City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome. It's 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 4th, 2026. The Tula City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of Tilla City are meeting in a work meeting. This meeting is being held at Tilla City Hall in the council chambers located at 90 North Main Street in Tilla, Utah. We're also streaming this electronically on the Tula City YouTube channel. We will start with the roll call. Councilman Gosset, present. Councilwoman Gochas, present. Councilman Hansen, present. Councilman McCall, present. I'm Councilman Brady, and I'm present. We'll move on to item three, the mayor's report.

Thank you, council. Um, I just have a couple of things tonight. Uh first of all, it is the last week of the legislative session, so hopefully some of you are paying attention, following some bills. They have over a thousand bills. They've passed just over 200 in the first few weeks and expect to pass, I don't know, two to 300 more just this week as the rules are suspended. So, we'll keep a watch of those. There are a lot of bills about taxes and elections that would apply to us. Um, we also had uh today, just today, I was informed by our parks director that our tree city application was accepted by the Arbor Day Foundation. So, we are officially renewed as a Tree City USA. And then we did have a couple of ribbon cutings this week. Some of you were at um Pizza Pie Cafe and Jersey Mike's. And we have some others that will be upcoming this month hopefully as well. So, we'll see you at those. And then lastly, I met today with some representatives from Just Serve who are interested in having us become a Just Served uh community, our city. So, I'll be getting some information about that. That's all I have for today. Thanks.

Great. Thank you. Move on to item four, which is the council members report. We'll start with Councilman McCall. Yeah. Um I attended um the ribbon cutings this week. I also attend the historical preservation um committee um meeting last week and that was interesting. But yeah, so if you know of any historical stuff for Tuella or Tuella County basically, I'd love to to hear about it. So if your grandparents or great-grandparents have some stories, we'd love to hear about them and the locations. So, we're just trying to get it all documented so we can preserve it for future generations.

Okay, that's it. Thank you, Councilman Hansen. I think my grandpa was sheriff to about 90 years ago. That count. I see. We'd love to know that. They used to he used to carry a pistol on his hip. So, I guess it was different back then. Yeah, it was. Yep. Um, I attended a planning commission meeting last week and there was lots of good discussion about things there. It was a good meeting and then there was there was a developer that I think all of us ended up meeting with that wants to make fuller growth. So, we got to meet with him a little bit and talk about what his plans were and that's a couple things I wanted to report on.

Thank you, Councilwoman Goes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I attended the fire department banquet on uh Saturday the 21st and would just like to thank Chief McCoy and the uh his staff for serving our community and and the banquet was well attended and they always outline um all of the things that they accomplished throughout the year and it was really a nice event. I attended a legislative policy committee on the 23rd. Um on the 26th I uh attended a tour of the Peterson Industrial Depot. Um, also a ribbon cutting for the Hotworks ribbon and uh or a Hotworks business that's located down by Macy's and it was really really nice. Um, on Monday I attended a legislative two legislative sessions and the legislative policy committee at the Utah State Capital. That was really informative. As the mayor said, they're ramping up for the end of the legislative session and a lot is being accomplished that affects our city. Um today I also attended the Jersey Mike's ribbon cutting and uh just like to congratulate Jersey Mike. They had a wonderful grand opening and also the many new businesses that are in our community. It's really really awesome. So that concludes my report. Thank you.

Thank you Councilman Gossip. I was able to go to the firefighters banquet as well. I forgot about that. Um that was a really nice evening seeing the things that they've done and accomplished over the last year. And I was also able to uh uh meet with Councilman Hansen with those developers and and hear their vision for what they wanted to accomplish. And aside from that, I was out of town and sick for a good portion of it. So that was all I got.

