City Council - Regular Meeting

Either way.

All right, it's 6.01, so we'd like to call this regularly scheduled Santa Clara City Council meeting to order. We appreciate everyone coming tonight. We don't get a packed house like this too often, so we're excited to have you here. For our call to order, I'm Mayor Jarrett Waite, and with us we have Councilman Kaplan, Councilman Burton, Councilman Hinton, and Councilman Hendrickson. We'll excuse Dave Pond. He's traveling with his family today. We'll begin with our opening ceremony. Our Pledge of Allegiance will be handled by Councilman Hinton, and then we'll have opening comments by Casey Jones from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. And would everyone please rise and salute the flag?

Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for

indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mayor Waite, city council members, I bring the love and appreciation of the St. George Interfaith Council, including our president, Reverend Buddy Harrington. Just wanted to begin with thanking all of you for your great public service and for all the things that you do, including the unheralded and unseen hours that you put into your service. That makes our communities a better place to live. So thank you for that. Our Heavenly Father, we're grateful to be gathered here together today to discuss matters that are important to our community. Father, we're grateful for this mayor, for the council members, and for the dedicated service that they, along with the city manager and all the city employees, We're grateful for all that they do for this community, Father, and for our county as a whole. Father, we're also inspired and grateful for all the youth that are here at this meeting tonight, and for their contribution to our civic space, and for the inspirational creations that they've made. We're grateful to them. Please bless them to continue to strive for those pursuits and to be able to find ways to community build and to make spaces better to live. Heavenly Father, please bless this meeting. We'll be able to have peace and a spirit of collaboration and all things. Please bless all who are here and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. OK, thank you, Casey.

OK, we'll move on to item number three of our agenda, which is general citizen public comments. And staff, has anyone turned in one of the yellow sheets? I don't have any up here. So we'll assume that no one has any general citizen public comments. We'll move on to number four, our conflicts and disclosures. Counselor, is there anything on the agenda tonight that you would need to disclose? OK, seeing none, we'll continue into our working agenda. We do have three public hearings tonight. And just for everyone in the audience, we are required by a law to do these first. And then we'll jump down to our first item for giving out the awards after this. So our first public hearing is to receive public comments regarding abandonment of flood control easement on parcel SC-6-2-16-345. And Casey, are you going to give a short presentation on this before the public hearing? Is it somebody else?

Yeah, Casey can. But as Casey comes up, so the abandonment of this easement is down along the Santa Clara River off of the Roan subdivision where Neil Walter's property is. It was a flood control easement that was put into place back during roughly the 2005 flood. So it was really a temporary easement that now we'd like to abandon at this time.

So it's easement number 26 on the new Walter property, and it's a three-part easement. It was a 30-foot wide permanent utility easement. All of these are in the blue dotted lines to the right side of the screen. A 75-foot easement for the addition of a berm and riprap for stream bank protection and stabilization. for the flooding and a 100 foot wide temporary construction easement to allow access for all of the equipment to get into the river during the L5 flood. So after a lot of help from Rick and Matt going over this easement, we think we propose to abandon this easement on the property as none of it's needed anymore.

OK, perfect. Council, any questions before we open the public hearing?

Pretty straightforward.

OK, perfect. So it's 6.06. We'll go ahead and open that public hearing to receive comments regarding this abandonment of flood control easement. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the council on this item? Seeing that we'll close out public hearing Our next public hearing is to receive public comments regarding updating the construction design standards to add low pressure sewer This is you again Casey to give us a background on the public hearing So as we've discussed in one of our work meetings a lot of the land that's left to develop is

little bit harder to work with and doesn't always allow for gravity-fed sewer systems to be in place so we are needing to add some standards to be able to install low-pressure sewer systems in some of the subdivisions that have elevational differences within the job This first drawing is that we need to add would be the drawing for the grinder pumps and systems that would go on the homes themselves. The next one, this would be the shutoff valve and check valve that would go at the street connection for each home. This is the check valve standard to be added. And this one is just a drawing for if there was any clean outs needed to be added into the system.

OK. Very good. Yeah. Council, any questions? OK, perfect. All right, it's 6.08. We'll open the public hearing to receive public comments regarding updating our construction design standards to add low pressure sewer. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to address the council on this item? Super exciting, I know. OK, seeing none, we'll close that public hearing. And our third public hearing is to receive public comments regarding a single event liquor license for Bank of Utah PGA held at Black Desert Resort. And we'll have Jim give us some background on this before we open the public hearing.

Thanks, Mayor and council members. Brock, why don't we go to the plan I think they've got a little package after the single event liquor license. I think we can just, yeah, that's good. That's great. Thank you. I'm going to introduce this item and talk for a moment, and then turn some time over to Coco Head and John Coolball with Black Desert. It's hard to believe that this is the third year of the Bank of Utah Championship PGA Tournament. It's going to be held at Black Desert Resort a little bit earlier this year, from September 28 through October 4 of 2026. City staff we've been working with the applicants on the special event permit and single event liquor license for a few months It's our understanding this event will likely draw between eight to ten thousand a day During the primary event which is held Thursday through Sunday the different departments including fire police public works power person recreation building and planning have been involved in the process to plan for transportation parking public safety and other needs for the event the application is in your packet and then just a couple years ago we adopted city organs 2024 16 and that was allowing the City Council to approve a single event liquor license and a special event permit concurrently rather than having them come back separately and And we recommend that the City Council consider granting approval for both items in support of the upcoming Bank of Utah Championship PGA Tournament scheduled for September 28th through October 4th of 2026. We do have some drawings here. It's basically the same that we brought to you the previous two years, not many changes or adjustments. to the plan. And I'm going to say, Mayor, I'm going to turn it back to you. And Coco Head and John Coolbaugh can answer questions or present some additional information to you as needed. Thanks.

OK, perfect. Yeah, council, do you have any questions from what we've seen in the packet?

We could have more discussion later, but anything we'd want to bring up regarding before we do the public hearing?

OK, I think we're good to just open the public hearing then. We'll get back to that. So it is 6-11. We will open the public hearing to receive public comments regarding a single event liquor license for the Bank of Utah PGA Championship held at Black Desert Resort. Is there anyone in the room who would like to address the council on this item? Okay, seeing none, we'll close that public hearing. And council, we'll move down to our consent agenda, which is the approval of our minutes for August 12th. For our work and regular meetings, also our city council closed meeting session on August 12th, our special meeting on September 2nd, and then our claims through September 9th. And then just to note on our calendar of events, we'll have our city council work and regular meetings on September 23rd. We've got some states coming up on the 24th through the 26th. Offices will be closed on October 12, and then we'll have regular work meetings on October 14. Counselor, is there any question on the consent agenda? And if not, I'd look for a motion.

I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented. Second.

OK, we've got a motion by Krista and a second by Jeannine. Any question on that? It is a money item, so we'll start with Justin. Aye. Jeannine? Aye. Krista? Aye. Mark? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. All right, moving to our general business. Our first item is presentation of the America 250 Art Contest Awards to Snow Canyon High School students, presented by Councilman Hinton and Mimi McKenna. And Councilman Hinton, we'll have you start us off and go from there.

Thank you. I'm excited about this presentation of our America 250 Art Contest winners today. Mimi McKenna couldn't be here. She wanted to, but she's not able to. We have Heidi Gunn with us today. on our America 250 or Santa Clara 250 committee and is over this part of our committee's plans for the year as I understand it. So she's done an amazing job working with students and administrators and teachers and I'm going to turn the time to her to kind of explain the art contest and then direct the students kind of what will happen after she explains that. So thank you.

Thank you so much for having us here. This has been such a wonderful event. And most of the thanks and appreciation goes to our students and also our teachers here in our Snow Canyon Cone site that have helped make this happen. This all began back in around February, March, where we met with the teachers in Lava Ridge Snow Canyon Middle School and Snow Canyon High School. And we're warmly welcomed about this contest to be able to have the students participate in. to be able to come up with a theme, One Nation, One Voice, and be able to have them submit art in 3D and 2D and be able to have that judged and to be able to see their talents and their abilities. We are so proud of these students and for their accomplishments and for their willingness to share with us their talents. So a big thanks again goes to our teachers, and to our students and to the parents in supporting this effort for our America 250 contest and winners. So at this point, I'm going to invite one of our teachers, Miss Lolly Graff, to come up. She's going to read the names of the students and the winners. Students, we're going to have you come up here as we read your name. I'll stand over here on the side and hand you your plaque and certificate and your award. that will be with the plaque. And then we're going to have you come up through here. And we're going to have you stand up here in front and just silently wait as we read all of the winners off. And then we're going to ask the council if they will stand. Mayor, if that's all right, to stand. And we'll take a picture with all the students in the council. All right. Thank you.

We're going to start with the intermediate school, honorable mention. Luke Sauen. Honorable mention, Peyton Snow. Honorable mention, Jackson McFadden. Honorable mention, Ari Holdaway. Honorable mention, Heidi Borrowman.

As your name is read, please come up.

Are any of them here?

OK. Third place goes to Chloe Ent. Second place goes to Samuel Boyd. First place goes to Maylee Esplin. Now we will go to the Snow Canyon Middle School Two-Dimensional. Honorable mention, Kaze Christensen. Honorable Mention, McKinley Windsor. Honorable Mention, Sislalik Aguilar-Gurbano. Honorable Mention, Callie Manygoats. Come up, Callie. Honorable Mention, Marlee Burgess. Honorable Mention, Della Vincelet. Third place goes to Kaze Christiansen. Second place to Tyler Monson. First place to Natalia Damien. Our Snow Canyon Middle School three-dimensional, first place goes to Taylor Brown. Snow Canyon High School three-dimensional, honorable mention, Eli Oren. Third place, Gideon Young. Second place, Roxy Weston. And first place, Veronica Weston. Now for two-dimensional from Snow Canyon High School, honorable mention, Ana Rodriguez. Honorable mention, Porter Brown. Honorable mention, Ollie Escobar. Honorable mention, Suri Allred. Honorable mention, McKenna Merr. Third, Conrad Wainwright. Second place, Jordan Bringhurst. And first place, Olivia Gomez.

Thank you very much. Are there other teachers here? One, two, three.

Okay, well, congratulations, everyone. We certainly appreciate your participation, and we'll understand if you need to scoot out. That's totally fine.

Mayor, if I could just announce, students, we have your artwork out in the hallway, and so if you can walk out there, we can look at that, take pictures, and you're welcome to take your artwork home. Thank you so much. Thank you so much, Mayor and City Council. Thank you. Thank you.

Are we still going to table the easements?

Yeah.

All right.

OK, well, I think we can go ahead and continue our meeting. So the next item in our agenda is General Business C2, which is discussion and action to consider approval of the abandonment of flood control easement and approve resolution 2026-16R. And Brock and Casey, do you maybe want to address items 2, 3, and 4 to the council, like what's going on with those items? Yeah.

Oh, well. So 2, 3, and 4. As I'll pull the map up. So as Casey stated in his presentation there's the easement That was done back with the floods and protecting infrastructure and that down there in the blue that we had the public hearing on to abandon. As this was looked at, we also found out that on this parcel property of Mr. Walters, In the light green, that's a city sewer line that runs down, I want to say, roughly Quell Street, as well as there's one kind of intersects the middle of his property that comes off of, I believe, Colton Cove. So there's two sewer lines there that actually are not in easements at the current time. So as we went through this and discussed it with Mr. Walters, that we needed to abandon the easement, but we need to get the sewer lines in easements. He's been working with, I believe, Rosenberg and Associates on stuff, and we have stuff off to Sunrise. Our engineer is looking at that as well. We weren't able to get the, for the sewer easements to approve their items three and four, we weren't able to get that completed from the engineers, that paperwork. And so we would ask council to table items three and four. But as far as the abandonment easement, that paperwork's all there. Matt's done the legal work on that. So that one's still good to move forward tonight and abandon the easements from 2005 flood.

OK, perfect. All right, yeah, so Casey, is there anything else you wanted to present to the council on item number two? OK, council, any discussion or any questions for staff on abandoning this blood control easement?

It's been well explained.

OK. If not, then I would just look for a motion.

I move that we approve the abandonment of flood control easement on parcel SC-6-2-16345 and adopt resolution number 2026-16R as stated.

Okay, we have a motion by Mark. Second. Second by Justin. Any question on that motion? Okay, all in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Passes unanimously. Thank you very much counsel All right, and then as discussed I would just look for a motion on items three and four to table those until we get the engineering back on those easements I move that we table items three and four as we've discussed Do I need to line all that out with the parcel numbers or resolution numbers?

For the emotion. No.

Okay, just that you tabling those items. I

OK. OK, motion by Krista.

Second.

Second by Mark. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much, council. All right, we'll move on to item number five, which is discussion and action to consider approval to update the construction design standards to add low pressure sewer and adopt resolution number 2026-19R. Casey, do you have anything else you'd like to present on this item beyond what you presented in the public hearing? OK, any questions? OK, if not, then I would look for a motion.

I move that we approve the update to the construction design standards to add low pressure sewer and adopt resolution number 2026-19R as presented.

Second. OK, motion by Mark and a second by Krista. Any question on that motion? Just moving right along. All right, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. OK, move on to item number six, which is discussion and action to consider approval of a special event permit and single event liquor license for Bank of Utah PGA Tournament held at Black Desert Resort, presented by Jim. And then I think we'll probably have some representation from Black Desert as well on this item.

Thanks, Mayor. I'm going to invite them to come on up.

OK, perfect.

