears in the past that I

have stuck to just what is technically a public hearing and haven't allowed the public comment. So I don't think we get that much on these things, hopefully. I always appreciate recommendations and the discussions from the Planning Commission and the opportunity to hear the public comment there. Again, I guess we're the ones who are accountable to the residents, and I always just feel like they should be able to speak to us directly. And we've got a great mayor here that does allow that, but we haven't always had that in the past. So I'd be okay having it both places. Again, I don't expect a ton of people out, but who knows.

I guess the problem is, too, is, like, we can't ever hold the future mayor. Like, if they decide, like, I don't want, they'll just, like, take it away, too. So I guess it...

So I do have a question for Tisha. Are there different noticing requirements for public hearings?

Yeah. Is it more? It's more extensive. Public hearings are noticed more extensively in more places. And there's usually a time frame. So it's a seven-day notice or a 10-day notice. So it needs to be published and posted 7 to 10 days before the meeting. With signs, though, it sounds like we don't have anything in state code. I guess, would that be a land use decision, maybe? And so that would be a 10-day notice? Is that what you're thinking? Or maybe Ryan?

Well, I don't know. I don't know. I mean, state law requires at least one public hearing. So I don't know if having a second one triggers the same requirements under state law. Or you could structure it Any way you want, we need to look into that. But yeah, I can't think of anything else that has two public hearings. Any other land use item, any budget item, any other city that does two public hearings. So we'd have to look into that if we just haven't run across that before.

Well, I see the value in having it at the Planning Commission, too, I guess, because then you do have kind of a preview of, you know, and it says people's names. And if you want to, you can contact them and ask them further about what their thoughts are. Maybe I think we need consistency in kind of decisions. So if we're going to have... a public hearing at two public hearings for something. And if we're going to have one planning commission and city council, then I think that would need to extend to other. Other things, and I don't know if we're ready to do that. I think we need to, like Ryan maybe suggested, maybe look into that a little bit more of what the noticing requirements were and things like that. So, but yeah. Yeah, it would open a door.

And honestly, there's other things that I would probably want more public comment on than signs. And I'm just wondering if we could just call it something else and come up public comment period or I don't know.

They have the public comment period at the beginning, right?

But it can't be for agenda items.

Oh, yeah, yeah. But maybe under, I guess because the concern is if they're 100 years from now and we have a different mayor, because you're going to be mayor for 100 years, right? Probably not. But if they don't allow public comment item by item, then they would, I'm assuming, would allow a free-for-all during the 20-minute public comment period in that circumstance. And just in my experience, the lengthiness from the signed discussion comes from the planning commissioners themselves and less from the public. And so we do get some public turnout, but it's mostly us and the planning commissioners who make those meetings so long and those items so long.

The other thing to keep in mind with the Planning Commission is this is the first time they're able to speak with each other. They can't speak with the public. They can speak with staff. So it's the first time to really debate it, which is good for us to see that too. But maybe we're OK to just let our leader lead the meeting. And if we feel like we're not getting the public comment that we need, then We can make changes then. But right now, I like how it's working with being able to hear from the public on each item.

Yeah, I think I tend to agree. I think keeping the public hearing at the planning commission level, it's consistent with all the other things that come before us that are maybe more weighty and serious than signs. Who knows? Maybe we'll have like a crazy sign discussion in the next couple months. But I would be fine. And I would be fine. I think most mayors would open that up for comment. And you have that safety valve of having the public hearing the Planning Commission hearing the debate maybe some of those comments and then those same people can also come to the City Council meeting and make the comments again but I think for consistency sake if we wanted to like Rachel you have a good point with public hearings and Planning Commission meetings sometimes it's not very obvious but we always have the fall back to the council meeting so I think just since we're not doing it with other items I'd I'd be okay just leaving it at the Planning Commission for the the public hearing

So is it, just to clarify, since I'm new, I'm going to say I'm new for probably five years. No, three years. Is it a requirement that we only take public comment on things that are not on the agenda? Is that just kind of a tradition? Is that?

Yeah, that's not required. OK. That is just by tradition. OK. No, like at the beginning of the meeting, right? Yeah. The 20 minute? Yeah, that's not required.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- OK, so some mayors would not have the public comment, or they would allow comment on agenda items? There's just, it's kind of a .

CHRISTOPHER L. Yeah, so the only thing that's not at the discretion of the chair would be something that's a public hearing. Allowing public comment on anything else is at the discretion of the mayor, either to put the 20-minute comment period at the beginning, And or to take public comment on things that are just part of the public meeting instead of a public hearing.

Good things to think about. Thank you.

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

Okay. I'll make a motion. May I move that we approve Ordinance 35-2026, approving a comprehensive development code amendment to Chapter 23, signs updating requirements and simplifying the text, and include in Section twenty three point zero eight zero that Just language where the the Planning Commission would review the Request and give a recommendation to the City Council with a public hearing at that point So I'm first from councilmember Stallings to have a second second have a second from councilmember Lockhart any questions on that motion I

Great. We'll start with you, Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Yes. Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart. Yes. Council Member Newell. Yes. Great. Okay, Item 5.2, consideration of Resolution 2026-47, approving the intent to annex the pasture walk annexation on 4.4 acres located approximately 900 north and 1,000 west. Do we have a... There's Janine Walker. Tony Train is coming to speak to this. Hi, Mr. Train.

Walkers are out of town, so I asked if I'd just come answer any questions you had. Pretty simple annexation.

So before we go to any questions, are there any folks in the audience today who is here to speak to this item? OK. Any questions for Tony?

Yeah, this is just the intent to annex, but are you going to just do the holding zone?

It's scheduled at R-122. Some of the surroundings, A1, so there'll be a request for a zone change on some of their other piece as well.

Okay, I just wondered.

Yeah, come in with a request for R-122. Pretty simple.

There's no other questions. I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Murray moves to resolution 2026-47, approving the intent to annex the pasture walk annexation on 4.4 acres located approximately 900 north, 1,000 west.

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

Second.

Council Member Newell with a second. Any questions on the motion?

Sorry, did you include the DRC comments?

Well, I didn't really see. I don't know if I really saw much on there, but oh, yeah, I did. Oh, they're there. Let's include the DRC comments, please.

So the motion does now include the DRC comments. You're fine with that, Council Member Newell?

Yes.

Any other questions on the motion? Councilmember Stallings will start with you. Yes councilmember Freeman. Yes councilmember Lockhart. Yes councilmember Newell. Yes councilmember Harrison's Okay, I don't 5.3 consideration of concept plan approval for the Fox girl supervision now requesting nine Lots and a development agreement located at 2850 West 1500 North petitioners Symphony homes are they with us this evening. Would you come on up? When you get there, if you'll give us your name.

I'm Jared Schmidt, Symphony Homes. You guys have seen Foxtrail before, and there's been previous discussion about the nine lots. So a little back story or history to this point. Once we got the eight lot approval and we started forward with that, We also turned over the HOA and got them going as a neighborhood. After that happened, they approached us with the nine lot idea, along with some amenities and things in their community. So it kind of stirred the whole thing back up. And with their support and request, we approached with this nine lot situation. So it's kind of in conjunction with the neighboring neighborhood to do this and kind of do a few more improvements with it. There are questions, or do we want to jump to some comment? I know there is some neighborhood comments for it, I think.

So if you're good, I'll have you take the chair. If there's anyone in the audience that is here to speak to this, we would ask that you come up and speak now. When you get here, this is like public comment. Please state your name. You will have time up on the clock. And so when that reaches zero, of course, wrap it up.

Awesome.

My name is Neil Farrell. I'm here representing our HOA board. It's good to put some faces and names in conversations I've had over the last couple of months. So I represent our board and currently our community of 100, and hopefully after tonight, around 109 homes in our HOA. You know, Symphony has a proposal in front of you that, as you know, would provide an extra lot to Symphony Homes in exchange for public benefit of connecting the trail to the sidewalk along 1500 North, the HOA taking over the maintenance of exterior park strips, additional property tax revenue, and the HOA receiving a generous donation to our amenities fund that directly would benefit 100 plus different families. The amenity we'll put in will likely be something like a pavilion and or pickleball courts, just depending on community interest. And it will help provide relief to adjacent parks like Olympic Park and create a centric gathering place for our community. I've emailed a petition to the city council that was signed by over two-thirds of our community members. There's no opposition within our HOA boundaries to this proposal. There may be a couple of opposing voices that reside south of our neighborhood, but that don't frequent the neighborhood like our neighbors do. Just a couple things. I know time's ticking here. Existing lot sizes of the two lots that would be moved into three are 50% to 100% larger than most lots in our neighborhood. And these are huge side yards and huge backyards. Converting them to three lots creates consistency, and they're still among the largest in our community. I also just want to talk about how big a deal the sidewalk connection is along 1500. That can be a really dangerous road. And I personally walk or run in that area, since I live just right around the corner, three to five times a week, and occasionally take my kids on bike rides. When you walk down there, you can envision you're either going to walk into bushes, or you can walk onto 1500 North into oncoming traffic. And for me, obviously, that's terrifying, because there's so much texting and driving. Just a few weeks ago, there was a rollover accident at that exact location. And so personally, I had an experience in a previous community where there was a safety concern brought up along Mountain View Corridor in Harriman. And because of some things that just weren't put in place, there is a family of a friend of mine that one of their kids was killed in an accident. And so obviously, don't want to see that happen in our community.

Your time's up, so if you want to wrap up.

Yeah, yeah. So I guess overall, I just urge the council. I know public benefit is a huge consideration, and I think there's quite a bit of that. But I'd also urge the council to consider, like from a first principles perspective, what the public benefit is to our community and what that creates in our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration.

Thanks, Neil.

