[0:00] August 25th, 2026.
[0:01] >> Recording in progress.
[0:04] >> All right. Welcome to the Pro Misipal
[0:05] Council work meeting August 25th, 2026
[0:08] at 1:00 p.m. We'll do a roll call of the
[0:11] elected officials.
[0:13] >> Rachel Whipple,
[0:14] >> Becky Bogden,
[0:15] >> Jeff Wlock,
[0:16] >> Katrice Mccay,
[0:17] >> Christensen, Gary Garrett,
[0:20] >> and we have Travis Hoben on Zoom. Is he
[0:22] there yet, Kevin?
[0:24] >> Okay, he'll be joining us later. is
[0:26] proposed that we approve.
[0:29] Although this is a public meeting, only
[0:31] the presenters and those invited by the
[0:32] council may speak or ask questions
[0:34] unless otherwise abided by the chair.
[0:36] Please wait to speak until called on by
[0:40] the council chair. When speaking, please
[0:43] be sure to use a microphone so the
[0:44] record is clear and those attending
[0:46] virtually can hear you. Please also be
[0:48] sure to limit side conversations as they
[0:49] interfere with the audio recording. If
[0:51] you need to have a side conversation,
[0:52] please step out of the work meeting
[0:53] room. And we'd like to recognize that
[0:55] Mayor Marcia Judkins has joined us. It
[0:57] is proposed that we approve the
[0:59] following minutes. August 11th, 2026
[1:02] work meeting. Are there any objections
[1:04] or requested changes?
[1:07] >> Did we get that change?
[1:08] >> We got those changes.
[1:09] >> I'm good. Okay. All right. Seeing no
[1:11] objection, I'll declare the minutes
[1:12] approved by unanimous consent. Our first
[1:15] item of business is an ordinance
[1:16] regarding outdoor lighting standards as
[1:18] presented by Britain Johnson, our
[1:21] council intern.
[1:23] Okay,
[1:27] » we'd like to announce that Travis Hobin
[1:29] is on Zoom.
[1:31] >> Okay, perfect. Uh, good afternoon,
[1:34] council. This is a little bit more of a
[1:35] crowd than the last time I presented a
[1:37] couple weeks ago. So, it's good to see
[1:38] everyone in person. Um, yeah, I'm just
[1:41] here to talk about um some updates to
[1:43] our outdoor lighting code um based off
[1:45] of our discussion a couple weeks ago. So
[1:47] to start, I just wanted to do a brief
[1:49] recap for those who weren't here of our
[1:51] last meeting discussion. These are the
[1:53] three main proposed changes to our
[1:55] outdoor lighting code. The first would
[1:57] require all new and um replaced outdoor
[2:02] lights to meet a color correlated color
[2:04] temperature standard um which would be
[2:06] 3,000 Kelvin or less except for a few
[2:08] exceptions. One of those being sports
[2:10] facilities that allow 5,700 Kelvin on
[2:13] the playing surface. Uh secondly is
[2:15] requiring full shielding for all new
[2:17] outdoor lighting. Um rather than cut off
[2:20] lighting as it was written in our our
[2:23] current code. Uh and that implies that
[2:25] the light is fully recessed in the
[2:27] fixture that all the lights directed
[2:29] downward and that none of it escapes
[2:31] above the 90 degrees 90 degree plane
[2:35] like that. Um, and then lastly is
[2:38] updating our language for off- premises
[2:40] electronic display science to better
[2:42] mirror our on premises electronic
[2:44] display science code in title six of
[2:48] proip code. Any questions on that
[2:50] actually before I unlock them? Okay,
[2:52] cool. Um the reason that your
[2:54] presentation is slightly different than
[2:56] what you saw in your packet is because
[2:58] in the first iteration of the proposed
[3:00] change for um the electronic signs, um
[3:04] nighttime hours were defined as from
[3:05] dawn until dusk, which doesn't really
[3:08] make sense because dawn is sunrise and
[3:11] dusk is sunset. That would be during the
[3:12] daytime. So to clarify that we updated
[3:16] the language to match better what title
[3:18] six says. Um
[3:20] >> so that's one slight change that we
[3:22] made.
[3:23] >> Um
[3:25] >> I don't know.
[3:27] >> What did you
[3:31] » Okay. Um so
[3:35] regarding the discussion from last week
[3:36] meeting, it felt like the council at
[3:37] large wanted some more clarification on
[3:40] residential outdoor lights. what will
[3:42] happen to existing lights and when they
[3:44] would necessitate
[3:46] um
[3:47] compliance with the new standards for
[3:50] color temperature and shielding. And so
[3:52] in the exemption section, we've written
[3:54] this. It says any existing outdoor
[3:56] lighting fixture attached to a structure
[3:59] on a residential property as of today um
[4:03] would be exempt. meaning that if you
[4:05] replace like the light bulb or like a
[4:07] component level piece of your fixture,
[4:11] you wouldn't have to change it to meet
[4:13] the new standards. So, let's say you had
[4:14] like a 5,000 Kelvin light that was super
[4:17] bright white and it and it burnt out. If
[4:20] you can replace it, just the bulb, you
[4:21] could replace it with a 5,000 Kelvin
[4:23] light the way that this is written.
[4:25] However, if the entire fixture needs to
[4:27] be complaced like it says in the second
[4:29] sentence, um then the exemp exemption
[4:32] does not apply. So the entire fixture
[4:34] needs to be replaced then it would need
[4:36] to meet our our standards with the color
[4:38] temperature and shielding. Gotcha.
[4:40] >> Okay. And I'm open to discussion on
[4:42] that. But that was what I came up with.
[4:45] >> Um councelor Bogden had a question about
[4:48] lower color temperature lights um and
[4:51] the cost difference between higher color
[4:53] temperature ones um and wanted some
[4:55] information. So um to explain kind of
[4:59] how LEDs are manufactured, they start
[5:01] with this semiconductor chip and that's
[5:03] like the main cost um in producing an
[5:06] LED. Then after that a phosphor coating
[5:09] is put on top of the light emmitting
[5:11] diode and that's called color tuning is the kind of recipe of or the blend of
[5:17] phosphor that they put on the the chip
[5:19] will determine how warm or how cool the
[5:21] light comes out. And so, um, it requires
[5:24] a tiny bit more phosphor to have a
[5:26] warmer color temperature light, but it's
[5:27] fractions of a cent per unit. So, you
[5:30] don't see any difference in costs both
[5:32] at the retail and the wholesale level.
[5:35] Uh, and the last thing I wanted to
[5:37] address that I probably should have last
[5:38] time, I'm sorry, just to Yeah, go ahead.
[5:41] Sure. If you'd go back one, and that
[5:43] also would mean that there's no
[5:44] significant difference in terms of the
[5:46] actual electricity used.
[5:48] >> Correct. Um there's no difference in
[5:50] electricity used between a lower color
[5:52] temperature and a higher color
[5:53] temperature. Um the output output and
[5:56] color temperature are not equivalent.
[5:58] >> So you could have a really really high
[6:01] output warm light or a really really low
[6:05] output
[6:06] cool light or blue light. Does that
[6:09] answer your question?
[6:11] >> Okay. So um with that in mind um last
[6:13] thing I wanted to talk about was public
[6:15] education. During my research, as I
[6:17] talked to other cities, this was a big
[6:18] point of emphasis in that if some of
[6:20] these proposed changes uh move forward
[6:23] that the public has some kind of
[6:25] resource to answer questions that are
[6:27] frequently asked and um some
[6:30] misconceptions with lighting. I think
[6:31] one thing that this uh example does
[6:33] really well, this is from Weber County,
[6:35] um is the visual examples of what would
[6:38] be compliant and what would not be
[6:40] compliant with the full shielding on the
[6:41] bottom right. Um, I think something like
[6:43] that could be beneficial. And in talking
[6:45] with uh Patricio, our director of power,
[6:48] he said that we he'd be happy to
[6:50] collaborate on creating something like
[6:52] this um to help our residents. So, with
[6:55] that, um, we can amend anything in this
[6:59] these proposed changes. Um, continue
[7:01] this to a future work meeting or, um,
[7:04] let this go to our our night meeting
[7:06] item later today. That's all I have.
[7:08] >> We do number two. Does that mean
[7:11] tonight's meeting is cancelled?
[7:13] [laughter]
[7:14] >> We still have a recognition.
[7:17] >> It's
[7:21] » okay. I have a couple questions.
[7:22] >> Okay, sure.
[7:23] >> Number one, what about like memorials or
[7:25] flag lighting where they're lighting up
[7:28] the flag?
[7:29] >> So, um if you could pull up the
[7:30] ordinance, Kevin.
[7:32] >> Um there is a a cutout for that.
[7:35] >> Okay, great. Um,
[7:36] >> my other question is I've had we got
[7:39] we've heard a lot from citizens and
[7:40] mostly they're excited for this. Like
[7:43] they think it's long overdue and they
[7:46] really hate a lot of the bright jelly
[7:49] type things. So I've had a couple
[7:51] citizens though also email that have the
[7:54] jelly lights and love them and are very
[7:55] concerned about the safety of them. So
[7:58] um and I asked them if their jelly
[8:01] lights cuz there seems to be a huge
[8:03] difference in the brightness
[8:04] >> Yeah. There's a wide variety.
[8:06] >> There's a wide variety, but specifically
[8:08] the jelly light people I talked to said
[8:11] there is no ability to change the
[8:13] brightness. Do you think that's an
[8:15] install feature? Like when they buy it,
[8:17] are they picking their brightness or is
[8:19] one brand just one thing and another
[8:20] brand's another thing? You know what I
[8:22] mean?
[8:22] >> Um, that's something I could look into
[8:24] between now and the night meeting if
[8:25] you'd like and and get some more
[8:27] clarification on that.
[8:28] >> Like, you know, you know the jelly
[8:30] lights. It's like it's like year round
[8:32] holiday lighting that people put around
[8:34] their house.
[8:36] >> Yeah.
[8:37] >> Some of them are like very dim and not
[8:39] very noticeable. Some of them are like
[8:41] >> they look like C9 bulbs, but they can
[8:46] control the colors. They can control I
[8:47] don't know.
[8:48] >> Yeah. Like some flash and they're like
[8:50] flashing on
[8:51] >> the permanent light.
[8:52] >> Yeah, the permanent light. Yeah. Um I
[8:55] thought I had one more question.
[8:58] I think that's it. Becky,
[9:01] I have a lot of concern about it. Um,
[9:06] Halloween is getting to be a bigger and
[9:08] bigger bigger holiday. And our house has
[9:10] a lot of Halloween lights.
[9:12] >> Becky has the best Halloween house in
[9:14] the city.
[9:15] >> That's true.
[9:18] >> And I haven't had any issues with the
[9:20] neighbors. We do shut ours off at 10:00,
[9:23] 10:30. We are considerate. The neighbor
[9:25] across the street, he absolutely loves
[9:27] it. Sends his grandkids over.
[9:29] Becky, we need to work out parking. You
[9:32] your vehicle used to go in my driveway
[9:34] or over here or something because we
[9:35] have lots of people coming, you know,
[9:37] and he's out there on the he's out there
[9:39] on the porch handing out Halloween candy
[9:41] and and ours goes for a month and you
[9:43] can't tell me that we're the only ones
[9:45] that have that. So, I do have a concern.
[9:50] >> I'm the only one in the the city that
[9:51] has. It's not true. We do have some on
[9:55] the west side that have some pretty big
[9:57] Halloween
[9:59] go through and you got your spook alley.
[10:01] There's there's quite a few. Um, and
[10:04] it's getting to be a bigger and bigger holiday. So, I do take issue with
[10:09] and even with the jelly lighting, every
[10:12] holiday is a holiday. Every holiday has
[10:14] lights. You can even go to even the
[10:16] Walmart and you can pick up inflatables
[10:18] and things for the different holidays.
[10:21] So, to me, it would be more of a if you
[10:24] have the bright lights and if you have
[10:26] the
[10:28] Christmas vacation lighthouse and maybe
[10:30] you need to turn it off at like 10
[10:33] 10:30, you know, have a cut off date.
[10:36] >> That's interesting.
[10:37] >> Um, have it open because, you know,
[10:39] there's some people that leave them on
[10:40] all night long.
[10:41] >> Yeah.
[10:42] >> You know, if you're going to go big and
[10:44] bold and go home, then maybe you need to
[10:46] shut it off. But
[10:48] >> at 10:30 at night, which is what we do.
[10:51] In the research I've conducted, most of
[10:53] the cities that have a curfew for lights
[10:55] like that is 10 pm.
[10:56] >> So I've seen
[10:57] >> like our sound ordinance that would make
[10:59] it easy. So
[11:00] >> yeah,
[11:00] >> and um
[11:02] >> I I do have concern for those people
[11:04] that have jelly lights because it is fun
[11:05] to drive through Fourth of July and you
[11:07] see the red, white, and blue flashing.
[11:09] It is fun to see whatever colors that
[11:12] they have going on. The other thing I
[11:14] have concern about is the flood lights
[11:15] for the backyard. Um I have those.
[11:18] Travis Amenity had those. So I you can't
[11:21] tell us we're the only ones that light
[11:22] up the backyard.
[11:23] >> Those would be loud still. And because
[11:25] he mentioned even once it burns out, you
[11:27] could replace the light bulb.
[11:29] >> Even so, I would like to replace that as
[11:32] it dies. I mean, my house is gone on 50
[11:35] years old.
[11:36] >> Just because, you know, kids play in the
[11:38] backyard. But again, I think it needs to
[11:40] have a cut off time because, you know,
[11:42] kids do have they play in the backyard
[11:45] at night. They just do. You do things in
[11:48] the backyard at night.
[11:49] >> That's true. You have swim parties in
[11:51] the backyard at night, trampoline
[11:52] parties in the summer at night. There's
[11:55] a reason why people have that flood
[11:56] lighting that illuminates their
[11:58] backyard.
[12:00] And we are to the point now where when
[12:02] we first moved in, we were just like
[12:05] struck with all the light that comes
[12:06] from the street light, but I've gotten
[12:08] those blackout curtains. So, there are
[12:10] things that do dim it within the house.
[12:14] So, those are just my concerns and I
[12:16] would like to see some of that changed
[12:17] and accommodated for.
[12:19] So, at the very least, Becky, should um
[12:22] it be ch the exception be changed to
[12:24] October instead of November to January
[12:27] if it were changed to October to
[12:29] January?
[12:30] >> I would be immenable for that. Usually
[12:32] our our stuff goes up October 1st
[12:35] >> and it's a big deal. October 1st to the
[12:38] end of October and then it comes down
[12:40] and then we have a big Christmas
[12:42] display. Yeah.
[12:44] And again, I do the same thing. You
[12:46] know, we turn it off at like 10 10:30
[12:48] because we are
[12:51] >> we are the chubby chase house.
[12:52] >> Well, I think I think [laughter] I think
[12:54] you make a really good point that would
[12:57] take care of the jelly light issue too
[12:59] that I mean one thing if you have just
[13:01] cuz one woman emailed saying she has
[13:03] them as like safety because her house
[13:04] didn't have any lights on it. So, she
[13:06] has them as security lights. You know,
[13:08] one in every fourth one is on. It's not
[13:10] that bright or something. But but the
[13:12] ones that are zipping around the colors
[13:14] all you know really bright would be but
[13:17] I think I think a turnoff time would be
[13:18] good and that's something you can easily
[13:20] do on their permanent lighting right
[13:21] because it's all by it's all controlled
[13:23] by like an app I think.
[13:25] >> Yeah they're scheduled is my
[13:26] understanding.
[13:27] >> Yeah.
[13:28] [clears throat]
[13:30] >> Okay. Um I did want to speak to Becky's
[13:32] concern about flood lights. Um, there
[13:34] are flood lights that are fully shielded
[13:36] but still kind of point downward where
[13:38] you can still see all of your yard. So,
[13:42] um, I can show you some specs for those
[13:44] if you'd like.
[13:45] >> Maybe I have them. I don't know. I don't
[13:46] know.
[13:47] >> But they do exist. So, there are flood
[13:49] lights kind of like with the intent of
[13:52] illuminating a backyard that exists that
[13:54] would meet these changes.
[13:56] >> Flood lights is an interesting one
[13:58] because it I totally [clears throat]
[13:59] agree with almost everything you said.
[14:01] It does go both ways though because
[14:03] there are examples of flood lights that
[14:04] are extraordinarily bright and like go
[14:06] into people's windows and are quite
[14:08] obnoxious when people are trying to
[14:10] sleep. So
[14:12] shielding to me seems like a reasonable
[14:14] compromise and then everyone would be
[14:15] grandfathered. But I there's trade-offs
[14:18] for sure. I don't that's this is of the
[14:20] whole things in this ordinance. This is
[14:21] probably one of the things I care less
[14:23] about. So I'm super open to compromise
[14:26] or cutting something else for most
[14:28] people.
[14:29] There's an exemption for sports lights,
[14:31] right?
[14:32] >> Yep.
[14:33] >> And churches and
[14:35] >> churches, temples like buildings,
[14:38] churches.
[14:39] >> Did you scroll down to the exemption?
[14:40] >> While you're up there, Patricio,
[14:42] >> I've had a couple emails about our city,
[14:45] but our city lights, but currently our
[14:47] city lights are dark sky like correct
[14:51] ones have been put in the last couple
[14:53] years.
[14:53] >> That's correct. So the item that we're
[14:56] using at the moment is in compliance to
[14:57] the dark sky which is the 3000k.
[15:00] However, the the one that we inherited
[15:03] or that they haven't gone bad still
[15:06] >> okay they're I mean they're yellow so
[15:10] people still kind of like those
[15:13] >> but they are brighter.
[15:15] >> They they just don't have the focal the
[15:17] focal point going down.
[15:20] >> And what about those new ones we have?
[15:23] Did you say they're changeable? Like
[15:26] they're recommended?
[15:27] >> Yes. Um they are changeable. However, we
[15:30] do not change them because they already
[15:32] in compliance with the dark sky and we
[15:35] don't want to change it because there is
[15:37] also a different standard. There is the
[15:39] dark sky standards and there is also the
[15:41] safety standard and we want to make sure
[15:43] we find the balance between the two. The
[15:45] moment that we reduce the amount of
[15:47] watts, then we might create patterns
[15:49] where there is direct spots and then
[15:51] it's not safe. Okay, awesome. Thank you.
[15:56] >> I have another question for Patricia.
[15:58] Patriceio, what is the current um
[16:00] lifespan of the um the older lights? In
[16:04] other words, in how many years would we
[16:06] expect that all the street lights would
[16:08] be changed out to the new
[16:11] um dark sky complaint fixtures?
[16:13] >> We don't really know.
[16:15] >> Okay.
[16:17] >> Yeah, it's hard to tell.
[16:19] >> Okay.
[16:21] Just
[16:22] >> I think that's and that was one of the
[16:24] as as as we did the research
[16:27] we are about 40%
[16:30] with the new lights we are in which are
[16:33] in compliance you know with the new
[16:35] standard um
[16:38] but as they get done and this has been a
[16:40] period probably 10 years that we have
[16:42] been doing this so we could guess but it
[16:45] would be all like guess work it wouldn't
[16:47] be
[16:48] >> kind of like our pipes.
[16:50] Yeah,
[16:53] [laughter]
[16:55] » I would guess in the next hundred years
[16:57] you're going to be good.
[16:59] [laughter]
[17:01] » Oh, go ahead, Travis.
[17:04] >> I just wanted some clarity. So, if I'm
[17:06] understanding this correctly, then
[17:08] somebody that were to put in jelly
[17:10] lights after we enact this would then
[17:13] not be able to have red, white, and blue
[17:16] on Fourth of July. I I guess I just want
[17:18] to really understand the implications
[17:21] for something like jelly lights.
[17:24] Another thing I wanted to bring up is
[17:26] there are holidays like Ramadan that
[17:28] don't fall between November and January.
[17:30] I think we might be creating potentially
[17:34] something problematic for ourselves if
[17:36] we only accommodate the holidays that
[17:38] fall between November and January. So
[17:41] just some thoughts there. But but yeah,
[17:43] clarity on the on the jelly lights would
[17:45] be useful for me. Thanks.
[17:48] >> Um, based on how I interpret the code
[17:50] and Brian can maybe speak to this. Um,
[17:53] that this is what's currently in our
[17:55] this is anything in black is no proposed
[17:57] change. That's what's currently in our
[17:58] code and jelly lights would not be
[18:01] allowed to be illuminated during but if
[18:03] they weren't during those months as far
[18:04] as I understand.
[18:06] >> Okay.
[18:07] >> So, I'm happy to propose a change
[18:11] >> have one of you make a motion to do so.
[18:13] The alternative approach would be what
[18:16] councelor Bogdan suggestion of just
[18:17] having a sort of a bright light curfew
[18:20] of sorts. That would be another
[18:22] potential.
[18:24] >> Yeah, I can definitely get behind that
[18:26] for any time of year, frankly. Um, so I could be supportive of that. I guess I
[18:31] just I like when I see, you know,
[18:33] they're they're green for a Provo High
[18:34] game or they're blue for a BYU game or,
[18:37] you know, holiday Fourth of July. I I
[18:40] don't have an issue with that
[18:41] personally. I guess maybe if the others
[18:44] do, I can I can appreciate that. But I I
[18:47] personally would want people to be able
[18:49] to have jelly lights throughout the
[18:50] year. Um but maybe there is some sort of
[18:55] I don't know if it's a brightness
[18:56] standard or I I definitely can get
[18:57] behind the timing standard of it.
[18:59] Thanks.
[19:00] >> Isn't there Aren't they also under the
[19:02] eaves where they aren't like they're not
[19:05] shooting up any
[19:06] >> right? Was that considered shielded?
[19:08] >> Um okay.
[19:10] >> Yes. in the fixture, but it's just based
[19:12] on where it's installed.
[19:14] >> Yeah,
[19:15] >> I I believe that that would be
[19:16] considered.
[19:17] >> Okay, that makes sense then. Yeah,
[19:19] you're right. Thanks, Katrice. That
[19:21] makes sense.
[19:22] >> I think the more I like the 10:00
[19:24] though, a lot.
[19:26] >> Yeah, the only thing that might not be
[19:27] in compliance if jelly lights are around
[19:29] year round is the color temperature at
[19:30] that point. If it's a bright green light
[19:32] for St. Patrick's Day or something like
[19:33] that. Um, but the shielding would would
[19:36] be adequate with if it's within. If we
[19:38] do the time, then that would help with
[19:40] all those
[19:41] >> decorations, too.
[19:48] » And you're suggesting then 10:00 10 p.m.
[19:52] >> It just seems like that what we do with
[19:53] the sound, it seems like it'd be good to
[19:54] keep them aligned.
[19:55] >> Yeah. So maybe um exemption number one
[19:59] could read holiday lighting period
[20:03] and then with another sentence all
[20:06] holiday lighting must be turned off at
[20:08] 10 p.m. Something like that
[20:10] >> that doesn't follow that
[20:12] >> outside of the Christmas schedule.
[20:14] >> Well, outside of the dark sky.
[20:17] >> Yes. anything outside of dark sky comp
[20:20] because like you said if you had
[20:23] >> the warm brown orange yellow tone for
[20:27] fall
[20:28] >> if that's compliant that could be on all
[20:30] night long but if it's not if it's not
[20:34] if it's the blue tones the blues and the
[20:37] greens does that get too complicated
[20:39] >> yeah
[20:42] this is my personal opinion but I'd
[20:43] recommend if if that is the route that
[20:46] you want to go that we allow holiday ing
[20:47] during any month of the year just to
[20:49] keep it simple.
[20:50] >> Yeah,
[20:51] >> that's just my opinion as the intern
[20:55] were thinking year round but have that
[20:57] 10:00 mortorium.
[20:58] >> Okay. Um would anyone like to make a
[21:01] motion to do that?
[21:04] >> It didn't look like he was making a
[21:05] motion.
[21:07] So, I'll make a motion that exemption
[21:09] number one read uh holiday lighting uh
[21:13] during any month of the year
[21:16] and that [clears throat]
[21:19] with with the time
[21:20] >> 10:00
[21:21] >> and with the and and then another
[21:23] sentence all holiday item should be
[21:26] turned off by 10 p.m.
[21:28] >> Okay.
[21:28] >> And that this continue on our agenda for
[21:31] tonight.
[21:32] >> Okay.
[21:32] >> With that edit.
[21:33] >> Perfect.
[21:35] >> Yeah. All right. Let's second that.
[21:37] >> Okay, we have a second with Craig. Any
[21:39] discussion on the motion?
[21:41] >> I'm curious if that resolves your
[21:43] concerns, Becky.
[21:46] >> Like I said, my lights are usually up at
[21:47] 10 anyway.
[21:49] I 10 10:30 if I'm
[21:54] respectful.
[21:55] >> Yeah. What were you going to say,
[21:56] Rachel?
[21:57] >> Yeah. So, it's it's interesting because
[21:59] a lot of the holiday lighting may not be
[22:01] in a violation of clear skies thing
[22:04] anyway, but if people are doing flood
[22:06] lights on features in their yard or
[22:08] something like that, that would be. So,
[22:09] it would make sense to put those on a
[22:11] timer. Um,
[22:14] another thing that we're we're not
[22:15] necessarily addressing, but I think is
[22:17] kind of fun is the stadium has
[22:21] extraordinarily bright lights. And I
[22:25] regularly hike the Y at 5:30 in the
[22:28] morning. Most of the year it's dark at
[22:30] that point in time. And there have been
[22:31] times when I'm hiking and suddenly
[22:33] there's a brightness because they have
[22:35] turned on the stadium lights.
[22:37] >> Why?
[22:37] >> I don't know why. They're like, I don't
[22:39] know, maybe a practice or something, but
[22:41] that light from the stadium like hits us
[22:45] up there. And so there is really good
[22:48] reason for these dark sky ordinances,
[22:51] right? Like if we can direct that light
[22:54] down.
[22:54] >> Oh, yeah. They're exempt. But it
[22:56] [laughter]
[22:57] in general it it makes sense because we
[23:00] have so much light pollution ambient
[23:03] light from the lights in our city that I
[23:06] never need a headlight when I hike the Y
[23:09] in full dark.
[23:10] >> There's just that much light.
[23:12] >> And so if we can gradually cut that
[23:15] down, I think it would be really useful.
[23:16] So I'm I'm really happy that we're we're
[23:18] addressing this. Um I have one more
[23:21] question. What about you know security
[23:24] lights that are crazy bright? like if
[23:25] motion detector type lights, what does
[23:27] that fall in?
[23:28] >> Um, I believe that is also mentioned in
[23:30] the code. If you scroll down a bit,
[23:32] Kevin,
[23:38] » um,
[23:39] >> and security lights shielded and still
[23:42] brightly shine on the areas.
[23:44] >> Yeah. So, this is the section on
[23:46] security lighting um
[23:49] that has it's it's not in the exemption
[23:51] section, but it kind of exempts itself
[23:53] from some of the other standards.
[23:55] >> We didn't even change any of that. Just
[23:56] took some stuff out.
[23:57] >> Yes.
[23:58] >> Because the the point isn't that you're
[24:00] dimming that light that's in the area
[24:02] that needs to be seen or filmed. It's
[24:05] that you're stopping light from escaping
[24:07] upwards.
[24:08] >> Yeah.
[24:09] >> And and outwards. So, having that more
[24:11] directed light is really useful. It's a more efficient use of your light.
[24:16] >> Okay. Anyone anything else?
[24:19] >> Right. Thanks, Britain.
[24:20] >> Okay. Awesome. Thank you.
[24:23] >> Oh, we need to vote on the
[24:24] >> Oh, yeah. Sorry.
[24:25] >> All right. Councelor Whipple,
[24:26] >> yes. Councelor Bogdan,
[24:28] >> yes. Councelor Whitlock,
[24:30] >> yes.
[24:30] >> Councelor McKay, yes. Councelor
[24:32] Christensen,
[24:32] >> yes.
[24:33] >> And councelor Garrett,
[24:34] >> yes.
[24:34] >> And councelor Hoben,
[24:36] >> yes.
[24:37] >> All right. So, that passes 70.
[24:40] All right. Next, we have a discussion
[24:41] regarding a request from Taylor Terrace
[24:43] Homeowners Association for city
[24:45] acceptance, infrastructure upgrades, and
[24:47] financial assistance for its private
[24:49] water system. This will be presented by
[24:51] Lane Pierce, our water resources
[24:53] engineer, and Mark Doyle from Taylor
[24:56] Terrace HOA.
[24:59] » We have Lane Pierce first.
[25:01] >> Lane, thank you. Um, so I just have a
[25:04] quick
[25:06] slideshow that I'll go through. The
[25:08] council last time I was here two weeks
[25:09] ago asked a couple questions. So, the
[25:12] two questions, the slides that I'll go
[25:14] through kind of answer the questions.
[25:17] There we go. Um, this is the city code
[25:20] we kind of went over last time. Let's
[25:23] see. Is this the is this the
[25:27] slide show I sent to you?
[25:28] >> This is the slides that were submitted
[25:30] on topics.
[25:31] >> Okay. Then I submitted the wrong ones to
[25:34] be honest with you because what what we
[25:36] had was a bunch of examples because the
[25:39] city asked two questions. They asked for
[25:41] examples of other places that we did
[25:44] this.
[25:44] >> We did see that. Keep going through
[25:47] Kevin. See if it's further down.
[25:50] >> Yeah, it's at the end.
[25:51] >> I think this is last.
[25:54] >> Yeah, this is last time.
[25:55] >> All right. See, go back to on base and
[25:56] find it Kevin.
[25:57] >> Good. Thank you, council. So, it's there
[25:59] somewhere. You saw it.
[26:00] >> We have seen it. Yeah, it's the request
[26:03] part two PDF.
[26:05] >> Yeah.
[26:09] >> But how? There were a bunch of them.
[26:10] >> Yeah, there were a bunch of
[26:11] >> all of them or
[26:12] >> No, there there I would say there's
[26:14] dozens. There's probably We didn't
[26:15] count, but there's probably 30 40ish of
[26:18] unique privately owned streets. And I I
[26:20] have like five or six. And I'll go
[26:22] through them quick. I'm not going to be
[26:23] labor, but it'll just kind of give you a
[26:24] flavor of what's out there of these
[26:26] privately owned kind of Taylor Terrace
[26:28] type slides.
[26:31] But that there are a bunch
[26:36] » is the one.
[26:38] >> But maybe they're the largest included.
[26:41] Maybe those are the largest.
[26:43] >> Um some of one of them I'd say the
[26:45] colony one's one of the larger ones. If
[26:47] you saw that one just off nights where a
[26:49] bunch of BYU students live, you saw that
[26:50] in your packet. And then there's two of
[26:52] them in there. Um the Grand Terrace one.
[26:56] Yeah, this is the slideshow.
[26:58] They they they keep coming to our
[27:00] office. They want us to take over their system, too.
[27:04] >> Okay. Thank you. So, here's the two
[27:05] questions we kind of you asked, "What
[27:07] did Provo City do for Quell Valley?" And
[27:09] then other examples of the private
[27:11] lines. So, what we did for Quell Valley,
[27:13] just a quick history, remember the
[27:15] temple, [clears throat] the church
[27:17] wanted to get rid of the street. They
[27:19] paid us $150,000, $175,000 for it. We
[27:23] needed to buy property here to kind of
[27:25] shore up our station and our make it
[27:28] good square property lines. So we bought
[27:30] property back from the church for
[27:31] $120,000 and then we had the excess of
[27:34] $50,000 and we applied that to Quelley.
[27:38] So we did give Quel Valley $50,000 but
[27:41] part of that is we kind of had cash on
[27:43] hand you could say you know what I mean
[27:45] instead of taking it out of the budget
[27:47] but that's what we did for Quill Valley.
[27:49] >> There's the resolution. Didn't the Quail
[27:51] Valley One also give us access to some
[27:55] fire hydrants that were private?
[27:57] >> Yeah, we did take over their their
[27:59] hydrants also. So, we took over they had
[28:03] to do a bunch of upgrades, right?
[28:05] >> Was considered a huge asset as far as
[28:07] fire prevention and firefighting if
[28:09] something happened in the foothill.
[28:10] >> Yeah, you could say that we did take
[28:13] over their whole system. The fire
[28:14] heights were part of it.
[28:16] Um
[28:18] so then here's the examples of other um
[28:22] privately owned utilities in in streets.
[28:25] So this is this temple right here, the
[28:27] Rock Canyon Temple. This is just called
[28:29] Cambridge Core. I highlight them all
[28:30] yellow kind of work private what's not
[28:32] private. That's just an example. Three
[28:34] fountains. These guys have come in also.
[28:36] They want us to take over their system.
[28:38] This is this is uh University Canyon
[28:41] Road and that's you know the yellow is
[28:44] kind of where the water lines are. This
[28:46] is Grand View Manor. Like I said,
[28:48] they've come in to talk to us and want
[28:50] us to take over their system because
[28:51] they have leaks and problems and such.
[28:53] You know what I mean? Same same ideas.
[28:55] This is the colony 9 east is right over
[28:57] here. U students, you know, they have
[29:00] leaks and just different examples. This
[29:03] is one. This is the old Provo old Provo
[29:05] High School um track. just a couple
[29:08] businesses are on it and then the
[29:10] departments are on this private line.
[29:11] >> That's interesting. Why is that one
[29:13] private? Like that's a weird mix.
[29:14] >> Yeah, I I would say because a lot of
[29:17] these are private streets like that. You
[29:18] know, these aren't citymained streets.
[29:20] So, a lot of times the private lines
[29:22] follow the private streets.
[29:23] >> So, is that whole thing owned by one
[29:25] person then?
[29:26] >> I don't know. This is and correct me if
[29:29] I'm wrong Gordon and Ryan, but this is
[29:30] owned by like businesses and then this
[29:32] is owned by like apartment complex. If
[29:34] we turned on parcels, it is not one big
[29:36] >> Oh, okay. There's not one big
[29:38] >> that's owner.
[29:40] >> This is one I found just over by by
[29:42] Center Street. This is a Center Street
[29:44] exit,
[29:45] you know. And this this one's tricky. It
[29:47] goes across it looks like under the pool
[29:49] and across the yards and stuff.
[29:52] And then this one's behind Lake View
[29:54] Elementary. So part of it is to show
[29:57] that, you know, maybe maybe we're not
[30:00] setting a precedent today because
[30:01] they're so unique. Each one seems to be
[30:02] a little bit unique and a little bit
[30:05] you know different than the the other
[30:07] one. So those are just a few examples
[30:09] and like you said I probably we probably
[30:11] have 30 40 I didn't count how many we
[30:13] have out there. This is what we proposed
[30:15] right talking to the HOA marks here from
[30:18] the HOA the HOA president. We think the
[30:21] best idea is to follow our standard get
[30:22] the water meters in the park strip and
[30:25] then and then they can take their
[30:27] laterals to their homes in the city. We
[30:30] we've been talking I've talked to Gordon
[30:31] and Mark and the city's okay if you the
[30:34] council decides that we should perform
[30:36] the work from in our rideway from the
[30:41] meter from the meter to the cans and
[30:45] then the HOA would
[30:48] take the cost of the can to the house
[30:53] and we did I didn't get it in time cuz
[30:55] we had to do a quick turnaround. I did
[30:58] get a cost estimate and the cost
[30:59] estimate was roughly for the city and we would do it with our team, our
[31:04] crews. We wouldn't pay to do it right.
