[1. Call to Order & Roll Call]
          [00:00:08]
          TONIGHT'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE WILL BEGIN TONIGHT'S MEETING BY GETTING A CALL, A ROLL CALL FROM OUR CITY CLERK TO ESTABLISH A QUORUM. THANK YOU. MAYOR. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS HERE. COUNSELOR. RADFORD. PRESENT. COUNCILOR. HERE. COUNSELOR. FREEMAN. HERE. 
          COUNSELOR. LARSON HERE. COUNSELOR. LEE HERE. MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. THANK YOU. AND AS THE THIRD TIME IN A ROW, CAN I GET OUR CHIEF OF STAFF, MARGARET WINBURN, TO PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TONIGHT? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. OKAY, NOW IS THE TIME IN OUR MEETING THAT WE 
          [3. Public Comment]
ARE READY TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT. AND IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S COMING LATER IN THE MEETING THAT IS PART OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE THIS TIME. BUT NOW IS THE TIME FOR COUNCIL OR EXCUSE ME, FOR YOU TO JUST COME AND ADDRESS COUNCIL FOR ANY ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE IN THE CITY THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ADDRESSED. AND WE DO HAVE ALL OF OUR DEPARTMENTS HERE TONIGHT. THE REASON THAT WE DON'T DO BACK AND FORTH IS BECAUSE WHATEVER ITEMS YOU BRING TO US, WE HAVEN'T PUBLICLY NOTICED, BUT WE DO HAVE MEMBERS OF OUR ALL OF THE MEMBERS OF THE DEPARTMENTS ARE HERE TONIGHT TO REPRESENT ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU MIGHT BRING FORWARD. WE CAN CONNECT YOU WITH THEM. SO ANY ANYONE, PLEASE. THERE'S ABOUT THREE MINUTES FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND WE'D LOVE TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. IS THIS ON? THERE WE GO. HI, EVERYBODY. I'M TERRY IRELAND. I'M HERE IN TWO CAPACITIES TONIGHT. I AM A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. OKAY. IN MY CAPACITY, I'D LIKE TO SAY I'M AN ALLY AND A SUPPORTER OF IDAHO FALLS PRIDE AND THE WHOLE ALPHABET COMMUNITY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, I OPPOSE HB 5557, THE ANTI ANTI-DISCRIMINATION BILL. AND I ALSO OPPOSE THE RECENTLY ANNOUNCED JOINT MEMORIAL TO THE SUPREME COURT FROM OUR LEGISLATURE, ASKING FOR THE REVERSAL OF THE RECOGNITION OF SAME SEX MARRIAGES NATIONWIDE. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THIS BODY TO RESIST AND OPPOSE THESE TWO ACTS FROM OUR STATE LEGISLATURE. THANK YOU. AND IN MY SECOND CAPACITY AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DOWNTOWN MERCHANTS ASSOCIATION, I NEED SOME HELP WITH THE PARKS AND REC SYSTEM FOR EVENT PLANNING AND FOR STREET CLOSURES. I'VE BEEN HAVING EVENTS DOWNTOWN FOR TEN YEARS, AND I HAVE A LOT OF A LOT OF SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT IN THAT FORM, AND THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF MOVING THE GOALPOSTS. AND SO IF I COULD GET CONNECTED WITH SOMEONE IN PARKS AND REC THAT COULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT SYSTEM WITH ME SOMETIME, I WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OUR DIRECTOR, PJ HOLM, IS HERE. AND HE WILL HE WILL CONNECT WITH YOU ON THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          YES, PLEASE. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST GIVING YOUR NAME AND WHETHER YOU'RE A RESIDENT. YES. 
          HELLO. MY NAME IS EVELYN BYRNE. I AM A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS. I WAS HERE LAST WEEK, SPEAKING TWO WEEKS AGO, SPEAKING WITH YOU ABOUT HOUSE BILL 557. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, I WANTED TO GIVE AN UPDATE THAT IT HAS NOT YET BEEN HEARD IN THE SENATE COMMITTEE. I WANTED TO THANK EVERYONE FOR ANY SUPPORT YOU MAY HAVE GIVEN SO FAR, BUT ALSO LET YOU KNOW THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHER ANTI-LGBTQ BILLS IN THE STATE LEGISLATURE THAT WOULD BE VERY HARMFUL TO PEOPLE IN IDAHO FALLS, AND TO URGE YOU TO CONTINUE TO OPPOSE THESE BILLS. BUT I'M ACTUALLY ALSO HERE TONIGHT TO STAND FOR IMMIGRANT RIGHTS IN IDAHO AND TO URGE YOU TO DO THE SAME. 
          IMMIGRANTS ARE AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR STATE, AND THEY DESERVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE AND THRIVE JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE. THEY PAY TAXES AND ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE ECONOMY. BUT MORE THAN THAT, THEY ARE OUR NEIGHBORS, COWORKERS, AND FRIENDS. BUT THIS YEAR, IMMIGRANTS HAVE BEEN ARRESTED AT EIGHT TIMES THE RATE COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE SHARE OF THOSE ARRESTED WHO HAD ANY SORT OF CRIMINAL CONVICTIONS HAS SIGNIFICANTLY DECLINED. THERE ARE MANY BILLS IN THE LEGISLATURE WHICH ATTACK IMMIGRANT RIGHTS, AND I DO URGE YOU TO OPPOSE THEM ALL. BUT I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT HOUSE BILL 659. THIS BILL WOULD REQUIRE ALL POLICE JURISDICTIONS, INCLUDING IDAHO FALLS POLICE, TO APPLY FOR AGREEMENTS WITH ICE, WHICH WOULD DEPUTIZE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO PERFORM ICE ACTIVITIES. THIS BILL ELIMINATES LOCAL CHOICE, FORCING EVERY DEPARTMENT ACROSS THE STATE TO APPLY. COMMUNITIES 
          [00:05:02]
WOULD NOT GET TO DECIDE WHAT WORKS FOR THEM. IT ALSO TAKES RESOURCES AWAY FROM REGULAR POLICE ACTIVITY, TURNING LOCAL OFFICERS INTO IMMIGRATION AGENTS REQUIRES ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND FUNDING, AND STRAINS DEPARTMENTS AND COUNTIES THAT ALREADY HAVE PLENTY TO DO. IT WOULD ALSO DESTROY TRUST IN POLICE. UNDOCUMENTED AND DOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS, AND ANYONE WITH SUCH FOLKS IN THEIR LIVES WOULD BECOME INCREASINGLY AFRAID TO REPORT VIOLENCE. CALL 911 AND COOPERATE WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. THIS BILL WOULD MAKE LOCAL POLICE JOBS HARDER AND MAKE COMMUNITIES LESS SAFE FOR EVERYONE. IT WAS PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE AT THE STATE AND WILL BE HEARD ON THE HOUSE FLOOR. SO I JUST WANTED TO URGE YOU TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STATE LEGISLATURE KNOWS THAT IDAHO FALLS SUPPORTS OUR IMMIGRANT COMMUNITY, AND THAT THIS BILL AND OTHERS LIKE IT ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU EVERYONE. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COUNCIL. MADAM MAYOR, MY NAME IS LINDA MCNEIL AND I LIVE AND WORK IN IDAHO FALLS, AND I SUPPORT THE LATINO COMMUNITY HERE IN IDAHO. I'M READING A STATEMENT FROM A MEMBER OF THAT COMMUNITY THAT WANTED TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS OUT OF FEAR, WHICH I PASSIONATELY BELIEVE NO ONE SHOULD FEEL. SO I WILL BE THEIR VOICE HERE TONIGHT. ONE OF THE FIRST MOMENTS I BECAME AWARE THAT MY FAMILY WAS SEEN AS DIFFERENT HAPPENED WHEN I WAS A CHILD, DURING A DISPUTE WITH OUR NEIGHBORS. IT STARTED OVER FENCE LINES AND PROPERTY BORDERS, EVEN THOUGH MY FAMILY HAD A PROPER SURVEY AND FOLLOWED EVERY LEGAL STEP TO BUILD A FENCE ON OUR OWN PROPERTY SIMPLY TO KEEP THE PEACE, WE WERE BLOCKED AND TOLD WE HAVE TO FIGHT IT OUT IN COURT. IRONICALLY, IN A TIME WHEN PEOPLE INSIST OTHERS SHOULD DO THINGS THE LEGAL WAY, MY FAMILY DID EXACTLY THAT AND IT STILL WASN'T ENOUGH. WE FOLLOWED THE RULES, HAD DOCUMENTATION, AND YET WE WERE PREVENTED FROM MOVING FORWARD. THAT DISPUTE ESCALATED INTO CONSTANT HARASSMENT AND ULTIMATELY FORCED MY FAMILY TO SELL OUR PROPERTY. I REMEMBER WATCHING MY DAD GO OUTSIDE TO CALMLY COMMUNICATE AND TRY TO DEESCALATE, BUT WHEN HIS ACCENT CAME OUT, THE TONE SHIFTED. HE WAS TOLD TO GO BACK TO MEXICO AND TO SPEAK ENGLISH, DESPITE THE FACT THAT HIS ENGLISH IS VERY GOOD. AFTER SHARING MY STORY, IT FEELS ALMOST IRONIC HOW CLOSELY IT MIRRORS WHAT WE ARE SEEING TODAY IN THIS COUNTRY. WE CONSTANTLY HEAR THAT PEOPLE SHOULD DO THINGS THE LEGAL WAY, BUT MY FAMILY DID EXACTLY THAT AND STILL BLOCKED AND HARASSED. THAT RAISES AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. IS IT REALLY ABOUT DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY, OR IS IT ABOUT HARASSING AND EXCLUDING PEOPLE, NO MATTER HOW HARD THEY TRY TO COMPLY? I UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR COMMITTING CRIMES, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO WHO IS LABELED A CRIMINAL, IT OFTEN FEELS LIKE WE ARE CHERRY PICKING. WATCHING PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THINGS RIGHT WHILE STILL BEING BLOCKED SENDS THE MESSAGE THAT THE LEGAL PATH ONLY EXISTS IN THEORY, NOT PRACTICE. I DON'T WANT MY NEIGHBORS TO BE SCARED. I WANT TO LIVE IN THE KIND OF COMMUNITY IDAHO PRIDES ITSELF ON, WHERE WE WAVE HI, WHERE WE STOP, WHERE WE LOOK OUT FOR ONE ANOTHER AND LOVE THY NEIGHBORS. I WANT TO SEE IDAHO COMMUNITY MEMBERS PRACTICE UNITY, NOT JUST PREACH IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. 
          MY NAME IS MIRANDA MARQUIT. I AM A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS. FIRST, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO COME AND TALK TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR, AS WE KNOW THAT YOU ARE THE CLOSEST TO US IN OUR GOVERNMENT AND THE FOLKS THAT WE ARE LIKELY TO SEE THE MOST, AND THE FOLKS THAT WE ARE LIKELY TO HAVE HEAR OUR VOICES THE MOST. AND I LIKE MY FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES HERE, ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE STATE LEGISLATURE AND THE DRACONIAN LAWS THAT IT CONTINUES TO TRY AND PASS OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE PEOPLE OF THIS STATE, INCLUDING PASSING LAWS, WHEN IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE PEOPLE OF STATE OF OUR STATE DO NOT WANT THEM PASSED. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO URGE YOU, ALONG WITH MY FRIENDS, TO DO WHAT YOU CAN TO PROTECT US PROACTIVELY AGAINST THESE. THE CITY OF DENVER JUST PASSED THEIR OWN CITY COUNCIL, JUST PASSED REGULATION TO ALLOW THEIR POLICE FORCE TO PROTECT THEIR PROTESTERS AGAINST ICE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AS WELL. THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE RUSH TO THE 
          [00:10:03]
COMPUTERS, BUT BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO HERE IN OUR CITY TO PUSH BACK AGAINST THE OVERREACH OF OUR STATE LEGISLATURE. AND I THANK YOU FOR TAKING THOSE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION AND TAKING CARE OF THE HEALTH AND THE SAFETY OF OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? I'M HAPPY TO WAIT. IF YOU'RE JUST GETTING SOME COURAGE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT. WE DO WE DO APPRECIATE IT. AND WE ARE WATCHING AND COMMUNICATING WITH OUR LEGISLATORS ON THESE AND A NUMBER OF OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE SEEM TO BE POPPING UP MULTIPLE TIMES DAILY. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ON. NOW, I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A SUGGESTED MOTION THAT COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE. YEAH, WE NEED TO AMEND THE AGENDA. AT LEAST I'M PROPOSING WE DO TO MAKE IT EXACTLY RIGHT. THE SECTION 2664 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE IS NOT CORRECTLY LISTED ON THE AGENDA. 
          IT SHOULD BE LISTED AS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO MY MOTION IS I MOVE COUNCIL AMEND THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING TO CLARIFY THAT ITEM NUMBER 2664 IS A PUBLIC HEARING AS NOTICED IN THE POST REGISTER ON FEBRUARY 7TH, 2026. SECOND. FRANCIS A FREEMAN. YES. DINGMAN. YES. 
          LARSON. YES. RADFORD. HI. LEE. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND NOW WE WILL MOVE ON 
          [4. Consent Agenda]
TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. AND AS AS YOU IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND READING THOSE OFF. AND THEN WE DO HAVE IF DIRECTOR ALEXANDER WILL JUST COME TO THE PODIUM. THERE IS A QUESTION JUST FOR SOME CLARITY ON ONE OF THE ITEMS, BUT WE'RE JUST GOING TO READ IT INTO THE CONSENT AND THEN HAVE THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU. WE'VE GOT FOUR ON CONSENT TONIGHT, THE FIRST ONE BEING FOR MUNICIPAL SERVICES TREASURER'S REPORT FOR DECEMBER 2025. THEN FROM IDAHO FALLS POWER, WE HAVE A TRADE CONFIRMATION WITH THE ENERGY AUTHORITY AND MORGAN STANLEY FOR A TOTAL NET SURPLUS SALES AMOUNT OF $106,020. AND FROM MY OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK, WE HAVE THE JANUARY 2026 LICENSING, WHICH INCLUDED 21 NEW, 40 RENEWED AND 29 CONTRACTORS AND THE COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 9TH AND 12TH, 2026. THANK YOU. 
          AND COUNCILMEMBER BRADFORD. YEAH, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR ALEXANDER. I WOULD JUST LOVE FOR YOU TO KIND OF SPEAK TO THE PUBLIC ABOUT OUR THERE WAS A LARGE REALLOCATION IN IN THE TREASURER'S REPORT, AND IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT AND WHY THAT HAPPENED. YES, SIR. 
          MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. YES. IN THE DECEMBER 2025 TREASURER'S REPORT, IT INDICATED IN THE NOTES SECTION THERE WAS ABOUT TEN POINT LITTLE OVER $10 MILLION THAT WAS TRANSFERRED. 
