City Council - Regular Meeting

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, I really appreciate this data. I appreciate the qualitative aspects as well because those are hard to quantify, right? One of my biggest concerns was if we have our police officers going to Provo on a regular basis on duty, right, how does that affect how many officers we have here in Lehigh? Does it affect headcount? So if you added up all the hours in Provo versus a quick stop here in Lehigh, over time, I think that would represent maybe a full headcount or two of police officers if we want as many officers on the streets patrolling here in Lehigh as possible. So I know that's hard to qu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, thank you, Mike and Kim, for this. Just a couple questions. So one of the reasons we've seen agenda items come up where the general plan, I was reading the description on the website And it's like it's not supposed to be specific. But when it comes down to it, a home property is very specific. And so I think my goal is to ensure that when you move into a neighborhood or you have a business coming in, ideally they're looking at both the zoning, so they can actually build what they want to build, but also the general plan to know the future of that particular area of the city. And I think

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

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

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, because I think from my perspective, I'd love to look at, at least start with how comprehensive we want to do it. I think, again, I don't know if we need to do a full rewrite. I think 11 years between general plans, especially in like the fastest growth decade in Lehigh, I don't know if we have to go that far deep. But it would be nice to determine which, you know, look at the goals for sure, and then, you know, Look at areas that especially the undeveloped areas. I mean the percentages on the screen now that's based on the current general plan, right So those I mean potentia

Can I say something? So something that's important to me, and I think a lot of residents, is water. And I know you listed the different elements, and I think water's integrated in there. And I know at the state level, there's an adjudication process going on where they're seeing how much water do you actually use, and do you need, and can you return some of that? Because what has been found is that the water rights don't always match up with the physical water that we have and I think that we've this has been discussed at state levels that also like our level and to me that's important to try

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that's a big thing. Also, I think transition zoning with residential. too i know there are some plans that have come through that are awesome where you have it's integrated really well and it's planned well to be able to have this life cycle housing but there's other ones where maybe it doesn't make us yeah and where it's hard like we're going from half acre lots to to high density right next to it i think there needs to be more transition so i i think if if we're looking if you're using the gis to go and say like we need to have Here's maybe some rules that there could be a transition

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

Have we also applied for a grant for Safe Routes?

I'll just add for that. Like, since we had that discussion, all of a sudden I start noticing pedestrians on that road, right? When I go past where before I just didn't notice them, obviously. I think, and I personally got some feedback after our last discussion from several people that do walk that. So I think if it's the trail, I'm just thinking of that neighborhood on the southwest side of the train tracks where if we want to encourage people to walk to the train station or to the college or in that general direction, I just wonder if we can come up with Maybe a couple other options on how t

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

TO A EAST SIDE ONLY INTERCHANGE INITIALLY?

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

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

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

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

So the key to remember in the new connection, you can build a grade, which takes the majority of the cost out. The connection to connection, you cannot build a grade. That's part of the issue. So this road that you're looking at, Brad and I went to today, they can build that entire road at grade. and they only have to build one bridge over the Jordan River. So there's major cost savings when you start breaking it down that way versus the 3.5. Virtually it's $4.5 billion to build that because there's going to be additional artillery roads that would have to tie into that, basically a sky over c

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, sorry. Yeah, so once you start hitting neighborhoods, I think that's where I'm concerned as well, just because... The neighbors don't like it, and it really feels more like a regional connection than a local traffic relief solution at this point. And that's fine if it's regional or whatever we want to call it. It's just I don't want a regional connection to cause damage to property values and quality of life in that area. So I'm just curious, is there any flexibility on Camp Williams on that southern end of their property? Because I know the northern end, I think that's where they said n

Is this where Saratoga extends over Pioneer Crossing?

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

Can I ask for the north part? It looks like you were talking about the Porter-Rockwell connector there. And then this part here, is that going around? It's pretty much going around Camp William, so it's going around the Holbrook area, not quite through it. Is that what I understand? Correct. Okay. So I really appreciate that, that it's taking that into account instead of going through subdivisions going around it. Something I was looking at, I also do know of some state-level discussions about this possible freeway-to-freeway connector. I don't know how to reconcile that with what's happening

okay and i appreciate that um something down at the 700 south area where that said there's a local road only um i know uh if i'm oh this one right over here yeah if i'm referencing the general plan right that we just looked at and remembering right i think we had that zone that was a potential commercial zone so maybe that's just something for planning to look at too if we have you know reconsidering commercial right next to residential and possible access and whether we want to change it to neighborhood commercial or something, because is someone going to want to build commercial there? I'm j

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

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

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

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

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

Hopefully, I think it's kind of a better one than what Clubhouse Drive was. It's probably more the alternative to the freeway than it is Clubhouse, yeah. OK. That's my preference, I guess, is to get more information on that, work through those issues so that the residents can feel comfortable that it's going around their neighborhood, not right through it, as kind of has been presented. But I do have a question, well, a couple more questions. some of your discussions with camp williams were they willing to give up some of their property for this road they seem to be willing to give up some pro

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

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

How soon do you need the master transportation plan updated?

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

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

No, and quite honestly, that roadway is just drawn like that. There's been no, they just wanted to know at what point do we start to study this. So that by no reason is, I know we show it, I know Brad's put it on the map as that's the road. That is not the final product of the road. There will be input and a lot. This is a concept that's on the 2055 map. So I think we're probably getting ahead of ourselves a little bit. I think With MAG, MAG looking at it, and WFRC looking at it, I think now they have some directions in which way they can go with Camp William seated at the table, with UDOT sea

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

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

Do they want to include it in their RTP?

