12.13.22 Council Minutes

THE STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF SEVIER
CITY OF RICHFIELD

At the City Council
In and For Said City
December 13, 2022

Minutes of the Richfield City Council special meeting held on Tuesday, December 13, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Richfield City office building located at 75 East Center, Richfield, Utah. Mayor Bryan L. Burrows presiding.

1. OPENING REMARKS
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
3. ROLL CALL
4. APPOINTMENTS TO PLANNING COMMISSION
5. MINUTES
6. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (UTAH BEEF PRODUCERS, LLC)
7. PUBLIC HEARING – BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR WATER/SPRING PROJECT
8. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 800.813 CONCERNING DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PLAINS
9. PUBLIC HEARING – MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING APPLICATIONS RELATED TO EXTENDED STAY MOTELS/HOTELS
10. ORDINANCE 2022-35 IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ADOPTED
11. APPLICATIONS TO THE JOINT HIGHWAY COMMITTEE APPROVED
12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT
13. CONDITIONAL USE FOR POULSEN DEVELOPMENT TO OPERATE AS A MIXED-USE TABLED
14. INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS DISCUSSED BY SHONTAE HATCH
15. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS REVIEWED AND ENGINEER SELECTED
16. ORDINANCE 2022-32 ADOPTED
17. OTHER BUSINESS
18. MEETING ADJOURNED
19. OPENING REMARKS were given by Tyson Hanson.
20. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Councilmember Gardner.
21. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor Burrows, Brayden Gardner, Todd Gleave, Kip Hansen, Elaine Street, Tanner Thompson, Michele Jolley, Tyson Hansen.
22. APPOINTMENTS. Mayor Burrows stated that Josh Peterson’s and Wes Kirchner’s terms on the Planning Commission are expiring and they have agreed to serve another term. Motion: Reappoint Josh Peterson and Wes Kirchner to the Planning Commission, Action: Approved, Moved by Brayden Gardner, Seconded by Tanner Thompson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave.
23. MINUTES APPROVED. The Council reviewed the minutes of the meetings held on October 25 and November 8, 2022. Councilmember Hansen said that he had reviewed the minutes and found them to accurate. Motion: Approve the minutes of the meetings held on October 25 and November 8, 2022, Action: Approved, Moved by Kip Hansen, Seconded by Elaine Street. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave.
24. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED $10,000,000 INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT REVENUE BONDS (UTAH BEEF PRODUCERS, LLC). Mayor Burrows opened a hearing at 7:04 p.m. to receive comments on the City’s proposed issuance of not to exceed $10,000,000 industrial development revenue bonds (Utah Beef Producers, LLC), series 2023. Hearing no comments, Mayor Burrows closed the hearing at 7:05 p.m.
25. PUBLIC HEARING – BONDS TO BE ISSUED FOR WATER/SPRING PROJECT. Mayor Burrows opened a hearing at 7:05 p.m. to receive comments on the City’s issuance of the Bonds and any potential economic impact to the private sector from the construction of culinary water system improvements, including replacement of water lines, spring redevelopment, and roadway replacement, together with related improvements to be funded by the Bonds. Hearing no comments, Mayor Burrows closed the hearing at 7:06 p.m.
26. PUBLIC HEARING – PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 800.813 CONCERNING DRAINAGE AND FLOOD PLAINS. Mayor Burrows opened a public hearing at 7:06 p.m. to receive comments on a proposed amendment to Section 800.813 of the Subdivision Code concerning Drainage and Flood Plains.

ShonTae Hatch asked for an explanation as to what is being discussed. Mayor Burrows explained that it has to do with hydraulic evaluations, service storage facilities, retention facilities, detention facilities, and subsurface facilities. She asked if it has anything to do with dry wells. It was noted that this is part of the subdivision ordinance so it requires a public hearing and the adoption of an ordinance to change what is currently in the ordinance.

Mayor Burrows stated that it states the ponds have to drain within 3 days. It also talks about choices for lining the pond with grass or rocks.

Councilmember Hansen stated that it has to do with subsurface facilities, not wells per se. There is a provision to use with subsurface it does not have to be an above-surface detention pond. Mayor Burrows closed the hearing at 7:09 p.m.

9. PUBLIC HEARING – MORATORIUM ON PROCESSING APPLICATIONS RELATED TO EXTENDED STAY MOTELS/HOTELS. Mayor Burrows opened a public hearing at 7:10 p.m. to receive comments concerning the implementation of a moratorium on processing applications related to extended stay motels/hotels and related matters. Mayor Burrows noted that this is a six-month moratorium on things related to extended-stay motels/hotels. No comments were made by the public.

Councilmember Hansen thinks that this moratorium is prudent and we need to have a chance to approach this with certain aspects. Mayor Burrows closed the hearing at 7:11 p.m.

10. ORDINANCE 2022-35 IMPOSING A MORATORIUM ADOPTED. The Council reviewed an ordinance that would impose a moratorium on the processing of applications related to extended stay motels/hotels and related matters. Motion: Adopt Ordinance 2022-35 imposing a moratorium on the processing of applications related to extended stay motels/hotels and related matters, Action: Adopted, Moved by Kip Hansen, Seconded by Tanner Thompson.

