City Council - Regular Meeting

All right. It's after 5 o'clock, so let's go ahead and get started. I had to wait for the rest of these guys to get ready. We're going to go ahead and get started correctly. Do we have our prayer here today? Oh, yeah. Is it Gonzalo? Gonzalo Caterino. Did I say that right? Come on up from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Yeah, just come right up to the mic and pull that mic down where you can. Yep.

you you

Thank you for that prayer. I've asked Austin to lead us in the pledge.

If you guys all please stand and repeat after me. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

All right, thank you for that. Just off topic here, but really quickly, this card was on my desk today, and it's from the Utah State Trust CEO. And on the back of it, I thought this was really cool. It's a quote by Stephen R. Covey. And I thought it was appropriate for me today, so I'm going to share it with you all. Trust is the highest form of human motivation. It brings out the very best in people. So there's your thought for the day. Do we have any pre-agenda items? I don't think we do, do we? All right, so take us away. Any changes to the agenda, I guess? None?

No changes.

All right.

Item number two is consent calendar. There's four items on the consent calendar this evening. These are administrative in nature.

staff has reviewed these and recommend approval however if city council would like to remove any of these for specific consideration we can accommodate that otherwise staff recommends approval i don't need to remove anything but i did just want to make sure on item 2a with the widening project and improvements there on 700 south that the pedestrian access there is going to remain and that those surrounding businesses, if there will be any interruption to those businesses in that same vicinity.

I had a question about that too. So I'll just piggyback it onto Michelle's camera. And so I was also curious, will the pedestrian infrastructure remain and will it be now at grade? And then also, do you know when the public comment will be open for people to come and comment about that?

So I think the public comment is done because they're actually looking to bid the project, but the pedestrian access will remain and it will come down to grade. Yeah.

I have one comment on that same item. Is it correct that it's already

signed and all we're doing is ratifying a document that's already been sent to you doc correct so they in order to bid that project they needed that agreement in hand and so we went ahead and signed it and then this would be a ratification and just to clarify with the surrounding businesses right there on that same corner is there any disruption in those businesses there shouldn't be

Mayor, if you're looking for a motion, I'll make a motion on the consent calendar.

Absolutely. Go ahead.

Okay. I'll make a motion on the consent calendar that we approve the consent calendar as presented items A through D. I'll second.

Is that you, Austin? Sorry.

Okay. We have a motion by Danielle, a second by Austin. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That is not a roll call, right? Okay.

Item number three is a public hearing in consideration of ordinance number 2026-040, vacating a portion of a municipal utility easement located along the easterly lot line of lot one in desert color commercial phase one.

Okay, as the city manager indicated, this is a request. So this is desert color lot one. of phase one of their commercial subdivision. And basically, the lot line went right up along this kind of southeasterly portion. When they built the solar easements that were obviously dedicated along those for municipal utilities, when they actually built the driving range, they did not utilize this portion of the property. And so this is a request because they want to amend their plat. And so to do so, they need to vacate that municipal utilities and then shift it over there. And then it allows them to utilize this space.

Questions for Wes? Okay, if there are no questions, I'll go ahead. This is a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and open the public hearing for those who have come to speak to this item. Come up to the microphone. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you, council, for your action.

I don't see any issue with it at all. So having said that, if no one has any issues, I'd make a motion. that we approve ordinance number 2026-040, vacate a portion of a municipal easement located along the easterly lot line of lot one, desert color, commercial phase one.

I'll second. We have a motion by Austin and a second by Steve. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Austin. Aye. Steve Kemp, aye.

Natalie Larson, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye. Michelle Tanner, aye.

MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.

I HAVE NUMBER 4 AS A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-041 VACATING OF A MUNICIPAL UTILITY USEMENT LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMON AND LIMITED COMMON AREA SOUTH DESERT PLAN DEVELOPMENT PHASE 1 SUBDIVISION.

So the red area here, this is the whatever subdivision this is, South Desert Phase 1. The red area here is common area. These are all pad lots. And so when it's designated as common area or dedicated as common area, there comes a municipal utility easement over the entire common area. When they laid out the... The path of the buildings on each of these pads, it actually exceeded what was dead. It actually see that was dedicated as the private. Pad area, and so they need to go in vacate this. Read and go through a plan amendment to where they can increase the size of these pads to. make them the size of what is going to be built on there and then they'll come back and then rededicate this as common area and then the municipal utility easement will be over that in common area so it's just a vacated so they can amend their plan questions for wes

Okay, if there's no questions, this is a public hearing, so I will go ahead and open the public hearing. This is item number four. For those who have come to speak to this item, the public hearing is now open. Seeing no comments, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you, council, for your action.