Hi, my name is Candace Jones. You've probably recognized me from before. I live adjacent to this property at 2784 West River Parkway. I'm here tonight to respectfully support the development agreement to amend it from eight to nine lots and incorporate the College Farms PRD into the neighborhood. In my email that I sent to each of you already, I explained why I originally opposed the nine lot configurations. the smaller cul-de-sac lots. I was also concerned about the required connection to 1500 North, which created additional access points and the potential for increased traffic through our neighborhood. Our goal was never simply to oppose development. We wanted development that was compatible with the existing neighborhood and protected the character and livability of this area. Symphony homes add quality single-family homes that draw individuals that are able to give back to the community. Since then, it's been said that the HOA is now homeowner controlled. And we've been able to negotiate a solution that provides real tangible benefits for not only the homeowners, but the broader Lehigh community. So there's a couple of things I want to just point out. First, the HOA will take responsibility for maintaining the Park Strip along 1500 North. helps alleviate some of the long-term maintenance that the city usually cares for. Second, Symphony will complete the sidewalk connection. This is a significant community benefit. It improves pedestrian connectivity, provides safer access to the trail, and helps connect residents to one of Lehigh's valuable recreational assets. Third, incorporating these homes into the College Farms PRD provides consistent neighborhood standards. Rather than creating an isolated development, with different standards. It has a more cohesive extension of an established community. Fourth, by allowing the college farms development, this negotiated benefits the neighborhood by help alleviating the strain on already city resources that might be strained. The HOA already maintains a park green space, park strip space next to the Jordan Trail further down south. And if the development agreement is approved, this additional amenity will help enhance public spaces while their ongoing maintenance is funded and managed by the HOA, not the city taxpayers. I am supporting nine lots today. Given the options before us, I believe this negotiated solution produces a better overall public outcome than the eight lot plan currently approved. This may have been a long way to get to a solution that delivers measurable benefits to the community and the city and I appreciate all that the Planning Commission city and elected officials have Listened to us as their residents to make this a win-win for all involved Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Mrs. Jones Hi

My name is Cassie Miners. I live in the home that the new street under development will dead end into. And I am in agreement with the proposition to expand to nine lots. I see it as a very simple benefit to our community. There is public benefit involved. And working with Symphony Homes to improve our amenities will greatly benefit our community. river trail down on the street with the cars every single morning and it is very dangerous and it needs improvements and this solves a problem for the city for the public and for our community moving from the two jumbo lots to three normal sized lots makes a lot more sense in the context of the surrounding neighborhoods and that's all thank you so much thank you

Hi. Sorry, had to pass off my sidekick. My name is Carly Johnson. I also live in the neighborhood. in question here that we're talking about on this bulletin item, the Symphony Neighborhood. And I just wanted to kind of address, I know I have heard some voices of opposition within our neighboring communities. We actually do communicate a lot in neighborhoods and share opposing viewpoints and discuss these things collectively. And I just wanted to speak to some of the things that I have heard. From my position, most of the dissenting voices that I have heard in opposition to adding nine lots instead of eight are coming from those in the neighborhood south to us. And I mention this differentiation because it's really important. The people that live in that neighborhood do not have children that attend North Point Elementary School. Their kids are zoned for a different elementary school. So their kids are not the ones that are traveling on 2300 West on a busy four lane road, almost highway if you will, with some of the speeds that people do there, on bikes and on leg every day trying to get to school. So they don't have the same pain point that we in Symphony and the area right up to this decision making process where we are sending our kids out on 2300 North. allowing our kids to have a connecting sidewalk from the trail and or 15, you know, the side of our neighborhood onto 1500 North gives them access through back roads, through neighborhoods that are much safer for our kids to travel to school in every morning. So I think that is the most important differentiation for the voices that are in opposition to this and those that are in approval as our kids are directly affected by the potential safety improvement for them getting to school every day. Also, the lot sizes. I know that's been a concern. The 0.4 acres is what I'm on. It's a great size. It's perfect in our community. And it will be cohesive and not an issue for me to see those massive lots become more cohesive with what we've already got. And I'm out of time. So thank you so much. Have a great night.

Thank you.

Okay, if there's no further comments, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions?

I do have a question for staff, if that's all right. So typically when we give density bonuses, there's usually some kind of equivalent public benefit. And I know in the planning commission meeting that there was some concern about It doesn't meet that standard. And I know I was here about a year ago when this came before us, and the past city council denied it, the nine lot request. They granted one additional lot above the seven because there was a more considerable benefit to the city as far as right-of-way and the road expansion. So I'd just like to get staff's opinion on the about 80 feet of sidewalk and the maintenance of the park strip, those are the public benefits. The money that would go to the HOA, the HOA is a private entity, so that is a private benefit. So my opinion is that's a huge slippery slope if we start giving density away to benefit private entities or select individuals. So I would just like to consider the true public benefit here, and if there's a

good if it makes sense I guess oh I'll make an attempt to answer your question so as you know generally speaking when we consider whether or not we would recommend that units would be granted in lieu of payment for right-of-way or pavement We run through a calculation based on the developer's purchase price of the property and the allowed density of that zone. In this case, we did run through those calculations and felt like that at very best, and we were probably rounding up to get to that one extra lot. I don't think that there's any question that there is definitely a public benefit to the 90 feet of sidewalking as been described. We feel like there is a definite public benefit, but we don't feel like that if we just crunch the numbers and just look numerically at the cost savings to the city based on the um the annual maintenance of the planter strip as well as the uh cost to construct that sidewalk we don't feel like that that warrants the extra the extra unit um i guess it's up to the council to decide whether the other factors would would outweigh that. But just for your information, we're feeling like that the monetary benefit to the city for the construction of that 90 feet of sidewalk is probably relatively low in the probably $5,000 to $6,000 range, maybe not including a contractor's mobilization costs. But anyways, does that answer your question?

Yeah, it does. Thank you. don't want to give density away cheaply I mean it's the argument is just one more lot but just one more has got us to where we are and we're facing a lot of challenges because of our growth giving away density so much I do feel for the residents with that that missing sidewalk piece that little kids and their safety is close to my heart so I I would love for the city to look at just finishing that little piece and how much the cost would be. But again, I think we have to be protective of our density. And again, I was here a year ago, and I heard the residents come and saying no to that, just one or two extra lots that they didn't want it as part of their HOA because their pool is crowded already, and now it's It's changed, and I can only attribute it to the money that was offered to the HOA. But I would be so cautious in granting density when it benefits a private entity. And I think my understanding is we don't have a written development agreement before us that guarantees these things. The HOA hasn't voted to approve. I guess, annexing this portion into their HOA. But I would certainly welcome the HOA to negotiate themselves with the developers. And if they want to include this portion within their HOA, work that out between yourselves without coming to the city and asking for increased density. I think the existing homes now, my understanding is they have a pool and a playground. Where did the money come to build those things? It probably came from the the homes you paid for. And so these new homes, if they're coming in and benefiting from those amenities, I think it would totally be appropriate, I think, for you guys to negotiate that they bring in some amenities as well. But again, that is such a separate issue. It's not something that I think is appropriate for the council to consider when what we are tasked to look at is what would benefit the entire public and, in my opinion, I don't think that meets the qualifications. But again, that sidewalk, one thing really good that's come out of this is it's brought attention to that. And I would definitely support the city finishing that sidewalk to provide a safe route for the kids.

Yeah, I would just echo Councilmember Stalling's comments. I think, well, first of all, I think it's really impressive to see the HOA mobilize the way it did. I know I was talking to Neil, I think it was last night, and he said he doesn't envy my job and I don't envy your job either. I know it's difficult, but it's really rewarding to see. And I'm very impressed that Symphony was willing to work with the residents and offer some additional amenities. From my perspective, it's purely a public benefit. And I think it's great between two private parties that that would work out. And I agree, we should look at finishing that sidewalk, especially if it's a safety issue as a city. But we know that if you consider property taxes and impact fees, it still doesn't fully pay for the cost of a home in the city. We're still in the red with every unit in the city. And so to rezone or to add units beyond our general plan, the threshold for me is very, very high. And sometimes there will be exceptions. Earlier this year we had in South Lehigh density in lieu where I think we got several million dollars in benefit because of some preservation for Pony Express. And that's I mean that's very clear the dollar the monetary amount was several million dollars that the city saved by granting those additional units so So again, I I would love to to see this kind of cooperation and coordination between developers and residents Continuing into the future, but I just don't think it quite meets that threshold to justify it and we should try to protect that high threshold for zone changes or additional units beyond the general plan.

The one thing I do like about this is I like consistency within the neighborhood. I think a lot of our Neighborhoods get kind of chopped up with zoning when we have new regulations when it comes to the widths of the roads and they're trying to fit within that certain mark. And then you end up with these odd lots that have the large side yards. People have to pay a premium to be able to be in the neighborhood for land that's not fully utilized. I want to be consistent. This seems very similar to the Bishop's property that we brought in. gave an extra lot to and did not have anything in lieu of what was the... I think we gave more than one.

Yeah.

So that, and I do see a public benefit. I understand that it is going to the HOA, but that is a public benefit to those 109 families because they're no longer needing to utilize the public spaces. It makes it more accessible for our other residents to use. I agree that we're talking dollar for dollar, but my biggest selling point on this is consistency of the neighborhood. The fact I have a petition from 77 residents who want an extra lot in their neighborhood, that speaks volumes as well. And so I'm in support of it because of that. I was in support of it before because I saw the benefit, but I do like the consistency. I do like that it's going to offer more amenities that helps alleviate some of the impact on our own public amenities. And then most importantly, I want to be consistent. If we approved another development that was very similar for, in my mind, kind of similar reasons to get the lots to be consistent and to make sure that we're You know these are great like third acre size lots.