          AND SOME OF THOSE TRANSFERS WAS FROM OUR CONTINGENCY, AND IT WAS MOVED TOWARDS THE BUDGET ITEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR ADOPTED BUDGET. SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THAT REALLY QUICKLY, IF I MAY. THERE'S A COUPLE OF AREAS THAT I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT FOR PURPOSES OF TRANSPARENCY. SO IN OUR ADOPTED BUDGET THAT'S ON THE WEBSITE, THE FIRST SECTION OF THE BUDGET ON PAGE 22 TALKS ABOUT THE BUDGET ASSUMPTIONS. AND THIS TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NEED TO INCREASE OUR AIRPORT FUND FOR THE TERMINAL EXPANSION PROJECT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO WHEN WE HAVE A GRANT OF THE SIZE OF AN AIRPORT EXPANSION, WE ARE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE HAVE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE IN THE IN THE ADOPTED BUDGET THAT THE GRANT IS GOING TO WORK WITHIN, AND IT'S A MULTI-YEAR PROJECT, BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE HAVE THOSE FUNDS AVAILABLE AS PART OF OUR CAPACITY. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE AREAS THAT YOU SAW IN THE BUDGET. AND THEN THE OTHER SECTION TALKS ABOUT THE EXPENDITURE HIGHLIGHTS ON PAGE 31 OF THE BUDGET BOOK, AND IT GOES OVER THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT A POTENTIALLY A $40 MILLION CONTINGENCY FOR THIS UPCOMING 2526 BUDGET YEAR THAT ENDS IN SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2026. AND THEN JUST A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS. WHERE DID THE AREAS COME FROM? SO ONE OF THE AREAS THAT WE HAVE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE TERMINAL EXPANSION PROJECT, THAT'S ABOUT $30 MILLION AS PART OF THE 40 MILLION THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'VE GOT ABOUT 2.5 MILLION THAT IS BEING CARRIED OVER FROM CONTINGENCY TO COMPLETE THE FRONTIER ADA LOBBY 
          [00:15:06]
EXPANSION PROJECT. THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE HERE IN A FEW MONTHS. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, YOU'LL SEE AN ITEM LATER ON THIS AGENDA. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ACTUALLY HAD $950,000. THAT IS GOING TO COME OUT OF CONTINGENCY. THAT'S IN THE GENERAL FUND SIDE TO FUND THE THE ITEM THAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE LATER. AND THEN THE LIBRARY HAD ABOUT A HALF $1 MILLION THAT'S BUDGETED OUT OF CONTINGENCY. AND THEN OUR ENTERPRISE FUNDS, ABOUT 833,000, A LITTLE BIT UP ISH AS FROM IDAHO FALLS POWER FOR SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON. AND THEN ABOUT 1.67 MILLION FOR WASTEWATER. SO IN TOTALITY, THAT'S WHAT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IS. 10 MILLION OF THAT IS JUST A PORTION OF WHAT I'VE JUST GONE OVER. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. JUST COMMENT THAT YEAH, PROJECTS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE FISCAL YEAR, BUT SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT. RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. WE ARE READY FOR A MOTION ON THE CONSENT UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS A QUESTION. I'M READY. OKAY I MOVE COUNCIL, APPROVE, ACCEPT OR RECEIVE ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED. SECOND. BRADFORD A LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS A. 
          DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OUR COURSE ITEM THEN COMING TO US ON OUR 
          [5.A.1) IFP 26-08 Generation Building Remodel]
REGULAR AGENDA IS COMING FROM IDAHO FALLS. POWER FOR THE GENERATION BUILDING REMODEL. 
          YES. SO OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, WE'VE REMODELED MOST OF OUR BUILDINGS AT IDAHO FALLS POWER. 
          THIS LAST YEAR WE WERE PLANNING ON REMODELING OUR BUILDING, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT'S ABOVE THE BULB TURBINES THERE SITS BEHIND DISPATCH. IT INCLUDED A LOT OF HVAC WORK AND REMODELING. 
          UNFORTUNATELY, THOSE PRICES CAME IN AT AN AMOUNT THAT WE COULD NOT ENDORSE FOR YOU. SO IT WAS ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF $1 MILLION. THERE'S THREE BIDS. IT'S OBVIOUSLY THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS. SO OUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO REJECT ALL BIDS. WE'LL GO BACK AND DO SOME SMALL WORK WITH BUILDING MAINTENANCE. BUT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS NOT A IT WAS NOT A RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR THAT PRICE. COUNCIL MEMBER I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT I THINK SOMETIMES THE PUBLIC GETS THE THE IDEA THAT WE JUST BUILD THINGS AND WE TAKE THE PRICE THAT PEOPLE GIVE US. AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF US BEING RESPONSIBLE ABOUT IT. WHEN IT WAS OUT OF OUR PURVIEW OF WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS APPROPRIATE. WE JUST REJECT THESE BIDS. AND THIS ISN'T UNUSUAL, RIGHT? YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN, ARE YOU READY? SURE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION ON THAT, IF YOU'D LIKE. I WOULD MOVE THAT. COUNCIL REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED FOR IFP 20 608 FOR THE GENERATION BUILDING REMODEL AT IDAHO FALLS POWER SECOND, AND WILL NOT BE PURSUING THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION. AND THEN COUNCIL MEMBER ZEAL MADE THE SECOND WITH THE NOT PURSUING THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. THANK YOU FRANCIS I FREEMAN. YES. DINGMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. HI. LEE. 
          [5.B.1) Proposed Changes to Personnel Policies 410 -- Leave Practices and 440  Safety and Workers Compensation]
YES. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS COMING TO US TONIGHT FROM HUMAN RESOURCES, OUR HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, AND DIRECTOR JONES IS AT THE PODIUM. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILORS. IN JANUARY, WE BROUGHT SOME PROPOSED CHANGES TO TO CITY POLICIES, PRIMARILY TO CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE, TO ELIMINATE CONFUSION. WE DID MAKE ONE CHANGE TO THE SICK LEAVE CONVERSION TO INCREASE THE SICK LEAVE CONVERSION CAP FROM 2500 TO 3000. AFTER THAT DISCUSSION, WE RECEIVED A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON GRAMMAR CHANGES AND MADE ALL OF THOSE GRAMMAR CHANGES. WE SENT THE POLICY OUT TO CITY EMPLOYEES AND GAVE THEM 30 DAYS TO COMMENT. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT ARE SUMMARIZED IN THE PACKET. I'M HAPPY TO GO OVER ANY OF THOSE IN DETAIL IF DESIRED, AND WE DID PROPOSE FROM THOSE COMMENTS MAKING ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. WE DID DO ALL THE GRAMMAR CORRECTIONS. SO AT THIS TIME WE'RE REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THE CHANGES TO POLICY FOR TEN. I BELIEVE IT'S FOR TEN LEAD PRACTICES AND FOR 40 SAFETY AND WORKERS COMPENSATION. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR JONES? I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE CHANGES TO PERSONNEL POLICIES FOR TEN LEAVE PRACTICES AND FOR 40 SAFETY AND WORKERS COMPENSATION. SECOND, THANK YOU. FREEMAN. YES. BRADFORD. HI, LEE. YES. DINGMAN. 
          [00:20:07]
YES. FRANCIS I. LARSON. YES. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR JONES. OUR NEXT ITEM 
          [5.C.1) Replacement of Playground Equipment at Esquire Park]
IS COMING TO US TONIGHT FROM THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE DIRECTOR PJ HOLMES WITH US TONIGHT. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL, AS YOU'RE AWARE, EVERY YEAR WE DO PUT FUNDING IN OUR BUDGET TO REPLACE PLAYGROUNDS THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY. TYPICALLY WE TRY TO DO TWO TO SMALLER PLAYGROUNDS IN A YEAR OR ONE LARGER PLAYGROUND IN A SINGLE YEAR. AT THIS POINT, THE CURRENT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT THAT IS AT ESQUIRE PARK, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE CURVE OF GRANDVIEW OVER NEAR THE NEAR THE AIRPORT, HAS REACHED ITS END OF USEFUL LIFE AND IT'S TIME TO BE REPLACED. SO WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO SEEK APPROVAL FOR A. A PLAYGROUND THAT IS ADA COMPLIANT. IT'S FROM A COMPANY CALLED BIG T RECREATION. WE ARE ACCESSING THE. SOURCEWELL CONTRACT, BUT IT ACTUALLY WE ACTUALLY DID END UP HAVING ALMOST 20 PROPOSALS SENT IN. SO WE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO MULTIPLE GROUPS AND HAVE MULTIPLE PLAYGROUNDS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE OPTIONS AND, AND PICK AND CHOOSE AND LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE BIT. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO SEEK APPROVAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THIS NEW PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT FOR ESQUIRE PARK, FOR A TOTAL OF $107,084. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I CAN. I'M JUST CURIOUS, DIRECTOR, WHAT WHAT IS THE LIFE OF A PLAYGROUND? TYPICALLY IT'S ABOUT 20 YEARS. OKAY, IS WHAT WE GO FOR. SO IS THIS THE ORIGINAL PLAYGROUND IN THAT PARK OR HAS THAT BEEN REPLACED BEFORE? THIS IS PROBABLY NOT THE ORIGINAL. MY GUESS IS THAT THIS THIS WOULD PROBABLY BE PUT IN SOMETIME IN THE VERY EARLY 2000. THIS PARK WAS IS PART OF AN THE PROGRAM AND CAME INTO IDAHO FALLS AS A, AS A PARK IN THE LATE 70S. OKAY. THANK YOU. 
          DIRECTOR. I ALSO DO HAVE A QUESTION. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY. WHEN IN THE IN THE PAST YEAR, THERE WERE SOME OTHER PARKS THAT WERE REPLACED AND SOME WERE DEMOLISHED. AND THEN IT TAKES A LITTLE BIT OF TIME BEFORE THE NEW PLAYGROUND IS READY TO BE ACTUALLY BUILT. 
          JUST THERE'S JUST NATURAL TIMING THERE. IS THERE A CHANCE THAT THE RECREATION HAS ANY KIND OF POSTERS OR SOMETHING THAT IS LIKE NEW PLAYGROUND COMING SOON, SOMETHING JUST TO CONTINUE? YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL POSTS THAT WERE MADE LIKE, OH, THEY'VE TAKEN MY PLAYGROUND. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF ANGST OVER THAT. DO THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF I MEAN, I JUST THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLAYGROUND AND IT SHOWS ALL OF THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE COULD GET EXCITED ABOUT, EVEN MAYBE BEFORE THE OLD ONE COMES DOWN. SO WHETHER OR NOT BIG T HAS HAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD UTILIZE, I DON'T I'M NOT 100% SURE, BUT WE COULD ABSOLUTELY PUT SOMETHING OUT ON AN A FRAME THAT WE HAVE OR SOMETHING TO EDUCATE THE COMMUNITY AND THOSE THAT UTILIZE THAT PARK ON EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING. I THINK THEY WOULD I WOULD LIKEN THAT TO ONE OF THOSE, YOU SEE A SIGN WHEN THEY'RE DOING CONSTRUCTION AT THE AIRPORT OR SOMETHING. THEY SAY, PARDON OUR DUST, RIGHT? YEAH. COMING SOON WOULD BE GREAT. IT WOULD BE GREAT. AND JUST FOR YOUR INFORMATION, WE TRY TO TYPICALLY TRY TO PULL THOSE OUT AS CLOSE TO INSTALLATION TIME AS POSSIBLE. I KNOW LAST YEAR WE HAD THERE WERE SOME DELAYS IN ONE OF OUR PLAYGROUNDS, BUT IT WAS ONLY A FEW DAYS. BUT IT WAS JUST YEAH, IT WASN'T A BIG DEAL, BUT I JUST THINK, OH, MAYBE GET PEOPLE EXCITED FOR IT BEFORE IT EVEN HAPPENS. YEAH. SOMETHING JUST TWO COMMENTS. 
          YOU KNOW WHAT I'LL BE TALKING ABOUT. BUT I LOVE OUTDOOR PLAY AND NATURE PLAY. AND WHEN WE HAVE LARGE TREES THAT COME OUT, IT'S REALLY EXCITING FOR ME THAT YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR WAYS TO INCLUDE THOSE IN PLAYGROUND DESIGNS SO THAT THOSE TREES GET TO BE USED AGAIN FOR KIDS TO CLIMB ON AND EXPLORE AND DO ALL THOSE THINGS. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, WHEN WE DO TEAR DOWN A TREE LIKE THIS ONE THAT WAS JUST TAKEN DOWN IN TAPAS PARK, I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY USEFUL TO DO THE SAME THING AND SAY THAT THIS WAS A DISEASE TREE LIKE THIS TREE WAS GOING TO SUFFER AND IT NEEDED TO GO AWAY IN TERMS OF IT WASN'T GOING TO THRIVE. AND SO SOMETIMES THESE NEED TO HAPPEN. SO A LITTLE A-FRAME, LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, LIKE, HEY, WE AREN'T TAKING AWAY ALL THE TREES. YOU BET. I THINK GOOD COMMUNICATION IS ALWAYS A POSITIVE THING IN OUR COMMUNITY. RIGHT. AND OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE LOTS OF MAINTENANCE DO LOTS OF THESE THINGS TO TAKE OUT. BUT IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS A, A VERY VISIBLE TREE, VERY VISIBLE SITE, IT'S SOMETHING WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT. GOOD. THANK YOU DIRECTOR. THANK YOU. WE OKAY? ANOTHER QUESTION. NO, I GOT IT. OH, YOU GOT A MOTION. GREAT. 
          [00:25:02]
OKAY. I WOULD MOVE THAT. I WOULD MOVE THE COUNCIL. APPROVE THE QUOTE RECEIVED FROM BIG T RECREATION A ACCESSING THE SOURCEWELL COOPERATIVE PURCHASING CONTRACT NUMBER 101625 TO INSTALL NEW PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AT ESQUIRE PARK FOR A TOTAL OF $107,084, AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. 
          LARSEN. YES. FRANCIS I. LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. BRADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. 
          [5.D.1) Proposal Rejection - RFP 25-009, Fire Department Storage Facility ]
OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS COMING TO US FROM MUNICIPAL SERVICES. AND IT IS ALSO A PROPOSED REJECTION. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. YES. THE PROPOSAL REJECTION THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THIS EVENING IS RFP 25 009 IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STORAGE FACILITY. AND THE CITY RECEIVED FOUR PROPOSALS BACK ON DECEMBER 11TH. AND IN REVIEWING THEM AND THE CONTENTS OF THOSE OUT OF THE EXCUSE ME, IN REVIEWING THE PROPOSALS THEMSELVES, WE DETERMINED IT WAS IN THE CITY'S BEST INTEREST TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED, AND WE WILL BE BRINGING THIS FORWARD AT A LATER DATE. JUST SO I'M CLEAR. SO SO THERE WAS THERE WAS SOMETHING MISSING FROM THE REQUEST THAT WE PUT OUT. NOT NECESSARILY ANYTHING MISSING, BUT WE THINK THAT WE COULD HAVE PROVIDED A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY TO THE ACTUAL SPECIFICATIONS THEMSELVES. AND SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND WORK WITH AN ARCHITECT AND GET A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFIC. SPECIFIC. WE WERE A LITTLE VAGUE. YES WE WERE. WE WERE MORE VAGUE THAN WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN IN THIS INSTANCE. AND SO WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK AND BE MORE SPECIFIC WITH THE HELP OF OUR ARCHITECT. OKAY. 
          AND AS WELL AS OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COUNSELOR. ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 25 009 FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STORAGE FACILITY. SECOND. DINGMAN. YES. 
          BRADFORD I. LARSON. YES. LEE. YES. FRANCIS. FREEMAN. YES. MOTION CARRIES. AND FROM 
          [5.D.2) Bid IF 26-001, 2026 Water Inventory ]
MUNICIPAL SERVICES. THE WATER INVENTORY. YES. AND I WANT TO START OUT BY WE HAVE A SLIGHT ERROR IN NOT ONLY THE ACTION BUT THE ACTUAL DESCRIPTION. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO WORK IN MICROSOFT, WE ALWAYS GET THESE REALLY GREAT UPDATES. AND THIS ONE THAT WE HAVE IN OUR WORD IS IF YOU TAKE A IF YOU'VE TAKEN A TYPICAL TYPING COURSE IN SCHOOL AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO LOOK AT YOUR MONITOR WHEN YOU'RE TYPING, WHICH WOULD BE ME, THAT IT SOMETIMES IT POPULATES WORDS TO YOUR MEMO. AND WHEN YOU DO THE SPELL CHECK, IT'S SPELLED CORRECTLY. SO IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T COME OUT THAT WAY. SO APPARENTLY ACCORDING TO MY DESKTOP, I TYPED THE WORD WATER METER QUITE OFTEN TOGETHER, AND SO I DIDN'T NOTICE WHEN I WAS TYPING THIS MEMO IN THE WORD DOCUMENT THAT THE WATER METER, THE METER WORD CAME UP. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY FOR WATER INVENTORY. 