Councilmember Thompson wanted to clarify if our goal during the moratorium is to get our arms around it and implement the best statute going forward. Mayor Burrows noted that is the purpose. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave.

11. APPLICATIONS TO THE JOINT HIGHWAY COMMITTEE WERE APPROVED. Mayor Burrows explained that we are looking at applications for an extension of the bike path from Rotary Park to 1300 South, a new bridge for 100 East, and a project to redo 400 West. Micklane Farmer stated that these are 3 different projects being considered. He went over the estimate for each one.

The first application would be to redo 400 West. This is the same type of funding that the City received for 500 North that we are putting together plans on right now. He would anticipate applying for the full 1.5 million dollars plus the City match to redo 400 West. Then we can decide on the full scope of the project once we get funding for it. The funding for this project would be about 3 years out so we do not know what the costs are going to be. We could do the whole thing and not do drainage with it, or we could do a drainage component with it. At this point, we would just apply for the full 1.5 million and the City’s match would be 6.7%. Mr. Farmer noted that even though we have the 500 North project that is open, UDOT still allows us to apply for another project. We will know if we receive funding for the project in February, but we cannot build it for 3 years.
Councilmember Thompson asked if we have to set priorities for the projects. Mr. Farmer explained that we would be applying to 3 different funding pools, so we can apply for all 3.

The bike path project would extend the bike path from Rotary Park to 1300 South and then from 1300 South to Main Street. Mr. Farmer stated that we have discussed putting a path instead of a sidewalk along 1300 South because of the pedestrian traffic from the motels and RV park. We looked at applying for funds from the UDOT Safe Sidewalk fund, but last year they only had $50,000 available, and it was obviously not enough to put a sidewalk in.

Mayor Burrows would like to see an option to take the bike path out along Cove View Road.

Councilmember Gardner asked if the path would be in UDOT right of way and Mr. Farmer stated that it would. The section from Rotary Park to 1300 South is the most expensive portion because the ditch along College Avenue has to be piped. The estimated cost for that section was $800,000. Councilmember Hansen asked if we had looked at an option to put the path on the north side of 1300 South instead of the south side. Mr. Farmer explained that the problem with the north side is that the intersection on Main Street would be difficult to cross over because of the acceleration lane turning up 1300 South.

The total estimated cost for the bike path would be 1.4 million dollars. We can apply for just the $800,000 for the section from Rotary Park to 1300 South or we could apply for just the $6000,000 section from 1300 South to Main Street, or we could apply for the whole 1.4 million dollars.

Mr. Farmer noted that we have already discussed the bridge on 100 East. This application would also include some costs for the right of way so the total estimate is $631,000.

Councilmember Gleave asked if we ask for the full amount for the bike path and if it is possible they could cut that. Mr. Farmer stated typically it has been all or nothing. The State has been making a real push for bike paths, so there might be a lot more money coming for that.

Councilmember Gardner wondered if we would have a better chance of getting funding if we only applied for a lower amount. Mr. Farmer stated that it is a gamble either way.

Councilmember Gleave asked if each of the projects would stand on its own or if it was all or nothing. Mr. Farmer noted that they are separate.

Councilmember Hansen stated that if we are discussing 3 different funding streams, he does not see why we would not want to apply for all of them. Motion: Approve applications to the Joint Highway Committee for funding of a bike path extension, reconstruction of 400 West, and a bridge on 100 East and 500 South, Action: Approved, Moved by Tanner Thompson, Seconded by Todd Gleave. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave.

12. PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT. Kendrick Thomas reported on the Planning Commission meeting held on December 7. They discussed metal storage containers in commercial zones. They are not allowed in commercial zones, so they felt that this is similar to the ordinance we looked at for metal buildings and the appearance and finishes on the outside. There are certain thoroughfares throughout the City where we want things to look less industrial. They put together a committee to look at what other communities are doing and report back to the Planning Commission.

Councilmember Thompson stated that his business has a commercial building that they work out of in Lehi and they have 2 metal storage containers there, but they have to be behind the building and not visible from the road. Councilmember Hansen stated that they are in the same category as railroad cars and so they are just graffiti magnets.

The Planning Commission looked at short-term rentals and how the current ordinance is functioning. We have roughly 20 short-term rentals that have licenses. They do know that some are not licensed that are advertising.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the changes to the drainage section of the subdivision ordinance. They recommended approval of this ordinance.

They discussed applications for conditional use permits and approved one for Katrina Downs to conduct a tooth whitening business at 760 West 1000 South.

They considered an application by Poulsen Developers to approve the Knights Inn as a mixed-use. They determined that the Shirt Stop is using it for some retail storage and there was a question about whether that was commercial use. There is a store on the south side of the building and the restaurant could be operated. We have a lot of buildings in the downtown area that have apartments above them. The question is whether they would use the commercial space that is supportive of the apartments and what is the square footage of the commercial space so they can calculate parking requirements for that plus parking requirements for the apartments that would be behind there. They did recommend approval of a mixed us to the council noting that they may not be operating like that now, but that is the intention. They also felt that they should present a plan for what the percentage would be for commercial and residential so that parking could be determined.

