[0:01] Okay. I'd like to call to order city
[0:04] council meeting for July 14th, 2026.
[0:08] We'll start with a roll call starting
[0:09] from Councilwoman Blackwell.
[0:12] >> Sarah Blackwell present.
[0:15] » Chrissy Hammond present.
[0:17] >> Andrew Young present.
[0:18] >> Jessica Sme present.
[0:20] >> Okay, we'll have a prayer offered by
[0:22] Councilwoman Blackwell followed by the
[0:24] pledge led by Councilman Y. Our dear
[0:28] father in heaven, we are grateful for
[0:30] this beautiful day and for the
[0:31] opportunity we have to be gathered
[0:33] together and as a community and as
[0:35] friends and um we're grateful for this
[0:38] wonderful city and for the beautiful
[0:41] nature that surrounds us. We're grateful
[0:43] for laws and we're grateful for the
[0:46] freedom that we enjoy and for those who
[0:48] have um given so much for us to enjoy
[0:51] that freedom. We pray that we may honor
[0:54] those who have fought for us and on our
[0:56] behalf through our actions. And we pray
[0:59] this night that we might be kind and
[1:02] respectful, that we might be thoughtful
[1:04] and considerate. And please help us to
[1:08] um think clearly and logically and
[1:11] address the needs of the residents of
[1:13] this of Alpine. And and we say these
[1:16] things in the name of Jesus Christ.
[1:17] Amen.
[1:17] >> Amen.
[1:18] >> That was beautiful. All arise for the
[1:21] pledge.
[1:22] Repeat after me.
[1:24] >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[1:27] United States of America and to the
[1:30] republic for which it stands, one nation
[1:34] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:37] justice for all.
[1:39] >> Thank you.
[1:43] » Okay. Um,
[1:46] are there any questions regarding the
[1:48] approval of the minutes from our
[1:49] previous June meetings?
[1:54] I don't have any questions.
[1:55] >> If not, I'll entertain a motion.
[1:59] » I can do it. I I'll make a motion to
[2:01] approve the minutes from June 9th and
[2:04] June 23rd city council meetings and the
[2:06] June 30th work session.
[2:08] >> Is there a second? I'll second. It's
[2:10] been moved by Councilman Young, seconded
[2:12] by Councilwoman Blackwell.
[2:14] Any questions to the motion? Not. Let's
[2:17] proceed with a roll call vote. Sir
[2:19] Blackwell, yes. Chrissy Henman, yes.
[2:21] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[2:22] >> Jessica Smeuan, yes.
[2:24] >> Okay, motion passes. Um, I have several
[2:30] um comment cards. Um, anything from city
[2:33] staff salaries,
[2:35] looks like the commercial development.
[2:39] Um, those are not those are items that
[2:42] are on the agenda, but not public
[2:44] hearings. And for the sake of time, I
[2:46] appreciate everyone coming out here and
[2:49] um expressing their support, but for the
[2:52] sake of time, we are not going to have
[2:54] the public comment for that. But we do
[2:56] have
[2:58] is it Jenny and Lori Bidder?
[3:02] >> Jerry, sorry, sorry, sorry. Jerry, Jerry
[3:05] and Lori Bidder to um if you would like
[3:08] to step up and um just give your um
[3:12] street name and you have three minutes
[3:14] to make a comment
[3:17] >> because that item is not on the agenda
[3:18] at least what you
[3:19] >> while Lor's coming up. I'll just kind of
[3:21] start out. So like many other I live on
[3:23] uh we live on Alpine Drive and uh 1040
[3:27] East Alpine Drive. Uh like many cities
[3:30] along the Wasatch front, we've been
[3:32] involved in working on the raccoon
[3:36] population reduction. Many cities are
[3:38] working on this and we've seen that on
[3:40] their websites and we have a a
[3:43] committee. Lori's been mostly the chair
[3:45] of that and um we have a lot of people
[3:49] are on board about reducing that. a lot
[3:51] of trapping and we even have some
[3:53] assistance from uh city council getting
[3:56] those trapped raccoons down to the
[3:58] animal shelter. So, we've been working
[4:00] on an idea to reduce habitat uh which
[4:03] they live in the storm drains quite
[4:06] extensively. That's where the raccoons
[4:08] near our house all live. It's in the in
[4:10] the storm drains. And uh we have seen
[4:14] one other city, California, that had a
[4:17] bar across where the raccoons couldn't
[4:20] get in the storm drain. And we've been
[4:21] working on some alternative ideas. We
[4:24] had a a brief discussion before this
[4:27] meeting, including u Shane Sorenson
[4:30] joined us and he had some some ideas for
[4:32] maybe alternative ideas for a bar that
[4:35] you could put on and be even removable.
[4:37] it would not uh be damaging at all to
[4:40] the storm drain. But we have uh been
[4:43] talking about in discussion about a
[4:44] pilot project on our street, Alpine
[4:47] Drive. Lori has talked to all the
[4:49] neighbors and everybody but one see who
[4:52] she hadn't talked to yet. Everybody
[4:53] she's talked to is on board.
[4:55] >> Every single one of them were fully in
[4:58] support and very excited about putting
[5:02] bars in our storm drains to keep the
[5:04] raccoons from coming up. there's been a
[5:07] great deal of damage to homes and
[5:09] property and animals because of the
[5:12] raccoons. So,
[5:13] >> so that's kind of a nutshell of what
[5:15] we're working on and still in process
[5:19] trying to get a design that I think the [clears throat]
[5:24] city count couns the city people we're
[5:26] working with are happy to go forward
[5:28] with to do a pilot project. We have uh
[5:31] some talked to one welder but it may not
[5:34] even be a welding. maybe attaching a bar
[5:36] with a screw. That was the latest idea.
[5:38] So, anything else? Any questions quickly
[5:41] on that?
[5:43] >> It's really not a con.
[5:44] >> We're not. Yes, I was just going to say
[5:46] that. I just thank you and I hope to one
[5:48] day be a full member of your committee.
[5:50] >> Very good.
[5:50] >> Oh, and I love how you put not just
[5:53] raccoons, blasted raccoons. [laughter]
[5:55] But thank you for doing all of that. I
[5:57] do really appreciate.
[5:58] >> We got four today. Four today. Thank
[6:00] you. So I will just make um so in lie of
[6:05] um the public comment that was not I'm
[6:07] sorry you guys can go ahead and sit
[6:08] down. I just I did wanted to um we'll
[6:11] just to
[6:13] >> there were um Steve Burroughs and
[6:14] Sullivan Love that wanted to talk about
[6:17] um city staff and then we have Spencer
[6:19] Man, Emily Mann and Linda
[6:23] Mapfelt. I hope I did not slaughter your
[6:26] name that wanted to talk about the
[6:27] commercial sites and um I appreciate you
[6:30] guys attending. um if you wanted to make
[6:33] comments in the future if you look um we
[6:36] do send out if you sign up for notices
[6:37] that we do send out our agendas so you
[6:40] can always tell and it's also on our
[6:42] social media on um Instagram on Facebook
[6:45] if you ever want to know what city
[6:46] council is talking about and if it's not
[6:49] a public hearing you are more than
[6:51] welcome to email all the city council
[6:53] people in advance I know um all or most
[6:57] of you will read them and will come to
[6:59] the meeting prepared and we'll keep that
[7:01] in mind. Um, so thank you for taking the
[7:04] time to fill these out. We are going to
[7:06] move on with um public comment. I'm
[7:09] sorry, we're past public comment. We'll
[7:11] move on to item four, which is reports
[7:13] and presentation.
[7:16] [clears throat]
[7:16] >> All right. So, brief financial report.
[7:18] So, we're at the end of the fiscal year,
[7:21] but Dave usually doesn't provide us the
[7:23] normal uh financial report right after
[7:27] the end of the month because it kind of
[7:29] gives a false uh picture of the end of
[7:33] year. Um, so we still have invoices
[7:36] coming in that are dated June and so
[7:39] those will all be reconciled and then
[7:41] we'll have a a final year end that will
[7:45] be more accurate. Um, but I did uh want
[7:49] to share the update on the sales tax
[7:51] revenue. Um, so with our last allocation
[7:55] and we still have a couple allocations
[7:57] left, um, we're uh plus 3.99%
[8:03] year-over-year.
[8:05] So, it's uh decent sales tax growth. Um,
[8:10] and that's I mean like I said, we're
[8:13] finishing up uh projects and expenses
[8:16] from FY26. At the same time, we're
[8:18] starting expenses for the new fiscal
[8:21] year. Um, so any questions?
[8:27] » Uh, Shane, we we had that great meeting
[8:30] with the the sales tax person. Who who
[8:32] was there? There was a couple of us
[8:34] here.
[8:35] >> Just you. Okay. Thank you for setting
[8:36] that up. Um what what do you attribute
[8:40] the growth to because we're not we're
[8:41] not changing rates or has the state
[8:42] change rates uh to to bring them up a
[8:45] little or is people just spending more?
[8:46] >> They're just spending. So
[8:49] >> yeah,
[8:50] >> which helps our park tax? It helps our
[8:53] sales tax. It helps other things. Uh our
[8:56] fifth fifth.
[8:57] >> What was the comment she said that would
[8:59] be helpful for everyone to know in their
[9:01] spending so that they did it in such a
[9:04] way where it landed here? It was about
[9:07] I'm I'm sorry. It was something about
[9:08] the state you bought it in. Either the
[9:11] tax ends up in Alpine or it ends up in
[9:13] Washington, wherever the Amazon
[9:16] warehouse is. Do do you recall what I'm
[9:18] talking about?
[9:18] >> Yes, I I will do the best of my memory
[9:22] >> because I didn't know it. and it helps
[9:23] us bring the revenue here
[9:24] [clears throat] versus
[9:25] >> but we are going to be doing a deep dive
[9:27] into revenue in two weeks and so we can
[9:30] accurately
[9:32] um quote that because at this point
[9:35] we're using my memory [snorts] but
[9:36] basically what happened is in 2018 there
[9:39] is a decision by the Supreme Court
[9:41] called the Wayfair decision and it
[9:43] tracked it said that could you would get
[9:46] intrastate no interstate sales tax so if
[9:50] it shipped from outside of Utah and into
[9:53] our homes versus an Amazon or even a
[9:56] Walmart order or Home Depot, whatever.
[9:59] Um, from outside of the state of Utah,
[10:01] it gets attributed to our zip code,
[10:03] which is all of Alpine. And then if it's
[10:07] in the state, so say it ships from um
[10:10] West Jordan or Logan, then the state
[10:14] that it um because it's inside the
[10:16] state, we get get to control our rules
[10:18] in the state of Utah. And so it gets
[10:21] attributed to the point of shipment and
[10:23] not to
[10:24] >> so it goes to West Jordan.
[10:25] >> Thank you. Somebody's nodding their head
[10:26] that my memory is not totally off.
[10:28] >> Well, this is good because most people
[10:29] don't know that.
[10:29] >> Anyway, so if it comes from inside the
[10:31] state, then it goes to the the place
[10:34] that it that it like left the warehouse,
[10:36] >> West Jordan.
[10:36] >> It goes to West Jordan.
[10:37] >> So we want to buy out of state. We can't
[10:39] always control that, but that is um and
[10:42] then we will again we'll have more data
[10:45] next week or in two weeks. Okay. But um
[10:48] com relative to some of our um
[10:50] neighboring cities, we have a much
[10:52] higher proportion of um sales from
[10:54] online or sales tax from online sales.
[10:58] [clears throat] And that's we we'll look
[10:59] at the facts in two weeks. That's just a
[11:02] teaser. And it really takes our last
[11:04] sales tax allocation for the fiscal year
[11:07] will come around August 20th. So it
[11:11] really takes until about then to totally
[11:14] finish out uh the fiscal year.
[11:18] So
[11:19] >> yeah,
[11:19] >> we're still ways out.
[11:21] >> Okay. Any other questions? Okay. Thank
[11:25] you, Shane. Um we did have a public
[11:28] hearing scheduled for this sales tax
[11:30] revenue bond. Um but we had to postpone
[11:33] it to August 25th because the state has
[11:35] certain requirements about noticing
[11:37] public hearings regarding bonds and
[11:39] there was one site that um we were not
[11:42] made aware that we had to post. So we
[11:44] have to wait um 30 days from posting it.
[11:46] So it's going to be on August 28th for
[11:49] the sales tax revenue bond which is for
[11:50] the fire station and the um future
[11:54] community center. Okay. So then we'll
[11:57] move on to action items. Um
[12:01] we are on item A which is consider
[12:04] approval for the FY 2027 wage increase
[12:07] for city staff.
[12:11] Do you want me to introduce this mayor?
[12:13] Okay. So we included a 5% uh placeholder
[12:17] for wage increases in our uh fiscal year
[12:20] 2027
[12:22] uh tenative budget. when the final
[12:25] budget was presented
[12:28] and after considering uh the increases
[12:31] in other cities um the mayor proposed a
[12:34] 4.2%
[12:36] increase uh based on the CPI and then a
[12:38] merit bonus of8%.
[12:41] Um, at the same meeting, uh, the council
[12:46] approved the fiscal year 2027 budget,
[12:50] but took all wage increases and a staff
[12:55] position out of that budget.
[12:58] Um, and then said that we needed to hold
[13:01] a work session by June 30th to discuss
[13:04] wages. So that uh work session was held
[13:07] on June 30th
[13:09] um on compensation.
[13:12] Um and then just kind of along with this
[13:15] um with anything that gets added back
[13:18] into the budget, we'll have to have a
[13:19] public hearing and do a budget amendment
[13:23] um because of the way the budget was
[13:25] approved. So once we have that
[13:28] information um we can schedule that
[13:30] public hearing um redo the budget and
[13:34] bring that back for approval.
[13:39] » So if we um to understand the process if
[13:42] we make a motion to approve a percentage
[13:46] um that then we'll have to have a a
[13:49] public hearing and approve the entire
[13:51] budget from like not just the line item
[13:53] but the entire budget. It's it's the
[13:55] addition, but then we have to go and add
[13:58] everything back into our billing
[14:00] software because we've already had to
[14:02] put that in because we've got expenses
[14:04] coming in for FY27
[14:06] already and there's already been one
[14:08] payroll. Um, and so we'll have to go
[14:12] make those corrections.
[14:14] >> But there there'll be another public
[14:16] hearing.
[14:16] >> You have to have a public hearing on a
[14:18] budget amendment. Yes.
[14:20] >> Okay. Okay. And
[14:22] >> you know how in our last meeting we did
[14:24] a budget amendment on the and it just
[14:27] had three line items that were journal
[14:30] entries. Is that what you're talking
[14:31] about?
[14:31] >> Well, this will be multiple because it's
[14:33] it goes through our entire budget
[14:35] through every fund
[14:37] >> because the way our wages are allocated.
[14:39] So, it won't be a single lump sum item.
[14:42] There will be multiple line items um
[14:45] because it hits every every almost every
[14:49] section of the general fund and every uh utility fund.
[14:54] >> I see.
[14:56] >> Yeah. Thank you for doing that. I know
[14:57] that was a lot of work to go back and do
[14:59] that. I think we've learned an important
[15:00] lesson that it's not as Yeah, it's it's
[15:05] a laborious process to um make
[15:09] amendments to the budget that affect
[15:10] more than one line item
[15:14] >> for sure.
[15:14] >> Do you guys have any questions?
[15:18] Um I don't have so much like questions
[15:20] as I do feedback and um I in our last
[15:26] discussion I was curious you know we're
[15:28] talking about compensation for employees
[15:31] without understanding what the employees
[15:33] value. So I wanted to understand that a
[15:36] little bit better. So I sent them like a
[15:38] very basic survey which I come to find
[15:41] out like it might have been better to
[15:42] just like phone call one-on-one but it
[15:45] still was informative. And the employees
[15:47] also um responded to my email with a
[15:50] little um PowerPoint presentation. I
[15:53] don't know if this boss will bring that
[15:54] up. Yeah. So, this is um the first page
[15:58] just talks about some of the questions
[15:59] that I asked them. I mean, I'm new to
[16:01] council, so trying to understand how,
[16:04] you know, we can all work together since
[16:06] we're all on the same team. Like, why
[16:08] have they chosen to work here? What
[16:10] entices someone to work for Alpine to
[16:12] work in the public sector versus the
[16:14] private? what keeps them here. Um, some
[16:17] of our benefits, our healthc care
[16:18] benefits have increased in cost. So,
[16:21] when looking at total compensation
[16:23] packages, you know, we're kind of
[16:24] evaluating that and understanding what
[16:26] they value. Um,
[16:29] and then, um, I like that they included
[16:32] this, the budget has always been
[16:34] balanced. Um, and it's true, the
[16:37] investing in our city's employee is
[16:39] investment, um, in our quality of
[16:41] service. So, um, just recognizing that,
[16:44] you know, that's what helps our city
[16:45] function and run. Um, and some of the
[16:48] things that maybe we don't always
[16:50] realize as as residents or even as
[16:52] council members is everything that they do. So, they, you know, obvious
[16:57] they gave us an example and listed some
[17:00] things that they do. And I know that
[17:01] this list goes beyond these these bullet
[17:05] points right here. Um, and I know all on
[17:08] a daily and hourly basis. I I know that
[17:10] I've received emails from people at
[17:12] 11:30 at night and as early as 6:00 a.m.
[17:16] Um I know that Greg and James are out
[17:20] checking water at 700 p.m. during the
[17:22] summer and sometimes that means that
[17:25] they miss time with their family. So um
[17:29] appreciate the work that they do and the
[17:31] time that they sacrifice. Um, and then
[17:33] also the amount of knowledge. Um, just
[17:37] realizing how many of our res our
[17:39] employees have been here for a long
[17:41] time. I mean, I think that says a lot
[17:44] about
[17:45] um, them. It says a lot about working
[17:48] here. And,
[17:51] um, I'm just I'm just I'm really
[17:53] grateful that they're willing to just
[17:55] take on added added jobs, added
[17:58] assignments, and they're hard workers.
[18:01] Um,
[18:03] and this is one of the things that I
[18:05] felt like I gained a better
[18:07] understanding of is just, you know, um,
[18:11] talking to employees one-on-one and even
[18:13] through the survey is just understanding
[18:15] like they there's many reasons why they
[18:18] work here and why they stay here. It's
[18:21] not just about the pay. It's not just
[18:23] about the the compensate the um, health
[18:26] benefits or other benefits. It's the
[18:28] it's it's a community. it's a family.
[18:31] It's it goes beyond that. So that was
[18:34] really helpful to understand. Um
[18:37] and then yes, that kind of just
[18:40] reiterizes um re-emphasizes what I was
[18:43] trying to express is um yes, they might
[18:47] not be like talking to one one employee
[18:50] who could have made more money elsewhere
[18:52] chose to work here because of maybe the
[18:56] tasks and also some of the benefits. So
[18:59] helping understanding those things has
[19:02] helped us I feel like as as council
[19:04] members when we're looking at you know
[19:07] compensation. Um
[19:10] and this is true alpine cities don't
[19:12] really have a ton of opportunity for
[19:15] upward advancement. So um just something
[19:19] to keep in mind. Um,
[19:23] I'll let you read some of those, but
[19:32] yeah.
[19:34] Anyway, um, just I would like to make
[19:37] note of that starred point at the
[19:40] bottom.
[19:43] And really, I think the success of the
[19:45] city depends on who's on the front lines
[19:47] interacting with staff or interacting
[19:50] with the residents. And um and I have
[19:55] found that they they do a good job um
[19:58] being considerate and being respectful
[20:01] to to the residents of Alpine. Um I I
[20:04] did, if it's okay, Kaden, can you just
[20:06] throw up those other results of that
[20:08] survey?
[20:09] Um so these are the questions. I asked
[20:12] five questions. How would you rate
[20:14] working at Alpine City? Most of them
[20:16] said, "I like my job, but I love the
[20:18] weekends more." One was willing to work
[20:20] here for free. So, that says something.
[20:23] [laughter]
[20:24] Um,
[20:26] what helped you make the decision to
[20:27] work for the city? This one was varied.
[20:30] Um, which is also really great feedback.
[20:33] You know, [snorts] it's not just one
[20:35] thing. So, when we're considering
[20:37] compensation, it's good to take in a
[20:40] holistic approach.
[20:43] Um, and then what keeps you here? Um,
[20:46] this is where I realize like maybe the
[20:48] survey isn't the best way to get as much
[20:50] feedback as I want. I did send the other
[20:53] responses to the council members, but I
[20:55] won't go over all of those right now
[20:58] just for sake of time. Um, and then I
[21:01] asked about
[21:03] healthc care benefits versus higher
[21:05] salary.
[21:07] Um, you can see the results there. again
[21:10] sent the other responses to the rest of
[21:12] the council and then just curious about
[21:15] performance-based bonuses. Um just you
[21:19] can see the the results there. So
[21:23] anyway, I just thought that would be
[21:24] helpful to understand what the what the
[21:26] employees value and why they're here and
[21:28] why they love working here. So um and I
[21:31] am grateful that they do their job. So
[21:34] thank you. I don't have any other
[21:36] questions or comments.
[21:40] my turn. I do have some comments. Um,
[21:44] and at at the end I do have a motion
[21:47] that we've um sort of been working on to
[21:51] accomplish many things. So, I think um
[21:55] it would be best So, do we just do we
[22:00] want to have everyone comment and then I make a motion or would you like me to
[22:04] put forth the motion? And I'm asking
[22:06] this as a just if you have a motion, why
[22:09] don't you put forth a motion and you can
[22:10] discuss
[22:10] >> and then we can continue around. I think
[22:12] that would I I I agree that would be the
[22:14] most simple, so I'll do it. I just
[22:16] didn't want to jump the gun if someone
[22:18] disagrees. Okay. So, um thank you public
[22:22] for being here without a public hearing.
[22:25] We don't get a chance to hear from you,
[22:26] but we did um we did in our last
[22:30] meeting. So, um, the special study
[22:32] session was open to the public and as
[22:35] the minutes have been published and
[22:37] approved tonight for June 30th, that
[22:40] would be interesting for you to read
[22:42] since um, that was a lot of the
[22:44] discussion that will not be happening
[22:46] tonight did happen in the study session.
[22:48] And it allowed time for staff and
[22:50] management and the mayor and the council
[22:52] to review the information and ask um,
[22:55] follow-up questions. It also allowed for
[22:57] clarification on some points that were
[23:00] made and um dialogue among all the
[23:04] council.
[23:06] Since then, as Sarah has highlighted,
[23:08] we've had some feedback directly from
[23:10] our staff, which actually is very much
[23:13] appreciated and helps us gain more
[23:15] insight. Um
[23:17] most of all, personally being an
[23:19] accountant, I do appreciate the extra
[23:21] time and effort that it took to gather
[23:24] all the data. Um, and then, um, as Shane
[23:28] has mentioned, it's going to be a a
[23:31] tedious and laborious process to run any
[23:35] changes through the budget that affects
[23:36] our staff because it hits so many line
[23:38] items of our budget. And so that tells
[23:41] you in a way a message to all of us how
[23:44] important our staff is. They affect
[23:46] every department. They affect nearly
[23:48] every line of our budget. So our staff
[23:50] makes are the ones that make things
[23:52] happen around here. Um so the in an
[23:57] effort to reduce um more work um we
[24:00] wanted to get this uh final
[24:04] motion and raises on the table and voted
[24:07] on tonight so then we can just move
[24:09] forward and um like there will be
[24:12] retroactive pay and all of those extra
[24:14] calculations is a big headache. We just
[24:17] want to minimize any more headache on
[24:19] the p part of our staff. Um but we do
[24:22] appreciate the extra time to process all
[24:24] the information that was shared. Um in
[24:27] addition, we had discussions and Sarah
[24:29] highlighted this about benefits and with
[24:32] we did not pull any benefit costs off
[24:34] the table or ask um employees to share
[24:37] benefits at this time. So in total there
[24:39] was a 50 thou $58,000 increase in
[24:42] benefits um this past year. And I just
[24:45] wanted to um highlight that. And that
[24:47] was me just going through the
[24:48] spreadsheet that staff provided, which
[24:50] was Shane. Um, all right. So, the
[24:54] proposal then is to shift a little bit
[24:56] in our strategy um regarding the
[25:00] full-time position because uh the when
[25:03] we looked at the numbers, the city
[25:05] planner um the salary was going to be at
[25:09] a beginning range and then the benefits
[25:11] were going to be actually like one-third
[25:12] of the total cost. And so we thought if
[25:15] we hired seasoned professionals as
[25:18] consultants, we may be able to stretch
[25:21] our $100,000 into um more than one area
[25:24] of just city planning, but also consider
[25:27] hiring a finance um position and um
[25:30] maybe a supplemental HR if if needed. So
[25:35] with that introduction, I make a motion
[25:39] that number and here's Okay, Deian's
[25:42] listening. You can go at a casual pace.
[25:46] >> That's right. Um, so the new hire, we would replace the
[25:52] salary and benefits requested for a
[25:54] full-time position with a $100,000
[25:58] allocation for professional consulting
[26:00] related to fin planning, finance, andor
[26:04] other consulting services including HR.
[26:07] That was one. Two, the staff raises
[26:11] would be 4% split between a 2% cola
[26:14] that's straight across to every employee
[26:17] and 2% equity allocation per management
[26:21] discretion based on base salary as of
[26:24] June 30th, 2026 and effective June f
[26:27] July 1st, which end of motion, but as a
[26:32] commentary would mean there's back pay
[26:34] that's owed. Okay. In addition, this is
[26:37] three 1% bonus upon completion of
[26:41] performance review per Alpine City
[26:43] personnel policy and procedure manual
[26:46] before the end of fiscal year 2027. So
[26:49] in total, if you added that up together,
[26:51] that's a 2% COLA, a 2% equity
[26:54] allocation, and a 1% bonus. So it is
[26:57] close almost exactly where we started at
[27:00] the 5% placeholder with a few conditions
[27:03] as I've stated.
[27:05] Is there a second? Or Carla, I jumped
[27:08] the gun. I'm done. If there's a second.
[27:11] >> Is Is there a second?
[27:15] >> I'll second.
[27:16] >> Okay. It's been moved by Councilwoman
[27:18] Hanaman, seconded by Councilwoman
[27:20] Blackwell.
[27:24] » Okay. Discussion. Do you want to start,
[27:25] Andrew?
[27:26] >> Uh, yeah. So, uh, thanks for doing all
[27:29] that work. Um
[27:33] the
[27:36] >> yeah yeah sorry I'm thinking uh it's
[27:38] been busy the um
[27:43] most of the so there's two questions and
[27:46] this has been clarified once but still
[27:48] not clarified. We are approving right
[27:51] now the budget amount but we do not
[27:53] approve the actual raises per employee
[27:56] and this is not for the executive
[27:58] employees.
[27:59] >> Correct.
[28:00] >> Okay. All right. They sure don't make
[28:01] this non-confusing.
[28:04] Um, and most of our employees are under
[28:08] the uh median benchmark, right?
[28:11] >> Correct.
[28:12] >> Right.
[28:14] The So, I see no problem with this. Um,
[28:16] and I love the employees. Oh my gosh,
[28:18] look at that stare. [laughter] I
[28:20] disconnected.
[28:22] [clears throat] That was good, Landon.
[28:23] Uh, really good. So, I love the
[28:25] employees. I love that most of them are
[28:27] Alpine residents. Um, the only thing I
[28:31] have always been after is for uh there
[28:34] to be some sort of connection based on
[28:38] resident asks or resident concerns or
[28:40] resident um petitions.
[28:43] Now, we have a website that does that.
[28:45] That's where we voice our concerns and
[28:47] things.
[28:49] How do we go about adding something like
[28:51] that other than performance reviews
[28:55] where we have some sort of metric for
[28:57] those extra bonuses and things that
[28:59] she's adding on where we can have a
[29:02] literal data driven uh
[29:05] >> right the list? How do we go about
[29:07] adding something like that's all
[29:08] >> that's not something for council
[29:11] according to state law. Your purview
[29:14] specifically is only for the executive
[29:16] staff in our small staff. That is our
[29:19] city administrator and the assistant
[29:21] city administrator. Rest of the staff
[29:24] which you will be voting on now and that
[29:26] the motion was made on they are all
[29:29] under the executive staff.
[29:31] >> Right?
[29:32] >> So um you can always make suggestions
[29:35] but they are the executive staff and
[29:38] they are the ones that manage their
[29:41] staff. It is not the job of city council
[29:44] to manage staff.
[29:45] >> Right. Right.
[29:46] >> Your body is the your function is the
[29:48] legislative.
[29:49] >> I know.
[29:50] >> Legislative body. I wish we would do
[29:51] that.
[29:51] >> Not micromanaging.
[29:52] >> Make ordinances and change them. It's
[29:54] tough. Uh so uh
[29:58] >> I guess maybe a question for council is
[30:01] what do you what do you like to uh
[30:03] >> per my motion? Can I just address that
[30:05] Carla? Would that mayor would that be
[30:06] okay? per my motion is to follow our
[30:09] personnel policy, right? And we we would
[30:12] have the opportunity to look at the
[30:14] personnel policy and make an adjustment
[30:16] there. That would be the proper place
[30:19] to be implemented again as as our mayor
[30:22] has said. So if if we need to revisit a
[30:25] policy, that's our
[30:27] >> right wheelhouse. So, so in the past,
[30:29] because you guys have done this a lot,
[30:30] Jessica and several people, um, and
[30:33] mayor and Chrissy, uh, what do you like
[30:37] to base your decision off of when you're
[30:39] deciding whether to make a raise or not?
[30:42] Just personal kind of opinion, personal
[30:45] >> No, it's the numbers that have been
[30:47] thrown around are based on number one,
[30:50] you know, where our salaries are and
[30:51] what other cities are doing. The main
[30:53] purpose is for retention, right? We feel
[30:56] that [clears throat] we have a very good
[30:57] and competent staff
[30:59] >> and what do we do to be able to keep
[31:02] them here? I think it said we had what
[31:03] 256 years of institutional knowledge
[31:06] among our staff members that is an
[31:09] intangible um there's an intangible
[31:11] value to that. There's so many things
[31:13] that come up and um you know you have
[31:16] somebody new who might be super smart
[31:18] and comes with a lot of credentials but
[31:20] they don't have that institutional
[31:22] knowledge. They don't understand
[31:24] where the weaknesses might be in our
[31:26] system. They don't understand when
[31:28] there's this
[31:28] >> they don't know where the trails are.
[31:30] >> They don't know. They don't know our
[31:31] trail system. I know. I understand. Um
[31:34] Okay. Uh would the staff when we ask
[31:38] these are just questions we're
[31:39] counseling. Would the staff like, do you
[31:42] think the staff would like a larger uh
[31:46] ability to grow in their um bonuses and
[31:51] their raises based on merit and things
[31:54] that we can evaluate? Or do you think
[31:56] that would be something they would frown
[31:58] on?
[32:00] >> And maybe I'll tell you what I've told
[32:02] um a couple of members of council is
[32:05] that
[32:06] >> our staff is so small. If anyone is a
[32:10] slacker, it becomes very evident, very, evident because they work so
[32:15] closely together. And I feel like I
[32:17] especially notice it when I'm in the
[32:19] office that if somebody is either sick
[32:22] or on vacation and because everyone's on
[32:25] hourly except for our executive staff
[32:26] that, you know, people are worried,
[32:28] they're conscientious like, "Oh, I don't
[32:30] want to go over on my hours, but it's
[32:31] hard to fill in for this person and do
[32:33] my job." Yeah. and that, you know, it's
[32:35] amazing that they're cross-trained in
[32:37] several jobs as it is. And so for me, I
[32:40] feel like, you know, you're saying you
[32:41] wanted to be on merit, whe you know,
[32:43] based on I feel like,
[32:46] >> you know, that's you guys aren't here
[32:48] all the time and neither are the
[32:49] residents. That's why we have
[32:52] >> an executive
[32:53] >> and that's our city administrator,
[32:55] right?
[32:56] >> That's his job.
[32:57] >> Okay. So, sorry, the questions, you
[32:58] might be thinking the questions are
[33:00] coming from a different motive or place
[33:02] than they are. the the the all I'm
[33:04] trying to achieve and I see a lot of the
[33:06] um staff here. All I'm trying to achieve
[33:09] is something that became very apparent
[33:12] while running and that was that the city
[33:15] was over here and the residents were
[33:16] over here. Okay, now obviously there's a
[33:19] little bit of overlap. Okay, we can find
[33:21] examples of both but what the residents
[33:24] would be saying to me and telling me was
[33:26] so different than what the city was
[33:30] prioritizing. It was like, and it
[33:32] doesn't necessarily mean that was one
[33:34] was way really expensive and one was
[33:36] not. It was just they were different.
[33:38] They were on different paths. So the
[33:40] goal is not to say if anyone's a
[33:41] slacker. No one's going to say that.
[33:44] What
[33:44] >> Andrew, what I need from you is it's on
[33:47] the motion itself. You heard what the
[33:48] motion is. What is your opinion on the
[33:51] motion if you have anything to say? If
[33:53] not, let's move on.
[33:54] >> Well, mayor, you know, she did it a
[33:55] little bit different where it was like
[33:57] kind of before we were able to chat. So
[33:58] I I'll just end with this, okay? And
[34:00] that is though I don't see any problems
[34:01] with this. My hope and what I'm trying
[34:04] to work for and what I'm after and what
[34:06] I think will be really good for Alpine
[34:08] is not to say is someone slacking or
[34:10] not, is someone worth 5% a year or not?
[34:13] but how much we can align the residents
[34:18] day-to-day pains that they're
[34:19] experiencing or the problems that
[34:21] they're trying to get addressed that our city is solvable and how much
[34:26] that's aligned with the actual
[34:28] priorities and money that we spend. If
[34:30] we can line that up so when I ask staff
[34:34] when I ask them, hey, these residents
[34:37] are on me for this. They think I'm doing
[34:39] it. They think I'm the one who goes and
[34:41] fixes this thing. I pass it on to staff
[34:44] and then there's like this big
[34:46] disconnect. This is not a priority or
[34:48] this is not something we do.
[34:49] >> And I understand that that's a totally
[34:51] different conversation right now if
[34:54] we're going to follow the procedure.
[34:55] Your comments need to address the
[34:58] motion.
[34:58] >> Well, so okay. So
[35:01] >> about the impact on our budget.
[35:02] >> Right. Right. I know. I know.
[35:04] >> And because this is part of our budget.
[35:06] That's how it's on the table. So, what
[35:08] I'm trying to do is in the motion, I'm
[35:10] trying to see if there's any way we can
[35:12] bridge that.
[35:13] >> No, are you asking for an amendment on
[35:15] the motion? Is that what you're ask? If
[35:17] not, let's stick to the motion, right?