Hello, Mayor, Council. My name is John Coolbaugh. I'm here representing the Bank of Utah Championship at Black Desert. This is the third year of PGA and the fourth time I'm talking with you, if you include LPGA. So thank you again for having me. We're looking forward to the PGA Tour coming again. What you'll see this year is going to be quite similar to what you experienced last year. Hopefully that was an enjoyable experience. We're broadcast again on golf channels, so it is a good opportunity to showcase the region on international television. Similar to last year, there will be some parking and entry on the Santa Clara side of Black Desert's property. This slide that you can see on the screen indicates where we have free bicycle parking in a lot that I call lot 10 for purposes of the tournament. It's located on Pioneer Parkway, heading north on Red Mountain and entering, crossing over the Santa Clara border into Ivan City, where we have parking located there. Next slide, please. There's bicycle parking on the Ivan City side indicated here. Next slide, please. We have reserved parking on the Ivan City side indicated here. This is a new garage that's been under construction on the Ivan City side. So this garage, assuming complete, will absorb about 800 cars. And many of those or some of those would have been cars that ended up in Santa Clara accessing the tournament from that side. Next slide, please. These are lots that I indicate as lot 7 and lot 10. These are permitted lots for the tournament, again, located off of Red Mountain. So we're directing this traffic down Pioneer Parkway to that intersection with Red Mountain and continuing northward. This is near you know near Harmon Santa Clara near the Harmon's there and near the new coal West work that's being done same amount of cars for these Lots seven and ten as we had last year and I believe the traffic flowed quite well on Pioneer Parkway and Red Mountain no no real disruptions that I could see next slide Ride share located on the Ivan City side. This is just for informational purposes. Next slide, please My ask to all of you is that we have an event-specific temporary road closure at Red Mountain Drive and Affirmation. And on the entry of Red Mountain Drive, kind of near where it intersects with a new road called South Black Desert Boulevard. The reasons for these are really for safety purposes. and to control traffic, you know, running alongside the golf course. This is something that we did last year and the year before. We'll post, as we've done in the past, we'll post no parking signs along Pioneer Parkway. This is to prevent, again, any, you know, dangerous traffic buildups or people pulling off the side of the road on Pioneer Parkway to try to look over the basalt and see the golf course.

Next slide.

I've had the pleasure of working with Santa Clara Ivins Public Safety on both the police and fire rescue side. So, you know, it's part of what we do with these big amazing events is we have to have safety conversations, safety planning across the board. So these are some of the entities involved in the safety and security standpoint. And in addition to police and fire rescue, we also have support from Intermountain Health who's They're helping us with the first aid and doctors and nurses. The PGA Tour brings its own security detail focused primarily on the players, their families, and the caddies. Black Desert Resort has their own security team. And then we have unarmed access control to the tune of about 130 people come in and help with credential checking and safety on that front.

Next slide, please.

This is the parcel that's at the intersection of Affirmation and Red Mountain. We do some temporary build out that's already begun in this lot. This is a lot that supports our golf channel broadcast. It supports our what I call the volunteer village. So this is where the 950 volunteers who give their time for the tournament. This is where they park, where they get their marching orders, where they get their food. And then we have a lot of tournament production and catering needs that support this large event happening on the golf course. So we're thankful to have this piece of parcel in order to do that. Here's a – sorry, it's a little small, but here's a – kind of shows the parts and pieces that are either in this parcel or are scheduled to be in here between now and the start of the tournament. Very similar layout to what we had last year. This is a temporary tent that is part of our city inspect building permit located in what is now the agronomy or the maintenance compound at Black Desert Resort. This is for the agronomy volunteers. It's their check-in tent and their associated restroom. We built a concession stand at Three Green, which is on the City of Santa Clara side of Black Desert Resort. So as part of my ask with you is for the single event alcohol license in order for us to sell alcohol at this particular concession stand. Next slide, please. Happy to answer any questions. Again, we're excited to be back and expecting the attendance and the broadcast numbers to be similar to what they were last year.

OK, council, any questions for the applicant?

You answered my question there at the end. Where was the alcohol going to be on the Santa Clara side? Yes, there it is.

OK, any other questions? OK, thank you very much. Thank you. Council, any discussion on this item or any further questions?

Doesn't look like anything's changed from what's been seen in the past. Anything different that you can see? No, there isn't.

OK, very good. Well, then I would look for a motion on this item.

I'll make a motion here. I move that we approve the special event permit, single event liquor license for the upcoming Bank of America, Bank of Utah, sorry, Bank of Utah Championship PGA Tournament, which will be held on September 28, 2026. to October 4, 2026.

OK, very good. We have a motion by Janine. Second. Second by Justin. Any question on that?

Yeah, in there, I believe there's an ordinance. Is that right?

Not in our agenda.

No, just as per the ordinance. As per the ordinance, sorry.

OK. OK, perfect. Any other question on the motion? Let's do a roll call on this one. Justin? Aye. Janine? Aye. Krista? Aye. And Mark? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you very much. All right. And then do we need to sign the paper and send it right now? Or is it, can we wait for a little bit? Looks like we can wait. OK. Perfect. All right. So we'll move on to item number seven, which is discussion and action to consider approval to update city code section 17.28.180, rock cut slopes and adopt ordinance number 2026-17, presented by Jim.

Thanks, Mayor and Council. Brock, will you bring up the draft? It's on the last, at the end. Always at the end on these. Anyways, so city staff were proposing updates to city code. This would be Chapter 1728-180, Rock Cut Slopes. And so this would be added to the city ordinance, currently dealing with fences and walls. We've previously discussed that St. George City recently adopted an ordinance putting provisions in place for rock cut slopes. St. George worked with several consultants before adoption. One is Wayne Rogers with AGEC, who has spent some time with us on this, along with Rick Rosenberg. So they have both worked with city staff on this proposed language for this code amendment. The code amendment was also discussed with the Planning Commission on June 11, 2026. And the item was discussed twice with the City Council on June 24, 2026 and July 22, 2026. Both the Planning Commission and City Council were in favor of this code amendment moving forward. And so we have the draft document here, and this is the same language that we presented to you on July 22nd. There hasn't been changes to that, the last work meeting we attended. State code requirements, Section 1020.502 includes requirements for land use ordinance amendments. To amend an ordinance, the City Planning Commission must hold one public hearing. And that did happen. We also did the 10-day notice on the state website and the city website as per state code. Our recommendation is as follows. On August 13, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a recommendation for approval of this item to the city council. City staff recommend that the city council consider granting approval for this code amendment, chapter 17, 28, 180, rock cut slopes.

OK, perfect. Council, any questions or discussion on this item? We have talked about it quite a bit in work meetings. I will say, once this came up, I started paying attention around town. And this is a really cool look that really does retain some natural beauty. And so I'm glad we're looking at this as a council. Any other discussion or questions? If not, I'd look for a motion.

I move that we approve the update to city code section 17.28.180 rock cut slopes and adopt ordinance number 2026-17 as presented.

Second.

OK, motion by Mark and second by Krista. Any question on that motion? OK, all in favor say aye.

Aye. Do we?

Any opposed?

If it's an ordinance, do we need to go one by one? I guess that's my question.

I'm just going to double check if it's not a money item.

OK. Well, I didn't say aye, so I'll say aye now.

OK. And Matt, can I just double check with you on that? Do we need to roll call for something like this? It's an ordinance.

Yeah, we should. It would be better if we did.

All right. So we'll start that over. Let's do a roll call. Justin? Aye. Janine? Aye. Krista? Aye. And Mark? Aye. Pass unanimously. Thank you very much. All right, very good. So our next item is number eight, discussion action to consider approval rezoning and project plan for property located at 4405 West, 1700 North. That's the Big Rock subdivision, lots one, two, and three, to rezone the property from open space, OS zone, to the planned development commercial, PDC zone, and adopt ordinance number 2026-18, presented by Jim. Yeah.

Counsel, just before Jim gets into his presentation, I just want to bring your attention to items 8, 9, and 10 are all tied together. So as you look at this as the presentation Jim gives in the discussion, it really entails to 8, 9, and 10. So if you look at it with the development agreements, the last item, it's a number 10. So if you look at it and say, hey, we want to rezone, we approve that, really hard to then say no to the development agreement because that's what ties the zoning. It's what they need to do. Hindsight, if you say no to a zoning, but then you want to say yeah to the development agreement, it just doesn't work because the development agreement only works with the zoning. So just so you're aware that these are all tied together. The only one that doesn't necessarily fully tie is you could agree to the rezone and the development agreement without approving the short-term rental. That's the one that does kind of say, hey, we could approve the other two without that one. So just so you're aware, they all run and work together.

Are we able to discuss them all together at the same time? Or do we have to discuss them separately?

I think it's better if we take them as separate items, even though they are interrelated, just because they're separate actions as they're defined in the ordinances.

So we're working at it as separate and then voting on it as separate as well? Yeah.

We can talk about them in whatever order or combined, whatever would be of most benefit to you. But when we do have a vote, we'll have you vote on them in three separate motions. Yeah.

Matt, just a question on clarification. Could we make the three presentations, and then the council can have dialogue, and then come back for individual motions? Maybe that's what you said.

That's what I would like. I didn't hear you, Jim.

I think the question I'm asking is can we make the three presentations and then the council can discuss all three items and then come back and make separate motions?

Yes. Okay.

Yes. Okay. Thank you. Brock, can I have you pull the project plan up? I think that was it, the first item, the first exhibit. It's just not sized. There we go. All right, thank you. So Randy and Sue Yochum are requesting to rezone lots one, two, and three of the Big Rock subdivision. The address is 4405 West 1700 North. Now the property was recently annexed into the city, the 12.99 acres, just last August. The applicants are proposing to rezone the property from the open space zone to the planned development commercial zone to allow for a wedding and event center. The project plan is up, and as you can see, it includes two large homes, the two existing homes on the property, two accessory buildings. You can see those on the northwest portion of the site. and a large outdoor gathering area, which is approximately 30,000 square feet for the events, with a parking area for the events. And you see that just kind of down to the southwest of the site. So the project plan is intended to give the City Council, not the Planning Commission, an idea of what uses and or development is proposed for the property. The Chapter 1768, which is our plan development zones, requires a review of the project plan. And so I'm going to go through those items next. The site plan layout is unique. So access to the site will be provided via 1700 North. through the Davis Anderson property, and that connects with the existing BLM County Road, which is a dirt and gravel road, maintaining the existing 20-foot width to the property boundary. Now, this connects to both the upper home and lower home access points. The upper home, which you can see, it's kind of on the northeast portion of their property, And so that includes a private 28-foot driveway with a Knox box for the gate and turnaround for fire and emergency vehicle access. The lower home is the larger home adjacent to the parking lot and gathering space. That also includes the same, a private 28-foot driveway with a Knox box for the private gate and then turnaround for fire and emergency vehicle access. We talked about the gathering space already. Now, the two accessory buildings, one is 1,560 square feet. That's the one on the very northwest end. And the other one is 2,750 square feet. And that's located just east of the other one. In addition, the applicants have provided a required driveway. It's a 28-foot driveway with a hammerhead turnaround providing fire and emergency vehicle access. And so that's the extension of the driveway with the hammerhead going adjacent to the event area and the two buildings providing appropriate emergency access. The future road improvements for this project are unique and include public road, BLM, and the Santa Clara Field Canal Company and Yoakum properties. So the public road improvements, and that would be required across the Kelly Graff property. And maybe we should, can we scroll up a little bit on the drawing, Brock, where it goes towards the shop? Okay, okay. That's a 45-foot cross-section that would be required like any single-family residential subdivision in the city. So that would be the first improvement. And then that takes you to the BLM road improvements, and that will include a 48-foot cross-section, which includes 28 feet of asphalt with a 10-foot borrow ditch on either side. And that leads you to the Santa Clara Field Canal Company improvements, and that will include a 25-foot all-weather road access. And so it kind of goes back and forth where it forks there. It goes down to the Santa Clara Field Canal Company right away. And then also to the north, there's a small section of Santa Clara Field Canal Company right away before it gets back to the BLM property. providing access to the upper home. And then the Yoakum private driveway will include the 28-foot all-weather access drive. And so we do have a development agreement that addresses this item and that will be discussed soon. Dust control. Future road improvements for this project are unique and will not be installed until certain items are addressed as discussed in the road improvement section. The applicants will be required to submit a dust control plan prior to additional events occurring on the property. City staff feels that precautionary measures are needed to protect general health, safety, and welfare of residents living in the vicinity. Project utilities. The applicants are proposing to use the existing septic tank originally installed for the property. City staff research indicates that the septic capacity will limit the upper home to 12 people and the lower home to eight people at maximum capacity. The applicants propose to use the existing water connection to both homes. The proposed commercial use of the property requires an upgrade to an 8-inch water line to provide for the two fire hydrants. Additionally, the applicants are required to work with the Santa Clara Field Canal Company to provide a 20-foot water line easement. And so we do have an exhibit that's attached showing that. We can talk about that a little bit later. The applicants intend to use the existing power provided to the site by Rocky Mountain Power. Future improvements will require connecting to the city sewer and power. And then a 45-foot public utility easement is required along the lower private driveway, providing access to the event and parking areas. and that's indicated on the project plan. The next item is development agreement, and Matt will lead that discussion soon. Now we go to short-term rentals. The applicants are proposing to use the two existing homes on-site as short-term rentals to support and enhance the operations. They believe this will create a unique venue for the community. The PDC zone allows for short-term rentals as a conditional use. And we'll have more discussion about that in a few minutes. Parking, the project plan includes a parking area with 78 parking spaces for the wedding and events center. It also includes 10 parking spaces for both the upper home and lower home, so a total of 20 spaces. to be used as short-term rentals for a total of 98 parking spaces. A wedding and event center use is not included in Chapter 1732 of our parking requirements. So city staff have researched this item and determined that an average of 2.5 people per vehicle appears to be the standard used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers for this type of use. That would equate to a parking capacity allowing for 245 people. Site landscaping, we don't have a proposed landscape plan. They're proposing to leave it as is at this point. But if they make changes, they would have to comply with our city ordinance with water efficient landscaping and the conservation standards. Outdoor lighting this is something we like to address You know we recommend that all lighting be shielded and directed downward to avoid light spill it appears that wall pack lighting on the existing buildings and low mounted granite accent lighting and pathway lighting will be sufficient and Project signage, no information has been provided for signs at this time. If zoned to the PDC zone, that requires a separate review by the Planning Commission. Portable toilets and washing sinks, the project plan includes an area for portable toilets. City staff recommend that the applicants review the portable toilet and washing sink requirements with their service provider to determine what's needed for events. And then noise. A noise complaint associated with a recent event on the property was submitted to city staff. Apparently music can be heard from the existing single-family homes to the southeast within the hills at Santa Clara Phase 2 subdivision. The applicants are required to comply with Chapter 912.020 and 912.021, which covers excessive noise in city limits. Neighborhood response, we did send notices to all property owners within 300 feet of the property prior to the August 13th Planning Commission meeting. We also posted on the state website and on the city website and put a sign out on the highway showing the access to the project. The City Council Planning Commission and city staff received comments from a resident on August 12th, 2026. That has been attached for your review. General plan consideration so the property was annexed to the city on August 13th 2025 And then we adopted an updated general plan in the end of 2025 November 2025 the future land use map includes a very low density residential designation for the property and the description states the following this classification is intended for rural or semi rural areas and Where development is limited to fewer than two dwelling units per acre, it supports large lot single family homes, agriculture uses, and open space buffers. This designation helps preserve natural landscapes, reduce infrastructure demands, and maintain the rural character of the community outskirts or environmental sensitive areas. The proposed rezoning application would allow for the proposed wedding and event center to be legally established on the property. City staff and legal counsel believe that the proposed use of property is encouraged by the general plan. A rezoning application, I'd like to go through those points. Our code According to Chapter 1718.090, it provides standards of review for the city in consideration of any zoning map, amendment, rezoning, and other land use matters. And so it states the following. Item A is the proposed use suitable in view of the zoning and development of adjacent and nearby property. City staff response is yes. Will the proposed use adversely affect the existing use or suitability of adjacent or nearby property? No. Are there substantial reasons why the property cannot or should not be used as currently zoned? Yes. Will the proposed use cause an excessive or burdensome use of public facilities or services including but not limited to streets, schools, water or sewer utilities and fire protection? No. Is the proposed use compatible with the purpose and intent of the general plan? Yes. Will the use be consistent with the purpose and intent of the proposed zoning district? Yes. Is the proposed use supported by new or changing conditions not anticipated by the general plan? No. Does the proposed use reflect a reasonable balance between the promotion of public health safety, morality, or general welfare and the right to the unrestricted use of property? And our response is yes. Utah State Code Section 10-2503 includes requirements for a rezoning of property. To consider a rezoning, a city must hold at least one public hearing, and that was held by the Planning Commission on August 13th of 2026. It also requires notice, and we sent notice to all property owners within the 300 feet. We also put it on the city website and the state website. So we've determined that we meet all state code requirements being met for noticing. Our recommendation is as follows. So the Planning Commission did have a public hearing on August 13th of 2026. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the item by a 5-2 vote. City staff recommend the City Council review the submitted rezoning and project plan to determine if the application is complete. The City may approve, modify and approve, or deny the application. If the application is determined to be complete, City staff would recommend that the City Council consider granting approval of the application subject to the conditions in the staff report. And then we also have four findings. And with that, Mayor, I'll turn the time back over to you. That's what I have on this item to this point.

