[b. Petition from Dale Bennett for the Sugar Factory on the Town Creek Development of 1.78 Acres Located at 1790 West Sugar Factory Road Ordinance No. 26-29 Preliminary Development Plan/Agreement Ordinance No. 26-30 Rezone to CC-R Zone (City Center-Residential)]

B, WHICH IS THE PETITION FROM DALE BENNETT FOR THE SUGAR FACTORY ON THE TOWN CREEK.

DEVELOPMENT OF 1.78 ACRES, LOCATED AT 1790 WEST SUGAR FACTORY ROAD. WE HAVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-29, WHICH IS THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

AND WE HAVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-30 REZONE TO CC SLASH ZONE, WHICH IS A CITY CENTER RESIDENTIAL. AND TONIGHT WE HAVE MARK FORSYTH, WHO IS THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER. OH EXCUSE ME, I'M SORRY. WE HAVE DALE BENNETT, WHO'S WITH BENNETT PROPERTIES. HELLO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS ACTUALLY BRANDON WIXOM AND I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, DALE BENNETT, TONIGHT. I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL FOR THE TIME AND THE EFFORT INVESTED OVER THE LAST YEAR IN REVIEWING THIS PROJECT TO GET IT TO THIS POINT TODAY. TONIGHT, WE ARE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED REZONE AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUGAR FACTORY ON THE CREEK, WHICH IS A PROPOSED COMMUNITY OF 23 THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED FEE SIMPLE TOWNHOMES IN A HIGHLY WALKABLE SETTING ALONG THE BINGHAM CREEK AND RIGHT NEXT TO THE JORDAN WEST JORDAN CITY CENTER, WHERE WE ARE TODAY. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET THIS SLIDE TO GO. OKAY, THERE'S THE VICINITY THAT SHOWS WHERE WE ARE. IT'S NIGHT. THE PROPERTY SITS IN AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE ADJACENT TO THE CITY CENTER, THE PARK, THE LIBRARY, THE COURTHOUSE, EXISTING DEVELOPMENT, SHOPPING, AND OTHER COMMUNITIES. THIS IS EXACTLY THE TYPE OF LOCATION WHERE A WALKABLE COMMUNITY NEAR THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT CAN EXIST AND BE SUCCESSFUL. HERE'S A ZONING MAP.

THE PROPOSED CHANGE ALLOWS THIS UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY TO BECOME A PRODUCTIVE WHILE REMAINING VERY PRODUCTIVE PROPERTY, WHILE ALSO REMAINING CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S LONG TERM VISION OF THE CITY CENTER AREA. NOW, UNLIKE MANY ZONING REQUESTS, THE COUNCIL IS NOT BEING ASKED TO APPROVE AN UNKNOWN FUTURE PROJECT TONIGHT. WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE.

WE HAVE A PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS THAT IT REALLY ESTABLISHES EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHAT WE CAN BUILD ON THIS PROPERTY AND HOW IT WILL BE DEVELOPED. LOOKING AT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY, WE CAN SEE THAT MOST OF THE SITE CONSISTS OF VACANT LAND, OVERGROWN BACKYARD SPACE AND OLDER STRUCTURES THAT ARE

[00:30:05]

DILAPIDATED. OUR GOAL IS TO TRANSFORM THIS PROPERTY INTO A HIGH QUALITY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, WHILE PRESERVING AND ENHANCING THE BINGHAM CREEK AREA. NOW HERE'S THE SITE PLAN.

THE PROJECT CONSISTS, AS I SAID, OF 23 REAR LOADED TOWNHOMES ARRANGED AROUND THE CENTER, A PRIVATE LANE. THE HOMES ARE ORIENTED TOWARDS PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS RATHER THAN TOWARDS THE VEHICLES. THE CENTRAL LANE PROVIDES EFFICIENT ACCESS WHILE ALSO PRESERVING THE VALUABLE OPEN SPACE. THERE'S A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IN THE BACK THAT CROSSES OVER TO ALLOW THE RESIDENTS TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE OPEN SITE OR THE CREEKSIDE OPEN SPACE, AND IT MAKES IT A VERY UNIQUE FEATURE AS WELL. THAT KIND OF SETS IT APART FROM OTHER TYPICAL TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS. AND THIS IS THE OPEN SPACE, WHICH I BELIEVE IS THE HEART OF THE PROJECT. AND AS YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU CAN KIND OF IMAGINE YOURSELF BEING THERE. I REALLY LIKE THIS PART OF IT.

IT'S NOT WE COULD HAVE INCREASED DENSITY IN THIS LOCATION, BUT INSTEAD WE CHOSE TO PRESERVE MORE OPEN SPACE. IN FACT, 47% OF THE SITE WILL REMAIN LANDSCAPED OPEN SPACE.

SO TO THE NORTH SIDE YOU SEE UP THERE NORTH OF BINGHAM CREEK, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE COMMUNITY AMENITIES THAT WILL FEATURE LAWN AREAS WHERE CHILDREN CAN PLAY BENCHES, WHERE PEOPLE CAN SIT AND TAKE IN THE VIEWS, A PICNIC PAVILION, BARBECUE FACILITIES AND A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. WE'RE ALSO WE ALSO HAVE A PLAN THAT IF THE TRAIL EVER COMES THROUGH, WE CAN CONNECT TO THE TO THE FUTURE TRAIL THAT MIGHT GO THROUGH THERE. SO WE BELIEVE THIS PROJECT PROVIDES HOUSING NOT ONLY PROVIDES THE HOUSING, BUT IT ENHANCES THE CREEK CORRIDOR AND IT CREATES A MEANINGFUL AMENITY FOR THE FUTURE RESIDENTS AND GENERATIONS TO COME. HERE'S THE ARCHITECTURE. WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, AND WE CREATED A HIGH QUALITY ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCT. SO IN KEEPING IN LINE WITH THE AGRICULTURAL HERITAGE THAT IS KNOWN FOR THE SUGAR FACTORY ROAD, WE CHOSE A MODERN FARMHOUSE ARCHITECTURAL STYLE WHILE ALSO INCORPORATING HIGH QUALITY MATERIALS IN CONTEMPORARY DESIGN ELEMENTS.

NOW THIS IS A SLIDE. THE. THE YELLOW SHOWS THE PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS THERE. WE WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, WALKABILITY AS WE EXPLORED THIS PROJECT BECAME A VERY IMPORTANT PRIORITY. SO THE RESIDENTS CAN MOVE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY USING DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS THAT SEPARATES THEM FROM WHERE THE VEHICLES WILL BE. THESE PATHWAYS WILL CONNECT THE HOMES TO THE CREEK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER, AND ALSO TO SUGAR FACTORY ROAD, AND ALSO TO THE TRANSIT WHICH IS NEARBY. NOW THIS SHOWS PARKING ON THIS SLIDE. NOW, BASED ON OUR EARLY MEETINGS THAT WE HAD, WE GOT FEEDBACK. AND DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, DRIVEWAYS WEREN'T WEREN'T BIG ENOUGH. AND SO THEY WANTED US TO INCREASE THEM TO 22FT. AND WE DID THAT. WE ALSO ADDED ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE EVEN THOUGH IT WASN'T REQUIRED. BUT WE LISTENED TO THE CONCERNS RAISED DURING THE EARLIER REVIEWS AND WE MODIFIED THE PROJECT TO BE ACCORDING TO THAT.

THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOWS THE DIFFERENT FENCING. SO WE WORK CLOSELY WITH THE STAFF. SEVERAL MEETINGS THAT WE HAD BACK AND FORTH TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE BUFFERING FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. WE'VE ADDED MASONRY WALLS. THERE'S FENCING, LANDSCAPING AND SEPARATION OF DISTANCES. THIS SHOWS THE LIGHTING, HOW THE THE LIGHT LIGHTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE A LIGHT ON THE END OF IT THAT WILL HELP LIGHT IT UP. AND IT'S DESIGNED FOR SAFETY AND VISIBILITY WHILE ALSO MINIMIZING THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN THROUGH EXTENSIVE REVIEWS BY THE STAFF, THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS AND CITY COUNCIL. NOW, THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, WE HAVE INCORPORATED FEEDBACK REGARDING PARKING, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY, ARCHITECTURE, OPEN SPACES, AND BUFFERING. WE APPRECIATE THE NEIGHBORS WHO PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCESS. SOME OF THEM I SAW EARLIER TODAY. THEIR FEEDBACK WAS VERY HELPFUL TO US AND I BELIEVE IT HELPED US IMPROVE THE PROJECT. THE RESULT OF THE PROJECT THAT IS THE RESULT OF THIS PROJECT, WILL TRANSFORM AN UNDERUTILIZED PROPERTY INTO A HIGH QUALITY

[00:35:02]

