We're on the recorder. I think we should get underway. We are underway. So the first item is the point in time report, but those folks aren't here. So we're going to go to the next item is discussion on the Phoebe Brown Trail. Rhett, you got that. Okay. So, thank you, Mayor and Council, for the opportunity tonight. Just, I guess the purpose of tonight, as a reminder, back in April we had a pretty good discussion about this section of the Pee Dee Brown Trail. And as Council, you directed us to really find out what it's gonna cost, because prior to that we were talking about, well, it might be this or that. So we went out and RFP, We've got a designer who came back with two options, so that's what we wanted to show you tonight. There's some options for encroachment and stuff like that. But I just wanted to run through a few things and what, I guess, some options and some information about the trail. This isn't our whole trail, but I put in here at least some of the regional trails that we've completed. Port of Rockville Canal Trail, Jordan River Trail, These are all ones that are currently done. Certainly not to say all of them, but this is just a few of them that are in our master plan. Our old master plan as well as one we adopted last year. You see we still have this section to get us to Weeden Farm. We've got a section we'll talk about tonight, and then we've got a section across 915 that's going to be a challenge. For years, even prior to when I started here 16 years ago, like when Smithfield Park was built, we planned for the trail connection and put the trail through the park. We've got property on this I-15. We've got property on parks. The plans have been in place for following this master plan. Smithfield is a great connection. If you get from Smithville to Draper Park, and then once you get to Draper Park, obviously you can get on to Fort Rockwell. From there, you can get anywhere up Hornet Canyon. So we're really getting some great connections. So the piece we're talking about tonight really is just this short section, about 12 to 13 width of homes. But you can see it's really right in the middle of what will be a really neat A-trail loop and really gives access to a bunch of neighborhoods to connected paved trails. So I guess that's what I wanted to show you is regardless of what you do or don't do, no problem with the staff. But if we're talking this piece of trail, I guess that's why we're bringing these options back to you tonight, because it really is kind of right in the center of what is a nice loop and a complete paved trail access to a lot of neighborhoods. Of course, we have other paid trails that go into Sandy. We're just going to be finishing a key piece at Jensen Farm this year that will connect a lot of trade. So we're really doing a lot of good things with trails, particularly with the mayor and council. Just a reminder, just so it's in your mind, about three years ago, we budgeted at $350,000. That's still sitting in the CIP. We haven't spent it other than a little bit for the design stuff, but that's all there. This is what we'll talk about tonight. And then just to remind you, back in April, we went through the different options, what just a dirt trail would look like. I've got that information still ready if you want to look at that. We've got the hard pack, the rotomill. We've got that info if you want to look at that again. And then the asphalt trail. So at that night, the reason we went and got the design was because that's what council directed. Let's at least get a design. Let's know what it's going to cost. And then from there, we can make some educated decisions. So that's kind of what tonight is. We're now bringing back the design that has been completed by Arkansas. So with that, I've asked Brad Jensen to walk through the two options. I know Brad, he's the project manager for Parks and Rec and does a great job. So I'll turn the time over to him and go through the two options. But if you have any questions or any comments, please feel free any time. Go ahead, Brad. Thank you. So we have two alternatives we want to look at tonight. This first option would be basically utilizing the whole easement. We would like to keep the lease about three feet away from the canal. Otherwise, we'd need to do a fence. This option would not have a fence. We'd be utilizing most of the easement. There's a 15-foot easement from the bank into the property. So this would require, of course, many of the residents have to remove some encroachments within the existing trailway, but there are a few significant encroachments that... Oh, I'm already a thief. I was wondering why you... Okay, so sorry. So this one would include some significant encroachments that would be... This would accommodate the... So this would have more impact on existing encroachments and less cost for the city. Option B would require the residents to remove some of their encroachments within the existing trail. And then some significant encroachments could remain. And I'll kind of go through that in this presentation. What this would do is push the canal trail right to the bank of the canal, which would require a fence. And we'd like to keep it one to two feet shoulder-slope between the edge of the asphalt and the canal bank. Both of these options would be attempted by the trail. I thought we weren't allowed to fence it. Like there was something legally that prohibited it. There's something on the plat that says no fences within the easement. Yeah. Yeah. That's what I recall. Yes, there's a that says that. The canal company requires that. The canal company is OK with us putting the fence along the canal. Their intention for that was to go crossways. Right, I understand. Neighbors are adamant that they will fight if we try to . Yeah, so this option may not work. I think the neighbors are going to fight every year. But the reason why. you're suggesting this one as an alternative is because of the encroachments that would force us to have to go that far. Yes. So option B is kind of a consensus. Accommodate. Allow them to accommodate and allow encroachments to remain. But by doing that, we have to shift the trail, which then would require a fence per se. And cost us $200,000 more. Almost. And in reality, so I'll go through this. I think it's the right end. So I'm going to kind of give a scenario of the different scenarios we see on the project. So there are 13 properties. Three of the 13 have basically no encroachments. The property owners have put in their fences basically on the easement line. So three out of 13, they can go in there for the trail. Four out of 13 are property owners who maybe put grass. Their encroachments are pretty minimal. As you can see, the easement's about right here. So they're basically recognizing the easement and the trail, you know, . So this is, there's a difference with alternative A and B on these options. So two of the 13 properties, the fences on alternative A, the fences would need to be removed towards the, you know, towards the easement line. If we did alternative B, these fences could remain. And then we'd have to put in a fence here. As you can see, this is only about 11 feet wide. So we'd have to put a fence here. Some of the trees along the bank would probably have to come out. And then there's a couple properties where it doesn't matter. Option A or Option B, we'd have to keep the fence out. Here we only have about six, seven feet. would have to move the fence no matter what. And then there's a couple that has some significant improvements. This one on the left has a retaining structure for a slide. So option A, that would have to be removed along with the fence. Option B, we could have to keep this structure. We could have to move the fence over to that structure, though. So these are two different properties. Yeah, these are the two most significant encroachments. This one, as you can see, there's a retaining wall here. Option A and option B, the fence would have to come out. And using an option B, most of that wall would still need to be taken out. There's portions of it that could probably be saved, but either option. So would it go almost along that trampoline? Yeah, so basically we probably would miss that structure pretty close to the trampoline. Yeah, it's probably about five, four or five feet. And how many feet is the other one? This one here? So an option B would be the tape trailer would be about as quick as Option A, we would have to take this out to the end of the asphalt . So they'd have to remove that whole lot. Yes. And it's not just a . It's actually . This is kind of an example of that location. Option A, of course, this is . This is kind of a summary of the cost estimates. So all through the bank, right now the total estimate is about $600,000. Our current budget of $350,000 would need an additional $250,000. Alternative B would be a total of $775,000. Our current budget of $350,000 would need an additional $435,000. The question is, in those budgets, is there any anticipated litigation costs? These are all construction costs only. Is there any other? And also, I'm sorry. I was going to say, is there a third option where we don't asphalt it and we just like rough it in? So we talked about that last time we just did a dirt trail. The concern I would have with that, if we go back to this one slide, this one right here. So this right now is already about seven feet. So if we come in and just open it up and get a gravel trail or a cycle asphalt trail, well, then now we're within that two to three feet of the canal. So we need to go in and put some fencing. Do we think we can put in fencing? I know we discussed it before. This fence right here would still have to go. It's in the east. Right, but we're talking about fencing against the canal. And I'm just asking if that's- And if we're not able to, then that option wouldn't work. But that'll text the children. Right, I know. I just thought that legally we were not able to put a fence. We discussed that in a final legal opinion on what that worry means on the fly. Because wasn't there- We need to know. And I thought there was some discussion about Will they amend the easement for a horizontal easement to protect that on that side? I think they'd be open to that. They actually would love to see this trail go in because now they can get to the canal and maintain it. So I know they would. And now if it is the one who put the fence thing in, is that correct? So they're the ones who could take it off? Yes. The neighbors have no say over that. Correct. But if a fence is put in, that restricts their access to it a little bit more. No, as long as it's a four-foot fence, we'd put in. So it's somewhat limited, but it's a lot better than what they have now, which is really no access. So they could at least drive down the trail and trim trees and stuff. Four-foot fences? So this would be very similar to what we've done north of Columbus Drive, where we basically had it encroach into the canal and do some adjustment to the canal and couldn't work with fence. So I think that's kind of critical information before we make a final decision. Because that could force us to only have one way or the other. One way or the other, right. And if we can't do a fence, then that just pushes us towards option A more, which says We need to clear the encroachment, but we use our easement as entitled, and if we have the full 15 feet, we don't need it. It's only if we're going to an option B, and we're saying we're going to try and allow some of these to remain, but then that pushes us closer to the canal that it would require. It doesn't feel right, though, to have to pay for the city to pay almost $200,000 more just because Some of the residents. It's about half that would benefit. How are we going to decide which encroachments we leave and not? I think we have to treat everyone the same. We are enforcing it, and we're treating everyone the same. They're all similarly situated individuals. We have to come out. Because you're just going to incentivize someone going, well, I'm going to just go build something right now, and they're going to move around me. I don't think we have a real choice. I think we have to clearly enforce the easement if we're going to do it. And there's no exceptions. And if we're creating an exception, I think that policy is going to be way too arbitrary and capricious to come up with a way to effectively enforce without creating someone getting special favoritism. And that's not what I want to happen. So I think we enforce it. And I think I don't think it's fair for the rest of the taxpayers to come up with another $200,000 to go around things that people are actually violating public policy on. I just think that's problematic. I agree. This is a change in previous stances, though, because previously you haven't wanted to. I haven't wanted to do this at all. Right. So now you do, and you want to do everything. Well, I think if we're going to do it, we have to do it completely differently. Yeah, it's a do or no do. Yeah, it's a do or no do. So do you want to do or not do? Well, I think this neighborhood has had a significant amount of time to raise the money to either figure out a better way. When I met with these neighbors, they wanted to pipe this. And they've had six and a half years now to pipe it, to come up with the money to do it. And I've not seen it happen yet. So I think at this point, it's probably time to connect. And we've given that opportunity. I think we've exhausted all of our options. But we do need to figure out where the other budget deficit between the $350,000 and $550,000 is going to come from. So 11 of the 13 properties have either not encroached or encroached in a way that it wouldn't . . . I would say probably seven of the 13 are not going to be affected a whole lot. But even . . . If the fence is moved, it's not other structures that happen to be. Yeah, there's some patio and nothing like a structure. Nothing like a retaining wall or that structure. So it's two of the 13 that are really major. Yeah, two are major. The other two are going to be affected no matter which option. And then the other two would be, if they're fencing, the option would be. So in reality, you look at it that way, three, four properties would benefit with option B. While six, seven, it doesn't really matter. Our line is the same. You create a big accommodative arrangement. So in other words, to spare four property owners, you're going to pay an extra $200,000. Exactly. If you... Yeah. Everyone with option B. And also, what does it say to those that have accommodated the . Well, Mike's right. It says a whole lot of problems. And the other thing with option B is then you have to deal with the fencing . Yeah, I know. I mean, you're right. You can do it, and you don't get a . If you did, as Council Member Green was saying, then that leaves every problem. There's no fence issue. It's built as normal. Well, and everyone's treated the same. Is there a consensus to figure out the money, or what do you want to do? Just for info, however, but this would be eligible for impact. And that fund's got around $7 million. So we could pull something from there. Park Impact Fund could fund this project more if you chose to do it from there. There's I will tell you, as a user, I ride that trail. I bet if you look on Strava, I ride it all the time. And that connection will be... I am very invested in making sure that we move forward with the Jensen Farm soccer field. We would fix that crossing on 132 as part of it. Yes, the cost doesn't include that crosswalk. This makes it more safe than having to weave through all that neighborhood and come back. Crossing at 132 is dangerous. Yeah, it is. But that is a dangerous crossing. Do we anticipate any litigation that will arise out of this, too? Sure. I think you're going to have to do litigation on any alternative. Yeah, on any alternative. The only way to avoid it is to leave it be. So in anticipation of that, Are you interested in exploring the money and funding at the full width? How many of you are for that? I am. I am. Yeah, I'm fine. Marcia? Yeah. I'm not sure. That's enough to figure out the fence. Well, we don't need the fence. So do the option A with that. So is the direction from council to go proceed with option A? Yes. We'll need to bring it back and come back with more details. All right, thank you, Rhett. I've got a need for a closed meeting. I want to make a motion for a closed meeting. And it's specifically to talk about deployment of security personnel devices or systems. Is that your motion, Fred? Tasha, did you move? I said so move. OK. So the motion by Ms. Lowery is to close the meeting to talk about the deployment of security personnel devices or systems as provided by UCA 524205. That's your motion? Yes. Second. Second by Ms. Lowery. Tasha, how do you vote? Yes. Fred? Yes. Yes. OK. We're going to close up. Give me one minute to switch things over. Actually, we have 10 checks that each officer is doing in different parking lots. in different areas that are high crime areas. And like we've been telling them, they see you long before you see them. And this is proof that it's working. And I can just anecdotally say that I know that it's working. And we used to get complaints about it all the time. And we don't hear about it anymore. Well, every one of our neighbors . Well, I mean, that's what . I think another example is at Draper Days. You had them in this label. They were moving. They were so . They were seen everywhere. But told me once, you don't ever get rid of that kind of crime. You just push it somewhere else where it's easier to get away with. So that's probably what's happening. But we've been arresting people, too, in the work itself. We're going to push it to Nevada. OK. Anyway, thanks for letting me. Thank you. Great job. Probably in the earlier report. Yeah. Push it to the Gulf of America. I just sent you guys the press release, so you can peruse it. All right, council manager reports, or do you want to do that later during the meeting? I don't have any. I don't have any. Well, let me just ask. I'm with you on that. Was that form that you gave me, Brent, from the Interfaith Council? There we go. South Valley. Anybody else get this led on South Valley interface? I got the meeting appointment. So I recorded the security for Brandon Marsha. Well, actually, Mayor's out now. The first one recorded for Brandon Marsha. Basically, they're looking to see if anybody from the council wants to participate. I don't know if this is the one that Marsha has been doing over the years, is it? So I don't know if the council has assigned somebody or somebody has just undertaken to attend. I've gone to two of them when I've been able to, but I haven't. I've gone to a luncheon. It sounds like if you're interested in going, you have my blessing. Thank you. We've got water in there. Well, it used to be. I could probably use an actual extra religion. Maybe I shouldn't. I think that's about it. The rest of it is to you. All right. We've got a few minutes and a break. