[0:01] the fact that
[0:05] » I do agree that
[0:11] it's
[0:13] >> like
[0:31] said last time I
[0:34] >> didn't know it.
[0:36] >> Yes, they
[0:38] can. There was motorcycles on field 60
[0:42] 70 mph.
[1:00] yesterday
[1:08] my cousin and says
[1:13] » he couldn't find anywhere
[1:15] >> last month we went Chinese he calls
[1:18] Chick-fil-A
[1:19] >> says where Chinese
[1:21] >> couldn't be driving
[1:26] when he's got
[1:29] on his wife.
[9:08] Okay, we'll get started.
[9:11] We'd like to welcome everyone to South
[9:13] Weaver City Council at 6 PM on Tuesday,
[9:16] March the 10th, 2026. We'll begin with
[9:20] the pledge of allegiance from Councilman
[9:22] Windsor and then a prayer by Councilman
[9:24] Halverson.
[9:25] We write some people
[9:30] to the flag of the United States of
[9:32] America and to the republic for which it
[9:35] stands. One nation under God,
[9:38] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[9:41] for all.
[9:44] Our
[9:48] dear father in heaven, as we come before
[9:49] thee this evening, we're so very
[9:51] grateful for the opportunity we have to
[9:52] gather here and to discuss the needs of
[9:54] the city. We're thankful for the area we
[9:58] live in and the beautiful place it is
[10:00] and the opportunities which it provides
[10:02] for us. Father, we ask Hy spirit to be
[10:05] with us as we make decisions and discuss
[10:07] these the issues before us that we may
[10:10] make decisions to the best of our
[10:11] ability with the the knowledge we have.
[10:14] Father, again we're thankful for our
[10:16] firefighters and our armed forces and
[10:17] all they are doing here and across the
[10:20] world. Watch over and protect them that
[10:22] they may return home and safety to their
[10:23] families. We thank thee again for all
[10:26] that we have and we say it's the name of
[10:27] the son Jesus Christ. Amen.
[10:28] >> Amen.
[10:32] » Okay, we'll begin this evening with uh
[10:34] public comments. Thank you very much,
[10:37] Councilman Windsor, Capital Herson.
[10:39] Appreciate that. We'll begin with our
[10:41] public comments. Uh we ask that you
[10:44] please be respectful.
[10:46] Uh we ask you to come up to the
[10:49] microphone and state your name in the
[10:51] city in which you reside. You may speak
[10:54] for three minutes or less. And please no
[10:58] remarks from the audience. And uh the
[11:01] com the council will not uh comment on
[11:04] your remarks at this time. So with that,
[11:09] Brent, you're already up there.
[11:10] >> I'm here. My name is Brent Paul. I'm
[11:13] South Weaver. I've lived here for just
[11:15] short of 80 years, which is my entire
[11:17] life. My concern though right now is
[11:20] about the development or lack thereof
[11:24] because of the Hill Air Force Base
[11:25] pollution. I don't know if you guys knew
[11:27] it or not, but we've been on the
[11:31] national priority list as one of the
[11:32] most hazardous sites in the entire
[11:34] country for almost 40 years now.
[11:37] And it hasn't done us much good to be on
[11:39] the national priority list. meaning it
[11:41] is a priority and they still don't
[11:43] respond. Well, back then pathetic is a
[11:46] pretty good answer for it.
[11:49] Uh they put out a plan back in the 1980s
[11:55] where they expected to have it resolved
[11:57] by the 2010s, but the 2010s came and
[12:00] gone and then they just changed it to
[12:02] still have monitor natural attenuation
[12:03] being the resolution, [snorts] but now
[12:06] it's going to be until the 2040s before
[12:07] it's remediated.
[12:10] So you can see we're a long ways still
[12:12] going to be in dire situation.
[12:15] Um
[12:25] there's some property not far from us
[12:27] just down the road that's on the
[12:31] national priority list. We've been on
[12:33] the national priority list for over
[12:35] almost 40 years now. 40 years and hasn't
[12:38] moved an inch.
[12:41] But anyway,
[12:48] I'm using up all my time reading my own
[12:50] notes.
[12:58] Anyway, it hasn't been resolved and it's
[13:00] not being resolved. In fact, I've been
[13:02] up here many times over the years, as
[13:04] you guys well know, and I can't think of
[13:05] one constructive thing that we've done
[13:07] as a city.
[13:09] Illfield, all they've had is monitor
[13:11] natural attenuation, which is basically
[13:14] just watching it do nothing for 40
[13:16] years, but then nothing's happened. So,
[13:19] here we are still polluted after all
[13:21] these years, and we're not supposed to
[13:23] subdivide it until it's cleaned up. But
[13:27] we do that, don't we? We approved the
[13:28] subdivisions and they're polluted
[13:30] subdivisions.
[13:33] I don't know how people are going to be
[13:34] held accountable, but you should be held
[13:36] accountable because they are polluted
[13:38] and they're dangerous.
[13:42] » I've got a lot more written down, but
[13:44] I'll have to do it on another day.
[13:46] Thanks for your time.
[13:47] >> Thanks,
[13:47] >> thank you, Brand. Appreciate it.
[13:54] beg your indulgence because I'm not
[13:57] walking well in Michael
[14:01] » just to alleviate your curiosity since
[14:03] I'm a regular here accident yesterday
[14:11] for a while
[14:13] I didn't know he was
[14:17] » yeah we can pass
[14:35] Paul Sturm, South Weaver City.
[14:38] I have public comments and questions on
[14:40] agenda item number six, the conditional
[14:43] use permit 2601 for Quick Trip.
[14:47] I have many questions. I have I have con
[14:50] I have continuing questions regarding
[14:52] the thoroughess of responses provided to
[14:55] the numerous concerns raised for this
[14:57] quick trip development over the past
[15:00] several months both internally and by
[15:03] South Weaver City citizens. Questions
[15:05] were presented to the planning
[15:07] commission on two occasions and it
[15:09] appears that they were not fully
[15:11] addressed in the responses provided
[15:14] on a one forone basis of questions
[15:17] versus answers provided.
[15:21] Once again, it appears that this quick
[15:23] trip project and its associated
[15:26] conditional use permit requirements are
[15:28] being rushed through the South Weaver
[15:30] City approval process as is currently
[15:33] being presented to the city council. In
[15:36] the detailed engineering analysis
[15:38] performed regarding the status of
[15:40] responses requested and provided, there
[15:44] are numerous unanswered questions.
[15:47] What I did is did an analysis of the
[15:50] engineering study. There were a total of
[15:54] 36 assessments performed.
[15:57] Assessments shown as completed are 18.
[16:02] Assessments shown as not completed 15.
[16:06] Assessments shown as pending is three.
[16:11] Thus, the city council is being asked to
[16:13] approve a cup that will significantly im
[16:17] impact many East End residents and local
[16:20] businesses with only one half of the
[16:23] questions that were asked over many
[16:26] months being answered in the engineering
[16:28] analysis of the cup requirements.
[16:32] Thank you.
[16:35] >> Thank you, Paul.
[16:36] >> Thanks, Paul.
[16:47] Jeff Eddings, 2645E, East 7,800 South.
[16:51] My comments are in regard to the Quick
[16:53] Trip. Um,
[16:55] I'm not thrilled about the GA another
[16:57] gas station being built right by my
[16:59] residence right across the street, but
[17:01] it is what it is and more than likely
[17:03] it's probably going to go through. But I
[17:05] do want to say that I did attend the
[17:07] planning commission meetings and um
[17:10] Braxton and Spencer back here,
[17:11] representatives of the Quick Trip and um
[17:15] and the other firm. Um they they seem
[17:17] like they do want to help out the
[17:18] residents. Um they were really
[17:20] responsive to the things that we said
[17:21] and they did make some changes. So, I do
[17:23] think they are taking our um concerns
[17:26] into consideration to minimize the
[17:28] impact of the of the commercial so the
[17:31] residents that live around the area
[17:33] don't have to, you know, so much noise,
[17:35] so much light and things like that. So,
[17:37] I do want to commend them on that. Um,
[17:39] [clears throat]
[17:40] I know it probably isn't going to be, it
[17:42] might be talked about tonight, but it
[17:43] isn't necessarily on the agenda, but uh
[17:46] the roundabout that's proposed in front
[17:47] of my my home right there on the
[17:49] frontage road in 7,800 South Um, I am
[17:53] adamantly against that. I don't think
[17:55] it's necessary. I think it's just a
[17:57] nicity. It's not a requirement. I don't
[17:59] think the traffic uh that going down
[18:01] that street uh requires it. I think a
[18:05] two-way stop would be fine. Um I think
[18:08] what you're doing is just making a gas
[18:10] station recirculation device versus uh
[18:13] um fixing the actual traffic. I And I
[18:15] also don't think that we need raised
[18:17] medians down there by the Maverick. I
[18:19] think that's just going to cause more
[18:20] problems. Um, I think with the if you
[18:23] widen the road, I think people can
[18:25] figure out how to get out in there
[18:27] safely. Um, and anyways, I just wanted
[18:30] to go on the record saying that I don't
[18:32] think the roundabout's necessary. Um, I
[18:34] just it's it's just too much. So, thank
[18:37] you very much.
[18:37] >> Thank you.
[18:38] Appreciate it.
[18:50] Hi, Paul Strazz South Weaver. Um,
[18:53] council members, thank you. I want to
[18:55] share what I found after reviewing
[18:56] ordinance 20264, the legal exhibits, the
[18:59] staff report, and the concept layout.
[19:02] When you line these documents up, they
[19:03] don't match, and these inconsistencies
[19:05] matter. First, the acreage numbers
[19:07] conflict. The ordinance and staff report
[19:09] say 34.635 acres. Exhibit A is 14.044
[19:13] 044 acres and exhibit B is 20.591 acres.
[19:17] Those add up, but the concept layout
[19:18] shows 35.66 acres. That's more than a
[19:21] 1acre difference. In zoning, an acre
[19:24] isn't a rounding area. It's a legal
[19:25] boundary. If the map, the exhibits, and
[19:28] the ordinance don't align, the council
[19:30] can't make a clean legislative decision.
[19:32] Second, the ordinance lists three
[19:34] parcels, including parcel 130210150,
[19:38] but exhibits A and B only describe two.
[19:41] Parcel 150 has no legal description
[19:43] attached. That means the council is
[19:45] being asked to reszone land that is not
[19:47] properly defined in the record. That's
[19:50] not a small oversight.
[19:52] Third, the concept plan is binding under
[19:55] city code, but the plan is incomplete.
[19:57] South River code requires lot layouts,
[19:59] circulation systems, densities, open
[20:02] space, phasing, and conceptual
[20:03] utilities. The map shows lot lines and
[20:05] culde-sacs, but several required
[20:07] elements are missing and key impact
[20:09] analyses such as traffic, safety,
[20:11] schools are pushed to the subdivision
[20:13] stage. And that brings me to my critical
[20:15] point. What it really means when report
[20:17] says we'll look at it at the subdivision
[20:18] stage. It means the zoning is approved
[20:20] first before the city has a traffic
[20:22] study, a utility capacity analysis, an
[20:24] emergency access plan, a school impact
[20:27] review, storm water engineering, or a
[20:29] road safety mitigation plan. Those come
[20:31] later after the zoning is already
[20:33] granted when the city has far less
[20:35] leverage. Once zoning is approved, the
[20:37] developer has a legal right to build at
[20:39] that density even if later studies show,
[20:41] for example, that the road is unsafe,
[20:43] the intersection fails, the school is
[20:45] over capacity, or utilities can't
[20:47] support the load. The city cannot reduce
[20:49] density or undo the zoning. They can
[20:51] only require technical tweaks, not fewer
[20:54] homes. So, when we defer traffic and
[20:56] safety to the subdivision stage, we are
[20:58] approving zoning blind. is the planning
[21:00] equivalent of saying we'll build the
[21:02] airplane now and check the wings once
[21:03] we're in the air. Fourth, the layout map
[21:06] itself raises concerns. It shows 70 lots
[21:09] total, 42 in the residential moderate
[21:12] area and 28 in the residential low
[21:13] moderate area, but the density shown on
[21:16] the map are well below what the zoning
[21:17] would legally allow. So, our LM area max
[21:21] density is 2 units per acre. Concept map
[21:23] shows 1.86 units. Residential moderate
[21:28] max density is four units per acre.