[31:06] The cost estimate though from the
[31:07] contractor was like 60,000 for us and
[31:10] their portion was like 74 75ish,000.
[31:13] So if you're looking at kind of
[31:15] percentage wise, what is that 6040 or
[31:17] something? 40 for us, 60 for them.
[31:21] >> So would you be doing their work and
[31:23] they pay you back or would they be
[31:24] contract? That would all be them. Yeah,
[31:26] they would contract themselves to do
[31:28] this. Our city crews would come out.
[31:29] They know how to set cans and they would
[31:31] do all the labor. We'd have to buy
[31:33] parts, but we would do all the labor
[31:34] ourselves. Our city crews would do all
[31:36] the labor ourselves.
[31:38] >> And are those things that you would do
[31:39] are they used by anyone else? Are they are they used as the city or
[31:47] through other
[31:48] >> Yeah, like everyone uses them if that
[31:50] like we all have cans and meters. Is
[31:52] that what you're asking, Patrice? All
[31:54] they're parts that we do have, but we
[31:55] still order a lot of them because we
[31:57] have every house should have a other
[31:59] department have a can and a meter in
[32:01] your front yard and so that's the kind
[32:03] is that
[32:03] >> I'm sorry. No, I guess my question is is
[32:05] that totally private infrastructure like
[32:07] no one else uses it but them or is it
[32:09] used in our whole system? Is it part of
[32:11] a bigger system?
[32:12] >> It we own to the can. So we would own
[32:14] the infrastructure we're doing. So
[32:15] >> every meter and so every meter in the
[32:17] city we own and the can. Yeah.
[32:20] >> So it's public.
[32:20] >> Can you guys have heard that?
[32:22] >> Can that round thing if you open your
[32:25] lid there's like it looks it's just an
[32:27] empty and your meter's in there. Looks
[32:29] like a [clears throat] pipe stuck in the
[32:30] ground. A pit. It's like a pit where you
[32:31] can work on things. There's not dirt.
[32:32] >> Has a metal.
[32:34] >> Yeah.
[32:35] >> Okay. So we would do
[32:38] these red circles.
[32:39] >> Yeah. We do to the red circles including
[32:41] the red circles. And we would put in the
[32:43] meters.
[32:44] >> Yes.
[32:44] >> Which is great because then they're
[32:46] done, right? And then they would they
[32:48] would have be responsible here.
[32:50] >> Yep. To the house
[32:51] >> to all the
[32:51] >> So they'd have to fix the sidewalk,
[32:53] right? Because they're going to tear up
[32:54] the sidewalk. They'd have to fix all the asphalt and, you know, they have to
[32:59] connect to the houses, dig up the yard
[33:00] if they have to, wherever it connects,
[33:02] they would have to do all that.
[33:05] >> From the city's perspective,
[33:08] does this help you guys? Is this a
[33:09] benefit to have them set up
[33:11] traditionally as we do them?
[33:12] >> Yeah, it is a benefit to have everything
[33:14] traditional. It's cuz if it break if it
[33:16] happens again, just like in your own
[33:18] personal house, if it breaks here, we
[33:20] guarantee it's them. They have to fix
[33:22] it. No, our code says we own to the can,
[33:25] right? So, it's it's a benefit, Gordon.
[33:28] >> And the other part of that is if there's
[33:30] a leak, we're charging them for the
[33:31] water of that plate because right now we
[33:33] have water going into the system that no
[33:36] one's paying for.
[33:37] >> Yeah. because their meters are up here
[33:39] and the leaks here, right? Are here then
[33:43] >> were we able to get us any estimate on
[33:45] what how much water that is like even
[33:47] order magnitude ballpark?
[33:49] >> We haven't looked at that.
[33:50] >> Yeah, I haven't looked at it to be
[33:52] honest with you.
[33:53] >> Is it like substantial or minuscule?
[33:55] That's just kind of
[33:58] >> Is it like someone's leaving their hose
[33:59] on all day or
[34:00] >> It's We
[34:03] flashes on the toilet. We don't want to
[34:05] lose any water through leaks and we have
[34:07] a ton of leaks all over the city, but in
[34:10] the scope of how much water we produce,
[34:12] how much we sell, it's not a lot, but
[34:15] the issue is not that just we have
[34:17] leaks. It's probably going to create
[34:19] some damage and some problems. We just
[34:21] don't like water not going where we want
[34:24] it to go. So, there's a lot of issues
[34:26] with the water. Is it time
[34:30] these guys dealing hundreds of millions
[34:32] of gallons? So, no.
[34:34] Not when you compare it to that.
[34:38] >> It's awkward for punishment.
[34:40] >> Yeah, that that's all I have. I can stay
[34:42] up here and answer questions, but that's
[34:43] all I have.
[34:44] >> Okay, we have a question from Gary
[34:45] Garrett.
[34:46] >> Yes. Link, you said that um so far two
[34:51] other developments, Grand View Manor and
[34:53] Three Fountains, have approached you
[34:55] about possibly taking over their water
[34:57] system.
[34:57] >> They have approached us. They they
[34:58] approached not me, but my colleague
[35:00] Shane, but yeah. So based on what you've
[35:02] proposed for this terrace, would that be
[35:05] a sustainable approach for these other
[35:07] developments?
[35:08] >> Well,
[35:09] >> in terms of cost and budgeting,
[35:11] >> and Ryan's here, he he knows maybe
[35:14] better, but I'll I'll speak. Ryan,
[35:15] correct me if I'm wrong, but what
[35:19] we don't know, we haven't discussed
[35:20] taking it over too much, but what would
[35:22] probably happen is we might end up
[35:24] taking this main line for Grand View
[35:27] Terrace. I I don't know, Ryan. What's
[35:29] your
[35:30] >> In in this case, the main roadway
[35:33] through this area is platted as a public
[35:36] street.
[35:36] >> Okay.
[35:37] >> So, most likely we'll take over the
[35:39] water line and the sewer line in the
[35:41] public street as a public utility.
[35:43] >> Okay.
[35:44] >> And then they would be responsible for
[35:45] everything behind the meters like we we
[35:48] typically do in in all cases.
[35:50] >> And on three fountains, I don't know.
[35:52] Same idea kind of R. I don't know what
[35:55] we do. I don't think we thought about it
[35:57] much or
[35:59] >> Yeah, we haven't looked into this one
[36:00] quite as much as we had view.
[36:02] >> It's a good question. But
[36:04] >> and [clears throat] then Lane, did I
[36:05] also read that um
[36:09] with the current code, these kinds of
[36:12] private water systems are no longer
[36:14] allowed in developments or are these
[36:17] perpetuating?
[36:19] >> We don't allow. We do. Sometimes they
[36:22] propose something like this and we have
[36:24] to get an agreement a what is it called?
[36:26] Utility agreement private utility
[36:29] agreement
[36:30] >> and then we use that going forward and
[36:34] say hey here's our agreement you agreed
[36:36] to this that if it breaks or something
[36:38] we're not helping you here. So we don't like it but when it comes push
[36:42] comes to and helps someone out to
[36:44] develop we get a private utility
[36:45] agreement.
[36:47] >> Is Buckley Draw proposed to be private?
[36:51] I don't think so. No,
[36:52] >> I don't believe so. So, I I think I
[36:54] think the other thing you see is and I
[36:57] could be wrong, but I haven't seen any
[36:59] of these come through that are private
[37:02] except they're one property owner. So,
[37:04] in other words, we see it for multif
[37:06] family where it's only one owner.
[37:08] >> Sure.
[37:09] >> Like apartments. I I haven't really seen
[37:11] it in the town homes or any of the
[37:13] others. Yeah.
[37:14] >> So, I haven't seen [clears throat]
[37:16] >> more like a flag lot. A home.
[37:17] >> Yeah. Flag lot.
[37:18] >> Yeah. not have lots yet and they have a
[37:20] pretty good system. So, so the kind of
[37:23] things you're seeing here are not
[37:25] getting approved and no one's doing this
[37:27] kind of stuff.
[37:29] >> So, we are not perpetuating this
[37:31] problem. I haven't seen anything that
[37:35] council
[37:37] >> back on the ground view one the others
[37:39] if we take it over they're going to have
[37:41] to be responsible for getting everything
[37:44] up to code before we take it over.
[37:46] Correct. Yeah,
[37:47] >> that's what we propose, right? Just like
[37:49] Quill Valley. I'm looking at Gordon and
[37:51] Ryan, but I believe that's what we would
[37:53] >> propose. Correct, Ryan and Gordon.
[37:55] >> That's what we would that's what we'd
[37:57] like to see. Um I I don't know that
[38:00] we're going to dig up every water man um
[38:03] and and verify. We may do spot checks.
[38:06] We would check the meters, fire
[38:07] hydrants, things like that before we
[38:09] take them home. But we're not going to
[38:11] dig up all the buried infrastructure.
[38:14] >> But that's good precedent we'd like to
[38:15] set, right? to take if we take something
[38:17] over needs to be to our standard.
[38:19] >> Well, I thought that was what was in
[38:20] code, but I was just concerned that the
[38:22] city I mean we have enough of our own
[38:24] pipe that we have to replace that we
[38:27] own. We all know that we we're
[38:29] responsible for that. They're
[38:30] responsible for theirs. So, if we take
[38:32] theirs over, they need to make sure that
[38:34] it's up to par before we take it over.
[38:36] Right.
[38:37] >> That's correct.
[38:38] >> Because we're not taking over any pipe
[38:39] with this one we're looking at. Correct.
[38:41] >> No, we're not. Yeah. We're actually
[38:43] eliminating a problem pipe in the system
[38:46] by by doing what we're recommending,
[38:48] putting the meters out on the
[38:52] >> All right. Do we want to do a motion to
[38:54] move it? Go ahead, Jeff. Um my
[38:57] [clears throat]
[38:58] I guess my one question one of my
[39:00] upshots from the meeting last time was
[39:03] there's 20 to 30
[39:05] similarly situated um situations
[39:10] 30 to 40 and um
[39:14] we've we've seen a couple here which I
[39:15] think is helpful. One of the things that
[39:17] I felt like was one of the primary
[39:19] things that we were interested in was
[39:21] like what are the guiding principles or
[39:23] a framework for how to handle these and
[39:26] I'm kind of missing that still a little
[39:28] bit like it seems like what I'm hearing
[39:29] is sort of one-off basis or maybe there
[39:32] is a guiding principle of like we'll
[39:33] just take it to do the minimum we can to
[39:36] take to connect it to the mainway just
[39:38] like that that sort of articulation I
[39:40] think would be helpful so that we're
[39:42] seeing this as like a broader policy
[39:43] discussion rather than like a one-off
[39:45] you know we have to deal with this
[39:46] situation. And then I just want to flag
[39:48] that like, you know, if there's 30 to 40
[39:50] and $100,000 each, you know, we're
[39:53] talking3 to4 million of kind of like
[39:56] liability on precedents we're setting
[39:58] and so just want to make sure we're
[39:59] comfortable with that.
[40:01] >> Okay.
[40:02] >> So, I don't know. Is there is there any
[40:03] kind of like could you articulate like a
[40:05] guy?
[40:06] >> I can take I can take a shot. I would
[40:08] say like like council person um Bogdan
[40:11] said that you know if it's something
[40:14] like this that they bring it up to our
[40:15] standard like we did with Quail Valley
[40:17] type thing and then um
[40:21] try to do the work that the work that
[40:23] we're doing keep it within our rideways
[40:25] and stuff. I do think there'll still be
[40:28] >> unique situations along the way also I
[40:31] think it'll be difficult to set
[40:33] >> parameters for everything but that's
[40:35] what I'd say the initial parameters
[40:36] would be. And I don't if Gordon or Ryan
[40:38] want to weigh in on anything. Mark the
[40:41] HOA president wants to say something. Is
[40:43] that okay? I'm not in charge.
[40:46] >> I think isn't the ordinance like from
[40:48] the past couple years that Quail Valley
[40:50] operated under, isn't that the framework
[40:53] how these things are considered and and
[40:55] addressed?
[40:56] >> Yeah. Which is bring them up to
[40:58] standard, right?
[40:59] >> Yeah. So
[41:03] » I don't know I don't know if that
[41:05] answers all I would have
[41:07] >> I mean I think the the caveat there is
[41:09] it's bring them up to standard unless
[41:11] you ask the c council to appropriate
[41:12] money which this
[41:15] >> which is what's happening here and
[41:17] you're trying to say what is going to
[41:19] what are the principles that are going
[41:20] to guide the principal in answering that
[41:21] question every time.
[41:22] >> That's exactly what I and I felt like we
[41:24] asked for last time.
[41:25] >> Yeah.
[41:26] >> Um
[41:27] yeah because I again I know you're new
[41:30] to the situation. I don't want to be
[41:31] really tough here, but I'm just thinking
[41:32] like,
[41:35] so I I'm part of an HOA board and you
[41:37] know, we collect our fees and we have a
[41:38] reserve fund and you know, I think we
[41:41] have a pretty good HOA board and like I
[41:43] think we are very cognizant of the
[41:45] various liabilities we take on. But the
[41:47] second order effect here is it's like,
[41:49] hey, you know, you underfund your
[41:50] situation for a long time and then you
[41:52] come to a city for an appropriation. I'm
[41:55] not saying that's what you're doing. I
[41:55] know you're
[41:56] >> Well, it's not actually. Yeah.
[41:58] >> Yeah.
[42:00] We're we're not Yeah, we're not doing
[42:01] what you just described. [snorts]
[42:03] >> Okay.
[42:04] >> So So I do I do think you bring up some
[42:07] good points because there's 30 or 40 of
[42:09] these or maybe even more. Um they're all
[42:13] hitting an age
[42:16] where we're starting to see that they
[42:17] want to be taken over. Um and I think
[42:21] some of them are shocked to find out
[42:22] that they own these systems. And so I'm
[42:26] not saying good or bad or justifying or
[42:28] not justifying, but I do think the
[42:31] council put that ordinance into place
[42:33] about four years ago.
[42:36] We're trying to think about how that
[42:38] applies, not just for the city taking
[42:42] them in, but also what the potential
[42:45] cost would be in doing this. And and
[42:47] it's it's all over the place because
[42:49] we've seen some of these. We have a a a
[42:54] mobile home park that is complete
[42:57] disaster and it would be more than a
[43:00] million dollars to fix just that place
[43:02] and it's continue leaking and we have
[43:05] others that are just
[43:07] that we can continue the path we're
[43:10] doing or we can look for a solution. The
[43:13] path may be the right what we're doing
[43:14] maybe the right thing
[43:16] um if it goes to the meter first then
[43:19] we're probably okay. But those are some
[43:21] of the things that we're I'm not saying
[43:24] good or bad. It's
[43:25] >> not here.
[43:26] >> So So these are so unique and each one
[43:29] of these are so different that we we try
[43:32] to look at a policy. Oh man, we don't
[43:34] want to do that yet. And so we're just
[43:35] waiting to see who comes in next and
[43:37] we'll try to stay reasonable and not
[43:40] break their bank as we deal with these
[43:42] bits. People are going to start
[43:43] demanding to do something. I don't know
[43:45] what the right call is yet. We did this
[43:48] would be number two. I suspect you'll
[43:50] see these
[43:52] every other year popping in
[43:53] >> because because you're in and you're
[43:54] feeling there's like a cohort of time
[43:56] where this was a really common way of
[43:58] doing things.
[43:58] >> Yeah.
[43:59] >> And that cohort is aging to the place
[44:01] where this is going to be a common
[44:02] problem.
[44:03] >> Yeah.
[44:05] >> So you guys will be able to make some
[44:07] really
[44:09] important decisions that will be very
[44:11] clever.
[44:15] » Um I just wanted to clarify. We're just
[44:17] and this came up last time too. We're
[44:19] not suggesting a city should cover a
[44:22] penny of the normal cost that any of us
[44:25] you I think you're on the phone last
[44:26] time mentioned your sewer line like each
[44:28] of us. Yeah. No fun. But um we're just
[44:33] we're saying we the homeowners should
[44:36] bear the cost like any of us would of a
[44:38] water line from your house to the city
[44:40] meter. But because of legacy
[44:43] infrastructure problems from 50 years
[44:45] ago that none of us were agreeing to
[44:47] >> the city well I can't say wants to the
[44:51] city could take the portion of bringing
[44:54] the meters up to code.
[44:57] So I just want to make sure that that's
[44:58] clear. We're not asking the city to
[45:01] cover any costs that any of us normally
[45:02] have to run a repair water line out to
[45:04] the street. So
[45:06] >> thank you.
[45:09] » Okay. Any other discussion? Councelor
[45:12] Whipple.
[45:13] >> Yeah. So, it sounds like for some of
[45:15] these, if the plan would be to take over
[45:18] those private utilities as a public one,
[45:20] it looks like it's going along a roadway
[45:22] and everything, we're not crossing
[45:24] through a big HOA common area as we are
[45:28] in this particular instance. So, just
[45:31] the geography of these different
[45:32] projects means they're situated
[45:34] differently. Um, so I think some sort of
[45:38] a a policy would need to take that into
[45:41] account. Like how easy is it to shift it
[45:44] over to be a public system? How much of
[45:46] this um pipe needs to go through what
[45:50] would still be HOA or common space? Is
[45:53] that help define the the difference here
[45:57] a little more?
[45:59] I still don't know what the answer is.
[46:02] >> Are private, so it's still all private.
[46:04] >> Yeah.
[46:04] I I I mean I how I'm seeing the
[46:06] decision before us today, again, people
[46:08] could see it differently, is not
[46:10] >> should we spend $100,000 in this
[46:12] particular place. It's should we commit
[46:14] to doing $3 million of infrastructure
[46:16] work for the city for everyone?
[46:19] >> And because I think that's really
[46:20] because I don't think we could then we
[46:21] could say yes to one and say no to the
[46:23] next
[46:24] >> and and is that benefit for the city? Is
[46:26] that I think that's the decision.
[46:27] >> Yeah. And they I think they are each
[46:31] individual.
[46:31] >> Yeah. And they've suggested that the
[46:33] only reason people would ask us to take
[46:35] it over is because they are experiencing
[46:37] some sort of failure.
[46:39] >> Yeah. And then I think there's
[46:40] externalities to that failure. I wish we
[46:42] could quantify those a little better,
[46:43] but there clearly are consequences and
[46:45] risks
[46:46] >> Yeah.
[46:46] >> of leaking water underground.
[46:49] >> Yeah.
[46:50] And do we want to help pay to address
[46:54] the failures of their system? And in
[46:57] this one, we've got kind of cost sharing
[46:58] thing. That does make sense more or less
[47:01] in this case. But is that the that what
[47:05] we want to always have to do?
[47:07] >> Yeah. Well, a sinkhole. I mean, if that
[47:10] say it's a sinkhole, we definitely don't
[47:12] want that.
[47:13] >> Exactly. If that's what I was trying to
[47:15] get at because like it's a very obvious
[47:16] decision if there's, you know, that kind
[47:18] of risk,
[47:19] >> right? And the sinkhole occurring on the
[47:21] HOA property is different than a
[47:23] sinkhole occurring on the safe street.
[47:25] >> Yeah. Yeah. And if we take over a
[47:28] ill-maintained system and we have
[47:31] ownership of it and then all of a sudden
[47:32] there's a sinkhole because it's been
[47:34] leaking for years.
[47:36] >> I don't want that liability. I think
[47:38] that liability needs to be where Yeah.
[47:41] within HOA.
[47:42] >> Well, and water moves too. So even if
[47:44] the leak is within the private property,
[47:46] that doesn't necessarily mean that's
[47:47] where the damage is going to occur,
[47:50] which is the fun part of it.
[47:53] All
[47:55] right. Is this going to come up for a
[47:56] vote?
[48:01] » Why?
[48:01] >> Well, I think only if the council makes
[48:03] a motion to move it forward.
[48:07] >> Move it forward to a council meeting.
[48:09] This would have to come to a council
[48:10] meeting or it can be resolved here.
[48:11] >> So, so let me ask you if we're using our
[48:13] forces and it's not allocating funds.
[48:19] » Oh, how exactly.
[48:20] >> I mean, I'm talking to to Brian right
[48:21] now.
[48:23] I'm having a sidebar. [laughter]
[48:25] Not that I don't want to come back next
[48:27] week, next time it should come, but I'm
[48:28] just seeing
[48:31] what if this is staff or if this is
[48:35] generally speaking, the way the code is
[48:37] written is that the if money needs to be
[48:41] appropriated in order for the
[48:45] property to be brought up to
[48:49] uh to code, then they have to come to
[48:52] council for the appropriation. If
[48:53] there's no appropriation needed,
[48:56] then it probably is not at that point a
[48:58] count's decision.
[49:02] » So, so right now, you know, we we got
[49:04] the price, so you kind of get a relative
[49:06] idea of what
[49:09] manpower, [clears throat]
[49:10] labor, and funding could be tribute to
[49:12] it. Um, but we could do this with our
[49:16] own We're right now intending to do this
[49:17] with our own forces. So, I'm not I'm
[49:21] just suggesting maybe we push something
[49:22] off your agenda in two weeks, but I'm
[49:24] not that that was Brian's suggestion.
[49:28] Follow the city attorneys.
[49:30] >> I would second that. Would you third it?
[49:32] >> Okay.
[49:33] >> I mean, I to me there's a difference
[49:34] between, you know, uh using existing
[49:37] capacity that are existing full-time
[49:39] costs versus an additional appropriation
[49:41] through contractor. But I don't want
[49:43] this be done that you're not aware of it
[49:45] because like this is going to come back
[49:47] multiple times and we won't always have
[49:49] the option to use our own forces because
[49:51] the projects will be large.
[49:53] >> And so
[49:55] uh we you know from our standpoint we
[49:57] want to have the well-run seed that
[49:59] doesn't have a lot of leaks whether it's
[50:00] private side or public side or anything
[50:03] that's we take it all pretty personally.
[50:05] So anyway that's so we we probably don't
[50:07] need to come back. We'll probably move
[50:09] forward if everybody's kind of nodding
[50:12] that way. I don't know if it needs to be
[50:13] a vote. I'll let
[50:15] >> Ryan, do we have some kind of a thing
[50:17] that releases releases us of any
[50:20] liability for any damage that was done
[50:24] like if there's a sinkhole that comes up
[50:27] before we took it over?
[50:28] >> Well, I mean, we did that last time with
[50:29] Quail Valley and I would say that we do
[50:31] need to do it again. Now, that part of
[50:34] in addition to the administrative review
[50:38] by public works and development services
[50:40] and everybody else of what it takes,
[50:43] there is an agreement that needs to be
[50:44] signed in order to actually take
[50:47] ownership of the private property. And
[50:49] that agreement is going to include
[50:52] identification and whole harmless
[50:55] provisions.
[50:55] >> But we're not technically taking over
[50:57] anything, right? Not anymore. Yeah.
[51:00] >> Uh,
[51:02] >> we're just we're doing it standard of
[51:04] what we do in everything now. They're
[51:05] keeping it all.
[51:06] >> Yeah, that's true. So, but I think that
[51:09] I think there is still an issue of that
[51:12] Gordon and I probably need to talk about
[51:14] afterwards online. If we are doing work
[51:19] in exchange for something, uh, if we're
[51:22] doing work that we wouldn't just
[51:23] normally schedule and do, I think we
[51:26] need to think through
[51:29] um, how do we document that?
[51:32] So, I don't think that's terribly
[51:34] complicated. I think it's basically
[51:35] >> and it wouldn't involve the spine.
[51:37] >> No, no.
[51:40] I mean, but I think it's a good question
[51:42] to raise here because I think really
[51:43] what it amounts to is Gordon, you and I
[51:45] need to talk before you send out the
[51:47] we'll sit down and talk
[51:48] >> the trench diggers. I guess um my
[51:52] question for you, Brian, is like totally
[51:55] if this is 100% administrative side,
[51:57] doesn't require an appropriation, that's
[51:59] how our system of government works. I
[52:01] don't think we need to do anything. But is it helpful in case there is some
[52:06] costs above and beyond that line like
[52:08] for us to have an item and vote on it?
[52:11] >> Well, I mean I think that as I view it,
[52:14] I think that is up to public works in
[52:17] the sense that if [snorts] they're going
[52:18] to ask you for money, that money is
[52:21] going to come from outside of the budget
[52:22] because they're not supposed to be under the way that chapter is written
[52:27] right now. They're not supposed to be um
[52:31] >> more than 50,000.
[52:33] >> Well, again, the complication here is
[52:35] they're not actually taking ownership of
[52:36] something. They're not supposed to be
[52:38] spending money out of their budget in
[52:40] order to take ownership of something
[52:43] without coming and asking you for that
[52:45] money and you voting on an
[52:47] appropriation. So, I would say it sounds
[52:49] like they have a plan where they don't
[52:51] need to do that. If at any point that
[52:52] changes, they need to schedule a hearing
[52:56] in an evening meeting for the
[52:58] appropriation of whatever money they
[52:59] want.
[53:00] >> Does that answer your question?
[53:01] >> Yeah, it does.
[53:02] >> I would want to see the new term.
[53:03] >> And can't they ask Can't they not
[53:07] shuffle around more than 50,000 or
[53:09] something without
[53:11] >> there? Well, yeah, there's a $50,000
[53:14] limit in the budget
[53:16] uh resolution about how they do uh CIP
[53:20] things. I don't remember now exactly
[53:21] what it says, but that but that is in
[53:23] the budget ordinance about how they make
[53:26] changes to the CIP plan. Uh which again
[53:30] that'd have to come to you if they were
[53:31] going to make changes to the CIP plan.
[53:32] >> All right. So you guys will just take
[53:33] this offline and we'll
[53:36] >> but this has still been useful for us to
[53:38] have a heads up about an issue that's in
[53:40] our city. So not wasted time at all.
[53:43] >> Yeah. And you know, and if the council
[53:45] has any concerns about I guess to lay
[53:47] out your the future, if you have
[53:49] concerns about how this one's being
[53:51] handled, we could always change the
[53:53] ordinance that governs the process.
[53:56] >> Okay. Well, thank you.
[53:59] >> Thanks, Lane.
[54:02] >> All righty. Number three, a discussion
[54:04] regarding the best for amphitheater
[54:05] project development agreement. This
[54:07] presented to us by Tanner Siguchi. Is it you, Brian, do both? Okay, we're
[54:13] gonna hear from Brian Jones attorney.
[54:15] >> Tanner told me he was ready to step in
[54:17] if I needed to run to the restroom, but
[54:19] [laughter]
[54:19] >> in your 90 minutes,
[54:21] >> but I figured I would.
[54:26] » All right. Do you have the slideshow
[54:27] that I sent to Kevin?
[54:35] » Okay. So, I sent Kevin a slideshow a few
[54:37] minutes ago. It's mostly just the
[54:39] agreement split into slides which makes
[54:41] it easier to read than trying to read
[54:43] the PDF of the agreement. Uh so we'll
[54:46] bring that up. So uh
[54:49] >> everybody buckled up
[54:52] ready for 90 minutes of development
[54:54] agreement. Hopefully I'm hoping it'll be
[54:57] faster than that but it's going to
[54:58] depend more on your questions and policy
[55:03] decisions than it is on presentation
[55:05] itself. presentation is fairly easy.
[55:08] Let's see. Let me make sure I know how
[55:10] to Okay, so the intent here, let me let
[55:14] me give a couple introductory remarks
[55:15] before we go forward. And uh we've split
[55:19] the development agreement and the real
[55:21] estate purchase agreement, which I'll
[55:23] often refer to as the Repsy addendum
[55:25] into two separate uh two separate agenda
[55:28] items. We're going to go through the
[55:30] development agreement first, then I
[55:31] think there's a break before we go over
[55:32] the Repzy addendum.
[55:35] There are
[55:37] the intent here is that this is a
[55:40] presentation of of the latest draft and
[55:44] there have been various drafts
[55:45] circulating. One of them was seen at the
[55:46] planning commission meeting and the
[55:48] intent here is to present to you in
[55:50] detail the current draft of what's been
[55:53] proposed for you to approve in the case
[55:56] of the development agreement in uh in
[55:59] line with the reszone. Right? the res
[56:01] there's been an application for a
[56:03] reszone. That application uh proposes
[56:07] the development agreement and you're
[56:09] being asked to propo to follow our
[56:12] normal process of approving the reszone
[56:15] contingent upon execution of the
[56:17] development agreement. It's just that
[56:19] this development agreement is much more
[56:20] detailed and in-depth than you're used
[56:22] to seeing. So, we're going to go through
[56:24] it and make sure that you understand
[56:25] everything about it and that anything
[56:27] you want changed that we get changed
[56:29] before your voting. So that's really the
[56:31] intent. Now having said that,
[56:34] what my hope is that as we go through
[56:36] this and we're going to go through kind
[56:38] of slide by slide, section by section,
[56:40] my hope is that as you want things
[56:42] changed that you make motions about the
[56:45] things that you want changed because
[56:47] it's going to be very difficult to try
[56:48] to take seven persons individual
[56:52] feedback and turn that into a into a
[56:54] draft. So, if there's something in any
[56:56] one of these sections that you think is
[56:58] not the way that you would want it, then
[57:00] what I'm counting on is that you are
[57:02] going to make a motion and we're going
[57:03] to find out if the majority of the
[57:04] council wants it changed the same way
[57:06] that you do. Any questions about that we
[57:10] get started? Okay, let's dig in. So, uh
[57:13] I'm going to start the development
[57:14] agreement. I'm not going to go through
[57:15] every single paragraph. I will later
[57:17] with the repsy. But the first two pages
[57:20] of the development agreement are just
[57:22] some recital about the which property
[57:25] we're talking about. Um, and it's all
[57:27] standard boiler state plate stuff. The
[57:30] substantive part of the agreement that
[57:32] starts on page two. [snorts] Paragraph
[57:34] one just references the recital above.
[57:37] Paragraph two talks about the zoning.
[57:39] Paragraph three is the first one where
[57:40] there's been some questions. Okay, so
[57:43] paragraph 3 is the governing standards.
[57:45] And there's two things I want to point
[57:46] out about this. Most of this falls right
[57:49] in line with our standard template.
[57:51] There's two different well actually
[57:53] there's only one difference. One of the
[57:55] things that we've that has come up in
[57:58] some of the previous discussions is this
[58:00] phrase here. All developer submitts must
[58:02] comply generally with the concept plan.
[58:05] There's been some critique publicly of
[58:07] the of the word generally. I will say
[58:09] this is what our template says. Uh,
[58:12] personally I'm not terribly concerned
[58:14] about it because what the sentence says
[58:15] is submitts must generally comply. Every
[58:19] submitt is still going to get reviewed
[58:21] by our entire process for compliance
[58:23] with the development agreement and
[58:24] compliance with our code and they won't
[58:26] be approved unless they they comply. So
[58:28] this is uh this is the standard sentence
[58:30] out of our our template about the fact
[58:33] that they need to follow the concept
[58:34] plan when they're submitting
[58:36] applications.
[58:37] K, on that note, the concept plan, you
[58:40] mentioned in the email that
[58:43] since the planning commission denied it,
[58:44] there is no concept plan.
[58:46] >> Well, I mentioned that there isn't one
[58:48] that goes back to the planning
[58:50] commission. So, the concept plan, and I
[58:52] was going to get to this in a in another
[58:54] slide, but it's a good point to make
[58:55] right now. The concept plan will be an
[58:58] exhibit to the development agreement.
[59:00] It's currently listed as exhibit B to
[59:02] the development agreement. As some of
[59:04] you have pointed out and as some of the
[59:05] public have pointed out, the current
[59:06] draft does not have the current concept
[59:09] plan in it. I spoke with Brian about
[59:11] this this morning and Vesper is
[59:14] essentially waiting to get all the
[59:15] feedback that they get from this meeting
[59:18] to incorporate into a new site plan that
[59:21] will be the exhibit B that will be that
[59:23] will be in the development agreement
[59:25] that comes to you when it's time to
[59:26] vote.
[59:27] >> So, a planning commission will be
[59:28] approving it, but we would be approving
[59:30] it in our vote of a zone change.
[59:31] >> Correct. And then the next thing that
[59:33] would go back to planning commission
[59:35] assuming that everything proceeds as
[59:37] normal is the project plan would go to planning commission as they
[59:41] were looking for permits and for the the
[59:44] project to proceed forward.
[59:46] >> Okay. So even after whatever we do, a
[59:48] project plan still goes with planning
[59:50] commission and they can make changes and
[59:53] what could
[59:54] >> but the but the project the project plan
[59:56] is just reviewed in accordance with code
[59:58] and now the development
[59:59] >> it's just a
[1:00:00] >> so planning commission's review would be
[1:00:02] does this project plan comply with the
[1:00:04] code and does it comply with the
[1:00:05] development agreement.
[1:00:06] >> Okay.
[1:00:06] >> Exactly.
[1:00:08] >> Um the other
[1:00:10] >> Okay, Beck I'm sorry.
[1:00:13] So, the one thing that I know some of
[1:00:16] the people that I've talked to, they're
[1:00:17] really concerned about the
[1:00:20] parking garage, making sure that it
[1:00:22] blends in and that it's set back the way
[1:00:24] that it is in the current concept plan.
[1:00:26] They don't want it like out right by the
[1:00:28] road.
[1:00:30] How much leeway does Bill have um where
[1:00:33] that's actually located? Can they stick
[1:00:35] it if it's all if the concept plans
[1:00:38] everything's approved and then it comes
[1:00:39] that there's a fault line right through
[1:00:41] that parking garage area. Could they
[1:00:43] move it next to the road or is there
[1:00:44] like 20% around where it goes or
[1:00:48] >> Great question. So the concept plan
[1:00:50] that's going to be approved in the
[1:00:52] development agreement is going to have a
[1:00:53] site plan that's going to show where the
[1:00:55] buildings go. That's going to be binding
[1:00:57] except as modified by this paragraph.
[1:00:59] So, this says non-material variations.
[1:01:04] Uh, it's actually this is it's skipping
[1:01:08] a sentence. Sorry. Um, there's a
[1:01:10] sentence before this that says that's
[1:01:12] not shown on your slide that says
[1:01:13] non-material variations to the concept
[1:01:15] plan may be approved by the city's
[1:01:18] development services director without
[1:01:19] city councilor planning commission
[1:01:20] approval. So, so that's why this
[1:01:23] definition of non-material is so
[1:01:25] important because that's what that's the
[1:01:26] discretion that Bill has to deviate from
[1:01:28] the exhibit.
[1:01:29] >> What is non-material?
[1:01:30] >> And that's what's defined right here.