OWNERSHIP COMMUNITY WHILE PRESERVING OPEN SPACE, ENHANCING BINGHAM CREEK AND ADVANCING THE CITY'S VISION TO THE CITY CENTER. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL FOR THE REZONE AND ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR CONSIDERATION, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO I HAVE A QUESTION, COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. THANK YOU. QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. BINGHAM CREEK, ON YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN THERE DOESN'T REALLY HAVE WATER IN IT, RIGHT? MOST OF THE TIME IT IT HAS WATER. I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT AT CERTAIN TIMES IT HAS MORE WATER. MOST OF THE TIME IT'S JUST A MEANDERING CREEK, A TRICKLE THAT I'VE SEEN. I HAVE SOME PICTURES MAYBE YOU CAN SEE GO BACK. AS YOU CAN SEE, THE THE BINGHAM CREEK, THERE'S SOME CURRENT PHOTOS ON THE RIGHT. OKAY. YEAH, I SEE THAT. OKAY. I JUST KNOW BINGHAM CREEK OUT WEST DOESN'T USUALLY HAVE WATER IN IT. SO I WAS JUST JUST VERIFYING THAT JUST THE REASON I BRING IT UP, YOU CAN GO AHEAD BACK UP TO YOUR BACK UP TO YOUR SITE PLAN OR, OR. YEAH, THERE YOU GO. EITHER ONE OF THOSE IS GREAT. THOSE NORTHERN TOWNHOMES THAT FACE THE CREEK. THOSE ONES WERE GIVING ME A LITTLE BIT OF CONSTERNATION. BUT I THINK WITH YOUR LANDSCAPE PLAN, I THINK YOU MIGHT BE ALL RIGHT. THE REASON BEING IS BASICALLY THEY FACE THE TRAIN TRACKS, RIGHT? I MEAN, AND I WOULD RATHER FACE THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAN THE TRAIN TRACKS, YOU KNOW, IF I HAD A CHOICE. BUT IF YOU DO A GOOD JOB ON THAT LANDSCAPING, I THINK MAYBE, MAYBE YOU'LL BE ALL RIGHT. BUT IT LOOKS LIKE THE TOWNHOMES ON THE WEST SIDE DON'T HAVE ANY DRIVEWAYS. IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH, THEY'RE JUST BACK LOADED. THEY'LL HAVE A TWO CAR GARAGE.

SO THAT SHOWS YOU THE PARKING. YEAH. I JUST WONDER, IS THERE IS THERE A. A RESTRICTION OF ANY KIND AS FAR AS THAT. THEY HAVE TO PARK IN THE GARAGE AS FAR AS MAYBE AN HOA RESTRICTION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WELL, THERE, THERE SHOULD BE ADEQUATE PARKING AS WELL AS WE HAVE GUEST PARKING THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS. YEAH, FIVE SPOTS OF GUEST PARKING AND YOU'VE GOT TEN TOWNHOMES WITH NO DRIVEWAYS. YEAH. IT ALL IT ALL IT TAKES IS ONE FURNITURE DELIVERY. AND NOW YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WITH NOWHERE TO PARK. RIGHT. THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. YEAH. WE, WE'VE, WE'VE ACTUALLY MET THE REQUIREMENT. THEN WE WENT ABOVE THAT AS WELL TO DO THAT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS. THOSE ARE THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS WITH THAT. AND SO I'M NOT I'M NOT I MEAN, YOUR REZONE IS FINE. I'M FINE WITH THE REZONE. I'M JUST NOT SURE I'M SOLD ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. YEAH. SO THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED LATER AS WELL. YEAH. WE JUST HAVE THEM BOTH IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT. WE HAVE TO DO COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK. OH YEAH. WE HAVE THE THE PRELIMINARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND AGREEMENT AND THE REZONE. I'M DEFINITELY OKAY WITH THE REZONE. I'M JUST NOT SURE ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHEN IT COMES TO THE PARKING.

SO. YOU'RE JUST FINE. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK THANK YOU. I WOULD AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. I'M FINE WITH THE ZONE, BUT I FELT WE WERE PRETTY CLEAR THAT WE NEEDED 22 FOOT DRIVEWAYS FOR THE 11 UNITS WITHOUT ANY DRIVEWAY AND ONLY FIVE STALLS. I, I CAN'T I CAN'T SAY YES TO THIS AS IT IS. I CAN SAY, OKAY, THERE'S A REASON, BUT NOT TO NOT HAVE DRIVEWAYS.

AND THEN I HAD A QUESTION. I KNOW THAT IN YOUR AGREEMENT, IT SAYS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE SOME OF THE TREES. BUT WHEN I PULL UP MAPS ON MY END, I CAN'T REALLY READ THEM. THEY GET REALLY BLURRY. SO WHERE ARE THE TREES THAT MATURE? TREES THAT YOU'RE INTENDING TO LEAVE? ARE THEY ALL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CANAL? PROBABLY THE MAJORITY IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CANAL THAT WILL BE LEAVING. AND. AND ALSO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT PARKING, I BELIEVE MARK CAN ANSWER THAT WHEN HE WHEN HE TALKS ABOUT THE REQUIREMENTS, BECAUSE AS IT IS, WE'RE OVER PARKED ACCORDING TO THE CODE. SO. I GUESS THE CODE NEEDS TO CHANGE THINGS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE ENOUGH PARKING. OKAY. BUT THAT'S ALL RIGHT. AND WE DID. BUT YOU THINK THOSE TREES ARE ON THE NORTH SIDE, BUT YOU'RE NOT SURE WHERE THEY'LL BE? LET LET ME FLIP OVER TO. WE DO HAVE A PLAN IN THERE, AND I COULD. I KNOW AND

[00:40:12]

I SAW YOUR PLAN. I JUST AGAIN, WHEN I BLOW IT UP IT GETS BLURRY. SO YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU CHAIR. I LIKE TO PILE ON THE PARKING ISSUE, BUT IT IS IT IS A CONCERN FOR ME. IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP THAT YOU SHOW US, AND I'M ASSUMING THAT THIS IS JUST A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, IF YOU SHOW FIVE OF THE HOMES DON'T EVEN HAVE THE YELLOW, I'M ASSUMING THAT THAT'S JUST A MISTAKE AND THAT THOSE HOMES WOULD ALSO HAVE PARKING LOT SO THAT YOU COULD PARK INTO. BUT THIS IS JUST A WEIRD LOOK TO ME THAT WE AS A COUNCIL SAID WE WOULD LIKE DRIVEWAYS. AND THEN YOU SAID, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO DO HALF OF THOSE DRIVEWAYS AND HALF OF THEM WOULD NOT. AND NOW WE'VE JUST GOT A WEIRD ISSUE IN HERE OF MAKING SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO USE DRIVEWAYS BOUGHT THE HOME WITH A DRIVEWAY AND. YOU KNOW, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE KIND OF USED TO USING THE GARAGE FOR A LITTLE BIT OF STORAGE THAT WON'T BE ABLE TO, I WOULD BE HAPPIER TO.

AND I KNOW THAT THIS SOUNDS BETTER LOSE A COUPLE UNITS SO THAT WE GET A LITTLE MORE PARKING. IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE NO DRIVEWAY FOR THOSE HOMES, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT THERE IS MORE PARKING THERE. COUNCILMEMBER JACOB BROUGHT UP ONE FURNITURE THING. ALL IT TAKES IS ONE PARTY AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAVE NO PARKING. WE HAVE PEOPLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO. THEY'RE GOING TO BE ON THE STREET, THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN DIFFERENT PLACES.

SO I, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO BE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE AND SAY, I REALLY LIKE THE, THE REZONING.

OKAY, GOOD. I ALSO LIKE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH A LOT OF THE THINGS YOU'RE THINKING OF, BUT I THINK YOU, YOU MISSED THE BOAT AND HOW SERIOUS WE WERE AS A COUNCIL AND THAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR PARKING IN THAT AREA AS WELL, BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL ALWAYS COME UP. YOU BRING UP THAT THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, THIS WALKABLE COMMUNITY THING AND THIS IS JUST A COUPLE HOMES. THIS IS NOT A COMMUNITY THAT YOU'VE TURNED INTO A WALKABLE COMMUNITY. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN AREA THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF A LOT OF OTHER THINGS GOING ON. SO I JUST HAVE TO SAY TO ECHO THE OTHERS, THE PARKING IS AN ISSUE FOR ME. THE REZONING, NOT SO MUCH. I APPRECIATE THOSE CONCERNS. AND WE'LL HAVE MARK ADDRESS THE PARKING. AND AS FAR AS THE WALKABLE COMMUNITY, WE ARE VERY CLOSE TO THE TRACK STATION AND WE ARE PLANNING ON MARKETING THIS AS A PROPERTY WHERE YOUNG WORKING PROFESSIONALS WHO USE THE TRACKS A LOT WILL BE PURCHASING THESE UNITS. ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENT? TROUBADOUR. WELL, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I WILL SAY THEN THE MARKETING AND THEN GUARANTEEING THAT THAT'S ALL I GO THROUGH THAT THEY'RE THE ONLY ONES WHO BUY IT IS. THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING. IF YOU WERE TO TELL ME YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO SELL TO PEOPLE WITHOUT CARS, THEN THEN I MIGHT BE OKAY WITH THAT. BUT YOU'VE NOW KIND OF LIMITED THAT. SO I IT'S JUST IT'S SOMETHING I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO TELL US THAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD OF THE NUMBER. BUT WE AS A CITY KNOW THAT THAT NUMBER DOESN'T ADD UP QUITE AS MUCH THE WAY PEOPLE USE THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND THEIR GARAGES. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IS NOT NECESSARILY JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS A LIVING ROOM, DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TURN IT INTO A HOME OFFICE.

