Council Meetings - Regular Meeting

Everyone to the Washington City Council meeting or regular council meeting for August 26, 2026. Public notice is hereby given that the Washington City Council will hold a public electronic regular meeting on Wednesday, August 26, 2026 at 6 p.m. hosted at Washington City Hall located at 11 North, 100 East in Washington, Utah. The meeting will be broadcast via YouTube and it will also be linked online and it's on our website at washingtoncity.org backslash meetings if you'd like to review that after the meeting. Make mention that the agenda changed from its original postings. We found something that was more efficient to move it, but nothing was added or taken away. It's just a different post, and we did post it within the time limit after that correction was made. I would like to excuse, or we would like to excuse Mayor Staley tonight He's spending some time with his new grandson and his son and daughter-in-law down in Arizona for some much-needed R&R for him. So we hope he's having a good time down there. Tonight, we are delighted to have with us tonight for the invocation Reverend Celeste Lasich. Is that right? Did I say it right? How cute, Lasich. Yes, that's not you. Oh, well. I got some old notes here. Would you introduce yourself when you come up to give us the invocation? Thank you so much. Come on up.

Good evening. I'm Father Robert Willman, the rector of Grace Episcopal Church in Cedar City. It's a pleasure to be here tonight. Thank you.

Time for prayer? Yes. Let us pray.

Direct us, O Lord, carry us on by thy gracious assistance so that all our prayers and our works may begin in thee and through thee be happily ended. God bless us all. God bless Washington City. God bless America.

Amen. Amen. Thank you so much for being here and sharing that wonderful prayer. We'll now have a Pledge of Allegiance that will be led by Blake Fonsbeck, our Public Works Director.

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

Make mention that we have no need for closed session. So council, if you would like to approve the agenda as outlined or make.

Mayor Pro Tem, I'll make that motion to approve the agenda as outlined.

Thank you, Councilman Coates. Second? Second. Second by Councilman Henderson. Roll call, Councilman Belliston. Second by Belliston. SECOND BY BELLISTON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. HENDERSON? AYE. KASPER? AYE. AND AYE. I'M AYE AS WELL. IN WAY OF ANNOUNCEMENTS, WE HAVE THE WONDERFUL CELEBRATION OF LABOR DAY COMING UP ON SEPTEMBER 7TH. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE MANY GRAND CELEBRATIONS AROUND HERE, BUT THEY SURE HAVE A NICE ONE IN LINCOLN COUNTY, NEVADA. If you want to travel a little bit, they have a really nice celebration over there for Labor Day. Council, anything to declare tonight? Declaration of abstention and conflicts on any of our current agenda items.

Mayor Pro Tem, item 5A and B, I have a conflict and I'll be stepping down from the podium.

Thank you, Councilman Coats. So noted. Next item is the consent agenda that consists of approval of minutes, CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF AUGUST 12, 2026. MAYOR POTEMO, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS OUTLINED. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BELLESTON. SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN HENDERSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THE AGENDA IS APPROVED. TONIGHT WE HAVE FOUR ORDINANCES. WE'RE GOING TO run 5A and 5B together. I'm going to read each of them separately. We will discuss them together, and then we will vote on them separately. The difference is 5A is for a general plan amendment. 5B is for a zone change. So on 5A, consideration to approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-26-03. from open space to low density. And this is located at 1608 North, 590 West. The applicant is Jeff Mathis. And Ellen Gibb will be presenting on that. And then on Ordinance 5B, this one, as I said, will run with 5A. This is consideration to proven ordinance for zone change Z-26-17 from open space OS to R-110. Located 1608 North, 590 West in that cap. Applicant again is Jeff Mathis. Our Community Development Director, Eldon Gibb, has this presentation.

Thank you, Mayor Brotem. Council, good to be here. You can see this highlighted piece of property there. It's 0.83 acres. And when the land adjacent to this proposal was developed approximately 2005, 2006. SITLA owned this land and it was not included in that original development. Since this time, the land has sold off and the applicant is pursuing a general plan and zone change application or amendment. The applicant is proposing to change the general plan land use map from open space to low density for the purpose of developing the site into a single family residential lot. The applicant has noted in the application that they intend to build a single family home. Which would be a single story with the walkout basement this property is in the hillside overlay and on April 20 2026 the hillside review board reviewed development plans and recommended approval. NOTING THE LAND BE GRADED FOR A WALKOUT BASEMENT ALONG WITH ALL PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS BE CONSTRUCTED WITH NATURAL MATERIAL THAT BLENDS IN AND MATCHES THE SURROUNDING LAND. WITH THIS ITEM CONCERNING ITSELF WITH THE GENERAL PLAN, IT SHOULD BE KNOWN THAT THE ZONING DESIGNATION ALSO NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, WHICH MAYOR PROTEM CALLED OUT. AND THAT ZONE CHANGES TO GO FROM OPEN SPACE TO R110 AS WELL. for the .83. On August 5th, 2026, the Planning Commission reviewed both the general plan and zone change request and recommended approval, noting the home should consist of a single story with walkout basement and the storm drain inlet on the property be reviewed by Public Works as outlined above and shown in the exhibits. That concludes staff report. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME. COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ELLEN?

I DON'T HAVE ANY RIGHT NOW.

COUNCILMAN BELLESTON?

I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. MAYBE JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A REITERATE. BECAUSE THE LAST ONE THAT CAME THROUGH WHERE THE ZONE CHANGE AND GENERAL PLAN WERE DONE THE SAME NIGHT, SAME THING. JUST FOR CONSISTENCY'S SAKE, I'D LIKE THEM you know if we do it here we ought to have a good reason you know when we deny it to other people because it'd be great on all applications to come in and do two at once but a lot of them we separate them out right so um other than that i don't have any questions thank you okay um we're gonna invite the uh the applicant up

How are you? Good. How are you guys? Jeff Mathis, MRW Design Associates. Really what we were brought into this to look at was to see the feasibility of building a house on this lot. Well, we had the contours and the survey done. Everything looked great with the walkout basement. Obviously, we have to tuck it up close to the cul-de-sac. But the way the grades work out and try to not build too huge of a home, but I think what would be acceptable for this community actually fits on the site. So as far as we're concerned, it's a very feasible site. And the questions and comments that we had from the planning commission, and there was quite a bit of public comment during that planning commission, we were able to address those. And I think we have a good solution for this. Okay.

So quick question. It's 0.83 acre. Are you guys looking at grading the whole site?

No.

Or half of it or a third of it? I mean, it's a pretty good size.

Yeah, what it would look like, I mean, as far as, it would probably be like a 50. So really at the top of the cul-de-sac on the north side. You could have a three-car garage. The third car, bigger garage, could be right up, tucked up against that side. Obviously, the setbacks would be applicable at that point. And then a two-car garage, and then the rest of the house can kind of tuck in. We did have a survey on the storm drain line, Planning Commission brought up, and we can fit it. You know, we're talking a 25 or 2,800 square foot footprint. So that'd be a main floor and a basement, right? So it's not, but it wouldn't, I mean, I would say, Troy, we'd probably be like maybe 50 feet at the widest part of that cul-de-sac pushing to the east. And I actually drove by the site again on my way here tonight just to double check what we were looking at. And with the walkout basement, it wouldn't be, There would be some retaining walls that have to come around there if they do the stacked rock walls that match the landscape. But it wouldn't push, it wouldn't, I mean, yeah. The whole idea at this point is just to keep it as tight as we can to the cul-de-sac and not try to bleed clear out to the edge of the property.

