City Council - Regular Meeting

Okay, welcome to our council meeting today, our pre-council meeting at 4.30 here in the Lehigh City Council Chambers. Currently, we have Council Member Stallings, Council Member Freeman, Council Member Lockhart that creates a quorum, and we welcome all of you who are here with us today. We'll start with opening comment. That'll be given by myself, and then we'll go on to item number two. Our Father in heaven, we are grateful for the state, grateful for the opportunity we have to pause and to thank thee for the many blessings we enjoy. We're thankful for this city and the opportunities we have

I, Mr. Mayor, may I? Yes, please. I think I had talked to Dean about possible impact fees, being able to pay for this. Did you happen to ever find that out?

Okay. So some of the impact fees can be used to pay for this. So from my opinion and perspective, that's the information I was waiting on. I wanted to know if we could use some of the impact fees to help pay for it. I'm supportive of it and just wanted more information on how to finance it. So anyway, that's where I stand.

I just assumed we were going forward with it, just because there is a long lead time, correct? Yes. Like if we get it going now, then we would get it in a few years or that sort of thing?

Yeah, and I agree with both Emily and Michelle. I was supportive of it. I thought that it was in the works, I guess, and I had actually even reached out to the county to see if they could help facilitate some of that. We're still hopeful. That was my understanding, and I was kind of waiting also for more information about impact fees.

so hopefully that can work out and offset some of those costs other questions so chief just one question i have if we go ahead with this do we have to put upon order i'm assuming we have to put some kind of a financial number down to hold that we don't we just order okay

But at least now we're on a list, correct? So once we order it, we are on a list that's constantly moving. Yep, we get in the build order.

Yeah, when we talked about it before, I thought that was awesome. Let's get in line. And things change in two years. You can always pull out. But I think it was smart to get our name on the list. Okay.

Any other questions for Chief Kraft? Okay. I think we're good there.

Okay, item 2.2, discussion of downtown facilities master plan as currently designed. Jason, I know you're taking this one.

With this one, council, as Jason prepares, I know this is a bit of a presentation, so let's get through the presentation. Write down your questions, and we'll go. Let's get through the presentation as he goes. So be mindful of your questions as you go. If you need a pen, I've got an extra.

Mayor, so how many cars will fit in the parking structure? Is that three levels, four levels?

And then I'd have a question about the plaza. What do you imagine being in the plaza? Is it like farmer's markets or things like that?

So if the library is going to be moved out of City Hall, what are you going to do with the first and second floor where the library is now? Are you expecting them to?

Okay, we can ask questions, all right. Please, yeah. So how does it work with fire access if you're doing kind of like these narrowing things here on Center Street? Does fire need access down to Main Street? Anyways, just wondering about that and if it's a good location for Station 81.

So any thoughts on the, would you keep the Literacy Center and the Historic Society where they're at, or leave that?

So what did you say is dependent on the parking structure exactly? What is dependent on the parking structure? I mean, so far you've built City Hall. Yeah. And there's a Legacy Center and there's the public, you know. So what is dependent on that?

But in the meantime, we have basically the space here that's the public plaza, the library slash arts building, and that other parking lot that's parking. Because I don't know how much it costs, but I just remember Thanksgiving Point saying for a multi-level parking was in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

And right now we have wines park that takes the place of kind of this public Plaza idea. Okay. Okay.

That's a long walk from the parking structure to the library. People think this is a long walk.

I guess. Steps with little kids don't challenge.

Mayor Mayer. I like the plan. I have some thoughts on it, maybe some suggestions, but I think the thing that concerns me the most is maybe timeline and order of operations, which buildings next and at what point are we doing it. I think that slide is in here. Can we talk through what your guys' vision was for that?

Could we contract with the county and use some of their space or a different city's space? Like, is there options of where we could temporarily house the court while we were doing it?

So looking at this for me, I think just what you were saying, the number one would be the court. That's kind of the hinge that's stopping everything. And then to be able to do the fire station. Those two things I don't think are going to impact anything else. They're kind of where they are, where they need to be. The courts need to be there. I know that's already planned that way. And that makes the most sense that they can just be able to travel back and forth between the two buildings. So I am less inclined to spend any money towards doing any kind of design concept or something like this wh

Mayor, if I may. So do we have to have a court?

What does it look like for cities who don't have a justice court?

What does that kind of cost? What's it like versus having your own and not having your own? Do cities without a justice court save money?

Yeah, so maybe I should make a strong disclaimer. I am not advocating to eliminate staff or the Justice Court in any way, shape, or form. I'm asking questions to learn and understand.

And where I'm trying to get to is if we spend millions of dollars on a court, our residents are going to want to know why did you do that? And so I'm asking questions that I think a lot of residents would be asking. Why do we have one? Why don't we contract with the county? What's the value add? You know, all those things so that we can justify... spending millions on infrastructure and capital projects.

Jason, do you know what American Cork did? They didn't go with us, but did they go with the county? They went with the county.

That would be good to know. Because it seemed like during the budget that it was almost a net positive to have our own core system. So to be able to just weigh the two. Otherwise, we're going to pay for service versus we can recoup more than the cost. So that would be interesting to know.

So my thoughts on this right now, yeah, definitely know the cost, but it seems like the court and the fire station are the priorities. How soon we do that, you know, I don't know. But I don't like this current plan. There's a lot of empty space, and that will end up costing us a lot to have to build the parking structure. I also kind of worry, you know, Main Street, there's, we don't want a ton, there's backed up traffic, we don't want a ton of traffic on there. So I don't know, I don't like the cost of the parking structure, I don't like the empty space, and the Are you referring to the plaza

And I think when I was reviewing it, there's a senior center actually moves. I could be wrong. But I don't know if we talked about looking at redoing the Legacy Center, but I believe that's... something that this council at least is interested in. So I don't know where that would fit, but I think that it might be in here.

Yeah, because that could change things here also. For sure. For sure.

Jason, with this one where you've got the 79 stalls next to the library and arts center, and if we didn't do the parking structure, that could also be parking. So the plan could, in this, setup right there without the structure but keeping and just not having the plaza that could be almost like an addendum of like this is more conservative we're not doing a structure we're not doing a plaza but we're going to have more parking plus the annexed uh place or you know when the building goes down that would be more parking as well i think things like that where it's like we can make I'm just really

The children's Justice Court or Children's Center? It's kind of been talked about.

a purpose needed that hasn't been addressed.

And again, asking another sensitive question, not taking a position in any way, shape, or form. Why are we building buildings for nonprofit entities to be housed in? Why do we own and maintain facilities for entities that are not for Lehigh?

