City Council - Regular Meeting

Supposedly, we had already tried this once cuz sick

and Annie was calling sick, too. We apologize for the delay. We're just having a little technology glitch here and trying to get one of our council members on board with us. district attorney.

No, you worked I worked for Quesa and I worked at the quarter. No, school there. And uh Oh, you came home during the summer. I came home every summer, so I have to kind of make contacts and get ready to make immigration or something,

but you never win. People go home and die. Nothing you can do about it. But then I worked for a water law. Oh, he wanted to get one and a people

which is like a Christmas offer to your employees but a lot of times they don't Washington, Idaho, Montana. Yeah.

Struggling. I mean, if you can learn it and they need people that need on your own.

Casey, can you go back up and go to people on that meeting? Pull the meeting up and go to people. Okay. And see if you can invite him. Yeah, he's in there. Sorry. Thank you. It's my day job. Is he here with us? Is he in the Is he in the room with us?

Okay, we're gonna go ahead and start. So, all right. I'd like to call to order our Riverdale City Council meeting for uh Tuesday, April 7th, 2026. Please let the record show that all members of the city council are present with the exception of councelor Anderson who uh we're going to work to get him on board uh electronically here very soon. Um we also have members of the city staff as well as members of the public here with us tonight. Uh we'll get started in just a second, but I want to ask a little leeway with the council. We have uh Representative Jake Sawyer here with us tonight, and he is in a hurry to get to another engagement. Uh and we have it's probably more of a presentation than an action item. So, I'm going to ask if we can possibly move that up to right after the invocation. Everybody okay with that? All right. So, we will go ahead and proceed then. Our pledge of allegiance will be by Mr. Brandon Cooper and then our invocation will be by Councelor Alan Arnold. Please rise and repeat after me.

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. Our father in heaven, as we bow our heads before this city council meeting, we invite thy spirit to be with us to help and guide us as we create the community that we live in, that we um have an acceptable place for our residents and our visitors to come to and and be a part of. Um we love our community. We love um all the things that have brought to our lives. Um we ask that that would um impart the blessing upon those that come here that they understand what Riverdale is and that they uh treat it with respect and bring health and happiness to all of us. We're grateful for the employees of the city. Ask that you bless each one of them and their individual needs and protect those that are protecting us that they might return home to their families. We're grateful for the city council and as they away from their families and do the things that hopefully create a wonderful community and that we can all get along, be happy and healthy in all that we do. And we love thee and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen. Thank you, Councelor Arnold. That was that was great. Um, okay. Uh, we'll now move on to uh consideration of resolution 2026-07 uh representing uh represent recognizing representative Jake Sawyer. Uh, Rich and Steve Brooks, you're on the agenda, Rich. Part of this.

Um, sometimes you just need a win. And, uh, those of you all of you on this this panel here knows that, uh, we've had a lot of battles with our senior center as of late. And, um, it's been very frustrating. We went through all that stuff, Rich and I, meeting with them and Miranda with Weber Human Services and basically just really got the political job and it's just been really frustrating. But credit to Rich who went to Miranda and Miranda went to Jake. Jake is not even our representative, but he went to the legislature this year and worked hard on our behalf and uh we were able to acquire $100,000 for the senior center. 50 for this year and 50 for next year because of the work that uh those two really did. Um but especially Jake and so we wanted to just recognize him and thank him and um it's amazing what he did to be honest with you and he didn't have to and he and he knew that and he didn't expect anything from us. He was embarrassed even to be here tonight. But uh we've got a couple little things for him. So if they'd come up we would appreciate it. Sorry Jake. Don't want to put you on the spot but you deserve it here. Mayor, you want to come in? So, uh, this first one's kind of like kind of for Miranda. We're not going to give her a a key to the city because she's already got a city, but I will give her an on the spot award, and we want to thank her for the work that she put into this as well. So, thank you, MIRANDA.

And the second one that we have, and I'll have the mayor present this, but this is to Jake. This is a just a a key to the city officially for Riverdale. Even though you don't need it, you don't really care, but uh we thank you for it. We've also gotten you a little lapel pin for Riverdale City. We'd love it if you'd wear it down at the legislature and and brag for us even though you don't represent us directly, but we'd love to have you pick our city up. So, thank you. Absolutely. Thank you very much. Thank you.

So, just just uh you know, as a mayor, it's an honor to uh to have you uh going out of your way to help us. Um, we have two great representatives that have done a great job for us, but to have you step in and do something so fantastic and, uh, so, um, I don't know if you have bigger aspirations or maybe you'll have keys to a lot of the cities hanging on your wall, but maybe the key to the state, who knows? But, uh, anyway, we just appreciate it and you've been so responsive and and you've done a great thing for the citizens of Riverdale and all of Weber County. This is a regional facility that, uh, benefits all of Weber and even Davis County. And so, um, just kudos to you and great job. We just couldn't be more happy. And so, this will be something you can hang in your den or in your office. And

absolutely got it with pride. So, thank you so much. YOU

not only down on the hill, but he even went to a meeting with our county commissioners with us one day, and that was the most respect we've gotten out of them for two years. So, it was we we hang out with these important, influential guys. So, thanks. Mayor, can I ask represent? Can I just ask you real quick? What What did you do? I mean, did you put did you put something into a bill or or I I took a phone call. Um, the credit absolutely belongs to these two here. But no, what? Because to shake any money out of those people down there is it takes a an act of Congress. No pun intended. But what did you do? That's that's impressive.

Sorry.

No, I'm I'm okay. Sorry. Thank you. Um I I just took a meeting with Miranda and Rich. I heard the situation that was going on and knew that something just needed to be done. Um so, uh probably naively, I said, "Sure, I'll give it a shot." And I just put in a request for an appropriation for $50,000. But I think we spent a lot of time going over what that would look like, what that right number would be, and if it was a one-time appropriation or if it was an ongoing appropriation, and what that would look like for the city. And um I I just started talking to everybody down there that I could and telling them what was going on in Riverdale. And um why the senior citizens need this center. You know, I I've been in there a number of times. I've seen the work that these guys are doing. I know how much Miranda and Rich care for that center and I know how much they care for every senior that goes in there. Um so I I spent my time all of my bills died this session which was a good thing. uh which meant that this was my number one priority. And um I spent my time talking to everybody that I could. And like I said, we put the the RFA in for 50,000. And by the time the the the last day of the session came, um we got a report with all of the the financial documents on there and what was going to be funded. And I I I text Miranda and I said, "I think there's a typo on this statement because it says it's $100,000. And as hard as it is to get money out of the state, try getting them to double your request." and see how hard that is. Um, and so I I walked up to the speaker on the dis and I just said, "Is this is this right?" He said, "Absolutely." He said, "You showed what Riverdale City needs." They did the work to show what Riverdale City needs. Um, and in the EAC, the Executive Appropriations Committee, they had the conversation that Riverdale needed more money. And so, they doubled the money and that's what happened. So, I I told Miranda and Rich, we're we're just going to keep doing this. Now, every other year, we're going to go back and we'll keep asking for the money that we need because they know that Riverdale needs it and they see the need. So,

thank you very much for this. Appreciate it. Thank you.

We're going to excuse Representative Sawyer because we know he's a busy man and uh we appreciate him taking some time out of his schedule to help a city that's not even in his uh in his district. So, what what district is he? I believe he's in Davis County like uh he's out west. Yeah, Roy. I mean, he gets close to us, but he's not quite us yet. West Haven. Yeah, Roy. Okay. Yeah. Fantastic.

All right, we'll uh jump back into our regular schedule now. Um so, next we'll have a time for public comment. Uh this is an opportunity to address the city council regarding your concerns or ideas. Please try to limit your comments to three minutes. Um about three minutes. Uh please, if you approach the microphone, state your name in the city in which you reside. Uh and please know that no action will be taken uh during the public comment. Probably won't hear much from the city council, but uh we do plan uh if there's a lot of comments about the same type of subject. Um Mr. Brooks, could you maybe try to address those when we get to the particular agenda item? Uh yeah, maybe take some notes. I'll take some notes of it. Yeah.

If there's some pertinent things you could address, uh hopefully we can address some in the conversations about that. But uh so now we'll go ahead and uh get started with that. Sorry. Uh good evening everybody. Um it's always a little bit odd for me coming in here as I was saying to Mayor Mitchell. It's a combination of about 30% nostalgia and about 70% PTSD trauma response. So um thank you for your service. I know what you guys are going through on a daily and basis and at all of your meetings. It is work. When people ask me if I liked being on the council, it's a qualified yes. Um, as I explained that it was good to make a difference and fight for what I believed in. It just was not always pleasant and not always enjoyable. So, again, thank you for your service. My wife and I moved to Riverdale um 27 years ago. We found ourselves uh here shopping for homes and uh as we were driving down the street, we saw couples out walking with strollers. We saw well-kept yards and kids on bikes. And this was it, you know, the sun was going down. This was in the evening. And I we thought, this is the kind of place we want to live. This is what childhood was like for me. And so we moved here and we've loved it ever since. And we've been actively involved in the community, whether it volunteering at school or coaching youth sports or church groups, scouts. I was a delegate to the Republican convention um and serving on the planning commission and city council. And I believe in the free market and in property rights and in minimal government. And as a delegate, I was reminded of the difference between a representative republic and a pure democracy. Instead of the chaos of the lay person trying to make all the laws, we, you know, vote for and elect leaders to become experts on the issues. And so I and I can't stay tonight, so I'm going to trust you guys to stick around for the for the sausage making in the room where it happens. Um, and thank you for doing that. Um, as a counselor, I always wanted to be the type that made my decisions based on what was right and what was best for the

city and not necessarily what was popular and what would get me reelected. And I think that's the kind of leader we need locally and nationally. And 44 South ever since moving here has been essentially Riverdale's main street. Uh, with residential down both sides, we are our parades are there in this in the summer. We have our bike lanes there. there's constant neighborhood use and um it's been buffered from the heavy commercial of Riverdale Road by higher density housing and lighter commercial uses and that's the way it should be. That is good planning and the planning commission understands this which is why I understand they voted for an unfavorable or negative position regarding the request to reszone the property on the souththeast corner of 4400 and 700 to commercial to allow car dealership. I hope that you will not override the um count the planning commission out of concern that it's a popular thing to do. In a Facebook discussion, M Mayor Mitchell, with all due respect, said that he thinks that uh more people would feel concerned about raising the raising of property tax that might result uh than about the loss of the residential use for that. And while I disagree about the numbers, uh I still do understand his concern. I know that as a counselor, I constantly heard the refrain, don't do anything that raises my taxes. Don't do anything that raises my utilities. And that hesitancy of as a politician of prioritizing the bottom line over all else leads to fiscal insolveny and deteriorating conditions for the city. Mayor Burroughs and planner Randy Daly's approach to land planning was short-sighted. They were focused on tax generation at the expense of the quality of life and community. They leveraged RDAs and other developer and business incentives to effectively lure massive amounts of commerce to Riverdale in particularly including auto dealerships because of the disproportionate sales tax that they generate. This enabled the council for years to avoid the unpleasant and politically unpopular vote to raise property taxes. Meanwhile, communities like Washington terrace missed out as they saw their and their property taxes raised in order to cover expenses. They

cried foul saying that this was a predatory land use policy and the state agreed. Um they determined that those that the cities surrounding the cities with higher business proportions like Riverdale should share in the revenue from the sales tax. Uh Riverdale, of course, uh appealed and was able to achieve a band-aid solution with sunsetting periods where the sales tax could be used for a time. Presumably, the reasoning was to modify our tax structure and our business to residential ratios and to find ways of becoming solvent without that sales tax revenue. But Riverdale City had made a mistake in putting so much into commercial and specifically car dealership. So, and instead of using this time to restructure, why does the city now propose to continue down this unfortunate path of pursuing more dealerships, of pursuing more commercial, of exchanging or reszoning residential land into commercial? The land use decision should not be about what makes the most money for the city. It should be we you are elected to represent the principles of what makes Riverdale a great place to live. And I can give you a hint, it's not car dealerships. And so now, what should you do? We can lose our residential areas to commercial to de developments and become nothing more than dealerships and retail stores. Our children will have to go and live in surrounding communities or further. While those of us who still live here will end up like Carl Frederickson, the widowerower in the movie Up, living in isolated islands of once vibrant residential neighborhoods that were eaten away until the character that once made Riverdale a great place to live is gone. And no amount of helium balloons will save us. Or you can fight to preserve the nature of the community we love for us and for our children. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay, seeing none, uh we will move on to presentations and reports. Um

we'll start with the mayor's report. Uh we had a WCOG meeting last night and uh talked about a lot of different things. Um, one of the things that came up was the uh the ramp awards for this coming year and uh Riverdale had applied for three different grants about $44,000 in total I think and uh we were denied on all three of our grants unfortunately. Um but luckily luckily for us our residents will have the options of going to the surrounding cities. Uh South Ogden received about $600,000. uh West Haven 700,000, Washington Terrace 140 or 191,000 and Roy about 60,000 for recreational um projects and parks, new parks and all kinds of stuff. So, uh you know, millions of dollars, I won't even go into how much Ogden got, but a million dollar millions of dollars are going in around us. And I guess we'll just uh hope our residents can go to those places and enjoy themselves because uh we couldn't even give $50,000. So, anyway, try good try, Rich. Uh we appreciate you trying anyway. Um I did get a few tips last night that I'll share and we'll work on some stuff and uh apparently getting someone on that board is uh is very advantageous. So Washington Dair has two people on it. So we will uh start working towards that. Uh also we heard from Wever Basin and uh we all know we're headed for some water restrictions this year and we're going to have to have a discussion about that. They said we're going to be at the level two moderate. So, we'll have to see how that figures in uh with our with our water policy.

20% reduction is what they're asking for. Yeah. And they are uh asking that people don't water until May 15th. They're not going to charge their uh their secondary system until May. So, uh last thing, there was some discussion about the transfer station that's still going back and forth. They're trying to keep that going and uh and um Mr. Cooper and Mr. Brooks had logged on and so they're aware of the discussion on that too. So, um anyway, uh with that, we'll move on to city council assignment reports. Uh I know councelor Stevens attended his meeting because uh the housing meeting because I heard from someone that was with him there. Um but any do any of the council members have anything that they would like to share from their assignments? only that uh the the league people Cameron was there explaining the impact of the legislation that passed and that it's going to have very interesting very in the weeds and uh couldn't repeat it if I tried to but it's it's interesting the the main one was that 100 million that was set aside for infrastructure did pass anyway I think and he knows about it and there's a lot of things to work out on it.

Cool. We appreciate you attending those meetings by the way. That's very hard time for me to be there. So, I appreciate you being on that in a wonky way. It's interesting. Yeah. Yeah. I know you enjoy it a little bit and I it's very helpful to me to have you there and I appreciate you representing us there. Um, anybody else? Councilor Richtor, ju just an appreciation to the staff for the Easter um things and I know a lot of work and time goes into that and the citizens appreciate that. So, wanted to extend our appreciation there. Thank you. Yes, it's always very popular and very fast. I didn't see any posts about people being late this year. I I always see somebody showed up five minutes late and it was over and I'm like, "Yeah,

but you did that early one where you were hiding eggs in the parks. Was there a good response to that?" Yeah. Yeah, we had a pretty good response. Yeah. Rich is always very innovative. We appreciate that. him and his his team is always looking for new activities and the residents appreciate that. So, all right, we'll move on to consent items. Number one, consideration to approve the meeting minutes from our March 3rd, 2026 council meeting. Uh, we we got those late. Uh, hopefully everybody had a chance to look through them. They were in a separate email. Any changes or corrections to those minutes? Seeing none, we need a motion to approve. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Uh, all in favor say yes. Yes.

Hey. All right, Councelor Anderson, you're with us. Very good. Uh, any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Thank you. We will move on to our action items. We will start with number two, consideration of a site plan amendment for Gold Crest Homes. Mr. Cooper.

Uh, thank you, mayor. Um, and my presentation will include two and three. Um, so the action um 44 43 uh will be covered by some of my comments, but we do have Mr. Thadium Falls here representing Gold Crest Homes. We'd actually like to invite him up and maybe give us a brief overview of the request and then as Shaylee gets our slides up, I'll I'll take over from there. Good evening, council. Pleasure to be here tonight. Um, the reason why we've submitted our application for an amendment is regarding uh some circumstances in which we discovered during the improvements of the the development. We've been moving swiftly. Um, majority of the infrastructure has been installed. We're looking to finalize the landscaping and and open space portion. And while working through the detention pond and the construction thereof, we discovered that uh while installing the pond to plan that there was an infeasibility regarding one of the amenities that had been proposed, which was a sidewalk trail that went around the detention pond area. In fact, the sloping of the pond has been designed to go up to the border of the open space area. Once was recently proposed an area in which a sidewalk trail would go around. This detention pond has been deemed infeasible to construct. Because this was an active amenity and something that we believe brought value to the community, we reverted back to the HOA association outlining this uh this unfortunate overlook in an amenity that had been committed and proposed to them along

with collaboration with uh city staff other amenities in which we could substitute this trail and provide an active amenity that would bring um recreational opportunities. ities to current residents in the subdivision. Um the currently proposed amenity to replace the sidewalk trail is a playground for kids to recreate that comes in at a similar monetary value if not a larger cost than what was originally appro approved from a a sidewalk trail perspective. But we believe this to be the best substitute in an area that will promote more recreation and and congregation amongst the residents. Um, happy to go over it further if there are any questions, but from a high level, that's the the situation that we're we're representing tonight.