Are you ready for a motion? What's that? Ready for a motion? I am ready. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026, that's 041, vacating a municipal utility easement located within the common and limited common area of South Desert Plan Development phase one subdivision.

Second. Motion by Natalie, a second by Steve. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Michelle.

Michelle Tanner, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye. Natalie Larson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye. Austin Anderson, aye. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number five is consider approval of resolution number 2026-007R, tentatively adopting the FY 2026-27 city manager recommended budget of the city of St. George and setting the public hearing dates.

Well, good evening, mayor and council. We finally made it to the next big step in our process. So like John mentioned, tonight's item is to consider tentatively adopting the fiscal year 26-27 city manager recommended budget. And to set the public hearing dates is Thursday, June the 4th, and then Thursday, June the 18th. And then final adoption of fiscal year 27 budget is scheduled for Thursday, June the 18th, following the second public hearing. As part of my comments tonight, I want to provide an overview of this year's budget process and then provide some highlights of some of the key investments included in the 27 recommended budget. Last week marked the successful completion of our third work meeting with the city council in the 27 budget. During last week's work meeting, we had an opportunity to walk through the budget in detail with the council and heard a lot of great feedback from the council and direction on the things that you would like to see in the 27 budget. Based on that discussion, tonight the council will notice that I've included a proposed adjustment at the dais for each of you that would propose to temporarily remove three new position requests from the 27 budget with the ability to revisit those requests in January through a future budget opening based on the performance of sales tax during fiscal year 27. so that's for your consideration tonight in addition to approval of the tentative of budget development of this square 27 budget was centered around the creation of the fiscal year 27 business plan which reflects the city council's priorities and directions for the year ahead the business plan lays out clear objectives and strategies tied directly to the city council's priorities and serves as a and uh it serves as a road map for cities the city's work in the year ahead The business plan forms the foundation of the investments that have been proposed in the 27 budget. Development of the budget is an intensive process, involves significant effort and time across the organizations. We work to fund the projects and services that meet the needs of our residents, businesses, and visitors to the community. This budget's not just a financial document, it's our action plan for delivering high quality services that are relied upon by our residents, businesses, and visitors to our community. Some key areas of investment in the 27 budget include enhancements of public safety through technology, equipment and facility improvements, critical utility and transportation infrastructure improvements, continued expansion of our parks and trails supported by the 2023 voter-approved geo-obligation bond, targeted initiatives focused on financial stability, operational excellence and workforce development and customer service. On the revenue side of the budget, I'm pleased to note that the fiscal year 27 budget does not propose a property tax increase. However, fee adjustments are proposed across multiple service areas to help pay for the growing cost of providing service. This year's, the 27 combined budget across all 40 plus funds totals $540.2 million. The budget's balanced and continues to support the city's long-term financial health. The 27th budget's available for public review in the city recorder's office and on the city website. And there will be multiple opportunities this year for public input through the budget open house that we planned for on June the 4th and through our two public hearings that are planned for June the 4th and June the 18th. We're excited to be taking the next step in this year's budget process and look forward to receiving feedback from our community as we complete our public hearings and we hold our budget open house. And with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions the council may have.

Any questions for Robert? We've had a lot of meetings and all-day meetings and even sidebar conversations, and I think it's been a really good process of weeding through the budget, fine-tuning it, Taking stuff out, putting very little back in. Any questions for Robert? All right, so if there's no questions for Robert, we will need a motion to adopt the resolution for the budget and setting those public hearing dates for June 4th and June 18th.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve resolution number 2026-007R, tentatively adopting the fiscal year 2026-2027 city manager recommended budget of the city of St. George and setting the public hearing dates as presented by Robert, also to include the proposed adjustment to the recommended budget that we received for the three police positions.

Second.

We have a motion by Steve and a second by Natalie. This is a resolution requiring a roll call vote starting with Natalie.

Natalie Larson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye.

Austin Anderson, aye.

Michelle Tanner, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye.

Motion carries unanimously. This next item I have a conflict on so I'm going to be stepping out and turning the microphone over to Danielle.

So the next item, item number six, is consideration of resolution number 2026-008R to either accept or deny a petition for annexation for approximately 2.277 acres located at approximately 3430 East, 3930 South.

