[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[5:03] Oh, can you hear me? There it goes. Now we're there. Okay, council.
[5:11] It's not very loud. Is it? Testing, testing, testing?
[5:16] No respect.
[5:27] This is a very disconcerting way to start a very appropriate official meeting.
[5:34] Okay, welcome everyone to the work session.
[5:39] I'll call this meeting to order and we will start immediately with accessory dwelling units.
[5:46] Council Member Smith and Council Member Perucci.
[5:48] Does one of you want to lead out on your issue and concern and why you want to have this discussed?
[5:56] And Jason, do you have a presentation regarding this one or not?
[6:01] I won't call it a presentation. I've put some data together and response to some of the questions, but my thought was
[6:07] This is as much for staff to listen, so I have that available as the conversation goes. So do you want to start with that?
[6:14] Yeah, that acceptable.
[6:16] Okay.
[6:16] The presentation.
[6:18] The feedback.
[6:23] Okay, sir, you're on.
[6:24] Oh, sorry. What's going to be?
[6:26] You want to level set it?
[6:28] You want to level set it?
[6:28] Level set it.
[6:28] Why?
[6:29] At least my rationale is.
[6:31] Absolutely.
[6:31] I'm not necessarily advocating for or against making changes to our ADU ordinance, but I think
[6:39] that it's helpful for us to at least consider should we modernize our ordinance or other things
[6:44] that we're incentivizing that we don't want to incentivize or other things that we do want to
[6:48] incentivize that we're not with the current ordinance. So for example, I know that there's been a
[6:56] a single family home, right, and there are circumstances where it may, it could potentially
[7:03] make sense to a lot more than one if parking is covered in dealt with.
[7:07] But I'm not, again, not necessarily saying that I'm pushing for that.
[7:12] I just wanted to see what is the norm and what should we be considering.
[7:17] And also, do we have the proper enforcement mechanisms in place for our existing 80-ordnance?
[7:22] because I get the sense that right now we are enforcing based upon complaint, like almost
[7:30] all of our other code issues, and is that necessarily the best?
[7:34] And if I wouldn't be comfortable tweaking our ordinance to allow for more options if we
[7:39] didn't add more of a robust enforcement mechanism.
[7:43] Well, I do have to command both of you for bringing the issue up, because you're exactly
[7:47] right and it's prompted the city staff and myself to spend some time discussing it to examine
[7:53] and explore what our curtain ordinance is. And so I think Mr. Lethbridge can share that
[8:00] information and then we can have an additional discussion. I've scheduled about 15 minutes
[8:04] for this portion. Yes, Councilmember Smith, please.
[8:07] If I can add to that, it was a resident originally brought this up and the thing that was concerning
[8:14] to me or maybe kind of inconsistent that I don't know if I have the answer to the question
[8:18] about is we can have roommates, say, you know, four adult males can live in an apartment
[8:23] because they're roommates, but there's not, like you're saying, that any really guard
[8:27] rills because, of course, a rugby team would be naturally how roommates but then the roommates
[8:33] creates a lot of parking problems, you know, with adult people, it's not necessarily the
[8:39] same as family. So that's something, as he brought up the concern or the desire to have a
[8:43] and he compared that to the roommate situation that made me think about, do we have any
[8:48] guardrails or is it just what it is?
[8:51] Yes.
[8:52] So, maybe I'll start with that question.
[8:57] Our accessory dwelling unit ordinance has some standards as far as construction and placement
[9:03] and then there's a requirement for obviously any building permits that are needed, but then
[9:08] we have an ADU permit, it's basically registration.
[9:11] Just make sure that they're generally compliant with our code and then we have a record.
[9:18] That really is focused on the space and this is where some of the confusion with the public
[9:24] and some, you know, what is considered an ADU and how many people.
[9:28] So our permitting process really is looking at saying, are they meeting the requirement for
[9:34] and part of what I mean by that is in a detached accessory structure.
[9:38] our code says you can't have a kitchen or what would constitute living space in a detached
[9:44] structure unless it is an ADU. So we allow those, the state has made them allowable by
[9:53] right, but the ADU permit permits the space itself. That's a little more sh-
[10:00] Great forward. Somebody gets an ADU permit. They are allowed to put living space into an accessory structure into their basement.
[10:07] The question of use becomes a little bit more complicated. One of the parts of that is, as Council Member Smith indicated,
[10:15] is how many people can rent a single space. If you have an ADU, if you have a basement rental that has three bedrooms, that could be rented to one family.
[10:25] But then the question of what about someone who says, well, I'd like to rent those bedrooms out to three individuals.
[10:33] We have interpreted, we being staff have interpreted our code thus far to say, you can have one accessory dwelling unit and one rental contract.
[10:42] So someone says, well, I've got a basement I'd like to rent out each bedroom to a different person.
[10:48] Where we are aware of that, we said, that's only allowed if it's one rental contract and they're just sharing it.
[10:55] because as far as tracking and defining an ADU,
[11:00] it becomes more complicated if they have three different contracts,
[11:03] they're essentially renting each room as a separate ADU.
[11:07] And that's not unique to Riverton.
[11:09] That's a question that a lot of cities are grappling with,
[11:12] but Riverton and a lot of other cities that said,
[11:14] no, each ADU is a single unit
[11:17] and can only be rented by one family.
[11:21] And then we get into the definition of a family,
[11:23] I'll talk about that in just a minute.
[11:25] but yeah that certainly one area that all cities and the state are grappling with is that
[11:33] question of renting the multiple people. How many can they be and is each treated as an
[11:39] individual rental unit and obviously cities like Provo and Logan have colleges have a little
[11:45] different structure. Jason remind me our current ordinance requires dedicated on site parking spaces
[11:54] for the ADU, correct?
[11:56] Yes, and what our code says is when they get that ADU permit,
[12:00] they have to, part of the information
[12:01] they have to provide and it's using an aerial photo
[12:04] that there is at least one dedicated off-street parking space
[12:10] available to that ADU.
[12:12] We can't, however, enforce that, whoever is living
[12:17] in that ADU, parks their first before they park on the street.
[12:22] And that is the same as we don't go and say,
[12:25] you're not parking in your garage,
[12:27] you have to park in your driveway or your garage first.
[12:30] So that becomes a little bit also complicated area of the law.
[12:34] But what we can do is say,
[12:37] your ADU permit part of that is demonstrating
[12:40] that you have one, and it can't be in the driveway.
[12:43] It has to be separate from parking that's available to that.
[12:47] Is that something like a pad or something like a pad or something like that?
[12:49] Yeah, and we are, when I say, you know, they just have to show where that is, and it has
[12:57] to meet, it has to be of a size to accommodate a car.
[13:01] A lot of times when we have complaints from neighbors, they say, but they're not parking in
[13:05] that up.
[13:07] As long as they're legally parked on the road, it's the same standard as what the residential
[13:11] home.
[13:11] Someone can park every car they own out on the street and their garage and driveway is open.
[13:16] But we do our ordinance requires and we require when we issue
[13:21] ADU permits for them to demonstrate that they have at least that.
[13:25] One of the questions that was asked is about other cities.
[13:31] And I won't say that this is exhaustive.
[13:34] We did our best to contact every city.
[13:36] We really struggled to find any that currently allow more than one
[13:41] the little dot dot dot at the end just meant there was some that even kind of were
[13:45] bounced off the bottom of the slide. City of Hurricanes or Hurricanes, whichever of
[13:52] the Hurricanes. They are the only city that I'm aware of that allows 280 use, meaning a second
[14:02] accessory dwelling unit. And that is if the lot is at least 0.8 of an acre. And we were having
[14:08] a conversation early about why that number, I don't know their rationale, but that's an interesting
[14:14] threshold because that cuts off half acre lots and even three quarters of an acre lot.
[14:21] So I'm sure there was some design behind it.
[14:24] There are several cities that just kind of informally have indicated they're looking at it
[14:28] much as we are.
[14:30] There's no city that other than hurricane that I'm aware of that has actually passed an
[14:37] an additional ADU. I put a call in and it was just this afternoon. I wasn't able to speak to anyone.
[14:43] Just to kind of see if that was how that was going for them, but given what's down there, I'll follow up with them.
[14:52] But yeah, every other city and certainly a lot of our sister cities have retained that one per lot.
[15:01] One, and sorry, there's a lot of stuff on the screen. This is the section of our code that requires, and it says registration process, that means they have to register their ADU. They have to get that ADU permit in order to legally rent that space.
[15:17] A little bit of the confusion comes from this question of family members living in an ADU, so that last line that is underlined.
[15:25] That is section of our code that says the registration isn't required if the ADU is occupied by family members of the property owner.
[15:34] What that means is your basement is finished with a kitchen.
[15:39] You're not required to pay that registration fee for it.
[15:44] But the way the code is written, it still is referring to that space as an ADU.
[15:50] I mean, it doesn't, and this question of multiple ADUs has come up, both with the current
[15:55] situation with the gentleman that's reached out to you, but also others, who say,
[15:59] no, no, no, I've got family living in the basement. I'm going to do a second space on the
[16:05] property. Our code the way it's currently written does not distinguish between who's using it,
[16:13] meaning whether it's family living in it or not. It is still considered accessory living space.
[16:18] They're just not required to register it that way.
[16:21] Now, I freely admit that there's some gray area there,
[16:26] meaning if you just have your mother-in-law living with you,
[16:29] is that the same thing as having it.
[16:31] So that does come back to looking at the space itself.
[16:36] It's one thing to have a mother-in-law suite
[16:39] where she has her own bathroom,
[16:40] but then if you've got your basement finished
[16:42] with full kitchen, washer, dryer, living room,
[16:46] the space itself we would define as an ADU.
[16:50] And this is all dependent on people coming to the city and getting a permit.
[16:54] Because what I assume be a lot of people that are not doing that.
[16:59] Yeah, for the most part, I'll say it that way.
[17:02] We have a lot of, and as with everything,
[17:05] our enforcement goal, and I work closely with Ryan and his that,
[17:08] is always education and compliance, not citations.
[17:12] And so more often than not, when we have situations where rentals come to our attention,
[17:19] the owner either acquired the house and the space was already there and they didn't know
[17:23] that there was or just didn't pay attention to our code, most of those are resolved when we
[17:32] say, look, there's a permit that's as long as the space is legal and we bring them into compliance
[17:38] fairly easily. And more and more frequently this is happening where banks and finance
[17:45] companies are reaching out to us saying, hey, we're about to loan money on this. We want
[17:49] to confirm that the accessory dwelling unit, which is listed as a means of income, is legal.
[17:55] So some of that is happening through those and they ask for a letter from the city. And usually
[18:01] as we reach out to those individuals and say, look, there's a pathway here. The difficulty
[18:06] there sometimes is if they finish the space without a building permit, then we try to work
[18:12] with them as best we can to address that. But that is also how more of these are coming
[18:18] to our attention. And also where we used to have to rely a lot on the complaint, the internet
[18:26] has, there are so many rental sites and so much information on those sites, it's become easier
[18:34] for us, you can just put in Riverton basement rentals and compare that list of things that
[18:39] we have permits for.
[18:40] So that enforcement has become a little more straight forward, but the question of family,
[18:49] we still consider that in most cases to be an ADU.
[18:54] And then to Council Member Smith's point about the number of people, Riverton City as with
[19:02] most cities currently defines a family as not more than four unrelated persons living together.
[19:10] Or, you know, sharing ties of blood, marriage, or adoption, draper city and draper, again,
[19:17] is the only one that I'm aware of that has done this as far as an adopted ordinance.
[19:22] Just earlier this year, changed their code to what you see on the screen to say,
[19:26] a family is one or more people living together, and that's as far as the definition goes.
[19:31] which would mean limitations on the number of people that could live together would be more based on health and safety codes as far as the space itself.
[19:41] Draper is the only one Salt Lake and Ogden have been considering something similar and possibly other cities that have been considering it a little more quietly.
[19:50] Draper is the only one that has actually done it.
[19:52] But for Riverton, our code still stipulates that a family unit either shares ties of blood
[19:59] or...
[20:04] And that is something that number and the limitations that that imposes on people's ability to have roommates and rentals.
[20:13] That is something that I would say most cities now are grappling with the same issues we are because it is becoming more of a
[20:20] people asking for and saying, hey, why can't I do this, and enforcement situations, and we
[20:26] have had them. We had one recently where we had six, they were all athletes. And in that
[20:34] situation, the landlord brought it into compliance, they found a rental group that met our
[20:42] standard and those athletes rented elsewhere. But that was one, we didn't go in and check
[20:48] First certificates we worked with the landlord and said, hey, we can, you know, we need
[20:53] to bring you into compliance and they voluntarily did so, but that is, and I didn't
[20:59] mean to talk as much as, because I know there's a lot of discussion to be had, but hopefully
[21:02] that helps with the conversation.
[21:04] So really, the purpose in this meeting is just to get the pulse of the council.
[21:10] Are you comfortable with the ordinances?
[21:12] is it now stands or would you like the city to move forward with potential changes?
[21:19] I have a question.
[21:21] Can you flip back to the draper?
[21:22] I don't know if I understood that.
[21:25] What does that mean?
[21:25] One or more persons live together as a single housekeeping unit.
[21:28] So does that mean?
[21:29] As long as two people are there and they're renting, they're considered a family?
[21:33] And also, ten people.
[21:35] They're people.
[21:35] Because right now for us, like that situation with the athletes,
[21:38] we said you can't have more than four people who are unrelated,
[21:41] living together and I didn't speak with them. There was some quotes from them in the press when this was,
[21:51] they said, you know, this is, I'm going to paraphrase, they said, this has worked out really well.
[21:56] I imagine part of that is that their enforcement load less and because you don't have to count heads and you don't have to look and say,
[22:06] you related, or you related.
[22:07] So yeah, this would mean whether it's two people or 12,
[22:12] a single family home could have all those individuals living
[22:16] in it.
[22:17] I guess, here's where I'm maybe in the minority on the health
[22:20] but I'm part of why I wanted to show this out there
[22:22] is I'm okay.
[22:25] I think our existing ADU ordinance is good.
[22:30] But I'm wondering if there are ways
[22:31] that we can tweak it to make it a little bit more customizable
[22:33] for some types of properties where there could be,
[22:37] because the biggest impact from ADUs is the spillover
[22:41] from parking and wear and turn the road
[22:44] and trips in an neighborhood.
[22:45] And I'm not, I'm not, I don't want to minimize that
[22:49] and I don't want to blow this open
[22:51] that we just create a massive amount of opportunities
[22:54] for that to happen.
[22:56] But are there, I wonder if, I'm open to exploring
[23:00] are there ways that we can customize our ordinance
[23:02] to allow for some properties where the impact to their neighbors would be minimal when there
[23:10] could be more dedicated parking spaces on-site as opposed to off-street to allow for more
[23:17] ideas to be placed there. We can certainly explore it, but I would like to make sure you're
[23:23] clear that even if we stated you had to have more off-street parking, we could not, we can't force it.
[25:09] So, when we approve zoning, the zoning concept is, this is what it's going to be for this entire area.
[25:19] We're essence, shaking away zoning when we approve an AVU. We're saying this is no longer a single-family home neighborhood. This can now be a duplex neighborhood.
[25:28] And what our hope is is that not everyone does it. But if you look historically, over time, that's exactly what happens.
[25:36] You can go to cities who have done stuff like this and eventually that neighborhood becomes a duplex neighborhood.
[25:44] So what you're doing is residents go in a hundred people go in and buy homes in a neighborhood with the expectation that these are single-family homes.
[25:52] The school does its number accounts based on those being single-family homes and places schools based on that, the traffic flow like you're saying.
[26:00] All those are based on those being single-family homes.
[26:04] When you begin to convert those homes into dueplexes,
[26:07] it's not just a parking issue.
[26:09] The schools are no longer spaced or sized to handle
[26:13] additional children load.
[26:16] The roads aren't sized to handle the additional road loads.
[26:20] And so you're basically taking and turning a residential area.
[26:24] And then what happens is the people who convert these,
[26:28] as Jason pointed out,
[26:28] And the invariably will try and sell them as dueplexes.
[26:32] And so now, the person buying it creates a problem.
[26:36] And we've had some where people buy them thinking it was a dueplex.
[26:39] I'm glad they're checking with us more now because the banks have been burned by this.
[26:44] And that's why banks are getting involved.
[26:45] They're saying, these aren't dueplexes.
[26:47] And so they think, of course, your house is a dueplexes worth more than a single-family
[26:51] and over time your residential subdivisions will become
[26:57] do-plex subdivisions because that's not what people expect.
[27:02] So I think our ordinance and we've put a couple of tweaks in there.
[27:05] Number one is we wanted the primary person had to live in the home.
[27:12] Because if anything's not a rental.
[27:14] Well, it's not a rental.
[27:15] No, no, no, the idea was if I'm going to take my basement or rent it to someone,
[27:19] if I'm living in the home.
[27:21] Yeah, it's not an investment property, it's your residence.
[27:23] Well, I'm going to make sure that my tenant's taking care.
[27:27] I'm going to make sure who's taking care of the yard.
[27:28] I'm going to make sure it's not a parking issue.
[27:30] I'm going to make sure they're not noisy and loud and things are under control.
[27:35] The minute you take the primary home or out and you just bring in rental,
[27:40] you now run a risk that they're not going to maintain the property,
[27:43] they're not going to maintain the neighborhood community feel.
[27:45] So it's really a question of are we going to alter our neighborhoods to create income opportunities for individuals?
[27:54] Because that's really what the argument is.
[27:56] I guess my point would be, we're not necessarily just altering neighborhoods to create income opportunities.
[28:01] We're making it so that more people could afford to live in our community.
[28:04] Because I mean, they're selling county board of realtors.
[28:07] They're their most recent data point for housing and Riverton.
[28:10] The median income needed to afford the median sell.
[28:14] need to do a for the median sales price in Riverton is now $211,000.
[28:19] $250,000.
[28:20] $250,000.
[28:20] $250,000.
[28:22] That's, but if that's your goal, do that by approving a Parma Buildings.
[28:28] Do that by approving?
[28:30] We've said we don't want to approve more apartment buildings.
[28:33] For me, it's, I agree with you, and I don't want to go a blanket policy, but I guess
[28:38] the question is, can we right, right, make some tweaks to it that allows for some strategic
[28:43] changes. But it's not going to fix the whole problem, but my argument is, then you're
[28:48] going to steal my right. See, if you've zoned a property apartment building, then
[28:54] everyone knows, and the residents all had the opportunity to comment on that apartment
[28:58] building being built. And to say, yes, we want apartments where we don't. If you now tell
[29:04] my neighbor, he can take his single family home. I thought I was going to live in a single
[29:09] family residential neighborhood.
[29:12] And you now allow my neighbors up and down the street
[29:15] to all convert that to town homes.
[29:18] I mean, to do plexus, which is basically what we're saying.
[29:21] It's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's,
[29:21] then you're, you've, now taken my right,
[29:23] where I thought I was buying our single family residential home.
[29:26] And I don't have a saying at it.
[29:28] My neighbor now gets to put two families in a single family home,
[29:31] which means I'm now going to have more traffic.
[29:35] Anyway.
[29:35] I think, I think you both made your points
[29:37] And they're opposing, which is great.
[29:40] Because essentially, Councilman Rukdogal is saying,
[29:42] I'm only reluctantly in favor of the current ordinance.
[29:46] Councilmember Peruti is saying,
[29:47] I am fine with the current ordinance.
[29:49] I feel like we came to a piece of,
[29:50] I feel like we found something that works for everyone.
[29:54] Okay, so now what I need to know is,
[29:56] I need other Councilmembers to weigh in.
[30:02] So when I look at, I see that affordability issue, and I see we have literally zero impact on that affordability issue.
[30:10] As we haul in more people, like I've got a friend who talks about building his business, right? And he says, you know, the, the, the bigger the barn, the more animals, the more due to deal with.
[30:21] And so, as we continue to, again, bring in additional, more people, more people, more people into these areas that were originally designed, you know, in a different direction.
[30:31] We're changing the whole field, the whole setup, the whole design of the thing.
[30:36] So, I understand it can help people to qualify, I mean, yeah, sometimes help just qualify for the loan and so forth.
[30:44] But, again, that affordability side, that's outside Riverton's purview.
[30:49] We don't have any impact on that and so I would say I'm fine with the way the ADU system stands
[30:55] to be in support of current owners who bought
[30:59] single family homes
[31:06] Yeah, mine won't be as clear as
[31:09] I do I do agree with Spencer that this any anything we do to tackle affordability issues in our city
[31:18] going to be moved because the whole state needs to do it and we still are importing people.
[31:23] I do think, however, though, that's why we have this position where we're talking about these
[31:27] reasons we're talking about taking properties and building, you know, R6, R8, whatever we want to
[31:33] discuss on that point, where that's where I agree with Councilman Prucci, where maybe it is a
[31:37] spot check, maybe it is being allowed to have that resident come to Council and debate the merit
[31:42] of that exact location, so then his neighbors can come and talk about that property as well.
[31:47] Because if there's a way where residents, these people can talk about what they're trying to do and have their neighbors, which is what
[31:54] Council member McDougle was afraid of if you have these areas being changed.
[31:58] But if it's these spot checks where it's okay, this specific person is doing this for this specific reason if they go out, it's out of code we can't do it.
[32:06] So I think there's kind of a middle ground there where yes, we're not just blank it changing the code.
[32:10] where now everyone can have three or four or five A to use on their property, but here's
[32:16] opportunities for people to build an A to you for their child who can't afford. Or for
[32:20] the young person down the road who just got married, who can't afford it 2000. Well,
[32:25] three thousand. Don't forget, you can already build an A to you. We're discussing having
[32:28] two. Yeah. And I'm not saying that I want to open it up to every single size lot. I'm
[32:34] saying, what it makes sense for us to say, if you have an acre or larger lot, could you possibly
[32:40] do two if they're certain parking parameters they're met. That's all I'm saying is I don't
[32:45] want to do a blanket policy change of every residence can have to. 80 use it's
[32:51] are there ways that we could potentially change our ordinance to allow for a couple more
[32:55] for some circumstances. If they make sense, right? If it's a half acre lot with an 80
[33:00] you there's no parking already there. That is just a bit. If it's in a circle that doesn't
[33:05] make sense but are there dynamics in our city where it could make sense on a large enough
[33:09] that the impact would be made. Could be minimal.