Okay.

Additional questions?

The general plan change and the zone change, Eldon, is just for the 0.83?

Correct. Can I just make note that I was actually involved in that hillside review as well, and the only grade that is 30% or greater was man-made for the roadway? Yeah, right on the edge there. It's got the rock-lined edges around the cul-de-sac, yeah. Yeah, and you're good with a walkout?

Yeah, it's really, I mean, it makes the most sense, and the owners, I think that we're all on board with that.

i think that's what makes makes the most sense too for the for the neighborhood and the neighbors as well so we appreciate you seeing that and recognizing that so sure thank you anything additional counsel that you'd like to hear from mr mathis okay thank you very much so the uh Public hearing for this item was held at Planning Commission, and there were comments taken there. There's also been public comments that have been distributed. The council is very good at reading those and being aware of them and making notes on those things. If there was someone here tonight that would allow one, maybe two people to come up that didn't have a chance At that hearing, it come to my attention that there were some that maybe wanted to make a comment here tonight. We would limit it to one or two. Is there anyone here that would like comment to this item?

All right, thank you.

So, council, I will refer this back to you for a motion or whatever you prefer.

Any separate motions or?

Yeah, we're going to do 5A would be considered first, the general plan amendment, and after that, the zone change.

May I?

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.

Just on the Constitution here, mayor's gone, so our chairman of the meeting is not here. Councilman Ivey's the acting mayor pro tem. If we met tonight, he's able to vote as a council member, make motions as a council, and that he's performing the pro.

And it's like a mayor with benefits.

Exactly.

Yeah, that's what most mayors want.

We do have a quorum We have more than three so so we don't have to have we do have the potential of a tight vote here But we don't have to have you know, everybody vote the same We've got enough that there can be a very variance in your viewpoints that what would happen in the case of a tie just so the audience knows a tie without a tiebreaker is a failure to pass and

Councilman Bellston. If you're ready for a motion, I'll make a motion that we approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-26-03 from open space to low density located at 1608 North, 590 West.

Thank you. There's a motion. Do we have a second? I'd like to make a second, but can I have a minute to explain?

So this is a little bit of a hard vote for me. Sometimes when you're on the city council and something's close to your neighborhood, it really is hard and it hits home. And so the people on this cul-de-sac are very good friends of mine. I just live right close by. And so I know it's tough. It's tough when there's changes that happen in your neighborhood. I really hate to see those beautiful red rocks get covered up. But I want to talk to you a little bit about my perspective on it, just so people in the neighborhood know why I'm voting the way I am. So I've lived up in that neighborhood for 47 years. As far as I know, myself and my parents have lived north of the freeway longer than anybody that currently lives up there. We moved there 47 years ago. When we moved up there, the few roads that were up there were all dirt roads and so there was no pavement up there. And so, you know, 45 years ago, All of the red rocks north of my parents' house, all of that beautiful red desert up there was our playground. And we played up there. We hiked up there. Along the Mill Creek Gully there, we had access. We could go access the gully anytime we wanted to. It was beautiful. We used to hike up to all of the springs that were up there that have since been covered up by development. And so, you know, for the last 47 years, every single subdivision, every single house that has gone in there, you know, has taken a little chunk of our beautiful Red Rocks away, right? But those property owners, and during that whole time, there's been many zone changes, many general plan changes, you know, that's just kind of what happens. But every one of those property owners up there had a right to develop the property that was theirs. And when they purchased the property, whether it was from the state or whoever, they then gained those rights to develop the property if it was in reason, if it made sense. And so as much as I hate to see those red rocks get covered up, And I can feel the pain of the neighbors. You know, there's that open space there that's going to disappear. I understand because I've been seeing that happen for 47 years. But I also understand that when somebody buys a piece of property, they then inherit the property rights to develop that and to build a house on it. And so this property owner has every bit as much right to build a house on that property as every other property owner that's built up there for the last 47 years. So it's a hard vote for me, my good friends, my neighbors, to say yes to this house. But I kind of feel like to be consistent with what's happened up there for the last 47 years. We can't let thousands of people build houses up there and then say no to this guy that just bought a piece of property up there. I feel your pain about the pain that goes along with development because none of us like change. But this person has the right to develop just like we all did. I mean, the house that I live on was once open space. The house that my parents live in that's 48 years old was once open space. And so our perspective kind of starts when we move here, right? So my perspective started 47 years ago. Some people, their perspective starts last year when they moved here. But as a city council, we kind of have to look at the whole spectrum. We have to look at all of it, and we have to look at people's rights. We have to balance the needs of the city against the needs of the immediate neighbors and stuff like that. So anyway, that's why I'm going to second that, Mayor Potem.

Thank you for your comments. Well, I would venture to say, well said, but I would venture to say you got a lot of good friends out of it, too.

Absolutely. I wouldn't trade it for anything. So some of the people that have moved in up there north of the freeway are the best people in the world. So we have welcomed all of them with open arms. So thank you.

Thank you, Councilman Henderson, for your comments. Appreciate those. We have a motion from Councilman Belliston and a second by Councilman Henderson. We're going to do a roll call vote starting with Councilman Henderson.

Aye.

I am and I as well. Councilman Casperson.

Aye.

And Councilman Belliston. Aye. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. Now we're, Council, if you'd like to make a motion on B for the zone change at this time or if you need further discussion or.

I'll make the motion to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-17 from open space to R-110 located at 1608 North 590 West and I just want to quickly say to I we built our house We were the one of the few homes left on our street And we build our house and and it looked like it had been once used as a bicycle track for kids and then across our street We have an open lot that has we have a really great view but we know that one day our we're gonna have neighbors across the street and and You it's bittersweet because you look forward to having those new neighbors, but you also there's parts of it that you will miss too. But I agree with what you shared about property rights and the entitlements that individuals have to build their homes. So thank you for sharing those.

Thank you, Councilman Casperson, for your comments. We have a motion by Councilman Casperson. Second. Second. Second by Councilman Henderson. We're going to do a roll call vote starting with me. And I am an aye. Casperson? Aye. Belliston?

Aye.

And Henderson?

Aye.

That motion carries unanimously. Brings us to our next ordinance. We welcome Councilman Coates back to the dais. 5C, which is a continuation. OF CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR ZONE CHANGE Z-26-14 FROM C-1 AND R-110 TO C-2. IT'S LOCATED AT ANTIGO LANE AND GEORGE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD. COUNCIL, ANY COMMENTS OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE START THIS PROCESS? I KNOW IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. ANYTHING WE WANT TO CLARIFY OR DISCUSS BEFORE WE BEGIN THE PROCESS?

THE PROPOSED CHANGES THEY SUBMITTED TO THE COUNCIL SO THE PUBLIC CAN SEE THEM.

THERE THEY ARE. OKAY. SO WE WILL START WITH OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, ELDEN GIBB, WILL PRESENT ON THIS ITEM AND THEN WE WILL GIVE THE APPLICANT A CHANCE TO SPEAK TO IT AS WELL. THANK YOU.

Council, you can see here this is the property concerning itself. This item was tabled during the August 12th. We have the applicant time to discuss on their side and take into consideration those comments. They have come back with an amended site plan. We'll pull up here. You can see the front half, 6.07 acres. When I say the front half, that's the piece adjacent to George Washington Boulevard. asking to keep that C2 and then the back portion, the map shows 3.07 acres of C1. This is the amended site plan from two weeks ago.

