City Council - Regular Meeting

a fun time. That's awesome. Ready to go. All right. We would like to uh call to order our Riverdale City Council meeting for Tuesday, February 3rd, 2026. Please let the record show that all members of the city council are present, as well as members of the city staff and members of the public. Um, we have uh our pledge of allegiance tonight will be led by uh Fire Chief Matt Hennessy.

Good afternoon.

I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Chief. And uh we've asked Councelor Hansen to offer our invocation. Our dear heavenly father, we're so grateful for this opportunity to meet together as the city council for Riverdale. We're grateful for this opportunity to serve and to be able to share our experience and talents with the city. Help us that we may be guided in our decision- making that we may have patience and understanding and be able to fully appreciate the things that we are doing on behalf of the residents in the city. Help us that we can be kind in our discussions and that we can be thorough. We're so grateful for the many blessings that we have and the blessings that come from being residents of Riverdale. Please bless our employees and watch over them and help them to find joy in their positions and to be safe in the work that they do. We love thee and we thank thee again for all of our many blessings in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you.

All right. We now have a time for public comment. It's an opportunity to address the city council regarding your concerns or ideas. Uh there won't be any response or action during this. Uh, if you do approach the microphone, please state your name and city of residence. Try to limit your comments to 3 minutes. Seeing none, we'll move on to presentations and reports. Number one, the mayor's report. Um, the legislative session is in full swing and uh they're done with all the ceremonial stuff where everybody comes down and sees them and they do all the photo ops and they've really started to hit the ground now and and come up with some stuff and so we all know kind of what that means. and and uh there are some there's some pretty scary bills out there this this year. Um there's one uh that would change the um amount that they assess your house on the property tax. Right now they do it on 55% of the value. They want to drop that down to 45% of the value which would obviously hurt us. Um there's one that that wants to change how you do property tax increases. You couldn't raise it more than 5% in a year. Um they said that could hurt the city's bond ratings because we always have that in our back pocket if things really go south. We have a a way to get some money if we need it. Um they also one of the things that was interesting is they wanted to count any interest that you had made. I think if I if I speak wrong on any of these, there's so much coming at us right now. One of them they wanted to take into account the amount of interest you made on your like capital improvements, your rainy day fund, any of those things and kind of count it against um your certified tax rate like um because because you made that money during the year and I was like man they are really coming at it hard like um let's see what other ones are there.

I know uh we've been on legislative policy committee and and uh Mr. % on an email with a couple.

There would be some limitations um to what funds you use for capital projects. They would limit property tax for capital projects. That's interesting. Um there's one that would require a vote of the people for a tax increase. That's pretty scary. Um there's some that affects the RDA where after you approve a project area plan and budget, you then have to ask permission from Goed or Go to actually spend that money. Um which is redundant and in conflict with other stuff. So it's a lot and none of it's good. Yeah. Yeah. Are we getting good support from the league on that stuff?

Um I think so. They've they're kind of the same as they always are. So, they're kind of trying to really pick and choose. They sent out surveys like, "How how concerned are you with this bill? How concerned are you with this bill?" And uh sometimes I feel like I need to get Stephen Brandon on the line because we get to vote. And uh I I wish I had these guys on, you know what I mean? Is this where we're going to really burn our capitals on this bill or which one do we want to go at? Because I feel like I'm like very concerned on everyone. But uh yeah, there's a lot coming out of that. I love all those things. Yeah, I think they're great. Yeah, sounds wonderful.

Yeah, if if and and to be honest, they would be if if we were in a different position as a city, I think I could understand them a little more. Uh maybe if 2030 was over and we were past it, they wouldn't be as scary for us. Um but yeah, as a citizen, yeah, sure, you take that hat off and put the other one on and you think, well, that sounds great. But it's being on this side of it and knowing some of the challenges we face, it's kind of tough. Um, new furniture.

Yeah. Yeah, we did that a couple years ago. Um, okay. City council assignment reports. Is there any reports from you guys on your uh city council assignments for this meeting? No. Okay. We'll move on to the consent items. Number one, consideration to reappoint Colleen Henstra to the planning commission for a 4-year term. We'll do these separately. Uh, any questions or comments about that appointment? She's currently serving right now, so it's a reappoint. Uh, seeing none, we would need a motion. Has she been in there for four years?

Uh, no. She came in midterm. I think she's been about two and a half years. Does that sound right, Michelle? I think it's about two and a half. Yeah. Anyone want to make a motion to reappoint Colleen? If not, then we can go a different direction. Do we reappoint Colleen Pinstra to the final commission? We have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. Okay. A couple of seconds. Any discussion on that motion? Uh, all in favor say yes. Any opposed? Yes. Okay. No.

Okay. Uh, that's four in favor and one against. You got that, Miss Merlin? You're very good. Uh, next item, a consideration to appoint Melissa Kerry to the planning commission for one year. This is just to finish out a term. Uh is this uh councelor Anderson's term? It was kind of there were two terms. Yeah, they're both the same length

or Wanda. Okay. Anyway, they both end. And so we we had Cody Hansen appointed last meeting and now Melissa, unfortunately, she was planning on being here and really excited, but she texted me this morning and said she is just really sick. And uh so we didn't get her tonight. Uh anyway, consideration to appoint Melissa Kerry to the planning commission for a one-year term. Any questions or comments on that? Where where does she reside? What part of On Ritter Drive? Yeah. Yep.

And I I feel like it's important to keep some representation on that side of the city. Uh people that are in tune with the issues that they face over there. And I explained to her, we had a long talk, like several long talks. She's been here. She was here, you know, to last meeting and uh spoke and uh she reached out to several of you and uh um she understands that she does need to represent all of Riverdale and she was even concerned about losing her voice a little bit as a citizen because there'll be certain rules and stuff she has to follow on the planning commission if things meet certain circumstances and she won't be able to vote no even if she maybe wants to. And she's fine with that. said just you'd be able to get along with everybody fine and put any personal differences aside and and uh do a good job for us. So, it is a one-year term or finishing up a term. So, if we don't feel like it's a good fit, then at the end of the year, we can go a different direction.

She's the one that read the letter. She said, "I'll try to get it in the three minutes and probably didn't make it." Yeah. But I was reading the council rules and I guess I can I can just do whatever I want with those three minute things. Like I can make them longer or shorter. it can become shorter, which I didn't realize, you know, we got two minutes. You always say about Yeah. So, there you go. Yeah. So, all right. If uh there's no other questions, we need a motion. So, moved. Motion to appoint Melissa. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. Uh Miss Mar, let's see. All in favor say yes. Yes.

Okay. Any opposed? All right. We're still doing consent items. So, we can just do uh we don't need a roll call. All right. Last consent item, consideration to approve the meeting minutes from the January 6th, 2026 council meeting and the January 20th council meeting. Any questions or comments on those? Seeing none, we would need a motion to approve. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. All in favor say yes. Yes.

Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Perfect. We will move on to action items. Number one, consideration of resolution 2026-01, approving the purchase of playground equipment for Golden Spike Park in an amount not to exceed $300,000. Mr. Douglas,

thank you, Mayor. So, we did the PR project last year. Super excited with the way it turned out. It went really smooth and I'm really excited to do something on that side of town. Now, I've heard, you know, several com comments or a lot of comments since we did the other one. Hey, we need something over here. Um, so I'm super excited to present this to you. I think it's a really nice playground. That's a huge upgrade from what we have there. I've asked Taff to come and do the presentation. Those of you here last year seen his presentation, he does a great job. Um, please feel free to ask any questions that you have as we go through. We did spend a lot of time working on shared use uh access type things um and tried to accommodate what we could in this. So he'll cover some of that as we go too and the all access parts of it. So I'll just turn over to Taff for a minute.

All right. Good to be with you again.

Will you make sure the button is up on that microphone? There you go. There we go. We'll start again. Mayor, city council members, good to be with you again and um I'm excited to chat with you a little bit about Golden Spike Playground. So, hopefully you've had the opportunity um to look over the design. I'm going to go right here and go to our our nifty presentation here and go to our flyby, which will give you really um be able to see completely what the playground's going to look like. and I'll be going over some of the um main points of the playground. So, what you're seeing here um is you're seeing a playground area that spans roughly 4,680 square ft. So, a pretty sizable um city playground. The project consists of and the playground has three connected towers, which is pretty unique in its design. I like to think of this design as it's almost a playground on top of a playground, which is neat because it it really is multigenerational in the amount of kids and the demographic of kids that it serves. Uh younger children are able to play on the lower levels of the playground. Older children are able to access the higher levels of the playground. So, it's really really nicely suited to accommodate as many children as possible. It also, as you'll notice there, it has many large shade structures as well too, providing additional shade in the park, which is always a must-have and something that's requested by by community members. When we talk about all abilities, I would say that this playground is very all abilities focused. And what I mean by that is ADA guidelines would say that a playground of this size in a city should have 19 accessible play elements. And this playground has 33. So 1933. So it's beyond compliance and really is a good faith um good faith design and wanting

to include inclusive play elements. They are and I'll start that again. Let's see here. And they are scattered throughout the the entire area. So, it's not like we just have one element that is there for inclusive play, but it's scattered throughout the entire playground, which is which is great. It's also very multigenerational as we talked about. And one of the things that I think you'll get the most comments about too is that it has shaded benches, a must a mustave as as well. And then lastly, this playground includes all seven types of play. So, as far as best practices of playgrounds go, we try to incorporate and make sure that all seven types of play are there. things like swinging, sliding, climbing, balance, and sensory play are all included in the in the playground. And then lastly, we've prepared a couple different color revisions for you. So, you could see it in this color that's here, and then we can also show it in another. But before I go into the easy part, which is the color selection of it, can I answer any questions?

Looks like we're good. would you touch on a couple of the key bigger items for the all

for all abilities? Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. So, let's go back over here. Give that just a second to to catch up right here amongst this line here. You're seeing that on your screen as well as well too. These are all um all ability specific playground pieces. This all abilities teeter totter that's here allows users to transfer over and to sit with a back chair on a teeter totter totter also allows them to access this center section here. Same with the double-decker cone spinner. It's a large piece, accommodates a lot of children, but it has a specific cutout that is in the double-decker cone spinner that is at the ADA transfer height as well, too. So, a child in a mobility vice is able to transfer from ground level onto the double-decker cone spinner inside. Um, as well as these different different elements. This um cozy cozy cocoon is what we call it here is a great um sensory play item which also moves. And then one of the key things, I'm glad you brought this up. The one of the key things that we've done here also is we've taken um a rubber surfacing pad here to make the accessible swing more accessible as well too to make that roll on and roll off. And then on the main structure, there's sensory play. There's play panels throughout the whole playground. One of the things I'm really excited about is this roller slide that is right here. Roller slides have become a must-have in inclusive playgrounds because they're a little slower. They're not as fast as a regular slide. And they provide a different sensory as you as you traverse down the slide as well, too. Is that good there?

There's one more on the far end, right? This one here. Yeah. Yes. Okay. So, yeah, I can point that out there. So, this is this is an accessible rocker and it's also a multi-user rocker. So, it's made to be able to be used um by uh one, two, and three children at the same time or a child with a caregiver or a parent as well. It's there to mimic the play that goes on on a swing set without the large back and forth of a swing set. It's more of a rocker, but they're able to sit, the child sits on there with the parent and things, and we're able to um uh swing back and forth mimicking the play that goes on on a swing set. Excuse me. Yes.