          IT'S TO REPLENISH ITEMS SUCH AS PIPE AND VALVES AND HYDRANTS AND DUCTILE FILLINGS AND SERVICE ACCESSORIES FOR OUR WATER DIVISION FOR ALL THE PROJECTS THAT THEY HAVE PLANNED FOR THIS 2026 FISCAL YEAR OF PROJECTS, THAT THEY HAVE THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL OF THE BIDS RECEIVED THAT ARE RECOMMENDED FOR AWARD IS $636,155.56. THERE ARE THREE VENDORS. THE. THE RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD IS BY SECTION. SO HOPEFULLY YOU SAW THAT IN YOUR PACKET. IT WAS A PRETTY BIG BID TABULATION AND I HAD TO BREAK IT UP SEPARATELY, BUT REALLY, TRULY APPRECIATE THE WATER DIVISION STAFF'S HELP IN BEING ABLE TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU THIS EVENING. FERGUSON WATER WORKS WILL BE AWARDED RECOMMENDED AWARDED SECTIONS ONE, THREE AND FOUR FOR A TOTAL OF $414,658.80. MOUNTAINLAND SUPPLY IS WAS AWARDED THE SECTION TWO AT A TOTAL OF $96,221.56, AND CORE AND MAIN IS BEING AWARDED A RECOMMENDED AWARD FOR SECTION FIVE FOR A TOTAL OF 125, $125,275. COUNCIL. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR ALEXANDER? READY FOR A MOTION. ALL RIGHT. I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE BIDS FROM THE 
          [00:30:04]
LOWEST RESPONSIVE AND RESPONSIBLE BIDDERS BY SECTION FOUR WATER INVENTORY TO FERGUSON WATERWORKS, FOR A TOTAL OF $414,658.80. MOUNTAIN AND SUPPLY, FOR A TOTAL OF $96,221.56. FOREIGN MAIN, FOR A TOTAL OF 125,000 AND $275, FOR A TOTAL OF $636,145.56, AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, DINGMAN. YES. 
          FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS. BRADFORD. RYAN. LEE. YES. LARSON. YES. MOTION CARRIES. WOULD YOU LIKE TO JUST PUT A THUMBS UP NEXT TIME? I FEEL BAD FOR YOU TO EVEN HAVE TO SAY, OH, LOOK AT YOU. YOU CAN SAY YOU CAN TALK. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT 
          [5.D.3) Police Department Container Shooting Range]
CONTAINING CONTAINER SHOOTING RANGE. OKAY. SO SO THIS IS GOING TO BE THERE'S TWO SECTIONS TO THIS. THE FIRST SECTION IS THIS EVENING. AND THAT IS TO ACTUALLY PURCHASE A FABRICATED CONEX CONTAINER. AND IT ACTUALLY IS CALLED A DOUBLE 53 FOOT GROUNDHOG CONTAINER SHOOTING RANGE. IT'S FABRICATED BY MOBILE RANGE TECHNOLOGIES. AND INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT THIS OPTION FOR OUR CURRENT LOCATION AT OUR POLICE FACILITY, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF VENDORS THAT ACTUALLY MAKE THESE TYPES OF BOXES THAT ALLOW FOR TRAINING AND SHOOTING PRACTICE. FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT. WE, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, DID AN EXTENSIVE SEARCH, AND THEY LOOKED AT AT LEAST THREE CONTAINER SHOOTING RANGE VENDORS BASED ON THE SPECIFICATIONS AND THE FOOTPRINT AND EVERYTHING THAT WAS NEEDED TO KIND OF SQUEEZE THAT RANGE IN THERE. THEY DETERMINED THAT MOBILE RANGE TECHNOLOGIES MET THE SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE SITE PLACEMENT, AND IT WILL ALSO SERVE AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAINING USE. I ATTACHED SOME PICTURES IN YOUR PACKET, SO THOSE ARE REALLY INTERESTING TO PULL THOSE TOGETHER. AND THE TOTAL QUOTED PRICE IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT. THAT'S ACTUALLY A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT THAT ALLOWS FOR COOPERATIVE PURCHASING. SO WE WERE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT CONTRACT TO GET THE BEST PRICE POSSIBLE. AND THE PRICE INCLUDES THE ACTUAL FABRICATION OF THE CONTAINER DELIVERY, INSTALLATION AND TRAINING AND THEN MUNICIPAL SERVICES, PUBLIC WORKS AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WILL BE WORKING TOGETHER ON A SEPARATE BID FOR THE SITE PREPARATION WORK AND SITE PREPARATION WORK. WE'VE GOT ABOUT THREE MONTHS OR SO TO GET THIS SITE PREPARATION WORK DONE BECAUSE WE'RE ANTICIPATING IT'LL TAKE ABOUT THREE MONTHS FOR THE CONTAINER TO BE FABRICATED AND DELIVERED, AND THE SITE PREPARATION WORK WILL INCLUDE INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC, CONCRETE FOOTING AND ASPHALT, AND THE TOTAL FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS DURING OUR BUDGET PROCESS. BUT MOST RECENTLY, ON NOVEMBER 10TH. 
          THE COUNCIL, THE CITY COUNCIL, AUTHORIZED POLICE DEPARTMENT TO UTILIZE CERTIFICATE OF PARTICIPATION POLICE FACILITY PROJECT SAVINGS FOR A TOTAL OF 950,000 TO FUND THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF THE CONTAINER SHOOTING RANGE. THE 950,000 WAS PART OF OUR CONVERSATION. WE HAD EARLIER ABOUT THE 10 MILLION CONTINGENCY AND AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE GSA CONTRACT IS CALLED THE GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION CONTRACT. IT IS A GOVERNMENT CONTRACT AND IS ALLOWABLE PER IDAHO CODE 67, 2807. AND I THINK I HAVE COVERED EVERYTHING UNLESS I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER RADFORD MAY REQUIRE CHIEF JOHNSON, IS THERE ANY PART OF THIS THAT'S GOING TO HELP WITH SOME OF THE TRAINING AROUND SPLIT SECOND DECISION MAKING FOR SHOOTING? IS THIS GOING TO HELP IN THAT? IT WILL HELP WITH EVERYTHING WHEN IT COMES TO FIREARM SKILLS. SO IT'S A2A2 LANE RANGE. SO WHEN WE GET BRAND NEW OFFICERS THEY WILL START TRAINING THERE WHERE WE CAN CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT, CONTROL THE LIGHTING, CONTROL THE WEATHER. IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO TEACH FINE MOTOR SKILLS IN 25 DEGREE WEATHER. IF WE CAN TEACH ALL THOSE FINE MOTOR SKILLS IN A CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT, THEN WE TAKE THEM OUT TO THE ELEMENTS BECAUSE THEY GOT TO DO THE ELEMENTS. ALSO, IT WORKS A LOT BETTER. ADDITIONALLY, IT WILL ALLOW THEM TO TRAIN FAR MORE FREQUENTLY. AND SO CURRENTLY WE'RE ABLE TO OFFER 3 OR 4 TRAINING DAYS FOR FIREARMS. AND I'VE LIKENED IT MANY TIMES SHOOTING FREE THROWS. IF YOU'RE SHOOTING FREE THROWS, FREE THROWS 3 OR 4 TIMES A YEAR, AND THEN YOU GO INTO THE BIG GAME AND YOU HAVE THE ADRENALINE 
          [00:35:01]
DUMP AND TRY TO HIT A FREE THROW, THAT'S IMMENSELY DIFFICULT. SO IT WILL ALLOW OFFICERS TO BEGIN THEIR SHIFT TO GO, GO PRACTICE THEIR FIREARM SKILLS. SO IT WILL MAKE OUR TRAINING MORE EFFICIENT. IT WOULD IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF OUR TRAINING AND HELP ALL OF THOSE THINGS. COUNCIL. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR CHIEF JOHNSON? OKAY, NO, BUT I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE QUOTE RECEIVED FROM MOBILE RANGE TECHNOLOGY ASSESSING THE GENERAL SERVICES CONTRACT. GOVERNMENT COOPERATING PURCHASING CONTRACT AS LISTED TO PURCHASE ONE DOUBLE 53 FOOT GROUNDHOG CONTAINER SHOOTING RANGE FOR A TOTAL OF $746,933.56 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. I'LL SECOND. LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS A. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. 
          [5.E.1) Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Reasoned Statement of  Relevant Criteria and Standards, Broadway Commercial Plaza.]
RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. OUR. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE COMING TO US TONIGHT FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. IF DIRECTOR CENTER IS TYPICALLY THE FIRST ONE THAT WE HAVE IS JUST THE FINAL PLAT, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA. AND IF SOMEONE FROM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE'D LIKE TO WE'D LIKE TO. OKAY, JUST SPEAK TO THIS FIRST ONE AS WELL. ALL OF THEM ARE NOT GOOD. OKAY. EXPLANATIONS. OH ARE YOU READY? THE FIRST ITEM. THE FIRST BEFORE YOU GOT THERE. THIS IS THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL PARK FINAL PLAT. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SKYLINE AND BROADWAY. 
          IT'S THIS AREA OUTLINED HERE IN RED. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED LC AND THIS SUBDIVISION IS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. AND WHAT IN ESSENCE IT IS DOING IS IT'S CONSOLIDATING THE VARIOUS LOTS. 
          YOU CAN SEE THESE BLACK LINES HERE. THERE'S ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR ON THE PROPERTY AND CONSOLIDATING THEM DOWN INTO TWO LOTS WITH THE NUMBER OF EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. THE MAIN THING TO NOTICE ON THIS PLAT IS THERE ARE TWO LOTS, THE ONE THE SOUTHERNMOST LOT AND THE NORTHERNMOST LOT. THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ACTUALLY THE REAR PROPERTY IS ACCESSED THROUGH AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE MAJORITY OF IT IS ACTUALLY ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST. THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THERE'S AN ACCESS EASEMENT THIS THING KEEPS. THERE WE GO. THE ACCESS EASEMENT REALLY RUNS ALONG THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THERE ALSO IS CURRENTLY A SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. AND THAT IS BEING REVIEWED. AND THAT ALSO HAS AN ACCESS EASEMENT THAT GOES TO SKYLINE DRIVE. SO IN ESSENCE THROUGH THIS PLAT WE WILL GET TWO ACCESSES THROUGH FIRE. THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION OR OH HERE'S THE PROPERTY. IT'S CURRENTLY VACANT. AND THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY AND THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY OF LAST YEAR. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS, AND THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THIS PLAN. SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, OKAY. WOULD YOU EXPLAIN HOW WHAT'S DESCRIBED IN THE PACKET AS AN ILLEGAL DEED? IT'S ACTUALLY NOT ILLEGAL. IT'S NOT THE BEST WORD TO USE. AND HOW THIS CORRECTS WHAT LOOKS LIKE AN ILLEGAL DEED. SURE. OKAY. PROPERTY CONVEYANCE AND SPLIT CAN BE DONE THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS. THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS THROUGH PLAT, BECAUSE A PLAT IS A MAP THAT ESTABLISHES IT'S JUST THE EASEMENTS. EVERYTHING IS CONTAINED IN ONE. YOU CAN'T SPLIT PROPERTY THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OTHER WAYS, AND YOU CAN DO THAT THROUGH METES AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTIONS AND FILE THAT WITH THE RECORDER. WE DO NOT ENCOURAGE THAT. OFTEN WE USE ILLEGAL LOT SPLIT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BEST WAY. MAYBE IT'S JUST A IT'S A RECORDING. IT'S USUALLY DONE THROUGH DEED. IT ALSO CAN BE DONE THROUGH DIVORCE DECREE AS WELL. YOU CAN SPLIT PROPERTY THAT WAY. BUT IN GENERAL PLATTING IS THE WAY THAT THAT WE WOULD PREFER IT AND IS ACCORDING TO OUR SUBDIVISION CODE. SO THAT'S HOW IT CAN BE SPLIT SOMETIMES. AND THAT'S WHY WE USE THE TERM ILLEGAL LOT. IT'S JUST DONE THROUGH METES AND BOUNDS AND IT WAS RECORDED THROUGH THE RECORDER. BUT PART OF THIS PLOT IS TO CORRECT THAT SITUATION. YES, SOME OF THE LOTS HERE WERE CREATED THROUGH THOSE MEANS. AND THIS CLEANS ALL OF THAT UP. OKAY. SO COUNCILMEMBER RADFORD, I WOULD JUST LOVE FOR YOU TO THIS IS 
          [00:40:06]
KIND OF A KEY AREA. AND I KNOW I'LL LET YOU DECIDE WHAT YOU CAN SPEAK TO AROUND PLAT STAGE OF THIS, BUT THIS IS ONE OF OUR URBAN TRANSECTS THAT WE'RE VERY INTERESTED IN. AND IT WAS IN THE UTAH STATE STUDY. SO IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO THAT. YES. THE SKYLINE. YEAH. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION. I ACTUALLY WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK ON THIS, BUT I'LL JUST HOPEFULLY I CAN SPEAK OFF THE CUFF A LITTLE BIT. THE SKYLINE BROADWAY, THE UTAH STATE. THREE YEARS AGO DID A STUDY ON WALKABLE CENTERS, WHICH ARE CALLED OUT IN OUR IMAGINE IF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THERE WERE SEVEN OF THEM, I BELIEVE SKYLINE AND BROADWAY WAS ACTUALLY ONE OF THEM. AND THIS IS THE FIRST ONE THAT WE'VE UNDERTAKEN. WALKABILITY STUDIES A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS TO LOOK AT POTENTIAL FOR, FOR LOOKING AT CONCENTRATING DENSITY IN CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY, BECAUSE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING AT DENSITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY. AND THIS WOULD BE OUR FIRST TEST AREA. SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF DRAFTING A CODE. WE'VE GONE OUT AND DONE SOME SOME. IT'S NOT GUERILLA URBANISM, IT'S JUST A WALKABILITY ANALYSIS THAT WE GO OUT AND AND WE WALK THE AREA AND TO SEE HOW WE CAN MAKE IT MORE WALKABLE, HOW WE CAN MAYBE REDUCE PARKING STANDARDS IN THIS AREA. SO THIS IS JUST ONE OF THOSE AREAS. THIS IS I GREW UP ON CAMERAS JUST A BIT SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY, AND WE HAD LOTS OF FUN GOING TO SKYLINE DRUG AND AND GOING TO THE GROCERY STORE AND GETTING OUR FREE ALBERTSON COOKIES. YOU KNOW, AS A YOUTH. AND WE WERE VERY WALKABLE, VERY BIKE ORIENTED. AND I'M EXCITED FOR THIS TO KIND OF LIVE UP TO THAT AT SOME POINT. YEAH. THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY THIS DOES BRING UP SOMETHING THAT IT ISN'T NECESSARILY FOR YOU, DIRECTOR CENTER, BUT I DID HAVE SOMEONE WHO WAS CONCERNED THAT WALKABLE WAS RESTRICTIVE, THAT THEY FELT LIKE WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE THINGS WALKABLE BY SETTING A BOUNDARY AROUND WHERE PEOPLE COULD LIVE AND WALK. AND I JUST SAID, I SPOKE FOR ALL OF US ON COUNCIL WHEN I SAID THAT THAT WAS NOT ACTUALLY THE CASE, THAT REALLY IT WAS JUST ABOUT NEIGHBORHOODS AND BEING ABLE TO LIVE PLACES AND HAVE LOCATIONS THAT YOU COULD WALK TO, BUT THAT WE ACTUALLY WERE NOT ABLE TO BRING COMMERCIAL HERE, THAT WE COULD ALLOW COMMERCIAL. AND THEN BY SAYING WE HAD WALKABLE CENTERS, IT WAS JUST MESSAGING TO DEVELOPERS THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE COMMERCIAL NEAR RESIDENTIAL, AND THAT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING SPECIFIC TO, TO DESIGNATE. WELL, ONLY PEOPLE WHO WALK CAN LIVE IN THIS AREA. 
