City Council - Regular Meeting

I told you.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, it is 5.30. We're going to call this meeting to order. For those that don't know, I am acting Mayor Pro Tem this evening while Mayor Nelson is doing ambassadorship work across the seas in South Korea at our sister city in Kapyong. So it's a pleasure for me to be here tonight. We will have first an opening prayer by Chief Darren Adams, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance by City Manager Paul Bittman.

Our Father in heaven, we come before thee at this time with gratitude in our hearts as we participate in this process and so grateful for the freedoms we enjoy to be able to do so. We're grateful for this beautiful weather that was blessed us with, for the moisture that we've had and pray for more as we enter this season. We acknowledge those in attendance and those within our citizenry and express gratitude unto them for their willingness to participate and make their voices heard. We're thankful for our Mayor and our Council and our staff and pray for them as we debate, as we dialogue, as we collaborate. We pray for thy spirit to be with us this night to guide and direct our actions, our decisions, our choices. We give thanks for this beautiful city in which we live and the bounteous blessings we enjoy at thy hand. We acknowledge thy hand in all things and give thanks unto thee in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all thank you chief for that and city manager thank you very much chief you could have prayed for no wind you know it's but other than that thank you very much

So I need a...

I'll make a motion that we approve the agenda as outlined. No, we have some changes.

Mayor, I make a motion that we move consent item number seven down to action agenda.

Would you like it to be the first item on the action agenda, moving it down?

I'm fine with that, whatever you want to do.

Okay, is there a second to that motion? Second. Okay, all in favor of those changes on approving the agenda order? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Motion carries. All right. Thank you very much. Administration agenda. I just wanted to say again that I'm grateful to be here and working with my colleagues in this role tonight. Mayor Nelson is doing some good work for us on behalf of the city and thank you all for your steed. We've had many conversations over the week so thank you very much. Does council have anything that they need to bring up? Councilman Schmidt.

Okay. It's actually number 11 on the consent agenda, but Eric Wichke called me this afternoon. He has secured all the funds that he needs to do that project, so we're not looking for money.

He has everything he needs.

That's not exactly. Oh, boy. He just called me about 435.

Yeah, we need to do a budget adjustment, I thought. Is that true, Jonathan? Yeah, we'll have to adjust the budget to accommodate some of it.

But we're still okay to move forward. So what we just found out is part of that 80 that Eric was looking at, 44 of it was a payment. that was received on the 100 East project and it has to go back to that. So the 80 that Eric had is now down to 40,000. But I think you said that there was some in the capital improvement fund that we might get borrowed from.

We'll try to do a budget adjustment and either. I stand correct because he just called me about quarter five.

And Jonathan, I just realized this about an hour ago. So we just.

Okay. So either way, the timing on this project is a little bit. Different? Yes. If you all still want to go ahead and approve the project, just realize we'll have to amend the budget with our next budget revision coming up next month to free up some funds to pay for it. Okay.

Yeah, that's fine. I'm sorry. Go ahead, Councilman. So when you say timing, you're talking just about the budgetary?

Yeah, normally we budget it, then we do the project.

But the project...

That's how we normally would like to do stuff.

What's wrong with starting with the cart before the horse? Hey, it's a new administration tonight. There you go.

Our new mayor is doing things differently. You get a parking lot.

You get a parking lot.

It has to have trees on it. I think what, if I understand correctly, we're able to approve and move ahead on it. We'll just have to do a budget adjustment as we go into the next month.

That's fine. I'm fine.

Okay. Any other council business for anyone?

No.

Okay, then we will move on to the consent agenda.

Mayor Pro Tem, I would move that we approve the consent agenda as outlined with the one amendment of item number seven.

Second. We have a motion and a second from Councilman Cox. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Now we will move to the action item that we moved down from the consent, which is to approve a bid from Cache Valley Electric Company in the amount of $264,614 for a 600 South 1100 West traffic signal project. So Mayor Pro Tem, if I may on this one.

So what had happened is, per your request, we had said, hey, we need to make sure that we reach out to these neighbors. After last week's meeting, last Thursday, apparently from what I'm hearing, a notice was sent out to I don't know how many, if it was just the ones on the corner, if it was more than that. They reached out to their legal counsel. Their legal counsel reached out to myself and asked if we would be willing to table this item, not necessarily that they were opposed or that they just wanted, as people that were going to be directly affected by it, they just felt like they wanted some time to get caught up to speed on what our plans were. Now, it's my understanding, and they acknowledge this, that it's not our legal, we don't legally have to notify people in this situation. It's not one of those things that we legally have to notice, like a zone change or a master plan change or those types of things. But I do think it was the correct answer. Good thing to notify them. So they're just asking for a little bit more time to get caught up to speed. Now, I know that there's some other people that want to talk about this because we have some timing issues. We were already pushing it. We talked about in last week's meeting, we were going to be right up against the deadline for school being back in session. So we wanted to get the lights, the poles ordered so that UDOT could hopefully have them to us and we get them installed before school started. I understand it's a very timely issue. I did tell their attorney that if we needed to, we could possibly even next week move it. If we were to move it, we could move it to work meeting next week and then have a special action for just that one item so that we could get it moving along for our sakes. But I don't know. I know there's some other more information than even what I have. So.

I'd like to turn it over to staff for Kent to kind of talk about this a little bit. We had a long discussion on it today.

Okay, so the, you know, we do have, you know, the issue that, of course, that is directly before you is the awarding of the contract. It's our opinion, certainly in engineering, that there should be no reason not to award the contract. But let's go over just a little bit what the actual issue that has been brought up is. On our design, and I'm sorry, this I think is probably the best exhibit we've got that shows the overall layout of the intersection. We have left turn bays on 1100 West that we're adding in there. When we add those left turn bays in, there is no longer enough space on either side of the road, back for a ways until that left turn bay transitions out. there's not room to park on the sides of the road and have the left turn bay. And so as a separate item, we have been planning to bring to you an ordinance to restrict parking in those areas where we don't have room for parked vehicles and the left turn bay. Now, I realize that's an issue that probably deserves some more discussion. I think if we want to have more of that discussion in conjunction with discussing the removal of the on-street parking, that certainly makes a lot of sense, or even before we bring the ordinance for the on-street parking. I did want to just point out why we think it's important that we have the left turn bay. If we do not have the left turn bay, then what we would have on 1100 West on each of these two approaches is a single lane approach that the left turning traffic, the through traffic, the right turning traffic all use the same lane. The challenge with that is that if we try to just let the northbound and southbound traffic on 1100 West move with both of those approaches having the green light, then those vehicles that need to wait for a gap in traffic to make a left turn are holding up everybody behind them. And that's not a good solution. What that ends up leading to is people trying to go around those left turning vehicles and they may not see a conflicting vehicle turning left coming from the other direction. It's a safety issue, it hurts the operational efficiency of the intersection, so we don't think that's a good idea. The best workaround, if you don't have the left turn bay, to maintain at least a safe functioning intersection is to run what's known as split phasing. So with split phasing, the northbound traffic, say, would have all green. and you'd be able to make left turns and go straight through, go right. It's a green for the northbound traffic. The southbound traffic along with eastbound and westbound would have a red light. And then you let the northbound demand be serviced and then that goes red and you open up the green for the southbound. And the same thing happens there. What that leads to is that the northbound and southbound have to consume a higher percentage of the green time than they otherwise would, which means that there's less green time available for those major traffic movements on 600 South, which is where all of our backups are during those peak periods, especially the periods associated with the beginning and ending of the school day at the high school. And so there's a cost to it. If we eliminate the left turn bay, there's a cost to it in terms of operational efficiency and safety at that intersection. So that's why we're proposing the left turn bays. That's why we're proposing that there be restrictions to the on-street parking. Now that is, I will say, that is a policy decision really, right? And that's why the parking restriction would need to come to you in an ordinance. If it is the judgment of the city of the council that there's you know that the benefits of of allowing people to park in front of those those affected homes is is worth the the less efficient operation of the intersection, that's a valid position to take and we would implement that decision by the council. But it doesn't really change, it doesn't change where the signal poles are gonna go, it doesn't change all of our conduit runs, it doesn't change all this work that needs to get done. That's a decision that can be made even well into the construction process.

