[2:02] like to welcome everyone to our planning
[2:04] commission meeting this evening. Um Lori
[2:09] is excused.
[2:11] Uh we'd like to welcome Mike King who's
[2:14] new member for planning commission and
[2:17] present are he and sever Johnson,
[2:21] myself, Wayne Franson, John Stout and uh
[2:26] Brian Hutchkins from our city council is
[2:28] with us tonight as well.
[2:31] So first uh we'll follow the agenda that
[2:34] we've got. we have a public hearing.
[2:38] Uh there's been a publication of the uh
[2:42] the issues that involve the public
[2:44] hearing and so would like to open it up
[2:48] for
[2:50] any
[2:52] comments or thoughts regarding either of
[2:55] the uh proposed
[2:58] uh
[3:00] changes to our ordinances either in
[3:02] title 10 or under 11.45.
[3:07] And for the record, I'll just read just
[3:10] a brief summary of these different
[3:14] ordinances.
[3:16] One is definitions and standards of
[3:18] primary and secondary driveways.
[3:21] Uh another is building permits,
[3:23] temporary certificates of occupancy,
[3:26] and certificates of occupancy.
[3:30] Another is setback requirements for
[3:32] corner lots and accessory buildings.
[3:35] Another is swimming pool fencing and
[3:38] safety requirements.
[3:40] Uh another is recreational vehicle boat
[3:44] and camping trailer parking.
[3:47] Another is residential driveway width
[3:50] grade drainage covert and roadway
[3:53] approach standards.
[3:55] And the next is parking and loading
[3:59] facility design and surfacing
[4:02] requirements.
[4:04] So there is no one present here
[4:07] physically
[4:09] uh tonight. I see Bucky. Can you hear
[4:13] us? Okay.
[4:17] Are you able to hear Bucky? Thumb up.
[4:21] >> I can. Sorry. I was having a hard time
[4:24] finding mute and unmute.
[4:26] >> Okay. No problem. Just wanted to make
[4:27] sure you could you could hear us.
[4:30] >> Yep. I can hear you and I I don't have
[4:32] any comments. Okay. Very well.
[4:37] Lucky Gay is the only one signed on to
[4:41] the Zoom.
[4:43] So, absent the public comments, we'll go
[4:47] ahead and close the public hearing
[4:50] and uh move on to the other items on the
[4:54] agenda.
[4:56] We'll call to order the Runator Planning
[4:58] Commission meeting.
[5:01] Sever, would you offer an invocation for
[5:04] us? And John, would you lead us in the
[5:07] pledge?
[5:14] Our kind, gracious uh heavenly father,
[5:16] we're grateful for this opportunity to
[5:19] meet with planning commission tonight.
[5:22] Bless us in our deliberations that we
[5:25] may have thy spirit to guide us to that
[5:28] which would be best for our community.
[5:31] We pray for these things in the name of
[5:33] thy son Jesus Christ. Amen.
[5:36] >> Amen.
[5:43] To the flag of the United States of
[5:46] America and to the republic for it
[5:50] stands
[5:51] nation
[5:53] indivisibley
[5:56] andice for all.
[6:01] Thank you to both.
[6:04] Uh
[6:06] I see
[6:08] public comment here for those present.
[6:11] Any
[6:12] uh zoomed in for public comment?
[6:16] Okay, I see none.
[6:20] Move on to the agenda items then. First
[6:25] item number seven is approval of the
[6:27] June 17, 2026 planning commission
[6:30] meeting minutes. As you'll recall, we
[6:33] didn't have a July meeting, so June was
[6:35] the last time that that we had a
[6:39] meeting. So, I'd take a motion
[6:43] uh to approve those minutes.
[6:48] >> I'll make a motion to approve minutes of
[6:50] June 7th, 26.
[6:52] >> Okay. Second.
[6:55] Thank you. All in favor?
[6:58] >> I.
[7:00] Any opposed?
[7:03] Okay. Um,
[7:06] Mike, we kind of follow rules of orders
[7:08] a little bit, we'll have as we finish
[7:11] addressing a topic, um, I'll call for a
[7:15] motion to
[7:18] usually approve it or possibly
[7:20] disapprove it. And then there's a second
[7:24] that will be made and we'll have some
[7:27] more discussion if there is any about
[7:30] that and then we'll take a vote on it.
[7:33] >> And that's kind of the practice that we
[7:35] have as we go through each of these
[7:37] agenda items.
[7:39] Um
[7:42] so um
[7:45] well for item number eight then
[7:46] discussion and vote on proposed
[7:48] amendments to city code title 10. Now
[7:52] title 10 is our zoning ordinance
[7:56] and um
[7:58] there have been some changes that were
[8:03] have been recommended to make. Um
[8:08] we'll generally go through these
[8:10] briefly. The the
[8:13] one is the uh definition of uh we've had
[8:17] some
[8:19] u question about we have a driveway
[8:22] standard and we're dividing this up now
[8:26] into a primary driveway and a secondary
[8:30] driveway. Primary driveway is the one
[8:32] that comes off the main street into the
[8:35] home.
[8:36] And then a secondary driveway is any
[8:38] other driveway
[8:41] um
[8:42] into the property or into the home or or
[8:47] that's not serviced by the primary
[8:50] driveway.
[8:51] So the the main thing the main change in
[8:54] the secondary driveway
[8:57] is um
[9:00] the secondary access to a residential
[9:02] lot for any purpose. Allowable surfaces
[9:06] and this is the where the the change was
[9:09] made for a secondary driveway include
[9:11] concrete or asphalt pavement.
[9:14] Here's the change. compacted road base
[9:17] with gravel or other approved city
[9:22] uh approved hard surface and all
[9:24] vegetation must be removed and kept
[9:27] clear. So, we're adding that to a
[9:30] secondary driveway criteria.
[9:35] Um, the fire department wanted to have
[9:38] the vegetation removed and cleared so
[9:40] there would be no fire danger and
[9:42] pulling off into that secondary driveway
[9:46] with all grass or whatever. And um we've
[9:51] added a compacted road base with gravel
[9:54] overlay is an acceptable
[9:57] um
[10:00] covering for that driveway. In the It's
[10:03] just been concrete and asphalt. So,
[10:07] >> yeah. But secondary was never called out
[10:09] originally.
[10:09] >> Correct.
[10:10] >> It was just a driveway.
[10:11] >> Yeah.
[10:12] >> But it allowed We had uh ordinances
[10:15] dealing with parking of recreational
[10:18] vehicles and boats and and uh those were
[10:22] supposed to be parked on asphalt and
[10:24] concrete. So, we're making an allowance
[10:27] for somebody if they they can use that
[10:30] skill, but they can make a hard surface
[10:33] plus gravel and then no weeds or
[10:36] everything on that kind of surface.
[10:40] >> So, I don't know if this is a floor
[10:41] needs to happen for this change, but is
[10:44] there a city standard for base
[10:46] compaction and types of things?
[10:48] >> Um,
[10:49] >> like how deep the base needs to be under
[10:51] asphalt, things like that for
[10:54] residential driveway.
[10:55] >> No.
[10:57] Um for our roads, yes, there's a
[10:59] standard, but not for driveway.
[11:02] A lot of people are now putting in um
[11:06] heated driveways. So, it's usually on
[11:09] road base and then cement hose on top of the the heat coils that they
[11:15] have. So, driving through the area, I've
[11:18] noticed a lot of homes that you'll come
[11:21] in on a main driveway and then it splits
[11:23] and there's a home here and then a home
[11:25] up here. Is that considered a secondary
[11:27] driveway for one of those homes or
[11:30] because they both come into the same
[11:32] driveway coming out the road, is that
[11:35] are they both considered primary?
[11:36] >> They're both considered primary. There's
[11:39] a few of those where I have one.
[11:42] >> Yeah.
[11:43] >> I've just noticed it driving around.
[11:45] >> Yeah.
[11:46] So going to allow circular driveway to
[11:49] in and out. Uh the driveways have to
[11:52] have a certain setback from the property
[11:54] line. The main driveway, the secondary
[11:57] driveways don't, but the primary
[12:00] driveway has to be certain number of
[12:02] feet from the
[12:09] we haven't been
[12:11] we have been applying the setback.
