[00:00:07]
          COUNCIL WORK SESSION TODAY. CAN YOU BELIEVE IS MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 21ST? LAST DAY OF SUMMER. IT'S THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER. THE LAST DAY OF SUMMER. IT IS THE LAST DAY OF SUMMER BECAUSE NOW WE START THE FALL THE FOLLOWING MONTH. IS THAT IT? YEAH. TOMORROW. YEAH. 
          OKAY. IF WE CAN HAVE THE CLERK CALL THE ROLL AND ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM. THANK YOU. GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS HERE. COUNCILOR RADFORD, PRESENT. COUNCILOR DINGMAN HERE. 
          COUNCILOR FREEMAN HERE. COUNCILOR LARSON HERE. COUNCILOR LEE HERE. THANK YOU. 
          [Mayor, City Council]
MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. OKAY, WE WILL START WITH COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS TO MY LEFT AND WORK AROUND THE TABLE TO DISCUSS ANYTHING THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE ON AN UPCOMING WORK SESSION, THINGS THAT YOU'RE HEARING IN THE COMMUNITY, THINGS THAT YOU THINK WE NEED TO RUN DOWN, AND ANYTHING YOU ARE HEARING FROM YOUR BOARDS OR LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS. I HAVE TWO QUICK THINGS AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK COUNCIL TO SPEAK ABOUT AN ISSUE WITH WORKING ON. OKAY. 
          BUT THE FIRST IS THE POLICE LIAISON. THEY ARE HAVING THESE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS OR GATHERINGS IN THE PARKS BASED ON THEIR BEATS. THERE'S FOUR BEATS. AND CHIEF JOHNSON SAID IT'D BE GREAT IF COUNCIL MEMBER CAME WITH 2 OR 3 OR WHATEVER. SO RIGHT. PARK IS ON THE 29TH. 
          OR IS ON THE 30TH AND. COMMUNITY PARK ON OCTOBER 1ST AND THEN ON THE SECOND. SO JUST FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO KNOW THAT IT MIGHT BE AN INTERESTING THING TO DO. AND IT WENT REALLY WELL AT CENTRAL PARK WHEN WE DID IT THERE SOME TIME AGO. SO THAT'S KIND OF PART OF THE. 
          INVITES. YEAH. BECAUSE THAT'S EASIER TO KEEP TRACK OF. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS THEY DID DO THEIR AWARDS CEREMONY. AND THERE'S, THERE'S A LIST THAT HE WILL PUT OUT IN THE NEXT OF THOSE DEPARTMENTAL UPDATES. THERE'S AN INCREDIBLE LIST OF POLICE OFFICERS WHO HAVE DONE HEROIC THINGS, DO SPECIAL THINGS. SO LOOK FOR THAT IN THE NEXT WEEKS. DEPARTMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS. AND ALSO, CAN I ADD SOMETHING ABOUT WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DEPARTMENTAL HIGHLIGHTS. I HAVE REALLY PUSHED DEPARTMENTS FOR THOSE. I HAD HAD POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL THAT SOMETIMES THIS IS THE ONLY WAY THAT THEY KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING IN SOME DEPARTMENTS. AND SO I JUST I'M PUSHING HARD ON THAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE STILL VALUABLE TO YOU BECAUSE IT IS IT'S SOMETHING THAT I'VE SAID, WELL, IT'S JUST NOT AN OPTION. WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO THIS. I REALLY LIKE IT AND APPRECIATE THE TIME, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW, JUST MAYBE WEIGH IN AS YOU GO AROUND THE TABLE. I LIKED IT A LOT. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER COUNCILOR FRANCIS ASKED ME TO KIND OF UPDATE WHERE WE'RE AT ON THE. ELECTRIC VEHICLE AND E SCOOTER AND E MOTORBIKE AND E BICYCLES. 
          THAT'S PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. JUST BE AWARE THAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS CLASSIFICATIONS OF THESE VEHICLES. STATE OF IDAHO HAS THOUGHTS. AND THEN WE'RE WORKING ON AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE THESE A REASONABLE, SAFE EXPERIENCE FOR EVERYONE. NOW IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THERE'S THE STATE LAW. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH AN OFFICER. WE'RE WORKING WITH HEIDI IN THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THEN WORKING WITH WHAT WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN. SO FAR, THAT'S BEEN ME. BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE MORE THINGS YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, I'LL BE HONEST. WHAT WE'RE KIND OF WORKING TOWARDS. IS GETTING THESE CLASSIFICATIONS AS EASY AS POSSIBLE FOR OUR OFFICERS SO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT TO SEE HOW MANY BOTS THEY MIGHT HAVE, OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE. ALSO, WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT A MOTORBIKE THAT IS ELECTRIC IS A ROADWORTHY MOTORCYCLE, THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A DRIVER'S LICENSE LIKELY, AND YOUR AGE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE APPROPRIATE TO HAVING A MOTORCYCLE ENDORSEMENT. AND THEN WE'LL USE THOSE, SOME OF THE KIND OF SPEEDS THAT ARE THAT THEY'RE ASKED TO BE AT. SO IF THEY CAN GET LEVEL ONE, BICYCLES THAT ARE ELECTRIC BICYCLES ARE UP TO 15 MILES AN HOUR AND HAVE PEDALS AND DON'T HAVE A THROTTLE, BUT THE MOTORBIKES HAVE THROTTLES RIGHT WHERE THEY CAN GO 40 OR 50 MILES AN HOUR. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT, IS WE'RE SEEING 12 AND 1314 YEAR OLDS, A LOT OF THEM ON SIDEWALKS GOING 30, 40 MILES AN HOUR AND NOT 
          [00:05:05]
REALLY UNDERSTANDING HOW FOUR WAY STOPS WORK. AND THEN AND WE HAD A DEATH IN BOISE. I KNOW THAT HEIDI'S BEEN WORKING THROUGH THE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE ALREADY TAKEN THIS ON. 
          SHE'S TRYING TO CONDENSE THAT. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT, ZACH? THAT JUST THAT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. WE'RE WORKING THROUGH IT. YEAH. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. DO YOU THINK THERE'S A TIME FRAME? I HAVEN'T HEARD A TIME FRAME OF WHEN IT WOULD COME. I HAVEN'T I HAVEN'T TOUCHED BASE WITH HEIDI ON THE TIME FRAME. SO WE'RE GETTING THERE THOUGH, BECAUSE WE'RE ON A 25 PAGE ORDINANCE AT THIS POINT. I HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD TO THAT. IT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY CONCERNS THAT I WAS BRINGING UP LAST NIGHT. I RECEIVED THE TEXT FROM A PEDIATRICIAN IN IDAHO FALLS AND HE SAID, THIS IS PROBABLY BEYOND YOUR CONTROL, BUT I'M WONDERING IF THE CITY IS ACTING ON ANY KIND OF REGULATING, EXCUSE ME, REGULATION REGARDING ELECTRIC SCOOTERS AND E POWERED BIKES. WE ARE SEEING AN ALARMING NUMBER OF SERIOUS INJURIES IN CHILDREN, INCLUDING TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURIES. AND THEN HE SAID HE WOULD WORK WITH. 
          I SAID, ABSOLUTELY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO WORK ON. AND HE HAS REACHED OUT TO THE CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER. SO THAT'S. AND HE SAID TO GET DATA. YEAH. SO WE COULD HAVE THAT. JIM, DO YOU WANT TO USE THAT? A PODCAST TO ME THAT I LISTENED TO, BUT YOU CAN SUMMARIZE PEOPLE. YEAH. 
          WELL, JUST THAT IT'S A VERY IT'S A VERY COMPLICATED THING. BUT I THINK THE KEY THING THERE IS THAT'S WHY I WANTED COUNCILOR RADFORD TO SAY THERE IS ALREADY A GROUP STARTING TO WORK ON THIS, AND I THINK IT'S ALSO A MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL PART. AND I THINK WHEN THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY COMES TO US ASKING FOR SOMETHING, BECAUSE THEY'RE SEEING IN THE PODCAST THAT SAID, THERE WAS A 200% INCREASE IN CHILDHOOD INJURY IN SOME OF THESE AREAS FOR THESE BIKES, BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST BIGGER AND STRONGER THAN THEY'RE CAPABLE OF CONTROLLING. RIGHT. AND SO, AND THEN I SEE IT IN OUR PARKS, WHEN I WALK IN TO OFFICE EVERY MORNING, I'M SEEING WHAT WE'RE E-BIKES WITH KIND OF FAT WHEELS. BUT NOW I'M SEEING MOTORBIKES WITH KNOBBED WHEELS, AND THEN OUR GRASS IS GETTING TORE UP WHEN THEY'RE GOING UP HILLS AND COMING DOWN HILLS. AND SO THEY'RE PRETTY CAPABLE OF TEARING UP OUR BEAUTIFUL PARKS AS WELL. SO AT SOME POINT, I'M ALSO ADVOCATING, AND THIS IS SOMETHING I HEARD AT THE FARMERS MARKET WHEN I ASKED ABOUT THIS. SOME PEOPLE HAVE ASKED FOR MAYBE A SPEED LIMIT ON OUR ON OUR GREENBELT OF 15 MILES AN HOUR AND MAYBE COVERED OUR BIRD SCOOTERS TO 15 INSTEAD OF 20 AND JUST KIND OF GET EVERYTHING A BIT SLOWER AND MAYBE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT AS WELL. IT FEELS LIKE WE COULD PUT THAT GOVERNANCE IN ASAP. YEAH. AS SOON AS WE HAVE TO HAVE A BIRD. I MEAN, WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH BIRD. I GUESS WE'LL LOOK AT THAT. YEAH, THAT COULD BE A QUICKER. OKAY. OKAY. 
          BECAUSE I JUST THINK 15 MILES AN HOUR IS KIND OF THAT THAT NUMBER WHERE BICYCLES, THAT'S WHAT THEY RIDE AT. LIKE IF YOU'RE A GOOD BICYCLE, YOU CAN GET 15 MILES AN HOUR ON AN EASY. 
          YEAH. BUT YOU RIDE AN E-BIKE YOURSELF, YOU GET UP TO 15 TO 20, RIGHT? LIKE YOU CAN GO 30, YOU CAN GO 30 ON YOURS. YEAH. BUT I DON'T WRITE IT 30 MILES AN HOUR ON A PRE-DEVELOPED PATH. 
          YEAH. I GENERALLY PEDAL IT 15 MILES AN HOUR FOR 210 MILES. YEAH IT IS. WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS WE'VE BEEN HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AT PARKS AND REC TOO, ABOUT AND ABOUT MORE BETTER SIGNAGE AND, AND EDUCATING PEOPLE ON STAYING ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PATH. YOU KNOW, WE I'LL GO, I'LL BE COMING DOWN THE PATH AND I'LL RING MY BELL. I HAVE A REALLY LOUD BELL AND I'LL RING MY BELL AND PEOPLE WILL GO THE WRONG WAY. RIGHT? I'M COMING RIGHT BEHIND THEM. 
          AND THEY'LL GO LEFT. RIGHT. I MEAN, WE CAN EDUCATE THE PUBLIC BETTER ABOUT IT TOO. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE'S NOT A SPEED PROBLEM BECAUSE THERE IS. I MEAN, I SEE THE GUYS ON SCOOTERS PASS ME A LOT. AND AND THESE ARE THE RENTAL SCOOTER. I MEAN, JUST JUST EVEN THE BELL THOUGH, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAVE ANY HEADSET, RIGHT, THERE'S LIKE, NO. SO IT'S LIKE, OKAY, BUT I'VE ASKED PJ TO PUT UP SOME SIGNS OR GET SOME SIGNS GOING THAT SAY, WHEN OVERTAKING SOMEONE, YOU USE A BELL OR A VOICE TO WARN THEM. YEAH, RIGHT. BECAUSE IT STARTLES PEOPLE WHEN YOU COME UP ON THEM THAT QUICKLY. WELL, IT'S KIND OF A COURTESY SIGN THAT PEDESTRIANS STAY TO THE RIGHT. YES, BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF IT TOO, BECAUSE WHEN YOU START WALKING IN THE MIDDLE OF ROAD ON THE LEFT, THAT'S HARD FOR PEOPLE TO PASS. SO EVERYBODY HAS A PART TO PLAY IN MAKING IT WORK. YEAH. AND THOSE COURTESY SIGNS CAN IDENTIFY THAT. AND I KNOW BRIAN STEVENS, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AT PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION HAS IS LOOKING AT GARDEN CITY AND BOISE RULES FOR THEIR FOR THEIR RIVERWALK, THEIR GREENBELT CONNECTION BECAUSE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ONE AND THE SAME SYSTEM BASICALLY. AND SO HE'S, HE WAS GOING TO LOOK INTO WHAT THEY'RE, HOW THEY'RE CONTROLLING IT BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO WARNINGS YOU WANT TO HAVE. THERE'S CONGESTED AREAS LIKE THE BROADWAY BRIDGE, RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE WANT THEM TO DISMOUNT ON THE BROADWAY BRIDGE, RIGHT. I MEAN, I, I'VE TRIED TO RIDE MY BIKE ACROSS THAT AND YOU CAN'T, YOU GOT TO GET OFF YOUR BIKE AND WALK IT THROUGH BECAUSE ESPECIALLY ON WHEN THE FARMER'S MARKET IS GOING ON OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO AND WE 
          [00:10:04]
ALSO, I THINK THE OTHER THING WE WANT TO HAVE IN THIS CONVERSATION IS THAT WE WANT THESE PEOPLE TO USE THESE BIKES AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO ROAD. YES. TO OUR CAR. YEAH. WE DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE THEIR USE. WE JUST WANT TO CONTROL IT A LITTLE BIT. YEAH. AND I DO THINK PEOPLE NEED TO BE ADULT ENOUGH TO MAKE DECISIONS ABOUT TRAVELING, BUT MANY OF THEM AREN'T ADULTS. SO AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE ARGUMENT THAT WILL COME TO THE TO THIS GROUP IS, DO WE WANT A 16 PLUS FOR EVEN A LEVEL TWO? OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS IT? THAT'S OKAY. 
          AND SO A LOT OF CITIES ARE SAYING NO ELECTRIC BIKES FOR ANYONE UNDER A CERTAIN AGE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO GO THAT FAR EITHER. SO ANYWAY, INTERESTING. THANK YOU. ONE OTHER THING. THE FARMER'S MARKET AND FROM WORKING WITH THE CHIEF THIS MORNING AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE FARMER'S MARKET, WE DID HAVE SOMEONE FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING. 
          COMMITTEE COME AND TALK TO ME. AND THAT WAS REALLY USEFUL AND WANTED TO DISCUSS PUDS. AND SO I THINK THAT WAS GOOD THAT WE WERE THERE AND HE WAS ABLE TO TALK WITH US. BUT IT REMINDED ME THAT WE COULD MAYBE HAVE ONCE A YEAR OR TWICE A YEAR, US MEET TOGETHER AS A PLANNING AND ZONING. AND WE TALKED ABOUT BEING, REVIEWING SOME OF THE CASES WE'VE DONE TO SEE IF WE'RE CONSISTENT SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF BUILD ON WHAT WE'RE. AND THAT'S A GREAT SEGUE INTO OUR PLANNING COMMISSION, WHO IS SITTING BEHIND US TODAY, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THEM AND THEN SOME ONLINE. WE DID HAVE THE ONE IN FEBRUARY, BUT WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER ONE THIS FALL AS WE START WORKING THROUGH SOME OF THIS. AND THEN THE OTHER THING THAT THAT BROUGHT UP IS MANY OF YOU KNOW, AND THE NUMBER OF STREETS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE HAVE SO FEW PARKING SPACES THAT THEY'LL PARK ACROSS THE SIDEWALK IN THEIR DRIVEWAY. SO THEY'RE BLOCKING THAT. AND I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE A CLOSE FRIEND WHO SON IS, IS BLIND AND EPILEPTIC. AND SO IF HE'S WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK AND HE RUNS INTO A VEHICLE THAT HAS A, YOU KNOW, IT'S BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK, HE'S TAKING HIS LIFE AT RISK TO WALK INTO THE STREET TO GET PAST THAT CAR. RIGHT? BECAUSE IF YOU'RE BLIND, YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE IF A CAR IS COMING OR NOT. AND THEY DON'T KNOW THAT HE'S BLIND NECESSARILY. SO THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY IS REALLY IMPORTANT. SO THE CHIEF SAID HE'S GOING TO TALK WITH AND SEE HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW WE CAN MAYBE ENFORCE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A PRETTY SMALL AREA THAT HAS THIS PROBLEM CONSISTENTLY AND SEE IF WE CAN DO A COUPLE OF THINGS AND HE'S GOING TO WORK WITH THINGS. BUT I WANT TO WORK WITH PIO TOO, AND JUST SEE IF WE CAN GET PEOPLE NOT TO BLOCK THE PARK OVER SIDEWALKS, RIGHT? LIKE THAT'S, THAT IS REALLY HURTS BABIES, YOU KNOW, SENIORS IN WHEELCHAIRS, PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE VISION. AND THEN JUST IN GENERAL, IT'S NOT FUN TO HAVE TO WALK OUT AND AROUND BEHIND THAT CAR. AND I DON'T THINK MOST PEOPLE KNOW THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO IT. THAT'S WHAT I. BUT THE OTHER ELEMENT IS IN THE WINTER, WHEN PEOPLE HAVE TO GO TO THE SLOPED PART OF THE. THEN IT'S. THERE'S A LOT OF POTENTIAL FALLING AND GETTING HURT BECAUSE OF THE ICE AND THE SLOPE INSTEAD OF A SIDEWALK. YEAH. OKAY. TWO QUICK THINGS. FIRST IS I WENT TO SYMPHONY IN THE PARK ON SATURDAY, AND I THOUGHT COUNCILMAN REDFORD DID A GREAT JOB REPRESENTING YOU, MAKING THE PROCLAMATION FOR THE DAY OF THE ARTS WAS WONDERFUL CONCERT BOTH THERE AND THE STREET PARTY. DOWNTOWN WAS SUPER FUN. I THOUGHT THAT WAS GREAT THAT THEY COMBINED THEM THIS YEAR. LAST YEAR IT WAS LIKE, OH, DO I GO HERE? AND THEN IT WAS LIKE, THEY JUST GOT THERE AND SAID, EXACTLY. IT SEEMED TO BE VERY COORDINATED AND IT WAS IT WAS SUPER. IT WENT ON ALL DAY. YEAH. YEAH, EXACTLY. I KNOW THERE WAS STUFF BEFORE AS WELL. I DID THE, I DID THE, THE, THE STEAMROLLER THING WHERE THEY DID THE PRINTING AT THE DAM. OH, IT WAS PRETTY COOL. YEAH. I KIND OF STARTED THINGS OFF. THAT IS COOL. GREAT REASON THAT IT FALLS. AND YOU SAID TO YEAH. SECOND THING. MONDAY, OCTOBER 19TH, THE GEM STATE HOUSING ALLIANCE AND SENATOR AARON BINGHAM ARE HAVING A HOUSING PANEL AND COMMUNITY CONVERSATION. BEEN ASKED TO SIT ON TO THAT. AND WE'VE ALL BEEN INVITED TO ATTEND. I THINK IT WILL BE A GOOD DISCUSSION BASED ON WHO'S PLANNING TO ATTEND. 
          WILL YOU SEND THAT TO CARLA? YES, AND GET THAT JUST HOLDS ON CALENDARS. I'LL DO IT RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER LARSEN. JUST ONE ITEM FROM FIRE. LAST FRIDAY THE 11TH, I THINK IT WENT OUT. A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS TO PREPARE A REPORT AND LOOK AT THE IDEA OF CONSOLIDATING, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BONNEVILLE COUNTY DISTRICT ONE, IDAHO FALLS. AND I THINK THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BACK OVER THE REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE BACK THIS FRIDAY. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THAT'S AT. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S FOR THE FEASIBILITY STUDY, RIGHT? YEAH, EXACTLY. PERFECT. YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I GOT SOMETHING FROM FIRE TO THE BLOCK PARTY. IS WEDNESDAY THE PARTY BLOCK PARTY? FROM 5 TO 730 IN FRONT OF STATION ONE. 
          [00:15:06]
CHIEF. CHIEF WILL BE OUT THERE COOKING BRATWURST AND HOT DOGS AND GIVING FOOD AWAY. AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THEIR BLM FIRE, AIM AND FIRE. ANYWAY, IT'LL BE A BUNCH OF FIRE TRUCKS. 
          FIRE COMMUNITY. YEAH, YEAH, IT'S A FUN TIME. WE HAD THE BIG STORM LAST WEEK AND, AND POWER WAS REALLY PLEASED THAT THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH, WITH POWER OUTAGES. 
          AND THEY, CHRIS WAS CREDITING THE JOB THAT WE'RE DOING WITH TRIMMING THE TREE TRIMMING PARTICULARLY, AND HOW THAT'S AFFECTED THAT POSITIVELY, BECAUSE IT REALLY WENT PRETTY WELL FOR THE AMOUNT OF STUFF WE HAD. WE HAD ONE OUTAGE THAT WAS DUE TO A LIGHTNING STRIKE THAT WASN'T DUE TO A TREE. SO ALSO FROM FIRE THEY HAD A COUPLE DAYS AGO, THEY HAD A TRAILER HOUSE FIRE ON ON ELLSWORTH DRIVE AND SAVED A LADY FROM THE TRAILER. HER DOG PERISHED IN THE FIRE, BUT SHE'S STILL IN THE HOSPITAL. IT'S STILL ALIVE. AND I CAN TELL YOU FROM MY OWN PERSONAL EXPERIENCE, IT'S UNUSUAL TO SAVE SOMEBODY OUT OF A FIRE THAT'S UNCONSCIOUS AND AND FOR THEM TO TO SURVIVE. SO THIS IS A ONCE IN A CAREER, KIND OF A KIND OF A THING. 
          THESE GUYS HAVE BEEN REALLY BUSY. THEY'VE HAD A LOT OF STRUCTURE FIRES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE NOTICED, BUT IT'S IT'S BEEN INCREDIBLY BUSY FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO THAT'S ALL I GOT. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THEY WERE THINKING I WAS GOING TO BRING UP THE TRAUMATIC HEAD INJURIES. AND THEN WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FIRE, IT IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE IMPORTANT ISSUES. AS WE GET GOING INTO THIS WHOLE PUD PIECE AND PERMITTING IS SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE ALSO UNREASONABLE. AND THEN YOU HEAR LIKE, OH, GUESS WHAT? THEY SAVED TWO KIDS OUT OF THE, YOU KNOW, 25TH STREET WITH MOM AND WHAT, YOU KNOW, GETS OUT. BUT IT'S A GOOD THING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE INGRESS EGRESS. SO ANYWAY, IT IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES. FIRES DO HAPPEN, STRUCTURAL FIRES HAPPEN. AND WE HAVE CODE. 
          AND SO ANYWAY, THAT WAS ONE THAT I WAS JUST GOING TO BRING UP AS A REMINDER BECAUSE WE DON'T HEAR ABOUT WE DON'T HEAR FIRE TOO OFTEN IN HERE SAYING, THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THE CODE, 
          [CDS]
BUT IT IS WHY WE HAVE THE CODE ANYWAY, OKAY, WE WILL ACTUALLY ASK CVS TO COME TO PRESENT THE FIRST ITEM, WHICH IS THE SERVING ALCOHOL IN THE LIMITED COMMERCIAL ZONE. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AND THIS ITEM, I KNOW WE HAVE 15 MINUTES, BUT IT PROBABLY WILL TAKE A WHOLE THREE, SO IT WON'T TAKE US VERY LONG. I JUST INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. I DIDN'T HAVE A PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING FOR YOU, BUT I PUT IN THE PACKET THE PROPOSED CODE CHANGE. IT'S REALLY JUST ADDING A P FOR PERMITTED USE IN OUR USE TABLE IN THE LC ZONE. WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW IF IT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD IS THAT IN ADJUSTING THE USE TABLE, IT'S NOT A CONDITIONAL USE OR ANYTHING. IT'S JUST A STRAIGHT PERMITTED USE. AND THAT STANDALONE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THE LC ZONE. SO WHAT THIS WOULD INCLUDE I KNOW WE HAD THE ONE SMOKE SHOP THAT WANTED TO DO WINE, AND WE HAD A DAY SPA AS WELL COME TO US. 
          THAT WAS IN THE LC ZONE THAT WANTED TO SERVE WINE AS WELL. THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO GET THEIR INDIVIDUAL ALCOHOL OR LIQUOR LICENSES, BUT THAT WOULD BE OPPOSED TO GETTING A REGULAR CATERING PERMIT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN ALSO WITH THE ALCOHOL LICENSE THEY WOULD HAVE, THEY'D STILL HAVE TO GET THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE, SO OR THEIR LIQUOR LICENSE. AND THERE WOULD BE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FOR SCHOOLS AND, AND FOR CHURCHES. SO IT'S JUST BASICALLY LIKE PULLING A LIQUOR LICENSE. IT'S JUST A PERMITTED USE IN THE LC ZONE FOR STANDALONE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENTS. THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON THE 1ST OF SEPTEMBER, AND IT DID PASS UNANIMOUSLY. SO WE'RE LOOKING TO HAVE THIS BEFORE YOU THE END OF OCTOBER BECAUSE OF NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. SO IT WOULD BE THAT SECOND CITY COUNCIL MEETING. SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. BUT VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD CODE CHANGE. YES. I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT REPRESENT MY PERSONAL VIEW BECAUSE I SUPPORT THIS IDEA. BUT CHIEF JOHNSON HAS CONCERNS BECAUSE OF THE INCREASED NUMBER OF BARS IN THE CITY. SO I JUST EXPRESSED THAT. SO IT'S OUT THERE. SO YOU KNOW, YEAH, WE DID MEET WITH POLICE AND THEY DID BRING THAT UP WITH US. SO. I'M SORRY, THE INCREASED NUMBER 
          [00:20:02]
OF WHAT NUMBER OF BARS. OH YEAH. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN PROS AND CONS IF THERE'S A YOU KNOW, THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY COUNCIL. I KNOW SOME OF THOSE. RETAILERS HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO SERVE THIS IN SOME OF THIS LC, SOME CHAMPAGNE AFTER A SPA OR WHATEVER. SO IT WAS BROUGHT FORWARD BY COUNCIL. SO I'D JUST BE INTERESTED IN, IN SOME OF THE. WELL, I CAN SPEAK FOR ME PERSONALLY THAT IT CAME FORWARD WHEN WE DENIED THE. I THINK IT WAS CALLED EXHALE THE SPA THAT WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS. AND I KNOW NATIONALLY THAT THAT'S A VERY COMMON. TO HAVE SOME KIND OF WINE OR SOMETHING ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPA. AND SO IT STARTED THERE BECAUSE I COULDN'T SEE ANY LOGIC BECAUSE THEN SOMEBODY STAYING THERE COULD JUST WALK ACROSS THE STREET, GO TO WINCO, GET A BOTTLE OF CHAMPAGNE AND COME BACK. AND THEN WE'VE GOT MORE DRINKING ON THE PREMISES THAN YOU WOULD HAVE IF SOMEBODY JUST GOT A GLASS OF CHAMPAGNE AND THEN WENT BACK, WHATEVER. SO IT SEEMED LIKE WE'RE NOT EXACTLY DOING WHAT WE WANTED TO. 
          THE OTHER ELEMENT FOR ME IS WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE WALKABILITY, BUT THE MORE WE ISOLATE THE BAR SECTION IN ONE PART OF TOWN OR SOMETHING, THE MORE WE'RE TELLING PEOPLE, GO DRIVE THERE. WHEREAS IF WE HAVE LC, WHICH IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE RESIDENTIAL MIXED WITH COMMERCIAL, THAT IT'S ONE ZONE WHERE THAT CAN HAPPEN AND THEN SOMEBODY COULD WALK AND WALK HOME. SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE REASONS THAT I THOUGHT, LET'S JUST IT'S. AND THEN THE THIRD REASON IS WHEN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL CC CAME FORWARD AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING THE BUILDING WHERE THE UPSTAIRS FLOORS ARE RESIDENTIAL AND THE LOWER FLOORS COMMERCIAL, INCLUDING THEY MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY WINE AND BEER BARS OR WHATEVER. AND YOU COULD DO IT IN CC. WHAT IS SO DIFFERENT ABOUT LC? SO WE'RE ALREADY ON THAT ROAD OF OF AND WE HAVE IT DOWNTOWN. WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL MIXED WITH. YEAH. ONE OF THE CONS IN THERE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP, IT WAS ALREADY EXPRESSED BY POLICE IS THE PROLIFERATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL ESTABLISHMENTS. 