So that's why we would like to see a contract with the striping, right? What's that? This contract has nothing to do with the striping. That's more of our deal.

Um, cause that's all I think we did include the striping, but it's, it's a fairly minor change to the striping that we can work with that through construction. That's, that's not a big deal. We don't have to have an answer tonight on whether we're going to restrict the parking and put, and, and implement the left turn bays or whether we're not. It's something we'll have to make, we'll need a firm answer on that as we get a ways into the construction, but that doesn't have to happen tonight. It would be very beneficial to us, however, if we could have the contract awarded so that we can get the process moving.

And I agree, we don't need to hold up the contract.

Councilman Galland. Thank you, Mayor Pro Temp. So the study that was performed on this particular street, It recommended that we go ahead and go from the current situation to a street light situation, right? That is correct. And can you give me the two top reasons for that?

It's really a matter of being able to service the traffic demand during those peak hours. That's where we're seeing a lot of traffic backups. I was actually, I knew we had high volumes during those couple of peak hours. What I was actually surprised at when we got the results of the warrant analysis back was that we have high volumes throughout the day in a number of hours of the day that would benefit from having the signalization there. I mean, obviously, during the very low periods, during the night, it doesn't make a difference whether we have a signal or not. It would function just fine. But yeah, the four-way stop that's out there does not function well with the amount of traffic that we have. and the next step beyond the four-way stop is to go ahead and signalize it or to build a roundabout. We looked at what the impacts of the roundabout would be. That would be much more impactful on these homeowners than what we're proposing here and more expensive.

Councilman Wilkie. So I just have two quick questions. One, when I spoke to them, they didn't even say what concerns may be. So have you heard from any of these neighbors? Was that their main concern, was losing the parking? I didn't even know what. They just kind of wanted an idea of overall what was going on. Yeah, that's the concern that we have heard, yes. Okay, because they didn't specify to me what the concerns was. And so the other question would be, In your profession, what would be the negative or the harm in waiting one more week to give the neighbors time to catch up on kind of what our plan is?

As was mentioned earlier, we don't have a lot of time before school starts in the fall. We don't want to lose any more time than we have to. If we have to wait a week, then be it. So be it. In my opinion, there is no advantage in delaying the award of the contract. The issue at hand that needs to be addressed can be addressed after the contract is awarded. We're still going to build the same infrastructure. We would just be doing striping differently, perhaps, depending on the decision, and if we do that striping differently, that would change the arrangement of some of the signal heads on the mast arm. But that's a change that doesn't have to, we don't need to know the answer to that for here in the next few weeks. Thank you. Councilman Cox.

I was just going to reiterate that I did talk to one of the neighbors and they were concerned about the parking. Oh, okay. And I do agree that we can move ahead with the contract because we can work the details out and get the stuff coming.

Councilman Smith, you had a comment?

Yeah, and I appreciate your comments, Kent, and I think it's important for the neighbors and for all of us to know that that these negotiations can actually start tomorrow with staff and they don't have to be resolved tomorrow. We have time. So you have plenty of time to work these situations out with staff. This is not a hurry up thing. So I would prefer to go ahead and award the contract to get that going. But I want you as citizens to realize you have a lot of time to visit with staff and get these things worked out.

One second, yes, I understand there is a citizen who would like to speak, and normally you don't have action meetings, but please come forward, state your name, and you'll have three minutes, okay? All right.

My name is Roger Kuntz. I live in the bottom left-hand corner directly, and my neighbor here, Tina, lives on the right-hand corner across the street from me. I have a special needs son that's eight years old. My partner has multiple sclerosis. People come around that corner. There's a drain there. They kick up the rocks and things. I moved the junipers that used to be in the driveway almost, you know, about over nine years ago because I didn't have a line of sight because I almost got hit by a car. When it was a two-way stop, I've witnessed at least 20 accidents. And since it's a four-way stop, I haven't witnessed any accidents. It doesn't mean they haven't happened. Additionally, I believe that if there's a light system, that especially these kids that get out of school, because I watch them, I live there, and a lot of them are 16 years old with driver's license, and they come speeding up the street. Instead of having to come to a complete stop, they're going at least 25 miles an hour. Many times they're speeding at 35 to 40 miles an hour, once in a while even faster, and they see that green light and they get used to it, And they know that they're going to have to wait. They're going to press and speed across that. There's going to be a tendency now and then for various people to try to run the light or even if it's green to speed across it just to make it, especially if it turns yellow. I think it's a very dangerous intersection. It's historically, I understand there's been a death in that intersection. We're talking, I don't know where else in Cedar City we have a traffic light system at our neighborhood where there's small children and stuff growing up. And I'm concerned that the stop sign I think makes it intrinsically significantly safer than a four-way light system. I came home one day and had a car in my driveway. I had roughly 15 cops between county sheriffs and Cedar City police. And they, oh, you live here? And it's like the car was sideways. It got sideswiped and it got spun out. And that was when it was a two-way stop because they were going faster on that street. And people can still turn right and things on a red light unless it says no right turn. And I believe that this system is not going to free up the traffic completely. I think there's still going to be lines of traffic. They're just going to be released and eased up quickly rather than one by one. But I think they're still going to be lined up. And the biggest thing for me living on that corner, I already have to back up in order to get out. I have to back both my vehicles up. because of the safety problem. Because if I try to back up, even to go right, go that direction down, if I back out and that car comes around that right corner, they're going to hit me. And it's almost happened. I park both my vehicles backwards so that I can get out. And if there's going to be a left turn lane and all the light system and everything, it's going to be very difficult for me to even make a left turn out of there. I'm able to do it today. But I have to, like I said, in order for me to be safe, I have to park backwards. And in order to park backwards, that's a problem. Thank you. And the devaluing of my house.