[33:11] I will tell you my sense from talking to residents is the large and a lot, the less interest
[33:16] they have in adding additional dwellings on the lot.
[33:20] Councilmember Smith.
[33:22] I love the conversation. I think it's good to knock it out and figure out even if we come back to the original.
[33:27] At least we don't have to edit it and consider things.
[33:30] It's interesting to count number of fruit trees and Johnson's point.
[33:34] If we, you know, the point eight is American has point eight and they allow that.
[33:40] But I agree with Mayor Broker, the bigger the lot, the less they want people around.
[33:44] So I think that's a good point.
[33:46] I think I recognize the need for people to have affordability.
[33:51] I recognize the need to maybe explore the options.
[33:55] My bigger concern, honestly, is the roommate option because I just don't like
[34:00] than in my neighborhood. I'm thinking about one house in particular. I'm sure they don't have
[34:04] parking spaces for those four gentlemen that live in that house. And so why have they been
[34:08] parking along that one house street for years, you know, and that's kind of my bigger thing,
[34:13] but I think I'm comfortable with seeing how this is. Thank you. So, it looks like we have three
[34:20] as is. Okay, we will move on. Mayor, if I could just-
[34:25] Good discussion. Very quickly. We'll also continue to monitor both what other cities
[34:29] are doing and grow. There are some things happening as they're always are at the state level
[34:34] and even already some indications that they're looking at the number of so we'll keep that
[34:39] in our radar as well. Great. I am going to move to high density zoning 3c,
[34:46] prerogative of chair because it really ties into what we've simply been working looking at and I think
[34:52] that's a higher priority. So let's move to high density zoning options and I think the best place to
[34:58] Start with this one is with...
[35:00] Mr. Lathbridge. Oh, I was going to say the best. I actually don't have even as much as I did in the previous one. I had spoken to Councilmember Hammond ahead of time. Really, this is one. I think we should hear from them.
[35:18] What I have on the screen, these are current multi-family zones that are on the books and available as you're familiar.
[35:26] We have a couple of distinguished men that's on our distinctions between what's available in the downtown and elsewhere at the density stays the same.
[35:35] Then with our zoning map, the whole, let's see, right side of the screen.
[35:41] Western Springs Monarch Meadows, Canyon View, the land reserve, suburban land reserve area.
[35:46] We have some areas where higher densities are allowed within those projects that are different than what is necessarily available as far as standard zoning.
[35:58] Most of those are, when I say old just projects that have been around for a while, the land reserve project area is one that will see some different densities of our current multi-family zoning.
[36:12] The only place, the RM-18, which is apartment-level density, the only place that zoning exists
[36:19] is actually within some of our, what we call, specific plans, the Western Springs area,
[36:24] the Monarch Meadows, right against the Mountain View corridor, let me get my zoom there.
[36:30] It's that light blue color that you can see just, again, along there.
[36:35] So there were existing, and actually I think both of those projects are getting close to 20
[36:41] years old. So of the multi-family zoning that we have now the R18 is one that there's there
[36:47] is not anything zoned that outside of those specific project areas. But those are the multi-family
[36:53] or higher-density zoning that we have on the books. I do apologize because Kelsa and I were
[36:57] hey, man, you're the one that really brought this to our attention. So would you like to discuss it?
[37:03] Yes, so my reasoning to bring this forward is because as a city were for the most part built out,
[37:09] right we've got very few large pieces of ground that need to be finished developing and so we've
[37:14] got these little tiny pocket pieces that come together and most those pocket pieces are surrounded
[37:21] by half acre, quarter acre, larger lots right but then you've got another two or three acres sitting
[37:27] here and somebody wants to come in and they want to put in a considerable amount of homes that
[37:33] that just doesn't fit with the area.
[37:36] And so to me, it looks strange, it doesn't fit.
[37:41] It causes issues with the whole lay of the land,
[37:44] the feel of the community that's already built there.
[37:47] And again, we'll talk about affordability,
[37:50] but even a $500,000 town home is not affordable.
[37:55] And so they can talk about, yeah, we're trying to,
[37:57] I always tell them, if you can sell it 200,000,
[38:01] then that's affordable.
[38:02] We can get you alone. It's a reasonable payment and so forth. But until you can get down to that $200,000 number,
[38:08] don't even discuss affordability. And at that point, we might as well build in consistency with the neighborhoods.
[38:17] So my goal was to stop the ongoing, I want to send the message that, you know, if you want to come in and do infill,
[38:25] the max we're willing to do is our six. We'd prefer match the quarter acres that are there,
[38:31] match the half acres that are there. I know those bringing in big ticket numbers right now.
[38:36] Large prices, a quarter acre home right now is kind of starting out in the late, you know,
[38:42] late 800s, early 900s, and pushing into a million really quickly. But there's still a lot of
[38:48] people buying those things. I don't know what they do for work, and I should probably figure that out
[38:53] and change. But that's the idea is try to match what we've got existing rather than fill in our little
[39:00] pockets of land with these little cluster homes.
[39:05] So, all the way in on this, I agree.
[39:09] Part of our goal, I think, and it's just
[39:11] because of where we're at as a city,
[39:12] is to communicate to developers what we're willing to do
[39:15] and what we're not.
[39:16] And so, one of the problems we have is,
[39:19] a developer goes into a landowner.
[39:21] If the landowner thinks, if we limit the zoning that can happen
[39:24] on it, the landowner will bring their price
[39:27] of that land in compliance with the existing zoning.
[39:30] But if they think they can take a couple acres and turn them into town homes, then the landowner gets in their mind.
[39:37] I want X amount of dollars and the developer has no choice but to go high density to, you know, make the numbers work.
[39:46] And so we actually help clean up some of our remnant properties by kind of saying, no, this is what you can do with the land and so if a landowner is selling helps that expectation.
[39:58] And the other thing is, and in Calth America.
[40:00] Our parouchy can speak to this, as well as I think both of us can, is we live in blended neighbourhoods.
[40:06] And what I mean by that is neighbourhoods that will flow from, and I don't know specific
[40:11] all that council member approachy speakers, neighbour, but from 5,000 square lots, all the way up to half acre lots within
[40:16] our communities. That's what I'm living in. When done on size and scale, I think that works well.
[40:23] Because again, it's blended and my experience has been a smaller home is just as well maintained and blended and offers multi-generational moving
[40:32] but just dropping in and suddenly
[40:37] boom high density into an existing neighborhood
[40:40] It's not the same as a blended community it creates disjoin it and and so I'm I support. I think we should take those out and
[40:49] The only real area we've been fighting has been on Redwood Road, and consistency with an R6,
[40:55] I think can help, I mean, let's be honest, it's a little hodgepodge as it is.
[41:00] Anything we can do to try and get consistency and look, I think is going to help save us.
[41:06] I think it will help developers, and I think it will help landowners to all come together.
[41:10] To just have for us to just finally say, you know, this is what you can do.
[41:16] Yeah, and I have some thoughts too. And I think it was two council meetings ago.
[41:21] Councilman McDougall said, I like to explain my reasoning when I say I'm going to do something.
[41:25] So I'd love to explain my rational here on this one where I would hate for us to limit our legislative ability as a body,
[41:32] because of things that we've been annoyed with in the past.
[41:35] So I understand these ones on Redwood Road. We're having a lot of discussion about what looks best.
[41:40] But if we limit this to ourselves, we don't know what the future is going to look like in 50 years, right?
[41:45] And I can't think of a hypothetical of, you know, an R-18 is going to go exactly here in the city, this makes sense.
[41:51] But I hate to limit our ability to have those discussions and to vote no if we disagree with it.
[41:57] And I also think if we did do this blanket, okay, we're not doing this certain types of zoning.
[42:02] In my mind, one of that mean we couldn't have done that reason in Council Member's Smith District,
[42:08] 118th, where it's connected to South Georgia City,
[42:10] wouldn't that be over the code?
[42:12] If we were able to get, if we got rid of this density,
[42:16] then those wouldn't have met this new rule.
[42:19] Which we all agreed unanimously on, if I'm remembering correctly, right?
[42:23] So I see, yeah, we're annoyed with pieces here and there,
[42:26] but there's other areas of the city where it makes sense.
[42:29] And again, I understand that our city is built out to a point where
[42:31] there's really not a lot of these areas we're talking about,
[42:34] But there could be opportunities where it doesn't make sense like on one 18th.
[42:38] I forget the name of that property that we rebuilt.
[42:41] Sickenmore Glenn.
[42:43] So I would hate to limit our ability as a legislative body to have that discussion.
[42:47] And just have a blanket sorry we're not doing this anymore because change the code.
[42:51] And I would like to point out that we have essentially limited it because when you look at where we have that density zoning,
[42:58] they're all unique situations.
[43:00] So it's a body, this council has opposed those.
[43:05] Councilmember?
[43:06] Yeah, I, that fits really, I was going to say is I, we have very clearly said no to most of this high level density in our city because it doesn't make sense in a majority of our city.
[43:20] We have said yes when it is on a major arterial road closer to the highways, right?
[43:26] like, that's not just us, but our previous councils.
[43:29] And so I agree as council member Johnson,
[43:32] I don't want to retire hands behind our back on this process.
[43:37] And I have no problem saying no.
[43:39] In fact, I plan to say no tonight.
[43:42] And so I, but I also think that if we're going to go this direction,
[43:48] it should not be as a standalone decision,
[43:50] but part of the general plan updates.
[43:52] And we should be doing it in coordination with reviewing
[43:55] other things because I completely agree with Councilmember McDougall. I hate this hodgepodge.
[44:01] When you can do this at scale, I mean, I'm the product of that. I bought my first house
[44:07] in Riverton in a cluster home in Monarch Meadows. And then I bought my second house within
[44:13] the same church congregation, but it's a much larger house on a larger lot. So part of that
[44:18] blended growth within our city. And there was those developments were built at a scale that
[44:23] could allow for that and it was one cohesive community as opposed to multiple communities
[44:27] built at random times.
[44:30] That being said, I think we've talked about this before, are there other things that
[44:35] we're doing that are forcing development to be hodgepodge?
[44:40] Like should we really, I think we need to look at our road standards.
[44:44] Should we change our road standards because I don't want to see more developments being built
[44:48] where they're small HOA's, and I would like to see them
[44:53] even if they're going to be,
[44:54] because I think it does make sense for higher density
[44:57] to be facing redwood road.
[44:59] Cause that just,
[45:00] This is going to be a better prop, long term. That's the kind of building that's going to be able to sell and be maintained effectively on redwood road as opposed to people that have to back out on a major thoroughfare.
[45:12] Like it's just not, that's not my opinion, long term realistic for the value of what we're going to see.
[45:18] We're going to continue to see property values decline and the property upkeep decline, based on that.
[45:23] So I'm just saying I'd like for us to look at overall what we're doing as a city and I'd really like to look at this for viewing what other things we're incentivizing to create the existing structure rather than taking things off the table right now.
[45:37] Thank you, Councillor Smith, but before you speak, I just want to make clear too. We're looking at the general plan and the general plan will come to us in the next couple of weeks at our next council meeting.
[45:48] However, you have to remember that people that come and ask for
[45:53] resones, et cetera, they don't have to wait for us to create a general plan.
[45:58] And even if the general plan states one thing, they still have to come and have the resones.
[46:04] So, it's complicated, and if it looks like it's complicated, it doesn't look like it makes much sense.
[46:10] I agree.
[46:11] And Matt Mayer, can I just really look at that?
[46:14] Because I agree with what Councilmember Al, I'm sorry, Johnson and St.
[46:18] Really the process for government to communicate that is the master plan like Councilmember Prucci St.
[46:24] And the last time we did this, we were the two on the Council
[46:27] and the reason we're having all the problems in this sector
[46:31] is this was the one sector where we did not get specific.
[46:35] Every other sector in our city, where we sat and looked at the ground
[46:39] and said, this is by a town home community, we will allow this density here. This is by
[46:46] this, we will only allow our six here. Every other place in the city where we did do that,
[46:51] we haven't had a problem. It's in the one area where we wanted to leave it general. And so
[46:58] what that leaves for residents is unsettledness. They don't know what's going to come, and that's
[47:03] why it's, it's centered in one district, is that council member? Didn't want to deal with the
[47:07] discussion five years ago. And that's something we've got to consider. The more
[47:12] specific we are with this master plan, problems go away. We've talked about this
[47:17] before the Redwood Road plan. But however, in that case you have to remember you
[47:22] not had just been widened. We really didn't have a good sense of what was going to
[47:27] happen along Redwood Road. Was it going to stay residential? Was it going to stay
[47:31] commercial? So it seemed reasonable to kick the can down the road at that time.
[47:37] Councilmember Smith. I'm all for kicking cans down the road several times. I think that what we're what I'm gathering from the discussion is we probably when we look forward and a few weeks at a master plan
[47:49] Get a clear message along river road. That sounds like a lot of
[47:52] I agree with that conclusion. I mean, I love RM6. I understand we're
[47:56] Councilmember Pritche and Johnson are coming from, but I love RM6. I feel like the sweet spot. I feel like this this
[48:05] the idea of the blended neighborhoods. We live in a neighborhood that's R3 and R4, but you really
[48:10] wouldn't know it until you looked at a map. And I honestly didn't know that to us on the council
[48:14] that my neighbor was an R4 and I was an R3, it could not told you that. So I think what I'm hearing
[48:20] in conclusion is, good discussion, probably more of it to follow when we talk about the general plan
[48:26] and we spend more time in a work meeting. Yeah, sounds like perhaps the general plans, the better
[48:31] solution to it to send that clear message, but and then we as council try to stick to that general plan
[48:37] as much as humanly possible so that we don't send a confusing message out of the public.
[48:43] I agree. I was just, can I just were waiting? That's the only part of what I'm thinking about is
[48:48] the cold property. I don't know what's going to happen there long term. Yes. I'm not good
[48:54] confident that that's going to be a commercial property long term, but I'm also not confident that it
[48:58] make sense for it to be hortic or lots long term. And so that's where I'm like, I'm a little hesitant to fully take this off the table because I see places where there's probably going to need to be redevelopment that it could make sense.
[49:13] It's a good comment.
[49:15] Yeah, I agree with that.
[49:16] Okay, Council, it is down.
[49:20] What is it?
[49:20] Six, four, six, fifteen.
[49:23] If you're comfortable with deferring cargo containers or Jason, do you want to tell us?
[49:28] Take five, ten minutes, what do you think?
[49:32] I think,
[49:35] given the issue and the nature of things we need to discuss probably better to defer.
[49:39] Defer?
[49:39] Okay, very good.
[49:41] Let's move on to the City Council meeting agenda.
[49:43] Council Member Perushi has reached out to me and asked that consent agenda item 13C be discussed separately.
[49:51] So when we get to that portion of the meeting, we will talk about that.
[49:55] And other than that, I will look for a motion to adjourn.
[49:59] So moved.
[50:00] Okay, thank you.
[50:28] Good evening,
[51:58] everyone. We have a full house tonight and it's certainly my pleasure as the mayor of
[52:02] and city to Spuroker to welcome you all here.
[52:06] It looks like we may be a little short of chairs,
[52:08] but we do have our Riverton Youth Council here,
[52:10] and I suspect they're not gonna stay
[52:12] for the whole meeting, so that may free up some chairs.
[52:15] Okay, let's go ahead and get started.
[52:18] I will let you know you need to have a comment card
[52:21] in order to make public comment.
[52:25] And I need to know what you wanna comment on
[52:27] because there's gonna be several hearings
[52:31] and then general comments. So, if H Kennedy could come up and just let me know where she wants
[52:37] to be placed, I'd appreciate it. If it's for one of the reasons, or if it's general comment,
[52:45] that would be most helpful. H Kennedy.
[52:51] No one?
[52:56] Okay, that makes it easy.
[52:59] All right, let's move forward and if we could have our prayer to start our meeting and I'm sorry
[53:06] I'm sure I'm not going to do a great job with your last name.
[53:11] I recognize that every vowel should be pronounced.
[53:16] So, Lenore, Fooa, to T-Miu, something close to that?
[53:22] Are you here?
[53:25] Thank you.
[53:25] Come up and correct me, please.
[53:38] I do your Heavenly Father.
[53:40] We're so grateful for the opportunity we have together together as a community.
[53:45] and as a city council we're grateful Father for all those who are in
[53:51] presence today we're grateful for this great city we're grateful for all the
[53:58] opportunities and freedom that we not only enjoy within this community but
[54:03] over this great nation Father we asked a blessing upon each and every one of us who are
[54:09] here today. Bless the city council and members of the community that we may be able to discuss
[54:17] and find ways to work together as the community. Father, we pray for a peace, unity, and for
[54:26] a reminder for all of us to work together. We ask for the spirit to be with us. We love these so very
[54:33] much. It is our humble prayer in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Can you please?
[54:39] How do you say your name?
[54:42] Foyoteimo.
[54:43] You call it Tima.
[54:44] Okay.
[54:44] Thank you.
[54:45] Welcome for being here.
[54:48] Okay.
[54:49] Play to the legis.
[54:52] Our fire chief, Marshall Watkins.
[55:02] I pledge allegiance to the flag, the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation,
[55:13] under the law, in this book with liberty and justice for all.
[55:24] Thank you. We'll first have a couple of presentations, and we will start if I can find it with a presentation for two tennis players that reside here in Riverton.
[55:36] And I will read the recognition, but before I do, I want to let all of you know that they
[55:43] will each get a medallion that has been printed, permitted by Riverton City, and it's unique
[55:53] for this year, meaning at the end of 2026, it will not be available anymore, and it's
[56:00] in honor of the semi-quincentennial, which is this year, which we've been celebrating, and
[56:05] This cast in copper, because copper, of course, has been very significant to the city of
[56:10] Riverton, with Kenaka copper mine and with our dome.
[56:14] So that's what they'll be awarded now I'd like to share with you the recognition.
[56:22] On May 9th, 2026, Riverton's middle school boys tennis team committed, competed in the U.S.
[56:28] youth tennis state championship, bringing together top youth tennis players and teams from
[56:34] cross Utah. Two Riverton players achieved an exceptional and unprecedented result. Seth Anderson,
[56:44] competing as Riverton's number one singles player, won the singles one state championship,
[56:50] while his teammate, Nico Ray, competing as Riverton's number two singles player won the singles
[56:55] to state championship. Winning a state championship in either division is a significant
[57:02] individual accomplishment. Seth and Nico had to advance through a competitive statewide
[57:07] field and defeat other top players to earn their respective titles. For two
[57:13] players from the same team to win both of the tournament's top single
[57:16] divisions is particularly remarkable. Their performance represents the best
[57:22] Riverton has ever achieved at the US Youth 10th State Championship and
[57:26] and to our knowledge and unprecedented accomplishment for a team from Salt Lake County.
[57:32] Seth and Nico represented Riverton with Skill, Determination, and Sportsmanship
[57:37] throughout the season and at the State Tournament. Their championships are a testament
[57:42] to the work they put in to developing as tennis players and to their ability to perform at their
[57:49] against strong competition. We are proud to recognize Seth Anderson, the 2026 singles
[57:56] one state champion, and Nico Ray, the 2026 singles two state champion, and congratulate
[58:03] them on an outstanding achievement for themselves, their team, and their liberty
[58:07] community. If they would both please come up, we would like to recognize them.
[59:01] There we go. We'll get a little more balanced. Get an even on the court. All right, here we go.
[59:07] There we go. One, two, three.
[59:13] Excellent.
[59:40] Thank you both for representing Riverton. So, Ed Merley.
[59:46] Okay. We will now move on to the Youth Council Executive Board, Oath of Office.
[59:53] and we'll have the Youth Council come forward.
[59:57] I don't want to say anything before.
[1:00:00] Make a presentation.
[1:00:04] Okay, if you'll all please come forward.
[1:00:12] So, each year we have a new youth council. The youth council are very important to rivers and city. They assist with lots of the events, particularly our Halloween event. And they help on town days. And they volunteer for many, many projects besides which we try to educate and help them understand government process a little bit better. Pam?
[1:01:38] And we have to move that the other thing is very good.
[1:01:41] Biser,
[1:01:48] stand up, they think it's important tonight.
[1:01:50] We have close to 25 kids that are also on the board.
[1:01:55] And they have fewer thousands of dollars in service.
[1:01:58] They pull that through to see provide that for us.
[1:02:01] So you think you,
[1:02:19] if you will break your right hand,
[1:02:20] you're going to get out of your feet.
[1:02:27] You're following, where you're all going to start.
[1:02:30] But I have a historical name that
[1:02:37] has the constitution of the United States,
[1:02:39] and then I'll just start to do this.
[1:02:48] I might not let the light all this with the light.
[1:03:06] I'll picture a message that you might all turn,
[1:03:09] but can be sent to this kind of thing.
[1:03:11] If you look at it, I have a question.
[1:03:13] Yes. Come on up. Come on up.
[1:03:15] We usually typically let you sit in our chairs.
[1:03:18] So our youth council mayor, if you come sit right here,
[1:03:21] And everybody follows suit
[1:04:04] and
[1:04:32] I can't fail to acknowledge Beth and Pam, they put in numerous
[1:04:36] numerous hours in the evening with the youth council and so we really appreciate their volunteer
[1:04:42] efforts.
[1:04:43] So thank you.
[1:04:45] Okay, our last one, 12C waste management, donate and use council, waste management could
[1:04:52] not make it tonight, but it is typical for them to donate.
[1:04:56] Think it's 2,500 every year and that.
[1:05:00] That goes to scholarships for the youth council. So we very much appreciate waste management and that donation.
[1:05:07] We will now move to the consent to die in items and we will ask if anyone has an item they would like pulled from the consent agenda.
