Welcome, everyone, to what will be Marcia Baudry's last meeting. Definitely her last, last study session as a participant. She might come to Heringas later on. I think she'll have to be really bored. She's going to come attend the parks and trails meetings. We don't have the need for a closed meeting, so we're going to skip that. The next item is a discussion on the city newsletter, survey results. Linda and Alex, go ahead. Yeah, so this is a follow-up to our discussion about the idea of going away from a printed mail-to-everyone newsletter. And the direction from council at that time was, on a survey to residents. And so Alex is going to present the findings of that survey. Got a little handout for you guys. Just kind of a little bit more additional information that we'll cover. You can pick into one place. Oh, okay. Yeah, make sure Nicole gets one. I got it. Okay, you got it. Okay. Okay. So we put the poll out in the last issue of the newsletter. And kind of like Agenda mentioned, the big reason for this is that between 2021 and 2025, the cost of producing the newsletter has gone up significantly. It's gone up about nearly 70%. And we kind of started looking into this when they told us, I don't know how many months ago it was, but a few months ago the cost for both printing and distributing going up again. So we put the survey in the newsletter and we got 586 responses, which surpassed the 382 we needed for a viable sample size. Combined between, so the three options we gave were primarily online with limited printing, with copies at the library, senior center, and city hall as we do currently. online only or printed and mailed, just continuing what we've been doing. Over 70% suggested that they liked the idea of primarily online or online only. A lot of the online only people did also express support though for this, what we call the hybrid option, printed and distributed digitally. So if we were to go this route, Linda has talked to . The biggest concern was going any kind of digital route with those who aren't able to access online or uncomfortable with it. So in addition to providing printed copies at specific locations, we've arranged with the meals on wheels can deliver to home down residents that are unable otherwise to get out. We determined that a 500 coffee print run that would be distributed in certain locations would be about $5,358 annually, which is like a tenth of what we're paying to distribute it as we've been doing. So do we know if that aligns with the group that really wants it in person? Sorry? The Meals on Wheels, is that the target audience for the ones who wanted a fridge of coffee? There's certainly other residents who prefer printed copy. They are part of that smaller 28%. What we were trying to address are those who would not be able to go to locations to pick up printed copies. And so that's why we focused on our homebound seniors. And we have a good relationship with the Meals on Wheels program. So they said they'd be These were the ones who thought we should just go completely online. Again, though, they liked the cost of, or the idea of environmental benefits and cost savings, but acknowledged that it's probably beneficial for people to be able to access it in certain locations. So they were buying, like I mentioned, with the hybrid model. And then we had about 27% that wanted to keep it printed in mails. So this information is in the package. But in the end, with the support that we got from the newsletter, our recommendation would be to build that hybrid model. We thought that it would be good to expand the location where the newsletter is available. A couple of thoughts are maybe like the animal shelter service, the west side. So they can go and get a copy of the newsletter Yeah. The library is not asking for . But you'd send it out with your usual text and email updates. Yes. Yeah, we put it out through Don't Fight Rafer. We put it on the website. And then do more of a distribution through social media as well. We've got to be one of the few cities still doing it, right? There are other cities that are still doing a print version. One of the things that we look into is they distribute it with their monthly utility bills. A lot of times with that, it's just an eight and a half by 11 that's maybe color. We think that the quality of the printed version that we do is worth keeping. And we also look into if that were possible with our current delivery system for the utility billing. Grace looked into that and said it's not really feasible with our sender to have an opt-in option. There's no break on postage costs from this college. No. That's a big postage. It's a lot. I do enjoy getting the full proportion of it. It is nice. And I definitely need the full proportion. email to me, I may or may not click into it, just to be completely honest. I wonder if grocery stores might be willing to ask them to. Because everyone goes to the grocery store. You just have to see how many. If you do the hybrid where you just distribute them to a few locations, someone in the city is going to do that. We're not going to have a postage from the city for that. What do you all want to do? I like the hybrid option. I think that, you know, and if we can change it, we might be able to find, well, this is where the people really need it physically, and so that's easy to change, you know, based on where the need is. You wouldn't want to get it out too far that you ended up going back to printing so many anyway. I think that it's been a really important way to communicate with residents and I'm worried that we're going to lose some of the audience. I just know my own email is just flooded with things like this. But I think if there's a way where they can reference it then they can go look at it and then they can put up on our website can you measure the open rate do we have to figure out how many people open it we don't have that it'd be really nice if there's a way to then you have an idea how many people are really doing it how i think this idea of adding a shortened version into some bill or something it's not a terrible one at least there's some outreach from the city right like the mayor's message or something But if you think it's worth it, just spend the money and keep doing it. I mean, if you think it's valuable, it's all choice. It's a lot of money, but it's getting the best job. What's the total cost? $55,000. Yeah, $55,000. And like we mentioned, too, they tell us about it. Yeah, that's not all just postage, though. It's also the printing cost. I think one thing that we've really gotten better at is communicating with residents. Doing away with it entirely really takes away one modality in that. People do look to this printed newsletter to see what's happening in the city and what's going on with comments. Yeah, I'm going to... I'm more inclined to read it if it's paper than I am. I'm not going to open it. to promote it through the link and stuff. Can we switch to just a paper that goes in with something? No, that is not possible at all. But at least we hit some of them. I mean, it's possible. Like I mentioned, though, the nice. It's really nice. And people read it. People tell me all the time that they've read it, they'll ask for copies if their kid happened to be in it. I'm not saying it because we do it, but I think ours is the best looking of any of the neighboring cities because I've looked at several of them and ours is by far the best. It may be worth the $50,000. The other option is, could you do a mailing that's included in the bill so we're not adding any more postage that could be just like a little synopsis of what the digital one is, and we still do the nice digital one, and that one can direct you if you want to see more or whatever to the website. I don't know. I feel more comfortable if we did something like that with doing one of the big ones, but I really hesitate to completely get rid of the big one. I think people really like it. I understand what you're saying, but that adds to our workload as well, if you like it it would still be an additional cost to put it in with the bills because we're adding an insert. So that would be adding to the current cost. But not to what our cost is. I'm going to do $55,000. I'm going to do $55,000. Could you do some digital and some . I was inclined to say digital, but now I'm talking about it more. And like we said, our recommendation isn't to get rid of it, but rather to eliminate the newsletter going to every home in the city. We have time if we win that route. we could arrange for pickup locations. I know like the senior center, they're always gone when I go deliver the next one. The library, frequently all of those ones are taken. A lot of times the ones here are gone. So if we have pickup locations, I don't think it's going to be a problem with people picking them up. It would save a lot. There's something really special about hitting all of our residents. We don't really do that in another manner. So what if we went quarterly instead of every other month? It's four a year. That would be fine. I just see a lot of value in it. I think it's really well done. I think people really like it. Yeah, I personally like it. I think it's worth the money. People read it. I know they read it. It's one of the few ones I actually get out of the mail, and I look through it. I miss every time I have somebody call me and say, hey. I think that residents like to hear from Troy and they like to hear from us when we write articles If you went to quarterly, they wouldn't hear from two of you a year, right? So if we're doing it six times a year, everybody has a chance to have a message. I mean, what is the anticipated drop off if you were to switch to all electronic? What's your vote? Keep it. May I read it? OK, we've got to keep it for Marcia. Fred, what's your vote? I think we keep it for right now. That's a two. Tasha? I want to keep it or have some compromise. It's still hybrid. Do I need to get on the sap phone to Mr. Green? I think you've got three. That's three. Keep it. Okay, next slide. Thanks for all your work. What's your two cents? I think it has moderate value. So what are you cutting if it went up $25,000? this year. But I like it a lot. I always read it when it comes. I guess that's what you're weighing, right? That's what I would love to know, what the trade-off is, right? With that money. To me, the drop-off in people who would never click to open it is worth the $25,000. I agree. I think that definitely it should go out at least sometimes because I think you're getting way more people, like cutting it all off so all digital, I think. I agree with People just won't open it. People are so busy. So can I put this in another perspective? There's, what, 55,000 residents? We're talking a dollar a year per resident. And it makes us different. Everything's going digital, and we're really trying to get people on board with us to buy into what we're doing. Okay, next item is the discussion on the Timoney Road sidewalk and trees. We don't have Mr. Cooley, but Mr. Mark, go ahead, sir. So you guys recall, you know, we have our safe sidewalk program, the insurance requirement, we have to inspect an entire 20% of the city every year to keep our liability down. We had an approach that worked for three years where we marked trees that needed to be removed. And we came across a neighborhood where they had a lot of trees and it was gonna change what the neighborhood looked and felt like. But we have to remember, our main goal is to lower our liability. So Tracy, Scott, myself, Mike, we worked on this for a while. We visited with an urban barbarist. He gave us some recommendations. And we asked what some other cities are doing. We'd like to adopt a process where we will still identify the trees in the same manner that we have been. And that being if there's a history of the tree causing the sidewalk to be displaced, like we know we've ground it in the past, we replaced it, then that tree needs to come out. And that's what we would recommend. Or if it's lifting the sidewalk, like in the case of this Timothy neighborhood, we haven't been in there and replaced anything, but there's a lot of trees lifting sidewalks. The other thing that we would use as determining the tree need to be removed, if the diameter of the tree trunk in inches is wider than the park strip in feet. So in Timoney, we've got trees that are 18 inches across in a five foot park strip. Those trees would get marks to go. At that point- If they're causing a displacement. Correct. Not just to- Not just ripping out the trees. Only if it's causing a need for us to have to use our finances to replace them. to remove that liability. So at that point, we would mark the tree, this is a proposal, and then we would reach out to the resident, let them know their tree had been marked for removal, inform them that we will remove the tree with our contractor at our expense this time. However, you have the option to keep this tree, but we have this new proposed waiver of liability that we would give to the resident that basically says they acknowledge that moving forward, any expenses associated with the tree, if it dies because we cut the roots, if it falls over and becomes a hazard, if it hits a car when it falls over or it hurts someone, or it damages the sidewalk, they will be liable for those expenses moving forward if they choose to keep a tree that we've identified as being needed to be removed. Tracy worked up this really good tree retention release indemnity and assumption. risk agreement. It would be recorded with the property. So if the person moves, next person, they would have to know that the house they're buying has some trees that they're responsible for. And I think this really pushes the liability on, you know, we can't absorb the expenses citywide for one neighborhood to keep the trees they want. And we have to keep going year after year and remove the sidewalk and replace it. So that's our proposed approach. We're just looking for you guys' vote on whether or not you like something like this, this idea. Give them the option to keep it, but it means they assume the risk moving forward. So can you give me your rule of thumb again? If it's 18 inches of the diameter of the tree, it needs to be smaller than the So if it's a five inch. It's a five-foot park strip. It can only be five inches. It's any bigger than that. And that would coincide with our street tree. Our current street tree requirements, that would meet that, right? I mean, we don't even require trees in five foot or less park strips anymore. Five foot or less, we can't require. Exactly. So they're just the wrong trees for that. What is the width of that park strip up there? You have sycamores that are 15, 18 feet wide. It's important to note this isn't just a policy for that neighborhood. This would be for the entire city. So in case we run into a similar situation, this would be how we would approach it. What happened in Zone 3 a year ago, we came across some sycamores on 1840 East. We had already replaced ground to sidewalk in the past. let them know the trees needed to be removed. We don't run into this that often. Like I've said, we've done 60% of the city and not run into this issue where we've been removing trees that need to be. Most people go, you're going to remove the tree for free? I don't have to pay five to eight grand to remove these big trees? Well, those people didn't want us to remove the tree. They argued with us. We cut the root. It fell over in like two weeks later. And then we were responsible for cleaning it up. So people want to keep the