[a. Ordinance No. 25-59 a Petition from Wixom Investments LLC to Rezone 1.47 acres from A-5 Zone to R-1-8 Zone for Sandra’s Place located at 1490 West 8600 South]

HEARINGS. THE FIRST ONE IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 2559. A PETITION FROM WIXOM INVESTMENTS TO REZONE 1.47 ACRES FROM A FIVE ZONE TO R18 FOR SANDRA'S PLACE, LOCATED AT 1490 WEST 8600 SOUTH. MR. FORSYTH, ARE YOU THERE? YOU ARE. DO WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER FIRST, OR ARE YOU POINTING TO FIRST? OKAY. AND THAT IS BRANDON WIXOM. COME FORWARD.

HELLO. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE HERE TONIGHT. IT WAS QUITE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE CITY IN ACTION. I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHERE THAT LADY HAS HER CAKE SHOP. MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN TELL ME AFTERWARDS. IN HER HOME. OH, IN HER HOME. OKAY. SHE SHOULD OPEN ONE RIGHT HERE IN THE CITY HALL, VERY NEXT DOOR. BUT ANYWAY, I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE

[00:30:01]

APPLICATION THAT I HAVE. I HAVE THE PRESENTATION. IT'S NOW THE TIME TO PRESENT IT. YES, SIR.

OKAY, I THINK I JUST CLICK ON THIS. OKAY. THIS IS NAMED SANDRA'S PLACE AFTER ONE OF THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY. IT'S A SIX LOT SUBDIVISION FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE ADDRESS IS JUST EIGHT BLOCKS DOWN THE STREET, 1498 8600 SOUTH. IT'S 1.47 ACRES AND CURRENTLY IT IS ZONED AGRICULTURE FIVE. AND I WISH TO CHANGE IT TO R1 EIGHT, WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WITH THREE CAR GARAGES. THIS IS ALSO IN LINE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION AS LOW RESIDENTIAL. WE WILL BUILD NEW BEAUTIFUL HOMES THAT WILL ATTRACT FAMILIES AND WORKING PROFESSIONALS INTO WEST JORDAN CITY. THE LOCATION, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, IS JUST TO THE SOUTH OF US, AND I'LL ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT. YOU CAN SEE IN RED, RED THERE THAT ZOOMS IN A LITTLE BIT MORE. IT'S AT THE END OF 8600 SOUTH AND 1550 WEST, AND IT'S THE REMNANTS OF AN OLD FARM THAT USED TO BE THIS WHOLE AREA USED TO BE A FARM, AS WE KNOW THE HISTORY HERE, BUT IT'S BEEN DEVELOPED PRETTY MUCH ALL THE WAY AROUND IT, AND IT'S OBSOLETE FOR THE ZONING THAT IT IS. HERE. IT SHOWS A5, AND AROUND IT YOU HAVE R1 TEN AND R1 EIGHT. AND THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, WHICH SHOWS LOW RESIDENTIAL DENSITY.

SO AS I MENTIONED, YOU GET IN THE PROPERTY FROM 8600 SOUTH OR 1500 WEST. THE TOPOGRAPHY IS MOSTLY FLAT. THERE'S SEVERAL LARGE TREES THAT SURROUND THE THE BORDER OF THE PROPERTY. IT HAS SPECTACULAR MOUNTAIN VIEWS TO THE EAST. AND THE CURRENT ZONING, AS I MENTIONED, IS OBSOLETE A5 AND IT'S NOT ALIGNED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. HERE'S A PICTURE OF THE RESIDENCE, AND THEY HAVE A GARAGE NEXT TO IT. AND THEN BEHIND IS THE FIELD RIGHT THERE.

ACCESS WILL BE ALONG A PRIVATE ROAD OR PRIVATE LANE I SHOULD SAY OFF OF 8600 SOUTH. WE'LL HAVE A FIVE FOOT CONCRETE SIDEWALK WHICH WILL CONNECT THE COMMUNITY OR THESE NEW HOMES TO 8600 SOUTH. ALL UNITS WILL HAVE 2 TO 3 CAR GARAGES. THERE WILL BE NO PARKING ALLOWED ON THE PRIVATE LANE, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SIGNS THAT WILL BE PLACED ACCORDINGLY. HERE IS A ROUGH DIAGRAM OF HOW WE'LL COME INTO THE PROPERTY. AND IT SHOWS FOR FOR SIX LOTS. NOW THAT THAT'S NEXT STEP AND I'LL BE COMING BACK TO TALK ABOUT THAT. BUT WE'VE MET WITH THE CITY STAFF AND AND SEVERAL PEOPLE HERE IN THE CITY TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ALL WORKS AND THAT IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE ORDINANCES. AND THIS IS A RENDERING OF A POTENTIAL HOME THAT WE MIGHT BUILD TWO, THREE CAR GARAGES. AND ALSO THIS AREA IS IS VERY UNIQUE BECAUSE OF THE WALKABILITY AND THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION THAT IS SO CLOSE. YOU CAN BEAT ALMOST ANY LOCATION WITHIN 30 MINUTES. IF YOU JUMP ON THE TRACKS RIGHT THERE. THERE'S ALSO BUS ROUTES, AND WE THINK THAT HAVING THIS LOCATION CLOSE TO THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION WILL PERHAPS ENCOURAGE MORE PEOPLE TO USE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION AND USE THEIR VEHICLES LESS AND LESS. THAT'S A MAP OF WHERE YOU COULD GET. AND I'VE WRITTEN THIS TRAX TRAX LINE YOU CAN BE TO THE U OF U WITHIN 30 MINUTES. ALSO DOWNTOWN YOU CAN GO OVER TO MURRAY HOSPITAL AND JUMP ON THE FRONTRUNNER. THAT WILL GET YOU UP TO OGDEN OR DOWN TO PROVO VERY EASILY. THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN IS GREAT BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY PARKS HERE, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S TRAILS THAT CONNECT MANY OF THOSE, AND MANY FUTURE TRAILS WILL BE BUILT TO CONNECT IT. BUT WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE, THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF TRAILS HERE. AND I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT. AND HERE'S A COUPLE PICTURES THAT I TOOK. THIS IS THE LIBRARY. AND THEN THE NICE LITTLE PARK THAT LITTLE PEOPLE FIND SO MUCH FUN RIGHT HERE AT THE THE CITY HALL. ALLOWING THE ZONE CHANGE FROM R1 EIGHT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN. THE ZONE CHANGE WOULD HELP WEST JORDAN HAVE MORE ATTAINABLE HOUSING STOCK TO OFFER FUTURE RESIDENTS. THIS WILL ALLOW SIX NEW OWNERS OR FAMILIES TO BECOME PART OF THE WEST JORDAN COMMUNITY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME? ARE THERE QUESTIONS ANYONE WANT TO ASK THE DEVELOPER ANYTHING? COUNCIL MEMBER LAMB JUST A

[00:35:03]

QUICK QUESTION. SO I'M ASSUMING THE OLD HOUSE IS BEING TAKEN DOWN AND THEY'RE MAKING SIX NEW HOUSES. OR IS THE OLDER HOUSE STAYING UP CORRECT. THE THE CURRENT PLAN IS TO REMOVE THE OLD HOUSE. IT'S PRETTY OLD RIGHT. AND THEN DO A NICE LITTLE PRIVATE DRIVE THAT WOULD HAVE SIX NEW HOMES CONSTRUCTED. AND THEN I'M SURE YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THIS ANSWERED. BUT THE YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH, YOU KNOW, FIRE TRUCK GETTING IN AND OUT. SO THE, THE T THE PUT IN THERE THAT'S UP TO CODE WITH WHAT THE FIREFIGHTERS NEED FOR THE TURNAROUND. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO WE DID MEET WITH THE FIRE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE CHIEF AND AND ALL THE PROPER PEOPLE. FIRE MARSHAL, THANK YOU TO MAKE SURE WE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. I ACTUALLY HAVE AN ENGINEER HERE. IF YOU HAVE ANY ENGINEERING QUESTIONS SPECIFIC THAT HE COULD ANSWER. BENCHMARK ENGINEERING HAS DONE THE STUDIES AND DESIGNED THE SITE THAT I'LL BE PRESENTING LATER. WHEN I COME BACK TO TO GET THE SIX LOTS READY TO BUILD. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, BUT I THINK THEY'D BE BETTER DIRECTED AT MR. FORSYTH. OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER, SO THANK YOU. AND OH, COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN, DID YOU CHANGE YOUR MIND? NOPE. OH, YOU'RE GETTING READY? YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. MISTER. HAVE ANY ENGINEERING QUESTIONS TO THAT. YOU MIGHT WANT THE ENGINEER TO. WE MIGHT. SO DON'T SEND THEM HOME UNTIL WE'RE DONE. YEAH. DON'T SEND THEM HOME TILL WE'RE DONE. THANK YOU, MR. FORSYTH. PLEASE. THANK YOU. SO I'M JUST GOING TO GO OVER A COUPLE POINTS REAL QUICK. SO JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT THE DENSITY, WE DID A LITTLE BIT OF A DENSITY STUDY JUST TO PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE, TO SEE HOW THIS WOULD MATCH UP WITH SOME OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE MAP, KIND OF TO THE EAST AND THE WEST. IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF A LOWER DENSITY, KIND OF AROUND THE TWO AND A HALF RANGE. THREE RANGE. BUT LOOKING AT THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH THERE, WE'RE KIND OF GETTING INTO THE THREE AND A HALF AND FOUR DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS PRETTY MUCH IN LINE WITH WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO. AND THEN JUST THE LAST POINT HERE, JUST TOUCHING ON SERVICEABILITY. SO WATER, SEWER, STORM DRAINS, THOSE ARE ALL COMING FROM 8600 SOUTH AND SHOULD TIE INTO THE PROPERTY THROUGH THAT WAY. AS FAR AS THE NEXT STEPS GO, ASSUMING THE REZONE IS APPROVED TONIGHT, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO REVIEW THIS THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY MAJOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW PROCESS. THAT'LL GO THROUGH STAFF REVIEW AND THEN TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR PUBLIC HEARING. AND ASSUMING THAT IS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT'LL COME BACK TO STAFF FOR FINAL REVIEW AND FINAL APPROVALS. AND THAT'S IT.

