[0:15] Good. Good afternoon. Um,
[0:19] notice is given that the Tula City
[0:21] Council and the Redevelopment Agency of
[0:22] Tula City will meet at the work meeting
[0:25] on today, Wednesday, June 3rd at 5:30
[0:28] p.m. The meeting will be held in the 20
[0:30] Tula City Hall chamber council chambers
[0:33] located at 90 North Main Street.
[0:36] The complete public notice is posted on
[0:38] the on the
[0:40] Utah Public Way website.
[0:43] Um, we'll go ahead and start our
[0:45] meeting, our opening a meeting, um, with
[0:47] a roll call. Um,
[0:51] Councilman McCall,
[0:52] >> present.
[0:53] >> Councilman Gossip,
[0:54] >> present.
[0:56] >> Uh, Councilwoman Goes,
[0:59] >> present.
[1:00] >> And I'm Councilman Hansen, present. We
[1:02] will go on to item three, which is the
[1:04] mayor's report.
[1:06] >> Thank you, council. Um, I don't have a
[1:08] ton tonight. I do have um one letter
[1:12] that I received from a resident about
[1:13] the cemetery [clears throat]
[1:14] and how great it looks. So, I think it's
[1:17] good to express appreciation when we get
[1:19] some of the positive news cuz we get a
[1:21] lot of negative. And so, just express
[1:23] appreciation to our seasonal workers and
[1:26] the we contract out some of the work and
[1:28] our parks department for making the
[1:29] cemetery look great, especially for
[1:31] Memorial Day. It's important. So, with
[1:34] that and then upcoming we have a lot of
[1:36] Fourth of July activities. So, those
[1:38] should be on your calendar.
[1:40] Um, and hopefully you'll be able to
[1:42] attend many of the Fourth of July
[1:43] activities and the things building up to
[1:45] the Fourth of July and just um that and
[1:48] I do have one announcement and that is
[1:50] that we have chosen the Grand Marshall
[1:52] for the Fourth of July parade and that
[1:53] is Jod D England. So, hopefully you all
[1:57] know who that is and if you don't,
[1:58] you'll find out who that is. It's all
[2:00] the rest of town. So excited about that
[2:02] and that's all I have to report tonight.
[2:05] >> Thank you, mayor. appreciate that. We'll
[2:07] go on to our council members report.
[2:09] We'll start with Councilman McCall.
[2:13] >> Yeah. Yeah. Um I attended today um um
[2:20] ribbon cutting which was actually pretty
[2:22] good and um I think um I have a JPAC
[2:28] meeting tomorrow
[2:30] and that that's about it.
[2:33] >> All right. Thanks Dave. Uh, Council
[2:35] Gossip.
[2:36] >> Uh, yeah. I Well, Dave and I both
[2:40] attended the Arts Council meeting uh
[2:42] where we talked about the renovations of
[2:45] uh the theater and
[2:48] we both also attended the Children's
[2:50] Justice Center meeting and we talked a
[2:53] little bit about uh recognizing the
[2:55] troubled youth for all the things that
[2:56] they've done. I talked to the mayor
[2:58] about it uh in
[3:00] [clears throat and snorts] our meeting
[3:00] and and sounds like that's kind of
[3:03] happening. and we just didn't didn't uh
[3:05] bring it up the way we probably should
[3:07] have and let him know that that's
[3:09] already in place. But uh then we also
[3:11] did the Habitat for Humanity with the
[3:14] governor. So that was a good event. So
[3:18] that's all I've got. All right. Thank
[3:21] you. And Councilwoman Goas is going to
[3:24] save her report for next time when she's
[3:25] here in person. Also, uh I went to and
[3:30] met with the governor, the whatever that
[3:33] was called, right? Habitat for
[3:34] Humanities
[3:36] >> up at uh the house is just north of the Harris Switch Point Center. And uh of course, I went to the cemetery
[3:48] and they do an awesome job. I mean, the
[3:50] grass was green, it was cut, it was
[3:52] wonderful.
[3:53] Um
[3:55] I have something funny to tell you.
[3:56] Maybe I shouldn't, but still we have a
[3:58] few cemetery plots up there. So my wife
[4:00] thought all of us should lay down on the
[4:02] ground and find our spot, you know.
[4:04] Well, nobody would, but her. So she laid
[4:06] down there and we took a picture and it
[4:08] was pretty pretty fun, you know. You saw
[4:10] that picture? Yeah.
[4:11] >> Yeah. So anyway, it was fun to be there.
[4:14] Sad to be there, but fun to be there and think about your uh people that have
[4:19] gone on before you. So
[4:21] >> Okay. Can I add one thing? I just I just
[4:23] got a note that our ribbon cutting from
[4:25] today was on KSL tonight. So when you go
[4:28] home, make sure you look on KSL and look
[4:30] for Electra Flow.
[4:31] >> All right.
[4:32] >> Twill is growing. It is exciting.
[4:35] >> Um Jody England, I've known him forever.
[4:38] So that's exciting that he's the grand
[4:39] marshal and the 4th of July came events
[4:41] coming up. I'm excited for them. Also, I
[4:45] failed to do this at the beginning of
[4:46] the meeting, but I uh excuse Councilman
[4:48] Brady. He's off Costa Rica with his son
[4:51] for
[4:53] uh graduation fund. So, and we
[4:55] appreciate him. All right, we will move
[4:59] on to our discussion items and we're
[5:01] going to start with our fraud risk
[5:02] assessment assessment
[5:05] presented by Shannon Whmer.
[5:09] » Good evening, council. Um this is just
[5:11] our annual presentation of the fraud
[5:13] risk assessment which as you know is
[5:15] required each year by the state. um the
[5:18] assessment hasn't changed in several
[5:20] years and so our score also um hasn't
[5:23] changed. We are at low um of 355 or I
[5:27] guess very low is above 355. So we've
[5:29] we're right there. Um I'm happy to
[5:32] answer any questions about it, but
[5:33] basically this assessment just goes
[5:35] through and make sure that we have
[5:36] proper procedures um and training and
[5:39] that in place to keep our fraud risk as
[5:42] low as we can at Tool City.
[5:45] And we have the one that we get low
[5:47] score on because we don't have our own
[5:48] audit department, right? Yeah.
[5:50] >> Yeah. An audit committee.
[5:51] >> Audit committee. Yeah. Yeah. So, all
[5:53] right. So, that otherwise we'd be way
[5:55] high,
[5:56] >> right?
[5:56] >> Yeah.
[5:57] >> All right. Any uh comments or questions
[5:59] from the council?
[6:02] >> All right. Thank you.
[6:03] >> Thank you.
[6:05] >> Next, we have you on there still on the
[6:07] schedule for a budget discussion. Um
[6:11] so,
[6:13] here we go. We're ready.
[6:15] >> All right. So, um I just uh tried to get
[6:18] a brief presentation more for the
[6:21] benefit of the public. I know that the
[6:22] council has [clears throat] been
[6:24] involved in in the preparation of the
[6:26] budget. We've had prior meetings. We had
[6:28] our budget kickoff meeting. Um you've
[6:30] all had a chance now to review the
[6:32] tenative budget that we provided on the
[6:34] first meeting of May. Um and so when we
[6:38] get to the end, if you still have
[6:40] specific questions, I'm happy to answer
[6:42] those. But for the benefit of the
[6:43] public, I'll just go through a few
[6:44] things um of the budget that we've been
[6:47] working on. We we did a little bit of
[6:48] this when we presented the tenative
[6:51] budget to you. So this slide is that
[6:54] same slide from that presentation. Um
[6:56] but basically that our budget priorities
[6:58] for our operating budget is to fund
[7:00] ongoing expenses [clears throat] such as
[7:01] personnel operation and maintenance and
[7:03] day-to-day operations to provide city
[7:05] services. So, the only big changes um
[7:09] that we have or I I don't even know if
[7:11] some of them aren't even big
[7:12] [clears throat] to the operating budget
[7:14] from last year though is our annual
[7:16] increases in salaries and benefits. This
[7:18] is just for [clears throat] your annual
[7:19] step increases and your COLA adjustment
[7:21] which I believe is 2.5%. Uh this year
[7:24] any adjustments that we have in
[7:26] insurance costs um or any retirement
[7:29] cost adjustments that they have. So,
[7:31] those are just normal every year
[7:33] adjustments. Those have been put into
[7:34] the operating budget. This budget also
[7:37] includes three new positions, um, which
[7:40] includes an additional police officer,
[7:42] an administrative assistant for the fire
[7:44] department now that they're down at
[7:45] their building and and growing and and
[7:48] their call volume is increasing so much
[7:50] they are getting an assistant down
[7:52] there. and then a position for our IT
[7:54] department um which is also in need of a
[7:57] lot of help to keep our network secure
[7:59] and the city secure and keep us all up
[8:01] and running. It also includes stipens
[8:04] for the fire department and this is
[8:06] their program that they're going to
[8:07] implement to address the growing demands
[8:09] for that volunteer fire department and
[8:11] their increasing calls. And then um just
[8:15] some minor adjustments like in operation
[8:18] and maintenance due to fuel and
[8:20] inflationary costs. Um so that's it for
[8:24] the operating budget. So I just thought
[8:25] I would go through our capital projects
[8:27] and equipment. Um several years ago um
[8:30] when we had to do our large tax
[8:32] increase, one of the things that we were
[8:34] not doing before that time was having a
[8:37] great good plan in place to keep up on
[8:39] our maintenance and our replacement of
[8:41] our equipment. And so everything was
[8:43] failing. We didn't have the money to
[8:45] replace it and we needed everything all
[8:47] at once which just really wasn't
[8:48] feasible.