So Eldon, can you read off the differences between C1 and C2 just for the record so we can see, so the public can see what the differences are?

I have a condensed list of differences. There's five different uses from going to the C1 to the C2. And it starts with once you jump into the C2, you're then allowed to do retail and or wholesale and or rental of goods, merchandise, and equipment, which may include storage and display outside an enclosed building. It then lists some examples of those types. It also includes hospitals. HOTEL OR MOTEL, MOTOR VEHICLE TRAILER CAMPER AND RECREATIONAL VEHICLE SALES AGENCIES, AND LASTLY, STATE APPROVED AND OPERATED LIQUOR STORES.

BUT, ELDEN, ALL OF THOSE USES STILL WOULD HAVE TO HAVE for both parcels would have to have conditional use permits, correct? Because they're adjacent to George Washington Boulevard.

Great comment, yes. Regardless of the use, it would be a conditional use permit on this property.

Would you consider the entire site subject to the CUP or only the stuff along George Washington Boulevard?

Because when you say adjacent to, the entire parcel's adjacent. I would consider it all adjacent to.

I WOULD MAYBE, I MEAN, I, YOU KNOW, FIRST OFF, THIS LOOKS TO ME A LOT BETTER THAN WHAT CAME LAST TIME. THIS ADDRESSES A LOT OF MY CONCERNS TO HAVE THE C1 UP THERE, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTIAL. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO, I MEAN, SOMEBODY COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO, IF WE GO AHEAD AND PASS THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IN THERE THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WOULD pertain to this whole property. Because I think in the future, somebody could make the argument that, well, they're two different zones. And you could maybe make the argument that only the C2 is adjacent to. So I would like to maybe just specify that in a motion.

I think you could do that as a condition to the approval. And I don't think the applicant would have a problem with that.

Ellen, can you scroll to the next? Exactly, because you got this 1 in the next 1. Right there on the West of that shows a cul-de-sac. No, they're not. And they're showing that on there and it's been proposed, right? Going to be part of the, it's not part of this application, right? Correct. Yeah, that's just a possibility of how that. Somebody trying to talk in.

had someone join online for a second i just had to mute them sorry about that okay thank you well then would you mind um showing the zoning map and what their entitlements are currently and then thad would you mind talking about um at this point in zoning what they already have approved what they could do now because there were some comments that were made um via email that they were told that there's gonna only be residential properties behind them. And so I don't know if you wouldn't mind, if you wouldn't mind talking a little bit about what they could do with this site right now, what legally they have the right to do right now.

Sure. One thing we hear over the years in city government is folks that have been told something about their property. Usually it comes from the real estate industry about views or open space or fields And I am not saying that they were lies when they were told but there is there is a a trend of statements being made at the time of sales of properties that don't necessarily have any authority to to require those things going forward and so zoning is a good example a City Council could come in 1995 and zone these lots something and while it is true that in 1995 those Lots have whatever rights that zoning allowed at that time a city council could come back 10 years later and change those zone designations and the uses that are allowed would change with that. And so just like the development world where views can change if somebody buys the empty lot that your view crosses or open space can change if the state agency that owns lands for the schools decides to sell those lands to make money for the schools. Zoning can change as well. So today where it stands, the zoning is R110, which is a residential zone that allows residential uses. The 10 indicates a number that relates to the amount of density that's in there. And there's a number of ways that you can accomplish that. Most commonly in R110, it's just a single standalone home on a lot. C1 is a commercial zone. You can do lesser uses in the commercial zone. But C1 and the label of the 1 is essentially a limit on the uses to the C1 category and nothing that's of a bigger nature or a more robust nature like an industrial use. It is Washington City's practice to allow C1 type zoning along major collector roadways like George Washington Boulevard. And so that C1 would not be considered to be out of place as it relates to other major collector roads that the city's cities, you know, identified on its transportation plans and then brought into existence. Does that answer the question you had for me?

Yes, thank you. Well, that C1, C2, C3, well, I mean, we got C3 on the south side of that road, right? Correct. So along that road is going to, you know, would be appropriate. I think, I appreciate that the developers kept YOU KNOW, THE SINGLE FAMILY TO THE NORTH, SINGLE FAMILY TO THE WEST, THE OTHER OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS COMMITTED TO KEEP THAT, YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL AND IN A CUL-DE-SAC OR SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T TIE BACK THROUGH SO THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE FORCED INTO THAT INTERSECTION OR OUT ON TO GEORGE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THOUGH, THAT GEORGE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD, THE CONTRACT was at St. George City, let out the contract to go from River Road to the new bridge that's being built right there by the Dixie Center. So by March of next year, Dixie Drive is going to connect all the way through to SR7. So we need to be prepared for that. We probably need to revisit the area as far as signaling and whatnot down the road and have a plan for that in the upcoming future. I THINK THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO AND FROM GEORGE WASHINGTON AND NOT CERTAINLY THE DEVELOPER AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER SAID THEY'RE GOING TO LIMIT THAT COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC THROUGH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU.

THAT'S A GOOD COMMENT. THAT'S GOING TO BE A MAJOR EAST WEST ROUTE FROM I-15 TO SR 7 AND IT'S MUCH ANTICIPATED WITH THE COUNTY

TO THAT END, I THINK, JOHN, WAS IT THE 2002 MASTER PLAN OR 2005? 2002 WAS THE FIRST TIME IT CAME ACROSS TO HERE AND THEN COMMERCIAL WAS 2007 WHEN THIS AREA STARTED, I GUESS, GETTING IDENTIFIED AS COMMERCIAL FOR THAT AREA. SO IT'S BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR QUITE SOME TIME.

Can I ask a question. Absolutely. In some of the you know we read all of the emails that come we really do and we appreciate the input from the neighbors on all of the issues that we look at you know over the years and a lot of people talk about traffic and a lot of the comments are you know these roads weren't made for for traffic. I'm wondering Councilman Ivey if we could have John maybe just come up and Tell us a little bit about this particular road, how wide it is, and was it built for heavy traffic? Tell us a little bit about that, John.

Absolutely, Councilman Henderson.

John, would you? My understanding is out of all of the roads that we have, this is the second largest type of road that we can have in our city. Is that correct?

John, you know we have to have you up here if you're in the audience. You have to come up, so look excited about it.

Always, always happy to come up here. Yeah, you're correct. George Washington is a major arterial. It's our second highest classification. You can see where Long Valley Road's coming in. That's our highest as a major arterial, so. With the minor material, that's an 85-foot right-of-way. Basically, we were able to put five lanes in there. It's definitely meant to handle the amount of traffic that is going to be traversing this from SR7 all the way to I-15 on over into Dixie, Dixie Drive and around into St. George.

So this was planned years ago to be a road that has a lot of traffic on it, right?

Yeah, I was able to track it back to the 02 master plan and it was scheduled in there as a minor arterial from that point going forward.

Okay, thanks.

It's a major collective north-south of Blue Dash. Yeah, the Blue Dash. Sorry, I didn't have my microphone on. That's a 66 foot right away, major collector. Is that a three lane then? That would be three lane.

Would we require the west road be similar to three lane?

Antigua's been, went in as a, just as a standard residential.

To the north, but wouldn't, with it being commercial, would we require it to be wider?