Mr. Gallon has a question for the gentleman, I believe.

No, not for the gentleman. May I? Yes. So this question is actually for Kent and Chief Adams. Maybe you can talk to us a little bit about your experience on the study as well as managing the safety of our community between the four-way stop and the street lights as we're proposing to configure here. Either one of you or both of you, if you could talk about that, if you wouldn't mind.

Yeah, good evening. Darren Adams with the Police Department. So since the four-way stop has gone in, I would have to check my records. I don't know that we've had any accidents at that intersection. Certainly no major accidents. Some good points have been brought up when you talk about the streetlights and the way those are configured. I know we had talked about green east-west for the majority for that high traffic, and then that would trigger when north-south comes, and that obviously could be an issue for traffic backing up north and south. So again, I can see both sides of that. The four-way stop has greatly reduced problems and issues there that we've had. It was a little rocky at first for people to get used to that, especially the students, the backup, and we still get complaints about that. What that's done is it's caused those students to take alternate routes to other places to get to their destination. But it has greatly improved the issues we've seen there with the four-way stop in contrast to the two-way stop.

Thank you, Chief. Kent, any comments?

The only thing I would add to what Chief had to say is that the four-way stop does function safely. I will agree with that. It is very inefficient. It's the most inefficient form of traffic control you can possibly install. with always stop, because every vehicle has to stop every time, at any time of day, whether anyone else is around or not. And so it ends up being the most inefficient, and that's part of the reason why we have the long backups that we have today. Well, I don't know, school, they just had graduation, so maybe not today. But we have those long backups of vehicles backed all the way across the freeway and partway up the hill on a lot of days. It's because that is so inefficient. So in response to the complaints, the concerns that have been expressed by many people over the years, years since the four-way stop went in, that is why we're looking at a traffic signal. That's why we did the traffic study. That's why we looked at those signal warrants to see if a signal is justified here, and we found that it was more strongly justified than we even anticipated. We think that signalization is the right option here. It'll still preserve a level of safety that is certainly much better than what the two-way stop control was, and it will handle the traffic in a way that meets people's needs, allows them to get across town.

Could I ask a question, Kent? Perhaps you're the right one for this. I'm just wondering, timing-wise, How long have we had the traffic study? I mean, we budgeted for this traffic signal, so we kind of anticipated this happening within this year, but we're up against this tight window, and I know part of that is because of the equipment we have to get from UDOT, but I'm just wondering how we got ourselves in such a tight schedule predicament on this issue.

Yeah, so the traffic study, I don't remember the exact dates, but that was budgeted in this year. We went through the process of getting a consultant on board, went through our procurement process, got those studies going last summer. This particular study, one of the challenges we had in completing it, the study was looking at various intersections and other issues around town. but here we had the roundabout under construction over by the football stadium that completely changed traffic patterns and we weren't able to, we did have traffic counts done, we did look at the traffic signal warranting process at that time, but we knew that we were dealing with atypical traffic because people had to detour to avoid the closed intersection with the roundabout construction. So we had to wait till that project was opened back up again and traffic patterns stabilized and look at traffic again to see whether the initial indications that a signal was warranted were real or not. That then put us to where we didn't really have the answers until late last year as to whether a signal was even justified. And then we had to go through the procurement process of getting a consultant on board to do the design, work through the design, get it advertised. I feel like we've moved efficiently through the process once we were able to get the answers to do so. But it just took a while to get there.

So I guess my last question than any other council member is just to find out, so if this were delayed a week or two, maybe three weeks, obviously, we're at the middle of September rather than the middle of August, okay, school's been in session for two or three weeks, but is that the end of the world, I guess, is my question. I just want to make sure that we're not rushing this for the sake of meeting an arbitrary date on a calendar.

It would not be the end of the world, but we would be creating a situation that would be worse than what it would be if we just weren't doing the project during those first weeks of school, right? Because it wouldn't just be the fact that we're operating as an all-way stop, which is what we would continue to operate as during construction, but it would be an all-way stop while there's still construction activity going on. And so that's the downside. It would be a rough... opening to school if we don't have this done.

Okay, thank you. Council, any other comments or questions?

No, I think Kent just basically answered the question. I think what we're trying to do is give time to resolve some of the issues that are concerns with the community, but at the same time safeguard receiving all of the equipment that is necessary so that we can do this on a timely basis. I don't think we need to discuss this all the way out to September. I don't think it'll take that long. I think it'll take just a few days and a week or so, but if we don't approve the engineering purchasing of all the equipment and so forth, then we're going to be creating a bigger problem, I think. But Kent expressed it perfectly, in my opinion. Thank you, Kent. Councilman Wilkie.

So, and can I apologize? I mean, if I missed it along the process somewhere, I guess the way I'm feeling is we've never had outside of the study saying, yeah, we should do it. I guess as a council, we've never had this. Or maybe we have and I just don't remember. So somebody correct me if I'm wrong. Have we had the discussion to say, yeah, let's go ahead and put an intersection here? Or was this just we thought we would? Yeah. Okay.

That was part of the contract conversation that we're approving. Yeah, we did have a conversation.

Like I said, we talk about a lot of things. It wasn't like that, but we did have a conversation, yeah. All right, gentlemen, I will entertain a motion of some sort.

Mayor, I would make a motion that we approve the contract to Cache Valley Electric. However, with that, I would make a motion, too, that we continue the negotiation with the neighbors to get these other things worked out.

So that wasn't on the agenda. Do we make a motion? Or does it matter?

We'll award the contract.

Yeah, that'll just be a byproduct. And then we'll put the next one on the agenda.

Staff's already clear that you want us to talk to the neighbors. The neighbors are sitting here.

They don't come on in. We'll talk.

We'll probably have something on your agenda in the coming weeks to... prohibit parking and that would be your opportunity to come back into the council and tell them what you would prefer.

So we have a motion on the table. I'm sorry, sir, we're about to take a vote. We have a motion on the table. Is there a second? I'll second. Go ahead.

Who wants it? Give it to Robert.

Councilman Cox. All right. We have a motion and a second. And do I need to do a roll call for this? Okay. All in favor of this motion? Aye. Anyone opposed? Nay. Okay. That passes 2-1. 3-1. 3-1. 3-1.

Mayor Pro Tem, if I may, just a personal privilege. I saw him walk in. I thought maybe we should just let him know. Mr. Marshall with Forged Fiber, we've already voted on your item, and it's passed. It was part of our consent agenda. So I just figured I'd let you know. So you might not be sitting here wondering. You can stay and enjoy the rest of it if you'd like.