OKAY. WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN HAVE AT LEAST TWO QUESTIONS.

THE FIRST QUESTION IS GENERALLY, IF I RECALL THE CITY ORDINANCE, WE DON'T LIKE PRIVATE STREETS.

SO AND THAT'S THAT'S NORMALLY DISCOURAGED IN THE CODE. WHY THE PRIVATE STREET HERE. SO THE THE CODE ALLOWS PRIVATE STREETS IF THEY'RE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND IF THEY SERVE AN INFILL PURPOSE TO WHERE THEY DON'T, THEY ONLY CONNECT TO ONE STREET AND THEY DON'T LINK TO PUBLIC STREETS. SO ULTIMATELY, YEAH, THAT WILL NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION. BUT BUT YEAH, THEY THEY DO ALLOW THAT. I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION TO FOLLOW THAT UP WOULD BE ARE THE ARE THE STREETS GOING TO BE BUILT TO THE CITY'S STANDARD IN CASE WE GET STUCK WITH THAT STREET? THAT'S NEVER HAPPENED IN THE HISTORY OF WEST JORDAN, RIGHT? THAT WE HAVE A PRIVATE STREET THAT ENDS UP BEING TURNED OVER TO THE CITY. SO ARE THESE STREETS GOING TO BE BUILT TO THE CITY STANDARD SO THAT IF FOR SOME STRANGE REASON, WE GET STUCK WITH THAT STREET, THAT. IT MEETS OUR STANDARDS? SO SIMPLE QUESTION IS, NO, THESE THESE ROADS WILL ACTUALLY BE A LITTLE BIT SHORTER. THEY'LL ONLY HAVE SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE.

AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE ALL GRADE LEVEL AS WELL. SO OKAY. AND THEN THE LAST QUESTION IS THIS LOT BIG ENOUGH? WE NEED TO WORRY ABOUT DETENTION PONDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE HAVEN'T REALLY GOTTEN INTO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL YET, BUT WE WILL IN THE NEXT STAGE. OKAY. COUNCIL VICE CHAIR, JUST GOING OVER THE PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT, THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT R1 OR

[00:40:04]

R1 TEN, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SEEMED TO MAKE IT. AT LEAST TWO PEOPLE SAID IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. R1 EIGHT R1 TEN. ONE DIFFERENCE WOULD BE THAT AS IT'S IN R1 TEN, THEY'RE HELD TO THAT OBLIGATION OF MAKING SURE THE LOTS ARE A CERTAIN SIZE. R1 EIGHT MEANS THIS DESIGN WE SAW COULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT WHEN IT COMES TO US, BECAUSE WE'VE OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU, WHAT IS GOING TO BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS? AND EVEN IF THEY STAY WITH THE DESIGN THAT THEY'VE SHOWN US HERE TODAY, WHY CAN'T THAT BE AN R1 TEN TO HOLD THEM TO MAKING SURE WE ONLY HAVE SIX HOMES ON THAT PROPERTY? YEAH, SO SO PRETTY MUCH ALL OF THE LOTS FIVE OUT OF THE SIX ARE OVER 10,000FT■!S.

NOW THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT ODD BECAUSE THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE ACTUALLY GOES TO THE CENTER OF THE ROAD AND THE ROAD'S CREATED BY EASEMENT. SO. SO THAT THAT KIND OF ALLOWS FOR FOR A BIGGER LOT THERE. BUT ONE OF THE LOTS WAS AROUND 9000FT■!S. BUT IF THY TOOK SOME SOME OF THE PROPERTY FROM ONE OF THE LOTS, I THINK IT COULD BE FEASIBLE THAT THEY COULD DO ALL OF THEM IN TEN.

BUT I THINK THE R1 EIGHT IS REALLY JUST TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY IN CASE, AND I GET THAT ON THE FLEXIBILITY. BUT I ALSO WORRY ABOUT FLEXIBILITY OF WHAT CAN BE DONE. IF THAT'S OPENED UP THERE. IS THE CITY HAVE ANY QUALMS ABOUT MAKING THIS AN R1 TEN? NOT PARTICULARLY. NO. THE RESULT WOULD PRETTY MUCH BE THE SAME. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON. MY QUESTION RUNS ALONG THE SAME LINES AS COUNCIL MEMBER BADER'S QUESTION. AND I'M NO MATHEMATICIAN, BUT I DID A LITTLE CHECKING AND IT LOOKS LIKE IF IT WAS R1 EIGHT THAT YOU COULD HAVE UP TO EIGHT UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY AND. SO I APPRECIATE THE NEED FOR FLEXIBILITY, BUT I FEEL LIKE I WOULD BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH R1 TEN BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR ANYWAY. I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'D BE A HUGE IMPOSITION FOR THE DEVELOPER, FOR THE APPLICANT, UNLESS SOMEBODY CAN CAN DIRECT ME AND SHOW ME THE LIGHT, I, I WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO VOTE YES FOR R1 EIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB I'LL TRY. NO, NOTHING ABOUT THIS REALLY BOTHERS ME. IT'S IT'S A LITTLE BIT WEIRD. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SQUARE PEG IN A ROUND HOLE A LITTLE BIT. BUT IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S R1 EIGHT, NOT R1 TEN. IT'S JUST BY VIRTUE OF WHERE THE PROPERTY IS AND HOW IT'S LAID OUT AND HOW IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE SUBDIVIDED. YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S WHETHER IT'S FOUR HOMES, FIVE HOMES, SIX HOMES OR SEVEN HOMES THAT END UP HERE. I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATERIAL DIFFERENCE TO REALLY ANY OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS. ONE EXTRA HOUSE IS NOT DOES NOT MATERIALLY CHANGE ANYTHING, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU LOOK AT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, I GOT IT UP ON GOOGLE MAPS HERE, BUT THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR HAS IT HAS A FLAG LOT BEHIND IT, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY ONE LOT AND IT WAS SUBDIVIDED AND IT HAS A FLAG LOT NOW IT'S GOT TWO HOUSES ON IT OR THREE, I THINK IT'S TWO AND A ACCESSORY BUILDING OR SOMETHING. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S A PRIVATE LANE. IT'S THE SAME KIND OF A THING. IT'S JUST A IT'S A WAY TO THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO USE THEIR PROPERTY TO DEVELOP IT OUT, TO BE MORE THAN ONE HOUSE. AND I THINK IT'S WHETHER IT'S R1 EIGHT, R1 TEN OR OR R1 NINE OR R1 SEVEN, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO END UP WITH SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANYTHING SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. TO ME, THE DISCUSSION IS, IS IT MULTIPLE HOMES OR IS IT ONE HOME? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S ONE HOME AND THAT'S WHAT YOU GET WITH THE ONE HOME IS WHAT YOU GOT.

AND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS MORE THAN ONE HOME. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR MULTIFAMILY. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE TOWNHOMES, AND IT'S ONLY AN ACRE AND A HALF. I MEAN, THERE'S NOT YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T GET TOO BAD WITH JUST AN ACRE AND A HALF. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUTTING IN A SKY RIDE, YOU KNOW, HIGH RISE APARTMENT BUILDING OR ANYTHING. SO BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL SINGLE FAMILY, WHETHER YOUR SETBACKS AND CONSIDERING R1 EIGHT VERSUS R1 TEN, IT'S NOT JUST THE SIZE OF THE LOT THAT MATTERS. LIKE THEY SAID, R1 EIGHT COULD BE THE ZONE, BUT MOST OF THE. I

[00:45:07]

SHOULD HAVE SAVED ALL THIS FOR AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I'M SORRY, BUT I'M ON A ROLL.

SO MOST OF THE OR A LOT OF THE ZONE IS NOT JUST THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOT, BUT IT'S ALSO THE SETBACKS AND THE OTHER THINGS THAT GO WITH THE ZONE. THE ZONE OF R1, A AND R1 TEN.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS NOT THE 2000FT■!S. IT'S 2000FT■!S PLUS E FEET OF SETBACK ON THIS SIDE, TWO FEET OF SETBACK ON THAT SIDE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REAL NUMBERS ARE, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT. BUT THIS CAME UP WHEN I WAS VERY, VERY FIRST ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SOME HOUSES THAT WERE ZONED, THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOODS R1 TEN AND THEY NEEDED R1 EIGHT BECAUSE THEY WERE UP AGAINST BACCHUS HIGHWAY. IT'S OVER BY SUNSET RIDGE AND IT HAD TO THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE WIDTH BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL, SO THEY DIDN'T HAVE QUITE THE DEPTH FOR THE SETBACK FOR R1 WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THE EXACT SAME HOME ON THE EXACT SAME LOT, BUT IT HAD TO BE A LITTLE TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL FOR BECAUSE OF WHERE YOU WENT. 11 WAS. AND SO THEY WENT TO R1 EIGHT AND AND THAT'S ALL IT WAS. SO. TO ME, THAT'S THAT'S WHY I THINK THE, THE TEN VERSUS EIGHT IS NOT THE DEBATE, IT'S THE A5 VERSUS R1. SOMETHING IS MORE THE QUESTION THAT YOU GOT TO WRESTLE WITH I THINK. ACTUALLY I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR EITHER THE APPLICANT OR HIS ENGINEER. I'LL TRY IT FIRST. IS THERE ANY REASON THAT IT CAN'T BE R1 TEN? BECAUSE WHEN I READ PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT'S WHAT RESIDENTS DESIRED. YES.