All right. Okay. I attended the North Tilla City Special Service District meeting. I think it was last Thursday or two Thursdays ago. Um, I was just thinking back that they've done really well keeping that area of North Towilla looking really nice and just want to show them appreciation and a shout out for that that that area has been maintained and wellkept for the last 20 plus years and that's been part of the service district. And then just as you mentioned, I've met with developers. I've spoke with some residents about some concerns they've had and hopefully can address some of those. So, one of those we'll actually be talking about tonight, the residential parking that's been coming up more often. So, with that, let's move on to our discussion items. Our first discussion item is a discussion on a proposed amendment to Tulic City Code 7-4-7, parking location regarding front yard parking and residential zoning districts. This is presented by Andrew Agar, the community development director. Thank you, Chairman Brady. So, this was originally presented to the city council at your December 3rd work session. Since that time, it kind of got buried in my stack of stuff. So, special thanks to Chairman Brady for bringing it back to my attention at one of the mayor's staff meetings. During the meeting on December 3rd, I presented to you five five proposed ordinance amendments to try and address the issue of front yard parking in residential zones. And the city council settled on number three. And it's showing or number three was written in a way that the parking would be limited to the lesser side of the front yard adjacent to the driveway and then parking would be pro would be prohibited on the greater side of the front yard adjacent to the driveway. The city council has some concerns at that time, especially related to parking on or lots that have that are on corner,

especially when the driveway is adjacent to the the corner side. And so they gave me direction to to rethink the ordinance and and take a look at that. And so this is what we've come up with in regards to that, the parking of vehicles in residential zones. The first thing we did is we removed front yard because this ordinance amendment doesn't necessarily deal exclusively with the front yard but also with the rear yard and the sideyards. The language we've come up with so far states parking of vehicles shall be limited to the established driveway and to the sideyard adjacent to the garage or carport and the rear yard where a garage or carport is not present. Parking shall be permitted only on the same sideyard as the driveway and in the rear yard. All parking areas in the front yard, sideyard, and rear yard shall be paved with concrete, asphalt, gravel, pavers, or other similar paving methods. So, this is in response to some concerns, particularly uh Councilman Hansen, about about parking for corner lots. This is a graphic that I've put together that kind of illustrates what that parking would look like. The area shaded in gray is area that could be utilized as vehicle parking. And the area that's shaded in white would not be utilized. As you can see, the majority of the lot can still be utilized for the parking of private or personal vehicles. Basically, we're just preserving the footprint of the home, the front yard, and the small sideyard uh as non-parking. I would propose that this graphic be included in the ordinance if the city council was inclined to adopt this ordinance. Uh visual graphics often serve very well to help the public understand exactly what the language of the code is saying. In regards to the pros of this ordinance, I threw together some what ideas that I consider to be pros or

positives for this ordinance. This ordinance amendment would attempt to eliminate the conversion of front yards into automobile parking lots and preserve visual integrity of residential properties. We all want our properties, especially our neighboring properties, to take care of themselves and to look good. Uh number two, this would enable property owners to utilize the majority of their lot for vehicle parking, up to 3/4 of the available open space. That's quite a bit of property for the parking of their vehicles. Uh this would also protect the rights of corner lots adjacent to especially when their garage is adjacent to the street that they could utilize that for parking and then provides a mechanism for code enforcement for these situations when they occur where currently we do not have a mechanism to enforce these issues. Some of the cons that I could come up with number one property owners may view this as further intrusion of the city into their property rights. um enforcement, enforcement, enforcement. That's always going to be an issue. We have one code enforcement officer who is already extremely busy. And then number three, we'll create a plethora of new non-conforming situations. People will claim legal non-conforming status placing the city in a he said she said situation. Uh similar to animal rights, we get a lot of people that claim their animal rights are non-conforming and then it has to be proven that they're not. a very difficult situation to enforce. I wanted to throw some examples to the city council tonight just kind of showing you how the ordinance if this were to be adopted how this would apply. So I went to Google Earth and did their street view and I found a lot of properties in Tilla City that I think this ordinance would have application too. So I wanted to go through those if you don't mind. This one clearly would be contrary or non-compliant with the code. There is a vehicle and a trailer that are parking in the front yard. Why? I don't know.