          THE OTHER CONCERN WAS AND COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS ALREADY BROUGHT THIS UP, THAT IT WOULD POTENTIALLY PUT IT CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL. IT COULD BE, IN ESSENCE, ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. SO THAT WAS THE TWO CONCERNS THAT POLICE HAD RAISED. AND FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, REALLY, IT'S JUST WHATEVER THE CITY COUNCIL WANTS IN THAT REGARD, IF YOU WANT THEM, IF YOU WANT STANDALONE MORE IN THE LC ZONE, IT ALSO IS IMPEDING SOME OF THESE BUSINESSES THEY WERE DOING. THERE WAS A BOOK CLUB ONE AS WELL THAT THEY WERE SERVING LIKE THEY WOULD GET. THEY WOULD HAVE A BOOKSTORE. AND THEN THE EVENING THEY WOULD DO A BOOK CLUB AND DO WINE, AND THEY COULDN'T DO A LOT OF THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. SO IT WAS IMPEDING SOME OF THE BUSINESS PURSUITS OF SOME OF THESE ESTABLISHMENTS. SO I'LL JUST SAY, I REMEMBER WHEN EXCEL CAME AND IT JUST SEEMED SO ODD BECAUSE IT WAS AS CLOSE TO RESTAURANTS AND GROCERY STORES AS IT WAS TO RESIDENTIAL. LIMITED COMMERCIAL IS KIND OF LIKE THAT WAY. SO I'M SUPPORTIVE. THEN YOU WILL SEE THIS AGAIN. IT'S ALREADY, LIKE YOU SAID, ALREADY BEEN THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. SO OKAY. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR CENTER. OUR NEXT ITEM IS COMING 
          [Municipal Services, Legal, Parks & Recreation, Public Works]
TO US FROM MUNICIPAL SERVICES. DIRECTOR ALEXANDER IS HERE WITH NICK TERRY FROM TOK TO TALK ABOUT THE CITY PROPERTY UPDATE. THAT'S. BY BY PINECREST GOLF COURSE. GOT STUCK IN THE CHAIR HERE. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR HAVING US THIS AFTERNOON. AS MAYOR INTRODUCED THIS IS NICK TERRY FROM TOK COMMERCIAL. HE HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN WORKING THROUGH THE SEVERAL YEARS OF ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THE BEL AIR DIVISION THREE PROPERTY, AND I'M GOING TO GO OVER SOME OF THOSE. AND THEN I'VE GOT NICK HERE JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF THE FEEDBACK THAT HE'S RECEIVED FROM NOT ONLY THE DEVELOPER THAT WE ENDED UP GOING WITH, WHICH WE HAVEN'T, WE'VE HAD AN ISSUE WITH, BUT ALSO JUST SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT HE'S BEEN GETTING ON THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL. SO HOPEFULLY THIS LOOKS FAMILIAR. I CALL IT BEL AIR DIVISION THREE, BUT IN THE ON THE SALE AND PURCHASE AND SALE DOCUMENTS, IT'S ALSO REFERENCED AS THE VERNON LOT AS WELL. IF YOU RECALL, WE WE WERE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN A LETTER OF INTENT TO PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WITH CLEAR STONE, LLC. IT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON 
          [00:25:04]
SEPTEMBER 11TH OF LAST YEAR, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY THROUGH WITH THEM ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT WAS SIGNED OCTOBER 24TH OF 2025, AND THERE WERE THREE ADDENDUMS ISSUED, WHICH IS BASICALLY NOTICE TO EXERCISE EXTENDED OPTIONS. THESE WERE SIGNED ON APRIL 9TH, MAY 11TH AND JULY 6TH OF 2026. THE CLOSING DATE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OCTOBER, PARDON ME, AUGUST 31ST. AND THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE WHY BEHIND IT. AND THIS IS WHAT NICK'S GOING TO BE HERE TO SHARE WITH YOU. AND THEN WE ACTUALLY ENDED UP ISSUING A NOTICE OF TERMINATION ON SEPTEMBER 1ST. THE CLOSING WAS SUPPOSED TO BE OCTOBER 31ST, AUGUST 31ST. I DON'T KNOW WHY I KEEP SAYING OCTOBER, BUT IT WAS AUGUST 31ST. AND WE ALSO, ALONG WITH THAT NOTICE OF TERMINATION, WE MADE A DEMAND OF THE THIRD EXTENSION PAYMENT THAT HAD NOT BEEN PAID. IT WAS DELINQUENT. 
          WE MADE A DEMAND OF GETTING ALL OF THE DUE DILIGENCE DOCUMENTATION IN LIEU OF THAT FINAL 10,000 EXTENSION PAYMENT. THAT'S NONREFUNDABLE. WE HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING BACK AT THIS POINT IN TIME. AND SO I'M GOING TO HAVE NICK TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON WITH THAT PROPERTY. ALSO, JUST AS A REMINDER, IT IS APPROXIMATELY 8.6 ACRES, AND THE SALE PRICE WITH THE LETTER OF INTENT TO CLEARSTONE LLC WAS $2 MILLION. SO WITH THAT, I THINK WE HAVE NICK FILL IN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT MAYBE I HAVEN'T DONE A VERY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING. NO, YOU'VE DONE A GREAT JOB EXPLAINING BY WAY OF SOME FEEDBACK. I WISH I ACTUALLY HAD MORE FEEDBACK TO PROVIDE. THE BUYER HAS BEEN VERY NON-RESPONSIVE. LAST COMMUNICATION I'VE HAD THAT I'VE RECEIVED BACK WAS PROBABLY AUGUST 25TH, WHICH AT THAT TIME WAS SAYING, I'M STILL VERY INTERESTED IN THIS PROPERTY. 
          THERE HAVE BEEN SOME THINGS THAT WE'VE LEARNED THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING THAT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO PUT AS MANY UNITS AS WE ANTICIPATED, AND IT'S NOT THE ISSUE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT I'VE GOT SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE HAD TO TAKE PRIORITY. AND SO. YEAH, I GUESS FOR THAT REASON, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S NOT ISSUES WITH THE PROPERTY ITSELF THAT CAUSED THE DEFAULT TO HAPPEN, BUT MORE A PRIORITY SHIFT FROM EXISTING PROJECTS THAT THEY WERE WORKING ON. THERE WERE SOME HICCUPS, WHICH I DON'T KNOW THE DETAILS THERE, THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD TO CHANGE FOCUS ON. I'M VERY DISCOURAGED THOUGH, HOWEVER, THAT THERE'S BEEN SUCH A LACK OF COMMUNICATION EXPLANATION. I WOULD NORMALLY TRY TO HAVE MUCH MORE FEEDBACK TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE IN A SETTING LIKE THIS, BUT I DON'T HAVE A LOT OTHER THAN WITH THE EASEMENTS AND THINGS THAT ARE IN PLACE. THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO PUT IN AS MANY UNITS AS THEY ANTICIPATED. AS A REMINDER, IT WAS ANTICIPATED TO BE A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN FLOOR PLANS. I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PLAT MAPS. I HAVEN'T SEEN SOME OF THE WORK THAT THEY'VE DONE. THEY ENDED UP CHANGING ENGINEERING FIRMS PARTWAY THROUGH THE CONTRACT. I DID SEE THE ORIGINAL ENGINEERING PLAT MAP, BUT THEN THEY CHANGED ENGINEERING FIRMS AND WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. 
          SO I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT AS HOW FAR THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE AS FAR AS KNOWING HOW MANY UNITS THEY CAN PUT IN PLACE, KNOWING THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. I MEAN, THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE THINGS, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THE PLAN THAT. AND THEN IF I COULD ADD, I JUST HOPEFULLY THIS IS A REFRESHER FOR SOME OF OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS. THIS WAS THE MATRIX THAT WE HAD AVAILABLE TO YOU TO HELP MAKE THE DECISION OF WHICH LETTER OF INTENT TO ACCEPT. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, CLEARSTONE IS AT THE TOP WITH THE 2 MILLION AND THEN THE TEN 000 NONREFUNDABLE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THERE WERE THREE AMENDMENTS IN THAT, AND SO THERE WAS A $10,000 NONREFUNDABLE CASH INTO THE ESCROW ACCOUNT EACH TIME THAT EXTENSION AND THE LAST EXTENSION, THEY DID NOT PRODUCE A $10,000 NONREFUNDABLE TO THE ESCROW ACCOUNT. I DO HAVE A CHECK THAT I RECEIVED FROM THE ESCROW COMPANY FOR $20,000, AND I'M HANGING ON TO IT UNTIL THERE'S SOME DECISIONS, POTENTIALLY OR SOME FEEDBACK FROM TODAY. SO I'M NOT DEPOSITING THAT JUST YET BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE SOMETIMES WHEN YOU DEPOSIT SOMETHING, YOU'VE KIND OF ACCEPTED THE TERMS. AND SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WITHOUT GOING OVER THIS WITH YOU THIS AFTERNOON. THE SECOND ONE WAS 1.9 WITH HAWKINS. IT WAS FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF MULTIFAMILY. AND THEN THE THIRD WAS MORK FOR AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR 1.6. THE APPRAISAL CAME IN AT ABOUT 1.68 MILLION, 
          [00:30:11]
AND THAT AT THE TIME, WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAD AT THE TIME, THE LETTER OF INTENT THAT WE RECEIVED FROM CLEARSTONE WAS AN ATTRACTIVE OFFER, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE LOCATION BEING ADJACENT TO THE PINE CREST GOLF COURSE. AND SO WITH THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF IF NICK HAS ANYTHING TO ADD BASED ON THAT, BUT HERE'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO MENTION IS WHEN NICK AND I HAVE BEEN TALKING BACK AND FORTH ABOUT HIM COMMUNICATING WITH CLEARSTONE, THERE ARE OTHER, POTENTIALLY OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT MIGHT BE INTERESTED. SO I WAS HOPING NICK COULD JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT LIKE, WHAT'S NEXT? NOW THAT WE'VE TERMINATED THIS AGREEMENT, AND THEN, OF COURSE, ANY CONTRACTUAL QUESTIONS, WE HAVE OUR CITY ATTORNEY, ZACH, WE'VE BEEN WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH HIM ON THIS AS WELL. CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION FIRST? DID THEY REACT AT ALL TO THIS TERMINATION NOTICE? NO. I'VE GOTTEN ZERO RESPONSE. I LET HIM KNOW ON THE 25TH THAT IT WAS LIKELY COMING. IF HE'S NOT ABLE TO CLOSE AND OR PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION. I KNOW, AND I'VE GOTTEN NO COMMUNICATION SINCE ZERO. SO. THEIR WHOLE PREMISE WAS GIVE US TIME TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE. WE'VE GOT TO DO DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS PROPERTY. AND THEN THEY WERE PAYING TEN 000, BUYING TEN 000 MORE. FINE. BUT THEN IT GOT TO A POINT THAT IT WAS LIKE, WHAT ARE YOU REALLY DOING? AND THAT'S THE COMMUNICATION TOTALLY BROKE OFF. AND THAT'S WHEN WE SAID, WELL, GIVE US YOUR DUE DILIGENCE THEN. RIGHT. LET'S SEE WHAT IT WHAT THE PROPERTY, WHAT ARE THE PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS? WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES YOU'RE RUNNING INTO? AND WE'VE HEARD NOTHING SINCE. SO THAT'S THEY'VE SHARED NO DUE DILIGENCE. THEY'VE SHARED NOTHING. THEY'VE SHARED NONE. BUT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR THAT. I FOLLOWED UP AGAIN TODAY TO TO REMIND THEM THAT WE'RE STILL LOOKING FOR THAT DUE DILIGENCE INFORMATION IN EXCHANGE FOR THE REMAINING $10,000 THAT IS TECHNICALLY DUE FOR THE CONTRACT THAT YOU SIGNED AN EXTENSION FOR. SO. BUT NO RESPONSE YET. I DID GET A TEXT MESSAGE BACK SAYING, CAN I CALL YOU LATER? OKAY, BUT THAT'S IT. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO NOTE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE WAY WE DEVELOPED THE LANGUAGE IN THE TERMINATION LETTER WAS NOT A REQUEST FOR THE DUE DILIGENCE. IT WAS MORE OF A DEMAND IN LIEU OF THE ADDITIONAL $10,000 THAT YOU WERE DELINQUENT ON, AND BASICALLY BREACH A CONTRACT. RIGHT NOW, WE WE'RE WE ARE PROPOSING THAT THE DUE DILIGENCE BE SUBMITTED IN LIEU OF THAT. SO IT WASN'T WORDED IN A REQUEST WAY. IT WAS WORDED IN MORE OF A DEMAND WAY BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY DELINQUENT AT THAT TIME. IS THAT FAIR? MAYOR, I KNOW WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT. THAT WAS WHAT I. YEP, THAT WAS IT. THEY'VE DONE SOME WORK. IF THEY IF THEY'VE DONE THAT WORK. AND THEN I THOUGHT THAT IF WE DO DECIDE TO MOVE MAYBE INTO THE REDEVELOPMENT ARENA WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, THAT HAVING THEIR DUE DILIGENCE WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR, YOU KNOW, TO GET A JUMP START ON, ON WHAT SOME OF THOSE CONDITIONS. WE KNOW THERE'S BASALT, IT'S SEEN TOPICALLY, BUT SURE IT IS. SO WE JUST KIND OF NEED TO THE QUESTION IS, IS NOW FROM DIRECTOR ALEXANDER MOVING FORWARD. AND I THINK THAT MAYBE YOU HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, MR. CHAIR. I DO ABSOLUTELY. SO AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT IS BEING MARKETED AS AVAILABLE AGAIN WITH COMMUNICATION BACK TO THESE OTHER BUYERS, WHICH I HAVE NOT GOTTEN A RESPONSE BACK ON YET. SOME POTENTIAL USES REMAIN A LIGHT TECH DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT. THE POTENTIAL CHALLENGE WITH THAT ONE IS, MY UNDERSTANDING, IS ALL OF THE ALLOCATION FOR IDAHO IS USED UP FOR 2027. SO IT WOULD BE A 2028 START DATE. IF WE ARE ABLE TO FIND A BUYER THAT WANTS TO USE IT FOR THAT PURPOSE. SO MOCK LLC HAS COMMUNICATED JUST THAT. ALLOCATIONS TIED UP. YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE 2028 BEFORE WE COULD CLOSE ON THE LAND. SO THAT'S AN AVAILABLE OPTION. 
          HAWKINS. I KNOW I ACTUALLY WORKED WITH ON ANOTHER CONTRACT, ANOTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT THEY HAD THE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL ON, ESSENTIALLY, AND THEY ENDED UP BACKING OUT THERE. 
          THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO DO TOWNHOMES AND. APARTMENTS, AS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND THEY ENDED UP BACKING OUT. I THINK MORE BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENT OF IDAHO FALLS IN GENERAL, NOT BECAUSE OF THE PROPERTY ITSELF, BECAUSE THE OTHER PROPERTY ACTUALLY DIDN'T HAVE EASEMENT ISSUES. AND SOME OF THE OTHER CHALLENGES THAT THIS PROPERTY HAS. SO I'M STILL CROSSING MY FINGERS. BUT TO GET A RESPONSE BACK FROM THEM, AND WE'LL SEE, IT HAS BEEN, IT'S MARKETED BACK 
          [00:35:04]
TO THE TO THE IT'S BEING ADVERTISED BACK TO THE MARKET NOW AT THE 1.9 MILLION, WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE ASKING BEFORE. AND IT IS GETTING A LOT OF USE. IT'S GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION. 
          I DON'T HAVE SOLID INQUIRIES, BUT IT IS GETTING VIEWED A LOT. SO IT'S GETTING A LOT OF ATTENTION, WHICH INDICATES TO ME THAT THERE ARE BUYERS LOOKING FOR MULTIFAMILY LAND IN EASTERN IDAHO, IN IDAHO FALLS SPECIFICALLY. SO I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE DUE DILIGENCE. IS THAT WHERE THEY DID THE STUDY OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE LAVA AND ALL THAT, THAT'S WHEN ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE. RIGHT? SO WITHIN THE REALM OF DUE DILIGENCE, THERE CAN BE A PLETHORA OF DIFFERENT TASKS THAT THEY ARE DOING ANYWHERE FROM A MARKET STUDY TO VERY PROPERTY SPECIFIC STUDIES, INCLUDING THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING AND SOME OF THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. DOES THAT BECOME A PUBLIC RECORD? IT DOES NOT. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. THAT'S WHY WE THOUGHT IT HAD VALUE TO IT. YEAH, YEAH. 
          IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PAY US THE 10,000, LET'S LET'S GET SOMETHING FROM THEM THAT ACTUALLY HAS VALUE. IF THEY GIVE IT TO US, THEN DOES IT BECOME A PUBLIC OPPORTUNITY. BUT THE PUBLIC RECORD. YES. OKAY. BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING ANOTHER BIDDER WOULD BE. YEAH, IT'D BE VERY HELPFUL FOR THEM TO SAY, OKAY, WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THE LAYOUT AND THIS IS WHAT I CAN PAY FOR THAT PARTICULAR LAYOUT THAT WOULD WORK. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE FOR SURE. YOU MAY NOT HAVE AN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION. 
          AT ONE TIME. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU IF THE MARKET FOR THIS KIND OF PROPERTY IS SETTLING A LITTLE BIT, GIVE THE MARKET TIME TO CHEW WHAT IT'S BEEN. YEAH. AND THEN YOU SAID THERE'S A LOT OF THERE'S A LOT OF FOLKS, A LOT OF FOLKS THERE ARE FOLKS INTERESTED IN THIS PROPERTY. 
          CAN YOU CAN YOU TELL ME, DO YOU HAVE A FEELING ON THE MARKET FOR THIS KIND OF STUFF? IS IT FLATTENING OUT? IS IT STILL COMING UP A LITTLE BIT? YEAH, I WOULD SAY IT'S FLATTENING OUT AS FAR AS INTEREST RATES BEING ANNOUNCED LAST WEEK, INCREASING DID NOT HELP. AND THE ANNOUNCEMENT THAT THERE LIKELY WILL BE ADDITIONAL INCREASES IS NOT NECESSARILY FAVORABLE. ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES OF DEVELOPMENT IS GETTING THE FINANCING TO WORK, AND THE COST OF SUCH FINANCING, BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME. SO EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE LOOKING, YOU KNOW, MY MY COMMENT OF I DON'T HAVE ANY SERIOUS INQUIRIES YET, LET'S ME KNOW THERE'S STILL TIRE KICKERS OUT THERE. BUT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WHO ARE READY TO PULL THE TRIGGER. I MEAN, WE NEED TO GIVE IT SOME TIME TO, TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND THAT THAT GROUP. 
          BUT WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANOTHER ASSESSMENT, ANOTHER APPRAISAL. APPRAISAL. YEAH. SORRY, THAT THAT IS ENTIRELY UP TO YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARY AT THIS POINT. OKAY. 
          OKAY. WE WOULD ACCEPT OFFERS. I MEAN, WE WOULD LOOK AT ANY, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT REASONABLE OFFERS. 
          AND THE APPRAISAL WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2024, RIGHT. THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AND IT HAD GONE DOWN A LITTLE BIT IN VALUE JUST BECAUSE OF THE MARKET THAT WAS BACK IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS 2022 OR 2021 ISH. SO, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS, IS WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO, TO ATTEMPT THE COMMUNICATION WITH CLEARSTONE TO, TO GAIN THAT DUE DILIGENCE DOCUMENTATION. BUT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, ALONG WITH OUR PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANT IS, IS, IS, AS NICK MENTIONED, WE PUT IT BACK ON THE MARKET. WE CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, RECEIVE INTEREST AND LETTERS OF INTENT. AND THEN WE WOULD CERTAINLY BRING BACK SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID BACK ON SEPTEMBER 11TH OF 2025, BRINGING, BRINGING BACK LETTERS OF INTENT. GO OVER THOSE WITH YOU, GO OVER THOSE PACKAGES WITH YOU AND, AND HAVE THE COUNSEL OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THOSE. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THAT I NEED TO. YEAH, NO, I THINK AS I COMMUNICATE WITH POTENTIAL BUYERS, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS CITY OWNED LAND AND IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS HERE'S AN OFFER SAYING, GIVE ME A COUNTER. 
          LET'S MOVE FORWARD AS WELL. WE HAVE TO TAKE THE OFFER, PRESENT IT TO CITY COUNCIL, WHICH HAS TO GO UNDER THE AGENDA AND WHICH IS LIKE A TWO WEEK WINDOW AT MINIMUM, YOU KNOW, SO I'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING WITH POTENTIAL BUYERS THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE A SUPER FAST, YOU KNOW, GIVE ME AN OFFER AND RESPOND TOMORROW TYPE OF TYPE OF SITUATION. BUT. I THINK IT'S ALSO SOMETHING I SHOULD ALWAYS MENTION THE REDEVELOPMENT THAT IS. YEAH, I ACTUALLY DO THINK AS WE TALKED THROUGH IT, COUNCIL MEMBER, I DIDN'T MEAN TO SHUT YOU OFF THAT THAT THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING. I WISH WE HAD THE DUE DILIGENCE BECAUSE THEN WE COULD REALLY OFFER THAT. AND I WILL CONTINUE TO PUSH FOR THAT. AND IF YOU HAVE RELATIONSHIPS NOW WITH. LEE RADFORD. YES, REDEVELOPMENT WITH TOK. SO THAT COULD BE ANOTHER AVENUE FOR YOU THERE. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBER BRADFORD, DID YOU JUST I DIDN'T MEAN TO CHECK JUST THAT THAT MIGHT GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHAPE WHAT WE WANT WITH AN RFP AS OPPOSED 
          [00:40:05]
TO. YEAH, THAT SOUNDS GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU NICK. OKAY, SO I GOT I GOT ANOTHER PROPERTY TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL LOOK REALLY FAMILIAR TO YOU. THIS IS A 610 WATER AVENUE I CAME BEFORE YOU. SO JUST TO KIND OF GO OVER THE TIMELINE. 
          SO WE DID AN APPRAISAL. NOVEMBER 20TH OF 2025, WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AND A DECLARATION OF VALUE. HOPEFULLY COUNCIL MEMBERS PROVIDING THAT DECLARATION OF VALUE AT NO LESS THAN $53,500. AND THE REASON FOR THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS BECAUSE THE SEWER LINE WAS NOT IN THERE, AND IT WOULD REQUIRE THE SELLER TO INSTALL THE SEWER LINE. THE APPRAISAL THAT WE WERE GIVEN WAS AS IS, AND IT WENT ANYWHERE BETWEEN 535 UP TO 7000 WAS THE POTENTIAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE KEY FEATURE IS WAS THE SEWER LINE. SO WE DID TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. WE DID HAVE A PUBLIC AUCTION ON APRIL 10TH, AND WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY BIDS RECEIVED, BUT WE DID HAVE AN INTEREST PARTY COME TO US AFTER THAT PUBLIC AUCTION AND OFFERED A $30,000 OFFER. WE BROUGHT THAT TO COUNCIL ON APRIL 23RD AND IT WAS DECLINED. WE ENDED UP GETTING THE AUTHORIZATION TO LIST IT WITH A LOCAL REAL ESTATE BROKER. THE REAL ESTATE BROKER LISTED IT FOR 65,000 WITH THE TERMS FOR THE OWNER TO PAY FOR THE SEWER CONNECTION AT THAT POINT. GOT A LOT OF INTERESTED CALLS. THERE WAS A LOT OF INTEREST, BUT THE SEWER LINE WAS A NONSTARTER. SO THE REAL ESTATE AGENT CAME BACK AND SAID, IS THERE ANY WAY THAT THE CITY MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN INSTALLING THE SEWER LINE? AND WE, YOU KNOW, LOOKED AT DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES, AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IT WAS LIKE, NO, BUT WE ACTUALLY COUNCIL AWARDED THE ROUNDABOUT OVER ON BOULEVARD AND BIRCH. SO I WAS VERY GRACIOUS AND GRATEFUL THAT I GOT A RETURN CALL FROM DIRECTOR CAMPBELL, OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. AND I JUST SAID, HEY, IS THERE GOING TO BE IS THERE A NEXUS ANYWHERE ALONG HERE THAT PERHAPS WE COULD CONSIDER THE CITY PUTTING IN THE SEWER LINE, AND THAT WOULD MAKE THE PARCEL MORE ATTRACTIVE? IT WOULD MAKE IT MORE COMPETITIVE. AND YES, THERE ACTUALLY WAS A NEXUS. I WILL TRY USING THIS LITTLE POINTER RIGHT HERE, BUT ACTUALLY THERE WAS GOING TO BE CURB AND GUTTER RIGHT ALONG HERE. THE ROUNDABOUT IS HERE. ANY OF YOU HAVE BEEN OVER THERE. BUT RIGHT ALONG HERE THERE WAS GOING TO BE CURB AND GUTTER. AND I'M NOT SURE IF I GOT MY POINTER IN THE RIGHT PLACE. SO THE PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR WILL CORRECT ME IF I'M INCORRECT. SO YEAH, WE REALIGNED THAT CURBING SIDEWALK THROUGH THERE AND RECONSTRUCTED BIRCH STREET. AND THAT CONNECTION TO THE SEWER IS IN THE ALLEY THAT RUNS DIAGONAL. WITH THAT FUTURE THAT WE MADE A CONNECTION TO. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO OUR PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR AND HIS TEAM WAS ABLE TO APPROACH THE CONTRACT AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GOING TO BE RIGHT OVER HERE AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING WORK ON THE CURB AND GUTTER. ANY CHANCE THAT YOU WOULD BE WILLING TO GIVE US A PRICE FOR INSTALLING A SEWER LINE? AND THEY DID. AND THE CHANGE ORDER WE WE ESTIMATED ACTUALLY THE REAL ESTATE AGENT AND I ESTIMATED THAT IF A BUYER WAS TO GO OUT AND DO IT PRIVATELY, IT WOULD PROBABLY COST ANYWHERE BETWEEN 25 TO $30,000, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THE MARKET AND DEPENDING ON WHERE SOME OF THE WORKERS MIGHT BE AND SOME OF THEIR OTHER PROJECTS. SO WE WERE EXPECTING THAT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE AROUND THE $30,000 RANGE. AND THE SELLERS, THE BUYERS THAT WERE INTERESTED, WERE NOT INTERESTED IN TAKING THAT ON. SO WE WERE ABLE TO GET A PRICE QUOTE FROM THE DEVELOPER AND THAT DEVELOPER, PARDON ME, THE CONTRACTOR THAT'S WORKING OUT THERE. AND THAT AMOUNT WAS $15,898.75. AND SO WE DECIDED TO GO FOR IT BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE THIS IS A VERY ATTRACTIVE PARCEL, ESPECIALLY WITH THE ROUNDUP BEING INSTALLED AND SOME OF THE BUSINESSES ALONG THERE. AND SO WE WENT AHEAD AND I'M VERY GRATEFUL THAT OUR PUBLIC WORKS TEAM WAS ABLE TO DO THAT FOR US. 