THINGS ARE NOT ALWAYS USED FOR WHAT WE CALL THEM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALWAYS HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE LOOK AT PLANS LIKE THIS. I'M FINISHING. COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. YEAH. IS MARK HERE TO TALK ABOUT PARKING OR YOU'RE JUST SAYING LIKE WE CAN TALK LATER? OH YEAH. MARK IS HERE. OH, OKAY. IS. YEAH. IS HE GOING TO TALK? YEAH, I BELIEVE SO.

OKAY. COOL. OKAY. IF NOBODY HAS ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MR. WIXOM, MARK, WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. SO, SOUNDS LIKE YOU WANT ME TO ADDRESS PARKING, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. BUT BASICALLY THERE'S WHEN IT COMES TO PARKING IN THE CITY CENTER ZONES, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY TWO PARTS TO IT. SO THERE'S THE PARKING PER UNIT, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THERE'S ACTUALLY A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING AND THEN THERE'S A MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF PARKING. SO THE, THE MINIMUM IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF UNITS

[00:45:01]

AND NUMBER OF BEDROOMS, THAT KIND OF THING. USUALLY IN THE HALF TO ONE RANGE. BUT THE MAXIMUM IS ONE AND A HALF PARKING SPACES PER UNIT. SO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE PROPOSING TWO SPACES IN THE GARAGE. SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY EXCEEDING THAT MAXIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS WHY IN THE MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THEY'VE HAD TO PUT IN A PROVISION THERE TO MODIFY THAT, THAT MAXIMUM TO ALLOW THEM TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING THAN IS LIMITED BY THAT CITY CENTER ZONE. SO THAT'S THE MAIN UNIT PARKING. THEN THERE'S ALSO THE GUEST PARKING AS WELL. AND THAT'S ONE SPACE PER FOUR UNITS. SO IN THIS CASE, THE THERE'S FIVE OF THE SURFACE PARKING STRIPE SPACES THERE YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP. BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO THE, THE DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE 22FT BY 22FT THAT PROVIDE THAT EXTRA GUEST PARKING. SO THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE CITY CENTER ZONE THAT ALLOWS FOR DRIVEWAYS TO BE USED AS GUEST PARKING. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW ZONES THAT ACTUALLY DOES ALLOW THAT. SO ANYWAY, I HOPE THAT CLEARS UP THE PARKING, BUT I CAN ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB MARK, IS THERE A PROVISION IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT I MIGHT HAVE MISSED THAT IS GOING TO BE A CC OR SOME SORT OF REQUIREMENT THAT RESIDENTS PARK IN THEIR GARAGES? THERE'S NOT ONE INCLUDED, AS IS PROPOSED. YOU KNOW, THAT COULD ALSO ALWAYS BE INCLUDED IN IN CC AND LATER ON WHEN THEY RECORD THE PLAT. BUT. RIGHT. BUT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT'S NOT I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS SOMETHING BECAUSE I'VE BEEN KNOWN TO MISS THINGS BEFORE. YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M GENERALLY AND I'M GENERALLY NOT A FAN OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT THAT'S MORE IN COMMERCIAL SPACES AND, AND SHOPPING SPACES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK WE OVER PARK THOSE. I THINK WE, WE REQUIRE MORE PARKING THAN, THAN IS REALLY NECESSARY. BUT IN DENSE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT, SORRY, IS A CAR DEPENDENT NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS THIS IS A HALF A MILE FROM THE TRACK STATION. I JUST MEASURED IT OUT ON 0.47 TO WALK TO THE TRACK STATION. MOST OF THAT'S ALONG REDWOOD ROAD THAT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE A PARKING STRIP. YOU'RE WALKING ON A SIDEWALK. IT'S NOT A COMFORTABLE WALK. IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT I DON'T SEE THIS AS A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD OR AS A, A CITY. WHEN I THINK OF CITY CENTER RESIDENTIAL, I'M THINKING THE CITY CENTER VISION THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT SO MANY TIMES THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, HAS RESIDENTIAL TOWERS AND IT HAS SHOPS AND IT HAS IT HAS ENTERTAINMENT AND IT HAS DINING AND IT HAS A PLACE AND IT'S, AND IT'S A PART OF A BIG COHESIVE PLAN. THIS IS THE VERY, VERY, VERY EDGE OF WHAT COULD BE CALLED CITY CENTER. AND BECAUSE THE, THE TRAIN TRACKS CREATE A, A BARRIER TO THE LIBRARY, TO THE COURTHOUSE, TO THE CITY HALL AND THE PARK AND EVERYTHING ELSE. IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A IT'S LIKE, YEAH, AS THE CROW FLIES, IT'S, YOU KNOW, 100 YARDS AWAY FROM LOOK AT THE CITY CENTER. BUT AS THE MAN WALKS, IT'S NOT 100 YARDS AWAY.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S A ROUNDABOUT PATH TO GET TO THE PARK, TO GET TO THE TRACK STATION, TO GET ANYWHERE. SO THIS ONE, ALTHOUGH I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS FAR AS MEETING THE CODE, WHAT YOU SAID MAKES ME LESS INCLINED TO VOTE FOR THE REZONE, NOT MORE INCLINED TO VOTE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BECAUSE IF THAT'S WHAT THE ZONE SAYS, I THINK WE MIGHT BE LOOKING AT THE WRONG ZONE. I THINK WE MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT A. R3 SOMETHING OR A PRD OF SOME KIND INSTEAD OF A CITY CENTER ZONE, IF THAT'S WHAT THE CITY CENTER ZONE IS, IS TO BE USED FOR, I, I MIGHT HAVE A HARD TIME APPLYING IT TO THIS. THIS PARCEL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

HARRIS YEAH, I'M JUST CURIOUS. I'M. I'M GUESSING THAT THE AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SCREEN, THE HOUSES ALONG THE BOTTOM CAN'T HAVE GARAGES BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ROOM. IS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT. SO IS THIS FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE GIVING EVEN ACTIONABLE TO THE PERSON WHO'S ASKING, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? LIKE, WHAT ARE WHAT ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO DO? IF WE SAY IT HAS TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY, BUT THERE'S NOT ROOM FOR A DRIVEWAY? WELL, I DON'T REALLY WITH THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE LOT. I'M I THINK YOU'D BE HARD PRESSED TO FIND ANY SPACE TO FIT A

[00:50:04]

DRIVEWAY ON THOSE UNITS. THE THE PRIVATE LANE IS 26FT WIDE, WHICH IS THE BARE MINIMUM FOR FOR FIRE ACCESS. I NOTICED THAT IN THE PACKET. IT'S OUR. IT'S ALREADY PRETTY, YOU KNOW. SO YEAH, IT GETS IT'S VERY TIGHT IN THAT SPACE. COUNCILMEMBER WHITELOCK. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M HEARING LOTS OF CONCERNS AND I HAVE CONCERNS. CERTAINLY NOT ANSWERING FOR MR. FORESIGHT OR THE APPLICANT, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE A REDESIGN OF THE AREA IN ORDER TO GET THE PARKING THAT WE'VE DESIRED. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT AFTER LISTENING TO MR. CORSI. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT WE WANT TO DO, BUT OVERALL, I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THIS. THIS. HOUSING COMMUNITY. I LOVE THE WAY THAT YOU'RE MAINTAINING THE NATURE OF, OF THE CREEK AND, AND, YOU KNOW, MAKING THAT A GREAT ATTRIBUTE TO YOUR COMMUNITY. I JUST THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES AND, AND I THINK THERE'S MORE WORK TO BE DONE ON IT. I KIND OF WISH IT WOULD HAVE CAME BACK TO A CITY COUNCIL MEETING BEFORE WE GOT TO THIS MEETING.

COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. SO. THIS IS A QUESTION, I GUESS, FOR MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS. DOES CAN A REDESIGN. WE CAN COME BACK WITH A REDESIGN. THEY CAN COME BACK WITH A REDESIGN. IS THAT LIKE IF WE DON'T ACCEPT IT AS IT IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO COME BACK. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. YEAH, AND STAFF CAN ANSWER THIS TOO, I GUESS, BUT IF THEY MAKE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND THAT'S UP TO THE STAFF TO DECIDE WHAT'S SIGNIFICANT, THEN THEY IF WE SAID NO, THEY COULD BRING IT BACK A DIFFERENT APPLICATION.

BUT IF IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME, THEN THEY HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR OR TWO YEARS. IT'S A YEAR.

IT'S ONE YEAR. YEAH. THAT'S THE WAIT A YEAR TO BRING BACK SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME. IF WE SAY NO. WITH THAT IN MIND, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS MAKE A MOTION, IF THAT'S OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE THIS CONSIDERING CHAIR. YEAH, SORRY. JUST PROCEDURALLY THIS WAS PUBLISHED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE YOU DO A MOTION PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK. OH, I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT SHE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MY BAD. OKAY, HOLD THAT THOUGHT. AND IF THIS HELPS TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THAT SINCE THIS IS A TWO PART MOTION, IF WE DON'T IF WE VOTE NO ON THE FIRST ONE, THEN WE WOULDN'T MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ONE, AND THAT WOULD BE POSTPONED. ARE THERE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY, THEN WE WILL MOVE TO PUBLIC COMMENT. KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS ONLY ABOUT THE REQUEST UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 26-29. MY NAME IS DALE BENNETT, THE APPLICANT. ACTUALLY, WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. AND THE LAYOUT, WE'VE FINE TUNED IT AND WE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION AND INPUT FROM OUR STAFF AND FROM ALL THE PEOPLE. WE GOT A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND SO THIS IS REALLY THROWING US OFF BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR SO LONG AND TIME TYING IT UP. AND THERE'S A LOT OF TOWNHOME PROJECTS IN OTHER CITIES. THEY LOVE THIS IDEA. AND IT, IT SELLS AND IT DOES WELL BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT EVERYBODY WANTS FOUR CARS OR HAVE TWO CARS. AND SO WE HAVE MAJORITY OF THE UNITS HAVE FOUR CARS, TWO IN THE GARAGE, TWO IN THE DRIVEWAY. THE OTHER UNITS HAVE TWO CARS. AND THEN THERE IS MORE THAN 25% OF THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE TWO CARS HAVE A GUEST PARKING, WHICH IS IN MOST CITIES. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S VERY MUCH ADEQUATE. AND LIKE MARK WAS SAYING, IT'S OVER PARKED. SO WE HAD TO DO IT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO REDUCE THAT. BUT WE, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AND FINE TUNING IT THE WAY IT IS FOR OVER A YEAR NOW AND A LOT OF THINGS. SO I JUST IT'S REALLY KIND OF A FRUSTRATION THAT IT'S LIKE, YOU GUYS HAVE NEVER SEEN

[00:55:03]

IT BEFORE. AND WE DID TALK ABOUT THE 22 FOOT THING, BUT IT WAS ALWAYS SHOWING IN OUR FIRST SUBMITTAL AND THE SECOND AND THE THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, ALL OF THEM ALWAYS SHOWING THAT THOSE ONES ON THE EAST WERE THE ONES WITH THE DRIVEWAYS AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE PRICED ACCORDINGLY. AND SOME PEOPLE DON'T WANT THEM. AND YOU THAT'S A HALF A MILE FROM TRACKS, BUT A HALF A MILE, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE FINE WITH THAT. I HAVE A SON THAT DOESN'T DRIVE AND HE TAKES TRACKS AND HE TAKES BUSSES AND HE LOVES IT. AND HE'S IN PRETTY GOOD SHAPE BECAUSE HE DOES A LOT OF WALKING. BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WOULD LOVE THIS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A LOT DONE IN WEST JORDAN. AND WE DON'T ALL HAVE F-350 TRUCKS. WE SOME HAVE SMALLER ONES IN SALT LAKE CITY AND OTHER CITIES. THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT LIKE TO BUY CERTAIN TYPES OF UNITS. AND SOME OF THEM ARE FINE. AND YOU CAN TALK ABOUT PUTTING STUFF IN THE TWO CAR GARAGE. YEAH, WE CAN PUT THAT IN THE, IN THE, IN THE CARS THAT SAY YOU HAVE TO PARK IN THE GARAGE AND THERE CAN'T USE IT FOR STORAGE. I WOULD LOVE TO PUT THAT IN THERE. BUT WE HAVE SPENT AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AT THIS POINT. AND SO THIS IS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO US EXTREMELY. WITH ALL THE STUDIES AND EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE AND WORKING CLOSELY WITH WITH MARK AND THE TEAM IN THE STAFF.

SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR FOR CONSIDERATION ON THAT. AND MY PROPERTY IS 1780. I SHARE THE WEST PROPERTY LINE AND THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WITH THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE PUSHING THE ROAD ALL THE WAY UP TO THIS NEW WALL THAT THEY'RE PUTTING ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

MY HOUSE IS 33IN AWAY FROM THAT WALL OFF THE PROPERTY. THEY'VE GOT MY DRIVEWAY RUNS WITH THEIR NEW ROAD THEY WANT. AND SO MY APPROACH UP TO MY DRIVEWAY IS LINKED TO A WILL BE AND IS LINKED TO THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY OF THE THE PROPERTY TO MY WEST. SO THERE IS NO IT'S ONE APPROACH. THERE IS NO DIVIDING APPROACH. SO WHEN PEOPLE COME UP ON FROM REDWOOD ROAD TO TURN INTO THIS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE TURNING INTO MY APPROACH TO TURN AND TO GO INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT. ANOTHER THING IS THAT I HAVE A VERY SMALL BACKYARD. IT IS 25FT FROM THE BACK OF MY HOUSE TO THE PROPERTY FACING NORTH. THEY'RE WANTING TO PUT THREE STORY, 50FT HIGH UNITS, AND IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A MONSTROSITY TO LOOK AT. IT'S LIKE, I'M GOING TO BE LIKE THIS. I JUST THINK IT'S OVERSIZE. I JUST THINK IT NEEDS TO BE SCRAPPED AS IT IS OR IT NEEDS TO BE DOWNSIZED. AND THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY ABOUT THAT. THANKS. THANK YOU.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT? OKAY, ELLEN, DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT? YES. THERE'S ONE INDIVIDUAL ONLINE WHO HAS RAISED HIS HANDS, MR. WILKINSON. OKAY, GO AHEAD, MR. WILKINSON. UNMUTED, UNMUTED. WE CAN HEAR YOU. OKAY. GOOD. YEAH.

NO, I SUPPORT THIS PROJECT. I I'VE SAID FOR A LONG TIME THAT WEST FLORIDA IS THE NEW WEST VALLEY. AND THESE HIGH DENSITY SHIP BOXES THAT ARE BUILT JUST COMPLETES THAT CYCLE. SO I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SUPPORT THIS PROJECT AS IT IS. I THINK IT SHOULD BE BUILT. I SUPPORT ITS CONSTRUCTION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ON IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. IF THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL PUBLIC COMMENT, I'LL MOVE ON TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION. ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? OKAY. OKAY. WELL, WE WILL MOVE ON. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. THANKS. THIS IS NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION BUT JUST A COMMENT. THE APPLICANT BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT AND HIS COMMENT DURING PUBLIC COMMENT THAT HE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME. AND HE'S KIND OF SURPRISED BY THE FEEDBACK. AS I RECALL, THOUGH, OR I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S SAYING ANYTHING

[01:00:03]

SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE SAID WHEN THE WE HAD THE WORK SESSION ON THIS AND LOOKED AT THIS AND WE SAID, WE THINK YOU COULD GET THERE. SO WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER WORK SESSION. GO AHEAD AND BRING IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A LOT. ADD IN SOME DRIVEWAYS AND SOME PARKING AND THEN YOU'RE GOOD. BUT YOU BROUGHT IT BACK WITHOUT QUITE GETTING THERE. WITH THAT IN MIND AND RECOGNIZING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE COUNCIL HERE TONIGHT, I WOULD HATE TO. AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY UNFAIRLY, BUT I'D HATE TO. I'D HATE TO PROHIBIT PROGRESS ON THIS BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN GET THERE. AND WITHOUT HAVING TWO PEOPLE HERE TO CHIME IN ON IT, YOU MIGHT HAVE THE VOTES THE WAY IT SITS.

SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE POSTPONE THIS TO A DATE UNCERTAIN NO LATER THAN AUGUST 31ST TO HEAR IT AGAIN, ALL THAT LEADERSHIP DECIDE EXACTLY WHEN TO BRING IT BACK, WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT. AND THAT'LL BE FOR ORDINANCE 26, 29 AND 2630.