Okay. Council, do you have any questions for Jim?

What were the four findings?

Oh, I will read those. Number one, the rezoning is compliant with the Santa Clara general plan and future land use map, very low density residential. Adjacent properties in the vicinity are owned by the BLM and Santa Clara Field Canal Company, which remain undeveloped with single family homes on R110 to the east. Three, that the PDC zone allows for a wedding event center as a permitted use. And four, the PDC zone allows for short-term rentals as a conditional use. Those were my four findings.

So the conditional uses are covered under the PDC zone, correct?

Yes. And so the rezoning would allow for them to have the conditional use for the short-term rentals.

So this is where the, so that was item 8. Yeah. Related to 9 and 10.

Yeah. So I think we should probably get a presentation from Jim on item 9, and then we'll talk about 10 as well. And then we can have the applicants come up and give a presentation as well.

All right. Thank you.

I'll try to do this one a little quicker. Randy and Sue Yocum are requesting conditional use approval for two short-term rentals. So the first is known as the upper house, and that's just under 5,000 square feet. The second is known as the lower house, and that's 7,620 square feet. The applicants have indicated that the proposed short-term rental properties will support an enhanced site operations, which again, they believe will create a unique venue. The subject property is on tonight's City Council agenda for consideration of a property rezoning and project plan. The applicants have requested that the property be rezoned from open space to the planned development commercial zone. The proposed rezoning would allow for short-term rentals to be approved as a conditional use. Now, Matt's been working on a development agreement, and he's worked with the applicants and their legal counsel. The proposed short-term rental properties have been included in the draft development agreement. I'm going to try to go through the standards for the conditional uses as outlined for Chapter 1740.055 of City Code. It states that conditional uses shall be approved if reasonable conditions are imposed to mitigate the reasonably anticipated detrimental effects of the proposed use. And we have the following standards. The first item is noise. The applicants have indicated that excessive noise will be prevented through the enforcement of rental agreements and established operational standards at the ranch. Strict quiet hours will be enforced from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. The 24-7 local management team is required to respond to and resolve any noise complaints within one hour with provisions for immediate termination of rental agreements for noncompliance. Second is dust. The applicants state that the use of the residence as short-term rentals is low impact and domestic in nature. All operations, including cooking and sanitation, will comply with all relevant federal, state, and local air quality standards. And second, according to the applicants, no industrial commercial activities are proposed that would generate unusual or obnoxious dust or odors beyond property lines. As far as odors, those items are discussed in the item B above, and so that's already been covered. So let's go to item D, which is aesthetics. The applicants have indicated that the upper and lower houses are existing and well-maintained single-family residents that are an integral part, integral components of the established rents at Santa Clara Complex. The proposed use does not involve any external modifications that would change the aesthetic character of the properties of the surrounding zone, ensuring they blend harmoniously with the neighborhood. Next is safety. According to the applicants, both properties comply with all Santa Clara City building health and fire codes, including the installation of required safety equipment and clear emergency exit pathways. Next is traffic. The applicants state that the traffic generation is minimal because guests are already associated with the ranch event venue. The vast existing parking capacity, and these numbers are a little bit different in this application compared to the rezone and project plan. It says 30 spaces for upper house, eight spaces for lower house. ensures zero street parking impact. Since the traffic is contained on the private property parcels and associated with the existing approval of that venue, the level of service on surrounding public streets and intersections will not be detrimentally impacted or reduced below the level of service C. Height, no new construction or changes to the existing buildings. Height or scale are proposed. Photo simulations, we don't have those. You know, we've seen a number of pictures and are very familiar with the site and the amenities that are proposed. Hours of operation, the applicants state that the short-term rentals technically operate as a 24-7 residence with strict quiet hours, 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., and forced to protect the peace and quiet of any adjacent areas. Utility capacity, the applicants have indicated that both existing homes are already served by adequate municipal utility connections, both water and power. They both have septic systems that are well maintained. The current utility capacity is fully sufficient to support the occasional domestic use associated with the proposed short-term rental operations. Public health, the applicants indicate that the short-term rental operations will comply with all the public health sanitation and solid waste disposal standards.

Commercial waste services are already utilized for the overall ranch property.

Use shall not create public health concerns. That was already covered in item J1 above. Now, some additional items or concerns that city staff and legal counsel have discussed. Well, the first is just an item. The application is reliant upon the city council granting approval of the property rezoning and project plan on tonight's agenda. They are, the short-term rentals are allowed as a conditional use in the PDC zone. Now, the development agreement for the project includes provisions regarding short-term rentals. That's in Section 5.5. Section 5.5 includes occupancy limits due to septic capacity. So the upper home will be limited to 12, with the lower home limited to 8. The numbers are based on city staff research on the existing septic system. And then 5.5B includes other conditions of use. This allows the city to specifically add additional conditions of approval as per Chapter 17-68060, short-term rental restrictions and requirements of use. city code. So those were additional items. I didn't list any concerns there on that. I think most of those items were covered in the rezoning and the project plan. So our recommendation is as follows. City staff recommend the city council review the submitted conditional use permit application to determine if the application is complete. The city may approve, modify, and approve or deny the conditional use permit application. If the application is determined to be complete, city staff would recommend the city council consider approving the conditional use subject to the conditions as outlined in the report, and there are eight. and subject to the following findings. One, the use will not be detrimental to the health, safety, welfare, or aesthetics, or detrimental to property or improvements in the area. The proposed use complies with the regulations of chapter 1740.055. The proposed short-term rentals are allowed as a conditional use in the PDC zone. The proposed use is in harmony with the intent and purpose of the general plan. And Mayor, that's what I have on this item.

OK, perfect.

Counsel, do you have any questions? I had a question on what was the city staff investigation into the septic capacity that would limit the number of occupants?

I'm going to let Brock and Matt address that. I know that.

Yeah.

Yeah, well, and Cody mainly handled that. But I can tell you what I understand from my meetings with him, and then maybe Jared can step in and supplement. But basically, the septic is existing, and so there's an existing capacity there. I know that Cody confirmed that directly with the health department. And based on that existing capacity and conversing with the health department, they essentially took the existing capacity and converted that to an occupancy number. What that method was of that conversion, I don't know. But I don't know, Jared, if you can offer any other insights. OK.

Is that something that you want, allow them to address that at this time, or do you have some additional questions before you turn it over to the applicants and their representatives?

Any other questions for Jim?

I had a question about how do you determine and what do they do about dust? I don't understand that one.

Well, it's always a concern. And this is a unique venue with a unique system of roadways being proposed to get out to the venue. And so dust is a concern. And so a lot of times they water down the area, maybe put some more gravel in and water that down and compact it before a major event, before we have, I don't know, 200, 300 or more people show up. And so you have the cars coming and going. Our concern is the blowing dust that would impact the adjacent residential neighborhood. And some of those residents are here this evening, and they did speak during the public hearing with the Planning Commission in August. So the blowing dust is always a concern here, and we get those south winds that kick up, and it can really blow. And we hear about it. Casey in Public Works and Cody in the building department get all the complaints on the phone when we have south winds and blowing dust. So it's an issue we have in the city. So we have trucks. So we're just trying to address it.

We have trucks that take care of that then.

No. No, we don't. Developers do, and others, they would have to have a water truck. So you have a water truck, you fill it with water, and you have someone that goes and waters that road before a large event. And if it's really large, they may water it again before everybody leaves. That's our concern, until they get all the road improvements. Because Matt will go over the development agreement, but with the BLM, we're looking at two to three years probably for some of those road improvements based on their timeline and the way they do things.

You know some of this hinges on improvements being done by others and that takes time and that's why we've addressed it in the development agreement, so Okay, a couple more questions, but I think they're about the development agreement really Because the so if we approve items eight and nine Is it subject to the development agreement or do we put the conditions in each like in each motion?

So we can take any conditions that you identify during this process and we can put them in the development agreement if you would like to. In fact, there is one section of the development agreement you might have seen where we actually reserved a section for additional conditions related to the short-term rental use specifically. just because we do have a list of regular conditions in the ordinance, but you have the opportunity to set additional conditions to mitigate particular concerns that you may have, and so we sort of reserve that in case you had any of those. That doesn't mean you have to limit that to the short-term rental issue. I mean, if there's other things that you feel need to be added to the development agreement, we can add those. Either you can make those a condition of your approval in your motion approving the development agreement, or we can talk about other options, too. But I don't know if that answers the question.

So there's room for change, in other words, if there needs to be.

Oh, of course. Yeah. Yeah, I mean, obviously, it's an agreement. It's a voluntary agreement. And so the applicants would have to agree. But they're here and can respond to any concerns that you may have.

OK, any other questions on the short-term rentals? We'll have further discussion later. OK, well, let's move on to item number 10 and discuss the development agreement.

OK. I know there's been a lot of talk so far. And I'll try to be as brief as I can. But I know you've seen this is a fairly complex agreement. I think rather than going through the agreement page by page, I think what I'd rather do is kind of address the key points and provisions. And then if we feel like we need to dive into the specific language, we can certainly do that. But I think this is maybe going to be the more efficient way to do it. So bear with me. Please stop me if there's something you want to discuss as I go. Just as context, though, I think it's useful to understand that this property from the beginning has had some unique challenges. For one thing, this property has existing uses on it. And so it came into the city by annexation with those existing uses, but it came in as a default open space zone. And so, you know, that doesn't mean they can't continue those uses. They can because they're existing uses. But it means there's an inherent conflict between the zoning and the ongoing uses. one of the major issues that this property is facing is access because the property is accessed from the city public streets to blm property where there is no dedicated road to a property owned by the santa clara canal company where they have an easement but it has a very limited scope to the property so in essence we have to get to the property you have to cross three different types of accesses first is just the regular public roads to get there then the second is the blm property which there is an existing road but it's not a it's not a dedicated road and then the third is a private easement And so we had to figure out how to address each of those sections or portions of the access road. That by itself makes this unique from really any other property in the city. And that uniqueness is why we feel it's appropriate, assuming you want to approve the project, we feel it's appropriate to have this be addressed as an exception to the city's normal standards. Because normally the city would say, you want to access a property for development purposes or for a new use or so on, you have to have a dedicated public right-of-way. Here that's just simply not possible. And so, you know, We were tasked with seeing if there was a way to make it work. And the development agreement, one of the major things it does is it proposes a way to make that work. The other thing that the development agreement does, just again, just speaking very high level, is because of the existing uses at the property, because of the concerns about fire protection, even if the city council was to say, you know, we don't want to see these new uses at the property, we still have uses there. We still have two residences there that have inadequate fire protection. There's no fire hydrants. There's no way for the fire department really to even get in there and do their job if there was some kind of an emergency. And so part of what we're trying to do both with this proposed approval and with the development agreement is to address a real safety concern. Granted, the use that you're being asked to approve is, I think, you know, accurately described as an expansion of the use, right, because we're going from two residences and an agricultural use to two short-term rentals plus, you know, a commercial event center use. But this is one way that we identified that the city could basically get improvements to the fire protection situation there at the property. We couldn't just go to the property owner and just mandate those things because they already have the right to use the property as it was being used when it was brought into the city.

So we're solving a problem.

there as well. The other thing is, just throughout this development agreement, you probably recognized it as you were going through it, but we tried to very narrowly tailor all of the approvals that are addressed in this agreement. You know, we defined the uses fairly narrowly. We were very specific that it's for a wedding and event center. We said, you know, this is not a situation where we're approving a commercial zone and they can do anything they want that's allowed in a commercial zone. It is specific to what's identified in their project plan and no more. We specifically called out things like camping, and we called out provision of alcohol without the appropriate licenses. And all of those uses that are not allowed, they trigger some pretty heavy consequences under the development agreement. And the reason those consequences are so heavy is because the development agreement treats these approvals that we're considering tonight as conditional approvals. In other words, they are not fully vested in these approvals that you're considering until they satisfy their obligations under the development agreement. So that's significantly different than we would normally do these things, because normally you would say, well, you've got a raw piece of land out here. You want to do this with it. Here's all the improvements you have to make before you can even build a structure on it, right? You've got to put in all the improvements. You've got to have the public access. Again, this is unique. We're doing it a little bit backwards just because of the reality of the situation. And so the development agreement doesn't grant any absolute vested rights. It says, we're vesting you these rights, but they're conditional on you doing this, this, and this. So that's all context, just to kind of give you the overall lay of the land.