Okay, so as in the past with all other annexations, this is just the initial step of going forward with an annexation. And so basically, it's whether or not the council wants to entertain the possibility of annexing this property in the city. And so this is the parcel right here. Right here along 3430 East Washington City Boundary is right in there. The rest of this is in the county. So like I said, this is just a request for possible annexation. And then I'll just show you where it just shows on the map right there. There you go. So it's just this area right here. Again, here's 3430 here on the west side. So again, it's just the request to start the process of going through the annexation. Now, if approved, then it goes forward where the county and the city review it or a 30 day period to see what challenges there are. There is also a noticing period that it has to go through as well. So it's about a 60 day period and then it'll come back to you once it goes through all of that. for either approval or denial of the request to annex. This is just the start of it.

So, Wes, as I understand it, so this would be accepting to further consideration or not, but if it was denied, the applicant could bring forward another petition immediately, correct? Correct. Like, for instance, if the council had issues with the current petition, then it could be denied and the applicant could change the petition according to the council's feedback and then re-petition. Is that accurate?

Yep, that's correct.

Is that your whole presentation?

It's my whole presentation. Okay. It's riveting. I have a question. Thank you. Wes? Yes, sir.

Am I reading this correctly that it is only a portion of partial 6615-A county parcel number?

Correct. So this right here, there's two parcels here. This is the parcel to the south when you get 2000. And then this is the upper parcel, which is this right here. You can see the meets and bounds of the property right there.

Yes. So it's a portion of one existing tax ID number. Correct. I'm not sure how that would work. I don't think that's legal based on my reading of the code that I've been going through, because how can you have a port? I think they would each need to have their own tax ID number to move forward. So this bill's premature to me that we're doing that. I'm also concerned about the utilities from what I can tell, and maybe Scott or somebody else could answer this. You're looking at at least 1,500 to 1,800 linear foot drag to bring sewer from St. George. Additionally, I'm concerned with the fact that across the street is Washington City, and there are several homes built already with Washington City addresses on 3950 South. I have no problem with the applicant using his property for annexing it and developing it, but it feels like this entire application is premature. We haven't had any work meeting on this. I don't know how the addressing would work for this particular... What I anticipate would be some lots along 3950 or whatever the address is in St. George, which would be a different address. Even in your... information that was in the application it says 3430 east that's a that's a saint george east correct and 39 30 south that's a washington correct so what would the addresses be on this street yeah i'm not sure we'd have to address that as if this goes forward how we would handle that that's a good question

Wes, who does currently maintain the street that's to the north of this property? Is that a Washington City street?

Uh-huh.

That's Washington?

Yes. Okay. And 3430, just so you're aware, it's the street we're trying to hopefully get out to bid here soon. We're going to go through and tear up the pavement and reconstruct it and widen it because it's fairly narrow and there's a lot of traffic on that.

You're talking about the north-south?

Yeah, north-south road. And so the city's actually, even though it's in the county on the east side, We're going to widen it and go through and do that because we just feel like we need to take care of that. So that's something we're actually working on right now to bid that out. That's just for your information.

So that would be our road.

Again, a portion of it's in the county. But as we've looked at it, there's only like 20 feet of pavement through there. If you go out there ever, I didn't realize there's that amount of traffic on it. So we've just accepted the idea that we're just going to widen it for now and get it. We're not going to do all of the improvements on the east. We'll do them on the west. It's in St. George. We'll do curb, gutter, sidewalk. We're just widening it up so that we can get a bigger traffic lane.

I mean, you've got to draw a line somewhere. So with doing all that, I mean, that whole parcel to the east eventually we would think would be in St. George City then.

No, that one, he's trying to annex just a portion of that.

I know, but eventually it's all going to be in St. George City, I would think.

It's on the annex plan. I talked to Jeremy Red today, and it is on the annex plan that he sent me for the city of St. George. Right. When you look at the plan, and I don't know if we have something different on our plan, but the... had a conversation with him about this and he says on our annex plan it shows it as the city of st george with this whole thing we went through last year with them with the church property with the property out by the airport is that true ryan madam oh mayor pro tem so a couple of things one

The parcel doesn't require, right now, it doesn't have to have a separate tax ID. As long as the owner of the parcel is signed the petition, the applicant is good to go. You will eventually have to get a separate ID, but as of right now.