          AND THERE IS A NEW METER PIT AND A SEWER STUB INSTALLED THAT WAS INSTALLED THE WEEK APPROXIMATELY THE WEEK OF SEPTEMBER 8TH. AND AS I MENTIONED, THE FINAL COST WAS $15,898.75. NOW, BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, THIS PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S MANAGED BY MUNICIPAL SERVICES, AND WE DO THE WEEDS AND WE TRY TO KIND OF KEEP IT CLEAN AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, IT'S ACTUALLY OWNED BY PUBLIC WORKS. IT WAS PURCHASED BACK IN THE 70S, SO ANY OF THE PROCEEDS FROM THE SALE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO GO BACK TO PUBLIC WORKS. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK WE WERE WE WERE VERY WILLING TO WORK COLLABORATIVELY TO SAY 
          [00:45:03]
THAT AS LONG AS WE GET THE PROCEEDS THAT INCLUDE THE PRICE OF THE SEWER LINE, INSTALLATION OF THE SEWER LINE, WE CAN GET THAT RIGHT BACK INTO PUBLIC WORKS. SO THAT WAS A REALLY OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO WORK. MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL. AND THEN FINALLY, YOU'LL SEE HERE WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AN OFFER OF 54000 ON SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 12TH. THE POTENTIAL BUYER HAD BEEN APPARENTLY WATCHING SOME OF OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND OFFERED, AS YOU CAN SEE, A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT THE LOW THE DECLARATION OF VALUE WAS. AND SO RIGHT NOW, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN BACK TO THE POSSIBLE OFFER OR THE POTENTIAL BUYER BECAUSE THE BUYER IS AWARE THAT THE SEWER LINE WAS INSTALLED. SO WHAT I WANT TO REITERATE IS, IS WHEN WE WERE ORIGINALLY LISTED, WE ORIGINALLY LISTED IT AT 65000 THAT FROM DAY ONE, THAT IS WHAT WAS ON THE MLS. AND AS YOU RECALL, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE APPRAISAL CAME IN ANYWHERE BETWEEN 535 UP TO 7000. AND SO WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IS TO DECLINE THE OFFER OF 54000, BECAUSE IT WOULD BARELY COVER THE COST OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE SEWER LINE AND JUST CONTINUE TO ACCEPT OFFERS TO ALLOW FOR THAT PROPERTY TO REALLY BE A COMPETITIVE PURCHASE PRICE FOR THE SELLER, AS WELL AS RESTORING OUR PROCEEDS BACK TO OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. SO WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL JUST KEEP IT RIGHT THERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. DIRECTOR ALEXANDER WITH THE NEW. IT WAS LISTED AT 65, BUT THAT WAS THE TERMS FOR THE SEWER CONNECTION FROM THE PURCHASE. I'M JUST WONDERING WHAT WOULD THE VALUE BE NOW THAT INCLUDES A SEWER CONNECTION AND SPEAKING WITH THE REALTOR ANYWHERE BETWEEN 65 TO 70,000. IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE APPRAISED COST. WE WOULD LIST. WE WOULD LIST IT NOW AT 65 AND THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT IT'S LISTED AS TODAY. AND IT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN LISTED SINCE DAY ONE AT 65000. WITH THE SELLER. THE TERMS WOULD BE RID OF THAT. YEAH, WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF THAT. SO WE DO. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE GOT WHEN IT WAS FIRST LISTED, WE GOT A LOT OF INTEREST ON IT. BUT THEN WHEN THEY ASKED ABOUT THE SEWER AND SAW THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE PUT UPON THE BUYER TO DO THAT. IT DIDN'T GO OVER SO WELL. SO THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MENTION IS THE OFFER FOR 3000. THAT WAS TO KEEP IT AS A PARKING LOT FOR THE TENANTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE NORTH OF THAT PARCEL. THE APPRAISAL CAME BACK THAT THAT WASN'T NECESSARILY THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. IT'S IT'S A PRETTY NEAT PARCEL TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING MAYBE MORE OF A SMALLER. DWELLING TYPE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR SOMEONE WHO MIGHT NEED A SMALLER SPACE. BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS, IS THAT WE ARE WE WERE ABLE TO INSTALL THE SEWER LINE. WE STILL HAVE IT LISTED FOR 65, BUT WE WANT TO COME BACK TO YOU AND LET YOU KNOW THAT WE DID RECEIVE THE OFFER FOR 54000. WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ACCEPT THAT. WE'RE NOT. WE DON'T. I SPOKE WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY LAST WEEK WHEN WE GOT THE WHEN WE RECEIVED THE OFFER, AND WE CAN JUST DECLINE IT. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WE WANTED TO KEEP YOU UP TO DATE ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF INTEREST, ESPECIALLY WITH THE INSTALLATION, IF YOU WILL, ON THE FINALIZATION OF THAT ROUNDABOUT, WHICH WORKS, WHICH LOOKS REALLY GREAT. I DROVE BY THERE EARLIER TODAY AND IT LOOKS REALLY GREAT. AND THEN OF COURSE, WE'VE GOT, I BELIEVE IT'S A DAYCARE CENTER ACROSS THE STREET. SO IT, IT COULD BE USED FOR SOMETHING PRETTY, PRETTY SPECIAL FOR SOMEONE. HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN LISTED? IT, I LISTED IT BACK IN. I WANT TO SAY, WELL, LET ME CHECK MY NOTES. I BELIEVE IT WAS IN MAY OF 2026. OH PARDON ME, I LISTED IT APRIL 30TH. AND HAVE WE HAVE WE TAKEN IT DOWN AT ALL OR HAS IT BEEN THAT IT'S BEEN UP SINCE THEN? IT'S BEEN UP SINCE THEN ON THE MLS, ON THE MLS, AS WELL AS THE SIGN. BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME ISSUES WITH GETTING TO IT BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUNDABOUT. SO THERE WAS A BLOCKADE, IF YOU WILL, WHERE YOU COULDN'T GO THROUGH THERE. SO I MIGHT SUGGEST WE JUST TAKE IT DOWN FOR LIKE A WEEK AND THEN PUT IT BACK UP. AND THEN WITH THE NEW LISTING, YOU'LL GENERATE A LOT OF INTEREST. 
          SOMETIMES WHEN IT SITS THAT LONG, PEOPLE DO THEIR SEARCHES AND THEY WON'T LOOK FOR ANYTHING. THAT'S BEEN ON THE MLS FOR LONGER THAN 60 DAYS BECAUSE THEY ASSUME IT HAS PROBLEMS. AND SO YOU'RE FILTERING OUT A LOT OF BUYERS. AND THAT IS ONE OF THE 
          [00:50:03]
RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR REAL ESTATE AGENT THAT WE'RE UNDER CONTRACT RIGHT NOW. SHE WAS. 
          BUT WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS SHE WANTED US TO BRING FORWARD THIS INFORMATION, JUST FULL DISCLOSURE WITH COUNCIL, BECAUSE AS YOU'VE MADE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT IT OVER THE LAST YEAR OR SO. SO WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR, MAY I JUST ADD A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IF I MAY SO CONTINUE TO LIST IT AT 65, OR DO YOU WANT US TO CONSIDER BUMPING UP TO 70? I DON'T THINK SO. I WOULD JUST KEEP IT AT 65. OKAY. WILL DO. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. SIDE AND WE'LL GO DOWN THIS SIDE. OKAY. SO. THIS IS THIS IS 
          [Mayor’s Office, CDS, Legal]
FOUR PAGES. AND I'M GOING TO, I'M GOING TO KIND OF FRAME THE CONVERSATION WHERE WE'RE HEADED, WHAT WE'D LIKE TO GET OUT OF TODAY'S CONVERSATION. SO AS, AS COUNCIL IS VERY WELL AWARE THAT WE HAVE HAD SOME ISSUES, ESPECIALLY AS DUTIES HAVE COME. SORRY, JUST DO YOU HAVE ONE? JIM? THAT'S IT'S DIFFERENT THAN, OH, IS IT DIFFERENT? SO LET ME GRAB THAT ONE BACK FOR SHEETS. 
          YEAH. FOUR SHEETS. DO YOU HAVE TWO COPIES. I HAVE ONE OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. SO AS. AS WE HAD SOME OF THESE PODS COME FORWARD AND QUESTIONS THAT SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE CLEARLY NOT ALIGNED. WE, WE REALIZE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM WITH COUNCIL AND PLANNING. I FELT LIKE WE HAD AN ALIGNMENT PROBLEM WITH PLANNING AND LEGAL AND LEGAL AND COUNCIL. AND IT'S JUST A LOT OF MISCOMMUNICATION. THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES. AND THEN THERE ACTUALLY ARE SOME ISSUES THAT WE ARE HEARING REGULARLY THAT COUNCIL IS HAVING. AND SO AS WE AS WE FRAME THIS CONVERSATION, I JUST WANT TO PUT IT OUT THERE THAT EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GET A VOICE AT THE TABLE TODAY. HOWEVER, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT A FULL EXTENSION AND STARTING FROM SCRATCH AND STARTING TO BRING IT FORWARD AGAIN, AND WHAT I WAS HEARING FROM SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS AND FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, I THOUGHT SOME OF THIS WE CAN RESOLVE THROUGH PROCESS. SOME OF IT IS GOING TO TAKE ORDINANCE WORK. HOWEVER, IT'S BETTER TO HAVE KIND OF A BASELINE TO START WITH AND THEN SAY, WHAT? WHAT IS IT THAT WE LIKE, WHAT DON'T WE LIKE, AND WHERE CAN WE MAKE CHANGES? SO THROUGHOUT WE HAVE 90 MINUTES, WE CAN GO A LITTLE LONGER. IT'S 4:00. BUT HONESTLY, IF WE HAD COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS AND I HAVE SPOKEN TODAY, HE IS GOING TO BRING UP SOME GENERAL POINTS. 
          I'M GOING TO PRESENT THE WORK FROM THE POWERPOINT. THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN AROUND THE TABLE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT SOME OF OUR ISSUES ARE, WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE DIFFERENT, WHAT SOME OF THE FRUSTRATIONS ARE, AND THEN TO BE ABLE TO THINK ABOUT NEXT STEPS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT IS SCHEDULED TO GO TO PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A FULL RETENTION. AND IF THERE IS A WAY, I WOULD PREFER TO AVOID A FULL RETENTION IF POSSIBLE. BUT IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE, THEN THAT IS THE DIRECTION IT WILL MOVE IT. SO WE'LL START THERE. 
          BUT WE WANT IT TO WORK FOR THE COMMUNITY AND WE WANT IT TO WORK FOR COUNCIL. AND ONE OF THE OTHER POINTS IS THAT WE HEAR MORE THAN JUST WHAT'S COMING TO US FROM THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS. WE HEAR THINGS ABOUT HOA'S, WE HEAR THINGS ABOUT MAINTENANCE, WE HEAR LARGER COMMUNITY DISCUSSIONS THAT AREN'T JUST SPECIFIC TO CODE. SO INCLUDE THAT, BE THINKING ABOUT THAT, AND THEN BE THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU WOULD CONSIDER AS NEXT STEPS. WHAT WOULD BE YOUR MOST IMPORTANT THING AS WE WORK THROUGH THIS PRESENTATION TODAY, SO THAT WHEN 90 MINUTES IS UP, WE WILL HAVE A CLEAR DIRECTION TO GIVE. OUR CITY STAFF A, BUT ALSO SO THAT THEY CAN ARTICULATE WHEN THEY GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IF COUNCIL STILL WANTS TO HAVE A FULL RECEPTION, THAT THEY CAN CLEARLY ARTICULATE THE ISSUES THAT COUNCIL HAS WITH IT AND WHY A FULL RETENTION WOULD BE IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS. SO I'M GOING TO TURN A LITTLE BIT OF TIME OVER TO COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, AND THEN IT'S GOING TO COME BACK TO ME AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO GO 
          [00:55:04]
THROUGH THE, WHAT I CALL A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION. BUT REALLY, IT'S JUST A HARD COPY ON FRONT OF YOU, IN FRONT OF YOU. SO COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS. OKAY, SO I JUST HAVE A FEW GENERAL POINTS. WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT THIS. SO I WE'RE AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE FAILURE TO COMMUNICATE ADEQUATELY. AND I THINK THAT BETTER COMMUNICATION CAN CLARIFY ALL OF OUR ROLES IN DEVELOPING DEEDS THAT ARE EFFECTIVE AND USEFUL FOR THE COMMUNITY. COUNCIL AND STAFF DON'T HAVE TO BE PERFECTLY ALIGNED. WE HAVE DIFFERENT ROLES IN GOVERNANCE, AND THAT'S TO BE ACCEPTED. OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE NOT IDENTICAL BUT OPEN TO COMMUNICATION IS IS ESSENTIAL FOR EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT. AND I WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT ANY REJECTION COUNCIL MIGHT MAKE OF A PUD OR, OR A TABLING OR A TWEAKING. IT'S NOT A PERSONAL CRITICISM OF ANYONE DEVELOPER, STAFF, FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS, ETC. DENIAL, TABLING WHATEVER APPROACH WE TAKE. IF WE'RE TROUBLED BY SOMETHING, REFLECTS DIFFERENT ROLES IN GOVERNMENT THAT THE COUNCIL HAS, BUT IT'S A POSITIVE FOR THE COMMUNITY. 
          THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE GOVERNMENT. WE DO. AND BY DEFINITION, THIS IS HUGE FOR ME. 
          PUDS ARE QUASI JUDICIAL. THEY'RE NOT LEGISLATIVE, WHICH PUTS THEM IN A SPECIAL CATEGORY, MEANING COUNTY COUNCIL IS REQUIRED TO INTERPRET THE ORDINANCE AS IT EXISTS. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT PUD AND YOU SEE A LOT OF PLACES THAT ARE INTERPRETIVE, THIS RESPONSIBILITY TO REPRESENT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE AND THE NEIGHBORS OF A PROPOSED PUD CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON COUNCIL. IT'S NOT A FINAL PLOT. AND TODAY, INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL LIKELY EXPRESS DIFFERENT VIEWS. I DON'T THINK ALL SIX OF US HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS, BUT HOPEFULLY EVERYBODY GETS THEIR CONCERN OUT NOW SO WE CAN DEAL WITH IT TODAY AND WORK OUT HOW WE ADDRESS THIS GOING FORWARD. I'M THINKING OF THE THE VOTE WE TOOK ON THE RESCINDING TO ME WAS LIKE A CLIMAX OF NOT BEING ABLE TO COMMUNICATE BACK AND FORTH WELL ENOUGH. AND HERE ARE SOME MAJOR POINTS THAT I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS. OH, WAIT, BEFORE YOU GO ON TO YOUR MAJOR POINTS, THAT IS, EVERYBODY'S GOING TO GET A CHANCE TO ADDRESS THOSE MAJOR POINTS. SO YOU DON'T WANT ME TO TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DEFINED. 
          YOU WANT ME TO WAIT? I JUST WAIT, WAIT. OKAY, YOU CAN WAIT. THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OKAY, SO I WILL STAND. RIGHT HERE. SHORT ONE. COPY. SO, AS COUNCIL KNOWS, ON THURSDAY. I THINK I SENT IT OUT TO YOU. AS WE HAVE DUG DEEPER AND DEEPER IN THIS. AND THERE IS A SMALL WORKING COMMITTEE THAT HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS. A PUD TO OFTENTIMES, I THINK WE THINK ABOUT IT AS IT'S IT'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF VARIANCES. AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE APPROVING ALL OF THOSE VARIANCES, RIGHT. BUT REALLY IT IS IT'S, IT'S AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE TOOL THAT WE THINK ABOUT. WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT AS THIS IS A TOOL THAT A DEVELOPER IS USING IN ORDER TO HAVE GIVE AND TAKE FROM THE CITY. AND SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THIS, WE HAVE THE UNDERLYING ZONE. THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE CITY IS WILLING. EXCUSE ME. THESE ARE THE GIVE UPS, RIGHT? THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT THE CITY BUY THROUGH OUR ORDINANCE. WE ARE GIVING UP. AND SO THIS WOULD BE IF WE CAN TURN TO PAGE TWO AND THEN I'D ASK CARRIE BUELLER AND DIRECTOR SANNER TO COME TO THE PODIUM, BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO HAVE OPENED TO COUNCIL TO ASK QUESTIONS AS WE WORK THROUGH THESE. I'VE INTENTIONALLY KEPT IT TO THREE PAGES SO THAT WE'RE NOT OVERWHELMED BY A BIG ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF US. BUT WHAT WE ARE GIVING UP WHEN A. BY HAVING A PUD IN CODE, BY HAVING THAT ORDINANCE, WE ARE SAYING NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE WITHIN THE PURVIEW. THAT'S THAT'S GRANTED TO THEM IN OUR CURRENT ONE, WE SAY THAT THERE IS A FIXED DENSITY. IT IS HIGHER THAN WHAT IT WOULD BE IN THE UNDERLYING ZONE. WE DO FIX THAT. WE CAN'T WE HAVE FULL DISCRETION TO CHANGE THAT ORDINANCE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE DISCRETION TO CHANGE IT FROM THE DAIS TONIGHT. I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD THAT ISSUE, THOUGH. THAT HASN'T BEEN ONE OF OUR ISSUES. THE DENSITY HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE. RIGHT. SO THIS IS JUST TO KIND OF LAY OUT WHAT IT IS. IF SOMEONE DOES 
          [01:00:02]
HAVE AN ISSUE WITH DENSITY, THEN THEY CAN SAY, OH YEAH, I CAN INCREASE IT OR I'D LIKE TO DECREASE IT. BUT THEN WE HAVE FOR THE SETBACKS, THE HARD FLOOR IS AROUND THE PERIMETER INTERNAL. WE SAY YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT INTERNALLY. IT'S UNDER ONE UNIFIED CONTROL. 
          SO IF YOU THINK YOU CAN SELL SOMETHING THAT IS OR RENT SOMETHING THAT IS SIX FEET SEPARATION, WE'LL LET THOSE SETBACKS GO. BUT WE DO HAVE AUTHORITY. WE CAN SET AUTHORITY ON SETBACKS THROUGH CODE. AND THERE IS SOME SOME DEFINING LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT WE SHOULD TRY AND TIGHTEN UP BECAUSE IT IS A LITTLE SUBJECTIVE. AND THEN OF COURSE, WE DO HAVE THE HEIGHT, WHICH IS BY THE UNDERLYING ZONE. WE CAN WE CAN CHANGE ANY OF THIS, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BY CODE GIVEN US. AND SO I'M GOING TO TURN SOME TIME TO KERRY NOW TO TO GIVE ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION ON THAT ONE SECTION. ON WHAT WE'RE GIVING UP FOR. AND WHETHER YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S A. GOOD THING TO GIVE UP. LIKE YOU SAID, I THINK IT'S A TOOL. IT'S A DEVELOPMENT TOOL THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME. AND MOST COMMUNITIES IN THE STATE USE AND MOST COMMUNITIES, HONESTLY THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, USE. OUR ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN VERY DISTINCTLY SO THAT THE STANDARDS THAT WE TALK ABOUT ARE BUILT INTO THE CODE. SO THERE'S THERE IS INTENDED TO BE LITTLE FOR THE COUNCIL TO HAVE TO WORK THROUGH OR DISCUSS. 
          THAT BEING SAID, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING, RIGHT. AND THESE THINGS COME UP. AND SO THERE MIGHT BE THINGS THAT YOU DO HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND ADDRESS ON THE ON THE FLY. THESE ISSUES, THOUGH, WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING TO BE ADJUSTED OR CHANGED OR ALLOWING SOME FLEXIBILITY TO WITH THE LOT SIZE, THE DENSITY, ALTHOUGH THE DENSITY REALLY INCREASES ONLY IN THOSE LOWER ZONES, THE HIGHER ZONES, IT'S THE EXACT SAME AND THE SETBACKS AND THE HEIGHT. THOSE WERE THINGS THAT WE FELT WHEN WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED ORIGINALLY, THAT THOSE WEREN'T THINGS TO HAVE A TON OF CONCERN OR ISSUE ABOUT. THOSE WERE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD WORK THROUGH AS WE WENT THROUGH THAT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY LAID OUT AS THOSE THINGS THAT THE CITY AND THE COUNCIL IS WILLING TO, TO ALLOW TO BE REDUCED IN EXCHANGE FOR THE OTHER THINGS. OKAY. THAT IS THEN OUR SECOND PAGE. SO WE WILL AND WE'LL YOU CAN COME BACK. WE CAN TALK THROUGH ALL OF THIS, BUT THE, THE NEXT THING, WHICH IS, I THINK THIS HIGHER STANDARD. AND I THINK THAT THAT FOR ME, I HAVEN'T UNDERSTOOD HOW AND WHY THESE ARE CONSIDERED HIGHER STANDARDS. IT'S, IT'S KIND OF LIKE, WELL, WE ARE GIVING ALL OF THIS UP AND WE'RE REALLY NOT GETTING A LOT IN EXCHANGE FOR WHAT WE ARE GIVING UP. AND SO I WANTED MR. BUELLER TO TAKE US THROUGH THESE. I PUT MY OWN NOTES THAT SAYS KNOWN GAPS OR QUESTIONS OFF TO THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. OBVIOUSLY, FEEL FREE TO WRITE ON THESE AND, AND BUT BUT USE MR. BUTLER'S LANGUAGE, NOT MINE, TO TAKE YOUR OWN NOTES ON WHY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REALLY DOES BELIEVE THESE ARE HIGHER STANDARDS AND WORTHY OF WHAT WE ARE GIVING UP. AND SO I WOULD TURN THOSE OVER TO YOU. THERE ARE ACTUALLY 11 ITEMS LISTED IN CODE. I TOOK AND COMBINED THE SCALED AMENITIES AND THE PHASED DELIVERY OF AMENITIES INTO ONE. 
          AND THEN I TOOK OFF THE PARKING LOT STANDARDS BECAUSE WE REALLY ARE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL AREAS, RIGHT? SO FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THESE STANDARDS LISTED, WHAT WE'RE COMPARING THEM TO IN ORDER TO DETERMINE IS IT A HIGHER STANDARD, A BETTER STANDARD, IF YOU WILL. WE'RE COMPARING THOSE TO WHAT IS THE MINIMUM STANDARD THAT YOU OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE TO MEET. SO SOMETIMES I THINK WHEN WE USE THE WORD A HIGHER STANDARD, THAT MIGHT MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS TO EACH OF US. WE, YOU KNOW, TRADE OFFS, WE VALUE THINGS DIFFERENTLY. AND SO BUT STAFF IS REALLY LOOKING AT IT. 
          THIS IS WHAT YOUR MINIMUM STANDARD WOULD BE IN A STANDARD ZONE. THIS IS WHAT THE STANDARD IS IN A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. AND WHERE DO THEY DIFFER. AND SO WHEN IT COMES TO COMMON SPACE, OUR ZONE DISTRICTS DO HAVE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING. 
          [01:05:02]
REQUIREMENTS ARE HIGHER DENSITY ZONES ARE IT'S A 20% REQUIREMENT. SO YOU CAN BUILD ON 80% OF THE LOT. YOU HAVE TO LANDSCAPE 20% OF THE LOT. HERE YOU WERE REQUIRING AT A MINIMUM TO START WITH A 25%. SO YOU HAVE THAT 5% INCREASE. WHAT WE'VE SEEN THOUGH, IS WHEN YOU WHEN YOU GET TO ALL OF THE OTHER STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. AND WHEN WE DID THIS ANALYSIS EARLIER THIS YEAR, MOST PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS ARE SOMEWHERE IN THE 30% RANGE. 
          AND BY THE TIME THEY'RE DEALING WITH STORMWATER AND SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS. BUT JUST ON A MINIMUM STANDARD, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 5% OF LANDSCAPING. THE AMENITIES STANDARD DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC AMENITIES. SO IF YOU WERE TO BUILD A TOWNHOME PROJECT WITHOUT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OR A MULTI UNIT PROJECT WITHOUT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THERE WOULD BE NO REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AN AMENITY. IT'S NOT SOMETHING STAFF'S GOING TO REVIEW OR OR LOOK FOR. THEY DO HAVE TO DO IT. YOU KNOW ONE PER 50 UNITS. AND THEN THERE IS A REQUIREMENT THAT THOSE AMENITIES, WHAT THE AMENITIES ARE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE FIRST PHASE, OR AT LEAST ONE OF THE AMENITIES IS CONSTRUCTED WITH THE FIRST PHASE. AND THEN WE TRY TO SCALE THE AMENITIES OUT PER THE PHASES, DEPENDING ON HOW LARGE THE PROJECT IS. IS THAT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY END UP IN THE CODE? THOSE TRIGGER POINTS YOU COULD. YES. WHEN WHEN WE AMENDED THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE IN 2015, ONE OF THE CONCERNS AT THE TIME BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL THERE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT WHEN THE AMENITIES GOT CONSTRUCTED. AND SO WE HAD A COUPLE OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS THAT WERE BUILT, DEVELOPER LEFT, AND THE AMENITY NEVER GOT ACTUALLY MATERIALIZED INTO SOMETHING. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE CAME UP WITH, THE REGULATION. LET'S REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE AMENITY AT THE VERY BEGINNING. BUT BECAUSE WE ARE SEEING LARGER PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS WITH MORE PHASES, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT WITH LANGUAGE ADJUSTMENT, RIGHT? THAT THERE'S SOME SORT OF TIERED APPROACH, THAT THOSE AMENITIES GET FILTERED OUT OVER ALL OF THE PHASES, RATHER THAN JUST THE ONE AND THEN OTHERS. THERE IS AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT, BUT THEN ALSO THERE ARE ADDITIONAL TREE AND SHRUB REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEYOND WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH YOUR NORMAL DEVELOPMENT. THE SAME WITH OUR BUFFERS. BUFFERS ADJACENT TO EXISTING SINGLE UNIT RESIDENTIAL. TYPICALLY IN A STANDARD DEVELOPMENT, IT'S A SEVEN FOOT THAT WE SEE. PUD REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF TEN, SO THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL THREE FOOT THERE. STREETSCAPES. THERE ARE SPECIFIC STREETSCAPE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MINIMUM WIDTH OF LANDSCAPING AND THEN ALSO TREE SPACING, WHICH IS MORE INTENSE THAN WHAT YOU WOULD SEE WITH STANDARD DEVELOPMENT. SO I WROTE ON THAT ONE HAS NOT BEEN OVERLY STRICT AS WE TALK THROUGH SUPERIOR STREETSCAPES, BECAUSE IT ALSO DOES SAY THAT IT WON'T BE DOMINATED BY DOMINATED BY GARAGES AND CARS AND CARS. SO THAT IS UP FOR INTERPRETATION. SO IF WE WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE CAN. THERE'S SOME CONFLICTING LANGUAGE IN THE CODE. THE CODE SAYS ON THE INTERNAL WELL, ON BOTH LANDSCAPING ALONG THE STREETS IT SAYS EXCEPT WHERE THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS. AND WE ALL KNOW WITH SOME WITH TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS AND SEVERAL PUDS, SOMETIMES THAT ENTIRE STREETSCAPE CAN TURN INTO A LOT OF DRIVEWAYS. AND THE OTHER CHALLENGE WE RUN INTO WITH UTILITY DELIVERY, TRYING TO GET METER PITS AND TRANSFORMER LOCATIONS AND AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS ALL TOGETHER. SOMETIMES THOSE TREES HAVE BEEN SACRIFICED IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT ALL FIT. SO THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK AT IS, YOU KNOW, A HEIGHTENED VERSION OF STREETSCAPES TO MANAGE THAT BETTER. STREETSCAPE INCLUDES LANDSCAPING AND PARKING DRIVEWAYS. THE WHOLE LOOK OF IT, THE WAY THE CODE READS. YES, THERE'S TWO ASPECTS TO STREETSCAPES. YOU'VE GOT LANDSCAPING AND THEN IT DOES SAY NOT DOMINATED BY GARAGES, I WOULD SAY. AND I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR THERE. THAT'S WHERE THAT PART HAS NOT BEEN STRICTLY ADHERED TO. I WOULD SAY OVER THE YEARS WE'VE HAD LOTS OF PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN, EITHER WITH PARKING LOT STYLE OR THEY'VE HAD, YOU KNOW, GARAGE AFTER GARAGE. WE TRIED TO DO THE BEST WE CAN TO PUT SOME LANDSCAPING IN BETWEEN, BUT IT'S PRETTY MINIMAL. SO I WOULD SAY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T BEEN AS STRICT ON AS THE GARAGE STREETSCAPE. BUT WHEN WE THINK OF THE WORD STREETSCAPE, WE'RE TALKING BOTH LANDSCAPING AND GARAGE DOMINANCE THERE. I THINK 
          [01:10:04]
THEY'RE LISTED IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES IN THE CODE, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BOTH OF THEM. YES. 
          BOTH ELEMENTS. CORRECT. OKAY. AND THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO ELEMENTS FOR STREETSCAPE. YES. 
          OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. HEIGHT AND MASSING. THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE REGARDING IF THE PLANNING OF THE DEVELOPMENT WANTED TO GO HIGHER, THAT THOSE HIGHER UNITS WOULD BE DESIGNED SUCH THAT THEY'RE TOWARDS SORT OF THE INTERIOR OF THE PROJECT THAT THAT WAY ON THE PERIMETER AROUND IT WOULD TRY TO, YOU KNOW, BE LOWER AND MATCH THE EXISTING. THAT REALLY HASN'T BEEN DONE. MOST ALL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU'VE SEEN COME THROUGH REALLY HAVE JUST HAVE JUST KEPT THE SAME HEIGHT STANDARD OF THE ZONE THAT THEY'RE IN. SO THEY HAVEN'T ASKED TO EXCEED WHETHER IT BE TWO STORY OR THREE STORY IN THE ZONE. YEAH, WE HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. YEAH. SO IF WE DID HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN AND WANTED TO DO WHAT YOU DESCRIBED, YOU KNOW, ON THE OUTSIDE, BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S THERE AND BUILD UP. IS THERE A IS THE UNDERLYING ZONE HAVE A MAX HEIGHT FOR THAT INTERIOR, OR DO WE NEED TO PUT THAT INTO THE PUD CODE OR THE UNDERLYING ZONE JUST HAS A MAX HEIGHT OVERALL. AND THEN IT HAS THIS STAIR STEP THING THAT WE DO AS YOU MOVE INSIDE. SO THEY'RE NATURALLY LIMITED ACCORDING TO HOW LARGE THE PROPERTY IS. OKAY. IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT YOU SAW REGULARLY, THEN I WOULD DEFINITELY RECOMMEND YOU MIGHT WANT TO PROVIDE SOME SORT OF SPECIFIC DIRECTION THERE. BUT THERE, BUT THERE IS THE UNDERLYING CODE DOES CONTROL. YES. OKAY. WE ALSO COULD REMOVE THAT SECTION, RIGHT? WE COULD JUST SAY THAT THE UNDERLYING ZONE HEIGHT IS WHAT IT IS, AND THAT'S HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK, BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE THAT FITS BETTER WITH THE OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY. THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AS WELL. ARCHITECTURAL QUALITY. 