          AND, AND I DID SPEAK FOR ALL OF US THAT WE HAD. I FELT LIKE I'D HEARD ENOUGH FROM OVER THE YEARS FROM COUNCIL TO KNOW THAT THAT WAS NEVER OUR INTENT. I LOVE THAT YOU JUST GAVE ME THE THOUGHT WE COULD, INSTEAD OF WALKABILITY, WE COULD SHOULD JUST CALL IT LIVABILITY. AND THERE'S A VILLAGE KIND OF LIVING WHERE WE GET TO HAVE SERVICES WHERE YOU CAN JUST WALK OR MEANDER TO A PLACE, AND THEY TAKE CARE OF YOUR NEEDS. THERE WAS CLEARLY SOME CONCERN ABOUT WALKABLE CITIES AND SUSTAINABILITY, AND SO I WAS ABLE TO HOPEFULLY CLARIFY SOME OF THAT. OKAY, WE ARE READY THEN FOR A MOTION. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR BROADWAY COMMERCIAL PLAZA, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT. SECOND, FREEMAN. YES. 
          BRADFORD I. LARSON. YES. DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. FRANCIS I MOTION CARRIES I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVED THE FINAL PLAT FOR BROADWAY COMMERCIAL PLAZA AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR, CITY ENGINEER AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID FINAL PLAT. SECOND. LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. 
          FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE REASON. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR BROADWAY COMMERCIAL PLAZA. AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND, RADFORD, A DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS A. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. LEE. 
          YES. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. DIRECTOR. CENTER. NOW WE HAVE A FINAL PLAT AND THE DEVELOPMENT 
          [5.E.2) Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Reasoned Statement of  Relevant Criteria and Standards, Affinity Division No. 1.]
AGREEMENT. AND THE REASON. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR AFFINITY DIVISION NUMBER ONE. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE NEXT FOR YOU IS AT THE CORNER OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PIONEER ROAD AND PIONEER DRIVE. THE PROPERTY LOCATED HERE IN RED, A VERY 
          [00:45:07]
STRAIGHTFORWARD SUBDIVISION. IT'S ZONED LC. IT'S CURRENTLY MADE UP OF TWO LOTS. IT REALLY IS WHAT WE WOULD CALL LOCK CONSOLIDATION. SO YOU'RE TAKING TWO LOTS AND PUTTING THEM INTO ONE LOT. YEAH. HERE'S THE PLOT. THE ONLY REASON THAT IT'S COMING BEFORE YOU IS THERE IS A 15 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION RIGHT HERE ALONG PIONEER DRIVE. AND WHENEVER THERE'S A ROAD DEDICATION IT NEEDS TO COME FOR PUBLIC PROCESS. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S BEFORE YOU. THERE'S A NUMBER OF EASEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. ONE THING YOU'LL NOTE IS THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 7TH OF 2025. THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE THE NO PUBLIC COMMENT AT THIS PLAT. THERE WAS DISCUSSION IN THE PACKET. I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS THE. THE PROPERTY OWNER ACTUALLY TOLD US WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO DO ON THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS A MULTIFAMILY, MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. PART OF THAT, IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. WE USUALLY DON'T REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY UP FRONT, BUT THAT WAS REQUIRED BY PUBLIC WORKS PRIMARILY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING TO BE NEEDED AS PART OF THE PLOT FOR PIONEER DRIVE, SO THAT TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE. YOU'LL SEE THAT DIALOG IN YOUR PACKET, BUT PUBLIC WORKS AT THE TIME DID NOT FEEL LIKE A TURN LANE WAS MERITED AT THAT TIME. HOWEVER, IF THE DEVELOPER WERE TO COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT PLAN INSTEAD OF MULTIFAMILY THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, WE WOULD REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY. IF THAT TRAFFIC STUDY WITH THE NEW PROPOSAL DOES SHOW THE TRAFFIC COUNTS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR A TURN LANE, AND YOU'D HAVE, WE'D HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU FOR THAT DEDICATION. BUT AS OF NOW, IT'S JUST A LOT CONSOLIDATION WITH JUST A 15 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION ON THAT. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. SO THAT 15 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WOULD ALLOW THAT LANE TO BE BUILT IF NECESSARY. IS THAT THE IDEA OR IT'S NOT REQUIRED AT THIS TIME? RIGHT. BUT IF THE IF WHATEVER DEVELOPS THERE REQUIRES ANOTHER TRAFFIC STUDY. OH, WE GOT TO HAVE A LANE. THAT'S WHY THE RIGHT OF WAY IS DONE NOW. NO, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS JUST PART OF PIONEER DRIVE THAT THE WIDENING OF PIONEER DRIVE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT THAT'S DOING. GOOD QUESTION. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS COUNCIL OKAY. WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR AFFINITY DIVISION ONE, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT. SECOND. LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. 
          FRANCIS I. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR AFFINITY DIVISION ONE AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR, CITY ENGINEER AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID FINAL PLAT. SECOND. DINGMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. FRANCIS I. FREEMAN. YES. 
          LEE. YES. RADFORD. ALL RIGHT. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR AFFINITY DIVISION ONE, NUMBER ONE, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. 
          SECOND. FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. BRADFORD A FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. MOTION 
          [5.E.3) Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Reasoned Statement of  Relevant Criteria and Standards, Faraday Properties Division No. 1.]
CARRIES. WE ALSO NOW HAVE OUR FINAL PLAT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA FOR FARADAY PROPERTIES. THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR. THE FINAL PLAT ON THE DOCKET IS FOR THIRD A DIVISION ONE PLAT. OH, AND THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 49TH AND 15TH SOUTH, 15TH EAST. I REALIZED THIS IS A REALLY UNIQUE LOOKING SUBDIVISION, AND I'LL EXPLAIN WHY IT HAS THE SHAPE THAT IT IS. 
          THERE'S A NUMBER OF PIECES THAT ARE SETTING UP FOR THIS ONE AND SETTING UP FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, AND IT MAKES MOST SENSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. SO THIS IS WHAT THE SUBDIVISION, THE AREA OF THE SUBDIVISION PLAT CURRENTLY IT'S JUST A VACANT FIELD, BUT IT'S THIS PORTION HERE TO THE NORTH. AND WE HAVE THESE LONG SKINNY SECTION. MOST OF THIS IS RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION. AND THEN OVER HERE IS FOR FUTURE DETENTION POND AS WELL AS A LIFT STATION FOR SEWER. SO AGAIN SHOWING YOU THE ZONING. IF YOU REMEMBER THIS CAME INTO THE CITY. IT WAS RIGHT BEFORE I STARTED THIS. IT WAS IN 2023 AND IT WAS ASSIGNED AT ANNEXATION. A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ZONES ON THE PROPERTY. SO THE PLAT BEFORE YOU TODAY IS ACTUALLY DEALING MOSTLY WITH THE R3, A SECTION UP HERE, AND THE R2 SECTION THAT WAS DESIGNATED AS THE BUFFER TO THE R1, TO THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A 
          [00:50:07]
LARGE PROPERTY, THE PLAT IS ACTUALLY DIVIDED INTO TWO PARTS. SO I'LL WALK THROUGH THESE A LITTLE JUST VERY QUICKLY. SO THIS IS A 16 LOT SUBDIVISION WITH 15 BUILDABLE LOTS AND ONE NON BUILDABLE LOT ON A LITTLE OVER 18 ACRES. THERE'S A NUMBER OF ROAD DEDICATIONS IN HERE. SO FIRST OFF IS THE DEDICATION OF 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG 49TH SOUTH. JUST TO NOTE, THIS PROPERTY ON THE CORNER RIGHT HERE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS ON THE 49TH. IT HAS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE EAST. SO THIS IS TILTED ON ITS SIDE. THE LEFT IS ACTUALLY NORTH. SO THERE'S 50FT OF RIGHT OF WAY. AND THEN THERE'S 70 FOOT OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUERTO VENTURA. 
          I DON'T SPEAK SPANISH. PUERTO VINERO WAY THAT COMES AROUND ON THE BEND RIGHT THERE, AS WELL AS THE DEDICATION OF MEYER IN THE WAY AND ALSO THE DEDICATION ON THE SOUTH OF HEY HO WAY. WE DON'T NAME THESE. THE DEVELOPER GIVES US THE NAMES, JUST SO YOU KNOW. SO THESE PROPERTIES ARE THESE ARE THE R3 A PROPERTIES RIGHT HERE. AND THEN THESE ARE THE R2 COMING DOWN. THE REASON THERE HAS TO BE A DIVISION RIGHT THERE IS BECAUSE OF BLOCK LENGTH PER FIRE REQUIREMENTS. 
          THEN AS YOU COME DOWN THE PROPERTY. SO THIS IS THE SOUTHERN PORTION. WE STILL HAVE THE DEDICATION OF MARIN WAY. YOU'LL NOTICE THE STUB IS BEING DEDICATED AS WELL. THAT'S FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'LL BE FUTURE RIGHT OF WAY TO ATTACH THE EAST. I'LL SHOW YOU ALL THIS IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THEN WE STUB THE RIGHT OF WAY TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE SOUTH. THIS IS THE DETENTION POND I MENTIONED. THIS IS HALF OF THE DETENTION POND TO ACCOMMODATE THIS DEVELOPMENT. WITH FUTURE DETENTION POND COMING AT THE NEXT PORTION OF THE PLANS. THIS LONG SKINNY AREA IS TO ACCOMMODATE FOR A TEMPORARY LIFT STATION. THAT LIFT STATION IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE SEWER FOR THE SITE, AND THAT LIFT STATION WILL EVENTUALLY GO AWAY, AND WE'LL USE THAT AREA TO CONNECT OUR SEWER LINE TO THE EAST AS WELL. 
          SO THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. IT'S TILTED ON ITS SIDE. SO THIS IS THE STUB I WAS TALKING TO YOU ABOUT RIGHT HERE. SO THERE IS GOING TO BE A ROAD THAT CONNECTS TO 15 EAST. AND THIS ALSO SHOWS THE FULL DETENTION POND SEWER LINE CONNECTING TO THE EAST AS WELL. 
          BUT CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THIS PORTION JUST UP HERE TO THE NORTH IN TERMS OF SPLITTING LOTS AND DEVELOPMENT AT THIS TIME. THE PROPERTIES IS IS A IS A WAS A FARMER'S FIELD. AND GOING BACK JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AGAIN, IT'S EASIER WITH THE ZONING TO LOOK IN PLACE. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT SPLITTING THIS INTO FOUR RIGHT HERE WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION COMING AROUND. AND THEN RIGHT AWAY DEDICATION COMING ALL THE WAY DOWN WITH THE LOTS STOPPING ABOUT RIGHT THERE FOR RESIDENTIAL. AND THEN WE HAVE THE OTHER PORTIONS THAT ARE NEEDED JUST FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. THIS WILL COME IN IN THE FUTURE. SO THERE WILL BE OTHER SUBDIVISIONS FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT'S A SUBSTANTIALLY LARGE, SUBSTANTIALLY LARGE PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY SEE THESE SUBDIVISIONS IN DIFFERENT DIVISIONS AND PHASES. SO THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 5TH. 
          AND SO BACK TO BACK TO ON MAY 5TH. THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS VOTE FOR POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO YOU FOLKS. NO PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT THAT. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. 
          A LITTLE COMPLICATED JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST PART OF SOME SUBDIVISION COMING DOWN THE LINE THAT'LL SWEEP TO THE EAST, AND WE'LL GET ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE AS WE GO THROUGH THAT PLANNING PROCESS. JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S OWNED THAT WHOLE BLOCK THERE, THAT ALL THAT PROPERTY IS OWNED BY THE SINGLE OWNER. YES, YES IT IS. COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS. 
          OKAY, I HAVE A COMMENT AND A QUESTION. SURE. I NOTICED IF I READ IT RIGHT THAT THERE WILL BE A LANDSCAPE STRIP BETWEEN THE ROADWAY 49 SOUTH AND A PATHWAY. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. YES, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT UP HERE. YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY. AND THAT'S REQUIRED FROM THE DEVELOPER. BUT I HAVE SPOKEN TO YOU ABOUT THIS, BUT I WANT IT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN A MEMO LIKE THIS DOES NOT LIST ALL THE STAFF AND DEPARTMENTS THAT HAVE APPROVED THE FINAL PLOT, AND I LOOK FOR THAT EVERY SINGLE TIME I DO A FINAL PLOT, BECAUSE THAT'S MY KEY, THAT WE JUST AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE IT, BUT WE ONLY AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE BECAUSE THAT STATEMENT IS ON THE MEMO. AND IN THE PUBLIC RECORD. THIS MEMO DOES NOT HAVE THAT STATEMENT. SO HOW ARE WE GOING TO NOT ONLY ON THIS ONE, 
          [00:55:08]
WE NEED SOME WAY OF VERIFYING THAT ALL THOSE DEPARTMENTS AND STAFF THAT ARE ALWAYS LISTED ARE SOMEHOW SIGNED OFF ON THIS BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT, BECAUSE AS IT STANDS, I DON'T SEE THAT EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF ME. SURE, MAYBE SO. THE FIRST PART IS, IS IN REGARDS TO THE MEMO. I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN COMPLETELY SPEAK TO THIS, BUT I KNOW THAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF REDOING OUR MEMOS, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE CLERK'S OFFICE OR ANYTHING, BUT I'M SURE WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THAT IF WE NEED THAT ON THERE. WHEN IT COMES TO THE REVIEWS OF SO AS THIS GOES THROUGH CITY WORKS, BE COGNIZANT THAT BY THE TIME THEY GET TO YOU, EVERY DEPARTMENT HAS SIGNED OFF ON IT. SO I WENT BACK TO DAVID PETERSON WAS THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS ONE. I WENT BACK AND ASKED HIM, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU HAD ASKED ME ABOUT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT SIGNING OFF ON IT. AND THEN I WENT AND TALKED TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, AND BOTH OF THEM SAID YES. EVERY STAFF THAT WAS TO REVIEW THIS HAS REVIEWED IT AND SIGNED OFF ON IT AND LEGAL. 
          AND I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK FOR YOU EXACT, BUT BUT LEGAL ALSO SAID THAT THEY HAD SPECIFICALLY I EVEN SAID FARADAY AND SAID, YES, I THINK YOU DID IT. I'M OKAY WITH IT. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT GIVES YOU ANY RELIEF OR NOT, BUT I KNOW THAT STAFF HAS REFUTED COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS. 
          AND THERE THERE IS AN ANSWER TO THAT, THAT WE CAN WORK WITH YOU WITH OUR CITY CLERK. YES. DID YOU HAVE. YES. THAT WOULD JUST NEED TO BE WRITTEN OUT IN THE BACKGROUND DESCRIPTION AREA. 
          OKAY. YEAH. NO, IT REALLY MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. WHEN I GO OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT QUESTION. 
          COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS. IT DOESN'T WHEN IT COMES FORWARD TO COUNCIL IT WOULD IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE DIRECTOR SANNER WHO IS WRITING THAT IT'S ALL BEEN REVIEWED. IT DOESN'T GO THROUGH A PROCESS THAT COMES TO US. IN A WAY WHERE EACH ONE OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS HAS REVIEWED IT JUST PRIOR TO COUNCIL RECEIVING IT. NO, BUT ALL IT ALWAYS HAS SAID THAT IT'S APPROVED BY OLA. 
          YES. SO DIRECTOR SANNER WOULD JUST BE ADDING THAT TO THE MEMO THAT EVERYONE APPROVED IT. IT WOULDN'T ACTUALLY IT WOULD IT WOULD BE UPON HIS WORD THAT IT WAS BEING APPROVED. OKAY. ON THIS ONE, ON ALL OF THEM. BUT GOING FORWARD, CAN WE PUT THAT ON THE MEMO? YES, IT CAN BE. IT CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE MEMO. YES, I WILL ENSURE IT'S ON ME. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION, DIRECTOR. ON THE LEFT, THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THAT, IS THERE A CANAL THAT RUNS NORTH, NORTH, SOUTH UP AGAINST THE R ONE, WHERE THE R TWO BACKS UP TO THE R ONE? IS THAT A? IS THERE A CANAL THAT RUNS DOWN. YEAH. RIGHT THERE I THINK THERE IS. 