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our city council meeting this evening. I'd like to call our meeting to order. Our first item that starts our meeting off is our Pledge of Allegiance, and this evening we're fortunate to have the scouts back in the room. We have Cub Scout Pack number 4444, and they're going to provide a full flag ceremony and the Pledge of Allegiance. So, Cub Scouts, the floor is yours. Attention. Audience, attention. Will the audience please rise. Color Guard, advance. Scout salute. Color guard, halt. Color guard, post the colors. Color guard, salute. Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge of allegiance to the flag Color guard dismissed. The audience may be seated. Thank you, Cub Scout Pack 4444. It's good to have the scouts back. Our next item, item number three, is the swearing in, oath of office. of our brand-new city attorney, Ms. Tracy Gunderson. I'll turn the meeting over to our city recorder. I, Tracy Gunderson, do solemnly swear that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah, and that I will discharge the duties And then I will discharge the duties of my office as a Draper City attorney. As a Draper City attorney. With fidelity. With fidelity. Congratulations. Thank you. Thank you. Tracy comes to us having served a number of years on our planning commission, and she is an outstanding lawyer. We hired her away from somewhere else. We're very glad to get her. She's tremendous. She's got a great ability. And she's going to do a fantastic job representing us as our city attorney. So thank you, Tracy. We're very glad to have you. All right. Item number 6B. It's pretty bad when I just follow the paper, so I apologize for that. Item four is our opportunity for general public comment. Now, if you're here for an item on our agenda coming up that's a public hearing, we ask that you wait for that public hearing so we keep our record clear and coherent. This is an opportunity to make general public comment, not about items currently on the agenda, but interesting or things you want the council to hear. Is there anyone that would like to make a general public comment? All right, seeing none, we'll move on from item four. and move to item five, which is our consent items. Item 5A is approval of the December 3rd, 2024 City Council meeting minutes. Item 5B is approval of the December 10th, 2024 City Council special meeting minutes. Item 5C is approval of resolution 2501. It's a resolution appointing Melissa Day as a member of the Draper City Historic Preservation Commission. Item 5D is approval of resolution 2502. It's a resolution amending the interlocal agreement WITH OTHER ENTITIES CURRENTLY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE CREATION OF THE NEW SCHOOL DISTRICT. COUNCIL MEMBERS, IS THERE A MOTION? YES, MR. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE BY MS. LOWERY. IS THERE A SECOND? SO MOVED. SECOND BY MR. GREEN. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? MS. LOWERY, HOW DO YOU VOTE? YES. MR. GREEN? YES. MR. LOWERY? YES. MS. JOHNSON? YES. ITEM PASSED UNANIMOUSLY, 4-0. I will note for the record that Councilwoman Marsha Vaudrey is out of town this evening, and so she's not with us, so we just have our four council members and myself. Item six is next, and this is an item for council consideration. Item 6A is a public hearing providing local consent for a full-service restaurant license for Mint Sushi, Taps 5, LLC, DBA Mint Sushi, and Tapas. We'll have a staff report by Travis. Go ahead, Travis. Okay, full service restaurant license for Mint Sushi and Tapas 5LC, doing business as Mint Sushi and Tapas. Here's their location, 519 East on 23rd South Suite D. And they are seeking a full-service restaurant license, which allows restaurants to store, sell, and serve all kinds of alcoholic beverages alongside a food purchase. According to our code and state code, they have to meet two requirements. They have to be at least 300 feet, measured by shortest pedestrian route to the nearest community location. And they have to be... at least 200 feet away measured by the shortest straight line measurement from the patron entrance. And a community location includes schools, churches, public libraries, public playgrounds and parks. So here's the 300 foot distance requirement. So they're like 1300 feet away from this church boundary here. So they meet that requirement and they are well away from the church boundary over here measuring the 200 foot distance line, straight line. So actions provide local consent or deny and our code says there can't be any limitations on the number of full service restaurant licenses that the city can grant. Any questions for Travis? Is the applicant here? All right. All right. This is a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the council on item 6A, a local consent full-service restaurant license for Mint Sushi Tapas 5 LLC? All right. Seeing no public comment, we'll close the public comment period and bring it back for council. Mr. Mayor? Go ahead. I move that we approve and grant local consent for Mint Sushi and Tapas 5 LLC. A motion by Mr. Green to approve, is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Johnson. Any further discussion? All right, Mr. Green, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. That is approved unanimously, four to zero. Item number six. B is next. This is a public hearing. It's ordinance number 1630. It's an ordinance amending the official zoning map of Draper City for approximately 1.2 acres of property from the C2 neighborhood commercial to the CG general commercial located approximately 2021 East Village Green Circle, otherwise known as the Suncrest Reception Center zoning map amendment. And we'll have our staff report by Jennifer. Go ahead. Great. Thank you. So this property is located up in Suncrest in the Village Green area. So it includes the office building there as well as the Ridge property. Current land use is neighborhood commercial. There's not a proposal to change that tonight. Zoning is C2, which is a neighborhood commercial zoning. Suncrest is a bit unique where with the development agreement that was done with the master plan for Suncrest, it was tied to the 1999 code that was in place when the master plan was approved. So all the zoning designations and zoning standards are tied to the old 99 code. So the C2 zone is frankly a defunct zone within our current code. It's in the 99 code that's tied to Suncrest. THEY'RE PROPOSING TONIGHT TO REZONE THESE TWO PROPERTIES, SORRY, THREE PROPERTIES TO THE CG GENERAL COMMERCIAL ZONE, WHICH IS IN OUR CURRENT ZONING CODE. BECAUSE THE C2 ZONE IS IN THE 99 CODE, IT'S AN OLD CODE, WE CAN'T DO ANY TEXT AMENDMENTS, WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT CODE. WE CAN ONLY UPDATE AND CHANGE OUR CURRENT CODE. I DO HAVE SOME USE CHARTS HERE THAT I'M GOING TO OPEN UP FOR US TO GO OVER SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN USES ARE. WHILE I'M DOING THAT, I WILL SAY WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENT EMAILED IN. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT HAD A LOT. YOU DID GET SOME EMAIL TODAY AND I DID GET A COUPLE COMMENTS EMAILED IN SINCE 5 O'CLOCK TONIGHT. ONE WAS FOR, ONE WAS AGAINST. that out since it was so late I couldn't get those comments to you. Um so the Suncrest design standards design guidelines um has has a little bit on village center and uses for the village center excuse me so it it says um uses in the uh commercial areas are those uses that are listed as allowable in the C2 zone AND THEN IT GOES FURTHER TO DISCUSS WHAT MAY BE IN EACH INDIVIDUAL POCKET. SO THE VILLAGE GREEN AREA, RETAIL SHOPS, MARKET, COMMUNITY MEETING PLACE, PROFESSIONAL OFFICES. AND THEN FURTHER ON THERE IS A SECTION THAT DOES TALK ABOUT OFFICE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. SO THE C2 ZONE, SO OUR CURRENT ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY Quite a bit of uses are listed as conditional, meaning they need to come in and get a conditional use permit with the Planning Commission. Reception center is not a listed use within the 99 code. So regardless of what zoning district somebody was in in the 99 code, reception center was not an option. Uhm? CN and CG. So I did throw in CN because I know that there were some questions both from planning council and I believe the public as well about that neighborhood commercial zoning that's in our current code. So I do have the use charts here side by side for the CG that they're proposing as well as our current CN zone. So reception center, I can get there, is not permitted in the CN zone, but it is permitted in the CG. Another thing with our current zoning is each zone has a minimum establishment area. So both the CN and the CG zone have a minimum one acre property that you need to, property areas that you need to establish that zone. So that doesn't mean that individual piece of property each has to be an acre, it means the boundary of the new zoning district that you're creating has to be at least an acre. So with both the ridge and the parking and the office building, that's like 1.2 acres in size. So under our code, there would not be an option to rezone to any zone but these two zones because there's just not the acreage there. AND LIKE I SAID, THIS CN DOES NOT ALLOW RECEPTION CENTER, IT IS ALLOWED IN THAT CG. NOW, I DID TAKE SOME TIME, BECAUSE THESE USE CHARTS ARE SO DIFFERENT WITH THE C2 AND OUR CURRENT CODE, STAFF DID TAKE SOME TIME TO KIND OF ANALYZE THE DIFFERENT ZONES. SO HERE'S A LIST OF SOME USES THAT ARE SIMILAR BETWEEN THE CG AND THAT C2 ZONE. And so these would be uses that would either be allowed, permitted or conditional. And then, excuse me, and then uses that are allowed in the CG but not allowed in the C2. So you can see that reception center being one of them. We've got auto truck equipment storage, office warehouse, a daycare, some manufacturing limited. THERE IS KIND OF A BIT OF A CAVEAT ON THAT. THE C2 ZONE HAS SOME USES LISTED THAT TODAY'S CODE WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS MANUFACTURING LIMITED, BUT IT'S NOT AS BROAD AS TODAY'S CODE. AND THEN PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS ON DECEMBER 12TH AND MADE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON A 4 TO 1 VOTE. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR GO MORE INTO DEPTH ON THE USE CHARTS. While she's looking at that, Jennifer, I have a question. You were showing like on the C2, one of the criteria was that any of it needed to be more than 100 feet of a residential area. On the use chart? On the C2. Go back to the 99 code. All uses in the commercial industrial zone are within 100 feet of residential dwelling or residential zone district. Does the commercial code or the CN code right now have a certain distance that needs to be within a residential area? No, it doesn't. There's no buffer? No. Fred, this says if it's within that area, it requires a... So how I would read this is even if a use in this C2 zone is listed as permitted, if it's within 100 feet of a residential dwelling, it's going to require that conditional use permit. And that is not something that's in our current code. Do we know when the applicant acquired this property? I don't. You're saying that this was established as C2. Is it most similar now to neighborhood commercial? Yes. Okay. And this is an applicant seeking rezones of both the reception area, what would be a reception area, and the ridge? Yes. So then these uses would be applicable to both of those entities? Correct. Okay. Any other questions for Jennifer? Thank you, Jennifer. Might have you back. Is the applicant here? Come on up, sir. Good evening. Give us your name and address, if you would, please. Yeah, Adam Koch. I'm at 14809 South Meadow Oak Court in Draper. It's up in Suncrest. Yeah. So as Jennifer mentioned, just to summarize, and I want to be brief and respect your time tonight. So the Planning Commission came away with a 4-1 vote. Myself and Todd Wadsworth, we are the owners of the three properties in question. Mine is the building just directly across from the clubhouse, the Suncrest Clubhouse. Todd Wadsworth owns the restaurant and the parking lot behind his. The problem, though, so for each of us, we are private owners of the property. And the problem with the C2 zoning, and this is the reason we're requesting a CG zoning change, is because the only thing that we're really even permitted to do is outlined, I think, in the page below this where it says temporary trailer incidental to construction work. I personally don't even know what that is. but that's the only thing that we can do in that C2 zoning. There are some other conditional uses, but because of the design and purpose built construction of our two buildings, they don't really lend to any of these other options such as a dog kennel or a liquor store or a beer sales or bed and breakfast. When my building was constructed in, I think it was 1997, I believe, 99, It was specifically built for large gatherings. I know that it's labeled as an office, but as an office, it's about 4,800 square feet, has five offices, four offices in the lower level, and one single office on the main floor, which is about 25,000 square feet. Also has a full kitchen and a huge gathering space. I think that the intent when it was built was to have it turned over to the HOA and the HOA could use it as a, you know, as a space that homeowners could rent for birthdays, and anniversaries, and weddings, and, and all these things. I don't think that it was ever intended to be owned by a private party like myself, but I had the opportunity in 2016, some partners and I bought it at that time from D.R. Horton, and I, since, have, um, bought them out of their position, so I own it now, and that happened in night, er, 2017. Now, I've read all the emails from residents, and really the concerns come down to two things. The first of which is parking. Suncrest is very unique in that there's my building across the street from the HOA. The unique situation with this is that I actually own all of the parking from the entrance down that drive and the parking on both sides of that driveway clear to the exit. It equates to little less than four dozen spots. The HOA on the other hand has about 13 parking stalls. And so when I bought the property we entered into an easement where I would share my parking with them if they would maintain and move the snow because literally It was me and maybe two other guys that were using this entire building, so it didn't make sense for me to have to pay for all the wear and tear from 1,400 homeowners when I was using less than probably 1% of the parking at any given time. There is some congestion though, and the congestion typically takes place from June until the end of August when the pool is open. There's a lot of overlap with parking issues. I serve on the HOA board up there. And the parking issue can be resolved. It's already been discussed. It's already been voted on. We'll probably require a second vote, which I'm fine with. But I just feel like it's time for Suncrest to provide for some of their own parking needs and not entirely rely on what I own and what I pay taxes on. When you look at the big picture, it's not fair for it entire homeowners association to have a total of 13 parking stalls for 1400 homes and rely entirely on me for the parking and to use all the parking and in turn cut me out of any sort of opportunity to use the parking for my own business purposes and I want to make it clear though as a wedding reception we aren't doing wedding