City Council

Mayor Council Members • Robert Dandoy • Jan Burrell • Joe Paul City Manager • Bryon Saxton • Matt Andrews • Diane Wilson • Ann Jackson ROY CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA (ELECTRONIC)- AMENDED APRIL 21, 2020 – 5:30 P.M. No physical meeting location will be available. This meeting will be streamed live on the Roy City YouTube channel. A. Welcome & Roll Call B. Moment of Silence C. Pledge of Allegiance D. Consent Items (These items are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by a single motion. If discussion is desired on any particular consent item, that item may be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately) 1. Approval of the March 3, 2020 Roy City Council Meeting and Work session Minutes 2. Sale of Surplus Ambulance, and all Public Works/ Parks & Rec Surplus Items. E. Action Items 1. Resolution 20-8 Providing for the convening and conducting of Roy City Public Meetings in accordance with the Utah Public Meeting Act 52-4-207 and Executive Order 2020-5 Issued by Governor Gary R Herbert, temporarily suspending rules and norms relating to Public Meetings, and Establishing rules, norms and procedures for Electronic Meetings 2. Resolution 20-9 Approving and Agreement with Comfort Systems USA for the Boiler Replacement Project at the Roy City Aquatic Center 3. Ordinance No. 20-6; An Ordinance amending the Roy City Noise Control Ordinance by adding section 4- 4-3.5 to prohibit engine braking Utah State Road (SR) 97 from 1900 West to 4300 West, except for the overpass and on SR 108 from Hinckley Drive to 3500 West ** If you would like to make a comment about these specific items on 2700 you will NEED to email admin@royutah.org to be given access to the meeting. 4. Ordinance No. 20-4; To amend the General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single- Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi-Family Residential at 5154 South 2700 West 5. Ordinance No. 20-5; To amend the Zoning Map from R-1-6 & R-1-8 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 or R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) at 5154 South 2700 West F. Public Comments If you would like to make a comment during this portion of our meeting on ANY topic you will need to email admin@royutah.org to request access to the ZOOM chat. Otherwise please join us by watching the live streaming at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6zdmDzxdOSW6veb2XpzCNA G. This is an opportunity to address the Council regarding concerns or ideas on any topic. To help allow everyone attending this meeting to voice their concerns or ideas, please consider limiting the amount of time you take. We welcome all input and recognize some topics make take a little more time than others. If you feel your message is complicated and requires a lot of time to explain, then feel free to email your thoughts to admin@royutah.org. Your information will be forwarded to all council members and a response will be provided. H. Presentations a. Matt Andrews- 2021 Budget Presentation I. City Manager & Council Report ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5051 South 1900 West ║ Roy, Utah 84067 ║ Telephone (801) 774-1000 ║ Fax (801) 774-1030 J. Adjournment In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing auxiliary communicative aids and services for these meetings should contact the Administration Department at (801) 774-1020 or by email: admin@royutah.org at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Pursuant to Section 52-4-7.8 (1)(e) and (3)(B)(ii) “Electronic Meetings” of the Open and Public Meetings Law, Any Councilmember may participate in the meeting via teleconference, and such electronic means will provide the public body the ability to communicate via the teleconference. Certificate of Posting The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was posted in a public place within the Roy City limits on this 16th of April, 2020. A copy was also provided to the Standard Examiner and posted on the Roy City Website and Utah Public Notice Website on the 16th of April, 2020. Morgan Langholf City Recorder Visit the Roy City Web Site @ www.royutah.org Roy City Council Agenda Information – (801) 774-1020  ROY CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA (ELECTRONIC)- AMENDED APRIL 21, 2020 – 5:30 P.M. No physical meeting location will be available. This meeting will be streamed live on the Roy City YouTube channel. ** To view this meeting please watch via our Youtube channel) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6zdmDzxdOSW6veb2XpzCNA). There will not be any public comment during this meeting. If you have questions or concerns brought up during this meeting or would like any questions answered in the presentations please be sure to email them to admin@royutah.org K. Welcome & Roll Call L. Presentations 1. Councilmember Diane Wilson- Form Based Code / Mixed Use Zoning 2. Mayor Dandoy- Form Based / Mixed Use Zoning M. Adjournment In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing auxiliary communicative aids and services for these meetings should contact the Administration Department at (801) 774-1020 or by email: admin@royutah.org at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Pursuant to Section 52-4-7.8 (1)(e) and (3)(B)(ii) “Electronic Meetings” of the Open and Public Meetings Law, Any Councilmember may participate in the meeting via teleconference, and such electronic means will provide the public body the ability to communicate via the teleconference. Certificate of Posting The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was posted in a public place within the Roy City limits on this 16th of April, 2020. A copy was also provided to the Standard Examiner and posted on the Roy City Website and Utah Public Notice Website on the 16th of April, 2020. Morgan Langholf City Recorder Visit the Roy City Web Site @ www.royutah.org Roy City Council Agenda Information – (801) 774-1020 Mayor Council Members • Robert Dandoy • Jan Burrell • Joe Paul City Manager • Bryon Saxton • Matt Andrews • Ann Jackson • Diane Wilson ROY CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MARCH 3, 2020 – 5:30 P.M. ROY CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS – 5051 SOUTH 1900 WEST A. Welcome & Roll Call Mayor Dandoy called the meeting to order and took roll. B. Moment of Silence The audience observed a moment of silence. C. Pledge of Allegiance The audience recited the Pledge of Allegiance. D. Consent Items 1. Minutes from the February 4, and February 18, 2020 Roy City Council Meeting Minutes. Small changes were discussed. Morgan Langholf, City Recorder, confirmed that she had made the suggested changes. Councilmember Wilson moved to approve the minutes with adjustments as noted. Councilmember Burrell seconded the motion. All Councilmember voted “Aye.” The motion passed. E. Action Items 1. Employee of the month- Brock Durain Fire Chief Leroy Gleichmann explained that Mr. Durain had been nominated as Employee of the Month. He read the letter he had sent the review board where he noted that Mr. Durain had made himself very available and had been careful to keep all apparatus in service. He pointed to a situation where the Roy City Fire Department had had an engine failure. He explained that Mr. Durain had offered options to do the work in house resulting in a $5,000 saving with a dedicated 60 manhours. He explained that this had increased the work of employees, but that Mr. Durain had been able to have the Department handle all the work. City Manager Matt Andrews explained that America First would be participating in the Employee of the Month process by providing a $25 gift card along with a piggy bank. 2. PUBLIC HEARING—Resolution 20-7 Approving Adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Staff presented the resolution which would amend the fiscal year as outlined in the Council’s packet. The budget was usually adopted in June and that budget could be moved within a department but not between departments or funds. As a result, the budget had to be amended a couple of times each year when grant revenue appeared or new projects needed completion. The proposed resolution would amend the approved budget by $421,725. Some grants had been received, such as a $20,000 ADF grant for the Police Department as well as a donation for a canine bullet proof vest. The Fire Department had received a FEMA AFG grant to pay for an SCBA breathing apparatus. She ____________________________________________________________________________________________ 5051 South 1900 West ║ Roy, Utah 84067 ║ Telephone (801) 774-1000 ║ Fax (801) 774-1030 added that included in the new budget was $120,000 in grant revenue. With the upgrades that had been completed, $31,000 was needed out of the fund reserve balance to pay for thermal imaging. She added that the boilers in the pool needed an upgrade as well as the diving board. The upgrades, she explained, would cost $57,000. It was explained that a match had been included for the Hill Air Force Base compatible use plan. The effort was between several counties to address current and future compatibility issues surrounding the base. The resolution suggested moving the overtime maintenance budget from the Complex and Aquatic Center to Building maintenance. In total, the adjustments to the General Fund would be $96,000 to fund balance reserves. It was noted that the Water and Sewer enterprise funds needed to take $175,000 from fund balance to improve water lines on 2200 West and 5600 South. She continued that utility services would also be provided on 5130 South 1700 West. The funding also included funds for repairs in the utility office. The comment was made that the IT Internal Service fund was proposing transferring $35,000 from the General Fund to improve the speaker system in the City’s meeting room, along with $3,200 to establish a document management program. These figures included an increase from Center Weber Sewer District where the Sewer Board had recommended an increase for residents in that sewer area. The sewer rate in that area would increase from $30.95 to $31.57. The final item would be to allow previously budgeted funds to be used for site improvement. Staff recommended that public comments take place before approval. Councilmember Paul moved to go into Public Comments. Councilmember Saxton seconded the motion. All Councilmember voted “Aye.” The motion passed. No comments were made. Councilmember Paul moved to go out of Public Comments. Councilmember Burrell seconded the motion. All Councilmember voted “Aye.” The motion passed. Councilmember Wilson asked about the Air Force Base compatible use plan. She asked what the funds would be used for. City Manager Andrews explained that the base had received a $182,000 grant for assessment. He added that the base needed a match and had therefore asked to local jurisdiction to participate. He added that traffic would be looked at along with anything useful to keep the Base opened. Councilmember Wilson asked why the utility department needed a new drawer. City Manager Andrews explained that this was needed because it was a convenient