Do we have that uh the those two items? The the roller down at the in the lower What do I What about the triangle spinner? Like that spinner. Yeah. Yeah, we have that one. Okay. But the the roller slide and the rocker are not down. No. Okay. No, those are new. Yeah, they're new. And we don't have the pad under the um all abilities swing right down at the We have it at a different location. We don't have it at the swing. Okay. And I'm just wondering about the orientation. So, will will that piece be on the inside of the park where they have to go around to get to it or will it be on the parking lot side where maybe it's not as far? So, that one you should be able to wheel all the way around it. Okay.

There is a sidewalk. There will be a sidewalk. There is a sidewalk there, I believe. Sidewalk. So, they should be able to go all the way around that. That sounds great. Do we have a design uh a designated location where that's going to be placed? It's going to be a replacement for the one that's currently there. Okay. So, it's met its life expectancy on the current one. So, it'll go inside the same area that's already there. That one will be removed and this one will be put in. And this one looks like it has some different music play, right, than the one we did at the other park.

It does right here. Also, a communication board. You'll see it come on your screen here just to the left as well too for all abilities for children or caregiver givers that have communication difficulty as well. It's have the communication board. So it it's really when when I when I said that it is all abilities focused. It's definitely all abilities focused. Okay. If we move on to color. Any other questions? What's the Is it the wood chips still? So, it'll all be soft fall except for that area underneath the swing set there that has the rubberized play surface. And is that more the solid kind or is it like the chips kind that Solid? Okay. Yeah. Poured in place.

Okay. Great question. Colors are okay. We move on to colors. Yeah. Okay. So, what do we think of these colors to start with? Oh, go. I'm getting I'm getting no go on those. They match the orange trees. As a parent, grandparent, those slides, the dark color, okay, good point. Is cobalt blue. Yeah, they um my preference would be a lighter color because you put a child on that in the summertime, which is generally the time of play that

those will most generally been be used. Um there's I've had kids that have refused to go down the slide because it burns their legs. I I I'm in agreeance there. So what we could do if you liked everything else besides the color of these two cobalt blue slides here. We could change those out to a lighter color as well too. Okay. So this would considered that um playground the original color design. And then we also came up with another color design as well as well too. And colors are the easiest things to change. So even if I get direction of just oh we would just like natural colors or we would like us to focus on these three main colors we can switch those out very easily. I'll just show a couple views here so you can get the get the idea of how this color palette would work. And then this was that what? This was that original one there. Any comments on color?

I kind of like the orange. It's kind of fun. Yeah. Not orange like I don't know if you remember that orange slide that we had over up at the by the school. Oh yeah, that was pretty horrible. Yeah, that was orange. Yeah, the lighter blue though might not have that issue with the sun. Yeah, I do like the green. Is that green or yellow at my color point? Kind of like the green, but yeah. Mhm. Is that the last decision we need to make?

Are are the benches expensive even if they're not um shaded or whatever? I mean, if we put one on each corner or something like that, they are fairly expensive. Money, put more in the budget then. We got any money on that furniture left? We can be in furniture. So, we pretty much maxed out what our budget is with what we have. The other thing that comes into play is sometimes the fall zones like we we have to play, you know, we have to have room and so sometimes I don't I didn't look at that specifically, but I don't know if we can fit two more items in there or not.

Yeah, right now we would need to do some changing up to include more benches inside the playground pit. I agree. One is it's just one, right? There's two. Was there two? Okay. Yeah, there's two. Okay. Two's better. Then question. Yes. These sailcloth awnings that they have on those, are those taken down in the winter or are they all year round? How long do they What's the life on our current playground? We're leaving them up. I mean, and it goes back and forth dependent. Taff can speak this better than I can, but the people we've talked to, some people feel like it's better to leave them up. Some kind of think it's better to take them down, but the stretching and that can be just almost as bad as taking them up down. You can Sure.

You want to expand on that?

That That's That's correct. Exactly. There. Um different cities have different approaches here. Uh all the shade structures here have a have a pretty steep pitch to them, slope to them. So, the majority of snow and and weather and such will fall right off of them. It's something that the parks department is definitely going going to want to watch. Um, different cities have different approaches in that in taking them off and taking them down, there's also stretching, restretching that wears the fabric out quicker. A fabric shade like this should be in good working condition for roughly seven years. Um, and that's with taking them on, taking them off, and and so on. And so there's a there's a cost there as well. Um, one city did a quite extensive review and said, 'Well, we would rather take the money that it takes to take them on and off every year and put them into new shade structures every every seven years.

Thank you. Thank you. That's what's what's typical lifespan of the parks that we've had 15 years, 12 years at least 15. Okay. Okay. So, when we look at this and the one last year, we're not we're not looking for any upgrades or replacements for at least 15, maybe more.

The only one thing I will say is Riverdale is getting the heaviest use I've ever seen. Like that new playground over there is getting it is getting used like never before. And so that plays into it as well. You know, like if I hate to say it, but there's a new park that's built right above us and you go up there, it still looks like brand new and it's been in longer than ours has because there's just not people there. And this one's being Riverdale. This one won't I don't think you'll see as much use, but I think it will uptick with this addition over there, especially with the residents that are over there because they're really looking forward to have something on that side without crossing over. Okay, let's pick a color and get on with it. Anybody have any strong feelings?

If you like the first color, we could switch that out to the lighter color slides in there. Mhm. And just go with that color. Would you go green slides or or light blue or what? Probably a lighter blue, I would guess. But what do you think, Taft? I would do a a lighter blue or even a beige color as well, too. a lighter tan color. I think look good in there. You know, I wasn't a real fan of what was demonstrated to us in the pictures for the one that went in last year. Once it was in and I saw it and I I really like it. Thank you. So, um you know, it's so it's hard for me to envision from a picture how it going to look in

I was going to say they'll be totally different. like I feel the same way and that's why it's nice that Taff looks at so many playgrounds every year and kind of can help us with color. So, I do have one question that's a little off. Um, when we took our grandkids, now we've got from one and a half up to to pre-teen and teen, early teen. Mhm.

And of course the older kids will go up to that second and they thought it was cool as the younger ones try to and it was a little nervy for me to see a two or threeyear-old try to get up there and actually did all right but Mr. Brooks, when you have that little bit higher level, what is from a riskmanagement perspective, do we have to do we pay a little more or do we have to go for a different review or is that built into the design uh for risk management on on because as a par grandparent, I kind of held my breath until I got comfortable watching my kids get familiar with or our kids get familiar with it. So what is this does it cause?

It's not really going to make much difference one way or another. I mean they factor that in when they when they impose their rates on us. They know those are risks and and they're designed for that uh purpose. The a lot of times like the the cone thing you can see that's a little bit more difficult for somebody to get up there and there's a reason why that's designed that way. So it's not going to matter. I'm more worried about the big kids on the upper level. Right. Okay. Yep.

I'll throw my two cents in. I like the lime green, actually. Is that the right color? Can we do the lime green with the light blue instead? Like the other blue one, but then maybe switch the yellow for the green. Absolutely. So, let me just say that one more time. So, we're going to but instead of yellow, do the green. So, then it's the lighter colored slides and Okay. So, using this as the base or using the other option as the base? I was thinking this one. Just swapping out the yellow for the lime green. Okay. Change out these colors. Just the railings for lime. Yeah. Any of the yellow parts for the green parts and then the dark blue slides.

Yeah. Well, it would be these lighter blue ones instead. Like we do this one the way it is. Just switch out the yellow. I I like the orange and light blue. Lighter blue. I I think that's a very attractive. And then you put in a yellow and we can almost be primary. I mean, yellow's fine, too. I guess I don't mind. I'm just excited to play on the new stuff. I like the green. I think with this one. I do, too. Yeah. Should we go with that? Okay. Just changing out the yellow accents to lime green. Yeah. Will you show us the other side with the little slides? Cuz what? I can't remember what color those were. The roller and the Yes.

shorter ones. Oh yeah. So they're already light blue and they'll have green. So these here, these would be changed to a lime green. And like the bench and everything, just everything that's yellow would go lime green. Mhm.

Okay. Okay. Council Arnold move to approve resolution 2026-01 approving the purchase of playground equipment for Golden Spike Park in the amount not to exceed 300,000 with view number if I understand this correctly with the color scheme in view number four. Yep. As noted with the yellow accents being lime green. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion?

Miss Maragon, will you please pull the council? Arnold. Yes. Stevens. Yes. Councor Hansen. Yes. Richtor. Yes. Spencer Anderson. Yes. All right. That passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you. And uh it's kind of fun because you can tell how much how invested Sean is because he's like pointing out don't skip that thing, you know? I mean, he knows it inside now. So, there's a lot of work that went in the system. I'm excited for them to get that over there, too. This as you've as it's designed fits right in the footprint of

We won't change the footprint. We're going to take all the softball out, all the old playground out. So, it'll all be brand new softball in there. And we're going to do that ourselves. We'll take out the old playground ourselves, trying to keep the cost down a little bit. And then they'll come in, put the playground in, new softball and all good to go. And we hope to be playing on it this summer. Like that's our goal is to be up and running. Okay. Is that climbing wall part of Yes. So that will go out. That will go out. It takes up space and it has its own fall zones and that. So we're it will come out. I I only struggle calling that one thing a seessaw. Is that really a seesaw? Um it's a rocker. Okay. So just clarify. It mimics that same back and forth. Uh-huh. It's not as wild, right? Right.

If you don't have slivers and risk falling off, it's not a season. Okay. As noted, inability to get off this season. No, I like it. Great. And I I don't think there's actually a sidewalk to There's not to it. There is just around it. So, if we can think somewhere somewhere sometime to get an actual sidewalk there. Okay. We can look at that budget season. So, yeah. Well noted. Okay. Thanks for your time. Thank you all. Appreciate it. Thanks, Taft. All right, let's move on. Item number two, consideration resolution 2026-02, adopting updates to Riverdale City Construction and Development Standards. Mr. Douglas.

So, these are just things that have came up since we did this standard. Most of them are little. You'd never even notice the difference in the field. Some of just changes in different concrete specifications that's out there. Other things is stuff that's come up or the developers have hit us with as we go forward. We just want to make it easy and clear. Some of them are are bigger like copper water line. We've done copper water line forever. It's hard to even go buy copper water line right now. The supply houses don't stock it. And like the developers or the contractors aren't even used to using copper hardly anymore. And the cost even for us doing our own repairs is outrageous. Poly's been around for a long time now and it's it's working every bit as good. um we've watched it be used and so that's probably one of the biggest changes in there as far as something that's big. But if you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to try and answer them.

Am I handsome? Oh yeah, they're probably easy ones and I probably just don't know what I'm looking at. Um on the first drawing page, I was looking at the purple where you added the irrigation. And does the S SW on there is that for secondary water, not for sanitary storm water or anything? Okay. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. And then there was something on page 44 of the written. Let's see. Oh, there's a note on page 44 about that there. They need to fix the comments on it.

Oh, yeah. Said re work on the wording. That was just that that got missed and should have been scratched out because it's been re the rewarding is in there now. It is. Okay. Yep. So, we'll scratch that one out. Okay. That I think that was the only the only two things I had. Council Richtor, can I clarify? I just want to make sure I'm looking at the same one because I'm seeing the one that says needs rewarding. Is that what you're referring to? Okay. And ju just to follow up on your comment about the copper piping the poly have what lifespan compared to the copper? Do you see a significant difference or It's probably going to be better actually. We don't see the same electrolysis and stuff going on with it. Very good. Um I think it's going to be a longer product.

