[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.

Tooele City Council Work Meeting June 3, 2026

Transcript