Council Meetings - workshop

August 12th, 2026. We're in the council chambers at Washington City Hall for our workshop meeting. Our meetings are broadcast live and archived at washingtoncity.org slash meetings. We do not have need to go to closed session. We have two items on the agenda. Council, I'll turn to you for a motion to approve. Mayor, I'll make that motion we approve the agenda as outlined. You've heard the motion by Councilman Coates. Second. Second by Councilman Belliston. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The agenda is approved unanimously. We'll jump right into our first item of business, which is the downtown project. And I'll invite Jason Bright with an intrinsic architecture. Excellent. Take it away, Mr. Bright.

All right, thanks. So yeah, we were here about a month and a half ago or so. And so we're here today to give you an update on the design progress of the civic campus portion of the downtown redevelopment. So right now, like I said, we are in the feasibility and kind of concept planning. So this is big picture and trying to kind of merge the site, the building, the existing meeting house, and the city requirements, and trying to kind of mesh those all together into a kind of a cohesive design. Let me zoom in here, give you an overall site plan to show you where we are today. So currently the scope of this work is everything you see inside this kind of blue dashed line. It's about 3.3 acres total. And there are three kind of components building-wise to it. There's a new city hall that we're exploring right now, which includes a portion of the existing meeting house that's going to be repurposed. That's number one, which you see here on the right. There is a parking garage structure. Around 85,000 square feet has 256 parking stalls. Number two you see here on the left. And then there will also be a third component, which would be the actual renovation of this building from an interior standpoint to reconfigure it more to be a courthouse than has the current city hall as well. This site plan you see here kind of shows you, like I said, the extent of where we would kind of rework. For the most part, almost everything inside these blue dashed lines are going to be scraped clean. The things that we would maintain would be, of course, the trees where we can. We do know there are some trees that are near the end of their life around here. They're kind of bolted together and wired together. That is probably a good time for them to go. We're going to, of course, preserve, as we take a look at it here, a portion of the old chapel as part of the meeting house. And then there is a monument in front of the church, as well as the Washington City sign. So there's a few things that we're going to, of course, reclaim. But for the most part, you can imagine that everything else kind of inside this blue line would be kind of scraped clean, and we're kind of starting with new parking and grading and everything that kind of goes through that. There is a small parking area here that was redone in the middle of 58 stalls between all the buildings. And I'll talk about this little top area here, the top left here, these 23 stalls as well. They're going to be an additional dedicated secure parking for the police for their behind area as well, and a secondary gate for them to exit out through there. This design also shows some 45-degree angle parking along the street. So it does take the sidewalk. It kind of pushes it in around 10 feet from where it currently is. We get about 13 or so stalls in front of what would be the new city hall and around 16 stalls in front of the parking garage, a parking structure here on the left as well. One thing to note as we go through this as well is this number six kind of right up here, this little kind of square. We're referring to this right now as a civic space or a civic plaza. It's not programmed yet, but I think it's a really great space that really all of our buildings are going to kind of focus on. So the entrance from Heritage Hall, that kind of north entrance that kind of comes off, is going to open into this space, as well as, of course, this new building, this new city hall is kind of L-shaped in there as well. So what we do with that green space, it could be amphitheater, it could be water features, it could be a lot of different things. So I think that's a great area that we have a lot of possibility in terms of how we're gonna program that out as well.

Real quick, that blue dashed line there by the number six, that's basically down the sidewalk right now, right?

Yeah, I think it's down.

So number six is where some of the demolition of the existing chapel would be, and it's going to have to be re-landscaped and redone anyway.

Yeah, almost all that area through it. And like I said, when we get into the public engagement side, I think that's a great place to get the public's thoughts on what they'd like to see out there as well. So yeah, so in terms of the existing meeting house out there, generally we're talking about demoing around 15,000 square feet of it, so everything you kind of see here in red, and we're maintaining about 3,400 square feet of it, which is really the original chapel from the 1950s, the chapel through there. So to look at it in three dimensions, there's kind of three components that we're keeping. There's the chapel, there is the area on the street side of the chapel, there's a couple of older stone walls there, They're currently an administrative component of that. And then the actual kind of bell tower as well. So all of those we can tell are from the very, very original building. So we want to try to keep those. And then everything you see in red around here, we anticipate will be torn off kind of through there as well.

Sorry, does the bell tower, does it line up okay with the new development? with the new construction where it's at? Yes, we'll show the new one, yes.

So I'll show you the next one. So this whole idea with our new construction is to try and how do we approach this existing building and build a new building? And the idea was almost to connect them with a glass box. So what you see here is this blue kind of box kind of connects them. So we want to take our new building, kind of shift it as far north as reasonable, That helps for lots of reasons for constructability, but also for aesthetics as well, because we know the old new materials aren't going to line up. And then put the kind of this glass box, which is going to be the major entrance kind of in between. So, yes, the objective would be to keep this whole roof structure and the whole two story portion of this building further away from that tower. Perfect. Thank you. There is some questions with the tower because right now the existing roof does come in and hit it, and when we take that off, we're not quite sure what we're going to find in there. But you can tell that the stone does continue all the way through into the lobby, so hopefully we can find ways to reclaim that nicely. So yeah, so the blue area, as I mentioned in this quick little diagram here, is, like I said, our major entry point designed to kind of grab people's attention and kind of focus in on there. And then we've talked through, we did test out a few different massive scenarios for the actual new building itself. But being that this building is so prominent on the park, really two stories pretty much felt about as large as we want to go. Going to three stories will probably feel a little too imposing on such a kind of pedestrian oriented amenity like that. And then of course, all projects we have budget constraints. And so you might want to make sure that we we kind of find the right place to make the right moves. And you'll see, of course, as we get into the renderings too, is that we're really celebrating the roof with the structure. And where that came from was thinking of the heritage hall as well as what we're preserving here in terms of the chapel. They really celebrate the roofs a lot with the structures and the beams. And I thought that'd be a great way to kind of keep that consistency kind of across here, do something fun with the roof across there as well. And of course, we just know that large horizontal roofs or positive things in desert environments like ours. They just really protect the sun as well. So all right. So the plan we're going to be showing you today for the city hall, we start off here. It's just under 27,000 square feet, and that includes the new build, includes the renovation to the the chapel. It even includes a 2,000 square foot basement in here as well. So everything you see adds up to a little bit less than 27,000 square feet. Right now, the plans you're looking at is designed around 60 staff, but this is very, very flexible. The interior layout is, again, we still have a lot of interaction we need to do with the administration and with the staff. So this is going to get reconfigured quite a bit through here. But right now it very comfortably can handle 60 staff in here. And that's with 11 offices, four kind of receptionists, and 45 workstations. And the workstation is either being kind of 8x8, which is kind of U-shaped, or 6x8, which are L-shaped workstations through there as well. So the main floor plan, of course, it's not just an office building. It's the city hall. So part of what we're doing is very much a public building. It's very public interaction. So trying to understand that kind of interface between the back of house staff area and the front of house public area. So this is kind of the public interface through here. The blue area is the primary circulation that they would have access to on the main floor. The three red arrows are either kind of primary access points. Obviously that the main entry point is the junction between the old and the new building. But there is a third one that's up on the top here that closer to the existing city hall as well. And then the pink areas that we see through here are all rooms that they would want, that the public would need to get access to. So the council chambers there, number two. Number four through here is the event space. It's a 1,500 square foot flexible space kind of through there as well. Number 10 is the ceremonial office. The five's long here. These are meeting rooms. And then of course the public restrooms down near the bottom here as well.

On number four, how many anticipated, what's the seating capacity? Seating capacity of? Number four.

Of number four. So at 1,500 square feet, of course, it totally depends on how we lay it out with tables and chairs. As we can see right here, I believe this is coming in at around 80. 80. So you can be able to kind of comfortably put the thing is that if you had a gathering of all your city staff or something like that, you could do that in here. Some training as well. This space is actually designed as well to be subdivided. There's a little divider down the middle, so we could divide it to 750 square foot spaces as well. Thank you. Yeah, this event space is kind of a bit of a unique space too, because it also opens out in the park. Both of these spaces, you can see the double doors there. The idea is that the general public could find functional ways to use this as it interacts with our future kind of civic park. Civic Plaza has great access to the main lobby. and it can be kind of configured through there as well. So this space too, what we're going to structurally do, we'll try and keep the ceilings in here higher. So rather than having a nine foot ceiling, which would be kind of standard for an office, we'll try to get up around 10, maybe 10 and a half. It could make it just feel like a bit of a larger, more intentional space as well. And number 11, of course, that's a little servery that, of course, meals could be served in here as well. More of a warming kitchen, not a prep kitchen. And then 12, that's a table and chair storage through there. One thing to note with the meeting rooms here, the number fives, is these are two-sided meeting rooms. So the public can enter it from the corridor side, but there's also doors on the back side on the staff side. These would be locked doors as well. I have worked with other municipalities in the past, and sometimes they like that, with the staff's ability to be able to walk out without having to kind of cross some other people. So having that kind of interaction through there is kind of nice.

There's one kind of purple area through here.

This is the utility reception right now. Obviously, they're very much a focal point. As you kind of come into the lobby area, you're going to look right down and see them at the end, kind of through there. There is some discussions. I'll wait for the next image before I kind of talk through the back of this area. And yeah, so overall, this is kind of how the public would interact with the building on the main floor. All right. The staff on the main floor, like I said, so you see this dashed line that's kind of been running kind of vertically through the kind of left mass. That's kind of the line between the public and the staff areas. So everything we kind of see here, kind of that lighter purple is potential offices or workstations kind of all wrapped around the outside. It's kind of nice too. They get a lot of exterior glazing. They'll get a lot of sunlight in there as well, which is nice. This one area through here, this kind of light green area, is a support right now. So this is IT rooms, electrical rooms, copy rooms, and a small bathroom as well. Staff-specific bathroom that would be kind of back in the secure area so they don't have to go out front to use the public restrooms. Like I said, there's a lot of ways that we can kind of configure this space. We're by no means limited to what's kind of shown here, but it works through there. And then I think we've discussed this similarly as well here. This area kind of off of the council chambers, this will be the breakout space. So there'll be a bit of an anti-space here in green with a restroom, a small servery, and then a large kind of 425 square foot breakout room. So with a long table and some soft seating through there as well. Repurposing the EXISTING PORTION OF THE MEETING HOUSE THROUGH THERE. AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING, THIS IS THIS LITTLE BLACK CROSS RIGHT HERE. THAT'S THE BELL TOWER. SO IT'S SITTING JUST BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.

JASON, JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW BIG IS THIS CHAPEL COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE HERE?

I CREATED A LITTLE DIAGRAM ACTUALLY TO SHOW YOU GUYS. So yeah, this is the existing right now. So right now, the existing, this building that we're in, plus the overflow behind us is 1580 square feet. The new one is going to be 2580 square feet, so it's 61% larger. and uh and then of course the staff for sure there's a light blue arrows i've managed to point out here is also staff entrances so in addition of course they can enter through the public but there would be a staff specific entrance here on the north side coming coming off the parking lot there is a staircase that goes up to the second floor where we're going to have the outdoor patio space and then there is a staff specific back of house entrance as well for the breakout room so they don't have to walk through the council chambers as well

What's the area, again, in the green by the council chambers, 8 and 11?

8 is a small restroom. 11 is like a little servery. And the other space is just an anti-space, a little lobby space, kind of through there as well.

And there is an exit entrance right there, isn't there?

Jason is the plan. On the council's desk, just looking at St. George's built theirs, theirs is way low. Ours is just a little higher. And when you sit at theirs, you look, it's hard to see into the back. So one thing I wanted, like ours, we can see the public clear in the back and you can see their faces because just because the angle, it's just nicer to be elevated just a touch more than, like when I look at theirs, I sat in theirs, I'm like, oh, you can't see anyone because it's like, you're like one foot above, barely, you know.

so but it feels like this is a good good aspect like we can see clear back into the back of our chambers yeah so i was testing out so this was designed right now it has force has four risers this actually has three that we're on right now so it's actually about six inches higher so if we could we could do that or we could pull it back down to this height as well i think we'll let you determine i just didn't want i wanted to make sure it wasn't just one step and it was really low Yeah, no. I guess right now we have four risers in there.

But in this plan, there's no place we can expand if we fill up the chambers. I know it's way bigger, but I'm just saying there's nowhere to expand to.

Yep, sorry. Which is okay. Well, the thinking is that the back wall that faces the lobby here, right through there, that it would be some type of like nano wall system, which is a... They have a lot of good systems that allow for both swinging doors and folding or... Sliding doors. So theoretically, we could use the lobby as a bit of an overflow. It's not ideal because people would be coming out of the lobby. It wouldn't be a controlled space. But if for some reason you did need more people, you could spill out into the lobby for sure. All right. The second level, let me jump right into it. So on the second level, this is basically the public interface through here. There is a large open to below kind of space. We have a nice kind of two-story space in the middle. Before, we were looking at a little grander staircase, but it just wasn't kind of working in terms of our layout. So we've kind of simplified it down, but this will be a very nice staircase and a very easy one. As soon as people come in, they'll be able to look at the staircase, look at going straight upstairs, and be able to flow very nicely upstairs. Everything in blue, of course, is their circulation. There are two additional meeting rooms upstairs here at the top, a small one and a medium-sized room. The small one, again, has the front and the back door, like the meeting rooms did on the basement. the restrooms and then that uh the kind of the purpley area through there that is the reception for planning and zoning as well how wide is that staircase Jason I believe this was coming in at six feet yeah five and a half or six feet so and there is the elevator of course there's a single elevator in this building going from uh from the parking from the basement all the way to level two as well

So we're showing a second staircase there. Why the two staircases?

Sure. It has to do with their egress. So this blue area is controlled. So if, in general, the public was up there, they would need two means of egress without being able to go kind of back into the secure area. And so, yeah, they would get access to this other staircase down here to exit out. So that's why we have a second staircase through there. And you'll see, too, this one here also comes down to the basement level. I'll show you the next level as well. So yeah, so like I said, the second floor has a lot less public space, obviously, than the main floor. What it does have, of course, is a lot more staff space through here. Again, all the kind of light purple area through there, offices and meeting rooms and workstations kind of through there. Same kind of support area here, numbers nine, seven, and six, bathrooms, IT, and those kinds of things. And the one thing, of course, that makes the second floor kind of the key amenity to it are numbers two and three here. Two is the enclosed staff area, and three is this outdoor balcony space that kind of overlooks the park on the southeast corner kind of through here as well. So we see ACD as being very amenity-rich kind of through there, so something that's very kind of useful and... very kind of contemporary. We've seen a lot of office spaces these days to kind of create more culture and kind of enrich the lives. So it can be everything from, you know, I've seen offices with ping pong tables and pool tables and shuffle boards to, you know, places for people to work outside, little kind of seating areas and benches out there. So it can be a lot of things.

Pac-Man machine, arcade game.

Yeah. Slide. Exactly. Yeah. No, I was kidding. You know, slide. Where's the slide at? So yeah, and that's the second floor. So it's a little bit smaller through there. And then right now, this is the basement level. We are kind of just placing at a placeholder of about 2000 square feet. There's going to be some question as to whether or not we require the basement and how much mechanical space goes down into there. There has been some possibilities that this building, we could find some synergies between this existing building and the new building. And rather than building two separate mechanical systems and plumbing systems and everything, we could theoretically find a way to treat it a little more like a campus and build systems, for example, maybe just in the basement here and pipe them over to the new building. And if that were the case, then maybe we don't even need the basement, which would be quite a big cost savings. Going down, of course, is quite expensive. And we know there's a lot of water issues in downtown Washington here as well. So it reduces some some risk. And then yeah, then this is the this is the rent reasons the exterior as it currently currently resides. Like I said, we're trying to find this balance in the aesthetic of trying to acknowledge the 1950s kind of chapel building with its kind of more kind of light beige-y kind of color stone and its dark trim that it uses on the facials and soffits and stuff like that. But at the same time, trying to find a way to kind of, you know, clearly be a building of 2026, kind of through there. So we're kind of tying it to a little bit of materiality and then kind of some more contemporary geometry. One thing I liked was, of course, how do we repurpose the bell tower to not be a bell tower? And so we were thinking of a, of a marquee sign, basically, the Washington City kind of through there as well.

So it feels like it has more of a... Can you zoom in on that a little, Jason? Sorry? Sure. Yeah.

Yeah, and then there's a little void space right now up at the top of the tower too. Maybe we fill that in and... You create a little light up there as well, kind of a beacon as well.

So how is this going to fit in with our other buildings? Because they're that stone look. I assumed we would have some of that on this as well to kind of blend it or something.

I don't know. Yeah, I knew we were going to have the exact conversation. People said, why aren't we creating what was created with the city hall here in 1997 and the police station back in those days? So first of all, we're an overall, we're a campus, right? We're a whole campus of buildings. And like a university campus, they're kind of built in all different eras. It's not like they're necessarily try to, always trying to try to copy it. I think, first of all, I mean, the reality is the chapel building itself is going to be a very different aesthetic than what currently exists and how we kind of address that. And the reality is I don't think this is too far off. There's three stones that are kind of native to southwest Utah. There's a sandstone, which everybody knows, right, the pink kind of coral. We see it all the time. Lava rock, but that's not, you know, good for buildings. But the third is actually kind of like a cream-colored sandstone. And if you look at, like, the city or the county administration buildings, They have the pink sandstone kind of at that angle. But then down the sides, they actually have the cream-colored stone as well. And so the cream-colored stone seemed to be a way to still kind of be acknowledging of the materiality that maybe not as prominent as the pink, but is still relevant. And it kind of blends more with the chapel building kind of through there. Yeah, like I said, I know people were expecting some are going to expect to see a pink building with slope roofs and shingles and, you know, punch windows with with cornices and things like that. But like I said, right now, I'm pushing this in a contemporary side through there.

One of the things that I like about this, and you gave us a little bit of a preview in our downtown economic development committee, but I love that you bring in everything. We're seeing this with the entire council and community, which I really appreciate. But I look at this, and I really like the way that we preserve the historic chapel. kind of our history, and then we connect it with access for the public to City Hall and kind of our future. So it really, it seems to me to tie together our past and our future, which I like that.

