[0:09] should have done that.
[0:30] Okay.
[0:34] » All right. Welcome everybody. This is a
[0:36] regular meeting and public hearing of
[0:37] the Grantsville City Council. For the
[0:40] record, today's date is August 19th,
[0:42] 2026, and the time is 700 p.m. This
[0:45] meeting is being held at the Grantsville
[0:47] City Council Chambers located at 429
[0:50] East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah, as
[0:53] well as electronically by Zoom. I am
[0:56] Mayor Heidi Hammond and I will conduct a
[0:58] roll call of our city council. Council
[1:00] member Butler
[1:01] >> here.
[1:02] >> Dalton
[1:02] >> here.
[1:03] >> Skinner
[1:03] >> here.
[1:04] >> Thomas
[1:04] >> here.
[1:05] >> Williams
[1:06] >> here.
[1:07] >> Thank you. If you would all please rise
[1:09] and join me in the pledge of allegiance.
[1:16] » I aliance to the flag of the United
[1:20] States of America and to the republic
[1:23] for which it stands. One nation under
[1:26] God, indivisible, with liberty and
[1:29] justice for all. Amen.
[1:33] [clears throat]
[1:43] » All right. Our first item, our first
[1:46] agenda item tonight is a public comment.
[1:49] We have received several comments from
[1:51] the public by email which are included
[1:53] in the public packet. The floor is open
[1:57] to the public to bring their concerns to
[1:59] the council and we ask that you limit
[2:01] your comments to three minutes each so
[2:03] that all who would have a desire to
[2:05] participate have that opportunity. So
[2:08] the time is now available for anyone who
[2:11] is in this room. We'll start with that
[2:14] uh to present items to the uh to the
[2:17] council and then we will ask those who
[2:20] are online if they would like to raise
[2:22] their hands and they can address the
[2:24] council by Zoom as well. Uh one thing I
[2:27] want to point out to everyone here is we
[2:30] are not allowed to have a back and forth
[2:32] conversation with you during public
[2:34] comment, but please rest assured we are
[2:37] making notes. we're making taking down
[2:39] the information that we need to address
[2:41] those issues. When we get to the item um
[2:43] on the agenda to discuss that particular
[2:46] item, we will talk through the concerns
[2:48] that you have. So, just don't think that
[2:50] we're not listening. We truly are. So,
[2:52] um we will start with p public comment.
[2:54] If anyone would like to to come forward,
[2:56] you are welcome to do so. And again,
[2:58] please state your name. And uh do you
[3:01] need an address, Alicia? No,
[3:02] >> don't need an address, but um if you do
[3:04] speak, if you don't mind just coming and
[3:06] writing your name down over here after
[3:08] you speak.
[3:09] >> It has to be included in our minutes.
[3:10] So, if you could write your name, that
[3:12] would be great. Thank you.
[3:16] » So, no address.
[3:18] >> No address.
[3:19] >> Okay.
[3:20] Um my name is Kristen Estagard. Um,
[3:26] I'm here tonight to discuss my concern
[3:28] with the layout of the proposed
[3:30] Allington PUB.
[3:33] The layout of the houses and their
[3:35] alleyways put deadend streets in which
[3:38] cars pulling into their spaces point
[3:41] directly into bedroom windows and back
[3:44] doors of those on Sun Valley.
[3:47] My house specifically has an alleyway
[3:50] lined up exactly where my master bedroom
[3:54] doors are. That means 10 different cars
[3:57] and their headlights will be pointing
[3:59] toward my bedroom
[4:01] at all hours of the day and night. Not
[4:04] to mention just the noise that that
[4:07] would also bring.
[4:09] On Cook Lane, the existing residents
[4:12] will have eight twostory houses
[4:15] overlooking their backyards
[4:17] [clears throat]
[4:18] and provide no privacy.
[4:21] There's a walking path along the
[4:23] property line which would potentially
[4:25] increase the amount of crime,
[4:27] trespassing, and lack of privacy.
[4:31] The previous Allington layout provided
[4:34] halfacre lots butdding up against our
[4:36] existing properties on Sun Valley and
[4:39] previously the city council has held
[4:41] developers to a standard of progressing
[4:44] into higher density lots so there is not
[4:47] such an abrupt change such as this. A
[4:51] good example of this is the 20 Wells
[4:53] PUD.
[4:55] Um, I'm asking that the city council
[4:57] members work with the developer to have
[5:00] halfacre lots against existing residents
[5:04] and then maybe transition to higher
[5:06] density units as the development works
[5:09] inward. This would still allow the
[5:12] developer to fit more units than he had
[5:14] previously approved on that plan, but
[5:17] also um make the existing residents much
[5:21] happier in the long run.
[5:23] >> Thank you.
[5:31] Good evening, council members. My name
[5:33] is Clay Barney. I live at 3842
[5:37] Sun Valley Drive
[5:40] and I'm here also
[5:42] to [clears throat] oppose the Allington
[5:44] development.
[5:45] Um my points are my concerns.
[5:49] um
[5:51] 243 I believe that's the number of flex
[5:56] units on that much property is a lot of
[5:59] units on a small area. Okay. Um one of
[6:04] my major concerns I have animals. I have
[6:08] animal rights and I have animals. Okay.
[6:11] Um, I've done a little research and
[6:13] Grantsville,
[6:15] um, ordinance 2022-14
[6:20] states that there shall be a 100 foot
[6:25] easement for all animals. So, no
[6:30] development should be within 100 ft of
[6:32] all animals. Okay. So, that being said,
[6:38] what was presented to the um planning
[6:42] and zoning commission was 10 ft from my
[6:45] back fence.
[6:48] That is not going to work. That's going
[6:50] to cause problems not only with me, it's
[6:54] going to cause problems with residents
[6:57] that move in there because I have my
[6:59] animals. They're going to be complaining
[7:01] about smells or, you know, not liking
[7:05] the animals or the flies or whatever. We
[7:08] are We have We've lived there. I've
[7:10] lived there 29 years and it's always
[7:13] been farmland, okay? To So, I'm I'm okay
[7:18] with development. It just needs to be
[7:20] done smart. Okay. not just go from farm
[7:24] property to all of a sudden we have all
[7:27] these houses right next door to farm
[7:29] property. So I feel like there needs to
[7:32] be at least some zoning or something
[7:36] that at least
[7:38] um
[7:40] follows the ordinance that says there's
[7:42] 100 ft minimum from the animals. Okay.
[7:46] Um and it and it's going to affect the
[7:48] city as well. you know, police, the
[7:50] police department will be coming out
[7:52] because of nuisance calls, because of
[7:55] the animals, the noise, things like
[7:57] that. So, it's it's it's a major concern
[8:00] of mine is as the animals amongst other
[8:03] concerns. So, I appreciate your time and
[8:05] consideration. Thank you.
[8:06] >> Thank you,
[8:08] >> Mr. Barney. Do you mind writing?
[8:11] >> I put my name on that.
[8:13] >> Thank you.
[8:15] >> Good evening. My name's Kimberly Smith.
[8:18] who already signed in.
[8:20] [clears throat] I came here tonight to
[8:21] discuss some of the concerns over the
[8:23] potential development of the Flex Homes
[8:25] for Alington subdivision being presented
[8:28] this evening. As a homeowner that lives
[8:30] on an acre, as well as many of my
[8:32] neighbors here tonight, we have concerns
[8:33] over the home values, livestock, traffic
[8:36] issues, just to name a few. In theory,
[8:39] flex homes sound great. However, these
[8:41] homes are still very pricey from what
[8:43] I've been able to find in E from
[8:45] development. I found several for sale at
[8:47] higher prices than the mid300s as being
[8:50] presented.
[8:52] Um, but most of most of all, most of the
[8:55] people that that want the $350,000
[8:58] homes, most of them really want a
[8:59] completed home. With a completed home,
[9:02] the average I found one for $440,000.
[9:05] I I'm sorry, $444,000
[9:08] and one for $45,000.
[9:12] for a conventional home loan that's 20%
[9:14] down $80,000. This payment would be 200
[9:17] I mean $2,289
[9:19] plus an HOA. The next is a FHA loan
[9:22] which is 3.5% down at cost. That's
[9:25] $14,000
[9:27] $14,200 of a payment and their house
[9:30] payment will be at least 20 $2,881
[9:34] plus mortgage premium insurance which is
[9:37] about $500 a month. that totaling
[9:39] $3,381.
[9:41] In my opinion, this is not really
[9:43] affordable. It's maybe a little bit more
[9:45] affordable, but it's really not
[9:47] affordable. Also, Ephraim, their medium
[9:50] house prices are $100,000 cheaper than
[9:52] ours. So, if they're going for $400 and
[9:54] $450,000,
[9:56] this kind of price, I don't see how it
[9:58] won't end up being higher for closer to
[10:01] Salt Lake, things have a way of going
[10:03] up.
[10:04] Another thing that I've noticed that
[10:06] Ephraim, they did a development like
[10:07] this where there was no other
[10:08] pre-existing homes or neighborhoods.
[10:11] They did it out in the middle of an area
[10:14] like we have. We have lots of vast
[10:16] properties out here that if we if if
[10:18] Gransville decided they wanted to do
[10:20] something like that, we do have space.
[10:22] Maybe not with this developer, but we
[10:24] could do it in another area where we can
[10:27] also provide parks, recreation, we can
[10:30] provide schools, places where people can
[10:32] walk, stores, just kind of like they do
[10:34] in Daybreak. So, it would be maybe
[10:37] something more than that. Where we're at
[10:38] right now, it's just not going to work
[10:40] with the busy traffic. There's no
[10:42] sidewalks. There's nowhere for people to
[10:44] walk and you're just adding more
[10:46] traffic. And so, people are going to
[10:48] have to drive cars. they won't be able
[10:50] to just walk and communicate, you know,
[10:52] work. So, what I'm just asking is if Joe
[10:56] White, which I didn't see here tonight,
[10:58] and the council would please consider a
[11:00] development that fits the existing homes
[11:02] nearby, perhaps sticking with the
[11:04] original approved plans in 2022 or 2023
[11:08] where we had the half acre lots and then
[11:11] they worked to the quarter and just we
[11:13] could do more. And even I think some of
[11:15] us have even said we wouldn't as as
[11:17] neighbors oppose him to do it all homes
[11:20] and not part commercial if you wanted to
[11:22] reszone it. I think that's how it was
[11:24] originally. So we're we understand
[11:26] development is coming. We understand he
[11:29] owns the land. He has the right. What
[11:31] we're just asking is putting these kind
[11:33] of homes next to our nice beautiful
[11:35] little
[11:37] um places so dense with so much traffic
[11:41] is is it done? Okay. Um, thank you.
[11:44] very much.
[11:58] » I guess it's going to be my turn.
[12:04] » Okay.
[12:05] [clears throat] I have quite a spill, so
[12:07] I'm trying to get through in three
[12:08] minutes. So, if I um Good evening, uh
[12:12] Mayor Hammond and council members. My
[12:15] name is Naen Hunt and I am a resident
[12:18] and property owner directly affected by
[12:20] the proposed residential development
[12:23] consisting of approximately 256 homes on
[12:27] 33 acres. I recognize that property
[12:30] owners have development rights and that
[12:32] the reviewing authority must evaluate
[12:35] this application under the laws and
[12:37] ordinances applicable to the property.
[12:40] My objection is not based simply upon a
[12:43] dislike of development or change. My
[12:46] concern is whether a development of this
[12:48] density can be safely supported at this
[12:51] location without creating unreasonable
[12:54] impacts upon existing residents and
[12:56] public infrastructure.
[12:58] There are several concerns that deserve
[13:00] careful consideration before final
[13:03] approval. My concern is fire protection,
[13:07] fire suppression, and emergency
[13:09] response. Our town currently has roughly
[13:13] 4,100 homes with 2700 additional homes
[13:17] already approved to be built and that
[13:20] does not include this proposed
[13:22] development. That raises an important
[13:24] question. Has our emergency response
[13:27] capacity grown at the same rate as the
[13:30] developments we continue to approve? We
[13:33] rely on a volunteer fire department with
[13:36] a limited number of firefighters, fire
[13:38] trucks, and ambulances. At the same
[13:41] time, both the number of homes they are
[13:44] responsible for and their geographic
[13:46] coverage have grown substantially.
[13:50] Has an emergency services capacity
[13:52] analysis been performed that consider
[13:56] that considers not only the homes that
[13:58] exist today but the thousands of homes
[14:01] already approved. What happens when
[14:04] there are simultaneous emergencies? A
[14:06] structure fire here while an ambulance
[14:08] or fire crew is already responding
[14:11] somewhere else. And as the physical area
[14:14] our emergency services must cover
[14:17] continues to expand, our current
[14:19] response times, staffing, equipment, and
[14:22] ambulance availability still adequate?
[14:26] There are also serious questions about
[14:28] physical access within this development.
[14:31] Can our existing fire trucks safely
[14:33] navigate the proposed streets and
[14:36] alleyways? Can our largest apparatus
[14:39] make the necessary turns and safely
[14:42] access every home? If vehicles are
[14:45] parked where residents will
[14:46] realistically park them, uh, and will vehic emergency vehicles still have
[14:53] adequate clearance, including space to
[14:56] safely turn around and exit. These
[14:59] questions should be answered through
[15:01] actual analysis and review, not
[15:03] discovered during an emergency. I am not
[15:06] asking the council to assume that our
[15:09] emergency services cannot handle this
[15:11] development. I am asking the council to
[15:14] require evidence that they can. I
[15:17] respectfully ask that these questions be
[15:20] fully answered before final approval
[15:22] because once these homes are built, many
[15:25] of the decisions being made today cannot
[15:27] easily be corrected. Thank you.
[15:31] >> Thank you. Ma'am, did you see that?
[15:34] >> You sent me.
[15:36] >> Okay.
[15:48] » Good evening, Mayor. Oh, sorry. Need to
[15:51] raise it up now. Uh, my name is Jeff
[15:53] Nestard. I live on Sun Valley Drive. I'm
[15:56] [clears throat] also here to talk about
[15:58] the Allington subdivision. The issue I
[16:01] want to bring up is the wastewater. Um
[16:03] part of the PUB application is the
[16:05] developer had to have a wastewater study
[16:07] done as we all know. Um that was done by
[16:10] Enzyme Peak. Um it actually stipulates
[16:13] in there that Grantsville's current
[16:15] treatment plant cannot cover the added
[16:18] uh waste that's produced. Um it says
[16:22] only once the new plant is in that it
[16:26] can adequately service it. Um, so if you
[16:30] approve the development now, my question
[16:31] is, does
[16:33] that open the city to litigation if
[16:35] there's delays on the plant built? I
[16:37] know that's in the works and it's
[16:39] supposed to be done by early 2028.
[16:42] But if you approve it now and the
[16:45] development could take 5 to 10 years to
[16:46] be built. We understand that. But what
[16:48] happens if there's a housing rush and
[16:52] the developer says, "I want to get these
[16:53] done in a year." and the city already
[16:56] okayed it, but now they can't provide
[16:58] the services for it. Does that open the
[16:59] city up for litigation, you know, you
[17:02] can't tell the developer, sorry, you
[17:04] don't get a build now, right? I I guess
[17:06] maybe you can, and that's more questions
[17:09] for you guys to answer. Um, but that
[17:12] that's my concern that I want to bring
[17:14] up. There's a ton of variances that this
[17:17] development's asking for, and this is
[17:19] just one of the ones that I saw that
[17:21] should really be looked at before
[17:22] approving. So, thank you for your time.
[17:25] >> Thank you,
[17:25] >> Jeff. Jeff.
[17:27] >> Oh, yeah.
[17:29] >> Should have came up and did it first.
[17:30] >> That's okay. I know your name. So,
[17:33] >> is there anyone else in in the audience
[17:35] here today that would like to make a
[17:37] comment?
[17:49] » Thank you.
[17:56] All right. Good evening, Mayor, city
[17:58] council members. My name is Marty Grant
[18:01] and I'm one of the residents on Cook
[18:03] Lane uh that will be going up next to
[18:06] this proposed development. Tonight I'm
[18:08] going to speak about the number and
[18:09] significance of the deviations being
[18:12] requested for the Alington development
[18:13] and what they mean considered
[18:15] altogether.
[18:16] So first of all is density. The proposal
[18:19] is for 256 detached homes on 34 acres.
[18:24] The comparison shows a baseline of about
[18:27] 156 detached homes. This is roughly 100
[18:30] additional homes or mathematically a 64%
[18:34] increase.
[18:35] Second is lot size and frontage. The
[18:38] standard shown for detached single
[18:40] family homes is a 4,000 square foot
[18:43] minimum lot with 50 ft of frontage. Many
[18:47] of the proposed lots are actually
[18:49] smaller than 4,000 square ft with some
[18:52] as small as 680 square ft while frontage
[18:56] is reduced from 50 feet down to 30. So
[18:59] they're really cramming them in there.
[19:01] Uh third is setbacks and buffering. The
[19:04] proposal reduces multiple setbacks
[19:06] throughout the project. Front setbacks
[19:08] can be reduced from 25 ft down to 15
[19:11] feet and rear setbacks or private alleys
[19:14] can be as little as 5t.
[19:17] So the comparison also identifies a 30ft
[19:20] landscape buff for trees and privacy
[19:23] fencing along the project boundaries. So
[19:26] while the proposal shows only 7 ft. So
[19:28] that goes 30 ft down to seven. And then
[19:31] finally there is uh the commercial
[19:33] component. So 34 acre mixeduse PUD
[19:37] development um proposes only 3.05 acres
[19:40] of commercial property or roughly 9%
[19:43] altogether
[19:45] um despite substantially higher
[19:46] commercial percentages that have been
[19:49] identified in the development standards
[19:51] of the city. So the PUD standard as I
[19:54] read it is 25% and 50% under the mixed
[19:57] use standards. So 2550 down to nine.
[20:03] So overall when I look at the big
[20:04] picture my concern is not one isolated
[20:07] deviation it's a lot it's many um it is
[20:10] a commun commulative effect of
[20:13] everything altogether. So, the developer
[20:15] has asking the city to accept more
[20:17] homes, smaller lots, narrower frontage,
[20:20] reduced setbacks, dramatically reduced
[20:23] buffers,
[20:24] and a reduced commercial component in
[20:27] order to make this particular small lot
[20:29] housing product fit into this location.
[20:34] In my opinion, this is simply too many
[20:35] concessions for the city to make for one
[20:37] development. And this is only one of
[20:40] several concerns surrounding the
[20:42] Allington development that could affect
[20:43] Grantsville long after this project is
[20:45] built. For that reason, I ask city
[20:48] council to table this for tonight and
[20:51] schedule a joint working meeting with
[20:52] the planning commission to address these
[20:54] issues before final action is taken.
[20:56] Thank you for your time.
[20:58] >> Thank you.
[21:09] My name is Robert Smith. I moved here
[21:12] two and a half years ago. I live at 3928
[21:16] Sun Valley Drive. I'm a pastor in Magna
[21:20] and my main concerns is the well-being
[21:24] of children. There was a child killed on
[21:28] the corner of my house.
[21:30] Okay, everybody remember that, right?
[21:32] Okay, so here's the deal. Uh,
[21:36] that child came to Maverick and when he
[21:40] was going back, he hit a car. So, when
[21:43] you have all this stuff going on here,
[21:45] there's no sidewalks. The road is not
[21:48] prepared for that many people. There's
[21:51] no other place to go to get a drink or
[21:55] any snacks. And where are all those
[21:56] children going to go? I sit out there in
[21:59] the morning at I get up up and have
[22:01] coffee early in the morning and at 5:30
[22:05] it's stream that way coming home you
[22:09] can't even get out on that street for
[22:11] five minutes. So what's going to happen
[22:13] when all these kids that are not
[22:16] consciously paying attention to the
[22:20] traffic? We're going to have more
[22:22] incidences. Okay, that's my concern.
[22:26] What about the schools?
[22:29] Are the schools ready for this? I mean,
[22:32] we got other all these other things
[22:34] going on, these other places getting
[22:36] developed. Are the schools ready for
[22:38] this? Now, I'm not saying that to knock
[22:40] us. I'm just saying, hey, I've been in
[22:42] the construction trade all my life in
[22:45] management and I've watched and made
[22:47] sure everything was in order, anything
[22:49] we did. I just want to see everything
[22:52] done in order because Grantsfield is
[22:54] going to grow. I'm not against it
[22:55] growing. You understand what I'm saying?
[22:57] How about the first responders that's
[23:00] been brought up? The schools, um,
[23:05] the traffic, the stop signs, the lights.
[23:08] How about trails or place or sidewalks
[23:11] for kids to walk somewhere? There's the
[23:15] only thing that they can get to is that
[23:16] little mall right there and the
[23:18] Maverick. That's it. There's no
[23:21] walkways, no trails, nowhere. parks
[23:23] close.
[23:25] So, I'm asking, why are we putting all
[23:27] of this density in there with these
[23:30] small houses that is going to cause us
[23:32] more problems and more headaches down
[23:34] the road?
[23:36] How about the existing lots that are
[23:38] there? This was brought up. It's country
[23:42] living and then we're putting density
[23:45] houses right next to it.
[23:48] We're a small town. We're not a big
[23:50] city. Let it grow and develop it and
[23:53] stage it so that all those big
[23:55] apartments and all that stuff are in a
[23:57] place that grows out there how it should
[24:01] and let the ranchet people have their
[24:04] horses and their animals and put half
[24:06] inch or half acre lots next to it like
[24:09] the previous plan was. We could all
[24:11] agree to that.
[24:13] But I don't understand why all the
[24:15] density.
[24:20] You know, one last thing,
[24:24] these kids, I worry about them.
[24:28] I pray for them. I just pray something
[24:30] good comes and I pray that God would put
[24:32] his hand on this whole thing and make it
[24:35] right for everybody, even the even the
[24:38] contractor. But let's do it right and
[24:40] have mercy on grace on our kids so
[24:42] they're not killed in that street.
[24:46] >> Thank you.
[24:56] » Is there anyone else that would like to
[24:57] make a comment?
[25:03] Anybody online? If you would like to
[25:05] make a comment, please raise your hand
[25:07] and Alicia will call on you.
[25:10] >> Okay, we have
[25:14] Rick.
[25:20] Hello.
[25:21] >> There we go.
[25:23] >> Hello.
[25:24] We can hear you.
[25:25] >> Okay. Right on. Hey, um I want to point
[25:28] some things out. Uh historically,
[25:31] um what I would have called this would
[25:33] be a REUD, not a PUD. Um and they've
[25:37] historically been rejected. Why? Because
[25:39] an agreement has already been made. Um
[25:43] if we as the city changed our mind and
[25:45] wanted the developer to do something
[25:47] different, that probably wouldn't fly
[25:49] very well. Okay. Um I was in the
[25:52] meeting. Derek was in the meeting as
[25:54] well. I'm sure he can remember some of
[25:56] the discussion over the buffers. I think
[25:58] he was there at that time. Anyway, uh
[26:00] they were a huge part of the discussion.
[26:03] That's why we ended up with halfacre
[26:04] lots next to the existing housing. Um
[26:08] they're supposed to be a biff a buffer.
[26:11] Uh that's typically what we have done in
[26:13] the past was to actually require
[26:16] the same lot size adjacent to the
[26:21] existing. But in in this particular
[26:23] case, it was compromised to halfacre
[26:25] lots. Uh the other smaller lots um uh in
[26:31] the prior agreement were uh supposedly
[26:36] affordable uh housing to put affordable
[26:39] housing in and I guess that didn't work
[26:42] out. Um because I don't see anything
[26:44] being built there. That was 2022 if I
[26:47] recall. uh ask the zoning administrator
[26:51] how many town homes are already approved
[26:53] in the city of Grantsville to be built
[26:56] or flex homes, whatever you want to call
[26:58] them. They're basically town homes. The
[27:01] answer should be known to the city
[27:02] council because it's provide uh
[27:04] providing a variety of housing as
[27:07] dictated by our city's general plan.
[27:11] Last but not least, um
[27:15] there used to be a constraint at the
[27:16] time of the MU zoning in which the prior
[27:19] agreement was made, which um
[27:24] [clears throat]
[27:24] allowed only allowed the city to place
[27:27] conditions to mitigate problems caused
[27:29] by zoning code variances.
[27:32] Um they had to be out uh allowed at the
[27:36] time as outlined by state law. Uh the MU
[27:40] code in our city has changed. Currently
[27:42] code variations within the MU are purely
[27:46] legislative action. Uh there is no
[27:49] requirement to allow any variations to
[27:52] the code. Examples that of this would be
[27:55] setbacks, street widths, lot sizes,
[27:59] buffers, etc. Um they're asking for tons
[28:02] of this in the name of affordable
[28:04] housing. Um the reason for those
[28:08] setbacks, street widths, etc. um have
[28:13] been debated and debated and debated and
[28:17] why would we be changing this just for
[28:20] this developer when we already have a
[28:22] development agreement in place with him?