Eventually when?

not right now well within the third title today probably just before the title people today because this is just starting the process this is just to consider whether or not the council wants to have further consideration on this petition If the council wants to have further consideration, within the next 30 days, staff reviews it. And by staff, I mean the city recorder along with the city attorney. We review it along with staff from the county to ensure that the petition has all the I's dotted and T's are crossed. At that point, the city recorder could reject the petition if it's her decision. position that the petition is not completely filled out or that it's somehow deficient. At that point, the applicant can fix the deficiency, resubmit, the 14-day shot clock starts again.

But typically, Ryan, is it, from my understanding in this investigation, trying to go outside the city staff to other professionals in the community, the tax ID would change after it is

approved and then the parcel is split and then however the subdivision but we're way ahead of ourselves because right now we're only looking at if we're going to approve an application the only thing before the city council is whether or not you want further consideration on the application as it's been presented this parcel as it's been delineated in the hash marks whether or not it makes sense to think about whether that section should come into the city Our city code does not require a work meeting for any applicant for an annexation to come in. This is in state code, the specific process. And so the only thing the city council is considering is whether or not you want to think about it some more

Whether or not we want to require our staff to spend 30 days doing the due diligence on this because that's what we're talking about right your office and the recorders office will need to do all the due diligence and work with the county as far as the noticing issues and all those other things if we get to that point correct.

That's correct. And then also, if we were to deny it, the applicant could still fix the issues that we're saying we're denying for and then bring the application back. So my question to us is, did the applicant tell you why they're only trying to annex a little peninsula instead of their entire property?

Can the applicant speak for himself or is he recused to outer darkness?

Does he have a representative here?

Okay. Eric?

Hello, Eric McFadden with Premier Design. The discussions we had is they want to leave the rest in the county to be farmed right now. They want to be able to build some lots there for the family, is what I've been told. And it's got to either go to Washington City or St. George City.

Could they build lots there, even if it was in the county?

I'm sure they could, but then utilities becomes an issue, and where do we hook into? And I think there's going to be some sharing between utilities either way. And I don't know how that's going to work out yet, whether we use sewer from Washington, water from St. George, etc. But we have to get to that point to be able to get to that point.

Could they continue to farm the section that they want to farm if it was part of the city?

That I don't know. I think the answer is yes. I would assume, yes. I would say probably if it's over the acreage.

And honestly, by splitting this off and eventually having to create two separate parcels, both parcels then do not qualify for Greenbelt because you have to have five acres minimum for Greenbelt. So I think that bringing the whole thing in, going ahead and moving forward with your annexation and your lots or whatever, but until such time as you take those lots and make homes on them instead of using them for agriculture, you could be in Greenbelt.

Could be. Or they could take the remainder of that portion, that parcel, and add it to the one to the south, and it would be over the five acres as well.

It's a different owner. Even though it's his brother, I know because it's a different owner. And I just dealt with this exact issue where we had the same owner have two parcels in separate entities. Even though the same owner signs for both of them, the county says they must be the exact same ownership in order for them to be qualified to be in the same parcel.

It's not on the applicant, though, through this whole thing that he gets to decide where they want to do that. That's on the applicant. That's not on us. I mean, I mean, he gets to choose that at that point, whether it gets to stay in the green belt or not. That's part of this. We're only approving the application. We're not making all those choices. And I continually get corrected when. I see something and I say, yeah, but down there, we're only approving the zoning today. We're only approving this portion today. You can only approve what you can approve what's in front of you. Can't approve what I have a fear down the road. So we're only looking at this today. We're not looking whether we think it's a good idea. He does this or he doesn't think it's a good idea. He does that. I do that all the time with commercial. So I think we have to look at what we're looking at today. and vote on that, not what we think and how he works it out with utilities, because that's on the applicant. That's not on us.

So that's the question before us. Are we comfortable with this application? If you're uncomfortable with these different things that you've shared, That's up to council. We can deny and recommend that the applicant come back with the things changed that we think need to change, whether that's bringing the whole parcel in together. I personally do worry about setting a precedent where we're allowing these peninsular, that was part of our discussion when we changed our annexation policy is not having people bring in small portions like this that are not connected. So that can be part of the discussion also.

And one other thing on addressing, I met with a group that we've done this to that has addresses that have been in the community for 20 or 25 years. And we have created a conflict with addresses right now that we're trying to fix with the grid and all the other stuff. And if you drive out in Washington Fields, all of a sudden you're on 20 East. And in Michelle's subdivision, one half of it's in Washington. One half of it's in St. George and Blue Courts. So it's, you go down the road and all of a sudden, wait, I'm on a whole different address system. What's going on here? The difference here is 3950 in Washington.