we just need to pass that liability on. Because we have to remember that the liability and the job of the city is to reduce the- Okay, so you're saying- Accidents caused by the sidewalk. Make sure, I've got a couple of questions. So you're telling me that if your lot that goes out to the road, any tree within the envelope of the lot is the tree you'd be agreeing to take over and be responsible for? Also responsible for the sidewalk? Yeah, that was my question. would they then have to pay to shave down the sidewalk? The owner of the tree. If they want to keep the tree that's lifting the sidewalk, it's causing damage to our right of way. Let me just correct. Trees that are in our right of way. We're not going to tell somebody. Our current code says if a tree in their private property on the back of the sidewalk is causing damage, they have to remove that tree at their expense. That's our current code. I haven't come across that very much. I know we will in this zone. But you're grinding the sidewalk first. Not necessarily, like in this Timoney neighborhood where some of them are raised like that. So we're going to give them the option. You can get rid of your trees and we'll fix the sidewalk. Or you keep your trees and your sidewalk. If someone trips, you get a pay cut. No, no, no. We will cut the roots. People say they want to keep their tree. We will cut the roots down, replace the sidewalk. But anything damage, failure, death by the tree, or future damage to the sidewalk from that tree, that's been signed with this. they would be responsible for the expense. See, this could impact where I live, Old English Road and Roseville. You know, we've had to, cities had to shave off a lot of the sidewalk there with those trees. I don't know how. We went through that neighborhood last year and we didn't have to do what we marked out. No, I don't think any tree's ever been marked. You tell me that the city can release its liability through personal liability on a public infrastructure and sidewalk to some resident who can take it on And they can say, yeah, we want to be responsible. We want this tree. We want the sidewalk pitch. We want some neighbor to trip on it. It's not the sidewalk. It's just the tree. So we have the obligation to fix the sidewalk, right? Regardless. We need to make sure that it's safe. The way we're going to fix the sidewalk is we're going to cut the roots. We're going to cut the roots. So it doesn't bother our sidewalk again. Exactly. If it does, after they indicate they want to keep the tree, say five years from now, and it shows that we have to come back and replace that sidewalk or do it, they would be responsible. Are they responsible if someone trips before we get to it? Yes, according to this. Before we get to replacing the sidewalk? Let's say we do 20% of the city a year. But we go through Timoney, cut some roots, whatever, and then it comes back. But we don't get back through there until two years from now. But someone trips and breaks their neck for a good $100,000 slip and fall claim. On the sidewalk. On the sidewalk. It's buckled again? Right, yeah. Are we getting out of it then? You know, I don't think we would get out of it if the sidewalks buckled at that point. I think we could bring in that homeowner, but the sidewalk itself is our property. So let's say we repair the sidewalk. Sidewalk's fixed. We cut the roots. They want to keep the tree. We repair the sidewalk. Four years later, it buckled before we can get to it. Someone trips, breaks our arm. You know, I think we've got an argument to bring them in the way that the waiver is worded, but I don't know that I'd see a court going for that. I think they would... they look at the city as being, if they're on the sidewalk, that's your property. I think the obligation is there. So my guess is that we would take a lion's share of liability on that. So in our current insurance. It doesn't do a damn thing. Well, it has to be reported to us. We have to acknowledge it. And so usually if it's severe, it's reported to us. We mark it. That's how we stay out of it currently before we can get . If it's high enough, we actually go out and grind it right away. We don't wait. Okay. Depending on time of year. We'll definitely spray paint it, which is what our insurance tells us we need to do. We keep it marked. And then when we, first chance we get on the spare one. Yeah. Because, I mean, those are decent claimant cases. Yeah, they are. I mean, you can get hurt, and you can get, and it's legit. I mean, if I was a homeowner, I wouldn't want to be trying to take any of that flat building down. Well, that's... I think that's what we're doing. We're encouraging people, like, hey... If you understand the risk you're taking on by keeping that tree, you are taking that risk. But really, the big liability for us is the sidewalk. That's got to be the most liability we have. We're not getting out of the sidewalk liability ever. I don't think so. I don't want to speak for you, Tracy. I agree with you. So all this is, is if you want to cut the roots of your tree and it falls over on a car. Or if it dies, we're not coming back to take it out. That's now your tree to care for. not the sidewalk the sidewalk would be no different than any other sidewalk like we we have to get it reported to us or we have to have inspected it 20 a year we mark it and we show our due diligence that we're trying to reduce so just responsible for if the tree falls over after we cut the roots it's up to them it's up to them falls over hits a lady walking on the new sidewalk gets hit by the tree and getting named but we have to fall into the street if we're Hits a car, causes an accident, kills two people. I'm just thinking like a planner's lawyer. The alternative is we go and clear-cut the neighborhood. To be dramatic. A good case for me is a bad case for you. All right, what do you guys want to do? Do you want to do that? Well, we propose, let's have the discussion today and come back in January to actually adopt a policy. You know what I like about this is this is the result of us actually listening to residents when a concern came up and we didn't just like, you know, shush it away. I appreciate that you guys took the time to like evaluate it. I know it was a hotbed, but thanks for listening to it. One thing we'll do in that neighborhood, and staff, we've kind of agreed that our contractor probably went through and was a little aggressive. in marking. So we'll go back and re-evaluate the sidewalks. And so that may reduce the number of fixes and trees that are impacted. But that's by listening to those residents. Exactly. Yeah, absolutely. That was good. I think it's a really fair compromise, actually. So we've discussed it. Now we'll bring it back for a vote. Any further discussion on this? All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Martin. Next is Brett. a report on new positions. Come on up. I've got Kelly's notes, so I can handle Kelly's. I just had a few notes. I'll be quick. I feel like I've had a lot of reports the last few weeks. This one, I guess, is another thank you on behalf of our department for the new staff member, which we got. To frame it, I want to try and to frame it in context. You remember, well, you probably got sick over the years of asking for a new staff member . But this month marks 17 years I've been with Paper City. We actually hired Greg Hilbig a few months before I got here. He was a parks tech. A couple years down the road, I promoted him to be the trails and open space manager. We had another guy that was helping him. And then a few years later, we hired Roughly for about the last 15 years, we've had two people, two full-time employees in trails and open space. In those 15 years, however, like when I started, I remember we had Canyon Hollow, we had Clarks, we had a few other trails. But majority of them have been built in the last 15 years. All of our downhill, brush, all the backside trails, Traverse, Traverse, Amps, like you name it, there's been a lot done in 15 years. So we kept growing, kept growing, kept growing. Trailheads, we've added Peakview Trailhead, Coyote Hollow, Deer Ridge, Silver Flower, a couple others. A lot's been done over the years, and our south side stays the same, so we're busy. So I guess that's a roundabout way of saying it's been a very welcome addition to add one more full-time employee. Draper's Trails, I know I'm biased, but I think we'd all agree we have the best trail system around. It was well worth the employee that we funded this year. So thank you very much. Just to let you know a little bit about our new position. His name's Rob Smith. He actually was a seasonal with us for six years. So what that means is he comes in and requires very little onboarding training. Kind of his ground running. But we put him in charge of a lot of the paid trips We have a lot of them out on the page trails. Even though, I wouldn't say they're neglected, but they weren't as good as we would like them to be in other places. But now, we should always see a nice shoulder on the page trails, which will eliminate the go-aheads by far and some of those complaints. It helps with Maribond, where we have open space, taking care of Maribond wetlands. It should help with all the pragmites and all that. Our new disc golf course that we opened last year takes a lot of where the open space is over. So Rob's done a lot of time in there. And then just helping spread the work out so that it's not so burdensome. It's just been a huge help. Rob's an Army vet. He's, like I say, worked with us for a lot of years. He knows trails. He's an avid mountain biker himself, an avid hiker, climber. So he knows the conditions. He knows the way they should be maintained. loves working here so it's been a great great addition and again just want to say thank you for for listening for understanding and approving that this last fiscal year any questions happy to answer them but otherwise just thank you i think it's huge to have that so great job yeah you definitely needed some more hands plus the awesome robo mower I have a random trail question, if I can real quick. We have a second. By Ghost Falls, between Ghost Falls and then Rattler, we've got some nice donations of some two old pickup trucks. Oh, yes, they're there. Yes. I didn't see them until the other day. You don't see them until it's winter or fall. Do we know the story behind those? Because it would be really nice to know the story behind them. I know it's a random question. Per what we think, I don't know if anyone knows. It involves a lot of alcohol. I dare. We've removed two vehicles that we can get to. Those are tough. I think there's a big stove, too, somewhere. It'd be kind of nice to know what the story was. That's a horse truck, too. Oh, no, these things are old. I'll ask him to bring it back to you. They're like 1960, 1970s trucks. Yeah, they're old. Like, they rolled a long way down the aisle. Oh, yes. And there's got to be great stories. So I happened to be here the other day when Troy was meeting with the new mayor of Riverton. And she brought up a concern to me that she had about Fred Mighty's along the Jordan River Trail in the Draper area. I don't know. All of that maintenance in Draper. That takes us to council manager report. Do me a report on the custodial supervisor. Kelly was going to talk about this. Custodial supervisor. Yep. So in talking to Gary and Kelly, the custodial supervisor actually has been a very welcome addition to this particular building on several levels. I'm thinking children. Okay, go ahead. No, no, this is custodian. So having somebody here later into the evening, we've got better security. As you were, we've got a lot of after hours, events, groups meeting, what have you. So the supervisor is making sure the building is secure. Our cleaning has increased tremendously in this building. It was interesting to see somebody actually cleaning blinds. I thought, is somebody being punished or what's going on? But yeah, it's helped out. So better cleaning, more security, and just having somebody here that is making sure lights are turned off and things are just done. And so Gary Martin extends his thanks for that. I think it's been really helpful. I think we've had a little more stability, too, That's all I got. All right, Council Manager, who's got something? I met with Chair and Vice Chair of the Tree Committee I think last week. They expressed some concerns that they had with the way communication was happening between them and city staff. And I was thinking that maybe we should maybe specifically and possibly other committees and how their relationship is with staff and with us and relationships like that. Maybe at the retreat? Put it on our January retreat agenda. Yes. And do we have a date for the retreat by any chance? We're just waiting on Katherine. Ouch. We've got to find some time. Sure. OK. I think Kelly's working on that. Brandon, anything else? That's it. I think it's good to keep it. I don't know if they think that much. As you sort through all of this, I think the stability is important. Yeah, I think it'll be good. The question I have is where we're putting the special events committee with the engagement committee. That's what I thought. Well, there was a With Kelly not here, I guess wouldn't be the answer, but Mike might know. Wasn't there a letter sent out to the members of those two committees about them being combined? I think there's been some kind of communication. I just don't know if I get contacted by anyone on the special events. Maybe I want to know what to tell them. I think they responded perhaps to a summary of the council meeting. Speaking of So it's better than that. Yeah, I don't know if she's taking other steps to communicate with him or not. I can ask her. I heard from, is it Scott Benson? Mark Benson. Mark Benson. He was very much in favor of combining them. He thought that would be a good use. I don't think any of them will be against that. It's just if it could limit, if we're just limited to 11 people, it might not allow those that have been on the arena that have wanted to stay involved they all could still be on unless we could unless we expanded that to like 15 or something i thought we talked about possibly having everyone reapply from both committees and then then we would know who was really but if we get 15 we really want to we might want to just tweak our code yeah that's easy No, that's it. We're going to miss Marcia and thank you for coming and serving another extra year. It's been an honor. We've been very lucky. Marcia, please have something for your final one. Do you have something? I knew you were going to say anything. I'm going to stay with my standard. Don't say anything. Okay, I have one. Would you pull up, Mike Parker, the land planting software I want to show them Salt Lake County's, I know with Mayor Wilson, down in the river bottom, you know, whatever the hell it is, we know who owns each parcel. Oh, the parcel map. The parcel map. Gotcha. Yes, I can do that. That works. Let's see here. Go right there. The map of parcels. Yes. Similar to the custodial supervisor. What did you think I said? I thought you were talking about children, like we're supervising children. We're taking custody of them. We've all adopted a foster child. It's a great little project. Where would you like me to go to? Troy, where would you like me to go? Go down to the, on our border with the fine city of Riverside. Oh, yes. Sorry, this is. Okay, go over there to, yeah, no, that one, yeah, click on that one. That's our park. Okay, so Salt Lake County, I mean, if