          AGAIN, THIS ONE IS MAINLY ELEVATION DRAWINGS. SO THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO GIVE US AN ELEVATION, SHOWING US WHAT IT IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. WE DO NOT HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO ARCHITECTURAL STYLES, ROOF STYLES, THE AMOUNT OF BRICK VERSUS SIDING, COLOR, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. LOTS OF COMMUNITIES WILL REGULATE WITH ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL BOARDS AND OTHER THINGS. THOSE GET VERY COMPLEX AND THEY CAN ADD A LOT OF COST TO A DEVELOPMENT. OURS HAS REALLY APPROACHED. IT SIMPLY WAS JUST SHOW IT IS WHAT IT IS YOU'RE GOING TO TRY TO BUILD WITH AN ELEVATION, AND THEN WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER WE THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE OR NOT. THEN AS THE BUILDING PERMITS COME IN, WE DO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ELEVATIONS ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS SHOWN. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT GETS FOLLOWED THROUGH ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS TO PERMITTING AND CONSTRUCTION, PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY. THIS ONE IS PRETTY SIMILAR TO OUR NORMAL CONNECTIVITY BECAUSE IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE. WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD STRIPING AND GOOD CONNECTIVITY. WHAT PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY LARGELY IS, YOU SEE IN A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IS A TRAIL SYSTEM OR SOME TYPE OF AMENITY. AND SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO A TRAIL SYSTEM AS AN AMENITY, THEN THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL TRAIL SYSTEM BESIDES JUST YOUR STANDARD SIDEWALK THAT YOU WOULD SEE ALONG THE STREETSCAPE. 
          THERE. AND WE DO ALSO ARE WE'RE COGNIZANT OF CONNECTING OUR COMMUNITY'S EXISTING PATHWAYS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND TRYING TO ENCOURAGE DEVELOPERS TO MAKE THOSE CONNECTIONS AS WELL. AND THEN UNIFIED MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITY. THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT DOES REQUIRE THAT IT BE UNDER UNIFIED CONTROL. SO THERE IS SOME TYPE OF HOA OR SOME OTHER GROUP THAT'S GOING TO MANAGE THE OVERALL MAINTENANCE. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE REQUIRE ON STANDARD DEVELOPMENT. TYPICALLY WITH THAT HOA, YOU ALSO WILL SEE THEM ENFORCE PARKING REGULATIONS AND DEBRIS AND OTHER THINGS. AND SO WE WE TYPICALLY HAVE FEWER CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS IN, IN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS THAT UNIFIED CONTROL. SO WE SEE THAT AS AN ADDED BENEFIT AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO SPEAK FROM, FROM MY EXPERIENCE AND SOME OF HOW I HAVE FELT UP TO THIS POINT, I HAVE FELT LIKE IN MANY CASES WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND WHEN I WHEN WE SEE THESE PUDS, IT'S LIKE, THIS HAS MAYBE TECHNICALLY MET OUR CODE, BUT IT, IT ISN'T AN IMPROVED OR A HIGHER STANDARD. I HAVE FELT LIKE IT'S JUST AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET MORE MONEY MAYBE OUT OF THE LAND. YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S, IT'S GREED. I JUST THINK IT'S BASED ON, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH THEY PURCHASED IT FOR. 
          SO I HAVEN'T FELT LIKE WE HAD THESE HIGHER STANDARDS. I'M NOT SURE THAT THESE ARE THE RIGHT 
          [01:15:04]
HIGHER STANDARDS EITHER, BUT I HAVE A NEW APPRECIATION FOR WHAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS DONE, THAT WHEN THEY BRING IT TO US AND IT HAS MET THE STANDARDS, THEY HAVE WORKED THROUGH SO MANY ISSUES THAT IF THEY HAD A PROBLEM WITH THIS PUD COMING FORWARD, THEY WOULD SAY, HERE IS HERE IS OUR PROBLEM WITH THIS PUD. BUT WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IN OUR BACK AND FORTH AMONG COUNCIL IS WE REALLY DON'T HAVE A WAY TO SAY, WHERE ARE THESE HIGHER STANDARDS? HOW ARE YOU ADDRESSING PARKING? HOW ARE YOU ADDRESSING WHATEVER. AND IT'S, AND I WAS MY FINAL STRAW WAS THE ONE WHERE WE JUST HAD THE TWO PARKING STALLS THAT WERE IN THE GARAGE. IT WAS LIKE, WELL, THIS MET THE CODE. IT'S TWO PARKING STALLS, BUT NOBODY'S PARKING IN SOMEONE ELSE'S GARAGE. LIKE NO WAY. AND SO THEN IT FELT TO ME LIKE, WELL, WE'RE CLEARLY NOT ON THE SAME PAGE WITH PLANNING. HAD MR. BUELLER BEEN IN THE ROOM, HE WOULD HAVE SAID, WELL, THIS IS WHY WE HAVE THIS PUBLIC STREET, BECAUSE THIS IS ALL OF THE PARKING THAT'S INCLUDED. SO WE JUST HAVEN'T HAD THIS, THIS BACK AND FORTH HAPPENING. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE REST OF COUNCIL BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME OF THAT BACK AND FORTH WITH OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE SOME OF THE OTHER ISSUES? I WROTE DOWN SOME OF OUR UNADDRESSED CONCERNS THAT WE DO HAVE WHEN IT COMES TO AMENITIES, AND THE RETENTION BASIN AND THE PRIVATE ROADS. SO THAT COUNCIL, THAT JUST IS A WAY TO SPARK YOUR MINDS, MAYBE ON WHAT SOME OF THE ISSUES ARE. AND I JUST LIKE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT BACK AND FORTH SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT SO THAT AT THE END OF THE TIME, WE FEEL LIKE, IS THERE A CHANCE FOR US TO GET ON THE SAME PAGE? WHAT DIRECTION WOULD WE GIVE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND HOW COULD WE MAKE INCREMENTAL CHANGES SO THAT IT EVENTUALLY CAN BECOME SOMETHING THAT THIS COUNCIL FEELS COMFORTABLE? WHEN A PUD COMES FORWARD, I'M GOING TO TURN JUST WORKING OUR WAY BACK AROUND THE DAIS. AND PLEASE COUNCIL, DON'T WE WANT BACK AND FORTH RIGHT. IT'S LIKE, JIM, I AGREE WITH THAT, JIM. I AGREE WITH THAT. BRANDON. I AGREE WITH THAT. WHATEVER IT IS, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE CONSENSUS AND WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER. AND THEN IF THEY BRING THIS FORWARD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE HAS TO BE REASONS FOR IT. AND WE JUST LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ARTICULATE THOSE REASONS. SO COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND THEN LEADING US OFF ON THAT PART OF THE CONVERSATION. WELL, HERE ARE A FEW THINGS THAT THAT CONCERN ME AND I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS OR I WANT TO ADDRESS. ONE OF THEM IS INVOLVES DEFINITIONS. WE'VE USED THE TERM BUY WRITE IN AT LEAST TWO DIFFERENT WAYS IN VARIOUS HEARINGS. AND WE SHOULD HAVE ONE FIXED DEFINITION. I FAVOR IT BEING THE UNDERLYING ZONE. THAT'S WHAT A DEVELOPER CAN DO BY RIGHT. THERE'S ALSO THIS PUBLIC COMMENT, COMMON AMENITY WERE THE TWO WORDS ARE ALMOST USED INTERCHANGEABLY AND NOT CONSISTENTLY. WHAT DOES PUBLIC MEAN AND WHAT DOES COMMON MEAN? REDEVELOPMENT. IT'S A WORD THAT'S AGAIN BEEN USED. I THINK IT'S USED AT LEAST THREE DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT CLEARLY IT'S NOT THE SAME AS OUR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY USES THE NEW TERM. IT'S NOT THE SAME DEFINITION, AND IT CAN BE CONFUSING THE WAY IT'S USED IN A COUPLE PLACES FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHEN IT'S REALLY, I THINK, REFERRING TO INFILL OR VACANT PROPERTY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS EXACTLY A DEFINITION, BUT IT IS VERY INTERPRETIVE TO HAVE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS WITHOUT ANY CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT THAT IS. THE TERM SITE PLAN HAS BEEN USED ONCE TO REFER TO THE WHOLE PUD, WHICH ISN'T IN MY MIND. THE SITE PLAN IN MY MIND IS WHEN YOU HAVE THE WHOLE EASEMENTS LAID OUT WHERE ALL THE UTILITIES ARE GOING TO BE, AND THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE SEE AND WHAT COMES TO COUNCIL. I THINK THAT'S THE MAIN ONE. I THINK THE MAYOR HAS ALREADY MENTIONED. THIS IS NOT THESE ARE NOT VARIANCES. I GUESS THE CLOSEST THEY ARE IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. IS THAT CORRECT? IS THAT A WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. AND THEN SOME OTHER SIMPLE ONES THAT HAVE IS THE DENSITY TABLE. AT A MINIMUM WE SHOULD MODIFY IT. SO AGAIN IT SHOWS WHAT THE UNDERLYING DENSITY IS AND WHAT'S ALLOWED WITH DISCRETION. BUT COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, THAT'S FOR ME WHERE IF WE'RE GOING TO BECAUSE I GUESS I'M GOING TO START THE CONVERSATION IF IF IT'S IF EVERYTHING REFERS BACK TO THE UNDERLYING. THEN. FOR ME, IT 
          [01:20:11]
FEELS LIKE IF EVERYTHING IS COMPARED UNDERLYING TO UNDERLYING, THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY, WELL, THE SETBACK IS, IS THIS AMOUNT AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET THIS. IT JUST FEELS LIKE IT'S ITS OWN ZONE AS OPPOSED TO THIS, THIS FLEXIBILITY, RIGHT? I MEAN, IT'S LIKE, HERE'S THE CEILING. SO I MEAN, AND IT'S JUST LIKE, IT JUST FEELS LIKE EVERYTHING AS I THINK ABOUT IT FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD PERSPECTIVE, IT'S LIKE, WELL, THEN WHY WOULD, WHY WOULD YOU ALLOW THIS? BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REALLY TAKING IT ALL IN CONTEXT. YOU'RE JUST SEEING EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT. SO, SO WHEN DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. I MEAN, WHEN I SAY THAT I'M TRYING TO REPRESENT THE PUBLIC THAT LOOKS AT THIS AND GOES, WAIT A MINUTE, I LOOK UP R-1 AND I SEE A SIX, AND NOW YOU'RE TELLING ME IT CAN BE UP TO EIGHT OR WHATEVER. I'M MAKING UP NUMBERS, BUT ALL WE'RE DOING IS CONFUSING THE AVERAGE PERSON OUT THERE THAT LOOKS AT IT AND GOES, I UNDERSTAND WHAT'S ALLOWED IN R-1. HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING IN PUD. HOW DOES THAT FIT? IS COMPATIBLE WITH MY NEIGHBORHOOD AS MUCH AS WE CAN. WE NEED TO PROTECT THOSE PEOPLE TOO, SO THEY UNDERSTAND. AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE'RE DOING THINGS ARBITRARILY. FROM THE DATA I CAN APPRECIATE, I SO THAT'S I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW TO DO IT, BUT SOMEHOW THAT IS WHEN WE HAVE TWO DIFFERENT DENSITY TABLES IN OUR CODE THAT ARE NOT EASILY ACCESSIBLE. WE'RE NOT HELPING THE PUBLIC DEVELOPERS WILL FIGURE IT OUT. JIM, CAN I INTERJECT SOMETHING? BECAUSE THAT'S A QUESTION THAT I HEARD FROM PEOPLE AND IT REALLY RESONATED WITH ME IS, WHY DO WE EVEN HAVE AN ORDINANCE IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW IT? RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE FOR ME, THAT WAS THAT DAWNING OF THIS IS A PUD. IT'S ALMOST A TOTALLY SEPARATE, DIFFERENT PART OF THE ORDINANCE. THEN TOTALLY SEPARATE TOOL FOR DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. WELL, AND I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO SOMETHING THAT I DID WEIGH IN. I'LL HOLD FOR A MINUTE. I WANT TO COME BACK THEN WITH SOMETHING WE DID WITH THE ORDINANCE WHERE WE MADE A SEPARATE ENTRY IN THE CODE. SO IT'S REALLY EASY TO ACCESS IT. AND IF WE COULD DO THAT UNDER THE LAND USE CODE, A SEPARATE POINT, WHATEVER WE DID POINT ONE, SO THAT ANYBODY COULD EASILY LOOK AT CITY CODE. OH, HERE'S THE STANDARDS FOR PUD. SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DIG AROUND BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU, PEOPLE WERE HERE. THEY HAD NO IDEA THERE WAS A DIFFERENT ONE. AND THEN PD IS UNDERLYING IT. 
          SO THAT WAS THAT WAS KIND OF MY ARGUMENT THERE WITH THE OTHER ONE IS IT'S LIKE, NO, IT'S A PUD. LIKE IT'S NOT EVEN AN HOUR THREE. RIGHT? IF WE HAVE A SINGLE PUD AND IT APPLIES TO OUR APPLIES TO OUR ONE R2, R3, AND R3 A, CAN WE JUST MAKE THAT SINGLE CODE? THEN HOW DO WE REFER TO THE UNDERLYING AND LINK THEM? BECAUSE THOSE DIFFERENT UNDERLYINGS ARE DIFFERENT. YES, THAT IS THE THAT IS THE THAT'S THE CONFLICT. BRANDON. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED TO GET IT SIMPLIFIED, BUT OKAY. I COME, OBVIOUSLY I COME AT IT FROM A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE. AND I DO THINK PUDS. I'VE SEEN PUDS USED AS VERY EFFECTIVE TOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. AND, AND I THINK A COUPLE OF POINTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT I WANT TO REITERATE, YOU KNOW, WHEN COUNCILMAN FRANCIS SAID, YOU KNOW, PUD IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER THAT THERE INFERS THAT THERE WILL BE DISCRETION APPLIED. THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION. AND WHAT I HAVE SEEN PLAY OUT IN EVERY OTHER TIME I'VE SEEN IT. PUD BEING USED AS A TOOL. THERE IS DISCRETION BECAUSE EVERY PARCEL THAT IS COMING TO YOU OR COMING TO THE LAND USE AUTHORITY THAT IS REQUESTING PUD, IS ASKING FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IT COULD DO BY. RIGHT, WHICH IS THE TERM JIM USED, RIGHT? THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT. TYPICALLY IT IS FINANCIAL SO THAT THEY CAN TAKE A PARCEL AND TRY TO MAKE IT MEET CERTAIN BENCHMARKS FOR FINANCIAL RETURNS. RIGHT. ANY OTHER TIME I'VE SEEN THAT IT IS WHEN A PUD IS BEING USED, IT IS BLATANTLY UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT THEN OPENS UP THE DOOR FOR DISCRETION OF THE LAND USE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHAT IS APPROPRIATE ON THE GIVE AND TAKE. YOU KNOW, THESE TERMS THAT WE'VE BEEN USING, BUT IT IS A VERY, VERY EXPLICIT THAT IT IS AT THE 
          [01:25:04]
DISCRETION OF THE LAND USE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE THAT BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF EACH PARCEL. AND SO IF WE ARE SAYING WE'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION, THAT OUR CODE IS PROHIBITING OR REDUCING THE LAND USE AUTHORITY TO HAVE DISCRETION, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO MODIFY. IT SHOULD BE EXPLICIT THAT THE LAND USE AUTHORITY HAS THE ABILITY TO HAVE DISCRETION. AND IF YOU WANT PURPLE DOORS, YOU CAN ASK FOR IT. THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T HAVE TO ACCEPT IT. THEY CAN ALWAYS SAY NO. IT IS A GIVE AND TAKE. IT IS A NEGOTIATION AND I DON'T. I FEEL LIKE WE SOMEHOW THAT HAS BEEN LOST WITH AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE WAY OUR CODE IS WRITTEN AND THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVING THIS. BUT THE DISCRETION ELEMENT SEEMS TO HAVE HAS GONE AWAY. WE FEEL HANDCUFFED EXTREMELY AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE. HAVE YOU SEEN WHAT YOU JUST DESCRIBED, WORK IN THE REAL WORLD AND WORK WELL EVERYWHERE ELSE I'VE EVER DONE IT. SO THAT DISCRETION, THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY COME TO TERMS AND YES, IT WORKS AND EVERYBODY MOVES ON. YEAH, YOU CAN HAVE CODE THAT SAYS YOU MIGHT BE ASKED TO DO X, Y, AND Z, BUT THAT IT IS VERY EXPLICIT THAT YOU MIGHT BE ASKED TO DO SOMETHING ELSE AS WELL. THE DISCRETION ONCE THE MOMENT YOU WANT TO DO A PUD AND ASK FOR SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU CAN DO BY RIGHT IN THE ZONING DESIGNATIONS, YOU ARE THEN ENTERING THE ELEMENT OF DISCRETION OF THE LAND USE AUTHORITY. AND IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE, BUT SO CAN I ASK A PROCESS QUESTION? SURE. WHERE DOES THAT CONVERSATION START? WHERE DOES THE DEVELOPER SAY AND THE CITY? AND AGAIN, WHERE DOES THAT START? SAYS, WELL, NO, WE LIKE PURPLE DOORS, BUT WE DON'T LIKE RED HOMES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. YEAH. SO IT BEGINS WITH THE PLANNING, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND STAFF. OKAY. 
          THAT'S WHERE IT BEGINS. AND A RECOGNITION THAT THAT CONVERSATION HERE ARE THINGS YOU MIGHT BE ASKED FOR, BUT BE PREPARED THAT YOU MIGHT BE ASKED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU PLANNED. SO, SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU DO THAT. SOME PREDICTABILITY GOES OUT THE DOOR. YES. TO THE DEVELOPERS. YES. RIGHT. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE WE KNOW HOW THAT'S THE QUESTION. WHAT, WHAT WOULD THOSE CERTAIN STANDARDS BE? I THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT I HAVE SEEN ANYWAY. RIGHT. IS IT DOES GO TO THAT WHERE YOU MIGHT BE ASKED TO DO X, Y, Z, BUT IT IS DONE SO IN A WAY THAT IS VERY CLEAR THAT SAYS IF NOT THAT IF YOU DO THIS, THEN YOU WILL AUTOMATICALLY BE APPROVED, WHICH I FEEL THAT'S KIND OF THE DISCONNECT IS THAT THAT WE HAVE CODE THAT IS ESSENTIALLY SAYING, YOU CAN ASK FOR WHATEVER VARIANCE, AND HERE'S THE TRADES WE'RE GOING TO JUST MAKE AND BE DONE WITH IT, RIGHT. AND THERE IS NO DISCRETION TO COUNSEL. I THINK WHERE THE DISCRETION COMES IN IS THAT IT'S IT'S MADE ITS WAY THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT'S MADE ITS WAY THROUGH THE CODE. AND BY THE TIME IT GETS TO US, IT IS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. SO ANYTHING THAT COMES NEW AT THAT POINT, TWO COUNSEL THAT WOULD BE I'M SPEAKING FOR, I THINK, HOW THE PROCESS HAS BEEN WORKING. AND SO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THAT THOSE WOULD BE THE ISSUES. 
          THAT'S LIKE, OH, WE HADN'T WE HADN'T LOOKED AT THIS, WE HADN'T CONSIDERED THIS. AND SO WE'RE NOT PLANNING FROM THE DAIS THAT IT IS. WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS NEW BIT OF INFORMATION THAT HAS COME UP NOW IN OUR QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, AS OPPOSED TO NOW COUNSEL WANTING TO. IMPOSE SOME KIND OF A HIGHER STANDARD. I GUESS THAT'S MY QUESTION TO YOU IS, HOW DO HOW DO YOU LOOK AT THAT WITHOUT IT BEING A TAKINGS? I AGAIN, IF, IF IF WE'RE WANTING TO HAVE CODE TO ME, IT JUST COMES BACK TO WHAT, WHAT DISCRETION ARE. WE WANTED TO GRANT THE LAND USE AUTHORITY, RIGHT? IF WE WANT THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE DISCRETION, THEN THE CODE NEEDS TO NEED NEEDS TO BE SPECIFIC IN HOW IT'S WRITTEN TO GRANT THAT DISCRETION. IT APPEARS BECAUSE OUR CURRENT CODE, IT FEELS LIKE AGAIN, IT HANDCUFFS COUNCIL TO WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED. AND NOW I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST DOING A RUBBER STAMP. AND WHEN WE HAVE PEOPLE ON RECORD SAYING, YOU CAN'T DENY THIS BECAUSE SIMPLY BECAUSE OF X, Y, AND Z. BUT TO ME, THAT'S THE LAND USE AUTHORITY'S COMPLETE DISCRETION TO DO THAT. I'VE JUST NOT SEEN THOSE TYPE OF HANDCUFFS FROM A CODE. OKAY, REMEMBER? SO. COUNCILMEMBER LEE, YOU KNOW, I, I, I SAID A LOT OF, I MADE A LOT OF COMMENTS THAT I THINK WERE REALLY SIMILAR TO YOURS. 
          AFTER THAT MEETING, I DID SOME RESEARCH ON SOME CASE LAW BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT KIND OF HELPS AT LEAST ME LOOK AT IF, IF PPD DECISIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO THE IOWA SUPREME COURT, WHY AND WHAT WERE THE FACTORS AND ALL OF THE THINGS, RIGHT? SO IN 2023, THERE WAS A CASE 
          [01:30:06]
CALLED NORTHWEST NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION VERSUS CITY OF BOISE AND THE CITY OF BOISE. 
          BASICALLY DENIED A PUD. AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THE THAT THE RECENT STATEMENT CONNECTED WITH WHAT THE ORDINANCE HAD SAID. SO THEY WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS. 
          THEY WENT TO THE SUPREME COURT, AND THEY DID WIN. AND BASICALLY, UP UNTIL THIS POINT IN TIME, I FEEL LIKE MY INTERPRETATION OF LAND USE, PARTICULARLY WITH PUDS, WAS WAS SET UP TO GIVE COUNCIL THAT DISCRETION. AND SO WHAT I'VE LEARNED, AND SO MY CONCLUSION IS STILL THAT I AM GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF THE RESTRICTION, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE DO GET THE KIND OF DISCRETION THAT I FEEL LIKE I WAS TAUGHT THAT WE DID HAVE, AND THAT EACH ONE OF THE CRITERIA THAT IS DECIDED UPON IN THE PUD, THAT AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT MEETS THAT CRITERIA, THEN YEAH, I THEN MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT AND AS WELL AS THE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS THAT I'VE SEEN NOW MAKE IT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WAY OF USING DISCRETION UNLESS THE DISCRETION IS BUILT IN. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, LET'S SAY THAT WE BUILT IN DISCRETION INTO WHAT KIND OF AMENITIES AND THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT THOSE AMENITIES IN A CERTAIN WAY. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE'S PERHAPS DISCRETION THERE, BUT I BECAUSE I THINK THAT WHEN I LOOK BACK AT THE DECISIONS THAT WE HAVE MADE, AND I THINK ABOUT THE THINGS THAT THAT DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, THEY DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, NOT BECAUSE WE JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE PROJECT AS A WHOLE. IT WAS BECAUSE WE SAW SOMETHING THAT COMMON SENSE TOLD US WE DIDN'T THINK WAS GOING TO BE WORKABLE. RIGHT. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT'S SO HARD. YOU CAN'T COMMON SENSE AND WHAT WE WHAT THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE USE TO DETERMINE WHAT WE CONSIDER TO BE COMMON SENSE. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, IN OUR OWN CODE, WE SAY THAT IF YOU'VE GOT A MOBILE HOME, YOU CAN HAVE PUBLIC STREET PARKING, BUT IT MUST BE IT CAN'T BE FURTHER THAN 100FT AWAY FROM WHAT WE SEE AS THE RELEVANT HOME THAT'S GOING TO BE USING IT. BUT WE WE HAD A PUD THAT WE WERE WALKING TEN MINUTES TO A PARKING SPOT. AND BECAUSE OUR CRITERIA WASN'T SPECIFIC ENOUGH, THAT WAS FINE. THAT'S A COMMON SENSE THING FOR ME, RIGHT? I LOOKED AT THAT MAP AND I WENT, THERE'S NO WAY MY GUESTS ARE WALKING BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PARK IN MY GARAGE. SO THEY'RE NOT WALKING ALL THE WAY OVER THERE. MY DAD'S GOT A WHEELCHAIR. IT'S NOT HAPPENING. IT'S NOT HAPPENING IN THE WINTER. IT'S HAPPENING AT CHRISTMAS. RIGHT? THAT'S THE COMMON SENSE THING. AND MY UNDERSTANDING NOW IS THAT WE DON'T GET TO USE THAT KIND OF COMMON SENSE APPLICATION TO THESE STANDARDS. AND SO FOR ME, I'M TRYING TO I'M TRYING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND SAY, OKAY, WHAT WOULD MAKE ME WANT TO SUPPORT IT? YOU KNOW, MAKING JUST MODIFICATION, WHETHER THAT'S MINIMUM LOT SIZE. I'VE GOT QUESTIONS ABOUT PRIVATE ROADS. I SEE THAT THERE'S SOME SUGGESTIONS IN HERE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A RIGHT TO CURE COST RECOVERY OF GETTING INVOLVED WITH PRIVATE ROADS. I THINK WE'VE GOT AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ISSUE, WHICH AGAIN IS IS LISTED HERE AS UNADDRESSED CONCERNS. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT THE PAST DECISIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE AND WHERE I FEEL LIKE I VOTED YES BECAUSE IT MET THE STANDARDS, BUT I GO BACK TO THAT SORT OF COMMON SENSE. TO ME, THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. I DON'T KNOW HOW I PUT THAT INTO THE CODE. SO, I MEAN, I THINK YOU RAISE A GOOD POINT, RIGHT? IF IF CODE IS WRITTEN IN A WAY AND A DEFENDANT COULD COME AND SAY YOU DIDN'T FOLLOW YOUR OWN CODE, THEN I AGREE. RIGHT. BUT SO I THINK MAYBE OUR CODE LACKS CLARITY. SO MAYBE IT IS THE PROBLEM THAT HAS GIVEN US THIS GRAY AREA. YEAH. AND, AND I UNDERSTAND THE, THE POINT OF DEVELOPER UNPREDICTABILITY, RIGHT. AND HOW CHALLENGING THAT CAN BE AND HOW MUCH MONEY DO YOU WANT TO SPEND TOWARDS ENGINEERING TO GET YOUR PLAN DOWN TO A CERTAIN POINT? RIGHT? I GET ALL OF THOSE THINGS. CAN YOU TAKE IT TO COUNCIL AND THEY DENY IT, AND YOU COULD TAKE IT BACK AND HAVE MORE ENGINEERING WORK DONE. EXACTLY. RIGHT. YEAH. 
          BUT IF THE DENIAL IS BASED ON STUFF THAT ISN'T TO MICHELLE, COUNCIL MEMBER DINGMAN'S POINT, IF IT IS, IT IS BETTER JUST TO TAKE US TO COURT THAN IT IS TO THEN GO BACK TO ENGINEERING. 
          IT'S BETTER JUST TO SAY I'M SORRY YOU DID NOT FOLLOW YOUR CODE. YOU'RE GIVING US AN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS RULING. AND SO IF WE END UP IN COURT, THAT WOULD BE THE EASIER ROUTE. 
          BUT IF OUR CODE WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE MOMENT YOU WANT TO VARY FROM BY RIGHT ZONING AND ENTER INTO THE WORLD OF A PUD, THAT YOU ARE NOW AT THE DISCRETION 
          [01:35:01]
OF THE LAND USE AUTHORITY. I DON'T SEE HOW I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THERE IS SOMETHING THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T CAN'T DO THAT IN STATE LAW. SO YOU COULD ARTICULATE, I DON'T WANT US TO. 