You can stay if you'd like.

We've come and gone, so I just thought I'd let you know.

Go ahead and take the walk of shame then. I'm just kidding.

All right, gentlemen. The next item on our agenda is item number 12, consider waiving a water bill late fee. Deborah Forsyth. Thank you, Governor. Anyone here to speak to this?

So we spoke about this last week. She indicates that she dropped a payment in the payment box. We keep meticulous records on what we get out and posted. We don't have record of her dropping a payment in the payment box. That's why she's requesting the fee waiver or the late fee waiver.

So was the late fee paid and we're crediting it back or the late fee was never paid?

I don't know the answer to that.

Either way, but okay.

Was there a significant difference in time from the date on the check and the date it was deposited, or do you know that either?

I don't think we had a check covering this particular. So she does a lot of business, right? So she has a lot of properties that she manages, and I don't think we received a check covering this particular property. Okay.

And so my understanding is the next month, she got the next bill. It showed the balance was due still. It showed the late fee. That's when she caught on. And that's when she said, oh, apparently I missed one. Correct.

So I will entertain a motion from the council.

Well, it's a tough one. But I mean, this is not the unique situation. We have this happen. And unfortunately, mistakes happen. And sometimes that's just what happens. So I would move that we deny the waiver of the water bill late fee.

I have a motion. Commissioner Wilkie?

Commissioner?

I mean, Councilman.

Wow. Sorry about that. Promotion. Or demotion. Or demotion. I'll second that.

Second by Councilman Smith. All in favor?

Aye.

That carries 4-0. Item 13, consider a resolution to amend the consolidated fee schedule. Lester, we talked about this last week. Do you have anything to add to it, sir?

I was talking to you.

I don't have anything to add unless you guys have any additional questions.

Mayor?

Councilman Smith. I thought we discussed this pretty good last week. Everybody seems to be okay, so I make a motion that we approve this.

Okay, we have a motion, Councilman Smith, to approve this. Second. Second by Councilman Wilkie.

This one is a roll call.

This is a roll call because if it's a fee, correct?

Resolution. Yeah, you're right. Yeah.

All right. Mr. Cox. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Carries 4-0. Thank you. All right. Consider a blanket contract for FY2027, Eric.

The only thing on this one was the local matching the bid. Oh, yeah. Did we? Yeah.

That's why we pulled it to action instead of. Let's see what Eric has to say. Ryan Marshall. Ryan.

Public Works Director. We did contact that company, and they are willing to match it.

Which one was that on? That was on the crack seal.

Crack seal. Crack seal. Crack seal.

Was it Ashtown, who was the local? Spencer. That's right, that's correct.

So we're moving to Spencer. It was $35 difference. Yeah, we showed somebody we're moving to Spencer.

Well, we had Spencer last year as well. Okay. He was just not quite the low bidder on that.

Okay, sounds good. Well, with that, I would move Mayor Pro Tem that we approve the blanket contracts with that change to the local low bidder. Second.

Second by Councilman Cox. All in favor? Aye. Motion carries. Consider an ordinance modifying City Ordinance 26518 regarding driveway requirements.

Kent, is there anything else you have on this?

So where I wasn't here for the conversation last week, I'm not sure where you want to be.

Maybe Jonathan that has to come back and sort of be at the mic in case there's any questions.

I didn't know if Mike Adamson, did you have anything to say to this? He spoke to it last week. He spoke last week? Okay.

I've got something. Yeah.

Come on up to the mic.

And then I will get to it.

Come on up to the mic, Mike.

Mike, Mike, Mike, Mike. Hey, Mike. Mike Adamson, Radiant Blue Construction. I know we talked about several things at the last meeting and the Planning Commission recommended a few things and It did come up a couple of times, like the St. George ordinance we were talking about, they were talking about a percentage of the frontage of the property, and the one we're talking about now is talking about 33%. Now, would it be, I don't see what the issue is if we change that to match St. George at 50%. Is there a particular reason why we haven't gone there? You may see a motion come out that way.

I think that was just the consensus from last week that was in our packets, but we'll have a discussion here in just a minute.

Okay. That's part of the discussion for sure. All right. Thank you. Councilman Wilkie, you were first. That's just what I actually, that's the exact same thing that I was actually going to bring up. Just remind everybody that for now, we're only discussing the RE zone. We are going to bring this back. We've instructed staff to bring it back for all the other zones for us to look at changing driveways and other zones as well. But this one was just for the RE. I personally would be in favor of, you know, the 50 foot max with up to 50% of the frontage, but... I think the 33 limits us a little bit, but that's just my personal feelings. I'm fine with going up to 50%, up to a maximum of 50. Councilman Cox.

Yeah, I was, I mean, I looked at my own driveway, and you have to jockey in there. I'm in favor of whatever your garage width is plus another car length in the backyard.

I agree with that.

If that comes to 50%, then so be it. So be it.

I think we're restricting and making it more hazardous trying to do that than we are capping it at 50 feet. And so I think 50%, if you have two car garages and then you have an RV one, you're going to have to cut it down and you're going to have to neck it into there. And I just don't know that that's actually a better solution.

Councilman Schmidt, do you have anything you'd like to add?

Well, I hope we get these all straightened out because I'm all for making it. Same thing, make it as big as your garage and a little extra.

Okay, so I've got a question for Mr. McCune. Since the apparent discussion is moving in a different direction from what was proposed, would that just be part of their motion when they make that motion, whatever it might be?

Yeah, when you go to make the motion, just make sure you basically tell me how to word it. Because at this point, that would be the key. Do be careful on ones. If they're kind of generic, how do we enforce it later? So always remember that we're the ones that have to read it later. Correct. So help me out on that if you get to, like the size of your garage isn't wider. I know, that's arbitrary. That one might be a little more difficult, but possible if you give me time to work on the wording. We might be able to get there. It might be a little harder to do it tonight. But yeah, if you're doing percentages, you're doing feet. If you're just changing 33% to 50%, that's the tiniest little tweak in what I drafted for you anyway. So it just depends on what you're changing it to.

Councilman Wilkie, is there something, because I do believe, and I really would like us to bring this up, just throwing this out there, I do want to bring it up in the other zones. Is there anything currently pending that we want to move just this one forward, or is there a way to table it and combine it with all the other ones? I'd like to have them be uniform across the books, too, if we can. I don't want to have one zone have one and another zone have another. So maybe this is part of a bigger discussion. Is there something pending? That's my question. Is there, like, you're ready to pull a permit? No, it's his house. It's built.