Okay. And so that's coming from our valve into the houses, right? Is that No, this would So we don't regulate from the meter box in. Okay. I mean plumbing code on that side of it does regulate somewhat, but this would all be on city own side. So from the meter out to the street. Okay. And uh so is the code still copper into the house? Like I was just thinking No, there is they they have all kinds of options on that because I mean most of us probably had to put a stop and waste valve into that to connect our irrigation and I was just trying to picture how that would work with the other place it though they're using poly. Most of if you call someone they'll recommend that most of the time just because it does last longer and it doesn't get as damaged.

Okay. The other problem with like copper, like what you're saying, so a resident comes in and has a copper line that they need to tie into. A lot of times that copper gets un unrounded. So then you're you're spending time trying to reound the copper enough that you can get a compression fitting to work on it. And a lot of time with the poly, it's more or less it it'll retain its shape and you put a sleeve inside of it that rounds it right back out, you're good to go. So it's easier for even somebody to work with in the future like that. Right. And then I had one other thing. It talks about the recycled asphalt and I I hope I can find this. Let's see. It had the word shifted and I was wondering if it was supposed to be sifted. Um it's in G.

Which page? Uh let's see. 62 of my packet. It says said material shall be processed, grinded, and shifted and mixed as directed. That would be sifted. We We'll need to make that change. It's in the red and it's under recycled asphalt. Okay. In section G. Yeah, we need to make that change. Any other questions or comments? Councelor Anderson,

I had a question on page 31. It was talking about um the parking strip and mentioned that there was no you had to have pre-approval to have concrete in the park parking strip. But it also pointed out that there was to be no concrete, no asphalt, no pavers, no hard surfacing in the park strip. Is that unless it's pre-approved? So it would have to be approved. Mhm. I mean, homeowners still will go in there and and put pavers in. They can. If it's a solid surface, though, we want them to have it approved because we run into problems. Sometimes they're covering up stuff under concrete that they we don't want covered. Okay.

And we also make them do like a stamped and a color to it so that it differentiates between the sidewalks so that when a handicapped person or something can goes down like a cane, they would notice a difference so they're not walking off of it and then out into the street. So we usually make them stamp it and color it. So if you're legally blind but not blind, you can see a color differentiation, too. And that's kind of a it's hard to do sometimes, but that's what we try and do with them and still make it so that it's doable for a homeowner. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that.

Council Arnold. Move to approve resolution 2026-2 adapting adopting updates to Riverdale City Construction and Development Standards with the changes noted of taking the wording out um saying rewarding as pointed out and the word shift to sift. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second motion in a second. Any discussion on that motion? Miss Maragoni, will you please pull the council? Councelor Anderson, yes. Councelor Hudson, yes.

Councelor Stevens, yes. Councelor Arnold, yes. Councelor Richtor, yes.

All right, passes unanimously. Very good. We'll look at item number three now. consideration of resolution 2026-03 approving the purchase or tradein of surplus backhoe for mini excavator Mr. Douglas. So this one's something that's a little different and I wanted to bring it it is under our approval dollar amount but I still wanted to bring it let you look at it and see what your thoughts are on this. So we we did the new back hole. We tried to we've been trying to sell the used one um to make as much out as we can and the market's super soft right now. We've had very few even I think we've had one person even look at it even though we've kept lowering the price. We'd been working with our rep at John John Deere um trying to help him have us help us move it and he'd came up with this idea. Um the guy's been wanting me to put in for one of these for years. Um so it was just a thought idea. Um the one nice thing about it is the breaker part of it. Like with Riverdale Road, we really struggle out there. There's almost 12 to 14 in of concrete on that. And when we break a line under that, we have to have somebody come and saw cut it for us, but then we have literally spent hours and hours out there with the hand jackhammer trying to break through it. And so the concrete breaker, like we'd planned on buying one of them anyway and putting it on a different piece of equipment, but this is probably the best piece of equipment we could have to put that on. And then we've also added concrete on the roundabout up there on Cozy Dale. And as well as that went, I think on replacement roundabouts, we'll probably look at doing that because with all the research we've done on them, they hold up to the rudding and the tight turns better. So when we look at replacing like 700 and 4,400, which is probably the next one, we'll replace the service and we'll probably look at concrete in that one as well. But and then the other thing that's kind of came up, we never really realized it before, but there's a lot of times we're on a job and we need another excavator type piece of

equipment and it's been super nice to have two that we can go out and be working at the same time rather than waiting for another week for one job to be done. So, I just wanted to propose it, see what your thoughts are. Naturally, we can we'll work this out like we wouldn't ask for a budget amendment. It'll be spread over probably three departments, water, sewer, storm water. Um, and then the trade in the back is already surplus, so that part of it's all taken care of. There won't be any work to do on that, but just looking for thoughts and opinions. Councelor Anderson,

how much would that breaker equipment attachment be separate if we purchased that for? So it would be a little most of the ones we looked at for other pieces of equipments would be a little bit more um than what it is to go on this because these already h it would already have the hydraulics set up for it. So we'd probably be closer to the 20 range for that. Probably 17 to 20 to go on a different piece of equipment. Interesting.

And like I said, the one benefit to doing something like this is we could have the back hoe on site to be ready to dig with while we're breaking out the concrete. the other way. We're going to have to go back and change implements on the back of it cuz we'd probably take the bucket off of something else to put the breaker on and so we would have more downtime. But but we can make it work either way. We we do want to we do want to buy a breaker no matter what. It's just that concrete's just too thick for us to get through and like it's something we should have done for years, but we're looking at that either way. But this just idea if you don't like it, we will keep trying to sell the backhoe. How much are we trying to sell to the backho for?

We've been we've been down to as low as 60 and it they haven't touched it yet. So, and it's a nice like we've taken good care of it. Like it's a nice piece of equipment, but it's just the market's changed. It's there. You just don't see a lot of contractors using the backho. They've kind of switched to these mini X's and so we're we're essentially taking like a $50,000 Well, I mean, we're getting a piece of equipment, but you know, we're losing that in our budget kind of. We can I'm sure we can sell it for 50. Like, if we drop to 50 and hold on to it through the summer, I think we can move it for 60 for 50. Okay. Council Anderson,

again, how long have we had it a surplus and it's been marketed? It's been over six months now. I didn't look I should have looked up the exact date, but I didn't look it up. So, I I'm very lightly familiar with what we're talking about. So, the Mini X got just smaller all around. Yep. Um, is there a benefit to residents if you're doing something in their yard? Like, are you digging less? So, we usually don't go in the yards as much as we, you know, like we usually stay out of private property. Um, it is like the guys in the Parker would be super excited because they could go in the park with a track and not have to worry about the running as much. It's way lighter and so that's a huge benefit. And it's smaller.

You can also dig sideways with it. So, we can get in spots that we can't get with the back hoe that we're typically hand digging now. So, like in tight spots or behind the side of a building or something like that where we a lot of times we'll end up hand shoveling. We should be able to fit in there a little better. It'll dig sideways instead of just with the pivot like a back. I know they're very popular that people like you have one. Have you used one? Used one. I don't have one yet. Okay, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. Um, so Sean, I trust you. If you you want it and you think it's a good deal, I'm I've given you my vote before where you can you can cast my vote.

The guys would love it. like they've been asking for one for years, but I realize this also unusual asks that it we didn't talk about in the budget last year and that's why I didn't want to do it without talking to you to see what Well, the thing is it it really is in the budget if it's for the price point that you're talking about, it's already we can cover that. Yes, for sure. But like I didn't bring it up as a line item in the budget like you guys did not have a chance to see it and so I I didn't feel comfortable without talking to you about it. So, with it being in the the line item or the budget power, Steve, your your spending limit, do we have to put a dollar amount in this motion or just say we're good to go?

No. No, we wouldn't have. We technically could have done it administratively, but I think you just want to keep you guys informed of we just took a consensus. I mean, I mean, there's a there's a resolution with it, but it wouldn't matter either way. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. So, what do you want to do? Let's make a motion and pass the resolution. Okay. Well, you're tamping it. Well, if if what do I want to do like or or deny it, I guess, like like but I don't want to do a consensus or anything. Yeah.

Can I make one comment before you do it? Just to be supportive. I guess I have worked with one quite a bit a few years ago for a lot of years in the water department and I can just say like the efficiency that you get out of a min for water for that kind of infrastructure it's you just wouldn't believe how much it improves your work site and being able to get stuff done and then on top of it to be able to have both pieces out there when you're working on jobs like that it'll just speed things up so much. Um, and then additionally, like when you're digging in park strips, when you're doing that kind of work, it minimizes the damage that you're causing to people's property by being able to have that smaller version. And I think for the tradeoff of have we're still going to have a piece of equipment and then on top of it, we're going to have that concrete breaker for the same amount it's going to cost to purchase a concrete breaker. I think that's a a great move for the city to do that. I think it'll be really beneficial for everyone.

We've rented them, you know, a ton over the years. There's not a ton, but whenever we needed one. And like, like I say, they've been they've been after me forever to to do it. I just I don't know. I don't I mean, just in time, I think you'll make the money back over the lease or whatever we're doing the purchase. All right. Council Arnold. So I'd move to approve resolution 2026-03 approving the purchase and and trade of surplus backhoe for mini excavator. Have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Motion and a second. Miss Maronei, would you please pull the council? Councelor Stevens. Yes. Councelor Arnold. Yes.

Councelor Richtor. Yes. Councelor Anderson. Yes. Councelor Hansen. Yes. Okay, that passes unanimously. Very good. Uh, item number four, discussion and consideration of resolution 2026-04 approving the Weaver County pre- disaster mitigation plan. Chief Hennessy and Mr. Brooks.

Um, I'll just just briefly give you Matt's going to kind of talk about this. We've done these before. It's been a little while. We're actually a little bit behind. Um, we didn't include that in your packet. I explained all that. We sent that in a separate link just because it was 1,200 and something pages. I can't remember what it was. But not all of that applies to us. But the big thing on these is we have to do this and pass this so that we qualify for federal funding uh loans and if a disaster were to happen if I understand that correct Matt but Matt can give you any more deal details. I don't know that he knows all 1,200 pages but he would know at least what pertains to us. He's been working on this for quite a while. So it be just something good that we get this done and out of the way.

Yeah. This came from um the Weaver County Emergency Managers working with FEMA and it's just a pre-mitigation plan that uh FEMA would like to see where the county gets all the cities and um interested entities involved whether it's school and and um um water districts and everything and they get together and they identify any hazards within their jurisdiction. We put them on paper and that doesn't and when we talk about putting these hazards on there, we also put solutions to them as well. Projects is what we call them. And we're not obligated to perform any of these. We just identify hazards. Some that we have for Riverdale on here just for for a couple examples are flood mitigation in the River Glenn. You know, building up BMS and the cost that's associated with that. Now, if there's grants available to be able to achieve that, adopting this premitigation plan and saying yes, we've identified a hazard um makes us eligible. So, in the event there is a disaster, um we still will be eligible for funding even if this is not approved, but this cuts a lot of the red tape if that makes sense with that. So, um, and the downfalls to not, um, um, approving this would be, uh, what I looked into would be, um, it would it takes about 5 years. We're out of it for 5 years before it comes up again for approval as well as not being eligible for any of the FEMA grants. So, and we've got all entities in here, all emergency um, cities are part of it, took place of it, and we've all identified a lot of things. So,

excellent. Any questions for the chief or Mr. Brooks? Councelor Arnold. Move to approve resolution 2026-4 approving the Weber County pre- disaster mitigation plan. We have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? It's it's a living document, right? I mean, we know they're going to change it over the five years and we're just in. Right. Right. Yeah. It's grown, I think, almost double since the last time we paid we passed this. So yeah, it's always moving. Okay. Any other discussion? Miss Maragon, you please pull the council. Councelor Richtor, yes. Councelor Anderson, yes. Councelor Arnold, yes.