So in essence, they're temporary vested rights.

There I would I would Temporary, but I would say more more accurately they're conditional conditional and and the conditions are are described by the development agreement and the development agreement also describes how if there's if something happens if a timetable isn't met if an improvement isn't completed if there's a violation of you know a use restriction a process by which the city would essentially pull those vested rights back and So that's something we've worked pretty hard on to make that clear. Frankly, it was one of the reasons why the Planning Commission in the end voted to recommend this to you is because they felt like the development agreement was frankly pretty tightly written, quite restrictive, and requires some very clear obligations from them. Anyway, let me dive into some of the specifics now with that sort of as the general overview. We talked about the use rights. Again, those are very narrowly tailored to the wedding and event venue plus the short-term rental use of the two homes. Let's see. I'm just looking at my notes here. Let me talk about the restriction on alcohol use for just a second. And I had a chance to talk with Councilwoman Hinton about this earlier today, but I just think it's worth highlighting. There has been some concern, I think prompted by a social media post, that there was some alcohol consumption going on at an event at the property. And I'm not making any judgment about that. I'm just saying there was a concern raised and that information brought to the city. And so there's been a discussion with the applicant about alcohol use on the premises. Originally, in the early drafts of the development agreement, it just basically said, No alcohol use at the premises unless you have licenses You know unless you have a license from the city and a license from the state no serving alcohol period As times gone on as we've looked more into the way the state permitting regulations would apply We've actually found that there are there may be times where they could serve alcohol at a private event where they would not need to be licensed by the state and and so we've added some nuance to the agreement to say you may not serve alcohol on the premises without the proper licenses and and what licenses you're required to have you know it depends on what the state of Utah requires essentially and if I can summarize that this this is oversimplified but the idea is that if you if you have a private event even at a commercial venue the the person providing the venue is not providing the alcohol as part of their commercial service if if someone brings the alcohol to the to the event and and is providing it but not selling it that it's not that there's no you know monetary compensation to the event, the person operating the event that includes the service of alcohol, then it is possible to serve alcohol without having a license and do so legally. The equivalent would be, it's not quite the same, but the idea is you can serve alcohol to people at your home without having a license to do so. You're just providing at a private setting. So you can have a private event on the property. Someone can come in, bring alcohol in, and serve it at that private event as long as no one's paying for it either in the form of an entrance fee or paying for the alcohol, so on and so forth. If you have any kind of a public event where the public is invited, or if you have any kind of an entrance fee, or of course if you're charging for the alcohol, yes, in all those scenarios you would have to have a license. So there's a little bit of nuance there, and I just wanted to highlight that. Just to maybe give you another example, we have the True Grit Race that comes every year to Santa Clara City. And every year they come for a special event permit to serve alcohol. It's a private event because not just anybody can walk in there, but they charge a fee to participate. And part of that fee covers them serving you a beer in their beer garden. And so because of that, they are required to have a license. But that might not apply in every circumstance. And so we've nuanced it a little more. It still says you have to have licensing if required by the state to serve alcohol. But we now recognize there may be situations where you're having a private wedding event, the family or the hosts or whoever brings in alcohol and serves to their guests, and that would not require them to be licensed under the law as it is currently written. So that's just a little bit of a deep dive on that particular topic. Any questions so far? Okay. Let me talk about the public safety issues and what they're actually required to do. So the first thing that they're required to do, the first improvement that they're required to make is to add a fire detection system in the existing homes. And we've worked on this extensively with the fire chief to try and describe what that is. They have 60 days to do that from the effective date of the development agreement. So it's a fairly short timeline. The reason for that is we view that as sort of a stopgap before we get the full fire protection measures put into place the second thing is the installation of a new water line that will service fire hydrants on the property and that's that's an eight inch water line it'll run from the city's main line over into the property and It'll be city-owned and city-maintained, and they're required to coordinate the provision of the required easements to the city so that the city can access the line and maintain it and so on. They already have water service at the property from the city system, but it's currently just service adequate for the two homes. So this is adding significant capacity to their water system so that they can actually have fire hydrants on the property. Let's see. I mentioned the easements. Those would come from the canal company and they would be for the benefit of the city. In terms of timing on those, I know that we have a proposal that's been submitted which proposes a new alignment for that new water line. We don't actually have those easements established yet and so one of the things that I I would recommend that we do if you choose to approve this tonight is that we we make a condition that The development agreement will not be signed by the city and it won't be recorded until we actually have those easements in hand from the from the canal company and frankly if the canal company will you know do the easements and sign them and hand them to the city we can sign them and record them with the development agreement and that would be satisfactory to me yes Right. And there's nothing in the development agreement that allows that to happen after. Those need to be established in conjunction with the development agreement. So I think that really should be a condition of any approval if you decide to approve this tonight.

Is the canal cut out? Go ahead.

Is the canal company fairly quick on these kind of things?

I can't answer that question. And that's really up to the applicants to work with them on it.

They've agreed to do it, right? They've agreed to do it. It shouldn't take forever.

They did provide an updated drawing that we received. That should be in the packet, or in the portfolio, I mean.

So we have an alignment. How long it takes them is really up to them, right? Because it's not the city's responsibility to go and twist the canal company's arm to do it on any particular timetable. That's why I say I think it needs to be a condition for the applicants to make sure that gets in the city's hands before we sign and record the development agreement. Now, I'll just say this. If you wanted to be stricter about it, you would say, we're not going to approve this until we have those easements in hand. I don't know that that's strictly necessary, but that would be your prerogative. OK. So that basically addresses the water line. I talked a little bit about the roads and the public access. One of the things you should understand that you're approving, if you choose to approve these and take these actions tonight, to approve the zone change and to approve the development agreement, is that you're approving some exceptions to city standards. The biggest one is the exception that we would normally require public road access to the property. The second one is you're approving an exception to the city's road construction standards, and it's a bit of an open exception because we don't know exactly what the BLM is going to allow them to do on the BLM property. We do know that the canal company easement is narrow, that the canal company has maintained they don't want any permanent improvements on their property outside of the water line itself. And so we expect that it will look like probably some kind of an all-weather surface, probably not asphalt of any kind. And so you're basically saying that's acceptable. We're not going to require that to meet city standards. all-weather service and that they're required to maintain it correct yes that is a difference and it's actually I'll just point out it's a difference from the city's current agreement with the applicant which is the annexation agreement that that we signed with them under the current agreement the city is actually already maintaining those roads as in their current condition So with the approval of this and the signing of the development agreement, that responsibility will actually shift back to the property owner. And we think that's appropriate given the circumstances. So this is actually relevant to the questions earlier about the dust issue. It will be the property owner's responsibility, the applicant's responsibility to mitigate dust. And the development agreement addresses this, points out specifically that they need to comply with dust control requirements that are already in the city ordinances. You know, we could talk about water trucks and all of that, but ultimately it's up to the developer to figure it out. you know, what's going to work best, whether that's, like Jim said, you know, a water truck, every time they have, you know, a significant amount of traffic pass through, we know that people are going to be watching, right, and people are going to be concerned. And so, you know, we'd obviously encourage the property owner to be vigilant and do a good job at this. I thought maybe there was a question down there.

I'll save the question for later.

Okay, okay. OK, we talked about the road maintenance. Let me talk about timetables just a second. We talked about the timetable for the installation of the fire detection system in the homes. That's a short 60-day timetable. The timetable for completion of the new water line is six months. So that's the next shortest timetable. And then for the BLM approvals to do the BLM road improvements, we've actually given them I lost it. We've given them two years, and then once they get the formal BLM approval that says you can do this, this, and this, they then have one year to complete it. The two years is a pretty long timetable, but the reality is that we all recognize that none of us have control over the BLM and their timetable, and they're notoriously slow. So we're trying to be realistic about that.

Let me ask you a question there. Could they not come back and ask for an extension based on what we've done and give us the provenance, check, check, check, check?

Yes. In fact, the development agreement provides for, has built in two six-month extensions. Yeah. So there's a condition for that, though, and that condition is they are required to check in with the TRC, but they only get the right to request those extensions if they've been doing that check-in with the TRC on a regular basis. And it talks about the timetable in there. But that means come to a TRC meeting, which you all know are held every Thursday morning, report on progress, this is where we're at, this is where the application's at, et cetera, et cetera. So it's not an onerous thing, but we thought it was important to have that continuing contact and continuing updates. One thing I'll mention about the BLM Application we did agree to basically lend the city's name to that application Because we recognize that that may help get it through the process better But the development agreement clearly says it's not the city's responsibility to pursue the application even though the city's name is on it And and they understand that so Just a couple of things about other utilities. Sewer is not required under our current ordinance. They're far enough away from the existing sewer system that they're not required to connect to it. That could change in the future if they came back for some future development approval or wanted an additional entitlement or something, and if development has gotten closer to them, which we believe it probably will. They may have to connect to the sewer in the future if they want some additional approvals, but for now no sewer required They're not required to integrate.

I did have a question about that Yeah, so it requires if they if they have any improvements or expansion of their existing septic then it requires them to tie into the city. And my understanding from in here, it's more than 1,000 feet away. What's the reason? And there was a similar provision for power, because they're on Rocky Mountain Power, I think. And if they add a single new breaker to the breaker panel, then it automatically triggers. I had a question about both of those provisions that automatically trigger the necessity to pay impact fees and tie into the sewer and power and what the reasoning for that is.

Some of that is a carryover from our existing annexation agreement. If you remember, when they were annexed into the city, we basically went through most of the city services. And we said, OK, we recognize that you're already connected to water. And we recognize that you're getting power from here and here. And so we talked about, you know, when impact fees would be due for the various services, et cetera, et cetera. So some of that's carried over. The sewer is really straightforward. We just looked at the city's current ordinance, and they're outside of the distance where they would be required to connect. So that's, yeah, so simple answer on that one.

If they wanted to add a larger septic tank or something like that. The way I read it is they can't do that.

Yeah, we wouldn't approve. The way septic is approved is it's sort of a two-step approval because we would approve it and the health department would have to approve it as well. We're basically just saying we're not going to approve any expansions to the septic. So if they want more capacity, then they'll have to connect to the sewer. And again, we do think that because of the properties that are near this, there are some discussions about potential development there. We think the sewer is probably going to be closer to them in the near future, and so it would probably be appropriate at that point anyway. But we're just relying on the existing requirements of the ordinance on that. The power was a little more complex. We recognized from the beginning of this clear back to the annexation that switching from Rocky Mountain Power to Santa Clara City Power would be a pretty significant expense. And there's some question about how that would actually happen because there's some significant infrastructure that's owned by Rocky Mountain Power which services the property. And so we've basically agreed to the approach that you mentioned. If they need more power in the future for more intense use, different use, whatever, that they come back to the city to apply for, then that will trigger a requirement to actually switch. And so what it does is it allows them to continue their current service, but it also puts them on notice that there's going to be an investment that they have to make in the future if they want to, if they need more power. And so we've worked pretty closely with Gary to outline in the development agreement. It's probably the most detailed sections addressing utilities are the ones talking about what their options are if that requirement is triggered. And so we've tried to kind of address all the eventualities.

I've got a question about that specific provision. Yeah. Because it says... So if they, this is in 3.3 FIA regarding power impact fees. And so it says, in the event that future changes to land uses or development applications require the installation of any additional or upsized permanent electrical infrastructure at the property, including but not limited to the addition of new breakers or the upsizing of existing breakers within an existing electrical service panel, the developer shall be required to transfer services from Rocky Mountain to Santa Clara. So I guess my question is, I'm not an electrician. I don't know. If you make any modification that would add a new breaker to your panel, does that require an application, or can a homeowner do that, add a breaker or two or three into their house without an application?

Gary, I don't know if you want to address that question. I'm not an electrician either.

That's probably more of a code enforcement question, but I don't believe if you've got empty spaces in your existing panel, you can add a breaker. If you've got a spare spot, I don't think so. But if you're adding a sub-panel somewhere, that does require an inspection from a building inspector.

What about if they wanted solar? I'm just curious about solar.

They would have to get a building permit to add solar.

So if they want to get solar or they want to expand their breaker panel, then they'd be required to convert over to the Santa Clara Power and pay the impact fees. It doesn't make sense to me. Yeah, that doesn't make sense.

Can I, Mayor and Madam Brock, I just want to mention something. So on July 30th, we were asked a question by the applicant about being able to do more breakers or provide additional capacity. We sent him an email on July 30, 2026, regarding providing load calculations, identifying current loads on the system. So we asked him to provide that calculation, that study, and the applicant chose not to do that, just to proceed and move on. So that's the request that was asked, that load calculations be provided to identify current loads on the existing system.

Yeah, and so I can add some color to this. So I also brought up the same concern as I work on the development agreement. And yeah, staff decided, well, we just want to make sure that the system isn't getting overloaded. And so we offer the option of you can have an electrician come in, figure out your loads. And then if you switch some breakers around, and it doesn't really change the load on the whole system, then that's probably fine. And the applicants decided, we'll just stick with what's in the agreement instead of doing that. And so they can address that later if we want to ask any more questions on that. Okay, anything else from Matt before we keep going?

Well, I'm just going to add, in regards to them coming to Santa Clara Power and being on Rocky Mountain Power, that is also an exception to our code. Our code does require those in Santa Clara to be serviced by Santa Clara Power, so we are granting them an exception to not be moving to Santa Clara Power at this time. So we are granting them some leeway of not having that burden, that expense, as Matt talked about happening right now, that they can work that into the future plans.

And that's actually consistent with, again, the existing annexation agreement because it says basically the same thing. What we've done is we've taken that from the annexation agreement and we've just expanded it. We've gone into more detail about their options for transitioning just because we wanted to make it as clear as possible for whoever's in charge 10, 15, 20 years down the road that they can look at that and go, OK, this is what the city said they could do. So anyway. I don't know if that answers all the questions, but... Answers my questions. Okay.

