Nibley City Council
2026-04-10
um is they they are intending to you know wanting to dedicate this open space to the city um this would be subject to re you know further review and ultimately city council approval if if the city wanted to take on this you know this open space as a park uh but but that that was clarified um residential density uh it in the previous application it was exceeded um the applicant has has explained that this item's been resolved uh it appears there are some incons inconsistencies on the preliminary plat that you know that suggests that the residential density is is still exceeded you know not not by as much but but the by about six units um and by the way we're we're we're just wrapping up comments on on that on that uh this iteration so we haven't yet delivered them to the applicant uh but we should within the next couple of days do that um and then there's also this expanded project area which which includes the commercially zoned area and and I mentioned they applied for rezone so you know this I guess this one a little little Nuance as far as if if it's been fully addressed but but um you know there has been some attention to it building orientation uh this this was really in the previous version it violated some design standards related to building entrances and private drives uh but you know according to staff's interpretation this the the amend design resolves that issue um couple of other things the building code definition uh some of the housing didn't meet the building code definition for a town home uh but but the amended design uh changes that so so they they really are all Town Homes according to the the city definition this was just to draw attention that they would need additional um and you know fire sprinklers for example if if they went with that previous design um the the roadway cross-section has been amended and you know as far as we we can tell this isn't this isn't really a major issue right now uh the guest parking uh was inadequate in the previous plan but looks like this has been resolved um the guest parking lot um must be privately owned they they did clarify that that that guest parking would be private HOA owned um and that was par particularly a Adent to that um the park space that that they're proposing uh this proposed subdivision goes beyond subdivided lot three so we need to determine infrastructure improvements required be Beyond lot three and um the applicant explained this issue would be resolved a later time uh went into a little bit more detail there but and then timing of Heritage Drive and improvements need to be clarified um the preliminary PL labels Heritage Drive are previously it it it labeled it as future Road by others development requires two accesses and 2500 South would meet second access requirement um so and the applicant responded that the timing of Heritage Drive depending depends on the timing of commercial residential development um really this item needs further clarifications that you know you know the the subdivision B boundary of what they've submitted doesn't include Heritage Drive it it goes to the edge of Heritage Drive and so um you know we feel as staff that that needs to be that that still needs to be worked out the timing of it um you know it's it's understood that it it could come in uh at different time but but the or it could come in with commercial development but but it needs to be clear that at this point in time we have a you know residential development proposed and so to have uh at least to meet that requirement for second access Heritage Drive would be required particularly if it's 2500 South um isn't you know isn't provided because right now that would that would just be two one access into the development um something else that uh you know our our city engineer who's not able to be here tonight wanted to point out um in reviewing the traffic impact study um the they do show a level of service f for um that South residential access so really kind of that 1300 West um potentially now we don't we don't know exactly because this analysis hasn't been done but potentially a a connection 2500 South connection could mitigate those those traffic issues that are caused at least you know according to the the traffic modeling they did would would would have been during the evening peak hour um it would uh have that level of service F you know which is really substandard for what the city uh would require um but again that's that's uh because that analysis hasn't hasn't been done we can't say definitively that that it what it would do but it's it could potentially mitigate that that issue um kind of going back to the original um staff recommendation you know on this item and and the planning commission's findings uh so you know 2500 South just kind of zooming out on on the transportation master plan and and the context and the area the zoning on the property the RM Zone it it it does if um if provided does improve Street connectivity in the area um the RM Zone when you look at the purpose of the RM Zone it does it does emphasize connectivity to support development and integrate with surrounding area um when you look at that current block length between 2600 South and nibbly Park Avenue it's about 1600 feet so that's that's pretty that's a pretty long block without a street connection and so not not really great Street connectivity along that that stretch you know at least on the west side of the road so it would it would improve that street connectivity uh as well as you know which which helps disperse traffic provides direct connection for all Street users improves emergency access and supports effective Street Maintenance um the road configuration the concept plan provides little little public benefit beyond the private development um you know uh so so that that's something to consider and then the 2500 South provides uh more opportunities for driveway connections off 1200 West artill Road so with you know kind of looking back at the the concept they've provided particularly when we look at that church property um with a 2500 South connection that just provides more opportunities to provide Ingress and egress in a safe location on at an intersection you know rather than mid block um for for that a driveway to to the church or whe whether it's a church or or something else you know that locates there just just provides a a better location to to get that off of an arterial Road um like 1200 West so planning commission's recommendation um just to remind you was was to uh denial for this resolution um with the findings noted below um so 2500 South improves Street connectivity in the area which would help disperse traffic provide direct connections for all Street users improve emergency access and support effective Street Maintenance um the second one I've um I I would recommend to to remove this just simply it's a deadend roadway to create safety concerns for fire access simply because the the updated preliminary plat removes that that Dead End Road so really it's not not applicable anymore with that um the next is without 2500 South connection the road configuration provides only private benefit for the development and then for elimination 2500 South May Force less ideal driveway connections uh that's it thank you Levi Al would you like to address the councel as a gone second ver that had there the idea that in embraced and for so I think it is a really good option in there so anyway I want everyone want to recognize this is an important issue for a family you guys always see Joel and I are the four member families of the western Nelson Farms here tonight we have the laters right here Dr later Dr later and Dr later so um obviously you know Joel and Ron Jed from Uncle Ed's family myself and and Wes from the Merl Nelson family this is an important issue and we appreciate you going in to consider this I think several of the points that Levi went over and said they were concerns um online we have two we have Trent Williams from mign engineering we have Scotty Duos from h uh engineering who did all the traffic study and he'll go through some of the questions that were just brought up right now and then Stuart th so the only thing I'm going to say real quick and turn over to Trent is um the church in building that Stake Center has advocated to us they came up you saw when they were here the last council meeting they did not want the road there um behind the church because it isolated the road and Scotty you will talk a little bit more about that steuart's going to talk about the commercial and how it impacts detrimentally to the commercial center and how creates less options now Stuart's more experienced on that he'll go through that Trent and Scotty will talk about some of these these fail ratings that were brought up in there but I want to bring up in one note in here and I sent this information from Scotty from hell's engineering the proposed 2500 South connection would provide another point of access to development but in an area where minimal traffic is anticipated the connection would also isolate the proposed church building on the Southeast corner of the property we've talked about that no one wants to isolate a property especially a church building and a continues increased connectivity can be a good thing as Levi alleviated if it alleviates a congested intersection however this particular proposed connection is not anticipated to relieve congestion it would primarily be used by vehicles coming from the residential area of the development and traveling to the north on 1200 West or to the east on 2500 South or 2600 South which is a very small volume of projected traffic volumes without the connection both the access to 2600 South and the 2600 South 1200 West intersection are already anticipated operated a level service a the usa89 intersection anticipated to have poor Los are not impacted by the proposed connection of 2500 South and they will continue to operate at a poor losos without separate mitigated measures so want to just turn over to Trent first and then come back to Scotty so Trent you there I'm here can you guys hear me keep talking we need to make some adjustments okay I mean not the quietest place so I'm hoping you guys can can start hearing me all right and have a good good conversation and let me know when you get things adjusted well enough that you can hear me and in the meantime I'll just sit you here and ramble till I get the nod go ahead interrupt me when you're there can you hear me now we'll go with the Verizon commercial we're we're trying to fix the audio again can you hear me now dang that yeah we might just have to go with your idea Justin I don't that you want to say something Trent see if we can hear you a little better yeah can you hear me now not great sorry we're just having trouble with the audio it's try one more time can you hear me now can you hear me doesn't seem to be projecting at all through that is it can you speak into that microphone and see if it works yeah yeah it's weird sorry system let's try this try again Trent yeah is are you guys getting the settings right there yeah we can hear you now Trent okay great well thank you for uh uh letting me be here even even though remotely so uh appreciate the comments have been made and what Al Al started off with so I just want to kind of walk through couple of our our reasonings for for wanting to remove the road and and kind of rebuttal there just as a refresher so uh one of the main points that that the city staff has brought up as connectivity and as as the traffic uh letter says a traffic engineer you know the most of the traffic though minimal that would go through there you know would be connecting directly to the commercial you know and and what we don't want to do is having increased volume traffic on a a a local Road like a a residential particularly through a town home that has you know higher density than a single family more more driveways and drive accesses that they're Crossing there you know and this is particularly important to note because you have the the newly built uh 2600 South roundabout right there which which is a high flow scenario it's a roundabout without a stop sign right and so so traffic passes through there pretty quickly second to that is if you guys remember the first time we met and discussed about this we pulled up and zoomed out in the overall map of the city there and so you've got 2600 South you got Heritage Drive and you've got the and I apologize I don't remember the the name of the road to the north there but what 2400 south or whatever that might be just North there you've got all these collector roads that surround all these developments and the commercial properties those are the roads that are intended and built and designed to pass traffic through to collect them and move them to a commercial center like what's what's proposed to be built on the west end here you know the the local roads for residential the low volume locals are never intended to pass through commercial or or pass through traffic and and the in its own design building the roundabout has has reflected that standard in traffic design there uh finally a couple other thoughts are um you know when we look at a development and access to it fire is always one of the biggest concerns and so having two points of Ingress and egress in case one access was restricted you know there's a second way out there and and yes fair to Levi's point this stas point you we we are still working out contractually how Heritage Drive gets built um um and if it needs to be included as part of the residential we can certainly do that the hope is that we can leave that as part of the commercial as they get going so they have control of their access Elations there um but if it does need to be complet complete the residentials so that that we have our two accesses for um so we meet fire code for the number of units off of a single access you know that's that's something we can certainly add to our plans rather quickly or anticipating that but we' we've that a little bit in reserve so that we can work with the commercial as they start their design um you know and and and then just the last thing is as you look at this new and improved uh layout we've worked extensively with with many of you on on city council to to make sure that you guys understand the intent the design and actually have a voice in there and and so uh you know I hope that's reflecting you guys can see that in there I'm happy to take any question questions uh at this time but that's that's kind of you know the presentation that like to reiterate as to why this this Road's not needed thank you TR uh I think we'll keep moving along with the proponent try if you stay on line and answer questions if they come up from the council we appreciate it okay tight him yeah that's him yeah Scot you're up you me you're really quiet Scotty I don't know if you're can you guys hear me barely speak loud we we were okay with Trent so it should be okay with you if we could get close to your call if I speak like this can you hear me perf thank you okay uh so um I know al already read the memo uh that kind of went over a high level um of why we don't think this street is necessary um or even recommended from a safety perspective um but uh I also wanted to point out some of the um uh inaccuracies that kind of went over in the summary there um it showed the uh level of service for the existing plus project conditions and showed a level of service f um that was primarily due to queuing on us89 um without a signal at that location with all this development uh commercial and residential built um so the queuing was backing up past the residential access and causing a poor Los so we did summar or we did fix that in the next table uh we recommended a signal um on us89 that would improve that right back to an a because that intersection is not the issue um as you can see all the intersections are at F because of queing backing up from Cars not being able to turn onto the highway um so once you alleviate the queuing issue on us89 uh all these intersections work at level of service a which is the highest level of service you can get um and the uh projected Road um through that area uh wouldn't um it wouldn't really provide better um all that much better connectivity as I discussed in the memo the uh number of cars that would likely use that uh Road from the project um is very minimal it would mostly be used by as a cut through street from anyone in that area off to the uh the Northeast um and using it as a cut through Street would decrease the safety of all the driveways on the road it would increase the speeds and the traffic volumes on that what's supposed to be a local Road and as uh Trent just discussed um having a local road with connectivity and cut through uh is not the purpose of a of a local Road uh so for that reason we didn't um we don't think it's a necessary connection uh for emergency services there's um they can already use the church parking lot to cut through there if needed um and it's not recommended from a safety perspective due to the uh increased speeds and driveways along that corridor okay can you hear me okay can you okay hey I appreciate the time tonight and um you know I've been working with Alan and his family on this project for probably over three years and and uh when Al first approached us in regards to this um part of what intrigued us and having done a lot of these projects over the years is that there was a proposed light that was going to be here at 2600 and and that 2600 was going to kind of be what I'd call a collector for between Main Street uh where the high school is on down to Highway 89 and because of that that would give us the ability can you hear me yes go ahead okay but that would give us the ability to do a commercial development there part of the reason being is is that's where the majority of the traffic that's going to be kind of what we'd call in this trade area is going to use 2600 in order to um to access Highway 89 and then again Main Street and so when Al showed me this I was like ah dang I we need as much you know one of the biggest things for these retailers and and qsrs and fast food folks is traffic counts because that gives them an idea of what the potential business and volumes are going to be the stores that they're going to look to open there and and so when Al showed me that I'm like you know we need as much as much traffic as we can on 2600 where that commercial development is in order to get some of these folks to commit we've been working on a deal now for a couple of years I feel like I'm hoping we're getting closer on that um here over the next little bit but part of what they're counting on is that 2600 is going to be kind of the main road and access again from Main Street on down to Highway 89 and because of that that's why they're willing to spend the money and develop this property and I think if we do things that take away from that to where the traffic counts are going to be minimized a little bit that we lose some of the traction that we've currently got with that because that's what they're counting on in order to make their numbers work and to make this project happen and so it it it does make me a bit nervous in regards to that um and and and I think we you know I look at it we need to push all the traffic we can on to 2600 and have that kind of be the main thoroughfare again you know there's issues I think with 3200 and then 2200 and what we would hope is that some point in time there would be a light here and that then we could have a a commercial center right there that would Thrive because of what you know what's been put in and what 2600 is and with the light and then with what the are that we're going to put in that Center I'm pretty confident based upon some of the the responses we've had over the last couple of years and what we're going to be able to develop there and we're working forward on that and hopefully over the next couple of weeks we'll be able to um sit down with you and kind of walk through a plan but I I yeah I would just I I just makes me real very nervous about the commercial end of it because of the traffic and and 26 hundreds not obviously at this point in time not a major road and that's what we need to try to do is is is is turn that into that a bit in order to make this commercial Thrive and if we don't I worry that we're not going to be able to to get them to commit and to finalizing to go here any questions um I I have some but I'll wait my turn okay anything else Al question appreciate all so just if you would be available we'll turn over to the council and we'll probably have some questions for any of those online or for you thanks coun I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution 206 City master plan move 2500 South and I'd like to add um will giveit access on 12200 West between 2500 South and 2600 sou okay we have a a motion to approve the amendment to the transportation master plan to remove 2500 South with a condition that access on 20 on 12 West between 2500 South and 2600 South would be prohibited now before before I ask for a second and I I need to understand whether that's you're suggesting you're that that be part of the motion or part of the resolution and I don't mind I just leave it up to you okay yeah so I mean if you put it in the resolution I don't think you need it in the motion yeah so that would be a motion to amend the transportation master plan including adding an item three to the resolution that would say this uh this amendment to the transportation master plan is accompanied by are you writing this down accompanied by a Prohibition of access onto 1200 West between 2500 South and 26007 is that your motion yes is there a second second than let me let me explain um we live in just such a amazing country that we have just regular people that get elected with no City Planning skills or stuff and to take all this information and be able to help design and build a city I've been on the council for seven years and ni's is in a rapid growth City because we have amazing staff a small small City that we have we have a city of planners and engineers and uh anyways we do good the reason we get so many foot houses of subdivision is because we do have plans you've seen all the plans that we've had between water and sewer even parks and transportation to one of them so the closer we followed the the quicker the process goes so this is kind of delayed because we're trying to step outside of the plan to see if what we have will benefit the city and why should be removed and I do mind bringing up the Google Earth on this with the satellite yeah just give me a minute explain yeah people online won't see what you're pointing to g go to the Parcel Viewer is that okay that might be a little quicker slow is 1200 West 1200 West is the main Corridor that goes all the way from airport road all the way to H probably busiest roads for Bypass Road next so this this is how I justifi to this is 1200 West that comes here and then we scroll down this way um here we have the intersection we just spent millions of dollars of doing a roundabout that go through here that cross 12200 West and as we go down more you don't mind um and even a little bit more we have our other roundabout yeah so here we spent for here so a lot of times on the plants we connect and if we can come back just a little bit and maybe expand out so we can show the mo building thank you Orientation May Zoom here because we have the loops here so here have roads that are planned on this is road is planned on to hook into another road this is planned on to hook another road we have a commercial here but yet we were nervous of connecting this road through a commercial property so we stubbed it here and we didn't do commercial so again we're on 1200 West maybe if we come down a little bit other way sorry yeah and so start here so here we have another one we could have accessed here on to 1200 but we're trying to protect how many things come here and then we have connections here that we're worried about that we put mountable Road Ian mountable intersection here we've got traffic calming we got barriers for tech bikes and then if we come right even here we could have connected this one through but again this is more than the block but we're connecting how many activities that we connected on 12200 so if we come down just a little bit more and right here so the road that we have it's it's around it's it's a culdesac that goes through and it hits here so it's really not a through Road and then here this is a subdiv vision by Heritage and we didn't plan to connect here we're not connecting here we have a commercial property that we weren't plan on on connecting so my motion was is to remove any connection here which eliminates or protects 1200 West make the developer designed the traffic flow that has to go into 2600 you'll have to go either on the Heritage and to go through on the round that we spent money on protect that we won't have to worry about this intersection me personally like you talk about Frontage this is a major road I mean you think where you talk about car counts and stuff you're going to have crazy amount of car counts on here and I personally would want a developer but you guys are voluntarily not having a connection on here is why I think it benefits the city we're having this develop