[35:19] The comment is on the motion itself. If
[35:21] you don't want it down a bit, we can
[35:23] tone it down a bit. We're discussing,
[35:24] you know,
[35:26] >> you're always talking about cost. You
[35:28] have to know what is going on with our
[35:30] legal bills and our overtime on staff
[35:32] because our meetings are literally twice
[35:34] as long as they were all last year. and
[35:37] our cost is skyrocketing. So, in the
[35:39] interest of saying taxpayer dollars
[35:42] >> in probably just in the month of
[35:44] January, just in our legal fees alone,
[35:47] that would have covered what I was
[35:48] asking for as far as increases for our
[35:51] executive staff. And then I think from
[35:53] February to now, the increases in just
[35:56] our legal fees would have covered raises
[35:58] that we asked for for the entire staff.
[36:00] So, I'm sorry if I if you feel like I'm
[36:03] being unjust, but [clears throat] I am
[36:05] trying to keep council on task and do
[36:08] things in a timely and just manner and
[36:11] to be able to cover everything so we can
[36:13] do the business of the city. I get it.
[36:16] You have concerns, but this is a totally
[36:18] different conversation that I want to
[36:21] have. You can put it on as an agenda
[36:23] item. You know what that process is,
[36:26] >> but this is not the time right now. It's
[36:29] to address the motion that's on the
[36:31] table. Not on the table.
[36:33] >> Andrew,
[36:36] [applause]
[36:40] » I'm I'm happy to send you the responses
[36:42] from that question about performance
[36:44] evaluations from the staff. That might answer that if you'd like.
[36:47] >> Thank you. Okay.
[36:49] >> So, do you have any comments regarding
[36:50] the motion itself?
[36:52] >> Well, it was just those and I think for
[36:53] the record, you just spoke longer than I
[36:55] did. So,
[36:56] >> I don't think so. Jessica, do you have
[36:58] any comments?
[36:59] >> So, just regarding the motion, um,
[37:03] would you consider Well, I I do want to
[37:05] give a little bit of framework as to why
[37:07] we got here, but are you saying we can't
[37:09] have that conversation?
[37:10] >> No, there's a motion on the table and
[37:12] right now the discussion is the motion.
[37:14] >> Okay. Regarding the motion,
[37:15] >> so relating to the motion, we did find
[37:18] out through the study that quite a bit
[37:20] of our staff members are substantially
[37:23] underpaid from what market value is. And
[37:26] so number two, staff raises of a 4% 2%
[37:30] cola and then the 2% split for the
[37:33] remainder of staff. I want to add more
[37:36] clarity in that because um I would like
[37:39] to amend the motion to include an
[37:42] additional average salary increase of 2%
[37:46] for a fiscal year 2027 marketbased
[37:49] salary adjustment for non-executive
[37:51] positions with a specific percentage for
[37:54] each position based upon at a minimum a
[37:57] wage comparison of comparable positions
[38:00] among Utah Countyass cities as well as
[38:03] Cedar Hills together with other
[38:05] documented evidence of comparison equity
[38:08] considerations per management discretion
[38:11] >> based on base salary as of June 30, 2026
[38:14] effective July 1st, 2026 with the intent
[38:18] um
[38:19] >> so hold on just a sec. So is that an
[38:20] amendment to the motion that you're
[38:21] proposing?
[38:22] >> Yes.
[38:23] >> Okay. Do you accept that amendment?
[38:25] >> No.
[38:25] >> Okay. So,
[38:28] anything else?
[38:29] >> I could I could explain, but we'll just
[38:32] drag it out.
[38:33] >> Yeah. So,
[38:34] >> okay.
[38:34] >> So, I I just want to explain the
[38:37] reasoning for that is so that there's
[38:39] some inequities of 30 to $40,000 and
[38:43] there's some that are actually in our
[38:45] low in our non-executive staff that are
[38:48] paid not below market. And so,
[38:51] >> so the wage study that we did was based
[38:53] on not just their um their duties, but
[38:57] based on experience and comparable to um
[39:01] other cities within Utah County. And I
[39:03] think adjoining cities I think was I
[39:06] don't think was Draper in there and I
[39:08] think um Bluell because
[39:09] >> I understand but we're not adopting that
[39:11] wage study to make um right
[39:13] >> we're not adopting that wage study to
[39:15] determine legislative action and we're
[39:18] asking as a council that we actually
[39:20] narrow the scope and compare like cities
[39:22] to our city. It would be like you trying
[39:25] to get a market value for your home
[39:27] based on every home in the state of Utah
[39:30] compared to Tilla, compared to Park City
[39:33] and coming up with that value. So, we
[39:36] need to base our increases, our staff
[39:39] increases because we've been through
[39:40] this whole process now. And it isn't
[39:43] just council wanting to slow down things
[39:45] or make it harder. We're wanting to make
[39:47] sure there's equity because we do
[39:49] appreciate our staff. And so when we see
[39:52] that there's an inequity, we want to
[39:54] make sure that how we spend the taxpayer
[39:57] dollars will level out some of those
[40:00] inequities. I
[40:01] >> I think ga gathering the data would be
[40:03] very time inensive and time is money.
[40:05] And I I just don't I'm not sure when I
[40:08] was doing the calculations, we're only
[40:09] talking about among all the staff
[40:12] $38,000
[40:14] to allocate among everyone. So to create
[40:17] all that data to allocate $38,000, the
[40:20] cost benefit ratio just doesn't equate
[40:23] >> there. I think there's like five cities
[40:25] in the fourth class and then Cedar Hill.
[40:27] So nevertheless, that's why I'm
[40:28] rejecting it.
[40:29] >> Can I ask one question? So if if we I'm
[40:33] assuming Shane will determine who gets
[40:36] what and he'll do a comparison like how
[40:38] do what's the process if we don't follow
[40:40] the amendment for that Jessica has just
[40:42] addressed? Yeah, it's not as it's not as
[40:46] easy to get the data as you think it is.
[40:49] Um it it does take a lot of time, but we
[40:52] would do something. I'd work with the
[40:53] mayor on it and and work with her on
[40:57] those allocations.
[40:59] >> I think I think the WOW study had that
[41:00] implementation tab and it went position
[41:03] by position. So I think that's one data
[41:06] point that we already have, we've
[41:07] already paid for. It's a starting point.
[41:10] Like I'm just looking at the cost to
[41:12] allocate $38,000 is really high and like
[41:16] we said to just take our budget and
[41:19] upload it again into the transparent
[41:21] website all of this work like we're
[41:23] already adding to the cost of this
[41:25] change and so I just didn't see the
[41:27] value of it. Not that it isn't valuable
[41:30] but just I didn't see the value relative
[41:32] to what we're trying to accomplish.
[41:33] >> Did you have any other questions or
[41:35] comments? If not, let's proceed with the
[41:38] roll call vote starting with it was
[41:40] Councilwoman Black, right? Yeah.
[41:42] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes. Chrissy Hanaman,
[41:44] yes.
[41:46] [clears throat]
[41:46] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[41:48] >> Jessica Smean, yes.
[41:50] >> Okay, motion passes. Let's move on to
[41:55] item two, which is the executive staff.
[42:01] Okay, this this was before you three
[42:04] weeks ago. Uh we held a public hearing
[42:07] there um back in 24 2024 the legislature
[42:11] passed
[42:13] uh an amendment to the state code which
[42:16] requires any increase in compensation
[42:19] for executive municipal officers to have
[42:22] a public hearing prior to that being
[42:24] implemented.
[42:26] Um, so we held that public hearing
[42:29] on
[42:32] uh I don't I think the 23rd, June 23rd
[42:35] uh kind of along with the budget.
[42:38] Um, so it was the same kind of thing. It
[42:42] was proposed in there at u 5%
[42:46] but then kind of leading up to the
[42:49] meeting it was proposed at uh 4.2% 2%
[42:52] with a 08%
[42:55] u
[42:57] merit bonus.
[43:00] Um again, this was this was taken out of
[43:03] the budget. It was not approved. Um so
[43:05] we pulled that out, held the work
[43:07] session, and now we're bringing it back.
[43:11] Um we weren't really told, hey, this is
[43:13] the amount. So that's why it's in here
[43:16] with the last proposal
[43:18] um from the mayor. And I will also note
[43:21] that the URS contribution from the city
[43:25] went down uh 1% this year. Um I've got
[43:29] the rate sheet um that shows that. Um so
[43:33] even with some of the numbers that were
[43:35] mentioned before, the offset of the 1%
[43:39] would make would change those numbers to
[43:43] benefit the you know to have less
[43:45] expense than even what was mentioned um
[43:48] to the city.
[43:50] So, um, this is required to be adopted
[43:54] by ordinance. So, there's an ordinance
[43:56] here. Um, that, uh, whatever the council
[44:00] decides to do. Um, there'll just need to
[44:03] be an adjustment to the exhibit A. Um,
[44:06] so that ordinance can be on file.
[44:10] >> Can you go back to the motions? Thank
[44:12] you.
[44:15] Are there any questions?
[44:19] If not, is there a motion?
[44:21] >> I have the same question I had for the
[44:22] other one or it's very quick. Was there
[44:25] last time we were talking about the
[44:26] merit and stuff? Was there any you said
[44:29] uh that you couldn't uh write things
[44:32] down or you didn't want to like chart
[44:34] things? Same kind of thing after kind of
[44:36] a uh
[44:39] a feedback from different things that
[44:41] residents bring up that those are being
[44:44] addressed. That's that's still my number
[44:47] one concern. What I've been trying part
[44:49] of uh if we get to it tonight, our staff
[44:53] communication, our city council
[44:55] communication. Um I was going to update
[44:57] the council on the software that we uh
[45:01] basically signed up for. It's going to
[45:03] cost us about it'll cost us 8,000 the
[45:06] first year and 6,000
[45:08] um for every year thereafter um that we
[45:11] can track these things and code
[45:13] compliance.
[45:15] Um
[45:17] so
[45:19] >> okay that's good
[45:20] >> like a lot of things just get taken care
[45:22] of if if staff member has to document
[45:26] everything it will take time away from
[45:30] actually taking care of those tasks and
[45:33] I don't know if that's what you were
[45:34] remembering.
[45:35] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um, so I mean it's just like
[45:38] I'm sure I'm sure Chief William, Chief,
[45:40] what what percent of your officer's time
[45:43] is paperwork?
[45:50] » So if you think of boots on the ground
[45:52] actually accomplishing things, it it
[45:55] does if we have to document every single
[45:57] thing, it will take time away from
[46:00] actually accomplishing those things.
[46:03] So that just needs to be realized like
[46:06] some things like bigger things I think
[46:08] it makes probably more sense than a very
[46:10] small thing um to document it but we're
[46:13] we'll do it however you know the council
[46:16] wants us to do it.
[46:18] >> Again it might be confused uh that I'm
[46:21] after documentation of things or writing
[46:24] things down. uh I'm after the same
[46:26] discussion before. I I'm after the
[46:29] priority to go towards the resident's
[46:32] actual concerns. And so if that
[46:34] happened, I actually think it would
[46:36] maybe reduce time because we would be
[46:38] doing less of other things and more on
[46:40] that.
[46:40] >> So this is a comment I'd make on that.
[46:43] [clears throat]
[46:43] >> We're we're basically a regulatory
[46:45] agency.
[46:47] You guys pass laws, we have to enforce
[46:49] them. So we can't there's many many many
[46:52] cases where we can't say yes because of
[46:55] laws that are on the books.
[46:57] >> And so we have residents that end up
[46:59] being happy at times
[47:02] um especially initially until they
[47:03] understand what's on the books because
[47:05] we can't tell them yes because what is
[47:07] on the books.
[47:08] >> Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm not referring to
[47:10] things that are not ordinances. I'm
[47:11] referring to like fixing the things that
[47:13] people put on the website.
[47:14] >> Right. And and that goes back to budget.
[47:16] there's not budget. If it's a project
[47:17] like somebody wants a sidewalk in the
[47:19] front of their house and it's not in the
[47:21] budget, then it has to go through the
[47:22] budget cycle,
[47:23] >> right? Which
[47:24] >> get the money allocated by the city
[47:26] council so that we can at some point be
[47:29] able to tell that resident yes,
[47:32] >> right? So, we're doing all that. So, I
[47:34] >> Andrew, I might have something that
[47:35] could help in this.
[47:37] Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to move
[47:39] into executive session to discuss
[47:42] >> what's the category? Um,
[47:48] No. Moving to executive
[47:49] >> competency of staff.
[47:54] » Right.
[48:01] » There is a motion to go into close
[48:04] session. Is there a second?
[48:09] » Okay. Do you want to continue?
[48:11] >> Sure. I move to pause the regular
[48:12] meeting and move into a closed meeting
[48:14] to be held in the conference room at
[48:16] city hall to discuss the character and
[48:19] professional competence or physical or
[48:21] mental health of an individual and that
[48:24] at the end of the closed session the
[48:26] open city council meeting will continue.
[48:30] >> Is there a second?
[48:32] >> Uh I'll second. But can I ask for an
[48:34] amendment as well?
[48:35] >> I don't think so. I think it has to be
[48:37] really prescribed.
[48:38] >> I mean no. Okay. Then uh [clears throat]
[48:42] >> are you seconding it or no?
[48:46] >> I think it would work really great if we
[48:48] could do this as the fifth item. I I
[48:50] know. I'm trying to figure out how to do
[48:51] it. Uh
[48:53] >> are you?
[48:53] >> Yes, I'll second it.
[48:54] >> Okay. Um
[48:57] it's been moved by Councilwoman Smeuan,
[48:59] seconded by Councilman um Young.
[49:03] Is there um any discussion or question
[49:06] when we go to close session? Is there
[49:08] discussion on the motion or is it an
[49:10] automatic vote? I can't remember. Is it
[49:12] like a table or
[49:13] >> do you have discussion?
[49:16] I guess you can. I think we never seen
[49:17] it really.
[49:18] >> If there is no substitute amendment, we
[49:21] can proceed with the roll call vote.
[49:22] >> Well, did wasn't there discuss?
[49:24] >> Hold on. Just I'm just saying no, we're
[49:27] going to forego it because really we're
[49:28] either going to do it or not. But I said
[49:30] if there is not a substitute motion, we
[49:33] will proceed with a roll call vote.
[49:35] >> Sarah Blackwell. Yes.
[49:40] Chrisman, yes.
[49:43] >> Okay. Andrew Young, yes.
[49:45] >> Jessica Simone, yes.
[49:47] >> Okay. We will journ to the um city
[49:50] calendar city hall conference room for a
[49:53] close session
[49:53] >> because they're all here
[49:54] >> of the public. Hopefully, this will be
[49:56] fast. I'm hoping it will be quick and
[49:58] that we will be back to
[50:22] I'm going to bring
[50:42] sometimes.
[50:52] Are you coming in?
[50:53] >> I don't think I'm allowed. Ask the
[50:55] attorney.
[51:08] Deian,
[51:10] do you have the
[51:29] So you just slide that up.
[51:55] And so
[52:34] That's right.
[1:00:23] What's
[1:00:32] being
[1:00:34] up?
[1:01:07] So
[1:03:18] Are you standing right there?
[1:03:56] I'm sorry.
[1:04:28] Now
[1:05:32] Well,
[1:06:43] I don't know.
[1:07:42] So what I
[1:07:52] Sorry.
[1:08:43] I think I should
[1:08:46] just
[1:09:42] All right.
[1:10:29] It's kind of blended.
[1:12:14] Okay, we're back in um session. Let me
[1:12:17] know, Kaden, when we're ready to go.
[1:12:20] Okay. Um, we've had a lively discussion
[1:12:24] in our conference room. Um, with that,
[1:12:28] is there is anyone ready with a motion
[1:12:30] so we can proceed with the meeting?
[1:12:33] I'll make a motion.
[1:12:36] I move to approve a 2% COLA and 1%
[1:12:40] retention bonus calculated with the base
[1:12:42] salary in fiscal year 2026. The bonus is
[1:12:47] to be paid upon completion of the annual
[1:12:49] performance review. The timing and
[1:12:51] context of the review is at the
[1:12:53] discretion of mayor with the advice and
[1:12:55] consent of the city of city council.
[1:12:58] Assistant manager will match staff
[1:13:00] compensation adjustments on annualized
[1:13:03] basis. This is calculated to be a 2%
[1:13:06] increase in salary
[1:13:09] um 4% increase at 50% of length of
[1:13:12] employment effective September 1st 2026.
[1:13:15] The assistant manager is is eligible for
[1:13:18] a 1% bonus upon completion of a
[1:13:20] performance review on or before March
[1:13:24] 31st, 2027.
[1:13:26] That's his one-year higher anniversary.
[1:13:29] >> Is there a second to the motion?
[1:13:31] >> I'll second.
[1:13:33] >> It's been moved by Councilwoman
[1:13:34] Blackwell, seconded by Councilwoman
[1:13:37] Smeuan. Are is there any discussion on
[1:13:40] the motion? Chrissy?
[1:13:43] Um I did have some comments the motion.
[1:13:47] >> Um yes.
[1:13:49] Okay. Sorry. Okay. Um
[1:13:54] I think um we did not necessarily have
[1:13:58] bonuses in our original um it was just
[1:14:01] cola and um well there's a point8 but
[1:14:05] there is some um
[1:14:09] understanding that our our current
[1:14:12] policy involves performance reviews and
[1:14:14] we wanted to like motivate everyone to
[1:14:17] get them done sooner than later. How
[1:14:18] about and then you can get your bonus.
[1:14:20] So that was kind of um the logic behind
[1:14:23] tying the performance bonus to I'm sorry
[1:14:26] the performance review to a bonus just
[1:14:29] to incentivize even the employees
[1:14:31] themselves speaking up and saying hey
[1:14:33] I'd like my review right now and you
[1:14:35] know just getting engaged in the process
[1:14:37] that's my only explanation and that
[1:14:40] would also apply to both of you as well
[1:14:42] which we didn't say with the staff but
[1:14:44] that was kind of the way we aligned the
[1:14:46] 1% bonus was saying let's let's have um
[1:14:50] some
[1:14:52] I I I guess some assurance that these
[1:14:54] are happening and that everybody's
[1:14:56] feeling like they're worth their time.
[1:14:58] And in addition, I just wanted to say we
[1:15:01] didn't say as well that um it's been
[1:15:03] great to have Kaden. He's brand new.
[1:15:05] He's only been here three months. And so
[1:15:07] we tried to equate that to what that
[1:15:10] looks like for people that have been
[1:15:11] here for the full year. And so I hope
[1:15:13] that makes sense. If it doesn't make
[1:15:15] sense, please
[1:15:16] >> we'll study we'll study the motion and
[1:15:19] make sure if you have questions, we'll
[1:15:21] get back to the mayor and
[1:15:23] >> yeah. Okay. I'm the one who did the math
[1:15:26] and and so please like if it's I I I
[1:15:28] hope that it makes sense. I have done
[1:15:30] these types of things before because
[1:15:31] I've done payroll. So anyways, and I
[1:15:33] appreciate that and I also appreciate um
[1:15:35] in our wage study that um we did that uh
[1:15:39] it really helped us see that Shane is
[1:15:41] aligned with all the other leaders in
[1:15:43] the area. Um there is great value in
[1:15:46] having someone with this much experience
[1:15:49] and we just appreciate that.
[1:15:52] >> Andrew,
[1:15:54] I'm so appreciative of what you just did
[1:15:58] with those residents back there. That
[1:16:00] really that was my Christmas early.
[1:16:03] Okay, that meant everything.
[1:16:07] You helped him. You stood up for him.
[1:16:10] And I got to say thank you and thank you
[1:16:13] for doing that. Uh that that that's what
[1:16:18] if that's what I see and I know I'm not
[1:16:21] the only person here, but if that's what
[1:16:23] I see, I would be for something much
[1:16:25] higher in the future. [clears throat]
[1:16:28] But what I just saw was beautiful. You
[1:16:31] made a family very happy. You at least
[1:16:35] listened to them and that was huge and I
[1:16:38] think you can do that really well. So
[1:16:40] that's all.
[1:16:40] >> Jessica,
[1:16:41] >> no comments.
[1:16:42] >> Okay, let's proceed with the roll call
[1:16:44] vote. Councilwoman Blackwell.
[1:16:45] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[1:16:47] >> Chrissy Anaman, yes.
[1:16:48] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[1:16:50] >> Jessica Smeuan, yes.
[1:16:51] >> Okay. Um, resolution passes.
[1:16:55] Let's move on to the site plan for the
[1:16:57] long range shooters.
[1:17:00] So Jason, it looks like we have a new
[1:17:04] layout that or Kaden, are you going over
[1:17:07] this or what? Do you know what this is?
[1:17:16] » Oh, it's not. Okay, then let's go ahead
[1:17:17] and have a presentation by
[1:17:22] » All right.
[1:17:24] So, the
[1:17:27] Long Range Shooters of Utah commercial
[1:17:28] site plan was discussed at the last
[1:17:30] council meeting. Um, it's off of 200
[1:17:32] North and Main Street, uh, just right
[1:17:35] here around the corner. Um, it's a
[1:17:38] building that's proposed to provide a
[1:17:39] space for a small retail gun shop. And
[1:17:42] including with that retail space is a
[1:17:44] warehouse, um, an office space, and a
[1:17:48] content creation space. And there will
[1:17:50] be a one-bedroom apartment above the
[1:17:51] office area.
[1:17:53] So, just as a reminder, this item was
[1:17:55] tabled last time to update the for uh
[1:17:59] for the applicant to have more time to
[1:18:00] update the site plan and address
[1:18:02] concerns of parking and building design.
[1:18:04] The applicant has provided an updated
[1:18:06] site plan that meets the code for 307
[1:18:08] and the 311 gateway historic zone. The
[1:18:11] exterior materials and design of the
[1:18:13] building and design of the building have
[1:18:15] been updated to conform more completely
[1:18:16] to the gateway historic design
[1:18:18] guidelines. a combination of brick, wood
[1:18:20] and other materials are used and these
[1:18:22] materials meet the meet the guidelines.
[1:18:26] Um so as mentioned parking was one of
[1:18:28] the questions uh that was brought up by
[1:18:30] the council and has been has been
[1:18:32] modified since then. Um
[1:18:35] so there is a need for 3.5 stalls per
[1:18:39] thousand square feet according to the
[1:18:41] land use category that they are with a
[1:18:43] as a retail shop.
[1:18:45] Um and so they meet that with having uh
[1:18:49] enough stalls and in fact they have an
[1:18:51] updated site plan than even the one here
[1:18:53] in the packet today um that they
[1:18:58] uh that they provided to us that they
[1:19:00] want to go with and so I'll show that
[1:19:02] shortly and that one meets the code for
[1:19:04] that.
[1:19:06] Um, and so I'll Yeah, so some of this
[1:19:09] information is actually incorrect
[1:19:11] because they've updated the site plan
[1:19:12] even since since I put this in here. Um,
[1:19:16] but they do have traffic flow arrows,
[1:19:18] uh, an ingress side for the parking and
[1:19:21] an egress side on the west.
[1:19:24] And so this allows vehicles to enter and
[1:19:26] exit the sides in a forward motion,
[1:19:28] which is uh in the business commercial
[1:19:31] zone uh requirements.
[1:19:34] So, the staff would recommend that the
[1:19:36] council consider approving the proposed
[1:19:38] site plan for the new long range
[1:19:40] shooters of Utah.
[1:19:42] So, let me show that new site plan.
[1:19:53] So, as you can see here, the parking
[1:19:55] before was a 90°
[1:19:57] stall layout and now it is a 60° stall
[1:20:01] layout. Um
[1:20:04] the width of the of the stalls is nine feet and the length is 19.
[1:20:12] Oh, six. Oh, 19. And then there's 16 ft
[1:20:15] between the end of the stall to the
[1:20:18] edge of the property. And this uh design
[1:20:22] meets the code. You can see the arrows
[1:20:24] there. So, this is the ingress side for
[1:20:27] the cars. 24 foot uh ingress right here.
[1:20:31] and then the cars can flow through
[1:20:33] here and exit through this egress which
[1:20:35] is 30 ft wide. There's still two spots
[1:20:38] inside the garage of the building for
[1:20:40] the residence
[1:20:43] which the owner knows needs to be owner
[1:20:45] occupied. Canal levered stairs that was
[1:20:48] talked about last time
[1:20:50] and the barrier for the parking will be
[1:20:53] installed on the on both sides of the
[1:20:56] property. there's already one on the
[1:20:58] east side and if there's uh one needed
[1:21:01] for the west side which I believe there
[1:21:02] is they were the applicant is is
[1:21:04] planning on installing that.
[1:21:07] So that's the updated site plan. Um
[1:21:11] they also have this as a proposal if the
[1:21:15] council prefers for the parking. This
[1:21:18] keeps the 90°ree parking. Um just
[1:21:23] removes one of the stalls that was
[1:21:24] unnecessary. It was just a bonus stall.
[1:21:26] Um, and so now they they have six going
[1:21:28] across there instead of seven.
[1:21:31] And this is a Ford 150 uh kind of auto
[1:21:37] drive layout that that was provided to
[1:21:39] show that it can effectively back out of
[1:21:41] that stall there. And this is wider than
[1:21:44] a normal stall. That's why it can fit
[1:21:45] and back out here. I believe this is
[1:21:47] about 10 and a half or 11 feet. This is
[1:21:49] number three. And you can see here that
[1:21:52] these stalls here are wider than the
[1:21:54] code requirement.
[1:21:57] The requirement is 9 by 18. These are
[1:21:59] all 9 and a half or more with the ADA
[1:22:03] with the 13 for the ADA and then 18 and
[1:22:06] some change for the length.
[1:22:10] Uh the plan def definitely um as says
[1:22:14] here meets the 20% landscaping
[1:22:16] requirement which does not include the
[1:22:18] park strip. so they meet it even without
[1:22:20] it.
[1:22:23] And I believe those were the biggest
[1:22:25] concerns the last time we tabled this
[1:22:26] item. If there's any other questions,
[1:22:28] feel free to let me know. But um I'll
[1:22:30] turn it over to you, Mayor.
[1:22:33] >> Okay. Are there any questions regarding
[1:22:35] the presentation? I know some had
[1:22:37] questions regarding parking. Is there
[1:22:39] any specific questions you have that was
[1:22:41] not addressed by the presentation?
[1:22:44] I just want to confirm that the site the
[1:22:46] footprint was reduced because I didn't
[1:22:49] get maybe the correct information in my
[1:22:52] packet. So, can you just confirm that,
[1:22:54] Kaden?
[1:22:54] >> Yes, it has been reduced. Um, and that
[1:22:58] is what has allowed them to have more
[1:23:00] space for parking.
[1:23:01] >> Okay. So, this is currently the plan
[1:23:03] that will meet our our code 3.24.020.
[1:23:08] >> That's correct. Correct. And then with
[1:23:10] parking space number one, how do you
[1:23:13] count for that?
[1:23:15] >> So that does go into the calculations as
[1:23:17] well since they need six six stalls. Um
[1:23:20] well, eight if you count the two in the
[1:23:22] garage. Um and yeah, so that counts as
[1:23:26] one of the the parking stalls there. Um
[1:23:29] there was some question about the
[1:23:30] dumpster there, but there's nothing in
[1:23:32] the code that impedes a stall from being
[1:23:33] right there. And is that car able to
[1:23:37] exit front forward facing?
[1:23:39] >> Yeah. So, that was one thing I failed to
[1:23:41] mention as well. Um, let me go back to
[1:23:43] the landscape plan. So, these planters
[1:23:47] used to extend this full length right
[1:23:49] here on both sides of the garage, the
[1:23:52] driveway. Uh, now they've taken that out
[1:23:54] so that a car can back out and exit
[1:23:57] forward motion like this. Um, and they
[1:24:02] were still able to meet the 20%
[1:24:03] landscaping requirement even taking out
[1:24:05] that.
[1:24:06] >> So,
[1:24:06] >> yeah, that's just probably my only
[1:24:08] concern is that that stall one um will
[1:24:12] that will that encourage them to just
[1:24:13] back straight out or will that encourage
[1:24:15] them to
[1:24:18] exit forward facing? That's just a a
[1:24:21] concern. But [clears throat]
[1:24:22] >> yeah, so there is some landscaping right
[1:24:24] here in the corner. So, they definitely
[1:24:26] can't go straight out,
[1:24:27] >> right?
[1:24:28] I mean, I think the the applicant has
[1:24:31] provided space for them to follow that
[1:24:34] code and back out and go like this way.
[1:24:36] Obviously, I think this spot is intended
[1:24:40] for probably their personal use mo most
[1:24:43] of the time um with the low volume of of
[1:24:46] customers that will be coming to the
[1:24:47] site.
[1:24:48] >> Okay.
[1:24:48] >> And so they understand that code and and
[1:24:51] can easily follow that. And was a swept
[1:24:53] path analysis conducted to come up with
[1:24:56] this configuration
[1:24:58] or how did Yeah, I mean I know this is
[1:25:00] in our code this configuration of the 16
[1:25:03] ft but
[1:25:05] >> was there was that necessary to do a
[1:25:08] sweat path?
[1:25:09] >> Um not to my understanding. I think they
[1:25:11] were able to just make it work on the
[1:25:12] site. Um, we have looked at some sweat
[1:25:14] path analysis with the original 90deree.
[1:25:18] Um, but haven't seen any with this new
[1:25:21] 60deree uh, parking, but because it
[1:25:24] meets our code, um,
[1:25:27] I think it's I think it works.
[1:25:29] >> And does stall number one still meet the
[1:25:31] code for a distance if it's a
[1:25:32] perpendicular parking? Doesn't that have
[1:25:35] to be 20 feet?
[1:25:37] >> So, stall number one is kind of
[1:25:38] following the 90 degree on this side
[1:25:40] since it's separated by the garage. And
[1:25:43] so it has to be 18 by9
[1:25:46] >> and it's 18 by 11.
[1:25:48] >> But the distance from the end of the
[1:25:50] parking stall to the property line.
[1:25:54] >> Oh. Um from here you're saying this spot
[1:25:57] right here.
[1:25:57] >> Yes.
[1:25:59] >> Yeah. So that would have to be
[1:26:02] um well I'm not sure exactly. Uh
[1:26:07] >> well, and this I think it's been
[1:26:09] discussed before. This particular
[1:26:10] situation with single loaded 90° parking
[1:26:14] is not addressed in the ordinance.
[1:26:16] >> It's only addressed in there for double
[1:26:18] loaded.
[1:26:18] >> Sure.
[1:26:19] >> And so there is no exact number in the code
[1:26:25] is what he's saying. Yeah.
[1:26:26] >> Okay.
[1:26:27] >> So I don't remember ever seeing a single
[1:26:30] loaded 90 degree any on a commercial
[1:26:32] site plan in the city. So, you know,
[1:26:35] based on experience, you usually make
[1:26:37] changes to your code or, you know,
[1:26:39] address things through text amendments
[1:26:40] and this might be something that needs
[1:26:42] to be done.
[1:26:43] >> So, would it um parking space one be
[1:26:46] considered an exception or just this we
[1:26:49] used our best judgment and
[1:26:53] >> I would say they use our best judgment
[1:26:56] because to have an exception you really
[1:26:57] need a rule and if there's not a rule,
[1:27:00] you know what I'm saying?
[1:27:01] >> Okay. Yeah. Um, when it comes to blank
[1:27:05] walls, is our code just require um, no
[1:27:08] blank walls on street facing or is it
[1:27:11] all walls?
[1:27:14] » I do not remember a blank wall code. I
[1:27:17] think that's upcoming in our small area
[1:27:19] plan, but
[1:27:21] >> no, it's in our um, it's in our main
[1:27:24] street historic gateway.
[1:27:25] >> Okay.
[1:27:26] >> I don't think it as a front, back, or
[1:27:29] side. It just says blank walls.
[1:27:31] >> Yeah, I know. Oh, in our small area
[1:27:33] plan, it's just street facing. So,
[1:27:34] that's why I was just clarifying.
[1:27:35] >> Yeah. Okay.
[1:27:36] >> Yeah.
[1:27:37] >> Sorry. You know that better than me in
[1:27:38] some respects. So, but yeah, I I mean,
[1:27:40] no wall is is truly blank on this
[1:27:43] property either. Um, let me Sorry, I
[1:27:44] forgot to pull up the elevations.
[1:27:46] >> Does landscaping also help contribute to
[1:27:49] a non-blank wall or is it just fixtures
[1:27:53] to that wall?
[1:27:57] » Um, I think it's just fixtures to the
[1:27:58] wall.
[1:27:59] >> Okay. Yeah.
[1:28:00] >> Thank you.
[1:28:02] Let me show the elevations here.
[1:28:13] So, the front, as you were saying, has definitely more articulation design
[1:28:18] elements than than the back. Um, here's
[1:28:21] one side.
[1:28:26] So, there is more blank space on the
[1:28:28] back property.
[1:28:30] walls, but
[1:28:32] >> yeah,
[1:28:33] >> they're not completely blank.
[1:28:34] >> Okay, thank you for sharing that. Um,
[1:28:38] and I guess my last comment is I'd just
[1:28:41] like to thank all the members of the
[1:28:43] community who provided information and
[1:28:47] for the Bergens for being so they I mean
[1:28:50] anytime I talked to them, they seemed
[1:28:52] always willing to, you know, make some
[1:28:55] adjustments. That's been my personal
[1:28:57] experience with them. So, I appreciate
[1:28:59] that. Um, and also I appreciate the time
[1:29:01] that the residents gave in researching.
[1:29:04] They did so much and provided so much
[1:29:07] information and it's just great to have
[1:29:09] extra eyes on things because I will
[1:29:11] admit I don't know everything and so
[1:29:13] it's it was really helpful and so I just
[1:29:16] wanted to say thank you for being
[1:29:17] involved in your community. Um, yeah.
[1:29:23] >> Okay. Um, does anybody have questions on
[1:29:26] the presentation?
[1:29:28] Kaden, um I have a question for this
[1:29:31] diagram that we're looking at now. Is
[1:29:33] this different than the packet that was
[1:29:34] sent out originally?
[1:29:37] >> Uh yes. I think it was part of the
[1:29:38] amended packet.
[1:29:39] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:29:40] >> Yeah.
[1:29:40] >> All right. And so now this aligns with
[1:29:42] the 3D version um because
[1:29:46] >> correct.
[1:29:47] >> Okay. I just wanted to verify that. And
[1:29:49] then um on this particular slide, thank
[1:29:52] you. Um number one is a dental
[1:29:54] combination and then number two is a
[1:29:56] soldier course and corner peers. So did
[1:29:59] when now that we have the amended packet
[1:30:01] have they was this an option or they settled on the lower version or
[1:30:06] some variation of it.
[1:30:08] >> Come up to the microphone please
[1:30:11] to clarify.
[1:30:14] >> Yeah Bryce can clarify. I think they
[1:30:15] were just giving an option for the
[1:30:16] council to look at.
[1:30:17] >> Or have you settled at this point?
[1:30:19] >> If you could state your name please.
[1:30:28] Seems like the other one.
[1:30:29] >> Yeah, the other one.
[1:30:30] >> Yeah, maybe try the other one.
[1:30:33] >> Can I just be really loud? Yeah, it's
[1:30:35] working.
[1:30:35] >> Your voice.