And they used to be, some of them used to be departments, right? Part of the city. So I know other cities like Springville, the city runs that under the city, you know. So it's, again, it's what you want, right? So Steve, while you're up here, can you refresh my memory? We did allocate money to study the Legacy Center. That included the fire station as well, correct or no?

Yeah, we included the outdoor pool. Yeah, that's right.

We did talk about putting money towards looking at it, right?

For the art center? library combo, would that include a theater or?

So I'm in favor of redoing it at some point because I think that all master plans should be looked at at some point. I think that I need more information. I think we can independently look at the Legacy Center and recreation as a whole, personally. I don't think that that is dependent on this plan. And we also can We'll see what happens with the court. I think we need some more information there, obviously, from all the questions that the council has given. So for me, that's where I'm at. I just think it's a good information-gathering period. I don't think that I want to jump in and do any sor

i think like just i know we're kind of like throwing out ideas i love the idea of the museum the historical society all of that being close together it starts to fill like a city you're going to go visit and see the museums and history like it brings people downtown so i i would be one that would want to try and get those type of organizations close together. I love to walk across the street from the Historical Society to the museum. I almost feel like they, in a lot of ways, they should be tied together. You go into the museum and there's a lot of historical pieces there that you kind of, so

And I would just add, I absolutely want to see the Legacy Center and Station 81 addressed soon. And I recognize the bottleneck to that is the court. And so for me, those three things are a top priority. Funding, timeline, all of that, I recognize we don't have all the information. But I would support efforts to move forward on those three things.

Any other comments? Great. Thank you. Thank you. OK. Item 2.3, parking code presentation and discussion. Co-present. Just remember that microphone.

So we're good. Just know that we're going to have a closed session. So you should be fine. So go ahead. You've got at least 45, 50, 55 minutes. Okay.

Is that in addition to the 30? No, that includes the 30.

Can you explain a little bit more about leased parking? Is there a timeline on that contract? Is it indefinite?

Okay. But if the city doesn't renew, then they're in trouble?

I'm just saying if we had a lot of businesses, and they need a lot of these parking and you know what yeah anyways just Correct yeah, that's the trade-offs.

Lots of great information. Thank you. Any questions?

Yeah, do you think the design of parking in the area kind of impacts how people use it? Like when you were showing me here this, how people could park here and go to Legacy, I was just trying to think even in the pedestrian walkability because, you know, you're trying to go the shortest distance as a pedestrian, right? Or if you have a stroller or kids or anything like that. Some of me think, I wonder if it's influenced with the landscaping we have, the pedestrian access, I don't know, just things like that.

Well, and we have this big green strip here. And then we have a wall that kind of basically tells people no, right? When you see a wall. So it just... I would love people to use this, but I would never think of using that from the Legacy Center because I would think, how would I cross that with my kids?

And if there's a corner access instead of walking to the ADA ramp or something like that, if you are needing that.

Yeah, I agree with that idea that if you make it more visual and maybe a raised crosswalk a little bit, you know how they have those? I just got back from a road trip, so I've been looking. I took pictures of bike lanes. I do that now. I don't know. You pay more attention, I guess. But that's one thing I noticed. There's a painted crosswalk. Versus, you know, when it's up and there's lights and it's like, I'm going to that one.

And talking about the historic downtown, I mean, I get the old buildings and they weren't designed to have parking, right? But when we are tearing them down and building new buildings. That's where I'm like, they could put in some parking. I mean, they've got garages down under the Parker Brown building there. I guess that was one thought I had. And I'm not thinking this is possible, but does it add a ton of expense for people to put, if they want to do an office space, maybe two or three stories, whatever, to put parking on the bottom level? Is that hugely expensive, like prohibitively expens

Some cities have it. A lot of them don't. We have it. We're one of the oldest cities. And to me, that should be the draw and the attraction, that we don't want a ton of people down here, that we would need a parking structure, I'm thinking. But you talked about managing demand. I just like the idea of the cute little shops and old buildings and that kind of stuff. And I see that work well in some cities. Like I said, just getting back from traveling, we stopped in one city where it didn't work well. I mean, they were very nice old buildings, but they were closed. And one thing I noticed, they

And access drives that. Again, just traveling and seeing the differences. So I think it needs to be thought out carefully. And some of the things that we've heard from residents that about parking issues or the business owners, it could really hurt businesses. And it causes a lot of contention between neighbors there. So thank you for your presentation. It's something we definitely need to work on and look into.

Hey, Mary. I have three questions. Is that OK? OK. So did you say that we need a traffic circulation plan for downtown, or we have one, or that's a recommendation in the future?

OK, thank you. And then it looks like you said that in the Stark area, parking requirements are reviewed case by case by the Planning Commission. Is that right, what I understand?

Okay. And then I've had some businesses express to me that the city has a responsibility for the parking requirements. As in, let's say a really popular business moves in, and they take... all the parking in the area. And like, kind of to Michelle's point, then those existing businesses feel shafted or like, what happened to our two parking spots that are now taken? And some of them, some business owners have even said to me, well, this is on the city. This is like a liability for a city. This is sort of thing. And I don't know if this is kind of more a legal question, but to me, I mean, I hav

I mean, I would like to see that because it's not necessarily demanding parking, but it's kind of demanding a way to increase the parking we have, like in a nice... It contributes in multiple ways. If you're having landscaping and you're having traffic calming measures, how do we, and I don't know since you're the code guys, how do we put that in place? That is a concern for me because I would love to see more businesses come, but I do think that there are some hesitations just with the parking issues. that they perceive, whether they're there or not. Perceptions.

But you'll be tracking kind of the peak demand sort of thing too? Yeah. I think it would be good just to keep monitoring that, especially in the downtown.

Sorry, quick question to follow up on that. So do we need to put in code where if there is redevelopment and they're going to, okay, we're looking at the Parker Brown one, the parking lot thing, where they could help, we could require them to help pay for it? fix, you know, redoing the road where it needs to be, because there's not even a sidewalk there, right? It's even a... Do we need to codify that somehow to get them to help pay for that? Because I believe that was part of the parking they were looking at, right?

Any other questions? I will say this parking lot, watching out my window, this parking lot has technically only been open for about a week and a half, maybe two weeks since they moved all the landscape stuff. So that's very, very, very new to incoming people. So we'll kind of see how it gels a little bit. Yeah. Anyway, thank you. OK, no problem. Thank you. OK, item four, administrative report. Jason.