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

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

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

And then it'll help Holbrook also, too, to be able to get out in some of these other neighborhoods, potentially, because some of them, like, we don't want to be in a position either where these people are stuck without a place to get out. That's a concern to me, is we want to create opportunities for them. I know, you know, you see some of these frontage roads along I-15 crossroads, And people here at Thanksgiving Point are trying to use some of those because it's difficult to access. I've seen some people from Traverse use the frontage roads. So there's some opportunities there because if we'

So I'm looking at the map right now and I see... Kemp Williams is to the north of the road. It goes around Holbrook Farms. It does not go through it. It goes around it. So again, I get your point. We need solutions, right? I mean, just looking at some of the past transportation studies, 2100 north is going to fail at 3600 west. So just for the sake of Holbrook Farm residents, we need a solution for them. And this, to me, seems like a much better solution than the Clubhouse Drive extension and option two, or the freeway-to-freeway connector, which probably aren't feasible at all or buildable. S

So I can see on this, on 2700 North and 4200 West, that there's not a ton of residents, but they are, and it would feel really close. to that road so I can understand the concern of something where it's pretty quiet right there to then have a road. But I don't know if there's something, I really like going back to what James said originally, like how can we show the buffering and, you know, it's almost like I just want to cut diagonally through the EVO range, you know, and it just kind of like cut right around them. But something where, I don't know if it's frontage roads or some other kind of

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

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

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

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

Yep. OK. Thanks, Brad. Thanks. Due to time, we are going to not kick 3.3, but we may put 3.3 at the end of our meeting simply because we need to go into a closed session. And we start at 7. Is the council okay with that? Yep. So with that, just real quick, let's take care of any agenda items, questions that you have questions about. Jason, any administrative report that you might have? Nope. Any reports from the council?

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

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

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

Yes, I have so much. I'll keep it short. Yes, tomorrow is another unveiling North Branch Meeting House, and Mayor Binns is speaking at that. The address is 1190 North, 500 West at 7 p.m., so we're looking forward to that. We had a great turnout at Heritage Days. Thank you to city staff for letting us use the council chambers when we got rained out. It was really nice to be in the shade and air conditioning and not in the rain. Anyway, thanks to all who helped with that. Just a note, the Hutchings Museum is displaying the John Haas Presidential Collection. It's the first time. It's been out of

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So I have a first from Council Member Harrison. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Council Member Newell. All in favor? Aye. Aye is... So we will go ahead and go into closed. Tonight, September 8th, 2026, in the Lehigh City Council Chambers, we have Council Member Newell, Council Member Harrison, Council Member Stallings, Council Member Freeman, and I believe Council Member Lockhart is joining online. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. Okay. So we do have a full quorum tonight, a full council. We welcome you to our chambers tonight. We're glad that you came. Before we get started, we'd like to st

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's kind of the idea behind it. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I don't really have any questions for you, Jules. Okay. As I was looking over the chapter, some things that stood out to me that I think that we should consider as we're going through all of the code is looking at what is the legislative and what's administrative decisions. Like, again, on 19-3, under 9, I believe, it talks about how the planning commission may modify this requirement. And some things in this chapter talked about how the director of power could make some changes to some of these things. With that, I think that might even be

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah. Yeah, so, you know, the FIBUS plus the mayor, we felt a need for small businesses in Lehigh, especially representing 50 or fewer employees, full-time employees. These businesses being represented and have a better channel of communication between the city and the businesses because we all know the Adobe's and the and the large companies in Lehigh for which we're grateful. But there's so many entrepreneurs and small businesses out there that are paying a lot of taxes. They're playing workman's comp. They're doing the best that they can with their resources. And sometimes dealing with gove

I'll go ahead and share that list of 20. I will tell you that as mayor, not a lot of people answer their phones when they see my phone number, which is OK. So I learned real quick that as you call the first five people on the list, not one of the five answers because they don't know your phone number. So that's good to know. And so email was the way. So we appreciate those that responded. So the current members are Mr. Paul Baird, Brianne Beckstrom, Cody Black, Karen Blaylock, Martin Bolter, Lisa Cummings, Lisa Evanson, Jennifer Fairbanks, Curtis Graham, Dale Guthrie, Robert Hunt, Brent Knudso

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

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

Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Councilmember Stallings?

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

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

Well, I'm looking here at number four. It says naming rights. And I love that there is going to be, you know, a plaque or a monument that says recognizing the donation of the property by the Anthony T. Peck and Janice A. Peck family. It does, one of the requirements of this donation is to designate the property as the Peck Mill Pond Recreation Area. And I think that's a very honorable thing to name after, you know, recognize the property as the Peck Mill um, pack area. One thing that I, I do question just because I did talk to the water people and parks and that are going to have to, um, maint

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If we were to say it was commercial, yeah.