Okay, seeing none, we'll turn it over to Mr. Cooper.

Thank you. And uh, Shaylee, my clicker doesn't work, so I I would ask that you advance the slides for me. Thank you. Go ahead, please. off the first one. There we go. Okay. So, thank you, Thadium. That was a good overview. Um, as as it's stated in your packet and on the agenda, um, this is being treated as a site plan amendment given the changes to the site plan from the approved site plan as well as an amendment to the amended development agreement because there was some uh, language in there that required some of these amenities. And so, we felt like there would be two actions before you tonight to to um, respond to the request. Uh you're all familiar familiar with the project. Um the original subdivision and site plan was approved in 20 uh 23 on April August 15th. And then you all approved the first amendment to the development agreement which revised the original plan and some of that language. Go ahead please. Uh next slide.

Oh there we go. So um this is the map of this is the site plan of the open space area where all the amenities are included. that was approved in 2023. So, this is the original. Uh, you can see that through the retention pond, the sidewalk uh kind of navigated at the bottom and then it um surfaced and tied to the sidewalk on Universal Street as well as to the um the dog friendly facility on the uh on the back side there. Uh go ahead, please. When this was amended in in May of 2025 or four, sorry. Um, the amendment included the sidewalk around the pond. So, you can faintly see it there. It still connects to the sidewalk on Universal Street and it still has that connection to the dog friendly area. But in this version, that was approved, the the sidewalk uh circum navigated around the actual pond. We felt like that was actually a good change, more usable, especially when the pond was full of water. Um, and you can see also in this uh map that the athletic court was um given the option of being next to the uh pickle ball court there on the um on the I guess that's the north side of the project or an option to put into the um the open area on the other side. Go ahead please. And so now based on um what uh Thaddium has told us in terms of how the pond was construction constructed and some of the oversightes related to the grading of the wall and the tie-in of the liner and the property lines, it's necessary to amend the plan again. And their proposal is that the sidewalk um goes away in its entirety. um that it's replaced with um a playground amenity and that the actual

retention pond itself changes from being a vegetated area to all gravel and that's important to ensure that the liner is protected and held in place. Go ahead, please. Here's a picture of the proposed amenity that would um that would happen in that smaller turf area. So, there would be some turf that would be removed and a an area that's about 32x 29 um would be installed with this playground uh there for the um for the benefit of the uh of the homeowners association. Go ahead, please. So, as we looked at this, uh, we had a number of meetings, mostly technical meetings related to how the the pond was going to be corrected in terms of its, um, liner budding into private property. That was the issue um, originally that led to all of these things. Um, and so from this proposal, there would be a reduction of about,300 or 13,400 square feet. That's essentially that that retaining pond. The original two plans um had vegetation installed in it. Uh this would change it over to uh just just rocks and so there's a little bit of a concern there. The vegetation was just an overseed. It wasn't a playable turf or anything like that, but it was vegetation that um helped with the aesthetics of the environment. And then there is a small loss of turf uh in the tot area. Again, that area was that's really the only turf in the whole subdivision is where um the tot's going. And uh so if they put the the the playground there, they'll lose a little bit of turf. I'm not sure if that's a big deal, but I wanted to make sure the council was aware of the the trade-offs there. And then we've asked the uh developer to uh propose a solution that would um replace

the amenity, not cost for cost, but value for value. Um there is, I think, value in having a connected sidewalk. Um whether it runs around the pond or in other locations that connects the play area to the public sidewalk. Um it was in a manner that allowed uh circulation. Um so it could be um kind of a a health and wellness amenity. So we wanted to make sure that there was value for value and they've proposed the tot lot as such. So, that's really uh our analysis and our presentation. I'll turn it back over to the council for any questions for me or that. Okay. Any questions on the proposal?

Councilor Arnold.

I had a little bit of concern. Um we don't see anything or any of the people that have purchased in that area have been contacted. Um we talk about the HOA, but that's probably controlled by Gold Crest Homes. the the HOA is controlled by Fieldstone Homes. Um, and we approached Fieldstone and they they took it to their board, their management company. They ran evaluations considering which amenity would likely benefit the community in the long run. And that's where um, a couple of other suggestions were presented, but they they felt strongly that the playground would be the the best amenity. And I'm not aware if any of you have gone through the subdivision as of yet, but there's a number of young families that I think would greatly benefit from this type of amenity that being proposed.

So, I I go through it all the time to see how it's coming through. And I I think I mean I I mean we just talked Mike just gave us a thing about how we represent the people and this this community I mean doesn't like I don't see it. The only thing I see is that I guess Field Crest isn't taking care of the the public street side. you know, they're it's not finishing anything with the sidewalk or the, you know, it's letting the weeds grow and all that kind of stuff. And but the people that live there, um, what I've had a complaint in the past is with these planned developments is that the the people who live there don't control the homeowners association. They they're under a homeowners association, but it's usually like Fields Crest or Richmond American Homes and all that kind of stuff. and they're just subject to the homeowners association. It really isn't a homeowners association. And and I I have a problem uh with us making a change. I don't know how many of you have driven that um development, but without talking to some of the people that live there and see, you know, if they're they're saying, "Well, yeah, the management company for the the people who control our homeowners association who I would bet if I went and knocked on all the doors couldn't tell me who that is. They couldn't give me a name of a person or a phone number." And so I mean I just I just have an issue um changing stuff like this without talking to the people that are in that plan community.

Councelor Hansen, I think a playground is always a good a good option for a small community like that with young families. Um I think my concern my bigger concern would be the angular rock mulch that's going in. And I can see I understand that part of that is to help maintain um sloughing.

Yeah. The sloughing. But that because of the change in the landscaping, there's also nothing keeping kids or people from still walking through that area and causing the sloughing and then damage to the pond itself. And so I guess that's my concern is does the um liner go clear to the edge of everything and there's just no way to put up even decorative grasses or something that would deter people from entering into the area. And

very good question. In the landscape plan, it does show some vegetation um between amongst the park strips and etc. Um, as the pond is designed, the the liner is intended to go vertically down before the the property boundary. Um, you're you're spot on with the reasoning for the rock. This is what's been recommended by both our our engineer from Enzy and the city's contracted representative Todd Freeman. Um, regarding um, additional barriers, there is a perimeter fencing along the north or what would be considered the east and west sides of the pond. But, um, as to additional vegetation, there's just unfortunately not not sufficient space at the time for that.

There's a detail in your packet, I believe, that shows how that liner is to be installed. And I believe Shaylee, if you scroll down, there might be one here. Oh, no, never mind. It's in your It's in your packet. It essentially goes right to the property line and then tucks straight down at the property line. Okay.

So, Council Richtor, so you I understand that you've you've spoken with uh the the homeowners association here and and they they're positive on this. This that's your representation anyway. Yes. Councelor Arnold was kind of wondering, you know, how how many of the individuals have participated in that? Do you speak with all the homeowners? I I'm I'm If you can

Would love to would love to elaborate on that. Um it's been in uh in our in our uh I'm looking for the best word here. In our experience, uh very seldomly can you uh ask a horse to lead you to water. in in some occurrences it's better to direct it and and uh ensure that it gets there safely. The the challenge with approaching the residents without an approved amenity or something the city would be willing to support is that there could be a number let's say a percentage 50% could like one proposed amenity 50% could like another. They might not understand the maintenance that goes into these long-term items. they might not understand the cost associated or the impact and appreciation that it could bring to the community. When we first realized that this was an item that needed to be considered, we went to Fieldstone Homes and put in a significant amount of consideration as to what would be the best solution that we could inform the residents of of P preserving that long-term kind of value that Brandon had suggested was so important. For that reason, I do have an email from the Fieldstone Homes um the leaders who are representing the HOA association in which they currently are in place to ensure that the HOA's bylaws are enforced as construction occurs, but once their their construction efforts conclude, they will be passing the the homeowners association responsibility on to the actual residents. Um, I was actually on a call with uh Brett Woodland, the VP of development for Fieldstone Homes, and and in one of our phone calls, he was attending a meeting in which they were doing just that. Um, passing off the the responsibility of home ownership or the homeowners association to the residents. So, um, has door-to-door contact been initiated with each individual resident? At this time, we didn't want to go to them with

ideas that might not be approved in the event that that could spark negative connotation amongst the residents who might want something very ver varying from an amenity that that kind of based on their analysis of the the community would fit the the demographic and the demand. Daddy, I have a question. So, the HOA will maintain this uh this playground and at some point they'll replace it and uh correct. I mean, we'll probably hear about it, but uh just as long as we have contacts and they understand that they'll be responsible for ongoing maintenance and and the the wood chips in the area and the you know, keeping it in working function and and preventing lawsuits on the playground and

correct. They they will be assuming liability for maintenance and all other activities that do occur. Um, in further defining the the landscape plan through this revision, we slated that the uh additional optional pickle ball court would be instituted. For that reason, we saw a lot of kind of sports recreation activities for an older demographic. The the HOA felt that this playground area was the best way to kind of entertain the the younger demographic that we've we've seen pretty predominantly throughout the development. Council Arnold. So, two questions. There is going to be a pickle ball court, two two pickle ball courts, but it's not optional now. It's it's going to go in

it. With this revision, it was an optional athletic court. Again, we went back to the HOA association and and kind of advocated for what other, you know, sport type court could we implement, whether it's shuffle board, volleyball, basketball, what the maintenance items would look like, what what the demand is in the area. and they concluded that two pickle ball courts would allow for the kind of the most family-friendly recreational activities for the development.

Mayor, do do you mind if I clarify? Um, in the amendment that was approved by the council, um, originally well, let me back up. In the first approval in 2023, it was approved with two courts. In the amendment, it was approved with a pickle ball court defined and then an athletic court in either one of two locations. And so now this proposal is bringing that that required second court back to a permanent location and defining it as a pickle ball court. And then the second question is there a timeline of when the residents will take um control of their homeowners association?

That that would be subject to a construction timeline in which Fieldstone Homes currently is uh building out the subdivision. Phase one, 11 units have been completed and they're they're swiftly working through phase two. I believe out of the 23 units somewhere around nine to 10 have at least been finished and are are occupied. I would imagine that phase three would likely be concluded. 2027 is my assumption. And at that point, uh, I can't speak on behalf of Fieldstone Homes, but I would imagine that around that time is when the homeowners association would assume full responsibility of of governing their own community. Normally in the bylaws, there's a percentage of occupancy before it changes over to owner.

But it's what what but it's based off of the subdivision. Yeah. And what what's happened in the past is the ownership or control, not ownership of the homeowners association just hasn't gone to the homeowners, you know. Um, I believe Richmond American Homes still is controlling the Coen Farms and it's normally outlined in the bylaws. It's 90% I believe in this one. We receive a copy. There's actually a number once it's 90% they're going to I believe it's 90%. Okay.

We re we receive a copy of the CCNRs. we review them and approve them and then um based on our ordinance, it's required that the HOA despite its makeup and ownership in perpetuity reports back to us yearly with their financials and with their makeup. Um that's not been enforced unfortunately, but we're working on that with some of the So, it's on our end with the enforcement, not the the people building the subdivisions. Yeah, it's it's all in the agreements that that um they're required to make that reporting. Uh but again, it's something that needs to be enforced, be enforced or or needs to happen and we need to to do have something to monitor it. Yeah. Okay. Any other comments?

Are we going to do both of these at one time? We'll do one at a time, I think. And I can speak to the agreement a little more if you'd like me to before you take that. Let's decide if we're going to do the Well, let's decide if we're going to do the plan amendment if that's okay. Yeah. Happy to speak to anything else that Yes, Mr. Anderson, are you still with us? I am. I should say councelor Anderson. Thank you. Just make sure you speak up if you have anything. Councelor Arnold, I would move to approve the site plan amendment for Gold Crest Homes as stated within the packet. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion to second. Miss Nay, will you please pull the council?

Council member Hansen. Yes. Council member Richtor. Yes. Council member Anderson. Yes. Council member Arnold. Yes. Stevens. Yes. Okay. That passes unanimously. Uh very good. But that gives us the opportunity to move on to number three. Uh the amendment amended development agreement. Mr. Cooper.

Uh yes. Thank you. So this is in your packet. I don't have any slides on it. It's a simple amendment documenting the changes that were just approved in the site plan. So um under section A there's a detention pond modifications that um show the detail that they've proposed which uh we have accepted. Um there's the removal of the per perimeter sidewalk trail in that plan. Um the installation of the playground and then the landscaping revisions that come with that. Um the proposed plan is attached as an exhibit. So that shows exactly what they're proposing and that'll be part of the amendment as well. Okay. Any further questions?

Oh, on in the agreement. It's in the plan. Okay. Any further questions on that, Council Arnold? So, is it 100% fenced in? It would, if I had to give a percentage, it'd be closer to 7580. The the detention pond area. Correct. Correct. Yeah. Is that typical? I mean, we have a detention pond that's going to hold water. We're putting a kids playground next to it. Some of them do, some of them don't. It's It's They go either way. And city liability for approving something like this. It's the homeowners association.

So, they're designed to be drained out within two days. So, it's not shouldn't be long-term holding water. As long as they can backflow for two days where it be all right.

Yep. This one is actually not a retention like we to typically do now because of the well protection zone. It is only detention, not retention where it drains into the ground. So, it just has an orifice in it that slows down the release and then it gradually releases it out of the pond. So it's not like some of the ones what we typically do now due to state code we have retention where they hold water for up to two days and let it soak into the ground. This one has a liner and doesn't do that. So as the storm mitigates and slows down the water just slowly goes out the orifice until it's all the way drained at the end of the storm. So it's not designed to be a long-term holding like the retention is. And we're we're good. The city the city has no liability. Mr. Brooks,

we always have attorney.

Yeah, we we're always going to take some liability, but this is technically private property. So, um and we've done everything we can do by by the book, so I think we're as covered as we can be at this point. Yeah, I just wanted to mention that as part of the detention or storm drain plan um in the event that we see a 500year storm or an excessive amount of rainfall, the pond has been designed to which um BMS are being built up around edges protecting homes and there's supposed to be an overflow. um majority of the area that's not fenced off is for the overflow purpose of water to go over and into the streets and and into uh separate portions of the system in the event of an overflow. Um but it was designed and approved per state and city recommendation or requirements I should say. Um so for that reason there's that portion as to why there's no fencing on that specific area. But it good questions.

You're cool with it? Okay. Anyone else? Councelor Arnold. Move to approve resolution 2026-8 approving the first amendment to an amended development agreement for the development for a project located at 5368 South 1050 West. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Miss Nay, would you please pull the council? Yes. Yes. Yes. Council member Anderson. Yes. Council member Richtor. Yes.

All right. Very good. That passes unanimously. Okay. We'll move on to item number four. Consideration of resolution 2026-09 accepting the annual municipal wastewater report. Mr. Douglas.

Thank you, Mayor. So, you guys have seen these before. So, this is a report the state requires us to do. And then as part of that requirement, they also require us to bring it to you. Um, I think the highlights for us is their big questions in there on overflows and backups. And I don't even I hate to say this out loud, but again, last year we didn't have any, which is I think a good credit to our maintenance program. We we currently clean everything in the city at least every 3 years. Some things are every year, some things are every six months. And then we're also implementing a video program where we're videoing everything every six years. And I think other than that, the report's pretty self-explanatory, but I'd love to answer any questions that you have.

Councelor Hansen, I thought you might have a question. Um, I noted that it it states that we don't have a sinking fund for repair and replacement. I just thought it might be helpful to hear how the city plans on if there was an emergency need to replace or repair the system, what we do, what we have in place instead of that sinking fund. So we do have reserves and so it's not technically classified as a reser as a syncing fund per state code but we do keep reserves on hand to deal with them type of things. And is that in a shared I guess Cody's not here. Is that in a shared fund that you know of or is it just dedicated just to that? It is in the sewer of fund. So it is enterprise fund. So it's dedicated to that fund only. Okay. Great. So it is reserved for that.

Thank you. It's that's more of a at least from speaking with Cody it's more of a terminology. We can't answer that yes cuz we don't have that as a syncing fund but it is in a reserve fund which is a different but it is the same thing pretty pretty much. Awesome. Thank you. I just want to say thanks. Um you run a a great department and it it's always uh exciting to read that and see that you can you can check no on those important I hope it keeps up because you just never know. You never know what somebody's going to put down or what somebody's going to do. I mean, we've actually in the past had somebody put a couch in a manhole, if you can believe that. But you just never know what's going to happen. It's just crazy out there. But,

and kudos to the council, too, for providing the finances. Um, I think that's the key right there. That is right there. You know, I know you guys hate to do rate increases and that, but that allows us to do this cleaning and replace pipes. And I think that's what allows us to protect the residents in a big way because if we couldn't clean them, we would have backups. And that that's just critical. So, cameras, cleaning, you guys make that possible. So,

um like you said, it's never pleasant, but uh that that's the insurance that the the residents get for kind of a small amount of money uh to keep that system flowing. And uh as I learned in a hurry, the water going out is just as important as the water that comes in. Um so anyway, thank you for doing that. Uh, and if there's no other comments, council Arnold, move to approve resolution 2026-9 accepting the annual municipal municipal wastewater report. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Miss Nay, will you please pull the council? Council member Arnold, yes. Council member Stevens, yes. H, yes. Yes.