[1:01:31] Non-material variations include
[1:01:33] alterations to building footprint
[1:01:35] locations and pedestrian walkways,
[1:01:38] adjustments to accommodate engineering
[1:01:40] specific specifications, locations of
[1:01:43] open space and parking, updated
[1:01:45] architectural designs and features of
[1:01:47] similar quality and other such
[1:01:49] modifications. so long as such
[1:01:51] variations do not material change
[1:01:52] permitted uses or the overall design and
[1:01:55] development standards of the project.
[1:01:56] Now, I'm going to before I answer your
[1:01:58] question more, I'm going to go to the
[1:01:59] next slide.
[1:02:00] >> Okay?
[1:02:00] >> Um because this this is what I just read
[1:02:04] to you. This is actually what's in our
[1:02:07] template. Okay? So, this is what this is
[1:02:10] where we usually start from. This is
[1:02:12] what the developer has pro has has
[1:02:14] proposed which is more expansive than
[1:02:16] our normal, right? Because under our
[1:02:18] normal template um the only but the
[1:02:23] developer can or sorry the development
[1:02:25] services director can has discretion
[1:02:28] over exact building locations and exact
[1:02:30] locations of open space and parking. Now
[1:02:33] those are exactly the ones that you were
[1:02:34] just talking about. So that was still
[1:02:36] included in our um in our overall
[1:02:39] template, right? Um but they can't
[1:02:43] choose they can't change density, use
[1:02:45] and intensity. So again, we can narrow
[1:02:48] that down uh as much as we need to as
[1:02:51] and as much as is feasible. I think at
[1:02:54] some at some point, whether it's now or
[1:02:56] later during the Q&A, we'll probably
[1:02:59] hear from the developer about how
[1:03:01] concrete the plan can be at this moment.
[1:03:04] But if what you're specifically worried
[1:03:06] about is the parking garage, one option
[1:03:09] is also to um have a a specific
[1:03:13] provision about the location of the
[1:03:14] parking garage. even if other things are
[1:03:16] still modifiable. That makes sense.
[1:03:22] » Council,
[1:03:23] >> yeah, because I I understand that a full
[1:03:26] geotechnical study has not been done and
[1:03:28] things may need to be shifted within the
[1:03:30] site to accommodate that, but I like
[1:03:32] that in our template,
[1:03:35] Bill has the authority to approve that.
[1:03:38] And in the current thing, it doesn't
[1:03:42] look like Bill's approval is necessary.
[1:03:44] Well, I'm sorry.
[1:03:47] >> It's in the sentence that I read that
[1:03:48] isn't on the slide. It's still it's
[1:03:50] still Bill's decision to make any dev to
[1:03:53] approve any deviations from any
[1:03:55] non-material variations from the
[1:03:57] concept.
[1:03:58] >> It says it may be approved by the city's
[1:04:00] development services director,
[1:04:02] >> right?
[1:04:02] >> Which gets to another one of our little
[1:04:04] >> meaning we've got meaning that if he
[1:04:06] doesn't approve it, it's
[1:04:07] >> he does not prove to approve it
[1:04:08] >> and he's not required.
[1:04:10] >> Okay. when it says since we've taken out
[1:04:13] no they can't change the maximum density
[1:04:15] but we already have that another
[1:04:16] provision that the maximum densities
[1:04:18] right right so why why was that
[1:04:21] important to remove
[1:04:24] » that I don't know I that uh we'd have to
[1:04:27] ask
[1:04:29] the developer
[1:04:31] >> I'm assuming that they don't
[1:04:32] >> let me be clear what is that maximum
[1:04:34] density
[1:04:35] >> well again the reason why this is in the development agreement in the
[1:04:39] first place the reason why that's in our template is because 95% of the
[1:04:44] times that we're doing one of these,
[1:04:46] it's we're talking about a residential
[1:04:48] project where the zone allows 50 units
[1:04:51] per acre and we don't want it to be more
[1:04:53] than 25. And so this that phrase is in
[1:04:56] here to say if the development agreement
[1:04:59] says you can't do more than 25 units per
[1:05:01] acre, the development services director
[1:05:03] cannot change that. That's what it's in
[1:05:05] there for.
[1:05:06] >> So given this project, what would we
[1:05:08] consider maximum density? Uh I don't
[1:05:11] know that there really is a maximum
[1:05:13] density in this project because there's
[1:05:14] no residential units and every spec the parking the hotel uh and the
[1:05:21] amphitheater all have individual caps on
[1:05:24] their size and the commercial space has
[1:05:26] its own individual cap as well.
[1:05:28] >> So let's take the amphitheater. So the
[1:05:29] maximum density according to this is
[1:05:31] 20,000 seats. Correct.
[1:05:34] >> Does that does that mean 20,000
[1:05:36] attendees or 20,000 seats?
[1:05:40] That's a great question and I don't
[1:05:41] >> you could have open up
[1:05:43] >> I asked that last time
[1:05:44] >> several thousand oh you know people with
[1:05:46] grass seeding or whatever.
[1:05:48] >> Okay so to that which is in one of the
[1:05:49] later slides that's been one of the
[1:05:51] questions that's asked and it was in the
[1:05:52] m materials
[1:05:54] >> uh Malia and Tanner prepared questions
[1:05:56] that were sent to to Vesper they sent
[1:05:59] back answers one of the answers to that
[1:06:00] was that they will not allow seed in on
[1:06:03] the grass area and that they're fine to
[1:06:04] put that in the development agreement
[1:06:06] although it's not there yet. The maximum
[1:06:07] density for that would be 20,000
[1:06:09] individuals.
[1:06:10] >> Correct?
[1:06:10] >> Okay.
[1:06:13] Any other questions about this
[1:06:15] particular paragraph?
[1:06:18] And you see why I scheduled 90 minutes
[1:06:20] and see.
[1:06:22] Okay. So, this is uh so section four is
[1:06:26] about the permitted uses. Uh there's
[1:06:29] been a lot of discussion about this, but
[1:06:31] this uh goes through and it says uh that
[1:06:35] uh pursuant to the agreement, they can
[1:06:37] do the indoor outdoor amphitheater venue
[1:06:39] on a year- round basis. That
[1:06:41] notwithstanding whatever else the SC3
[1:06:44] zone says, they can only do the
[1:06:46] following things. the venue, public
[1:06:48] assemblies,
[1:06:50] uh, plaza activities, the hotel of up to
[1:06:54] 75 rooms, ancillary, commercial and
[1:06:56] retail uses, which I'll talk about in
[1:06:58] just a second, underground parking,
[1:07:00] temporary staging. So, the these are the
[1:07:02] only uses permitted on the property,
[1:07:05] uh, with, and you probably have
[1:07:07] questions, but I'll skip ahead. I'll go
[1:07:08] ahead to this before we take the
[1:07:10] questions, which is this definition of
[1:07:12] an slowly used. So let me back up uh
[1:07:16] back back here where it says ancillary
[1:07:19] commercial and retail uses compatible
[1:07:21] with the amphitheater use that's
[1:07:24] modified by this which means it has to
[1:07:26] be incidental subordinate integrated
[1:07:28] with the the the amphitheater the hotel
[1:07:32] guest service food and beverage etc.
[1:07:34] Only permitted if the if the
[1:07:36] amphitheater has been completed and is
[1:07:38] active use so they can't build the other
[1:07:41] stuff.
[1:07:41] >> Okay so that was one of my questions. So
[1:07:43] they the amphitheater has to be built
[1:07:45] and usable before they can use the hotel
[1:07:48] or the commercial space.
[1:07:50] >> Um
[1:07:52] the commercial space, yes. I don't think as currently written that
[1:07:59] this prevents the hotel from being used.
[1:08:03] Um
[1:08:05] because so ancillary uses may be
[1:08:07] constructed concurrently with the
[1:08:09] construction of the venue and the hotel,
[1:08:11] but the uses are only permitted if the
[1:08:13] venue is completed and in use, but but
[1:08:15] the hotel is not one of the ancillary
[1:08:17] uses. So the hotel could operate first
[1:08:20] as currently written.
[1:08:22] Other questions about that?
[1:08:26] Um, and then just, you know, some some
[1:08:28] legal speak to say even that we have to
[1:08:31] record those uses on the property and
[1:08:33] that those are the only uses permitted
[1:08:35] in perpetuity.
[1:08:37] >> Okay. Councelor B,
[1:08:39] >> is this someone that caps the commercial
[1:08:42] that it can only be like 100?
[1:08:44] >> No, that is
[1:08:47] [clears throat]
[1:08:47] okay. So, that's a little bit later.
[1:08:50] >> Okay, then I'll wait for my question
[1:08:51] later. As long as we're getting to it. I
[1:08:53] had put this in to councelor
[1:08:55] Christensen's uh question a few minutes
[1:08:57] ago. This was something that Vesper had
[1:08:59] put in the materials that were
[1:09:00] distributed earlier, which was both that
[1:09:03] they're willing to add to the
[1:09:04] development agreement the ban on the
[1:09:05] grass seating and uh and also to
[1:09:09] specifically specify that a tram is not
[1:09:12] a permitted use. It my view it wouldn't
[1:09:14] be anyway because it's not in the list
[1:09:16] but they but because there were concerns
[1:09:18] raised about it they said we're fine to
[1:09:19] put in explicitly that it's prohibited
[1:09:23] but
[1:09:23] >> could I just mention
[1:09:24] >> yeah Brian
[1:09:25] >> can you stand up to the microphone
[1:09:26] though and
[1:09:27] >> yeah Brian Bis um with Development um I don't I think um you've kind of
[1:09:32] mentioned a few different ideas the idea
[1:09:34] is that 20,000 can't be exceeded and
[1:09:36] that's the commitment that we're making
[1:09:37] here um it's not that we can't seat
[1:09:39] people on the grass so as long as we're
[1:09:41] below the
[1:09:43] Yeah, exactly.
[1:09:45] >> Yeah, it's it's the 20 is the cap and so
[1:09:47] we could still see people on the grass
[1:09:48] if we chose to do that. We haven't made
[1:09:50] that decision yet, but the 20,000 is the
[1:09:52] >> Okay, fair enough.
[1:09:55] All right, so then getting on to Well,
[1:09:58] let's see. We're still not quite to
[1:10:00] Buckley's question yet, but we'll get
[1:10:01] there. Uh
[1:10:05] >> so, oh, I guess my slide skipped over my
[1:10:08] slides skip over section five. Section
[1:10:09] five is the height standards. So, as you
[1:10:12] may recall, uh, structures can't exceed
[1:10:14] three stories or 50 feet, even though
[1:10:16] the SC3 zone allows higher, except for,
[1:10:20] uh, the specific theatrical rigging fly
[1:10:22] loft, which can be up to 125. So, okay.
[1:10:25] So, now we're up to I think Becky's
[1:10:28] question, which is these are the caps.
[1:10:30] So, 20,000 seats. So, we'll clarify this
[1:10:32] that that means 20,000 people, not
[1:10:34] 20,000 seats plus other area. Uh, 75
[1:10:38] rooms for the hotel. And then there's
[1:10:41] this cap of 150,000 square ft on
[1:10:44] aggregate square footage of commercial
[1:10:46] uses that is listed here as total gross
[1:10:50] flurry of merchandise, restaurant, food
[1:10:52] and beverage, guest service, event
[1:10:55] support, administrative operations,
[1:10:57] other project serving building areas. Um
[1:11:00] so so that's what's included at the
[1:11:02] moment. Doesn't include the amphitheater
[1:11:04] or the hotel
[1:11:06] um
[1:11:08] >> or or the parking. Okay.
[1:11:10] >> So that 50,000 square feet is not the
[1:11:12] hotel and that is not the amphitheater
[1:11:15] and that is not parking.
[1:11:17] >> Correct.
[1:11:17] >> So it was brought up that Riverwoods is
[1:11:21] what 180,000 square ft.
[1:11:24] So this is a mall
[1:11:28] with a hotel and a concert venue. Why
[1:11:31] would you need 150,000 square feet?
[1:11:35] Why would you need a little less than a
[1:11:38] riverwoods there?
[1:11:39] >> Like yeah, I would like to really
[1:11:40] specify that it is going to be the only
[1:11:43] retail could be well besides the food
[1:11:45] retail that's old thing. [clears throat]
[1:11:47] But
[1:11:49] the merchandise for the artists
[1:11:50] performing and then sundaries, right?
[1:11:52] Like band-aids or whatever for like a
[1:11:56] convenient thing for like because people
[1:11:57] are going to be kept their biking and
[1:11:59] hiking and doing their stuff at like a
[1:12:00] that'd be great. But
[1:12:02] >> it does like it people are worried it's
[1:12:03] going to be a mall. I keep saying a
[1:12:04] mall. It's not going to be I don't think
[1:12:06] anyone intends it to be a mall, but I
[1:12:08] think we need to make that clearer.
[1:12:09] >> And uh I had a conversation with Brian a
[1:12:12] couple times about this over the LA over
[1:12:14] the since Thursday. And essentially I
[1:12:19] think that I think as I understand it
[1:12:21] and I'll let them speak for themselves
[1:12:22] here in a second but I think the thought
[1:12:25] process was because if you look at this
[1:12:29] even though the even though it says
[1:12:30] commercial uses
[1:12:33] including retail and operations and then
[1:12:35] they list essentially everything that's
[1:12:38] not the hotel the the venue and the uh
[1:12:42] and the parking. So I don't, as I
[1:12:44] understand it, the idea was not to say
[1:12:46] we can build 150,000 ft of commercial.
[1:12:49] It was to say we can build 150,000
[1:12:51] square feet of everything else and then
[1:12:53] their concept plan shows what those
[1:12:56] things are. But there have been a lot of
[1:12:58] concerns expressed about that and I
[1:12:59] think that's something. So I don't know
[1:13:01] if this would be a good time to invite
[1:13:02] them to address that.
[1:13:04] >> Okay. Council Whipple.
[1:13:05] >> Yeah. I partly on the retail facing
[1:13:08] side, you're going to want that spread
[1:13:10] out because if you have a lot of people
[1:13:11] there, they can't all go to one little
[1:13:13] bodega size thing. So, I think that's
[1:13:16] one portion of it. Um, and on sales, I
[1:13:19] want to be able to like buy a Vesper
[1:13:20] t-shirt or something just like you could
[1:13:22] at Sundance, right? That would be part
[1:13:23] of their centuries, I would expect, is
[1:13:25] their own brand thing as well as the
[1:13:27] artist thinks. But what I'm wondering is
[1:13:30] this operations, would this include like
[1:13:33] the area where you've got like the
[1:13:35] loading base where you've got the
[1:13:37] performers and their big trailers coming
[1:13:39] in to unload their equipment and
[1:13:42] everything up like that seems like that
[1:13:43] would be operations and I think that
[1:13:45] would take up a lot of space. So I don't
[1:13:48] expect that all of this aggregate square
[1:13:50] footage ends up being consumerf facing
[1:13:53] or client facing. probably some portion
[1:13:56] of it is back in and they may be able to
[1:13:58] tell her what that percentage would be.
[1:14:00] >> And one of the and one of the
[1:14:02] conversations that I had with them over
[1:14:03] the weekend is that because I know
[1:14:05] there's been a lot of concern about this
[1:14:06] is maybe this definition is so broad it
[1:14:09] needs to be split up into two categories
[1:14:11] itself.
[1:14:11] >> It absolutely does. I mean that tells me
[1:14:13] nothing. Uh people's concern is mall up
[1:14:16] there
[1:14:17] >> and they have every right to be
[1:14:18] concerned. So if it really is part of
[1:14:20] what we talked about at the very
[1:14:22] beginning was some merch that's a Costco
[1:14:25] of merch. Um that doesn't make sense. So
[1:14:27] if that's not what's meant, we got to
[1:14:29] specifically call out x number of feet
[1:14:31] maximum in retail square footage. That would be helpful for me. Okay.
[1:14:36] >> Council Whitlock.
[1:14:37] >> Yeah. Just a related question. I think
[1:14:38] the language in a previous slide that
[1:14:40] you you said we'll talk about this in a
[1:14:41] minute was it was like associated.
[1:14:45] Well, the ancillary uses and so yes, you're right
[1:14:48] that
[1:14:50] >> um again if we go because the the two
[1:14:53] work in conjunction. So the square
[1:14:55] footage limitation is not the only
[1:14:57] limitation. They also have to abide by
[1:14:59] the permitted uses and under that any
[1:15:02] retail that did not meet this definition
[1:15:06] would not be permitted no matter what
[1:15:08] the size was. if they couldn't they
[1:15:10] couldn't build 10 square ft of retail
[1:15:12] that doesn't meet this definition let
[1:15:15] alone 150,000 square ft
[1:15:17] >> which is not to say that it may not
[1:15:19] still be useful to be more to be more
[1:15:21] granular about the that square footage
[1:15:23] >> could you give me um lawyer to layman
[1:15:27] translation of that of the c that c
[1:15:30] >> term of what that that what that defines
[1:15:31] >> of the ancillary uses
[1:15:34] >> so
[1:15:35] um the yeah good question because a lot
[1:15:38] of these are use are uses that we uh do
[1:15:41] use all the time. So essentially if I
[1:15:44] think probably the lay layman's way of defining incidental subordinate
[1:15:49] integrated with is any retail that if
[1:15:53] the venue wasn't there
[1:15:58] wouldn't be there is not permitted. Does
[1:16:01] that does that kind of make does that
[1:16:02] kind of make sense? Like if you if
[1:16:05] you're not building the retail
[1:16:08] because you built the amphitheater, it
[1:16:10] would not be permitted.
[1:16:11] >> Could I give you a couple cases and you
[1:16:13] can interpret it for me?
[1:16:14] >> Yeah.
[1:16:15] >> So, a restaurant at the hotel.
[1:16:17] >> Well, that's not even that's already explicitly um
[1:16:21] >> permitted in a different cause. Okay.
[1:16:23] >> Yeah.
[1:16:23] >> What about a uh a bunch of restaurants
[1:16:26] that are not explicitly associated with
[1:16:28] hotel?
[1:16:29] >> Uh this explicitly allows restaurants.
[1:16:32] So at the moment there's no
[1:16:34] >> but those don't have to be explicitly
[1:16:35] connected to the hotel and how it's
[1:16:37] written.
[1:16:37] >> No.
[1:16:38] >> So you could for example have a
[1:16:41] riverwoods of restaurants and bars up
[1:16:43] there. Is that permitted according to
[1:16:45] this?
[1:16:45] >> You theoretically could have up to
[1:16:48] 150,000 square feet of restaurants and
[1:16:50] bars.
[1:16:50] >> Okay. I just want to make sure I'm
[1:16:52] understanding this correct.
[1:16:53] >> Thank you.
[1:16:55] >> So councelor Whipple.
[1:16:57] >> Yeah. So I'm wondering like guest
[1:16:59] service would that also include
[1:17:00] restrooms? like how many square feet of
[1:17:02] restrooms are you going to have to
[1:17:03] provide if you're going to host 20,000
[1:17:06] people?
[1:17:07] >> That's right. And that is one of the
[1:17:09] when Brian and I have talked about this
[1:17:10] before, the restrooms are included in
[1:17:12] the 150,000 square feet. But again, that
[1:17:14] kind of goes to the at least in my view,
[1:17:16] the idea of that category being so broad
[1:17:19] that it would be better if it was at
[1:17:20] least two categories instead of just
[1:17:22] one.
[1:17:22] >> Yeah. Because it looks like we've got,
[1:17:24] you know, back-end operations included
[1:17:26] in this. We've got absolutely necessary
[1:17:29] guest services that have to be there
[1:17:32] >> for this facility to work
[1:17:35] >> and then you will have retail and these
[1:17:38] more commercial things
[1:17:39] >> that are going to fit in after you've
[1:17:42] hit those mandatory things for the
[1:17:44] project. But we don't know what those
[1:17:46] percentages are.
[1:17:49] >> Actually, they do.
[1:17:50] >> They do. Well, I mean,
[1:17:53] >> it looks like on the slide they do. we
[1:17:55] are are people who are emailing us and
[1:17:57] so that's why we need to talk about this
[1:17:59] and have it clearly out and open.
[1:18:02] >> Uh would it be appropriate to have Brian
[1:18:04] address this slide now that he just put
[1:18:05] up?
[1:18:06] >> Yeah, that'd be great.
[1:18:07] >> Go ahead, Brian.
[1:18:08] >> Okay. Um so, thank you for uh these good
[1:18:11] questions. These are really important
[1:18:12] questions that we want to make sure
[1:18:13] being as explicitly clear as we possibly
[1:18:15] can be. Um and it's exactly what Brian
[1:18:18] said. So, there are caps on everything
[1:18:20] in this project. So the amphitheater has
[1:18:23] a cap, the restroom, uh or sorry, the
[1:18:25] restaurant has a cap. And so we've kind
[1:18:27] of looked at the restaurant cap as
[1:18:28] anything that's associated with the
[1:18:29] restaurant is included in that cap. Um
[1:18:32] so we've got the amphitheater, we've got
[1:18:33] the restaurant, and then we've got
[1:18:34] separately a parking cap. So you can see
[1:18:37] those three caps up at the top. And then
[1:18:39] we said, okay,
[1:18:40] >> what do you mean? Hotel cap.
[1:18:41] >> Yeah, hotel. The rooms, the number of
[1:18:43] rooms, Krice, that's exactly right. So
[1:18:46] >> I'm sorry, I meant hotel. Yeah, the
[1:18:48] restaurant would be included in the
[1:18:49] additional square footage. and we heard
[1:18:51] loud and clicker. It's like we are very
[1:18:53] concerned about this turning into a
[1:18:55] mall. So we specifically said in the
[1:18:57] uses a mall is not a permitted use. So
[1:18:59] that's one way that we said no that's
[1:19:02] not our intent and we're willing to put
[1:19:03] that commitment in writing. And then the
[1:19:05] second way we felt like this was kind of
[1:19:06] a belt and sus suspenders approach. It
[1:19:09] wasn't Greg that we have the approval to
[1:19:10] go do a Costco. It's the idea that we
[1:19:13] wanted to provide some context to say we
[1:19:15] can't just go do whatever we want up
[1:19:16] there. In addition to not being able to
[1:19:18] do them all explicitly, we wanted to
[1:19:20] give some context to say, hey, we right
[1:19:23] now are planning on an additional 111
[1:19:25] square ft of retail space. Admittedly,
[1:19:28] there's a lot of things that we have yet
[1:19:29] to do in terms of design and the back
[1:19:31] house. And there's always things that
[1:19:32] are changing. If you look at recently at
[1:19:35] amphitheaters, one of the big changes
[1:19:37] that's happened recently in the last 5
[1:19:38] years, and you know amphitheaters, and
[1:19:40] you've probably seen this, is the VIP
[1:19:42] use of a of an amphitheater is
[1:19:44] significantly higher than an older
[1:19:46] amphitheater. So, we kind of said, "Hey,
[1:19:48] look, we're going to be building this
[1:19:49] thing in the next 3 years. We want to
[1:19:50] give ourselves some level. We don't want
[1:19:52] to have to come back to the city to have
[1:19:53] this conversation again." And so, here
[1:19:55] we think 150 is a reasonable amount of
[1:19:57] space. And here are the uses that
[1:19:59] they're currently anticipating to get us
[1:20:01] to that 111 footage. So we've got food
[1:20:04] and beverage of 21,000 that would
[1:20:06] include a restaurant. We've got a
[1:20:07] merchandise subto subtotal which again
[1:20:09] like was saying this is not this is not
[1:20:12] a major component of the project but we
[1:20:14] didn't have we kind of bucketed
[1:20:15] everything else at this 150 because we
[1:20:17] didn't have any other way of kind of
[1:20:18] breaking it down. So we said okay
[1:20:20] merchandise we've got performer spaces
[1:20:22] subtotal. This is a number that we could
[1:20:23] see flexing pretty dramatically.
[1:20:25] Operations and support subtotal. I mean,
[1:20:27] that's the size of a pretty big
[1:20:28] [clears throat] retail store, but that's
[1:20:30] just our maintenance. We've got to have
[1:20:31] a place to store, you know, our snow
[1:20:32] scraping equipment and our, you know,
[1:20:34] landscaping and some of those things.
[1:20:35] So, restroom, subtotal, circulation
[1:20:37] support, subtotal, uh, MEP, that's
[1:20:40] mechanical engineering, uh, mechanical,
[1:20:42] electrical, and plumbing infrastructure.
[1:20:44] So, like anything that we had, we just
[1:20:46] jumped it in there. Now, if we didn't do
[1:20:48] this well enough, we're happy to take
[1:20:50] your feedback, but this was our way to
[1:20:52] say this is a belt. the belt being we
[1:20:54] can't do them all and the suspenders
[1:20:56] being here's a breakdown of what the
[1:20:57] square footage was. So we felt like we
[1:20:59] were being very explicit and the
[1:21:01] additional language that provided in
[1:21:03] ancillary commercial we felt like really
[1:21:06] clarified that it has to be directly
[1:21:07] connected. It couldn't be a best buy
[1:21:09] that we decided to put up there that's
[1:21:11] not directly connected to anything we're
[1:21:12] doing at Vesper. So again, if there's a
[1:21:15] better way to do that for the council,
[1:21:17] we are very much open your suggestions,
[1:21:19] but we felt like this was over and
[1:21:20] above.
[1:21:22] >> Great.
[1:21:22] >> So, so what I've proposed a couple
[1:21:23] times, and I don't know, and maybe this
[1:21:25] isn't even enough granularity for the
[1:21:27] council, but having seen this slide
[1:21:28] before, if it were if it were me, I
[1:21:32] would divide the 150,000 into this group
[1:21:35] and this group.
[1:21:36] >> Yes.
[1:21:37] >> And uh and and maybe these numbers all
[1:21:40] go up to total 150 instead. So they've
[1:21:42] got some So they've got some wiggle
[1:21:44] room. I don't think we necessarily need
[1:21:45] to not pin them down to wiggle room, but
[1:21:47] I would I would divide these two into
[1:21:49] their own category and this into a
[1:21:50] separate category. And I think that
[1:21:52] would address most of the issues that
[1:21:54] I've heard so far.
[1:21:55] >> Yeah, I agree.
[1:21:56] >> That's great.
[1:21:57] >> And like is this something so you'd put
[1:22:00] this in the agreement? It's not part of
[1:22:01] the concept plan. It would be part of
[1:22:03] the agreement,
[1:22:03] >> right?
[1:22:04] >> Okay.
[1:22:05] >> Should we make a motion on that or
[1:22:06] >> I would love one.
[1:22:07] >> Okay. [laughter]
[1:22:08] >> Trying to follow your feedback.
[1:22:09] >> We're gonna make a motion. O'Brien just
[1:22:11] said to
[1:22:13] put together into two categories the
[1:22:16] ancillary commercial in categories of
[1:22:19] food and beverage and merchandise as
[1:22:21] well. And then the other category will
[1:22:23] be the performer spaces, operations,
[1:22:24] restrooms, circulation and um MEP
[1:22:29] infrastructure.
[1:22:32] >> I'll second that.
[1:22:33] >> Right. Second by Jeff. Any discussion on
[1:22:36] that piece of it?
[1:22:37] >> Um yeah, I just want to be clear. So the
[1:22:40] numbers that they've put in I think
[1:22:42] represent the floor. And so they've
[1:22:45] defined a floor for each of those
[1:22:46] categories. Right now they haven't
[1:22:48] defined what the ceiling is because the
[1:22:52] general overall ceiling is 150.
[1:22:54] >> Oh, I see. So it's one,
[1:22:56] >> right?
[1:22:56] >> Well, I think they can do it up to 150
[1:22:58] in those two categories.
[1:23:00] >> Yes.
[1:23:01] >> Well, actually, no. Uh that's that's
[1:23:04] what we just got done talking about. If
[1:23:05] they said, "Well, we actually don't need
[1:23:07] that space. You just need
[1:23:08] >> well not 15 not 1550 each but the two combined to go up to 150
[1:23:14] >> some
[1:23:14] >> with with specific cap
[1:23:17] >> again speaking just for myself I'm
[1:23:19] anticipating that this number is not
[1:23:21] going to be 27 it's probably going to be
[1:23:23] 32 or I think all these numbers will go
[1:23:26] up somewhat proportionally to reach 150
[1:23:30] but there will be a number for these two
[1:23:32] and a number for these four is what I'm
[1:23:35] >> yes
[1:23:35] >> contemplating. Yes.
[1:23:38] >> Right. Because that way we wouldn't be
[1:23:40] adding just another
[1:23:43] um 39,000 to food and beverage to get up
[1:23:46] to the 15.
[1:23:47] >> Right. Right. Right.
[1:23:49] >> All right. Should we take a vote on that
[1:23:50] then?
[1:23:52] Okay. Councelor Bogdan.
[1:23:53] >> Yes.
[1:23:54] >> Councelor Whitlock.
[1:23:55] >> Yes.
[1:23:56] >> Councelor McKay. Yes. Councelor
[1:23:57] Christensen.
[1:23:58] >> Yes.
[1:23:59] >> Councelor
[1:24:00] Barrett.
[1:24:01] >> Yes.
[1:24:02] >> I almost called on you. Councelor
[1:24:04] Whipple. Yes. And do we have Travis
[1:24:06] still?
[1:24:07] >> Yes.
[1:24:08] >> Hold.
[1:24:10] >> Was there anything? So that passed 70.
[1:24:12] Was there anything else we decided
[1:24:13] before taking a vote that that you were
[1:24:15] concerned about? I swear one more thing.
[1:24:18] Well, that was uh well, I guess the one
[1:24:22] that comes to mind is I am anticipating,
[1:24:24] even though you didn't make a motion on
[1:24:25] it, I am anticipating that we will
[1:24:28] incorporate what they have already
[1:24:30] offered about the 20,000
[1:24:33] uh seat limit and about the no tram
[1:24:35] thing. Since those were already
[1:24:36] proposals by them,
[1:24:38] >> I'm just assuming that we're going to
[1:24:39] incorporate those even though you didn't
[1:24:41] vote on it.
[1:24:41] >> Yes.
[1:24:42] >> Those are the only things that I've
[1:24:43] heard so far that the council
[1:24:45] affirmatively wants changed. Well, there
[1:24:48] was not the moving to the parking that
[1:24:49] the parking.
[1:24:51] >> Well, okay. Now, that's a good question
[1:24:52] because there wasn't a motion on that.
[1:24:54] So, uh there were some opinions
[1:24:56] expressed. But if Oh, we got to go back
[1:24:58] to my Yeah. Can you go back?
[1:24:59] >> That is one of the big sellers on the
[1:25:01] parking is that hidden rock natural.
[1:25:05] Yeah. Invisible parking. Yeah.
[1:25:09] >> So, there wasn't a motion to change any
[1:25:11] of this. Now, let me actually go forward
[1:25:15] a little bit. I'm going to skip
[1:25:18] Let's see.
[1:25:20] >> Would it be more appropriate to say that
[1:25:22] there's no buildings or structures
[1:25:25] within because that still leaves a
[1:25:27] parking lot, but veget it's got to be
[1:25:31] screened by heavy vegetation and there's
[1:25:33] nothing within like I don't know 40 ft
[1:25:36] of the road or something like that.
[1:25:38] >> Those are all possibilities. Uh you
[1:25:41] know, Bill would have to Bill could
[1:25:42] discuss already what's already in the
[1:25:44] code that would apply to that. The other
[1:25:45] thing that occurs to me is maybe instead
[1:25:47] of changing paragraph three and somebody
[1:25:50] remind me after I get done with this
[1:25:51] that we skipped seven and I got to go
[1:25:53] back to seven. But um there's this
[1:25:56] paragraph in it already which is about
[1:25:57] designing materials and based on
[1:25:59] councelor Bogdan's comments about what
[1:26:01] her concern is. One possibility might be
[1:26:04] to add more language to this paragraph
[1:26:07] about the parking garage about and where
[1:26:10] it specifies something about I don't
[1:26:13] know I'll rely on Bill and probably the
[1:26:15] developers to think about how to
[1:26:16] actually say it but that the parking
[1:26:19] structure has to be enclosed and and
[1:26:22] meet design standards.
[1:26:22] >> Yes. Because that I would consider
[1:26:24] material.
[1:26:25] >> Yeah.
[1:26:25] >> That that issue I think would be
[1:26:27] material to most of us.
[1:26:28] >> Yes, I agree.
[1:26:29] >> Okay. So we good with that or do you
[1:26:31] need a motion? Uh I I actually had just
[1:26:33] a quick question.
[1:26:34] >> Jeff has a question.
[1:26:35] >> I'm not opposed to it, but I just to
[1:26:37] help me understand a little better is
[1:26:38] like so the
[1:26:41] >> the agreement caps the parking. Does it
[1:26:44] have a minimum amount of It has a
[1:26:45] minimum two. Correct.
[1:26:46] >> There's no minimum, but there is a
[1:26:49] minimum required by city code.
[1:26:51] >> Code one out of four. So it's
[1:26:54] >> Say that again.
[1:26:55] >> Anyway, sorry. Keep going.
[1:26:57] >> Yeah. Yeah. There's a minimum that's
[1:26:58] going to be required by city code. We
[1:27:00] don't know what that number is yet
[1:27:02] because we don't have a final plan to
[1:27:05] base that number off of. My recollection
[1:27:07] is that Aaron said last time it was
[1:27:09] around 5,500.
[1:27:11] >> Yes,
[1:27:11] >> more or less.
[1:27:12] >> But we don't know for certain.
[1:27:13] >> That was my understanding. So there's an
[1:27:14] effective minimum. So my question is on
[1:27:16] this motion is like when you look at the
[1:27:18] cap of the 15 acres, the effective
[1:27:21] minimum parking, the site layout, like
[1:27:23] [snorts] is there really any other place
[1:27:25] they could actually put the page? Like I don't know. I'm just wondering like
[1:27:29] >> Bill could probably speak to that better
[1:27:30] than I can.
[1:27:31] >> I mean, they're going to have to put a
[1:27:32] garage somewhere or else they can't meet
[1:27:33] the Rubik's cube of
[1:27:36] >> Yeah. If technical says they can't build
[1:27:39] the garage, then the project is
[1:27:41] >> that's the depth of the project really
[1:27:43] because there's no way to meet
[1:27:44] >> because you can build a parking
[1:27:45] structure on a fall.
[1:27:47] >> The parking structure is not an occupied
[1:27:49] building.
[1:27:51] >> It's more expensive. You're going to
[1:27:52] build on top of a fault, but you can do
[1:27:54] that.
[1:27:54] >> Yeah. Oh man, the insurance for that if
[1:27:56] all of those things collapsed on those
[1:27:58] cars.
[1:27:59] >> The representation that's been made is
[1:28:01] that the attractiveness about putting
[1:28:02] the parking structure where they
[1:28:04] proposed is that material they'll take
[1:28:06] out of there is helpful to build the
[1:28:08] rest of the development. But if you're
[1:28:10] worried about that issue to me, put a
[1:28:12] setback on the parking structure. It
[1:28:14] can't be within 100 ft of the road.