          THERE'S NOT I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE IS. IT'S JUST TREES. YEAH I THINK THE ISN'T THERE A CANAL ON THE NORTH SIDE. I SHOULD KNOW THAT I DON'T BELIEVE ON THE WEST SIDE. OKAY. PARDON. 
          DITCH. DITCH. OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION THEN? YES. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. I MOVE THE COUNCIL, APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL. EXCUSE ME, FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR FARADAY PROPERTIES DIVISION NUMBER ONE. AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT. SECOND. BRADFORD, A LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS I. DINGMAN. YES. LEE. YES. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVED THE FINAL PLAT FOR FARADAY PROPERTIES DIVISION NUMBER ONE AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR, CITY ENGINEER AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID FINAL PLAT. SECOND. 
          LARSON. YES. BRADFORD. LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FREEMAN. YES. FRANCIS. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE REASONED STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR FARADAY PROPERTIES DIVISION NUMBER ONE, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. LEE. YES. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS A. 
          FREEMAN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. AND THEN, AS NOTED 
          [5.E.4) Variance and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards,  Subdivision Ordinance Variance.]
EARLIER, THAT OUR NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ACTUALLY A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE VARIANCE AND REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR A 
          [01:00:02]
PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST ANDERSON STREET, EAST OF US 20 HIGHWAY 20. EXCUSE ME. WHAT DID I SAY? EAST OF US HIGHWAY 20. SOUTH OF SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE AND WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD. WE WOULD BEGIN THIS BY BY SAYING THAT THE HEARING IS OPEN AND THAT IS OUR APPLICANT HERE, OR OUR APPLICANT HAS JOINED US ONLINE. OKAY. AND SO WILL THE APPLICANT BE GIVING US TESTIMONY ONLINE, OR WILL YOU BE JUST PRESENTING DIRECTOR CENTER? HE WILL. I DIDN'T KNOW OF A PRESENTATION THAT HE HAD PREPARED. I DO HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED. BUT AS THE APPLICANT, I THINK OUR TRADITION HAS BEEN GRANTED. YES. IF HE WOULD LIKE TO. IF IF THERE'S SOMETHING FOR HIM TO PRESENT. WOULD. FIRST OFF, CAN CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? OKAY. YES. 
          OKAY. MY NAME IS BLAKE JUMPER OUT OF VICTOR WADE. I SHOULD PREFACE THIS. DO YOU THINK IT'D BE BEST FOR YOU TO GO FIRST? AND THEN I CAN KIND OF FILL IN THE PERTINENT DETAILS FROM THERE. THIS IS YOUR MEETING. THAT WOULD BE FINE. THAT WOULD BE FINE. YES. I JUST DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TO THE MAYOR OUTSIDE OF MY AUTHORITY. SO IF THE MAYOR HAS SAID THAT, THAT IS FINE FOR ME TO PRESENT, IF THAT'S OKAY. SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF EXPLANATION ON THIS, SO I'LL TRY TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. SO THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS, IS THE RED OUTLINED PROPERTY HERE LOCATED BEHIND THE BLACK FEATHER DEVELOPMENT UP HERE ON ANDERSON AND THE LDS BISHOP'S STOREHOUSE HERE TO THE WEST. SOMETHING TO NOTE OF THIS PROPERTY IS YOU'LL NOTICE THIS ACCESS HERE TO THE SOUTH WEST, JUST THIS NARROW PIECE OF LAND. AND THE PROPERTY HAS SUBSTANTIAL FRONTAGE ALONG HIGHWAY 20 AND SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE. SO WE'RE LOOKING HERE TO THE NORTH. THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL STREET FRONTAGE. HOWEVER, DUE TO THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT PLAN ESPECIALLY THAT WAS RENEWED IN 2025, THEY CANNOT BE GRANTED ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY FROM THE NORTH AT ALL AND SCIENCE CENTER OR ON HIGHWAY 20. THERE'S AN OFF RAMP THERE, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS WHY THEY CAN'T BE GRANTED ACCESS THERE. IN ADDITION, THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO LOCATED IN THE ANDERSON BUSH URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT, SO THIS PROPERTY IS ELIGIBLE FOR TAX INCREMENT FINANCING. THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUELY SHAPED. IT'S I THINK I LOST. THANK YOU. 
          THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R3. A IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT R3 A IS A RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE ZONE. TYPICALLY, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES CAN BE BUILT IN THIS ZONE. HOWEVER, MOST OF WHAT THE URBAN FORM THAT WE'VE SEEN DEVELOPED IN R3 IS MULTIFAMILY. WITH THAT MIXED USE ELEMENT, IT DOES ALLOW FOR MINOR OFFICES AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, BUT MOSTLY BE SEEN AS MULTIFAMILY. 
          THE VARIANCE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS IS FOUND. I HAVE A HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT HERE. IT'S THE SITE WIDTH AT THE FRONT SETBACK IN FEET. SO R3 A IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES. WHAT'S REQUIRED IS THAT THE THE THE LOT WIDTH ALONG A FRONTAGE BE A CERTAIN WIDTH AT THE FRONT SETBACK. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THAT BASICALLY IF YOU THINK ABOUT A NORMAL SUBDIVISION PLAT OR A LOT, YOU WANT A CERTAIN WIDTH THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GET A NUMBER OF UTILITIES AND DRIVEWAY ONTO THE LOT. SO IF A LOT GETS TOO NARROW, WHAT WINDS UP HAPPENING IS YOU CAN'T FIT A DRIVEWAY, SOME UTILITIES, SOME OTHER ELEMENTS THAT YOU NEED FOR THE SITE TO ACTUALLY FUNCTION. ALSO, YOU CAN THAT ALSO AFFECTS PRIMARILY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ON CUL DE SACS BECAUSE THEN THEY HAVE A PIE SHAPE TO THEM. SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE FRONT SETBACK AND FIND THAT WIDTH. AND IT HAS TO BE 50FT, SO THAT YOU DON'T PINCH THE LOT TOO NARROWLY SO THAT YOU CAN'T GET IT. THIS IS ONLY APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL LOTS. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL LOTS. AND THE REASON FOR THAT COMMERCIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES TYPICALLY HAVE AN EASIER WAY TO GET ACCESS AGREEMENTS THAN RESIDENTIAL. SO YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THE DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE HOLISTICALLY. YEAH. SO THAT'S THE THAT'S THE VARIANCE THAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS THE FRONTAGE AND THAT WIDTH FROM THAT FRONTAGE WHICH IS 50FT. IN THIS CASE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ZERO LOT WIDTH FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT. THEY'RE 
          [01:05:07]
WANTING A VARIANCE ACROSS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. SO THE PROPERTY IS HAS A FEW DEVELOPABLE ISSUES. ONE IT'S IRREGULARLY SHAPED. TWO IT CAN'T ACCESS ANY OF THE PROPERTY FROM THE NORTH WHICH HAS ITS PRIMARY FRONTAGE. ALSO, AS I STATED THIS IS HOW YOU ACCESS THE PROPERTY IS THROUGH THE SOUTHWEST. THERE ALSO IS AN ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE THAT CONNECTS TO BLACKFEATHER. THAT ACCESS EASEMENT IS ONLY IT'S, I BELIEVE, EIGHT FEET. YES, IT IS EIGHT FEET AND IT ONLY ALLOWS ACCESS FOR FIRE APPARATUS. SO THE REASON THAT THAT'S THERE IS BECAUSE FIRE REQUIRES TWO POINTS OF ACCESS. THIS PROPERTY HAS SIGNIFICANT BASALTS, ESPECIALLY SURFACE BASALTS ON THE PROPERTY. I TURNED ON THE TOPO TOPOGRAPHIC LAYER. IT DOESN'T HAVE SIGNIFICANT TOPOGRAPHIC ISSUES, BUT IT DOES HAVE SOME PEAKS AND VALLEYS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY. WHEN THE APPLICANT LOOKED AT THIS, I'M JUST SHOWING THIS AND THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS THIS A LITTLE MORE IN DETAIL THAN MYSELF. WHEN THE REQUEST WAS MADE, THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY REQUIRED THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T DEVELOP THE PROPERTY OVERALL. AND SO WE AS STAFF, IT'S VERY, VERY ODD TO GRANT A FRONTAGE VARIANCE. IT'S VERY ODD TO GRANT THAT OUTSIDE OF A PLAT. AND IN FACT, THIS IS PROBABLY THE ONLY TIME THAT IT'S EVER BEEN REQUESTED. SO STAFF WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. WE HAD A LOT OF INTERNAL DISCUSSION. ONE THING THAT WE WANTED THE APPLICANT TO COME BACK WITH IS, WELL, IT USUALLY COMES WHEN A PLAT COMES BEFORE YOU. YOU'LL SEE THAT IT USUALLY WE REQUEST THE VARIANCE AT THAT TIME WHEN THE APPLICANT REQUESTS THE VARIANCE FOR A SPECIFIC LOT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET THAT WIDTH REQUIREMENT. SO WE SAID WE IF WE TAKE IT BLANKET FOR THE PROPERTY, WE WE NEED TO HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DEVELOP OR HOW YOU'RE GOING TO SPLIT UP THE LOT. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. IT WAS IN YOUR PACKET. THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING FROM THE DEVELOPER. I WILL NOTE THAT THIS IS NOT A PRELIMINARY PLAT. 
          IT'S NOT A PLAT AT ALL. IT'S JUST A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF HOW THE PROPERTIES COULD POTENTIALLY BE DIVIDED UP. AND YOU SEE, BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY FOR A STREET DEDICATION IN HERE WHERE THE LOTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE ACCESSED THROUGH EASEMENTS OF SOME KIND. WITH THOSE EASEMENTS, THEN WE DON'T HAVE A FRONTAGE, A TRADITIONAL FRONTAGE FOR THE LOT, AND THUS THE VARIANCE WOULD BE NEEDED. YEAH, I POINT THIS SLIDE OUT. SO IT DOES ALLOW OUR IT OUR CODE ACTUALLY DOESN'T TIE THIS VARIANCE TO IT BEING SPECIFICALLY PART OF A PLAT. SO THE APPLICANT IS WITHIN HIS RIGHT TO REQUEST THIS VARIANCE. HOWEVER, IN TEN 113, IN EVALUATING VARIANCES, THERE ARE SEVEN CRITERIA THAT YOU MUST EVALUATE A VARIANCE ON. YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKET. AS PART OF THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF TRIED TO DRAFT HOW THESE REQUIREMENTS WERE MET. REALIZE WHEN WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AS STAFF, WE ALWAYS MAKE THEM. IT'S A LITTLE ODD. WE MAKE THEM IN THE POSITIVE. SO WE WHEN WE SAY WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE IN SUPPORT OR DENIAL OF IT. IT JUST MEANS THAT IT MEETS THE CODE, OR THE PERSON IS IN THEIR RIGHT TO ASK FOR WHAT THEY'RE ASKING. SO THAT'S WHY IT SAYS STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUT THE VARIANCE HAS TO BE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOES THIS MAKE SENSE FOR THE VARIANCE TO BE GRANTED TO ZERO ON THAT FRONTAGE? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE ACCORDING TO THESE CRITERIA. SO THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO EVALUATE WITH THIS ITEM. WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO ON FEBRUARY 3RD OF 2026. I WOULD SUGGEST YOU READ THOSE THAT BACK AND FORTH. IT WAS SUBSTANTIAL DIALOG ON THIS. I JUST SPOILER ALERT THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS SPLIT ON THIS. THEY VOTED 4 TO 3 FOR FOR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND THREE FOR DENIAL. WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT HOW THE CAMPS SETTLED OUT. THERE WAS ONE CAMP THAT FELT LIKE THEY COULD NOT APPROVE IT, BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE IT SHOULD BE PART OF THE PLAT. THEY FELT LIKE WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED WAS OVER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY BECAUSE VARIANCES, REMEMBER, GO WITH THE PROPERTY. 