THE REASON IS FOR SETBACKS AND I'LL HAVE THE ENGINEER ADDRESS THAT TOO. WE'VE ALSO WE HAVE A THING IN THE CITY WITH THE WASP, WITH THE WATER IN THE MASTER PLAN THAT WAS IN, I FORGET THE YEAR THAT IT CAME OUT, BUT THERE'S ONLY ENOUGH ERCS FOR SIX. WE WILL WE WILL GUARANTEE THAT WE WOULD ONLY DO SIX HOMES IF THAT WOULD HELP EVERYBODY FEEL BETTER. BUT WE REALLY NEED THE R1 EIGHT TO REACH THE SETBACKS AND MAKE MAKE EVERYTHING FIT. COULD YOUR ENGINEER WEIGH IN ON THAT TOO? IT ENGINEERS ARE PRETTY AMAZING AT AT SHIFTING LINES AND STUFF.

IS THERE NOT A WAY TO MAKE THAT WORK? MY NAME IS DALE BENNETT, BENCHMARK ENGINEERING, JUST TO GIVE YOU THAT INFORMATION, BUT I ACTUALLY LOVED WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER JACOBS SAID. EXACTLY WHAT HE'S BASICALLY SAID. IT'S THE WE WANT THESE HOMES TO BE BEAUTIFUL. AND R1 TEN HAS JUST A FEW SETBACKS, AND THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WIDTH AND SO MUCH DEPTH. AND BY GOING TO R1 TEN, IT MAKES THE THE THE HOMES SKINNIER THAN WHAT'S COMFORTABLE. AND R1 EIGHT HELPS US WITH THAT, EVEN THOUGH THE LOTS WILL STILL BE THAT SIZE. BUT WE'RE ALSO, LIKE YOU SAID, WE'RE NOT GOING ANY MORE THAN SIX FOR SURE. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MAXIMUM. BUT I'VE LOOKED AT IT A WHOLE LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS AND R1 EIGHT WORKS, R1 TEN IT IT'S IT'S JUST THE WAY THAT CONFIGURATION IS. IT'S NOT MAKING THE HOUSES WIDE ENOUGH, THE DEPTH OF THEM. SO THAT'S THE MAIN REASON. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. SO I WILL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS. I DON'T HAVE ANY YELLOW SLIPS FOR THIS ONE. IF YOU ARE HERE YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. SO COME TO THE PODIUM AND WE ASK THAT IF SOMEONE'S ALREADY SAID THAT WHAT YOU WERE GOING TO CONVEY, MAYBE. YOU CAN JUST TELL US THAT THEY SAID WHAT YOU WANTED TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT, GO AHEAD.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS KATE, AND I LIVE ON PRESTO VILLA COVE. DEAR MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, I AM WRITING TO FORMALLY OPPOSE THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 1490 WEST 8600. AS A RESIDENT OF WEST JORDAN AND A MEMBER OF THE AFFECTED COMMUNITY, I BELIEVE THE ZONING CHANGE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOOD. I HAVE NINE COPIES OF WHAT I'VE EMAILED YOU EARLIER. THEY CAN GO TO MR. ANDERSON AND HE'LL GET THEM TO US. THANK YOU. I WASN'T ALLOWED TO PUT STUFF ON THE BOARD ON THE TV, SO I SAID ATTACHED. PLEASE FIND A PETITION WITH SIGNATURES OF 23 NEIGHBORS LIVING IN ADJACENT PROPERTIES WHO ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL OF THE R1 EIGHT REZONING. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE INCLUDED MAP, THE PROPERTY IS DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ARE LARGER AGRICULTURAL OR ESTATE SIZED

[00:50:05]

PARCELS, ANYWHERE FROM 0.29 TO 0.52 AN ACRE EACH. IN CONTRAST, THE PROPOSED THE PROPOSED R1 EIGHT DESIGNATION WOULD PERMIT LOT SIZES AND DENSITIES OF UP TO 1.18 OF AN ACRE. THE DEVELOPER HAS SUBMITTED A PLAN OF SIX HOUSES, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE A REZONING OF R1 TEN TO KEEP THE LOT SIZES OVER 10,000FT■!S, OR 0.23 OF AN ACRE. IN KEEPING WITH MOST OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. IN ADDITION TO BEING INCOMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LOT SIZES, THE PROPOSED REZONING RAISES A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, SUCH AS THE EXISTING ROADWAYS, 8600 PER SE AND PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE SUCH AS STORMWATER RUNOFF AND THE ROAD ITSELF WERE NOT DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE INCREASED TRAFFIC AND SURFACE SERVICE DEMAND ASSOCIATED WITH HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES. A MORE APPROPRIATE AND RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PARCEL WOULD BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 4 TO 6 LOTS OR LOTS RATED AT R1 TEN, WHICH IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE SURROUNDING LOT SIZES AND ZONING INTENT. FOR THESE REASONS, I RESPECTFULLY URGE THE CITY COUNCIL TO DENY THE REZONING REQUEST AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED AND POSSIBLY CONSIDER REZONING IT TO ONE TO R1 TEN, WHICH IN ALL EFFECTS IS WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAS PROPOSED IN HIS PLAN. I AM NOT OPPOSED TO GROWTH AND DEVELOPING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I, ALONG WITH 23 RESIDENTS, WANT TO DO IT IN A DISCIPLINED AND SENSIBLE MANNER THAT ALIGNS WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. IF THERE'S SOMEONE ELSE, PLEASE COME UP. STATE YOUR NAME AND CITY OF RESIDENCE. NORA LENZ I LIVE A FLAG LOT AWAY FROM THERE. I'VE BEEN PART OF THIS CITY SINCE 1985. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF GROWTH. MY HUSBAND WAS IN THE CITY COUNCIL. WE'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE. MY MAIN CONCERN HERE IS TRAFFIC. OKAY, THAT T THAT HE HAS PRODUCED. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A FIRE TRUCK IN THERE AND TRY TO DO IT. OKAY. THE OTHER THING IS THE STREET THAT HE'S PUTTING THE SEWER DOWN, ONE CAR CAN GO DOWN THAT STREET. I CHALLENGE ALL OF YOU TO GO DOWN 8600 AND THE HALF STREET THAT HE'S PROPOSING TO ATTACH TO AND TRY TO DRIVE IT, 8600 IS BOTTLENECKED ON REDWOOD.

WE ARE LAYING LITERALLY, WE HAVE NOT BEEN PLOWED IN TWO YEARS. AND BEFORE WE MOVED THERE, WE HADN'T BEEN PLOWED. LARISSA, WE'VE BEEN PLOWED IS MY HUSBAND WAS CITY COUNCIL.

NOW, FINALLY, WE'VE BEEN RECOGNIZED AS A STREET AND WE APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. BUT OUR WATER LINES BROKE THREE TIMES IN LAST YEAR AND A HALF. YOU GUYS CAME IN THIS YEAR. WE APPRECIATE IT GETTING A NEW WATER LINE. WE APPRECIATE THAT THIS THIS ROAD HAS NOT HAD ANY ATTENTION IN 25 YEARS. THE OTHER STREET GOING SOUTH, YOU CAN FIT ONE CAR DOWN NOW. HE HAS PROPOSED NO PARKING ON THOSE STREETS GOING IN. YOU HAVE SIX CARS, SIX HOUSES.

WHERE ARE ALL THOSE PEOPLE GOING TO PARK? THINK ABOUT THAT. THINK ABOUT THE COMPANY THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR HOMES THAT COME TO VISIT. OKAY, WE HAVE A HALF STREET ONE DIRECTION. THE OTHER STREET ISN'T GOING TO HOLD IT. HE NEEDS TO CUT DOWN HIS HOUSES AND MAKE THE STREET A LITTLE BIT WIDER. SO HE THEN PARKING. BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M LOOKING AT FIVE HOUSES AND THERE'S NO PLACE FOR WATER RETENTION AT ALL. NONE. AND EVERYBODY ELSE IN THIS CITY HAS HAD TO DO A WATER RETENTION. WHEN WE BUILT IN THE VERY BACK, THEY HAD MADE US DO OUR OWN WATER RETENTION ON OUR OWN LOT, AND THERE HAS NOT BEEN ONE MENTION OF WATER RETENTION IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND FOR HIM TO DO THAT, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE UP A HOUSE. AND I HONESTLY WOULD LIKE A WIDER DRIVEWAY GOING INTO THAT. SO I DO CHALLENGE YOU, EVERYBODY, TO GO DOWN OUR STREET AND TURN IN, LOOK AT THIS PROPERTY BEFORE YOU VOTE. THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING, BECAUSE OUR STREET WILL NOT HANDLE IT EITHER DIRECTION. WELL, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK

[00:55:07]