receptions every day. In fact, this year in 2024, we were on pace to do just a little over three, an average of just a little over three weddings per month. So that's three nights in a 30-day month where we would be using our own parking. And it isn't even for the entire day. It's usually just the evenings. Typically, the wedding guests show up around 5, and we're shut down by 9 o'clock, 9.30 p.m. dark by 10 o'clock. So the requirement that I need for parking is on average three and I'll even be conservative and say maybe it's even double that. Maybe it's six nights for every month. So it's not all that frequent. The other concern that you'll hear is regarding zoning and there are a lot of concerns with residents that If you change the zoning to commercial general, who's to say what might come down the road and what kind of business will open up? I can say that Suncrest is a very unique area. If you have a business that requires customers, foot traffic, or any sort of client that comes through your door, Suncrest is not your best option for that business in terms of a location. Not many people are going to drive up the hill to have their pet groom, for example, when there's one right down on a... There's several down in Draper. Not many people are going to come up the hill to have their nails done. There are very few businesses that will actually work in Suncrest. Mine is unique because I have one customer. They send out invites to hundreds of loved ones, and those people are somewhat obligated to come up the hill because they... support the individual invited them so that is unique about this business with the wedding receptions but anything retail up there is going to be really hard now I'm not saying that Suncrest residents can't fully support a business because that's very possible and if that's the case if homeowners are supporting any business that goes in there that's a good thing because obviously the residents like that and they want that and they're going to go and frequent that business. But anything outside of that, I just can't see really working. I mean, I haven't heard a good idea yet where a business would be wildly successful and not in some way pander or tailor to the Suncrest residents. I think that the Suncrest residents have to be a part of whatever it is that takes place up there. And if that's the case, then everybody can be happy because Suncrest residents can have a business that they like and that they frequent, and it's a business that we can support and that the commercial general works for, commercial general zoning. So, that's really everything in a nutshell. You might hear some things about noise. That will no longer be an issue. All of our weddings will be inside our building. We will no longer be using the park. mean I can't stop anyone from going out and taking a photo in the trees but it is a public space but our weddings will be confined to within our own building so noise will not be a problem I mean really the only two concerns that you'll hear tonight are regarding parking and zoning parking is easily fixed like I said we've already got plans drawn up we're just waiting for spring to break ground and move forward with that, assuming that the board also agrees with that. And then the problem, the parking problem is in the rear view mirror, so to speak. The zoning, there's just for two privately held buildings, we don't have any options with the current zoning that we have of C2. And I might also just throw this out there. There is another venue just down the hill called Siempre. They are a working, functioning, wedding venue and they are also zone C2. There's a whole other story behind that, but I can't see that it's so far out the realm of reality for me to have a wedding venue, especially when I can provide for my own parking and my own space and be completely independent of the HOA. Thank you for your consideration. Mr. Koch, because you're the applicant, you get the last word when we're done with our public hearing, if you want. We'll give you an opportunity to respond to public hearing. That's the way our procedure works. Before you go, are there any questions right now, council members? Do you want to take public hearing first? Let's do the public hearing, and then I'll bring my questions up. I'm happy to answer any. I'd like the opportunity to answer or field any questions or concerns, so thank you. Mr. Mayor, I would just like to address his last comment about Sampre. Mm-hmm. That is a comparison. That's one that I myself had made. But I think that you need to understand that we didn't have any choice but to entitle Sampre. That was part of their original 2004 development agreement. So when that came before the council, we were forced to approve that as a reception center. And it is a beautiful building with wonderful events. But there are many issues with that reception center, as we hear about all the time from fireworks, to noise complaints, to street parking, and the neighborhoods surrounding CM Prey have not been happy with the establishment of that reception center. So just so we're clear. Yeah, no, I know that. I just don't know that everybody else knows the depth, I mean, why C2, or why it was approved at C2. I will say, though, that we are a much smaller venue. Don Buckley is familiar with the property, and we have with... along with Matt Symes and an architect and an engineer, determined that my building will have a max occupancy of about 81 occupants. From a noise standpoint, we won't be in the park with chairs and tables and doing ceremonies or dancing out there. Everything that I'll be doing moving forward is inside the building. We do have a patio and we'll probably, from time to time, put out tables and chairs out there. The noise, I can't see how anything going on inside that building will cause any problems for residents around the building. Like I said, we're not using the outdoors. It shouldn't be like Siempre at all. All right, any other questions right now? Thank you. Thanks. All right, folks. We haven't had this many people in the room in a long time, so welcome. You look like you're decent, reasonable folks. Hopefully you are. Let me just go over our meeting rules since it's been a while. And we will hear your public comment. Our rules are this. Everyone that wants to make a comment gets three minutes. Now, a little tip from the mayor. I've been doing this a while. You don't have to use all the three minutes. And sometimes it's way more effective to use one minute if you can do it. And also it's not as effective to say the same thing three minutes over over and over that doesn't make a lot of impact I'm just that's just friendly mayor advice the way it works I have some cards which I will call up first because they took the time to write the card after that anyone that wants to speak gets the opportunity to speak we're liberal in that regard but my clock over there to three minutes we are not liberal after three minutes so buzzer goes off your time's up and if you don't leave mr. Evans are gonna help you out the door so I'm No, we've never had to do that before. But also, we don't do clapping, cheering on. This is a meeting where we want to hear your comments. It's not a place to persuade via that way. So please keep that to none. When you come up to the microphone to give your comment, give us your name and your address. That's when your time will start. Like I said, we're willing to hear from all of you and everyone. But keep in mind, these folks are smart. They know how to do this. They know what they, saying the same thing over and over. It's not super effective. And again, you get kudos from me if you don't use your whole three minutes. So there's a challenge to all of you. The first one I have, I'm going to call up, is Gina James. Gina, come on up. Hi. My name is Gina James. I live at 1867 East Oak Bend Drive up in Suncrest. I've been a Draper resident for 23 years and a Suncrest resident for 21 years. I do have to do full disclosure, my daughter is Miss Draper. So I don't know however that plays for you. But I just said that as an indication of how much we love Draper. We're invested in the community and so my opinions are reflective of hopefully my love for the community and wanting to make it the best Draper. I am speaking in favor of this zoning change. I'm also speaking on behalf of my husband, who is a trustee of the board of Suncrest, of the HOA. He is out of town. I love Suncrest because you can feel a million miles away when you're up on the trails. I'm sure you've all experienced that. Or if you haven't experienced a big snowstorm, you also feel like you're in the middle of nowhere in Suncrest. The thing that we love is that throughout the years, I've seen so much change and, you know, through the bad and the good and all the changes with Suncrest, I understand that there's no guarantees for businesses. I moved in thinking I was moving into this great master plan community 20 years ago that kind of fell apart. But to my benefit, seeing the changes with the open land that Draper's invested in. And so sometimes those things that we anticipate that could be really bad don't turn out to be so bad. And that's kind of... the position that I feel as far as changing the zoning to this commercial zoning. I've looked through the permitted uses of the zoning, and while I do not want a medical cannabis pharmacy or tattoo establishment in my neighborhood, I don't want that in Draper either. I don't want that in Flat Draper. That's what we call this part. But a small wedding venue I think would be a great benefit. Now, I can't even use that venue because it's too small for my extended family. But I've been in this space and I've seen the possibilities. I've been in the restaurant and I've eaten there. I think that this change for zoning could be a positive for our neighborhood. Adam addressed the problems with parking. It's always been an issue with Suncrest. That's just how Suncrest is. But the HOA has parking plans, and I hope that they follow through on that as a resident. Also, people behaving badly at events happens. My dog got bit at the open off-leash dog park three weeks ago, but that doesn't mean that I think now we should shut down the off-leash dog park area. Bad things happen, and you do your best to deal with those situations and put these regulations in place. We live in a free society, I love my neighbors. I'm so glad that so many are here even though honestly I disagree with a lot of them because I want this zoning change, I want this. And I think that those changes are in these parameters that can help the community make it a win-win for citizens who are pursuing their constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom and the pursuit of happiness by establishing businesses. But also within the parameters of that zoning change and the agreements that are put in place. by Mr. Koch. So I really appreciate your time on that, and I want you to vote for this. She just couldn't do it. All right. Couldn't do it. She almost did it. All right. I have Lawrence Nielsen next. Lawrence, come on up. Close. Mayor Walker, City Council. My name is Larry Nielsen. I live at 2013 East Aspen Grove Court in Suncrest. I am a trustee at Suncrest, elected to represent the Suncrest owners. I have been asked to articulate the trustee position. The trustees have intensely reexamined this proposal in great detail with updated information and recommend denying the rezone request for three reasons. 1.28 acres in question is far too small to accommodate an additional 81 people and their vehicles, especially during Suncrest owner events, which must have priority. Suncrest owners would be forced to compete with outsiders for Suncrest's very limited space. Spillover onto Suncrest properties would be inevitable. Rezoning means Suncrest owners lose control over possible follow-on businesses. As an example, a 7-Eleven gas station at the current Ridge location would entirely change the Suncrest Park experience. Finally, OA Council has advised that the proposed rezoning to allow a reception venue would expose the owners to liability. and possible insurance issues as well as celebratory noise and disruption. The original zoning was perfect for the community. It was well thought out. We have an obligation to preserve the community as owners bought into it and make no gross changes absent compelling reasons. The trustees asked that the council respect the Suncrest owners and their interests and decline the rezone. Thank you. Thank you. All right, next card I have is Bradley Brighton. Brighton, sorry, Bradley. Go ahead, sir. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Brad Byington. I'm a Suncrest resident. My wife and I had our wedding reception at K2. Address, if you will, please. Oh, 14932 South Eagle Crest Drive, Draper. Go ahead. My wife and I had our wedding reception at the K2 building five years ago this month. It was a great experience. Adam was very friendly, and he's remained very engaged with us and with our community. He's currently on the OA board. The Suncrest board, until this evening, maintained a position of neutrality on this issue because a majority of the board was forced to recuse itself, and I'm glad that they now decided to oppose the issue. By several conflicts of interest, the OA board elected to represent thousands of Draper residents failed to represent any of the HOA on this matter until tonight, and I'm glad to see they're trying to regain some trust. I wrote this speech because I felt compelled to do so since they were unable to speak. This application creates an inconsistent zone and is dissimilar to the surrounding area. The requested zoning seems incompatible with the general plan, primarily due to completely inadequate parking. The Ridge Restaurant, the K2 building, and Suncrest OA are in close proximity. If built today, the Ridge Restaurant would not meet today's code minimum parking requirements. Their parking is woefully inadequate for a successful restaurant. I enjoy frequenting the ridge and it's thriving and luckily the HOA does not enforce towing of ridge customers in their spots and K2 allows the ridge to use its parking. Adam has communicated to the public that he needs approximately 40 spots for the requested zoning and he says that he has 41. In my review of the county parcel map and county records, this may not be wholly true. Of the possible 41 spots that are on that map, about seven are cut in half perpendicularly by the property line with Suncrest OA. So if the applicant says he owns seven, then the OA can say they own seven. Is that 14 spots? No, it's seven. Another five spots the applicant is claiming to own are split three ways between the Suncrest OA, the Ridge, and K2, with K2 owning less than 20%. Can these really be counted towards that 41? Most frustrating to me is the recorded shared use parking agreement that the Suncrest OA and the applicant have for seven of these 41 spots. And in exchange for the shared use, the OA pays thousands of dollars a year to clear snow from the sidewalks and parking spaces of the applicant. The applicant reportedly breached the terms of this shared use parking agreement at least a dozen times last summer by placing K2 event parking only signs in front of these shared spots, usually during pool hours when the OA needed these shared use spots the most. If the applicant did not have enough parking for smaller, non-conforming uses last year, what makes anyone believe that he'll have enough for larger events in the future? The conflicts of interest are too many to list in my time tonight, and in the absence of the OA board, because of recusals, I was humbly here to ask you to maintain the current zoning, which is best for our community. Thank you for your time. Thank you. All right, that's all the cards I have. Is there... I'm sure there's more of you that would like to speak. I couldn't be that lucky. All right. The way it works is I'll call you up to come on up, and then same drill. Name an address and try not to use all three minutes, and you'll really be loved. No, just kidding. Go ahead. Come on up. Come on up. Give that to the city recorder. Just hand it to her. Go past it. Come on up and start your comment. Thank you. My name is Scott Steadman, 1905 East Vista Ridge Court, also in Suncrest. I am here tonight to express my opposition to the proposed rezone application. This zoning was established to limit commercial impacts such as increased traffic noise and reduced property values in our residential area. The property already allows several high impact uses under its current designation. Expanding to general commercial opens the door to a variety of uses including businesses with extended hours, higher traffic, increased parking demand or noise generating activities which could disrupt the residential environment without appropriate safeguard. This is contrary to the intent outlined in the original master plan and the city's zoning guidelines. The applicant has previously operated outside its permitted use and while they are appropriately and respectfully seeking a zoning change to address this, granting approval may set a concerning precedence for the city. Zoning regulations are in place to protect our community and future uses should align with current guidelines. Like Brad mentioned, there is conflicting information about the current parking stall ownership. The survey that I handed out clearly indicates this as well. The applicant has at times claimed ownership of 41 stalls. However, this is closer in my view to 29 that Brad has mentioned. Equally important is the shared parking agreement, also brought up by Brad. And based on this agreement, it appears that association members and their guests have a right to use all of the stalls at their discretion and at any time, regardless of any event that is going on that is in your packet and I trust that you've reviewed that. While tonight's discussion focuses on one applicant, it's important to recognize that this decision impacts two separate parcels, including the neighboring Royal on Ridge restaurant, which is currently for sale. Rezoning the second parcel raises serious concerns due to inadequate parking and limited prior discussion regarding the ridge. Although combining these parcels may meet the minimum requirements to request a rezone, I trust the council, in addition to evaluating consistencies with goals, objectives, and policies of the city's general plan, has carefully considered that adequate infrastructure exists to support the property both now and with any future use for both the applicant and the current Ridge Restaurant. I respectfully ask the council to deny the proposed rezone and preserve the existing zoning that safeguards our neighborhood's character, stability, and long-term livability. Allowing this rezone would create lasting changes that undermine the integrity of our neighborhood's master plan and may introduce future uses that are unknown, unwanted, and irreversible. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Who would like to be next? My name is Mackenzie Castellanos and I live at 14888 Village Vista Drive. Mackenzie, pull that down just a little. Thank you. Sorry, I'm short. My take is simple in that there is no resident benefit and no gain to the association on the extra traffic taxing the HOA resource. Additionally, the spirit of the HOA is for the assets of the residents and to preserve the peace and quiet and it's the HOA's choice to hold the events in the park that's created for the residents. until now I did not realize that's public land. So we have no control over what type of business this can be done if approved as mentioned before and we agree that this is against the HOA spirit. Personal note, my husband and I moved here about six months ago and honestly if I knew that there was a wedding venue in my backyard I probably would not purchase a home up here. I think that'll completely change the neighborhood vibe. Also, this initiative just seems really to only benefit one person, and it's too one-sided for me to support, especially from someone who sits on both sides of this issue. Therefore, I go to vote against any changing of the zone. Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to be next? Come on, Daryl. Daryl has a special one-minute rule. I'm just kidding. I'll try and hit it. Darryl Ackerman, 15152 South Briarcrest Court. I have two comments. My wife made me promise to come down here, to come away from the Scout meeting and read her notes. Before I read her comments, I want to say that I really want to see this business succeed. I support what the owner is trying to do. I think it's a beautiful venue. I think it's a wonderful event venue. I want to see the ridge succeed. I want this to work. I really, really in my heart do. I love the fact that we have weddings up here. I even loved seeing them on the grass. I thought it added a sort of cachet to our neighborhood. It was just beautiful. But I think right now, making a zoning change now without the parking situation fixed, without clarity, is dangerous. And I don't support it. Now, here are my wife's positions. This has been articulated a lot better by others before. And she hasn't heard this, but she wrote this before. There's no parking available at the Ridge or at the Clubhouse when there's an event. People who come up for the weddings are parking illegally in no parking zones. They're parking in handicapped spots when she has a handicapped placard. The dangerous parking situation along neighborhood streets. To get around cars, you are in the other lane, risking a head-on collision, illegally setting off fireworks, which she heard over New Year's, and events taking up space outdoors, and you're not able to walk your dogs and et cetera, which, of course, sounds like it's being addressed. She feels very strongly about this and wanted me to come and express that. I agree with those concerns. I just feel like we should – have a plan to address the parking situation and and the overflow situation before we just sort of get a rubber stamp to this thanks thank you who's like me next come on up sir so my name is paul kiersley i live on one uh 14686 Ravine Rockway. We've been up here for about three years. I support the idea of having a reception venue in this location. The building was built to hold gatherings. For whatever reason, the property was divided up and sold, and it doesn't make sense, but we can't go back and fix the past. We can fix the now and the future. It seems reasonable. if we look at the the option here of of changing zone you know you've already talked about the fact that we can't change and make this a conditional use permit because of the the zone we have the power here to to modify that i'm assuming we can make some changes and and but it's difficult and and maybe create some other issues to address but it it seems reasonable that the building could be used for something that was intended to be used for and that's gatherings The parking issue needs to be addressed. That was created 10 years ago when the property was sold and divided up. And the HOA and the homeowners haven't addressed it until recently. So my feeling is we need to support business and support this kind of business in that location I think is reasonable and I support it. Thank you. Thank you. He wins. time one so far. Nice work. Good work. Who'd like to be next? Come on up, sir. Mayor, council members, my name is Steve Saxton. I live at 12611 Wilding Way. For context, it's funny to look at this map because I moved into Suncrest in 99 and there was no streets. I had to walk the dirt to where we purchased our lot. And looking at this, if you look at the map, this is a very unique lot. And again, looking at the history of Suncrest, we all kind of know what happened in 07, 08, 09, when the whole master plan kind of went down the tubes and we're left with this property with a very unique parcel. I've heard all these concerns. I was here on the 12th. I know about the zoning change, the conditional use permit. I've since moved down from Suncrest. I bought two other homes in Draper. I'm still a resident. I moved out here because this is where I could afford to live back in the 90s, if you can believe it. And when you look at this and you say, well, what is this building going to be used for? And it's a little bit pigeonholed. It really only has one use. I understand the change to general commercial. People think there's going to be a 7-Eleven. It's just not. I mean, when you look at this, there's just no way that that's ever going to happen in this area. I feel like woefully unprepared. I don't have a set of notes here. But from my perspective, when you look at this, you have a resident who's been there for nearly 25 years that stepped in and used the property for its best use. Even the people that oppose it, like Adam, They love Adam because he does what he says he's going to do. So if this does turn over and it's general commercial, what's going to be done with this property besides a reception center or a gathering spot? And I think that's the big question in changing the commercial zoning. Thank you. Thank you. Who would like to be next? Come on up. My name is Justin Peele. I live at 1784 East Long Branch Drive. I've lived there over five years. I oppose this. From my perspective, it felt like with these receptions, it almost felt like an attack on the HOA, on using the clubhouse. Because you came down, there's no parking. You see that map? When these things happen, the parking isn't just, it's spilling way out beyond the parking lot. It's going up Traverse Ridge, it's going up Deer Ridge, all up there. And there's some parking spots that are, it's carved out on the side, but it's going way beyond there, up there, so it's dangerous to drive on the road, to get out of a vehicle when you park there. It's very bad that way. There were reception people I definitely saw that were using the clubhouse parking, and Also, it wasn't zoned for this in the past. The owner says they're going to follow the rules now, but it hasn't been followed for how long? Why are we going to allow it now? Also, look at it. This isn't general commercial. The whole thing, all around, it's a neighborhood. This is commercial neighborhood, not general commercial. It's not conducive to the neighborhood. I worry about fireworks there. People coming to celebrate, right? They don't know about the firework situation up there. It's not allowed, right? If there's a fire, if a fire starts, who's responsible for it? Not only that, but then if there's a fire, all the insurance rates are going to go way up. For everybody up there, it's not going to be possible to get insurance. And they're not going to pay for that. The homeowners, which greatly, greatly outnumber the owner and the people using this, right, are the ones who will be responsible for that. Lastly, Siempre has way more parking. If you've been to Siempre, way more parking. There's not very much parking there at all. So anyway, I just oppose that, and thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Who would like to be next? Come on up. Nate Crowther, 14815 South Meadow Oak Court, Draper, Utah. I rented an office from Adam in this building, the office upstairs for about a year. So I'm pretty familiar with how things went. You know, the wedding receptions on the weekend type thing. So what I was shocked to understand was how many parking spots he had. Make an argument, 40, 33. Whatever. That's a lot of parking spots. I couldn't believe it when I learned that's how many parking spots that he shares with the HOA. One of the things I would be concerned about is like in 08-09 when the restaurant shut down. That place was a ghost town up there. My goal is to have my property values go up and be a nice place. When you see the drawings of Suncrest early when I first moved up there, you saw people walking around the park with their dogs. That was the vision is having things happen in the park. That's kind of the gathering zone. So the argument that, hey, there's no parking, well, that would prevent the market from happening. So I'm just saying I'm for this. I don't know all the rules and why they're messed up, the 99 version of the whatever. It just seems like that there's a good solve that – where this building could be used for its best use. It's obviously like a clubhouse type reception or like a gathering place. I know a lot of us have had dinners there, gatherings for family, whatever. Like we've used this as a community type of building when the other building is a little bit too small, the community center. So it's a lot of times used for that same purpose. So what scares me is just shutting down everything so that nothing works there. And now we have an 08-09 situation where a restaurant can't survive because there's not enough parking or whatever. I think there is more parking being planned. I'm not exactly sure. But anyway, I just want to let you know I'm for it. Thank you. Who's next? Come on up. on 2038 East Eagle Crest. Tonight I'm here to strongly oppose the rezoning of the K2 building. Some key concerns I have are the impact on the community of 1,400 homes up there. Suncrest is a thriving neighborhood. Any zoning changes will dramatically increase traffic, noise, and other disturbances that will affect thousands of residents. The increased traffic and congestion and rezoning to the general commercial will seemingly increase traffic volumes. Current infrastructure is designed for neighborhood level activity. Anything more than that will require additional parking as been discussed many times tonight. This would compromise safety and the peaceful environment that we have up there. There's some potential misalignment with community character with this rezoning. General commercial zoning will allow businesses and developments that may not align with Suncrest's aesthetic or standards. This could lead to noise, light, pollution, and other disturbances degrading the quality of life for residents. Lastly, there's been a lack of accountability from the current ownership. The building has been used improperly without the proper zoning for the past few seasons, and I don't see how... Rewarding that behavior is the way to go forward in this case. In conclusion, Suncrest is not just a neighborhood. It's home to 1,400 families who invested in a safe, peaceful, and well-maintained community, rezoning the K2 property to a general commercial, prioritize commercial interests over the well-being of the residents. I urge the council to reconsider this proposal, maintain the current C2 neighborhood commercial zoning to protect the character, safety, integrity, of Suncrest. Anecdotally, since I still have a minute, this past summer I tried to take my family to the pool on three different occasions when an event was happening there. We turned around after getting everything packed up because there was no parking. We would have had to park on one of the busy roads, and we decided it wasn't worth it to us, so we turned around and went back home. Thanks for your time. Thank you. Who's next? Come on up. Hello, my name is Neil Rosenberg. I live at 2013 East Oak Summit Drive in Draper. Thank you for your time this evening. I'm here to express my opposition to the rezoning and to express the idea that there are actually other options or at least more information that needs to be gathered before such a proposition is really considered. The Planning Commission voted in favor of rezoning principally because they wanted to legitimize this reception center, but at the time couldn't determine another better mechanism to do it than rezoning. In the words of the chairman, nobody wants a rezone, and other commissioners called this a heavy-handed move. So rezoning is essentially a hammer, but this isn't really a nail that we're talking about. When you look at our zoning map, Why can't you find a general commercial zone that's so centrally located within such a large residential area so far from the expressway? It's because that's not what people want. And I think vapor residents expressed as much in the 2019 survey that was attached to the general plan in which 87% of residents expressed that they would prefer development to occur outside of their neighborhoods, principally along I-15 and other high traffic corridors. And it's also because This violates some of the principles and goals of our general plan. LUC 5 and 6, for example, call for gradual transitions of land use and they call for respecting the character of adjacent neighborhoods. The general plan outlines that these general commercial zones are part of a group of zones that are designed to be oriented towards commuters and travelers and take advantage of access to the expressway. And by design, these are incongruous with surrounding residential neighborhoods. Regardless of the applicant's intents or beliefs, rezoning opens the door to unwanted commercial development in the area. And there's no way for any of us to have a crystal ball to be able to predict with any real certainty what sorts of businesses might follow on. The City Council has a bigger toolbox. There are some other options. For instance, the applicant Regardless of what you think about the merits of the business, the applicant could pursue things like development agreements to try to legitimize this business without having to do a rezone. At a minimum, this matter should be further explored with city attorneys to ensure that rezoning is really and truly the only mechanism that's possible to legitimize the business. You also have the option to refer this back to the planning committee where they could further study the question and answer, for example, What is the parking situation? They noted in the planning division notes that there may be up to 88 parking spaces required, depending on what the calculation used is, or they might present evidence about what sorts of businesses might actually be viable in here. But ultimately, I think you have other options, and rezoning is not the best one. Thank you for your time. We'd like to be next. Hello, Peter Druben, 14953 South Auburn Sky Drive in Suncrest. I won't be nearly as well-spoken as the previous gentleman, but this is going to take 45 seconds, so hopefully that's worth something. I oppose the rezone, but I guess my biggest question is why do we even need a rezone in the first place? If it's already operating illegally with no enforcement of the existing laws, with multiple previous violations from the fire marshal that just get thrown out in court, I guess if it doesn't get rezoned, couldn't the event center keep running as it