The concrete's already poured. We have a situation where we approved a driveway that was the correct width. The design had gravel for the last part of it. They then switched that without city knowledge to concrete. Then when we caught it, we wouldn't approve CO. That's how far along we are. That's why they're in a bit of a hurry because you've been waiting probably a year now already.

I think we'd be best to stick with the item in front of us.

That's fine.

Can we do this?

Yeah, that's what I'm going to do. That's what actually I'm going to do. So with that, I would move that we modify the ordinance, City Ordinance 26518 regarding driveway requirements, and we go to a maximum of 60 feet width with up to 50% of the... Frontage. Yes, thank you. Frontage. Wow. So 60 up to 50% of the frontage. Maximum of 60. That gives you your extra car length. I'll second that.

Wow. Okay.

Mind you, this is just in the RE.

We have a motion and we have a second. Is there any discussion on the motion?

I think it's good.

Seeing none, I will, let's see, this is an ordinance. It's a roll call. Mr. Wilkie. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Carries 4-0. Thank you, gentlemen.

Good call, Carter.

You're safe. All right. Moving on to item 16. They're now legal. Considering ordinance modifying engineering standards, section 5 regarding driveway requirements. And remember, we're only talking about the driveway here. There was quite a discussion last week about curb, gutter, height of curb. We're not dealing with that. We're only dealing with the driveway portion of this.

My concern here is where are we at with Dallas had brought up a good point about if we do go to that lower six inch. Because is this where, if approved as currently written, this would lower us to the six inch, correct? No. Okay. That is the other.

That is the other portion of the discussion. Yeah. Everything that was in the file you saw last week related to the curb should not have been in there. That was what we was not even very complicated.

It created quite a conversation.

That was an hour, man.

In case you wanted to see it again tonight, I pulled all of that stuff out of the file. But no, there should have been no discussion about curb. It's just the drive approach standard.

Correct. And so whatever the decision is, that's all we're dealing with is the drive approach.

Okay. So is this Councilman Cox?

He had his finger up first. So we did discuss that if we approve this, that we need to adjust the setbacks. Because if you're on a steep lot, you got to go six feet back to get your approach, right? Are we talking about the same?

Well, I guess that's one way to look at it is that you should adjust the setback. I would say the better way to look at it is when you're designing the layout of the house on the lot, you need to make sure you set your garage floor elevation at a level that works. And that doesn't necessarily require a greater setback. But a greater setback, If that is something that you think should be considered, that certainly could be implemented. In most cases, people can set their garage floor elevation to make it work. There's no reason to require them to set their house back further that I can see. Because by changing the setback, you're actually requiring people to set everything back further when they may not need to.

Well, no, just to have an allowable closer one if they have to add six feet to the angle. I mean, it's taken six feet of the lot, and if you have a small lot, you might not be able to fit a house on it. That's more of my point.

So one thing to note, I hope this came up in the meeting last week, what the Planning Commission recommended was that the option of routing the sidewalk around behind the drive approach not be one of the standard approved options. That instead, so in this, where we talked about what would replace our driveway detail is this note about using the APWA standard plans. 221 has a 221.1 and a 221.2. 221.2 is the option that routes the sidewalk around behind the the drive approach that would encroach into the lot and would therefore reduce the available setback to the garage door. That is, as proposed by the Planning Commission, this would read plans 215, 221.1, and 222 would be approved. 221.2 would be added to the list in note two that would require special approval, and that's something that we would then need to work with the the property owner on and allow them to use that if it's in a situation that doesn't cause that usable driveway length problem.

Okay, so we have it built into this that we can resolve that problem. Correct. Then I'm good with it, I mean.

Yeah, but we would want your motion to include as the Planning Commission did, that we change this to 221.1 and we add 221.2 to the list in Note 2. 221.1? Yeah. So does this have anything to do with the width of the driveway? No. Kind of. Well, no, it doesn't because if you, okay, yes, let me back up. The existing standard drawing, okay, the existing standard drawing does say that it does include that maximum 34-foot residential driveway width. So if you choose not to adopt the new drawing, standard driveway drawings, those standard plans, and instead want to stick with our old plan, then yes, you would want to have a motion to amend, to modify this plan to change the 34 foot max that's here to match what you had in your motion a few moments ago. Okay, so yeah, but so if, you're doing one of two things on this, right? You're either approving what we are proposing, which is this change, getting rid of this detail altogether, and replacing it with the reference to which Utah APWA standard plans are approved, and then that issue of modifying that old standard drawing goes away because that would no longer exist. If you choose not to do this, then to be consistent with the motion you had a few moments ago, we would want to modify here.

And again, we're talking about this in the REO zone only right now, correct?

Yeah. Well, this here applies everywhere. This has nothing to do with, this is not RE specific. Okay. This is everywhere. And these standard plans do not specify the driveway width. So that wouldn't have to be carried over into the discussion of the modification to the plans.

Okay, so the width of the driveways we're not worried about. It could go up to 50 or 60 feet.

It could.

Okay, and then.

It could, it can't right now because that's not part of what we've approved.

Unless you're an RE. Unless you're an RE. All right, but this covers all zones.

Right, so.

So if we said, okay, have an option in this to go up to 60 if we wanted to,

Probably deal with driveway widths. Ken's going to have to bring a proposal back to you guys to deal with driveway widths. So really...

So we won't be locked in here.

So my response to that would be that driveway widths really don't need to be on the standard plans. They're already in the text of the ordinance. that you just modified, okay? And if you choose to expand that to other zones, it will be in the text of the ordinance. That's where the driveway width requirement resides. The standard plans are really instructions on how to build what is approved to be built. And they don't specify a width. If a driveway is approved at 27 feet, it gets built at 27 feet, it's approved. 55 feet, it gets built at 55 feet. The standard plans don't address that. There's no reason we have to come back and amend anything with the standard plans to address driveway width. Just handle that in the ordinance.

Then the next question too. If by chance on a home on a steeper lot, if they wanted to reduce the setback of the backyard Can they do that or do we need to make, I just would like that to be possible.

So as I understand it, and legal can correct me if I'm wrong, reducing that step back would be a Board of Adjustments issue.

And that is correct, either Board of Adjustments or a development agreement with you. So well, it wouldn't be a development agreement, just be a personal home. It's still a development agreement. State law is the two ways that we have to essentially waive, if you would, an ordinance requirement. Board of Adjustments, if they meet all the requirements, hardship, all that good stuff, or a development agreement with you. It's not a development in the sense of a subdivision, but it's the development and you're taking flat dirt and putting a building on it. Okay, so it wouldn't help to put that in this wording on this. If you can give us some guidelines as to when staff. But those are already in your ordinance.

Those tools are already there. So whether you put them in the engineering standards or not, it doesn't really matter.

They already exist. There is an option then.

Yes, and the 22.1, if it didn't comply with the 221 and the 222, then you could go to 221.2. That's where it would come back, and we could deal with it.