YOU, THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM? I HANG ON, I DON'T THINK SO. MR. ANDERSON. ARE YOU LOOKING FOR PEOPLE ONLINE? NO, I'M LOOKING FOR ADVICE. AS MY PARLIAMENTARIAN, THE APPLICANT HAS ASKED TO SPEAK AGAIN, BUT HE'S HAD HIS TURN. IT'S. IT'S APPROPRIATE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF THE COUNCIL AT YOUR DISCRETION. BUT. BUT WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY? IF THERE'S NO ONE ELSE TO SPEAK, THEN IT IS ALLOWED AT YOUR DISCRETION. AFTER I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THOUGH, RIGHT? YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. SIR. WHAT IS YOUR NAME? I'M STEVE JONES. I LIVE HERE IN WEST JORDAN. JUST ONE THING I WANT TO THROW OUT REAL QUICK. BECAUSE SOME OF YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY SENSITIVE TO IT, BUT THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, THE WAY THIS IS WHAT I SAW LINED UP ON THERE, IS ANYBODY CHECKED TO MAKE SURE THAT NOW THAT YOU PUT ALL THOSE HOMES IN THERE THAT ARE NOW NO PLACE FOR THE WATER RUNOFF, IT'S GOING TO GO IN THOSE STORM DRAINS THAT'S OLDER AND EXISTING. ARE THEY SIZED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? WE HAD A LOT OF FLOODING OVER BY CONSTITUTION BECAUSE NOBODY TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. AND THEY KEPT PASSING THE BUCK. SO I WOULD HOPE SOMEBODY WOULD TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME AND LOOK AND MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE LINE SIZE AND EVERYTHING WILL HANDLE THE CAPACITY THAT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS VIRTUALLY VERY LITTLE YARD AND MORE SURFACE AREA THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE WATER RUNOFF. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WISHING TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM? MR. ANDERSON? STILL NO ONE ONLINE.

YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL. I BELIEVE MR. WIXOM WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS US. DO WE? COME ON UP, MR. WIXOM. THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE. I A LOT OF CONCERNS THAT THE PUBLIC HAD ARE VALID. A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS WILL BE ADDRESSED WHEN WE DEAL WITH THE CITY STAFF AND ENGINEERS, WHEN WE PROPOSE THE PROPERTIES IN THE IN THE NEXT STEP OF THIS TONIGHT, WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE ZONE CHANGE AND WHAT IS I WANT TO SHOW YOU IN THE IF I CAN GO BACK TO THE PICTURE OF WHAT IS AROUND THIS PROPERTY. LET ME JUST GO BACK A COUPLE HERE, BECAUSE R1 EIGHT IS DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY NOW.

SO AS YOU DRIVE IN THE ROADS. OKAY. YOU SEE THAT IN THE RED IS IS A5 DIRECTLY SOUTH ON THE ROAD IN 1500, WEST KITTY CORNER TO THAT. THAT'S R1 EIGHT ALREADY. AND THEY'RE GOING TO IMPROVE THAT STREET TO WIDEN IT WHEN THAT COMES ALONG. AND ALSO 8600 SOUTH, THE CITY I BELIEVE HAS PLANS TO IMPROVE IT. THEY JUST REPLACED THE WATER LINE AND THEY'RE DOING SOME IMPROVEMENTS THERE. SO AS WE DEVELOP THESE PROPERTIES AND CHANGE THEM FROM FARMLAND, YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE IMPROVEMENTS HERE ANYWAY. BUT AS YOU DRIVE, IT'S R1 EIGHT, R1 EIGHT, R1 EIGHT. THESE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE R1 TEN AND SOME OF THEM DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT LARGER, MAYBE AT THE END OF THE CUL DE SAC, BUT THAT'S NOT THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTIES THERE. THEY'RE NOT THAT LARGE. THOSE ARE. YOU DON'T EVEN DRIVE TO THIS PROPERTY TO GET TO THAT. YOU GOT TO GO UP REDWOOD ROAD AND THEN AROUND AND BACK TO IT. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT IT. AND IF YOU'RE GOING WITH THE FLOW OF WHAT'S THERE, IT LOGICALLY MAKES SENSE TO BE R1 EIGHT. AND AGAIN WE WILL WORK WITH THE ENGINEERING. WE WILL COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE RULES AND THE IRC REQUIREMENTS AND SO FORTH ONLY ALLOW FOR SIX UNITS.

WE DO NOT WANT TO GO ABOVE SIX UNITS, AND WE WOULD BE WILLING TO TO AGREE TO THAT TONIGHT AS WELL. ANY QUESTIONS? I DON'T SEE ANY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN. MAYBE MR. DAVENPORT CAN COME UP AND WE WE HE CAN ANSWER A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE SPOT SINCE

[01:00:03]

HE'S THE ALL KNOWING GURU ABOUT UTILITIES IN THE STREET. FIRST QUESTION, HOW MANY HOW MANY ERCS ARE TIED TO THIS PROPERTY? DO YOU KNOW? I'M NOT SURE THE EXACT NUMBER AT THIS TIME. IF IT'S 1.47 ACRES IN A STANDARD RESIDENTIAL ZONE, THAT WORKS OUT TO BE. IT'S USUALLY BASED UPON THE GENERAL PLAN WHEN WE DO THAT. AND I'LL LET THE GENERAL PLAN HERE IS A LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. SO WHETHER IT'S 4 OR 6, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A IT'S A BIG DEAL, I DON'T KNOW. OR EVEN IF IT'S EIGHT, THERE'S A RANGE THAT GOES WITH OKAY. AND I THINK THEY'RE IN THAT RANGE. I DON'T BELIEVE I HAVE PROBLEMS FOR AND ARE THERE UTILITIES IN THIS AREA. SO THAT'S THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. ANY PROBLEM WITH UTILITIES PARTICULARLY STORMWATER? THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS AREA IS THE WATER LINE THAT WE ARE FIXING AND WELL, THAT THEY KNOW THE MOST STORMWATER. AGAIN, WE TYPICALLY ANSWER ALL THESE QUESTIONS WHEN THEY DO GET TO THE ENGINEERING PHASE, WHEN THEY GO THROUGH THE ACTUAL SUBDIVISION PROCESS, WE'LL HAVE THEM MEET ALL THE CITY CODE BEFORE WE BEFORE THEY GET APPROVED. TRUST ME, COUNCIL MEMBER LAMB AND I. AND YOU KNOW THE PROBLEM WITH OLD WATER LINES? YES WE DO, YES WE DO.

GREAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE BEFORE I ASK FOR A MOTION, I'LL THROW OUT A I'LL THROW OUT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE, I DID PULL UP THE LOT AND BULK STANDARDS FOR R1 TEN VERSUS R1 EIGHT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE OF ALL THE BULK STANDARDS. AND MR. LANGFORD, YOU'RE OUT THERE AND YOU CAN THROW DARTS IF I'M WRONG. BUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IN THE BULK STANDARDS, THE THE SETBACKS AND THE BULK STANDARDS AND THE SIDE STANDARDS BETWEEN AN R1 EIGHT AND AN R1 TEN, IS THAT AN R1 TEN REQUIRES AN 80 FOOT, 85 FOOT WIDTH, AND AN R1 EIGHT REQUIRES A 75 FOOT WIDTH, WHICH WOULD ALLOW. BUT ALL THE OTHER BULK STANDARDS ARE THE SAME THEY'RE EIGHT FOOT SIDE LOTS, 20 FOOT REAR THE SITE, THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE TO BE 22FT LONG, YADA YADA YADA. SO THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE FACT THAT R1 EIGHT IS TEN IS TEN CAN BE TEN FEET NARROWER. WELL, YOU ADD UP, YOU ADD UP. LOTS. AND WITH THAT.

WITH WITH THE WITH THE WITH WITH THE WITH STANDARDS. AND MIGHT ONLY BE EASY TO GET FOUR MAYBE FIVE HOUSES IN THERE ON A GOOD DAY WITH AN R1 TEN BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S DESIGNED. SO I DON'T THINK THE R1 EIGHT R1 TEN MAKES THAT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH DIFFERENCE THAT THAT WE SHAVE, THAT WE MAKE THE LOTS BIGGER. A COUPLE OTHER THOUGHTS THAT I HAVE THAT ARE RUNNING, RUNNING THROUGH MY MIND. THIS IS ON THE GENERAL PLAN A LOW DENSITY, A LOWER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. AND WHAT'S THE DEVELOPER BROUGHT TO US? A LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. NOT VERY OFTEN THAT WE GET SOMEBODY WHO BRINGS A DEVELOPMENT THAT ACTUALLY MATCHES THE, THE, THE GENERAL PLAN. MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE ASKING FOR FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS THAT INCREASE THE DENSITY BY THOUSANDS. OF ALL THE THINGS THAT CONCERN ME THE MOST ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS THE PRIVATE STREET THAT THAT ACTUALLY CONCERNS ME. BECAUSE WE'VE HAD. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE. WE LOVE HOA'S IN THIS CITY. RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER BLUM. YOUR REACTION SAID IT ALL. THIS IS GOING TO REQUIRE AN HOA. THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO REQUIRE TO DO THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE PLOWING. AND MAYBE THEY GET BETTER PLOWS THAN THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S THE PLOWING IN THE STREET MAINTENANCE THAT THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR ABOVE AND BEYOND THEIR CITY TAXES. AND SO WHEN WE APPROVED THIS AS A PRIVATE ROAD, WE'RE ACTUALLY IMPOSING ON THEM A SECONDARY TAX, IF YOU WILL, BECAUSE

[01:05:05]

THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO PAY A ROAD TAX. AND, AND, AND INTO OUR CLASS C ROAD FUNDS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF. AND THEN THEY ALSO HAVE TO PAY FOR THEIR ROAD OUT FRONT WITH THE HOA. I A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I'M ALSO UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THE FACT THAT IT'S PRIVATE STREET NOT BEING BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS. THAT'S PROBABLY THE MOST CONCERNING TO ME IS BECAUSE, LIKE WE'VE SEEN HAPPEN IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS, SOMEBODY GETS TIRED, SOMETHING HAPPENS, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ARE, THEY COME BACK TO THE CITY AND SAY, WE DON'T WANT THE STREET, HERE YOU GO. AND THEN WE'RE STUCK WITH THE STREET THAT DOESN'T MEET OUR STANDARDS, AND IT'S HARDER TO MAINTAIN TO DEAL WITH IT AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. THAT'S THAT'S MY CONCERNS. IF, IF YOU IF YOU CAN HELP ADDRESS THAT MR. LANGSFORD GO AHEAD. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, PER OUR CODE PER, PER YOUR ORDINANCE, THE PRIVATE ROADS HAVE TO BE BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS AS FAR AS CURB TO CURB, ROAD, BASE ASPHALT. ALL OF THAT HAS TO BE TO CITY STANDARDS. IT'S FROM THE CURB OUTWARD THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR FOR RELIEF. NOW, THAT'S NOT REALLY A OFFICIAL REQUEST TO THE COUNCIL TONIGHT, BECAUSE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS MR. FORSYTH INDICATED THEY WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT TO SEE IF IT MEETS, MEETS THOSE PARAMETERS OF, OF THE CODE. SO ONE OF THE OTHER BENEFITS I SEE FOR THIS DEVELOPER IN REQUESTING A PRIVATE ROAD, NORMALLY IF IT WAS A PUBLIC ROAD, PROPERTY LINES AND THE BACK OF SIDEWALK. RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S NORMAL. WELL, THEIR PROPERTY LINES GO TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD SO THAT THAT GIVES THEM MORE, MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE PER THERE PER THEIR LOT SO THAT THEY CAN HIT THE THE 10,000FT■!S OR THE 8000FT■!S, WHATEVER. BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE ACTUAL ROAD CROSS-SECTION FROM CURB TO CURB HAS TO MEET OUR OUR STANDARDS AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION GOES. THANK YOU. THAT WAS A GOOD CLARIFICATION. I, I WANT TO SAY I HAVE DRIVEN BOTH OF THOSE ROADS AND WALKED THEM THIS SUMMER. SO I DO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. SOMETHING THAT I WANT ALL OF US TO KEEP IN MIND IS WHILE SIX HOMES ARE BEING PROPOSED, R1 EIGHT WOULD ALLOW EIGHT HOMES OR MORE, DEPENDING ON HOW THEY COULD FIGURE IT OUT. BUT THE THING I WANT US TO REMEMBER IS I AM CONCERNED, AS WAS BROUGHT UP, ABOUT WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE GUESTS AND THEY CAN HAVE ADUS, AND THAT BRINGS IN MORE CARS. SO PARKING I THINK, IS A VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERN THAT I'M, THAT I'M WEIGHING HEAVILY ON THIS BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE BUILDING A STREET TO OUR STANDARD, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW PARKING ON IT. THAT'S WEIRD TO ME. ACTUALLY. I DON'T I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IF THEY'RE THE SAME WIDTH AS THE REGULAR NEIGHBORHOOD STREET, WHY YOUR RESIDENTS COULDN'T PARK ON YOUR OWN PRIVATE LANE. SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY THOUGHTS. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB THANK YOU. I PULLED UP STREET VIEW ON 8600 SOUTH. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN IN THIS SECTION OF THE CITY, AND I WOULD SAY 8600 SOUTH IS NOT BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS. I DARE SAY THAT ROAD PREDATES OUR CITY STANDARDS. I DON'T THINK IT'S WIDE ENOUGH. IT ISN'T FOR CITY STANDARDS. THERE'S NO SIDEWALKS, THERE'S NO CURB. IT'S A IT'S A COUNTRY ROAD IN A BIG CITY. IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT AT THE END OF THE COUNTRY ROAD, WE'RE GOING TO PUT A NICE NEW OR THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO PUT A NICE NEW BUILT TO CITY STANDARDS, WIDE ENOUGH ROAD FOR TWO CARS TO GO PAST EACH OTHER IN A FIRE TRUCK TO GET IN AND TURN AROUND AND ALL OF THAT NICE STUFF. BUT TO GET TO THAT ROAD, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO DOWN A ROAD THAT, YOU KNOW, MAY OR MAY NOT FIT TWO CARS AT ONCE. SO THAT'S A THAT'S AN INTERESTING CONUNDRUM. BUT FOR ME, THE ISSUE TODAY IS NOT THE CONDITION OF 8600 SOUTH, WHICH I THINK NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. I THINK 8600 SOUTH NEEDS TO NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, AND EITHER NEEDS TO BE DATED BACK TO A PRIVATE ROAD AND LET THE RESIDENTS THERE FIGURE OUT HOW TO TAKE CARE OF IT AND REPAVE IT AND MAKE IT WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE,

[01:10:04]

OR IT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CITY STANDARDS. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE NEEDS TO HAPPEN THERE. BECAUSE IF THAT'S A PUBLIC ROAD BOY, I THOUGHT THE ROADS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD WERE BAD. THIS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT, WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLGAME THERE. BUT FOR ME, THE ISSUE HERE IS ZONING. AND I AGREE WITH. THE RESIDENT, MISS SIMON, I'M SORRY IF I BUTCHERED THAT. THAT A RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT HERE WOULD BE 4 TO 6 LOTS.

DEVELOPERS ASKING FOR SIX LOTS. SO I, I KIND OF AGREE WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK I WOULD LIKE EIGHT OR 10 OR 12 LOTS HERE. I THINK THAT WOULD BE TOO MANY. BUT I THINK SIX SIX IS THE HIGH END OF YOUR RESPONSIBLE RANGE. AND I THINK THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT TO ME TOO. AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 5 AND 6 IS SOMETHING I WOULD LOSE SLEEP OVER, OR FOUR AND SIX, BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT THAT MUCH MORE TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT THAT MUCH MORE REALLY ANYTHING. BUT AS FAR AS THE SUBDIVISION PLAT, WHETHER YOU PARK ON THE STREET OR NOT, WHETHER THERE'S A GUEST PARKING IN THERE SOMEWHERE, WHETHER THERE'S STORM DRAINS, THAT'S ALL FOR THE SUBDIVISION THAT COMES LATER. THAT'S THE PLANNING COMMISSION. WHO GETS TO DECIDE THAT? WE'RE JUST DECIDING THE ZONE. AND I THINK THE ZONING THAT'S BEING REQUESTED SEEMS TO SEEMS TO FIT. A COUPLE MORE COMMENTS FOR ME, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WHERE I MAY BE COMING FROM IS THAT. PROPERTIES LIKE THIS IN WEST JORDAN ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO INFILL. IT'S AN INEVITABLE FACT. THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME RESIDENTS DON'T DON'T LIKE THIS NEXT COMMENT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY IT ANYWAY. IT'S FUNNY THAT THERE ARE A BUNCH OF RESIDENTS I COUNT AT LEAST. EIGHT RESIDENTS WHO SIGNED THIS PETITION PETITION THAT THEY DON'T WANT R1 EIGHT YET THEY LIVE IN R1 EIGHT. SORRY THAT THAT DOESN'T BECOME VERY PERSUASIVE TO ME WHEN I COME WHEN WHEN I WHEN I VOTE ON REZONES. I DON'T SEE HOW ANY TRAFFIC IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO AFFECT AUTUMN OAK CIRCLE OR PRESTON VILLA COVE.

THEY ALL GO OUT A DIFFERENT WAY. AND AS WAS MENTIONED, DON'T CONNECT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO TO GET TO THAT, YOU GOT TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND AND DANG NEAR THE STATE OR DOWN NEAR REDWOOD DANG NEAR REDWOOD ROAD TO COME BACK UP 8600, BECAUSE 8600 IS A DEAD END. I DO HAVE A CONCERN OVER. ON STREET PARKING. I ACTUALLY THINK THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD THIS WITH A PRIVATE ROAD THAT YOU PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ON STREET PARKING, BUT THAT IS NOT A CONCERN OF THE COUNCIL. WHEN WE COME TO REZONE. I'VE HEARD INFORMATION FROM OUR CITY UTILITIES DIRECTOR THAT THE UTILITIES THERE ARE SUFFICIENT AND THAT THEY WILL BE IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, THEY WILL BE BROUGHT UP TO STATE CODE AND MEET STATE STANDARD. AND SO I AM SATISFIED WITH THAT. AT THE END OF THE DAY. WHO'S WHAT WOULD I VOTING NO ON? THIS WOULD MEAN THAT I'M PLACING SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY RIGHTS MORE SUPERIOR THAN TO ANOTHER. ONE OF THE INALIENABLE RIGHTS THAT THOMAS JEFFERSON CHANGED IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WAS THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. NOW, PROPERTY HAD A DEEPER CONTEXT THERE THAN JUST LAND PROPERTY. BUT. PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IS SUCH A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. IT'S NOT LISTED IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT IS LISTED IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION. IF I RECALL, MY STATE CONSTITUTION THE LAST TIME I READ IT, WHICH WAS A WHILE AGO ON THAT PARTICULAR ARTICLE. THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THIS PROPERTY, WHO OWN THIS PROPERTY, HAVE DECIDED THAT IT'S TIME TO. TERMINATE THE OLD A5 DESIGNATION, TECHNICALLY ON THE A5 DESIGNATION, THE ONE

[01:15:13]

HOUSE. THE ONE HOUSE IS BARELY CONFORMING BECAUSE YOU CAN ONLY BUILD ONE ONE HOUSE ON AN A5.