Great. I think we'll go with that. If for some reason something comes up, we can also add one, correct? So for now, we'll move forward. I believe that's August 28th? 25th. So Tuesday, August 25th at this point in time, then we'll be canceled. We'll kind of proceed with if there's something in need, we'll hold one in need. Anything else, Jason? Nope, that's it. Okay, council reports. Any reports from the council?

I don't have anything to report, but thank you.

Mayor, I had the opportunity to be involved in a countywide event this past weekend and just wanted to share that... It went well given the weather and the west side of Lehigh, Saratoga Springs, and Eagle Mountain. We'll have another opportunity soon to participate in that event. So just wanted to share and thank you for your support for that event.

Great. Thank you. Any other events going on or anything other to report on?

Okay. We have another historical marker unveiling. That's Wednesday, August 5th at 7 p.m. The People's Co-op, and the address is 151 East State Street. And I believe one of our council members is speaking, but I didn't pull up the schedule. James? Okay, I better remind him.

Yeah, there you go. He is now, right? It was mine. It was like that. That's what you get when you miss a meeting. You get to speak. And we are having the Heritage Days coming up on August 29th, and Mayor, I'm putting you on the spot because I didn't send you an email yet, but they would like you to speak at that when we honor the honorees, and I can get you more information on that. We had on Saturday, the day after Pioneer Day, we had our kind of a soft opening of the Southern Railroad depot, train depot, Um, and it's, I stopped by, I think you all got invitations. I don't know if you were at

I am around August 29, so if you'll give me the information, I'd be happy to participate. Thank you. Anything else? Great. I will take a motion to move into a closed session. I have a motion from Council Member Freeman. I have a second.

Do I need to say the whole thing? Yeah. OK. I move to enter into closed session for allowed under the Open and Public Meetings Act to discuss exchange lease for sale of real property pending or reasonably imminent litigation or the character competence or physical or mental health of an individual or any other lawful purpose have a second second second from councilmember Newell all any questions all in favor say aye okay that's unanimous we'll now go to closed session

So we welcome all those who joined us in the gallery today. We appreciate that you're here. We will go ahead and start. If you would please stand, and we will recite the Pledge of Allegiance. We'll be led by Councilmember Lockhart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lockhart. Okay, our first item, item 2.1. This is an awesome 2.1, our introduction of Miss Lehigh Brooklyn Ward. Come on up. And welcome. Welcome.

Awesome. Thank you, Brooklyn. Any questions for Ms. Lehi? I don't think she came ready to answer questions.

Thank you, Brooklyn. Okay, item number three is citizen input. So we will open it up. A couple of rules here is we would invite whoever has comments to make on items that are not on the agenda. So if there's an item not on the agenda that you'd like to make a comment about, we would invite you up to the microphone. Please state your name, and you'll have three minutes to make your comment. The three minutes will appear on the... on the projector above, so you'll see that. If you get to the three minutes, not a big issue. If you see three, go to zero, finish your comments, and we appreciate tha

Any questions on the consent agenda? If there's no questions, I'm happy to accept the motion.

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

So I have a motion from Council Member Newell.

So part of your motion is to strike item 4.1, correct?

Yes, because there's no minutes. Second.

I have a second from Councilmember Lockhart. Any questions on that motion? We'll start with you, Councilmember Newell.

Great. Thank you. Okay, item five, 5.1, public hearing for fiscal year 2027, executive municipal officers compensation increases. This is a public hearing. So with that, again, the public has the opportunity to come up and speak. So I will open the public hearing at 7.06. And we will close that public hearing then at 7.06 with no comment. So thank you for that. We'll now go to item 5.2, the public safety impact fee enactment. Before we go to the public hearing, Dean will invite you to come up and go through that. And after they're done, we'll open up for a public hearing.

give that time back any questions I just I have one just out of curiosity why is it non-residentially that can go towards the apparatus or the vehicles it's kind of a

I was just wondering. Thank you. So when you're doing your analysis, if you could go back to the square footage one. I noticed that both in police and fire, you used the square footage. Was it this one? Yeah. Help me understand why this is the approach you're taking. Why are these the variables you're looking at to determine this?

Yeah, and is it state code that forces you down this route, like the requirements for what you can use impact fees for? Is that what sends you down this analysis path, or...?

Yeah. Okay. Thank you. That's really helpful. Appreciate that.

I noticed that you said this is calculated based on not having proposed increases in square footage for public safety. Is that right?

fire it was just the apparatuses is that what it is 58 yeah it's just the only additions are uh that were included in this were the additional okay apparatus and replacements yeah okay so we were just talking about um you know a possibility of doing redoing station 81 and just looking based on the master plan it was an increase of 7 000 square foot 7 000 square feet there I know I kind of mentioned that to Dean as replacing Station 81, and he had said if we're not increasing the square footage, then it doesn't increase. But if we increase the square footage, like if that's projected, then that

Yeah, just looking at that kind of general rough draft there of a possible new station, it said increase of approximately 7,000 square foot. And I don't know if there was some increase in personnel associated with that or not, but I don't know if that would change things at all. Yeah. I just wanted to point that out. Any questions, how that will work? Yeah, I might just address that a little bit.

Any other questions? okay thank you this is a public hearing so it is open to the public so we will open the public will open the public hearing at 722 for anyone who would like to speak to this item okay so it's 722 we'll close the public hearing And we'll bring it back to the dais. And we'll talk about item B, which is the consideration of ordinance 33-2026, adopting an impact fee enactment ordinance, impact fee facilities plan, and an impact fee analysis for the provision of public safety facilities within Lehigh City. Are there any other questions the council has on this one?

And I'm just seeking to understand a little bit more the reason why we don't add the analysis of headcount into the impact fee. I recognize we can spend impact fees on capital costs.

it said 40 000 calls yeah i think i'm going back to the budget discussions that we had where we were using calls as a metric to determine head count but then in this impact fee analysis we're saying that those are separate and and the connection is not there so it's and i recognize like we're talking about two different things but they are definitely related and i don't know if there just needs to be more discussion at a state level um but from my perspective It seems like the impact, I might put in a whole new planned subdivision.

Well, I want to be able to, if we're going to add 2,000 more units and we need four more officers because of those units, I want to be able to make sure that, but I don't know.

So then I guess it's the property tax paid by those who live in that development that pay for- That would pay for the people. For the employees. Okay. Sorry, I just had to talk that through and make sure I understood it. Thank you.

I have a question, Mayor. So if we're talking about adopting this ordinance, does it impact- I mean, first of all, I don't know. Maybe I am confused here, but it doesn't look like I actually see an ordinance, and it looks like we're looking at just adopting the maximum impact fee for this. Is that what I understand? It's just the end page? Yeah. The recommendation is...