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

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

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

Yeah, I'm not comfortable with changing the zoning to heavy commercial. I've said that before. It's incompatible with surrounding residents. But I do think I would have considered some commercial uses, and I do think that a development agreement is the way to go. I don't know if this development agreement is... ready for satisfactory to what everything that I am looking at. The berm idea on Trinnaman, I talked to the developer to question what that was, and he said it was a suggestion by a resident, but it would need to be agreed upon by the three residents across from Trinnaman. So I would li

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

I think I share a lot of the same concerns. I don't think it's ready under this current development agreement, just because it was a first stab. I think there were some improvements, but there are, like Rachel mentioned, some permitted uses that I'm still concerned about. And so I think we could work on removing some of those. some of the Yeah, the I want to get some clarity on the landscape buffer So I think under the development agreement since our the last time we were meeting and talking about this agenda item The good news is under this one. There's no tournament access so Basically tourn

And the sidewalk, and I think it would widen the road probably three or four feet, which that's very narrow. I try to avoid driving down that road just because it's very, very narrow. So I think safety-wise and traffic-wise, I think that's a pretty big improvement. I'd like to see maybe some additional language in there to show that there's no in a commercial building that there would be no windows facing the residents so they could face State Street they could face to the north and to the other commercial property but not toward residents and I do like at least based on the concept from the d

So I have a couple thoughts. One thing I want to address is the idea that was presented of the split zoning. And I just want to try to articulate why I don't think that's a good solution. One, it will put more residents next to this unpleasant use that really nobody wants to be next to, right? It will put more traffic on to Trinnaman Lane. And the other thing is when we enter a development agreement, that's the that's the way i want to go because it blanket rezoning you're not going to get the protections you'll get it with a development agreement we could add things in there that you normally

talk about what we want in there and get it going so that when it come can it come back in two weeks if we do that yeah my my only concern is I really liked where Rachel had talked about with having so residents could see what it was gonna look like maybe nail down the berm versus the eight-foot fence if that's good and the trees I I just get that the residents are concerned we start trying to pass it now and they're worried about like it's not in writing they don't see it i'm with you i want to move this for the you know that's the dilemma always right do we do it by motion and include everyt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that's okay. I think that's good to put in the setbacks, put in the elements. I kind of want to know where the parking is because I know the concern was expressed that the adjacent resident didn't want a hangout area, which I get because I had that when I lived in an apartment. I know what it's like to have teenagers out there smoking or whatever. So one thing I thought of, so maybe we could just talk about elements and then come up with a design. I don't know. That's a good question. But I know what I was thinking, like, do you want the building closer to you or do you want parking? T

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'll try it. Are we good? Does anyone have any more input? You can ask to amend my, or add to my motion. So listen carefully, and if you have other things, add it. I did take notes. Okay. So we're tabling this, yeah. Mayor, I move that we table Resolution 2026-52, approval of the Nancy Walker Development Agreement on 2.581 acres of property located at 915 West State Street allowing certain restricted heavy commercial uses on the property and other site restrictions for commercial development and give direction to staff to amend the exhibit be the table of uses removing I need your help cremato

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

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

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

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

So I have a second. Council Member Newell?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes. Because I know it's 12-foot buffering requirements. So there's two problems. And I hope this is OK if I share this. But in my conversation with the developer, there's a question about where their property line is. And right now, the current home is right up against the property line. And so he said he's willing to let that go and put put his wall where it is I didn't really originally I thought the 12-foot buffer next to the resident would be a good idea but then we have encroachment issues a future you know somebody buys a house in the future they can just assume that oh that's my proper

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

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

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

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

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

That's just my personal preference. OK. So we have four to one. So we are now open on it. So we will talk about any questions on 5.5.

I would just move to deny it and clear it, because none of us are in favor of making this heavy commercial.

Yeah, I see legal nodding their head in agreement with Council Member Lockhart about not untabling it.

I'm happy to take it. I think my concern is to Ryan's point. We are just keeping them together

um we can table it i'm happy to take a motion because it is untabled well i would be happy to deny it with great reasons because i think that's where our discussion has led and i think that would we're down the path of development agreement so

I get, yeah, it's a good point that is usually we wait, but I don't think I would ever approve heavy commercial here. So it might be good just to clear that out of the air and let the option be residential as is or a development agreement. But that's me.

We don't buy the resolution on this development agreement. And for whatever reason, it can't come to consensus, which I do not believe that that is the case. However, if that became the case and then we had taken official action to deny a heavy commercial, I think that's my concern and why I'd rather just wait.

Well, in doing so, it means that they could not come back and ask for a heavy commercial zone change for six months, but they could ask for a different zone change. Is that right, Mike?

Good yeah, so they could come back and ask for commercial or ask for some other residential zone They just couldn't ask for heavy commercial for a year.

Yep. I think we're leaning toward if we weren't going to If we're gonna just leave a residential we'd probably go for a lighter commercial zone right mm-hmm. Yeah, so then I would say I'm happy to give a motion to deny Some is that your motion? Yeah, I'll read it just to be official here Mayor, I move to tonight, let's see, tonight ordinance number 27-2026, the Walker zone change on 2.5 acres located at 915 West State Street, changing the zoning from R18 to commercial, CH heavy commercial.

So I have a first from Councilmember Harrison. Do I have a second? Second. Second from Councilmember Newell. Any questions on that one? So we'll start. I have a question for Ryan on that motion.

Ryan, if we, for whatever reason, and again, I don't think that this will be the issue, but if we don't come together with the applicant on the consensus of the development agreement, are there legal risks associated to denying that a commercial application for the zone change, seeing as it does match the general plan?

Okay, and can we use, I guess, the findings from the moment when we do say that we're denying this, that we're working on a development agreement with the applicant in a different direction?