[8:49] >> [gasps]
[8:50] >> So we do have a very
[8:53] good in my opinion obviously and growing
[8:56] capital projects and equipment program
[8:57] where we are getting the equipment that
[9:00] the departments need to provide the
[9:02] services to the city and also to replace
[9:04] the old aging equipment um so that we
[9:07] can keep providing the level of service
[9:09] that the citizens come to expect of the
[9:10] city. Um so a few things that are on
[9:13] that list for this year. We're getting a
[9:15] new welcome sign at the north end of
[9:17] Tula and we will continue our 50/50
[9:19] sidewalk program
[9:21] um that residents can pay 50% and the
[9:25] city will pay 50% to get their sidewalk
[9:27] replaced in front of their homes. The
[9:29] animal shelter is replacing an aging
[9:32] vehicle um and getting a cargo van so
[9:34] they can transport the animals. Uh the
[9:36] aquatic center is replacing their
[9:38] overhead lights down at the pool.
[9:42] The cemetery is getting a hydraulic dump
[9:44] truck. They're also going to pave some
[9:46] additional parking over there. And they this upgrade to the irrigation
[9:50] [clears throat] system. They're taking
[9:51] sections of the cemetery each year um to
[9:54] get that irrigation system upgraded so
[9:57] that we are watering as efficiently as
[9:58] we possibly can up there. And then
[10:02] community development is going to
[10:03] replace a vehicle for their inspectors.
[10:07] The fire department is going to get two
[10:09] new vehicles for their they're going to
[10:11] start an on call rotation. And then, as
[10:13] you know, we purchased that brand new
[10:14] firet truck and that's on a 7-year
[10:16] lease. So, that expense will be in the
[10:19] budget for the next 7 years. And then at
[10:21] the golf course, we plan to do the net
[10:24] repair from the range. As you know, um
[10:26] that was damaged in one of our storms.
[10:29] And so, we will get that range net
[10:31] repaired. They're also going to get a
[10:33] deep tine airator and do some other uh
[10:36] repairs to the driving range up there.
[10:39] They're also going to upgrade the pump
[10:40] station irrigation control system.
[10:42] Again, we're always trying to do
[10:43] upgrades of the irrigation system up
[10:45] there to try and be as efficient as we
[10:47] possibly can with the water that's
[10:49] needed for the golf course. And then
[10:52] just some regular maintenance to the
[10:53] clubhouse, which is they're going to for
[10:55] the exterior, they're going to redo the
[10:56] roof, some maintenance on the deck, and
[10:58] some rain gutters.
[11:01] In our IT department, we're going to
[11:03] upgrade data center hardware. Um, as you
[11:06] know, it it's in constant need of
[11:08] replacement so we can keep um in pace
[11:11] with the changing technology and to keep
[11:13] our systems safe. Um, and they're also
[11:15] going to put [clears throat]
[11:17] a H2O system that we have that is in our
[11:20] server room and replace that with a
[11:21] non-reactive gas system. Um, again to
[11:24] better protect our um
[11:28] our hardware systems and our information
[11:31] systems that we have down there. The
[11:33] library is going to complete the
[11:34] Zeroscape project that they have already
[11:37] started. Um, they've just been trying to
[11:39] piece that together with the budgets as
[11:41] they can. So this year it will complete
[11:43] the projects that they want to do down
[11:45] there to have that properties escaped.
[11:48] And the museum is going to put in
[11:50] several new sidewalks and make them ADA
[11:52] accessible um and put sidewalk into
[11:56] their ticket booth and things like that
[11:57] to improve the experience up at the
[11:59] museum. And then of course trees
[12:01] irrigation and zero escape for the
[12:02] grounds which is always ongoing up
[12:04] there. The parks department is going to
[12:07] get a mini X with a trailer. They're
[12:09] going to get a generator for that new
[12:10] building and then replace fences at the
[12:13] ball fields and that's just again an
[12:15] ongoing thing to keep those um in good
[12:18] repair. They're going to upgrade the
[12:20] lights at the Red Dell Papafield and
[12:22] they're also researching um the
[12:24] possibility of a new registration and
[12:26] reservation software.
[12:29] And the police department is going to
[12:31] get some new forensic software. This
[12:33] will help them in in their
[12:34] investigations. Um, and then body camera
[12:38] systems, uh, a renewal, either a new
[12:40] system or renewing the system that they
[12:42] have, an Axon taser VR training
[12:45] software, and then traffic officer safety equipment for the
[12:49] new motorcycle officer that we um, will
[12:52] be putting out on the road in our public
[12:55] buildings. will be replacing the chiller
[12:56] at the library and HVAC. And then we are
[12:59] getting an area lift for building
[13:00] maintenance which will serve at several
[13:02] of the buildings, city hall, the fire
[13:04] station, the aquatic center um so that
[13:07] we can perform our own maintenance and
[13:08] that we don't have to hire out external
[13:11] companies for some of those things.
[13:14] The public works campus um will still be
[13:16] doing an additional upgrade to their
[13:18] parking lot down there. Um, at the shops
[13:21] they're getting new swamp coolers for
[13:22] their repair base and a new oil chain
[13:25] system. In the streets, they're um
[13:27] getting vehicle replacements.
[13:30] So, that's it for the general fund. Um,
[13:33] in the PAR tax fund, we will be building
[13:36] a new stage for Tula City at the city
[13:38] park um and replacing the tile in the
[13:41] leisure pool. And then we have our park
[13:44] impact fees and we will be completing
[13:46] the project at the wigwam park and we
[13:48] will start the design of the boulevard bike park.
[13:54] And then we have our enterprise funds.
[13:56] So in the water fund, they'll be getting
[13:58] a couple of replacement vehicles and a
[14:00] 10-wheel dump truck. Um we're hoping to
[14:03] get some new radio read satellite
[14:05] software. We currently have radio read
[14:07] software, but this will allow us to put
[14:08] up um satellites that will radio read
[14:11] those meters that have radio read on
[14:13] them. It also allows us and the
[14:16] residents to be able to access real-time
[14:18] data on their water usage, which will
[14:20] help them when they're trying to
[14:21] identify leaks and usage. Um so that
[14:24] will be an amazing benefit to both the
[14:26] city and the resident. uh when we can
[14:29] get that implemented.
[14:30] We also continue our water line
[14:32] replacements to keep um our
[14:35] infrastructure in good repair and we
[14:36] will be completing the well projects
[14:38] that we currently have going
[14:41] in the wastewater. They are also getting
[14:43] some vehicle replacements and they will
[14:45] get two UTVs to help them with their
[14:47] treatment operations and a front-end
[14:49] loader that is also needed for the
[14:51] treatment operations. the solar dryer
[14:53] equipment. That's the big part of the
[14:56] upgrade that we've already approved that
[14:57] contract for. And then of course, we're
[14:59] working right now on completing all of
[15:01] the projects that we will be putting out
[15:03] for a bond for the wastewater treatment
[15:05] plant. And in the storm drain, we have a
[15:08] few projects that we'll do, but the main
[15:09] projects are going to be the Seventh
[15:11] Street, Broadway, and 600 North storm
[15:13] drains.
[15:15] Does anybody have any questions on the
[15:18] budget or anything I can answer before I
[15:20] move on to long-term debt?
[15:22] >> I don't.
[15:24] >> Mel, do you have any questions?
[15:26] >> No questions. Thank you.
[15:28] >> Okay.
[15:28] So, the the last thing I just kind
[15:30] of wanted to go over is our long-term
[15:32] debt. Um, we've done a great job um in
[15:35] the last many years of of getting our
[15:37] debt paid down. We've paid off in 2025.
[15:40] We paid off the MBA bonds which were for
[15:42] city hall library, the golf clubhouse.
[15:44] We paid off the sales tax revenue bonds
[15:46] which built the aquatic center, um
[15:49] several road projects, and then our
[15:50] share of the TATC.
[15:52] And in 2026, we will pay off a water
[15:55] bond that we had for water
[15:57] infrastructure.
[15:58] So, that leaves us with our remaining
[16:00] long-term debt, and I just put the dates
[16:02] that those will be paid off. We do still
[16:04] have a bond that will be paid off in
[16:05] 2027 on one for the 1000 North
[16:08] construction. Um, in 2035 there, we will
[16:11] pay off a sewer bond that we had when we
[16:13] built the original plant. And then in
[16:17] 2036, we'll pay off the judgment levy
[16:19] bond. And then we have our new newest
[16:20] bonds of the police station and the fire
[16:22] station. So that summarizes all of our
[16:25] long-term debt. Um, that that's part of
[16:29] the budget. Um, so that basically wraps
[16:32] up all of all of the budget and
[16:34] everything that the highlights I guess
[16:36] that are in it. Obviously, it's a huge
[16:37] budget, but we do have the budget book
[16:38] online if anybody would like to go and
[16:40] look [clears throat] at it. Is it is on
[16:41] our web page. Um, you can also review a
[16:44] hard copy here at city hall if you'd
[16:45] like. And so, happy to answer any
[16:48] questions.
[16:48] >> When you look at it, it's a lot to look
[16:50] at.