Councelor Hansen, yes. Councelor Stevens, yes. All right, great. That passes unanimously as well. We'll move on to item number five, consideration of ordinance 10002 notifying the public of a pending ordinance regarding a temporary land use regulation to remove cluster subdivisions from the R16 zone. Mr. Cooper,

thank you, Mayor. Um so as you know in the January 20 uh council meeting uh you all considered uh and ultimately denied the proposal for the for the uh general plan future land use map amendment and then the subsequent reszone. Uh after looking at that, after having those conversations uh with you all and and hearing from the public, we looked further into the R16 zone and determined that we needed to re-evaluate the the um the uses that that R16 zone allows. Uh currently, um there are some cluster subdivision um uses that would mimic some of the proposals that were denied. So, we felt like that given the meeting that we had and what the the zone actually um still allows that we felt like it was appropriate to propose this temporary zoning regulation. You all have seen this before. Um it wasn't something that worked for you uh in in a previous proposal, but it could work uh at this point. A temporary zoning ordinance um as you probably know is essentially a moratorum is as another word. It would essentially prohibit any development applications from coming from being reviewed and approved in the city for 180 days once the adoption of the ordinance took place. And that would give us the time to go through the necessary uh work that it takes to do a text amendment and review the R16 zone in in relation to that cluster subdivision language and um some other things that might be pertinent to that. Um it does um set aside the normal process. So as you know the normal process would be the planning commission would um uh have a public hearing on a proposed text amendment and then they would forward that recommendation to you. And so that takes some time to do. Uh by adopting

this uh ordinance it essent essentially bypasses all that and establishes that moratorum tonight. Mr. Cooper, can you clarify one thing about uh it stops all applications just for cluster subdivisions? No, for everything in the city for everything in the R16 zones.

So, we wouldn't accept any applications for development in any in our any R16 zone. So, there's not very many. You can see they're the bright yellow ones. Uh so, we obviously know about the one on Ritter Drive. Um there's another one over by Coleman View and then there's a couple up on the north side of 4400. So, we don't anticipate any other development applications in other zones um outside of the one that was under discussion on January 20th, but uh it would prohibit them nonetheless. Questions for Mr. Cooper? Council Stevens.

Okay. So, it says notify the public and Okay. So, this if it's not going through the normal processes like of a public hearing and whatnot. So this is just posting in the paper like we post or no tonight would be the notification by your adoption of the ordinance that's before you. That would be the notification to the public that Okay. So basically notification is it's just on the books now as approved by the council,

right? For 180 days. If there isn't a text amendment or any change to the ordinance within that 180 days, then everything reverts back to its current condition and development applications um continue to to persist. But it's all allow it it allows that 180 days for us to review the or to review the the text of the code and propose any changes to you in the normal process. Another question is 180 days standard. Can they shorten that? Does it always need to be 180 days? That's the the um longest. So um we have within that 180 days and that's set by state code to make any changes.

Okay. So if we make changes prior to it then obviously when those changes are fully adopted then that's the new code. Okay. Councelor Arnold just have a question. Um, in the executive summary, it says these regulations can be put in place for a number of reasons, including emergency sit situations, compelling public interest, unregulated areas, and envir environmental impact studies. Mhm. Are we covered? What What is our reason? I mean, we're we're looking at eliminating that, but

yeah. So, it's a counterveailing um kind of argument in terms of what the state the actual language of the state code and it does allow us to um do it in anticipation of a of an application that might be um that might be contrary to our wishes and given the the discussion that we had on the 20th and previously, I think those wishes are pretty well known. And so to have a development application come forward in the um in the time that would be allowed for it knowing that that's kind of where we're at would be counterveailing to our public interest. Mayor,

yes. Um, I just thought I should say because I know that I have on the record been against these types of moratoriums, but I do think this is the applicable use for it where it became very apparent because of those additional uses that we were talking about avoiding that if an application came in, we would probably have to approve it because it fits within the zoning. Um, and so, and I think that there was a chance that could happen, especially since we listed all those uses publicly of what we could do with it. So I I do think this is the prime example of when it's appropriate to use a moratorum and to give ourselves that time to get it fixed within the 6 months which should be doable. Yeah.

Um and additionally I just wanted to say I really appreciate you being proactive on that after hearing the council's feedback and concerns and taking those steps to help us protect the city this way. So thanks for doing that. You're welcome. Any other comments or questions? Councelor Arnold. I would move to approve ordinance 1002 uh notifying the public of a pending ordinance regarding a temporary land use regulation to remove cluster subdivisions from the R16 zone for uh what was your unveiling? Counterveiling counterveiling public interest.

Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. motion in a second. Uh, any discussion on that motion? I probably should know what counterveailing means. Big councelor Hansen's appreciation for for putting this forward. Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Miss Mayor Goni, will you please pull the council? Councelor Hansen. Yes. Councelor Richtor. Yes. Stevens. Yes. Anderson. Yes. Honor. Yes.

All right. All right, very good. That passes unanimously. We'll move on to item number six, discussion and action on council rules and procedures update. Mr. Brooks, I don't did did you all get a chance to look at those? I didn't receive any comments or notifications beforehand. Um, I've gone through them. There's a number of just housekeeping, grammatical kind of things to clean up. There was one that's substance actually two of them that I would discuss with you. But if you guys had further ones, we could deal with it tonight. If you uh just want to hear what I had to say, we could do that tonight. I don't didn't know how much of how many you had taken time to look at those. The these are we did this two years ago, so it's not like it's that old. So,

should we have Mr. Brooks start with his points and then we can see if we have any additional ones? I the the grammatical things there's just spacings and things like that. I don't think I'll I'll worry too much about that. The the biggest concern and it's not really even as a big concern in uh the section on meetings where we eliminated the um pre-planning meeting. I I want to reword that not not so much I don't want to take it out because uh we're actually going to talk about that here in just a bit. Um, but we could we could list it as a as an option still that we could still do that meeting if we needed it. So if the if the occasion arose where we needed that extra 30 minutes, we could do it before a city council meeting. And and I still want to use it for other occasions, too, just like uh where we're going to talk about on the the PRUD thing where we kind of thought we'd need more time than what we have in a city council meeting. We were going to propose to you tonight that we would look at we would recommend maybe next week where the planning commission doesn't have anything on their agenda to take that Tuesday and use that time period and that would just be a work meeting. It's not going to be anything. All all we would do is go over all that stuff with you then just for that one ordinance and then bring it back into our city council meeting next week. So my thoughts I'm getting too winded here was leave that stuff in there. I'm just going to change it though instead of making it mandatory that we have that 30 uh minutes beforehand that we still leave it as a a may instead of a a shall kind of thing. So it's not really anything of substance. It's still in there. Um but it still gives us those options not only the 30 minutes before but if we schedule them any other times like we're proposing for next week.

Mr. Brooks. Yeah. While we're in that section, um yeah, I think adding the word may or may be preceded. Yeah, I think that'd be great. And I just wanted to bring the attention u I I wasn't aware of this, but the line right after that talking about can cancelling meetings. Um it says if two members oppose the cancellation that it can't be cancelled. So it's a super majority. It's like four out of five have to agree to cancel it. Just just FYI. So

yeah, that's it's I I noticed a couple in here, too. I actually highlighted a couple of them because I thought uh I don't know how many of us know that's even in there. So I I mean I wrote these things so I at one time knew it was in there but um the same thing on 4.5 shall uh not be in order for members to explain their vote during a roll call. That would surprise me a little bit. So

um but the other one that I think was probably of more substance than anything was the very uh section 8 is uh almost till the very end when it talks about votes required. I think that's actually against uh state code. Um and what I would propose on that is is this is how it would read. Um approve approval of every ordinance, resolution or motion shall require on final passage the affirmative vote of a majority of and then I would insert in there the voting members of the quorum. Um strike the word present and then leave the rest of it the same. That's actually how state code reads. The the how this one reads is The scenario could be let's say uh we had enough that there was a quorum. Let's say we had three members here. So we got a quorum. We can go ahead and proceed on something. But let's say that one of them uh uh abstains for whatever they have a conflict of interest. We could have a two to nothing vote or a 1:1 vote. Um let's say it was a two to nothing vote. That by state law doesn't pass. It can't pass even though it's a majority of those who are here. State code says it's the majority of the quorum. So we would on everything we do, we have to have a minimum three votes under state code. And the way that reads right there, we could we could do something that doesn't comply with state code. So um that's all I'm doing is just basically inserting state language, the state code language in right there.

Isn't anybody abstaining a no vote though? Um it's treated as a yes. So I mean if abstained it would be two to one and it doesn't pass because you don't have the three votes. You have to have three votes in our council. And that's what I'm saying. This right now say has to be unanimous that that example you use right there would pass how this writtens now how it's written now but it doesn't comply with state code. Okay. So that's the only tweak I would make. It's it's a small change but it has some pretty significant impact on it. Okay. You're looking at section 8. Where are you? What are you wanting to change?

In the second line, um, where it says vote of a majority of the Do you see where I'm at? Yes. Right there, we would insert the voting members of the quorum and then strike the word present. It doesn't have anything to do with the how many's present under state code. It's the majority members of the quorum, which means three. You have to have three to pass it. Is that right? the majority of the quorum. Is it quorum three though? Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. It can't be the majority of the quorum.

It's the majority of the quorum. It doesn't matter because it states the language after that it's in 10-3-507. It state regardless of of status it says. So basically what they're saying is you got to have three votes or nothing passes in our quorum. I'm just thinking it talks about the majority of the quorum. If three is a quorum, I think it's a little confusing to say the majority of the quorum. a voted of the of a majority of the core. Oh, that's right. It's not the core. Voting members. Yeah. Yeah, that's what it is. You're correct on that. Yeah. Yeah. That's the what I inserted after that was the voting members of the quorum. Yeah.

So, that forces you to get a a three three at least three votes to pass anything. But that's the only thing of substance. The rest of that uh I thought was pretty good besides little housekeeping things which I don't think you would object to any of those. So there was some spaces. There was a half a parenthesy in there on spots and just just little gap things. So that's the only things I really had that I was, you know, concerned about. Okay. I'm sorry. Say that again. After the word um or before the word quorum, you're add you strike or you're after the word the

Yeah. You put the voting members of the quorum. and striking present, right? Because presence doesn't matter at all. You got to have three members in there. So, that's the only thing that would change that has any substance to it besides the the pre-planning stuff. The quorum, are you leaving the word quorum in there? A vote. No, we got to take this. The voting members of the council or board, right? I mean, depending on if it's a board or a council. voting members of the council. That's right. Council would be better. Okay. And I think you had that discussion forum as well. I feel like on certain things we have for sure. Is it the budget that has to

I think we did the last time we talked about the rules. We talked about the same issue. It seemed like maybe we I know I brought it up before that we had to have three on this no matter what it was because it's come up before. Cities have run into that and they'll have a two to one vote and technically that's not legal. Yeah. And sometimes if you had a say a two to two or something, I guess two to two you still could, but um because we we don't factor in the the mayor in a in a sixperson council. It's just the five. There was a 2025 case that pretty much double stamped that that you have to have three voting members. Yeah. Yeah.