[12:16] to circular driveways.
[12:18] >> To circular driveways.
[12:19] >> Yeah.
[12:20] >> As long as they meet the property line
[12:23] set back. You're right. But they do have
[12:25] to on on either side if they go from one
[12:28] side to the other or
[12:31] neither side of the driveway can be
[12:33] closer than what the setback allows.
[12:35] >> Yeah.
[12:36] >> So, the whole circular driveway is
[12:38] considered a primary.
[12:39] >> Yes.
[12:40] >> It's not a primary with a secondary
[12:42] spur. Secondary is a separate driveway
[12:45] all together.
[12:49] I don't know if you want to take these
[12:51] one at a time or just go through the 10
[12:55] final 10 ones and then take a vote.
[12:59] >> Let's let's subsection is the driveway
[13:02] in
[13:03] >> it's in 10 two one definition.
[13:06] >> Oh, so it's in definitions. Okay.
[13:10] So, are there any existing driveways
[13:12] right now that are going to have a
[13:14] problem and have to come in and either
[13:16] fix the grade or widen the driveway to
[13:19] meet the criteria or is this
[13:21] >> that's been around for a long time?
[13:23] >> We're just defining that. That's what I
[13:25] was curious
[13:26] >> repeating it in this particular
[13:29] section.
[13:31] >> But
[13:33] you rais a good question. Generally
[13:36] uh where ordinances redefine something, we
[13:41] grandfather what's been done in place
[13:45] >> to a degree.
[13:46] >> Understood. You kind of have to state
[13:48] it. If there's no grandfathering, you have to state that.
[13:53] We we monitor that in law enforcement,
[13:57] but up to now it's been more strict
[14:00] uh with a secondary driveway. So um and
[14:03] we know that there's ones that haven't adhered to it.
[14:08] They're grass
[14:10] and just so forth out there for
[14:12] secondary.
[14:16] Um let's go through each of these and
[14:18] then we can maybe vote on those in 10
[14:20] and then we'll move on to those
[14:24] Uh the certificate of occupancy
[14:28] um
[14:30] is just is clarifying
[14:34] um
[14:38] the the occupancy certificate says it
[14:42] says
[14:44] the city will issue building permit upon
[14:46] application in compliance with all laws,
[14:49] ordinance, rules, and regulations.
[14:52] Fire safety permit confirming compliance
[14:55] with the wildland interface ordinance is
[14:59] also required.
[15:01] No building permits will be issued until
[15:03] compliance with the uniform fire code to
[15:06] allow access to the construction site,
[15:08] but fire apparatus vehicles. Once
[15:10] approval has been granted, a building
[15:13] permit may be obtained. Some of that,
[15:16] and I don't know which words of that,
[15:17] but some of that is is new. others are there already.
[15:24] Um,
[15:27] we've
[15:28] there's been a little confusion on part
[15:30] two.
[15:32] I'll read it as it's as it's going to be
[15:34] changed as we recommend it change to a
[15:37] certificate of occupancy must be
[15:39] obtained from the building official
[15:40] before the building is occupied.
[15:43] A certificate shall only be issued if
[15:46] the building is in conformity with the
[15:49] building code, the zoning ordinance, and
[15:51] all other applicable ordinances.
[15:54] Provided, however, if the only
[15:57] deficiency is the inability to complete
[15:59] the hard or the required hard surface
[16:02] driveway because of inclement weather, a
[16:04] temporary certificate may be issued. If
[16:07] a sum equal to 125%
[16:11] of the estimated cost of such driveway
[16:14] is determined by the building official
[16:16] is placed in an escrow account available
[16:18] to the city
[16:20] for the purpose of completing the
[16:22] driveway if the applicant has not
[16:26] completed the driveway within nine
[16:28] months of receipt of the temporary
[16:30] certificate.
[16:32] So this was in another place. So we're
[16:34] putting it in this in in title 10 as
[16:39] well as it relates to the certificate of
[16:41] occupancy.
[16:43] So a temporary can be issued if if the
[16:47] zoning ordinances and all other
[16:49] applicable ordinances
[16:51] uh and there's conformity to the
[16:53] building code are done and the only
[16:56] deficiency is the inability to complete
[16:58] a hard surface driveway. In the past,
[17:01] we've been kind of lenient in allowing
[17:05] temporary certificates of occupancy.
[17:09] Um, and
[17:11] that's going to be tightened up a little
[17:13] bit. Um
[17:16] where
[17:18] if if if a final inspection has been
[17:20] done on the house and you builders know
[17:24] that there's still there's still things
[17:26] that will be will need to be done to
[17:29] complete the construction
[17:31] after the final building inspection for
[17:33] code.
[17:35] So, if there's a final building
[17:37] inspection for code done and it meets
[17:40] this other criteria, we can still issue
[17:42] a temporary certificate,
[17:45] but we're we're going to we're going to
[17:49] hold to that to that standard.
[17:51] >> Is the red the new what you're proposing
[17:54] and the black the old?
[17:55] >> It it got it got messed up a little bit.
[17:59] >> Generally speaking, yes, the red is
[18:01] what's being proposed,
[18:02] >> but not in this
[18:03] >> not in this section. Okay. So it's the
[18:05] it's a switch.
[18:06] >> Yeah.
[18:06] >> Okay.
[18:07] >> So it's an escrow rather than a bond.
[18:10] >> Um
[18:12] that kind of a big
[18:15] >> big change I see in that is the escro.
[18:17] It goes to an escro account rather than
[18:19] a bond.
[18:20] >> Um they can place a bond too. Does that not say this?
[18:26] >> No, it says it
[18:27] >> it says it in two bond
[18:29] >> in the black one.
[18:30] >> No.
[18:31] >> Oh the red one has a bond.
[18:32] >> Yeah. Well, black didn't.
[18:35] >> But the black did not have
[18:36] >> Didn't you say, Wayne, this was in
[18:37] another section? You're just putting it
[18:39] in this section now.
[18:40] >> Yes. Yes.
[18:41] >> So, maybe it was already there. Okay.
[18:44] >> Does the fire department ever have an
[18:45] issue with driveways not being done
[18:48] for access reasons, even if it is
[18:50] winter? Just out of curiosity.
[18:52] >> No,
[18:53] >> I guess they just deal with what they
[18:55] have there. Yeah,
[18:58] >> we don't typically go up drive waste
[19:01] unless they're really long. I don't even
[19:04] >> try to avoid that as well.
[19:05] >> And what what items would need to be done to get it
[19:11] temporary? There's still got to be some.
[19:13] >> If somebody's going to put shelving in
[19:15] the house, they haven't done it yet.
[19:16] >> No big deal.
[19:17] >> We're not going to.
[19:17] >> But but all the life safety stuff's got
[19:19] to be in, right? Like the sprinklers
[19:21] have to be up in operation.
[19:22] >> All the all the inspections have to be
[19:24] done.
[19:25] >> Okay. But that usually includes
[19:28] >> Yeah. So decorative things can be left
[19:30] down. That's right. Obviously
[19:31] >> stair rails, you know, things that are
[19:33] going to be inspected, those have to be
[19:35] in place.
[19:37] >> So,
[19:44] um, and they'll just put it in an escrow
[19:47] or they can
[19:48] >> Yes.
[19:48] >> Yeah. Something that the city can access
[19:50] and do it if they don't get that. That
[19:53] makes sense.
[19:53] >> Yeah. 100% and that can be from the
[19:56] contractor or individual or is it the
[19:58] property owner that has to do that?
[20:00] >> The it could either either one.
[20:03] >> Okay.
[20:03] >> Who whoever establishes that bond
[20:06] though, that's who money goes back to.
[20:09] If the contractor puts a bond in place,
[20:11] then his bond goes back to him when the
[20:15] work's done.
[20:17] >> Just have the contractor do it.
[20:19] >> Typically, the work gets done.
[20:20] >> Yeah.
[20:23] >> Let me I don't know if that could be put
[20:24] in there.
[20:26] >> The next page is the red and that's
[20:29] what's being changed in this one as I
[20:32] see that now. Okay. The blacks what's
[20:35] there now? So the red um
[20:42] is a bond better than doing an escrow
[20:44] account?
[20:46] >> It's easier.