I want to be consistent with that yeah Mr.. Mayor if I may if I'm remembering correctly that bishops subdivision Did not include trail connections and did not include additional sidewalk and yet we offered multi we approved a multiple and more than they were allowed. I really appreciate when residents solve the problems and then come and tell us what to do. I appreciate the efforts made on the part of the residents who have collectively decided that this is what they want. And I think there is a lot of public benefit to having things within the neighborhood that allow these neighbors to not leave the neighborhood, which would keep more of them off of 1500 North. And if they have more amenities within their neighborhood, they're not putting as much pressure on the public amenities around them. But sometimes public benefit isn't Excel spreadsheet dollar to dollar. Sometimes, like this council has done before with the Bishop property, there is public benefit that you can't assign a dollar number to. And so I really appreciate this being resident-led. I want to listen to our residents. And I just really like when they come up with solutions with the developer and lead solution first. And so I'd like to support our residents on this.

I think that this is a tough situation. I really appreciate the I don't know, the initiative by Neil at HOA to get this going. I spoke on the phone with Neil a couple months ago. We talked about it, and I did emphasize the public benefit need as we are making these exceptions. I know that both Council Member Lockhart and Newell were on the Planning Commission, and and talk about the importance of being consistent with our zones and the general plan and all of that, and how sometimes I do get concerned about precedents that we are setting if we do these things with an HOA benefit. The Bishop property is an interesting point to consider. Part of that. My understanding was because of previous decisions made, the roads didn't quite line up. So the lot sizes were cut because of decisions that the city had made previously and that the person, the property owner, had actually benefited the city with some previous lines and things that he had allowed to go through his property and that he had never gotten credit for and never had gotten credit for that public benefit he had produced and that was He brought that up and the neighbors Agreed and they they Were another witness that that had happened. So I did I do see that and You know, that was a that was a unique case this is this seems to me to be different and I Would I would love to say yes, however I need to see more of a public benefit, in my opinion. I was counting up the yeses and the nos. And actually, I saw that there were, to me specifically, there was more nos that I saw, except for the petition. And the petition was a strong consideration there. So that shows a lot of initiative there on Mr. Farrell's and HOA's part. I am concerned about if we go down this road and what will happen in the future with other HOAs or with other private entities, if there's some kind of deals made where a home builder is giving them funding and then they bring that to us as a benefit. So that is concerning to me. That's just one of my concerns.

Mayor, I have a question. Sure. So I am a little concerned that this is coming to us as a development agreement without first requesting a zone change or an amendment to the PRD or whatever else. And typically, we require that. And then, like the Bishop application, if I remember right, it came as a zone change. But the developer was willing to limit it to less. And that's why we did a development agreement with them. So I'm just wondering why directly to a development agreement. And I would like to ask the two council members who are supportive of a development agreement if I would like to understand. I mean, usually development agreements We have code for a reason. We have zoning for a reason. And at least I try to be very careful when I use a development agreement. I usually use them, especially in the past when I thought it would help with more of the safety issues. So again, and I mentioned this, and Council Member Freeman mentioned this, we're heading in a direction where The public comes and wants this for whatever benefit, whether they like the developer or the HAA gets money. And it's setting a precedent. And I'm hearing the same arguments. And I voted against the Bishop development agreement. Excuse me. I can't remember. I think I did. Yeah. I did not support that. But I'm hearing the same arguments. Let's have the lot size the same. But again, this is a PRD where there was flexibility on the lot. It was kind of the developer's decision to some extent. But I would like to hear from the council members why a development agreement versus a zone change or something so we have a little more respect, I guess, for our zoning ordinances. And again, with the concern of we're doing this quite often now.

Yeah, I can take the first swing at it. So I think I've been super clear how much I don't love development agreements and have often voted against them. But what I've learned in my seven-plus months on the council is there are different types of development agreements, that there's a lot more nuance there than just a blanket statement of no. When I was on the planning commission and this came through, the Planning Commission role went for the eight lots because that's the role of that's how I saw my role as the Planning Commissioner at the time and this the development agreement in this case is resident led and I don't know why they I can't speak to why they started the application process this way but this is what's in front of me so the strategy of that would be and for you to ask them but when we have a decision made and then the residents go out and rally for a different decision to be made, that will grab my attention. And it gives me a lot to engage on. And so yeah, to answer your question, I've learned in my seven months that there's more nuance to a development agreement. That doesn't mean I fully support all of them. but as I'm learning, there's just times and places, and I can speak to the strategy of why you brought that particular application forward, and I'm unsure on that.

Yeah, for something like this, I think it just gives us a little bit more ability to have both the city and the developer be able to come to agreement on stuff rather than opening it up where... we don't have the ability to make some of these other requirements in there. So that's why I would support it. Yes, they could have come with a different method to do it, but I'm okay with what their application is if that's how they wanted to come forward with it.

So this is a concern to me, so I kind of want to delve deeper. And so, Commissioner Lockhart, my understanding is that the citizens come and speak in favor of it you are open to a development agreement yeah i'm opening to hearing them out absolutely okay i i'm just okay this is rhetorical now so thank you for sharing your ideas and thoughts on that um i think we need to be very careful i one thing we're cautioned against is a public clamor and to me that's very different from public input and usually when My experience as a resident, many years coming to city council meetings, is we were told, have good reasons why you're asking for these things. Look at the code. I've studied code a ton before I came up here and was elected. So I think we need to be very, very careful when we make decisions to do them based on solid reasoning and in referring to our development code we were a society of rule of law and i just feel like if we're we're opening this up where one one neighborhood got some exceptions they gave dense that they got density of blue in lieu and then another another development comes in and said well we want to match them well they gave something for that you know smaller or more density and then we have another one asking for the same thing so again i'm just This is a slippery slope. I think we have zoning ordinances for a reason. It helps with our planning. It helps us to make sure that we have the right infrastructure. It helps our schools to plan for the needs there. And people buy into neighborhoods. And a lot of the opposition I heard from was that very idea. We expected larger lots here, and we don't support this. And again, these are not HOA members, so they don't benefit by the $60,000. But I'm just going to caution my fellow council members that We need to be very careful. We have laws for a reason. We have city ordinances for a reason, and it's to provide protections, and it's planning, and it's so we can provide adequate services for our residents. And again, it's just one lot, but... I'm just seeing it's one lot here, two lots there, and it adds up very quickly. So again, I appreciate the residents coming out. I encourage you to have your HOA negotiate with the developer. And we'll do what we can as a city to make sure we have safe sidewalks out there for you. But I'm not going to support this development agreement.

If there's no further comments, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

I'll make a motion. Go ahead. I move that we deny the concept plan approval for the Fox Trail subdivision. Now requesting nine lots in a development agreement located at 2850 West, 1500 North.

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

Yes.

Council Member Locker?

No.

Council Member Newell?

No.

Council Member Harrison? Yes. Council Member Stallings?

Yes.

Okay. Item 5.4, consideration of resolution 2026-46, approving an amendment to the Gardner Plum Development Agreement requesting to transfer 124 equivalent residential units from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern. We have someone from the Plum Group here.

You can get here if you'll give us your name. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Steve Maddox. The new environment is very intimidating, so be patient with who we are. I have also with me Walt Plum tonight and also the Hartman family. We met with Councilwoman Lockhart yesterday. It was abundantly clear that most of you, if not all of you, have probably reviewed Planning Commission, so I won't bore you with any of those details. The changes that have happened since a month ago is that there has been a commercial user on the corner that will need more ERUs that will reduce our overall density from 168 units to 130 units. So the need to move the 124 units from the north to the south is still the request tonight, not approving site plans. One of the asks of Planning Commission is that we would get together with the adjoining neighborhood, of which I also built, and figure out if there are some collaborations that we can do for connectivity. Parking has been a critical item. We presented a plan to staff yesterday. We also presented that today to um the president of the hoa who is here tonight dennis that would also like to address in public comment um the changes that we've done and some collaboration on trying to resolve some of the parking issues that are wrecking kind of the area and overflowing on the hartman way so that the ask tonight is not on the site plan approval we understand that we'd have to go through a to z on everything that we're doing we are asking for an amendment an agreement that was ratified 15 plus years ago and this is the final final final amendment to that because this is the last parcel that is in existence the Hartman's could address the reason for moving the units and the legacy and what their family would like to see on the remaining acreage that they have on the south which is a more larger themed subdivision with more of an equestrian flair and the 200 units is not what they want to build there and they presented something that has expired now but want to go back to something like that. So our ask tonight is for the moving of 124 ERUs from the north to the south. Thank you.

Is anyone here that's here to make comment on this? We'll open this up. I remind you as you make comment that the clock is in front of you, so if you'll keep an eye on that, go ahead and give us your name as you come up.

Yeah, my name is Dennis Beatty. I am the HOA president of the Willow Point neighborhood, just east of this new development that's being proposed. I spoke in the Planning Commission meeting last month, mostly opposed to this transfer of i forgot the acronym already residential units and at the time my main reasoning for that was the parking i brought up some concerns in our neighborhood we don't have adequate parking and after speaking with edge today i am convinced that this actually would be a good move if we can work together to use this development to leverage some additional parking in the Willow Point neighborhood and to make it easier for residents of the Exchange just south of this development. especially today for those of you who aren't aware hardman way is closed parking in our neighborhood has been a little bit crazy and it's made it abundantly clear that we are reliant on city roads for having adequate parking for our neighborhood and so if we can leverage that to increase the parking in the area i think that that would be an immense public good that could be gained from this move so i'd like to support it but i would also like to encourage that as part of this that we include some something to ensure that that will happen thank you thanks mr bain

This is really close. Lisa Hardman, landowner. I emailed all of you a copy of my comments. And I just wanted to come up and say thank you for the opportunity to even do that, which is awesome, and ask if there's any questions that you guys have regarding this. In doing the letter, I was trying to figure out with this move the benefit of preserving the history of the area towards the north by Camp Williams, by the river, that whole area, and how besides moving the ERUs to the south would benefit the public on the south end, how it would benefit the public on the north end with the trails, the equine opportunities, the historical area, to help the public understand that area and enjoy it more, as well as how it would benefit the south. So any questions? I think I've said most of it in my letters. Mayor, is it all right if we ask questions?