[1:30:36] >> Yeah. So, we presented both options just
[1:30:37] for the council to kind of give us some
[1:30:39] feedback. Um, we were happy with either
[1:30:40] one. The one that ultimately we got the
[1:30:42] most positive feedback on was the upper
[1:30:44] one. So, that's the one that the design
[1:30:45] is after. But again, we're open to
[1:30:48] making adjustments if there's an
[1:30:49] amendment that needs to be made to we
[1:30:51] like this one better than that one.
[1:30:53] >> I like them both, too. I just wondered
[1:30:54] if that was something you're still
[1:30:56] you've decided now and you put it in the
[1:30:58] plan.
[1:30:59] >> We're happy with either one. Number one
[1:31:00] is the one we're presenting as a
[1:31:02] >> Okay. All right.
[1:31:03] >> I actually like the simpler design, too,
[1:31:05] but I'm probably
[1:31:07] >> I'm probably the in the minority.
[1:31:10] >> I I as long as you're meeting code, I'm
[1:31:12] happy. And so, I want you to be happy.
[1:31:14] It's your building. as long as you're
[1:31:16] meeting our codes.
[1:31:17] >> I think they both
[1:31:18] >> promise to make it beautiful.
[1:31:19] >> It is beautiful. Okay. Lastly on this um
[1:31:23] particular item, what was my question?
[1:31:25] Okay, there was which diagram and then
[1:31:30] um oh I know in again the same it's the
[1:31:34] same um question that I just asked. So
[1:31:36] you've presented two different parking
[1:31:38] options. As long as both meet code, is
[1:31:41] it up to the applicant to decide or is
[1:31:43] that something we need to like settle on
[1:31:45] tonight?
[1:31:47] >> I would say the council should decide
[1:31:48] which one they prefer
[1:31:50] >> even though they both meet code.
[1:31:53] >> So the angle parking
[1:31:57] >> meets code completely. The 90° parking
[1:32:00] is the one that we tabled because the
[1:32:02] code is vague.
[1:32:04] >> Okay.
[1:32:05] >> And that's why it was tabled. Um, so
[1:32:08] does it meet code? That's what kind of
[1:32:11] Shane was mentioning where there's no
[1:32:12] rule and so there's no exception that
[1:32:14] needs to be given to that necessarily,
[1:32:15] but there's also no rule.
[1:32:18] >> Okay. So this the angled parking is um
[1:32:22] is is the most compliant.
[1:32:24] >> Staff would recommend that.
[1:32:26] >> Okay. And then the design factor, you've settled on the one which Okay. I
[1:32:31] just needed clarification. Um, and this
[1:32:33] is uh what was I going to say? The um
[1:32:38] and this has been a long time since I watched the planning commission
[1:32:42] meeting. The reason that we have less parking than would be a normal
[1:32:46] retail establishment is because this is
[1:32:48] by appointment only pretty much or help
[1:32:51] me understand that how your business
[1:32:53] runs.
[1:32:53] >> The reason why it's it's it's actually
[1:32:56] spot on with code for the retail space.
[1:32:58] Yes,
[1:32:58] >> I think there was a double code
[1:32:59] application where they thought there was
[1:33:01] need to place.
[1:33:02] >> It's based on square footage
[1:33:04] >> just of the retail space, not the entire
[1:33:06] building. Okay, thank you for that
[1:33:07] clarification. Okay, I wasn't sure how
[1:33:10] we ended up on that park number of
[1:33:12] parking stalls. So, thank you for that.
[1:33:14] Okay, that's all my questions.
[1:33:15] >> Okay, Andrew.
[1:33:17] >> Uh, yeah. Hey, would you mind standing
[1:33:18] up here for a second just for a second
[1:33:20] since you're up there? Uh, so we live by
[1:33:24] each other. And so, uh, I, uh, I value
[1:33:28] just as much the touchyfey as the, uh,
[1:33:31] code. I know that's not popular to say,
[1:33:34] but, anyone who sits on this side or
[1:33:36] works in DC, you find out just what the
[1:33:38] code is made out of or the laws, and
[1:33:41] it's pretty troubling uh, for me to see
[1:33:44] who makes them, how they're made, and
[1:33:45] everything. So that's why I like the
[1:33:46] tatuili as well the the community the ambiance the what we're creating uh
[1:33:53] when I was running surprisingly the
[1:33:55] second most largest thing brought up was
[1:33:59] I didn't have a definition for it first
[1:34:01] was traffic was the number one thing in
[1:34:03] every single one neighborhood that I was
[1:34:05] in that they would ask about the next
[1:34:07] was there was no title for it I just
[1:34:09] call it extreme construction
[1:34:12] and uh our neighborhood has a lot of
[1:34:14] that um or the Healy neighborhood. And
[1:34:17] so I was just hoping you could
[1:34:19] sympathize a little bit since you know
[1:34:20] kind of how that works and what it does
[1:34:23] to a community and what it does to a
[1:34:24] neighborhood. We've got I don't know how
[1:34:27] else to call it extreme construction
[1:34:29] around there. Uh stuff that really
[1:34:32] changes the whole dynamic of the
[1:34:33] neighborhood. And you see what happens
[1:34:34] on that street and people moving out,
[1:34:37] renting their homes and you get renters
[1:34:39] and people's views being blocked.
[1:34:42] people's um people's entire identity of
[1:34:45] why they moved to Alpine being changed
[1:34:47] and it's totally legal. It's totally
[1:34:49] legal. So that's what I'm trying to deal
[1:34:51] with. That's what I'm trying to help. Um
[1:34:53] so anyways, while you're up here, I
[1:34:55] guess the question is was there was was
[1:34:58] there anything that you were willing to
[1:35:02] do that the neighborhood that surrounds
[1:35:03] this was happy with that you guys felt
[1:35:05] like you came to a good? I mean, that's
[1:35:07] what I've been after from the beginning
[1:35:08] when this has come to me. A compromise
[1:35:11] that because you're an Alpine resident
[1:35:13] and so are they. Um, a compromise where
[1:35:16] you could achieve your goals of your
[1:35:18] business, but also their neighborhood
[1:35:21] could keep its uh identity and what the
[1:35:24] larger Alpine is is peace and quiet.
[1:35:25] That's that's what people want. Um, and
[1:35:29] uh I was just wondering if you were if
[1:35:30] you and the neighborhood was able to
[1:35:32] come to a compromise or is it still at
[1:35:34] odds?
[1:35:37] Do do were were they
[1:35:38] >> if you're asking me I think it's a
[1:35:40] matter of opinion, right? Some residents
[1:35:42] would feel that a blank lot would be
[1:35:44] better filled with a building. Others
[1:35:45] would say they'd rather have a blank
[1:35:47] lot. Some would say they'd like a home
[1:35:49] there. Some would like to say there's a
[1:35:50] business there. I think there's a lot of
[1:35:51] opinions out there and it's going to be
[1:35:53] very difficult to make everybody
[1:35:54] satisfied. I can speak to what I've
[1:35:56] tried to do.
[1:35:58] >> Um I've tried to be open. I've tried to
[1:36:00] listen to feedback. Um I've persevered
[1:36:03] some attacks and some, you know,
[1:36:04] questions. I haven't said a nail thing
[1:36:06] about a single person involved. I've
[1:36:08] only said, "Hey, I'm willing to make the
[1:36:10] building look more historic to match the
[1:36:12] city." I've also said that this is where
[1:36:14] I live. This is where I plan to make my
[1:36:16] home. This is where we lived for 10
[1:36:17] years and conducted vid for 10 years. I
[1:36:19] want to be here and I want to be a good
[1:36:21] member of the community. And I think
[1:36:22] we've done that. We've made extensive
[1:36:24] changes to the building. We've worked
[1:36:25] tirelessly to make the code happen.
[1:36:27] We've pushed our engineers and our
[1:36:28] architects to the extreme, calling them
[1:36:30] after hours and getting them to do
[1:36:32] renditions at 4:30 today to try to get
[1:36:34] you something that that gave you options
[1:36:36] that you could help us achieve that. And
[1:36:39] as the mayor mentioned previously,
[1:36:41] >> you know, it's not a public hearing, but
[1:36:43] yet you guys have all received an
[1:36:45] abundance of emails both for and
[1:36:47] against, right? And so I think your
[1:36:50] decision will reflect your ability to
[1:36:52] look at the code and see if we met that
[1:36:54] code and also temper that with how you
[1:36:57] feel about how we've handled it and
[1:36:58] whether we've, you know, stuck our feet
[1:37:00] to the ground and said no or whether
[1:37:02] we've said, "Hey, we're willing to do
[1:37:03] things that within reason. I'm certainly
[1:37:05] not going to sell my property just
[1:37:07] because somebody asked me to." And I'm
[1:37:08] certainly not going to reduce it by 50%
[1:37:11] just because someone wants to when I'm
[1:37:12] already well inside of the code. So, I'm happy to entertain reasonable
[1:37:17] requests. I think we have been
[1:37:19] reasonable and again, I'm committed to
[1:37:21] making sure we have a beautiful building
[1:37:22] that's well cared for, that has
[1:37:24] beautiful landscaping and is
[1:37:26] wellmaintained and is a great asset and
[1:37:28] helps us with the budget issues that we
[1:37:29] have here in Alpine.
[1:37:31] >> It's going to bring in some some good
[1:37:32] tax revenue.
[1:37:33] >> Last question.
[1:37:33] >> Anything else?
[1:37:34] >> Yeah, last question for me. So, like you
[1:37:36] live in a beautiful house and you live
[1:37:38] on a beautiful street. Um, if this was
[1:37:41] going up uh on the open lot on your
[1:37:44] street next to you, what would you do?
[1:37:46] >> I don't know that there's anything that
[1:37:47] I could do.
[1:37:49] >> I could be upset about it,
[1:37:51] >> but if it meets the code,
[1:37:54] I don't know what I could do. I mean,
[1:37:55] I'm at the mercy of the property owner
[1:37:56] like we all are. There's houses on my
[1:37:59] street that I don't particularly love.
[1:38:00] There's houses behind me I don't
[1:38:01] particularly love.
[1:38:02] >> There have been,
[1:38:03] >> but I've never taken an occasion to go
[1:38:04] and tell them they need to change
[1:38:05] something. There have been residents who
[1:38:07] have been in a very similar situation in
[1:38:08] the same area and we've asked or I have
[1:38:10] asked, I can't speak for everyone. I've
[1:38:12] asked if they might make a a slight
[1:38:15] alteration or change and I would say two
[1:38:18] out of three say no, but one says yes,
[1:38:22] and it completely preserves that
[1:38:24] neighborhood. And I'm amazed at what it
[1:38:26] does. They legally have the right to not
[1:38:28] do it, but they safeguard an entire
[1:38:31] neighborhood. And their neighbors are so
[1:38:33] grateful. They improve not just their area but the
[1:38:39] entire neighborhood. And so I'd
[1:38:41] encourage you to consider that.
[1:38:43] >> Sure. I think we have
[1:38:45] >> Okay.
[1:38:46] >> Yeah. I have a couple of questions. I
[1:38:48] just
[1:38:49] >> appreciate how far this has come from
[1:38:53] day one. So I can I see your efforts in
[1:38:56] aligning with the code and I appreciate
[1:38:57] your desire to do that. And so I really
[1:39:00] don't have I I think the one question
[1:39:02] but Kayen might be able to answer this.
[1:39:04] um or Jason relating to our code the
[1:39:08] 3.242.
[1:39:11] Which one of these six examples is this
[1:39:14] one?
[1:39:17] >> I I and you can sit down. I don't have
[1:39:19] any other questions specifically.
[1:39:20] >> Can I say thank you to the staff?
[1:39:22] They've been awesome. I've been
[1:39:23] acquainted with a lot of them now and
[1:39:25] they're awesome people. They deserve the
[1:39:26] raises. Thank you.
[1:39:30] >> So, yeah, it would be the 60deree
[1:39:32] parking one-way aisle. Is that what
[1:39:34] you're asking?
[1:39:35] >> She's talking about the use.
[1:39:37] >> I'm talking about the six diagrams that
[1:39:40] are approved in 324.
[1:39:46] » Yeah. So, it's Let me look at it. I have
[1:39:49] it on my phone, so it's easier for me to
[1:39:54] » Okay. Anything
[1:40:01] else?
[1:40:02] >> Yeah. So, again, back to code, I do see
[1:40:06] that there's one concern where we're not
[1:40:08] aligned with code. And it sounds like
[1:40:09] that's the goal of everybody. And um as
[1:40:13] I sit here on council, that is my main
[1:40:15] focus is making sure that, you know,
[1:40:17] it's not about how amazing the
[1:40:19] applicants are or how beautiful the
[1:40:21] project is. That it really does need to
[1:40:23] align with code. and it has to do with
[1:40:26] parking stall one. I believe parking
[1:40:28] stall one isn't compliant, but we do
[1:40:32] have a process in place and it's our
[1:40:33] exception process. So I would recommend
[1:40:37] that we follow our code and that we
[1:40:40] utilize the exception process an
[1:40:43] applicant goes back through so that
[1:40:46] everything's done properly and um
[1:40:49] requests an exception from planning
[1:40:51] commission because to the city manager's
[1:40:55] comment
[1:40:56] number one doesn't really meet any
[1:40:58] standard and so that in my mind would
[1:41:02] then put it in the exception bucket
[1:41:05] which is code I'm looking at
[1:41:10] that number it's three
[1:41:13] >> the exception
[1:41:15] >> 32430
[1:41:16] >> yeah 324030
[1:41:19] and so maybe
[1:41:20] you could offer clarity why it wouldn't
[1:41:22] need to go through that process just so
[1:41:24] that we all are on a equal playing field
[1:41:33] Okay.
[1:41:35] >> Just want to preface that I haven't
[1:41:37] reviewed the this parking ordinance
[1:41:40] specifically, but I'm happy to look at
[1:41:42] >> For those of you that aren't familiar,
[1:41:43] our regular um city attorney is Mr.
[1:41:47] Steve Doxy. He is on family vacation.
[1:41:50] Hyram has agreed to help us during this
[1:41:53] process. And unfortunately, this is
[1:41:56] something that kind of was changed at
[1:41:58] the last minute. thinking that um it
[1:42:00] would fulfill a lot of this code. So I I
[1:42:03] understand where you're coming from.
[1:42:05] >> I'm I'm happy to tell you um
[1:42:08] specifically in terms from like a legal
[1:42:10] standpoint if it in is in fact true that
[1:42:13] our code doesn't address a spec specific
[1:42:16] thing then um in Utah law you have to
[1:42:20] favor the land use applicant. Right? any
[1:42:23] ambiguity or unclear in law cuts in
[1:42:26] favor of the land use applicant and in
[1:42:28] favor of using your land in a specific
[1:42:30] manner. So, if a code is ambiguous or
[1:42:33] unclear, uh, the proposal that they
[1:42:35] would be giving tonight, if in fact
[1:42:36] that's true, and again, I haven't looked
[1:42:38] at that code. Um,
[1:42:40] >> it sounds like we don't have anything
[1:42:42] specifically to address parking stall
[1:42:45] number one situation that it's all for
[1:42:48] birectional. And so you're saying that
[1:42:50] since we don't have anything in our city
[1:42:52] code that addresses this one spot
[1:42:55] specifically that we are per Utah State
[1:42:58] code that it's not an exception that we
[1:43:01] have to favor the land.
[1:43:03] >> Okay.
[1:43:04] >> Yeah, we certainly can, you know, table
[1:43:06] it to dig more into that to see if
[1:43:09] there's any other provision in code um
[1:43:11] to look at that. But yeah, if if that is
[1:43:13] that's the case that we don't have any
[1:43:15] anything in our parking code that
[1:43:17] specifically regulates 90° parking
[1:43:19] stalls and how far they need to be from
[1:43:21] a public rideway, um then there isn't a
[1:43:25] regulation that governs that.
[1:43:27] >> Therefore, no exceptions.
[1:43:29] >> But doesn't that authority have to be
[1:43:31] granted?
[1:43:33] I mean, there is an exception that
[1:43:34] follows
[1:43:36] just after our parking lot requirements.
[1:43:38] So if we don't grant the authority say
[1:43:41] to the engineer or grant the authority
[1:43:43] to the city administrator because we
[1:43:45] grant the authority throughout our code
[1:43:48] but in this instance we don't grant the
[1:43:50] authority to make a ruling we actually
[1:43:54] then move to an exception
[1:43:57] which follows right after
[1:44:00] our parking lot standards.
[1:44:02] >> Yeah. So, so typically you would have an exception. You would be seeking
[1:44:06] essentially a deviation from an already
[1:44:08] written code. And so if there isn't an
[1:44:11] already written code that's governing
[1:44:13] 90° parking stalls, there's no deviation
[1:44:16] to seek an exception from. It's
[1:44:19] typically how it works. Um, if there might be something else in your
[1:44:23] parking code that ties, you know, that
[1:44:26] can be construed to apply to all parking
[1:44:29] stalls regardless. Um, again, I I'm
[1:44:32] happy to look into that.
[1:44:33] >> Thank you. Do you have any other
[1:44:34] questions?
[1:44:35] >> Only just a comment. We do have a
[1:44:37] 90deree parking standard. And what that
[1:44:40] 90deree parking standard requires is a
[1:44:42] two-way aisle.
[1:44:45] So, that does exist in our code
[1:44:47] >> specifically required. Does it? Is that
[1:44:49] a requirement?
[1:44:50] >> It says shall. So, shall um denotes it's
[1:44:54] a requirement.
[1:44:56] >> I don't know. I don't think this is a
[1:44:57] requirement.
[1:45:01] I haven't been too involved in this, but
[1:45:03] I stepped in on a conversation Jason and
[1:45:07] Kaden had today. Um, so
[1:45:12] in the ordinance, there's a diagram for
[1:45:14] 90° parking, two-way aisle. This was
[1:45:17] only proposed as a one-way aisle, even
[1:45:19] with the 90° plan.
[1:45:22] And so it it doesn't exactly fit the
[1:45:25] situation that was proposed here. and I wasn't asking to hire him to look
[1:45:30] at the details of the parking diagram. I
[1:45:33] was looking for the legal on an
[1:45:34] exception. And that was my thought to
[1:45:37] have an exception. It would be an
[1:45:40] exception to some ordinance or some rule
[1:45:43] that's established. And I think uh
[1:45:46] looking down the road, one way to fix
[1:45:48] this
[1:45:50] is uh either to have more diagrams or to
[1:45:54] have one and two-way aisles listed here.
[1:45:57] If you look at the angle parkings, they
[1:46:00] all say one way aisle, but the 90deree
[1:46:04] parking says two-way aisle.
[1:46:07] >> So a way to read that code provision,
[1:46:10] right? I'm looking at it now with the
[1:46:11] diagrams is to say that, you know, these
[1:46:13] are the only these six are the only
[1:46:15] diagrams we have. So, so to your point,
[1:46:18] Council Member Schmune, um
[1:46:21] if we're if we're allowing one, perhaps
[1:46:23] an exception would be the right avenue
[1:46:25] because it sounds like we're we're
[1:46:27] allowing
[1:46:30] a different variation than the six
[1:46:31] diagrams that we have in our code. Now,
[1:46:33] to Shane's to Shane's point, you know,
[1:46:36] we have we can't think of every possible
[1:46:40] um you know, proposal for uh parking. Um
[1:46:43] but I think it's it's a fair reading
[1:46:46] that given what's in there and given
[1:46:49] that it required at least the only one
[1:46:51] that has a 90 degree parking stall
[1:46:54] requires a two-way aisle that perhaps a
[1:46:56] deviation or an exception would be
[1:46:59] appropriate avenue. Well, and I just
[1:47:02] want to clarify this isn't about the
[1:47:03] application. Again, I know you all have
[1:47:06] done everything you've been directed to
[1:47:08] do. This is about a process as a city to
[1:47:11] make sure that our code is applied
[1:47:13] equally to all applications. And so, um,
[1:47:17] it's just really important we get this
[1:47:19] right as we have more and more
[1:47:21] applications come through. We don't want
[1:47:24] to set a precedent that isn't following
[1:47:27] the code that which is basically our
[1:47:29] city laws.
[1:47:31] Jessica, on the same um vein of thought,
[1:47:35] since the planning commission provides
[1:47:36] recommendations and we're ultimately the land use authority,
[1:47:42] um if if I don't understand the value of
[1:47:46] sending it back to planning commission
[1:47:48] because we grant the exception at the
[1:47:50] end so we can do it here in this
[1:47:52] meeting.
[1:47:53] >> I think actually the planning commission
[1:47:55] grants the exception. I thought we were
[1:47:57] the land use authority,
[1:47:59] >> but they make a re I'm sorry, they make
[1:48:00] a recommendation to the exception,
[1:48:02] >> but ultimately, yes, that's what I'm
[1:48:03] saying. Ultimately, we make the final
[1:48:04] decision. So, I'm not understanding that
[1:48:07] additional delay. You know, we just went
[1:48:10] through the um fire station delay and it
[1:48:12] cost money every time for delays. So, I I don't understand what that would
[1:48:17] accomplish to send it back to the
[1:48:18] planning commission when we have
[1:48:20] ultimate authority to grant an
[1:48:21] exception.
[1:48:23] I think to help planning commission get
[1:48:26] aligned and understand their role in
[1:48:29] evaluating and looking at these
[1:48:30] applications. There's always processes
[1:48:34] that we can all learn from. So if we can
[1:48:36] send it back to planning commission so
[1:48:38] that they um recognize
[1:48:42] >> they do listen to our meetings. So,
[1:48:44] >> so I do think they'll learn from this
[1:48:46] discussion because we've had legal
[1:48:48] expertise
[1:48:50] um weigh in on it which I appreciate him
[1:48:52] coming. Thank you, Hyram.
[1:48:55] >> That's what I'm saying. Like I'm not I
[1:48:57] understand that we are the land use
[1:48:58] authority and so ultimately we grant the
[1:49:01] ex exception or not based on their
[1:49:04] recommendation. So it doesn't really um
[1:49:06] enhance the process at this point
[1:49:08] because like it's our authority. We have
[1:49:11] authority. So, can Hyram clarify that?
[1:49:13] Because at the bottom of 3.24.030,
[1:49:18] there is language that says the city
[1:49:20] council after recommendation.
[1:49:22] >> I I understand.
[1:49:24] >> Okay. I just want higher rooms
[1:49:25] clarification.
[1:49:26] >> Okay.
[1:49:28] >> Yeah. If you're dotting your eyes and,
[1:49:30] you know, crossing your tees, you would
[1:49:32] send it back to planning commission for
[1:49:33] the recommendation. Um, I understand the
[1:49:38] uh I understand the ultimate outcome is
[1:49:40] going to be determined by city council,
[1:49:42] but
[1:49:44] does say it may be recommended by the
[1:49:46] planning commission and so arguably you
[1:49:48] could say that it has not been
[1:49:49] recommended by planning commission.
[1:49:53] >> Can I ask two more questions? Sorry,
[1:49:54] Jessica, are you
[1:49:55] >> I think that's it. [clears throat] Thank
[1:49:56] you.
[1:49:56] >> Um, I know the apartment has to be owner
[1:49:58] occupied. So, if it's not owner
[1:50:01] occupied, like say your the children of
[1:50:04] this family are either not old enough to
[1:50:06] live there yet or it just remains
[1:50:10] vacant. Okay. Just wanted to clarify
[1:50:12] that's correct. Okay. And then just
[1:50:14] looking at this parking configuration,
[1:50:16] how would car number six exit?
[1:50:20] Is there enough space there to back out
[1:50:22] and move forward?
[1:50:30] So, we have not had a we just got this
[1:50:32] recently, so we haven't looked exactly
[1:50:34] at that. Um,
[1:50:37] but if you have a concern, we could look
[1:50:39] at it.
[1:50:41] Just a quick look here uh to the left of
[1:50:45] stall two. That whole parking scenario
[1:50:48] could be moved probably two feet or so
[1:50:53] to the west which would give additional
[1:50:55] room
[1:50:57] >> even with two feet. I don't know how you
[1:50:59] back a car out of that especially a
[1:51:01] truck. You know we love our trucks.
[1:51:04] >> Yeah. I think I think they were talking
[1:51:06] about maybe making parking stall and
[1:51:08] labeling it compact. You know how
[1:51:10] there's a lot of parking spaces where
[1:51:11] they'll do that in parking lots. So, you
[1:51:14] know,
[1:51:17] >> so it's a smaller car, smaller radius.
[1:51:18] As long as it's marked that way, that
[1:51:21] should work.
[1:51:22] >> It sounds like this is still in motion
[1:51:24] then. It sounds like this site plan is
[1:51:29] still being revised. I just feel like
[1:51:33] >> is that a gate? Is there a wall or a
[1:51:35] gate on that right side?
[1:51:38] >> There's a there's a fence already.
[1:51:40] >> Okay. So, this it's not like open
[1:51:42] sidewalk.
[1:51:43] >> No, there's they're saying that they
[1:51:45] have it on both sides.
[1:51:48] >> So, we're
[1:51:50] as I'm looking So, we're like pushing it
[1:51:52] as much. We're compacting as much as we
[1:51:54] can in this and we're we're getting to a
[1:51:56] point where we're like, "Okay, this is
[1:51:58] this doable? Is it not?
[1:52:01] Uh, yeah. I don't know.
[1:52:04] It's looking like it's not doable.
[1:52:08] No, I meant I meant six. I apologize.
[1:52:11] Six.
[1:52:13] >> I think if you
[1:52:15] maybe move it over.
[1:52:17] >> If you move it over and mark it as
[1:52:19] compact, it's totally doable.
[1:52:21] >> But is that is that So, is that Okay.
[1:52:22] Yeah. Go ahead.
[1:52:26] » Okay. I'm going to just make the motion
[1:52:28] and see where we stand. Unless there's
[1:52:29] Go ahead and interject.
[1:52:30] >> One clarification. The C uh council can
[1:52:33] consider also um approving this on the
[1:52:36] condition of receiving final approval on
[1:52:38] the parking variation, right? Because
[1:52:40] it's already before you now
[1:52:42] >> at the administrative level.
[1:52:44] >> Yeah. I mean, it's going to come back
[1:52:45] before you, but essentially, you're all
[1:52:46] done looking at this except it's
[1:52:48] conditioned upon them receiving final
[1:52:50] approval on this
[1:52:52] >> this exception that they're that they're
[1:52:54] going to be seeking.
[1:52:54] >> Would that exception still go back to
[1:52:56] planning commission? Well, it would go
[1:52:57] to planning commission for a
[1:52:58] recommendation, come back before this
[1:53:00] body, and you would give it, but you
[1:53:01] wouldn't be getting into anything else
[1:53:04] on the site plan that's in front of you.
[1:53:06] It would just simply be
[1:53:08] >> an approval with a condition that they
[1:53:11] receive final approval for an exception
[1:53:13] on on the parking stall one.
[1:53:18] >> Oh, so helpful. Where have you been?
[1:53:20] Thank you.
[1:53:21] >> Thank you,
[1:53:22] >> Jessica. Did you have anything further
[1:53:24] or anyone else for motions or anything?
[1:53:26] Sarah,
[1:53:29] >> I'll say it. Okay. I move to approve the
[1:53:33] proposed site plan for the new long
[1:53:35] range shooters of Utah commercial site
[1:53:37] plan subject to the following conditions
[1:53:40] that
[1:53:42] we receive. Let's see.
[1:53:46] We receive I can't read my own writing.
[1:53:49] Um we review what is the word you used?
[1:53:51] I'm so sorry.
[1:53:52] >> No. contingent upon approval of the
[1:53:55] exception to the parking for park
[1:53:56] install one from planning commission.
[1:53:59] That's what I understood. No,
[1:54:00] >> not I mean just I think I would just end
[1:54:02] it there, not from planning commission.
[1:54:04] >> Okay.
[1:54:06] >> You're ultimately going to make that
[1:54:07] determination after planning commission.
[1:54:09] >> Okay. Condition on a recommendation from
[1:54:11] planning commission regarding an
[1:54:14] exception to parking stall one.
[1:54:17] >> Is that
[1:54:17] >> Did I miss something? Yeah, I would say
[1:54:19] um we approve it on the condition of the
[1:54:24] applicant receiving approval for
[1:54:27] exception on parking style one
[1:54:31] after planning commit after planning
[1:54:33] commission review
[1:54:36] >> condition that the applicant receive
[1:54:39] approval and so we're limiting the scope
[1:54:42] by saying approval to parking stall one.
[1:54:46] >> Yeah. so that we're not discussing the
[1:54:48] whole thing over again. Okay. We're not
[1:54:50] opening up. Okay.
[1:54:53] All right. Scratch that. Do I have a
[1:54:56] second? No.
[1:54:57] >> No, not yet. I try to get the motion.
[1:54:59] Can you just repeat it for
[1:55:01] >> No, [clears throat] I know. I'm going to
[1:55:01] start over again. Okay. I move to
[1:55:04] approve the proposed site plan for the
[1:55:06] new long range shooters of Utah
[1:55:08] commercial site plan subject to the
[1:55:10] following condition. that the applicant
[1:55:12] receive approval to an the exception for
[1:55:17] parking stall one after recommendation
[1:55:20] of the planning commission.
[1:55:22] >> Okay, I'm getting a knock.
[1:55:24] >> Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
[1:55:29] » We can't offer amendments until after,
[1:55:31] right? Okay.
[1:55:36] » If there's no second, the motion dies.
[1:55:42] Okay. Is there another motion?
[1:55:45] Can I like to I would like to make a
[1:55:49] motion.
[1:55:49] >> Can I make a comment before you? It's
[1:55:51] just
[1:55:52] >> Actually, she said that she'd like to
[1:55:54] make a motion. We're going to continue
[1:55:55] with that. If you don't want to second
[1:55:56] it, that is just the procedure. Okay.
[1:55:58] >> Go ahead. Go ahead. I move to approve
[1:56:00] the proposed site plan for the longrange
[1:56:02] shooters of Utah commercial site plan um
[1:56:06] conditioned
[1:56:08] um subject to the following conditions
[1:56:10] that applicant receives approval to
[1:56:12] parking stall one from planning
[1:56:14] commission and that approval is also
[1:56:16] based off of doing a sweat path plan and
[1:56:20] site references for determining results.
[1:56:23] Can I say something like that like some
[1:56:25] sort of study? So for the website plan,
[1:56:27] is that something Jason you would do or
[1:56:29] that we would have to contract out to
[1:56:30] get done?
[1:56:33] >> We would need to contract it out, but
[1:56:34] it's a quick thing just calling Horox
[1:56:37] and having them do it.
[1:56:38] >> And what's the cost of that? And is that
[1:56:40] something that we can pass on or is that
[1:56:42] some a cost additional cost that we're
[1:56:44] incurring?
[1:56:45] >> Should we see if there's a second?
[1:56:46] >> Oh, I Well, I think because nobody
[1:56:48] understands what that is.
[1:56:50] >> Okay,
[1:56:52] >> Shane, are we okay?
[1:56:54] It It's 15 minutes.
[1:56:56] >> Yeah. So,
[1:56:57] >> there be a call. I mean, it's probably
[1:57:01] >> 50 bucks if it's 15 minutes.
[1:57:03] >> Okay.
[1:57:03] >> Yeah.
[1:57:04] >> Okay. Is there a second to the motion?
[1:57:06] >> I'll second it.
[1:57:07] >> Okay. It's moved by Councilwoman
[1:57:09] Blackwell, seconded by um Councilwoman
[1:57:12] Haniman. Um are there any questions to
[1:57:16] or comments regarding the motion?
[1:57:18] >> Mayor, can I make one comment just in
[1:57:20] case it affects? So, um, hyram mentioned
[1:57:24] before maybe to just include the word
[1:57:26] approval and I was asking this as much
[1:57:29] for us for clarity part of the approval
[1:57:32] would be coming back to the city council
[1:57:34] because the planning commission would
[1:57:36] make a recommendation on the exception
[1:57:38] and then it would come back. So, just
[1:57:41] simply striking planning commission just
[1:57:43] having approval I think would take care
[1:57:45] of that.
[1:57:46] >> Correct.
[1:57:47] Yeah, we certainly aren't going to be
[1:57:48] giving planning commission, you know,
[1:57:50] the authority to make the final decision
[1:57:52] on that. So yeah, it would just be
[1:57:54] condition upon your
[1:57:55] >> So then are you saying that it needs to
[1:57:56] come it needs to go back to planning
[1:57:58] commission? They need to make the re
[1:58:00] recommendation the exception to that
[1:58:03] parking space. And so are you saying
[1:58:06] that even though we don't have it
[1:58:07] specifically in our ordinance that for a
[1:58:11] single for a 90deree parking stall for
[1:58:16] unidirectional
[1:58:19] we don't have anything in there and we
[1:58:21] only have something for birectional that
[1:58:23] they have to have an exception because
[1:58:25] their parking isn't birectional
[1:58:29] because it's for something that we
[1:58:30] haven't even ever considered.
[1:58:33] You can make that argument, right? Can
[1:58:35] make the argument or read that code
[1:58:37] provision to say that we allow for these
[1:58:40] six types of parking scenarios. So I
[1:58:43] it's just if you if the council wants to
[1:58:44] move forward or thinks that it's you
[1:58:46] know unclear, that's an option.
[1:58:50] >> Can I would you consider a amendment to
[1:58:53] that?
[1:58:54] >> I'm not sure that she included the word
[1:58:56] exception. Was that part of the motion?
[1:59:01] >> No, I can't remember. Ten, did I include
[1:59:03] the word exception?
[1:59:08] » Sorry.
[1:59:08] >> So, if the word exception is not
[1:59:10] included,
[1:59:11] >> I would do that. Yes.
[1:59:13] >> And then would you be willing to add um
[1:59:16] sweatpath analysis to ensure that
[1:59:19] 3.080.3
[1:59:24] is met?
[1:59:25] >> Yes. I like that it's founded on some
[1:59:27] sort of code. So, thanks.
[1:59:28] >> Okay.
[1:59:31] The comment on the motion or what I was
[1:59:34] going to say before is that there
[1:59:36] >> Hold on just a second. So you accept
[1:59:38] that motion. Who made the
[1:59:39] >> She's asking for an amendment.
[1:59:41] >> Seconded the motion.
[1:59:43] >> Chissy. Chrissy second. Do you accept
[1:59:45] that?
[1:59:45] >> I accept the amendment.
[1:59:48] >> The comment is the comment is this. It's
[1:59:50] we're early in regards to everything
[1:59:52] being brought up and we don't know if
[1:59:55] the from what I'm hearing dot your tees
[1:59:57] and dot your eyes. We have
[1:59:59] uncertainties. I know you're trying to
[2:00:00] do an exception to try to figure this
[2:00:03] out. Why not just send it back to them
[2:00:05] to let them figure it out and then come
[2:00:06] back with a proper design?
[2:00:09] I I if you if [applause] you
[2:00:21] » That's a good question. Well, so
[2:00:24] uh
[2:00:26] anyways, that that's that was what I was
[2:00:28] going to say before to make a motion.