It's not blue courts. And in Councilwoman Tanner's neighborhood, it's blue courts all the way through. It's just right here. It switches from St. George to Washington. And the numbering and everything changes, but you still blue courts. We've got several homes in Washington all the way over there that are 3950. And then this would have to be 3950 to at least the intersection. What's the... What's the north-south street 33 30 30 30 looks like Yeah 34 30 So that that's something else that I'm concerned how we work through that. I am still concerned about the utilities I mean, it's I know it's been done, but I'm concerned about the number of splitting sewer to one city water to another power to Dixie power and It's possible, but it feels half-baked to me, and I think that it's worth a work meeting at least.

So the question before us is, do we want to consider this petition, or do we want to deny this petition? Is there further discussion amongst the council?

I'm not worried about the address at all. If this all went to Washington eventually, it would be the exact same issue. Because in my mind, that whole field and all of that eventually comes to the city of St. George. I just don't see an issue with it.

Yeah, I can definitely appreciate the concerns that have been raised. I think they're valid concerns. However, I think with annexation, obviously we have to take each a case-by-case basis. And with this particular one, and again, we're getting ahead of ourselves a little bit, but it's my understanding that they already have access to St. George City water, granted access. with additional lots, I'm sure they would require more water than what they're currently using. You know, it's my understanding that they likely would be able to hook into the Washington sewer that's right there, which two blocks down, as we know, hooks into St. George City. So we would still be processing that sewer. And in terms of emergency services, we're still going to respond to that area. And so when we think of property taxes, at least we would get a sliver of that property tax to help contribute to some of those services that in my view, I think will likely be providing a lot of that regardless of whether this annexes or not. And so I think considering that this is just, again, not saying yes, we're annexing this right now, but we're saying, Hey, we understand this property owner wants to look at that process. Let's start answering some of these questions that have been brought up. So personally I don't have an issue with looking at it further to see if we can work through some of these issues that have been brought up today.

and the resolution before you is if there were three i votes then we move forward because the city council would have accepted the petition so if there is a motion in a second to accept or to approve resolution 2026-008r that would be the motion

I have continued concern only about the parcel being split up and us setting a precedent about annexing small portions of a parcel so for me I'd rather see us have them reapply with the entire parcel but I'm acting as both the council member and the mayor pro tem right now so that's my comment as a council member as the mayor pro tem I will look to the council for a motion

I agree that the tax ID number issue is an issue. And the fact that there is no waiting period that they could bring this application back tomorrow. Exactly the same petition, except have it be just annex the entire parcel. It won't change their ability. It actually will help them with their issue of Greenbelt, remaining in Greenbelt. And I think that it...

looks like we're trying to do things in an orderly manner as opposed to a few lots at a time so hypothetically steve if he if the applicant went in split the parcel now he's out of the green belt we deny the application then he's right back to putting it back together so why he maybe i don't know what the conditions are the application or maybe that comes in we haven't seen the application well that's what this is

There's an application that somebody has filed that somebody signed that we have never seen. It's a one-page petition. It's just a petition to annex. You can do a lot in one page. If you're ready for a motion, Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. It probably won't pass, but I'd like a motion that we deny this application and with the suggestion that the applicant refile as soon as possible and make... use the entire parcel, bring the entire county parcel 6615-A into the city or make application to bring it into the city so the city can start their process.

I'll awkwardly second that motion and then call for a roll call vote starting with Austin.

Nay.

Aye.

Nay.

Aye.

Michelle Tanner, nay.

michelle's the only one who did it right thank you for saying your name all right council uh that motion failed uh three to one i'll look for another motion 3 to 2, sorry.

I will make a motion that we approve resolution number 2026-08R to accept the petition for annexation for approximately 2.277 acres located at approximately 3430 East, 3930 South. Second.

All right. This calls for a roll call, starting with Michelle.

Michelle Tanner, aye.

Danielle Larkin, nay.

Natalie Larson, aye. Steve Kemp, nay.

Steve Kemp, nay. Austin Anderson, aye.

Just for the record, Michelle Tanner made the motion and I was the second. Thank you for helping me with that.