And yes. All right, that passes unanimously. Very good. Let's move on to item number five, discussion regarding removal of park strip at Riverdale Park. Mr. Douglas,

thank you, mayor. So, this is in front of Riverdale Park. Um, I think she put a picture in the packet there. We've kind of did the landscaping in front of Rich's and in front of the fire station. And our goal has been to take out some of the non-used grass, try and lead a little bit by example for what we're asking residents to do to and park strip grass just really isn't used and it's also hard to maintain. So we'd like to just our goal is to kind of move that down into that bigger park strip there do in front of what we call the boat house. That's that storage shed there. But then also we have kind of that old dilapidated wood sign and we'd like to take in the middle of that park strip and put in one of our like the rock signs that we did in other areas and put that in there with a flower bed around it and kind of just improve the amenities. So when you come down Parker Drive, you kind of see the sign. It kind of looks nice and sharp out there and continue with the same colors. We put money in the fund every year to do some water conservation so we have the money in there to do it. We also will probably use some rampant money that we have setting aside for the signing that. Um, I just didn't want to go do it without speaking with you guys and seeing if you guys was in favor of that or if you'd rather do something else there before we continue on. So, it was just more or less a discussion item to to present it to you and see what your thoughts were.

Any questions or comments? Councelor Hansen. I'm excited about this one. I've actually had multiple people ask about especially after we did the drought rates that how were we doing that when we were still watering our big park strips over by the park. So I think people are really going to like the update to that and the water savings. My question of course is you mentioned putting in trees. Um do you know which kind of trees you're thinking of for that area?

We haven't decided yet. We plan on trying to put six trees in there. So we kind of break up more or less the corners coming around to it and kind of leave the front open. so that you could see into the park. So, it's still fairly open. Um, but we haven't made a decision on which trees yet. And then we'd have, you know, 75 or so plants in that area, you know, smaller varieties. But I think it's important to leave it open and visible, too, both for just aesthetics and safety so people can see in there. I think if we make it too closed in, it could cause us other issues. And I think as a police drive by that, it's nice to be able to see in there. So, we'd try and use stuff that's low and also stuff that's maybe a little taller on the trees so that the visibility stays good was kind of our goal.

I think that'll be great. I like the green base velvas. They kind of grow up. Send me some emails with thoughts. Whatever you think. I think it'll be great. So, okay. Thank you. I think every tree I've found so far has them. So, hopefully we're far enough away on that. We don't have sidewalk there. So yeah, Mr. Brooks, is this just a consens consensus item or are we approving like there's no dollar amount associated with the budget's already approved in that? I just wanted to get some thoughts like if I get a thumbs up or thumbs down, right? How we thinking?

I I like it. I like the idea of putting the sign there. I think, you know, having that because I've just gone, oh man, just replacing, you know, with zerocape is it's boring. But, you know, doing a variety like you've described, I that's great. Yeah. Yeah. You do a good job and I think it shows the residents that it can be done nicely. It's a you know, it's a big savings in water somewhat. That's a big piece of grass and it's not used as grass should be used. Like you don't see people on it. They're not playing on it. It's and we're asking people to do it, right?

So, I think we've done quite a few areas now. If you look at the senior center, the community center, we've done in front of the Lions Club Park there. So, I just think it's good faith and it makes sense. It's hard to maintain that grass anyway. So, everyone else, councelor Hansen, council victor, councelor Anderson, you okay with that? Yeah, I was I was thinking along the same lines how that uh we need to be the example for the citizens and especially with the 20% reduction in water uh that were asked to curtail this I mean it'll be minor that amount but it's moving in the right direction.

Okay, very good. Thanks for always uh keeping us moving forward there Mr. Douglas. All right. Item number six, consideration of resolution 2026- uh10, amending the Riverdale City General Plan to modify the future land use map from attached residential to commercial for property located at 671 West, 4,400 South. Um, Mr. Brooks, did you want to address anything that was brought up? There wasn't as much comments as I thought there might be, but uh,

but I would if that's okay. Just briefly. I know that uh, Mr. Cooper has a presentation and I've seen that one. Um, CarMax also has one. I have not seen that, but I suspect some of my notes are going to overlap. So, I'm just going to skim the surface. I I'll comment on some of the things that Mike said and um I don't normally I'll read those things on Facebook, but I don't put a lot of time and effort into it mainly just because I don't have a lot of time to put into it. But I I actually did yesterday. I sat down and made some notes and so and then I added Mike's comments tonight because um a couple of things he said there I think are important. But I did want to address the council because I think it's important. Um as I read through those things yesterday, two things jumped out in my mind. There was there were two almost two items that weren't even mentioned or very little. There were a couple little side notes of it. Mike actually touched on a couple of those tonight, acting as if he was in favor of those and and fully understood those, which I would expect him to understand because he's sat in your your seats. But, uh, you know, it's real easy to be a a Monday morning quarterback and and, you know, judge Sunday's games and all the mistakes of the coaches and everything made. And I kind of feel like this happens a lot of times. And so, I kind of want to direct my remarks to the audience. I don't know how many of them um were participants in this conversation, but the two things of this whole conversation that I have found most important is are things that you guys need to be looking at as a city council. Um first and foremost to me that and and Mike talked about that. He made his comments and I don't want to talk about him. I just but he made that comment just tonight. We we lose track when when we're sitting at home making these decisions, but we lose track of people's individual property rights. And Mike mentioned how much he believes in property rights. We're still in a country that believes

in property rights. And when people come in, I mean, we don't seek these people out generally. We're fortunate enough that Riverdale doesn't have to do that much. I got a phone call today asking me what incentives um did we give to CarMax to get them here. We didn't give them any incentives. They came to us. Um, and you know, we we've known about this for a while. It's not like it's news to us or anything, but uh we we have to remember somebody owns this ground and it's not really our place to dictate what goes there and doesn't go there. I mean, we would love to have a lot of things in this city as as staff. Um, Brandon's got a big list of things on his window up there of things we'd love to see, but until somebody gives us an an open window to jump in there, we we run with what they they bring to us. That's the way the process works. I mean, whether we like it or we don't like it, you know, but uh and so property rights, we have to always be mindful of that. That is the one where that's what gets us in trouble. if we do something stupid or you guys do something stupid as a council and we get sued, that's the property owner is the one that's going to sue you. And so we can't just ignore their interest in this thing. And and a lot of times we forget that. Everybody's thinking, well, yeah, I'd like to have this and I'd like to have that and I'd like to have that. Well, it doesn't always work that way. We've got to talk to these developers and these owners and stuff like that. So that always comes into play. So number one, always be mindful of of the property rights that the owners have. And number two is 2030. I don't know how much more I can preach that to you guys that come 2030, and a lot of these people don't understand this, and I I'm not faulting you because you just don't. Um, but the state legislature has got us over a barrel right now that it's going to be hard to recover from. And come 2030, I've got to come up with anywhere from 2.5 to $3 million. It's just going

to be gone. And there is nothing we can do about it. And so when somebody brings a development in that can potentially bring in a lot of income for us, uh my interest is is there. It's like we've got to consider this. I mean, we don't really have a choice because come 2030 and we haven't raised some of this money to make up for that deficit there. We're going to start losing a lot of things that people aren't going to be happy about and we won't have a choice. There's only so much money that goes around. And so is it our top priority? No. But is it a priority? Absolutely. And and I I don't I think you're almost doing a disservice to the city if we're not looking at that as one of the factors. And I would hope there's other things there that you consider besides just that, the sales tax that, you know, a CarMax could bring in. But, uh, those are two things you can't forget. Those are vitally important for us to look at. Um, I I wanted to talk about, you know, your responsibilities as a council versus what a planning commission does because I don't think anybody did anything wrong in any of this to be honest with you. Um, you guys will look at things differently than a planning commission will. It doesn't mean that anybody did anything wrong here. Um, it's just how the process works. But I'm going to leave that because Brandon, I know, has got some of that in his presentation and I don't want to step too much on his toes. So, um, but I think it's important. We we love our planning commission. They're doing a great job. We don't have any issues with that. But you guys aren't always going to agree with them. That's a fact of life. And it's the same thing with a general plan. That's another thing. And and some of these notes I brought from the comments on on online. A general plan, and Brandon will discuss this one a little bit more. It's not set in stone and it can't be set in stone by law. Um one council cannot bind another council. And if if if we put our general plans in cement and made it so that we have to follow that every time, um that is

binding one council by to another. I mean, and you would be stuck with that forever. We've seen those general plans. Those can go for 10, 15, 20 years sometimes before we update those. And so, it's an advisory document. It's not binding. But even looking at the general plan, you guys are going to look at that differently than the planning commission will. There is nothing wrong with that. Um, the general plan is an advisory document. It's supposed to guide us and it's supposed to steer us. But these two pieces of property that we're going to talk about tonight are a perfect example. If I was to write a book about land use, which I wouldn't because it'd be the boring most boring thing you've ever seen in your life, and the only one that would read it is maybe me and Brandon. You did a good job.

But, but these Yeah. But these two pieces of property are most they're just perfect examples. And they they're mirrors almost. It's just so weird how these came together at the same time. I mean, I look at the CarMax deal. When we initially looked at that, we were looking at housing, but it just didn't work out. Things change. That happens in a city. It just does. And it's sat there. It's a weed patch. And if I sat here and said, "Would we rather have a a car dealership or a weed patch?" Well, I think everybody would want the car dealership. Would we rather have a medical center or a weed patch? We're always going to fall back on something besides a weed patch. That's the only consensus we would give is that's what we don't want. But, uh, we never know what's going to happen. I mean, things change. And that one's not as old as the other one, the Larry H. Miller one. That one was was Larry's time. That was before me even acting as a city administrator. We started that one off almost the same thing. It was just the exact opposite. Initially, we were looking at that as commercial. It didn't work out. We tried. It wasn't like it was, you know, something we didn't do, but we just didn't get any buyers for it. And so then when we get something that comes in that fits and you know you look at that situation on both ends of that one, you've got residential and then you pinch this one right in the middle. Ironically, it's a little bit different. It's not the the high-rise high density on the one side. It's kind of a middle zone and then you have residential, just single family homes on the other side. It fits in there perfectly. A backdrop against a hillside. It's it's somewhat difficult because and I think this is where the commercial just didn't happen is it it sits back in there and there just weren't any buyers. We we tried we worked on that one. I worked on that one. Larry worked on that. We all did. But then when we get something like this that comes in there and and the the unique thing about that one is that some of the complaints on the on the uh web page was that we want housing for our kids. Well, when they came in and said, "We want to do tone town homes that are

owner occupied," we got all excited about that one because that's a demographic we don't have in Riverdale. Um, is it perfect? No. But that that gives the the younger group an opportunity to buy a house that in Riverdale that we don't have. And you're talking roughly 80 homes. I mean, that that could change a lot of stuff in Riverdale. So, there there's good things about both of these. Um, are they ideal? Are they exactly what we want? Maybe not. I mean, but as staff, you know, we've looked at all these things. When we talk about traffic, I mean, we've had traffic studies done on both of them. You look at a CarMax's traffic compared to an apartment complex that would have gone in there, and they're not even comparable when it comes to traffic. Car dealerships are good. I mean, for a city, they are just good for us. And Riverdale, like like Mike even mentioned, they built this city on on a number of of dealerships. They're not a bad thing. I mean, I I think we put give them a bad wrap, but that location right there is not frontage Riverdale Road. It's it's sitting off the bock and stuff like that. This dealership almost fits in there perfectly and it it touches another dealership that parks cars there and another commercial on the other side. I mean, there are there are pros and cons no matter how you look at these things, but when you when you consider everything, we've got to look at what's in the best interest of Riverdale and and proceed from there. The the last thing I would say about that because like I said, I don't want to step on these guys' foot feet too much, but and this is the attorney side coming out for me. Whatever you do, make sure we get good findings tonight. Um, you know, we're going to present things, but give me the meat and potatoes. I got to know. The one thing I don't want to hear is I don't like it or I do like it, but I don't get any reason why you like it. I need to know why you like this thing. whether it's through the documents that we submitted, whether it's through these presentations and stuff because if we end up in court, it's the findings. It's

the stuff that you guys do tonight that will keep us out of trouble. Um, public clamor is an element that you can consider in a legislative function. A a reszone is a legislative function. So, that's an element that you consider, but it shouldn't be your only element that you consider. When I say public clamor, you know, neighborhoods get up excited and they get um a little frustrated with this sometimes, but it it's an element to consider, but it shouldn't be the only thing. There should be other reasons why you either approve it or other reasons why you don't approve it. So, make sure you get me some findings of fact whatever you do at the end of the night. Okay.

Any questions for me? And I I'll let them run with their stuff cuz like I said, I don't even know what CarMax is going to do here. So, I hope I didn't steal all any of your tell you no, he doesn't scold us. We're fine. All right. So, uh this is actually uh Mr. Cooper is up next, I guess. Uh yes, sir. Thank you. And I'll actually uh turn um the first part of my time to uh the Carmax representatives. We have uh Kristen Cohen. Uh she represents the uh consultant and Mr. Paul Toms from CarMax.

Good evening, council. Thank you so much uh for allowing us to be here and provide our presentation tonight. Um we're we're grateful and humbled to be here um in this in this wonderful city and getting to know you and your community. Um my name is Kristen Cowan. Uh I work for a company called Centerpoint Integrated Solutions and uh we are CarMax's uh nationwide development partner. Um, and I'm uh happy to also have Paul Toms, who's one of CarMax's real estate managers. We work handinhand on on projects across the country. And um I'm going to let him uh talk a little bit about CarMax um before I go into the more of the the land use uh side of the presentation.

Hi, good evening council. My name's Paul Tom. Very nice to meet you all. I can go ahead and uh take it to the next slide. give you a little bit of information about CarMax just generally, then we can talk about the project specifically. So, we are the nation's largest retailer of used cars. We started this company in 1993 under the premise that there was a revolutionization that could occur with the used car buying industry where a company could focus exclusively on the customer experience and making sure that iconic experiences are delivered to our customers every single time they walk into a CarMax. With that focus, we have been able to grow to over 250 stores in 41 states. We have over 30,000 associates nationwide. In our last fiscal year, we sold over 1.3 million vehicles through our combined uh retail and wholesale channels. And then also for our last fiscal year, we did about 26.35 billion in revenue. So definitely a substantial company with a lot to offer the local community. Next slide. So, CarMax is known as a best place to work in the United States. Employee retention and growth is absolutely paramount for us as a company. There's a reason that we've been named in Fortune's 100 best companies to work for for 22 consecutive years. We truly care about our employees. Um, when you become part of the CarMax team, you absolutely are valued and we make sure that you have a great experience no matter what. We really shine through in train internal training and promotions. So, I can't even tell you how many stories I've heard of someone who started out on a sales lot, worked their way up to be manager of that facility. It's a incredibly common story with CarMax, and it's something that we see every single day. So, we have quite a few accolades to that effect. We've been on Training Magazine's top 125 for 16 consecutive years. I've also been on Fortune's 100 best companies to work for for 22 consecutive years. And proudly, we did just rank the highest on that list for

2026 that we've ever ranked before. um number 56 for the entire country. Next slide. So we also have an awesome organization called the CarMax Foundation which is all about getting involved in and supporting our local communities. We do this through many ways. The first is through matching dollars and grants that our associates provide. So for example, if I gave $50 to a local nonprofit, CarMax would match that $50. Also, if I donated four hours of my time for, let's say, a river cleanup, CarMax would donate a proportionate amount of money to that organization as well as a match for those hours. Um, the stores also get involved in their local communities very extensively. So, one of my favorite parts of this job is talking to the store managers and hearing what they have to say about what they do for their local communities. Um, it really runs the gamut. So you'll see river cleanups, animal shelter, shelter events, uh toy drives, everything you can really think of, we will take care of it. And we truly work to make an impact on our local communities in that way. Next slide. So talking a little bit about sales metrics and employment for the project. So I want to preface this by saying that these are strictly estimates. Sometimes we exceed them, sometimes we don't meet them exactly. Um because of that we would not be comfortable being tied to any sort of performance obligations based on these metrics. But we do have a very advanced uh modeling team and they use advanced tools and we believe these to be realistic estimates for the project. So we're currently estimating sales of about 100 to 110 used vehicles per month. Average sales price would be about $26,000.

Excuse me. That's for this location. Yes, that is correct. Yep. It's a lot. It is. It is. So that is an estimated 2.6 to2.86 million in revenue every month. And if you annualize that, that's about 31 to $33 million in revenue. We're also going to be hiring 20 associates, including a location manager, a handful of customer specialists, and auto repair specialists as well. Next slide.