[21:29] Concept map shows 2.04 units per acre.
[21:32] Why does this matter? This means the
[21:34] zoning being requested enables
[21:35] significantly higher density than what
[21:37] is drawn on the concept plan. The map is
[21:39] not a cap, the zoning is. And once the
[21:42] higher capacity zoning is granted, the
[21:43] city has no ability to reduce density
[21:46] later if impacts turn out to be greater
[21:48] than expected. Last, the planning
[21:50] commission itself acknowledged the
[21:53] safety hazard at 925 East, a blind
[21:55] corner with school traffic and sidewalk
[21:57] deficiencies and even said more UD do
[21:59] information is needed before subdivision
[22:01] approval. That's on page 89 of the staff
[22:04] report of this package of 159 pages.
[22:07] Yet, this reszone is being pushed ahead
[22:08] of that information. Approving zoning
[22:11] before resolving what I believe to be
[22:12] the most dangerous part of the project
[22:14] is not just premature, it's unsafe.
[22:16] Finally, the re reversion clause is not
[22:19] the automatic safeguard it appears to
[22:21] be. Reversion only occurs if deadlines
[22:23] are tracked, conditions are enforced,
[22:24] and no extension is granted. In
[22:26] practice, that makes reversion
[22:27] conditional, not guaranteed, and it puts
[22:30] the onus on the city to initiate and
[22:31] enforce it. Council members, these
[22:34] aren't opinions. These are facts pulled
[22:35] directly from the documents in front of
[22:37] you. When the ordinance, the exhibits,
[22:38] and the concept plan don't align, and
[22:40] when key safety and infrastructure
[22:42] questions are still unanswered, the only
[22:44] responsible action is to deny the
[22:46] reszone and require a complete,
[22:47] consistent, and safe application. We
[22:49] only get one chance to zone this land
[22:51] correctly. Let's do it right, not fast.
[22:53] Thank you.
[22:54] >> Thank you.
[23:02] » Seeing no other comments, we'll move on
[23:04] with our action items.
[23:07] consisting of our uh
[23:11] consent agenda
[23:13] of minutes for February the 7th, 2026,
[23:17] February checks, December's budget to
[23:19] actual, amended staff report, and
[23:22] January's budget to actual. Is there any
[23:25] corrections or changes to any of these
[23:27] items, council? If not, we'll look for a
[23:30] motion to approve.
[23:34] Mayor, I move to approve the consent
[23:36] agenda.
[23:36] >> Second.
[23:38] >> We have a motion and a second by
[23:39] Councilman Windsor. All in favor say I.
[23:42] >> I.
[23:44] >> The motion carries. Thank you.
[23:47] Next item. Uh, ordinance 2026-04
[23:53] uh, changing zoning for peak subdivision
[23:56] at approximately 898 East 7240 South
[24:00] from agricultural who
[24:04] [clears throat]
[24:05] multiple regional re residential zone
[24:09] applicant Corey Cap and Burn Peak.
[24:12] Before we get in on this, we're going to
[24:14] have Lance uh, lead in on this
[24:16] discussion.
[24:25] Uh well, good evening. Um um this is a
[24:29] reszone request. The acreage has been
[24:33] fluctuated a little bit, but it has
[24:35] landed finally on 34.635
[24:38] acres. That is matches the two legal
[24:40] descriptions that we've received from
[24:42] the applicant. uh 14 acres will is
[24:44] requested to go to RLM and 20.59 acres
[24:49] is requested to go to RM. Um the city
[24:53] council is the uh final approval
[24:56] approving body for the reszone. Uh after
[24:59] that point um if if the reszone is
[25:03] approved um then the subdivision process
[25:06] would uh preliminary plat application
[25:08] would be next and that would go to the
[25:10] planning commission for final approval
[25:12] would not come to the city council and
[25:15] the final plat would go to the
[25:16] administrative land use authority which
[25:19] is a committee of two council members
[25:21] and staff that would review the final
[25:23] plat which is mostly technical
[25:25] documents. Um so this is the chance to
[25:29] discuss the land use as it is outlined.
[25:32] Uh the general plan outlines this area
[25:34] for this level of density. Uh and these
[25:37] zones meet that level of density. Um
[25:42] and so staff has recommended approval.
[25:44] The plan commission also discussed it
[25:45] and held the public hearing uh on
[25:48] February 12th and got the public
[25:50] comments and feedbacks on that. Uh they
[25:52] recommended approval.
[25:54] Um the question of the uh intersection
[25:58] at 925 was a direction that came from UD
[26:02] do as they looked at the subdivision
[26:04] plat. They saw that the the original
[26:06] location was further to the east
[26:10] drive and they said no we we don't want
[26:12] it there. We need to have it at 925.
[26:14] >> Excuse me. Did they um recommend
[26:17] approval or did they do approval or
[26:19] approval with conditions?
[26:22] They planning commission recommended
[26:26] approval
[26:27] >> with no conditions.
[26:28] >> That is correct.
[26:29] >> Okay. Thank you.
[26:32] >> Anyway, uh and so UD do looked at that
[26:35] and they have outlined uh items that
[26:37] need to be addressed. Um the land use
[26:40] process generally speaking is you know
[26:44] what kind of uses do we want there at
[26:46] the general plan. We outlined this level
[26:48] of density. Now, we're reszoning or
[26:50] zoning the property from agricultural to
[26:54] that level of density. Uh, and then
[26:56] we'll get into much more of the details
[26:58] and everything at the subdivision phase
[27:00] where there's a lot of issues that have
[27:02] to be addressed. Um, the items that are
[27:05] in the staff report are at a little bit
[27:08] higher level, but there's no reason to
[27:11] think that like the water and storm
[27:12] sewer and all those types of things um
[27:15] would not they can be done. It's just
[27:17] the details of how they will be done. Uh
[27:19] that will be ironed out in the
[27:21] subdivision phase. Um
[27:24] so that's plan commission recommended
[27:27] approval.
[27:28] >> Okay.
[27:29] >> Thank you, Lance.
[27:31] Council,
[27:32] any discussions?
[27:35] >> I just have a few quick questions. Um
[27:38] is this gentleman here correct that all
[27:40] of these numbers are um missing?
[27:42] Incorrect? I mean, I'm looking at page
[27:45] 89 and it still says that this is
[27:47] projected land use of um residential
[27:50] patio.
[27:52] Um it's it's just kind of interesting to
[27:57] Is is this document up to date? Are we
[28:00] even looking at the the correct stuff
[28:01] right now?
[28:02] >> Well, I I I believe so. I'm I I'm trying
[28:05] to think what that Let me get to it. And
[28:07] I didn't have a chance to look at that.
[28:10] >> And this is just on page 89. This is at
[28:12] the beginning of it when it talks about
[28:13] the background and the analysis.
[28:16] So
[28:19] >> this is just talking about that's
[28:20] talking about the surrounded uses.
[28:21] >> Okay. So you're saying that the
[28:23] surrounded uses are still the patio on
[28:25] the radio. Okay. Thank you. Oh yeah,
[28:27] that's
[28:30] the properties to the west are Harvest
[28:32] Park and they are RP and that is the
[28:35] zoning and the densities that they're
[28:37] that are there. And so the numbers
[28:41] um that he discussed are they're all
[28:43] set. And do we know which ones they are?
[28:46] >> And that's what I was going to say is I
[28:48] think there might be some confusion. The
[28:49] original application that's in the
[28:51] packet was a larger number of acres and
[28:55] it's shrunk uh and been changed a couple
[28:58] times uh a little bit of fluctuation
[29:01] there um due to issues that the
[29:05] applicant's having. I wouldn't say
[29:06] issues, but I things that the
[29:08] applicant's working out. The reason
[29:10] tonight would be for the 34 acres
[29:15] in those two zones.
[29:19] I I can add that what really matters is
[29:22] the legal descriptions which were
[29:23] provided
[29:25] on
[29:28] um as was pointed out by that gentleman
[29:30] earlier, legal descriptions are what
[29:32] carry. So it's page
[29:36] 99 and 100 of the packet.
[29:45] And if you add those two acreages up,
[29:48] they they equal the 34.635.
[29:57] My question is on um I know that there
[30:01] was a portion of the original
[30:04] there's approximately seven acres that
[30:06] was not going to be included in this
[30:07] development. That acreage is not
[30:09] included in density. Correct.
[30:20] » Have any other questions, concerns?
[30:26] I guess one of the last big concerns
[30:27] that I have is that um
[30:31] right now just looking at this um to me
[30:36] um we are talking about having any grass
[30:40] going out on a road that we do not have
[30:42] any plans for that road to be paid for.
[30:46] Sorry, did you not understand? Add on to
[30:49] South Weaver Drive. No. Up onto the old
[30:52] um old fort road. Um
[30:55] how is So if we have to have two
[30:57] aggressors and we've got the top old
[30:59] fort old fort road um who's I mean
[31:04] obviously we wanted uh to be able to
[31:07] have some type of connection going out
[31:08] there and it even shows it going through
[31:11] here but then ending at Old Fort Road
[31:14] but that's going to then end in a dead
[31:16] end. So to the west of Dead Ends, but
[31:19] it'll have the access to the south, the
[31:20] South Weaver Drive,
[31:21] >> right?
[31:22] >> And then it'll have the two accesses on
[31:24] Canyon and Old Fort Road.
[31:27] >> Uh that would connect to the east
[31:28] >> to the east into the what some people
[31:31] call the DR port subdivision.
[31:32] >> Yeah.
[31:34] >> Okay. But that one's not
[31:39] » Yeah,
[31:39] >> because it's part of the same developer
[31:42] other subdivision.
[31:44] >> Oh, yeah.
[31:44] >> And
[31:46] to and looking at that one. So, that
[31:48] one's got the exit going out there and
[31:50] then
[31:51] >> connect until this property
[31:55] develops.
[31:56] >> That's exactly that we assumed.
[31:58] >> Yeah.
[31:58] Um and I don't I I'm not
[32:02] comfortable with that. I know that we're
[32:04] just doing a reszone at this point right
[32:05] now, but um I'm still not comfortable
[32:09] with connecting it to a place that we
[32:11] don't have. I mean, obviously we can run
[32:12] it through the others, but um it it we
[32:16] could be talking years before we get any
[32:20] type of disconnection or any kind of
[32:23] connection going out. So, that's just my
[32:25] thought.
[32:27] >> Yeah. And then going out to the freeway.
[32:29] So, somebody's got to pay for it. And I
[32:32] don't know who or how we're going to be
[32:35] able to get that going over there cuz
[32:36] right now I have no intention of the
[32:39] city paying for it. So going to the
[32:42] west. Is that what you're saying?
[32:44] >> Yeah. Okay.
[32:45] >> Yeah.
[32:52] >> Um Lances on the reszone [clears throat]
[32:55] though, can we as far as density goes?
[32:58] Um can we tie it to the number of lots
[33:02] currently on this plat?
[33:05] >> Sure.
[33:07] Well, I mean you it technically in code
[33:09] we say that it's unless it's a
[33:11] significant change. That's one that we
[33:12] just put in and a significant change is
[33:15] 10% or more.
[33:17] >> But it needs to be based on the plat we
[33:20] reviewed at the time.
[33:21] >> Exactly.
[33:21] >> Okay. That that's where I was headed
[33:23] with that.
[33:23] >> Yeah.
[33:27] » As long as that plaque gets tied to that
[33:30] isn't, you know, that's been a concern
[33:31] in the past where we've lost that
[33:34] disconnect.
[33:35] and Joel Joel's guy.
[33:42] » Brandon, can you uh there's been a lot
[33:45] of comments about that connection on
[33:47] South Weber Road and and there being a
[33:49] blank corner there and it being a safety
[33:51] issue. Can you just address that for us,
[33:54] please?