We would probably look at it now as having it be wider now, possibly as a commercial local, yes.

And then transition down to a neighborhood road when you get to it. Correct.

Bart, you said to the west. Which one are you referring to, Antigua? I'm talking the west, I don't know, the west side of the property. I'm just wondering what size of road. Well, both of those property owners are proposing cul-de-sacs, so you wouldn't have a road.

I'm not talking that. I'm talking the road that goes north and south that's on the west side of the proposed property. Because right now, there's not a master plan road on it. But with it being commercial, I was wondering what size it was required to be. Because I would assume that because it's commercial, it's just a touch bigger than a residential neighborhood. Instead of the 50-foot right-of-way, you'd bump up to a 60, probably, instead of a 66, which is on the east side of the property.

Yeah, the east side is 66, and then Antigua right there is 50 foot.

Well, I'm saying, but because they're proposing commercial, I am asking, does it increase? Oh. And John said he would look at it.

Yeah, typically with the zone change and what would be there, it would likely be a reclassification to a commercial local.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else for Mr. Henke? THANK YOU. WE MAY CALL YOU AGAIN SO DON'T GET TOO COMFORTABLE THERE, OKAY? ELDIN, DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE?

YEAH, THAT CONCLUDES STAFF REPORT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS FOR ELDIN ON THIS APPLICATION CHANGE FROM LAST?

WITH THE C2, IT'S ALLOWED VEHICLE CELLS AND SLASH REPAIRS, CORRECT, WITH THE C2, LIKE YOU MENTIONED. But is there a conditional use that's required to go along with that? I mean, I know we'll do a C2, but it is a permitted use.

Like Manager Red mentioned, any type of use on this property is going to be a conditional use.

Yeah. So any use of any kind. IS CONDITIONAL USE AND ANYTHING OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET, TOO. AND I GUESS THEY'RE COVERED BOTH DIRECTIONS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. SORRY. I KIND OF CONFUSED MY QUESTION TO YOU. I APOLOGIZE. MY QUESTION WAS VEHICLE SALES ARE PERMITTED AND YOU DID STATE THAT. AND THEN I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS I DON'T THINK IN OUR CITY WE HAVE DESIGNATED AREAS THAT ONLY VEHICLE SALES CAN BE IN. LIKE WE HAVE THE AUTO MALL UP BY EXIT 13, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY. BUT WE CAN PUT THEM OTHER I know St. George has permitted places they only allow that. So that's why I asked the question.

So we did if you remember just a few weeks ago or months ago on the property just south of Stately Farm we carved out some uses. We said there are some uses that we don't want to see there. Right. And so. I'm just throwing out, are there some uses in C2 that we don't absolutely want to see there? Like, for instance, a equipment rental place, you know, the ones that have their lifts up in the air and they're all up in the air.

I mean, is that? That's when we should do a PUDC to limit those. That's when you would do that, not on stray zoning.

Or do a permitted list. Like exactly what you said, like what we did adjacent to Steeley Farm.

So it came in as a PUD though. Yeah, that's the difference between this project and that project. It came in as a PUD, and they didn't have their full plan yet. And so they asked for a list of uses. But it would be highly unlikely. It would be highly, yeah, it's not something that we do, that we would straight zone something but then give a list of uses. Typically do anything like that. The straight zoning gives the list of uses. So to Councilman Coates' point, If we didn't want to see vehicle sales anymore in certain areas, we'd want to go change the zoning, not pick one particular zone it wasn't allowed in.

The challenge for a developed, I mean, they're trailblazing that area, right? And so anytime you're trailblazing, a PED is just incredibly problematic and painful to try to work through because you don't have your use, right? at least on the other parcel where they did come in as a PUD. They have a pretty dang good idea of how that is going to lay out and work out. So they were able to bring it in as a PUD, pick their uses, and it made sense. This one is going to be... I'm not in favor of a PUD in this case.

I know you don't like PUDs.

Well, I mean, hey, look, quite frankly, if I owned that property, I wouldn't want the city council in my back pocket as I'm trying to make financial decisions for the project.

I understand that. I'm a fan of PUDs because... It's a blank canvas. And granted, I haven't done a lot of deals. So I'm not as astute as you are with those commercial deals. And I just feel like a PUD is a better application when there is so much concern from the adjacent areas.

If you knew what you were doing, it's a great tool to have.

And I look at it as a blank canvas. And you can put anything you want. You just got to get negotiated zoning. But that's all I'm going to say. I talked about it last meeting. I'm more of a fan of PUDs than straight zoning. and to be consistent with what we've done everywhere else along that road.

As somebody who has a parcel of ground, who's been working it for almost a decade.

Not here, though.

Not here. Not here. Not in this area. Definitely. And has had to site plan and replan. TALKED TO MANY, MANY DIFFERENT PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS AND BANGED MY HEAD AGAINST THAT BRICK WALL. IT MAKES IT REALLY TOUGH TO NOT HAVE ZONING THAT ALLOWS FOR THE DEVELOPER TO BE ABLE TO COME IN AND MAKE THAT AND NEGOTIATE IT. NOW, IF THEY HAD THE ZONING AND THEY WANT TO COME IN AND DO SOME MODIFIED ZONING ONCE THEY HAVE A TENANT BECAUSE A PUD MAKES SENSE, GREAT. BUT NOT ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS. IT DOES NOT WORK. YOU SEVER YOUR ACHILLES HEEL IN THAT TYPE OF A DEAL. I APPRECIATE, I GUESS THE OTHER THING THEY HAD THOUGH, I APPRECIATE THEY DID, YOU KNOW, WE GRANTED THEM THE GENERAL PLAN WHICH WOULD ALLOW, YOU KNOW, C1, YOU KNOW, THE COMMERCIAL USES, AND THEY'VE KEPT THAT C1 BUFFER, YOU KNOW, TO THE C2. SO NO EXISTING HOMEOWNER IS GOING TO BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO EITHER THE C1 OR THE C2, RIGHT? You know, there's a little give and take across the board with everybody, I think.

Thank you for your comments. A good discussion. One thing that might be helpful, Eldon, would you share with those that may not know all the acronyms that we use, would you explain a conditional use permit and how that applies to the zoning process, just so everyone is aware of that?

You bet. So conditional use permit, it's a way to take, different zonings. For example, here we've got a commercial piece of proposed commercial here that is relatively close to residential. So conditional use permits allow a few more eyes on the project to help rule out and minimize that buffer between those incompatibility of uses, residential and commercial, such as light mitigation, landscaping depth, hive, roadways, anything that could help transition and buffer between those two uses is what a conditional use permit looks at.

So it's an additional tool to be used to help make it a compatible use going forward?

Correct. And to minimize the

difference in uses. Thank you. Any other questions for Eldon before we bring up the applicant? Just to clarify before that, what we're seeing tonight, are we, we will be voting later on this meeting on this application that you identified tonight, that the 6.07 of C2 on the on the road, George Washington Roadway, the 5.26 C1 to the north. Is that what we're voting on tonight, just to be very clear?

Correct. That's the updated site plan that the applicant is asking for either approval or denial.

Approval or denial. Thank you very much. Okay, council, anything else before we bring the applicant up that you'd like clarified?

Applicant, your representative, please come on up. Council members, I appreciate the opportunity to speak with you again tonight. Identify yourself.