We should not ask questions during open comment.

Oh, you can't ask questions? OK, then I'll just try and cover them.

Oh, go ahead.

I'll try and see the bubble above everybody's head. Anyway, mostly it is preserving the history. It is benefiting the South with the commercial and also with the parking towards the South. Anyway, thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thanks, Mrs. Hardman.

Hi, I'm Kylene Pace. I'm also a landowner. I'm also a Hardman. I just want to obviously throw in my support for this for multiple reasons. But most of them will be presented and have been presented by others. But I don't know what the rules are as far as being able to interact or ask questions later. But I just wanted to let you know that we're here to support it. And we're happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm Walt Plum. I'm with the applicant as well. I haven't been to one of these for a while, so I'm not sure if now's the appropriate time. But I wanted to just give a little bit of background on the property. I've been in Lehigh for 12 years. I'm involved with this project. The annexation took place in 2007 with Anderson Development. The Hardmans, the Holbricks, the Lewis family, Gary Hardman, they all donated the land for the UDOT corridor. And in 2014 is when our group came in. The Anderson group was claiming that they had 5,000 ERUs that they could build there. We bought out their rights. And then thanks to the Hardman family, we settled with the city on 1933. We broke it up into a north and a south. And at that time, Paul and Laura Hardman lived up on the hill on Redwood Road. Eventually, they built a house down here in this area where we're talking about. You know, Paul, loving the land, wanted to protect it. And so in 2022, he traded the armory ground that's now known as the armory with the University of Utah. He didn't receive any money. It was a straight across, just trade. He didn't want to give up ground. And so tonight, we're not asking for a rezone. We're not asking for any extra units. We're just trying to transfer over ERUs to the south side and a property that has a lot of challenges on it that we think this is a better use than some of the other uses that we could do there. So I'll be happy to answer any questions when that's appropriate. Yeah, we appreciate the relationship we've had with Lehigh. We've built water tanks, brought in lines. It's been 12 years of putting in roads and infrastructure, and it's been a wonderful partnership with the Hardmans and Lehigh City and Kim and Brad and everybody. Lauren, just been absolutely amazing. So thank you. Thank you.

Any other comments? Okay, so we'll close the comment portion and bring it back to the dais. Any questions?

Yeah, Mayor, I guess I have a question for that applicant or maybe the property owner. Is that appropriate?

So you could ask the applicant, yes. Applicant, not anybody else. So if he wants to answer that question, he's...

Okay, so help me understand it. Remembering the map, the north end, there are three parcels. One went to the armory. One is the Hardman parcel, and then there's one kind of to the south of the Harmons.

Remaining on the property right now under the Hardman control is roughly 73 acres. That's what's still available on the north side. And under our current development agreement, that's entitled to 200 units. Okay. So all of that is owned by the Hartmans? Yes. Okay.

And then who owns the property where these ERUs? The Hartmans. Oh, okay.

But it's a different Hartman.

No, same Hartman.

It's not a brother and a sister? Yeah. Okay.

I thought there was different family members.

That makes more sense. Yeah. Okay. I get it now.

So really what they're trying to do is they have these 200 units that are dedicated to the north side. The north side is in Holbrook Farms. There's portions that are close down to the river that are historical for a whole bunch of reasons. You know, frankly, Paul and Laura loved open land. I mean, he was a farmer. He's been in Lehigh, their family, for just over 100 years. And the thought of putting so many units over there kind of troubled him and his family's trying to honor his wishes. And so they want to put the units over there. As the group that has developed the property, we think it's a wonderful solution for this 12 acres

that's that's remaining over there so let me ask you this maybe you could speak for the Harbin's I hope so a couple years ago they presented a concept plan that I thought was incredible and that concept plan was that with the current er use or

yes okay yes so that that plan um is was yeah 72 units but they they need a buffer because a few things are changing on it and so we're asking to leave us 76 units over on that north side and transfer over 124. but the the plan was they had the full 200 units at that time with that plan correct yeah did they just not

choose not to utilize all the ERUs there?

Well, they haven't gone and developed it. And then when the swap took place, that with the University of Utah, it became really apparent that there's two parcels over there. One's like 13 acres. The other's 12. The 12 is separated by a canal that runs through it. So we can't go up. And it's quite a drop in the first.

From the canal to our first row.

You're talking the north end, not the south end.

I'm talking on the south end right now on that commercial. Yeah.

So I'm looking at the north end.

Yep. What I'm trying to say is that when they did the swap, it became apparent that the units would need – that when they did the swap, Paul and Laura came in and they met with the city and talked about the swap. And they were – I mean, there was nothing in writing, obviously, but it was looked upon favorably from a utility standpoint. But that's why they – wanted to transfer those over, because that 12 acres is just really challenging.

I think your question is super relevant. Why 74 units when you have density for 200? The transfer was going to be anticipated and would need to be ratified prior to that plan being ratified so that those ERUs were not lost. That never took place. We did not know what land would be suitable. We were in the midst of trying to finish our project. And this was kind of, is it going to go commercial, which it's zoned for? Or is it going to go residential, which it's zoned for? And here we are at the decision point of the commercial viability of the 12 1⁄2 acres that I'm addressing tonight really isn't viable because of slope and because of accessibility.

So you're saying that they swapped land and they acquired the south portion? Is that what happened? That was the land swap?

They've owned the ground.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Well, I guess my point is, A few years ago, they presented a concept plan. This was long before you talked about moving the ERUs. And it was a really good concept plan. So why, to me, that would be a great thing to build. I know the time has expired, and you'd have to probably redo another concept plan. But that was in place at the time with the ERU. So why not still build that?

I think they will. I think they will. I think they will. Yeah, they'll come back through and present with the remaining ERUs.

Okay, but previously what were they going to do with the remaining ERUs? I mean the 124. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

You're asking were they just going to surrender the ERUs?

Yeah.

I don't believe that was ever the plan.

I mean, Paul and Laura did meet with Lauren and the city and ask if they would be able to transfer them. When the armory approached Paul, I was here, it was in 2022, right at the beginning. He was a diehard BYU guy. And the president of the University of Utah talked to him about opening up the University of Utah, giving them 50 acres. That campus up at Fort Douglas was 50 acres. And so Paul saw the benefit of it. And he traded with the University of Utah for the ground that he now has, because the University of Utah owned that. He talked to the city about making a transfer of ERUs. There was a period of time where the University of Utah did not know if the armory would accept the property. During that time, the University of Utah reserved ERUs. When the armory took them over, took over the property, the ERUs went back to the Hardmans. So that's the whole history. That's the stall there. So there was a period of time where there was limbo.

Mrs. Hardman, come on up. This is not normally how it functions, just so you know. But let's make sure we have the information.

Would it be appropriate for me to comment on what's been asked?

Yes, please. OK. So just to give a little history based on what your questions were, it's a very good question. I was actually at the meeting where my parents did, well, it wasn't my dad at the time, but it was my mom. And years go by quickly. And granted, you know, it's been a couple years, but my parents have had very dire health situations. My dad has since passed. But the important thing is that my dad loves Lehigh City. And They were begged by Saratoga Springs to annex into Saratoga Springs. And my dad and the Holbrooks were very close. And they could have easily gone with that plan. But my dad loved Lehigh. And he wanted, when they started this concept plan, he wanted to ensure that those ERUs could be transferred. And the reason it's important is because He wants to take care of his children. This is his opportunity to, as a landowner, this is how you make money. This is your retirement. This is your gift to your children. My dad's cash poor. He's land rich. And what does he have to give his children? He has land. And so it's important to him that those ERUs got moved. Because with this plan that we're showing you, we're not making money on this, guys. This is not a money-making plan at all. This will not help his children. All this is is his desire to give the city this beautiful legacy of equestrian, large lots. It's not a moneymaker. It's just not. So in order for his family to benefit from his land, we did go in. I was with my mom at the time. My dad, he suffered from Alzheimer's. It was agreed upon in that meeting, and it wasn't written. I was just being introduced to all of this. All of this is new to us. We're just farmers. And honestly, it makes sense what you're asking, right? Well, you were willing to give up the ERUs. Well, yes, it's a very emotional thing. Property is very emotional in our family. And... My dad wanted to take care of his family. And he worked his whole life for this. And this benefits the city. It's going to benefit the city in the commercial aspect. It's going to benefit the city in building these beautiful homes rather than having industrial there, which is the other option, because that's what it's zoned for. It is what it's zoned for. And this is a better plan for the city and for his children. Does that answer your question?

It does. Mayor, I have a question for the Hardmans, if that's okay.

Sure. Hey, you have this.

Either one. We've recently been presented with some transportation options with... bringing a road to the north side of Camp Williams or onto 4200 West. And to give context, I live in Holbrook Farms. So I'm there every day. I just wanted to know, does those transportation options that have been on the table, do they change or impact your desire to move these units at all? Have you been made aware of that? Does this have impact on what you're asking today?

Like you said, the road does have options. So I think there are options that can be selected to preserve areas as well. If an area like this is created, there are options to take the roads to different places, which make more sense anyway. to help preserve that area and keep that area as it is. So with the road.

Yeah, it's important to know that if they do that, it creates eminent domain because we're not willing to sell our property. And eminent domain is against the actual code of the, what are they called, all the mayors meet together and that, what's that group of people that make a decision? Yes, it's one of their codes that they will not support eminent domain and we won't sell our property. My parents have undergone nine eminent domain situations. Their property has been taken from them nine times. This is my mom and dad's dying wish. So our wish is to still create that as well. And we will talk with Camp Williams about changing their position. And they're our neighbor, and we're very close.