Yeah, so I would add some findings if possible. If the finding I mentioned would be included by the motion, I'd appreciate it.

You okay with that, Councilmember Harrison? Yes. Councilmember Noll?

Do you want to outline the findings? Is that what you're... Yeah. So the findings that we are working on a development agreement that would not include a heavy commercial zoning and that the heavy commercial zoning is not conducive or compatible with the surrounding residential zones and that we're finding... We're working on residential zoning with some allowances to be able to make it work with the surrounding residents.

Thank you. You OK with that, Councilmember Harrison? Yep. OK. We'll start with you, Councilmember Harrison. Yes. Councilmember Stallings? Councilmember Freeman? Yes. Councilmember Lockhart? Yes. Councilmember Newell? Great. OK. Item 5.6, consideration of Ordinance 38-2026, approval of the Jay Peterson zone change. changing 0.406 acres located at 3455 North Point Drive from public facility, PF, to transitional holding, TH5. Is that yours, Mike? Mike, is that one yours? 5.6. Sorry.

We're just doing the undo button. Whoops.

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

May I move that we approve ordinance number 38-2026, approval of the J. Peterson zone change, changing .406 acres located at 3455 North Center Point Drive from public facility to transitional holding, with the findings that the proposed zone change cleans up a previous mistake in zoning the property public facility, and the proposed zone change preserves property rights for the owner.

So I have a first from Council Member Freeman. I have a second. Second. Second from Council Member Stallings. Any questions? Council Member Stallings, we'll start with you. Yes. Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart.

Yes. Okay, 5.7, consideration of Resolution 2026-54, adopting the Lehigh City Data Privacy Program Policy.

I looked it over, and it looks like a lot of work. And I appreciate it all, all that you've done. And with consultation from Councilman Harrison, who's worked in this field a little bit.

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

Mr. Mayor, I move to approve Resolution 2026-54, Adopting the Lehigh City Data Privacy Program Policy.

But first, Council Member Harrison, do I have a second? Second. Second. Council Member Freeman, any questions? We'll start with you, Council Member Freeman. Council Member Lockhart. Yes. Council Member Newell. Yes. Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

Okay, thank you. Let's take a six or five minute bio break. No, don't do it. Because. You know what I have two minutes, so we'll take just a brief recess To the Lehigh City Parks arts recreation and culture park program guidelines Matt back to you Okay, so we talked about this one about a month ago as well and

So the decision would be made about the same time? Is that what I hear?

OK. Can you remind me, since I've only been through one budget cycle, of when you typically like to have the budget meetings with the council and the final budget decisions? For anyone? I heard budget decisions. Can you remind me when the council typically does work session, like makes budget decisions for the, you know, That's that kind of timeline? Just kind of looking at timeline? Yeah.

Matt, I appreciate all your work on this. This is a long process and a lot of language in here. I appreciate up to 30%. I think just one tiny addition would be to say the council will allocate funds toward cultural grants, but not to exceed or up to 30%, just so that we're, I think... There's concerns like oh we could just do 0% right and so I just want to ensure in the language I think Michelle made this suggestion as well that we're there's there's something to say there there will be funds allocated for cultural grants, but up to 30% I think easy change on that one and And I think, my perso

Yeah, I can support that. And I think you've done a great job. I don't really have any issues with anything that's in this current policy at this point.

Yeah, the one thing either way that I'd really like to see is being able to have the applicants be able to present. And so maybe that really takes away from if the staff is the first line to kind of weed things out and then they come and present. I think about, like, I wasn't on council at the time, but there was a case, and this was with the Silver Band, before we had the minor grants as well, and, like, trying to figure out, you know, how could we be able to fund, or how could the council at the time be able to fund the repairs to the wagon when they didn't qualify, because they don't make t

So yeah, I support this. guess coming directly to the city council i see this i mean this has to deal with tax dollars right it is a tax and we are the taxing body or tax taxing authority i suppose so i like that it's kind of a similar um process as our budgets are where we get to meet with the department heads and find out ask them questions directly so i like being having the opportunity to meet directly with applicants instead of having to ask the chair of a committee to answer the questions in behalf of the applicants, I guess. I would want to add on my preference would be to throw it in o

So should it be something like the distribution of park tax funding should be used for the community grant program up to 30%? Something like it shall be used?

I would just say up to 30%, but not less than 1% or whatever. OK. You said it well. Greater than 0%. Yeah.

There you go. Something like that. Some funds must be used

30% yeah can you remind me of the timeline for just the City Council adding this is there a time for them to for the applicants to present to City Council yeah so proposed the first four of April yeah work session in April yeah Yeah, I just want to make sure that they have an opportunity to present and like Council Member Stalling said.

Yeah, and like Council Member Stalling said, we want to ensure that we have some public comment period as well because that is important to have the residents input.

And that, I know that there's noticing requirements when it's a public hearing, so if that's

which I think is imperative with using taxpayer dollars.

I would just add, just with the committee, non-committee aspect, I think the committees work hard, and we have a very proactive council, which is always a good thing. But you can see this year, we coordinate and talk as a council quite a bit. We never really interacted much with the... park committee um and so it would be very difficult for committees as we've seen to try to understand our priorities and where we're moving and so they're working hard to put something together not knowing that hey we have these other priorities we're considering general fund and what goes toward Park Capital pr

Any other questions, or are we ready to make a motion?