Any other comments or questions um from the council? I think last time we met we talked about a situation where the mayor or maybe this is where we were talking about it and we had the back and forth on whether the mayor can be the can vote or be the tiebreaker. Yeah. But it looked like it was still leaving him as the tiebreaker if we had Yeah. the majority of the council present. Yeah. And and that's in here. It talks about him breaking that, but there was also language in there because there's a couple of sections that still prohibits him from voting and and I don't remember which one it is, but when we're doing like a interim midterm appointment. Yeah. It used to be that the mayor did break that vote and I think they changed that, didn't they, Michelle? Last year. I feel like they to where the mayor does it now.

They changed it because he can just appoint people without even doing the process we usually do. Right. It's bounced every year. They changed that for some reason. But this year, they are changing it again. I like Stacy. Yeah. For coin tosses. Yeah. Yeah. Gambling in the state of Utah with no set number of times or who tossing, right?

No, that was the one that I was wondering about because I know we talked about whether the mayor could do that and I think that was what the discussion was that what if we had just the three people miss that. Maybe that was the discussion we were having and somehow you ended up at a it still wouldn't work there. You still wouldn't get the three votes even with the mayor. So, like if somebody abstained and then you had a no and a that, you still end up without it anyway. Anyway, I think it was right in our rules. I think Yeah, I think we're okay. Be considered a tiebreaker because there's not a tie. You'd just be passing it. Well, it doesn't it's abstaining isn't really a no vote. It's just not a yes vote. And so, it doesn't meet the three,

right? That's where you get stuck at. And that's why I say it's treated as a as a no because it doesn't give you a yes. And so, you have to treat it as a no even though it's not. Yeah. Okay. I think that resolved what I was thinking. Other than that, I had nothing else.

I had one other in the section three code of conduct. Um our meeting uh last meeting there was it was very passionate and uh and and there was I mean somewhat heated discussion, but uh I wanted in section C I found this very interesting. Um, it says the city council member, and this is I don't know if this needs to be changed or if this is how we really want it. Um, I don't think it's exactly what we do. City council member desired to question the administrative staff shall address questions to the city administrator who shall be entitled entitled to either answer the inquiries or designate some member of city staff.

We we kind of do that. I mean, because there's times like this stuff that Sean did tonight, I'm not going to know the answers to a lot of those things. And so usually if it's one of their their items, I ask them to be here personally. Same thing with Matt. I asked Matt to be here tonight in case you had some fire stuff. So we kind of do that anywhere anyway or I can kind of anticipate that's what's going to happen. So I think we all and a lot of times I do know because I'm working with these guys on that, you know, and so I may be able to answer some of the the higher level stuff, but not the the we

got to have something in there just says the city administrator or his designate because the way it's written it is you. it is you and then you have to kind of defer to them. But these guys should be addressing all their questions to you and then you could say chief or whoever. Well, it says after that uh either to answer the inquiries or to designate some member of city staff for that purpose. So that's kind of what we do anyway. So it's it's technically in there. Okay. So it's still okay if I if we ask Mr. Douglas a question without Absolutely. Okay. Yeah. We're just going to waste our time. So, councelor Stevens.

Well, that to me, this is just staying consistent with as a council member, you know, has a question, he when we're not in in council chambers, he will always direct it to um the city manager as opposed to the coun or to the department head. And and I see this just as an extension of being consistent with that. Now the fact you're here I don't know do you want to say def defer it to or just since you don't say anything you know then it's automatically deferred.

I think how we've done it I think we're fine. I'm not that concerned about that one to be honest with you. I mean I generally know I mean not know what you're going to ask but I anticipate a lot of those things and I know if there's some stuff that I don't know I'm certainly going to have him here. So him or her here to That's why we need to have Mr. Cody Carson here every meeting and Rich Taylor. Let's let's bring them all in case and might as well bring in Stacy Ko too. Absolutely. Let's let's have a party. I will I will let them all know that in department heads Bart Stevens that was Bart Bart's demanding this. If you're comfortable with that, I'm comfortable. Well, I just make sure that I'm directing them the right way that they fineirect. You could speak for them.

Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Okay. Um, so do we need like a a motion to approve the I would I would do that and then if you're okay with that, um, I'll I'll make those adjustments and they'll be all updated and then we'll send you a new copy of it as it stands. So, okay. We'll need to be kind of specific with the with the motion. get the wording just right. I are you comfortable with that? The only one I'm concerned about is that one section that I covered with you. The other things are just housekeeping things. There's not well other than the meeting thing, but I've explained that and it's just going to be changes words from May. It's to or wills to May kind of stuff. So, it'll be they'll be insignificant. So,

okay. I think we ought to table it until they're fixed. You've got six months to do it. So, I'm not in a hurry. I just I I've had that ready. So, I don't hate that. I mean, one of one of the things um that I've learned in the last couple of weeks is our our motions and what we're passing carry a lot of weight. And I mean, we we really should have it our ducks in a row when we pass it. And I I anticipated that we would table it. So, I'm not that worried about it. Literally be on the next meeting agenda and we go. That's fine. All the all the changes are made. Correct. Everyone great.

Yeah, just put them in red. Give us another copy of it. Is everybody okay with that? Absolutely. Council Arnold. Council Richtor just went like this. But he was just rubbing his hands together. Oh, he have it. No, no, it's you. He was just rubbing his hands. Move to table this agenda item for the next what meeting? So, it's it's on the next agenda. February 17th or or just the next meeting if if we happen to cancel it can be on the next one within. But you said excuse me this is good. I mean we could go we could table this one until it's convenient. Yeah. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second that.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Miss Maroni, will you please pull the council? I just want to clarify. Um are we tableabling it or are we tableabling it till the next meeting? Just just table it. Yeah, I agree. Till you're ready till Steve's ready or whatever. There's no We have six months if the second is agreeable. That is I am. Yes. Okay. Councelor Richtor. Yes. Councelor Hansen. Yes. Councelor Anderson. Yes. Councelor Stevens. Yes. Councelor Arb. Yes. Okay. And actually, it can only stay on the table for 90 days. Is that right? Is that what I read in there? Is it 90 days?

We don't want that either. Yeah. 90 days. It can only stay on the table for 90 days and then it then have to start over. We only put that in two years ago. I know. That was a lot of reading. Got all that concrete stuff. Like, come on, man. Okay, let's go. Uh, item number seven, discussion of the PRUD zoning text amendment, Mr. Cooper. Okay. Thank you, Mayor. As uh as Steve said, the bulk of this conversation really um I think is going to be most productive in a work session um just between staff and the council. Um but I have prepared a few slides to give you something to think about until we meet. So if you're if you're up to it, we can chat for a minute.

I'm up to it. Are you guys up to it? Okay, let's do it. So typically like in the work session we'll go over the language of the actual document and we can talk about changes or or um revisions those kind of things but in in this presentation I just wanted to give some general background and some concepts of what we're trying to do. Um and as I thought about this I thought about where we're at currently in our in our demographics and in the the status of our city. So, I thought I'd just share that briefly. So, I looked at population. Uh, believe it or not, based on the Utah population committee who sets the number that is adjusted into our sales tax distribution, we're at 9921. So, that's higher than the 2020 census, but that's a current reflection of um how they formulate population. So, um interesting. Uh our owner occupancy has has um grown since 2019 from 70.6 to 74.6. So that's a little above uh the Weber County um average. So we're doing great there. We have about 3650 households and our median price is 430, a little under the Weaver County median price. I looked at um our current zones right now and um we currently have 26 zones that allow for single family homes and duplexes and eight zones that allow for multifamily. So in as you think about um the idea of this uh plan development text amendment and the PRUD zone or PRUD overlay um that is currently in place. Uh I wanted you to kind of understand that's the mix that we have right now. So we're essentially largely single family home and we're mostly ownership. Uh I also looked at our current listings. Uh we have 27 um dwelling units on the market today and the average time on market um is a little

bit longer than it normally has been. It's um a little bit over 60 days. Um still pretty good, but you know back in the heyday it was 30 days, sometimes one day. Um so it's a little bit longer than normal. Uh but we have 27 listings right now. Of those 27 listings, 15 are single family homes and 12 are mobile homes. Um, so if you look at those price ranges and think about all of this together, we have we have most of our city designated as single family homes, but in terms of what's available to live in as a as a new home, we only have 15 out of the 27. The rest are are cons are mobile homes. In that 16 to 80,000 price range, the single family homes are 349 to 739. So there's a huge gap in the in the difference between um the entry level and kind of the single family home level. Um what we lack if if I don't know if you see that gap, but what we lack is things in the middle there that's not a mobile home, but it's not a single family home, right? Um and how do you how do you get to purchase that? There's nothing on the market right now that isn't a single family home between 350 and 750 or a mobile home. So, if you had a a kid or if you were a recent graduate from Weber State and you wanted to live in reddale, what are your options? So, those are the kind of things I think about when it when we're talking about um about how to build a community that's desirable and is sustainable over time. Uh this is

Yeah.

Yeah. So, so I was talking to some people that are doing apartments, building apartments, and they they say that the cost of an apartment, and this is actually a couple months ago that they told me this, but the the cost of every door is 240 to So, that's that's their general cost to put it in. So, to think we're going to put something between that 80 and the 350 is going to be uh really tricky, you know? I mean, they just they just don't build them because, you know, an apartment is something they build so they can hang on to it or something like that where when they're talking about the town homes, you know, you're they were saying they're try to get them in the 450 with the comment that if they want to make changes in a couple of years, meaning they're going to be a little cheaper in their construction. I mean, it's trying trying to hit that demographic is going to be really hard. It's exactly what the state's been after for a number of years because we've leaprogged that middle. They call it the missing middle. I don't necessarily love that term, but that's the vernacular that's being used and it it's kind of leapfrogged. Um, and so the pressure is really on cities, mostly on cities from the state to figure out from the policies that we make how to address that gap. Um, and there's lots of different ways that are working, some aren't, but um, we do still, even in this legislative session, run the risk of preeemption in terms of our ability to control our own local zoning code. Um, the, uh, President Schultz got up and said, "We love the cooperation that the cities are giving us. We think that um, things are working. We don't want to preempt the cities." But essentially, he said, and I'm putting words in his mouth, but he essentially said, "We will if we have to." Um, and so

thus the president Schultz instead of speaker Schultz. Oh, speaker. Sorry. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. Yeah, he he wants to be president. Um, so anyway, there's there's a lot going on here and there's no silver bullet. Um, but there are some considerations to make and that's part of why we're talking about the PRUD amendment is that is to um look at the considerations that we can make because we are obligated by the state to report back to them every year that we are talking about these things and that we're taking action on how to kind of address this issue.

I didn't realize how difficult this is to see on the big screen. I hope it reads a little better on yours. Okay, great. So, I've outlined um and I can send this to you if you like. So, it's kind of a cliff notes to your to your red line, but on the left there is the new ordinance. Um and on the right is what we currently have an existing ordinance. And so the the primary purpose of the change is to create that flexibility that we need to address current housing needs and current housing trends um in a in more of a mixeduse environment, residential, commercial, um the blending of multiple residential types in a single development um all with um clear standards versus what we have now, which is residential only. Um, and I'll show you some pictures in a minute that uh that kind of show you what we've approved in the past and you are all familiar with them, I'm sure. But this gives us more flexibility. Um, it applies across multiple zoning districts as opposed to just being residentially based now. So, that's a key element that we're looking at. Um, again, the allowed uses would be um myriad instead of just residential with residential serving amenities. I think that is a good consideration when you're thinking about how to create u vibrant active neighborhoods. Uh the regulatory approach I think is really important because right now the way the peds are done and and councelor honor you you mentioned this uh in our last meeting is that there's there's no standard that applies one to another and there's no followup to those standards or very little. And so it it creates situations that change from one development to another. And so this approach is really um geared towards setting standards um that have design as their foundation and development criteria that is predictable and reliable and and consistent.