They tabled approval of the Cove View Townhomes. Because no one was there. Councilmember Thompson asked if this would not be considered high-density housing. Mr. Thomas stated that there are some unknowns there, but it is governed by parking. They compared it to the high-density zone and there would be room for 29 units. They talked about the building code and the change of use and that the building would need to be brought up to code.

13. CONDITIONAL USE FOR POULSEN DEVELOPMENT TO OPERATE AS A MIXED-USE TABLED. The Poulsen Development has requested a conditional use permit to operate the property formerly the Knights Inn located at 69 South Main as a mixed-use. Councilmember Thompson declared a conflict of interest because he has a commercial lease with the Poulsen’s at this address.

Mr. Mackelprang stated that when the occupancy changes, they have to be brought up to the current building code. He walked through the Ville after the fire and that is the reason why he felt that we need to require upgrades and improvements prior to people living there. Mayor Burrows asked Mr. Mackelprang if the Poulsens had applied for a building permit for this building and he indicated that they had not. Mr. Mackelprang met with Brent Poulsen before the fire and Mr. Poulsen told him that he wanted to renovate he came up with an idea, but he needed to know if that was doable. After the fire, he talked with Troy Poulsen and told him that if they were going to use these rooms for long-term, they had to be brought up to code.

Councilmember Thompson asked what upgrades need to be made. they would have to bring the wiring up to code because the necessities of smaller appliances would require a complete gut job. Mr. Hansen stated that he is not willing to act on this request until those units are brought up to code. When the temporary people there are gone, then it would make more sense to have that discussion. Mr. Mackelprang said that the whole idea is that we are trying to keep people safe. He stated that the Ville was a good wake-up call for all of us.

Motion: Table any action on this request until the current transient residents are no longer there and then look at this situation then, Action: Tabled, Moved by Kip Hansen, Seconded by Elaine Street. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave.

14. INFRASTRUCTURE CONCERNS DISCUSSED BY SHONTAE HATCH. ShonTae Hatch was present to discuss infrastructure concerns for 1080 South concerning the TOK Development. She stated that the reason she wanted to talk about this road is that it is not a paved road into the development. She gave the Council a little history, starting from 1998 and 1999 when there was a 911 change on the addresses in most of the outskirt areas of Richfield along with some of the other towns. So when she is talking about these documents, a lot of them talk about 1100 South and it is actually 1080 South, and Tech Drive is now College Avenue. She knows that we are mainly focusing on the road, so she will try to keep it to just the road.

Ms. Hatch gave Councilmember Hansen a copy of a letter from the City to Mike Labrum dated July 22, 1998, in regards to the 1080 road. The letter stated that the items required by the Planning Commission were: 1) access into Technology Drive would be taken care of as required; 2) an additional 10 feet be laid on 1100 South which increases the asphalt to 26 feet; 3) installation with curb and gutter along with all platted roadways; 4) installation of curb and gutter and sidewalk along Technology Drive. That is what was required of Mike Labrum for our Indian Hills Subdivision.

When it was proposed as shown in the minutes of May 8, 1998, they talked about how it was going to connect that road. They talked about how it needed federal funding for 10 lots and 2 access points. There were also a lot of zoning problems because the property was extremely small. In the minutes of June 23, 1998, they talked about how it should only be an R1-8 zone and not changed to anything bigger because it was only 9,000 square feet per lot.

She wanted to know why that was not looked at when it was rezoned in 2021. She read the minutes from July 13, 1998, “Final approval for Indian Springs Subdivision. Rex Friant was present to request final approval of plans for the Indian Springs Subdivision. Chairman Hawley discussed the City right-of-way which exists between Technology Drive and the property line along the west side of this development and wondered if there are plans to describe curb and gutter on the sides of the property. Mr. Friant stated that this was not included in the final plans. It was determined that the developer, under the land use management and development code is responsible for the installation of improvements which would include curb, gutter, and asphalt shoulders. Chairman Hawley that this would need to be included in the development of the subdivision. There was also some discussion about commercial development and the need for a sidewalk along Technology Drive. The Commission felt that the sidewalk should also be included in the improvement. Commissioner Naser felt that all roads should be wider than the proposed 33 feet of asphalt and he thinks that access to Technology Drive needs to be addressed before the development is approved. It was further discussed that 1100 South needs to come in at a perpendicular angle to Technology Drive.” Ms. Hatch stated that there is a blind corner right there. She went on to read, “The Commissioner discussed who would be responsible for the access and Chairman Hawley, along with other Commissioners felt that ultimately the responsibility lies with Mr. Labrum because he would derive the most benefit from the development. The Commission felt that this issue should be addressed before final approval is given. There was concern about the developer only installing 16 feet of asphalt along 1100 South. Chairman Hawley felt that an additional 10 feet of asphalt should be included on the road to allow for 2 lanes of traffic to flow. It was suggested that Mr. Labrum contact the school district and see if arrangements could be made to asphalt the entire road at the same time. After all, according to Chairman Hawley, after the school is built, this road will become a major access and needs to be thought out carefully. This would also include access to Technology which Mr. Abraham should approach the school district for help with the cost because it will be a major access as well. Commissioner Naser moved to approve final plans for Indian Springs Subdivision with the stipulation that the developer will provide access to Technology Drive, and that an additional 10 feet of asphalt will be laid along 1100 South to allow for 2 traffic lanes, increasing the width of the asphalt to 26 feet and the curb and butter will be installed along all roadways including Technology Drive, as well as the sidewalk installed along Technology Drive which is not planned for in the final plans.”