you go to that other little parcel to the left. This one here, the zigzag? Yep, and then that one? This one? Yeah. Okay. Who owns that, is that? The United States of America. what's so interesting is if you go back in the old maps of this area there used to be some sort of like a racetrack Like a horse race track. And then that little piece, this one right here. Isn't this why we're subject to the Army Corps of Engineers guidelines in that area? They have guidelines over all the waters in the United States of America. Then that one final little sliver, just check that one. Okay, sure. This little sliver right here. So what the county wants to do is, was that big one the Department of Interior? Interior, Interior, I think, and UDOT. UDOT Interior? UDOT Interior? That would be good. Let's see some America. Doesn't look like they have access then. Could be the NSA, who knows? Maybe they have access. Over here? Over there. Yeah, I thought something down here was a county parcel. Let me look at this. So I met with Mayor Wilson. We went over to the side of the road. The county, in its effort to raise funds or get rid of assets it doesn't need, has identified these parcels as something they want to sell or develop. And they want to talk to us about we'd like to see now the golf course the riverbank golf course is owned by the counties up there um what would we like to see you know down in here um they they're interested in some type of you know uh starter home type ownership housing mixed with some how do you develop in that area the water tables right it's so high it looks like a floodplain yeah it's a big drop down to that from galena I don't know. They want to talk to us about, they want to sell this property. Why don't they put nine more holes in the golf course? Yeah, I don't think they want to do that. They wanted to do some type of development. They wanted to know if we'd be interested in meeting with them to talk about it. I just don't think you can build homes down there. Is there access to it somewhere? I don't know. Do you want to talk to them about it? I don't know who they're going to sell it to. I've been mad to send a large group of purchasers out there looking for this parcel. How are they going to access it, though? Because it looks like it's maybe landlocked. UDOT's got some access, clearly, right there. I don't know if they can get the interior to let them go across there. It looks like there's a strip here. Oh, it's that now? Oh, that's true. Is that our trail that's listed there in the white? No, I don't know what that is. That's like a dirt road. Which means it's probably right of way. It's like a dirt road. We might have access right there. This might be it. Typically when something doesn't appear, it's right of way. But they're thinking they want to do some type of ownership, like first-time homebuyer type housing. And they want me to bring it up to you guys. If you want to meet with them and talk to them about it, we might go there. I'm not against discussing it. We've just got to find out how viable it is. OK. But you wouldn't want commercial or you'd want some type of a... I mean, she had the idea of maybe doing some similar to like Moda down there where there was some shops and stuff. I don't know. The access is going to be really good. Jen, I see you kind of giving me the look of indigestion. I'm digesting what you're saying. This is not me coming in. I know, I know. I think a good majority of that property is probably going to be wetlands or have very, very high water table access. You would have to go through the interior. a Department of Interior to get to it because from this station area, it's a very steep drop off and you have a private property owner in between the public road and that property. There's wildlife concerns as well because that has all been open space in the past. So I think it's probably a high wildlife population in that area. So you're losing feral cats. It would be very challenging to develop. And I know our zoning and land use, I'm guessing, has it all designated be nice for it to just stay open space. I agree with Jen. I feel like I am not interested in developing this. I thought that would be your view. I don't know how you develop it. I just think that would be... Well, it's really nice as river bottom. I don't know that it needs to be high density housing. Oh, I don't think it needs to be. No. It'd have to be on stilts. Yeah. And the access is terrible. They just identified a bunch of parcels all around the county that they... aren't using and they want to know if they can get some value out of it. Makes me question if they really looked at that property and they actually really looked at and saw what we have. Well, we met on the side of the road. That was the extent as far as on our look. Okay, I'll tell her that it's not something anyone's super overjoyed about. If you've taken her on a hike south of that for a little bit, she might get her heels wet. Literally, literally, yes. There are plenty of phragmites. Would it be under here, Jen, the geologic information? Would that show wetlands? Yeah, I think it would. I think they thought they had access right off 123rd, but I see that they have no clue. There is that straight parcel that could very well be right of way. Think of that strip of rectangular. Yeah. That could be the right one. That could be. I don't know how to do this. I'm just messing around. I'm sure the public would love that even as much. Right? Not even. It's all like horse property down there, too. OK. I'll tell her. You guys were cold. No, we can, we can, she can, they can make an open space and we'll hold Santa here. We can just let them, yeah, I mean, maybe they want to give it to us, I don't know. I mean, they own open spaces and White Park, and it's a lovely cemetery. They want to develop it in that way. This part of the cemetery? No, that's at the end of the slide. All of them, I mean. That actually would be a nice spot. It would be an amazing spot. The views are gorgeous. Anyway, that's, I don't know if it'll go much farther than that. I think that would be really good. So I'd suggest that to Jenny. What? To open up the road going through the flight park to that, they own like, I don't know, five acres at the end of the flight park. It's just undeveloped, dry as dust. It could be a really beautiful cemetery. Okay, so tell her. We don't want to even develop this, but we want a cemetery at the end. It's an option. I'm just saying. That's lukewarm, not cold. OK. I'm going to go with cold. I just don't think it's developable. Me either. And I don't want it developed. I don't either, but I mean, I told her I would bring it up. So anybody else have anything else? We have a few minutes before our meeting. All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our city council meeting. I'd like to call our meeting to order and get us started. Our first item of business is a Pledge of Allegiance, which is going to be offered this evening by our Fire Chief, Mr. Clint Smith. Go ahead, Chief. THANK YOU, CHIEF. ALL RIGHT. CHIEF FERGUSON, ARE YOU READY, SIR? ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS SOME OF THE TRADITION THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR, I THINK, A SOLID DECADE AT LEAST. AND IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO ENGAGE OUR COMMUNITY, PRIMARILY OUR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STUDENTS, IN A CONTEST TO PICK THE ANNUAL POLICE DEPARTMENT A CHRISTMAS CARD. Chief Ferguson, I'm going to turn the time over to you, sir. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor, Council. It is a fun time of year for us. So as you know, every year we have the fifth grade classes submit Christmas cards for the police department. We get hundreds of cards, and it's a difficult task to go through them, but we've come up with our three finalists and our finalists, which many of you may have gotten in the mail already. So I'd like to call first, up to the front, Raina Hall, who is our third place card winner. And this is her card. Raina, come on up. We have a nice plaque for you. Okay. Our second place card winner is my kid's family favorite now. That's me in the corner if you didn't recognize me right off the bat. And, yeah, so Liam Cook, would you, are you here? Liam, come on up. or this year, and I have broken the frame, so I will replace that, but is Zuri Jensen. And this is our card that we have sent out as our official card to probably over 100 police departments throughout the state and United States. So, Zuri, are you here? Come on up. WE REALLY APPRECIATE THESE CANDIDATES AND I'M GOING TO EXCUSE MYSELF FOR JUST A MOMENT AND GO OUT AND HAVE A LITTLE GIFT FOR THEM OUT IN THE HALL. BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHIEF. AND I THINK THEY GOT YOUR HAIR CORRECT ON THAT CARD. SO PRETTY GOOD. ANYWAY, THANK YOU. IT'S A GREAT TRADITION. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF YOU HERE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND MAYBE A FEW OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. If you have a general public comment, this is an opportunity to address the council on a general item. If you're here for a public hearing item, wait until that item's called so we can keep our record clear. Is there anyone that would like to make a general public comment? You gave me a card. Is it a general comment or do you got one on a public hearing? General? Yeah, okay, come on up, Ron, come on up. Ron knows the rules, but I'll give all of you the rules now for our public hearing. Everybody gets three minutes. The clock's to my right. Your left. The clock has a monotonous buzzer when it ends. We give everyone three minutes, but we don't give anybody any more. So if you have something to say, say it in three minutes, Ron. Otherwise, your time will be up. And we treat everybody fairly. That's how we go. So no applause, no cheering. Just make your comment. The council will listen. You know how to do it, Ron. Go ahead, sir. Name and address. I'll start the timer. Okay, my name is Ronald Smith, 1158 East, Parkstone Drive, Draper, Utah. I have a petition from 36 people in Parkstone Estates P.U. that we received a letter on no garbage pickup. The thing that we have is that our streets are to the standard of the city. and the fire department, by the way. And the $37 just about doubled what we've been paying. Park Snow Estate was set up as a empty nester, 55 and older. We have people in there 80 and in the 90 and on fixed income. That's pretty tough for them to go like that. Snap your fingers and pay everything. What we want to do is we're asking if the council would reconsider. We've had conversations with ACE. They don't have any problem with art. They come off, they come off of Pioneer, turn on the stage way, right hand turn, on and around. pick up our garbage up in the West End, and I've put in the packet a copy of the final plot. I've got pictures of our roads in there. Everything's right up to snuff. And so what we're saying is, I think rather than just say all street, ours is a real street, 25 foot wide, where you come in on It's 30 foot of asphalt. I'm talking asphalt. It has curb and gutter on both sides. And we don't have any sidewalks because it was set up in an empty nester. All right? They're walking the street. So anyway, each one of you has a petition. You have a copy of the people that are signed. And the president of the HOA signed it. So we're not representing the HOA. I'm representing the 44 people in our HOA. I'm doing pretty good, aren't I? Anyway, a third of our subdivision land is in open space. We have 44 homes and we have a lot in parks. What city, what services do you give us? You give us some planes to fire and ambulance, which we appreciate. And so we're the golden goose. You don't have to pay us anything. We give you money. Thanks, Ron. Thank you. Bye. All right. Is there anyone else who would like to make a general public comment? Go ahead. Name and address, please. Vivian Gubler, 1208 Parkstone Drive, Draper. I HAVE LIVED IN THE CITY FOR OVER 25 YEARS, AND I ALSO AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE INCREASE IN OUR GARBAGE FEES. WE REPRESENT THE 36 INDIVIDUAL HOME PEOPLE THAT PAY FOR THEIR GARBAGE, THAT PAY THE $44 THAT CAME TO OUR BILL THIS MONTH. WE WERE ALL SHOCKED. I KNOW WE RECEIVED LETTERS FROM THE CITY ABOUT WHY But we just feel that precedence was sent in the past. I've always paid what every other citizen in Draper pays for this service, and we feel that we've been targeted. We understand that there are areas of the city that are private roads that have problems, but we are not one of them. I talked to the person in charge of the garbage. He's wonderful. I talked to the city manager. Wonderful. I ALSO TALKED, THE PUBLIC WORKS PERSON CALLED ME. WONDERFUL. I EVEN TALKED TO YOUR HR DEPARTMENT HEAD IN THE HALL TONIGHT AND EXPLAINED WHY I WAS HERE. HE JUST SAID, OH, WHY ARE YOU HERE? BECAUSE I WAS HERE EARLY. I WANTED TO SIGN IN. SO I EXPECT THAT WE COULD HAVE SOME CHANGE IN THIS VENUE. I HAVE LEARNED THAT DRAPER respects citizens of Draper, and we would like that respect extended to us in equal amounts that we do for every citizen in Utah. We feel that we do not want to be, you know, because there are areas, I know there are areas that are dangerous for the garbage department to go into, I understand that, but we are not one of them. I asked the garbage captain, or I don't know the title. If there was anything that we did improperly or wrong, were we doing anything that caused a problem? He said we were not. He said he appreciated our business and liked coming into our area. And we really enjoyed their service. They did an excellent job. We really, really would like to have them back. Not complaining about the new service because we haven't had them that long. But I just feel that we need to go back and have the same service that we have always had and have always appreciated and really want to have that treatment as has been set precedence FOR THE 25 YEARS THAT I HAVE BEEN IN DRAPER. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I LIKE THE TERM GARBAGE CAPTAIN, ROBERT. IT'S A GOOD TERM. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO MAKE A GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS, I'LL CLOSE THAT PUBLIC HEARING. GO TO OUR ITEMS NEXT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THESE ARE ITEMS FOR COUNCIL'S CONSENT. ITEM 5A IS APPROVAL OF THE DECEMBER 2, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. ITEM 5B IS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2576. IT'S A RESOLUTION OF THE DRAPER CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING DATA PRIVACY POLICY. ITEM 5C IS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2577. IT'S A RESOLUTION REAPPOINTING DAVID HAILS AND JORDAN PUTNAM AS MEMBERS OF THE DRAPER CITY HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. 