Sorry, Heath Snow on behalf of Capital Funding Limited. Thank you, thank you. Now it's official.

Now it's official. I am also the property owner to the west that my property directly abuts George Washington Boulevard as well.

So Robert McPherson, is this an alias? Robert McPherson is deceased.

And I helped with the probate of his estate and his children. They had a hard time figuring out what to do with their property. They wanted it all sold, but they didn't agree to trust each other on how to sell it. And so we offered to buy it from them because they all trusted us, but not each other. Looking at this, we do feel like we have made multiple concessions in this. And listening to the different concerns of residents We feel like we have addressed those. We recognize that the general plan amendment does not per se give us the ability for sure to seek C2 zoning. But I would indicate that properties to the east of this are all C2. Just like I heard some very eloquent comments from both of these two council members. Things change and perspectives are normally only set from when you moved to an area. And we also heard our public works director tell us that this road connecting through from Staley Farms all the way out to the new Southern Parkway was in your roads master plan since 2002. I would tell you that it is also was in A COMMERCIAL OUT NEAR THE SOUTHERN PARKWAY OUT THERE I THINK WAS IN YOUR GENERAL PLAN AS EARLY AS 2007, IS MY UNDERSTANDING. SO LOOKING AT THOSE, AND THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE I'M SURE, ESPECIALLY TO THE NORTH, THAT MAY PREDATE THAT. and their perspectives and what they anticipated would be built in this area may be different than others. However, when you have a road that over time Things change and zoning can change too. Your actual zoning is not a guarantee that it will always in perpetuity remain that same zone because things change. Just as George Washington Boulevard has changed. As soon as Washington City realized that St. George City wanted to put and connect this all the way through so that individuals could drive from the Southern Parkway in Washington, get on all the way through over another bridge over the river and onto the freeway. This perspective changed for the city, and this became a major arterial. FROM A MINOR ARTERIAL. ALSO THERE WAS THE APPRECIATION, TOO, THAT THIS TYPE OF CONNECTION, DEVELOPMENTS LIKE LONG VALLEY ESTATES, THAT THIS WOULD BECOME A NEEDED OR NECESSARY HUB FOR AT LEAST IF NOTHING ELSE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, LIKELY COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR THE WHOLE AREA. And so because of things have changed general plans have changed road master plans have changed and so have the. Desire of an applicant it would seem only reasonable. To have commercial along the commercial of a C2 nature along the second. busiest road in Washington City. And we have tried to address some feathering or transitioning by putting C1 towards the back. We have identified that we will not have through traffic out of this development into the parcel north of mine, the one that is my client's own as well, which is a concession to them. They haven't asked for that portion to be commercial. And we have even in the general plan amendment agreed to the jog that we see up there. So I also want to speak to one other point about PUDs. PUDs, and I've been a municipal attorney for 24 years, and you've got a fantastic one. I think I said that last time. But I will tell you this. PUDs are great. PUDs oftentimes have what we call a takeoff period that they give an applicant some time in which to commence development of the PUD if it is going to be just a general list of possible uses. In Washington City, that is 18 months. That can be extended. once by the community development director of the zoning administrator for six months and one more time for another six months by the city council. And that is all that is allowed by your ordinance. So you are asking us by asking us to go to a PUD to take that plane and get it running down the tarmac and getting it up off the ground and fully flying to the detail of what a PUD requires within two and a half years at the longest, likely a year and a half. So when someone is trailblazing or first out, if the area is green and we're coming there, we don't know what is all the needs there. And as homes continue and as traffic counts are becoming better identified, when Long Valley Estates connects through and when this is the best east west collector from Sand Hollow to I-15. No one really knows, and so a lot of commercial tenants, users, need to see data before they are willing to come. And so in our mind, A PUD WITH JUST USES, ALL THAT IS IS STARTING THE PUD PROCESS, BUT THE PUD PROCESS ISN'T FINALIZED AS I READ YOUR ORDINANCE UNTIL WE ACTUALLY COME IN WITHIN THAT 18 MONTHS OR 24 MONTHS OR 30 MONTHS, WHATEVER IT MAY BE WITH EXTENSIONS, AND WE PUT A WHOLE SITE PLAN, CONCEPTUAL PLAN TOGETHER SHOWING YOU BUILDINGS, LOCATIONS, ROAD CONFIGURATION, TRAVEL CONFIGURATION WITHIN IT. and showing you side elevations, all of those things. And that is when the PUD is truly finalized. So it just leaves a big open, in my mind, PUD in this situation, unless we knew exactly who all the tenants would be and how the uses will be, is like kicking the can down the road. And it's only a short road. Mr.

Snow, let me ask you a question. So what you're asking for tonight is the straight zoning though, right?

It is. It is a straight zoning, but a split zoning. And I would ask, there was a, someone asked the question, I don't know, but I would be happy to talk with my clients if there's a concern over a specific type of use. I appreciate that Jeremy made the comment that he did, but It is not uncommon in the municipalities that I represent and in the municipalities that I practiced before on behalf of developers to have a straight zoning have conditions which limits certain uses of concern for the area. It can be made in the motion. TO APPROVE AND IT CAN INDICATE THAT IT NEEDS TO BE REFLECTED IN THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WHEN THAT IS APPLIED FOR BY THE APPLICANT. I THINK THAT IS THE MOST SIMPLE WAY TO DO THAT. DOES, OKAY, YOUR ATTORNEY IS SHAKING HIS HEAD.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO AS I SAID EARLIER, The public hearing was held at the Planning Commission level, and Mayor Staley allowed comments two weeks ago. He's really good to do that, and we want to be fair tonight and make sure everyone is heard here tonight as well. So we're not going to have another public hearing, but there can be a, I would accept maybe one or two people to come up and speak, hopefully in a constructive way, about the applicants, their new application, which from their own admission, they've tried to accommodate some of the concerns from the existing homeowners there. And so, again, we're not going to have another public hearing, but we could have if someone, a designee or someone that would like to come up and speak to this, I would like you to consider that this is an effort to find the middle ground. We've heard some really good comments tonight about building the community and how communities change and how they need to change and how they need to stay current and relevant with growth. So I would hope that you at least can see this as an effort to find your way to the middle. So is there anyone that would like to come up and speak to this in a

Can I make one comment?

Please, yes. I think we need to remember that the general plan on this has already been changed. It's already community commercial, is that correct? Correct. So it's going to be commercial. That's already a given. And so what we're doing tonight is the zoning. What kind of commercial is it going to be? So we know it's already commercial because it's community commercial, right?