On July 28, 1998, Indian Springs was finally approved and it was approved for 19 lots. Ms. Hatch also read these minutes. In these minutes, Mr. Friant stated that the subdivision will be divided into 2 phases until the problems on 1100 South can be solved. The rest of the subdivision will be completed when 1100 South is developed to Technology Drive. The Planning Commission has not reviewed or revised the 2 phases. The plan the Planning Commission approved was for one phase which included the entire subdivision. There will be 6 lots on 1100 South when it is developed.

Ms. Hatch gave the City a copy of the warranty deed along with the CCRs for the subdivision. She did not know what the warranty deed had in it, but she had a surveyor who indicated that the warranty deed included those 6 lots. The City takes the stance that their subdivision does not hold those six lots which she wholeheartedly disagrees on. The City also said that their developer abandoned them. She stated that she got a letter from the City stating that their developer did not abandon them, so she does not know how TOK got there. It’s a mystery.

Back to the road. She had some pictures of the road to show. Ms. Hatch noted that there were some issues with property descriptions on 1080 South and that it is just a big mess. Kylee McClure asked Ms. Hatch if she had talked to the County Recorder about this. Ms. Hatch stated that she has tried to talk to Jason Monroe and that he will not talk to her. She had a fight with Gena Ogden from the County Recorder’s office over this. Ms. McClure stated that she does not know if it is really coming down to who is wrong or right, it is just a disagreement on the section corners. Ms. Hatch stated that it is ridiculous that it has gone this far so all she can do is try to salvage what is left and hope that her lawyer comes through.

Councilmember Thompson asked what Ms. Hatch and Gena Ogden got into a fight about. Ms. Hatch said that Chief Lloyd was called out and she was asked to move her vehicle because it was parked in a lot and it was on a road. So she went down to talk to Ms. Ogden to ask what kind of easement was on that Abraham property. Mrs. Abraham never called the police, Ken Thomas did. Mr. Thomas had said that Ms. Hatch had blocked the road and Chief Lloyd said she had to move her vehicle because she was blocking the road on private property. When she went to the recorder’s office, the only easement on that property is to the north or the canal with the Sevier Canal Company so she is still confused as to why she had to move her car. Chief Lloyd noted that her registration was expired by over a year. Ms. Hatch said that he should have towed it and Chief Lloyd agreed that he should have.

Her next problem is that on February 9, 2022, according to minutes she said she received from the Sevier School District Board of Education where they talked about this particular road which part is in the County, not annexed in, part of it is in the City and part of it the Abrahams own. Ms. Hatch stated that she talked to Chad Lloyd down there. She read items from Chad Lloyd. “Property Transfer. Mr. Lloyd explained while showing the Board on the map that a small housing development is being put in near Technology Drive and 1080 South bordering our property. Richfield City will be requiring the developer to finish the existing unimproved roadway. Richfield City would like the District to deed the roadway property to Richfield City prior to them finishing the road. Mr. Lloyd explained that this would be a win/win for the District and a long-term benefit as it increases the value of the property. Mr. Lloyd has discussed this with the District’s attorney who also sees this as a benefit. Mr. Lloyd asked Mr. Savage for his opinion on this. Mr. Savage explained that some of the property is actually in the County, not the City. The City will need to annex the property prior to the transfer. Superintendent Douglas discussed that in the future, Richfield City may want to complete finishing up the road to Technology Drive. Ms. Rasmussen asked for further discussion amongst the Board prior to the vote on the property transfer. Mr. Savage explained that if the District did develop the property in the future, the City would require the road to be finished at that time. He said that transferring the property over now would benefit the developer and the District because the road would be paid for by the developer. Mr. Lloyd mentioned that this is a long-term benefit for the District. Mr. Savage explained that although the District is giving up some portion of the land, the land we are deeding is already tied up in an existing unimproved roadway that has a perspective easement on it. Mrs. Rasmussen asked about the liability of the District for the intersection of the road. Mr. Savage explained that the engineers will make sure the intersection is safe and no liability will be put on the District. Mrs. Rasmussen asked about what type of housing will be built on the property.” Ms. Hatch found this very interesting. “Mr. Savage noted that the houses may be similar to the Six County housing. He noted that the developer would be liable for getting water and power on the property. There was a brief discussion about the water, power, and sewer requirements that will be needed if the District decides to build on the property. A motion was made by Mr. Savage, seconded by Dixie Rasmussen to approve the property transfer to Richfield City.”