[2:00:31] Now, I've seen this done, but I don't
[2:00:32] agree with it or like it where people
[2:00:34] table in the middle of a motion. It sort
[2:00:36] of halts everything. Are you willing to
[2:00:38] do this in a way that is more
[2:00:41] teamworky
[2:00:42] and we can still try to
[2:00:44] >> So the way to do that is there's already
[2:00:47] been an amendment to the motion that's
[2:00:50] been approved by the original motion and
[2:00:53] it's been seconded. There's an option
[2:00:55] for a second amendment but you can't do
[2:00:57] more than second or no you could do a
[2:00:58] substitute motion or you can table it.
[2:01:01] believe that's a procedure. Otherwise,
[2:01:03] we need to
[2:01:05] >> um
[2:01:06] >> so and then if we have just for
[2:01:07] clarification
[2:01:09] >> if there's a substitute motion in a
[2:01:11] second, how do we vote on it? Do we vote
[2:01:13] on the substitute motion first or the
[2:01:14] original motion first?
[2:01:16] >> Substitute first and the original.
[2:01:18] >> So, did you want to make a substitute
[2:01:20] motion?
[2:01:20] >> Uh, sure. Uh
[2:01:22] >> but okay, just to say um I had met 90%
[2:01:26] of the criteria and we're down to 10%.
[2:01:28] So, I'd like to limit the scope. so that
[2:01:31] we're not um [clears throat]
[2:01:34] >> Well, thank you for that. You can vote,
[2:01:36] >> right?
[2:01:36] >> I'm just letting you know that that's
[2:01:38] why I would uh rather move forward with
[2:01:41] 90%.
[2:01:42] >> Okay, so here's the substitute motion. I
[2:01:44] would make a motion to deny uh the
[2:01:47] proposed site plan for the new longrange
[2:01:49] shooters of Utah commercial site plan
[2:01:51] based on the following findings.
[2:01:53] There are still parking design elements
[2:01:56] and Alpine city code procedure utilizing
[2:02:02] exceptions that are not followed and
[2:02:05] need to be.
[2:02:07] >> Is there a second?
[2:02:11] The motion dies. We are now back to the
[2:02:14] original motion. Did you have any
[2:02:15] questions? I know you already did a
[2:02:17] substitution
[2:02:18] or amendment to not a substitution. I'm
[2:02:21] sure amended the motion. Is there
[2:02:23] anything further? Do you have a question
[2:02:25] regarding the motion?
[2:02:26] >> Again, during this this more information
[2:02:29] has come forward. Can a table be brought
[2:02:31] forward at right now?
[2:02:34] >> Well, yeah, because they did it to me in
[2:02:36] the middle of a motion. I learned that
[2:02:38] the hard way.
[2:02:39] >> Okay, then I would like to make a
[2:02:42] motion.
[2:02:42] >> Okay.
[2:02:44] I move to table the consideration of the
[2:02:46] proposed long range shooters of Utah
[2:02:49] commercial site plan to allow the
[2:02:51] applicant a review of alternative
[2:02:54] parking. Sorry, to allow the applicant a
[2:02:57] review
[2:02:59] of the exceptions
[2:03:02] code 3.24.030
[2:03:06] governing parking lots
[2:03:09] and to require a sweep path analysis of
[2:03:12] 3.24 24.030
[2:03:16] sorry 080.3.
[2:03:22] Okay. Is there a second?
[2:03:26] I'll second.
[2:03:28] >> It's been moved by Councilwoman Smeuan,
[2:03:31] seconded by Councilwoman Blackwell to
[2:03:33] table the mo um to table this.
[2:03:37] Um let's proceed with the roll call
[2:03:38] vote. There's not one table I missed.
[2:03:42] >> There was one part I missed. So,
[2:03:45] >> sorry.
[2:03:46] >> Let's proceed with the roll call vote.
[2:03:47] Can
[2:03:48] >> I ask for one clarification? The last
[2:03:50] code section.
[2:03:51] >> Can you just I want to make sure
[2:03:54] >> it's a section on forward motion only.
[2:03:56] It's 3.24
[2:04:02] 3.07.080.
[2:04:04] >> Yeah, that one.
[2:04:05] >> Okay.
[2:04:06] >> Sorry. I want to make sure it wasn't
[2:04:07] 324080
[2:04:08] or 080
[2:04:10] because that section doesn't exist.
[2:04:13] >> Yeah.
[2:04:14] >> Would you be open to an amendment?
[2:04:18] >> No, no, no, no.
[2:04:19] >> My full motion.
[2:04:20] >> It's a table so you have to vote.
[2:04:22] >> That's what I learned that the hard way
[2:04:23] too
[2:04:24] >> with no discussion.
[2:04:25] >> I don't know who made this rule. It's
[2:04:26] weird.
[2:04:27] >> Robert,
[2:04:27] >> so are we are we voting [clears throat]
[2:04:29] now?
[2:04:30] >> We're voting on the table.
[2:04:32] >> Yes. Sarah Blackwell, yes. Chrissy
[2:04:34] Hannah, no. Andrew Young. Yes.
[2:04:40] » No. You got to vote on it. I would vote
[2:04:43] it down and do another motion if
[2:04:45] >> Jessica no. Now I have another motion to
[2:04:47] table.
[2:04:49] >> Wow. I didn't know you could do this.
[2:04:51] >> Wait. Tie. Was that a tie?
[2:04:54] >> Oh,
[2:04:54] >> you get to vote. Carla,
[2:04:57] >> do they Hyram, we're really working you.
[2:05:01] >> Yeah. I
[2:05:03] >> I'm going to say no to the table. Okay.
[2:05:05] I move to table the consideration
[2:05:08] of the proposed long range shooters of
[2:05:10] Utah commercial site plan to the allow
[2:05:13] to allow the applicant a review of the
[2:05:17] de development code
[2:05:19] 3.2430
[2:05:21] governing parking lot exceptions
[2:05:24] and to provide a swept swept path
[2:05:28] analysis
[2:05:29] for
[2:05:31] 3.07.080.
[2:05:33] 080.3.
[2:05:37] Um once applicant completes evaluation,
[2:05:40] staff will return application to the
[2:05:42] planning commission for review and
[2:05:43] recommendation. The application shall
[2:05:46] then come back to the city council upon
[2:05:48] receipt of planning commission
[2:05:50] supplemental motion in adherence to
[2:05:52] Alpine City Development Code.
[2:05:55] >> I still think you
[2:05:57] >> Yeah, I don't know what it is, but I
[2:05:59] feel like your code number is wrong.
[2:06:01] Well, there's 307 which is BC, correct,
[2:06:04] Kaden? 307 is the BC zone.
[2:06:08] >> Where you getting the text from Jessica?
[2:06:09] >> That's the one reference. The other is
[2:06:11] the parking.
[2:06:13] >> Oh,
[2:06:14] >> that's what I wanted to clarify for just
[2:06:16] to make sure.
[2:06:17] >> Yeah, but that's the right code.
[2:06:18] >> I think you got that.
[2:06:19] >> Okay. Sorry, I didn't.
[2:06:20] >> So, there's a motion
[2:06:22] >> to table Is there a second?
[2:06:25] >> I'll second that motion. It's been moved
[2:06:28] by Councilwoman Smeuan, seconded by
[2:06:29] Councilwoman Blackwell. Will you proceed
[2:06:32] with a roll call vote?
[2:06:33] >> Senator Blackwell, yes. Chrissy Hannah,
[2:06:35] no.
[2:06:36] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[2:06:37] >> Jessica Smeuan, yes.
[2:06:40] >> Okay.
[2:06:44] Item D, public hearing
[2:06:46] consideration for approval
[2:06:50] » for Silver L Silver Leaf Plat B.
[2:06:55] Do you have that one? Uh actually Kaden,
[2:06:58] you have this right?
[2:06:59] >> Yeah.
[2:06:59] >> Do you want to do the presentation and
[2:07:01] then we'll open the public hearing after
[2:07:02] the presentation?
[2:07:05] >> Would you send the things you were
[2:07:06] trying to say? I just want to make sure
[2:07:09] the public.
[2:07:16] » All right. So,
[2:07:19] uh Silverleaf Plat B
[2:07:27] » [snorts]
[2:07:28] >> This is a administrative review. Um, it
[2:07:30] comprises lots 25 through 56 and is
[2:07:33] located off Redpine Drive and Ridge
[2:07:35] Drive to the north of Silverleaf Park
[2:07:37] and northeast of Peterson Park. The
[2:07:40] three roads that encompass Plat B are
[2:07:42] Silverleaf Drive, Ponderosa Drive, and
[2:07:44] Wood Drive. And you can see that uh
[2:07:46] mapped out here below.
[2:07:50] Um, so the applicant is requesting that
[2:07:52] the Alpine City Council approve a new
[2:07:54] plat Silverleaf Plat B amended as an
[2:07:57] amendment to Silverleaf Plat B. So this
[2:07:59] amended p proposes to eliminate the
[2:08:02] common area that immediately abuts lots
[2:08:05] 28 through 44 of the plat which was
[2:08:07] originally planned as a trail through
[2:08:09] the area for the benefit of all owners
[2:08:10] of record of serverleaf plat B and to
[2:08:14] revert it to the immediate adjacent
[2:08:16] property owners of lots 28 through 44
[2:08:18] respectively. The highlighted blue area
[2:08:21] shows the common area described.
[2:08:24] So you can see it. Um these are Silverly
[2:08:27] plot B is this roughly where I'm showing
[2:08:30] with my cursor. So you can see the trail
[2:08:33] goes behind those properties
[2:08:36] and in between uh these two properties
[2:08:39] here and then goes down behind the
[2:08:40] properties and across the road to the
[2:08:44] east side of lot 28. So lot 28 starts
[2:08:47] down here and lot 44 is this one right
[2:08:49] here.
[2:08:52] So under Utah code 102812, the city
[2:08:56] council may approve the amendment of a
[2:08:58] plat if they find that there is good
[2:09:00] cause for the vacation or amendment and
[2:09:02] no public street or municipal utility
[2:09:04] easement has been vacated or amended. So
[2:09:06] in this case, there's no uh public
[2:09:09] street that's being vacated or amended.
[2:09:12] Um the common area on the east side of
[2:09:13] lot 28 right here uh has a city water
[2:09:17] line and storm drain line and is used by
[2:09:20] the city to access the silverleaf well.
[2:09:23] So the city would request that this area
[2:09:25] be dedicated as a municipal utility
[2:09:27] easement uh alongside being dedicated as
[2:09:30] a public utility easement if the plat's
[2:09:32] approved um so that the infrastructure
[2:09:34] can continue to be accessed.
[2:09:38] Um, so ne neither the Utah state code
[2:09:41] nor the Alpine Development Code define
[2:09:42] the term good cause for purposes of a
[2:09:44] plat amendment. So whether good cause
[2:09:47] exists is determined on a case-by case
[2:09:49] basis by the land use authority, which
[2:09:51] is you, uh, based on the specific facts
[2:09:54] and circumstances of each request. The
[2:09:57] land use authority retains discretion to
[2:09:58] evaluate each request and may consider
[2:10:00] any facts or circumstances it deems
[2:10:02] relevant in determining whether good
[2:10:04] cause has been established.
[2:10:06] Uh so some reasons there might be good
[2:10:09] cause is the existing common area trail
[2:10:13] that is shown above is not very
[2:10:15] accessible due to overgrowth and lack of
[2:10:17] maintenance. Um the elimination of of
[2:10:21] that common area could help resolve
[2:10:22] long-standing ownership questions as it
[2:10:25] would revert to the property owners
[2:10:26] immediately adjacent
[2:10:28] and the elimination of that common area
[2:10:31] could allow more practical use of the
[2:10:33] land. Um there's some reasons that might
[2:10:36] there might not be good cause for the
[2:10:37] amendment. Uh that would be the common
[2:10:39] area would be eliminated. All lots on
[2:10:41] the plat would lose a granted amenity
[2:10:43] that was granted when the original
[2:10:45] subdivision was approved. Um and then
[2:10:48] lots 25 through 27 for and 45 through 56
[2:10:51] would gain no real property. So the
[2:10:54] reasons stated above are not meant to be
[2:10:55] a comprehensive list of reasons either
[2:10:58] for or against finding good cause, but
[2:11:00] are just some examples.
[2:11:03] And as I said before, if approved, the
[2:11:04] amended plat uh may not be submitted.
[2:11:07] Oh, the amended plot may not be
[2:11:08] submitted to the county recorder for
[2:11:09] recording unless it's signed by the land
[2:11:11] use authority and each owner of record
[2:11:14] of Silverleaf Plat B, which they are
[2:11:16] just about there. There's mentioning
[2:11:18] just one person that's on vacation.
[2:11:21] Um,
[2:11:23] so a public hearing was required um
[2:11:25] because not everyone has signed just yet
[2:11:28] and so that's why we're holding a public
[2:11:29] hearing for this item and the staff
[2:11:34] recommendation would be that the city
[2:11:35] council evaluate and consider the
[2:11:37] proposed subdivision amendment and
[2:11:39] determine if there is a finding of good
[2:11:40] cause for the amended plat. If the
[2:11:43] council approves the amended plat, um,
[2:11:45] as I mentioned above, the staff would
[2:11:47] recommend that the recorded plat include
[2:11:49] a note for a 20 foot municipal utility
[2:11:51] easement with the proposed public
[2:11:52] utility easement on the east side
[2:11:54] property line of lot 28 for continued
[2:11:57] city access, which is again right here.
[2:12:00] The city currently uses this for access.
[2:12:04] So that is the staff recommendation.
[2:12:08] >> Kaden, just would you back up just a
[2:12:09] hair because Yeah. Would you just so I
[2:12:12] understand uh clearly where the city
[2:12:15] easements are? I know you said the one.
[2:12:16] Are there two or just the one?
[2:12:19] >> So there's currently no
[2:12:21] >> go if you go back to the uh this map
[2:12:23] right here.
[2:12:24] >> We're just talking about that bottom
[2:12:25] piece that the city would still need to
[2:12:27] maintain access of. Is that correct?
[2:12:28] >> That's correct.
[2:12:29] >> There's no other part of it that the
[2:12:31] city would need access for for any
[2:12:32] infrastructure or anything. Is am I and
[2:12:35] I know we're getting a question. I just
[2:12:36] didn't know what you're going to
[2:12:37] >> I think Shane can speak to that better
[2:12:38] than me probably.
[2:12:38] >> Yeah. Just one other thing. when the power was ran for the
[2:12:42] Silverleaf well, it went in that trell
[2:12:45] alignment kind of uh where that is that
[2:12:48] 28.
[2:12:48] >> Yeah, right.
[2:12:49] >> Right there. So, it ran from the north
[2:12:53] along that blue strip. I can't remember
[2:12:55] the exact alignment.
[2:12:56] >> The top and the bottom.
[2:12:58] >> So, it's not the city's facility. It
[2:13:00] does feed the city's facility power.
[2:13:02] >> Oh, but it's the electricity,
[2:13:03] >> but there's a public utility easement on
[2:13:05] the plat that would cover that
[2:13:07] >> that power. Either way, that thing stays
[2:13:09] open for the uh it's
[2:13:11] >> uh I mean it's just like if you live in
[2:13:14] a subdivision um for example in um
[2:13:18] Chrissy's subdivision, there's public
[2:13:20] utility easements around all the lots.
[2:13:21] >> Yeah, I've got one in my
[2:13:22] >> likely they're they don't have any
[2:13:24] utilities in them except the front, but
[2:13:26] they are there. So, it's like someone
[2:13:28] could landscape over this all that
[2:13:31] >> just not build structures. Yeah. Yeah.
[2:13:34] >> It's good. Thank you for that
[2:13:35] clarification.
[2:13:38] I didn't mean to cut you off.
[2:13:39] >> No, you're good. Actually, that was the
[2:13:41] end of of my presentation, so I'll turn
[2:13:42] it back over to the mayor.
[2:13:45] >> Okay, with that, I will open up a public
[2:13:49] hearing. This is open to anybody who
[2:13:53] would like to make a comment regarding
[2:13:55] this agenda item, which is um
[2:13:59] [clears throat]
[2:14:00] the plat amendment that has been
[2:14:01] proposed um based on the presentation
[2:14:03] that Kaden just gave. So, when you come
[2:14:06] up, if you can state your first and last
[2:14:07] name and the name of the street that you
[2:14:09] live on, and you'll have three minutes
[2:14:11] or up to three minutes to make a
[2:14:13] comment. So,
[2:14:19] » good evening. My name is Mark Harris. I
[2:14:21] live at 375 Wood Drive, which is
[2:14:23] directly adjacent to this property. I
[2:14:27] think it's lot 30, but I'm not positive.
[2:14:29] That's my lot number. So, I've lived in
[2:14:31] this house for 21 years. And when my
[2:14:33] children were little, I really enjoyed
[2:14:35] that that was a city trail. We used it
[2:14:37] quite a bit and it was great to have it
[2:14:39] there. Over the years, as the city has
[2:14:41] sort of abandoned that as part of the
[2:14:42] trail system, that whole trail has
[2:14:44] become extremely overgrown. You can no
[2:14:47] longer access the part of the trail that
[2:14:49] we normally use to go from wood down to
[2:14:53] red pine. So, at this point, the trail
[2:14:56] has become completely overgrown despite
[2:14:58] the the residents best efforts at
[2:15:00] keeping the parts behind their lots
[2:15:02] clear. It is a losing battle. I've mowed
[2:15:05] that so many times that uh I just can't
[2:15:08] keep the weeds down on that. And it has
[2:15:10] become, I think, a fire hazard for us
[2:15:12] who back up to that property. And other
[2:15:15] uses of the trail have now become very
[2:15:16] popular. There are ATVs, there are
[2:15:18] snowmobiles, there are people using
[2:15:20] motorized equipment on parts of that
[2:15:22] trail that it was never intended for.
[2:15:24] And being that I am directly on that
[2:15:26] trail, I hear all that in the morning
[2:15:30] and up to midnight and later. So, I am I
[2:15:34] understand that as homeowners, we
[2:15:36] benefit from the city granting the
[2:15:38] proposal to return those lots to the
[2:15:39] homeowners, but I am definitely in
[2:15:42] support of that because it would allow
[2:15:44] me finally to use that for something
[2:15:46] productive and not have uses off that
[2:15:49] property behind me that I think no one
[2:15:51] wants in the city and certainly no one
[2:15:54] wants at 11:00, 12:00 at night when
[2:15:56] there are ATVs and other vehicles on the
[2:15:58] trail behind us. So, I'd appreciate your
[2:16:00] consideration of it. I believe all of
[2:16:02] the homeowners, all of us that own
[2:16:04] property along that trail are in
[2:16:05] agreement. As was said, there's one
[2:16:07] person that has left to sign, but my
[2:16:09] understanding is we're all in agreement.
[2:16:12] We would like to see that trail returned
[2:16:14] to the owners. Thank you.
[2:16:16] >> That's helpful. Would you would you
[2:16:18] circle what lot he was so I know
[2:16:21] >> could you potentially help guide me to
[2:16:24] >> Yes. I am the third house off of
[2:16:29] wood
[2:16:31] >> on the on the
[2:16:32] >> Is it this one right here?
[2:16:34] >> On the trail side. Okay. So, that's like
[2:16:36] the opening that that most people would
[2:16:37] enter it and it's pretty wide.
[2:16:39] >> I'm third house in
[2:16:42] >> it like goes it like goes up a hill,
[2:16:44] right? You're kind of on the hill. Okay,
[2:16:45] I understand. Yeah. Okay.
[2:16:56] My name is Jennifer Smith. I live at 395
[2:16:58] East Silverleaf Drive. My lot is 44.
[2:17:01] It's the first one. And
[2:17:04] um my purpose of coming up here is to
[2:17:06] explain to the council members that the
[2:17:09] trail that's on the official map or the
[2:17:12] common space area is not where the
[2:17:15] actual trail was located. So where the
[2:17:20] trail was used for 30 years is now
[2:17:24] blocked by a fence because we had a new
[2:17:27] homeowner come in and take his the
[2:17:29] property. So the trail that was was
[2:17:32] behind my house is now blocked and the
[2:17:35] trail that could be there is now runs
[2:17:38] into my neighbor's fence.
[2:17:42] No, no one here. Someone the lot next to
[2:17:45] me. He because the trail
[2:17:49] is not where the common space is. The
[2:17:51] map and the actual trail is different.
[2:17:54] So it's there is no way to get through
[2:17:57] the trail. Now if you wanted to, you
[2:17:59] would be tearing down someone's fence.
[2:18:04] So um that's just my point that I wanted
[2:18:08] to make. I reached out to all the city
[2:18:09] council members. I had um Brent Rummler
[2:18:12] come and walk the trail with me so I
[2:18:14] could before you voted on it. I wanted
[2:18:15] you to come and see it. I talked to
[2:18:17] Andrew on the phone and I've talked to
[2:18:20] um Jessica briefly but not you didn't
[2:18:23] get a chance to come see it. Jessica
[2:18:24] come and walked it with or Sarah, excuse
[2:18:27] me, before the fences went up, but Brent
[2:18:31] has seen it with the fences up. And so I
[2:18:33] appreciated his time to come and
[2:18:36] actually see what the issue is that
[2:18:38] we're dealing with. And I also want to
[2:18:40] point out that if it doesn't get
[2:18:42] approved, it's status quo, which is kind
[2:18:44] of a headache for all the land owners
[2:18:47] along that common area.
[2:18:50] >> Really quick before she leaves, you
[2:18:51] expressed the problem with the trail
[2:18:53] being but you didn't express your
[2:18:54] opinion on this this uh agenda item. My
[2:18:59] that we acquire the land that it be
[2:19:01] amended to the property owner so that I
[2:19:03] don't have 20 feet of unusable property
[2:19:07] that literally goes to nowhere.
[2:19:09] >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[2:19:14] » Okay.
[2:19:21] My name is Scott Ross. I live on 315
[2:19:24] Wood Drive. Um, so we've lived uh
[2:19:29] there for 26 years and um so anyway, so
[2:19:34] yeah, I mean it's it's been kind of a
[2:19:37] what is this for 30 years. Uh originally
[2:19:42] we were all told when we bought in that
[2:19:44] it was going to be um a city trail, but
[2:19:47] it never was. It was common space. And
[2:19:50] so as this whole thing has kind of
[2:19:52] played out, we've realized, hey, this is
[2:19:55] common space and we could actually do
[2:19:57] something with it. I've gone through the
[2:19:59] neighborhood. We've talked about it with
[2:20:02] all the neighbors, even the neighbors on
[2:20:03] the interior. Um, obviously I'm also
[2:20:07] above the trail, right? Most of us that
[2:20:10] are here above the trail. Um but we're
[2:20:14] yeah everybody is in agreement to allow
[2:20:17] those that abut the trail to envelop
[2:20:20] that into their lot. um to the point of
[2:20:24] public utility. I mean, we've gone
[2:20:26] through had a surveyor come through,
[2:20:29] redesign it, show that there is public
[2:20:31] utility uh easement on there, right?
[2:20:34] Everybody has at least 10 ft all around
[2:20:36] each property, each lot, you know, on
[2:20:39] the front, on the sides, and the back.
[2:20:42] um number 28 I believe it is the uh yeah
[2:20:48] he does know that the city uses that to
[2:20:51] uh access the well pump. Um so I know he he understands that he needs to come
[2:20:58] and figure that out. Right.
[2:20:59] >> Do we have a written easement a written
[2:21:02] utility easement for adjacent to lot 28?
[2:21:06] So
[2:21:07] >> I know we have a prescriptive on it
[2:21:09] because we and it's infrastructure but I
[2:21:11] would feel much more comfortable if
[2:21:13] there was a recorded easement so
[2:21:15] >> for the infrastructure.
[2:21:16] >> So that will be on the plat.
[2:21:18] >> Okay.
[2:21:18] >> So it goes back to I mean for many many
[2:21:21] years the city understood they own this
[2:21:24] property and so when there's a need to
[2:21:26] put a water line in there and a storm
[2:21:29] drain they did it thinking that it was
[2:21:31] their property. But then when it came
[2:21:33] down to it many years later, you know,
[2:21:36] 20 plus years later, it was found that
[2:21:39] it was not city property. So
[2:21:41] >> So was that a public accessible trail
[2:21:45] for more than 20 years?
[2:21:50] » Um
[2:21:51] >> I thought it was abandoned right before
[2:21:52] the 20 years.
[2:21:54] >> Well,
[2:21:55] that might take some legal because
[2:21:58] >> because I mean there's grounds.
[2:22:00] >> Yeah.
[2:22:03] Do you understand what I'm saying,
[2:22:04] Hyram?
[2:22:07] >> I think you're saying that if you meet
[2:22:09] the 20 years under prescription, is it
[2:22:11] city property? Is that what you're
[2:22:13] saying?
[2:22:14] >> Not city property, but open access. It's
[2:22:17] a corridor, a public access for more
[2:22:21] than 20 years.
[2:22:23] So there's a public thoroughfare
[2:22:26] ordinance or code um that arguably
[2:22:30] contemplates trails that's 10 year
[2:22:33] that's a 10ear standard under Utah code
[2:22:34] not not actually
[2:22:36] >> road is 10 years but for trails it's 20
[2:22:39] years
[2:22:41] >> yeah I'd have to look at the the state
[2:22:43] code on that but yeah for prescription
[2:22:44] certainly it's 20 years as well
[2:22:48] >> that's the only reason I asked what the
[2:22:49] timeline was my understanding was that
[2:22:52] the city realized that it was it that it
[2:22:55] the way that it was recorded that it
[2:22:58] wasn't ours
[2:23:00] and that that
[2:23:02] >> I thought was less than 20 years. I
[2:23:04] guess I I would like clarification on
[2:23:06] that.
[2:23:08] >> Yeah, we'd have to look at the timeline
[2:23:10] closer on that.
[2:23:12] >> Okay.
[2:23:15] But nonetheless, it sounds like
[2:23:19] the access to the trail has been cut off
[2:23:21] completely unless we're willing to
[2:23:25] >> Yeah. Okay. Sorry about that. That was a
[2:23:27] complete tangent. Sorry. Um, was there
[2:23:30] any other comment that you wanted to
[2:23:32] make?
[2:23:32] >> Well, yeah. So, so I mean we've gone
[2:23:38] through quite a quite a lengthy process
[2:23:41] actually to try to get this all,
[2:23:44] you know, square with all the residents
[2:23:47] there. Um,
[2:23:50] yes, you know, at the beginning
[2:23:52] everybody thought it was some type of
[2:23:55] trail whether it was city or not. Nobody
[2:23:59] knew. City never took care of it. Um,
[2:24:02] but maybe the first year or two I think
[2:24:05] some road base was put down and I don't
[2:24:07] know if Taylor Holmes did that when it
[2:24:09] was first first done but other than that
[2:24:13] um I mean the problem is is especially
[2:24:16] when you're looking at behind River
[2:24:18] Meadows development behind the whole
[2:24:20] thing was not laid out properly. It was
[2:24:24] uh you know there's even like a storm
[2:24:26] drain that goes through there and now
[2:24:28] the Hawthornes have all overgrown
[2:24:30] everything and then you know certain uh
[2:24:33] neighbors have you know done retaining
[2:24:36] walls or whatever and if we were to
[2:24:38] really
[2:24:40] square that all out it would it would
[2:24:42] cause a massive mess. It really would.
[2:24:45] So what we're trying to do is just say
[2:24:47] hey let's clean this up. the neighbors
[2:24:50] can take it in now. We can take care of
[2:24:52] it instead of, you know, I've had dead
[2:24:55] deer in my backyard up up there. Um
[2:24:58] people have from up above have stuff
[2:25:00] falling down into it. Um just debris,
[2:25:05] what have you. It's just a mess. So, we
[2:25:08] would like to just, hey, let's just cut
[2:25:09] it out. We can take care of this and
[2:25:12] everybody's in agreement. That is part
[2:25:15] of Silverleaf Plat B. Um, and since it's
[2:25:18] common space, you know, now that, uh,
[2:25:21] you know, we've we've figured all of
[2:25:22] that out with the county, um, that's
[2:25:25] what the residents have spoken to.
[2:25:27] >> Okay. Yeah. No, I've I've walked it last
[2:25:30] summer and there are sections of it that
[2:25:32] are impassible at this point. Um, now,
[2:25:37] anybody else wanting to make public
[2:25:39] comment?
[2:25:41] If you could state your name and what
[2:25:43] street you live on, sir?
[2:25:44] >> Yeah, John Magnus. I live on 370 East,
[2:25:47] 280 South. So, I'm not in the
[2:25:49] subdivision, but my property butts up
[2:25:51] against it. And my property happens to
[2:25:54] be that one stretch where the common
[2:25:57] area is off of where it should. I mean,
[2:25:59] the common area is accurate, but
[2:26:01] everyone's yards and the trail and
[2:26:02] everything were built out of out of
[2:26:04] place partially because of the steep
[2:26:05] incline, the ditch, the Hawthorne hedge
[2:26:09] that's there and everything. So, um,
[2:26:12] when I bought the property from Dwight
[2:26:14] Tishner 9 years ago, had no, we just
[2:26:17] simply had no idea that that encroached
[2:26:19] on our property or our area that we had
[2:26:22] developed until we uh, finished some
[2:26:25] more landscaping. That was our first
[2:26:26] discovery that things are out of place.
[2:26:28] I realized that on my south end of my
[2:26:30] yard, my property actually went 10 ft
[2:26:32] across the trail, but trying to be a
[2:26:35] good neighbor and things, we simply held
[2:26:37] back, built our develop our developments
[2:26:40] matching the trail and to maintain good
[2:26:43] relationships with the neighbors. Um,
[2:26:45] now I've got with this development, I
[2:26:48] spoke with the neighbors, the three that
[2:26:49] we butt up against, and all three had
[2:26:52] said, "Hey, yeah, we recognize that
[2:26:54] that's cutting 20 ft into your yard. we
[2:26:56] don't want to cause that kind of
[2:26:57] disruption to you in your yard. We had a
[2:26:59] verbal agreement that we would uh deed
[2:27:02] that appropriately once this was all
[2:27:04] completed. And then uh in good faith, I
[2:27:07] reached out to the um the uh surveyor
[2:27:10] and let him know our plans for kind of
[2:27:12] plan B once all this is done, the second
[2:27:14] phase. And then I received a letter from
[2:27:16] two of my neighbors saying that they
[2:27:18] were going to um acquire the land,
[2:27:21] require me to remove any developments
[2:27:23] and press charges of press tasking if I
[2:27:25] try to go anywhere near or use any of
[2:27:27] that land that's going to be allocated
[2:27:29] here. So that's the dilemma I'm in right
[2:27:32] now is the one piece that is out of
[2:27:34] place and should have been fixed 25, 30
[2:27:35] years ago is now a major complication
[2:27:39] for me.
[2:27:40] >> Can you point out your home again? I'm
[2:27:41] sorry I missed that part.
[2:27:42] >> I think it's right there. Yeah, right
[2:27:44] there.
[2:27:44] >> The long one.
[2:27:46] >> The um first person that purchased their
[2:27:49] home recently and built their fence down
[2:27:50] across with city approval. Uh we've come
[2:27:52] to an agreement, written agreement where
[2:27:54] we're going to deed that piece over. It
[2:27:56] was the other two that we had a verbal
[2:27:57] on that. Then they backtracked and sent
[2:27:59] me a letter from their attorney. So,
[2:28:04] » okay. Oh, sorry. Did you have any other
[2:28:08] comments?
[2:28:09] >> Nope. That's
[2:28:11] >> Thank you very much. He didn't let us
[2:28:12] know his opinion, though. I I would
[2:28:14] really love to know what you'd like to
[2:28:16] have happen in this area right behind
[2:28:18] your yard if that's okay.
[2:28:20] >> I'd like to have simply where my
[2:28:23] existing yard is
[2:28:25] stay that way. Try to have mediation
[2:28:27] with these two neighbors and say, "Can
[2:28:29] we come to an agreement?" But they've
[2:28:30] refused mediation and simply uh don't
[2:28:33] want to budge. They want me to remove,
[2:28:35] you know,
[2:28:37] fire pit and some other things. So,
[2:28:39] >> thank you, sir.
[2:28:40] >> The retaining wall. Thank you.
[2:28:41] Appreciate it.
[2:28:42] >> Okay. Anybody else with public comment?
[2:28:46] If not, I'm going to close the public
[2:28:48] hearing
[2:28:51] and then um
[2:28:53] does council have any questions
[2:28:55] regarding this?
[2:28:56] >> Yes. Okay. Is it um I guess this one's
[2:29:00] maybe more for Shane, but any chance the
[2:29:02] county would change or can we appeal the
[2:29:05] county's ruling?
[2:29:06] >> We already tried.
[2:29:08] >> Okay. So, that's a no-go. Um,
[2:29:12] and then how and when did we stop
[2:29:14] maintaining that trail or why did we
[2:29:16] stop maintaining it?
[2:29:19] I think it was my understanding was when
[2:29:22] we um realized that it was not
[2:29:26] registered as um open space that it was
[2:29:29] registered as common space
[2:29:32] >> and looking um working with
[2:29:35] >> Oh, I'm sorry. My head was turned. Um,
[2:29:37] correct me if I'm wrong, Shane, is that
[2:29:40] at some point there was something that
[2:29:42] was going on, whether it was
[2:29:45] installation of something and when they
[2:29:48] did um more looking into
[2:29:51] how that um property was designated that
[2:29:55] it was common space and then according
[2:29:57] to Utah state law, common space
[2:30:01] is not the same thing as open space.
[2:30:04] >> And um that's how that happened. it.
[2:30:09] >> Mayor, what is the difference between
[2:30:11] common and open space?
[2:30:11] >> Common space is owned by land owner, the
[2:30:14] surrounding land owners.
[2:30:15] >> Okay. Like an HOA,
[2:30:17] >> open space is usually city- owned and um
[2:30:21] is open space. So, it's ownership is the
[2:30:24] difference.
[2:30:25] >> Okay. Yeah, we have one in Stone Edge.
[2:30:26] >> So, since this is common space and I
[2:30:29] would assume then that the property
[2:30:31] owners don't pay anything for this, they
[2:30:33] just acquire.
[2:30:36] Okay.
[2:30:47] » Sorry, my mic was off. That
[2:30:50] >> the property tax on this has spread
[2:30:53] throughout all the lot owners in that
[2:30:55] plat which is typical of common area.
[2:30:59] >> Okay, thank you for that. And so this is
[2:31:02] like kind of dead in the water as far as
[2:31:05] like ever becoming a city trail again.
[2:31:07] Is that
[2:31:08] >> Can I ask a question again? I love this
[2:31:10] council because then we get new
[2:31:12] information. And as Hyram just stated, I
[2:31:15] actually looked up that code and that
[2:31:17] code says that if in the state of Utah,
[2:31:20] if a trail has been used for more than
[2:31:23] 10 years or for a period of 10 years,
[2:31:26] that's the benchmark that you actually
[2:31:28] do have a claim whether it's ever been
[2:31:30] deed or not. So there is a pathway
[2:31:34] legally. Um whether we've exported or
[2:31:36] not, I don't know, but it does exist.
[2:31:40] Thank you.