[1:28:16] That's what you're worried about right
[1:28:18] now.
[1:28:19] >> We do not want or 150 foot set back on
[1:28:22] parking structure.
[1:28:23] >> Yeah. And in the current plan, how far
[1:28:26] would that structure be from the road?
[1:28:30] Because what we'd be doing is
[1:28:31] constraining how much closer it could
[1:28:32] get if it's necessary to shift it.
[1:28:34] Right. Because I don't think it's
[1:28:36] planned to be closer to the road than
[1:28:38] that.
[1:28:39] >> Yeah. If it's right there.
[1:28:40] >> Well, conceptually, no. Reality.
[1:28:44] >> Right. No.
[1:28:48] And I don't know that I guess I would
[1:28:50] say this in the interest of because I
[1:28:51] know there's a lot of details and we're
[1:28:52] going to have to work some stuff out,
[1:28:53] but I don't know that we necessarily
[1:28:57] have to determine every number in this
[1:29:00] meeting. But
[1:29:02] >> but for example, with this one, if
[1:29:04] somebody were to be make a motion saying
[1:29:07] in consultation with development
[1:29:09] services, we want there to be in the
[1:29:10] development agreement a setback on the
[1:29:12] parking structure from the road, then
[1:29:13] that gives us the direction we know. We
[1:29:15] need to go work that out.
[1:29:17] Okay. So, Bill, what about the
[1:29:19] screening? What about the plants on the
[1:29:21] road? What what's their code say there?
[1:29:25] >> The SC3 doesn't have a lot in terms of
[1:29:27] screening. Um because the site generally
[1:29:30] will sit at the bottom of the road,
[1:29:32] right? It's just that change in
[1:29:33] elevation and landscaping that will take
[1:29:35] place between the road and the first
[1:29:37] parking. That's going to provide pretty
[1:29:40] good screening anyway. There is a
[1:29:42] section on that
[1:29:42] >> that
[1:29:44] is pictures they the pictures they've
[1:29:46] put forth the screen look amazing is
[1:29:48] that part of the concept plan like
[1:29:50] that's something that can be
[1:29:51] >> parted on. So okay.
[1:29:53] >> Yeah.
[1:29:54] >> And that has to be maintained
[1:29:55] >> together with the concept and and this
[1:29:57] paragraph also again uh talks about both
[1:29:59] screen and it also talks about
[1:30:00] integration of the site. I mean again
[1:30:03] not opposed to any clarity that the
[1:30:04] council wants but frankly between this
[1:30:06] paragraph and the concept plan I don't
[1:30:09] think that bill could put the parking
[1:30:11] structure on the other side of the
[1:30:12] property because it's got to be
[1:30:14] integrated into the uh into the
[1:30:16] topography.
[1:30:18] I have one other followup question
[1:30:20] related to this line of discussion. So
[1:30:24] the and it could be related to what we
[1:30:25] were just talking about, but like the documentation permits the
[1:30:29] underground parking lot, but I didn't
[1:30:31] see anywhere like explicitly requires
[1:30:33] it. Is that because it's implied by the
[1:30:35] >> it's implied by the it's implied by the this combined with the minimum
[1:30:44] limit. That's kind of what I was saying
[1:30:46] before is like there but couldn't they
[1:30:48] do above ground? Like why why would that
[1:30:49] be?
[1:30:50] >> But then we've got the height limit cap.
[1:30:52] >> So is that where the operative
[1:30:55] >> that's a good question, Bill. If they if
[1:30:56] they I mean if they built
[1:30:58] >> 15 acres of
[1:31:00] >> above ground
[1:31:01] >> threetory
[1:31:03] parking
[1:31:03] >> they might hit the
[1:31:04] >> How many parking spaces could they get?
[1:31:06] I I don't know the answer to that.
[1:31:09] >> Sorry. I just I was just that's just my
[1:31:11] question around this whole
[1:31:12] >> Well, again, I mean, if if you want if
[1:31:14] that if that's what you want in there.
[1:31:16] Again, this is your agreement. I'm happy
[1:31:19] to put anything in here you want.
[1:31:22] >> Well, I I again, I think this is
[1:31:25] material because part of what we're
[1:31:26] trying to do is preserve the aesthetics.
[1:31:28] Yeah.
[1:31:29] >> And everyone agrees on aesthetics until
[1:31:30] the invoice comes through.
[1:31:32] >> So, that's the rub. Um, I would feel
[1:31:35] much more comfortable if we were very
[1:31:37] clear about sub because everything we've
[1:31:39] heard so far is subterranean parking.
[1:31:41] So, I'm anticipating, in fact, until we
[1:31:43] actually got to this, I had even
[1:31:44] realized, oh my goodness, this could
[1:31:46] actually end up, you know, as tall as it
[1:31:48] can get in a place where you don't want
[1:31:50] to look at it because that's more so
[1:31:54] we're trying to balance it. I would feel
[1:31:56] more comfortable if we actually
[1:31:58] specified subtraining parking.
[1:32:01] >> You want to make a motion? Yeah, I'll
[1:32:03] make a motion that
[1:32:04] >> Yeah, here's here's the challenge. I I
[1:32:05] don't know specifically what was the
[1:32:07] motions made. I think
[1:32:08] >> I I specifically don't know I I don't
[1:32:11] know the specifics other than Yeah,
[1:32:12] let's do subterranean. All right. Well,
[1:32:14] you got two. They're way down.
[1:32:16] >> It's not all subterranean. It goes up.
[1:32:18] >> Well, I know, but I
[1:32:19] >> Yeah,
[1:32:20] >> I don't even know how to make a motion
[1:32:21] here.
[1:32:21] >> Right. Well, and let's think through it
[1:32:23] because the proposal is to have the 15
[1:32:25] acres of surface parking
[1:32:27] >> and a subterranean essentially garage.
[1:32:29] that may come up a little bit, but it's
[1:32:31] tucked in somehow. But they've also got
[1:32:34] in the proposal that if that ends up not
[1:32:37] being enough parking and they need to
[1:32:39] build up that they would take one of the
[1:32:41] surface lots and put a second layer
[1:32:43] above it. And so are you opposed to like
[1:32:46] a double-decker parking area?
[1:32:48] >> Yeah, I' I'd prefer not to have that. I
[1:32:51] would prefer to put as much in the
[1:32:52] ground as we can to preserve the
[1:32:54] aesthetics of the entrance of the plane.
[1:32:56] So those aesthetics are important to me
[1:32:59] >> because that sounded like they were
[1:33:00] going to do sort of like a split level
[1:33:02] situation where they'd go down four feet
[1:33:04] and so it would be up a little bit. I
[1:33:05] think that could be screened in a way
[1:33:08] and incorporated but I don't know. And
[1:33:11] the real question is if you're okay with
[1:33:14] that kind of of expansion, would you
[1:33:17] want to limit that and say well you
[1:33:19] absolutely can't do two layers. I guess
[1:33:22] representations to this point are that
[1:33:25] we're going to have but a lot of this
[1:33:27] subterranean.
[1:33:28] >> Mhm.
[1:33:29] >> Um it's one thing if a good chunk of it
[1:33:32] is subterranean and then whatever kind
[1:33:35] of you don't need 8,000, you actually
[1:33:37] need 10. Okay. That's different than
[1:33:40] let's put in minimal subterranean which
[1:33:41] is also more expensive,
[1:33:43] >> right?
[1:33:43] >> And then we start putting in double
[1:33:45] deckers everywhere there's parking. That to me is a that's a different
[1:33:49] >> the real idea is that you couldn't do
[1:33:52] double-decker on the surface parking if
[1:33:54] you haven't already built the
[1:33:56] subterranean.
[1:33:57] >> Yes. And I don't know how to articulate
[1:33:59] the sub subterranean. [laughter]
[1:34:02] >> Yeah. Well, I I think at this point I
[1:34:04] thought sorry I thought you had a motion
[1:34:06] already in mind. I think at this point
[1:34:08] it's probably actually useful to hear
[1:34:09] from the developer and they've heard
[1:34:11] your concerns. Now, I think it'd be
[1:34:12] useful for them to stand up and say,
[1:34:14] "Here's what we think we can commit to
[1:34:16] that would address the concerns we've
[1:34:18] heard." The one thing I will say before
[1:34:19] Brian stands up is that at one point we
[1:34:22] had actually talked about having a
[1:34:24] percentage of subterranean and a
[1:34:26] percentage of um of surface. We went
[1:34:31] with this pretty much for I like the 15
[1:34:34] acres of of surface was intended to to
[1:34:37] mean the same thing. We just didn't put
[1:34:39] them both in. So, we could always go
[1:34:41] back to that model, but Brian,
[1:34:43] >> yeah, is there can um can we just back
[1:34:45] up maybe a couple steps? I think these
[1:34:47] are all really important questions to
[1:34:49] consider. I think there's been quite a
[1:34:51] bit of like movement in the project from
[1:34:53] the original 10,000 cap to the 8,000.
[1:34:57] And then I think the biggest change
[1:34:58] that's happened in the last probably 3
[1:35:00] weeks has been this idea, well, not 3
[1:35:02] weeks, probably been a month and a half
[1:35:03] now, but just the off-site parking. So
[1:35:05] that's not really a concept that we
[1:35:07] really even considered in the in the
[1:35:09] language of the development agreement.
[1:35:11] So I think if if there was a way for us
[1:35:13] to conceptually take a step back and say
[1:35:15] what is our commitment and what what do
[1:35:16] we both expect? What does the city
[1:35:18] expect and what we what are we
[1:35:19] committing to? I think the first thing
[1:35:21] is number one is that it will be
[1:35:22] screened from the road. So that's an
[1:35:24] incredibly important commitment. I think
[1:35:26] that's already contained in the
[1:35:27] development agreement.
[1:35:28] >> So that's number one. Number two, um, as
[1:35:30] we've talked about offsite, um, I do
[1:35:34] feel like there's our hope would be that
[1:35:36] we could add language in here that would
[1:35:37] allow us to go below the the this the
[1:35:40] 55. We actually with Aaron I we
[1:35:42] calculated 5180 was the based on the
[1:35:45] square footage of the numbers that we
[1:35:46] were just talking about because that's
[1:35:47] what drives the parking. We actually
[1:35:49] talked about 5180 being the minimum
[1:35:51] requirement. We would love the ability
[1:35:53] if we can find several thousand off-site
[1:35:55] stalls to be able to reduce that below
[1:35:57] the 5180 on-site. So, that's an
[1:36:00] important component that we would we
[1:36:01] would request the council to consider as
[1:36:03] part of this conversation.
[1:36:05] Um, and then thirdly, I think uh it's
[1:36:08] this second this double-decker idea that
[1:36:09] we've been talking about. Um, let me
[1:36:11] make sure I'm really really clear on
[1:36:13] that because I want to make sure I'm
[1:36:14] understanding what your concerns are.
[1:36:15] The idea would be that that would
[1:36:17] effectively look like a surface parking
[1:36:19] lot. So we would have surface parking
[1:36:21] that would be at grade and then if we
[1:36:22] were to put something like a double
[1:36:24] decker if if for example after the after
[1:36:26] the project or after the after vesper is
[1:36:28] built we recognize we need another 500
[1:36:30] stalls we would come in and lower that
[1:36:32] parking stall probably 3 to 4 feet and
[1:36:35] then build something on top of that. So
[1:36:36] the effective height above ground would
[1:36:38] be 3 to 4 feet. So my hope would be that
[1:36:41] we could kind of lock in the
[1:36:42] expectations on that to to Greg's point.
[1:36:45] Like I I I wanted we need the ability to
[1:36:48] expand that parking. That's very very
[1:36:50] important for us. And so if there were
[1:36:52] some design criteria that would allow us
[1:36:54] then as long as we met that criteria to
[1:36:56] build that additional parking that would
[1:36:58] be our preference is to include that
[1:36:59] language in there. So there would be a
[1:37:01] way to say you know it cannot exceed you
[1:37:03] know let's just say 5t above grade or
[1:37:05] above the existing surface parking lot.
[1:37:07] how it require us to go down in order to
[1:37:09] get the height needed to build that
[1:37:10] second story of parking. So, I would
[1:37:12] love to make sure that's part of this
[1:37:13] component. So, that's a long-winded
[1:37:15] answer. I don't know that it
[1:37:16] specifically addresses.
[1:37:18] >> Well, can you that's helpful. Can you
[1:37:19] speak to the uh parking garage and
[1:37:21] subterranean?
[1:37:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, um every stall that we
[1:37:26] can get out of that parking structure
[1:37:27] and put somewhere else is going to save
[1:37:29] us a tremendous amount of money. So,
[1:37:31] your concerns are warranted. They're
[1:37:33] valid. um in order to get in order to
[1:37:36] get the the parking that we need, we
[1:37:38] have to do a subterranean and we are
[1:37:39] motivated to do that because we need the
[1:37:41] material that's coming out of that
[1:37:42] mountain. Whoever said that, I think it
[1:37:43] was Bill or maybe even Brian, but we
[1:37:45] need that material in a desperate way to
[1:37:47] build that to make it work. So, we are
[1:37:49] very motivated to put it in that spot
[1:37:52] and pull that material out. So, we are
[1:37:54] committed, we will absolutely commit to
[1:37:55] doing subterranean parking in that
[1:37:57] location. How much and to what height?
[1:37:59] We can't exceed the 70 uh the 50 I think
[1:38:02] it's 50 50. Yeah, three stories or 50
[1:38:05] ft. Um, so yeah, that's exactly right,
[1:38:07] Jeff. So, we're we're we're able to
[1:38:09] commit to that. Um, and if we need to go
[1:38:11] down further, it would be above three
[1:38:13] stories, but it would be down on the
[1:38:14] ground. And so, that would not be
[1:38:15] effective height in terms of um, so yes,
[1:38:18] we are willing to make that commitment.
[1:38:19] We're ready to make that commitment to a
[1:38:20] subterranean. The distance from the road
[1:38:23] becomes a little bit more problematic.
[1:38:25] Um, we can't get super close to the
[1:38:27] road, but I don't know exactly what that
[1:38:29] spacing would be. But if we could maybe
[1:38:30] leave a blank in there for the offsite,
[1:38:32] the offset from the road to address
[1:38:34] Becky's concern, I think that's valid. I
[1:38:36] think we'd be willing to talk about both
[1:38:38] a a subterranean like like Greg has
[1:38:40] talked about and then an offset from the
[1:38:42] road that Becky just talked about. And I
[1:38:44] think 100 feet would be something that
[1:38:45] we could commit to right now. Um, but uh
[1:38:48] but we may need to go back and kind of
[1:38:50] adjust those numbers down the road.
[1:38:51] >> So that's a lot. So
[1:38:53] >> two questions.
[1:38:53] >> Yeah, please. with your subterranean.
[1:38:55] Um, so that's at rock face,
[1:38:57] >> right?
[1:38:58] >> Is that rock face not over three stories
[1:39:02] high?
[1:39:03] >> Well, so the way that they measure the
[1:39:05] street, so that height that 50 ft is
[1:39:08] measured from the foundation of the
[1:39:09] building.
[1:39:10] >> So we could mess with the land.
[1:39:12] [clears throat]
[1:39:12] >> Exactly.
[1:39:13] >> Yeah. So we could effectively go down
[1:39:15] and that wouldn't impact where the 50 ft
[1:39:17] starts, but our 50 ft design and you
[1:39:20] correct me if I'm wrong, but it's from
[1:39:21] where the foundation touches the
[1:39:23] building. That's where our 50 height 50
[1:39:25] foot height requirements starts.
[1:39:26] >> We don't want you to waste like 20 feet
[1:39:28] at the top.
[1:39:28] >> Exactly. Exactly. No, we want to put the
[1:39:30] parking structure in that same spot
[1:39:32] >> so it doesn't go over 50 ft.
[1:39:34] >> It will not go over 50. Yeah. Yeah. So
[1:39:37] hopefully that's helpful as we talk
[1:39:38] about. But and the motion I think that
[1:39:40] we would be um you know readily willing
[1:39:42] to commit to would be yes subterranean.
[1:39:44] Absolutely. Um we would like to have the
[1:39:47] language in there to be able to do the
[1:39:48] surface parking as long as we don't
[1:39:50] exceed some height. I think 5t is
[1:39:52] reasonable. It doesn't make it look like
[1:39:53] it's a second story or first story of
[1:39:55] parking. And then we would have the
[1:39:56] ability to go below the minimum required
[1:39:58] parking. Again, these aren't all things
[1:40:00] that we need a motion on today. We would
[1:40:02] propose this. I don't want anybody here
[1:40:03] to be uh surprised by anything we submit
[1:40:05] in our next round, but that would be
[1:40:07] something that we would really want to
[1:40:08] include in there is to say that we could
[1:40:10] do that second parking
[1:40:12] >> parking
[1:40:13] contract.
[1:40:14] >> Yes. Yes, that's right. Yeah, exactly.
[1:40:17] [clears throat]
[1:40:20] » Okay. Okay. So, that's that's a good
[1:40:22] point. So, um Spencer brings up the
[1:40:24] point, is there any way to pull the
[1:40:25] sideline again, Kevin?
[1:40:26] >> But I don't think it matters if it's a
[1:40:27] mountain.
[1:40:28] >> Yes.
[1:40:28] >> You don't care about that big setback.
[1:40:30] >> I I think there's a there's a bridge
[1:40:31] where you need a gap and I think um
[1:40:32] Spencer's raised it well. Um the parking
[1:40:36] structure location can I go up to the
[1:40:39] map up there? The parking structure
[1:40:41] location may um be closer than 100 ft.
[1:40:45] Like for example, this setback right
[1:40:46] here,
[1:40:46] >> but that's where the rock is.
[1:40:48] >> This setback right here. Whoa. This
[1:40:50] setback right here. Does it kill you
[1:40:51] every time? All right. That so that set
[1:40:53] back right there maybe closer than 100
[1:40:55] ft or Brian even on the corner down
[1:40:57] below. That's what I'm talking you're
[1:40:59] talking about right here. So this this
[1:41:00] would be to to me it's got to be
[1:41:03] something. I'm not sure where that 100
[1:41:05] feet starts. But yes,
[1:41:06] >> but you have the natural screen there.
[1:41:08] Like we don't care about that.
[1:41:09] >> We haven't that that to me is that's the
[1:41:11] point Krice that I was trying to make.
[1:41:12] >> We're talking about if you couldn't put
[1:41:13] it there like then it's the wor any
[1:41:16] exposed. Correct. Yeah. So like this
[1:41:18] stuff over here. Yes. This is going to
[1:41:19] be exposed. It's going to be visible.
[1:41:22] And that's the piece that we would say
[1:41:23] yes, we're going to meet that 100 foot
[1:41:24] requirement. But if there's some part of
[1:41:26] this parking structure that's within 100
[1:41:27] foot setback that's not visible, then I
[1:41:30] think we should be able to again my
[1:41:32] request would be that we we're able to
[1:41:33] encroach in that 100t.
[1:41:35] >> Be careful with your terms because you
[1:41:36] keep saying subterranean, but part of
[1:41:38] that structure you'll be able to see all
[1:41:40] three.
[1:41:40] >> Yes. Yeah.
[1:41:41] >> Right. Okay. Just want to make sure.
[1:41:43] >> Well, you weren't reading the whole
[1:41:44] thing.
[1:41:45] >> That's why it's it's difficult to see
[1:41:47] from this angle. um much more helpful to
[1:41:49] actually see from the the great
[1:41:51] elevation.
[1:41:52] >> Yeah. Can we pull that one?
[1:41:54] >> Because I I can't remember exactly where
[1:41:56] the hillside is and
[1:41:57] >> yes how that is that what you're
[1:41:59] referring to.
[1:42:00] >> So there's an elevation.
[1:42:01] >> If you see the landscape one
[1:42:05] should be it should be in that exhibit.
[1:42:06] >> Those were the two that were
[1:42:08] >> I think it uh it's it may not be in this
[1:42:10] one. It's in the other one though for
[1:42:12] sure.
[1:42:14] >> Yeah. Yeah, the answer one that we just
[1:42:15] submitted this last week.
[1:42:23] » While he's looking for that, let me make
[1:42:25] two comments. Uh, sorry, BL, you could
[1:42:27] you were okay there. I was going to uh
[1:42:30] the idea we've talked before about this
[1:42:32] idea of reducing the the minimum
[1:42:35] required below the code if there's
[1:42:37] sufficient offsite. The one legal
[1:42:40] problem with that is that the
[1:42:43] development agreement can't exempt you
[1:42:45] from code unless the exemption has been
[1:42:48] before the planning commission. So I
[1:42:50] think that I think I at least and I
[1:42:52] expect the council is very open to that
[1:42:53] idea. It will probably that particular
[1:42:56] idea will probably require an amendment
[1:42:58] to the development agreement in the
[1:42:59] future just to address that issue or a
[1:43:03] change to city code where we put
[1:43:06] something like the TDM or a TDM overlay
[1:43:09] back in and give them an exemption
[1:43:11] through a code amendment. So, that's
[1:43:13] probably going to have something that
[1:43:15] won't
[1:43:16] >> be able to be in here in two weeks.
[1:43:18] >> That makes sense. Uh, and then the other
[1:43:20] question is that I have for you while
[1:43:22] you're while you're talking based on
[1:43:23] what I heard counselor um Christensen
[1:43:27] saying is
[1:43:29] you talked about uh being willing to
[1:43:32] commit to subterranean but it being very
[1:43:34] important to uh have the ability to
[1:43:36] build that upper deck. I think what what
[1:43:39] I kind of hear counselor Christensen
[1:43:41] saying is that ability to build the
[1:43:45] upper deck might need to be contingent
[1:43:47] not just on the height and the
[1:43:48] screening,
[1:43:49] >> but on the fact that the subterranean
[1:43:52] meets some kind of certain limit. Like I think what I hear you saying is you
[1:43:56] don't want them to build a one-story
[1:43:58] subterranean parking garage, put a whole
[1:44:01] bunch of spaces offsite, and then build
[1:44:04] 15 acres of double-decker surface
[1:44:07] parking. Yeah,
[1:44:08] >> correct.
[1:44:08] >> So, for something for you to think about
[1:44:10] as we talk through that,
[1:44:11] >> I'd have to chew on that one for a
[1:44:13] minute.
[1:44:13] >> And again, I'm not I'm not expecting you
[1:44:15] to know the answer here. I want to put
[1:44:18] in your mind that I think that's what's
[1:44:19] what something a concept that's probably
[1:44:21] going to be in the motion when we get to
[1:44:22] it.
[1:44:22] >> Okay, Jeff has a question.
[1:44:24] >> Uh more just a comment. Just did like
[1:44:26] quick back the envelope math and you
[1:44:27] could probably fit four to 5,000 parking
[1:44:30] spots on 50 acres at three stories. So I
[1:44:33] think that's like I again I'm not I well
[1:44:35] I the representation
[1:44:37] >> we talked about doing double decker so
[1:44:38] maybe that's another limit that we the
[1:44:40] overall limit is three stories but the
[1:44:42] parking can't be three the surface
[1:44:44] parking
[1:44:44] >> yeah it's again I don't think we're
[1:44:45] actually asking or talking about
[1:44:47] anything other than what's being
[1:44:48] represented it's just the challenge of
[1:44:49] like hey this is more expensive than we
[1:44:51] think
[1:44:52] >> we have these other abilities to put 15
[1:44:54] acres of triple deckers and we meet our
[1:44:56] minimum parking requirement and I think
[1:44:58] that would be not ideal outcome based on
[1:45:01] what's being presented
[1:45:03] Well, and wasn't the idea that the
[1:45:05] double-decker parking would only be for
[1:45:06] one of the lots, not for the one that's
[1:45:08] up the hill?
[1:45:09] >> Yeah, that's the other thing. It's only
[1:45:10] supposed to be about surface talk,
[1:45:11] correct? Not the up.
[1:45:12] >> Correct. Yeah, the one the one up the
[1:45:14] hill would be a lot harder to to make
[1:45:15] that work. Um, these are all really good things that we need to kind
[1:45:20] of think through. I don't know. I I I
[1:45:22] guess if we can provide uh a motion that
[1:45:24] allows us the flexibility to go back and
[1:45:26] kind of analyze some of these things
[1:45:27] because Craig, I hear you loud and clear
[1:45:29] and that makes a lot of sense. So, we
[1:45:31] would love to try to accommodate
[1:45:32] something that seems reasonable, um,
[1:45:34] while still allowing the flexibility
[1:45:35] that we're that we're hoping to maintain
[1:45:36] as we move forward and kind of finalize
[1:45:38] those off-site stalls. Um, so, uh, I I
[1:45:42] I'm just anxious to see it locked in.
[1:45:44] >> Yeah.
[1:45:45] >> Because what you're asking for is locked
[1:45:47] in zoning.
[1:45:48] >> Yeah.
[1:45:48] >> And so, I think what I'm asking for is
[1:45:50] the locked in um, capacity levels. So,
[1:45:54] it's not up for debate. It's not up for
[1:45:56] Yeah.
[1:45:57] >> special assignment. that that's that's
[1:45:58] our clear understanding as we go into
[1:46:00] this.
[1:46:00] >> Makes sense.
[1:46:01] >> And I think uh you made an interesting
[1:46:03] point of like just trying to be as
[1:46:06] helpful here as possible is like you
[1:46:07] said we may be open to the off-site
[1:46:09] thing. Is that something worth taking a
[1:46:11] motion on so that there's clear guid
[1:46:12] like what's the best way to meet the
[1:46:14] needs here of that point?
[1:46:16] >> Um
[1:46:18] I suppose it's helpful probably just for
[1:46:20] the developer to know how the council
[1:46:22] feels about it. I don't think because of
[1:46:23] what I explained about the legalities of not being able to exempt them from
[1:46:28] the code. I don't think we're making any
[1:46:29] decisions about that. But if you think
[1:46:32] but if the developer wants to know if we
[1:46:34] come back in the future and we want to
[1:46:36] be under the current minimums because we
[1:46:39] have off-site parking, is that something
[1:46:40] you're at this moment in time uh open to
[1:46:44] c then a motion at least gives them an answer to that question. The reason
[1:46:49] why I say that, and maybe I
[1:46:50] misunderstood you, but it sounds to me
[1:46:52] like that's potentially an important
[1:46:54] piece to the puzzle for you. Yes, for
[1:46:56] sure. On the financing side and making
[1:46:57] this all pencil and so I would hate for
[1:47:00] things to move forward under that
[1:47:01] assumption and then for it to come back
[1:47:03] later and us not to be supportive of
[1:47:04] that idea generally. It's just because
[1:47:06] of the issue with the planning
[1:47:08] commission creating the the sequencing
[1:47:10] problem.
[1:47:10] >> Right.
[1:47:11] >> Yeah. No, that's a great point. I think
[1:47:12] >> Yeah, I agree. And so would we want to say that the the city council is
[1:47:17] inclined to approve an agreement for
[1:47:21] them to provide up to say 2,000 off-site
[1:47:24] parkings. They would have to to provide
[1:47:27] contracts and things like that to show
[1:47:29] that they actually have that. Like how
[1:47:32] would we
[1:47:32] >> if if it was me, I probably wouldn't go
[1:47:34] to that level of detail. I think I had
[1:47:36] more in mind something along the lines
[1:47:37] of a motion that says the council is
[1:47:39] supportive of the idea about in the
[1:47:41] future
[1:47:43] some exemption from the minimum parking
[1:47:46] requirements if those minimum parking
[1:47:48] requirements have been offset through
[1:47:49] off-site parking.
[1:47:51] >> Oh, I like that.
[1:47:52] >> More general. More general.
[1:47:54] >> And then they get to come back with a
[1:47:55] plan. You're just expressing your
[1:47:57] support for the for
[1:47:58] >> Right. And the plan would have the
[1:48:00] details and information about where it
[1:48:02] would be, contracts, shuttles, and
[1:48:04] things like that. So that we would
[1:48:05] believe that the plan is
[1:48:06] >> right and and that's why I think I want
[1:48:08] to keep it general because they've kept
[1:48:09] saying they're working on all of these
[1:48:10] ideas but they don't have any of them
[1:48:12] nailed down. The ones they do have
[1:48:13] nailed down maybe they can't share. So I
[1:48:15] don't think that we're in a position yet
[1:48:17] for them either to say how many they can
[1:48:20] get or etc.
[1:48:22] >> Right.
[1:48:22] now we've got 1,000. So we could improve that significantly. So
[1:48:28] >> well let's look at this on the flip
[1:48:29] side. If they don't have enough parking
[1:48:31] on site and they don't secure enough
[1:48:34] parking somewhere else within the city
[1:48:36] or or where would these people park
[1:48:39] along I 89 over at the parks? I mean
[1:48:43] where would they park?
[1:48:46] >> Well, they're they're going to be bound
[1:48:47] to meet city minimums unless they come
[1:48:49] back for you and and satisfy you that
[1:48:52] they don't need to. And even even if
[1:48:54] that were the case, Becky, if we brought
[1:48:56] an a proposal back to say we would like
[1:48:58] to go below the minimum on site, the
[1:49:00] 5100 or 5200 stalls, we'd have to say
[1:49:02] we're going to replace those elsewhere.
[1:49:05] So there would still be that minimum
[1:49:06] number of parking required to meet pro
[1:49:09] city's ordinances.
[1:49:09] >> I think what councelor Bogdan is just
[1:49:11] suggesting is that if people choose not
[1:49:13] to partake of those options because of
[1:49:15] the friction involved, what are people
[1:49:18] going to do alternatively? Park on the
[1:49:19] side of the road. I think that's her
[1:49:21] point. Is that right?
[1:49:23] >> Yeah.
[1:49:24] >> And that's on the flip side. And that's
[1:49:26] a legitimate policy question about why
[1:49:29] you might not support the proposal that
[1:49:31] was just thrown out. So, which is now
[1:49:33] why it's even more doubly important for
[1:49:35] the motion to find out.
[1:49:37] >> And that's [clears throat] why I want to
[1:49:38] look at both sides is because if they
[1:49:40] don't have them, I'm not sure that
[1:49:41] they're going to not sell 20,000
[1:49:44] tickets.
[1:49:46] Are where would they park? Because I
[1:49:48] mean, they obviously can walk. There's
[1:49:49] going to be a trail. there's going to be
[1:49:50] a place to to bike and go across. So, I
[1:49:54] would say the first thing would be
[1:49:55] public parking that would fill up, which
[1:49:56] would be the parks across the street,
[1:49:58] which you mentioned that you probably
[1:50:00] would have to rent those out every time
[1:50:01] to prevent that anyway.
[1:50:03] >> Correct.
[1:50:04] >> Is there parking allowed on both sides
[1:50:06] of 189?
[1:50:07] >> No.
[1:50:08] >> They'll get a ticket if they do that.
[1:50:09] >> So, where would be the next best place?
[1:50:11] Go up a little bit further to another
[1:50:13] park and park and then walk back down
[1:50:14] the trail. I mean, are are we going to
[1:50:17] create a problem if we don't have enough
[1:50:19] parking on site that each one of our
[1:50:21] parks going up the canyon is going to be
[1:50:23] inundated with
[1:50:24] >> We have to have enough parking or else
[1:50:26] they can't sell the tickets.
[1:50:30] » I think the next maybe viable option
[1:50:32] would be somebody parking down in Orum
[1:50:34] and walking on the Pearl River Trail up
[1:50:36] to the up to the venue. Um
[1:50:39] >> but still we're taking away public
[1:50:40] spaces for a private event, right?
[1:50:43] >> Yeah. It's like Yeah. But this this is
[1:50:45] my point on why I felt like it would be
[1:50:46] helpful to have the motion just to give
[1:50:49] them clear direction because if that is
[1:50:51] a concern of the council of like that
[1:50:53] people like if that people are not going
[1:50:55] to partake of the off-site options and
[1:50:57] instead just kind of DIY it in ways that
[1:50:59] are unhelpful then that is the crux
[1:51:02] that's the crux of the question. I think
[1:51:04] >> people do that for BYU games all the
[1:51:05] time, right? You see them park in just
[1:51:07] weird spots and then walk in it. And so
[1:51:09] I I don't see this being any different.
[1:51:12] >> Well, see the nature everywhere. I do
[1:51:14] like the idea of Mama Choose selling out
[1:51:16] their parking lot and letting people
[1:51:17] walk though because like people do that
[1:51:19] for football games, right? Like
[1:51:21] >> $10 to park.
[1:51:22] here. [laughter]
[1:51:23] >> 10 spots aren't going to make much of a
[1:51:24] difference.
[1:51:26] >> I love moment shoes by the way. Shout
[1:51:27] out to great local business. Yeah,
[1:51:29] >> they might be more
[1:51:32] [laughter]
[1:51:35] tough balance we're trying to strike
[1:51:36] because it feels like
[1:51:37] >> totally because traffic is Yeah. The
[1:51:39] concern has been we don't want the
[1:51:41] vehicles of the canyon and it's hard to
[1:51:43] ignore it. And so our our our proposed
[1:51:46] solution was that that shuttles are a
[1:51:48] great option. Hollywood Bowl and a lot
[1:51:50] of other places use shuttles, you know,
[1:51:51] extensively in their operations and
[1:51:53] that's something that we would love to
[1:51:54] propose because we think it's a very
[1:51:56] viable alternative. I don't know that we
[1:51:58] can uh I would hope that we don't
[1:52:00] approve or not approve the project based
[1:52:02] on what the DIYers are going to where
[1:52:04] they're going to park. We've got to
[1:52:05] figure out some patrolling with Provo
[1:52:07] City. We've got to figure out patrolling
[1:52:08] with Farm City. We've got to figure out
[1:52:10] patrolling with Utah County. There's a
[1:52:11] lot of folks that are involved and we've met with some of those folks um to
[1:52:15] start those conversations. So, um we
[1:52:17] can't really do much until the zoning is
[1:52:18] done, but we need to it's a problem that
[1:52:20] we've got to address. We've got to
[1:52:21] figure it out.
[1:52:22] >> And just understand from our from our
[1:52:25] perspective
[1:52:25] >> Yeah.
[1:52:26] >> Um it's not about patrolling and
[1:52:28] ticketing and towing. We deal with that
[1:52:29] all the time. Yeah.
[1:52:30] >> And you're swimming upstream. We don't
[1:52:31] want to swim upstream. There needs to be
[1:52:33] adequate parking.
[1:52:34] >> Yeah. So, I would I would not be
[1:52:37] inclined to say, "Well, let's get as
[1:52:39] skinny as we can and hope the other
[1:52:40] things work." Um because the the
[1:52:43] creativity is boundless and we're just
[1:52:46] going to swim upstream every time
[1:52:48] there's a big event and let's not do
[1:52:50] that.
[1:52:51] >> Yeah. And I think it can be helpful too
[1:52:52] as they're selling their tickets and
[1:52:54] everything to have very clear
[1:52:56] instructions about parking and shuttles.
[1:52:59] >> Look, when it comes to parking, it's a whole different thing.
[1:53:02] >> Yeah.