Okay. I just want to clarify. That's what the ordinance would be. Okay.

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

I move that we adopt ordinance number 33-2026, the impact fee enactment ordinance. Impact fee facilities plan and impact fee analysis for the provision of public safety facilities within Lehigh City So I have a first from council member Stallings.

Second so the council council member Newell with a second any questions on the motion Just mr. Mayor just understand It's the maximum like what councilman said that you your motion is to adopt the maximum in these reports. I Yeah. Okay.

Correct. So any further questions? So we'll start with you, Council Member Freeman.

Great. Thank you. Item 5.3, consideration of Resolution 2026-44, approving updates to the Lehigh Stormwater Management Plan of 2026. Yes. I know that's us. There you are. How are you?

Great. Thanks, Shelby. Any questions on this one?

I was looking at the document. It looks like we still need to update that organizational chart, I think, there, because now engineering is under public works and just some other things. But I know you probably pulled that from somewhere. I love how it's, let's see, the MCM 6. It says the city will strive to set an example for others by complying with the same standards. I think you put that in there. Is that where I'm looking at? Yeah. Yeah, and then B, best management practices. And I think it talks about utilizing the residential newsletter to feature stormwater pollution prevention topics.

Yeah, yeah, I think you do. So I was wondering about... I mean, they have a committee as well, but I don't know about the events people, if they help with the city events or something. But anyways, just little notes here and there. So...

So thank you for your work on this, Shelby. And thanks for answering some of the questions that I had. And I'm going to second what Rachel said about using social media, because I don't know how many people actually read the newsletter as much as they should, or there's good information in there. But the other thing, along with that, as far as informing the public, I think helping Residents understand why it's so important to you know Keep pollutants out of this stormwater would be very helpful. I think when people understand why they're more motivated to take action on it But one thing I did

I don't know. OK, well, I Again, I mentioned to you, I think it's a balancing act, but it would be good to have clear policy on how to manage that. But I appreciate your work on all of this. Thank you.

Any other questions? Great. I'm happy to. Is anyone in the audience tonight here to speak on this item? Doesn't look so great. So I'm ready to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve resolution 2026-44, approving updates to the Lehigh stormwater management plan for 2026.

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

Mayor, I'll second it if we can change it to recommend approval because the council doesn't approve this one. The public works director does. That's what it says in the document. So if you're good with that, I'll second it. That's the plan, yeah. It says that the public works director approves it.

We recommend to him. It's coming here as kind of a courtesy and to bring awareness to the public. I think that's what it said.

Are you okay with that, Council Member New? Council Member Lockhart then on a second?

Just that it says approved and adopted by the City Council on this.

It's describing the resolution, not that we're actually approving updates. Okay.

We're approving the resolution, and the resolution is a recommendation.

Okay. I want to second you and your motion, as long as it's that.

Okay. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 2026-44, approving updates to the Lehigh Stormwater Management Plan 2026, which is a recommendation to, who's it go to?

So I have a new first from Councilmember Newell. Do I have a second? Second. I have a second from Councilmember Lockhart. Any questions on that motion? Great. So we'll start with you, Councilmember Lockhart.

OK, perfect. Thank you for talking through that. OK, 5.4, consideration of ordinance 34-2026, approval of amendments to the design standards and public improvement specifications manual in chapter 2. Shelby's back.

Questions on this? I was just wondering, it looks like there's a few times where it's replacing city council with the city engineer, and I don't always have a problem with that, but I'm kind of curious as to why it was permitted by the city council, and the city council approves it, and now we're taking that away. Do you want to say that, Brad?

So you're comfortable with the word and instead of or?

Mr. Mayor, may I? Yes. Are any of those decisions, if they increase cost substantially, like there is a mechanism for the council to see the cost of those decisions, right?

And do I understand that the street types, we're talking about that, the footage there, the measurements are kind of standardized by the state recommendations?

Okay. Okay. So for the most part, this would just be a standard anyways? It's kind of... Yeah, it's been the standard for that amount of time.

May I make a comment? Yeah. So I did notice that some of the things were taken away from the council to the engineer or whatever staff. And I'm OK with that, because I would defer to you anyway. There's some things I have no clue about. So I appreciate your expertise. I'm good with those changes.

Any other questions? Great. We'll entertain a motion.

Mayor, I will make a motion. I move that we approve ordinance number 34-2026, approval of amendments to the design standards and public improvement specification manual chapter 2.

Okay, so I have a first from Councilmember Stallings, so I have a second. Second. Second from Councilmember Freeman. Any questions on that motion? Okay, we'll start with you, Council Member Newell.

Great, thank you. All right, item 5.5, consideration of the preliminary subdivision approval for the Cortese subdivision, an eight-lot residential development located at 1450 West, 1220 North in the R-122 zone. This is continued from July 14th City Council. Before we get to this item, I will take a motion to untable it.

Second. OK, we have a motion from Council Member Freeman and a second from Council Member Lockhart. All in favor? OK, so we'll untable that, and then we'll bring that to where we are now. So we'll invite Gro. There he is. Come on up. How are you? I'm good.

his feedback on the item so we'll hold for just a quick second on that but we'll get to that before we get to that well you know what that's that's good so let's open that up for comment any of those that are here to comment you have three minutes come and state your name you'll have three minutes and then we'll kind of go from there

Or Mr. Peacock, your three minutes are up.

Hi, I'm Denia Trapp. I just wanted to come up and say thank you for your time, and also to Jake and Groh. They've been really great to work with, and we just appreciate this process, and we don't want to get tabled or anything and go forward. Thank you.

Great, thank you. Any other comments? Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais. Any questions?

Okay, so originally you proposed, I think in the last meeting you proposed a 20-foot placement of this fence. So now you're reducing it to the 15-foot. I'm just wondering if we include that in a motion, how... Best to word that, I guess.

Council Member, can I ask a follow-up to your question, just to make sure I understand? Is that OK? I don't want to cut her off, but it's an add-on.

I just want to clarify that your request Is it 20 feet easement, but the fence goes at 15, so they could bring the fence down at one point for repairs to get the full 20, or do you want just a 15-foot easement with no ability to bring the fence down for more? Does that make sense?

Okay. So we are going to eliminate the easement on the east side of the property owner's fence?

Okay. Thank you. That clarity is helpful. Thank you.