And if you think about it, like, when these original, like, the museum and the Heritage Hall were built, that was contemporary for those days, right? That was the most contemporary that they had. And when the chapel was built, the first portion of that, that was, you know, mid-century modern, again, the 1950s. So in these areas, they were trying to reach forward, so you don't necessarily always have to kind of go back to early 20th century architecture to, I think, hopefully remain relevant, so... But yeah, I do expect to have more conversations, for sure, about the aesthetics.

I think it contrasts. I like the contrast between the old kind of Washington-style pioneer architecture and this. Even though it's a contrast, it's complementary. I really like it. I like the idea of the more tan-colored sandstone. I can see. just envisioning the old sandstone on the chapel there. I can see how that would really kind of mesh together nicely. So I really like it. And I think one of my favorite parts is preserving the old bell tower. I think that's pretty epic, I think, in my mind.

That's great comments, Councilman. So we have people listening at home. We know what's going to preserve because we've got a part of it. It may be good, Mayor, just to go through and just say what we're trying to preserve in the old chapel part and what, you know, what that would look like, you know, as far as the rock and what we're trying to do there just so that the community can kind of understand that it's important to us that we preserve the chapel and that historical significance to our city and to our history.

I think that's a really good point and we, a few weeks ago, we were able to go on site and be in that chapel. Jason, why don't you speak to what the councilman suggested?

Yeah, the chapel has a lot of really unique features which we really want to try to maintain. One is, on the exterior of course, is the stonework. You don't find a lot of ledge stone like that anymore. And so wherever the stone is going to show up, that old stone from the 1950s, we're doing what we can to preserve that. And of course, remove the red brick portions that were added after the fact. And on the inside, it's got these great beams that kind of come up and they kind of angle over as well. and how we celebrate that space. In fact, hopefully we'll even make it even kind of more grand, I guess, in a way, because right now there's this low roof that's kind of ceiling structure that kind of hangs down in the middle of it. And we're going to try and remove that and kind of find another direction to kind of bring the fresh air and the air, exhaust air through that space and really kind of make it feel a little grander through there. So if anything, I think we'll probably go back more to hopefully what was the original intent when it was built, you know, I guess 75 years ago or so now as well. So and then again, the trim colors and the windows are going to maintain all the same basically colors, which is like a dark bronze color. We're going to maintain all the same window sizes. But again, new windows will be aluminum windows through there as well. So the hope is, is that with exception of maybe some of the interior carpets and a little bit of the painting and woodwork,

it should really maintain that original feel and i the beams that you that you mentioned that go up to that vaulted ceiling and then those natural uh those windows that let in the natural light um up high but i also think it's really pretty the the the wood work that's um on the south end of the chapel which i think would make a really nice backdrop that we wouldn't have to do anything for other than just treat the wood a little bit so yeah i just um And I think the spacing is about right. I love that you had that diagram ready to go for Councilman Henderson's question.

Yeah, I mean, like I said, we want to keep what makes that space beautiful and meaningful to people. So it's not going to be some place that gets just scraped back down to nothing and no one's going to recognize it. Hopefully people go in there and those who have the memories of attending church in there, they'll have those memories of and it'll still feel in some ways like that.

So Jason, the versa wall or that expanding wall, right, of the council chambers, that's planned to be glass, correct?

It can be glass. It can be different things as well. It doesn't have to be glass. There are ones that are solid panel. There's some that come with frosted glass. We'd have to kind of work our way through that to kind of figure out what would be the right. I imagine at times there would probably be some privacy issues. If it was glass, we'd probably add some curtains or something. We'd have to kind of look through.

Well, it is a council chamber, so when you're having meetings, that's where your public meetings are, right? So they, you know, I mean, I like the foyer where it's glass. It's kind of like the glass bridge between the old and the new. And I like the idea of walking in there and being able to look into the council chambers and saying, hey, we want you to be part of the conversation, right? And I think... that to me is an opportunity to engage with people. I like the fact that it highlights the interior space there to the extent that we can.

And quite often council chambers, of course, they're not used too, right? So the fact that it could be open to the lobby and people could at least look in and experience it and stuff like that I think would be great versus kind of being the sense that's always kind of some closed off private space that they can only go to specific times as well.

For sure.

Anything else we want to talk about with the city hall before we move on to the parking structure?

Just another kind of random comment while we're in council. Please feel free to jump in. But when we started with this, you showed us kind of the bird's eye view with the site plan. I also really liked the way that we had diagonal parking in front of the chapel and new city hall if you're going north main. WITH THE 13 STALLS AND I LIKE THE 16 STALLS IN FRONT OF THE PARKING STRUCTURE THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING AS WELL. TO ME TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME ON STREET PARKING LENDS ITSELF TO AN INVITING WALKABLE DOWNTOWN.

ABSOLUTELY. THIS WILL BE UNIQUE. WE ARE PUSHING THE SIDEWALK INTO THE CITY PROPERTY AND EVEN THE PARKING STALLS THEMSELVES WILL BE SLIGHTLY ONTO THE CITY PROPERTY.

That should be exciting. Traffic calming is something that maybe we can continue to do what we can to calm traffic on Main. I think the way that Main Street was designed, considering the addition of on and off ramps to a freeway, has worked quite well. But I think we just need to be mindful of that, too. But I like the fact that we do have some on-street parking.

I appreciate that, Mayor. One of the questions I have is this is the max stalls we can get, right? So one of our discussions last time was between City Hall and the parking is do we amend that to be more of a walkable, usable area versus just parking lot? So that's kind of my question is what do we have here that's Do we have to have all these stalls with the new parking stall? I mean, I know every parking helps.

I have another little appendix here, a little chart that I can show you.

The reason I bring it up is if we don't give enough space on these planters, these trees just never grow. Like you look at Lowe's and those, these trees have just never grown. There's too much parking, not enough. So I'd like to have some kind of green just to help give space so that it can grow.

For sure. So I did a quick comparison of what's currently on the site and how much parking there currently is. And then with this new building and the new parking structure, where would we be at? So this number's right here, 322, kind of here at the top left. This is your current required parking. So looking at the museum heritage hall, the existing city hall and the police station, they require about 320, 22 stalls. And this doesn't count anything for the park. And this assumes that right now there's nothing for what is the meeting house through there as well. SO YOU TAKE THOSE IN CONSIDERATION OF WHAT IS ACTUALLY PROVIDED IS ACTUALLY RIGHT NOW 243. SO THE VETERANS PARKING LOT IS THE ONE THAT'S ON TELEGRAPH AND THEN THE CITY HALL EAST AND WEST AND THE PUBLIC PRIVATE POLICE PUBLIC LOT AND THE POLICE SECURE LOT COMING AT 243. SO RIGHT NOW THE WAY THIS CITY CAMPUS FUNCTIONS IT'S AT MINUS 79 STALLS UNDERNEATH THE BE PERMITTED. When we add the new city hall, that adds on the second one over here an additional 186 required stalls, bringing us up to a required 508 parking stalls. And then our provided parking, assuming the three-story parking garage structure, brings us to 442. So even in this new scheme, it's still at minus 66 stalls. But this doesn't count the street stalls, so those angled stalls we were just looking at as well.

Well, that's good. Thank you for providing that. But one thing I think we could do is we're right above where it says 58 stalls. It looks like you've pushed out the green space between building three. And I just don't see it as that is very usable space. We could push it and provide more space in between some of those stalls or something like that.

For sure. Yeah.

I think what you're saying, we just don't want to have an asphalt sea. We want it to be pretty. Yeah.

You're talking that green space, yeah, right between the 58 and the other? I mean, right now it's just a drive lane and maybe four stalls, five stalls over.

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Like just pull it back just so you can fit like an island between the middle stalls is what I was thinking.

Sure. Oh, I see what you're saying. Just to kind of give it some more.

Because if we have to have the start, you just proved that we need the stalls based on the square footage we're building. Right. But I would just like not to have these small little islands that won't grow anything.

Okay. Yeah, I agree. Yeah, I think we can we can actually look at softening this up and getting some more more green space in there as well. Makes sense. Especially too, because this this 58 stall parking lot here is going to feel a bit like an entry to to the project itself. so we want to make sure right now it feels like this leftover parking in the back of the building and it's not in this new design so there's also a possibility too right now there are a few shade structures that exist out here if we can reuse those you know this would be the opportunity in that location possibly up against the building or maybe we use it at a 23 stalls for the police secure parking but maybe we can reuse those as well there's a lot to see

I think the whole area is going to have to be regraded, right? So it's probably going to have to come out just to do the regrading and get the new grades where they need to be to make this all work.

Yeah, absolutely. Like I said, I imagine most of this is going to be scraped off, retaining walls, sidewalks, and everything like that to be able to meet our new requirements. So yeah, I can imagine like the current, there's that concrete sign out there, the Washington concrete sign, you know, like the street had kind of hit it, but right now it was kind of showing kind of like right again right there. So or move that during construction. And when it's all done, you can put that one back, of course. And there is a monument in front of the city hall, or in front of the new city hall, in front of the existing, which, again, we'll probably have to move it during construction and then find another place for it, or move it back to the same location after.

All right.

Any other questions? Are we okay to go on to the parking structure? All right. So the parking structure. So one thing to note, actually, before I jump into this, I just want to show you a quick little zoning just so we're all on the same page here. so um the map you see here on the right the northern portion of the civic campus is r16 and the southern kind of kind of 60 is ap so um that's actually for the most part is a good thing we're going to work through r16 has a slightly different setback requirement than ap ap had a 30 foot setback r16 has a 20 foot setback in in existing things and that actually allows us to keep the parking garage a little bit closer to the street which gave us that extra space behind for those 23 stalls for the police. So it actually worked out to our advantage. The other thing to note with the zoning here is that technically it is a conditional use to put a public building in R16. So it's not a default permitted use. It is, like I said, it is a conditional use. Beyond that, though, there's no variances being requested in any of these designs. All right. So the main floor parking, like I said, this one is divided into three components. There's a closed secure area for the police, an area for the fleet parking, and the rest is public. So the blue area you see on the left here, this is for police. This is 20 parking stalls. They have their own gate that comes off of their secure outdoor parking into this area through there. And we have a choice of either making this conditioned or semi-conditioned space if we wanted to. If we wanted to kind of avoid kind of freezing and those kinds of temperatures, we could close that off. No matter what, it will definitely be a secure space so they can park whatever vehicles they want in there. Number five you see down here is around an 800 square foot storage room. And again, they can use that for storing bikes and scooters and those kinds of things that kind of get confiscated if they needed to. So they would have an additional storage space in there. The pink area is the fleet storage. This is 37 parking stalls for the fleet through there. Again, they have their own gate entrance on the right side through there and have their own kind of secured area in there as well. And again, this could either be open air or this can be semi-conditioned.

Why are we trying to, like, block off so much of our parking? In terms of? Like, we have all these gates. Like, why do we need them? I mean, the point is to, so on Saturdays, people can park here and have plenty of spaces to park. Sure.

Yeah, I mean, in terms of the overall stall count, public is designated 201 stalls in the parking garage. And then the fleet's 37 and the police are 20. So there's 57 stalls that are dedicated to fleet parking and police parking. I guess my question is, Jeremy, why do we need that?

I mean, I understand the police might, but why are we, this is a lot of stalls going toward just public use or our city use, which I think we should just have open.

We can. I mean, we're talking about, you know, securing those fleet vehicles at night and on the weekends so that, you know, as we look down the road, what's the use there? It's a minimal number of spots, but if you're going to have them sitting here all night and weekends, so far we haven't had a lot of problems, but But that's the thought.

I just am concerned we're now on a busy 24th of July. They're not available, and we use half of them for our free. You certainly could open it if you wanted to on a busy weekend. Just open the gates for the public. Just something to think about as we go. I get you want to do that, but I also am like, let's just keep them open.

If you had cotton days or something like that. But on a typical weekend, it just adds a little bit of security to your to your vehicles.

Anybody still in those good-looking Ford Mavericks? Do those have catalytic converters in them, or do they not?

I don't know, but everybody wants one of those.

There definitely could be a scenario where maybe we allow for future retrofit, coming back and adding a gate after the fact. So it could be open, and if it does become a problem in the future, we can come back in and easily kind of drop in a gate through there as well and create a secure parking area.

So, Councilman Coates, I think a lot of the conversation was, well, the police have had an issue where they've needed some additional parking and certainly some concern with, you know, some secure, I mean, they would need secured parking and whatnot.

That makes sense to me. I'm not saying that.

No, I get that. But it's kind of the same. Everything that comes into one goes, you know, is all open. But, you know, we also didn't want to have the rest of the fleet vehicles and the rest of the staff have access to the police side, right, because of the law enforcement nature of it. So that was just a conversation we had. Again, it could be open either way.

And as a comparison to the St. George, they actually use the top of their parking structure for their fleet vehicles. So it is open, but they make them drive all the way up to the top, and then they store them on the top floor in unsecured areas.

Jason, I think maybe in light of the conversation, just keep some of those options open. Give us it so that the council can take all that into consideration and see do we want to have fleet up top or and open it back up or I mean I think we all agree that the police parking is that makes a lot of sense especially with the access to the to the police station um I think you know that number three area does it make sense there with the gate or does it make sense to you know put them on the top floor something like that absolutely yeah this is extremely flexible in terms of how we lay this out which is great so

I don't dislike the idea of building it so that it could be done in the future if we start to run into issues or problems. But, you know, I think we could look at all of that.

One thing to note here, the red text at the bottom right here. So there is in, so one of the things that kind of popped up is originally we were designing this, we were designing a precast system. And after talking with contractors and our costing, everyone kind of threw that out as being too expensive. And they said doing cast in place would be a more cost-effective way. And as soon as we dropped it in a cast in place, it actually reduced our floor-to-floor heights, and it opened the possibility of a fourth floor of parking. Basically the first three floors would be around 9 foot 8 and then the top floor would be around 4 feet plus I guess an elevator overrun through there. So if in that parking numbers we were showing before where we're still kind of minus 66 stalls, we could theoretically get additional 97 stalls and still be within a land use if we wanted to add that fourth floor parking through there. So the only place it exists, it's not in any of the drawings, it's just in this red text through there.

Would that look too big, though? I mean, our city hall is two stories. The house next to it is two stories, and then you have a four-story parking garage.

No, definitely. It would look like big. Exactly. The rendering right now, it looks like this. Basically, you'd be taking out that roof structure that we see on top of this rendering here, and that would now be parking. with a four foot high, you know, or three, four and a half, three and a half foot high guardrail around there. The one trade-off with that is we would not have, the top floor would not have the shaded structure. So it wouldn't probably feel too much bigger than this, but it would definitely feel, but it would still be taller, so.

So one of the other things, though, too, with the grade across the back there where it goes up, some of this can be partially dug in to reduce the overall height profile.

Yeah, exactly. This north edge right here, the grade doesn't show it, but yeah, we would slope up there by four or five feet. So the main floor will be integrated and pushed into the soil somewhat through there. which is actually really good for the homes on the north side, too, because it'll be the shortest height of the building that will be exposed. Yeah, for sure. And then, yeah, like I said, there is a decorative metal screen. It can be lots of things. This particular one was actually showing more of like a tree pattern kind of through there, thinking and kind of playing off the Veterans Park. You can do a lot these days with very simple laser cut kind of panels through there. And then overall the aesthetics for the parking structure was one that was leaning a little bit towards what we're doing with the city, the new city hall. So again, the kind of lighter kind of cream color. We might use some stone, some of the sandstone or manufactured looking sandstone for the elevator shaft and maybe a few other kind of feature areas as well kind of through there. And then of course there's the roof's shading structure that would exist over all the parking stalls on the top floor. Okay. One other thing to note is that what was currently designed to this particular layout and the parking stall count was just assuming that all of the accessible stalls, any oversized vehicles, all those kinds of things are gonna be in the parking lot. And that we're basically just kind of putting standard nine by 19 stalls in the actual parking garage itself.

Jeremy's Tesla, I think it is right there. Yeah. It says city manager parking.

It could be a couple of 220 outlets right there. There you go. Well, that's something to have a discussion on is how much you want to prepare for future electrical as well. Lots of times we rough in conduit to lots of different locations for future chargers as well. We'll have that discussion.

You go to the St. George parking structure, the charging stations are never occupied. Nobody ever uses them.

I mean, the charging would be more for the city fleet vehicles or the police vehicles if there end up being those electric ones in the future. As a general public, yeah, I agree. It would be pretty rare to have somebody use those.

What's that? I said the difference is mine would just be free for me to charge, and so it would be used all the time.

When we get our... Cheaper than your house.

I already told Chief Evans the next truck he gets is going to be a red Cybertruck, so he better be ready for that. Charge it somewhere. He gives me such a hard time about my batteries exploding that that'll be his next vehicle.

Do you think the council's going to approve Cybertruck for...

They're so hideous, I couldn't get one. We got your back, Chief.

I think one day it might just show up, you know? It might just show up. All I know is, and this is a dig on our new fire engine, but I think the Cybertruck would run. So that's just a dig for Chief Moore.

Any other thoughts on the parking garage before I jump over to a potential project schedule?

I think just the last comment I would have and just welcome for the council too is, Do you think, I mean, a parking structure by nature is not the most attractive type of building. Anything we can do to bring in some art features, I like that you've got some of that corrugated metal with some design, but anything we can do to soften that up and bring some character and just soften the utility nature of A STRUCTURE LIKE THAT WOULD BE WELCOME. AND I DO LIKE THAT YOU'RE MATCHING THAT MATERIAL, AND I LOVE THE ANSWER YOU GAVE TO COUNCILMAN COAT'S QUESTION ABOUT MATERIAL, AND I DO LIKE THE CREAM COLOR STONE ON THE COUNTY BUILDING, SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD COMPLEMENTARY PRODUCT.

MAYOR, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT, BECAUSE I DEFINITELY THINK WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING ON THE STREET FACE. IT'S COOL. Could be a little better. Well, I always anticipated the building we talked about, but I know that got cut, which makes sense. I just think, can we do something more to match the facade of the city hall and that instead of just, hey, here's a parking garage, while keeping the cost as low as we can.

Is the metal scroll work on the side, the panels, they look to be a design? Yeah. Are those concept or is that something that is just kind of an idea right now?

It's just an idea. Just an idea. Yeah. When it comes to the screen element, it is purely decorative for the most part. All of our guardrails and everything will be behind that, kind of through there. So what we do with that is going to be totally on us. Actually, I've designed probably about 20 of these parking garage designs for this specific layout. This is the one we just happened to stop at as well. So we've loaded quite a few already. And we can kind of keep looking at it in terms of how we want to clad it as well. And again, getting this one, of course, I mean, it would probably look a little nicer if we had some more trees between the, you know, between the sidewalk and the building as well, which we'll have. So we can, we'll soften up from some landscape standpoints as well. But yeah, we're going to have to definitely work on it more too.