Okay. Yeah, I just want to make sure that all, it's so important to me that you guys know about what's recently been presented and that you're actively engaged in the discussions.

And I just want you a part of the conversation. I guess if you're ready for eminent domain, that's what it would be.

Just to clarify, though, this is a little premature. We're studying something, and don't, panic about eminent domain. I'm sorry that fear has been put in your heart.

Well, it's a question, and it's on the table, and so it's important.

It's something we're looking at, but don't.

I hope this is built before that road is approved anywhere.

Probably will. Honestly, probably will.

So let's bring it back to the item at hand of 5.4 and focus on the item that we're working on.

Mayor, if I may, I have a question and a comment for the applicants. So for the southern portion, you have that parcel immediately west of Willow Point. If this gets approved, what do you plan to put there? If it does not get approved, what's the plan? I'm just curious, because I think this is probably the biggest consideration for this.

Thank you for the question. We have submitted a site plan that is conceptual, obviously. It consists of single-family homes, townhomes, and we've reduced the density from what we presented to Planning Commission from 168 units to 138 units. partly to accommodate the respect of Willow and their parking requirements. We've reduced the density of almost five units of the acre to be able to accommodate that. So a portion of those ERUs would be moved to the eastern, sorry, the western portion, the commercial parcel along Redwood Road, which is going to have a hotel use, which will create the need for more ERUs. But ours is residential, no condominiums, but townhomes, single family is what we're proposing.

And if it's not approved, what would be the plan for that?

The question was asked yesterday what the use would be. Mr. Plum has a user that would go in there.

So on the north end of the property, along 2100 North, there's there's an LDS church there and then we built our company built two industrial buildings right there at the time we came we asked for a reason we didn't think it was a good use but that was what we were zoned and so that's that's the zone that we're in we can't do retail because we don't have another access to 2100 north So it becomes a circular retail center, like with a dead end. I've never seen one like that. And so, yeah, we're really, we're left with the option of bringing before you a building that is similar to, we just do one that's along 2100 North. It's called Lewis Landing, is what the project's called.

So you're talking about the eastern portion. Yeah. You don't think that would be viable for retail? No.

Yeah, because of the canal, and we don't have another access on to 2100 North from there.

I guess a question for staff. Maybe this is more for Brad, but are there any, I guess, city restrictions on planning to keep retail from there based on the canal? And I guess they only have the single access from Hardman, right? Is there any city codes or anything that would prohibit that?

No, no. We would allow anything that's allowed in the heavy commercial. That's what it's currently zoned. So it's probably just more user preference and what accesses are available.

And it's up to heavy commercial, right?

Yes. So heavy commercial still allows all of the uses in the regular commercial zone. It still allows hotels, retail, office. But it just expands it to allow the office warehouse.

On the west property above the canal, we would do a hotel site with 31 of the additional units. And then we also have another tenant that's looking there that's close, that's of the lines of the use of Smith's. So just on a smaller scale.

Okay. And so the hotel plan would be if it's approved. If it's not approved, it would be more.

Yeah, we would not have the ER use.

we would do a hundred unit hotel okay and then to my it's my comment I guess Kim can you help me share the screen oh yeah if you wouldn't mind so yeah I've been digging into this quite a bit and just some of the history so for the record I love the hotel idea right I think you know this council we really like you know retail and commercial in Lehigh and I think You guys know the history very well for Holbrook as well as your developments and all the changes over time over the last decade or so. So this is the first map, the old map, right, Kim? So just one thing that... that I've been thinking about, and this was also a big issue even in the election last year, it's that red, the solid red zoning, if you look at that middle strip in the south, that's where Smith's, actually Smith's is over, yeah, so that's Willow Point, basically, right? So that was the first one, that was pure commercial. And... in 2019 i believe kim it was changed to this commercial high density right so instead of commercial for the city there was 400 around 420 units that will appoint and the commercial use was that whole all warehouses just like lewis landing we actually paid for design

submitted, got approval for, that whole corridor from, what is that, 3600 all the way up was in industrial warehouse buildings, similar to Lewis Landing.

That was the use. Yeah, and so, I mean, we're very fortunate now. We have the Maverick and the Smiths and some of that retail coming in on the far eastern edge of that. But for me, again, I love the hotel. I would be very supportive... of moving whatever ERUs you need for a hotel and any other sort of retail-like development there. Just because, you know, I listened to the planning commission meeting and the gentleman from Willow Point. I mean, they're crammed in there. The parking's an issue. And they just got their first grocery store that's anywhere close in the Lehigh boundaries. So I think there's some pros and cons. For me, whatever ERUs you'd need to develop commercial in a hotel and commercial that I understand the warehouse idea. I think that's, in my opinion, it's probably better than more density for residential. But I would love to see additional retail, however that would look, however that would work. that would be my preference. And I know that's not in this current proposal, but I would be very inclined to support that.

Yeah, I mean, we tried 12 years to do retail there. There's no access to 2100 North. A cul-de-sac retail center, I mean, I wish we could do it. It's just the market's not there for it.

Sorry to interrupt. I believe I heard in the planning commission meeting that you could cap that canal. So there is potential that you could.

$3.7 million is the bid that I got back to do that. It would be cost prohibitive for retail and or certainly residential. that will be with federal grant money, which I think there's projects that are significantly further ahead than that. And then you have a 10% slope, which is greater than a city road would even allow. So the mass grading that would take place on the eastern portion would detract from probably 30% to 40% of the aggregate land. It really is a landlocked parcel. that has a use or two but as far as retail and as far as usable land it it doesn't park it doesn't it doesn't sit well without mass grading and it is not ideal for any retail application the application that walter is talking about is tilt up i don't think there's a tax component and there certainly is an aesthetic component that that would land on that Also, to be noted, the ERUs are there sufficient to do what Walter would do in lieu of residential. So there would not be a need of transfer for that parcel.

For the eastern?

For the eastern portion, yeah.

Because I think that the eastern parcel is at, I think, third acre, right, as it is?

There's three ERUs per acre that we've tried to reserve.

There's about 37 ERUs sitting on the property. Okay.

Yeah, I was going to say, again, I can't speak for everybody else, but whatever ERUs you'd need for the hotel, I think that would be worthwhile. It's just that eastern portion, just making it Less dense, which it sounds like you guys have already decided to make it less dense than originally proposed, and help solve some of the traffic issues for the neighbors. Just because I know we have 420 units there that weren't planned originally, and so adding over 100 more, it's somewhat painful in my opinion.

so i bottom line the hotel i'm a solid yes on it's just that eastern portion that i think we need to work on it and i i mean you you're given we look at the development agreement and the amendments and each time it says no more than this you can't transfer and then you amend it and you can transfer so you've used up the original erus down here for a residential and then you got more and then you I'm saying you. I don't know who did it.

The property, sorry. To be fair.

In areas that I think might have been better for commercial, but then there's residential there. So I appreciate what the Harmons are doing for sure. Like I said, it's a beautiful plan up north, but past councils have given up prime commercial locations here zoned for commercial for more residential we're running out of that commercial space so i'm really hesitant to give it up again for more high density and especially in a place that's hurting because of the impact of high density there so and i guess you've worked something out with parking i'd like to know about it more but I guess my position at this point is right now the amendment is just letting you transfer more down. And maybe there'll be a hotel there, maybe not. I'm not hung up on hotels. I'm fine actually with the warehouses. So I think if we, I would not, I would not vote on this as is. I would like to see more detail. Again, I would like to see a benefit to the city, not just to love the Harmans, but not just protecting one area and putting that pressure somewhere else. To me, that just doesn't seem fair. But if you can work something out, And then bring it back to the council and then we can look at that.

Could you be more specific? Yeah. Are you thinking of just building the 200 units on the north parcel is a better use and then do warehouse space here?

You know what? That's been the plan. And you've pulled density down again and again and eaten up our commercial area. And right now we're in the point in the city where we need to protect that for the future. We need that self-tax revenue. So it's kind of a hard pill to swallow to just move it down. If you're bringing something, if you bring, like I said, so we had another, it was a development agreement, kind of similar. They wanted high-density housing or whatever, and then they wanted a hotel. We put that in a development agreement where They committed to providing those things. So I'm not comfortable at this point just voting. I wouldn't vote on this, where you're just carte blanche, able to move density or move the ERUs. And then I don't know what you'll do with it. I like things.

Yeah, unfortunately, to actually move forward with the next phase, any proposal, we have to move the units over.

But you can come with a concept plan. And we can put things in a development agreement.

We'd be happy to do that. I mean, in 12 years, we've had one amendment to the agreement. So it's not like we've been back 1,000 times. I mean, we've worked. for 12 years I mean one amendment on a project this big where you know we spent over like 40 million dollars on infrastructure is

But you got, I guess in the last one, you got to move 100 ERUs. That was the one. That took up our commercial space. And what did the city get from that?

The city didn't want the industrial buildings along 2100 North. That's why they rezoned it. I'm fine with it.

I just would like more than just you can move the units.

It would be awesome to go visit the property with you, to stand up, stand out on the acres, and just to see the limitations with no additional access to 2100 North and the grades and everything. And, I mean, if you have better ideas, I mean, I don't own this property. I have no financial tie to it at all. I'm literally here tonight trying to say this is the best use for this property to finish it for the Hardmans. I don't own it. I don't have any financial ties to it. I don't make any money from it. I don't have any commissions. I'm just the end guy in a line that's been here for 12 years just saying, hey, look, this is a great solution for a property that's really awkward that allows the rest of the property to develop out into commercial. um so which it could anyway i mean it it's a it's a whole different plan if say we come back you put an industrial building there i'm not sure like like the other grocer we have is going to want to go there i mean i wouldn't want to go next to an industrial building if i was them so warehouse which we have down there anyway that won't bring the traffic to the neighborhood so it's i'm again i'm fine with

Developing that. That's what the rights are. That's what it was zoned. And again, it's how long have you had it? 2015 or whenever it originated. But again, you knew. You agreed at one point that this was the plan, and then let's change it, and let's change it. One time.