You can see on the sideyard there's ample space there for the parking of vehicles. This one I count at least six vehicles in the front yard. Clearly non-compliant if this ordinance were to be adopted and could be enforced. This one has a Jeep that is parked on a dirt patch just off the driveway. Uh, by this ordinance, that would be non-compliant and would be subject to enforcement. This one's a little unique. There is not a garage or a carport, and so the ordinance does address this. It would have to parking can only remain on the same side as the driveway. Uh the RV in the front yard is non-compliant. The ordinance, we already have an ordinance on the book that requires RVs to be parked behind the front plane of the home. Uh so this new ordinance would address mainly those vehicles. Uh they are compliant in that they are on a driveway and they're on the same site as the driveway, but you'll note that the car is parked on dirt and the new ordinance does require some sort of paving, whether it be pavers or gravel or something of that nature. So there would be some compliance issues in regard to this property

on that one. Yeah. RV parked on a cement pad on the other side of that. If they put a car there instead of an RV I'm sorry I'm not on the mic. But if they the RV is parked on cement in that picture. So if there was a car there instead of RV, would that be compliant since it's on the opposite side of the house? It would not because the way the RV ordinance is written is it has to be behind the front plane. Well, the RV, but if you put a car there instead of the RV, if you put a car there with this with this amendment, the car would be fine. It would be fine as long as it's on the cement pad. Okay. Correct. All right. Even though it's not on the same side as the driveway. Yeah. The with in regards to the RV, it wouldn't matter which side of the house.

No, but if it was a car, wouldn't it still have to be on the driveway side? The car would be. Yes. Okay. So, but that particular home that had two driveways, right? Yeah, that's why my question correct. And that's that and I got a couple more examples that will show some little some oddities here in the city that could get complicated with this ordinance amendment and I wanted to bring it to your attention. Okay.

Uh this one, that car is parked on a gravel spot just adjacent to the driveway. There is significant room on the side of that lot for that car to be parked. Uh, the one of the questions that I thought of when I saw this is what do you do when somebody who's there temporarily just parks their car there for say overnight? Um, is that going to require staff to go out and monitor how long a vehicle has been there? This is what we want to see. This one looks really good. All the vehicles are parked on the side of same side of the garage. The the RV is parked behind the front plane of the home. Uh this is what the ordinance as we currently have presented is intended to to do. What we see here, this one's a little unique. The property owner added a cement slab off to the side of the the home encroaching into the front yard. However, it is on the same side as the garage and is paved. So, I would classify this one as being compliant

except for the RV. No, it was behind the house. No, it's right there on the back of that Suburban. Oh, yeah. Yeah. The RV would need to be behind the front plane.

This one, they uh parked their side by side in a trailer in their front yard while they have a very large sideyard adjacent to the the driveway. However, you'll note that that that sideyard is not paved. That's just dirt. they would need to pave that. And then the RV, that's that's a a different ordinance. This is one that's a little unique. You'll note that they have two driveways, one on each side of the house. They even have a drive approach on each side. Now, whether or not they did that drive approach legally, I don't know. This is an older home built back in the 40s. Uh how long that's been there, I don't know. But with this current ordinance amendment, you can see where the garage is. They have a detached garage in the back behind that RV. So, the two cars on the the other side of the house would technically become non-compliant with this ordinance amendment. That's where we get into a situation where if Ley goes to the home and says, "You got to remove those two cars." I say, "Hey, I've been parking there for 30 years." That's where we get into the non-conforming issues and and how do we address those? Those can get very complicated. This was an aerial view of a corner lot in Tilla City. Um you'll note where the driveway is. It's on the north side of the home and it's got two cars parked behind the house. Under the current ordinance that we're think that you're considering, this would be compliant. So you can park in the rear yard and on the same side. If the driveway was on the other side, they could they could park there adjacent to the street, but the driveway is on the north side of the home. This is another one where they've utilized two driveways. The truck, you can see, is parked on a well wellworn parking area, but there's no paving there and it is in the front yard.

Uh this is a corner lot with the driveway garage adjacent to the corner. Uh that would be compliant. And then this one I took I like this picture. This is uh again what the ordinance is intended to do. They've they they're parking on the side and the the parking area is paved by concrete and uh it looks good and that's uh that's what we hope to to accomplish with this ordinance amendment. So and then uh this house this is out in the neighborhood where I grew up. This used to be a very charming home with very nice landscaping. It now has a jeep, a truck, a trailer, and a boat. Two cars in the street, and across the street there's two other cars. I don't know if they belong to them or not, but um this is what the ordinance is trying to clean up to the point. Recommendations, thoughts, suggestions, or rebukes? I'd be happy to entertain whatever you whatever you'd like. And uh if you're comfortable with what I've proposed, I'll I'll move it through the public process.