[16:50] >> It's a lot to look at, but I think if
[16:52] you look at that budget book, they've
[16:53] done a great job at making it
[16:55] self-explanatory and it's not just a
[16:56] bunch of numbers that you're trying to
[16:58] figure out. Um, so the budget book is
[17:01] it's really worth your time if you're
[17:02] interested. It's my department and
[17:04] stuff. So, it really does help out to to
[17:06] recognize what's going on there.
[17:08] >> Even though it's like a lot of hate
[17:10] stuff,
[17:12] >> but I appreciate that. I I appreciate
[17:14] Shannon. Thank you for that.
[17:16] >> You and your team have done a great job.
[17:19] >> Yeah. Agreed.
[17:20] >> Even though I don't have a great
[17:23] time looking at all those pages and
[17:25] numbers, but
[17:26] >> Exactly.
[17:27] >> All right. Thank you.
[17:30] >> Okay. Okay, we'll move to discussion
[17:31] item C, which is a discussion of the
[17:33] recently enacted Utah code uh 10-3-72.1,
[17:39] regulatory impacts on families,
[17:41] presented by Matthew Johnson, our city
[17:44] attorney. Thanks, Matt.
[17:46] >> Thanks. Good evening. Um, with the 2026
[17:51] uh general session of the state
[17:52] legislature, we're catching up on things
[17:54] that we need to do to uh to to make sure
[17:57] we're still in compliance. This is one
[17:59] of the easier ones, so I won't spend a
[18:01] lot of time on it, but uh Senate Bill
[18:04] 232 um made a requirement not just for
[18:07] cities, but for other government
[18:08] agencies like counties and and some
[18:10] state agencies to consider the family
[18:12] when when uh making uh rules or
[18:15] ordinances specifically for the city.
[18:18] They enacted this the um 10-3-72.1
[18:22] which is in which is in the packet. Um
[18:26] it it's not an ownorous uh requirement
[18:28] on on municipalities,
[18:31] but it does require um that this that
[18:34] the city council consider the impact of
[18:36] any proposed ordinance
[18:38] uh that the impact it may have on family
[18:41] health stability and formation.
[18:42] [clears throat]
[18:43] Um it doesn't define exactly what that
[18:48] consideration has to look like. It
[18:49] doesn't require that anything in
[18:51] particular goes on the record or that
[18:53] there be any particular discussion on
[18:55] it. Um it doesn't define what family
[18:57] health, family stability or family
[18:59] formation mean exactly. Uh so um it's a
[19:04] little open. I I know this council is uh
[19:08] great at considering the family and
[19:10] everything, but uh I just want to be
[19:12] clear. doesn't require that every single
[19:15] ordinance that that this council
[19:17] considers that okay, let's stop and have
[19:20] a family impact discussion. Um, but
[19:22] certainly on the ones that it that
[19:23] warranted it, that would make sense. It
[19:26] doesn't require it for resolutions. So,
[19:28] those resolutions for contracts or
[19:30] things like that, this doesn't apply.
[19:31] It's only ordinances. Um, and it's worth
[19:34] noting that if anyone were to allege
[19:37] that the city failed to do that, it
[19:39] doesn't mean that it invalidates the
[19:41] ordinance. it doesn't create a cause of
[19:43] action so that they can sue the city.
[19:45] Um, so one step that that my office is
[19:50] taking just to uh to to try to comply
[19:53] with this is is we're putting um just
[19:56] standard language into every ordinance
[19:58] there. There's some on the calendar on
[20:00] the agenda tonight just that says the last whereases uh the city council
[20:06] has specifically considered the
[20:07] potential impact of this ordinance that
[20:09] this ordinance may have on family health
[20:11] stability and formation. Um so that'll
[20:14] be from now on until it's changed or one
[20:18] way or the other that'll be in each
[20:20] ordinance that's that's before this
[20:21] council.
[20:26] » All right. Any questions from the
[20:27] council?
[20:28] >> No.
[20:29] >> All right. Well, thanks Matt. Appreciate
[20:30] it.
[20:31] >> Thank you. Thanks.
[20:32] >> Okay. We'll move on to the discussion
[20:34] item D. Discussion on a proposed text
[20:37] amendment of Tula City code 7-118-17
[20:41] design standards walls and fences
[20:43] regarding an exception to the current
[20:45] fencing requirement when a new
[20:48] multifamily residential project is
[20:50] constructed adjacent to an existing
[20:52] single family residential development
[20:54] where fencing has already been installed
[20:56] and that will be presented by Anna
[20:59] England our city planner.
[21:07] Hi, how are you?
[21:08] >> Good. How are you?
[21:09] >> Good. Um, so this is a city initiated
[21:13] text amendment to our city code chapter
[21:16] 716B6.
[21:18] It's considering landscaping for section
[21:20] C of the heavy industrial section of the
[21:23] uh Tilla City Business Park. M
[21:26] >> so [clears throat] back in 2024 we had
[21:28] changed the landscaping requirements for
[21:31] heavier or industrial um areas in the um
[21:36] city and uh what we did is we we removed
[21:41] landscaping requirements for parking
[21:42] lots. Eliminated the required 15t front
[21:46] yard landscaping requirement. Eliminated
[21:48] the requirement to landscape the park
[21:51] strip.
[21:51] >> Sorry council. Can can I interrupt?
[21:54] >> I'm sorry. I just want to be sure that
[21:55] we're I I think we're on the 7-11-17
[22:00] uh defense requirement. Is that the one
[22:02] that the
[22:02] >> Is it
[22:03] >> That's the one we should That's the one
[22:04] we should be on. I think we're on the
[22:06] wrong
[22:07] >> Sorry.
[22:07] >> 7-11 11-17. So this is um is an
[22:12] applicant driven text amendment um
[22:15] [clears throat] to Tula city code 711A17
[22:20] regarding multifamily residential design
[22:22] guidelines for fencing when fencing is
[22:25] required next to an existing fence. So
[22:28] this is when um developers are trying to
[22:32] um develop a property for multifamily or
[22:36] um plan development or something along
[22:38] those lines and then um it's adjacent to
[22:42] a single family or commercial zone. A
[22:44] solid fence with equally spaced columns
[22:47] or peers is required. However, on
[22:49] occasion, the single family development
[22:51] has an existing fence
[22:54] and so um the current fencing ordinance
[22:58] does not provide any mechanism whereby
[23:00] the fencing situation can be addressed.
[23:03] Developers will usually end up
[23:06] constructing the fence immediately
[23:07] adjacent to the existing fence and then
[23:10] the results would be [clears throat]
[23:11] a fence within a fence space that
[23:14] collects weeds and garbage and then
[23:16] halfhazard fencing and then a lack of
[23:20] cohesiveness within the fences. So
[23:24] [clears throat] um the applicant
[23:25] proposed a language or language to uh
[23:29] change it to address this issue. And
[23:32] then um the first one would be provide a
[23:35] method where an exception may be granted
[23:37] by the city council relieving the
[23:39] applica applicant of installing the
[23:42] vertical columns or peers and then set
[23:44] criteria where an exception may be
[23:47] granted involving the subject property
[23:49] line as has fencing that has already
[23:52] been installed previously by adjacent
[23:54] property owners. The fencing is not
[23:57] visible from major public roadways. The
[24:00] proposed fencing is consistent with the
[24:04] city's development standards and st and
[24:07] the standards for the surrounding
[24:09] development. [snorts] The modifications
[24:11] create a more cohesive and uniform
[24:13] appearance incorporating adjacent
[24:16] fencing. And then it demonstrates that
[24:18] the addition of columns or peers would
[24:20] create conflict with adjacent fencing
[24:24] that's already existing. Approval of
[24:26] such exception shall be by city council.
[24:31] It did go to planning commission and
[24:33] they did forward a recommendation. There
[24:36] was a pretty lengthy discussion on
[24:38] property rights with the single family
[24:40] households and homes and then um the new
[24:44] development and and that type of thing.
[24:47] And then so on May 13th at their regular
[24:51] meeting, planning commission forwarded a
[24:53] positive recommendation for the proposed
[24:55] ordinance amendment [clears throat]
[24:56] with the following additional
[24:58] conditions.
[25:00] That exception request be reviewed
[25:02] administratively by staff instead of
[25:04] city council. that developers
[25:06] communicate with affected property
[25:09] owners and obtain affidavit bids
[25:12] documenting the property owners approval
[25:15] or opposition
[25:17] and that affected property owners be
[25:20] allowed to request a public hearing when
[25:22] the planning commission with the
[25:24] planning commission if they um disagree
[25:26] with the staff decision. So the way it
[25:29] would look is [clears throat] this. The
[25:33] blue is all of what the applicant has
[25:35] proposed um to go in place of um the
[25:40] section of ordinance. The red is what
[25:44] planning commission proposed and then um
[25:48] the green is what staff is proposing. So
[25:53] um it would it would basically say all
[25:57] perimeter fence shall have vertical
[25:59] sections such as columns or peers spaced
[26:03] at regular intervals between 8 and 10 ft
[26:06] exception for existing applicant fencing
[26:09] and limited in specific circumstances.