way for citizens to pay their utility bill. Councilmember Wilson asked how much was left in the General Fund. Mr. Andrews stated he would look for this figure. Mayor Dandoy stated that the City had to keep 18% in its General Fund and wanted to make sure that was the case. City Manager Andrews explained that City departments had turned in $300,000 in part because of sales tax coming above budgeted revenue. Mayor Dandoy stated that he had been recently surprised to see the cost of laptops. He explained that he found the cost of laptops requested to be high. It was noted that the laptops cost between $1,500 and $2,000 each and were rotated out every three to four years. Councilmember Paul moved to approve Resolution 20-7 Approving Adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2020 Budget. Councilmember Burrell seconded the motion. The roll was taken. All Councilmember voted “Aye.” The motion passed. F. Presentations  1. Boys & Girls Club Mr. James Ebert expressed his appreciation for his opportunity to talk to the Council. He added that he liked to talk to the Council twice a year. He mentioned wanting to show the outcomes and pointed to many positive changes that had occurred in the past nine months. Mr. Ebert introduced Shelly Bush, the new Development Director who, for years, had worked for the Weber School Foundation. Ms. Bush explained she had been involved with Roy schools and understood how they worked. She explained knowing the importance of graduation rates. She explained that her role was to work with community partners and individuals to help bring awareness to development programs focusing on academic and leadership success. She further added that part of her role was to make sure funding was where it needed to be. Mr. Ebert provided handouts to the Council while pointing to tutoring times at the Boys & Girls Club as well as Art programs. He explained the Club provided mentors and a structured calendar. The programs, he continued, were national and evidence based. Ms. Bush explained that the Club was not a day care. Rather, the Club had targeted programming including STEM programs. The Club provided homework help and kept children safe. Mr. Ebert explained that the Club worked with 90 to 100 children each day and added that during the summer, the Club ran eight hours a day in ways that were purposeful and intentional. He emphasized the importance of mentorship, academic success, and safety. He further discussed teen programs that helped create the future workforce. Ms. Bush discussed the teen program, which, it was pointed, ran at capacity. She explained that average daily attendance had increased in an environment to help teens learn. She explained that within the last month a new academic program had been started three nights a week: a teacher from the local Junior High came to provide homework help. This had allowed teens to receive better grades and improved their attendance. With increased attendance at the Club, she added, a bigger space was required. Mr. Ebert explained that the plan for the future was to create a common vision. He added that the Club was trying to align itself with the school district by adopting some school programs and creating continuity. He voiced his appreciation for Roy City and the community. Councilmember Wilson asked whether only children going to school in Roy could be part of the Club. Mr. Ebert explained that other children could be approved without being part of the school district. Councilmember Burrell thanked the Club for all the work they did for children in the community. G. Public Comments Leon Wilson, 4302 South 2675 West, explained that he had a technical request: the audio file should be changed in ways that would allow advancing a playback. He added that an option to go to a transcript and pick what to listen to. He continued that n minutes for January or February had been posted. He joked that this was causing some sleepless nights. Ms. Langholf explained that the minutes could not be posted until they had been approved. Mr. Wilson mentioned that his next-door neighbor had a corvette. He explained that sometimes impulse buys were made. He likened this to the City taking sufficient time to make decisions. He added that the Roy business community also needed to be involved in decisions. He continued that proper notice had to be given to all to attend if they so wished: publication might not be enough, and people might not understand all ramifications. He explained having concerns both about Form Based Code for Roy City, but also felt concerns about the process itself. While he could not fully elaborate fully, he explained that he was not in support. He explained that he weas concerned about the way the document had come to the Council. He added that he had review the voting record for every commissioner on every issue. He noted having fond a trend where 99% of the time, the commissioners unanimously voted the same way on every motion. He mentioned the need for well prepared, independent thinking. He pointed to a requested abstention where the councilmember had been told they had to vote. He gave a specific example with Commissioner Brand. He explained that he had read, watched, and listened to every Planning Commission meeting for the prior two years and could not find any public input before January 14, 2020. He explained that there had been very little review done. The full Commission, he continued, had received documents with no discussion. Mr. Wilson explained that during the January 14, 2020, Planning Commission meeting, the Commissioner had mentioned all the work sessions that had happened, while Mr. Wilson felt that this was misleading. He mentioned instances when commissioners expressed worry over potential public outcry. Mayor Dandoy explained that citizens needed to sign up for the email list to stay informed. He encouraged citizens to present their issues via emails, calls, or messages. He added that continuing to have meetings was counterproductive. Mr. Andy Walter, 5570 South 2050 West, explained that if the current plan came to be, he would have a ten-story building just East of his house: The Convention Center. He added that once 5600 was widened, this would add the potential for other five-story buildings. He continued that in that perspective, his TV would be cut off and he would need to go three blocks to a light just to get out of his neighborhood. He further asked where all the cars would park. He also mentioned that the sewer system was not designed for that high a density of population. No more comments were made. Councilmember Paul stated that many had voiced issues about transparency. He explained being open to suggestions as the government was meant to be representative of the people. He mentioned that some communication was happening on Facebook and that the City had done quite a bit to inform its people. A citizen, Mr. Burnett, stated that he had emailed all Councilmembers as well as the Mayor and had not heard back from everyone. He explained he had sent suggestion to Morgan Langholf without knowing if his suggestions had been heard. Councilmember Paul stated that did not always respond because of one Councilmember did respond, they spoke for all. He added using Facebook as he could reach more people that way. H. City Manager’s Report • City Manager Andrews explained that the Gold Dig was still scheduled for March 14, 2020. • City Manager Andrews mentioned that the neighborhood cleanups with shared dumpsters would start on April 1, 2020, with sign-ups starting for May 2, 2020. • City Manager Andrews discussed the traffic on the railroad tracks between 4800 South and 2700 West. The railroad, he continued, had failed to procure the proper permits and would thus delay the project to August 2020. • City Manager Andrews mentioned the grant for Roy West Park. The Committee, he continued, had recommended approval for the grant, and the next step would be a vote. • Councilmember Saxton mentioned that renovating the Municipal Park had been discussed. He explained that he had been contacted by two separate individuals wishing for the Council to consider putting an all- inclusive area for wheelchair bound individuals. He added that completed the project before the beginning of the 2020-2021 school year would be ideal. Councilmember Paul stated that it might be good to research several ball parks in the following year’s budget as he had had several individuals request them. • Mayor Dandoy stated that the moment councilmembers and Mayor were together was the perfect time to bring up suggestions. The suggestions would then be passed to Staff who could into the feasibility. Councilmember Burrell pointed that the area should be for all abilities, not merely wheelchairs. Mayor  Dandoy further explained that the item would come back formalized and possibly with a budget change. Councilmember Burrell asked whether this item would be on the current budget, or the following years. City Manager Andrews stated that the Staff would try to facilitate it in the current budget. Several other cities were mentioned as having all abilities areas in their parks. • Councilmember Wilson thanked Mr. Burnett for his comments and invited everyone to attend work sessions about Form Based Code. She added that the community needed to help the Council see whether FBC was what was needed. • Councilmember Paul shared the newly created email to reach councilmember: council@royutah.org. This email, he continued, went to all councilmembers and when one replied, they replied for all. I. Adjournment Councilmember Paul moved to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. All Councilmember voted “Aye.” The motion passed.  ROY CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MARCH 3, 2020 – 5:30 P.M. ROY CITY BASEMENT CONFERENCE ROOM – 5051 SOUTH 1900 WEST A. Welcome & Roll Call Mayor Dandoy called the work session to order and noted those who were present. B. Discussion Items 1. Establishing Form Based Code in Downtown Business District. 2. PRESENTATION The meeting began after City Council adjourned at 6:45 pm. Mayor Dandoy started meeting with presentation on Form Based Code, he brought up Focus Roy Document, the Goals were a more virant downtown, affordable housing, safety and comfort and healthy businesses. Form based Code focuses on looks. Stan Hoellein requested that three questions be answered, 1. What are the frontage limits are? 2. What are the costs of FBC as opposed to regular zoning? 