[33:54] >> I can give you I can give you an answer.
[33:57] Um
[33:59] it this is a difficult area. um
[34:04] in the city's uh overall transportation
[34:08] master plan
[34:10] for all of this undeveloped ground here
[34:12] that's uh north of South Liber Drive. We
[34:15] show adding one more
[34:19] road connection between
[34:22] uh 1200 East and Canyon Meadows Drive.
[34:28] So, in that whole stretch, there's only
[34:30] there's we're only allowing one.
[34:33] Um,
[34:34] >> so this would be that one.
[34:35] >> This would be the one. Yep.
[34:37] >> Okay. And then the long-term plan to
[34:39] kind of address what Joel's concern is,
[34:42] obviously all that traffic will funnel
[34:44] out of that one exit point until old
[34:47] road eventually gets connected once
[34:50] whoever owns that property decides to
[34:52] develop it. I imagine that would be part
[34:54] of the development process just like
[34:57] these two properties are doing their
[35:00] sections, right?
[35:00] >> Yes. You mean to the west?
[35:01] >> To the west. Yeah.
[35:02] >> Yeah. Yes. Um I mean that's why we have
[35:06] a master plan and and uh you can only
[35:08] carry it forward as people decide to
[35:10] develop their ground. So um you can't
[35:14] control who develops first or when that
[35:17] happens. So we do we we uh respond
[35:22] accordingly.
[35:24] The as far as like the actual location
[35:26] connecting to 925 versus
[35:30] uh connecting it
[35:32] I think we call it where it's currently
[35:35] coming out at Cap Road. We call it Cap
[35:37] Road.
[35:39] um
[35:41] that UD do is is requiring it that that
[35:44] it goes at the at that location.
[35:48] It does feel like a blind corner right
[35:50] now. There are a lot of trees that are
[35:53] difficult to see around. Um
[35:59] in order for UDOT to approve it, they'll
[36:02] have to meet the site distances
[36:04] required.
[36:05] Um it is UD doat's road. Uh I I
[36:10] personally feel that uh it connecting to
[36:13] 925 in the long run
[36:16] is a safer location than than farther to
[36:20] the east. Again, what I would add to
[36:23] that is my my reasoning for that is that
[36:27] offset intersections
[36:29] always prove especially long term to be
[36:33] challenging and difficult.
[36:35] Um
[36:37] we show in the long-term plan that as
[36:41] soon as
[36:42] the traffic uh meets that the
[36:45] requirement that
[36:48] uh we would put it we'd anticipate the
[36:50] traffic signal would maybe um be
[36:53] anticipated here. Uh, I imagine in my
[36:57] again in my own opinion that would be a
[37:00] safer situation for the the kids that
[37:04] will live in this neighborhood that will
[37:05] go to South Weaver Drive, I mean to
[37:07] South Elementary and cross South Wever
[37:09] Drive. Um, versus offset intersections
[37:14] where you would have to choose one of
[37:15] those to put in a signal and the other
[37:18] one would be unsalized.
[37:20] um thus making it un less safe in my
[37:24] opinion. Um
[37:30] I I uh it would be ideal if you could
[37:33] connect in a location where the the road
[37:35] was perfectly straight.
[37:38] Um
[37:42] but they'll still have to meet those
[37:43] sight distance requirements. So
[37:46] that that approval comes from UD do.
[37:52] >> I don't know if I'm answering your
[37:53] question, but
[37:54] >> no, I I I appreciate it because I think
[37:56] that the context is important because
[37:58] that isn't necessarily drawn out like
[38:00] that in the documentation. So I that
[38:03] answered it for me. So I appreciate it.
[38:07] >> You brought up a that UD do approved it.
[38:11] I thought they required it to come out
[38:13] at that. No, no, no, no. They have not
[38:15] approved anything yet.
[38:18] They they they uh they are the ones that
[38:21] would need to approve it, but they are
[38:25] requiring if you're going to connect,
[38:27] you've got to connect at 925,
[38:30] >> right? So, they're saying crosswise, not
[38:34] to Okay, that's what you're saying by
[38:36] the 925.
[38:37] >> Yes. Now, we could just we could just
[38:39] eliminate having a road connection there
[38:42] alto together.
[38:43] But I don't think in the long run that is a wise plan.
[38:47] >> Well, especially if we don't have a
[38:49] connection going out in the west.
[38:51] Sorry.
[38:53] [laughter]
[38:55] >> Well, we've we've we the city has tried
[38:57] and uh you know in the general plan has mapped out the major roads and those
[39:03] connections and where those should be.
[39:06] So this is just simply carrying that
[39:09] step forward based on this particular
[39:12] property that is now wanting to develop.
[39:23] I guess the only um only thing I
[39:26] question then is
[39:30] are they doing this in proposed phases?
[39:38] » Okay. And the
[39:41] uh
[39:43] north end is going to be the first part
[39:46] done.
[39:47] >> Yep. There'll be a total of four phases.
[39:49] So we developed the cap piece in two
[39:51] phases and then the peak peak uh
[39:54] submission in two phases.
[39:56] >> Okay. And that's when the road will be
[39:58] put in as in
[39:59] >> well the the road will have to be
[40:02] connected there'll have to be connection
[40:04] from old fort road all the way through
[40:06] to South Weber drive in the first phase.
[40:10] Now they they can they can
[40:13] >> to get Yeah. Because right now there we are at the max number of of
[40:18] lots on
[40:22] a a place where there's only one ingress
[40:24] and egress.
[40:26] >> Okay.
[40:26] >> Or 30 homes there already. So you their first phase will have to include a
[40:31] road that goes all the way through to
[40:33] connect both of those so that they then
[40:36] have the ingress and eress that they
[40:38] need. But after that that um there
[40:42] really wouldn't it really wouldn't
[40:43] matter too much how they decide to phase
[40:44] it.
[40:45] >> Okay. Okay. And I I do appreciate the uh
[40:49] Patty Holmes being uh taken out from
[40:51] that first review that we looked.
[40:54] >> Um so okay, I think that's all my
[40:57] questions.
[40:58] >> Anyone else?
[41:00] >> We'll look for a motion then.
[41:05] Mayor, I make a motion.
[41:08] We approve ordinance
[41:11] 2026-04
[41:13] changing zoning for peak subdivision.
[41:17] Second
[41:19] motion and a second by council.
[41:23] >> We roll call motion.
[41:24] >> We have a question discussion before
[41:26] discussion.
[41:27] >> Yeah. Discussion. Are we tying this to
[41:29] the number of laws that have been
[41:30] proposed your motion?
[41:32] >> According to Joel, we it's automatic,
[41:35] right?
[41:36] low or
[41:37] >> do you want to include it in
[41:38] >> 10% is automatic if you want to keep it
[41:39] to anything lower if you want to keep it
[41:41] to anything lower than that 10%. So if
[41:44] you've got 100 homes going in there that
[41:47] gives you plus or minus 10 that can be
[41:50] changed in that. So if you want to
[41:51] reduce that number then it would have to
[41:53] be tied to the approval.
[41:56] >> Then you add that
[41:58] >> I will modify my motion Michelle. Um
[42:02] I'll just start over. Mayor make a
[42:04] motion to approve ordinance 2026-04
[42:06] changing zoning for peak subdivision
[42:09] as presented um
[42:20] » for the for the lot density on the
[42:22] current PL
[42:24] >> um for the lot density on the current
[42:26] plant presented to us.
[42:29] Does that work Jamie?
[42:31] >> Seconded.
[42:33] Okay,
[42:35] we roll call vote starting with
[42:36] Councilman Windsor.
[42:37] >> I I
[42:39] >> I
[42:42] motion carry. Thank you.
[42:46] Next item,
[42:48] conditional use permit 26-01
[42:51] from Quick Trip. Have Braxton here from
[42:54] Quick Trip and we'll ask him to come up
[42:56] and turn the time to him.
[42:58] >> Hi, Mayor. Hi, council. It's great to
[43:00] see you guys. Um, I have a presentation.
[43:05] We want to pull that up. Just giving you
[43:07] a little background on Quick Trip,
[43:09] little background on the project, where
[43:10] we are so far, and then I'll take
[43:13] questions at the end. So, we are Quick
[43:15] Trip. Um, we've been in business since
[43:18] 1958.
[43:19] Started in Tulsa, Oklahoma. That's where
[43:22] I started. I started in stores, 16 years
[43:24] old, worked my way up through the ranks.
[43:27] um now been with the company for 15
[43:30] years and get to present in front of you
[43:32] guys and get to build the next
[43:33] generation so that hopefully your
[43:35] 16-year-olds can go on and do exactly
[43:37] what I did. Um if we'll go to the next
[43:40] slide.
[43:45] Sweet. Uh members of this project are
[43:47] going to be Jessica Glavis. She is our
[43:49] real estate manager on this. She's the
[43:51] one that did the land acquisition,
[43:54] purchasing, and worked with the
[43:55] developer that previously owned the
[43:57] property. I am Braxton Key. As I already
[43:59] said, I'm the real estate project
[44:00] manager. I'm here to get it through
[44:02] entitlements and through the permitting
[44:03] process. Uh we have Galloway as our
[44:06] engineer. Um so Spencer is here with me
[44:09] and as well as Kylie Bailey. She is our
[44:11] engineer of record and then Brian Heran
[44:14] is our traffic engineer also from
[44:15] Galloway. And then Strong and Hy are our
[44:18] attorney on this project. Uh Reed
[44:20] Lambert is leading the charge on that.
[44:22] You can go to the next slide.
[44:26] So a little bit about QuickRip. Um our
[44:28] main objective at Quickrip is to provide
[44:30] opportunities to grow and succeed for
[44:31] our employees. Um our founder as he left
[44:35] the store operations side of things said
[44:37] that if you're not taking care of your
[44:38] customers, you better be taking care of
[44:40] your employees. And we still hold true
[44:42] to that today. Um I'm a testament of
[44:44] that. They put me through college.
[44:46] They've provided me with a, you know,
[44:48] ample salary to come talk to you guys
[44:49] and to be comfortable not to be looking
[44:51] for other jobs. So, they they still take
[44:53] care of their employees to this day. If
[44:55] we can move on to the next slide, um, we
[44:57] have five core values at Quick Trip. Be
[45:00] the best, focus longterm, do what's
[45:02] right for Quick Trip, never be
[45:04] satisfied, and also to do the right
[45:05] thing. Moving on, a little background on
[45:09] the company. We have spent 15 years on
[45:11] Forb's uh Fortune or on Fortune's list
[45:15] of 100 best companies to work for. We're
[45:17] frequently on Forb's top 100 privately
[45:20] held companies. Um we create an average
[45:22] of 20 new jobs per location. That is an
[45:24] initial job creation phase. Uh
[45:27] throughout the course of a store, stores
[45:29] are usually in business 25 to 50 years
[45:31] depending on the location. We if we shut
[45:34] one down, we usually relocate it across
[45:36] the street. So it's not going anywhere.
[45:37] It'll stay in your community. But
[45:39] throughout the course of our store, we
[45:40] anticipate anywhere from 400 to 600 jobs
[45:43] created um from that store.
[45:47] Quickrip has never laid off an employee
[45:48] in our history. Um we are very prideful
[45:50] of that. Um we have been through thick
[45:53] and thin with our employees and with our
[45:55] customers and we have been very blessed
[45:58] to never have laid off a single
[46:00] employee. Our average store manager
[46:02] salary starts around $100,000 to
[46:05] $110,000 per year. That's our base
[46:07] average. Um, that is a full-time career.
[46:10] That is a 9-to-f5. Well, it's 4 to 3,
[46:13] but still it's Monday through Friday.
[46:16] Um, they work there. They get benefits.
[46:18] They get stock. They get 401k. I mean,
[46:21] they get everything that you would get
[46:23] at a career. And we pride ourselves on a
[46:26] lot of our employees being over 10 years
[46:28] with the company. Um, and especially
[46:30] with our managers, the average is more
[46:32] than 10 years um with the company. Also,
[46:36] our assistant managers are well paid.