Thanks so much, Paul. I really appreciate that you can give the the insight on CarMax because I'm just a consultant with CarMax, but I do love working with them. Their team is incredible. Um and and they're just just great all around. Um so, um as a consultant, um I help CarMax uh with entitlements and zoning. My background is actually in land use planning and and used to be a planner in my past life uh in Denver. Um, but I love being a consultant and coming to communities all across the United States. Um, so, uh, our, uh, our application is for both the general plan amendment as well as the reszoning. Um, this is obviously a lo an aerial of the location at 60 671 West 4,400 South um, where it intersects with 700 West. Next slide, please. And this is the current zoning map. As you can see, it's uh circled there in residential um along uh adjacent to several commercials um and uh on the a little bit of uh let's see residential to the northwest that that is uh adjacent. Next slide, please. So, why we're here for the future land use uh map amendment um is because it's currently designated as multifamily uh on the future land use map um because the site was recently reszoned to R4 um I believe in 2022 2023 um from both mobile home and C3 zoning. So our request is really to bring it back to C3 zoning um where it had port uh partly been C3 before.

Next slide. Thank you. So as you can see there's C3 zoning on three sides of the of the parcel and most recently the the reszoning uh for the Kgarf parking lot to the east. Um to the south uh there are uh there's the Kengarf Nissan and then to the west is the uh retail and restaurants to the west as well. So like I said the C3 zone is consistent with that recent reszoning of the Kgarf adjacent lot. Um the the potential for the residential um from what we understand from the property owner and and seller um is that it just the the pro their previous proposal didn't work um financially uh especially with with losing uh that not losing but reszoning the to the to the right the five and a half acres is really just not enough to pencil out financially a residential development. Unfortunately, um along with its its uh C3 adjacent zoning, um it really has better potential as a commercial development um due to its its location and the surrounding conditions. Next slide, please. So, why does this general plan amendment and reszone make sense? Like I said, the location uh along Riverdale Road as as well as along the railroad really make it better suited for a commercial use. Uh this and I as I uh spoke to earlier, this site already has commercial uses on it, including the Sinclair gas station on the uh this southwest corner um

that's currently C3, as well as the Kgarf parking lot. These are both on the same block. uh AC across Riverdale Road as well as the retail and residents re excuse me restaurants across 700 West. So it it really is compatible with the adjacent uses. Um and CarMax as a development is is a is a great buffer. um will I've I think I forgot a slide on the the traffic numbers, but it creates a lot less traffic um than resident than multif family residential. So, as I said, um so we used our our civil engineer uh analyzed the traffic uh traffic study that was done for the previous residential development. um that uh traffic study found that peak morning and evening hour uh trips were uh between 61 and 79 respectively morning and evening. Um and then using the uh the trip generation for the CarMax um they found that total peak morning hour trips uh would be 16 and 29 in the evening. and that that it represents a 74 and 63% reduction in traffic respectively. Uh after the planning commission hearing, um we heard a lot about that being sort of the last the last remaining vacant land. Um, so we we talked to um our local broker um and we were surprised to find out that there was there was actually a lot of vacant land either that was already entitled for residential or was um zoned open

space that could be uh reszoned to residential. So whereas uh the proposed Carmarmac site is 5 1/2 acres, there's uh to the south of Riverdale Road between those three developments, there's over 128 vacant acres for for potential residential developments um that aren't along the busy Riverdale Road commercial corridor. Um, we also saw that there was uh an R5 application being considered by city council today and the seller of the of the proposed CarMax property is also, I understand, submitting for town homes um across 40 uh from across to the north on 4,400 uh south uh 4,400 4,400 South. Okay. There's so many so many directions in these streets. um and but he's going to be submitting for uh town homes there soon. So there there really is a lot lot of great uh real estate available for residential in in other areas. So we really believe that the general plan objectives support our our proposal uh because it recommends smart and sustainable development that places more intense development uh at major nodes. Um the the plan also recommends optimizing land use designations based on opportunities and constraints. Uh the the um mobile home uh community um you know you could see that as an opportunity or or a constraint. um it was, you know, the residential application didn't work out and so, you know, the financial opportunities and constraints uh continue to to change as time goes on. Um the general plan's economic

development goals also seek to incentivize commercial development along Riverdale Road. And the plan also seeks to promote development of job growth, goods and services. And uh Carmax's uh reputation as as a um a job creator and and um great employer really uh uh speak to that. So I wanted to talk a little bit about um the site operations, how it would how it would function. Um, CarMax is sort of uh operates as a high-end retail experience trying to differentiate itself from a typical dealership or or used car lot. Um, they have no obligation vehicle appraisals and you can sell or buy a vehicle with them. Um, uh, it's supposed to be a a very stress-free uh, experience and the site layout and operations really support that high-end experience. um between the landscaping and the finishes. Um and I'll show in the next slide there's um the site layout really helps you navigate around the site. So this is uh our concept site plan. So along Riverdale Road is the sales display and that's completely separate from customer and employee parking uh parking areas for both operational efficiency and safety. So people aren't parking their cars among the the vehicle inventory. Um there's ample customer and employee parking spaces and uh the presentation lane um from the sales building is where purchase vehicles are delivered. Uh the service area is used for inspections and routine service and maintenance. that's fully conditioned uh with with rollup doors. Um so no

services occurring outdoors and CarMax doesn't allow any outdoor loudspeakers, balloons, inflatables. Um they really keep it uh a a high-end um display and just have a couple pictures of conceptual renderings that our architect has has done. Um, we also have there's another a great picture of a new CarMax I think after this one. So, thanks so much uh for your time. We're really happy to be here and to provide this this um application. Um, we hope that you uh that you would approve our our application. Um, but we're really happy to answer any questions you may have. Um, and thanks so much again for your time. Any questions for Miss Cowan or Mr. Thomas at this point? Okay, that was very thorough. Um, thank you. Okay, Mr. Cooper, back to you.

Thank you. It was very thorough as well as uh Mr. Brook's comments. So, I do have some additional information we can talk about um that I think is fun. So, Shaye will get the uh There we go. And I'll let me see if this works again. No. just tell me. Okay, go ahead. Um, so a lot of this has been covered, so I'll go quickly and if you if you need to stop me, you can. So, go ahead. Um, on this one,

uh, Steve mentioned, um, the nature of the general plan. Um, that was something that we felt important to bring up given, um, mostly for the public record. It's important for, um, all of us to understand what the general plan is. It's a comprehensive long-range policy document. It's not code. It's not ordinance. It's not law. Um, next slide, please. The general plan is um is not something that uh binds us, but it guides us. And it might feel strange to amend it, especially in in the case where you've had a couple of amendments come to you in the recent past. Um, but it's typically it's typical and it's completely normal. uh general plan amendments happen all the time because in Utah they are not um uh regul they're not zoning documents they're policy uh guidelines and documents and so that's why you're seeing a second one here and you'll likely see others in the future go ahead please I mentioned that uh you know evolving p uh growth patterns new data those are kind of the things that have led us here tonight which has led us to other general plan amendments as well go ahead and then Steve mentioned the the nature of the planning commission versus the city council. And all I'll say here is that the planning commission as you know is is there is administrative based. Um the council is legislative based. So there's two different lenses in which each body looks through which combined completes a a total picture. And so as Steve mentioned the planning commission did their job um in their recommendation. And you may agree, you may disagree, but that's the nature of the process. Go ahead please. Uh so you're familiar with the location. Go ahead. Uh as Chrissa mentioned, um the historical use, uh so this is a a map from 1993 to 2010. This is the condition that existed in those years.

So largely commercial along the 700 West frontage and then residential uh going into the back of the site. Go ahead, please. The American Indians used to be there, too. Yeah. We can't forget them.

That's why I started in 93. Yeah. Yeah. Um, in 2017 there was some changes there. Uh, the the housing part shrunk a little bit, gave way to some commercial on the end there. Go ahead. And then in 2024, it changed again with uh commercial on both sides and residential in the middle. Um, and this is what our general plan captured. So, the reason why the general plan shows attached residential as the um land use designation is because it captured that reszone that had just taken place recent recent to the general plan amendment. Go ahead. And there's the map. It's on the wall behind us as well. Go ahead, please. And as Chris mentioned, this is surrounded by uh C3 zone on three sides and really is compatible. Um the R4, I can understand why the council and the commission made the decision to reszone an R4 at the time. Uh but it also um as mentioned, it also is not feasible at this time. And so that's why we're here today. Go ahead. Uh just another map showing the uh residential to the north and and to the northwest with the commercial to the south and to the east. Uh so going on to what the planning commission uh looked at and what their recommendation is. Uh so if you've looked at the video or read the minutes in the packet you'll know this. Um among everything uh their their focus was the consistency with the general plan. Go ahead. And in that they looked at the impact to the moderate income housing plan which is one of our elements. Um it's part of our housing element the moderate income housing plan. They talked about the scarcity of multiple housing. um multiple family housing zones and the potential that we may or may not have for future resident um opportunities and then this intention to maintain the connections between um housing, employment and commerce. They

wanted to uh be sensitive to that. And so as they discussed that and um and listened to the presentation that it was largely similar to what Kristen gave tonight, they forward a negative uh or unfavorable recommendation for approval and the vote was uh 5 to1. Uh this is a slide that um just as a reminder, we talked about this in a work session a number of months ago where as we think through land use considerations from a broader more um policy discretion viewpoint, which the council has um from from a a planner's perspective or from an economic development perspective, you pick up one end of that stick and you get the other end. They're two sides of the same coin, economic development and community development. Um, and so as we look at things and as I'm as we've talked in the past, there's really these four benefits that I think make up a decision-making matrix. And how you um weight each one of these is not not clearly defined. It's more art than science. But hopefully over time, the lens in which the council views proposals happens through these elements here. As I mentioned, planning commission, not so much. They're a bit more defined with the general plan and some of the um more regulation, but as you are the policy setters and the regula regulatory body um then there's I think a different perspective that might be helpful. Go ahead please. Uh we we looked at um similar to what um Kristen did, we looked at some just general examples and then the next slide is a specific example. So we wanted to understand through that lens of maybe the economic benefit um what an apartment does versus a big box store versus a car dealership versus maybe a traditional PRUD that we see um common in the city. And these are general um

numbers. Uh we can't use sales tax information from specific uh users. So, these are general sales tax numbers, but the property tax revenue is um specific and accurate and um some of the water consumption numbers. We track all of that. So, we were able to pull that. So, we looked at just a general property in the city for each one of these, and you can kind of see how those numbers bear out um on an annual revenue per acre, which is a a common economic development lens in which to look um through in terms of land use and economic growth. Um using your land in its highest and best use, the revenue per acre for an apartment building um really is the lowest um or second to the lowest given the fact that it doesn't produce sales tax. Now, is that the only consideration as Steve mentioned? No. There's those three others in terms of the quality of life and connection and aesthetics. But from a purely uh economic perspective, um sales tax production is part of our identity and it's part of our general plan guidance in terms of um using our land to produce uh commercial sales tax for the benefit of our residents. Go ahead, please. So specifically to this site, we knew that we had already approved 152 apartment units and we know what the CarMax dealership proposal looks like. So we were able to look at both of those in terms of that annual projected sales tax and the annual um property tax revenue. So these are real numbers and Kristen was good to actually share with you those exact numbers which I've used here in these um in this analysis. And so you can see the total uh difference between the annual revenue per acre is significant between an apartment complex which was previously approved and what is zoned for and what the plan calls for on the future land use map versus a um an opportunistic uh proposal in terms of um some sales

tax uh generation. And she already mentioned the pro the uh traffic volume. significantly less with the with the proposal versus what was previously approved. Go ahead, please. Uh you've seen some of these slides. There was u some discussion about the impact on our housing potential in the future from the planning commission. So I wanted to just include a few numbers. Um again, you've seen some of these, but maybe for the public's benefit. So right now we have 26 zones that allow for single family homes or duplexes. That's the bulk of our city. Uh we have um eight zones including including the one that we're talking about tonight uh that offer multifamily um housing opportunities. And right now if you look at the current listings um as of yesterday it's actually grown by one but uh our current listings have 21 single family homes uh for sale, three town homes and seven mobile homes. And I wanted to include the range there because there was this discussion from the planning commission about the moderate income uh nature of the general plan as well as the moderate income housing plan. So essentially if you look at the um what moderate income housing means it means from the state's definition an 80% level of income based on the average median income. So 80% AMI uh for a family for HUD sets those standards. The average um median income in the Ogden um Clearfield MSA, which isn't just Riverdale, but it's Ogden, uh Clearfield, it's mostly Davis County, Wever County, and uh Morgan County. The average family income is 123,100. Um if you have a family of four, to meet the 80% income limit, you make 96,400. So what that means is that if you look at a 30%

um a 30% rule bas basically saying that 30% of your income can be used for housing costs which is a typical standard across the country then at that 96,400 which is 80% AMI you can afford about $2,400 a month. Um, if you translate that into that uh into the value of a house based on current interest rates and costs, it's about a $350,000 house. So, when we talk about moderate income housing, we're talking about people who make a family of four making about $96,000 who can afford a $350,000 house. There, if you can see what's on the market right now, there are um very few $360,000 houses. Um I I wrote the number down here. There are five under 450. Um, seven of those 21 are 450 to 550 and nine of those 21 are above 550. But our average median income for Riverdale in general is 450. So, we're generally um looked at as being naturally um or having naturally occurring affordable housing just because our median income is is on the lower side based on Weber County and Davis County. Um but there um there are opportunities um in the current zones that we have as well as the other places in the city to develop not just additional moderate income housing but all kinds of different housing. Uh next slide please. So we've looked at this uh together as a group and um so I wanted to bring this up again. Uh Kristen mentioned some of these, but right now based on my count, based on what's available under current zoning, zoning that is designated for future housing based on the general plan or potential opportunities for land owners to convert their land to housing. I anticipate that there's about 1,600

units uh that can be built based on those factors today, which would equal, you know, 3,000 to 4,000 additional uh residents into our city. So, that's kind of the housing picture. We didn't get a chance to talk about it at that depth with the planning commission, but I wanted you to understand um what we mean and what the impacts are when we say uh moderate income housing. Go ahead, please. Can I just Yeah. Question. Here we go.

You know, I I I sit with the um the Wakeog Weber help me help. Weaver Association Committee of Government, which is all of municipal and county government, Weber County on a they have a subcommittee for just does housing. And I mayor's asked me to sit with that and I've done that for now a couple years. And it's uh interesting in a very wonky kind of way because the the term moderate is a very broad term and it means slightly different things throughout the county even. But it's it's very hard to, you know, because everybody's on the same pressure to do more to provide moderate income. the legislature is really been hammering it, you know, to try to you can't legislate to build because there's too many variables that come, you know, one, you have to the price of land is horribly expensive and that disqualifies most scenarios from being moderate and um and then because I think you can address this later after I'm done. you know, they're not building some of those uh those high densities. It was because they've kind of stepped away because the economics aren't aren't aren't there uh like they were four or five years ago or three or four years ago. And so this is, you know, the to say we have, you know, we're looking at the whole county when I look at the whole county and say, okay, Riverdale, you know, what are you doing? We have our we have met our our moderate income housing for what we have now. New

construction, we don't have that much new construction. And does it fall in moderate? Some of it yes, some of it no. But it's it's such a broad almost unrealistic term, but it's mostly kind of for kind of a catch thing to sound, oh, we need more. Yeah. you know, it's an emotional thing, but um it's it's just not an easy fix because the legislature this year, some of the feedback, if and I'm going to go, if you don't mind, um

allocated $und00 million into a fund to because so many communities have said, you know, we would like to build, we have land to build. Um, and I think there's some even even in the area Weber County, a number of places, but there's no infrastructure and there's no in uh money to put in the because it's so um once you get the property like out in the west part of the county, there's a lot of people would like to put in subdivide their their pastures, but there's no um infrastructure. So the only thing you can do is put a septic there because there's no sewer and it would cost3 to4 million to put sewer systems out there and the pumps and so on. So there's a lot of issues. It's very complex. A lot of issues why there's not more mo quote unquote moderate housing being built. And this little 5 acre parcel is even putting town homes. I I did not know that they were going to be owner occupied because when I was watching that when I'm talking about the Leslie trailer park area, those were not going those were going to be rentals like like over behind Bed Bath and Beyond.