[26:12] The community development director may
[26:14] approve a deviation from including the
[26:17] modification or elimination of the
[26:20] required visit vertical sections,
[26:22] columns or peers where all the following
[26:25] conditions are met. Um so the subject
[26:29] property line is adjacent to a parcel
[26:31] where fencing has already been installed
[26:33] by the adjacent property owner prior to
[26:36] development at of the project. The
[26:40] proposed um fencing is not visible for
[26:43] major arterial or collector roadways as
[26:46] determined by the city's transportation
[26:48] master plan. Um the proposed fencing
[26:52] material color and overall design are
[26:55] consistent with the standards outlined
[26:57] in the section and compatible with
[26:59] surrounding developments. Um the
[27:02] modification results in a cohesive and
[27:05] compatible appearance with the existing
[27:07] adjacent fencing. And then the applicant
[27:10] demonstrates that the installation of
[27:12] required columns or peers would create
[27:15] unnecessary redundancy or conflict with
[27:18] the existing adjacent fencing. And then
[27:23] uh planning commission also wanted to
[27:25] include that the applicant shall provide
[27:28] written affidavits from all affected
[27:30] property owners owners indicating
[27:32] approval of the exception and that the
[27:36] applicant or effective property owners
[27:37] may request a hearing with planning
[27:40] commission if there is a disagreement
[27:42] with the decision of the community
[27:44] development director. And then the
[27:46] planning commission shall not be the
[27:48] arbiter of um fencing or fencing line
[27:52] disagreements
[27:54] um between the applicant and adjacent
[27:56] property owners. So
[28:01] any questions
[28:04] >> comments maybe you're I've got a
[28:06] question. How many adjacent
[28:09] homeowners are affected by this?
[28:12] I mean it can be anywhere from one or
[28:15] two to like 10. It depends on the size
[28:18] of the project that is going in next
[28:20] door
[28:23] or 20 or you know I mean it's it could
[28:26] be quite a few people
[28:30] you have questions. No.
[28:33] >> Um I was just like the planning
[28:35] commission it says shall not be the
[28:37] arbiter of fencing and fence line
[28:40] disagreements. Who who will be?
[28:42] >> So who the person
[28:43] >> that would still that would still be a
[28:46] um civil matter between the um the two
[28:51] property owners. They would have to
[28:53] decide on that. And then um
[28:58] uh what it is mainly is that if
[29:02] somebody's feeling that um city staff
[29:06] made an incorrect decision, they can
[29:08] come in and talk to
[29:11] um planning commission and explain why
[29:13] they feel that way about it. So that
[29:17] would be the purpose for this.
[29:21] It seems like it really complicates it
[29:23] to you have to get a written permission
[29:25] from all the property owners you come
[29:27] next to and then deal with that. It just
[29:30] seems real complicated. I don't know if
[29:32] that's I don't know if I'm for that part
[29:34] of it. It just seems like uh we could
[29:37] make a decision of a council that that
[29:39] makes no sense to have two fences right
[29:41] together. That absolutely makes no
[29:42] sense. So, we need to make it so that
[29:44] doesn't have to happen. But we also need
[29:47] to make it so it's not more work than it
[29:49] does to just have the two fences and and
[29:50] fix the garbage. So, and uh so I I'm not
[29:55] sure that should be there. I mean,
[29:56] whether it's made some way different,
[29:59] you know, or I don't know. Maybe uh
[30:02] Matt, do you have any ideas on that?
[30:04] You're looking over here like you might.
[30:06] >> Um I don't know that I have ideas. I I I
[30:09] can I I think um as Miss England
[30:12] described the the planning commission
[30:14] was having some tension between yes, it
[30:18] makes sense not to have the two fences,
[30:20] but are we going to make private um
[30:24] residential
[30:25] homeowners who own their own fence
[30:28] require them to hook into their fence
[30:30] and have their fence serve as as the
[30:32] fence for for the uh for the new
[30:34] development? Yeah. And that that was their goal is to try to resolve
[30:38] that.
[30:39] >> Yeah. And I I get that part of it. I
[30:41] mean, I'm just trying to think of my
[30:44] life and being around town and if I
[30:46] build a house and there's a back fence
[30:48] at somebody else's. I've never went and
[30:50] got permission to share the fence. So, I
[30:51] just not sure if that's a necessary
[30:54] thing or maybe it is nowadays
[30:55] [clears throat]
[30:56] in the world we live in now.
[30:58] >> It could be. It could also be we could
[31:00] do some type of noticing where we send
[31:04] out a notice to the adjacent property
[31:06] owners that are being affected and
[31:08] giving them like a 10-day comment period
[31:11] similar to like a conditional use
[31:13] approval except for this would be a
[31:15] special exception. And then if we don't
[31:18] get any any issues or any any anybody
[31:22] requesting a public or a meeting public
[31:25] meeting with planning commission then we
[31:27] can approve it administratively.
[31:30] Um we could simplify it maybe by doing
[31:32] something like that.
[31:34] >> So yeah I like that idea. where if
[31:36] somebody's affected by the planning
[31:37] commission, they send out a letter
[31:39] within 200 feet or whatever it happens
[31:41] to be and
[31:42] >> and they get a chance to do it that way
[31:43] rather than require every property owner
[31:46] to respond to it.
[31:48] >> It it it and again I'm I'm probably out
[31:51] there, but it seems to me because doing
[31:55] that is is is good. I I honestly think
[31:57] that would work in a sense. But if um
[32:00] someone's like you that take trips and
[32:05] work away from here and you're gone for
[32:07] 2 weeks, you know what I mean? And that
[32:09] letter comes just before you, you know
[32:11] what I mean? You miss it, so you don't
[32:12] have no say. The other thing is it it
[32:16] seems that if a developer is going to
[32:20] develop some property and put homes
[32:22] there and there are already homes next
[32:25] to it and they're going to put a fence
[32:27] up. It seems to me that that shouldn't
[32:29] necessarily be the city's problem. That
[32:31] should be that developer's problem. And
[32:32] one that developer in my mind should
[32:35] contact all those residents and say,
[32:37] "Hey, this is what we would like to do.
[32:40] we would put a fence and we would remove
[32:42] your fence and put up another fence. To
[32:46] me, that would solve everybody's
[32:47] problems and and it won't affect the
[32:50] homeowners because the it it just seems
[32:53] that we're we're putting the homeowners
[32:54] in a position to where they got to
[32:55] defend their fence.
[32:57] >> You know what I mean? They they
[32:58] shouldn't have to defend their fence.
[33:00] And that that's been some of the
[33:01] problems is that they don't want their
[33:03] fence to be taken down, but then they
[33:05] have this but then the developer has
[33:09] this requirement to add a fence with the
[33:12] columns. So then then there it goes back
[33:15] to the issue of having the two fences
[33:17] next to each other that's kind of no
[33:19] man's land
[33:20] >> and where all the debris and you know
[33:23] weeds and all that kind of things
[33:25] accumulate. So, um,
[33:28] >> it's just it's a, you know, this is a
[33:30] suggestion to try and and solve a
[33:33] problem, you know. So,
[33:35] >> I was going to say we have where I live,
[33:37] we actually had something similar. So, I
[33:40] live in a condominium association and
[33:43] there was our fence and then the people
[33:45] came in and built a fence just beyond
[33:48] it. And I can think of two times
[33:51] probably the last 15 years that wildlife
[33:54] has got stuck in between the two fences
[33:56] and died and then it smells and you
[33:58] can't get them out and and uh so I just
[34:01] think that's
[34:04] silly and not productive to have that
[34:07] open space between them. But uh
[34:11] and maybe I'm way off, but if you
[34:14] require that of the developer to go in
[34:17] and do the columns, is it possible to
[34:20] just where it meets the other
[34:22] properties, not require the columns
[34:25] because you'd have columns everywhere
[34:26] else? It just would be
[34:29] >> or not.
[34:30] >> I'm picturing something in my head.
[34:31] Maybe that's not how
[34:32] >> the fence portion of it.
[34:35] >> Well,
[34:36] yeah. I mean, if if if they I guess it's
[34:40] hard to describe what I'm saying, but if you have this and here is where it's
[34:45] going to meet the adjacent properties or
[34:47] whatever to do the fencing with the
[34:50] columns back to that fence and then use
[34:52] the existing fences
[34:56] on the one side. I don't know.
[35:00] » It just seems something Melody.
[35:04] >> Um, no. This is good discussion. Um I do
[35:07] believe uh that having uh a decision
[35:10] between the two property owners is
[35:13] important that the developer should
[35:15] contact the property owner and make a
[35:19] proposal and see if they can't settle
[35:21] this civily if the property owner agrees
[35:24] to have their t fence removed or if they
[35:27] want to have it remain. Um I just think
[35:31] um there was good discussion on the
[35:32] planning commission meeting. I listen to
[35:34] that. Um I'm I'm uh just happy to know
[35:39] that we're we're discussing this and to
[35:41] also hear the problems that exist
[35:43] between having two existing fences. I uh
[35:47] didn't consider what uh Councilman
[35:49] Gossip mentioned about having wildlife
[35:52] get in between the two fences. We
[35:53] certainly wouldn't want to to have that
[35:56] type of an issue. So, um I think that
[36:00] [clears throat]
[36:01] if there's a disagreement, uh that they
[36:03] can come to city staff and uh is is our
[36:08] discussion relying on city staff being
[36:12] able to settle this discussion or is
[36:15] this going to have to become a civil
[36:17] matter? I just have a question about
[36:19] that.