[28:25] Um that we have lots of plenty
[28:28] affordable housing lots quote unquote
[28:31] approved. Um, so either we'll get
[28:34] affordable housing or not, that's really
[28:36] up to the developer, not up to us as a a
[28:41] city to provide that for a developer to
[28:45] build, right? Um, kind of like uh
[28:48] affordable healthc care that kind of
[28:50] didn't work out. Why? Because the
[28:52] government infor in interfered, you
[28:55] know, right? So, uh, the the fact that
[28:58] you think you can legislate affordable
[29:01] housing,
[29:03] well, I guess that's the end of it. No,
[29:06] if you can legislate affordable housing,
[29:08] then um, you feel you're you're pretty
[29:12] arrogant if you think you can. I don't
[29:14] think it's possible. The best thing to
[29:16] do would be to stick with the setbacks,
[29:18] to force developers to build smaller
[29:20] homes, and um, let it eat. Uh,
[29:26] I would encourage the city council to
[29:28] make it a priority to re-examine the MU
[29:33] zoning. Uh, I have my number. You have
[29:36] my number if you want suggestions for
[29:38] this. The first would be the typo, which
[29:40] allows someone
[29:42] uh who spent too much time around paint
[29:44] fumes to believe that 50% of the
[29:46] property on the main existing street was
[29:49] to be commercial and not 50% of the
[29:51] entire land mass. Please consult the
[29:53] minutes from the meetings at which this
[29:57] went through the planning commission and
[30:00] um it should have been an and or a
[30:03] comma, right? And that was omitted. So,
[30:06] uh by state law technically you can go
[30:09] in and correct a typo without a um
[30:14] without a uh announced meeting to do so.
[30:17] And that's what I would suggest the city
[30:19] council do. Thank you.
[30:21] >> Thanks, Rick. is can I just ask uh you
[30:25] say your last name so I can get it for
[30:26] the record please?
[30:29] >> Yes, it's Rick Bchers.
[30:31] >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks.
[30:33] >> No worries.
[30:36] >> Anyone else online? Alicia.
[30:48] » Okay. Any additional public comment?
[30:54] All right, we will close we will close
[30:56] that agenda item.
[31:02] Moving on to agenda item number two,
[31:04] summary action items. We have the
[31:06] approval of minutes from the July 15,
[31:09] 2026 city council regular meetings.
[31:13] There any comments from the council
[31:14] regarding that?
[31:20] Mayor, I make a motion we approve
[31:22] minutes from the July 15, 2026 city
[31:25] council regular meeting.
[31:26] >> Thank you. We have a motion by Council
[31:28] Member Thomas. Is there a second?
[31:30] >> I'll second.
[31:31] >> Second by Council Member Dalton. All in
[31:33] favor?
[31:35] >> Next is the approval of minutes from the
[31:38] August 5th, 2026 Truth and Taxation
[31:40] public hearing.
[31:45] Any concerns from the council regarding
[31:47] those minutes?
[31:48] >> I make a motion we approve the uh
[31:50] minutes for the August 5th meeting.
[31:52] >> You have a motion by council member
[31:53] Butler. Is there a second?
[31:54] >> I second.
[31:55] >> Second by council member Williams. All
[31:57] in favor?
[31:58] >> I.
[32:01] >> The next item is the approval of the
[32:03] bills.
[32:12] Any questions on the bills?
[32:19] Mayor, I make a motion we approve the
[32:21] bills.
[32:22] >> A motion by Council Member Butler to
[32:24] approve the bills. Is there a second?
[32:26] >> I'll second the motion.
[32:26] >> Second by Council Member Skinner. All in
[32:28] favor?
[32:29] >> I.
[32:32] >> Thank you. Moving on to agenda item
[32:35] number three, which is a consideration
[32:36] of resolution 2026-65,
[32:40] appointing Shannon Nelson to the
[32:41] Historic Preservation Committee.
[32:44] Mayor actually make a motion that we
[32:46] table this resolution to our next
[32:49] meeting. She is not here and I'd like
[32:52] her to be invited to this um for her
[32:55] nomination and a potential approval.
[32:58] >> Thank you. We have a motion to table
[33:00] that item and I apologize to Shana that
[33:02] I did not um make her aware that this
[33:05] was on the agenda, but she's probably
[33:07] going to appreciate it being the first
[33:09] day of school and she does teach in our
[33:11] school system. So, we're grateful to all
[33:13] the teachers today that made it through
[33:14] the first day and the parents.
[33:17] >> I'll second that motion.
[33:18] >> So, we have a a motion by Council Member
[33:20] Butler, a second by Council Member
[33:22] Thomas. All in favor to table this item?
[33:25] >> I
[33:26] >> thank you.
[33:28] We have a consideration item number four
[33:30] of resolution 2026-61
[33:33] approving a memorandum of understanding
[33:35] with the Tilla County School District
[33:37] for the school resource officer services
[33:40] for the 2026 2027 school year. And thank
[33:44] you Chief Sager.
[33:46] >> Yeah, Mayor Council, this is an annual
[33:49] contract that we presented before. I
[33:50] think most of you have seen it. There's
[33:52] a couple changes. Uh the price went up a
[33:55] little bit about $1,000 and then just a
[33:57] couple small changes in the the
[33:59] verbiage, but if you have any questions,
[34:01] I'll try to answer them.
[34:07] I [clears throat]
[34:09] we've been meeting with the school
[34:10] district regularly. Um I I had probably
[34:13] just one question chief just maybe um
[34:17] along the lines of you feel that is
[34:19] working is what we are doing there
[34:22] currently working within
[34:24] >> it's hard
[34:25] >> um
[34:26] >> and or is it impacting yeah that was
[34:27] kind of where I wanted to go with
[34:29] >> I had this discussion today with our
[34:30] investigations division because it pulls
[34:32] one investigator out and it's in the
[34:35] school they are in the school for nine
[34:37] months and they have to spend most of
[34:38] their time there. So then our case load
[34:40] goes up on our investigators at the
[34:42] office and so it's the uh they pay for
[34:47] the officer but we actually kind of lose
[34:49] an officer as well. So
[34:51] >> that was the question I had. I know you
[34:52] know we did from a budgetary standpoint
[34:54] we didn't authorize another officer to
[34:57] come into play. So I just wanted to
[35:00] I wanted your feel on how that taxes us
[35:03] and you know are we
[35:07] >> can we do this? Yes, we can. Um the
[35:10] numbers will show and that was my
[35:11] direction today is just make sure that
[35:13] you keep up on your monthly stats and we
[35:16] can show at the end of the year if any
[35:18] case load goes up how it goes up and
[35:20] then as we move forward it will show the
[35:22] level of service needed and not only
[35:24] that division and if it's worth having a
[35:28] school resource officer if our budget is
[35:31] um kind of like it was this year. So
[35:34] yeah, but at this point I think it we
[35:38] move we can move forward with this and
[35:40] uh one more year
[35:43] I'll just ask a a question of
[35:44] clarification. So um Aspen uh this this
[35:49] money that comes into the city, this is
[35:51] included in our budget, right? You have
[35:54] this as an incoming
[35:56] um that is going to the police
[35:57] department, correct? The revenue.
[35:59] >> Yes, that's correct. I can get you an
[36:00] exact. Um, it's 103314
[36:04] is the line. It's slightly
[36:06] >> underbudgeted because it was budgeted
[36:08] for the same amount that was last year's
[36:10] contract. So,
[36:11] >> a little bit more.
[36:12] >> Yeah. So, this year it's a little bit
[36:14] more, but it's small. It's in there at
[36:16] 103314 at $13,594.
[36:19] So,
[36:20] >> there'll be a slight increase, but it is
[36:21] in the budget currently.
[36:23] >> Thank you.
[36:23] >> Yeah.
[36:24] >> A lot of the schools in have more than
[36:25] one school resource officer, right? I've
[36:27] attempted to get another school resource
[36:30] officer for the junior high for multiple
[36:32] years and been uh rejected. Um every
[36:35] secondary school in Twilla County
[36:37] besides Grantsville has a secondary SRO
[36:39] >> and our SRO spends time so I have to go
[36:41] to the junior highlights.
[36:42] >> That's some of the verbiage that changed
[36:44] a little bit in here. I mean it says
[36:45] yeah this SRO can't should respond at
[36:47] the request of the district to secondary
[36:49] schools. I think it's section 10 in
[36:52] here. But yeah, we if something happens
[36:54] at the school, they're responsible and
[36:55] they go to every single school and we we
[36:58] do want the officers there. So
[37:01] >> clarification, that's the school
[37:03] district denying the offer. Correct.
[37:06] >> Ask for that second officer.
[37:07] >> Yeah. Uh over multiple years. There was
[37:10] actually a year where they had two
[37:12] resource officers at uh Stanbury High
[37:15] School.
[37:17] >> Yeah.
[37:19] And then now they're at they're split
[37:21] the junior high and the high school.
[37:24] >> I've got a question. Sorry. Um
[37:27] [clears throat] does what the school
[37:28] district pay us does that cover us 100%
[37:31] or be subsidizing any
[37:32] >> if you do I did this analysis um and it
[37:35] was approximately if you do fringe and
[37:39] salary I believe it's around 90%.
[37:42] which is which covers
[37:45] >> offsets the other months he's not in
[37:47] school
[37:48] >> but you also have that's just salary and
[37:51] fringe you have vehicle [laughter] fuel
[37:54] uh the vehicle
[37:55] >> you have their equipment their you know
[37:57] their technology their body cameras
[37:59] evidence storage um there's a whole
[38:02] myriad things that cost not only our SRO
[38:06] but our evidence staff storing it it's
[38:09] just yeah we you [clears throat] could
[38:11] dive into that really deep
[38:15] >> and do we know is are they paying us the
[38:17] same as the Twilla SRO officers?
[38:20] >> Yes, there's one difference um with
[38:22] Tilla City. They Tilla City sergeant is
[38:27] uh paid um but he also is over a school
[38:31] as well but they pay a portion for the
[38:32] supervisor. That's one thing I also
[38:34] wanted is u want to bring up. Well, we
[38:38] have to supervise these people and it
[38:39] takes our supervision u from our
[38:42] investigation division to do that. So
[38:44] there there's a there's a large cost. So
[38:47] but you look at the other I I want an
[38:50] officer in that school if something
[38:51] happens. So yes, there's all this, but
[38:56] the bottom line is if we can be there to
[38:58] protect the kids and staff,
[39:00] >> you know,
[39:02] >> but how do we make it more fair and
[39:04] equitable as the county and the city?
[39:08] That would be
[39:08] >> Would you say that the officer 100% of
[39:11] their time during the school year is
[39:12] dedicated to the school or as any of
[39:14] their ancillary time? Is there any time?
[39:16] We try to we try to divvy up them case
[39:19] loads um so they can help and they will
[39:21] take anything that has to do with the
[39:23] student case load.
[39:24] >> Okay.
[39:25] >> But if
[39:27] >> there's a little bit of overlap there is
[39:28] a little bit
[39:29] >> and we try we try to we try to work it
[39:31] to the most efficient way we can on but
[39:34] if they work eight hours eight hours um
[39:36] for 5 days a week that's their 40 hours.
[39:38] if they have to go to a interview after
[39:40] school or anything, then I'm paying
[39:42] overtime, you know, because they have to
[39:44] be there or I'm sending a patrol guy
[39:45] over there to cover the school or
[39:47] another investigator. So, it's just it's
[39:50] just a continual process.
[39:53] >> With more staff, it would help, but we
[39:54] are where we are right now and we'll work through it and go further.
[39:57] You guys know where we're at, so
[40:02] » we here.
[40:03] >> Yeah, you guys know.
[40:08] Mayor, I make a motion that we approve
[40:10] resolution 2026-661
[40:12] approving theou with Tula County School
[40:14] District for the school resource officer
[40:17] services for the 2026 2027 school year.
[40:22] >> Thank you. We have a motion by Council
[40:24] Member Butler. Is there a second?
[40:26] >> Second.
[40:27] by Council Member Williams. All
[40:29] in favor?
[40:30] >> I.
[40:30] >> Thank you.
[40:34] The next item um agenda item number five
[40:36] is the public hearing item. So the way
[40:39] this will work is we will have a um a
[40:41] presentation I'm assuming by Aspen. Is
[40:43] that correct?
[40:44] >> Sure.
[40:45] >> Um Aspen will give us just a brief
[40:47] update on this. Then we will open it up
[40:50] for comments if anybody would like to
[40:51] make a comment regarding just this item.
[40:54] And then we will close it for a
[40:56] discussion for the council to make a
[40:58] decision on agenda item number five.
[41:03] And we've looked at the budget a
[41:06] thousand times, but
[41:08] >> yeah. So,
[41:08] >> just the one minute rendition.
[41:10] >> Yeah. So, um this is just to approve the
[41:14] final budget for our fiscal year 2027
[41:19] um following our truth and taxation
[41:20] hearing that we had on August 5th. So,
[41:24] this just shows in the highlighted
[41:25] section. Previously, we had had the
[41:27] additional property tax revenue that was
[41:30] proposed should we move forward with the
[41:32] increase budgeted in that 10311
[41:35] line um because we had to show that it
[41:38] was budgeted separately in our interim
[41:40] budget as to not be confused with
[41:42] available budget. So this final budget
[41:46] just shows that that what was in line
[41:48] 10311 is now going to be budgeted for in
[41:51] 103110
[41:52] as it will be
[41:55] um assumed that we will receive it
[41:56] during
[41:58] uh when we receive property taxes. And
[42:00] then this is the revenue side and then
[42:02] Alicia if you scroll down to the parks
[42:04] and rec side um it's the only line
[42:08] that's impacted in the expenses. Um,
[42:12] yeah, it's a little ways down. Sorry.
[42:15] >> That's okay.
[42:17] >> It's also highlighted in yellow.
[42:19] >> Oh, thanks. That will help.
[42:20] >> Yeah,
[42:22] >> right there. Um, this shows that we did
[42:25] have previously in our interim budget,
[42:27] it was budgeted in 106410. Again, that
[42:29] TNT holding account just to show that
[42:31] the additional revenue was held
[42:33] separately. Um but it is now been it
[42:37] will be budgeted for in the salaries and
[42:39] wages, employee benefits and health
[42:40] insurance lines accordingly. So those
[42:43] are the three lines that are increasing
[42:45] just in our final budget. Those are the
[42:47] only changes from the already approved
[42:48] interim budget
[42:50] >> for this final budget. So
[42:52] >> okay, thank you.
[42:54] >> Yeah.
[42:54] >> All right. We will open it up to public
[42:56] hearing. If anyone would like to make a
[42:58] comment regarding this item, uh now is
[43:00] your opportunity.
[43:02] Anyone
[43:07] online? Alicia,
[43:10] >> you just want to remind them if you are
[43:12] online and you'd like to make a comment,
[43:13] if you will, please raise your hand.
[43:23] » No.
[43:24] >> All right, we will close the public
[43:26] hearing and move on to a discussion with
[43:28] the council or a motion to approve or
[43:30] deny.
[43:36] I think we've talked about it enough.
[43:38] >> You want to talk numbers? Mayor, I'd
[43:40] like to show that we approve resolution
[43:42] 2026-60 adopting the final fiscal um
[43:46] year 2027 budget for Gransville City.
[43:48] >> We have a motion by council member
[43:50] Skinner. Is there a second?
[43:51] >> Second.
[43:52] by council member Butler. All in
[43:54] favor?
[43:54] >> I.
[43:56] >> All right.
[43:59] Moving to agenda item number six,
[44:02] consideration of resolution 2026-64
[44:05] accepting the Rocky Mountain Power Blue
[44:07] Sky funding award for the city's solar
[44:09] and battery project and authorizing the
[44:12] city manager and appropriate city staff
[44:14] to execute the award accept acceptance
[44:17] agreement and related documents.
[44:21] >> Is are you speaking on this Michael? I
[44:23] want to inter we had Bill Cuomo and the
[44:25] Rock Mountain Power Team and Blue Sky
[44:27] Grant people. I want them to come up
[44:29] here and have a say, but I wanted to say
[44:31] that when the last time Bill was here,
[44:33] he
[44:35] council authorized him to apply for the
[44:37] Blue Sky Grant and he he did that and
[44:40] the it came back as an award and so
[44:42] they're going to present that tonight
[44:44] and then the council will decide whether
[44:45] they want to accept that award and
[44:47] proceed with that the next phases and
[44:49] steps and Bill will kind of touch on
[44:50] that as well. So, if you guys want to
[44:52] come up.
[44:53] >> All right. Thank you and welcome.
[45:02] » So, this one's kind of fun. I mean, it's
[45:04] kind of been a heavy day and it's kind
[45:05] of fun to come up and say hello. Um,
[45:09] everybody knows me. I'm Nick Jenkins,
[45:11] wrestling coach, soccer coach, proud
[45:12] Gville city member. Um, this is a cool
[45:16] thing. Uh as I don't know everybody
[45:18] knows Blue Sky is an opportunity that
[45:20] everybody that Rocky Mountain Power Rate
[45:23] base has the opportunity to contribute
[45:25] to a fund which is the Blue Sky fund and
[45:27] this is an addition to their bill. And
[45:30] where this money comes from is if people
[45:31] pay it in to develop opportunities to
[45:34] develop renewable energy. It's an
[45:37] opportunity to better communities um
[45:42] make the world a better place. It's a
[45:44] pretty cool project. I don't know
[45:45] everybody has the opportunity to
[45:46] contribute to that. You can sign into
[45:48] that. Um with me today is my friend Bill
[45:50] Ko. Um Bill spent a lot of time working
[45:53] with this program. Um when we looked at
[45:56] the program working with Jessica Dalton
[45:58] who's hiding in the back because she's
[46:00] bashful. She is our blue sky project
[46:02] manager. We looked at it and we needed
[46:04] to move quickly. There was a tax
[46:06] incentives that we were able to take
[46:08] play take advantage of two months ago
[46:10] with Bill's help. Um, like I said, you
[46:12] authorized Bill to write the grant and
[46:15] I'm familiar with the numbers of what
[46:17] we've done in the past and I think you
[46:19] guys should probably agree these numbers
[46:20] are spectacular.
[46:21] >> Um, there was a lot of things the bill
[46:23] was able to do to help city. Um, I hate
[46:27] to say he's every penny you can get out
[46:29] of us, but I kind of think he did.
[46:30] [laughter]
[46:32] But the nice part about it is so today
[46:34] as far as the award notified, but the
[46:37] check is for $1.25 million.
[46:41] So
[46:47] what this project is for, we all know
[46:49] that we've got an incoming water
[46:50] treatment facility coming in. We've
[46:52] mandated by the state. We're required to
[46:54] have it. The beautiful part about this
[46:56] is we're going to help offset the cost
[46:58] of putting in a solar field and a
[47:00] battery to offset the operational costs
[47:03] of that plant. So we can't stop the
[47:07] plant, but we can support it. We're here
[47:09] to help you. We're excited to team up
[47:10] with Grantsville City. Um, I think this
[47:13] has been beyond a win-win and it's fun
[47:15] to be a part of. Um, is there anything
[47:17] you wanted to mention?
[47:20] >> Uh, I will say about the grant itself,
[47:23] um, they did do something that they
[47:25] haven't ever done in the past. $250,000
[47:27] of that 1.25 million is an upfront
[47:30] payment to help you get to the next
[47:32] phase. So, if you guys accept the award,
[47:35] you'll get $250,000 to move forward with
[47:37] project development. and engineering
[47:40] which takes you to that phase three
[47:42] period where you'll have actual
[47:44] contracts, more refined numbers, what
[47:47] the project would actually look like and
[47:49] then that would be your go no-go
[47:50] decision to actually perform on the
[47:52] project. So you still have one more
[47:53] opportunity to take it to the next level
[47:56] and then based upon that information
[47:58] choose yes or no.
[48:02] >> Thank you. Thank you very much.
[48:03] >> Yes. So any other questions we can
[48:06] answer to the council? We're happy to be
[48:08] here and y
[48:09] >> I appreciate Bill and Jessica driving
[48:10] out to stand with me today.
[48:14] >> Do any council members have questions
[48:15] for Bill or Nick?
[48:18] >> Um, a lot of times we see grants where
[48:22] we have matching funds.
[48:24] >> Um, I'm assuming that this isn't one of
[48:25] those. Obviously, if a project and once
[48:29] it's decided, once it comes before us,
[48:31] it may exceed that amount, but
[48:32] [clears throat] that'll be on the city
[48:33] to be able to to to pay for that to
[48:35] >> cover the to uh to pay for the overage
[48:39] on that, but that's a that's an awfully
[48:41] big check, right? So, yeah, thank you.
[48:45] >> Yeah, thanks for the opportunity. Well,
[48:47] and just to address council uh council
[48:49] member uh red but
[48:54] councilman red. Um [clears throat] so
[48:56] the cool part about this is these awards
[48:58] are awarded on merit an opportunity to
[49:01] complete and impact a community. So I
[49:05] mean this is huge for our little small
[49:07] community. I mean are we officially to
[49:09] 17,000 yet? You [laughter] know, I know
[49:11] we doubled since I moved out here 10 11
[49:13] years ago, but at the same time, this is
[49:16] based on merit. This is based on impact
[49:18] community, and you know, the Rocky
[49:20] Mountain slogan is powering your
[49:21] greatness, and that's what this is.
[49:23] >> It's great. So,
[49:25] >> no, thank you. Um, and I know we went we
[49:28] went through the initiation portion of
[49:30] this, but I I Bill, if you wouldn't mind
[49:33] maybe kind of walking through the
[49:35] process
[49:36] >> from a high level if if that's okay.
[49:38] Really quickly, just so just so that I
[49:41] think the more we allow the residents to get an understanding what Yeah, this
[49:46] is fantastic. and and I don't need you
[49:48] to spend a ton of time, but I think if
[49:49] you could just walk through a quick
[49:50] >> overview kind of how that process goes,
[49:53] you know, as you mentioned, there's
[49:54] still a go no-go
[49:55] >> uh as we look at that and evaluate it,
[49:57] but this is a great this is a great step
[49:59] in the right direction. Thank you.
[50:00] >> Yes, when this opportunity came up and
[50:03] we looked at it, we realized that we had
[50:04] to run really fast. within a four to six
[50:07] week period, we pulled together an a lot
[50:09] of analysis to look at what the
[50:10] opportunity would be for you and your
[50:13] actions before July 4th of this year
[50:16] gave you the opportunity also for a 30
[50:18] to 40% tax credit on top of this
[50:21] project. So that was the first phase is
[50:23] do we even put in for a grant
[50:25] opportunity and then also allow make a
[50:28] decision that qualifies for tax credits
[50:31] um if this project moves forward which
[50:33] had to be done by July 4th by you guys
[50:35] putting with the project that was phase
[50:37] one you you said yes then we moved
[50:40] forward with the grant mountain power
[50:42] came through with that grant uh this is
[50:45] phase phase two where you evaluate the
[50:47] grant decide to move forward um then if
[50:50] you choose yes phase Three is where
[50:52] advanced engineering and I'll call it
[50:55] project development occurs is where it's
[50:58] vetting everything where the engineer
[51:00] come out here you look at the property
[51:02] you look at the runs and then you start
[51:05] doing pricing uh you do RFPs um you look
[51:08] at a contract for a contractor to be
[51:11] able to what those costs would be um and
[51:14] then a package would come to you and say
[51:15] this is what it would look like here's
[51:17] what the cost would be and here's some
[51:19] contracts from the RFP P, which gets you
[51:22] to the end of phase three. And then
[51:24] phase four, the end of phase three is
[51:25] the decision to move forward to um
[51:27] construction. And that timing for phase
[51:30] three from um from now would actually be
[51:33] about up to eight months and then the
[51:35] construction project could be up to a
[51:37] year. But the idea is to have it in uh
[51:39] have it target by the end of next year
[51:42] and align as closely as possible to the
[51:45] wastewater block treatment plant.
[51:48] >> Thank you. Thanks for doing that.
[51:50] >> Oh yes. Sound welcome.
[51:52] >> If it in phase three it became too
[51:54] expensive and we didn't we said no. Do
[51:57] we have to pay the 250,000 back?
[52:01] >> That's a Rock Mountain Power question.
[52:04] >> The answer is no. I just want to make
[52:06] sure. The answer is no.
[52:08] >> Didn't want to give my ski tips on that.
[52:10] [laughter]
[52:11] >> It's a it's a it's a grant for
[52:13] development.
[52:14] >> Great.
[52:16] out of fairness though that if if it's all about in good faith because
[52:22] those funds do go towards good projects.
[52:25] So I would encou I mean
[52:28] approve the project if you intend if you
[52:30] feel like the economics that you saw
[52:32] made sense and it's something you move
[52:34] forward with. If not that's okay because
[52:36] we'll those those funds will get
[52:38] reallocated somewhere else. So I I do
[52:39] appreciate you asking that
[52:43] as we walk through that design process.
[52:45] We could probably look at options to VE
[52:49] or get it within a range that would not
[52:52] impact the citizens as well. So,
[52:54] >> or also to scale it.
[52:56] >> Yeah.
[52:56] >> So, make it smaller or bigger and
[52:59] >> Exactly.
[53:00] >> provide provisions down the road to be
[53:02] able to add to it if needs be. So, there
[53:04] I think I think we've got I think we got
[53:06] a bunch of different options.
[53:09] [clears throat]
[53:10] >> Only we had an electrician on the
[53:11] council. [laughter]
[53:13] >> No.
[53:17] » [clears throat]
[53:17] >> What was the on?
[53:18] >> That's not a good one. [laughter]
[53:24] » And just the one thing to kind of keep
[53:26] in perspective, the return on
[53:29] investment.
[53:30] >> So the equipment's, you know, 25 30 year
[53:32] equipment.