If I may, Mayor, I'm really struggling to reconcile committee portion. I really love that the applicants will present to council as well. I think that's great. And I think our opportunity to meet with them is phenomenal. So I appreciate that. And I just love relevant involvement. I love having them participate in the process. more than just providing comment, but being actively engaged. So I'm going to really struggle with that particular piece of removing them from the process, because I just feel like their input is invaluable and important for the future of the Park Tax to remain in Lehigh.

So can I ask a question, Council Member Lockhart or Mayor? So are you saying that you would rather have the percent defined more like a 10% to 30% or what would satisfy your concerns with the percentage?

Yeah, the reason why I'm thinking more in terms of keeping it really good with like the 70-30% for sure is because the application, like these unlawful opportunities are now... of the general fund. So I'm worried that creating some flexibility within the 30%, some years it could be 28, 22, 17%. That creates more unpredictability for them. And so I'm trying to mitigate some of that and give them some consistency to come on. That they know that the available fund is always 30% of the total Part of tax revenue. Because I...

Yeah, that makes sense. I would be supportive of having a range from 10% to 30%. I think as we have increased revenue, the amount allocated for the park tax will increase. So yeah, I think that it's nice to have a little bit of flexibility, but I'm fine narrowing the window to about 10% to 30% instead of above 0% to 30%.

Yeah, well, I think, and maybe this might help at least my reasoning, Council Member Lockhart, so so every year this percentage i mean 30 five years ago was much lower than 30 this year which will be you know lower than it will be in five years so because the tax the total dollar amount is always increasing because our sales tax is always increasing the dollar amount actually should be fairly stable um and and again it'll take a majority of the council to not do something or to do something, right? So I think the vision of the council or the majority of the council at any point in time for as

So plan the other side of that. Yes, it goes up. every year because we collect more, but also their cost of doing business also goes up too. So that's going up like their needs go up as well. And if they're going to continue to do more, that's going to go up. And then also, even though we have it in there, it becomes arbitrary. We went over 30% last year. So it's like we could have it in there as a recommendation. I would almost just say that we shall allocate a portion and that it's to be determined by the city council. I don't know that I would be holding to 30% if there was a need in the co

Do you think we need to have a percentage, Matt, to provide predictability for applicants or do you like, do they kind of, you don't need, do they,

do they look at that when they're making their requests because that 10 to 30 percent we don't typically that sounds very predictable to them yeah we haven't typically communicated to applicants the percentage we communicate a dollar amount and the challenge i guess it's not predictable i prefer that it would be but it's a competitive grant so you know i think they know that they're not going to get They may or may not get what they ask for. It's a tough one. But I do just want to point out to the rest of the council that the requirement that it not be more than 50% of their operating expenses

Yeah, I guess I just want to avoid the situation where, OK, now you have $800,000 for grants because that's 30%. And then we go through it, and we get to like $600,000. And like, oh, we have $200,000. Let's look for more ways to grant it out.

Whereas, like, I mean, I think this makes it more competitive for the grant applicants each year to say like, yeah, it could be 20% or 30%. We don't know. So we have to have a really good case. I think we're going to get more public input through this, especially without a committee. We're going to push for other broader community input. And it gives us the opportunity to And this is something we didn't really do this year, but to balance out the needs of the park capital projects that benefit a huge number of people in the city who live here versus the needs of the grant applicants. I just th

So I think that's a good point. Yeah, I support that.

I have liked that with American Fork, that it's more together, that they're looking at what needs are for parks, they're looking for arts, and One year they have like 45% for arts and culture, and then maybe the next year it's down to 25%. So it's variable depending on like, hey, we have this big project over an art die, so we want to get this done, and we're going to put more towards it that year. So I just like being able to look at it for the year, what the grants and what the needs are, rather than feel that we're, like you're saying, that we're trying to spend money into a bucket that may

Any other questions, comments from Matt? I am happy to take a motion on this item.

I was just going to say, just include what I said before. OK. I'll make the motion. OK. Let's see. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-53, approving an update to the High City Parks, Arts, Recreation, and Culture Park Program Guidelines, approving the Park Tax Revision Revised No Committee Redlined Draft, I guess, and include I have to go through them again. OK. Include in paragraph four to include just part 14 rather than 1401. I should just save this. Under number one, policy to include along with 2021 ballot proposition and Utah code 5912-1403 to include 1402. And then in Section

Yeah, not more than 30% for cultural grants. I think, I mean, if you want to have a floor at 1%, that's fine. I just don't want people to think like, oh, well, they're going to revise it to like at 1%. I think that's not the intent, right? So I think... you know, a minimum of 70% toward part capital projects and no more than 30% toward cultural grants, which I think that only adds to 70%.

Matt, I'll leave the wording up to you because I think you said it well before, just that some funds should be allocated to arts and cultural programs. Yeah, we can say that. Okay.

So I will amend my motion. So are we saying some funds for cultural? Are we saying up to 30%?

I think we can say funds will be allocated toward cultural grants up to 30% or not to exceed 30%.

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

There are a lot of changes. Like I said earlier, I'm so looking forward to the applicants coming to us, but unfortunately I just can't support getting rid of the committee, so I'm going to be a no.

Yeah, I'm okay with the changes, as is the trial year, so I'm going to say yes. Council Member Harrison.

OK. Item 5.9, consideration of ordinance 36-2026, approval of a development code amendment to table 30.080, table of off-street parking requirements, adding new parking requirements for preschools, daycares, offering specialized therapy with higher student-teacher ratios. Mike, I believe this one's yours.