[20:47] >> Is a bond easier? I would have found
[20:48] much more difficult. I'm not used to
[20:50] that.
[20:50] >> It's simpler, but
[20:53] on the city
[20:54] >> on the city individuals. That's why I
[20:57] think a contractor ought to be pulling
[20:58] the bond just because they're
[21:01] >> well the bond they've got to pay twice
[21:03] and they get back,
[21:04] >> right? That's the thing I didn't like
[21:06] about the bond thought of it is you pay
[21:09] tw you pay the bond and then you pay to
[21:11] get the work done and you get the bond
[21:12] back after it's so you got to have
[21:14] double the money to actually place a
[21:16] bond. Well,
[21:17] >> we accept that if they if they bond
[21:19] through a a bank for example, then that
[21:23] We don't ask for additional.
[21:24] >> Yeah,
[21:25] >> that's in place. But then they do need
[21:28] to have the money to do the work.
[21:30] >> To do the work. Yep. On top of it. So
[21:32] >> So they get that bond back. So they're
[21:33] not losing any money. They're going to
[21:35] have to do
[21:35] >> as long as it's clear and and it's
[21:38] patent for everybody, then it make, you
[21:41] know, I I don't I can't see a problem.
[21:43] >> Understand? Yeah. Yeah, that makes
[21:44] sense.
[21:45] >> Okay, let me the next page then the uh
[21:50] one and two. Um
[21:57] what what we found is some people
[22:01] start occupying their home without a
[22:04] certificate.
[22:05] So we wanted to make sure that there was
[22:07] a clear
[22:09] understanding of that. So under item
[22:14] one, the last sentence, a certificate of
[22:17] occupancy must be obtained before this
[22:19] structure is permanently occupied.
[22:23] So that's been the addition that I don't
[22:25] think it was on
[22:29] it was not on the first not it's not in
[22:32] the current it's not worded that way in
[22:35] the current uh ordinance.
[22:37] And then a temporary certificate.
[22:41] It's a little more clear with
[22:44] a temporary certificate
[22:47] of electricity can be applied for if the
[22:48] structure is substantially complete and
[22:51] there are no safety, life or health
[22:54] hazards on the property.
[22:56] So we'll issue a temporary
[23:01] if they meet that that standard.
[23:07] You're going to put a deadline for these
[23:10] items to be completed in the permit
[23:12] process.
[23:13] >> Yeah.
[23:14] >> Okay. So, they're not going to be able
[23:15] to move in and then five years later
[23:17] they decide to put in their driveway
[23:19] >> like they used to
[23:20] >> like Yeah. [laughter]
[23:22] forever.
[23:22] >> It says 90. So,
[23:25] >> yeah. So, that's
[23:26] >> So, we're giving them a time.
[23:28] >> Plenty of time.
[23:28] >> That's the time. Yeah.
[23:32] >> Um
[23:36] The next item in 10 is uh a clear
[23:42] explanation
[23:43] if you can believe that
[23:46] I'm trying to read
[23:47] >> for corner lots.
[23:49] >> We've had issues come up where
[23:52] um our ordinance is not that clear that
[23:56] as far as the setbacks go. So, it's a
[24:00] little wordy, but
[24:03] u
[24:04] that was that's the idea behind the the
[24:08] setbacks for the corner loops for the
[24:11] street.
[24:14] So, it it identifies that the black is
[24:17] what's there now. The red is what
[24:21] is being proposed.
[24:28] Um, okay. Question. Yeah,
[24:33] >> I'll use our city engineer as an
[24:35] example.
[24:37] He's on a quarter lot. He got a variance
[24:42] to reduce the front setback from 50 ft
[24:46] to 30 ft. Yes.
[24:49] Is the side door set back still the 50
[24:52] ft
[24:54] or is he now in a 30 ft side?
[24:59] The variance was just on the front.
[25:05] That's right.
[25:08] >> And we've had that we had that
[25:09] situation. Not that exact situation, but
[25:13] where a person requested a variance
[25:16] being closer to his home
[25:20] to build a garage
[25:22] than than the 20 ft requirement to be a
[25:25] part of it.
[25:28] And so a decision was made then
[25:32] that didn't make it part of the house
[25:34] because it was closer. It was still an
[25:36] accessory building. So everything He got
[25:40] in a a variance for for that accessory
[25:44] building, not that that new garage now
[25:47] is part of the home because it's closer
[25:49] than 20 ft.
[25:50] >> So the same thing would apply just
[25:52] unique to that whatever that setback 30
[25:55] foot
[25:56] >> the 50 foot is still going to be
[25:58] enforced on on the side.
[26:02] >> Now unless they want to get a variance
[26:04] try to get a variance for that too
[26:06] >> at the at the same variance only applies
[26:08] to either the front side.
[26:11] >> What? Whatever that's written.
[26:13] >> Yeah.
[26:14] >> Whatever they ask for.
[26:15] >> Okay.
[26:18] Question.
[26:21] >> Okay. So, um any other questions on on
[26:25] that?
[26:27] Clear.
[26:31] » Good luck with that. [laughter]
[26:35] Um 10 118 landscape features, fences,
[26:39] walls, driveways, and covers.
[26:41] Um
[26:45] the black is what's in place now. The
[26:49] red
[26:50] is is what's being proposed.
[26:54] Um
[26:55] the essential changes to that
[26:58] um
[27:02] are
[27:03] the the publications and sections of or
[27:08] of swimming pool standards are being
[27:11] added to this part of the ordinance.
[27:15] It's already in another part, but we
[27:17] wanted to put it together.
[27:21] So, it's word a little differently, but
[27:24] that that's the main thing. The
[27:26] enclosure, the very last sentence in the
[27:29] red, the enclosure shall otherwise be
[27:33] constructed as described in US Consumer
[27:36] Product Safety Commission publication
[27:39] 362. And it also references another
[27:42] section on the swimming pools that we
[27:45] have in our code.
[27:54] Nice.
[28:10] The uh 10
[28:13] 11.14 recreational vehicle parking.
[28:17] Um
[28:21] basically it's the last sentence in the
[28:23] red.
[28:24] that uh is to clarify and it's same as
[28:28] the secondary driveway.
[28:31] >> Why can I ask that? Why are we adding
[28:35] that? I get if it's a motor home, but
[28:38] we've got camping trailers and boats on
[28:41] there that would not be spark causing.
[28:44] People park their
[28:46] I'm going to tell you, Mr.
[28:47] [clears throat] Code Enforcement
[28:48] Officer, you didn't hear this from me,
[28:50] but in the winter time, I put my boat in
[28:52] the yard. I put two
[28:55] uh
[28:57] I've got two 2 by10s
[29:00] uh pressuret treated that I drive the
[29:02] boat out into the I pull out into the
[29:04] yard um and on on top of those pressuret
[29:08] treated so that it clears up my driveway
[29:10] for snow plowing in the winter because
[29:12] it becomes a real mess with because I
[29:15] got to have my side by side out there
[29:17] and everything in the four-wheeler and
[29:18] everything else that needs to stay out
[29:20] there. Um, so I don't have any fear of a
[29:24] boat in the winter time that's been
[29:26] winterized going out into the yard
[29:28] causing sparks. But I would be in
[29:30] violation of this
[29:34] yard is hard packed, but it's not uh it
[29:36] doesn't have the
[29:38] >> grow.
[29:40] >> Well, I hard surface.
[29:43] >> I But it's it doesn't say that.
[29:47] Our current code doesn't say that. The
[29:48] current code just says it must meet the
[29:51] setback standards,
[29:53] which I do.
[29:54] >> You're correct.
[29:56] >> So, the hardback surface, even though my
[29:59] yard is at that point, is really hard
[30:01] back
[30:02] >> that was added by our fire chief.
[30:04] >> Um, that's where I I get it. But my
[30:08] boat's not going to start a fire. My
[30:11] camping trailer, which I don't have
[30:12] anybody's camping trailer. advocate as
[30:14] you're pulling your boat or backing your
[30:17] boat up in there, you're doing it with
[30:19] probably a car or truck
[30:21] >> and
[30:21] >> but I drive my side by sides mowing the
[30:25] grass out there, right? That's that's
[30:27] part of what I have to do to maintain
[30:29] the property.