[53:33] >> I believe the ROI is five years.
[53:35] >> Yeah.
[53:35] >> So after the five years, you're
[53:38] >> depending on where you go with it.
[53:39] >> Yeah. And that's including the tax
[53:40] credits as well. You got that built into
[53:42] the Yep.
[53:43] >> Yeah. just just kind of makes sense.
[53:45] >> Yeah.
[53:46] >> Especially when you're getting tax
[53:47] credits and you're starting out with a
[53:49] big shot in the arm of $1.25 million.
[53:52] >> Is that friendship douche?
[53:53] >> Yes, I consider that friendship now.
[53:55] >> All right. [laughter]
[54:03] » Thank you.
[54:03] >> Any other questions?
[54:04] >> No, thank you.
[54:06] >> Anyone want to make a motion?
[54:09] >> Was Mike?
[54:11] No, I reiterate all of that and it's
[54:13] been great working with uh Bill and Roat
[54:16] Power. We are working on a contract with
[54:19] Mr. Ko to because we do want him to lead
[54:22] us in this adventure of getting and
[54:24] securing all the funds and because he
[54:26] has all that experience. So, we're
[54:27] trying to uh finalize that. We weren't
[54:30] able to get that on this agenda, but we
[54:31] are trying to get that on the next one.
[54:33] Great.
[54:35] I make a motion we approve resolution
[54:37] 2026-64
[54:39] accepting the Rocky Mountain Power Blue
[54:41] Sky funding award for the city's solar
[54:44] and battery project and authorizing the
[54:46] city manager and appropriate city staff
[54:48] to execute the award acceptance
[54:51] agreement and related documents.
[54:53] >> Thank you. We have a motion by council
[54:55] member Butler. Is there a second?
[54:57] >> I'll second.
[54:57] >> Second by council member Dalton. All in
[55:00] favor?
[55:01] >> Hi I.
[55:02] >> And we'd love a picture. Come on up.
[55:06] No, they're
[55:06] >> great.
[55:20] [laughter]
[55:25] is part of the fun. Come on up.
[55:27] >> Do it instead.
[55:36] [clears throat]
[55:44] » All right. One, two, three. Say solar.
[55:48] » Perfect.
[55:50] Thank you.
[56:02] Good to see you.
[56:03] >> St. Charles,
[56:17] » we've had some pretty good sized ones
[56:18] over the years, but that'll
[56:20] >> That's a good one. That's a
[56:22] >> that that one breaks the bank.
[56:24] That's good. It's a
[56:29] » All right, moving on to agenda item
[56:31] number seven.
[56:33] Consideration of ordinance 2026-27
[56:36] approving the Allington planned unit
[56:38] development located at approximately 948
[56:41] East Main Street, uh, SR138 within the
[56:45] mixeduse zoning district.
[56:49] Oh. Oh, hi Joe.
[56:52] >> Sorry. I wasn't sure if he was online or
[56:53] not.
[56:56] Um, you want to scroll down and show the
[57:00] layout?
[57:01] >> Well, hold on.
[57:07] » The layout.
[57:20] So, this um development did have a
[57:23] previous approval um back in 2022, I
[57:27] believe, and it did go through a few
[57:29] reiterations, which I've included in the
[57:31] staff reports of both the meeting
[57:33] minutes, resolutions, and prior layouts
[57:36] of this um development. In the planning
[57:39] commission meeting, there were
[57:40] discussions um about the property that
[57:43] is still in Twilla County. So, it's not
[57:46] um Sun Valley Drive is not within
[57:48] Grantsville City boundaries. So, our um
[57:52] animal setbacks and and things like that
[57:55] do not apply to Sun Valley. Um so, we
[57:58] wouldn't be restricting how far they
[58:00] need to set back. That would be up to
[58:02] Twilla County. um in the planning
[58:05] commission meeting that was addressed in
[58:06] our MDA. Um I believe it was um G3 in
[58:11] the MDA, but that is something that
[58:12] we'll address um on the next agenda
[58:15] item. We address the fence height. We
[58:18] put added language in there that um you
[58:21] know restricts the um owners of the
[58:24] Ellington subdivision from complaining
[58:27] about the animals or animal smells or
[58:29] any nuisances um of the individuals who
[58:31] live on Sun Valley Drive. We also
[58:33] required a 7T um fence along the western
[58:37] side and the southern side of this
[58:40] development. Uh we left the eastern side
[58:44] open because it is an open field and
[58:46] connectivity for a potential future
[58:49] development if that next property ever
[58:51] develops out. This is um composed of I
[58:55] believe 256
[58:59] or 255 units
[59:02] um and
[59:04] which is an increase of the prior
[59:07] approval. It does have the commercial
[59:09] area which is required in our MU. Um and
[59:12] they are asking for the deviations.
[59:13] That's no secret. Um on the next page,
[59:16] if you'll scroll down one, I have
[59:18] included the deviation table as well as
[59:21] highlighted um specific areas that are
[59:25] not meeting the code. And I have
[59:26] provided um what our code says on the
[59:30] left and there it goes um have
[59:33] highlighted the areas that are not
[59:34] meeting the code on the right
[59:37] in blue and and other colors. Did you
[59:40] guys have any questions?
[59:53] And I did want to point out that this is
[59:56] zoned in the MU. So they do they are
[59:58] allowed um for smaller lots. So you know
[1:00:02] single family lots are 4,000 square ft
[1:00:04] and multifamily
[1:00:06] um lots are 2400 ft². They do have
[1:00:09] smaller bufferings, lot sizes, setbacks
[1:00:11] and things like that. But the MU can be
[1:00:14] more restrictive as far as requiring
[1:00:15] commercial um open space and other
[1:00:18] items.
[1:00:22] » Do you feel like that this um proposal
[1:00:24] that we have in front of us today is
[1:00:26] hitting the mark in regards to the
[1:00:28] commercial aspect?
[1:00:32] >> I mean I feel like it's a little light.
[1:00:33] It could, you know, we could provide
[1:00:35] more commercial like where the RV
[1:00:36] contractor parking is or even over where
[1:00:39] the storage units are. Um or we could
[1:00:41] leave that. I mean, the storage units
[1:00:43] and the RV contractor parking could be
[1:00:46] considered a commercial um use in that
[1:00:49] aspect. It also doesn't make sense to
[1:00:52] line all of what you can see is
[1:00:55] Allington Way with commercial when
[1:00:57] that's not the main corridor. The main
[1:00:59] corridor is SR 138. Um, and that's where
[1:01:03] you want your commercial. That's where
[1:01:04] commercial wants to come. And you're not
[1:01:06] going to want to put it down by Dery
[1:01:08] Street on Allington uh way. So, I I feel
[1:01:12] like we're there. It might be a little
[1:01:14] on the short side, but that's ultimately
[1:01:16] up to city council on that discretion.
[1:01:19] Um, these flex homes are very neat. So,
[1:01:24] um, these homes come in different, uh,
[1:01:27] designs and layouts, and I don't know if
[1:01:30] you want to look that up on, um, Google,
[1:01:32] you can just type in flex homes in Utah.
[1:01:36] Um, but
[1:01:39] the homeowner can either have just the
[1:01:41] home built and then the footings and all
[1:01:44] the electrical and plumbing is already
[1:01:46] stubbed in. So, if they want to um
[1:01:49] refinance and add an addition, whether
[1:01:51] it's a garage, a patio, or maybe a
[1:01:53] garage with an ADU or an office or they
[1:01:55] need to expand their house, all of the
[1:01:58] footings and everything is there. So,
[1:02:00] it's an easy addition for that
[1:02:03] individual or that homeowner to be able
[1:02:05] to add on. And so, it really does make
[1:02:07] these homes very affordable in that
[1:02:10] sense.
[1:02:12] Um, we just go to all
[1:02:16] and go to keep going. Um, sorry, scroll
[1:02:20] just a little bit and click on flex
[1:02:21] ready homes
[1:02:26] and then scroll to the bottom.
[1:02:30] Scroll up just Oh, no. Keep going.
[1:02:34] Go.
[1:02:34] >> Okay. Sorry. Scroll up just a little
[1:02:36] bit.
[1:02:36] >> Presentation deck.
[1:02:37] >> Yeah.
[1:02:40] >> Before you move on, this is a website
[1:02:42] representing the actual
[1:02:44] developer/contractor.
[1:02:46] >> No. Um, this is representing the home
[1:02:49] style that is being placed on this. We
[1:02:52] just want to press.
[1:02:53] >> So, okay.
[1:02:57] This illustrates a flex design. I guess
[1:03:01] >> I have my mute on because of Yeah. No,
[1:03:03] you're fine. Me, too. Can actually still
[1:03:26] maybe loading.
[1:03:32] » So, this is just an example of
[1:03:36] the layout. Um, not not this specific
[1:03:40] layout, but they just drew um a layout
[1:03:43] for Twilla County when we were speaking
[1:03:44] with uh the Flex Home
[1:03:48] Group.
[1:03:57] No. All right.
[1:04:00] I don't know. I can't see the password
[1:04:02] on it. I don't know if you can. Oh,
[1:04:06] >> maybe drag it a little bit.
[1:04:08] >> I was I had
[1:04:09] >> Will you pause it? Actually,
[1:04:13] >> so before she paused it, you could see
[1:04:15] that um the home had a gap in between it
[1:04:18] and then the crotch. So that was the
[1:04:19] home. Then you had a patio and then they
[1:04:21] were able to add the garage on. So all
[1:04:23] the footings you can play again. All the
[1:04:25] footings um were on there.
[1:04:29] And so this home here has the house and
[1:04:31] then the extension of the garage on the
[1:04:33] back. You can just keep going.
[1:04:36] And then this home here has the patio
[1:04:38] and the garage behind. Um but they can
[1:04:40] also extend that further. Yes, these are
[1:04:43] um slab on grade twotory homes up
[1:04:47] um which does make it affordable in that
[1:04:51] sense that they're not digging a
[1:04:53] basement and um going that route.
[1:04:57] And then once this camera will actually
[1:04:59] flip around, you'll see the backside of
[1:05:01] how they're entering like where they can
[1:05:02] park the homes, what the other additions
[1:05:05] look like, um and the design and layout
[1:05:08] of these houses. They are fronted by um
[1:05:12] two streets. So you'll have your main
[1:05:13] road and then you'll have an alleyway um
[1:05:16] that they will use to park. So like that
[1:05:19] greenhouse was just the house, but you
[1:05:21] seen the footings to where they could
[1:05:23] add maybe expand the house or add the
[1:05:25] garages to it.
[1:05:32] So if ADUs are allowed, are we doubling?
[1:05:35] Instead of 255 families, we're cramming
[1:05:38] 500. And
[1:05:40] um sorry, I did the math. An additional
[1:05:43] 255 families in here.
[1:05:46] >> Well, it's not a separate house. So, I
[1:05:48] mean, yeah, you could have your, you
[1:05:50] know, your mom live with you, but what's
[1:05:52] the difference between you having an ADU
[1:05:54] in your basement versus them having it
[1:05:58] on their house? Uh, we also do have
[1:06:01] requirements for ADUs as far as
[1:06:02] restricting lot sizes. And so these
[1:06:06] wouldn't comply with the ADU
[1:06:07] requirements.
[1:06:10] >> I believe the minimum
[1:06:11] >> mute issue.
[1:06:12] >> Yes.
[1:06:13] >> Okay. And stop saying ADUs. Right.
[1:06:15] [laughter]
[1:06:20] » You can pause it.
[1:06:25] » I had a question regarding like I know
[1:06:27] they're like modular. So, if you back up
[1:06:30] a little bit, you can obviously see
[1:06:31] where the foundations
[1:06:33] come out and they've finished them with
[1:06:36] something to make them look presentable.
[1:06:39] Is that is that how that would look or
[1:06:42] would it look just like a gray
[1:06:44] foundation there with bolts sticking out
[1:06:46] of it type of
[1:06:48] >> No, it would be finished that way.
[1:06:50] Obviously, you don't want the bolts
[1:06:51] >> and I really apologize for that, but my
[1:06:54] first thought when I looked at this was the kids. Um
[1:06:59] and and the safety of each family at I'm
[1:07:03] going to be really conservative. If each
[1:07:05] house has two kids, there's 500 kids
[1:07:09] coming into this development.
[1:07:12] Can
[1:07:14] I'm just worried. Will you point out
[1:07:17] where they're going to play catch
[1:07:19] outside, where the where the open space
[1:07:22] is, where they're going to play,
[1:07:24] >> where the walking trails is, and I'd
[1:07:26] just love to hear what HOA manies there
[1:07:29] are.
[1:07:31] >> Let me zoom out. So,
[1:07:33] >> need that pointer.
[1:07:35] >> Um, right here is the main open space
[1:07:38] area. Has a total
[1:07:42] layout. So until we get to the the
[1:07:44] nitty-gritty of the preliminary and the
[1:07:46] final,
[1:07:48] it's hard to say how wide that is and
[1:07:50] where that's at. Yeah, we're able to
[1:07:51] measure some, but that's always going to
[1:07:53] adjust once you get into the survey.
[1:07:56] And then on this side, this strip
[1:07:58] extends further.
[1:08:03] This opens up. You have to, you know,
[1:08:05] pick a ball court or something along
[1:08:06] this way. And we can fill this space in
[1:08:09] as well. But I mean, those are decisions
[1:08:12] ultimately up to council as far as what
[1:08:14] amenities they want. Do they feel like
[1:08:15] it's enough open space? Do you guys want
[1:08:18] more?
[1:08:18] >> Is that a retention basin right there
[1:08:20] that you just pointed to?
[1:08:21] >> This is a retention basin. And then down
[1:08:23] further,
[1:08:24] >> there's one on the other side.
[1:08:26] >> Yeah, I believe there's two on the other
[1:08:27] side.
[1:08:30] » So, do how big is that where the trees
[1:08:33] are? How big? I tried to find that.
[1:08:37] What's the How big is that? If you give
[1:08:40] me a second,
[1:08:42] >> that would be the measure.
[1:08:46] >> The the street width is 27 feet. Looks
[1:08:49] about the same.
[1:08:50] >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking.
[1:08:56] » 20 ft. Not a lot.
[1:09:05] It says [clears throat] there's 6.8 8
[1:09:07] acres of open space area.
[1:09:10] >> Looks like the majority of which would
[1:09:12] be retention basins.
[1:09:15] >> There's four of them, right?
[1:09:16] >> Yeah,
[1:09:16] >> that's what she pointed out.
[1:09:18] >> Mhm. Correct.
[1:09:29] » Are there any concept design? Are all
[1:09:32] the homes within this flex?
[1:09:34] >> Yes.
[1:09:35] >> Okay. So, it's about 36 feet from the
[1:09:38] sidewalk to the sidewalk.
[1:09:41] >> So, no real mixed use of of of home
[1:09:44] styles in this. I mean,
[1:09:48] >> I mean, there's a mix of lot sizes. So,
[1:09:50] like if you want to zoom out, ask Aspen,
[1:09:52] so we can or Alicia, sorry. So, that we
[1:09:54] can see the whole I mean, you're going
[1:09:57] to have your full layout, which is um
[1:09:59] you have your like your red, your green,
[1:10:01] and your yellow um which is a larger
[1:10:03] lot. And then you have your smaller um
[1:10:06] single lots that are down on the west
[1:10:09] side. And then you have your, you know,
[1:10:11] I mean, they do vary in style and type
[1:10:14] throughout, but it's not um, you know, a
[1:10:17] half acre and a quarter acre and town
[1:10:19] homes.
[1:10:30] you hit on the deviations and I think
[1:10:32] we've looked at them, but I just would
[1:10:33] like to talk a little more about the
[1:10:34] sideyard deviations and what we have
[1:10:37] there and just kind of what the
[1:10:40] differences are.
[1:10:43] >> Yeah.
[1:10:47] » Um, so
[1:10:48] >> because I see some that are super close.
[1:10:50] Yes. Yes.
[1:10:51] >> And then I see others that are a little
[1:10:52] further away. And even in your YouTube
[1:10:54] video, it looked like it looked like it
[1:10:57] had more more space in between the homes
[1:11:00] than what I'm seeing on here.
[1:11:03] >> So the interior sideyards, they are
[1:11:05] requesting a 5ft sideyard setback. Um,
[1:11:10] typically it would be 7 and 1/2 ft. on
[1:11:13] the corner sideyard, which is a 25- ft
[1:11:17] um front yard sideyard. They are asking
[1:11:20] 15 ft to the living space or 20 ft to
[1:11:22] the garage with side triangle
[1:11:24] verification.
[1:11:26] And the side set back to property
[1:11:27] boundary, they're asking for 10 ft.
[1:11:31] Um and then the front yard, they're
[1:11:33] asking for 15 feet to the living space
[1:11:35] and 20 feet to the garage. Alley parking
[1:11:37] access, 10 feet to the living space.
[1:11:44] So I just want to read one thing from
[1:11:46] our mixeduse ordinance. Um under the
[1:11:49] purpose and intent it says developments
[1:11:51] in the mixeduse zone shall be designed
[1:11:53] so as to integrate the residential and
[1:11:56] commercial components into a harmonous
[1:11:59] develop development and be to be
[1:12:01] compatible with the existing or
[1:12:04] anticipated uses of the surrounding
[1:12:06] properties.
[1:12:07] And I don't see that with this concept.
[1:12:13] Um,
[1:12:19] shall we maybe walk us back? So, this
[1:12:21] went through a process in 2022.
[1:12:24] Um,
[1:12:26] >> do we have that concept plan that we
[1:12:28] could pull up, Alicia?
[1:12:30] >> Can you see this one, right?
[1:12:32] >> And you weren't involved with this in
[1:12:34] 2022.
[1:12:35] >> Okay. just to make sure that you know
[1:12:37] you're
[1:12:38] >> she can go back to the notes and the
[1:12:40] meeting minutes, but she was not
[1:12:42] >> in the position she's in.
[1:12:43] >> Okay.
[1:12:49] » Did you upload the staff report?
[1:12:52] >> Um,
[1:12:54] >> was there report?
[1:12:56] >> I believe so. Yeah. No, it's not enough.
[1:13:01] >> I know. I was in attendance at that
[1:13:02] meeting, just attending and yeah, it's
[1:13:05] very different from what this is.
[1:13:12] It was uploaded into your Google form.
[1:13:37] I'll just say this. I you you'll get it
[1:13:38] eventually. Um so why is it vastly
[1:13:41] different? Why why did we what made us
[1:13:44] shift gears? What's the what's the
[1:13:46] reasoning for it? I
[1:13:47] >> think that's a question Joe can answer.
[1:13:50] >> Welcome. Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to
[1:13:53] address that. Um, in 2022,
[1:13:58] Gransville City uh came to me and uh we
[1:14:01] were working on this plan and and did
[1:14:03] some Gransville City wanted to put a
[1:14:05] sewer line through that property and uh
[1:14:09] of course
[1:14:11] the Romney group, you know, threatened
[1:14:13] condemnation, all that stuff and I knew
[1:14:14] they couldn't do that. But so I got an
[1:14:16] agreement with the city to serve this
[1:14:18] property for 254 lots
[1:14:22] um [clears throat] knowing that I would
[1:14:25] pay that I would pay a proportionate
[1:14:27] back to the city uh uh when we got
[1:14:31] approval. But the agreement with or with
[1:14:34] Grantsville City said that we just
[1:14:36] wanted they if I granted them the
[1:14:38] easement they would give me the
[1:14:40] connections. there would be no fee on my
[1:14:42] end for
[1:14:44] uh [clears throat]
[1:14:45] the sewer capacity there. Well, all of a
[1:14:48] sudden, I get a bill from Romney's for
[1:14:50] half a million dollars. I'm like, wait a
[1:14:52] minute, that's not our agreement, and
[1:14:54] there's no signed agreement. Uh they
[1:14:56] keep telling me that there's an
[1:14:57] agreement, but I told them, you know,
[1:15:00] paperwork speaks for itself. So, I met
[1:15:01] with Grantsville City, uh met multiple
[1:15:04] times, we went through it. We we will be
[1:15:07] paying back the sewer with with this
[1:15:10] design. Um and it's in the MDA to to pay
[1:15:15] it back. Uh but to pay to pay that just
[1:15:18] because
[1:15:20] um I I believe that the second part of
[1:15:23] this is the I know it's a lot of units.
[1:15:27] There's no you know doubt about that.
[1:15:30] And the variances come with some give
[1:15:33] and take. So the the property's
[1:15:36] permitted like I can build right now
[1:15:38] permitted without a PUD 255
[1:15:43] town homes 10 packs. Awful.
[1:15:47] Um they're they're town homes are not
[1:15:51] they're not really good resellers. Uh
[1:15:53] they're they're not good long-term uh
[1:15:55] economic they don't hold their value.
[1:15:58] So we [clears throat] met with
[1:15:59] Gransville City, what's it a year and a
[1:16:01] half ago? absolutely
[1:16:02] >> a year and a half ago and started
[1:16:04] talking about what this property could
[1:16:05] be used for and uh instead of just
[1:16:08] putting that on there, we came up with
[1:16:10] this and I I know the word modular was
[1:16:12] used. It's not a modular they're not
[1:16:14] modularly built. They're they're stick
[1:16:16] frame
[1:16:18] uh construction. They have the same
[1:16:20] components as a regular house. We we
[1:16:23] believe that the single family
[1:16:26] uh component to this is much better than
[1:16:28] a town home or apartments or condos.
[1:16:32] Uh so there is some deviation but it's
[1:16:34] not it's it's not going above and beyond
[1:16:37] what is already permitted on the
[1:16:39] property.
[1:16:41] So uh with that being said we've tried
[1:16:43] to leave trails. We've tried to leave
[1:16:45] commercial. I I don't know very many I'm surprised that Soulbergs went on
[1:16:50] Dery. I hope it I hope it really works
[1:16:51] and I think the growth if it goes that
[1:16:53] way I don't know many places if you look
[1:16:55] at Tilla or even other places where
[1:16:58] anything back 1,000 ft or 500 ft from
[1:17:01] the main main road becomes very viable
[1:17:04] commercial most of it is right there on
[1:17:06] the frontage. Um so we've tried to be
[1:17:09] aware of that. We've tried to uh be
[1:17:12] cognizant of providing a really good
[1:17:14] project and you know you talk about kids
[1:17:17] where are the kids going to go? Let's
[1:17:19] look. Where are they now?
[1:17:22] Where are these kids now?
[1:17:25] >> They're living in basements. Their
[1:17:27] parents ba or you know grandparents'
[1:17:28] basements. They're living in apartments
[1:17:30] where the same the same dynamic exists.
[1:17:32] It's not like um you're taking kids on 5
[1:17:35] acre lots and putting them here. This
[1:17:38] gives them an area to call their own to
[1:17:41] be a home where maybe they don't ever
[1:17:44] get that. So, I know there's concerns
[1:17:46] about
[1:17:48] um
[1:17:50] uh the things that are there, but we've
[1:17:52] worked really hard uh to make this
[1:17:54] amanable with a lot of collaboration
[1:17:57] with the city, with the city engineers.
[1:18:00] Um we've looked at all the sewer, all
[1:18:02] the things that uh has been talked about
[1:18:05] tonight
[1:18:07] has been addressed by them. And so, it's
[1:18:11] not I mean, we just didn't throw this
[1:18:12] together thinking, "Oh, this will be
[1:18:13] good." We really have spent a lot of
[1:18:15] time seeing what will keep what can meet
[1:18:18] our our needs, what will help us pay
[1:18:20] back the sewer for the city at a half a
[1:18:22] million dollars, and what's a good
[1:18:24] long-term project for people to to have
[1:18:28] a place to live. And we we found that
[1:18:30] detached housing
[1:18:32] with a sideyard, even if it's 5t or 6
[1:18:35] feet, is better than attached housing in
[1:18:37] a town home project. It their resale
[1:18:40] values are better. They build equity
[1:18:41] faster. And so this is what we what we
[1:18:44] kind of settled on.
[1:18:53] Alicia, how many units are I'm probably
[1:18:56] just missing it, but how many are in
[1:18:58] this approved layout from 2022?
[1:19:02] » Anyone know?
[1:19:03] >> 72, I think.
[1:19:23] Do you know that?
[1:19:26] [clears throat]
[1:19:28] » I can tell.
[1:19:32] Yes.
[1:19:36] Was
[1:19:41] it 126 + 235?
[1:19:52] I think it was 72 units.
[1:20:00] » Certainly not 2006, right?
[1:20:02] >> No, but I I'm not sure what this is. I
[1:20:05] mean, I'm sure this is important
[1:20:07] dialogue, but I'm not sure it's relevant
[1:20:09] dialogue. Each each application's
[1:20:11] handled on its own,
[1:20:13] right? So, it's not like um
[1:20:18] I don't know. I don't other than that, I
[1:20:20] don't I know it's it's out there, so
[1:20:22] it's can be addressed, but
[1:20:24] >> we'll just take it off there. We don't
[1:20:25] need to look at it. That's where you
[1:20:28] >> Well, I'm just saying that that's
[1:20:29] >> it's not relevant. Let's go away.
[1:20:31] >> Thanks.
[1:20:34] So, you brought it up in the city or
[1:20:36] planning commission meeting and I know
[1:20:38] not everyone was there. Could you just
[1:20:39] tell us what your pricing your starting
[1:20:41] pricing point is going to be on these?