Minimum lot sizes uh would change under the amendments, but those are things we can talk about in terms of this specificity of that. the approval uh authority doesn't change in the rewrite. It is still the similar planning commission, city council, especially on the legislative approvals like development agreements and and other things like that. Uh the relationship to the zoning is important because the new language supersedes the the base zoning standards that would be in conflict. Whereas um currently um it it largely relies on the base zoning st standards which is confusing because then you're able to negotiate other things and it it really makes it convoluted.

Can I ask a question on that one? Mhm. Um even though it supersedes it, we because of this being passed by ordinance and it not being a zone, we still have the protections of the council to say no without getting sued because it doesn't mean it fits in every zone if we find that it doesn't fit in every zone. That's right. and state law is very specific about that that you can um regulate via um development agreement if your local ordinance allows for and that's what this does. Okay. Okay.

Open space. Again, both of them have open space requirements. We can talk about what's appropriate in the new one. Design standards. This is where uh I think we've gotten in trouble in the past where you drive by something and you say um that didn't look like what I thought I approved kind of a thing. And so we can be very deliberate with our design standards. We can codify architecture. We can codify materials. We can do a lot when it comes to the look and feel of what these developments um are looking at. we can codify how they present that to us as well in terms of renderings and community plans and other things that would help you understand exactly what you're approving when it when it comes to versus today we we don't have any design standards whatsoever um other than what we subjectively make up and negotiate on a case-byase uh basis. Council Arnold

statement question. I probably more of a statement but um one of the things I I hate this thing and I if we can revamp it into um you know with all the zones that it's allowed in, you know, from R18, R110 and the all the C's that it's allowed in. Um I I have somewhat of a pro a problem with the amount of um like on the-fly amendments that can go. Um probably a good time. I'm I want to apologize to Brandon publicly for um my heated you know it wasn't Riverwalk

River well

river well river well. Um, one of the things that Brandon's talking about, like I didn't I didn't think it was what we approved. And three of those things are they did uh shave off a couple parking spots, but not as many as I thought they did because they have some more outside, but they had to do some in inside to be able to put the buildings up. So, you know, they did shave parking spots. Um, Brandon had the authority to do a field, would you call it, a field adjustment or a field call because there were supposed to be a six-foot vinyl fence from the business to the the property and it's just a a two rail three rail or a threefoot rail fence now. And I I disagree with that because then it opens up all that parking. somebody wants to park right at their house, they just park in a public spot and it's they've just claimed that that parking and I I don't like that. And then the other side of it is Bart's suggestion. um you know going back I don't know how many of you watched the meeting or anything but went back and watched that whole meeting and I thought there was supposed to be a rot iron fence along the the road and what it was was Bart at the end said hey this is a really good idea if you would please consider that and you know they whether they laughed or said sure I'll I'll consider it well they didn't consider it because they found reason why they didn't go about it. So, you know, if you look in this ordinance, there's a lot of, you know, the city administrator can do this and the public or the community development director can do this. And so, to codify it is not exactly true. I mean, we we do, but then there's as they come in and they'll say, "Hey, we want to do this." And there's a lot of people that can say, "Um, yeah, we're going to change that." So if you

go by something that you know you're saying well that isn't what you know I would have never said yes to that and and the reason that I run for city council is to protect my city not not my community you know my little section of you know if you talk Riverdale 4 or whatever in the voting district or something like that but it's like you know um the city and and what I want to live in because it's not I'm I'm not looking at moving. I I have no interest in moving, you know, but I do want to protect my my community, my um my city that I live in. And um and I've had a couple conversations with some of the staff because some of them felt that I would went over the line and and maybe I did, but it's not personal. It's not after anybody's job or anything like that. I'm just passionate about my community and I want one of the things that I said, you know, that the city employees put their heart and soul into Riverdale. And I said, I agree with that totally, but none of them live here. Nobody nobody's driving into a Riverdale driveway when they go home. And so I I was like, you know, it's like melting the cow versus like butchering the steer, you know? I mean, we're fully committed because we pull into Riverdale Driveways when we get here. We're we don't look for employment or houses elsewhere to live in where they can look for employment elsewhere. So anyway, it's just very important that I think, you know, if somebody goes into an R18 and they can put something like this 59 unit in a plan development, you know, we we need to be really careful about how this ordinance reads because once we pass that ordinance, um like I was saying about Bart's fence idea that in my mind, I was expecting that to go up

for and um Brandon talked to the developer and they said, "Well, it wasn't in the motion." You know, and it's like nobody's nobody's going to say, if we say please, they're not going to say sure or thank you. They're they're going to pass what they do and then take what they can get. And I I think we need to put things in motions and we need to have a a really strong ordinance that we don't have somebody come in giggling about, you know, I I get you're trying to protect it with R18, R110, whatever, but we can come in with the the PD. I guess you call it a PD, not P R anymore, but PU PD.

But now now it's a PD. And and we have to say yes. there's I mean they can come through and say you know we're we're presenting this and we say no we don't like this one if we if we don't have findings we're I mean somebody could sue us easily and just say you know Councilman Arnold didn't like it um they would win that and so I this this ordinance needs to be like really good so

doesn't the development agreement give us give us that power though to say I don't like it but it doesn't fit Right. That's the whole idea. And some cities are entirely governed off of development agreements. New growth cities like Saratoga Springs, some in Haramman and things like that. So there is again state law allows us to supersede base zone through negotiated development agreements that you don't agree to until you like it. Right? So it isn't something that says here's the standard, here's the base zone standards that were adopted in 2007 and now you're living with it and so this application comes in and meets all of those and you hate it but you have to say yes. That's that's more of a problem than in these situations where they have a development that can come in under a planned development and we have enough guidelines and rules and standards and objectives and all the guard rails that are required for them to come in with a a development that we've already projected to them that we want. Um, and then you just work through it until it's exactly what uh they're willing to provide and we're willing to accept. So, I guess the projecting to them is the important part.

That's what we're trying to accomplish through this text amendment. And there'll be some fingers that will reach out to our title 10 code updates. And we'll get things in there like um not not just the land use authority on the initial approval, but what constitutes a material change, what constitutes an amendment that would have to come back for the council, those kind of things. Um I think that's all important so that uh you don't get caught by surprise on changes. So, you know, it sounds like Council Arnold is against this and you're in favor of it and so you've got your work cut out for you to convince us. Um,

well, there's there's there's some of the things like um protecting this the the main main street, main public street. Um, I wouldn't have as big a problem with Riverwell had that rot iron fence been there. And I'm actually I've talked to Brandon. And I'm going to try and get it on the agenda that if they won't pay for it that we do that the city pays for it because we overlooked it and doing some things. We need to protect the business. You know, I mean, I understand the Brandon's uh thought process about eliminating the the fence, the the six-foot vinyl fence because it really closed in those people that are going to be living in that. But it also was there to protect the business and their, you know, ownership of their parking, things like that, because I don't think they own Riverwell owns that parking.

There's actually an an easement, which is, this is kind of the the thinking behind it. I'll just explain briefly. Um there's an easement that allows parking along that curb where that 6ft vinyl fence was was called out to be. Um so they have the right to park there. There's actually six or four parking stalls that will be striped stalls

along that curb. And so to have a solid wall of a sixoot fence and you have the the legal right to park there, people would have had to walk clear to the ends of the development to get to their home in the middle because there were no cuts in the fence. And so we figured given the fact that the parking was was allowed for, it was part of their parking count, and they had a legal easement to do it that it didn't make sense to just wall that off and make people walk around. Um but again, if those are things the council wants to reserve for themselves in terms of an amendment, I think that's completely um acceptable. We just need to make sure that you all have a code that you like that that actually is going to reflect how things are getting built. Um I have some of that in my, you know, in some of this language. It's it's why this update matters. The the number one reason I put is that um we're dealing off of rules that were established in ' 0709 and then changed in 2012. The world has moved on from from how things are getting built um back then. So we need an ordinance that reflects what you all want in your community um as it relates to what the market is doing. that can't be in conflict um or can't have an extreme conflict to where people pass us by because we lose our competitiveness. We lose our ability to attract investment to attract jobs to attract uh homes that people can live in and afford. They'll just move on if we have archaic rules that um that they can't work with.

Council Arnold, can we do it on like height restrictions or is it in our developers agreement? Because you know, Bart pointed out to me the the development on Enroy that's right across the street from like Standard Plumbing and has a rod iron fence. It's only two levels. Um I've never seen it. I mean, I've seen it. I've driven by it a hundred times,

but I didn't drive by it and go, "Dang." I mean, and there's many developments that I drive by and go, "Oh crap, look at that." you know, and if we can have developments like that that, you know, it's like even the area with the R16, if we had a a better height restriction on that to where the height was, you know, not producing a canyon. I mean, you're going to have two two levels or whatever anyway, but, you know, I like the 20 feet off the main street, so we got a little little bit more set back there. And then we don't go crazy with the height when you're up against, you know, some other zone. You know, you got some single family homes. So, stuff like that.

I had a question on that, too. Um because we were just getting to the building height

because I like the idea of having the clear standards so that it's not like what the legislature always tries to say that we're doing that we're moving the ball and ch, you know, not being consistent. But the I think the hard part is and I think that was the good example on Ritter was um where's it at? And so that's hard because like on in the old one where it's like it's a case by case review, there's some benefit to that because we were kind of talking about that at one point where if it was built to the, you know, multif family at 50 ft and because of where it's situated in the city, we're basically changing the city skyline. And that's something that might be accidentally not considered because we're not we're thinking about this development really in a myopic view rather than thinking oh well if I'm at the city building and I look up there it's going to be this huge structure kind of like what's happening at America first but that's a commercial area so it's a little bit different but um so I think it depends on where it's at because when we talk about Cherry Creek people don't really have a huge issue because it where it's situated geographically it sits a little bit lower so the fact that it's that all really doesn't make a huge difference to the to the neighborhood or to the area where it's at. But when we're looking at these kind of things where they we're trying to transition maybe into a residential or transition that there needs to maybe be flexibility. But I I do like the idea of having those set standards though to to help guide it so that we're holding ourselves accountable. But yeah, we don't want to end up with crazy canyons or something that's just super out of place. we want. We just wish the developers, I think, were more on our our wavelength of build something that becomes part of the community that's welcoming that's, you know, it's not weird that and it doesn't seclude that area from the rest of the neighborhood, you know, because the residential areas are small and they're and we have a strong sense of community that we've been trying to protect in those residential areas. And I think

there's like an in between of if you can meet that where they can welcome this new development into the neighborhood even if it's different and even if it's higher density without it just being so stark and so you know out of place which with the design standards that you're talking about that might be really beneficial design huge I'm stuck on like do we set a set a set st like with the height restrictions or how do we do it so that we can still do it on a case by case review that we don't want a giant 50-foot something in certain areas, but maybe we would have liked it, you know, like down here by the river where, you know, it's out of the way and it's not going to be this huge Taj Mahal situation.

A comment. What So along that line, would you go ahead? So like in a in a commercial zone or so like where this last one we was talking about is located like is the height concerning there as much because to me it's not. It was a big concern. Yeah. In the discussion not the one on Ritter or the one on 300 because a lot of them buildings down there are taller. The skyline's different like would you have a different like if there was building in that area does that how tall were those going to be? Were they going to be the 50T? No, it's three story apartments that were going to go there. River well. Oh, River Well. Yeah. I was thinking of the apartments like No, I was talking about the ones that already.