One change.

The original, and then a change, and then change again. This is the second change that you're asking for.

Yeah, this is the second change.

You knew it was there. You used up your residential ERUs in different places, and now you want it again. So please understand the city's perspective. I'm looking out for our residents and our taxpayers, the neighbors that live there, and the impact that will be on them. So just giving you an agreement where you get to move more ERUs, to me, without guarantees that you would, put in a hotel or any other hotel, I kind of .

The neighbors that are adjacent to it, I have knocked doors. They will be here if we propose a 36-foot tilt-up building. That is not their ideology of what they want in their backyard as a residential user. So our adjacent property owners that own townhomes currently would be here advocating for and on behalf of residential use.

For more high density?

for anything other than a concrete wall behind their house, probably, yes. And I think with what we've talked about today and the lowering of density and working towards additional parking for and in the Willow project, Yeah, I think that's terrifying to a neighborhood.

I've got a lot of emails that don't want high-density So I don't know you you live in Holbrook farms.

How has the industrial the property when you said great to walk the property? I actually called councilmember Harrison while I was walking the trail next to the canal I Do have some questions though. So speaking on that I if from what i understand along the canal you're going to put some um how your proposal is to put some housing there drive under product it looks i'm really concerned from like a safety perspective i hear that you said it's cost prohibitive to cover the canal uh excuse me but are there safety measures we can take to make sure that kids aren't falling into that canal it seems really like you pointed out the 10 grade is significant If you're not going to cover the canal, do you have plans to somehow develop it in a way where we're not falling into it?

You'd fall up into it. Yeah. Like you would actually have to.

Or where I was at on the trail, I could have fallen into it.

Yes. We would propose to fence the community in, not out of the canal. And so there would be a perimeter fence that we have done in other communities, which would be a six foot.

If you don't get the transfers of ERUs, this parcel is entitled to commercial or residential. How many residential units could you build on this parcel with the ERUs you have today?

37.

It wouldn't go residential.

Right, okay.

Unless we took units from the parcel to the west.

Which would compromise the hotel.

And we don't need permission to do that. Right.

But it would compromise the hotel because you need those ERUs for the hotel.

Yeah. We don't have the units to do the hotel.

But you have rights to the residential there?

No, not on the hotel.

Excuse me, the east parcel is what I'm speaking of?

Yes. And those units could be transferred. The west could be transferred to the east.

So homes could go there either way? Yeah. When we spoke yesterday, I felt like I was respectfully firm on my... how unsatisfied I was with the parking situation created by the development. If you've had conversations since ours, can you enlighten me on some of the solutions that you may have developed since then?

Sure. When we met, we had already had an appointment, but I didn't want you to think that I was just doing that because we met. So I didn't tell you that. We had scheduled this a week ago. I had my civil engineers look at all park strips, all areas that we could essentially look at as creating additional parking. We talked about enforcement with parking permits. We talked about me and The Willow project collaborating in a consolidation of amenities and a consolidation of additional parking internally where we could provide parking that would be an overflow and it wouldn't be Hardman. The total space that we've come up with is probably an additional 80 or 90 stalls between the two projects. Above and beyond what our requirement would be so we had it we had adequate parking for 160 I can't remember it was two or 168 units of Planning Commission we had adequate parking for that we would We would propose doing that same amount of parking and then doing additional and we are putting the cart way above the horse or way in front of the horse right now because we haven't even presented a concept plan to you and But that's essentially what we talked about today, is trying to figure out the Willow project in any area that we could work at with staff to create some parking. We talked about the potential of a stop sign, the potential of a chicane in order to slow traffic and create some parking where parking is red-curved right now, looking for traffic solutions with the engineering department. And I think between the collaboration of enforcement and the collaboration of additional ground and a consolidation of projects, I think there is the ability to create an additional 70 parking stalls.

OK. 70 or 90?

seventy two ninety but i don't know i don't want to be we talked about it you were blunt yesterday i don't know how many people are going to have their food storage in their garage and not be able to park my single family the stairs we went back and we reviewed today i will not have stairs other than three stairs which is essentially code to get from the slab in the garage to the home so our garages will be sized appropriately to be able to fit two vehicles trash um and we're we are more concentrated on grade right now and making sure that we're stepping buildings in order to not have the overflow problem that we're having the other problem that at the willow that we created was aprons instead of driveways all of these would conform with today's code and ordinance which has a full driveway so every single family residence we we would think don't have visitor parking needs other than in front of their home And then the townhomes, we are creating four parking stalls, two covered, two drivable.

And I just want to hear you say it one more time. The stairs from the garage into the home will be sized appropriately so two cars can fit into these garages.

Yes.

I don't know if I can stomach the full transfer, but that area, in conversations I've had with the HOA president and along with others involved, that area is in desperate need of parking solutions. And so I'm listening. I'm listening for how this could be an opportunity to begin with the end in mind. and solve multiple areas problems. And I think it's great that you've been involved in those problems to be a part of the solution for them as well. But I'm not fully sold on the 130 that we had talked about. To make that possible, what is the minimum amount that you would need?

I have a contract currently that doesn't allow me to go below that financially. So that would be a retrade and a renegotiation. I think at some point there is a let's just build them on the north or let's just do commercial and not transfer any areas. So I think we're walking a tightrope of commercial application would not lend to solving the problems that exist today. If Hardman is the outflow of parking, and that is red-curved, which was proposed when I built the community, I think they're wallowing more in that problem. So I appreciate your perspective on does this solve that item without creating more parking that was your concern yesterday i i am committed to studying that with staff and to to what we talked about yesterday enforcement at a higher level than what has been done at the willows through permit parking yeah and and like we had spoken about yesterday um an opportunity to have a shared parking agreement with the neighbors we'd have cross easements on amenities trails roads etc we would become one community

Okay, that would be the intent, to become one community? Uh-huh. Okay. Thank you for your thoughts.

Can I ask? Go ahead. So what I'm hearing is, let me see if I'm getting it right. So you would like to build a hotel, but won't build the hotel unless you have the density for the housing. Is that what I hear? It's a contract, it's a thing, it's... Well, it would just be really...

Frankly, like the hotel and, you know, we're working with another grocer, smaller scale than Smith's. They don't like the use of the tilt-up buildings. That's just, it's not a use that they like. And so, yeah, I don't know where that would go.

So you would, the grocer would come if there was a hotel? Is that what I understand?

Well, they like residents. They like as many people that will go visit them as possible. It's a lot easier jump to go from residential to some retail, a hotel, and possibly a smaller grocer. It's going to be a lot more difficult for us to go from the residential to tilt-up building to It'll just bring different uses.

And by tilt-up, you mean kind of the warehouse type?

Just exactly what we did on Lewis Landing. The same thing. The big trucks and things don't, you know, it's just not super compatible. Yeah, I like feathering of development there and having kind of a... One thing that I just want to mention is the Hartmans can't just wait any longer for the retail to come. I mean, The property is not in Greenbelt. It's super expensive to just hold this property. And so, yeah, if it doesn't work, you don't want to do the ER use. Again, I don't own the property. I'm just giving you my opinion and trying to tell you, share with you what we have in store for that other piece. And you still have the piece across Redwood Road. you know, that's 14 acres that will be all commercial as well. All that will be, you know, be developed for commercial as well.

Yeah. No, I love this concept plan for the northern property. I talked to Lisa Hardman today and I really appreciate her perspective and how she looks at how, where the ERUs are best used. And so I really appreciate that. I would welcome blocking the property in the south. I would love to do that to better understand it. I don't, you know, transferring the ERUs to me is, it's part of a bigger picture and I would like to have a little bit more clarity on that in writing if that's a possibility. I'm going to say that I'm new because I'm new as of January and so I don't know, you know, staff can advise on do we just typically just transfer the ERUs, or do we have this as part of a whole development agreement that we put together? Because if this is part of the development agreement, I mean, to me, I don't know if I see the whole picture yet. And I feel like writing, just having things kind of spelled out, like we've talked about the hotel. We've talked about the parking solutions, and I love those ideas. But this presents some great opportunities. So how can we make sure that those great ideas are down on paper sort of thing? That's what I'm not sure. I don't know the process as much.

Could you put it in the development agreement? The addendum. The addendum or whatever?

Yeah, I don't know, Ryan, if you want to jump in, but I would think where this is a development agreement, we're amending it. If there's provisions you want to see in it, you could table it tonight and tell us what you want.

The amendment doesn't have to be limited to just the transfer of ERUs. Once you're amending, when you open it up for an amendment, you can put whatever language in the parties agree to.

Okay, so it could include, so if we amend this development agreement, it could include more than just the transfer of the ERUs. It could be more specific and... the commercial space or, you know, where the ERUs are?

We could actually dedicate how many are going to the eastern portion, how many are going to the western portion. And then you would be able to cap what the density uses are on the residential, and then the balance would be on the west side for commercial use.

Okay. And I am with all the council members who have spoken here, especially with Council Member Harrison. He said, like, I would love to see the more commercial retail because that has been something that we've seen. It's continually kind of turned over to residential historically, and we are kind of lacking in Lehigh. And Saratoga is loving it on that side, right?

You say that, but you are the envy of the state as far as how much commercial you have on it.

It's true, but the west side, right, where do they go to shop?

And just to add to that, to Rachel's point, is in that area there's like the little swim bear place, right? I mean, there's, you know, not putting in a dominoes, I get that, right? It's kind of an awkward piece of land, but there may be other uses that are kind of similar to that area.