Let me just clarify. You all do understand that this is a vesting that records with the deed, right? This development agreement is in perpetuity, so it has to be spelled out so that if they do sell this, that is all part of the continuing... There's things that are triggered through that. You understand that, right?

Yes, sir. And that is worth mentioning. And this is true of any development agreement that we would do. But if you approve this and the development agreement is recorded and then they sell the property tomorrow, that just means there's a new party on the other side of the development agreement. Then that party will be bound just like the current owner is. And so I think everybody understands that, but just thought I'd mention it. Okay, I know this is I know this is going long, but there's a couple more things. I want to highlight impact fees We did something again a little bit unique here in this development agreement in that because of because of the way we have Dealt with the impact fees on this property where some impact fees we've said we recognize that you've basically Satisfied the requirement and others we've said, you know, well We're gonna let you go for a period of time without paying additional impact fees on a particular thing, I just thought, let's just lay it all out in the agreement. So it's there in dollars and cents. It addresses every single impact fee. And so exhibit C of the agreement is a table that basically goes through every single one of the city's impact fees. It has a dollar amount for each use and a short explanation of how the city calculated those. So again, we don't end up in this situation where you might see from time to time where we say, well, we agree. We're going to defer your obligation to pay an impact fee. And then we go, well, how do we calculate it now? Or what was the trigger supposed to be? I think we've done a good job of laying out very clearly what those impact fees are, what needs to be paid now, what's being deferred, et cetera. And we can go into more detail on that if you want, but I'll leave it at that for now. We talked about the short-term rental provision, that there's space there for any additional conditions you might identify. Let me talk for just a second about the default and termination provisions. So again, the vested rights that are being granted here, I characterize them as conditional vested rights. And this is why. The development agreement provides that if there is a default under the agreement by the applicant, that the city can go through a process to pull those vested rights back. And basically that process is we identify what the default is and we put them on written notice. They have 60 days to cure that default. They have the opportunity to meet and confer with the city to try and resolve the issue during that 60 days. If they do not cure that default within 60 days, Then the city council will have a public meeting where the issue of concern will be discussed. The applicant will have the opportunity to attend and present evidence and speak in their defense. And then the city council will vote on whether to terminate the agreement. So it's a fairly well-defined process. Again, it's somewhat unique because we wanted it to be clear. We wanted it to be as defensible of a process as we could create because, again, we would be pulling back these vested rights that are addressed in the agreement. Now, I will say there's a couple of things. Well, one that I will mention is if there's a violation of the liquor permitting requirements in the development agreement, the alcohol service requirements, then that actually triggers a default where we can act without the 60 days. We just characterize that as such a significant issue potentially that it's called out as essentially we would be able to act without having that 60-day waiting period. Matt? Yeah.

Sorry to interrupt you, but on that procedure or whatever for termination, you said that the city would do this. How is that initiated? Who starts that process of the noticing, the 60 days? Who puts it on the agenda? How does that work?

I suspect it would follow our typical practice which is that the mayor and Brock and you guys if you want to characterize this differently please please do because I'm kind of speaking for you here but generally the agenda for the City Council is set based on that the mayor and Brock and city staff conferring and deciding when things go on the agenda I think that the mayor has the right to basically say at any time this needs to go on the agenda And it will go on the agenda That's that's about as I mean, that's it's pretty straightforward I don't know if you guys want to add anything to that, but that's that's typically how it happens And that's how I would expect it would happen here Now the City Council members can always request that something be added to the agenda as well and

According to our procedure, is that two city council members?

Yeah. And in a situation where the mayor and the city manager are just saying, no, we don't want to add it to the agenda, if two city council members request it, then it needs to go on the agenda. So never in my experience here at the city seen anything like that happen. If a city council member wants something on the agenda, it gets put on the agenda. But that's the formal process. OK.

OK. On this violations and noticing it up, there's a couple of them that, like the alcohol one that mentioned giving written notice, there's a couple of them that just said notice. I was thinking it'd be best if we interlineate there and add written, just making sure that that's written notice. I saw that in 4.2 and in 12.4b. I would just suggest we add that, make sure that it's written notice.

Yeah, that's good feedback. Thank you. And I think that's the intent, so it's good to make it clear for sure. Could you tell me, it was 4. I had 4.2. 12.4b.

And then d. Yeah, 12.4 subpart b.

Okay, good. Then I won't have to hunt for them, so thank you. Okay, I think I'm going to stop talking. I think I covered everything that I feel like is critical parts of this, so happy to answer any questions that you have, though.

question that I have. Noise, that was kind of a primary concern of the residents of the Hills across the way. And Janine and I went and knocked doors and talked to the residents there. And there's a handful of houses that can hear. It's interesting that the further away you get, Nobody heard anything. But I think noise was addressed in here, that they have to comply with noise ordinances. And if they're not in compliance, then that's a way that they would lose their conditional use.

Yeah, and this was actually a topic of quite a bit of discussion with the Planning Commission because there was some concern about this. There was discussion about just the, you know, the geology and geography of the property and the surrounding properties. We didn't make any changes to the development agreement based on that discussion. I think that there's certainly, I think some are of the opinion that, you know, that they're concerned about the issue. Others have the opinion that there's a significant separation between this property and the closest residential properties just based on the river in between. Certainly, I'm not judging any of those positions. But it's an issue of concern and one that if you want to add something to address it further to the development agreement, we can do that. But yes, as currently written, it just refers back to the noise ordinances that are already on the books.

So in the conditional use permit for the nightly rentals that had a 10 p.m. to 8 a.m., is that the same as what's in the code, essentially? Would we need to include something that specific into the development agreement as well, or would the city code take care of that naturally?

Yeah, I believe that's the times in the city code. I can pull it up and look unless Jim remembers off the top of his head, but.

Well, they proposed those times. That was part of their conditional use application. Matt, we're going to have to pull those up, but I believe it's not after 11 p.m. or before 7 a.m. in the city code.

I thought it was 11, not 10, especially on a weekend.

That's what I just said. Council Member Burton, that's what I just said. So 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. I think is the noise ordinance.

Is that what I'm understanding? We were looking at 11 to 7 as part of it.

So I'll need you to come to the microphone if we do want to have them answer any questions. It's a little beyond the minutes.

That worked.

OK, perfect. Go ahead with any other questions, council.

And I'll have a specific answer to that question here in just a second. I'm just pulling the ordinance up.

And I can give another anecdote to this. I live on Rachel Drive. And I have a neighbor that is basically the speakers from Cafe Rio point directly to his backyard. And so it's almost like they get a new manager and they crank up the radio. And he has to call the city. And we actually have an actual thing to measure how loud it is at a property line. And we can actually go to Cafe Rio and say, hey, you have to turn it down. And so something like that could happen here as well, where a resident complains and city staff could go out and do a test and see if they really are breaking the law.

So I confirmed it is in the ordinance. It's 11 to 7. So if we did 10 PM to 8 AM, that would be more restrictive than the ordinance.

Especially for weddings.

Which we can do. We can put that as a condition in the development agreement if you like.

I was just asking if we need to include something in there, let's do. If we don't, and just referencing that, then I think that's fine. It was in the conditional use for the overnight rentals. Correct. That it had the 10 p.m.

But the city ordinance does specifically address noise. And so we refer it back to City Code 19-12-20 or whatever that section is. I have it in multiple sections. But they are required to meet that requirement. And so with other short-term rentals and other conditional uses, we've been specific, and I think just listing 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. is fine if you agree.

Okay, very good. Matt, do you have anything else?

Not unless there's any questions.

So council, I think it would be a good time to have the applicant come up and give anything they'd like to present to the council. Do you have any representatives that you'd want to send up and add any color, any further information?

Well,

Hi, Mayor and City Council. Thank you for allowing us to be here. It has been a long year and a half. It's kind of like a church talk. You know it's coming, but you still shake when you're here. So thank you for listening to us and for working with us, all of our city workers. And Jim, poor guy, you talk all the time on our behalf. But thank you again. And I think what we'd love to share with you is just, again, a little bit of our vision and why we're doing what we're doing. I don't know. I guess sitting back there, I kind of wonder why we're doing what we're doing, because this is really hard. First, you need to know we're not developers. We're actually an education. We work with schools and school districts all over the country, and that's really who we are. Second, or maybe first, I don't know, we're farmers and ranchers, and we are Santa Clara farmers. community members and have been since the existence of Santa Clara. That's just who we are. So it's a little bit hard to call ourselves developers, because we really don't feel that that's kind of our role. And we might be almost the anti-developer, because this property, as you can tell when we had the honor of acquiring this, is not what a normal developer would do. We have a feeling and we've been told by many people that if they were going to develop it would be homes and apartments or townhomes because there's just so much property and that's not who we are. We really are trying to preserve this property and honor Santa Clara's history and preserve what was there. I shared this with planning and zoning, but one of the most unique things when we were looking at this property and were really contemplating adding this, the only reason we wanted to was to farm it for the fruit stand to get more land to get produce for the fruit stand. And I took my mom and a couple of her cousins down, and my uncle Dennis, and we just went on a little ride. And they kind of told us the history, where they used to picnic there in the 40s and 50s and 60s. And that's where, prior to the Rosenbrooks getting it, the community gathered. And it just hit our hearts that this was a really good place to allow the community to do that again. So when the opportunity came up or the idea came up to have an events venue in this place without changing kind of what it is, it actually just felt really good to us. So we know it's been a gathering place for years. And I probably shared this with some of you individually. We actually have petroglyphs and rock carvings that actually say our families have been there since the Swiss and the Native Americans in that same location. And we wanted to just honor that with what we're doing here with the ranch at Santa Clara and just bringing people back. So that is kind of who we are. And secondly, we believe that it'll help Santa Clara economically. We believe that it will bring people to Santa Clara, but sadly, a little bit selfishly, not to stay permanently. We'd rather them come and visit and spend their money and then be on their way enjoying the beauty that we have here. But we hope that they come, and we hope that they enjoy and that they see, and we have no doubt that they will spend their money in Santa Clara with the other businesses. And we're excited about that, too, because we want them to buy from Domino's and go to Harmon's and go to the fruit stand and go to all the cute little shops here along Santa Clara Drive that really should be serviced more. And we just don't have a lot of people coming to Santa Clara for many things. Although, thank goodness for the PGA coming, right? That puts us on the map. But we know that we can help with that a little bit through some tax generation. We actually have plans and ideas to actively promote local businesses, too. We want them to be just as involved in this. And we're excited to do that and collaborate with them. So we want you to know that, that we think it's important that we share. We love, in our family, historical tourism ourselves. We go overseas to see really cool things that have been there a long time. And our idea really is to keep the ranch as it is and talk about the history and allow people to look at the petroglyphs and just enjoy. And we know that that can actually help bring people to Santa Clara and want to be here. So we just ultimately believe that this is a really good thing for Santa Clara, for our home that we love so much. This is really hard. This is putting a huge financial Burden on our family to do this, but we feel like it's important and we have been appreciative of the city working with us you know helping us make things safe and we want that we I Appreciate our neighbors You know sharing their concerns because I hope that you see that we've been nothing but amiable to try to help them You know not have noise or light anytime anybody's asked for something. We've really tried to be nothing, but kind and adhering to anything you guys have asked and so We just hope that you vote for this in in favor of us this evening and We're excited because we know that We can also allow some of these kiddos. I have to tell you, being in education, it was so good seeing all these kids in here tonight. And we know that with this kind of business, we can actually have more kids employed, that they can work down at the ranch and do things that they've never had the opportunity to do. We love employing kids at the fruit stand and we can't wait to do it more at the ranch and keep these local kids local where they're having a part of their community and being able to To just be proud of where they come from and be able to show that off. So Again, we just hope that you vote in favor of this and we'll do everything we can to make Santa Clara proud So any questions, let us know Yeah, I canceled the other questions for the applicant

I do have one, and Brock gets back in item eight. We didn't get down to the very bottom showing the new alignment for the water line.

Yeah, you want to see the map, the new Santa Clara Field Canal Company. I think it's included with the rezoning one. Is that correct?

Yeah. So I just have to zoom out a little bit. Could you maybe just explain what's going on with this and kind of the progress? And if we want to have Jared come up, he can also explain.

Do you want to do it?

Good, thank you. Perfect.

Jared Bates with Rosenberg Associates.

Yeah, so I've met with Jim Ence and then with Dennis Fry about this. Basically, the idea would be they have, at some point in the future, they would like to do more with this property than what's here. And so what they'd like to do is ensure that the proposed water line is in harmony with the future development plans they might have on their own. So the idea is that that water would go. potentially for a future roadway. At some point, there are no current plans. But the idea is, hey, if there is something, we don't want to move the waterline twice. We want to make sure that it's in a spot that makes sense for them. And this is what they felt like was reasonable. So I've met with them. Again, they might have some further ideas or discussions. But this was the recommendation. And I kind of drew it up. So that's basically it.

Okay, and Council, do you want to ask any questions about timelines on this at all? Because this is a major thing to make sure they have the water so they could have a fire engine service down there.

This is the 8-inch?

Yeah, this is the 8-inch line, but it's not recorded yet, right?

Yeah, 8-inch line, like I said, I feel like it's pretty straightforward. Casey, do you have any concerns about this? So as long as Casey's happy, it should be able to go through pretty fast.

All you're doing is changing the location with this new location. Do you want to give kind of perspective of how far you moved it and things like that? It's not significant.

Yeah, I mean, as it was drawn originally, it just followed the existing access easement. But that access easement really doesn't favor the canal company at all. And so this is more in favor of them.

But the other factor, too, is that the alignment of the current water line actually goes onto the BLM property. And so one of the things we realized is that if we could realign that and pull it solely onto the canal company property, then it could be done much sooner.

so that was one of the objectives in yeah exactly would have been the same two year and one year because basically i i met me and randy met with the blm to go through these things and they really spelled out hey this is going to take you this amount of time we can't guarantee anything yeah uh good luck

Yeah, and so we really wanted to accelerate, again, the fire protection solutions. And one way was to realign where that water line was going to go so it wouldn't require BLM approval and we could just take care of it working with the applicant and the canal company.

one thing on this this picture though that we do need corrected this depicts the easement through the canal company but we also have need to include their easement that takes the water line up to the house because that'll be a city Water lines we need easement so up the hill to there and all the way down Right, so you're the ones that go through the the Yocum's property. Yeah, it's still gonna be a city water line So we're gonna want it easement sure to maintain that line.

