[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

7.14.26 City Council Meeting

Transcript