So part of the challenge, though, on this is you've got to maintain how much open space on it for ventilation. Otherwise, you've got to create ventilation systems within the parking structure, right?

Yeah.

So it has to stay relatively open. for that reason.

But even some pillars that maybe go all the way up with that stone or something. I mean, you're creative. You're the architect. We would never let an engineer design something like this.

No, that's for sure. I mean, at the end of the day, there is a cost premium that we know to that roof shade structure through there. I think some of the primary pricing came in around $360,000 just for the shading structure. So it could be an option where we take that off, the building feels lower, which is going to help a lot too through there. It means the top floor is not the most enjoyable place in the summertime to park vehicles, but there's places we can do it, and then of course there's a lot that we can do.

The roof helps make it feel complete, even without pickleball corks. It feels complete.

You're good. No, you're right. I like the roof too. And now kind of the underside with the kind of roof. The roof is a shame for the pickleball.

The sloped pickleball court.

Do you have a drawing of the pickleball courts?

I'll be honest with you. We could probably design it flat enough that we could probably take a few of the parking stalls and put a pickleball court in there.

I hope you feel the sarcasticness from us because we don't want slides and we don't want pickleball courts on it. You got to be careful what you joke about.

This is how the slides ended up in St. George. I'll tell you the story someday.

No, I start starts as a joke. You don't need to go into the slides. Just making sure direction.

We're not asking for pickleball courts or slides or slides or fireman poles or anything else yet.

Or an elevator. The mistakes have been made at the county and Saint George City level already. A wise man learns from their mistakes and wiser manlers from the mistakes of others. So.

Yeah, no, like I said, parking garages are tough. They are. They're not the pretty structures and it takes a lot of work to make them to make them make them blend in, especially with a residential neighborhood like this. Even things like when cars are driving up and down the ramps, the second floor, you know, the lights going to shine across the houses potentially through there. So how we mitigate that to make sure as well. When we're designing this, for example, the north elevation, you're making sure that the guardrails there are actually solid concrete so that the lights aren't shining into people's houses and stuff like that and backyards. So there's definitely a lot to take into consideration. But the great thing about parking garages is they're super flexible in terms of if we want to flip things around as well. All right. Let's jump over to... Even though we have completed the site surveying, so we do have a full site survey, topography, utilities as well through here, which is great. Project design and construction schedule. So I've been talking to a few contractors, kind of working through what I know about this project thus far, and everyone kind of says that 31 months is probably a good schedule. The construction, for the most part, actually doesn't really start until the end of next year. We do have a relatively... robust design schedule through here, but knowing that there's going to be a lot of interaction with yourselves, The city different departments with the public as well. It's going to take a little bit longer to make sure that we get everyone's input for the for the city hall here as well. So so right now, generally speaking, if it were to start in September 1st and a few weeks from now, we would kind of kick off design. For the most part, we have design kind of wrapping up kind of May, June for the most part, and then the city permitting and bidding kind of going through kind of next summer and the fall. And then they can probably start kind of late, mid fall next year, we start some demolition and kind of working off from there. Like I said, if it was a September 1st start this year, it would finish up early 2029.

So March, April 2029 through there.

So there's not a lot of ways, there could be ways to certainly tighten up the design side if we really wanted to push it ahead, we theoretically could. But generally speaking on the contractors, I was chatting to the THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE OF AROUND 14 MONTHS SEEMED ABOUT ACCURATE FOR THEM. AND THIS SCHEDULE HERE DOES NOT TAKE IN CONSIDERATION THE RENOVATION OF THIS BUILDING, WHICH WE ASSUME WOULD KIND OF HAPPEN ON A SECOND KIND OF TIER, KIND OF AFTER THE NEW CITY HALL AND THE PARKING GARAGERY BUILD.

SO I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE IS FOR THE REST OF THE COUNCIL AND JEREMY, BECAUSE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT DOING AN OPEN HOUSE. That probably needs to happen fairly quick if we're comfortable with moving forward with it so that if there is any additional inputs or additional direction that comes in, that he has it before he starts really putting the time into it.

that's a good point i thought that was really helpful with heritage hall i thought we came in when jason of course helped us with that as well but that we came in with a good product but after we had you know the public and even just a lot of public organizations come in and give feedback we ended up with even a better product so i i absolutely was i mean i mean right now we're kind of moving this this concept forward as a body. And so as the council has the opportunity to weigh in and give staff and our professionals some direction, then I think we can set some of those times up to do that.

Yeah, I think you're comfortable. If the council is comfortable with the direction, we certainly didn't want to schedule open houses and start talking to the public until you're comfortable. But we could put some renderings together, have some open houses even in this room, let people come in. It's kind of like we did on Heritage Hall. But we don't want to get ahead of the council if you're not pretty happy with the direction and the way that things are looking.

Well, can you kind of talk about the needs of the city and why we would need to do another city hall and what the timeline would look like for needing to have more space?

I think it's one of those things. I mean, it's an overused statement, but you remember when Wayne Gretzky said, I'm a good hockey player because I don't skate where the puck is. I skate where the puck's going to be. I skate where it's going to be. Right now, we are really out of space in this office. This office was built 30 years ago, and at that point, it housed every city department. So we've built new buildings as we've gone along for public works, police, fire, parks. Recreation all the other departments what we're looking at now is just these sort of core city administrative departments And we are out of space so the mayor has agreed to move out of his office And I mean I haven't totally cleared it with him in my car with the laptop if you need me He's gonna move out of his office to get us one last office space But we're essentially full if you go upstairs and look in the court court has grown substantially we've taken the judge's office and half his office now has a has a desk in it where one of our clerks is working so really as we as we go to expand i don't think i think you'll see that in the three years it takes us to build this building we we are able to limp along until then but this is this is us planning for where the puck is going to be or where the future looks like now i don't think it needs to be three three stories i think that this will be plenty I don't see us having 60 employees in there, but I think we're going to be. You know, right now we'll move 20 current employees from this building to that building and then allow for the expansion of the court in this building. But I could see us in the next 30 years.

What about HR and finance?

HR, IT, and finance could potentially come across, depending on how we want to do that and the timing of that. There's approximately another 10 employees across the street. So that would get us to 30 and then leave room for expansion, probably 30, 50.

I think it's fair to say, at least a couple of months ago, and looking at the chapel next door is like, how do we repurpose this space and refurbish it and make it so that we can use it for city offices? And at some point, you're throwing good money after bad because it's a Band-Aid, right? You're not really solving the problem. You're just creating a bigger Band-Aid that you've got to rip off later on. And the pain gets worse as you go along. I don't know, it makes sense to just kind of do it right once rather than limp through it until you've got to do it when it becomes really expensive.

Did that answer your question, though, did I? Okay.

That's everything that I had.

Thanks, Jason. I love it. I think you've done a great job taking all of our feedback over the last few months and putting it together, something really nice that we could be proud of. And I think it's something that we could present to the public in some open houses. And as the mayor said, we get some feedback, which would probably improve on this, some good feedback. And I'm excited about it. I really like it. And we have a need for it. We do have a need. We need to look forward and, you know, we know that the city is growing and the city organization itself needs to grow to cater to the needs of the growing population. So I love it. Thank you.

I think it kind of lends to, you hear us reference, we say the Washington way once in a while. We already own the ground. We already own the building that will be repurposed with this new addition. So we're starting off at a much better place than having to purchase land and then tear a building down. I actually like your designs. I really do. I try to be critical, but I just think that it captures kind of the essence of what Washington is, the light-colored stone and, you know, we want it welcoming and warm for our citizens and to grow into the next decade and beyond. So I really like it as well.

Any further comments or, Jeremy, you have something to add? I just want to make sure everyone's then comfortable with us kind of moving forward with printing some renderings and having these open houses and moving forward with the design. Yes. Part of the...

I personally am. I do think if we're going to do open house, though, instead of just having the final design that we kind of have come up with, I think it's helpful to actually have some of those prior designs on easels and say, this is kind of the thought processes we went through and got to where we are today. And it was a process. These are rejected concepts. I mean, a lot of them are great, but we rejected these for different reasons. But here's kind of what we settled on. And why? So people can see that this isn't just a one-shot type of a thing. It's still a collaborative process.

I appreciate preserving the chaplain. I think a lot of people in our community do as well. My question is, what do you determine that is worth going along the lines of what you're saying? What do you save and what do you not preserve? And With the stone on the outside on the exterior, I mean, I wonder if it would be nicer to do a different color of stone rather than keep the original. What do you guys think?

On the chapel?

Yeah. On the exterior.

Personally, I think the stone on the original chapel is the main reason to keep it. I mean, it's kind of the, you know, you can see the tooling of it and, you know, how they put it together. I know the public that had hands in building it. I mean, they're the ones that are really emotional about it, right?

I think we should look at all options as we move forward.

I wouldn't mind looking at some different options.

That might be something we could talk about in the public meeting. One of the things that we don't want to do is have it so designed that people say, well, now you're asking for my input,

it's all finished right we want we want to make sure that they they can and maybe we ask people what do you think about keeping that versus see how they feel and and two sides of the of the chapel we don't really know what's there right because the the additions were built up against it so it's possible that the stone underneath is either not there or damaged or something like that as well so If it comes to the point, too, where we have to re-clad portions of the exterior of this building, we're not going to find stone to match the existing stone. So it could bring that into more light that maybe we're going to force to re-clad the other portions of the building as well. So we'll definitely have to keep that one open.

Anything else for Mr. Bright? Thank you. Well done. Next item of business is the Solente Reimbursement Agreement. Blake Fonsbeck, Public Works Director, will present to the council and welcome DeLoss Hammond with Alliance Consulting. Ready as needed. Blake. All right.

Hopefully we can pull up a few of the things on the screen when we need them. That's a good place to start. So if you remember back in January of 2025, we presented the Secondary Water Irrigation Master Plan to the Council and it was approved and adopted. at that point. At that point, when it was adopted, kind of had the question posed to us, is this just going to be a document that goes and sits on the shelf now, or are we going to do something about it? And we at that time said, no, we're looking for ways to do things. We have water that isn't culinary grade, but is irrigation water grade. And we really want to use that. And so we need facilities and things to go with that. And as the map of that plan progressed, basically, we started working with it's Green Springs, Washington. But think of it as Salonte. That way, we're going to use Salonte from now on. But the agreement is with that. But we started working with them as far as part of that plan required some facilities at various elevations. And the irrigation tank was critical to have at a certain elevation, basically so that it could be if there was some sort of a cross connection or something that happened, you wanted the pressure to be lower than the culinary water so that it wouldn't go into the culinary system. So it was really critical to find this elevation. And we had kind of a narrow little window along there. And we've basically been working with them back and forth for quite some time to find the right location. As that's been going, the Cilenti development has also been developing. so you you start to lose some of those areas that were there because of the development as they were going forward so we kind of came to a proposal and came to a consensus that this site just west of their clubhouse would work for the elevation it would work for an underground tank of a million gallons and And in order to work with that, we had to then also kind of say, all right, they didn't really want a water tank being built after the clubhouse was all in place and running. And so it kind of became critical that the tank had to be done quickly in order to get the approval to build it in that area. And so this is what we're doing now is this agreement basically starts kind of the beginning of this irrigation master plan by getting a tank in place, getting the transmission lines in place through Salente because as it's developing, it's just getting harder and harder. We want to make sure that we can get all of those things taken care of early on and get those in place. And then there are other things that we have to do later to be able to get water to the tank. And that will be developing the well that we have, well, number one, and then getting a transmission line up that way. And so there's some other things that we have to do in phases. But we kind of ran into this time constraint to get this going right now. So we didn't have this necessarily budgeted. We have it in our water fund, but we we would have to do a budget adjustment. But this was basically to put this tank in and get this as it's kind of the keystone of this whole starting the irrigation master plan. As we as we gain that, we can start to move down. We can be able to serve Brio that already has the purple pipe in. We can serve other areas above the freeway and some below the freeway with this as we have once we have this in place and and the idea is some of it we can also use some of the we have all of our irrigation shares for the old town portion of main street those we have set those up so that at night time the city has all of the times and so even during that time we can take and put facilities in to take that water and use it to store it in some of the tanks. And that will increase the amount of water that we have available so that we can then continue to propagate down BASICALLY SOUTH AND WORK OUR WAY DOWN THROUGH THAT AS WE GET FACILITIES. THERE'S ALSO IN THE SALENTE DEVELOPMENT THERE'S ALSO A POND AND SO PART OF THIS AGREEMENT ALSO COVERS THE Upsizing of the lines through Solente to be able to move water back and forth from that pond to this tank. And then also be able to use that pond to also help serve further south and over into Greenspring area as well.

So the funds for this reimbursement agreement come out of the regular water?

Yeah, our irrigation and our water are all the same fund. And so, but we don't have impact fees for irrigation at this point in time. This would be out of our, just our reserve account, but not our impact fees. Well, we haven't redone the capital facilities plan for the water since that came out. Dave Kuntz, We had just completed it just before and 2024 right, but it didn't come. Dave Kuntz, One of the things that we need to do is is. Dave Kuntz, Is we need to start getting customers and create will create an irrigation utility as we, as we, but we have to build some facilities first. And as we do that, then we can use that as a funding source and as well as being able to do that. What we've required developers to do is put in the purple pipe, and that's essentially been kind of the impact. But in all those areas, we don't have the pieces that need to be put together to connect them all.

I get that. I mean, I guess my questioning is I just want to make sure that we're not shortchanging Culinary infrastructure. Because we, you know, we haven't properly funded it right like I don't want to, I don't want to create it a delay in a culinary line that needs to be upsized or built or whatever. because of a secondary line.

We have we have some we're going to the loss is going to talk about some of the other possibilities for some funding as well with the with the water conservancy district as well. And he's going to kind of go through some of that. But I just wanted to kind of set the background and then and help you just understand how critical this is. If we don't build these facilities right here, it kind of makes the rest of our plan not do very well. So it's the linchpin. Don't take it wrong.

I don't disagree. I understand where you're going with it. It's a chicken and egg, right? If we've got to update our capital facilities plan, you know, accordingly, then we probably ought to get that in the schedule to update it so that we're not short-changing one side versus the other, right?

Councilman Bell said I think you're right on the track. I think once the presentations, I think you'll understand the funding, and I think it'll make it pretty clear the process that Blake is doing.

Yeah, we've had some conversations with the Water Conservancy District, and it has sounded favorable, and they want us to be able to do this as well. We have this water that is... Any of that water from well number one, and also as irrigation, the ditch irrigation starts to... have the opportunity to put that in. It's pressurized. That's water that we will not have to buy from the Conservancy District. And so that has a value to the water users as well, because the less we buy from the Conservancy District, that just gives us a little bit more longevity they have as well as us.

Okay, that's great. Any other questions for Blake? Did you have something else for us? I'm going to turn the time over to Delos. Yeah, we'll welcome Delos up as soon as you're ready. Yeah, let's let Delos come up and give his presentation. Okay, thank you, Blake. Welcome, Delos. Tell us how we're going to pay for this.

Thank you. You know, water infrastructure is an important element, so I'm glad to be with you this afternoon. I appreciate you inviting me to have this discussion. As Blake mentioned, it's been about 18 months since we were here with the Irrigation Master Plan and the approval of that. And from that time to now, we have been focusing on, as been briefly identified, which projects and how we fund them. So what we thought we'd do is just have a couple of brief slides and then dive into what you want to talk about. Because I think there's a lot of a lot of discussion to be had. So if we get to the next slide, then we'll just we'll just jump through these real quick to focus on the purpose of the master plan. And essentially we've done one, two, three portions of four and five. But we're really ready to identify the next steps, and it is a living, breathing document. There was enough information in it to really identify the resources that the city had available to them and to identify the ones that they were short. And case in point is that we knew what the elevation of that tank needed to be and there's only one other site in Salonte that could have done it, that could have used on it, that was available and it got steep and through the development process it kind of became out of reach because we didn't have access to it. like here again the value of the master plan is is shown itself that identified the elevation we're able to capitalize on that work with celente and the city's already taken a leadership role here and said we need this facility and we we want to work with you at whatever level we need to to get it and they've stepped up and And they've been willing, but it's always kind of a pain, as Blake mentioned, because they're trying to do their development schedule, and we're trying to insert this inside it and say, hey, yeah, don't forget about us and the city over here trying to get this done. Then the next slide is gone. A brief reminder, because it already came up and I think it's specifically to Councilman Belliston's point, is hey we really want to safeguard the water, not only the water users, the current irrigation water users, but the current infrastructure plan as identified in the culinary water master plan. You wouldn't want to really rob Peter to pay Paul kind of thing. So one of the things very helpful and why we've got this slide in here is that currently, according to the Culinary Water Master Plan, each user in Washington City is 479 gallons a day. That breaks down to 167 gallons of indoor use and 312 gallons of outdoor use. So if we can take that outdoor use off, we can more than double the productivity or the usefulness of the culinary water. And it's great that Washington City right now does not have additional culinary water resources available, but they do have irrigation water resources. So now that that came back in, I'm going to restate that our primary goal is to take care of the existing water users and that we wouldn't take.

So Delos, I think that's a great point. You know, we're looking to extend the greater yield out of our culinary water. And the Conservancy District is just working and almost completing the Chief Toker Reservoir over in Tokerville. And that is not culinary. It's secondary water. And the whole idea is you bring that online, then you have a greater yield of your quality drinking water culinary. So anyway, just continue your thought.