3. What are the mechanics of FBC? Mayor Dandoy responded to Mr. Hoellein… City Recorder Morgan Langholf requested that if you speak during the presentation or ask a question to please state your name for the record. Councilmember Burrell also requested that if you have a question on FBC that you would like to ask her to please refer to a specific page within the code for her to look at. The Mayor reiterated that if you have question to please reach out to your elected officials that they might be able to serve you better while in this process. Councilmember Paul wanted to let everyone know that FBC makes things easier for a developer to come into a space. Because currently they have to go through planning commission and getting everything approved from site plans to our current building codes and zones. If we implement FBC then as long as they follow the parameters that we have set then they don’t have to go through such a long process. The Mayor echoed and elaborated on what Councilmember Paul stated….. Councilmember Wilson stated that FBC isn’t the only way that we can accommodate mixed use, but that the goal behind the city trying to implement FBC was so that we could accommodate mixed use. Mayor Dandoy responded to her question/statement. Mayor then wanted to show the residents the current map that we are using for FBC stating what areas are currently being proposed for within the code. Austin Gonzalez, asked if that was there the four-plexes are? Darlene Muscleman also asked if he could show them where major roads like 4000 and 5600 are for reference. The Mayor did clarify exactly where he was speaking about for them to know…he continued to explain what they are currently proposing….. Councilmember Burrell then stated that she was seeing in the area they were discussing, a strong grid system and asked… Councilmember Paul then stated that any existing property owners and businesses would be grandfathered in and would not be demanded to conform to the FBC once approved. Councilmember Burrell asked if FBC applied to current owners that wanted to expand or adjust their buildings, Councilmember Wilson responded that if changes less than 30% (10% in some instances) the owner would be required to comply with FBC completely. Mayor responded that the current FBC is a draft, and the percentages could be changed - such as to 50% or 60%. Stan Hoellein asked for another clarification Councilmember Paul stated that this was the reason that we wanted to separate the downtown from the station district. (The reason was to move forward on the downtown district because we have an interested developer and take our time to vet through the train station district Mayor….. Leon Wilson asked what would happen when “not this council” was then making the decisions. Would they change things? Mayor responded that code can be and is changed by Councils. The Mayor then stated that he grew up in Sunset and that he drives through it now and it is completely decaying, they are losing businesses and its only a matter of time before that happens to Roy and he doesn’t want that. This is why we must make changes. Sierra RV left Syracuse and it left them completely without business in the city. Eddie Welter asked how the city could make a business or property owner comply with the codes that we are putting forth? The Mayor stated that is a code enforcement officers job and the reality is that we might need to look into hiring more than just the one we have, but we are making changes. People are going to jail because they are choosing not to follow the law and clean up their properties. Councilmember Burrell then asked what they want changed?... Mayor…… Shawn Bailey, owner of Dilly Dallies Mayor….. Jill Bailey, also an owner of Dilly Dallies, they have been in business there for over 30 years. With FBC it puts them in a position that they would lose their business. Because they aren’t the property owners, Woodbury is, and they would be displaced. She did mention that they might move or might retire but the way the code currently is being proposed isn’t going to work in favor for those businesses that rent or lease property. Mayor….. Darlene Muscleman mentioned that if they put in more roads then it would be the cities job to maintain and plow the roads. The mayor then stated if there are things within the code that people want changed then it is within the City Councils power to change it. All they had to do was change what they didn’t like. Councilmember Burrell…. Mayor….. Austin Gonzales has lived in many other places and likes the walkability. Right now, he lives near harmons but wouldn’t walk there. Joe Gracy from Joes Car Connection said that he feels like if Roy implements this FBC that its because they don’t value the current businesses in Roy and only wants newer and better businesses, if that is how the city feels then maybe he can take his business to a different location? Mayor response. Mr. Gracy Joe Paul added Councilmember Burrell added Mayor Mr. Gracy Mayor Mr. Gracy Councilmember Paul Trent Citte from Citte RV stated that he has a narrow driveway to his business, one way in and one way out, it only has a right turn in and a right turn to get out of it. If they put a new business on that corner then he loses the access to his property. Mayor…. Darrell Olsen, He said that the property owners…. Councilmember Paul Mayor…. Carl Keyes stated that he was one of the main foreman over the Hilton garden inn over in Ogden that was built a few years ago. He said that there is so much infrastructure that goes into supporting a business like that. Does Roy have the sewer capabilities to support it? The Mayor informed everyone that we do, Roy City has more water than most of its surrounding cities and that is why we have so many car washes. Water is cheap here and we have plenty of it. Austin Gonzalez then stated that he again would like his parcel added to the area for FBC and that he feels like this is going to be a great thing for our City. Mayor… Chuck Ivester said that he just requests that the corner curbs be low enough that his trucks can make a turn in the city. Mayor…. Councilmember Paul….. Mayor….. ?? Byron Burnett?? What about emergency vehicles? If we have a multiple level parking garage how do emergency vehicles get up those? (at this time Mr. Welter asked a question to Councilmember Paul and Councilmember Paul was trying to answer the question during the other discussion that was going on with the Mayor and the rest of the attendees. Mr. Leon Wilson then declared that people needed to let the Mayor speak so he could be heard) Councilmember Jackson then stated that a hotel that comes in is going to do its own design not follow our FBC. Mayor….. When the aeronautical design of proposed future buildings was shown, Glenda Moore stated that, for those people who had been researching, this was the sort of thing discussed in the Planning Commission meetings, and we may not have understood that this was part of the form-based code discussions.”. She was in attendance. It was around this point that we discovered the recording wasn’t working so I turned it on. Mayor….“what we need to do as a residence and a society is…..” Councilmember Paul “I personally don’t want to do either, so if I can increase sales tax through some developments then it’s a win win for all of us.” Mayor “ Question about if this has to be approved? Mayor, “we will not put a three story building in Roy?” Once you get to 60 feet it caps, also you cannot have a modern building, the code will not allow glass, it will not allow metals, its gotta be brick or something else. That is all that the code today will allow you to do. So unless we try to manage that code and improve the code to make it more flexible for the demands, our challenge is going to be it provides developers to simply walk away and go somewhere else. And what we are saying is “don’t walk away” we think that we can provide some solutions and some business opportunities under controlled measures to Roy. The question is going to be what are they going to be and what are they going to look like? But we cannot, under current code, we cannot build these (referring to the glass/modern building slide) the codes will not allow them. We have to look at changing that. Councilmember Paul “a type of Movie Theater a type of hotel, a type of mixed use development…” Councilmember Wilson “mixed use is important and one thing I want everyone to consider, as I have talked to several cities who have adopted this, there biggest problem is they have a great vision but they can’t get any commercial…they have developers and they are putting the housing in but they are putting the bottom floor commercial, so they are thinking wow I am going to have all this commercial revenue, but if we are going to develop whether its form based or something else, is there a way to allow, the vision is having the commercial” Councilmember Paul “how much development has to be commercial? Look at what we did on 4000 and Midland, we made them go back and cut the number of housing units and increase the number of commercial, the thing we didn’t do that we learned from other cities is to stipulate that the two have to go in simultaneously. You mandate a fill rate? Mayor, “here is what it said, on this particular document ground story has to be retail, service or office. Above that you can put anything else you want, its permitted use. But that ground floor has to be commercial, office or retail.” Councilmember Wilson “but that is only one of the options, so we would have to be careful and make sure that it’s what we want” Mayor “we control what goes into the code, what do we want that place to look like and what options do we want in what locations. Do we want 12 story buildings, if the answer to that question is no, then it takes three votes to take it out. Councilmember Jackson, “I have lived in Roy 16 years and it is different, things are gone now. I want a hotel here, I want everything coming to Hillfield I want more revenue for the City. The more businesses we get here the more new businesses are going to want to come. I don’t want people to have to sell their property unless they want to. But I do want a change for Roy. People just drive through Roy, we go to Riverdale or Clinton, I do want change, I don’t want 12 story buildings or 5 stories at the station, but I do want change. Mayor, we do that by adjusting the code to fit the needs of the City. And when approved, that is what will draw developers to Roy. Resident?? Please educate the businesses in town that you are not trying to buy us out and telling them that they will be grandfathered in and teaching them what that means. “as long as you are maintaining your business there we are not going to touch it” Councilmember Jackson “as long as you own that property” Councilmember Paul “If you change things within a certain percentage you will be fine” **A lot of small conversations Mayor Dandoy “we all have an opportunity for communication here Mayor Dandoy stated that the tallest buildings allowed would be 3.5-story buildings. He added that the code would not allow a modern building and that the current code was not every flexible for property owners and developers. Under current code, he continued, the buildings presented could not be built. Councilmember Paul stated that having no mixed-use development was not an option. Councilmember Wilson stated that she had talked to cities that had had all the land swept for housing development but left with the commercial bottom floor vacant. She added that the vision was to have commercial. Staff explained that the Council had to stipulate how much development they wished to have. The number of housing units had been lowered and that the commercial development had to be put in place along with the housing