5D is approval of Resolution 2578, a resolution reappointing John Mack as a member of the Draper City Parks, Trails, and Recreation Committee. Item 5E, Resolution 2579, a resolution of the council establishing the regular meeting schedule for the city council, planning commission, subordinate bodies, and committees for the year 2026. Item 5F, approval of Resolution 2580, a resolution of the Draper City Council approving city council assignments for the year 2026. Item 5G is approve a resolution 2581. It's a resolution of the city council electing Brynn Heather Johnson to serve as the mayor pro tem for the year 2026. Mr. Mayor. Go ahead, Ms. Vaudrey. I move we approve consent items 5A through 5G. We have a motion by Ms. Vaudrey to approve the consent items. Is there a second? I'll second. All right, second by... Ms. Lowry. All right, motion by Ms. Fodry, second by Ms. Lowry. Any further discussion on the consent items? All right, Ms. Fodry, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. All right, item passes four to zero. That takes us to item six, 6A. I will note for the record... We have four council members present. We are missing one of our council members, Michael Green. Michael Green, for the record, is deployed in the service of the United States and will be gone for some extended period of time. So he won't be able to participate in the meeting and he won't be on the council seated here for the next six or seven months. So just for the record, if you're wondering where Mr. Green is. Item 6A, this is a public hearing. It's Ordinance Number 1688. In Ordinance 1689, it's an ordinance amending the official land use map and an ordinance amending the official zoning map of Draper City for approximately 17.88 acres of property located approximately 13782 South 300 East, known as the Bangor Crossroads Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendments. We'll have his initial staff report by Mr. Todd Draper. Go ahead, sir. All right, thank you. As you mentioned, this is Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendment for the Bangor Crossroads. PROJECT. THIS IS THE VACINITY MAP. YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL PROPERTY THERE OUTLINED IN RED, NORTH OF 138 SOUTH AND JUST EAST OF THE BENGADER HIGHWAY. THIS IS THE AERIAL VIEW OF THAT. IT IS VACANT AT THIS TIME. AND THE CURRENT LAND USE MAP HAS PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY IN MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, AND IN THE OFFICE SERVICE LAND USE CATEGORIES. CURRENT ZONING MAP FOR ALL THOSE DIFFERENT PARCELS IS RA1, AND THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THIS TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE OR CR ZONE, AND THEN THE SAME REGIONAL COMMERCIAL LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE LAND USE MAP. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT DID INCLUDE. WITH THEIR SUBMITTAL. AND AGAIN, THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION IS HERE, LISTED FROM OUR GENERAL PLAN, INCLUDING WIDE RANGE OF COMMERCIAL USES, COMBINED DESTINATION-ORIENTED BUSINESSES, RETAIL, COMMERCIAL, ENTERTAINMENT-RELATED USES. THIS WOULD BE LARGE-SCALE MASTER PLAN COMMERCIAL CENTERS, BIG BOX CENTERS, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND THIS WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN LOCATION WITH EXCELLENT TRANSPORTATION ACCESS TO MAJOR HIGHWAYS. AND STRATEGICALLY PLACED ALONG HIGH TRAFFIC CORRIDORS. THIS IS THE PURPOSE OF THE CR ZONE. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH AND READ IT ALL, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY THERE FOR OUR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL. JUST A QUICK LIST OF SOME OF THE PERMITTED USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE CR ZONE, SUCH AS CONVENIENCE STORES, RESTAURANT, RETAIL, VETERINARY SERVICES, AND THEN SOME OF THE CONDITIONAL USES. AGAIN, THESE ARE NOT ALL INCLUSIVE LISTS. This could include, say, a car wash or entertainment, recreation, entertainment, outdoor. And then here are a couple of site photos of the property. This is looking north. And then from the southwest corner, kind of towards the northeast corner. And then again over on third west, looking towards the west. THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID REVIEW THIS AND FORWARDED NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON BOTH THE LAND USE MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS. THEIR CONCERNS WERE THAT A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THEY FELT SHOULD BE INCLUDED AND THAT IT WOULD NEED TO ADDRESS POTENTIAL HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS, LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. WITH THAT, WE HAVE PROVIDED AN ORDINANCE THAT PROVIDES FOR A DELAYED TIMELINE FOR EFFECTIVENESS OF THAT ORDINANCE. CHOOSE TO APPROVE THESE TONIGHT, IT WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 29TH, AND THEN HAVE THAT AGREEMENT GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS AND BE FULLY EXECUTED AND RECORDED ON A REFORM MAY 7TH. IF IT PASSES THAT TO MAY 8TH, THE ORDINANCE HAS A PROVISION IN IT THAT WOULD RENDER IT NULL AND VOID AT THAT POINT, AND THE LAND USE AND ZONING DESIGNATIONS WOULD REVERT. And with that, I know I handed you one last public comment that came in late this evening. I don't know if you had time to review that. And then the other public comments were provided earlier via email or together with this staff pack and report. Are there any other questions you might have for me? Questions for Mr. Draper? Mr. Draper, could you just GIVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT PLANNING COMMISSION. IT WAS DENIED, BUT THAT WAS BASICALLY BECAUSE THERE WAS A NEED FOR A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? THEY RECOMMENDED DENIAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES WAS MORE THAN ONE COMMISSIONER EXPRESSED A DESIRE THAT SOME KIND OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PERHAPS COME IN WITH THIS. There was concerns again about that building height. The CR zone allows a 45 foot building height where surrounding residential would be limited to 35. And then there was some concern with landscape buffers between existing residential and potential future commercial center if this is approved. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Draper? All right, it's the applicant here. Come on up, sir. Give us your name and address. Mr. Mayor, members of the council, my name is Dwayne Rasmussen, address 1224 West Samuel Holt Drive in South Jordan. I'm representing Mr. Tom Lloyd, the owner of the property tonight. ASSOCIATED WITH A COMPANY CALLED CASTLEWOOD DEVELOPMENT WHOSE OFFICE IS IN MIDVALE. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND HERE AND BE READY TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. FIRST AND FOREMOST, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT BOTH PUBLICLY AND PRIVATELY FOR A LONG TIME. AND MR. LLOYD HAS BEEN ENGAGED ON OCCASION WITH SEVERAL MAJOR TENANTS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN THIS PROPERTY. AND BEFORE BRINGING ANYTHING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, WE THOUGHT THE FIRST THING TO DO WAS PROBABLY TO ADDRESS THE EXISTING DIFFICULT TRAFFIC SENSITIONS THAT ARE THERE AND PERHAPS MEET THE NEEDS OF A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AT THIS INTERSECTION. MR. LLOYD CONTRACTED WITH A FIRM TO GO TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND SECURE $3.45 MILLION IN ROAD FUNDS TO BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH DRAPER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THESE OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS. TODD, CAN I HAVE YOU PULL UP THE AERIAL FOR JUST A SECOND? THANK YOU. The improvements that were stipulated in the traffic study that was submitted to you and been amended a couple of times, but the improvements never really changed, call for improvements that I'd like to point out right now. From the entrance there on 138 South going West, there's an additional lane that will be widened there. And when you get to the corner of 138 South to go onto Bangor Highway, there will be a dedicated right-hand turn lane that you can make a turn without stopping. Then going along Bangor Highway, there is a new lane to be constructed all the way along the frontage of this property to 150 East, and there'll be a stoplight in the center of Bangor Highway about midway through the project. There is also improvements to the corner of 138 South, calling for a dual left-hand turn lane off 138 South, headed south on Bangor Parkway. I'm going to get into just a minute what the level of service at those intersections are now and what they will be. There's also improvements to the signal at 150 East and Bangor Highway, which allow for a much better operation of that particular signal, both now and in the future. I gave to Todd earlier today a little summation of our traffic study. Todd, can I get you to bring that up? And just the aerial portion of it, if you would. With the map on it. On the left is the verbiage outlining the improvements that I just talked about. But I'd like to just start at the top in the current conditions of 2025. And currently the intersection of 30 East and 138 South operates at a level of service E. The intersection of 138 South and Bangor Parkway operates at a level of service D. When those improvements go in that I just described, then I'll add one additional thing to that. We have agreed, I think, with the Public Works Department in Draper City that they will install a traffic signal at the corner of 30th and 138th South. When those things are done along 138th South, that intersection goes to a level of service A in existing conditions, and the corner of Bangor Highway and 138th goes to a level of service C. THEN WHEN YOU ADD A SHOPPING CENTER TO IT IN THE YEAR 2040 WHICH NOT ONLY TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THAT WILL BE BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE SHOPPING CENTER BUT ADDITIONAL GROWTH IN THAT AREA AS WELL, THE INTERSECTION OF 130 EAST AND 138 SOUTH GOES TO A C AND THE INTERSECTION OF 138 AND BANGADORE PARKWAY GOES BACK TO A D BUT IT OPERATES MUCH MORE FLUIDLY BECAUSE OF THE right-hand turn lane, the dedicated right-hand turn lane because of the dual lefts off of that. Those are the major pinch points right now. If you have any questions about that, I'm happy to answer them when I finish here, but I just wanted you to see what those improvements do to existing conditions and to the conditions when the shopping center is built. So with the state funding that Mr. Lloyd secured on behalf of Draper at the legislature, these improvements will be paid for. AND IT'S OUR ANTICIPATION THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS WILL GO IN STARTING IN MARCH OR APRIL OF THIS YEAR, WEATHER DEPENDENT. SO WE'RE ANXIOUS TO GET STARTED ON THAT. THE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED AND APPROVED, WHETHER THERE'S ANY DEVELOPMENT OR NOT FOR US TO IMPROVE THESE ROAD CONDITIONS. A WORD ABOUT COMMISSIONER OR COUNCILMAN LOWERY'S QUESTION ABOUT THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Todd stated it correctly. They really wanted to see a development agreement in place here. And I hope that you will find some conditions that will allow you to approve this subject to a development agreement. We've had some conversations with the staff now. We took into account a lot of what our neighbors said in the planning commission hearing. I'm going to go over a list of things that we think need to be addressed in that development agreement right now. And then we'll have time to submit that between now and the 29th of December. Those things involve perimeter fencing adjoining residential areas, both the height, the materials of any fence separation, and landscaping adjacent to the fence on both sides in some cases. All building setbacks will be addressed in this, and I don't think we're going to find an issue with regard to building setbacks on streets, et cetera. Building heights, we are okay with 35 feet, having it limited to 35 feet. We'll address site lighting with the staff, particularly those areas that are adjacent to residential areas. Some of the areas out along Bangor Highway will need probably a little bit more lighting, but we'll be away from the residential areas. A word about Third East. We anticipate that any center that goes there will need an access from Third East, a right in, right out is what we're anticipating, and the traffic study showed that. A SITE PLAN WILL INCLUDE ACCESS ACCOMMODATING A RIGHT TURN IN AND A RIGHT TURN OUT, BUT NO ENTRY FROM THE LEFT COMING NORTH. DRAPER CITY WILL AGREE TO INSTALL THAT TRAFFIC LIGHT AT THIRD EAST AS I'VE ALREADY SAID, AND WE WILL ENSURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THERE WILL BE NO DELIVERY TRUCKS ENTERING INTO OR OFF OF 300 EAST. DETAILS ALONG 30 EAST NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SUCH AS A WALL, THE HEIGHTS OF THE WALL, A BURN BEHIND THE BUILDING, SCREENING THE BUILDING AND THE LOADING DOCKS AND ALL OF THE REAR ACTIVITY AREA IN ANY RETAILER THAT GOES THERE. IT'S ALSO BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE STAFF AND I THINK YOU CAN CREDIT YOUR PLANNING STAFF FOR THIS THAT ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS LAST TIME WAS THAT 30 EAST IS HARD TO CROSS FROM A PEDESTRIAN STANDPOINT. install what they call a hawk signal there to allow pedestrians to activate it and have flashing lights and have them cross that pedestrian area safely. And lastly, we will agree to any use restrictions that we can live with long term. And I think most of those objectionable uses such as bars and nightclubs and things like that will be eliminated, convenience stores eliminated. OTHER THINGS THAT I CAN JUST SPEAK TO RIGHT NOW, BUT WE'LL HOPEFULLY GET THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BACK TO YOU AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION SOMETIME EARLY NEXT YEAR. WE'LL HAVE IT SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING STAFF BY DECEMBER 29TH, AS TODD SUGGESTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I THINK THAT PRETTY WELL ADDRESSES THE ISSUES. WE WANT OUR NEIGHBORS TO KNOW THAT WE WANT THIS TO BE A FIRST CLASS PROJECT. WE WANT IT TO WORK FOR DRAPER. We think it's a terrific area for additional commercial development that will bring activity to Draper City. And we're happy to answer any questions you have. If not, you want me to wait until the neighbors have spoken, I'm happy to come back up. Any questions for applicant right now? I have one question, Mr. Rasmussen. With this traffic study here, we look at the 2026 conditions with the improvements. with that intersection at 138th and 300 East with these improvements, improving it from an E grade to an A grade. Where does it contemplate if there's a right in right out with use from that? It's taken into account in the body of the study. I didn't show that. We didn't show that particular intersection so we don't see any conflict up there. This was the biggest conflict in the study area. So that will function. at an acceptable level of service without any conflict, but we did want to address this particular intersection because it currently backs up, as you know, from Bangor all the way to this intersection and sometimes beyond. With that dedicated right-hand turn lane onto Bangor without having to stop, that will really make that intersection function much better. One other thing perhaps I didn't remember to address, and that is, We are talking with the city to UDOT about extending that lane onto the freeway from Bangor Highway so that there is no bottleneck there, and they have been open to that, and we're working with the Draper staff to talk to UDOT about that. You mean across 150 East? Yes, across 150 East to the freeway, yes. Any other questions for the applicant this time? All right, thank you, sir. You get the last word since you've applied. Thank you, Mayor. All right. All right, this is the public hearing, ordinance number 1688, ordinance number 1689. Many of you have been to our public hearings before. This is the way we work. I have a number of cards that people have submitted, which I'll call, but our