Exactly. So it's more than double. We just wanted to reiterate that. So these do work hand in hand, and we feel that it is entirely appropriate for the city to consider taking resources that are available for the culinary use to seed into the secondary irrigation use Then be reimbursed so in some ways if you want to look at it as a three-way agreement that the city is using the seed money and Well, actually, I guess you could put it in reverse. The developer's actually paying for it. Salente's going to pay for it. The city's going to reimburse them out of a culinary budget. And then we have every right, in my mind, and we have a lot of very strong argument for the next slide to go see the Conservancy District again, because we've already had this discussion once. So if we want to get to the next slide there, we can have... a very pertinent conversation that I think, this is one that I'm very comfortable having and would be glad to have it again with the district. The district did a wonderful job a number of years ago and identified the value of water. And they put in the impact fee that was at the time just really a shock to the development world of how many dollars it was in 2017 from this exhibit. You can see it was up to, It was up over $7,000 a house. I think when it started, it was like 4,500 years back. This slide is showing that the city has actually contributed a significant amount to the water dollars that the district needs. Because the district, over the last nine years, has collected $74 million. through the development in Washington City. The reason that we've got this additional column that shows that there's 37 million of that is according to the capital facilities plan that they originally were working under when they developed the fee, that roughly roughly 50 was outdoor use and 50 was indoor use so had the city in 2017 been able to deliver irrigation water then they would have been entitled to 50 of that fee and 37 million dollars would have stayed here and funded these operations instead it's gone to the district and they've used it to to, as Councilman Ivey's point, built other infrastructure and solicited other water rights and have done other things on a global scale. But during that same period of time, this irrigation resource that the city has has gone unutilized. So I think it's safe to say that the strategy in the district shifted after the Lake Powell pipeline met its resistance. And they said, OK, hey, look, we're not really going to be successful right here. We need to go and develop a short-term and a mid-term plan, use the Lake Powell pipeline as the long-term plan. and really shifted the resources necessary. And frankly, most of it, to my knowledge, has gone to reuse, irrigation or reuse. Because by definition, if we can capitalize on that resource, we could double the population of the county because right now it's 50% outdoor, 50% indoor. So if we can reclaim the indoor, in theory, then we can double it. So in some ways it gets very complex, but in others it's kind of a simple concept that that reuse water has great value or an irrigation resource that can replace a culinary resource. So the next slide shows a prediction in the future. We're actually just saying, hey, in the next five years, Washington City is going to contribute another $35 million to it. And these are very significant numbers. If you look through the master plan and you see what what the costs for irrigation are through the estimate. So it's not theoretical. I mean, we've gone through and identified projects and cataloged them and put them in priority and given a cost estimate. For Yituan, it is a very significant amount of money to move this irrigation project forward. And it's symbiotic because it helps everything. It helps the district reduce their load, as Blake had mentioned. And then it helps utilize existing resources that are going to waste. And it sets the stage for the future and people being more comfortable with reuse water or irrigation. I typically, and we've been involved in this with a number of years in other cities and other projects of this scale, and we very seldom make, we try not to make a distinction between reuse water and irrigation water because it's really irrigation water once it's been treated to the standards that we treat it to. The public really doesn't know it, but they're swimming in it, they're wading in it, they're rafting in it, they're doing all these other things in the rivers because the discharge is going to the river and they're entirely comfortable in it. But sometimes there's a resistance to the idea of bringing a reuse water to their home or to their community or even the golf course. But I wanted to make that distinction because of the significance it is to the culinary water. And if we could really visualize it that way, it's a little easier to justify using money that's earmarked for culinary in the short term for irrigation, because in the long term, it's culinary. It balances. It's math that works. We have the next slide. So this is essentially just to remind us of what the components were in the master plan, that we had the irrigation water storage facilities identified, and that of this, this tank in Salente was specifically mentioned in the master plan. And then the other major component that I know the city's been working on is the water or the Kirkland Pond and the future development of that to maximize the availability of the water that is currently in that vicinity. And then the next slide is just a map that, again, is a graphical representation of the significance of what this tank does for the city. Because one might think it's only for Salente. But if you look up there, you can see that not only does it serve all of Salente, but it serves everything north of I-15 and essentially everything north of the river. And then it's at the river that the Kirtland Pond would take over and serve everything south within the bounds of the Black Ridge. So the next slide is just the irrigation water supply and where some of these resources would come from. There was the, if you remember, there was the inventory done and there was the paper water rights identified and then there was the wet water. that was available, that was identified, and there was some current metering taking place that now has an additional year of history to say, hey, yeah, the city is comfortable with the concept of utilizing some of that water that's going down the ditch. Next slide there. This is actually quite complicated because it has all of the city's resources identified on them. The reason we just left it in is to simply say that we're looking at a holistic approach and that this kind of gives context to the beginnings of the initial system design and that the tank is part and parcel to it. Let's get to the next slide. If you remember, a handful of projects were identified in this master plan, and these are just a subset of them that has been kind of pulled out and tabulated, so it's easier for us to discuss. And one of them is, I think the next map, if you want to just look at this for just a second, we've identified six projects, and this is actually easier to really contemplate. If you want to shrink that down a little bit so you can see the bottom of the screen. Yeah, the first project is actually just connecting the sports field, softball fields of the cemetery over to the Adair spring. And the idea here is that not only could you bring water to Adair, but you could also, any excess water, if there's available, you could take it to the ball fields in the cemetery. So that was identified as the easiest hanging fruit for the city to get into the irrigation business, the pressurized irrigation business. I know you've long been in the ditch irrigation. And here again, I'll take another opportunity because it's not contrived. It's something that we take very seriously. From day one when we were working on this, we understood that we did not want to impact the current water users that have been here, built the city, continued the operations. The reason the resource is here, all we were trying to do was utilize the resource that was available, not take theirs. So it's really been a big component of it. If you go back up there, we'll quickly get to number two, just on the map there, is that the number two project is just, again, a transmission line. that allows the manor well, number one, to be utilized for irrigation. And there's a series of pipes that we need to do that. And project number three is the tank, right? So in order for us to get a tank, then we need to have water for it too, right? So first utilize the tank. In some ways, we're talking about the tank as the number one starter out of the gate, but that's because of the pressure that the developer has.

Can you show us where that tank is?

Yes, it's on the top of the page there, right there. Oh, there it is. So with these projects, to number three, so if we did project one, two, and three, that would be enough to utilize the tank for the rest of the city. But Salente and anything in the immediate vicinity of that area would need a booster. And that's number four. So if you want to go back up the page, you can see that it's Number four is just below the tank, and it's that little red dot that's the irrigation pump house. And then the other two, five and six, are just transmission lines, reimbursements and design to integrate with the developer that is currently building out the project. So the next slide, I think, is just to let you know formally that we can talk about the conclusion that it is a working document that we want to be responsive to to the public, the development, and to the resource. So seeing water as the resource and how precious it is really does change your mind to be able to catalog it, to be able to deal with it, whether it's irrigation, reuse, or culinary. If you're able to actually sort those out and put them back together, it seems that it's a lot easier to utilize it and to be a good steward of it. And then I think that the last slide is just simply a continuation of the discussion or any questions that you might have that we could answer for you.

Council, what questions do you have for DeLoss on this? And also, are you comfortable with the resolution being on the regular meeting as an action item? And I think in the interest of time, you might have additional opportunity to have more discussion on this during that portion of the meeting as we're kind of running up against 530 now. But we have a few minutes.

Mayor, I just want to state, I think the thing is that we need to start asking the district for money, just like we did with TRT tax, right? Conservancy district is they've been collecting this money earmarked for these type of projects. And we have an opportunity to do that. And we did meet with the district. I mean, and they were very open to it. And so I think the next step is that's how we help fund some of this stuff, too. I mean, and these are projects. They all have to be done today. They just need to be done. eventually to get a system working. So I think that's one thing. But when you look at those numbers, they're staggering. I mean, they've collected $74 million, and they're going to collect another $71 in the next five years. I think they can help us.

Go ahead, Councilman.

So I don't disagree that they've collected money, right? The water district has the impact fee for regional water projects, right? The cities have a water impact fee for water projects within the city. I think if we walked into the district and said, hey, we want to do a trunk line through down Washington Fields Road, and we need some of our impact feedback to do that, they'd laugh us out of the lobby, right? And so my concern is that I get that we want to go ask them for the money for the secondary side. And I appreciate the fact that they're agreeable to have the conversation but it's still got to go before the board and the board's going to say hey we've got a a billion dollar um you know treatment and and then we've got we've got this reservoir that's regional we got this reservoir that's regional we got that reservoir that's regional and so we need to maintain our impact fee for our secondary and and and water and and that reuse treatment facility and so we can't give it back to the cities because every city has their their infrastructure water impact fees for that reason, right? So, I mean, it's a great conversation to have. Do I think that the project's needed? Absolutely. Do I think that we're going to run up to a crossroads where the district says, yeah, not going to give it up. You guys need to contemplate. If you're going to do a secondary water system in your city, great. Do the capital facilities plan. collect the money for it, or it comes out of our culinary side, which right now our culinary side doesn't contemplate the cost of the secondary. Do you see what I'm saying? Oh, absolutely. I mean, I think that I don't disagree that we need to have the secondary, and I don't necessarily disagree that we shouldn't reimburse Salente for it, but it's coming from somewhere, and nobody's written us the check to pay for it yet.

Absolutely. I have three responses to that. First, I think it's a great analysis of it because that's a significant component of the rationale of what you're predicting. First off, so that's the first component. The other one is we have contacted them, Melton, Jeremy Melton. They're very gracious about it. And on one hand, saying that very thing that you described, hey, yeah, we're very interested in this. And and they're very cautious, right? Because of what you said, are they is every city going to be looking for this? The the challenge is that we're into it fairly significantly with desert color and St. George. And so we've seen several other opportunities like this come to fruition, and their process of working with the Liberican, Hurricane, and Tokerville, which I think they did a great job. So recognizing what you described as, hey, a reluctance to get the money back because there's so much need for regional projects. But as that, there's two distinctions. First, in their capital facilities plan originally, they identified that any city that had an operating irrigation system was entitled to the reduction. So if here you gave a building permit, and I think you did, you can go back and research this, if someone pulled a building permit in the downtown area and there was an operating irrigation system, that building permit only needed to pay 50% of the district fee in order to receive culinary meter. And so there's a handful of those that were done. To date, there's probably an eye onto 1,000 of them that have been done in desert color the same way. The developer went in, put in the infrastructure, and then they kept 50% of the fee. So it wasn't charged to them. It wasn't reimbursed to the city, just the district didn't charge it because they knew that the dollars needed to be spent to own and operate, build on and operate the system. Second, the third point is...

But in all fairness, that's a project that had it contemplated from the start that's throughout the project, right?

Uh, yes, but this one has been kind of, I mean, so what has been contemplated from this and we, we have met with the district and those conversations have been out of the gates on. So, I think, and I want you to hear your last point, and then we'll wrap up in the interest of time, but. I what I'm hearing and what I'm committing to do is to keep those conversations with the district going because I feel like they've been very productive and we'll find out what what appetite they have to work with us in similar manner to where they worked in in other communities if if you're if you're supportive of that part of it councilman or council Your last thought, and then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn until 6 o'clock.

Yeah, I would like to reiterate the Mayor's point that they have been great to talk about this and that they see the need and that they have not given us any indication that they're not willing. In fact, if you asked me informally, they said, yeah, we're interested and we're willing to reimburse you for these projects. We support them. And that's part and parcel to my last point that I think is a distinction. And that is that through this process, through this process of conservation and regulation and planning, I think that water is looked at differently, more like what I was talking about, that it is a resource. And that is immediately where the district went. It's, oh, hey, you're bringing a resource to it. The city has water rights and they have wet water. And so they're going, hey, let's not talk about all this complex reimbursement agreement for water, I mean, not for water, but for water lines and pumps or anything like that. Let's talk about that resource that's not getting utilized, that if we do this project will be utilized. That made them very excited. And so that's how they're viewing it. And that's more of what they want to fund. So you've got a good point. You're on track there. I just think that there's more than one way to approach it.

Good conversation. Thank you, Mr. Hammond.

Thank you.

At this time, I will call for a motion to adjourn the workshop meeting.

So moved, Mayor.

Motion by Councilman Ivey. Second. Second by Councilman. Henderson?

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

Any opposed? We stand adjourned until 6 p.m. for our regular meeting. Recognize that it is. And we will get started shortly. Our workshop meeting, which goes from four to 530, typically went from four to about 545. So the rest of the rest of those involved in the meeting are coming. They'll be here shortly. They're just upstairs for a few minutes.

Amen.

David, are you ready on your end?

We are ready.

All right, we'll kick this off. We're close enough, I think. Good evening. Today is Wednesday, August 12th, 2026. We are at Washington City Hall in the City Council Chambers for our regular meeting. Our meetings are streamed live and archived at washingtoncity.org slash meetings. We appreciate our relationship with the Interfaith Council. Some of you may know Shadman Bashir as a professor at Utah Tech University. He is also the chief international officer at the university. He will be starting off our meeting with a prayer and any comments that he'd like to give. And he is representing the Islam faith. After Mr. Bashir's prayer, I've asked Councilman Henderson to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Shadman.

Thank you very much, sir. It's always a pleasure. I get to do this a couple of times a year at different locations. And this is home for us. I was born and raised in Pakistan, and I've been working at Utah Tech. And I just wanted to thank everyone in this county that we have received nothing but love in this place so I'm very thankful for that in my prayer I'll use the word Allah which in Arabic means the God and in the Islamic faith Allah means the God of Prophet Abraham the God of Prophet Ishmael Jesus Christ peace be upon them Prophet Moses so we believe in the the divinity of all the prophets. I, in the name of Allah, pray that all the people who live near and far in this area, in this county, may God bless them. May God fulfill their wishes, their dreams. May their families stay away from all kinds of troubles. May all the blessings that there can be for people over here, may those wishes and dreams get fulfilled. Thank you so much for the respect and honor. Thank you. Thank you, Brother Councilman.

Please follow me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Council, I will make note that we do not have need to go to closed session this evening. That said, I'll turn to you for a motion to approve the agenda as outlined.

So moved, Mayor.

I have a motion by Councilman Coates.

Second.

Second by Councilman Henderson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The agenda is approved. Are there any announcements that need to come before THE BODY OR THE COMMUNITY THIS EVENING.

MAYOR, YOU MIGHT MENTION JUST THAT THE SWIMMING POOL HAS BEEN CLOSED. I KNOW THEY'RE GETTING READY TO REOPEN. THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WORTH MENTIONING.

YES. SO WE DID HAVE A REPLACEMENT OF ABOUT A 20-YEAR-OLD POOL LINER AT THE COMMUNITY CENTER. And so the pool has been closed for the last three weeks and we anticipated opening the work as I understand the work has been done and the leisure pool will open again on August 17th. Anything else council. Okay, we'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is declarations of abstentions and conflicts. Anyone abstaining or any conflicts to declare? Mayor, item 6A, I have a conflict.

The firm I work for prepared the documents for that discussion. Not all the documents, the exhibits.

Will you be voting? Yes. Okay. Duly noted. Anything else? Seeing none, we'll jump into the consent agenda consisting of THE MINUTES, CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM CITY COUNCIL MEETING 7-22-26 AND THE BOARD AUDIT REPORT FROM JULY 2026. UNLESS SOMEONE WANTS TO POLL A SPECIFIC ITEM AND HAVE DISCUSSION, I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

SO MAID. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BELLESTON AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COATS. ALL IN FAVOR?

AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? That is approved 5 to 0. We'll move right into item 5. We have two ordinances to look at this evening. And item 5A is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-14. from C1 and R110 to C2, located at Antigua Lane and George Washington Boulevard. The applicant is Rosenberg and Associates. Before I turn the time over to, before we turn to Eldon Gibb, our Community Development Director, to present this item, I would like to say a few words to set the table just a little bit on this particular item. First of all, I would like to thank the community for being here. It shows that you care about the wonderful neighborhoods in Washington and that you value the process. I want to make note that as part of our preparation as an elected body, Myself as mayor, along with each council member, we take these responsibilities very seriously. I will let you know that the council prepares in depth for these meetings and the votes that they'll make. I can tell you that it's very likely that they've been out on this site probably multiple times, probably out of their car and got a little dirt on their shoes as they looked at the site. They're also very familiar with the land use process, which I think I'll speak to just a little bit tonight. By state statute and by city ordinance, our meetings are open to the public. And when we have a zone change, which is on the agenda this evening, we have a public hearing that occurs. AND SO IN WASHINGTON CITY, LIKE IN ST. GEORGE AND OTHER COMMUNITIES, THAT PUBLIC HEARING OCCURS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION LEVEL, WHICH ON ZONE CHANGES IS A RECOMMENDING BODY TO THE COUNCIL. I WILL TELL YOU A FEW THINGS. MYSELF AND THIS COUNCIL, WE HAVE LISTENED to that meeting. We've watched the meeting, some of the individuals in person, some on the YouTube station. So we're familiar with all of the comments that you've shared. I will also make note that I will allow for, as a body, we've agreed that while this isn't a public hearing tonight, I will allow for some, as we've done consistently, some additional public comment. And I'll explain that a little bit more later. I will say that we heard from And I should, I'm sorry, I just wrote the first names down, but we heard from seven individuals that made public comment at the Planning Commission. Russ Hinton, I've known Russ since we were in the Guard together, but Russ, Chris, who I see here, Liz, who I see here, Brent, James, Brent B, and Tina. So I appreciate your comments. In addition to that, We have had electronic public comment from Scott Hill, Elizabeth Fisher, Lisa Williams, Michael Higley, Andrea Jenkins, and it's possible that I missed someone. But I'm pretty sure that I've got the most current list. I'm making that point just so that you know that we listen to you. Now, just briefly before, again, I don't mean to belabor this, but before we listen to Eldon as he will present item 5A, I want to talk just a little bit about the entitlement process, because if you're not involved in it a lot, it can be kind of a big mystery. Like, how do things come about? It starts with the general plan. which in some cases there's a land use designation that may have been in place for a long period of time, right? So that people who are moving or wanting to know what's happening in the area can say, generally, THIS IS WHAT THE CITY SEES WOULD HAPPEN. AND THAT'S IN CONJUNCTION WITH COORDINATION WITH THE LAND OWNERS AND THE COMMUNITY. SO IN MOST CASES, THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS PREDATE DEVELOPMENT AROUND IT. AS IT GOES THROUGH THIS WHAT WE CALL ENTITLEMENT PROCESS OR VESTING, IT THEN GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE NARROW. IT COMES DOWN TO A ZONING. AND SO TONIGHT WE'LL TALK ABOUT A ZONING APPLICATION. SO ELDEN WILL EXPLAIN THIS. BUT YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH ON ITEM 5A THAT RECENTLY IT HAD A GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL. THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION THEN WAS CHANGED TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL. ZONING CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL INCLUDES ADMINISTRATIVE PROFESSIONAL, C1 AND C2. SO THE LAND OWNER OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE COULD APPLY FOR ANY OF THOSE ZONINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION. AND IT'S THIS BODY THAT WILL DELIBERATE AND VOTE ON ULTIMATELY WHAT THE ZONING IS APPROVED IF APPROVED. AND THEN OF COURSE AS DEVELOPMENT ROLLS ON THERE'S VESTING THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH PLATTING AND THEN ULTIMATELY ROADS AND BUILDINGS INCLUDING HOMES AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS ARE BUILT AND COME OUT OF THE GROUND. BUT I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP. SO IN THIS PROCESS TONIGHT, WHAT WE'LL TALK ABOUT ON 5A AND 5B IS WE'RE GOING TO ENTERTAIN, THIS COUNCIL WILL ENTERTAIN AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING which would move it through the vesting process. I think I've said enough to set the table. Eldon Gibb, if you will present on item 5A.