[1:20:44] >> 359 to 365 is the start and then it'll
[1:20:48] go up, you know, from there.
[1:20:53] That's assuming from the planning
[1:20:54] commission from that date, you know what
[1:20:57] we have interest rates, different
[1:20:59] things.
[1:21:01] There's all kinds of factors, but that's
[1:21:03] our that's our target starting spot.
[1:21:06] >> Have you or the city have anyone talked
[1:21:09] to you do
[1:21:10] >> Yeah.
[1:21:11] >> about that road? So, I know it doesn't
[1:21:13] meet the distance from Sun Valley to
[1:21:15] where your entrance is. Are they giving
[1:21:17] They're giving you a
[1:21:18] >> They already have a recorded access from
[1:21:20] Utah on that. So, you can look up Twilla
[1:21:22] County GIS on the public record and see
[1:21:25] that Utah already owns an access
[1:21:27] >> where Allington Way is. Del lane, turn
[1:21:30] lane.
[1:21:30] >> Yeah, [clears throat] they'll have to
[1:21:31] install that.
[1:21:32] >> Yeah, they've given us the they've given
[1:21:33] us the parameters and the design.
[1:21:35] >> Turn lane coming west or is it just
[1:21:38] going to be two lanes and so everyone
[1:21:39] trying to get in?
[1:21:40] >> I'm not sure. I can't remember. It's
[1:21:42] been been a little while, but I know
[1:21:43] that there's a third lane in the middle,
[1:21:46] a middle XL diesel lane, and then a turn
[1:21:48] lane on the right going east.
[1:21:51] So, there's probably a merge, there's
[1:21:53] probably a lefthand merge lane that goes
[1:21:56] into traffic. I I'll be honest, I have
[1:22:00] not seen that for a long time. But we do
[1:22:02] have our encroachment permit and we have
[1:22:04] our design and the design came from
[1:22:06] them. They they mandated what we did.
[1:22:08] >> Yeah. And UD do you know when as we're
[1:22:11] reviewing preliminary and final plans,
[1:22:12] UD dot's always involved in those
[1:22:14] reviews. So things are always change.
[1:22:18] I mean currently our signal location
[1:22:21] study that we received in the fall of
[1:22:23] last year does not show any sort of
[1:22:26] stoplight or anything. any any sort of
[1:22:30] control of traffic there, which I mean
[1:22:34] as someone who drives home that way
[1:22:35] every day, I don't want another
[1:22:37] stoplight there. But I mean, it it is
[1:22:39] what it is. And we we uh obviously would
[1:22:43] need something there, I think, down the
[1:22:44] road. But it does not show that.
[1:22:46] >> Yeah. In our in our study that UDOT did,
[1:22:48] they came back and I guess is it called
[1:22:50] warrant? It doesn't warrant. They don't
[1:22:52] have a warrant. Well,
[1:22:54] >> warrant at five o'clock. [laughter]
[1:22:57] Oh.
[1:22:58] I'll honk when I when I tell you it
[1:23:00] warrants. [laughter] So will 500 other
[1:23:03] people.
[1:23:04] >> Plus
[1:23:05] >> I don't I don't make the rules. I just
[1:23:07] abide by
[1:23:07] >> we don't control the kind of semantics
[1:23:10] but
[1:23:11] >> um it'll come when it comes.
[1:23:14] >> So a lot of the concerns were buffer.
[1:23:18] Are you set on this plan or are you
[1:23:21] willing like so that your west end that
[1:23:25] there's half they're but up against
[1:23:26] halfacre lots in the old plan there was
[1:23:28] halfacre or yeah
[1:23:30] >> oneacre lotacre lots.
[1:23:32] >> Is there any way to get bigger lots to
[1:23:35] match up with the existing homes that
[1:23:37] are there and then ease into your
[1:23:40] density or are you this is your plan
[1:23:42] because of the sewer money that you have
[1:23:44] to pay back?
[1:23:46] Well, I mean, I I think it's a we can we
[1:23:50] can look at at something. I I think it's
[1:23:52] a good plan. I really do. Compared to
[1:23:54] what could be put there, we agree to
[1:23:57] fence the entire west side
[1:24:00] um per phase as it comes up, but you
[1:24:02] have
[1:24:04] I mean,
[1:24:06] I think you go up to almost 20 feet to
[1:24:08] the to the house
[1:24:11] and
[1:24:14] you know, I don't know. That's a pretty
[1:24:15] good buffer. I don't
[1:24:18] how many do we know how many how many
[1:24:20] people on that particular street that's
[1:24:22] on the east side of some valley have
[1:24:24] animals? I I've been down there a couple
[1:24:26] times. It's hard for me to tell because
[1:24:27] I think there's maybe four four families
[1:24:30] that have horses
[1:24:32] back there. Um
[1:24:35] >> so no, I I get it. Yeah, you're right.
[1:24:37] You're zone for animals and I'm not ever
[1:24:38] trying to take away the the right to
[1:24:40] have animals. I love it. I'm just um
[1:24:45] you know it brings up a good point. You
[1:24:47] know, we wouldn't want to take their
[1:24:48] zoning away either.
[1:24:52] » So,
[1:24:56] I would be I mean, I'd be willing to if
[1:24:57] we if we took away
[1:25:01] I mean, if we took away these bottom
[1:25:03] ones
[1:25:08] and expanded that into
[1:25:12] more um
[1:25:17] buffer zone I guess you would call it
[1:25:19] >> right um I would I would consider that
[1:25:23] it it does give you an additional you
[1:25:25] know 25 ft there and I don't give up the
[1:25:27] world
[1:25:29] in in trying to to do this but
[1:25:36] » it would add to that six acres of open
[1:25:37] space probably
[1:25:40] >> we'll measure Maybe an acre, maybe by an
[1:25:42] acre. And
[1:25:46] » so in our present code, they animals
[1:25:50] have to be there has to be 100 ft.
[1:25:53] >> Explain that to me.
[1:25:54] >> From an existing dwelling unit. If you
[1:25:56] were in Grantsville city limits, um you
[1:25:59] would measure 100 ft from the corner of
[1:26:01] an existing dwelling unit. 100 ft. And
[1:26:05] then that's where they keep it. um if
[1:26:07] they already have animals and new
[1:26:09] construction begins, they're already
[1:26:10] vested with that. So then it doesn't
[1:26:13] affect them. We've also in the MDA added
[1:26:17] language that the CCNRs need to re um
[1:26:20] notify the owners that their animals
[1:26:22] next door that they can't complain and a
[1:26:26] few other things which is um in G3 of
[1:26:29] the development agreement.
[1:26:34] » So they can't they can't complain. I
[1:26:36] mean like
[1:26:36] >> now now we're starting to go on, you
[1:26:38] know, on freedom of speech and I mean
[1:26:42] come on crying out loud.
[1:26:45] >> I think they put legal standing.
[1:26:48] >> Yeah, I think I think that was more of
[1:26:50] the gist.
[1:26:50] >> Anybody can complain. I can buy anything
[1:26:52] I want. But
[1:26:53] >> I think it's more you have no legal
[1:26:54] standing, but there's already
[1:26:56] >> Is that what it really says?
[1:26:57] >> No, it doesn't say you can't complain.
[1:26:59] [laughter]
[1:27:00] >> I'm sure there's legal ease.
[1:27:01] >> Don't be rude.
[1:27:02] >> Yes. Um but to remove those single that
[1:27:06] single layer of units would provide from
[1:27:09] the property line approximately 52 feet.
[1:27:14] So if this was if if Sun Valley
[1:27:16] Ranchettes were in Grsville City,
[1:27:20] which
[1:27:22] there is a hearing again next week, it makes no sense to me if it would
[1:27:26] change something that we would make a
[1:27:27] decision on this. If next week it is
[1:27:31] ruled that the annexation comes into
[1:27:33] Gransville, this area would be in
[1:27:34] Grantsville city limits. So then it just
[1:27:38] seems like we shouldn't make a decision
[1:27:40] on something like this if it makes any
[1:27:42] difference. What difference would it
[1:27:44] make if the if Sun Valley Ranchettes
[1:27:46] were in technical Grantsville City and
[1:27:48] not T will county? What difference would
[1:27:50] that make in this?
[1:27:51] >> None because their houses are already
[1:27:52] existing with animals.
[1:27:54] >> Okay.
[1:27:54] >> And this is new construction. So they're
[1:27:57] already so it wouldn't make any
[1:27:58] difference.
[1:27:58] >> They're already vested with their animal
[1:28:00] rights.
[1:28:01] >> Okay. Thank you. I thought you said
[1:28:03] something was different in the code or
[1:28:04] the county and that would that would be
[1:28:05] their code and not ours and that's why
[1:28:07] they could get away with the difference
[1:28:09] of something. Maybe I'm
[1:28:10] misunderstanding.
[1:28:11] >> Well, they're in the county. So, our
[1:28:13] code doesn't regulate how many animals
[1:28:15] they can have their setbacks or buffers.
[1:28:16] That would be the county.
[1:28:17] >> So, you're saying if they were in our
[1:28:19] fine?
[1:28:20] >> Yes.
[1:28:24] » The amount of animals may be different.
[1:28:26] >> Yeah, that Yeah, I mean that would be
[1:28:27] different. But as far as the buffer, as
[1:28:29] long as they are vested with their
[1:28:31] animals first, then new construction
[1:28:34] can't um conflict or affect and cause to
[1:28:38] remove animals.
[1:28:43] » If you just built using your MU zoning,
[1:28:47] how many how many homes do you think you
[1:28:49] could get in there?
[1:28:50] >> I think I can get 254 town homes and I
[1:28:53] think I could get over that in
[1:28:54] apartments. So in the mixed use so the
[1:28:58] district so it allows single family and
[1:29:00] town home residents. That's it.
[1:29:03] >> No, there's a multif family component.
[1:29:07] >> Okay. I'm not seeing that.
[1:29:10] I know we've changed this.
[1:29:12] >> Yeah, there there's a multif family
[1:29:13] component. That's I'm
[1:29:14] >> there's also a 50% commercial component.
[1:29:16] So 50% of your acreage would have to be
[1:29:19] commercial
[1:29:21] area. I don't I don't know that I read
[1:29:24] it that way or that when we met with the
[1:29:26] city that they read it that way.
[1:29:27] >> Yeah. I mean, it's 50% of the land
[1:29:30] fronting a major street
[1:29:31] >> of the land of the land area as
[1:29:35] commercial.
[1:29:36] >> Correct.
[1:29:36] >> We want it fronting a major street. But
[1:29:39] that Allington, wouldn't that be a major
[1:29:41] street?
[1:29:41] >> No, that's a residential street.
[1:29:44] >> It's only 66 ft wide.
[1:29:45] >> We We need to fix this gray area because
[1:29:48] it says land area. And then I think it
[1:29:52] was Rick that said it. We went over this
[1:29:53] a lot when we were on planning
[1:29:54] commission. We never got that part
[1:29:56] fixed.
[1:29:58] >> I will say if there's ambiguity in a
[1:30:00] code, it's
[1:30:02] >> interpreted in behalf of the
[1:30:04] >> the property owner and their desires. So
[1:30:13] » the other thing we did um the city this
[1:30:17] as a as a condition not not a not a give
[1:30:19] to the city but
[1:30:21] >> um we had we didn't have Allington. No
[1:30:25] we didn't have we have Allington way but
[1:30:27] it's supposed to be Cook, right?
[1:30:28] >> Yeah.
[1:30:28] We got to readress that. But Cook
[1:30:30] wasn't, we didn't want a raceway through
[1:30:32] our project, but the city in their
[1:30:36] interconnectivity agreement wanted it to
[1:30:40] be a straightrough shot just so they can
[1:30:43] have connectivity and and
[1:30:44] transportation. So, we adjusted we
[1:30:46] instead of having a a raceway through
[1:30:48] there, we kind of did the the bend to
[1:30:50] try to slow, you know, slow people down
[1:30:53] uh that come from the the cook side. Uh
[1:30:56] but in our in our original one, we had
[1:30:59] uh well, this is the second or third
[1:31:01] iteration of flex homes that we've had.
[1:31:04] Um but the we've actually moved
[1:31:08] uh Allen the entrance off SR uh 38 down
[1:31:13] a little bit to accommodate the city and
[1:31:16] their their requests. So I I my point in
[1:31:19] saying that is is just we tried really
[1:31:21] hard to
[1:31:23] uh to make and give you know things to
[1:31:26] the city that will make this work and
[1:31:29] that they they get out of it.
[1:31:32] >> Uh one of my biggest concerns is when we
[1:31:34] have approved PUDS in the past, it's
[1:31:36] because it's been a benefit to the city.
[1:31:38] It's it's been something that you know
[1:31:41] like we're we're going to ask for this
[1:31:43] higher
[1:31:45] amount or the setbacks or whatever
[1:31:47] because we're going to give you
[1:31:48] something in return. And to me, I'm
[1:31:51] looking at this plan going, we have one
[1:31:53] tot lot and one pickle ball court for
[1:31:56] 250 units. I'm not seeing any benefit to
[1:31:59] the city other than additional traffic,
[1:32:02] areas to patrol,
[1:32:04] um all the concerns that have been
[1:32:07] addressed. And so like where is the
[1:32:09] benefit to Grantsville City?
[1:32:10] >> You're getting a half a million dollars
[1:32:13] for to pay back sewer to prevent
[1:32:15] suicide. And if we take off that
[1:32:17] >> that half a million dollars seems to me
[1:32:19] like it's a problem between you and Joe
[1:32:22] or and the Romney's like
[1:32:25] >> sure I don't a problem to me
[1:32:28] >> like this the people in this room it
[1:32:30] shouldn't be their problem.
[1:32:32] >> Um
[1:32:33] >> well essentially it's not my problem
[1:32:35] either.
[1:32:35] >> I I get that. I I can understand that,
[1:32:38] but I just am not seeing anything
[1:32:40] besides a whole lot of houses. I'm not
[1:32:44] one tot lot, one pickle ball court. I
[1:32:46] just seems completely insufficient. If
[1:32:49] you even brought in an apartment
[1:32:50] building or town homes and multiple town
[1:32:53] homes that have been brought before us,
[1:32:55] we have required that they meet or that
[1:32:57] they bring in additional um space like
[1:33:00] pavilions and
[1:33:02] um
[1:33:03] >> for for the city.
[1:33:04] >> No, for for the area. I just am seeing
[1:33:07] like this a lot of people address the
[1:33:09] issue of the kids and where are they
[1:33:11] going to even go to play because the
[1:33:15] yards are so small and if you've got a
[1:33:17] five foot setback you're that's real
[1:33:20] tough to play to do a lot in a five foot
[1:33:22] piece of brass which may be a zerocaped
[1:33:25] I don't know what the
[1:33:26] >> well as Shelby I mean as Shelby
[1:33:28] mentioned this we we had to do a concept
[1:33:30] to get to this point but those things
[1:33:32] are not defined and not
[1:33:33] >> right but I don't see I don't see
[1:33:35] anywhere else to put them. That's
[1:33:36] >> Well, if we take I mean, there's lots of
[1:33:38] places to put them, but and you can do
[1:33:40] more. Here's here's the problem. If you took this out, you
[1:33:44] [clears throat] could put all kinds of
[1:33:45] things on that back side. You could put
[1:33:48] outdoor exercise stuff. You could put
[1:33:50] people don't really love pickle ball
[1:33:51] courts
[1:33:53] uh because they live by them. They then
[1:33:55] they can't complain. They go to um you
[1:33:58] know, they don't want to hear the
[1:34:00] bouncing at night, right? Right. So,
[1:34:02] we're more than more than welcome to put
[1:34:04] whatever the city
[1:34:06] um would like. Uh
[1:34:10] you know, it does
[1:34:12] I don't know what's the what if you look
[1:34:14] at the resale value of town homes versus
[1:34:16] single family homes. It's it's a huge
[1:34:19] difference.
[1:34:21] >> I think you're right on the definitely
[1:34:23] right on the single family. I mean I
[1:34:27] and it's a different product than maybe
[1:34:29] we have in a lot of other areas but just
[1:34:33] you look at this we're more concerned
[1:34:35] about the 20ear storm than we are about
[1:34:38] the kids and the safety and somewhere to
[1:34:41] go. I get that they don't leave the
[1:34:45] house,
[1:34:46] but that's just the impression of
[1:34:49] looking at this is four drainage lots.
[1:34:55] » Well, and no park,
[1:34:57] >> but keep in mind those can be we and
[1:34:58] I've done a ton of developments where
[1:35:00] those become play areas. They're all
[1:35:03] over that. It's just identified because
[1:35:05] we had to do it for city engineering.
[1:35:08] You know, it's not it's not like there's
[1:35:10] going to be nothing in there and there's
[1:35:12] just weeds. We would definitely use
[1:35:14] them.
[1:35:15] >> And this is open to you guys to suggest
[1:35:17] these are things that I want. A, B, C,
[1:35:18] and D. So, we're looking at you guys.
[1:35:22] What is it that you want in there?
[1:35:25] >> I just need to clarify question answer,
[1:35:27] please.
[1:35:29] >> So, you said we could take out the the
[1:35:32] lower. Are you talking this row?
[1:35:34] >> No, just the just the west side of
[1:35:36] homes. This last house on the end.
[1:35:38] >> Yes.
[1:35:39] >> Well, it would be Yeah, it would be
[1:35:40] right there
[1:35:42] >> and all the way up.
[1:35:48] » Because to me, I'm thinking, well, if
[1:35:50] this if this whole area was taken out
[1:35:52] and this was a whole play area, you have
[1:35:54] you solve your buffering issue with the
[1:35:55] existing neighbors and you create the place where
[1:36:00] >> how much buffering does does it need?
[1:36:02] >> 50 ft.
[1:36:04] I mean, you got you got 50 feet.
[1:36:08] >> If you if you went from here to here,
[1:36:10] I'll bet you it might be 48 and a half,
[1:36:12] but it's pretty dang close. I don't have
[1:36:14] the exact measurement.
[1:36:16] >> It was 50T conceptual anyways. So,
[1:36:19] required 50 feet.
[1:36:20] >> Yeah, if you require 50 feet, you
[1:36:22] require 50 feet. I I can I can live with
[1:36:24] that.
[1:36:27] >> Where's the sewer? We were talking about
[1:36:28] sewer line and and I remember when they
[1:36:30] dug it, but where is it in relationship
[1:36:33] to everything? Do you have a a good
[1:36:35] idea?
[1:36:36] >> Yeah, it's it's identified on here. So,
[1:36:38] it's this dotted line here.
[1:36:40] >> Yeah.
[1:36:40] >> This is where the old road was supposed
[1:36:42] to go.
[1:36:42] >> Yeah.
[1:36:43] >> Then it goes up to there.
[1:36:46] >> Then it follow that top rug.
[1:36:47] >> I'm not very tall. That's why I didn't
[1:36:48] make a good basketball player. But
[1:36:50] >> here, how's that?
[1:36:51] >> Anyway, it comes here and then back out
[1:36:53] to cook.
[1:36:54] >> It actually goes up.
[1:36:55] >> It goes right here straight. both of
[1:36:57] this area.
[1:36:58] >> Is that the blue line then?
[1:36:59] >> It goes here.
[1:37:00] >> No,
[1:37:01] >> the blue line are contours.
[1:37:03] >> I think they're contour lines.
[1:37:05] >> So, it doesn't go any
[1:37:07] >> the blue lines are your ashtto side
[1:37:09] triangle lines.
[1:37:12] >> Oh, the side for traffic.
[1:37:16] » It follows somewhat the roadway.
[1:37:18] >> Uh we've tried to put it as much as we
[1:37:19] can because
[1:37:20] >> Well, it's not usable, but
[1:37:22] >> it it's not usable. you
[1:37:24] >> well, we can build over the top of it,
[1:37:25] but we can't put a structure on it.
[1:37:27] >> Yes, absolutely. But you can utilize it.
[1:37:29] >> Yeah, we can. Yeah, that's what we've
[1:37:30] done here.
[1:37:31] >> Yeah, you're you're benefiting from the
[1:37:33] installation of that sewer line,
[1:37:35] correct?
[1:37:36] >> I would have I would have paid for I
[1:37:38] mean, it's a wash to me by the time I
[1:37:40] pay it back and I put it in. It's a wash
[1:37:42] to me.
[1:37:42] >> Okay. So, you're saying that Romney's
[1:37:45] the payback is is half a million
[1:37:47] dollars.
[1:37:48] >> Yeah.
[1:37:50] See, I wouldn't
[1:37:50] >> How big How big is that line? They put
[1:37:52] in a 20 in
[1:37:53] >> 20 inch.
[1:37:53] >> Yeah, I think it's a 20 inch line. I
[1:37:55] only need 8 in there,
[1:37:59] >> but
[1:38:01] still benefit.
[1:38:03] >> Um, it benefited by getting me an
[1:38:04] agreement with the city. Yeah.
[1:38:06] >> Yeah, I see that.
[1:38:14] Derek, can we go back to your original
[1:38:17] comment from this discussion about what
[1:38:20] it says about the buffering
[1:38:22] as far as harmonious with the existing
[1:38:26] >> on the
[1:38:28] definition of an
[1:38:30] >> Yes.
[1:38:31] >> Yeah. Um,
[1:38:37] sure they can pull that up. Um
[1:38:44] it's just it's 19A it's under one. I
[1:38:46] don't know if you want to pull that up.
[1:38:47] It just says it's the purpose of the mix
[1:38:50] zone use district.
[1:38:52] >> This is what we want. Allow for the
[1:38:54] establishment of commercial properties
[1:38:55] integrated with subordinate residential
[1:38:57] uses. Planes planned unit developments
[1:39:00] are encouraged in this zone.
[1:39:02] Developments in the mixeduse zone shall
[1:39:04] be designed so integrating residential
[1:39:07] commercial components into the
[1:39:08] harmonious development and to be
[1:39:10] compatible with the existing or
[1:39:12] anticipated uses of surrounding area.
[1:39:15] I mean that's right in the mixed use. So
[1:39:18] that this doesn't match. So if you went
[1:39:19] mu and did it your own I mean that's our
[1:39:22] intend purpose and that's what we want
[1:39:24] is to be harmonious and match. That's
[1:39:26] why we want a buffer that first plan.
[1:39:28] great bigger lots up against that west
[1:39:30] end to match and then you go into the um
[1:39:33] your density. We've done that with a lot
[1:39:35] of other developments. Um
[1:39:38] >> but with the mixed use, I mean the
[1:39:40] planned unit, the mixed use, if it if
[1:39:42] you go back to permitted uses, you still
[1:39:44] have the same problem. So if
[1:39:48] um
[1:39:51] because there there's I mean and I I
[1:39:54] know it's illogical to be honest with
[1:39:57] you, but what we're doing is taking a
[1:40:00] bad permit plan,
[1:40:03] giving it some
[1:40:06] better components and better features
[1:40:09] versus trying to to go back and what
[1:40:11] what's actually permitted
[1:40:13] like I in the MU zone. I could I could
[1:40:16] put it in and I wouldn't even have to
[1:40:18] come
[1:40:19] and ask for forgiveness from anything. I
[1:40:21] could just do it. And I don't like that.
[1:40:24] I don't like the way that that that
[1:40:26] permit.
[1:40:27] >> But but you'd be meeting all of our
[1:40:29] requirements. There'd be no variances.
[1:40:30] All the setbacks would be the buffer
[1:40:32] would be right.
[1:40:33] >> No, the buffer is not there. The buffer
[1:40:35] is there.
[1:40:35] >> No,
[1:40:36] >> it's 50 feet.
[1:40:37] >> It's 30 feet actually.
[1:40:38] >> Yeah. Okay. It's more than the 10 that
[1:40:40] we have here. 50.
[1:40:41] >> Well, I'm giving you 50
[1:40:44] >> potential. Yeah.
[1:40:45] >> Well, yeah. I haven't I mean, I haven't
[1:40:47] signed the dotted line, but I'm just
[1:40:49] saying I I know I
[1:40:51] >> Go ahead.
[1:40:51] >> I was say I think that's kind of where I
[1:40:53] have like we where we've got so many
[1:40:56] variants to this and I'm I'm not a fan
[1:40:59] of varants. So if there's a reason we
[1:41:02] have rule obviously we have in place and when we have a number of them and we
[1:41:09] see a number of them I think that's
[1:41:10] where I have the concern with the with
[1:41:12] the layout is
[1:41:13] >> I I think we've missed the mark uh
[1:41:17] >> uh entirely um but and I think some of
[1:41:21] the other councilmen have have mentioned
[1:41:23] this um specifically for the youth I
[1:41:26] have a I have a concern with
[1:41:29] that much in in that area based on
[1:41:33] what's there from a safety standpoint. I
[1:41:36] drive that road. I'm
[1:41:38] there every night. Probably you are when
[1:41:41] someone's trying to turn left out of Sun
[1:41:42] Valley and they're stuck there. So,
[1:41:45] entirely. Um,
[1:41:48] yeah. So I safety uh is one of my
[1:41:52] primary concerns, but I think the other
[1:41:54] one is just the the amount of variance
[1:41:57] in in in each of the items specifically.
[1:42:01] >> Let's go let's go to the variance table
[1:42:02] and talk about that
[1:42:04] >> because it I know the variance seems
[1:42:07] like you're giving something up, but if
[1:42:09] it's making something better, I'm not
[1:42:10] sure why it's it's a huge concern. If if
[1:42:14] 30 is the minimum in the thing and we
[1:42:16] give 50
[1:42:17] >> the v even though you're giving some
[1:42:19] variance it's a better buffer.