here that has to come on here be more traffic we eventually get us a light to increase that and have to be designed if any any of these need to hook on to there my motion is is put 2500 is the only way you'll be able to access that so if you can design it by not having it go through there is why I think that's a good motion um and then I know we have Concepts and again anytime we change outside the line you you change expectations so make it clear the the pl that was in the expectation has nothing to do with that it's just can we do a development without this road or not that's why I think that's a good motion uh nor while you're while you're coming back I can I mean just to be historically correct the road that goes through St Stone Bridge was not connected to malth in part because malth is not commercial it's industrial okay and the big fear of the stone bridge residence was at the time Mal was proposing Warehouse in an industrial Zone which wasn't approved or accepted use in the industrial Zone not a commercial Zone but an industrial Zone and and they feared semi- trucks rolling through their neighborhood to get to malof instead of deal what all of Maloof's employees have been dealing with since that on and off of 89 so historically that's that's my perspective of why that Ro is not connected and and also it's it's that it's an industrial use that we isolated from the residential rather than a commercial and I mean a warehouse is not allowed in a commercial Z allow I guess minor Point yeah so let me ask nor um actually ask Al as well so Al I think he said a Road north of the proposed church isolates the church so it it doesn't make sense to me how having a Road next to a church isolates the church and then the followup to go along with the motion that's in front of the council is doesn't eliminating Act on 12th to the church further isolate the church let me have Scot bring that up he brote it out in there a report he's the one he's the traffic engineer so okay so the question for Scotty is how does a road Road north of the church isolate the church sure can you hear me yes all right uh so putting the road on the north side of the church would surround the church by roads on all four sides um so to access the church from any of the residential developments you'd have to cross um streets essentially uh and as far as I know the last um plan that I saw there's still a church access onto 12th West um so having a street to the north wouldn't impact the ability to access the church off 12th West okay so while I'm hearing with the motion in front of us is that that would prohibit the church access onto 12th West and also Scotty I mean the most recent development plan we've seen the property currently to the north of the church as proposed is not with houses it's as part of the RM Zone open space requirement so I mean it doesn't seem like that that road separates houses from the church and and even so it only be a small number of houses but that's open space in the latest proposal north of the proposed 2500 South so what am I missing so the issue in there we don't have a lot of room on that nor side of the church prop there isn't a whole lot that we can put in there so the problem of it is is um something has to give I mean like I say Mar may I wish you know there was another 100 feet in there there's not and so the problem of it is is something that Scotty alluded to if you try to create a road in there you create a dangerous S curve in there it is there and I mean that was brought up even on the 2600 South but hey look you got a curve you have a you know line of sight issue and I mean it's the same issue here so we have Par Drive to a different location just to to alleviate the concern there and so now we're saying okay you know you have an expert just trying to meet that road on the other side of 2500 South that just goes into a subdivision so you know it came back to the question you know the church when they came to us they said we want something around the church we don't want four rows around the church because it creates problems for us vandalism they they have more incidences a lot of you don't know this um my best friend I grew up in bwell Brent Roberts is man managing director for the special projects for church he is over all construct for the church and he talks about this he says you know we have to build temples and and churches in areas where they're well lit but if we give an area where potential mischievous Behavior can happen that's a problem and he talked about different points that they do and they like to have houses around the church just to keep some security something someone keep an eye on the church and so that was a point in there was we put if the road went in there there was no way to put it really limited put put houses next to the church so that was the issue and the motion is is if they need to have 12200 West for Access they have to put the road I I think that's discussion between yeah that's discussion between church I can't get involved that to be clear understand your motion is if they want if the church wants access off of 1200 West it's it's it's only off of 2500 which be to remove it okay yeah it doesn't doesn't I don't know I'll I'll be quiet for a while I have other questions but I'll certainly Nathan I just I think it'd be helpful um does that mean I have to say your motion again no no I I could back did we write it down yeah that's thank you that's we we need to look at our words I yeah yes sir absolutely I don't know why I get this job but I got it is that is that a relationship of State what I'm saying um you know this is discussion obviously the church needs to sit down the city and post those things but I think something that Scotty brought up was very important roads and these things access points should be built on safety being number one and if safety is compromised there's an issue there and we had that Zoom call back there in June and that was discussed was if you have the church there you know what about points of safety and it was brought up multiple times and I think that's a point that that has to come back you know again let church and City those things out but the issue is the same thing here safety and I think Trent brought it up you and Stuart brought it up you have traffic going through a residential area probably the pretty high rate speed and volume I I don't think the volume would be that great you know to a much greater speed and SE point that you driving traffic at 2600 sou and that the challenges that we create in trying to develop out now I'll go one step further on the commercial development than what Stuart said um we're in discussion to put these things together on the commercial development which bu Par Drive and that's one of the things we're coming to resolution to to put those whole things together and they will be put together soon so number nine would be addressed so I think the point that Stewart brought up is to bring all the traffic you know your traffic to your commercial area not to the site area to a front area that's where we want numbers counts that GES great opportunity possibilities there so beautiful right let's see see this resolution is subject to the condition that access on 12 between 2500 South and 2600 South is probably is that yeah is that reflect I so Al you're all right I know I'm going to be quiet but we're on this topic right now um the 1300 West connection that eliminating 2500 South forces more traffic at the 1300 West Connection on the 2600 South is actually closer to the roundabout and offers more safety issues than the 2500 South to access the residential development that you're talking about I mean it's already a level of service F mayor I'll disagree with you on that one because you got an curve on 2500 South you got a curve like this to get to the road or 26 where 1300 West is straight shooting so I guarantee and we talk about this many times traffic reports and Scotty will tell you these things whenever you have curve in Road that's where your accidents are going to happen well and we moved her's drive because her's Drive was coming out right on the dog leg of 20 600 South so let's just agree that we'll leave that to the traffic Engineers no Absolutely I'll stop there Nathan just point of clarification you keep talking about the church from what I understand that property has not been subdivided and it's not been sold yet is that accurate thank you so let me clarify one thing it's been under contract for 10 months they want to close an October so we have been waiting they will not buy the property if they have 2 South there I mean they Trevor came up there you saw it in that last council meeting we do not want this here so doesn't put that in Jeopardy it that absolutely does so that's a concern in oh let me get that in the record the church will not buy the property if 2500 South is left in the master Road plan because that's not what we've heard but if that's the case I'll take your word for it I want it in the record and may going come back and say I they won't definitely but do they be do not want 2500 sou absolutely they have told me that 20 times they told me that this week they don't want it so I mean you saw it here back there the last council meeting they were here they said you asked them do we want 25 no we don't Trevor I was here and so um again I come back to Scotty's point you isolate a building with four roads so that's the concern I mean what name one other building in Cash Valley that has four major roads around it the temple the Tabernacle I can go down a list of Stak centers you ask I think it's disc you're going to have to have church no a discussion this part of this motion that's I'm not even get in front the church okay the church is the church has right to they need to negotiate that out and resolve it but the one thing i' always bring up is safety what's the safety some sced that up he said on that 2500 South if he says the access points for emergency vehicles can go through the parking lot of the state center to get access to to so it's a safety issue so Nathan yes speaking on safety there is a no way me personally I'm going to the new 2500 South without the timing of Heritage Drive being resolve for that second access point the residential and so I would U try like if we're going to do this one my we're going to need to add that it's got to include Heritage in the in the residential proposal as well but I'm not that's the safety that I'm most worried about is we're only going to have one access point and if the commercial takes five months to develop then we'll have 5 months if it takes 52 years we'll have it in 52 years and we need that second access point as soon as this residential goes in so I'm not making a motion I'm saying that there's no way I go for this as is without having the residential two access points figured out wonder if I could ask Scotty about uh the technical verbage of an S curve I mean I understand in theory what an S curve is but maybe Scotty you could tell us like uh is a nest curve like my street curves a bit is that a nest curve or is there some angle of curve it which become an esur is then dangerous because seems like from a lot of conversations we've had recently especially around 1200 West we've heard different traffic study Engineers that curving roads actually slow down traffic so I guess that's kind of contradictory to what I'm understanding so Scot can you speak to that a bit uh yeah so an Ask curve uh is basically just a curve uh or a road that curves twice um uh shaped like an S so uh the
um is they they are intending to you know wanting to dedicate this open space to the city um this would be subject to re you know further review and ultimately city council approval if if the city wanted to take on this you know this open space as a park uh but but that that was clarified um residential density uh it in the previous application it was exceeded um the applicant has has explained that this item's been resolved uh it appears there are some incons inconsistencies on the preliminary plat that you know that suggests that the residential density is is still exceeded you know not not by as much but but the by about six units um and by the way we're we're we're just wrapping up comments on on that on that uh this iteration so we haven't yet delivered them to the applicant uh but we should within the next couple of days do that um and then there's also this expanded project area which which includes the commercially zoned area and and I mentioned they applied for rezone so you know this I guess this one a little little Nuance as far as if if it's been fully addressed but but um you know there has been some attention to it building orientation uh this this was really in the previous version it violated some design standards related to building entrances and private drives uh but you know according to staff's interpretation this the the amend design resolves that issue um couple of other things the building code definition uh some of the housing didn't meet the building code definition for a town home uh but but the amended design uh changes that so so they they really are all Town Homes according to the the city definition this was just to draw attention that they would need additional um and you know fire sprinklers for example if if they went with that previous design um the the roadway cross-section has been amended and you know as far as we we can tell this isn't this isn't really a major issue right now uh the guest parking uh was inadequate in the previous plan but looks like this has been resolved um the guest parking lot um must be privately owned they they did clarify that that that guest parking would be private HOA owned um and that was par particularly a Adent to that um the park space that that they're proposing uh this proposed subdivision goes beyond subdivided lot three so we need to determine infrastructure improvements required be Beyond lot three and um the applicant explained this issue would be resolved a later time uh went into a little bit more detail there but and then timing of Heritage Drive and improvements need to be clarified um the preliminary PL labels Heritage Drive are previously it it it labeled it as future Road by others development requires two accesses and 2500 South would meet second access requirement um so and the applicant responded that the timing of Heritage Drive depending depends on the timing of commercial residential development um really this item needs further clarifications that you know you know the the subdivision B boundary of what they've submitted doesn't include Heritage Drive it it goes to the edge of Heritage Drive and so um you know we feel as staff that that needs to be that that still needs to be worked out the timing of it um you know it's it's understood that it it could come in uh at different time but but the or it could come in with commercial development but but it needs to be clear that at this point in time we have a you know residential development proposed and so to have uh at least to meet that requirement for second access Heritage Drive would be required particularly if it's 2500 South um isn't you know isn't provided because right now that would that would just be two one access into the development um something else that uh you know our our city engineer who's not able to be here tonight wanted to point out um in reviewing the traffic impact study um the they do show a level of service f for um that South residential access so really kind of that 1300 West um potentially now we don't we don't know exactly because this analysis hasn't been done but potentially a a connection 2500 South connection could mitigate those those traffic issues that are caused at least you know according to the the traffic modeling they did would would would have been during the evening peak hour um it would uh have that level of service F you know which is really substandard for what the city uh would require um but again that's that's uh because that analysis hasn't hasn't been done we can't say definitively that that it what it would do but it's it could potentially mitigate that that issue um kind of going back to the original um staff recommendation you know on this item and and the planning commission's findings uh so you know 2500 South just kind of zooming out on on the transportation master plan and and the context and the area the zoning on the property the RM Zone it it it does if um if provided does improve Street connectivity in the area um the RM Zone when you look at the purpose of the RM Zone it does it does emphasize connectivity to support development and integrate with surrounding area um when you look at that current block length between 2600 South and nibbly Park Avenue it's about 1600 feet so that's that's pretty that's a pretty long block without a street connection and so not not really great Street connectivity along that that stretch you know at least on the west side of the road so it would it would improve that street connectivity uh as well as you know which which helps disperse traffic provides direct connection for all Street users improves emergency access and supports effective Street Maintenance um the road configuration the concept plan provides little little public benefit beyond the private development um you know uh so so that that's something to consider and then the 2500 South provides uh more opportunities for driveway connections off 1200 West artill Road so with you know kind of looking back at the the concept they've provided particularly when we look at that church property um with a 2500 South connection that just provides more opportunities to provide Ingress and egress in a safe location on at an intersection you know rather than mid block um for for that a driveway to to the church or whe whether it's a church or or something else you know that locates there just just provides a a better location to to get that off of an arterial Road um like 1200 West so planning commission's recommendation um just to remind you was was to uh denial for this resolution um with the findings noted below um so 2500 South improves Street connectivity in the area which would help disperse traffic provide direct connections for all Street users improve emergency access and support effective Street Maintenance um the second one I've um I I would recommend to to remove this just simply it's a deadend roadway to create safety concerns for fire access simply because the the updated preliminary plat removes that that Dead End Road so really it's not not applicable anymore with that um the next is without 2500 South connection the road configuration provides only private benefit for the development and then for elimination 2500 South May Force less ideal driveway connections uh that's it thank you Levi Al would you like to address the councel as a gone second ver that had there the idea that in embraced and for so I think it is a really good option in there so anyway I want everyone want to recognize this is an important issue for a family you guys always see Joel and I are the four member families of the western Nelson Farms here tonight we have the laters right here Dr later Dr later and Dr later so um obviously you know Joel and Ron Jed from Uncle Ed's family myself and and Wes from the Merl Nelson family this is an important issue and we appreciate you going in to consider this I think several of the points that Levi went over and said they were concerns um online we have two we have Trent Williams from mign engineering we have Scotty Duos from h uh engineering who did all the traffic study and he'll go through some of the questions that were just brought up right now and then Stuart th so the only thing I'm going to say real quick and turn over to Trent is um the church in building that Stake Center has advocated to us they came up you saw when they were here the last council meeting they did not want the road there um behind the church because it isolated the road and Scotty you will talk a little bit more about that steuart's going to talk about the commercial and how it impacts detrimentally to the commercial center and how creates less options now Stuart's more experienced on that he'll go through that Trent and Scotty will talk about some of these these fail ratings that were brought up in there but I want to bring up in one note in here and I sent this information from Scotty from hell's engineering the proposed 2500 South connection would provide another point of access to development but in an area where minimal traffic is anticipated the connection would also isolate the proposed church building on the Southeast corner of the property we've talked about that no one wants to isolate a property especially a church building and a continues increased connectivity can be a good thing as Levi alleviated if it alleviates a congested intersection however this particular proposed connection is not anticipated to relieve congestion it would primarily be used by vehicles coming from the residential area of the development and traveling to the north on 1200 West or to the east on 2500 South or 2600 South which is a very small volume of projected traffic volumes without the connection both the access to 2600 South and the 2600 South 1200 West intersection are already anticipated operated a level service a the usa89 intersection anticipated to have poor Los are not impacted by the proposed connection of 2500 South and they will continue to operate at a poor losos without separate mitigated measures so want to just turn over to Trent first and then come back to Scotty so Trent you there I'm here can you guys hear me keep talking we need to make some adjustments okay I mean not the quietest place so I'm hoping you guys can can start hearing me all right and have a good good conversation and let me know when you get things adjusted well enough that you can hear me and in the meantime I'll just sit you here and ramble till I get the nod go ahead interrupt me when you're there can you hear me now we'll go with the Verizon commercial we're we're trying to fix the audio again can you hear me now dang that yeah we might just have to go with your idea Justin I don't that you want to say something Trent see if we can hear you a little better yeah can you hear me now not great sorry we're just having trouble with the audio it's try one more time can you hear me now can you hear me doesn't seem to be projecting at all through that is it can you speak into that microphone and see if it works yeah yeah it's weird sorry system let's try this try again Trent yeah is are you guys getting the settings right there yeah we can hear you now Trent okay great well thank you for uh uh letting me be here even even though remotely so uh appreciate the comments have been made and what Al Al started off with so I just want to kind of walk through couple of our our reasonings for for wanting to remove the road and and kind of rebuttal there just as a refresher so uh one of the main points that that the city staff has brought up as connectivity and as as the traffic uh letter says a traffic engineer you know the most of the traffic though minimal that would go through there you know would be connecting directly to the commercial you know and and what we don't want to do is having increased volume traffic on a a a local Road like a a residential particularly through a town home that has you know higher density than a single family more more driveways and drive accesses that they're Crossing there you know and this is particularly important to note because you have the the newly built uh 2600 South roundabout right there which which is a high flow scenario it's a roundabout without a stop sign right and so so traffic passes through there pretty quickly second to that is if you guys remember the first time we met and discussed about this we pulled up and zoomed out in the overall map of the city there and so you've got 2600 South you got Heritage Drive and you've got the and I apologize I don't remember the the name of the road to the north there but what 2400 south or whatever that might be just North there you've got all these collector roads that surround all these developments and the commercial properties those are the roads that are intended and built and designed to pass traffic through to collect them and move them to a commercial center like what's what's proposed to be built on the west end here you know the the local roads for residential the low volume locals are never intended to pass through commercial or or pass through traffic and and the in its own design building the roundabout has has reflected that standard in traffic design there uh finally a couple other thoughts are um you know when we look at a development and access to it fire is always one of the biggest concerns and so having two points of Ingress and egress in case one access was restricted you know there's a second way out there and and yes fair to Levi's point this stas point you we we are still working out contractually how Heritage Drive gets built um um and if it needs to be included as part of the residential we can certainly do that the hope is that we can leave that as part of the commercial as they get going so they have control of their access Elations there um but if it does need to be complet complete the residentials so that that we have our two accesses for um so we meet fire code for