Great introduction, Mayor, Council. Good to be here tonight. The proposed property here is approximately 9.14 acres with 5.26 acres currently designated as C1 and 3.88 acres designated as R110, as you can see there. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning designations to see to the general plan for this area was recently changed to see come up to the north property line, which is the black, the back yard line of the residential homes that front Galilee way. During the general plan amendment, the commercial footprint was reduced to help transition and buffer between the land uses. This reduction is reflected in the zone change application. Proposed C2 zoning designation is intended to provide community retail and service type activities that conveniently serve area residents. And the surrounding zonings include open space to the east, C3 to the south, open space and R110 to the west, and R110 to the north. The C2 request is for the purpose of developing this site into a commercial development. And if this zone change is approved, the next step for the development would require the applicant to obtain conditional use permit approval, which will show site specific details for the commercial development. On August 5th, excuse me, the 5th of August, the planning commissioners reviewed this request and unanimously recommended denial due to the lack of buffering between the residential and proposed commercial based on the findings stated in staff report. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Thanks, Elton. Council, what questions do you have for staff?

I think just a minor one that was brought up in the planning commission, but when we had talked about the open space, why is it for the zoning that we cannot, cause I thought those, the open spaces is just a designated, it was just a holder, a placeholder. And we had, we made some changes with the general plan to have it be not yet determined, but why can't you do that with zoning, with the zoning? Why can it only be for the general plan?

Great question so zone changes to do his own change, you have to have the landowners permission or sign off to change that. entitlement process like mayor described the general plans very high level. And then zoning is a little more specific, which requires the landowners permission or approval to change that zoning.

Maybe just add another description. The general plan is the city council's document. Zoning designations are property owner's rights. And so the city wouldn't go through and just change everybody's zone that says open space to not yet determined without them making an application because it's really their right. Whereas the general plan is the city's plan.

But it's safe to say that on our zoning maps. Usually when you see open space it means that that property does not have a specific zoning designation yet. It may it may have a general plan land use designation but not necessarily a zoning.

Fill me in. You're the expert. You're correct. That's safe to say in our zoning code does define open space as you as you explained it it's it just doesn't yet have any other designation. It doesn't mean that the city is requiring that private land remain unbuilt or undeveloped.

But as that correct me we've talked about it as these come up and we do find these places that are not yet determined we've been converting those as kind of as we've been going until we do a full change in our general plan.

So the general plan has been changed from open space to not yet determined. The zoning map still has those labels. Good point.

Good question, Councilwoman. Additional questions for staff before I invite the applicant forward?

Can I have a question, Mayor? Councilman Henderson. So a lot of these community commercial developments that are very similar to this that are close by have a zoning, you know, that are like adjacent to or up next to single family homes. You know, they have the same general plan as this, but their zoning is PUDC. Elton, could you talk to us just a little bit about the difference between a PUDC zoning designation and a C2 and what that would mean in the process going forward?

Great question. So the PTC is a planned unit development commercial And I sometimes refer to it as is more of a negotiated zoning, you can come in and ask for specific uses and just more of a hands on approach in regards to the site layout and design. of the project itself. It also includes building renderings that will come with that application and show it more of a total package for the project. Does that answer your question? But correct me if I'm wrong.

this site here is still gonna require a conditional use, which is gonna be bringing those building renderings and things like that anyway, right? So it's just a timing thing on the commercial, whether it's the zone change and then the renderings, correct?

That's correct, yeah. Due to this location at France George Washington Boulevard, it would, regardless of the use, require a condition.

So you're still gonna see site plans, buildings, and all that before the city council approves it. The other thing, the other question I have is between, because this currently is C1, You know, up front, do you have a, on the table, do you have a, is it readily available for you, the differences between C1 and C2? Because, you know, C3 allows a lot bigger type of a project and things like that, right?

Yeah, the biggest difference is from a C1 and C2, there's five uses there. If you have just a minute, I can... Detail those out. So in the permitted uses, once we get into C2 uses, it includes a retail and or wholesale and or rental of goods, merchandise, and equipment, which may include storage and display outside an enclosed building. Then list a few examples of such that could be included. And then in the conditional uses, it lists a hospital, hotel or motel, motor vehicle, trailer, camper, and recreational vehicle sales agency. and then state approved and operated liquor stores.

That's the only difference between C1 and C2, correct? Other than that, C1 and AP is still allowable under C2.

Correct. In regards to the uses, yes.

Can I ask a question, Eldon? I guess part of the reason I'm asking these questions is have an ability to, you know, as the development proceeds through the process to ensure that there's feathering that takes place in between the, you know, the residential and the commercial just within the commercial, because there's more some commercials heavier than others. Right. And so is our ability to do that feathering? Would we have more opportunity to do that on a PUDC versus a C2? Or in this instance where it's a C2 where we have to do conditional use permitting, would it be the same opportunity for us to vet this stuff and do feathering and make sure it's compatible with the neighbors? Can you talk a little bit about that?

So with the conditional use permit, that is exactly what the conditional uses address are those feathering and buffering tactics between the commercial and the residential uses, minimizing light pollution to the residences, landscape buffers, orientation of buildings to minimize the impact on the residential uses. So it's essentially kind of the same thing, right?

In this instance, okay. I think it is. There's a big difference between a PUDC and a C2. C2, they have the right to build whatever is permitted on our C2 list. In PUDC, we get to decide. We need, we be, we as a council get to be in the process with the developer working with them to get the product layout and all that we can't dictate their layout we can't do any of those things it's it's just so there's a pretty big difference between them like you get a you determine the look of the buildings you look at all those things as part of the approval of the pudc so there's a big difference between straight zoning they can build whatever buildings they are what they are And as long as they make the code, then we might have some conditions that we add on. But it's like, okay, you got to put a fence here or something there. I mean, there is a little leeway, but we have that across all commercial in our city. But they can put any type of use they want.

And that's kind of what I was getting at is I would like to... have as much input as possible as a protection to the neighbors. And I mean, my understanding has always been if it's a straight zoning thing, we're limited in what we can or input. Is that what you're saying?

Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I just I just when we said that they're the same, I'm like, they're not the same. They're very different. But they are two ways to go about it. Their application right now is for a straight zone C2.

And then we would be limited in what can go there and then what conditions. We would just try to put conditions based upon what the permitted use is there. And I like what you're saying because I like that the property doesn't have any adjacent homes that are currently next to it. But then you'd want to reduce any impact on future residents that will be adjacent to it so you don't have as high commercial use closer to the residents. So I like the idea of having more impact and say, or having more say on how it will be laid out and the impact it will have on residents.

Mayor, can I ask a question? Elton, would you bring up the future roads? I'd like to see how the roads are gonna lay out in there. I know Antigua ends, but I think it'd be good for, to see kind of how this is planned.

And Washington Fields Road, major arterial. So are we talking 85 or 105, John?

110 85 Minor arterial thank you So I have a question on I'm glad you brought this up councilman I because if you scroll back out Eldon We got a couple things here, right so we've got majestic that is shown as an arterial road that goes nowhere. But then we've got this blue road that kind of shows that goes into almost like a frontage road, but it goes into the white dome, which isn't going to be developed. Right. And so then we've created the frontage road on the east side of the freeway. So I mean, I think probably the transportation master plan needs to be looked at and adjusted because majestic is going to have to come and tie in to that blue road at some point. Right. But the Blue Road, I mean, you're not going to do an arterial road off into BLM.

John, we're so glad you're here. Assistant Public Works Director over anything that Blake says, you're over.

Whatever Blake says, that's what I go to. So, yeah, Majestic is a residential collector. Say again? Majestic is a residential collector. The orange coming up, Majestic.

So it's not intended to go further?

It can go further, and my anticipation would be that that is developable ground between there and SR7. So, yeah, we would continue that board as a residential collector until such time that we got to the blue line, which is... Yeah, it can definitely continue across and connect into that blue one.

But do we really see that blue road going through? Because that's the BLM piece that we can't even talk to them anymore, basically, about anything. Yeah, right there.

So it's not going to connect and go along SR7.

No. And when this was put together again, when a lot of these roads that are out in the undeveloped areas, we put them as placeholders just so that we have an idea that this is something we want to see put out there, something to plan for. Obviously, yeah, that would change as the development came in different projects, different classifications of property and stuff like that. So whether that would continue to go in as a as a major collector, You know, and where exactly it goes, you know, it would likely change.

So on the Blue Road, to use the analogy, right, the northern corridor that right now is Washington Parkway goes and it just shows to kind of go off into the wild blue yonder like this one is, it's 30 years that that's been on our transportation master plan. My guess is this Blue Road has been there for a while just thinking, hey, at some point we're going to need a frontage road. That's been picked up on the east side, so it kind of just needs to either go away or it needs to tie back into Majestic.

Yeah, and again, it would, you know, we'd have a secondary outlet for the... Yeah, definitely continue. We'd want to keep it as, you know, whether we keep it as a minor collector or especially if we're running through commercial, we're not going to change it into a residential collector because we'd want to keep it a large enough classification to move the traffic. So minor collector, what's the road width? Minor collector, this is a major collector, so it's 66. The blue is a 66. 66, and then the one that's majestic? Is 60.

60, so... And the residential collector... Three lane versus...

60 is two lane with residential parking on either side. Residential parking. A residential collector allows for homes to front it and have driveways, stuff like that. Once you go into that major collector, you can't front homes on it. You can't have driveways on it, stuff like that. Right. Then again we have in the master transportation plan that intersection there with our blue line and then George Washington That's a future signalized and John I know that was this was touched on briefly in planning Commission and again a very insightful question councilman Ivy Tell us why?

The future road there blue wherever it goes intersects with George Washington Boulevard at that spot? I know you know this answer.

Well, we have the ground to the South is slated already for Star Nursery and that's a major major development there with Star Nursery as well as several outbuildings. And then so that's major intersection there with that development. Plus it also comes in as a secondary access into what will be the full expansion of Wheels Park.

And also around the backside there where that right where that goes and and also access management off of SR seven. Yeah, because again, we distance from those on and off ramps. So that's why that intersection was chosen at that specific location, because you basically won't allow anything closer. Right.

Yeah.

So so that'll be a future signalized intersection with an 85 foot minor arterial going east and west, and a 65-foot residential collector going north. Major collector. Major collector going north and south.

Yep. And so those are all the three fun pieces all coming together right there for that intersection is why we have that. And we've already got it designed with conduits in place and stuff for the future.

Councilman Ivey, can you answer my question? Thank you. Thank you.

Council, before I invite the applicant up, is there any additional conversation you'd like to have? I'll give you an opportunity after I allow for some public comment. Applicant, public comment, additional discussion. Anything else you'd like to discuss with staff? At this time, I'll invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to come forward if you'd like. We know you, but if you just introduce yourself. Mr. Smith.

JASON SMITH REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. THE ONE THING THAT I WOULD JUST LET YOU KNOW THAT THE PIECES THAT ARE RESIDENTIAL THAT ABORDER ARE ADJACENT TO THIS COMMERCIAL PIECE ARE CONTROLLED BY THE SAME PEOPLE THAT DO THIS. SO FOR THE ABILITY TO BUFFER AND IT'S IN HIS BEST INTEREST TO PROVIDE THOSE TYPE OF BUFFERS BECAUSE HE'S CONTROLLING THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF IT TOO. SO HE'S NOT GOING TO GO AND and hang this area out to dry. He wants to buffer just as much as anyone else. So he controls everything that is adjacent to the commercial that wasn't commercial initially. So down where the C1 was, there is the piece to the west that he doesn't control, but it has C1 there now, the other portions he does. So I just wanted to remind them of that. And we are willing to do, you know, they do an amazing thing with lights these days. You can almost, you don't even know that you have a lit parking lot unless you're underneath the parking lot. landscaping, those type of things where it is, I'm sure that it'll be planned in and designed well to buffer that and to have that ability. Other than that, if you have questions, I can answer them. If not, I'll sit down and get out of your hair.

Councilman Bell. So is it fair to assume that because that's already planned for a light in that section, that's where all the access is coming in and out of your commercial development, right?

Yeah, I mean, the majority will, for sure, is the ideal. I mean, the other thing is the reason that we went for a community commercial is so that we could get C2 zoning. That was up front from the very beginning. It's in staff reports. It's always been discussed that the reason we wanted a community commercial was for C2 zoning.

So from my perspective, the reason why I was okay with it when it came through in the general plan was because the applicant had the residential, you know, pieces directly adjacent to current residences, right?

Correct.

But I also don't, I'm not super comfortable with accesses coming in from those residential streets either because that also creates, you know, the access going back through. And, you know, we talk about feathering. You know, some people say, well, feathering can be, you know, a short distance or a long distance. Well, even if you get, let's say, for example, you got a half a mile street and you start with single family and then small multifamily and then heavy multifamily and then commercial and a half a mile street, it creates that cross traffic. Dave Kuntz, To grow significantly, even though you've still got that that feathering whereas if it on those residences if there's not a lot of. Dave Kuntz, You know access into the neighborhoods from that commercial piece, then you don't have that traffic which the feathering might be tighter but. the traffic impact is significantly reduced.

Right. I would say traffic-wise, and I don't have specific numbers for this, but I would say traffic-wise, from my experience, if you have commercial and you have residential behind it, you have less traffic in the residential area if you have commercial in front of it because the people that are going to commercial, they're going to commercial and they're getting out. They're not going to commercial. Or if you have residential, they may go in and then they go through the neighborhood or whatever. But a commercial development, a large percentage, I won't say all, but almost all will go through George Washington Boulevard, will get to the commercial, they'll go back to George Washington Boulevard. Unless they actually live in the neighborhood, would they? would they continue driving through there? It's not quicker. It's not. And so that's been my experience. In my personal life, I mean, I have commercial that's nearby me, and I never see traffic. In fact, I wish I had more commercial and less residential, less higher density residential there. In fact, I represented that here at the city council. I said, no, I'd sooner have commercial. The decision was made differently, which it is what it is.

Further questions for the applicant's representative? Thank you, Jason. Appreciate that. So again, as I stated earlier, the public hearing per statute, per ordinance has occurred. But I have, and we as an elected body, have had a pattern of allowing additional public comment. So what I'll do is I'll, I think I made the point quite clear that we did hear you. with your comments at the public hearing and also with your electronic comments. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ALLOW FOR THREE OR FOUR OR SO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE MISSED OR SOMEONE THAT DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK. I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF YOU COULD KEEP THE COMMENTS TO ABOUT THREE TO FOUR MINUTES. I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE WON'T ENGAGE WITH YOU WHILE YOU'RE GIVING PUBLIC COMMENT. AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT IS OVER WE'LL TAKE NOTES AND IF THEY'RE HARD QUESTIONS WE'LL GIVE IT TO STAFF. If it's easy questions, I'll take it. If they're somewhere in between, the council will take it. So at this time, a handful of public comment if you have additional comments or did not feel like you had an opportunity to speak during the public hearing. This really is your opportunity. Don't be shy. Just state your name and say what you need to say. Yes, come forward and you can be up to bat and on deck if you wanna come and sit up front.

GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR ALLOWING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THIS. MY NAME IS CHRIS KERS. I LIVE ON MAJESTIC DRIVE. SO I'M JUST GOING TO UTILIZE MY THREE TO FOUR MINUTES TO HIT SOME KEY PARTS BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON SINCE LAST FEBRUARY WHEN THE INITIAL APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED TO CHANGE THE ZONING HERE. First off, the reason that the residents are concerned is not because there's going to be commercial going in there. According to the general plan, it was always slated to have neighborhood commercial, and everybody understood that. What the concern was was changing it over to allow a larger sector commercial to move in, where it would then impact the residents. Because if you look at the general plan and what Washington City has been abiding by in the past, there has been the feathering, the buffering between properties. So what do we have here? We have very low density and low density properties there. If you were to zoom out on that, you'll see the intention of the neighborhood when this was originally recreated was it was supposed to be a residential area. So that's why the lots were designated in the lot sizes that they were. That's why to continue out to Antigua in that manner. If you look at our general plan, it indicates that, OK, you're going to have very low density and then low, low density and very low density. Then you have to have medium density, right? And higher density homes for going into neighborhood commercial. community c1 c2 etc etc one of the biggest concerns here from the neighborhood perspective is the applicant right now if you go on collier's real estate it's a commercial real estate side site they have on there that they would project one could develop upwards of five retail buildings a service station and a two a two-story office building on this lot right next to very low density and low density housing. I'm not making this up. Go on Collier's website, put this lot in there and it will show that for you. And that's how they are selling this. That's how they're projecting to sell this lot to a developer. So it's not neighborhood commercial. It's not your basic low scale, low impact. They're looking at bringing in Major retail a fuel station and a 2 story office building right next to very low density and low density residential homes. That is absolutely not consistent with what the general plan calls for. So that's the 1st concern 2nd concern. Obviously, just from a residential perspective is the road network. There is not currently designed to absorb the type of traffic that that sort of development would bring it as we've said from the beginning. If you look at the general plan, originally your C1 C2 was supposed to be by SR7 and George Washington Boulevard, and there's designated C1 C2 lots at George Washington Boulevard and Washington Fields Road. These were C1 and C2 designated areas that are meant to service this community. OK, so what we're doing now is we're saying, OK, well, we need to have more C1 and C2, even though there's no plan on deck for what they're going to do with it. But we need to bump this up. But we're going to be completely contrary to our own general plan in order to facilitate this. That's not fair to the residents, not fair to the residents that purchased their homes with the understanding that this was a residential neighborhood, a very low density and low density housing. We've all, you've read the comments about children playing in the streets, it's a neighborhood area. We all know this, okay? These are fundamentals. Nobody's against community, nobody's against commercial going in here, but we are requesting that it should be in accordance with the general plan. Now, the initial change has already been made. If you go back to the image that shows the, it's still residential on the top half of that, and then commercial on the bottom half of that, which you approved several weeks ago. Can you pull that up, Eldon? So if you go back, go back to the previous one. So this is my understanding, this is what was approved several weeks ago, correct?