[46:37] So, they start at about $55,000 per year
[46:40] on average. Again, this is another
[46:42] full-time job. It's Monday through
[46:44] Friday. Some positions are going to be
[46:46] on the weekends, but still, it's a
[46:47] full-time job. It's a foot in the door,
[46:50] an opportunity for you to grow within
[46:52] the company, to move up, as I did. Um,
[46:55] Quitrip also contributes 5% of our
[46:58] profits every year to local
[47:00] organizations. Um, that is selected
[47:02] through our local stores. They have a
[47:04] committee. They pick whatever in their
[47:06] community has the most need, whether
[47:08] that be United Way, Folds of Honor,
[47:10] which is from my hometown of Aasa,
[47:12] Oklahoma. We're very big proponents of
[47:14] that. Um, and then we donate to just
[47:16] various organizations that reach out and
[47:18] need help. Um, we have links all over
[47:20] our website that you can go to. If you
[47:22] guys know of a need, we would be happy
[47:24] to donate to it.
[47:26] >> We always have sponsorships available,
[47:27] too.
[47:29] >> Yes, I've been told. Uh, yes. [laughter]
[47:32] So, um, we also are a national safe
[47:35] place organization. So, if a, uh, youth
[47:37] comes into our store asking for a safe
[47:39] place, we call representatives from Safe
[47:41] Place. They come and scoop up the youth
[47:43] within 15 minutes and then police are
[47:45] notified if if they need to be involved.
[47:47] Moving on to the next slide. Here's a
[47:50] few pictures of our community
[47:51] involvement. Um, as you can see, we do a
[47:54] wide variety of things all the way from
[47:56] the MLK parade to Veterans Day to that
[47:59] the purple shirts are our day of caring
[48:01] with United Way. So, we go out to local
[48:03] organizations within the community, um,
[48:06] pick up shovels, move dirt, do do
[48:08] whatever they need us to do at that
[48:10] local uh, spot. We move on. Now, I'm
[48:13] going to make you guys a little bit
[48:14] hungry before I get into the details of
[48:15] our plans. So, I'm going to show you
[48:16] some of our fresh food options. These
[48:20] are our donuts. Um they are made they are excellent and they are they are
[48:25] shipped here every day. Um they are made
[48:28] fresh and they are they are fantastic.
[48:30] If we move on breakfast pizza this put
[48:32] on about 10 pounds on me uh when I
[48:35] worked in the stores. So it is
[48:37] delicious. I can attest to that. Here's
[48:39] some of our sandwich options. And we got
[48:40] grilled cheese in the bottom right
[48:41] corner. And all these are made fresh
[48:44] within our store. So if we can move on.
[48:46] And then these this is our newest item
[48:48] which are crispy snacks. So, we have all
[48:51] kinds of crispy snacks that we offer now
[48:52] at all of our stores. Um, and every
[48:55] store that's built here in Utah will
[48:57] start off with crispy snacks. We're
[48:58] going to retrofitting all the existing
[49:00] inventory. Obviously, we can't slow
[49:02] going. Uh, moving on to our site plan.
[49:05] So, this is a picture of our site plan.
[49:07] It is in your packet, but I just wanted
[49:09] to give you guys another visual
[49:10] representation of our site plan. We have
[49:12] worked very diligently with your
[49:13] planning commission and with your city
[49:15] staff um to get to this point. If we can
[49:19] move on,
[49:21] here are a few of the items that we have
[49:24] um worked with planning commission and
[49:26] staff on. So, we have reduced the height
[49:28] of our pole sign by 40%. We have reduced
[49:31] the square footage by 43%. Um the pole
[49:34] sign was relocated from the south
[49:35] entrance to behind our trash enclosures.
[49:38] We have also reduced the number of
[49:40] proposed monument signs to one. We have
[49:42] added 20 additional trees along the
[49:44] southern and western areas of our site
[49:46] plan. This is to provide um as the
[49:50] gentleman came up and spoke earlier to
[49:51] provide shading and a buffer from the
[49:54] residential housing that is caddy corner
[49:56] from us. We have also made the south
[49:59] entrance a truck only entrance which we
[50:02] will provide signage um at that entrance
[50:04] so that it is utilized only as a truck
[50:07] entrance and as you can see on our site
[50:08] plan it is very hard for trucks to ever
[50:11] exit from there. Um, and then we have
[50:14] also confirmed the location and
[50:15] materials uh to satisfy neighbors and
[50:18] planning commission for our fencing uh
[50:20] along the highway. We can move on now.
[50:23] We're going to get into store design.
[50:24] Here's a picture of your guys' lovely
[50:26] quick trip. Hopefully, it'll come to
[50:28] fruition soon. We can move on. This is
[50:31] the gas canopy, the proposed gas canopy.
[50:35] Here's the diesel canopy. And then
[50:37] here's our proposed fencing that I
[50:39] mentioned earlier. This is just a
[50:40] rendering. Um, I can get you guys
[50:42] inerson photos as well if if need be.
[50:46] >> Any questions?
[50:49] >> Thank you for the presentation. I
[50:51] appreciate that and I love how succinct
[50:53] it was.
[50:53] >> Um, my comment is on the fence.
[50:56] >> I am very opposed to a wood fence right
[50:58] there. Okay,
[50:58] >> that is entrance of our city and we had
[51:00] this discussion on council several
[51:02] months ago about how that should look
[51:04] and so we decided to maintain a masonry
[51:07] fence for a sixft masonry fence for that
[51:11] specific location.
[51:12] >> So we have required that on our frontage
[51:15] on I84
[51:17] and so we'd like to continue that here
[51:20] >> if if that's a conditional condition for
[51:22] approval as I showed on our slide. We we
[51:25] are more than happy to work with you
[51:26] guys.
[51:28] >> It's a condition for me. [laughter]
[51:31] >> It is me.
[51:36] » Anyone else?
[51:37] Any other questions?
[51:41] >> Not for the developer.
[51:43] >> Can I get your opinions on the fence?
[51:48] » Rude.
[51:50] >> I'll ask Jeremy. Jeremy, how do you feel
[51:52] about the fence? [laughter]
[51:54] Uh, I like the idea of a masonry fence.
[51:56] I think that'll make it look a lot
[51:57] better than than the one that's been
[51:59] proposed. My my question would be, is
[52:02] that going to be irrelevant because
[52:03] they're going to put up a sound wall
[52:04] once they redo 89 anyway? Do we know
[52:08] >> if we'll cut that?
[52:09] >> That's a long ways away.
[52:11] >> Yeah.
[52:12] >> Okay.
[52:13] >> That doesn't want to put as a
[52:14] requirement. Then there's a 12T sound
[52:17] wall that goes right in front of it or
[52:18] something, you know.
[52:20] But if that's not going to be a concern,
[52:23] >> the new interchange
[52:26] that they're doing at 84,
[52:29] uh, the sound wall is going to be part
[52:31] of that.
[52:32] >> Is that going to be on both sides?
[52:34] >> It shows it on their plan.
[52:35] >> Okay.
[52:36] >> But the sound wall does not come that
[52:38] far. In fact, it stops
[52:41] >> right about there.
[52:43] >> Okay.
[52:43] >> Maybe just about there.
[52:45] >> Okay. So then it would make sense to
[52:47] continue a masonry wall there. I think I would look good. Yeah.
[52:50] >> Okay. Thank you.
[52:51] >> And and when I I'd say masonry just so
[52:54] that he doesn't see, hey, I'm cutting
[52:56] you off.
[52:57] >> You had a chance.
[52:58] You said no.
[53:00] >> Okay. Uh
[53:02] but [laughter] uh it it isn't a huge
[53:05] dollar thing either. I think the masonry
[53:06] fences, if you look as we as you go down
[53:09] 84, they're they're they've been nice.
[53:12] They're not a I mean, it's not a
[53:15] >> what I want to say. It's not like you're
[53:16] building a sound wall.
[53:17] >> Yeah. But it there it's a just a nice
[53:20] looking masonry wall.
[53:22] >> Yeah.
[53:22] >> Not a cinder block.
[53:24] >> Yeah.
[53:25] >> Now, and if you've ever been to any of
[53:27] our sites, which we don't have any here
[53:29] in Utah to be examples, we will soon in
[53:31] Marriott Slaterville, but you'll notice
[53:33] that we maintain all of our sites to the
[53:35] utmost excellence and we we hold
[53:37] ourselves to a higher standard than most
[53:39] of our competitors.
[53:42] >> Can you clarify specifically where
[53:44] you're requiring that as a condition?
[53:46] Yeah, that's a great idea.
[53:49] >> Bible site plan.
[53:50] >> Um, yeah. Can we go to site plan?
[53:54] >> Can we give uh Wayne an opportunity to
[53:56] speak?
[53:56] >> Oh my goodness.
[53:59] >> And she's running around the meeting
[54:00] though, so I guess I got
[54:02] >> I'll allow it.
[54:02] >> Councilman Windsor, would you like to
[54:04] comment?
[54:07] >> May I? Yes, ma'am.
[54:09] Uh, I I do agree that wood fence is more
[54:11] dilapidated is going to fall apart. But
[54:13] my question would be when you say
[54:14] masonry wall, masonry fence, you're
[54:16] talking 4 foot, 6 foot, 10 foot. What?
[54:18] >> Six foot.
[54:19] >> Sorry.
[54:20] >> Six foot.
[54:21] >> Six. Okay. I thought you said eight.
[54:22] That was the one number I didn't say. So
[54:23] I want to make sure of six foot.
[54:25] >> Six foot. Yeah.
[54:27] >> Pre-cast is what you're talking about.
[54:28] >> Yes. Pre-cast. Yes.
[54:29] >> Wayne, I I do want to point out though,
[54:31] we we do not have a single wood fence in
[54:33] our entire inventory that's dilapidated
[54:35] or run down. So we we do maintain very
[54:38] well.
[54:40] Never met south or winds.
[54:43] >> Yeah.
[54:44] >> But yes, no, we we are more than happy
[54:46] to abide by the condition.
[54:49] >> I think a masonry fence also offers some
[54:52] uh safety features.
[54:54] >> Yeah.
[54:54] >> You know, you get uh fires along the
[54:57] highways. We had one this past summer on
[55:01] 84 next to RV park.
[55:03] >> Yeah.
[55:03] >> And if it hadn't been for a masonry
[55:05] wall, that RV park would have been
[55:07] toast.
[55:08] >> Yeah.
[55:08] >> So,
[55:10] That's
[55:13] >> where was the
[55:15] >> extent of the wood fence going trying to
[55:18] >> It was against the 89.
[55:21] >> There should be a call out.
[55:22] >> I was looking for it. I I saw it
[55:24] earlier. I just
[55:26] >> It's on page 120.
[55:30] » Sign
[55:32] the dumpster.
[55:35] >> On page 120, it shows the fence.
[55:40] which is the east side and also the
[55:44] north side.
[55:47] » I I think what was proposed was the east
[55:51] property line would have the wood feds.
[55:53] >> Yeah, it was called.
[55:54] >> Yeah, it's right here. Right here in the
[55:56] right there where your mouse just was
[55:58] >> right there.
[56:00] >> Is it east and east north or I mean
[56:03] >> just east? Well, there's if you want to
[56:05] simplify it and just say the east
[56:07] property line and the north property
[56:08] line.
[56:08] >> Yes, that's what I've Yep.
[56:14] » So, do you want you want are you
[56:16] suggesting that it be on both property
[56:17] lines or just the east property line?
[56:19] >> I think so.
[56:21] >> I think both. This is this is the corner
[56:23] entrance of our city, so I don't see why
[56:25] we would want it on one and not the
[56:27] other because there would be need to be
[56:29] a fence there anyways regardless.
[56:34] Um, one quick question that I did have
[56:36] was that during your presentation you
[56:38] mentioned that you were only having one
[56:40] sign,
[56:42] >> one monument sign.
[56:44] >> Yes. And the one pole sign, which will
[56:45] be our big 60 foot.