the number of units off of a single access you know that's that's something we can certainly add to our plans rather quickly or anticipating that but we' we've that a little bit in reserve so that we can work with the commercial as they start their design um you know and and and then just the last thing is as you look at this new and improved uh layout we've worked extensively with with many of you on on city council to to make sure that you guys understand the intent the design and actually have a voice in there and and so uh you know I hope that's reflecting you guys can see that in there I'm happy to take any question questions uh at this time but that's that's kind of you know the presentation that like to reiterate as to why this this Road's not needed thank you TR uh I think we'll keep moving along with the proponent try if you stay on line and answer questions if they come up from the council we appreciate it okay tight him yeah that's him yeah Scot you're up you me you're really quiet Scotty I don't know if you're can you guys hear me barely speak loud we we were okay with Trent so it should be okay with you if we could get close to your call if I speak like this can you hear me perf thank you okay uh so um I know al already read the memo uh that kind of went over a high level um of why we don't think this street is necessary um or even recommended from a safety perspective um but uh I also wanted to point out some of the um uh inaccuracies that kind of went over in the summary there um it showed the uh level of service for the existing plus project conditions and showed a level of service f um that was primarily due to queuing on us89 um without a signal at that location with all this development uh commercial and residential built um so the queuing was backing up past the residential access and causing a poor Los so we did summar or we did fix that in the next table uh we recommended a signal um on us89 that would improve that right back to an a because that intersection is not the issue um as you can see all the intersections are at F because of queing backing up from Cars not being able to turn onto the highway um so once you alleviate the queuing issue on us89 uh all these intersections work at level of service a which is the highest level of service you can get um and the uh projected Road um through that area uh wouldn't um it wouldn't really provide better um all that much better connectivity as I discussed in the memo the uh number of cars that would likely use that uh Road from the project um is very minimal it would mostly be used by as a cut through street from anyone in that area off to the uh the Northeast um and using it as a cut through Street would decrease the safety of all the driveways on the road it would increase the speeds and the traffic volumes on that what's supposed to be a local Road and as uh Trent just discussed um having a local road with connectivity and cut through uh is not the purpose of a of a local Road uh so for that reason we didn't um we don't think it's a necessary connection uh for emergency services there's um they can already use the church parking lot to cut through there if needed um and it's not recommended from a safety perspective due to the uh increased speeds and driveways along that corridor okay can you hear me okay can you okay hey I appreciate the time tonight and um you know I've been working with Alan and his family on this project for probably over three years and and uh when Al first approached us in regards to this um part of what intrigued us and having done a lot of these projects over the years is that there was a proposed light that was going to be here at 2600 and and that 2600 was going to kind of be what I'd call a collector for between Main Street uh where the high school is on down to Highway 89 and because of that that would give us the ability can you hear me yes go ahead okay but that would give us the ability to do a commercial development there part of the reason being is is that's where the majority of the traffic that's going to be kind of what we'd call in this trade area is going to use 2600 in order to um to access Highway 89 and then again Main Street and so when Al showed me this I was like ah dang I we need as much you know one of the biggest things for these retailers and and qsrs and fast food folks is traffic counts because that gives them an idea of what the potential business and volumes are going to be the stores that they're going to look to open there and and so when Al showed me that I'm like you know we need as much as much traffic as we can on 2600 where that commercial development is in order to get some of these folks to commit we've been working on a deal now for a couple of years I feel like I'm hoping we're getting closer on that um here over the next little bit but part of what they're counting on is that 2600 is going to be kind of the main road and access again from Main Street on down to Highway 89 and because of that that's why they're willing to spend the money and develop this property and I think if we do things that take away from that to where the traffic counts are going to be minimized a little bit that we lose some of the traction that we've currently got with that because that's what they're counting on in order to make their numbers work and to make this project happen and so it it it does make me a bit nervous in regards to that um and and and I think we you know I look at it we need to push all the traffic we can on to 2600 and have that kind of be the main thoroughfare again you know there's issues I think with 3200 and then 2200 and what we would hope is that some point in time there would be a light here and that then we could have a a commercial center right there that would Thrive because of what you know what's been put in and what 2600 is and with the light and then with what the are that we're going to put in that Center I'm pretty confident based upon some of the the responses we've had over the last couple of years and what we're going to be able to develop there and we're working forward on that and hopefully over the next couple of weeks we'll be able to um sit down with you and kind of walk through a plan but I I yeah I would just I I just makes me real very nervous about the commercial end of it because of the traffic and and 26 hundreds not obviously at this point in time not a major road and that's what we need to try to do is is is is turn that into that a bit in order to make this commercial Thrive and if we don't I worry that we're not going to be able to to get them to commit and to finalizing to go here any questions um I I have some but I'll wait my turn okay anything else Al question appreciate all so just if you would be available we'll turn over to the council and we'll probably have some questions for any of those online or for you thanks coun I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution 206 City master plan move 2500 South and I'd like to add um will giveit access on 12200 West between 2500 South and 2600 sou okay we have a a motion to approve the amendment to the transportation master plan to remove 2500 South with a condition that access on 20 on 12 West between 2500 South and 2600 South would be prohibited now before before I ask for a second and I I need to understand whether that's you're suggesting you're that that be part of the motion or part of the resolution and I don't mind I just leave it up to you okay yeah so I mean if you put it in the resolution I don't think you need it in the motion yeah so that would be a motion to amend the transportation master plan including adding an item three to the resolution that would say this uh this amendment to the transportation master plan is accompanied by are you writing this down accompanied by a Prohibition of access onto 1200 West between 2500 South and 26007 is that your motion yes is there a second second than let me let me explain um we live in just such a amazing country that we have just regular people that get elected with no City Planning skills or stuff and to take all this information and be able to help design and build a city I've been on the council for seven years and ni's is in a rapid growth City because we have amazing staff a small small City that we have we have a city of planners and engineers and uh anyways we do good the reason we get so many foot houses of subdivision is because we do have plans you've seen all the plans that we've had between water and sewer even parks and transportation to one of them so the closer we followed the the quicker the process goes so this is kind of delayed because we're trying to step outside of the plan to see if what we have will benefit the city and why should be removed and I do mind bringing up the Google Earth on this with the satellite yeah just give me a minute explain yeah people online won't see what you're pointing to g go to the Parcel Viewer is that okay that might be a little quicker slow is 1200 West 1200 West is the main Corridor that goes all the way from airport road all the way to H probably busiest roads for Bypass Road next so this this is how I justifi to this is 1200 West that comes here and then we scroll down this way um here we have the intersection we just spent millions of dollars of doing a roundabout that go through here that cross 12200 West and as we go down more you don't mind um and even a little bit more we have our other roundabout yeah so here we spent for here so a lot of times on the plants we connect and if we can come back just a little bit and maybe expand out so we can show the mo building thank you Orientation May Zoom here because we have the loops here so here have roads that are planned on this is road is planned on to hook into another road this is planned on to hook another road we have a commercial here but yet we were nervous of connecting this road through a commercial property so we stubbed it here and we didn't do commercial so again we're on 1200 West maybe if we come down a little bit other way sorry yeah and so start here so here we have another one we could have accessed here on to 1200 but we're trying to protect how many things come here and then we have connections here that we're worried about that we put mountable Road Ian mountable intersection here we've got traffic calming we got barriers for tech bikes and then if we come right even here we could have connected this one through but again this is more than the block but we're connecting how many activities that we connected on 12200 so if we come down just a little bit more and right here so the road that we have it's it's around it's it's a culdesac that goes through and it hits here so it's really not a through Road and then here this is a subdiv vision by Heritage and we didn't plan to connect here we're not connecting here we have a commercial property that we weren't plan on on connecting so my motion was is to remove any connection here which eliminates or protects 1200 West make the developer designed the traffic flow that has to go into 2600 you'll have to go either on the Heritage and to go through on the round that we spent money on protect that we won't have to worry about this intersection me personally like you talk about Frontage this is a major road I mean you think where you talk about car counts and stuff you're going to have crazy amount of car counts on here and I personally would want a developer but you guys are voluntarily not having a connection on here is why I think it benefits the city we're having this develop here that has to come on here be more traffic we eventually get us a light to increase that and have to be designed if any any of these need to hook on to there my motion is is put 2500 is the only way you'll be able to access that so if you can design it by not having it go through there is why I think that's a good motion um and then I know we have Concepts and again anytime we change outside the line you you change expectations so make it clear the the pl that was in the expectation has nothing to do with that it's just can we do a development without this road or not that's why I think that's a good motion uh nor while you're while you're coming back I can I mean just to be historically correct the road that goes through St Stone Bridge was not connected to malth in part because malth is not commercial it's industrial okay and the big fear of the stone bridge residence was at the time Mal was proposing Warehouse in an industrial Zone which wasn't approved or accepted use in the industrial Zone not a commercial Zone but an industrial Zone and and they feared semi- trucks rolling through their neighborhood to get to malof instead of deal what all of Maloof's employees have been dealing with since that on and off of 89 so historically that's that's my perspective of why that Ro is not connected and and also it's it's that it's an industrial use that we isolated from the residential rather than a commercial and I mean a warehouse is not allowed in a commercial Z allow I guess minor Point yeah so let me ask nor um actually ask Al as well so Al I think he said a Road north of the proposed church isolates the church so it it doesn't make sense to me how having a Road next to a church isolates the church and then the followup to go along with the motion that's in front of the council is doesn't eliminating Act on 12th to the church further isolate the church let me have Scot bring that up he brote it out in there a report he's the one he's the traffic engineer so okay so the question for Scotty is how does a road Road north of the church isolate the church sure can you hear me yes all right uh so putting the road on the north side of the church would surround the church by roads on all four sides um so to access the church from any of the residential developments you'd have to cross um streets essentially uh and as far as I know the last um plan that I saw there's still a church access onto 12th West um so having a street to the north wouldn't impact the ability to access the church off 12th West okay so while I'm hearing with the motion in front of us is that that would prohibit the church access onto 12th West and also Scotty I mean the most recent development plan we've seen the property currently to the north of the church as proposed is not with houses it's as part of the RM Zone open space requirement so I mean it doesn't seem like that that road separates houses from the church and and even so it only be a small number of houses but that's open space in the latest proposal north of the proposed 2500 South so what am I missing so the issue in there we don't have a lot of room on that nor side of the church prop there isn't a whole lot that we can put in there so the problem of it is is um something has to give I mean like I say Mar may I wish you know there was another 100 feet in there there's not and so the problem of it is is something that Scotty alluded to if you try to create a road in there you create a dangerous S curve in there it is there and I mean that was brought up even on the 2600 South but hey look you got a curve you have a you know line of sight issue and I mean it's the same issue here so we have Par Drive to a different location just to to alleviate the concern there and so now we're saying okay you know you have an expert just trying to meet that road on the other side of 2500 South that just goes into a subdivision so you know it came back to the question you know the church when they came to us they said we want something around the church we don't want four rows around the church because it creates problems for us vandalism they they have more incidences a lot of you don't know this um my best friend I grew up in bwell Brent Roberts is man managing director for the special projects for church he is over all construct for the church and he talks about this he says you know we have to build temples and and churches in areas where they're well lit but if we give an area where potential mischievous Behavior can happen that's a problem and he talked about different points that they do and they like to have houses around the church just to keep some security something someone keep an eye on the church and so that was a point in there was we put if the road went in there there was no way to put it really limited put put houses next to the church so that was the issue and the motion is is if they need to have 12200 West for Access they have to put the road I I think that's discussion between yeah that's discussion between church I can't get involved that to be clear understand your motion is if they want if the church wants access off of 1200 West it's it's it's only off of 2500 which be to remove it okay yeah it doesn't doesn't I don't know I'll I'll be quiet for a while I have other questions but I'll certainly Nathan I just I think it'd be helpful um does that mean I have to say your motion again no no I I could back did we write it down yeah that's thank you that's we we need to look at our words I yeah yes sir absolutely I don't know why I get this job but I got it is that is that a relationship of State what I'm saying um you know this is discussion obviously the church needs to sit down the city and post those things but I think something that Scotty brought up was very important roads and these things access points should be built on safety being number one and if safety is compromised there's an issue there and we had that Zoom call back there in June and that was discussed was if you have the church there you know what about points of safety and it was brought up multiple times and I think that's a point that that has to come back you know again let church and City those things out but the issue is the same thing here safety and I think Trent brought it up you and Stuart brought it up you have traffic going through a residential area probably the pretty high rate speed and volume I I don't think the volume would be that great you know to a much greater speed and SE point that you driving traffic at 2600 sou and that the challenges that we create in trying to develop out now I'll go one step further on the commercial development than what Stuart said um we're in discussion to put these things together on the commercial development which bu Par Drive and that's one of the things we're coming to resolution to to put those whole things together and they will be put together soon so number nine would be addressed so I think the point that Stewart brought up is to bring all the traffic you know your traffic to your commercial area not to the site area to a front area that's where we want numbers counts that GES great opportunity possibilities there so beautiful right let's see see this resolution is subject to the condition that access on 12 between 2500 South and 2600 South is probably is that yeah is that reflect I so Al you're all right I know I'm going to be quiet but we're on this topic right now um the 1300 West connection that eliminating 2500 South forces more traffic at the 1300 West Connection on the 2600 South is actually closer to the roundabout and offers more safety issues than the 2500 South to access the residential development that you're talking about I mean it's already a level of service F mayor I'll disagree with you on that one because you got an curve on 2500 South you got a curve like this to get to the road or 26 where 1300 West is straight shooting so I guarantee and we talk about this many times traffic reports and Scotty will tell you these things whenever you have curve in Road that's where your accidents are going to happen well and we moved her's drive because her's Drive was coming out right on the dog leg of 20 600 South so let's just agree that we'll leave that to the traffic Engineers no Absolutely I'll stop there Nathan just point of clarification you keep talking about the church from what I understand that property has not been subdivided and it's not been sold yet is that accurate thank you so let me clarify one thing it's been under contract for 10 months they want to close an October so we have been waiting they will not buy the property if they have 2 South there I mean they Trevor came up there you saw it in that last council meeting we do not want this here so doesn't put that in Jeopardy it that absolutely does so that's a concern in oh let me get that in the record the church will not buy the property if 2500 South is left in the master Road plan because that's not what we've heard but if that's the case I'll take your word for it I want it in the record and may going come back and say I they won't definitely but do they be do not want 2500 sou absolutely they have told me that 20 times they told me that this week they don't want it so I mean you saw it here back there the last council meeting they were here they said you asked them do we want 25 no we don't Trevor I was here and so um again I come back to Scotty's point you isolate a building with four roads so that's the concern I mean what name one other building in Cash Valley that has four major roads around it the temple the Tabernacle I can go down a list of Stak centers you ask I think it's disc you're going to have to have church no a discussion this part of this motion that's I'm not even get in front the church okay the church is the church has right to they need to negotiate that out and resolve it but the one thing i' always bring up is safety what's the safety some sced that up he said on that 2500 South if he says the access points for emergency vehicles can go through the parking lot of the state center to get access to to so it's a safety issue so Nathan yes speaking on safety there is a no way me personally I'm going to the new 2500 South without the timing of Heritage Drive being resolve for that second access point the residential and so I would U try like if we're going to do this one my we're going to need to add that it's got to include Heritage in the in the residential proposal as well but I'm not that's the safety that I'm most worried about is we're only going to have one access point and if the commercial takes five months to develop then we'll have 5 months if it takes 52 years we'll have it in 52 years and we need that second access point as soon as this residential goes in so I'm not making a motion I'm saying that there's no way I go for this as is without having the residential two access points figured out wonder if I could ask Scotty about uh the technical verbage of an S curve I mean I understand in theory what an S curve is but maybe Scotty you could tell us like uh is a nest curve like my street curves a bit is that a nest curve or is there some angle of curve it which become an esur is then dangerous because seems like from a lot of conversations we've had recently especially around 1200 West we've heard different traffic study Engineers that curving roads actually slow down traffic so I guess that's kind of contradictory to what I'm understanding so Scot can you speak to that a bit uh yeah so an Ask curve uh is basically just a curve uh or a road that curves twice um uh shaped like an S so uh the