[1:42:21] >> Um
[1:42:26] » I don't have
[1:42:28] I can find the plan that we did.
[1:42:30] >> I sent it to Alicia the straight view.
[1:42:33] >> Yeah the just with the town home packs.
[1:42:36] >> Did you get that email? This is that's
[1:42:37] what started this whole conversation is
[1:42:39] I started looking at all right here's
[1:42:40] what we can do under their permitted use
[1:42:42] without a lot of heartache.
[1:42:44] Um
[1:42:46] but I can't read that.
[1:42:54] » You zoom in a little bit more. So if you
[1:42:56] look at the the code category
[1:42:59] [clears throat and cough]
[1:43:02] right
[1:43:04] when we get maximum density under the
[1:43:06] permitted area we get 260
[1:43:09] 256 90 minus you're down below 250
[1:43:14] 30 [clears throat]
[1:43:15] foot lot frontage um
[1:43:19] and 30 ft accommodates accommodates that
[1:43:22] 50 ft for a single housing. So that's
[1:43:24] where you give a little bit, right? You
[1:43:26] got 50 for a single family house on tone
[1:43:28] town homes. There there isn't any.
[1:43:31] There's only between between units,
[1:43:34] buildings, I should say,
[1:43:35] >> right? So you don't have any. So it's
[1:43:37] really not um you're giving up some some
[1:43:44] yardage for variance, but you're getting
[1:43:46] a single family detached house versus a
[1:43:48] pack. Um, the next one is,
[1:43:52] >> and you mentioned 10 in a row just a
[1:43:54] little bit ago. That's what you said.
[1:43:56] >> Keep keep going. You don't need to
[1:43:58] leave.
[1:43:59] >> Um,
[1:44:04] » the really tiny writing under the 256 is
[1:44:06] just outlining the lot sizes.
[1:44:09] >> Oh, for each each different.
[1:44:10] >> Yeah. So, like the flex base, flex gen,
[1:44:13] flex garage, flex premium, flex. tried
[1:44:16] to put every home in each base so that
[1:44:18] they could have a choice. You know,
[1:44:19] that's the mixed use component. They can
[1:44:21] have a bigger one with four bedroom or
[1:44:24] six bedroom. They can have one three
[1:44:27] bedroom, two bath, no garage. We tried
[1:44:29] to give them multiple things within each uh phase.
[1:44:36] [clears throat] Um 15 ft to living space
[1:44:39] or 20 ft to garage. the single site
[1:44:41] verification
[1:44:45] on corner side. So that's I don't know
[1:44:48] we don't have that many sharp hard
[1:44:49] corners.
[1:44:52] Um and then the last one is side setback
[1:44:55] property boundary is 10 ft instead of
[1:44:58] 15. But that would only apply on
[1:45:01] subdivision interior. If we take away
[1:45:03] that west the west side
[1:45:07] then you know it doesn't affect any
[1:45:09] other resident. So, the the
[1:45:12] deviations we're asking for um are minor
[1:45:16] compared comparatively speaking to what
[1:45:17] the permit allows
[1:45:19] >> and you get a much better product.
[1:45:23] [clears throat]
[1:45:25] » You want me to switch over to that?
[1:45:27] >> Yeah.
[1:45:43] So you can see,
[1:45:47] >> so this was the town home plan.
[1:45:48] >> This was the town home plan. And you can
[1:45:50] see Cook Drive didn't come through all
[1:45:52] the way to Allington. We did have this
[1:45:55] buffer here, which you get back anyway.
[1:46:00] » [clears throat]
[1:46:01] >> And I mean if you put the if you put the
[1:46:04] two plants side by side visually you
[1:46:07] would be like
[1:46:12] you know and the commercial didn't
[1:46:14] change from
[1:46:16] the 22 plan to this plan to what we
[1:46:19] concept we have in front of you. So this
[1:46:22] is this is by permit. You can do this
[1:46:26] and I don't like it.
[1:46:47] I know I know we've thrown out the old
[1:46:49] plan, but what's wrong with the old
[1:46:52] plan?
[1:46:53] >> Um, it's a different absorption rate and
[1:46:57] different uh price point.
[1:47:00] >> Yeah. Even though really if we're going
[1:47:03] with the statement that Derek read about
[1:47:06] the purpose of mixed use and the
[1:47:08] harmonious integrated developments,
[1:47:12] plan A looks far more like that
[1:47:16] definition.
[1:47:18] >> So this to me ju I'm just just my
[1:47:21] opinion. This just does not match that.
[1:47:25] Now neither would with would with this
[1:47:27] plan. This plan also doesn't match the
[1:47:30] definition of a mixeduse area.
[1:47:34] So I guess
[1:47:36] >> I mean what I'm asking is what what
[1:47:38] would you rather have this or
[1:47:41] >> Well, I would say I would say this also
[1:47:44] doesn't match mixed use. It just doesn't
[1:47:47] match the definition that
[1:47:49] >> it's all the same.
[1:47:50] >> Yeah, because it's all the same. There's
[1:47:51] no mix of uses. But your per the permit
[1:47:55] process when it's there's a difference
[1:47:56] between permitted and a and a PUD. The
[1:47:59] permit process says that if I meet every
[1:48:03] single one of your codes
[1:48:06] that I can build this,
[1:48:07] >> right? But if you read the mixeduse
[1:48:09] definition,
[1:48:10] >> even permitted, it just simply doesn't.
[1:48:13] >> But that mixeduse comes with the
[1:48:15] commercial and the residential. That
[1:48:17] that's the component of the mixed use,
[1:48:19] >> right? And that's what we're that's what
[1:48:20] [clears throat] we have here in all
[1:48:22] three plans. sure
[1:48:23] >> is that exact thing. And so to me, plan
[1:48:27] A, we'll call the plan from 2022,
[1:48:30] matches the exact definition of mixed
[1:48:33] use. It's mixing commercial use and then
[1:48:36] integrating into residential with a
[1:48:38] harmonious development that meets the
[1:48:41] present or the existing land or proposed
[1:48:44] land in the other areas. So, plan A, if
[1:48:47] I'm going to call it that, this one
[1:48:50] matches that
[1:48:53] town home plan, flex home plan. Now, I
[1:48:55] don't have an issue if if uh let's say
[1:48:58] if we're looking at previously approved
[1:49:01] layout and lots 102 to 117 along that
[1:49:05] area are town homes or flex homes or the
[1:49:09] interior of this plan becomes the flex
[1:49:12] homes or something like that. Now, that
[1:49:14] to me matches the definition of what our
[1:49:16] mixed use definition is. Whereas it it's
[1:49:20] a mix of uses, a mix of lot sizes
[1:49:23] integrating well with the commercial and
[1:49:25] the existing homeowners. This plan or
[1:49:28] the other two plans that are presented
[1:49:30] show no mix of uses. It's simply one use
[1:49:32] besides the commercial from what I can
[1:49:35] see and it doesn't match the definition
[1:49:38] of what we have in our code. I'm not
[1:49:40] understanding the the term use that
[1:49:42] these are all the single family. There's
[1:49:43] no mixed use in there.
[1:49:45] >> Well, it's a mix [clears throat] single
[1:49:46] family.
[1:49:46] >> You're right, Joe. You're right about
[1:49:48] that. But it's a mix of um
[1:49:50] >> lot sizes.
[1:49:51] which means you're going to
[1:49:53] have a variety of
[1:49:56] you're not going to put the same house
[1:49:58] on the halfacre lot that you're going to
[1:50:00] put on the interior lot. It's going to
[1:50:02] have a mix of of uses in that sense.
[1:50:06] >> Maybe you might have. I mean, the same
[1:50:07] thing. It's it's no different when the facades or fronts of the of the flex
[1:50:12] homes. You could have different you
[1:50:13] could have 20 different styles, right?
[1:50:17] A spec builder buys these and he has
[1:50:20] seven plans he builds. You can get seven
[1:50:21] plans throughout this whole thing. I
[1:50:23] don't I don't know that I don't know
[1:50:26] that the lot size is a definition of of
[1:50:30] use if that makes sense. According to
[1:50:32] the
[1:50:33] >> you can you could argue that. Yes. But I
[1:50:35] think you could argue my side as well
[1:50:37] that if you have a halfacre lot,
[1:50:39] >> you're going to have a different
[1:50:41] >> I'm not I'm not arguing that this plan
[1:50:43] would be better,
[1:50:44] >> right? It would be better. It's not the
[1:50:46] plan that that we've chosen.
[1:50:50] >> We we we went in and uh redid
[1:50:55] um a plan that we we thought was very
[1:50:58] thoughtful that would give us a good
[1:51:00] return on our investment. It doesn't uh
[1:51:06] you know handcuff the city on things
[1:51:08] that that they're going to have uh to do
[1:51:11] it. It provide it provides a really good
[1:51:14] resell. It provides a a price point also
[1:51:17] uh
[1:51:19] for people versus you know I I know
[1:51:22] everyone in this room would love it.
[1:51:23] I'll be honest with you halfacre lot put
[1:51:25] a house on it. It's going to be a
[1:51:26] million bucks.
[1:51:29] And then the complaint would be, "Well,
[1:51:30] you're raising my value, so I've got to
[1:51:32] paid more taxes." But I I understand the
[1:51:37] emotional attachment to the first plan.
[1:51:40] I I really do.
[1:51:41] Um
[1:51:44] but I but I think if if you took the
[1:51:47] emotion out of it and looked at what's
[1:51:49] permitted
[1:51:52] and and you can do without any
[1:51:55] consultation so to speak and and what we
[1:51:58] presented
[1:52:00] we believe it it it's a very good
[1:52:03] product
[1:52:05] and we beneficial for a lot of I mean
[1:52:08] you have I don't know you have a police
[1:52:10] officer he's not living in the first
[1:52:11] one. He he could live here,
[1:52:15] school teacher. You know, we all talk
[1:52:17] about we all talk about wanting to help
[1:52:19] the solve the problem, but we don't want
[1:52:22] it next to us, right? And and that's
[1:52:26] just heard everywhere in the state,
[1:52:29] everywhere I go. I did an assisted
[1:52:30] living in Park City and one of the
[1:52:34] questions from the councilman was, "What
[1:52:35] if my son sees a dead body getting
[1:52:37] rolled out of that assisted living?" So,
[1:52:40] he didn't like it.
[1:52:42] And I'm like, well, that's welcome to
[1:52:44] life, right? And there's are there are
[1:52:48] things that we we don't love,
[1:52:51] but that we can tolerate so that we can
[1:52:55] provide provide housing.
[1:52:58] >> Joe, a school teacher and a police
[1:53:00] officer could afford one of the 4,000
[1:53:03] town homes that have already been
[1:53:04] approved here in Grantsville. So, I
[1:53:07] don't buy the affordable housing that's
[1:53:09] going to be any less than a town home
[1:53:10] that's already been approved here,
[1:53:12] invested. I I believe it's in that
[1:53:14] number. Okay. Um, two, I I've been on
[1:53:17] planning commission for three years,
[1:53:19] then I came to city council. I haven't
[1:53:21] dealt with you, but every developer that
[1:53:23] I've dealt with has always wanted to be
[1:53:25] a good neighbor and work with the
[1:53:28] neighbors next to them. That's been my
[1:53:31] experience. and and it even I won't say
[1:53:34] the name some that I don't don't like
[1:53:35] but they've all always worked with us
[1:53:37] because they wanted to be good neighbors
[1:53:39] with the existing current homes. So what
[1:53:41] I'm asking is
[1:53:44] that buffer of bigger lots on that west
[1:53:47] end and then you can do whatever you
[1:53:49] want with your density as it as it moves
[1:53:52] east. Is that completely
[1:53:55] >> tell me what you tell me what you mean
[1:53:56] by that like let's be
[1:53:58] >> so like negotiate
[1:53:59] >> the first the first plan
[1:54:02] >> halfacre lots
[1:54:03] >> no I I won't do halfacre lots
[1:54:06] >> but I I would I'd rather leave open
[1:54:07] space than halfacre lots
[1:54:08] >> and then the density as you as you go
[1:54:10] east
[1:54:13] >> and that could be multifamily that could
[1:54:16] be
[1:54:16] >> let's look at let's look at what it is
[1:54:18] this isund what
[1:54:21] 54t Yeah,
[1:54:23] >> house is going to be set back here. So,
[1:54:26] you really have
[1:54:30] » 75 ft of buffer between the back of the
[1:54:33] house and the neighbor's fence.
[1:54:35] >> Yeah.
[1:54:36] >> Is Is that what you're wanting? Is that
[1:54:37] what you're asking?
[1:54:39] >> I I would like bigger lots on on the
[1:54:42] west.
[1:54:42] >> What if we do no lots there? If there's
[1:54:44] no lots, then that would be even do no
[1:54:46] lots for 75 ft and then let me do what
[1:54:50] our plan going east.
[1:54:54] » How many units that
[1:54:55] >> can I don't know that
[1:54:57] >> how many units is that?
[1:54:58] >> How many is he's got?
[1:55:00] >> Yeah, 254 is what?
[1:55:03] >> What would you put there?
[1:55:05] >> What would you want me to put there?
[1:55:06] Sounds like mayor would like some
[1:55:08] facility
[1:55:10] of some sort or
[1:55:14] I don't know. Why don't I split it with
[1:55:16] the neighbors?
[1:55:17] >> About 60 units approximately.
[1:55:19] >> Like
[1:55:21] >> give them if you're if you're if you're
[1:55:23] looking for
[1:55:25] what 70 something feet,
[1:55:28] give the neighbor their own 30 foot
[1:55:30] here, all these houses and keep the
[1:55:33] difference and they can buffer whatever
[1:55:35] they want.
[1:55:37] Now, there isn't a person talk about
[1:55:39] good neighbors that's going to deed land
[1:55:40] to a to a neighbor just so they can keep
[1:55:42] their buffer from you.
[1:55:45] If if that's truly what we're looking
[1:55:47] for here to be good neighbors, I have no
[1:55:49] problem with that because if it's going
[1:55:50] to be open, they might as well use it.
[1:55:52] We can still put in our trail. We could
[1:55:54] still put in some extra parks.
[1:55:56] We could still do that. And they get 30
[1:55:58] feet of extra ground on the back side of
[1:56:00] their property to do put their trees in.
[1:56:01] They could put a whole forest in.
[1:56:06] Well, that's an interesting concept. I
[1:56:09] mean, I don't know if
[1:56:11] >> Yeah,
[1:56:14] » you asked for it.
[1:56:16] >> Well, you said it. [laughter]
[1:56:21] Is that Is there anybody that would be
[1:56:23] opposed to that?
[1:56:25] >> We got your first idea. So,
[1:56:27] >> I know. I get it. I love my first
[1:56:29] girlfriend, too, but she punked me.
[1:56:32] >> Maybe that's why. [laughter]
[1:56:34] >> I don't know. Can I take questions? Is
[1:56:36] that all right?
[1:56:36] >> No.
[1:56:40] » Well, I shouldn't have. Sorry.
[1:56:43] >> If you want to give us 30 ft
[1:56:46] >> plus there's another 10 ft required by
[1:56:48] granular irrigation
[1:56:50] 40.
[1:56:51] >> Correct.
[1:56:52] >> No, the irrigation's actually already
[1:56:54] there.
[1:56:55] >> Yeah. Behind us.
[1:56:56] >> Yeah. So, there's not 40 feet. It's just
[1:56:58] 30 included.
[1:57:00] >> Anyway, I didn't I didn't mean to open
[1:57:01] up a can of worms. I'm just
[1:57:03] >> very simple question. But you're saying
[1:57:05] we can start at 365. I'm a builder and a
[1:57:09] developer.
[1:57:11] >> That's That's without garages.
[1:57:13] >> Sure. Yeah.
[1:57:14] >> The garage, you're up nearly $400,000.
[1:57:18] Council member,
[1:57:19] >> sorry, I didn't mean to engage the public, but I do think I do
[1:57:24] think we can meet somewhere on that that
[1:57:27] end versus the permitted where I think
[1:57:30] the permitted was strictly 30 feet. That
[1:57:32] was the exact measurement that has to be
[1:57:35] allowed in the MU.
[1:57:41] » Those are the two issues. West boundary
[1:57:43] at the parks.
[1:57:45] >> Say say it out. Say it louder.
[1:57:48] >> I don't want to speak for everybody.
[1:57:49] >> Well, [laughter] two major issues.
[1:57:51] >> You're going to say the same thing I'm
[1:57:52] going to say. I'm sure I I we've we've
[1:57:56] done across the board any any subdiv any
[1:57:59] new developments specifically new
[1:58:02] developments with higher density in
[1:58:04] lower density we've protected the
[1:58:07] citizens around them and so um and or
[1:58:12] we've asked that that they at least be
[1:58:14] considered in the process because they are already there and I get that
[1:58:19] we're talking about what has to happen
[1:58:20] to make it work. Um I do like
[1:58:25] an opportunity of different product
[1:58:27] type. Um
[1:58:29] and and specifically this product type I think um could work for
[1:58:35] some of our younger families um where we
[1:58:38] have a disparity of you know not that
[1:58:40] product type but protecting those around
[1:58:44] them. First and foremost, I I do have a
[1:58:47] you know you know when we talk about how
[1:58:49] many people we put into this space this
[1:58:56] permitted um creates a concern that I
[1:58:59] have from a safety standpoint. Um and I
[1:59:01] and I've and I vocalize that. And then
[1:59:03] the other component is is yeah just just
[1:59:06] where where they go specifically. Um I
[1:59:10] don't know his citizen mentioned one you
[1:59:12] know one issue that we had along this
[1:59:14] area these these kids will probably go
[1:59:17] down that road which will create a whole
[1:59:20] another thing that as a city we'll have
[1:59:22] to address with you do to ensure that
[1:59:24] they can travel safely
[1:59:26] along along those roadways to get into
[1:59:29] or you know side
[1:59:32] highway along this the highway to get
[1:59:34] into town. So, um, those are the
[1:59:37] concerns that I've
[1:59:39] >> Right. Well, we just need to, and I
[1:59:42] don't this, you probably won't like
[1:59:43] this, Joe, but I think
[1:59:45] >> we just need to table this decision till
[1:59:48] we can work out the West Foundry and the
[1:59:50] parks
[1:59:51] and come up with a solution. The
[1:59:53] citizens could talk to us as council
[1:59:55] members. We can try and come up with a
[1:59:57] solution. But that's just my opinion.
[2:00:02] And one thing back to what Jake was
[2:00:04] saying is that the city would then be
[2:00:06] feel responsible for creating safe
[2:00:08] travel there along Main Street and that
[2:00:10] is UD do's property. So there would be
[2:00:12] nothing we could do about it. It would
[2:00:14] be completely up to you DOT when they
[2:00:16] added sidewalks or um added an
[2:00:20] additional lane going each direction.
[2:00:22] It's something obviously we are wishing
[2:00:24] they would do immediately, but they
[2:00:26] aren't and it's not anything we have any
[2:00:28] control over. So that is a concern
[2:00:32] >> because that's outside, right? So was
[2:00:34] that was that discussed in in
[2:00:37] >> P&Z? Like did they cover that at all or
[2:00:41] >> I mean they talked about like the
[2:00:42] traffic study and and what that you know
[2:00:44] would look like, but again it's outside
[2:00:46] of our scope. We don't control what UD
[2:00:49] do's going to do
[2:00:50] >> and I I don't know that it's even in the
[2:00:52] MU code
[2:00:54] to be honest with you.
[2:00:56] like
[2:00:59] um I think what you're asking is to
[2:01:02] solve
[2:01:04] a a problem that
[2:01:07] is a city problem and stuff but not
[2:01:09] necessarily it's not a development
[2:01:10] question.
[2:01:12] Right.
[2:01:13] >> Right. and and so so to
[2:01:16] >> so the the decision to make it part of an MU is
[2:01:22] easier now than if we have to go to a
[2:01:26] permitted thing or if we go to you know
[2:01:28] those things
[2:01:30] um
[2:01:32] you know I don't know what the
[2:01:33] properties between do you have that is
[2:01:37] it the Hunts law what's what's on the
[2:01:39] very
[2:01:41] >> east side Oh,
[2:01:43] >> right here.
[2:01:49] » Yeah, it's
[2:01:50] >> Yeah.
[2:01:50] >> Who's that?
[2:01:52] >> So, you you take 20 ft from his
[2:01:55] property, right? And make a make a
[2:01:57] walkway down to the Maverick
[2:01:58] intersection. I don't know. But it seems
[2:02:01] like some give and take. But the two
[2:02:04] biggest concerns I think are are the
[2:02:07] west boundary and parks. And those are
[2:02:10] the two things I think we've solved.
[2:02:12] Like we've talked about the the maximum
[2:02:14] distance.
[2:02:16] We've talked about that that you can
[2:02:19] dictate. I mean I know that parks the
[2:02:22] yellow doesn't look like parks but they
[2:02:24] are in every community.
[2:02:26] There's things that are built there.
[2:02:28] >> Um we just did one that had a slide in
[2:02:31] it,
[2:02:32] >> you know, down the hillside for the
[2:02:33] storm detention. Yeah. Things like that.
[2:02:35] I mean there there are parks.
[2:02:37] uh they're just not we haven't gone that
[2:02:40] far into this plan and I don't know
[2:02:44] there's no I don't know of any study
[2:02:46] that says for every
[2:02:49] 200 homes you got to have x amount of
[2:02:51] acres of park cuz you do have an open
[2:02:54] space requirement that we've met so
[2:02:57] we've you know we've really worked hard
[2:02:59] to meet your requirements there's some
[2:03:02] that I can't solve that are above and
[2:03:04] beyond what the development the land use
[2:03:07] ordinance was meant to do.
[2:03:11] So, and and if you want to table it, I
[2:03:13] would rather have very specific
[2:03:15] guidelines, meaning if we hold if we
[2:03:18] hold one meeting with the neighbors
[2:03:22] and and what three of you can't be
[2:03:24] there, but two councilmen are there and they can and they can
[2:03:28] >> I believe we can even notice that as an
[2:03:29] as a um work session,
[2:03:31] >> I would be fine.
[2:03:32] >> And then the all council members can be
[2:03:33] present. Correct.
[2:03:35] >> Yes.
[2:03:36] you know, but I what I don't want is to
[2:03:38] think we're just going to table this for
[2:03:39] six months and and wait,
[2:03:42] you know, as things
[2:03:45] I mean, I've already waited three or
[2:03:47] four years for this and it it's not I
[2:03:50] mean, they think it's easy. It's an
[2:03:52] arduous, very hard process that you go
[2:03:55] through with all the reviews and the
[2:03:57] time and the engineering. I've done a
[2:03:59] full scale engineering on this and I
[2:04:00] don't even know if I'm going to get
[2:04:01] approval,
[2:04:03] you know, because of the the way that
[2:04:04] the code is read. So, we we read the
[2:04:08] code to benefit the city in exactness,
[2:04:12] right? So, that's that's what I'm
[2:04:13] saying. Let's let's make it urgent.
[2:04:15] >> Well, I guess my question is in 2022
[2:04:17] though, you could have completed it,
[2:04:18] right? you were approved for that.
[2:04:19] >> Um, well, there was debate then and none
[2:04:22] of you maybe I don't think any of you
[2:04:24] were there at the time, but there was a
[2:04:25] big debate between Romney's and the
[2:04:27] Grantsville City Improvement District,
[2:04:31] >> the PID that the Romney have that really
[2:04:34] it it really is Gransville City, right?
[2:04:35] It's not Romney's I don't know the
[2:04:39] mechanism, but that came
[2:04:40] >> RDA
[2:04:40] >> the RDA. So yeah, the redevelopment
[2:04:42] agency became a big uh sticking point
[2:04:46] and um
[2:04:47] >> so the one in 2022 was not approved.
[2:04:50] >> Uh it was approved but then then after
[2:04:54] the it was never recorded but after the
[2:04:56] approval so so that plan was never
[2:04:57] recorded and according to Grantsville
[2:04:59] code
[2:05:01] >> after one year it just gone.
[2:05:04] >> It expires. Yeah. You don't start the
[2:05:06] >> Yeah. if you don't if after if you don't
[2:05:08] record the plat but at the time Romney's
[2:05:10] were coming saying hey we want you know
[2:05:12] half a million dollars
[2:05:14] to repay this stuff and I said well show
[2:05:16] me the agreement and there was a big
[2:05:18] fight and we waited and even to this day
[2:05:23] you know Shelby got an email from them
[2:05:25] saying well Joe reneged on his agreement
[2:05:27] and that's not the case but so there's a
[2:05:30] lot of political
[2:05:32] stuff that got us to here so and and you
[2:05:36] guys weren't privy to that. But this is something that, like I said, we
[2:05:40] put hours and hours and hours and
[2:05:42] hundreds of thousands of dollars into to make it much better than your
[2:05:46] permitted process.
[2:05:51] And I'm acquiescing like I'm trying to
[2:05:53] do what you're asking me.
[2:05:57] I mean, I guess
[2:05:59] yeah, I don't know what else to do.
[2:06:01] >> So So this Sorry, go ahead. This hasn't
[2:06:05] gone through reszone. It was MU in 2022,
[2:06:07] right?
[2:06:08] >> So when it annexed in, it was zoned MU.