That's true. They were not going to be owner occupied. They were not town homes. They were apartments. Apartments and they were not condos. They were not owner occupied. And so, um I'm you know, never mind. I'm I'm done. I just want to touch on the moderate income is is kind of a feel-good catchphrase. That's all. And it because it's it's a very archaic. I'm sorry. It's a nebulous term,

which is why I felt the need to bring some clarity to it in terms of um what it really means. It's that 80% AMI at those specific income levels. And one of the more um important guiding principles of the general plan is that um we are to balance the residential development with the commercial development. So really your decision tonight is whether or not this proposal um uh supports that balance or throws it out. And so I wanted to give you a bigger picture of what's really out there in terms of residential development opportunity. Um, I didn't do the same analysis on commercial development opportunity, but my hunch would be that there's there's less um in terms of what we could do to development develop commercial. In fact, I've told you on multiple occasions that we ought to start thinking about a redevelopment plan for the Riverdale uh road corridor given the fact that some of the uses are transitioning more and more, that the archaic use of large parking lots is no longer productive. And so we're going to be looking at redevelopment of our commercial corridor, not new growth development that we do have the opportunity to do with our um with our residential. So one last note on the moderate income housing plan. I wanted to make sure we understood what that means in terms of the requirements. There is no formal requirement by statute of the state to h to force cities to have moderate income housing. Uh but there is a carrot and a stick kind of a thing mostly a stick where the um the cities that don't do that are required to do a moderate income housing plan that don't there's some negative repercussions there. So we do and every year we uh submit it and it's approved and accepted. There's 26 strategies that are um listed in the statute that we can choose from that would be strategies to facilitate moderate income housing. Uh we choose eight. We're required to only have three. The three that I've highlighted or the two that I've highlighted there

are really the ones that speak to um this site as being um zoned R4. It was identified as specifically as one of our strategies when we reszoned it um as R4. Again, the general plan kind of captured all of that. So if if we are no longer able to point to that as part of our strategy and we lose two, we'll still have uh six well above the three that's required. Uh so they were they were a little worried about that. So we've done a lot of analysis. You've heard from the applicant. Uh you've heard from Steve. Um so our findings tell us that uh the proposal is consistent first and foremost with Utah State Code. We want to be sure that we don't run a foul there. Um, it does support and clarifies the implementation of the general plan as Kristen noted as well by concentrating these commercial development proposals in the main corridor and u making sure that we continue our regional uh retail hub um type of image and presence. Uh it it is a coordinated high quality development as as you've seen. It's contiguous with land uses um with the C3 on those uh two sides and and really across the street on the south. Almost uh as important to all of that, it's in support of our ongoing financial goals of the city given uh what Mr. Brooks talked about with our 2030 goals and just this idea of um trying to balance that residential versus commercial use with our land. It does create less traffic than the existing designation of attached residential in any of its forms, whether it's the previously approved u u apartment building or town homes or something that would follow after that. Go ahead, next slide. And so based on those findings, we do recommend as we did to the planning commission uh that uh you approve the proposed general plan

amendment uh by amending the map from attached residential to commercial. Okay, any questions for Mr. Cooper? We are just discussing the first item right now, the amendment of the general plan, but these are all kind of tied together. Any questions? I got a couple of questions. All right.

The the um I noticed Miss Cowan um had listed that there were 193 units in the apartment, you know, in her traffic study. Um, and Mr. Cooper, you had indicated that that prior uh development was 153. Um, did that include both sides of 4,400 in that total number for the 153?

Yes. Um, good catch. So the numbers that were presented um in the revised traffic study that uh Miss Cowan showed us are do factor in both the north side and the south side. Um I believe my numbers calculated out the north side just so just to look at the 152. Okay. So it would be slightly less than what what's been stated number seemed like they would be inflated somewhat almost 20% because I don't think that we could accommodate 193 units on that parcel uh and provide adequate parking.

That study took into um consideration the the total amount of units on the north side and the south side. Yeah. Yeah. Um and then for the uh commercial traffic in the comparison between the apartments if we placed apartments there and if CarMax came in were those numbers uh reflective of customer traffic or did that also include employee traffic? Um is there any clarification on that? Do you mind clarifying that? Can you come up to the microphone? We we have people online and that's the only way they can hear. Of course. excuse me,

how to replace that. I believe in the the IT trip manual that uses um you vehicle sales, uh that should include both customers as well as employees within the IT. We'll have you stay up here for just a minute. Any other questions, Mr. Anderson? Yeah, one more. Mr. Cooper, the the tax revenue um benefit for the city, was that calculated on today's um tax recovery for the city or did that look at what it would look like in 2030?

No, that's just what would be collected based on today's rate given the distribution that we're currently under. All right. Thank you. Did uh anyone do like an annual just I mean you had like a per acre and uh per per month or something. Did anybody do like an or like a an annual for the total site? Do we do you mind going back to that? I mean maybe it was on there and I missed it. Keep going. Uh right there. Yep. Um so annual sales tax is listed under the car dealership. That's the expected number based on our current rate based on the projections that were given to us by CarMax

per acre. Nope, just total for the whole site. The the per acre revenue is that blue number. I got you. So just divide the 5.1 into the 226 and that's what you Okay, I'd skip down too fast. So Okay. So So roughly 10 times. Yeah. Okay. Wow. Any other questions for Mr. Cooper for this. Council Rich Victor.

Yeah, I just want one brief clarification. I I want to make sure I'm hearing you right. Um because we're just talking about the general plan right now. Um it was this was zoned R4 because of the uh attempted use to get the multif family or the multi-unit item in there. Um what couple four three four years ago, right? And the general plan captured that. Mhm. Um, is it your kind of this was kind of prior before me was is it your assessment then that that that was the reason it was zone 4? That's the reason the general plan captured it as residential. There really wasn't a strategic move there to do residential other than saying that was a proposed development plan at the time.

I wasn't here either. Um, but all of my research tells me that that's the case. And the general plan is largely written as a capture document. So, um, and you all were here as well. So, I would say yes based on my investigation. That's my understanding. I just wanted to make sure. That is correct. You're exactly spot on. In fact, both these properties tonight when we did the general plan, we didn't really look at them that close because we had ideas in mind for both of those pieces of properties. And that's exactly what that one was.

That's what I understood. I just wanted to clarify by ownership and real estate agent. I mean, the real estate agent had the plan, the idea, hey, if we did this kind of thing. And so when Steve was talking about, you know, property ownership and, you know, the American way kind of thing, it's like, well, yeah, I mean, you got X amount of millions of dollars to put into this project and ready, set, go. And then he didn't go and that and one of the things that we have to look at is you have a proposal on the table and a failed understood

something on there. I mean, when you're talking about somebody tried to pencil this, you know, multifamily living thing, whatever it was, he tried to pencil it, it didn't work, so it failed. Then he tried to pencil it out again and it failed again. And so now you have somebody coming in and saying, "Hey, we have a better use for this." I mean, I don't have a problem with this at all because when I look at the general plan, I I want to look at like snapshots. One of the things that that Mike said in his his public comment was uh the up thing and and I'll be honest, I haven't seen the show, but I've seen enough of it to understand what it is. Um if you go look at the Subaru dealership as you're coming down uh Time View

Times View Drive, there's an up house right there, you know. But if you look at what's being built and you look at what is before us tonight behind Crispy Cream and all that kind of stuff and you look at the town homes that were going up by Ritter Drive and you and you just do a hey, I'm going to take back a panoramic view of what the city looks like. You know, you look at what was going on at River Drive and you're just like, whoa, that's crazy. And then even even to say, hey, we're going to put apartments on the viot. I mean, I I think of, you know, some of the bigger cities that have elevated trains and all that kind of stuff as you go by these windows because you we're going to have apartments with the cars going right there. And so, you know, I I don't have a problem with the general plan. I would like to get into the site plan because people coming over the vio are going to look down at CarMax and see Riverdale. And I don't know how Ken Garf's little parking lot got away from us. But that's ugly. I mean, it's a flat out I don't know how many six um there's not a tree in there. There's not a nothing. It's just like you go over there. And so I am a little concerned with CarMax going in there. It just looks like a big sea of cars. But with the building and all that kind of stuff and having something that's actually a visual point for the for Riverdale and maybe we can get a sign in there so we can keep people informed of Riverdale, electronic sign or something. But um this is a good fit in the panoramic view of Riverdale as people are coming across and and and the guys were coming in on Ritter Drive and they were looking at it was the developer who said I understand that multif family housing like this is transient and it increases crime. So, I I think the dealerships, and Casey might

have to chime in on this, but the the dealerships are fairly low crime uh operations. Do you mind going back one slide or forward? You have crime details that I missed. Uhhuh. Sorry, keep go back up. Uh right there. Yep. So we we did look at that um just on a general basis with dealerships on average and you can see that the police calls dealerships on the last line there um substantially less than others.

Yeah. And and the thing is my my daughter lives in a town home in West Haven and they were so excited to move into this town home when they got it. They actually got it for a pretty good deal and and they moved in. They've been there for 5 years. They have one kid and they're dying to get out. There's no storage. There's no space. They're it's loud. You know, they're they're like, you know, kid can't sleep because of all the traffic and all that kind of stuff. And, you know, people see I I can't even imagine me wanting my kid to move into a town home for a transient five years, you know? I mean, if they can get a home, which I've been trying, you know, if you get a home and a yard and all that kind of stuff, I'd be all over that. But, you know, I just I think this just fits fits Riverdale. It fits the spot. Um, and and I was here when Brad was who's the realtor, you know, presented the vision, you know, so I would be in favor of I had one other comment just to be clear. Some of the discussion on on Facebook talked about the commercial creeping into our neighborhoods and I think we still have a pretty hard line at 4,400. We have plans for they're planning to build um town homes or something across from Champion on that small piece. Um so I think we still have that hard line to because I we don't want the commercial to creep in. We always want to keep that line. But yeah, I think you're great. And this is a great slide, man. The water is uh crazy. The police calls, the estimated water and sewer. Um yeah. Anyway, that's a great slide. Just one more quick thing. CarMax is regional. This this isn't like another dealership kind of thing. Um it's like when Tesla came in and everybody was like, "Whoa, Tesla's coming in here." CarMax is regional. You're not going to put one in Leighton and Brigham City. And I mean, they're they're a regional operation where they just don't, you know, build

them on every corner. And I mean, it's a it's a really an opportunity for Riverdale to have it here just like Trader Joe's and things like that. Councelor Stevens, sorry, he raised his hand. Um I just need to step out for a few minutes to catch my breath if that's okay. I did have some comments, but I can probably share them on the next part because you're all doing great. Okay. Okay. Councelor Stevens, you got a comment. It is a little warm in here, but it is very warm. What's going on with the

Anyway, the a couple of things here. I'm one of the things when we first moved here 30 plus years ago is the the car dealerships versus the the box stores. Now, I'm a process kind of person. And do you want car dealerships that are low traffic, high dollar, or do you want a a box store which is high traffic, low dollar? And you know, we've got the box stores, but we don't, you know, when I say dealerships, I'm talking about a, you know, Ken Garf has done a lot because, um, car manufacturers want a certain their brand to be represented a certain way. Now, I'm going to share something. Um my we we patronized CarMax here in the last year and I just thought okay I've seen it down it was at one down in Draper just off the freeway I think at about 106 South and the more we got involved with them and I learned their business model. They really have a an interesting business model that's different than than what you've because we actually um my wife found a car. We had been looking for a particular model, particular car, and it was in Arizona and we paid the $200 or she got online, paid the $200, had it shipped up to Salt Lake and then we went to Salt Lake. Now, we we weren't obligated to to get it, but they brought it up to Salt Lake and and so I went through that facility and they had a big area in the back because they have a very large inventory that's advertised nationally that they move stuff. And so, you know,

you can move you can buy something in California and have it shipped up here and if it works for you, hey, great. Now, you're going to pay low for the shipping. But it was it was unbelievable that experience. They don't haggle. That's the price and it's very fair priced and it was a good quality and I I consider it a very good experience and the business model is like he mentioned it was it's it's unique and it's regional and it's actually a good citizen for our community. Um I everything I learned about it and read about it because I was kind of taken by their their whole business model. It's very different. Um in a good way. Good way. Much like Tesla has their own business model. This is a national company that has its own business model and it's a good fit for that location. My only my only beef and take this back. It's not big enough. It needs to you need to occupy the corner and expand your inventory because and and when you said you were doing 33 a month

100 sales per month equates to about 33 million in annual. Okay. That is a very large number of you know for a one acre lot or two acre smaller lot doesn't do anywhere near that. they maybe do 20. I mean, so that's a huge number. Um, that is going to benefit us tremendously. Anyway, I'm very much in favor of it. Council Hansen, do you want to make comments now or wait till the next item? Since I'm here, let's do it now.

Get my oxygen up a little if I talk. Um, I just wanted to say I thought the planning commission did a great job watching that meeting and it was exactly what I think we've all been hoping to see like the thought that they put into it, the study. Um, it was just really thoughtful and exactly what you would want a planning commission to do to look at to look at that plan and make decisions based off of that those guiding documents that the council helped put into place. So, I just thought they did a really good job and I think even they pointed out that um that whether it was transitional highdensity housing or more of a passive commercial that it would be a good transition for the area. And that's how I feel about it, too. And I know it's hard. A lot of people have said they don't want to see more car dealerships, but it's it's such a great thing for cities just because of the low impact on infrastructure. You can see even with the police calls um for what you get in return, it's just such a beneficial thing to have. And the location, I think I think the hardest part about the location is that it has a hard history that us on the council, I don't think all of us were here when those decisions were made or what happened. And you have to take people at their word when they're the property owner when the council makes decisions. And so it's hard um to have that history, but I think we as a current council have to look at what is in the best interest of the city now and what's being presented. And having worked where CarMax is located in Utah before and been part of the public works team as it was constructed and for a lot of years after it was there, it was a great company to have in the city and to work with. And um I don't remember any any negative feedback at all even during ironically the development process. So which is

unique. Um and so I would say the other thing is we do have other car lots that border residential. I grew up in the neighborhood with one of our oldest car lots that's still there. It was Peterson's at the time. I think it's Ken Garf now. And I grew up in that neighborhood right behind it where it's the car lot and the parking lot and then our neighborhood. And it's a quiet neighbor to be honest. I don't other than when I was really young they had a loudspeaker but they also had free hot dogs on Saturdays. So they got a lot of neighborhood kids at the time. Um, and so I do think it is a good a good transitional business to have where we want to protect our residential neighborhood. And by having that there and then with town houses or what whatever multifamily housing we get in right across the street, that will help us transition and keep our neighborhood protected going north. And I just think there's a lot of benefit to that. The hard part that I had with the apartments when when it got tabled this last time they came in is they didn't have enough parking. And I did read all the comments on Facebook to get a better idea of where people were coming from. And I think what they didn't realize is there was 70 to 100 cars that wouldn't have had anywhere to park. and they would have had to have gone up 700 or down 4,400 because no parking was allowed right next to the lot. And the impacts that would have had on all of the residents up and down the road and especially the care facility who has to put out normal garbage cans, that would have just been an impossible situation for everybody. It was I would have loved to have seen that work out, but they just couldn't they couldn't make the parking work so

that it wouldn't have those negative impacts. And I think although this isn't what we anticipated or we never would have changed the zoning in the first place, I think that there's a lot of benefits to move this direction and it kind of protects the city from running into a future legal risk of having that parking fight um on behalf of protecting the neighborhoods from having to deal with that in 4400. So based off of all that, um I do really appreciate the planning commission and I think this is just one of those rare moments where because of the additional experience and information we have from working through this process on this side of it and knowing that there's a lot more opportunity that we're hoping for in the future for multifamily housing in the city. I think that it's a safe move for the city.

Very good. Thanks. They have hot dogs on Saturday. No, we're not. We're not doing that. Going to the break room. We're not going there. Uh I am excited to see them sign up to be a sponsor of our old glory days. Uh we are the kind of the big uh Fourth of July celebration in Wever County. So we'll be coming out and reaching out to you. We have many businesses that sponsor things and so uh do have lots of opportunities for community involvement. So I think we're headed the right direction though. So, uh, with that, uh, anybody want to make a motion on item number six? Yes. Councelor Arnold. Councelor Hansen. Or, uh, anything else from, um, Councelor Anderson? Anderson. There we go. No, I think I'm good. Thank you. Okay.

Okay. Councelor Arnold, I would move to approve resolution 2026-10 amending the Riverdale City general plan to modify the future land use map from attached residential to commercial um from property located at 671 West, 4,400 South using the um findings that Mr. Cooper has in his presentation. There you go. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. motion in a second. Any discussion on that motion? Okay. Yes. Yes. Okay. So, what was that at the end that was in the in the motion based on

if you could bring up Brandon's findings uh towards the end. Forward. Right. Yep. Forward. Forward. Um right there. Right there. One more. Yep. Yep. Right. Their staff findings. Oh, and how did you word that in there? based on Brandon's findings in his presentation. So, we include those as the findings of fact. That's what we're looking for. Yeah, we need the substance meat and potatoes there. So, yep, that works. When somebody has an issue with it, they have to read those exact words. I'm with you. And with it being there, then it's also in your packet as well. Okay. Okay. Uh, any other discussion on the motion?

Will you pull the council, Miss Nay? Council Yes. Council, yes. Council Arnold, yes. Council member Steven, yes. Yes. Okay. Uh, that passes unanimously. We'll move on to item number seven, consideration of ordinance 104 amending the Riverdale City zoning map to modify zoning from R4 multif family residential to C3 commercial for the same property. Anything you want to add, Mr. Cooper? Um, we've talked a lot about it. Uh let's flip through the slides just real quick. We have talked a lot about We've talked a lot about it. I don't think there's anything um additional on the zoning if you

was properly noticed. Um yep is properly noticed. Um again the planning commission because they provided a a negative recommendation on the general plan amendment then they didn't um provide a they also provided a negative uh recommendation for the reszone. So those two things are consistent. And just to clarify, the lot across the street on the north side that will remain as R5 or R4. R4. That's R5. Yeah, R5. Yeah. Did they take action on this? I thought they just didn't do anything. They took action. Oh, they did.