I think the difference is this is the current zoning. The current zoning, yes. The general plan did change a few weeks ago. Right, no, I understand the general plan. So it was, was it medium density there, Eldon, on the top half of this community commercial? Right. Originally.

So it's kind of the same, but they're different applications. Sure. So if you look at that, it still shows buffering and feathering. It's not to what it was previously, but at least it's allowing that transition, right? If you bring it to C2, as you said yourself, absolutely. If you bring it to C2, then, you know, the applicant can, you know, once that change goes in, basically anything can go in there and it's going to be budding up to established in some cases 20 year plus established low density and very low density. So That's my comments that one quick side comment regarding to majestic touching through the reason that paper road is there. You can go back through the records and look is about 4 to 5 years ago. There was a discussion about continuing majestic. There's a private. Residents at the end of that owned by Herman Pearson at the time it was brought before the council. It was discussed having that and then that blue paper road that you see going there that you're referring to as a frontage road. That's why that was put in because we were told that majestic would not continue because it ends at a private. RESIDENCE THAT WAS ESTABLISHED BEFORE MAJESTIC WAS EVER INTENDED TO GO THROUGH. IF YOU TALKED TO THE PREVIOUS DPW HEAD, HE HAD INDICATED THAT THE CHANGE FOR MAJESTIC WAS PUT ON PAPER WAS EITHER 2010 OR 2012, BUT THE PROPERTY WAS BOUGHT AND DEVELOPED BY MR. PEARSON IN 2004. HE SAID THAT TAKES PRECEDENT. SO THAT'S WHY THAT WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE CHANGED. AT ANY RATE, I DON'T MEAN TO TAKE YOUR WHOLE EVENING. I APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO MY COMMENTS.

THANK YOU, CHRIS. WE KNOW HERMAN. WE MISS HIM, HAVEN'T SEEN HIM FOR A LITTLE WHILE. Come on forward. And if you'll just remember to state your name.

Sure.

I'm Carrie Boone.

Carrie, I got your email during our last meeting. So yes, we're having public comment. There you go.

Thank you. Can I point to where I live?

Yes.

But when you look on the other one, we're just right next to the, yep, that house right there that's right next to down to the right. That one. And I'm representing our whole little block. Some of them have a lot of young children and couldn't come. So but all of us are really concerned because there are two dead end roads, Mountain Ridge Drive and Rolling Ridge that roll right into this property right next to us. So essentially, this is putting us 220 yards from uh commercial property missing that whole feathering wonder that um that best practice i do want to note i wasn't able to i attended all three of the planning commission meetings that were about the general plan change and but wasn't here for the hearing about this specific piece i also note that the one on galilee way it looks like they could high-five the two-story um business office building that's being proposed or have it staring into their backyard because it's literally almost touching their property so even closer than ours And there's a lot of just concern about the lack of using those best practices that we have. When we talked about changing the general plan, the planning commission unanimously recommended denying this. And when I watched the meeting, which I was out of town for, with all of you discussing it, I noted some concerns that you shared. And I appreciated your comment, Craig, with, do I need to say council member quotes?

You'll say that's fine, but I'll say yes, that you need to.

um we're acknowledging like you have commercial property right next to you but it was in the existing plan for 10 years when you bought your home and i think a lot of people have referenced that when we bought our home we have become surrounded by rezoning so when we came in five years ago then we had all the sudden storage units across the street and then rezoning first our nursery and now this and I think a lot of these homes have been here for a very long time where it's been under the idea that this is a residential area. I understand there's a need for growth and change in our community that we need to have money coming from our own tax sources instead of feeding everything into St. George, but I don't think that means that we need to ignore best practices and have safety issues and traffic issues that we're creating new problems when we don't have those buffers. So thank you.

Thank you, Carrie. Appreciate your comments. Yeah. Take a few more.

My name is Nate Boone. I live in that same house. First of all, thank you for this meeting. Thank you for taking comments. I'm not going to repeat the things that I've said. I'm just going to bring up one point that I guess is more of a point of concern from our perceived community feelings. And that is having this developer own the not only this community or this commercial, but also the residential. And that's a concern to me because the applicant has not shown a regard for our comments or the community feeling of this coming in. So that doesn't give me a lot of assurance. I just want to make sure that that's clear. And then quite frankly, we kind of felt betrayed from this council since the planning commission recommended that you reject this proposal, but you didn't. And so we felt like our comments WEREN'T VERY IMPORTANT, WEREN'T VERY VALID, AND I KNOW AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU SEE THEM, BUT IT'S JUST THE PERCEPTION THAT WE HAVE AS A COMMUNITY. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULD JUST ASK, PLEASE LISTEN TO THE COMMUNITY AND OUR FEELINGS AND THE THOUGHTS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE OUR FAMILIES ARE IMPORTANT TO US, THE LOCATION WHERE WE LIVE IS IMPORTANT TO US, AND SO WE, YOU KNOW, would like this to be rejected. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Bibb.

Council, Mayor, my name is Sam Smith. I live on Tiberias and Galilee. I haven't been a neighbor for that long. It's not been forever. It's only been five years. But I have a few questions, if it's okay. I'm not... Opposed to a commercial residential. I am opposed to the c2. I think your instincts Councilman and I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth Bellston was This side of the room seemed to be like hey, we would like control. I think those instincts should be very much paid attention to And would would ask that you would take that under strong consideration that we would like to have control over what goes there as they build. My first question is, is the egress and entrances plans for the commercial property, are they slated to go through Galilee into residential and then commercial? Will there be some, David Ensign, And rolling rich and and the other small streets that go in there are they slated to go into the commercial and, if so, that I absolutely. David Ensign, disagree with Mr smith's comments that it will not increase traffic that's that's silly i've been a resident of Las Vegas i've been a resident of South salt lake i've been a resident of bill creek. ANY TIME WE PUT IN COMMERCIAL, ANY TIME WE PUT IN, I MEAN, THEY COULD, IF IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY COULD PUT A HOME DEPOT IN THERE, CORRECT? I MEAN, CAN YOU IMAGINE?

SO WE'RE GOING TO LISTEN. I KNOW WE BROKE OUR RULES JUST A LITTLE BIT WITH CHRIS, BUT WE'RE LISTENING TO YOUR COMMENTS AND WE'LL RESPOND AFTER ANOTHER COMMENT OR TWO.

OKAY. THANKS, MAYOR STALEY. Imagine a Home Depot there, as far as C2 zoning. Even if you were, from what I heard from the zoning plan, a Beehive Rentals could be there. If you've ever been to Beehive Rentals in the morning, there's 300 people there every morning. And we're talking about the same zoning for this. I wholeheartedly disagree that traffic isn't gonna be affected by that type of zoning. So just to refute that point, I've lived in neighborhoods in commercial that have gone to industrial and had this type of zoning in Las Vegas. Absolutely, the traffic's gone through the roof. We've had to move. So you're asking residents to say, hey, we want increased traffic beyond residential. My second question is, Is there anyone on the Council with a monetary interest in this rezoning? And I'd like that to be made public. I don't know if this committee has a reclusion of a person who has interests to not be able to vote. on this interest. Would be interesting for me to be made public as well. And thank you for your time. Those are the points and things I want to refute. And thank you for being here, council. I appreciate all of you for your time.

Thank you, Sam. Appreciate your comments. Mr. Snow, are you with the applicant?

I am with the applicant.

And I also am the owner of the parcel that is directly to the West. OK. Would you like to give public comment I see. COME ON FORWARD WITH PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN I'LL ALLOW FOR ONE MORE AFTER THAT, AND PUBLIC COMMENT, AND WE'LL GIVE THE APPLICANT AND STAFF A CHANCE TO RESPOND. GO AHEAD, HEATH. JUST A COUPLE POINTS. HEATH SNOW FOR THE RECORD.

TO CLARIFY, I KNOW MANY OF YOU, AND I APPRECIATE IT. YOU'VE GOT A FANTASTIC ATTORNEY, TOO, BY THE WAY. YOU DO. I ALWAYS WISHED I WOULD HAVE HIRED THAD FIRST OUT OF LAW SCHOOL.

OK, I want to shut down his public comment. I'm trying to hire my employees away. I think we're good. Thank you.

Not that at all. But my practice as an attorney, I am a municipal attorney. That's probably 60%, 70% of my practice. I represent small municipalities here in Washington County and special service districts. AND I'VE DONE THAT ALMOST MY ENTIRE PRACTICE. I STARTED AS AN ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY FOR WASHINGTON CITY. WHEN STEVE SNOW AND JEFF STARKEY AND I WOULD ATTEND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS WHEN STEVE GOT REAL BUSY AND JEFF WAS HANDLING THE COUNCIL MEETINGS. SO I KNOW YOUR ORDINANCE IS FAIRLY WELL AND I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE LAND USE PROCESS AND THE LAND USE CODE. I WOULD TELL YOU THIS. I AGREE. I KEEP HEARING THIS BUZZ WORD OF BEST PRACTICES AND FEATHERING. I THINK THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT CONCEPTS. I WILL TELL YOU THIS ABOUT MY PARCEL.

WHICH IS YOUR PARCEL AGAIN? The boons. Okay. All right. Can you point to that with your cursor, Eldon? Right there. Okay.

Okay. My intent has always, I've always been consternated with what to do with this parcel when I purchased it. And I wanted to be respectful of the residents. I knew there were very nice single family detached residences right next to it on one side. But I also knew that from the general plan, there was commercial all the way down to the intersection. And I always thought that my parcel would be a good transition. I think that I don't hold me to it, but my intent would be to probably do residential, but slightly more dense, maybe multifamily or duplexes or something there. But I will tell you this and I will tell all the residents that are out here, I will not have the road connect that stub road. And I can't remember if there's a name for that stuff yet. But I will not have it connect through to commercial, to these commercial parcels. I would do a cul-de-sac type arrangement if there would be duplexes or something like that around that. But I don't, there will not be traffic going through my parcel 260 something, seven feet away. And I anticipate that the developer may do something similar to that to feather on the parcel right above mine. recognizing that there is a boundary with the commercial that it's being proposed. One point of process that I wanted to clarify, and there was some discussion, Council Member Henderson and Council Member Coates had a discussion, so did Council Member Belliston, about a straight C2 rezoning versus requiring the applicant to do a PUDC. Now, I will tell you the reasons why my client, Mr. Smith's client, does not know exactly. They are like master developers. They are not the may not even be the end developer in this. But when you know what you intend and want to do, you are more than happy to do a planned unit development usually because it's easy for you to conceptually lay out what's going to go there. Our client is looking more for the flexibility. And one thing that you guys I'm sure understand in your code, you allow there to be flexed uses within the AP zone, the C1 zone and the C2 zone. So conceivably this 9.14 acre parcel could have uses pulled from any of those zones and put within here. But the reason why there's not, I mean, and if there's something conceptual on like a Collier's listing, that's only to help some prospective buyer or more end developer have an idea of what could be there. It's not what's going to be there. They don't know what's going to be there, but they would like the flexibility and the ability to mix the uses if there needs be. So that's the reason why they've applied for a straight zone. And you also have to remember that when you go through a planned unit development rezoning, there is a lot more input from the council, but the applicant doesn't have to agree to certain things. If they don't want to, they can pull their application IT DOESN'T, IT'S NOT LIKE THE COUNCIL HAS ULTIMATE CONTROL TO SAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT THIS WAY, THIS WAY. IT'S ALWAYS THE LANDOWNERS AND RIGHT. SO I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IN MY OPINION, A STRAIGHT ZONING RECOGNIZING THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL MORE STEPS IN THE PROCESS, A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION CAN GET And staff should for something like this require quite a bit of detail even down to building orientation. And I would hope that buildings would probably you know of any sort of retail use would probably back residential not front or in any way expose those types of things. So there is definitely going to be at least conditional use permit and possibly commercial site plan approvals here that at each of those stages the public will have definitely more specific information on exactly what the developer will do and exactly they will have their input and You guys, when considering that conditional use permit, will have the decision to have the ability to condition it quite well.

Thank you, Mr. Snow. I appreciate that. Thank you, public. We had four public comments and a public comment from another and also kind of representing the applicant as our fifth. So that was great. I'm going to close public comment. And I'm going to turn to some of our staff and council to address some of the issues. Jeremy, is there something you would want to address initially? Otherwise, I've taken some notes and can come pick on your staff.

I don't know if you want to have me or that address the question about conflict of interest that came up.

Yeah, let's start right there. Either one is fine. I mean, my short answer is there is none, but I'll answer it and then that could tell me where I missed.

But any Anybody on the city council or the mayor would have to declare a conflict of interest, meaning that they had a monetary interest in this property. Nobody did. You saw Councilman Coates declared a conflict on item six, which is unrelated to this. And that doesn't necessarily mean they have a monetary interest, but they have some sort of conflict they want to declare. There was no declaration on this item, so there would be no monetary conflict.

Thank you. Thad, would you add anything to that?

The city manager correctly recited the code. I'll just say that that comes from state law that the legislature has passed for all city council members and also from the city policy on conflicts of interest. And so the city manager is giving the specifics from two separate bodies of law that essentially are created to require disclosure of conflicts. WERE THERE A CONFLICT TONIGHT, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED. AND WERE THERE A KNOWN CONFLICT WITH TONIGHT'S MEETING, AROUND THE TURN OF THE YEAR, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE WRITTEN DISCLOSURES THAT EACH COUNCILMEMBER PROVIDES TO THE RECORDER AT THAT TIME. I'M AWARE THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN A DISCLOSURE WITH THIS ISSUE EITHER IN JANUARY OR THIS WEEK. SO NO DIRECT FINANCIAL INTEREST ON THIS PROPERTY.

COUNCILMAN DELLISON? And I know why the question came up, right? Because a week ago in the Planning Commission, I was called out as somehow having some involvement with this. I was out of town. My phone starts blowing up. Hey, what do you know about this? What do you know about that? I don't even know what you're talking about.

Were you on your Harley?

So if you go back in the records.

Councilman, were you on your Harley out of town?

I wasn't actually on the Harley, but I was with a group.

Just want to make sure we got the setting correct.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I just want to bring it up right because apparently on one of these parcels there was a I think it's a second cousin of my dad or a third cousin of my dad has the same last name. He passed away seven or eight years ago. He sold this property a little over a decade ago to another entity. I personally have never had a conversation on any of these parcels from a family ownership or from any sort of a development perspective prior to these applications coming in a couple months ago. So I didn't even know of the familial partnership. relationship until last Wednesday evening.

Is that a required disclosure, that legal opinion?

Well, I was going to compliment the councilman. He's going above and beyond the legal requirements. But I think it's wise where the last name is the same as his. I think it's smart for him to let the public know what he knows about that name and how close he is to it.

While you're talking there, I took some notes from each of the public. WILL YOU TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT GENERAL PLAN, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO, THAD, ELDEN, JEREMY, NEIGHBORHOOD TO COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION THERE. CHRIS ALSO MENTIONED ZONING, FEATHERING AND TRAFFIC. I THINK THE POINT THAT I TOOK AWAY MOST WAS JUST THE CHANGE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND JUST SOME OF THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE GENERAL PLAN. WAS THAT SOME OF YOUR MAIN QUESTIONS, CHRIS? I'M SEEING YOU NOD YES.

So here's the current general plan. Other than the CECOM, which is proposed, we've got low density to the left, medium density to the north, low density above that, and then very low density is the green area. In my opinion, it does buffer and transition into this proposed CECOM that's in line with other commercial developments around the city.

I think that lines into a little bit of Kerry Boone's comments too. Thad, will you speak to the general plan and then timeframe of some of the general plan designation changes and zone changes there?

I'm not sure what you're asking me to do as far as timeframe. The general plan is what it is. That's the way it's been planned by the City Council after public hearings with the residents. The general plan can change by request of the City Council and or citizens. There could be hearings and reconsiderations there. You will see in the general plan that it does reflect feathering. It's probably on a more macro scale because most of the comments have been focused in on just that proposed location and whether there's feathering there. But you'll notice that feathering is both a macro, probably more of a macro concept than it is a micro concept.

And most of the general plan designations L, did you have a timeframe on one of those? We know the history on some of the zone changes.

Yeah, specifically on this piece here, the current C1 zoning that is there, that changed from open space to the C1 back in 2017. Excuse me, that'd be for the general plan. So that general plan has been C1 since 2017. Okay.

That was our last general plan update or at least a general plan update? A larger scale general plan update, yes. Okay. Mr. Nate Boone spoke a little bit about the feelings that the applicant and the elected body were not, for lack of a better term, sympathetic to some of the public comment. Jeremy, would you or one of your staff want to address that issue? What issue are you asking? That's a hard question.

So you get to address it.

Would you repeat the question? So I would like to address it. Go ahead, Councilman Coates. Because I want to let Jeremy off the hook because he's got, you know. No, I hope that the public, we hear your comments. This is a process. I understand a lot of you didn't like what we did. I looked at it as, okay, an applicant has a right to change the general plan. It's general. And it doesn't mean it's 100% done. I heard comments in the planning. I was in the planning commission last week sitting in the back and listened to all the comments there, read all the emails. I feel like we're listening to you. We're trying to come up with, at least me, I'm trying to come up with a compromise for what the development wants and what the local residents want. When I look at this, I am not... I'm not sold on the C2, because I understand that's what they want, but I've never been sold on the C2. But I was okay with being commercial, but what type of commercial? That's why I'm leaning to a PUD, just like we've done with all the other commercial pieces on this stretch of road. We get to decide. We get to be a part of the process, not just decide, right? They get to present their plan. And I appreciate what their council, Heath Snow, talked about. of hey, they want flexibility. Great. I want to know what's going to happen there. And that's how we should look at it because like, was it Carrie that mentioned I live down the street, my house is against that commercial, but that one's a PUD. And when I look at it, I'm like, okay, it's the fear of the unknown. What are they gonna do in my backyard even though it's commercial? I think it's the same fear that these residents are having on this one. Not opposed to commercial, but how do we buffer it? Is it a two-story building back there? Or, hey, it's a one-story, so it mimics the houses and kind of blends. And those are the things you have to look at. That's why I'm concerned about the C2 being stray zone. Yeah, you get some conditional uses, but they're pretty limited of what you can do on a conditional use. A PUD, you're part of the process. Public can come in, give their comments on the process and how it lays it out. That's why I am struggling with a straight C2 zone, because of those reasons. And some of the questions I brought up about the traffic.