Oh, I see. Yeah, cuz I don't notice a big difference on the roof line over there being threetory with what's around them. So, maybe you consider that as you're doing this that maybe there is areas that the higher ones fit in and it doesn't bother anybody's view as much. But I just it seems nice to keep some some ability to make stuff fit where it fits maybe. Yeah. And that's what I'm asking. Can is there a way to somehow do both where like yeah here's our here's our clear numbers but in certain situations we need to have the flexibility to say yeah that's not a place for we're talking about Riverwell. Sorry. As long as it doesn't change it. I mean we're on Riverwell. That's Yeah. Councelor Stevens you got a comment?

I got a couple. Okay. When we're talking PD or PRUD, um I mean we've got a number of examples in the city that go back 20 plus 30 years maybe that are mostly single family uh lot zeros lot lines I thought was very interesting. Um duplexes and different things and some of them are very interesting. Um now would we do it again? probably not because of of lessons learned, but there are a host of various types of different things that correct me if I'm wrong that would fall into a PD. Now, one of the things that I see outside of Riverdale that could possibly be and that's the condo where you have a four-story building that would be look like an apartment, but each unit is individually owned. Sometimes they're called a co-op, sometimes they're called just condos or condominium condos uh on a three or fourtory building. And I could see that potentially going in across from the trailer park it, you know, I instead of going with a townhouse, you would just have what would look like a block apartment. I think I think that was um essentially on the north side of 4,400 down there. it kind of tentatively it was going to be apartment but that could easily be in my perspective a PD because if each one of those individual units are are sold or or if it's constructed in a manner is is that correct is that a correct kind of concept idea that you could have apartment looking building that is a condo and and falls under the PD okay do we want to mention that kind of stuff or do we just keep it um you know of of all the various like

the town homes or condos or or I I don't know single family or is this I don't know if that needs to be mentioned in there.

Part of what we're trying to correct a small part of what we're trying to correct in the comprehensive zoning update is to um redefine uses to be consistent with what's um what's built and what is being built. So, we don't actually have a definition of what a town home is. We we refer to a town home in many parts of the code, but we don't define what that is. We also don't define what a condominium is. Um uh well, we do, but it's not it's not allowed in any in any zone. And so, there's a myriad of conflicts around all of these things. And so, the way it's written now, it's it's just allowing general uses. So residential and that could beif you know 15 things commercial could be many things and then it's defined elsewhere in the code of what those things are.

Okay. Um if I could continue for a moment having dealt with the insurance company uh they have a clear definition of what's a town home and anyway that just for we may not. Now, the other thing that I want to bring up is is um when you have a development that goes in phases. Now, Riverwell is has got two phases because they've got that partial to the south of them where their chiropractic office is. Can we leverage them and say, "Hey, hypothetically, you you're planning to build here. we'd like you to go back to phase one and do X Y and Z like a like the fence

currently no but if this was something that um was to be part of uh a PD development um I don't know in that particular sense we could but uh there is a a phasing element where you can do density transfers and other things within a single development agreement that addresses multiple phases. We've done that a little bit with Coleman View. They are a PRUD and they um they wanted to push off all the amenities that were uh in phase three but approved as a single site plan and and plat. They wanted to push off their um development of those amenities and our code says they have to be in phase one. So we had to kind of awkwardly create a whole another agreement that that required them to bond for those amenities and build them in a later phase. So, yeah, all of those things we want to address upfront. And I think part of the um response to what you said, councelor Hansen, is is the um idea of regulations versus standards. I think that's the answer to your questions. There are some things that we just want to regulate, period. And that's that's the case. It might be height. It might be setback. It might be something like that. as we're considering flexibility, right? But then everything else becomes a standard and those standards are are um developed as part of and are used as guard rails for the developer to create a project that we say we want based on what those standards are.

Council Richtor, did you have something? Just very briefly, I'm supportive of updating this the PRUD to the PD. I think that I think it's it is a much more modern standard and it's it more reflective of what's going on. Obviously, we can talk about a lot of these issues in more of a work session. Yeah. Uh which which certainly I'm open to, but I'm I'm very supportive of the direction that you're you're going here. So, that's a good segue. I can just finish up and we can save all the technical discussion for the work session. So, council,

one thing. So part of what I do or I believe that I do is support the staff. Okay. When um the business condo things are going in on 1500 um Sean came in the before the business condos um there were just condos. the original proposal was these condos and Sean came in and um said, "I don't know if our sewer system can handle it." And there was kind of a joke, tongue and cheek, whatever that during the Super Bowl, you know, break or whatever, a timeout that it would get flushed, there would have a massive flush and we wouldn't be able to handle it downstream and we're we'd affect residents down there. And that stuck with me. So when 59 units comes into the top of Ritter, I wonder, well, what happened to the sewer? Did we fix it? And so, you know, that's one of the reasons that I was talking about, not just picking on Sean, because we'll we'll pick on Casey, but on his predecessor, Riverwell, that whole thing was about the police, their safety. Um, we were talking about traffic, people parking along there. You know, Chief Brickman was saying, "This is ridiculous." you know, there's not enough room there for what we have right now. And so, it had nothing to do with me, had nothing to do with updating, it had everything to do with our employees of the city. And and then I talked to Chief Hennessy about Riverwell and um you know, Steve, just so you know, these are all off-the cuff conversations. They're I'm I'm not calling them. But I talked to to Chief Hennessy and I'm like, "How are you guys going to fight a fire in Riverwell?" And he's like, "Yeah, um, you know, you can't get a truck in there. I mean, if

there's any blockage or whatever, they're screwed." And I'm not in for screwing the fire department. And and then he said if there's an EV, so they have a charger in there and somebody has a Tesla and it goes up, it just burns in a in an enclosed that that thing is just so do I care about Riverwell being down there and you know modernization. Are you freaking kidding me? You know, um Council Richtor, are you fighting a fire? Let's get modern. Do we your truck can your truck handle a fire at Riverwell? Because I'm saying no. Ogden City has to come and help, right? I mean, probably their bigger truck and you're going to be fighting it from the outside. I think that we we do things to protect our police. We do things to protect our fire. We we do things to protect our residents because one of the things that in our prayer we should protect our po or say to protect our public safety and public works because you know when I want a policeman I want them there when I turn my freaking water on it just comes on you know I mean it's it's ma it's magical but yet I don't I mean I just expect it and I think when we set these types of ordinances we're not just you getting affordable housing because it's not affordable. $2,400 a month is not affordable. So,

Council Richtor, yeah, I hope you didn't misunderstand my comment here. I did. Okay. I did. My comment uh was was the structure I prefer. I much prefer this. There might I think it's appropriate to have a work session that talks about the details of this

because I certainly agree if there's going to be conflicts between the fire department and the city engineer, they need to be worked out. Obviously, this has structure in here where the city administrator makes the final call. I think more discussion needs to be had there where it comes back to the council. I So, I'm open to that. I'm just talking about the structure to better align with uh state uh regulations that that are currently um being enforced. That's my structure. So, I I like the structure. I think a lot more discussion on the actual um ordinance here. Well, and I want I want the staff to have the, for lack of a better words, the stones to stand up and go, you know what? No. You know, I I don't want my officers with parking all along here. I don't want them dealing with that right there on a blind corner as you're coming around, you know, with fire department. I don't want my guys going into a place like that. No, I don't like it, you know. I mean, safety first. If if we build some river well somewhere and we lose a firefighter over that. I mean that's let's live with that, you know, because we're looking at we need to have a solid ordinance here.

Mr. Cooper, I think it would be very beneficial in the work session if you could come up with some real world like examples of why this would work in certain situations. I know it would help me understand the process versus our current one. like like just walk us through step by step. Not tonight, but you got it. Okay. And and say this this is a development that under our current um process would not be very desirable, but would probably move forward

and the new standard would help us make a better product and this is why why we should consider doing it. Yeah, I'm with you and we don't have to be uh belabor this tonight, but I was prepared to kind of go through some examples visually because everything that's been approved thus far has met our code or it wouldn't have gotten approved. Councelor, I don't know, you made the the motion to approve RiverWell. Um and you did that because staff told you that it met all of the standards, the fire standard, it met the the public works standard, it met the zoning standard, met the parking number that

met the parking Yep. And so um so there are some things that meet standards but then become an abomination in in your terms. So that's the dissonance that I'm trying to solve for is that we're getting projects that aren't reflective of what we actually want because our code allows it. Um and so I'm just trying to set a higher standard here. This is a higher standard, not a lower standard. this is a higher standard to get better projects that actually reflect um what we're trying to do in terms of the vision of the general plan. Um, I would ask each of you to consider a a question over the next couple weeks before we meet in the work session. And it's a question that is at the heart of our 2030 discussion, at the heart of our budget season that we're going to be m uh going into soon. And that is have have we collectively us present and us past have we collectively created a community that creates a tax base that's sufficient to return the services necessary back to the to the uh citizens in a sustainable manner? Let me rephrase that. Have we collectively created a community that has created a tax base that will return enough money for us to then deliver the services back to the community? Um, that's the question at hand because all of the things that we're talking about tonight and in zoning in general and uh code and ordinances is creating that community that tax base um at a raw level but a community in the sense of living here quality of life and those kind of things. Um so just briefly this is a PRUD that was approved this is over by Comey Farms. Um so again just the question I'm not saying these are good bad or indifferent. I'm saying this is what exists. Is it the thing that is creating the quality of life and the tax base and the community that's necessary for us to do the things that

we need to do as a city. Uh here's another one over off of um off of uh 1050. Um again yeah you you all know the names better than I do. Um, but is it is it a commu is it the thing that reflects our community and is it sustainable? Can we continue to develop and redevelop in this manner over time um that will allow us to be sustainable? Well, and just to kind of get us closer together from the gap that maybe we feel like there is, do you feel like both of those do? Because I think a lot of us like both do like those type, you know, they've been a good fit for the areas they were built in. I think

a lot of what people keep presenting are the taller bigger not not like the duplexes or the

I don't think this type of development is reflective of what um the market sustains today and I think from a a point of value and density meaning those two both work together to create the highest return um I don't think that this is sustainable right if everything if everything that we redeveloped going forward um was this, it wouldn't be sustainable because every home that's created costs more than it pays in taxes. You pay $3,000 a residential unit and a year and we spend $6,000 a residential unit in services. And so we're obligated to this to this retail double-edged sword to compensate for that. And that in and of itself is a d is a is an unsustainable thing. So all of these things, all these economics factor into land use. Council Steven

real quick this just we were on the planning commission when the Colby Farms went in and that was I don't know the trend that was what was needed because it's a single it's a patio home single level nice living for somebody who doesn't want to deal with stairs so you're dealing with a little bit older crowd is this fills that niche same with the second one you showed um and that was one of the first ones this thing right here these actually have basements. They're nice.

There's no driveways and there's no parking and they're very narrow streets. So, even though you've got a bigger unit, you've got no parking. And if you've got a a a truck that's, you know, six foot bed with a double or quad cab or whatever, it's going to be too long for the driveway. Now, the point of it is is this one what's up there right now was a lesson learned. I mean, you've got to have more setbacks to have a that was this one. It's been said more often than not that this one if we had to do it again, this one would have been different where the Comey farms was spoton with what the market needed at that time. Now, now which brings us to what's the market bearing right now? Well, that that uh the missing middle or affordable uh starter is what the emphasis is now, but that's not necessarily what's being built. So really what what this PD needs to cover is there's a moving target on what the trend or what's needed at any given time. And this is where you can look at history and say these are lessons learned, but what are we going to get in the future based on what the needs are?