Mayor Burrows noted that it was great that they all assume that it would be this way or that way, but none of that had anything to do with it. Not one of the people in that meeting has anything to do with that; what is going to be built there or what is not going to be built there. Our ordinance is half of the road plus 10 feet, so when they tell you that they were going to have the developer put the road in, they do not have any authority to say that or to promise that. Ms. Hatch stated that that was part of the agreement for them to deed the property over. Mayor Burrows answered that it was not part of an agreement. Mark Hatch stated that that is what the District said. Mayor Burrows stated that we have people deed property all the time for roads. We never signed any agreement. Ms. Hatch stated that when she talked to Chad Lloyd he was very confused about whether it was Richfield City that approached him. He basically said that he felt like Ken Thomas was representing Richfield City when he went to the Board to ask for this to be transferred. She just wondered how many other people go out and try to say hey I’m from Richfield City and kind of misrepresent…

Mayor Burrows stated that Ms. Hatch is assuming that he did that. She just said that Chad Lloyd said he was under the impression that that is what it was. He does not believe that Mr. Thomas went in there and said that he was representing Richfield City. She did not know that she needed proof of that, but she was sure she could get it. Councilmember Hansen pointed out that it was not in their minutes. Mayor Burrows stated that he could hardly imagine that the School District would, especially under the advisement of their attorney, would do that. Ms. Hatch said that this is what is so confusing because they were promised something, especially if the attorney was kind of…

Mayor Burrows asked what this has to do with the City. Councilmember Gardner clarified with Ms. Hatch that the School District did decide to deed the property to the City, so if the School District wanted something in return, then they should have received that prior to signing the deed. Mayor Burrows stated that we did not have any quid-pro-quo with them at all. They did not give us that for something.

Councilmember Hansen called for a point of order because the agenda item is to discuss the road. He does not know why we are discussing what type of homes the School District wanted there. That is not on the agenda. Ms. Hatch stated that it was just her take on it, but we are discussing the road that the School District did deed over that property under the impression that that was what was going to happen.

Ms. Hatch stated that the School District deeded the property over to the City with the requirement that the road would be finished by the developer. Mayor Burrows said that it will be; half of it plus 10 feet. Just like our ordinance states. She wanted something in writing. Mayor Burrows said that it is in the ordinance. You can look them up. She has a problem right now with the City letting the development go in with absolutely no infrastructure. Mayor Burrows noted that this is done on the time. She wanted to know on what development. She said that most of it have to be done.

Mayor Burrows said that we have a development agreement and they have to bring everything up to code before they can have occupancy. Ms. Hatch asked if this is the workaround. Councilmember Hansen noted again that this is done all of the time. There are not 2 projects that are the same which is why we enter into a development agreement. This is not any different than any others. He does not see what the problem is.

Councilmember Thompson stated that no one can move in until all the infrastructure is done, but Ms. Hatch is upset because they are working on it first without infrastructure being done. Ms. Hatch stated that mainly because no one can access the road as far as the ditch. Water to our farmers is very important to her. They do not have piping in and they did not even have a road for this development until November 1 when she pushed the issue from Abraham’s property. She does not know how they were issued a building permit when there was not even a road to the property. Yes, they were accessing it through Abraham’s property which they did not have permission to do. The way the irrigation ran the whole side they were not able to get to their development. The only way they could access their property was to drive right through the Abraham’s property. They never put a culvert in the road or built a road over the top into the development until November 1.

Mayor Burrows wondered what this has to do with the City. Ms. Hatch wanted to know what development is issued a building permit that is landlocked. She said the building permit was issued on August 3. Mr. Hatch said that Ms. Hatch has been tip-toeing around the issue that it appears — Councilmember Gardner tried to put a development there and it did not work because of the road. Mike Labrum tried to put a development there. It did not work because of the road. According to what Ms. Hatch has been saying, the road has been so important to everything that has happened there, and now looking in, it appears that the guy that is over the planning and zoning orchestrated this whole thing. Ms. Hatch chimed in that he was also the engineer of the project. Mayor Burrows stated that he was not the engineer and the developer.

Mr. Hatch said that he is the head guy over planning and zoning. Do you see the optics that the City is putting forth? The optics look horrible. It looks like there was favoritism everywhere around because Councilmember Gardner did not get to put a development there. Mike Labrum did not get to put a development there. Councilmember Gardner stated that he tried to buy the property about a week after it had been tied up because he had learned different things and realized that now it is feasible, so he tried to buy it.

Councilmember Hansen told the Hatches that if they attacked the chairman of the Planning Commission one more time in this meeting, he would ask the Mayor to have them removed respectfully because that is totally out of line and out of order and it has absolutely nothing to do with what they asked to be put on this agenda for. He asked the Hatches to cease that line of crap now.

Mr. Hatch again stated that except for the optics that it presents. That is what they are trying to put up here. Clearly, it was still part of their subdivision. The whole process has felt like the City has bullied them because they were asking questions.

Ms. Hatch stated that Mike Labrum was not allowed to do the subdivision without a through road. Poulsons were not allowed to do the subdivision without a through road. Now, all of a sudden, we make the exception for TOK development. The City cannot legally make TOK put the road to College Avenue. Mr. Hatch stated that the point that they are making is now the City is going to eminent domain someone’s property. Mayor Burrows told Mr. Hatch that the City is not using eminent domain on any property. Councilmember Hansen wondered where that came from. Mr. Hatch said that it came from Kendrick Thomas when he was taking over part of the land to put another development on it.

Mayor Burrows asked if the Council had ever talked about eminent domain. Mr. Thomas stated that his understanding was that if the City wants the road to go all the way through, eminent domain could be used if necessary. Ms. Hatch asked if the eminent domain is for the greater good or if it is for the developer. Mayor Burrows asked Ms. Hatch if she felt like 1080 South would be for the good of the people to have that go through. She was the one that was concerned about that road not going through, so Mayor Burrows wanted to ask her something.