          I WANT TO FIND THE BALANCE. RIGHT? BECAUSE I ACTUALLY I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BASED ON AND YOUR STANCE RIGHT NOW, MICHELLE. I ACTUALLY THINK PUDS, LIKE I THINK OF, THERE'S LOTS OF PARCELS THAT WILL. IF WE, IF THE ONLY THING THEY CAN DO IS BUY. RIGHT. THEY WILL NOT GET DEVELOPED. YEAH, SURE. AND I THINK THAT THAT'S WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH? WELL, THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE WHOLE THING IN THE FIRST PLACE, RIGHT. IS THAT SOMEHOW WE COULDN'T LIVE WITH IT. RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT WAS THE THAT WAS I DON'T WANT I DON'T WANT ISLAND PARCELS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, BUT TO HELP WITH PARCELS THAT WERE TRIANGULAR SHAPE OR SHAPE CAN HELP WITH THAT. BUT IT'S NOT ONLY FOR THAT, BUT IT'S GONE BEYOND THAT. RIGHT. IT'S BEEN TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. WELL SEE I THINK THAT'S THE KEY THERE IS THAT THAT WAS MY THOUGHT. IT'S BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF. SO THAT MEANS THAT WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ARE GETTING RIGHT. THE VALUE THAT THE VALUE THAT WE ARE GIVING, WE'RE HEARING FROM STAFF IS THEY'RE PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE WITH IT. RIGHT? ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO COME FORWARD WITH CHANGES EARLIER? RIGHT. I'VE BEEN HERE 11 YEARS. I MEAN, YOU GUYS WOULD HAVE COME FORWARD WITH CHANGES. YOU'RE PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE WITH HOW THAT ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. YES. I MEAN, SO DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED MEETS THE CODE AND THAT'S WHERE. NO. BUT ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH HOW THE CODE IS WRITTEN? YOU WERE A PART OF WRITING IT, RIGHT? YES. SO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH IT, RIGHT? YES. I MEAN THERE ARE SOME POINTS THAT DEFINITELY COULD BE CLARIFIED. BUT YEAH, FOR ULTIMATELY IT'S PRETTY GOOD. 
          SO WE'RE KIND OF IN A SITUATION, RIGHT, WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE STAFF IS TELLING US THEY FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT. AND IT'S KIND OF THE, THE STANDARD, RIGHT? SURE. OR I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD, I DON'T KNOW IF I, I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO ARGUE THAT I WOULD THROW THIS OUT TO YOU. BUT FOR SURE, STAFF KNOWS THAT COUNCIL IS THE LAND USE. AND SO IF COUNCIL CAME BACK AND SAID EVERY DOOR HAS TO BE PURPLE, YOU KNOW, WITHIN, WITHIN THE RIGHT, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT STAFF IS WILLING TO DO. I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHERE STAFF FEELS GOOD ABOUT THIS, RIGHT? BECAUSE HERE'S THE HIGHER STANDARDS. IT'S LIKE, OKAY, THESE REALLY ARE HIGHER. AND BUT IF WE WANT TO CHANGE IT, THAT'S AT THE COUNCIL'S DISCRETION. I'D LIKE TO. SORRY. HE HAS AGAIN, THIS IS IDAHO CODE 67-6535. AND THIS IS KIND OF THE THE GUIDING RULE FOR WHEN WE SAID WHEN COUNCIL SETS ORDINANCES GOVERNING PUDS, IT SAYS. SUCH APPROVAL STANDARDS AND CRITERIA SHALL BE SET FORTH IN EXPRESS TERMS IN LAND USE ORDINANCES IN ORDER THAT PERMIT APPLICANTS. INTERESTED RESIDENTS AND DECISION MAKERS ALIKE MAY KNOW THE EXPRESS STANDARDS THAT MUST BE MET IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A REQUESTED PERMIT OR APPROVAL. 
          SO YOU COULDN'T DO SOMETHING LIKE, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL CAN SET WHATEVER ADDITIONAL CRITERIA IT WANTS TO, BECAUSE THAT WOULD FAIL TO EXPRESS STANDARDS TEST. AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF YOUR UNDERSTANDING, IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS INCORRECT OR IF YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT VIEW, BUT YOU COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE FOR, FOR INSTANCE, PRIVATE ROADS, YOU COULD SAY A PRIVATE ROAD WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED IF AND YOU LIST FACTORS LIKE. ONE OF THE FACTORS COULD BE A PUBLIC ROAD IS NOT FEASIBLE GIVEN THE CONFIGURATION OF THE LOT AND THEN OR OTHER OR OTHER SORTS OF FACTORS. RIGHT. AND THEN COUNCIL COULD WITHIN ITS DISCRETION, SAY YOU'VE MET THESE FACTORS OR YOU HAVEN'T MET THESE FACTORS. YEAH. AND AND THAT'S WHERE THIS COUNCIL'S DISCRETION WOULD BE. OR, YOU KNOW, OR YOU COULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE COUNCIL MAY, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY HAVE OTHER CONDITIONS IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF A PRIVATE ROAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I JUST, I THINK WHEN YOU WITH THAT STATUTE AND THIS IS AGAIN, JUST PRACTICALITY OF WHAT HAPPENS RIGHT IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD IS YOU CAN'T CREATE AND DRAFT AN ORDINANCE THAT'S GOING TO INCLUDE EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE SCENARIO THAT WOULD INCLUDE PURPLE DOORS. OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE A MILLION PAGE MANUAL THAT'S PART OF YOUR ORDINANCE SO THAT EVERY SINGLE THING IS, IS THAT'S POSSIBLY CONTEMPLATED COULD BE EXPRESSLY AND YOU NEVER STATED, WHICH IS THEN ULTIMATELY WHY THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS AND IS THE BEST WAY TO GO, BECAUSE IF WE RESCIND IT, THEN, THEN HERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, WELL, THEN GIVE ME A ROCK AND WELL, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO LOOK LIKE? IS IT BETTER TO TAKE THE STANDARD AND SAY, THIS IS NOT ENOUGH? PUDS HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT. I MEAN, THEY HAVE A POSITIVE PURPOSE, RIGHT? THAT I THINK SO THERE'S A THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT I'VE HEARD. 
          THERE'S CLEARLY IN MY RESEARCH, THERE'S A TREND IN IDAHO TO GET AWAY, GET AWAY FROM HAVING THESE SOVEREIGNTY LOSS. SO PRIVATE STREETS, THE SOVEREIGNTY LOSS, LIKE YOU'RE HAVING SOVEREIGNTY, LOSS WHEN YOU DON'T TAKE CONTROL OF UTILITIES AND, AND THE GARBAGE PICKUP AND ALL THOSE THINGS. AND IT'S JUST CLEAR THAT THAT YOU HAVE THIS PROBLEM THAT THEY COULD COME BACK TO YOU IF THEY DON'T TAKE CARE OF IT, IF THEIR HOA ISN'T GOOD. YEAH, IT CAN 
          [01:40:05]
ALSO COME BACK AND IT'S YOUR PROBLEM WHEN. AND SO THERE'S SOME CURES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I APPRECIATE THAT, LISA, BUT WHAT WE'RE SEEING ACROSS THE STATE IS THE THREE PART KIND OF CHANGE. REPLACE A PUD WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE. MOSCOW, GARDEN CITY MERIDIAN HAVE DONE THIS. AND IT IT'S A DEVELOPED A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE INCLUDES FIXED MENUS OF ALLOWABLE DEPARTURES, ELIMINATES DISCRETIONARY CASE BY CASE NEGOTIATION, PRESERVES FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT SACRIFICING CITY CONTROL. REMOVES HOA GOVERNANCE OVER ESSENTIAL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT'S THE ONE YOU LIKE. YEAH. REQUIRES PUBLIC DEDICATION OF ALL STREETS AND UTILITIES AND RESIDENTIAL PUDS. SO IT CONTINUES TO BE OUR STREETS AND OUR OUR ISSUE. NO MORE EMERGENCY ACCESS CONFLICTS, NO MORE HOA MAINTAINED STREETS. 
          CITY CONTROLS ARE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF IT. AND THEN MOVE AMENITY, OPEN SPACE AND DESIRED CLIMATES INTO THE ZONING CODE. INSTEAD OF NEGOTIATING THESE BENEFITS ONE CASE AT A TIME, CREATE CLEAR STANDARDS OF AMENITIES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT. AND THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE TALKED ABOUT FOR YEARS. JUST LET'S JUST FIX OUR RESIDENTIAL CODE SO THAT WE HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY WE NEED. NOW, CAN YOU SPEAK TO FORM BASED CODE VERSUS EUCLIDEAN LIKE, AND JUST, I MEAN, THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION. SOME CITIES BEFORE YOU DO THAT, LET ME LET ME JUST ASK THIS ONE QUESTION BECAUSE AND I BRIAN CUNNINGHAM IS HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. 
          BUT IT FEELS LIKE IF YOU'RE THE PRIVATE ROAD IS SO THAT THEY CAN GET MORE, MORE, MORE BECAUSE NARROWER BECAUSE IT'S NARROWER. SO IT'S GOING TO ALLOW THIS MORE. THAT'S WHAT ALLOWS MORE TREES TO BE ON THE STREET, MORE OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER, MORE OF THE. THIS. SO IN A SENSE, IF WE TAKE EVERYTHING BACK TO THE PUBLIC 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY, THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET. THEN IT'S LIKE, WHY WOULD YOU GET MORE IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE. I THINK YOU CAN KEEP SOVEREIGNTY WITH YOUR OWN ROADS, BUT GO TO A. WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONE, YOU COULD HAVE EXCEPTIONS FOR 50FT, BUT NOT. WE'RE NOT GOING BACK. I DON'T 26FT. I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S SAFE. LIKE I THINK THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THE COMMON SENSE THING. WE'VE STRUGGLED WITH YOUR PARKING REQUEST. RIGHT. HOW DO WE LESS THAN THAT BEFORE. 
          YEAH. SO THESE ARE THE CITIES THAT REQUIRE. SO MERIDIAN HAS WENT TO THE PD ZONE. NAMPA LAST PRIVATE DRIVES ONLY IF EMERGENCY ACCESS FULLY MEETS PUBLIC STANDARDS. SO WHAT ARE THE WHAT ARE THE ROAD WIDTHS. THAT'S IT'S PROBABLY OUR 60 TWIN FALLS PUBLIC STREETS PREFERRED PRIVATE STREETS ONLY COMMERCIAL CENTERS. POCATELLO PDS REQUIRE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. SO IT'S JUST IT'S JUST PRIVATE ROADS ONLY IN A COMMERCIAL CENTER. YEAH. LIKE FROM AROUND THE BACK OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. CITIES LIKE MOSCOW DON'T HAVE PUDS AT ALL AND JUST DO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. AND IN TALKING WITH AND I'VE SEEN THAT TOO. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I TALKED WITH OUR FORMER CITY PLANNER, FRED KRAMER AND SAID, HEY, WHAT ARE YOU SEEING ACROSS THE STATE NOW THAT YOU'RE DOING WORK ACROSS THE STATE? AND HE SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE OF EVERYTHING, BUT THAT THERE ARE CITIES THAT ARE SUCCEEDING WITHOUT PD BECAUSE THEY USE THEY USE THEY USE DEVELOPMENT UNITS. SO SO WE DO HAVE A BRIAN CUNNINGHAM HERE TO TALK ABOUT ROADS AND WHY SPECIFICALLY THE 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AS A PUBLIC STREET, WHY IT IS, YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS THAT A PRIVATE ROAD IS DOING WHAT IT IS THAT A PUBLIC ROAD IS DOING. THERE'S INFORMATION THAT HE HAS TO SHARE WITH US, AS WELL AS TALKING ABOUT WHAT STANDARDS WE DO APPLY TO PRIVATE STREETS. CAN I SAY SOMETHING BEFORE WE GO TO YES AND BACK TO COUNCILMAN BRADFORD POINT? WHAT'S WHAT'S CRUCIAL HERE IS UNDERLYING SOME OF THIS CONVERSATION. IF IT'S A ZONE, WE HAVE NO DISCRETION, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE WOULD BE GIVING UP. WE COULD WRITE THE CODE, BUT ONCE IT'S ONCE IT'S BY RIGHT IN A ZONE, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THAT ALLOWS. WE DON'T GET THIS. SO IF WE LIKE THE PROCESS OF THE INTERACTION THAT COUNCILMAN LEE WAS SPEAKING TO, DO WE WANT TO KEEP THE PUD SO WE CAN HAVE SOME INTERPRETATION OR DISCRETION, OR WE GO THIS DIRECTION AND LOSE THAT AND TRY TO GET IT INTO THE ORDINANCE? MAYBE, BUT IT'S STILL THEN IT'S BY RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT'S ALLOWED. 
          AND IF WHATEVER, WHAT YOU CALL IT, PLANNED UNIT ZONE, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, DEVELOPMENT ZONE, WHICH IS JUST THAT'S A CRUCIAL DIRECTION DECISION THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE BECAUSE WE COULDN'T HAVE IT BOTH, I THINK. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR IT DOES MAKE SENSE. MAKE SENSE? OR YOU CAN DO BOTH AS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND I GUESS I COME BACK TO WHAT MICHELLE SAID. I FEEL LIKE I WAS VOTED IN TO HAVE, WHEN DECISIONS COME UP, 
          [01:45:02]
TO BE ABLE TO USE COMMON SENSE. AND MY LOGIC RIGHT NOW, MINE MIGHT BE DIFFERENT THAN SOMEONE ELSE'S, RIGHT? BUT TO BE ABLE TO APPLY THAT COMMON SENSE, AND IF WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S PROHIBITING US FROM APPLYING COMMON SENSE, THEN I FEEL LIKE I WOULD LOVE TO LOOK AT WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS THAT COULD COULD GRANT US? OKAY, SO DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES IT DOES, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO THROW OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE. IT'S IT IS WHAT IT IS. WHEN WE GET SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN WORKED ON FOR 18 MONTHS, IT SHOWS UP ON AN EIGHT AND A HALF BY 11 SHEET OF PAPER. YEAH, IT IS PRETTY HARD FOR ME TO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT IT IS AND SAY, THIS HAS NO COMMON SENSE BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT IT THINKING, OH, SOME OF THIS IS JUST BECAUSE IT'S MEETING CODE. BUT WE HAVEN'T HAD THE PLANNER WHO HAS BEEN THE ONE WORKING THROUGH WHAT THE ISSUES TO THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND ARE, WHY THE SETBACK? THAT WOULD BE ONE OF MY DEFINITE PROPOSALS, IS THAT THE PLANNER WHO HAS BEEN DAY IN AND DAY OUT WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER TO BE ABLE TO SAY WHEN COUNCIL HAS AN ISSUE WITH PARKING OR WHY THIS PRIVATE STREET, PUBLIC STREET INTERCHANGE IS HAPPENING, OR WHY THIS LANDSCAPING OR WHETHER THIS IS PART OF THE REGULAR OH, I THOUGHT THE REGULAR WHAT'S THE WORD ABOUT CIRCULATION? IS THIS PART OF REGULAR CIRCULATION? WHY IS THIS AN AMENITY? HERE IS HOW MUCH RETENTION THE RETENTION POND SHOULD BE, BUT IT'S MUCH SHALLOWER TO ALLOW ACCESS. WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT KIND OF DISCUSSION BACK AND FORTH. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS A PROCESS THAT WE CAN CHANGE, BOTH IN THE HEARING. WELL, IN THE HEARING, SO THAT WE ARE BACK AND FORTH WITH BOTH THE COMMUNITY, THE DEVELOPER AND THE PLANNER WHO HAS SPENT ALL OF THEIR TIME BACK AND FORTH TO TO ACTUALLY ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS AND APPLY COMMON SENSE TO IT THAT I CAN'T SEE BECAUSE I JUST SEE A LITTLE LINE AND I THINK, WELL, NO PARKING. I LOVE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING EVERY WORD OF THAT. BUT AND THIS IS MAYBE WHERE WE NEED TO AGAIN, HAVE SOME HAVE SOME QUESTIONS IN ON WHEN CAN WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FOR HAVING SOME OF THOSE TYPES OF DISCUSSIONS EARLIER IN THE PROCESS. BUT WHAT, WHAT I THINK THE WAY THE STATE CODE READS IS THAT AT THE MOMENT, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M IF I'M, IF I'M SAYING THIS INCORRECTLY, BUT THAT THE MOMENT THAT THE APPLICATION IS FILED NOW IT BECOMES A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER. AND WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT UNTIL ALL OF A SUDDEN IT COMES BEFORE US AND MAKE THE JUDGMENT. YES. BUT PART OF IT IS DURING THAT HEARING, AND WE HAVE VERIFIED THIS NOW, I MEAN, WE HAVE WORKED ON THIS, IS THAT WE CAN HAVE LOTS OF BACK AND FORTH INSTEAD OF JUST NOW, WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND MAKE A DECISION. IT'S LIKE PART OF THE HEARING PROCESS IS WHAT WERE THE GIVE AND TAKES, WHAT DOES THIS LOOK LIKE? AND THEN WE CAN ACTUALLY. ASK THE, THE RESIDENTS WHO COME IN AND THEY WANT TO KNOW SOMETHING. AND THEN WE, THEY'RE PART OF THE HEARING. SO WE CAN ASK THEM, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THIS? AND THEN THEY, WE CAN GET A RESPONSE. IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE AS STRICT AS YOU KNOW, I'VE JUST FOLLOWED THE PRECEDENT THAT I HAD SEEN. BUT NOW IT'S LIKE, NO, WE CAN ACTUALLY OPEN THIS UP FAR MORE SO THAT THERE IS THIS BACK AND FORTH DURING THE HEARING INSTEAD OF LIKE, OKAY, NOW WE'VE TAKEN IT ALL IN, NOW WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. THEN WE REOPEN THE HEARING. WE CAN JUST KEEP IT OPEN AND KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT WITH THE VERY PEOPLE WHO HAVE MADE THOSE DECISIONS. AND THEN THEY CAN SAY, WELL, THIS IS WHY IT'S BETTER. I'M CURIOUS, AND THIS WOULD INVOLVE YOU IF WE IF WE REQUIRE SOMETHING, CAN WE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE DEVELOPER, RIGHT? IF WE SAY, WELL, WE WANT YOU TO DO THIS. RIGHT. IS THAT I MEAN, AND THEY AND THEY AGREE. AND THEN IT TURNS OUT THEY DON'T DO IT WHEN THEY BUILD THE THING. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHAT RECOURSE DO WE HAVE OCCUPANCY? ARE THEY I MEAN, WHAT IS IT, OCCUPANCY. THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. 
          BUT I'M JUST OKAY. SO SO WE JUST WON'T GIVE THEM THE CERTIFICATE IF THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THROUGH ON WHAT THEY SAID THEY DO. YEAH. I MEAN, ALONG THE WAY THERE WOULD BE INSPECTIONS AND WHATEVER. BUT YEAH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, JUST BECAUSE THEY SAY SOMETHING IN THAT MEETING THAT IT'S ON RECORD, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HOLD IT. WE CAN HOLD THEM TO IT. 
          I'LL JUST SAY TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S JUST SOUNDS LIKE A NIGHTMARE. LIKE THE WHOLE POINT I HAVE IS I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TWO HOUR FOR OUR MEETINGS ON PUDS. LIKE, I'M NOT A DEVELOPER. 
          I DIDN'T GET INTO CITY GOVERNMENT TO TRY TO LIKE DETAIL THINGS FROM THE DAIS. I MEAN, MAYBE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO SPEND MORE TIME ON THAT BEFORE IT COMES TO US. MAYBE. BUT EVEN DO THEY WANT TO THAT'S WHY WE HIRE THESE PLANNERS. YEAH, BUT THESE ARE THE THESE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE AGREED TO, TO SAY THAT THEY ARE BETTER. SO IF WE'RE NOT WILLING TO TAKE, WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO REALLY DIG DEEP AS COUNCIL ADDRESS 
          [01:50:03]
THESE AND SEE WHETHER THEY ARE THE STANDARDS. WHY CAN'T THE PROFESSIONAL DO THAT 100% WHEN IT SHOWS UP TO US? THEY HAVE THEY HAVE ADDRESSED 100% OF THESE. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING I DON'T WANT TO HAVE THESE THESE MARATHON SESSIONS WE'VE BEEN HAVING WITH WILLOW PLACE OR WITH A LIKE IT'S, IT'S COUNTERPRODUCTIVE. WE'RE, WE'RE COSTING DEVELOPERS MONEY FROM THE DAIS AND WE'RE COSTING THEM TIME INSTEAD OF PREDICTABILITY. THAT'S WHY I THINK THERE'S PREDICTABILITY AROUND IT. AND IT'S ALSO WHY THE TREND IS KIND OF UNMISTAKABLE ACROSS THE STATE. PEOPLE ARE GETTING AWAY FROM THIS, LIKE IT'S JUST NOT THE BEST CASE SCENARIO. AND THE OTHER THING THAT I LOOKED UP THIS MONTH OR THIS IN PREPARATION FOR THIS, IS THAT GROWING AND MIDSIZE SMALL CITIES DO PUD ORDINANCES, BUT GROWING IN LARGE CITIES HAVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND PLANNING BECAUSE THEIR COUNCILS HAVE LEARNED THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO BE TAKING THIS ON EVERY EVERY TWO WEEKS. SO THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING I THINK WE NEED TO LEAN MORE ON. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE PROFESSIONALS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THEM. THEN ULTIMATELY WHEN IT'S GOING TO COME TO US. AND I MEAN, THERE'S THEN WE'RE AGREEING, YES, YOU'VE MET THESE STANDARDS AND WE WOULD CHANGE OUR STAFF REPORT. YEAH. AND WE NEED TO REWORK THE ORDINANCE TO GET RID OF THE THINGS WE DON'T WANT. YEAH. SO THAT WE'VE DONE THIS AHEAD OF TIME AND EVERYONE'S PREDICTABLE. AND THAT WHEN THE STAFF REPORT COMES IN, IT'S LIKE, THIS IS WHY THIS IS THE BETTER STANDARD. HERE'S THE HIGHER STANDARD. 
          HERE'S HOW THEY MET IT, HERE'S HOW THEY MET PARKING. AND THEN THERE IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF DISCRETION AT THAT POINT, THOUGH, FOR ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY HEARD IN THE HEARING THAT AFFECTS AN ADJACENT LANDOWNER THAT HADN'T BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE PRIOR HEARING AT THE COMMISSION MEETING. YEAH, THAT'S A KEY POINT. BIGGER FANS OR PATHWAY LIKE WE DID ON THE ONE OVER ON SKYLINE AND CARRIE. RIGHT. WHAT JOHN IS SAYING IS HE DOESN'T WANT ANY DISCRETION. HE JUST WANTS IT TO BE REVIEWED BY PROFESSIONALS AND BE ABLE TO RUBBER STAMP IT. YEP. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD RUBBER STAMP. I THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE STANDARDS WE'VE ALL WORKED ON. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. THAT THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HIGHER STANDARDS LIKE GOOD PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT AND LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, HIGHER STANDARDS, THAT WHOLE LIST OF, YOU KNOW, THIS WHOLE LIST, THEN LET'S PUT IT IN THE IN THE SUBDIVISION CODE, THEN THE REASON TO HAVE THE HEARING IS SO THAT NEIGHBORS CAN COME IN AND SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SAY, AND THEN WE CAN TAKE SOME DISCRETION, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY IN LANDSCAPING, IN TRAILS. IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE, THE, THE SMALL PIECES THAT. CARRIE, WOULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? I DON'T WANT TO I MEAN, I'M OUT OF MY DEPTH ON THAT ONE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE KNOW, RIGHT. THIS IS THURSDAY NIGHTS. I MEAN, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE STATUTE AND STATUTES, BOTH FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS ARE SIMILAR IN A WAY THAT IT'S ALLOWED. AND YOU DO AS ZACH READ, YOU HAVE TO BE PREDICTABLE IN YOUR CODE. SO THERE'S SOMETHING IN YOUR ORDINANCE THAT YOU WANT. YOU NEED TO PUT IT IN THE ORDINANCE. SO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THE RESIDENTS, THE CITY KNOWS WHAT'S REQUIRED. THEY KNOW WHAT THE RULES OF THE GAME ARE. AND THEN ONCE WE PLAY THE GAME, THAT DISCRETION IS VERY LITTLE. THE WHAT I SAY IS THE LEASH IS VERY SHORT. YOU DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A LEASH, BUT IT'S SUPER SHORT TO WHAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE, THE ORDINANCE ITSELF. AND THEN BECAUSE IT IS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL LEEWAY WITH CONDITIONS. BUT THOSE CONDITIONS BE SOMETHING YOU'VE DISCOVERED THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, A CONCERN OR AN ISSUE. 
          AND THEN YOU'VE COME UP WITH A WAY TO TO DETERMINE HOW TO FIX THAT. AND THEN THAT THE DEVELOPER AGREES, BECAUSE IT'S ALSO CLEAR IN STATE STATUTE, IF THE DEVELOPER, IF WE PLACE CONDITIONS ON ANY APPROVAL AND THE DEVELOPER IS DOESN'T LIKE THAT CONDITION, THEN IT IS CONSIDERED IT COULD BE IT COULD BE A TAKING. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, BUT IT COULD BE. AND SO IT PUTS THE CITY AT RISK. I CAN I WE TALKED EARLIER AND IT CAME OUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WATER DUTIES FOR. WHY DO WE HAVE. WELL, THE ODD LITTLE PIECE, THE INFILL PIECE. AND THEN THE COMMENT WAS MADE. YEAH. BUT IT'S NOW GETTING USED FOR A WHOLE BUNCH OF GREAT BIG PROJECTS. I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT. OKAY, LET ME FINISH THE THOUGHT. OKAY. ONE OF THE THINGS WE HEAR WITH SOME REGULARITY IS WHAT CAN THE CITY DO ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING? THIS IS ONE THING WE CAN DO ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE CAN USE THE PUD TO CREATE PROJECTS THAT MAKE MONEY. WHEN YOU SELL A SMALL HOME ON A SMALL LOT, AND THE FIRST NUMBER OF THE PRICE IS A TWO. BUT HAVE WE SEEN THAT? THAT'S WHAT WE'VE SEEN. WE'VE SEEN THE FIRST NUMBER OF SPORES. WELL, WHAT'S THE ONE WE JUST WHAT IS THE COST OF THE HOMES WE JUST 
          [01:55:01]
APPROVED BY THE DUMP? I DON'T THINK WE SAW A NUMBER. I THINK THOSE WERE UNDER THREE. MY POINT IS I JUST THINK THERE'S ANOTHER REASON TO KEEP PUDS AND TO LET THEM USE LET THEM GET USED IS BECAUSE THEY CAN PROVIDE LOWER COST HOUSING. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST RENTALS. I'M TALKING ABOUT BUYING HOUSES, OWNING HOUSES. WELL, NOW WITH THE NEW STATE SMALL HOUSE ORDINANCE, THOUGH, THAT'S WHERE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IT'S FOUR ACRES. THAT'S MY THAT'S MY TWO. BUT I THINK YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT THERE BECAUSE I HATE THOSE, RIGHT? THEY GET THEY HAVE NO AMENITIES NOW. THEY'RE JUST ONLY DENSITY. THEY'VE GOT NO GREEN SPACE. 
          THEY DON'T HAVE ANY GOOD CONNECTIVITY. THEY JUST ARE A SMALL HOUSE ON A SMALL LOT WITHOUT AMENITIES, WITHOUT A COMMUNITY. IT'S JUST ON A BIG WIDE PUBLIC STREET. SO TO ME, IT'S LIKE, GOSH, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, WHY DON'T WE HAVE THIS PUD TOOL AND ALLOW PRIVATE STREETS SO THAT WE CAN BUILD A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK? LET ME ASK A QUESTION THAT'S KIND OF NAGGING AT ME BECAUSE WE HAVE A MINIMUM SIZE, RIGHT, OF TWO ACRES, RIGHT? YEAH. RIGHT. BUT WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE A MAXIMUM SIZE, DO WE? WE DON'T. 