um yeah like you said it can slow down vehicles but it will increase the number of crashes uh just to the inherent nature um when roads are uh icy or um just anything like that they they reduce sight distance uh so you can't have any driveways or access points um on them so it it just adds a lot of uh safety hazards I guess there's some pros and cons to it but um there sorry when what did you miss uh you were saying add pros and cons correct yeah it has it has pros and cons it like you said it can slow down um vehicles but it also uh increases uh safety or yeah safety risks um just by the inherent nature of of having curvature uh it reduces sight distance uh there's uh more issues with with icy roads and and going off the road um so there's just more crashes on curves so yeah that's all I was saying okay and then this is not very piece of uh from the proposed plaque where the edge of the homes are on the west side two 22 West like how it's not very far is there can you tell me how far that is do you know maybe better open SP I mean it's like one city block right so it's probably 6 700 feet I'm guessing yeah you have 2500 and then it to kind of curve up right course were annexed on this property lot of you may not know this we talked about that and so it was in the past and I said you know what that that that intersection is not going to be relevant I wish we got that in R because it that time and that's fine I mean we'll go forward with it but the problem wasn't the discussion back then 3 four years ago was the fact that it had to curve up and it had to come up and try to beat the other road on the other side it just creates unnatural curve make so that's the problem and and then the fact that we can't even put any homes in there it's very restriced because we have setback departments and all the other issues we got a trail we got to put in there and everything like that we can't put anything in there really to make make the thing work and so I mean it makes it very tie if so but the problem is the curve has to go here and go back and go up it's just we've looked at it it's virtually impossible to do it just for the only way we do is have to try to adjust the setbacks or something trying to get numbers to work in there and uh make very TR would know more a little bit more about that he know backs in there getar case that's if the property is to the church contract follow question so Scotty you're traffic engineer according to accepted line of sight clearance how far south of the beginning of the S curve on 1200 West would be required if there's a road south of that esur what is the line of sight requirement that we're talking about we we talking about generality of what's safe and what's not let's go to the engineering practice how far south would a road that goes west off of 1200 less have to be to achieve the line of sight safety requir I guess can you clarify what you're asking okay so Aon has we we've talked about how a road that goes west off a 12 West is not safe because of the esur how far south in the ACC cordinate there's already a 2500 South there for reference how far south of the S curve would be required to meet the line of sight safety for a road leaving 12th West and going west let's not say it's not safe let's talk about what would be safe what's the require on engineering standard I'm still not understanding what you're what you're asking can I try to quy that maybe just to make sure I I think are we talking about the S curve on 2500 South from 12th West into the subdivision I think we're talking about I you're talking about the S curb on 12 West which S curve are we talking about I was I was because his poal development is I me other questions I'll let it go um this is for staff what would it take for the analysis of traffic impact study to5 out to see what changes made to that F intersection what would be require we just have either work with this consultant or hire our own consultant to do our own traffic study Uh I that would take time I don't I mean we be a month and a half fish if we are to go get our own if we would work with this gentleman uh and work through I'm sure we can do it much faster some Financial yeah yeah it would cost us a little bit of money I can't imagine it would be crazy but for that before I give up time is um this one's more for the proponent a lot of talk about we'd like a light we'd like a light have we actually talked and had conversations with got about the plans to get Al light there because in our experience it's kind of hard let you come into that conversation we were there so steart and I met with you do and when please when it was year and a half ago they said yes there will be a light there they ped us right there it was with steuart Adams the Senate President and and uh the director of OT he say yes we'll have a light there so not they Ste they told everyone here Ste steart Adams and yes so so we back so no let no so let me come back on that they have approved a life there Aon they have we just have to get something that steuart thing came back to we have to get the traffic b as soon goes then the light goes and so they yes there is a lot going there stays there yeah like chicken in the egg like can the grocery store go in if there not traffic volume or the traffic volume that first before the grocery store traffic volume volume on we do have that we do have it they haven't that it's just they will they they told us we could pay for it and they would let us put the light in so those lights are $6,000 or UD do pays for it so yes I do have it you have that you will pay for it no you do so they said they would they've authorized the light to go there okay so two things in there they said it's the question with Rob right on who pays for it so he says well the developer has to pay for it and said hold on the developer doesn't have to pay for it so they came back we talked to steuart Adams we talked to uh the director view do right there steuart thing and I were on the phone he says he says where we've got it paid for and set aside they made us go back and do a traffic study tell's engineering they came back and says you have to meet a certain threshold and we'll put the light in so but then they came back to us and said we let you put the light in they gave us that authorization we paid so that has been approv yes so the light has been approved by UD do but you not UDOT has not agreed that they will pay for it they have told us verbally coming er's point they have told us that they have paid put money aside for it that they have not been so so when the potential commercial developer was you're getting a concept plan approved we asked him about the light how important is the light to your commercial development this is a quote he said it's not important at all I said why would you say that that's going to help your commercial development he said as soon as I say I need it for my commercial development I will have to pay for it right so you're a commercial developer potential commercial developer has told this Council he doesn't need the light now I want the light don't get me wrong but but warranting light is very different than paying for a light it's different by about 6 or 700,000 so what they did on that since I've been through this process I exactly because we've been through it three times so as soon as the traffic volume gets there then UD do is warranted pay for the light that is true so meeting warrant me let me let me go then go train meeting warrant for a light is different than paying for a light well no what they're saying is then they would pay for that time so you're telling this city council that you thought will pay for that light if we have the traffic volume there yes so we had to go back and do the traffic mayor we had to go back and do the traffic study I was right in the middle of that so we had to do the traffic study and and Scotty can talk about that and remember we did two or three options on that to look at that then we went to UD do UD do came back to us and said okay you you are authorized to put a light in there but we have to meet certain traffic volumes to to have them PID for it be clear because I'm going to hold you to this well you can hold it to me because that that's that's been the discuss just be clear I'm understanding it correctly that you're telling me udah has not only warrant uh warranted the light but they will also pay for the light as soon as we get the traffic volumes in place well um I have been involved in the 8991 study every meeting that you mentioned yeah and that study has concluded it's not ongoing the last slide I don't I don't want to I don't want to face this reality but the last slide of that presentation from the contractor was do we really need a light there I saw that and I warned you I said Al I just came from a meeting that you not is saying do we really need a light there now here's how this is going to get resolved and this is as a uh CMO briefing on Monday from Ryan who's now replaced uh Chestnut he said the next step is the corridor agreement and and I said can we be in the court can we be in the drafting of that court agreement because we're worried about whether that light is going to be warranted going to be allowed and that's before we ever get to the point of paying for it he said yeah you can be involved we'll let you come and argue the relevance of that light in the corridor agreement which replace the one that is currently expired so that doesn't sound like you not saying they I've never read from what you sent before that they would pay for it I've never read that okay I look forward to reading that because that'll help me go to a corridor agreement with you do and say look guys here's what you have in writing that you not only agree there will be a light there it's in writing that you will pay for the light there as soon as we got the I don't care they will warrant it and pay for it I will look forward to reading that and I'll show it to them Scot was involved with thaty there so deal with that issue can I interject yeah TR go ahead I cut you off before right so so uh we do all of the um traffic signal studies reviews for uh UDOT across the state um as soon as this intersection meets traffic volumes uh which on a highspeed road like us89 is only about 75 vehicles and based on our counts when we did this study was it was already at 50 left turns um as soon as that warrant is met UDOT will almost always pay for the signal unless it's some extenuating circumstances they don't have um an impact fee program to have developers pay for roads on their um facilities uh so if this roadway is servicing more than um one single development which this roadway is servicing most of the city uh UDOT will just pay for the signal as soon as it meets the the vehicular volume warrants on that intersection okay thank you TR I look forward to seeing that in writing hey hey mayor this mayor this is this is steuart th and that's why the developer told you that he didn't need it because he knows and enough of these that the grocery store once they open up will hit that warrant number in regards to that and then there's a liability issue I believe with udon on why once that hits the warrant why they have to put those in so I look forward to showing those words to UD do as we go down the path of the next Corridor agreement so thank you Justin did you have something I think he answered my question my question is going to be in their modeling and predicting what kind of time frame would they expect this to war it sounds like it'll be short but if you wanted to mop out that question I I've kind of given up on time frame and just hope it's there before my grandkids come we've been working on this a long time yes talked about the configuration of the plat whether it be easy or hard to get in I se a chance pull up the new updated with the road that old Circle yes this and this I so maybe speak to us about them that look terms of like plowing andain so in clarify I'm clarifying the parking lots there's three parking lots so I see and those would be privately owned cloud is that correct so even though the so that parking lot in the upper right would double both as overflow parking for Town Homes as well as public parking for the the pick ball courts in hot lot okay but there wouldn't necessarily be a public parking lot dedicated on that lot for that you know I think that's a discussion to have it's a very good point in there is because I think coming back to what several of you said is you know you you know I think pick B courts I mean they brought this up in previous Council meetings they put them right next door our house and that thing is busy the whole time and so I think we have to look at that a little bit more and just make sure that we you know make sure we have good yeah just wait so thanks I'm looking at Council I mean I spoke yes think give my reasoning I mean I I spoke on this before regardless development I have some issues like Norm said engineer but we do try to do our homework here hard to understand the issues we make inform decisions when we first did this back last July or AUST I there the first we stood on that discussion with Tom way too close to the roundabout to have another access here and he showed me 13 we walk that the other issue I have is where that connects North on the North Boundary so do have to have the curve because I mean developer I can't use one side of the road that have to put in without doing that curve so I think that's an issue and then running that road along Spring Creek which has no connections to the road which makes me wonder did we plan on that road was that before after Spring Creek because there's nothing in Spring Creek connecting to this road in the master plan because those it can't because those roads that's around Circle in Spring Creek and it's a private driveway into the back so can't be an access US is an access if this room went through and so because of the and then the other issue I have is the oning issue we're having with 1200 West with mountable mins and putting those there and then when we had that traffic engineer here explaining 1200 West in the public hearing he specifically said in his slide talk about a fourway intersection at a 66% higher incident rate than a three-way which is only 22% and for me that just kind of isolated that I don't want a forway unless it's roundout then because I think that just creates more issues with those Mounds as we've seen with stone bridge and other things you have to slow down a fair amount to make that turn where this is a major going to be a major corridor traffic name I want to limit the access on and I think it create more problems than so when we talked about this for Garett we looked at the distance from the roundabout at 12 West and 2600 C to 1300 West which is closer than the distance that you're worried about at 2500 sou yeah and how we should we get rid of 1300 West I told Tommy I be part of it miate that be part of that develop process so while while we're on this and now be Qui and and I'm engaged more in this discussion than nor because I'm realizing we have four people here and I may actually I might actually have to vote on this and so I'm a little more engaged than usual even though I'm a member of council normally a non- voting member tonight that might change so I have one more question about s curv since we're not talking about S curves on 12 West we're talking about S curves on these East West Roads I mean really look at the S curve that goes onto Heritage it was it was a discussion with the city engineer and the developer so um I wasn't involved in that discussion so because if you remember we had when the previous city engineer was in here we had that just down there BT and then you came back us said Well it has a line of sight now trans and St we can talk a little bit more that it's a whole another different discussion but they said there was sufficient line side to me stay Cod that everyone that there I didn't there so don't throw that one at me please so just addressing your and now it's not safe on the East but safe on the west the issue there was okay we'll come back to that steart I hope you're still online because I have commercial development questions but Aon was next and then Nathan well had interest in creating an alternate motion that includes something about her to drive access this is mostly a question uh I think it feels like gett and specifically uh is the distance of the access of 2500 to the roundabout still a concern that why we're saying that was my initial concern out there way too close talk me300 okay but yeah the other issue for the M Islands you know how much around to make that turn this is to be a high volume higher the normal resal speed Road I just think that creates a whole another problem just moving many access using round so the so you know that 2500 sorry 12 West is is not only partly built but the I know it's done and there aren't any mountable Islands at 2500 sou that sign since it is across the street the design the funding is in 2500 South is already built East Side we go tear out houses well we would have to look at the specific design I I can't say for certain there would be but there are requirements in are Cod to to address traffic right we would require traffic calming for sure which could help mitigate by the way I I I think the traffic calming could help mitigate some of that cut through traffic if it if it's appropriately designed as well just just something to consideran you have something next well um I just the the distance was something and it sounds like that's been resolved as far as 13 but I did a a quick like review of every roundabout Val and the distance between that the next row so I think this one's about 450 that seemo I think it's closer to six yeah okay so I may be off in my calculation by about 100 like but uh if we go to our own W West and um it down by my house 3200 the 13ish area down left right there so that intersection there 1350 I yeah that is to me like that's like the closest one sounds like that is actually very close then like there's other examples of Providence I think Providence is actually a good example at the church access points they're very close to that so if you want to get an example of what this area might a great place to go don't stre B reason you have access is is to to provide RS or services to that parcel here we have a completely blame so in their voluntar have access to that Church illustrating yeah church school there two separ parts I'm just saying the church has access on the North Road and the West Road which is very similar to what is being proposed currently for that spot so if you don't like that you don't saying nothing on 12 you essentially eliminate I think that's just a good the access that's why Justin so I think that would be a good opportunity if we could see our attorneys awake uh Joel Yellow Horse you out there buddy yes I am can you hear me yeah I'm I'm curious to know on Norman's motion that he made about no other accesses on the 1200 West whether you're comfortable and confident if you know whoever if however whatever happens on that piece of property that's left over right now we're talking about it being a church but if if Norm is successful in this motion we have the legal standing to be able to restrict the access on to 1200 West and it would be a binding resolution or are we going to have the same some legal fight with somebody that's going to come in and fight us about that and have another issue about whether there can or cannot be an access does that make sense yes it does um I think the highway code has a provision about it that does give um some rights to the land owner when it comes to access onto a road so yes there there could be a dispute I think um thees the city would have some discretion when it comes to you know things like safety and making sure an access is appropriately placed but I think the city is the highway Authority they have to follow the transportation code and there there there are some rights there that the land owner does have is that because it's not it's not subdivided they wouldn't be able to subdivide without providing an access so so part of the defense is you can't subdivided because you don't have access TOS that make sense CU we're giv access on 2600 you just couldn't split that yeah it just seems to me like we'd almost need the existing property owner to agree to that yeah well so it's our property family's property you could go deep restricted yeah right you I mean anything you can do the parties into agreeing and put it on the pla de restricted but I'm not sure Joel's here to answer it Joe y that that would work if they signed an agreement and reported on the property they could see right to us b i I have Levi would you pull up the latest residential development proposal and F I hope you can hear me if you do say yes please his computer just died he said man this conversation on okay here let me let me get him on the phone I so what was a question's a question so I believe thing said steuart steuart Stuart thing yeah the man with two first names I'll tell that who of of whom I respect immensly telling that part to you I believe Stuart thing said that it would be an advantage to commercial opportunities to go with this proposal which specifically takes a frontage road that we have long planned parallel to
um yeah like you said it can slow down vehicles but it will increase the number of crashes uh just to the inherent nature um when roads are uh icy or um just anything like that they they reduce sight distance uh so you can't have any driveways or access points um on them so it it just adds a lot of uh safety hazards I guess there's some pros and cons to it but um there sorry when what did you miss uh you were saying add pros and cons correct yeah it has it has pros and cons it like you said it can slow down um vehicles but it also uh increases uh safety or yeah safety risks um just by the inherent nature of of having curvature uh it reduces sight distance uh there's uh more issues with with icy roads and and going off the road um so there's just more crashes on curves so yeah that's all I was saying okay and then this is not very piece of uh from the proposed plaque where the edge of the homes are on the west side two 22 West like how it's not very far is there can you tell me how far that is do you know maybe better open SP I mean it's like one city block right so it's probably 6 700 feet I'm guessing yeah you have 2500 and then it to kind of curve up right course were annexed on this property lot of you may not know this we talked about that and so it was in the past and I said you know what that that that intersection is not going to be relevant I wish we got that in R because it that time and that's fine I mean we'll go forward with it but the problem wasn't the discussion back then 3 four years ago was the fact that it had to curve up and it had to come up and try to beat the other road on the other side it just creates unnatural curve make so that's the problem and and then the fact that we can't even put any homes in there it's very restriced because we have setback departments and all the other issues we got a trail we got to put in there and everything like that we can't put anything in there really to make make the thing work and so I mean it makes it very tie if so but the problem is the curve has to go here and go back and go up it's just we've looked at it it's virtually impossible to do it just for the only way we do is have to try to adjust the setbacks or something trying to get numbers to work in there and uh make very TR would know more a little bit more about that he know backs in there getar case that's if the property is to the church contract follow question so Scotty you're traffic engineer according to accepted line of sight clearance how far south of the beginning of the S curve on 1200 West would be required if there's a road south of that esur what is the line of sight requirement that we're talking about we we talking about generality of what's safe and what's not let's go to the engineering practice how far south would a road that goes west off of 1200 less have to be to achieve the line of sight safety requir I guess can you clarify what you're asking okay so Aon has we we've talked about how a road that goes west off a 12 West is not safe because of the esur how far south in the ACC cordinate there's already a 2500 South there for reference how far south of the S curve would be required to meet the line of sight safety for a road leaving 12th West and going west let's not say it's not safe let's talk about what would be safe what's the require on engineering standard I'm still not understanding what you're what you're asking can I try to quy that maybe just to make sure I I think are we talking about the S curve on 2500 South from 12th West into the subdivision I think we're talking about I you're talking about the S curb on 12 West which S curve are we talking about I was I was because his poal development is I me other questions I'll let it go um this is for staff what would it take for the analysis of traffic impact study to5 out to see what changes made to that F intersection what would be require we just have either work with this consultant or hire our own consultant to do our own traffic study Uh I that would take time I don't I mean we be a month and a half fish if we are to go get our own if we would work with this gentleman uh and work through I'm sure we can do it much faster some Financial yeah yeah it would cost us a little bit of money I can't imagine it would be crazy but for that before I give up time is um this one's more for the proponent a lot of talk about we'd like a light we'd like a light have we actually talked and had conversations with got about the plans to get Al light there because in our experience it's kind of hard let you come into that conversation we were there so steart and I met with you do and when please when it was year and a half ago they said yes there will be a light there they ped us right there it was with steuart Adams the Senate President and and uh the director of OT he say yes we'll have a light there so not they Ste they told everyone here Ste steart Adams and yes so so we back so no let no so let me come back on that they have approved a life there Aon they have we just have to get something that steuart thing came back to we have to get the traffic b as soon goes then the light goes and so they yes there is a lot going there stays there yeah like chicken in the egg like can the grocery store go in if there not traffic volume or the traffic volume that first before the grocery store traffic volume volume on we do have that we do have it they haven't that it's just they will they they told us we could pay for it and they would let us put the light in so those lights are $6,000 or UD do pays for it so yes I do have it you have that you will pay for it no you do so they said they would they've authorized the light to go there okay so two things in there they said it's the question with Rob right on who pays for it so he says well the developer has to pay for it and said hold on the developer doesn't have to pay for it so they came back we talked to steuart Adams we talked to uh the director view do right there steuart thing and I were on the phone he says he says where we've got it paid for and set aside they made us go back and do a traffic study tell's engineering they came back and says you have to meet a certain threshold and we'll put the light in so but then they came back to us and said we let you put the light in they gave us that authorization we paid so that has been approv yes so the light has been approved by UD