[30:30] >> Um, and I know other people park their
[30:32] >> I know
[30:33] >> they're and so we're I think this one's
[30:35] going to cause a problem. get that. I
[30:37] get the idea behind it, but I think that
[30:41] unless it's a motorized
[30:45] >> storage,
[30:49] » that's my opinion.
[30:50] >> Okay. No, that's I think
[30:52] >> I'm not going to be voting on Tuesday,
[30:54] so [laughter]
[30:59] » Yeah, [laughter]
[31:02] » but I know that I I know lots of people
[31:04] in town that actually park
[31:08] campers and stuff like that in, you
[31:10] know, on the sidey yards and and things
[31:12] like that like I do without it being a
[31:15] compacted road base.
[31:16] >> Okay, let let you all feel that that
[31:20] same way. I can understand that.
[31:23] >> We we can change this.
[31:25] >> It just seems like a little bit
[31:26] overreaching
[31:29] >> with making them make a hard surface
[31:31] just for a like an enclosed trailer or
[31:35] something like that.
[31:36] tent camper, anything like that.
[31:39] >> Should we scratch that last sentence?
[31:44] » You could add motorized vehicles must be
[31:48] parked on
[31:48] >> instead of a driveway or secondary
[31:51] primary or secondary driveway surface
[31:54] >> because that states that it
[31:56] [clears throat] must be clear. I don't
[31:57] know. That's one of my thoughts on
[32:03] let's see. recreational vehicles.
[32:06] >> Wayne's going to be over at my house
[32:08] writing me tickets tomorrow. [laughter]
[32:13] » So, the concern is a fire safety
[32:15] concern. Is that
[32:15] >> that was what?
[32:17] >> So, if you're not parking a motorized
[32:20] vehicle in there, then yeah,
[32:22] >> there's no point to having that extra
[32:26] >> security of of a
[32:30] hard surface.
[32:32] uh
[32:36] road base with a gravel overlay.
[32:40] >> It could even just say motorized
[32:43] vehicles must be parked on hard
[32:46] surfaces, but roadbased
[32:50] it be motorized recreational vehicles.
[32:53] That that that would be
[32:56] in my mind.
[33:04] Now clear it with Ted to make sure that
[33:06] was his intent is the motorized.
[33:08] >> I know. I talked to him about it.
[33:09] >> Was it motorized?
[33:11] >> Yeah.
[33:12] >> Okay. That it's what I guessed, but I
[33:15] hate to speak for him though.
[33:20] I think you just change it to say that
[33:22] at the very front. You're done.
[33:24] >> So,
[33:26] wait is the proposal
[33:29] to keep
[33:32] the the first sentence as is.
[33:34] >> Yes.
[33:35] >> And then add a central.
[33:37] >> Correct.
[33:39] So, they're they're subject to the same
[33:42] setback as an accessory building
[33:46] and parking.
[33:51] And that's already intended.
[33:54] >> Got it. Correct. That's already in.
[33:56] >> So yeah, I think you're right. If you
[33:57] just add that little
[34:06] do that
[34:11] » from the question.
[34:12] >> No.
[34:13] >> Okay.
[34:14] >> Because I think we are speaking out of
[34:18] both sides of our mouth
[34:20] because in the black part
[34:23] it defines recreationality including
[34:26] boats and camping trails and they can be
[34:30] parked subject to sets.
[34:33] And then we say, "Oh, wait a minute.
[34:37] Recreational vehicles must be parked on
[34:40] a hard surface with no vegetation."
[34:46] Yes.
[34:48] >> And so on one hand we say you can park
[34:50] the recreation vehicle anywhere as long
[34:52] as it's within the setback. And the next
[34:56] one we said, oh wait a minute, no
[34:59] recreation vehicles have to be on a hard
[35:01] surface with no means. We're further
[35:04] defining recreational vehicle parking.
[35:08] In the second paragraph,
[35:11] it says nothing about the surface
[35:13] parking in the first paragraph, first
[35:16] sentence. Then motorized vehicles can be
[35:19] parked
[35:20] >> but it can be parked in accordance with
[35:22] the setback regulations like like it
[35:25] says. However,
[35:29] maybe we need to put a however there but
[35:31] they must be parked on a hard surface
[35:33] such as
[35:35] so that distinguishes the recreational
[35:37] vehicles.
[35:40] » We're just saying motorized recreational
[35:42] vehicles need to be on the hard surface.
[35:45] >> Well, not the boat saying that. Now,
[35:47] >> I know that's what that's what we
[35:51] >> motorized recreational vehicles.
[35:53] >> That was my
[35:54] >> Well, they can be parked they can be
[35:56] parked with the setback regulations, but
[35:58] they also a motorized one has to be
[36:02] parked on a hard surface
[36:04] >> vegetation.
[36:06] >> Correct. Free of all vegetation.
[36:10] So that's the fire issue that
[36:12] >> I understand
[36:13] >> trying to address.
[36:14] >> But that's that's the hangup
[36:17] that people are going to have.
[36:21] >> Yes.
[36:24] But that's the fire safety. That's the
[36:25] reason it's there.
[36:26] >> I understand. I understand.
[36:28] >> So yeah,
[36:34] the boat or camp trainer, not a problem.
[36:41] Well, yes and no.
[36:45] I'm sorry, but motorboats
[36:49] have a motor.
[36:54] They're a motorized recreation vehicle.
[37:00] I see what you're saying.
[37:06] Self-propelled. [laughter]
[37:11] No, it's a good it's a good
[37:12] >> You're right.
[37:13] >> It's a good point. You're right.
[37:16] >> So does you know the
[37:18] >> I guess you're making
[37:20] >> making the assumption that it's not
[37:21] going to be turned off.
[37:22] >> You better drag a big hose if you're
[37:24] firing.
[37:26] >> That's
[37:27] But the definition is there's there
[37:29] probably need a better definition.
[37:31] >> Yeah.
[37:34] >> Self-propelled motorized vehicles. Well,
[37:36] maybe we can say
[37:39] wheel motorized recreational vehicles.
[37:44] Well,
[37:45] >> a trailer.
[37:47] >> Yeah,
[37:49] >> I don't know. It's a good point, Sean.
[37:53] >> Maybe we need to let Ted
[37:56] >> think about that a little bit more.
[38:02] » Well, we can do that. We can just that
[38:06] one then do we we talk to Ted further
[38:10] about it and see what
[38:11] >> he might want to change both those
[38:13] paragraphs and kind of make it all one.
[38:17] >> I think that
[38:17] >> I think he was getting rid of the black
[38:19] and replacing it with the red. Is that
[38:22] correct?
[38:22] >> I don't
[38:25] think Oh, you're adding a second
[38:27] paragraph to that. Oh, okay.
[38:30] >> I think that just needs one definition
[38:32] in one paragraph and then it wouldn't
[38:41] Well, we'll we'll table that and then I'll talk to Ted and then we'll put
[38:46] that on September's
[38:48] agenda. It's not
[38:54] um
[39:01] Okay. Okay. Then the residential
[39:03] driveways and gates
[39:05] under 10.11.20.
[39:10] So what is being changed?
[39:14] This what what is here is kind of a
[39:17] preamble.
[39:20] And then there's a section a
[39:25] that's
[39:28] the change.
[39:33] And that's in red.
[39:36] Then primary driveways are introduced
[39:38] here as in the definition.
[39:51] This is the ordinance itself.
[40:00] This is recap
[40:03] uh stating again the city standard and
[40:08] we wanted to have it all kind of all
[40:10] together under the driveway
[40:13] this driveway section. This is said
[40:16] elsewhere and I believe it's a
[40:18] development construction standards gives
[40:22] us detail about the slope.
[40:26] 2% slope for 3 ft.
[40:30] Um
[40:31] so they are talking about load
[40:33] capacities. So there must be some sort
[40:35] of a standard or there must be some like
[40:38] for asphalt there's eight and three or
[40:41] there's something like that. There's got
[40:44] Why would we talk about the load
[40:46] capacities
[40:53] » just have to do with culverts?
[40:56] >> It says the primary drivers are designed
[40:58] and construction accordance with
[41:00] portable standards including drainage
[41:01] and load capacities.
[41:08] » So there should be some sort of asphalt
[41:10] standard I think.