          RIGHT. NO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M JUST, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THIS IS KIND OF OUT ON THE EDGE HERE SOMEWHERE. BUT BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT SEEMS LIKE SOMETHING THAT CONFUSES ME A LITTLE BIT WHY WE HAVE THIS MINIMUM SIZE AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE A MAXIMUM SIZE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, MICHELLE, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER HAVING THESE PUDS THE FIRST SIX YEARS. LIKE WE THIS WASN'T HAPPENING. I THINK WE SAW A LIST OF THEM AND WE DIDN'T GET THEM FOR A LONG TIME. BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN WE LAST UPDATED OUR PD ORDINANCE. AND SO THAT'S PARTLY SOME OF THIS 18, 2015, 2015 BEFORE I GOT HERE. YEAH. AND I JUST, I CAN'T QUITE DECIDE WHY THAT'S TRUE. RIGHT. LIKE, WHY IS IT SUDDENLY TRUE NOW? WE WORKED HARD TO INFILL AND BRING IN ANNEXATION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT WHAT YOU SAID. WE DON'T WANT ISLANDS, RIGHT? WE WORKED HARD TO BRING THOSE IN. AND AND DEVELOPERS HAVE COME AND TRIED TO FIND THOSE PIECES. AND THEY'VE PUT AS MUCH HOUSING ON AS IS THERE RIGHT BY ZONE, BY THEIR PREDICTABLE WHAT THEY BOUGHT. RIGHT. JUST LIKE THE PIECE THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NEXT TO PINECREST BEFORE THIS. WELL, WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE REASON IS BECAUSE FARM GROUND WENT UP FROM 3000 AN ACRE TO 20,000 AN ACRE OR MORE, JUST EVEN ON THE FRINGES, IT'S LIKE, YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T BUY THAT GROUND OUT ON 65TH AND SAY, I THINK PUT IN I MEAN, IT'S THE ECONOMY HAS CHANGED SO MUCH THAT YOU CAN'T. YEAH, I'M SURE SOME OF THAT'S TRUE. AND SOME OF IT'S JUST THE GROUND THAT IT SITS ON. THAT'S IT. YEAH. LIKE IF IT'S BASALT LIKE OVER BY BUSH SCHOOL THAT'S BEEN THAT, YOU KNOW, FINALLY REDEVELOPMENTS BEEN ABLE TO HELP WITH THAT. BUT I GUESS I SEE THE MIDDLE GROUND AS FINDING A WAY TO DO THIS AND HAVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND, AND, AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND JUST CONTINUE TO HAVE THESE OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPERS. BUT THEN THAT'S ALL WORK DONE AT THAT LEVEL. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT SEEMS TO BE AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITIES, LIKE WHAT'S THE ONE IN UTAH? THE. 
          DAYBREAK. DAYBREAK. DAYBREAK. LIKE THOSE WERE ALL BUILT WITH, I'M SURE, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND WITH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, I WOULD ASSUME WITH A LOT OF LOT OF EFFORT OVER A YEAR AND A HALF OF LIKE HOW TO MAKE THAT WORK. THAT ONE ABOVE THAT WE JUST APPROVED ABOVE THE GOLF COURSE. THAT WAS THAT'S A LOT OF WORK TO GET TO WHERE THEY WERE. RIGHT. AND FOR THEM TO COME TO US THEN AND HAVE TO I MEAN, I GOTTA BE HONEST, IF I'M A DEVELOPER AND I AND THEY SAW WHAT HAPPENED WITH WILLOW PLACE. I MEAN, IT'S IT'S TOUGH TO COME DOWN THE FALLS AND THINK, AM I IS THIS PREDICTABLE RIGHT NOW? AND WHO'S GOING TO SAY WHAT FROM THE DAIS? THAT'S GOING TO COST ME 200,000 MORE DOLLARS. SO I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THAT. AND I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BRING AS MUCH PREDICTABILITY AS MUCH AS WE CAN. AND THEN IF WE HAVE THESE PROPERTIES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, THEN LET'S OFFER BOTH OPTIONS SOMEHOW. I THINK EVERY DEVELOPER THAT GOES SEEKS THE PUD, RECOGNIZES THAT THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF RISK THAT THEY'RE TAKING IN PROCEEDING THAT PATH, AND THEY KNOW THAT IT'S WORTH THE GAMBLE BECAUSE OTHERWISE THEY WOULD SIMPLY JUST DO WHAT'S BY RIGHT. IT'S PROBABLY TRUE. SO THERE'S FINANCIAL GAIN. BUT WHY ARE WE SEEING SO MANY OF THEM NOW? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. WHAT'S THE WHAT'S CHANGED SO STRUCTURALLY THAT I'M AT ALMOST EVERY COUNCIL MEETING I'M AT, WE'RE HAVING SOME SORT OF PD. YES. COSTS. 
          COST TO BUILD IT. COST TO DEVELOP. WELL, IF YOU CAN GET IT ON A PD ONE WE JUST DID WAS IN PRIME FARM GROUND. SO I KNOW, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WHAT THEY PAID PER ACRE ON THAT WAS WAS LIKE WAY MORE THAN WHAT SOMEBODY PAID 15 YEARS AGO. AND SO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO IS DO A PRIVATE ROAD SO THEY CAN DO A PUD, GET THE EXTRA. EXTRA 10FT OR 10FT, AND THEN THEY CAN 
          [02:00:07]
DEVELOP INTERIOR AND KEEP THEM REAL CLOSE TOGETHER AND, AND HAVE HIGHER DENSITY. BUT AND I THOUGHT, EVERYONE KNOWS I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HIGHER DENSITY. THAT'S NOT WHAT MY OPPOSITION IS. MY OPPOSITION IS SOVEREIGNTY OF US HAVING CONTROL AND THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP OUR CITY BEAUTIFUL. LIKE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT IN THIS ROOM WAS YOU CAN GOVERN NOW, BUT IS IT STILL GOOD 100 YEARS FROM NOW? AND PUDS ARE GO LOOK AT CITIES THAT HAVE DONE THEM FOR 50 OR 60 YEARS. IF YOU GO LOOK AT A 1970S PUD IN UTAH AND TELL ME IT'S BEEN WELL MAINTAINED. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT MY CONCERN IS. IT IS ONE OF MY. AND SO I LIKE SOME OF THE THINGS YOU PROPOSED IN YOUR IN THE MEMO THAT YOU KNOW. BUT ARE WE ALLOWED TO MAKE SURE THEY MAINTAIN OR WE AUDIT THEIR MAINTENANCE OR ARE WE. BUT THEN WHY DON'T WE JUST BUILD TO OUR STANDARD AND KEEP IT OURSELVES? LET'S, LET'S HAVE THAT CONVERSATION NOW WITH BRIAN ABOUT STANDARDS AND WHY WE DO IT AND WHAT THEY ARE. SO I WANT TO BACK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT FROM PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS. 
          JUST LIKE EARLY ON, WE TALKED ABOUT WE, THE CITY, WE GIVE UP THINGS FOR PUDS. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT A DEVELOPER HAS TO RECOGNIZE HE GIVES UP SOME THINGS TO DEVELOP PUD AS WELL. AND FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY DO THE PUD AND THEY GO TO PRIVATE ROADWAYS, THE PUB ALLOWS THEM TO SELL INDIVIDUAL UNITS THAT DO NOT FRONT ONTO A RIGHT OF WAY. SO IF THEY DON'T DO A PUD IN ORDER TO SELL A UNIT, IT HAS TO FRONT ON A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO THE DEVELOPERS HAVE SOME GIVE AND TAKE AS WELL. OKAY. SO WHEN HE DOES THAT, HE'S GOT TO RECOGNIZE THAT, HEY, IF I'M GOING TO DO THIS, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO PRIORITIZE. BUT I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW, THEY CHOSE WHETHER THEY FAIL OR WHATNOT. WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS, IS WE HAVE DONE SOME LOOK AT OTHER CITIES AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANY THAT ARE CITIES THAT HAVE REAL WINTERS THAT HAVE LESS THAN A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY. THERE'S A REASON WHY WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT. I'VE BEEN IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HERE IN IDAHO FALLS FOR OVER 30 YEARS, AND I CAN REMEMBER WHEN THE CITY DID ALLOW 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAYS. 
          WELL, THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY'RE AT 60 NOW. AND WHEN THEY'RE 50, WE STILL REQUIRED THE NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR THE LANDSCAPE STRIP FOR SNOW REMOVAL AND THE SIDEWALK EASEMENT. SO TECHNICALLY IT'S STILL A 60 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY WITH EASEMENTS. SO AND THAT'S WHAT THAT IN MY DRAWING THAT WE CREATED IS TO SHOW YOU WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO ESTABLISH WITHIN A RIGHT OF WAY AND STILL MAINTAIN PUBLIC WATER, PUBLIC SEWER. NOW WE'VE GOT SECONDARY IRRIGATION, WE'VE GOT POWER, WE'VE GOT LIGHTS, GAS, GAS, AND, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S MULTIPLE PUBLIC UTILITIES THAT GO WITHIN THAT RIGHT OF WAY. AND, AND WE'VE ESTABLISHED THAT 60 FOOT TO BE BE THE KEY. AND SO I WOULD, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND BRINGING UP THE PLOWING. 
          SO AND THIS WOULD GO TO MAYBE COUNCIL MEMBER BRADFORD. IT'S LIKE, THEN WHY DOESN'T THE CITY JUST NOT HAVE HOAS? SO IF YOU'LL LEAD US TO THAT IN THE NUMBERED STREET WE PLOW WHEN WE HAVE A REAL WINTER. LAST WINTER WASN'T A FAIR ONE, BUT WHEN WE HAVE REAL WINTERS, EACH TIME WE PLOW WITHIN THE NUMBERED STREETS, WE ARE AVERAGING AROUND 200 TOWED VEHICLES. AND. 
          AND I THINK IT'S SAFE TO SAY AMONGST YOU THAT WE DO A DILIGENT EFFORT TO GET WORD OUT, HEY, DON'T PARK ON THE STREETS. WE'RE COMING AROUND TO PLOW. WELL, WE'RE DOWN TO 200 FROM 4 OR 500 WHEN WE STARTED. YEAH, BUT THAT'S A SNOW EVENT. THAT'S NOT PER YEAR. THAT'S PER YEAR. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. BUT I'M SAYING IT WAS HIGHER BECAUSE OF THE EFFORTS. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE'VE GOTTEN BETTER BUT IT'S STILL A PROBLEM. BE CAREFUL ON THAT. I MEAN, IMAGINE IF WE GO TO PUBLIC STREETS THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN BECOME WE TAKE THEM OVER, IMAGINE THE CALLS WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE A PRETTY ROUGH. GO. BUT AN HOA CAN DO IT EASIER AND BETTER ON A PRIVATE STREET. OBVIOUSLY THEY CONTROL THEIR PRIVATE STREET, SO THEY CAN. THEY. IT'S LIKE, WELL, THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THEIR PLOWING AND THE CITY ISN'T GOING TO. SO IF THERE IS A LESSENING THAN OF 60FT, THEN IT'S GOT TO BE PRIVATE. THAT'S JUST WHERE I COME DOWN. WHEN AS WE TALKED THROUGH SOME OF THIS IS IS PRIVATE STREETS. I WOULD STILL ALLOW THEM, I WOULD HAVE SOME OF THESE RECOURSES BUILT INTO THEM, BUT I WOULDN'T I WOULD NOT TAKE OVER A STREET LESS THAN 60FT WIDE BECAUSE THEN PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PARK ON THEM, PUBLIC PARKING, AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO TOW THEM OFF FAST ENOUGH. BUT BY ALLOWING THEM AT ALL, ARE ARE WE AT RISK OF GETTING THEM IN 20 YEARS OR 40 YEARS OR 80 YEARS OR 100 YEARS FOR COUNCIL TO COUNCIL 
          [02:05:04]
COULD VOLUNTARILY SAY. I'M SAYING THEY CAN'T FORCE IT WHEN HOA FAILS, BUT IF IT FAILS BECAUSE THEY GO BANKRUPT, THAT THAT PROBLEM ISN'T IT'S IT'S STILL THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT FORM THE HOA. IT'S NOT THE CITY'S. NOW, OF COURSE, STATE LEGISLATURE, THEY DID PROPOSE AN ORDINANCE THIS LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT TALKED ABOUT DISSOLVING HOAS. SO IT'S FEASIBLE THAT THE THE STATE, YOU KNOW, IN IN THE NEXT HUNDRED YEARS, THE CITY, THE STATE LEGISLATURE COULD DO SOMETHING SAYING, HEY, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF FAILING HOAS AND THESE PRIVATE ROADS AREN'T BEING TAKEN CARE OF. SO WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT BURDEN ON THE CITY. ABSOLUTELY. COULD HAPPEN. AND THE CITY COULD DO SO. THE STATE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THAT'S I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO. BUT THE CURRENT STATE OF LAW KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. SO THESE THESE POOR HOMEOWNERS WOULDN'T GET PLOWED IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION THAT WAS COLLECTING MONEY BECAUSE THEY FELT SOMEHOW AND IT JUST WASN'T STRUCTURED. OR IF SOMEONE EMBEZZLED THE HOA FUNDING IT, THEY ARE JUST SOL. YEP. AND THEN THERE'S NO RECOURSE FOR THEM TO, TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO THE CITY. THEY COULD SAY, CITY, WILL YOU TAKE THIS? BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO THE CITY TO SAY YES. IT WOULD BE A DISCRETION OF THE CITY. AND THE CITY COULD SAY, NOPE, SORRY, YOU SHOULD HAVE PLANNED BETTER. THERE IS THE ONE OPPORTUNITY THAT I HAVE FOUND AND WE'D HAVE TO TALK ABOUT IT. BUT THIS IS THE CITY'S RIGHT TO CURE WITH COST RECOVERY. SO YOU CAN GO AFTER THEM AND THEN DO AN ID AND GET IT BACK. YES. YOU DIDN'T DO AN ID BECAUSE THAT INCLUDES THEIR VOTE, BUT YOU COULD SAY WE'RE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT FAILED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS TO IT. THEN YOU COULD DO A. I JUST THINK IT JUST STINKS. 
          IT'S AN IMPOSED ID. SO HOW TELL ME A LITTLE BIT HOW THAT WORKS. DOES IT WORK JUST LIKE AN ID, THEIR TAXES GO UP, OR IF THEY DON'T PAY IT WHEN THE HOUSE SELLS ON THOSE PARTICULAR PROPERTIES, THERE WOULD BE A, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT FOR THE CITY TO CURE AND THEN GET THAT COST. BUT WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T HEADED DOWN THAT ROAD YET WITH THAT. THAT WOULD BE. BUT HOW BIG OF A NIGHTMARE, MORE OF A NIGHTMARE WOULD IT BE FOR THE CITY TO COME IN AND FIX IT AND THEN MAINTAIN AND PLOW. BOTH ARE BAD. THAT'S RIGHT. SO SO THEN I THINK THAT'S HIS POINT ABOUT PRIVATE STREETS. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. 20 YEARS FROM NOW, SOMEBODY BUYS A HOUSE IN A PUD. IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE PROCESS THAT GUARANTEES THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW IT'S A PUD AND THAT THEY'RE INHERITING A GOOD TITLE COMPANY? DOES THAT WORK? WELL, BUT BUT WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS A GOOD TITLE COMPANY DOES IT FOR THAT TITLE COMPANY DOESN'T WANT TO DOESN'T. WELL, I THINK IT WILL SHOW UP ON TITLE, BUT BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO SAY THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS. 
          IT MIGHT JUST BE A LINE ITEM ON YOUR TITLE. SO IN OTHER WORDS, UNLESS THE BORROWER, THE BUYER YOU'RE NOW OWNING, YOU'RE PART OF A PRIVATE ROAD NETWORK THAT YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE TO MAINTAIN. 
          IT'S NOT GOING TO STATE THAT I DON'T THINK ON IS THERE ANY SIGNATURES? DO YOU DO WHEN YOU CLOSE ON A HOME? RIGHT. SO IS THAT SOMETHING WE CAN PUT INTO OUR CODE TO. BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S JUST, I DON'T KNOW, ADDING INSULT TO INJURY THAT THEY SAID I DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS A P. WELL, YOU SHOULD HAVE LOOKED IT UP. YOU'RE RIGHT. HE SHOULD HAVE. OKAY. WE DEALT WITH THIS BEFORE WHEN WE WERE DOING SOME ANNEXING. AND, AND THERE WERE AGREEMENTS IN THE PAST. AND IT'S A UTILITY, AN INFERRED. YEAH. IF THEY HAVE A CITY UTILITY OF ELECTRIC OR SEWER WATER, THEY HAVE TO MANDATE ANNEXATION. IF THEY BECAME IT WAS AS SOON AS THEY BECAME CONTIGUOUS, THEN WE COULD WE COULD ANNEX THEM AS A CATEGORY ANNEXATION. BASICALLY, IT WAS A. IS IT INFERRED AGREEMENT? IS THAT A RESTRICTION? NO. RESTRICTION IS USUALLY. SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES THAT THEY SAID WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT WAS IN OUR. 
          BUT THAT'S ABOUT FORCIBLE ANNEXATION. THIS IS ABOUT LIKE I MEAN, ANECDOTALLY, I'M GOING TO JUST ANECDOTALLY SAY MY DAUGHTER LIVES IN A P D SHE HAS A PRIVATE ROAD. THEY BARELY GET ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THEIR LANDSCAPING. THERE IS NO WAY THEY ARE RAISING ENOUGH MONEY TO MAINTAIN THE ROAD WHEN IT FINALLY. ACTUALLY. YEAH. BECAUSE YOU KNOW, BUT BUT NOW. 
          BUT LUCKILY WATER AND SEWER ARE ALWAYS NOW PART OF THE CITY. SO THE CITY OWNS AND MAINTAINS THE PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER. IT'S THE ROAD. IT'S JUST THE ROADWAY. SO WE CAN FIND A REMEDY FOR THE ROADWAY. I JUST THINK THERE. BUT IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, IT WOULD IT WOULD NOT BE WISE FOR US TO DO ANYTHING LESS THAN REQUIRE LESS THAN THIS STANDARD RIGHT HERE. 
          IF YOU PLAN ON TAKING IT OVER AND MAINTAINING IT. YEAH. CAN I ASK? THERE'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY. YEAH. BUT FROM AN ENGINEERING POINT OF VIEW, IF I READ THIS RIGHT AND I'M KIND OF IN THE MAYOR'S BOAT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE, BUT THIS SHOWS 
          [02:10:04]
SIDEWALKS, ALL THAT ON BOTH SIDES. OKAY. PLOW BACK SNOW ON BOTH SIDES. IS THERE ANY LOGIC TO SAYING WE DON'T HAVE TO PLOW SNOW TO BOTH SIDES? WE CAN JUST PLOW IT TO ONE SIDE. I KNOW IT'S MORE WORK. I UNDERSTAND THAT I'VE WATCHED THE PLOWS COME DOWN MY STREET. WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS CAN WE IS THERE ANY GIVE IN THIS RULE? I THINK THAT'S PRETTY TOUGH. 
          WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE I MEAN, WHEN THEY PLOW, THEY'RE PLOWING A LANE AT A TIME, RIGHT? YEAH. 
          AND SO PUSHING IT ACROSS TWO LANES AND JUST TRYING TO PUT THE SNOW. MAN. I MEAN, SIDEWALK, JUST ONE PERSON. A LITTLE THOUGHT ON THAT. I LIKE THE SIDEWALK TO BE SEPARATED FROM THE STREET. YEAH. SO MUCH EASIER AND SAFER FOR YOUNG PEOPLE TO WALK THERE. OH, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S MORE THAN JUST SNOW PLOW. YEAH. WHAT'S IT CALLED? LANDSCAPE. 
          YEAH. LANDSCAPE. 5.5FT LANDSCAPE. RIGHT. SO THAT'S, IT'S NOT JUST FOR SNOW, BUT FOR SAFETY. BUT I, I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT MY HOUSE WAS BUILT 20 YEARS AGO. THERE'S A SECTION JUST BELOW ME THAT WAS BUILT A LITTLE LONGER AGO THAN THAT. THEIR SIDEWALKS ARE RIGHT AGAINST THE STREET. YEAH. THERE'S OUR MIND. DO DO WE NOT DO THAT ANYMORE? NO, NO, THAT'S GONE AWAY. OKAY, SO I ENDED UP WITH SNOW FROM THE SNOW PLOW ON THE SIDEWALK. EXACTLY. THIS IS WHY DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON IS ALSO HERE. AND I'M NOT CALLING OUT DIRECTOR KENDRICK. THERE WAS. THERE IS A CHANCE THAT DIRECTOR KENFIELD MAY HAVE A FUTURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST. SO WE JUST DIDN'T WANT HIM TO BE PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. BUT THEN SOMETIMES IT FEELS LIKE, WAIT, YOU KNOW, WHAT DID HE SAY ABOUT THAT? SO WE HAVE ASKED DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON TO BE HERE, BOTH TO SPEAK FOR THE ELECTRIC AND PUBLIC WORKS. OTHER THAN BRIAN CUNNINGHAM, WHO IS SPEAKING A LOT FOR STREETS AND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT HE HAS WORKED ON. DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON IS HERE AS OUR PRIOR CITY ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR, AND NOW OUR GENERAL MANAGER OF POWER. WELL, AND WITH THAT, I JUST WANT TO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ONE OF MY GREATEST FAILURES THAT I'VE HAD. I KNOW AS I TOOK OVER IN PUBLIC WORKS, WE HAD THIS IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO SOLVE ALL THESE SNOW REMOVAL ISSUES BECAUSE IT'S A PROBLEM AND WE LOVE PROBLEMS. LET'S FIX THEM. AND IN LARGE PART, WE DID SOME PILOT PROGRAMS AND WROTE SOME OF THOSE OUT. BUT IN THESE NARROW STREETS THAT YOU HAVE IT, IT IS IT IS AMAZINGLY DIFFICULT TO COMMUNICATE ON A LARGE SCALE TO A POINT THAT PEOPLE CARE. AND ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT'S LATE. I GOT THE NOTICE. DO I REALLY WANT TO MOVE THAT CAR OR NOT? AND I THINK WE'RE TO A POINT NOW. IT'S NOT THAT THEY DON'T KNOW. IT'S KIND OF A DECISION. YOU MAY HAVE SOME PEOPLE THAT ARE TRAVELING THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, BUT BUT IT IS A HUGE CONTENTIOUS ISSUE. EVERY TIME WE PLOW THOSE SNOW EVENT. RIGHT. AND, AND I CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH IN THE AGE THAT WE ARE NOW WITH SOCIAL MEDIA, HOW MUCH FUN THAT IS TO DEAL WITH, WITH PEOPLE THAT ARE IRATE ABOUT JUST TRYING TO SIMPLY PLOW THE SNOW. RIGHT? IT'S TOUGH TO DO. 
          SO THERE'S A LOT TO CONSIDER IF YOU THINK ABOUT TAKING ON THOSE STREETS THAT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE, OR NARROWING YOUR PUBLIC RIGHTS AWAY. AND I THINK THE ENGINEERING GROUP THROUGH BRIAN DID A GREAT JOB TO TRY TO DELINEATE. IT'S HARD TO FIT THAT ALL IN THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND STILL BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THAT YOUR POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS AND NON POTABLE WILL HAVE TO BE SEPARATED BY TEN HORIZONTAL FEET. AND SO IT JUST ADDS UP IMMENSELY. BUT THAT IDEA THAT THESE PUDS OR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE COMING TO PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, DECADES DOWN THE ROAD, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING NEW. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'VE DEALT WITH IN PUBLIC WORKS FOR A LONG TIME. AND PONDERAY CIRCLE IS ONE HALF OF 12TH STREET, KIND OF OVER BY CA IS ONE THAT IS HAS CONTINUED. YOU'VE HAD THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNERS THAT HAVE GENERALLY CHANGED HANDS, CAME FORWARD AND SAID, MAN, OUR PAVEMENT IS NOT PERFORMING CORRECT. WE HAVE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS GENERALLY APPROACH PUBLIC WORKS. WHY ISN'T THIS BEING MAINTAINED? WELL, IT'S IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. IT'S YOUR PROPERTY. AND WE HAVE NO IDEA OF THAT. BUT IT GOES BACK TO THE POINT ALL OF US THAT HAVE CLOSED DOCUMENTS, WHEN YOU BUY A HOME, IT'S SIGN HERE, NEXT PAGE, SIGN THERE, INITIAL THIS. THERE'S NOT A REAL WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT YOUR FINANCIAL STEWARDSHIP THAT YOU HAVE IN BUYING THAT PROPERTY. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION ABOUT TAKING ON THESE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENTS. AND IT REALLY DOESN'T EVEN END THERE. AND PUBLIC WORKS, WE CONTINUALLY HAVE THE PUBLIC THAT COMPLAIN ABOUT POTHOLES IN PRIVATE PARKING LOTS. RIGHT? FRED MEYER IS ONE THAT IS CONTINUAL IN THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD PAY TO FIX THIS PARKING LOT. AND, AND AT SOME POINT, YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. YEAH. WE'RE NOT WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO TAKE THAT ON. 
          SOMEONE MADE THE DECISION TO GO AND BUILD THESE OTHER PRIVATE AMENITY. AND IN THAT THROUGH THE PROCESS. PUBLIC WORKS, THOUGH IS REVIEWING THAT THEY MEET OUR CODE. THEY STILL ARE 
          [02:15:02]
FIRE ACCESS, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE STILL SIMILAR OR BETTER AS FAR AS THE BALLAST SECTION ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT WE WOULD REQUIRE IN OUR OWN DEVELOPMENT. SO SO I JUST POINT OUT WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE FOR A LONG TIME. SOME OF THOSE HAVE ELEVATED TO COUNCIL DECISIONS, PONDEROUS APPROVAL AS BEING ONE TO TAKE ON THAT THAT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. BUT ALSO JUST THAT CONTINUED, HEY, THIS SHOULD BECOME CITY MAINTENANCE. THAT'S A CONSCIOUS DECISION THAT THE CORRECT ANSWER IS IT'S NO, WE CAN'T. WHAT'S YOUR OPINION THOUGH, ABOUT DOING THEM AT ALL? LIKE JUST NOT WHY WOULD WE ALLOW THIS IN OUR CITY? WELL, I THINK TO GET THE DENSITIES THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, I DON'T SEE ANOTHER WAY AROUND THAT. RIGHT. BUT IF THERE'S IF THERE'S FUTURE PROTECTIONS, I THINK TWIN FALLS DOES THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ROUTE. SO THEY TRY TO PROTECT THEMSELVES THROUGH JUST DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS. AND I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY A MIX OF HOW IS THERE SOME PROTECTION THAT THE CITY CAN HAVE AND THEN ALSO BETTER NOTIFICATIONS TO THE PROPERTY. SO I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS THAT COULD BE WORKED OUT, BUT IT'S STILL IN THE END. SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THOSE THOSE THOSE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES. AND UNFORTUNATELY, GENERALLY IT'S THE SECOND OWNER. IT'S NOT THE FIRST 30 YEARS. 
          RIGHT? IT'S IT'S BEYOND THAT. THAT'S WHO THAT FALLS TO. SO, SO WHAT ARE, WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES TO THE CONCEPT OF THE PUD? IF WE JUST SAY. THAT'S THE ROAD AND WE OWN IT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT SOME CITIES ARE DOING. BUT WHAT DOES THAT DO TO PUDS? DOES IT MAKE THEM NULL AND VOID AND WE JUST WON'T SEE. I THINK MOST WILL JUST COME BACK AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT BY RIGHT. OR, AND YOU'LL HAVE SOME PARCELS THAT JUST WON'T GET DEVELOPED BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T. SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS PUD IS A BOY. WELL, NOT COMPLETELY, BUT WELL, BUT IF YOU SAID BY RIGHT, MUCH FEWER. IF THIS IS THE STANDARD ACROSS PUDS, YOU WILL HAVE SOME THAT PHYSICALLY JUST CANNOT BE DEVELOPED. OKAY I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU HAVE SOME PARCELS THAT ARE GOING TO BE REMAIN ISLANDS BECAUSE THEY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED WITH THAT STANDARD. 