zoning tonight yeah sure so uh again chris kerr's a majestic drive resident so let's go back to what you just said we already know it was going to be zoned commercial it was originally zoned commercial right it was a neighborhood commercial parcel if you go back to the general plan that everybody's been referencing this evening and the latest incarnation of it which is dated 2017 it shows that that section there on to the south was originally neighborhood commercial and it was supposed to be feathered going east out the SR7 neighborhood, C1, C2. The reason for that, again, is that it is bordering low density and very low density housing. On two separate occasions, your own city planning commission has stated this is an improper change in accordance with your own guidelines, that there is not supposed to be C1, let alone C2 commercial, directly bordering low density and very low density housing in the city. You already have orchestrated commercial C1, C2 at the intersection of George Washington Boulevard and Washington Fields Road. You've got a grocery store going in there, right? Community service. You have other businesses that are going to be coming in a third of a mile, half a mile from here, meant to meet that community need. You also have the intersection of SR7 and George Washington Boulevard that, according to the general plan that is still on the city website, was meant to be designated for this purpose here. C2 was never meant to be pushed this close up to very low density and low density residential. There is no appropriate feathering here. Even if you go with this plan here and you say, OK, well, we're only going to do six acres as C2, and then the top acreage is going to be C1, you're still butting C1 directly next to very low density and low density housing, which is completely contrary to what the city of Washington has told the taxpaying residents they would do with the development of the city. It's completely contrary. This is an improper change. It is absolutely going to impact the neighborhood. It's going to impact everything from traffic to property values to the quality of life and living of the people there. Many people who have had homes up on Majestic, there's homes that are 20, 25 years old that people have been living in since it was built. If you go back to the general plan, when we purchased our home, I did my due diligence. I looked at the city of Washington, Utah's general plan to see what is coming in this area here. And your own general plan stated, We're going to have residential that's going to be feathered out eventually to neighborhood, then C1 and C2. And if you go back to the general plan that was just back in February of this year, it demonstrates that's what was in place. That's what we anticipated was going to be developed. Nobody has said that they were against neighborhood commercial being developed there. Not a single resident. We all knew that was coming. What we asked was that the city adhere to its own rules with development. and that they allow appropriate feathering from very low density and low density before going to C1, let alone C2. And what you're contemplating tonight is that all the people here who have the parcels that are less than a block away, one on the corner there that is bordering, will now have to accept the fact that, oh, I'm going to be looking at potentially a C2 zoned commercial with no PUD. And then this developer here, who PURCHASE THE LOCK FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THIS CHANGE, THEY CAN TURN AROUND AND SELL THE LOCK. AND BECAUSE IT'S NOW BEEN CHANGED TO C2, THE NEXT DEVELOPER CAN PUT WHATEVER THEY WANT IN. SO THESE PEOPLE ON THESE ONE-ACRE AND HALF-ACRE LOTS ARE GOING TO BE STARING AT THE BACK OF WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO GO IN THERE, AS LONG AS IT FITS THE C2 DEFINITION. MAYBE THEY'RE STARING AT A HOME DEPOT, MAYBE THEY'RE STARING AT A CAR SALES LOT, RIGHT? ANYTHING THAT FITS IN THAT DEFINITION. When we purchased our home, as many of the residents that are here tonight that reside within the vicinity here, we were all under the impression that the city of Washington was going to abide at least in the most general and normal of terms with the GENERAL PLAN WITH WHAT THE CITY INTENDED FOR THE AREA. WE ALL RECOGNIZE GEORGE WASHINGTON BOULEVARD WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH. WE WILL RECOGNIZE IT WAS GOING TO BE CONNECTING ROUTE. THAT'S OUR SEVEN. WE ALL RECOGNIZE COMMERCIAL IS GOING TO GO IN. BUT THE COMMERCIAL ZONING NEEDS TO BE DONE APPROPRIATELY. IT NEEDS TO BE FEATHERED PROPERLY. YOU CAN'T BUT SEE TWO RIGHT UP NEXT TO ACRE AND HALF ACRE PARCELS. IT'S NOT PROPER. IT'S AGAINST YOUR OWN CITY GENERAL PLAN. YOUR PLANNING COMMISSION AGREES WITH ME. ON TWO SEPARATE OCCASIONS, THEY VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO STATE THIS WAS IMPROPER. THEY DID NOT APPROVE IT. SO WHY THE CITY COUNCIL IS CHOOSING TO BUTT THEIR OWN PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REASON BEHIND THAT. BUT YOU HAVE A PLANNING COMMISSION THAT'S ENTAILED WITH LISTENING TO THE RESIDENTS, TAKING ALL THE INFORMATION IN, AND COMING TO A CONCLUSION, MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT ON TWO OCCASIONS NOW HAS RECOMMENDED THIS SHOULD NOT GO THROUGH. AND YET IT'S BEEN PUSHED THROUGH AND PUSHED THROUGH AND PUSHED THROUGH TO THE POINT THAT IN FEBRUARY, OH, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND MAKE A THIN STRIP OF C1 TO NOW WE WANT TO MAKE THE WHOLE BLOCK OPEN, C2, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO PUT IN. Think of it from a taxpaying resident perspective, because the only thing I can think of is what's going on here? How are we being represented? We say you're listening to the concerns of residents. How many times have we come up to the podium and spoken? How many letters have we submitted to the council? Respectfully so.

Well, we appreciate your comments. We really do. We work hard. We're trying to find. And I know you're in a tough position.

I recognize that. But this is not a tough position because you have a complete open desert to the east of it. THIS IS BEING SHOVED THROUGH AND THIS IS CONTRARY TO WHAT THE CITY OF WASHINGTON HAS TOLD ITS RESIDENTS WAS GOING TO BE THE PATHWAY FOR DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU.

Would you like to see or hear anyone else before we consider a motion?

I think we have heard a lot of people, but it's up to you. I think we've heard a lot of people watch the Planning Commission.

No, that's all the comments that we're going to take. It's just if you want anything else before we consider a motion. If you'd like to have anything, we could accommodate that.

Yeah, I mean, I want to get a couple of things on the record, right? I understand people's concerns. I really do. I also understand that the guy that owns a property has a right to, right? And, you know, a general plan isn't his desires. A general plan is something that a city council, at least until he comes in and makes an application or goes to zoning or goes to the future entitlements, that's a council plan and that's a We're doing this number, right? That's not a red line in the sand that says it can't be changed. There's a reason why there's an application process. Being somebody that has done this before, I also understand that some commercial elevates a community. And I know that's hard to understand here or to agree with. It does. I mean, the lens project over there, there's residential directly adjacent to the lens project right across the fields, and lens is a C2. That's what it is. You know, I don't think that's an offensive project, and I think a lot of the people here have been there to lens. I go there to lens. It's a great product, you know. I think it's important to recognize that THAT JUST AS MUCH AS THE APPLICANT THAT HAS A RIGHT TO DO WITH HIS PROPERTY, I WOULD DEFEND EVERY RESIDENT'S RIGHT IN THE SAME MANNER IF YOU CHOSE TO DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR PROPERTY IF IT MADE SENSE AND WAS WITHIN REASON. I THINK IT'S ALSO FAIR THAT IN GENERAL, People are resistant to change. I think the fear of the unknown sometimes is worse than the actual. And I'll use this example. We had a group in front of this council that was adjacent to a piece of ground that was a former landfill. And there was an application that came in to change it to a park. And they hated the idea of a park. Right? Because they didn't want to have to listen to the kids. Now, that's an extreme example, but, you know, the reality was that neighborhood was resistant to change. They didn't want to have to, they liked their comfort zone. They liked the way it was. I appreciate that, right? But when the guy's footing the bill, he has a right to seek the highest and best use. He's made concessions and kept a residential buffer all the way around. He's also maintained a further buffer from the C2 to that area. I think it's a reasonable request for him to make. And so with that, I'm happy to make a motion.

Council, are you ready for a motion? Any further discussion? Councilman Belliston. Okay. George.

I will make a motion to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-14 from C1 and R110 to C2 located at Antigua Lane and George Washington Boulevard. Pardon me. From C1 and R110 to C1 and C2 with the additional... requirement that the entire parcel be subject to a conditional use permit, not just along George Washington Boulevard.