[1:53:03] >> It's the wild west.
[1:53:04] >> Yeah. But if they say if you want to be
[1:53:06] able to park on site, you're going to
[1:53:07] need to also buy your ticket to park on
[1:53:09] site and otherwise look at doing the
[1:53:12] shuttles or you know there's
[1:53:15] >> Yeah. Okay. So, we made a motion though
[1:53:17] that the council will
[1:53:21] um
[1:53:23] consider waiting that minimum parking
[1:53:25] requirement if we are satisfied that
[1:53:28] there is off-site parking.
[1:53:31] Did what was your better language for
[1:53:33] mine? [laughter]
[1:53:35] >> Well, it's a good question. Now Jeff's
[1:53:38] uh left. I mean, it depends on it
[1:53:41] depends on how much of an inclination
[1:53:44] you want to show. I mean, one option is
[1:53:46] you can make a motion that just says
[1:53:47] we're willing to consider a future
[1:53:49] request for reducing uh the required
[1:53:52] on-site parking if we're satisfied with
[1:53:55] your off-site parking proposal. That
[1:53:57] doesn't really say very much because
[1:53:59] they can always bring that proposal
[1:54:01] anyway. If you if you wanted if you're
[1:54:04] again if it reflects your policy
[1:54:06] desires, you could say we're excited to
[1:54:09] receive such a proposal. But I I don't
[1:54:11] know if that's really true or not. Um so
[1:54:17] I I'd like to see an adequate parking,
[1:54:20] right? So I don't want to I don't want
[1:54:22] to I wouldn't vote or support anything
[1:54:23] he says. And if you don't want to do it
[1:54:25] and it doesn't work out, obviously if it
[1:54:27] doesn't work, yes, they'll come back,
[1:54:29] >> right?
[1:54:29] >> Um, but I I don't feel a need to make
[1:54:32] that kind of motion. Maybe others do.
[1:54:34] >> I mean, at the end of the day, there
[1:54:35] it's you're not really on this
[1:54:37] particular issue, you're not deciding
[1:54:39] anything right now other than whether
[1:54:41] you're sending them a
[1:54:42] >> a signal to keep working on it or not.
[1:54:44] >> If there's not a total fail, it'll utter
[1:54:46] disaster. cars,
[1:54:49] >> frustration and more traffic and going
[1:54:52] back and forth than other. So,
[1:54:57] » Craig, did you want a motion about
[1:55:00] limiting double-decker parking or
[1:55:02] screening?
[1:55:04] >> Well, I actually think I actually think
[1:55:05] we covered it.
[1:55:06] >> Okay.
[1:55:07] >> Um because again, I don't I don't know
[1:55:10] what to specifically to say. I just
[1:55:11] expressed the concern. So, whatever they
[1:55:13] come back with, uh that will be it.
[1:55:17] But it but the but the idea of of uh
[1:55:22] expanding and creating again as you go
[1:55:25] in the canyon I don't want to look over
[1:55:27] and see parking garages and I don't
[1:55:29] think any of us do. So I don't know that
[1:55:31] I need to make a motion. I think we've
[1:55:33] been clear about that.
[1:55:34] >> Well if you make a motion couldn't you
[1:55:35] say they come back
[1:55:36] >> concern
[1:55:37] >> okay
[1:55:38] >> that you come back in two weeks with a
[1:55:39] proposal that doesn't have parking
[1:55:42] garages everywhere. You could
[1:55:44] >> be helpful. Yeah, I I think it would be
[1:55:45] helpful uh I was going to say I not to
[1:55:48] be pedantic. We can do a straw poll, but
[1:55:49] I think it's helpful if you just make a
[1:55:51] motion saying that you would like the
[1:55:53] next draft to incorporate what has been
[1:55:56] proposed and about addressing your
[1:55:58] parking concerns. I think that
[1:56:01] >> I make a motion to the next draft
[1:56:02] incorporate what we've discussed about
[1:56:04] uh subtraining parking and any kind of
[1:56:06] visible parking
[1:56:08] >> and the double-decker parking.
[1:56:10] >> I would second that, Craig. All right.
[1:56:13] Any discussion on the motion?
[1:56:18] [laughter]
[1:56:21] » Yes.
[1:56:21] >> Councelor W. Councelor Christensen?
[1:56:24] >> Yes.
[1:56:24] >> Councelor Garrett?
[1:56:25] >> Yes.
[1:56:25] >> Counselor.
[1:56:27] >> Yes.
[1:56:28] >> Councelor Whipple.
[1:56:29] >> Yes.
[1:56:30] >> Okay. 7.
[1:56:32] >> Perfect. Okay. We're twothirds of the
[1:56:33] way through our time and a third of the
[1:56:34] way through my materials. So, we're uh
[1:56:37] Kevin, can you switch back to my
[1:56:38] slideshow? I think most of the rest I
[1:56:41] think we've hit some of the worst stuff,
[1:56:44] but we'll see if
[1:56:45] >> Good news is Brian, they are going to
[1:56:46] come back. So, we can just say we're
[1:56:47] going through this much. We'll go
[1:56:48] through the rest of it.
[1:56:49] >> And I do think that we
[1:56:52] underestimated how much time this one
[1:56:53] will take and overestimated how much
[1:56:55] time the next one will take. So, we'll
[1:56:56] but we'll see if I'm right about all of
[1:56:58] that. Okay. So, we've talked about
[1:57:00] vested caps, we've talked about parking.
[1:57:01] So, conservation easement. This this is
[1:57:04] a a hairy one that I want to try to
[1:57:06] simplify down into something that
[1:57:07] doesn't have to be discussed that much
[1:57:09] right now. So, the conservation easement
[1:57:12] paragraph is completely dependent on how
[1:57:16] [snorts] much property the city sells
[1:57:18] them, which has not been decided yet.
[1:57:20] So, this paragraph is going to have to
[1:57:23] change. So, I don't want you to get too
[1:57:25] hung up on what it currently sells
[1:57:27] because what it currently says is a
[1:57:29] placeholder based on one idea for the
[1:57:32] property transaction. that still has to
[1:57:33] be decided. So, what it currently says
[1:57:35] is if we sold them the entire 66 acres
[1:57:38] that they would have to put at least 50%
[1:57:41] of that into a conservation easement.
[1:57:44] Some of the questions that were asked in
[1:57:46] the council materials and that Vesper
[1:57:48] responded to uh addresses some of the
[1:57:50] concerns that have already been raised.
[1:57:52] So again, not currently in here, but
[1:57:55] already anticipated based on
[1:57:56] conversations between Brian Bis and I.
[1:57:58] Vesper's fine to specify in the
[1:58:01] development agreement that the holder of
[1:58:03] the conservation easement would be a
[1:58:05] 501c3 nonprofit dedicated to open space
[1:58:08] preservation without necessarily picking
[1:58:10] one. Uh that but it won't be a
[1:58:13] commercial entity or or a subsidiary of
[1:58:15] Vesper or anything like that. and
[1:58:17] they're open to the idea of specifying
[1:58:21] more thoroughly in this section of the
[1:58:23] development agreement what the permitted
[1:58:25] and prohibited uh uses of of the land
[1:58:30] subject to the conservation easement
[1:58:31] would be. Right? So those are all things
[1:58:33] that they've already committed to
[1:58:35] negotiating further, but whether we even
[1:58:37] need to or not dep contingent upon
[1:58:40] another decision about how much actually
[1:58:41] gets sold because if we only sell them
[1:58:43] 33 acres, this whole paragraph just goes
[1:58:46] away. Does that make sense?
[1:58:48] >> Um, so
[1:58:49] >> ask a question.
[1:58:50] >> Yes, please.
[1:58:51] >> Unilateral. The city will then have
[1:58:53] unilateral, right? That means we could
[1:58:55] we have absolute right to put in a
[1:58:57] conservation.
[1:58:58] >> Well, not to not to put in a
[1:59:00] conservation ement. So the proposal is
[1:59:02] to uh the application is to reszone the
[1:59:05] entire property SC3.
[1:59:08] This would say once conservation is done
[1:59:11] or once construction of the trail system
[1:59:13] is done, the conservation is easement is
[1:59:15] in place, we can reszone the
[1:59:18] conservation easement portion of the
[1:59:20] property. OSPR, they can't object. They
[1:59:23] we don't need an application from them.
[1:59:24] We just reszone it.
[1:59:26] >> Okay.
[1:59:26] >> Why not do that at this time of closing?
[1:59:29] >> Um
[1:59:29] >> why the delay? Well,
[1:59:32] >> I mean the the the flip side, the way I
[1:59:34] think what you're proposing is
[1:59:35] essentially actually change the reszone
[1:59:37] application so that we don't reszone the
[1:59:40] undeveloped part. Bill can correct me if
[1:59:43] I'm wrong, but I think I think it propo
[1:59:45] it it uh poses some problems to the
[1:59:49] trail creation for the property to be in
[1:59:52] the OSPR while the trails are being
[1:59:55] built and the bathrooms are being built,
[1:59:58] etc. That might that right?
[2:00:00] >> How would those How would that be a
[2:00:02] problem?
[2:00:05] >> I'd have to look up. Let me look.
[2:00:08] >> Is Is that accurate though? It creates
[2:00:09] complications.
[2:00:13] » Okay.
[2:00:13] >> We we So, so that's something that's
[2:00:15] that that's certainly another option.
[2:00:17] That's something that we can look at. Uh
[2:00:19] to the degree my anticipation and
[2:00:22] Brian's kind of nodding his head, my
[2:00:23] anticipation is that if you only run a
[2:00:25] reszone Well, here's the other here's
[2:00:27] the other part. Normally we reszone
[2:00:29] entire parcels,
[2:00:31] right? And right now it's all one part.
[2:00:33] The the city piece is all one parcel. So
[2:00:37] it would be unusual for us and a little
[2:00:39] bit complicated to reszone through the
[2:00:43] middle of a parcel. It's not that we
[2:00:44] haven't ever done it before and we and
[2:00:45] we theoretically, but
[2:00:47] >> and why not the alternative of just
[2:00:48] selling the land they need? Well, that that is entirely why I said let's not
[2:00:55] worry about the details of this one too
[2:00:57] much until that decision is made. But
[2:00:59] that decision gets made later in the
[2:01:01] other agreement.
[2:01:02] >> Does that make sense? So when we get to
[2:01:04] that when that
[2:01:05] >> Okay. Yeah. The repsy you're talking
[2:01:06] about.
[2:01:06] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. When we get to
[2:01:08] the repsy.
[2:01:09] >> All right.
[2:01:09] >> That might make this paragraph
[2:01:11] completely moot.
[2:01:12] >> Okay.
[2:01:12] >> But as far as this is concerned, the b
[2:01:14] the reveation is now and they're doing
[2:01:17] the trail for sale,
[2:01:19] >> right? 50% of conservation phase zero is
[2:01:21] sale.
[2:01:22] >> Yes. If we if we end up selling the
[2:01:24] entire piece,
[2:01:25] >> bathrooms don't.
[2:01:27] >> Yep. Okay. Any any other questions about
[2:01:30] the defensation section? Okay.
[2:01:35] Uh let's see. And actually, I think they
[2:01:37] had a couple slide. I threw in a
[2:01:40] couple slides from what they this is
[2:01:42] what they actually
[2:01:44] put in their answers. No, this one
[2:01:46] pretty much just repeats what the
[2:01:47] concert what the development agreement
[2:01:49] already says, but this is um and so so
[2:01:53] does this actually. Uh so we've Brian
[2:01:56] and I had a conversation after these
[2:01:58] answers were submitted to the council.
[2:01:59] That's when he talked to me about being
[2:02:01] willing to specify that it's a nonprofit
[2:02:04] and add some restrictions. Okay,
[2:02:08] this paragraph we actually went over uh
[2:02:11] a little while ago about the uh parking
[2:02:13] garage. So, I won't dig into it in great
[2:02:16] depth unless there's any but I'll leave
[2:02:18] it up for a second for you to tell me if
[2:02:20] there's any concerns about this
[2:02:22] paragraph
[2:02:24] >> and something starts happening that you
[2:02:26] don't think is fits in this body. That's
[2:02:29] Bill's team to notice that and say,
[2:02:31] >> right? And so that's, you know, that's
[2:02:33] the one
[2:02:35] uh
[2:02:37] is this specific enough? That's the
[2:02:39] question for the council is, is this
[2:02:40] specific enough
[2:02:42] combined with the concept plan or do you
[2:02:46] need something more specific than this?
[2:02:48] >> So, how detailed is the concept plan in
[2:02:50] terms of finishes and and building
[2:02:52] materials and things like that? Well,
[2:02:54] not not very uh would be my take on
[2:02:58] that. Bill, uh Mr. Preparoni,
[2:03:02] sorry, Terra's distracting him. He's
[2:03:05] looking at the code. He's looking I'm
[2:03:07] kidding. He's looking at the code for
[2:03:08] us. Uh the concept plan doesn't show a
[2:03:12] lot about finishes and it's more about
[2:03:16] locations.
[2:03:16] >> Right. Right.
[2:03:17] >> Yeah. the residential plans. Again, we
[2:03:19] have elevations
[2:03:21] attached to the development agreement,
[2:03:22] but since this is in a residential
[2:03:24] development, it's not anticipated.
[2:03:26] >> Yeah. So, could we anticipate that? I
[2:03:29] mean, couldn't we include that? Building
[2:03:31] materials, uh, finishes, all that. Uh,
[2:03:36] is there a reason we couldn't include
[2:03:38] that?
[2:03:38] >> No.
[2:03:40] >> Just the more that you included, less
[2:03:41] flexibility they have,
[2:03:43] >> right?
[2:03:44] >> Yeah. Well, the the ch the challenge is
[2:03:46] that to say um high quality Kenya
[2:03:49] integrated destination environment that
[2:03:51] will mean seven different things to
[2:03:52] seven different people. Um I'd love to
[2:03:55] see specifics on what is that? What does
[2:03:59] that look like? Not just in terms of a a rendering, but also and there's three there's three different
[2:04:05] ways of doing that. uh kind of in
[2:04:08] increasing
[2:04:10] restriction on um flexibility, right?
[2:04:14] The one way is to the only thing that we
[2:04:17] add is if there are materials that are
[2:04:19] prohibited, you list those and say
[2:04:22] whatever it is, it can't be this. That's
[2:04:25] the most flexible while still being more
[2:04:27] stricter than this. The next one is to
[2:04:29] say we're not going to say exactly what
[2:04:31] it has to be, but it has to be these
[2:04:34] things, right? You have you give them a
[2:04:36] list of what it it can be but not spec
[2:04:39] and then the le the most restrictive and
[2:04:41] least flexible and probably pretty
[2:04:44] difficult for them at this point is to
[2:04:45] say you got to show us pictures and
[2:04:47] that's what it's going to be right
[2:04:49] >> yeah
[2:04:51] so I don't know if you have thoughts on
[2:04:54] that range or those options but
[2:04:59] >> yeah
[2:05:01] [laughter]
[2:05:01] >> and again this and this is one where it
[2:05:03] would be very useful uh for
[2:05:05] when we when we put together the uh
[2:05:07] rivers and trails guidelines uh great
[2:05:10] detail in terms of this kind of
[2:05:11] material, this kind of wood, this kind
[2:05:12] of that, this kind of that, this kind of
[2:05:14] height and uh you know great detail to
[2:05:16] create that the the right ambiance that
[2:05:19] we were talking about. Uh of course we
[2:05:21] don't want it to be ownorous, but what
[2:05:24] is canyon integrated destination? What
[2:05:28] is that? And so that actually seeing
[2:05:30] that it's it's hard to say, yeah, of
[2:05:33] course we don't want aluminum siding,
[2:05:35] >> right?
[2:05:36] >> Um but beyond that, it seems like some
[2:05:39] detail would be helpful.
[2:05:40] >> Yeah, I was going to say I don't know if
[2:05:41] uh Bill or anybody on his team wants to
[2:05:44] speak to it, but essentially at the end
[2:05:46] of the day, that means what they think
[2:05:49] it means.
[2:05:51] >> Dale, our city
[2:05:53] standards for
[2:05:56] >> Brian wanted to make a comment. Is that
[2:05:58] okay?
[2:06:00] >> This is what we're talking about whether
[2:06:02] this is specific enough.
[2:06:03] >> I guess I'm just thinking because it
[2:06:06] says natural materials and natural
[2:06:07] design elements must be substantially
[2:06:08] incorporated in the finished product,
[2:06:10] including meaningful use materials such
[2:06:12] as wood, stone, glass, and other
[2:06:13] materials of similar quality and
[2:06:15] character. They have to be designed to
[2:06:17] respond to the site's topography, views,
[2:06:19] and mountain setting. I mean, it keeps
[2:06:21] going here. Is there something in this?
[2:06:24] doesn't hold the developer to
[2:06:26] anything then. It seems like it would.
[2:06:27] >> It It does. I mean, it does, but that
[2:06:29] but the question is, is it specific
[2:06:31] enough for the council to
[2:06:32] >> I just don't know if if they've
[2:06:35] Okay. Yeah, look at that. And I think
[2:06:37] this would be where to start, not
[2:06:38] necessarily the
[2:06:41] design plan. I don't I don't know. Yeah.
[2:06:42] If there's going to be changes, would
[2:06:44] this be the place where they would do it
[2:06:45] then? [clears throat]
[2:06:46] >> Yes. I think that's exactly what we're
[2:06:47] proposing is the question for the
[2:06:49] council is, do you want this paragraph
[2:06:51] to be more specific than it is?
[2:06:54] Yeah.
[2:06:56] >> Can I may they maybe mention something?
[2:06:58] >> Yeah.
[2:06:58] >> Um Kevin, I don't know if you have
[2:07:01] access to our application, but in the
[2:07:04] original application, it went through
[2:07:05] and kind of identify each one of the
[2:07:07] different uses. So, it talked about
[2:07:08] hotel, it talked about the amphitheater,
[2:07:10] it talked about the materials, and it
[2:07:12] gave specific exhibits of what we were
[2:07:14] talking about. um as as design and
[2:07:18] architecture changes again I don't think
[2:07:20] it's going to change that much in two to
[2:07:21] three years but you just look at how
[2:07:23] architecture changes every 10 years it
[2:07:25] seems like there's kind of a whole new
[2:07:26] wash of of of architectural elements and
[2:07:28] components that are important to people
[2:07:30] um we want to be sensitive to that but I
[2:07:32] think that provides a good baseline and I would maybe if there was a way to
[2:07:37] reference those exhibits we spent quite
[2:07:39] a bit of time on those we would love to
[2:07:41] incorporate those into this plan if that
[2:07:43] gave enough specificity
[2:07:45] >> they
[2:07:46] Yeah, they are. And Kevin, do you do you
[2:07:47] by chance have that? It's our actual
[2:07:49] original application and I haven't
[2:07:52] >> sources. So, let's just make sure that
[2:07:54] next time.
[2:07:55] >> It's it's in the slide. I can pull that
[2:07:57] up in the next round if if we want to
[2:07:59] just look through those pictures.
[2:08:00] >> Are you interested in seeing it or are
[2:08:02] you just interested in the idea that
[2:08:03] they're willing to incorporate it
[2:08:05] >> to see it? I mean, at some point we're
[2:08:06] going to want to see it,
[2:08:07] >> right? You're gonna see it
[2:08:09] if there's a a consensus of Yeah. that,
[2:08:12] >> right? Uh because again everything we talked about sound great
[2:08:16] sound very sass very but again uh this
[2:08:19] doesn't do it for me
[2:08:21] >> right you don't want that to be replaced
[2:08:22] with cardboard covered in stock
[2:08:24] >> that's right and again uh even that
[2:08:28] paragraph right there means a lot of
[2:08:30] different things so if we got pictures
[2:08:32] and we've already gone through that yeah
[2:08:34] that's
[2:08:35] >> right yeah I mean I don't think it means
[2:08:36] that but you're
[2:08:39] [laughter]
[2:08:39] >> but it's open to some interpretation
[2:08:41] okay So I think I'm going to move on
[2:08:44] with the general idea that you're okay
[2:08:45] with the idea of those things being
[2:08:47] incorporated and that those things are
[2:08:48] going to be in the next draft when you
[2:08:50] see the next draft so that you can say
[2:08:52] this is okay sufficient enough. Okay.
[2:08:56] So we'll move on to
[2:09:03] » okay there we go. So there's a paragraph
[2:09:05] about dark sky and signage. Uh must be
[2:09:08] designed to be dark sky compliant to the
[2:09:10] extent reasonly possible. Uh I I suppose
[2:09:14] I guess I would say in addition to this
[2:09:17] um
[2:09:19] the
[2:09:21] new lighting standards are going to be
[2:09:22] in place and they have to be com and
[2:09:25] they have to be compliant with the code.
[2:09:26] So that what was talked about earlier
[2:09:29] today will already be in place and
[2:09:32] binding as well.
[2:09:34] even if they submitted this application
[2:09:36] before Matt's spot.
[2:09:39] >> Yes, because there's a paragraph uh
[2:09:42] there's a paragraph elsewhere in the
[2:09:44] development agreement in the boilerplate
[2:09:46] that talks about like
[2:09:49] um about the code in place at the time
[2:09:52] the development agreement is approved.
[2:09:54] So, it's not like you can change the
[2:09:56] code forever and ever and ever, but uh
[2:09:59] and we can be more specific about that
[2:10:01] too if if we need to. I guess the
[2:10:02] question is um
[2:10:05] >> please do
[2:10:06] >> okay yeah as well I I suppose the the
[2:10:09] biggest question for moving the
[2:10:10] conversation along is as long as that's
[2:10:11] explicit that those standards are
[2:10:13] binding any other concerns or comments
[2:10:15] about this paragraph
[2:10:17] >> council
[2:10:18] >> um just some dumb questions like would
[2:10:21] this permit a big electronic billboard
[2:10:24] sign or like a sign
[2:10:26] >> well uh
[2:10:27] >> something along the lines of like what
[2:10:28] we see on University Avenue going
[2:10:31] here. Well, I mean that's already not
[2:10:34] permitted,
[2:10:35] >> right?
[2:10:36] >> So, so no, I mean this specifically says
[2:10:40] that they're subject to uh the city sign
[2:10:44] code,
[2:10:44] >> but there are peritted like we do allow
[2:10:46] Yeah, we do allow electronic signage.
[2:10:48] There's just
[2:10:49] >> those code sections do not allow
[2:10:50] electronic signs. That's why those code
[2:10:52] reference.
[2:10:52] >> Okay, great.
[2:10:53] >> Okay, so we have I didn't know we had so
[2:10:55] many out of compliance signs in the
[2:10:57] city.
[2:10:59] So Brian, help me with help me with dark
[2:11:03] sky
[2:11:04] to the extent reasonably possible. When
[2:11:06] is it not reasonable to be compliant
[2:11:10] in this?
[2:11:11] >> Um, great question and the kind of why I
[2:11:14] was trying to punt this with my comment
[2:11:16] about the other code provision being
[2:11:18] applicable. Uh, because if the other
[2:11:19] code provision is applicable,
[2:11:21] >> it will address
[2:11:22] >> then then that addresses it and this
[2:11:23] sentence kind of becomes meaningless.
[2:11:25] Uh, I think that is up to at the end of
[2:11:28] the day, it's up to
[2:11:30] Bill's team in approving an application.
[2:11:34] The application is going to have a
[2:11:35] lighting plan in it. The developer is
[2:11:37] going to have to say, "Here's this one
[2:11:40] light that for safety reasons needs to
[2:11:42] be this way." And Bill says, "Oh, that's
[2:11:45] a reasonable deviation." And if not, he
[2:11:48] doesn't approve it.
[2:11:50] >> Bill, do you want to add anything to
[2:11:51] that? Well, and and dark sky compliant
[2:11:54] could be that general idea of dark sky.
[2:11:56] So, we have adopted a particular version
[2:11:58] of that to be our city code. And so
[2:12:01] >> tonight
[2:12:02] >> or we will be
[2:12:04] >> we may
[2:12:05] >> by the time this comes to it we may have
[2:12:07] adopted
[2:12:08] >> and in fact and in fact I think that's
[2:12:10] actually a really the point I just made
[2:12:11] I actually think is a really important
[2:12:13] point for thinking about the process
[2:12:14] because I think a lot of the public
[2:12:17] perception of the development agreement
[2:12:20] has focused around once they screw up
[2:12:23] how do we use the development agreement
[2:12:25] to claw them back but in actuality
[2:12:28] the development agreement is about the
[2:12:31] guidelines that Bill's team will use to
[2:12:33] approve the permitting applications
[2:12:35] before they build. So, if they're not in
[2:12:38] compliance with the development
[2:12:39] agreement, they're not going to get to
[2:12:40] build the screw up. Does that make
[2:12:42] sense?
[2:12:45] >> So, just one more question on the on the
[2:12:47] signage um billboard like an uplit
[2:12:51] billboard. Would that be permitted here?
[2:12:52] >> No. Uh if it said come see the battery
[2:12:56] boys.
[2:12:57] >> No more billboard.
[2:12:57] >> Okay. Well, it would just have to be
[2:13:00] within the knit the knit limit we just
[2:13:03] are looking at.
[2:13:04] >> It would have to be within the knit
[2:13:05] limit. It' have to be within the size
[2:13:07] limitations for that zone and area. It'd
[2:13:10] have to meet all of the lighting
[2:13:12] requirements. I don't know off the top
[2:13:13] of my head what it is. I would say just
[2:13:15] for purpose of this discussion, it
[2:13:16] wouldn't be a billboard because a
[2:13:18] billboard a billboard means advertising
[2:13:21] off premises stuff which wouldn't be
[2:13:23] allowed. That's just flat out
[2:13:24] prohibited. So, it could only be a sign
[2:13:26] that that uh advertises their shows,
[2:13:30] [clears throat] what they're offering on
[2:13:31] site. Bill could speak to better what
[2:13:33] the code allows than I can, but those
[2:13:36] code sections are very restrictive. The
[2:13:38] SC3 zone is very permissive. That's why
[2:13:40] we went in and particularly exempt out
[2:13:44] the provisions of the SC3 zone by those.
[2:13:48] are very restrictive.
[2:13:49] >> Okay.
[2:13:51] >> I may mention a few things. Um, so one
[2:13:55] of the things that will be important for
[2:13:56] us is to be able to advertise who the
[2:13:58] performers are and those will obviously
[2:13:59] change every week. Um, and so the
[2:14:01] electronic signage there's there's um
[2:14:04] there's brightness requirements and
[2:14:07] there are um the frequency of changing
[2:14:10] requirements so you can't change it like
[2:14:11] every 10 seconds because that's going to
[2:14:12] really distract ours coming down the
[2:14:14] canyon. But having an electronic sign
[2:14:17] there to to to let people know what
[2:14:19] performers are coaching is an important
[2:14:20] component to this. So it it it is not
[2:14:22] like uh we're not planning on using it
[2:14:24] to you know advert it's not a billboard
[2:14:26] you know there might be hit the merch is
[2:14:28] you know open or the restaurant's open
[2:14:30] for these hours but it's mainly here the
[2:14:31] performers and we kind of float through
[2:14:33] those I think it's every 30 seconds and some of those requirements are not
[2:14:37] just for city it's also do so those U do
[2:14:39] requirements we've got to also meet
[2:14:41] those requirements as well but we it is
[2:14:42] important that we do have an electronic
[2:14:44] sign up there
[2:14:44] >> but isn't that contrary to what was just
[2:14:46] said
[2:14:46] >> yeah I thought yes that's not allowed
[2:14:48] >> the electronics have to make some
[2:14:50] exception what he wants because I don't
[2:14:52] know and I knew the signage was going to
[2:14:53] be a big deal and now we can
[2:14:55] >> so that's why we
[2:14:57] >> and that's why I just wanted to make
[2:14:58] sure we are all
[2:15:00] about this
[2:15:01] >> let's uh we were pretty explicit about
[2:15:03] making sure we would have the ability to
[2:15:04] do I think it was a 75 foot square foot
[2:15:06] 75 square foot electronic sign so Bill
[2:15:09] if that's not accurate we will
[2:15:11] absolutely need to change that because
[2:15:12] that's going to be something that's very
[2:15:13] important
[2:15:14] >> I'm not open to that not in the county
[2:15:16] I'm I'm open I'm not open to
[2:15:20] Are you open to Greg? Electric sign.
[2:15:22] >> No, I have problem that too. Um
[2:15:24] >> well like think about Snowbird and they have wooden signs. They don't have
[2:15:31] a huge big
[2:15:33] >> snow solitude,
[2:15:35] >> right? Um but they also I mean
[2:15:37] performing the performance venue
[2:15:39] perspective. I guess my hope would be
[2:15:42] it's not like we're it's not a it's not
[2:15:45] a casino. Um, it's something that allows
[2:15:47] us to put in, you know, you according to
[2:15:49] UDOT's requirements, we can put in a
[2:15:51] small electronic sign to be able to
[2:15:52] advertise who's coming through there.
[2:15:54] So, it's very low-key and, uh, again, I
[2:15:56] realize this may not be super popular
[2:15:58] with the with the council. U, that's
[2:16:00] something that's really, really
[2:16:01] important to us, uh, to be able to say
[2:16:03] Bruno is coming or, you know, whoever it
[2:16:05] is that's going to be coming. So,
[2:16:06] >> no, the mall has one that's under UD do
[2:16:08] requirements and they it's a problem. I would not be supportive of it in any
[2:16:13] way, shape, or form. If UD do is control
[2:16:15] of it or not,
[2:16:16] >> how is it a problem? What in what ways
[2:16:17] is it a problem? We fix those problems
[2:16:19] on Vesper.
[2:16:21] >> I don't know because it's an enforcement
[2:16:22] problem.
[2:16:23] >> Yeah.
[2:16:24] >> And it's a huge enforcement problem.
[2:16:27] >> The turn it's a huge problem.
[2:16:29] >> Yeah. And we don't we don't we don't
[2:16:31] want to be a problem. Well, obviously
[2:16:32] from a safety perspective, that's
[2:16:33] something that's incredibly important
[2:16:34] for us. But, you know, again, I don't
[2:16:37] know how we let people know who's coming
[2:16:38] to the venue. um having an electronic
[2:16:40] sign even if it's a minimal sign that's
[2:16:43] very you know bland or you know boring
[2:16:45] colors or whatever it's going to take to
[2:16:46] make sure it's not a distraction we have
[2:16:48] to have the ability to put that out
[2:16:50] there so that's something that's really
[2:16:51] important for us
[2:16:54] >> councelor McKay chair mcc
[2:16:59] » I just want to better understand your
[2:17:00] concern is your concern any sign or is
[2:17:03] it because the mall sign is not
[2:17:06] >> you are absolutely right that that is
[2:17:08] not in compl liance with anything. So,
[2:17:11] um, if the sign were in compliance,
[2:17:16] would it still be a problem for you or
[2:17:19] is it that you're worried it will be out
[2:17:20] of compliance? I just want to better
[2:17:21] understand your concern.
[2:17:23] [sighs and gasps]
[2:17:26] » I wouldn't want anything electronic in
[2:17:27] the mouth of the canyon at all. Period.
[2:17:30] And I was addressing his concern of we
[2:17:32] have certain things in play that UD do
[2:17:35] has rules and standards and I'm like no
[2:17:37] they may have those but it's it's an
[2:17:39] enforcement problem.
[2:17:41] >> It has been.
[2:17:42] >> So if it's Right. So what I'm I'm just
[2:17:44] wondering is it the enforcement that's
[2:17:46] the problem or is it just any sign in
[2:17:48] general?
[2:17:49] >> I think any sign in general of the
[2:17:50] county would be
[2:17:51] >> Yeah. I I would weigh in as well. Um you
[2:17:54] UD do is no comfort to me at all.
[2:17:57] uh especially since it's in the canyon.
[2:18:01] Uh that's part of the challenge of
[2:18:02] having this in the canyon. So yeah, any kind of electronic I think is
[2:18:07] problematic. Not necessarily the
[2:18:08] enforcement, but I don't think it meets
[2:18:11] the aesthetic of the cane.
[2:18:12] >> Yeah,
[2:18:12] >> that's the challenge.
[2:18:14] >> Is are there design elements that we
[2:18:16] could try to work through with the
[2:18:17] council to find some solution to that?
[2:18:20] Because again, having somebody with the gas station guy with the sign, you
[2:18:23] know, going putting the letters and
[2:18:24] numbers, that looks very unprofessional.
[2:18:26] Um, but I don't know how else we would
[2:18:28] advertise who's coming to the site other
[2:18:30] than online, which is where most of the
[2:18:32] work's going to be done anyway, but
[2:18:33] something very kind of muted, you know,
[2:18:36] not bright, not not loud, but something
[2:18:38] that allows
[2:18:39] >> Have you se Have you seen the remarkable
[2:18:41] pad that people use and they write on it
[2:18:44] looks like a book
[2:18:45] >> like and people buy it so they can get
[2:18:48] this?
[2:18:49] >> That's an electronic device. So, it's
[2:18:52] something like that where we don't have
[2:18:54] to actually pay somebody to walk out and
[2:18:57] put up letters.
[2:18:58] >> But see, that's that's different. A
[2:19:00] muted black and white and gray that's
[2:19:02] different than a color sonic.
[2:19:05] >> Perfect. So, I think that's where I'm
[2:19:06] trying to get to is
[2:19:08] >> it's it maybe isn't the electronic
[2:19:11] that's the problem as much
[2:19:13] >> the radiant light,
[2:19:14] >> the aesthetic. Yeah. Aesthetics of it.
[2:19:16] So, maybe we can come back. May maybe
[2:19:19] you guys can make a motion that would
[2:19:21] say, you know, this is kind of what we
[2:19:23] want. And then we can come back with
[2:19:25] some ideas of what that sign would look
[2:19:27] like, but we definitely don't want a
[2:19:30] >> a big colorful sign flashing backstreet
[2:19:33] boys and their colorful stuff. We're
[2:19:35] just trying to be able to advertise
[2:19:37] without sending an employee.
[2:19:38] >> Jeff, I'll make that exemption. Well,
[2:19:40] because the biggest thing in our like
[2:19:42] [laughter]
[2:19:43] I think I think there's also just a to
[2:19:45] your I think there's just a question too
[2:19:46] about those code that reference code on
[2:19:49] what our definition of electronic is
[2:19:51] because as of right now it's actually
[2:19:54] not what we're saying in this meeting
[2:19:55] that's operative it's that code that's
[2:19:57] operative
[2:19:58] >> right so what
[2:19:59] >> and that's why I want to pull everyone
[2:20:01] to the code so if Kevin could pull up
[2:20:03] 143810
[2:20:05] >> well
[2:20:06] >> subsection 3
[2:20:07] >> can I because we're so short on time I
[2:20:09] have a I have an alternative idea.
[2:20:11] >> Okay.
[2:20:11] >> I think this is the first that most of
[2:20:13] us are hearing explicitly that
[2:20:17] electronic sign is is anticipated.
[2:20:19] >> Yes. Yeah.