do but you not UDOT has not agreed that they will pay for it they have told us verbally coming er's point they have told us that they have paid put money aside for it that they have not been so so when the potential commercial developer was you're getting a concept plan approved we asked him about the light how important is the light to your commercial development this is a quote he said it's not important at all I said why would you say that that's going to help your commercial development he said as soon as I say I need it for my commercial development I will have to pay for it right so you're a commercial developer potential commercial developer has told this Council he doesn't need the light now I want the light don't get me wrong but but warranting light is very different than paying for a light it's different by about 6 or 700,000 so what they did on that since I've been through this process I exactly because we've been through it three times so as soon as the traffic volume gets there then UD do is warranted pay for the light that is true so meeting warrant me let me let me go then go train meeting warrant for a light is different than paying for a light well no what they're saying is then they would pay for that time so you're telling this city council that you thought will pay for that light if we have the traffic volume there yes so we had to go back and do the traffic mayor we had to go back and do the traffic study I was right in the middle of that so we had to do the traffic study and and Scotty can talk about that and remember we did two or three options on that to look at that then we went to UD do UD do came back to us and said okay you you are authorized to put a light in there but we have to meet certain traffic volumes to to have them PID for it be clear because I'm going to hold you to this well you can hold it to me because that that's that's been the discuss just be clear I'm understanding it correctly that you're telling me udah has not only warrant uh warranted the light but they will also pay for the light as soon as we get the traffic volumes in place well um I have been involved in the 8991 study every meeting that you mentioned yeah and that study has concluded it's not ongoing the last slide I don't I don't want to I don't want to face this reality but the last slide of that presentation from the contractor was do we really need a light there I saw that and I warned you I said Al I just came from a meeting that you not is saying do we really need a light there now here's how this is going to get resolved and this is as a uh CMO briefing on Monday from Ryan who's now replaced uh Chestnut he said the next step is the corridor agreement and and I said can we be in the court can we be in the drafting of that court agreement because we're worried about whether that light is going to be warranted going to be allowed and that's before we ever get to the point of paying for it he said yeah you can be involved we'll let you come and argue the relevance of that light in the corridor agreement which replace the one that is currently expired so that doesn't sound like you not saying they I've never read from what you sent before that they would pay for it I've never read that okay I look forward to reading that because that'll help me go to a corridor agreement with you do and say look guys here's what you have in writing that you not only agree there will be a light there it's in writing that you will pay for the light there as soon as we got the I don't care they will warrant it and pay for it I will look forward to reading that and I'll show it to them Scot was involved with thaty there so deal with that issue can I interject yeah TR go ahead I cut you off before right so so uh we do all of the um traffic signal studies reviews for uh UDOT across the state um as soon as this intersection meets traffic volumes uh which on a highspeed road like us89 is only about 75 vehicles and based on our counts when we did this study was it was already at 50 left turns um as soon as that warrant is met UDOT will almost always pay for the signal unless it's some extenuating circumstances they don't have um an impact fee program to have developers pay for roads on their um facilities uh so if this roadway is servicing more than um one single development which this roadway is servicing most of the city uh UDOT will just pay for the signal as soon as it meets the the vehicular volume warrants on that intersection okay thank you TR I look forward to seeing that in writing hey hey mayor this mayor this is this is steuart th and that's why the developer told you that he didn't need it because he knows and enough of these that the grocery store once they open up will hit that warrant number in regards to that and then there's a liability issue I believe with udon on why once that hits the warrant why they have to put those in so I look forward to showing those words to UD do as we go down the path of the next Corridor agreement so thank you Justin did you have something I think he answered my question my question is going to be in their modeling and predicting what kind of time frame would they expect this to war it sounds like it'll be short but if you wanted to mop out that question I I've kind of given up on time frame and just hope it's there before my grandkids come we've been working on this a long time yes talked about the configuration of the plat whether it be easy or hard to get in I se a chance pull up the new updated with the road that old Circle yes this and this I so maybe speak to us about them that look terms of like plowing andain so in clarify I'm clarifying the parking lots there's three parking lots so I see and those would be privately owned cloud is that correct so even though the so that parking lot in the upper right would double both as overflow parking for Town Homes as well as public parking for the the pick ball courts in hot lot okay but there wouldn't necessarily be a public parking lot dedicated on that lot for that you know I think that's a discussion to have it's a very good point in there is because I think coming back to what several of you said is you know you you know I think pick B courts I mean they brought this up in previous Council meetings they put them right next door our house and that thing is busy the whole time and so I think we have to look at that a little bit more and just make sure that we you know make sure we have good yeah just wait so thanks I'm looking at Council I mean I spoke yes think give my reasoning I mean I I spoke on this before regardless development I have some issues like Norm said engineer but we do try to do our homework here hard to understand the issues we make inform decisions when we first did this back last July or AUST I there the first we stood on that discussion with Tom way too close to the roundabout to have another access here and he showed me 13 we walk that the other issue I have is where that connects North on the North Boundary so do have to have the curve because I mean developer I can't use one side of the road that have to put in without doing that curve so I think that's an issue and then running that road along Spring Creek which has no connections to the road which makes me wonder did we plan on that road was that before after Spring Creek because there's nothing in Spring Creek connecting to this road in the master plan because those it can't because those roads that's around Circle in Spring Creek and it's a private driveway into the back so can't be an access US is an access if this room went through and so because of the and then the other issue I have is the oning issue we're having with 1200 West with mountable mins and putting those there and then when we had that traffic engineer here explaining 1200 West in the public hearing he specifically said in his slide talk about a fourway intersection at a 66% higher incident rate than a three-way which is only 22% and for me that just kind of isolated that I don't want a forway unless it's roundout then because I think that just creates more issues with those Mounds as we've seen with stone bridge and other things you have to slow down a fair amount to make that turn where this is a major going to be a major corridor traffic name I want to limit the access on and I think it create more problems than so when we talked about this for Garett we looked at the distance from the roundabout at 12 West and 2600 C to 1300 West which is closer than the distance that you're worried about at 2500 sou yeah and how we should we get rid of 1300 West I told Tommy I be part of it miate that be part of that develop process so while while we're on this and now be Qui and and I'm engaged more in this discussion than nor because I'm realizing we have four people here and I may actually I might actually have to vote on this and so I'm a little more engaged than usual even though I'm a member of council normally a non- voting member tonight that might change so I have one more question about s curv since we're not talking about S curves on 12 West we're talking about S curves on these East West Roads I mean really look at the S curve that goes onto Heritage it was it was a discussion with the city engineer and the developer so um I wasn't involved in that discussion so because if you remember we had when the previous city engineer was in here we had that just down there BT and then you came back us said Well it has a line of sight now trans and St we can talk a little bit more that it's a whole another different discussion but they said there was sufficient line side to me stay Cod that everyone that there I didn't there so don't throw that one at me please so just addressing your and now it's not safe on the East but safe on the west the issue there was okay we'll come back to that steart I hope you're still online because I have commercial development questions but Aon was next and then Nathan well had interest in creating an alternate motion that includes something about her to drive access this is mostly a question uh I think it feels like gett and specifically uh is the distance of the access of 2500 to the roundabout still a concern that why we're saying that was my initial concern out there way too close talk me300 okay but yeah the other issue for the M Islands you know how much around to make that turn this is to be a high volume higher the normal resal speed Road I just think that creates a whole another problem just moving many access using round so the so you know that 2500 sorry 12 West is is not only partly built but the I know it's done and there aren't any mountable Islands at 2500 sou that sign since it is across the street the design the funding is in 2500 South is already built East Side we go tear out houses well we would have to look at the specific design I I can't say for certain there would be but there are requirements in are Cod to to address traffic right we would require traffic calming for sure which could help mitigate by the way I I I think the traffic calming could help mitigate some of that cut through traffic if it if it's appropriately designed as well just just something to consideran you have something next well um I just the the distance was something and it sounds like that's been resolved as far as 13 but I did a a quick like review of every roundabout Val and the distance between that the next row so I think this one's about 450 that seemo I think it's closer to six yeah okay so I may be off in my calculation by about 100 like but uh if we go to our own W West and um it down by my house 3200 the 13ish area down left right there so that intersection there 1350 I yeah that is to me like that's like the closest one sounds like that is actually very close then like there's other examples of Providence I think Providence is actually a good example at the church access points they're very close to that so if you want to get an example of what this area might a great place to go don't stre B reason you have access is is to to provide RS or services to that parcel here we have a completely blame so in their voluntar have access to that Church illustrating yeah church school there two separ parts I'm just saying the church has access on the North Road and the West Road which is very similar to what is being proposed currently for that spot so if you don't like that you don't saying nothing on 12 you essentially eliminate I think that's just a good the access that's why Justin so I think that would be a good opportunity if we could see our attorneys awake uh Joel Yellow Horse you out there buddy yes I am can you hear me yeah I'm I'm curious to know on Norman's motion that he made about no other accesses on the 1200 West whether you're comfortable and confident if you know whoever if however whatever happens on that piece of property that's left over right now we're talking about it being a church but if if Norm is successful in this motion we have the legal standing to be able to restrict the access on to 1200 West and it would be a binding resolution or are we going to have the same some legal fight with somebody that's going to come in and fight us about that and have another issue about whether there can or cannot be an access does that make sense yes it does um I think the highway code has a provision about it that does give um some rights to the land owner when it comes to access onto a road so yes there there could be a dispute I think um thees the city would have some discretion when it comes to you know things like safety and making sure an access is appropriately placed but I think the city is the highway Authority they have to follow the transportation code and there there there are some rights there that the land owner does have is that because it's not it's not subdivided they wouldn't be able to subdivide without providing an access so so part of the defense is you can't subdivided because you don't have access TOS that make sense CU we're giv access on 2600 you just couldn't split that yeah it just seems to me like we'd almost need the existing property owner to agree to that yeah well so it's our property family's property you could go deep restricted yeah right you I mean anything you can do the parties into agreeing and put it on the pla de restricted but I'm not sure Joel's here to answer it Joe y that that would work if they signed an agreement and reported on the property they could see right to us b i I have Levi would you pull up the latest residential development proposal and F I hope you can hear me if you do say yes please his computer just died he said man this conversation on okay here let me let me get him on the phone I so what was a question's a question so I believe thing said steuart steuart Stuart thing yeah the man with two first names I'll tell that who of of whom I respect immensly telling that part to you I believe Stuart thing said that it would be an advantage to commercial opportunities to go with this proposal which specifically takes a frontage road that we have long planned parallel to
8991 as a commercial Road and is currently zoned commercial on both sides of Heritage Drive and would turn half of that road one side of that road the east side of that road that's already Zone commercial into residential and that's some that's what this proposal does correct which side well yes because it was brought up so let's go back and discuss that so back there 3 months ago when you came up you said hey look our density was was misconstrued I mean Norm was great you came back at us and said well your units you know everything's out of whack and so we went out propos it move that out there you no no the city never told you to submit a reone request yeah to us all I want to talk about is the commercial opportunity on Heritage Drive and I have trouble understanding how property that's on the east and west of Heritage Drive which is currently Zone commercial and by the way currently matches the concept plan that the potential commercial developer has shown this Council and the council adopted with commercial property on both sides of Heritage Drive how eliminating commercial property that zones as such and proposed as such into residential AIDS the commercial development I'm not pretty to that Al you know that seeing in here is there are other issues that we're dealing with right here I brought the Cs okay I've brought this up multiple times I got sever balls here and just one thing and we can't get one thing just let's get this resol go can sit here for year or two or something like that Stuart made a call he says this thing's hot on the commercial side and he says you take it by now he brings up the example had a city manager said no we we can't have this they lost out on Costco went to South AR went we he said they have been begging him to get Costco back in next there wait and the thing of this he's brought up to me in this last week he said there are 16 cities 16 cities that would like to have what this opportunity for n city has and he said I can't get them he says do does the seaing recognize what the opportunity is there I said I don't know I don't deal in this thing but he said this is a big deal and I wish Stewart was still on the line I TR to call him again but that's the issue in there is trying to develop traffic count for the commercial center so you can have an expanded area for commercial now why is because the first proposal I'll go in to explain everything you want to explain everything I'll explain everything when they first came in proposed they said hey look you know we want all this area then it came back and said now they're looking just on the North side do they want to expand on it yes they do but it depends on TR traffic count they have to drive the traffic count Ste Le to that quite a bit the traffic count on 2600 South has to be so much or you lose opportunities and options for commercial development so let me ask specifically again how does turning land that is currently zoned commercial on the east side of Heritage Drive into houses increase the traffic count okay I'm listening we nine whatever keep going Al just answer the question let's not play just answer the question so I'm saying here many over here how many there's 16 okay there's a lot there's actually more than 16 it's actually about 20 so the question came up can we develop old this and old this and the commercial this was phase one this was phase two this is phase three so was to develop into phases so come back and say well let's take this away we have seriously probably somewhere in the range of 27 Acres 27 so we going to fill up 27 acres in commercial development not right now it's not 27 you just told us it was there's seven on sty there's there's old this right in here so this is important for the commercial development because they want households close to this to sustain it they want they they know steuart's brought this up many times they want to know how many households are within a qu mile of the cir and so to have the the number counts and their important events here so starts morning months you trifle with this and your opportunity and you lose it and it's decades to get it back that so you're telling me that those 50 houses on the east side of Heritage Drive are Paramount to commercial development happening 50 houses on the west side of Commercial Drive when we're talking about all these traffic counts off 8991 and 2600 South those 50 town homes are Paramount to the success of commercial on the west side of the road so what do you want us to do with leave it commercial what if we can't get it in there we've seen a proposal from your possible developer that shows it as phase two commercial development so I'm supposed to sit there and wait for six years for that to develop so who's the developer the city we've waited for since 1942 for commercial development wait another six years if it gets us commercial you want to wait another six years I I think the opportun here wish Stewart was on the phone and he could go but mayor what I'm saying here is you got a hot opportunity to do this hot and it's hot we're meeting tomorrow at 10:30 are we not going we're meet at 10:30 to finalize diff and I'm going to tell you what happens here tonight will impact what that discussion is like tomorrow okay go on the tell me if your potential commercial developer has said that he wants that property that is currently zoned commercial to be rezoned to residential mayor that's a yes or no no back here this see right to do this city and put it together for this city okay and how much did steuart talk about tax base a year one to 1.2 million a year I know all that Al so you don't have to tell me we want commercial development in nii City you have to tell me that number one the commercial developer wants that property rezoned to commercial sorry it's already commercial wants it rezoned to residential who has the right to decide what the city has the right to zone property within its jurisdiction that's a legislative action of the city council that answers your question who has the right now I'm more than happy to do what the developer of the commercial property on the west wants us to do but I need to hear that from the developer because you say I got to keep this commercial I can't do anything this I'm telling you it's currently Zone commercial and it is a legislative action of the city council that they the council is allowed to say yes and the council is yet allowed to say no and the property right say here's what we would like you to do I know it's connected but I think the discussion is getting to the point okay all right here's here's why I'm pushing thank you for bringing me back this is a moving Target right the whole reason we're even looking at a potential residential development here and nine items we should not be looking at a commercial development a residential development in association with the master Road plan the master Road plan is a plan of how we connect subdivision a development a to subdivision be development be it's not a question of how does it serve my project the master Road plan is how we connect projects not how it serves individual projects the only reason Council asked staff to look at those nine items which were not meant to be inclusive of what might come up in a potential development is the interesting number two that used the church property as available land for residential when Computing the density it's like where in the world does that come from so that's why you know so well the development doesn't need it but development was based on using Church property in the gross acreage or developable acreage for residential that's being put into church property all right so then that means that we need to go shift this thing to the West and reone land and we're still looking at a moving Target when in fact what we should be looking at is connectivity for the city we shouldn't even be looking at that plan or any other plan we should be saying what does the master Road plan say for connectivity in our to Nathan yeah I I agree right the threshold for removing something from a master plan is very high for and we have G down the path because the proponent asked us to to look at all these things that may or may not in our opinion meet that threshold and I think that it's it's too skewed and it's it's it's it has not met that and the primary reason is is the things the staff brought up and those have not been resolved for me so the threshold of removing something from the master plan I think that's why we've been down this path why we looked at these nine which I appreciate my opinion we have not resolved or met that profession we're changing our master plan for this because it's it's too complicated there's too much going on there's too much moving targets I'm disappointed like I I want it to happen just as much as everyone else but we're T you have 44 is Acres just to the north here right and we I talked earlier about how I like creating value and wealth for all the property in including your own right and and we're going to take what is the most entit property we've ever had and divide it up I think there's more that you could do here if you looked at who you're selling to and I think we've had this discuss right there's there's plenty of land there that you could do on your own developing if if residential is what you want to do where you're choosing to kind of enter these other ones so I agree with you just talking about the road and connectivity and the threshold for moving 2500 South for me has not been that but I appreciate the time and effort that Mo to finding out if it was and with that I'll make a substitute motion to deny is there a second on a sub motion to deny modication of the transportation master plan so that just replace right yeah so now the motion on the table is to deny modification of the RO plan I think I justed my so I still disagree we have master plan plan follow all the through along that section of 2500 if it was that important that commercial add on the building why didn't we make and then point on the top side of street we're not consist if if we really need every block apart why blocks I just uh I I we need to put a road just Road I think if all we need is a four-way intersection why are we spending millions of dollars ons really disagrees I think think that road needs to flow that you have second activity subdivision does it see more tell put in half goes against