Yeah. Yep. So, negative recommendation. Um, so yeah, I don't think there's anything here. Same approval standards. If you go uh a couple of slides, you'll see the findings on this one. Um, one more. Uh, keep going. There's the site plan. This will come back as a site plan amendment to the planning commission or excuse me, a site plan application to the planning commission and the city council. So, you'll have a chance to provide some input on the actual site plan elements that's not under consideration tonight. Can I ask a question?

Um, does CarMax own that own the land or is it a developer? It's uh still owned by the previous developer of the approved multif family. Was it Welch or Chris? It's a conglomerate of folks. Okay. But um but is is CarMax buying the whole lot? That's right. And so when you're when we're talking five only what three and a half acres is going to be car and then you go back one please.

So there's the proposed site plan um as it stands tonight. This hasn't gone through formal review or anything like that. Okay. So, we're talking the whole lot even though only a portion is going to be the car dealership. Then the portion is going to be that's yet to be determined because a site plan application has not been made. Right. Okay. But it's still we're just talking the whole general. This is a concept map for the whole site. There's no subdivision. Thank you. That was where I was going.

Yep. Uh let's keep going a couple. So, we have the findings up. So, there was the planning commission recommendation and there's our findings there. So, uh I'll leave it on this one and and uh turn it back to the council. Council Arnold, do we have a time frame when you get started if this is approved?

Yeah. So, our construction time frame is about 13 months once we actually start construction. Um I will say that in the development agreement that we are agreeing to sign as part of this we are agreeing to have to pull our uh development permits within 36 months of the effective date of the application or I'm sorry of the uh signature which would be you know today or the week coming up. So we would have to pull those within 3 years and then obviously we would need to construct or potentially lose those rights. Um, I will say that the construction schedule is usually uh pretty locked in for a couple years from this point forward just because we've got a lot of stuff going across the nation. Um, there are certain build obligations, there's certain site plans expiring. So, it is possible that we could start construction in the next 2 years or so. Um, but at the absolute worst case, it would be after we pull those development agreement or the uh permits at the end of that 36 months. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I think that was my question on the 36 months. What was what was the delay there? And you just because you've got stacked up projects. Is that That's exactly right. That's exactly right. Yep. Okay. Any other questions? So, it can sit there for almost 5 years. So as we currently have it negotiated um we would have to pull within the 36 months and that would start uh as of when we sign it. So exactly exactly 18 months after that. So it could be

13 months after that. I would be surprised if we take the entire extent of that time frame just personally. This is an area that we really want to locate in. We think we're going to do well here. So, we do have the flexibility as it's negotiated to wait that full time frame, but I would be surprised if we took that whole time frame. That was uh Yeah. Okay. We hope to see it more sooner than that. So, sure. Yeah, of course.

Okay. Good question. So, if I could So, is if this is approved, is CarMax going to be buying it or are they is it stuff still somebody else and then they lease it? Uh, no. It's a it's a acquisition. It is. Okay. Exactly. Yeah. And you're acquiring the whole parcel. That's correct. Okay. Any other questions? Okay. We would need a motion. We get back to you within 36 months. He's on one tonight.

Anyone you need findings? Yeah. They're on the screen. You you could do the same thing and refer to those. All right. Consider um make a motion to approve the ordinance uh 0004 amending the Riverdale City zoning map to modify zoning from R4 multifamily residential to C3 commercial for property located at 671 West 4,400 South with in in regards to the findings in Mr. Cooper's presentation. Okay.

Mayor, can I add one thing? We do have a substitute ordinance uh for this. Um so the ordinance that's in the packet had some information in the first paragraph that um as after some discussion with uh councelor Hansen we found to be irrelevant. So I just changed that basically omitting the consultant's name and just um including CarMax's name. So uh you would want to make reference in the motion to the substitute ordinance if you find that appropriate. Okay. So this ordinance is in front of us. It has been modified

in addition to for ordinance uh 104 u this as in referencing the substitute ordinance that was modified. Okay. We have a motion. We have a second. I'll second the motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? Councelor Arnold, can

we make it subject to I mean I know the site plan would be subject to any approval when it comes in, but to any ordinances that are changed between now and 49 months of not saying you're going to drag your feet, but that you know the people lost their homes in that area. I mean, rough rough homes. I I understand, but you know, it's uh it's a a vacant field that has gotten a lot of uh

Okay. publicity. Well, we're just being, you know, we go over the vi and like I said, it is Riverdale and what is it? It's it's a wiped out trailer court kind of thing and it's just been a little bit of an issue. So, um this action is for just a general reasonzone. think that question is more appropriate in the next item with the development agreement. So I'll explain what the development agreement doesn't doesn't do and and um and then maybe that is a better spot to talk about that. Okay. Okay. Any other comments? All right. Will you please pull the council miss?

Council. Yes. Council member. Yes. Yes. Council, yes. Council, yes. Okay, that passes. Very good. Let's move on to item number eight, consideration of resolution 2026-11 approving an agreement for the development of land for the development of a project at 671 West, 4400 South, Mr. Cooper.

Okay, so this is where I think your questions become relevant. Um, so this is a an agreement that is in response to um concerns from this council and past councils that and what you're alluding to tonight is that when you take action to reszone a property in exchange for a future commitment and that future commitment doesn't come but you've based that decision of reszone on what's been provided to you in terms of concept plans and other things. um this is a protection for the council to understand what that expectation is going to be for that duration of time. So as mentioned this basically lays out the um the steps in which the applicant in this case CarMax would acquire all of the development permits. So that's is a number of permits site plan approval there's a conditional use approval they have to get all the signets approved the uh building plans approved. So those are classified in the agreement as development per permits. um they have 36 months as mentioned to obtain those development permits. And if they don't, then whatever uh rights were given to them in the action that was just taken can be and would be um uh lost and the council would then have the ability to um to reszone the property at at their discretion within that 36 months. Um it does set out a few concepts in terms of what the expected site plan would look like. So it does talk about um being consistent with what you've seen tonight, but it doesn't uh it doesn't prevent any flexibility of the council or the staff review to have something that is going to be um different than what you've seen tonight. So for instance, uh we haven't worked out utilities, right? There's no utilities

on the concept map. Um there's no landscaping. I think there was a small landscaping diagram that was shown, but none of that's been worked out. So there is some discretion there still in the um issuance of the development permits. Uh but it does just outline that process. So you've already taken action on the reszone. This is not um the reszone is not subject to this document. It's just a protection for the council. It can be renegotiated. It could be scrapped in its entirety if you don't feel it's necessary. But this was something to help the council feel comfortable that your action tonight is going to produce something that's desirable instead of just leaving that property zoned as commercial for and in the case that they may fail in their transaction um with the property owner. Now you have a commercially zoned property that could be something other than a car dealership.

Very good. Thank you for the for the explanation and the protection. Is there a way I know we have to list that as a may I know a lot of that is on the staff and on the council to remember. Is there a way to hold ourselves more accountable so we don't miss that opportunity so that it's brought back up as soon as we know the development may not move forward on the reszone because that's the issue. But I I think we've missed it in the past and it has caused issues where then a new buyer's come in behind them with something different. And I'll take that responsibility when I sign up for Medicare in the future. We'll jump on board and remind everybody that Allen signed up for Medicare and CarMax is supposed to be going.

Um, councelor Anderson had a power outage and he's trying to rejoin. So, I don't know if there's anything you can do to help with that, uh, Miss Nay, but, uh, anything. He's currently off. In answer to that, Annie, we we we'll go ahead and make sure we get that calendar and keep that in Brandon's department, so we keep a better eye on that. Councelor Rick.

Yeah, I was just going to be in support of that. I mean, it's the once bitten, twice shy model here that we've been down this road that we have plans and we think we know where we're going and then the the wheels fall off. And so, uh, I appreciate that. Thank you. I am uh really excited to have them come in. I think we're excited to get on the road with this and uh I think we're a little bit surprised. We were probably thinking that it was going to occur a little more quickly. Um and and hopefully it will. Um so anything we can do to to spur that along. Um maybe we need to put something in there where they have to serve hot dogs every Saturday until they break ground or something. Free hot dogs every Saturday until the ground is broken. You know, get one of those special hats that

Yeah. I mean, get some motivation, some teeth. We want a wiener. We want some teeth. Yeah, but they have to bring in a water slide every summer until it's the ring's broken. But anyway, no. Uh, anything else, Mr. Cooper? Um, a little birdie just mentioned uh a good idea there. There isn't anything right now in terms of maintenance of the property and the duration. Uh, so that could be something that could be imposed in the agreement. Uh, we haven't talked about that, but um, certainly that's up to you. And I think that's a good suggestion by Sean. I think it's great. Yeah, I think that would be a big concern because it was before. It just kind of rubs salt in the wound for everybody about the housing being removed when it's in bad repair.

I'm assuming the land transaction would take place fairly quickly from tonight's action and there would be a gap between ownership and development. That's correct. Yeah. So, really quick. Yeah, please come up. So, we will be closing on the property after the finalization of the site plan review. So, it's probably going to be another three or four months or so, but then we would be the fee owners of the property um until development. Yep. Good idea. So, we'll get something in there about maintenance then. Yeah. So, in your motion as you approve uh the resolution, I would just add um something like that. Give staff direction and we'll make that happen. Okay. Is that okay?

Yeah. Yeah. Councelor Arnold move to approve resolution 2026-11 approving an agreement for the development of the land for the development of a project at 671 West 4400 South for CarMax um with an amendment to have staff monitor and come up with some sort of land maintenance agreement while uh this project is And I was going to say limbo, but in in development. Pending development. Pending development. Okay.

Yeah. We'll we'll include some language that um requires certain maintenance standards within the time frame period. Perfect. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on this motion? Councelor Anderson, are you back with us? I'm back. Okay, that's good. Very good. Uh thanks for your diligence tonight. Um, okay. Miss Nay, will you please pull the council? I'm sorry. What? Yes. Council member Steven. Yes. Arnold. Yes. Yes. Council member Richard. Yes.

Oh, great. Okay. Well, there we go. We got through that item and uh those three items. So, that's very good. Thank you. And thank you for being here. I know some of you traveled quite some distance, so thank you. Um, we'll be watching the sundial.

No, seriously, we appreciate your cander and being honest on that time frame. It's we're we're kind of not used to hearing that far out. In fact, because when somebody is, you know, they want to do a development, they usually are pretty quick or quicker to get going on it, but and so it it takes a breath away a little bit to hear when you say, you know, multiple months. And so,

totally understand. Yeah. I would say it's more just the scope of us as a company and how many projects we have going on all the time. um and the obligation to build them with the other, you know, council meetings that we have have to build by a certain time, have to pull your permits by a certain time. So, a lot of times they get locked in for a certain period. But we're very excited to get open there. Well, most of our retail stores and outlets in Riverdale lead the nation in in their sales. So, just keep that in mind and you you want to get that flagship store open as soon as you can. All right. Thanks. Thanks. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Let's get going. Uh number nine, motion to untable and consideration of ordinance 999 regarding proposed text amendments to Riverdale City Code Title 10 Chapter 22 Planned Residential Unit Development PU. Uh we tabled this uh on 120 last. Mr. Cooper, could we make I'll make the motion to untable. Okay, we have a motion to untake. Uh all in favor say yes. Yes.

All right, that motion is untr. Okay, we can go as quickly or as slowly as you want on this. We've uh talked about this a number of times as you've mentioned. Uh if you recall, we met on the uh 10th of February in a work session and discussed it. Um there I thought that was a great discussion. I did get one um email with comments back from councelor Richtor. Thank you for that. Um, so in the packet I I don't I won't go through these slides again unless you have some questions about that, but in the packet I've I've given you the revised uh PD overlay zone um language with some of the um comments that were received both from uh that meeting and uh councelor Richtor's email. So in the gray, these are changes that have been made since you've seen this last. And and essentially what I've done in the first um section there in the title is there's a couple of ways to deal with these type of things. I'm suggesting that we do this as an overlay zone based on your comments last meeting in terms of the process and how the council gets uh involved and stays involved in some of these projects. So an overlay zone is a legislative uh action. So, if this was to be applied to a project either um uh in response to an application or proactively from the council, which we you can do and the general plan actually encourages you to look at properties in the city and and place this overlay zone on top of them. Um either way, uh it would act as a secondary um layer of regulation on top of the base zone and that would be your your action to do solely with recommendation from the planning commission. Uh so if you go in par uh section one,

Mr. Huber, can we can we advance our slides a little bit and and I'm just going Yep. I'm just going strictly off of the uh red line. Red line. Yep. this document. Can we get to there do you think or No, I didn't put it in the slides because it's 14. Oh, it's not in the slides. I got you. Okay. So, if you have this in the packet and you can pull it up. Gotcha. Um, that would be the best. So, in uh section 46. Oh, thank you. There we go.

Section 1D. Um, I've just added some additional um descriptions of the purpose for why we would have this. And uh uh Councelor Arnold, you've mentioned on a number of occasions um your disappointment in certain developments after they've been approved and then you've seen them in real life. This is meant to solve that. This is meant to give the uh council um the most discretion that you would have in any project. And so using the overlay zone to uh to the benefit of um what you actually want to see is um is what its purpose is. Um section two, this is in response to your uh one of your comments uh councelor Richter. Um what's the administrative land use authority and what do they approve? So in this case um I've just followed with what we normally do with our land use applications. We've made the administrative land use authority the planning commission and kept any legislative actions to the city council. So that's um standard. In fact, uh Shaylee, do you mind advancing the slide? I do have one on this because this is a big change. There you go. That one. Can everyone see that? Okay. Turned out a little fuzzy. So I wanted to draw the process for you visually so that you would see not only how things typically work but how this process would work if a if a plan development um request came to you. So the project would be initiated and the applicant would contact the community development office as would be the typical situation. Um this second step where applicant meets with the design review committee uh that is a change that I'm proposing both in this document it calls it out as well as we'd have to make another change in another part of our code where it defines the DRC I'm suggesting that we

add to the DRC so backing up right now the DRC is mostly architectural in nature so the mayor meets on that committee I think the chair of the planning commission myself Mr. Brooks and it's early on in the development review process and it's solely looking at architectural um elements, materials, colors, scale, signage, landscaping, those kind of things. I'm proposing as part of this process and if you look on I don't have a page number but it would be section 9B. I'm proposing that the um or actually it's 9 uh A. I'm proposing that the design review committee is made up of um the people who are actually doing the review. So it' be myself, it'd be uh Mr. Woody, Mr. Douglas, the police, fire, uh the people who are doing the review, as well as the mayor, a member of the planning commission, and a member of the council. So that would be a a committee that meets when the development application um was still in its concept form before submitt. Um once we had that meeting then the second meeting could then be what's now defined as the architectural review committee which is that initial meeting that I described with those members. So it would be a smaller group of the same people. So they would be looking at just architectural elements. We could combine those two and make it all just one design review uh committee or we could call it the development re review committee, whatever works. Um but essentially it's a committee made up of someone from the council. That's the big change that allows you to provide input to the application before it becomes a formal application. So once that happens, then the application is submitted. It goes to staff for our

typical review. We go uh in the in that circle there where our comments are submitted to the applicant. They resubmit with revisions. We review it. It just goes in that circle until we get a final application. And then from that final application, we would follow the standard process that we typically do for legislative versus administrative documents. So in this case you would have seen it instead of um coming from the planning commission to you for the very first time at least one of you or two of you would have seen it at the very early stage of the pro process. And so that allows now that person or those people to report back to the council about what that process or that project entails and potentially get feedback that then could be infused into the review process. Um, so it's a it's a departure of what we've been doing, but I think it's a good way for um for the project to end up with with everybody's comments as early on as possible because we'll eventually be getting to a point where a development agreement is representing that project and it would have everybody's uh voice into it. So, you can see there that nothing's really changed. Uh text amendments are still recommended from the planning commission as an administrative action to the council for for a legislative action. Map amendments, general plan amendments, um overlays. So again, this would be an overlay. So it would come to you um so you could potentially have multiple actions in one night on the same project. If you if the general plan wasn't jing with the proposal, you'd do that as a legislative action. You could do a reszone, then you could do an overlay, and then you could do a site plan. So all of those would be at your discretion. You'd have um adequate say or input into the project. And with this new proposal, you would have it at earlier than you'd ever have it has have

had it before. Um you would still retain legislative authority over the um final subdivision plat for commercial and mixed use. Uh the subdivision plat for single family homes and town homes do not come to you. That's a legislative statute from the state. Um that's that's the case now. This document doesn't change that. We're just following that process. Uh but you would see commercial and mixed use. You'll still see the final site plan and then you would see the development agreement which is what this revision really is getting to is that there's a development agreement that is outside the bounds of the base zone that is essentially negotiated between the council and the applicant. but is meant to be um uh collaborated on throughout the whole review process even before. So that's kind of a general overview. That's mostly what these gray changes are. So you're looking at paragraph three that goes over the legislative um process. And so councelor uh Richtor, I did include your comments, but in different ways.