SO IT HAS TO. IT HAS TO BE REZONED SOME WAY SHAPE OR ANOTHER, AND SO I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE REZONE REQUEST. LIKE PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED, THERE'S NO TOWNHOMES. THERE'S NO ANYTHING. AND TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, I'M NOT WILLING TO TAKE ON THE UTAH LEGISLATURE WHEN THEY'RE DEMANDING HOUSING AND HOUSING BEING BUILT. AND WE DENY A REASONABLE REQUEST THAT MEETS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. I'M NOT WILLING TO VOTE TO PUT A TARGET ON WEST JORDAN CITY SO THAT THEY HAVE MORE CANNON FODDER TO. TAKE CONTROL OVER LOCAL ZONING THAT THEY'VE THREATENED IN THE LAST 3 OR 4 WEEKS IN THE NEWSPAPER. SO THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM JUST QUICKLY, BECAUSE MOST EVERYTHING HAS ALREADY BEEN SAID. I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS CONCEPT AND THAT AS THINGS GET BUILT OUT, AS LONG AS THE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN ONE MILE OF A FIRE STATION WITH A THREE MINUTE RESPONSE TIME. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS SAID PUBLICLY. THANK YOU. WELL, AT THIS TIME I WOULD LOOK FOR A MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM, I MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2559. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOBS. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. ANY DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION? I WILL SHARE. I HAVE THE SAME CONCERN AND AND I BELIEVE IT WAS KATE THAT SENT THE EMAIL AND I RESPONDED WITH THIS, BUT I'LL RESPOND SO THAT EVERYONE HEARS WE HAVE A LEGISLATURE, WHICH WE ARE A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF, WHICH IS DESIRING TO TAKE LOCAL CONTROL AWAY. AND MANY OF THEM, IRONICALLY, ARE DEVELOPERS. AND OUR CITY HAS NOT NECESSARILY HAD POSITIVE OUTCOMES FROM SOME OF THOSE DEVELOPERS THAT HAVE SERVED IN OUR LEGISLATURE, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. AND I SHARE THAT SAME CONCERN. I HAVE A A PROPERTY OWNER DEVELOPER TELLING ME THAT HE'LL ONLY PUT SIX HOMES ON THERE. I DON'T THINK HE CAN GET MORE THAN SIX HOMES ON THERE AND BUILD THE ROAD AND BUILD. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S POSSIBLE. AND OUR ONE EIGHT, WHILE I REALLY GET THE CONCERNS AND I WANT YOU TO TO REALLY CONSIDER THIS, MR. WIXOM, IF YOUR ROADS HAVE TO BE THE SAME WIDTH AS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ROADS, THERE IS NO REASON TO RESTRICT PARKING. AND I HOPE YOU RECONSIDER THAT, BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT FAIR FOR THEM TO THEN BE PARKING ON ADJACENT ROADS AND THAT LITTLE ROAD. I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT IT IS. IT IT IS TINY, LIKE WALKING DOWN THAT ROAD IS A LITTLE BIT NERVE WRACKING ON ITS OWN, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO COME AROUND THAT CORNER REALLY QUICK. AND I WOULD HATE YOUR FUTURE RESIDENTS TO PARK THERE AND FIND OUT THAT SOMEONE CAME AROUND THAT CORNER A LITTLE TOO FAST, AND NOW THEIR CAR SMASHED BECAUSE THEY HAD NOWHERE IN YOUR DEVELOPMENT TO PARK. SO ENOUGH WITH MY MOTHERING LECTURE. I WILL. OH, VICE CHAIR BADER, I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT REAL QUICKLY I AM IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE A BIT. I LIVE SORT OF ACROSS REDWOOD, A BIT FROM THIS, AND I'M HERE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE A BIT, MOSTLY DUE TO A DIFFERENT HOUSING SITUATION. THAT'S RIGHT ON THAT 1500 WEST. SO I'M THERE A LOT. AND I KNOW, I KNOW 8600 VERY WELL. I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT GOOD. THAT'S WHY I ALWAYS GO DOWN 86, 60 WHEN I HAVE TO GO DO SOMETHING THERE. BUT I, I WANTED TO POINT OUT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL HAVE TALKED ABOUT HOW WE CAN'T FIGHT THE CITY, I MEAN, THE STATE, AND PUT A TARGET ON OUR BACK. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO PUT THE SAME HOUSE THERE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO. SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT STOPPING THAT. BUT I, I DO AGAIN, I GO BACK TO OUR

[01:20:06]

PLANNING COMMISSION WHERE THEY WERE ALL THINKING. R1 TEN, BUT THEN WE'RE TALKED OUT OF IT. I HAVEN'T SEEN ENOUGH. THAT REALLY TELLS ME WHY IT CAN'T BE THAT TO ME. THAT JUST AFFIRMS WHAT WE GET THERE AND HOW MANY HOUSES WE GET THERE. AND. I DO WANT THAT LITTLE AREA TO BE AS BEAUTIFUL AS IT CAN BE. SO I'LL BE VOTING NO ON THIS AND JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WE SET SOMETHING THAT AFFIRMS WHAT KIND OF HOMES WILL BE THERE AND HOW MANY HOMES WILL BE THERE.

COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF I JUST WANT TO REMIND TIME. IS THIS SOMETHING DIFFERENT? YES. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY IF WE VOTE THIS DOWN, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THEY HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR UNLESS IT'S A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. AND SO IF THEY CAME BACK WITH FIVE HOUSES, THAT'S NOT A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. PROBABLY. AND SO I WOULD BE VERY CAREFUL WITH THE NO VOTE HERE, BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE SENDING A MESSAGE TO A DEVELOPER THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD FOR A YEAR. OKAY. SEEING NO OTHER LIGHTS MISS QUICK, A VOTE PLEASE. THANK YOU, CHAIR WHITELOCK. MISS COUNCILMEMBER GREEN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

SHELTON. YES. VICE CHAIR. BADOR. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. BECAUSE R1 TEN IS NOT ON THE TABLE, BUT R1 EIGHT IS. I'LL VOTE YES. COUNCILMEMBER BLOOM. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAMB. NO.

OKAY, I SHOW THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 2. OKAY. I ACTUALLY SAID MISS, BUT THAT'S OKAY. YOU TOOK IT AS A YES, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE SAME OUTCOME EITHER WAY. SO WE'RE GOOD. DID YOU I SAID MISS I SAID MISS. YES OKAY. MOVING ON. PUBLIC HEARING FIVE B RESOLUTION NUMBER 25 056

[b. Resolution No. 25-056 Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule for Fiscal Year 2026]

AMENDING THE CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026. MISS STECK, WE'LL BE QUICK. WE ARE JUST PRESENTING TO YOU A COUPLE OF FEES. ONE OF THEM WE ARE ASKING FOR YOU TO REMOVE.

IT'S CALLED A LAND USE ENGINEERING FEE. AND THERE IS NO ENGINEERING AT THE LAND USE LEVEL OR REVIEW ANYWAY. ENGINEERING REVIEW. SO WE'RE REMOVING THAT FEE. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW ACTUALLY WHERE IT CAME FROM. SO WE'RE ASKING YOU TO REMOVE THAT FEE. AND THEN WE'RE ADDING ADDITIONAL FEES ONTO THE CEMETERY FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE COLUMBARIUM. SO THE INSTALLATION OF COLUMBARIUM IS COMPLETE. AND WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF INQUIRIES ABOUT PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED IN UTILIZING THE SPACE. THESE IS THE FEE SCHEDULE THAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU. YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE IS DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN RESIDENT AND NON RESIDENTIAL RATES. AS WE ENCOURAGE OUR RESIDENTS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE SERVICES WITHIN OUR CITY, BUT THAT THE DISINTERMENT RATES ARE THE SAME. AND THE REASON THEY ARE THE SAME IS BECAUSE TYPICALLY THAT IS TAKING SOMEONE OUT OF THEIR FINAL RESTING PLACE FOR REASONS OF INVESTIGATION OR MOVING THEM TO ANOTHER STATE FOR SOME REASON. BUT THAT SERVICE REALLY DOESN'T HAVE A DIRECT IMPACT ON THE SPACE THAT'S AVAILABLE IN OUR CEMETERY. SO WE FELT LIKE THOSE SERVICES WERE EQUAL, WHETHER IT WAS A RESIDENT OR A NONRESIDENT REQUEST. SO IF YOU HAVE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, WE PRESENT TO YOU RESOLUTION 2505 SIX FOR APPROVAL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS STACK? COUNCIL MEMBER LAMB IS THAT LAND USE R1 TEN? I THINK IT'S A LITTLE HIGHER DENSITY THAN THAT. I SEE NO OTHER MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING QUESTIONS, SO I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK TO THIS ITEM, PLEASE COME FORWARD. MR. ANDERSON, ARE THERE STILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ONLINE? THERE ARE NOT MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ONLINE. THERE ARE NO PEOPLE ONLINE. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT CARES TO COME UP AND TALK ABOUT THIS? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR EITHER DISCUSSION OR EMOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER LAMB I WILL MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25, DASH 056, AMENDING THE CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026. VICE CHAIR I WILL SECOND THIS. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LAMB, A SECOND BY VICE CHAIR

[01:25:06]

BADOR. MISS QUICK A VOTE PLEASE. COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAMB. YES.