the city problem what does the city prob gain Ro it's just it's already it's already built out on the North whereas other you show you put so I disagree I went back and forth back and forth it has nothing to do anything other than this road even if you you pulled up the match it's just like oh whatever not specific but you the subvision that's in there it's just can you do one or you can't really think having the church there accessing 1200 I don't disagree all say there were mistakes made to the north considered with those properties can't do about that I was here um I wish we would have but my my question to you and kind of I guess to those that why are we so worried about connectivity on 12 but not the same concerns on 26 right that's not up to them if they were the say that 26 that's SCH 26 we buil to have a traffic but yeah well I I guess what I'm asking is you're asking for a limitation from 25 where 25 would be down which to me is going to put more pressure and more outlets on 26 and or heritage why are we so concerned about 12 but not 26 well that are both 12 goes from Air Road to hide these other ones just a road that follows there these are our it's not it's not the traffic that one was other you're all way from Airport Road and then once they go that all okay so they're not the same not they're not same okay and if you go further like I showed you they limited access so what we're asking this one is we cou so let me let me just clarify procedure here uh substitute motion that we're currently debating is to deny but the effect of of Norm's motion if it fails is exactly equal to the effect of Nathan's motion if it passes so Al I know you sat down and you know you're still welcome to be part of this but I want you to realize everyone to realize that the substitute motion doesn't change the substance of this discussion it just it just changes if you if a member of council wants a certain thing they will vote Yes or they will vote no but the substitute motion doesn't kill the idea of modifying the master Road well I think it add several points of cont start up by attorneys to that you know proportionality we're not going to sit here and pay for something we don't feel like and you're have to go through and do studies you're going to have to identify exactly what's going to do you know happen in there does it have an impact on the commercial absolutely 100% it does Ste brought that up so I don't know where we go from here I don't okay we we' sat down with the council we walked through went through everything I don't think you had a developer or family try to sit down and accommodate the request like we have we we really tried to work and put things together make it work and if somehow the city can show that 25 years South really desperate needs needs to be there and go contrary to what the commercial developer wants and the the traffic two Traffic Engineers then I guess go out it and we can come through settlement and figure out exactly how much you want to pay for it so Joel Yellow Horse you're listening in so those would be those would be the kinds I'm not asking you to respond unless you want to but those would be the kinds of questions the city would would be involved in if you have advice for us we're all yours if you don't we'll continue with our own discussion um I I think not at this time no thanks so Al let me let me be very clear about how much I want commercial development for nii City I don't think that's ever been in question don't don't smirk at me don't smirk it okay I want that I think the council knows we all want that so when a commercial developer tells the city council they want land that is currently zoned commercial rezone to residential I'm all ears if you come out of your meeting tomorrow with a potential commercial developer and you can have that potential commercial developer tell me in confidence or whatever he wants that land reson from commercial to residential I'm your boy let me let me come back to a couple things and that's where I think i' back your a little bit here you're starting to infringe upon contracts and conversations obviously the city's a partnership on this thing but we have to work out the details of this transaction too and we have to make sure it works for us we have got in some things to really benefit the city really benefit the city and and Joel we've done some things to concede on things to benefit to see this benefit and to see this tonight it really sour because it just puts to a point you just say there is no tradeoff we're just being told what to do and and I think family's here and I don't want to speak for my family but I think my family just say you know what getting anything out of this so what's the purpose of that'll be for you guys to S Nathan yeah Point Clear the motion that I proposed is to continue the discussion uh whether or not 25 minutes out should go it and my proposal is that it should not it doesn't mean I'm against you developing or anything like that right I think the concept and the frame of mind I have to take as a representative is we had it in the master plan you as a proponent asked for us to remove it and that's the discussion we're having right there's a lot of this other stuff that you've worked on with others and things that are connected but as far as as what we're trying to decide tonight I trying to decide whether or not point should feel and the motion I made is to continue the discussion and whether or not some feel like it should or should I'm trying to back on traffic whether or not 25 out even moov from our m I'll make sure that no I appreciate that and I promise you if your potential I know I can't give up on this because I want commercial development St I know if you're developer your commercial developer tells me that they want what is currently Zone commercial reone to residential I'm the flag bearer but I need to hear it from him that's where it gets into an ER is 100% right and you guys they're movings I just want to eliminate and get it out that's all we want to do so we other we're spending so much time on this that distracts away from bigger things and that becomes a big issue because we'll have tomorrow Joel 100% will and does it impact her ability to come to a final deal that would benefit the city do 100% yes so what I'm saying here and I appreciate Nathan to your point there is you know we're trying to make this work we're trying to make it work in many regards but it also we have to look at it in several aspects the church wants this here we want to give the thing to the church but it sounds like question if you really Church there I mean they come to the city and compos everything to show exactly how they want to lay that's a plot of the church and so you know and we have to we have to come to agreement with you it's I'll be honest I feel sometimes like we're being told what to do and we' lost is that fair yes that's a concern to our families and so I never want to get to that I to get to mutual agreement and there has to be tradeoff here to work things out now when we came into ni we did talk about 2500 sou and that connection there and yes it was discussed and yes they said we about it that's not a really important thing well it became important I wish I got that in that's the one thing there but if the city really that and they really then to go through studies and do proportionality and you're going to have to put out some money in here you're gonna have to do and so we're not GNA just freelance and do everything in there and the question of Mayor it comes back what does it do through the rest of the devel do we want to do it that's the question I I mean if we're not if we feel like we are being run over by an 18 wheel semiu then it just sits there we're just we're not we're not going anywhere so I think it's a discussion to have with the coun and everyone say can we come to an agreement if not then we just say we can't do it takes majority vote to question there second we have that second voting voting so we have a a motion and a second to proceed with voting those in favor of proceeding with voting please say I those opposed motion passes 3 to one do we clar yeah motion yeah what we're voting on right now I'm just calling okay so the motion for the council is to deny modification of the master Road plan to remove 2500 South this is a resolution uh sh will you call the role please uh hang on Joel you're very patient I know I'm going to give Joel a moment thank you and'll just be brief as I think most of you know I work at salc Department airports I'm the assistant director of real estate and Commercial development and we the airports actually have a number of Master plans and our Master plans gets updated um a master plan the way we look at it is a vision then we will have developers who want to build a hanger uh have boing who wants to do some different things they present something to us and we are always willing to amend a master plan when we have a specific project and that project makes sense to make a change to the master plan we don't let the master plan rule everything it sets things up nicely but once we have very specifics then we're very open toand a Master that's L thank you Joel so for counts benefit me Joel's been in this in this for the Long Haul he stood up before he made your motion and started making his way to the so hate me for that I got a feeling where the the go okay Cheryl call the role favor member Manel mayor Jacob I don't need to vote it's three three opposed yeah three so I'm counting that vote is uh three opposed to not changing the master plan and one in favor I'd like to modify my motion and we can keep we pull back up I have to think about this for a minute um I mean we we have a just let me think through this for a minute right do you understand my dilemma thank you um the original proposal was to modify the master plan so we had a substitute motion that says we won't modify the master plan that motion failed so I need to hear from the council that we're not done with this item I'll do what you want me to do we go back to the original proposal or modify original proposal I not clear becauseif well I'm not sure I want to hear from the council that that's the appropriate thing to do we have a motion that failed but the original proposal you know we we've dealt with this agenda I don't do you understand my dilemma does anyone else understand Dilemma to clarify his comment was he's just saying if we're done talking now or we're going to talk to about that's why we voted on it by denying that allows us to continue to discuss this this why all right uh Joel keep me out of trouble I'm going to allow this agenda item to uh have a new motion made Joel tell me as our attorney that I'm allowed to do that Nathan go ahead okay yeah you should be F the way the the motion was boed yes okay so we're allowed to proceed with a different motion because the motion to deny failed that's right thank you yeah that's that's the way I understood it because M was a substitute okay so we need a new motion I was going to keep the same motion and then where it says prohibited and then just that into on you guys I I'm losing track of this so what's the motion motion is by restrictions I we could say that if if you say the parcel it could be as of this date because that that would take care of it as well the I guess the issue with that touch 1200 West is does that affect other Parcels Beyond this project 26 so that's right but there's the east and west side of the road there's say we need nor to make motions before we start debating motion a second before we start debating sorry I I was just trying to help you through it because any you were going back and forth yeah so nor and Levi was typing was talking make sure make sure that of January 30225 so this resolution is subject to the condition that access on 1200 West between 12 2500 South and 2600 South is prohibited by deed restriction on parcel number 0 3227 003 as of January 30th 2022 okay that's the motion is there a second second car let's start I just want to make sure Joel you are understand that motion and you're confident and comfortable that we can legally do that yeah the way this um resolution is written it it's it's you just you know we talking about master plans it is a rare thing that you know me or this Council ever go against recommendation staff because we have puts in a lot of time when they're long the experts do this and I agree with Master is the important guy but like 2500 it was supposed to be there the whole time it should have been connected to properties and they created issues now now you have to it streight through because then and problems and West that's one of my concerns I think it's wor you know in most cases you know spr wasn we just going to make my op to that so that we can fix it and do something asking any other comments naan uh so Norm your your thought on the timing of Heritage with safety is that it would be addressed later in the process that I mean we do have to have two accesses yeah there's no question where wherever those two accesses go I guess we have to work through that yeah but I mean in the past it's we've allowed temporary in some cases um I don't know spe specifics of this case but we have allowed temporary we have allowed crash gate type only so there's some variables there that make me hesitant to say for sure one way or the other may I may I speak to that please do uh yeah so so the the intent is to have permanent access through Heritage the only reason it's not shown on ours is to to Grant the commercial developer more control over their design of that drive and and kind of make them Prime on that one we understand and realize that we have to have two access points for the number of homes we have here we have a phase one so that we can get the church subdivided which which we have designed and developed to be under the the maximum house count for a phase on a single access point so if by any chance the the residential builds out much faster than the commercial we will have to address that we understand we have to address that by the time we get to Heritage and it may have to get wrapped up in the residential development um but right now we want to allow the the commercial developer the control of that road and the design of that road Bas I think that's our discussion so thank you for sharing so what one of the things I've learned in my marriage going off the roads is the need to control expectations in fact the secret to a happy marriage is to diminish expectations each year so different all expectations um in a phone conversation with you Al I mean I heard you say mayor you're right we need to rezone that property from commercial to residential and and and let me keep talking and then I'll give you a chance and so each time you said that in that phone conversation I said Al I'm not suggesting that that property should be rezoned I'm pointing out that it is currently commercial and you're trying to put houses on commercial property and that is not allowed he said you're right mayor we need to rezone that property from commercial to residential and I pointed it out again three times in that conversation so I'm going to offer an amendment in an effort to clearly control expectations that doesn't mean that any sort of discuss question with the commercial developer I'm in favor of or opposed to on a specific reone or a piece of property except that I want commercial development inly and I'll say that again and again and again so I I'm allowed to offer an amendment I'm going to offer this amendment adoption of this resolution neither guarantees nor implies land use entitlements Beyond those in place at the time of the adoption of this resolution or by standing as a result of application date sry I was ready yeah so I'll come back to it I mean this Joe tell me if I mean this is the way it is this is this is the law sorry I'll repeat it you want me to repeat it or explain it explain I don't show I'm letting the proponent know that if this resolution is a that doesn't guarantee any future legislative action by this counsel I'm completely amable to any proposal from the proponent from a potential developer from from from from but I'm not I I have to say this because the mayor didn't say we should reone that property the mayor said we have a problem with putting houses on commercial property and staff said that first I was just passing you along so before you speak Al uh that is everyone clear on my motion to amend I'll read it back if you want oh you want to read it you want me to read it now yeah a little bit slower adoption of this resolution does not guarantees neither guarantees nor date with standing at the time wait as a result as a result of application second nor now I'll listen to you I need you to be B official and then when I have to go out to Al we go together we can solve all these problems on okay and then we don't the C okay no so two things real quick on that the commercial developers changes around two or three times and it's been I mean you spend a lot of money trying to accomodate it's been I mean we spent 75 trying to here I mean you see some of the things in there we brought that up together and then you know deal with how the grocer want have the grocery store so inste of here was over here and all sudden like this so we try to accommodate that so that's part of the issue in there is trying to accommodate the grocery and trying to keep that that flyer going so the issue of changing Levi was % right what we want to do when there bring he but the issue here is we try to keep this into a small section because we can't do all these homes together in time you it's not the capability you have to build that out a little bit so it was to section it off right like 30 units in there just try to keep it real simple and then build the CR there that's what it was so some of the discussion that went before the council back there about 3 months ago where the property was so so small we having issues with density and all these other concerns was to broaden that out now on the current commercial and I don't want you to get involved in this because it's very there's a lot of it's challenging I hate it want to get involved with the the negotiations on the commercial Dev there but that part right now is he's not an aor so that is not in this proposal okay so I just want to be clear that this Council has looked at a proposal from a commercial developer that was a concept plan that included commercial development of the property in question so that's all I have to go on I don't want to be in your negotiations with commercial developer to sell your land either but I would like you to tell your commercial developer this if the commercial developer can tell me what he wants I will carry the flag I'm not involved in the negotiation I'm not involved in what you want what he wants what this is who pays for what da d d but if you're a commercial developer please tell your commercial developer Joel tell your commercial developer tomorrow morning when you meet with him tell the mayor what the commercial developer wants to make this happen and unless I'm breaking the law doing something stupid I will be the flag bearer to carry that to the council mayor and you're right we have talked about that because the council and everyone's been so supportive with this we've brought that up to many times with the cities behind this initiative that it takes a lot from every party here I wish you could see every part is in that negotiation I don't want you involved with that because it's too much of a to deal with it in the first place we're trying to work through that and the thing I'm going to promise you Mary and the council we are busting our Yankers trying to get this thing through and it gives me a lot of heartache and you ask my wife how many nights I have spent Sleepless for the last week thinking about this because it is a lot of risk and I can ask Joel Joel's right in the middle of those negotiations that he be 100% we are trying to benefit you the city and trying to get that point in there because it is a big deal I agree all right so you ask I'll ask your wife I'll give you my wife's phone number and you can ask her too I mean this is not an easy process and and no this is I mean if Al wants you to speak for him Al can ask you to speak for him but we need to wrap this up at some point I don't we don't need to compare stories about sleepless nights and how much effort has gone into this I mean let's go back to how many times the council talked about a road agreement and an addendum on the road agreement and then another addendum that violated and threw away that addendum and we can talk about we can talk about we can talk about I appreciate your efforts you have your job we have our jobify your motion way I understand pretty much anything that was presented other than this roow is just a concept there's no no guarantee of anything no zoning no anything only thing that was on the agend was to the road going to go in or out correct okay and here we are goofed up on looking at proposals on developments and everything else to talk about for RO play Nathan thank you for that now with all due respect sir I don't know who you are I'd call you by name if I would like you to speak I'm I'm happy to let you speak but you must come to the mic if Al wants you to and then you have a chance to speak you're speaking on behalf of the proponent um yes no I need an answer because I interrupted you and that's not attack I'm sorry you had that health issue I think you can vot uh Nathan one question hopefully just myself I v03 2271 is currently Z RN a question it's 03227 Z Z3 correct one is also commercial yeah I don't have them in front of me I'd have to look at the map but yeah I mean everything everything over here is currently commercial all well these two this is still R2 but yeah okay thanks um Joel thanks for Joel Yellow Horse thanks for hanging with this can I get a legal opinion on the legality there we go of my Amendment before we entertain it sure thing um it looks pretty good maybe instead of saying withstanding maybe say or those applicable as a result of application date that might be a little clearer if that makes sense so I ask General consent to a substitute motion to say those applicable as a result of application date is that correct Joel can you see it on screen yes I can that's correct thank you do I have General consent from the council appreciate it are we ready to vote on the amendment okay I see head nods is there any opposition to voting on the amendment okay this is not the vote on the main motion this is the vote on the amendment offered by Me seconded by nor are there questions on the amendment there on the board those in favor of the amendment please say I I anyone opposed thank you now we have an amended Motion in front of the council vote we have a motion to call the question is there a second there's a second we need majority call the question those in favor of voting please say I are there any opposed there's three in favor one opposed to call a question if Joel isn't standing up and walking to the microphone we will proceed with the vote he's not second was from G thank you is there a question for the Council on the ready and the really good news is I don't have to vote so that means uh three in favor of the motion as uh the resolution as as voted as on the board motion passes three one opposed thank you very much Council thanks for the discussion Al appreciate it um I hear a general consent for a break until 10 minutes after 11 at which point if we have a forum we'll pick this meeting back up thanks no objection we'll do so so like sorry let me just clarify um I know it's so this so this is the parcel that's RM yeah they're proposing this to be RM it's commercial so are you saying what it is for the one all of that yeah I mean without the church stuff yep blank blank slay you do it what yeah if we and I could probably just use the assumption that it this is developed at the or the same rate as this like the net develop acreage is the same ratio oh gota for the remainder that's probably what I would you I mean I I I usually say say like 80% yeah that's but I don't really know 70 80 that's it's higher it it's it's low it's lower net develop acreage if you make him put a road in but Road don't count right and you know most cities don't do it that so which the targ no Prejudice well and it's just not valuable my job is to create value that doesn't do it does think that they will with this one I have like they're ready to really they have other land all over the place right yeah Council I see a quorum in the room uh Mo the meeting will come back to order track we have next uh water rate review Workshop justtin is that you it is thank you so we have a motion to spend the rules to leave this item off second from more that's a debatable motion any discussion on that seeing thatone those favor postponing please say Okay Justus don't don't forget what you were gonna say hours into that hours and hours into counc uh we still have a close session in front of us so please be brief thank you ER CLE I'm was going to ask what is the best way for us to address maybe some of the ticketing for the story go and is that only for the sidewalks that didn't get done they get that ticket their driveway right sidewalks correct yeah the best way to address that when you are at