I've got a question. So, on Upland, there is at least one house that I can think of that has a U-shaped driveway right dead center of the home. So, how does that fall into this the way that you've written it? That's an excellent question. And And how do we Yeah, that house has a garage, too. It does have a garage and the U shape on the left side if you're facing it. That's plus plus it I know whose house it is but it does have a there are multiple situations on the other side too. It's got a lot on it. I remember. Yeah. That's an excellent question because our ordinance does permit that. Yeah.

Um but does that have to be written into the That may be something we have to put in there that says circular drives are are exempt from this ordinance or something. That's an excellent point. I had not considered that. Well, maybe they still need to be parked on something that's not dirt. I mean, that would still I was going to say I don't mind that they're parked on the driveway. Yeah. As long as they're not on the grass and Yeah. soft surface. We could easily put language in there that basically states circular drives as properly permitted and paved would be exempt from the front yard parking requirements. If that's

and are there any properties that have a garage built onto the house and an auxiliary garage on the other side probably are there's that's where it gets complicated there there's all kinds of arrangements in this city. We have we have a very fun and unique city. Well, one one of the options indicated um that the property owner had to have at least 50% landscaped. And so maybe something that indicates even though it has a circular drive or two driveways that there should be a sufficient amount of property that is a yard and not just a frontal driveway.

Okay. But maybe if we do like a circular driveway language, we can put in there that you still have to maintain 50% of the front yard as landscaping if you're utilizing a circular drive. I also had some other concerns. Um, you know, that in the gray areas that you listed where people can park their cars in the back, you know, there are a lot of people that, you know, if we have an unlimited amount of cars that can be parked in the backyard, that's also unsightly for somebody who shares boundaries,

you know. So, um, I'm not for sure if that shouldn't also be addressed that that limit the number of cars that can be parked there. Um and and and inoperable cars versus operable cars. Um also, um you know, I'm just kind of wondering, do we need to address the penalties in the code for violations? We already have an enforcement language in the code for title 7, okay?

Which does have a tiered fine system. So they there are three tiers of fines. uh that we apply to all typical violations, we can fall back on that one. Or if the council wants to establish a new set of fines exclusive to this, we can do that as well. Do you know how those those tiers work? Yeah, the first fine is $50 and then 100 for the second and then 500 for the third. If they still don't comply at that point, we start sending them over to Matt's office. So,

okay. And how much time do they have to comply? It depends on the matter at hand and how willing they are to comply with it. The code enforcement officer will judge that when he's working with them. Um it can be anywhere from two weeks to a month depending on the circumstances of the individual. Okay. And then one more thing chair if that's okay. Um, I know that in our our uh business meeting we're going to uh discuss parking in the right of way and you indicated that there are some people that are parking their vehicles adjacent to their property and then across the street from their property that they don't own. So, how is that going to be addressed?

That's not addressed with this ordinance. Um, we'd have to do a a different ordinance probably in another in another title related to public streets. Um, that's really not one that my department would enforce. That would have to come down to Chief Day and his officers to enforce those. Okay. This would be exclusively on behind the private behind the property line on private property. So, I don't mean to punt that to somebody else, but uh that's not what this ordinance would would do. Okay.

So, on Melody's question about the backyard, is there anything that says something like 50% of the backyard has to be soft surface like grass? No, we have nothing in the ordinance regarding how you use back. That's something that we can't do. You could do it if you wanted to. I think I think that's something that that would limit how many cars could be in the back. Yeah, you're you're the council. You can do that. Don't we have an ordinance though that says like an inoperable car can't be stored, right? Because then it's a storage or it's a junkyard kind of thing.

Yes, we have an ordinance already that limits the number of inoperable vehicles that can be stored in a yard or where you can store them. And they have to be stored in a in a garage or a detached structure and cannot be openly stored outside for a I can't remember if it's 60 days or something like that. There's a little bit of a time limitation. We have some have to be licensed also or we got so many that can be unlicensed. This this ordinance would deal exclusively with licensed operating vehicles.