We don't want to zone to the trend. Sorry, Mr. Douglas, did you have a comment? I was just going to comment that them were developed under different standards. So, the one is pretty much all private. The roads are all private. The utilities are all private in it. Um the Comey farms is built with city standards with the roads being maintained by the city and the water sewer and all that's maintained by it. So they're built under two different standards even though they are kind of a comparison. I was just throwing that out there so that those that weren't here would remember them. Mr. Cooper, sorry I keep interrupting. Get excited. Um I'm reading my rules. So yeah, you need to start out. I need to read the rules.

Sorry. Uh we don't want to we don't want to zone to trends. That's not what we're trying to do here. And um and we do want to make sure that we preserve flexibility. I think that's the message of the PD zone or the PD tax amendment is that we need flexibility to respond to at the foundational level. What do we want our city to be and what how do we want our city to evolve? That's the foundational question in my mind. Are we creating that quality of life and that tax base that's going to give us the ability to survive? And then are we um that's the that's the first question. And then are we uh providing oursel flexibility to respond to what the investment community is willing to provide? Because if we are at odds with that, they'll go somewhere else and we will um we will be we will be counterveailing to that first question, right? Can we be sustainable over time? So these weren't meant to say these are right or wrong or because they are developed under different standards. There were different um there was a different vision of Riverdale back then. The general plan was completely different back at the times that all of these were developed. Um so the question is is this still represent the vision of the city and is it sustainable? Um you all know these again singlestory uh big setback wide streets except for that second one. Um there's another one that's I think interesting because this does reflect a little bit more of a denser environment. Um part of the issue with all of these is that they're largely managed under HOAs and I didn't show the two or the three that actually have called me to say we want to give our HOA back to the city. Um so that's a whole another issue that's hopefully addressed in the PD amendment. Um, so then I also wanted to add some things

of sorry uh some kind of elements of what a PD amendment could allow. A whole different type of a design of a community or of a neighborhood. Um, these are things that are being built in the state today. Uh, these kind of um, I don't know what you call them, pods. Uh but shared access, shared driveway, uh you still have appropriate setbacks, appropriate heights. There's still single family homes that can be owned, but they're done in a much different way than our ordinance allows today. I'm not saying that's appropriate. I'm just saying that the flexibility to allow for it isn't there today.

Mr. Cooper, I think Council Arnold had a question. I just want to get it in if it's a time. I I just think you know that that is my vision because like you go up to Coleman Farms or Farms. What is it up there? Combi Kobe.

Combi Farms. Like it's wonderful. I mean, we've walked door to door up there for sure and it's wonderful. I think the problem that we're running into is the investment community like you're talking about. The the corner of 1500 and Ritter Drive just sold. Um, doesn't matter who bought it, but I called on it just to see how much it was, and I think it was just over an acre, and the asking price was 480. So, I mean, how do you how do you compete with the investment community that's trying, you know, that's buying the land and and they're just trying to get everything they can out of every square foot to put something in because they're not building it for a community, they're building it for profit. So, I mean that that's something we got to think about because very few builders are like I was talking to my wife about having a builder that used to put in a a subdivision and say, "Bring me your plans and we'll we'll build your plans on this." And they I don't even know if they exist anymore.

Never works. Yeah. So, anyway, back to you. Yep. We'll finish up. Steve wants to go home. He's not feeling good. I told my wife probably 10 o'clock. So,

it looked long tonight. Yeah. I worked two hours ahead of schedule right now. So, So, this is a this is a master plan development. Um, I I wanted to use this not because this has any relationship to Riverdale in terms of its size and scale. It's massive, but it's um it has a myriad of different uses that are all configured in different ways that allow for mobility within the same neighborhood. So you could rent an apartment as a student and then you could buy a town home and then you could move up to a single family home and then you could maybe end in in a patio home or something like that. And so these are the types of neighborhoods at a large scale that are being developed and built in the state. Now again not relevant other than the principle of mobility, the principle of um of the relationships between the buildings in terms of um their setbacks and um and the width of the street. All of those things that create uh one look or another. And people are going to like one and maybe not like the other, but I think there's room for a lot of different things. Here's something that is a commercial mixeduse um plan development potentially that our zone currently wouldn't allow. Um but this would be a massive boon for the city in terms of um tax base and development density. Uh and it's on a site currently being looked at today. So this is real u but it can't be built. And then here's just some other examples of how um different types of residential units are being um placed on a city block amongst the themselves in the same neighborhood and how they're working together. Uh in terms of the street width, the setback you can see at that bottom picture that's a shorter setback

with a garage in the rear. Uh those are very popular. um it places um the activity on the on the front of the home and the utility on the back of the home where as it in the last 50 years we've been building homes uh garages on the front of the houses. Um and then it even has some higher density up at the front with town homes. So these are all things that that if we wanted to we can't do today. I can tell you that this is what the market is wanting to build and they're building these all over the state. So, if this is the kind of thing that we want, we need to allow ourselves to capture some of that investment um that is currently happening elsewhere. Here's another picture of a different view. You can see that everything is is um joined around that green space um that common area um and everything's reared here. So, these are things that are very popular. people. Um, the funny thing is every picture I've shown is occupied, right? From Ki to Penzio to everything, they've all been occupied. They've all sold and resold. And despite the parking issues and despite the proximity to one another and despite all the things that that concern us and should concern us, they are some of the highest valued homes around and people live in them and they continue to live in them. And so, um, we don't want to miss the mark in terms of what we regulate because the public cares about stuff differently than what we might care about, right? And it's obvious people are living on the the front door of some of those homes are adjacent to the back door of those town homes. And those are probably, I would say, $900,000 homes. Here's another example of um duplexes that are clustered together around a community

garden. Our if this is something that we want for our community, we we we don't allow it and we allow, you know, back to the standard kind of elements here. Well, maybe not that one, but this one. So, those are just the things that this discussion is meant to prompt, not to not to persuade or to to argue, but to just get everyone considering the economics of of the city over time. Um, what our current zone does in terms of a practical and a strategic tool. Right now, it's it's very difficult practically to administer. It's also not very good strategically in terms of the conflict between our code and our general plan as well as the conflict between what I've heard from you all in the recent days and our general plan. So, I think we have a lot of reconciliation to do and I look forward to the discussion. I think it's going to be um helpful for us as we revise title 10 and get that to its conclusion.

Okay. Any questions or comments for Mr. Cooper? Okay. Sounds like we need to have a work session. That's what we need to discuss next. We were we were hoping next week if you guys were open to that. Um I was kind of hoping to do both this one and a 2030 discussion. We probably just better leave it to this one based on what we're getting here, but I don't know what everybody's schedule is next week. Should we have a duel with the planning commission there? The planning commission is not meeting next week.

No. Well, they didn't have anything on the agenda and where we were just talking about this one, I thought maybe it'd probably be best to just deal with you guys rather than get too many. So, we were going to most likely cancel that. They they were just going to do some training sessions anyway. So, does that work um for the members of the council next uh Tuesday? What time would you want to do it, Council Hansen? Is that okay with you? Um six o'clock. Six o'clock. Okay.

Okay, let's do it. So, we'll we'll get that set and noticed tomorrow and we'll be good to go. We'll beat this thing to death. Hopefully, walk out of there and then, like I said, it's just going to be a work session. So, we won't make a final decision. We'll bring it back, but uh we'll do all the internal stuff and preliminary things and have that ready to go so we can get through it in a meeting, regular meeting. Councilor Richtor, and not to create any more meetings, but I am supportive of 230 meeting as well. That's different time. We don't need to piggyback piggyback it, but uh yeah, we've got some things we need to move on on that. Some things are starting to change. So, it's it's very timely. So, who who have you got out the 2030? Is are you still with it? So,

yeah, it's Annie and Mike and Kent was um we we wanted the planning commission chair to be there. So, we've got to discuss that, but maybe the first one we would just stick with the full council because we're going to have to notice it with three of you on here anyway. And then we can make some adjustments to that if we need to. the the thing one of the things we want to talk about probably needs to be in front of the whole council anyway. So that's probably more timely than anything. But yeah, we'll we'll get working on that. We we've been moving that way anyway. But um it's just schedules more than anything. We'll talk about it again tomorrow, department heads. So great.

All right. Uh if there's nothing else on that, we will move to the uh comments section of our meeting. Uh any comments from the city council? Okay. None. Any comments from the city staff? No. Other than I I don't I don't know if you've received your newsletter. Has anybody seen that? I know they went out or they maybe have gone out today. Anyway, um we found out today that the pictures in there are real blurry or messed up. We don't know why. And yours was the worst one, I think. So, sorry about that. Um Angel, oh, the pictures that's on the website, on the newsletter. Well, is it the council? What? The pictures of what? Well, I have some pictures in my newsletter.

Yeah. I don't know what all was on there. I haven't seen it. Angel just told us late this afternoon that they were messed up and he he'd gotten a call but hadn't received it back or he had called them. Find out what happened. But just so you know, you may get you'll see it obviously, but you might get some complaints about it. Um, yeah. Will they give us a credit or something? Like we need to get the bottom of that. Like that's We don't know what happened. I just found out about that late this afternoon, but just so you know. All right. Um, anything else? No.

Um, I just had a couple of things. Uh, I had a 10-year-old today uh explaining to me uh how officer Warren uh wants a new side by side with rollup windows. So, I guess get ready for that because we're going to get a request for a new side by side with rollup windows. Under 20 under 25 grand? I don't think so.

We can get someone to just let us borrow like something. So, I'm I'll be interested to hear that story. And then one other thing, uh, our March 17th meeting will be in conflict with the Republican and Democratic uh, party caucuses. And I think we probably need to look at moving that. I don't know if we could cancel at this point, but um, I think to allow, you know, members of the council and city staff and public to participate in that uh, you know, on that event. I think I think it's far enough ahead. I think we could go ahead and cancel. We don't we can juggle other stuff around that. So, if if you guys are okay with that, I don't know that you'll care too much. So,

do do we do you want to send out a poll or just want to do the poll right now and see if they're okay with I mean, are you guys okay with cancing that like this far in advance? Is the council ready? Four. We need at least four of you to agree to Okay, looks like we're good with this council. March 17th. I I think we should wait a little bit to see what's on the agenda to see if we need to move it. Yeah. Okay. I'm okay with that, too. I feel like it could be a little premature to cancel it. I wasn't planning on that. That's I mean, when somebody's trying to get into the council Yeah. It's a drag to have to wait. You know, it's like on our schedule versus what they're trying to do in their world. And

because I'll bet the 31st must be a Tuesday. So, that means we got a fifth Tuesday that month. So, that would really push someone back. um if they wanted to do something. So, I'm okay with waiting. Let's wait just a little bit and see um if something's going to pop up. We could push it back to Wednesday maybe like we do with elections. Yeah, we can we can do whatever. I mean, yeah, it's okay if we have something. It's you know, it's a fifth Tuesday in there, so it probably wouldn't be a big deal, but either way, it doesn't matter. Okay, but I want to plan on not having it that night. Okay. Um All right. That's all I have. So if there's nothing else, we would need a motion to adjurnn. So moved. Motion. Do we have a second? Okay, we got a second.

Motion dies. Motion dies. All right, all in favor say yes. All right, we're joured.

I I haven't gotten to all the points yet, but I'm sure they did. I saw a picture. Yeah. What do you know?