Ms. Hatch stated that now 14 townhomes are going to be put there on an easement road which is basically dirt, so yes, at this point she wants a paved road on there because that is all she can salvage. Mayor Burrows asked Ms. Hatch if Ms. Abraham was not willing to sell her property then she would want the City to get the road through with eminent domain. Ms. Hatch said that she does not want the City to take Ms. Abraham’s property. That is the whole reason she posted it. That is the whole reason she pushed the issue. She does not think that anybody should have the right to come in and take anybody else’s property. She would not want someone to come in and take property from her and she would not want to have it taken for net cost. Mayor Burrows asked what the net cost was. Ms. Hatch said that it means…Mr. Hatch stated that Mrs. Abraham was offered $20,000 for her property. Mayor Burrows asked when. Mr. Hatch did not know when. Mrs. Abraham told him and said that it was very insulting.

Mayor Burrows was told that she had told TOK that they could drive through her property and that she was told to post it because if it was not posted for so many days, every so often, it could be taken. That was the whole idea of posting it. Ms. Hatch said that she reached out to Mrs. Abraham to make sure that her property did not get taken and asked her to post it. On October 8, she received a copy of a police report that said that Ken Thomas knew he should not have been on that property and not driving back and forth on it. Since then, Mayor Burrows understood that they had been told it was okay for them to go in and out of there. Ms. Hatch noted that maybe they have since then. Mr. Hatch stated that when they tore down the fence, they were also asked to put it back up and that was never done. By all appearances, Ken was never told not to drive through there when they had 10 cops telling them that she had to move her car from a road that was not a road.

Mayor Burrows stated that there is just a lot of assumption going on. Mr. Hatch said that there is also a lot of backhanded stuff that has happened. Mayor Burrows pointed out to Mr. Hatch that is his assumption. Mr. Hatch said that his whole neighborhood feels the same way. There is a whole community online that is just that neighborhood and everybody on that has the same opinion. It feels like there was underhanded stuff done to get that project in. Yes, that is their opinion. It is optics. It looks like this from their side of the fence. Mayor Burrows said that she assumes that there is all this backroom, underhanded dealing and he got a new truck out of it…all of this was done. What do you want to do now? What is your proposal? Ms. Hatch stated that the only they can be forced to do is pave the road and she guessed, go with the development that the Mayor and the Council decided they should have.

Mayor Burrows stated that they are going to do their share of the road. Ms. Hatch asked if they were going to do the road because right now they are building with zero infrastructure. Councilmember Gardner stated that this is common. It happens all of the time.

Mayor Burrows asked if they would have built the road up to the end of their property, which would have somehow made Ms. Hatch happy. It would have made her feel better. There would still not have been a road clear through. She indicated that at least it would have been paved. Mayor Burrows stated that it will be paved when they are finished. She did not believe that it would be paved.

It did not make any sense to Mayor Burrows that someone would put several million dollars into development and then turn around and say that they are not going to pave the road. They could not even occupy the buildings. Ms. Hatch said that she thought it was so they could get the buildings done and then say that they do not have enough money, so let us go back to the taxpayers to have them pay for it. Mayor Burrows stated that she is assuming that the City is not going to enforce our agreement. Kendrick Thomas stated that the reason they are not doing the infrastructure now is that it would be in place all winter and during construction which causes more wear and tear on the infrastructure and that would wear it down more than it needed to be.

Mr. Hatch stated that the standard practice is to have all the infrastructure in before you start building houses. Councilmember Hansen failed to see what this has to do with this discussion anyway. Mayor Burrows told Ms. Hatch that he is not trying to be mean to her, no one here is. He is still confused if it is the road that she is worried about, and if that is, then he will promise her that it would be complete before they occupy those homes. She wanted to know if it would be done to Tech Drive. Councilmember Hansen stated that we cannot require that by law. She wanted to know why Mike Labrum and Poulson’s had to take it to Tech Drive, but TOK does not. Mayor Burrows stated that is why Mike Labrum did not do the development on 1080 South because they did not want to have to put the road in.

Councilmember Thompson stated that if the City requires them to develop more than is beneficial to them, the City is open to a lawsuit. The thought process has changed between 1998 and now. TOK has to put the improvements in place in front of his development that benefit him, but anything beyond that would be considered a taking, like the City taking advantage.

Ms. Hatch pointed out that the City shut down the development above the McIff Subdivision because there was only one road in and one road out. It is kind of the same concept here, one road in and one road out. Mayor Burrows noted that there were 38 homes proposed in that development. Councilmember Thompson pointed out that there were also no additional roads that could have been required that would not have benefited them.