[2:31:41] >> Yeah. And then I do have an answer. I
[2:31:43] sent Kaden the original plat. We um
[2:31:46] adopted that trail in 2004 as a city. So
[2:31:50] we have had it on our trail master plan
[2:31:52] from 2004 until 2020 when the trail was
[2:31:56] legally removed. So that would be a
[2:31:59] 16-year record of it being part of our
[2:32:02] master plan and used by the public. I
[2:32:04] mean, I used it
[2:32:07] I would say definitely for more than 10
[2:32:08] years.
[2:32:09] >> Yeah. Thank you, Jessica. Yeah, I guess
[2:32:12] I'm of the opinion that if there is even
[2:32:14] still a sliver of hope that it could,
[2:32:17] you know, I I would at least be worth
[2:32:19] exploring that option. But yeah, that's
[2:32:24] >> okay. With that stance, I I agree that
[2:32:26] if we could maintain the trail, um
[2:32:30] retain ownership or um even I don't know
[2:32:33] if that would be an easement under the
[2:32:34] 10-year rule. I'm not sure. But um so
[2:32:37] this head came up and then so in May of
[2:32:40] 2025,
[2:32:42] well a year before that I I know way
[2:32:44] before a year before that I walked the
[2:32:46] whole trail before that fence came up to
[2:32:49] cut off um access, but I always would
[2:32:52] access it from Red Pine. So can you just
[2:32:55] highlight that little section? Oh, I'm
[2:32:56] looking I keep looking at my computer.
[2:32:58] The um the the everything west of 44.
[2:33:01] See how the trail continues?
[2:33:04] >> I'm sorry. to the left of
[2:33:06] >> red pine rest of see that little
[2:33:08] section.
[2:33:09] >> So that's how I would access it. And
[2:33:11] then I think you're one of you said
[2:33:13] either next to number 44 or the one
[2:33:16] after somebody put up a a black red iron
[2:33:19] fence which I have a picture of. And so
[2:33:23] um that's when the trail lost at least
[2:33:25] from May 2025 is when I have a picture
[2:33:27] of that fence because I was surprised to
[2:33:29] see it because I'd used the trail
[2:33:31] before. So, um, then as we dug into it,
[2:33:35] um, I think one of our public brought up
[2:33:37] the fact that the actual legal
[2:33:39] description of the trail falls along a
[2:33:42] very, um,
[2:33:45] difficult place to maintain because it's
[2:33:47] a big Hawthorne bush. There's like a
[2:33:49] ditch. There's all kinds of like
[2:33:52] obstacles from walking freely along the
[2:33:55] trail. that is according to the plat is
[2:33:58] what I understood that that truly the
[2:34:00] land that was identified as common space
[2:34:03] is occupied by a lot of shrubbery and
[2:34:07] obstacles to maintain the path.
[2:34:09] Therefore, for the time that the path
[2:34:10] has been in existence, it's been over
[2:34:13] property lines and I think one of you
[2:34:14] guys have stated that. So, I'm not sure
[2:34:17] how this old 10ear rule works out, but
[2:34:20] should we pursue this? Um Sarah, the
[2:34:23] thing that I um have been pondering is
[2:34:26] should we pursue this and we actually
[2:34:28] could get access to the land that has
[2:34:31] been designated common space, the cost
[2:34:33] to clear the land, pull out the
[2:34:36] Hawthorne bushes, cover the ditch, like
[2:34:38] all of that um beyond the legal expenses
[2:34:41] to fall pursue it that we just need to
[2:34:44] understand what we're asking of
[2:34:45] ourselves, you know, because I I I think
[2:34:47] it's a a wonderful trail. I think it's
[2:34:49] very like one of them had talked about
[2:34:53] for [snorts] the first initial years it
[2:34:55] was um accessible and used by the public
[2:34:58] and so it was appreciated by them but
[2:35:00] now it's fallen into disrepair which has
[2:35:03] now it's not accessible and it's not
[2:35:05] usable. So we have a lot of hurdles to
[2:35:07] overcome if we did pursue this and I
[2:35:10] don't and I'm glad that it was presented
[2:35:12] this way. Thank you um staff for saying
[2:35:14] there's the pros and there's the cons.
[2:35:17] So, um,
[2:35:19] that's my where I stand and I've stood
[2:35:21] at that place since May of 2025 as I
[2:35:24] walked it and said, "Okay, if we could pursue this legal option,
[2:35:29] what we really need is like all the
[2:35:31] Hawthorne bushes like torn out and make
[2:35:33] a real path." Um, because the current
[2:35:36] path is on private land. Okay, that's my understanding and please
[2:35:41] correct me if that's incorrect. Yeah.
[2:35:42] So, for me, it's
[2:35:44] >> I did have three follow-up questions
[2:35:45] before you make a general statement. Is
[2:35:47] that okay?
[2:35:48] >> No, if I could just say I because I
[2:35:50] would like to piggy back on yours is
[2:35:52] because I've looked at this. You know, I
[2:35:53] moved into this neighborhood close by
[2:35:55] here in 99, right? And I would have to
[2:35:58] agree it was used a lot when it was
[2:36:00] first opened and I think it was cleared.
[2:36:02] I mean, if you go on any of the trails
[2:36:05] in Alpine, the ones that are used
[2:36:07] maintain itself, right? And if there is
[2:36:10] disrepair, people that use it kind of go
[2:36:12] in and repair it. What I've noticed with
[2:36:14] this trail, I was surprised
[2:36:17] um the last couple of times I went to go
[2:36:20] check on this trail, the overgrowth. And
[2:36:22] what that tells me is not enough people
[2:36:25] have used that trail to keep it a trail,
[2:36:30] >> if that makes sense. And so that was
[2:36:33] part of it, too. And when we did try to
[2:36:35] go um with the county and work with the
[2:36:38] county to make that happen and they're
[2:36:40] like, "Nope, that's not it." Um I do
[2:36:42] have to commend Mr. Doxy for doing
[2:36:44] excellent um brief on it. I thought was
[2:36:48] very thorough. I thought we had a really
[2:36:50] good chance and um it didn't happen. So
[2:36:53] for me like with that compounded I felt
[2:36:56] like and with the property owners
[2:36:59] [clears throat] themselves and they have
[2:37:00] been paying taxes on it and that was
[2:37:02] another big determiner for me. But I'm
[2:37:05] sorry to interrupt. Go ahead with your
[2:37:07] follow.
[2:37:07] >> So yeah I do think we're in a little bit
[2:37:08] of a quandry. If there's a sliver of
[2:37:10] hope, it would be very expensive legally
[2:37:13] and also like physically to create a
[2:37:15] trail on the actual land that was deed
[2:37:19] or listed I don't know what the legal
[2:37:21] term is listed as common space. So
[2:37:23] there's big hurdles to get over. Um and
[2:37:26] I I don't know if it for for me
[2:37:30] personally I I don't have a clear
[2:37:32] feeling that it would the again the cost
[2:37:34] and benefit weighing the cost and
[2:37:35] benefit. I'm not sure it would get us
[2:37:37] what we wanted for the cost. Um, but I
[2:37:40] I'm undecided. Okay. Question then. If I
[2:37:44] counted correctly, there's 32 lots that
[2:37:47] were in Plat B. Is that accurate? And
[2:37:49] then per your notes here, there would be
[2:37:53] 14 that would not gain any property,
[2:37:56] right? Because they're on the interior
[2:37:58] of that circle.
[2:38:00] >> Correct.
[2:38:00] >> Okay. So, and they've and they for the
[2:38:03] most part you guys have answered the
[2:38:04] question that they've agreed that that
[2:38:06] would be not a problem that they had
[2:38:08] land that they will no longer own and maybe no longer pay taxes on too.
[2:38:12] Okay. The second question I had was the
[2:38:16] extension from Red Pine that I pointed
[2:38:17] out. Has there been any working with
[2:38:20] that those land owners that are would be
[2:38:23] what would be south of or what whatever
[2:38:26] that direction is to the left of this
[2:38:28] picture. um there's two owners and the
[2:38:30] third that would be on the other side of
[2:38:32] the the line to do something similar to
[2:38:35] what you the rest have proposed to sort
[2:38:37] of close off the whole space.
[2:38:39] [clears throat]
[2:38:40] >> So in that particular situation it's
[2:38:42] totally different.
[2:38:43] >> We do own that.
[2:38:43] >> So it was recorded as a plat with just a
[2:38:47] strip that still remained in the
[2:38:49] ownership of the developer but then
[2:38:52] later they came back and deeded that
[2:38:54] strip to the city. So it's clearly ours
[2:38:57] if you click on it. Okay.
[2:38:58] >> On the county parcels, it shows Alpine
[2:39:00] City is
[2:39:01] >> what what would be the purpose of
[2:39:02] maintaining that? Do we have
[2:39:04] >> utilities? The city to purchase that.
[2:39:07] >> Can you speak into the microphone?
[2:39:09] >> So those property owners if we like
[2:39:12] vacate that land, they would go through
[2:39:13] the same thing as state law that we
[2:39:15] would um council would have to vote that
[2:39:17] you know we would want to um sell that
[2:39:19] and then we would have to go out to the
[2:39:21] public and notice it. There's a process
[2:39:23] for us selling property and that's the
[2:39:25] process that we would go to. these
[2:39:27] property owners would have to approach
[2:39:29] us. Um I don't know if there's any um
[2:39:32] utilities or anything, but if it's just
[2:39:35] land, that's something that would that I
[2:39:38] would think would be considered.
[2:39:40] >> Okay. Thank you. That that answers
[2:39:42] >> the irrigation ditch does go through
[2:39:45] there. Uh some if not all of it has been
[2:39:47] piped.
[2:39:48] >> Okay.
[2:39:50] And then the third question was um
[2:39:53] I think we did hear from one in the
[2:39:55] public hearing who what happens to the
[2:39:57] people on the other side of the line
[2:40:00] because they all their their property
[2:40:02] does abut that space.
[2:40:04] >> So um I think that's not for us to
[2:40:09] determine. To me that becomes a private
[2:40:12] matter between property owners. M
[2:40:14] >> um the survey, my understanding is in
[2:40:17] the law, correct me if I'm wrong, is
[2:40:19] that the survey determines property
[2:40:21] ownership and then it's um you know,
[2:40:25] it's up to the property owners how they
[2:40:27] want to
[2:40:29] deal with their property, whether they
[2:40:31] want to claim it or forfeit it. So the
[2:40:34] way that the line is um like plat the
[2:40:38] way it's platted um the people outside
[2:40:41] of the blue line as we we're looking
[2:40:43] here with what Kaden has up they have no
[2:40:46] common ownership and so their property
[2:40:48] line would not
[2:40:49] >> correct
[2:40:49] >> be shifted
[2:40:51] >> no
[2:40:51] >> in any way.
[2:40:52] >> No [clears throat]
[2:40:53] >> because okay because it's already
[2:40:55] established and there's no ambiguity
[2:40:57] there. It was a different plat
[2:40:58] >> and and by by each owner of a lot within
[2:41:03] that plat signing the plat, they're
[2:41:05] essentially saying we agree to this
[2:41:07] transfer,
[2:41:09] >> okay,
[2:41:09] >> to the properties adjacent.
[2:41:11] >> If they don't have anyone um that had or
[2:41:13] this one person is the hold out, is is
[2:41:16] there a verbal agreement?
[2:41:17] >> No, no, no. They're they're out of town
[2:41:19] right now, but they have sent an email
[2:41:21] saying we will sign when we get back.
[2:41:23] >> Okay. So, it's in it's in writing.
[2:41:25] only legally.
[2:41:27] >> Yeah.
[2:41:28] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. That that answers
[2:41:30] all my questions. I g I still I still
[2:41:33] end where I began with it would be great
[2:41:35] if we if somebody would have
[2:41:38] it would have been great for a lot of
[2:41:40] things, but it just didn't have turn out
[2:41:41] that way. I can't really see a benefit
[2:41:44] to keeping it because of the the cost to
[2:41:48] um yeah to to
[2:41:53] I'm not really sure. I I would need more
[2:41:55] information to object to what has been
[2:41:58] proposed, I guess. And I see Hyram's
[2:42:00] looking anxious to say something to the
[2:42:02] microphone.
[2:42:04] No, just want to let the council know
[2:42:05] that we the city has received I talked
[2:42:07] to Shane has received a letter from the
[2:42:10] homeowner that is outside my
[2:42:12] understanding is outside the subdivision
[2:42:13] but that abuts this open space land
[2:42:17] where they are asserting an interest or
[2:42:20] claiming that they have some interest
[2:42:21] through adverse possession or
[2:42:22] prescription or some other legal theory
[2:42:25] to the land that's at issue here. So
[2:42:28] just want you to be aware of that. Um,
[2:42:31] and how would that involve us?
[2:42:32] >> That doesn't involve [clears throat] us.
[2:42:33] That's between the property owners.
[2:42:35] Correct. Because this isn't
[2:42:37] >> Sure. And I'm I'm happy if if we really
[2:42:39] want to get into legal issues, happy to
[2:42:42] go into a closed session to discuss
[2:42:45] since we
[2:42:45] >> or are they asserting it does involve us
[2:42:47] in some way?
[2:42:48] >> Well, they've sent us a notice from a
[2:42:50] law firm.
[2:42:50] >> Okay. Okay. Was that
[2:42:52] >> Pardon just on that top? Was that the
[2:42:54] email we all got that you sent to each
[2:42:56] of us or was that a separate one?
[2:42:58] >> This is separate.
[2:42:58] >> Separate. Okay. Sorry.
[2:43:01] Okay, thank you. So there's Okay,
[2:43:06] I'm done.
[2:43:07] >> Thank you. Uh, so the I don't come from
[2:43:12] a political background and so I've
[2:43:14] learned a lot just by watching things be
[2:43:16] done. Anything from a pickle ball court
[2:43:18] to a things we've gone over tonight. Um,
[2:43:22] and I've molded the approach to
[2:43:27] which is a different approach and it's
[2:43:29] how I've made every decision. It is to
[2:43:31] uh this is what I ran on uh is to um
[2:43:37] prior uh
[2:43:40] hold on where is it? But it's [snorts]
[2:43:43] it's a residentled approach that
[2:43:45] prioritizes the resident receiving the
[2:43:47] most negative impact closest in
[2:43:50] proximity to the issue because I found
[2:43:54] like I love this trail. I love it. I
[2:43:56] have a memory of me and my sons biking
[2:43:59] through this trail so fast, but it's
[2:44:01] through your homes.
[2:44:03] So I love this trail and I love biking
[2:44:06] with my sons through it and it is so
[2:44:08] fun. the trees whiz by and you've got a
[2:44:10] tunnel. I love it. But it's not in my
[2:44:14] backyard. It's not right by my house. I
[2:44:16] don't have to deal with it. Now, I hope
[2:44:19] so. So So, so two things. Well, main
[2:44:21] thing I will yield, of course, to the
[2:44:23] residents who are next to this because
[2:44:26] they're receiving 100% of the negative
[2:44:29] impact. If I lose this trail for the two
[2:44:32] times a year that I use it, I lose that.
[2:44:36] So who receives a worse situation by far
[2:44:39] the residents who live around it. So in
[2:44:41] an effort to make net happiness in our
[2:44:43] city which is I'm trying to explain the
[2:44:45] approach that is why I would for sure
[2:44:47] side with the residents on this even if
[2:44:50] it were a different situation because
[2:44:52] they are going to receive the most
[2:44:54] negative impact. They are going to
[2:44:55] receive the most problems for whatever
[2:44:58] happens on this at midnight at whatever
[2:45:01] time of the day 247 365 days a year. So,
[2:45:05] I don't know why we've pursued it so
[2:45:07] much given that uh we've had resident
[2:45:10] outcry for so long trying to claim it.
[2:45:13] That's just me. Now, I handle things
[2:45:16] differently. I have property and I made
[2:45:18] a private trail and let anyone use it.
[2:45:20] And I like the horses. I like the
[2:45:22] bikers. I like the people coming
[2:45:23] through. I I I like people. But that was
[2:45:27] for me to decide. So, I could I can make
[2:45:29] a private trail and let people use it.
[2:45:31] They don't I hope whatever they do when
[2:45:33] they get this, if they do, which I think
[2:45:35] they will or I think they already have,
[2:45:37] that they will make it something special
[2:45:38] that they love and the community loves.
[2:45:41] But anyways, from hearing from them,
[2:45:42] that was why I wanted to know each of
[2:45:44] their opinions because I I didn't have
[2:45:45] time to go to speak to them directly.
[2:45:47] I'd spoken to some, but I wanted to
[2:45:48] speak to a lot of them close to it, find
[2:45:50] out, but I had to do the other one as
[2:45:52] well, the the the next item coming up.
[2:45:54] And so that was very helpful to hear
[2:45:56] from you and uh let us know from me what
[2:46:00] help can be done to uh make this the
[2:46:02] ideal situation for what is happening
[2:46:04] literally by your uh neighborhood. If
[2:46:07] you are receiving friction from the city
[2:46:09] or from other groups I would love to
[2:46:12] help because you live by it. You will
[2:46:14] receive I mean you've lived here 20 30
[2:46:16] whatever years. This is going to be
[2:46:18] another 60 years unless you get this
[2:46:20] solved. So that's that's where I stand
[2:46:22] on it.
[2:46:24] Go ahead, Shane.
[2:46:24] >> Clarify one thing.
[2:46:26] >> Yeah,
[2:46:26] >> we weren't really pursuing it against
[2:46:28] the residents. It's only been, and Scott could attest this, they've only
[2:46:32] been pursuing it the last few months.
[2:46:35] >> Uh, like for the Plat amendment,
[2:46:38] >> I've been talking to at least some of
[2:46:40] the city council for a couple years.
[2:46:42] >> Yeah.
[2:46:43] just because we've been trying to figure
[2:46:45] out what
[2:46:51] » I've I've also had residents walk me
[2:46:52] over almost nine months ago there during
[2:46:56] the election. They walked me on it. So
[2:46:59] something was going on. But either way,
[2:47:01] >> years.
[2:47:06] » Okay. Well, either way, I think we're
[2:47:07] getting some closure. I think we're
[2:47:09] getting closed recently. There's, you
[2:47:11] know, there's a lot of um state law that
[2:47:15] um is required regarding h you know what
[2:47:17] this is kind of considered HOA property
[2:47:20] that allows them to have that is
[2:47:22] requiring that they have 100% buyout
[2:47:24] which they've done but that's all just
[2:47:26] recently before I think there was kind
[2:47:29] of at least from the people that I have
[2:47:32] spoken to there it was a little bit um
[2:47:34] divided in what they wanted but just
[2:47:37] recently they've come together
[2:47:39] >> and that's good that's what we hope
[2:47:40] That's what I hope for consensus amongst
[2:47:42] a neighborhood and I've seen a
[2:47:44] neighborhood have consensus and what the
[2:47:46] result is is very good a very good
[2:47:49] result. So I I think they're going to
[2:47:51] get that
[2:47:52] >> Jess.
[2:47:53] >> Yeah. So I think a couple of comments.
[2:47:57] We're a community known for our trail
[2:48:00] system. I think we have almost 40 acres
[2:48:03] I'm sorry 40 miles of trails. the
[2:48:05] concern I have if we start getting
[2:48:07] public input that says I'm uncomfortable
[2:48:10] with the thing that's happening on the
[2:48:11] trail behind me that we're setting a
[2:48:14] precedent now that we'll start vacating
[2:48:17] based upon a small area even though
[2:48:20] trails are our identity. We haven't
[2:48:23] heard. I think council member Haniman
[2:48:25] brings up a good point that in her
[2:48:28] purview, she's not seeing the benefit.
[2:48:30] But if I lived on 600 and I back to this
[2:48:33] and I could get to Peterson Park because
[2:48:35] we know we're going to improve Peterson
[2:48:37] Park, it's going to be amazing. We're
[2:48:39] going to be able to have this multi-use
[2:48:41] trail that's going to go all the way out
[2:48:43] to SR92.
[2:48:44] Um those folks might disagree that
[2:48:47] there's no benefit for them if they lose
[2:48:49] that access. I understand that today
[2:48:53] there's a unified reason to vacate it
[2:48:56] because it's overgrown and it can't be
[2:48:58] used. But when these residents moved in,
[2:49:01] they knew they had a trail at least up
[2:49:04] until 2020 before we removed it from the
[2:49:06] trail master plan. I'm going to bet that
[2:49:09] the reason it got overgrown was because
[2:49:12] we removed it from the trail master
[2:49:13] plan. So there might be correlation to
[2:49:16] that. So those are a couple of my
[2:49:18] thoughts. I don't understand the fence.
[2:49:21] >> Where are you talking about 600 west? I
[2:49:23] guess I don't know my streets.
[2:49:24] >> It's the street that of the lots to the
[2:49:27] east. So, right now there's 12 I think
[2:49:30] people that back up to that. I think um
[2:49:35] this email illustrates a point that
[2:49:38] we're waiting into potentially
[2:49:41] everybody has a claim for that.
[2:49:44] >> Okay. Thanks. like if the claim is going
[2:49:47] to these other folks, you know, I just
[2:49:50] go back to what was this originally? It
[2:49:52] was a public trail. It's been on our
[2:49:54] trail master plan from 2004.
[2:49:57] Um, it's not unique for Alpine to have
[2:50:01] trails behind. I mean, Chrissy, you have
[2:50:03] a lot of trails that go through your
[2:50:04] neighborhood. It's a huge benefit for
[2:50:07] our community. Um, I'm confused about
[2:50:11] the rod iron fence that blocks the
[2:50:14] trail. So, is that encroaching on public
[2:50:16] space? And if it is, how come we're not
[2:50:21] asking the private property owner to
[2:50:23] >> It's along their property line. They're
[2:50:25] saying that the trail does not align
[2:50:27] properly. The use
[2:50:30] >> the fence is on common area. It
[2:50:32] >> Well, let me take that back.
[2:50:33] >> No, it's on their property. trail went
[2:50:34] through the trail went through the
[2:50:37] property owner's back part of his lot.
[2:50:41] He got a fence permit, put a fence in on
[2:50:43] his property line which cut off the
[2:50:47] trail.
[2:50:47] >> I see.
[2:50:48] >> So, so it was private property.
[2:50:51] >> The trail was misaligned, but there's
[2:50:54] clearly land that if you realign the
[2:50:57] trail where it should be, not on private
[2:51:00] property, then you do have a trail. Um
[2:51:04] the other Yeah, that's just the thought
[2:51:07] regarding um an encroachment.
[2:51:12] >> Um I don't know. That's up to the mayor
[2:51:14] to determine.
[2:51:15] >> Yeah, I'm sorry. The public hearing is
[2:51:17] over, right? I'm sorry. Um I understand
[2:51:21] like the residents here, all but one um
[2:51:24] who is on who is not part of this
[2:51:26] subdivision is in favor of it. The
[2:51:29] gentleman on the other side is not. Um,
[2:51:32] I think we all understand that. Um,
[2:51:35] >> well, I want to address it's overgrown.
[2:51:37] I mean, we've built some beautiful
[2:51:38] trails in Lambert Park that were
[2:51:40] overgrown. Epic trails.
[2:51:42] >> Jessica, can I ask you a question?
[2:51:44] >> Not a barrier for me.
[2:51:45] >> Can I Can I ask you a question? Are you
[2:51:47] on because I I love the way you think
[2:51:49] about things as I do the others. Um, and
[2:51:51] sometimes we're different, but it's good
[2:51:53] to hear it from each other. Um, can they
[2:51:56] not, if they own this, make this into a
[2:51:58] trail and they own it and they decide if
[2:52:01] they want public on it or not. Can they
[2:52:02] not still make a trail?
[2:52:04] >> They can.
[2:52:06] >> Because we have that in Stonehedge at in
[2:52:08] the Stone Hedge properties. We make
[2:52:09] trails and people use them and um I mean
[2:52:13] some of it's fenced off now, but uh they
[2:52:16] can still make a trail if they see that.
[2:52:18] Anyways, that that's that's a
[2:52:20] possibility if they feel like that's the
[2:52:21] thing they want. I do have a concern
[2:52:23] though with and I realize that we don't
[2:52:26] have claim to it other than the easement
[2:52:28] for public utilities, but 28 is access
[2:52:33] to this open space that's the south of
[2:52:35] 28
[2:52:37] that trail access and it leads to that.
[2:52:41] It kind of cuts that off. Otherwise, you
[2:52:43] have to go all the way down to what is
[2:52:45] it? River
[2:52:46] >> Silver Lane.
[2:52:47] >> What? Uh well there's an access from
[2:52:49] Silver Lane and an access from
[2:52:53] >> Yeah, this road on the east side. Silver
[2:52:56] Lane and then um whatever this road is
[2:52:58] on to the west, but it's cutting it off
[2:53:01] from Ridge, I guess. I mean, there's
[2:53:04] still access to that open space, but it
[2:53:06] would be nice to be able to um
[2:53:09] >> Yeah.
[2:53:10] >> I'm wondering though if
[2:53:13] maybe we can do some kind of use the
[2:53:16] monies, you know, and convert that and
[2:53:18] still give access to
[2:53:21] that. I mean, that's something we could
[2:53:22] talk about.
[2:53:22] >> Well, and I would like to understand
[2:53:24] better. Um, again, this says if the
[2:53:27] general public has openly and
[2:53:28] continuously used a trail for at least
[2:53:31] 10 years as public route, the public may
[2:53:34] acquire legal right of way by operation
[2:53:37] of law even if no deed or easement was
[2:53:40] ever recorded.
[2:53:41] >> So, usually with you're talking about
[2:53:43] prescript prescriptive easement and hyum
[2:53:46] correct me if I'm wrong, but
[2:53:47] prescriptive easements are
[2:53:48] >> this is actually public thoroughare.
[2:53:50] public thorough easement whatever you
[2:53:52] know a prescriptive whatever it may be
[2:53:54] that
[2:53:55] >> um the people that use it are the ones
[2:53:57] that need to fight for is that not
[2:53:59] correct
[2:54:00] >> so there's there's a distinction there
[2:54:02] yeah a prescriptive easement is a
[2:54:04] private right that a citizen can gain a
[2:54:06] city could gain it I guess technically
[2:54:09] but typically it's a a private right
[2:54:10] from a a homeowner this code section
[2:54:13] that council member is pointing to is
[2:54:17] actually the highway authority is the
[2:54:19] one that has to go about trying to claim
[2:54:22] a right and the highway authority in
[2:54:24] this instance would be the city.
[2:54:27] So
[2:54:27] >> is highway um refer to vehicles or
[2:54:30] pedestrians?
[2:54:32] >> This is what's uh kind of up for uh
[2:54:35] debate. So I think any further
[2:54:37] discussion on it probably be best in a
[2:54:39] closed session.
[2:54:41] >> Okay.
[2:54:41] >> Can I bring one point up uh just because
[2:54:43] I I use this trail often. Um
[2:54:46] >> when's the last time you've used it? Uh,
[2:54:50] the last time
[2:54:53] >> Well,
[2:54:54] >> what you guys, Hold on. I'm just asking
[2:54:56] him a question, please. When was the
[2:54:57] last time you used
[2:54:58] >> We use it every summer for bike trails.
[2:55:00] >> Okay, so last summer you bike through
[2:55:02] that trail.
[2:55:03] >> Well, multiple times last summer, but
[2:55:04] only walking.
[2:55:05] >> How did you get through?
[2:55:07] >> So, the gate,
[2:55:08] >> the tree that fell through the hearth
[2:55:10] that are overgrown and the and the fence
[2:55:13] because there's a ditch next to it.
[2:55:15] >> Okay, I'm with two boys so we like that
[2:55:16] type of stuff. So, you do go around it.
[2:55:18] But that wasn't what I was going to say.
[2:55:19] I'm not ad I do love it. I hope they can
[2:55:23] create something great with it. Um, but
[2:55:26] I I say that respectfully. I hope they
[2:55:28] took it that way. Um, where you see 28,
[2:55:31] do you see 28? Do you see that blue line
[2:55:33] easement that continues on and it goes
[2:55:35] up this nice hill?
[2:55:37] >> No, that's what I was just mentioning.
[2:55:38] >> Right. Right. So, that's what I was
[2:55:39] saying. But, but it also is not very um,
[2:55:43] you know, wellkept and it goes all the
[2:55:45] way to the birds. I don't know if you
[2:55:47] know what that is. Like I do carry
[2:55:49] elders.
[2:55:50] >> It is such Yes. Oh my gosh. It is a
[2:55:52] beautiful experience.
[2:55:53] >> And we have that fire mitigation money.
[2:55:57] Making a trail and fire mitigation is
[2:55:59] the exact same thing. So if you want to
[2:56:01] use any of that to really just make that
[2:56:05] a beautiful It sounds like there's no
[2:56:06] dispute there. You can have a beautiful
[2:56:08] It goes all the way to Stonehedge, all
[2:56:10] the way to
[2:56:12] Ridge, I believe. Not not Ridge that we
[2:56:15] know. the other ridge by Healey. Um it
[2:56:18] would be a great usage of that because
[2:56:20] that area is one of the areas we're
[2:56:21] working on for fire mitigation, but it needs some trail uh work as well and
[2:56:26] that would uh allow us to not have the
[2:56:29] same predicament that you're bringing up
[2:56:31] about this trail where we don't kind of
[2:56:33] tend to it where we if we tend to that
[2:56:35] because if you go on that trail right
[2:56:36] now, I'm talking about uh
[2:56:39] >> 28 and down.
[2:56:41] >> It goes up a hill around all through it.
[2:56:43] I mean, it's pretty you're you're you
[2:56:45] know, you're you're like 50/50 if you're
[2:56:47] on a trail or not. This is like, is this
[2:56:50] a deer trail or is this a real trail?
[2:56:51] You can't really tell. But
[2:56:55] it's it's just this is just a great
[2:56:56] opportunity that if we're looking in
[2:56:58] that area to to to not let that part go
[2:57:01] as well because that's a great area to
[2:57:03] work on. Anyways, that's and maybe if we
[2:57:05] did, the community there, the
[2:57:08] neighborhood would want some sort of
[2:57:10] connection or maybe they would like to
[2:57:12] use it. And I I I don't know. That's up
[2:57:14] to them.
[2:57:15] >> And you know, maybe we just don't have
[2:57:17] enough to council member Hanimman's
[2:57:19] point. She doesn't know enough yet. Like
[2:57:21] there could be more information we need.
[2:57:23] I just want to leave with
[2:57:26] an email that came through from a
[2:57:28] resident expert and they wrote, "It's
[2:57:30] extremely difficult for communities to
[2:57:32] secure trail corridors. As you know,
[2:57:35] communities cannot currently use eminent
[2:57:37] domain for trails. So obtaining
[2:57:39] continuous corridors that are not
[2:57:41] adjacent to roadways is very difficult
[2:57:43] and in some cases nearly impossible.
[2:57:46] The current corridor extends between two
[2:57:48] public spaces and is wide enough that it
[2:57:51] could be improved to be an asset to the
[2:57:53] community.
[2:57:55] If that space is vacated, it will never
[2:57:57] be replicated.
[2:57:59] >> Jessica, I love that and I totally agree
[2:58:00] with the resident. I think there's just
[2:58:02] one slight difference here that I look
[2:58:03] at it and that is that this trail is so
[2:58:06] close to people's homes versus a trail
[2:58:09] that's like where we live. You've got
[2:58:12] the beautiful ones in Lambert and
[2:58:14] there's just such a buffer between that
[2:58:16] this I mean when you're on this trail
[2:58:19] you do question am I in this guy's yard
[2:58:22] like you're looking in their windows
[2:58:24] you're
[2:58:24] >> true you're you're really on top of them
[2:58:27] >> uh on both sides you're like well this
[2:58:29] is this person's dog don't this is their
[2:58:31] chickens this is their oh this is a
[2:58:33] cover so I think the one slight
[2:58:35] difference on this one and why I don't
[2:58:38] go fullon uh protection on this is
[2:58:41] because it's a trail in the middle of a
[2:58:44] really really residential neighborhood.
[2:58:46] Not like where
[2:58:48] most trails are where you're, you know,
[2:58:50] a little bit more closer to the mountain
[2:58:51] or in a more rural area. Take not to
[2:58:56] take away from what she said. I I think
[2:58:58] this is why this is more sensitive.
[2:59:02] Is there something that um I'm sorry our
[2:59:04] mayor has vacated the meeting, but is
[2:59:06] there something you need from it this at
[2:59:08] this point or is it we're just done at
[2:59:10] discussion?
[2:59:11] >> Well, the parties have submitted this
[2:59:14] application for a plat amendment and so
[2:59:17] it's before the council to consider.
[2:59:19] >> Oh, it's not just a public hearing. We
[2:59:21] have to vote right now.
[2:59:22] >> It's it's on for action as well.
[2:59:24] >> Yeah, that's why I was asking if this
[2:59:25] was
[2:59:25] >> Oh, I misunderstood that. Okay. Okay.
[2:59:29] So, if there's no further questions,
[2:59:30] does anyone have a motion?
[2:59:33] >> And before the motion is is proposed, um
[2:59:36] if the plot is to be uh motioned for
[2:59:40] approval, then we would recommend and
[2:59:43] Hyman can correct me if I'm wrong, but
[2:59:44] we recommend you include the reasons for
[2:59:46] the good cause for the approval of the
[2:59:48] plat amendment.
[2:59:52] » Yeah. Just just would we like to wait
[2:59:54] for them? Oh, go ahead.
[2:59:55] >> Yeah. So, just comment that if If it is
[2:59:59] that uh the council believes there's
[3:00:01] good cause to amend this plat, just uh
[3:00:05] explicitly state that you have
[3:00:07] determined that there is good cause for
[3:00:10] amending this plot.
[3:00:14] » Would we like to wait for the mayor or
[3:00:16] does Jessica become mayor pro?
[3:00:17] >> I'm stepping in.
[3:00:19] >> Then you you let us know what you
[3:00:21] >> Sure.
[3:00:23] So I'll make a motion.
[3:00:29] Kayen, can you move to the
[3:00:30] >> Can the mayor prom make a motion?
[3:00:33] >> Okay.
[3:00:35] >> Right. Okay.
[3:00:36] >> Okay.
[3:00:38] >> Before you speak, I'm just I'm sorry.
[3:00:40] I'm playing catch-up. Um, insert
[3:00:42] conditions, insert findings, insert
[3:00:44] findings. So, regardless, rather we just
[3:00:47] we we can approve and that's it or all
[3:00:50] the other three we need to have
[3:00:52] findings. Is that correct?
[3:00:54] >> Is it okay?
[3:00:56] Yeah, just with the caveat if you're
[3:00:58] moving to approve, just say I move to
[3:01:00] approve to amend the plat subdivision
[3:01:04] >> um for because good cause, you know.
[3:01:07] >> Oh, they all four need findings. All
[3:01:09] four. Thank you, Hyram.
[3:01:11] >> Okay. So, I'll move to table the amended
[3:01:13] subdivision plat leaf plat B amended to
[3:01:17] a future meeting based on the following
[3:01:20] to look into the legal um requirements.