I don't know how it works. Is that OK with irrigation to have 15 foot or 20? I mean, I don't know. Just whatever. However, yeah. For me, I think what I was understanding from residents that had the water rights was that they just needed access to get to the head gate. And I was concerned about their safety going through other people's backyards and the other property owners who had you know, them having someone go through their backyard. So if they don't, you know, they don't need as much space to access it, that's, I have no problem with that. Whatever, yeah, we can see with engineering, with

Yeah. Can I ask a question? Yes. Sorry, I'm just trying to better understand it because it's hard for me to tell on the map where things are. So where the head gate is placed, how much space would be on each side of that in the easement?

So is the box really close to the property line? And so then you would have like an additional 10 or so feet of there. Okay. And the other thing I was wondering about is does there need to be access from both sides? I'm just trying to think of a way to be able to maximize, because I'm thinking if I were to buy one of these homes, you know, and I have an easement in my backyard with a power line too, and nobody's ever been there, but I know that I'm like looking at space I've bought, but I can't, grow certain things there, I can't place structures there, things like that. So I'm just thinking like how we can still make sure that we best help

And so even though the head gate's on lot six? Do you need access from both lot seven and lot five?

Can I just make a comment? Sure. I just appreciate you once again. I mentioned this before that I appreciate all your work on this and your responsiveness to the residents and helping to protect their rights to that water in the irrigation ditch and We don't see that often, so I really appreciate it and just wanted to thank you for your work there. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Yeah, I also want to do that. And I know I got an updated thing. I mean, what I got an email that said one of the things, one of the inputs from engineering was to install a fence. And the response was, per request from neighbors and city council, we've removed the proposed fence. So I mean, I know we didn't. We encourage them to be able to have access to their water rights. whatever you decided to do with the fence. Like, I appreciate what you decided. And I know there's also some concern about maybe some rubber mulch on one of the properties. And you guys were talking about, y

Yeah, and I'll just add, I'm a fan of residents telling government what to do and not government telling residents what to do. So I appreciate that the residents came together, worked together, the landowners came up with a solution and brought it to us. I think that's great, and it's important that, yeah, your example be recognized because I love that you guys work together. So thank you for that.

Thank you. Any other questions? If not, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

I can take a stab at it, but I think I need Brad's help with the last part. I don't write fast enough. OK. And feel free to help me out. OK. Mayor, I move that we approve the preliminary subdivision sorry that we yes approve the preliminary subdivision of the Cortese subdivision and 18 excuse me a lot residential look development located at 1450 West 1220 north in an r-122 zone with direction to staff to included condition in the final review for a 15-foot easement, and that the fence be located on the western, excuse me, eastern side. And also, help me out here, Brad, for lots four and five.

Okay. I'll just teach you what he said. And is not to be altered. And not to be altered, yes. Thank you.

Okay, so I have a first from Council Member Stallings. I have a second. I have a second from Council Member Newell. Any questions?

I'm just wondering, could we provide a bright line of clarity that the fence would be on the easement line, not the property line for the homeowner? I don't. You said east side, but I just want to provide the bright line that it belongs on the easement line, not the property line. Is that okay?

You're good with that, Council Member Noem? Okay, we'll start with you, Council Member Noem.

Yes. Okay. That is done. Item 5.6, consideration of Ordinance 35-2026, approving a comprehensive development code amendment to Chapter 23, signs, updating requirements, and simplifying the text. And that's Lehigh City. Kim, I believe that's... Oh, no. There you are.

Yeah, so I was seeing that. You kind of explained that conditional uses can be kind of messy, right? And I know that some of the training that we've gotten as elected officials is to try to limit conditional uses because it does make it a tricky situation. Basically, if they meet those conditions, even if you don't it might not be what's there might be other some concerns the planning commission's hands are pretty much tied um to to have those things there yeah that's correct okay um yeah so i i appreciate i appreciate that and i was looking i think i asked him for So after I read this, I drov

Yeah. Well, and I kind of agree with one of the planning commissioners who feels strongly has some negative feelings against signs because I look and the kind of the stipulation is 25 feet is the height, right? And I can look at, there's like a Smith's marketplace over there that has a 25 foot. So I drove by on a Saturday night looking at the lighting and she's all stuff, 915. They're not lit up over at Smith's. It's 25 feet. Smith's actually isn't lit up. They just have the parking lot lights. And guess what? They're pretty... pretty full they're doing you know and so for the argument i was l

So I'm just, I don't, I, that's the one thing. I mean, I know we're talking on pylon signs. But I have a hard time, the fact that planning commission has to deal with these difficult situations. And it's almost like their hands are tied. If we put this in code. it's really difficult for them to say no. And we're going to have, it looks like Perry has some lots there where they're going to bring density. They're going to have some homes. So right now, we don't have as many along SR-92 as will potentially be there. So I'm concerned about that. I know that pylon signs are restricted in other citi

And it looks like we kind of just have an overlay for that by I-15. Is that what I understand?

okay i mean maybe another council member had some other opinions about like i was just kind of specific to sr92 because i remember the council meeting in november or the planning fishing in november and then there's june and there was july and they were all talking about signs for sr92 so i'm not sure i mean 2100 north will be a freeway um we'll probably have similar speed limits and some more visibility things as

Yeah, I agree with that. The one concern I have, too, is 2100 north is also on the east side of the freeway and their homes there so yeah we forget that right you think of the big main road um i have a few things and i i appreciate the questions that you've answered so far for me especially about the historical markers because i had a little panic moment then i read the whole thing and i was like they got it because we both deal with that so yes everything's good there thanks for thinking of that um So these are just my suggestions or thoughts. In the beginning, in the first section about the

So in the very first paragraph where it's struck out. Yeah, okay. Yeah, so it's more than just maintaining a well-kept community. To me it's a safety issue as well, so.

Because you make a good point that, you know, we are restricting free speech in a way with this, so we do have to justify it pretty strongly, right?

Yeah, yeah. Then the other, and this is a question I'm not quite sure the answer to, but so it's violations, and I appreciate the kind of the structure there where it's notifying, giving people a chance to remove signs and that, but ultimately it could be a Class C misdemeanor. But in state code... And I guess I pay attention to this because someday I'll be putting campaign signs up again, possibly. But if there are political signs that are posted on utility polls, what do you call it? The violation is just an infraction, not a misdemeanor. So I don't know if we could go above. As far as I kno

Utility pole, light pole, electric box, traffic control device, or railroad signer signal. That's state code. But I'm just, it's a different level of.