Yes, it will change the traffic you're currently used to on George Washington Boulevard.

Guarantee it. It's going to happen. But that road is big enough to handle that amount of traffic. So I understand it's going to change the traffic from what we're used to. I moved out there 10 plus years ago. I guarantee you. I've told all these councils. Now I have to stop every five minutes because everyone else who moved in. Right. It just is what it is as traffic grows. But we plan these roads to handle that amount of traffic. It's just different than what we're used to. And that's the hard part. But with a PUD you get to see what their plan is and see how they lay it out and see how it affects the neighborhood and see how you buffer that neighborhood with commercial aspects or if they decide to throw some townhomes. You can do a mixed use in a PUD zone. It's negotiated zoning. It's not just, hey, I get to do these uses, I'm going to do them, and you can tell me which way I put my dumpster, because that's kind of what you get when it comes to stray zoning. So that's where I'm landing with some of this.

So Nate, and then Sam, does that answer some of your access and traffic questions? Sam, too? I got the thumbs up. Just give me a thumbs up. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Thank you. And then the last one, council or staff, Sam also talked about C1 and C2 uses. We addressed that a little bit. He asked the question specifically about a Home Depot. Does someone want to take a stab at that?

So it would come down to outdoor storage. Home Depot obviously has outdoor storage areas. Ace Hardware has outdoor storage areas. So those would be allowed in a C2 use, would not be allowed in a C1 use. Okay.

So you're saying they would be allowed on the C2?

Outdoor storage is allowed in the C2.

Why, so a couple of questions with that. Why is Star Nursery down below C3 then?

Why are they C3?

Yeah, I mean.

They didn't necessarily have to be C3. Didn't necessarily need to be. That's the zoning.

That answers my question on that. That's the zoning for that person. Brought up was Reynolds, right? So Reynolds would be in C2, not C1. AP zone, typically, we would allow an AP zone right adjacent to residences, correct? No filtering. We've done it in other places where it's an AP zone right next to residence as well.

And, Councilman, explain what you might see in an AP zone.

Well, the kitty corner to Lynn's, the three-story office building that's there is in an AP zone. So that would be allowable in the current zone that's already there, right?

Well, there's R110 to the north, but in a C1, yes.

Sure, in a C1 zone.

Staff would recommend it. You folks decide what's allowable. But yeah, staff would recommend an AP zone next to a residential.

Right. Which is what ended up happening on that parcel over there on the corner of Merrill and 3000 or Sandia. I can't remember what the name of the when it goes to St. George, right? But That's AP's own. That's how that office building got built in that area. Now, personally, between PUD and C1 versus C2, I WOULD PREFER TO GO C1 ON THE WHOLE THING AND IF THEY WANTED TO COME IN WITH THE C2, YOU KNOW, BLOCK THAT OUT AS A SEPARATE SITE AND DO A C2 FOR THAT THAN A PUD BECAUSE OF THE PROBLEM WITH A PUD OF HAVING TO PREPLAN EVERYTHING AND LAY IT OUT AND UNTIL YOU HAVE THE END USERS LINED UP, you don't know how that gets laid out. I mean, a PUD in a commercial zone for a two-acre commercial is a lot easier to deal with because you typically have your end user, you know, where they're saying, hey, we'd like to come in with, you know, five buildings and maybe a C-store. And understand, a C-store is, gas station is allowable under C-1, right? So it's already allowable to be with a C-store. With a conditional use permit. with a conditional use permit, but it's still an allowable use in that zone. But it gives the developer a better opportunity to deal with clients and get the layouts ready before they come into the council. PUD just, they kind of have to have all the answers up front before they have the tenants to fill it. You don't get those answers on the front end. You usually get those later on.

Thank you. Can you show that different access points about how the roads would look for Galilee Way and the other roads? And I don't know what that street name is that the, I can't remember his name.

Sam and John, come up so you can address some of those other access questions that Mr. Smith had.

Yeah, would they be able to do cul-de-sacs on those two roads? And I can't see what the, it's too small to see, but.

Mountain Ridge. Mountain Ridge.

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. I know I know during the planning commission you know some of the conversations were that they would specifically like to see both of those in a cul-de-sac. You could do cul-de-sacs you could do a double knuckle tying rolling ridge down and coming around about.

And we've heard from Heath on the south property.

Right. Right. So there's there's options to keep those from necessarily tying in directly to Antigua. I don't know access points into this proposed zoning change area for commercial and stuff. We're definitely not that far along and stuff. Galilee Way, no, I don't see that. I see that continuing to extend on across the adjacent property straight through and not have any turn south into that commercial property. I don't even think it would probably meet our access management, to be honest with you.

Further questions, Councilman? Councilman Casperson, further questions? You let him off kind of easy.

I'm glad you brought up the cul-de-sac, right? Because as I mentioned before, if you had a half a mile road that you did feathering all the way along, you're adding that traffic through. Whereas if it's a cul-de-sac, you're not You're limiting the traffic that can go out and through back to that other intersection, right, from the commercial side. Whereas I don't think you need as wide of a feathering or as extensive of a feathering, so to speak, if you've created that traffic roadblocks. Does that make sense?

I felt like the comments regarding traffic were well taken. Just one more question for you, John. Do you feel like regard, we don't have a site plan, we don't have ingress, egress set yet, but do you feel that, or would you, in your professional opinion, would you anticipate the majority of that access coming off of George Washington Boulevard?

THAT'S DEFINITELY WHERE YOUR MOST MAJOR ACCESS POINTS WILL BE. I WOULD EXPECT PROBABLY OVER THERE ON THE FUTURE BLUE DASH ROAD AS YOUR OTHER ADDITIONAL BECAUSE THOSE BRING YOU BACK TO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO MAKE TURNING MOVEMENTS BACK TOWARDS SR 7 AND OUT INTO THE LONG VALLEY AREA AND STUFF LIKE THAT. If anything over onto Antigua, I could maybe see one minor access point just simply because trying to move, you know, additional access points for access management, emergency access, stuff like that. But I wouldn't see any major ones on Antigua, no.

Okay. Well said. All right. Mr. Smith, if you'd like to just give you an opportunity to address anything you'd like to, and then we'll turn back to the council for further discussion and or a motion.

Um, Jason Smith with representative the applicant. Um, I think in the last meeting that the applicant said that he was more than happy to cul-de-sac that on the, on the side, um, say that more than half rolling, rolling Ridge lane. He, he said that he would be, he was more than happy to make that a cul-de-sac and not take it all the way through. So, um, to tie to the commercial, um, Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think a Home Depot can go into C2. I think it has to be in a C3. It's too large of a building to be allowed into C2. I guess I didn't realize until this meeting that there's confusion. The general plan is community commercial right now. THEY HAD NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION WHICH ALLOWS C1. WE MADE THE CHANGE TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL SO THAT WE COULD GO TO C2. THIS BODY APPROVED THAT AND THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A CONFUSION THAT I'M HAVING THAT WE'RE GOING BACK TO THE C1 CONVERSATION OF THE PD.

EXPANDED THE AREA AND APPROVED.

YES. The PDC is a really difficult one here. You're going to have some commercial uses, yes, but you're not going to have all of the commercial uses to facilitate a PDC at this point. Or we're going to be doing PDCs and we're going to be amending it time and time again. And so I would ask that you don't go that direction for that reason. The other thing is marketability here. If it's going to be commercial, We need to make it commercial. Just because when they're talking to people and they're saying, oh, yeah, this is commercial, and they look at it, then they go to the plant and they see it and it's not zoned commercial. It's not zoned what they want. That eliminates that. They'd say, well, yeah, we won't go there. finance for this for that reason we need to make a commercial um for my by my opinion if we're going to make a commercial let's make it commercial because it's that's what the general plan says it is we're just following the general plan we want to change it to what the general plan says it is and I GUESS IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. THE CCOM ALLOWS YOU TO ASK FOR THAT ZONING. IT DOESN'T. CORRECT.

That's why, at least on the south portion, we already had C1.

You have it right now. You have it right now. Here's my question, and maybe this is a little bit technical, but if we don't go PUDC, the request tonight is for C2. So the council has two choices if they stick with that. It's either approve C2 zoning or deny it. Is the applicant open to other zoning, would they be open to see one on all parcels or is really the only question the council has to accept or deny the request that you currently have on the table?

I don't know. He wasn't available. So let me see. I don't know if he's able to watch it right now or not. Are you getting any comments?

And if you'll just state your name again.

IF THE REQUEST IS ARE YOU WILLING TO MODIFY YOUR ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION FOR IT TO BE ALL C1, A STRAIGHT REZONE OF THE UPPER PORTION OF THE On the property that question is no. If the question is are you willing to do a PUDC I would probably say I would ask that this be tabled and that we are able to have more of a discussion with the principals of our client. It is very hard to plan and designate you pigeonhole yourself when you go to a PUC when you don't know who you're in, tenants and users, or what buildings should look like or structures should look like. So it becomes much of a challenge. And like Jason says, it's good for his firm because they get to process all of the PUD amendments, PUDC amendments. But we have a different process.

We can zone at PUDC. as just PUDC, and then when there is a plan, you bring it in and get approval of that plan.

We're not, our city allows a little different than other cities where... And I knew that, but I would also say to zone it all PUDC, sometimes it runs afoul or becomes a problem with phased development. You may know what one portion or one or two of the buildings needs to be and roughly look at, but you don't know what the rest of it is. And so... when everything has to be done in a PUDC, it becomes much harder. And I don't know whether the city allows that to be a phased PUDC approval. I think you can always amend stuff.

So can I jump in just real quick? The reason why I suggested C1 is because really the list of uses between C1 and C2 isn't, it's not great. It's not like there's a great many uses that you're going to be excluded from by doing it all C1, but at least that way it's straight zoned so it's not as onerous as the PUD process. I'm fine if you want to table it. I'm fine if you want to C1 it. I'm fine to PUD it.

I'm personally I'm fine with the C2 because you know, I well your general plan, but I Know but I'm also trying to you know, I've got the rest of the council that I can appreciate that And all I would say is that your general plan already indicates that it is community commercial that we just changed Yes, so it's not like it's been there for ten years.

I

I don't think that timing has anything to do with it. Your general plan would control there, and your zone changes should mirror what your general plan says.

But the general plan allows for multiple different zones. It doesn't say that we'll give the most dense zone or the most... We're not asking for C3. Does that make sense? Yeah, I get it. You're kind of indicating that because we made it CCOM, we were indicating that it would go C2, and I'm saying that's not necessarily the case. It allows for that application.

Yeah, however, if it was neighborhood commercial, NCOM, I guess, if you guys use those acronyms, we couldn't apply for a C2 zone. Or a PUDC that has uses that are only allowed in the C2, if that makes sense. I don't wanna get all overly academic with you guys, but there's reasons why, and my clients are, They know what they're doing and it is a matter of flexibility and not having to pigeonhole yourself into a specific layout of buildings and sizes of buildings and renderings of buildings and these things because frankly, that's a lot of engineering and architectural work that will likely be changed depending on who ultimately wants to go

Can I ask just back to C1, C2, right? Yeah. Would it be, I guess, an offensive process if it was C1 and they said, hey, we want to do this one project under C2, and so they brought that portion in as a separate lot in for a C2 zone? Because that, to me, still seems like it's going to be an easier...

EASIER LIFT THAN PD? WELL, I THINK YOU GUYS UNDERESTIMATE OR DOWNPLAYING THE ABILITY THAT YOU HAVE AS A COUNCIL WHEN GRANTING CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS. YOU CAN LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF STRUCTURES. YOU CAN REQUIRE ORIENTATION OF BUILDINGS. YOU CAN DO ALL THE THINGS THAT WOULD HELP.

ALL WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE IS YES, WE CAN. YES. BUT WE CAN'T SAY, WELL, WE DON'T LIKE THAT, RIGHT? WE DON'T LIKE THAT IT'S 45 FEET EVEN THOUGH IT MEETS OUR CODE. We can't say that because the conditional use of the condition and correct me if I'm wrong.

If there are no detrimental effects that will be caused by the development, you can make requirements of that development and it can be everything from moving the trash. Dave Kuntz, receptacle structure over to the other side and using specific types of lights if you're worried about light pollution it's requiring solid block walls to a certain height or something like that, so you can you really can have a lot of control. I DON'T KNOW HOW IN RECENT YEARS THE CITY HAS USED CUPS AND THE CUP APPROVAL PROCESS AND REQUIREMENT PROCESS, BUT FRANKLY I THINK YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING. YOU HAVE ALL THE CONTROL BETWEEN A CUP PROCESS AND A COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN. APPROVAL PROCESS, I THINK YOU'VE GOT ALL THE CONTROL THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IN A PUD. WHEN YOU ASK FOR A PUDC IN A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHEN WE DON'T KNOW THE END USERS, THAT'S LIKE REQUIRING US TO DO A BUNCH OF homework or engineering, civil engineering, structural engineering, architectural, just simple design of renderings and things like that for something that will not likely be what the end product is.

I'm not going to argue with you, Heath. I disagree with you. Okay. And the reason why I disagree with you is because our process allows you to get a PUD approval for the site, and then as you're ready, as you sell the parcels, you bring in the PUD, what you're building, hey, this is what we want to do. I understand you're trying to paper it so you can sell it. I understand that. It makes sense. You want flexibility. You want to say, hey, guys, we have flexibility to do whatever we want here. A PUD, you have flexibility to do whatever you want. And then you get to bring it and we're just a part of the process.

That's the only difference. Craig, and I totally appreciate that. And that is a distinction that Washington City does have. My question would be like to THAAD legally, I don't know if I, I'm familiar enough with your code. Can PUD approvals be granted in phases? Can you segment a parcel that is zoned PUD and do it like specific building site plan by site plan?

So city code generally requires that PUDs present all of the planning and all of the exhibits early on. There's been a history with a prior community development director that would allow a PUD designation with none of that. The city code states that that's a rare circumstance, and it became a bit of a normal circumstance for a while there. And so there's kind of two courses of dealing there. I think the city council with an applicant could reach about, because of the flexibility of PUDs, I think they could reach some agreement with conditions and terms that would allow that. Those would be conditions that aren't in ordinance. And so I might summarize what I think I heard you say is, is perhaps this applicant would agree to a C2 that the council condition is every single structure is submitted under a conditional use permit as well. Is that possibly what you were saying?

That's another way to say it. Or a PUD zone that was blank and allowed us building by building to come in not having to do the entire nine acres as one preplanned SET OF BUILDINGS OR MEGA BUILDING OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW.

IN OUR C2 ZONING, IT SAYS UNDER CONDITIONAL USES, FOLLOWING USES ARE SUBJECT CONDITIONAL USE PROCESS, ANY CONDITIONAL USE LISTED IN AP OR C1 ZONES, ACCESSORY USES IN BUILDINGS THAT ARE INCIDENTAL, AND THAT'S IT. SO WE DON'T HAVE A ROBUST STATUTORY REGIME TO IDENTIFY WHAT are conditional uses. Well, but you do designate that off of George Washington Parkway. It must be. It has to be. And so my proposal might be, The applicant says we would agree as a condition of the zoning decision that every structure be subject to a conditional use permit process, for example.

And I think we already are, but that would be a great way of doing it. I would have no, my client, I'm almost positive my client would have no problem with that.

It feels like the PUD that goes in just building by building, but under a straight zone framework. Yep. Do you have any questions about that?

I think they're already required to do a conditional use permit just based on the probability over 5,000. Isn't it 5,000 square feet, Eldon, that requires a conditional use permit? Correct, or specific roadways. And again, in my mind, it wasn't building by building. It was, hey, here's five acres. Here's the next five, maybe in two pieces. But again, I get they want the flexibility.

Council, it's your opportunity to deliberate. You've got staff here if you have questions.

Mayor, probably the concern that I have at the immediate time is that we have a lot of residents here that they don't fully understand the boundaries of PEDs. They don't know if their concerns are for some of the C1s that would be allowed within a C1, like a hospital or a motel or outside cells, just to name three. Or in C2, you mean. C2, excuse me. And so that's hard, you know, because the way I understand it is you would have to come back through the process again as a PUD. You'd have to do public hearings and everything again, which maybe this warrants it, but I just want to make sure that everyone understands that There could still be concerns with a PUD with the residents that live nearby that would expect us to know exactly what they want in every application, in every instance, which that's not our only concern. We try to balance the laws with our duty as city council members to try to make the choices that are best for residents and for new development. But I just wanted to put that out there for the council to consider that PUD may answer some questions, but I don't think it will answer all of them.

What I heard the applicant's representative say is that they want C2. If C1 is granted, that's a no. So it sounds like those additional uses for the C2 are important to them. And they said if the council wants to consider PUDC, that they would prefer a table. That's what I'm just helping you understand what I heard.

Correct me if I'm wrong. However, if you're willing, if you're asking us and we tonight say we are willing to agree to a blank PUD that allows C2 uses. and each building is done on a conditional use permit basis or a phased or partial PUD basis, we're fine with that tonight. Does that make sense?

Thank you.

I think that's messy.

I think it's way messy too. I'd rather just, I mean, we're not going to do CUPs anyway because of the roadway.

Yeah, it's all going to be CUP anyway.

I'd rather go straight C2. So the code says adjacent to the roadway. I think there might be some argument about which buildings are adjacent to it.

Those parcels run, they have a frontage on the parkway. I think the entire parcel.

Can I ask a question?

Yes.

Part of the conversation is you guys need to talk to your clients, right? Can you suggest a table for two weeks so you have an opportunity to talk to your clients? Because PUD is going to be a whole different set of rules for them.

There's not enough rooftops out there to fully know what should or will go in there. And so this is a matter of the ability to provide what the community and the neighborhood needs as it grows up. And so if you're trying to pigeonhole this property into a fixed set of buildings with some but not all commercial uses in it, then that's going to be much harder. We're willing to step away from the uses allowed in a C3. But we would at least like the flexibility of the uses of C1, C2, and AP.