          AND THEN BY THAT, IF THIS IS THE STANDARD FOR ROADS, WHICH IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER FOR THE PUD IN TERMS OF FINANCIAL BENEFIT, THEN I THINK THAT THE OTHER TRADE OFFS THAT WE ARE SUPPOSEDLY GETTING AS A CITY, I THINK THEY'LL LOOK AT THAT. IT'S A SALES FIGURE IT OUT BY WRITING. YEAH. BECAUSE WHY WOULD THEY? WHY WOULD THEY DO INCREASED LANDSCAPING AND ANYTHING LIKE THAT? THEY DON'T GET ANYTHING. BUT WHEN YOU SAY BY RIGHT, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? DOES THAT MEAN I'M NOT DOING A PUD? I'M JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO WHATEVER. I'M JUST GOING TO DEVELOP R2 OR R3. WHAT ABOUT TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND WHERE DO WE ALLOW TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS RIGHT NOW IN THE CITY? BECAUSE WE CAN BUILD RIGHT UP TO THE SIDEWALK THERE AND DO ALL THOSE THINGS. AND IS THAT MORE OF A YEAH, I'M INTERESTED. TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS LARGELY IN YOUR LETTER TO NUMBERED STREETS. WE HAVE ONE SPOT OF TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD OUT ON IONA ROAD THAT HASN'T MATERIALIZED. WE TRIED TO HAVE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. THERE WAS A REQUEST TO GO DOWN BY SOUTH POINT AND THAT THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME DENIED THE REZONING REQUEST AND TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WOULD THAT HELP SOME OF THESE LOTS HE'S TALKING ABOUT SO THE DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE A BETTER CHANCE TO GET THEM? YES, IT WOULD ALLOW SMALLER SQUARE FOOTAGES ON LOTS BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW THE NUMBERED STREETS AGAIN. CORRECT. EXCEPT FOR WE WOULD STILL HAVE THE PUBLIC ROAD WOULD STILL BE 6060 FOOT RIGHT AWAY. RIGHT. SO I THINK IN SOME WAYS, THERE'S THESE FORM BASED CODES THAT CAN ANSWER SOME OF THAT. THERE'S FLEXIBILITY. AM I, AM I USING THAT TERM WRONG? THE, THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE IS IT'S GOT ELEMENTS OF EUCLIDEAN ZONING, WHICH IS YOUR NORMAL ZONING. AND THEN YOU HAVE ELEMENTS OF FORM BASED ZONING. SO IT'S A MIXTURE. IT'S A MIXTURE. AND WE ACTUALLY THINK THAT THAT PERFORMS BETTER THAN THE WHOLE JUST 100% FORM BASED CODE DOWNTOWN. WE DO THINK THAT'S A BETTER OPTION. AND THAT IS AN OPTION TO THE COUNCIL TOO. LIKE WE COULD, WE COULD REDUCE LOT SIZES FURTHER AND SETBACKS FURTHER AND REGULAR ZONES IN ORDER TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. THAT WOULD BE AN OPTION TO NORMALLY THAT'S BEEN LESS POPULAR BECAUSE PEOPLE THINK ARE ONES A CERTAIN THING. SO BUT THEN YOU JUST YOU JUST DON'T GET THE AMENITIES RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S THE POINT IS, WHAT IS THE THAT'S A REALLY GOOD. YOU BRING UP A REALLY GOOD POINT, THOUGH. CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? YES. HOW LONG HAVE PUDS BEEN AROUND IN IDAHO FALLS? 20 YEARS. 30 YEARS, 50 YEARS. MY POINT IS THERE'S GOT TO BE A FEW OF THOSE SOMEWHERE THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND LONGER THAN 30 YEARS. ARE WE CHASING A BOOGEYMAN THAT REALLY DOESN'T EXIST? BECAUSE WE'VE GOT PROOF OF PUDS THAT ARE OLD AND THEY'RE WORKING? OR ARE WE LEGIT IN HAVE WE BUILT A STRAW MAN, OR IS THIS A REAL MAN THAT WE'RE FIGHTING WITH? THAT WOULD BE, I THINK I THINK MR. MUELLER'S ARGUMENT RIGHT THERE IS WHERE, WHERE ARE WHERE ARE SOME THAT WE CONTINUE TO HEAR COMPLAINTS ABOUT SOME OLDER ONES THAT WOULD BE PRIOR TO THIS ORDINANCE WOULD BE RIGHT BEHIND THE OLD SMITH SHOPPING 
          [02:20:01]
CENTER THERE ALONG SAINT CLAIR. THAT'S ALL A PEEVE. AND WHAT HOW HOW DO THE STREETS LOOK? TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T GET COMPLAINTS. I DON'T KNOW PUBLIC WORKS COMPLAINTS, BUT THEY'RE NOT 50 YEARS OLD YET. THEY PROBABLY ARE GOING TO GET CLOSE. THEY WERE DONE IN THE LATE 70S, EARLY 80S. OKAY. ANY OTHERS THAT YOU CAN DO? YOU SEE WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO? WE ALL AGREE THAT THERE'S THIS HUGE BOOGEYMAN OUT THERE. I THINK IT'S A MIX OF BOTH. IS IT REALLY THAT BIG? DOES THE EXPERIENCE TELL US? I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY HISTORICAL PUDS HAVE THAT, AND MAYBE THEY DO, BUT HAVE THIS, THE NARROWNESS OF THE ROAD THAT SOME OF THE RECENT PEDS HAVE BEEN OF THAT 26. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT THE THING. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE RIGHT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, ARE WE REALLY GOING TO BE IN A SITUATION 40 YEARS FROM NOW WHERE EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE KNOCKING ON OUR DOOR SAYING, YOU'VE GOT TO FIX OUR STREETS? IS THAT REALLY I MEAN, A FEW? YES, BUT IS IT THIS MANY OR THIS MANY? AND I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT HISTORY TO SAY, WHAT WILL THAT TELL US ABOUT THE BOOGEYMAN WE'RE LOOKING AT, ESPECIALLY IF THEY ARE BUILT TO OUR SECTION WIDTH, BUT WITH A CROSS SECTION OF THE ROAD. SO I WANT TO I'M NOT TRYING TO WRAP THIS UP, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM STARTING WITH COUNCILOR DINGMAN TO MY RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY? DO YOU HAVE. IF YOU WERE TO SAY WHAT NUMBER? NUMBER ONE, ISSUE NUMBER ONE THOUGHT WAS COMING OUT OF THIS AND WHAT YOUR PREFERRED LIKE, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE, HERE'S, HERE'S MY NUMBER ONE FRUSTRATION OU. I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, PROBABLY WE PREFER UNDERLYING ZONE HEIGHT BE MAINTAINED THAT PUBLIC PARK STREET PARKING BE REASONABLY NEARBY WITH SOME SPECIFICATIONS OF WHAT THAT MEANS. A DEFINED MINIMUM INTERNAL SETBACK, MINIMUM LOT SIZE. EVEN THOUGH I DON'T HAVE A GOOD SUGGESTION ON THAT RIGHT NOW. AND THEN, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO. I SEE THAT THERE'S SOME DRAFT LANGUAGE ALREADY REGARDING THE 26 FOOT. I WANT TO SEE ACCESS, AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED. OKAY. ON YOUR ON YOUR QUESTION, THE ONLY ONE THAT I WASN'T SURE OF IS THE INTERIOR SETBACKS. SO WE HAVE WE COULD SET AN EXTERIOR SETBACK. IT SAYS, NOW WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE? IT'S SO ARBITRARY. IT'S BASED ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING. SO WE'RE SETTING PRECEDENTS. IF WE IF WE DO IT. BUT WE CAN'T CHANGE IT IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN SET. BUT WE COULD, THROUGH CODE, SAY THAT THEIR PERIMETER SETBACK IS ACCORDING TO THE UNDERLYING ZONING. YES. RIGHT. YEAH. AND IS THAT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT MAYBE IT'S NOT A TOP THREE ISSUE FOR ME, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT PERHAPS COULD BE LOOKED AT. SO OVERALL, YOU'RE STILL I HAVEN'T BEEN CONVINCED YET BY KEEPING THE UNDERLYING ZONE. IT SHOWS A FAIRNESS TO THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE SAYING, WHAT'S THIS VACANT LOT NEXT TO ME? WELL, IT'S OUR TWO. OKAY, SO IF WE LIVE WITH THAT SAME STANDARD, THAT SAME SETBACK FOR THE SETBACK, BECAUSE I'VE HAD COMPLAINTS FROM PEOPLE ABOUT THEY COME OUT THEIR BACKYARD AND THEIR THREE STORY APARTMENT RIGHT HERE. THEY'RE LOOKING RIGHT DOWN. IT CREATES, I THINK, MAYBE SOME CONSISTENCY. AND I THINK THAT, YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT PODS ARE USED AS A TOOL TO HELP PROVIDE SOME DEVELOPMENT OPTIONS FOR PARCELS THAT CAN'T NECESSARILY MEET REASONABLY WHAT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN IN THE ZONES. WITH THAT BEING SAID, THAT I DON'T KNOW IF I LOVE THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE. SO IN THAT THE THE STANDARDS ARE SO INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORING AREAS THAT HAVING SOME MATCH THE UNDERLYING ZONE, I THINK MIGHT HELP REMEDY SOME OF THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER FRIEDMAN WELL, IT STARTED FOR ME WITH FIRE ACCESS, PARTICULARLY THE ONE WE APPROVED. THAT'S BY SHOP, WELL BEHIND STARBUCKS ON GENERALLY DRIVE. RIGHT. AND WE WE APPROVED. THAT WAS THAT WAS ONE OF MY FIRST EXPERIENCES WITH IT, I GUESS. AND, AND WE APPROVED THAT. AND THEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW. RIGHT. AND SO WHEN IT FINALLY GETS BUILT AND I GO DRIVING THROUGH THERE AND I'M LIKE, I CAN'T IMAGINE TRYING TO DRIVE THE LADDER TRUCK THROUGH THIS, THROUGH THIS THING. AND THEN WE STARTED HAVING THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT STREET WIDTHS ABOUT. AND ALL IT TAKES IS ONE CAR TO BLOCK THINGS UP. SO I MEAN, THAT TO ME THAT, THAT WE'RE ALLOWING THESE PRIVATE STREETS. AND I KNOW THAT WE'VE WE'VE WIDENED, WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF ADDRESSED 
          [02:25:01]
IT A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S STILL NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO I MEAN, I THINK GOING, IF WE GO MAKE THEM MAKE THAT THE STREET WIDTH OF A REGULAR CITY STREET, WE DON'T LET THEM HAVE PRIVATE STREETS. 
          I THINK THE PROBLEM MIGHT SOLVE ITSELF. I THINK THAT WE WILL HAVE LESS REQUESTS FOR THESE. I THINK THAT COMPROMISING DESIGN STANDARDS AND SETBACKS AND LANDSCAPING IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN COMPROMISING ACCESS TO SAFETY APPARATUS. YES. I DON'T SEE HOW WE'RE EVEN COMPROMISING AT ALL. RIGHT? YES. RIGHT. WE SHOULDN'T BE COMPROMISING. SO. WELL, THE THE POINT THAT THEY'RE MAKING IS THAT THESE ARE NO PARKING ON STREETS. THE QUESTION IS, ARE THEY REALLY PARKING? AND IT ONLY TAKES ONE CAR TO COMPLETELY SCREW IT UP. AND THEN WE HAVE WINTER. RIGHT. 
          AND THEY HAVE WE HAVE SNOW AND WE HAVE NARROWING OF THE STREETS ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THAT. 
          SO YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK IF I HAD ONE MAGIC PILL, IT WOULD BE TO MAKE THEM NOT HAVE PRIVATE STREETS, GO TO THE, GO TO OUR FOR THE EMERGENCY ACCESS. YES. AND ALL ABOUT EMERGENCY ACCESS. 
          AND I MEAN, WELL, THE CODE TALKS A LOT ABOUT PARKING LOTS. WE DON'T SEE A LOT OF PARKING LOTS. NO. WELL, I GUESS NOT BECAUSE PARKING LOTS ARE THE SOLUTION TO THAT POTENTIALLY. 
          OKAY. WELL, OKAY, I'M JUST TELLING YOU MY I AGREE WITH YOU. MY NUMBER ONE, RIGHT NOW I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT. THE ADA ACCESSIBILITY KIND OF A THING BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE USING DRAIN FIELDS AS LANDSCAPING. AND I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY CAN USE A DRAINAGE FIELD AS, AS LANDSCAPING. YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AS AN AMENITY. 
          YES. WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, THEY'RE COUNTING IT AS A LANDSCAPE, RIGHT? I WOULD THROW OUT DRAINAGE DRAINAGE FIELDS AS, AS BEING ABLE TO COUNT TOWARDS YOUR LANDSCAPING BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY CAN USE THE DRAINAGE FIELD FOR LANDSCAPING, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE IN A WHEELCHAIR AND YOU GOT A RAMP GOING DOWN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GO DOWN. YOU CAN'T USE THAT. I DON'T KNOW, THROW OUT OR CARPET, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T USE YOU CAN'T USE DRAINAGE FIELD AS TO COUNT TOWARDS YOUR LANDSCAPING, ACREAGE OR WHATEVER PERCENTAGE. OKAY, OKAY, RESTATE THE QUESTION AGAIN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR TOP, YOUR TOP 2 OR 3 ISSUES, IF YOU WERE TO DEFINE THEM BASED ON THIS CONVERSATION, TOP 2 OR 3, I GOT TO SAY STREETS AND I'M STILL NOT SURE WHERE I'M AT ON THAT. I'M KIND OF LEANING TOWARD SAYING THEY GOT TO DO DEDICATED CITY STREETS AND JUST SEE WHAT HAPPENS. OKAY. SOME OTHER ONES THAT AREN'T DON'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF STREETS BY ANYTHING IS JUST BASED ON WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TALKED TO ME ABOUT IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR BUFFERS PROTECTING ADJACENT NON PUD NEIGHBORHOODS. AND THE OTHER ONE, I KNOW THIS SOUNDS LIKE SMALL STUFF, ARCHITECTURAL. I KNOW THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO AND I DON'T WANT TO DICTATE. BUT WHEN I SEE APARTMENTS THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT TWO COLORS AND THIS WHOLE THING IS SIDING, VINYL SIDING, AND IT'S BEIGE AND THEY GOT LITTLE TINY BIT OF GRAY UP AT THE TOP. WE CAN DO BETTER THAN THAT. WE CAN HAVE A BETTER LOOKING CITY THAN THAT. 
          AND I JUST LIKE TO SEE A WAY TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF PRIDE. LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION ABOUT BUFFER. I'VE GOT TO GO BACK JUST TO GET SOME CLARITY. THE BUFFER IS INCREASED IN A PUD VERSUS. BUT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF A BUFFER OR BECAUSE AS THEY COME IN AND BUILD IT RIGHT, THEN YOU'RE KIND OF PROBABLY WHAT WHAT'S HERE WORKS. THE PROBLEM YOU'VE GOT IS THAT YOU GET THAT, WHAT IS IT, A 20 FOOT BUFFER OR 25 FOOT? I GET IT, BUT WHEN YOU GET UP ABOUT THREE STORIES, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T HELP A LOT. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A GOOD ANSWER. 
          I'VE JUST HAD A LOT OF FOLKS GET REALLY TIED UP ABOUT MY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THAT'S A STORY AND A HALF. AND I GOT TO LOOK BACK THERE AND THE SUN BLOCKED OUT. I, I DON'T KNOW, THE IDEA OF PUTTING LOWER NEAR THE EDGES AND HIGHER NEAR THE MIDDLE, BUT WE DON'T USUALLY HAVE PROJECTS BIG ENOUGH FOR THAT TO REALLY BE A RELEVANT ISSUE. YEAH. AND I WOULD. YEAH. 
          I MEAN, SO I THINK WE'LL JUST NOTE THAT DOWN BECAUSE IF THEY BUILT BY RIGHT, THEN THEY JUST GET THAT DENSITY ANYWAY. YEAH. OKAY. FROM THIS CONVERSATION, I GUESS WHERE I SIT RIGHT NOW IS I, I DO FEEL LIKE RIGHT NOW WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME PERHAPS REINVENTING THE WHEEL. 
          AND I WOULD LIKE TO LOOK FURTHER INTO WHAT IF, LIKE A MERIDIAN HAS DONE TO ALREADY SOLVE THIS. AND THAT'S NEW INFORMATION TO ME, WHAT COUNCILMAN RAFF PRESENTED. IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO ME TO KNOW, OKAY, WHAT? BECAUSE I DO THINK MERIDIAN HAS GONE THROUGH A LOT 
          [02:30:04]
OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY BE GOING THROUGH IN THE NEAR FUTURE, OR WE'LL GO THROUGH WITH WITH GROWTH. I THINK THEY'VE GROWN FASTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE DONE. BUT IF THEY HAVE COME UP WITH SOME WAYS TO. GRANT SOME DISCRETION, BUT YET MEET THE NEEDS OF OF CODE AND PREDICTABILITY, THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO RECREATE ANYTHING. I'D LIKE TO KNOW MORE IN DEPTH ABOUT WHAT MERIDIAN HAS DONE TO SOLVE THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, AND IF THEY'VE GONE AWAY FROM PUDS AND GONE TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND ZONING, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S. I THINK THEY STILL DO PVDS, DON'T THEY? IT SAYS THEY HAVE A PD ZONE, WHICH IS OKAY. IT'S ESSENTIALLY A PUD, BUT WITH A. YEAH, BUT YOU GRANT THE ZONING, BUT THAT'S STILL THE DISCRETION OF COUNCIL TO GRANT THAT ZONING DESIGNATION. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. SO SOMEONE COULD APPLY FOR IT. AND IF WE DON'T THINK THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE, WE DON'T HAVE TO GRANT THAT ZONING DESIGNATION. THAT'S STILL 100% DISCRETION OF COUNCIL. SO IT'S NOT A BY RIGHT KIND OF THING, BUT YOU'RE ALSO GRANTING IT, BUT YOU'RE GIVING THOSE THOSE PARCELS THAT YOU THINK NEED IT. THAT GIVES YOU THE. THAT'S MY POINT. YEAH, THAT'S MY POINT. YEAH, I LIKE THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER. I JUST WAS I'M YOU GUYS KNOW PRETTY MUCH WHERE I'M AT, BUT I WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE STREETS THAT ARE PUBLIC STREET LEVELS, THAT MERIDIAN, NAMPA, TWIN FALLS, POCATELLO, COEUR D'ALENE, POST FALLS, CALDWELL ALL HAVE PUBLIC STREETS IN THEIR PUDS. ACCORDING TO MY RESEARCH, THE CITIES THAT DON'T ARE JEROME, BLACKFOOT, MOSCOW. BUT THEY DON'T HAVE PUDS AT ALL. THE SKY DIDN'T FALL, AND THEN EAGLE, KUNA AND REXBURG AND AMMON ALLOW PRIVATE STREETS AND PUDS, BUT THEY'RE EXPERIENCING THE LONG TERM HOA MAINTENANCE ISSUES SIMILAR TO IDAHO FALLS. 
          SO I THINK EVERYONE'S SEEING THAT. AND WHAT THEY'RE REALLY DOING IS SAYING, HEY, REQUIRE PUBLIC DEDICATION OF STREETS AND UTILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL PDS. SO NO MORE HOA MAINTAINED STREETS, NO MORE EMERGENCY ACCESS CONFLICTS, CITY CONTROLS, RIGHT OF WAY, PAVEMENT STANDARDS, SPEED LIMITS, SIGNAGE, ENFORCEMENT AND DRAINAGE AND STORM SYSTEMS BECOME PUBLIC FACILITIES, NOT HOA. AND WHOSE CODE ARE YOU READING RIGHT NOW? THAT'S JUST THAT'S JUST THE. THAT'S A THREE PART RATE REFORM THAT THAT OTHER CITIES IN IDAHO HAVE KIND OF TAKEN THESE APPROACHES. AND IT'S BASED ON GARDEN CITY AND MERIDIAN PARKS. AND I CAN SEND SOME OF THIS TO YOU. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. BUT YOU KNOW, MY FEELING, I JUST I THINK WE CREATE MANY CITIES WITHIN CITIES. AND THAT JUST CAME TO MIND. WHAT ABOUT OUR POLICE? ARE THEY PATROLLING IN HOAS. AND I ASSUME THEY CAN STILL ARREST FOR CRIME. BUT ARE THEY PATROLLING FOR SPEED? I ASSUME THEY DON'T. JUST LIKE A PARKING LOT, THEY DON'T ARREST FOR SPEED. NO, I THINK THEY HAVE SPEED LIMITS AND ARE AT THE JURISDICTION OF THE POLICE, AT THE POLICE, AND NOT THEIR OWN PRIVATE SECURITY COMPANIES. YEAH. I WONDER, AND THE SAME WITH TOWING. WE CAN TOW THEM. YES. IF YOU IF SOMEONE IS ON AN ACCESS ROAD, IT'S 26 FOOT PRIVATE STREET. YOU CAN TAKE IT AND TOW. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, I CAN'T GET IT TO ONE. GIVE ME YOUR 2 OR 3. FIRST OF ALL, LISTENING TODAY. AND THIS IS A CHANGE FROM SEVERAL HOURS AGO FOR ME. I WOULD SAY WE'RE NOT DOING ANY MORE PRIVATE STREETS. AND EVEN THOUGH THAT WON'T ELIMINATE PUDS, IT WILL REDUCE THEM IMMEDIATELY AND GIVE US A CHANCE TO THINK ABOUT IT. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK I MIGHT REMEMBER COMING TO HAND, THAT THERE MIGHT BE A WAY TO MOVE EASEMENTS TO ALLEYS OR SOMETHING, SO IT DIDN'T HAVE TO ALL BE SITTING HERE. OR AM I WRONG? WE HAVE DONE SOME DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THEY HAVE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY OUT FRONT OF THE LOTS, BUT THEY'VE DONE ALLEYWAYS BEHIND THEM AS WELL. THE TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DOES THOUGH. YEAH, MAYBE THERE'S CREATIVE WAYS TO WORK WITHIN THIS PUBLIC STREET STANDARD. BUT THAT'S DOWN THE ROAD ANYWAY. THAT'S ONE TWO. I'M NOT RIGHT NOW IN FAVOR OF THE PUD ZONE, BECAUSE WHAT I ENVISION HAPPENING IS WHEN WE ANNEX A PARCEL, MAYBE THE DEVELOPER WILL ALREADY KNOW I WANT TO DO A PUD THERE, BUT USUALLY WE'RE GIVING IT A GENERAL KIND OF EITHER IT'S COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL OR WE GIVE IT AN ASSIGNMENT ONCE THAT'S MADE, AND PARTICULARLY IN A PLACE WHERE IT'S AN INFILL, IF WE COME BACK AND REZONE IT, PUD, THAT IS SO HARD ON THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE. IT'S THE HARDEST THING. 
          I HATE IT WHEN WE TRY TO REZONE WHEN SOMEONE'S LIVED IN A, IN A, IN A ZONE FOR 50 YEARS, THEN WE COME IN AND SAY, AND WE HAVEN'T DONE THIS, THAT I KNOW OF MUCH EXCEPT ON THE BACKYARD. YEAH, YEAH. IT'S JUST WHEN YOU REZONE SOMETHING THAT THAT IS REALLY HARD WHEN THERE'S ALREADY AN 
          [02:35:04]
EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S MY VIEW. IT'S HARD. WELL, YOU'VE GONE FROM A JUDICIAL HEARING WITH AN ANNEXATION. AND I MEAN, WITH ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING, WHICH YOU CAN TALK ABOUT FREELY TO A QUASI JUDICIAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. SO YOU'VE MOVED THAT NOW TO A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING WITH A REZONE. AND WHEN YOU REZONE A RESIDENTIAL ZONE IN SOME WAY, YOU ARE TAKING SOMETHING AWAY FROM THE PEOPLE WHO'VE BEEN THERE FOR 50 YEARS. SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT. I THINK I'D RATHER HAVE A LONG LIST OF ZONING ADJUSTMENTS, BUT ONE SUGGESTION I REALLY MAKE IS I THINK WE COULD ADJUST THE HEARING FORMAT VERY SIGNIFICANTLY. SO COUNCIL TAKES TIME BEFORE WE CLOSE THE HEARING TO HAVE OUR DELIBERATION AMONG THE SIX OF US AND TALK ABOUT CONCERNS WE MIGHT HAVE. THEN THE DEVELOPER CAN COME BACK AND SAY, I CAN I CAN ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE, OR THE DEVELOPER CAN SAY, I'M NOT DOING IT. WE COULD THEN. THE NEIGHBORS, IF THEY'RE THERE, COULD RESPOND TO WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. THEN WE CLOSE THE HEARING AND WE COULD EMPHASIZE MORE. THE MAYOR PUT THIS IN ONE OF YOUR DOCUMENTS, BUT THAT IDEA OF TABLING IT, AND I WOULD THINK TABLING MEANS OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T GET BACK INVOLVED BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THE EX PARTE ENOUGH OF THAT. BUT IT MAY BE IT SAYS TO CDS, GO BACK AND TALK TO THE DEVELOPER BECAUSE COUNCIL IS NOT SATISFIED. AND IF YOU CAN'T MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS THAT THEY DISCUSSED, THEN YOU PROBABLY EXPECT A DENIAL COMING. THAT KIND OF CONVERSATION COULD TAKE PLACE DURING THE TABLING TIME PERIOD. WE'RE ABLE TO SAY, AND I THINK, HONESTLY, COUNCIL, WE OUGHT TO BE A LITTLE BIT STRONGER. SHORT LEASH STILL IS A LEASH THAT WE HAVE DISCRETIONARY POWERS WITH A PUD AND WE NEED WHEN WE'RE NOT REALLY SATISFIED WITH SOMETHING, IT'S A STREETSCAPE DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT TO US BECAUSE EITHER OF LANDSCAPING OR THE WAY THE DRIVEWAY OR THE PARKING IS SET UP, THEN WE HAVE TO SAY YOU EITHER CHANGE THAT OR THIS ISN'T GOING TO FLY, AND WE GIVE THEM BY TABLING IT A CHANCE TO CORRECT IT OR SAY, WELL, WE'RE JUST GOING TO WALK AWAY, WE'RE GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE. MAYBE IF WE'RE A LITTLE STRICTER, WE'LL GET NOT ONLY QUALITY PUDS OR MORE QUALITY, BUT WE'LL GET ONE WHERE WE'RE DOING BETTER, COMMUNICATING WHAT WE'RE THINKING TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE ONE THING THAT I WILL ADD TO THAT COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS, IS. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT PUDS AS THEY'VE MET THE. THEY'VE MET THE STANDARDS. SO WE HAD TO GET A. WE GOT A RECOMMENDATION. NOW, AS WE HAVE TALKED THROUGH SOME OF THIS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES NOT THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD PUD, THEY WILL ADVISE US TO PUT CONDITIONS ON IT. THAT WILL BE THE WAY THAT WE CAN KNOW, LIKE THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS SAYING, HEY, IT HAS MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE THINK YOU SHOULD CONDITION THIS. I WOULD LIKE US TO BE ABLE TO ALSO INDICATE THAT THEY HAVE THEY HAVE SUCH IDEAS FOR CONDITIONS TOO. I WOULD AGREE THAT. I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW NOT JUST WHAT THEIR VOTE IS, BUT WHAT WHAT WERE THEIR THOUGHTS AND CONDITIONS THAT THEY WOULD SUGGEST SO THAT THOSE CONDITIONS COULD BE PUT IN THERE, EITHER BY CDS OR BY PLANNING AND ZONING? YEAH. WELL, YES. AND THAT THOSE. AND IT COULD JUST BE A SUGGESTED IT WOULD BE PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. YES. AND A SUGGESTED CONDITION. YES. RIGHT. HERE'S SOME OF THESE CONDITIONS THAT WE THINK WOULD ENHANCE. YES. 
          FOR THESE REASONS WE THINK YES, THEY'VE MET THE LETTER OF THE LAW, BUT WE THINK THESE CONDITIONS WOULD ENHANCE THE DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELOPER WOULD KNOW THAT IT'S PUBLIC RECORD. YEAH. THEY KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO COUNCIL. AND BY THE TIME IT LOOKS LIKE BY THE TIME IT'S DONE THAT, I LIKE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS ALREADY TRIED TO TELL CDS. IT DOESN'T MATTER. WE'RE GOING ANYWAY TO COUNCIL. FINE. BUT WE NEED TO KNOW FROM OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT. WE DON'T LIKE THIS. AND HERE'S THE CONDITIONS WE'D LIKE TO TO HAVE COUNCIL CONSIDER. I THINK THAT HELPS ME KNOW THAT I'M NOT THE ONE LOOKING AT THIS AND DECIDING WHETHER THESE ARE BETTER STANDARDS. SO THAT GOES BACK TO A LITTLE BIT WHAT JOHN WAS SAYING ABOUT NOT WANTING TO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL. I DON'T KNOW ALL THE LITTLE NUANCES. WE ASK THE PROFESSIONALS, WHAT ARE THE NUANCES YOU THINK OUGHT TO BE IN THIS, THIS PIECE? YEAH. BUT I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO CALL YOU OUT, BUT I'VE HEARD YOU MULTIPLE TIMES SAY I DON'T TAKE A SIDE. I SIMPLY SAY WE'RE ASKING HIM TO TAKE A SIDE. I KNOW, SO IT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE FROM YOU AND YOUR TEAM. WHEN WE'RE SAYING HAVE AN OPINION, NOT JUST DID THEY MEET CODE, MAYBE TO ADDRESS THAT, IF YOU DON'T 
          [02:40:01]
MIND. YEAH. NO, THIS IS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THERE'S THERE'S A CODE OF ETHICS. WE HAVE OUR NEUTRALITY. AND THAT'S WHY IT APPEARS A LOT OF TIMES WE'RE REALLY JUST LISTENING. BUT WE REALIZE IN OUR PRESENTATIONS TOO, WE CAN BE A LITTLE MORE DIRECT IN THE PLANNING CONCEPTS, SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINING THE WHY. AND WE PROBABLY HAVE SOME IMPROVEMENT WE COULD DO, ESPECIALLY FOR ME. I PRESENT TO YOU, BUT JUST EXPLAINING KIND OF TO WHAT THE MAYOR WAS SAYING, THE TRADE OFFS OF THIS WAS THE TRADE OFF, AND THIS IS WHY WE THOUGHT THIS WAS OKAY AND WHY WE THINK IT MEETS THE CODE. WE CAN'T SIT AND SAY. SO JUST TO TELL YOU, WITH OUR CODE OF ETHICS, BECAUSE CARRIE AND I ARE BOTH CERTIFIED PLANNERS, WE CAN'T SAY THIS IS PHENOMENAL. 