CHAIR. WHITELOCK. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SHELTON. YES. VICE CHAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. GREEN. YES. I SHOW THAT MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. THANK YOU. ALL

[c. Ordinance No. 25-60 Amending the Budget for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2026]

RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 25, DASH 60, AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30TH, 2026. MYSTIC. THANK YOU. WE'LL BRING TO YOU SOME BUDGET AMENDMENTS. THERE AREN'T VERY MANY OF THEM. THE FIRST OF THEM IS TO RECEIVE REVENUE IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE SALE OF THE COLUMBARIUM SPACE THAT YOU JUST APPROVED, $15,000. SO WE'RE RECEIVING THAT. THE SECOND ITEM IS THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS HERE. THE FIRST IS THERE WAS A AN ACCIDENT WITH EQUIPMENT THAT TOTALED OUT A KUBOTA. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS. IT'S SOME SORT OF ATV THING IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT CAN ABSORB IT IN THEIR CURRENT BUDGET, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE PURCHASED OUT OF THE FLEET FUND. SO WE ARE GOING TO BE TRANSFERRING THE MONEY AND RECEIVING IT IN THE FLEET FUND FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THAT ITEM, AND THEN PURCHASING THE NEW ITEM AS WELL, SO THAT IT BECOMES PROPERTY OF THE FLEET MANAGEMENT FUND. SO THAT'S THE $32,000 AND THAT'S HOW MUCH THE KUBOTA COSTS AS WELL. THE REST OF THAT, THE DIFFERENTIAL THERE FOR 18,000 IS THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TO MOVE A PROGRAM THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUDGETED HERE AND USING RESERVES OUT OF THE FLEET FUND THAT STARTED OUT AS A $50,000 PROJECT FOR THE OPTICOM EMS TRAFFIC CONTROL, THE LIGHT TRAFFIC CONTROL, LIGHTS AND EQUIPMENT THAT CHANGED THE LIGHTS. THAT PROJECT HAS GROWN BECAUSE OF THE MAINTENANCE OF THE SYSTEM, AS IT WAS DOWN FOR SO LONG. IT'S NEEDING ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE AND IMPROVEMENTS. WE ARE NEGOTIATING WITH THE COUNTY FOR SOME OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. HOWEVER, AT THIS TIME THE ESTIMATE ON THAT PROJECT HAS GROWN TO $100,000.

MY PREFERENCE AND RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS NOT TO USE RESERVES OR THE FLEET FUND AT THAT LEVEL, BUT INSTEAD TO TRANSFER IT OVER INTO THE CIP FUND AS A PROJECT. SO WE'RE GOING TO ASK YOU IN A MOMENT TO APPROVE IT THERE. SO WE'RE REMOVING IT OUT OF THE FLEET FUND, RESTORING $50,000 OF THE RESERVES AND THEN ALLOCATING $32,000 FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE KUBOTA THERE. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ONE? OKAY. THE NEXT ITEM IS THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND. THIS IS WHERE WE'RE RECEIVING OUR SPONSORSHIP FROM CANYON VIEW CREDIT UNION FOR THE COMMUNITY ARTS CENTER OF $125,000 THIS FISCAL YEAR. THAT'S A FIVE AND A HALF YEAR AGREEMENT. AND IT WAS IT'S FOR THE NAMING RIGHTS ON THE COMMUNITY ARTS CENTER. AND THIS YEAR, WE'RE ASKING TO BUDGET THAT SPONSORSHIP FOR THE AV EQUIPMENT, CURTAINS AND SIGNAGE THAT PUTS THE NAME ONTO THE ARTS CENTER. THERE'S A FEW SMALLER PIECES OF EQUIPMENT THAT WILL BE PURCHASED WITHOUT FUNDS AS WELL. WE ARE REQUESTING IN A PARK STRIP IMPROVEMENT ON COPPER HILLS PARKWAY. THAT IS A PROJECT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON HAS COLLABORATED WITH THE MAYOR ON FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT AREA. WE'RE REQUESTING FENCING IMPROVEMENTS FOR PARKS ALONG 7800 SOUTH. I'M GOING TO FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE FOR A MOMENT, BECAUSE THE MAYOR PROVIDED ME WITH SOME PHOTOS TO HELP YOU WITH UNDERSTANDING WHAT AREA THIS IS. AS WE WIDEN 7800 SOUTH, THE AREA BECAME CLOSER TO THESE TWO PARK AREAS AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE NOT SUNKEN IN TOO MUCH. AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS KIDS ARE PLAYING, THE BALLS ARE GETTING KICKED, OR KIDS ARE RUNNING OUT IN THAT AREA AND COULD EASILY GET HIT BY A CAR.

SO WE'RE REQUESTING SOME FENCING ALONG THESE TWO AREAS THAT ARE MARKED IN RED. THIS IS SOME DRONE FOOTAGE OF THESE TWO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS THAT ARE IN THE HIGHLANDS SA AREA, SO THAT FOR SAFETY FEATURES. SO THAT'S THAT REQUEST. THAT IS A $50,000 REQUEST. WE WOULD LIKE TO JUST DO A REALLY NICE WROUGHT IRON FENCE INSTEAD OF LIKE THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. THAT WOULD REALLY TAKE DOWN THE ESTHETICS THERE. THE THEN WE'RE ASKING FOR FUNDS TO CARRY FORWARD. THESE WERE FUNDS THAT WE BELIEVED WOULD BE SPENT LAST YEAR, BUT THEY WERE NOT. AND SO WE JUST GOT THROUGH DESIGN ON THAT DOG PARK ON THIS SIDE OF THE CITY, AND WE ARE GOING TO RESTORE THE BUDGET TO ITS FULL VALUE OF 150,000. YOU HAD 75,000 LAST YEAR, 75,000 THIS YEAR. BUT WE DIDN'T SPEND

[01:30:02]

IT. AND SO WE NEED TO PUT THAT BACK INTO THE BUDGET. SOME LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THE RON WOOD BASEBALL FIELD. THIS WAS A PHASED PROJECT. IT WAS GOING TO HAVE TWO. I WAS GOING TO BE CUT INTO TWO DIFFERENT PHASES. ONE THIS YEAR, ONE NEXT YEAR. HOWEVER, WHEN THE BIDS CAME BACK, IF WE COMBINED THEM, WE WERE ABLE TO SAVE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY BY REDUCING IT AND REMOVING THE PHASING. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR $30,000 TO BE PUT BACK INTO THAT PROJECT FROM A FUTURE YEAR. AS YOU'VE ADOPTED A FIVE YEAR BUDGET, YOU SORT OF ADOPTED THAT PROJECT AS A WHOLE. WE'RE ASKING YOU TO ACCELERATE THAT FUNDING BY $30,000, AND WE'LL REMOVE IT IN THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. AND THEN ALSO FOR SOME SAFETY FEATURES IN THE ON THE GRIZZLY WAY AREA, TUNNELS THAT ARE CLAY HOLLOW AND HELP. YOU TOLD ME, AND I FORGOT THE NAME OF IT. BARNEY SOMETHING BARNEY'S CREEK, THOSE AREAS ARE VERY DARK AND NOT LIT WELL, AND SOME ACTIVITY IS GOING IN ON ON THEM. THAT SHOULDN'T BE. SO THAT'S A $30,000 ESTIMATED PROJECT AT THIS POINT. THE OPTICOM SYSTEM WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, THAT'S THAT FIRST $50,000 WE WOULD BE BUDGETING THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUDGETED AND FLEET, AND THEN ADDING ANOTHER $50,000 BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT SCOPE INCREASE FOR REPLACING APPARATUS AND RECEIVER CONTROLS. THIS WOULD BE WHAT THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. THIS IS ALSO BEGINNING RESERVES AS OF JUNE 30TH. AS I'VE GOTTEN THROUGH THE MAJORITY OF OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND AUDITS. SO WE'RE BRINGING IN THE REVENUE FROM THE NAMING RIGHTS.

WE'RE ASKING YOU TO ALLOCATE 610,000 ADDITIONAL DOLLARS FOR EXPENDITURES. YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR ENDING FUND BALANCE WITH ALL OF THE THINGS THAT ARE BUDGETED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUND, WILL STILL LEAVE YOUR REMAINING $39.3 MILLION FOR PROJECTS GOING FORWARD IN YOUR FIVE YEAR PLAN. THAT WOULD BE ALL THAT WE'RE REQUESTING WITH THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND WE'RE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSION IF YOU NEED. MISS STECK, YOU YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WOULD BE A SAVINGS FOR THE RON WOOD LIGHTING. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT SAVINGS IS? I HEARD THAT IT WAS ABOUT 50% OF THE NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. SO IT WAS AN INCREASED BUDGET OF ABOUT 30,000, AND WE'D BE REDUCING THE BUDGET FROM THE NEXT YEAR, 50,000.

WONDERFUL. IT WAS ABOUT A $20,000 SAVINGS. YES. HE CHANGED HIS MIND. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. ANDERSON? YOUR FAVORITE QUESTION? NO. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES. OH, I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WISHES TO COME FORWARD? SEEING NONE? I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH.