Right. You'd only have to deal with a variance or a development agreement as if none of those available options will do what they need it to do. That's the great thing about this is it's adding options we don't have right now. You'll probably avoid the need for most of those variances, but on that rare occasion we do, we'll bring it back to you.

So how did you, would you like the, did you say 222.2? Note one, yeah.

221.2. Yeah, so the change would be that in this, in the list of standard plan numbers under note one, we would change 221 to 221.1. And then we would add 221.2 to the list of standard plans in note two. Does that make sense?

Yes, I would make a motion that we adopt the ordinance modifying engineering standards in section five regarding driveway. with in note one adding 221.1 and moving 221.2 to note two.

Did I get that? So we have a motion. Is there a second to that motion?

I'll second.

Councilman Galan seconds that. And as this is an ordinance change, we'll have to do a roll call here. I would be starting with Councilman Smith. Approve. Aye. Aye. Well, the motion carries, whether he's here or not. So, thank you.

Mayor Pro Tem, if you don't mind, I'd just like to comment. Thank you very much for approving that. It has been very uncomfortable having a standard drawing in our specs that violates ADA, and you fixed that for us just now. Thank you very much. We aim to please, sir.

Item 17, consider a resolution approving the fire department policy manual changes regarding comp time.

So Mike brought this up last week, and during the discussion, the question was raised, does the council want to look at something citywide? And the council's indication was yes, they would want to look at something citywide to start addressing our comp time balances. We have a draft proposal. We have some draft costs that would apply citywide. We have a whole bunch of draft ideas. What we don't have is the knowledge that they'll work with our existing software vendor that runs our payroll system now. So we're trying to figure that out. Talking to Mike before this, if you want to table this, we can bring back a citywide proposal. If the citywide proposal for whatever reason fails, Mike would just bring his proposal back. But we would wanna ask you if you wouldn't mind tabling this, we'll just bring back a citywide proposal once we figure out our software vendor.

Question, I just wanna make sure that citywide, are there any distinctions between public safety and fire?

So there's still a distinction between public safety and non-public safety employees as far as how many comp time hours you can accrue in a year. That distinction would still exist. They would just be different numbers.

I see. I'm all for tabling it until we get to review the citywide.

Was that a motion councilman Golan if you want to take it as one I'll take it as well We have a motion on the table from councilman Golan to table this item until we get more information from the citywide Look at the comp time policy and do is there a second to that motion? I'll second that Second of my councilman Smith all in favor. Aye motion carries.

Thank you Item number 18

Consider an amendment to the City Ordinance 35-10B to establish no parking zones in the vicinity of 200 North and 100 East.

And no change from last time.

I think the question I asked last week was potentially we'd lose two parking spaces on 200 North, but I think it's a lot safer with this. And this is something that we hope to accomplish right away, I assume, correct?

I think Eric's got this plan to do.

Okay, all right, does council have any other discussions on this item? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we amend City Ordinance 35-10B to establish no parking zones in the vicinity of 200 North, 100 East.

I have a motion. Second. Second by Councilman Wilkie. This is an amendment to an ordinance, it's a roll call, so Councilman Galan. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Motion carries. Thank you. Item number 19, consider approving a residential development overlay RDO and development agreement for the Cross Hollow RDO located in the vicinity of Cody Drive and Cross Hollow Road. Mr. Buckner is here.

Good evening, Dallas Buckner, Go Civil. So last week we had a discussion on this. We had been going back and forth with Randall on language, but we provided the revisions a couple hours before the council meeting, and so we got a little bit more direction last week. We've made some more revisions. I think those were circulated yesterday. And so we've... gone back and forth on a lot of these things, and I'm just kind of wondering what questions council has. I can go through the revisions that we've made to this. It's really mostly just tightening up the verbiage. I think the main thing on our end was the amenity discussion, but now that council's had time to review the document in full, I just figured we'd kind of work through that.

So I understand in linking to the document that there was agreement at least on Randall's side of the agreement with what you had agreed to and so at least in terms of the agreement you're on the same page, correct?

Yeah, I think in the end we're all on the same page. The only question is if you looked in your, not the full packet that was initially sent, but there was a 19A or whatever came in there. As long as you saw that one. We did. I have no preference on when the amenities have to come in. That's a political, less a legal one. The only real legal side was don't wait until they're three units shy because guess what? They'll never bill those last three units.

But it was 50% is what was in there just for.

Yeah.

Yeah, it was 125. So yeah. They went to the full 250, 50%.

So if that satisfies you that's an easy legal one for us Okay, so in discussions with the developer we had a list of those and Randall it kind of initially Showed a kind of a staggered this many units this one this one the developer felt comfortable just putting those in and so that's where we drew the line of odd one is 250 and we put it at 125 for all of the amenities that were listed which was a pickleball gym, hammock park, grass area with gazebo.

And my understanding too is if pod three does become a PUD, you would also be required to have the same kind of green space allotment that that ordinance carries.

Correct. So another way to say that is that pod one, we're doing a commitment above and beyond what's required by ordinance, which is, I think, the pod that we've had the most feedback on. Pod three is the one that's kind of isolated off Cross Hollow. And with less feedback, it seems like that one proposing it at what the ordinance requires is adequate.

Okay. Does council have any questions or comments for Mr. McCune or Mr. Buckner?

Well, I have some comments and I know that we've gone back and forth on this. I think every single one of us in the council has taken a lot of time to go through not only the verbiage but the intent. the ramifications of everything that has been proposed and what it means not just for the developer, but also for the city and for the communities at large. Fundamentally, I wouldn't be opposed to additional development anywhere, but we are kind of on a crossroads in that particular area. area of the city and what is being proposed I think can be detrimental to us as a city and definitely to the community. So my thoughts after having gone through a lot of meetings with a lot of people on this and looking at the potential liability to the city is that i do not see the benefits for us as a community as a city there is some liability that after the cleanup It's taken place on the land that is going to be deeded to the city. That will always be a liability. There's accessibility issues to the reservoir. There are drainage issues already mounting up on the west side of that main road. And then there is the real impact on the surrounding communities. And we have seen what that can do, not just with the traffic, but the safety and the valuation of those communities. So I am very uncomfortable in going forward with this project.

I just wanted to put in there there. Thank you, Councilman Cox.

I just, please hold your applause.