[2:06:12] >> Okay.
[2:06:12] >> So yeah, we haven't done a reszone
[2:06:15] to go to this project.
[2:06:20] » Feel like we're being punished because
[2:06:22] of what the Romney are doing.
[2:06:23] >> Yeah. Because there's like
[2:06:26] >> not as good as a plan as the original.
[2:06:28] >> Yeah. So now it's worse.
[2:06:29] >> But what I think he's asking is give us
[2:06:31] direction. What what do you guys want to
[2:06:33] see on this west side? Um do you guys
[2:06:36] want a work meeting?
[2:06:37] >> I think we should address the west side
[2:06:38] and I think a work meeting would would
[2:06:41] uh would be beneficial and and um keep
[2:06:44] that open but but obviously you know
[2:06:47] under control so to speak,
[2:06:49] >> right?
[2:06:49] >> And um
[2:06:52] yeah, I think we can come to some sort
[2:06:54] of compromise. I think the buffer is
[2:06:57] probably the main thing. we understand
[2:06:59] that you have your land rights and I
[2:07:00] think there was multiple citizens that
[2:07:02] mentioned that you know and what they
[2:07:04] said and and you were able to develop
[2:07:07] this
[2:07:09] they'll understand that so but if we
[2:07:12] could come to some sort of compromise I
[2:07:14] think that would be helpful
[2:07:16] >> what what is normal for a work meeting
[2:07:18] like days notice you have to give them
[2:07:21] >> oh okay can we have so what's everyone
[2:07:23] doing on Thursday [laughter]
[2:07:26] here depending on if there's a public
[2:07:28] hearing component.
[2:07:29] >> No, this shouldn't have it where we've
[2:07:30] done our public hearings.
[2:07:33] >> Never mind. Friday.
[2:07:37] >> Go ahead.
[2:07:37] >> Like, is it tomorrow? [laughter]
[2:07:40] >> That's what he said.
[2:07:41] >> They said there's
[2:07:43] >> Well, I guess that would be tomorrow,
[2:07:44] huh? It feels like Thursday already.
[2:07:47] >> It's almost Thursday and it might be
[2:07:48] Thursday if we're not careful.
[2:07:50] >> Yeah.
[2:07:51] >> I just for my I don't like this as it
[2:07:53] is. I don't like it that he could do the
[2:07:54] town homestead and be permitted use. I I
[2:07:57] just I think there's somewhere that's
[2:07:58] like that
[2:08:00] >> just I live like so when we were on
[2:08:02] Eagle Mountain this is exactly what ours
[2:08:03] the rear alley garages but we were in
[2:08:06] the middle of nowhere with and I'll tell
[2:08:08] you where the kids played. It was in the
[2:08:09] alleyway. That's exactly where they
[2:08:10] played because we had small Yeah. In the
[2:08:14] roadway. I mean we had but we were very
[2:08:16] far from a highway. This is right next
[2:08:17] to a highway. We've got traffic. It's I
[2:08:19] don't like this as it is. I'm again I
[2:08:22] know he has rights and could do the
[2:08:23] permitted use. I don't like the
[2:08:24] permitted use either to be honest. I
[2:08:26] think that this is a lot in a very small
[2:08:28] area. And I'm not saying he can't do
[2:08:30] what he can do, but I think there needs
[2:08:31] to be some
[2:08:33] >> well changes.
[2:08:33] >> So, one thing too I want to bring up,
[2:08:35] we're focused on Main Street 112 a lot.
[2:08:38] What's this going to do to Dery? That
[2:08:40] intersection is already messed up. It,
[2:08:43] you know, that is going to have a big
[2:08:45] toll on this, too, because people are
[2:08:46] going to go out on Dery. Can't turn
[2:08:48] left, only turn right. It's going to
[2:08:51] cause a headache right there as well. go
[2:08:54] down and try to make a U-turn there.
[2:08:56] Exactly. Which some people
[2:08:58] >> try to do.
[2:08:59] >> Yeah.
[2:08:59] >> Well, and one thing what some of the
[2:09:01] citizens brought up was just a safety
[2:09:02] concern. Fire getting in there.
[2:09:03] >> I know that's not your issue. That's a U
[2:09:05] dot issue, but it
[2:09:07] >> I just I want to be clear to keep it to
[2:09:09] devel like like keep development issues.
[2:09:11] >> I'm with it. But it does it does bring
[2:09:14] up I mean they they they do come it is
[2:09:17] that issue, but they do come together
[2:09:19] when we compound it by
[2:09:21] >> put by Yeah. by 200.
[2:09:23] >> Well, it may not be a developer issue,
[2:09:25] but it's could become a city issue. So,
[2:09:26] I mean, whether it's you do or whoever
[2:09:28] it's the citizens that are going to be,
[2:09:30] we have to be
[2:09:31] >> right.
[2:09:32] >> Whoever we address that is, you know,
[2:09:35] >> potentially. So,
[2:09:36] >> do we have I mean, our traffic study
[2:09:39] addressed that
[2:09:40] >> cook one too.
[2:09:43] >> Correct. But I mean,
[2:09:44] >> so I don't I don't know I don't know
[2:09:46] what to do other than give you here's
[2:09:48] what an independent engineer for traffic
[2:09:49] says. So,
[2:09:51] >> when was that traffic study done?
[2:09:53] >> Uh, before when we we were going to turn
[2:09:55] in the permitted town homes, we updated
[2:09:57] the we updated the traffic plan then.
[2:10:02] So, it it was it accommodated all of
[2:10:04] these and and when we turned in our
[2:10:06] encroachment permit to UD do they
[2:10:07] reviewed it, too.
[2:10:10] >> Yeah. I mean, you got high density going
[2:10:12] on the north side of this.
[2:10:16] >> Yes.
[2:10:17] >> No.
[2:10:18] Behind Maverick. That's strict.
[2:10:20] >> But that's not north of this.
[2:10:22] >> That was west of this project.
[2:10:24] >> Northwest of this area.
[2:10:26] >> But still,
[2:10:28] >> are they are they there? Have they come
[2:10:30] through the process?
[2:10:31] >> No.
[2:10:32] >> Partially.
[2:10:32] >> Yeah,
[2:10:34] >> because they're asking for a reason.
[2:10:37] >> They came in and gave a conceptual and
[2:10:39] asked for opinion was on the conceptual.
[2:10:43] >> It's back in their hands.
[2:10:48] But there is additional high density to
[2:10:51] the south of this in the Romney's
[2:10:53] residential development
[2:10:56] >> directly.
[2:10:57] >> But see this this is why it's really
[2:10:59] important that we keep focused.
[2:11:00] >> I I this this could this could swallow
[2:11:03] up and we get we get off on tangents,
[2:11:05] >> right?
[2:11:05] >> What does the code what does the code
[2:11:07] [clears throat] say? because you know I guarantee you if I don't know who owns
[2:11:13] that property on the north of there uh
[2:11:16] but
[2:11:16] >> that's not a part of this so that's what
[2:11:18] we're talking about
[2:11:18] >> well I know but it is it is becoming
[2:11:20] part of it because it's it's taking us
[2:11:21] out of the parameters so I would just
[2:11:23] say stick to what the land use code is
[2:11:27] >> you know and the things that can be uh
[2:11:30] [snorts] done within it and the things
[2:11:32] that we've done to make it better
[2:11:34] >> but that's been the problem with grand
[2:11:36] for so long is we're thinking in this
[2:11:37] box. This is a public safety issue. Even
[2:11:40] if it is you do or not, we've got to
[2:11:42] think I've got to look at that, too.
[2:11:44] >> And and it we'll look at your land use
[2:11:47] thing. We we'll prove whatever comes to
[2:11:49] us, but we got to keep it in the back of
[2:11:51] our minds, too, that it it will
[2:11:53] eventually. And maybe it's not dealt
[2:11:54] with you, but we need to be aware that
[2:11:56] this will become a public safety issue.
[2:11:58] >> And I I want you to I really do. I I
[2:12:02] know that that seems disingenuous, but I
[2:12:04] appreciate that. Well, and we can't
[2:12:06] really look at things in a vacuum of
[2:12:07] just like just we have to look at
[2:12:09] everything because that's I mean yeah as
[2:12:12] to this developer. Yes. But I mean we
[2:12:14] can't just go oh yeah look here here. I mean
[2:12:16] >> but here's here's here's what happens.
[2:12:19] This this project goes in Ramy's have to
[2:12:21] come with now their traffic study and
[2:12:23] they have to account right so it's not
[2:12:24] like you can just build just because
[2:12:27] they they still have traffic counts that
[2:12:29] they'll have to prove to you. but theirs
[2:12:31] is already approved. So, they won't have
[2:12:34] to have new traffic study even though
[2:12:35] you're going to add 250 something units
[2:12:38] in here.
[2:12:39] >> They've been here and got plat approval.
[2:12:41] >> Right. Right.
[2:12:42] >> They have PUB approval. They don't have
[2:12:44] plat approval. But I mean, the fact is their numbers ain't counting for
[2:12:49] Joe's and Joe's.
[2:12:50] >> Neither one are accounting for the
[2:12:51] other.
[2:12:52] >> But if they have,
[2:12:53] >> but we need to account.
[2:12:54] >> I would love to see their PUD approval
[2:12:56] >> and when they got it because I'll bet
[2:12:58] you it's similar then.
[2:13:00] And
[2:13:04] I'm just saying don't
[2:13:07] let's just stick to what the code is and
[2:13:10] the things I'm willing to do
[2:13:13] versus
[2:13:15] you know the whatifs the whatifs of the
[2:13:18] world.
[2:13:20] I think one positive is is that it is it
[2:13:23] is a different product type
[2:13:25] that we've seen and that's
[2:13:29] >> yeah if we have a disparity in age group
[2:13:31] inside this city it's between the ages
[2:13:33] of 18 and probably 25
[2:13:38] none of those young families have a
[2:13:39] place to live
[2:13:40] >> right
[2:13:41] >> so um
[2:13:44] that's why most of them live outside the
[2:13:46] city so anyway I yeah I think I I think
[2:13:50] if we can get if we can have a work
[2:13:52] session and we can address those two
[2:13:55] items that I feel are of concern
[2:14:00] um
[2:14:04] that addresses the two concerns I have.
[2:14:06] I if we're looking to do something
[2:14:08] outside of that. Yeah, that's that's
[2:14:12] where I sit. And I don't know what to
[2:14:14] tell the citizens about schools because
[2:14:16] we we we keep getting
[2:14:20] pressure that that's we keep getting
[2:14:22] told that's not our responsibility,
[2:14:24] which is the school districts. But we're
[2:14:26] doing Jake sits on Jake's
[2:14:30] going to the school district meetings,
[2:14:32] which is the first councilman to do
[2:14:34] that. We are waving every freaking flag
[2:14:38] we can wave that all this group grow
[2:14:40] group is coming
[2:14:42] and I don't know that we're anywhere
[2:14:44] other than where we were 10 years ago.
[2:14:47] So we are trying but that's their job
[2:14:50] and we are involved but I just wanted to
[2:14:54] address the school issue the dot issue.
[2:14:57] We try. We keep getting told that that's
[2:15:00] their problem,
[2:15:03] >> but it becomes our problem
[2:15:04] >> and the schools and we're trying, but
[2:15:08] we are just not a blip on the radar at
[2:15:12] times. So,
[2:15:14] >> I do want to point out that the um
[2:15:16] school district has met with Bill and I
[2:15:18] to go over what projects have invested
[2:15:19] and and they do understand that the city
[2:15:23] is growing very fast and that they do
[2:15:25] understand that they need to start
[2:15:27] planning new schools and larger schools
[2:15:29] and where they're going to place those.
[2:15:33] » Hallelujah.
[2:15:35] still everyone whether it's the city
[2:15:37] council, school district do or developer
[2:15:40] it's the function of the money you can say that or not but it is and so
[2:15:48] anyway [clears throat]
[2:15:49] with that being said I can accommodate
[2:15:52] the west side they may not like it but I
[2:15:54] can we can come to a a happy
[2:15:57] [clears throat] medium where they don't
[2:15:58] like it and I don't like them not them
[2:16:00] but I don't like what they're asking but
[2:16:02] there's some something that we can work
[2:16:03] out
[2:16:07] Do we want to move towards that then
[2:16:08] having a work meeting?
[2:16:11] >> We already have a work meeting scheduled
[2:16:12] in two weeks
[2:16:14] >> or not.
[2:16:15] >> Not yet. We could schedule one for the
[2:16:17] next council meeting night at 6.
[2:16:19] >> Yeah. Can we do it before? I'd like to
[2:16:20] be on the next council meeting if we can
[2:16:22] do it. I mean,
[2:16:23] >> do the work session and then
[2:16:25] >> I don't know. There won't be enough time
[2:16:27] for me
[2:16:28] >> to to address with my engineer unless we
[2:16:30] just draw on paper.
[2:16:33] But it will be
[2:16:35] >> or we do it a super work session between
[2:16:38] the in the next two weeks. Do it next
[2:16:41] Wednesday.
[2:16:41] >> It sounded like that was amanable if
[2:16:43] people can accommodate it.
[2:16:46] >> We also need to get staff
[2:16:48] >> I won't be here but concept and make
[2:16:50] sure it meets our conditions.
[2:16:51] >> Would they work better or no?
[2:16:56] I'll be
[2:16:58] >> if we did it on September 2nd at 6 PM,
[2:17:02] would that work for you?
[2:17:03] >> That's a Thursday.
[2:17:04] >> No, it's a Wednesday.
[2:17:05] >> Wednesday. Yep. I'll I'll meet whatever
[2:17:07] you guys need me to.
[2:17:08] >> Then if it's not on that council
[2:17:09] meeting, it'll be on this. We could put
[2:17:11] it on the the second one. It would be
[2:17:13] the 16th.
[2:17:14] >> See, that's a whole another month.
[2:17:16] >> No. Yeah, it would be a month.
[2:17:18] >> See, that's I mean, here's here's the
[2:17:21] problem I have. Everyone knows the time
[2:17:23] cost of money, right? But
[2:17:26] if if for some reason in that work
[2:17:28] meeting it's just it's too hard and I go
[2:17:30] back to the permit now I've got another
[2:17:33] three months
[2:17:35] to get approvals on the permitted one
[2:17:38] and then you know you're not building
[2:17:40] until you're not putting homes up till
[2:17:42] the fall of the following by the time
[2:17:43] you do construction
[2:17:45] if this can get approved I can construct
[2:17:47] during the winter and have homes in
[2:17:48] spring
[2:17:50] and and so that's my timeline that's
[2:17:51] kind of it's very difficult to manage
[2:17:54] this on on my end, not you know, it's
[2:17:57] nobody else's issue, but these are my my
[2:17:59] problems to manage. So, if we could do
[2:18:01] it, if we can come to an agreement on
[2:18:04] that work meeting,
[2:18:06] >> right?
[2:18:07] >> Or you want to have like a a meeting
[2:18:08] with the residents and then bring that
[2:18:10] to a work meeting
[2:18:11] >> to the council on that Wednesday and
[2:18:14] then have
[2:18:14] >> I don't know how I do that other than
[2:18:16] rent out a room here and just say they
[2:18:19] can come.
[2:18:20] >> My house,
[2:18:21] >> we could do an open house here.
[2:18:22] [laughter]
[2:18:24] We could do [clears throat] an open
[2:18:25] house here. You would you would host it
[2:18:27] basically and then I could just notice
[2:18:28] as a possible forum and that way
[2:18:31] residents can give you input, but we
[2:18:35] don't typically take public input at
[2:18:38] work meetings.
[2:18:40] >> But if we schedule for a specific work
[2:18:42] type meeting, so there is
[2:18:44] >> like an at Tyson,
[2:18:46] >> I think the open house is probably the what what you're sort of trying to
[2:18:51] accomplish here. I mean it would be
[2:18:52] >> to to get the input from the public
[2:18:54] while having council present and just
[2:18:57] notice it as an open house. Council can
[2:18:59] all be here as a quorum if they like and
[2:19:02] uh then then it can have some back and
[2:19:05] forth with with the community view.
[2:19:07] >> Okay.
[2:19:09] >> And that's only a 24-hour notice. So
[2:19:14] » your next coun your next council meeting
[2:19:16] is two week
[2:19:17] >> September.
[2:19:18] >> It's the first September 2nd.
[2:19:21] So, does anytime the 23rd through the
[2:19:24] 29th work
[2:19:26] >> the point?
[2:19:28] >> Oh, yeah. I was just thinking the whole
[2:19:30] week.
[2:19:31] >> Yeah, you're right.
[2:19:32] >> You also need to make sure you're
[2:19:34] accounting to give your engineer enough
[2:19:36] time to make changes as well as staff
[2:19:38] enough time to
[2:19:39] >> So, if we do it on the 25th or 26th,
[2:19:46] what what day is better for staff?
[2:19:49] >> Two weeks.
[2:19:50] I know.
[2:19:53] >> But if if we went two weeks, if we went
[2:19:55] the second and we made
[2:19:57] >> Joe, what about this suggestion? What if
[2:19:59] we do an open house on September 2nd at
[2:20:03] 6:00 prior to the meeting? We could
[2:20:06] perhaps put
[2:20:08] go through this. We could have things
[2:20:10] just in writing because that's basically
[2:20:12] what we're looking for.
[2:20:13] >> That's what we're doing anyway,
[2:20:14] >> right? So, we could put this on the
[2:20:16] agenda for September 2nd just as it is
[2:20:18] now. Um, but all those things that come
[2:20:21] we if we can come to a agreement between
[2:20:25] everybody, a consensus, something that
[2:20:27] everyone feels comfortable with, we can
[2:20:29] continue on with that meeting um or with
[2:20:32] the agenda on September 2nd. If you feel
[2:20:36] like it's going to be better to go back
[2:20:37] to your engineers after that September
[2:20:39] 2nd meeting, we can table it and move
[2:20:42] you to the September 16th.
[2:20:44] >> Okay? depending on how things play out
[2:20:46] on the second.
[2:20:48] >> I can live with a good solution.
[2:20:50] >> So, what I'm hearing just so we can
[2:20:52] >> is
[2:20:54] uh Jake, I didn't I didn't get your
[2:20:56] second. The first one was the west side
[2:20:59] >> parks.
[2:20:59] >> The parks and the parks I we can take
[2:21:01] care of. I I'm pretty sure that we can
[2:21:04] >> if you'll come with ideas what you want
[2:21:06] >> and I know it's not fully designed so
[2:21:08] maybe
[2:21:08] >> Yeah, there's
[2:21:09] >> come come in with what you anticipate
[2:21:11] for those that would help.
[2:21:12] >> Okay. I mean, we see a hole there right
[2:21:15] now.
[2:21:16] >> Yeah, I can I can surely have them put
[2:21:18] some things in there and
[2:21:20] >> trying to get an idea of what and how.
[2:21:21] >> Let me let me ask you this. Is on the
[2:21:24] west side buffer,
[2:21:26] are you against things being there? Like
[2:21:29] if there's a trail and
[2:21:31] >> No, I'm not personally.
[2:21:32] >> It's just not housing.
[2:21:34] >> Yes. So, if we put some of our parks
[2:21:36] and, you know, we wouldn't put huge
[2:21:38] soccer fields, but maybe we'd put a
[2:21:40] couple of mini ones in where people
[2:21:41] could play soccer. And they're not
[2:21:43] having full-fledged games anyway. You
[2:21:45] know, even even you put
[2:21:47] >> Would it be better for you to put a
[2:21:49] larger lot on there from a stamp from a
[2:21:53] >> Well, but it doesn't Yes, but it doesn't
[2:21:55] accomplish what you're asking. We could put some bigger lots
[2:21:59] >> because it creates a buffer, right? It
[2:22:01] creates a buffer similar to what's on
[2:22:03] the other side. So that's why I was just
[2:22:05] wondering like rather than than go the
[2:22:08] route of no space, nothing there at all,
[2:22:11] a home there with the backyard that's
[2:22:14] going to be
[2:22:16] Yeah. I'm just I was just wondering why
[2:22:19] I was just that was a question. I just
[2:22:21] >> um
[2:22:21] >> when you mention
[2:22:22] >> the answer the answer maybe maybe
[2:22:24] because maybe the maybe the um
[2:22:28] the consensus what what is the street
[2:22:30] frontage
[2:22:32] on a lot that's the minimum
[2:22:34] >> for MU or
[2:22:35] >> no just say like a typical third acre
[2:22:37] lot
[2:22:38] >> you're 60 ft per third acre and 70 ft
[2:22:41] for a halfacre
[2:22:42] >> so we can I can have that drawn up and
[2:22:44] just take that into account and see what
[2:22:47] 60 and 70
[2:22:49] >> and and just see Maybe that goes all the
[2:22:50] way back to that line.
[2:22:53] Maybe would would the council rather see
[2:22:55] that versus
[2:22:58] a 70 foot buffer with some stuff in it?
[2:23:01] >> I think that's a question that I'd
[2:23:03] rather have the residents that live
[2:23:04] there that will be directly impacted by
[2:23:06] that answer.
[2:23:07] >> Okay. I'll I'll see. I think my engineer
[2:23:11] should be able to do some drawings and
[2:23:12] some schematics for that.
[2:23:14] >> I think that'd be great if you brought
[2:23:15] that to that meeting.
[2:23:17] >> Okay. cost me 10 grand to do it, but
[2:23:19] every time I It's like working with
[2:23:21] Rocky Mountain Power. 10 grand to talk
[2:23:22] to him. But
[2:23:24] >> asking for a grant for good. [laughter]
[2:23:28] » Oh jeez.
[2:23:28] >> He's already taking
[2:23:30] >> We would love any ideas on like or not
[2:23:33] most retention ponds in Grantsville are
[2:23:35] weed patches. So any ideas you got
[2:23:38] there?
[2:23:38] >> We've de all the other developments I've
[2:23:40] done, we've we've developed them and
[2:23:42] made them put some artificial turf and
[2:23:46] >> things in. Yeah, we have I can bring you
[2:23:47] some examples. Real real life examples.
[2:23:49] >> That's what I was just going to suggest.
[2:23:51] Please don't just draw it in on, you
[2:23:53] know, a little top park on here. Give me
[2:23:55] a real life picture.
[2:23:57] >> We're we're installing one right now or
[2:23:59] project we have in us. So,
[2:24:01] >> perfect.
[2:24:02] >> So, just so my my clarification I want
[2:24:05] to put So, anywhere where there's homes.
[2:24:07] So, there's someone on I guess the
[2:24:09] southside too. Is that Cook Street?
[2:24:11] That's right there.
[2:24:12] >> Yeah.
[2:24:13] >> Yes. That's where I'd like a a buffer,
[2:24:16] whether it's bigger lots or your 30 foot
[2:24:18] buffer because those are existing homes
[2:24:20] as well. It's not just those West homes,
[2:24:23] oneacre homes.
[2:24:24] >> Man, I shouldn't have given the property
[2:24:25] for it.
[2:24:27] >> I literally, just so you know, it's not
[2:24:30] doesn't matter to you guys, but I gave
[2:24:32] property so they could build these lots
[2:24:33] right there and sewer easement through
[2:24:36] there to do it. But
[2:24:37] >> didn't I develop own?
[2:24:39] >> Uh, no, I did. So,
[2:24:41] >> so Sean Berkens and Perry didn't know
[2:24:43] about that.
[2:24:44] >> No, they bought Well, they bought they
[2:24:45] own the cook side and then they needed
[2:24:47] an easement property for me to do it.
[2:24:50] But I just heard a couple things. Sorry,
[2:24:51] I don't
[2:24:51] >> No, it's all right. Bring it to the open
[2:24:53] house. Who's bringing sandwiches?
[2:24:56] >> Pizza.
[2:24:57] >> All right, fine. [laughter]
[2:24:59] I only do the Little Caesar's $10 deep
[2:25:02] dish.
[2:25:03] >> Just another brand. [laughter]
[2:25:06] >> So anyway, all right. I appreciate it. I
[2:25:10] think that we can work something out and
[2:25:12] make it, like I said, not everybody's
[2:25:14] going to win, but not everyone's going
[2:25:15] to feel like they got bruised,
[2:25:17] >> right?
[2:25:18] >> Thank you, Joe.
[2:25:21] >> Mayor, I make a motion that we table
[2:25:24] items number seven and eight
[2:25:28] um for a future
[2:25:31] um city council meeting.
[2:25:33] >> We have a motion by council member
[2:25:35] Butler to table items seven and eight.
[2:25:37] Is there a second?
[2:25:39] We doing this on
[2:25:41] >> Well, we already worked it out
[2:25:43] >> based on that.
[2:25:44] >> Yeah. Okay.
[2:25:44] >> And a second by council member Williams.
[2:25:46] All in favor?
[2:25:50] >> Thank you, Joe, for being willing to
[2:25:52] work through this. And thank you to all
[2:25:54] the residents that came and we encourage
[2:25:56] you to come back on September 2nd. I
[2:25:58] think Joe, would it be okay to say that
[2:26:02] if they have specific ideas, they could
[2:26:05] email some way? Yeah, they I can give
[2:26:08] them my email right now.
[2:26:09] >> Yeah. Or they could reach out to me and
[2:26:10] I
[2:26:11] >> It's a different email than you have,
[2:26:12] Shelby.