units. Mayor Dandoy stated that the ground level had to be, commercial, retail, or offices, while many other uses were permitted above. Councilmember Wilson stated that caution had to be exercised. A resident (no name given) explained that she had lived in Roy for a long time. She mentioned that it was different from when she had first lived here. She explained that she wanted more revenue for the City and added that she did not want to see anyone suffer from this new code, though she wished to see changes for her children and grandchildren. Mayor Dandoy explained that developers would have to build according to the code chosen by the City. Staff explained that the issue of grandfathered clauses was not well understood by residents. He explained that, for businesses, the clause stated the business would not be touched as long as it owned the property it was on and remained the same business. Mayor Dandoy stated that all those in attendance could benefit from these clarifications. He added that developers that had approached Roy had requested buildings of four to five stories. He explained that the conversation about height was already taking place and that no twelve-story building would be approved. The train station, he continued, presented a different challenge: between the TRAX and the trail, the area was zoned for light manufacturing and any developer could build up to 16 stories. He added that anything being built in Roy had to have a site plan approved, and that the site plan would not be approved unless it was code compliant. He continued that the point was to find a code that worked and that citizens should send their comments to the councilmembers. Mayor Dandoy addressed Mr. Wilson and stated that he had the document posted on July 14, 2019. The one posted on January 10, 2020 was the same, he continued. He added that nothing had changed on the documents. He further pointed that the Planning Commission was an independent body and that the code had to be figured out correctly in order to modernize portions of the City. Staff explained that the code was critical as the City had access to the Woodbury project: once the interchange was put in place, Sunset and Clearfield would also have access to the area. Roy City was the entrance at the moment, he continued, but another entrance would allow developers to go to other cities. This would leave Roy with no developers and no infusion of capital. Mayor Dandoy pointed that there were about two months to find some resolution. He added that citizens’ input was critical, and that people who signed up for the email list were kept informed. C. Adjournment The work session was adjourned.  Public works and Parks and Rec surplus Streets S-1 1991 Dodge D30 Spray truck 5.9 diesel Vin-1B6ME3681MS267387 (81,937) miles S-3 1996 Dodge 3500 Dump bed 5.9 diesel Vin-1B6MF36C6TS689669 (51,467) miles S-7 2001 Ford F250 extended cab 4wd v8 Vin-1FTNX21L11EB07164 (113,496) miles S-8 Salter/Spreader for a bobtail dump truck S-12 2003 International 7600 Roll off truck Vin-IHTGLAET93H569209 (95,976) miles S-21 1998 Dodge 3500 dump bed 5.9 diesel Vin-3B6MF3664XM515298 (71,390) miles S-31 1989 Atlas-Copco XAS565 towable compressor (1,451) hrs S-34 2004 Ford F-450 Crew cab 6.0 diesel Vin-1FDXW47P34EB52544 (46,168) miles 2-Wanco WVT-3 three line message board trailers Building maintenance M-4 2001 Ford F -350 single cab Utility bed 2wd Vin-1FDWF36S51EB13123 (52,068) miles Water W-26 1992 Amida arrow board trailer w/diesel engine Parks P-8 2000 Dodge 2500 2wd extended cab V-10 pickup Vin-1B7KC23W8YJ122817 (129,621) miles P-12 1999 Dodge 2500 2wd single cab with utility bed Vin-3B6KC26Z0XM590990 (119,556) miles P-15 2001 Dodge 3500 dump bed 5.9 diesel Vin-3B6MF36631M272431 (44,219) miles P-23 2003 Chevrolet 2500 dump bed 6.6 Duramax diesel Vin-1GBJK34103E122551 (39,558) miles P-28 2004 Grasshopper 227 Z-drive mower (1,837) hrs Recreation R-8 2004 Kubota RTV 900 Utv (1,803) hrs R-9 1993 Chevrolet C3500 with Utility bed 454 Vin-1GBGC34N1PE140203 (130,639) miles Development Services DS-03 2009 Ford Explorer 4.0l Vin-1FMEU73E99UA01014 (92,184) miles  RESOLUTION 20-8 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROY CITY COUNCIL PROVIDING FOR THE CONVENING AND CONDUCTING OF ROY CITY PUBLIC MEETINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UTAH PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT (52-4-207) AND EXECUTIVE ORDER 2020-5 ISSUED BY GOVERNOR GARY R HERBERT, TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING RULES AND NORMS RELATING TO PUBLIC MEETINGS, AND ESTABLISHING RULES, NORMS AND PROCEDURES FOR ELECTRONIC MEETINGS. WHEREAS, On March 6, 2020 Governor Gary R. Herbert issued Executive Order 2020-1 declaring a state of emergency due to novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19); and WHEREAS, on March 11, 2020 the World Health Organization characterized COVID -19 outbreak as a pandemic; and WHEREAS, on March 13, 2020 President Donald J. Trump declared the national state of emergency based on the continuing spread of COVID-19; and WHEREAS, due to COVID-19, federal, state and local authorities have recommended or ordered social distancing for the purpose of reducing the potential exposure to and spread of the virus and overwhelming the health care system; and WHEREAS, the public monitoring and participation requirements in the Open and Public Meeting Act, Utah Code 52-4-101 et seq (OPMA), tend to gather members of the public and members of a public body in a single confined location where the risks of spreading COVID-19 are far greater; and WHEREAS, Out of concern for the health of public officials and members of the public, Governor Gary R. Herbert issued Executive Order 2020-5 (Order) on March 18, 2020, suspending the enforcement of certain provisions of Utah Code 52-4-101 et seq and other provisions of law implementing these provisions; and WHEREAS, The Order allows any public body governed by OPMA to hold an electronic meeting regardless of whether the public body has adopted a resolution, rule or ordinance governing the use of electronic meetings. Furthermore, a public body that convenes or conducts an electronic meeting is not required to: 1. Post written notice at the principal office of the public body or at the building where the meeting is to be held; 2. Post written notice at an anchor location; 3. Establish one or more anchor locations for the public meeting; 4. Provide space and facilities at an anchor location to allow the public to physically attend and monitor the open portions of the meeting; or 5. If comments from the public will be accepted during meeting, provide space and facilities at an anchor location where the public may physically attend, monitor and participate in the open portions of the meeting; and WHEREAS, the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-5 requires a public body that holds an electronic meeting to:  1. Provide a means by which interested persons and the public may remotely hear or observe, live, by audio or video transmission the open portions of the meeting; 2. If comments from the public will be accepted during the electronic meeting, provide a means by which interested persons and the public participating remotely may ask questions and make comments by electronic means in the open portions of the meeting; and 3. If the public body has not adopted a resolution, rule, or ordinance governing the use of electronic meetings, adopt as soon as practicable a resolution, rule or ordinance; and WHEREAS, A public hearing governed by OPMA may also be conducted electronically according to the exemptions and conditions outlined above; and WHEREAS, the Roy City Council desires to clarify and expand on existing rules relating to electronic meetings: NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE ROY CITY COUNCIL: 1. All city council meetings, planning commission meetings and their associated work sessions, temporarily, will be held electronically in accordance with the Governor’s Executive Order 2020-5 until the termination of the state of emergency declared in Governor Herbert’s Executive Order 2020-1 or for such shorter period of time as the Council deems appropriate under the circumstances. 2. All meetings will be held as scheduled until further notice. Any changes to meeting schedules will be posted on the Roy City website and Roy City Facebook page. 3. City councilmembers, planning commissioners, city administration, staff and invited presenters may participate electronically in a virtual meeting from remote locations to the same extent as if they were physically present. Should they desire to participate from City Council chambers, precautions must be in place for adequate social distancing for their health and safety. 4. Meetings will be conducted using Zoom Webinars (Zoom). 5. Sufficient public safety precautions cannot be maintained at a satisfactory level to allow the public’s attendance at the City Council chambers consequently, there will be no public attendance at the City Council chambers. 6. The public may remotely hear and observe meetings remotely through YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6zdmDzxdOSW6veb2XpzCNA 7. For the general public comment portion on a meeting agenda, public comment or questions should be made through the use of Zoom. A link to access the meeting will be provided for those who request to make comment. Individual public comments or questions should not exceed five minutes nor repeat what has been said by other members of the public 8. For city council or planning commission agenda items requiring a public hearing, the public is encouraged to provide written comments to the City Recorder at admin@royutah.org no later than 5:00 p.m. the day before the meeting. Written comment should not exceed 350 words. The public may also participate in the public hearing electronically through Zoom however, participation through Zoom is limited and may not be available to all participants. Any public comments or questions presented through Zoom should not exceed 5 minutes and should not restate what has already been presented by another member of the public. 9. Public comment will not be permitted in work sessions. Passed and Adopted by the Council or Roy City, Utah on this 24th day of April, 2020  _________________________________________ Robert Dandoy, Mayor ___________________________________ Morgan Langholf, City Recorder  RESOLUTION 20-9 A RESOLUTION OF THE ROY CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN ROY CITY CORPORATION AND COMFORT SYSTEMS USA FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF TWO BOILERS AT THE ROY AQUATIC CENTER WHEREAS, a Request for Proposals for the replacement of Boilers at the Roy Aquatic Center was advertised; and WHEREAS, Comfort Systems USA was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder; and WHEREAS, the proposed boiler replacement contract is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, the Roy City Council desires to enter into an agreement with Comfort Systems USA; and WHEREAS, the agreement sets forth the respective rights and responsibilities of the Parties regarding the boiler replacement at the Roy Aquatic Center. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the Roy City Council that the Mayor is authorized to execute the replacement of two boilers at the Roy Aquatic Center by Comfort Systems USA. Passed and Adopted on this the _____ day of April, 2020 ______________________________ Robert Dandoy Mayor Attest: __________________________________ Morgan Langholf City Recorder Voting: Councilmember Jan Burrell _____ Councilmember Bryon Saxton _____ Councilmember Joe Paul _____ Councilmember Diane Wilson _____ Councilmember Ann Jackson _____  CONTRACT AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is by and between ROY CITY CORPORATION (hereinafter called OWNER) and Comfort Systems USA (hereinafter called CONTRACTOR). OWNER and CONTRACTOR, in consideration of the mutual covenants hereinafter set forth, agree as follows: ARTICLE 1- WORK 1.01 CONTRACTOR shall complete all Work as specified or indicated in the Contract Documents. The Work is generally described as follows: The work consists of furnishing and installing two (2) replacement boilers at the Roy Aquatic Center. The work includes removing the existing boilers; completing steam, condensate, and outlet connections; completing connections to existing gas and electrical services; installing any external electrical devices and control wiring; and providing startup and owner training. ARTICLE 2-THE PROJECT 2.01 The Project for which the Work under the Contract Documents may be the whole or only a part is generally described as follows: AQUATIC CENTER BOILER REPLACEMENT PROJECT ARTICLE 3- ENGINEER 3.01 The Project has been designed by Wasatch Civil Consulting Engineering, who is hereinafter called ENGINEER and who is to act as OWNER's representative, assume all duties and responsibilities, and have the rights and authority assigned to ENGINEER in the Contract Documents in connection with the completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents. ARTICLE 4- CONTRACT TIMES 4.01 Time of the Essence: All time limits for completion and readiness for final payment as stated in the Contract Documents are of the essence of the Contract. Contractor agrees to have a minimum of 6 workers on site during construction activities. 4.02 Dates for Completion and Final Payment: The Work will be completed by May 15, 2020, as specified in the Notice to Proceed. 4.03 Liquidated Damages: CONTRACTOR and OWNER recognize that time is of the essence of this Agreement and that OWNER will suffer financial loss if the Work is not completed within the times specified in paragraph 4.02 above, plus any extensions thereof allowed in accordance with Article 12 of the General Conditions. The parties also recognize the delays, expense, and difficulties involved in proving in a legal or arbitration proceeding the actual loss suffered by OWNER if the Work is not completed on time. Accordingly, instead of requiring any such proof, OWNER and CONTRACTOR agree that as liquidated damages for delay (but not as a penalty), CONTRACTOR shall pay OWNER $200.00 for each day that expires after the time specified in paragraph 4.02 for Completion until the Work is accepted. Page 1 of 5 ARTICLE 5- CONTRACT PRICE 5.01 OWNER shall pay CONTRACTOR for completion of the Work in accordance with the Contract Documents an amount in current funds and at the prices shown in Contractor’s Schedule of Values attached hereto. Small Pool Boiler $21,899.53 Lap Pool Boiler $33,428.44 Contract Price of FIFTY-FIVE THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY-SEVEN DOLLARS AND 97/100 ($55,327.97). As provided in paragraph 11.03 of the General Conditions, estimated quantities are not guaranteed, and determinations of actual quantities and classifications are to be made by ENGINEER as provided in paragraph 9.08 of the General Conditions. Unit prices have been computed as provided in paragraph 11.03 of the General Conditions. ARTICLE 6- PAYMENT PROCEDURES 6.01 Submittal and Processing of Payments: CONTRACTOR shall submit Applications for Payment in accordance with Article 14 of the General Conditions. Applications for Payment will be processed by ENGINEER as provided in the General Conditions. 6.02 Progress Payments; Retainage: OWNER shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Price on the basis of CONTRACTOR's Applications for Payment on or about the 15th day of each month during performance of the Work as provided in paragraphs 6.02.A. 1 and 6.02.A.2 below. All such payments will be measured by the schedule of values established in paragraph 2.07.A of the General Conditions (and in the case of Unit Price Work, based on the number of units completed) or, in the event there is no schedule of values, as provided in the General Requirements: 1.Prior to Completion, progress payments will be made in an amount equal to the percentage indicated below but, in each case, less the aggregate of payments previously made and less such amounts as ENGINEER may determine or OWNER may withhold, in accordance with paragraph 14.02 of the General Conditions: A. 95% of Work completed (with the balance being retained). If the Work has been 50% completed as determined by ENGINEER, and if the character and progress of the Work have been satisfactory to OWNER and ENGINEER, OWNER, on recommendation of ENGINEER, may determine that as long as the character and progress of the Work remain satisfactory to them, there will be no retainage on account of Work subsequently completed, in which case the remaining progress payments prior to Substantial Completion will be in an amount equal to 100% of the Work completed less the aggregate of payments previously made; and B. 25% of cost of materials and equipment not incorporated in the Work (with the balance being retained). 2. Upon Completion, OWNER shall pay an amount sufficient to increase total payments to CONTRACTOR to 100% of the Work completed, less such amounts as ENGINEER shall determine in accordance with paragraph 14.02.B.5 of the General Conditions. 6.03 Final Payment: Upon final completion and acceptance of the Work in accordance with paragraph 14.07 of the General Conditions, OWNER shall pay the remainder of the Contract Price as recommended by ENGINEER as provided in said paragraph 14.07. Page 2 of 5 ARTICLE 7- INTEREST 7.01 All moneys not paid when due as provided in Article 14 of the General Conditions shall bear interest at the rate of 1% per annum. ARTICLE 8- CONTRACTOR'S REPRESENTATIONS 8.01 In order to induce OWNER to enter into this Agreement CONTRACTOR makes the following representations: A. CONTRACTOR has examined and carefully studied the Contract Documents and the other related data identified in the Request for Proposal. B. CONTRACTOR has visited the Site and become familiar with and is satisfied as to the general, local, and Site conditions that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. C. CONTRACTOR is familiar with and is satisfied as to all federal, state, and local Laws and Regulations that may affect cost, progress, and performance of the Work. D. CONTRACTOR has carefully studied all: (1) reports of explorations and tests of subsurface conditions at or contiguous to the Site and all drawings of physical conditions in or relating to existing surface or subsurface structures at or contiguous to the Site (except Underground Facilities) which have been identified in the Supplementary Conditions as provided in paragraph 4.02 of the General Conditions and (2) reports and drawings of a Hazardous Environmental Condition, if any, at the Site which has been identified in the Supplementary Conditions as provided in paragraph 4.06 of the General Conditions. E. CONTRACTOR has obtained and carefully studied (or assumes responsibility for having done so) all additional or supplementary examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data concerning conditions (surface, subsurface, and Underground Facilities) at or contiguous to the Site which may affect cost, progress, or performance of the Work or which relate to any aspect of the means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction to be employed by CONTRACTOR, including applying the specific means, methods, techniques, sequences, and procedures of construction, if any, expressly required by the Contract Documents to be employed by CONTRACTOR, and safety precautions and programs incident thereto F. CONTRACTOR does not consider that any further examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, or data are necessary for the performance of the Work at the Contract Price, within the Contract Times, and in accordance with the other terms and conditions of the Contract Documents. G. CONTRACTOR is aware of the general nature of work to be performed by OWNER and others at the Site that relates to the Work as indicated in the Contract Documents. H. CONTRACTOR has correlated the information known to CONTRACTOR, information and observations obtained from visits to the Site, reports and drawings identified in the Contract Documents, and all additional examinations, investigations, explorations, tests, studies, and data with the Contract Documents. I. CONTRACTOR has given ENGINEER written notice of all conflicts, errors, ambiguities, or discrepancies that CONTRACTOR has discovered in the Contract Documents, and the written resolution thereof by ENGINEER is acceptable to CONTRACTOR. J. The Contract Documents are generally sufficient to indicate and convey understanding of all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the Work. Page 3 of 5 ARTICLE 9- CONTRACT DOCUMENTS 9.01 Contents: A. The Contract Documents consist of the following: 1. This Agreement; 2. Engineering General Conditions noted as EJCDC No. 1910-8 (1996 Edition); 3. Supplementary Conditions; 4. Addendum Nos. (N/A); 5. Exhibits this Agreement; 1. Notice to Proceed; 2. CONTRACTOR’s Proposal; 3. Documentation submitted by CONTRACTOR prior to Notice of Award; 4. CONTRACTOR’s Schedule of Values; 6. The following which may be delivered or issued on or after the Effective Date of the Agreement and are not attached hereto: Written Amendments; Work Change Directives; Change Order(s). B. The documents listed in paragraph 9.01A are attached to this Agreement (except as expressly noted otherwise above). C. There are no Contract Documents other than those listed above in this Article 9. D. The Contract Documents may only be amended, modified, or supplemented as provided in paragraph 3.05 of the General Conditions. ARTICLE 10- MISCELLANEOUS 10.01 Terms: Terms used in this Agreement will have the meanings defined by Engineers Joint Contract Documents Committee STANDARD GENERAL CONDITIONS OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT (EJCDC No. 1910-8 (1996 Edition)). 10.02 Assignment of Contract: No assignment by a party hereto of any rights under or interests in the Contract will be binding on another party hereto without the written consent of the party sought to be bound; and, specifically but without limitation, moneys that may become due and moneys that are due may not be assigned without such consent (except to the extent that the effect of this restriction may be limited by law), and unless specifically stated to the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any duty or responsibility under the Contract Documents. 