is, keep doing whatever it's doing, and carry on without any approval from the city or anyone else? So that's all I got. Forty seconds. All right, thank you. Who's next? This guy with crutches, you want to beat him? Okay. My name is Jeff Brown. I live at 1981 East Seven Oaks Lane. So I'm about a block from this event center. When you go out my front door, you look up a cul-de-sac. On the back of that cul-de-sac is this event center. I'm pretty dang close. I think that we seem to be failing miserably in looking at what this zoning does or doesn't do. If we don't make this zoning change, we put somebody out of business. We get an empty building, which I've lived around empty buildings before. It is not pretty and it does not increase your property value. I've seen the ridge fail at least twice in the eight years I've lived up here. And when it's empty, it's not good. We need to be more supportive, I believe, in changing this zoning because it's the only way to keep this business functioning. So all of these people who are opposed to it have no problem. If it closes, it doesn't affect them in the least. They get their happy little lives. They don't lose any money. They don't lose their jobs. This man's out of business. I think we need to look more at what... the costs are of not changing the rezoning than we do at what the rezoning. I know there's big fear of what the rezoning is going to do or what could possibly go in there, but look at the spa. It would be really hard to have a business up here be successful. Or up there, I should say. We're not up there now. So I believe I'm at least in very much in favor of the rezoning because that's what it requires to keep this business open because of some archaic rule of no, that's not possible to change in the same zoning. It's too old. It died in 99. Well, then let's change it. Let's keep this business open and be supportive of our neighbor and our city and our homes and not close something down. Thank you. Thank you. Come on, sir. Mine is Kevin Smith. I live at 15156 Elk Glen Drive at Suncrest and I'm speaking in strong support of the zoning change. If I was to change what I've heard tonight regarding parking, safety and other concerns, we might as well shut the pool down too. I've been up there since 07 and any busy Saturday, the kids jaywalking, the parking all over the place, the parking is an issue. but it should hardly be an excuse to limit and cause empty buildings and limit the business as it was designed to be. It's a small venue in a beautiful place set up for that purpose. Suncrest, since I've owned property there, is a monument to we didn't quite get it right, let's do it again. Whether it's building roads, whether it's getting residential properties right, and I kind of like that spirit of let's get it right. The zoning change will do that. It will enable it to get it right. It will increase property value. It will bring the right kind of business in that area, which is what Suncrest needs, as opposed to businesses that fail because of too many restrictions. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up. on Lone Hill Drive, and I have three points to make very quickly. Number one, I assume the applicant realized the zoning situation when he purchased the property. Number two, the applicant is looking to change the zoning to increase the value of the property so he can get a better return on the property. So the issue is not the reception center. The issue is what happens when he sells that property. And finally, no other business in Utah would be allowed to open with that many parking spots. Thank you. Hi, my name's Morgan Ryan Angel. I'm at 2664 Shortcut Drive in Draper. So I wasn't planning on speaking tonight, but I am in opposition of this, and I agree with all of the comments that a lot of my resident neighbors have made tonight. The one thing that I haven't heard, and it really, to me, is like the elephant in the room, is a comment that you made, Mr. Mayor, at the beginning, that this is the most attended meeting that you've seen in quite some time. The applicant's role within the community is threefold. He's the applicant, owner of K2. He is also president of the OA and is also a leader within the church. If you look around this room, if it wasn't for all of those things combined, I would expect that this would be flowing out the door. There's a lot of people that are in opposition of this that we have been reached out to, me, my wife, not willing to be spoken publicly, whether it's within the Suncruised Facebook groups or even to show up here in person for fear of backlash from a number of those areas. There's also reports of intimidation that are happening right there on the street from friends and associates, people within the church, of anyone that has publicly outspoken against this. So I think it's quite telling with the amount of people that have showed up tonight in comparison to what you normally see. That is notwithstanding all of those other mitigants. So keep that in mind when you're making a decision. I'm in opposition. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Who's next? Oh, Christina definitely has a one-minute rule. Come on up, Christina. We may need a motion on this one. Do we allow former staffers? can identify myself so Christine Oliver 1852 East Aspen Leaf Place former community development director for the city of Draper I appreciate having the opportunity to speak and since I have three minutes I'm gonna bounce through a couple of topics that haven't been addressed here but on a statewide level we're addressing through legislation the first of that being the insurance issue many of us myself included have been dropped from our house insurance due to the wildland urban interface that we live in. And unfortunately, this is becoming a compounding problem. There's already one bill filed to address certain elements of the fire culpability, if you will, and the cost to the state and to the public in general. I do want to point out that the insurance rates in Suncrest, due to the fire, potential fire hazard, we were, those of us who were around in 2000 recall possibly having to evacuate your homes. It was not a pleasant situation. Increasing the use of this particular building is nuanced. We have a property owner currently who has flagrantly disregarded city code. He has operated, as one man attests, for over five years in a legal business in Utah, or in Draper City. So because of that, where he's now asking for a rezone, and there are a bunch of peaky promises being made, he specifically stated, hundreds of people are going to be coming to these receptions. I believe our fire marshal already said that there was 80, 81 that could be handled by this facility. So he contradicts himself in every statement that he's been making. Pinky promises are not valid. What could be an alternative to this situation to ensure that the fireworks are not going off, that the non-public park, it's an HOA-owned park, paid for by the citizens, it's not public property, is not utilized for private enterprise, nor are the public streets of Draper City consistently being used for private enterprise. Who is going to police his disregard for the uses? Who is going to police the fireworks? Well, I can tell you there have already been four calls. Who's paying for those services in policing his absolute disregard for all of our safety, quite frankly, in the wildland urban face he's putting our personal property in jeopardy our private property in jeopardy increasing our premiums we already pay additional fees to live where we live because it does take more to service and I wholeheartedly support that particular fee that I pay I love it thank you so much because we are getting great services I know not everybody loves that but we really need to think about the good of the community increasing in the way that's being requested is is very unresponsible, and I would suggest, if anything, that a significant parking study be done, that there are barriers erected by the HOA Park, which is a community we can address, and that a very stringent development agreement. You got the buzzer. Okay. Is there anyone else? Come on up. Tim Mitchell, 15035 South Roundtree Lane. I do oppose this amendment, and there are risks and pros and cons and unknowns about either avenue, but I think it all boils down to what kind of risk we're asking an entire community to accept. That's it. It's not about personalities or verbal agreements or parking in the short term. And I do not feel comfortable accepting the risk of general commercial into perpetuity, a decision that will outlive us in all likelihood. And so that's my position. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi, my name is Aaron Arneson. I live at 1856 East Long Branch Drive. Really, I don't have a lot to add to this. I think everybody said a lot of things on this matter. I am opposed of this rezoning issue. There's a couple of things that I think And I agree with all the comments that have been made across the board as far as the opposition for this rezoning issue. One of the biggest concerns that I would have also would be the access and egress of the community center when these are filled. What happens to commercial, if it's general commercial down the road, if we have an issue where that individual that owns the property wants to block off those areas? Logistically right now, it's just not set up to have a separate parking. If you look at the reception center that's down the street, the difference between those two is that has a parking lot that's designated for its building alone, which is a big part of this. Secondly, I also think that there's some... conflict of interest between the individual that is proposing this rezoning with the fact that they're on the HOA board. I think that's a conflict of interest. Lastly, the only other thing I want to say on this is they mentioned having just a few receptions through the busy months. And I don't think that's sustainable as a business. It's going to be well over just a few receptions in those busy times. We know it's going to be at a minimum of every weekend. at a minimum, probably twice a week, at a minimum, right? A business wants to have that rented out all the time. And if it fails, he can just sell that to somebody else. So I'm just opposed to the issue. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else? Come on up. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I actually am here. My name is Colin Rivera. I actually live in Salt Lake City. I'm an attorney representing 10 residents here in the area. You've got three minutes. Okay, I've got the list here. Well, thank you. Yeah, we're here because the city has zoned this neighborhood appropriately. And now there's a desire to change that zoning. The applicant... Was a real estate broker. Purchased a lot. And any. Hopefully at least semi-decent real estate broker. Knows about zoning ordinances. Knows about zoning restrictions. He was fully aware. That these were the restrictions when he bought the property. He says that it was intended for office use. That's not how he's using it. He seems to be doing. Whatever he feels like doing with the property. Using the. the green that is owned by the HOA, the private green, advertising it on his website previously to be used as a perk for his business. We've talked about the fireworks issue. Some of his guests have used fireworks, which is illegal in that part of town, for incredibly serious safety considerations. He says that, you know, we're only going to have a few weddings. But at the same time, he says, but it's the city council's responsibility through this rezoning and the resident's responsibility to make his business wildly successful, is what he said. It's not. the government's responsibility to do that. It's not the resident's responsibility to do that. It's the business owner's responsibility to make your business successful. But none of this, none of the issues here are about his character or about his, even his, what he says he's going to do with it, even though his strategy is, you know, as the lady a couple speakers ago said, his strategy is, trust me. Trust me, bro. It's going to be fine. But it's not really about that. It's about the law. And the law gives you, as the city council, very wide discretion to accept or to deny a rezoning proposal. You have the power to do that. You have the power to accept it without environmental studies, traffic studies, health and safety studies, fire studies, any of that, to benefit... one man's business and to ratify his continued illegal use of that space already. Or to say, let's keep things as the zoning ordinances intended and as the residents intend for them to be kept. Thank you. Look, I'm a lawyer. I knew he was going to use all three minutes of that. I knew it. Does anyone else want to speak? Come on up. You're getting paid by the hour, don't forget. Okay, go ahead. Okay. I just knew I would be upset with myself if I didn't take this opportunity to oppose this request. The proposed amendment is... Could you give us your address, please? Sorry? Did you say your name and address? Oh, sorry. Christine Foster, 1999, east of Seven Oaks Lane. I'm about two residential homes away from the green that has been used for venues in the past. I'm next door to the Browns who are in favor. I love them. The proposed amendment is not consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Suncrest community in that it does not directly benefit the residents of Suncrest in any way. In fact, it increases traffic liability and maintenance. the cost of which is covered by the HOA and funded by the residents of Suncrest. It is a detriment, in fact, in that sense, to the community of Suncrest. The proposed amendment is not harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the vicinity of the property. I live in a private residential home. It's surrounded by private residential homes. I have personally experienced the litter, the noise, the parking issues. down on our street, which is, you know, we do see that with the farmer's market, for example, but that benefits the residents. It's not like I'm invited to these events, right? So it's just impeding my use of the park, which is why we bought the home where we bought it, because we're close enough walking distance from the park. The proposed development does adversely affect the adjacent properties in that the HOA property is used by party goers during the spring, summer, and fall. This results in club music streaming out over homes in the area, which I understand is going to be addressed, but that's been my experience. The use of sparklers, which is again potentially a liability for the HOA and for homeowners as well. There are not adequate facilities to accommodate an event space there. Unless the owner chooses to build like another parking facility, maybe underground, there's no other place to expand. and the roadways just really shouldn't be used for that event parking. So I'm opposed. Thank you for listening. Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up. Carla Lemke, 6666 West, 9850 North. That 6 is extra important on the end. I am not a resident of Suncrest, but I did work at the venue for a couple months with my wife, and a couple things I wanted to note were that some problems that some people had with the green or the park being used is that maybe it would be disrespect or maybe some trash, but I want you to know that whenever me and my wife worked up there, Adam was very meticulous about making us go out and clean up, make sure it looked good so that Either you guys didn't notice that it was used or that it was still clean for the use of the public. Another thing that the first problem when this whole thing came up was someone used a sparkler out front, which kind of started this whole snowball effect of the problems we're having now. But Adam was extremely angry, very frustrated about that whole situation. because he knows and he respects the community. He knows that it's such a small and unique area that he wants to make sure that it stays that way. So fireworks, the fire hazard, that was very important to him. He was also very irritated and felt disrespected by his clients when they used the facilities and they were loud. He was always annoyed and wanted to make sure that there were improvements in the future so that those things wouldn't be so much of a problem. So I am in favor of this, one, because it's part of my job to make some money for me and my wife, but two, because one of these gentlemen said that it is an opportunity for someone to make some money, an opportunity to keep Suncrest alive in a community that doesn't have much going on for it. So thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Come on up. I live directly across from the green and the fire station. Arguably my house is one of the foremost impacted by this zoning change. My backyard is right across the street. My children play on the playground right next to my parking strip where all of his customers are parking. I have spent tens of thousands of dollars in the last three years to protect my children, to protect my parking strip from his customers. That's just me. Myself, I have been in my backyard when I have seen one of his guests leaving my parking strip and hurrying out, I don't know why they were in a hurry, but they were in a hurry, and almost hitting a group of kids, walking across the street to go to the clubhouse or the poolhouse. This neighborhood was intended for walkability. The majority of the people that actually use the clubhouse and the pool live nearby. Yes, there are some that drive there, but they could walk. That's the intent of this neighborhood. I'm just going to read a few things. I agree that we should support local businesses as long as we can balance that with the safety and overall good of the community. No one business, person, or entity should ever be placed above the community as a whole. As one of the four homes most impacted by this change, why do the owners of the businesses up here get to have more rights than me? Why do their financial interests get to supersede my financial investment in my home, my safety, my children's safety, my neighbor's safety, my neighbor's children's safety? Why? Why is that okay? Why are we even considering this? This isn't temporary. This isn't conditional. This may really happen, and once this happens, it may never go away. Once you open this door, it will not close, not easily. And I am directly impacted by that, and my three-year-old is directly impacted by that and has been. This is a residential area, and when I bought this home, I never thought there'd be a wedding reception center across the street. It was never expected. Adam knew full well what he was buying when he bought it. He said he intended it for the use of offices. That has changed. Now he says he's going to use it for small receptions. That could change. That's just this one person. That's not enough. If he sells because he's not making enough money, how will that impact my children and my neighborhood and my value? But number one for me is the safety. This is not okay. The people that come up there, I don't know if they've been drinking. I hope they haven't. But there's a lot of them. I know they don't care nearly as much about my children as the people who live up there care about my children. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Is there anyone else? All right. Thank you, folks. You've been a good crowd. We haven't had one in a while. Appreciate it very much. You all respected our meeting rules. Thank you. All right. We'll close our public hearing on Item 6B. Mr. Koch, you have the last word. You're the applicant. If you want to address the council again, address public comment, come on up. Thank you, council. So I want to just discuss the parking. I'm hearing a lot of frustration, a lot of anger with regard to the parking, and yet I am the one who is offering my parking to share with the HOA. The parking issue should be a homeowners association issue. We have the means to build out a second parking lot. It's been approved, the plans have been done, the engineering's been done. That fixes our parking problem, and yet I'm the one who is being crucified over the parking situation when I'm the one providing the parking to the HOA. I want to just cover a couple of things. Larry had mentioned, what if a 7-Eleven wants to pop up in the place of the restaurant? Well, a 7-Eleven, a Chevron, a Maverick, it's not going to matter what it is. If the homeowners are not supporting it, it's not going to survive. In other words, If there's something that comes in down the road and the homeowners are not supporting it, it's just not gonna make it. And so the concerns about what may come in the future are gonna be dictated by how much the owners can support it and be patrons to this establishment, whatever it may be. No one's gonna drive up the hill to go to the 7-Eleven. So whatever ends up coming in behind the ridge or at some point down the road maybe with my building, It's going to have to coincide with what the residents want, otherwise it won't survive. My point about being wildly successful, what I said was just because the zoning changes to commercial general doesn't make any business wildly successful. It's still going to have to have a business plan that incorporates the residents in some way, shape, or form. Added risk, there was a lot of risk talk about having strangers and guests up at the park. I shoulder more of the risk than the HOA does currently because I own all the parking. And when we have farmers markets, there is parking all the way up to the church and all the way past the four-way stop, all the way up Traverse Ridge and Suncrest Drive. And yet nobody has a problem with that issue. That is a massive issue. And if we would just take care of our own parking needs as a homeowners association, that parking problem goes away. So whether I have 41 spots or 29, it's already been... looked into and my needs as a reception center with an 81 capacity is handled with even if you call it 33 or 29. Now I own 41, but 29 is sufficient based on the code. Fireworks, I believe Kyler mentioned, it was sparklers. I'm not proud of that, the fact that that happened. I'm aware of it having taken place one single time. It was in the front of the building. And I just want to be clear that fireworks, what really occurred was sparklers. Because when I hear fireworks, I think of Roman candles and something that's airborne. And these were sparklers just outside the front door. And we do have, in our contract, it is in bold print, blatantly says, no fireworks of any kind are permitted. And I speak to the guests till I'm blue in the face about this. It will never happen again. We will have someone on fire watch at every wedding moving forward. I do not want to have to deal with Don Buckley again down the road. No disrespect, Don. As far as my building is concerned, I've already had conversations with the HOA, with the board, and I would be happy to offer a first right of refusal if I should ever go to sell it in the future. So ultimately, the HOA could be in control of what happens with that asset. I don't have plans to sell it, but that could be something that they might consider. Ms. Romney mentioned parking out front of her home. We have never had a wedding big enough to have parking outside her home. She's directly across from the fire station. To my knowledge, we have never had a wedding that big, and if we have, had something that's relatively large I don't know I mean I don't I can't say that it's an actual wedding guest or not it could have been people going to the pool or people having a birthday party at the HOA building across the street from mine they they also have anniversary parties and birthday parties and and small get-togethers alcohol we don't serve alcohol we don't have an alcohol license I don't know where that came from. I am a member of the Suncrest board, but I have been completely recused on any of this. I haven't been in on any of the conversations regarding the rezoning. And so I haven't been a part of that. So it's not fair to say that I somehow influenced or had a part in any of those meetings. I agree. I feel like having things going on up at the village green gives a sense of energy and a vibe where people are like, hey, this is a really nice place. Lots going on. This is really neat. We don't have any zoning options with C2. There's nothing I can do with temporary trailer incidental to construction work. There are a lot of conditional uses, but there's no way I can get any of these approved. I mean, if it's based on public outcry, I mean, I don't have any options. So what's going to happen is this is going to become a ghost town. We're going to have an empty building over there where the restaurant is. My building's going to be empty, and it's going to bring down values in the community. And, you know, in all the travel that I've done in this country, just about every community that has an HOA and has a reception center, are very high end, very established, very classy neighborhoods. And I hope to bring that to Suncrest. The parking stuff is a July to August problem when the pools open. And like I said, it gets busy, but I'm the one that's sharing the parking with the HOA. I would like the HOA to take this opportunity to seriously consider building their own and providing for their own parking instead of making me the bad guy being the one that's agreed to let them use my parking. We've been here an hour and a half now. So let me get into questions. Yeah, I'm sorry. No, no, no, it's fine. I'm the kind of guy that moves the meeting along most of the time. I'm with you. Okay, so I have a couple questions. My first question is, is there's a presumption that the current zoning is adequate? All right, the city has already zoned it adequately. So, law school... first day of law school. Presumption is not in your favor right now. So what substantial evidence have you presented other than my need for profit tips the scale up, over, and down in your favor? I haven't seen any. So answer that question for me. Other than your profit. For a land use issue, what fact overcomes that presumption? That's a land use specific answer. Well, My answer to that is Draper City has issued permits for two buildings to be commercially used. There is no zoning in C2 where we can use those buildings for anything other than an office. And you were aware of that when you bought it? I didn't look at what the C2 zoning, I just assumed it was commercial. And so now your failure of due diligence is now this body's problem to resolve. Well, the C2 zoning wasn't available on the website. You have to do a grammar request to get the C2 zoning and all of its details. I understand that's an obstacle. But at some point when you're purchasing a commercial property, getting what your actual use table indicates is part of your due diligence. Well, when I bought the building, I wasn't intending on using it as a reception center. That's something that came late. So when I bought the building, office was sufficient. I thought it was neat that it had all this space, but it's really not functional as an office building because there's literally five offices and a 5,000 square foot building with all this parking. So it worked at the time, but it's not a viable option moving forward. And I'm trying to use the building for its highest and best purpose, which is what it was designed for, to be a gathering space. It's got a kitchen. It's got a big open space. I mean, that's what it was intended for. So the logical reason on this to me would be to neighborhood commercial because it is located directly in the center of a neighborhood, right? You are surrounded by neighborhoods. There is no other greater use there than residential. What's the question? So you are not asking for a change. If you need to rezone it because C2 is no longer a use we do here at Draper City, the more logical rezone would be to neighborhood commercial. Well, under neighborhood commercial, you know, I can't do a reception center. Right, but we don't, like, even if we look at 700, which is a much busier area with a ton more commercial use, we never rezone to general commercial there because it's also a residential area. And so anything on 700 is only neighborhood commercial. Yeah, well speaking for me personally, I am not dead set on commercial general. I don't, I mean, I'm only asking for that because that's the only code in the book that allows for a wedding reception center. And that's the only idyllic use for this space. If I sold the building to the HOA, for example, they would use it for the exact purpose I have. In fact, It would probably fill the entire calendar for the entire year if they made that building available to everybody up there in Suncrest to use for birthday parties, for anniversaries, for weddings. There wouldn't be an open day in the calendar, in my opinion. And it would be used for the very exact purposes that I'm asking for. So I did live in Suncrest for 10 years. Yeah, I remember, sure. And when I lived in Suncrest, this was a sales office. That was its purpose. So I have never seen this used for what several people stated was this reception type of use or large event type of use. It was always offices. And so my question to you would be, when this area was zoned as C2, the proper infrastructure was put into place to support that. Has anything changed with the roads or the parking or anything that would support upzoning this area? Well, everything's the same as you remember it. Right, so there's no greater parking. There's no wider roads. Nothing has changed to enable this new proposed use to actually function. No, but those things were baked into this property. Right, to make it work correctly. In other words, for this to work for me as a reception center, and if I have dozens of parking stalls, I mean, it's got... I do understand that, Adam, but my concern isn't just for you and making it work for you. My concern has to be for everybody who lives in this neighborhood and what's going to work or not work for them. This is the one time the community gets a say on property rights. Generally speaking, in America, you have the right to property, but in a zone change, the community and the outlying areas that are affected do get a say. And I'm very sympathetic to business owners. I'm a business owner myself. But this is the one time the community gets a say that says we don't like that use next to us. And the public clamor is a legitimate justification for not changing an up zone. So I am struggling with the fact that I don't think there's, you haven't provided any presumption or anything that overcomes a presumption. I'm struggling that this creates an inconsistent zone that's not consistent with every other entitlement we've given. It's dissimilar to the surrounding areas, so I'm not supportive of your application at this point. Well, I can, I mean, letters were sent out to residents within a radius, right? 300 feet, 150 feet radius. Many of those have showed up, some of them in favor. Residents who live on the other side of the hill or other places, it doesn't have a direct effect to them. I mean... I mean, aside from them coming to the pool and having a problem with parking, but, again, I'm the one sharing the parking. I'm the one providing the parking. I feel like if we had, if the HOA follows through with its plan to build a parking lot, that cures that problem. And, I mean, I would like to know, I would like anybody's input, if anybody has any idea what other kind of business can survive in Suncrest with a C2 zoning, I would love to hear it. I just don't have any options. When I take that building and I look at it for what its best intended purpose is, it's a wedding reception center or some sort of gathering venue, and it doesn't technically work for anything else. Adam, Fred's got a question or a comment. Well, I think there's something that's getting lost in this whole application, in this decision. We're letting the reception center get in the middle of all this stuff. This is an application to rezone this area to be commercial. We're not zoning this for a reception center. This application is to change this zone to commercial, which is a very serious consideration that we all have to make because changing that zone then opens it up to multiple uses. There's no guarantee that this is just a reception center. There's a lot of arguments that everyone said, well, there's no way – That's the only thing that could be used for. Well, that's not the decision that we're making. Our responsibility is to look at rezoning that based on your application of making this commercial. It's not even our responsibility to get involved in what specific use you're going to use other than any of those that could be under that commercial zone. Build the building and build whatever you want then at that point or anything on that table. Build those buildings. So my concern is... Fred, to your point, it's not just the one venue. It's two. It's the entire parcel. And now that other building is for sale, and so to me that makes a big difference as well. And to what Mr. Lowry said as well, I think we need to stay within what the intention was originally when this was all created and developed. And I think switching it to general commercial changes... that intention, and I don't, that makes me nervous, so. Particularly, Bryn, without any change in the supporting infrastructure. All right, council members, do you have any other questions for Mr. Koch? No. All right, thank you, sir. And I appreciate your, everything that you've offered here. The fireworks thing, it's been my understanding there was more than one incident up there, and I'm very appreciative that you were concerned about it because That is a concern for all of us here in Draper, and that, to me, I was not happy to hear about putting any of our city at risk, especially an area up there that we all know we need to be extra careful protecting. And to that point, Adam, you and I actually spoke this summer when the... initial incident with the fireworks took place. And I was very clear with you that that made me incredibly concerned because I was here, too, when the whole neighborhood almost went up in flames. But not a week later, more fireworks were let off at your venue. I... Let me say, I don't know what fireworks anyone is talking about. The one time that it happened when you and I spoke, that's the only time fireworks happened at my building. Now, keep in mind, there's a restaurant, there's