I have a motion by Councilman Belliston. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second by Councilman Henderson. We'll start the roll call vote.

Councilman Belliston, may I just clarify before votes are taken? You are conditioned that the entire parcel be subject to a conditional use permit. Can you add any specifics as to what you're wanting to have be conditional? Are you saying subject to the conditioned uses?

You're talking about each building as it comes forward would be subject to a conditional use permit, correct?

Well, I mean, they could bring the whole thing together and have one CUP if they wanted to, but each building would have to come in with a CUP.

So every structure would be subject to a conditional use permit process?

Correct. I mean, if they split it up and they brought in one parcel, it would be subject to it. But everything within this entire site would be subject to the commission.

Yeah, I'm asking to clarify not to debate. So yeah, I just wanted to make sure that was clear for the record and for staff.

Right. Okay, we have a motion and a second. We're going to start with a roll call vote with Councilwoman Casperson.

Nay.

Is it nay? Councilman Belliston? Aye. Anderson? COATS? A. IVY IS AN I.

MAYOR PRO TAMMIS WANT TO ANNOUNCE THE VOTE THAT YOU TALLIED THERE. EXCUSE ME? YOU'LL JUST ANNOUNCE THE VOTE THAT YOU TALLIED. THE VOTE CARRIES.

We have a 5D, which is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-16 from R16 to PUDR, located at 525 North, 100 East, The applicant is Michael Fortune, and we will have this presented by our Community Development Director, Eldon Gipp.

Thank you, Council. There's a little bit of history here with Main Street connecting to I-15. We had a pretty good discussion there at the Planning Commission level. I don't want to bore you with those nitpicky conversations. Pretty sure you guys are aware of what happened. UDOT purchased and the excess of land there. So we'll dig into this application. It concerns itself of .71 acres and the proposal includes five detached units, 400 square feet in size, and one manager's unit, 600 square feet in size. Each of the five units will be provided with a 10 by 10 shed and front patio area. Provided parking is two stalls for each unit with an additional two visitor parking stalls for a total of 14 spaces. The manager's unit will have one attached garage. Parking is adequate as shown. The applicant is asking for setback relief for both covered parking structures. You can see the blue area there. They're tucked right next to the property line. The applicant's asking for a zero setback in that regard. And those setbacks will need to be approved by the city council. On August 19th, the planning commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval onto the council based on the findings and conditions below, noting this project should remain available for aging Utah veterans for its entirety and parking should be increased. condition number 13, which was added from the Planning Commission, which states this development shall remain available for and committed to providing affordable housing to aging Utah veterans for its entirety. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Eldon, is it a requirement that they have covered parking? Or is this what the applicant wants to do?

They are required to have covered parking. The applicant's asking for setback relief.

Yeah, I'm good with the setback relief because of the situation. I just don't feel like we should require them to do covered parking when we're trying to reduce costs so that it's more affordable. And then we say, well, you got to add all these extra costs for covered parking, which maybe they want to do it. I just, I think this is an aspect we should look at. And I'd love to hear from the applicant on their thoughts on that portion. I mean, those are $10,000, $15,000, but every $1,000 hurts when you're trying to get some relief on this affordable housing. And it's already a location on, I mean, it's adjusted to the on-ramp by 15, and we're just trying for some affordable housing. I want to make it still nice, but useful as well. That's just the question. But it is a requirement we told them they had to have, correct? Eldon?

Correct, yes, it is required.

It would kind of be nice for the veterans to have covered parking, how hot it is.

It's not hot, it's warm.

I think we have differing views of the heat.

It's just something I brought up. I don't know. I know we require it, but anything we can save. And I'm sure they would like it, maybe not that much of a cost. I don't know. I've never purchased a parking garage for myself.

Elton, does the applicant say that they are going to require the covered parking, or is that an optional?

That didn't come into play until staff required it as per city ordinance. So I think it'd be okay not doing covered parking, but we would definitely want to clear that up with them.

The council would be more comfortable with making that optional.

I think this is a great use for these unusual parcels. And I don't care about covered parking. I'm indifferent on it.

Is the applicant here? Yeah.

Hold on just one second. Eldon, anything else that you'd like to share with the...

I did forget to mention, UDOT owns the property. The applicant's doing a 99-year lease. So they would construct the buildings, drop them, and then at the end of the 99-year, either re-up or disassemble the project, and UDOT would take the land again.

Okay.

Anything else? Please.

Caleb Fortune representing USA Project Valor. And I just want to say, first of all, thank you. This has been a project that we've been working on for a really long time. And we want to thank Governor Spencer Cox for his leadership and working with this partnership, his office, Steve Waldrop, Matt Meyer up there, but then the entire Washington City staff and Mayor Staley, but also the Planning Commission as well. So thank you to everyone for helping us bring this to this point. And we really appreciate it. About the covered parking, I think it's something that I'm from northern Utah, and 110 today was kind of crazy. And so I agree with you, Councilwoman Casperson, that the cover parking would be nice. But with you, Councilmember Coates, I think it would be reasonable to make it optional because we haven't priced everything out to see what this project is going to fully cost. From that standpoint, with the improvements of what we need to do, we know what the housing costs per unit are and stuff like that. We're trying to do this to provide our struggling and aging veterans who are on a fixed income, and they may be renting a studio now for $400 or $500 a month. And on their fixed stipend from the government, that's $1,000. If their landlord realizes they can increase that price to $700 or $800, you know, now their choices are very limited in what they can do.

And so... So do these get sold to the veterans or you just rent it to them?

They are leased. So USA Project Valor provides kind of... We looked at what... other organizations are able to do. The VA has some great programs. Community organizations have great programs to help veterans find relief through medical help, stuff like that. But the biggest thing is housing. And you can't really get help if you don't have an address or a place to call home. And that was the missing gap that we saw, and we're deciding to fill that need. And so it was brought up in the planning commission. These aren't going to be transient units. They're not going to be someone's there for 30 days or 90 days. These are for aging veterans, where the hope is that they'll be there until either they pass away or have to move into a care facility. But I think one of the conditions that we're open to from the planning commission would be that they're one-year leases for the units.

Thank you. Any other questions?

From what I understand, is the home, is it being donated by a different company? So... That will be built on these...

The homes, the five veteran units are modular units. They're from Boxable Corporation out of Las Vegas. So they're 400 square feet, roughly. And so they're not big, but they're enough for a veteran couple to call home. And we're purchasing those, but we did receive... and are in the process of receiving a substantial donation from Paulo and Galeano Tiramani, the founders of Boxable Corporation. And so that will help with offsetting those costs. But we will bring in other partners for roadway improvements and foundations and stuff like that with those as well. So.

How long has your nonprofit been going?

So we have been active as a 501 nonprofit, I believe, since 2024. I was in Minnesota for two years and I just got back in November of last year. So I'm catching up a while as we go along. But since 2024, we opened our first unit with a box. We ended up in Nibley and we have successfully helped 25 veterans over the lifetime of our charity. And that number is probably a little bit higher if we include their families as well. But currently we operate four homes in Northern Utah. We work with organizations in Salt Lake, like the Other Side Village, We're working with the Iron County Care and Share, their homeless center in Cedar City. And so we've been really active for the last two years. But this has been a concept for maybe three or four years. And it's just putting it all together with the governor's leadership, bringing this together to this point.

So what would you say? Do you have an approximate number of how much of the the money goes to the veterans and what's the overhead of the nonprofit?