[3:01:26] Let me pull that back up
[3:01:30] of if this is
[3:01:34] a trail, a public trail that the city
[3:01:37] can claim under the law because it has
[3:01:40] been used for more than 10 years
[3:01:43] to
[3:01:48] speak to other property owners that
[3:01:51] about the trail to give time for
[3:01:53] further.
[3:01:55] Sorry, let me start that part over to
[3:01:57] give time for more due diligence in
[3:02:00] speaking with other property owners that
[3:02:03] are adjacent to this trail. Um, that's
[3:02:06] second. Number three, understand
[3:02:12] what the fence encroachment
[3:02:16] if it if the fence encroachment cuts off
[3:02:18] the trail or if there is a way that the
[3:02:21] trail could be improved. and then an
[3:02:24] estimated either volunteer hour or just
[3:02:27] I would say number four a plan for
[3:02:30] improvement
[3:02:31] and cost or volunteer hours associated
[3:02:34] with trail improvement.
[3:02:38] » Are you going to
[3:02:41] second your motion? Would you accept an
[3:02:43] amendment to also a fifth condition is
[3:02:46] to investigate um the future of that
[3:02:52] I want to say the east of 28 or is that unclear or am I just unclear
[3:02:56] about it?
[3:02:57] >> The city owns it. So
[3:03:00] >> Oh, we own it. It's just not an
[3:03:01] easement.
[3:03:02] >> No, we own it.
[3:03:03] >> No, I'm not talking about that part. I'm
[3:03:05] talking about 28.
[3:03:06] >> Oh, I'm sorry.
[3:03:07] >> Not 44 88. I know. Yeah.
[3:03:10] >> Yeah. Is that unclear or clear?
[3:03:12] >> It's clearly common area on the flat,
[3:03:14] >> but if we vacate that, then that land would
[3:03:19] go to
[3:03:20] >> That's what I'm concerned
[3:03:21] >> that property owner. And then you said
[3:03:23] that they could
[3:03:25] um
[3:03:26] >> the [clears throat] PL shows an easement
[3:03:27] for the purposes the city is currently
[3:03:30] using it for. So, number five, to add um
[3:03:36] an agreement
[3:03:38] to to add an agreement to have open
[3:03:42] access
[3:03:44] or explore
[3:03:45] >> from Ridge to Beex Park. Yeah.
[3:03:47] >> From Ridge to Beex Park.
[3:03:50] >> So, say the say the
[3:03:53] addition. Oh, condition five is to
[3:03:56] investigate um public access from Ridge
[3:04:01] to Beex Park, which is just east of lot
[3:04:05] 28.
[3:04:08] >> It It's actually the Silverleaf open
[3:04:10] space that it connects to.
[3:04:12] >> Oh, I'm sorry about that. Correction.
[3:04:17] um with investigation
[3:04:19] to retain public access between Bridge
[3:04:23] Drive and Silverleaf Open Space which is
[3:04:26] east of lot 28.
[3:04:29] >> Okay, I'll accept that.
[3:04:35] Any other questions or concerns?
[3:04:39] >> Hi.
[3:04:40] >> Oh, okay.
[3:04:42] >> Does someone want to check if the mayor
[3:04:43] is okay? This has never happened.
[3:04:46] No, I mean like physically. Okay.
[3:04:49] >> He asked me.
[3:04:51] >> Okay. I didn't see I didn't I saw just
[3:04:52] vanish. Okay.
[3:04:54] >> Uh no, I just I no we I don't have any
[3:04:57] discussion. I'm obviously for the
[3:04:59] opposite.
[3:05:00] >> Okay. So, we'll move forward with a roll
[3:05:01] call vote.
[3:05:03] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[3:05:04] >> Chrisman, yes.
[3:05:05] >> Andrew Young, no.
[3:05:07] >> Jessica Smeuan, yes.
[3:05:10] The motion to table passes.
[3:05:14] The next item on the agenda is
[3:05:17] action item E, site plan approval of the
[3:05:21] 512 building edition.
[3:05:33] » Oh, yes, we do. I make I make a motion
[3:05:35] to extend the meeting no later than
[3:05:38] 9:45.
[3:05:41] Wait, are we doing close session for the
[3:05:43] O? Okay.
[3:05:44] >> How about 9:30? Or actually, no. Go
[3:05:47] ahead.
[3:05:48] >> Okay. Till 10:00. I move to extend the
[3:05:51] meeting till 10:00.
[3:05:55] » I have a second.
[3:05:56] >> Second,
[3:05:57] >> Andrew. Sorry. Uh, Councilman Young.
[3:05:59] >> Okay. We have a motion to extend till 10
[3:06:01] and a second.
[3:06:04] >> No discussion. Just vote.
[3:06:05] >> Sarah Blackwell. Yes. Chris, yes.
[3:06:07] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[3:06:08] >> Jessica Smean, yes.
[3:06:11] >> All right. Thank you, council members.
[3:06:15] So, this next item, uh, as council
[3:06:18] member Spewan said, is to review the 512
[3:06:21] commercial site plan, and this is
[3:06:24] proposed for 168 South Main Street, um,
[3:06:28] and is proposing an addition to a
[3:06:30] currently commercial uh, currently
[3:06:31] existing commercial building. And this
[3:06:34] building addition is to support their
[3:06:35] ongoing operational needs and provide
[3:06:37] more space for their nonprofit ventures.
[3:06:40] Um, the 512 is a nonprofit foundation
[3:06:44] organization geared to helping feed
[3:06:46] children. The applicant said that this
[3:06:48] elementary school kids in the United
[3:06:50] States are going home from school on
[3:06:51] Friday and coming back to school hungry
[3:06:52] on Monday. And so the 512 Foundation
[3:06:56] provides weekend backpacks full of food
[3:06:58] for those students in need. So they've
[3:07:01] already met with the planning commission
[3:07:02] and worked to meet the Gateway Historic
[3:07:04] Design guidelines. And after after doing
[3:07:07] that and deliberating together, the
[3:07:09] planning commission has recommended
[3:07:11] approval um to the city council that
[3:07:13] they meet those guidelines. Um so the
[3:07:16] site plan staff has found that it meets
[3:07:19] the business commercial zone code
[3:07:21] requirements and the gateway historic
[3:07:22] zone requirements.
[3:07:24] Um it is a industrial looking building
[3:07:27] with dark brick, black metal trims and
[3:07:29] accents to complement the main material.
[3:07:32] Um, there is some discussion I put in
[3:07:34] here about a water tower that was
[3:07:36] originally proposed near the front of
[3:07:38] the site. The planning commission went
[3:07:40] ahead and decided to remove that from
[3:07:42] the site plan um, just so it can be
[3:07:44] considered more fully at a later date.
[3:07:46] So, it is not currently on the site plan
[3:07:48] as of today.
[3:07:50] Um,
[3:07:52] there are a couple benches along the
[3:07:54] sidewalk uh to try to meet the
[3:07:56] streetscaping requirements of the
[3:07:59] Gateway Historic Design guidelines. Um,
[3:08:02] they they might need one or two more to meet the requirement of one every 30
[3:08:06] feet. So, staff would recommend looking
[3:08:08] into that. Um, in the future, there's a
[3:08:11] desire to have an office building near
[3:08:12] the front of the site. Um, and that
[3:08:17] office building, there was some concern
[3:08:18] at some point that if they did do that,
[3:08:20] they wouldn't have enough landscaping,
[3:08:22] but they have shown on their site plan
[3:08:24] that they still will meet the 20%
[3:08:26] coverage requirement. So, that's uh no
[3:08:29] longer a worry there. And then the
[3:08:31] parking uh requirement for this
[3:08:33] application
[3:08:35] is uh under 324040
[3:08:38] and under the use category of industrial
[3:08:40] and wholesale establishments.
[3:08:43] Uh and so that requires that there is a
[3:08:46] space for every two employees during the
[3:08:48] largest shift. The largest shift is 75
[3:08:51] employees and so 38 stalls uh were
[3:08:53] deemed necessary for that. And the
[3:08:56] parking lot actually well exceeds that
[3:08:58] requirement because they're anticipating
[3:08:59] the needs for the future office building
[3:09:01] as well.
[3:09:03] Um and then there's the planning
[3:09:04] commission recommendation. I'm sure you
[3:09:06] got to read through that.
[3:09:09] Um,
[3:09:10] one thing I'd like to point out in the
[3:09:12] general plan, it does say that uh the
[3:09:15] business commercial zone should have
[3:09:18] commercial uses that serve the
[3:09:20] community. Um, and so I think it's
[3:09:23] pretty clear, uh, I guess in staff's
[3:09:25] opinion that this is a use that would
[3:09:27] contribute to that, uh, contribute to
[3:09:30] that goal and motive of the general plan
[3:09:32] to serve the community and further those
[3:09:34] needs or further solving those needs
[3:09:37] that are out there. Um, so the staff
[3:09:40] would recommend that the city council
[3:09:43] consider approving the proposed site
[3:09:44] plan for the new 512 edition building at
[3:09:48] 168 South Main Street. on condition that
[3:09:51] the streetscaping requirement is met.
[3:09:55] So I'll go ahead and show the site plan
[3:09:59] here.
[3:10:04] [snorts]
[3:10:07] And we what Kaden, as you're doing this,
[3:10:10] will you explain the the some of the
[3:10:14] things you just talked about such as the
[3:10:16] Oh, yeah. Uh such as the
[3:10:18] >> Why am I escaping? Yes, for sure. So,
[3:10:21] >> being planned like and any parking as I
[3:10:24] mean I watched the whole episode of
[3:10:26] planning commission and I read it. Uh
[3:10:29] but if you could keep explaining it, it
[3:10:31] helps with these diagrams.
[3:10:33] >> Yes, for sure. Um so yeah, the green,
[3:10:36] this is the site plan. The green kind of
[3:10:37] around it represents the landscaping and
[3:10:39] they al they also have a landscape plan
[3:10:41] as part of their submitt that we can
[3:10:43] look at. Um but that's where the
[3:10:45] landscaping will go is kind of around
[3:10:46] the site. Um you can see here is where
[3:10:49] the future proposed office building is.
[3:10:52] Um that's not for consideration at this
[3:10:54] time. Uh just showing where it would go
[3:10:56] if that is pursued. Um [snorts] you can
[3:10:59] see the two benches over here that are
[3:11:01] seeking to meet that streetscaping
[3:11:03] requirement for the Gateway historic
[3:11:05] design guidelines. Um and that's why
[3:11:08] staff recommended that they may they
[3:11:10] might need one or two more to meet that
[3:11:12] every 30 feet have something along that
[3:11:14] sidewalk.
[3:11:16] Um,
[3:11:18] this is the addition. So, this is the
[3:11:20] currently existing site. Um, where kind
[3:11:23] of my cursor is going around. And then
[3:11:24] the addition is this portion back here.
[3:11:27] >> Kayen, can you orient while you're doing
[3:11:29] this? I I'm having a hard time. And I I
[3:11:31] even went there today.
[3:11:33] >> I'm having a hard time where Main Street
[3:11:35] is. Okay. So, there's 100 West. I
[3:11:37] couldn't see the streets.
[3:11:38] >> Yes. So, Main Street is here on the east
[3:11:40] side. Just going down. Sorry about that.
[3:11:42] >> Thank you.
[3:11:43] >> Yeah. really close to here where we are
[3:11:46] currently everything is pushed way back
[3:11:48] far.
[3:11:49] >> Correct. The new addition is proposed
[3:11:51] for very far back on the site from the
[3:11:53] front property line.
[3:11:54] >> It was off screen. Thank you.
[3:11:56] >> Yes. Um
[3:11:59] and as you can see, there is an
[3:12:01] abundance of of parking here. ADA uh
[3:12:04] sufficient amount of ADA stalls. Um
[3:12:06] right here actually on the right side
[3:12:08] shows how they're meeting all these
[3:12:10] requirements that I'm talking about.
[3:12:12] Um so the 38 stalls required um and then
[3:12:17] future office building they're already
[3:12:18] taking that into consideration with this
[3:12:20] parking. Um so they're meeting that and
[3:12:23] then the landscaping will be uh 23% even
[3:12:27] after that building goes in if it does.
[3:12:31] Um right now it's at 31% of the site
[3:12:35] going around everywhere.
[3:12:40] All right, I'll move on from this for
[3:12:41] now. If there's no more questions on the
[3:12:43] site plan right now.
[3:12:47] So, here's the elevations of it.
[3:12:52] Um so originally they had a much
[3:12:54] different proposed
[3:12:56] um exterior material setup and then with
[3:13:00] revision to comply more with the
[3:13:05] historic gateway design guidelines they revised and and came out with this
[3:13:10] exterior design plan for the building
[3:13:14] the addition. Um, so you can see it has
[3:13:16] quite the the industrial look with the dark brick. Um, different metals
[3:13:21] here. This is existing corrugated metal
[3:13:24] panel as well as up here is existing
[3:13:26] already.
[3:13:28] Um,
[3:13:30] from what I understand the sign may or
[3:13:32] may not be like this, but they will
[3:13:34] pursue a sign permit in the future as
[3:13:36] necessary to to meet code. Um, this is
[3:13:40] just for
[3:13:41] just theoretical purposes only.
[3:13:45] Um,
[3:13:46] you can see there's uh smoke stacks just
[3:13:49] as a design element, not intended to be
[3:13:51] used for that at all.
[3:13:55] And then let me go to the AI rendering
[3:13:57] here.
[3:14:02] So you can see um
[3:14:05] very much kind of a an industrial look
[3:14:08] here um to try to comply with those
[3:14:10] design guidelines and really fit into
[3:14:13] the to the heart of Alpine. Um shows the
[3:14:16] water tower over here that has been
[3:14:18] removed from the site plan to be pursued
[3:14:20] potentially at a later date. Yeah.
[3:14:22] >> Oh my gosh. So AI thought this was like
[3:14:24] such an old building that The only
[3:14:26] reason I can tell is because the car on
[3:14:27] the left that has two fronts. Um,
[3:14:31] >> very very classic Alpine cars there in
[3:14:33] the AI image.
[3:14:34] >> No, it literally because it does it does
[3:14:36] look like you know the uh what do they
[3:14:39] call it? The England uh I don't even
[3:14:41] know the words, but uh
[3:14:43] >> Model A maybe. I mean that's Ford, but
[3:14:45] yeah,
[3:14:45] >> the factories of the turn of the
[3:14:48] century. Anyways, go ahead.
[3:14:49] >> Yeah.
[3:14:52] All right, let's see. Is there anything
[3:14:53] else pertinent? Probably Oh, I guess
[3:14:56] I'll show the landscape pen just since
[3:14:57] we talked about that.
[3:15:02] So, here's the the full robust landscape
[3:15:05] plan of all the different um plants and
[3:15:09] shrubs that will go in. Um, and
[3:15:14] a native grass and wildflower seed mix
[3:15:16] will be provided here for any areas
[3:15:18] disturbed during the construction of the addition.
[3:15:22] >> I heard I heard the big talk about that.
[3:15:24] was good.
[3:15:27] So, if there's no further questions
[3:15:28] right now, I'll go ahead and hand it
[3:15:30] back to the mayor.
[3:15:34] » Okay. So, does anyone have any questions
[3:15:37] for Kaden on his presentation?
[3:15:39] >> Um, one question. It's my understanding
[3:15:42] and correct me if I'm wrong, but that uh
[3:15:45] warehouse is not approved is not a
[3:15:48] approved use in our business commercial.
[3:15:51] Is that
[3:15:52] >> so? That's correct. warehouse is not
[3:15:54] listed on the permitted uses there. Um,
[3:15:57] the applicant realized that the name
[3:15:59] warehouse might be misleading or even a
[3:16:02] misnomer to with regards to the the
[3:16:06] purpose of this addition. Um, it's very
[3:16:08] much for the uh just the space to be
[3:16:12] able to operate their their nonprofit
[3:16:14] ventures and is not intended to have the specs and the scale of a warehouse.
[3:16:20] Um, both in height and in uh port
[3:16:24] access, semiac, anything like that.
[3:16:27] >> Thank you.
[3:16:33] Um, I did have I I was I walked the
[3:16:36] property and I'm familiar with the um
[3:16:39] operations um because I'm a neighbor and
[3:16:42] my have personal connections to the um
[3:16:47] directors of the operations and uh
[3:16:52] the property with like that's all the
[3:16:54] X's that you just showed is really well
[3:16:56] landscaped for what limited space they
[3:16:59] do have which it was encouraging for
[3:17:02] like because it's the perimeter is going
[3:17:04] to uh be the buffer there or and also
[3:17:06] that we're going to landscape the front
[3:17:08] of Main Street. So, my compliments to
[3:17:11] that. Also, um there was um additional
[3:17:16] um like trees and stuff added which I
[3:17:18] know is important to the the people
[3:17:21] involved. Um, also I did have a question
[3:17:26] um, in speaking to the director and I
[3:17:28] know the applicant's here as well and I
[3:17:30] just would like to share this
[3:17:31] information because it was just because
[3:17:32] of my personal relationship that the a
[3:17:35] lot of the additional space is um,
[3:17:38] actually correctly labeled as an office
[3:17:40] building. they um when they have the
[3:17:42] this is a nonprofit and so when they
[3:17:45] have people that come and volunteer in
[3:17:47] this um they want to explain what
[3:17:50] they're doing and like how this benefits
[3:17:51] our community um and so that it's more
[3:17:54] of an educational space and there'll be
[3:17:56] some offices as well for the directors.
[3:17:59] I'm not sure how else the space will be
[3:18:00] used, but it the the addition itself is
[3:18:03] not really functioning in any way like a warehouse from what um I understand.
[3:18:09] And I if you have if you have a
[3:18:10] difference of information, I'd be happy
[3:18:12] to hear it. So my my primary concern
[3:18:15] following um Sarah's comments is the
[3:18:18] original building is operating like a
[3:18:21] nonprofit warehouse. A nonprofit
[3:18:23] warehouse is um defined to be a food
[3:18:26] bank, which means they bring in um
[3:18:28] commercial foods products and then
[3:18:31] distribute it at no cost, you know, and
[3:18:34] that's exactly what's happening in the
[3:18:36] um existing building is it's functioning
[3:18:38] like a nonprofit or a food bank. And so
[3:18:42] since it's not a permitted use um to
[3:18:45] have a food bank in our city and I'm not
[3:18:47] in any way opposed to that a food bank
[3:18:49] or the operations my concern is that at
[3:18:52] any point and even with all the
[3:18:53] investment it's unlikely this property
[3:18:56] would turn over but let's just say 50
[3:18:58] years from now it does turn over that
[3:19:00] somehow they would have their foot in
[3:19:02] the door to become a commercial
[3:19:03] warehouse which is not permitted as
[3:19:06] Sarah brought up. So, is there any way,
[3:19:08] and this maybe is Hyram's area of
[3:19:10] expertise, to sort of say that this the use is very defined to be a
[3:19:15] nonprofit food bank, even though that's
[3:19:18] not defined in our code.
[3:19:20] >> Yeah, I don't know exactly what the
[3:19:23] planning commission said down below. Um
[3:19:26] but yeah, it from my understanding in
[3:19:28] the code, the planning commission had
[3:19:30] the authority to permit
[3:19:32] um a specific use that isn't in our
[3:19:35] permitted use table.
[3:19:37] >> Right. Do we have that same authority if
[3:19:39] they didn't make that motion?
[3:19:41] >> Um I I haven't dug through your whole
[3:19:44] code. I've just seen that one provision
[3:19:45] and it seems to suggest that it's the
[3:19:47] planning commission that has that
[3:19:48] authority
[3:19:49] >> only and they like we don't Okay. Now
[3:19:53] certainly you can amend the code, right,
[3:19:54] to say that they don't or that you have
[3:19:57] that authority, right? Um Okay. And
[3:19:59] that's something that that's something
[3:20:01] you guys may want to look at.
[3:20:02] >> Yeah, that's really my only concern is
[3:20:04] that I'm everything looks great and um I
[3:20:07] really really like the design elements
[3:20:10] that they've added. And like I said, the
[3:20:12] landscaping, I look forward to all those
[3:20:14] trees. It's going to be awesome. Um I
[3:20:17] the work done there is amazing. It's a
[3:20:19] huge um draw for our community. Um,
[3:20:22] there was a little bit of mis
[3:20:25] the way they described the 75 employees.
[3:20:27] I don't believe 512 has 75 employees. I
[3:20:30] do believe they have 75 volunteers,
[3:20:33] which would make that more fit the
[3:20:35] definition of a food bank. So, I would
[3:20:37] love to permit it as a food bank so that
[3:20:39] it continues operating as a food bank as
[3:20:42] long as it needs to be. And then I just
[3:20:45] don't know how to make that happen.
[3:20:47] >> Chrissy, is your concern, if I can ask,
[3:20:48] because I'm genuinely curious. You're
[3:20:50] worried about warehouse type stuff
[3:20:54] happening. Is that correct?
[3:20:55] >> No, no, not warehouse type happening as
[3:20:58] a food bank. I'm worried that if it
[3:20:59] would change hands
[3:21:00] >> Yeah. Like it would become a warehouse,
[3:21:03] a commercial warehouse,
[3:21:04] >> backpacks or whatever. Yeah.
[3:21:06] >> Right. Because I mean the operations are
[3:21:09] the same, but I I think the impact on
[3:21:10] the community is very different. It's a
[3:21:12] if it's a commercial warehouse and
[3:21:14] that's why they're not allowed in our
[3:21:15] code. So, I'm trying to I'm trying to
[3:21:17] allow this to happen and keep it the way
[3:21:20] it is forever and always until it
[3:21:22] changes ownership.
[3:21:24] >> So, why would future use change to a
[3:21:26] warehouse if we don't allow warehouse
[3:21:28] right now?
[3:21:30] >> I think it would be like saying anything
[3:21:32] in our commercial zone if it changes
[3:21:35] owners would run the risk of then
[3:21:37] becoming some other use. It doesn't. It
[3:21:40] just stays the use that was approved.
[3:21:43] That's why I want to approve it as a
[3:21:44] food bank.
[3:21:47] >> A question on that. Or you're not done
[3:21:49] yet, right? Keep going. I'll
[3:21:50] >> No, no. I I'm It's those are that's my
[3:21:52] concern. I I don't know how to get there
[3:21:54] from where we are.
[3:21:55] >> Remember, just because of former issues
[3:21:57] that have come up, we have like a list
[3:21:58] of specific things allowed in the
[3:22:00] exceptions and as approved things in the
[3:22:04] business commercial zone. Do is a food
[3:22:07] bank one of those? Because warehouses
[3:22:09] I'm hearing is not. We know other ones
[3:22:12] that have applied that have not been
[3:22:14] approved and asked for exceptions. Is
[3:22:16] this need an exception or is this fall
[3:22:19] in line with one of those categories
[3:22:21] that is allowed in the business
[3:22:22] commercial zone?
[3:22:24] >> So Shane, do you know how it got
[3:22:26] approved? My understanding is that the
[3:22:29] use is existing and it's grandfathered
[3:22:31] in. I have no idea what the process was
[3:22:33] or when it happened. I don't
[3:22:36] >> So you're you're saying there's already
[3:22:37] an exception, therefore it's
[3:22:38] grandfathered in.
[3:22:39] >> I don't know. That's what I'm asking.
[3:22:40] Okay. I don't because I don't know how
[3:22:42] this happened. Do you know what I mean?
[3:22:43] I I really don't I don't know. I don't
[3:22:45] remember
[3:22:46] >> looking at this or you know because it's
[3:22:48] been h I mean obviously it's been there
[3:22:50] for a while.
[3:22:52] >> I don't remember I don't
[3:22:53] >> the land ownership changed in 2016.
[3:22:56] >> I'm sorry.
[3:22:57] >> I just looked it up on the county parcel
[3:22:58] map. The land ownership changed to 2016.
[3:23:02] In 2016 and then
[3:23:03] >> was it just a change in name? Do you
[3:23:04] know? Or was it an actual sale to a new
[3:23:07] person?
[3:23:07] >> Oh, it's a sale to a new person. Okay.
[3:23:09] >> I don't know when the use changed but
[3:23:11] that's when the ownership changed.
[3:23:12] >> So whether it's been being used as a
[3:23:14] certain way or not is that do we allow
[3:23:18] or does the code need to be amended or
[3:23:20] changed in order to allow food banks in
[3:23:22] the business commercial zone?
[3:23:24] >> Do you want to show that item 10 in the
[3:23:25] permitted uses
[3:23:26] >> and pardon if this is understood? I I
[3:23:28] just am not clear.
[3:23:31] >> So So there's a list of permitted uses
[3:23:33] in the BC zone,
[3:23:35] >> right? Item 10 in there is really the
[3:23:38] only one that appears to fit the
[3:23:41] situation. Can we look at number 10?
[3:23:43] >> And it's kind of for anything
[3:23:45] >> uses which are determined by the
[3:23:46] >> similar use or whatever that's not
[3:23:48] identified as a permitted use
[3:23:50] >> uses in harmony with the intent of the
[3:23:52] zone. Oh, so that's just like broad for
[3:23:54] anything.
[3:23:55] >> But it says the planning commission
[3:23:58] >> approves that.
[3:23:59] >> Weird.
[3:24:00] >> Determined by the planning commission.
[3:24:02] >> Why would we write a complete broad No
[3:24:04] offense. Why would we write a complete
[3:24:06] broad open-ended thing that a elected
[3:24:09] body would never have a say in?
[3:24:11] >> I don't I've never noticed that in there
[3:24:13] to be honest with you.
[3:24:15] >> Snuck that guy.
[3:24:17] >> It will be up to the planning
[3:24:18] commission, but it would be compatible.
[3:24:20] Um, it has low traffic. Um, foregoing us
[3:24:23] is in harmony with the intent of the
[3:24:24] zone. I think it's I think it fits
[3:24:26] number 10. It's just I didn't know if we
[3:24:28] needed to send it back to planning
[3:24:30] commission with no changes other than to
[3:24:33] be sure that they designated it as a
[3:24:34] permitted use.
[3:24:35] >> I I from a yeah from a legal standpoint
[3:24:38] if you're worried about this designation
[3:24:40] getting broader um as it stands now if
[3:24:42] it went in front of the planning
[3:24:44] commission and I haven't reviewed those
[3:24:45] minutes just to preface that but um it
[3:24:49] would be they they approved this project
[3:24:51] for this specific purpose. Right.
[3:24:53] However, if you're concerned about that,
[3:24:55] you can send it back to the planning
[3:24:57] commission to make a specific finding
[3:25:00] with respect to what this use. What are
[3:25:03] you going to label this?
[3:25:05] >> We can't do that. Well, if we're all in
[3:25:07] agreement, like we can't do that because
[3:25:09] just because the way the ordinance is
[3:25:10] written.
[3:25:12] >> Uh yeah, it's it says that the planning
[3:25:14] commission determines whether there use
[3:25:17] or not. Again, it is an unusual
[3:25:19] provision.
[3:25:20] >> So unusual. So, I'm trying to figure out
[3:25:22] what their intent was. Do we know what
[3:25:25] they meant by in harmony with intent of
[3:25:28] the zone? What is there anywhere where
[3:25:29] intent of the zone is is defined? Like
[3:25:33] what the business commercial intent is?
[3:25:35] >> Yeah. No, it's up there. It's in our
[3:25:36] code. It's up above. What is the
[3:25:37] >> Would you mind going up a little bit so
[3:25:38] I can just read that? If anyone is not
[3:25:40] okay with this, I can do it after.
[3:25:44] >> You don't always have this situation,
[3:25:46] but in this particular case, we have
[3:25:48] history.
[3:25:49] >> Okay. I don't recall ever receiving a
[3:25:52] complaint
[3:25:54] >> for what's been happening there.
[3:25:57] >> Like I say, you usually don't have that.
[3:25:58] It's usually something brand new,
[3:26:00] >> but in this case, we do. And I would
[3:26:03] think that's favorable.
[3:26:05] >> Yeah.
[3:26:05] >> Oh, yeah. No, I'm not trying to change
[3:26:07] it or deny it or anything. I just want
[3:26:10] >> to make sure it's defined as a food bank
[3:26:13] >> and not a warehouse.
[3:26:14] >> That's all. Well, maybe we need to add
[3:26:16] that specifically in what she's asking
[3:26:19] about. It needs to go back to planning
[3:26:20] commission.
[3:26:21] >> Later we can add that as a as a
[3:26:25] >> Are you saying the microphone?
[3:26:27] >> I I meant maybe that is something we
[3:26:29] should consider adding as one of the
[3:26:30] uses for this specific. Now, that hasn't
[3:26:33] gone well in the past when we do
[3:26:35] one-offs for a certain business.
[3:26:37] I talked to the chair of the planning
[3:26:39] commission and he's I mean like I don't
[3:26:41] think it changes anything except I it's
[3:26:44] the worst case scenario that in the
[3:26:46] future someone could change it from a
[3:26:48] nonprofit warehouse to a commercial
[3:26:50] warehouse without going through any city
[3:26:53] council approval process.
[3:26:54] >> You keep saying warehouse, but I thought
[3:26:55] the applicant revised the use and it's
[3:26:58] an office building. I think that's where
[3:27:00] I'm getting stuck
[3:27:01] >> for the expansion. For the expansion,
[3:27:03] it's definitely an office,
[3:27:04] >> but we can have storage as auxiliary
[3:27:07] allowed uses to office space.
[3:27:09] >> No, it's to retail. You You sent me the
[3:27:12] code and I read it.
[3:27:13] >> So, I'm reading this intent.
[3:27:14] >> It's only to retail. I thought it was to
[3:27:15] any office because
[3:27:17] >> But you sent me
[3:27:18] >> Let me look and see.
[3:27:19] >> And while they're doing that, if you
[3:27:20] read the intent, it is land the business
[3:27:24] commercial zone. against the top use of
[3:27:26] land is for retail and other commercial
[3:27:29] uses serving the immediate needs of the
[3:27:31] alpine residents meaning local ones
[3:27:35] uh and situated within an environment
[3:27:37] which is safe and aesthetically
[3:27:39] pleasing. The zone is also intended to
[3:27:41] serve as the commercial core of the
[3:27:43] city. I think that's important that they
[3:27:46] put in the immediate needs of the Alpine
[3:27:49] residents because we do uh have some
[3:27:52] good things that do that and we have
[3:27:55] businesses that do not uh meet immediate
[3:27:59] needs of local Alpine residents. They meet maybe, you know, folks coming
[3:28:02] from far or ordering or whatnot. So,
[3:28:05] this is good. I should read this more.
[3:28:10] » Okay. Um, Chrissy, is there any other
[3:28:14] questions that you have regarding this
[3:28:15] item on the agenda?
[3:28:17] >> Nope, that's it.
[3:28:18] >> Okay, Andrew.
[3:28:20] >> Oh, yeah. I hadn't gone yet. I'll be
[3:28:22] quick. Um,
[3:28:26] uh, so so I I I looked at everything.
[3:28:29] Uh, the two things are, and before I say
[3:28:33] anything, this none of this might
[3:28:34] matter. Are we making a motion on this
[3:28:37] tonight?
[3:28:38] >> Yeah,
[3:28:38] >> this is an action. Okay, because the
[3:28:39] last one was confusing
[3:28:40] >> under action items.
[3:28:42] >> Yes. Yes. I know people say things
[3:28:44] though different. Um
[3:28:48] there is a lot of So this was my initial
[3:28:50] thing and that is Main Street is of all
[3:28:53] the issues in in Alpine. The one that is
[3:28:56] thrust and put in my face most is
[3:28:59] traffic. Okay. It is it is the most
[3:29:02] common thing. And of that traffic, the
[3:29:05] main street area right here is top three
[3:29:08] or number one as the worst spot for
[3:29:12] traffic in terms of congestion. People
[3:29:14] might compete it with uh Alpine Highway
[3:29:17] for speed, that being so dangerous, or
[3:29:19] Canyon Crest. Westfield comes in a
[3:29:21] district like fifth or sixth with um
[3:29:25] uh dissatisfaction.
[3:29:28] When I look at all of these parking
[3:29:30] spots because and the only reason I'm
[3:29:32] bringing this up is because a lot of
[3:29:33] councils have come and put things in and
[3:29:36] then later 20 years we have to deal with
[3:29:38] it. How on earth will the across the
[3:29:43] street school and this many parking spot
[3:29:46] and someone can clarify how on earth
[3:29:48] will we take basically all these cars
[3:29:51] and all those cars and um have them on
[3:29:55] Maine when we still haven't fixed half?
[3:29:57] So this is my my question that or
[3:29:58] concern. The next one is um we appear to
[3:30:02] be moving very much towards a all brick
[3:30:05] um look. I very rarely get into
[3:30:07] aesthetic even that's good 80% of my
[3:30:10] career. I just don't think we have very
[3:30:13] many say over it but we are having a lot
[3:30:15] of say over it and I do not think it is
[3:30:17] reflective of actual alpine heritage or
[3:30:20] alpine design and it's not the first uh
[3:30:24] choices on um the uh list. It's stone
[3:30:28] and timber or wood. Um, and so and then
[3:30:32] brick comes later. And maybe this hits
[3:30:36] me different because I spend so often on
[3:30:38] the east coast and other areas where
[3:30:41] everything is brick and it does have a
[3:30:43] very iconic feel. We are actively
[3:30:45] pushing people this way. I do not think
[3:30:48] it is cohesive with the mountains, the
[3:30:51] timber and the actual heritage. That's
[3:30:54] not for me to say though. I'm just it's
[3:30:55] just I'm just recognizing a pattern. we
[3:30:57] are moving towards I know people have
[3:30:58] preferences towards it that's fine but
[3:31:00] it is a pattern um
[3:31:02] >> anything else Andrew
[3:31:03] >> yes um that was the main things
[3:31:07] >> so Andrew I do have a question for you talked about you know the parking
[3:31:10] spaces and the cars have you ever
[3:31:11] volunteered at the 512 building do you
[3:31:13] know what they
[3:31:13] >> I have not please tell me
[3:31:14] >> okay so most of it is happening on
[3:31:17] Wednesday evenings that I've observed
[3:31:19] >> and it's youth groups that come in and
[3:31:21] put these meals together I love that
[3:31:23] >> so it's not the same time as the schools
[3:31:25] that helps
[3:31:25] >> and
[3:31:26] you know, we they have a lot of cars
[3:31:29] that come. It's multiple groups, whether
[3:31:31] it's stakes that come at a time, wards
[3:31:33] at a time. Um I've gone in with um
[3:31:36] various groups. We've when they first
[3:31:38] started before they had this building
[3:31:40] established with AYC, we did it years
[3:31:42] and years ago.
[3:31:43] >> Um I think it's safer and I like the way
[3:31:47] that they have it set up. I understand
[3:31:49] you're seeing all these parking spaces,
[3:31:51] but really it's Wednesday nights groups
[3:31:54] coming in making these meals for kids to
[3:31:57] take home for the weekend or overnight.
[3:32:00] >> And so you're not seeing all these cars
[3:32:02] at the same time.
[3:32:03] >> Thank you for that clarification.