Michelle Tanner made the motion and Natalie was the second. And that motion passed 3-2-2.

we all forgot our names we did our best without the mayor so we'll invite the mayor back in to finish the meeting okay item number seven is a consider approval ordinance number 2026-042 amending the city's general plan by changing the general plan from ldr to commercial on approximately 2.2 acres generally located west of the tuscan hills and tuscan heights development

Okay, this is the location of the property. It's generally west of the Tuscan Hills and the Tuscan Heights development. You can see the alignment of the Gap Canyon Parkway here, so it's south of that. The current zoning is PDR, planned development residential, and the current land use is LDR, low density residential. You can see over here the general plan commercial. That was approved in November of 2025 by council after the alignment of Gap Canyon was more firmly decided on. And that's also why the applicant asked to bring this forward at this time. that alignment, they decided that this area of their property was probably more better used as commercial than residential. So here's just a site map that's a little bit closer in to show you where they would like the commercial to be. And the Planning Commission held a public hearing on April 28th. They had two public comments. The citizens were concerned about what kind of commercial might go there. They did recommend approval with a unanimous vote of six to zero. And I can answer any questions you might have.

Any questions for Brenda?

I have one, Brenda. So Gap Canyon, the alignment that we see in these maps, that is the alignment where Gap Canyon will be? Final alignment, you know, final answer, Wes?

Wes is indicating yes. Correct. That's, yeah, that's the alignment. In fact, the property owners there, you can see that little strip right through there that looks like a road, when they purchase that property, They actually subdivided out the road and just left it there so that they can dedicate it in the future when Gap Canyon extends through. But that is the alignment, and then it'll just follow. You can see up here, right up here, I'll show you right here, that's already been dedicated on both sides. So we're just missing that portion through there, but we're working on getting that done.

Thank you. Any other questions?

If not, I'll come back to you. Mayor, I could make a motion if you'd like. Yep. Item number seven, I'd like to make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-042, amending the city's general plan by changing the general plan from LDR to commercial on approximately 2.2 acres located west of Tuscan Hills and Tuscan Heights development.

Second. We have a motion by Steve and a second by Austin. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Danielle.

Danielle Larkin, aye. Michelle Tanner, aye.

Austin Anderson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye.

Natalie Larson, aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

I am ready to consider approval of ordinance number 2026-043 amending the Atkinville interchange area zone plan development commercial zone on approximately 3.04 acres, generally located east of Pioneer Road and north of Sun River Parkway. All right.

Thank you. This is a site that we are considering tonight. You may remember recently seeing the In-N-Out going out up right here. Del Taco's now here. This is a really out of date map. Smith's over here. And then the property outlined in blue is the subject property for tonight. Again, just over three acres. General Plan has designated this as a PD. And then the zoning map is this property is zoned PDC, so Plant Development Commercial. Um, as part of the Atkinville, uh, master plan, the site plan, um, This is, so basically the use is retail and office. So a combination, you can see these kind of rectangles where the building is here. These rectangles would be a combination of retail, restaurant, that kind of thing. And then in the back, you have an office building, which is attached to that. So you'll have a combination of restaurant, retail, and then the back, up closer to the freeway, you'll have the office. you'll have the office portion. I'll take a look at the elevations here in just a second. They're meeting the requirements for parking. There will be access off of this ring road, so going back here, that's this. Now, this is now going all the way around, so you can kind of make that, it's kind of a horseshoe shape, but there will be access there, and then... And then over here, over to the Homewood Suites, there will be also future development here and future development in the front. So still things to construct out there, but it's slowly filling in. This is the landscape plan, conceptual landscape plan. Again, we'll make sure that's all up to par, but it looks like it probably is just from preview of the of the plan parking plan again as I stated before they are parked adequately given the parking that they have they would be allowed seven of these ten pads or these these retail pads seven of those are parked sufficiently for for restaurant use so that would be a limit just given the parking that they would

This is just curiosity, but so the grease interceptor, can one grease interceptor take care of that whole building if they do it now?

That's a great question. Do you know that one? Or what? Oh, there's two?

I just love that they're there because it's such a problem later on. It's just a great investment, so I'm glad to hear that.

Yeah, sounds like they've got that covered somewhere. This is look at the elevations now. This is one thing they are asking from you is increase in height. This is 48 feet and 6 inches tall. I want to give you some just kind of a reference of what's around there. So the Hampton Inn and Suites is 59 feet. Architectural features, they go up to almost 68 feet. The professional building right next door to the south, building height of 50 feet, so just about a foot and a half taller than what they're proposing. And then the Home 2 Suites, building height of 46.4 with architectural features of 53.5 inches. So fits right in with some of those other ones, actually will be to the eye shorter than any of those three examples that are around it. But because the Atconville interchange zone plan does limit it at the height of 35 or 45 for the architectural features, they are asking for that additional height from you, which is allowed by code. And then just some rendering of what the building will look like. This is from the freeway side, or I guess that would be the east side. And the materials. The Planning Commission held a public hearing and they recommended approval. And just with these two conditions, basically that they meet all the requirements of Title 10 and that there is the increased height to 48.6 as requested. With that, if you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer those. Yeah, the applicant has a representative here, Eric, if you have any questions for him.