[56:47] >> Okay.
[56:48] >> Pull sign.
[56:49] >> Um, as we go through this, it's
[56:51] important to me, so point it out if I
[56:54] don't catch it. um that we give equal
[56:59] um uh accessibility and freedom if you
[57:02] will to both businesses. Um I don't want
[57:05] this to uh in any way
[57:09] hinder our current maverick. Um but
[57:12] anything that we've also allowed I think
[57:14] is also clearly uh should be pointed out
[57:16] and allowed um to any other businesses
[57:18] that would come here. Well, in in the
[57:21] background, the reduction of the sign
[57:22] was due to neighbors concern of light
[57:25] shining into their window. And so, we
[57:27] were trying our best to accommodate. And
[57:28] so, at that distance, with our canopy
[57:31] height being 20 ft
[57:33] >> and then that sign only being 60 ft, as
[57:35] you move further away, that canopy is
[57:36] going to start shielding that a little
[57:38] bit more. So, our hope is that the
[57:40] residential properties won't ever see
[57:43] it. But, if they do, it'll be as
[57:44] mitigated as possible because the
[57:46] original placement of the sign was on
[57:48] that southern entrance. Okay. Um, and I
[57:50] did see the landscaping on it and I do
[57:53] greatly appreciate the the trees that
[57:55] are going inside there, especially the
[57:57] honey locust. They'll they will do
[57:58] perfect there. So
[58:02] » Jo did touch on my question, but it
[58:04] wasn't necessarily for the developers,
[58:05] more for the planning commission and or
[58:08] staff. And it's like I'm I'm very much
[58:11] troubled by these left turn only medians
[58:13] that are on the frontage road um and
[58:17] assate they cause. This isn't the
[58:20] developer doing this is he's doing it
[58:22] because it was directed by someone.
[58:24] Could that someone please explain to us
[58:26] why this is more beneficial than not?
[58:28] them there. Can we just get rid of them?
[58:31] >> I I can respond to that. You may not
[58:33] like my response, but the city council
[58:38] adopted a transportation master plan and
[58:41] we had a whole section in there
[58:43] addressing this stretch of road
[58:47] in that plan because we knew that
[58:49] something may someday happen on this
[58:51] property. And so we we hired a a traffic
[58:55] consultant to give us recommendations on
[58:57] what they felt would be the best way to
[58:59] address this ahead of time so that when
[59:02] someone comes in, we would be prepared
[59:04] and we could respond accordingly. So
[59:07] what you see before you is just
[59:09] basically implementing that plan to as
[59:11] far as we could do it without the city
[59:14] having to come up with the additional
[59:16] funds to basically widen it to one more
[59:20] lane. Um well really it's two lanes cuz
[59:23] what's being proposed is is three lanes,
[59:26] a lane in each direction and a center lane. Uh the long-term plan was
[59:32] five lanes or two lanes in each
[59:34] direction and a center lane. Um as well
[59:37] as a roundabout at 7,800.
[59:41] So
[59:42] the the the roundabout um
[59:46] was beyond the scope of of their full
[59:50] impact and so it uh the city would be on
[59:54] the hook to pay for a portion of that.
[59:57] Um as well as additional widening.
[1:00:01] Um as I think you're well aware, the
[1:00:03] city does not have money to put towards
[1:00:06] a project of that magnitude at this
[1:00:07] time. We have submitted uh a grant
[1:00:12] application to be able to do the
[1:00:16] additional work. Um but that would be
[1:00:18] years in the future.
[1:00:20] If I recall from the meeting when we
[1:00:22] talked about this um there was some
[1:00:25] concern about
[1:00:28] if if what we were potentially going to
[1:00:31] plan for was was the right thing to do.
[1:00:35] Um so right now there is no roundabout
[1:00:39] being proposed. Uh there's only the
[1:00:42] three lanes.
[1:00:44] It you you could move forward with this
[1:00:47] as as it is. um and just see how things
[1:00:51] go. And if it feels like it's becoming a
[1:00:54] problem, then you know, if if we were
[1:00:57] able to get additional grant funding and
[1:00:59] you wanted to widen it and go for the roundabout, if you felt like that
[1:01:04] was the the safest thing to do, you
[1:01:06] could do that. Um as far as the medians
[1:01:09] go, that was part of it.
[1:01:12] Um actually,
[1:01:15] there was a single median. It was not
[1:01:17] broken up so that you could go through
[1:01:19] it. It was a single median with the full
[1:01:21] intent of anything leaving Maverick
[1:01:23] would have to go up and go around the
[1:01:26] roundabout to come back down. Um, so I'm I get blamed a lot for things and I
[1:01:32] just wanted to clarify that when we did
[1:01:34] that one, it was a single median going
[1:01:36] up that road. So,
[1:01:39] >> right. But but restricting left-hand
[1:01:41] turns. So, so what is in front of you
[1:01:45] would actually allow
[1:01:49] residents or whoever is trying to get to
[1:01:51] Maverick to turn left into that. Um,
[1:01:55] which I guess allows one more movement
[1:01:56] than what was in the plan.
[1:01:59] >> Um, I'm not saying the plane was right.
[1:02:02] I'm just saying
[1:02:04] that those turns in there, they weren't
[1:02:06] in there when we approved it.
[1:02:07] >> Right.
[1:02:08] >> Be great. I I I have to say that that uh
[1:02:12] in my professional opinion, I think the
[1:02:14] safer thing is to leave the medians.
[1:02:18] >> Brandon, is there any laws that would be
[1:02:20] broken if we did not put those medians
[1:02:22] in?
[1:02:23] >> Uh no laws that I'm aware of.
[1:02:25] >> My insurance would go up because my
[1:02:26] daughter would So, I'm sorry. I didn't
[1:02:30] mean to interrupt. I had another
[1:02:31] question.
[1:02:32] >> Go ahead.
[1:02:33] >> So, what we're asking if we don't put
[1:02:34] the meetings in there, we're relying
[1:02:36] upon public to be
[1:02:38] the public and be safe and make
[1:02:40] conscious decisions to make left and
[1:02:42] right turns and be a little courteous
[1:02:44] rather than forcing the the traffic
[1:02:46] pattern
[1:02:47] >> if we didn't put the medians in.
[1:02:49] >> That That's correct.
[1:02:50] >> Would we be liable for any accident if
[1:02:52] we did not put the medians in?
[1:02:55] that I that I can't respond to because
[1:02:57] if if you are are knowingly doing
[1:03:00] something that that um could be
[1:03:04] demonstrated that is is uh
[1:03:09] not
[1:03:09] >> Amy, could you weigh in real quick?
[1:03:15] As all of you I I hope know by now,
[1:03:18] liability in Utah can be shared and if
[1:03:21] there are defects in the design or
[1:03:24] dangerous conditions created as a result
[1:03:26] of the design, um cities can be held
[1:03:29] responsible for that. I'm not a
[1:03:32] transportation engineer or a design
[1:03:34] professional on that and so I defer to
[1:03:36] the expertise of our city attorney, but
[1:03:38] I I think he's given you good
[1:03:40] recommendations on what or city
[1:03:42] engineer. He's given you good
[1:03:44] recommendations on um what he deems to
[1:03:48] be the safest design there. I will say,
[1:03:51] you know, you can reach a level where
[1:03:54] you're sanitizing the environment more
[1:03:58] than what would be required, right?
[1:03:59] We're not required to bubble bubble wrap
[1:04:01] the city so that no accident can ever
[1:04:04] occur. But you do have to follow sound
[1:04:07] engineering principles, establish design
[1:04:10] practices. And I think within that there
[1:04:13] are typically ranges of options that are
[1:04:15] available and Brandon can probably guide
[1:04:18] you on, you know, what those choices are
[1:04:20] and what are the reasonable choices
[1:04:23] there. If you depart from what he
[1:04:25] recommends, I would only advise that you
[1:04:28] do that if you do it after some study
[1:04:30] and review to make sure that what you're
[1:04:34] doing fits within the established and
[1:04:37] accepted designs.
[1:04:38] >> Okay. Thank you, Brandon. Please
[1:04:40] continue.
[1:04:42] >> Angie, I didn't catch your question, so
[1:04:44] I'm open to it now.
[1:04:45] >> It was nothing. It was just hilarious.
[1:04:47] That's all.
[1:04:51] Did I answer the question?
[1:04:55] Do you have
[1:04:56] >> question?
[1:04:57] >> Yeah, I I warned you that you probably
[1:04:59] wouldn't.
[1:05:01] >> Is there no other option that is
[1:05:03] possible? Because that's I think that's
[1:05:05] the thing that was causing the most
[1:05:07] consternation in all the comments that
[1:05:09] I've heard and you've heard. I think um
[1:05:12] >> is there no other
[1:05:15] >> plausible option? I let I if I could
[1:05:18] just go back in time a little bit when Maverick came in, they owned the
[1:05:24] property to the point where they put
[1:05:25] their access.
[1:05:27] So, the city did not require them to go
[1:05:30] and purchase additional property to move
[1:05:32] that access farther south, which would
[1:05:34] have been ideal
[1:05:36] because it it we knew that it was too
[1:05:38] close to the intersection, but it's the
[1:05:40] property they owned and they needed an access on to South Bieber Drive and
[1:05:44] on to 2700 East. So, that's just how it
[1:05:47] came to be. When Car Wash came in, they
[1:05:51] only owned up to where that second
[1:05:53] property or that second access is. So
[1:05:56] that's where it went. And as long as
[1:05:58] nobody's across the street, it's fine as
[1:06:00] you've seen, right? It works just fine.
[1:06:03] But now that you've got somebody coming
[1:06:05] in across the street,
[1:06:07] those access locations are not where
[1:06:11] they should be ideally. This the spacing
[1:06:14] between them is is
[1:06:16] uh is not ideal. Therefore, the you have
[1:06:20] queuing in the center median that could
[1:06:23] be in conflict with each other. while
[1:06:26] there's people trying to turn left out
[1:06:29] of both businesses on both sides. So,
[1:06:32] the the the potential for conflicts
[1:06:37] goes way up. You can eliminate a lot of
[1:06:39] those by putting in the center median
[1:06:41] and only allowing them to turn right. I
[1:06:43] mean, I recognize that that is not
[1:06:46] ideal, but it is the current situation
[1:06:49] that we have before us.
[1:06:51] >> What about the I mean, I get it.
[1:06:54] Maverick's entrance is close to the
[1:06:56] intersection.
[1:06:58] Morty's is another what?
[1:07:00] >> It's super close. I don't know. Another
[1:07:04] >> Well, they have the shared and then it's
[1:07:05] just up.
[1:07:07] >> Yeah.
[1:07:08] >> I'm just trying to think of how you get
[1:07:09] people because you can turn over into
[1:07:12] more. I mean, I went over there five
[1:07:13] times to look through this trying to
[1:07:15] figure it out. The last thing I still
[1:07:17] want is people turning and going up into
[1:07:19] the neighborhood or even turning and
[1:07:21] trying to come back down around through
[1:07:23] QT.
[1:07:24] >> Agreed.
[1:07:25] >> And that's what's going to happen.
[1:07:27] >> But don't you think behavior will change
[1:07:29] though,
[1:07:30] >> Blair?
[1:07:31] >> Huh?
[1:07:32] >> Yeah.
[1:07:32] >> Not Not I mean it might change in mind
[1:07:34] cuz right you know I'm I'm stopping at
[1:07:37] one of these places every morning
[1:07:39] because and I'll learn it but the people
[1:07:41] who are just coming in are going to pull
[1:07:42] out and not know. Yeah, the issues with
[1:07:46] trailers, you know, RVs and stuff like
[1:07:49] that, they're coming into the Maverick
[1:07:50] where they go out
[1:07:51] >> unless they're going all the way around
[1:07:53] and back.
[1:07:53] >> And with a trailer, like let's say
[1:07:56] someone goes to their dump, and I hate
[1:07:57] to keep going back to there to to
[1:08:01] someone who's had gave public comment in
[1:08:03] planning commission. She was very
[1:08:04] accurate. Go try to pull out of there in
[1:08:06] a trailer. Now turn, you're going to
[1:08:09] turn right. Now go find somewhere to
[1:08:10] turn around.