10.03 Successors and Assigns: OWNER and CONTRACTOR each binds itself, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives to the other party hereto, its partners, successors, assigns, and legal representatives in respect to all covenants, agreements, and obligations contained in the Contract Documents. Page 4 of 5 10.04 Severability: Any provision or part of the Contract Documents held to be void or unenforceable under any Law or Regulation shall be deemed stricken, and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon OWNER and CONTRACTOR, who agree that the Contract Documents shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as possible to expressing the intention of the stricken provision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, OWNER and CONTRACTOR have signed this Agreement in duplicate. One counterpart each has been delivered to OWNER and CONTRACTOR. All portions of the Contract Documents have been signed or identified by OWNER and CONTRACTOR or on their behalf. This Agreement will be effective on , 2020 (which is the Effective Date of the Agreement). OWNER: CONTRACTOR: ROY CITY CORPORATION COMFORT SYSTEMS USA By:____________________________________ By:____________________________________ [CORPORATE SEAL] [CORPORATE SEAL] Page 5 of 5  ORDINANCE 20-6 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROY CITY NOISE CONTROL ORDINANCE BY ADDING SECTION 4-4-3.5 TO PROHIBIT ENGINE BRAKING WHEREAS, Title 4 of the Roy City Code establishes regulations concerning public health and safety; and WHEREAS, Title 4, Chapter 4 of the Roy City Code establishes regulations governing noise control; and WHEREAS, there have been numerous complaints concerning noise created by trucks whose operators use the practice of engine or dynamic braking, commonly referral to as “Jake braking” ; and WHEREAS, the Roy City Council wishes to amend the Roy City Code to address noise created by engine braking; and WHEREAS, the City Council or Roy City, Utah does hereby determine that it is in the best interest of the health safety and welfare of the citizens of Roy City to amend Title 4 Chapter 4 of the Roy City Code by adding a new section 4-4-3.5; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Roy Utah as follows: Section 1. Repealed. Any provision of the Roy City Municipal Code found to be in conflict with this Ordinance is hereby repealed. Section 2. Amendment. Title 4 Section 4 is hereby amended as follows: 4-4-3.5 ENGINE BRAKING On Utah State Road (SR) 97 from 1900 West to 4300 West, except for the overpass and on SR 108 from Hinckley Drive to 3500 West it is unlawful to for any motor vehicle to have a dynamic brake device engaged or a compression release brake which converts the engine from an internal combustion engine to an air compressor for the purpose of braking without the use of wheel brakes, wherein exhaust valves are opened creating a loud noise. This section is not applicable in emergency situations where engine braking is used to prevent injury or damage to persons, property or animals. Passed and Adopted by the Council or Roy City, Utah on this 24th day of April, 2020 _________________________________________ Robert Dandoy, Mayor ___________________________________ Morgan Langholf, City Recorder  STAFF REPORT City Council April 21, 2020 SYNOPSIS Application Information Applicant: Doug Terry Request: Consider a request for the following: a. Ord. No. 20-4; To amend the General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single-Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi- Family Residential. b. Ord. No. 20-5; To amend the Zoning Map from R-1-6 & R-1-8 (Single- Family Residential) to R-3 or R-4 (Multi-Family Residential) Approximate Address: 5154 South 2700 West Land Use Information Current Zoning: R-1-6 & R-1-8 Adjacent Zoning: North: R-1-8; Single-Family Residential South: R-1-8; Single-Family Residential East: R-1-8; Single-Family Residential West: M; Manufacturing & R-3; Multi-Family Residential Current General Plan: Medium Density; Single-Family Residential Staff Report By: Steve Parkinson Staff Recommendation: Approval with conditions APPLICABLE ORDINANCES  Roy City Zoning Ordinance Title 10, Chapter 5 – Amendments to General Plan and Zoning Ordinance CONFORMANCE TO THE GENERAL PLAN  Economic Development Goal 1; To promote and make possible the realization of a high quality of life for the city’s residents through the pursuit and implementation of good economic development practices  Economic Development Goal 1; Objective 1; To promote and encourage commercial, industrial and other economic endeavors to strength and improve the city’s tax base and quality of life.  Residential Development Goal 1; Policy D: The City’s policies should encourage the development of a diverse range of housing types, styles and price levels in all areas of the City.  Residential Development Goal 3; Policy G: The housing needs for low and moderate income families and senior citizens in Roy City shall be determined by the City on a regular basis, or as the need arises.  Urban Growth Goal 1; Objective 5; To allow development to occur on parcels of land most suitable for and capable of supporting the kind of development being proposed. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 11, 2020. See Exhibit “D” for the Planning Commission meeting minutes: The Commission voted 7-0; to forward to the City Council a recommendation to approve the amending of the a. General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single-Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi-Family Residential. b. Zoning Map from R-1-8 & R-1-6 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) with the condition that only “Townhomes” can be built on the property. 5051 South 1900 West; Roy, Utah 84067 ║ Telephone (801) 774-1040 ║ Fax (801) 774-1030 HISTORY City Council:  June 5, 2018 – o Request to Rezone property from R-1-8 to R-1-6 – Approved.  April 3, 2018 – o Request to Amend General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single-Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi-Family Residential – Denied o Request to Rezone property from R-1-8 to R-3 – Died.  August 2, 2016 – o Request to Amend General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single-Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi-Family Residential – Denied o Request to Rezone property from R-1-8 to R-3 or R-4 – Died. Planning Commission:  May 8, 2018 – o Request to Rezone property from R-1-8 to R-1-6 – Approved.  March 13, 2018 – o Request to Amend General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single-Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi-Family Residential – Approved o Request to Rezone property from R-1-8 to R-3 – Approved.  June 28, 2016 – o Request to Amend General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single-Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi-Family Residential – Denied o Request to Rezone property from R-1-8 to R-3 or R-4 – Denied ANALYSIS Background: The applicant is the land owner, these parcels are on the east side of 2700 West, is due east of the Roy City outdoor swimming pool and the Golf Course. The Union Pacific Railroad tracks are East of the property. Both parcels equal up to 2.89 acres (126,039.6 sq.-ft.). Amend Future Land Use Map: Current Designation: The subject property currently has a land use designation as Medium Density; Single- Family Residential (see exhibit “B”). Requested Land Use Designation: The applicant would like to change the Future Land Use Map from the current Medium Density; Single-Family Residential designation to a Very High Density, Multi-family designation Considerations: When considering a proposed amendment to the general plan the Commission and Council shall consider the following factors, as outlined in 10-5-5 “Criteria for approval of General Plan Amendments” of the Zoning Ordinance: 1) The effect of the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area. 2) The effect of the proposed amendment on the public health, welfare, and safety of City residents. 3) The effect of the proposed amendment on the interests of the City and its residents. 4) The location of the proposed amendment is determined to be suitable for the uses and activities allowed by the proposed amendment, and the City, and all other service providers, as applicable, are capable of providing all services required by the proposed uses and activities in a cost effective and efficient way. 5) Compatibility of the proposed uses with nearby and adjoining properties. 6) The suitability of the properties for the uses requested. 7) The effect of the proposed amendment on the existing goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, and listing any revisions to the City’s Land Use Ordinances, this Ordinance, the Subdivision 2  Ordinance, and any other Ordinances required to implement the amendment. 8) The community benefit of the proposed amendment. The above section of the Zoning Ordinance asks some questions mostly looking at the effect the proposed land use designation and compatibility/suitability to the surrounding uses. Staff would like to comment on some these questions The character of the surrounding areas (see Exhibit “A”) –  To the West, there are Storage units, there are also some two (2) single-family dwellings and then a Manufacturing Business. All are zoned LM (Light Manufacturing)  To the North, South and East there are Single-family residential units, however the Union Pacific Railroad is in between this property and the residential units to the East.  Kiddy-corner to the SW there are three (3) four-plexes. Interests of the City & Residents –  Having a variety of housing types helps the citizens of every City stay within the community they have lived in.  Not everyone wants, or can have a detached home with yard to maintain.  Some want to downsize not just in home size. General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies –  Within the “Conformance to the General Plan” section of this report it lists five (5) goals and policies that this type of development would satisfy. Amend Zoning Map: Current Zoning: Currently the property is zoned R-1-8, the properties to the west are all different. There is LM (Light Manufacturing) R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) and RE-20 (Residential Estates) Requested Zone Change: The applicant would like to have the property changed to either R-3 zoning to allow multi-family residential. However the R-4 zone does allow for a mix-use type development of allowing office space, which may not be appropriate in this area. Considerations: When considering a Zoning District Map Amendment, the Commission and the Council shall consider the following factors, as outlined in section 10-5-9 “Criteria for Approval of a … Zoning Map” of the Zoning Ordinance: 1) The effect of the proposed amendment to advance the goals and policies of the Roy City General Plan. 2) The effect of the proposed amendment on the character of the surrounding area. 3) The compatibility of the proposed uses with nearby and adjoining properties. 