So our goal as a charity and the working in right now, 99 to 95 to 95% of every dollar we raise or has contributed goes directly to helping veterans. All of our staff, all of our consultants work as volunteers and only receive compensation when the budget shows itself. And so our chairman doesn't take a salary. None of our board of directors takes a salary. I don't take a salary. We're all doing this because we know what veterans have been willing to sacrifice. We know what they've been willing to do for this country. And when they're in this point where it's, you know, I'm between living in my car for different things, this is what we thought would be the least that we could do to show our thanks for what they were willing to do for us.

Thank you.

Thank you, good comments.

Any other questions?

We're good, thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion before we consider a motion?

No, I'm ready. Go ahead. I'll make a motion. We approve zone change Z-26-16 from R-16 to PUDR located at 525 North, 100 East with the option of the shade structures per the applicant's.

There's a motion by Councilman Coates, second by Councilman Belliston. We'll do a roll call vote starting with Councilman Belliston. Aye. Councilman Henderson. Aye. Councilman Coates. Aye. Councilman Casperson. Aye. Thank you. The motion carries. I just want to make note too, back in March, Mayor Staley went to Salt Lake and he attended the event that the young man mentioned. Governor Cox was there and Senator Waltrip heads up his affordable housing. ALLIANCE GROUP. AND THIS WAS A FIRST OF SORTS FOR THE STATE OF UTAH. SO MAYBE I'M BRAGGING A LITTLE BIT, MAYBE I'M JUST PROUD OF MY CITY, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THIS IS WHAT WE TRY TO DO. ONE OF THE FIRST CITIES IN THE ENTIRE COUNTRY, ESPECIALLY THE STATE, TO UTILIZE SITLA LAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING THANKS TO GOOD HEALTH AND NOW REMNANT PARCELS FROM UDOT FOR OUR VETERANS. So that is a collaborative effort from our city, our mayor, our council, our staff members that understand that these sacrifices aren't just words deep, that we have to put our property where our hearts are sometimes. So we appreciate you being here tonight and we look forward to further collaboration if possible. Okay, that concludes our regular agenda reports. Oh, sorry, we have a resolution. Shoot, sorry. We have a resolution, 6A, consideration to approve a resolution declaring intent to consider a municipal boundary line adjustment between Washington City and the City of St. George. And I'm sure that you all saw this and read it three times. where it belonged, as mine did. But this is a fairly straightforward annexation where the center line of the road was moved, and this small parcel from this developer, it's only a small segment of ground, ended up on the St. George side of the boundary change. And so it's a very boilerplate change just to try to accommodate this property owner and getting his sliver of property BACK IN THE CITY THAT WILL BE ADMINISTERING THE BOOK.

AND IT'S UNDEVELOPABLE AS A LOT, RIGHT?

AND PUT A SMALL HOME ON IT, RIGHT? WE MIGHT. NO, I'M JUST KIDDING.

MAYOR PORTEMP, I'M READY FOR A MOTION. PLEASE, COUNCILMAN. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION DECLARING THE INTENT TO CONSIDER MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN WASHINGTON CITY AND ST. GEORGE CITY AS OUTLINED IN OUR DOCUMENTS.

SECOND THAT. MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COATS, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BELLESTON. WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE STARTING WITH COUNCILMAN HENDERSON. AYE. I'M AN AYE. COUNCILMAN CASPERSON.

AYE.

THANK YOU. THAT MOTION CARRIES AS WELL. I'M AN AYE, TOO. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER, I'M SORRY. WE'RE JUST MOVING ON. OKAY. I OWE YOU A COKE OR SOMETHING THERE, BUDDY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. REPORT OF OFFICERS FROM ASSIGNED COMMITTEES. COUNCILMAN BELLESTON. ARE YOU CELEBRATING A LITTLE BIT OR RELAXING A LITTLE BIT? THERE'S TIMING. ALL RIGHT. COUNCILMAN HENDERSON.

THANK YOU. I HAD A SHADE TREE COMMITTEE MEETING THIS AFTERNOON AND TOOK ME ON A TOUR OF THEIR NEW TREE FARM UP THERE. you know, rather than buying all of their trees at a nursery, they're going to try a tree farm to save a little bit of money and to try to get some better quality trees. So what they're doing is they're purchasing, you know, $100 trees and then they're going to grow them into $1,000 trees, you know, in their little tree farm and hopefully have some good large caliber trees to plant in the future. in the city parks and things like that. I was really impressed. They've got a whole system where they grow them in these bags. The root balls are contained in these bags, and there's a watering system. They're working really hard at the Parks Department and doing a good job, so I appreciated that tour.

Thank you, Councilman Anderson.

Councilman Coates? Nothing, no committee since the last meeting, so.

Okay, thank you. And I have some things, but I'll hold off until our next meeting when we have a follow-up meeting at the MPO. Councilwoman Casperson, do you have anything to share? Nothing to share there? Okay.

City Manager report and to Mr. Redd. Thank you. Just a few quick items. I went to the quarterly water district meeting today. It was good information. We still have strong water in our reservoirs. They're still quite full, which is really good after two years of poor winters. But it's going to start looking a little rough if we don't get a nice winter this year. The Water District did update everybody on the new plan for the Colorado River and for sharing water. Basically, the lower basin states had to take a haircut, so they immediately filed suit. So all the attorneys will make a ton of money while they figure this all out. It doesn't make any more water, but they'll make a lot of money. Public Works is currently making an emergency repair on 1100 East off of Washington Dam Road. There was a sinkhole that developed in the road. There was a farmer-built storm drain that takes water from the old farms out to the river that developed problems and created a sinkhole. So after some settling, they're working on that project right now, but it's an emergency fix. The Brio Parkway and Buena Vista traffic signal is also underway where the Winco is under construction. We're seeing long lead times on the steel for those traffic signals, so they're going to order that ahead of time, but we hope to have that in next spring.

Jeremy, do we have any traffic signals planned down by Alea and Stuckey Farms area?

budget no but there are is that some residents reach out and I told them that we would have to evaluate it but I don't think I didn't know of any in the short term I saw the same email and the difficulty there is it really it really won't match warrants right now down there it's and that's what I told them when they reached out to me so but we have

We have, where are they asking for that?

Down in Alaya. They were asking for it at Stuckey Farms Parkway and Washington Fields Road, which is kind of the end of that project. And as it builds out, certainly someday the warrants will be there. But right now, they're more worried about speed and noise. And that's just not what warrants traffic signals. So it's got to be cross traffic. We also, this is an interesting thing to point out, and we have Battalion Chief Moore here, but we had great response. The Fire Department opened a recruitment for some positions, and we had 65 certified applicants. They've narrowed it down to eight very strong candidates, including four who already work for us part-time. The biggest difference is they opened up some new fire academies locally and in Cedar City, and they're producing really good qualified applicants. So that's a real positive for the area.

Jeremy, how many positions do we have?

We have one open position right now, and we have two more that we'll fill at the end of the year. Okay. The IT department also completed an upgrade of our city's firewall last week and very minimal issues. They did it on a Friday afternoon and did a great job there. The upgrade gives us better visibility into our network and it's another strengthening for our cyber security for our city. That's all I have. Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you. Council, you get the last word. Anything?

I make a motion we close the meeting.

There's a motion. Second. Second. Third. And everyone? Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you so much. Thanks.