So, okay those will have to just be Updated and I think so the one that goes down rocking that one will be covered by the 45-foot easement These guys have got drawn now Would be just the one that comes that goes west here that makes sense yeah Well on the original one the original one that we showed earlier it had that line going on the project plan the lower access drive going But is that that one you're talking to 45 foot with the city or with the canal company That would be the the city one because because once it crosses that the boundary. It's on their property so we work it out. Yeah, I got your point I

um and then earlier today we discussed about including that drawing in as exhibit d in the development agreement um that we are looking at today yes yes yes okay well council i think at this point we've had presentations and um i think we should just have a good discussion and have any questions for staff and

So does anyone want to go first?

I had another question. So with the road, so it goes through what I counted, I think, six or seven parcels, I think seven parcels including theirs, five different landowners. Am I understanding correct that they're, and this is a change, what you mentioned, it's a change from the annexation agreement that was entered into, that they're now responsible for maintenance of the entire road from Santa Clara Drive through the six other properties to their property?

So actually I'm glad you brought this up because it's definitely worth clarifying. Where the existing road passes through other private properties, their obligation is basically to work with those property owners so that when those properties develop that it's dedicated as a public road. It doesn't necessarily have to be in that alignment, but so that they have public road access from the existing public roads all the way to the BLM property. So on those parcels that are privately owned, that's the applicant's obligation. Until then, the road will just stay as it is on those parcels.

And what was the – I'm just hearing all these things, and I appreciate that they're in Santa Clara and all of that. I can't help but wonder why they annexed into Santa Clara to go through this headache. What's the benefit to them? I'm worried about future annexation. We passed an annexation plan earlier this year, I think at my first meeting, where we identified areas that we'd like to annex, but – It's only cost and only headache. I don't know that any other landowners want to are gonna want to come into the city and if they're now obligated to Put in and maintain a road that goes across five other landowners and pay impact impact fees for streets in addition to that 60,000 and Convert over to the power if they want to make any electrical additions all of that stuff I I just don't I guess I don't get it and I don't get why we would require them to put in and maintain the road if we're making them holding them to everything else in the annexation agreement, but Only piling on top

Well, again, we're not requiring them to put in and maintain the road on the private properties. Their responsibility is to do the improvements to the road and maintain the improvements to the road on the BLM and on the canal company properties. We recognize that the road on the private properties leading up to that is, it will have to follow development, right, because those private properties are not part of this process. So we're not imposing any additional obligation on the applicant there other than just to work with those private property owners to make sure that ultimately when they develop their properties that that access is preserved.

I guess the way I read it is it says from Santa Clara Drive. to their property. The first two parcels are Santa Clara City. Then we've got a strip that's Ivan City before we hit the, well, I think it's the Anderson. Well, formerly Kelly Graff, then Anderson. Right now, I think it's Hope Street is the owner, which is another issue I just saw in there because it references Anderson's working with the Andersons. But the Andersons don't own it. It's owned by an LLC. I wonder if we need to correct that.

They probably changed it to an LLC or flipped it, but that's who we've met with, Mr. Anderson.

Yeah, and the LLC is owned by the Anderson.

Yeah, so they, yeah.

Yeah, and again, the idea is to, if we need to clarify this, we can. But the idea is we recognize that the timing of the improvement of the public road through those private properties depends almost entirely on those private property owners. And so we're not imposing any new burden on this applicant because of that. So if the property we refer to as the Anderson property, when they come in and ask for a subdivision or whatever they're going to do with their property, they will have an obligation to dedicate and improve the public roads associated with their project. And that will be the trigger that addresses that portion of the access. And back to your comment about the county, they would obviously have to answer the question as to why they chose to annex into Santa Clara. They might be asking themselves now that very question. But the county has its own requirements for development. It has its own infrastructure standards. It has its own zoning codes. There would have been a process there not much different from what we've done. And so I think in fairness, it's hard to say that they would have been better off staying in the county. I mean, it was their decision. Obviously, they made a judgment call. And we worked with them to make it happen. But I think there's some discounting going on there that it wouldn't have been a difficult process in the county when it very well could have been a much more difficult process. And it very well could have been that the county was not willing to do any of it. So I think you have to consider that.

maybe and i'll add the i think the things that we're asking them to do are no different than we ask of a developer doing a subdivision to the developer who did the hills which was formerly a whole nother subdivision they had to put in the gates lane bridge and that road waterline sewer storm power all the way out there through working with private property owners to get it to get that development that is sometimes the difficulty of doing development when you're the furthest out and you go first, you put in those improvements. And everybody along the way benefits from that because you brought all that infrastructure to them. And so I don't think this is anything different. The same thing if somebody didn't annex in and was in Ivan City and some of those things, they're going to have the same development Obligations in that city as they would in Santa Clara. So I don't think they're those Again, the question is but Matt said yeah, it's a good question for them But it's not different than what would be asked of anybody black desert doing it They're having to put the roads in all the infrastructure but like they mentioned they're not developers and But this is a developing project. And so they may not call themselves developers, but this is a development. The subdivision of Big Rocks is a development that they.

But it already exists.

Not in that use.

Well, right. But they're not developing anything.

You have to look at how the ordinances are written. The ordinances are written to protect all the citizens.

Yeah, and I can add another anecdote to this. With the streets impact fee, staff really, really wrestled with that. And $60,000 is a lot of money that's in the development agreement. But there were 10 different ways to try to figure out what that fee should be, and there were multiples more than that. And so city staff really tried to be as fair as possible to find something that really made sense and fit. And that's why it's delineated so clearly in the development agreement, how they came to that number. Because there isn't, in the IT trip manual, there isn't something for wedding venue. So it wasn't just a straight, this is the numbers, this is how you go. We had to back our way into it to figure out something that was fair. And again, that would be anyone that has developed what would have to pay those fees This is just again.

It's a unique project where it is built But they are changing the use and so there's some requirements to come along with that I love the fact that they're keeping it open and it's going to be something that is part of our heritage here and how they've really put a lot of time and effort into You know something that's going to impact Santa Clara in such a positive way. And I feel like they're being kind of punished for something that they're doing.

I'd just like to mention, With my years of experience, generally counties can't provide appropriate services that cities can. And most counties encourage that you annex into a city to provide public safety, water, sewer, all of the infrastructure-type needs. And especially fire and police, you know, they just can't provide a good service like a city can. And so with the amount of people and the need, You know, and possibly, you know, things happen. We hope things don't happen, but there are emergencies that happen. It's best that they're in the city and not in the county because we can provide better services than the county ever could.

Yeah, I understand why.

Yeah.

OK, council, anyone else would like to speak? Can you help me understand why the six months is from the date that the canal company completes the easement documents instead of like the six months from when this development agreement is signed?

That's probably somewhat arbitrary. So if we wanted to go from the date of the development agreement, I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.

Okay.

Like I pointed out earlier, I think based on what's in front of you, it would make a lot of sense to say you know in your passage of this if that's what you choose to do is we're gonna make as a condition of this approval that The city needs the easement documents in hand before the development agreement is signed And so nothing is vested until that point and then the six months could go from the agreement And that would work out better. Yeah.

Yeah, so okay and then on the noise ordinance enforcement is a Is the enforcement under the development agreement is, well, as the development agreement's written, the noise enforcement is enforced through the developers if they don't enforce it with their renters at the short-term rental.

Right.

And so this won't be like a citation from a police officer or anything? Or a code officer?

Well, it could be because this doesn't replace our other enforcement mechanisms. It's in addition to those. And so if someone violates a noise ordinance, they could be cited under our existing ordinances, and that would put them into the administrative review process that we use. this doesn't replace that it's this is a much in my view a much more serious consequence right rather than getting cited and having to pay some fines but but that's kind of where I was going with the with the short-term renter be cited or would the developer be cited in that event it's possible this short-term renter could be cited

Yeah. But this gives us another avenue with the developer.

And this one is specifically targeted to the developer, yeah.

OK. And then I had down on number two, I think, what this might be back to off the development agreement. Is that all right if we do that?

Yeah, definitely.

I think on number two, Jim, on one of the, One of the requirements, what are the site improvements to meet city standards that we've required? I better find it.

Are we on the zone?

I think it's on the zone change application.

Oh, the zone change.

OK. And I don't know if those are spelled out or if I've just missed them. What number is it? Number two.

That number two is really a standard condition of approval that we use for subdivisions, site plans, and other projects throughout the city. So our city standards are specifications and details through the public works department they have to meet all those requirements but in this case there are some exceptions being granted to the roadway improvements but other things um you know are required to meet those um standard specification and detail engineering requirements through public works so that's why i add that condition okay thank you yep

You've answered all my questions. I mean, I can tell Randy and Sue this. When I met with you, the three things we talked about, you've addressed. So I do worry sometimes from the fact of spot zoning. This is a little bit of a different exception. So there's a challenge there. But the three things that we spoke about, you've addressed. So I appreciate your efforts there.

With apologies to Mark, I have to jump in for a second, because whenever I hear the term spot zoning, I can't help myself.

Spot zoning is not a legal term in Utah.

I think we all understand what it's meant to convey. But there's actually not a prohibition in Utah law on what we might generally call spot zoning.

So what would you explain that really quickly, what that spot zoning was?

Spot zoning is a term that's used to define an area where you look at an actual spot inside the master plan and you say, OK, we don't like the way the master plan's written, so we're going to change that zone based on these criteria. So it doesn't flow with the master plan. And if you look at this right now, this changes from the master plan, but how do you get around it to achieve what you want to achieve?

And it also entails an implication that there's not proper buffering between zones and things like that.

There is. There's thousands of feet.

And the reality is that this is a legislative action. So you as the city council, as the legislative body of the city, actually have very wide latitude to decide how to zone a property when an application comes to you. So that's why I say. Whenever whenever I hear spot zoning apologies, but I just have to jump in Okay council any other questions

I think back to one of the questions I had before about the sewer and the power. I'm just wondering, I guess I understand it more with the sewer. With the power, if they're adding a new breaker or something like that, expanding their panel, that automatic trigger, I'm wondering if we could remove that. Automatic trigger or at least that parenthetical that it's applying even to just expanding their their breaker panel So that they're not just because they're expanding the breaker panel triggering that Having to join the Santa Clara power and incur all the costs associated with transferring that over and putting in the infrastructure and that sort of thing That's something we could

Also, see, and that's the one area that I'll fight you on because it goes against what the ordinance is. The ordinance states that they're annexed into the city. They have to be on city power. You're already giving them an exception to the rule. I think you're overlooking the breaker. I think that it's not just that little switch that your circuit breaker that you're thinking about. You're talking about significant change that would impact it.

The additional wiring throughout the structure.

Significant draw, significant use, those types of things.

Yeah. I was thinking if we could, I guess, extend that exception even beyond some additional load, as Jim had mentioned. And I would make that suggestion that we at least remove that parenthetical and that 3.3 FIA. why would we do that so that if they need to add additional power load that it's not triggering just a if they file an application to do that that it's not triggering transferring over their power where they're having to pay the electrical Impact fees and then putting in the infrastructure to connect to Santa Clara power where they're already on Rocky Mountain power if they want to add additional load.

Yeah, isn't that the reason for the transfer?

Yes, that's that was in the annexation annexation agreement so that's already been agreed upon that they would do that the development agreement just clarifies and specifies. So like Matt discussed earlier, so if they do happen to sell it, it's just more spelled out. I guess not so general. It's just specific. It just explains it better in the development agreement. But it's worded pretty much the same as in the annexation agreement. Right.

This agreement's modifying other provisions of the annexation agreement. I just don't see the reason why we would need to do that and force them to incur that if they do plan on and if they've discussed making some changes

Mayor?

Yeah. Go ahead, Jerry.

Yes. I mean, this is an interesting point. I think the question would be is the reason why you would change to different powers if there's an additional load placed on the system. So I think when it was brought up originally about the idea of having them do, say, a load calc with an electrician, maybe a compromise would be, hey, if these guys want to add something, they have an electrician come out. And if their improvement requires additional power, resource, additional load that's significant that we would require. In a normal case, like with a building permit that would require, you know, what Gary mentioned, you know, an additional panel, then yeah, by all means, you're looking at the idea of going to City of Santa Clara Power. But if they're really not, a change isn't required like that, then I would agree with Justin. I think you kind of let that go. That would be my thought, because I think that's the intent of what we're doing here. Because if they're going to add another fan to the living room, yeah, I don't think we're doing that. That was my intention of it. Now I'm not sure if it was something that was other or beyond that. That would be something I'm not aware of.

I don't want to cause problems if there's not one. So is there not a problem with the language that's in there?

No, I agree with you. I think the idea would be, hey, if they're adding power that they really have to get more service, like if their 220, if their current service isn't enough, then by all means, they should go through the building department and get a building permit and get some additional loads. But if they don't need that and they're just making changes, it doesn't make sense. And so I agree with what you're saying.

Well, maybe for just some additional context, the way that the city was going to essentially document their current power setup was essentially just to take pictures of their current breakers, you know, and see how they're currently set up. Am I right about that, Gary? That was the discussion?

Yeah. When Dan was going to do an inspection and Cody, they were going to do that.

I'll do whatever the council directs us to do on this. Obviously, I hedge a little bit because I want to get Gary's blessing on the technical side for whatever we do. But I think if we do what you're suggesting, that would mean that that method of verification would not work because they could change things in their panel. Which again, if we need to find a way to do that, we can do that if that's the direction of the council.

I think you're trying to change something that's already been accepted in the annexation agreement. So why are you changing something that's being brought forth in the body in the language of the annexation agreement? Anybody else would have been held at the same standard.

I think that's where I would disagree. It's like the noise ordinance thing where you say, hey, it's 11 to 7. I think what these guys would probably want is, hey, let's hold these guys to the same standard as the rest of the community. So for example, if their neighbor wants to add a fan and they add a breaker to their panel, you're not going do some wild thing that costs a bunch of money and costs a bunch of work. I think that's probably the point that Justin's trying to make, I think, is that. So if we look and say, hey, if you feel like you need a billing permit to add all this power, then by all means, go through this process. If it's just make a small change that's insignificant. I think the concern that we've got is when you have the word breaker in this agreement, it's kind of trying to take something very technical and adding it to some language that probably isn't as technical as what It's not really technical for the process.