[2:20:20] >> So rather I think than delve into what
[2:20:22] the the development agreement currently
[2:20:24] says and what our code currently says.
[2:20:26] It seems to me like the two avenues are
[2:20:29] if the majority of the council is no
[2:20:31] matter what no matter no how no way
[2:20:34] there will be no electronic signs then a
[2:20:36] motion to say that right now and get
[2:20:37] that on the table would be great.
[2:20:39] Alternatively, what I'm hearing is I
[2:20:42] think that in the next version of the
[2:20:43] development agreement, the developer
[2:20:45] needs to make an explicit proposal that
[2:20:48] allows them to do what they want to do
[2:20:50] that they think will satisfy your
[2:20:51] concerns and you'll review that when
[2:20:53] they've submitted it. That that I think
[2:20:55] is probably the better option than
[2:20:57] trying to dig into what the agreement in
[2:20:59] the code says right now.
[2:21:00] >> But if that's the case, enforcement is
[2:21:03] still a problem, right? I mean, we can't
[2:21:05] get anything done with that mall sign.
[2:21:07] We haven't been able to do it for years.
[2:21:09] >> Which mall sign?
[2:21:10] >> The big one on the freeway that turns
[2:21:12] really fast and is too bright. And
[2:21:14] >> you talk about the Provo Mall.
[2:21:16] >> Yeah. Provo Town and Center Mall.
[2:21:18] >> Yeah.
[2:21:19] >> Well, um
[2:21:21] >> Yeah. I don't know that I I think that
[2:21:23] sound I think that sounds reasonable.
[2:21:24] >> Yeah.
[2:21:25] >> Um again,
[2:21:26] >> yeah, you've heard our concerns. No
[2:21:29] electronic. I I not even like colors,
[2:21:32] but if it was muted, if it was in how
[2:21:34] it's presented, that would make a
[2:21:37] difference to me. Again, I would want
[2:21:38] the venue to be successful. I I don't
[2:21:41] want it to even look remotely like the
[2:21:44] mall or like Vegas or anything like
[2:21:46] that. that and we we all say that but it
[2:21:50] has to show up specifically in I think
[2:21:52] we have to be taking specific renderings
[2:21:55] that
[2:21:56] >> and the reason I wanted to bring up the
[2:21:57] code is what it's referred to says
[2:22:00] animated signs are prohibited so no
[2:22:03] animations at all and even for this area
[2:22:07] if they use an electronic display one
[2:22:09] they can't do any short hold time
[2:22:12] electronic displays where this is
[2:22:14] located. Yeah, we've looked at this
[2:22:16] pretty extensively, Rachel, to Rachel's
[2:22:18] point, and that's that's important for
[2:22:20] us. Having the ability to do electronic
[2:22:22] sign is important for us again.
[2:22:24] >> So, like some of the things that we're scared of, Bill has already put in
[2:22:28] by this reference to the code that would
[2:22:30] make it so that would not happen.
[2:22:33] >> Yeah, exactly.
[2:22:35] >> No, we're we're saying we're saying that
[2:22:37] what the ordinance says is what we're
[2:22:38] comfortable with living.
[2:22:40] >> Oh,
[2:22:40] >> that that says that we can do electronic
[2:22:41] signs in the ordinance. That's why we
[2:22:44] >> But what what is short hold though?
[2:22:46] Because
[2:22:47] >> short hole I think is defined by a
[2:22:48] certain amount.
[2:22:49] >> Is it defined? Because what I heard you
[2:22:51] saying you want some ability to to
[2:22:52] rotate through like 30 seconds, a
[2:22:54] minute, 2 minutes.
[2:22:56] >> But but I think what I'm reading there
[2:22:57] is that it could it just has to be what
[2:22:58] it is for a long period of time. But it
[2:23:01] pretty sensibly. If we can just move on,
[2:23:03] I think
[2:23:05] that and that's why I said I think it's
[2:23:06] up to them to say this doesn't work for
[2:23:08] us. Yeah,
[2:23:09] >> we'll figure out what their restrictions
[2:23:11] are and they'll tell us what they can
[2:23:12] and can't live with and then we'll
[2:23:13] decide whether you can or can't live
[2:23:14] with that. But
[2:23:15] >> I I just think it's useful for us to
[2:23:17] know what the restrictions are in this
[2:23:19] current development agreement.
[2:23:21] >> Yeah.
[2:23:22] >> And
[2:23:22] >> but what you read also doesn't seem to
[2:23:26] address some of the concerns expressed
[2:23:27] by the council on colors and and
[2:23:31] color.
[2:23:32] >> Yeah. Can I make one more mention just
[2:23:35] with on the language? Sorry, I'm I'm
[2:23:37] jumping around. Do we want to make a
[2:23:39] motion on that part or or should I jump
[2:23:41] to my next?
[2:23:42] >> I I think we've covered one.
[2:23:44] >> I I think at this point my view of this
[2:23:46] one is we don't need a motion. My view
[2:23:48] is you now know what their concerns are
[2:23:50] and you know what you need. So you
[2:23:52] propose something to fix that meets
[2:23:54] both.
[2:23:54] >> Perfect. My only comment was just on the
[2:23:56] extent reasonably possible on that first
[2:23:58] line, the end of that first line. Brian,
[2:24:00] you were asking about that earlier.
[2:24:01] >> Yeah.
[2:24:02] >> Um again that there's some spotlight
[2:24:04] requirements and performances. there's
[2:24:06] some, you know, some other lighting
[2:24:08] things that don't meet the dark sky
[2:24:09] compliant criteria in order to run a
[2:24:12] successful venue.
[2:24:12] >> But you're talking about the stage
[2:24:15] itself, right? Not the
[2:24:17] >> parking lot or whatever. So, that's
[2:24:18] something that we just that I think that
[2:24:20] would be something else we would want to
[2:24:21] be explicit about.
[2:24:22] >> Okay. And the only reason why I'm saying
[2:24:24] that is to say that language is in there
[2:24:26] for a reason. Yeah. We wouldn't want to
[2:24:27] take it out because there are uh
[2:24:29] extenduating circumstances that would
[2:24:31] make Yeah. for certain under certain
[2:24:33] criteria requirements. And now that
[2:24:35] we've got this new dark skies ordinance
[2:24:37] that was talked about earlier in the
[2:24:38] meeting, I think instead of just saying
[2:24:40] reasonably possible, I think we need to
[2:24:42] specify.
[2:24:43] >> Yes.
[2:24:43] >> Uh the the lights that don't fall into
[2:24:46] that category must be compliant and the
[2:24:49] lights that do fall into that category,
[2:24:52] we're going to tell we're going to say
[2:24:53] what they are.
[2:24:55] [clears throat]
[2:24:55] >> Okay. All right. Um
[2:24:59] >> there you go.
[2:25:00] >> Okay. We talked about this one already
[2:25:03] uh when we were talking about parking
[2:25:05] earlier. Any concerns about this
[2:25:07] particular language? Uh this one I don't
[2:25:11] know that there's again I may have been
[2:25:12] over inclusive about what I uh included.
[2:25:16] I'm not aware of any at this point
[2:25:18] address uh comments and concerns about
[2:25:21] this. This just says they have to
[2:25:23] provide all the utility and
[2:25:24] coordination. They've got to apply
[2:25:26] they've got to comply with all the
[2:25:27] standards for sewer connections etc. Um,
[2:25:32] and that they've got to repair stuff
[2:25:33] that they tear up to put in the
[2:25:36] utilities.
[2:25:37] >> I have a question that involves this
[2:25:39] infrastructure.
[2:25:40] >> Yeah.
[2:25:40] >> The
[2:25:42] >> Does your price that you put in your
[2:25:44] stuff include the infrastructures
[2:25:46] include or is the price you gave just
[2:25:48] what's on your property
[2:25:50] >> or does it include all the road
[2:25:51] infrastructure?
[2:25:57] » Interchange.
[2:25:58] >> No, not that. So, UD do it does include
[2:26:01] the overpass, but it does not include
[2:26:03] improvements uh on 800 North. So, we we
[2:26:06] still aren't sure exactly what UD do is
[2:26:08] going required, not required. We've gone
[2:26:10] everywhere from it's okay the way that
[2:26:11] it is to there's a lot of things that
[2:26:13] need to be done. So, we're trying to
[2:26:14] figure out what those requirements are
[2:26:16] and those weren't included either.
[2:26:17] >> They require it. This includes all your
[2:26:19] public work stuff.
[2:26:20] >> All the public work, all the utilities,
[2:26:23] all the water, all the
[2:26:25] >> correct. Yeah. all the on-site stuff as
[2:26:28] well as the overpass and unique
[2:26:30] utilities.
[2:26:32] >> And are you planning on
[2:26:35] are any of these utilities you're doing
[2:26:38] going to be assets for another
[2:26:40] development found or is it all yours?
[2:26:44] >> Um there would be some share in water
[2:26:47] infrastructure. Water just the nature of
[2:26:49] water and how it works is it's kind of
[2:26:50] built in loops and so there would be
[2:26:52] other benefits that other developments
[2:26:54] would have as well as other parts of the
[2:26:55] city. I I couldn't talk into specifics.
[2:26:58] Gordon Gordon could probably address
[2:26:59] those. But yeah, there there is some
[2:27:01] benefits there that other folks will
[2:27:03] benefit from. Um the sewer might be
[2:27:05] another one where we would build
[2:27:06] capacity in the main line coming up to
[2:27:09] Vesper. Once it peels off to go up to
[2:27:10] Vesper, it would be just for our site,
[2:27:12] but the size and the capacity the
[2:27:14] capacity of the of the pipe would be a
[2:27:16] lot larger. We're dealing with stuff up
[2:27:18] the road uh at some point down the road
[2:27:22] up the can at some point down the road.
[2:27:24] But
[2:27:25] >> was that something they had to end up
[2:27:27] paying for 100% and there's no
[2:27:29] >> so the development that we had the
[2:27:31] annexation filling the tank and they're
[2:27:34] paying part of it that development part
[2:27:36] of it. So there are shared costs.
[2:27:38] There's also the sewer line in Canyon
[2:27:41] Road that we've talked about being
[2:27:43] undersized. They're going to upsize
[2:27:45] that. That'll help everybody up and down
[2:27:47] the street. So there are things that
[2:27:49] they're going to do that to help a whole
[2:27:50] bunch of people across this. Well, and
[2:27:53] didn't the packet say that they had that
[2:27:55] statemandated what is it 15 years that
[2:27:58] if anybody hooks into it, then they have
[2:28:00] to pay a portion of it and that goes
[2:28:01] back.
[2:28:02] >> They have a planer agreeing somebody
[2:28:05] stuff they get some reimbursement and
[2:28:06] that will work
[2:28:07] >> and it ends at 15 years. So, somebody
[2:28:09] builds
[2:28:11] >> so somebody builds an 11year thing.
[2:28:13] >> It's our agreement that we have with
[2:28:15] them and it's a 10year process.
[2:28:17] >> Do we deal with that with impact fees or
[2:28:19] do they put a check to them?
[2:28:22] um they'll be paying some impact fees,
[2:28:24] but they'll be going into some
[2:28:26] improvements, but this is a pioneering
[2:28:28] agreement that if somebody uses this
[2:28:30] line, they pay enough shared cost for
[2:28:32] those other improvements.
[2:28:34] >> Thanks,
[2:28:38] » All right. Uh,
[2:28:41] keep going.
[2:28:43] >> I was just going to say
[2:28:45] I'm now Kevin has the building materials
[2:28:48] that were included in the application in
[2:28:50] the concept
[2:28:53] that
[2:28:54] >> Do you want to see them now or do you
[2:28:56] want to see them as part of the draft?
[2:28:58] >> I think we probably cover enough.
[2:28:59] >> Yeah,
[2:29:02] >> draft.
[2:29:03] >> Okay. All right. So
[2:29:06] we move moved through a couple ones fast
[2:29:08] and now we're going to slow down again
[2:29:09] probably. So here is the paragraph about
[2:29:12] sound mitigation and hours says that
[2:29:14] they must use commercially reasonable
[2:29:16] efforts to incorporate uh sound
[2:29:18] attenuation and noise mitigation
[2:29:19] technologies and that they have to t uh
[2:29:22] terminate their events no later than 11
[2:29:25] p.m. Sunday through Thursday and
[2:29:26] midnight Friday through Saturday.
[2:29:28] There's been lots of discussion about
[2:29:29] this one and
[2:29:31] >> I want to change it to 10 pm Sunday
[2:29:33] through Thursday and 11 days.
[2:29:36] >> I I was going to put this up just while
[2:29:38] we're talking. This was the response
[2:29:40] that they submitted to that question uh
[2:29:42] in the council packet just so you have
[2:29:44] that for your reference while you're
[2:29:47] talking.
[2:29:47] >> Yes.
[2:29:48] >> Extra language.
[2:29:49] >> Yes.
[2:29:51] >> Um
[2:29:54] my concern is commercially reasonable.
[2:29:58] Why why wouldn't we say specific decimal
[2:30:00] levels at the property line at their
[2:30:03] closest residence line or why wouldn't
[2:30:05] we use specific things like that? Well,
[2:30:08] uh I mean to a certain extent we already
[2:30:10] do because we already have a noise
[2:30:13] ordinance that does say what the decibel
[2:30:14] levels are at the property line. Uh the
[2:30:18] question is whether that is subject to a
[2:30:21] future exemption. Right? Right. I mean
[2:30:22] the stadium for example the football
[2:30:24] stadium is exempted from those decibel
[2:30:27] levels. So there absent anything to the
[2:30:31] contrary those decibel levels that are
[2:30:33] already in the code apply
[2:30:35] >> those could be except
[2:30:37] >> but the council could decide to change
[2:30:39] those at any time or the administration
[2:30:42] actually can grant exemp uh special
[2:30:44] event exemptions to those uh dustful
[2:30:46] levels. So great question and I I think
[2:30:48] that I'm going to turn it over to Brian.
[2:30:51] I think the answer I anticipate him
[2:30:54] saying is that they don't know what
[2:30:56] those would be yet. But
[2:31:00] >> um so if you'll Craig maybe by example
[2:31:03] by way of example can you just flip to
[2:31:05] the next slide. So these are all the
[2:31:08] different venues that we looked at and
[2:31:11] this is an example of how each one of
[2:31:13] them looks at these curfews a little
[2:31:14] differently.
[2:31:16] >> And then you take this
[2:31:17] >> I was going to say but you're
[2:31:19] >> No, we're talking about sound. Okay,
[2:31:20] >> I just wanted to use this, I guess, as
[2:31:22] an example to say commercially
[2:31:24] reasonable standard. The language that
[2:31:26] was included in there was there for a
[2:31:28] reason because just as varied as you see
[2:31:30] the operating kind of curfew times are
[2:31:32] for different venues across the country,
[2:31:35] it is infinitely more complicated when
[2:31:36] it gets to sound. Sound um is based on
[2:31:39] the receptors, the distances of those
[2:31:41] receptors, the topography, how you deal
[2:31:43] with the technology. There's an infinite
[2:31:46] number of solutions. We don't know what
[2:31:47] those solutions right now. I would love
[2:31:50] to be able to say we could go take a
[2:31:51] speaker blast at 110 dB and give you
[2:31:54] guys the answer. We can't. It doesn't
[2:31:56] work that way. We have already been
[2:31:58] engaged significantly with um like
[2:32:00] worldrenowned experts on you know on um
[2:32:03] on acoustics and sound uh technology.
[2:32:06] And so um our proposal would be that we
[2:32:08] are bound by the ordinance today as it
[2:32:11] reads and then we would come in and make
[2:32:13] a proposal to you to say hey this is
[2:32:15] what we're looking at. This is how other
[2:32:17] places do it. This is what Red Rocks
[2:32:18] does. this is what the Hollywood Bowl
[2:32:20] does. This is what all of these folks
[2:32:21] do. Well, we would only do that once we
[2:32:23] have once we're once we're armed with
[2:32:24] the information necessary to be able to
[2:32:26] have that meaningful conversation
[2:32:28] because we have to nail it. It's really, important for us. We want to be
[2:32:32] good neighbors to everybody around us,
[2:32:34] including Provo City and all of our
[2:32:35] neighbors. So, it's important that we
[2:32:37] get this right and we don't have those
[2:32:38] answers right now. So, a lot of that is
[2:32:41] dependent on things I've already
[2:32:42] mentioned, including the screening as
[2:32:43] sound goes off site, as it migrates off
[2:32:45] site. there's a lot of really important
[2:32:47] topographical challenges or
[2:32:49] opportunities I guess I should say um as
[2:32:51] the sound blitters away from those big subwoofers and it blasts into
[2:32:55] the hillside that sound travels upward
[2:32:58] as opposed to uh our neighboring uh
[2:33:00] property owners and anything that does
[2:33:02] travel to those neighboring property
[2:33:03] owners gets hit by other topographical
[2:33:05] features whether that be mountains or
[2:33:07] you know other things. So there's a lot
[2:33:09] that we do know there's a lot that we
[2:33:11] don't know and we will come to you when
[2:33:12] we're ready to make a proposal about
[2:33:13] what that looks like. There will be a
[2:33:15] tremendous amount of monitoring. All the
[2:33:17] things that if you could flip back now,
[2:33:18] Brian, all of those things that we feel
[2:33:20] like were important for us to commit to,
[2:33:22] we've committed to and they're in here.
[2:33:24] Um I I again, there's part of me that
[2:33:27] wishes we could give more, but we're not ready to do that right now
[2:33:30] until we go pay for the the design. We
[2:33:32] know what the stadium looks like. We
[2:33:33] know what the screening looks like. We
[2:33:34] know what the technology looks like. We
[2:33:36] know what all these things look like.
[2:33:39] So, Council Christians, I guess
[2:33:41] following up on that and just stating it
[2:33:43] as my opinion, I guess I would say I
[2:33:44] think you're right to call this out. I
[2:33:46] think this paragraph is essentially just
[2:33:47] a placeholder, right? It's a placeholder
[2:33:50] to say we're going to be working on
[2:33:52] these things and we're going to do the
[2:33:54] best we can. Now, it's not the only
[2:33:56] thing that applies to them. And that's
[2:33:57] where I come back to the sound
[2:33:58] ordinance. It's a placeholder because
[2:34:01] unless they get exempted from the sound
[2:34:03] ordinance, they're going to have to meet
[2:34:04] it. My guess as a non-total non-expert
[2:34:06] is even if they do this, they probably
[2:34:09] can't meet the sound ordinance. So I
[2:34:12] think so my expectation is they're going
[2:34:14] to come back to you with a proposal for
[2:34:16] how they need to be exempted from the
[2:34:18] sound ordinance with the answers to all
[2:34:20] the questions that you're asking right
[2:34:21] now. Does that make does that make
[2:34:23] sense?
[2:34:26] » No. No. I'm not talking about I'm not
[2:34:28] talking about I see what you're saying.
[2:34:30] for the settle orders, they're not going
[2:34:32] to keep it.
[2:34:33] >> Well, I'm not I'm not but when I'm
[2:34:35] talking about exemp exemptions, I'm not
[2:34:37] talking about administrative exemptions.
[2:34:39] I'm talking about the council changing
[2:34:41] the code
[2:34:43] >> in the way that
[2:34:44] >> to include them,
[2:34:45] >> but they can bypass that
[2:34:47] >> the way that we got an exemption for the
[2:34:49] stadium,
[2:34:50] >> right? But they can just go get an
[2:34:51] administrative exception. They will beat
[2:34:54] us. You know what I mean? Like it's
[2:34:56] >> I'm trying to remember if there's a
[2:34:58] seems to me like there's a limit on uh
[2:35:01] >> like there's businesses right now that
[2:35:03] don't keep us out rules and they get
[2:35:05] exempted.
[2:35:08] >> Well, ex I mean there's two different
[2:35:09] questions there. Are you talking about
[2:35:11] proactive exemptions or are you talking
[2:35:12] about a code enforcement issue? Um
[2:35:16] the proactive exemptions we could
[2:35:19] certainly address, right? Um I I think
[2:35:23] there's a limit on how many times a year
[2:35:25] those can be granted. But if not, one
[2:35:28] possibility is we do modify this so that
[2:35:32] to rule that out. Uh, one of the other
[2:35:34] things Brian and I talked about, and
[2:35:35] again, I'll just throw this out there
[2:35:37] because I don't know how satisfactory it
[2:35:39] is, is to put in a little bit more
[2:35:41] detail about what they intend to do, and
[2:35:44] instead of just saying commercially
[2:35:45] reasonable, say something like are going
[2:35:49] to conduct the following studies, turn
[2:35:51] the reports over to the city for review,
[2:35:54] and follow the recommendations of the
[2:35:56] experts in those studies kind of thing.
[2:35:59] That that would be a way to beef it up
[2:36:00] without coming to a number.
[2:36:06] Uh just following up on councelor
[2:36:07] McCay's question like
[2:36:10] some examples how how are they dealt
[2:36:12] with today? Like for example BYU games
[2:36:16] rooftop concert series like what's the
[2:36:17] difference between like a code I'm not
[2:36:19] super familiar with our sound code at
[2:36:20] the moment but like a code codified
[2:36:23] exemption versus a one-off
[2:36:24] administrative exemption.
[2:36:25] >> So rooftop is one-off exemptions. BYU
[2:36:28] stadium and all sports fields in the
[2:36:30] city are permanent exemptions uh for
[2:36:35] uh not e extra mural regularly scheduled
[2:36:38] athletic activities. So the football
[2:36:40] stadium is exempted by code rooftop is
[2:36:44] administrative.
[2:36:45] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:36:51] So, we went to a concert and it was
[2:36:53] raining
[2:36:55] and in order to extend it, they got an
[2:36:56] exemption from the city to extend it
[2:37:00] past the curfew hours, right? So, is
[2:37:02] that also an exemption that we offer?
[2:37:06] But, so even if we did put a curfew
[2:37:07] down, they could still extend it past
[2:37:09] there. What What is our parameters in
[2:37:12] that?
[2:37:13] >> Scott,
[2:37:15] >> it really does go by event. It seems
[2:37:18] like the most noise ordinance exceptions
[2:37:21] I get are related to onampus BYU events
[2:37:26] and the sometimes they will go to 11:00
[2:37:31] would be that's probably the latest one
[2:37:33] I've ever seen you know but there there
[2:37:36] is no rule of thumb because it really
[2:37:37] comes in from each different
[2:37:41] event you know a lot of them will happen
[2:37:43] within our code compliant but they have
[2:37:45] some type of amplification even during
[2:37:48] U well you would say like the 5 to n
[2:37:50] hours but they still need to get an
[2:37:53] exemption for that amplica amplification
[2:37:55] or the music that are part of it too.
[2:37:58] Councelor Bogn before you go on one
[2:38:00] clarification though the exemption
[2:38:02] allowed in the code is to exceed the
[2:38:05] sound limitation hours not to engage in
[2:38:08] a use that's prohibited after a certain
[2:38:11] time.
[2:38:11] >> Okay.
[2:38:12] >> So so that would not apply to extending
[2:38:14] the events.
[2:38:17] Wait.
[2:38:19] >> So this this says flat out they can't
[2:38:22] have events after these times. Not you
[2:38:25] can't have loud events after these
[2:38:27] times. If this said you can't have loud
[2:38:29] events after these times that could be
[2:38:31] granted an exception by the code but the
[2:38:34] co the code provision that allows the
[2:38:35] exceptions. It doesn't say
[2:38:39] any I don't have let's say bounce house
[2:38:40] parties were illegal after 10:00 in
[2:38:43] different part of the code. The the code
[2:38:45] provision we're talking about doesn't
[2:38:47] say that the administration can let
[2:38:48] bounce house parties go on later. It
[2:38:50] says it can let the sound levels be
[2:38:53] exceeded later, which is a different
[2:38:54] question.
[2:38:55] >> So, it's still the same thing. It's
[2:38:56] still a sound exemption is what you're
[2:38:59] saying.
[2:39:00] The problem necessarily isn't the sound
[2:39:04] as much as it is the vibration, right?
[2:39:07] >> Yeah. The vibration of everything.
[2:39:10] People can't necessarily hear it
[2:39:12] auditorially, but they can feel it. It's
[2:39:14] what they can feel. It's what their dogs
[2:39:15] feel. It's what their babies feel. It's
[2:39:17] when their their TV screens bouncing off
[2:39:20] the wall and they're freaking out or the
[2:39:24] it's pulsating their windows and they're
[2:39:26] afraid it's going to break. Those those
[2:39:28] are the problems that aren't necessarily
[2:39:30] controlled by our sound ordinances.
[2:39:32] So, to me, it's it's it's a whole gamut.
[2:39:35] It's
[2:39:36] >> the people that are living up the canyon
[2:39:38] or up the canyon and the
[2:39:43] It's the car that you fill next to your
[2:39:45] Gemini.
[2:39:46] >> Yeah.
[2:39:48] >> So, it's DBC is the term that they use
[2:39:52] to measure that. And so, that would be
[2:39:54] one of the requirements that we would
[2:39:56] talk about managing and mitigating in
[2:39:59] those events. So, you have DBC is the
[2:40:00] low base, the really loud vibrating
[2:40:03] frequency. So, those would all be things
[2:40:05] that we would need to propose and
[2:40:06] provide, you know, accurate solution
[2:40:08] score as we move forward. Yeah, but we are concerned about that. Becky, I I
[2:40:12] guess one of the things that we do look
[2:40:14] at at sound in terms of sound is the
[2:40:16] closest resident is about 2/ird of a
[2:40:18] mile from us and that's the folks that
[2:40:20] just are right around the corner. Um
[2:40:22] >> you can feel that from
[2:40:25] >> Yeah,
[2:40:25] >> you can feel it for more than twothirds
[2:40:28] of a mile. That stuff travels. It's not
[2:40:30] necessarily what they can hear, it's
[2:40:32] what they feel,
[2:40:33] >> right? Further than the sound. and
[2:40:36] you've got Sierra Shell and you've got
[2:40:38] um you've got Eustan, you've got a lot
[2:40:39] of places that are that are close. So,
[2:40:41] it's it's a matter of making sure we're
[2:40:43] accurately addressing the sound
[2:40:45] concerns. We have me the ability to
[2:40:47] measure it all of those receptors,
[2:40:48] especially in Orum. We know what that
[2:40:50] sound is. We know what the decibb are so
[2:40:52] that we're making sure we're making sure
[2:40:53] we're in compliance and that we're
[2:40:55] measuring all the different aspects of
[2:40:57] the sound. The DBC, I think it's da is
[2:40:59] the higher frequency sounds. Uh DBA.
[2:41:02] Yeah. And then we've got um
[2:41:06] uh I think those are the two main ones.
[2:41:08] And then the and then the LQ is another
[2:41:09] way that they kind of measure the impact
[2:41:11] of sound on other folks. So those would
[2:41:13] all be things that we would need to
[2:41:14] address, you know, down the down the
[2:41:15] road once we have the design complete.
[2:41:17] >> And where you're on the border of Provo
[2:41:18] and ORM, would you have to get the same
[2:41:21] kind of variance from Orm City that you
[2:41:24] do from Provo? Would you have to do both
[2:41:26] of those extension permits?
[2:41:28] >> Just Provo because you're in Provo. So
[2:41:31] the sounds that go to orum
[2:41:34] would just be okay because even though
[2:41:38] it it doesn't meet their stuff because
[2:41:40] you have an exclusion in provoke.
[2:41:41] >> Yeah, we wouldn't be we wouldn't be
[2:41:43] required to follow their standards, but
[2:41:44] I would guess that we'll we'll Yeah.
[2:41:47] Um, but I I think one of if if there
[2:41:51] were stronger language to include in
[2:41:53] here with regard to the process, you
[2:41:56] know, like like Brian talked about, that
[2:41:58] was something that we did kind of
[2:41:59] explore. Um, and we're happy to do that
[2:42:02] or it's like we're kind of kicking the
[2:42:04] can down the road on the sand because we
[2:42:06] don't have a limb or just because we
[2:42:07] don't have the design. Um, so however
[2:42:08] the council wants to kind of uh address
[2:42:11] that, we're happy to try to accommodate
[2:42:12] if it were more of a process driven um,
[2:42:16] uh, requirement in the development
[2:42:18] agreement or maybe both. Maybe it's
[2:42:20] process driven about who we hire, how we
[2:42:22] engage them, what the results would be,
[2:42:24] how that information would be shared
[2:42:25] with city, how we would be bound to
[2:42:27] those things. We're going to do that
[2:42:29] anyways. Um, we've got to make sure we
[2:42:31] hit the requirements for performers as
[2:42:32] they come and that we can meet their
[2:42:33] requirements as well. So that's an
[2:42:35] important incredibly important component
[2:42:37] for the project. So if that was helpful
[2:42:39] to put the process driven things in here
[2:42:41] as well as we've got to come back about
[2:42:43] the ordinance that would be yeah
[2:42:45] whatever whatever works best for post
[2:42:48] >> I like what you suggested.
[2:42:49] >> Go ahead.
[2:42:50] >> I like what suggested as far as a
[2:42:52] process like it has to be a sound study
[2:42:53] eventually and then how things can be
[2:42:56] mitigated and we be able to know how it
[2:42:58] hits our residents
[2:43:00] and if there needs to be anything done
[2:43:02] or not. Maybe there won't be,
[2:43:04] >> but we need to know. We need to stop
[2:43:06] now.
[2:43:08] Christian,
[2:43:09] >> um I I think the process is helpful. Uh
[2:43:14] it's the results that matter. Um if you
[2:43:17] live next to the stadium, it's loud. And
[2:43:21] what is that? 9 12 times a year, 15, I
[2:43:24] don't know. It's a handful. It's not
[2:43:26] every week. It's not multiple times a
[2:43:27] week. And so the significance of this in
[2:43:31] terms of sound, I love the idea of
[2:43:32] process, but in my mind there there's
[2:43:35] got to be results in terms of measurable
[2:43:37] things. So and let's find out from other
[2:43:39] venues what's reasonable and let's then
[2:43:41] articulate, okay, the decel, the DCA and
[2:43:44] the DBAs, here's what they are, and
[2:43:46] that's what this is going to be. But not
[2:43:49] to have that um I I if I'm a citizen,
[2:43:53] I'm thinking you dropped the ball. Uh,
[2:43:56] the sound the sound is a big deal. The
[2:43:58] light's a big deal. We've already talked
[2:43:59] about the light, but um I I'm not
[2:44:02] comfortable with just process. I'd be
[2:44:04] more comfortable with some results in
[2:44:06] terms of what are the what are the
[2:44:08] parameters?
[2:44:09] >> Well, they can't test what's not built.
[2:44:10] So, can we put it in and then test it
[2:44:12] and then do a decision? Well, we can do research on what do other
[2:44:17] venues that are close to uh you know
[2:44:21] homes that are in general
[2:44:23] uh what what are they what are they
[2:44:25] using and I would hope it's better than
[2:44:28] just uh reasonable best commercially
[2:44:31] reasonable here here's the concern uh we
[2:44:34] want this to be successful so bump it
[2:44:37] make make it happen make it work we've
[2:44:38] got a lot invested as the city the
[2:44:40] developers do and that does not lend it
[2:44:42] to lend itself to being judicious about
[2:44:46] are we overstepping
[2:44:48] what's prudent for our citizens. That's
[2:44:50] my concern.
[2:44:51] >> Mhm.
[2:44:55] » Oh, go ahead.
[2:44:56] >> Uh, sorry. I want to go.
[2:44:58] >> Well, I I just wanted to again this this
[2:45:00] would be one where I think it'd be
[2:45:01] really important for a motion. Uh, and I think the issue is
[2:45:06] um in my mind the issue is are you okay
[2:45:10] with kicking down the can down the road
[2:45:12] knowing that there are already standards
[2:45:14] in place or do the or the or does it
[2:45:16] have to be answered now? I think that's
[2:45:18] the the what I would want guidance on as
[2:45:22] far as working with the developer on
[2:45:24] >> those standards.
[2:45:26] It's like
[2:45:28] 65 during the day or I mean it's really
[2:45:31] low. That's why I say I think in my view
[2:45:35] I think you probably
[2:45:37] >> you probably can't meet the current
[2:45:39] requirements. You're probably going to
[2:45:40] have to come back to propose a text
[2:45:42] amendment to the council in the future.
[2:45:44] >> It's 70 for all other areas besides your
[2:45:47] residential during daytime.
[2:45:49] >> Okay. And lower during the evening. It's
[2:45:52] correct 65.
[2:45:53] >> It was after 10 o'
[2:45:55] and specific for entertainment venues.
[2:45:59] It even with exemptions, it can't go
[2:46:02] above 105.
[2:46:03] >> Yeah.
[2:46:04] >> Brian, is this one of your gates? One of
[2:46:06] your 10 gates.
[2:46:08] >> No, this isn't this isn't a g I mean,
[2:46:10] it's not a gate for the transfer of the
[2:46:12] property. It's a gate for reme we didn't
[2:46:16] even we haven't even gotten to this yet
[2:46:17] but remember that we have talked about
[2:46:18] previously that there are provisions
[2:46:20] later that we will hopefully get to
[2:46:22] about the fact that if they don't
[2:46:24] commence or finish construction we can
[2:46:26] unzone the property. So in my and again
[2:46:29] all of this is a package deal. So in my
[2:46:30] mind what this actually does this is
[2:46:33] really and again I acknowledge this to
[2:46:35] begin this is essentially a statement of
[2:46:36] intent. Uh what but in practice the way
[2:46:40] that this would work if you're not
[2:46:42] satisfied with it is in well let me back
[2:46:44] up. Logistically what I see happening is
[2:46:47] they're going to go do their sound study
[2:46:49] after they know that they've got the
[2:46:50] reszone and and it's worth spending the
[2:46:53] money to do the sound study. They're
[2:46:55] going to come back with the sound study
[2:46:56] and they're going to say we think that
[2:46:58] it needs to be 110 and here's why and
[2:47:02] here's what 110 looks like. And I'm
[2:47:04] pulling a number out of the I should
[2:47:05] have said 300 so that people know I'm
[2:47:06] being ridiculous. But they come back and
[2:47:08] they present to you a text amendment to
[2:47:10] the code and you are convinced by it and
[2:47:13] accept it and the project goes forward
[2:47:15] or you are not convinced by it. You
[2:47:17] don't pass it and they don't build
[2:47:19] because they know they can't meet the
[2:47:20] code and then you unzone the property
[2:47:22] and take it back. But I think I think
[2:47:25] the concern that uh councelor McKay is
[2:47:27] saying is that even if even if that were
[2:47:30] the case, the way the code is currently
[2:47:31] written, you can just always make an
[2:47:33] event per event.
[2:47:35] >> Yeah.
[2:47:35] >> And and that's what I and that's what I
[2:47:37] said. I I threw this out a couple times
[2:47:39] without giving a specific. I think what
[2:47:40] we can add to this is say we're not
[2:47:43] eligible for special event exemptions.
[2:47:47] >> Right? If if that's your concern, we can
[2:47:49] cite the code provision that that allows
[2:47:51] those and say that doesn't apply.