4) The suitability of the properties for the uses requested. 5) The overall community benefits. No amendment to the Zoning Districts Map (rezone) may be recommended by the Commission nor approved by the Council unless such amendment is found to be consistent with the General Plan and Land Use Maps. The above section of the Zoning Ordinance asks some questions mostly looking at the effect the proposed zone and compatibility/suitability to the surrounding uses. Staff would like to comment on some these questions General Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies –  Within the “Conformance to the General Plan” section of this report it lists five (5) goals and policies that this type of development would satisfy. The character of the surrounding areas (see Exhibit “A”) – 3   To the West, there are Storage units, there are also some two (2) single-family dwellings and then a Manufacturing Business. All are zoned LM (Light Manufacturing)  To the North, South and East there are Single-family residential units, however the Union Pacific Railroad is in between this property and the residential units to the East.  Kiddy-corner to the SW there are three (3) four-plexes. Compatibility with surrounding area –  If you look at the current zoning map and look 500 feet in each direction from this property, there are three (3) different residential zones (R-1-8 & RE-20) and a Manufacturing zone. Rezoning this property to R-3 and the uses allowed within that zone are more compatible with the R-1 or RE zones than the Light Manufacturing and the allowable uses which again exists in the neighborhood. Some additional questions that the Commission and Council needs to reflect upon are:  Does changing are not changing the zoning provide the best options for development of this property or area?  How can this property best be developed? As single-family dwellings? As multi-family residential? OR as Manufacturing? All three (3) types of uses exist in the area. FINDINGS 1. It’s the best and highest use of the land. 2. Provides and supports Roy City Economic Development. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS The City Council can Approve, Approve with conditions, Deny or Table. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council approves a. Ord. No. 20-4; To amend the General Plan (Future Land Use Map) from Medium Density, Single-Family Residential to Very High Density, Multi-Family Residential. b. Ord. No. 20-5; To amend the Zoning Map from R-1-8 (Single-Family Residential) to R-3 (Multi-Family Residential) EXHIBITS A. Aerial Map B. Future Land Use Map C. Zoning Map D. February 11, 2020 Planning Commission minutes E. Proposed Elevations 4 EXHIBIT “A” – AERIAL MAP 5 EXHIBIT “B” – FUTURE LAND USE MAP 6 EXHIBIT “C” – ZONING MAP 7 EXHIBIT “D” – FEBRUARY 11, 2020 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES 8 9 10 11 EXHIBIT “E” PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 12 EXHIBIT “E” – ORDINANCE NO. 20-04 ORDINANCE NO. 20-4 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION OF VERY HIGH DENSITY, MULTI-FAMILY ON A PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5154 SOUTH 2700 WEST. WHEREAS, Roy City has received a petition to amend the Future Land Use Map by changing the designation on a property comprising approximately 2.89 acres (126,039.6 sq.-ft) of land located at approximately 5154 So. 2700 We. from a designation of Commercial and Medium Density Single-Family Residential to a designation of Very High Density Multi-Family Residential; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the petition and favorably recommended the change; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will advance the existing goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and is assured that the change will not be detrimental to the appropriate residential use of the property; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the same in a public meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, be it hereby ordained by the City Council of Roy City, Utah, that the Future Land Use Designation of a portion of the properties at 5154 So. 2700 We. be established as a Very High Density Multi-Family Residential and that the Roy City Future Land Use Map be amended to depict the same. This Ordinance has been approved by the following vote of the Roy City Council: Councilman Burrell . Councilman Jackson . Councilman Paul Councilman Saxton Councilman Wilson This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage, lawful posting, and recording. This Ordinance has been passed by the Roy City Council this Day of , 2020. __________________________ Robert Dandoy Mayor Attested and Recorded: __________________________ Morgan Langholf City Recorder 13 EXHIBIT “E” – ORDINANCE NO. 20-05 ORDINANCE NO. 20-5 AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING A ZONING DESIGNATION OF R-3 ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 5154 SOUTH 2700 WEST. WHEREAS, Roy City has received a petition to change the zoning on a property comprising of approximately 2.89 acres (126,039.6 sq.-ft) of land located at approximately 5154 So. 2700 We. from a designation of R-1-6 & R-1-8 to a designation of R-3 with the condition that only “Townhomes” can be built on the property.; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the petition and favorably recommended the change; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment will advance the existing goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan and is assured that the continued residential use of the properties will be conducted appropriately; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the same in a public meeting. NOW, THEREFORE, be it hereby ordained by the City Council of Roy City, Utah, that the zoning designation of the properties at 5154 So. 2700 We. be established as an R-4designation and that the Roy City Zoning Map be amended to depict the same. This Ordinance has been approved by the following vote of the Roy City Council: Councilman Burrell Councilman Jackson . Councilman Paul Councilman Saxton Councilman Wilson This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage, lawful posting, and recording. This Ordinance has been passed by the Roy City Council this Day of , 2020. __________________________ Robert Dandoy Mayor Attested and Recorded: __________________________ Morgan Langholf City Recorder 14  MAYOR WORK SESSION PRESENTATION Add a Statement in the Introduction about grandfathering or allowing legal nonconforming structures currently found in this district to remain as is, unless a structural modification exceeds 33% or the structure is replaced. Add: The purpose and goal of Downtown Business District Form Based Code is: • Economic Development – Stimulate the economy by attracting and encouraging new business, investment and redevelopment. • Safety and Walkability – Create a safe and comfortable place for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorist to move throughout the city. • Housing and Development – Encourage and incentivize right-sized mixed-use development, affordable housing options, and office/commercial development. • Identity – Establish a district identity in the Roy downtown and at the Front-Runner Station that creates and supports a welcoming and attractive environment for visitors and residents alike. • Transportation – Create more efficient and accessible connections between destinations and between transit stops and stations.  Change to read: … block sizes should range between approximately 200’ X 200’ to … Change to read: Figure 1.3 (4) Remove these two streets from the proposed Downtown Business District Code. Site Plan should determine the number of access points. Remove this statement from the document. On private property there may not be public access to open space. Change to read; “Development parcels over 5 acres are required to provide 5% of the total lot size as open space”. Add: “This requirement does not apply to parcels that are developed directly adjacent to any proposed Roy City public open space”. Change to Read: … Open Space Types suggested by District. Change to Read: … Open Space Suggestions. Refer 6.0 for Open Space Types for specific Open Space recommendations. Question: Does the City want Street Trees? If so, along which streets? If so, who maintains them property owner, City? Not all streets will be public. Depending on the proposed development site plan there could be a private street. Change to read; “All City maintained streets shall be available for public use. Private streets can be posted as private but for public safety purposes, no gated streets.”  Do we want Street Trees? If so, change (3) the wording on this paragraph from “shall” to “should”. If trees are placed on 1900 West, the existing streetlight will determine tree distance from each other. Whoever approves the Site Plan should approve half streets. Change to read: “Half streets will be approved by the Planning Commission during the site plan review”. Add clearance distance requirements to ensure vehicle has visual access to oncoming traffic. Provide reference to Roy Code 10-10-35-Clear View of Intersecting Streets. Remove. Both illustrations show 66 feet and 78 feet Right-of-Ways. Median only authorized if 80 feet or wider. Change to read: Minimum 5’ wide planting zone… Remove: 2.5 Neighborhood Street Yield lane at 18’ is too narrow for two lane traffic (Figure 2.5 (1). One way Streets (Figure 2.5 (2)) not usable in the Downtown District. Add: All Alleys are considered private streets and will be maintained and conform to this standard. Change to read: 20-feet Setback Remove from District. Move taller buildings to the east in order to establish a better transition between the Downtown district and the residential areas, a less aggressive commercial building plan is necessary.  Change to read; “All uses not included in 4.2 -Definition of Uses are determined to be Prohibited Uses within the Roy City Downtown District”. ADD: Hours of Operation. Any nonresidential use located less than three hundred feet (300') of any residential use shall not open or operate between the hours of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Change to read; …, the Planning Commission may interpret the use… . Too restrictive and not enforceable. Change to read; “The vehicles are not stored for more than 30 days”.  Add: “Adult only Arcades (18 years and older) not permitted in these Districts. Apply current limits on the number of Tattoo operations allowed in City. Add: “Only 1 store per 10,000 residents”. Add a new column: “Adult Entertainment, i.e., Adult Arcade, Adult Book/Novelty/Video Stores, Adult Cabaret, Adult Motel, Adult Motion Picture Theater, Adult Theater, Adult – Seminude Model Studio, type businesses are not permitted in this District”. Add: Stationary & Paper Store Toy Shop Video/Game Sales & Rental 25  Add: if not properly screened. Add: “Only applies to parking lots with no associated buildings”. Change to read: “Commercial Vehicles. Parking lots for the sole purpose to park commercial vehicles and have no associated building, are not permitted in these districts”. Add: “or the structure is architecturally treated”. 