[1:08:11] >> Church parking lot. you're gonna have to
[1:08:13] go find a great big parking lot. And
[1:08:16] yeah, I I I I I
[1:08:19] do not like the medians. There's got to
[1:08:21] be another solution to that. I mean, I I
[1:08:24] get it. I I agree with Brandon. I
[1:08:25] understand why it's there. I never did
[1:08:28] agree with the roundabouts on the
[1:08:29] traffic studies. So, I mean, is there a
[1:08:32] way to widen the road, do something
[1:08:35] there? I just paint stripe it have it as
[1:08:37] a left turn like
[1:08:40] >> lines on each side no median and allow
[1:08:42] people to make conscious decision I' run
[1:08:43] into each other I mean come on we could
[1:08:47] do another round of study I would
[1:08:49] recommend that you do a third party
[1:08:51] that's outside of us um
[1:08:56] and see if there's additional some some
[1:08:59] other option that maybe hasn't been
[1:09:02] discovered yet. Um, the only thing I
[1:09:04] would I I guess I would wonder is it's
[1:09:08] related to the to QT's application, but
[1:09:14] um it's a little bit difficult for them
[1:09:18] to be kind of uh hamstrung by the the
[1:09:23] road and yet it is part of the issue.
[1:09:25] So, if there was a way that if you want
[1:09:29] to do additional studies that they could
[1:09:32] have the assurance of of like their
[1:09:33] conditional use permit
[1:09:36] that they're going to get that, but
[1:09:38] still allow for additional study and and
[1:09:41] be able to continue that. Um, that might
[1:09:44] be a way to help them know that that
[1:09:48] what they're proposing is is uh
[1:09:51] acceptable to you with the conditions
[1:09:53] that you place. But if you're not
[1:09:56] comfortable with how the road is
[1:09:58] currently designed or laid out, then
[1:10:02] we can study it more. Or you can just
[1:10:06] eliminate the the [clears throat] uh
[1:10:08] medians altogether and and just move
[1:10:11] forward. But I cannot in good conscience
[1:10:14] say that I think that's a good idea.
[1:10:17] >> And I I'm not a fan of the medians.
[1:10:21] That's why I voted no originally. I
[1:10:23] wanted to make sure that we talked about
[1:10:25] that. But looking at what's coming in
[1:10:28] here, looking at the options that we
[1:10:31] really do have. You have a lot more
[1:10:33] faith in people than I do. Um, I've got
[1:10:35] an RV and I've tried pulling out of
[1:10:38] Maverick many of times and um, there's a
[1:10:41] lot of times that
[1:10:43] um, well, let's just say that uh, kids
[1:10:46] don't necessarily have the the most
[1:10:48] wisdom when they're making uh, decisions
[1:10:50] like this. If
[1:10:54] this hurts, if our city engineer
[1:10:57] is saying that he honestly believes this
[1:11:01] is the best and safest route that we can
[1:11:04] do, I don't see how having another
[1:11:08] engineer come in that we don't love and
[1:11:11] admire um as a third party try to tell
[1:11:14] us, well, maybe we could do this. I feel
[1:11:17] that you've really you you've done a
[1:11:20] good job on it. the best job that's available. I don't see any other
[1:11:25] way that this would be able to work and
[1:11:26] still be equal to both sides.
[1:11:30] I I don't like it, but I also don't see
[1:11:34] any other way to do it. I do I've seen
[1:11:36] what QT has done where they've decided
[1:11:38] to have the trucks only going up in
[1:11:40] there. Um, and I am anxious to see that.
[1:11:44] Um, the exit only down lower. I think
[1:11:47] they've done uh quite a bit to make sure
[1:11:50] that
[1:11:51] they work with what we've got. So, um I
[1:11:57] I'm just I guess I'm letting council
[1:11:59] know that I think this is uh the best
[1:12:02] option that we've got. Um and not happy
[1:12:05] with it, but it is the best.
[1:12:07] >> And sorry,
[1:12:08] >> I do want to add one comment to that.
[1:12:09] So, we we worked with Brandon and staff
[1:12:11] for six months on this and we explored
[1:12:16] all the options that you guys brought
[1:12:17] up. We explored just painting. We
[1:12:19] explored this. We explored just straight
[1:12:21] median and this was the best one that we
[1:12:23] could come up with, which was we're
[1:12:25] actually adding an additional lane.
[1:12:26] We're giving up some of our land. Yeah.
[1:12:27] >> Adding an additional lane to turn right
[1:12:30] onto South Beaver Drive, which we were
[1:12:33] hoping would be the safest. But I just
[1:12:35] want to reiterate that we we've tried to
[1:12:38] exhaust every avenue that we have on
[1:12:40] this and
[1:12:42] I I didn't want you guys to think we
[1:12:44] weren't weren't working with you on
[1:12:45] that.
[1:12:45] >> No. And that's the point is that I don't
[1:12:47] see how spending more money asking the
[1:12:50] same question over and over hoping for a
[1:12:52] different outcome is
[1:12:53] >> right
[1:12:54] >> is the right move.
[1:12:56] >> I I just also want to say that if you
[1:12:57] guys think that Maverick isn't going to
[1:12:59] do something to account for this, I
[1:13:01] think you're crazy. like this is one of
[1:13:03] their top 10 stores in their entire
[1:13:06] company and uh and if they were in
[1:13:10] QuickTits uh position, they'd be going to town to to get what
[1:13:18] they want in in that spot. So, while
[1:13:21] Maverick is great and I and I go there
[1:13:23] and I specifically buy my gas in
[1:13:25] Maverick because it helps the city.
[1:13:26] That's I always I don't get my gas
[1:13:29] anywhere else at the moment.
[1:13:31] Um,
[1:13:33] but I think a lot of the concerns that
[1:13:34] have been brought up by this the
[1:13:36] citizenry is they want the status quo to
[1:13:39] continue and I think the status quo
[1:13:42] needs to change anyway.
[1:13:44] So,
[1:13:46] um, if we approve this as is, I
[1:13:50] guarantee you one of the first things
[1:13:53] that Maverick does is they're going to
[1:13:55] do some refinaging on their property to
[1:13:57] make it easy for trucks and and things
[1:14:00] to go in and out of that place.
[1:14:02] >> Probably do.
[1:14:03] >> Um, I don't know how they would do it,
[1:14:05] but there's no way they just like sit on
[1:14:06] their laurels and not do anything.
[1:14:08] There's no way they just give up like
[1:14:10] that. They're too big of an organization
[1:14:12] and that that store makes them way too
[1:14:14] much money in my opinion.
[1:14:17] >> That's the point. If by doing this we
[1:14:19] hinder their business by forcing the
[1:14:21] competition by forcing their customers
[1:14:23] to go to their competition because they
[1:14:25] can't get out and do what they need to
[1:14:26] do. That's my concern. I got to come
[1:14:29] after the city by by penalizing them
[1:14:31] because right now if I got a trail and
[1:14:33] I'm in a mad I'm going to go up and I'm
[1:14:34] going to drive through quick to turn
[1:14:36] around to go back out on South Drive.
[1:14:38] That's the quickest way turn back
[1:14:40] around.
[1:14:41] >> Well, what I'm saying is that if you
[1:14:43] think that Maverick isn't going to
[1:14:44] change their setup somehow to better
[1:14:46] accommodate their traffic,
[1:14:47] >> why should they have to? I mean, I'm not
[1:14:49] trying to try to defend it, but why
[1:14:50] should I have to? If the city allows
[1:14:53] this to happen, they're they're damaging
[1:14:55] their c their customers capabilities.
[1:14:58] >> Yeah. I don't see it that way. I see it
[1:14:59] from the perspective of
[1:15:01] >> if I find a trailer, I'm not going to go
[1:15:02] to Maverick because it's hard for me to
[1:15:03] get out of there. I'm going to go to the
[1:15:04] other one. Now, they just took business
[1:15:06] away from Maverick.
[1:15:07] >> Sure. That's a free market.
[1:15:09] >> Sure. Then
[1:15:10] >> Quick's not going to have
[1:15:14] » football.
[1:15:16] How else do you do it?
[1:15:18] >> I mean, Maverick will be the only one
[1:15:19] that has that
[1:15:20] >> stupid dope, but then
[1:15:23] I guess
[1:15:24] >> I'm not trying to make an argument
[1:15:26] either way. I'm saying it's it's it's
[1:15:28] damaging one for another. And I'm like,
[1:15:30] how can we make it even? How can we make
[1:15:32] it fair?
[1:15:32] >> I agree.
[1:15:41] I would still vote to take it out.
[1:15:44] >> Take out the median.
[1:15:45] >> Yep. No roundabout. No median.
[1:15:48] >> What would you do instead of the instead
[1:15:50] of the median? Would you do the painted
[1:15:51] lines like
[1:15:52] >> paint the lines?
[1:15:54] I mean it
[1:15:56] it's c it's doable. I get it. the one I
[1:15:59] mean I would be I would I'd be more apt
[1:16:01] to approve just the first section of
[1:16:03] that and not blocking off mortgage as
[1:16:05] well
[1:16:06] >> because that that gives that gives those
[1:16:08] people a way out of there.
[1:16:10] >> Oh, I see.
[1:16:11] >> You you literally take it
[1:16:13] >> you you take you take my 47 foot horse
[1:16:15] trailer and go try to go around the
[1:16:17] backside of Maverick and come around to
[1:16:19] their front entrance. It doesn't happen.
[1:16:21] I mean, I just don't go in there
[1:16:22] anymore. I go in there with a truck and
[1:16:24] a pup. I don't go in there anymore. I
[1:16:27] mean, we are doing a disservice to that
[1:16:29] company next to them by having that
[1:16:31] there. That that's my opinion. Whether
[1:16:34] it's the safety, whatever. I just don't
[1:16:36] think you allow some something to come
[1:16:38] in there and then we put something in
[1:16:40] there that affects another business
[1:16:42] because of our decision.
[1:16:45] >> Brandon, what do you think on that? Um,
[1:16:49] getting rid of the second. Yeah, I the
[1:16:52] doing anything here definitely has an
[1:16:54] impact on Maverick and I my uh
[1:16:59] recommendation of putting in the medians
[1:17:01] is because I believe that's the safest
[1:17:05] >> but it's but you have to take into I
[1:17:08] mean
[1:17:09] >> but but that that sounds like I'm like
[1:17:12] well too bad so sad for Maverick. If
[1:17:14] there was if I felt like there was a um
[1:17:18] an option where like
[1:17:21] we could make everybody happy, then we
[1:17:24] certainly would have tried to land on
[1:17:25] that be way before now.
[1:17:29] >> Had you brought Maverick in to have a
[1:17:31] conversation with them to get their
[1:17:32] ideas on the subject?
[1:17:34] >> Uh no, we have not.
[1:17:37] >> They've had a representative at uh
[1:17:39] planning commission. Yes, but we we have
[1:17:42] not sought them out to to get their
[1:17:45] opinion. Um,
[1:17:49] so the second one though, so the first
[1:17:52] one was actually a median and then the
[1:17:53] second one was painted on that gives you
[1:17:56] this the safest the the control if you
[1:18:00] will of making sure people know which
[1:18:01] one to go into instead of going in the
[1:18:04] exit only. Um but then the secondary one
[1:18:07] if that one is a painted on and that
[1:18:09] would allow uh Morty N maverick people
[1:18:12] to make that left turn.
[1:18:15] Yeah, exactly. Stop it basically right
[1:18:18] there with that first one and then that
[1:18:20] second one just be painted. Do you think
[1:18:23] that that would inherently increase the
[1:18:26] risk dramatically?
[1:18:28] Um what's what's your thoughts? I don't
[1:18:32] I I don't know how much of the traffic
[1:18:34] is going to be pushed to that second to
[1:18:37] the Morty's to the car wash uh entrance.
[1:18:40] Um this much I can see.