[41:14] That's another good question.
[41:20] » I don't remember I don't remember that
[41:22] looking at that
[41:23] >> because I was going to put in an asphalt
[41:24] driveway and then I was like I changed
[41:26] my mind and did the concrete but
[41:30] >> I don't remember a standard
[41:33] or
[41:35] one load capacity for the asphalt.
[41:43] I know there's a drainage standard. The
[41:45] drainage standard is the driveway
[41:49] water. The driveway can't go on the
[41:51] neighbor's law,
[41:52] >> right? Yeah. Has to go into this,
[41:55] >> but I don't know about the load capacity
[42:03] [laughter]
[42:03] >> except for
[42:10] That was on
[42:11] record.
[42:16] Um,
[42:19] let's do this
[42:22] just to move this forward. Let's leave
[42:23] load capacity out.
[42:25] >> This is including drainage and then just
[42:28] end.
[42:30] Yeah.
[42:32] >> And I'll talk to about
[42:37] » Is there a reason you pulled applicable
[42:39] engineering standards.
[42:43] » Um,
[42:45] where's that at?
[42:46] >> So, on the very first page 10, it says,
[42:48] "Drive shall be designed." Yeah, in the
[42:50] black.
[42:50] >> It's black. So,
[42:51] >> constructed in accordance with
[42:53] applicable engineering standards,
[42:55] including drainage, low capacity. And
[42:57] then we have primary driveway shall be
[42:59] designed and constructed in accordance
[43:00] with applicable standards, including
[43:03] drainage and low capacity. I was just
[43:05] curious if
[43:08] Sometimes engineering is a get out of
[43:09] jail free card kind of thing.
[43:11] >> Now, see, we've we've we've removed the
[43:14] engineering
[43:15] from the from the red.
[43:18] >> Yeah, that's what I was curious about.
[43:20] So, I don't know.
[43:21] >> Black's going to disappear on this one.
[43:22] All this stuff in the black is going to
[43:24] disappear.
[43:24] >> Yeah, that all goes away and red's the
[43:25] new
[43:27] >> So, we've removed the engineering
[43:30] standards, whatever those are.
[43:32] >> Yeah, that's what I was curious about.
[43:34] >> I know what those are.
[43:38] And that that may have been Ted's hand
[43:44] scratching through a drive.
[43:48] >> So it's not applicable anymore.
[43:52] >> And the second paragraph, should that
[43:54] just be primary driveways?
[43:57] Because in your driveway definition, it
[43:59] doesn't have the
[44:03] >> This whole thing is primary driveways.
[44:06] Oh, I see. Primary drive.
[44:08] >> Oh, okay.
[44:13] » But so is a just going to be p about
[44:16] primary drive.
[44:17] >> Yes,
[44:17] >> I got you.
[44:18] >> Semicolon in front.
[44:20] >> Okay. Primary driveways stock chubby
[44:23] design.
[44:36] Okay, so that was 10.
[44:46] So with a couple of these changes that
[44:49] we
[44:51] made, we're going to table 10 114 for
[44:54] the time being to get better
[44:57] clarification on that.
[45:00] But the other ones
[45:08] And we're taking out load capacity
[45:11] on 10 1120.
[45:20] So for those
[45:24] with those changes,
[45:26] I'd take a motion
[45:29] with the changes in title 10.
[45:40] enough to try it.
[45:44] » I'm new here, so I can just stand.
[45:52] » Are there any other changes or that you
[45:55] want?
[45:55] >> I'll make a motion to
[45:58] propose
[45:59] the new definitions.
[46:03] 10.2
[46:06] 8.5
[46:09] table 11.14
[46:13] but keeping 10.11
[46:17] about 10.4.7
[46:21] » where was that page started at the
[46:24] >> certificate of occupation.
[46:25] >> Okay. Yeah. And 10 points
[46:27] >> and that.
[46:30] >> Okay. Thanks. You're welcome.
[46:32] >> We got to do this a lot. So,
[46:34] >> motion. Is there a second?
[46:41] » I'll second back. Can I do that?
[46:44] >> Yeah.
[46:45] >> I'm okay with all that.
[46:47] >> That's why you're here.
[46:50] >> I can't.
[46:52] >> Okay.
[46:53] >> You can. I can't. Oh, your city council
[46:57] >> just all his pawns.
[47:00] He's an observer and a commenter.
[47:01] >> No, that's great.
[47:02] >> I do comment.
[47:04] >> Yep.
[47:06] >> Okay, moving over to 11.
[47:09] >> You get a vote.
[47:10] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. All in favor?
[47:13] >> I Any opposed?
[47:16] >> Okay.
[47:19] » Now, got his hands.
[47:24] [laughter]
[47:27] >> He didn't say no.
[47:29] >> [laughter]
[47:31] >> Um, title 11, Mike, for your
[47:35] information, is our subdivision code
[47:39] um
[47:41] application and uh certain parts that
[47:45] pertain to
[47:47] um a subdivision.
[47:51] Um at the beginning of the year, there
[47:54] were major changes to our subdivision
[47:57] ordinance.
[47:59] where the responsibility for it was
[48:02] transferred from the city council to the
[48:05] planning commission or state code.
[48:08] >> Yeah.
[48:09] >> So the city council doesn't have
[48:14] anything else to do. We keep them
[48:16] informed of where things are at with
[48:19] different subdivisions, but all of the
[48:22] review and approvals are with the
[48:25] planning commission.
[48:28] So, as we've gone through the the new
[48:33] ordinance, we found a few places that
[48:37] um city council got left included
[48:42] in in the ordinance and it
[48:46] the planning commission needs to be
[48:49] >> in place.
[48:50] >> That's all there is.
[48:53] >> I did too.
[48:55] >> A million of these.
[48:57] right kind of towards the end all these
[49:01] uh planning commission
[49:05] city council
[49:07] things. So that is what these
[49:14] all these changes are is just putting
[49:16] planning commission in place of city
[49:19] council.
[49:27] I move that we approve the change
[49:31] in title 11 to eliminate city council
[49:35] and replace it with planning commission.
[49:38] >> Okay, I'll second it.
[49:46] » All in favor?
[49:48] >> Any oppose?
[49:58] Now moving on to item 10.
[50:02] This approval of Summer Creek G1B final
[50:05] plat for recording
[50:09] successful final inspection of
[50:11] improvements and verification of dated
[50:13] water rights and bonding.
[50:16] Um there's some other criteria. the big
[50:19] the 11 by7 sheet on your
[50:24] table there is
[50:27] this will be this is a draft it's not a
[50:29] final but that's what it looks like um
[50:33] this goes this starts at the end of
[50:36] Eagle Nest
[50:38] >> and uh continues on around and then
[50:41] comes over onto uh South Loper Drive
[50:46] which then ties into Summit
[50:49] So, just to refresh your memory, um, a
[50:53] number of months ago, we approved the
[50:54] addition of lot 237
[50:58] to this particular plat. It was going to
[51:02] be on a future plat, but they decided to
[51:05] incorporate it here. So, their original
[51:09] uh plat got amended to include lot 237
[51:13] in it. So, there's a total of 16 lots
[51:16] here. Uh quite a bit of open space.
[51:20] Um
[51:22] we've had some uh
[51:25] um a few revisions
[51:28] to it, but uh I think we're good to go. Now, there's some conditions that I
[51:41] are that are mentioned on here and um
[51:46] there's a couple others as well. There's
[51:49] a final let's see does it have final
[51:51] Yeah, final inspection that has to take
[51:54] place yet. Uh there's been some final
[51:58] inspections
[52:00] but not all of them. So those are
[52:03] anticipated
[52:05] possibly to be done tomorrow.
[52:08] Um but our approval would be based on
[52:12] those being done and
[52:15] uh satisfactory
[52:18] um
[52:23] inspection done. Um, I'll report to you
[52:27] that the water shares
[52:29] uh have been deed to the city and so uh
[52:34] the water shares are covered
[52:37] um
[52:39] with uh with what they've deeded to the
[52:42] city for that subdivision for each of
[52:44] those lots.