I just want to say that this is not just a simple decision. We have people up on the hill that have called and said their insurance rates are increased because the tree, the fire hazard's not mitigated. And so there's benefit to them by having the trees mitigated. There's flood channels that will be created that will mitigate the flooding in that area. So there's that to consider. We've gone back and forth and reduced the density in this area and so the developer, the potential developer is giving something and giving something in, giving a lot in return and so I think there's a lot of moving parts in this that need to be considered and those are two of them that your neighbors are gonna be impacted by what does or doesn't happen here just like you're gonna be impacted what does or doesn't happen here. It's not an easy decision to say, well, who wins out on this deal, right? And then there's the property rights, and I am a huge property rights advocate. You don't want people telling you what you can do to your property within reason, and nor do I. And so I think we've negotiated back and forth, and I've gotten to a point where I'm comfortable with what they're giving up and what we're getting for the most part. And I I think that there's a lot of factors that go into this, not just... I've seen so many neighborhoods since 1992 that I've moved here that they come in, my neighborhood included, you know where I live. We live in the same house, Scooter, right? It's going to destroy the neighborhood, and now this is the best neighborhood. We love the neighborhood, and that happens time and time and time again. My house was built, it took a view. My house is built and it created more traffic. Where does it stop and where does it end? That's a good question.

To that point, and I had a meeting earlier at the city on an unrelated project and visited with Council Member Schmidt. It sounded like there were some concerns from him. As far as drainage, and this area is known for drainage issues, I think that the regional ponds that are master planned to be put on there, although don't provide more capacity for bigger storm drain lines in Cross Hollow, from the hydrology stuff that I've looked at just from a very high level, there's about 80% surplus in those to help mitigate those. And so with this RDO, this is the third RDO I've been involved with. And this RDO is one that it's fairly common for them to go through multiple meetings and the back and forth. And I wouldn't say that this is atypical. The concessions that have been made to negotiate are what I would say are above and beyond what was done on the Nichols RDO and the South Mountain RDO or the Fiddler's Canyon and South Mountain RDO. And so I think that we've reduced the lot count from the original and we're slightly higher than what would be allowed by just R1 on a paper basis. We've talked about giving the land for the basins. The basins would have a large surplus to help with the regional needs in two locations. There's the feedback that we got from council by the public for the single family residential on Cody Drive. We've committed to that and then not explicitly but kind of implicitly reduced the pod one. We've made the concession on the WUI fire mitigation aspect. And by committing to the single family off Cody, kind of preserve the aesthetic that the neighbors wanted to see. I think the neighbors want to see everything R1. But the goal in putting forward development projects like this one where you go to and you propose higher density is to try to address the affordable housing and R1 in today's day and age with what R1 lots cost and building cost is not affordable. And so, That's where we looked at concentrating density, trying to preserve the hillside. I see the benefit in the open space. There's a liability aspect of it. But we've heard from two of the council members. I don't know how the rest feel. The developer, we put a lot of time and effort and stood here and done this. And the developer's been out of town for the month of April. And so I don't know, based on the language that's put forward, it sounds like some are uneasy, some are to a point of being able to make a decision. And so we don't necessarily want to table it, but if there was a way to work through this, if there's more concerns, then I think the developer's been able to get an extension and would be in favor if the pitch comes from his mouth, because I'm just the engineer.

You're just the mouthpiece.

But if he was here, I don't know if that would make a difference to speak to because it's one thing for me to say this is what we're going to do, but to hear from him and some of the public comment from last week was talking about how developers can come into the town and do whatever. This developer is born and raised here. We've done a lot of outreach, not so much with the Sunset Canyon, but we met with the Carmel Estates. We met with Nature View. Well, but I would say from the planning commission and the first council meeting before he was out of town, I think that the majority of the voices at the public hearing were from Nature View and Carmel Canyon, and so we didn't realize until there was the petition put forth how much sunset was, how much feedback they would have. Okay.

Councilman Smith, you had your... Well, first off, I'd like to... I know quite a few people involved on this on both sides. This is a, as it's been well stated, that these are not easy seats to sit in sometimes. The thing that concerns me, there's a few items, and I did talk with Dallas about this a little bit earlier. I'm very concerned with the development that is taking place. It's going, starting clear down with Hensley and work your way up DR Horton. You go to the Levitt group, they come down the street. The other developments are there and then this one. We really have a storm drain issue, especially with Levitt start letting water down. I'm very concerned that our storm drain existing piping system that runs along Cross Hall is not going to be capable of handling that water, let alone the water that comes down from Walmart. And we already have a situation with the UDOT that we're trying to get worked out as far as the retention basin or piping to bring water down from the interchange. So we have that going on. At some point in time, with all these homes, we're going to have to finish Cross Hollow Road. Nobody's coughing up to do anything there. So I'm very concerned of the capacity of the storm drain. I really would hope before these things get developed, because the box culvert that right now goes underneath Silver Silo is not adequate, degraded on there, and that's what caused a lot of flooding to come down through. So I'd hate to say, okay, go ahead and do this, then that big flood comes and then everybody gets wiped out right down through that area. I'm very concerned on the storm issue. I don't think obviously what you'd be doing would help some of that. But even you know as well as I do that the piping that goes from Cody Drive across Cross Hollow Road is not really very much. It's pretty small pipes. And the pipe that is in Cross Hollow is just not big enough. And the planning that was done on that, nobody foresaw this was going to take place. So there's a master plan storm drain that's going to have to be done. And as a city, I don't want to have to pay for all of this. We already can't afford half the things we want to do. And so we've got storm drain issues. We have road issues. We've got box coverage issues. And so I think at this, and then I'm not a real big fan of taking over all the green space, and then all of a sudden we become liable for all of that. So for where we're at right now, I think as a city, maybe as the developers, we need to figure out what's really going to be adequate that can take all this, especially the water. what can take this water before we really go much further into developing more of this property. I'm very concerned. I don't want to build something, I don't want to agree to something, and then all of a sudden we get a big rain, it plugs up, and then it wipes out everything you just built. So that really concerns me. Do I support property rights? Yes. Do I hope we could make something work? Yes. But I'm very concerned on these other areas, and until I see a way that we can move through those, I would probably not be in favor of this project at this time.

Mr. Wilkie, Councilman.

Thank you. You know, as has been said, this is obviously one of the tough ones. And these are the times that we don't necessarily enjoy sitting up here. I do want to commend the residents that have gotten involved in this process. I think I can speak for myself. I don't think I've ever had one single issue that's ever landed more emails in my inbox than this one issue has. So I was, I mean, it's always interesting to see which ones do and which ones don't, right? Which ones citizens choose to get involved in and which ones they choose not to get involved in. So my concerns, Dallas, you know, and I've expressed these before as one, and unfortunately this isn't anything that your developer did wrong, but there's a lot of high density in that area and I think we've got enough there. And so that's one of my issues. And then the other couple issues I have, I think, I feel like for me personally, this is maybe a little bit of a stretch for what RDO, in at least my mind, the RDO is created for. RDO for me is essentially its own mini master plan of a great area. As I look at the other RDOs, which I did, as I look at the other RDOs we have in the city, Most of them are much larger pieces of property. They're not all, but most of them are hundreds of acres and most of them have multiple different zoning components that their own central, there's this pod and this has high density and this has medium and this part has low. I feel like in this one, we've pretty much just gone all high density. It doesn't quite fit in my brain to where an RDO should be. That being said, I do think that we as a city need to work on a way, I think some people might not like it, but the future is we've got to get lots even smaller. We've got to find a way to do high density single family housing, however that is. We've tried to do it. We have the RN zone. Obviously, developers, there's something in it that developers don't like because it never pencils out. So maybe we need to go back to it and say, okay, what can we do to make this actually pencil? Personally, I hope that's the future for this piece. So Mayor, if you'd be okay with it, I would move.