          [01:10:03]
SO IF WE'RE IF THEY'RE GRANTING A VARIANCE, IT WOULD BE FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST FOR AN INDIVIDUAL LOT. AND THEY FELT IT WAS TOO CONCEPTUAL AND THAT THEY COULDN'T MAKE A PROPER DETERMINATION UNLESS THEY WANTED TO DENY IT. THE OTHER CAMP THAT WAS THE FOUR VOTE. WHAT THEY FELT LIKE WAS THEY FELT THE VARIANCE HAD TO BE GRANTED BECAUSE OF THE ODDITY OF THIS LOT, THAT IT HAS VERY LIMITED ACCESS TO THE SOUTHWEST. AND ALSO THEY CAN'T GET FRONTAGE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE THE REALLY THEY HAVE STREET FRONTAGE AND THEY FELT FOR THE LOT TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP THAT THEY WOULD GRANT IT. AND THE END, IT WAS A 4 TO 3 VOTE, BUT IT WAS A VERY SPLIT AND QUITE A LOT OF DIALOG BACK AND FORTH, BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THAT. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OR IF YOU WANT THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK AS WELL, I CAN WAIT TO TAKE QUESTIONS AS WELL. LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO TO FILL IN ANY OF THE PERTINENT POINTS THAT YOU FEEL LIKE YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS HERE WITH COUNCIL AS WELL. YEAH. THANK YOU FOR FOR MAKING THAT INTRODUCTION AND PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. ALSO GOOD TO BE IN FRONT OF THE REST OF YOU. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE THE BLACK FEATHER PROJECT, AND ALSO WHEN I WORKED ON THE BONNEVILLE HOTEL. SO THIS WAS KIND OF THE NEXT STEP INTO ANOTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT, WHICH I'LL DESCRIBE LATER. BUT FIRST, I'LL TRY TO STAY ON TOPIC WITH WHAT WE'RE WE'RE DISCUSSING HERE. LET'S SEE, I MIGHT MY SCREEN I'M SEEING A WINDOW OF MY IS THERE. THAT IS THERE IS NO OTHER WINDOW. WHEN YOU SAY THERE'S NO OTHER OPTION, WE CAN'T SHARE HIS SCREEN. I HE CAN SHARE HIS SCREEN. OKAY. YEAH. SO CAN YOU SHARE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE YOUR SCREEN? I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO. LET'S SEE. TO THE MAP THAT YOU SHOWED BEFORE THE AERIAL MAP. THAT'S OKAY. I THINK I CAN MAKE MY EXPLANATION WITHOUT IT. SO TAKING A STEP BACK TO KIND OF WHERE THIS STARTED AND, AND THE NATURE OF THE REQUEST ITSELF, THAT'S PERFECT. THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP MY SCREEN. OKAY. I WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THE BLACK FEATHER APARTMENTS THERE, WHICH IS THE FRONTAGE OF THIS SITE, THE THREE APARTMENT BUILDINGS YOU SEE THERE WITH THE PARKING ON THE INTERIOR. THAT WE DO HAVE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS. SO THE ROADWAYS ON THE VERY WEST SIDE OF THE SITE AND THE ROADWAY ON THE EAST SIDE ARE BOTH CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS AND THE THE INTENT THERE, THROUGH OUR DESIGN AND DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WENT INTO IT WAS WE ALL UNDERSTOOD THAT WHEN THIS VACANT PROPERTY BEHIND BLACKFEATHER APARTMENTS WAS EVER DEVELOPED, IT WILL NOT HAVE ANY KIND OF ACCESS GRANTED TO IT. ASIDE FROM WHAT COMES OFF WEST ANDERSON STREET. SO, YOU KNOW, SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE, THERE WILL NEVER BE ACCESS. AND SO THAT THAT'S WHY WE HAD THOSE REPORTERS. THAT'S WHY THOSE ARE IN PLACE. SO THAT WE HAD ACCESS FROM BOTH CORNERS OF OF THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO THE VACANT PROPERTY. SO LATE LAST YEAR I STARTED WORKING WITH CITY STAFF AGAIN ON PLANNING AND PRELIMINARY DESIGN FOR A NEW 55 UNIT AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMPLEX THAT WILL BE DEDICATED TO SENIORS ON THIS VACANT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, WHICH WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW THROUGH OUR DISCUSSION. THIS CAME UP ABOUT THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE 50 FOOT LOT FRONTAGE, AND WE HAD A LOT OF IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS ON HOW THAT AFFECTS THIS VACANT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. EFFECTIVELY, WITHOUT THE VARIANCE. WE UNDERSTOOD THAT ANY LOT DEVELOPED NORTH OF BLACK FEATHER WOULD EFFECTIVELY BECOME A FLAG LOT. WHAT YOU'D HAVE TO DO IS FLAT OUT, LET'S SAY A SQUARE PARCEL WITH A 50 FOOT STRIP THAT RAN ALL THE WAY TO SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE THAT WOULD MEET THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AND YOU WOULDN'T NEED A VARIANCE. UNFORTUNATELY, THAT PROVIDES NO BENEFIT TO EITHER THE PUBLIC OR DEVELOPER LIKE MYSELF, BECAUSE NO ONE THAT FLAG LOT SCENARIO. YOU'LL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ACCESS FROM THAT. SO WE TOOK A STEP BACK AND HAD A DISCUSSION OF HOW, YOU KNOW, OUR ORIGINAL 
          [01:15:01]
INTENTION WAS USING THOSE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY. AND HOW DO WE GO ABOUT DOING THAT? AND OBVIOUSLY, WE WE REVIEWED THE REGULATIONS BEHIND THIS, AND TRULY WE DO VIEW IT AS A HARDSHIP. I MEAN, WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ITSELF IS VERY LOGICAL WHEN YOU THINK OF IT IN A LAW THAT MAY ONLY BE 200FT IN DEPTH AND HAVE FRONTAGE ALONG A PUBLIC ROADWAY, IT'S PRETTY EASY TO TO WORK THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PARCEL. TWO YEARS AGO, BEFORE I DEVELOPED THE FRONTAGE IS OVER 1000FT. AND SO, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU BEGIN TO DEVELOP DEEPER AND DEEPER INTO THE SITE, GAINING THAT FRONTAGE IS JUST NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. IT MAKES IT MAKES DEVELOPING IT NEARLY IMPOSSIBLE. SO THAT'S WHERE WE STARTED DISCUSSING THE VARIANCE REQUEST. WE DID PROPOSE. ONLY ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE PLAT AND PARCEL THAT I'M WORKING ON AT THIS MOMENT, WITH STAFF THAT IS UNDER CIVIL SITE REVIEW RIGHT NOW, AND THE PLAT IS BEING REVIEWED. THEY DID THEY DID NOT SUPPORT THAT. THEIR COMMENT BACK TO US WAS IF WE CAME IN AND REQUESTED A VARIANCE ON A ON A SMALLER PIECE, THEN THAT STILL LEAVES A LARGE ACREAGE BEHIND IT. THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME IN FOR ITS OWN VARIANCE REQUEST DOWN THE ROAD. SO ULTIMATELY WE FOLLOWED THAT, THAT ADVICE, AND WE PUT TOGETHER THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION LAYOUT THAT YOU JUST SAW EARLIER TO SHOW WHEN THERE'S MULTIPLE LOTS LIKE THIS, WHY THE VARIANCE WOULD BE NEEDED. BECAUSE BECAUSE MANY OF THOSE LOTS WON'T BE ABLE TO TO GAIN THAT 50 FOOT FRONTAGE. I GUESS I DON'T WANT TO KEEP RAMBLING TOO MUCH. MAYBE I SHOULD PAUSE FOR A MINUTE AND AND OPEN FOR QUESTIONS. COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU DIDN'T GO FORWARD OR EXPLORE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LAND? SORRY, YOU CUT OUT A LITTLE BIT A A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD. SO THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS OWNED BY A GROUP OUT OF POCATELLO. THE VACANT. VACANT PROPERTY? I DON'T HAVE INTEREST PERSONALLY IN DEVELOPING ALL OF IT. AT THIS CURRENT MOMENT. I'M, YOU KNOW, TAKING OFF SMALL BITS AT A TIME. AND SO I'M JUST NOT IN A POSITION TO WHERE I COULD UNDERTAKE SOMETHING LIKE THAT ALL AT ONCE. COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, IS THAT THE ANSWER? OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. WE WILL GO AHEAD. AND AND I KNOW IT'S WEIRD. I GUESS THIS IS NOW THE STAFF. WE'RE BRINGING STAFF FORWARD. YEAH. AND DON'T FORGET IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. YES. YES. AND WE'LL ALLOW THAT. SO SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHY WE HAVE THE 50 FOOT VARIANCE. AND IT SEEMS LIKE THAT HAS A LOT TO DO WITH THE ACCESSIBILITY. AND IN THIS CASE THERE'S NO ACCESSIBILITY. SO CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT. THAT'S WHY WE MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION. WHY DOES THE 50 FOOT EXIST FIRST OF ALL. AND THEN IN THIS CASE, YEAH, THE REASON PURELY THE REASON FOR THAT WIDTH AND RESIDENTIAL TO IS TO ALLOW FOR DRIVEWAY ACCESS AND OTHER UTILITIES. FOR THE FRONT, YOU NEED A CERTAIN WIDTH OF LOT TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH OF THOSE. AND WHAT IS THE DRIVEWAY, CHRIS? WHAT IS THE DRIVEWAY REQUIREMENT? A MINIMUM OF 26FT. 26FT. YEAH. SO THE MINIMUM DRIVEWAY IS 26FT. SO YOU CAN SEE WITH THE 50 FOOT LOT THAT'S ALREADY HALF OF IT THAT YOU NEED FOR TRAVEL. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT. YES. DO WE WANT TO DO WE WANT TO OPEN IT FOR FOR PUBLIC TESTIMONY. YOU GO YOU CAN YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT FOR, WELL, CAN STAFF LIKE A PREDEVELOPMENT MEETING OR SOMETHING SAY THIS MEETS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WOULD MAKE SENSE HERE. SOMETHING CAN THAT BE RECOMMENDED BY OR VISIT ONLY DEPENDING ON WHAT THE DEVELOPER SAYS? THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. MAYBE TO TAKE A LOOK UNDER THE HOOD, I GUESS, ON HOW WE OPERATE. WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES BEFORE US, WE OFTEN HAVE INITIAL MEETINGS WITH THEM ABOUT A PIECE OF PROPERTY. USUALLY THEY 
          [01:20:02]
GO FROM GENERAL TO VERY SPECIFIC DURING THE COURSE OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS. YES, WE WE PROVIDE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS THAT YOU COULD DEVELOP A PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO YOU'RE ASKING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT A PUD. SO WE WOULD HAVE MADE SOME TYPE OF SUGGESTION OF HOW THAT ALIGNS. BUT IN THE END THE DEVELOPER WAS CORRECT. IT'S HIS PROPERTY. HE HAS PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND WHATEVER HE PROPOSES TO COME FORWARD, THEN WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM DUE PROCESS AT THAT TIME. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION ALSO FOR DIRECTOR CENTER. YES. SO DIRECTOR CENTER, WHEN YOU HAVE OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE EXAMPLES OF PARCELS LIKE THIS THAT FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER THERE'S CHALLENGES THERE THAT REQUIRE OR, OR WOULD NECESSITATE SOME SORT OF AGAIN, A VARIANCE OF, OF SOME SORT OR WHAT OTHER VEHICLES COULD HE PURSUE? IS IT PUD SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PURSUED ON THIS TYPE OF PARCEL WITH THESE TYPES OF CHALLENGES? YES, THERE'S THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS, AND NOT JUST A PUD OR A VARIANCE. 
          THERE'S LOT CONFIGURATIONS. THIS ONE IS PRETTY HEAVILY RESTRICTED ACCORDING TO THE DEVELOPER COMMENTED ON THAT HOW THERE WOULD BE A FLAG LOT, WHICH IS A SQUARE LOT WITH LONG STEM COMING DOWN FOR CONNECTION. THERE'S A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. HOWEVER, I'LL JUST CAVEAT THAT WITH WHAT HE REQUESTED. WAS THAT A VARIANCE FOR THE ZERO FOOT FRONTAGE? THAT'S THE ROUTE THAT HE PURSUED, AND THUS WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT ACCORDING TO FACE VALUE AND ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA. THAT IS, ARE THERE OTHER, OTHER THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE? THERE'S ALWAYS OTHER THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE, BUT THIS IS THE BEST PATH FORWARD THAT THE DEVELOPER FELT LIKE. AND THAT'S WHY HE MADE HIS REQUEST. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK, I DON'T KNOW IF COUNCIL MEMBER LARSON. SO IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, THEN THEN WE'LL GET A PLAT. IS THAT CORRECT? AND THEN AT THAT POINT IS WHEN FIRE CAN SIGN OFF. AND AS FAR AS ACCESS GOES AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS. RIGHT. AND HOW THE DRIVE WIDTHS OF THE IS GOING TO BE A PRIVATE DRIVE, I ASSUME THAT WILL GO THROUGH THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT AT THIS POINT. THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT A PLAT WOULD COME AFTER THIS. AND AS PART OF THE PLANNING PROCESS, STAFF WOULD REVIEW IT, INCLUDING FIRE PUBLIC WORKS AS WELL, TO MAKE SURE WE CAN GET UTILITIES AND FULL ACCESS, AS WELL AS PLANNING TO MEET THE ZONING CODE AND THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS. THAT'S CORRECT, COUNCILMEMBER LARSON WELL, THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. SO THAT'S THE THE GUARANTEE, I GUESS WE HAVE TODAY, IS THAT FOR A FINAL PLAT TO BE APPROVED, IT HAS TO MEET THOSE EMS FIRE. WHOEVER ELSE HAS INPUT INTO THAT. IN TERMS OF THOSE, WHAT WERE THEY CALLED DRIVE ISLES? I'M CURIOUS. AND I THINK THE DEVELOPER, THE GENTLEMAN THAT'S ON LINE WITH US, TALKED ABOUT THIS. I GET THE SENSE THAT THESE LOTS, FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE FIVE LOTS THAT WE LOOKED AT WILL BE DEVELOPED ONE AT A TIME OVER TIME. IS THAT FAIR TO SAY THAT THAT'S KIND OF THE PLAN. THEY'LL BE PHASED IN? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. 
          AND SORRY I'M SORRY COUNCILMEMBER. I WANT TO BE CAREFUL ON SOMETIMES WHEN WE TALK ABOUT WHAT IF BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE VARIANCE REQUEST AND THE CRITERIA IN WHICH IT MEETS, THAT'S A CONCEPTUAL DRAWING OF PUD IS SOMETHING THAT ALL OF THESE THINGS. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED AT THIS TIME. WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED IS THE VARIANCE FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. AND WE'RE EVALUATING IS THE VARIANCE FOR THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY VALID ACCORDING TO OUR CODE. SO I JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE I KNOW SOMETIMES WE IT'S AND I DON'T MEAN TO DIRECT ANY CONVERSATION, I JUST, I JUST YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH VARIANCES THAT IT'S REALLY WHAT THEY PRESENTED AND THE, THE LAND USE CASE BEFORE YOU. 
          OKAY. THEN MY NEXT QUESTION, YOU MAY NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER, BUT JUST FROM A PROCESS POINT OF VIEW, OKAY. ASSUMING WE APPROVE A VARIANCE FOR THIS ENTIRE PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND THEN THEY COME BACK WITH FINAL PLATS THAT START DIVIDING IT UP INTO PIECES, DO EACH OF THOSE PIECES HAVE TO HAVE STANDALONE ABILITY TO GET FIRE AND EMS INTO THEM FROM TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES? I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT NOT HAVING GOOD ACCESS AS WE PROGRESS THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. YES, THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES. IT WOULD BE EVALUATED BY EACH DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THEY DO HAVE ACCESS FOR FIRE, HEALTH AND SAFETY. YES. ONE LAST QUESTION. 
          WHAT IS A CROSS STREET EASEMENT? DID I GET THAT SAID RIGHT OR CROSS? CROSS. CROSS ACCESS. 
          ACCESS. IT'S IT'S THE. YES. WHAT IS THIS? IT'S CALLED AN ENCUMBRANCE. IT'S AN 
          [01:25:02]
ENCUMBRANCE THAT IS IMPOSED ON A PROPERTY FOR ACCESS ACROSS THE PROPERTY BY ANOTHER PARTY BESIDES THE LANDOWNER. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU. 
          QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. DIRECTOR CENTER. NOW, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME FOR ANYONE WHO IS HERE TO GIVE PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PARCEL TO COME FORWARD. YOU'LL JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS RON BELMONT. I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER OF THE BISHOP'S STOREHOUSE, AND JUST WANTED TO SHARE WITH YOU THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE ABOUT GOING FORWARD WITHOUT CONCERN. SIR, COULD YOU GET A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE FOR US, PLEASE? OH. THANK YOU. JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING COMPLETELY WHAT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO BE AND GRANTING THAT ENTIRE VARIANCE OVER THAT PROPERTY DOES INTRODUCE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN THAT SOME OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE HAD AND SOME OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD AS WELL. WE WOULD SIDE WITH THOSE THAT HAD CONCERN ABOUT IT. WE'RE NOT AGAINST THE PROJECT IN ANY WAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS IT GOES FORWARD, IT MET ALL NECESSARY CRITERIA AND DIDN'T CREATE FURTHER PROBLEMS LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT OF FRONTAGE OF ANDERSON HAS NOW CREATED FOR THE REST OF THE CORNER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY? OKAY. THIS IS NOW A CHANCE FOR THE APPLICANT TO GIVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR REBUT ANY OF THE TESTIMONY GIVEN. I THINK THE ONLY FINAL COMMENT I'D GIVE IS, IS I THINK ONE OF THE LAST QUESTIONS THAT WAS MENTIONED IS IN REGARD TO PROCESS AND THE REASON WE REQUESTED THE VARIANCE NOW IS MOVING TOWARDS THE PLANNING PROCESS. FOR EXAMPLE, IS KIND OF GOING GOING TO THE NEXT STEP WITHOUT TRULY UNDERSTANDING IF WE'D BE ALLOWED TO DO SO. AND WHEN I SAY THAT, I SAY THAT MEANING CURRENTLY WE'D HAVE TO DEVELOP THESE INTERIOR LOTS AS PLATFORMS TO MEET THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHICH WE JUST CAN'T DO. AND SO THE VARIANCE WOULD ALLOW US TO PROCEED TOWARDS PLATTING, WHICH THEN WOULD GO THROUGH THE STANDARD PROCESS MENTIONED, WHERE EVERY, YOU KNOW, EVERY PARTY WOULD BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN FROM FIRE CITY PUBLIC WORKS AND GO THROUGH THE STANDARD PROCESS. 
          SO THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST STEP TO TO ALLOW US TO DEVELOP IT FURTHER. BUT THAT'S THAT'S THE ONLY PROBLEM THAT I HAVE. THANK YOU. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. YES. DIRECTOR. SANDER. 
          I'M SORRY, I JUST THOUGHT, OH, IT'S NO PROBLEM. WE'VE BEEN TAUGHT SO MUCH THAT. OKAY, ANYTHING IN AN R3A IS POSSIBLE AS LONG AS IT'S ALLOWED BY THE ZONE. SO WE HAVE TO BE A LITTLE CAREFUL ABOUT DOING WHAT DEVELOPER SAYS IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IF THIS PROPERTY WERE TO BE SOLD, THIS VARIANCE WOULD APPLY TO THE NEW DEVELOPER. TO. I'LL ANSWER YOUR LAST QUESTION FIRST AND THEN COMMENT. YEAH VERY GOOD. VERY GOOD POINT. VERY GOOD POINT. YES. THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE LAND AND SO WOULD GO IN PERPETUITY MOVING FORWARD. THAT'S CORRECT. SO IF IT WAS SOLD THAT VARIANCE WOULD APPLY. AND ALSO WHAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE R3A YOU'RE EXACTLY RIGHT THAT YOU HAVE TO THINK OF IT, THE R THREE AS ITS ZONE IN ITS ENTIRETY. SO SINGLE FAMILY CAN BE ON HERE JUST AS MUCH AS MULTIFAMILY, JUST AS MUCH AS OFFICE. RIGHT. SO YOU DO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. AND THAT'S A VERY ASTUTE OBSERVATION. OKAY. ONE MORE ON THAT. AND MAYBE LEGAL NEEDS TO BE ON THIS IF, IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE AND COULD A FUTURE COUNCIL RESCIND IT? I DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. I DON'T THINK SO. 
          YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR CENTER. DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH GRANTING THIS VARIANCE? DO YOU SEE DO YOU FORESEE ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES? I DON'T THINK WE'RE EVER GOING TO ALLOW ACCESS ONTO US 20 OR THE OFF RAMP OR, YOU KNOW, THE ACCESS MANAGEMENT. LIKE I DON'T SEE THAT THERE WOULD BE ANY ACCESS EVER GRANTED TO THIS, BUT I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN IMAGINE ANY SITUATION WHERE YOU THINK, OH YEAH, THIS IS WHAT CAN OF WORMS YOU MIGHT BE OPENING BY GRANTING THIS VARIANCE? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'M ALWAYS I'M ALWAYS HESITANT TO ADVOCATE 
          [01:30:07]
BECAUSE I DON'T ADVOCATE FOR POSITIONS. I JUST ADVOCATE FOR THE CODE. THE ONE ISSUE I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT JUST AS A DIRECTOR IS PRECEDENCE. SO THIS IS THIS IS DIFFERENT. WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS BEFORE FOR A PROPERTY OVERALL. AND THEN WITH POTENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS COMING DOWN THE PIPELINE. RIGHT. SO THAT THAT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN TO ME BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD GRANT SOMETHING OVER A PROPERTY, HOWEVER, THAT JUST TO PLAY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN, THERE'S NO DEDICATED STREET HERE. AND SO YOU HAVE ISSUES IN THAT REGARD. IF YOU WEREN'T TO GRANT THE VARIANCE BECAUSE THERE'S NOW ACCESS ISSUES. SO SO HOPEFULLY THAT PLAYED BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN AND MY PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS. I ALWAYS HAVE TO BE VALUE NEUTRAL AND DON'T ADVOCATE. SO I GIVE YOU A NON-ANSWER. THE ONE WELL, THE THE ONE STATEMENT THAT I DO WONDER ABOUT IS BECAUSE I'M NOT KNOWING, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE OWNERS AND ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PIECES OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS NUMBER SEVEN. IT SAYS THE CONDITIONS NECESSITATING THE VARIANCE WERE NOT CAUSED OR EXACERBATED BY, OR IN ANY WAY ARISE FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE DEVELOPER. AND I JUST AM WONDERING IF YOU THINK THAT THAT THAT DOES APPLY TO THAT. 
          THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE EXISTING HERE IS NOT CAUSED BY ANYTHING THAT IF THEY HAD. YEAH. 
          IF IF THE BLACK FEATHER HAD BEEN BUILT, IF YOU KNOW, LIKE DID, DID WE END UP NECESSITATING THIS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT CAME IN IN THE FIRST PLACE? GOOD, A GOOD QUESTION, AND I WOULD FALL BACK TO THE STAFF'S ASSESSMENT, THOUGH I DID NOT WRITE THIS, I DO APPROVE THEM AND READ OVER THEM. AND THE SEVENTH CRITERIA ADDRESSES THAT AS THE CONDITIONS NECESSITATING THE VARIANCE HAVE BEEN PRESENT SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT I WOULD SAY WOULD BE MY POSITION. THANK YOU. COULD YOU ONE OTHER THING, COULD YOU THOUGH, INDICATE AND SHARE WITH US? WHEN WAS THIS PROPERTY ANNEXED AND GIVEN ITS INITIAL DESIGNATION? YES, IT WAS ANNEXED INTO THE PROPERTY. INTO THE CITY. THE PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED IN 1983, AND THE ZONING OF R3 WAS IMPOSED AT THAT TIME, 1983. YEAH. AND THEN IN 2002, THAT'S WHEN IT WAS SUBDIVIDED OFF. SO THIS CONFIGURATION AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS HAS BEEN THERE SINCE FOR 23 YEARS, 24 YEARS. SO THE DEVELOPER HAS, IN THEORY, KNOWN ABOUT THE POTENTIAL RESTRICTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY FOR AT LEAST THIS NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE 1983. I WOULDN'T SPEAK FOR THE DEVELOPER, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. I'M SORRY, YOUR QUESTION. YES, COUNCILMEMBER. OH, COUNCILMEMBER LARSON, THIS MAY BE MORE OF A DELIBERATION. OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO THROW IT OUT THERE. AND IF YOU WANT TO SAY NO, WE NEED TO BACK IT UP. IS IT A QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR SANDER? IT IS OKAY THEN. YES. PLEASE ASK DIRECTOR CENTER. SO WE'VE GOT THOSE SEVEN CRITERIA. 
          THAT'S A PRETTY TALL ORDER. IS THAT A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION OF THOSE SEVEN ITEMS? I MEAN, IN YOUR EXPERIENCE, WHAT HIT ALL SEVEN, RIGHT. YEAH. AND YOU HAVE TO GET ALL SEVEN. AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS IS THE PRECEDENT. AND IN YOUR EXPERIENCE OR YOUR EDUCATION, IS THIS A IS THIS A TALL ORDER TO HIT ALL SEVEN. OH, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND IF YOU'RE NOT COMFORTABLE ANSWERING THAT, I UNDERSTAND. MY POINT BEING IS THE NEXT TIME SOMETHING COMES UP AND IT HAS TO MEET ALL SEVEN, THAT'S A TALL ORDER. I'M COMFORTABLE ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU. SO IT IS. IT IS A GOOD QUESTION. SO IN MY EXPERIENCE, HAVE I SEEN THAT THEY CAN MEET ALL SEVEN. SO IN VARIOUS PLACES I HANDLED VARIANCES THROUGHOUT MY CAREER AND I'VE FOUND MOST PROPERTIES. THERE'S SOME ELEMENT OF THAT. 
          YOU CAN MEET ALL OF THEM IN SOME REGARDS. SOME OF THEM MAY BE A LITTLE MORE OF A STRETCH THAN OTHERS, BUT MAYBE I'M A LITTLE LOOSE LIPPED IN SAYING THAT. BUT YEAH, I FOUND PROPERTIES TYPICALLY CAN MEET THEM, WHATEVER THE VARIANCE CRITERIA IS. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS. AND I THINK I'M CORRECT. THIS IS AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. YES, SIR. IS THAT HAVING AN EFFECT? AND THE REASON I ASK IS OFTEN WITH URBAN RENEWAL, THERE'S BEEN EXPENDITURE TO HELP WITH BASALT AND THE TOPOGRAPHY TO MAKE IT DEVELOPABLE. SO DOES IT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON OUR DECISION THAT IT'S AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT AND GIVES US SOME OPTIONS WE MIGHT NOT THINK ABOUT FOR REGULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY? NO, THAT'S A GOOD THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO. IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANY EFFECT. IT MOSTLY DEALS WITH THE FINANCING AND IT'S ALL DONE ON A REIMBURSEMENT BASIS. SO MAYBE THE CONFIGURATIONS WOULD BE 
          [01:35:05]
ADJUSTED BECAUSE OF BASALT BEING ABLE TO BE BLASTED OUT OF AREAS. BUT YEAH, IN SHORT IT DOESN'T HAVE MUCH SAY. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR CENTER OKAY. NOW IT'S TIME WE WILL CLOSE THE MAYOR. JUST BECAUSE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WAS PRESENTED BY STAFF. APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO HAVE FINAL SAY. IF IF THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE. THANK YOU. I DO APPRECIATE THAT. WE'VE HAD WE'VE HAD THE CHANCE TO LISTEN TO STAFF AGAIN. AND SO YES, WE ARE TURNING BACK TO THE APPLICANT. I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. I DO AGREE THAT THAT LIST IS QUITE LONG. OF THE ITEMS THAT HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED, I WOULD JUST SAY I. THIS IS MY PERSPECTIVE AS THE APPLICANT SLASH DEVELOPER IS EFFECTIVELY THIS IS LANDLOCKED PROPERTY AND WHEN WE DEVELOPED IT, NOT ONLY DID WE BRING IN ALL UTILITIES TO EACH SIDE OF THE SITE THAT ALSO RUN ALONG THOSE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS, OUR WHOLE THOUGHT WAS, HOW DO WE DEVELOP THE FRONTAGE OF THIS PROPERTY TO ACCESS THE VACANT LAND TO THE NORTH? AND WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD. WE STEPPED OUT ALL THE UTILITIES THERE. WE'VE GOT OUR DRIVE FILES BIG ENOUGH FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES. SO NOW THAT WE'VE COME TO DEVELOP IT, WE'VE COME ACROSS THIS NUANCE. AND SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DO NOT SEE ANYTHING DETRIMENTAL IN THIS REQUEST. SEEING THAT WEST ANDERSON IS THE OLD PUBLIC ROADWAY THAT WILL EVER SERVE THAT THAT NORTHERN ACREAGE. AND SO I DO VIEW IT AS A REASONABLE REQUEST THAT DOES SHOW, YOU KNOW, HARDSHIP. AND THAT WILL BE MY LAST BIT OF COMMENT. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE OUR CITY ATTORNEY KEEPING ME STRAIGHT ON THAT. WE ARE NOW CLOSING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND. I'M. EXCUSE ME, I'M AT THE HEARING. EXCUSE ME. YES, WE ARE CLOSING. THE HEARING IS ACTUALLY WHAT I MEANT TO SAY. 
          SO THANK YOU TO OUR CITY CLERK FOR THAT. YES. WE ARE CLOSING THE HEARING AND ALLOWING FOR COUNCIL TO DELIBERATE. NOW, IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN THAT DELIBERATION. COUNCIL MEMBER LEE, I'D LIKE TO. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN I SEE OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THIS FOR OBVIOUSLY CHALLENGED PARCELS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT, YOU KNOW, CHALLENGES BEHIND THEM, I GET EXCITED WHEN I SEE DEVELOPERS THAT WANT TO DEVELOP THEM. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS ONE AND I LOOK AT AND IF AND IF WE KNEW TODAY THAT THIS DEVELOPER WAS GOING TO TAKE THOSE 13 ACRES AND, AND MOVE FORWARD, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, I GUESS, RATIONALE IN MY OWN MIND AS I THINK THROUGH THAT. BUT WHEN I RECOGNIZE THAT BY GRANTING A VARIANCE, IT WILL RUN WITH THE LAND, AS WAS POINTED OUT TO US. AND WE SEE A CONCEPTUAL, YOU KNOW, A CONCEPT DRAWING THAT WAS PUT UP THERE OF WE HAVE NO WAY TO HOLD THAT, THAT, THAT COULD THAT DOESN'T REALLY MEAN ANYTHING FOR US. I THINK IN OUR DELIBERATIONS, AS WE CONSIDER IT, I DO I AM CONCERNED ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT OF JUST GRANTING A VARIANCE LIKE THIS, WHEN I BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE OTHER TOOLS IN PLACE THAT CAN BE PURSUED THAT ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO START THIS PROJECT, SUCH AS A PUD, AND AND MOVE THROUGH IT. SO I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. I'M HAPPY TO JUST SPEAK TO THAT. IT'S TO ME, A PART OF OUR CITY THAT HAS BEEN ABANDONED AND NOT GENERATING TAX REVENUE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS. AND THE BASALT THAT WAS THERE, I ALWAYS KIND OF UNDER THE IMPRESSION THIS WOULD HAVE TO END UP AS A PARKS AND REC KIND OF FACILITY FOR MOTORCYCLES OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE IT WAS JUST SO DIFFICULT. AND THE FACT THAT WE HAVE ANYONE WILLING TO TAKE THIS ON THE THE ONE THING I'LL SAY ABOUT THE SEVEN THINGS THAT WERE MET, I THINK THAT HELPS US IN TERMS OF I THINK IT'D BE VERY RARE FOR US TO FIND A PRECEDENT THAT WOULD BE SET HERE, BECAUSE I JUST THINK THOSE SEVEN THINGS ALL BEING HIT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT IN THE FUTURE. AND I THINK WE COULD EVEN RIGHT INTO THE CODE THAT IF THERE ISN'T, IF THERE ISN'T ACCESS TO THESE ROADS, THEN IT SHOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE THERE. IF THERE'S NO ACCESS, YOU CAN'T CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT. THE OTHER PIECE IS THAT THE THESE DEVELOPERS DON'T WANT TO. CREATE A PLAT. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE USEFUL TO THE 
          [01:40:07]
COMMUNITY OR TO THE RESIDENTS. AND SO I THINK JUST LIKE MANY THINGS IN IN GOVERNMENT, I THINK WE SHOULD LET THE MARKET DICTATE THAT THIS WOULD BE DONE WITH, WITH GOOD INTENTION AND THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW AS MUCH PLANNING PRINCIPLES TO MAKE IT NOT BE ODD, OR THAT THOSE PLATS WOULD IN ANY WAY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE CREATING. I JUST THINK THE VARIANCE HERE IS, IS VERY EASILY KIND OF THOUGHT THROUGH. AND WE ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE MARKET MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS BUILT RIGHT AND CORRECTLY. AND JUST TO SAY THAT THE MARKET IS DESPERATE NEED OF THESE SORTS OF FACILITIES. AND I ALSO LOVE THAT IT'S MIXED USE SO THAT IF WE DO HAVE SENIORS, THEY COULD HAVE A BODEGA HERE OR SOMETHING. 
          AND I KNOW THIS DOESN'T REALLY APPLY TO THIS PORTION, BUT BUT I JUST THINK IT NEEDS TO BE STATED THAT THE POOR ARE SINGLE USE ZONING. AND WHEN WE HAVE MIXED USE ZONING AND A PLACE WHERE SENIORS ARE GOING TO WANT TO WALK AND NOT GET IN A CAR, I THINK THAT'S REALLY GREAT AS WELL. YES, COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN, I'M NOT A FAN OF VARIANCES AND. BUT I BUT I'M IT FEELS GOOD TO ME THAT WE CAN PUMP THE BRAKES ON THIS LATER. RIGHT. THAT, THAT IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE THEN IT STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH THE COMPLETE REVIEW PROCESS WHEN IT'S DEVELOPED. AND ANY TIME WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO STOP THIS AND, YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABOUT THE VARIANCE BEING PERMANENT AND THE LAND COULD SELL TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER. 
          I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. BUT BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S A POSSIBILITY. WE HAVE TO CONSIDER IT. BUT I DON'T THINK THIS PROPERTY WILL DEVELOP OTHERWISE. AND IT'S BEEN SITTING VACANT SINCE THIS CITY HAS BEGUN. I A MATTER OF FACT, I'VE BEEN ON 2 OR 3 FIRES ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. WHEN I WORKED FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THAT IT SEEMED TO BURN EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS, AND IT'D BE NICE TO HAVE SOME HOMES IN THERE WHERE THE KIDS AREN'T OUT THERE LIGHTING FIRES. SO. COUNCIL MEMBER LARSON, I APPRECIATE THE CONCERN ABOUT THE PERMANENCY OF A GRANTING A VARIANCE LIKE THIS. THAT'S A THAT'S A PRETTY BIG ITEM IN MY MIND. BUT LOOKING AT THE SITUATION AND THAT IS THAT IT'S ZONED R3 A. AND SO IF SOMEONE ELSE WERE TO BUY IT THEY WOULD BUY IT WITH THAT ZONING. THEY WOULD ALSO INHERIT THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO ACCESS TO A ROAD UPON THAT NORTH ON THAT NORTH BORDER. SO THEY'D HAVE THE SAME SITUATION THAT WE HAVE NOW. IT STRIKES ME THAT THE RISK ISN'T ALL THAT GREAT OF HAVING SOMETHING HAPPEN BECAUSE OF CELLS, BECAUSE THE NEW PURCHASER WOULD BE SITTING WITH THE SAME SITUATION THAT THE CURRENT OWNER HAS. I KIND OF FEELING LIKE HAS BEEN EXPRESSED THAT THIS HAS BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, AND SOME FOLKS FIGURED IT WOULD NEVER DEVELOP. 