[36:25] » Go ahead. I I think I think for the city
[36:29] code the the only thing the city can do
[36:32] is relax the standard for for the new
[36:35] development. I think ultimately
[36:39] we it's hard for the city to avoid some
[36:42] kind of a civil uh civil conflict
[36:45] between the two if they don't agree. uh
[36:49] um because even if we relax the standard
[36:52] if if if
[36:55] the
[36:57] well and I can I can say this is a
[36:59] concern that came up on the planning
[37:00] commission is that okay we we relax the
[37:04] standard for the new development the
[37:07] residential the existing residential
[37:09] [snorts and clears throat] fence either
[37:11] remains or is removed and replaced with
[37:13] something with less of a standard what
[37:15] if that homeowner doesn't want either
[37:17] one of those. What if they want No, I
[37:20] want my fence, but I don't want it to
[37:21] abut this apartment complex or something
[37:23] like that. I don't want it to serve as
[37:25] the this is my fence. What if someone uh
[37:28] graffities it or something like that?
[37:30] But I think that all that the city can
[37:31] do is either relax the standard or not.
[37:33] I I think that we're we're trying to
[37:37] ultimately it's it's a civil issue
[37:39] between two property owners. I think
[37:40] it's a private issue um if there's a
[37:42] disagreement.
[37:44] But then my question becomes, so you had
[37:47] mentioned that there could be 10 to 20
[37:49] adjacent properties. And so if they go
[37:51] to every property owner and everybody
[37:53] agrees but one,
[37:56] then you have a goofy looking fence
[37:57] because it has that same standard everywhere but
[38:01] one. I mean that
[38:04] >> I don't know.
[38:05] >> It's a it's a very difficult
[38:07] >> decision for sure. That's why from our
[38:09] end, if we're going to relax a standard,
[38:10] it goes across the board that we still
[38:13] have to if we're going to require the
[38:14] developer to work that out together, so
[38:17] be it. But that if we relax the
[38:19] standard, it allows it to happen. It
[38:21] doesn't doesn't they can't stop it from
[38:23] happening. We're not going to do they're
[38:25] not going to not just do one if we relax
[38:26] the standard. The question is, like our
[38:30] attorney says, is whether we relax the
[38:32] standard or not.
[38:34] >> And just so you know, the applicant is
[38:36] here tonight. So,
[38:40] >> so
[38:41] give me an idea of what relaxing the
[38:43] standard would look like.
[38:46] >> Well, probably something similar to what
[38:48] is already being proposed on the screen.
[38:51] Um, we would want to maybe, you know,
[38:55] um, word smith some of it a little bit
[38:58] better, but it would be something
[39:00] similar to this. So,
[39:04] >> so [clears throat] the way I read it, it
[39:05] would be that if there's an existing
[39:07] fence there, you would use the existing
[39:10] fence and not put up another one. That's
[39:12] the way I read that. Is that what you
[39:15] >> Yeah. You would just automatic or you
[39:17] would just go to just using the the
[39:20] existing fence as part of the fence
[39:22] you're installing,
[39:23] >> right? And then then you would hook onto
[39:25] the ends or whatever and continue on.
[39:28] >> Yeah. But and but to me with that, you
[39:32] got um you may have a wooden fence, you
[39:36] may have a vinyl fence, you may have a
[39:38] wire fence. Um so you got all different
[39:40] types cuz you know people do their yards
[39:43] the way they want them.
[39:45] And so you got all it's it's just
[39:50] And then too, most fences at most homes
[39:53] are like four or 5 ft tall. Usually we,
[39:58] if I'm not mistaken, the requirement for
[40:02] is normally six or eight. If it was, if
[40:05] it was commercial, I'm sure it would be
[40:06] about eight. I don't know what they're
[40:09] planning to put in in the back. Um, so
[40:14] I I don't know.
[40:16] >> This this particular one is just too
[40:19] residential and it's uh commercial, but
[40:23] it's apartments or is it town homes?
[40:25] What is it? it can't um most of the time
[40:27] it's going to be apartments like
[40:28] multifamily type
[40:30] >> but in this particular one that we're
[40:31] talking about the ledger cove apartments
[40:33] is that started this discussion
[40:35] >> I believe those are single family
[40:37] attached so
[40:39] >> on the one side
[40:40] >> the applicant is here if and I haven't
[40:42] been the one that's been reviewing it so
[40:44] I'm not super familiar with this
[40:46] particular
[40:48] >> um project so
[40:52] >> right
[40:53] yeah we Any more questions? We'll I'll
[40:56] invite him up if we're done.
[40:57] >> Okay.
[40:58] >> All right.
[40:59] Thank you. We might call you
[41:02] back up here. Okay. All right. Um Mr.
[41:05] Level, would you like to come up and
[41:06] address this?
[41:08] >> Yes.
[41:10] Thank you for letting me come up and and
[41:11] thank you for hearing this tonight. Um
[41:14] so I apologize. We weren't at the last
[41:17] meeting. There was a we weren't there,
[41:20] but there was a little bit lost in
[41:21] translation. Our issue with the pillar,
[41:23] we don't mind putting up a fence against
[41:25] a fence when it's when it's vinyl
[41:27] because we want it to look cohesive,
[41:28] too. The advantage is when we put a a
[41:31] vinyl fence with no columns up neck next
[41:34] against it. There's no cuz you put in a column, there's a gap, right? It's
[41:39] wider. I think it calls out for an 8 in
[41:41] column. So, our concern was not that
[41:43] we're not going to put up another vinyl
[41:45] fence that is the same standard they're
[41:47] asked for as the columns because even
[41:49] one of the issues we ran into on this, is a town homes that we back up to.
[41:53] One of the single family homes for
[41:56] whatever reason put a gate onto our
[41:58] property, which were both private
[42:00] properties, right? So, we don't want
[42:01] that gate to get used. So, our thought
[42:03] wasn't that we weren't going to put up
[42:05] our own fence because we wanted to all
[42:07] be the same color and cohesive. It was
[42:09] just we didn't want the columns because
[42:11] in our experience, if we're putting up a
[42:13] vinyl fence against another fence, we
[42:15] can get it close enough, we're not going
[42:16] to have a dead space. It's just once we
[42:19] have the columns, we create a dead
[42:21] space, if that makes sense. So, we're I
[42:24] know I'm throwing a total another wrench
[42:26] into this, but our our goal wasn't to
[42:28] get out of to use somebody else's fence
[42:30] because I would agree with you guys.
[42:32] It's just going to create animosity that
[42:34] hey, the developers taking advantage of
[42:35] us. They're trying to get a a fence. our
[42:39] a free fence. Our our goal is to get um
[42:43] to just get rid of the columns in this
[42:45] scenario or other scenarios that may
[42:47] come up just to avoid the gap because
[42:50] the fence would be 100% on our property.
[42:53] And to be quite honest, we're okay with
[42:55] other people using it, but just as you
[42:56] guys said, we don't want to be liable
[42:58] for using somebody else's fence and
[43:00] maintenance or whatnot breaks it. So,
[43:03] just to give a little bit of
[43:04] clarification and yes, what we are going
[43:06] up against here, um, our project is a
[43:09] mix of, um, what they call garden style
[43:12] apartments and town homes, but this
[43:14] particular area is just town homes.
[43:16] >> Okay. So,
[43:17] >> all right. Any any questions?
[43:19] >> Well, the gap is what I would worry
[43:21] about. If you put in the column and then
[43:23] you have the gap, that's how I've seen
[43:25] the wildlife get stuck in and then die.
[43:27] >> So, I I don't know how many feet of fence is it that goes
[43:35] to the existing fences? I mean, is
[43:40] >> in comparison? I'm just curious.
[43:42] >> Yeah. So, do you mean how many linear
[43:44] feet of fence are we installing or
[43:46] >> Well,
[43:48] how many linear feet are already
[43:50] existing to the properties? And then 2/3
[43:52] >> and then so 2/3 of it is already
[43:54] existing and then third of it would be
[43:56] >> Yeah. And and and so that's we were just
[43:58] trying to do is eliminate the gap. We
[44:00] found with vinyl fence, it's not it's
[44:02] not a structural fence. So, we can we
[44:04] can butt it right up that it's 100% on
[44:06] our property line. We don't even again,
[44:09] we don't care if the fences that don't
[44:11] have it use our fence. It's just to not
[44:14] create the gap. So, weeds, trash, I
[44:16] never thought about dead animals. You
[44:18] got pretty creative on that one, but
[44:20] it's just a a maintenance issue is
[44:22] really what it comes down Is it possible
[44:24] to pull the the column forward and have
[44:29] the vinyl fence go to the back of it to
[44:31] reduce that gap? The problem is with the
[44:34] column that we've ran into is it's more
[44:35] of a structural component. So, we need a
[44:37] wider foundation.
[44:39] >> Okay.
[44:40] >> I So that's that's why we wanted to do
[44:44] Yeah. Again, it's totally your just want
[44:46] to give a little context to that.
[44:49] >> All right. Any more questions?
[44:52] >> Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you.
[44:55] >> All right.
[44:58] So that that got presented a little bit
[45:00] different than what I was understanding
[45:01] for sure. And so you're the act
[45:05] applicant in this case is requesting to
[45:07] eliminate the columns so he can put the
[45:09] fence against the property owner's
[45:11] fence.
[45:12] Does that create issue with private
[45:15] owners? I guess maybe you want to put it
[45:18] right. He wants to put it right against
[45:19] the other fence. And then there's
[45:21] I imagine there's a little bit of gap,
[45:23] but not much just between the posts.