[1:18:42] >> I see that I think we're talking exit
[1:18:44] right now though because yeah, as it's
[1:18:46] going through the first that's the way
[1:18:47] everybody still travels. So if they're
[1:18:49] on that that side of the Maverick Road
[1:18:51] going up, they're always going to be
[1:18:52] able to turn up into there. That won't
[1:18:54] ever change on that. This would be
[1:18:56] allowing people that are coming out of
[1:18:58] the combined Morty um Maverick Road to
[1:19:01] be able to make a left turn where the
[1:19:03] median would stop them right there. Um
[1:19:06] and it doesn't look like it um
[1:19:09] interferes with either of those um on
[1:19:12] the other side.
[1:19:13] >> So, are you Let me just restate. Are you
[1:19:16] suggesting removing the median from the
[1:19:20] Maverick entrance north?
[1:19:22] >> No, the Maverick entrance south.
[1:19:25] Then what purpose does the Maverick
[1:19:27] entrance north serve?
[1:19:29] >> It only blocks you from from the
[1:19:31] Maverick entrance. It blocks you from
[1:19:33] turning left still if you're looking
[1:19:38] >> if you remove that.
[1:19:40] >> I thought you were trying to let people
[1:19:42] from Maverick turn left out.
[1:19:44] >> Yes.
[1:19:45] >> Well, the only We were just saying that
[1:19:47] you would have the option to go up into
[1:19:49] Morty's and out if you were driving
[1:19:51] something like that.
[1:19:52] >> Right. Well, well, for sure these the
[1:19:55] let's say from the middle axis to the to
[1:19:58] the uh
[1:20:00] between
[1:20:02] >> right there
[1:20:06] >> between the the uh Maverick and Morty's,
[1:20:10] >> right? Well, really I really I should
[1:20:12] say on the quick trip side,
[1:20:13] >> yeah,
[1:20:14] >> from the north to the middle, you could
[1:20:17] remove that median if with the
[1:20:20] undeveloped property to the south of the
[1:20:22] car wash, if that axis was shifted to
[1:20:26] align with the that middle access,
[1:20:31] there's currently undeveloped property
[1:20:33] there. And so
[1:20:37] » given the use case that I would have
[1:20:38] personally say I go into Maverick or my
[1:20:41] big RV and I leave out the exit that
[1:20:45] normally goes to
[1:20:47] where it combines um according to this
[1:20:51] with that median I would actually have
[1:20:54] to go south and then turn into QT
[1:21:00] >> go around their gas pumps. and then come
[1:21:04] back out so that I could turn left on
[1:21:07] South Weaver Drive.
[1:21:09] >> Yes.
[1:21:10] >> And this
[1:21:11] >> left or right now.
[1:21:12] >> Yeah. So, if this God, that was so loud
[1:21:14] tonight.
[1:21:15] >> You bend it down a little bit. It
[1:21:16] doesn't squeal
[1:21:18] >> like that.
[1:21:19] >> Yeah. If everybody does that, it's
[1:21:20] better. Thank you.
[1:21:21] >> Okay. So that's all I'm asking is that
[1:21:23] at that median um that second one if
[1:21:27] that was painted so that I still have
[1:21:28] the choice with my RV to just make a
[1:21:31] left turn there so that I could then go
[1:21:33] into the left and not have to use their
[1:21:36] um facility as a turnaround. Not saying
[1:21:39] that I would goes down to gas prices. Um
[1:21:42] it's a big machine. Um I I I personally
[1:21:46] would feel a lot better with that. I
[1:21:48] mean, I know that's not um like you were
[1:21:50] saying a perfect solution of no uh
[1:21:52] medians, but I think that gives us a
[1:21:54] combination of the safety being able to
[1:21:56] route um and still allow for um vehicles
[1:22:00] to exit the Maverick area because it's
[1:22:03] Yeah, that's a a bad spot.
[1:22:06] >> Yeah. So, I don't
[1:22:07] >> I'm still not sure if I'm understanding
[1:22:09] because if you remove the medians to
[1:22:13] where you can make a lefthand turn out
[1:22:16] of Maverick at the shared entrance,
[1:22:19] you don't need any medians at all.
[1:22:23] There's no purpose. The the reason for
[1:22:26] the median from the intersection at
[1:22:28] South Weaver Drive across that excess is
[1:22:32] so that you can't turn left.
[1:22:40] Turn my mic. I'm still in favor of no
[1:22:42] medium.
[1:22:44] I'm waiting for your motion, player.
[1:22:48] >> I don't have a vote, but I'm in favor of
[1:22:50] no medium
[1:22:52] as well.
[1:22:56] Is there anything else, Brandon, or
[1:22:59] uh
[1:23:01] anybody else that needs to be changed on
[1:23:04] that road if we don't have the medium?
[1:23:08] Lance, sorry, I just wasn't getting your
[1:23:11] name out.
[1:23:12] >> Well, I mean, we we would we would want
[1:23:14] to come up with a striping plan to try
[1:23:17] to uh accommodate it the best we could.
[1:23:21] >> That would just turn into
[1:23:22] >> what? That would just turn into a
[1:23:24] suicide lane.
[1:23:25] >> It does. Yeah. That's the problem is you
[1:23:26] just have
[1:23:27] >> you have cars pointed at each other
[1:23:30] >> with not enough queuing and they don't
[1:23:32] know where to go. But
[1:23:36] » um additionally, does that remove the
[1:23:40] additional lane?
[1:23:43] >> No, I wouldn't propose you change
[1:23:44] anything with the road,
[1:23:46] >> the width or anything like that.
[1:23:48] Everything that they've got laid out, in
[1:23:50] my opinion, is the best we can hope for
[1:23:51] at this point. Good.
[1:23:54] >> I want to point one more thing out. So,
[1:23:56] the southernmost entrance um the truck
[1:23:59] in only was widened to be oversized
[1:24:03] to accommodate RVs and trucks to turn
[1:24:06] around if the median were to stay.
[1:24:07] However, we've gone back and forth. We don't mind if there's no median or if
[1:24:12] there is a median.
[1:24:14] >> So, yeah, I think we want it the same.
[1:24:17] >> Yeah. If there is a median or not, you
[1:24:19] would would you keep that wider that
[1:24:21] southern entrance?
[1:24:22] >> We would still maintain it.
[1:24:23] >> Yeah.
[1:24:24] >> Because the plan eventually was to have
[1:24:26] a roundabout. So that would be
[1:24:27] accommodating to that.
[1:24:29] >> Thank you.
[1:24:34] » I think this is just one of the worst
[1:24:35] decisions we've ever had to make.
[1:24:41] » It it was not a good decision when we
[1:24:44] allowed that to be combined. It was
[1:24:46] Yeah.
[1:24:48] Um,
[1:24:51] do we want to make a motion then to
[1:24:52] >> Yes. If you'd like to make the motion,
[1:24:54] >> I'll make a motion.
[1:24:56] >> No. You say,
[1:24:58] >> are we done talking? Hang on a second.
[1:25:02] >> Angie.
[1:25:02] you got
[1:25:03] >> I don't know. I've been over here for
[1:25:05] months driving around this trying to
[1:25:06] figure out the best solution.
[1:25:09] >> But the put the Slater principle in.
[1:25:11] >> Yeah. The Slater factor is the medians
[1:25:13] have to stay.
[1:25:17] I don't think everybody understands the
[1:25:19] Slater factory.
[1:25:20] >> I was thinking a Slater bit, but
[1:25:23] >> he's a little crazy.
[1:25:24] >> My son, my son, Slater,
[1:25:26] >> she doesn't want to incriminate herself.
[1:25:28] We haven't changed that golf cart code
[1:25:30] yet. [laughter]
[1:25:38] » Can always add them. Mayor, I make the
[1:25:41] motion uh to approve the conditional use
[1:25:43] permit 26-01 Quick Trip with the
[1:25:46] following condition that the meetings be
[1:25:47] removed from the plan.
[1:25:49] >> And can I make an and an addition of a
[1:25:52] six foot masonry fence amended?
[1:25:56] >> Seconded.
[1:25:58] >> Have a motion second by Councilman
[1:26:00] [clears throat] Davis. Let's do it.
[1:26:01] >> For clarification, you said medians
[1:26:03] removed.
[1:26:04] >> Yes. Could I just ask the other um
[1:26:08] conditions that the planning commission
[1:26:11] recommended are all still in place and
[1:26:13] >> and to include those?
[1:26:14] >> Okay, I'll amend that too.
[1:26:16] >> You need
[1:26:17] >> and the location of the fence
[1:26:19] >> the
[1:26:20] north and east
[1:26:21] >> north and east.
[1:26:27] » Okay, we'll do a roll call vote starting
[1:26:29] with Councilman Herson. I
[1:26:32] >> no
[1:26:37] » I I
[1:26:39] >> I
[1:26:40] >> Okay one motion carries. Thank you.
[1:26:47] I do think that it's important to uh
[1:26:50] point out on that that the medians can
[1:26:53] always be put in
[1:26:55] >> that if the size of the road and
[1:26:56] everything like that then
[1:26:58] >> um we still have that option.
[1:27:00] >> That was just for the medians.
[1:27:09] » Okay. Next item, resolution 26-05,
[1:27:12] amending policy and procedures. Any
[1:27:15] discussion on this
[1:27:18] resolution? If not, we'll look for a
[1:27:20] motion to approve
[1:27:22] or
[1:27:25] » Yeah, administration committee reviewed
[1:27:26] this and favored it um you know fully.
[1:27:29] Unless there's any questions in the
[1:27:30] hearing none, I'll make the motion to
[1:27:32] approve resolution 265 amending the
[1:27:34] policy procedures as presented.
[1:27:36] >> Seconded.
[1:27:38] We have a motion and a second by
[1:27:39] Councilman Howerson. Do roll call vote
[1:27:42] starting with Councilman Windsor.
[1:27:43] >> I I I
[1:27:44] >> I.
[1:27:46] >> Okay. Great. Motion carries. Next item.
[1:27:49] Ordinance 26-02A
[1:27:52] amending sewer impact fee effective
[1:27:54] date.
[1:27:56] Any discussion on this ordinance?
[1:28:06] Mayor, I make a motion to approve
[1:28:07] ordinance 2026-02A
[1:28:11] sewer impact fee analysis.
[1:28:13] >> Second.
[1:28:16] >> A motion second by Councilman Windsor.
[1:28:18] We'll start with Councilman Powers.
[1:28:21] >> I I
[1:28:25] >> Okay. Once again, motion carries.
[1:28:28] Ordinance 26
[1:28:30] 2026-03
[1:28:31] amending title 10 chapter 11 sub amen
[1:28:35] [clears throat] and money need a drink
[1:28:38] qualifying regulations.
[1:28:43] Thank you for bringing this back. I like
[1:28:45] the changes that we made.
[1:28:49] So, if there's no discussion, I'll make
[1:28:50] a motion to approve ordinance 2026-03,
[1:28:54] amending title 10, chapter 11,
[1:28:56] supplementary qualifying regulations.
[1:28:58] >> Seconded.
[1:29:00] >> Okay, we have a motion and a second by
[1:29:02] Councilman Herson. Let's start with
[1:29:03] Katherine Windsor.
[1:29:04] >> Before we do that, can I just
[1:29:06] >> Yes.
[1:29:07] >> I'm trying to catch up and I don't want
[1:29:10] to vote on anything, but that's on that
[1:29:13] on the fancy.
[1:29:13] >> Oh, okay. Yeah, I did read that. Thank
[1:29:16] you. Council
[1:29:21] wins.
[1:29:21] >> I No.
[1:29:24] >> No.
[1:29:25] >> I
[1:29:29] hear you too. Motion carries. Thank you.
[1:29:35] » Next I item discussion
[1:29:38] legislative review. Dave, do you want to
[1:29:41] bring anything out on the legislation
[1:29:43] session this year or
[1:29:45] >> is that a trick question?