I'LL SECOND. COUNSELOR. MR. ANDERSON, IS THAT THE APPROPRIATE. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S FINE. OKAY. OKAY. AND SO WE DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THAT. CORRECT. OKAY. MISS COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS ROLL CALL VOTE SAYING POSTPONED TO SOME UNKNOWN DATE OR POSTPONED TO UNKNOWN DATE. UNKNOWN DATE. OKAY. SO CAN WE BE MORE SPECIFIC FOR THE APPLICANT? CAN CAN WE GIVE A MORE SPECIFIC DATE IF THE THE MOTION REFLECTS THAT? WHAT THIS BASICALLY MEANS IS IT COULD COME BACK TO A COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 23RD OF JUNE, THE TWO MEETINGS IN JULY OR EITHER MEETING, WELL, ONE MEETING IN AUGUST BECAUSE AUGUST 11TH, YOU CAN ONLY DO THE TRUTH IN TAXATION. YOU CAN'T HAVE A COUNCIL MEETING.

SO IT WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE MEETINGS WITH THE MOTION AS IT WAS DESCRIBED. OKAY, OKAY, OKAY.

GOT IT. THANKS. OKAY. SO AS LEADERSHIP, WE CAN WE CAN SET THE DATE. OKAY. I WOULD PREFER TO ROLL INSIDE FOR THE APPLICANT THAT WE DO GIVE A DATE. SO I WOULD LIKE THE DATE TO BE PRIOR TO JULY 31ST. SO AND OUR SECOND BY OUR SECOND MEETING IN JULY. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU WOULD NEED THEN IS YOU'D NEED THE PERSON WHO MADE THE MOTION TO EITHER AMEND HIS MOTION OR THERE WOULD NEED TO BE AN AMENDED MOTION, BUT I DON'T THINK IT HAS A SECOND. OH NO IT DOES. COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK SECONDED IT. SO THE THE SPONSOR OF THE MOTION WOULD NEED TO CHOOSE TO AMEND THE MOTION. OKAY. COULDN'T COULDN'T COULDN'T. VICE CHAIR WIGNALL DO A SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS WELL. YEAH. THERE COULD BE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB IF. ARE YOU OKAY WITH MAKING AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? YEAH I'M OKAY, I'M OKAY EITHER WAY I WAS. YOU'LL BE THE CHAIR IN JULY SO YOU COULD DECIDE TO PUT IT ON THE JULY CALENDAR. EVEN IF I SAY AUGUST, SO THAT THAT WOULD BE COMPLETELY IN YOUR COURT. BUT YEAH, I'LL I'LL TAKE THAT AS A AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND GO AHEAD AND CHANGE THE MOTION TO BY THE END OF JULY, IF THE APPLICANT'S OKAY WITH THAT. I MEAN, I ASSUME THEY ARE STILL SECOND. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY, MISS. QUICK, IF WE CAN DO A ROLL CALL, VOTE FOR TO MOTION TO POSTPONE THESE ORDINANCES, TO EXCUSE ME, PRIOR TO JULY 31ST. SORRY, I GOT THAT CHANGED.

OKAY. SO PRIOR TO JULY 31ST AND I SHOW THAT JACOB MOTIONED AND WHITELOCK SECONDED. CORRECT? CORRECT. THANK YOU. OKAY. CHAIR. BADOR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WHITELOCK. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. HARRIS. YES. AND ACTING CHAIR. WAGNER. YES. THANK YOU. I SHOW THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0. THANK YOU. OKAY, THANKS. OKAY. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM SIX C,

[c. Ordinance No. 26-28 a Petition from Utah Development Group/Marco Diaz to a Rezone of 0.43 Acres to an R-1-8 Zone for the Diaz Lot Located at 8305 South 2200 West]

WHICH IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 2628. A PETITION FROM UTAH DEVELOPMENT GROUP, MARCO DIAZ, TO REZONE OF 0.43 ACRES TO AN R1 EIGHT ZONE FOR THE DIAZ LOT, LOCATED AT 8305 SOUTH 2200 WEST.

[01:05:04]

AND WE HAVE THE UTAH DEVELOPMENT GROUP. MARCO DIAZ PRESENTING. GOOD AFTERNOON OR GOOD EVENING, I GUESS MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. I COME BEFORE THE. FOR YOU GUYS TO TRY TO GET THE REZONE FOR 80 8305 SOUTH 2200 WEST, AS YOU CAN SEE THERE. LET ME. SLIDES. LET'S SEE IF I HAVE THEM THERE. OKAY, SO IT'S THE PROPERTY THAT IS CURRENTLY IN ENFIELD, A PROPERTY. IT'S SURROUNDED. LET ME SEE THE REZONING. THERE YOU GO. IT'S SURROUNDED BY R3 TO THE NORTH. YOU GOT R2 ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND THEN YOU GOT R1. AND SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE, WE'RE PETITIONING OR REQUESTING A ZONE CHANGE IN R1 EIGHT. THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THAT IS BECAUSE. AS YOU CAN SEE BY THE SURVEY, ABOUT HALF THE PROPERTY IS TAKEN UP BY THE SOUTH JORDAN CANAL COMPANY. WE'VE BEEN WORKING EXTENSIVELY WITH GARY CANNON, THE PRESIDENT OF THE SOUTH JORDAN CANAL COMPANY, AND WE'VE COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH REGARD TO THE EASEMENT NECESSARY FOR THEM TO FEEL COMFORTABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY AS WELL, TO MAKE SURE ALL THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS ARE IN PLACE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. SO WE REALLY, WITH THE WITH THE SETBACKS OF THE PROPERTY, WE HAVE KIND OF A SMALL BUILDABLE ENVELOPE. WE HOPE THAT THIS PROJECT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD BECAUSE AS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE WITH THIS BUILDABLE ENVELOPE, WE STILL HAVE HAVE ROOM FOR A HOME AND WE BELIEVE THAT A HOME WILL BE BETTER USED THAN WHAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. RIGHT NOW, IT'S AN OPEN LOT THAT UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S OVERGROWN TREES. HISTORICALLY, IT'S BEEN OVERGROWN BUSHES AND TREES IN THAT AREA. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES TRAILERS HAVE BEEN PARKED THERE. AND SO WE BELIEVE THIS WILL ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS WILL IMPROVE THE AREA AND STILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY AND MEET THE CONCERNS OF THE SOUTH JORDAN CANAL COMPANY. SO FOR THOSE REASONS, WE WE PETITION AND THIS IS ONE EXAMPLE, AND THIS IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF EXAMPLES OF HOMES THAT CAN BE BE PUT IN THAT PROPERTY, EVEN WITH THE SMALLER, UNIQUE TRIANGULAR PROPERTY, IT STILL WOULD FIT AND STILL ALLOW FOR ENOUGH BACKYARD TO MAKE IT A COMFORTABLE HOME FOR, FOR SOMEONE TO, TO LIVE IN. AND SO WE HOPE THIS IS STRAIGHTFORWARD. LIKE I SAY, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS TO AN REZONE TO AN R1 EIGHT. AND, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF TO, TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. AND WE HOPE WE HAVE. AND SO I'LL WAIT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY. GREAT. THANK YOU, MR. DIAZ. I'LL OPEN THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT. OH, I'M SORRY. EXCUSE ME, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF ACTUALLY FOR I THINK IT'S MARK. RIGHT. THIS WOULD HAVE A DRIVEWAY. IT'S 2200 WEST, A COLLECTOR OR AN ARTERIAL STREET. IT'S A COLLECTOR STREET. IT'S A COLLECTOR. OKAY. IT'S THE LONGEST COLLECTOR IN THE VALLEY. WHAT IS OUR DO WE HAVE A POLICY OR A ZONING REGULATION OR RULE OR ORDINANCE OR ANYTHING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAYS OPENING ONTO COLLECTOR STREETS? I KNOW IT'S KIND OF NOT WHY YOU WANT TO HAVE A COLLECTOR STREET. SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ZONING CODE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN ENGINEERING STANDARD OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THAT'S KIND OF OUTSIDE OF MY WHEELHOUSE, BUT GENERALLY IT'S AS FAR AS I KNOW, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ENCOURAGED, BUT IT DOES HAPPEN.

YEAH, I KNOW MOST OF THE HOUSES THERE ON 22ND WEST WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANDFATHERED IN, RIGHT.