I'M HAPPY TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS ONE FOR TWO WEEKS. GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO THEIR CLIENT AND SPEND A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME INTO REVIEWING, YOU KNOW, C1, PUD, C2 AND REFINING THAT.

BEFORE YOU DO THAT, THOUGH, CAN I JUST MAKE A COMMENT?

THANKS, HEATH. SURE.

Just in response to some of the comments that were made, I have been on site and looked at the area. I've listened to all the planning commission. I've read all the emails. And I think I can speak for all of us. We really do care about what happens in our community and the impact it has on residents. And with some of the C2 permitted uses, I'm not really comfortable with just having a straight C2 zone there. And if that's the only thing that they're wanting, then I wouldn't want to just have a straight zone of C2. I like the idea of having more input because I have seen other commercial properties that have been developed that are closer to lower density residential, and they've turned out to be really great projects within our city too. And so I think if the residents knew or had an idea of what was coming, And there could be really nice projects, it could be a really nice thing for the neighborhood, but the unknown is what is concerning and how impact the residents and so I don't I wouldn't want to go towards a see to zoning straight zoning here so can.

Tonight, we have an applicant for see to right. We have an application for C2 that can be approved. It can be denied. You can make a motion for another zoning. You can make a motion to table.

I don't think you made a motion yet.

The council can discuss it and make a motion.

The reason why I'm bringing it up is I hate to leave the Planning Commission out of this decision if we're switching zones. It's a big switch. That's all. I'm just trying to say they recommended denial both times, and I understood why they did. We approved the general plan, because it's general. Now we're talking about real entitlements. I kind of wonder if it's not appropriate to go back to the Planning Commission, have them vet the, and maybe it won't change their outcome, I don't know. I just feel like I don't want to circumvent the process of it. Hey, Planning Commission should look at it being a PCD. And I don't know, that's just.

Mayor, if you agree, I would ask that you would have whomever you thought would do this well but share just in the interim share with the visitor or the residents here tonight the process for PUDs and just say this is kind of what it looks like just so that they can do their homework and prepare like everyone else is just so that they can have an idea because PUDs are not common. They're kind of a hybrid but I think that they're can have some comfort in them, but they're not straight zoning.

I thought Councilman Coates gave a good description, but I'm kind of looking at you, Eldon, unless someone else would like to take a stab at that.

Can I say something?

Go ahead, Councilman Henderson.

So, I mean, like Councilwoman Casperson, I went there to that site yesterday for an hour and drove around, you know, different similar sites close by, and I was there for an hour today. looking at it, going around to some other sites. And so there's several commercial sites around that are community commercial, close to this neighborhood. And they're just as close to single family homes as this is. Anywhere from R18 to the big McMansions, there's community commercial. We're right next to them, right in their backyard. And so that doesn't really concern me, the proximity, because we've got several other examples of that just right all over the place. I do like to have consistency. And all of the ones I looked at that were right next to the single family homes, they were all PUDC. And so I do like to have a little bit of consistency. I'm a big believer in property rights, and I don't think that the City Council should control everything right, but we do like to have some input and that's one of the things I like about the PDC is is we do get have a lot have quite a bit of input and. You know, for instance, like we probably wouldn't want to have a tire store right button up against those residences because of the sound of a tire store and things like that so. To me, what I like about a PUDC is it gives us a little bit of input. We're not trying to control property owners, but we also have to take into consideration the residences that are there. And so I like the consistency of maybe thinking of a PUDC or maybe something like you were talking about, Heath, which would kind of accomplish the same thing. just to allow us to have a little bit of input after hearing what the neighbors have to say. But anyway, Eldon.

Those are great comments. I like the term hybrid. The PUDC, it's a hybrid approach into the entitlements of an end use. It's a very hands-on approach. A lot's been said. I don't know if I need to discuss that any further.

So I think that's the question. And I thought Councilman Coates made a good point, too, to what involvement, if we're changing what the applicant's asking for or if the council has an appetite to change that, what involvement does the Planning Commission have against? I think those are some things to consider, Council, while you consider a table versus a straight vote on approval or denial.

The intent is to vote to deny it over not being able to do a PUD. We would ask for the opportunity to discuss it more fully with our clients and have it tabled rather than able to deny it. Thank you.

Can you go to what they're entitled to right now for the zoning? Again.

Like the code, the actual code? Oh, the map of the entitlement.

The zone is over 110 to the north half and see one to the southern half is the entitlements.

So currently this is what they could do. Like if they had something that could go forward with this today.

Correct.

If the I want to be respectful of the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE APPLICANTS AND THE APPLICANTS, RIGHT? I STILL THINK THEY NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, WHICH IS WHY I SUGGESTED A TABLE AT LEAST TO GIVE THEM THAT OPPORTUNITY. IF THEY WANTED TO GO TO A PUD, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I DO THINK THAT WHEN YOU'RE DOING A PROJECT LIKE THIS WHERE YOU'RE TRAILBLAZING SOMEWHAT, SO TO SPEAK, BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT THE ZONING, WE KNOW STAR IS COMING IN, BUT THEY'RE STILL KIND OF TRAILBLAZING AND DOING A NEW COMMERCIAL PROJECT. Having been involved with some of those, they take an incredibly long time to try to get the pieces and parts to come together, which is why the PUD is really difficult. And so if they wanted to go to a PUD, as long as we let them do it in applications of the PUD or sections of the PUD, fine. Otherwise, I think probably the C1 is probably more appropriate. And if they wanted to come in for a C2 use on one of those parcels, bring that in as an individual one.

I think they were pretty clear they don't want a C1. keep bringing it up but they've told us they want they said they don't want to see one i get that they don't know what they want so when they know what they want they can come back and present how about we table it let them have a conversation with their clients and there's not an application in front of you for a c1 right now so that the only application is a c2 there's no application for pud either i i'm kind of agreeing with you that it's not but i'm trying to We'll let Brett make this motion.

I'm happy to entertain further discussion and or a motion. Unfortunately, I cannot make a motion nor vote on this item.

Mayor, I'll make a motion. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE ZONE CHANGE Z-26-14 UNTIL TWO WEEKS FROM NOW. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

DO WE NEED A REASON TO ADD? NOT TO TABLE. I THINK THE PRACTICE THAT WE'VE HAD IS JUST TO SPECIFY THE DATE SO IT'S CLEAR FOR THE RESIDENTS. HAVING BEEN IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS THESE CITIZENS ON THIS TOPIC HAVE HAD A COUPLE TABLELINGS ALREADY, AND SO IF WE'LL JUST STATE THE DATE FOR THE MOTION, I THINK THAT'S A SUFFICIENT DATE AND TIME.

SO IS THAT THE 26th, YOU SAID? SO WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS UNTIL AUGUST 26th.

ALL RIGHT, COUNCIL, FOR CLARITY, THE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN HENDERSON IS THAT WE TABLE ZONE CHANGE REQUEST Z-26-14. UNTIL AUGUST 26TH REGULAR MEETING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVES TIME TO DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION, MAYOR? CLARIFICATION? CLARIFICATION IS THAT IF EITHER WAY THEY GO, IT STILL IS NOT A C2 APPLICANT. SO LET'S IT'S NOT A C2 REQUEST.

SO WOULD IT BE BETTER TO ARE YOU SAYING IT WOULD BE BETTER TO DENY?

I DON'T KNOW. IN MY MIND, IF THE PUD WAS C2 USE, IT WOULD BE COMPARABLE OR C1 WOULD BE CONSIDERED A DOWN ZONE FROM THE C2, I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH EITHER OF THOSE. I'M JUST TRYING NOT TO EXCLUDE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

RIGHT NOW THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS TO TABLE THE REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE TO C2 FOR TWO WEEKS. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, WHICH MEANS WE WILL GO WITH A ROLL CALL VOTE BEGINNING WITH COUNCILMEMBER BELLESTON.

AYE.

HENDERSON.

AYE.

COATS. NAY. IVEY. AYE. CASPERSON.

NAY.

The motion to table for two weeks passes on a vote of three to two. Thank you, everyone. Now we'll get to the item that you're all here for tonight, which is item 5B. No, you're not here for item 5B. You're all here for 5A. Thank you for being part of the process. It can get a little messy sometimes, but we want to get it right. Thank you. Item 5B, this is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-15 from open space to I-2, located at Sunrise Valley Industrial Park on Foundry Drive. I will note that we did receive no electronic public comment on this item. nor was there a public comment at the Planning Commission. Community Development Director Eldon Gibb will present to the council on item 5B. Mr. Gibb.

Thanks, Mayor. The proposed property is approximately 11.76 acres and currently designated as open space. This particular location has a general plan designation of industrial with the surrounding zoning of industrial. And the purpose is to develop this land into industrial development. The proposed zone change is in the hillside overlay zone, which was reviewed by that criteria on December 4th, 2025, and then removed from the hillside overlay during the January 28th of 2026 city council meeting with the condition that the construction drawings be approved by the hillside review board on August 5th, the planning commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval. with the findings as stated in staff report. That concludes my involvement. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions for Eldon?

Eldon, do you like PUD on this parcel too? I would not be in favor of PUD at this location. It's a little joke. Rick's for it.

TOO SOON.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

RICK SAT HERE ALL NIGHT.

HE DOES NOT WANT TO COME UP.

HE'S SMART ENOUGH TO KNOW. GO AHEAD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE NORRITZ ZONE CHANGE Z-26-15 FROM OPEN SPACE TO I-2 LOCATED AT SUNRISE

VALLEY INDUSTRIAL PARK ON FOUNDERY DRIVE.

I REVIEWED THIS, AND I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION, TOO.

WE'VE GOT A MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN CASPERSON, A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN IVEY. IT'S AN ORDINANCE, SO WE'LL GO ROLL CALL VOTE BEGINNING WITH COUNCILMEMBER HENDERSON. AYE. COATS. AYE. IVEY. CASPERSON. AYE. BELLESTON. AYE. THAT ITEM IS APPROVED ON A VOTE OF 5-0. Thanks, Rick. It's nice to see you here once in a while. We should have put you ahead of the last one. Tara, next time Rick comes, put him at the front of the line. ITEM 6A IS THE RESOLUTION. CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH GREEN SPRINGS WASHINGTON LLC AS IT WAS FORMALLY OFFICIALLY NOW KNOWN AS THE SOLENTE PROJECT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 1 MILLION GALLON IRRIGATION WATER STORAGE TANK. THIS WAS DISCUSSED THOROUGHLY IN THE WORKSHOP SESSION. AND WAS THE REASON WE WERE A LITTLE BEHIND IN THE REGULAR MEETING TONIGHT. WHO'S PRESENTING ON THIS ONE? BLAKE FONSBECK, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. WE'LL PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL ON ITEM 6A.

In the work session, got to the point where we kind of were talking about questions, talking about going to the district as well and asking them to participate in this and helping with the cost. But we do have we do have money in our reserve funds for this. So if they do not participate, we can fund this. And so I think we're just to that point where this resolution is to basically have the Solente development, build the pieces that are in their development. There's other pieces that are outside of that that we would then build in phases. But this would allow then us to move forward with the Irrigation Master Plan to get those pieces in place to really start being able to serve parts of the community with irrigation water. and then get it so that we can get the tank built in the timeframe that's allowed for that kind of last site that's available.

I like that. I might also just make one comment. We've spent quite a few months working through this agreement with the developer and Thad and Blake. reviewed all the exhibits. We've been through quite a bit to make sure that this is what we want and what they're what they're comfortable with. So I think we just don't want to make it seem like this agreement came out of nowhere. We've spent quite a bit of time getting to this point.

So Jeremy, do we do a financial review as well to make sure that the numbers that we're reimbursing that they that it's kind of looked and looked twice. Yes.

Yeah, we've gone through engineers estimates on this, but it will be actual reimbursable costs. So they will actually do the construction and then we reimburse that based on the actual cost for the project.

Jeremy, the projects are all bid, correct? Like they're all bid out and presented the numbers to Public Works to review. Correct. Yeah, go through a bidding process. Yeah.

Further questions on this item for Blake? Further discussion on related topic on? I don't think so. Thank you, Blake. Council, turning to you now for further discussion and or a motion on item 6A.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve item 6A for the consideration to approve the Resolution for Public Improvement Reimbursement Agreement with Green Springs Washington LLC. KNOWN AS THE SALENTE PROJECT AND THE WASHINGTON CITY.

I HEARD THE MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COATES. IS THERE A SECOND?

I'LL SECOND THAT. I JUST STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN ON THE REPAYMENT STUFF, BUT I'M SURE STAFF'S KEEPING A CLOSE EYE ON THAT, SO I'LL SECOND IT.

For the motion and the second will go. This is a resolution, so we'll go roll call vote beginning with Council Member Ivy Casperson. Belliston Henderson Coats. That is approved unanimously. Will move on to report of officers from assigned committees. Sorry with Council Member Belliston.

I don't have any this week. Councilman Henderson? I don't have any, Mayor. Thank you. Councilman Coates?

Well, Councilman Bellison doesn't have any because he played hooky and made me be chairman of the Flood Control Authority, so I appreciate that.

You're welcome.

It was a great meeting. One of the things they talked about was the fescue problem in the rivers and how they're trying to attack them differently. It's the cattails. They're an invasive species to our rivers, and they're I mean, there's a whole bunch. They give us a whole packet. And I'm like, okay, they're cattails.

I feel like you have enough to worry about.

They introduced something new. But what they're trying to do, one of the things they're doing is they haven't updated their master plan in a lot of years and how they attack the river on certain things with the tamarisk and the fescue is kind of a new thing. But they're trying some new processes. They said, bear with us. We're hoping, because the problem is that stuff spreads very fast and it chokes off the river really quick. So they're They're working on a process, either grind it down or kill it off, but the big thing is they try not to grind it down because it just gets into the soil and then goes faster. I had a project once that we paid the contractor five grand to remove it, and by the end of the project, it was already growing back. And I'm like, well, that was a waste of five grand. We were trying to clean it up, and it just didn't stop. So that's one of the things they're working on is how they deal with the... those type of plants because it's kind of a new one. But they are attacking it in phases. And I think Washington will be next year, not this year. This year is like Santa Clara and stuff like that. So how do they treat it? It's like, is it a herbicide application? It's like a chemical, but they cut it. But the one thing they notice is that they can't leave it. They have to cut it and take it out. So they cut it, remove it, and then they try to get to the root system and kill the root system. and kill it right there and not, like if you just grind it up and spread it, it'll just spread out. And they admit they don't know everything that's going on, but they do know that it is a working progress, but they've had some success. with their ace crews to go in and work on so we've got cattails and tamarisks yes that are both invasive anything and the thing they're noticing is it's starting to choke off like the the trees down in the river and stuff like that a little bit too so yeah it's not good but that was the flood control power board i missed power board because i was at flood control but i think it was normal stuff and then I didn't have a solid waste this week. It was supposed to be on Tuesday, but they canceled the meeting because the majority wouldn't be there. So I'll fill you in in two months.

I don't even know how to do the math on what a majority is for that board. 11, 21-member board, 11 members, and half of them are at some school thing. I don't even know what it was. I'd have to get Brian Brown to do the math still on that one for me. Well, that's pretty bad considering we have an accounting degree, but that's okay. Get a quorum. That's all I have. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Ivey. I don't have anything tonight. Councilwoman Casperson. I don't have anything either. We'll go to city manager report.

Dave Kuntz, I have a couple of items mayor rusty ransom July numbers for our commercial I just thought it was interesting i'll send the full details in my Friday email but. Dave Kuntz, Last month in July Washington city had approximately 1.5 million non resident visits, I mean, I think, sometimes we don't realize how many people end up in our Community from other communities 17.3 million over the last 12 months. which is up about 4% year over year. And I'll show you the numbers. It will show what areas they're visiting, what areas are up. So we get about 700 to 800,000 visits per month at the Green Spring exit 10 commercial area. We know that. We know how busy that exit is. But we're also seeing now increased visits on the Buena Vista commercial area where Panera Bread and some of those new developments are. Those have increased 13.5% over the past year. But we're also seeing increases now on Washington Dam Road and some of the new businesses that have gone in there. And that's a good and a bad. We see that from some of our residents. Dave Kuntz, it's an interesting area, but a lot more industrial and even even commercial are going in that area, so. Dave Kuntz, I think those numbers just reinforce that Washington city is becoming a regional commercial Center we recognize that with some of these roads we've built with. Dave Kuntz, With interchanges and we dealt with some of that tonight, but it is starting to spread to newer areas of the city and those changes are happening so it's kind of interesting to see how all this comes full circle. The second item I just like to mention we've officially I think all of you know but I publicly announced we've hired Brittany McMichael as our city's first as far as I know assistant city manager. She brings more than 24 years of experience with Washington County. I think all of us are aware of her and her track record. She has strengths in leadership budgeting strategic planning staff development partnerships economic incentives. So she's done a lot with the county in her 24 years there. We're working on the transition and some of the organizational changes in preparation for her starting, which will be September 14th. So we're excited to have her on our team. And if you see her, congratulate her on that position.

Thank you, Jeremy. Yeah, it's a great hire. Well done. It's too late to come back. That's funny.

we do not so so how many more good employees can we steal from the county then probably a lot right now no she she is i had i i said that as a joke to her um but she is truly excited to come over here so it was nothing about um any any frustrations with the county it was it was a great opportunity for her to come over here and um bring her talents and expertise to our city.

And she has to work with you for almost six months anyway, so she's going to get that opportunity. Three months.

It'll feel like six. No, I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. You're going to do wonderful over there. And really, we we're excited. We're excited to have her. And honestly, Councilman Bellison, we're going to miss you, too. When you take on your new role as commissioner, it's we're honored to have one of our own be over there. And I think honestly, with Brittany, I THINK SHE SEES THE GREAT THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING HERE IN WASHINGTON. WE'VE GOT A GREAT CULTURE. WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MOMENTUM. THE FUTURE IS VERY BRIGHT HERE.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF COUNCILMAN BELLISON IS LEAVING US. HE HAS ANOTHER ELECTION.

I THINK THE ODDS ARE THAT HE'S GOING, BUT THERE'S AN OUTSIDE CHANCE. We do not have need for a closed session, so I'll turn to you for a motion for adjournment. So made. Motion by Councilman Belliston. Second. Second by Councilman Coates. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? We are adjourned. Air gavel.