people... celebrating parties across the street at the pool. I, unfortunately, have been the one who is taking all the heat for any garbage that's found out in the park, any fire, I mean, anything that happens, it's falling on me. Adam, I have pictures of them being a wedding venue firework event. I mean, it's documented. Chief Smith, can you speak to this fireworks question? I know that. That's the time. It was August 31st. Yeah, twice. Not, not, okay. Hold on just a second. Do you have some further comments to make Mr. Koch? No. Okay, thank you very much. Go ahead. I'll just respond to Councilmember Lowry's question that is we we had reports that we are people were sent to investigate on several occasions of fireworks being used at this particular venue associated with RECEPTIONS IN THE AREA. THAT'S WHAT WAS REPORTED TO US AND OUR PEOPLE. WE DID SEND PEOPLE UP THERE TO INVESTIGATE THAT. OKAY. SO, FOLKS, HERE'S HOW OUR PROCESS WORKS. THE COUNCIL HAS TWO OPTIONS. SOMEONE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT. IF NO ONE MAKES A MOTION, IT RULES TO OUR NEXT REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THAT'S OUR MEETING RULES. SO WITH THAT IN MIND... MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO MOVE TO DENY ORDINANCE 1630. I FEEL THAT IT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING USES, WHICH ARE PREDOMINANTLY RESIDENTIAL OR LOW-IMPACT COMMERCIAL, AND I ALSO FIND THAT THIS AMENDMENT WOULD ADVERSELY IMPACT ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY 6B, PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE, ORDINANCE 1630. IS THERE A SECOND? YES, MR. MAYOR, I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. MY ANALYSIS IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE PRESUMPTION has not been overcome. The current existing use is sufficient. It impacts the surrounding neighborhoods adversely. It creates essentially a spot zone in an area that's not there, that's not supportive of the highest commercial zone we have. I want to say thank you to everyone who came. It's great to see everyone again, everyone contributing, thinking, being a part of the community. Thank you for disagreeing and not yelling and having any disorderly conduct, it's so great that everyone's here and just speaking and being respectful and civil. So thank you, and there's my second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Is there further discussion? Yeah, I'd just echo what Mr. Green said. I think the most difficult issues that come before us are those that cause contention within a neighborhood, and I heard that tonight. So I hope that you all go back home and you enjoy the incredibly beautiful place where you live because Suncrest is a phenomenal community. Anyone else? Suncrest is all part of Draper, right? Right. We're all one community. All right. No further comments. Tush, how do you vote? Yes. Mike? Yes. Fred? Yes. Brynn? Yes. All right. The motion to deny is passed unanimously, 4-2-0. Next item on our agenda is item 6C. It's also a – I'll give folks a minute to – Do you want to take a break for a moment? We're going to take a five-minute break. We're meeting back to order. We have one more item. Please take your seats. All right. The next item on our agenda. Oh, we actually got more than this, so... Yeah, we got two. Item number 6C, which is a public hearing as well, it's ordinance number 1631. It's an ordinance approving the Hidden Canyon Estates, Mercer Mountain Estates Development Agreement, 10th Amendment, for approximately 25.9 acres of property located at approximately 2635 East, 15040 South, within Draper City. We'll have our report by Jennifer. Go ahead, Jennifer. Great, thank you. So Mercer Mountain... is located at the top of the mountain, just east of Hidden Canyon Estates. There's the aerial kind of showing where it is. It'll get access off of Canyon Point Road there near Suncrest. It is primarily within the residential hillside, low density land use designation with a little bit of property in the open space parks designation. And then zoning, all of the property, or most of the property is in our RR22 zoning designation, which is a half acre zoning with a tiny bit in the RM zone. So Mercer Mountain was approved with a development agreement in 2015. This development agreement allowed 50 single family lots on the property with at least 12,000 square feet in size. There's been several amendments to that original agreement between Hidden Canyon Estates and Mercer Mountain. The fifth amendment in 2018 allowed some fill to be placed on city property that's adjacent to Canyon Point Road and Suncrest Drive. That area equals a little over an acre in size. The eighth amendment in 2019 modified roadway locations and approved some land swaps between the city and the property owner. Those land swaps haven't happened yet. The warranty deeds have not been recorded yet for those. So there are some kind of, when you're looking at the map, the property lines aren't quite matching up because those land swaps have not been recorded at this time. So proposed changes in this development agreement, there is language that says no new fill will be allowed beyond what was approved with that Fifth Amendment. within that Fifth Amendment fill area. But it does state that the City Council can approve additional fill in the future. So it allows for the applicant to come back with an amendment to the development agreement in the future if they desire. But it does leave it up to the Council to decide to approve or not approve. That fill area is right here next to Suncrest Drive and Canyon Point Road. And again, that's about an acre in size. so additional changes in the development agreement it would reduce the roadway width from our 56 foot standard to 50 feet wide that would eliminate sidewalk on one side of the street but on that side without sidewalk there would be a four foot strip that would allow for snow storage it would not reduce any asphalt width the reduction in the overall width of the road and that removal of the sidewalk would reduce the amount of grading that would be needed on city property to accommodate the overall road. It also reduces hardscape areas. An alternative if you wanted to look at requiring sidewalk on both sides of the street would be to eliminate the park strip and require that they get to just sidewalk on both sides so there'd be enough footage for 7 foot sidewalks on both sides of the road. And this is a cross section of that 50 foot wide street. Again, we have a sidewalk on one side and a snow storage area on the other. The development agreement looks at the grading of the road, setting a max 9% grade on the looped section of the road and 11.2% grade on the other areas. and then makes some minor adjustments to that land swap area in the Eighth Amendment. Excuse me. So this is the entrance road here to the proposed subdivision. The Eighth Amendment had the road designed like this. Now that they've gone in and started doing the actual civil design for the property, proposing to change the the uh loop on that road to there that would require land swaps between the city and the property owner where we would uh grant them you know this section here but they would grant us back or grant us the section that they no longer need for their road um temporary fencing adjacent to city open space the development agreement currently requires six foot iron fence adjacent to city open space be installed prior to any building permits this would uh allow the ninth amendment um to also count towards mercer mountain the ninth amendment allowed each individual property owner to come in and do a fence temporary fencing agreement where we got a temporary fence during construction of the raw iron fence with uh occupancy of the home versus developer going in and putting the fence in all at once for the subdivision. But it still would require the six foot wired fence. Stormwater infrastructure on the south of the development, there is a detention pond that will discharge into waterways in the city's open space. This will restrict the discharge rates to the historical flows. there and then it will require fencing around that detention pond in order to secure the stormwater infrastructure water system maintenance it the development agreement sets water quality and system maintenance responsibilities between the city and the future HOA so this will be private a private street with private utilities under state law we now have to kind of set what those responsibilities are when it's city water going into a private system because the city's ultimately required, ultimately responsible for water quality, but we're not maintaining that system. So our engineering and water teams have been working to come up with what kind of language is needed to make sure that it's clear who's responsible for what. And then slope easements. So the roadway itself, in order to cut the road through the hillside, they will need slope easements on the city property adjacent to the road. So the development agreement would approve the slope easements and give them those slope easements. That area equals 3.2 acres in size. So this shows those slope easements along the road. And then... There's a little bit over an acre of additional slope easement here for the storm drain and sewer infrastructure. And then Planning Commission reviewed this on December 12th and recommended positively on 5-0 votes. Any questions? Yeah, so the wider the road goes, the more it's going to impact that hillside. So if this road is made wider, these slope easements are just going to expand. So right now, our code would require a 56-foot wide road. They're proposing 50 feet. So they're narrowing that down a bit, which also narrows down where – the total impact to the hillside. Any other questions for Jennifer? But you're saying that if we wanted sidewalks on both sides, they could just eliminate the park strip? That is what I would recommend because the property that they own going into the, you know, running through the city's property into their property is 50 feet wide. That's the area that they have. So I would, if the council's interested in having sidewalk on both sides, eliminating that park strip, then gives you another five feet to work with, where you can then have sidewalk on both sides. What does that do with the grading? I'd like to avoid grading. Yeah, and I'm not sure... WE HAVE NOT HAD THEIR ENGINEERS EVALUATE EXACTLY HOW IT WOULD AFFECT THE GRADING YET, BUT IT WOULD ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE AREA THAT DOES HAVE TO BE FLATTENED. YOU KNOW WHAT, TASHA, TO THAT, A QUESTION I HAVE THAT FOLLOWS UP WITH THAT TOO IS I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE FOUR FOOT SNOW STORAGE AREA THAT THAT CREATES, BUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE WHEN THERE'S NO SNOW FOR THE OTHER MONTHS? Clarifying on that, can they not put snow storage on sidewalk? We can't do that. If there's sidewalk there, it has to be cleared. I believe the city's code requires sidewalks to be cleared. And would this, is this a private street? It is, yeah. So they would be doing their own snow clearing? Correct, yeah. HOA. So would that four-foot area that, would be used for snow storage, would that be landscaped? That may be a question for the applicant. I have not seen a landscape plan showing landscaping in there. Does the applicant have a preference between A or B? That would be a question for the applicant. We'll wait until their turn. Jennifer, sorry. Any other questions for Jennifer right now? Thank you. Applicant, who wants to talk? Come on up. Brad Diamond. Do I need my address? 2627 East Canyon Edge Drive. I live up there in Long Peak Canyon. Go ahead, sir. Upset my life here. Haven't seen a lot of these people since last year. I wanted to get that out. That was a little bit of a joke. In one of the DRC meetings, we addressed both sidewalks. It's about 1,500 feet on each side. I have a clip about 283 grand, but that's a minuscule amount compared to what we gained from it. A, we gained the fact that we can put snow removal over there. In a couple of years, snowmageddon happened up there. So my wife, I was out of town, and they parked snow right in front of our house. They couldn't get in. That's when we finally saw, she took a video of this big old machine that just throws that snow out of there. So we have to maintain our own private road and snow removal. So we need a place to put it. So that would be the logical choice. Next, with regard to that, the vegetation, my counterpart, Lisa, my wife, wants to plant, I can't remember what tree, blue spruces all the way up there. We're also going to put on the other side of the road native vegetation. If there's no snow, there's going to have native vegetation up there. Say that again. If there's no snow, there'll be what? We're going to go ahead and vegetate with native stuff like that. Plus, she wants, I don't know how far apart, 25 feet, pines lining up the hole, both sides. Any other questions for applicant? Back to the DRC meeting, that's when we really had to put for me to get rid of the side of the lawn. Brian, the engineer, was in there and we all talked about it. There was no place to put snow, but we eliminated a lot of the cuts and a lot of the material that had to come out of there. When you're talking about 1,500 feet, another six to eight feet, because you don't just cut just to the five feet of the sidewalk or the ten feet. You've got to cut past that in order to get it flat. believe that streets with sidewalks on both sides are more safe what could you do to mitigate that safety concern especially for neighborhood children well let's understand it's a private community number one and it's gated number two you're going to have limited walking in and out of there now there's trail access up there we are going to put an in and out as far as it's going to be a flat piece of ground anyway with native vegetation but i don't know how many people are going to be walking in and out of that place quite frankly but open to suggestions. All right, any other questions? We'll have you back for the last word. Thank you. I have one card. Darren Atkinson. Come on up, sir. Give us your name and address. I kind of feel sad. There's not that many people here. Anyway, Darren Atkinson, 2494 Kinewild Road. I believe that they said it earlier, and it makes sense, is to make it right the first time. And I feel this is another bait and switch attempt by a home builder to do this. I'm not a rocket scientist here, but I believe this is a trifecta with Lone Peak, Hidden Canyons, and now Mercer, and they all should be the same. He says, the applicant says, there's not going to be anybody walking in and out. That's not true. 100% of those people will be walking out. And that's okay. They walk through. Long Peak and they walk through hidden canyons past my house, I have no problems with that. It should be the same as we agreed upon back in 2015. I wasn't around here. I grew up in Holiday, and it should be that way. Let me go through a couple of things. It should have the park strip. I did send the pictures to Jennifer. If you look at where the pictures that I sent, if you look at those subdivisions, They didn't have a park strip. And without a park strip, you can actually put the snow when you do get snow Armageddon, because I was actually up here for that. And the forfeit strip actually helps with that. It actually helps soften the area. Let me get to this really fast, and then I won't waste your time. Everybody stays north of Suncrest. So those three neighborhoods, everybody walks around and everything. Let's see, sidewalks help residents and motorists separate and they be safe. Let's see, 6,700 people were killed alone in 2020. Sidewalks promote wellness and social activities by providing a safe place to walk and making sure that space is wide enough for people to walk side by side. Putting the park strips in has softscape to it. It reduces erosion. It's slowing the water flow. It improves groundwater recharge, which we do need up here. Water conservation by capturing the watering water, less irrigation may be needed, and an enhanced aesthetics. Soft-scape elements can create a visual, appealing landscape. They can make this work. Where I live, I actually went up and measured it. The street is actually 25 feet wide. You have a curb, which is one foot. The park strip and the sidewalk is 10 feet. That's only 47 feet. You actually have three extra feet remaining, and you can actually have the three neighborhoods look almost identical. And that's what was guaranteed back in 2015. So for this builder to come back and ask for this amendment, I believe it's a bait and switch. And all he wants to do is not make it right the first time. So why don't we make it right? Thank you. Thank you. I also have another card. Peter Durbin. Peter's still here. Yeah, get it right. I'm back again. You've got 42 seconds. No, I'm just kidding. Go ahead. I'm not even going to need them all. My only concern because – Give us your name and address again, please, different issue. Peter Durbin, 14953 South Auburn Sky Drive, Draper, Utah. Go ahead. Yeah, my home is one of the ones that – my property is one of the four that borders that road. And my only concern is just on one of the previous maps, it shows a slide