I I I'm I'm I'm slightly concerned on a couple of things. One of them um there's a lot of people um in Truella that I know that restore cars um and they get old cars and they fix them up. If we told them they could only park that car that's not running 60 days, then that means they would need to make sure they have enough money to fix a car in 30 days or 60 days when in some of those things it take you almost a year to get the the part that you need. Um, so I think we would have to look at that. I'm not saying everybody, but there are a lot of people in Tua that restore cars. Um, I I I know quite a few of them. Um, the other thing about the backyard. Um, I totally understand where you're coming from because it could be a um eyesore to neighbors with people putting cars in their backyard. But the city in my mind is not an HOA, you know what I mean? And that would be something that an HOA would do. Um I I just feel that we what he's done I I think addressed a lot of the issues that we had. We probably need to refine it a little bit more. Um but I'm I'm I'm just saying I'm not in favor of telling Johnny that he can only have half of his backyard done a certain way. we're already telling him what he can do with his front yard. Um, to me that just sounds like an HOA. It It doesn't sound like the city. You know what I mean? Because we got to be fair to everybody. And um I I I'm just looking at this as like, wait a minute, we we we don't we should not be dictating what you do to your yard. The whole yard. I I totally agree with

like what we saw that should be cleaned up. It should be. But um if you live on a half acre, you you're saying I can only do well if your backyard is a half acre. Well, half of that half acre has got to be grass. No, if I don't want grass, I shouldn't have to put grass there. You know what I mean? Yeah, I I agree. Shouldn't be parking cars, but some people do. Yeah. But I going along with that, I would rather have their car, if it's a usable vehicle that they're using, parked in their backyard, right? It's it's out of sight.

Um those pictures you showed us, a lot of them, I think anyone looking at them can see like that looks okay, that doesn't look okay. But that's the challenge is getting an ordinance that says you can and cannot do that. Uh, I think last time we discussed this, I brought up the fact that we have accessory dwelling units that there's people renting out their basement and that's how they're surviving right now. So, we do have to be understanding of that as well. And that could be why they have parking on the other side of the house as well.

I would actually be more in favor of having the sideyard on both sides maybe where they park. The the house you showed it was a red brick house. that one. I think the front um let's see almost right there.

That one like to me the front yard is still it looks great. It looks fine. It's wellmaintained and the cars on both sides isn't the issue that I'm trying to address. The issue is when they're parking in the front and there's a trailer and a boat and so I don't really care if they park on both sides. I think it looks fine. I think it it achieves what we want it to achieve. So, I don't know if anyone else is open to that idea of they can park on both sides, but it's I don't know how you do that either, Andrew. Do you say from corner to corner you can't park or cuz there was other houses where they they did go in front of the house and it still looked fine. But

it may come down to

a graphic like if you see here, we just show them the portion of the front yard that cannot be used for parking. and the rest that can if that's the way the council wants to go. In regards to the ADUs, we require the ordinance requires one parking stall per ADU. So, they have to have one parking stall. Um, I believe that what's showing wouldn't eliminate that or make that difficult, but you're right. And that they could have an alternative driveway for those things that would that would impact where they could put the park install for the ADU if this were to be adopted. Aren't Aren't we really trying to get the I mean, you the ones you go around town and see, they got their whole front yard full of cars and the grass is completely covered with cars and there's a little pathway to get to your front door. That's really what we're after, right?

Yeah. So, we might be trying to make it too complicated.

Yeah. And that's that's why I think you just kind of say corner to corner on the house. It has to be paved gravel. So, we start there and then if it's I don't want to be to a point where the ordinance can't be enforced or we're over enforcing things as well. And it takes away from the purpose was to get people to not park on their front lawn, but then we've taken away the sideyard and it's a balance. I get that and we have to give and take, but I agree with Dave. I I don't think any of us really want the government to dictate what we do. We do this because when we don't have rules and you start to get the unsightly houses and it does affect other people at that point and that's when the government should get involved, right? Is because my neighbors choices do affect my life and that's when the government gets involved