[1:05:20] Council member Purish.
[1:05:21] Yes, I would like to pull item 13C from the consent agenda and then otherwise make a motion to approve the consent agenda.
[1:05:32] I'm absent 13C.
[1:05:36] Is there a second?
[1:05:39] Count, thank you.
[1:05:40] Councilmember Hayman.
[1:05:44] Call the paper.
[1:05:46] Aye.
[1:05:47] Any opposed?
[1:05:48] Great.
[1:05:49] Okay.
[1:05:50] Now let's approve the consent agenda or did we just do that?
[1:05:54] Very good.
[1:05:55] Go ahead.
[1:05:56] Councilmember Prucci.
[1:05:58] Now we'll go to resolution number 26.
[1:06:00] Right.
[1:06:02] Yes.
[1:06:03] So do you want to discuss it?
[1:06:04] I would, yeah, I would love, maybe Jason or Carrie or somebody could from city staff could just explain what it is and to him behind it and I'm sure I can take that and I'm sorry I don't have a graphic to put on the screen, but it has to do with the Mountain View corridor.
[1:06:22] We have in the western Springs development a western hills drive that used to cross the space that's now occupied by the corridor and was closed off when the front of roads were built.
[1:06:32] At that time, we entered into an agreement with you to close those roads cooperatively so that it was clear that that was being done as part of the project with the Mountain View Court of the Freeway portion of the Court or being built and the traffic modeling and impact to some of the roadways that are occurring Western Hills Drive will be opened up to provide some additional access points for that neighborhood because we closed it based on an agreement with you.
[1:07:02] You thought has asked us and we have reviewed that and consented to update that agreement basically to reflect the fact that that roadway is is now being open
[1:07:10] That is the just of that cooperative agreement so that
[1:07:15] Western Hills drive will open not on to the freeway itself just onto the front of droid
[1:07:20] the southbound front of droid as a right in right out
[1:07:24] And from my discussion with Councilmember Pruchi. He really just wanted this called out. It's a very significant change in our city
[1:07:31] And it's a very unique traffic pattern that you will see throughout Salt Lake County.
[1:07:37] And it really does change significantly for residents that live up in that area.
[1:07:41] And so I agree with him as important that we just identify it clearly for everyone.
[1:07:46] Can I just clarify to you Jason, this is a U. Project, not a Riverton City Project.
[1:07:50] Why do we have to have this agreement in place with U.D. if it's not our project?
[1:07:56] My understanding is, if we hadn't, when we did the closure, the choice was made between
[1:08:03] the city and you dot to have an agreement reflecting the closure of the road, I think
[1:08:08] you dot especially wanted it to be clear that that roadway opening was happening in consultation
[1:08:14] with the city and so updating that agreement.
[1:08:18] And I should point out as well.
[1:08:20] It is a U.R. project, but the city, with Councilmember Prucci support, organized an open house and did noticing in that neighborhood area. We tried to reach out to as many of the affected parties as possible.
[1:08:33] We did hold that meeting again, Councilmember Prucci participated, helped them understand A, that it was a U.R. project that that decision was through you up, but also the city was supporting the neighborhood and looking at all the ways that we can help mitigate the impacts there.
[1:08:48] Yeah, the agreement really this agreement is based on the fact that an agreement was made back when that road was originally closed.
[1:08:55] Thank you.
[1:08:56] Mayor, if I could just real quick to say that um, colleagues, this is, this neighborhood, it's a, it's a huge impact to their daily lives.
[1:09:05] This neighborhood is really unique in that all of the residents children go to
[1:09:17] This project is going to preclude their ability to turn left on to 126 South.
[1:09:23] I understand that because of traffic patterns and that's becoming increasingly dangerous.
[1:09:27] But I want to acknowledge that these changes, it may benefit the greater good.
[1:09:35] But there is going to be a serious harm to a neighborhood that I represent.
[1:09:39] And I've had a lot of conversations with them and trying to find ways that we can try to help minimize those changes.
[1:09:44] and I appreciate Jason City staff, everybody that's worked hard to help communicate with the residents here their feedback and there's not a lot we can do because we're impacted by other government bodies, by the state, by our neighbors, that have been...
[1:10:02] I'm not excited about it, I understand the need for it. This vote will not change, whether this project happens or not, but yeah, it was just wanted to die like that.
[1:10:13] Thank you very much. So now we need to have a motion to either approve or deny.
[1:10:21] I want to make that motion.
[1:10:28] I'll make a motion that we pass resolution number 26-42 approving the amendment number 2 to the cooperative agreement between River Dan City and the Utah Department of Transportation regarding the access to Western Hills Drive from the Mountain View corridor.
[1:10:42] That's
[1:10:45] the
[1:10:54] second council member, McDougall?
[1:10:55] Yes.
[1:10:56] Peruptie?
[1:10:57] No.
[1:10:58] Smith?
[1:10:59] Yes.
[1:11:00] Hey, man.
[1:11:00] Yes.
[1:11:01] Yes.
[1:11:03] Thank you.
[1:11:04] The motion carries.
[1:11:06] We'll now move on to our public hearings.
[1:11:08] As you can all see, there are a large number of people here.
[1:11:13] And I know that you've come to express your opinion on one of the items that are
[1:11:17] before us.
[1:11:18] I want to remind you that our order code essentially states that for public comments, we allow 15 minutes for particular topic.
[1:11:29] You're allowed three minutes for your topic. If you have a group that can represent your residents, your neighborhood, that will certainly expedite the proceedings.
[1:11:41] So, I will open it up for the Timberline Development Agreement, and we will start with Mr. Kennedy.
[1:11:53] Oh, boy, I'm getting way ahead of myself tonight.
[1:11:55] Thank you. This is why I have a mayor, Protem.
[1:11:58] Yes, Jason, you're first.
[1:12:01] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:12:04] This is a approval of a development agreement, and I'll just very briefly explain the difference.
[1:12:10] development agreement is a little more broad than just a
[1:12:14] rezone or a subdivision.
[1:12:16] It's an agreement specific to a particular piece of property that
[1:12:19] includes zoning and then some of what we would normally call
[1:12:23] preliminary layout of the subdivision or development itself as
[1:12:28] well as some of the conditions in terms that would normally be
[1:12:32] part of the standard zoning.
[1:12:33] It allows for additional or modified conditions and
[1:12:38] standards within that property area.
[1:12:40] And I'll explain what that looks like in just a moment.
[1:12:42] So this property is on the west side of Redwood Road.
[1:12:46] It's circled in yellow.
[1:12:48] I'm sorry, I didn't read there.
[1:12:50] Let me get my pointer.
[1:12:54] There we go.
[1:12:55] So this is a 134 south on this image,
[1:12:58] and Redwood Road, a little bit of lag in my pointer.
[1:13:02] I'm sorry, the property is circled in yellow.
[1:13:04] The current zoning of the property
[1:13:06] and it is that area highlighted in the middle
[1:13:08] is C in which is commercial neighborhood.
[1:13:10] that zoning was put in place some time ago in response to a specific application for what at the time was a proposed large animal veterinary clinic that didn't end up materializing but the zoning was approved.
[1:13:24] The other property within the project area, the yellow color and all of that surrounding yellow is RR22 which is a single family designation with half acre minimum lot size.
[1:13:35] The proposed zoning of the property is RM8, but there are some modifiers to that in what the applicant has proposed that I'll explain in just a moment, but the underlying zoning would be RM8, which is multi-family with eight unit per acre maximum density.
[1:13:52] The general plan for the property is a mix of a state density residential, which is depending
[1:14:00] on which monitor you're going to have that green color, the brown or orange is medium density
[1:14:05] residential, which is 10,000 square feet or quarter acre lots.
[1:14:09] So the property in the general plan currently is split just about a little to the side
[1:14:15] of halfway between designating for quarter acre lots and half acre lots.
[1:14:19] So, again, this is the property in question, and at this point we've had several hearings
[1:14:25] on this, I'll go over specifically what has changed as we cover through that.
[1:14:32] But there are two, in addition to the frontage on redwood road, there are two roadways that
[1:14:37] stub into the property, one to the north, here that you can see that comes directly into
[1:14:42] the property, and then 13550, which comes from the west into the property, it currently terminates
[1:14:48] in a temporary cul-de-sac and that roadway hits about midpoint
[1:14:53] between the project area property and the property to the south.
[1:14:57] So that dashed line on the map is not just...
[1:15:00] The project boundaries. That's the property line between what's in the project and not. So the roadway from the south hits about half way into this project and the next. I'm going to go through a couple of iterations of this kind of starting with the beginning of the project. They initially proposed connecting the 1775 West coming in on the north of the property with a public right of way to redwood road.
[1:15:30] and then leaving space for future connection to 13550 to the south.
[1:15:37] As we discussed this with the Planning Commission
[1:15:40] and then City Council, there were concerns expressed
[1:15:43] at the city level about the traffic and other impacts
[1:15:47] to those roadways to the surrounding neighborhood
[1:15:51] with connections to Redwood Road
[1:15:53] and how that would be managed.
[1:15:55] So the applicant based on those conversations proposed,
[1:16:04] Sorry, I'm not sure what happened there.
[1:16:13] Okay, we'll propose the different iteration
[1:16:16] of the subdivision, that will be extremely inconvenient.
[1:16:25] It popped out at some point.
[1:16:28] We'll give that a moment to the charged back up
[1:16:30] and I very much apologize.
[1:16:33] Proposed from different iterations of that
[1:16:35] that no longer connected to the surrounding subroads,
[1:16:40] That was passed through the planning commission with that condition that those roadways
[1:16:45] not connect.
[1:16:48] Following that, you dot became part of the conversation.
[1:16:55] It's gone and it has to just charge for a minute.
[1:16:58] You dot became part of the conversation reviewed what the city had approved and said that
[1:17:03] you dot because Redwood Road is a state road.
[1:17:07] Only you could make that decision of access to Redwood Road and they dictated to the city that in order for them to grant access to Redwood Road, the project would need to connect to the surrounding roadways.
[1:17:21] I'm sorry this will make a little bit more sense once the laptop comes back on, but we had some lengthy and comprehensive discussions with you.
[1:17:29] got as far as that decision, all the way up to
[1:17:38] all the way up to the Region 2 District
[1:17:40] Manager and understood that, yes, U.B. was making that requirement and did have the
[1:17:45] authority to do so.
[1:17:51] So, I'm so sorry, let's see.
[1:17:53] Well, you're looking at that permit and I will too let the audience know that we did have
[1:17:58] you come to an earlier meeting and they indicated very clearly it was their decision that it must
[1:18:05] access onto Redwood Road. So, and they do get to make that decision.
[1:18:11] Okay, we're back, my apologies. So this was the version that planning commission reviewed that showed
[1:18:18] only a public connection to Redwood Road with private streets and then public connection to Redwood
[1:18:25] and a turnaround to the north side.
[1:18:29] Subsequently, based on U.S. decision and mandate
[1:18:33] that the public roads needed to connect,
[1:18:36] the applicant's proposed what is the current iteration,
[1:18:38] which is a public right-of-way connection to Redwood.
[1:18:41] That's that piece in the south that for now
[1:18:43] will only be built to the access point there,
[1:18:47] and then a dedicated future public right-of-way
[1:18:51] for connection to 1.3550 at whatever point in the future
[1:18:55] the property to the south further developed.
[1:18:58] So for now, that public roadway would only extend as far as that drive access into the project
[1:19:04] area.
[1:19:04] The rest would be left to future development.
[1:19:07] The internal roadways would remain private and there would be a gate on the north end of
[1:19:13] 1775 west or the north end of the project.
[1:19:16] Sorry, that would be emergency vehicles only.
[1:19:18] So that gate would only be opened if needed by emergency services.
[1:19:24] police, fire, et cetera, and would not be accessible for residents within the community or
[1:19:29] out.
[1:19:30] So essentially, that would be closed, but would provide a second point of access for emergency
[1:19:35] services if necessary.
[1:19:38] So when this was presented in draft form to the Council for discussion, there was some feedback
[1:19:44] as far as open space and additional parking.
[1:19:47] This was the version that was previously reviewed in work session by the Council.
[1:19:52] So, this is now the updated version the council had requested that the developer look at additional.
[1:20:00] Open space within the project area and parking. So that has been provided in this space here. Some of that would be and was previously shown as stormwater retention, as with a lot of our city parks and other open space that can be accommodated both as open space and stormwater and you can see the parking has been provided as well.
[1:20:21] There is a roadway cross section that you can see here, along the bottom.
[1:20:26] It is a 28 foot right of way, the 10 feet on either side is P-E, that's utility easement
[1:20:33] not sidewalk.
[1:20:35] So within the proposed plan, there would be sidewalk on the public right of way, and then
[1:20:39] the sidewalk would come in along the open space and just on this portion of the project
[1:20:44] area.
[1:20:45] So within the balance, there would not be sidewalk, but there would be that sidewalk area
[1:20:50] running out to the public right of way there.
[1:20:55] And this is just the engineered version if you will of that same drawing that you just saw.
[1:21:01] The development agreement includes not just the zoning and the lot configurations, but standards
[1:21:09] for setbacks, so this is the typical setback section that is proposed for this, 15 feet to the front
[1:21:16] of the house, 20 feet to the garage, five feet on the sides,
[1:21:21] on a street side, this would be a corner,
[1:21:23] there's 10 feet and the rear setback is eight feet.
[1:21:26] So that would be measured property line to foundation.
[1:21:30] So one of the bigger changes,
[1:21:31] and this is just a comparison chart to other zoning.
[1:21:36] The R4 is one of our standard single family lot zones.
[1:21:41] So these, the setbacks of 15 and 25,
[1:21:44] eight and 10 on the side, 25 feet in the rear,
[1:21:47] are standard for our single family.
[1:21:49] With our multi-family zones, the RM6 is a detached product,
[1:21:54] where we do individual lots.
[1:21:56] We do have, in our current zoning, that 15 and 20,
[1:21:59] the five-foot setback on the sides and 15 feet to the rear.
[1:22:04] What the development agreement is proposing
[1:22:06] And I apologize, also minimum lot sizes, 10,000 is a quarter acre.
[1:22:11] So our RM6 standard is 5,000, which is an eighth of an acre.
[1:22:17] The development agreement, as it's proposed, has the minimum lot size
[1:22:21] as 2,900 square feet.
[1:22:24] And then the primary change in setback is that eight foot rear setback.
[1:22:29] I just want to, because that is different than our standard setbacks,
[1:22:35] especially in the rear, I just want to point out the areas of impact would be primarily along
[1:22:41] the west property line, where because that is a rear setback we would have eight feet potential
[1:22:48] between the property line and any home on that property and then along the north property line,
[1:22:55] I'm sorry the text doesn't show well there, but those are side setbacks so you would have five feet
[1:23:00] between property line and foundation of the home there.
[1:23:04] The remainder of these with roadways or future roadways
[1:23:07] are less impacted.
[1:23:09] Have had some questions both from the public and from council
[1:23:13] as far as kind of visually those lots.
[1:23:18] We don't have our current minimum lot size in the city
[1:23:22] would be 5,000 square feet.
[1:23:24] So we don't have good examples in the city
[1:23:26] of what a 3,000 square foot lot is.
[1:23:28] These are from South Jordan, and they're a little larger, they're about 3,200, but this is the same row of houses.
[1:23:36] Here, these are all about 3,000, 3,200 square feet. This is just an angled view of that.
[1:23:43] I could not find an example that wasn't rear-loaded, meaning on these units, the grages in the back,
[1:23:49] and there's the alleyway that pulls in the proposal from the applicant from fields on these are all front-loaded.
[1:23:57] So grages in the front and access directly off.
[1:24:01] So this isn't a perfect representation,
[1:24:03] but just to give a sense of massing and space.
[1:24:07] These were the images.
[1:24:08] This went out in a recent email to the Council,
[1:24:10] again, in response to a question.
[1:24:12] Just some examples within the city of the difference.
[1:24:15] The RM8 is, this is just north of us here,
[1:24:19] predominantly attached product, duplex, triplex, types
[1:24:23] units. The RM6 is the more detached single family. These are about five to six thousand square
[1:24:31] foot lots, and that example there. The planning commission forwarded this to the council
[1:24:37] with a recommendation to adopt, and I just need to point out some things. The planning
[1:24:41] commission's recommendation was to rezone the property to RM6. So the recommendation was for
[1:24:47] the density of the property and the lot sizes setbacks and road widths compliant with the RM6 zone.
[1:24:53] At the time the planning commission forwarded this to you, you dot had not made their their.
[1:25:00] Decision or mandate that those roadways open up. So the planning commission included the condition that those roadways be closed. That is no longer possible. So if the council moves forward with the planning commission's recommended motion. Number three would need to be removed. Number four has to do with perimeter fencing. Again, it references the turnaround space that would have been present.
[1:25:21] But, generally, the fencing was required along the Kennedy property, which is the homes that
[1:25:30] are the home that is not part of the project area to be solid masonry and along red road.
[1:25:39] And then, condition number five also would no longer apply because that had to do with access
[1:25:44] on to redwood road.
[1:25:45] For the convenience of the council, based on the presentation or the proposal that the applicant has made,
[1:25:53] this motion, as an alternative, would adopt what has been proposed by the applicant.
[1:25:59] I do want to point out, while the zoning would be RM8 based on feedback from the council,
[1:26:05] the proposal from the applicant, the motion also would limit to a maximum of 31 lots,
[1:26:11] which is the count that is proposed.
[1:26:14] We do write that as a maximum because they may not
[1:26:18] in final engineering and design achieve that.
[1:26:21] This doesn't guarantee that level of unit,
[1:26:24] but it does allow them up to that.
[1:26:27] And that doesn't include parcel as the open space
[1:26:29] that's shown.
[1:26:31] Several of these are just standard.
[1:26:33] It is still subject to final site plan review
[1:26:36] that would be through the planning commission
[1:26:38] as part of a public hearing.
[1:26:40] that wouldn't revisit the density.
[1:26:42] That just goes through the technical elements of the site,
[1:26:45] but there would be an additional public hearing.
[1:26:48] Number three is the emergency services gate.
[1:26:51] Number four just indicates that portion of the roadway,
[1:26:56] which is that part of 13550 that would be dedicated,
[1:27:00] but for future construction,
[1:27:04] just clarifies that that be constructed and dedicated.
[1:27:08] I'm sorry.
[1:27:08] Number four is the portion that provides access from Redwood Road that that would be constructed
[1:27:13] and dedicated before any building permits were issued.
[1:27:16] Number five is the future public street that would be dedicated but not constructed perimeter
[1:27:21] fencing.
[1:27:23] Compliant with city code specifying the North Kennedy property will be solid masonry.
[1:27:29] And then number seven, and I apologize this is an addition to what was presented to you in
[1:27:33] staff report. The draft of the development agreement was brought to the city later in the
[1:27:42] week last week and has not been fully reviewed as far as compliance to whatever motion
[1:27:47] would be made tonight. So condition number seven stipulates that the development agreement
[1:27:51] not be executed, meaning put into effect and sign until final review for compliance with
[1:27:58] approval by the city attorney, meaning any additional changes or things in that development
[1:28:04] agreement as proposed that need to be changed to be compliant with whatever decision
[1:28:09] the council makes tonight the development agreement would not be executed and the approval
[1:28:14] would not be binding until it was reviewed for compliance by the city staff but also
[1:28:20] our city attorney.
[1:28:23] Thank you very much, Mr. Cliffbridge.
[1:28:26] Council is your well aware you typically we wait till the end and have council questions and comments
[1:28:30] but it appears council member Prucci has a clarifying are you okay you said the
[1:28:37] PUE is in the in the gutter so it's front lot PUE as opposed to back lot PUE correct with
[1:28:45] and and there may still be and some of this would be worked out at subjects and there may still be additional
[1:28:51] PUE spaces around the lots themselves with the rear set back at only eight feet that doesn't leave a lot of space
[1:28:58] I would imagine any utilities run in here would would almost have to be through that front area
[1:29:03] But yeah, you can see on that cross section that zoom in that PUE would start at gutter. Cool. Thanks.
[1:29:10] Thank you. We should hear from the developer, Mr. Smith.
[1:29:20] Hello. It's good to be back with you
[1:29:24] So a couple of things.
[1:29:25] So one in the motion that Jason talked about with the Masonry wall along the Kennedy property,
[1:29:34] we actually had not included that, and that was back when we had a road there, and there
[1:29:38] was concern about someone sliding off the road or coming in property, and now that that
[1:29:43] road is gone.
[1:29:44] So that was the surprise to me, and I guess you guys tell us if that gets us a project, we'll
[1:29:50] do it.
[1:29:53] So we did drop two lots and grew that open space out of the parking and actually I think it works really well.
[1:30:00] Good advice, so thank you. As you look at these lot depths on the west side of the site is the most
[1:30:08] constraint. And that's in order to line up that fire access with 1775 West. When we do a lot
[1:30:15] typical, we do give a minimum rear setback, but I would say at least two-thirds of these are more or
[1:30:22] deeper lots than that, and there will be, in some cases, significantly more room, right?
[1:30:27] So we're just trying to set a minimum standard and also as you look at what was shown like with
[1:30:32] daybreak and those alley load we did intentionally set these back 20 feet with that front
[1:30:37] set back again for parking you know they always say the grudges for storage and people are
[1:30:42] parking on their driveways or elsewhere. So trying to maximize parking in here and and you
[1:30:50] know build the most attainable product that we can. I'd love to answer questions or address
[1:30:57] anything, so what can I do for you?
[1:31:02] I think.
[1:31:03] Go ahead, Council Member Pritchee.
[1:31:05] Do we just get an hour, do you want to do it after that?
[1:31:07] I was going to suggest we wait.
[1:31:09] We do the public comments.
[1:31:10] Yeah, we do that.
[1:31:11] And then if we have questions.
[1:31:12] I like that better, actually.
[1:31:13] Okay.
[1:31:14] Have you come back up?
[1:31:15] Okay.