[45:28] >> That definitely takes care of some of
[45:29] the complications we were worried about.
[45:32] I I think maybe some of the language I'm
[45:34] looking in the proposal that that
[45:37] um implies not putting up two fences is
[45:40] that it talks about creating an
[45:42] unnecessary redundancy.
[45:45] Um I wonder if that's how
[45:49] we miscommunicated because we were
[45:50] thinking, okay, well that means we don't
[45:52] want a fence against the fence.
[45:53] >> Yeah.
[45:54] >> If it's a fence against the fence and
[45:56] we're just relaxing the standards, that
[45:58] is a different issue. If they are
[46:00] building the fence, then there's not so
[46:01] much the issue between private property
[46:03] owners,
[46:04] >> right? I I agree with that. And he does
[46:06] have the one issue with one owner that's
[46:08] got a back gate that goes onto their
[46:10] property. So that would have to be
[46:11] addressed by whoever addresses that. But
[46:14] so do we probably need to get this
[46:17] rewritten and get it back to
[46:18] [clears throat] us
[46:20] >> or we can try or we can try and just
[46:22] state how what we think. But it's still
[46:25] ultimately we was just going to decide
[46:27] if we was willing to relax the standard
[46:30] >> right
[46:30] >> without the columns. At that point that
[46:32] would be what it would be is just a
[46:33] decision to allow them to have no
[46:36] columns and put the fence against the
[46:38] fence.
[46:38] >> And and this is on the business meeting
[46:40] agenda for tonight. So if certainly we
[46:43] could there's enough changes if if it's
[46:46] the council's desire we could take it
[46:47] back and re rework it with the with
[46:49] understanding.
[46:50] >> I think since it's written so much wrong
[46:52] cuz I misunderstood the whole thing. So
[46:55] I think we should probably rewrite it.
[46:58] >> What do you guys think? If we do that,
[46:59] then we probably
[47:00] >> can bring it back for the 17th
[47:02] >> and bring it back to the ne that way it
[47:04] can go possibly back back to the
[47:07] planning commission so they can look at
[47:09] it again cuz I don't you know what I
[47:11] mean? I I don't want them to think that
[47:13] what they propose is not good. It's just
[47:15] that
[47:15] >> I believe they
[47:16] >> we have um a couple of questions on it.
[47:18] >> I believe if I read this right that if
[47:21] we if we relax this we're still going to
[47:23] have the planning commission approve it
[47:25] right in the future. It's not going to
[47:28] be us approving it. We're just going to
[47:30] relax the
[47:31] >> Yeah, they had they had actually
[47:34] suggested or recommended that staff
[47:36] approve them unless there's some
[47:38] contention or some um some issues with
[47:43] the approval with staff's decision, then
[47:45] it would go to planning commission.
[47:47] Somebody could request a public um
[47:50] meeting with planning commission on it.
[47:52] So,
[47:53] >> so is it is it possible and and just to
[47:55] be clear so that I'm making sure I
[47:57] understand, would you be leaving the the
[48:02] columns on the the part of the fence
[48:05] that doesn't meet with the other
[48:07] properties and we'd only be relaxing the
[48:10] one or are you talking about relaxing at
[48:12] all?
[48:14] >> And that's actually a really good
[48:16] question.
[48:18] >> Do you want me to talk?
[48:20] >> Yes.
[48:20] >> Okay,
[48:21] >> please do. So yeah, put your two cents
[48:22] in.
[48:23] >> The goal was to just remove the columns
[48:25] and I think it says that where it says
[48:27] approve a dev deviation from
[48:30] modification or elimination of vertical
[48:32] sections, columns or peers. That's all
[48:34] it's asking for. So I think it's it's
[48:38] not the intent was not to remove the
[48:41] fencing or use anybody else's fencing.
[48:43] It's just to remove the peers when it's
[48:46] adjacent to another fence
[48:47] >> and leave the peers on the on the other
[48:49] >> and leave the peers on the other part.
[48:51] And I believe that's what it says. It
[48:53] was just the additions that made it
[48:55] change.
[48:56] >> Right. Okay.
[48:57] >> So, there shouldn't really be any
[48:59] contention because it's going to be on
[49:01] the property owner's
[49:02] >> property line. It's not sharing anything
[49:05] with another property owner.
[49:07] >> So, there will be a fence abuing a
[49:10] fence, but that's
[49:11] >> but it'll be tight.
[49:13] >> It'll be tight or without the column.
[49:14] >> So, there's really no reason to have
[49:16] property owners have to give approval
[49:18] for this.
[49:19] >> No. because it's on someone else because
[49:21] it's on
[49:22] building discussion.
[49:24] >> It's on my property line. If I'm
[49:26] building a single family house, the
[49:27] fence is on my property line.
[49:31] >> So, do you feel like
[49:32] >> that is the intent?
[49:32] >> Matt, do you feel like that's the way
[49:34] it's written like that? Cuz there's so
[49:36] much other added to that with
[49:38] [clears throat] the discussion from the
[49:39] council and wanting the other from the
[49:41] planning commission,
[49:42] >> right?
[49:43] >> Wanting these other things to be on
[49:44] there.
[49:46] So, they're not necessary. doesn't
[49:47] sound.
[49:47] >> So the reason the list is there is
[49:49] because what [snorts] the community
[49:50] development department is trying to
[49:52] propose is to say these specific
[49:54] requirements have to be met in order to
[49:56] it can't because this applies to
[49:58] everybody. It it was proposed by Ledger
[50:01] Cove, but it will apply to anybody
[50:03] building. So it doesn't really matter
[50:05] how many it applies to in their case
[50:07] because it will apply to everybody
[50:08] moving forward. But they're saying that
[50:11] it's not just anybody who builds
[50:12] apartments can relax can come in and say
[50:14] I don't want to put columns in. It has
[50:16] to meet specific requirements like it
[50:19] has to be adjacent to a parcel where
[50:21] fencing's already been installed by the
[50:23] property owner prior to the development.
[50:25] It's not visible from a road. So, it has
[50:26] to still meet all those requirements in
[50:29] order to relax the code.
[50:31] >> Okay,
[50:32] >> that was my understanding.
[50:33] >> I guess the the only other question I
[50:36] guess would be because Okay, so he has
[50:38] the back of the whole property which is
[50:40] 200 ft. Let's say we only got two/ird of
[50:43] it with fence. Are we going to put
[50:44] columns next to that fence along the
[50:46] back of it? Probably. If Are we going to
[50:49] relax it just like that? We are.
[50:51] >> Well, and and this will be a a
[50:54] discretionary case byase um approval
[50:57] process the way it's written. So I I
[51:00] think that there's some flexibility
[51:02] there as they look at it to to make sure
[51:04] it's as consistent as possible and and
[51:06] meets as much of the the code
[51:09] requirements as possible as that makes
[51:12] sense in a particular situation.
[51:15] >> I agree that that's the way it should
[51:17] be. Yes. Sometimes we write something
[51:19] and we get hardlined on it. So I want to
[51:22] make sure that it's going to going to
[51:24] whether it says that in it or something
[51:26] it has to say something that's okay.
[51:28] Maybe it's a case by case basis and we
[51:30] >> I I think
[51:31] >> we need to be able to have flexibility
[51:32] as the staff to approve it. That's got
[51:36] to be in there, right?
[51:37] >> Yeah. I I think that uh the language
[51:40] that uh community it started out
[51:42] originally in the application of city
[51:44] council may approve a deviation and now
[51:46] it's uh community development director may may approve a
[51:51] deviation from. So they're not required
[51:53] to approve a deviation from it, but um
[51:56] that gives the city the option to say,
[51:58] okay, that these usually are the
[52:01] requirements, but in this case, it makes
[52:03] sense to relax that standard to not
[52:05] require the the um columns or peers.
[52:08] >> And I'm definitely for that the way
[52:09] you're saying that. So, and you do you
[52:12] feel like Well, I don't I don't feel
[52:15] like what we just read says that, but do
[52:17] you feel like it says that? I don't
[52:18] >> I think we I I think we could clarify
[52:20] it. you can clarify it when we make
[52:23] >> at the very least that we'd we'd want to
[52:24] take out what the um
[52:27] uh the the red line at the bottom
[52:30] because I think that went under the
[52:32] other interpretation that we had before.
[52:34] Yeah.
[52:35] >> Okay. All right. Any more questions on
[52:37] this before we move on then? I think
[52:39] we'll just keep it then and we'll try
[52:40] and clarify it in the meeting and try
[52:42] and make a vote. Okay. Ed,
[52:45] >> I have a a question if that's okay. You
[52:48] bet.
[52:51] Go ahead, Melody.