a town or surgery made my neighbor son so you said did they receive the citation or no no that yeah they they receed a door hanger and that's just a warning yeah but but but I think I mean I I I think in general you know the ordinance doesn't have exceptions um how do you remedy that I think that's up to the property owner whether whether when they go out of town they you know someone else has to fill in for them and it's it's it still is their responsibility I think I think it gets a little sticky if you start coming up with exceptions of well if this happens or if that happens or I mean we can do that and and we and we had language like that for arking for example on the street of well if it's a doctor call or if it's this you know delivery or and we ended up taking we you know that that was actually taken out by the counts the last year and so I I I don't know I don't I mean there may be a way to craft that uh but the you know the whole purpose of it is so that it gets cleared in a reasonable time frame so that so that you know when when people are using it it'll be safe and they're not going out in the street which you know it may seem quick but I don't I don't I don't know how else to do it it's it's a tough balance yeah so yeah yeah I mean we we and and we have to give a warning if it's on private property technically we don't have to for public proper something like this we could site them um in the past it's all just been complaint-based if someone complains then we called them and said oh you know we've we've got this issue we ask you to clear it uh we're a little more proactive this time um you know someone walking down the street that that slips on the snow or ice they might not call in the city and complain about it but it's still a hazard you know so can you just remind me how what is the time so if the storm ends and he and the the gentleman sided it between I believe 5:00 P pm and 6:00 a.m. you have to have it cleared by 9:00 a.m. the next day so let's say the storm is continuing like through 7 or 8:00 a.m. technically the way it's written you wouldn't need to uh clear it until 9:00 a.m. the next day but if this let's say the storm ends meaning the snow stops before 6:00 a.m. you need to have your snow cleared by 9:00 a.m. so whether that's reasonable or not you know that's for debate but but I think if if you get into exceptions it gets a little bit difficult to potentially well but are th are those all city I mean technically we're we're maintaining more sidewalks than we have to by lot by by by Cod we just but we do I mean if if if we're if we're not I guess if we're not following that for ones adjacent to our properties then I that's something to consider Yeah well yeah but we do but we do clear a lot more than just yeah but now those people on 3200 South or 165 they're not they're used to us clearing and so if we're not going to cleared it's not going to get cleared right and then we're going to go hang a door hanger on people's doors that have had the city clean their sidewalk for the last decade that's a concern I feel like yeah so I think we shouldn't discuss policy here right but I will refer the council to a recent change to our code called code enforcement where all this is I I believe we talked about when we adopted the code it's 1.8.4 you just go to you don't have to write it down just go search for code enforcement on our ordinance and if that's wrong change it we have given staff the marketing workers if it's wrong then we'll take change it thank it trying to get things set up try to understand legally how it should set up and what to do to do that what the best ways to go about managing the number of animals us it so Mee me next Wednesday fur good we haven't yet made any staff changes to the but think right now progress for a second I'm somehow on the Cash Valley historical Bo another 50501 SE like you guys are um I met at one of those meetings someone who is involved in historic preservation throughout the state and that person sent me a list of possible ways to get money to keep the Morgan Farm the Morgan bar of a so please remind me to forward that even yeah to to you to to both the board that's all thank you Nathan I just appreciate being on this Council the process thank you may to go with that sweeten family and they're just getting hit with a lot of health issues and stuff she's contemplating so just keep Mur dos have I had a conversation with K that be happy to share that with you in private I'll be really brief just and I said it on the Utah League of cities and towns legislative policy committee you'll be happy to know that someone in the legislature wants to sponsor a bill that allows a may recall be the only elected official in the State subject to recall were you the one that sponsored also interesting things Justin I'll just hit them real quick you probably have vote by mail is a question Transportation utility fees and whether we can charge that and uh I'm actually going to stop on this one I went to a UD sorry I went to a CMO meeting on Monday you heard some of it I so you heard it all the 8991 corridor study is complete the next step is a corridor agreement I ask specifically if what the process would be to draft that quor agreement and if n city can be involved in uh writing that draft instead of being ended a finished document um UDOT said yes and the consultant will reach out to staff it's off uh just want to mention we were working with a selection committee right now to narrow down the consultant uh the selected consultant for the general plan so hopefully we have that for you at the next city council meeting if we can get the contract done as well but yeah it's been good I I don't know we had we got four proposal and so it's difficult to narrow down but we're there we're getting there the Voting is still being debated if that's going to be continued at leg I just was wondering if I could take the temperature it all let me know with your thoughts on that um also we are not required to contract with cash County for our election but and this would be the first election that I would have that all vote a contract which will of course can consider that get um second thing I need your the conflict of interest disclosures um do date for them to be posted by the state legisl just you didn't have anything well you're out of gas or you I did remind myself of one if you thought this meeting was rough you should have went to the job any shovels we appreciate your service you guys have anything okay um Joel thank you so much for helping us tonight thank you uh for being here and now we're really getting to why you're here we appreciate your advice all along um just I don't know based on where we are I'm going to let the council either make a motion Joel sorry to go to close session and state the reason for going to close session or SAR close this meeting and go to a Clos session for what purpose please to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation and to discuss the purchase exchange or lease of real property pursuant to you to code 52425 thank you very much and is there a second on the motion from Norm thank you any opposition to voting seeing none those in favor of adjourning this meeting and going to close session for the reason stated please say I are there any opposed all right let's give Cheryl a chance to change the reporting and and Joel I'm gonna close this and open up the other link I sent you okay sounds good and hopefully the audio is okay if not we'll switch something but
8991 as a commercial Road and is currently zoned commercial on both sides of Heritage Drive and would turn half of that road one side of that road the east side of that road that's already Zone commercial into residential and that's some that's what this proposal does correct which side well yes because it was brought up so let's go back and discuss that so back there 3 months ago when you came up you said hey look our density was was misconstrued I mean Norm was great you came back at us and said well your units you know everything's out of whack and so we went out propos it move that out there you no no the city never told you to submit a reone request yeah to us all I want to talk about is the commercial opportunity on Heritage Drive and I have trouble understanding how property that's on the east and west of Heritage Drive which is currently Zone commercial and by the way currently matches the concept plan that the potential commercial developer has shown this Council and the council adopted with commercial property on both sides of Heritage Drive how eliminating commercial property that zones as such and proposed as such into residential AIDS the commercial development I'm not pretty to that Al you know that seeing in here is there are other issues that we're dealing with right here I brought the Cs okay I've brought this up multiple times I got sever balls here and just one thing and we can't get one thing just let's get this resol go can sit here for year or two or something like that Stuart made a call he says this thing's hot on the commercial side and he says you take it by now he brings up the example had a city manager said no we we can't have this they lost out on Costco went to South AR went we he said they have been begging him to get Costco back in next there wait and the thing of this he's brought up to me in this last week he said there are 16 cities 16 cities that would like to have what this opportunity for n city has and he said I can't get them he says do does the seaing recognize what the opportunity is there I said I don't know I don't deal in this thing but he said this is a big deal and I wish Stewart was still on the line I TR to call him again but that's the issue in there is trying to develop traffic count for the commercial center so you can have an expanded area for commercial now why is because the first proposal I'll go in to explain everything you want to explain everything I'll explain everything when they first came in proposed they said hey look you know we want all this area then it came back and said now they're looking just on the North side do they want to expand on it yes they do but it depends on TR traffic count they have to drive the traffic count Ste Le to that quite a bit the traffic count on 2600 South has to be so much or you lose opportunities and options for commercial development so let me ask specifically again how does turning land that is currently zoned commercial on the east side of Heritage Drive into houses increase the traffic count okay I'm listening we nine whatever keep going Al just answer the question let's not play just answer the question so I'm saying here many over here how many there's 16 okay there's a lot there's actually more than 16 it's actually about 20 so the question came up can we develop old this and old this and the commercial this was phase one this was phase two this is phase three so was to develop into phases so come back and say well let's take this away we have seriously probably somewhere in the range of 27 Acres 27 so we going to fill up 27 acres in commercial development not right now it's not 27 you just told us it was there's seven on sty there's there's old this right in here so this is important for the commercial development because they want households close to this to sustain it they want they they know steuart's brought this up many times they want to know how many households are within a qu mile of the cir and so to have the the number counts and their important events here so starts morning months you trifle with this and your opportunity and you lose it and it's decades to get it back that so you're telling me that those 50 houses on the east side of Heritage Drive are Paramount to commercial development happening 50 houses on the west side of Commercial Drive when we're talking about all these traffic counts off 8991 and 2600 South those 50 town homes are Paramount to the success of commercial on the west side of the road so what do you want us to do with leave it commercial what if we can't get it in there we've seen a proposal from your possible developer that shows it as phase two commercial development so I'm supposed to sit there and wait for six years for that to develop so who's the developer the city we've waited for since 1942 for commercial development wait another six years if it gets us commercial you want to wait another six years I I think the opportun here wish Stewart was on the phone and he could go but mayor what I'm saying here is you got a hot opportunity to do this hot and it's hot we're meeting tomorrow at 10:30 are we not going we're meet at 10:30 to finalize diff and I'm going to tell you what happens here tonight will impact what that discussion is like tomorrow okay go on the tell me if your potential commercial developer has said that he wants that property that is currently zoned commercial to be rezoned to residential mayor that's a yes or no no back here this see right to do this city and put it together for this city okay and how much did steuart talk about tax base a year one to 1.2 million a year I know all that Al so you don't have to tell me we want commercial development in nii City you have to tell me that number one the commercial developer wants that property rezoned to commercial sorry it's already commercial wants it rezoned to residential who has the right to decide what the city has the right to zone property within its jurisdiction that's a legislative action of the city council that answers your question who has the right now I'm more than happy to do what the developer of the commercial property on the west wants us to do but I need to hear that from the developer because you say I got to keep this commercial I can't do anything this I'm telling you it's currently Zone commercial and it is a legislative action of the city council that they the council is allowed to say yes and the council is yet allowed to say no and the property right say here's what we would like you to do I know it's connected but I think the discussion is getting to the point okay all right here's here's why I'm pushing thank you for bringing me back this is a moving Target right the whole reason we're even looking at a potential residential development here and nine items we should not be looking at a commercial development a residential development in association with the master Road plan the master Road plan is a plan of how we connect subdivision a development a to subdivision be development be it's not a question of how does it serve my project the master Road plan is how we connect projects not how it serves individual projects the only reason Council asked staff to look at those nine items which were not meant to be inclusive of what might come up in a potential development is the interesting number two that used the church property as available land for residential when Computing the density it's like where in the world does that come from so that's why you know so well the development doesn't need it but development was based on using Church property in the gross acreage or developable acreage for residential that's being put into church property all right so then that means that we need to go shift this thing to the West and reone land and we're still looking at a moving Target when in fact what we should be looking at is connectivity for the city we shouldn't even be looking at that plan or any other plan we should be saying what does the master Road plan say for connectivity in our to Nathan yeah I I agree right the threshold for removing something from a master plan is very high for and we have G down the path because the proponent asked us to to look at all these things that may or may not in our opinion meet that threshold and I think that it's it's too skewed and it's it's it's it has not met that and the primary reason is is the things the staff brought up and those have not been resolved for me so the threshold of removing something from the master plan I think that's why we've been down this path why we looked at these nine which I appreciate my opinion we have not resolved or met that profession we're changing our master plan for this because it's it's too complicated there's too much going on there's too much moving targets I'm disappointed like I I want it to happen just as much as everyone else but we're T you have 44 is Acres just to the north here right and we I talked earlier about how I like creating value and wealth for all the property in including your own right and and we're going to take what is the most entit property we've ever had and divide it up I think there's more that you could do here if you looked at who you're selling to and I think we've had this discuss right there's there's plenty of land there that you could do on your own developing if if residential is what you want to do where you're choosing to kind of enter these other ones so I agree with you just talking about the road and connectivity and the threshold for moving 2500 South for me has not been that but I appreciate the time and effort that Mo to finding out if it was and with that I'll make a substitute motion to deny is there a second on a sub motion to deny modication of the transportation master plan so that just replace right yeah so now the motion on the table is to deny modification of the RO plan I think I justed my so I still disagree we have master plan plan follow all the through along that section of 2500 if it was that important that commercial add on the building why didn't we make and then point on the top side of street we're not consist if if we really need every block apart why blocks I just uh I I we need to put a road just Road I think if all we need is a four-way intersection why are we spending millions of dollars ons really disagrees I think think that road needs to flow that you have second activity subdivision does it see more tell put in half goes against the city problem what does the city prob gain Ro it's just it's already it's already built out on the North whereas other you show you put so I disagree I went back and forth back and forth it has nothing to do anything other than this road even if you you pulled up the match it's just like oh whatever not specific but you the subvision that's in there it's just can you do one or you can't really think having the church there accessing 1200 I don't disagree all say there were mistakes made to the north considered with those properties can't do about that I was here um I wish we would have but my my question to you and kind of I guess to those that why are we so worried about connectivity on 12 but not the same concerns on 26 right that's not up to them if they were the say that 26 that's SCH 26 we buil to have a traffic but yeah well I I guess what I'm asking is you're asking for a limitation from 25 where 25 would be down which to me is going to put more pressure and more outlets on 26 and or heritage why are we so concerned about 12 but not 26 well that are both 12 goes from Air Road to hide these other ones just a road that follows there these are our it's not it's not the traffic that one was other you're all way from Airport Road and then once they go that all okay so they're not the same not they're not same okay and if you go further like I showed you they limited access so what we're asking this one is we cou so let me let me just clarify procedure here uh substitute motion that we're currently debating is to deny but the effect of of Norm's motion if it fails is exactly equal to the effect of Nathan's motion if it passes so Al I know you sat down and you know you're still welcome to be part of this but I want you to realize everyone to realize that the substitute motion doesn't change the substance of this discussion it just it just changes if you if a member of council wants a certain thing they will vote Yes or they will vote no but the substitute motion doesn't kill the idea of modifying the master Road well I think it add several points of cont start up by attorneys to that you know proportionality we're not going to sit here and pay for something we don't feel like and you're have to go through and do studies you're going to have to identify exactly what's going to do you know happen in there does it have an impact on the commercial absolutely 100% it does Ste brought that up so I don't know where we go from here I don't okay we we' sat down with the council we walked through went through everything I don't think you had a developer or family try to sit down and accommodate the request like we have we we really tried to work and put things together make it work and if somehow the city can show that 25 years South really desperate needs needs to be there and go contrary to what the commercial developer wants and the the traffic two Traffic Engineers then I guess go out it and we can come through settlement and figure out exactly how much you want to pay for it so Joel Yellow Horse you're listening in so those would be those would be the kinds I'm not asking you to respond unless you want to but those would be the kinds of questions the city would would be involved in if you have advice for us we're all yours if you don't we'll continue with our own discussion um I I think not at this time no thanks so Al let me let me be very clear about how much I want commercial development for nii City I don't think that's ever been in question don't don't smirk at me don't smirk it okay I want that I think the council knows we all want that so when a commercial developer tells the city council they want land that is currently zoned commercial rezone to residential I'm all ears if you come out of your meeting tomorrow with a potential commercial developer and you can have that potential commercial developer tell me in confidence or whatever he wants that land reson from commercial to residential I'm your boy let me let me come back to a couple things and that's where I think i' back your a little bit here you're starting to infringe upon contracts and conversations obviously the city's a partnership on this thing but we have to work out the details of this transaction too and we have to make sure it works for us we have got in some things to really benefit the city really benefit the city and and Joel we've done some things to concede on things to benefit to see this benefit and to see this tonight it really sour because it just puts to a point you just say there is no tradeoff we're just being told what to do and and I think family's here and I don't want to speak for my family but I think my family just say you know what getting anything out of this so what's the purpose of that'll be for you guys to S Nathan yeah Point Clear the motion that I proposed is to continue the discussion uh whether or not 25 minutes out should go it and my proposal is that it should not it doesn't mean I'm against you developing or anything like that right I think the concept and the frame of mind I have to take as a representative is we had it in the master plan you as a proponent asked for us to remove it and that's the discussion we're having right there's a lot of this other stuff that you've worked on with others and things that are connected but as far as as what we're trying to decide tonight I trying to decide whether or not point should feel and the motion I made is to continue the discussion and whether or not some feel like it should or should I'm trying to back on traffic whether or not 25 out even moov from our m I'll make sure that no I appreciate that and I promise you if your potential I know I can't give up on this because I want commercial development St I know if you're developer your commercial developer tells me that they want what is currently Zone commercial reone to residential I'm the flag bearer but I need to hear it from him that's where it gets into an ER is 100% right and you guys they're movings I just want to eliminate and get it out that's all we want to do so we other we're spending so much time on this that distracts away from bigger things and that becomes a big issue because we'll have tomorrow Joel 100% will and does it impact her ability to come to a final deal that would benefit the city do 100% yes so what I'm saying here and I appreciate Nathan to your point there is you know we're trying to make this work we're trying to make it work in many regards but it also we have to look at it in several aspects the church wants this here we want to give the thing to the church but it sounds like question if you really Church there I mean they come to the city and compos everything to show exactly how they want to lay that's a plot of the church and so you know and we have to we have to come to agreement with you it's I'll be honest I feel sometimes like we're being told what to do and we' lost is that fair yes that's a concern to our families and so I never want to get to that I to get to mutual agreement and there has to be tradeoff here to work things out now when we came into ni we did talk about 2500 sou and that connection there and yes it was discussed and yes they said we about it that's not a really important thing well it became important I wish I got that in that's the one thing there but if the city really that and they really then to go through studies and do proportionality and you're going to have to put out some money in here you're gonna have to do and so we're not GNA just freelance and do everything in there and