[1:31:16] We'll open the public portion.
[1:31:18] Public comment portion of this public hearing.
[1:31:20] And we'll start with Mr. Kennedy.
[1:31:28] Please.
[1:31:29] And following Mr. Kennedy, we'll have Ellen Ford.
[1:31:32] So if you could be ready.
[1:31:33] we can move it along. Stand right there, yes sir.
[1:31:40] You don't have a laser pointer, do you?
[1:31:44] I do not. No. Okay, that's my two lots right there. My property line has been there for 30
[1:31:54] something years. I'm not sure how long I've lived there. But on the other side, going as far
[1:32:02] out there's a brick, a brick wall, and they're saying that these proper lines have got
[1:32:09] a shift, six feet or something, do you remember that, Jared?
[1:32:14] Just to address the council please. That's what you're speaking to, they're going to make
[1:32:19] the decision. Okay. Do you know if the property lines go on?
[1:32:26] I'm writing a note down. We'll address it. Continue with your remarks.
[1:32:30] Okay. Well, I just want to know if my property line is going to change.
[1:32:34] Okay. Very good.
[1:32:37] Another thing is, when that road was going to be right by my house there, they were going
[1:32:44] to put a block of lock wall. Now they've moved the road to the north or to the south side
[1:32:50] of my property next to my horse pasture. The fencing along there, if that's going to be
[1:32:59] I don't know what my horse is going to do to white vinyl or kids throwing things over at my horse or feeding at things that shouldn't be.
[1:33:14] And then I have a bunch of trees right there along my past year on the south end there.
[1:33:23] If that property line changes, I'm just wondering about them trees if they're going to get chopped down.
[1:33:30] And
[1:33:40] yeah, that's about it.
[1:33:43] Thank you.
[1:33:43] Good questions.
[1:33:44] I'll expect a council member will address them.
[1:33:46] Okay.
[1:33:47] Thank you, sir.
[1:33:49] Okay.
[1:33:50] Ellen Ford and fallen in Ellen.
[1:33:53] Welcome Bob Ford.
[1:33:55] Thank you for the opportunity to speak.
[1:33:57] I would ask you to reject the approval of the proposed development
[1:34:01] and to not amend the General Plan to medium high-density residential.
[1:34:06] This plan is not best for the people who live here, tight roads and token sidewalks do not fit the surrounding areas and do not make a good neighborhood for the people that would move here.
[1:34:20] The requested RM8 zone is a medium density residential zone I looked it up.
[1:34:25] It says promoting, promoting varied housing near the downtown area.
[1:34:30] This property is not near the downtown area.
[1:34:32] Allowing the medium high-density residential is not the President's precedence we want for other parcels in this area.
[1:34:41] In February, the Planning Commission recommended a change to RM zoning, which the developer has totally ignored in this new concept.
[1:34:52] The developer referred to daybreak. We do not want Riverton to look like daybreak.
[1:34:58] Please consider the residents.
[1:35:00] This concerns who live in this area and not the desires of developers who don't live here and don't even respond to the planning commissions recommendations and both know for this proposal as it is presented.
[1:35:13] Thank you.
[1:35:14] Thank you.
[1:35:15] No, no.
[1:35:19] Okay.
[1:35:21] We are not going to have clapping and cheering. This is a meeting.
[1:35:26] All right. So you get the opportunity to express your opinion, and you can express as strongly as you like,
[1:35:31] but we're not going to have cheering in the audience.
[1:35:34] Mr. Ford, following your comments,
[1:35:35] we will hear from Robert Clayton.
[1:35:40] OK, Mayor and Council on Bob Ford.
[1:35:43] One of the leaders in the Riverton Heritage Group,
[1:35:45] which most of you are aware of.
[1:35:46] You've received letters as well as from TU,
[1:35:51] as well as the plan of zoning outlined in our opposition
[1:35:54] to this proposed plan.
[1:35:55] We've done two before since December when this project came up.
[1:36:00] we trust that you have reviewed those comments because they're applicable to this meeting and we
[1:36:05] hope that that weighs in on your decision as we discuss this development.
[1:36:12] We didn't the ripped and heritage group continues to oppose this development
[1:36:17] and we continue to oppose the state's legislature's pressure that they put on our
[1:36:30] We reject that.
[1:36:33] We also have been aware and grateful for town days, Riverton Town
[1:36:40] Days. And you guys all did a great job and were grateful for all that. But the reason that
[1:36:46] this part of Riverton still looks like somewhat of a town is because the citizens in the
[1:36:52] Riverton Heritage Group and surrounding neighborhoods, we have all been anxiously engaged
[1:36:57] in the master plan for 25, 30 years to help maintain this part of Riverton to have somewhat of a heritage that is consistent with more of a rural type of a look.
[1:37:15] If we continue like the other quadrants, we'll be having Metro days instead of town days, and we want to keep our Riverton town days,
[1:37:23] And our part of the city that helps maintain that.
[1:37:27] Now, the other thing I just mentioned is that besides being
[1:37:32] involved in this, we've had,
[1:37:39] oh, what, Jason did a great job
[1:37:41] in reducing this and brought up the fact that this is
[1:37:44] Zollin for neighborhood commercial.
[1:37:46] The reason it was approved, in part, is because the
[1:37:50] Riverton Heritage Group supported that, because we believe
[1:37:53] the large animal clinic would be very beneficial to the type of community that we have in this
[1:37:58] quadrant of the city.
[1:38:00] So that's why we proposed it.
[1:38:02] If the developer came forward with something compliant with that zoning, we would not
[1:38:07] likely be here today.
[1:38:09] So in short, we think that this is truly trying to shoe hornion a non-consistent proposal
[1:38:17] into a quadrant in Riverton that is trying to maintain some Riverton heritage.
[1:38:23] So we oppose it, and I'm speaking in behalf of not just me, but the leaders of every
[1:38:28] neighborhood and every citizen in that area that supports this R-22 zoning.
[1:38:34] This should not fly.
[1:38:38] Thank you.
[1:38:38] Thank you.
[1:38:39] if you clap I will close public comments. It's a meeting. Okay, Mr. Clayton.
[1:38:49] Following Mr. Clayton, we will hear from Simon Rubenheimer.
[1:38:54] I hope we said that correctly.
[1:38:56] Robin Heimer.
[1:38:57] Robin Heimer. Thank you.
[1:38:59] Mayor and council members, thank you for allowing me to speak and thank you for being here tonight.
[1:39:04] First of all, we support appropriate development of the property at 1, 3, 5, 1, 8 south.
[1:39:12] However, our concern is whether the requested density fits the surrounding neighborhood
[1:39:18] and the infrastructure that it will serve.
[1:39:20] And with all the respect to Mr. Smith and to the Council, this is not daybreak,
[1:39:26] and we do not want to date break in the report and we are not asking the city to take away
[1:39:33] someone's existing development rights. We are asking the city council not to grant new
[1:39:41] development intensity that is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood infrastructure.
[1:39:48] The staff report identifies the surrounding zoning as RR-22. The existing general plan
[1:39:54] calls for medium density and a state density residential. With minimum lot of sizes.
[1:40:00] Members of 1-4 and 1-2 acre. This application asks you to change the general plan and approve RM-8 with
[1:40:09] lots, as small as 2,900 square feet. Your planning commission, the River Ten City Planning Commission, unanimously
[1:40:17] recommended RM-6 instead, which the developer has continued to ignore.
[1:40:26] Commissioner Clef said that
[1:40:32] The densities should make sense for the area of the city that it is in.
[1:40:36] She also said quarter-acre lots would be much more appropriate because such high contrast
[1:40:42] in density would disjoint the community.
[1:40:46] The access changes, the access changes raises another fundamental question.
[1:40:51] If you would out is determined that Redwood Road access could not be approved and could not
[1:41:02] the founding residential network, a suitable alternative for increased traffic.
[1:41:09] These streets serve families, children, and school bus activity.
[1:41:14] The city's staff reports states that both 1775 and 13550s
[1:41:19] do not currently have the infrastructure, which raises concerns about
[1:41:24] pedestrian access and parking on those adjacent roadways.
[1:41:27] Whereas the traffic analysis demonstrating that the affected streets can safely accommodate
[1:41:35] additional traffic, we recognize that 17550 is proposed as emergency only access, and
[1:41:42] that future 13550 connection is distinct from the new roadway to redwood.
[1:41:46] Those distinctions must remain clear and enforceable.
[1:41:51] The question is whether this proposal justifies changing the city's plan, increasing
[1:41:56] of density and placing additional infrastructure demands on the existing neighborhood.
[1:42:01] Please do not approve our Amate tonight.
[1:42:03] Continue the application until the revised access impacts are publicly evaluated, and the
[1:42:10] agreement is corrected at minimum, retained the planning commissions unanimous RM6.
[1:42:15] We are asking river intensity to grow thoughtfully and not cave to the demands of the developer.
[1:42:20] Thank you very much.
[1:42:22] Sure.
[1:42:24] Is that right? Sorry.
[1:42:26] I didn't want to say your last name.
[1:42:28] Scared me the first time.
[1:42:31] Simon Robenheimer.
[1:42:33] I live.
[1:42:35] And while we're Simon, sorry, I'll just
[1:42:36] We'll hear from Kelsey.
[1:42:38] Okay, please, Simon.
[1:42:40] I live on 1775 West.
[1:42:43] Just literally next to the property
[1:42:47] the development that has been proposed
[1:42:49] during the course of the planning commission, the whole process. One of the arguments from
[1:42:55] some of the commissioners and the developers was that housing supply short and that we need
[1:43:00] more affordable housing. During the commission planning commission process, the developers said
[1:43:06] that the houses were expected to sell for at least $500,000. Probably a little bit more than that.
[1:43:13] That was a state of expectation at the time, not a guaranteed future price.
[1:43:19] The price alone does not tell us whether at home is affordable to a particular household.
[1:43:24] Smaller homes and additional supply may provide meaningful options, but those potential
[1:43:28] benefits are different from an enforceable commitment to affordable housing.
[1:43:33] If affordability is part of the reason for changing this general plan and approving
[1:43:37] our amate, what provision of the agreement to secure that benefit.
[1:43:41] does it require income-restricted homes, a defined affordability period, or any other measurable
[1:43:47] affordability commitment? If there is no such requirement, please describe the proposal
[1:43:52] as market rate housing and evaluate its benefits and impact on that basis, and just be
[1:43:58] open and transparent about it. The developer also explained that theory units would increase
[1:44:04] the land and infrastructure costs allocated to each home. Project feasibility is relevant
[1:44:10] but it is one consideration amongst several. We asked the Council to consider compatibility
[1:44:16] with neighboring properties. I think that's probably going to be a theme from everybody that stands
[1:44:20] up here. Street capacity, pedestrian safely and long-term effects of the request to develop and
[1:44:27] standard. Surrounding zoning is identified once again as RR22, the plan commissioning recommended
[1:44:33] RR25 instead of RR25, which apparently the developers haven't understood. Please explain what
[1:44:40] specific public benefit justifies going beyond that recommendation and how many
[1:44:45] proposed, how any promised benefit will be reflected in that proposal or that approval.
[1:44:51] We support expanding housing opportunities through development.
[1:44:54] I mean, I would be saying, people can't develop their land, right?
[1:44:58] That's one of the things that we love.
[1:45:00] We will talk about this great country. However, we ask that you think clearly, use evidence-based
[1:45:07] explanations and be transparent and share with us what the argument is for approving. If it
[1:45:15] was to be approved, we will ask you not to approve it this evening. Thank you.
[1:45:19] Thank you very much. Kelsey. Following Kelsey, we will hear from Christopher Dodson.
[1:45:31] Mayor and council members,
[1:45:32] My name is Kelsey Dobson and I live on 13550 South.
[1:45:37] My concern is how the revised access plan will affect traffic and pedestrian safety in the existing
[1:45:43] neighborhood.
[1:45:45] During the planning commission process, fields don't estimate it approximately 300 vehicle
[1:45:49] trips per day for the project and send most would enter an exit from Redwood Road.
[1:45:53] If UDOT has determined that Redwood Road cannot safely or economically accommodate direct access
[1:45:59] to this development, why does that make 1775 West?
[1:46:02] Hamilton Lane and 13550 South.
[1:46:06] Mind you, roads with no sidewalks, children, school bus stops, and existing rural residential
[1:46:11] properties a suitable alternative.
[1:46:14] But the circulation proposal has changed so the earlier description does not answer the question
[1:46:18] residents face now.
[1:46:19] How much traffic will reach our streets, both when the development opens, and in the future
[1:46:23] connection is completed.
[1:46:25] The City staff report acknowledges that 135-50 south and 1775 west-slat curb gutter and sidewalks,
[1:46:33] raising concerns about pedestrian access and parking. Residents also have concerns about children walking,
[1:46:39] school bus stops, and nearby school routes. Before Council grants additional density, please
[1:46:43] require an updated analysis that separates the initial access arrangement.
[1:46:47] from the future-connected network.
[1:46:50] It should identify expected traffic volumes,
[1:46:52] turning movements, speeds, pedestrian routes,
[1:46:55] and effects on the intersections used to reach 134 south.
[1:46:59] It should also distinguish project traffic
[1:47:01] from any additional through traffic
[1:47:03] that a new connection might attract.
[1:47:05] We are asking for an analysis of those possibilities
[1:47:08] rather than assuming their size and advance.
[1:47:11] What improvements would be required
[1:47:13] where would pedestrians walk safely
[1:47:15] who would fund those improvements and what must be completed before the relevant roadway opens.
[1:47:20] Emergency only access 1775 Shrume in a separate matter with a gate restriction stated clearly
[1:47:26] in the final documents. Please continue this application until Council and residents can review
[1:47:30] the traffic findings and the proposed safety measures. A future connection should not become an open
[1:47:36] ended commitment without clear conditions. The neighborhood deserves answers about safety before approval
[1:47:43] along with a concrete plan to address the impacts the analysis identified.
[1:47:48] Thank you.
[1:47:49] Thank you.
[1:47:49] Thank you for your time.
[1:47:56] He will be followed by Brighton Flynn.
[1:48:01] Hello Mayor and City Council members.
[1:48:04] Over the course of this process, my neighbors and I have repeatedly raised concerns about density,
[1:48:09] traffic, safety, and opening of 13550.
[1:48:13] What I find frustrating is that these aren't principles that are formed to this council.
[1:48:18] Members of this council have publicly expressed serious reservations about increasing residential
[1:48:24] density in Reverton.
[1:48:27] Council member McDougall previously said he was very lary of approving higher density housing
[1:48:34] while Reverton was struggling with traffic flow and that he did not want to add more congestion
[1:48:39] to an existing problem.
[1:48:42] Mayor Baroko Baroker has publicly stated that she does not believe high density housing
[1:48:48] is the answer. She has also acknowledged something directly relevant to our neighborhood.
[1:48:53] When Rosa connected, traffic increases in areas that previously did not have much traffic,
[1:48:59] and those connections bring their own problems. Even Riverton's own ordinance says,
[1:49:06] the purpose of low density RR-22 neighborhoods is to provide a minimum of vehicular traffic
[1:49:13] and quiet neighborhoods favorable for family life, unquipped.
[1:49:20] Those are exactly the things we're asking you to protect.
[1:49:24] We choose to live in a low density, low traffic neighborhood.
[1:49:27] The proposed development is approximately equal to the number of homes currently on our street,
[1:49:32] and proposes density dramatically greater than the surrounding neighborhood.
[1:49:37] And now after months of meetings, the proposal has gotten worse for the existing residents
[1:49:42] by accommodating a future connection for 13550 South.
[1:49:47] I'm not asking this Council to adopt a new philosophy tonight.
[1:49:51] I'm asking you to apply the same principles regarding density, traffic, neighborhood protection,
[1:49:56] and responsible growth that members of this Council have publicly advocated.
[1:50:00] In the past.
[1:50:03] And before you approve this agreement, I ask you to answer one simple question. If this isn't the situation, those principles were intended to protect against what situation is.
[1:50:14] Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Flynn.
[1:50:18] Oh, sorry, excuse me.
[1:50:20] That's okay, may I?
[1:50:21] Three of you at the same time, okay?
[1:50:23] Nope, you're leaving.
[1:50:26] Okay.
[1:50:27] Mayor and council members.
[1:50:28] My name is Braden Flynn, and I live on 135.
[1:50:32] Excuse me, 50 South right here in this lot.
[1:50:34] The end of the closest act.
[1:50:36] I want to bring these concerns together around a particular request.
[1:50:40] Per suit development that fits this site
[1:50:42] and resolve the access and safety questions before granting approval.
[1:50:46] There's already an alternative in the record.
[1:50:51] The Planning Commission unanimously recommended RM6 rather than RM8, with 5,000 square foot minimum
[1:50:59] lots.
[1:51:00] Larger setbacks and road standards consistent with the recommendation.
[1:51:05] City staff also identified Riverton Cove as an RM6 example, with lots between 5,000 and
[1:51:12] and square feet, a 28 foot roadway, and a sidewalk on one side.
[1:51:18] That example does not prove that the same design or economics will work on this property.
[1:51:23] It does provide a local starting point for evaluating a less intense alternative to the requested
[1:51:29] 3,000 square foot minimum lots.
[1:51:33] Please ask the applicant to explain what a workable RM6 plan will look like here, including circulation,
[1:51:40] pedestrian access and transitions to adjacent properties.
[1:51:47] Developer, the developer has explained that fewer units increase the
[1:51:51] land and infrastructure cost per home.
[1:51:55] Excuse me, we understand the importance of feasibility, Council's decision
[1:52:00] must also account for the suitability of the density and the infrastructure
[1:52:04] needed to support it.
[1:52:06] Please also document the access alternatives considered, including any shared
[1:52:10] redwood access, discuss during the planning commission process. Residents need to understand
[1:52:19] apologize, I'll ask my place.
[1:52:26] I'm going to start right over here. That's why you take your time.
[1:52:30] Okay. The developer has explained that fewer units increase the land and infrastructure costs per
[1:52:35] home. We understand the importance and feasibility. Council's decision must also account for the
[1:52:40] ability of density of the infrastructure needed to support it. Please also document the access alternatives
[1:52:46] considered in any shared redwood access discussed during the planning commission process.
[1:52:51] Residents need to understand which options were explored. What you dot required and why the
[1:52:56] proposal arrangement was selected, our shared request is to decline RMA as presented and continue
[1:53:02] the application for a corrected agreement. Public reviews of you dots, requirements and an
[1:53:09] state traffic and pedestrian safety evaluation.
[1:53:12] We support thoughtful development, but please make sure the final plan provides new housing
[1:53:17] while respecting the safety and character of the community already surrounding it.
[1:53:23] Thank you.
[1:53:24] Thank you very much.
[1:53:27] Sky Flynn.
[1:53:28] It will be followed by Michelle Dobson.
[1:53:37] Well, he's coming up by Sky followed by Michelle.
[1:53:41] Yeah.
[1:53:43] I'll let you come up with that.
[1:53:44] No, you're doing great.
[1:53:46] And you're all doing great.
[1:53:47] Thank you very much for keeping your comments to three minutes or less.
[1:53:50] It's appreciated.
[1:53:51] Please, sir.
[1:53:51] Go ahead.
[1:53:53] My name is Guy Flynn.
[1:53:53] I live on 135, 50 South.
[1:53:57] My comment would be really short, because I thought I wasn't going to get a chance
[1:54:00] so I gave it to her.
[1:54:01] But I support all these that are coming up and speaking out on what we actually need for
[1:54:08] where we're living at.
[1:54:10] We're living right next to these people.
[1:54:12] This house is going in and we'd like them to fit in with the surrounding area and we would like to have it match what the heritage people have held
[1:54:27] Riverton to or tried to hold us to for the city to for, you know, the last 20 plus years that he talked about.
[1:54:35] I grew up here, I love this town, and I don't want to see it change too much, so that's my emotional remarks, so I'll sit back down.
[1:54:44] Thank you very much. Okay, Michelle Thompson. She will be followed by
[1:54:52] Shane Johnson and Shane will be followed by Alicia Clayton, and that will be the end of the
[1:54:57] comment. Okay Michelle. Thanks.
[1:55:00] Thank you. Mayor and council members, my name is Michelle Dobson. I live on 135-50 South. I respectfully ask you to continue ordinance 26-06. So the revised proposal can receive meaningful public review before a final decision. The February planning commission recommendation was for RM6 with no vehicular access to 135-50 South or 1775 West. The proposal now
[1:55:29] President includes RM8 emergency access at 1775 and accommodation for a future connection at 13550.
[1:55:40] Those are consequential differences in both density and circulation.
[1:55:44] The public notice itself explains that the access changes arise from U. requirements and
[1:55:52] says additional information will be presented at this hearing.
[1:55:55] Residents should have a reasonable opportunity to understand that information, review the revised plans and ask informed questions before Council acts.
[1:56:06] Please make U.S. written determination available to the public.
[1:56:10] What specifies access configuration was denied?
[1:56:14] What connections are required and when?
[1:56:17] What alternatives were evaluated?
[1:56:18] did, does U.R. require an immediate neighborhood connection, a reserve future connection,
[1:56:24] or something else? And when will that future connection be happening?
[1:56:31] These questions should be answered through the actual correspondence and plans rather than
[1:56:35] completing summaries of what U.R. wants. Please also identify exactly which concept plan
[1:56:41] development standards and conditions would be incorporated into any final approval.
[1:56:46] The South recommendation agreement and exhibit should all describe the same project.
[1:56:52] The proposed agreement contains vesting provisions that is intended to run with the land.
[1:56:58] That makes clarity before approval, especially important.
[1:57:02] Residents should not have to rely on an informal explanation that never reaches the final documents.
[1:57:09] A continuing should allow the city to publish a reconciled proposal, evaluate transportation
[1:57:14] impacts and provide a clear opportunity for public response.
[1:57:19] Council could also consider whether a revised plan should return to the planning commission.
[1:57:25] We're asking for a complete and transparent review of the project that Council is actually
[1:57:31] considering before allowing that review before approving the agreement.