I was I I think I captured or I think I saw where you captured most of them. I might have a couple of questions, but but yeah, thank you. Yep. Um, and then the planning commission comments are still there in yellow. Uh, the the biggest one was um in in section two. Wow.

Section six um 6B under desirable amenities. uh that was um their comment was to make sure that any amenities that were uh coordinated and collaborated on got into the first phase and were dealt with um upfront. So we could read this uh paragraph by paragraph if you want to or we can leave it at that and I'll answer any questions. Council Rich Victor, ju just one question. Part of part of my comments were trying to understand better about the minor versus major changes in the amendments section. So I think it's section 11. Yep. And I took that out.

I Yeah. Tell me about that. Give me your thought process behind that. After I looked at this um I felt that uh given some comments that I've heard from you all uh and the fact that we already have an amendment process through the site plan, I just left it alone. And so any amendments that would come after an approved document would come back to the council. minor major. So, so kind of get rid of the minor that could be done and just come. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. It's a little bit more ownorous, but I felt like that's the feedback that I heard from you all that you wanted to be participating at every level even when the changes are happening. So, I think that's the appropriate way. Very good. Thank you.

Any other comments? I think someone else was maybe gonna Did you have something, Council Hansen, or

Um, not really. I think you did address my main concerns, which was the council, you know, losing control of when there's um exceptions made to like parking requirements, you know, any of that kind of stuff where we may have some major concerns or conflicting priorities from other, you know, from staff or from even the planning commission. So, I think I've never I've never seen it work this way on this type of a development, but I think there does have to be a lot of participation for it to be as successful as it's really intended to be. Um, and so it makes sense to have this kind of level of interaction and process. So, I think it's probably worth a try until we see if it doesn't work.

It does require more participation on you all. So, someone would have to be in addition to the mayor participate in those early meetings. Um, it it will be revised again, I'm sure, as we get through it and as we incorporate it into our comprehensive update that you'll be seeing in the next few months. So, it's not 110% perfect yet. So, bear with me on that. But, it is good enough, I think, to to get us started. Um there might be and I haven't captured it on this uh flowchart but there might be situations where we actually have discussions with the planning commission um which we don't do a lot of so we would bring to them the the concept plans get their feedback and then it would go back to the process of review and then it might come to the council as a discussion and then it might have to go back to the planning commission. So there's there's some back and forth that may happen, but this isn't going to be applied to every new development in the city. This is one to four potential opportunities that we have that we talked about in our last meeting. So I don't think this is going to be um everything we do, but it will be very valuable when we do need it. I appreciate you listening to our feedback trying to make the changes and uh I think we've not not always but we have ended up with some something occasionally that we were not thrilled with

and and I so I think we're trying to remedy that council Arnold. So, I I tried to look at my problems with this stuff and uh and I've expressed that I have a problem with this stuff, right? Um so I I went down to Riverwalk. Is that right? Well, River Glenn River Well, River Well, I think well, yeah, River Chick-fil-A behind behind behind the abomination, I think you called it.

Something like that. Um and I and I thought, you know what? Um what what was what is my problem? Um, I mean, I've really tried to look at it and, um, one of them BART solved with a request. Um, we didn't put it in the motion. We didn't put it in the requirements or anything like that, but BART said, "It would be really nice if you would do that." And they said, "Oh, yeah. We'll do that. Put the fencing on the public streets." And end of story. you know, they're they were amaniable to it. Um BART's request was put out. It wasn't put as a mandate or anything like that. And so I would like to see anything with this the um this type of development, any of these developments, even um subdivisions that put uh fencing along public streets. to to have fencing one fencing on public streets where you know if if River well

well river well walked river well I walked I walked river well

um if we would have had that fencing along there like they have on 1900 in Roy I don't know if I would have a problem with it you know because we there was so much discussion about the police along that road right there and you know putting red paint is only as good as enforcement. And then we put one more thing and that was part of the discussion is they didn't want to enforce that. Um the second thing is the care of the growth. Um I mentioned it when we were talking about gold crust. You know they haven't finished that on the the 1050 side of the fencing with that. And there's trees starting to grow up. It's not just weeds and things, but there's actual trees starting to grow up in the sidewalk. And if you look at River Glenn along uh Parker Drive, it's a mess on the other side. People don't look on the other side of the fence that they do have responsibility for that, you know, you you hit it. I I've been taking care of Rudder Drive on uh Coleman Farms now. This is this will be my fifth year and everybody knows it's because my wife it's just easier for me to take care of it than listen to it every time we go by.

And and so as a resident. Yeah, as a resident. Yeah, I have a resident that that I

that I really like. Um, so so to to care for these things, to have fencing along public streets, once you get in there, I don't even notice the the parking stalls that they shaved. You know, they they had to make it work. When I go in there, I don't it doesn't bother me once we're in the development. It's when we're outside the development. So, the fencing is I I would like to see all of them along public streets have a safety fence. That's a cool one like on 1900. I love that care. We can do that with our code enforcement guy, right? I mean, we can consider it overgrowth and and have people take care of that. And then I have a problem with field changes. Um having in River Well, you know, you change the fence and they they took advantage of it. They're like, "Yeah, we don't want to do that. We want to do something less than." And it's like, "Yeah, okay. Let's do it." And and I think it puts a burden on the people that are going to surround that area. And so what I've realized is I don't have a problem with the developments. I have a problem when it spills out onto the public for whatever, you know, the HOA problems and things like that. And that's why I have a problem with the HOAs is because Richmond American Homes, it's a college fund for their kids or something because they're not spending the money that they're getting on the the stuff for that. You know, 40 people, 40 homes pay into that homeowners association and they can't tell you who the homeowners association is, the the people who live there. And they're like, we would take it over if we could, but we don't know how. And so anyway, those are just the three things that I would like to see in this that when people do uh plan development that they're fenced in on the public streets that we have something that we're saying, you know, they they look good. They're they just

don't have over the grow overgrowth and when we make a change. Sorry. No, you're more important than I am. So, not really. Let's just add in there. Come on up. Really out of context, but we'll just throw it in here. So, we have been kind of hitting those fences you're talking about with code enforcement as we're talking about fences and barriers. If we're going to mandate that stuff that you're wanting to do, let's mandate a mo strip underneath the fence, which prevents the vegetation from growing onto the city side. It keeps the vegetation on the property owner side and it'll eliminate a lot of work for my code enforcement and make it look a lot better. Oh, great. So, I mean, just input

having these having these little things in the ordinance that when somebody comes in and they say, you know, on on the public street, we're going to have a decorative fence that isn't a white plastic thing, you know, that's the the rot iron that that Bart suggested that they were like, "Yeah, you bet. That sounds great. That would have been great." And care for it. That's us. And then just the field changes saying, "You know what? I I think it's fine. I I think we should negotiate, you know, if they say, "Hey, we're going to put a smaller rail fence in versus a six-foot solid fence," it's like, "What are you giving us, you know?" Well, anyway,

yeah. Um, so just some thoughts on that, uh, if I may. Yeah.

So, I think the changes that we've made with your feedback thus far accomplishes most of, if not all of those things, except for the fence, and I'll explain that in just a minute. So, the HOA um as far as the the PD overlay, it does this doesn't apply to every HOA. We'll fix that in the comprehensive part, but in terms of a a PD overlay, it it corrects some of the problems that I think we've all seen with HOAs. They're a massive, massive problem, not just in Riverdale, but everywhere. So, that seeks to to um correct some of that. Um, in terms of the regulation, um, or excuse me, the, uh, field changes, we've taken all that out. So, any amendment to a PD overlay development agreement would come back to you to you, even if it's a fence change. So, again, little ownorous, more process, but that's what you've requested. So, I we fix that.

Um, regarding the regulation, so as you've learned, a suggestion is not enforceable, right? Um, and as developers, they're going to only do what you regulate them to do. So, my goal and my suggestion has been and will continue to be to create the policy that you want to see. Right now, we don't have that. What you see in your mind and what you want to have happen in the field is not reflected in our policy in most cases. And we can only regulate to policy. we can only as we do our reviews and as we make ask them to make corrections, we can only do it to the level that you all determine through regulation and policy. So if you're getting what something that you don't want, it's because the policy isn't um facilitating that. We're going to try to correct a lot of that with our comprehensive update because I I agree with that. We're not getting the standards that we um think we want because there's nothing that would require that. The PD overlay allows you to to negotiate that and to collaborate with the developer on key pieces of land that are important that we get absolutely right that we don't have good enough regulation for right now. So I think it solves every one of your problems.

Council Arnold,

one more issue. Um I think we we got to have speed. We we can't have, you know, city council meetings on all of this stuff. I don't think developers can wait two weeks and if we cancel a meeting, oh, we're just going to have a meeting for to review a fence or something like that. So, somehow legally we we've got to figure out how we can allow the developers to move forward with um I don't know, consensus, you know, here's an email, everybody, you know, vote or something like I'm legally I don't know how we can do that. Well, we have a public meeting and all that kind of stuff, but we've got to make it so they can move. We can't we can't hog tie them for weeks on end because we're waiting to do something. So, I mean, if we can take a look at that somehow.

So, I agree with that to a certain extent, but I think if they're coming to you for a change on something that you've already approved, they have to spend a little time and kind of wait for you to get together because they're asking for a change. It's not like we're slowing them down. They're asking for deviation. And I think that if you guys want to review it and you want to make them changes, that's one of the conditions they're going to have to wait for if they want to change. Like, I get it. We're all in a hurry. We want to get it done, but we've already gave them approval for that. And if they're coming back and saying, "Hey, we want to change what you gave us." They need to wait for you to make that change. Like I think if you don't do that, you're going to be back in the situation where you're at now where you feel like we're making field changes that you didn't have review on. That's just my opinion and that's one of the things I was working with with Brandon trying to get it to where you guys can do that and then if it's a change, you know, you guys knew it, you guys was on board with it. I hate them asking me to make a field change because I'm making a decision for you guys that I don't feel like that should be my job. I would rather you guys make it and then you're comfortable with it and you're not looking down on me for making a change that you didn't approve. So I think if they're asking for it in a way they can they have they have to have the ability to wait the two weeks to get back to you.

100% agree that was the very point of a lot of the changes and things that we did so that it would come back and we look at it and and I'm comfortable with a couple of week uh delay as as needed. So I appreciate I appreciate this overall change from the PRUD to the PD. I think this is a modernization that had to happen. And I think it gives us a lot more flexibility to address all of the issues that uh councelor Arnold and the other uh counselors here have have indicated. I I'm incredibly supportive and appreciate the effort uh on this. I know it's taken some time, but I think it's going to be well worth it. I appreciate it. Okay. Anybody else?

Councelor Anderson, you still with us? think you might be on mute if you're with us. He texts me when he gets when he goes off but and on. Here we go. All right. Any comments, questions? No, we reviewed that when um when I was on the planning commission and so I felt like it addressed a lot of the concerns that I had. Okay. With that, we need a motion to approve ordinance 999.

Looking move to approve ordinance 999, an ordinance uh of the Riverdale City Council amending title 10 chapter 22 plan residential unit development pub of the Riverdale City Code. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? I I would like to have my fencing thing added in there somehow, have some fencing along public streets. And doesn't the overlay zone allow us to do that to every single development as as we want or

Yeah, maybe I wasn't clear. So, part of the reason why we're doing this is because our current PRUD code um is meant to be collaborative and and um flexible, but it's actually pretty restrictive because it does just what you're implying. It it requires a number of base zone type of things. Um, so I would say that or I would recommend that you keep that recommendation out of this, but use it as something that you would impose during the collaboration and review process. And I get that, but it that's what happened with the river well. Well,

because because we talked about it, if we don't remember to put it in a motion or put it in, you know, their documents that we approve, then we get the same thing that we got in Riverwell. So now the difference is you would be attending a meeting at the very beginning. I have girls camp sometimes. How do you think you guys got $100,000 in furniture? Your neighbors girls, your neighbors would be attending. What what I think is trying to is it there needs to be something that's just automatic for that for that you know and and I would add the word functional and ornamental fencing

because you know putting up vinyl is kind of tacky but you know the the ornamental type that's functional and sturdy is is where you can still see the front door but it pro protects it so that people don't park and walk up to their door, they have still have to use the entryway. I think that applies like if we're talking about town houses like you're talking about, but this should also tie into commercial development plan developments or even mixed use where we wouldn't want to force a fence under the code like if it's you know the mixed use where maybe it's housing on top but commercial below or you know and so if we put it in there that way it'll demand it even when there might be applications where it wouldn't make sense. Unless we were really really specific about like town houses or encapsulating any types of those kind of developments to require it

multi well I guess if you're talking about having mult mixed use on the bottom and then that on top it would be multi-ousing too. Yeah, cuz like in like if it's a downtown area, you wouldn't want to force the fencing. But I see your point though, like any place like Riverwell.

We will be bringing you a whole new fence section of the ordinance. So getting rid of chain link entirely from the whole city is a proposal we'll be making. Um the use of uh concrete walls, you know, the six-foot concrete pre-cast walls in certain places between residential, commercial, all of those things are going to be recommended. we could include other base zone recommendations um that are mandatory everywhere, but because I agree 100% of what you're saying and that's why I'm recommending you don't include it here, but you do something that can be more of a base zone regulation that isn't univer that is universally applicable instead of um discretionary, which is what this is meant to be. So if we if we pass this now and D comes up and we pass that then they're not subject they're subject to this

but we would have to do the any fencing or something on the development and we've already talked about fencing and it's included. I do have an exception that would come up that may be an example of why you'd wait to do it individually just so you work for enzyme. No no I'm just kidding. They have an exemption about everything. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I'm good. So, if it's something so they'd be under this, right? And if it's something that you think is um important for this project, then it gives you the discretion to require it for this project without requiring it for every other project, which is what I think you would Good discussion. I just can't miss any meetings.

I got you. Okay. Thank you. I will I will make sure that nobody forgets the fence and the m line underneath it. Okay. Any other discussion? Uh we had a second, right? Mhm. Okay. We need to pull the council, Miss Nay, please.

Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. Very good. It's good to get that uh finally worked through. I think we spent a lot of time on that. Uh we'll move on to item number 10, consideration of ordinance 10005 amending the Riverdale city zoning map to modify zoning of approximately 12 acres from community commercial C2 and planned commercial CP2 zones to multifamily residential R5 zone. The property is located at approximately 4268 South 4263 South 550 West Riverdale, Utah. Mr. Cooper. Okay. I have a presentation, but we'll ask uh Mr. Jake Tate, Sean Athie, and De Hansen all together to come up.

All right. And uh give you some background on the proposal. He's the closer. Also, just so you know, we know where it's at.

Perfect. Perfect. I'll just do quickly. I'm Sean Ay. I represent Larry H. Miller Real Estate. Um this property, as D can attest to, has been in Larry H. Miller's ownership portfolio for a while and they've looked at examined a lot of uses over the years um and never found one that quite fit and would work. About three four years ago, Larry H. Miller Real Estate purchased Destination Homes as a home builder with the goal to provide housing for the state of Utah. That was Gail Miller's big push of buying a home building company. And as they brought on destination homes, we were able to come in and start looking at this through a different perspective. and what could we do to provide some housing in a market that truly needs housing. Um, so we've come put a concept plan together with AWA and with D and the whole team and we're proposing that we can reszone this from a commercial use to a multif family use where we can do 81 town home units. Um, so that's the background there. We're we really are trying to fit provide a need. I know town homes aren't always the ideal, but it is an entry- level product for a vast amount of the state of Utah. Um, so we're trying to to hit that need for this area, and we feel like it it is a good place. There's a little hillside there. There's a little mix, but as you step back in there, it it's close to Riverdale Road, so it's good access, but it is has a calmer feeling, too, where we feel like it will be a decent place for people to have a community, which will stay in your community. And that's something that's really important to us as we work through this process with you guys is that we want something. We know we're here to build and sell homes, but that community stays in the community and we need to provide something that will last and that's that's our goal there. So, I'll let Jake talk a little bit more about the concept plan and little more detail about what we're

trying to do here. Shaylee, we have a slide for that if you don't mind advancing. May I? Uh, and Mr. Tate, welcome. Thank you. Good to be back. The the the bane of our existence is a um concept that uh he was just Arnold was just referring to was one that you were involved with. Mhm.

Um but anyway, and so if you would address for me in your presentation because I've been involved with the city for over 20 years and that the property has come up on multiple occasions and one of them couple of things that have is is are the springs on the property and address those in your presentation if you wouldn't mind please if if you've got that and um uh how the height of those units that you're going to be working with. Okay. Thank you. And the no build zone, that's part of that, too. If you can kind of just touch on the safety so we don't have to go back again at the end, that'd be great.