Hey, Dan, one thing that has come up, and I'm not sure this, I didn't get any letters about it, but the lighting for that, like shielding down. Yeah, not hot pink. I mean, that has been a concern with the residents out there that. The signage doesn't face Sun River necessarily, or if it does, it's not backlit.

Low lighting. Yeah, here's a photometric plan. You can see all the lighting fixtures are shining, are facing downward. We'll go through this, you know, more thoroughly once it's approved with the site plan and make sure that there's no bleed over more than one foot candle over the property lines and so forth. So, yep.

Okay, any other questions for Dan?

I'll make the motion.

Go ahead.

I'll make a motion to approve Ordinance 2026-43 amending the Atkinville Interchange Area Zone Plan Development Commercial Zone on approximately 3.04 acres generally located off the east of Pioneer Road and north of Sun River Parkway.

I'll second. So we have a motion by Natalie, a second by Steve. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Michelle.

Michelle Tanner, aye.

Daniel Larkin, aye.

Natalie Larson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye. Austin Anderson, aye. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number nine, consider approval of ordinance number 2026-044, amending the desert color plan development commercial zone on approximately 0.75 acres located east of Desert Color Parkway and between Southern Parkway and Black Mountain Drive.

All right, thank you. So this is about as far north as you get in desert color. If you're looking at the full triangle, this is the tip almost next to Big Shot, or I guess it's called Crush Now. You saw probably a few months ago a Dutch bros That will be right in this area here. You have Desert Color Parkway and Southern Parkway along here. Planning Commission reviewed a plat along with their recommendation of this PD amendment, and that was approved with the condition that you get the... They have that easement vacated that you vacated tonight. So that will create this lot... for this restaurant pad. Land use map, again, this one is a PD again, and zoning map, also PDC, just like the last one. This is the site plan, Taco Bell. It is 2,200 square feet. They are required to have 15 parking spaces. They're providing 27, and they will have that They require landscaping up along Southern Parkway, similar to what you saw in the last one against the freeway. They'll have landscaping up against Southern Parkway. They're calling it a ring road. This will be installed for the Dutch Bros and for this user in between Crush and Taco Bell. And I don't know if that's a mystery. It's a McDonald's. So that's exciting. And then just closer up of the site plan. They're single drive-through and again sufficient parking for what they need. Landscape plan, you can see that landscaping up against Southern Parkway and then throughout the parking lot to break that up. And then just some elevations of the Taco Bell. 24 feet to the tallest point of the architectural features. So the Planning Commission held a public hearing. They recommended approval of it as well. The one condition that, number two on here, is that the final plat must be reviewed and recorded to create the lot upon which this restaurant will be located. So again, the preliminary plat was approved. They just need to submit for that final plat. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. And they also have a representative that has come all the way from Salt Lake.

Is anybody from races here? Because I can feel a Taco Bell marathon coming on. Have you not heard of that? You've run from one Taco Bell to the next in Washington County. We could do it.

I like it. That's the only question for Dan.

Are you ready for a motion? I am. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion on item number nine that we approve ordinance number 2026-044, meaning the Desert Color Plan Development Commercial Zone on approximately 0.75 acres east of Desert Color Parkway between Southern Parkway and Black Hills Drive with the conditions outlined in the packet. I'll second.

I have a motion by Steve, second by Austin. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Austin. Austin Anderson, aye. Steve Kemp, aye.

Natalie Larson, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye. Michelle Tanner, aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Item number 10, consider approval ordinance number 2026-045, amending the city zoning map by changing the zone from PDR and R17 to R1 on approximately 101.61 acres, generally located north of South Desert Town Homes and the current end of Hamilton Drive.