Yeah, I just have a question. It talks about a parking demand study.

So is that a city? The city provides the parking demand study or the applicant?

Okay. And then... You said calculate one parking stall per employee on the largest shift. So I guess that's just based on what the business reports. Is that what I understand?

Okay. And I'll just throw it out. I hope that's something you'll explain to them so they're like, hey, if you guys get more employees, you're going to have to find more parking somewhere.

so I appreciate this because obviously we found out there's a need right to kind of change it beyond what our standard educational parking requirements are I'm just wondering is it a little too narrow as far as the application like it's pretty specific about you know this these therapeutic services I guess And this might be down the road. We may pass this and then fix it later on. But I'm just wondering if there's other situations like that. This is the one we ran into. But it seems like there would potentially be other issues like this with other- Other similar uses? Yeah, where it's just a h

I'm just tired of learning the hard way. Fix me later.

So they don't have to do the parking demand study. They can just go with one parking stall per employee on the larger shift plus five visitor spaces. But if they want an exception, kind of like an altered parking reduction, that's when they would do their parking demand study. Parking study. Yep.

Any other questions for Mike? Okay. If there's no further questions, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Mayor, I move to approve ordinance 36-2026, approval of a development code amendment to table 37.08, table of off-street parking requirements, adding new parking requirements for preschools and daycares, offering specialized therapy with higher student teacher slash teacher ratios.

So the first from Council Member Freeman. I have a second. Second. Second from Council Member Stallings. Any questions? So we'll start with you, Council Member Newell. Council Member Harrison. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart.

Okay. Item 5.10, consideration of Resolution 2026-55, granting Zio a non-exclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Lehigh City and approving the agreement.

Can I ask a random question, Ryan? And maybe this isn't for you, maybe this is for someone else, but speaking of telecom, if there's gaps in cell service throughout the city, and not that I don't have a massive gap right over my house, or my calls always drop, but to improve that infrastructure, How do we do – like, do we go after those companies to see if they're willing to put towers in? Do we lease land for that? Yeah.

All right. Yep. So it's interesting you bring up that question. I've actually talked to Joel about this very issue. So there are some gaps there.

Yeah. There's two spots in my house I have to sit when I'm on a phone call. And if I'm not sitting there, the call will drop.

Any questions on the item 5.10? If there's no questions, I'm happy to take a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-55, granting ZAO a non-exclusive franchise to operate a telecommunications network in Lehigh City and approving the agreement.

So I have a first from Council Member Newell. I have a second. Second. Second from Council Member Harrison.

Council Member Harrison, we'll start with you. Yes. Council Member Stallings. Yes. Council Member Freeman. Yes. Council Member Lockhart. Yes. Okay, great. All right, item 5.11, continued discussion of the Gardner-Plum development agreement from the August 11, 2026 city council meeting. This is a non-action item. It's a discussion item to give some direction, I hope. As it comes to, we'll invite the developer to come to the microphone and we'll start there.

Mr. Plum, why don't you present, and then we'll have some questions for you.

Can I ask just a follow-up question? Yeah. Remind me your name. Paxton. Paxton, okay. So you mentioned you need rooftops to support the commercial development that you have on the west side, which my understanding is a hotel.

Right. Yeah. So I understand that logic for retail, 100%. You can't just put a Smith's out in the middle of the field somewhere a mile from anybody. But if the goal, and I like the concept of a hotel, I haven't heard that justification before. So I just wanted to get clarity on that.

That was my question, too. Why do you need rooftops or a hotel? And I'm assuming with this plan, I kind of want to know what else you're going to put in there. So is that what you're showing us?

Can I ask where the residential portion on the east side Where's their egress? How do they get out of this area?

Yeah, if you guys can explain it a little more. I consider me a new person, so explain it as basically as you can.

people would need to come through the Willow Point development or through the south through Hardman Way to this new development? Is that what I see?

And am I correct in understanding that if the density isn't granted, then there'll be two big box stores in this bottom part of the retail area instead of the fitness center, specialty grocer, et cetera, is that what I'm hearing?

Mike, can you go back to your Frankenstein concept that you did that was very impressive?

Maybe it's so late, I'm just so fascinated that you did it so fast. But for the development on the east side, are those yellow dots, are those apartment buildings or townhomes?

Sorry, quick question. Back-to-back, do they have yards then or no? Do they have left? Are they literally back-to-back, so no yard?

Are they the kind where you have to go up the stairs to get to the dwelling place?

Can you do over the math again of the units that you would like to transfer and where you'd like to transfer them?

And you'd rather have it on retail anyway because you don't want, I mean, neighbors don't want cut-through traffic off of a business. Precisely.

Do you have the photos or concepts of the single family homes? I thought I saw it, but I can't remember.

Can I ask you, so you say you need to transfer 30 units to the west side for you have to have them for the hotel? Or that's the minimum?

Is there any possibility? Oh, sorry. I know there's that canal there. To put a pedestrian bridge across there, because if you're going to have a grocery store, it would be wonderful if people could walk across the street to get there.

So are you concerned about flooding at all?

I have a question for staff. Mike, we have connectivity standards for pedestrians as well, right? I mean, and I feel, I remember there's one where it was, we put required steps to be put in. I mean, are there requirements here for that?