THERE'S JUST FORMALLY DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE IS NO ONE ONLINE. THANK YOU, MR. ANDERSON. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR A MOTION OR DISCUSSION. COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2560, AMENDING THE BUDGET. COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN, A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON. DISCUSSION. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THE THE TWO PARKS ON 7800 SOUTH IS GOING TO BE IT'S A HUGE NEED AND IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT. THEY'RE GOING TO BE SO MUCH MORE SAFER, MORE SAFER, SO MUCH SAFER THAT THEY WILL BE MORE WELL UTILIZED BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO USE THEM RIGHT NOW BECAUSE OF 7800 SOUTH BEING RIGHT THERE AND BEING A BUSY ROAD. SO THE WROUGHT IRON, WE DID THIS A FEW YEARS AGO AFTER A KID, WE DIDN'T PUT THE FENCE UP IN TIME, AND THERE WAS A FATALITY ON 5600 WEST AND 82ND SOUTH OR. YEAH, SEVERAL YEARS BACK, PROBABLY 7 OR 8 YEARS AGO. AND NOW THERE'S A WROUGHT IRON FENCE THERE AND IT LOOKS GREAT. AND THAT PARKS WELL USED SO YOU CAN WALK THROUGH THE WROUGHT IRON FENCE WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS, BUT YOU CAN'T KICK A BALL THROUGH IT VERY EASILY. KICK A BALL OVER IT IF YOU'RE VERY GOOD. BUT SO I'M REALLY HAPPY ABOUT THAT. AND I'M REALLY HAPPY ABOUT THE LIGHTS AND THE TUNNELS ON GRIZZLY WAY, BECAUSE THOSE GET GRAFFITIED A LOT, AND I HOPE THE LIGHTS IN THERE WILL MAYBE CUT DOWN ON THE GRAFFITI THERE. YOU SHOULD GO RUN THROUGH THOSE IN THE MORNING. I RUN THROUGH THOSE IN THE MORNING. THAT'S WHERE I GO RUN. AND THE DIFFERENT SHADES OF GRAY, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THE GRAFFITI CREW GOES AND PAINTS OVER THEM. THEY DON'T ALWAYS TAKE THE SAME COLOR OF PAINT, SO THERE'S VERY DIFFERENT SHADES OF GRAY THROUGH THE TUNNELS AS YOU GO THROUGH THERE. IT'S VERY, VERY MANY. I'M NOT KIDDING. I'M NOT GOING TO COUNT THEM, MISTER VADER. BUT YEAH. SO THAT'S GOING TO THAT'S WELL NEEDED. AND THOSE TUNNELS GET VERY DARK,

[01:35:03]

ESPECIALLY IN THE MORNINGS. AND KIDS ARE WALKING TO SCHOOL THROUGH THEM. SO COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE TWO $200,000 BUDGET FOR THE IMPROVEMENT ON COPPER HILLS PARKWAY. WE HAVE ON THE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT ROAD. WE HAVE BEAUTIFUL LANDSCAPING, GRASS SHRUBBERIES TREES THAT MAKE ME THINK OF MONTY PYTHON. BRING ME A SHRUBBERY. ANYWAY, SORRY. BUT ON THE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE ROAD WE HAVE LITERALLY A WEED PATCH THAT PARKS HAS TO MOW THAT DOWN PERIODICALLY. AND. THE RESIDENTS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT ROAD KIND OF FEEL LIKE MAYBE THEY'RE BEING TREATED AS SECOND CLASS CITIZENS SOMEHOW BECAUSE OF THAT. I DON'T LOVE THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE LIKE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME SOME LANDSCAPING THERE, BRINGING IN. IRRIGATION WOULD BE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE AND WOULD COST A LOT OF MONEY BEYOND WHAT IS EVEN BEING ASKED. NOW. THE CEMENT THAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS STAMPED CEMENT TO FILL IN THAT WEED PATCH WILL GIVE SOME ESTHETIC TO THAT AREA.

IT'LL INCREASE THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK, MAKE IT MORE USABLE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS, AND. IT'S JUST I'M I'M VERY PLEASED THAT MAYOR BURTON HAS AGREED TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE CLOSE BY MY NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT WAS VERY WELL PUT, COUNCILMEMBER SHELDON. AND THAT IS HOW THEY FEEL. AND AND I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE ARE NOW DOING SOMETHING. AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF OUR CIP IS IS TO DO THESE PROJECTS. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT MONEY THERE IS SO THAT WE CAN MEET THE NEEDS FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR CITY.

SO. LET'S SEE, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON. MISS QUICK, A VOTE PLEASE. VICE CHAIR BADOR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SHELTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. GREEN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAMB. YES.

CHAIR. WHITELOCK. NOW YOU CALL ME LAST. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLOOM. YES, I WAS LAST. WELL, LAST ENOUGH. ZERO. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR BUSINESS ITEMS. WE

[a. Resolution No. 25-052 Submitting Two Nominees to Governor Spencer Cox for the Division 4 Board Seat on the Jordan Valley Water Conservancy District Board]

HAVE TWO. THE FIRST ONE IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 20 5-052. SUBMITTING TWO NAMES TO THE GOVERNOR SPENCER COX, FOR THE DIVISION FOUR BOARD SEAT FOR THE JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT BOARD. MR. ANDERSON. THANK YOU. CHAIR. SO THE JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY BOARD COVERS MULTIPLE COUNTIES. AND SO IT FALLS UNDER STATE CODE 17 B TWO.

AND WHAT IT REQUIRES IS THAT THE LEGISLATIVE BODY YOU SUBMIT TWO NAMES TO GOVERNOR COX AND HE WILL APPOINT ONE. AND THEY WILL ACTUALLY GO THROUGH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT WITH UTAH STATE SENATE IN FEBRUARY TO SERVE AND REPRESENT WEST JORDAN ON THE JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT BOARD. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB HAS BEEN DOING THAT SINCE HE WAS APPOINTED TO FILL IN FOR MR. LYLE SUMMERS. IF YOU REMEMBER THAT THAT THAT TERM HAS EXPIRED OR IS EXPIRING AND LOOKING FOR REPRESENTATION FROM WEST JORDAN. I DID SEND AN EMAIL TO COUNCIL A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, FOUR WEEKS AGO, ABOUT THIS COMING UP ON THE AGENDA WHEN WE RECEIVED NOTICE FROM JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY, THE ONLY TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT I HEARD FROM WAS FAIRLY QUICKLY, COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB AND RECENTLY COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK WERE THE TWO. WE CAN'T CANNOT SUBMIT MORE THAN TWO NAMES AND IF YOU ONLY SUBMIT ONE NAME, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE A LETTER TO THE GOVERNOR EXPLAINING THE PROCESSES YOU WENT THROUGH TO TRY AND GET MORE THAN ONE NAME. SO MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS TO CHOOSE TWO NAMES. THOSE ARE

[01:40:01]

THE TWO THAT HAVE CONTACTED ME. DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO BE THOSE TWO. IF THERE'S SOMEONE THAT REALLY WANTS TO DO IT, ALL I NEED TONIGHT IS TWO NAMES TO SUBMIT TO THE GOVERNOR. MR. ANDERSON, WERE YOU ABLE TO REACH OUT TO THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ELECT? YOU? NOT ABOUT THIS TOPIC. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 25.

DASH 052, INSERTING THE NAMES ZACHARY JACOB AND KAYLEEN WHITELOCK TO THE TO GOVERNOR SPENCER COX FOR THE DIVISION FOUR BOARD SEAT ON JORDAN VALLEY WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT BOARD. COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN, A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM. DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION. I'M JUST GOING TO THROW OUT THERE THAT MY GIVEN FOR NAME IS SHAWNA, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT MATTERS HOW WE SUBMIT THAT, BUT IN OUR WORLD, I DON'T KNOW. YOU'LL HAVE TO RESEARCH THAT. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER LAMB.

THIS IS ONE THAT I LEARNED FROM THE FROM THE MAYOR. COUNCILMEMBER JACOB, WHAT ARE YOU DOING ON THE BOARD? OH, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT. OH, NO. MY ONLY QUESTION IS SO WE'VE SUBMITTED TWO NAMES, NOT TAKING ANY SIDES HERE, BUT. SO WHO WHO CHOOSES THE GOVERNOR? AND HOW DOES THE GOVERNOR CHOOSE? HE JUST PULLS A NAME OUT OF A HAT. I DON'T, COUNCIL MEMBER LAMB. I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS. WE SUBMIT TWO NAMES AND HE HAS A PERSON THAT OVERSEES BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS STATEWIDE. WHAT THAT PROCESS THAT THEY USE WILL. THEN HE'LL PICK ONE NAME, AND THAT NAME WILL GO TO THE UTAH STATE SENATE AND THEY WILL DELIBERATE IT ON THE FLOOR. BUT IT'S WHO I'M WORKING WITH AT THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE IS THE PERSON WHO'S OVER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. ALL RIGHT. WELL, THAT CLARIFIES I JUST WAS WONDERING. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE PICKED TWO, BUT WHO PICKS THE ONE? AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T.

THANK YOU. I SEE NO OTHER LIGHT. SO MISS QUICK A VOTE PLEASE. CHAIR WHITELOCK. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. GREEN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAMB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLOOM. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. SHELTON. YES. VICE CHAIR. BADOR. YES. THANK YOU. I

[b. Joint Resolution No. J25-01 Proclaiming the City of West Jordan as a Just Serve City]

SHOW THE MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS SIX B JOINT RESOLUTION NUMBER J 20 5-01, PROCLAIMING THE CITY OF WEST JORDAN AS A JUST SERVE CITY. WE HEARD FROM THERE LEADER. I GUESS EARLIER. COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN, I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE JOINT RESOLUTION J 20 5-01 COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN.

A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BLOOM. ANY DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION SEEING NONE. MISS QUICK VOTE PLEASE. COUNCIL MEMBER SHELTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BLOOM. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

JACOB. YES. VICE CHAIR. BADER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. GREEN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. LAMB. YES.

CHAIR. WHITELOCK. YES. THANK YOU. I SHOW THAT MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. NEXT UP, WE HAVE