policy is to let anyone that would like to speak have an opportunity to speak, so we don't restrict the number of public comments on an item. Our rules are really easy. Come to the podium. Give us your name and your address. That will start your time. Everybody gets three minutes. Nobody gets more than that, so that's just the way our rules are. The council will listen to you. They won't address you and answer questions specifically over the dais, but they may discuss it later, and you can hear their discussion. But it's an opportunity for you to make public comment to the council. So that being said, the first card is Rosemary Thomas. Come on up. I'm Rosemary Thomas, 13703 Brown Farm Lane. I believe you've already made up your minds on this proposal before hearing your constituents comment, and also despite the Planning Commission's negative recommendation, but here's my last ditch effort. My family has lived east of the proposed development for 23 years. We've raised our family here, invested in the neighborhood, and watched Draper grow. We are not opposed to growth. We understand that change is part of a healthy city. and that this property cannot remain zoned exactly as it is. What is being proposed does not align with what Councilman Mike Green recently described as matching a development pattern around the existing property. The pattern here has historically been residential. For decades, there was a natural buffer along 30 East in the form of older single-family homes. That buffer existed until the land was purchased by the current landowner. With those homes removed, the responsibility to provide a meaningful transition did not disappear. It shifted to the city and to the developer. Our primary concern is the protection of Third East in the transition between this development and both long-established neighborhoods and newly built homes. Third East has increasingly become a busy residential street. Allowing any access from this development will only intensify traffic problems. Once commercial or high density traffic is introduced, 30s will no longer function as a neighborhood street. It becomes a cut through that directly affects safety and livability. We've repeatedly been told there would be a buffer, yet with each revision that promise has been reduced. A buffer that exists only on paper is not a buffer. If commercial development is approved next to residential neighborhoods, the Berman buffer must be substantial, permanent, and enforceable. not symbolic and not something that can be changed later. If growth must occur here, why can't a smaller development blueprint be considered one that fully protects Third East and includes no access point? For years, this area has been defined by residential neighborhoods. Zoning decisions should protect that character, not slowly dismantle it. We respectfully ask that you require no entrance or connection to Third East, now or ever. a meaningful permanent berm and buffer, zoning that aligns with the established residential character of this area. We are asking for a development footprint that honors commitments and respect for existing neighborhoods. Thank you for your time and for considering the people who already call this neighborhood home. Thank you, Rosemary. Next, Christina Kessler-Day. Nice job, Rosemary. I've lived in the neighborhood for 22 years. Give us your name and address, please. My name is Christina Kessler Day. I live at 448 Brown Farm Lane, which is adjacent to the old Damjanovich property. I've been coming to Draper since I was 18 years old. I'm 57, almost 58, so that's a long time. So I remember 30s when it was nothing. And somebody a while back said, it's always been a busy road. It hasn't been. We built our home here because my family was Draper people and we wanted to live in the country. And we understood that that was zoned for housing across the street on 3rd. And we've been fighting ever since to keep it zoned for housing. And I think... Rosemary was correct when she said that Draper City has a responsibility to uphold what it says it's going to do. And the people on the city council in the past backed us up. And Mr. Lloyd has never cared. We need somebody to care. This is a thriving, healthy neighborhood, not just Brown Farm, but the element. All of the housing around there, we've got kids and we know each other. And having an ingress and an egress on Third East is not going to work for us. There's no way you can make that look pretty. It just doesn't work. It doesn't matter how many lanes you've got or what direction they turn in or out. It's not going to work. This is a residential area. It's zoned residential. Mr. Lloyd knew that when he bought it. And no matter what you do, changing it to commercial is not what Draper City represented to the rest of us for 20-something years, including when we bought our lot. And that's what I want to say. I think that it's disingenuous, and I think it shows a lack of integrity on Draper's part to throw their residents under the bus like this. And also, just... Just an interesting point for you. Mr. Rasmussen said that Mr. Lloyd had secured funding through the state legislature on behalf of Draper. You know, that doesn't sound very nice. It sounds like he's saying, we scratched your back, now you scratch ours. And anybody paying attention is going to pick up on that. Mr. Lloyd secured funding from the Utah state legislature for UDOT changes to the street. So that he can get what? From Draper City. That's what it sounds like. So this isn't just a question of, are you going to protect our neighborhoods? It's a question of the integrity of the people on the city council and the integrity of Draper City. If somebody scratches your back just right, are you going to pay them back? Thank you. All right, the next card I have is... Gus Bernardo. I hope I'm saying that right. I apologize if I'm not. Go ahead. Come on up, sir. Yes, sir. Maybe you're correct. It's Gus Bernardo. I live at 136 South Sher Lane. My property borders the property in question here. I just want to resonate what Rosemary and Christina just said over here about the CONCERNS WE HAVE ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND I DID WRITE A LETTER TO THE COUNCIL AND TO THE MAYOR ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE AND TO MR. RASMUSSEN AND MR. LLOYD, THE CONSIDERATIONS THEY TALK ABOUT OVER HERE TODAY ABOUT HIGHER FENCE AND SUBSTANTIAL BURN AND BUFFER FOR OUR HOMES, ESPECIALLY OUR HOMES. OUR BACKYARDS BORDERS THIS PROPERTY AS WELL AS THE 300 EAST PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S JUST WE SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS THAT JUST BEING SPOKEN HERE AND WE JUST LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS, IF THERE'S TAKING CONSIDERATIONS THE CONCERNS WE HAVE ABOUT EVEN MAKING OUR PROPERTY A LITTLE MORE PROTECTED FROM THE LIGHTS, TRAFFIC OR SOUNDS OR LOADING DOCKS OR WHATEVER IS BEING, HOW IS THIS PROPOSAL, DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS BEING DESIGNED. SO I'M JUST MAKING THIS SHORT AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME TO LISTEN TO ME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR. ROBBY STAGG WOULD BE NEXT. It's just small. Go ahead. Okay, we'll take that. I live at 13598 Sher Lane. Once again, same. My property backs right up to the proposed property. And the biggest concern that I have is with the increase in traffic that is potential for this happening is what about the potential with the kids and everybody around this area, as was spoken to earlier? I INITIALLY CALLED THE CITY AND I SAID THIS IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT PUTTING SOMETHING BETTER AT THE 300 EAST AND STOKES AVENUE CROSSING DUE TO THE HIGH RATE OF SPEED AT WHICH EVERYBODY GOES AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO PEOPLE TRYING TO CROSS THAT CROSSWALK. THERE IS A SCHOOL ZONE LIGHT THERE BUT IT IS SPECIFICALLY FOR CHANNING HALL AND THEY NEVER TURN IT ON BECAUSE IT'S ONLY FOR CHANNING HALL FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD AND TEN KIDS NEED A CROSS THERE IN ORDER TO BE TURNED ON. But my kids like to go over and play with the other kids on Farm Hollow, Brown Farm, all that. And I have had to go several times to sit there on that corner and make sure that they do not get hit by cars who are not paying attention. If somebody is making a left-hand turn onto Stokes from 300, the people going south on 300 do not pay attention to anybody in that crosswalk whatsoever. I did ask for that Hawkeye system, and I know Mr. Rasmussen did state that they are willing to put that in. I just want to make sure that that's actually what would happen if this was to pass, because if they want access to 300, it will increase traffic there, regardless of a ride-in, ride-out, or a traffic light there. 4.30 in the afternoon to 6.30 at night is a complete crap show. I'll keep it nice. On 300 and also on 138. I mean, it's atrocious trying to navigate that at that point in time. I'm sure some of you have driven that. But and then just to echo what Gus said, you know, lighting and protection for the homes. They're just off of 300 Ireland Lane 135, you know, 3560. They're the all back it, especially those on. you know, Shore Lane and Ireland Lane and then 135 South that don't have any type of protection so far. I mean, I look straight at lights all night for Bangor Highway and I look at Harmon's and I look at the bill sign and I see it all all the time. And if we're putting another building there, it's just going to be brighter. So just some protection for that area to keep it quiet, keep it nice and allow us to, you know, have some privacy from what could potentially be there. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next card, last card I have is Mr. Matt Smith. Good evening, City Council. Thank you very much for your time. My name is Matt Smith. I live at 329 East Brown Farm Lane. While I'm not generally opposed to commercial expansion across Bangor Highway, I asked the City Council not approve the zoning change for three key reasons. First, as Rosemary indicated, the expanding commercial zoning all the way to 300 East will permanently damage the character of surrounding neighborhoods. Even with berms, trees, or walls, the neighborhood is going to be changed forever. When many of us bought our homes, there were residences along 300 East, and we relied on the expectation that the residential zoning would be preserved. Second, many nearby residents are strongly opposed to any commercial property access on 300 East. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND THE 2022 TRAFFIC STUDY BOTH CALL FOR AN ENTRANCE OR EXIT ON THE 300 EAST. WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, EVEN A RIGHT IN OR RIGHT OUT ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY CONVEYS YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF SPILL OVER TRAFFIC INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WORSEN CONGESTION ON AN ALREADY OVERBURDENED ROAD. MR. RASMUSSEN REFERRED TO THE TRAFFIC STUDY. THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS CONDUCTED IN 2022 AND THE update are simply outdated. In 2022, many of us were just coming back to the office from COVID. Further, the study does not factor in localized growth, such as the new hotel, the Chick-fil-A, or other general population growth that has occurred between 2022 and 2025. The study is also based on a much smaller footprint than what is now proposed. The traffic study does not include the two restaurants, TWO OF THE RETAIL CENTERS AND A BANK THAT APPEAR IN THE APPLICATION. WHILE THE PLAN IMPROVEMENTS THAT MR. RASMUSSEN REFERRED TO MAY IMPROVE CURRENT CONDITIONS, A NEW STUDY IS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT SURROUNDING INTERSECTIONS STILL OPERATE AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS ONCE TRIPS FROM A DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SCALE ARE ADDED. THIRD, APPROVING THIS ZONING CHANGE WITHOUT A COMPLETED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND UPDATED TRAFFIC STUDY IS SIMPLY PREMATURE. SEVERAL OF YOU HAVE SAID THAT YOU CAN ONLY VOTE ON WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU. So why approve zoning without a final site plan, a traffic analysis, or binding negotiations and mitigations? Approving zoning first shifts long-term risk to residents and future councils. Finalizing a development agreement first protects the city, residents, and developer through clarity and accountability. My request tonight is simple. Defer your approval until a developer agreement is completed and includes a new traffic study, binding access, and buffering commitments, and meaningful input MEANINGFUL INPUT FROM THE MOST IMPACTED NEIGHBORS. TAKING MORE TIME NOW AVOIDS GREATER PROBLEMS LATER. PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW COMMERCIAL EXPANSION ON TO 300 EAST. DO NOT PERMIT ACCESS TO 300 EAST AND ENSURE THE DEVELOPMENT IS SIZED SO ALL INTERSECTIONS OPERATE AT ACCEPTABLE LEVELS LONG TERM. DO NOT PLEASE GIVE UP YOUR NEGOTIATING LEVERAGE BY APPROVING ZONING PREMATURELY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE CARDS I HAVE. LIKE I SAID, OUR POLICY IS TO LET ANYONE SPEAK THAT WANTS TO. I'M ASSUMING THERE ARE MORE OF YOU THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. I'LL JUST TAKE YOU IN ORDER. IF PEOPLE THAT ARE INTERESTED, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS SIDE AND TO THE COUNCIL? COME ON UP. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. I CAN'T TELL WHAT JACKET YOU'RE WEARING. NOT THAT GUY WALKING OUT. WE WANT HIM TO GO. JUST COME ON UP. Give us your name and address, please. My name is Robert James at 248 East, 138 Hunter South. We live in the Rockwell condo unit just facing north, and we can see across the whole proposed developed unit. And I see traffic there all the time. It's even worse than the previous people have said. I look out our front window there, and I see traffic backed up, clear up to 30 East. It's backed up on 138 Hunter South. It's also backed up on Bangor Highway, clear from the I-15 exit, cleared back to the 139 South and even beyond. It's actually, it's really bad, the traffic. And the, what do they call it, the leeway that the developer is trying to suggest is not going to work. The traffic's just too much, and if they put a light between 138th and 150 East. I'm not sure how that's going to work if they're going to continue with no light situation. There's still light there in between the 150th and 138th. I looked out the window tonight because I can see the traffic all the time, especially evenings as the previous people have said. The traffic is really bad. It's backed up all the way. It stands still basically all the way to the highway, I-15. And so I I'd suggest that, yeah, developing plans should be in place more than just simple words. It actually should be in place. In fact, it should be not developed for business but for residential as it is right now. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Who would like to be next? Come on up. You've got to pick yourselves. Come on up. Hi, my name is Brandon Thomas. I live at 366 Brown Farm Lane. I request that you defer your vote on this until the development plan is complete. I recommend you accept the recommendation of your planning commission and vote no until 300 East is completely blocked from access. I do not believe the right turn in and out will sufficiently handle the increased traffic that we often see from 138th all the way past Stokes Avenue anytime there's any sort of freeway traffic, everyone abandons it trying to get up through the Alpine route to get home and so we see substantial traffic already on 300 East. I support the other comments that were made that the traffic study is outdated and that the size of the development far exceeds what was originally planned and ask you to defer your vote until all of that has been sorted. Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to be next? Come on up. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING That 300 east and 138 south is not sufficient. I believe it will still remain an E grade road right there for traffic. Looking at it, I see that there's three homes there. It's as if you wanted to complete that, you would need to demolish those and start to add the lanes into there. The other thing is looking at the map, I looked at the map before I came here. UM, KIND OF AT THAT BOTTOM LEFT HAND CORNER WHEN IT JOGS UP, UDOT ACTUALLY OWNS TO THAT SECTION RIGHT THERE AND THEN DRAPER CITY OWNS BELOW THAT TOWARDS THE TRAFFIC LIGHT. UM, I KNOW THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LLOYDS HAD MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, AN IN AND OUT ON THE BACK SIDE, BUT ALSO RIGHT THERE, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THAT, I BELIEVE THAT TRAFFIC WOULD BE CONGESTED. the in and out on the back of that, I concur with some of the statements. What you're hearing tonight from these folks, they're not wrong. They're actually dead on. And I would stake my business on that. Besides the point, there are some concerns with kind of zoning. Just to be quick, typically when you're, going from an RA1 to a commercial, most development doesn't happen like that. Usually what happens is you kind of progressively go through that. And I think, you know, that's probably something that your zoning and planning is probably looking at this and going, you know, there's really no way to accommodate it. And I believe their recommendation is right. With that, what is concerning with UDOT is Typically, UDOT has plans. I looked at their plans and there's no plan for this on UDOT's website. Anyone can go on there and look at any plan at any time. Granted, they are probably talking to them, but UDOT changes all the time. I work with them, the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, and there's nothing there. I would suggest that you hold off on this vote and collect some more information. definitely look at the development. I do know that there's been a comment about development over here being commercial. This is all still residential zoning around that. Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to be next? I think the point's been made about 100 times that these roads are completely incapable of accommodating the massive new traffic that would be necessary in order to make this development something that is economically feasible. And just because there's no way to appropriately transition this area to the very high density commercial that the owner is seeking does not mean that the city should throw aside all of their past plans and all of the basically commitments made to the residents who own properties around here. The expectation that all of us had in purchase of our properties around here is that not necessarily that this would remain as residential one acre, but that it certainly would not be the highest density commercial that could even exist, especially with the issues that exist on these roads. It's been brought up that Third East is backed up anytime there's an issue on I-15. That's at least every other day. It is nearly impossible to get out in a timely manner during rush hour onto Third East currently and opening up Third East. TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, SURROUNDED ACTUALLY ON TWO SIDES BY MULTIMILLION DOLLAR HOMES IS PRETTY OUTRAGEOUS. AND I THINK THAT ALL OF THE COMMENTS, MOST OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE REFLECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT NOTHING ABOUT THIS MAKES SENSE WITH THE PLAN THAT DRAPER HAS PUT FORWARD IN THE PAST, THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT were not assumptions, the plans that were put in writing when the city made their plans that all of us had access to in purchasing our properties. And then, you know, we've all seen what's happened on 123rd. It's hardly a navigable road anymore. The same thing will happen to 138th and the same thing will happen to 30th. There will be no decent way to even get out of Draper onto the freeway or off of the freeway. So please reconsider and please ensure reconsider. I say that because I think decisions I'm around enough to know decisions are made before you even show up here. But I'm hoping that 30th will be cut off for traffic. into this development makes absolutely no sense for those who actually live in Draper and pay the property taxes here. Thanks. Thank you. Who'd like to be next? Anyone else? All right. Seeing no further public comment, I'll close the public comment period and bring us back to the council. IF YOU WANT TO READDRESS THE COUNSEL AFTER THE PUBLIC COMMENT, YOU'RE CERTAINLY ENTITLED. DO YOU WANT TO? I POINT OUT TWO THINGS. ONE IS THESE LEVELS OF SERVICE THAT I SHOWED TO YOU EARLIER ARE ALL DONE AT PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC. and take into account the worst case scenario. And secondly, this traffic study was updated and your engineers have a copy of it in October 30, 2025 and October 2nd, 2025, December 2nd, 2025. And the reason for those updates was the October 2025 was to reflect the new square footages in the building and the site plan. And the December one was to reflect the 30th exit. So the staff, your staff, engineering staff has those and that's where that came from. Sit down unless you have any more questions. I have a question about the intersections that you said were rated at a D. Does that reflect the newest traffic study that you're talking about in October of this year? It does. And E is worse than D? Is that Correct? Indeed it is. Okay, I just went through that intersection tonight. I would say it was probably not a D, but more like an E. So I'm just wondering what does the traffic level have to get? Which intersection are you talking about? 138th and Bangor. Yeah, that is clearly a D today at peak hour and sometimes could operate at an E. But that's peak hour throughout the day. At peak hour, it will be a D. When the center goes in, it will be a C after we put these improvements in until the center comes. And that's dated to clear out at 2040. And from what I've seen when I've driven through there at the peak hour, it seems like the issue is actually being better passed the freeway. And has any of that been addressed? Would you repeat that one more time? So you can't. It's not, to me it doesn't seem like it's freeway traffic, that's the issue. It's crossing across the freeway on Bangor, staying on Bangor. Has that been addressed with UDOT? Are you talking about traffic coming off of the freeway onto Bangor? No, I'm talking about Draper residents trying to leave, or anyone in Draper trying to leave, Draper go to Riverton. You know, Ikea. To go across Bangor, across the freeway. No, we just looked at this particular area to make sure it would function. Okay. Could you pull up those ratings? You had a slide on them. Yeah. Todd, do you have those? So my concern is this intersection here that goes from a D to a C back to a D. Is there... Any other options that would improve that rating so that it would not drop again? Commissioner Lowry, I don't think so because we've taken into account, again, worst case scenario and all the options available within. We've expanded the right-of-way. We've added two left turns off of 138th to go south on Bangor Highway. And I think that that intersection, if I were to look at the data, IN MORE DETAIL WOULD BE A PROBLEM COMING FROM THE WEST GOING THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION AND COMING FROM THE SOUTH GOING THROUGH THE INTERSECTION. BUT A D IN THE WORLD OF TRAFFIC IS ACCEPTABLE. WHEN IT GETS DOWN TO AN E AND AN F IS WHEN IT GETS TO FAILURE. AS I TOLD THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND I DON'T THINK THE RESIDENTS APPRECIATED IT VERY MUCH BUT I TRIED TO CONVINCE MY DAD FOR A LONG TIME THAT A D WAS ACCEPTABLE IN SCHOOL. That empirically doesn't add up, but a D in the traffic world is acceptable in terms of level of service. I've got a question with that too, Tasha, in that I'm trying to think why does it move from 2026 to 2040 from a C to a D? Is that really the impact of what's happening north of 138th? Or is it just because in 2040, THE POPULATION IS GOING TO INCREASE IN OTHER AREAS OF DRAPER. I THINK YOU'VE HIT IT RIGHT ON. I DON'T MEAN TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT I THINK IT REFLECTS ADDITIONAL POPULATION AND ADDITIONAL GROWTH IN THIS ENTIRE AREA, NOT JUST THE CENTER. THE CENTER DOESN'T CAUSE THAT. IT TAKES IT OUT TO 2040. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THESE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS THAT working with and things. There's comments saying they don't see any of that on UDOT's site. This might be an answer, Todd, for the staff to answer, but can we address that? Because the way I understand it, this project's underway for these improvements to be done regardless of what is going to be built on this property. I can answer that if you like. If you like, staff, do fine. Otherwise, I can't. Yeah, I know Scott isn't able to be with us tonight, so maybe you can help fill in on that. Yeah, it wouldn't be on UDOT's site because the improvements are to non-UDOT roads. These roads are all owned by Draper City right now, and that's why you have approved them, and that's why it's not on UDOT's plan. I think he's talking about north of 150. So UDOT hasn't drawn plans up for that, correct? No, not yet. But we have approached them and they are in the process of figuring out how to fund that and get it done in conjunction with these improvements that we're putting in. Can you go back to the overall map of this project? Would you point out to me using the map where the exits are from the project and whether you can turn right or left at those points? The exit onto Third East is right across from Browns Farm Lane. It will intersect with that. And we can start there. Okay. The exit onto 138th is where the little notch comes out onto 138th. The exit onto Bangor Highway is about midway up there. You can move that mouse, Dwayne. Oh, okay. So this exit onto 138th. Pardon me? The exit onto 138th with the notch? 138th, if I can get this thing under control, that is a right turn in and a right turn out only. There's no left turn in there. Okay. The intersection of Bangor Highway and the new traffic signal, I can't get it up there because that, there we go, will be approximately right there. And what? It's a traffic signal. You can go right in, right out, and left in, but no left out. Because UDOT and Draper City, neither one of them wanted to stop traffic coming down Bangor Highway. So no left out there? No left out. So the traffic coming on Bangor will continue to free flow. Okay. So the people that live in South Mountain cannot turn left there to get back to their homes? They cannot turn left to go there. They can turn left to go in. It will stop traffic coming north on demand. Okay, keep going. Okay, and then the other entrance is at 150 East right here at this corner of the property. That too is right in, right out. Okay, so anyone who lives up the mountain at all, how are they shopping here and then returning up the mountain? They can come out the 138th opening right there. But that frequently backs. It's going to be very hard to get all the way over to the left-hand turn lane. I think the traffic studies will show that with these new improvements and the traffic no longer backing up on 138th because of having to stop to get on to Bangor, it will free flow and there will be plenty of breaks in there where you can make that turn. The difficult movement will be for those people coming out of Rockwell Square, and the traffic study clearly points that out. But they can come out there. They could also go out the 30th exit, turn right on 138th, come down and turn left and go up Bangor Parkway. Okay. But there is no way to turn left onto Bangor or 150th. There is not. At UDOT's objection, and I think your Draper City engineers agreed with that, too, that it didn't make any sense to stop that high-speed traffic coming south on Bangor Highway. Why not left on 150 East? Why is it? Yeah, or somebody. Just because of the proximity to the signal. It's right there. Access management says not to do that. Okay. Any other questions for Mr. Rasmussen? Any questions for staff? Thank you, Duane. Thank you very much. Let me ask you one more question, Duane. We've heard these public comments, concerns around these substantial buffers, protection from lights, making them downward-facing, walls. Are those things that you have taken into consideration here? Yes, those are things that we think need to be addressed in the development agreement. And we will, in the development agreement, attach exhibits showing what will be built, how high it will be, how high the berm is, how high the wall is on top of the berm, what you can see from the east of it. Again, there's no building in this development that's any higher than 35 feet high, which would be a two-story home. from staff that if this potential development agreement were not able to mitigate these concerns and we did not come to agreement then any zone change would not go into effect. That's been our conversation with staff to this point as well. It gives us a chance to work through that and I think address a lot of these concerns that I brought up tonight that the neighbors have brought up and to be able to bring that back to you. in a form that will be acceptable to you. It may not always be. I don't think we can meet every concern that the neighbors have, but we're going to try and do the best we can and accommodate this type of development. Are you amenable to holding some meetings with the neighbors to further investigate these concerns and what can be done to mitigate them? Absolutely. I would point out that the staff wants this development agreement submitted by the 29th of December, and so I'm open to do that today, tomorrow, or early next week before Christmas, and the week between. I also believe we have until May to finalize approval, is that? Just the application. Okay, thank you. Anything else? Well, can I just restate the way I understood the things that you'd be looking at to mitigate in the development agreement, and was that the building height, landscape berm, A WALL ON TOP OF THAT BURM. NO CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC ON 300 EAST. NO CONSTRUCTION AND NO DELIVERY TRAFFIC FOR THE CENTER EVENTUALLY. THE RIDE IN, RIDE OUT ON 300 EAST. ALSO THERE'S BEEN MENTION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC STUDY ABOUT BEING AN A GRADE INTERSECTION. ALSO A HAWK SIGNAL ON 300 EAST WITH THE CROSSWALK. and that the lighting would be controlled in a way that it could be downward or mitigated along those property owners. And then also, there was a note I think is, I'm aware of, this size of store's been reduced from what we originally heard. Well, if you go way back historically, there was a time there was 120,000 square foot footprint. Down here now, we're proposing about 100, just plus or minus. But at the time we were talking about that, we didn't know what else was going to go on the site. For example, there was a time when we had a hotel in it. That's no longer a consideration and could be left out of the potential uses. It's just strictly retail at this point. That was the other item, was that we also be able to limit what uses would be utilized on that property. Yeah, and we're going to propose a list of those to the staff just as soon as we can get to it, and we'll take input from the neighbors as well. We're happy to do that. Mr. Barker, can you clarify that the application is due, but we'll still have plenty of time to address some of these valid concerns that have come up? I'll defer to Jim, but that's my understanding. Yeah, so the ordinance stipulates that they make their application for the development agreement by December 29th. That gives us time to work on that and have that back and forth. Mr. Rasmussen can have neighborhood meetings during that time as well, with the goal that by May we've adopted and recorded a development agreement. That certainly is more time than December, right? That gives us a six-month period, really. Yes, yeah. So I just wanted you to note the application has to be in. Right, yeah. But you don't have the time pressure of neighborhood meetings within the next week. You can meet with the neighbors for the next six months. No, we can't because we can't be making changes to it. But now that we've talked about it, it gives me an idea that maybe what we ought to do is submit a draft development agreement to the staff, have their opinion on that, and we'll take that to the neighbors and let them weigh in on what's in that, recognizing that we won't agree on all points, but we're happy to do that. You bet. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you. Any questions for staff? No, I think I'm going to probably restate what Ms. Lowry said. Is that if there are things that we're not agreeable to on the development agreement, we don't have to pass this. So if it's something that we're not agreeable to, then it will revert back to... what its current zoning is. And it actually reverts back to Planning Commission, so it starts the process again. Yeah, well, it won't revert because it will never have actually taken effect. So it'll remain as RA1 until either a development agreement is agreed upon or May 8th comes along. Well, even then it would still remain if there was no development agreement. The way that this... is drafted as an ordinance is that it has, I think what you could call a sunset clause or somewhat, or if you don't have a recorded development agreement expiration date, then it essentially is, it doesn't go into effect at all. So it will just remain in its current zoning and land use designations. All right, council members, it's up to you to take action. I guess just to comment on this, Mr. Mayor too, is this, WITH THE TIME THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL, THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN A DIFFICULT ONE. AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION FROM WHEN I FIRST CAME ON THE COUNCIL. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A TOWN HOME PROJECT, I THINK, THAT WAS PRESENTED THERE, AND THAT WAS ADAMANTLY NOT WANTED, AND I THINK THE COUNCIL PULLED BACK ON THAT. THEN THERE WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING COMPLEX, WHICH HAD EVEN HOMES BUFFERED ON 300 EAST, AND THAT WAS ALSO ADAMANTLY NOT WANTED, WHICH I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF EITHER, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE SOME HIGH STORY OFFICE BUILDINGS COMING OFF BANGADER AND RUIN OUR VIEW OF CORNER CANYON. SO THEN IT ALSO COMES TO, WELL, WHAT CAN BE A PROJECT THAT WE CAN SOMEWHAT CONTROL IN A WAY TO HELP MITIGATE the effect of this area. And I recognize this is a difficult one for those that are around that live near this area. I do. And it's a difficult decision. I do appreciate that maybe we have a developer that's willing to listen, though, to come to an agreement on certain things that we can help mitigate. And that's the thing that I really want to make sure that if we do rezone this, that we do our darn best to help protect and LIMITING THE IMPACT TO THE RESIDENTS AROUND THIS PROPERTY. TRAFFIC'S A PROBLEM EVERYWHERE, THOUGH. THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE. SO. MR. MAYOR. MS. VAUGHN. I MOVE WE APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 1688 AND 1689. I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. VAUGHN TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 1688 AND 1689. IS THERE A SECOND? I'll second. Second by Ms. Lowry. Any further discussion on the motion? I think that the Planning Commission was correct in recommending that we get a development agreement in conjunction with the zone change so that we ensure that we get the changes we agreed upon. But it's also our responsibility as a governing body to consider what best serves the city as a whole. Anyone else? I also agree with what's been said about having a development agreement. I think that we are in a good position to have someone who's willing to listen to neighbors. You don't always get that, and so I think that we need to take advantage of that. I also appreciate the work staff has done to create this as a tentative project moving forward, dependent upon the development agreement. getting to a place that we can all live with. And if we don't, then the zone will not change. I think that's really important. So thank you, Tracy, for your work on that. Thank you for the residents expressing your views and sending your emails. You might not think you're being heard, but you are, because it does help us in what we can help work out and negotiate on a development agreement. Anything else? All right, Ms. Fodder, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. All right, items approved unanimously on vote four to zero. Next item on our agenda is item 6B. This is a public hearing. It's ordinance 1690, 1691, an ordinance amending the official land use map, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of Draper City for approximately 1.44 acres of property. located approximately 231 east, 13800 south, known as the Openshaw-Draper 138 land use map and zoning amendments. That was a mouthful. We'll have our staff report by Todd Draper. Go ahead, sir. All right, thank you. Well, there are some similarities with this one and the last one. They are different projects, and there are some different components here. So again, this is the vicinity map right at the corner of 138th and Bangor. and the aerial and you'll see the number of parcels that are involved here. This is currently all under the community commercial land use designation. Again, they'd be looking to move this to the regional commercial designation. And then the properties have two different zoning types on them. A portion right at the corner is the RA1, residential agricultural zone. AND THEN THE OFFICE RESIDENTIAL FOR THE BALANCE. AND AGAIN, THEY'D BE LOOKING TO REZONE THESE TO THE CR REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONE. THE SAME LAND USE DESIGNATION AND COMPONENTS AND CHARACTERISTICS INCLUDING THAT ACCESS TO THE MAJOR HIGHWAYS AND TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS AND THE SAME PURPOSE FOR PROVIDING THAT COMMERCIAL KIND OF REGIONAL COMMERCIAL BIG BOX ESTABLISHMENTS. And then just the uses, of course, that could potentially be there in that zone. Of course, this is a smaller area, so some of these may or may not be as likely for this piece of property. Again, the side photo, this is essentially the land that is right up against that sidewalk there and then just behind it. And then with this photo, it's actually more of the land here KIND OF TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PHOTO. PLANNING COMMISSION AGAIN RECOMMENDED OR FORWARDED A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR BOTH THE LAND USE AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS WITH THE SAME CONCERNS ABOUT HEIGHT, LANDSCAPE, BUFFERS, AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS. OF NOTE, I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY WRITTEN PUBLIC COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THIS APPLICATION. AGAIN, WITH A FEW MINOR DIFFERENCES PERTINENT JUST TO THIS APPLICATION. THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU CONTEMPLATES A DELAYED ENACTMENT ON MAY 8TH OR BEFORE OR MAY 7TH OR BEFORE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BEING SUBMITTED BEFORE DECEMBER 29TH. AND WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE FOR ME ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE? I HAVE A QUESTION. YES. 2B in Exhibit A. If you could give me some clarification about a specific sentence in that. Hopefully. I'll read it. Okay. It says, development within the subject area will be required to share accesses and have cross-access agreements in place for each site due to the limited access locations available. Yes. So with this, obviously... THERE IS THE DISCUSSION ONGOING ABOUT HOW TRAFFIC WILL FLOW. THERE IS LIMITED OPPORTUNITY TO ACCESS THESE PROPERTIES FROM 138 OR FROM BANGITTER. AND SO THE IDEA BEING THAT A SHARED ACCESS WITH RIGHT THERE WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY WOULD BE DEVELOPED Our code already requires cross-access between adjoining commercial properties, and so this is just another component of that and would be needed to also be reflected in the development agreement. So this parcel will need to be able to access the previous applications. Is that correct? Most likely. I can't speak for our traffic engineering as to... Whoops. where exactly the distance needs to be from that intersection for that access. But my understanding is it's pretty much back as far as it would need to be with the conceptual one being placed right there with the adjoining development. But what about connectivity between the two? Yes. Is that required? Yep, that's also required. They need to... provide reciprocal access both the previous application and this application. It's just a component of the ordinance. Thank you. Todd, I have a question. Sorry, Mary. It's my understanding that a portion of this property is going to need to be utilized for the improvements that will happen on Bangor and 138 South. Is that correct? Yes. So that would also be part of the development agreement. Tracy might be able to speak to it a little bit better, but yes, the city would, as part of that development agreement, receive some of that land for those improvements. And then there would be other things potentially there, some reduced setbacks, things like that, to, say, the street that they would be looking for. So there would be some give and take, if you will. Any further questions for Mr. Draper? Thank you, Todd. We may have you back. It's the applicant here. Give us your name and address. Go ahead, sir. Good evening. Steve Lovell, counsel for applicant. Address is 9980 South 300 West, Sandy. As was stated, my client is willing to dedicate the... dedicate, donate the land right of way to make this whole project work, to make the traffic work. I will say, just not to take issue with Mr. Draper's opening statement, but I heard something different from the Planning Commission. In fact, throughout the Planning Commission, I thought I was going to get approval until the very end. Multiple times they said, well, we can see that this project property doesn't share the same characteristics as the rest of the center we don't have the same buffering issue we don't have the same proximity issue we don't have the same you know every issue that was brought up uh they said we recognize that this is different that this it would make sense to do commercial here and the only reason that i recall at the very end it was just a last minute pivot was that they felt like approving the zone change for this property would just make it easier for approving the zone change for the bigger project, which they didn't want. So although my client is completely on board with entering into a development agreement, I would point out and hope and ask that these same standards don't apply to this property as they would for the other, as far as landscaping buffers and... and those sorts of things that would be very applicable for the needed buffer for the residential. I think the current zoning, the municipal code, all the rules and requirements for this property fit very well within the code as it's written. As Mr. Draper pointed out, we would like to see some softening on the setback since we are giving up the land. It will It'll make it hard to develop this land if we're set to the setbacks by the new right-of-way. But other than that, the shared access is already provided for in the ordinance, and all the other commercial code requirements would be followed with regards to parking, lighting, signage, and so forth. Any questions for the applicant? Yes, I have the same question for you as I had for Mr. Draper about the connectivity between your parcel and the previous applicant's parcel and what the plan is for that. Yeah, so this is a unique project where you have two applicants coming simultaneously. The code anticipates that when there is an event abutting property that is going to be used for non-residential use, the first mover or the first applicant will provide some access to that abutting property to limit the number of access points to major roads. I've done this in other... In fact, I did this on 123rd development I've worked on with a client for the Valvoline. on 123rd where we got access to 123rd because we couldn't get access on an adjoining street, but we had a covenant that stated that if we ever get access to any other street, that we'll abandon the access on 123rd. And we signed that covenant and we recorded it and that became part of the entitlement for that development. So the same thing would be here if my client was moving first we would be given access on our property with my thought would be a covenant that as soon as the adjoining property is developed, there would be some type of connectivity. We'd abandon our access and just have the one single point. And that would be true for them. If they move before us, they would provide the access and provide connectivity for us. Where here we're applying at the same time and with a, with two separate development agreements it's going to give the council the ability to help guide that access where it's going to be how the flow is going to work out and and two applicants that are going to work with the city to make sure that that that works out thank you i'm a little unclear as to what you're saying here it's my understanding that you would be included in this development agreement. We'll have our separate development agreement. But you don't want to be. No, sorry, let me clarify. I just don't, I want to make sure that our development agreement isn't a mere, it's not, there's going to be two separate development agreements. They have different challenges. So like a 20-foot berm is not necessary to buffer Mr. Openshaw's property. Exactly. Right, so I think that's the point you're making. Yes, I don't want to be in the same development agreement. You probably don't use enhanced landscaping or, I mean... Exactly. Things like that, yeah. Right, but there may be things we do want in that development agreement. That's right. Uses. Right, uses are always a big issue. Uses, building heights. I think there's going to be leftover property from the improvements along Bangor that there's been discussions about transferring those to Mr. Openshaw. provide some of the setbacks on the west side. But yeah, I mean, it's