Well, that was frankly one of the concerns about the annexation agreement is it didn't describe technically what would trigger the requirement. And so the attempt here is to describe in more technical terms what would trigger the requirement. Again, if the city council wants to modify the trigger, that's totally your prerogative. But we need to decide that. And we'd like to make it clear.

Yeah. I guess, what's the intent of the trigger? What's the intent of, I guess, forcing them over to Santa Clara Power? Just that otherwise we're operating under an exception? Or is there some technical reason why they would need to? move over to Santa Clara Power and incur the cost associated with that.

Well, like Brock mentioned before, it's code, right? It's code that we serve all load in Santa Clara city limits. So we've allowed them an exception to stay on Rocky Mountain Power as long as they don't change stuff. So when they start adding load and changing things, then that's the trigger. OK, you're wanting to make some changes from the existing services, now you need to switch over to Santa Clara Power.

But it doesn't impact Santa Clara Power to have them increase their load through Rocky Mountain Power?

I'm not understanding.

No. No. It doesn't impact us if they're on Rocky Mountain power. It does impact us to when they come to Santa Clara power, how much load we are then going to absorb at that time. I think some of the question comes in talking in load calc and asking that question about load calc and how much I mean, I'll be honest, it's making sure that things are being done right. Part of this, I think, stems from early on we got an application from the health department wanting to add another septic tank out there, and it caught the billing department by surprise, like, well, what's going on? In hindsight, as the billing department talked to the contractor, got us whole diagrams of Like changes to the building and stuff that didn't even come get a building permit for that They were he was talking about doing and this this contractor He know he knew knows the rules and so that's the concern and thinking of the load calculus saying here How much capacity do they have? left is saying What potentially and not not saying they would but did but this is the real-life example of what happened of? Changes that were being proposed that were not brought to Santa Clara City So if there's a lot of room in that load what could be done out there that Santa Clara doesn't know about that's not getting permitted correctly It's not going through the building department. So that's where we understand what the load is and say, okay, here's What it is if something changes what we know and saying hey was that permitted or was it not permitted? Are they following what they should be by city code that comes to that and As to Jared, to come into treating them the same. But if we're treating them the same, and we're giving them an exception, if we're treating them the same, they'd come to Santa Clara Power on the annexation. So I understand what you're saying, but the same would be we treat them the same as anybody else annexing and coming on to Santa Clara City. So we're granting them an exception to stay where they are in kicking that cost down the road to whenever they want to expand.

And I guess what Justin's saying is, hey, they could have a 50 kilovolt amp out there with Rocky Mountain power that has zero impact on Santa Clara City. Oh, sure.

It doesn't just at this time.

Yeah, maybe I'll just add kind of my view on this. So I think the city was trying to find a balance here where they're trying to be fair to the applicant where power is already there. And we know it's a significant expense to buy power poles and buy power lines and get power to their property when there's also development that's going to happen between them. where they are now. And so this was just a trigger that you can keep what you're doing right now. The status quo is fine. We'll do what we can for you. But we need some sort of a trigger in there when you really do have to make that hard decision. Do I do this expansion of my property? Do I change my land use somehow? OK, now I have to do that big, you've got to factor that in. I really do need to follow the code in the city. So would you mind going to that actual part of the development agreement? It's under the impact fee section. And I think the actual language is really important to note. Oh, sorry, like the actual language of the impact fee section. It's on page six. And I just really like the way this is written to make it really clear. So it's on the additional agreements regarding power impact fees and services that we have. OK, yeah. So A, in the event that future changes to land uses or development applications require the installation of any additional or besides permanent electrical infrastructure of the property, and it gives those things, then they have to switch over. So again, it's like future changes to land uses or development applications. It's a pretty significant change in the property. And there's these technical things in there that would show you're doing something significant on the property to kind of delineate that. I agree it is a little bit interesting to have it that specific, but it is, again, kind of a good way to just have a clear break, something really obvious to both the city and the applicant that, okay, now you have to follow city code. So that's my view on it. But, you know, if we do want to make a change to that part of the agreement, that's your latitude as a council.

One suggestion, and I'll sit down. I would just it would strike the words that are in the parentheses there. If you kept applications that require installation of additional or upside permanent electrical infrastructure to the property and then get rid of all the parentheses, then the developer shall provide transferable electrical service. I think that specifically, that's enough information to trigger the change. I think that the parentheses stuff is, again, it doesn't, sorry, referring to technical, it doesn't really correlate to what the first thing says. The first thing is, hey, it's a significant infrastructure improvement. That's enough information to be able to have the trigger. I think that, again, the breakers are that, I guess, doesn't really correlate. Would you agree, Gary?

But back to Gary's words, this is the way we can measure it, because we don't have any load variations in the way to measure . So if we have pictures of the circuit breakers, and we do inspections, and the code enforcement agents find that there have been modifications, that's a trigger.

I guess where I'm at is I feel like there's been some sins out here. We'll call them sins when it comes to construction and not getting permits. I don't want to, it's kind of like, can we get past that?

I would caution you as an engineer to make statements like that.

No, I'm saying these guys need to get the permits.

I think I would caution you to make statements like that. What do you mean by get past?

No, I'm saying, hey, these guys tried to build stuff out here like with the wall, right? They didn't go through the appropriate channels to build stuff, or hasn't, or there's some alleged, I don't know. So all I'm saying is, hey, if you want to, it would make sense to me to strike what's in the parentheses. If you guys disagree, that's all I'll say. I'll sit down. And you guys can tell me, I want everyone to sit down and see.

OK, very good. So I think, yeah, as we move towards some sort of a motion, whoever's making the motion, if you want to include that, a change to that, you can. If not, that's totally fine, too. That's your latitude as a council. And maybe you include that in your motion and it gets voted down. Just be aware of that. This is an agreement. And Matt mentioned this earlier, the applicants have to agree with whatever changes we put in there before it would be signed. Obviously, this one will probably make it a little easier on them, but at the same time, that's... Anyways, I'll stop there.

Can we see I don't this appropriate can we see if there's appetite for removing that parenthetical or not?

If not, I don't want to try to make a motion that includes it Okay, I want to go for the project but I will vote against it if you remove that way Okay others I I Tend to agree with Engineer

I'd like to see it stay in just as a trigger, just like it was intended, just to come into compliance with code.

So yeah, and I already stated my view on it, so I Think it was a fair It is a little interesting.

I agree, but I think it's a fair trigger We're given an exception and this is a way to just be very clear We have to give our staff ways to major things so that they can enforce the codes and ones And we as a City Council have to support the staff in doing that job.

I

intended against the applicants in the balance of all our citizens in the community.

Well, I think it's really important to frame this as we already have given an exception. It's already been an exception. This isn't a punishment or a sanction or anything like that. We've given the exception. At what point do we now expect the developer to come into compliance? And it's at that point, in my opinion.

OK, I'll try to make a motion. And Matt, this should be three different motions, is that right?

Yes, we'd want to do first the zone change, which would be item number eight, make a motion on that, and vote. And then that might affect what happens on the future items.

Starting with which one with number eight I would move that we approve the rezoning and project plan For property located at 4405 West 1700 North Big Rock subdivision lots one two and three to rezone the property from open space OS zone to the planned development commercial PDC zone adopt ordinance number 2026 18 With the conditions Do we have to read the conditions that are outlined by?

No. I think you're OK to just reference them.

Subject to the staff, the city staff recommendations. And that's it, right?

I'll second that.

Is that all we have to say for that one? We had discussed if we want to change the development agreement where the six months starts. But that would be motion number three.

Yeah, that's a different one. Yeah, that's true. So just for this one, is that what we've talked about? So I'll make that motion that I just said. OK. And I'll second it.

So a motion by Justin and a second by Janine. Any question on that motion?

Can I make one comment, Mayor, before we move on? The one thing that I think you could include in this motion, if you choose to, is to address the timing of the easement from the canal company. We can address that in a later action. We can address that in the development agreement action instead, if you prefer. And that's fine. But that may be one condition that you might want to approve or include in your motion. But Justin, that's your priority.

I don't understand. development agreement costs for six months.

Are you saying the zone change is contingent on the canal company easement?

Yeah, we talked about not signing and recording the development agreement until we have the canal company easement in hand. That is not currently stated in the development agreement. So I'm just saying that ought to be, probably ought to be a condition of one of your actions.

Wouldn't it be item 10 because that's in condition of the development agreement?

And that's fine if you want to save it for that.

I think you could also have the zone change as a condition in that the development agreement is also approved along with contingent that the water line easement is done and recorded prior to signing of the development agreement.

Can we make the zone change contingent on, well, I guess just the development agreement, not necessarily on the conditional use permit? Can we make that condition on it's approved if we approve the development agreement?

And simpler than adding all the detail. Yes.

I think that's fine.

Do I have to remake the motion or say in addition? You can amend it. I'd like to amend it to include subject to a development agreement being approved. Okay, and do you agree with this?

Okay, so we have an amendment by Justin a second by Janine any other discussion on the motion?

Yeah, I have a question about that Does that if we amend the if he amends the motion that way does it not include all of the review items? in the staff report Yes, all of the conditions and findings I Are they all included in that motion?

Yes.

That was part of the original motion, and that wasn't removed. So I would say it's still there.

Yeah. Any other question on the motion? Okay. Let's do a roll call. Justin? Aye. Janine? Aye. Krista? Aye. And Mark? Aye. Passes unanimously, 4-0. Okay. Let's move on to our conditional use permit for the two short-term rentals. Any discussion or question on that before I make a motion?

I do have a question on that. On part E, the safety part, it says, according to the applicants, both properties comply with all of Santa Clara building health and fire codes, including the installation of required safety equipment. I know that one of those is addressed in the development agreement. Have those properties already been inspected to comply with Santa Clara building codes, or is that coming afterwards? Is that required if we approve this Conditioning Use Permit?

I'm not aware. I would refer to Con, Deputy Fire Chief, to know on anything inspection's been done that way.

Good evening, everybody. Yes, the inspection will happen afterwards. There is conditions set right now. The most important one is an alarm system. That is an alarm system that can talk to the dispatch units. That way we will have an early warning system in place. The buildings are fairly old at this point. There is no sprinkler system and we are not going to force any sprinkler systems at this point. So in order to make sure that we have at least a fair warning when there is a troublesome down in the house, that we can be there in good time. In addition to all of that, I believe the eight-inch water line is super important for the hydrants to be there right now. In the six months that we're waiting for the hydrants, there is a small private water system that produces something like 500 gallons a minute. which is not sufficient at this point to put out a major fire. But if we have this early warning system, that 500 gallons a minute, we bargain that we most probably can get away with that 500 gallons a minute. In addition to that, the owner has agreed to install a private hydrant on that 500 gallons a minute. So by having all these little items in place, I think we will be OK. Obviously, like you've asked, the inspections will happen after the agreement is signed and we have this process in action. Any questions?

Thanks. That was good.

Well, to your point, Brock, you mentioned that some things have been constructed on the property without building permits. Have those been inspected? Are those still going to happen?

We had an application that came through. We didn't end up approving and doing it, so I'm not aware on that that what we saw was approved. Other than that, I can't. There have been improvements done there. I couldn't speak to what those were exactly, but I know the one that I spoke of before, we ended up denying, and I don't believe those improvements ended up happening.

Will our building inspector be inspecting the properties after this approval? Is that part of the process?

No. Cody wouldn't be going out there to inspect anything unless there was an application. For something new? For an improvement, yeah.

But nothing on anything prior? No. Potentially prior? No.

But this conditional use permit is only about the two houses, though? It's not about anything else? Correct. It's not about the wedding venue? It's just the short-term rooms? Yeah.

The only thing I'll add with Con's statement is I know I have spoken with Chief Kazir on that private water system that Con talked about that produces some water, though there is some concern of using that because it's nothing that we inspect or oversee to use that to run through our engine because we don't know the quality of that water that could cause some damage to our pumper if there's debris and stuff that comes through that water. So I know Chief Kazir has some real concerns about connecting to that water system that we don't have any control over.

So we're not connecting to their water system? Or that's just been offered? Or what do you mean? I'm sorry.

That's what Colin had to say, that they're going to install a hydrant on their system until the 8-inch water line is there. And I'm just sharing that I'm not sure we'd be able to really fight a fire, based on my conversations with Chief Kazir. that he would hook up our engine, the pumper, to that private hydrant, not knowing the quality of that water and if there's stuff in there that could damage the pumper, which would be an extreme cost.

And I'll just mention the development agreement doesn't require a temporary hydrant. It just requires the fire detection system that Con referred to. So that's the short-term requirement with the long-term requirement being the permanent hydrants.

Yeah, and we have the applicant also. Somebody else wants to speak?

I was just asked to kind of give clarity to it. So what the existing water is is out of the irrigation water. It's the same irrigation water that we're running through all Santa Clara. So it's out of the pipe. It's a six inch line. Sorry. Six inch water line that runs to a pump house. comes out of a filter. The exception that the idea was that we don't know what it is is that it's tied to also well water. So it's tied to a VFD. Basically, that is just the brain of saying, OK, how much water pressure can we push through the pipe at one time? but both water systems to get to wherever it's going goes through a filter. So if it's just to give a little light to the idea of what our water is, it's the same irrigation water that we all have here. Obviously, our hydrants are culinary, but just to give light to the idea that it is obviously St. George's irrigation water is also filtered. So filtered water through a six-inch line all the way there, and then we're going to just add a little well water to it. And can you just state your name for the minutes? Jacob Price. Perfect.

Thank you. I appreciate that. I will just, I mean, and you know, the irrigation water.

Yeah, for sure. But I was asked to give some clarity. Yeah.

No, I appreciate that. But we know the irrigation water has its trouble.

We do have our own filter, so it's just the idea that we try to protect us as best we can. Because obviously we have our own valves and everything else we try to keep clean.

Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thanks.

And then on the noise section, we talked back and forth. I'm still a little unclear on what we're agreeing to or approving. If we approve this, are we doing the 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. or the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m.? I thought it was 11. Because it's in this report from Jim with the 10 to 8.

Yeah, the development agreement as written just refers to the ordinance. So there is some inconsistency there with what was in the application.

We can just go 11 to 7.