area is denoted on there. I'm not sure if that's been – changed with any of the amendments because I have not read all of them. And obviously Hidden Canyon Estates has made national news for slide area stuff before, and I don't think we need that kind of fame anymore. So I don't even mind that it's out behind my house. I might not even buy a lot in there, and you might need a preferred lender for those lots, and I know a guy. I just want to make sure that slide area has been addressed and that the road is stable and there's no more news. Forty seconds. Yes. Are you done, sir? Yeah, it was 40 seconds, but then Tasha started speaking. Thank you. Anyone else want to make a public comment on 6C? Come on up. Good evening again. Brad Byington, 14932 South Eagle Crest Drive in Draper. On the off chance that my wife is still listening, I just wanted to note that... This road runs through two of her favorite mountain bike trails, and I just want to make sure that those are going to be accounted for in the future because mountain biking makes her happy, and if Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy. Thank you very much for your time. Anyone else? You're the applicant, aren't you? If you want to make a comment, come on up, Dave. You get your three minutes, though. Give us your name and address. Go ahead. A lot of people don't know my history here and all the many acres that I donated, Draper City, your church sites. Give us your address, please. It's 12747 Canyon Point Road. Go ahead. That's one of my lands here in Draper. Now, during the development throughout Draper City, not to mention the ballparks and several church sites, et cetera, including one across the street, We were concerned about trails and you may be aware of the three mile trail that we donated where the sewer line was that we built out of pocket all the way around. It served many of the units there, some 500 units that we negotiated to deal with the sewer district who had the power of eminent domain to put that at about a 1% grade so we could also use it for trail. And we were successful to negotiate that And so we're cognizant of the issue with the trails. Some of these trails are just old Jeep trails they had up there. And the city knew that when we negotiated the land. And we've agreed to put in trails, man-made trails, such as they've been doing for eight, nine years now. And we're okay with that. And there are great locations that we can deal with in placing these trails where they should belong. and of course we have the rendezvous point there that we've donated and we'll put as a trailhead that you see the left side of the map. Regarding the access into the subdivision, it's a private community and I developed the Draper Heights community and even though it's a private community that did not allow public access, we allowed the public to get in, to walk through the subdivision. Most people would walk their dogs in there who knows what else, but it is what it is. So I don't think the buyer wants to restrict access to the subdivision. There is a sidewalk there. There is a way that you can enter through the entrance there that the public can go in and out, and we welcome that. And the trails that we're proposing, such as the trailhead that we're uh... we have shown there about people there said crest right uh... and regarding the trails the connection to where you see the star drainage at the bottom there that's one part of the three point two mile trail that the public can access through hog hall runs around uh... get three point two miles so uh... we're all aware of that we want to work with this the city, but we want to eliminate these huge cuts and have a place for snow storage. I think it makes common sense that we do that. And I think that works best for everybody. Thank you. Thank you. For the record, Dave went under three minutes. I just want to note that. Oh no, you're done. All right, does anyone else like to make a general public comment? All right, we'll close the public comment period, bring it back to the council. Any other questions for the applicant or anything? I was just wondering about the sidewalk connectivity into the existing neighborhoods. Can you show me on the map how that's going to work? Which side is the sidewalk going to be on? It's on the lower side. Okay. So in order to prevent that much cut and fill, look, I'm not opposed to it. You guys want sidewalk over there? I'm going to need more place to put dirt, okay? So that will be up to your engineering department. But, you know, I respect all the people that have spoken. And with this guy's passion, he doesn't know me, the guy that came up here. I'm not a bait and switcher. I take offense to that. But if he's concerned about sidewalk, that road on Canyon Point is missing about 750 feet of sidewalk in the gully where kids got to walk in and out of that road, the busy road, every single day. Go fight that fight. No, my concern is really just about the safety, as I said earlier. Yeah, look, the safety, I mean, what are we going to do in the winter? I mean, we've got some place to put the SMO, and it is private. I don't see that many people up there. The trails will be protected. I'm not a bike rider by any means. I know you are, Troy. But as far as that goes, this is going to be an outstanding development out of respect for Draper. Any other questions for Mr. Diamond? I mean, I echo what... Tasha is saying about just the safety within the neighborhood. It seems like it is going to be a little bit more, you know, tucked in from the other neighborhoods. But I think just for people who might just want to take a walk around the neighborhood, you know, I would prefer sidewalks on both sides. Are you talking about inside the subdivision? Yes. Yeah, so the majority, yeah. So I don't know how we have that designed, but... I'm more than willing to put sidewalk on both sides and side to side. That doesn't bother me. Can I clarify, though? We're talking this is going to be a gated community. Correct. So the only traffic are going to be individuals that live in this community or people that are coming to visit in the community. That are allowed in, sure. Yeah. Don Buckley will be up there a few times, I'm sure, and other people. Yeah. Anything else? It's really limited. All right. Thank you, sir. Mm-hmm. Councilmembers I'm okay with it I don't I don't see any major concern amending the I think it makes sense to prevent the cut and fill so there is a question on what about the slope did that get addressed well I think What Jen had told me was if we don't do the sidewalks on both sides, it definitely helps to minimize the amount of cut and fill and addresses some of these slope concerns. Helps improve it, right. It improves it. We have to cut and fill less. Gives them a place to put the snow. I think it just makes – Mr. Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve Ordinance 1631 based upon those two facts I just previously stated. Motion by Mr. Green for approval of Ordinance 1631. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Mr. Lowry. Any further discussion? Yeah, I would just ask that you do make sure that children that are walking from the bus that drops off sometimes up here at Suncrest and Canyon Point, let's make sure that they have a clear path here. And these two mountain bike paths that are going to cross the road, let's make sure that there's some signage or crosswalk or something to make it safe for them. Anything else? All right, Mr. Green, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Lowry. Yes. Ms. Johnson. Yes. Ms. Lowry. Yes. The item is approved unanimously 4-0. That takes us to item 7, which is I need a motion to go into the Draper City Community Reinvestment Agency meeting. So moved. Motion by Mr. Green. Is there a second? Second. I'll check it with Ms. Lowry. Mr. Green, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry. Mr. Lowry. Yes. Johnson. Yes. Good to see you. All right. I'll call the business meeting to order. Item for consideration, item 2A is a motion for approval of the July 16, 2024 Community Reinvestment Agency meeting minutes. So moved. Motion by Mr. Green. Second? I'll second. Second by Mr. Lowry. Any further discussion? Mr. Green, how do you vote? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Minutes are approved unanimously, 4-0. Item 2B, action item, resolution CRA 2501. It's a resolution of the Draper City Community Reinvestment Agency. AND THE CLARK AND CHRISTINE IVORY FOUNDATION REGARDING A WORKFORCE HOUSING AGREEMENT. MS. CHALBURKE, GO AHEAD. ALL RIGHT, OKAY. THIS IS AN AGREEMENT. WE MENTIONED THIS A FEW MONTHS AGO. THIS IS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY AND THE CLARK AND CHRISTINE IVORY FOUNDATION. AND WE HAVE PORTER AND ASHLEY HERE FROM THE CLARK AND CHRISTINE IVORY FOUNDATION, AND WE HAVE ADAM LONG WHO'S WORKED ON THE AGREEMENT. SO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE FUNDS FROM THE COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT AGENCY. This was actually a slide put out from the Utah League of Cities and Towns today, and it was just stressing how these funds are set aside for affordable housing, at least a minimum of 10%, and that the city should go beyond that state statute. So this is the agreement that we've worked on. Draper City will contribute 100,000 of CRA funds per unit that are required to be spent on affordable housing. dean ivory foundation will sell seven units to draper city and canyon school district employees and we haven't decided yet if that's going to be four three or five two split um there's some units coming ready very soon phase seven will be ready approximately april 2nd phase 10 will be around december um all the other units in this in this neighborhood will be rental units most are two to three bedrooms and four bedrooms available so this is um Where these are, these are in Big Willow. Some of these are already built. It's looking like it'll be a beautiful neighborhood. This is the location, 114 South. When we discussed this earlier, we didn't know which units would be designated for Draper City and school district employees. So this phase seven is right here, and these first three units are going to be available April 2nd, approximately, that time. These four here will be along 114th and they'll be available later this year or early next year. These are the prices that Ivory has been working with us to, they're trying to get as low as possible on their pricing and they're not gonna take a profit. And with our $100,000 donation, these are the prices that you'll be able to get these units for. So this first section here is the first phase that's available. You can get a three-bedroom townhome for $430. A three-bedroom with a finished basement, $475, and then $430. And then these are approximate prices for the second phase. So if you have any questions there, this is kind of what the discount is on the market pricing. And these units are designated for critical workforce employees that make – or that fit in between this AMI 80 to 120%. So we'll have to meet with the employees and see who's interested and see if they fit within these ranges. So for like a three bedroom, you know, you could make between 96 and 144. And that is both their salaries combined. So if they have a spouse, that would be combined in that amount. These are deed-restricted units, and we can add them here if you have any questions about those. They're deed-restricted for 50 years, and the appreciation is capped at 4%. So if they want to sell in three years, they can make a 4% appreciation annually, but they can't flip it and get all the money back. And the city would have the first right if the employee wants to sell, the city could buy it back, and it would first be given to a critical workforce employee. And how are you defining critical workforce employee? It's an employee of the school district. I mean, they use the example of like a police officer a lot, but it's any employee. There are some standards, like they have to be a full-time employee, they have to be over their probation, they have to be in good standing, but any city employee or school district. This first phase, we're going to designate just to city employees first, just so we can work out the... So how do you determine who gets selected? That's going to be tricky. I mean, South Jordan has done this and Park City has done this also. And South Jordan had maybe like one or two more than they had units available. So they kind of just did first come, first serve and lottery. So we'll see. We're going to try to get it out to employees pretty quickly because April 2nd is going to come quickly. and see how many meet that AMI and how many are able to get into a unit that quickly. So if it has to come down to, we'll see if we need to do a lottery or first come, first serve. If we don't have enough interest, then we can open it up to the school district right away. And this is what our CRA budget is right now. So it has $12 million in it. This $3 million right here is what we can use for housing. So the $700,000 is just going to make a small dent in that. And we need to use it or the legislature is going to kind of look at funds that aren't being used. So John is anxious to get it off the books as well. This is something I've wanted for a long time. And so I'm so glad. I know Mike and I talked about it when we were first elected. I'm so glad to see it come to fruition in this way. Police and Fire, do you guys feel like this will be an asset? Can you think of in your heads people that will be interested? That's awesome. That's so awesome. Yeah, I think if you guys have driven by there, it's a great neighborhood. And, you know, to get into these homes for, I mean, they're hoping. That's amazing. I'm thinking, like, you know, the space, too, will have one that's under $400,000 in Draper. And they're, yeah, they're really nice. My only wish is if we could have more than seven. Yeah, me too. I mean, there's research that says your communities are stronger when police and fire can live within the community, and they're not commuting in. I want our people to be able to live here. I think people are going to be really excited about it. We are going to work with a housing preservation fund, so he's going to come in and kind of be the middle man so we don't have to decide whether they qualify or not. So we're going to try to... get him in maybe next week to answer questions from employees that might be interested. That's awesome. It's certainly really amazing by Clark and Christine to set up the foundation and try and create an opportunity for people. Porter and Ashley here and Adams worked hard on the deed restrictions, so if you have any more questions, they might be. I do think, though, after you listen to all the property value talk, that you're telling me that the affordable house is still – Nearly $400,000. I just wouldn't have thought of that affordable. We're trying to get to $400,000 to be calling ourselves affordable, and then everyone's worried about their property value. I just don't think that's a big concern for those that are worried. But anyway, I diverge. No, it's $430,000 for the lowest, yeah. And there's some other benefits too. In fact, Porter, Ashley, do you guys want to talk about like the buying – So we're looking at only 5% down payment. They're going to purchase the interest rate down to, right now it would be about a 5.6. So that will help also, and then we're not going to allow agent commissions. All right, well, it's an amazing contribution by the Ivory, so thank you for being willing to do it. This is a resolution. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Green. Move we adopt CRA 2501. All right, motion by Mr. Green to adopt CRA 2501. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Flower. Any further discussion? No, it's just a great thing. Thank you, Ivory. It's something we should feel really proud of. Yeah. Come on up if you want to talk to us. Come on. Give us your name and address, please, and we'll listen to that. Ashley Hadfield, and then I'm in Lehi, so I don't know if that works, so 3113 North, 300 West. So I just want to kind of just say, like, we, Kelly and the team, have been fantastic to work with, and we would love to do more in the community. Porter and I are here. We want to do more. Affordable housing is kind of our mandate, is to see what we can do. And so we have a couple other programs and projects, and so we've been working with Kelly on those, and so we hope to be able to work something out and be back before you guys with some other solutions as well. So... Thank you. Jill Clark and Christine, thank you for us. All right, Mr. Green, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. Johnson? Yes. All right, items approved unanimously, four to zero. All right, motion to adjourn back to the council meeting. So moved. Mr. Green, second. Am I Ms. Lowry? All in favor of adjourning back to the council meeting, say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? All right, we're back. And a motion to adjourn the council meeting. A motion to adjourn by Mr. Green. Is there a second? Second. Second by Ms. Johnson. All in favor of adjournment, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, we stand adjourned. Thank you. This is the longest meeting we've had since we lost...