[3:32:05] >> That's been my observation and
[3:32:06] experience with it. And I would strongly
[3:32:08] suggest that you try to go and help and
[3:32:10] volunteer with these groups because it's
[3:32:12] a fantastic experience. Yeah, the the
[3:32:15] cause and the work they are doing
[3:32:17] obviously love it. I work in a very
[3:32:19] similar industry. Love and everyone
[3:32:21] loves that. Also across the street,
[3:32:23] schools, we love schools. The byproduct
[3:32:26] though has become just a massive thing
[3:32:29] to deal with that we're trying to fix.
[3:32:31] And so that's why I brought it up.
[3:32:32] >> I've never heard a single resident say,
[3:32:34] "I hate all the cars from this."
[3:32:35] >> Well, no, that's good. This is good. I'm
[3:32:37] not saying I do hate. bring it up as
[3:32:38] >> Oh, no. No. What I'm saying is like I
[3:32:40] have heard many many many people
[3:32:42] complain about the charter school
[3:32:44] traffic. I've not yet once heard
[3:32:45] anything here.
[3:32:47] >> I guess because it's in the evening.
[3:32:49] >> This doesn't exist yet as a big
[3:32:50] >> It does exist. They're operating.
[3:32:52] >> I know the park, but not the big whole
[3:32:54] full thing.
[3:32:54] >> They do have a lot of cars that go
[3:32:56] there. They park right now in part of
[3:32:58] their parking lot and the grass area
[3:33:00] that and I think they're trying to make
[3:33:02] it better. So, you know, they're
[3:33:04] improving the lot. And so what I'm
[3:33:06] saying is
[3:33:09] they're just making better
[3:33:10] infrastructure and more aesthetically
[3:33:13] pre um pleasing environment, but as far
[3:33:16] as like the number of people and the
[3:33:19] traffic load, I don't see it varying
[3:33:21] much more than what you see now. There's
[3:33:24] a lot of if you go there on Wednesday
[3:33:26] evening like around 7ish,
[3:33:28] >> that's when they
[3:33:28] >> you'll see a lot of cars there. But I'm
[3:33:30] guessing that you're not getting
[3:33:32] complaints. At least I personally
[3:33:33] haven't. if anyone else has
[3:33:35] >> I have not gotten any complaints,
[3:33:36] >> but it's because most people are either
[3:33:38] home and it's not when people are out
[3:33:40] and about.
[3:33:41] >> Um, so it's not I understand why you
[3:33:44] would worry about traffic and seeing all
[3:33:46] those um parking spaces,
[3:33:48] >> but it's not a use that's going to be
[3:33:50] happening during the day.
[3:33:51] >> Totally clarified. Thank you.
[3:33:52] >> I have a couple of comments.
[3:33:55] Can I can I mention the parking as well
[3:33:57] on the same 100 west um is a dance
[3:34:00] studio that also so and mind you this is
[3:34:04] all zone commercial like as we've
[3:34:06] learned from our shooting um I mean our
[3:34:09] gun shop. So um that this is all zone
[3:34:13] commercial. So they've been parking on
[3:34:15] this interior area and it has never been
[3:34:18] like a problem.
[3:34:20] >> I've had several people reach out about
[3:34:21] that the parking for the dance. No, I
[3:34:23] was going to say that that we still that
[3:34:26] like I'm saying it's it's in the same
[3:34:28] neighborhood and so it's it's moving it
[3:34:30] out of an interior neighborhood out onto
[3:34:33] the main street. So I I feel like it's much better access for the public.
[3:34:37] It's easier to find, you know, all that
[3:34:39] kind of stuff. So it's a huge step up as
[3:34:42] far as parking in my opinion.
[3:34:44] >> Yeah.
[3:34:45] >> And walking through there, I mean it's
[3:34:46] very those are narrow roads on 100 West.
[3:34:49] So being out, you know, even if they
[3:34:51] have even if they have, you know, a
[3:34:52] hundred volunteers and there's not
[3:34:53] enough um parking, they'll at least be
[3:34:55] on a wider part of our streets.
[3:34:57] >> So good. So you said you have two more
[3:34:59] comments.
[3:34:59] >> They're just last last ones. The do do
[3:35:02] we have full responsibility over South
[3:35:04] Main? We can't ask or at this time try
[3:35:06] to collaborate for some of the fixes on
[3:35:08] there while this is going in or is it
[3:35:09] just all city responsibility for uh the
[3:35:12] traffic fixing there or is this a good
[3:35:14] opportunity? So, I know that um Shane
[3:35:16] has been working on moving the crosswalk
[3:35:19] and because of the new ADA regulations.
[3:35:22] I know they've been talking with the
[3:35:24] property owners um because we're trying
[3:35:26] to figure out how to do that with the
[3:35:28] rightway that we have um and to be able
[3:35:31] to be ADA compliant with moving that
[3:35:33] crosswalk because of the changes and
[3:35:34] because it's a new crosswalk, we have to
[3:35:37] comply to the current standards. So, um
[3:35:40] I know there's been discussions. I'm not
[3:35:42] sure where they are at this point.
[3:35:43] Shane, if you wanted to
[3:35:44] >> Yeah, you're I had this in my
[3:35:46] communication update.
[3:35:47] >> I'll hit you with a couple.
[3:35:48] >> There's There's a It's way more
[3:35:51] expansive than what probably anybody,
[3:35:54] including myself, thought it would be to
[3:35:56] get this crosswalk in.
[3:35:57] >> Oh, yeah. I saw you guys there.
[3:36:00] >> Well, traffic control is already out
[3:36:02] there closing the sidewalk. We've had a
[3:36:05] couple meetings with JD. Um I know they
[3:36:08] have a couple of concerns um that he
[3:36:10] might want to address uh with council
[3:36:12] here tonight. Um but yeah, that is
[3:36:16] happening and it it will be done before
[3:36:18] school starts.
[3:36:19] >> Okay. So is there any there is anything
[3:36:21] that we would want to try to plan with
[3:36:23] this going in with the traffic? That
[3:36:26] might be a good time. And I can't
[3:36:28] remember what the last one is. Oh, I was
[3:36:29] just uh I tried to reach out to
[3:36:32] residents nearby to get a fill for this.
[3:36:33] I couldn't get a hold of them. So, if
[3:36:35] anyone has any resident um you live by
[3:36:38] there, I couldn't get any resident
[3:36:39] responses as to this and any opinions or
[3:36:44] feedback from them. But I would I would
[3:36:45] actually love that.
[3:36:46] >> Anything else?
[3:36:47] >> One of them is the owner, right?
[3:36:48] >> Yeah.
[3:36:48] >> Yes. Yes. Well, that is good. Um well,
[3:36:51] that's a little different because the
[3:36:52] owner is acting as a developer. Um I
[3:36:54] mean like people that will live by it.
[3:36:56] So, yeah. Go ahead.
[3:36:57] >> Thank you.
[3:36:58] >> I saw the property owners
[3:37:00] to write to the west over the weekend.
[3:37:04] didn't mention a thing.
[3:37:06] >> Yeah, I haven't heard.
[3:37:07] >> Yeah. So, I mean, those are the closest
[3:37:08] ones I would say impacted.
[3:37:10] >> I even called a couple who I know and
[3:37:12] they didn't respond and I went and
[3:37:13] visited a house and I uh they weren't
[3:37:16] homes.
[3:37:16] >> Okay.
[3:37:17] >> Just a couple of quick things. Um so,
[3:37:19] Chrissy, I there is actually more code
[3:37:22] where we do allow storage not just for
[3:37:25] retail. So, if you go to 3.07.02
[3:37:31] 02
[3:37:33] number eight. It definitely has um
[3:37:38] approval as a I guess a supply storage.
[3:37:42] So this is a supply storage building
[3:37:44] from my understanding. The building that
[3:37:46] they're currently using will now become
[3:37:48] a place where they can um put supplies
[3:37:51] in. So that then they can use the office
[3:37:53] building for education, for
[3:37:56] mobilization, for bringing these youth
[3:37:58] groups in. So, I see this in clear
[3:38:01] alignment with our existing code based
[3:38:03] on that ordinance.
[3:38:08] And then as far as brick,
[3:38:11] >> I really appreciate the brick, our
[3:38:14] original schoolhouse that was built in
[3:38:15] the late 1800s was all brick. Our purple
[3:38:19] church that used to sit across the
[3:38:21] street was all brick. So brick to me is
[3:38:24] very much our identity and has been for
[3:38:27] over a hundred years. Um,
[3:38:30] >> can you tell me the code again? I I came
[3:38:32] to the wrong place.
[3:38:33] >> Oh, did Kayen, can you put that up? It's
[3:38:35] >> It's right here.
[3:38:36] >> Okay.
[3:38:36] >> Number eight.
[3:38:38] >> I wasn't saying it was
[3:38:39] >> It's on the screen. Chrissy.
[3:38:41] >> Oh,
[3:38:42] >> number eight.
[3:38:43] >> It's another one that could probably be
[3:38:45] rewritten for clarity.
[3:38:48] Um,
[3:38:49] what was the last Oh, I I did listen to
[3:38:52] planning commission. It's off off
[3:38:54] traffic hours and I do think it meets
[3:38:56] the requirement of um serving the need
[3:38:59] for our community. It's such a great
[3:39:01] opportunity for these youth groups. I
[3:39:03] can't think of anything better than to
[3:39:06] create service opportunities on a
[3:39:08] regular basis for these groups to go in
[3:39:10] and and I love that the applicant is not
[3:39:13] just, you know, having them make things,
[3:39:16] but they're also really taking the
[3:39:17] opportunity to educate throughout this
[3:39:19] whole process.
[3:39:22] >> Okay. Can you reading number eight?
[3:39:25] You're saying that that the warehouse
[3:39:26] function is incidental.
[3:39:28] >> That it's not a warehouse, it's storage.
[3:39:31] No, no. But by Okay, not worries. Okay.
[3:39:34] A food bank. The food bank is where you
[3:39:36] have you buy commercial food
[3:39:40] and you send it out free to the public,
[3:39:43] >> right? But I and I correct me if I'm
[3:39:48] wrong, but
[3:39:49] >> I don't think it's
[3:39:51] >> codes that we're looking at for
[3:39:53] permitted uses in the BC zone is that the use can be answer to the main
[3:40:01] office buildings or the main structures,
[3:40:03] which this addition is, and that it is
[3:40:06] basically storage,
[3:40:09] not warehouse. So you don't have to
[3:40:12] worry about that original um structure
[3:40:15] being resold as a warehouse.
[3:40:19] >> Well, in the original structure came in
[3:40:20] as a garage,
[3:40:22] >> right?
[3:40:22] >> If you look at storage, right?
[3:40:25] >> So I I've not seen like a
[3:40:28] >> connection to a warehouse. I don't see a
[3:40:30] big difference between storage garage
[3:40:32] and warehouse that I mean when
[3:40:35] >> I think if you look at um commercial
[3:40:37] development and you look up warehouse
[3:40:39] you'll see docks you'll see
[3:40:42] >> that's true
[3:40:42] >> certain power I mean there's a there's a
[3:40:44] big difference
[3:40:45] >> because you do have commercial trucks
[3:40:47] delivering food so is help me understand
[3:40:51] how that's different
[3:40:53] >> I'm just looking at the site plan
[3:40:56] >> and I'm not seeing multiple loading
[3:40:57] docks and I'm not seeing both things
[3:40:59] that are prescribed in
[3:41:01] >> there are no loading docks on this,
[3:41:02] right? There are no loading or shipping
[3:41:06] or anything like that.
[3:41:07] >> There are commercial trucks delivering
[3:41:08] food.
[3:41:11] >> Trucks,
[3:41:14] » but Chrissy, there's like other
[3:41:16] businesses that do,
[3:41:18] >> you know, in our city that do have
[3:41:20] commercial trucks that come in and
[3:41:21] deliver that make deliveries. That's I
[3:41:24] think we're getting hung up on. I think
[3:41:27] originally because it was labeled as
[3:41:28] warehouse, that was the primary concern.
[3:41:31] But now that we understand that it's
[3:41:33] really not a warehouse, that it's a
[3:41:35] storage
[3:41:36] for this nonprofit, I don't know if we
[3:41:40] really need to because that warehouse
[3:41:43] designation is not there. I don't know
[3:41:46] if we really need to
[3:41:48] >> Yeah. No, the warehouse designation was
[3:41:50] on the office area, right?
[3:41:52] >> No. And they changed it. So they have
[3:41:54] they don't really have an identified I
[3:41:56] don't think where you currently process
[3:41:58] and make food bags for everyone is going
[3:42:01] to be an office is it
[3:42:03] >> what do you mean by that question? What
[3:42:04] do you
[3:42:06] >> like an office versus
[3:42:10] >> Oh sorry yes sorry about that.
[3:42:11] >> My name is JD Heiner. I'm with Silver
[3:42:12] Fox Construction. Um I think many of you
[3:42:15] have been there and volunteered there
[3:42:17] and there's multiple activities that
[3:42:19] occur there from training to organizing
[3:42:22] volunteers to um taking the dry goods.
[3:42:26] You know when you think of a warehouse
[3:42:28] oftentimes you're dealing with hazardous
[3:42:29] you know items and there's whole
[3:42:31] >> or fabric.
[3:42:32] >> Yeah. I mean all sorts of you know
[3:42:34] they're taking taking the dry goods and
[3:42:35] assembling them on assembly line and and
[3:42:38] there's certainly storage that occurs
[3:42:40] there but you know we deal in you know
[3:42:43] as a business we deal in you know retail
[3:42:46] medical industrial
[3:42:49] um and and our experience in industrial
[3:42:52] certainly is if if we were to build this
[3:42:54] as a warehouse and market as a warehouse
[3:42:55] I'll tell you right now it' have
[3:42:56] three-phase power it'd have 30 foot
[3:42:59] clear height it would have dock doors it
[3:43:01] would have an ability for a major semi
[3:43:04] to come in and not only once but
[3:43:05] multiple times a day. And you can
[3:43:07] clearly see in this building and this
[3:43:10] addition that it aligns more with what
[3:43:11] the mayor is saying around storage for
[3:43:14] the the service of the community which
[3:43:17] is specifically outlined in your general
[3:43:19] plan. And so when you take item number
[3:43:22] 10 that planning commission has based
[3:43:24] their approval on and you take the
[3:43:26] general plan and then you take into
[3:43:28] consideration that many seem worried
[3:43:30] that this could be a warehouse and and
[3:43:32] it not being designed that way. I think
[3:43:34] this is very a very easy um conclusion
[3:43:38] to come to. Um the the only other thing
[3:43:40] I would highlight is I I know the
[3:43:41] ownership would be um you know we I I
[3:43:46] don't think anyone here is concerned
[3:43:47] with what 512 is doing. I think the
[3:43:49] concern is rooted in what will happen if
[3:43:51] they sell 512. And I'll tell you, the
[3:43:54] ownership is absolutely not going to put
[3:43:57] any deed restrictions on their property,
[3:43:58] but you guys are able to mitigate that
[3:44:00] and manage that by business licenses and
[3:44:04] building permits and TI's and and
[3:44:06] whatnot. So, I think your concern as to
[3:44:09] what it'll be later on is addressed in your in your code, in your zoning
[3:44:14] requirements, and in your ability to
[3:44:16] issue business licenses and and building
[3:44:18] permits.
[3:44:19] >> While you're up, JD, how do you train
[3:44:22] once you guys make and pardon, I don't
[3:44:24] know this, I should come and volunteer.
[3:44:25] I'm sorry, I haven't. Uh, when you make
[3:44:27] all of these kits and
[3:44:30] uh nonprofit packs that you send out,
[3:44:33] how do you ship them out? Do you
[3:44:35] >> I volunteered. I've driven them to the
[3:44:37] schools. They typically go out private
[3:44:39] vehicles. So the the personal person
[3:44:42] takes them, puts them in, and then
[3:44:43] drives them to wherever the destination
[3:44:44] is.
[3:44:45] >> Yes. You put them in Yeah. You sign up,
[3:44:47] you put them in your car, and you drive
[3:44:48] to the school.
[3:44:49] >> Pretty cool.
[3:44:50] >> Okay. Um, are you, since you're up here,
[3:44:53] because I just assume you're kind of the
[3:44:55] applicant, are you kind of running, are you are you guys open at all for um
[3:44:59] if we have uh some problems on Main
[3:45:02] Street to work with us on those or any
[3:45:04] sort of improvements we can make while this project is going or do you
[3:45:08] want to be not have anything to do with
[3:45:10] that?
[3:45:10] >> Well, you know, we certainly want to be
[3:45:12] available. Well, I mean, I've been I've
[3:45:13] been up here to the site with the city
[3:45:16] um with Landon and and and Shane and
[3:45:19] whatnot as we've worked through the ADA
[3:45:21] crosswalk requirements. So, we're we're
[3:45:23] here to provide our input and thoughts
[3:45:26] um whenever asked. Um I don't know that
[3:45:28] I understand your question specifically.
[3:45:30] If you're asking if we're you know
[3:45:32] willing to what other than
[3:45:35] >> well
[3:45:35] >> be there when they call us up, what do
[3:45:37] you want us to do? No, I just Well, if
[3:45:39] things are being constructed, it's just
[3:45:40] a good time to be like, "Oh, this is
[3:45:42] where the the physical barrier goes out.
[3:45:45] What are they called? The extended curbs
[3:45:47] or whatever or this is like you're
[3:45:49] saying, the crosswalk or sometimes it
[3:45:52] goes into your property." And sometimes
[3:45:54] if we're digging stuff up, it's a good
[3:45:56] time to have the traffic in mind while
[3:45:59] it's happening to
[3:46:00] >> to try to not repeat um the situation we
[3:46:04] have.
[3:46:04] >> Sure. You know, I think there's some
[3:46:06] things that are often proposed that we
[3:46:09] as property owners and developers would
[3:46:11] say, "No, we're we're not for that.
[3:46:12] That's an issue for us."
[3:46:14] >> Right.
[3:46:14] >> Um but I think generally speaking, Shane
[3:46:17] and his team would would confirm that we
[3:46:19] we're collaborative in nature. I know
[3:46:21] the mayor, you've had
[3:46:22] >> conversations with um some of the staff
[3:46:25] that works for the property owner and there's a spirit of collaboration
[3:46:29] within within the bounds of, you know,
[3:46:31] our rights as property owners. For sure.
[3:46:33] >> Right. Right. Yeah. No, the I I learned
[3:46:35] our job is to balance the rights of the
[3:46:37] property owner with the health and
[3:46:39] well-being of the community.
[3:46:41] >> I think some people get too extreme on
[3:46:44] one of those sides. Property rights. I
[3:46:46] have full rights to do whatever,
[3:46:47] whenever, however, and then well, I see
[3:46:50] almost no one going the other extreme,
[3:46:52] the health and well-being of the
[3:46:54] community. But that's the goal is the
[3:46:56] balance. And I that's what I'm after.
[3:46:58] >> Here's the good news. Um
[3:47:01] I don't know that there is a effort and
[3:47:03] a business that is more about the
[3:47:05] community than 512.
[3:47:06] >> All right. Yeah. No, I I know I know I
[3:47:08] work in trafficking and other things. So
[3:47:12] >> thank you.
[3:47:14] >> But you still have to meet the code.
[3:47:15] >> No doubt.
[3:47:16] >> I'm going to put that out.
[3:47:16] >> The good news is I believe we have met
[3:47:18] the code here. Planning Commission has
[3:47:20] >> Is there any question on any piece of
[3:47:22] the code? So, if we were to describe
[3:47:23] your business since you you don't think
[3:47:25] that you have a warehouse and you don't
[3:47:27] think you're a food bank, how what is
[3:47:29] the definition then of the nonprofit?
[3:47:32] >> Well, again, I don't I don't know that I
[3:47:35] said I don't think we're a food bank. I
[3:47:37] think you've had some good arguments
[3:47:39] there. Um, I would more adamantly say I
[3:47:42] don't think we're a warehouse.
[3:47:44] >> Right. I understand that. So, how do you
[3:47:46] define what you do?
[3:47:47] >> We're a charitable organization that
[3:47:50] serves the community. That's very
[3:47:52] general.
[3:47:53] >> Well, we're [laughter] so is the so is
[3:47:56] the Red Cross.
[3:47:57] >> You've been there. What do you think we
[3:47:58] are?
[3:47:58] >> No, I'm asking you like how
[3:48:00] >> so we're a charitable organization that
[3:48:02] serves the community. That is at the
[3:48:03] very deficit.
[3:48:04] >> But I think all we can rely on is the
[3:48:06] application. I mean, we have to go to
[3:48:07] the applicant. We have to look at what's
[3:48:09] come through our staff and and we can't
[3:48:13] start attaching other things beyond the
[3:48:16] scope of what we're looking at in front
[3:48:17] of us.
[3:48:18] >> I understand your concern. So, let's say
[3:48:20] 50 years
[3:48:22] you know, we reached this area of utopia
[3:48:25] and we don't need 512, right?
[3:48:26] Everything's taken [clears throat] care
[3:48:27] of. Um, they want to sell it at that
[3:48:30] point.
[3:48:32] Um, you know, I think JD has it where if
[3:48:35] somebody else comes in and they want to
[3:48:37] use it as a warehouse where
[3:48:40] that designation hasn't been if it's
[3:48:42] going to be anything other than a
[3:48:44] charitable organization that serves the
[3:48:46] community, then that's a new definition
[3:48:48] that they would need to get approved at
[3:48:49] that point. That's what I'm trying to
[3:48:50] say. Could we put it in our motion that
[3:48:52] we approve this as a food bank and just
[3:48:55] move forward
[3:48:56] >> and we just clarify it and then
[3:48:57] >> you want to be food bank.
[3:48:58] >> We have we have it in the motion and
[3:49:00] that's all I'm just asking what could we
[3:49:02] call it to just label it in the motion.
[3:49:04] >> I think a question I would have is what
[3:49:06] does that do to the property? Um is that
[3:49:10] some sort of restriction?
[3:49:12] >> I don't think so. That would that would
[3:49:14] be the concern because I I'll you know I
[3:49:15] know ownership's not going to attach
[3:49:17] something to it that limits their
[3:49:19] ability to sell it down the road.
[3:49:21] >> No, no. I I was just saying
[3:49:22] >> on fines. In other words, we don't want
[3:49:24] to come to a place where it's well, you
[3:49:26] can only sell it to a food bank.
[3:49:28] >> No, no, but we're that we're approving
[3:49:29] it as a as this is what it's b like to
[3:49:33] meet number 10. It's something like what
[3:49:36] is it? Yeah,
[3:49:37] >> that's all I'm trying to say. So
[3:49:39] >> why why wouldn't that be a charitable
[3:49:41] organization?
[3:49:43] I think
[3:49:44] >> why would it be specific to be
[3:49:47] >> because [clears throat] I think the the
[3:49:49] land use is is um why it falls under
[3:49:54] number 10 is because it doesn't fit any
[3:49:56] other commercial.
[3:49:58] So
[3:49:59] we don't really have a designation for
[3:50:02] non for um charitable purp like we don't
[3:50:05] have that. So we're trying to label it
[3:50:06] something. So Chrissy is saying that um
[3:50:09] the way that our code is written is
[3:50:11] unless it's specifically enumerated,
[3:50:14] it's basically not allowed unless the
[3:50:17] state allows that use specifically.
[3:50:20] >> There's some things that they even
[3:50:22] though we don't have it as allowed use,
[3:50:24] the state has mandated that certain
[3:50:26] businesses and even businesses that we
[3:50:28] might not necessarily want that we have
[3:50:30] to allow that right with you know like
[3:50:32] tobacco shops and things like that. It's
[3:50:34] even though that's not a permitted
[3:50:36] specifically permitted or it wasn't
[3:50:37] before we change our code, there's
[3:50:39] certain aspects of state law that forces
[3:50:42] us to allow that use. So I think she
[3:50:45] just wants to um I you know so would you
[3:50:50] be comfortable with saying a charitable
[3:50:52] organization that serves our community
[3:50:54] or is there a reason that you want to
[3:50:56] specifically say it's a food bank?
[3:50:59] >> No, I I I don't have to call it a food
[3:51:01] bank. That was just the term I came up
[3:51:03] with. That's why I was asking the
[3:51:04] applicant. How do you describe it other
[3:51:06] than a
[3:51:07] >> It sounds like Chrissy is worried about
[3:51:08] physical structure and he's talking
[3:51:10] about business structure which is
[3:51:12] >> a charable organization is like you're a
[3:51:14] nonprofit.
[3:51:15] >> But can we attach a
[3:51:17] >> thousand things
[3:51:18] >> parking? My mind is thinking about when
[3:51:22] uh nearby across the street was created
[3:51:25] or um down on Alpine Highway was created
[3:51:28] and the traffic problems we have from
[3:51:29] that and everyone including myself is
[3:51:33] saying why wasn't there like a traffic
[3:51:35] plan attached to it with requirements
[3:51:37] and then we try to do it later and we
[3:51:39] can't like buses or on Alpine Highway
[3:51:42] like parking. Can we attach parking
[3:51:45] restrictions or requirements or traffic
[3:51:48] requirements to this or is that not uh
[3:51:51] something we have power over?
[3:51:53] >> I guess that would be for
[3:51:55] >> the only meet that requirement based off
[3:51:57] of the square footage. They have to have
[3:51:58] like 3.5 stalls per
[3:52:01] >> is that just it is that the end of the
[3:52:04] >> parking requirement is based on the use
[3:52:06] the parking building. That's it. So
[3:52:07] there's nothing more anyone can do. Do
[3:52:09] we ever require traffic studies for
[3:52:11] individual site plans? I know um
[3:52:15] >> it's not against the organization
[3:52:17] >> for hemorrhaging on traffic
[3:52:20] >> and high traffic or drive-thrus and
[3:52:23] different things like that.
[3:52:26] >> Okay. So, I don't know what it's and
[3:52:28] again it's not against the organization.
[3:52:29] It's because of the traffic issues. I'm
[3:52:31] trying to
[3:52:33] fix that with what you're trying to do.
[3:52:35] >> So, are there any further questions? If
[3:52:37] not, I think we need to move on. Oh my
[3:52:40] gosh, you guys. It's 10 o'clock. I need
[3:52:42] a motion to extend the meeting.
[3:52:47] » There's the last one.
[3:52:48] >> I need a motion to extend the meeting.
[3:52:50] >> Okay, I'll make a motion to extend the
[3:52:51] meeting. Uh 10 minutes.
[3:52:54] >> 10 minutes. So, we're not going over the
[3:52:55] main street plan.
[3:52:57] >> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Uh
[3:52:59] >> and we have a close session.
[3:53:00] >> Okay. I I tried to do it quick to help
[3:53:01] get it quick. Go ahead. Can Can we make
[3:53:04] a motion to extend the meeting and to
[3:53:07] postpone the Main Street review?
[3:53:10] >> Oh, that's the best part. Yes, we can. I
[3:53:12] mean,
[3:53:12] >> well, it's traffic and it's also council
[3:53:14] member Rumbler's
[3:53:16] >> Right. I agree. I agree.
[3:53:18] >> So,
[3:53:20] >> yes, we
[3:53:20] >> So, I move to extend the meeting.
[3:53:24] Do I have to include the close session
[3:53:25] time in the meeting or just the general
[3:53:27] session?
[3:53:28] >> No, it's all of it.
[3:53:29] >> Oh, goodness.
[3:53:31] 10:30
[3:53:34] to 10:45 and to postpone the review of
[3:53:37] the traffic section of the Main Street
[3:53:40] general study.
[3:53:41] >> Had such high hopes at the beginning of
[3:53:43] the meeting that we would end on time
[3:53:44] tonight.
[3:53:45] >> But we have so much going on.
[3:53:46] >> Is there a second?
[3:53:47] >> I'll second it.
[3:53:48] >> Okay. Moved by Councilwoman Smeu and
[3:53:50] seconded by Councilman Young to extend
[3:53:53] the meeting time. Any discussion? If
[3:53:55] not, let's proceed with a roll call
[3:53:56] vote.
[3:53:56] >> I have a discuss. We just have a really
[3:53:58] packed meeting. So, I would prefer that
[3:54:00] we extend 30 minutes
[3:54:03] um to finish the main street and get it
[3:54:05] done in 30 minutes. I think we can go to
[3:54:07] 10:30, can't we?
[3:54:09] >> I I don't want to remove it.
[3:54:10] >> What about closed?
[3:54:11] >> No, she was saying 10:45, right?
[3:54:14] >> I know.
[3:54:16] >> And then we got close session also. We
[3:54:19] have several things. I'm
[3:54:20] >> We have reports and present.
[3:54:22] >> We're We are just looking at the same
[3:54:24] packed agenda in two weeks. Can we put a
[3:54:27] time limit on each council member's
[3:54:29] comments on the main street?
[3:54:31] >> Three minutes.
[3:54:32] >> Small small area plan.
[3:54:34] >> Two minutes.
[3:54:35] >> But look, we've got it. Okay. This is
[3:54:37] like, okay, let's do this. Just extend
[3:54:39] [clears throat] it to 11.
[3:54:41] >> But let's get through this, guys. Come
[3:54:42] on.
[3:54:44] >> Okay.
[3:54:45] >> We
[3:54:46] >> keep the main street with the limitation
[3:54:48] on everyone's comments to four minutes.
[3:54:52] >> Three minutes. Three minutes.
[3:54:53] >> Three minutes.
[3:54:53] Okay.
[3:54:56] So, she's amended the motion to 11
[3:54:59] o'clock. Council's comment to three
[3:55:01] minutes and keep the main street.
[3:55:03] >> I'll second.
[3:55:04] >> Okay. So, amen. Motion by
[3:55:08] >> Smean, seconded by um Blackwell. Roll
[3:55:11] call vote.
[3:55:12] >> Sarah Blackwell. Yes.
[3:55:13] >> Yes. Chrisman, yes.
[3:55:15] >> Young, yes.
[3:55:16] >> Jessica Sme, yes.
[3:55:17] >> Okay. Sorry about that. Um let's get a
[3:55:20] motion for this.
[3:55:23] If there's no
[3:55:24] >> Okay, I'll move. I was looking for the
[3:55:26] motion. Woof, this is a huge packet.
[3:55:28] We're on page 177.
[3:55:30] Okay. I move to approve the proposed
[3:55:33] plan site for the new 512
[3:55:37] nonprofit organization in the commercial
[3:55:39] building at 168 South Main Street.
[3:55:44] Is that okay?
[3:55:45] >> That's great.
[3:55:46] >> Okay. Is there a second?
[3:55:49] >> I'll second that.
[3:55:50] >> Okay. It's been moved by Councilwoman
[3:55:51] Haniman, second by Councilwoman
[3:55:53] Blackwell. Are there any questions to
[3:55:55] the motion?
[3:55:56] >> This is to the motion. Would you amend
[3:55:58] it to include the planning commission's
[3:56:01] um recommendation that they'll go ahead
[3:56:02] and plant grass and wild flowers where
[3:56:06] the commercial future commercial
[3:56:07] building
[3:56:08] >> Yes.
[3:56:08] >> will reside.
[3:56:09] >> I think that's what the site plan showed
[3:56:11] though, right? They showed grass over
[3:56:12] it.
[3:56:12] >> Shows n natural seed and whatnot. We're certainly trying
[3:56:16] >> I think that the planning commission
[3:56:18] gave you a prescriptive information.
[3:56:21] Yeah. That you'll water it the first
[3:56:22] year, that it will take root, and you'll
[3:56:24] put wild flowers.
[3:56:25] >> Yeah. Okay. I amend to say that
[3:56:27] according to the planning commission's
[3:56:28] recommendation and just leave it at that
[3:56:30] because I don't know exactly what they
[3:56:31] said.
[3:56:31] >> Okay. So, you accept the amendment. Are
[3:56:33] you okay with will you say are you okay
[3:56:35] with it? Because you
[3:56:36] >> I Yes, I am okay with that.
[3:56:37] >> Perfect. Let's Can I just just a
[3:56:40] clarification? He said a charitable
[3:56:43] organization. I don't know what did you
[3:56:46] use a different term in your
[3:56:47] >> nonprofit. Nonprofit. Do you
[3:56:49] >> charable? Okay. Either are fine. Okay.
[3:56:51] I'm just cautious.
[3:56:52] >> Just trying to make sure we're
[3:56:54] >> Would you accept an amendment? Well, you
[3:56:56] already accepted that one. Would you
[3:56:57] accept a an amendment to have a traffic
[3:57:01] mitigation plan be part of this?
[3:57:04] >> No. Because I live by there, it's not
[3:57:06] really an issue.
[3:57:06] >> Okay. I promise you it is.
[3:57:08] >> It's been rejected. So, can we proceed
[3:57:10] with the roll call?
[3:57:11] >> You have to accept his amendments.
[3:57:13] >> Yes, I do.
[3:57:14] >> She did. She accepted hers. [laughter]
[3:57:16] You rejected his. So, she can't second.
[3:57:18] >> Okay, we're good. We're good.
[3:57:19] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[3:57:21] >> Chrisman, yes.
[3:57:22] >> Andrew Young, no.
[3:57:23] >> Jessica Simeon, yes.
[3:57:24] >> Okay. Motion passes.
[3:57:26] >> Thank you.
[3:57:27] >> Okay. Um,
[3:57:30] let's go to the Main Street Gateway
[3:57:33] Quarter Master Plan.
[3:57:34] >> Can we please have a timer as well?
[3:57:37] >> Please, can you put the timer on our on
[3:57:39] our little thing right here?
[3:57:40] >> Kaden, are you ready for Should we do
[3:57:41] the close session first or should we do
[3:57:43] this next?
[3:57:43] >> Does Does Hyram need to be here for the
[3:57:45] >> Hyram doesn't need to be here for Main
[3:57:47] Street? I know. So, let's go into close
[3:57:48] session because we do need So, I need a
[3:57:51] motion to go into close session for
[3:57:54] >> um potential litigation, acquisition of
[3:57:57] property, and disposal of property.
[3:58:00] >> Can we just take 12 minutes and be done?
[3:58:03] >> 12 minutes.
[3:58:04] >> 1 2 3 4 time 12. Three.
[3:58:06] >> I guess I just don't trust it. Can we
[3:58:08] just go into close session really quick
[3:58:09] and then Hyram can leave? Okay.
[3:58:11] >> Okay. Okay. I move to pause the regular
[3:58:13] meeting and move into a closed meeting
[3:58:14] to be held in the conference room at
[3:58:16] city hall to discuss pending or
[3:58:20] reasonable eminent litigation, the
[3:58:23] purchase, exchange, sale, or lease of
[3:58:25] real property.
[3:58:27] >> That's it.
[3:58:27] >> And at the end of the closed meeting,
[3:58:29] the open city council meeting will
[3:58:31] continue.
[3:58:32] >> Yay. Okay. Is there a second?
[3:58:34] >> Second that.
[3:58:35] >> Okay. Councilwoman um Smeuan, motion to
[3:58:39] go into close session. Councilman Young
[3:58:41] seconded.
[3:58:42] >> Go ahead.
[3:58:43] >> Sarah Blackwell. Yes.
[3:58:45] >> Chrissy.
[3:58:46] Hanaman. Yes.
[3:58:47] >> Andrew Young. Yes.