Okay, so here's the location of the property. This is White Dome Drive running here and Hamilton Drive runs up the middle here. And then Southern Parkway is like out of the frame there. The current land use is MDR, medium density residential. And the current zoning is both PDR, planned development residential, and R17, single family, 7,000 minimum square foot lots. So this exhibit is turned, so you can see this is White Dome Drive here, and Southern Parkway is here, and then Hamilton Drive would be running up the middle here. So this is for areas five through nine. And you can see that areas six, I don't know, can you guys see that? I hope it's bigger on your screen, because it's small on this one, but areas six, 7 and 8 were designated as R1-7 and then areas 5 and 9 were designated as PDR in the Southern Hills East Area Zone Plan that was approved by City Council in June of 2021. And so when they're asking for the R17 for all of these areas, they're leaving out this little slice here because this was already developed at the R17 zone. It's phases one through three of the Cove Valley. I don't know if you guys remember, but they had some parade homes in there for the Dixie High houses. So that's what this little sliver that's left out there is. So with the MDR designation, these lots will be held to a maximum of nine dwelling units per acre. They will need to have a 40 foot frontage. And so you'll see consistency from the street as in the frontages, but they will have that flexibility with the no minimum square footage to have the flexibility in lot arrangement. The Planning Commission did hold a public hearing on April 28th. There were no public comments. They forwarded a positive recommendation with the unanimous vote of six to zero. And I can answer any questions for you. The applicants are also hearing. They can answer any questions you might have.

Questions for Brenda or the applicant?

No, but I'll make a motion if everyone's ready. Awesome. I move to approve ordinance number 2026-045, amending the city zoning map by changing the zone from PDR and R17 to R1 on approximately 101.61. Is that a typo? Acres? Is it that large? Acres generally located north of South Desert townhomes and the current end of Hamilton Drive. Second.

Second. Ooh, you guys making it difficult on me. I know Danielle had another tie previously, so I'm gonna give it to Danielle. So we have a motion by Michelle, second by Danielle. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote, but I'll be nice, Natalie, and we'll start with you.

Natalie Larson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye.

Austin Amish, aye.

Michelle Tanner, aye.

Danielle Larkin, aye. Motion carries unanimously. Is that it?

That's it. I think that was our first R1 zone change. Yeah.

Good job, Brett. Nice. We do have, let's have reports. Michelle, do you have any reports? Danielle? I was going to say, you got something.

we did meet with the art commission this morning and they made a recommendation so that will come to us soon um for the rap tax but i just wanted to give out a shout out to the arts commission because the amount of time that they put into reviewing all of those applications and then going over them and trying to fairly share that money that's from the rap tax it's a ton of work for them and i just really they're all volunteering and i appreciate their hard work

Natalie?

Sun Bowl's coming together. It's looking great. It's amazing. I happened onto the marathon first, I guess. They plan all year, but really a big planning meeting. And the numbers are amazing with how much that marathon has grown and how well it's performed. And Shane gives all the credit to Michelle Grace, a lot of the credit. But really and truthfully, that whole team of people is amazing. And that 50th marathon is going to be incredible. And a lot of these people, I think, may have signed up. Right, Austin? You did? No?

I did not know that. We'll get them up here when they get the award. It's an award-winning marathon. They should be getting some awards.

Mayor, I have one report that was of note at the Habitat Conservation Advisory Committee. They gave an update on the northern corridor, which many of you already know, but some of the public might be interested. But the preliminary injunction, they did rule on one of the NTPs in UDOT's favor, and they're allowed to do the soils testing and get the soils report done. And they're hoping... to rule on the other one by the end of the year. So there's still ways out. At least we won one.

Yeah. It's moving in the right direction, right? Twenty years later. Just one thing I just want to say was it was really cool I don't think we called it a ribbon cutting. We called it a drop in at the firehouse park yesterday for the skate park. There was quite a few people there of every kind of wheel you could think of from rollerblades, scooters, skateboards, bikes. Todd Steed did a drop-in, showed us some of his moves. Really good project. I think a good spend of the money. It's going to be well used. It's in a place in the park where it fits perfectly. We removed some sod, so we're saving water. And by the time everybody was done and we were done with all the festivities, the place was even more packed with local kids in that neighborhood enjoying that little skate park. And it's not huge. I think it was a $200,000 project or something like that. I got to say it's probably one of the best $200,000 we've ever spent, and it's going to be well-used, well-loved. And I got to give away four skateboard decks for the tricks that were being done. And all the kids that won them were so excited and came up and thanked the city for doing that. So a lot of good things happening there. So good stuff happening. Other than that, we do have need for a closed meeting. So we need to have a motion to adjourn from City Council and reconvene in a closed meeting to discuss litigation, security, property acquisition, or the character and professional competence or physical or mental health of an individual.

So moved. Second.

Motion by Danielle, second by Michelle. All in favor say aye. Aye. Was that unanimous? Aye. All right. Motion carries unanimously.