[1:57:38] Thank you.
[1:57:39] Shane Johnson.
[1:57:42] Thank you, Mayor and City Council.
[1:57:44] my name's Shane Johnson. I live on 135, 50 South. I've lived there for 44 years. So I've
[1:57:50] seen a lot of changes in Riverton. Okay? I'm not that old, but I've seen a lot of changes
[1:57:55] and a lot of growth. But I think number one, you know, you don't putting that, putting it out
[1:58:02] there that, you know, when South Valley Aquinas was going to go in there, which we're, I think most
[1:58:07] of the neighbors were pretty excited about that, right? You know, they shot it down because you
[1:58:12] I wouldn't fix the road off redwood so they could turn in and make a left-hand turn, right,
[1:58:17] heading north and so south alley headed south. Good for them. But now we're stuck with
[1:58:26] daybreak and daybreak doesn't excite any of us. I don't believe in this room. Maybe there's a few,
[1:58:32] but I don't think the majority of us did excites. So, you know, as far as what we'd like to see,
[1:58:39] I oppose this plan right now as it stands if you want to make the neighborhood similar to
[1:58:44] what we have.
[1:58:45] That's great with lot sizes that are made for families, not single parents or husband and
[1:58:54] wife.
[1:58:55] We have families that are neighborhood.
[1:58:57] We have lots of kids and the last thing we want is people racing up in our street.
[1:59:02] We have no sidewalks right now.
[1:59:04] I see that we're going to put one little one in there.
[1:59:07] You back out of your driveway, you're going to hit your neighbor's car.
[1:59:11] So, I mean, this doesn't make any sense for people in the river, too.
[1:59:16] I don't know if it makes sense to you guys.
[1:59:18] But our concerns include absence of sidewalks,
[1:59:22] children walking to school activity parking.
[1:59:25] There's no parking available there.
[1:59:26] Besides a few around this park that's proposed or this green space.
[1:59:31] I don't know what kind of people live in houses that size, I'm not sure, but can't be much fun.
[1:59:39] So I don't think it represents Riverton and the residents that surround this neighborhood
[1:59:44] and Redwood Road, the other side, it doesn't represent us.
[1:59:48] And I hope that Phil Stone doesn't sound like they did their homework
[1:59:53] on this property before they bought it because they're trying to cram 31 homes
[1:59:57] and for our fakers, so they can make much...
[2:00:00] I understand they've got to make money, but make money a different way or do your homework. And I'll think they did. So I oppose what we have here if they want to change it, to where it represents Riverton and what I grew up in as Riverton and a lot of these folks here that are in this neighborhood. They represent, they're all here, okay? All of them are here. So I hope you guys listen and put some thought into this before this goes through. Thank you.
[2:00:28] Thank you, Alicia Clayton, okay, the pressure's on, you're the final concluding.
[2:00:38] I'll just say I am in agreement with the concerns.
[2:00:42] I am Alicia Clayton, I live on one, three, five, two, five, south, 1930 West.
[2:00:51] I'm glad to be here with Mayor.
[2:00:54] My concern is whether the development agreement and consent plan and policy approval
[2:01:00] conditions are consistent and ready for adoption.
[2:01:04] The agreement includes investing provision in the states that it runs with the land.
[2:01:08] It also contains language addressing conflicts with city ordinances.
[2:01:12] Those provisions make an important to resolve these discrepancies before approval.
[2:01:20] And I would just say, one example, the agreement also appears to direct recording and
[2:01:25] weaver county and not in Salt Lake County as it should.
[2:01:31] So please correct the recording provision and any outdated dates before adoption.
[2:01:35] And these are specific grafting issues, not a claim that a typographical error alone determines
[2:01:44] whether development should proceed.
[2:01:47] They show why residents need a final reconciled document.
[2:01:51] The access provisions deserve the same attention, the agreement should clearly distinguish
[2:01:57] the new roadway to Redwood, the dedicated, but unconstructed future, 135, 50 segment, and the
[2:02:07] emergency only gate at 1775. Who controls the gate when made open? What review is required
[2:02:16] before any ordinary vehicular access is allowed? What safety improvements must precede a future
[2:02:24] street opening, those answers should be incorporated into the final approval documents.
[2:02:32] Rather than left solely in oral statements at the hearing, please also reconcile the
[2:02:37] approved density, law count, minimum, minimum, lot sizes, setbacks, and road widths
[2:02:46] across the agreements and plans.
[2:02:48] I respectfully request a continuance until council and the public can review the corrected agreement with all the conditions incorporated.
[2:02:59] A document intended to guide future development deserves that level of care before it is approved.
[2:03:05] Thank you very much.
[2:03:07] Thank you very much.
[2:03:08] Okay, that concludes the public comment portion of the hearing for ordinance number 26-06.
[2:03:14] I will turn it back over to Council members for questions and comments.
[2:03:20] Mayor.
[2:03:21] Excuse me.
[2:03:22] I'm sorry.
[2:03:22] If I could, there were several questions brought up in the public.
[2:03:26] We'd like to address those correctly.
[2:03:27] It may address.
[2:03:28] Sure.
[2:03:29] Please do that.
[2:03:29] Please do that.
[2:03:30] I'll be brief.
[2:03:33] The fencing question that was brought up.
[2:03:36] The planning commission's motion was for fencing along the north side of the gentleman's
[2:03:41] lot as the applicant pointed out the road has changed.
[2:03:46] I only made modifications to the Planning Commission's recommended motion where they clearly
[2:03:51] reflected previous conversations.
[2:03:53] That could be modified by the City Council, but that's why that north and south were referenced
[2:03:59] differently.
[2:04:00] I believe the same gentleman brought up the question of property lines and surveys.
[2:04:04] That would all need to be surveyed and established by the applicant prior to moving to the next step.
[2:04:12] The Council's decision or action tonight doesn't in any way make determinations as to property line in placement.
[2:04:19] But the city will and does require full surveys and mitigation of any issues that come up before the actual development occurs.
[2:04:29] So we can't speak to that tonight, but the Council's action doesn't make any judgment on
[2:04:34] property lines.
[2:04:36] There was a question on affordable housing that has certainly been part of the discussion
[2:04:41] in the various meetings.
[2:04:42] The city is not designating this or in any way making this an affordable housing project in the
[2:04:50] sense that there are certain thresholds that need to be met to participate in the city
[2:04:55] or state.
[2:04:56] I just want to be clear, so that's why there is no language to-
[2:05:00] Do that affect in the agreement. Several questions on you dot and what they considered. You dot considered the previous iterations of this plan, both the initial, and then this, which was the one that went to the planning commission.
[2:05:19] So you dot looked at the proposed access and closure of those roadways.
[2:05:25] Their decision was based not, and I'm going to paraphrase a lot of conversations with
[2:05:31] you dot.
[2:05:32] It was not simply a capacity issue or a traffic count or safety issue on Redwood Road.
[2:05:38] Part of you dot's concern was maintaining connections into surrounding neighborhoods.
[2:05:43] This is not unique to Riverton.
[2:05:44] Utah is taking this position in a lot of other communities to preserve the ability for that
[2:05:50] traffic in the future, not just for this property, but for the adjacent, to have access
[2:05:56] to other road networks.
[2:05:58] So, Utah's decision was, and I've simplified that, but was for this, that is, before you
[2:06:05] tonight for this public roadway portion, but it was not simply a question of traffic counts
[2:06:10] or connection it was looking at maintaining the option in the future for that connection to
[2:06:16] be made.
[2:06:19] The question of a traffic study on 13550, that has not been done yet because that road is
[2:06:26] not opening up.
[2:06:28] So the only portion of what is 13550 that will be constructed new is this portion here to
[2:06:36] provide access into the project.
[2:06:38] that future right of way is future and is dependent on the property to the
[2:06:45] south developing to bring that additional portion of roadway. The density and
[2:06:51] development type of that property and this would contribute to any future
[2:06:56] traffic study but that this project would not be contributing any traffic at
[2:07:02] this point 213550 so there would not be anything to measure if I'm not
[2:07:07] simplifying but in the future at whatever points the roadway is connected there would need
[2:07:13] to at that point be more comprehensive traffic studies a U. permit and I will carefully say
[2:07:20] this while the space is being preserved for that future public right away. There are many decisions
[2:07:29] that remain to be made both by the city and by U. before that connection can or would be made
[2:07:35] in the future. As far as timing, it is dependent wholly on future development of that property.
[2:07:42] We acknowledge there would be more conversation at that time about both the traffic study
[2:07:47] and the configuration of the roadway. The only portion that is being built now is that what
[2:07:53] is label on that map is the little blue public right away. But it is not in disregard of the concerns
[2:07:59] or issues that are brought up tonight. We had that conversation with you dot that while we are
[2:08:04] preserving this portion of the right of way,
[2:08:07] there would be additional data, studies, and information
[2:08:09] coming to U.N. to the city in the future at whatever point
[2:08:13] that roadway is proposed to be connected.
[2:08:18] It could be 20 years.
[2:08:19] It could be never.
[2:08:20] That is wholly dependent on future decisions by landowners
[2:08:23] and by U.N.
[2:08:25] If I understood the question correctly,
[2:08:27] someone asked about shared access on Redwood Road,
[2:08:30] because this is a public right of way.
[2:08:31] This would be, and part of the reason that it
[2:08:34] is placed where it is, this roadway, both this front portion and in the future portion built,
[2:08:40] would be accessed both for the property to the south and to the north.
[2:08:44] So that is being approved as a shared access point onto Redwood Road.
[2:08:50] To the question is, two standards and what exhibit will exhibit be that you see on the screen
[2:08:58] is the exhibit that was submitted by the applicant with the visual version of their standards,
[2:09:05] the road width, the setbacks, the general layout and configuration of the property and access.
[2:09:12] As I indicated at the beginning, should the council approve this at whatever density they will
[2:09:18] proceed based on this general information into the subdivision portion at which time more
[2:09:24] engineering data will come as part of that approval, but this would establish the standards
[2:09:30] for that in addition to the development agreement, which, as we indicated with that condition
[2:09:36] seven in the motion, would need to be updated to reflect the council's decisions.
[2:09:41] Certainly, if the council's preference is to see that in place prior to a decision, what
[2:09:47] we would need, then, is an indication of what version of this, you know, planning commissions
[2:09:53] recommendation or otherwise, the council is willing to approve and we can make those
[2:09:58] edits.
[2:09:59] But it is certainly not-
[2:10:00] Not with any intent to keep information back or to have something currently in the draft of the
[2:10:06] development agreement become law. As that condition stated, the development agreement will not be executed until it is clear,
[2:10:13] and not just to staff, but to the city attorney satisfaction that it reflects the council's motion.
[2:10:19] And so at the last point to the emergency gate, that has been reviewed by representatives of unified fire and our emergency services.
[2:10:28] The key system to that is what's called a noxbox.
[2:10:32] It is a technical standard that is universal,
[2:10:35] meaning the only access to that type of system is
[2:10:39] by emergency services.
[2:10:41] It's in use throughout the state and Riverton City.
[2:10:44] That's not reflected in the motion or in the standard
[2:10:47] because the requirement to close that for emergency vehicles.
[2:10:50] Only means that the technical portion would be handled
[2:10:54] with the cooperation of our emergency services.
[2:10:56] There would not be any situation or allowance for other traffic to open that gate or to use that roadway.
[2:11:05] I believe that was all of the questions that came up during the public room.
[2:11:09] I don't know if you can answer this one or not, but there was one question about trees.
[2:11:13] Whether they would be.
[2:11:14] Oh, trees, I'm sorry.
[2:11:16] At this point, we consider these lines general, so we are always looking to preserve trees as much as possible.
[2:11:24] It is very dependent on where the tree or trees are relative to the property lines.
[2:11:30] So we couldn't determine tonight, but that would be part of the future engineering review
[2:11:37] of the subdivision and that conversation between the applicant and the property owner.
[2:11:43] Thank you very much.
[2:11:44] Okay, Council, we'll start with Council Member Peruti.
[2:11:47] Thank you.
[2:11:48] I have a couple of questions.
[2:11:50] First off, I wanted to thank everybody for coming tonight.
[2:11:52] this is honestly really cool to see this much engagement and I know it may bring some level of
[2:11:57] angst or frustration that you have to come to share your views, but I also think it's a beautiful
[2:12:02] thing that this is what our country's made of. So thank you for coming and sharing your views.
[2:12:07] Jason, can you talk about what the traffic city that was conducted, what did that find?
[2:12:15] Can you
[2:12:22] capacity of Redwood Road was sufficient to accommodate that traffic.
[2:12:27] Because in this proposal 1775 is not being opened,
[2:12:32] and 1-3550 is a future right-of-way connection.
[2:12:36] It did not consider those access points, but both for you dot,
[2:12:41] who makes the ultimate decision on access to Redwood Road and to the city,
[2:12:46] that access point on Redwood is sufficient to account for the traffic of this.
[2:12:51] the assumption in that is that if the Council modifies the density, it would only be reduced.
[2:12:59] So the traffic volumes were considered at the proposed level of density, that would indicate
[2:13:04] that there would not be concerns.
[2:13:06] And as I said, future connection to 13550 would be accompanied by updated traffic studies,
[2:13:12] including the additional properties developed.
[2:13:14] Yeah, I was reviewing the traffic study data that's on page 18 of our packet for this.
[2:13:19] And I think it was insightful for me to review it
[2:13:22] because the existing zoning is commercial neighborhood,
[2:13:26] which would, according to the traffic studies
[2:13:28] that have been conducted, could lead to up to,
[2:13:33] well, 3,400 trips per day,
[2:13:36] depending on the type of commercial development.
[2:13:38] That's depending.
[2:13:39] I know that if we had South Valley equine,
[2:13:40] it would not be that.
[2:13:43] But because it's commercial neighborhood,
[2:13:45] that opens up a whole host of development options currently.
[2:13:48] I'm not saying that that's what we would have, but that was insightful for me to recognize
[2:13:53] that the existing zoning could actually mean a larger impact from a traffic standpoint
[2:13:57] on roadwood road than residential options.
[2:14:01] The residential options that are in this traffic study right now is up to 300 trips per day.
[2:14:08] I recognize that that does not include the right of way, the public road that would extend
[2:14:13] on 13, 50, 50 South or 135, 50 South.
[2:14:19] But the editing that's something that's helpful to understand
[2:14:21] is that as the current zoning stands,
[2:14:24] that we could see far more traffic than with residential.
[2:14:27] I'm not necessarily saying that advocate for the existing
[2:14:30] proposal, but it's a recognition that zoning can impact traffic.
[2:14:36] And if I could interject, I don't mean to interrupt you.
[2:14:39] But part of the reason I think maybe this speaks to some
[2:14:41] the questions that we had the conversations with you that that we did is you that absolutely
[2:14:48] controls access on to redwood road.
[2:14:50] So you dots response to those initial plans where they would not allow an access point on
[2:14:55] to redwood road.
[2:14:56] In that scenario, if access to Redwood Road went to...
[2:15:00] The only option for connection to this property and the property to the south would be the connections to 13550 and 1775, meaning all of the traffic could only flow through those roadways.
[2:15:14] That was not an acceptable situation certainly to staff as we reviewed and discussed it with the council.
[2:15:20] So this is absolutely the nature of a compromise, but it was one looking to preserve as best we could.
[2:15:26] the ability for as much of the traffic to flow on to redwood and not into the neighborhoods
[2:15:31] to help preserve and protect those areas.
[2:15:35] But you dot put us in what I will say, an impossible position of either not acknowledging
[2:15:43] that authority and being left with only connections to the neighborhood or seeking a compromise
[2:15:48] between you dot the applicant and the city that would at least preserve that access point
[2:15:53] on to redwood.
[2:15:54] And I apologize, I interrupted you as well.
[2:15:56] So you're totally good.
[2:15:56] The other question to how do I apologize for these questions,
[2:15:58] but just actually for the applicant, more in particular,
[2:16:02] how many more parking stalls are in this plan
[2:16:05] in the last time we saw it?
[2:16:07] And what is the total number of parking spaces proposed
[2:16:10] in this application?
[2:16:13] I'd have to count them.
[2:16:14] But 31 units with four parking spaces per unit,
[2:16:17] two car garage, two cars on the driveway.
[2:16:20] Okay, so what's that 124 on top of these?
[2:16:25] And then what you see there, there's also a few opportunities
[2:16:30] for parallel parking on the streets, which are not drawn on here,
[2:16:35] but on some of the sidewalk conditions,
[2:16:36] there's actually room to parallel park on the streets as well.
[2:16:41] Yeah, with a 28-foot wide section, you can park on one side of the street.
[2:16:49] So just for context, if it's all right, part of why, part of our discussion last time what we had this meeting, we talked about this application, is the recognition that parking, whenever something is approved, there is a spillover effect from parking that impacts neighborhoods.
[2:17:11] And the way that I go about approving or my vote on resones is I have a try to have a logical process.
[2:17:18] I appreciate that somebody asks, can you lay out your process of why you do things or why you don't do things?
[2:17:22] And for me, it's is it consistent or compatible with the general plan?
[2:17:26] If not, is it consistent or compatible with neighboring properties or other projects that are along this road?
[2:17:32] And neighboring properties know, but we have approved RM6 along Redwood Road.
[2:17:40] We haven't pushed for additional parking accommodations when improving that.
[2:17:49] This one, in particular, because we've been able to get approval for access on Redwood Road
[2:17:53] without making the connection within neighborhoods.
[2:17:56] Because you dot has an allowed us to do that, we were really concerned as a council,
[2:18:01] I mean, I'll speak for myself. I was concerned about approving this without having additional
[2:18:06] parking accommodations so that there would be less of an impact to the neighborhoods when
[2:18:12] 135 or 50 South is fully connected.
[2:18:16] That's why we said, hey, we'd like to see more parking
[2:18:19] options here as this is being discussed. Now RM6 is consistent with what we've seen in other parts of
[2:18:31] more sheep parking with RM6, or could be more garage parking.
[2:18:35] But that's at least the logic or the discussions
[2:18:36] that we've been having up to this point
[2:18:37] is we've been talking about these impacts to the neighborhoods
[2:18:40] of what does parking look like, and how does this
[2:18:42] bill over affect, what does this bill over affect look
[2:18:45] like in the community?
[2:18:48] I did have a question, Jason, in the traffic study,
[2:18:54] it said that it was assumed that a much of the traffic
[2:18:59] would go on redwood road.
[2:19:00] Can you just talk about that?
[2:19:02] Because when I look at this, realistically,
[2:19:05] I see a lot of, like the neighborhoods that exist,
[2:19:09] most people have to flow to 134th South,
[2:19:12] and then go either towards Redwood Road,
[2:19:16] or towards Bangerter, with the neighborhood going in here,
[2:19:20] I see more traffic flowing from the neighborhood
[2:19:24] to Redwood Road, using this as next point to Redwood Road,
[2:19:28] which could potentially reduce the traffic flows within the neighborhood for those residents
[2:19:32] that live closer to a proposed development going to one-thirty fourth and then turning
[2:19:38] under one-thirty-fourth-thirty red red red red red.
[2:19:39] So, can you talk about what that traffic study looked at?
[2:19:43] Yeah, the assumption that was made as part of that traffic study and this is when it says
[2:19:48] in assumption it doesn't mean someone just kind of flipped a coin.
[2:19:51] It means the traffic engineers that prepared this study did so in consideration of those
[2:19:57] that for this, the project area heat.
[2:20:01] The route to either one thirty-fourth or redwood through a future connection of one thirty-five fifty would be torturous, as maybe that's my own word, meaning it's not a direct route, and there isn't either time or convenience to be gained by going through the neighborhood and making their way down to one thirty-fourth or redwood.
[2:20:24] So, based on the future idea that 13550 is connected, the assumption and the modeling is that most
[2:20:32] of the traffic would just get directly on to Redwood Road.
[2:20:36] Even if they were looking to go west, even if the left turn were, they would look at that
[2:20:42] southbound movement on to Redwood Road.
[2:20:46] To your point about there being more advantage to this neighborhood to have an alternative
[2:20:52] point of access to Redwood is very much correct. That was why I will say we were somewhat
[2:20:58] surprised by U.S. requirement because their mandate to make that connection actually
[2:21:04] increases the volume of traffic on to Redwood Road. So that, when I say surprise, our expectation
[2:21:13] was not that they would do that. But yes, a future connection to 13550 would at least for kind
[2:21:19] the eastern portion of that roadway be a much more direct exit and would to your point
[2:21:26] serve to reduce traffic.
[2:21:28] Okay.
[2:21:28] Thank you.
[2:21:29] My last question is, and maybe we don't have a good answer for this, but why the delay on
[2:21:36] curbing gutter for these neighbourhoods is it an acquisition problem?
[2:21:42] We'd have to purchase easements, is there a concern with having to do on the note domain
[2:21:49] to acquire the land to do that, or what's been the challenge that's delayed this, because
[2:21:53] they know that there are portions of the city where that's been the case. Is that the
[2:21:57] case here? I'm listening very carefully to see if our public works director behind me is
[2:22:02] leaning towards the microphone. There you go. Exactly. That would be my guess. I have not done
[2:22:08] a property search to see where their property lines and the in the majority of these older
[2:22:12] neighborhoods they go to the edge of the roadway or even sometimes even into the roadway.
[2:22:17] So that point, yes, it'd be property acquisition to get the streets and drainage and everything like that to accommodate all that.
[2:22:24] And now that he stepped up, I'll give my portion on the answers.