[2:26:13] >> Yeah, but I'm happy to pass it on to
[2:26:17] >> Okay, so Joe, if you'd like to share
[2:26:19] your
[2:26:19] >> Can we post to it after and I I want to
[2:26:22] go to
[2:26:23] >> Perfect. Thank you everyone. All right.
[2:26:25] >> And it's not a spam one, so I will get
[2:26:27] it. [laughter]
[2:26:29] >> All right. Moving on to agenda item
[2:26:31] number nine. Consideration of ordinance
[2:26:33] 2026-05
[2:26:35] approving a reszone from RM15, A10,
[2:26:39] R112, and CS to RM15 for the Apple
[2:26:43] Street town home subdivision excluding
[2:26:46] 1.19 acres for commercial use.
[2:26:50] >> So, I was not here when the general plan
[2:26:52] and the reszone went through. My
[2:26:54] understanding was it was requested that
[2:26:57] a um record of survey or some sort of
[2:27:00] survey was shown for the commercial area
[2:27:02] of of how much that was or where that
[2:27:05] location was. Um
[2:27:08] and so I'm my understanding is the
[2:27:10] general plan amendment was approved. Um
[2:27:13] and we are here to request the reszone
[2:27:15] again um for the Apple town homes or
[2:27:19] gate apartments or
[2:27:22] has had a few names. [laughter]
[2:27:28] So, we've already approved this.
[2:27:30] >> Didn't we do this?
[2:27:31] >> Sounds like this seemed like I've
[2:27:32] already
[2:27:34] >> So, we you would approved the general
[2:27:36] town amendment, but then tabled
[2:27:39] >> Oh, the
[2:27:40] >> this one.
[2:27:43] >> So, I apologize if I don't have the full
[2:27:45] context of why it was or anything like
[2:27:47] that. Um,
[2:27:49] you know, I think this is a great
[2:27:50] project just for the fact that we are
[2:27:52] getting rid of something.
[2:27:54] >> That's an eyesore.
[2:27:55] >> Yeah, that's an isore. Thank you, Red.
[2:27:56] Yeah. Stole the words out of my mouth.
[2:27:58] >> Um, and and putting something in there
[2:28:01] that that's going to bring this property
[2:28:03] to life.
[2:28:05] >> Um, and fix an issue to where we have,
[2:28:08] you know, non-conforming [clears throat]
[2:28:10] zonings with lots and different zonings
[2:28:13] in one area.
[2:28:17] All right.
[2:28:24] » Anyone have any questions on this?
[2:28:34] » We beat this one to death, too. I think
[2:28:36] >> I feel like we got over this one last
[2:28:37] year.
[2:28:38] >> If anyone would like to make a motion,
[2:28:40] >> mayor, I'll make a motion. We approve
[2:28:41] ordinance 2026-05
[2:28:44] approving agree zone from RM15
[2:28:47] A10 R1
[2:28:49] R1-1-12
[2:28:52] and CS to RM15 for the Apple Street Town
[2:28:55] subdivision excluding the 1.19 acres for
[2:28:58] commercial use.
[2:29:00] >> We have a motion by council member uh
[2:29:02] Dalton and a second by council member
[2:29:04] Butler. All in favor? Hi.
[2:29:08] >> All right.
[2:29:11] >> Item number 10, consideration of
[2:29:12] resolution 2026-58
[2:29:15] accepting federal transportation funding
[2:29:18] awards authorizing staff to execute
[2:29:20] related agreements and providing for an
[2:29:23] effective date.
[2:29:29] » Is somebody
[2:29:30] >> Alexis is gonna do this one.
[2:29:32] >> Okay. Hi, Alexis.
[2:29:33] >> We're [laughter] gonna team tag this
[2:29:35] one. Okay,
[2:29:36] >> it's the Diva.
[2:29:37] >> She's looks like she's coming straight
[2:29:39] from softball. Sweet.
[2:29:42] >> Okay.
[2:29:43] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[2:29:43] >> Can I plug this in? Yes.
[2:29:47] >> Guess it's a good thing we stalled out.
[2:29:54] » Thank you.
[2:29:58] [clears throat]
[2:30:03] I'm so
[2:30:16] » Okay. Um, hi council. Um, Alexis
[2:30:19] Stewart. So, this um item
[2:30:23] is just to accept two grants from U DOT.
[2:30:28] um the acceptance will combine them into
[2:30:30] one project. Um and then we just need
[2:30:33] the mayor's approval to sign a letter
[2:30:35] for U DOT and then also just to approve
[2:30:37] funding to fund the projects.
[2:30:40] Um
[2:30:44] » so the first one is safe routes to
[2:30:46] school. So this one we've actually um
[2:30:48] it's been awarded for a while. This one
[2:30:49] got awarded about a year ago. Um but
[2:30:52] this specific one is to finish the
[2:30:54] sidewalk on Dery Street between Kulie
[2:30:56] and West Street. So here's um a map. So
[2:31:00] we can see here's the junior high.
[2:31:03] Here's the current sidewalk. And then
[2:31:05] the funding for this grant is this
[2:31:06] little portion here between Kulie Street
[2:31:08] and West Street. Um so for this one, UD
[2:31:13] do came out and they estimated the price
[2:31:15] of this project to be 356,000.
[2:31:18] Um they said that they're willing to
[2:31:20] fund that full amount, but we do have to
[2:31:22] bake the federal the required federal
[2:31:25] grant match which is 6.77%.
[2:31:28] Um so they should fund the whole project
[2:31:30] except for that spa match.
[2:31:33] >> Which comes out to about like 24,000 I
[2:31:35] think.
[2:31:36] >> Yeah. Pretty good deal.
[2:31:38] >> Be nice to have more sidewalks.
[2:31:40] >> Yeah. Well, and just to be clear, when
[2:31:43] you cross over West Street, there is
[2:31:45] sidewalk then again on Dery, right? as
[2:31:48] you move up the
[2:31:50] just that one little section that
[2:31:52] doesn't have
[2:31:54] finishes it
[2:31:54] >> finishes it off.
[2:31:55] >> Yep.
[2:31:57] >> Um All right. And then the next one,
[2:32:02] so this is the transportation
[2:32:04] alternatives program grant. This is also
[2:32:06] for a sidewalk. Um this sidewalk is
[2:32:09] going to be on Quirk Street. Um, so we
[2:32:12] did try to get the east side of Quirk
[2:32:15] Street, but unfortunately, um, UD do
[2:32:17] won't fund that side. Um, they just
[2:32:20] advise that when that property on the
[2:32:23] east side is eventually developed, then
[2:32:25] the developer could put in the sidewalk.
[2:32:27] Um, but they did agree to fund the west
[2:32:31] side from Mountain Meadow Drive all the
[2:32:34] way up to Pear Street. And that will
[2:32:36] help the neighborhood over here with
[2:32:38] those um students to be able to safely
[2:32:41] get from there is a sidewalk, this blue
[2:32:43] sidewalk. It there is one there. So, for
[2:32:45] them to get here down, they'll cross
[2:32:48] that pair and then continue on over to
[2:32:50] Willow. Um, we don't necessarily have to
[2:32:53] put a a crosswalk in here. That was just
[2:32:55] for a visual for my grant application.
[2:32:57] Um, but a a cross walk up here at Paris
[2:33:02] Street.
[2:33:03] >> Well,
[2:33:05] yeah, there needs to be one there. I
[2:33:08] think we'd all like
[2:33:09] >> like to finish off the sidewalk that
[2:33:11] just all of a sudden ends, but
[2:33:14] [clears throat]
[2:33:14] >> know we've heard that from numerous
[2:33:17] >> I feel like that's all over the city
[2:33:18] every time I watch.
[2:33:19] >> Well, but this one in particular has
[2:33:21] quite the drop off, right? Yeah, but
[2:33:24] this at least gives some sort of
[2:33:26] connectivity from like you said that
[2:33:28] subdivision to Willow Elementary. So,
[2:33:31] >> well, yeah, connectivity and also
[2:33:33] safety. Um, if you drive down Cork
[2:33:35] Street,
[2:33:37] you see kids walking, it's
[2:33:40] >> Yeah.
[2:33:41] >> There's nowhere for them to go.
[2:33:42] >> They walk to the path, then they walk
[2:33:44] into the road.
[2:33:44] >> Into the road. Yes. And if it's win if
[2:33:47] it's winter and if it ever snows here
[2:33:48] again
[2:33:49] >> and it's there's Yeah. There's no
[2:33:53] there's literally nowhere for the the
[2:33:55] people walking there to walk. So
[2:33:58] >> So is this kind of the same deal? We
[2:33:59] have a certain amount that we need to
[2:34:01] match.
[2:34:02] >> Yes. So this one's a lot more um because
[2:34:04] there is a power pole that will need to
[2:34:07] get moved. Um and then so this one
[2:34:12] >> likes to throw things in. So I think we
[2:34:14] should probably [laughter] get a little
[2:34:15] [clears throat]
[2:34:18] » I think he's good for it. Um, I can get
[2:34:20] I can pull that up actually. So, this
[2:34:22] one.
[2:34:26] Uh, let's see.
[2:34:30] Well, I'll tell you what it was. Barry
[2:34:32] estimated it at 701,000 and they're
[2:34:35] giving us 250,000.
[2:34:38] So, it's quite a bit of money. Um, I
[2:34:40] don't know. Aspen, were we able to see
[2:34:43] if that we have funding for it? Yeah,
[2:34:45] that's kind of that's kind of the
[2:34:46] problem right now is that with the
[2:34:48] budget the way it is, we cut out all the
[2:34:50] extra costs. So it this is not factored
[2:34:53] in the budget either matches for either
[2:34:55] of these grants. That's why we really
[2:34:57] want to come to you. It's like if we do
[2:34:59] proceed with these grants and don't turn
[2:35:01] them down, we'll probably have to use
[2:35:02] the water credit money to pay for the
[2:35:05] matching dollars for these.
[2:35:06] >> What about the uh sidewalk fund as far
[2:35:09] as like the match program that the city
[2:35:11] has? So there is $50,000 budgeted in
[2:35:14] that line, but it is intended for a
[2:35:15] different use. It is intended for the
[2:35:17] sidewalk program to match residents. So
[2:35:19] that money is already in the approved,
[2:35:21] >> but it's only 50,000 anyway.
[2:35:23] >> Correct. You could reallocate it to
[2:35:26] >> we could do a like a budget adjustment
[2:35:28] and move it to a different line without
[2:35:30] increasing the budget for like the
[2:35:31] 24,000.
[2:35:32] >> Sounds like last year there were very
[2:35:33] few people who used that program.
[2:35:36] >> Yeah, it was very minimally used um
[2:35:39] program last year. So, we could
[2:35:41] definitely reallocate some of those
[2:35:42] funds to a different, but we would have
[2:35:44] to of course like just reallocate them.
[2:35:46] But again, it's only 50,000. So, we're
[2:35:48] still
[2:35:49] >> So, if we're awarded a grant for 350,000
[2:35:52] and we get numbers and the numbers are
[2:35:54] 250,000, can you use that or do we only
[2:35:58] get 250,000 in the grant? That make
[2:36:01] sense? Like when we if we price out I'm
[2:36:04] talking about the I'm talking about the
[2:36:05] first one. I going back to the first. If
[2:36:08] on that one we we put it out for an RFP
[2:36:12] and we get it obviously if we get it
[2:36:15] less than what they
[2:36:18] allocated like do those funds come to us
[2:36:21] or does is it based is it like a match
[2:36:24] based on whatever that RFP comes in at
[2:36:26] is that
[2:36:27] >> yeah whether like does it reduce it down
[2:36:29] do we still have to pay the 6% even
[2:36:31] though they're allocated 300 if we come
[2:36:32] at 250 do we still have to pay the 6% on
[2:36:35] the 250 is that what you're Now, do they give us the 350 and we can use
[2:36:40] 100 on some another project or it's
[2:36:43] based on whatever it is.
[2:36:44] >> It's basically reimburse reimbursement
[2:36:46] for whatever. So, whatever you use for
[2:36:48] the project, you submit for that
[2:36:50] reimbursement and then they give that to
[2:36:52] you.
[2:36:52] >> But the scenario, you still have to pay
[2:36:55] the 6% regardless of what the cost.
[2:36:58] >> Yes. Yeah.
[2:36:59] >> Yeah. I don't think you could take the
[2:37:01] extra from the one project to the other
[2:37:03] project if that's what you're asking
[2:37:05] because it's two different programs. you
[2:37:07] have safe routes to school and then tap
[2:37:09] >> but UDI is trying to merge them so they
[2:37:10] go out to bid for both project at the
[2:37:12] same time to to so you they don't have
[2:37:15] to it makes it so that you can get a
[2:37:18] better bid
[2:37:18] >> a better bid out of
[2:37:22] » at least that's what their
[2:37:23] recommendation is
[2:37:24] >> okay
[2:37:25] >> so Barry's estimate was say again
[2:37:28] >> 70171
[2:37:32] » the law on that second one
[2:37:33] >> and so like $400,000 for the second one
[2:37:36] Yeah, let me try to pull it up.
[2:37:38] >> That's obviously right now the estimate.
[2:37:40] We we going to try and get that number
[2:37:42] knocked down.
[2:37:44] >> Do you want to see it or
[2:37:47] I can pull it up?
[2:37:53] » Thank you for your efforts going after
[2:37:55] these. I I
[2:37:58] finding safe paths for our kids to walk
[2:38:01] on.
[2:38:04] That's one area that we really need
[2:38:06] we're kind of behind on.
[2:38:10] >> Yeah, I agree. I think listening to like
[2:38:12] citizen feedback, I think this is one
[2:38:14] that um I've heard a lot on just because
[2:38:17] Yeah. kids walking and then in the dirt
[2:38:19] road,
[2:38:21] >> right? This I would have to say of all
[2:38:23] the sidewalk areas in town that I've had
[2:38:26] citizens reach out to me about,
[2:38:29] this is the very highest
[2:38:32] number of calls I've had.
[2:38:33] >> The one on quirk to pair.
[2:38:34] Yes.
[2:38:36] >> Yeah.
[2:38:37] Because that whole subdivision has
[2:38:39] no safe way to get to the school.
[2:38:46] » Uh so this is Barry's estimate. It's
[2:38:49] kind of long, but
[2:38:56] » it's utility. is the utility the
[2:38:58] >> I think it's just the pole as well as
[2:39:00] there's a um a communication line that
[2:39:02] needs to be moved boxes and things like
[2:39:03] that. So we're going to have to work
[2:39:04] with the different providers there to
[2:39:07] move those as well. And I think he was
[2:39:08] unsure on the cost.
[2:39:10] >> So he just kind of threw $210,000 there.
[2:39:13] >> I think that's a little high.
[2:39:17] » Yeah, it's quite a bit more than even
[2:39:20] what we moved on Dury Street to
[2:39:21] accommodate the intersection there for
[2:39:24] Matthews Lane.
[2:39:27] I mean that pole is not as big as as
[2:39:29] those running down there.
[2:39:30] >> Different.
[2:39:31] >> What's that?
[2:39:32] >> Different pole.
[2:39:33] >> Yeah.
[2:39:33] >> Different utility.
[2:39:34] >> Oh yeah.
[2:39:35] >> More.
[2:39:36] >> Well, you say it's more on quirk.
[2:39:38] >> Yeah.
[2:39:39] >> Why Christie?
[2:39:41] >> Cuz that was just a single home. Single
[2:39:43] line there. Isn't Dery at Oh, look at it
[2:39:46] again.
[2:39:48] >> That's a Dery was the single line single
[2:39:51] home.
[2:39:52] >> Does this one have transformer banks on
[2:39:54] it and stuff?
[2:39:57] That might difference
[2:40:00] was just a single
[2:40:02] >> we can
[2:40:05] » the hard part is if we say yes to it to
[2:40:08] you do then we commit to it and then we
[2:40:10] can still pull out but the optics are
[2:40:12] not great as we go along. It's better to
[2:40:15] not do this one if we don't want to
[2:40:17] commit to something like that. Yeah.
[2:40:20] >> Well, when we said we wanted to use that
[2:40:22] water credit money for grants, d try to
[2:40:24] double double in money.
[2:40:27] >> Good use of it.
[2:40:30] >> It's that powerful that one.
[2:40:32] >> Yeah, there's a bunch.
[2:40:34] >> Yeah,
[2:40:35] >> I'm surprised someone hasn't just hit it
[2:40:36] yet.
[2:40:37] >> That's the powerful [laughter]
[2:40:39] >> right there on the
[2:40:41] >> Why was there to be good?
[2:40:42] >> I'll get it tomorrow.
[2:40:45] >> Won't say that out loud. [laughter]
[2:40:46] [snorts]
[2:40:48] We got to move this poll.
[2:40:50] >> Just that one poll, that's it.
[2:40:52] >> Yes. And then there's obviously the
[2:40:53] telecommunication lines that are there.
[2:40:56] >> That's a lot more than a single home.
[2:41:01] >> Can we just design the sidewalk to go
[2:41:03] around?
[2:41:04] [laughter]
[2:41:04] >> Yeah, we've done that before.
[2:41:06] >> Like the sidewalks an overlay. They're
[2:41:10] just all [laughter] wavy up and down. So
[2:41:14] we're only talking though just on Cork
[2:41:17] Street. We're not talking about turning
[2:41:18] the corner and heading towards are we?
[2:41:22] >> That's done.
[2:41:23] >> That's what I thought. That's done.
[2:41:25] >> So this is just
[2:41:26] >> it's just this here.
[2:41:28] >> Yeah, it was.
[2:41:29] >> So from out in meadow up to
[2:41:31] >> we'll have to secure some of the right
[2:41:32] way for the pair. That's the that is one
[2:41:35] other additional cost
[2:41:37] >> property there
[2:41:38] >> because we do have to obtain a rightaway
[2:41:40] from the marshalss
[2:41:42] >> that is I think he put that in further
[2:41:45] into
[2:41:46] >> I think he did the rightway.
[2:41:48] >> Oh is it in there? Sorry I missed that.
[2:41:51] >> Yeah.
[2:41:52] >> Oh
[2:41:53] >> yeah 58,000.
[2:41:55] >> Yeah.
[2:41:58] » It's about an acre correct that needs to
[2:42:01] be obtained.
[2:42:02] >> I'm not sure.
[2:42:10] because we've got to have the right away
[2:42:12] for the road. If we widen the road,
[2:42:14] >> go and go to RFP.
[2:42:16] >> If we're going to extend um Paris Street
[2:42:19] through then it would be approximately
[2:42:21] that we take just what we need for the
[2:42:23] ride
[2:42:26] or just
[2:42:27] >> down the road spent some money on the
[2:42:30] whole project and then try to pull back.
[2:42:32] Then it's I mean you could it's just
[2:42:35] less. They don't love that.
[2:42:39] >> It's it's a little more than 1600 feet
[2:42:41] of
[2:42:46] » four foot wide. Is that what it's it's
[2:42:48] by five?
[2:42:49] >> Yeah. U standards.
[2:42:51] >> I know they you had to make it I don't
[2:42:54] know if you remember but I know they
[2:42:55] suggested making it wider so you don't
[2:42:57] have to have a
[2:42:59] >> pork shrimp.
[2:43:00] >> Yeah.
[2:43:01] So they suggested just putting the
[2:43:04] um curb up against the sidewalk but
[2:43:06] making the sidewalk larger so that you
[2:43:09] still have that pedestrian buffer zone
[2:43:11] without park strip.
[2:43:20] » Okay. So that's that. Um [laughter]
[2:43:25] um
[2:43:27] sorry I don't know. Um
[2:43:30] going over that. Um so this so what
[2:43:32] they're looking for initially right now
[2:43:34] um you do is just that the mayor just
[2:43:37] signs a letter saying that they can um
[2:43:39] combine the two projects into one and
[2:43:41] that we're willing to do the federal
[2:43:43] match of the 6.77 and then willing to
[2:43:46] pay anything additional that the grant
[2:43:49] funding doesn't pay for. Um, and then
[2:43:51] once they get that letter, they'll take
[2:43:52] that to their transportation committee
[2:43:54] and then they'll present it to them and
[2:43:56] then they'll do their thing and then
[2:43:58] we'll start working with them to find
[2:44:00] like a designer and all like all that
[2:44:04] sort of stuff. So,
[2:44:08] um, and then this is just an example of
[2:44:10] kind of what the letter we would have
[2:44:13] the letter B that the mayor signs.
[2:44:20] So the the total cost of both projects
[2:44:23] or the total cost of both grants was
[2:44:28] what or the total award for both
[2:44:32] >> 606
[2:44:33] >> around 600,000
[2:44:35] and our cost is going to be
[2:44:38] >> probably 400
[2:44:39] >> 400,000
[2:44:41] >> essentially we've more than doubled that
[2:44:44] we spend 400 we're going to get more
[2:44:47] than double that in grants given to the
[2:44:50] city to put in sidewalks which we all
[2:44:52] know we're we're in deficit
[2:44:56] >> step in the right direction but I think
[2:44:57] it's it's worth worth pursuing certainly
[2:45:00] >> I do too I think we need more safe I
[2:45:03] mean I see kids on bike scooters all the
[2:45:05] time in the middle of the street
[2:45:06] especially by my house it's
[2:45:07] >> walkability
[2:45:08] >> no sidewalks so I mean and it is really
[2:45:11] nice like you know now down Willow
[2:45:13] Street there's no I mean not by red
[2:45:15] house now [laughter]
[2:45:17] that's coming along
[2:45:19] But I think it's important. There's a
[2:45:21] lot of kids that walk. So I anticipated
[2:45:23] the use of the word to make sure they're
[2:45:25] safe. My question is why is the safe
[2:45:28] route to school the the one on on
[2:45:31] doesn't apply for that or we couldn't
[2:45:33] use that same program or we only get one
[2:45:35] or
[2:45:36] >> um it was
[2:45:37] >> we got more for that one it seems like
[2:45:39] than we're getting for the tap.
[2:45:41] >> Yeah. Um
[2:45:44] I think because we already have safe
[2:45:46] routes to school open. Um, but
[2:45:51] >> it's just a different grant type. And
[2:45:52] again, if we don't feel like that's
[2:45:54] >> worth the the cost, the big benefit out
[2:45:56] of that, then we just turn it down and
[2:45:58] just go with that
[2:46:01] >> and try for a different one.
[2:46:02] >> Somebody's willing to give us some money
[2:46:03] to help us out. I hope
[2:46:04] >> it does help a lot because right there,
[2:46:06] sorry to interrupt. It's the that's
[2:46:08] already developed. So, the city's going
[2:46:10] to pay that cost at some point if that
[2:46:11] ever puts in the sidewalk. So,
[2:46:14] >> right,
[2:46:14] >> either we're going to have to go out
[2:46:16] later to get a grant when we have other
[2:46:18] means to pay for it besides the
[2:46:20] watercraft. It would be either taxes as
[2:46:23] we get bigger things like that pay for
[2:46:25] that because and we can push that off if
[2:46:28] we want to because that's the
[2:46:29] consideration.
[2:46:30] >> I think it looks good. I just wondered
[2:46:31] because like the safer route to school
[2:46:32] seems like it was a lot it was more
[2:46:33] money than we were getting for the tap
[2:46:35] one. I wanted different reviews.
[2:46:37] >> They actually, I believe, if I remember
[2:46:38] right, they gave us more than what um
[2:46:42] what they were allowing because our
[2:46:45] initial one was like 313,000 and we were
[2:46:49] only asking for a portion of that and
[2:46:51] then they were like, we had our own
[2:46:53] estimators come out and we estimated it
[2:46:55] to be at 356 and that's what we're going
[2:46:57] to give you. So, I don't know, maybe
[2:46:58] they just didn't have a lot of
[2:46:59] applications. Um, but they did end up
[2:47:01] coming back and they're like, "We're
[2:47:03] actually giving you more money than what
[2:47:04] you asked for."
[2:47:05] >> I think it's Alexis doing a great job.
[2:47:07] [laughter]
[2:47:07] >> Yeah, she's really convincing.
[2:47:11] >> I think these are both good options.
[2:47:14] >> Um, yeah, that's all.
[2:47:16] >> All right. Thanks, Alexis.
[2:47:17] >> You're welcome.
[2:47:20] >> We'll make a motion. How's that?
[2:47:21] >> Let's do it.
[2:47:23] Make a motion we approve resolution
[2:47:24] 2026-58
[2:47:26] accepting the federal transportation
[2:47:28] funding awards authorizing staff to
[2:47:30] execute related agreements and providing
[2:47:33] for a an effective date.
[2:47:36] >> We have a motion by council member
[2:47:38] Butler. Is there a second?
[2:47:39] >> Second motion.
[2:47:40] >> Second by council member Skinner. All in
[2:47:42] favor?
[2:47:42] >> I.
[2:47:45] >> Okay.
[2:47:47] Agenda item number 11, council reports.
[2:47:51] Start with Rhett.
[2:47:53] >> All right. Well, I'll uh start off with
[2:47:56] historic preservation. So, coming up on
[2:48:00] October
[2:48:02] from the hours of 3 to 6:00 p.m., which
[2:48:04] is the night of honey harvest, we are
[2:48:06] having our um annual historian
[2:48:10] >> um home tour. We've got uh 10 homes that
[2:48:14] have volunteered and we we have some new fresh homes that we haven't had on the tour before. So, I
[2:48:21] think it'll be great. Um so, that's
[2:48:23] something that we've been working on
[2:48:24] there.