[2:47:53] >> So that has to come.
[2:47:54] >> It's either it's either we have a one
[2:47:57] side we have a final rule or we have
[2:47:59] nothing.
[2:48:00] >> I think that's way better.
[2:48:01] >> Yeah.
[2:48:04] >> You going to make that motion and I'll
[2:48:05] second it?
[2:48:06] >> I'll make a motion that we add that they
[2:48:08] can't have the
[2:48:10] administrative exemptions and that they
[2:48:12] have to come back for a full exemption
[2:48:14] that's spelled out and specific. I'll
[2:48:17] second that.
[2:48:19] >> Yeah. And or discussion.
[2:48:21] >> So looking at the exemption part. So
[2:48:23] that's 9.06.050.
[2:48:27] Um I I think if we are going to say no
[2:48:30] exemptions, it would be no exemptions
[2:48:32] unless the council decides to alter this
[2:48:35] code
[2:48:37] >> because
[2:48:37] >> Right. Well, and again, we're really not
[2:48:40] talking about exemptions. We're talking
[2:48:41] about administrative administrative
[2:48:44] event exceptions. Right.
[2:48:45] >> Yeah. because you made the point earlier
[2:48:47] that we may not actually know what the
[2:48:49] impact is until they've built a thing
[2:48:50] there.
[2:48:51] >> You know that the studies because you're
[2:48:53] going to be changing the geometries and everything of it. So we can't know
[2:48:59] for real what it is until it's
[2:49:01] >> real.
[2:49:02] >> Yeah. So I like the idea that they have
[2:49:03] to come they have to do all the testing
[2:49:05] but we have actual things to work with
[2:49:06] and then know and then we make their own
[2:49:08] exception.
[2:49:08] >> Although what they can do, Rachel, is
[2:49:10] they can build to specification.
[2:49:12] So, let's say it's 300 or 3,000 to be
[2:49:15] ridiculous. It can't be more than 3,000.
[2:49:17] All right. Well, you have to build it to
[2:49:19] 3,000, right? Or three.
[2:49:21] >> You're dealing with nature. I don't know
[2:49:22] if you could.
[2:49:23] >> And I was going to add to that. I was
[2:49:24] just saying you you can put parameters
[2:49:27] in and then you build it to parameters.
[2:49:29] Um otherwise, it's
[2:49:32] you'll know what's in the bill after you
[2:49:33] read it, after we pass it, you know.
[2:49:36] Yeah. Yeah, you know that that that you
[2:49:38] know, well, let's just let's just wait
[2:49:40] until we pass it and then get on the
[2:49:42] other side. I'm suggesting we could
[2:49:44] actually put in parameters and say it
[2:49:46] has to be in these parameters. Now, I
[2:49:47] suggest those parameters be based on
[2:49:50] what other venues do, what there have to
[2:49:52] be some guideline. I'm not looking to be
[2:49:53] unreasonable. I'm just saying you could
[2:49:56] build it to parameters.
[2:49:58] >> It might be more expensive and
[2:49:59] >> and I don't disagree with that. One of
[2:50:01] the things I was going to suggest uh
[2:50:03] when you when you started with that
[2:50:04] comment was,
[2:50:06] you know, I was said I I think it's
[2:50:09] totally valid to suggest to the
[2:50:11] developer who's going to be making these
[2:50:12] drafts that they go out and look and
[2:50:14] they come back and
[2:50:16] maybe maybe you're not actually when you
[2:50:18] get to the point where you're amending
[2:50:20] the code, you won't be satisfied with
[2:50:21] anything greater than 105, right? But
[2:50:25] maybe they come back right now and say,
[2:50:27] "We've looked around the country and 150
[2:50:30] is the biggest that anybody else is
[2:50:32] doing, so we're going to put 150 in it
[2:50:34] anyway." Knowing that that's not an
[2:50:37] authorization, it's a cap, right? So
[2:50:40] there can be a ceiling in it even if
[2:50:42] there's not an authorization to meet the
[2:50:44] ceiling, but that would require it's up
[2:50:47] to them whether that's really possible.
[2:50:49] I I think one of the challenges in my
[2:50:52] mind as I consider what councelor uh
[2:50:55] Christensen is saying is so our ours our
[2:50:58] sound ordinances are basically at
[2:51:00] property line right
[2:51:01] >> I think the really challenging unknown
[2:51:03] is how the m mountain will carry the
[2:51:06] sound over into the people who live on
[2:51:09] the other side of that like my
[2:51:10] understanding is yeah exactly and it's
[2:51:12] like my understanding with how kind of
[2:51:13] like rock mountains work is they tend to
[2:51:15] vibrate and carry sound quite
[2:51:16] efficiently and that's just the thing
[2:51:18] like Unless we go drive up to the hill
[2:51:20] and put out some massive speakers and
[2:51:22] blast sound. Like we don't really know
[2:51:23] what it'll actually feel like to the
[2:51:25] people who live on the other side. Like
[2:51:26] for example, I talked to a venue owner
[2:51:28] and that was his big personal like if
[2:51:30] I'm thinking about this like the sound
[2:51:32] traveling up and over that mountain
[2:51:33] seems very like efficient to me. And
[2:51:36] again, I know there's like mitigation
[2:51:37] effects, but it's just Yeah. Anyway,
[2:51:39] it's like it's hard. I don't think our I
[2:51:41] don't think our you know at sight or at
[2:51:43] sideline decel reading is actually going
[2:51:45] to in practical terms affect be the
[2:51:48] experience of the people who live there.
[2:51:50] >> You have to experience the different
[2:51:52] neighborhoods and actually check out the
[2:51:54] different neighborhoods as something's
[2:51:55] going on with a test. And again, I think
[2:51:58] that all of those things are things that
[2:52:02] they could be required to answer to when
[2:52:03] you're be when you're considering what
[2:52:06] it really boils down to is I think what
[2:52:08] we need what the developer needs to know
[2:52:10] and what I need to know as far as ne
[2:52:12] negotiating what you want is do do those
[2:52:15] questions have to be answered now?
[2:52:17] >> Yeah. And and that's why this is like
[2:52:18] really challenging is because I their
[2:52:21] position which I totally understand is
[2:52:22] like they're taking on a ton of risk
[2:52:24] even being in this room, you know,
[2:52:25] spending all this time answering all of
[2:52:27] our questions and then we could still
[2:52:28] just say no. And so it's like the more
[2:52:30] we ask them to do now, the more so it's
[2:52:32] like there's a risk asymmetry here that
[2:52:33] seems just really challenging. So
[2:52:35] >> that's what I I don't know what a good
[2:52:36] answer is to that, but that's the
[2:52:38] challenge.
[2:52:39] >> And I don't either. So I defer to you,
[2:52:41] man.
[2:52:41] >> I mean, unless we could go do a do a
[2:52:43] field trip. I don't [laughter] know.
[2:52:45] Well, it makes sense to me that you
[2:52:46] can't know it until you have all the
[2:52:48] infrastructure in place.
[2:52:49] >> It's just really hard to know.
[2:52:50] >> And you need to know where it is over
[2:52:51] the mountain, down the mountain, in the
[2:52:54] little neighborhood. Can't remember the
[2:52:56] name of it.
[2:52:57] >> Springell.
[2:52:57] >> Yeah.
[2:52:58] >> So, like they need to be testing those
[2:52:59] three areas. So, but if if we have it
[2:53:03] lined up like you mentioned that they
[2:53:04] can't have a exemption and it would they
[2:53:07] need to come in to get their own
[2:53:08] exemption arranged with particulars then
[2:53:11] that seems
[2:53:14] like the best step. I don't know.
[2:53:17] >> It just becomes hard because if it's
[2:53:18] already built or whatever it's like, you
[2:53:21] know, it's too big to fail at that
[2:53:22] point. You're not as That's just the
[2:53:24] challenge. Well, and I Yeah, I guess I
[2:53:27] would say if I was the developer,
[2:53:29] [laughter]
[2:53:30] and I'm not, but if I was the developer,
[2:53:33] because of the risk that you just
[2:53:34] identified before I started building, I
[2:53:37] would go do those, but not before two
[2:53:39] weeks from now, I would go do all of
[2:53:42] those studies, I would apply for my
[2:53:44] exemption. I would show you the studies.
[2:53:46] I I would have the number in the code
[2:53:50] before I started building, even if I
[2:53:52] don't have it two weeks from now. Mhm.
[2:53:54] >> Can I Can I check?
[2:53:56] >> Yeah.
[2:53:56] you're exactly right, Council
[2:53:58] Member Whitlock. We would be about eight
[2:54:00] months, I would guess, six to eight
[2:54:02] months away from being able to come and
[2:54:04] make a really compelling uh um
[2:54:07] explanation of what we're asking for and
[2:54:08] why. Um the first step, the first that
[2:54:11] the day after we're done here, we're
[2:54:13] going to go get the geotechnical study
[2:54:14] done. Um and then we would complete, you
[2:54:16] know, kind of the preliminary and
[2:54:17] concept design. So those would be the
[2:54:19] very first steps that we would do that
[2:54:20] we couldn't do anything um acoustically
[2:54:23] until we have that design complete. Um
[2:54:25] and then we would figure out ways to try
[2:54:26] to mitigate those selling impacts and
[2:54:28] then come to you and say this is what we
[2:54:30] were proposing. But um that that risk
[2:54:33] asymmetry I would love to understand
[2:54:34] what you mean by that because I feel
[2:54:35] like maybe we both feel like we're the
[2:54:39] one leading the risk. I know Craig has
[2:54:40] said that a lot. I I feel like you guys
[2:54:43] hold all the cards in that you have a
[2:54:45] standard right now. We don't we won't
[2:54:46] meet the standard. either we will, in
[2:54:49] which case we're good to go, or we
[2:54:50] won't, which I'm telling you right now,
[2:54:52] we won't. So then we would have to come
[2:54:53] back and say, here's here's what this
[2:54:55] would look like, and here's is this a
[2:54:56] reasonable approach. It's not what this
[2:54:58] would look like. It's does this mean
[2:54:59] would this be acceptable to you as as
[2:55:01] city council? So from my perspective, it
[2:55:03] is risk asymmetry. It's all on us, but
[2:55:06] um maybe maybe I'm not seeing some
[2:55:08] >> Yeah, that that's what that's what I'm
[2:55:09] potentially saying. Like we're asking
[2:55:11] for answers now that require a level
[2:55:12] investment that are not reasonable for
[2:55:14] us to ask for.
[2:55:15] >> Yes. given the risk that you are facing
[2:55:18] for us to say no.
[2:55:19] >> We're thinking the exact same way. We
[2:55:21] would be we would be a significant
[2:55:23] investment to go figure out the answers
[2:55:24] to these questions that we can't make
[2:55:28] uh it's very difficult for us to make
[2:55:29] prior to getting some direction on the
[2:55:31] phone. So
[2:55:33] >> yeah, and I think it's important to note
[2:55:35] that when you're doing enclosed
[2:55:37] concerts, we probably aren't having a
[2:55:39] sound problem at all. It's only when we
[2:55:41] have the really big ones during the
[2:55:44] summer months that are the open air
[2:55:46] types of things. So, the number of
[2:55:48] events that could potentially have an
[2:55:51] adverse sound impact would be fewer than
[2:55:55] the number of football games we've got a
[2:55:56] year.
[2:55:57] >> So, Rachel, it's a great point and that
[2:55:59] I I think that goes to the design. That
[2:56:02] goes to the design and needing to talk
[2:56:04] about the design because, you know, we
[2:56:05] have this retractable roof concept,
[2:56:08] right? And so if if it's enclosed, sound
[2:56:10] is not an issue, right? It's enclosed.
[2:56:12] And if we do if we if we're in a
[2:56:14] situation where we're where it's
[2:56:15] outdoor, we could leave up portions of
[2:56:17] the retractable um walls in order to
[2:56:20] kind of really direct the sound. So
[2:56:22] there's a lot of uh components here that
[2:56:24] we have control over on the design, the
[2:56:26] way that the structure is built, and the
[2:56:27] way that we kind of direct the sound
[2:56:29] that it's going to have a massive impact
[2:56:30] on all these things. And that's what
[2:56:32] we've got to go figure out on our side.
[2:56:34] But we can't do that until we talk about
[2:56:35] the design.
[2:56:36] >> Yeah. Because ideally what we would want
[2:56:37] is you us to or to have you figure out
[2:56:40] how to address all of those impacts so
[2:56:42] you never would need an exemption.
[2:56:44] >> Yes. Yeah.
[2:56:45] >> Yeah.
[2:56:48] » All right. So, let me try to let me try
[2:56:51] to help us move on. What I'm what I'm
[2:56:52] hearing I would even make you make a
[2:56:54] motion. I I I would say if you disagree
[2:56:56] >> there's a motion and second. Yeah.
[2:56:59] >> Oh, yeah. What was and it was just about
[2:57:01] the Oh, it was it was getting rid of the
[2:57:03] administrative exemptions.
[2:57:05] >> Yes. And we have to come back and we'll
[2:57:07] work out studies and all the details and
[2:57:09] test in different neighborhoods.
[2:57:12] >> Great.
[2:57:12] >> Come up with a personalized exemption
[2:57:15] that we can all agree on.
[2:57:16] >> Okay.
[2:57:18] >> Does that fit your concern that they are
[2:57:21] still going to have to build it sound?
[2:57:24] >> I think it's just close to
[2:57:25] >> Okay.
[2:57:26] >> Council Whitlock.
[2:57:28] >> Yes.
[2:57:29] >> Council McKay. Yes. Councelor
[2:57:31] Christensen.
[2:57:32] >> Yes.
[2:57:32] >> Council Garrett.
[2:57:33] >> Yes. Councelor Hman.
[2:57:35] >> Yes.
[2:57:36] >> Council Whipple.
[2:57:37] >> Yep.
[2:57:37] >> Council Bogdan.
[2:57:38] >> Yes.
[2:57:39] >> That's 7.
[2:57:41] >> I like to make another motion to move
[2:57:42] the Sunday through Thursday to 10:00 and
[2:57:45] the Friday and Saturday to 11.
[2:57:49] >> I'll second that as well.
[2:57:52] >> Any discussion on that?
[2:57:54] >> I'm conflicted because my bedtime's like
[2:57:55] 9:00. So that would make it easier for
[2:57:58] me to attend an event. That's like the
[2:58:00] hardest thing. That's why I hate going
[2:58:01] to Salt Lake for concerts or anything
[2:58:03] because they get done too late and I'm a
[2:58:05] very tired old person.
[2:58:07] >> It's just Yeah.
[2:58:09] >> Can I ask a question?
[2:58:10] >> I'm just curious how like just speak to
[2:58:13] how important this is for the commercial
[2:58:14] viability of the project.
[2:58:16] >> I I we feel like it's really important.
[2:58:19] So I I guess and I don't mean to be
[2:58:22] disrespectful in any way to what the
[2:58:24] council is asking. The agreement that we
[2:58:26] would propose back for approval will say
[2:58:27] 11 and 12. That's how important it is to
[2:58:29] us. you're just saying it's not going to
[2:58:31] work.
[2:58:31] >> Not that we're dismissing. Yeah.
[2:58:32] Dismissive of the concern, but it I mean
[2:58:34] there there's clear examples here that
[2:58:36] we that we've talked about where this is an acceptable standard and
[2:58:40] that's a very important component to us.
[2:58:42] So yeah, I I think again it no
[2:58:44] disrespect men attended but this is this is 11. Would you do 11
[2:58:53] six days a week? Um, it's currently said
[2:58:57] it's 11 five days a week,
[2:58:59] >> right?
[2:59:01] So, well, seven days a week. Would you
[2:59:03] do 11 seven days a week? In other words,
[2:59:05] not midnight.
[2:59:07] >> Okay. Um, I think if there were some
[2:59:10] kind of process to talk about these
[2:59:12] administrative exemptions where we we
[2:59:15] could for the handful of time come in
[2:59:16] and ask for that to go to 12 or maybe
[2:59:19] even later in some instances like a New
[2:59:21] Year's Eve party or something like that.
[2:59:22] there's there's a certain, you know,
[2:59:24] handful of of times where it may make
[2:59:26] some sense, but yeah, if there was a if
[2:59:27] there was a vehicle for us to have that
[2:59:29] conversation and come and talk to the
[2:59:30] city about it, that might be a
[2:59:32] reasonable approach 11:00 with the
[2:59:34] exception.
[2:59:34] >> But one question I have for uh Brian
[2:59:37] here is this is only for outdoor events,
[2:59:39] correct? There is no curfew for indoor
[2:59:41] events,
[2:59:42] >> correct?
[2:59:42] >> Yeah.
[2:59:44] >> Yep.
[2:59:46] >> Maybe the stadium of fire would be a
[2:59:47] better example to your point. That would
[2:59:49] be indoor. I was thinking like I'm not
[2:59:52] sure people are gonna want to be hanging
[2:59:53] out [laughter] on door.
[2:59:55] >> New York City does it, right? For the
[2:59:58] >> It's true.
[2:59:59] >> True. People just get bundled up like
[3:00:01] penguins.
[3:00:07] » We got a motion with a second.
[3:00:10] >> And the motion on the skateboard is the
[3:00:12] power shifted, not the not the potential
[3:00:15] alternatives.
[3:00:19] I would make a substitute motion that we
[3:00:22] cons
[3:00:35] » Gary, can you put in there that how many
[3:00:37] exemptions that they can have to that?
[3:00:39] Maybe five. You said a handful
[3:00:44] » with the opportunity to apply for up to
[3:00:49] five exemptions per year
[3:00:53] » with a I assume a a 12 a.m. cap on the
[3:00:56] exemptions. Like the exemptions aren't
[3:00:58] unlimited, right?
[3:01:01] >> Okay. I second that.
[3:01:04] >> Did
[3:01:07] you did then made a change? Are you okay
[3:01:08] with the change? Okay.
[3:01:12] on discussing the motion. I'm just again
[3:01:15] just curious if that seems
[3:01:18] >> because again like I think the trade-off
[3:01:20] here from our I won't speak for me is
[3:01:23] a massive risk of this whole project is
[3:01:25] you know commercially viable or not and
[3:01:27] then it's like you know obviously and
[3:01:28] then obviously on the other side our
[3:01:30] residents
[3:01:31] quality of life sleep etc. And so
[3:01:33] >> I've been to hundreds if not thousands
[3:01:35] of concerts and I've never had one past
[3:01:37] 11.
[3:01:38] >> Yeah.
[3:01:39] >> Ever. Like what are the concerts all
[3:01:41] going past 11 at midnight and stuff?
[3:01:48] Yeah, but still
[3:01:56] » football.
[3:02:00] Yeah, I love [laughter]
[3:02:01] >> I think the stadium of fire was past 11.
[3:02:04] I was like this is going forever.
[3:02:16] Yeah. Um, councelor McKay, yes.
[3:02:18] Councelor Christensen,
[3:02:19] >> yes.
[3:02:20] >> Councelor Gat,
[3:02:21] >> yes.
[3:02:21] >> Council Whipple,
[3:02:24] >> no.
[3:02:25] >> Councelor Bod,
[3:02:26] >> yes.
[3:02:28] >> Councelor Whitlock,
[3:02:31] >> um,
[3:02:32] yes.
[3:02:35] » Let the record report that was a yes.
[3:02:40] Are you still with us?
[3:02:41] >> Yes.
[3:02:43] >> All right. So that
[3:02:44] >> he's still with us.
[3:02:48] » Yes.
[3:03:01] Okay.
[3:03:04] >> All right.
[3:03:06] Hey, traffic. Oh,
[3:03:09] >> Kevin's in a hurry. I'm [laughter]
[3:03:12] >> uh Okay. Uh before commencement of their
[3:03:15] operations, they have to submit and
[3:03:16] obtain city and agency approvals for
[3:03:18] traffic and parking operations. List of
[3:03:21] all the things that has to address.
[3:03:24] um
[3:03:26] they can have different plans according
[3:03:28] to the different levels and UD do
[3:03:31] approval is required for anything that
[3:03:33] UD do approval is required for.
[3:03:35] >> Okay, I had some questions about this.
[3:03:37] So I read through some other development
[3:03:39] agreements of other cities that did big
[3:03:41] amphitheaters
[3:03:43] and a number of them included um
[3:03:48] actual specifics on road like for
[3:03:52] example the overpass and exactly how
[3:03:54] much going to cost and what I'm worried
[3:03:57] there's no cost on any of these things
[3:03:59] but I worry about knowing that having
[3:04:03] full transparency that they can do this
[3:04:05] they're willing to do this Like just on
[3:04:07] some of the basics,
[3:04:08] >> you're you're talking about whether it's
[3:04:11] viable to actually build it or not.
[3:04:12] >> Yeah. Right.
[3:04:13] >> Like um so the ones I was looking at had
[3:04:17] two or three spelled out and they had to
[3:04:20] be what did it say about it? So they
[3:04:21] these infrastructure improvements are
[3:04:23] required before the developer start on
[3:04:25] the project. They actually in the
[3:04:27] development agreement made it that they
[3:04:28] had to do
[3:04:30] the the I guess the pivotal
[3:04:33] infrastructure improvements before the
[3:04:35] developers start construction on the
[3:04:36] amphitheater and um so I was wondering
[3:04:39] about that like the overpass for example
[3:04:42] for the bikes and pedestrians and cars
[3:04:44] with fronted roads that are so those
[3:04:46] would be absolutely necessary fronted
[3:04:49] roads within each way this way
[3:04:52] >> the one along parallel 489 closest to
[3:04:55] 189 That's two lanes and then once you
[3:04:56] get up in the cement it's like four
[3:04:58] lanes.
[3:04:58] >> Yeah. I mean that's been huge. And then
[3:05:01] I and I and I still think we need the
[3:05:03] 800
[3:05:05] non-stop in order. So like those are
[3:05:08] three pivotal
[3:05:10] infrastructure things
[3:05:12] >> that I think
[3:05:16] I thought was interesting because I read
[3:05:18] that they had the the pivotal
[3:05:20] infrastructure pieces for traffic
[3:05:22] required with prices and you know
[3:05:26] >> yeah I I I think I would have to let the
[3:05:29] developer uh answer that. I guess the
[3:05:31] one thing that occurs to me with regard
[3:05:33] to that is you'll remember that one of
[3:05:36] the gates in the in the real estate
[3:05:39] purchase contract is approval of their
[3:05:43] traffic plan. Now that's approval of the
[3:05:46] plan not not concerned from from UD do
[3:05:49] what meaning though what I mean is that
[3:05:51] we won't be transferring the property to
[3:05:54] them until UD do has approved their uh
[3:05:58] traffic infrastructure plan. Not saying
[3:05:59] that's enough. I'm just saying that's
[3:06:01] out there.
[3:06:03] >> Do they represent things? Do they like I
[3:06:05] don't know what I don't know what degree
[3:06:08] of scrutiny they give.
[3:06:10] >> Mhm.
[3:06:10] >> And I'd love
[3:06:13] I just address the construction. So I
[3:06:16] think
[3:06:17] >> we let developers start moving forward
[3:06:19] and they have to build all the
[3:06:20] infrastructure for the debt liability.
[3:06:23] >> We do.
[3:06:23] >> So up to a certain level phase one has
[3:06:26] to be in. We will exempt sometimes a
[3:06:28] sidewalk may not be in or a few signs,
[3:06:30] but generally they have to have that
[3:06:33] infrastructure for a project like this.
[3:06:35] What I would see happen is that they'd
[3:06:38] be going concurrently because the design
[3:06:42] once they get approval from UDOP to do
[3:06:43] this interchange and do the
[3:06:45] environmental and all the design like
[3:06:47] it's going to take six, eight, nine
[3:06:50] months and then it's going to take
[3:06:52] another year to build it. Um and so that
[3:06:56] same period of time is going to take
[3:06:57] them I'm going to estimate a year to
[3:06:59] design uh the amplicator. So I I see
[3:07:03] both of these kind of incurrent. So you
[3:07:06] don't give somebody occupancy of their
[3:07:08] facility to all their off-site
[3:07:10] infrastructure completely.
[3:07:12] >> So they have to do all the boat stuff
[3:07:13] first.
[3:07:15] >> I would see them under construction
[3:07:16] simultaneously.
[3:07:18] >> But before they occupy
[3:07:19] >> Yeah. So before they have occupy the
[3:07:21] water line has to be built, storm
[3:07:22] drains, the sewer, the road, all those
[3:07:24] things would have to be done. And you
[3:07:26] can put that as something like you don't
[3:07:29] get occupancy till all the off-site
[3:07:31] improvements whatever they are are
[3:07:33] completed.
[3:07:35] >> We normally wouldn't do that anyway, but
[3:07:37] happy happy to
[3:07:39] >> for small scale is I think what you're
[3:07:41] seeing such a big scale that
[3:07:44] it's more noticeable.
[3:07:46] >> You just call the small scale. No, no,
[3:07:48] [laughter] this is big scale. The
[3:07:51] housing small scale.
[3:07:53] >> Could we have you do talk to us?
[3:07:57] >> I think that's entirely up to you.
[3:07:59] Certainly. Certainly could.
[3:08:02] >> Could I could I maybe question?
[3:08:05] >> Yeah, Vern. Vern has been we we've tried
[3:08:08] to include Vern in a lot of those
[3:08:10] meetings. So, I don't know if that would
[3:08:11] be helpful to hear from Vern because
[3:08:13] he's on those conversations. He's
[3:08:14] hearing what they're saying. He's
[3:08:15] receiving their feedback. Um, so again,
[3:08:17] that's maybe one other alternative to
[3:08:19] civic countries.
[3:08:22] Um, and with with regard to the
[3:08:23] infrastructure, I think that I mean our
[3:08:25] concept plan, it doesn't give us the
[3:08:27] right to take away the overpass. That's
[3:08:29] not something that would be so we're
[3:08:31] building that overpass and before we can
[3:08:33] have one concert venue, one anything
[3:08:35] here, we have to have that overpass in.
[3:08:37] So if if there were if that helped I
[3:08:39] guess you know we're not talking about
[3:08:41] dollars and cents at this point Krice
[3:08:42] but if that was helpful I think that
[3:08:44] would be something that we could we
[3:08:45] could absolutely consider adding
[3:08:48] >> helpful you have
[3:08:55] move to the next one. Okay. All right we
[3:08:58] finished paragraph eight.
[3:09:01] Uh okay nine. So, this one I don't know.
[3:09:05] This one I mostly just wanted to address
[3:09:07] a comment that was made at um planning
[3:09:09] commission. I I don't know that there's
[3:09:11] necessarily anything uh that was super
[3:09:15] concerning about this, but there was at
[3:09:16] least one person at planning commission
[3:09:18] in the public comment that made a
[3:09:19] comment about misunderstanding that
[3:09:21] thinking that this meant that the city
[3:09:23] might have to reimburse for
[3:09:24] infrastructure costs. This is purely
[3:09:27] about those pioneering agreements that
[3:09:29] we talked about before. is that they
[3:09:30] have a right to be reimbursed by other
[3:09:33] developers
[3:09:35] uh who might uh benefit from their
[3:09:38] improvements in the future. Doesn't have
[3:09:40] anything to do with city reimbursement.
[3:09:42] Otherwise, any questions about this one.
[3:09:45] Okay. Uh public financing cooperation.
[3:09:48] Uh again, this is uh from a legal
[3:09:52] perspective. I think this paragraph is a
[3:09:54] pure throwaway. It doesn't really from a
[3:09:57] legal perspective about what the
[3:09:58] development agreement me means. It
[3:10:00] doesn't matter whether this paragraph is
[3:10:01] in there or not in there. The result is
[3:10:04] pretty much the same because if we take
[3:10:06] it out entirely, they can still come ask
[3:10:08] you for anything they want. And if we
[3:10:10] leave it in there, it say all it says is
[3:10:12] they can come ask you. It explicitly
[3:10:14] says you don't have to approve anything.
[3:10:16] So from that from that legal
[3:10:18] perspective, I don't really care whether
[3:10:20] it's in there or not or or or what it
[3:10:22] says other than that everything is
[3:10:23] completely discretionary. I know that
[3:10:25] there have been some questions about
[3:10:27] well we want to know what those asks are
[3:10:30] and I think that I think the purpose of
[3:10:32] those questions as I've understood them
[3:10:34] is without knowing what those uh asks
[3:10:37] are we can't know whether we would
[3:10:38] possibly entertain them and if we
[3:10:40] wouldn't possibly entertain them the
[3:10:42] whole project might not be viable. So
[3:10:44] those are perfectly acceptable policy
[3:10:46] questions. I would say um
[3:10:50] because I think that's not really
[3:10:51] related to the development agreement, I
[3:10:53] would push that off to a agenda item
[3:10:55] number six if that's okay. Uh assuming
[3:10:59] we get to agenda item number or five.
[3:11:02] Uh
[3:11:04] but any other than that, any questions
[3:11:06] about the DA language about public
[3:11:09] financing? Yes, councelor Bogdan.
[3:11:11] >> I I would move that we get rid of it.
[3:11:13] pits are so under attack right now and I
[3:11:16] hear the legislature is going to look at
[3:11:17] those and it just it it looks messy and
[3:11:20] I would prefer just to get rid of it and
[3:11:25] leave it out.
[3:11:26] >> Right. I mean, you know, as I commented
[3:11:28] before, doesn't taking it out doesn't
[3:11:30] stop them from asking for it. Um
[3:11:37] » Sure.
[3:11:38] Um,
[3:11:41] » I think from the public's look at this
[3:11:44] and from other people's looking at this,
[3:11:47] it makes them think that these are the
[3:11:49] things that we're going to go after. And
[3:11:51] a pit is not something I personally um
[3:11:54] >> could like don't be closer.
[3:11:57] >> Well, they could probably do a PID just
[3:11:58] for themselves, right? And then they
[3:12:00] still get that rate, the city rate.
[3:12:03] >> PIDs are actually better for
[3:12:04] non-residential. In fact, the city has a
[3:12:06] the city h the council has an
[3:12:08] outstanding policy statement that's
[3:12:10] never been repealed saying that they
[3:12:12] will only consider them for
[3:12:13] non-residential projects. The problem
[3:12:15] with residential projects is it ends up
[3:12:18] being the buyers of the homes later who
[3:12:19] end up paying the assessment. For a
[3:12:21] commercial project, the the people who
[3:12:24] built the project, they knew what the
[3:12:26] bond is and they're the ones that pay it
[3:12:28] back later. It's essentially just a way
[3:12:30] for them to get a more advantageous
[3:12:31] rate. Well, it it sounds good, but it's
[3:12:34] under such scrutiny that I wouldn't go
[3:12:37] for it um just for that fact.
[3:12:43] But yeah, like you said, it really
[3:12:45] doesn't make sense to have it in here
[3:12:46] and I would just prefer to have it out.
[3:12:51] >> There a motion?
[3:12:52] >> That's a That was a motion. Yeah.
[3:12:55] >> Nobody's it. They want it in.
[3:12:57] >> I'll second. You're saying you're saying
[3:12:59] the whole section or just the reference?
[3:13:01] >> No, the whole section. Just take it all
[3:13:03] out because they can still come to us
[3:13:05] like Walmart is doing.
[3:13:07] >> It's just unnecessary.
[3:13:08] >> It's unnecessary. It sends a message
[3:13:11] and it gives to me it would give the
[3:13:14] legislature some time to look at those
[3:13:17] different things like the taxmental
[3:13:19] financing for property and for pits.
[3:13:24] Give some more clarification in that. I
[3:13:26] think I think it's better all the way
[3:13:29] around this.
[3:13:32] >> Great. Any more discussion on that?
[3:13:36] >> It was just simply to say we didn't we wanted to be transparent like
[3:13:39] we didn't we we will be asking for a fit
[3:13:42] in the tiff. So we didn't want that to
[3:13:43] be a surprise when we do. So that's an important consideration. Um
[3:13:48] there's a lot of additional work. It's
[3:13:50] one of those things that's kind of a
[3:13:51] placeholder similar to sound where um
[3:13:54] there will be a lot of financial impacts
[3:13:56] here that we've got to make sure we
[3:13:58] understand clearly and we have numbers
[3:13:59] with you know backup from contractors
[3:14:02] and all of those things on the
[3:14:03] infrastructure. Um and that requires us
[3:14:06] to have further design. So those are important components that we
[3:14:08] didn't want we didn't want anybody to
[3:14:10] say we didn't know about it. We wanted
[3:14:12] to be transparent about that. So that's
[3:14:13] why it's here. Yeah. because there there
[3:14:15] is no definition and to Brian's point it
[3:14:17] could be thrown away but that was
[3:14:18] important for us from a transparency
[3:14:20] perspective.
[3:14:23] >> So I think for that same reason Becky I
[3:14:25] would want to do that so the public can
[3:14:28] see the likelihood they can get to it.
[3:14:34] I still would say no to the PID
[3:14:39] period at this point in time
[3:14:42] and take that completely out.
[3:14:47] So I would just note though that the
[3:14:49] your concerns about the PIT that you've
[3:14:52] gotten from people are based on
[3:14:54] misunderstanding what a PIT is. So, it
[3:14:56] sounds like what we should do is more
[3:14:59] education
[3:15:00] and get more information available to
[3:15:02] our constituents instead of foreclosing
[3:15:05] a really good opportunity. It's so much of a problem that the state
[3:15:14] auditor has come out and said PIDs are a
[3:15:15] problem. It's so much of a problem that
[3:15:17] the state legislators should be looking
[3:15:19] into this this legislative session. So,
[3:15:22] to me,
[3:15:25] so much of a problem that I've had
[3:15:27] >> even neighboring cities reach out to me
[3:15:30] and say a pids are no good for anybody.
[3:15:32] It's it's it's creating such a problem
[3:15:36] here.
[3:15:37] >> Yeah, I I hear that. I I second it so we
[3:15:39] could have the discussion. I I'm
[3:15:41] actually in favor of keeping in for
[3:15:43] Gary's comment. I think it is important
[3:15:44] for people to know uh that this this
[3:15:47] will be coming. They've got that right
[3:15:48] anyway. Um, so I would be in favor of
[3:15:51] keeping it in for that reason and we'll
[3:15:54] have that discussion when it comes to
[3:15:55] us.
[3:15:57] >> The numbers to look at
[3:15:59] deciding without numbers.
[3:16:05] » Yeah, the discussion there was a second.
[3:16:07] So,
[3:16:08] >> okay, we'll vote. Um, council Christian.
[3:16:11] >> Uh, no.
[3:16:12] >> Councelor Gat,
[3:16:14] >> no.
[3:16:14] >> Councelor Hoben,
[3:16:15] >> no.
[3:16:16] >> Councelor Whipple, no. Councelor Bogdan.
[3:16:19] >> Yes.
[3:16:19] >> Councelor Whitlock,
[3:16:21] >> no.
[3:16:21] >> Councelor McCay, yes. No,
[3:16:27] » she doesn't know what she wants.