[2:22:27] Well, those roadways typically, because this predates everyone in the, typically weren't developed with the idea that in the future,
[2:22:37] Kerb gutter and sidewalk would be installed. In many cases, the city back then had what's called
[2:22:42] the rural road standard where they made the conscious decision to leave Kerb gutter and sidewalk
[2:22:47] out of the design. So retrofitting those always proves to be challenging with utility placement
[2:22:54] and property lines. But I'm not specifically aware of how that decision was made, but for most
[2:23:00] of these subdivisions, it was a conscious design choice not to install it, not to preserve
[2:23:05] that space in the future and with very few exceptions we haven't moved in to
[2:23:12] to rectify that there's no more I don't have any more questions about a mirror
[2:23:15] but I do share the residents concern from a safety standpoint for having that
[2:23:20] public road go through the neighborhood without those improvements like I would
[2:23:26] be concerned with having the level of traffic volume increase transitioning from
[2:23:32] would road to this public right away without the safety improvements of curb and gut her
[2:23:37] inside of walk. And I think that in the long run eventually there's going to need to be that,
[2:23:43] but that would require a relationship and a process with the public and the city to go into
[2:23:50] purchasing the right away to make that happen. So I just acknowledging that that's a challenge that
[2:23:56] we would have to overcome at some point in the future.
[2:24:00] And it's not, I mean, as part of our strategic plan,
[2:24:04] that's one of the things I've asked
[2:24:05] is that we identify those areas of the cities
[2:24:07] that do not have curb and gutter, or not curb and gutter,
[2:24:11] but have sidewalks.
[2:24:12] Did determine whether we want to start spending money
[2:24:16] to make those improvements or not?
[2:24:18] I know there are some neighborhoods that would prefer not.
[2:24:21] So we need to, exactly.
[2:24:23] So we'll need to figure that out going forward.
[2:24:25] And it appeared that Councilmember Johnson, no, Councilmember Hayman, please.
[2:24:31] Thank you, Mayor.
[2:24:33] So I myself don't have so many, so much as a lot of questions,
[2:24:36] with all respect to fields don't I know they've been working on this now for a lot of time,
[2:24:41] just over a year I believe they've been working on this.
[2:24:44] My main concern is with the project in general and the fit into the existing neighborhood.
[2:24:49] It just doesn't fit, of course, we've seen that from the residents.
[2:24:53] This doesn't fit. What I'd love to see myself is just across the street. We have a great example.
[2:25:00] Of half-acre lots, the developed out beautifully right on redwood road. And I would love to see that. If not half-acre, I know third acre, or quarter acre, I know you can still make great money doing quarter acres there. I ran through a bunch of the numbers with the developer myself on what we could do there. And found to be very profitable, even with the expense of land right now. But I would love to see something that matches the existing.
[2:25:30] I'd love to see half acre.
[2:25:32] I'd like to see that there, maybe third.
[2:25:35] I think it'd be a great development.
[2:25:36] I know south of it.
[2:25:37] They're looking for larger lots as well.
[2:25:39] And it could become a beautiful new neighborhood there,
[2:25:43] that matches as much as existing.
[2:25:45] Versus trying to shoehorn in is something that
[2:25:51] yeah, it looks like Dave Raker.
[2:25:52] I call it communist break, but that's my own state.
[2:25:57] KELTSA membersmith.
[2:25:59] Thank you, Mayor.
[2:26:01] No clapping.
[2:26:03] Mr. Kennedy.
[2:26:04] Nope, you're not this kid.
[2:26:05] I apologize, but no clapping.
[2:26:07] I just wanted to question Jason.
[2:26:10] Let's see what was my question.
[2:26:12] Most of the areas around there are,
[2:26:14] Arves on Hapaker.
[2:26:15] Is that correct?
[2:26:16] That looks yellow on my map to me?
[2:26:18] Yes.
[2:26:18] Okay.
[2:26:19] That was my one question.
[2:26:20] We talked earlier in the works session.
[2:26:22] Oh, thank you for saying that.
[2:26:26] my family will be surprised. Okay, so what I had asked was most of the areas around it
[2:26:34] zone half acre and he said yes. So currently earlier in our work session we were talking
[2:26:39] about blended communities how you can kind of step down from R3 to R4 to R3 things like that.
[2:26:46] To me, it doesn't seem, it's more of a larger step and I echo what Councilmember Hayman says
[2:26:55] about maybe seeing if we can do something similar to that.
[2:26:59] My other question would be to the applicant.
[2:27:03] I think we asked for an RM6 map.
[2:27:05] Had did you draw that up?
[2:27:07] Would you have any examples of that?
[2:27:13] I don't have an example of that to show you.
[2:27:16] And that's only because we know that it doesn't work.
[2:27:21] It just doesn't pencil to put in the roads that the planning commission put in the road
[2:27:32] So it doesn't work.
[2:27:35] The properties better valued at a commercial use than it is in RM6.
[2:27:40] And while we are requesting an RM8, we, with the conditions we're asking for in that it's single family detached only.
[2:27:49] As you recall, I mean, like you said, we started this about a year ago, and it started with townhomes, right?
[2:27:54] And it's been worked to this single-family detached, and the density is actually falling just a little bit over seven units per acre, not counting the public street improvements off the property, right?
[2:28:07] So we're falling between those two densities, but we do recognize they were asking for different lots of standards and a private drive, private road section, right?
[2:28:18] So, you have questions about that?
[2:28:20] So, you're saying it's not an R.M. is not a, it maps out to be more like an R.7, even though
[2:28:26] it's your answer.
[2:28:26] Yeah, I mean, that doesn't exist.
[2:28:28] So, the development agreement is what handles that.
[2:28:31] And Jason could speak to that too, but the development agreement sets those standards and
[2:28:36] sets that, like you said, 31 lots of max.
[2:28:39] And for some reason, we have a problem.
[2:28:40] We can't fit it, then it becomes 30.
[2:28:43] Or whatever it becomes right when you get to final engineering.
[2:28:46] But yeah, so it's fixed by the development agreement to that density.
[2:28:50] And am I right or am I wrong Jason when it comes to RM's an idea of an RM's seven that maybe the silos is similar to an RM's seven?
[2:28:58] Or am I just making that out?
[2:29:00] No, that's correct.
[2:29:03] It's a little difficult to say because...
[2:29:05] It's not an exact match.
[2:29:06] It's not an exact match.
[2:29:07] Just trying to visualize it.
[2:29:08] Okay, that's all my questions.
[2:29:10] Thank you.
[2:29:10] Thank you.
[2:29:11] Thank you.
[2:29:12] Yes.
[2:29:12] Yes, so I'll be voting no on this. I don't like the density
[2:29:19] We've worked very hard and diligently whenever we have approved the 5,000 square foot lots
[2:29:25] Our development agreements have also been incredibly robust in what will be built on those lots the types of homes and the styles
[2:29:33] I am not advocating at all dropping down to a 3,000 square foot lot of zoning
[2:29:38] I don't like it and just don't think it belongs in our city
[2:29:43] a couple things all in and I want to be fair and communicate to everyone,
[2:29:51] all of these properties
[2:29:51] on Redwood Road to a degree are on the time clock.
[2:29:54] I'm going to be honest with you and I want the residents to be aware of that because there's
[2:29:58] so many access.
[2:30:00] Point, the U.S. is going to grant. And if those access points are used by other parcels of property and Jason can correct me if I'm wrong, up and down U.S., I mean, up and down road road, then it will eventually force them to these roads when they were approved. The expectation was that they would connect to these vacant properties. So I just, I always like to be fair enough, front and honest, the residents understand the battle we're fighting. And so, to a degree, that's just something.
[2:30:30] you're mind around because eventually if we don't access the rugby road as
[2:30:33] Councilman or Prutis talking about that traffic will be pushed into the
[2:30:37] interior streets because we can't control what they do. This is a perfect
[2:30:44] example to me is why I want Sunset Laws. When we approve this so again to be
[2:30:51] straight off the developer I do not consider this a commercial zone and I will
[2:30:54] do everything I can in the master plan to take it out of commercial zone when
[2:30:58] it achieved a commercial zoning, it was for a specific purpose.
[2:31:03] And because that purpose was not met, doesn't mean that the commercial zoning should
[2:31:07] stay in place.
[2:31:09] If we approve a specific need and that need doesn't take place, it's not fair to the residents
[2:31:14] who expected, hey, we were fine with that commercial zoning because we thought this would
[2:31:17] be what we were going to get.
[2:31:19] To have it now go something else, I think it's a bit disingenuous.
[2:31:23] And so that's why I'm a big fan of sunset laws counsel because we don't have these things
[2:31:28] over from 10, 15, 20 years ago approvals, this suddenly today, people are operating on in their decision-making.
[2:31:36] And so, yeah, just for me, it's two dance, and if we're going to go dance,
[2:31:41] I'm going to a very robust development agreement.
[2:31:43] I don't like generalities.
[2:31:46] I've been very clear on that.
[2:31:47] Another fairer to our city, where I think that's burned us.
[2:31:51] Councilmember Johnson.
[2:31:53] Yeah, thanks, Mayor.
[2:31:54] I think I'll probably be one of the more minority voice in this argument and that's okay.
[2:31:59] I think it's worth mentioning as I do believe the Timberline folks have had a lot of concessions,
[2:32:04] especially when we were just talking about parking and talking about the type of access.
[2:32:09] In previous council meetings, I've mentioned that this is an opportunity to build nice single family homes.
[2:32:15] I know the density is uncomfortable, I understand it.
[2:32:19] I also know that condos and town homes would be even more uncomfortable.
[2:32:22] I truly believe that, and I see this as an opportunity for Utahns to purchase single-family
[2:32:29] homes. I think we have to understand the more we fight this, the more opportunities where
[2:32:35] people are pushing people out of the American dream. I think it's the American dream is the
[2:32:40] pursuit of home ownership. And I think I can talk about it. I'm a seven-generation Riverton resident.
[2:32:45] I'll never be able to afford most of the houses in our city, which is okay. But I think my kids
[2:32:50] and most of my generation will never be able to afford a house.
[2:32:53] I think if you own a house, you plant your roots.
[2:32:56] You care about your community.
[2:32:57] You're not just renting to be in a cheap house and then move on to somewhere else.
[2:33:01] You're being part of the community.
[2:33:03] So again, I agree with Councilman McDougall.
[2:33:05] I think this is an idea where sunset was, where we have a framework
[2:33:10] of what our general plan actually looks like.
[2:33:12] So it's not this patchwork plan.
[2:33:14] And we actually decide what we want Redwood Road to look like
[2:33:17] for the future of our city.
[2:33:19] Thank you very much. Councilmember Poverty and then hopefully we can have somebody make a motion.
[2:33:26] Yeah, I miss been a lot of my time previously asking questions since I just thought I'd share a few thoughts.
[2:33:31] I've already laid out how I like to go about with resumes is looking at consistent use.
[2:33:35] This isn't consistent with the neighboring property.
[2:33:38] Oh, that's my fault, I believe.
[2:33:41] I'm eating it a little more. Okay.
[2:33:43] We don't usually have all the way to the back.
[2:33:50] But to count some of our McDougall's point, the existing zoning here is not going to be the long-term future for this property.
[2:34:00] Nor is a state density for this undeveloped plan because of the way that it's shaped.
[2:34:08] And the road requirements that we have for that level of zoning as well.
[2:34:15] And because of the U.Control of Redwood Road.
[2:34:18] If you look at the layout here, it's just not going to be feasible to put half-acre lots.
[2:34:25] Because you can't put enough half-acre lots facing Redwood Road.
[2:34:28] And then you have to expand 1775 West and expand 1350.
[2:34:32] There's one, 35, 55, 50 South.
[2:34:35] Gosh, I hate our numbers sometimes.
[2:34:39] And the feasibility of doing that is just not there.
[2:34:42] And so to Councilmember McDougall's point,
[2:34:45] we as a community need to figure out
[2:34:47] what work comfortable with on Redwood Road.
[2:34:50] Up to this point, other neighborhoods on Redwood Road
[2:34:52] have said that happy median is a buffer of RM6
[2:34:57] on Redwood Road.
[2:34:58] They create a buffer for...
[2:35:00] The community's further in off of redwood road. That's what we've seen within the last few years of approvals.
[2:35:09] And so I just encourage the neighborhood to think about that.
[2:35:13] And I always say, I really want to mention that in your comments that that's what the Planning Commission recommended.
[2:35:18] I recognize the applicant says that that may not be feasible from their businesses perspective, but some others have made it feasible.
[2:35:27] So for me, it's I agree that we need to have more housing and I've been very supportive of most
[2:35:34] reason applications.
[2:35:35] I appreciate the concessions that have been made to get this to more parking.
[2:35:41] I am honestly concerned that if this becomes NARM 6, there's still not going to be enough parking.
[2:35:47] And you're still going to see an impact in your neighborhoods.
[2:35:51] And that's that's that's reality that I think we're going to have to be dealing with is how how this is going to grow in the long term.
[2:35:56] But I also don't think that we have to make every single decision tonight or whenever an application is approved.
[2:36:05] In this development process, we take what's before us and have overarching general plans to prepare for the future.
[2:36:13] As was stated by staff, we don't know what's going to happen with the land south of here.
[2:36:17] It may never be sold or it may never be developed. It will likely be sold. I recognize that it's not likely.
[2:36:23] but we don't know, and we can't make decisions fully based upon unknowns.
[2:36:30] Likewise, this is a balancing act, guys.
[2:36:33] I mean, we don't own this land.
[2:36:35] We own our own personal land, but we don't own every single piece of property.
[2:36:39] And we have, as a community, to give, do some give and take.
[2:36:42] And it's a tricky balance, balancing personal property rights of the owners that are applying for changes versus the personal property rights of existing owners in surrounding communities.
[2:36:52] And so just I want to throw that out there that that's something that we're trying to balance and it's it. We're not perfect at it, but it's something we grapple with.
[2:36:59] Mayor, if I could.
[2:37:02] As I indicated earlier, the planning commissions recommended motion because it.
[2:37:08] Proceeded you dot decision that language does not work. I prepared an alternative motion based on the proposal by the applicant. I very quickly.
[2:37:16] If and only if the Council were wanting to move forward with the RM-6, it made some modifications
[2:37:23] to create an alternative motion number two, which would resume the property to RM-6, set
[2:37:28] lot, size, and setbacks at RM-6.
[2:37:31] The remaining issues would need to be addressed regardless of the density, meaning the gate.
[2:37:37] The connection is required by U-DOT and then perimeter fencing and modifications to the
[2:37:46] to make a motion for RM6. This would address the issues there. And with the motion of that type,
[2:37:55] the form of this would remain the same, meaning the access would still be off of this point of
[2:38:00] Redwood Road with a gated access point on 1775. But I did just quickly put that together for the council's
[2:38:07] convenience if needed. Okay, I think we've had plenty of discussion. I think the rest is very
[2:38:13] for coming in for your thoughtful feedback and comments and I'm
[2:38:18] looking for a council member to make a motion of some sort.
[2:38:24] And if someone will just direct me to which motion you'd like on the screen, I'm happy to.
[2:38:28] Okay, council member Hayman.
[2:38:31] Thank you, Mayor.
[2:38:33] Mayor as we've seen tonight, there's a definite push back against what has been proposed here.
[2:38:38] And so I'm going to make a motion to nigh the ordinance number 26-06 and get something new down the road.
[2:38:48] So my motion is to deny.
[2:38:51] Okay, we have a motion to deny in a second, so we'll take a roll call vote.
[2:38:59] Count some members Smith.
[2:39:03] We're to deny, right?
[2:39:04] Yes.
[2:39:06] McDougle.
[2:39:08] Roachie?
[2:39:09] Yes.
[2:39:09] Jopson?
[2:39:10] No.
[2:39:11] Hey, man.
[2:39:13] Yes.
[2:39:14] Thank you, sir.
[2:39:16] Okay.
[2:39:16] That motion does not pass and ordinance number 26-06.
[2:39:21] The motion passes.
[2:39:22] The motion passes.
[2:39:23] The project was denied.
[2:39:24] Thank you.
[2:39:24] The application was denied.
[2:39:26] Okay.
[2:39:27] Very good.
[2:39:28] Does not pass.
[2:39:30] Thank you all very much.
[2:39:31] We'll move to ordinance number 26-16.
[2:39:41] Sorry.
[2:39:42] I didn't know if you'd turn the time over to me.
[2:39:44] No, I'm going to wait just a minute.
[2:39:45] I'm assuming some races would like to
[2:39:49] don't have to, you're welcome to stay for the second one, absolutely.
[2:40:12] Well, I apologize to you, I didn't see your card, you know, he doesn't need me, what I'm going to do. You're afraid.
[2:40:20] I apologize. I think I took your card and laid it out. I apologize. Do
[2:40:52] you
[2:40:59] want to stay and make your comment?
[2:41:01] I'm certain that I'm going to take your attention for you, because it's my fault.
[2:41:08] That's fine. I deserve it. Yes, sir. I'm saying that was driving. I usually use my, I don't like to spend. I know. I know it's not just me. I don't like to have a car because he's being here in my in-laws. No, I'm so excited. So I just fit in my house. You know that's a poison. That's okay. But he's like driving a work truck.
[2:41:35] Unless you get 70% of our $165 to 80% rate, let's take a turn.
[2:41:40] And let's delay two parodly.
[2:41:43] So sorry about that.
[2:41:49] Your contacts are working well, look, I got you four.
[2:41:53] I wanted to, I know.
[2:41:55] I was trying to take you but I know there was a different number.
[2:41:57] But I was just saying, hi.
[2:41:59] Congratulations, Wendy.
[2:42:00] I gave you your number a while ago.
[2:42:03] Let's see if we can pull this meeting back together and let's move on to ordinance number 26-16.
[2:42:11] Majestic homes rezone.
[2:42:15] We will once again go with the order we did before.
[2:42:17] Mr. Lethbridge then we'll have the developer and then we'll move to public comments.
[2:42:27] I suppose we'll wait for a quorum.
[2:42:29] We do not.
[2:42:29] Well, okay.
[2:42:32] Good call.
[2:42:32] Carry on.
[2:43:04] Councilmember Perruti.
[2:43:09] Thank you.
[2:43:11] All right.
[2:43:12] Let's move on.
[2:43:13] Horton is number 26-16.
[2:43:16] Mr. Lethbridge, please.
[2:43:17] This application was heard previously by the city council.
[2:43:29] This was heard previously by the council.
[2:43:31] It was tabled in that previous meeting.
[2:43:33] So I will just quickly go through the information on the property.
[2:43:37] It is located, and this is looking south on Redwood Road at 135-50 south and Redwood Road.
[2:43:43] It is 3.1, I'm sorry, 131-50.
[2:43:47] I'm going back to the previous application.
[2:43:49] Sorry, 131-50.
[2:43:51] Just over three acres of ground.
[2:43:53] You can see it's not quite rectangular.
[2:43:55] There's two homes that you can see that aren't part of that outland area that are not part of the project area.
[2:43:59] And it does extend back to 1830 West.
[2:44:02] The general plan for the property is medium density residential.
[2:44:05] So this application is to amend both the general plan and the zoning for the property.
[2:44:11] Oddly similar to the previous application, the current zoning is a mix of commercial neighborhood and our 22.
[2:44:20] Similarly that commercial neighborhood designation was put in place quite some time ago in response to an application to the then owner of the Barrett's blossoms, which was on the east side of the road.
[2:44:30] his intent was to move that over if that was why the zoning is put in place they did not follow through with that.
[2:44:37] I'm going to skip through that.
[2:44:38] The application is for RM14, but as we have discussed previously that is because they are looking at
[2:44:46] a density between 9 and 10 units per acre.
[2:44:48] We do not have a zone that accommodates that directly so they're asking for.
[2:44:53] The applicant is asking for the RM14 zone.
[2:44:56] I'll show the numbers in just a sec.
[2:44:58] I'm going to very quickly go through iterate.
[2:45:00] So, the original concept plan was for predominantly five plexus with some three plexus attached units based on conversations and feedback from the planning commission in council that was modified and then modified a final time for what is being presented for approval by the applicant which is twin homes and I'm going to zoom in here.
[2:45:22] So, while the zone would be RM-14, the density and unit count that is being requested
[2:45:31] is, as you see, summarized there, this design is 30 units on that 3.1 for acres is 9.5 units per acre.
[2:45:42] As with the previous application, but in a more simplified form, if the council were to approve this,
[2:45:48] It would be with those stipulations of 30 units.
[2:45:52] So whether the applicant or any future developer
[2:45:55] developed, it would be done so with that.
[2:45:57] That is true of any form of zone or zoning that would be put
[2:46:02] on this.
[2:46:02] It would run with the land, not with the applicant themselves.
[2:46:07] And I'll let the applicant speak to these.
[2:46:09] These are some images that he asked to be displayed tonight.
[2:46:12] The planning commission forwarded this with an application
[2:46:16] to deny, which would leave the zoning at R-22 and C-N, a sample motion for the Council's
[2:46:23] convenience if necessary is prepared.
[2:46:26] It does stipulate, as I indicated, that while the zoning is R-14 SD, those SD designations
[2:46:33] would limit it to the 30 units as proposed, asphalt width of 27 feet, things of that
[2:46:39] nature.
[2:46:40] The Council can certainly modify these numbers or conditions as necessary, but again, the
[2:46:45] and commission's recommendation was for denial.
[2:46:50] Thank you very much.
[2:46:52] The developer, please.
[2:46:56] Thank you, Mr. Guest.
[2:47:04] I'm Kevin Guest.
[2:47:05] Mr. Guest.
[2:47:05] David Larson.
[2:47:06] Thanks, Mayor and Council.
[2:47:08] Men and women.
[2:47:09] Nice to see you all again.
[2:47:11] Well, we've come before you today with another iteration.
[2:47:16] And we've talked with many, many people.
[2:47:19] We've actually even had our neighbors.
[2:47:21] And some of them don't even care for this.
[2:47:24] I guess most of them didn't even care for this iteration as far as what we presented.
[2:47:29] We have spent some time driving around Riverton to see where some twin homes have been built
[2:47:34] in the city and that was the pictures that we showed you earlier.
[2:47:40] The thing that we really want to highlight here is this one on the left is on 118th and
[2:47:46] just not the 36. The one on the right is in the business. And the one below you is directly
[2:47:54] behind the sinclair. They have a good look. They have a good, you know, these are all low-level
[2:48:01] type properties.