26  Remove: … and shall be covered. Add: “All electrical power supplied will be underground”. Remove: ... with no service access. Change to read from “does not” to “does”. 27 Change to read from “required “ to “suggested”. Might be too restrictive! Form Based Codes is land development regulation that fosters predictable built results and a high-quality public domain by using physical form as the organizing principle for the code. There could be a case were a building design would fit that is not one of the 6 Building Types listed in Table 5.1. Add: Exceptions to the 6 Building Types listed will be considered and require the approval of the City Council. ADD: Naturally Occurring Site Features. All Site Plan Applications shall recognize and preserve, as practicable, the natural features and sensitive areas occurring on the site including areas of historic value, unusual or hazardous topography, or lands subject to flooding. All-natural features shall be preserved, as practical, and integrated into the site plan design.  30 Foot 40 Foot 50 Foot 20 Foot 30 Foot 50 Foot 40 Foot 20 Foot Change: Front Build-to Zone and Corner Build-to Zone • Downtown “Core A” From 0’ - 5’ to just 5’ • Downtown “Core B” 0’ - 5’ to just 5’ • Downtown “General A” 0’ - 10’ to just 5’ – 10’ Change: Maximum Overall Height • Downtown “Core A” From 12 stories to 7 stories • Downtown “Core B” From 10 stores to 6 stories Some office developments have upper stories 18 feet high. Change: Upper Stories Maximum Height • Downtown “Core A” From 14’ to 18’ add note 3 • Downtown “Core B” From 14’ to 18’ add note 3 • Downtown “General A” From 14’ to 18’ add note 3 Note 3: Change to read: “If 18 feet or more in height, the story shall count as two stories towards the maximum building height. Change: Front Build-to Zone • Downtown “Core A” From 0’- 10’ to just 5’ – 10’ • Downtown “Core B” 0’- 10’ to just 5’- 10’ • Downtown “General A” 0’- 10’ to just 5’ – 10’ Corner Build-to Zone • Downtown “Core A” From 0’- 5’ to just 5’ • Downtown “Core B” 0’- 5’ to just 5’ • Downtown “General A” 0’- 10’ to just 5’ – 10’ Change: Maximum Overall Height • Downtown “Core A” From 12 stories to 7 stories • Downtown “Core B” From 10 stories to 6 stories Change: Maximum Overall Height • Downtown “Core A” From 6 stories to 5 stories • Downtown “Core B” From 6 stories to 5 stories 47 48 49  Remove this reference to 5.12. 50 51  Why restrict to only Aerospace Design Theme requirements. The building design should be flexible and should be determined at the Site Plan approval. Change the first sentence to read; “The following requirements are encouraged but not mandatory to the Downtown Core Districts”. 52 53  The 6 examples are good reference types, but the developer might offer something better. Allow the Site Plan approval process to determine what is acceptable and keep the 6 examples as reference Open Space Types. Change to read; “Consideration should be given to apply one of the Open Space Types defined by 6.2 through 6.8. However, alternate designs will be considered. Continuous pedestrian walkways and trails may be a component of the Open Space. Change to read; “All public open space shall provide access from a vehicular right-of-way”. Remove the sentence; “Whether public or private, all open space types in this section must be accessible and open to the public. ADD: When developments are adjacent to existing public open space, recreation infrastructure, or to the amenities and open space of adjoining projects, the developer may propose variations, reductions or modifications as appropriate. Change to read; “A qualified landscape design professional, such as a landscape architect or certified landscape designed may be utilized to incorporate ….”. Change from 30% to 33% Remove Change from “Shall” to “Should” Add: “(3) Fencing Requirements. All fencing/screening that abuts single-family residential districts will comply with RCZ Title 10-10-24, Title 10-10-31, and Title 10-10-36. Where provisions of this chapter differ, i.e. buffer depth, …etc, from the other sections of the RCZ Title, the requirements of this chapter shall apply. Change to read minimum 20’ Remove note 1. Add as follows: … changes in use or intensity of use greater than 33% for existing development,… Change to read: 0.5  ADD: Preferred Site and Building Lighting Types: • Indirect Lighting. • Recessed Lighting. • “Shielded” or “hooded” Fixtures. • “Bollards” or other low-level walkway lighting. • Ground Lighting. • Decorative building and site lighting. Prohibited Lighting Types: • Exposed Bulb Fixtures • Directional Floodlights. • Excessive or intense lighting of any kind. Change to: “allow” Change “inch” to “feet” Remove ADD: Home occupation signs. Home occupation signs are allowed within Districts based upon issuance of a business license. Home occupation signs shall not exceed two (2) square feet in area and must be attached to the home. ADD: Signs on public bus benches or attached to bus enclosures located on public or private property are approved by the Planning Commission. Approval shall be subject to the following criteria: • No public nuisance or hazard is created. • The signage shall not advertise tobacco, alcoholic beverages or allow the depiction of any matter deemed by the Planning Commission to be obscene, harmful to minors or in violation of law. • The signage shall always be maintained, including at a minimum: • Removal of trash and emptying of any receptacle. • Snow removal. • Graffiti removal. • The owner shall respond within twenty-four (24) hours of any request from the City to clean or service any bench, shelter or trash receptacle. • In the event the Director deems that any shelter, bench or trash receptacle is unsafe needing immediate repair or removal, the owner shall respond within two (2) hours of notification. • The city may remove any bus bench or shelter placed wholly or partly within the public right of way or any public property contrary to the provisions of this chapter ADD: Pole Signs. Reference requirements from Title 13-4-3. A (3.) Pole Signs. To establish a standard Pole Sign in the District requires Planning Commission approval on the Site Plan. Change to “3” 84 85 86 87 88 89 Change to read; “To achieve mixed use development that is appropriate in scale and intensity”. Change to read; “… 33 % gross square footage of a structure... . Change to read … shall serve “to” approve… Change to read: … illustrating compliance with approved building project. Change to read; “… of more 33 percent in gross... “. Change to 33%  Change to Read 33% How long if not 12 months ADD: Definition associated with Signs are found in Title 13-2-1. Change to Read 33% Change to read 10.5 (1) Change to Read “Lots” Form Based Code Research Synopsis Information collected and compiled by Diane Wilson April 2020 Why did I do this research? ● Understand scope of FBC from several perspectives ● Share information ● Determine if FBC modifiable or take different approach  References: South Ogden—one councilmember North Ogden—4 councilmembers, asst. city planner/principle developer of their FBC proposal Clearfield—mayor, development director, city planner, 2 councilmembers West Valley City—mayor, community development director Sugar House—land use and zoning committee chair Sandy City—planning director Riverton—development services director Clinton City—city planner Chattanooga, Tennessee--development director Northrop Grumman—recently appointed and previous Manager of State & Local Affairs Developers—4 different individuals representing large and small businesses Construction—major commercial construction company Engineers—LA county—redevelopment projects, previous UDOT engineer, local structural/civil engineer, structural/civil engineer professor Ogden City—2 council members Weber County Sheriff Police Chief Utah Sign Association, Director State & Local Government Affairs Program Coordinator, Weber State University Location visits—Farmington Station, South Salt Lake, Sugar House, Ogden, North Ogden, West Valley City, South Ogden, Clearfield Property/business owners/citizens as possible.  Notice and Public Awareness ● Business owners not notified (unless own property) ● Property owners--Letter did not convey impact of FBC Property owner’s perception of notification: Roy City Property Owner: “I own business and rental properties. When I read the letter, I thought, ‘they are just changing the name to encompass all uses.” When major City policy changes arise, how much notice and involvement would you like? Questions--from Leaders of other cities ● Why does Roy need FBC? ● What goals does Roy want to accomplish with FBC? ● FBC is a tool. Is FBC best tool to accomplish goals? ● FBC = Mixed use, Mixed use does NOT EQUAL FBC  ● Good for increased FBC as a tool-- housing density projects Leaders’ comments ● Doesn’t protect commercial well * ● Increased administration work and time ● Decreased developer time Recommendations--Leaders of other cities ● DON’T RUSH! ● Inform and include--businesses, property owners, citizens ● Clearfield: “it is absolutely worth every bit of time it takes” ● Protect commercial regions ● Consider--zoning option, one development at a time Business owners ● Nonconformance ○ Cost prohibitive ○ “Are you trying to drive us out?” ○ “Why are you laying this on us now? We are just trying to survive!” ● Increased residential may help with business if traffic not too bad Developers ● Like FBC if no commercial requirement ● Specific detail restrictions are costly and prohibit design, creativity ● Residential--where current market is ● Commercial/retail--currently not market supported General Comments ● Like “spruce up” Downtown idea ● Want increased retail and restaurants ● Don’t lose commercial land ● Keep community feel! Lost with FBC high density ● Ok with careful mixed use ○ Shops on bottom ok ○ Not lots high rise density More General Comments ● Avoid tunnel feel--high and close to sidewalk ● Traffic BIG CONCERN! ● Limited high-rise, high density housing ● Looks not a priority Trees/Landscape ● Look nice at first ● Hard to maintain ● Businesses don’t like trees ● Medians not wanted Property owner’s opinion of medians: Are there more pros or cons to adding landscaped medians on 1900 West? Pros Neutral Cons Signage ● Important for business success ● Critical component of “looks” in FBC ● Utah and International Sign Association found it was detrimental to businesses ○ Omit FBC signage section ○ Use current code for signage How to connect? ● Electronic meetings/communication-- difficult for free flow of ideas and discussion ● Need face to face town hall. Important for such a major proposal  Conclusion ● Work on notification! Inform and include--business/property owners, citizens ● Define goals we hope FBC to accomplish ● Can we modify current FBC to achieve goals without “leaving a trail of destruction in its wake”? ● Consider “Mixed use option”. Available for developers project by project ● We definitely need more TIME!