[52:46] Um
[52:50] but and we do have already a durability
[52:57] um
[52:59] deposit
[53:01] for them. How that works, Mike, is uh
[53:05] and you may be familiar with some of
[53:07] this doing u construction yourself, but
[53:11] their durability will cover a one year's
[53:14] period of the infrastructure
[53:18] work that's been done. And um one thing
[53:23] that
[53:25] we need to further talk about up to now
[53:27] we have not included a durability for
[53:30] the private roads.
[53:32] U but our attorney has suggested that we do that. Um
[53:40] because the roads are
[53:44] two things. There are they are critical.
[53:46] They are a fire lane to the homes plus
[53:50] they are they cover the utilities
[53:55] and [clears throat]
[53:56] uh both of those are critical and we
[53:58] want to make sure that that the the road
[54:04] for a year meets that durability
[54:07] for those purposes.
[54:10] And the state code, it gives a city an
[54:13] option to cover it or not cover it. But
[54:18] it it it allows coverage when
[54:22] those when the private property, in this
[54:26] case, roads are are are the fire lanes
[54:30] that would be used to access as well as
[54:34] the protection they're giving to the
[54:37] water and sewer lines.
[54:40] Um
[54:41] >> yeah because those are directly impact
[54:43] the city right so
[54:44] >> they are so
[54:47] Bucky I think is probably hearing this
[54:49] for the first time [laughter]
[54:52] but they've got they their deposit does
[54:57] cover everything else the ditches and
[55:00] the other infrastructure work that
[55:03] they've done plus the inspections now at
[55:07] the end of this year's period
[55:09] There'll be another inspection to make
[55:11] sure that everything is holding up and
[55:15] um
[55:17] and that includes the inspections that may be done and then that money
[55:23] will be returned to
[55:24] >> Is this a bond?
[55:25] >> It is.
[55:26] a bond. Okay. That's what I that's
[55:27] what I thought we did typically.
[55:29] >> Um I remember talking about it with
[55:31] bills. So
[55:31] >> yeah, it can be in three. It can be a
[55:33] cash
[55:34] >> y
[55:34] >> cash if they want or there's two other
[55:36] means of doing doing the bonding.
[55:40] >> If you guys haven't, I would I during
[55:42] the Fourth of July when we were
[55:43] patrolling, I took a fire truck down
[55:45] there because we had some kids who went
[55:47] and park. Um boy, there's some gorgeous
[55:49] lots. Bucky, you've got some incredible
[55:52] lots in this. It's fantastic. I love it
[55:56] down there. Love what you guys did with
[55:57] the road. Um it's, you know, makes me
[56:02] jealous.
[56:03] >> Oh, thank you.
[56:04] >> Fantastic. I I really like some of those
[56:07] lock stuff. They're going to be
[56:08] gorgeous.
[56:09] >> There was to share with you. There was
[56:11] some a little bit of concern
[56:14] >> with the um
[56:18] with the road slope and um
[56:21] >> some steep there.
[56:23] >> It is, but we went out and checked it
[56:25] today and it it just qualifies.
[56:29] >> So, it's good.
[56:30] >> I think the S's helped that out. I think
[56:32] the curbs in there. they would have had
[56:34] a hard time.
[56:35] >> Yeah, it but it it's beautiful. It is an
[56:37] absolute beautiful area section of of
[56:40] Summit Creek.
[56:42] >> So, those are conditions that I would uh
[56:46] suggest that we place on the on it. And
[56:52] um
[56:54] and also we've we've gone back and forth
[56:57] with Summit Creek a little bit on some
[57:00] additions and changes to the myar where
[57:04] we found it lacking and had some wrong
[57:07] information and uh we haven't they're
[57:10] doing a final one and I think you're
[57:13] going to deliver it tomorrow, Bucky. Is
[57:14] that right?
[57:17] >> Correct. Yeah, I'll be up there in the
[57:19] morning with it. Okay. So when we get
[57:23] that, Jody, our practice has been
[57:26] um Jody will take a picture of it and
[57:29] send that picture to the recorder's
[57:32] office and they'll do a preliminary
[57:34] review and and they've told us that
[57:39] they'll get those back to us within 24
[57:42] hours, hopefully sooner, but they've
[57:45] told us verbally that they'll have that
[57:47] back to us in that that kind of time
[57:50] frame, depending on how busy they are.
[57:52] It could come back to us tomorrow
[57:54] afternoon. I don't know. And there's no
[57:57] guarantee on on a timeline other than
[58:00] they've told us they'll try to get those
[58:02] back within 24 hours. And that's kind of
[58:04] a preliminary look at it, making doing
[58:09] all their checks and everything. And we think we've got it so that there
[58:14] won't be any problems with it. That's
[58:17] always our goal. So Jody will be sending
[58:20] that uh that picture down to recorders
[58:23] tomorrow and and that's and then
[58:29] um Ed's planning on doing the final
[58:33] inspection providing that there there
[58:36] may be a problem with a PRV valve and
[58:41] they're supposed to be able to get into
[58:42] that tomorrow
[58:44] and we haven't been able to do a water
[58:46] test yet because of possibly
[58:50] malfunctioning PRV valve. So, that needs
[58:53] to be done. Also, if there's a problem,
[58:57] this may take a couple of days to get
[58:59] corrected. I don't know. That's Ted's
[59:03] stuff, but u we haven't checked the
[59:06] water yet to make sure everything is
[59:08] fine with it. So, those are the
[59:10] conditions, but I didn't want to have to
[59:12] wait another 30 days to for this all to
[59:16] come back to us. So I'm suggesting that
[59:19] we approve it with with those conditions
[59:22] being favorable when when the results
[59:25] are back to us. So we won't we won't see
[59:29] this again if you're all uh copathetic
[59:32] with that. Um, another thing I want to check with you all here because this
[59:38] is kind of a a new thing of of your
[59:41] views on
[59:44] um, including
[59:47] as recommended by our attorney
[59:50] the
[59:52] bonding of the road for the year period.
[59:57] Um, in light of
[1:00:00] it's our fire lane to those homes and
[1:00:03] that's uh covering up the utility
[1:00:06] infrastructure
[1:00:07] uh which of course is critical to
[1:00:12] do any of you oppose having that part of
[1:00:16] the bonding that we're going to be
[1:00:19] seeking to have that included
[1:00:26] standard
[1:00:27] >> with it. Okay.
[1:00:30] Lucky, do you have anything to add to
[1:00:32] what I've said?
[1:00:34] >> Yeah. So, I'm not sure I follow. Are you
[1:00:36] saying you're going to require us to do
[1:00:38] additional bonding to record this?
[1:00:43] » Yes.
[1:00:45] I don't we'll I think we'll give we'll
[1:00:48] give you time to put that together, but
[1:00:50] there will and
[1:00:54] I'll I'll recommend that we with
[1:00:57] everything else that's done, we'll go
[1:00:58] ahead and report it and then give you
[1:01:01] time to put together that added amount
[1:01:04] of bonding for the roads
[1:01:07] after.
[1:01:08] >> Yeah.
[1:01:09] I mean, this is our this is probably our
[1:01:12] fifth or sixth road we've built, and
[1:01:16] this is this will be a first. And I
[1:01:19] mean, we just have not planned
[1:01:21] financially,
[1:01:23] you know, for that with this road.
[1:01:25] That's that's a that's a hard pill to
[1:01:29] swallow, you know, at the at the finish
[1:01:31] line with the road. Hey, Bucky.
[1:01:36] >> Typically, it the general the contractor
[1:01:40] on the record gives a one-year
[1:01:43] durability warranty.
[1:01:45] Could that be something that's
[1:01:47] acceptable instead of an actual bond? I
[1:01:50] don't know why
[1:01:52] depending on because that's typically
[1:01:54] what it is.
[1:01:54] >> Yeah. One one year warranty on any
[1:01:57] workmanship that you've done,
[1:01:58] >> right?
[1:01:59] >> Um
[1:02:00] >> Yeah.
[1:02:01] I They're going to that is that
[1:02:04] something that they could we never
[1:02:06] copied the city onto it necessarily that
[1:02:08] I know of but it's always just owners
[1:02:10] but
[1:02:10] >> well it would go to the owner the only
[1:02:12] thing here
[1:02:12] >> the owner has to basically take care of
[1:02:15] any problems within that year period
[1:02:16] anyway.
[1:02:17] >> Yeah.