[3:16:32] » Okay, I got
[3:16:35] few more things. Uh, section 10, grading
[3:16:38] site adaptation. Again, this says that
[3:16:41] they have to comply with the development
[3:16:43] ordinances. They may not disturb slopes
[3:16:45] greater than 30%.
[3:16:47] um that have not been previously
[3:16:49] disturbed without first obtaining
[3:16:50] approval through the normal city
[3:16:52] process. This is this paragraph
[3:16:53] essentially just binds them to uh abide
[3:16:55] by the city's grading ordinances and
[3:16:57] spells it out as specific.
[3:16:59] >> So Brian, help me with the um first
[3:17:02] obtain uh let's see where did it go.
[3:17:06] Having been previously disturbed, what
[3:17:09] does that mean?
[3:17:10] >> Let's see. So that's second to the last
[3:17:13] line. Been previously disturbed. So, uh,
[3:17:17] there's two there's two process. Did
[3:17:20] Bill Hannah maybe Hannah knows the
[3:17:22] answer to this? There's, as I understand
[3:17:24] it, there's first of all, there's a flatout prohibition on
[3:17:31] building on slopes greater than 30%,
[3:17:33] unless uh, engineering has signed off on
[3:17:36] it. There's secondarily also
[3:17:40] a prohibition in the OSPR zone, which
[3:17:43] remember we're changing away from that.
[3:17:45] So this this is essentially designed to
[3:17:47] maintain the OSPR zone protection even
[3:17:50] when uh even during the time that
[3:17:53] they're under construction because in
[3:17:54] the OSPR zone engineering can't grant
[3:17:58] the exemption except for an except for
[3:18:02] an area that's already been previously
[3:18:04] uh disturbed. Does that make sense?
[3:18:07] >> Yeah. So let's say uh uh uh some portion
[3:18:11] of the hill was disturbed 50 years ago.
[3:18:16] It's reveated, but at some point that
[3:18:18] was actually at, but now it's kind of
[3:18:19] back. Um
[3:18:22] >> and do you remember your head what the
[3:18:24] definition
[3:18:24] >> of disturbed is in no SPR? And if you
[3:18:27] do, could you
[3:18:30] tell us your phone?
[3:18:37] I couldn't give you the definition from
[3:18:38] the code off the top of my head. I need
[3:18:40] to look that up. But I could tell you
[3:18:41] how we would interpret that. In that
[3:18:43] case, if it is reeducated, we look at
[3:18:45] disturbed less as a verb. It was
[3:18:47] disturbed at one point and more as an
[3:18:49] adjective. Would it currently be
[3:18:50] described as a disturbed piece of land?
[3:18:53] And if the answer is no, not currently
[3:18:55] disturbed, then we would consider it.
[3:18:58] >> And that's my that's my understanding
[3:19:00] too. And and uh councelor Christian to
[3:19:02] your point if you would like us to make
[3:19:04] sure that the DA says that even if
[3:19:06] that's not what the code says I'm happy
[3:19:08] to do that.
[3:19:08] >> That would be that would be helpful.
[3:19:10] >> Okay.
[3:19:10] >> I mean there's others saying
[3:19:14] >> I now we're I got a majority already.
[3:19:17] [laughter]
[3:19:17] Okay. I saw enough headnods. We'll move
[3:19:19] on on that one. Okay.
[3:19:24] [laughter]
[3:19:25] >> I just got to know what you want and if
[3:19:26] enough of you Okay. So here is the
[3:19:29] default provision. Um I bring this up uh
[3:19:34] principally just because there was some
[3:19:36] public comment about this sentence about
[3:19:38] not being uh extending the 60-day period
[3:19:41] for cure if it cannot reasonably be
[3:19:42] cured within 60-day period. And the only
[3:19:45] thing I can say about that and maybe
[3:19:46] councelor Ripple can back me up on this
[3:19:48] is that that is completely standard. Um
[3:19:51] that that's just how cure provisions are
[3:19:54] normally uh written. I can't say that it
[3:19:59] is
[3:20:01] I I mean there is some flexibility to it
[3:20:03] but that flexibility is on purpose
[3:20:05] because sometimes something that you
[3:20:08] have to cure can't be cured in 60 days.
[3:20:10] So um I'll move on unless somebody tells
[3:20:14] me to stop. uh remedies. Uh this lists
[3:20:17] the remedies and I will say one of again
[3:20:19] one of the public comments that thrown
[3:20:20] out there about this is there there
[3:20:23] there's been I've seen a few comments
[3:20:25] asking us to add monetary damages back
[3:20:27] in instead of explicitly removing them.
[3:20:30] And I can only say that in my experience
[3:20:32] as a city attorney that's a bad idea
[3:20:35] because judges are really willing to
[3:20:37] grant monetary damages to developers and
[3:20:39] really not willing to grant monetary
[3:20:42] damages to municipalities. So, it's
[3:20:44] actually, in my view, a protection to
[3:20:46] the city not to have that in there. And
[3:20:49] if we add it back in, I think we're
[3:20:51] increasing our liability instead of
[3:20:52] reducing it.
[3:20:54] Any questions about that? Okay.
[3:20:58] Uh, okay. These are I think these are my
[3:21:01] last two things is is the uh deadlines.
[3:21:04] So, we've got the deadline in here about
[3:21:06] commencing construction that they have
[3:21:07] to do that within 3 years. uh and it's
[3:21:10] defined as pouring the footings and
[3:21:12] foundation for the venue and passing
[3:21:14] inspection. Um I will note one of the
[3:21:18] things that I realized while we were
[3:21:20] while I was preparing this whole thing
[3:21:21] is the definition of this term is
[3:21:24] actually slightly different in the repsy
[3:21:26] addendum but one of the things that I'm
[3:21:27] already planning to take care of is
[3:21:29] making the two align because they're a
[3:21:30] little bit different. Um any questions
[3:21:33] about that concept or language?
[3:21:36] >> Just out of curiosity.
[3:21:36] >> Yes. um brought footings in that.
[3:21:41] >> Bill ran away, didn't he? Bill was the
[3:21:42] one that suggested that. He was the one
[3:21:44] that suggested that having those poured
[3:21:47] and the inspection done was the shest
[3:21:49] sign that things were really going
[3:21:51] forward and that it wasn't just what he
[3:21:53] didn't want it to be is they just graded
[3:21:55] the site and that counted.
[3:21:57] >> Just put up a fence and say, "Hey, we
[3:21:59] started construction because we're
[3:22:00] staging." We didn't want that. We wanted
[3:22:03] meaningful.
[3:22:04] >> So, we wanted something substantial.
[3:22:06] Uh,
[3:22:07] >> I'm sorry.
[3:22:08] >> Yeah.
[3:22:10] >> And the footing the foundation for the
[3:22:13] >> for the for the amphitheater. For the
[3:22:15] amphitheater,
[3:22:16] >> not hotel, not the other things,
[3:22:18] >> right?
[3:22:19] >> So, they've got three years to get the
[3:22:20] amphitheater in
[3:22:21] >> to get the footings and foundations in.
[3:22:24] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[3:22:24] >> But they could get the hotel in
[3:22:26] >> sooner, you know. Right.
[3:22:27] >> Sooner. And and and part of the reason
[3:22:30] for specifying that was to prevent
[3:22:32] building the hotel and never building
[3:22:34] the amphitheater.
[3:22:35] >> Yeah. Yeah, makes sense.
[3:22:36] >> And Brian, that's how you define in good
[3:22:39] faith. Then also um up earlier, it it
[3:22:42] does not [clears throat] result in a
[3:22:45] lapse or forfeite as long as there's as
[3:22:49] long as they've commenced construction.
[3:22:51] >> Well, and it's delay in commencement
[3:22:53] during the three-year period. Th this
[3:22:56] word is really important. So, this
[3:22:59] during
[3:22:59] >> this sentence doesn't ex doesn't
[3:23:01] lengthen the three-year period.
[3:23:03] This sentence is kind of not necessary
[3:23:05] because we're already saying but they actually asked for the sentence and
[3:23:10] it it the purpose of this sentence is
[3:23:11] just to say we can't try to trigger the this clause before the three years
[3:23:18] are up. Um unless it's because they're
[3:23:21] doing absolutely nothing.
[3:23:24] Does that make sense?
[3:23:27] Kevin,
[3:23:28] >> go ahead, Kevin.
[3:23:30] >> Oh, Travis. [clears throat]
[3:23:32] >> Yeah. Hey, Brian. Um, I think earlier in
[3:23:35] the meeting you said that they could
[3:23:36] operate the hotel prior to the
[3:23:41] amphitheater being um being completed.
[3:23:44] >> Yes. And um I well I had expressed my
[3:23:49] concern with that that ultimately we
[3:23:51] could end up with a hotel and a
[3:23:54] restaurant and a parking lot and then
[3:23:56] all of a sudden the economics changes
[3:23:58] and you know oh we can't build the
[3:24:01] amphitheater it's not going to be viable
[3:24:03] or whatever happens covid 20 co 21 you
[3:24:06] know whatever it is and um I don't want
[3:24:09] us to if if we're going through this
[3:24:11] whole exercise for vesper
[3:24:14] And I know they want Vesper, too, but um
[3:24:17] I don't want us to end up with a
[3:24:20] hotel uh and a restaurant at at the foot
[3:24:23] of the canyon and never get the
[3:24:25] amphitheater that we were, you know,
[3:24:27] approving all of this for in the first
[3:24:30] place. Um even if we get a foundation
[3:24:32] and footings. So, I guess it's kind of a
[3:24:35] non-starter for me that I didn't want
[3:24:38] the hotel operating prior to the
[3:24:41] amphitheater being built. Um, so I guess
[3:24:44] I'm a little bit thrown off by that that
[3:24:46] I thought that we had had that pretty
[3:24:48] much covered, but it sounds like we
[3:24:50] don't
[3:24:52] >> I am not remembering anything off the
[3:24:54] top of my head that would prevent that
[3:24:56] from happening. I don't know how
[3:24:58] important that is to the developer and
[3:24:59] whether they're they'd be willing to
[3:25:01] change it. I guess in my mind and but
[3:25:03] you're you know this is something I
[3:25:05] hadn't really thought of is you in my
[3:25:07] mind this provision that we're looking
[3:25:10] at right now kind of addressed that
[3:25:11] because uh if they built the hotel I
[3:25:16] mean I don't know I I wouldn't want to
[3:25:18] build a hotel and a restaurant and then
[3:25:20] pour foundation and footings next to it
[3:25:22] that never get built on. I don't think
[3:25:24] that's going to make your hotel very
[3:25:26] successful. uh but if they don't do that
[3:25:28] within three years then uh this
[3:25:31] provision and the provision to retake
[3:25:33] the property both trigger but I guess I
[3:25:36] guess you are right that they could
[3:25:38] theoretically build the hotel under the
[3:25:41] current terms of the agreement build the
[3:25:42] hotel and the restaurant put them into
[3:25:44] operation pour the footings and then
[3:25:47] wait until the seven-year period and
[3:25:49] they could operate the hotel for 5 to
[3:25:52] seven years without the amphitheater
[3:25:54] being built under the current terms of
[3:25:56] the agreement.
[3:25:57] which is not our intent and we're
[3:25:58] willing to make what Travis has said
[3:26:00] explicit.
[3:26:01] >> Okay.
[3:26:02] >> So, yeah, that's that's not a that's not
[3:26:04] a concern. Yeah. Is that okay with you,
[3:26:05] Jeff? All right. Any It looks like
[3:26:07] [laughter]
[3:26:08] >> Okay. Yeah,
[3:26:09] >> I appreciate that. I I think just
[3:26:11] however we need to solidify all that. I
[3:26:14] know that's not your intent. I just want
[3:26:15] to I I don't think you guys would ever
[3:26:17] do anything unintentional or
[3:26:19] intentionally, but sometimes things
[3:26:21] change, right? And so, whatever can
[3:26:23] protect us.
[3:26:24] >> It's what Brian just said. It's it's
[3:26:26] maybe aesthetically unappealing. The the
[3:26:28] infrastructure to get water to get one
[3:26:30] drop of water at the site is going to be
[3:26:32] very expensive and so uh we couldn't do
[3:26:35] that with just the hotel or the
[3:26:36] restaurant or one component of the
[3:26:38] project. It would be it's a package. So
[3:26:40] yeah, for sure we can we can make that
[3:26:41] more explicit. We'll propose some
[3:26:42] language to do just that.
[3:26:45] >> Okay, that was actually my last item for
[3:26:49] agenda the item number three. So, let me
[3:26:53] uh before you move to item number four,
[3:26:55] I suppose let me propose this and then
[3:26:58] I'll let uh Brian stand up and talk
[3:27:00] about number five. My proposal would be
[3:27:02] that we skip number four. And the reason
[3:27:05] why is because I think most of the
[3:27:08] discussion that we would have about
[3:27:11] number four that's actually which is the
[3:27:13] real estate purchase contract addendum
[3:27:16] that is relevant
[3:27:18] is not might all be moot two weeks from
[3:27:22] now because because we have yet to have
[3:27:23] the developer actually make an actual
[3:27:25] offer as to land purchase price trade
[3:27:30] etc. But I understand that they are
[3:27:32] close to doing that and doing that might
[3:27:35] make the entire gate framework moot. So
[3:27:38] we could spend a lot of time right now
[3:27:39] going through how comfortable you are
[3:27:41] with the gates and have it not even
[3:27:42] matter. Uh so my proposal we would just
[3:27:45] skip it. If for some reason the gates
[3:27:47] are still relevant two weeks from now
[3:27:49] and approval of everything is on the is
[3:27:53] on the evening meeting two weeks from
[3:27:54] now, we could talk about the gates in uh
[3:27:56] in the work meeting on that day to make
[3:27:59] sure that everybody's
[3:28:01] uh I mean we probably need to if if
[3:28:03] we're going to vote if you're going to
[3:28:04] vote on September 8th, we're probably
[3:28:06] going to need work meeting items anyway
[3:28:09] to review all the changes to things. So
[3:28:11] I'm I'm willing to give up my time for
[3:28:13] number four. I think that's actually the
[3:28:14] right thing to do. And I'll let Brian
[3:28:16] speak to whether they need number five
[3:28:18] or whether
[3:28:20] or yeah because it may it may be they've
[3:28:23] probably answer said a lot of the stuff
[3:28:25] they were going to say during our
[3:28:28] discussion for the last two weeks.
[3:28:29] >> We we do have if if helpful again I want
[3:28:33] to maybe provide this as an opportunity
[3:28:34] as opposed to something that we have to
[3:28:36] do but we've got Piper Sandler that is
[3:28:38] online and available to join. Um they
[3:28:41] were going to kind of give a high level
[3:28:42] maybe five seven minutes tops to go over
[3:28:45] a couple just three or four slides to
[3:28:47] kind of give a high level of the shoot I
[3:28:49] didn't want that to close so yeah the
[3:28:52] economic impact the fiscal economic
[3:28:54] impact so that's helpful Krice that's
[3:28:56] that you know Craig council
[3:29:00] >> and you're
[3:29:01] >> yes
[3:29:02] >> right so you'll say okay and together
[3:29:10] tell you who the question is.
[3:29:16] » Q&A or
[3:29:21] let's just go there.
[3:29:22] >> Yeah, I think like so I think the
[3:29:24] question is do we do we still do number
[3:29:26] five and let them present that five
[3:29:28] minutes they just talked about
[3:29:30] >> or we skip number five and go straight
[3:29:31] to close meeting?
[3:29:32] >> Yeah,
[3:29:34] >> five minutes.
[3:29:39] I don't think you can just
[3:29:45] » We can't hear you if you're uh if you're
[3:29:48] talking. Eric,
[3:29:49] >> we couldn't hear us. We were muted. So
[3:29:50] Oh, Eric, here we are.
[3:29:52] >> Hi.
[3:29:52] >> Can you hear us?
[3:29:54] >> Yes, I can.
[3:29:55] >> Okay. Sorry. I just made a quick
[3:29:56] introduction, but we were on mute on our
[3:29:58] end. So, we just made a quick
[3:29:59] introduction to you uh and Benj um
[3:30:02] Becker um they're with uh with Piper
[3:30:05] Sandler, big public finance guy. So, um
[3:30:07] the council members here and we'd love
[3:30:09] to spend just a couple minutes going
[3:30:10] over the the highle uh kind of results
[3:30:13] of the report. So,
[3:30:14] >> yeah, great great to be with you this
[3:30:16] afternoon, council. Um thank you for the
[3:30:18] time. Um, so as Brian mentioned, he
[3:30:21] engaged our team to look at the economic
[3:30:24] and fiscal impacts of the Vesper
[3:30:25] project. And what you're seeing in the
[3:30:28] presentation today is a highle summary
[3:30:30] of a larger report that we've produced
[3:30:32] for the team. So I'm happy to entertain
[3:30:35] any questions that come from this, but
[3:30:37] we'll take about 5 minutes to just walk
[3:30:39] you through some of the highlights. And
[3:30:40] I would consider this a sort of an
[3:30:42] executive summary level. Um and I think
[3:30:46] the first thing we wanted to highlight
[3:30:47] to you is um if the project moves
[3:30:50] forward, the Vesper team is certainly
[3:30:53] has to construct a significant um amount
[3:30:55] of assets. So in terms of looking at the
[3:30:59] direct construction costs, it's it's
[3:31:02] currently programmed at 540 million and
[3:31:05] we conservatively use that as the basis
[3:31:08] for our assessed value projections. So
[3:31:12] in terms of um the remaining projections
[3:31:14] that you'll see affiliated with property
[3:31:16] tax, we just went with the pure, you
[3:31:20] know, hard construction capex of 540
[3:31:22] million as the as an assumed number that
[3:31:26] the county assessor at minimum could
[3:31:28] apply to the to the property once it's
[3:31:30] built out. Although we think that that
[3:31:33] could be um more than that. In addition,
[3:31:36] as the project comes online, we know
[3:31:38] that there's going to be significant
[3:31:40] staffing needs, and that may flex up and
[3:31:42] down as events occur, but um working
[3:31:45] with Brian and the Vesper team, we see
[3:31:47] at least of about a thousand jobs if I'm
[3:31:50] rounding, but 957 jobs programmed at the
[3:31:53] moment. So, those people will, you know,
[3:31:56] s certainly add um demand into the
[3:32:00] economy. There's also going to be some
[3:32:02] costs that come along with that. But
[3:32:04] improving the employment opportunities,
[3:32:06] the employment base with a variety of
[3:32:08] positions um for the project um as well.
[3:32:12] the in addition to the hard cost numbers
[3:32:15] that we talked about of 540 million,
[3:32:18] we've looked into some indirect impacts
[3:32:21] and I I would say that overall the
[3:32:23] analysis that we've provided you now is
[3:32:26] very conservative and it mostly does not
[3:32:28] delve into secondary and tertiary
[3:32:31] economic impacts. This is mostly a
[3:32:33] primary impact analysis, but looking
[3:32:36] through some of the Bureau of Economic
[3:32:38] Analysis multipliers as they pertain to
[3:32:41] construction in our region, we see that
[3:32:44] while the Vesper team might be spending
[3:32:46] 540 million in hard costs, that also has
[3:32:49] a cascading benefit through the
[3:32:51] construction industry. Um, as
[3:32:53] contractors come, you know, on site,
[3:32:55] they pay workers, those dollars move out
[3:32:57] into your community. So if we if we just
[3:33:01] want to we want to give you sort of a a
[3:33:04] number that you can you can interpret
[3:33:06] through your annual budgeting process.
[3:33:09] Um I actually used to work in government
[3:33:11] myself and I always wanted to know how
[3:33:13] much does this actually help me or cost
[3:33:16] me per year um in terms of this change.
[3:33:20] So at minimum we see a positive net
[3:33:23] impact for the city of $2.3 million per
[3:33:27] year. Um, we've also given some other
[3:33:29] ways to view that, which would be total
[3:33:31] cash flows over a 30-year period or net
[3:33:33] present value.
[3:33:35] um those are perhaps less important, but
[3:33:38] you could think you could think of the
[3:33:40] fact that after the project is up and
[3:33:43] absorbed and running online, every year
[3:33:46] when you enter your budget process, you
[3:33:48] would have $2.3 million more likely to allocate and program for general city
[3:33:55] services than you would have today. So,
[3:33:58] that's one lens that you could look look
[3:34:00] at it through. Um, moving on to the next
[3:34:03] slide. I think we wanted to and and
[3:34:07] Brian obviously interrupt me or or uh
[3:34:10] add add anything you wish as I go. We
[3:34:14] wanted to
[3:34:15] >> the the only the only thing that maybe
[3:34:17] popped out uh as we were just chatting
[3:34:19] um is that is the this is a conservative
[3:34:22] approach and so those tertiary,
[3:34:24] secondary, and tertiary fiscal impacts
[3:34:25] aren't reflected in the report. And it
[3:34:27] might be good just to maybe mention what
[3:34:29] that would look like. um what what like
[3:34:32] maybe some examples of what those might
[3:34:33] be.
[3:34:34] >> Yeah. So I think if we just if we just
[3:34:37] think geographically actually for a
[3:34:39] moment, we know that a significant
[3:34:42] amount of of the access points to the
[3:34:46] site depend on people traversing from
[3:34:48] I-15 through ORM or up um coming north
[3:34:52] through Provo or even down from Hebrew
[3:34:55] City for example. So as people come
[3:34:58] through those corridors, we expect other
[3:35:00] sales transactions to happen um within
[3:35:03] those geographic areas. So right now the
[3:35:06] analysis is saying what is the impact of
[3:35:09] the vesper site only. It doesn't
[3:35:11] consider those external transactions
[3:35:14] those secondary and tertiary induced
[3:35:16] demand that would happen on a lot of the
[3:35:18] main thoroughares through ORM and Provo.
[3:35:21] So um that is a uh a a more more of an
[3:35:26] estimation procedure w with data that we
[3:35:28] don't have at the moment. We could work
[3:35:30] on it by collaborating with the city and
[3:35:33] with the city of Oram. Um but the things
[3:35:36] that go into that would be looking at
[3:35:38] traffic existing traffic volumes on your
[3:35:41] main on those main thorough thoroughares
[3:35:43] that lead to the site and then your
[3:35:46] existing point of sale economy in those
[3:35:48] geographies. So I know your your finance
[3:35:52] team and your economic development
[3:35:53] director probably have access to this
[3:35:55] data. Um you know working to summarize
[3:35:59] that or or look at what would the
[3:36:01] effects be. We could we could
[3:36:03] collaborate with them on that front as
[3:36:05] well. But as Brian said at the moment
[3:36:08] this analysis just isolates the economic
[3:36:11] and fiscal impacts to the actual site
[3:36:14] itself. So what we're saying here when
[3:36:17] we talk about sales revenues these this
[3:36:20] is just the projected sales and lodging
[3:36:22] revenues from the the proposed Vesper
[3:36:24] site only. I just want that to be clear
[3:36:27] and the same thing is true of course
[3:36:28] with um property tax.
[3:36:32] Um so with that uh preamble or
[3:36:35] clarification
[3:36:36] um we we do have a decomposition of the
[3:36:39] 2 on average again this is an average
[3:36:42] number per year. So of course as the
[3:36:45] project is absorbed there's going to be
[3:36:48] increasing revenue as that happens and
[3:36:51] then we have a inflation factor as well.
[3:36:54] But what I wanted to do when with giving
[3:36:56] you an average was just to say at about
[3:36:59] the midpoint of the project life how is
[3:37:02] it going and how much money is that per
[3:37:04] year. So at the 2.45 45 million of new
[3:37:08] revenue. Approximately 1.5 million of
[3:37:11] that is from sales tax and then um
[3:37:15] 864,000 is from property tax. There's
[3:37:19] some more nominal transient room tax
[3:37:21] from the lodging on site and then we
[3:37:24] expect there to be some municipal energy
[3:37:26] tax as well. But you'll see from the
[3:37:29] chart above that the material source of
[3:37:31] revenue is the sales transactions and
[3:37:35] all of the activity that's happening
[3:37:36] from the amphitheater itself. Um in our report we talk about expenses and
[3:37:44] we talked about the potential for the
[3:37:46] city to issue licensing fees or event
[3:37:50] fees. Um I I don't want to presume too
[3:37:53] much in how you might undertake th those
[3:37:56] your view of that, but we we did assume
[3:37:59] that um a lot of the event fees would go
[3:38:03] to pay for event related um costs. So
[3:38:07] for example, if you're flexing your
[3:38:09] police force up a little bit on an event
[3:38:11] day, um that's part of the reason why
[3:38:14] you have event fees available to your to
[3:38:16] you to charge. So in for the purposes of
[3:38:19] the analysis, we assume that those
[3:38:22] effects netted themselves out, but you
[3:38:26] will still have additional expense
[3:38:28] increases from the addition of new
[3:38:30] long-term population that we think that
[3:38:33] this facility will will create. A lot of
[3:38:36] that has to do with jobs. So if we go to
[3:38:38] the I believe the next slide addresses
[3:38:40] that.
[3:38:42] So the the staffing needs of the
[3:38:44] facility itself, especially when you're
[3:38:46] running at full capacity
[3:38:49] um is projected at 957 jobs and um Brian
[3:38:54] and the Vesper team have shown you a
[3:38:56] decomposition of how many full-time and
[3:38:58] part-time employees that might mean and
[3:39:01] then seasonal employees. Um, in addition
[3:39:04] to that, we like to look at how many of
[3:39:07] those new jobs are likely can c
[3:39:10] candidates to become long-term Provo
[3:39:12] residents. So, in order to conduct that
[3:39:14] analysis, we actually use the US census.
[3:39:17] And admittedly, this, you know, the US
[3:39:19] census is a survey, of course, but it's among the best sources of data on
[3:39:24] employment trends in your in your city.
[3:39:27] So, we depended on the census for this.
[3:39:29] And what we look at is the number of of
[3:39:32] the number of workers in your community,
[3:39:35] how many work in Provo and live in
[3:39:38] Provo. And so we looked at the existing
[3:39:40] trend there and then we applied it to
[3:39:43] the new jobs that that are to be
[3:39:45] created. So of the 957
[3:39:48] new jobs, we project that about 195 of
[3:39:52] those people would become long-term
[3:39:55] residents. And you'll want to we you'll
[3:39:58] want to maintain your level of service
[3:40:00] for your residents. So we assume that
[3:40:02] okay as you add new population that
[3:40:05] means new expenses for the city as well.
[3:40:08] And we bake that into the analysis. That
[3:40:11] comes out to be anywhere from $200,000
[3:40:14] to $400,000 a year depending on the
[3:40:18] year. But the net impact still comes
[3:40:21] down to approximately the plus 2.3.
[3:40:25] um uh $2.5 million a year depending on
[3:40:28] the year. So I've given average numbers
[3:40:30] there, but um the full report you can
[3:40:34] look at yearbyear.
[3:40:36] So I think our conclusion overall if if I had to close out my five minutes um
[3:40:43] Brian is that the project is a
[3:40:46] significant capital investment. We think
[3:40:48] it's a unique um asset that would
[3:40:51] position Provo City and Utah County to capture a certain market and product
[3:40:57] that it is certainly has great um
[3:41:00] cultural amenities, but this would add a
[3:41:03] different kind of of scale and and
[3:41:06] potentially in a in a very beautiful and
[3:41:08] unique environment. Of course, I'll say
[3:41:10] that this the numbers you're seeing here
[3:41:13] we feel are responsible, reasonable, and
[3:41:16] very conservative. and the likely
[3:41:18] economic impact is going to outpace what
[3:41:21] you're seeing in the report and the
[3:41:23] slides here because we've we've only
[3:41:25] shown the direct impacts. Um, but we
[3:41:27] wanted to be biased on the more
[3:41:29] conservative side. So, we could say to
[3:41:32] you if if the project happens, it's at
[3:41:35] least as beneficial as this, but likely
[3:41:38] to do better than that.
[3:41:42] You just clarify 540 the cost for the
[3:41:45] project includes everything else
[3:41:48] structure just not 800
[3:41:51] >> 800 interchange is excluded from that
[3:41:53] but yeah everything else is included in
[3:41:54] that number council member mccor
[3:42:00] [clears throat]
[3:42:01] not have gone through
[3:42:04] the slides beforehand that property tax
[3:42:07] number is the total property tax that's
[3:42:09] school district that's Proolo City,
[3:42:12] that's Utah County, that's um central
[3:42:15] Utah water, right? It's all together in
[3:42:17] one number. You don't have
[3:42:20] >> No. So I'm I'm just I when I talk about
[3:42:24] the 800,000, I believe I'm only This is
[3:42:27] Provo City. So across the entire
[3:42:30] property taxing complex, the school
[3:42:33] district will have the most revenue, of
[3:42:36] course. Um, but I believe when we're
[3:42:38] looking at that 864, that's just with
[3:42:40] respect to the city and that's an
[3:42:43] average number to be clear.
[3:42:45] >> Can you can you see my screen uh by
[3:42:47] chance, Eric?
[3:42:49] >> Yes.
[3:42:50] >> Okay. So, sorry, I'm just scrolling
[3:42:51] through the report to address council
[3:42:53] member Bogdan's question. And this right
[3:42:56] here,
[3:42:57] >> so there's a Yeah, there's a section
[3:42:59] that's called fiscal impact. And then
[3:43:02] when it says new revenues across
[3:43:04] entities, there's a property tax table
[3:43:07] and I think it's above the sales tax
[3:43:10] table. So if you just go
[3:43:16] right here, this will show you the um
[3:43:20] full taxing uh full property taxing
[3:43:22] authority complex. And the reason why um
[3:43:27] you see in in Provo City 959,
[3:43:31] you know, when we were talking about the
[3:43:32] 800,000 number, we're talking about
[3:43:34] average numbers across the life of the
[3:43:36] project. And in the early phase, there's
[3:43:39] no property tax cuz the improvements are
[3:43:41] quite low. So in years 0 through three,
[3:43:45] I think it's like hardly any new
[3:43:48] assessed value is online. But then once
[3:43:51] you get to year one of real revenue,
[3:43:54] that number is actually a little bit
[3:43:55] higher even. Um, most [clears throat] of
[3:43:58] the revenue as as usual is going to the
[3:44:02] school district.
[3:44:04] >> And that's Can you call that number out,
[3:44:06] Brian? Is 4 million.
[3:44:06] >> It's that 4 million.
[3:44:07] >> 4.2 million.
[3:44:09] >> Yeah.
[3:44:10] >> So that's the number that annually,
[3:44:12] again, that's an average number, but
[3:44:14] that's the number that would annually go
[3:44:16] to Provo City School District. So, it's it's subst it is substantial.
[3:44:20] Excuse me.
[3:44:21] >> And when you scroll down one more page,
[3:44:23] if you could [clears throat]
[3:44:25] >> what what is your arts and zoo? We don't
[3:44:27] have a zoo in Utah County. Are you
[3:44:29] thinking that's our wrap tax?
[3:44:32] >> That's just
[3:44:33] >> Yeah. Go ahead.
[3:44:34] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[3:44:37] >> That was down maybe two pages or
[3:44:39] >> Yeah.
[3:44:41] >> So, the mill her question is what is the
[3:44:43] mill levy for this? No, no. The you're
[3:44:46] saying the Utah County doesn't assess
[3:44:48] the arts and zoo tax. So,
[3:44:50] >> we have the rap tax.
[3:44:52] >> Is that the same thing that you're
[3:44:54] looking at?
[3:44:54] >> It does. It it can be deployed for that
[3:44:56] purpose
[3:44:58] >> in the sales tax.
[3:45:00] >> The sales tax table is a little bit
[3:45:01] lower. Brian,
[3:45:03] >> yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
[3:45:06] >> Maybe. Yeah. Right there.
[3:45:07] >> Yeah.
[3:45:08] >> You see the arts and zoom on the bottom.
[3:45:10] CZ.
[3:45:11] >> Yep.
[3:45:13] What were you thinking with that is my
[3:45:15] question.
[3:45:17] >> I'm just looking at the tax commission
[3:45:20] the elected rates on the tax commission
[3:45:22] site and it's indicated for uh Utah
[3:45:26] County. If it gets deployed for that
[3:45:28] purpose then or if it's not collected
[3:45:31] that may be the case. I'm I'm going off
[3:45:33] of the tax commission's table in this in
[3:45:35] this instance
[3:45:37] >> for Utah for Utah County Eric. Right.
[3:45:39] >> Yeah.
[3:45:40] >> Okay.
[3:45:43] So that's for the county total is not
[3:45:45] necessarily what Provo City would see
[3:45:47] for a wrap tax which is recreation, arts
[3:45:49] and parks.
[3:45:51] >> Correct. So So the Provo City portion uh
[3:45:54] council member Bogdan is that that
[3:45:57] second this number right here. So this
[3:45:59] is the portion that Provo City would
[3:46:02] see. So the sales in use that would be
[3:46:04] generated like Eric said directly on
[3:46:06] site from ticket sales, concessions,
[3:46:08] restaurants, hotels, all of those
[3:46:10] things, that point of sales would be
[3:46:12] $1.47 million that Provo would see. The
[3:46:15] 864 would come from the increased of
[3:46:17] assessed value from what it is today uh
[3:46:19] up to that 560 uhish million and then
[3:46:22] there would be some additional transit
[3:46:24] room tax, municipal energy tax that
[3:46:26] would be collected in total which again
[3:46:27] on average totals that 2.45. If you
[3:46:30] subtract out the 223 uh expenses,
[3:46:33] 223,000, that gets you to that $2.3
[3:46:36] million total of fiscal benefit to Provo
[3:46:39] City.
[3:46:41] [clears throat]
[3:46:41] >> Thank you.
[3:46:43] >> Okay, if there are no other questions,
[3:46:46] we'll let Eric um we'll let Eric do his
[3:46:48] thing. Eric, thanks so much for for
[3:46:49] being on and and jumping on. Thank you.
[3:46:51] >> Yep. Thanks for having us with you. Good
[3:46:53] night. Good night.
[3:46:56] >> Okay, so we'll move to a close meeting.
[3:46:59] Yes. Yeah. This
[3:47:02] [laughter]
[3:47:04] >> Yes. We have a topic uh scheduled for
[3:47:07] the council for discussion and closed
[3:47:08] meeting that has to do with uh sale of
[3:47:11] property and therefore it's appropriate
[3:47:13] for a closed meeting for a motion at
[3:47:14] this time.
[3:47:17] >> I move
[3:47:18] >> that we close the meeting for the
[3:47:20] reasons Brian stated.
[3:47:22] >> Second.
[3:47:24] >> We'll have a
[3:47:26] councelor.
[3:47:27] >> Yes. Councelor Garrett.
[3:47:29] >> Yes.
[3:47:29] >> Councelor Hoben.
[3:47:36] » Councelor Whipple.
[3:47:37] >> Yes.
[3:47:39] From Hoben.
[3:47:40] >> Thank you. Councelor
[3:47:41] >> Bog.
[3:47:42] >> Yes.
[3:47:42] >> Councel Whit.
[3:47:43] >> Yes.
[3:47:44] >> Councelor M.