the question of Mayor it comes back what does it do through the rest of the devel do we want to do it that's the question I I mean if we're not if we feel like we are being run over by an 18 wheel semiu then it just sits there we're just we're not we're not going anywhere so I think it's a discussion to have with the coun and everyone say can we come to an agreement if not then we just say we can't do it takes majority vote to question there second we have that second voting voting so we have a a motion and a second to proceed with voting those in favor of proceeding with voting please say I those opposed motion passes 3 to one do we clar yeah motion yeah what we're voting on right now I'm just calling okay so the motion for the council is to deny modification of the master Road plan to remove 2500 South this is a resolution uh sh will you call the role please uh hang on Joel you're very patient I know I'm going to give Joel a moment thank you and'll just be brief as I think most of you know I work at salc Department airports I'm the assistant director of real estate and Commercial development and we the airports actually have a number of Master plans and our Master plans gets updated um a master plan the way we look at it is a vision then we will have developers who want to build a hanger uh have boing who wants to do some different things they present something to us and we are always willing to amend a master plan when we have a specific project and that project makes sense to make a change to the master plan we don't let the master plan rule everything it sets things up nicely but once we have very specifics then we're very open toand a Master that's L thank you Joel so for counts benefit me Joel's been in this in this for the Long Haul he stood up before he made your motion and started making his way to the so hate me for that I got a feeling where the the go okay Cheryl call the role favor member Manel mayor Jacob I don't need to vote it's three three opposed yeah three so I'm counting that vote is uh three opposed to not changing the master plan and one in favor I'd like to modify my motion and we can keep we pull back up I have to think about this for a minute um I mean we we have a just let me think through this for a minute right do you understand my dilemma thank you um the original proposal was to modify the master plan so we had a substitute motion that says we won't modify the master plan that motion failed so I need to hear from the council that we're not done with this item I'll do what you want me to do we go back to the original proposal or modify original proposal I not clear becauseif well I'm not sure I want to hear from the council that that's the appropriate thing to do we have a motion that failed but the original proposal you know we we've dealt with this agenda I don't do you understand my dilemma does anyone else understand Dilemma to clarify his comment was he's just saying if we're done talking now or we're going to talk to about that's why we voted on it by denying that allows us to continue to discuss this this why all right uh Joel keep me out of trouble I'm going to allow this agenda item to uh have a new motion made Joel tell me as our attorney that I'm allowed to do that Nathan go ahead okay yeah you should be F the way the the motion was boed yes okay so we're allowed to proceed with a different motion because the motion to deny failed that's right thank you yeah that's that's the way I understood it because M was a substitute okay so we need a new motion I was going to keep the same motion and then where it says prohibited and then just that into on you guys I I'm losing track of this so what's the motion motion is by restrictions I we could say that if if you say the parcel it could be as of this date because that that would take care of it as well the I guess the issue with that touch 1200 West is does that affect other Parcels Beyond this project 26 so that's right but there's the east and west side of the road there's say we need nor to make motions before we start debating motion a second before we start debating sorry I I was just trying to help you through it because any you were going back and forth yeah so nor and Levi was typing was talking make sure make sure that of January 30225 so this resolution is subject to the condition that access on 1200 West between 12 2500 South and 2600 South is prohibited by deed restriction on parcel number 0 3227 003 as of January 30th 2022 okay that's the motion is there a second second car let's start I just want to make sure Joel you are understand that motion and you're confident and comfortable that we can legally do that yeah the way this um resolution is written it it's it's you just you know we talking about master plans it is a rare thing that you know me or this Council ever go against recommendation staff because we have puts in a lot of time when they're long the experts do this and I agree with Master is the important guy but like 2500 it was supposed to be there the whole time it should have been connected to properties and they created issues now now you have to it streight through because then and problems and West that's one of my concerns I think it's wor you know in most cases you know spr wasn we just going to make my op to that so that we can fix it and do something asking any other comments naan uh so Norm your your thought on the timing of Heritage with safety is that it would be addressed later in the process that I mean we do have to have two accesses yeah there's no question where wherever those two accesses go I guess we have to work through that yeah but I mean in the past it's we've allowed temporary in some cases um I don't know spe specifics of this case but we have allowed temporary we have allowed crash gate type only so there's some variables there that make me hesitant to say for sure one way or the other may I may I speak to that please do uh yeah so so the the intent is to have permanent access through Heritage the only reason it's not shown on ours is to to Grant the commercial developer more control over their design of that drive and and kind of make them Prime on that one we understand and realize that we have to have two access points for the number of homes we have here we have a phase one so that we can get the church subdivided which which we have designed and developed to be under the the maximum house count for a phase on a single access point so if by any chance the the residential builds out much faster than the commercial we will have to address that we understand we have to address that by the time we get to Heritage and it may have to get wrapped up in the residential development um but right now we want to allow the the commercial developer the control of that road and the design of that road Bas I think that's our discussion so thank you for sharing so what one of the things I've learned in my marriage going off the roads is the need to control expectations in fact the secret to a happy marriage is to diminish expectations each year so different all expectations um in a phone conversation with you Al I mean I heard you say mayor you're right we need to rezone that property from commercial to residential and and and let me keep talking and then I'll give you a chance and so each time you said that in that phone conversation I said Al I'm not suggesting that that property should be rezoned I'm pointing out that it is currently commercial and you're trying to put houses on commercial property and that is not allowed he said you're right mayor we need to rezone that property from commercial to residential and I pointed it out again three times in that conversation so I'm going to offer an amendment in an effort to clearly control expectations that doesn't mean that any sort of discuss question with the commercial developer I'm in favor of or opposed to on a specific reone or a piece of property except that I want commercial development inly and I'll say that again and again and again so I I'm allowed to offer an amendment I'm going to offer this amendment adoption of this resolution neither guarantees nor implies land use entitlements Beyond those in place at the time of the adoption of this resolution or by standing as a result of application date sry I was ready yeah so I'll come back to it I mean this Joe tell me if I mean this is the way it is this is this is the law sorry I'll repeat it you want me to repeat it or explain it explain I don't show I'm letting the proponent know that if this resolution is a that doesn't guarantee any future legislative action by this counsel I'm completely amable to any proposal from the proponent from a potential developer from from from from but I'm not I I have to say this because the mayor didn't say we should reone that property the mayor said we have a problem with putting houses on commercial property and staff said that first I was just passing you along so before you speak Al uh that is everyone clear on my motion to amend I'll read it back if you want oh you want to read it you want me to read it now yeah a little bit slower adoption of this resolution does not guarantees neither guarantees nor date with standing at the time wait as a result as a result of application second nor now I'll listen to you I need you to be B official and then when I have to go out to Al we go together we can solve all these problems on okay and then we don't the C okay no so two things real quick on that the commercial developers changes around two or three times and it's been I mean you spend a lot of money trying to accomodate it's been I mean we spent 75 trying to here I mean you see some of the things in there we brought that up together and then you know deal with how the grocer want have the grocery store so inste of here was over here and all sudden like this so we try to accommodate that so that's part of the issue in there is trying to accommodate the grocery and trying to keep that that flyer going so the issue of changing Levi was % right what we want to do when there bring he but the issue here is we try to keep this into a small section because we can't do all these homes together in time you it's not the capability you have to build that out a little bit so it was to section it off right like 30 units in there just try to keep it real simple and then build the CR there that's what it was so some of the discussion that went before the council back there about 3 months ago where the property was so so small we having issues with density and all these other concerns was to broaden that out now on the current commercial and I don't want you to get involved in this because it's very there's a lot of it's challenging I hate it want to get involved with the the negotiations on the commercial Dev there but that part right now is he's not an aor so that is not in this proposal okay so I just want to be clear that this Council has looked at a proposal from a commercial developer that was a concept plan that included commercial development of the property in question so that's all I have to go on I don't want to be in your negotiations with commercial developer to sell your land either but I would like you to tell your commercial developer this if the commercial developer can tell me what he wants I will carry the flag I'm not involved in the negotiation I'm not involved in what you want what he wants what this is who pays for what da d d but if you're a commercial developer please tell your commercial developer Joel tell your commercial developer tomorrow morning when you meet with him tell the mayor what the commercial developer wants to make this happen and unless I'm breaking the law doing something stupid I will be the flag bearer to carry that to the council mayor and you're right we have talked about that because the council and everyone's been so supportive with this we've brought that up to many times with the cities behind this initiative that it takes a lot from every party here I wish you could see every part is in that negotiation I don't want you involved with that because it's too much of a to deal with it in the first place we're trying to work through that and the thing I'm going to promise you Mary and the council we are busting our Yankers trying to get this thing through and it gives me a lot of heartache and you ask my wife how many nights I have spent Sleepless for the last week thinking about this because it is a lot of risk and I can ask Joel Joel's right in the middle of those negotiations that he be 100% we are trying to benefit you the city and trying to get that point in there because it is a big deal I agree all right so you ask I'll ask your wife I'll give you my wife's phone number and you can ask her too I mean this is not an easy process and and no this is I mean if Al wants you to speak for him Al can ask you to speak for him but we need to wrap this up at some point I don't we don't need to compare stories about sleepless nights and how much effort has gone into this I mean let's go back to how many times the council talked about a road agreement and an addendum on the road agreement and then another addendum that violated and threw away that addendum and we can talk about we can talk about we can talk about I appreciate your efforts you have your job we have our jobify your motion way I understand pretty much anything that was presented other than this roow is just a concept there's no no guarantee of anything no zoning no anything only thing that was on the agend was to the road going to go in or out correct okay and here we are goofed up on looking at proposals on developments and everything else to talk about for RO play Nathan thank you for that now with all due respect sir I don't know who you are I'd call you by name if I would like you to speak I'm I'm happy to let you speak but you must come to the mic if Al wants you to and then you have a chance to speak you're speaking on behalf of the proponent um yes no I need an answer because I interrupted you and that's not attack I'm sorry you had that health issue I think you can vot uh Nathan one question hopefully just myself I v03 2271 is currently Z RN a question it's 03227 Z Z3 correct one is also commercial yeah I don't have them in front of me I'd have to look at the map but yeah I mean everything everything over here is currently commercial all well these two this is still R2 but yeah okay thanks um Joel thanks for Joel Yellow Horse thanks for hanging with this can I get a legal opinion on the legality there we go of my Amendment before we entertain it sure thing um it looks pretty good maybe instead of saying withstanding maybe say or those applicable as a result of application date that might be a little clearer if that makes sense so I ask General consent to a substitute motion to say those applicable as a result of application date is that correct Joel can you see it on screen yes I can that's correct thank you do I have General consent from the council appreciate it are we ready to vote on the amendment okay I see head nods is there any opposition to voting on the amendment okay this is not the vote on the main motion this is the vote on the amendment offered by Me seconded by nor are there questions on the amendment there on the board those in favor of the amendment please say I I anyone opposed thank you now we have an amended Motion in front of the council vote we have a motion to call the question is there a second there's a second we need majority call the question those in favor of voting please say I are there any opposed there's three in favor one opposed to call a question if Joel isn't standing up and walking to the microphone we will proceed with the vote he's not second was from G thank you is there a question for the Council on the ready and the really good news is I don't have to vote so that means uh three in favor of the motion as uh the resolution as as voted as on the board motion passes three one opposed thank you very much Council thanks for the discussion Al appreciate it um I hear a general consent for a break until 10 minutes after 11 at which point if we have a forum we'll pick this meeting back up thanks no objection we'll do so so like sorry let me just clarify um I know it's so this so this is the parcel that's RM yeah they're proposing this to be RM it's commercial so are you saying what it is for the one all of that yeah I mean without the church stuff yep blank blank slay you do it what yeah if we and I could probably just use the assumption that it this is developed at the or the same rate as this like the net develop acreage is the same ratio oh gota for the remainder that's probably what I would you I mean I I I usually say say like 80% yeah that's but I don't really know 70 80 that's it's higher it it's it's low it's lower net develop acreage if you make him put a road in but Road don't count right and you know most cities don't do it that so which the targ no Prejudice well and it's just not valuable my job is to create value that doesn't do it does think that they will with this one I have like they're ready to really they have other land all over the place right yeah Council I see a quorum in the room uh Mo the meeting will come back to order track we have next uh water rate review Workshop justtin is that you it is thank you so we have a motion to spend the rules to leave this item off second from more that's a debatable motion any discussion on that seeing thatone those favor postponing please say Okay Justus don't don't forget what you were gonna say hours into that hours and hours into counc uh we still have a close session in front of us so please be brief thank you ER CLE I'm was going to ask what is the best way for us to address maybe some of the ticketing for the story go and is that only for the sidewalks that didn't get done they get that ticket their driveway right sidewalks correct yeah the best way to address that when you are at a town or surgery made my neighbor son so you said did they receive the citation or no no that yeah they they receed a door hanger and that's just a warning yeah but but but I think I mean I I I think in general you know the ordinance doesn't have exceptions um how do you remedy that I think that's up to the property owner whether whether when they go out of town they you know someone else has to fill in for them and it's it's it still is their responsibility I think I think it gets a little sticky if you start coming up with exceptions of well if this happens or if that happens or I mean we can do that and and we and we had language like that for arking for example on the street of well if it's a doctor call or if it's this you know delivery or and we ended up taking we you know that that was actually taken out by the counts the last year and so I I I don't know I don't I mean there may be a way to craft that uh but the you know the whole purpose of it is so that it gets cleared in a reasonable time frame so that so that you know when when people are using it it'll be safe and they're not going out in the street which you know it may seem quick but I don't I don't I don't know how else to do it it's it's a tough balance yeah so yeah yeah I mean we we and and we have to give a warning if it's on private property technically we don't have to for public proper something like this we could site them um in the past it's all just been complaint-based if someone complains then we called them and said oh you know we've we've got this issue we ask you to clear it uh we're a little more proactive this time um you know someone walking down the street that that slips on the snow or ice they might not call in the city and complain about it but it's still a hazard you know so can you just remind me how what is the time so if the storm ends and he and the the gentleman sided it between I believe 5:00 P pm and 6:00 a.m. you have to have it cleared by 9:00 a.m. the next day so let's say the storm is continuing like through 7 or 8:00 a.m. technically the way it's written you wouldn't need to uh clear it until 9:00 a.m. the next day but if this let's say the storm ends meaning the snow stops before 6:00 a.m. you need to have your snow cleared by 9:00 a.m. so whether that's reasonable or not you know that's for debate but but I think if if you get into exceptions it gets a little bit difficult to potentially well but are th are those all city I mean technically we're we're maintaining more sidewalks than we have to by lot by by by Cod we just but we do I mean if if if we're if we're not I guess if we're not following that for ones adjacent to our properties then I that's something to consider Yeah well yeah but we do but we do clear a lot more than just yeah but now those people on 3200 South or 165 they're not they're used to us clearing and so if we're not going to cleared it's not going to get cleared right and then we're going to go hang a door hanger on people's doors that have had the city clean their sidewalk for the last decade that's a concern I feel like yeah so I think we shouldn't discuss policy here right but I will refer the council to a recent change to our code called code enforcement where all this is I I believe we talked about when we adopted the code it's 1.8.4 you just go to you don't have to write it down just go search for code enforcement on our ordinance and if that's wrong change it we have given staff the marketing workers if it's wrong then we'll take change it thank it trying to get things set up try to understand legally how it should set up and what to do to do that what the best ways to go about managing the number of animals us it so Mee me next Wednesday fur good we haven't yet made any staff changes to the but think right now progress for a second I'm somehow on the Cash Valley historical Bo another 50501 SE like you guys are um I met at one of those meetings someone who is involved in historic preservation throughout the state and that person sent me a list of possible ways to get money to keep the Morgan Farm the Morgan bar of a so please remind me to forward that even yeah to to you to to both the board that's all thank you Nathan I just appreciate being on this Council the process thank you may to go with that sweeten family and they're just getting hit with a lot of health issues and stuff she's contemplating so just keep Mur dos have I had a conversation with K that be happy to share that with you in private I'll be really brief just and I said it on the Utah League of cities and towns legislative policy committee you'll be happy to know that someone in the legislature wants to sponsor a bill that allows a may recall be the only elected official in the State subject to recall were you the one that sponsored also interesting things Justin I'll just hit them real quick you probably have vote by mail is a question Transportation utility fees and whether we can charge that and uh I'm actually going to stop on this one I went to a UD sorry I went to a CMO meeting on Monday you heard some of it I so you heard it all the 8991 corridor study is complete the next step is a corridor agreement I ask specifically if what the process would be to draft that quor agreement and if n city can be involved in uh writing that draft instead of being ended a finished document um UDOT said yes and the consultant will reach out to staff it's off uh just want to mention we were working with a selection committee right now to narrow down the consultant uh the selected consultant for the general plan so hopefully we have that for you at the next city council meeting if we can get the contract done as well but yeah it's been good I I don't know we had we got four proposal and so it's difficult to narrow down but we're there we're getting there the Voting is still being debated if that's going to be continued at leg I just was wondering if I could take the temperature it all let me know with your thoughts on that um also we are not required to contract with cash County for our election but and this would be the first election that I would have that all vote a contract which will of course can consider that get um second thing I need your the conflict of interest disclosures um do date for them to be posted by the state legisl just you didn't have anything well you're out of gas or you I did remind myself of one if you thought this meeting was rough you should have went to the job any shovels we appreciate your service you guys have anything okay um Joel thank you so much for helping us tonight thank you uh for being here and now we're really getting to why you're here we appreciate your advice all along um just I don't know based on where we are I'm going to let the council either make a motion Joel sorry to go to close session and state the reason for going to close session or SAR close this meeting and go to a Clos session for what purpose please to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation and to discuss the purchase exchange or lease of real property pursuant to you to code 52425 thank you very much and is there a second on the motion from Norm thank you any opposition to voting seeing none those in favor of adjourning this meeting and going to close session for the reason stated please say I are there any opposed all right let's give Cheryl a chance to change the reporting and and Joel I'm gonna close this and open up the other link I sent you okay sounds good and hopefully the audio is okay if not we'll switch something but