Yeah, because I don't know if we could do a higher one than state. Okay. They're ugly, and I hope nobody does that, but, you know. Let's see. And then just these are minor things, but I think It matters for the public to be aware. You have something about temporary signs for homes for sale. Maybe just include for rent as well. And then for the temporary signs, and this is probably for clarity for residents, under four square feet or under, does that include yard sale signs or

Do you want the section 23.7Q for the, yeah.

give more flexibility with the size of the temporary signs whatever you decide or the rest of the council decide I just think it that needs to be clarified because people do put those signs up and yeah

Some of us care about that and want to know if we should or shouldn't. Yeah.

My only problem is when they leave them up forever. Yeah.

I, I'm not sure how my feelings are. I just don't like them forever. They get tattered and they look bad. So, um, okay. And then I, I, I kind of agree, maybe address this more, but I, even with signs i'd like to get away with away from exemptions or exceptions and conditional uses yeah um but i understand you want to balance that with flexibility but again it's you know watching those meetings it's it's painful because it's hard you know you have to approve it but

So I have a question. So if it's an exception, can they come to City Council and so Planning Commission does have to deal with that?

I think it would be even more painful to come to yeah Well, I just think conditionally so they go to Planning Commission. Yeah, and then Planning Commission has to deal with the aches and pains of it and and You know we're supposed to Kind of set the code interpret the code do some land use decisions and we're accountable more I think I were more accountable to residents so to me it might Instead of having a conditional use, to me, it makes sense to have, if they want to make an exception, they can come and ask the council.

just couple more things sorry and I'll let you go so the section 23.0 I know the historic preservation Commission

Reviewing and recommending the murals and signs in the historic district. And then it can be approved or denied. I can't remember who does that. And you know what that's, and this is probably a planning commission thing too, is that the recommendations don't do much. I mean, I appreciate that, that we could give input. But ultimately, is there... you know who and i can't remember whoever makes the final decision is there criteria for that is that a legislative decision administrative decision can they like just say no to something that's to the oh this is to the painted signs or murals on the

I agree with that. I'm just wondering if it's like a conditional use where you can't really ever say no.

And maybe that's the best we can do. Yeah. Yeah.

Right. I'm just wondering if it, well, I guess some input is better than nothing.

And then two more. Just to clarify, prohibited signs include mirrors, but if there's, I know there's a

Because that's a public safety thing, is that what you said?

Has that ever happened before? I don't know.

Okay, I think that's all. No, one more. The obstructing the Clearview area. Does that, in roundabouts, do you look at that?

You did a lot of work, and thank you. Thank you.

Yep. Thank you. That's all I have. Thanks.

Other questions? Okay, I'm happy to entertain. Oh, go ahead.

Well, I just have questions for the other council members, what they think about including, like, you know, 2100 North, like, I think it's on page 23-15 under pylon signs if they want to, you know, include 2100 North, Mountain View Corridor, or SRX 15.

Yeah, I, of the comments talked about the only, I was down, or I thought those things were great, but the only thing that gave me concern was punting signs to the city council, bringing that to us. We're going to be here until 2, 3 a.m. if we start bringing those kind of items to us. At least that's just been my experience on the planning questions they've I guess we already do that, yeah. And I also think that this is a good opportunity for the Planning Commission to engage on, and they're awesome and do a great job. So of the comments shared this evening, everything I would have agreed to. J

because maybe I'm not as jaded for the Planning Commission. I'm fine taking on that responsibility to deal with the exceptions because I have watched a few of the Planning Commissions. It seems like they've only had a few where it's been kind of a challenge in the last year or two.

I think it would be good, the changes being made here where we're removing some of the condition and adding exceptions and shrinking things down, maybe letting this code play out for a few months or a year and then coming and saying, does the council need to pull this in, would give the Planning Commission opportunity to maybe work in a new process and see how it goes. They do a lot of great things, and I think they're plenty capable, especially with the changes that have been proposed.

And on that, I would prefer to come to the city council. Let me ask you this, Jacob. Do you consider that more of a legislative discretionary thing or administrative thing?

So because of that, I think I would prefer it to come to the council. I think I expressed this to Kim before. I mean, we are the body that's responsible for the ordinances and approving them. And when there are exceptions granted to it, I think it should come back to us. I kind of feel uncomfortable having it appointed to body allow exceptions to something that elected officials have put in place. And I think we could say no more comfortably.

And ultimately, the mayor is elected by the residents. And the mayor selects the planning commissioners. The council then appoints, confirms the appointment. We are deferring. I can see both sides of the coin, too.

Yeah. We're the legislative body, I guess, more so.

And we are directly accountable. I'm just worried if residents are complaining. Yeah. We get the complaints, but we don't have the authority to do anything about that. And so then the residents might feel like we're not listening or they're cut out of the process. So that's just something. I'm a little worried about the target size. I'm not going to lie. And the residents that are going to be saying something to us, and we all said, well, we didn't do it, right? But what recourse? We don't have any mechanism going forward in the future, except with code changes right now, to do anything about

And I agree with you. I think my point is, we did approve it by deferring our powers and authority to the Planning Commission, that they're acting with the powers we've been given by the state. Ryan, I think I'm right.

And appeals come, depending on the item type, it can come before the city council or before another body.

Jacob, I'm wondering with the changes, some of the things, is this something we need to table?

think it's the motion that concerns me yeah to capture everything that was said and make sure that the everybody's in those who vote in favor understand what they're running for I guess but it's more work I don't know with that I'm happy to entertain a motion

Can I just add one thing? I mean, we defer a lot of things. I mean, the mayor basically delegates all his power to the city. This is just one thing of many things, and it probably comes as a surprise that city council doesn't run the city. So there's a lot of things where we defer it to planning commission or other areas to be able to do their job. I don't think we need to have our hands in everything. I like that they can kick it to us if they want to, but it's something that I'm not overly passionate about that I need to have my hands in it.

Well, depending on the motion, we might get the mayor to vote on something. Now I want to pass one just to put you in the spot.

I think we all agree that conditional uses are not a great, are a little bit, are complicating things. And that's the advice that we've also been given from, yeah, Utah League of Town and Cities and other things like that. Yeah, ULCT, UL Cities and Towns, yeah.

I'm going to move that we table this ordinance number 35. Am I the right one? That was 2026, approving a comprehensive development code amendment to chapter 23, science updating requirements and simplifying the text with the direction to take the comments that have been given, putting them in, and then bringing it back to the council.

so so i still have a motion to table by council member stallings because i'm okay with all your other changes and i'm okay with the change to have a city council too um go ahead and add it to bring it back to the council and then when it comes back i think it would be easy in a motion to cut it out or to have it go one way or the other yeah yeah does that work do you think so make the updates that were suggested with the

I don't know if you have a decision on that yet.