Councilmember Hansen pointed out that Ms. Hatch makes a good point. Each of these proposals is a unique situation. We have to follow the statute and do not have the option to not do that. We have to follow existing zoning and it is not a static document. It is a living document and it is changed frequently and updated. We worked through that developer and we worked through that process. We had a lot of public sentiment that showed up to the meeting with a lot of give and take and a lot of discussions and we came up with something that worked. He asked her what her objective is here. You want the road, right? Ms. Hatch stated that she did not want anything there. Mr. Hatch stated that they wanted single-family houses which is what was put into their subdivision as and they had CCRs which by their recollection shows it being part of their subdivision. They did not come to them and say you have rules, let us vote on this. Councilmember Hansen stated that now we have gotten to the real issue that the Hatches do not want the type of homes that are being built there, he now understands what their problem is. It has nothing to do with the road or anything else, they just do not want that type of development there.

Mr. Hatch said that they had rules as to what size of homes could be there and no one even came and asked them. They have been fighting this for months and they just found out that they could get on the agenda and come and ask questions. Mayor Burrows stated that the plat that was filed at the Courthouse does not have those 6 lots on.

Ms. Hatch asked if the road would be put in in the spring without taxpayer money. Mayor Burrows asked if they have a copy of the development agreement and they do, but according to Mr. Hatch, when you do a subdivision you only have to pay for your side, so all improvements only include that, so the whole road will not be done. Mayor Burrows stated again that they are not going to do the whole road. Mr. Hatch said that it goes back to the School District and according to Mr. Lloyd, there would be a curb, gutter, and sidewalk on their side. They said they would never have agreed to this if they knew that there were going to be all the problems with the Abrahams and everything else, they would never have done it.

Councilmember Gleave stated that the Council held a public hearing on the zone change for this property. The Hatches threw a fit and made the Thomas’ feel bad. They walked out of the room and the Council tabled it. A month or 2 later it was advertised and was back on the agenda, it got voted on properly, the zone got changed and the development got approved. Mr. Hatch said that the verbiage was that they were backing out so they assumed they did not have to come back. Councilmember Gleave stated that it was tabled indefinitely. That means they can come back anytime they want to. Mr. Hatch said that they voted for the Council because they felt like they have the same opinion. He said that the average person is too busy living their life so they voted for the Council because they have the same opinion as them.

Councilmember Gleave said that there are over 8,000 people in Richfield and everyone has a different opinion. The Council is trying to represent everybody. Mayor Burrows stated that there are some people out there that think this project is fantastic.

Mayor Burrows stated that the portion of the road that TOK is responsible for will be put in according to our zoning laws without taxpayer money. That is how we do it with every development that comes along. We have to follow our ordinances just like everyone else. We cannot just decide that we do not want to do it this time, but do it the next time. It does not work like that. He respects their concerns and he admires them for getting involved. He wished there were more people involved. We are where we are and he promised that the City would follow our ordinances and our laws as they are today. Ms. Hatch stated that she did not know if she agreed with that. Mayor Burrows said it was up to her, but we are to a point with this situation that we are moving forward. The road will be put in, halfway plus 10 feet, up to the edge of their property at the developer’s expense, and Ms. Hatch wanted to clarify that it would be done without zero taxpayer dollars. Mayor Burrows reiterated that it would be done without taxpayer dollars.

Mayor Burrows wanted the Hatches to be clear on what was being done so that we have everything out there, and it is not assumed that we are sneaking around. He noted that the Hatches have some valid concerns. Hopefully, that road will get put in eventually. Ms. Hatch stated that what scares her is that the road will not be put in. Councilmember Gardner pointed out that what Mayor Burrows was talking about was the road going to College Avenue and not the part in front of this development. Mayor Burrows asked if we are good. Ms. Hatch stated that as long as the road is put in, with no taxpayer dollars, and at the developer’s expense as promised.

Ms. Hatch noted that at some point the road on College Avenue is going to be terrible because you have the restaurants across the street, Steve’s, and she understands that 1080 will not be a through road, but as those 4 restaurants come in right there, she does not know how they are going to keep coming in on just the south side of Steve’s. Eventually, she believed that a road will hook onto College Avenue on the north side of Steve’s. Now you are talking about having the back half through there and instead of single-family homes, now the City has done duplexes which makes the traffic even higher and we are already high right there coming off from College Avenue, especially with any events or anything else. That is what the stop light says. She is wondering how congested are we going to make her neighborhood. It is a concern for her.

Mayor Burrows noted that there is commercial property all the way around her. If that property is zoned commercial and someone wants to put a truck stop right there by her, they do not have to hold a public hearing if it is an allowed use in that zone. Mayor Burrows noted that the State has put limitations on what cities can do, and we expect to see a lot more of this. The State is pushing for more section 8 housing and smaller lots.

Ms. Hatch stated that she understands this, but 800 houses are going in Salina, and we have tons of housing here; yes, she has problems with some of the housing that is coming in, but more so what are we going to do for jobs? How are we going to support these people? She thinks we need to have a balance. That is honestly how she feels. Mayor Burrows stated that this is what we are trying to do with our master plan, so that when it develops, hopefully, we do not do something stupid. Unfortunately, we are human beings and sometimes it does not always work out that way. Councilmember Thompson stated that we do our best to spur economic growth, but there is only so much we can do. For the most part, it is the invisible hand and economics that are responsible for people moving somewhere. If there are no jobs here, people move away. That is just how economies work. Mayor Burrows stated that most people who put in apartments have done a study.