[3:58:48] >> Jessica Smean. Yes.
[3:58:49] >> Okay you guys. 3m minute bio break and
[3:58:51] then let's meet in the conference room
[3:58:53] in three minutes.
[3:58:56] >> That's at 10:07.
[3:59:01] » Yes.
[3:59:06] » Okay.
[3:59:08] Yeah.
[3:59:34] » As long as we have authority.
[3:59:35] >> I don't think we can do that.
[3:59:37] Okay, tell me your question.
[3:59:52] All right.
[4:00:03] » Shane can probably step in and correct
[4:00:05] me, but the
[4:00:08] >> we can't
[4:00:10] put the trail where it was. If it some
[4:00:12] of it,
[4:00:12] >> it would seem like you would have to be
[4:00:14] where the trail is versus trying to
[4:00:16] relocate the trail. Well, I think a lot
[4:00:18] of the trail was in the right place.
[4:00:20] >> There was only a few areas where it
[4:00:24] >> So, so most of the trail will just exist
[4:00:27] where it was
[4:00:28] >> and then it would need to be adjusted to
[4:00:30] meet um probably where the trail
[4:00:34] originally was part of the
[4:00:37] >> problem.
[4:00:47] supposed to be
[4:00:49] my
[4:00:51] problem for the last
[4:00:54] >> I know that's the that's the
[4:00:58] » cuts through
[4:01:00] Steven Bonsard who we already approved
[4:01:02] for the
[4:01:02] >> why can't it just sit in the ditch
[4:01:05] >> why can't it just sit in that irrigation
[4:01:07] ditch that's been vacated that's not
[4:01:09] used and we can improve that and it can
[4:01:11] be dreamy
[4:01:12] >> well that's my thought is is the piece
[4:01:14] von built down the hawthorns There's
[4:01:16] still 20 ft of haw in there, but it
[4:01:18] would take some work to clear the host
[4:01:20] and put a trail in. But then that would
[4:01:23] I guess technically that would still cut
[4:01:24] into his property because his property
[4:01:26] goes through the right to the lower
[4:01:27] edge.
[4:01:28] >> Does his property go through the
[4:01:29] irrigation ditch? Because if the
[4:01:31] irrigation ditch is is public
[4:01:35] access then
[4:01:36] >> well the irrigation ditch is really
[4:01:39] irrigation.
[4:01:41] >> There's two ditches there.
[4:01:44] one one was private and one was a a
[4:01:46] company did.
[4:01:49] >> So I'm
[4:01:50] >> What does Alpine Irrigation want that we
[4:01:53] have that they would give us just a
[4:01:56] easement to let folks walk through that
[4:01:58] ditch?
[4:02:00] >> Well, that's the thing
[4:02:02] like I'm trying to think of there's a
[4:02:06] recent example
[4:02:09] where Steve said that because you have
[4:02:24] It's just there's so many moving parts.
[4:02:26] So to really start to all of this,
[4:02:31] >> there
[4:02:39] for you.
[4:02:43] I was actually looking at
[4:02:47] her, but yeah, you can email me. My
[4:02:48] email address is on the
[4:03:32] options here.
[4:03:37] I already
[4:03:42] That's the frustration.
[4:04:26] Andrew,
[4:04:27] >> can you come?
[4:04:50] We're not
[4:05:18] I don't care.
[4:05:28] Thousands.
[4:29:14] » [snorts]
[4:29:46] » Wow. This is a heavy knife.
[4:29:48] >> The thing is
[4:29:49] >> lot of heavy issues.
[4:30:05] Okay.
[4:30:22] » I would like development agreements.
[4:30:26] >> We should look at development agreements
[4:30:28] more. We should understand them more. I
[4:30:30] know Ryan was a
[4:30:33] huge
[4:30:52] » Okay. Um,
[4:30:54] >> welcome back to the open session. We'll
[4:30:57] go ahead and move to
[4:30:58] >> I like the idea.
[4:31:00] Okay.
[4:31:01] >> The city council agenda, the proposed
[4:31:04] main street and gateway corridor small
[4:31:06] area plan review. Um Kaden, what what do
[4:31:09] you have for us?
[4:31:11] >> Okay, I'll turn it over quickly back to
[4:31:13] the council because I know we're trying
[4:31:14] to be quick. Um so this is the final
[4:31:16] part of our review. We've reviewed all
[4:31:18] the other parts. You can see here in the
[4:31:20] table of contents where we're just going
[4:31:22] to make sure we hit the land acquisition
[4:31:24] policy and the implementation matrix,
[4:31:26] which we didn't get to in our last
[4:31:28] review. And then the traffic management
[4:31:30] plan.
[4:31:32] Um I put in red here the motion made by
[4:31:35] the planning commission to be considered
[4:31:38] by the council as part of the traffic
[4:31:40] management plan. So um keep that in mind
[4:31:43] or we can reference to it as we discuss.
[4:31:46] Um but let's just jump to the plan. So
[4:31:49] let's first go to those first two
[4:31:51] things.
[4:31:54] >> I'm trying to pull up.
[4:31:55] >> Thank you Hum.
[4:31:56] >> Hi. See you.
[4:31:57] >> Thank you. Nice to meet you, Hyram.
[4:31:58] >> Very impressed. Cedar Hills is lucky to
[4:32:00] have you.
[4:32:02] >> So, the land acquisition policy. Um, so
[4:32:05] the purpose of this section was to
[4:32:06] create a proactive and structured
[4:32:08] approach to securing land parcels that
[4:32:11] will contribute to the small area plan's
[4:32:12] vision and development objectives. Um,
[4:32:16] so
[4:32:17] we it's it's to try to get all the
[4:32:19] parcels within the boundaries of the
[4:32:20] small area plan to be conforming to the
[4:32:22] plan. That's the goal of it. Um and it
[4:32:25] suggests establishing short, mid, and
[4:32:27] long-term goals to do this.
[4:32:29] Um
[4:32:31] so there's a matrix created to address
[4:32:34] the criteria which is here.
[4:32:39] Um to determine the important the
[4:32:40] importance of each each parcel.
[4:32:44] Um weights are given but you can decide
[4:32:46] how weighted each criteria is if you
[4:32:49] wanted to change that but that's what's
[4:32:50] given right now. And then criteria
[4:32:54] weight determines partial score and high
[4:32:56] procurement desiraability.
[4:32:59] Are there any questions on this or
[4:33:00] comments on the land acquisition policy?
[4:33:03] >> Yes. Do we currently have a land
[4:33:05] acquisition policy?
[4:33:07] >> No.
[4:33:08] >> Okay. Um
[4:33:11] I guess that was my only question. Um
[4:33:14] one can I share one thought from Brent
[4:33:16] that he would like shared is that if we
[4:33:20] are talking about acquiring land he
[4:33:24] would love to and maybe this is
[4:33:25] addressed in the matrix and in the
[4:33:27] policy but to make sure that there is a
[4:33:30] use for that land moving forward and I
[4:33:32] think it does mention that in the land
[4:33:34] acquisition section of the small area
[4:33:36] plan but before we decide we're going to
[4:33:39] purchase the land which way I'm assuming
[4:33:42] we do that already. We kind of
[4:33:45] understand what the use is. Um but uh
[4:33:49] no, that was my only question.
[4:33:56] » I'll pass and save my time for later.
[4:33:58] >> Okay. Anybody else?
[4:34:00] >> Okay.
[4:34:01] >> All right.
[4:34:02] >> Andrew, you've got three minutes.
[4:34:04] >> Yeah, I'm uh trying to pull up the
[4:34:07] because it was so long ago, I made all
[4:34:09] my notes on
[4:34:11] uh I I can remember most of them, but I
[4:34:14] went line by line and I I highlighted
[4:34:16] all the parts. So, I'm going back
[4:34:17] through all the different packets to
[4:34:18] find.
[4:34:19] >> We circle back on you when you find it.
[4:34:20] >> Yeah. Yeah. Okay.
[4:34:21] >> Oh, I found it. But so, but go ahead.
[4:34:24] You can go first and I'll I'll find the
[4:34:25] part.
[4:34:26] >> I'm going to defer my time to you
[4:34:27] because I think you're going to need six
[4:34:28] minutes.
[4:34:30] >> When you said line by line.
[4:34:32] >> No, no. What? Okay.
[4:34:34] >> Can we circle back though? You can talk
[4:34:37] about land acquisition and after Kaden
[4:34:39] >> I can I can wait till the whole thing's
[4:34:40] done and just go through. Let's just go
[4:34:42] through the whole
[4:34:43] >> Okay, let's do that. Okay, so the
[4:34:45] implementation matrix is uh just this
[4:34:47] page. So it's just the uh it's similar
[4:34:51] to the project prioritization matrix for
[4:34:53] the budget. Um it's a matrix to help
[4:34:55] identify priority projects and to meet
[4:34:57] the plan's objectives. So that's what's
[4:34:59] listed here. Any comments?
[4:35:01] >> Is this the implementation matrix for to get through to get from vision to
[4:35:08] ordinance?
[4:35:09] >> Right.
[4:35:11] Yes. So I think you can read yeah the
[4:35:12] action items here. Um
[4:35:16] adopt land use acquisition program into
[4:35:18] city's code. Adopt up to historic main
[4:35:20] design guidelines. So those are kind of
[4:35:22] the first things that saying we need to
[4:35:23] get done and then all these other things
[4:35:26] can kind of come later.
[4:35:27] >> Everything from pedestrian walkways to
[4:35:29] uh iconic elements that are at the
[4:35:31] entrances to ordinance recommendations.
[4:35:34] >> Okay.
[4:35:35] >> The roundabouts. It's got a bunch to
[4:35:38] speed limits.
[4:35:39] Okay. Any comment on this?
[4:35:45] Okay. So, the traffic management plan,
[4:35:46] which is I'm sure we've all been waiting
[4:35:49] for this anxiously to talk about this,
[4:35:51] but um I guess I'll just briefly say
[4:35:53] this is broken down into into the
[4:35:56] different uh gateway corridors that lead
[4:35:58] into Alpine. So, we uh start with Main
[4:36:02] Street here.
[4:36:04] um talks about having a shared use path
[4:36:06] on the east side that's 10 ft wide. Um I
[4:36:11] think uh it's interesting that one thing
[4:36:15] I guess I was planning on recommending
[4:36:18] just from a planning perspective it
[4:36:19] could be helpful to separate a little
[4:36:21] bit more the biking and the walking uh
[4:36:23] just for aesthetics and and usability of
[4:36:25] the space. Um it talks about in here
[4:36:30] let's see where is it? I don't remember
[4:36:32] exactly, but it talks right here. RFBs,
[4:36:34] reg rectangular rapid flashing beacons.
[4:36:37] Um, I think they can be good, but I also
[4:36:40] think that if you have them on your main
[4:36:43] street, then it could be a sign that you
[4:36:45] don't have a pedestrian scale main
[4:36:47] street because they're usually used
[4:36:49] because drivers are not expecting
[4:36:50] pedestrians in that space. So, I think
[4:36:53] that's a good thing to keep in mind is
[4:36:54] if we're relying a lot on RFBS, these
[4:36:57] flashing beacons, we probably don't have
[4:36:59] a pedestrian scale street.
[4:37:01] >> Um, so I think that would be the main
[4:37:02] thing to think about is um let's let's
[4:37:04] try to build according to the pedestrian
[4:37:06] scale, good streetscapes, and then and
[4:37:09] then go from there. Um, but especially
[4:37:11] for Main Street. Um, so that was my
[4:37:14] comment on that. I think curb extensions
[4:37:16] are awesome. That's a great thing. Speed
[4:37:18] management I is recommended to go to 20.
[4:37:21] I think it's 30 right now or 25 at
[4:37:23] different points along Main Street.
[4:37:24] >> Yes.
[4:37:25] >> Recommended to go to 20. Um and again, I
[4:37:27] think that only really works if you have
[4:37:29] good well-designed streets. Otherwise,
[4:37:32] people will just drive at the speed
[4:37:34] they're comfortable.
[4:37:35] >> So, just to keep that in mind. Um
[4:37:38] and then, yeah, it talks about Alpine
[4:37:40] Highway. This is a lot about um the
[4:37:44] Mountainville Academy. So, this whole
[4:37:45] page is kind of talking about
[4:37:47] Mountainville Academy. Um, and I know
[4:37:49] that's an issue on top of everybody's
[4:37:51] mind, so I'll just skip that for now and
[4:37:53] we can talk about it if you guys want
[4:37:54] to. [clears throat] Alpine Highway is
[4:37:58] uh I think this is a pretty good
[4:38:01] cross-section right here showing what
[4:38:02] Alpine Highway could look like. Um, I
[4:38:06] would just make a comment again like I
[4:38:07] think not only just a painted buffer
[4:38:10] could be good for bikes and and the uh
[4:38:13] trees and pedestrians. Maybe even some
[4:38:15] sort of vertical buffer curb or
[4:38:18] something could be good to separate
[4:38:21] those those different uses from cars and bikers just to promote the biking.
[4:38:26] Um, if if that's what you're looking
[4:38:28] for. Um,
[4:38:31] then I'll just jump to Canyon Crest. Um,
[4:38:34] same thing I think. Um,
[4:38:38] could have a buffer as well between the
[4:38:40] shared use path and between cars. And
[4:38:42] then Westfield
[4:38:45] jump to that one. Oh, I So, this next
[4:38:48] thing is just talking about the
[4:38:49] roundabout for Canyon Crest and Ridge
[4:38:52] Drive, which I know again is on top of
[4:38:54] everybody's mind right now. Um, so I
[4:38:58] think everyone is in agreement or
[4:39:00] considering to be in agreement for that
[4:39:03] uh to be turned into a roundabout. So I
[4:39:05] know it's in our budget. And then um
[4:39:08] just going to Westfield Road.
[4:39:12] Uh I think it's a good cross-section as
[4:39:14] well up here that's pictured what
[4:39:15] Westfield could look like. Um and again
[4:39:18] buffer bike lanes I think are always
[4:39:19] good. That might be what that says right
[4:39:21] there is buffer. It's kind of blurry
[4:39:22] here on the screen. Um, but I think
[4:39:25] that's always good if that's what you're
[4:39:26] trying to promote.
[4:39:28] Um, I noticed there's a lot of mention
[4:39:30] of different small roundabouts too
[4:39:32] throughout these gateway corridors. Um,
[4:39:35] and again like [clears throat] rapid
[4:39:37] RFBs, rapid uh flashing beacons again
[4:39:41] throughout. So, I just would I guess
[4:39:44] recommend to the council consider how
[4:39:46] and when to implement those in in the
[4:39:48] right way and um how that um compares
[4:39:52] and contrast to just having good street
[4:39:54] design for the ideal streets you want
[4:39:56] for the gateways and then I'll turn it
[4:39:59] over to you guys again.
[4:40:05] » Okay, I'm setting my timer.
[4:40:10] Okay. In general, I just think anything
[4:40:12] we implement, we should start with
[4:40:14] lowhanging fruit and kind of rule out
[4:40:16] kind of some of the more immediate fixes
[4:40:20] that we could just do on our own as a
[4:40:22] city. Um, I'll start with Main Street.
[4:40:25] Um, first, I really love the idea of
[4:40:28] having active transportation.
[4:40:30] Um, I like that we have bike lanes. Um,
[4:40:34] and I believe it said restricting
[4:40:36] parking to only the east side of Main
[4:40:37] Street. I like that. Um, I also agree
[4:40:41] with lowering the target speeds to 20 to
[4:40:44] 25 miles per hour. Realistically, I feel
[4:40:46] like 25 is more realistic. Although, I
[4:40:50] was driving through Provo the other day
[4:40:51] and they have signs over parts of their
[4:40:53] roads that say 20 is plenty, which I
[4:40:56] thought was kind of clever. Um,
[4:40:59] Alpine Highway, again, bike lanes. I
[4:41:02] think that's amazing. That would be
[4:41:04] great. At one on one of our discussions,
[4:41:07] we were talking about that easement. Um
[4:41:09] it was brought up that if we could
[4:41:11] figure out a way to put a trail over the
[4:41:13] metro easement, that might also be an
[4:41:16] option worth exploring.
[4:41:19] Um
[4:41:21] Canyon Crest Road. Um I am in favor of
[4:41:25] potentially lowering the speed limit to
[4:41:27] 30, but um I don't know that it actually
[4:41:30] says that in here. So maybe it's it
[4:41:32] does. Okay. Thanks. Um, I'm going to
[4:41:36] skip over the roundabout. Um, Westfield
[4:41:39] Road. Again, I am in favor of exploring
[4:41:43] and implementing any sort of active
[4:41:45] transportation.
[4:41:47] Um, I think it's it makes our community
[4:41:51] better. It provides an amenity and it
[4:41:54] creates safety. So, I would love to be
[4:41:57] able to explore that more. Um,
[4:42:02] I don't know that I have any other
[4:42:03] thoughts. Um,
[4:42:06] okay. Now, I still have one minute, but
[4:42:08] I will stop there. I don't know if that
[4:42:11] was even helpful.
[4:42:13] >> Okay.
[4:42:17] I have um comments. First of all, um I I
[4:42:21] think a lot of focus goes on to traffic
[4:42:25] car related vehicle and I love that this
[4:42:29] plan brought in um ways to address bike
[4:42:32] concerns as well as pedestrian
[4:42:35] and sometimes pedestrian is only um
[4:42:38] considered if there's a safety issue,
[4:42:40] but actually having a walking friendly
[4:42:43] community is highly desirable. And so I
[4:42:46] loved that about he addressed what do we
[4:42:49] need not just to keep people safe but to
[4:42:51] encourage people to become pedestrians
[4:42:53] instead of drivers. So that was one of
[4:42:56] the things I did appreciate about the
[4:42:58] plan. Um I do think that um we do have a
[4:43:04] number of traffic studies and I have
[4:43:07] them all in my binder that I have copies
[4:43:10] of and most of them focus strictly on
[4:43:12] Main Street. So to bring attention to
[4:43:14] other areas um it was really insightful.
[4:43:19] It's just more broadbased.
[4:43:21] Um so I do I did love that about this
[4:43:25] specifically and um he also has
[4:43:29] alternatives
[4:43:30] as we know the roundabout has been a big
[4:43:33] um point of discussion and then there's
[4:43:36] option one option two and then in the
[4:43:38] long term a roundabout should be
[4:43:40] considered at the intersection. So, as I
[4:43:43] pointed out in a different meeting, I
[4:43:44] won't repeat it, that in the
[4:43:45] intermediary time, maybe there's
[4:43:47] something to do um with that specific
[4:43:49] intersection. And maybe if we're lucky,
[4:43:52] we'll it will, you know, reduce speed.
[4:43:55] It will address the issues and we'll see
[4:43:58] um if it's needed, but or it will prove
[4:44:00] the opposite that it didn't accomplish
[4:44:01] what we'd like and therefore it
[4:44:03] justifies the roundabout. Either way, I
[4:44:05] feel like if we if we um did some of
[4:44:07] these to Sarah's point, lowhanging
[4:44:09] fruit, it would help us give um more
[4:44:13] justification one way or the other,
[4:44:14] however we move forward um as we move
[4:44:17] along with the Canyon Crest
[4:44:19] improvements. I did want to I'm I'm
[4:44:21] going to um
[4:44:24] >> divide the rest of my devote the rest of
[4:44:26] my time to the long-term implementation
[4:44:28] of this. I love the implementation
[4:44:30] matrix. I think they've done a lot of
[4:44:32] the heavy lifting for us about what we
[4:44:34] need to do next. And in talking to um
[4:44:37] our planning commission chair who's Alan
[4:44:40] McDonald and also um Kaden, I felt like
[4:44:44] there the planning commission made some
[4:44:46] recommendations. We have recommendations
[4:44:48] and I would like to have a unified
[4:44:49] message going back to the consultants to
[4:44:52] say these are the changes we want to
[4:44:53] see. And the best way to do that I feel
[4:44:56] is rather than like listen to meetings
[4:44:58] again or Kaden wasn't here for the whole
[4:45:00] year that we were doing all this is to
[4:45:02] combine make a team effort and have one
[4:45:04] council member or two and at least one
[4:45:08] planning commission member like go
[4:45:10] through one specific section combine
[4:45:13] both the feedback and and have a
[4:45:15] document to submit to our to our
[4:45:18] consultant so that they're not getting
[4:45:19] conflicting information. Kaden's not
[4:45:21] trying to interpret minutes, you know,
[4:45:24] the intent and everything. So, in
[4:45:26] talking to Allan, he's in agreement and
[4:45:28] we um we thought the four areas that we
[4:45:31] covered here in the colored um schematic
[4:45:34] that Kaden has created for us would be
[4:45:37] great as we brought um attention. Brent
[4:45:40] is very keen on traffic and Andy Spencer
[4:45:44] was on our SP planning commission. I
[4:45:46] mean, our what is it called? Our
[4:45:48] steering committee. our steering
[4:45:50] committee and he's actually a traffic
[4:45:52] engineer for UD do so he had some great
[4:45:54] insights if we and then one person from
[4:45:56] planning commission that's just an
[4:45:58] example um in your third email okay
[4:46:01] there's two out of out of out of this in
[4:46:04] your third email can we work send Kaden
[4:46:07] which would be your interest to
[4:46:08] participate if we divide up into four
[4:46:11] smaller committees okay and um lastly
[4:46:16] knowing that everybody's human. We all
[4:46:20] do better if there's a deadline. Can we
[4:46:22] get together with your you you would be
[4:46:24] assigned to be the to get together with
[4:46:27] your me with your committee members,
[4:46:31] produce the feedback and hand it in to
[4:46:33] Kaden so that he can forward it on to
[4:46:35] our consultants by September 1st
[4:46:39] if that's possible. Yes,
[4:46:41] >> that's that's my last um comment, but I I as you continue with your feedback,
[4:46:48] Sarah's already agreed to it. The the
[4:46:50] two remaining council members, if you
[4:46:52] can say Chrissy s plan sounds good.
[4:46:55] Thumbs up. I'm done. Jess,
[4:46:59] >> I defer my time to council.
[4:47:01] >> No, she's asking for a response from
[4:47:03] you. Thumbs up or thumbs down on her
[4:47:05] >> September 1st deadline down into four
[4:47:08] groups.
[4:47:08] >> Yes.
[4:47:09] >> Okay. Thumb. That was a thumbs up. She
[4:47:11] didn't say anything, so you have to put
[4:47:12] that in the minutes.
[4:47:13] >> So, you want me to give your three
[4:47:15] minutes to Andrew? So,
[4:47:17] >> said thumbs up.
[4:47:19] >> Okay.
[4:47:19] >> I don't think I'm much longer than
[4:47:20] anyone else. I know I'm getting
[4:47:21] >> Okay. I do have a question for Kayen,
[4:47:23] though. Our grant coming through MAG for
[4:47:26] writing for rewriting our code to
[4:47:28] accommodate the new um things. When does
[4:47:30] that go into effect and how long do we
[4:47:32] have? I don't remember the timeline.
[4:47:34] >> Oh, that is a good question. I'll have
[4:47:35] to look into that. I don't remember
[4:47:37] exactly either.
[4:47:38] >> Okay.
[4:47:38] >> Yeah, let's look into that. Thank you.
[4:47:41] >> Okay.
[4:47:42] >> I love that idea, Chrissy, and I would
[4:47:44] love to be on the group with traffic
[4:47:46] >> if you haven't already chose someone.
[4:47:49] >> Okay.
[4:47:50] >> Uh I really would love to help out with
[4:47:52] that.
[4:47:53] >> Okay. Um on the land acquisition
[4:47:56] section, I don't think it's there, but
[4:48:00] it might be. I I'm honestly not
[4:48:02] remembering, but to have some sort of
[4:48:04] priority to do some land acquisition for
[4:48:06] entrance signs on the three gateways. It
[4:48:08] does call for them and it does call for
[4:48:11] iconic statues or something some visual
[4:48:14] piece it calls for that. Sorry I got in
[4:48:17] my teeth but I don't know if the land
[4:48:20] acquisition follows that. So if that's
[4:48:21] not there it might be something to get
[4:48:22] ahead of as people move come uh they're
[4:48:26] small parcels or additions but that's
[4:48:28] where we could add our entrance signs on
[4:48:30] Canyon Crest uh Alpine Highway and
[4:48:33] Westfield if that ever happens.
[4:48:36] Residents are asking for it. So that's
[4:48:38] that. Okay. Then the other stuff is very
[4:48:40] short. Uh I agree with everything in
[4:48:43] this uh or pretty much I don't think
[4:48:44] there's anything I don't agree with. I
[4:48:46] love it actually. Um I would only
[4:48:49] probably go a little bit further. Um and
[4:48:51] so basically my mission that I was asked
[4:48:53] to do was to not let any of the speed
[4:48:55] reductions get taken out, but no one
[4:48:57] wants to take them out, so I think we're
[4:48:59] fine. Um I think everyone mostly agrees
[4:49:01] with them. The main street is currently
[4:49:03] 30 and they want to bring it down to 25
[4:49:06] and 20.
[4:49:08] So, I I love that. And let us know what
[4:49:10] we need to do to help out with that. If
[4:49:12] you'd like to start the first steps, the
[4:49:14] Canyon Crest is recommended to go from
[4:49:16] 35 to 30 um in this. Um I know the
[4:49:21] residents there are asking for 25, but
[4:49:23] 30 is good, too. Um
[4:49:26] uh so yeah, it let us know what we need
[4:49:28] to do to help make that happen. Uh
[4:49:31] Westfield um wants to go from 35 to it's
[4:49:35] recommending go from 35 to 30 on
[4:49:37] Westfield. So So I just drove these
[4:49:40] roads and this is what I pondering them
[4:49:42] because I know what people are after a
[4:49:44] quiet nice neighborhood and they live by
[4:49:46] a busy road. Oh, by the way, Alpine
[4:49:48] Highways from 45 to 40. That's what it
[4:49:50] recommends. So I agree with all those. I
[4:49:52] would take it further. But this is what
[4:49:54] I was pondering. This is what I think
[4:49:56] you might think about. If we take the
[4:49:59] roads down from 35 to 30, people will
[4:50:02] drive 40. They'll drive 10 over. If we
[4:50:05] take them down to 25, people do not
[4:50:08] drive 25. So if you made Westfield 25,
[4:50:11] people will drive 35, which is what the
[4:50:14] speed limit is now, but people do not
[4:50:17] drive 35 on
[4:50:19] >> exiting Maine or on Westfield. Europe in
[4:50:21] the 45s and hitting 50. and you and it
[4:50:24] and it's almost unperceptible just
[4:50:27] because it's a long straight and it's
[4:50:29] unperceptible unless of course you live
[4:50:31] there. So that is one thing why I think
[4:50:34] uh this does a good job but I think we
[4:50:36] can push it further like taking Maine to
[4:50:38] 20. I think people will actually drive
[4:50:40] 30 on Maine and I think that will be
[4:50:42] much better for walkable on Canyon Crest
[4:50:45] and Westfield. If we drop it to 30 it's
[4:50:47] still going to be fast. If we drop it to
[4:50:48] 25 it'll be exactly what it is now
[4:50:51] people driving now but it'll be a much
[4:50:53] more easy to enforce and it will just
[4:50:57] take off that bite when people get up
[4:50:59] into the 45 and the 50 range. But if we
[4:51:01] drop it to 25, I think people will
[4:51:03] actually drive 35 and we'll actually
[4:51:05] have the road that it's supposed to be
[4:51:07] right now. So, I love what they did. I I
[4:51:09] would be totally in favor of all of
[4:51:11] these. If it was pushed further, I don't
[4:51:13] think that's going to make standills. I
[4:51:16] think it will actually produce the type
[4:51:17] of road that it's actually supposed to
[4:51:18] be. So, that was what I was pondering
[4:51:20] while I was on Westfield taking
[4:51:21] raccoons. Um, and so the last things is if we can help with
[4:51:26] painting the crosswalks, we'd be happy
[4:51:28] to. So it seems like a easy job. So if
[4:51:31] those are things we can do quick, let us
[4:51:34] know. We can rally up. Uh I know it says
[4:51:36] a lot of different crosswalks and
[4:51:38] things. We can't do the curb extensions
[4:51:40] and things. That requires skilled
[4:51:42] laborers and cement mixing cement.
[4:51:46] That's like next level. But for the
[4:51:48] crosswalks, I'd love to help. Or if we
[4:51:50] can get volunteers to do them, hit those
[4:51:52] ones on Canyon Crest that you can't even
[4:51:54] see or the ones on Red Pine or the Main
[4:51:56] Street ones. So, if that is a thing and
[4:51:58] we need a special paint, let us know.
[4:51:59] We'd love to help. Um, final thing is it
[4:52:02] talks about all these speed reducing
[4:52:03] things like uh speed humps and
[4:52:05] roundabouts. Um, oh, we just wanted to
[4:52:08] bring up what we can do to try to do
[4:52:11] those uh tests for the speed humps that
[4:52:13] we were trying to do, which I know are
[4:52:15] controversial. Maybe we can do an
[4:52:16] innovative one that goes up and down or
[4:52:18] ones that are not permanent. There's a lot I'm noticing that are not
[4:52:21] permanent. They're they're like rubber
[4:52:24] and they're not very big. you bolt them
[4:52:27] down, you can take them off a year
[4:52:28] later, but they're not permanent. I see
[4:52:30] them more and more often. Um, anyways,
[4:52:34] so I love it. I'm so thankful for you
[4:52:35] guys doing this. Uh, you've done a lot
[4:52:37] of it before we even came on board, and
[4:52:39] I'm so thankful for that background
[4:52:40] work. I want to support it. So, let us
[4:52:42] know what we
[4:52:43] >> Andrew, can I have 30 seconds?
[4:52:44] >> Yes. Go. Go ahead.
[4:52:46] >> On Alpine Highway, I did want to call
[4:52:48] out um I know you originally had met
[4:52:50] with DOT.
[4:52:51] >> Yes. as a council, would we like to
[4:52:54] consider trying to c, you know, get that
[4:52:56] deed back to us so that we can control
[4:52:58] the speed limit?
[4:52:58] >> Oh, I'm totally in favor, but what they
[4:53:00] said the the meeting we had, which was
[4:53:02] >> you wanted the Utah road to be deed back
[4:53:05] to us,
[4:53:07] >> so we have to maintain it.
[4:53:09] >> It's okay. We can
[4:53:10] >> and snowplow it. And then honestly I
[4:53:12] feel like one of the biggest mistakes we
[4:53:14] made was deing over Main Street because
[4:53:17] if UD do owned it they would have
[4:53:19] widened it at their cost to deal with
[4:53:21] the Mountainville traffic. They would
[4:53:23] have I mean
[4:53:23] >> but we are where we are today and so
[4:53:26] because people speed and eventually we
[4:53:29] are going to do a roundabout and we are
[4:53:30] going to do this connection from you
[4:53:33] know the highway or main street over to
[4:53:35] Westfield. It'd be good to start talking
[4:53:38] about that so that we could control it.
[4:53:41] I think we can work with you do to um
[4:53:45] work with that. I don't think it's a
[4:53:48] great idea
[4:53:49] >> when you do when we have our
[4:53:50] >> Do you understand the cost involved
[4:53:53] >> to be able to control our our own
[4:53:56] rightways? I I again you see that as a
[4:54:00] cost. I see that as ability of a city to
[4:54:02] control their rightways.
[4:54:03] >> Right.
[4:54:04] So I think if there's something that we
[4:54:07] want done on that road, I feel like um
[4:54:10] talking to UD do they have been very
[4:54:12] receptive at least in my request for
[4:54:15] various meetings. Um I don't understand
[4:54:18] why we can't work with UD do instead of
[4:54:21] um trying to acquire that right away.
[4:54:23] >> I guess if we could work with them the
[4:54:26] speed would be reduced. So it hasn't.
[4:54:28] So, it makes me think we can't get it
[4:54:31] reduced because I can't imagine that we
[4:54:33] wouldn't want people to slow down as
[4:54:35] they're coming.
[4:54:35] >> I think to Sarah's point, the lowhanging
[4:54:37] fruit would be you if you look at the
[4:54:39] implementation matrix, there's a couple
[4:54:42] of things, not a ton, but a couple of
[4:54:44] things we'd work with them on.
[4:54:46] >> If we if it proves that they are not
[4:54:49] agreeable to many of the things we'd
[4:54:51] like to propose, we could consider that.
[4:54:53] But I think the lowhanging fruit is try
[4:54:55] to implement the changes that that we
[4:54:58] can why they with why would they retain
[4:55:00] ownership.
[4:55:01] >> That's fine to go.
[4:55:02] >> Yeah, it's I just wanted to call
[4:55:04] attention to slowing down.
[4:55:05] >> Right to your question,
[4:55:06] >> you guys. It's 11 o'clock.
[4:55:08] >> I was just going to answer a question.
[4:55:10] >> We'll entertain a motion to adjourn.
[4:55:12] >> Could I just answer a question and then
[4:55:14] I'll make the motion.
[4:55:15] >> You can ask after.
[4:55:16] >> I think sometime we have two minutes
[4:55:17] left. I think we if we if we miss from
[4:55:19] Shane's staff report
[4:55:21] >> everything I have I can email.
[4:55:23] >> So it's that's but this digital clock
[4:55:26] says 11:00.
[4:55:27] >> I see your point.
[4:55:28] >> But just the answer was the U do we had
[4:55:30] a wonderful meeting and I don't know if
[4:55:32] anyone else talked to them but they said
[4:55:34] they were going to get back to us with a
[4:55:35] crash study and a ticket or speeding
[4:55:38] study. So I've responded to them quite a
[4:55:40] few times and then they kind of just
[4:55:41] ghosted me. Um and so uh but they seemed
[4:55:47] at the beginning. Um, but yeah, just I
[4:55:52] think it's valid that she brings it up
[4:55:53] because it is by far most dangerous and
[4:55:55] our worst road in all of Alpine.
[4:55:57] >> Just to I'm going to make the motion
[4:55:58] that we in the meeting, but just I love
[4:56:00] how the um they prioritize for us to
[4:56:04] help because there's a thousand things
[4:56:05] on the table to to help us identify
[4:56:08] maybe we could just do three or four in
[4:56:09] a year and then keep going, but we can't
[4:56:12] do it all at once. Okay. And that's
[4:56:14] going to be one of the takeaways of our
[4:56:16] committees is to prioritize. So I'm
[4:56:18] moving that we close the meeting or we
[4:56:19] end our meeting at 11 o'clock.
[4:56:22] >> Okay. Is there a second?
[4:56:23] >> Second. Okay. All in favor?
[4:56:25] >> I wait.
[4:56:26] >> Any opposed?
[4:56:28] >> Okay. I
[4:56:29] >> adjourned.
[4:56:30] >> Uh Chrissy, you didn't want to do the
[4:56:32] communications really quick just to give
[4:56:33] updates.
[4:56:36] >> Okay. All right.
[4:56:39] I think that's
[4:56:39] >> fourth thing on my list
[4:56:40] >> because there's nothing to do main
[4:56:42] street so we can get going on just while
[4:56:44] you're