PRE PRECEDED ANY SUCH STANDARD OR REGULATION OR MAYBE JUST PRACTICE OF NOT HAVING DRIVEWAYS DIRECTLY ONTO THE THE COLLECTOR STREET. IS THAT IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT? I THINK SO, I THINK THE THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE TO THE SOUTH WAS BUILT SOMETIME WITHIN THE LAST 20 YEARS. BUT DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. THAT WAS JUST MY QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK. JUST JUST WANT TO ENSURE BECAUSE HE'S SHOWN A RENDERING AND I DON'T WANT ANY CONFUSION IN THE FUTURE THAT THAT ALLOWS FOR A 22 FOOT DRIVEWAY PLUS A HOME. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, YES. SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS THEY COULD DO IT. ONE IS THEY COULD DO KIND OF

[01:10:06]

MORE OF LIKE A SIDE LOADED GARAGE. THAT'S ONE OPTION. THEN ASSUMING THEY'RE ABLE TO GET A VARIANCE ON THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, YOU KNOW, THEY LIKELY THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BEST OPTION IF SOMEHOW THEY'RE ABLE TO MEET THAT 30 FOOT SETBACK, THEN YEAH, LIKELY IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY MEET THAT 22 FOOT DRIVEWAY. WELL, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT NEEDS TO BE A 22 FOOT DRIVEWAY. SO IF THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE, THEN I JUST WANT THE APPLICANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT'S WHAT OUR EXPECTATION LEVEL WILL BE. CAN I ANSWER THAT REAL QUICK? RULES SHE'S ASKING. YES, YES, IT'S OKAY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR HIM. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER THAT. YES. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MEET THE CITY REQUIREMENTS AND WITH EVEN THOUGH IT'S A ODD SHAPED LOT, WE HAVE MADE SURE THAT THERE'S A VARIETY OF FLOOR PLANS THAT MEET THAT WILL ALLOW FOR US TO BUILD A HOME ON THAT, WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SETBACKS THAT ARE SET BY THE CITY, WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE TO GO WITH MORE NARROW AND WIDER FOOTPRINT THAN A DEEPER HOME, BECAUSE IF IT WERE TOO DEEP, THERE'S NO WAY WE WOULD MEET THAT. SO WE'RE COGNIZANT OF THAT, AND WE INTEND TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. CHAIR, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THIS ONE PIECE OF LAND HAS BECOME AN OBSESSION FOR MY WIFE. AS WE DRIVE BY THIS OR WALK BY THIS CONSTANTLY. AND IT HAS A FOR SALE SIGN ON IT. SO THIS HAS BEEN SHE HAS DONE MANY OF HER OWN LITTLE FLOOR PLANS TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO PUT A HOME THERE WITH A 22 FOOT. SO THERE'S A COUPLE THINGS THERE. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT A HOUSE JUST TO THE SOUTH OF EITHER THE ONE JUST TO THE SOUTH, THE ONE NEXT TO IT, THEN A LOT OF REMODELING WORK AND EVEN WIDEN THEIR DRIVEWAY, I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED IN AND THEY WERE ABLE TO KIND OF CHANGE THE EASEMENT OF THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. BUT I, I WOULDN'T THINK WE NEEDED TO MAKE SOME SORT OF THING SO THAT THIS COULD HAVE THAT DRIVEWAY. I DON'T SEE THAT AS ANYTHING THAT SHOULD REALLY STOP THIS IF WE NEEDED TO, YOU KNOW, DO SOME EXTENSIONS OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE THERE ARE SO MANY HOUSES ON 2200 WEST THAT ARE ALREADY OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY ONTO THE STREET. THIS IS A NICE LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE DIDN'T PUT A HOME THERE, A SMALL HOME, AS I LIKE TO PUT THERE. BUT AS I'VE SAID, MY WIFE WAS FASCINATED TO SEE WHAT STORIES THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? OKAY, I WILL OPEN THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE PRESENT WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THIS? MR. ANDERSON? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ONLINE WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT? THERE IS NO ONE ONLINE WHO DESIRES TO SPEAK. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB.

THANKS. I'LL JUST PREFACE THIS BY SAYING THAT R ONE EIGHTS COME WITH THEIR WHOLE SET OF SETBACKS AND LOT REQUIREMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND OBVIOUSLY OUR STAFF IS AWARE OF THEM AND KNOWS WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO MAKE IT SHOEHORN IN HERE. SO AS LONG AS YOU'RE COMFORTABLE, I'M COMFORTABLE. SO I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 26-28. SECOND HARRIS.

THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. MISS QUICK, WE'LL MOVE TO A VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. YES, CHAIR. BUDA.

YES. ACTING CHAIR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. WHITELOCK. YES. I SHOW THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0. THANK YOU. OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 60, ORDINANCE NUMBER 2631,

[d. Ordinance No. 26-31 a Petition from Margaret Hyatt for Approximately 3.457 Acres to Amend the General Plan Future Land Use Map to Community Commercial and Amend the Zoning Map to C-G Zone (General Commercial) for Properties Located at Approximately 4606, 4614, and 4622 West 7800 South (7800 South Commercial Property)]

A PETITION FROM MARGARET HYATT FOR APPROXIMATELY 3.457 ACRES TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL AND AMEND THE ZONING MAP TO CG ZONE, WHICH IS A GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 46, ZERO SIX, 46,

[01:15:04]

14 AND 4622 WEST 1700 SOUTH TO THE 1700 SOUTH COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND WE HAVE MARGARET HYATT, WHO IS THE APPLICANT. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. I'M MARGARET HYATT, I'M THE APPLICANT AND CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 1700 SOUTH AND AIRPORT ROAD HERE TONIGHT TO REQUEST OUR PROPERTY BE REZONED IN THE GENERAL PLAN.

FUTURE LAND USE MAP AMENDED AS DISCUSSED IN THE MEETING OF THE WHOLE. USES PERMITTED IN A GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE INCLUDE BANKING INSTITUTIONS AND. WE ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT WITH ALTA BANK FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. ALTA BANK AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE EAGER TO CONTINUE MOVING TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT APPROVALS PENDING A FAVORABLE VOTE THIS EVENING.

THE OWNERS ARE CONFIDENT WITH THIS REZONE AND THE ALTA BANK DEVELOPMENT THAT THE AREA WILL BE ACTIVATED. WE ARE CURRENTLY IN NEGOTIATION WITH OTHER COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL RETAIL USES AND EAGER TO TO HAVE THIS FIRST STEP GO FORWARD FOR THE REASONS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS OUR JUSTIFICATION LETTER, WE KINDLY ASK FOR A FAVORABLE VOTE SUPPORTING OUR REQUEST. GRATEFUL THE STAFF HAVE SPENT PREPARING FOR TODAY'S HEARING AND APPRECIATE THEIR FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU APPROVE OUR REQUEST. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU, MISS HYATT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. MR. ANDERSON HAS LEFT HIS DESK. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EITHER CHAIR OR COUNCIL MEMBER. WHITELOCK, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO. CHAIR? NO, NO THANK YOU. OKAY. WE WILL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC COMMENT. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS ORDINANCE? OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION. OH, EXCUSE ME, MR. ANDERSON, IS THERE ANYONE ONLINE? THERE IS NO ONE ONLINE. THANK YOU. OKAY.

WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. I'M NOT SEEING OR HEARING ANY COMMENTS, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

JUST A SECOND. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS COMING FORWARD. I DRIVE BY THERE ALMOST EVERY DAY AND I KEEP SEEING THE FOR SALE SIGNS AND THE FOR RENT SIGNS OR WHATEVER UP THERE. AND I'M THINKING, GOSH, DID THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND? I THOUGHT THEY WERE UNDER CONTRACT ON THIS. I WAS GETTING A LITTLE CONCERNED. SO I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS COME UP.

SO WITH THAT IN MIND, I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 26-31. AND I'LL SECOND. AND IF THERE WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB. AND A SECOND FOR MYSELF, IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION OR EXCUSE ME FOR A VOTE, MISS QUICK. THANK YOU.

ACTING CHAIR WIGNALL. YES, COUNCIL MEMBER. HARRIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. WHITELOCK. YES. COUNCIL OR TROUBADOUR? YES. THANK YOU. I SHOW THE MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS IT'S PROPERTY TAX

[e. Property Tax Impact Schedule for Fiscal Year 2027]

IMPACT SCHEDULE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027. HOUSE BILL 236, PASSED IN THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND PLACE NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR TAXING ENTITIES CONSIDERING A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. WHILE NOT REQUIRED, THE CITY IS CHOOSING TO FOLLOW A BEST PRACTICE FROM THE UTAH LEAGUE OF CITIES AND TOWNS, WHICH RECOMMENDS INCLUDING THE PROPERTY TAX IMPACT SCHEDULE AS A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM IN ANY MEETING DURING THE FISCAL YEAR 2027 BUDGET WAS DISCUSSED. THIS WORK SESSION WILL INCLUDE A DISCUSSION OF THE BUDGET, AND THE CITY IS CONSIDERING A PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. THE COUNCIL ACCEPTED THE PROPERTY TAX IMPACT SCHEDULE AT THE MAY 5TH COUNCIL MEETING, AND IT IS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THIS ITEM IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ACTION BY THE COUNCIL, AND WE'LL MOVE ON TO

[f. A Budget Officer for West Jordan City Intends to Again State the Following: West Jordan City is considering a tax rate that exceeds the certified tax rate The approximate dollar amount and purpose of the ad valorem tax revenue increase The approximate percentage increase in ad valorem tax revenue that is based on the tax rate increase West Jordan City shall provide notice of and conduct a public hearing as required where members of the public have an opportunity to comment on the proposed increase]

OUR NEXT ITEM. IT IS THE BUDGET. BUDGET OH PRESENTERS DENISE STECK TO DISCUSS THE. THAT WESTERN CITY INTENDS TO. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST GO. YEAH, I THINK WE'VE ALL MEMORIZED IT. I KNOW.