That's what you want us to do.

I think it's just in comparison and being fair across the board, it needs to be the same as our regular ordinance, which is 11 to 7.

In that case, there's no change needed because that's what it says. It just refers to the ordinance.

In the conditional use, though, it speaks about excessive noise, and it comes down and it says the hours will be, unfortunately, 10 to 8 a.m.

I view that as more just like an operational thing. They're saying that they'll comply with that.

And that would be a condition of the short-term rental approval that you could add, which it's not, like I said, it's not currently stated that way in the development agreement, and it's not currently a requirement of our ordinance. But, yeah, this is specific to the short-term rentals. So, Council, if you want to add that condition or, frankly, any other reasonable condition to address any of those concerns, you can do that because this is a...

conditional use permit.

I agree. Yeah.

Well, I was just going to say, how could you tell if it was coming from the rental or the venue then at that point if they weren't the same?

This is the conditional use for the short

Right, but if we had the venue and the noise ordinance for the city and then the short-term rentals on the modified schedule, how would people in the South Hills tell the difference where the music's coming from or whatever? That's why I say it needs to be consistent.

That's what I'm saying. 11 to 7 and 11 to 7.

All right. Yeah. And then on the... Part two in the conditional use permit, we have upper house and the occupancy. These are different than what the city is recommending for occupancy, right? Are we showing 16 and 16 for the upper house and lower house?

Yeah, that was their application that they originally submitted, but that number has changed since they submitted that. That was a number of months ago.

So we're not approving according to the application?

Correct.

And then is that something we're monitoring and enforcing, or is that just a recommendation where we wait until we have a problem?

That could become a code enforcement issue if it becomes a problem. We're hoping that they comply and follow that standard or specification, but we'll have to see how that goes. Brock, Matt?

The reality is, like many of our other restrictions, we don't take action on them until we have a reason to, which usually means some kind of a complaint is filed, and that would be the same thing.

So it's still a condition in there, but just unless somebody complains about it, we have nothing to enforce. Is that what you're saying?

Well, unless we have some creative way to check it.

Honesty is the best policy.

All I'm saying is it's no different from the other restrictions that apply.

OK, any other questions or discussion on this item?

I have one that I would recommend. On number five in staff recommendation, it talks about getting a Utah sales tax license and collecting the required transit room tax. Also, with short-term rentals, there is a sales tax. I would also add in there that they collect the sales tax and that those are remitted to the tax commission.

OK.

So you would just change the language to something like collect required transit room tax and sales tax.

SPEAKER 1- Collect sales tax and the TRT tax.

And I'll just mention that our current ordinance, the conditions set forth there for short-term rentals does state the owner of any short-term residential unit shall maintain a Utah sales tax license and shall collect the required transient room tax for all short-term residential rental units. So that's actually not an additional requirement. That's one we already impose in the ordinance.

But we need to collect the Utah sales tax and the transient room tax. There's two taxes.

Right. If you have a Utah sales tax license, you're obligated to pay the sales tax. Those two things go hand in hand.

I just noticed I paid both those taxes over the weekend when I went out of town.

OK. Any other questions or discussion? If not, I'd look for a motion.

I make a motion that we approve the conditional use permit for the two short-term rentals located at 4405 West, 1700 North, and 4405 West, 1650 North. As presented with the state staff recommendations in items 1 through 8, and including in item 5 to be qualified as Utah sales tax and applicable taxes collected, including the required transient room tax for short-term rental.

OK, motion by Mark. I'll second. Second by Janine. Any question on that motion?

Yeah, does this need to be conditioned also upon the approval of the development agreement and the zone change as well?

You're exactly right. Make a modification that this is conditioned upon the approval of the development agreement.

OK, we have an amendment by Mark. Do you agree on the second? Yeah. OK, we have a second on that. Any other question on the motion? Okay, we'll do a roll call. Mark?

Aye.

Krista? Aye. Janine? Aye. And Justin? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you very much, Council. Okay, on item number 10, discussion action to consider approval of a development agreement for Big Rock subdivision slot 1, 2, and 3. Again, on this, any questions or discussion?

The only thing I have is that it would be conditioned upon having the signed easements in hand and being recorded before we sign it. Or we record it in conjunction.

And then I had suggested adding the written notice to 4.2 and 12.4B. Was there anything else that we talked about?

I just recommended adding the additional easements. Not just the canal company, the additional easements. The water lines. Exhibit B.

Yeah, and maybe that wasn't totally clear. So in all the diagrams we got, we don't have an easement shown for the easements required on their property. So we just need that to be submitted as well. That would be another condition that we get that before it's signed.

Mark, I'm going to defer to you to make the motion. You're good at it.

I'm processing. I'm pretty sure I can process. I'll second if you make it.

Well, can we talk first before we do that?

We're being asked to approve this agreement by the developers and essentially by the city as well. And it feels like in the past, maybe some of our ordinances haven't been adhered to, maybe by the developer. But I also have some concerns about whether our city staff is enforcing our codes as we have them in place. Wonder if we could talk about how I can have some confidence or maybe the public could have some confidence that these will be enforced if we put this into place. Performed up to and enforced by our city.

Yeah, if anything in and prior to that was not I'll take the blame on for that that we did not enforce things Going forward or in the past but would say anything that is in this a development agreement and they are to follow code city staff will 100% hold them accountable to follow those codes as we should anybody else in the city What if I can add to that?

notwithstanding Brock's willingness to fall on his sword, I will say that none of the complaints or information that the staff received was ignored. I know that Cody, as our zoning enforcement and building official, spent a lot of time looking at various issues that were raised. I know the council communicated certain issues to us, some of which were addressed in correspondence with the applicant, some of which was addressed in one-on-one personal meetings between the applicant and multiple meetings with staff, meetings with the mayor, meetings with Brock. And so there was a significant amount of investigation that was done. There was a significant amount of response that was done to every single piece of information that came to the city. But it was all considered in the context of we had a pending application that we were also trying to bring to a decision point, right? Because the staff doesn't really have the ability or the authority to say, you know, we're not going to process your application. And so it's always a bit of a, it puts the staff in kind of a tough situation to say, well there's some alleged issues going on at the property, but we also have this application that at some point we're obligated to bring forward if it's a complete application. And so there's a lot of competing considerations. You know, those decisions can certainly always be questioned, discussed, and we can learn from those things in hindsight. But I, for one, would certainly not say that anyone should feel that things were not done properly or at least carefully considered at the time that they were considered. And I wasn't even in all the meetings, but I was in a lot of meetings where many of these things were discussed, many, many hours spent with staff on many of these issues. So for what it's worth, I will stand up for Brock and his staff on all of those issues, even at the same time saying maybe we could have done it differently. We certainly had options to do it differently, but I'll defend the good faith efforts of everyone involved for sure.

Well, I don't want Brock to fall on his sword, but is our city staff empowered to enforce this?

That's a good question.

Outside of our approval?

So are you asking specifically with respect to the development agreement or?

The development agreement. Okay. Or the conditional use permit, I guess. I guess we're just on the agreement right now.

Okay. Well, because we do have the other alternative ways of enforcing when we have, you know, violations of ordinances. which I'll set aside for now since we're talking about the development agreement. We've talked about the process, right? We've talked about what would happen if there was believed to be a default, a violation of the agreement by the applicant. We've talked about how that would come back to the city council, how that would be put on a city council agenda. So ultimately the development agreement is not going to be enforced by staff. Yes, the staff has a role in bringing it to you and certainly would work hard to bring you all the information to put it before you in an appropriate way. But ultimately the development agreement, the decision whether to terminate it or do otherwise is going to be a city council decision.

And that will just be brought to us at that time.

Yeah.

You know.

And how that happens, again, there's multiple ways that could happen. It could be Brock and his staff saying, we're getting complaints. This is happening. Let's get some information. And is it time to put it in front of the city council? It could be the mayor saying, we're going to put this on an agenda. It could be a city council person, like we've talked about. So there's multiple ways it ends up back with you. But ultimately, with respect to the development agreement specifically, it would require an action by the city council. Now, again, we have those other tools at our disposal, which maybe we would elect to use those at some given point, but as far as the development agreement is concerned, that's what would have to happen. Okay.

I agree that Mark should try and put that one together.

So am I mistaken that we, do we have a motion on the floor already that's been seconded? No, not yet. Oh, OK.

I'm sorry.

Not yet.

I'm sorry.

And you could just ask someone on staff to say the motion. You say so moved. That's another option. If someone on staff is keeping good notes.

He's looking at me, so. So let me make an attempt then to get the agenda in front of me so I don't have to make it all up from scratch.

The key is, in my opinion, is the conditions that we've talked about. And I'm not sure how it meets. I mean, I understand that the approval is, and I understand those conditions. I just don't know how to verbalize those conditions to be specific to a motion.

Well, I think the motion could be to approve the development agreement as discussed, subject to the additional conditions that the required easements, including the easement from the canal company and the easements from the property owner, be received by the city prior to the development agreement being signed and recorded. The changes that that Justin Requested to make sure that the notification is clear that it's clear that the notification has to be written 4.2 and 12.4 B. Okay, and I've got those noted so we can take care of that And now I'm gonna draw a blank if there were other ideas, so I think that's it, right?

Yeah Okay

Okay, second by Mark, second by Justin. Okay, any discussion on that? Okay, we'll do another roll call. Justin? Aye. Janine? Aye. Krista? Aye. And Mark? Aye. That passes unanimously. Thank you very much, council. All right. Very good.

Mark made the motion.

Yeah, Mark made the motion. Seconded by Justin.

Justin seconded.

And if I can just make one comment, Mayor, my compliments to the council. I'm always impressed that you guys manage these complicated motions and somehow manage to do it in the way that we recommend. And so my compliments to you. It's, I don't, everybody out there may not appreciate how difficult it is, but you guys do great, so.

Okay, thank you, Matt. Okay, so our next item is reports, and council, I'll defer to you. It's been a month since we've met, and so I know I have a long list of reports, but mine could wait until our next meeting. Would you like to spend the time going through reports, or we can defer?

I move that we wait until next time. Next.

Because I have a lot too this time, which I normally don't have many.

Or we could just say there's something pressing to that report and then save everything else. Does anyone have anything pressing?

Nothing pressing, but what is our responsibility? Are we serving pancakes or something like that at Swiss Days? I don't know what we do at Swiss Days.

Somebody probably ought to send us a schedule, right? Wouldn't you think that we should get a schedule?

We'll get you a schedule.

Because there's a few that have got to know where to show up, when to show up, how to show up.

OK. In regards to Swiss Day, so Thursday night is the community dinner. There's no assignment that night except for to the mayor, the mayor working with the opening ceremonies. But you're all welcome to attend to see Volunteer of the Year, Grand Marshal. There will be a couple other things that will go on in the community dinner that the staff cooks and serves. Friday, I don't know that there's anything council-wise on Friday, except for just coming in and enjoying yourself, enjoy the entertainment that night. And then Saturday morning is the 5K run, if you're running it. Good luck. Enjoy. Once you're done, come on over and then breakfast. Breakfast, roughly, usually you guys start cooking as soon as you want to get there. Staff is there about 4.30 in the morning to start setting up and get going. But you're welcome to show up. I think most show up around 7. The 5K kicks off at 7. Usually people are over there starting to eat somewhere around 7.30. But if you're there around 7, you can help cook, and you cook until the parade. We'll shuttle you to the parade, start the parade, which is down by Jacob Hamlin Home. We'll get you down there. And then you ride the fire engine, throwing candy and enjoying yourself. And then after that, we end up by the taffy shop is roughly about where it ends. And that's kind of the end of your...

Obligation I guess for with Swiss days so and it's the best parade in Washington County So Brock in the past you've given us like a parking pass or something like where do you want us to park for the breakfast? And I would just note to council the race starts at 7 And so getting close to City Hall at that time is very very difficult if not even possible sometimes So maybe give us a little advice on work Eric.

So if you're here, he said 4 a.m. Yeah Come join us. It's a good time We all have a parking pass to use it is early. We have the parking passes for Usually over at the gates lot that's here Just kind of get you on right back here the gates allow us to use that for city staff parking only and get you a pass to be there as far as getting here with the 5k Depending on what time you come down, there's parking on Heights Drive. You can park on Heights. Many people park on Heights and then walk over. The difficulty getting back here is Vineyard, coming from Old Farm up, is where they finish. So they'll be setting that, everything up. So that's going to be a tough one. If you're coming, it might be easier, potentially, if you're coming, say, 630-ish. You might be able to get Santa Clara Drive and get in the city parking lot right here, which could get you in and park in the covered parking. You could get in there. Most of the other spots will be marked as handicap in the parking lot, as most of those are deemed for handicap parking. The only other option would be coming down, going Lava Flow to Vineyard and coming down Vineyard and parking somewhere along Vineyard Drive down into Some would Know someone was over there Cottonwood Cove down in here. Those are your other spots. You could park Brock.

We're still meeting. I didn't mean it yelling that We're still meeting on the 23rd, right? Yes, so anything you need to give us we could get that at that time I know that youth the youth council and the royalty all want to be introduced to us and we'll get pictures with them next time They were here tonight.

I was getting texts Are we on the agenda?

Yeah.

Oh, sorry. No. Well, can we talk through an open hearing? This is like while we were already discussing this, and we're going to be a while.

Yeah, the 23rd we have down, that's intended to have the youth council and the princesses to be introduced that night. But that's kind of a rundown of that. But we can put the schedule together and get you the parking pass and kind of that. So if you haven't done a food handler's permit,

Oh, don't do it the wrong way like I did. Good, good, Janine.

Janine will help you walk through that process. Janine could manage your restaurant, I think.

I could manage your restaurant.

If you need one, talk with Michelle Ortiz in the front office. She can get you a link to where to go. There's a small fee to it. If you come in, we can help you pay the fee. If not, if you did it from home and you pay it, let us know. We'll reimburse. But it's it's not a long. I won't say it's trying to remember an hour. Yeah So or three hours if you want to know don't do the one that you're you're a restaurant manager So

I even got a plastic card for it.

Nice. OK, very good. So we'll defer most of our reports until our next meeting. Do we need a closed meeting? No. OK, very good. Then with that, council, I would look for a motion to adjourn.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion by Mark. Second. Second by Krista. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you very much, council.

Thank you.