[2:48:04] It keeps, you know, it keeps kind of a common Ramler per se look with lots of
[2:48:10] landscape and green space around it. One thing that, if I can help Jason, one thing that wasn't
[2:48:14] said our project remained about 42% green space, I believe, with this new concept. So it's
[2:48:25] very open. There's a lot of open space, a lot of green, a lot of trees, and those
[2:48:30] things which, now this is our point of view and please if we offend somebody, we don't
[2:48:35] mean to. We really think this could clean up this area and give it a whole new look and
[2:48:41] generate and rejuvenate this particular area, as well as put some really nice buildings
[2:48:49] in homes for people that would want to move into the river to an area. As far as Jason mentioned,
[2:48:57] we've gone down from many units to these units with the understanding that we've tried to meet
[2:49:04] the river to encode the whole way through. As far as density, as far as what the density would
[2:49:10] for road sizes. Parking spaces, a little park, extra parking, driveway, lengths, and a wide garage
[2:49:20] that was recommended by Councilman Hamon.
[2:49:25] So we're hopeful. We think it's a really nice product.
[2:49:31] We're hoping, you know, your eyes can look at it and see what we've seen it and the time we
[2:49:36] on it, but I really have only one suggestion. In our meeting with the neighbors, there was
[2:49:45] a lot of talk about the RM6. And quite frankly, we don't look at RM6 or this, as the
[2:49:53] density we look at what fits and how it functions and how it works. This really performs
[2:50:00] Well, with traffic, with the access is in and out, and the livability, it's really, it works with this
[2:50:09] type of housing product. Understanding that there's, you know, there's not this particular zoning
[2:50:17] within this particular area, but it's not far from the town center, and there's other
[2:50:30] We appreciate your time and your considerations and the conversations that we've had with
[2:50:36] you all.
[2:50:37] And honestly, we appreciate our neighbor meeting.
[2:50:40] There was a lot of questions answered that night, a lot of concerns.
[2:50:45] We hope to address even more tonight.
[2:50:48] But we also have an open mind to what our neighbors and our residents in the area,
[2:50:57] you know, have their concerns as well, Dave.
[2:51:01] Yeah, I appreciate you guys listen to us again.
[2:51:04] And I do appreciate the time we got to spend with the neighbors
[2:51:06] and hear what they had to say.
[2:51:08] And just so they know that, you know, they've seen this.
[2:51:13] You know, and so just so they know that this is what you guys
[2:51:16] had seen prior to, we can change anything
[2:51:19] because this is already, I think, approved to be set to this date.
[2:51:23] So we're just sticking with this.
[2:51:26] We do think it works great as far as the internet outs.
[2:51:29] I know that a lot of concern was as traffic,
[2:51:34] extra parking.
[2:51:35] They do all have two car garages,
[2:51:40] extra parking spaces.
[2:51:44] One concern was, which I totally understand,
[2:51:47] going out on 1830, drain school time.
[2:51:52] That's always been a nightmare.
[2:51:54] That's from my kids went to school and it was a nightmare.
[2:51:57] But I think with the options they have here,
[2:52:01] I don't think most people are going to go down that way
[2:52:05] and turn and go if they're leaving at that time
[2:52:09] that schools coming, I don't think they're going to,
[2:52:13] either whether they're coming to school or leaving,
[2:52:15] that they're going to go out and turn and go south.
[2:52:17] I think they're going to go one of the two or three other options
[2:52:21] they could go out, they could go out that road and turn north or they could go out, you
[2:52:25] know, on to 1, 3, 1, and 50, and then go either back to the western or back to Redwood
[2:52:33] Road.
[2:52:35] So, there's several options for that, so I don't, I don't, I wouldn't want to be caught up in that,
[2:52:42] in that parking, you know, mess with the school how it is, because I know how it is.
[2:52:48] And that was a good concern and we care about the kids and the well-being of them as well and want to make sure they're safe as possible.
[2:52:59] But anyway, just so the people that are here that we're in that meeting understand that this is what we had submitted.
[2:53:05] And so this is kind of what we had to go by and we'll go from there.
[2:53:12] Thank you both very much for being here for your comments.
[2:53:16] Okay, we will open the public comment portion of this meeting and we'll first hear from Ashley
[2:53:22] Mobley and I had some expectation that she may be able to speak for several of you and so if that's true
[2:53:28] that would that would be excellent and just let us know. Ashley.
[2:53:33] Mayor would you like me to allocate additional time?
[2:53:37] There?
[2:53:38] Are you speaking for a group?
[2:53:40] Well I'm not sure because I'm not right.
[2:53:43] I'm not sure either because I'm confused.
[2:53:44] I feel like we weren't at the same meeting last week, so I'll say what I have to say three minutes.
[2:53:51] Thank you.
[2:53:52] So I'm just baffled to be really honest.
[2:53:56] We had a meeting on the 26th.
[2:53:57] We had about 34 people show up.
[2:53:58] I feel like we had a really good turnout.
[2:54:00] Spencer was there.
[2:54:01] Jason was there.
[2:54:01] And I want to thank Kevin and Dave for being willing to meet with us.
[2:54:05] It took us a minute to get there, but we got there.
[2:54:07] I guess I'm just frustrated because the original plan,
[2:54:10] if I'm remembering, was 38 houses and there's only 8 taken away from this.
[2:54:14] We were very, from what I gleaned from the meeting and talking to my neighbors.
[2:54:22] People are wanting the RM6 single-family homes, not the twin homes.
[2:54:27] They feel like they want a single-family home in this area.
[2:54:31] A lot of the concerns were brought up to be honest.
[2:54:34] It's just feels like the meeting.
[2:54:36] I mean, it's fine to have the meeting and be hurt.
[2:54:38] There's no problem with that.
[2:54:40] And listening to people's concerns, but I left the meeting feeling hopeful.
[2:54:43] And I just feel like quite frankly, we're back to square one with this whole thing.
[2:54:48] I've spoken with every person on this council individually and voiced my concerns.
[2:54:54] And if it stands where the conversations were, then it was going to be voted down, that's up to you.
[2:55:00] Tonight, I understand minds can change with information. I'm just a little frustrated, I guess. I, again, I appreciate having the
[2:55:07] neighbor meeting in the time. I feel like it's important to do those things with the developers. I feel like it gets
[2:55:12] frustrated as you concerns out. I just don't even feel like we made any headway now, based on what
[2:55:18] it's presented here tonight. So I would ask for this to be denied. I was hoping to come and have some kind
[2:55:23] of compromise.
[2:55:25] I don't love the idea of even RM6 to be really honest.
[2:55:28] I do think we need progress.
[2:55:30] I'm kind of with Spencer.
[2:55:31] I don't think there's any reason why these couldn't be
[2:55:34] quarter acres.
[2:55:35] There's no reason at all.
[2:55:37] I'm not going to get into all of the financial,
[2:55:40] all of that.
[2:55:40] It doesn't matter right now.
[2:55:42] But the compromise, I feel like all the neighbors
[2:55:44] were willing to do RM6 and feel like that would be a great
[2:55:48] addition.
[2:55:49] I do think this needs to be developed.
[2:55:50] I think it could be, they build beautiful homes.
[2:55:53] but I feel like RM6 would be that compromise.
[2:55:57] So I would ask for it to be not even table but denied tonight.
[2:56:01] Thank you.
[2:56:02] Thank you.
[2:56:03] Dave?
[2:56:04] Hopefully.
[2:56:11] Good evening Mayor Council.
[2:56:13] Just like Ash said, I really appreciate Kevin and Dave having a meeting with us and talking through the plan.
[2:56:19] I thought that was really great.
[2:56:21] To echo what I said, I think the best use of this would obviously be in R6.
[2:56:26] I don't really think the density needs to go much lower than that.
[2:56:31] We have had good success talking with other developers and I think, you know, really this
[2:56:37] should be denied and let the developer reapply as in R6 and go through that process and
[2:56:45] get this done.
[2:56:46] I know Kevin and Dave build beautiful home, so whatever they put there, I think would be great,
[2:56:52] but making sure that this fits within the area, it dresses the concerns of the neighbors,
[2:56:56] I think would go a long way.
[2:56:58] So my request is that you tonight, this, thank you.
[2:57:01] Awesome, thanks Dave.
[2:57:03] Tana Hill, or Tana Hill.
[2:57:07] Tana,
[2:57:12] after who?
[2:57:18] Brooke Hill.
[2:57:19] Okay, thank you.
[2:57:26] Thanks Council for listening to me tonight.
[2:57:28] I am the Brook Hills on the corner that's been surrounded by this, this is a atrocity that
[2:57:33] has got on the screen.
[2:57:36] When I, before I bought my home, when I was searching the river to an area, I was looking
[2:57:41] for why open space.
[2:57:44] That's why I chose this area.
[2:57:46] When I, before I bought my house, I was asked what's going to happen behind me.
[2:57:51] I was told a house to either side and a flower shop on the road.
[2:57:55] So that's not what this is.
[2:57:59] I'm fine with the house, either side and the flower shop on the road.
[2:58:01] I'm not fine with this.
[2:58:06] I don't know, I mean, we look at the traffic flow.
[2:58:09] Every vehicle that goes north down,
[2:58:11] will have to impact my house.
[2:58:13] Every vehicle, you can't make a left turn on redwood.
[2:58:18] This is not what is good for the area.
[2:58:21] It doesn't fit the area.
[2:58:23] My request would be to kick everything back to our 22.
[2:58:25] That fits the area.
[2:58:29] That's it.
[2:58:30] Awesome.
[2:58:31] Thank you.
[2:58:32] Ta-ta.
[2:58:34] Okay.
[2:58:38] Dean Orkinton.
[2:58:45] I would also add my voice.
[2:58:48] And thank you for hearing us.
[2:58:51] We came to the meeting last week, and we expected that the developers would give us
[2:58:55] Some form of a drawing look so that it might look like an RM6 so that we could have some
[2:59:05] idea.
[2:59:06] When we talked about it, we expressed that we talked back and forth and we were told that
[2:59:14] if we went RM6 we might get about 20 homes.
[2:59:19] And even that's more than what we would like to have, but at least that would be single family
[2:59:25] homes. It wouldn't be somebody else right in your wall. And you're not, you're not having
[2:59:31] the argument that can go with that. I have a son who lives in a town home. He's got, it's
[2:59:38] either four or five. He has only the house itself. He doesn't have a property. He has nothing
[2:59:44] because it's in our way. So he has no say over anything except what's inside. And he's got
[2:59:51] three bedrooms, but what can he do? He can't have a family there and he's about to get married.
[3:00:00] Ultimately, he's going to have to find a place. He'd love to be able to move back here, but he doesn't want to live in that kind of a place either.
[3:00:08] We have a grave concern about the roads that lead out onto 1830 West, right there where the school is at.
[3:00:16] It's not just that it's going back and forth there. When children are being picked up, the cars already are part of bumper to bumper, while they're waiting to get children.
[3:00:28] It's not safe because it turns it into a one-lane road.
[3:00:33] There's not enough space.
[3:00:35] With 20 homes, you would still have at least 30 to 50 cars,
[3:00:42] adding traffic.
[3:00:44] As they have children, the children will grow.
[3:00:47] You'll get teenagers.
[3:00:48] You'll have somebody coming to visit.
[3:00:51] It's not really a feasible way to keep our city
[3:00:55] the rural place that we moved here for.
[3:00:59] It doesn't fit what we moved here for.
[3:01:01] And I would encourage you either, too,
[3:01:04] as expressed, deny the application,
[3:01:08] or if you are going to do something
[3:01:11] no more than an RM6.
[3:01:13] Thank you.
[3:01:20] We'll hear from Louise Jones,
[3:01:21] and she'll be followed by Travis Christensen.
[3:01:29] Hello.
[3:01:30] So my name is Louise Jones,
[3:01:32] And I personally think that well, my dad used to love driving on like a specific road because it always made him feel like you lived in the country.
[3:01:48] In our last neighborhood, my mom would always complain because she woke up to like speeding cars and washing and stuff.
[3:01:54] And then when we moved here, suddenly like there's horses and chickens and cats and dogs and it's really amazing.
[3:02:06] I don't know if any of you have ever seen the movie, Liberty, Prulse, or Little Prince.
[3:02:11] It's based off of a very famous children's book.
[3:02:16] And in the movie, this little girl moves into a neighborhood with her mother.
[3:02:21] But the neighborhood, all of the houses are black and white and every single one is identical for blocks and blocks and there are just cars going out long in a specific grid pattern and everything is going like boring and I don't want our town to be like that we love this town because of the happy feeling that comes along here without the
[3:02:49] Like, Cityfield has a nice, really happy suburban community,
[3:02:57] and please don't ruin it, and I think that having just little family homes where they can have their plot of land and feel like someone who's grown up.
[3:03:15] I personally feel like every time that I go into something they always change it to try to
[3:03:22] benefit everyone. But really I just want to be like my parents. And I feel like that might
[3:03:29] be what our young people want as well. And so when they move here they want a house with
[3:03:33] a little plot of land where they can garden. And if they can save up for it by a trampoline
[3:03:39] and raise a family. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, next. Travis
[3:03:48] Christianson and he will be followed by David Cuff. Thank you. So I just had two
[3:03:55] two comments that I wanted to make tonight. As so one of them is, I
[3:03:59] occurred to me as I was thinking about this development that we are currently
[3:04:04] are our dash 2 to 2, which is the second lowest zoning in the city of Riverton. And we're
[3:04:14] making a move to RM14, which is the second highest density in Riverton. And so we're skipping
[3:04:22] over five different zones that are in between that. And just skip over those five zones and
[3:04:28] jump straight to RM14. It seems like too big of a jump. And I think it's incompatible with
[3:04:37] the surrounding areas. That's my first point. And my second point is one of the big drivers
[3:04:44] for my family when we came to here, where they've just outside of this boundary, is the proximity
[3:04:50] to the school. And I think the lack of sidewalks in this area, that's a little bit concerned to
[3:04:58] is as a father with me.
[3:05:00] Many children that I'll walk to school. I would not feel comfortable having my children walk just on the road.
[3:05:06] And so, I think that if we continue to look at a development like this, I would encourage looking at sidewalks more,
[3:05:14] because I think that there would be these families, there would be this area would be appealing to families with children.
[3:05:20] And we just want to keep them safe. Thank you. Thank you very much.
[3:05:24] David Cuff followed by Darlin Relland.
[3:05:30] Good to see everyone again.
[3:05:33] I went to the neighborhood meeting last week.
[3:05:35] I was hoping for some brainstorming.
[3:05:37] We really didn't get that.
[3:05:39] One thing I'd like to suggest would be the lot between my house
[3:05:43] and the Hill Household that it's day RR-22.
[3:05:47] That would solve one of the big concerns about the four-way stop
[3:05:50] leading into the school.
[3:05:51] It would preserve what I bought into and what they bought into.
[3:05:56] And then we could have a conversation more focused on the rest of the lot.
[3:06:03] And I would like to say this way, I would just does not work.
[3:06:07] It doesn't tie into the neighborhood.
[3:06:10] The photos that were presented don't match what's on the screen here.
[3:06:13] This is a single sidewalk going down the side of a garage.
[3:06:16] Those photos had actual housing frontage.
[3:06:23] What else do I have?
[3:06:24] I mean, you have extensive emails from me going back for a while.
[3:06:28] I haven't seen any of my concerns truly addressed.
[3:06:31] So I won't rehash all of that right now.
[3:06:35] As far as Fencing goes, once this does get approved,
[3:06:39] we need large animal barrier on the south side,
[3:06:43] either precast concrete or block,
[3:06:45] masonry, something like that.
[3:06:48] I thought we might talk about that at the neighborhood meeting,
[3:06:50] but we're focused on other stuff until I had to leave.
[3:06:56] That's basically it.
[3:06:59] Thank you.
[3:06:59] Thank you.
[3:07:00] Thank you very much.
[3:07:02] Darlin Roland.
[3:07:04] And then he will be followed by Jenny Roland.
[3:07:06] And she will be followed by James Kidman.
[3:07:09] That's the end of the comments for this one.
[3:07:11] Please come forward.
[3:07:15] Uh-huh.
[3:07:19] My apologies.
[3:07:21] I read that incorrectly.
[3:07:22] Would you like to come up and still speak?
[3:07:35] I'm sorry. I got misinformation on that one. So I apologize to you. Okay, so Jenny, Rowan, is she gone?
[3:07:45] It's Jerry. Jerry? Okay. Very good. And Jane's Kidman.
[3:07:56] Thank you. I sure many of the same comments. I live just outside of this area. This puts 60 plus cars into a school area.
[3:08:06] I think they've mentioned the left turns on or off of Redwood Road.
[3:08:12] I think it's 131.50.
[3:08:13] Wanted to be able to make left hand turns out on the Redwood.
[3:08:16] People are traveling northbound on Redwood.
[3:08:18] Wanted to be able to turn left into this neighborhood.
[3:08:23] The stop signs that are currently on.
[3:08:26] Once they're on 1830.
[3:08:28] People already roll through that.
[3:08:29] There's already lots of complaints to the police about people
[3:08:32] rolling through that during school drop off and pick up.
[3:08:37] I personally live on one of those roads to kids.
[3:08:39] Don't watch traffic.
[3:08:41] They just run straight through those intersections.
[3:08:44] And if you're not watching them,
[3:08:46] there's going to be more kids hit with more cars.
[3:08:49] I know last school year there was a child hit
[3:08:52] around this time of year at school pickup.
[3:08:55] And then Robert and police came and assisted
[3:08:57] for an entire week of school pickup.
[3:09:00] During the recent bomb threat,
[3:09:01] But please, and firefighters couldn't even get to the school because of the gridlock in front
[3:09:07] of the school.
[3:09:10] Honestly, from my perspective, I think it's been said, it shouldn't be even RM6.
[3:09:15] It should be R4 or lower.
[3:09:17] Most of the homes, my home is a quarter acre.
[3:09:19] The other homes in the neighborhood are third or quarter acre.
[3:09:23] I think you've heard enough comments from everyone.
[3:09:26] Please reject it or limit down the number of homes for safety.
[3:09:31] Thank you very much. Thank you all for being so respectful. Is there anyone that hasn't had an opportunity to speak to this reason that wants to?
[3:09:39] Okay, I missed anyone else.
[3:09:42] Okay. We will close public comments and turn it back to the council for comments, questions and motion.
[3:09:52] Mayor, could I just make a brief comment? Please do.
[3:09:55] Just because of the complexity of the previous application.
[3:10:00] And the development agreement that was accompanied that, the way a motion would be couched was given.
[3:10:05] If the council were desirous to make a motion to approve this at a zoning other than what was asked.
[3:10:13] It can just be a reason to, and I'll just use an example of RM6. If the council desired to do that,
[3:10:19] you could just make the motion to approve it RM6. Those standards would stand,
[3:10:23] meaning the fact that we don't have a drawing to illustrate that.
[3:10:27] any development of the property would just be subject to the requirements of the RM60 and that
[3:10:34] would include in a subdivision fencing and other things, that certainly isn't how that
[3:10:40] has to occur.
[3:10:41] But in this case, different from the previous one, if there's a different zone that the Council
[3:10:46] would wish to apply the motion to approve good just before that zone.
[3:10:50] Thank you for that clarification.
[3:10:52] Councilmember Proudtee.
[3:10:54] Thank you.
[3:10:55] I don't have a ton of questions.
[3:10:57] I'm just going to say a couple of things that I said last time to what I shared in the last
[3:11:03] reason on discussion stands.
[3:11:05] This area is going to change.
[3:11:08] If it doesn't necessarily have to change this drastically, but there is going to be some
[3:11:13] change, especially for the properties facing redwood road just given the traffic volumes
[3:11:17] for staying on redwood road.
[3:11:19] So I think most people recognize that, that's likely the future here.
[3:11:23] That being said, I mean, this is, I've already shared my logic on how I go about with
[3:11:28] three zones.
[3:11:28] This is incompatible with existing zoning, this is incompatible with neighboring properties.
[3:11:33] This is incompatible with our precedent.
[3:11:34] We have only approved RM14 on two locations on Redwood Road.
[3:11:38] One is closer to Vangeter because it's Vangeter Highway.
[3:11:42] The other is on the border of Riverton and South Jordan, which was a continuation of a development
[3:11:48] in South Jordan that was at the exact same zoning level.
[3:11:51] So, for that, I make a motion to deny the application.
[3:11:56] Okay, are you making a-
[3:11:57] I move the City Council deny ordinance 26-16.
[3:12:03] Is there a second?
[3:12:04] We do have other council members that would like to comment.
[3:12:08] Okay, we have a motion and we have a second.
[3:12:12] Roll call vote, please.
[3:12:13] Just one second.
[3:12:17] All right.
[3:12:17] Council member Prucci.
[3:12:19] Yes.
[3:12:19] McDougle?
[3:12:20] Yes.
[3:12:21] Johnson?
[3:12:22] Yes.
[3:12:23] Smith?
[3:12:24] Amen. Yes. Okay. Thank you. The motion is denied. You all. Yes. Councilmember Johnson would like to make comment. Please.
[3:12:36] I do want to explain my rationale behind this one. I might comment on principal remain the same, but I think the difference between this project and the previous project.
[3:12:45] This is a smaller acre project with higher density and that other project led into Redwood Road.
[3:12:52] This one leads into a school, right?
[3:12:54] And so if you have that density, I think that outlet made a difference in the previous one.
[3:12:59] What I'm uncomfortable with is that zoning.
[3:13:01] And I do think to reiterate kind of the previous points that Councilman Prucci made in our work session,
[3:13:08] Utah Realtors Association came out with new numbers that in order to buy a single family home.
[3:13:13] the household income needs to be $200,000.
[3:13:17] So I mean, I don't know many people
[3:13:18] that make that much money in their household.
[3:13:20] And so I think, of course, this to me just doesn't fit,
[3:13:24] exactly what Councilman Purchy said,
[3:13:25] what we think for this area, knowing that there needs to be
[3:13:28] a change, and there needs to be some given go with us.