That's expensive. I've heard comments where residents at the existing subdivision like to be able to walk to Smith's and whatever's on the other side, they might have a great to keep cars off the road. Now, are you planning – I know we have, or at least in the past, have multifamily amenity requirements. Do you – what do you have planned for that? Is that something you looked at yet? Yeah.

Those, if you go back to the previous concepts, what are those curved things?

For the retail buildings outside of the grocer, are there specific retail you're targeting, or is it just?

Yeah, I think this is a lot more attractive, I think, than the last time we talked. I really like the additional retail. I like that there's no condominiums. which i think we covered last time as well um i love that you're adding additional parking um i think the i guess the one thing i'd like to see a little more of is just a tiny bit more open space or green space within the residential development just because it looks fairly packed i don't know if that's a possibility or not but i think this is a big improvement from our last discussion

On some of these units and what you were showing, too, it seemed like there was really deep driveways. These ones that are green, they seem deep. Is that when you're talking, like, how deep is that driveway?

So what's in front of the driveways? See how that looks like there's an additional space in front? Or is that the unit that's in front? I think it's the garage. Is that the garage that's extended?

Okay, it's where the dots are in different spots. Yeah.

One thing that I would like to know is a study of the area to the east and how the number of lack of parking stalls there are and also is there going to be enough parking for this development as well too? Because I anticipate that this parking area is going to be used more so by this new development than having them having, you know, some of that's quite a far distance to park in, but I just know it's really bad there. I just don't know how bad it is, if this is even sufficient to cover the needs that are going on there.

So where you've cut in and drawn in the parallel, that would be, is what's added. That's not there right now. That's correct. It's just straight. Okay.

So right now are they parking there and making it almost like a one-way?

If I may, sorry to chime in from the ceiling, but if I may add on to that, when you say that you're coming up with these parking solutions, are you, am I understanding correctly that you are offering to pay to improve the parking situation in this development as well?

Okay, so just to repeat that, do you need the city, both the traffic team and the planning department to obey these changes? You need the HOA to pay for the implementation of these changes, but you guys will provide access to your somewhat discounted contractors who can give them better rates. And that's the three-way partnership to solve this problem.

Understood. Okay. Thank you for the question. So why not do that entire north side? Why just have those cut-ins? Is it just more aesthetic?

I have a question. So maybe not for you, but for the commercial portion, there's a lot shown here. Is this something you could commit to in a development agreement as far as maybe square footage of retail or a hotel?

What kind of, I don't know if you can name the hotel, but can you give us a start?

I see that you have it on Redwood, and I did drive over here, check it out. It seems like there's a big grade separation. There is. So I don't see, especially on the east side, that it would be seen at all from 2100 north. So in these retail stores behind the hotel, are they going to have that exposure so that they can –

It looks like it's not much of a grade from 2100 or Redwood.

Yeah, even the freeway, it's probably only 10 feet up.

Oh, I drove it and I felt it was like way below.

Yeah, it's like 10 feet at least. Yeah, when you drive it, it's a lot. The front of Drota is even great. But even from the freeway, I think you can get a street view of that as well.

Yeah, I think it's worse on the east side than the west side.

yeah i feel better that was i think my point probably didn't make clear last time was that i want you know not just promises but i'd love to see some commitments in the development agreement if we're going to transfer all that density down to an area especially i i do have concerns that it's going through that packed residential area anyway that traffic additional traffic but if we're going to commit to that allow that you know I definitely want some commitments as far as the commercial goes and I'd love to see maybe the city can find I just would love pedestrian access I mean it's right there

So I guess for the development agreement, I guess you want some answers for what what that would consist of. As far as what you're presenting here, how much can you commit on this? Because I know it's conceptual. It's like ideal state.

I just feel like you got your customers right there. I know.

Yeah, but this is a big move. This is putting a lot of density in an already very dense location. So that's a big commitment on the city's part. And there's going to be a lot of complaints, and it's going to cause issues there. So in order to do that, I feel for myself that there needs to be some commitment for something significant. in order to justify the density. What does that look like to you? That's why I'm asking you what you're willing to commit to. What I'm hearing right now is the daycare.

Well, you can reserve it for the retail. It is all reserved for retail.

I know, but you can commit to... instead of asking for another development amendment to get more residential, I don't know. But I want, personally, commit to so many square footage of retail, whatever that looks like, whatever that is.

No, just square footage, and the concept plan could change. I would like the hotel to be a commitment because that's a huge thing. I think it would be beneficial for the area.

I mean, the definition of the development agreement are... certain commitments, right? And so if there's X amount of retail square footage, like even looking at this now, That makes me happy. I don't know the total square footage. You know, there may be.

I don't think. What you've tried to do but haven't been able to do because you haven't had the support to do it. Exactly. Yeah.

I would see this similar to what was done with the Micron development. Yeah. With that kind of developer agreement that we had very specifics, and there were specifics tied to grocers. It wasn't, you know, it had to be at certain levels and things like that. That's what I think would be important to see just because we are bringing residential into this area. I know it's like the difference of like we're not adding more density but it is a big impact in this area that we still have to even see if with the infrastructure can handle it um for one too but i do think that this is an important piec

So that's a good point and leads to another question.

So do you, after you move the... What was it? 124 units from the north to the south. Do you have remaining units still?

yeah there would be no ER use and the development agreement essentially when we finished these parcels are it's it's been completed just my fear because we've dealt with this too much the fear is I want to trust you so I want to know if there's something we can do I don't know but the fear is always promised retailer commercial but we have to have the residential. So the residential goes in, but then kind of not falling through on the commercial.