SO THIS IS THE ACTUAL STATEMENT ONCE AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING TO ADOPT THE TENTATIVE BUDGET THIS EVENING, WE'LL PRESENT AND MAKE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC THE PROPERTY TAX IMPACT SCHEDULE AS YOU JUST STATED, THE PROPOSED REVENUE WITH TAX CHANGE IS TO

[01:20:05]

22,667,562. WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING $500,418 OF REVENUE TO THE PROPERTY TAX PROPOSAL TO BE DECIDED IN AUGUST. OUR CURRENT PROPERTY TAX RATE IS 001328, AND WE ARE REQUESTING A 2.26% PROPERTY TAX INCREASE. HOWEVER, THAT AMOUNT WILL CHANGE ONCE WE GET ALL THE REAL NUMBERS. SO.

WE'LL GO QUICKLY THROUGH THE ITEMS THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED. THIS IS THE FULL TIME PARKS MAINTENANCE WORKER AND A FULL TIME PARKS PLANNER GIVING UP THREE SEASONAL LABORERS IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT FULL TIME PARKS PLANNER. THE IMPACT FOR THE PROPERTY TAX IS $152,455.

THE NEXT ONE IS THE CROSSING GUARD SUPERINTENDENT. I'M SORRY SUPERVISOR, NOT SUPERINTENDENT.

AND THE IMPACT? THE BUDGET IS $100,793. THIS IS A FULL TIME POSITION TO BE HOUSED IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. EVENTS FOR BEAT DAYS. THIS IS THE SEED MONEY FOR TO LAUNCH AN ANNUAL SUMMER EVENT TITLED BEAT DAYS, AND IT'S $100,000. THIS IS A UPGRADE OF A POLICE OFFICER, ONE POSITION THAT IS CURRENTLY VACANT INTO A POLICE LIEUTENANT'S POSITION, AND THE IMPACT IS $73,714. THE TRANSITION OF TWO PART TIME POSITIONS INTO ONE FULL TIME POSITION IN THE PASSPORT OFFICE. THE IMPACT IS $42,261. AND FINALLY ADDING A NEW FULL TIME CUSTOMER SERVICE REP OUT INTO THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING. AND BECAUSE THIS POSITION IS SHARED WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT OF THE UTILITY FUNDS AND SUPPORTS THEM, THE IMPACT TO THE GENERAL FUND IS $31,195. ALL OF THOSE THINGS EQUAL THE INCREASE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THE PROPERTY TAX.

AND THAT IS THE STATEMENT ABOUT OUR INTENT TO INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES. WITH THE SPIRIT OF TRANSPARENCY. THANK YOU, MISS STECK. THAT'S IT FOR THAT ONE. ALL RIGHT. WE WILL MOVE ON TO

[g. Resolution No. 26-022 Authorizing the Transfer of Monies from Enterprise Funds to Other City Funds in Fiscal Year 2027]

OUR NEXT ITEM. RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-022. AUTHORIZING THE TRANSFER OF MONIES FROM ENTERPRISE FUNDS TO THE OTHER TO OTHER CITY FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR 2027. DENISE STECK IS OUR PRESENTER ONCE AGAIN. WE'LL BE SEVEN IN A ROW HERE. ALL RIGHT. THIS WAS RESOLUTION 2622. I WILL GO OVER ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO TRANSFER BETWEEN THE UTILITY FUNDS AND THE GENERAL FUND, BUT THE PURPOSE AND ABOUT THE PURPOSE OF THAT. SO UTAH STATE CODE, SECTION TEN 6135 STATES THAT WE DO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER BETWEEN THE UTILITY FUNDS AND THE GENERAL FUND WITH SOME REQUIREMENTS. SO THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE INTENDED TRANSFER, IDENTIFY THE TRANSFER IN THE BUDGET, PROVIDE NOTICE OF AN ENTERPRISE FUND HEARING WHICH IS TONIGHT, AND HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. WE HAVE MET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS. ON THE BACK OF THE UTILITY BILLS HAS BEEN THE NOTICE TO ALL THE UTILITY HOLDERS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF APRIL. THE NEXT IS THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENTS. IT'S REQUIRED TO BE A SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT HEARING, EXPLAIN THE INTENDED TRANSFER, PROVIDE ENTERPRISE FUND ACCOUNTING DATA TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS THE BEST AND FUNNEST PART, AND ALLOW COMMENT. SO FIRST OF ALL, THE OTHER OTHER UTILITIES LIKE ROCKY MOUNTAIN POWER, QUESTAR GAS, OTHER UTILITIES ALL PAY WHAT WE CALL A FRANCHISE FEE. AND THAT IS BECAUSE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO DELIVER THEIR PRODUCT FROM WHICH THEY GAIN REVENUE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH IS MAINTAINED BY THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND. AND AS SUCH, THOSE UTILITIES PAY 6% OF THEIR REVENUES TO THE CITY AS A FRANCHISE TAX, AND IT PROVIDES FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE RIGHT OF WAYS, AS WELL AS WHATEVER ELSE IS NEEDED FOR THAT RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S KIND OF LIKE A RENT, SO TO SPEAK. WE HAVE DECIDED THAT WE WILL USE THAT THAT SAME METHODOLOGY AND APPLY IT TO UTILITIES THAT MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS PARTICIPATE IN.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE WATER, THE SEWER AND THE STORMWATER FUND. SO JUST LIKE THE OTHER COMPANIES, HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT CHARGING 6%. WE'RE CHARGING 5%. IT IS CALCULATED ON THE REVENUES, BUT IT IS DISCLOSED ACCORDING TO STATE LAW, AS A PERCENTAGE OF THE EXPENDITURES, WHICH IS AN INTERESTING CONCEPT. IS IT A RECURRING TRANSFER? YES, WE HAVE PLANNED IT IN OUR LONG TERM BUDGET AND RELY ON IT. IF THIS TRANSFER WERE NOT TO TAKE PLACE, WE WOULD HAVE TO INCREASE PROPERTY TAXES BY 12.5 ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGE. THE FINANCIAL IMPACT. SO YOU'LL SEE

[01:25:06]

WITH THE TRANSFER THERE, THE TRANSFER CENTER BRINGING IN $2.77 MILLION INTO THE GENERAL FUND AND WITHOUT THE TRANSFER. AND TO BRING THAT IN AS A PROPERTY TAX INSTEAD WOULD REQUIRE THAT 12.5% TAX INCREASE. SO THE TAX INCREASE WOULD GO FROM 2.26% TO 14.76%. THE ACCOUNTING DATA, THIS IS JUST REQUIRED BY STATE CODE, BUT IT REQUIRES US TO SHOW HOW HOW THE TRANSFER AFFECTS EACH OF THE UTILITIES. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS A VERY SMALL AMOUNT. IT'S ONLY 4% OF THE EXPENDITURES IN THE WATER FUND. IN THE SEWER FUND, THE TRANSFER ENDS UP BEING 5% BASED ON THE EXPENDITURES IN THE SEWER FUND, AND THE TRANSFER IS $895,000.

STORMWATER FUND. THE TRANSFER ENDS UP ONLY BEING 3%. BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME LARGER PROJECTS GOING ON THIS YEAR, AND IT IS $300,000. DIFFERENCES BETWEEN TRANSFERS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS. AGAIN, THIS IS REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED BY STATE LAW, BUT THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO.

THERE ARE TWO WAYS. THESE ARE VERY DISTINCT AND SEPARATE. THE TRANSFERS AS WE SPOKE. IT IS A FRANCHISE FEE FOR THE USE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY TO DELIVER THE PRODUCT. ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS ARE BASED ON HOW MUCH TIME AND MONEY IS INVESTED TO SUPPORT THE UTILITY FUNDS. SO THE TIME IN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT, THE TIME OF THE COUNCIL, THE TIME OF THE ADMINISTRATION AND THE MAYOR, THE TIME OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. SO EACH YEAR WE LOOK AT EACH OF THEM AND SAY, THIS PERCENTAGE OF TIME IS SPENT ON THIS UTILITY, AND IT'S THEN CHARGED AS AN ADMINISTRATIVE FEE. IN ESSENCE, IT'S OUTSOURCING THEIR ADMINISTRATION. RIGHT? AND SO THERE'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE COST, WHICH WE CALL ALLOCATED WAGES IN EACH OF THE UTILITIES. AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A TRANSFER OUT, WHICH IS THE USE OF OUR RIGHT OF WAY. THE COST OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES FOR ALL OF THE UTILITIES IS $5.25 MILLION.