Okay. Sure. And may I just make one recommendation? This is not a site plan discussion. This is the appropriateness of of multifamily here versus commercial. So, I want to just be careful that we don't dive too far into site plan elements and and the and the springs um as we've dealt with that over the years has been a showstopper for you know several uh previous developments and these are always difficult because we're considering a reszone but the site plan really does matter you know I mean it does I was just saying that for Jake he's a sight plan guy I know and and and we want to stay where we're supposed to be in our lane But it's uh it's tough because we we want to know what's going to happen if we reszone it, you know,

right? Cuz it's that's always a dicey process. We've been I I've been involved with the council planning commission well over 20 years and this has come up and it's and we moved but it couldn't h it couldn't come to fruition for a variety of reasons. But anyway, go ahead.

Okay. Thank you. Jake Tate, AWA um here representing Destination Homes and Larry H. Miller. Um so we as mentioned we wanted to just come in in front of you today and present the site plan to go along with the reszone to focus on the appropriateness of uh multifamily here and um the the site itself really kind of lends itself to being a residential property. It is it is set off of Riverdale Road which is your commercial corridor. We heard an a a a presentation earlier today where uh a commercial zone on Riverdale Road was being proposed and and and and may have been a more appropriate use there, specifically on Riverdale, because that's where you want your commercial on your main arteries. And as you pull back from those commercial zones and those commercial businesses on Riverdale, um it's harder and harder to get commercial uses to come in and take that space, especially when you don't have the visibility. you don't you're not people don't know you're there unless they're looking at the gap between a restaurant and and its neighbor. So, um back here is a quiet place where people can can create their home and and have be off the main road but close enough that they could walk and grab lunch or potentially have their their own employment location within a walking distance. So, we're excited to have an opportunity to be here um and to to address we we'll address the springs because that is my main concern here. I think that's the biggest thing. So, um, we have, uh, a series of sub drains that we're going to be putting in, several layers. One at the very top, the trail that goes along the bottom of the plan, which is the east side of the property, we're going to run a subdrain all along there that will be a passive drain with perforations that will take that groundwater and lower it. And then when you come as you move to the west, as you come to the town homes, there'll be another subdrain there as well as a secondary measure before you get to the homes. And then each and every home that is around here, each block will have a subdrain system around its foundation. All these will be piped underground to the north and then collect into the

existing. There is an existing pipe on the north. One of them will go to the south because there's kind of a hump in the middle of the road where some of that goes south, some of that goes north. But every building will have a subdrain system around its foundation. So it is something we're concerned about and we are going to be collecting especially the spring that's on the south side there. It almost sounds like a jet engine. If you go down there in the spring, it's it's coming out of the hill pretty good. Um, we're going to be putting burrito drains. We did several I was in involved heavily in the the ASU retaining wall system and it was the same thing. Water just spewing out of that sidehill. So, we're going to put a series of burrito drains wherever we find those, which is a gravel wrapped sump where the water can collect with a pipe and then be piped out and uh be taken to the city storm drain where it has historically gone where we've collected it. So we have many measures and it is definitely something that is at the forefront of our mind. Um and uh yeah so that's something that we are aware of and we are looking forward to change. Now the one the one situation I was talking about with the fencing here in the in the document here it talks about having it uh on any of the roads facing 550. The only reason I brought that up is because the nine homes that are kind of right I guess I can point over here. So, these nine homes technically front 550, but their front doors are going to be 6 to 8 feet above the road.

So, you're going to have a hillside and then if you put a fence up at the hillside, you're almost making like a little trash area where stuff can collect and it doesn't really serve a purpose there unless it's just to keep people off the sidewalk coming onto the property. So, that was the only reason why I mentioned that is there are probably cases where it doesn't make a ton of sense to have a three-foot fence and then an 8ft slope behind it. So that was just my my point of that comment. So there it might be more appropriate to apply it on a case-byase basis. Um and that was what uh the consideration is. So um yeah the 80 we so it was mentioned the other project. I didn't even know that they changed the fence. That's news to me. So it tells you how much I was involved during the construction of that. They kind of were do the contractor took it and ran. So, um, that's good to know for future to make sure that if there are changes that we're notified and that you guys get notified and happy to be involved in that and making sure whatever we agree to here is what the product you get on the ground. So, happy to be involved in that too. So, any questions? I know we are proposing 56 on-site parking stalls. I know that was a big concern over there. Um is uh more parking which is a little over uh it's I think it's 212 total if you count all the two inside the parking inside each garage. And then 56 surface stalls. So almost uh a little over.5 75. So and whatever the code is with the city we will definitely meet that. So we're happy to provide as much as we can get on there for you.

What's the height of the units? So I think we're limited to three stories. So up to 39 ft. Are you going to use all 39 ft? Um, not I'm not sure if the the secondary one so the one unique thing the the units on the hillside that are the very eastern side are going to be the only threetory product and that's because we're using the basement to transition grade down. Um, so they're going to have a full nine foot basement in them and it's only those ones that are along the hillside because the hills up here and your your walk out on the second floor and then there'll be a basement where you park underneath and those are the only threetory units. All the other ones are two stories. Um, we have an elevation on the next slide, I think.

Yeah. So, uh, two stories is what we're planning on on all the other units. It's really it's really the grade that causes those hillside ones to need that basement. So, I have a question and this is something uh councelor Hansen brought up. I think it was back with Riverwell, but uh it's about the garages and about being able to use the garages. We're counting those as parking. They the new state code, I believe, is 9 by 20. It it grew from 9 by 18. And uh uh is there something that can be done to make sure that those can actually be parked in the garages?

That's always the issue, right? Like I lived in one for 10 years and everybody with two-car garages and especially the one car, they never parked a car in there cuz it was full of stuff. And with these with no driveway, that's a major. It's hard to count those as parking if you know they're never going to use it as parking. Yeah. Well, we have I think they're 20 by 20. Um is it 18 or 20 deep?

20. So they're 20 ft wide and 20 ft deep. So uh that is the hard thing. um you know they tend to become storage and people will have two cars could potentially put them in there and choose to only put one in there and that's that's one of the hard things and it can be addressed through the CCNRs and through the the uh HOA agreements. So those are things that would be under consideration in in this discussion um and that you either fines or you know it's there for for you to use. So just know it's a concern. Yeah. Thank you. Understood. Um, any questions about the the reszone or the the property itself that we haven't addressed?

Am I forgetting? Am I thinking of the wrong one that had the no build zone on it? I thought this was one of them that had a no build zone as you go up the hillside. I don't think it does. I don't know why. I don't remember that, Annie, that it did ever did. Okay, come on up. Annie, the only thing we did on that was almost self-imposed. When we did our geotech studies, the three of them, we said, "Hey, don't go into that because that's where it will slough off." But there was nothing designated on of wreck or anything, was based on our geotech studies. Okay, I'll check into it just to be sure, but I might be mixing it up with Kent Hills thing, but maybe that would likely I thought I thought I remembered it was designated. Where would you find that?

It's usually if a slope is higher than 30%. I mean, it would be recorded pretty steep. Okay. Okay. I think we're It's nothing recorded on it. You haven't seen anything recorded? Not since I started the project in 2014. Right. But I didn't I don't remember anything that's done. Okay. Um, councelor Stevens would be either self-imposed or in in looking at your site plan, you're looks like you're working more in the center center north and you're not using up all the land on the on the south. Is that going to be another development or a phase? Another phase? No, to my knowledge, it's going to remain undeveloped and covered with trees. It's going to be

Okay. Because with the water up there and all that vegetation, there's a herd of deer that um the bed up there pretty much all year. And anyway, plays havoc on anybody puts out fruit trees or a garden. But, you know, the locals like to see, again, I I'm not a fan of deer. They're more like vermin because you can't put out flowers or anything, but the the local the people that live up there are protective of their deer. That's the way I look at it. Anyway, my opinion,

a little light-hearted, but it's still I I just did a campaign and I I knocked that those neighborhoods out there on Cherry Lane and a couple people asked me about it. There's the deer back there. What are you going to do to take care of them? because they see them on their on their cams. Anyway, yeah. And Mr. Brooks, just a reminder, if we do decide that a reszone's appropriate for this, we would want to have some findings such things like it touches residential on the sides of it or it's we have that. We have that. It's coming. It's coming. Okay. I'm getting ahead. Okay, good. Okay, let's keep moving.

Any other questions or comments? And unlike the previous discussion on 36 months, this 12 months is kind of what you're looking at. We're submitting in two weeks. In two weeks. Okay. Then now you're talking. Okay. Then can I can I bring up one other thing? Um you going to are you going to fence the property? Um our our intent is not to fence the uphill side. Okay. because I'm talking about the the the sidewalk that goes up 300, which is okay. There's obviously not going to be an entry onto that, but maybe for foot traffic or whatever.

Um, but you know, so there's only two avenues of egress and regress. Is is that what I'm looking at? Uh, there's three like vehicular or pedestrian. Yes, there's one further south. There's one right that and two of them that actually enter into the use that shared commercial access road that goes behind the commercial accesses there. There's two two connections there. One of them is private. So Brand's way and then 55500 microphone. Yeah, we got to mic you up there.

So the the access points and don't look at me Sean because I had still need one more. But the access points will be on Brand's Way where we have that one, you know, going between Raising Canes and Shake Shack and then on 500 where we have that full movement access between Crispy Creams and I forget the name of the new store truly Nolan was and then out to the light there. So those are three access and we're still working on that one last access point which will be across behind uh Yeah. Yeah. Okay. All right. So, because potentially, we hope you're going to have

uh young younger families and children and whatnot that will go to school potentially walk up onto the sidewalk, walk towards the school. Anyway, I just I just throw that out there as for your design. That's something we need to look at. How do you amen, you know, put amenities? Yeah. And that's not necessarily for this meeting, but it's just like, okay, yeah, you are. If you're looking at big picture, then that's one of those. Yeah. As the further you get up that hill, the steeper it gets. We really don't want people up or down there. So, if we got Larry H. Miller behind this, maybe we could get a ramp grant to put your stairway. Yeah. Your stairway, your stairway. Yeah. There you go. Yeah.

It's another topic. Why not before Steve retires? He wants that. He wants it. That done. Yeah. All right, we'll continue moving forward. Thank you. Is there anything else for Jake? Uh, nothing for Jake. I just have Okay, we'll we'll turn it back over to Mr. Cooper. Okay, thank you. Um, Jay, do you mind if we go to advance forward? Can you go to your findings? Yep. That's where we're headed. Okay. Sorry.

U, oh, well, planning commission, uh, as you know, positive recommendation. So, here are the findings that, um, I've listed. Uh we won't go through all of those but essentially it it's um contiguous to other residential zone. It it offers um good connection. It doesn't adversely affect adjacent properties. So we feel like it's a good fit. Um and I think the this the subsequent development that would be proposed under the new PD overlay, I think it's a really good opportunity for us to figure that out together and we have a great partner to do that. So turn it back to you. All right. Any other questions or comments for council Arnold? We're on 10, right?

Yes, we are on item 10. Okay. I would make a motion to approve ordinance uh 105 as stated within the packet based on the uh findings also stated within the packet with no changes. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. Motion and a second. Second that. Thank you, Councelor Anderson. We got that. Very good. Any discussion on that motion? Will we please pull the council? Miss Nayson, yes. Yes. Yes. Council member Arnold. Yes. Council member Stevens.

Yes. All right. Very good. That passes unanimously. We will move on to item number 11. Consideration of resolution 2026-12 approving an agreement for the development of land for the development of a project located at 4263 South 550 West. Mr. Cooper.

Yes, thank you. Same agreement um in concept. There's a few different um provisions. One being that their um timeline to get the uh the PD ordinance or excuse me the PD agreement and all the development permits in place is 12 months. You heard from Jake that that's going to be immediate. So, we'll have to uh implement this process pretty quick with the with a member of the council on that new um committee. But essentially, it's the agreement that um allows uh the development to go forward under the reszone consideration with discretion to the council after the 12 months if that doesn't take place. Council Arnold,

move to approve resolution 2026-12 as stated within the packet. Okay, we have a motion. Do we have a second? A second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on that motion? Miss Nay, will you please pull the council? Council member Anderson Anderson. Moff. Sorry. Yes. Council member Steven. Yes. Yes. Yes. All right. That passes unanimously. Very good. Thanks for staying with us tonight, guys. like uh uh we appreciate it. We're excited to work with you. Um and we're excited to see this get going.

Yeah, indeed. You have you have enough clout to be on the first on the agenda. I don't know why you're not pulling your hear everything else. I usually about this. I usually don't agree with Sean, but having people come back if they're asking for a change to it, that's pretty good, Sean. I like it. Maybe they just bag it. We throw at you. I want to see it. I was I was going to put some storage units in Plane City and I spent an entire evening while they argued about how to raise bears and I was think you learn a lot freaking out. I couldn't they we never got to my thing because they were done. They were fighting over raising bears. See, you learn a lot though city. I actually think you put a lot of thought into both of them. I think it's great. I It's a lot of work.

The best of both worlds. We got the car dealership and the housing. So, I think it's We go. We We tried to get the car dealership wanted to go on this property, but they said no. And then they were up by America first. So, they landed in it. Incredible spot. Great spot. Yeah. Yeah. So, that's a good, you know, the view from the vioaduct going over there for that for, you know, is is going to be better than any billboard that they could put up. Yeah. People be looking. It's a They landed a good spot. Wag down whoever we're going to work with on the trying to make this a good a good community. That's the one thing why we went with the Miller Group because they'll take time and we have they've own it for six years trying to figure out when's the right time and trying to do it right. So, yeah, it'll be good. We say today, but this has been a 12-year project.

Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. So, thank you. Hey, thank you guys. Yeah. Thanks for your patience. Item number 12, consideration of resolution 2026-13 amending a professional services agreement with Hansel Plan Hansen Planning Group for the comprehensive development code update. Mr. Cooper.

Yes. pretty uh pretty easy. No presentation. You have the document in your packet. Uh we are already under contract with Hansen planning for our compre comprehensive zone update. Um in our discussion with the planning commission, it was decided that we should in uh investigate the idea of neighborhood plans, which essentially if you read the packet, it takes the the general plan and breaks down neighborhoods into sub plans. And so it's very easy then to make um micro adjustments to certain neighborhoods instead of having to change the entire general plan. And when you're looking at a document that's guiding your future land use decisions, we can really be surgical in terms of where, what, and how instead of being broad, which is what the general plan's doing. So it's an additional $30,000 on top of the 68 that we're contracted for putting the total amount of 93,950. Uh we do have that in this year's budget. Cody has a uh affirmed that. So it's just uh a matter of using uh available funds to move forward.

Questions? Council Arnold. Move to approve resolution 2026-13 as stated within the packet with the amount. Do we do not to exceed? Sure. Not to exceed 93,950. Okay. Is that right? We have a motion. Uh, do we have a second? Second. A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Seeing none, Miss Nay, will you please pull the council? Council member, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Very good. Thank you. That passes unanimously. Uh item H in the uh packet, spring cleanup is coming up April 20th. Utah League of Cities and Towns Conference, April 22nd or 24th. Hope to see a lot of you there. Uh any comments? Oh, format on that. It'll be I think it's under my name. If it's not my name, it'll be Michelle's for those of you who are going. We've got the block of rooms, so when you get there, just tell them. Okay. Um comments from the city council. Councelor Hansen, what do you got? Your eyes lit up. I can't see her face, but your eyes lit up cuz we're so close. Okay. Yeah, she's on. She's Well, yeah, never mind. Um, your thing for your eyes. Um, okay. Any comments from the city staff?

Just thanks. It was a good meeting. Good meeting. We got a lot through a lot easy particularly found uh Mr. Douglas's comments to be very succinct and timely. Yeah. Because he spoke very little, but That were great. Powerful as always. Yeah. But I do want to talk to you about after the meeting what's going on over in my neighborhood on uh 4650 1050. Sure. Yeah. From now on, you're in charge of Brandon's powerpoints. One slide. I don't want to be accused of uh no information. Yeah.

Okay. Uh just a couple things real quick. Uh, so we have Young has reached out to us for a grand opening. And did they not reach out to you for a ribbon cutting car sports? No. Young uh Young Dodge Chrysler. Did they I thought everybody was on it. Maybe not, though. Yeah, they took over the Jeep. Why not across over the Jeep? April 24th. That's rough. We're going to be in St. George. So, we'll have to leave it. We'll have to leave it to you folks that are staying behind. If it's at a good time, I can make a good showing you. And uh anyway, that's a tough one for us. So, it just go through. I guess I must have got the email. I'll get it forwarded to everybody. They didn't go through uh the Ogden. The chamber's coming. The chamber's going to be there. So, um no, you can have it. Yeah. Oh, boy. Yeah, they can run it.

Yep. I'll get that forwarded on. I Sorry. I thought everybody got that. They probably put a lot of effort and time into that. Yeah. Yeah. Did a lot of work on it, that's for sure. I don't have anything else. So, with that, we need a motion to adjurnn. So, move. Motion. Second. Anybody? Second. Second. All in favor say yes. Yes. Ajourn. Too early. Oh, I know. These guys are up. They're like is I thought he was done. No, it wasn't done. Excited. Yeah, you guys are better than I thought at first. I was afraid it was