I'd like to say something before we have a motion here. Okay, is that all right? Yeah. I just want to let the crowd know this is the last agenda item except we have public comments after this. So I do want to say regardless of the outcome, I want you to all be civil and I all want you to be kind and allow the meeting to be continued to wear through and again I won't be voting on this unless there is a tie situation but I do want to thank Mr. Buckner and Mr. Weymouth and Mr. Gregerson for the work they did. I think they are, this is exactly what community is about. This is how you go about trying to get things done. And you're never gonna please everybody, whatever it is. So I just wanted to thank everyone for the process and remind you all that after this vote, the meeting will continue with public comment.

Can I make one?

Yes, Councilman Cox.

So you said that you'd be willing to go back to the drawing board. Are you guys willing to table it and see if they can come up with something that will work? Or if you're not, then we can just move forward. Because here's the deal. We talk about the drainage. It's the development that pays for the drainage.

Yeah, but there's a lot of drainage that's got to be taken.

There is, there's an awful lot. And so it's kind of the cart and the horse thing.

And I think the thing from my perspective on the drainage is that you have the Jones property and the Ong property that have already been subjected to all of the drainage upstream and then have been slapped with the master plan improvements on not one location but two locations.

And everything upstream, yes.

And I certainly understand what Phil's saying more than most as far as the capacity and the ability to convey water down Cross Hollow, but as far as saying development shouldn't occur on this piece until we fix the regional when there's already improvements required that are going to provide surplus capacity is is a tough one for me to try to square.

And sometimes the devil we know is better than the devil we don't know, right? I mean, that's the, where we get is you just sit there for 20, 30 more years and grow weeds and we don't mitigate flood and we don't mitigate the fire problem. I mean, that's the debate in my mind.

Well, and part of the RDO process is, I mean, we obviously have the acreage to meet the RDO requirements to apply for one. Certainly what Carter said is true. Some of the other RDOs are much larger, but from a compliance with what we're allowed to do. But the thing that's important to remember, which I know the council knows, but when you put forth an RDO, this land has obviously sat vacant for a long time. There's a gamble of do you approve this RDO? Can you live with what's proposed here or some tweaking of? Or does it sit for another one year, five years, 10 years? Is affordable housing getting better or worse? staff changes, council members change, mayors change, state mandates change, and so if this is not satisfactory and this developer walks, then who knows what happens here, and if the sentiment of it's important to have housing and how that changes over time, you could end up with something potentially more dense.

Okay, Councilman Gallant. Dallas, first of all, I want to thank you personally. You have done a tremendous amount of work on this thing. You have catered to every single one of our objections, pet peeves, and whatever other things we came up with. in order to bridge the gap that we had initially on this thing. So I have a lot of respect for you, I have a lot of respect for Justin. We've known each other for many years and I know that you guys are trying to do the best to make this thing work. So I just have a couple of comments. Property rights, are something that we all care deeply about. But property rights don't apply exclusively to developers or to builders or to a specific property ownership. It applies to the community at large. So there are people who have properties that are close to this particular piece of land that also have rights who had aspirations and they invested money in order to protect their investment in an area where they thought it was going to be what it was presented to be. And things change. I'm fully aware of that. But I want us all to agree that property rights go beyond the obvious, right? That piece of land, it's not exclusive to those rights. The other thing is that... Every single one of us in this council, including the mayor, who is absent today but who's very concerned about the outcome of this whole situation, is committed to make our city better. We are not acting, for the most part, on making short-term decisions just because it's what's presented on the agenda on any particular Wednesday. We are concerned on making sure that this community grows in a responsible basis, that we ensure the welfare of the community at large. Those who have been here, those who came Johnny-go-latelys like myself, I've only been here 15 years. And then the future generations that we hope will stay and live here and grow together with their families and the people that will move in. So the decisions that we're making are not necessarily so that we can overcome the hurdle that's before us today, but what we need to do to ensure that in the future better decisions are made. I'm not criticizing any of the decisions that were done in the past. I'm just saying that we are trying to be better. And I'm not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I've looked at this thing from every possible way that I can look at it. And I come to the same conclusion, this RDO, doesn't really balance in my mind for the entire community and for the things that we need to do. Are we going to have to improve the infrastructure so that we don't get into some deep trouble very soon? Yes, we're gonna have to do that. We're gonna have to fund that. We're gonna have to figure out a way to do it. But I do not want to be forced into a situation so that we can overcome this particular request at this time. We need to be a little bit more proactive in resolving those issues. And just putting this in there doesn't resolve it. It pushes us to possibly doing something that we shouldn't be doing. So I just want you to know that I respect you. I respect the developer. I've communicated with him a couple of times. He's been willing to be very flexible. This has been an eye-opening, let's call it process, so that I don't call it a negotiation. Let's just say process. But at the end of the day, Good conscience. I cannot get there. I can't. It doesn't tie for me. So I just wanted to state that for the record.

Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Staff, do you have anything else you'd like to bring to this discussion before I entertain a motion? Okay. All right. I'm ready to entertain a motion from Councilman Wilkie.

Yeah, no, just mayor with that, I would move that we deny the residential development overlay and the development agreement for the Cross Hollows RDO located in the vicinity of Cody Drive and Cross Hollows Road.

So I have a motion. Is there a second to that motion? I second that. I have a motion and a second. And we'll do a roll call here with Mr. Cox.

So I'm going to vote, but I want to explain my vote. I think there's some wiggle room here if we were to go back to the drawing board. So if we work with our setbacks. we could get 350 homes in there, single-family homes. And you're going to have the same amount of homes, the same amount of doors, the same amount of everything. And so we're just throwing it out. And I think leaving it there for 20 years, nothing potentially or whatever is worse than working with them and coming to an agreement of something that will work. Right? So I'm going to vote nay.

Okay. Aye.

Aye.

Councilman Smith.

Aye.

Aye. Okay, the motion carries. The RDO is denied. Thank you all very much for your consideration and your time. And we'll now move on for the last agenda item, public comments. Is anyone here to discuss public comments that were not on the agenda? Seeing none, we will close the public comments. Anyone would like to make a motion to adjourn?

Mayor, I would move that we adjourn this meeting.

Have a motion?

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Meeting is adjourned. Thank you all for your attendance.