AND THE BUDGET FOR THE TRANSFER OUT IS $2.77 MILLION. THIS IS WHAT I WAS JUST SPEAKING TO. SO IN ESSENCE, THE CITY COUNCIL'S TIME, 15% OF YOUR TIME IS SPENT OR WE WE ESTIMATE 15% OF YOUR TIME IS SPENT ON WATER ISSUES, DETERMINING A WATER RATE, REVIEWING THE WATER FUNDS BUDGET, LOOKING AT WATER AS DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, 3.75% IS ON THE SEWER SYSTEM. YOU DON'T HAVE AS MUCH INTERACTION WITH THE SEWER SYSTEM. BECAUSE WE HAVE A TREATMENT PLANT, WE ONLY DISTRIBUTE THE SEWAGE TO THE PLANT FOR TREATMENT. STORMWATER IS 3.75%. SO 22.5% OF THE COUNCIL'S TOTAL BUDGET IS ALLOCATED OUT TO OTHER FUNDS.

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

SINCE THERE IS NO PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE'S NO ONE ONLINE. JUST I'LL GET THIS. I WILL GET THIS. YOU'RE GOOD. THANK YOU. MR. ANDERSON, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? OKAY.

THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS. I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB, I'LL GO AHEAD

[01:30:07]

AND MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 26-022. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMMENTS FROM ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO HAPPEN TO NOT BE HERE TO COMMENT FOR THE FIRST TIME ON THIS, AND THE FIRST TIME IN LIKE SIX YEARS. COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS, THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO A VOTE. MISS QUICK COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER WHITELOCK. YES. ACTING CHAIR.

WAGNER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. NO. CHAIR. BADOR. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. HARRIS. YES. THANK YOU.

I SHOWED THAT MOTION PASSES 5 TO 0. THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS

[h. Resolution No. 26-019 Stating the Compensation Increase for Local Government Officers as Proposed in the Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2027]

RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-019. STATING THE COMPENSATION INCREASE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AS PROPOSED IN THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027. AND YOU'LL NEVER GUESS WHO WE HAVE PRESENTING MISS STICK. THANK YOU AGAIN. UTAH STATE CODE. WE LOVE DISCLOSURE AND TRANSPARENCY. 10.3 OR 10 DASH 3818 REGARDING SALARIES OF MUNICIPALITIES. THIS IS ABOUT.

THIS WAS DONE ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, PRIOR TO ANY INCREASE IN COMPENSATION FOR DEFINED LOCAL GOVERNMENT OFFICERS, THE CITY MUST HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED INCREASES. THE COW, THE ASSISTANT COW, THE CITY ATTORNEY, DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION HEADS AND DEPUTY DEPARTMENT AND DIVISION HEADS. SO THIS BECOMES A VERY LONG LIST. COMPENSATION IS DEFINED AS SALARIES, BENEFITED BONUSES, I'M SORRY, BUDGETED BONUSES, DEFERRED COMPENSATION AND VEHICLE ALLOWANCES. IN EXHIBIT A OF THE RESOLUTION, YOU WILL SEE THAT WE ARE DISCLOSING THE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT IS APPLIED TO ALL OF THESE POSITIONS, AS WELL AS ALL EMPLOYEES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AT 2%, EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE NOT MET THE MAXIMUM OF THEIR PAY RANGE ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A MERIT INCREASE OF 2.75%. IN ADDITION TO THAT, A FEW POSITIONS, IN FACT, VERY FEW ON THIS LIST ARE ELIGIBLE FOR A MARKET OR EQUITY ADJUSTMENT. WE ANNUALLY DO A MARKET ANALYSIS ON ALL OF THE POSITIONS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, AND WE COMPARE THEM TO OUR TEN MOST COMPETITIVE CITIES, PLACES THAT OUR EMPLOYEES WOULD MAYBE CHOOSE TO GO TO IF THEY WERE NOT WORKING FOR OUR GREAT CITY. AND SO YOU WILL SEE THAT THOSE ARE DISCLOSED ON THERE AS WELL AS ADDITIONAL PAY. SO THERE'S A TIER TWO DEFINED BENEFIT, WHICH WE HAVE CHOSEN TO PROVIDE TO OUR EMPLOYEES AS WELL, WHICH IS MOVING FROM .81 PERCENT TO .1.3 0%. THAT IS A CHOICE THAT WE ARE MAKING BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE HAS DEFINED THAT WE CAN, WHICH YOU WILL SEE LATER IN YOUR MEETING. WE CAN PICK UP THE TIER TWO CONTRIBUTION REQUIRED CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND POLICE OFFICERS, BUT ARE NOT ALLOWED TO DO SO FOR NORMAL GOVERNMENT WORKERS LIKE OUR PUBLIC WORKS OR PARKS WORKERS. WE HAVE LEGISLATED THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND IT ALWAYS SEEMS TO RUN OUT OF TIME AT THE LEGISLATURE, BUT WE HAVE FOUND A WAY THAT WE WILL GIVE A STIPEND TO OUR EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ON TIER TWO, AND IT IS WHATEVER THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PAY. AND THEN WE HAVE THEM PAY IT. SO WE GIVE IT TO THEM, AND THEN THEY PAY IT TO US. SO THAT'S THAT PIECE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ABOUT EXHIBIT A OR THE RESOLUTION OVERALL, BEFORE WE MOVE TO QUESTIONS, I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT COUNCILMEMBER SHELTON HAS JOINED US. WELCOME, COUNCILMEMBER SHELTON. RIGHT, FOR THE FUN. THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS STECK? AND WALTER HAS CONFIRMED THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS ONLINE COUNCIL MEMBERS OR EXCUSE ME, COUNCIL MEMBER WHITLOCK OR CHAIR OR DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? ANY QUESTIONS? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I WILL MOVE THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT. AND WALTER, YOU CONFIRMED THERE IS NOBODY ONLINE, CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR COUNT FROM COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB, I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 26-019. I SECOND. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB IN A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS. IF THERE'S. IF THERE IS NO MORE DISCUSSION, MISS QUICK,

[01:35:04]

WE'LL MOVE THIS TO A VOTE. CHAIR. EXCUSE ME. CHAIR BADER? YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SHELTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. HARRIS. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. WHITELOCK. NO.

ACTING CHAIR. WAGNER. YES. THANK YOU. I SHOW THAT MOTION PASSES. PASSES 5 TO 1. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS RESOLUTION NUMBER 26-26. FIXING

[i. Ordinance No. 26-26 Fixing the Compensation for Elected and Statutory Officers of the City]

THE COMPENSATION FOR ELECTED AND STATUTORY OFFICERS OF THE CITY. AND MISS STECK IS OUR PRESENTER. SO THAT SAME STATE CODE REQUIRES THAT WE DISCLOSE THE SALARIES AND WAGES FOR THOSE WHO ARE ELECTED, AS WELL AS THOSE WHO ARE APPOINTED. THESE ARE APPOINTED POSITIONS.

THE CITY ENGINEER, CITY RECORDER AND TREASURER. THEIR SALARIES ARE DISCLOSED AND THE ELECTED OFFICIALS OFFICIALS ARE THE JUDGE, THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS. THE CITY COUNCIL DID APPROVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE SIMILAR TO EMPLOYEES FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL.

SO WE HAVE MET THE STATE REQUIREMENT AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISS STECK? OKAY, I'LL MOVE THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT. ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION? MR. ANDERSON, IS THERE ANYBODY ONLINE? THERE IS NO ONE ONLINE. FANTASTIC. IF THERE ARE NO MORE QUESTIONS, I'LL LOOK FOR A MOTION. I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 26-26. AND I WILL. SECOND, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COUNCIL MEMBER JACOB AND A SECOND FROM ME. IF THERE IS NO MORE DISCUSSION, MISS, QUICK VOTE PLEASE. COUNCIL MEMBER. SHELTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. HARRIS.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. WHITELOCK. NO. VICE CHAIR. WAGNER. YES. TROUBADOUR. YES. AND COUNCIL MEMBER. JACOB. YES. THANK YOU. I SHOW THAT MOTION PASSES 5 TO 1. THANK YOU. OUR NEXT ITEM IS

[j. Resolution No. 26-029 Adopting the Tentative Budget for FY2027 Which Includes a Proposed Property Tax Increase, and Scheduling a Public Hearing Before Adoption of the Interim Budget]