So she would like it updated. You want it updated to show. Put it back in the packet and come back to untable it.

That's the direction I'm leading. So, yes, I would prefer that.

And can you put a date on it as the first? In August? So you in your motion you want to include the next council meeting which would be August 11th Okay, so it would be table to August 11th Do I have a second for that motion I'll second that So I have a second from councilmember Freeman any questions on the motion

Okay, so we'll start with Council Member Stallings.

This is exciting. So my vote then, if I go no, then it's not tabled, and we continue to discuss it. Or I say yes, and it does get tabled and comes back. Correct?

It's the first time. Yeah, that's how the vote works.

OK. Sorry. That's just the mayor. So if I vote yes, then it's tabled. If I vote no, this continues to go.

But we're going to continue. It's only 845. We're talking about it just when you want to do it.

Right, but when it comes back next time, it's fulfilled according to what Council Member Stallings would have put in a motion had she, with all those changes that she suggested. Then we'll have a cleaner motion going forward, correct?

Yeah, and then you'll also be getting signs coming to Council too.

So my vote then would be a yes to table it. So that's a 3-2.

They'll go in the packet. Okay, perfect.

Thank you. Okay, 5.7, consideration of ordinance 36-2025, approving an amendment to the Lehigh City design standards and public improvement specifications manual adding section 3.08, temporary construction site safety measures for commercial and residential construction projects. This is Lehigh City. I know this was the one we brought up to... add some protection to our commercial build sites, obviously for fences and warning signs to make sure. Does anyone have any questions on this one?

Yeah, Mary's wondering if you could tell us again about the circumstances that led to this request.

Yeah, so a few years back, there was a... a storage unit being built on Pioneer Crossing. There was a young man, 14 years old. So the construction project was not fenced, nor were any doors or anything locked, nor was it posted. It was right next to a Maverick gas station and butted up against the neighborhood. And two 14-year-olds had made their way through there in the dark, had made it all the way to the top floor. One of those young men fell 43 feet, broke his hip and his arm, thankfully. That's all he broke. The parents have gone round and round for the last two years with the builder to

Secure their build sites for the safety of the public especially next door to painter crossing into a maverick gas station So that's where this comes from So one of my questions was I I agree with a lot of this I don't know if I would put the requirements on all non-residential construction projects and I would think maybe if it's more than one story, just because if we're not requiring it for residential construction projects greater than 10 units, I just don't know if that would be burdensome for a smaller non-residential site. Like even when we had Fabian House come in or if it's like a par

as long as that building is open then there's there is a danger increase when you get into a residential area there's usually more than one that are under construction so you know entering the construction that's going on commercial tends to be a little different because it may sit for multiple days or weeks um and so that would be the that would be my my concern back to to what you're talking about okay yeah i don't know how other council members feel i just

Any other questions to this one? Great. I will be happy to entertain a motion.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve ordinance Number 36-2025, approving an amendment to the Lehigh City Design Standards and Public Improvement Specifications Manual, adding section 3.08, temporary construction site safety measures for commercial and residential construction projects.

So I have a first from Council Member Lockhart. Is there a second? A second from Council Member Newell. Any questions to that? So we'll start with you, Council Member Stallings.

Thank you. All right. All right. 5.8, consideration of ordinance 37-2026, approving a development code amendment to chapter 11, development application requirements, updating requirements for site plans, infrastructure site plans, preliminary and final subdivisions. Kim, I believe this is yours.

Mayor, I have a question. Oh, sorry. PRD is struck out for the concept plan. What is the reason for that on section 11.020? Yeah, let me pull that up.

Any other questions for Kim? Let's see. The top of page 11-3, sorry, I'm going to scroll back here myself. It talks about, instead of saying the developer shall, see there's a little four, there's a developer shall post a 100% letter or a credit or warranty bond for the estimated cost. And then I just, I was looking at the top of page 11-5, and it talks again about that. Well, to continue on, it talks about subdivision and then including the posting of a bond for the estimated cost. So I don't know if we need to kind of make that top of there, 11-5, that little first paragraph, if we need to m

So that it's congruent with the. Yeah. That's only.

Yeah. um so i would if if you think that's okay cam i would yeah we could just so it's all consistent and then when i was looking at i was looking up a bunch of state code today about preliminary subdivisions by approval so section 11.100 and i don't think this is something i wouldn't say this needs to be included tonight but i just think it would be good to look at, because it talks about how after a preliminary subdivision plat has been approved, that the applicant can file for a final subdivision plat. But I think according, I can be wrong, but I would look at state code, that I think they

Yeah, the preliminary and the final. Yeah, I'm not sure. I know I was just looking up the fact that you know basically it's they want things to go faster and development to go faster so they just want to go through planning Commission or maybe an administrative decision so anyways and then I think we had was that conditional use we're looking at again which seems to possibly be problematic about flag lots and I was talking about conditional use approval subject to section 12.2 on for all flag lots to be honest I don't know where that was but so let's see which page you on I think it's for the

Yeah, probably. I think it's at the bottom. OK. And I know that I've talked to you about it. Conditional uses just keep coming up. And we don't have in here section 12.210 to reference. And I didn't bring my code book and all that to look at. just seems like that can be a tricky situation so yeah sorry it's different chapter but it says that the chief building official is designated as land use authority on behalf of the City Council to approve and sign the final final plot So it's interesting because subdivisions, we can't be the final one, but with this one, the city council could. But there

Anyways, but I think it does clarify some things, so thanks for... Thanks for that, and we have to always keep up with state code.

Any other questions pertaining to Chapter 11 for Kim? If not, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

I do have a question for the concept plan. Sorry, there's one more. 11-2 it says exceptions to design requirements can be provided with a concept plan by the Planning Commission so is that and that's concept plans for

and but this does for excuse and forgive me if I don't have it right but this doesn't specify it's for subdivisions it's just concept plans in general yeah yeah you can file a concept for either side because we also reviews concept plans but mostly just for the what does it say right here PUDs, PRDs, planned communities, you know, things like that. Is that what I understand?

so you do still get final say on those um specialized subdivisions so would it be better in those instances if there's exceptions because if if the planning commission approves an exception at that point with the concept plan then it has to go to the city council if it's the peace plan community or beauty or whatever would it be

I'm just saying that could be awkward if we're like, we don't like that concept and don't like the exception.