[2:48:24] >> Oh, it's a date.
[2:48:26] >> October 10th, which is the same weekend
[2:48:28] as the Honey Harvest Festival. And we
[2:48:30] always couple it with
[2:48:32] >> Also the same weekend as the rodeo.
[2:48:35] >> Yeah.
[2:48:35] >> Which is great.
[2:48:36] >> Yeah. We'll have a full day of
[2:48:38] activities. Lots of people in town.
[2:48:40] >> Yep.
[2:48:41] >> So, we have that um planning and zoning
[2:48:46] um was yesterday. Uh we had um quite the
[2:48:50] discussion on the um the tire facility,
[2:48:53] the tire recycling facility and um I
[2:48:57] think we came to a good or they came to
[2:48:59] a good resolution. um wasn't perfect,
[2:49:03] but I think it it gets us where we need
[2:49:05] to be and in six months we need to um
[2:49:08] I'm in planning and zoning and can can
[2:49:10] really look at that conditional use
[2:49:12] permit again. So
[2:49:14] >> just a question on that because I had to
[2:49:15] leave just before we finished that
[2:49:17] discussion. So they've given them six
[2:49:19] months, but what happens in I I believe
[2:49:23] it was going to be like every month they
[2:49:25] had to have like a review. Yeah, it
[2:49:27] needed.
[2:49:28] >> And so what happens if in one month they
[2:49:30] haven't met their parameters of then
[2:49:32] it's just over. The the deal's over.
[2:49:34] >> Well,
[2:49:37] here here's the I think from my
[2:49:39] perspective and that really wasn't
[2:49:41] necessarily discussed. They have six
[2:49:42] months to do it.
[2:49:43] >> Okay.
[2:49:44] >> So, the most important thing for us to direct them to do and that planning
[2:49:49] and zoning did was to clean it up. the goal is to get to have no tires on
[2:49:57] the ground because that's what the
[2:49:58] conditional use permit said
[2:50:00] >> was initially given to them. Yeah.
[2:50:02] >> Yes. And so we we have 50,000 plus tires
[2:50:07] sitting there. It is a fire hazard. It's
[2:50:09] a concern. Yes,
[2:50:11] >> I drive by it quite regularly as I go
[2:50:13] out to visit my parents and I've been
[2:50:16] shocked at how that thing's just grown
[2:50:18] over the last year since since since PNC
[2:50:22] approved them.
[2:50:23] >> Yeah.
[2:50:23] >> And I just scratched my head as to how
[2:50:25] we let that balloon over the course of
[2:50:28] time. I mean, so
[2:50:32] let's let's see how how they improve in
[2:50:35] the next six months.
[2:50:36] >> Okay. So
[2:50:39] obviously disappointing um in those
[2:50:41] regards but that that did get some
[2:50:44] movement. Um in regards to the library,
[2:50:47] I think you know everything there is is
[2:50:49] going well. I attended our library board
[2:50:51] meeting for this this quarter and really
[2:50:54] nothing necessarily to to update other
[2:50:57] than there was some talk and some
[2:50:59] discussion with the board on the budget
[2:51:00] and
[2:51:02] library did tighten their belts and I
[2:51:05] think that they were you know I think
[2:51:07] all organizations in the city did but
[2:51:08] they they did as well and there was a
[2:51:10] little bit of talk amongst the board
[2:51:12] members on that but John's great with
[2:51:15] what he does and he does he does more
[2:51:17] with less So
[2:51:20] >> I agree. Thank you.
[2:51:21] >> So anyways, that's my report.
[2:51:25] >> Um I had a time conflict uh with the
[2:51:29] last um
[2:51:31] Veterans Memorial Park uh meeting, but
[2:51:34] they have completed we have completed
[2:51:36] phase one um of that and so which was
[2:51:41] what we had allowed and budgeted and so
[2:51:44] we're to that point. um they continue to
[2:51:47] fund raise and look at other options and
[2:51:49] so um is to try to get you know the next
[2:51:53] phase I think the goal is to try to have
[2:51:56] that park and have irrigation in and you
[2:52:00] know get it to the point where it has
[2:52:01] grass and and then kick it into the next
[2:52:04] year and so um I know there's there's a
[2:52:08] lot of moving components as you know
[2:52:10] people they're starting to get more um
[2:52:14] momentum as far as donations and those
[2:52:16] kinds of things.
[2:52:17] >> Right. My question was going to be do
[2:52:18] you know how much they did raise on the
[2:52:20] 4th of July because it seemed like there
[2:52:22] were a lot of donations coming forward
[2:52:25] that day. I don't know.
[2:52:26] >> Yeah, we went we went through um I you
[2:52:30] know I think from we went through all of
[2:52:33] that. Um I was a little surprised. I
[2:52:35] felt they could have charged more for the cornhole specifically. I kind of
[2:52:40] that was one of the comments that I
[2:52:41] made. I think uh I know they tried to
[2:52:43] keep it, you know, within a range that
[2:52:46] kids could play and and do that, but um
[2:52:49] I know they've had uh a number of
[2:52:52] corporate vendors that have pledged
[2:52:55] money and so they've got so so yeah, and
[2:52:59] more momentum I think now is the park
[2:53:01] and you see the the monument, you know,
[2:53:04] plant and everything, the foundations
[2:53:06] for that. Obviously, it's going to look
[2:53:08] a lot better when it's when it's
[2:53:09] finished, but all of those components as
[2:53:12] they're going in. I think it's, you
[2:53:14] know, get getting more momentum. So, that's where where we're at with
[2:53:19] that. Um,
[2:53:22] uh, as far as the, uh, school district,
[2:53:24] we've had several meetings with the
[2:53:26] school district and we're draft uh,
[2:53:28] we've drafted anou and we're in the
[2:53:31] process of of going through that. Uh I
[2:53:34] think we've gained a lot of ground as
[2:53:36] far as a good agreement in place for the
[2:53:40] Cherry Street Park and um so there will
[2:53:44] be more to come on that and then that
[2:53:46] will come before the council. Um I mean
[2:53:49] to maybe generalize kind of where we sit
[2:53:52] um the they will take care of uh the
[2:53:56] park for for the entire year um and
[2:54:00] ensure that those playing surfaces are kept in a manner that we can we can
[2:54:07] put kids on them. Um and then on top of
[2:54:10] that there will be a fee that will be
[2:54:13] associated with uh with that. So, um,
[2:54:17] >> not not for us, for them.
[2:54:19] >> Not for us, for them to to utilize the the
[2:54:24] park. And so, um, I think that's a a
[2:54:27] good step in the right direction.
[2:54:29] There's a lot of challenges with the
[2:54:31] park. Um, mainly as it's kind of been a
[2:54:33] shared re
[2:54:36] it's been a shared resource and it's going to
[2:54:40] continue to be. Um, and we're going to
[2:54:43] do that in a yearly agreement. uh for so
[2:54:46] the council can can see can establish
[2:54:49] that year by year as that gets more
[2:54:52] challenging um you know as we continue
[2:54:57] to grow. So hopefully some of these
[2:54:59] other parks will alleviate some of that
[2:55:00] pressure scenic slopes u but uh they would like to continue to
[2:55:06] utilize that part for the school
[2:55:09] purposes at least next year
[2:55:11] >> at least for one more year. Y
[2:55:15] >> thank you, Derek.
[2:55:17] >> Um I have much on my I'm locked out of
[2:55:19] my city email and that's where my notes
[2:55:21] were.
[2:55:21] >> Well, I was too. I had a call.
[2:55:24] >> We'll get up tomorrow. Um
[2:55:26] >> I had a recording today. One thing I I
[2:55:29] talked to a guy that and I was going to
[2:55:31] talk to I need to talk to Alexis too,
[2:55:33] but they reached out I don't know if
[2:55:34] they reached out to anybody else about
[2:55:36] they help um do grants for like lighting
[2:55:40] on the fields for like so scenic slopes
[2:55:42] the baseball field.
[2:55:43] >> Great.
[2:55:44] >> Um I spoke with I emailed him and just
[2:55:47] he sent over some information. So, I
[2:55:48] don't know if that's something I wanted
[2:55:50] to look at and see what it it's all
[2:55:52] about or but I think lights would be
[2:55:55] great up there because
[2:55:56] >> I think it's definitely something we
[2:55:58] want to Yeah.
[2:55:58] >> Me and Rhett know very well that you can
[2:56:00] only get about one game in when it's
[2:56:02] before daylight um savings time. So, we
[2:56:06] want to do that. I can send you guys the
[2:56:07] information that he sends me and get
[2:56:09] with Alexis and see.
[2:56:10] >> Yeah, if you'll get with Alexis, that'd
[2:56:11] be great.
[2:56:13] >> Sorry. Go ahead. No, I just it's one
[2:56:15] thing I I wanted to bring up is maybe
[2:56:18] just if we can have a planning and
[2:56:21] zoning and you guys look at that
[2:56:22] mixeduse chapter. It's it goes from, you
[2:56:26] know, 19A and then it actually reverts
[2:56:28] here at chapter 4.3, which I know we've
[2:56:31] talked about it clear back from when I
[2:56:32] was on, but I don't know. I know you
[2:56:34] guys have worked a lot on it, but it's
[2:56:36] just it's ugly. The mu word is like a
[2:56:40] swear word in my vocabulary.
[2:56:44] it just
[2:56:45] >> there's a lot to it and you got to cross
[2:56:46] reference and I don't know if that's
[2:56:48] something that's I know you guys are
[2:56:50] taking on a lot but
[2:56:52] >> maybe in the near future I don't know
[2:56:54] maybe a Christmas present for us
[2:56:57] [laughter] think it it's my opinion like
[2:56:59] I think it fits better in larger in in a
[2:57:03] more metropolitan city type areas like
[2:57:07] it it almost doesn't really fit in
[2:57:09] Granville in my opinion at all
[2:57:11] >> the intentions were good what We wanted
[2:57:13] to try to, but it just just like
[2:57:15] everything ordinance, we start doing it,
[2:57:17] then we see maybe we need to make some
[2:57:19] tweaks. But
[2:57:20] >> would you rather would you ra I'm sorry
[2:57:21] to interrupt, but would you rather have
[2:57:23] us look at
[2:57:25] massaging it and trying to get it right
[2:57:27] or would you rather just repeal?
[2:57:29] >> No. So, I mean, so it's hard because
[2:57:30] we've got 19A, which says mixed use, and
[2:57:33] it has all the different
[2:57:35] square footage of lots and different
[2:57:37] things, but then you have to revert to
[2:57:39] 4.34 for the multi-units or and stuff
[2:57:43] like that. I mean, if we just had I
[2:57:45] don't know.
[2:57:46] I just I feel like it's it's gray and
[2:57:49] it's hard to to navigate it and to kind
[2:57:52] of truly understand it because I was
[2:57:54] like you can't have, you know,
[2:57:56] multi-family homes, but then I forgot,
[2:57:59] well, I've got to look at 4.34 and
[2:58:01] that's where all that information is,
[2:58:03] >> right?
[2:58:03] >> So, it kind of just muddies things up a
[2:58:06] little bit. One of my least favorite
[2:58:07] parts of a code is where it references
[2:58:09] something by reference and then you got
[2:58:11] to change both sections and it's this
[2:58:13] big mess. Um, we'll look we'll look into
[2:58:15] it.
[2:58:16] >> I mean, we we just [clears throat]
[2:58:18] finished a multifamily project in Park
[2:58:20] City. It's got like the first floor is
[2:58:22] all retail. So, you've got like your
[2:58:24] Starbucks and
[2:58:25] >> Yeah. the true vertical mixed use.
[2:58:27] >> Yeah. And then everything above it is
[2:58:28] apartments so or you know it's got a
[2:58:32] town home section that goes around it.
[2:58:34] Um, but it also has a enormous
[2:58:38] like central area uh
[2:58:41] >> of open space which which has a
[2:58:45] fireplace.
[2:58:47] >> One of the things I can think of right
[2:58:48] off the top is that mixeduse
[2:58:50] developments really want to be large
[2:58:52] acreage type developments, not these
[2:58:55] infill 20 to 30 acre type things. I I
[2:58:58] know that's a lot of acres, but when
[2:59:00] you're squeezing that kind of thing in,
[2:59:02] you're already dealing with a fabric of
[2:59:03] a neighborhood that's already existing.
[2:59:05] And then you run into problems like
[2:59:07] we're seeing tonight where the neighbors
[2:59:08] are like, "Oh, I didn't want this. You
[2:59:10] know, I have my acre lot and I want
[2:59:13] animals and I don't want, you know, a
[2:59:15] bunch of people right in my backyard."
[2:59:17] Which is totally fair. Um, so if if it
[2:59:20] is something like a 100 acres or more,
[2:59:23] then you can bake in the uh open spaces
[2:59:27] and the buffering and all of those
[2:59:28] things so that the neighbors aren't as
[2:59:30] impacted and that those impacts are
[2:59:32] easier to mitigate.
[2:59:33] >> So that was just one thing that came to
[2:59:35] my mind as we're talking tonight.
[2:59:39] >> That's all I had.
[2:59:41] >> Britney.
[2:59:42] >> Um, so we the board of health met last
[2:59:44] month. Not much to report. Well, it's
[2:59:46] pretty quick meeting. Um the only thing
[2:59:47] is they said so I think I mentioned this
[2:59:49] last time they do have a dentist office
[2:59:51] in the board of health office like in so
[2:59:53] what you can do low cost they're looking
[2:59:55] for a dental hygienist they're having a
[2:59:56] really hard time getting it because it's
[2:59:58] government so they don't pay as much
[2:59:59] anybody knows a dental hygienist they
[3:00:01] sent me the um I can afford it it's just
[3:00:03] their um hosting
[3:00:06] so they did get some assistance but they
[3:00:08] can't find a hygienist to help out
[3:00:10] because it's so they're looking for
[3:00:11] somebody who like wants a flex schedule
[3:00:14] um and then I they're going to have me
[3:00:15] join like the tell board of health or
[3:00:18] something and help with the symposium.
[3:00:19] So,
[3:00:20] >> we'll
[3:00:22] Yeah, not much.
[3:00:24] >> Okay, great.
[3:00:25] >> I went out of town and missed a lot of
[3:00:27] life last week. Um,
[3:00:28] >> good for you.
[3:00:29] >> Yeah, about the only I did is I did meet
[3:00:31] with Stephen Baba on the Clark farm. Do
[3:00:34] you guys know we we just put in that
[3:00:36] drainage
[3:00:38] what through the Clark Farm. It comes
[3:00:41] right out in that first field. There's
[3:00:42] that big culvert.
[3:00:44] >> Yeah. So the purpose of that is to would
[3:00:47] flood down through the fields, right?
[3:00:49] >> Okay.
[3:00:51] >> So we kind of went over all the
[3:00:52] concerns. I asked him to kind of I just
[3:00:54] said, "We need the pretty picture phase.
[3:00:57] We just need to see what you're
[3:00:59] thinking." But since then, I've walked
[3:01:02] the property. I've been over there two
[3:01:03] nights. I I actually have ideas to
[3:01:07] present back to him that I think are
[3:01:09] different. I know that are different. So
[3:01:12] I I'm going to do that this week.
[3:01:14] Um, I think his stuff needs to be a
[3:01:17] little further down.
[3:01:19] >> Um, allowing because of that drainage,
[3:01:22] allowing any type of fields to remain
[3:01:24] there. Lari can have her dirt road line
[3:01:27] by trees. I' So, I think I've got a
[3:01:29] better idea to present him, but just
[3:01:32] know that I I'm kind of I did that.
[3:01:35] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[3:01:39] >> Can I add something? I just the thought
[3:01:41] crossed my last night at PNZ. There's a like a farm. She she presented a farm
[3:01:47] >> a business kind of
[3:01:49] >> way. The comment that she made, one of
[3:01:51] the comments she made was regarding like
[3:01:55] a a need like there's a lot of there's a
[3:01:57] lot of individuals that would like, you
[3:02:00] know, like a place you could go where
[3:02:02] you have animals or have animals. I I we
[3:02:05] envision that area down there. I I I
[3:02:08] hope it becomes so I paint a picture
[3:02:11] that's in my head.
[3:02:12] » [clears throat]
[3:02:12] >> So, and this does involve extending
[3:02:15] good night the name of the road just
[3:02:17] >> raol
[3:02:19] over to Dave Reach property. But I mean
[3:02:22] that's where we want the traffic anyway.
[3:02:24] But you could go in that road and on the
[3:02:26] right side you could have a youth a
[3:02:28] center
[3:02:30] just right to the that would be the
[3:02:32] north side of that road and then around
[3:02:35] that you could put pens for cows, sheep
[3:02:38] and pigs
[3:02:39] in a really easy concept and it really
[3:02:41] works right there because that's the
[3:02:43] backside of all those lots where they
[3:02:45] have animals anyway. So I think the
[3:02:47] further you push that I mean you
[3:02:49] typically don't want people It's not a
[3:02:51] petting zoo. Right. Right. It's not a [clears throat]
[3:02:56] >> You don't want walking trails through
[3:02:58] this. It's for the youth
[3:03:00] >> for them to raise livestock. And he's
[3:03:02] got a pretty good vision on on what he
[3:03:04] would want there. But you can kind of
[3:03:06] vision in your head a youth a center
[3:03:08] with pens around it. And I I think I
[3:03:12] think it kind of fits right there um in
[3:03:14] my opinion. So, and just just think
[3:03:17] about it, but that's kind of what's in
[3:03:19] my head. So, All
[3:03:23] right.
[3:03:23] >> Dancing around. There's I think there's
[3:03:25] a few
[3:03:29] washes or ditches down through there
[3:03:30] that you have to make dance around, but
[3:03:32] I think it fits right there. So, maybe
[3:03:35] not as much acreage as they want. I
[3:03:37] don't I do a lot on five acres. I think
[3:03:41] they could do a lot on 10.
[3:03:44] But another real issue and and I Tyson
[3:03:47] I'm just getting another real issue is
[3:03:51] what type of entity are we leasing the
[3:03:53] property to because it has nothing to do
[3:03:56] with the school district.
[3:03:58] So
[3:04:00] I mean is this a nonprofit deal
[3:04:03] or is this a instead of a lease is this
[3:04:06] time some type of a shared land
[3:04:08] agreement? I'm not an attorney. I just
[3:04:10] made that up. I don't know.
[3:04:13] >> Good. Sound amazing, right?
[3:04:15] >> 501c3. They're friends of the FFA.
[3:04:19] >> Yeah. So, is that that's probably what
[3:04:21] we'd hit is some type of nonprofit, but
[3:04:24] I don't I don't see us leasing this
[3:04:27] land. I see us retaining I don't know.
[3:04:32] We got ownership. I just don't know what
[3:04:34] type of entity we'd be leasing to. Some
[3:04:37] type of LLC. Maybe Grantsville City's a
[3:04:39] 50% owner in it. I don't know. But it's
[3:04:43] think about
[3:04:45] impressed that I made that up.
[3:04:47] [laughter]
[3:04:51] » I'm done.
[3:04:52] >> All right.
[3:04:53] >> Mentally and physically.
[3:04:54] >> Least amount of mosquito bites I've ever
[3:04:56] had.
[3:04:57] >> Yeah.
[3:04:57] >> So, I'm sure that was the mosquito
[3:04:59] abatement and not the weather.
[3:05:00] >> I'm sure that's the water. [laughter]
[3:05:02] Really? Both. Yeah.
[3:05:05] >> The ground. [clears throat]
[3:05:05] >> No, you That's Yeah. Anyway, um the 18th
[3:05:10] and 19th of September, I think we
[3:05:12] mentioned this before, but that is the
[3:05:14] grand opening of the new um race
[3:05:18] racetrack. That's like their big event.
[3:05:20] So, if you're available on those dates,
[3:05:23] they would love to have us be involved
[3:05:25] with that. Um
[3:05:27] >> the 18th Avenue is starting at two. Do
[3:05:29] you know how
[3:05:30] >> No, I don't know because we still don't
[3:05:32] know.
[3:05:32] >> Okay. So, I don't have
[3:05:35] >> I don't have anything as far as
[3:05:38] >> I think they're still putting that
[3:05:39] together how that's all going to go.
[3:05:40] >> The 18th and the 19th.
[3:05:42] >> Yes. I think the 18th is going to be
[3:05:44] more like by invitation.
[3:05:45] >> Okay.
[3:05:46] >> And the 19th will be more for the
[3:05:48] public. Yeah. Um I know it's not July so
[3:05:52] I can't say Christmas in July, but
[3:05:55] Christmas in August. I'm just wondering
[3:05:57] if anyone has any ideas for our city
[3:06:01] Christmas party. the last couple years
[3:06:03] they've been to the um
[3:06:08] old church on Clark Street and had a
[3:06:11] dinner during the day. Is that that's
[3:06:13] correct? Right.
[3:06:14] >> Right.
[3:06:15] >> As far as the city employees who are
[3:06:17] here, how do you feel? Like is that the
[3:06:18] best time? Would you prefer it was an
[3:06:20] evening? Do you prefer it in the day? Uh
[3:06:25] >> please say what you want to say.
[3:06:27] >> I love it during the day. It's
[3:06:29] Christmas. You're busy. And another
[3:06:30] thing at night that takes you away from
[3:06:32] family.
[3:06:32] >> Okay.
[3:06:33] >> I prefer it just during the day with our
[3:06:36] employees. They're more comfortable. Our
[3:06:38] family members are not feeling like they
[3:06:40] have to be that third wheel out.
[3:06:43] >> Right.
[3:06:43] >> It's also really hard for those that
[3:06:45] commute. Like if you have it in the
[3:06:48] evening, like do they just especially
[3:06:49] for public works like they're typically
[3:06:51] done at like 3:30. So it's like
[3:06:54] >> do they just drive around until 7? Do
[3:06:56] they go home, turn around, come back? Do
[3:06:58] they come potentially dirty?
[3:07:01] >> Like, you know, it's just it's kind of
[3:07:03] like a logistical nightmare for those
[3:07:05] that commute, I think.
[3:07:06] >> Okay. So, staff would prefer to leave it
[3:07:08] as is.
[3:07:10] >> My team would
[3:07:11] >> Okay. Any anybody else's
[3:07:14] have comments on that? You're good with
[3:07:17] it, Bill? Is that what that was?
[3:07:18] >> I love it. I thought it was great.
[3:07:19] >> Okay.
[3:07:20] >> Yeah, I think it's great. I mean, we did
[3:07:22] just open up the the pavilion, so it is
[3:07:25] a warmer year again that we have. I
[3:07:27] think that would allow us to play like
[3:07:29] games and not be so crowded and cramped
[3:07:33] um as we grow as a city.
[3:07:35] >> Unless the racetrack can house us
[3:07:37] instead,
[3:07:38] >> there
[3:07:40] we are out growing the church.
[3:07:41] >> Yes.
[3:07:43] >> Maybe they could let us drive a
[3:07:44] Lamborghini a couple laps around.
[3:07:47] >> You know what? On the 18th, I'll talk to
[3:07:49] about that.
[3:07:50] >> [clears throat]
[3:07:51] >> I'll be with you. I'll I'll support you.
[3:07:53] >> Yeah.
[3:07:54] >> The first year that we were on the
[3:07:55] council, that's where we had it
[3:07:57] >> was at the Yes.
[3:07:58] >> was at the racetrack and it was
[3:08:00] >> And it was in the evening.
[3:08:01] >> It was in the evening and it was it was
[3:08:03] nice and and I mean I'm fine if you do
[3:08:06] it during the day and accommodate the
[3:08:08] employees, but maybe having it there
[3:08:10] might be the best
[3:08:12] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[3:08:12] >> Best location
[3:08:14] somewhere
[3:08:16] away from all the hustle and bustle on
[3:08:19] the far end of the city, far east end.
[3:08:22] >> Okay. Any other comments on that or
[3:08:24] opinions or suggestions?
[3:08:27] Anyone? All right.
[3:08:28] >> That way we get to use sheep lane.
[3:08:30] >> That's right. [laughter]
[3:08:32] >> Once this year
[3:08:36] >> I did see
[3:08:37] >> residents on sheep lane.
[3:08:38] >> Yeah. [laughter]
[3:08:40] I did see them working on sheep lane
[3:08:42] today when I drove through coming back
[3:08:45] from a meeting in Tilla. So that was
[3:08:47] encouraging that the light was actually
[3:08:50] getting a little bit of attention there.
[3:08:52] So
[3:08:53] >> yes, we did.
[3:08:54] >> I don't know when it will be completed.
[3:08:56] >> Um I think that is everything and I just
[3:09:00] need a motion to adjurnn.
[3:09:01] >> No, close session. Close session.
[3:09:05] >> A short close session. Oh,
[3:09:08] >> mayor. I make a motion we move to a
[3:09:10] close session.
[3:09:11] >> Is there a second?
[3:09:12] >> I'll second.
[3:09:14] >> Motion by Jake, a second by Britney.
[3:09:18] >> All in favor?
[3:09:23] » Yes. Go right ahead. Let's take two
[3:09:26] minutes.
[3:09:30] » Look how cute.
[3:09:32] >> Thank you for attending.
[3:09:33] >> See you later.
[3:09:35] >> Have a good evening. Thank you guys.
[3:09:38] >> Good luck.
[3:09:39] >> We're going to need it.
[3:09:47] » Hold on. Don't say nothing.
[3:09:50] It's not they