[1:02:18] >> It would only be if if Summit Creek went
[1:02:21] under, right? If if the the
[1:02:23] >> that's your risk.
[1:02:24] right? which I don't
[1:02:26] know anything about some creek, but
[1:02:28] >> yeah,
[1:02:28] >> if you're not concerned about that, then
[1:02:30] a warranty should satisfy any
[1:02:32] obligations that the bond would do as
[1:02:34] well.
[1:02:35] >> Well, we could ask and Bucky, you could
[1:02:37] ask your contractor if they're willing
[1:02:38] to list the city as well with you. I
[1:02:42] don't know if they would be willing to
[1:02:43] do that or not, but
[1:02:45] >> Well, we actually that's that's a good
[1:02:47] thought. Wait, Ted has actually um on
[1:02:50] non-private roads, Ted has actually um
[1:02:55] has required that and it was not with
[1:02:59] this contractor. It was a it was with a
[1:03:01] different contractor and they they did a one a one-year warranty on on the
[1:03:06] road.
[1:03:08] So
[1:03:08] >> you know if you have on this road or not
[1:03:13] >> should have it on everything
[1:03:15] >> to some warranty to you guys.
[1:03:18] >> That's a I think it's a
[1:03:20] >> Yeah.
[1:03:21] I mean I I
[1:03:24] >> contract it is.
[1:03:26] >> Yeah. I'm sure it's in our contract.
[1:03:30] >> Okay. Let's see what we can work out
[1:03:32] through that mechanism.
[1:03:35] >> Okay.
[1:03:36] If the lawyer will buy into that.
[1:03:39] >> I think I think they will.
[1:03:42] We've had quite a bit of discussion with
[1:03:44] them and so forth.
[1:03:45] >> He's the one that truly brought up the
[1:03:46] bonding, right?
[1:03:49] >> Uh the lawyer that brought up the
[1:03:51] bonding.
[1:03:51] >> Yeah.
[1:03:53] >> So, okay.
[1:03:56] >> And [clears throat] that that'll that'll
[1:03:57] only cover their workmanship. If you
[1:03:59] have an act of God or a flood or a fire,
[1:04:02] it's not going to cover that. Yeah, the
[1:04:04] cover that
[1:04:05] >> and maybe something to add to
[1:04:09] um
[1:04:11] contract development contracts that has
[1:04:14] the city assigned if if there's a
[1:04:17] failure, you know, if there's a
[1:04:19] something like that when you're when you
[1:04:20] have these developer contracts,
[1:04:23] that that could be an option, too. So
[1:04:24] the city get would automatically get
[1:04:26] assigned those warranties
[1:04:29] upon, you know, if the if the the the
[1:04:32] builder went under um which we've seen,
[1:04:36] right? I mean, we've seen that. And to
[1:04:38] have that in our in our contracts would
[1:04:42] be
[1:04:43] >> Yeah, we have an agreement and that
[1:04:45] could be added to
[1:04:46] >> Exactly. That's what I That's what I
[1:04:47] mean. The agreement um and and could be
[1:04:50] added in the future. I get that BIES is
[1:04:52] there. You know, we've we've had that
[1:04:53] for a long time, but um in the future,
[1:04:56] we could just you could start adding
[1:04:57] that to those developer agreements to
[1:04:59] say
[1:05:01] >> legally that those warranties will go
[1:05:04] will will transfer to the city in case
[1:05:06] of default.
[1:05:07] >> Yeah,
[1:05:08] >> I think he's as good as
[1:05:12] >> Yeah. In essence, that's
[1:05:13] >> that's what the bond is. That's right.
[1:05:15] It's a guarantee.
[1:05:16] >> That's just a durability. Yep.
[1:05:21] Yeah. I mean, this is the best contractor we've worked
[1:05:25] with yet, and I can't imagine he he's
[1:05:28] going to have any issues with that.
[1:05:30] >> Yeah.
[1:05:33] >> Is that Rhino?
[1:05:35] >> No. No. This is RB Construction. They're uh they're Spanish fork company
[1:05:41] and they do a lot of work around around
[1:05:44] the Spanish fork pacing, you know,
[1:05:47] Elkridge, Salem, the whole the whole
[1:05:49] area.
[1:05:50] >> Okay.
[1:05:53] So,
[1:05:56] >> any other questions on that? I I I guess
[1:05:59] I'd suggest that we approve it
[1:06:02] conditionally with those items that I've
[1:06:04] mentioned and then as those items get
[1:06:07] done and completed then it doesn't come
[1:06:10] back to us again it be recorded and
[1:06:15] that part taken care of that part then
[1:06:18] so what we'll have is the bonding
[1:06:21] durability bond inspection bond and
[1:06:24] those that will continue then through
[1:06:26] this next year of durability period.
[1:06:34] I'll make a motion then I guess to
[1:06:37] approve
[1:06:39] G1-B final plaque
[1:06:43] with the stipulations
[1:06:46] the conditions
[1:06:46] >> the conditions that are existing
[1:06:49] that need to be taken care of.
[1:06:52] >> All right there second. Okay.
[1:07:06] All in favor? I
[1:07:08] >> I.
[1:07:09] >> Any opposed?
[1:07:11] Right. Good.
[1:07:15] >> I'm going to drop off. Thank you.
[1:07:17] >> Okay, Bucky. Thank you.
[1:07:19] >> Thank you.
[1:07:23] Item 11, status report on Belleview.
[1:07:29] What could go wrong has gone wrong.
[1:07:32] [laughter]
[1:07:35] This is a there's a sheet,
[1:07:41] four sheets there that kind of orient
[1:07:44] you a little bit. Um, this was a
[1:07:50] pin
[1:07:51] lot subdivision
[1:07:54] lots one and two are are done and over.
[1:07:58] got the final those been recorded and so
[1:08:01] they're not part of
[1:08:04] the rest of three through eight
[1:08:08] when when this got
[1:08:16] the people who originally proposed this
[1:08:20] before they did work on it they sold it
[1:08:24] to
[1:08:26] the group
[1:08:28] um
[1:08:30] called Hawkstone.
[1:08:32] They go by number of different names,
[1:08:34] but Hawkstone and Hawkstone is the one
[1:08:37] that went in and developed this, put the
[1:08:39] road in and they worked off of the
[1:08:43] engineering report that the prior owners
[1:08:47] had.
[1:08:50] Um this for those sever
[1:08:58] where they went in and did a lot of road
[1:09:00] work without city approval
[1:09:03] and um
[1:09:06] we were concerned about it and we put
[1:09:08] some requirements on them in building
[1:09:12] this road.
[1:09:14] uh they they took out about
[1:09:17] 19 ft of of native soil
[1:09:22] and then they rebuilt it without any
[1:09:27] with very little testing, very little
[1:09:31] oversight or anything. So
[1:09:34] >> turn the recorder off.
[1:09:37] >> This has been this has been recorded
[1:09:38] multiple times. [laughter]
[1:09:42] » Yeah. So, we were we were careful in as
[1:09:47] they went in to develop this and uh we
[1:09:50] required I believe if I'm not mistaken
[1:09:53] to go down four feet and do some testing
[1:09:56] and um
[1:09:59] make sure that they everything felt good
[1:10:02] at that level. Then they put um a
[1:10:07] geotech down on it
[1:10:09] >> to
[1:10:09] >> and built up then the rest of it top of
[1:10:12] the geotech stuff. And then they did
[1:10:16] some proof rolls as they were building
[1:10:19] the road to make sure that uh and there
[1:10:22] was a couple of spots after they were
[1:10:23] done that they had to go back and redo
[1:10:26] because of soft spots.
[1:10:29] So
[1:10:30] anyway, they they they've done this and
[1:10:35] then it set
[1:10:37] it sat for over a year now without being
[1:10:40] recorded.
[1:10:42] During that year's period, we made
[1:10:44] numerous efforts to reach out to them,
[1:10:47] to talk to them, and find out what's
[1:10:49] going on. There was no reason that they had a few little odds and ends, but
[1:10:57] nothing. They wouldn't return our calls.
[1:10:59] We couldn't. It was like crickets. So,
[1:11:04] they passed the year.
[1:11:05] >> The new owners, the old
[1:11:07] >> the new new owners.