          AND THESE THESE FOLKS HAVE INVESTED SOME MONEY AND EFFORT INTO IT, AND WITH THE EXPECTATION OF FINISHING THE DEVELOPMENT. SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER SERIOUSLY. IS ANYONE FROM COUNCIL READY TO MAKE A MOTION? YOU STILL HAVE THE DELIBERATION. 
          OKAY, I HAVE MORE TO SAY. SO I'M LOOKING AT OUR LAW AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME OF THE SEVEN. SO GIVE ME A MINUTE HERE. NUMBER ONE SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. I WOULD AGREE WITH NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN EXTRAORDINARY HARDSHIP. AND THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT WOULD APPLY. BUT IT DOES SAY AND WILL SUBSTANTIALLY PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK ALL AVENUES HAVE BEEN EXPLORED THAT ARE IN FRONT OF. THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FOR THIS PROPERTY. I THINK. I THINK I WOULD NEED TO KNOW THAT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WON'T WORK, BUT I CAN'T TELL THAT TO THE DEVELOPERS. I'M NOT GOING TO. NUMBER FOUR SAYS THE VARIANCE IS THE LEAST DEVIATION FROM THE CHAPTER NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE HARDSHIP. I DON'T KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OTHER PLANS, LIKE A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WOULDN'T WORK. IT HASN'T IT HASN'T BEEN BROUGHT FORWARD AS SUCH. AND PART OF MY THINKING THERE IS WE HAVE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VERY SPECIFICALLY FOR 
          [01:45:01]
DIFFICULT PIECES OF PROPERTY. THAT'S WHY WE PUT IT IN OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND TO NOT YET KNOW THAT IT HAD BEEN EXPLORED. I'M NOT READY TO VOTE YES ON THIS. AND THEN FIVE THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE IS NOT LIKELY TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT. AND I DIDN'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT WILL TELL ME THAT. SO I THINK IT DOES NOT MEET ALL SEVEN. AND WE HAVE A LAW IN FRONT OF US. SO I WILL BE VOTING NO, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP, I DO, BUT THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AS IT'S WRITTEN. SO QUESTION. SO YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE THE SEVEN THINGS THAT THE STAFF, THE PROFESSIONAL STAFF, YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THEIR ASSESSMENT, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I DID NOT HEAR FROM PROFESSIONAL STAFF THAT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAS I ASKED THAT QUESTION. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING. OKAY? I'M ASKING IF YOU DIDN'T THINK THAT THE STAFF SAID THAT THE SEVEN ELEMENTS HAD BEEN MET, NOT WHETHER OR NOT A PUD WOULD MEET IT, BUT I HEARD FROM STAFF FROM DIRECTOR SANDER TODAY THAT THEY WRITE THE POSITIVE RESPONSE TO THESE ON PURPOSE. AND THE WAY I WROTE MY NOTE ON THAT IS THAT MEANS THE WORDING SAYS IT COULD BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IT COULD BE, BUT IT ALSO COULD NOT BE. AND SO I'M DISAGREEING WITH WHAT'S WRITTEN THERE. NOT INTENT TO DISAGREE WITH STAFF BECAUSE THEY HAD A WHAT THEY CALLED A NEUTRAL OR POSITIVE APPROACH TO IT, BUT IT'S NOT THE ONLY OPTION. SO I DO WE BRING THESE BACK UP TO SEVEN. BUT I MEAN I'M I'D WEIGH IN ON THAT AS WELL. IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IF, IF YOU, YOU'RE FORCING SOMEONE INTO THIS IDEA OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS TO DEVELOP THE TO GET A SITE PLAN FOR THE ENTIRETY, AND THIS DEVELOPER MIGHT JUST BE LOOKING AT DIVIDING, SUBDIVIDING IT INTO THOSE INDIVIDUAL LOTS. AND THEN IT'S LIKE I'M GOING TO TAKE I MEAN, IF WE TAKE I KNOW WE CAN'T TAKE IT FOR ITS WORD. RIGHT? FOR I MEAN, IT'S NOT TRULY A PLAT, BUT YOU'VE GOT TWO ACRES, YOU'VE GOT THREE ACRES, YOU'VE GOT THREE ACRES. THE DEVELOPER COULD THEN SAY, I AM GOING TO MAKE THIS FINANCIALLY VIABLE BEFORE I DO THIS NEXT PART. IF YOU DO A PUD, YOU HAVE TO PLAT THE WHOLE PLAN AS IF IT WAS ALL GOING TO BE VIABLE. AND SO FOR ME, SO FOR ME, I FEEL LIKE YOU KIND OF GET STUCK WITH, WELL, THAT ISN'T HIS THE WAY TO MOVE IT FORWARD. 
          BUT BUT I MIGHT BE. IT'S ALSO FOR ME LIKE YOU'RE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE ADVOCATING FOR ANOTHER CRITERIA TO SAY THAT IT HAS TO NOT BE A PUD. BASICALLY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S NOT ENOUGH WITH JUST THE SEVEN YEARS ADDING TO THIS ORDINANCE THAT THAT THEN YOU'D HAVE TO PROVE A PUD WOULDN'T HELP AS WELL. BUT THAT'S NOT HOW THE ORDINANCE READS. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER A PUD. NO, ALL I'M SAYING IS I HAVE NOT SEEN IN FRONT OF ME SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT PRECLUDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN ANOTHER WAY. 
          AND THAT IS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS. CAN YOU BRING THEM BACK UP, EMILY, OR NOT? YEAH. THIS IS OUR CODE YOU CAN BRING UP. JUST BRING UP THE CODE SECTION. SO TELL ME WHICH WHERE YOU'RE AT DUE TO STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THIS CHAPTER WOULD RESULT IN EXTRAORDINARY HARDSHIP AS DISTINGUISHED FROM MERE INCONVENIENCE TO DEVELOP BECAUSE OF THIS PARTICULAR PHYSICAL PROPERTY AND WILL SUBSTANTIALLY FOR ACUTE DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S WHY? THAT'S ONE OF MY REASONS. I DON'T THINK NUMBER TWO IS MET BECAUSE OF THE WORD AND DOESN'T SAY OR SAYS AND WILL POTENTIALLY RECRUIT DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. WE DON'T KNOW THAT THERE AREN'T OTHER OPTIONS. AND WHEN WE GO FROM 50FT TO ZERO. IT'S BIG. 
          IT'S LIKELY TO HAPPEN. WELL, JIM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. SO AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT SUBSTANTIALLY WOULD PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. SO THAT SO BUT WE HAVE SINCE 1983 IS KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT IT DID PRECLUDE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS STATEMENT, STRICT COMPLIANCE WOULD RESULT IN EXTRAORDINARY HARDSHIP. THAT'S MY SENSE OF NUMBER TWO. AND WHY I WOULD IF I WAS BRAD KRAMER, YOU KNOW, TELLING US COMING FROM TAX INCREMENT AND WE HAVE TO MARK OFF EACH THING, YOU KNOW, ABOUT 15 OF THOSE, I WOULD THAT WOULD BE EASILY THE ONE THAT I WOULD MARK OFF. THAT'S WHY IT'S AN URBAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. AND I VOTED FOR THAT. NO. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING IS TO HELP DEAL WITH THAT AND ACTUALLY TO HELP BUILD BLACK FEATHER, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. I JUST DON'T THINK IT MEETS ALL SEVEN. AND THAT'S THE LAW AS I READ IT. 
          BUT AND MAYBE IF I COULD SAY TO YOU, I THINK COUNCILMAN BRADFORD, I MEAN, IF I WERE TO 
          [01:50:03]
PURSUE THAT THOUGHT, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD INDICATE THAT THERE'S A HARDSHIP ON EVERY PARCEL THAT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE CASE EITHER, DO YOU? BUT I AGREE. I MEAN, I THINK THAT COULD BE TRUE. BUT THEN IN THIS CASE IT SAYS EXTRAORDINARY HARDSHIP DISTINGUISHED NOT FROM MERE INCONVENIENCE, WHICH WOULD PRECLUDE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I WOULD THINK, IF IT WAS FOR EVERYONE. BECAUSE THIS ISN'T JUST MARION CONVENIENCE. THERE'S A REASON SINCE 1983, THIS HAS NEVER BEEN EVEN BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL. LIKE IT'S JUST SAT THERE WITH THAT BASALT. AND IT WOULD NEVER, NEVER HAPPENED. AND BECAUSE OF THE THE LACK OF EASEMENTS FROM THE HIGHWAY AND FROM SCIENCE CENTER, THERE JUST ISN'T ANOTHER ROUTE. AND ULTIMATELY, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THE PLANNING AND ZONING SAW, TOO, IS THAT YOU IF YOU'RE GOING TO FORCE THIS BACK, I'M NOT SURE YOU'LL EVER SEE IT BACK. BUT IF YOU READ THE PLANNING AND ZONING NOTES, IT WAS ALMOST FOUR THREE THE OTHER DIRECTION, BECAUSE ONE PERSON SAID, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH MY VOTE. 
          SO IT WAS ALL, YOU KNOW, COMMISSIONER STORER, WHO'S OUR FORMER CITY, FAR FROM UNANIMOUS. 
          OH FOR SURE. YEAH. HE WAS PRETTY CAUGHT UP IN NOT SEEING OUR PRELIMINARY PLAT. YEAH, YEAH. SO WHAT WAS THE OTHERS YOU SAID? YOU SAID THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE HERE. THE NUMBER FOUR SAYS THE VARIANCE IS THE LEAST DEVIATION FROM THIS CHAPTER NECESSARY TO MITIGATE THE HARDSHIPS. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT BECAUSE AGAIN, THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT EXPLORED OR REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER OR LOOKED AT. SO BUT AGAIN, IF THE TESTIMONY IF A PUD SHOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, THEN THIS ORDINANCE SHOULD SAY THAT. I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST ESTABLISHING A WHOLE NEW STANDARD. IT SEEMS TO ME TO SAY THAT PUD WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED IN A SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE. IT SAYS VARIANCES, THE LEAST DEVIATION. I DON'T KNOW THAT FROM THIS CHAPTER, WHICH I ASSUME MEANS SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. SO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, VERY CLEARLY BY OUR DECISION, HAS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT IN IT AS A WAY TO DEAL WITH DIFFICULT DEVELOPMENT. AND WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICTS AS A WAY TO HELP PEOPLE WITH TOPOGRAPHY AND DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THOSE LAWS. I'M NOT COMFORTABLE THAT ALL SEVEN ARE MET. THAT'S WHERE I AM. JUST AS A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, THIS PARTICULAR CHAPTER DOESN'T MENTION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. NO, THIS ISN'T FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. IT SAYS IT IS IN THE PUD ORDINANCE IS NOT IN THIS CHAPTER. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR. I SAY EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHAPTER AND ORDINANCE. I'M SORRY, CHAPTER IS A SUBSET. THIS CHAPTER REFERS TO CHAPTER ONE OF TITLE TEN WHEN IT SAYS THIS CHAPTER, THAT'S WHAT THAT MEANS. IF IT SAID THIS CODE, THAT WOULD INCORPORATE ALL OTHER PARTS OF THE IDAHO FALLS CITY CODE, WHAT IT SAYS IS THIS CHAPTER, WHICH WOULD BE AND I'M NOT I'M NOT TAKING ONE POSITION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THE LEGALLY, WE'RE READING IT CORRECTLY. SO CHAPTER ONLY REFERS TO PART B VARIANCE. IT DOESN'T REFER TO TO TEN ONE FIVE GENERAL SUBDIVISION STANDARDS. NO IT DOES. IT APPLIES TO EVERYTHING IN THIS IN CHAPTER ONE. SO YOU'VE GOT CHAPTER ONE THAT IS THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. BUT THAT CHAPTER DOESN'T MENTION PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. 
          THAT'S IN TITLE I THINK IT'S TITLE 11. IT'S IT'S COMPLETELY BOOK TITLE. OKAY. AGAIN, I'M NOT ADVOCATING EITHER SIDE. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CLEAR. I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. NO. MOTION. NO. OKAY. I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT FRONTAGE ONTO A PUBLIC STREET TO ZERO FOR THE PROPERTY. 
          PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST ANDERSON STREET. EAST OF US HIGHWAY 20, SOUTH OF SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE AND WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD SECOND. BRADFORD. HI. LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES. 
          FRANCIS. NO. DINGMAN. YES. LEE. NO. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY. I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE REASON. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM 50 FOOT LOT COVERAGE ONTO A PUBLIC STREET. STREET TO ZERO FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED NORTH OF WEST ANDERSON STREET, EAST OF US HIGHWAY 20 AND SOUTH OF SCIENCE CENTER DRIVE AND WEST OF NORTH BOULEVARD, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. LI. NO. DINGMAN. YES. BRADFORD. ALL RIGHT. FREEMAN. 
          [01:55:04]
YES. LARSON. YES. FRANCIS. NO MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. THAT IS CONCLUDES. ALL OF OUR BUSINESS TONIGHT. WE DO HAVE. A GREAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP. AND I DO APPRECIATE ALL OF THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS. I KNOW THAT THIS OBVIOUSLY WAS EQUALLY TOUGH DECISION FOR THE COUNCIL AS IT WAS FOR PLANNING AND ZONING. WE 
          [6. Announcements]
ARE GOING TO START WITH ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS. I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS DID HAVE SOMETHING THAT HE WANTED TO BRING UP AS PART OF THE THE THE END ANNOUNCEMENTS, AND AND I'M GOING TO TURN THE THE TIME TO HIM TO TO GIVE ANY SPECIAL AND THEN WE'LL BEGIN WITH COUNCIL MEMBER LARSON. WE WILL SECOND WITH COUNCIL MEMBER LARSON AFTER COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS HAS BEEN ISSUED. THERE IS A BILL THAT'S COMING FORWARD. AC HAS NOT TAKEN A POSITION ON IT YET. IT MIGHT TOMORROW. IT'S EITHER THAT 559 OR 660. I'VE GOT TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS. 
          THERE'S VERY SIMILAR BILLS BASICALLY REQUIRE OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT TO CHECK THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF EVERYBODY. THEY STOP. IT'S A REAL CHALLENGE TO COMMUNITY POLICING THAT THE PRIORITY FOR THIS COUNCIL AND FEEL VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER I SHOULD TRY IT. I DID TRY TO DRAFT A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING COMMUNITY POLICING. THIS WOULD BE THIS WOULD UNDERMINE A TREMENDOUSLY, AS FAR AS I KNOW. 743 THAT I MENTIONED IN THE WORK SESSION IS BEING REWRITTEN. SO WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON A LETTER IF I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR'S OFFICE CORRECTLY, UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT THE NEW WORDING IS, BECAUSE THAT ONE WAS ALMOST COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE, IT WOULD HAVE MADE ANY CITY OFFICIALS SUBJECT TO A $50,000 FINE IF THEY MADE A MISTAKE, NOT JUST A CITY OFFICIAL, A CITY EMPLOYEE. IT REALLY WENT TOO FAR. THEY HAVE. I MEAN, THEY'VE PULLED IT BACK. SO WE WILL SEE WHAT COMES FORWARD ON THAT ONE. SO WE WON'T BE WRITING THAT LETTER TO SEE MORE ABOUT IT. COUNCILMEMBER DAWSON NOTHING, MAYOR. THANK YOU. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER I JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYBODY REMIND EVERYONE OF THE FIREFIGHTER'S BALL THAT SATURDAY NIGHT, 6 P.M. AT THE WATERFRONT. TICKETS ARE STILL AVAILABLE. I DIDN'T I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT IT. THIS IS THE FIRST I'VE ACTUALLY HEARD ABOUT IT. THE FIREFIGHTER'S BALL, 6 P.M. AT THE WATERFRONT SATURDAY NIGHT. OKAY. ANY ANY FURTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS? OKAY, THEN, WITH THAT, WE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.