          WE LOVE IT LIKE THAT IN A PUBLIC HEARING. WE CAN'T REALLY DO THAT BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO THE PUBLIC SIDE THAT ARE OPPOSED TO IT. RIGHT? HOW ABOUT YOU JUST GIVE ME A WINK WINK? YEAH. TWITCH OR SOMETHING? YEAH. MY ALTERNATIVE TO HIM, BRENDAN, WAS JUST TO HAVE THE MOST SENSE OF, OF. THE STANDARDS OF CRITERIA FOR BOTH IF FOR POSITIVE AND FOR NEGATIVE, SO THAT THEY WOULD BOTH BE READY EACH TIME AND BOTH PRESENTED IN SOME WAYS THAT WAS ANOTHER. AND I REALIZE IT'S I'LL BE OPEN WITH YOU. I DON'T ENVY YOU GUYS IN THE DECISIONS YOU HAVE TO MAKE ON SOME OF THESE LAND USE DECISIONS. THEY ARE DIFFICULT DECISIONS, EVEN FROM A PROFESSIONAL STANDPOINT. AND I REALIZE THAT WE'RE WE'RE RATHER SUBTLE IN THE WAY THAT WE DO THINGS. IT'S JUST SO THAT WE BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WE'RE TALKING TO THE PUBLIC ON HOW TO OPPOSE A. SOME DEVELOPMENT THAT'S COMING. RIGHT. OR HOW TO APPEAL THAT DECISION. YEAH. 
          WELL, AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE TELLING THE DEVELOPER, YOU HAVE AN APPEAL COMING. THESE ARE THE ISSUES THEY'RE BRINGING UP. SO THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO MAINTAIN THAT NEUTRALITY BECAUSE WE RESPECT WHAT YOU GUYS DO HERE. YOU'RE YOU'RE THE LAND USE AUTHORITY IN THIS. WE JUST TRY TO PROVIDE THE BEST ANALYSIS WE CAN AND DO IT SO THAT WE'RE NOT IMPEDING INTO YOUR DEMOCRATIC PROCESS. BECAUSE JUST AS TODAY CLEARLY SHOWED, THERE'S DIFFERENT OPINIONS EVEN ON THE COUNCIL. AND WE WANT TO RESPECT THAT. SO, SO SORRY IF IT'S A LITTLE SUBTLE SOMETIMES, BUT YEAH, WE'RE JUST WE'RE JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE YOU A VERY GOOD ANALYSIS. THIS IS THE PROJECT WE RESPECT TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING. SO CAN YOU SAY TO US THAT THIS IS WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER NEUTRAL. IT MEETS THE TECHNICAL CODE. WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS. YEAH. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE MAYOR WAS TALKING. THAT'S WHERE IT IS A LITTLE SUBTLE. WE WOULD SAY WE WOULD SUGGEST A CONDITIONING OF THIS. SO THE THE LAURA HOMES WAS ONE THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT NOW OF JUST THAT. WE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT RIGHT OF WAY, DEDICATION. WE FELT LIKE THE TRAFFIC GENERATION WAS TOO MUCH AND THEY WEREN'T ACCOUNTING FOR IT. AND WHEN WE BROUGHT IT BACK TO THEM, THERE IS A LOT OF THERE IS A LOT OF DISCUSSION BEFORE IT COMES TO YOU AND A LOT OF FIGHTING IN SOME REGARDS. BUT THAT ONE WE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES WITH. AND WHEN WE PUSHED BACK, THE DEVELOPER, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU JUST WAS INEXPERIENCED. WE JUST SAID WE DON'T SUPPORT IT GOING FORWARD, BUT IT DOES MEET THE CODE. BUT YOU NEED TO DEDICATE AND ACCOMMODATE FOR THAT GROWTH. AND THEY SAID, WE WANT TO TAKE IT UP WITH CITY COUNCIL. SO THAT'S WHY WE WROTE OUT THAT CONDITION. WE CHECKED IT WITH LEGAL AND SAID, THIS IS THE CONDITION THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING. BUT BUT IT WAS JUST SUBTLE ENOUGH. YEAH, YEAH. THAT IT WAS LIKE WE COULDN'T. BUT NOW IF YOU KNOW, OH, THERE'S A CONDITION PLACED ON IT, BUT BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT, WE HAVE AN ISSUE. YEAH. AND WE TRY TO THINK THROUGH THESE THINGS. THERE'S PLANNING PRACTICE AND THEN THERE IS THE CODE. AND AND WE CAN'T GO BEYOND THAT. AND SO THERE IS SOMETIMES WE SEE THINGS. AND ACCORDING TO GOOD PLANNING PRACTICE, THIS ISN'T QUITE WHAT WE WOULD DO, BUT IT MEETS CODE. AND SO THAT YEAH, WE JUST TWEAK THE CODE THEN AND BRING IT TO YOU AND SAY, THIS NEEDS A CODE REVISION TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. SO CAN YOU GIVE ME A RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION ON. YEAH, WE WOULD, WE UNFORTUNATELY WOULD BE NEUTRAL AND WE WOULD SAY CODE. YEAH. AND, AND I'M SORRY, IT SAYS THAT LIKE, WE DON'T EVEN WE TALKED ABOUT REVISING OUR STAFF REPORT, LIKE EVEN SAYING PASS BECAUSE, BECAUSE THAT'S STILL, WE ALWAYS HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT NEUTRALITY BECAUSE WE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PAID TO PROVIDE INFORMATION TO YOU. THAT'S WHAT OUR JOB IS. BUT I THINK THAT'S BEEN PART OF OUR PROBLEM, BECAUSE I CAN'T LOOK AT A PIECE OF PAPER AND SEE THAT THAT'S WHERE THE PARKING ACTUALLY FITS OR THIS IS OR THIS RETENTION POND HAS A SLOPE OF ONE THIRD. WELL, THAT'S NOT EVEN ACCESSIBLE. SO WE'VE GOT TO GET THAT TO AT LEAST ONE 
          [02:45:03]
FIFTH. LIKE THERE'S SOME OF THAT THAT NO, THAT'S A, THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT. WE SHOULD BE DESCRIBING THAT WHY OF LIKE, THIS IS WHY IT SEEMED TO ME CODE TO US. YOU CAN AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH US. THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. BUT YEAH, WE CAN EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. I DON'T I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT. I'M NOT GOING TO PUT ZILCH. 
          COUNCILMEMBER, I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU AGAIN. WE JUST NEED THE OR THERE'S SOME OF THIS. ADJUST THE HEARING, ADJUST THE STAFF REPORT, CHANGE SOME OF THE THINGS. MINIMUM SETBACKS INITIALLY NO. WHAT CONDITIONING MEANS. UNDERSTAND HOW WE TABLE THINGS INSTEAD OF DENY BECAUSE THE DENIAL. THE PROBLEM IS DENIAL IS ON THE SPOT. IT PUTS THE ATTORNEY ON THE SPOT. AND WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE LEGAL REASON STATEMENT. WE CAN DO THAT BETTER BY TABLING AND HAVING THEM GO BACK LISTENING, HAVING LISTENED TO THE CONVERSATION. 
          YEAH. I MEAN, AND THEN ULTIMATELY WE COME DOWN TO THE STREETS, WHICH MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DO, BUT I BUT I'M WONDERING ABOUT A FULL RETENTION MOVING FORWARD. 
          I, I THINK WE CAN MODIFY THE PROCESS VERY QUICKLY AND A FEW ELEMENTS AND THAT THE ORDINANCE NEEDS AN ADJUSTMENT. I'M RELUCTANT TO THROW THE WHOLE THING OUT, BUT I'M NOT RELUCTANT TO THROW OUT PRIVATE STREETS. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER RADFORD, I PROBABLY HAVE A. 
          OKAY. I JUST WOULD PREFER TO FIND A WHOLE DIFFERENT APPROACH. OKAY. HYBRID PROBLEM. SO I REALLY LIKE THE WHERE THE DISCUSSION HAS GONE THE LAST FEW MINUTES. I LOVE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS HAS SAID, AND IF WE CAN DO THAT, I'M VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT FOR THE TIME BEING, BUT I WOULD STILL LIKE TO TAKE SOME TIME TO RESEARCH. WHAT HAS MERIDIAN DONE, AND WOULD THAT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR US THAN SIMPLY JUST TRYING TO TRYING TO KEEP REWORKING THIS WHEEL? YEAH. OKAY. I THINK I'M RIGHT WHERE COUNCILMEMBER LEE IS. I THINK THE PROCESS THAT PRESIDENT OUTLINED HAS MERIT. I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OTHER CITIES. I THINK MERIDIAN IS A GOOD ONE BECAUSE IT HAD GROWTH, TREMENDOUS GROWTH, MUCH MORE THAN WE HAVE. BUT THEY SERVED OUT BELOW US AND PASSED US. SO THEY PROBABLY CAN TEACH US SOME THINGS THAT HAVE VALUE. SO. I HAVEN'T HEARD THE WORD MORATORIUM YET, BUT BUT MY CONCERN IS, IS IF WE DON'T RESCIND IT NOW, THEN WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME COMING IN IN THE TIME IT TAKES US TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE AND GET ON THE AGENDA. YEAH. BUT WITH THIS PROCESS, IF WE PUT A MORATORIUM ON IT FOR UNTIL WE GET THE NEW ORDINANCE, WHAT WOULD YOU SAY WAS THE NEW ORDINANCE JUST GETTING RID OF PRIVATE STREETS? YEAH, THAT'S PART OF IT, YES. 
          ANY UPDATES FOR US TO CONSIDER FOR US? YES, I WOULD. I AND I AGREE WITH, YOU KNOW, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE DOING AND COME BACK TO US. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE NEED SOME WE NEED SOME TIME TO, TO FIGURE IT OUT, RIGHT? WITHOUT THE PRESSURE OF ANOTHER ONE COMING FORWARD. SO THE MORATORIUM DOES THE SAME THING OR RESCIND DOES, BUT IT PUTS MORE DATE CERTAIN ON IT. YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF THE THE REAL EFFECTIVE DIFFERENCE OF THE LEGAL TERM IS AN ESTOPPEL. SO WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS YOU'RE BASICALLY TAKING THE RULES AND PUTTING A PAUSE ON THEM FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. AND YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE THAT TIME PERIOD YOU WOULD HAVE TO SET. 
          SO YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY, WE'RE PUTTING MORATORIUM PUDS FOR ONE YEAR. OKAY, SO IN THAT YEAR, I DIDN'T THINK OF THAT LONG. NOBODY, NOBODY COULD COME AND START A NEW PUD, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. THEY, I GUESS THEY COULD REVIEW IT, COULD REVIEW IT, BUT IT JUST WOULDN'T. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE QUEUE RIGHT NOW. YEAH. WHAT. YES. WE DO HAVE SHOVES IN THE QUEUE. 
          OKAY. NO, BECAUSE I MEAN, BECAUSE I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COULD BE DISCUSSED IS IN THE QUEUE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? RIGHT. WHAT PART OF THE PROCESS ARE THEY IN. IS THERE A LEGAL DEFINITION THAT APPLIES HERE? I MEAN, IS THERE TO LIKE THEY HAVE THEY FILED THE APPLICATION, THEY FILED THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE. WE'RE STILL GOING TO SEE. SO IF WE DID, IF WE DID A MORATORIUM ON EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN FILED WOULD GO AHEAD AND WORK ITS WAY THROUGH, BUT THERE JUST WOULDN'T BE ANY MORE BEING FILED UNTIL WE GET THE NEW ORDINANCE RIGHT. BUT THE DEFINITION OF FILE, WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN SAID A COMPLETED APPLICATION. SO THAT WOULD BE ACCORDING TO OUR INTERNAL POLICY, WHAT THE APPLICATION ON OUR CITY WORKS. YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE LIKE ENGINEERING, ALL THAT STUFF WOULD BE A COMPLETE APPLICATION. THAT'S WHAT BEST TO YOU. THAT'S WHAT'S CALLED A VESTED RIGHT WHEN YOU DO IT. SO WE WE SET A DATE IN NOVEMBER. WELL, HOW WOULD THAT BE ANY DIFFERENT? 
          [02:50:01]
ALL OF A SUDDEN? I KIND OF AM LOST. WE HAVE A RECEPTION THAT WE HAVE ALREADY SAID WE WOULD RESCIND THIS UNTIL SEPTEMBER OR WE DO A MORATORIUM. IT SEEMS LIKE. BUT IN ESSENCE, THE RECEPTION UNTIL. BUT I DIDN'T GET A I DIDN'T GET A, I DIDN'T GET A. VIBE ON THE DIFFERENCE OF THE THE DIFFERENCE OF THE TWO IS ONE'S A PAUSE AND ONE'S A STRIKE. SO THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. TOTALLY. BUT BUT IT HAS THE SAME EFFECT DIFFERENCE. YEAH. 
          OKAY. OKAY. SO ASK YOU A QUESTION. NO. HOW MANY ARE IN THE QUEUE. IS THAT WHAT. SO YEAH. HOW MANY HAVE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS. ON THAT ONE? OKAY. COMPLETED APPLICATIONS ARE IN THE PROCESS. WANT TO SAY 2 OR 3 2 OR 3 HAVE COMPLETED APPLICATIONS. SO NOT IN THE PROCESS BUT THEY'RE COMPLETED. OKAY. SO THEY WOULD IF WE WERE TO SET A MORATORIUM OR WE SAY IT DOESN'T MATTER, THOSE WOULD FINISH EVEN WITH THE RECESSION, THEY WOULD CONTINUE. RECESSION IS STRIKING THE LAW. SO JUST REALIZE IF YOU'RE STRIKING IT, THEN YOU HAVE TO REWRITE IT. 
          WE'RE GOING TO STOP WAS A PAUSE. SO IF A RECESSION WOULD THOSE APPLICANTS ANYONE HAD A COMPLETE APPLICATION, WOULD THEY STILL HAVE TO BE HEARD? IF THEY HAVE COMPLETE APPLICATION, WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM DUE PROCESS. SO THE ONES THAT HAVE COMPLETE. IF IT'S THREE WE'RE SORRY WE DON'T HAVE TO COMPLETE. IT'S A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED TOO, BECAUSE WE HAVE PEDS THAT ARE BEING PHASED IN THAT HAVE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A RULE THAT SAYS, WHAT IS WHAT, WHAT WERE THE RULES THAT THEY WERE FOLLOWING WHEN THEY GOT APPROVED, THAT NOW THEY'RE IN PHASE TWO OR PHASE THREE, AND WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE. YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO THE RECEPTION PROCESS, IF WE RESEND THE CODE, JUST REALIZE WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE STILL IN PHASE. 
          SO WE CAN'T RESEND THE ENTIRE CODE. WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR THE PUDS BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE PHASED DEVELOPMENT. AND HOW WOULD THAT FIT WITH MORATORIUM? THAT WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED BY MORATORIUM? AND IN MY OPINION, I YEAH, IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE MORATORIUM, BUT THE RECEPTION WOULD BE THE STRIKE. FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, IS THERE A DIFFERENT REQUIREMENT? IF WE WERE TO TRY TO IMPOSE A MORATORIUM VERSUS A RECEPTION, BECAUSE I KNOW WHAT THE RECEPTION AND WE'RE GOING TO STRIKE THE CODE NOW. WE HAVE TIME FRAMES AND PUBLIC HEARINGS AND WHATEVER GO TO PNC. IS THAT THE SAME PROCESS FOR IF WE WERE TO PUT A MORATORIUM ON THAT AS FAR AS PROCEDURALLY, AS FAR AS TIME FRAME, I HAVEN'T LOOKED INTO THAT. DO YOU KNOW, I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD BE THE SAME. YEAH. I DIDN'T KNOW WHEN WE DID A MORATORIUM IN WYOMING FOR GAMBLING. WHAT WE DID IS IT JUST PUT A DATE CERTAIN AND YOU JUST PICK IT BACK UP. BUT WHY DID IT HAVE TO GO TO PNC FIRST? NOT THAT I KNOW OF. YOU KNOW, I'M PROBABLY OVER SPEAKING. I WOULD DEFER TO. SO WE OUGHT TO JUST LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S JUST BEING OF INTEREST, I THINK TO COUNSEL IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT IN TIME FRAME IN TERMS OF WHEN WE COULD ENACT A MORATORIUM VERSUS A RECESSION, AND IN WYOMING, YOU COULD JUST PICK IT BACK UP. SO IT WASN'T LIKE GOING THROUGH PNC, BUT WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT STATE. WHY WAS I TOLD SOME COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO IT WAS MORE DIFFICULT OR WORSE, TO DO A MORATORIUM THAN RESCINDING WHAT WAS BEHIND THAT COMMENT? IT'S MORE IT'S MORE IN DEALING WITH AND I. HAD TO THINK THROUGH THAT THAT ONE WOULD I WAS MORE CONCERNED WITH THE TAKING ASPECT OF A MORATORIUM. IF WE HAVE SOMEBODY IN PROCESS. NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, I MAYBE SHOULD DEFER TO ZACK ON THAT OF WHAT THE TAKING WOULD BE. BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY IS IN PROCESS AND WE ENACT A MORATORIUM, DO THEY STILL HAVE A RIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD TO FINISHING UP THEIR APPLICATION, OR IS IT A FULL. BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD AN ESTOPPEL IS FROM THAT DATE, AND THEN IT STOPS EVERYTHING AND YOU JUST PUT IT ON PAUSE. BUT WHEN WE DID THE MORATORIUM BECAUSE OF THE AIRPORT OVERLAYS, WE JUST DID IT. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM WITH FEAR OF TAKINGS, EVEN THOUGH WE SAID NO MORE DEVELOPMENT UNTIL WE WORK THIS OUT. OH, THERE WAS A LOT OF FEAR OF TAKINGS. OH, THERE WAS A FEAR. OH YEAH. THAT WAS A MAJOR. IN FACT, WE DID IT. YEAH. 
          BUT BUT WE IT'S LIKE, THEN YOU HAVE TO BUY ALL OF THIS OR YOU HAVE TO BUY THIS OR HERE'S THE I MEAN, THAT WAS THE WHOLE THE WHOLE JOHNSON. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT IS WHAT CAUSED ALL OF THAT. THAT WAS A LARGE DEAL THAT HAD A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT ON THE CHANGE TO DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS OCCURRING AT THAT TIME. I DON'T THINK WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT. I THINK YOU'D HAVE A SIMILAR SITUATION HERE WITH MORATORIUM, BUT BUT YOU'D HAVE LESS OF THAT IF YOU RESCIND IT OUTRIGHT AND REWRITE THE CODE. I THINK BECAUSE THE RECESSION ALLOWS MORE TIME, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY CAN RESPOND EASIER. WHERE AND I DON'T KNOW, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE MORATORIUM, BUT IF THE COUNCIL WERE ABLE TO JUST ADOPT A MORATORIUM AT THEIR NEXT 
          [02:55:01]
COUNCIL MEETING, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HAS VERY LITTLE TIME RIGHT TO RESPOND TO THAT. YEAH, SO THAT'S THE CHALLENGE. WHEREAS THE RECESSION, I'M AWARE OF 3 OR 4 PUDS THAT DEVELOPERS ARE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW BECAUSE COUNCIL HAS SIGNALED THAT THEY MIGHT RESCIND IT. RIGHT? SO THEY'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO CONTINUE THE WORK THAT THEY'VE ALREADY SPENT MONTHS DOING DONE. WHEREAS THE MORATORIUM WOULD JUST PUT A STOP ON ANY OF THAT RIGHT NOW. AND SO ALL OF THAT EFFORT WOULD BE FOR NOT THAT'S NEITHER, YOU KNOW, PLUS OR MINUS. THAT'S JUST A DECISION THAT GETS MADE. BUT YOU COULD SET THAT DATE IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR THESE PEOPLE TO GET THAT IN DURING THE QUEUE. THEN THE MORATORIUM HITS. WE GIVE OURSELVES ENOUGH TIME TO REVISE THE ORDINANCE AND AND REMOVE THE MORATORIUM. WHAT IS THE BIG BOOGEYMAN, THOUGH, THAT WE ARE TRYING TO STOP? THAT GOES BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER. IF WE ARE WILLING TO WORK THROUGH THESE. EVEN IF WE GET FOUR OF THEM OR FIVE OF THEM, IF IF I KIND OF LIKE TO SEE HOW THE PROCESS WORKS, IF WE DO IT WITH 1 OR 2 AND WE LIKE IT, THEN MAYBE WE'RE GOOD. AND THEN WE START CHANGING LITTLE, LITTLE SETBACKS. AND THEN WE LOOK AT PRIVATE ROADS AND WE LOOK AT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN MERIDIAN. 
          IN THE MEANTIME, WE HAVE SOME REAL DEDICATED. TIME TO LOOK AT THOSE PIECES. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WHAT IT IS NOW THAT WE WOULD. SO SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT DOING MORATORIUM OR A RESCISSION. YEAH. IS THAT BETTER FOR A DEVELOPER IF WE KNOW LIKE I HAVE ABOUT EIGHT CODE CHANGES, CAN WE DO THREE OF THEM. AND THEN WE DO THREE AND THEN WE DO THREE. THAT'S WAY BETTER BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE SEVERAL PUDS THAT COME IN UNDER DIFFERENT STANDARDS. 
          RIGHT? CORRECT, CORRECT. YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT. YOU'RE GOOD WITH THAT. YEAH. THAT WORKS. 
          THAT'S WHAT YOU PREFER TO A MORATORIUM. AND JUST LIKE IF WE DID ALL EIGHT OF THEM AT ONCE. 
          NOT NOT THAT THESE MIGHT ALL PASS. YEAH. THE NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS JUST RELATE TO THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RIGHT LANGUAGE IS AND WHAT COUNCIL'S DESIRE IS FOR THAT. 
          YEAH, IT'S REALLY WHAT COUNCIL WANTS. SO UNDERLYING SETBACKS. YEAH. RIGHT. I MEAN NO PRIVATE ROADS. THAT'S EASY RIGHT? THAT'S JUST A SINGLE STATEMENT. BUT WHAT IS COMPATIBILITY MEAN AND THE HEIGHT THAT MIGHT TAKE MORE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FROM A JUST GENERATING THE LANGUAGE. WHAT'S THE PARTY THEY WANT. I MEAN, I, WELL, IT IS GOING TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. IT HAS BEEN NOTICED AS A RESTRICTION ON ON OCTOBER 6TH. SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT. WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO SAY, YES, MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT RETENTION, WHETHER. NO, I JUST BROUGHT UP THE MORATORIUM. I JUST SAID, YEAH, I MEAN, IT WAS GOOD. IT WAS A GOOD IDEA. YEAH. SEE THAT AGAIN? I JUST BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE I HAD IT. 
          IT NEVER CAME UP. RIGHT. WE NEVER ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT IT. WE JUST TALKED ABOUT RESCINDING IT. BUT IF THEY'RE NOT RESCINDING IT, I MEAN, IF THERE ARE 4 OR 6, THERE'S ANOTHER OPTION. IF THERE'S FOUR SIX IN THE PIPELINE, LIKE ARE WE I JUST, I JUST THINK WE KEEP MOVING THROUGH THIS PROCESS. WE GET SOME BETTER CLARITY BETWEEN US PLANNING DEPARTMENT, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, LEGAL, US AND LEGAL. IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE CAN GET THERE WITHOUT SUCH A DRAMATIC, WELL, WE CAN ADJUST THE WAY THE HEARING AND ADJUST. RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. 
          WITHOUT WITHOUT CREATING THIS EXTRA STEP, THAT'S WHERE I'D LIKE TO BE RIGHT NOW. THE IDEA OF CHOPPING IT OFF JUST, I DON'T KNOW, WE'VE WORKED HARD TO DEVELOP A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE DEVELOPERS. THAT'S ANOTHER POINT. YEAH. THAT HASN'T REALLY COME UP TODAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT DOES THIS DO TO OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH, WITH THE DEVELOPERS ALREADY THAT WE'RE ALREADY STRUGGLING WITH, RIGHT? WE'VE HAD THAT ARE LESS THAN HAPPY WITH, WITH US SOMETIMES, RIGHT? IS THIS DOES THIS DAMAGE THE REPAIR WORK THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS? RIGHT. SO DO WE NEED AN ORDINANCE THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING TO WRITE DEFINITIONS FOR SOME OF THOSE WORDS THAT ARE VAGUE AND MAY USE MORE THAN ONE WAY? ANY CHANGE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES US TO GO THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION. YEAH. SO WE WORKED ON DEFINITIONS, WE WORKED ON SETBACKS, AND WE WORKED ON NO MORE PRIVATE STREETS. INSTEAD OF SENDING THE RESCINDING TO PLANNING AND ZONING, COULD WE SEND THAT? NO WE COULDN'T. 
          [03:00:03]
THERE'S NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR THEM TO DO THAT IN OCTOBER, RIGHT? I MEAN, LUCKILY, THE WAY IT'S BEEN NOTICED BECAUSE THERE WAS A FULL RECENSION OF THE PD, IT INCLUDES EVERY CODE SECTION IN THE ORDINANCE RELATED TO PUDS. SO FROM A NOTICING STANDPOINT, WE'VE NOTIFIED THAT WE'RE AMENDING THESE SECTIONS AND TABLES. SO I THINK IN THAT REGARD YOU'D BE COVERED. I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS IF WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS, STAFF REPORTS GO OUT NEXT WEEK TO GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO I HAVE TO HAVE EVERYTHING DONE BY MONDAY OF NEXT WEEK. SO PACKETS GOING TO GET PUT TOGETHER AND THEY CAN GET SENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO IN IN REGARD TO THIS WHOLE CONVERSATION ON THURSDAY NIGHTS, THEN AGENDA. 
          THERE WILL BE. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY. COUNCIL ALREADY VOTED FOR IT ONCE. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY. IN LIGHT OF THE CONVERSATION FROM OUR WORK SESSION ON WEDNESDAY, WE'LL PUT A MEMO TOGETHER AND JUST SAY, ARE YOU IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE RECEPTION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION? I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION IN THE SAME WAY THAT WE GAVE DIRECTION TWO WEEKS AGO, A MEMO BE ABLE TO SAY THE ALTERNATIVE DIRECTION WOULD BE TO WORK ON PIECEMEAL AMENDMENTS. YES. AND THAT COULD BE PART OF YOUR MOTION AS WELL. 
          BUT THAT THAT'LL GIVE YOU TIME TO THINK ABOUT IT. WE'VE HAD A WORK SESSION NOW AND BEEN ABLE TO REALLY GET AROUND THE TABLE ONE MORE TIME BEFORE THAT DECISION GETS MADE ON THURSDAY. 
          WE ALREADY MADE IT ONCE. THEN IT CAME BACK. YOU KNOW, IS ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY FOR CONVERSATION. AND SO THEN THURSDAY WE WOULD SEE THAT AND THEN THAT WOULD GIVE YOU CLARITY FOR YOUR OCTOBER 6TH MEETING. AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD TABLE LIKE IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED WE WANTED TO MOVE TOWARDS AMENDING RATHER THAN RESCINDING WITH THAT DIRECTION, THE PLANNING COMMISSION COULD JUST POSTPONE THAT HEARING ITEM UNTIL THEIR NEXT MONTH. AND THEN THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE LANGUAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE. THAT'S THE OPTION AS WELL. YOU CAN ALSO LET THE PLANNING COMMISSION MOVE FORWARD AND HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND REGARDING THE RESCINDING IT AND SEE WHAT THAT DISCUSSION LOOKS LIKE. AND YOU KNOW, WHO WANTS TO COMMENT ABOUT THAT? BECAUSE THAT IS SOMETHING ELSE. I MEAN, THAT WE DID NOT DISCUSS. WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION? AND IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION GIVES US A RECOMMENDATION, DO NOT RESCIND OR IF THEY, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY COMES OUT AND PUTS, YOU KNOW, THAT ARGUMENT AT THEIR FEET. 
          NOW THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT ARGUMENT AS WELL. SO WE DO HAVE THERE'S STILL A LOT TO GO IN THIS PROCESS, BUT AT LEAST TO HAVE HAD ANOTHER OPEN CONVERSATION ABOUT IT. I'M GLAD THAT YOU WERE WILLING TO TO DO IT. MAINTENANCE. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, ANY OTHER CALENDAR ITEMS. WE'VE ALREADY HAD LOTS OF GOOD DISCUSSION. IT WILL BE ON THURSDAY NIGHT AS A, AS A AS A VOTE
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.