[1:29:48] Um,
[1:29:51] not necessarily. There were, but I will
[1:29:53] bring up I will bring up one thing. Um,
[1:29:56] there were a lot of uh bills discussed
[1:29:59] relative to property taxes. Ultimately,
[1:30:01] there was really only one that was
[1:30:03] approved that has material change to our
[1:30:07] process, and that was Representative
[1:30:10] Karen Peterson's bill that
[1:30:14] if a city is intending to go through the
[1:30:18] truth and taxation process, then it
[1:30:20] requires earlier notice in the process.
[1:30:23] And uh even though there's still a lot
[1:30:25] of uh unknowns earlier in the process
[1:30:28] because we don't get final numbers from
[1:30:31] the county on certified tax rate um
[1:30:35] until later in June um it would require
[1:30:40] approximate and estimated numbers um
[1:30:43] with a prior notice. So, um, if the
[1:30:46] council does, uh, consider
[1:30:50] holding the rate andor increasing
[1:30:52] property tax revenue in any way and is
[1:30:55] considering going through truth and
[1:30:56] taxation, then we would need to provide
[1:30:58] that notice much earlier. It also that
[1:31:02] same bill requires
[1:31:04] um,
[1:31:06] I forgot the specific name of the
[1:31:08] document. um a document that basically
[1:31:11] outlines um as clearly as possible what
[1:31:15] that additional revenue would go toward
[1:31:18] um and and requires the city to uh when
[1:31:22] they adopt the budget, you can include
[1:31:25] the additional revenue in your budget.
[1:31:28] However, you cannot spend any of that
[1:31:31] revenue um until after truth and
[1:31:34] taxation and a and a
[1:31:37] increase in property tax rate or revenue
[1:31:40] so that um it doesn't feel like there's
[1:31:42] undue pressure on the council to go
[1:31:45] through truth and taxation process in
[1:31:47] August, hear from the public, but still
[1:31:50] feel like, well, we've already adopted a
[1:31:52] budget that has that increase in it, so
[1:31:54] our hands are tied. it it's um allows
[1:31:57] for the council to go through that uh
[1:32:00] process without that type of uh undue
[1:32:03] burden or pressure to approve a budget
[1:32:07] that way. So it's it's changed to the
[1:32:09] process, not so much um
[1:32:13] beyond that. So
[1:32:14] >> been here too long.
[1:32:17] >> That's the only bill that I think um I
[1:32:20] feel the need to bring up unless Mayor
[1:32:22] or Joel has any that they feel
[1:32:26] Can I ask a question on that one? Did they um remove the requirement to
[1:32:32] post in a newspaper? Like are they did
[1:32:35] they adjust that yet to where if there's
[1:32:37] a change you you're required to post in
[1:32:40] a newspaper or something like that,
[1:32:41] right? Yeah.
[1:32:43] >> I don't believe that has been removed
[1:32:45] yet, but I know it's been discussed. So,
[1:32:47] I have in my head that that it might be,
[1:32:50] but I'm not 100% certain. So, I won't
[1:32:52] give you a defined answer. It wasn't on
[1:32:54] the board Friday to be um circled if I
[1:32:57] remember right. So
[1:32:59] >> I don't think
[1:33:00] >> so. I don't even think it went to
[1:33:01] discussion. I
[1:33:01] >> don't think it either. So yeah.
[1:33:03] >> Okay.
[1:33:05] >> But we're still going to do it, right?
[1:33:07] >> I think the goal with that bill is a is
[1:33:10] a good one. It's a noble one with the
[1:33:12] idea that that the public should know
[1:33:15] and have understanding of why a council
[1:33:17] or a city would be going through a truth
[1:33:20] and taxation process. And the timing of
[1:33:22] when uh property tax information comes
[1:33:25] to the city is late enough that there's
[1:33:28] no way to move up the property tax truth
[1:33:31] and taxation process and public hearing
[1:33:33] and things like that. um that was looked
[1:33:35] at first is let's move that up in the
[1:33:38] timeline, but that's just not a
[1:33:39] possibility. Um therefore, the truth and
[1:33:42] taxation process still has to happen um
[1:33:45] in August. It can't be before the budget
[1:33:47] is adopted and in place for July 1. So,
[1:33:51] this just adds an additional um layer of
[1:33:54] communication and hopefully transparency
[1:33:56] to communicate better and and educate
[1:33:59] better why a city may be considering a
[1:34:01] property tax increase and specifically
[1:34:03] what that money would be used for.
[1:34:08] » Okay.
[1:34:12] » New business. Anyone have any new
[1:34:14] business they'd like to discuss
[1:34:15] >> here? May I?
[1:34:17] >> Yes. Um the parks committee I lost the
[1:34:21] uh arm wrestling uh event with the parks
[1:34:24] chair. Um,
[1:34:27] so I was asked to canvas the council
[1:34:32] um on a subject with regards to the
[1:34:35] master plan for Central Park and um
[1:34:38] there's some certain questions decision
[1:34:40] tree that we wanted to go through um and
[1:34:43] we didn't know if we wanted to do that
[1:34:44] in an open meeting as an agenda item, if
[1:34:47] we wanted to do it as a work session um
[1:34:50] or if you wanted just the parks
[1:34:52] committee to go back and um make some
[1:34:56] recommendations on the master plan to
[1:34:57] bring back for an elaborate discussion.
[1:35:00] Um, I'm trying to be somewhat vague
[1:35:02] because if we get into deep discussion,
[1:35:04] it could jeopardize uh property values
[1:35:08] if we wanted to go down that path. So,
[1:35:10] I'm trying to be somewhat vague, but
[1:35:12] there are some key decisions that need
[1:35:14] to be discussed as we develop that
[1:35:16] master plan. So, the canvas question is,
[1:35:18] would you like to do that in an open
[1:35:20] forum, more open meeting? Do you want to
[1:35:23] do it in a closed session? because it
[1:35:24] does uh deal with property value and try
[1:35:27] and get the best uh cost of a property
[1:35:30] or do you want to do it in a working
[1:35:31] session?
[1:35:36] » I think I'd appreciate a working
[1:35:37] session, but
[1:35:39] um I think that those can be more
[1:35:41] effective if you bring one or two
[1:35:44] recommendations along with that.
[1:35:46] >> The the issue is there's not
[1:35:47] recommendations. There's a if this then
[1:35:49] that, if that, then this. And it's uh
[1:35:51] it's I wanted to walk you through a
[1:35:52] decision- making process uh because as
[1:35:54] soon as you say no to one if the qu the
[1:35:57] question's done um and uh if if it's yes
[1:36:01] then it leads to other questions and
[1:36:03] where's the comfort level till you get
[1:36:04] to the following result. So, I've been
[1:36:06] asked to task uh I've been tasked to
[1:36:09] lead the council through a
[1:36:10] decision-making tree on key decision for
[1:36:14] that uh master plan for that park. And
[1:36:18] uh
[1:36:19] >> I'm okay with a work session. I don't I
[1:36:22] don't have a problem with that.
[1:36:22] >> Angie,
[1:36:25] » I'm okay with a work session, too.
[1:36:27] >> Yeah. She she she barely won the arm
[1:36:29] wrestling contest.
[1:36:32] >> Mayor,
[1:36:33] >> I'm good with that. Joel.
[1:36:36] >> Um, I do see the value in keeping it a
[1:36:38] close session. I really do.
[1:36:43] >> So, we'll just need to know the the uh
[1:36:46] as we get into it and I'll let Mayor
[1:36:49] >> Jerry said he wanted to do session.
[1:36:51] >> Yeah. But I would be fine if it was
[1:36:52] closed, too. I don't really care. But I
[1:36:54] It does need to be separate from this
[1:36:56] meeting.
[1:36:56] >> It does need to be separate from this
[1:36:57] meeting. Okay. So, I'll council with uh
[1:37:00] the committee chair and the mayor and
[1:37:01] we'll come up with a an agenda item at a
[1:37:04] future meeting.
[1:37:05] >> Okay.
[1:37:06] >> Thank you.
[1:37:07] >> Sounds good. Any other new business?
[1:37:10] Anyone have a report they'd like to make
[1:37:12] on their committee
[1:37:15] budgets that are going on? I don't know
[1:37:17] that we would have.
[1:37:18] >> I have nothing to report.
[1:37:22] >> Dave, do you have anything else?
[1:37:23] >> Yeah, I'd like to report on one thing.
[1:37:25] The uh Utah state provided well-being
[1:37:29] survey is active right now. It's been
[1:37:32] open for about a week and we were we
[1:37:35] received our first report on the number
[1:37:37] of responses. We had 122 responses in
[1:37:39] the first week. The last time this
[1:37:41] survey was conducted, we had a total of
[1:37:43] 298 responses. So, um it's usually open
[1:37:47] for about three weeks. If we had that
[1:37:49] same number every week, we'd be right
[1:37:50] about where we were last time. But it'd
[1:37:52] be awesome to get more responses than last time if possible. So,
[1:37:56] >> are they emailing that out?
[1:37:59] >> Shaye, do you want to talk about the
[1:38:01] publication process?
[1:38:07] » Yeah, but you can't see me and I'm not
[1:38:09] standing.
[1:38:10] Um, yeah, I sent an email out. It's on
[1:38:12] the city website. Um, just on the city
[1:38:15] news portion on the homepage. Um, I also
[1:38:18] have a few posts going out to remind
[1:38:20] residents as well as follow-up emails as
[1:38:22] well. So,
[1:38:25] >> while Shaylee has the microphone, is it
[1:38:27] an appropriate time to ask about Easter?
[1:38:31] >> Thank you.
[1:38:31] >> Sure. Do you want to just know about it?
[1:38:33] >> Yeah. Could you just tell us what it is?
[1:38:35] >> Yeah.
[1:38:36] >> What What is the Easter egg hunt? When
[1:38:37] is that?
[1:38:38] >> Um, the Easter egg hunt this year is
[1:38:40] going to be on Saturday, April 4th at
[1:38:43] 900 a.m. instead of Fridays. We're going
[1:38:46] to try Saturday mornings instead.
[1:38:48] >> And which park will that be at?
[1:38:50] >> That's going to be at Central Park.
[1:38:51] Thank you for asking.
[1:38:54] >> Yeah, but it'll be separated in age
[1:38:55] groups again, just as we always have
[1:38:57] done. Um, siren goes off at 9:00 a.m.
[1:39:00] sharp. So, make sure you get there ahead
[1:39:02] of time.
[1:39:04] >> Angie, do you have an item?
[1:39:06] >> That was all I just needed. Yeah, thank
[1:39:07] you.
[1:39:08] >> You have an item.
[1:39:09] >> Um, just real quickly, it's it's more of
[1:39:11] a request. Um Dave, you and your team do
[1:39:14] a lot of great work. Um and I know
[1:39:17] putting together these um agendas and
[1:39:19] the packets um is often difficult. Um
[1:39:23] we've had a couple times and in this
[1:39:25] meeting we've had two or three where
[1:39:28] information in the packet was either
[1:39:30] conflicting or at at very least
[1:39:33] confusing. Um, and that makes it
[1:39:36] difficult on city council when we have
[1:39:39] to vote on these things, as well as any
[1:39:42] miscommunications and misunderstandings
[1:39:44] that can happen with the public
[1:39:47] a week before this even um occurs in the
[1:39:52] meeting. Um, so I would just uh like to
[1:39:54] ask if you guys would take a look at um
[1:39:57] some of the issues that was brought up
[1:39:59] and see uh what happened. if it was
[1:40:02] something that was just I mean obviously
[1:40:04] a simple mistake but is there a way that
[1:40:07] we could either put on um that front
[1:40:10] page a quick this is the exact numbers
[1:40:14] that we are voting on um so that even if
[1:40:17] it shows it later on we'll know that
[1:40:19] this is the actual information that
[1:40:21] that's going on and there may be nothing
[1:40:23] to do it maybe just this is one of those
[1:40:25] meetings because we had such a thick
[1:40:27] packet but um I would like you to take a
[1:40:30] look at that if you would Please.
[1:40:35] » Anyone else? Look for a motion to
[1:40:37] adjourn.