We did bring Smiths. We brought Maverick, the car wash. We have Les Schwab coming across the street. We did MacHugh and 7-Eleven and now Primary Children's, another expansion. I mean, we're trying. We're really trying. It's been 12 years. We've invested a ton of money. The Hardmans have been the most amazing partners. He literally walked in to the mayor and said, You know, Gerald Anderson is, Anderson Development has 4,500 units. And Paul Hardman and the mayor, everybody, Kim was there. I mean, you were there, Ryan. Paul Hardman. 133 units and to me it it's really hard to not think that he should get all those units you know and i i get the whole thing on i mean besides i mean they're protecting ground by the where the pioneers crossed like who can't get behind that you know the river comes down there it's gorgeous property um and we can finish out the retail on up up there on redwood road With right now, we just have too much. And I mean, we've been trying. But our last option is to do like what we did at Lewis Landing, which we don't want to do. So again, I'm through with my part on these parcels for the current thing. And yeah, that's it.

It's kind of the history. Yeah, you speak of the hard ones, and I have great respect for them. And just speaking to Lisa today, I could tell there's a lot of altruistic feelings there and just some great, you know, humanitarians going on. So that's not, like, that's not a question at all. It's just about what is, how can we, these amazing and great ideas and opportunities for the South, how can we solidify these and possibly put these in a development agreement so that we're, you know, it's just a little bit more secure, I guess, for

could totally get behind you know solidifying those things that's that i mean for me if we could get guidance on what we're solidifying yeah rather than us drafting and spending lots of times and then presenting something that we think we came away from the meeting with i think bullet points would be imperative but if it's a we only want tilt up We don't want anything else, then it's probably not worth the Hartman's time. I think it's very clear that the waiting period has expired on writing tax checks, and a solution has to be solidified quickly. That's why we're here, and I think if we're willing to go down that road and get guidance from council, we would be pleased to do that, and then it's much easier to work off of that document for the rest of the development agreement period and then expire it and bury it.

Well, that's what I support. If you watch this council, we want to hold people to what they propose. Yeah. So that's the direction I wanted to go. I didn't want to vote just on a density or ERU transfer.

Because we really are doing two things. We're preserving the property on the north, to your point, and then planning commissioners had indicated this probably is a space for high density, higher density, because of the traffic. And you are putting that, rather than burdening more of our local roads, we are putting that right on at 2100, which is a UDOT road that is an expandable road that is going to take people east and west and move them to jobs.

So I spent 15 years living in this area. I have a lot of friends in the area that have had a really hard time seeing the commercial along 2100 go away. One of the first items I heard on Planning Commission several years ago was changing commercial on there to heavy commercial. And I was one who voted against it. And it's been hard to see our commercial along there being picked away at. The ERU caps that were determined, they weren't arbitrary. There were studies that were done. We don't have studies to show this. I had a really hard time taking from one area And lessening the impact of one area and putting it into an area that's already heavily impacted. I don't like increasing density in an area with the idea of we're going to fix what's broken there. It should have never been overloaded. There shouldn't have been the traffic and the parking issues and everything. We shouldn't have to bring in density so that these residents can be alleviated from what is caused there. My kids also went to North Point. And it is just flooded there now with kids and the amount of residents that are in that area. And it's tough to see how much development's been put in there. So I don't know about, because we don't have studies to show that this could actually happen. Help or you know if the extra things could help there. I don't know if that's gonna be okay, but I I'm worried about losing more commercial I'm with Councilmember Harrison that I would totally work out the what would need to be done for the hotel exciting that I see that as a great benefit to the area with primary children's I heard there's another hotel that's going in it would make sense to have a pair and So I think there's conversations that could be had, but I'm really concerned about adding more residential in one area to benefit another area. When there was already the ERUs that were put in for a specific reason, there's already studies to show that's where those should go. And we've already done several chipping away at what was important to people in that area with the commercial. And so that, I mean, that's something I think all of us have heard from residents in that area is the struggle. I don't think the residents in that area are going to be happy to hear having the density increased. I mean, that's what we hear all the time is that you can't park, you can't, the traffic's really bad. So I think that would be a really hard sell.

Any other questions? Okay, with that, no questions as you will think about a motion as you put a motion together, but I am ready to accept when you're ready.

I don't know where the rest of the council is at on this, because I think we're open to continued conversation. But feeling uncomfortable about just transferring 124 units. So I don't know what the best approach would be at this point.

Would it make sense to... table and discuss with the applicant on maybe some of the more specifics around exact units, east or west side of the canal. I mean, is that useful? I know you said you wanted bullet points. Would you want bullet points kind of after the fact if we table it and meet with you and kind of come to some general consensus?

If we could have a work session, I think that would be profoundly impactful to just and then the bullet points can be derived from that discussion. And I think it would be an open dialogue to be able to say, I don't like this, or I do like this, and what are the thresholds? And I think we could do that in probably one hour, fairly easy, if we came with open minds. And I think part of the conversation that was brought up earlier, is there will be a discussion in the future about road alignment. And I think it's a tough conversation to have if we don't have the hard ones on board with what we're doing. So I would suggest that we include them in the work session in what we're doing, because ultimately this is their land.

Sorry, did you say the road alignment?

Future road alignment on the north.

I don't think we're ready for that. I don't...

I think that I'm just questioning what's happening on the south. I mean, who knows? That's decades. I agree.

But if they have 74 units on the north as opposed to 200 units and there's going to be a road alignment, it's much more difficult to give up ground and then jam 200 units into there. So I think we could talk about the discussion. I think they are part of the development agreement and we can address it. I don't think we're sacrificing one area for the other. I think that it is a discussion that I know Brad talked about yesterday in our meeting that it is being discussed. There are dollars that are going to be asked for and solutions to be made.

So the dollars are for a study. And if you want to wait until we decide on a road, that's going to be a long time. And like you said, you're paying a tax bill right now. Okay.

If we don't want to dilute it with that, that's fine.

Okay.

I don't have an agenda.

I'm just saying you might have to wait a while if you want to discuss the road.

I'm not saying we want to discuss the road. I'm saying that this will probably – the decision in which we make will directly affect and impact their ground in the future. I would like to include them in the discussion before we make

the Hardman's yes oh absolutely okay in the work session so so would it so we don't have a work session in September currently planned but we could do a pre-council type of work session possibly where we could do ones and twos with the council members so you can kind of consolidate the information but I would I'd be happy to put a motion out to table

Yeah, and I think we have a track record of doing the ones and twos and creating a lot of confusion for an applicant. So maybe we should do a pre-counsel or work session so that they don't go through six months of that.

I'd prefer it in a work session. Then we can have a discussion with the full council, and there's value in that.

And just timing, because I know, like, the sooner the better, right? Especially for you guys.

Yeah, I do this for a living, so I will make myself available when you guys have time.

The timing, the commercial on the west that butts up to Redwood Road, it's, I mean, yeah, we have... We have serious interest with the uses that I've, we would need to meet soon to be able to, for them to not go other places. Okay.

So I think timing-wise would, Mayor, maybe this is you, but I'm just kind of throwing it out there. Like, should we do it before the next council meeting the same day?

So, yeah, your next available would be September 8th.

on scheduling based on the other items that we have coming up. We make sure that it gets done before

Right, so Labor Day is on a Monday, so it would be the following Tuesday, which I believe is the 8th maybe, is that right? Yes. So that's the next time we would meet is September 8th, so that's three weeks away. But there's, we could look at that. But there would be some time affected to that, so there's, and we'll give you some time to obviously work through that, but I think we could probably get it on that schedule. Yeah.

Okay. Can I ask you, what do you think that you're hearing from the council? What is the consensus that you think that you're hearing from us? For some clarity. So I know you think that you...

I think it's the battle of the need for commercial to support the tax base, which we 100% understand. We had the conversation yesterday as to I get bludgeoned on the residential side when we know there's a housing shortage because of the job creation that we have had the good fortune on this end of the county. And I think if there's a workaround with some density that is appropriate and if there's some adjustment that can be made and some commercial, then there can be a win as long as that, what I think I'm hearing from the council members here, which I think you guys would acquiesce to, which is the western portion of the commercial piece better be pretty special.

Well, and just maybe just commercial and not... Well, that's what I'm saying.

But I'm saying if we really did have a hotel that was nice and we really did have retailers that were producing and that was a high-impact use of acreage, that might be better than tilt-up and some commercial that is less attractive.

I think the benefit has to be there for council, like the hotel, the commercial, the retail, to be able to move that. Otherwise, I think we're having a hard time seeing the benefit. You know, like... We just denied one lot. We just denied one third acre lot. So there's got to be a strong... We're not increasing the density of the city, though.

I just... It's not very often that I'm not asking for density.

It's increasing the density and the impact of that area, which is what the concern was, is that because we're bringing in a third-acre lot, that it's going to cause traffic issues in this same relative area. So there has to be a pretty big selling point. It's not going to be heavy commercial light warehouses and stuff like that. It's going to be what's going to benefit this area to justify having the additional residents.

Is that what you wanted us to hear?

I mean, that's what I was kind of thinking I'm hearing. I just didn't know if you were hearing that. And you think of there's going to be a freeway there, and do you want to have more homes along that, or is it better to have a transition area where there's commercial that's kind of protecting that?

Obviously, on the commercial portion, if we are able to introduce additional units and headcount and customers, we get Christmas cards from Smith's, Maverick, we get christmas cards from retailers that have rooftops that is the language of retail and it's purely based on how many rooftops there are to support them investing in the city i think that's something that we can understand that's something we can explain to residents too yeah it's a lot easier to yeah and we package it all up and we meet maybe if we look at this from smith's all the way to redwood road in the totality of what we're doing can we write that into a development agreement that allows us to execute i think we

parking I think I made myself very clear over two meetings now I would just add to prepare for that whenever the work session probably on the 8th if you can provide us with any information you've talked about parking solutions or whatever we can prepare for that meeting and that might save us some time and

Yeah, and I can send you some commercial layouts and plans that we've been working on.