[3:13:32] To my point, I think that R6
[3:13:34] or R8 would have been a better solution.
[3:13:36] I do think though, looking into the future,
[3:13:39] we need to get better general plans, so you know what,
[3:13:41] to expect and what residents can expect in the future.
[3:13:45] Along Redwood Road but also throughout our city.
[3:13:50] Okay, thank you very much.
[3:13:51] All right, we will move to the general citizen comment portion of the meeting.
[3:13:56] We do have a close session tonight which is expected to be rather extensive.
[3:14:01] So for that reason, we will make general public comments until probably about 20 till.
[3:14:08] And then we will close this meeting.
[3:14:12] So we will start with Dina Long, please.
[3:14:21] Dina, you'll be followed by Todd, Chris Jinsson.
[3:14:25] Mayor Dina Long, I believe, left.
[3:14:27] She was here for a different reason.
[3:14:29] She came and talked with us on that.
[3:14:30] Yes, she's just here for general.
[3:14:33] Hey, Todd, Chris Jinsson.
[3:14:37] All right.
[3:14:40] How about Simon?
[3:14:44] I'm not even trying her last name.
[3:14:46] But I should have spoken before.
[3:14:52] Please come forward.
[3:14:54] Thank you Simon Robyn on it.
[3:14:56] I'll give you a spending test later.
[3:14:58] I would appreciate it.
[3:14:59] Thank you. I'll come down.
[3:15:00] I'r hyn al Dairll. I'r panos, i'r panos?
[3:15:04] I just want to say that as a legal immigrant from South Africa, we'r been in this country from
[3:15:11] 19 years. We moved year with 4 young children, and they had a bunch more, they'r summing in the
[3:15:17] water in River Tinnice and every step of the way, we followed the law, and followed the immigration
[3:15:25] yn ymd ymfriedio bydd yr fwyfyskydd i dnesios, gwneuddd, gwneud, yma yna cos, gennio ydyond, oddwysu,
[3:15:34] ddim, phyta wedi yw'n hydwchwalu sydd. Yw'n neu defa yw'r defaedd ydfrwyfysu,
[3:15:39] yw'n niferwdydd i dynau fofer?
[3:15:41] Gaen oedd ddim, ydyd yn yd convwyd.
[3:15:43] Y mwyfysu a dddwl ywod fwyd yn ywydun, ydyn i ddiolsylaf bod yn ydyn nhw.
[3:15:54] yn, Dealu iawn farewell, a Leif yn y P leadingu cyfnyn o ei boflinu rhoi gall, mae'n
[3:16:02] gofnyn o o'n pfl i leadsoreth y dyssfylsu auf Unfinuno cyfnyn?
[3:16:05] au y ddeodd o fam time o ddeodd oedd yn deir y cwrn y trafs i'n paedwodd eithyn wr條, addenbyn.
[3:16:13] Dddd y enthdan.
[3:16:20] Ddddodddddddd, mae yn phs.
[3:16:21] o'r similar.
[3:16:23] I support law enforcement,
[3:16:24] and I'm so grateful that we move to a city
[3:16:27] that provides good law enforcement.
[3:16:31] We've gone from the unifide to our city's police.
[3:16:35] We've support the efforts of our nation
[3:16:40] as well as our state at large,
[3:16:44] and our city is an important part of that.
[3:16:47] a'r informt o'r gwynau yn phweraw i'r paenus ddagonololau...
[3:16:58] Cho'n constituency lo i rhan i dda'r sefys, i bo'r schrefo'r mew'r ybaid,
[3:17:05] a'r reen, a'r marr i'r edaf yr ardiol, a'r gwynnyd o'r rhan fwyd yn ddahan.
[3:17:07] A'r gwawn y am fwyd yn y j yn fwyd'n fel o'r rhan y marr i'r i'r rhan fwyd y rhynl.
[3:17:21] gwybe i'n i'r gweith ymi mwyd.
[3:17:22] una hyn gyfer gwneud i'n rhai o'r hynnydd drwyn o'n cael y cydryn i'r dewdre sonm �icew ar ar gallu.
[3:17:38] Eilwn gdan yda'w hynnydd parod, o yw nwndd, o'n hynnydd, a'r eu dda'r hynnydd i'n rhai, a'r i'r hollu warlywn i'r
[3:17:44] o'r gwneud i'r hynnydd.
[3:17:45] Ydiol dysgol i'n ar hynnydd, a'r rhai yw'r fydd yn cydryn rhai.
[3:17:47] Ydd gda'r dda'r hynnyddau cydd gyde yw'r i'r dda'r hollu dda'r
[3:17:57] mae'n gael i'n rheud i'n rheud.
[3:17:58] Ae,wei,dorly,fach ymaidau'n rheudau'n furaithia,gmerod trafch i'n rheud am aadrichu.
[3:18:04] Mae'n rheud aadrichu'n rheud ffrwis,dorac chi'n rhwn.
[3:18:09] Mae'n rheud am ffrwis.
[3:18:10] Mae'n rheud am ffrwis roedd i mwydol ydatau'n rheud bod'n rheudallid.
[3:18:17] Oedd ywau ydyffle.
[3:18:19] Aadrichu'n rheud am ydrych maelw.
[3:18:20] Ydhych maelwodau'n rheud ythnyddio aadrichu.
[3:18:22] am y sc shut a fysu'n a'r pos siorn. Mae'n ar ydyn hewn yda yn ydym'n fysu'r ar ymthesai gan rweithio.
[3:18:28] Mae ydym'n wasrym ni'n mae'n gyfer i'n mae whfordd o'r am gallrwneau'r am gallrwneau gan gwas eich.
[3:18:30] Roedd gwsng eithel, yr caed zwrf yd, ydym calledwn ydym'n gallrwneau ar gyfer i yn dewn roedd eich o'r yn ddrwneau,
[3:18:39] pru'r am ydym'r aich cywneau o'r aich yn thwneau yn fydwrn ywneau.
[3:18:43] I mot Oaf I o ymair, Weddwy'n i'r wel mwy'r i'r hynna amlu, i'n rdu, i'n mewn i'r gallu ystyf, i'n ma'r gallell yma'r afer.ив
[3:18:53] yna o'r gallell r yd yna yma'r gallell, i'r gallell drwybyddw. Gwyd
[3:18:54] ynch weith o'r gallell, yna'r gallell ar ydeel a feu'r gallell, yna'r gallell ar ystyf, i'n gallell ar ymawn yma yna'r gallell. S yn yna
[3:19:02] 'r gallell a fwre faithful o'r gallell ar yna'r gallell ar yna'r gallell, a fwre relio, a fwrell.
[3:19:13] yn ymfrid, yn ymfrid ymfrid, yn의 o'r gwirbaineth, yn ymfrid, yn ymfrid, yn ymfrid, yn i'r ych'n i'r ymfrid.
[3:19:22] Ydymd beth ydyn ymfrid. Ydyd ymfrid eich o'r amgymra, yn ymfrid i'n bod yn gydwryd.
[3:19:25] Ydymd beth ymfrid felloedd, ymfrid i'n minu i'r amd o'r amthirshad roedd, ydr ymfrid...
[3:19:33] Ydr ymfrid i'n amgymraeth i'n i'r mynd.
[3:19:37] Ydymd beth ymfrid i'n i'r mynd.
[3:19:41] What this job was never easy
[3:19:42] as I'm sure you all understand.
[3:19:45] I want to say, I am not afread.
[3:19:48] I will stand up again and again
[3:19:50] and again.
[3:19:52] My friends here with me are not afread.
[3:19:54] We wale y kifch o en hora whom se cafes si'r me ap annoyed.
[3:19:58] Wale ykal, y t 관, y y e Gymgu'u a nefload blu e looking,
[3:19:59] yAing llgu'u boeli mae'u yna' shall.
[3:20:00] Thank you. Have a good night. Thank you. Brian, as our attorney, I've had a thought, can we identify where
[3:20:10] they're from or do we just move on? Pardon? Okay. Okay. If you let us know where you live, it would
[3:20:19] be appreciated. Mr. Clayton, Robert Clayton.
[3:20:25] Thank you, Mayor Council. I am a long time resident
[3:20:29] of Riverton, and I am 100% in support of Riverton police departments cooperation with ICE
[3:20:36] through 287G. With clear expectations for law enforcement, accountability, and respect
[3:20:43] for every person. I believe our local law officers should have appropriate training and tools
[3:20:50] to work with federal authorities. I support enforcing immigration laws through an orderly
[3:20:56] process, as made evident by my good friend Simon Robenheimer.
[3:21:03] That respects constitutional protections and do process.
[3:21:08] The city describes this agreement as allowing specially trained officers to perform
[3:21:13] certain limited federal immigration enforcement duties in cooperation with ICE.
[3:21:19] I support that coordination when it is carried out professionally and within the limits
[3:21:24] of the agreement. My support also comes with a firm conviction. Every person deserves
[3:21:30] humane treatment, regardless of race, national origin, language, or immigration status. Immigrants
[3:21:37] are part of our community. They are our neighbors, co-workers, business owners, friends, and
[3:21:44] family members. A person's appearance, accent or last name should never be treated as evidence
[3:21:49] of wrongdoing. Immigration status should not be confused with the person's character or
[3:21:54] presumed dangerousness. I recognize that this partnership raises real concern for some families.
[3:22:01] Those concerns deserve respectful answers. Supporting our police, includes expecting clear
[3:22:06] policies, proper supervision, and a meaningful process for addressing complaints. I would
[3:22:12] encourage the city to continue to have transparency within this plan. And how residents
[3:22:21] can continue to support our police officers through this collaboration. I want this partnership
[3:22:28] to focus resources on genuine public safety with decisions based on evidence and individual
[3:22:36] circumstances. We can support immigration enforcement while insisting on fairness, we can
[3:22:41] support our officers while expecting accountability. We can disagree about policy while treating
[3:22:47] and one another with dignity.
[3:22:49] I support 100% river transport participation
[3:22:52] in this partnership within those communities
[3:22:56] and its foundation.
[3:22:58] Public safety, lawful enforcement, transparency,
[3:23:01] and respect for everyone who lives in our community.
[3:23:04] Thank you.
[3:23:04] Thank you.
[3:23:06] Brandon, work, and ten.
[3:23:14] Hello, my name is Brandon.
[3:23:16] I'm here with I, Salt Lake, DSA.
[3:23:20] I grew up in the river, and I graduated from
[3:23:22] moved to high school. I've family and friends in the area, both in the city and in the
[3:23:29] surrounding area. I'm here to oppose the 87-G agreement. The agreement was sent
[3:23:37] unilaterally, and I'm awfully undemocratic.
[3:23:42] City residents, your constituents,
[3:23:51] they weren't
[3:23:52] So they counsel, they're not about the agreement, that they're the fact.
[3:24:00] You have the opportunity to choose a better way to show your constituents and those who
[3:24:09] have a stake in the city, that you value their input, that you value these concerns and
[3:24:18] to demonstrate democracy.
[3:24:22] I would urge you to put this agreement to a bow and to wholeheartedly reject the agreement.
[3:24:31] Thank you.
[3:24:32] Thank you.
[3:24:34] Matt Soper.
[3:24:40] Okay.
[3:24:41] I live in South Jordan.
[3:24:44] I live in South Jordan, but that's not even remotely relevant to anything I'm about to say.
[3:24:48] As people have already gone over the decision to go ahead with a 287G agreement was totally unilateral and a direct violation of Riverton City Code.
[3:24:59] Do you, I know.
[3:25:00] So that you guys are all aware of this because this has been pointed out to you multiple times, both in this meeting, previous meetings and in private correspondence with people. So I have to ask you, what do you stand for exactly? What do you stand for democracy? The most sacred value, the most sacred and esteemed value that you pledged allegiance to at the beginning of this meeting. Does that mean anything to you? Because I mean the truth of the matter is that
[3:25:31] Letting this violation of city code that means that this motion cannot be voted on by city council that council amount that yeah, camp, sorry,
[3:25:47] that is the opposite of democracy is what I'm saying, if you care about democracy at all, it makes no sense to not rectify this violation of city code.
[3:26:00] And the fact that you haven't done anything about that, that suggests to me that, well,
[3:26:06] matters more to you, because we all know that cooperating with ICE, that this is a controversial
[3:26:12] contentious issue.
[3:26:14] And so therefore, I strongly suspect that the reason why this hasn't been rectified and
[3:26:21] No council members have had to take a stance on this as we for the simple fact that it's easier and more convenient for you to just sweep it under the rug and ignore it.
[3:26:35] And so I asked if you please prove me wrong and actually put this to a vote and obey the city code. Thank you.
[3:26:44] Thank you Bob Ford.
[3:26:47] Mayor, he came over to me and left. He did ask me to say he is in support of the
[3:26:54] ice agreement.
[3:26:56] Okay, thank you very much.
[3:26:59] Alyssa Ferris,
[3:27:11] hello everyone. My name is Alyssa. I'm here today with a DSA to
[3:27:17] express my deep concerns for the safety and the civil rights of the people in
[3:27:21] Riverton. As an individual, I want ice abolished completely yesterday, short of that
[3:27:26] want ice out of Utah out of my state and that I want the people responsible for all the
[3:27:31] numerous abuses and violations and murders committed by this mass-men held to accountability.
[3:27:37] I work in the field of home health. I travel all over the state. I come to River 10 multiple times
[3:27:42] a week for years. I go into the homes of some of the most vulnerable homebound and sometimes even
[3:27:47] bedbound people. I take care of people from all different walks of life, different faiths,
[3:27:52] different religions who speak a variety of different languages. I take care of them. I feed them.
[3:27:56] I'd obey them. I do whatever needs doing. I help their families too, and I listen to people.
[3:28:01] People are terrified of the future. They're worried for their children, their neighbors.
[3:28:05] People shouldn't have to live in fear because the people in this room refuse to stand up and take accountability for their jobs.
[3:28:11] I would ask a name of common decency that the members of the City Council force the 287G agreement into a formal vote,
[3:28:17] vote no on the 287G agreement, and further more to vocally and firmly oppose ICE and River 10. Thank you.
[3:28:24] Thank you.
[3:28:25] And thank you for caring for some of our most vulnerable residents.
[3:28:29] Dave Mowley?
[3:28:38] Good evening, Mayor.
[3:28:40] City Council.
[3:28:41] My name is Dave.
[3:28:42] I live here.
[3:28:43] I'm not from Salt Lake.
[3:28:45] And I didn't drive in for a hobby.
[3:28:47] It's clear that the Salt Lake DSA has made Riverton their project.
[3:28:51] They've said it in public.
[3:28:52] And after they claimed to win on the west side warehouse fight,
[3:28:55] their immigrant solidarity working group named our agreement
[3:28:58] does the next campaign.
[3:28:59] They're recruiting, running classes downtown, and packing this chamber.
[3:29:04] I used to be one resident against one activist.
[3:29:07] Now it's one resident against a stacked room, though I seem to have some,
[3:29:10] though I seem to have some backup tonight.
[3:29:13] Their movement is not organic.
[3:29:14] It is not grassroots.
[3:29:16] It does not represent the will of our citizens.
[3:29:19] It is coordinated pressure campaign designed to bully us into submission.
[3:29:23] The biggest mistake we can make about their so-called color revolution is
[3:29:27] thinking they're just protests.
[3:29:29] So far, what you see is rallies in public comment.
[3:29:32] That is the early phase, and we must treat it
[3:29:33] for what it is, a regular warfare by other means.
[3:29:37] A domestic movement using the street, the media,
[3:29:40] and more panic to break institutions well.
[3:29:43] I've talked about this before.
[3:29:44] They follow Gene Sharpe's playbook.
[3:29:46] They turn a packed room and meet a narrative
[3:29:48] into permanent veto over local government.
[3:29:51] They don't need to scale you today.
[3:29:52] They need repetition, same faces, same script, same war pressure,
[3:29:56] And the same claim that the agreement is illegitimate.
[3:29:59] It is just...
[3:30:00] Designed to isolate anyone that holds the line to make it easy to just give them what they want. So, when their
[3:30:05] ring leaders come in here and throw a corrupted reading of city policy in your face, treat them accordingly.
[3:30:11] Not as confused locals, but as organizers running a campaign against a city that actually lives with consequences.
[3:30:16] They targeted us because we're the only city that has this agreement. If they break us or it travels, toxic empathy, disagree better,
[3:30:23] enforcement is a illegitimate, the effect cascades. They claim the agreement was done improperly.
[3:30:36] That's what's thought. Anyway, it has tools and information and it allows our officers to work with ICE.
[3:30:43] It does not turn the river to MPD into a border patrol. Our chief has said that strategic enforcement is part of why crime is so low here.
[3:30:51] as low as it has been in years.
[3:30:53] Don't throw away a working tool
[3:30:54] because the Salt Lake Activist needs a scalp.
[3:30:58] You'll hear the raised card,
[3:30:59] you'll hear about the pay-trarchy,
[3:31:01] you'll hear that you are bad people, you're not.
[3:31:04] Status under the law does not color,
[3:31:06] care what color your skin is.
[3:31:07] Someone can sit in this room, look however they want,
[3:31:10] and not be disappeared by eyes
[3:31:12] because residency status is the issue.
[3:31:14] Sure, our immigration system is flawed in needs work,
[3:31:17] but it is still the most generous,
[3:31:18] legal entry system on Earth,
[3:31:19] And if the United States were the cartoon that they sell,
[3:31:22] people would not be fighting to get in.
[3:31:24] My request is simple.
[3:31:25] Keep the agreement.
[3:31:27] Do not reward them for throwing a timber tantrum.
[3:31:29] Respect the people who live here,
[3:31:31] not the parasites that treat our city like a field exercise.
[3:31:33] Thank you.
[3:31:35] Thank you.
[3:31:35] We will hear from Peter.
[3:31:36] This is a no-drug.
[3:31:39] And he will be our last public comment of the evening.
[3:31:43] And then I will ask the council.
[3:31:45] And I will look for a motion to adjourn and to move into a close session.
[3:31:48] Those of you that do not have an opportunity to speak tonight, I have your cards.
[3:31:53] You'd be welcome to come to our next meeting and be the first to speak in our public
[3:31:57] course portion card.
[3:31:59] Please, sir, go ahead.
[3:32:01] Thank you.
[3:32:03] On August 25th, an object on police officer responded to an angel, the sought has helped in understanding
[3:32:08] why a black guy's city was following him around his neighborhood.
[3:32:12] The fear on uncertainty was clear in his voice as we can see on the officer's body cam.
[3:32:17] As was the fact that he trusted this uniformed officer, perhaps he had heard the statement by
[3:32:23] I've been police department on September 23rd of last year where they insist victims and
[3:32:28] witnesses are safe to call OPD.
[3:32:32] Your immigration status will not be asked for or shared when you see help.
[3:32:36] We'll never know what he thought because as documented on this same body camp, this individual
[3:32:41] was arrested and it's likely already been deported.
[3:32:46] say what you will about undocumented individuals in this country. I don't know many people have.
[3:32:51] But when this interaction ends with an ice officer, snatching someone from their day job,
[3:32:56] do you really think their community is safer?
[3:33:00] Do you think the next victim, the next witness, is going to call the police, or will they avoid them at all costs?
[3:33:07] This is what one comment here is for it to is jumping over dollars to chase dimes.
[3:33:12] He describes that when immigrant communities see police as extensions of immigration enforcement rightfully
[3:33:18] They don't act as witnesses. They do not report crimes
[3:33:24] Studies have found nearly half of all his fanics are less likely to contact police
[3:33:30] If they fear they will face questions about immigration status and this includes individuals with citizenship
[3:33:39] This commentator the infamous radical and
[3:33:42] and agitator, Salt Lake County Sheriff Jim Winder.
[3:33:47] He warns against the creation of silent victims, his words,
[3:33:52] driving up crime rights, undermining trust and vulnerable communities.
[3:33:57] And it is specifically aimed at 287G task force that you have
[3:34:01] in force in this city right now.
[3:34:04] As of almost one year ago, one year ago, nearly 200 U.S.
[3:34:09] have already been deported. These are U.S. citizens.
[3:34:14] They have fully legal status and they have
[3:34:16] been caught up in this inhumane machinery.
[3:34:21] This is the calculus that our neighbors and our friends
[3:34:23] must live under. So I ask you, why do only some residents of Eritain get safety get to feel at home in
[3:34:30] the community? Doesn't anyone present and invest it in this community deserve the right to feel
[3:34:36] safety. Do you think that they do? They don't. They will not. It will, however, make
[3:34:43] River Tinnon community driven by division. And mistrust. And if you insist on this path,
[3:34:50] we will all be forced to reckon with it. A number of people asked to have a vote. I'd like
[3:34:56] to go one step further. I feel that this is a shambling zone.
[3:35:00] We have an agreement. They have signed by your predecessor. It is doing no one any good. It should be cancelled immediately. Thank you.
[3:35:07] Thank you. Looking for a motion.
[3:35:13] Council member McDougall.
[3:35:16] And move into closed door session.
[3:35:19] Second, council member Hayman.
[3:35:21] I'll second that.
[3:35:25] I apologize. Do have to close the public comments.
[3:35:28] And then, right. Yes. Well, actually we're just going to, if you look on your last page.
[3:35:39] Thank you, I am going to do it exactly, if you would like me to share it.
[3:35:44] Thank you.
[3:35:44] I'm moving to convene in a closed door session to discuss pending or reasonable immunolidication.
[3:35:49] I also motion that we close the city council meeting in the closed session.
[3:35:53] The closed session will be held in the conference room right outside the council chambers.
[3:35:58] Thank you, council member.
[3:35:59] Now I'm looking for that second.
[3:36:01] Council member.
[3:36:02] I'll second that.
[3:36:03] Okay.
[3:36:03] Now, roll couple, or all in favor, okay.
[3:36:10] Yes.
[3:36:11] Yes.
[3:36:19] Thank you all very much for coming and for your respectful behavior.
[3:36:23] Appreciate it.