[52:53] >> I'm having just a little bit of hard
[52:55] time hearing that. And so my question
[52:58] is, and maybe you discuss this, is that,
[53:02] you know, I I hate to relax the code and
[53:05] find that we have unintended
[53:06] consequences that come in a future
[53:09] property. Is this something that we can
[53:11] do just to make um just a like a
[53:15] conditional use or a conditional
[53:17] requirement for just this property? Um
[53:21] that's my question is I don't want to
[53:23] hold up um this proper this uh
[53:26] development that's going on currently. I
[53:29] know they've already got several
[53:30] buildings that are up. It may take the
[53:33] city quite a while for us to make sure
[53:35] that we fine-tune this code. I'm
[53:37] wondering if we shouldn't just consider
[53:40] this its own uh conditional use for this
[53:44] property. Um I also wondered um this is
[53:48] a second part of my question is if the
[53:51] developer contacts the property owner
[53:53] and they're in agreement that they want
[53:56] to only have one fence and they'll agree
[54:00] to let the developer put a fence up. Is
[54:03] the developer going to be required
[54:06] uh to mitigate any cost to the property
[54:08] owner if they have to have their fence
[54:10] removed? I don't feel like an existing
[54:13] home owner if they're willing to comply
[54:18] with the new fence that they should have
[54:19] to bear the burden of any cost for this.
[54:22] So, I'm just thinking that eliminating
[54:25] the columns and abuing the fence is
[54:28] probably okay, but I really feel like
[54:30] there's probably more to this code that
[54:33] we want to take a look at so that we
[54:35] don't have a future problem with another
[54:39] development. So, I'd rather just deal
[54:41] with this on a on its own case basis.
[54:44] That's That's my I made two two
[54:48] comments, I guess,
[54:50] >> to this.
[54:52] >> All right. Any comment on that, Matt?
[54:54] >> Um,
[54:55] >> you have to talk louder.
[54:56] >> I'll have to talk louder. Yes. Sorry.
[54:59] Councilwoman Goes. Um,
[55:02] I I don't know that this fits a
[55:04] conditional use permit situation. Um, I I don't think that that's written into
[55:10] our code for a conditional use. um
[55:15] maybe a a variance, but then the the app
[55:18] um developer would have to apply for it
[55:20] and go through the process, too. So, I
[55:23] I'm not sure that at least this council
[55:26] tonight can make a decision for this one
[55:29] particular property.
[55:33] » So, so you're saying that it would have
[55:35] to be for across the board, right? Not
[55:38] just for one, right? Correct. Yeah.
[55:40] >> Correct. Yes. Okay.
[55:43] All right.
[55:47] » And uh the other thing that I indicated
[55:49] is what if they negotiate with the
[55:51] property owner and the property owner
[55:53] just wants to have one fence. Do we need
[55:56] to specify that the developer is
[55:58] responsible to bear the cost for fence
[56:01] removal or you know however it's going
[56:04] to be designed pending the decision
[56:07] between the property owners.
[56:10] I think that if we wanted to write into
[56:14] the code that that was an option that
[56:16] they could agree to it and have the one
[56:17] fence, that'd be fine. I don't think we
[56:20] want to get into who's responsible for
[56:22] what between the two property owners,
[56:23] though.
[56:24] >> Yeah. And then and then I mean it it
[56:27] just complicates it. If we're going to
[56:28] have 10 property owners going down the
[56:30] line and one wants and one doesn't, it
[56:31] doesn't work. I think we're better off
[56:34] to have
[56:36] the two fences one against the other.
[56:38] Otherwise,
[56:40] then just it just gets even worse.
[56:41] >> Mhm. Well, it it in our discussion it
[56:45] said that they're going to have to have
[56:46] written permission by the property
[56:48] owner. So, it kind of looks like the way
[56:50] the code is written, they're going to
[56:52] have to negotiate with everybody
[56:53] individually.
[56:54] >> Yeah. But I think that all of that is
[56:56] going to be out of there because we
[56:57] misunderstood the plan of what this was
[57:00] cuz we're not going to be tearing down
[57:02] their we're just going to be going and
[57:03] putting it right against their fence was
[57:05] all we're doing is is all we're doing is
[57:07] eliminate eliminating that the developer
[57:09] has to put columns in.
[57:11] >> He still has to put he still has to put
[57:13] a fence up
[57:16] >> and they're still going to have to
[57:18] notify the property owners and and
[57:20] receive written permission from the
[57:22] property owners.
[57:23] >> Uh no, I don't think so. No, because
[57:24] they're going to they're just going to
[57:26] build they're going to build their own
[57:27] fence without columns. It still be their
[57:29] fence and the property owner will have
[57:31] their own fence property.
[57:33] >> Okay.
[57:33] Each of them each of them will be
[57:35] on their property. Yeah. [clears throat]
[57:36] No problem.
[57:38] >> All right.
[57:42] » Any more questions? Are we good on this?
[57:44] Okay, we can move on and we'll I think
[57:45] we'll go ahead and move on and we'll see if we can make an attempt to
[57:48] make it happen in council meeting
[57:50] anyway. Okay. All right. Thank you. All
[57:53] right. We'll move on to discussion item
[57:56] E,
[57:57] which is a a discussion on proposed
[58:01] amendments of Tuta City Code 7-16A-3,
[58:06] residential special districts
[58:07] eligibility and size regarding the
[58:09] minimum land requirement necessary to
[58:12] qualify for commercial special district.
[58:14] That's also presented by Anna England.
[58:31] Okay. So, this is um a proposed
[58:34] applicant driven proposed text amendment
[58:37] for um
[58:40] the CSD uh section of the ordinance.
[58:44] um they just want to for one thing
[58:47] correct uh the title from going from a
[58:51] residential title to a commercial title.
[58:54] And then um right currently the um
[58:58] ordinance requires all of the CSD zone
[59:02] to be contiguous
[59:04] with each other. Um but the applicant is
[59:08] asking that they get um or that they can
[59:14] have as long as they have a certain a
[59:16] minimum amount of of um acreage that
[59:19] they can have uh the CSD zone applied to
[59:23] different sections of the city and it
[59:27] does not need to be contiguous. So, um
[59:32] that's that's basically what they're
[59:34] asking for is they're changing one small
[59:37] section saying uh size the minimum size
[59:40] for any application for commercial
[59:42] special district shall be 50 acres. All
[59:45] acreage identified for inclusion in a
[59:48] CSD shall be contiguous and developable.
[59:52] In the event the proposed size of the
[59:54] CSD is over 125 acres, the CSD does not
[59:58] need to be contiguous. Land identified
[1:00:02] as having any of the following
[1:00:04] conditions may be included within a CSD
[1:00:08] but shall not be included in the
[1:00:10] calculation of the minimum acreage. And
[1:00:12] then it goes on to what what we already
[1:00:16] have in the ordinance. So
[1:00:19] it's basically just changing the one
[1:00:21] portion where if you've got over 125
[1:00:25] acres, those acreages do not have to be
[1:00:28] continuous with each other. So
[1:00:32] >> all right. And my only question would
[1:00:34] how how does the staff feel about that
[1:00:35] changing that change?
[1:00:37] >> Um it's the staff has no issue with it
[1:00:40] at all. So
[1:00:42] >> All right. Any any questions?
[1:00:47] All right. Thank you.
[1:00:50] >> Okay. Now, we're going to go to item F.
[1:00:53] >> Oh, you know what? Um, we do also have
[1:00:56] um the applicant here and he has a
[1:00:59] presentation as well for you. So,
[1:01:02] >> um maybe you right here. Okay. You want
[1:01:05] to you
[1:01:06] >> come up and tell us your name and
[1:01:08] >> Yeah. I'll just
[1:01:09] >> and who you're with and we'll go
[1:01:10] >> for you.
[1:01:12] >> Well, have you give us your your
[1:01:14] >> Yeah. Jake Finlandson with Perry
[1:01:15] Commercial. Thanks for having me. And I
[1:01:17] don't want to blabber uh the point that
[1:01:19] Anna made. It sounds like it's from our
[1:01:21] perspective, it's pretty
[1:01:22] straightforward, but I'll just kind of
[1:01:23] give you a little bit of background on
[1:01:25] this specific area that we're referring
[1:01:27] to. Um [clears throat] so this if you
[1:01:30] recall, we a few months ago we came in
[1:01:33] for a CSD application work session and
[1:01:37] this is just kind of an aerial imagery
[1:01:39] of those those sections. So the first
[1:01:42] one is a large commercial area on 3100
[1:01:45] North. Um the area B is on 1,000 North
[1:01:51] and area C which is north of the golf
[1:01:54] course. Um there is also an optional
[1:01:56] area B which is um on 2000 North which
[1:02:03] only comes into play if the Mid Valley
[1:02:05] corridor disrupts the original area B
[1:02:08] which it's looking like it is going to.
[1:02:11] Um so so that these are the areas that
[1:02:13] the CSD specifically that we're
[1:02:15] proposing encompasses. Now, um the goal
[1:02:18] of that is here's our so we we have
[1:02:22] Compass Point master plan community
[1:02:24] [clears throat]
[1:02:25] and our goal with this is you know those four areas that we pointed out
[1:02:31] represent kind of the entry points into
[1:02:34] the Compass Point community. So, our
[1:02:36] goal is to have a consistent elevated
[1:02:40] standard
[1:02:42] um on on that entryway into the
[1:02:44] community.
[1:02:46] Um now, we've
[1:02:49] let me just go to the next slide here.