And even the number of ERUs you would estimate for the hotel? 31. 31. Oh, that's right.

For a 100-unit hotel, Kim, we'll have to double-check that, because it's now based on fixtures instead of...

In my 30 years of doing this, I've never done this process. We run everything through staff, and then they disperse information. We're not emailing directly anything to council members.

either way I got a head start from okay yeah I would prefer the through staff and then Kim if you'll pass those along that'd be great guy you won't be our point of contact thank you Kim happy to give a motion I'm happy to take one all right sir mayor I move that we table resolution 2026 dash 46 approving an amendment to the Gardner-Plum development agreement requesting to transfer 124 equivalent residential units from the northern portion of the development agreement to the southern with the intent of adding more specifics to this development agreement.

So I have a first from Councilmember Harrison. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Councilmember Newell. Any questions? Any questions on that? No. Great, we'll start with you, Council Member Lockhart.

Yes.

Council Member Newell.

Yes.

Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Yes.

Council Member Freeman.

Yes.

Great. Item 5.5, consideration of resolution 2026-45, appointing two members to serve on the Utah County Justice Court Nominating Commission for the Lehigh City Justice Court vacancy. Jason, oh, Cam, you've got this one. Hi, Cameron.

Hey, how are you?

I'm ready.

So to hire a judge, we need to have a committee by state code. to vet the applicants for that process. So as part of that, we need two representatives from Lehigh City and the council to approve a resolution to appoint those two people. So that's what's before you tonight is we would recommend Ryan Wood and Jody Neer, who the resolution, she's actually the court administrator, to be on that committee.

Any questions on this resolution?

I guess just the timeline. How long do we expect? Because I think we're aiming for like an October

Yeah, so it is a lengthy process to hire a judge. It could take four to five months. Judge Cummings has announced his resignation, I believe it's October 8th. But we can hire kind of substitute judges in the interim until we get a judge in place. And we would work with the Justice Court and with the AOC to be able to find qualified judges that would do that for us.

Well, thank you to Judge Cummings and Jody for your patience with us tonight. I don't have any questions.

There's no questions. I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-45, appointing two members to serve on the Utah County Justice Court Nominating Commission for the Lehigh City Justice Court vacancy.

I have a first from Councilmember Newell. Do I have a second?

May I second that? The judge has stood to get your attention, I think.

Judge, would you like to comment? I have a motion, just so you know.

I'm sorry. I know we're the last one, so I'm keeping you here. No, we're keeping you. I appreciate just a couple of minutes. As far as the direct question, I can't imagine anybody better than Jody and Ryan to represent the city in this process. I think they do a fantastic job. I have one fear for the city, and I preface this by saying I don't want to create Any delay, as Cameron mentioned, it's a lengthy enough process anyway, and any kind of delay will put a unique burden on court staff to try to find substitute judges that are increasingly difficult to find. Everyone's caseload is increasing, and it's going to be tough enough as is. My concern is, as you know, one of the members of this council has asked city administration to study what it would look like if Lehigh City didn't have a court anymore. My fear for the city is that if that issue is pending, as soon as this resolution goes through, the administrative office of the courts is going to move forward to post the vacancy and start accepting applicants. My fear is that... having the existence of the court in flux right now will diminish the quality and the number of applicants the city will receive. And so I don't want to put the council between a rock and a hard place, because on one hand, any delay is terrible for the city. On the other hand, I really think it's a detriment in the type of candidates you will see apply for a job that may not exist in the future. That would be my only comment. And happy to answer questions, but it's more of just a comment of just so you guys know.

So to Morgan's point, this resolution is the start of that process. However, I have been in contact with Jim Peters, who leads the AOC through this process. And he informed me that it would be wise to get the resolution passed so that when we did make a decision, they would move forward posting not that they would necessarily post automatically because we've passed this resolution. But that, to Morgan's point, is a concern to consider. whether we approve this tonight or in a future meeting. But I think that they would work with us to pause on publishing this posting until we said that we were ready to move forward with that process. However, we cannot move forward without a resolution, correct? Correct.

Mr. Mayor, I've been in every meeting. I've never missed a vote. Did I miss a vote where we asked staff to study the Justice Court?

I don't think there was a vote. There was just questions that were

I know that I asked questions when we talked about the downtown area plan about why we have a justice court so that if we were to build a multimillion dollar building, I could go to the residents and explain why. And I think I clarified multiple times in that meeting that I was in no way, shape, or form advocating to stop the justice court. So I guess I'm confused how it's been translated to the staff and to our judge that any member of this council has advocated for that because I'm unaware of that ask of staff.

Yeah, so to be clear, what I understood was that we were just doing a cost benefit analysis of the court. I did not hear that in the meeting, but that was my understanding as well. So not that any member of the council had advocated that we needed to move that way, but that we were doing a cost benefit analysis.

But if I may, Mayor, it's just good practice. I mean, to look at these, I mean, we looked at every other department or programs, things like that. So I don't think it hurts to ask the question.

But I want to be very clear that I did not ask that question in that context and in that way.

I can wear that. Because I would recommend that we look at this to the council anyway, so I can wear that.

Yeah, and to be clear, it was not represented that you had advocated for that.

I did ask some questions about the building, which is where I think the confusion is coming. So that's why I'd like to clarify.

So I have a question, Cameron. Is that... At that point, when it was brought up, do we need a municipal court? Is that what started this discussion or research into?

If I can be clear, with a judge retiring, we can't just drop a court like we stepped away from the museum. It's not that simple. There's a process that goes along with that. I think it's a healthy question to ask, is this a good thing for Lehigh or not? And I've come to no conclusion. I don't think the staff has come to any conclusion. I know the court has their opinion, which I value. But I think it's a healthy thing to ask the question.

And I actually agree with that. But I'm just wondering when this process started. Because at that meeting, that was the first time I had heard it brought up. I didn't even know it was possible that we can dissolve our municipal court. So I'm just wondering when did you research?

I couldn't tell you when it started, to be honest. I don't know.

I would say again to that, at this point in time, there's no information that any of that's even drawn up. So the information is being gathered so at council you have a choice to make. Staff's doing due diligence on the backside so you have options. So you didn't know it's dissolvable, but you will. We're, and I will wear that also, Jason, we are doing due diligence to make sure in the right steps that's why Cameron's already met with the state court departments in moving forward so we do this in the right way and in the right steps in the right timing that's why tonight again tonight this isn't a discussion of is the court dissolving tonight the discussion is the next step in the court is to file a resolution so we can have two people to move forward in the process of hiring a judge so in that process we have not gotten rid of the court The process is we need a resolution so that we can have a commission to hire another judge. That's where we are as of tonight. And that's why this is a resolution as of tonight.

Maybe some clarity on that, too. When I met with Jim Peters with the AOC, he said that cities in these positions have three options. One is to have an interlocal agreement with another city to take your justice court cases. One is to dissolve the court, and then the Utah County would take those cases and the third is to hire a judge so when I met with him those three options and given the information from the meeting to ask us to evaluate the cost-benefit at the court that's kind of I think what started the process of evaluating all of this well and I think it begs you know when we were talking about possibly building a new station 81

which would impact the court. And we need to find a new location for that. And even we talked about months ago about housing, trying to house the court in the city center. It's not city center, but city hall. And look at that. And then look at options. And if we're having to spend millions of dollars on potentially building a new core. It's good to, I guess, just to look at options. But, I mean, I don't count someone in Burger Locker asked a question. Like, what if we didn't? But I ask questions all the time. And I don't sound as polished as her sometimes, so it works out. And I don't... I guess we don't have enough information at this time, and that's what I'm hearing, is that there's not enough information at the time to make a decision, and so the trigger won't be pulled unless we have enough information, because that would, yeah, we don't want to hire someone and not have a court.

So again, that's why the resolution is why it is tonight, because without this, Judge Cummings is resigning October 8th. Period, end of story. So the next step in this resolution is we have to have an approved resolution from our council to hire two to put on a committee to move this progress forward. Nothing else has been decided. Are all options on the table? The answer is yeah. Are we looking at everything? Yes. But the next step in this process has to be we have to have two nominated to the commission to start the process.

Yeah, and I support this resolution. I really don't. I didn't even have any questions or hesitations about it. I didn't even need a discussion. I do think that when we ask questions as council people, even not in an open meeting, it sometimes triggers the domino effects or like, is that direction? No, that's a question. So it might have triggered a little panic.

I think some of this is coincidental because we have been talking about the Civic Center plan and the buildings and everything else, but I think Judge Cummings had a very good point. Combining it with this discussion, we want the best applicants possible, so I tend to completely understand that as well.

Sorry, I do have a question. The judge made a valid point, though. This will affect the recruitment or search, I guess. So if we pass this resolution, it's fine. I support who we're appointing to this committee. And you said whoever doesn't have to post it immediately. Are you expecting to hold onto it until we make a decision?

Yeah, I'm in regular contact with him, and he understands. kind of where we're at and so yeah until he gets direction from me is my understanding that they won't they won't post anything until until we tell them that that's the direction that we would like to okay and are you expecting the council to make a decision before that's posted or yeah uh i believe that we're planning on having a discussion on the eighth um about the justice court okay i i'll just throw this out that i've

gotten a lot of conflicting information. So I'd really like solid numbers. I've heard different things from different people.

So going back, we do have a motion to approve by Councilmember Newell. Do I have a second? I thought I seconded it. I will second it.

No, I want to second it.

Any questions to the motion? Great. We'll start with you, Councilmember Newell?

Yep.

Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Councilmember Stallings?

Yes.

Councilmember Freeman?

Yes.

Councilmember Lockhart?

Yes.

OK. I'm happy to take a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn. Second. Now you all want to second my motion.