not as an intense use and as impactful on adjacent properties. But there are things we would want covered. Certainly. And perhaps some of that might be landscaping or like some of the similar, it would be nice if it were cohesive. Cohesive, right, yep. Well, in your code, you have a very robust um, complete code that provides for landscaping, provides for lighting, provides for parking, all those things. So we don't need to reinvent the wheel and create all these new standards in the development agreement if the current standards work. But anything that you want to modify from your code and say, well, we don't want you to put a hotel here. We don't want you to put a 45. I think the code allows you to do up to 55 feet. So... we can meet those same retail standards, because that's my client's desire here as well. Mike, Mr. Barker, I have a question with this, too, where these applications are both coming at the same time, and we talk about right of access between both properties. Is that something that we address in the development agreements between them, too, to make sure that there don't become disputes? On the access between them. There is a dispute right now, and I don't want the city to be involved in it. I'll be perfectly frank. So if our code says there has to be access, that means there has to be some kind of access. And beyond that, at this point, I would caution the council. Some that both parties will have to figure out. Right. The code does provide a requirement that both parties have to provide each other access. And that's, I think, as far as, that's the only thing my client's looking for is access. So as long as we're meeting the code, I think my client's completely fine. But he will have a separate development agreement. Absolutely, yeah. This is an entirely separate application, even though they're adjacent and contemporaneous projects. Any more questions for the applicant? you the last word thank you thank you all right this is a public hearing six item 6b on our agenda is ordinance 1690 and 1691 i don't have any cards is there anyone that would like to make a public comment to the council on this item come on up same drill give us your name and address my name is christina cussler dave i live at 404a brown farm lane in draper so When he says that he needs an ingress and egress on 138th, I can see that. I don't know if there's anybody here that's living on the south side of 138th, but that's just going to add to your traffic issues. And I can guarantee that when people aren't able to come out on 138th, they're going to go out on 3rd. And so your planning commission, they're pretty savvy. They have a lot of foresight and they see that there's an interconnectivity here. So A plus for them for seeing this and troubleshooting for you guys. I don't have anything against the owner of this piece of property. There's no history that we have like we've got with Lloyd. And so I don't want to thwart them in their endeavors. But I do want to point out that there is definitely A CONNECTIVITY ISSUE BETWEEN WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT WITH LLOYD'S PROPERTY AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT HERE, AND IT'S GOING TO AFFECT PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET FROM 138TH, AND IT'S GOING TO AFFECT US WITH THAT THIRD EAST INGRESS AND EGRESS THAT LLOYD WANTS TO PUT IN. AND SO I REALLY HOPE THAT YOU TAKE ALL OF THIS INTO CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE WE SEE IT, WE LIVE IT EVERY DAY WITH THE TRAFFIC. It's not just Brown Farm. It is the whole residential area. And I feel a responsibility for my neighbors to bring that up and watch out for them. Thanks. Who would like to be next? My name is Kayla Kilsmeyer. I live at 259 East, 1300 South. It's actually owned by my dad. I just live in his basement, but he was not able to come today, so he asked me to come for him. My only concern is we're like the only house that has to get in and out on 1300 right there. I can It doesn't matter the time of day. I mean, middle of the day when, like, school's in and work's in, yeah, it's great. You can get in and out no problem. But, like, even in the morning to take my son to school or even to get to his bus stop, which he has a bus stop on 30 East and Brown Farm Lane, right on that corner. That's where he gets his bus. And he's expected to cross 30 East. It's crazy. I mean, it's better than crossing 1300 because there is a bus stop right across the street from us. But my dad bought this house in 1990. I was four months old. I grew up there. I learned how to ride my bike on 1300 South, no sidewalks, no nothing. And it's just gotten crazy to where like, I can't even get home from Harmon's in five minutes. And I live right there. And my only issue with this one, I think my dad would have a concern with the access point is literally right next to our property line. And we can already hear the car wash across the street by the grease monkey when it says, pull your car forward, pull in our house. Like we can be inside our house trying to watch a show and you can hear that. So to have access right there and to have potential commercial right there, depending on what it is, like my dad made a comment. He's like, I don't really want like a McDonald's there and hearing people order their food every night. And yeah, if we don't like it, you can move and stuff, but it's not that easy for everyone. Like I said, my dad's been there since 1990 and his health has declined this year a lot. He just had to retire and stuff. So moving is not really a feasible option right now for us. So my concern would just be really the traffic and the safety of the kids because there are a lot of kids around there and it's scary. I never had to worry about this when I was growing up. Like I said, I learned how to ride my bike on 1300 South Tulane Road. I WALKED WITH NO SIDEWALK ALL THE WAY DOWN 30S, BUT NOW IT'S JUST HERE, EVEN ON THE SIDEWALKS. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ITEM 6B? NEW SPEAKER ROBBIE STAGG, 135.98 SOUTH SHERLANE. I AGREE WITH THE APPLICANT, HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE LUMPED IN WITH THE PREVIOUS ONE. But they do, and as he stated before, whoever builds first builds the access, and then they share access. And it was brought up by the council of who and how they will get back up to the mountain. Because there's a lot of ride-in, ride-outs, and then they'd have to go a long ways or try and make a darting dash to that left-hand turn lane for Bangor Parkway to get back there. And I was brought up earlier, but I just want to echo it that That's going to cause all those that are coming up from the mountain or coming down from the mountain, and there's a lot of them because they keep building up there, that they're going to turn on 30s to make that left-hand turn. So it's just going to back up 30s even more because you're going to get that right in or right out, and then they're going to try and shoot across to get to that left-hand turn lane with the new light that would be put in just to turn up to 138 and get back up. So that's the only concern that I see with... This property is just they are connected, yet they aren't connected because they have different stipulations. I understand that, but they are going to share a parking lot, and that shared parking lot leads to shared access and exit and egress. So that's all I got. Thank you. Anyone else? Matt Smith, 329 East Brown Farm Lane. Just agree with the points that were made about the access to 30 East. Tashi made the point about all the people going up to South Mountain. That's what they're going to do, just like Robbie said. I know that the applicant doesn't want to connect this to the prior, you know, .6A on the agenda, Ordinance 1688 and 1689. They are absolutely linked. We talked in the prior agenda item about the traffic study, and we know that some of the intersections get a d rating when you add this property to it what do those ratings become it's unknown and so those absolutely have to be factored in together and then lastly i really fear that with the increase in volume with this plus the other property we're going to create another issue with brown farm lane that it currently exists and will continue to exist with wean farms access with rockwell apartments with rockwell THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN ROCKWELL. THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOCK-IN SITUATION. WE WILL HAVE NO ABILITY TO EXIT OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE 300 EAST. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO FURTHER PUBLIC COMMENT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. BRING THIS BACK TO THE COUNCIL. MR. APPLICANT, DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING MORE? Mr. Mayor. Mr. Lowry. I make a motion that we approve Ordinance 1690 and 1691. A motion by Mr. Lowry to approve Ordinance 1690 and 1691, item 6B. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Johnson. Any further discussion? No, I just want to make note, I think we're making note of the public comments that have been made and for sure we'll consider the same things as in a development agreement with this applicant. Anyone else? Mr. Lowry, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Vaudrey? Yes. Item is approved unanimously on a vote four to zero. Next item is item C. This is also a public hearing. It's ordinance 1696. It's an ordinance of Draper City amending the text of title 9, 10, 17, and 18 of the Draper City Municipal Code related to Geologic Hazard Ordinance, known as the City-Initiated Geologic Hazard Ordinance, and text Amendment 11 of the staff report by Mr. Taylor. Go ahead, Todd. Thank you. The Geologic Hazard Ordinance was adopted in 2007. There have been several amendments since. As part of that ordinance, the city currently works with third-party reviewers to provide us technical expertise. That's Alan Taylor and David Simon. We've been working with those experts on these amendments, and the purpose of these amendments is to improve clarity for applicants, and they include best engineering practices and the insight that we've gained over implementing this over the past eight years. They're also pulling in state standards that were previously referenced from the code, so the applicants would have to go look somewhere else to find those standards, and then finally correcting an error that was found in the code. As mentioned, the text amendments are to Titles 9, 10, 17, and 18. Basically, we are proposing to move the ordinance from Title IX, which is our land use and development regulations, or our zoning code, which we typically call it, Chapter 9-19, and then it's proposed to be moved to Title X, which is our building regulations, and it would become Chapter 10-7. As part of the move, there are currently some appendices that are in the code, the ordinance, and the proposal creates a geotechnical engineering standards document and moves those appendices out into that document. And if this item is approved, the next item on the agenda is to adopt that document by resolution. This table is really just a crosswalk of how each of the sections moves from Title IX to Title X, and then there's establishment of some new sections specifically for establishing those standards and specifications, for allowing some exemptions, and then moving the appendices to the engineering standards document. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARD THIS ITEM ON THEIR DECEMBER 11TH MEETING AND VOTED TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS QUESTIONS FOR MR. TAYLOR I THINK TODD THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IT'S ORDINANCE 1696 IS THERE ANY FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM ITEM 6C ALL RIGHT SEEING NO PUBLIC COMMENT I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING Bring us back to the council. Mr. Mayor, I'd move to approve item 1696. Motion by Ms. Lowry to approve. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Vaudrey. Any further discussion? All right, hearing none. Ms. Lowry, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Vaudrey? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Items approved unanimously on a vote of four to zero. Next items on our agenda are items seven. They are action items 7A. IS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2574. IT'S A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING THE GEO-TECHNICAL ENGINEERING STANDARDS FOR DRAPER CITY. WE HAVE MR. TAYLOR. DO YOU WANT ME TO HIT ALL THESE AT THE SAME TIME? DO YOU WANT TO, COUNCIL MEMBERS, DO YOU WANT TO QUESTION, HAVE PRESENTATIONS, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THEM AND YOU CAN? ALL RIGHT. ITEM 7B IS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2575, A RESOLUTION EXPRESSING DRAPER CITY'S INTENT TO ADJUST ITS COMMON MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES WITH HIGHLAND CITY AFFECTING PARCELS 11-017-0157 AND 35-544-0050, AUTHORIZING THE SCHEDULING OF A PUBLIC HEARING TO PROVIDE NOTICE THEREOF. ITEM 7C IS APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE 1695 AS AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDING TITLE VII OF THE DRAPER CITY MUNICIPAL CODE Establishing the wildland urban interface area. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution 25-74, 25-75, and ordinance 1695. I have a motion by Ms. Lowry to approve item 7A, B, and C. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Vaudrey. Any further discussion? All right, hearing none, Ms. Lowry, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Vaudrey? Yes. Yes. Mr. Lowry. Yes. Ms. Johnson. Yes. Items approved unanimously on a vote of four to zero. All right, that takes us to item eight, which is our most favorite of items, the adjournment thereof. However, before we do it, I do want to say this is Ms. Vaudrey's last, last, her really, really last council meeting. And I want to just express, if I can, And I'll give all of you a chance, but I just want to express really my heartfelt appreciation to Marsha for the many years of service to this community, starting with the historic park to Corner Canyon to every single thing that you've been involved in, rodeo, Draper Days, everything that you've done for all your almost whole life that you've lived here, both you and your husband, Doug. You served us well before as a council member. You retired, and we thought you were going into the sunset. But then we drug you back, back out of retirement. But we really appreciate, I appreciate that you were willing to do that. It created a great situation for us to have a person to serve in an interim term that already was trained, already understood, and already had the needs and concerns of our citizens at heart. So Marsha, I just want to tell you, I love you with all my heart. You're one of my most dearest friends, and I've enjoyed serving with you as much as anything I've done in my life, and I thank you for your service to our community. Can we get a picture over at the front? It's time for a picture. I echo everything that was said. and I think it's been great that, Marcia, you were back here this last year, and thank you for all the great effort and work that you've done. Is there a motion to adjourn before we go photo? I think Marcia needs to make the motion. Motion. Marcia, if there's one last motion for you to make. Mr. Mayor, I move we adjourn. I have a motion by Ms. Fodder to adjourn. Is there a second? I'll second. All right, all in favor of adjournment, say aye. Aye. All right, any opposed? All right, we stand adjourned.