and that's that and that's when they come to the government and they complain about their neighbors behaviors. Yeah. So, well, I was happy with your answer about inoperable vehicles because I didn't want somebody's whole backyard to become the storage unit for inoperable vehicles. So, there is an ordinance. So, if a a a neighbor doesn't like someone's unsightly yard and they don't and they want to come to the city to complain, then they can do that. So, um,

yeah, and we'll anytime we receive a complaint, we investigate and, uh, we try to determine whether or not there is actually an ordinance violation or a public hazard or some other problem that that is worthy of enforcement. And so, we we take every complaint that we receive seriously, even though they may not be serious. Can you go back to that red brick home that we had had viewed before? Um, not that I'm just picking on them, but you know, they've got a fifth wheel right there. So, is is that compliant or is that non-compliant? It's not compliant. Okay. With a different ordinance, though.

That's a different ordinance. It's in the same parking ordinance. In fact, it's right before the one we're proposing here if we were to adopt that. But yeah, it requires them to be behind the front plane of the home. Behind the front plane. It's a huge issue though. The more I drive around town, the more I realize that a lot of people are parking trailers and all sorts of things in their front yard. It is widespread and it needs to be addressed. There's no doubt about that. And and the problem with this particular fifth wheel is it's so big until it won't fit back to that corner. You know what I mean? Yeah. Because that that building is behind it. Y

but there are locations where you can store your vehicles. Yeah. So that's an option. I agree with Justin on the both sides of the house. The only thing that on the driveway side, the driveways in front of the house, but on the other side, I wouldn't want it to go past the side of the house to protrude in front of it.

Right. The other thing is, I know Dave brought it up before, um, if we go ahead and pass it at some point, how long do we give them? So, you if you get the call, you go out and you investigate a house, and you say, "Yeah, that one's not compliant." And they're told, "Hey, this is a new ordinance." How long do they have to correct it? So placing a time limitation on this would be very difficult to enforce given the number of staff that we have to enforce this. Um I don't know if we want to do that because it' just be too much to keep track of how long a car has been sitting there and how long it hasn't.

The way that the the way that our enforcement process works is when we are apprised of a problem, we have to go through the whole period of noticing. And so many times ordinance compliance issues disappear before we even get a notice to them because it's just not a permanent thing. Yeah. Um in this case, I think it just be best that if we if if you were to adopt this ordinance to not put a time restriction on it and just leave it to the discretion of the enforcement officer that if he sees a problem there, he can begin the enforcement procedure. it. Usually, it will if it's not a long-term issue, it'll resolve itself before we even get to a notification.

And I probably didn't word that right because that's not what I was meaning. I was meaning if say this this red brick house, we said, "Hey, there's not a driveway there. That's got to be a hard surface." Do we give them a certain amount of time to get the hard surface to not find them? If they say, "Yeah, well, we'll get it done in 60, 90 days, whatever it is, do we give them a get out of jail free card?" So the code enforcement officer when he enforces an issue, he talks with the individuals and finds out what they need to do and how long it will take them to enfor issue into compliance and he works with them. So if they don't have any money that they need 60 days instead of 30, uh he works with them on that. I I I like the flexibility of him being able to have that judgment in dealing with with compliance issues. if we put a time limit on there, it it limits his ability to work with people. And so it's yeah, it can be beneficial, but at the same time, it can it can make his his ability to work with people to get things done a little more difficult. Well, there must be some structure in the fines because you indicated the first notice is a $50 fine and then when they issue a second notice, there must be some kind of measurable time.

Yeah. In between. Yeah. He gives them a time. He gives them a time limit or period of time between each notice to come into compliance. Okay. So, based on his discretion and sometimes he'll extend that if there's mitigating circumstances that they can't help. Um he he tries to work with each individual. Okay. And I think we have the fines to not force them to do it because we want compliance, but our goal isn't to make a revenue source off of this. It's to get compliance and that's what the fines are there for. It's more of a motivation to get them to do it. But at the same time, I've seen Flyy wave the fines after they come into compliance.

So there's some flexibility there. And I think it's beneficial for him to have that flexibility. And I kind of look at it and I think it's our duty as a city to make sure there's a whole bunch of real estate agents in the back. So I mean it's got to be hard to sell a house next to one of those that you've shown. And so it affects our residents bottom line. It affects their money.