Mayor Burrows does value private property rights and he cannot tell someone who comes in and wants to put in a development or a business or anything else that it is not a good idea. That is up to him. It is his money and his property and as long as he is following the ordinances and the laws we cannot tell someone what they can do. Ms. Hatch said that maybe he cannot tell someone that, but she can.

Mr. Hatch asked how we minimize how many RM24 developments we have. That is the biggest fear for our children is what those bring. He has built enough of them and has seen what happens in the areas where they are built and then you see Salina is building 800 houses. Why do we not get on that bandwagon, small houses? So how do we get rid of that and make it so we cannot have those types of buildings come in?

Mayor Burrows stated that we cannot tell them that they cannot come here. State law is starting to dictate a lot of this. Councilmember Hansen stated that the Planning Commission has spent hours and hours with this very issue looking at how much we are going to allow. Where we are going to allow it? We are going through a total update to our general plan right now. These people do this as a volunteer service to the community because they live here too and their concerns are not so different from Ms. Hatch’s concerns. The Planning Commission is bound by statutes and other needs. There is a need for this type of housing in our community.

Mr. Hatch said that the people we are trying to help like our children, the people we want here to be able to stay here and need an apartment are not the people who can qualify for a lot of the stuff that is proposed. Councilmember Hansen stated that we need to see more of the type of housing the Thomas’ are building right now. What a starter home used to be, is not where we are and we probably will not be able to go there again because of the value of the property itself. So, what we are going to call a single-family starter home. A lot of times they will have a common wall with the next-door neighbor whether we like it or not. That is just the economics of the world we live in today.

Ms. Hatch said that she disagrees because this may be housing, but she would not call it affordable. Mayor Burrows wondered what is affordable housing. Mr. Hatch felt that we miss the people we are actually trying to help and then if there was some way we could prevent them from coming with those giant developments or maybe we should put them all in one spot so that the cops are quicker to get to that one spot and not all over town.

Councilmember Hansen stated that these people that are being talked about; these people who are coming here; whoever these people are; are the ones that are responsible for all of the emergency services calls. He is not sure who these people are. His daughter would probably be considered one of these people; who was rescued from a terrible situation and moved into his home for several months because there was no housing available for them in this community that they could qualify for. This fire that we just had. These people all had the need to be housed. He is tired of hearing that they all got off the bus with a suitcase one night and ended up in Richfield without a job or anything. It is amazing how many of these people had family right here in the community that could take them in the night of the fire. So, saying that they are not just coming in here because if we build it they will come is not true. We need to have these people spread throughout the community so that we can lift them up. We do not need to concentrate these people with common economic issues and whatever other problems they have. We need to put them throughout the community where we can help them. The last thing we want to do is Oster size and segregate them. Ms. Hatch stated that these people need to be willing to help themselves too.

Councilmember Street stated that the new zoning plan has that built-in, so that it is mixed in. Mayor Burrows has heard the phrase “those people” so much. Those people are human beings too.

15. REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS REVIEWED AND ENGINEER SELECTED. Mayor Burrows noted that we received one proposal from Jones and DeMille to provide an engineer for the CDBG Park Improvement project. Mayor Burrows asked Carson DeMille to explain the pricing given. Mr. DeMille stated that they would put together a cost estimate for construction services. If the City is awarded the funding, then they would submit a simple design package that would be put out for advertising like we normally do. This is just basically a legal procurement process that allows the City to select an engineer to help with an estimate going into the application instead of doing it after. Motion: Approve the selection of Jones & DeMille for the engineer for the CDBG application for Lions and Rotary Park projects, Action: Approved, Moved by Tanner Thompson, Seconded by Brayden Gardner. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave.
16. ORDINANCE 2022-32 ADOPTED. The Council looked at reducing the front yard setback to 20 feet, but 25 feet if the garage was the closest point of the structure to the property line. If the home is on a corner lot, then the other street-facing side could be 15 feet if there is not a driveway. The Council wanted additional information about site triangles and how speed affects them. Mr. Farmer stated that they looked at the worst-case scenario which would be a 50-foot road. Mayor Burrows asked about the 15 miles per hour and the stopping and site distance of 80 feet. Mr. Farmer stated that this is just a chart that they use to pull their site distance from, so at 15 miles per hour, the site distance is 80 feet.

Motion: Adopt Ordinance 2022-32 setting front yard setbacks and setbacks on corner lots, Action: Adopt, Moved by Brayden Gardner, Seconded by Tanner Thompson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave.

17. OTHER BUSINESS. Councilmember Thompson mentioned that there is mounting evidence that feral cats are a serious invasive species. He said there is a lady that feeds them every night and he has stopped and talked to her and told her not to feed them and she says okay, but then the next day she is out there doing it again.

Chief Lloyd had a complaint about signs designating parking spaces for Fizz and Pizza Hut parking only on the street. The signs are on private property, but they are designating spaces on public property. This is not something the City has approved, so he is not enforcing that because the signs should not be there.

18. MEETING ADJOURNED. At 9:23 p.m., Motion: Adjourn, Action: Adjourned, Moved by Tanner Thompson, Seconded by Brayden Gardner. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Brayden Gardner, Elaine Street, Kip Hansen, Tanner Thompson, Todd Gleave. PASSED and APPROVED this 24th day of January 2023.