On that, so 11.030C, yeah, the one that we're talking about, I guess I'll just say my biggest frustration is that concept plans, they give the applicant somewhat of this, like, green light, where I'd like to see it be more of a yellow light, where... You know, they've come before us with this concept. There are pieces of it that have been discussed, but it's frustrating because I can see from the applicant's perspective, if we aren't going to give a full green light on the concept, why would they invest and spend all this money on it? But then from this side of the table, if they come back and

But sometimes in practice, the planning commission will feel like it is. Obligated. Yeah. Well, this was approved at the concept plan. They went and got their construction loans. They went and did all these things thinking that we had approved it at that stage. Then if we go back on it, At least that's what I've been told as I've sat through those decisions. I like that concept plans provide more public input and transparency. I like that they get everyone involved sooner. I just worry that once a green light is given, it's really hard to go back, even though it's designed to be conceptual. it

they've already invested does that make sense so anyway i don't know if it's possible to solve that problem but it is in practice really difficult i mean i saw we did it with mr train where i think he brought that concept right but then i think state code says that the preliminary then you have the preliminary plot and then you give the final plot and you can't actually really change stuff from the preliminary to the final too much it's just more detailed whereas the concept you can kind of have some shifting is my understanding

and and i think we saw that play out okay here but i haven't been on planning commission so yeah i think it just it's really hard because we we there have been many times in the chair where i've felt like if i green light this then it's over because they come and say well you've given me the green light so i've developed this preliminary plot and i spent all this money doing it because you gave me the green light but then know more information comes out or there's more public engagement and you're like oh shoot i wish that was really more of a yellow light but anyway so i don't know how to mak

versus we're just giving input and recommendations. We'd like to see this, but then there's things they have to follow, but then there's things we'd like to see, but they don't have to. And I know with like planned community and PRDs, PUDs, it's kind of a density issue and kind of shuffling that around. So there's more... Discretion. Yeah. But on the other instances, what can the planning commission... require beyond. I mean, so the green light, I guess, is, hey, you meet code. So I don't, where's the yellow light, I guess?

But sometimes they want something outside of it, or they want the head nod of, well, what if we, you know, or maybe we're getting public input for a landscape buffer or, you know, something like that.

Oh, and if they're coming with exceptions at that point?

That's hard, too. Yeah, it can just get hard. But again, I really like that we have them, but it's hard.

That's always been the hard part is once you approve a concept plan, you've kind of given this.

Yeah, exactly. Maybe it is a training issue with the planning commissioners that they highlight the things that are green and yellow lights. And that's my analogy. It's just the way my brain operates. But maybe we could implement that. If the legal gives the approval on that, then we could have planning commissioners start doing that. Because it kind of feels like an all or nothing when they come before us.

Any other questions, comments on this one? Okay, I'm happy to entertain a motion.

Okay, I'll try this one too, I guess. I move that we approve ordinance number 27-2026, approving a development code amendment to chapter 11, development application requirements, updating requirements for site plans. infrastructure site plans, preliminary and final subdivisions, um, just with the direction to include or city council in section 11.030 C. Um, and in section 11.020 a and B and strike PRDs, and then to, um, amend the language regarding warranty bonds. So it's consistent.

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

Council Member Stallings. Yes. Great. 5.9, consideration of Ordinance 38-2026, approving of an amendment to Chapter 38, updating requirements for the mixed-use zone. Kim, I believe this is you also.

I like that. And then maybe it's not subject to 10 years. It could be a different timeline, different thing. Like if we just, if we said that if they wanted to have that piece in it, it would need to be a Delta agreement and then we can tailor it towards each.

Yeah. I like that, but I, can we require future councils to put a, limit in that development agreement or just leave it up to them, I suppose. But 10 years is a long time. I kind of like the idea where they have to come back and justify it yearly or every two years, something.

I don't know. Well, and I wonder, how to enforce it? I don't know what legal would think. Do you do a letter of intent? some kind of contract, a MOU, like it doesn't have to be as, you know, not binding. But anyways, I'm not sure if where a development agreement is appropriate. I do wonder also on that second to last, so we're at G, if we get G there. It talks about ground floor units shall be designed to accommodate commercial occupancy without, I mean, we kind of say that in that first sentence. So G seemed like that was kind of the trickiest part for a planning commission when they were loo

I'll throw this out there. If we took out GL together, and then in the future, could there be a development agreement where they allowed something like that?

Sounds good. Sorry, can I ask a clarification on that? So are you saying that it would be required to do a development agreement?

Okay, so they don't have to do a development agreement because it's an option.

Then you're required to do a development agreement.

Otherwise, what you were first saying was that planning would kind of keep track of that 10-year clock.

While we think on that, I'm going to bring up B. It says at least 30% of any approved housing shall be designed and plotted to allow for individual ownership. And it looks like there was comments about it, because it says townhomes or condos. that maybe we don't specify that that's town homes or condoms, condominiums. We leave it open since it could be small single-family homes or whatnot. And my question is, do we need a housing percent requirement? That's a good question for the council to think about.

So we're not creating a deed restriction?

I'm just wondering other people's thoughts on the G. I have a really hard time.

So I think there's two sides to the coin. One of them is if you do it through development agreement, the flexibility to make it tailored to the applicant and the development that they're talking about. The other side of the coin is, why do we have a code if we're just going to write development agreements? So that's where I'm struggling, and I'd love to hear your thoughts and kind of how you guys are thinking through it. I tend to lean towards, we have a code, let's follow the code. I can see the other side of the argument, too.

My thing is they can always do a development agreement, whether we mention it or not. they can say that we want something different for this development. We're going to do a developer agreement. So I think really what we're saying is do we want to hint at it or do we just remove it? And if that's something they wanted, they would then come and ask for it and we'd do the agreement then. So it's basically we're putting in something in code that's suggesting if you want this, then that, or we just, you know, do we even need to offer it because a developer agreement is always available. if the cou

We could just strike G completely. Because I mean, it's already available. We're just saying that here's an option to consider. And I mean, that's something that staff, as someone's going through a mixed use agreement, could also say. If they have that concern, they can say, well, that's something you can bring up with council and present your ideas.

Any other questions comments Great happy to entertain a motion So the only thing was striking gee we're okay with all the DRC comments Planning Commission comments and be

And just be taking out townhomes or condominiums.

And that was part of the DRC comments, right? Yeah. Well, yeah. Okay. Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve Ordinance 38-2026, approving the amendment to Chapter 38, updating requirements for the mixed-use zone, and include all DRC comments and Planning Commission comments, and we will strike G. Second.

So, first, Councilmember Newell. Second, Councilmember Lockhart. Any questions? So we'll start with you, Council Member Lockhart. Council Member Newell. Yes. Council Member Stallings.

That's great. So I will now take a motion to adjourn. So moved. Council Member Newell.