So I feel like it's kind of our duty to make sure they can get the most out of their property. I also believe there's safety issues in trying to back out of your driveway and not having visibility when you've got a fifth wheel neighbor or a semi-truck parked next to you. Can't see around that to be able to safely get in and out of your driveway. So, I I see that there's a responsibility with protecting the safety of our our residents as well.

Yep, you're right. So, just to clarify on the picture, the graph you have in there, the spotted or speckled gray area, is that allowed or is it just the gray area? Cuz there's a white area that says not allowed. There's a gray area that says allowed, but then there's like a a black speckled gray area that those That's the driveway. That's part of the driveway. That's the driveway into the garage. I I thought back of the house. It would be permissible if that's gravel. If it's just dirt that's worn clear because they've driven the car over it a number of times. See what you're talking about the garage. Yeah. Go to the where the ordinance is the graphic that you Oh, got it.

Sorry. I'm talking about public street entrance. So on both of those they have the like the speckled black with gray area. Could you park there? Yeah, that's the driveway. Okay. It was just so close to like the front door. Or I guess that's why I was Yeah. Yeah. The the speckled area is a hatch pattern they use for concrete. So that's the driveway. So that's the designated driveway. Uhhuh.

Okay. All right. Okay. I think the only thing I would suggest adding is just the side where they could park on both sides if But other than that, I think I'm okay with it. Anyone else have Well, let me tinker with it, especially with the circular drives. That's that's a a critical issue we need to address. And then uh the sideyards and I I can bring it back for another work session if you'd like to see it or Yeah, I think another work session. It's I'm anxious to com to get this enforced. We could put it on a work session and then have it on the next business meeting. I think we're close. I

And then if we feel like we're not there, we can table it. And I think the side drive that you're talking about doing the other side of the house that solves one of the problems if there's an accessory garage on the opposite side. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Let's put it on our next work meeting and business meeting and so well back about the business meeting. We need to have planning commission recommendation. So yeah. Okay. Yeah. Then go to planning commission. Well, should we go to do we want to see it one more time before it goes to planning commission? I think it'd be good to go to planning commission and get their suggestions also. I agree. Yeah. Okay. So, let's go before we go to council meeting and next business.

So, can we make our suggested changes, take it to planning commission and hear their changes, then bring it back to a work meeting. Absolutely. Everyone okay with that? I Okay, we can do that. Thanks, Andrew. Thank you, council. Thank you. Okay. Our next discussion item is a discussion on ordinance amendment 7-26, water rights, presented by Paul Hansen, the city engineer.

Mr. Chairman, can I make just one comment on that prior discussion item? Just as a note, as you talk about adding driveways, keep in mind that there's already another ordinance that limits how wide the total driveways can be on a lot. So we'll need to make sure we do everything in the harmonies at the same time so whatever you decide balances. Okay.

In code. Sometimes in our in our work we find that we dropped a ball and so we come back to you to say we apologize and we're now here to try to get the ball bouncing and get it in place. In June of last year, the council was presented with ordinance 2025-10, which is an ordinance that enacted a temporary land use regulation as it related to water rights. Uh, four of you were on the council at that time. Um, and the council voted for in favor of adopting that ordinance and there was one abstension. The ordinance, just for the public record, allowed the city to have a little further discretion in terms of which water rights it would accept in satisfaction of to title 7-26. It doesn't say we won't take water rights. It doesn't say we're going to be prejuditial, but it simply allowed the city in the case of balancing where and how we pump water from to say we may require that we use the source that the water right came from or we may do other things to do it rather than just allowing them the rights to all transfer directly into existing city wells. So, this what we're asking to do and what the where it dropped was the ordinance was adopted and the next day our city uh attorney retired from the city and then with everything else we just kind of didn't follow up and I accept blame for that on my own part. But what we proposed to do is in two weeks come back to you with essentially the same ordinance but with a new ordinance number. It'll be dated 2026. Um, I'll answer any questions you may have on it, but the purpose of that ordinance would have be again to enact a temporary land use ordinance which only has six months worth of life where this

prior ordinance was in June. It's done. We need to start over again. We would then simultaneously take the action back to planning commission because it is a title 7 action and get their review input and then bring it back to the city council as a final code amendment should that be your your discretion. Okay. Any questions or comments? And as always, I'm happy, you know, apart from the meetings or whatever, if anybody has questions, please, please feel free to reach out. Do you remember what this ordinance was about? I mean, I don't remember. I mean, not off the top of my head. No, I don't remember. I can read what the changes were. Okay.