I think the fear is, too, is yes, we can get this residential here, but this retail has been trying to happen for 10 years. So it's like we add in more residential, but that timeline.

This is going to sound bad, but it makes me happy that you're still here.

So I would say, if we can quantify some of this retail space, square footage, whatever, as well as a hotel, that would be helpful. I think we've come a long way. The only other thing that I feel as a Westsider myself, and I know Emily is also out West, if there's any possible way to swap some of those units, even just a few for a soccer field or some green space. Because even when I drive through there, it's just row after row after row. And there's concrete and there's homes, right? That's it. And there's some small, tiny, tiny community parks. I know that you have some amenities in there. Bu

Yeah, it looks like there's a playground. Go, Emily.

Okay, I was going to take that opportunity to build upon what James said as a less-sider. First of all, thank you for all the work on this and providing this on visuals. I appreciate the work on the commercial side. I am still, like I

Yeah, so I understand you need 30 ERUs to build the hotel and some of that retail space there, but to have the specialty grocers and some of those above and beyond stores that you would like, you need a little bit more density to draw them in on the residential piece of property. And so that's where the 94 units come to transfer there. That's what I'm understanding, to incentivize some of that retail development. Is that right?

Any other questions, comments? I think we've got a road to run on. Oh, go ahead. If you've stayed here this late, you can speak.

Thank you. Okay, that gave you a little bit of a road to run on. That's a great question.

Fair enough. Awesome. Thank you for staying late with us. Okay. Item, we'll go back to 3.3. Ryan, did you have that one? I know Craig was going to take it. Did you want to take that real quick? Sure.

Did we talk about future connectivity, pedestrian connectivity or something like that?

I really... Whatever you're willing to commit to as far as the commercial portion, I'd like to see that in agreement. I want to make sure, and I appreciate you trying to get the parking in there, but I'm just thinking of the little families that are going to live there, and I'd love to look at the amenities that you provide and make sure different areas have access to that. And even If you're willing to go with a few less units or something to provide those, I just want to make it a good place. I'd love for the city to work with them or to get some pedestrian connection, if possible. Like, eve

Yeah, I think that summarizes what I would have said as well. I would just say, for the agreement, just so we can see the concept, like I'm a visual person, so being able to see the concept like we've been viewing it tonight, along with the quantifiable numbers, in addition to maybe the pedestrian connection, maybe some additional green space in place of a few units, and then, yeah, I think that covers it.

Yeah, my thing would be to look at the agreements that we've done over with Whole Foods and over with the micron development. Some of those I think is important with this. If we're bringing in residential, there is going to need to be some kind of tiered timeline with as far as density and retail expectations, things like that. If we're going to make this kind of commitment, it's also important to me to look at what would actually solve the parking issues over there, if this is going to be enough. I think that we need to make sure that we're addressing the parking fully for that development an

Council Member Freeman, anything you'd like to add? I agree with most of what was said.

Council Member Lockhart, anything you'd like to add? I agree with most of what was said. Mike, you got all that? You guys good with that? Yes. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, back to item 3.3, the discussion of the proposed updates of the Lehigh Municipal Code, Title VII, Chapter 3, regarding the parking code violations. Ryan.

So can you explain? Why why you see the need for this I?

So previously, did you have the stipulation that it would turn into a criminal violation after 15 days, or is that?

I mean, it just says 15 days, so I just was trying to clarify that.

Are the changes the highlighted sections?

I think as long as they can pay in any of those 15, like even on a Sunday or Saturday. Because if it's 15 calendar days, but four of those days they can't pay, I don't know how it works. Luckily, I don't have any parking tickets. That's a good question. So if they can only pay Monday through Friday, I would say maybe make it 15 business days.

More than that yeah, so I would like to see it do third We say 30 days instead of 15 just because we have restrictive hours with the info center And I think that I would rather not criminalize people to a Class C misdemeanor I guess let me clarify so if we make James Changed its 15 business days. business days No, I don't think that's necessary. But I, yeah, it says 15 days at this point, which I'm guessing is calendar days. I just have struggled myself with having four days only.

Are you saying 15 business days of when the info center is open?

15 days is almost 16. Yeah, that's a month. Yeah, that's a whole month.

Because it's only four business days a week. Yeah. Normally, a business day is a Monday through Friday. If we're saying, that's what I'm saying.

I mean, a month, if you wanted to define it in business days, if you wanted to define it in calendar days, whatever is easiest. I don't know.

And it always eventually could lead to criminal charges. That's not new, right? It's just clarifying that it's Class C misdemeanor. I think before it just said a misdemeanor. It seemed like... If I read it right, I don't know.

And you see a need for this just to clean it up because there's a bunch of backlog of these things, type of things.

And then they'll be under your department? No.

So this will be under the Justice Court?

and ad hoc trying to figure it out. It just simplifies it. It simplifies the whole process.

So, I'm sorry. It's okay. I've got one ticket. I paid online. I was done with this. I don't know how this works, but the hearing exam, is that a new position that we need to fill, or is that somebody else?

Okay, so that's what you mean by an outside somebody to come in?

Eliminates the backlog. Is that additional budget for the contracting? For the contract?

Yeah Okay any other questions No questions, I'm happy to take a motion to adjourn Okay, I've got councilman for Harrison council members know All in favor say aye Okay