[1:02:51] Those they're not really showing up
[1:02:53] super clearly, but those little blue uh
[1:02:55] circles represent kind of the entryways
[1:02:59] into the community. So here you can see
[1:03:01] that entryway off of SR36 and 3100 North
[1:03:06] up there to the north of the golf course
[1:03:08] here um on 2000 North on that bottom
[1:03:12] left hand side would be another entryway
[1:03:15] um into the community. And then down to
[1:03:18] the south we have two additional um the
[1:03:22] blue circles. one of those which we
[1:03:25] don't have any property on but the other
[1:03:28] is uh we do and so the goal is again
[1:03:31] just to make sure that this is
[1:03:33] consistent. Um, you know, we
[1:03:38] we've planned for our commercial and
[1:03:40] industrial uses to be on the main
[1:03:42] entries into the community and and the
[1:03:45] reason for that is it really helps
[1:03:47] ensure the success of those businesses
[1:03:49] that are going to be there. Um, as
[1:03:52] that's where most of the traffic is
[1:03:54] going to to be.
[1:03:56] Um so yeah again we just these are our
[1:03:58] entry hubs that we want consistent
[1:04:01] compass point branding and design
[1:04:03] standards and and we believe that that
[1:04:06] will positively impact the community um
[1:04:08] with you know elevated and cohesive
[1:04:11] design standards in those those various
[1:04:13] areas. Now technically uh you know we
[1:04:16] the the areas between these we we
[1:04:19] control you know all all that land. It's
[1:04:22] all contiguous but just in the in an
[1:04:25] effort of cleaning up the the um
[1:04:28] ordinance and making it as just non not
[1:04:31] as confusing as just say non-ontiguous
[1:04:34] in the event 125 acres and I believe
[1:04:37] we're closer to 220 in this in this
[1:04:40] case. So, here's an I just uh this will
[1:04:44] come in at a later date, but I just
[1:04:45] wanted to give you an idea of kind of
[1:04:46] some of the those elevated design
[1:04:48] standards. And just a disclaimer, none
[1:04:51] of these images are ours. Um it's just
[1:04:53] to communicate some ideas of of those
[1:04:56] design standards. So on walkways um you
[1:05:00] know we have it a separation of park
[1:05:03] strip between the road and and uh a
[1:05:06] walking path with some benches allowed
[1:05:10] that that kind of a use will be called
[1:05:12] out in the CSD. Um another use that will
[1:05:16] be called out in the CSD are shops with
[1:05:19] shade canopies
[1:05:21] um for the specific retail users. Um,
[1:05:24] and that just allows pedestrian activity
[1:05:28] to be more inviting and um, yeah, and
[1:05:31] welcoming for those businesses.
[1:05:34] Another one is uh, elevations with
[1:05:36] varying height um, as well as multiple
[1:05:39] material requirements,
[1:05:43] [snorts]
[1:05:44] elevated plant requirements along
[1:05:46] walking trails. It's kind of the the
[1:05:49] intent of the image here.
[1:05:53] And then elevated landscaping adjacent
[1:05:55] to monument signage.
[1:06:02] And again, this is kind of just elevated
[1:06:04] landscaping
[1:06:06] around entryways into retail
[1:06:10] businesses.
[1:06:12] >> So that's just kind of a sampling of
[1:06:15] some of those design standards that
[1:06:17] we're hoping to implement in the CSD.
[1:06:19] And um any I know any questions for me
[1:06:24] >> questions.
[1:06:27] All right. Well, thank you. Appreciate
[1:06:28] it. Turn that off. All right.
[1:06:31] Okay.
[1:06:33] Now we'll move on to the next discussion
[1:06:35] item which is uh discussion item F
[1:06:38] discussion on a proposed text amendment
[1:06:40] on Tula city code 7-16
[1:06:43] B-6 landscaping standards regarding
[1:06:46] miniming landscaping requirements in the
[1:06:48] heavy industrial section of the Tula
[1:06:50] city business park presented by Anna
[1:06:53] England again.
[1:06:57] Okay. So, um, as I was saying before,
[1:07:00] um, this is actually just following
[1:07:03] along with what we've already
[1:07:05] established for industrial zones with
[1:07:07] the landscaping requirements, taking out
[1:07:10] um, the landscaping requirements for
[1:07:12] parking lots, the 15-ft front yard
[1:07:15] landscaping requirement, and then the
[1:07:17] landscape park landscape park strip
[1:07:20] requirement as well. Um but in lie of
[1:07:23] that we are requiring that any disturbed
[1:07:26] areas be um receded with um native
[1:07:31] species of plant and reestablish and
[1:07:33] they do need to submit um you know a
[1:07:37] plan to do that to reestablish it. Um so
[1:07:41] all of the industrial zones were um
[1:07:44] heavier industrial zoning districts were
[1:07:46] included in this except for the Tilla
[1:07:50] City Business Park landscaping
[1:07:52] requirement section se section C heavy
[1:07:55] industrial um and we just want that um
[1:07:59] to mirror what we've already established
[1:08:02] for the heavier industrial zones in the
[1:08:04] city. So, if you look at the map, it's
[1:08:07] going to be the darker purple area that
[1:08:11] um would apply, which is pretty far away
[1:08:15] from like the residential uses in um
[1:08:18] closer to all of the industrial uses in the city in that area. Um so the main
[1:08:26] um changes that are going to going to h
[1:08:30] happen are we are going to identify
[1:08:32] section A as commercial separate section
[1:08:35] C from section B and that identifies
[1:08:39] section B as lighter industrial and then
[1:08:41] remove section section C from the 1% lot
[1:08:46] landscaping requirement as well as the
[1:08:48] reference table two of Tula city code
[1:08:51] 716 where industrial landscaping
[1:08:54] requirements are defined. Um, creates a
[1:08:57] paragraph three which exemp exempts
[1:08:59] section C from any landscaping
[1:09:01] requirements. requires all areas
[1:09:04] disturbed by construction in section C
[1:09:06] to provide at the time of site plan
[1:09:09] review a disturbed area vegetation
[1:09:11] reclamation and establishment plan and
[1:09:14] then renumber the ordinance according to
[1:09:17] the amendments and then eliminate
[1:09:19] section C from tree planting
[1:09:22] requirements but maintains the tree
[1:09:24] planting requirements for sections A and
[1:09:26] B.
[1:09:28] So, this did go to planning commission
[1:09:30] on May 27th. Um, and they forwarded a
[1:09:34] positive recommendation to city council
[1:09:36] with the condition that a one-s sentence
[1:09:38] terminating clause for the use of
[1:09:40] irrigation after receding is established
[1:09:44] be added. So, um this is what the
[1:09:47] ordinance would look like in the
[1:09:49] ordinance changes. Um, as we went
[1:09:51] through before, section C, heavier
[1:09:54] industrial landscaping, uh, lots in
[1:09:57] section section C shall be exempt from
[1:09:59] all landscaping requirements. Areas
[1:10:02] disturbed during the construction
[1:10:04] process shall complete the following.
[1:10:07] All areas disturbed by construction
[1:10:09] shall be reclaimed with the seed mixture
[1:10:11] composed of native Utah grasses and
[1:10:14] shrubs. Um a disturbed area reclamation
[1:10:18] plan shall be provided in lie of a
[1:10:20] landscape and irrigation plan um during
[1:10:24] the site plan review process. And then
[1:10:26] the green section is what planning
[1:10:28] commission wanted us to be added is
[1:10:31] irrigation used solely for the esta
[1:10:34] establishment of reveation within
[1:10:36] disturbed areas shall not be required to
[1:10:40] be permanent. And then the renumbering.
[1:10:43] So
[1:10:45] those are the major changes for this. So
[1:10:50] >> all right, any questions?
[1:10:54] No, questions. All right. Well, thank
[1:10:57] you. All right. So this closed meeting,
[1:11:00] do we have time for that meeting? Is it
[1:11:02] going to be okay? So we are going to go
[1:11:06] to a closed meeting upstairs and uh we
[1:11:08] will adjourn from there.
[1:11:11] Be back. for the city council at 7.
[1:11:14] >> Can you just We're going to discuss
[1:11:16] property.
[1:11:17] >> Oh, yeah. We're going to discuss
[1:11:18] property. Yes. I'm sorry. I should have
[1:11:20] said that. Thank you.
[1:11:23] >> P property acquisition. So, thank you.
[1:11:25] >> I'm pretty sure you have to vote to go
[1:11:27] into a closed. So, yeah. So, let's uh
[1:11:31] >> Hey, I'm new to the block. Give me a
[1:11:32] break. Okay. So, anyway,
[1:11:34] >> so am I.
[1:11:35] >> Yeah, you are, aren't you? But yeah, you
[1:11:37] knew. Anyway, so we we need to take a
[1:11:42] vote on to go to move to a closed
[1:11:43] meeting. So, Councilman Gossson,
[1:11:46] >> I'll make a motion that we Yeah. Is it
[1:11:48] make a motion or just
[1:11:50] >> I'll make a motion that we
[1:11:52] >> And I'll second.
[1:11:53] >> Okay. You'll second it.
[1:11:54] >> Mhm. [clears throat]
[1:11:55] >> Okay. Okay. Then we'll take it to a
[1:11:57] vote. Councilman Gossid.
[1:11:59] >> I.
[1:12:00] >> Councilwoman
[1:12:02] Doas
[1:12:04] >> I.
[1:12:05] >> Dave. Councilman McCall. I
[1:12:07] >> and I also vote I. So, we'll go ahead
[1:12:09] and move to the closed meeting and we
[1:12:11] will adjourn from there. Okay. Got it.
[1:12:14] Did I do that right? Not really.
[1:12:18] >> Melody, are you going to stay on for 15
[1:12:20] minutes?
[1:12:22] >> Um, will you call me from the closed
[1:12:24] meeting?
[1:12:24] >> We will.