Title 726:3 reads, "Type of water rights acceptable for conveyance. We added partial three sentences." And I'll read what the sentence reads and what we're proposing to add. says, "Water rights proposed for conveyance to the city shall be municipal or municipal type water rights. Prior to acceptance of such water rights, the city shall evaluate the water rights proposed for conveyance and insert here in the in its discretion may refuse to accept any right which is determined to be insufficient in annual quantity or flow rate and suitable for municipal use. Not reasonably likely to be approved for change to municipal purposes within the city by the state engineer. Add another sentence. not associated with the developed or identified developable water source back to the existing ordinance or otherwise deficient. Later on, the sentence reads, "In determining the quantity of water available under the water rights, the city will evaluate the priority of the water rights, the historic average quantities of water associated with the water rights, add this water source sufficiency and water quality." back to the ordinance and other relevant factors. So, it doesn't really change anything other than gives the city back the control to say if we're accepting water rights, we want to make sure that we can get water from them. We want to make sure that there's a an approved source that's documented that generates that water so we're not just increasing the demand on particular wells or not, and also that it meets the drinking water standards of the city. Again, nothing is intended to be punitive, rather to just allow the city and its discretion to make sure that we're protecting the

residents interests and we would provide that. It the ordinance did have that language in it and we'll provide all that to you. It does not change the quantity, exactions or anything else, solely the acceptance. I just I'm just cur and I we probably had the same discussion last time we did. I was just curious about an example of water that would you wouldn't allow.

Well, Twilla City as as you've heard many times as we've talked about waterite the state engineer has basically divided the Twilla Valley into three zones. A western grantsville area a central and then the eastern which would be Lake Point coming through Erda and Twilla City. The state engineer has determined that they have approved water right applications in excess of the availability of water in the eastern section. Now, a waterite application is nothing more than a fishing license. You've heard me say that before. Just because I buy a fishing license doesn't guarantee I'm going to get my catch of trout out of the stream. Um, it's an opportunity to develop up to that limit. What we need to be careful of is making sure that the water rights we take because of that overallocation of paper rights can be supplied through actual source. We don't want to be just holding paper water rights that have no meaning no use to them. Now with Mayor Manzion's support, we're looking at a lot of things to try to expand our water right portfolio and look at how we develop them. and we're trying to look at some creative ways to maximize our benefit for the benefit of our residents and the water rights we have. But this is simply a tool to help us. Theoretically, let's say someone came to us with I'm going to use an extreme example. We don't have anything like this. But if someone came to us with a thousand acre feet of water and said, "I want to build a bunch of homes, supply the water tomorrow." I'd have a hard time finding a new source that could provide 1,000 gallons a minute or 1,000 acre feet of water for those new homes. However, if there's a,000 acre feet that's developed in some other part of the valley that has an existing well, I could go use that well or redevelop it and pipe that into the city for use. That's one of the elements

that this ordinance would allow us to do is to protect ourselves in that in that extent. That's just one example. Okay. Any other questions? I'm good with just bringing it back up again and going through it for sure. So, yeah.

Yeah, it's a very very it's just one paragraph, but yes, it'll be provided to you. So, we will bring back essentially the same address. We'll work with city attorney's office, same ordinance, excuse me, not address, but the same ordinance with a new number. We'll acknowledge that we're formally replacing that prior ordinance. Enact a temporary land ordinance would be the intent because it's title 7. We'll take it to planning commission. They have an opportunity and an obligation to review it. And then as soon as we could bring it back to you after appropriate public hearing, we would bring back the actual ordinance amendment. Okay. Sound acceptable? Yes. Very good. Thank you. I appreciate your help. Thanks, Paul.

All right. That concludes our discussion items. Item six is a closed meeting, and there's nothing for closed meeting tonight. So item seven is to adjourn at 6:17