[1:11:10] So, they
[1:11:12] year period that our ordinance says it
[1:11:16] needs to be recorded by.
[1:11:19] So, and if they don't get it recorded in
[1:11:23] that year's period,
[1:11:25] they have to start all over again.
[1:11:27] Now, the work's done.
[1:11:30] So, the starting all over again. We've had some communication with not
[1:11:37] the owners of Hawkstone, but some
[1:11:40] others who are trying to piece this back
[1:11:45] together again. We're requesting a new
[1:11:48] title report, make sure that the they
[1:11:52] haven't sold any of this property off.
[1:11:55] And um
[1:11:57] we've we already had the water deeds so
[1:12:00] that was that has not been a problem or
[1:12:03] issue. Um
[1:12:10] the the the letter that they got from
[1:12:13] the county health for septic, it's it's
[1:12:17] not sewer, it's septic, was expired.
[1:12:21] It was a three three-year letter
[1:12:24] >> and The county help identified three
[1:12:27] lots and they forget which ones they
[1:12:29] were that was going to have to have
[1:12:31] their own septic system,
[1:12:34] >> their own
[1:12:38] whatever it is that
[1:12:39] >> it's a modified septic or something like
[1:12:42] that. It's a special
[1:12:44] >> special septic.
[1:12:45] >> It's their own because of the steepness
[1:12:48] of the law. Is that what it is?
[1:12:49] >> That's one reason. Yeah. Um, so here's
[1:12:53] my concern that all that being said,
[1:12:57] and I that's what I suggested if you all
[1:13:00] had an opportunity to [clears throat] go
[1:13:01] there and take a look at it and see. Um,
[1:13:05] I'm concerned that,
[1:13:07] and let me back up. The plot commission
[1:13:11] at the time gave them a
[1:13:14] uh a variance based upon what our
[1:13:17] engineers were telling us at the time.
[1:13:20] Who LE
[1:13:22] that
[1:13:24] a lot of this exceeded 35%
[1:13:29] slope and our ordinance is that if it's
[1:13:33] over 30 if it's 35% or over it can't be
[1:13:37] graded.
[1:13:38] But we gave them allowance to grade it
[1:13:41] as minimally as possible in order to
[1:13:45] overcome that 35%
[1:13:48] grade. for building purposes.
[1:13:53] I'm not sure they did that. We've told
[1:13:59] them that they're going to need to do
[1:14:03] some testing and some a site survey with
[1:14:07] equipment over there to see if these
[1:14:11] lots
[1:14:12] are buildable.
[1:14:15] And that my concern is we're we're
[1:14:18] saying to the public, here's a
[1:14:20] subdivision, here's approved lots and
[1:14:23] they buy one of these lots and then we
[1:14:26] say, I'm sorry, it's over 35%, you can't
[1:14:29] build on it. So, we want to make sure
[1:14:32] then that these lots are buildable
[1:14:34] before we approve this to be recorded.
[1:14:39] So that's kind of in the second part now
[1:14:42] of one things that we're asking them
[1:14:45] because they're our ordinance says they
[1:14:47] have to start all over again but we're
[1:14:49] giving them a a very restricted things
[1:14:52] to do. They don't have to do everything
[1:14:53] all over again but just those things
[1:14:55] that we feel are critical for them to do
[1:14:59] and that's one of them. They have to get
[1:15:00] a new letter also from public health on
[1:15:03] their septic system to make sure that
[1:15:06] maybe nothing has changed. Um, but so
[1:15:10] that's another requirement that they've
[1:15:12] got, but we've told them that we want
[1:15:14] them come in and do a a slope survey to
[1:15:17] make sure that these lots are are
[1:15:21] building. Now, in on the second page,
[1:15:26] you can see that's that that time when
[1:15:30] the final
[1:15:32] this is a draft of it. This isn't the
[1:15:35] draft of the final. This is what they
[1:15:37] are proposing. You can see
[1:15:40] all that grade
[1:15:42] stuff in there. There is some over 35%
[1:15:45] grade and uh some of that covers
[1:15:48] building envelope.
[1:15:51] So, in requiring them to do this new
[1:15:55] slope survey, hopefully we'll find out
[1:15:58] whether or not these lots can be built
[1:16:01] on. If not, then they're going to have
[1:16:03] to go in there and do some more work.
[1:16:05] on it.
[1:16:08] So, I want I just wanted to bring you
[1:16:10] all up to date with that. Um,
[1:16:16] they could have gotten an extension
[1:16:19] from us to not or to avoid a second
[1:16:25] um
[1:16:27] flat situation, but they didn't they
[1:16:30] didn't contact us or anything. So it
[1:16:33] just lapsed.
[1:16:35] >> So I remember talking about this a lot
[1:16:38] because we knew it was steep. We knew
[1:16:41] they had the fill. They supposedly
[1:16:43] mitigated those problems with the road
[1:16:45] in.
[1:16:48] Can we go back on them? And we're not
[1:16:50] changing because they told us at the
[1:16:53] time these lots would be buildable,
[1:16:55] right?
[1:16:56] >> Yes. So, aren't we really just asking to
[1:17:00] make sure they are and then we go from
[1:17:02] there?
[1:17:02] >> Yeah.
[1:17:02] >> Did they meet the variance that was
[1:17:04] given to them? I mean, that was part of
[1:17:06] that was
[1:17:07] >> in the original order that said that
[1:17:10] >> that transfer
[1:17:11] >> that transfers over and that was
[1:17:14] >> that they understand that.
[1:17:16] >> Well, they bought it.
[1:17:17] >> Well, that was approved. Remember
[1:17:19] talking about that? We're like, well,
[1:17:20] those are crazy steep. And they are if
[1:17:22] you'll look at them, it's really steep.
[1:17:23] >> We talked to the new builders. You can build on anything, but there's a
[1:17:28] lot of crazy stuff that's going to
[1:17:29] happen to do that.
[1:17:30] >> They're the ones that had the new ones
[1:17:33] are the ones that had to develop this.
[1:17:35] So, they knew that they had to work and make these buildable lots.
[1:17:41] >> So, they were working for Bell.
[1:17:43] >> No, they bought it everything for
[1:17:46] >> I know. But you said that they were the
[1:17:48] ones that were looking at this or
[1:17:51] working it.
[1:17:52] >> Yes. the second
[1:17:54] >> when he when she still owned it.
[1:17:56] >> No.
[1:17:57] >> Okay.
[1:17:58] >> No, they hadn't done any work on this
[1:18:01] other than what they shouldn't have done
[1:18:04] with the road and then the digging all
[1:18:06] that out.
[1:18:07] >> That was after they bought it from
[1:18:09] >> No, Bills did that. Bills did that. So
[1:18:12] they bought it with that road and they
[1:18:15] knew the issues of that road because
[1:18:18] putting in this new road
[1:18:20] >> I mean they had
[1:18:20] >> they had to do extra work.
[1:18:22] >> I mean there was fill and
[1:18:24] >> yes
[1:18:26] all sorts of garbage
[1:18:27] >> work without knowing if they could build
[1:18:30] on I mean I drove over there. You're
[1:18:32] going to have to put freaking sheet
[1:18:34] piles in that 50 feet down or something
[1:18:36] if you want to re What's the city's um
[1:18:39] obligation if you do approve this, they
[1:18:41] go build on it and a retaining wall
[1:18:43] collapses or something. What's the
[1:18:44] city's risk in that?
[1:18:47] >> I don't know. But we need to make it
[1:18:49] that it complies with our ordinances
[1:18:51] >> after that. There there is you can see
[1:18:54] that front shape some of those
[1:18:56] >> Oh, it's a retaining walls that are
[1:19:00] going to be needed there. How do you get
[1:19:02] a 15% slope on your driveway?
[1:19:05] >> Well, yeah. You see you see the one on
[1:19:09] five.
[1:19:10] >> And it did show that.
[1:19:11] >> I'm not even sure I am up.
[1:19:14] >> Oh, no.
[1:19:15] way.
[1:19:15] >> It's too tight of a turn to get the
[1:19:17] ambulance up. Um,
[1:19:20] >> yeah. I don't I don't want to respond.
[1:19:23] >> I don't know from the back offset if you
[1:19:25] have enough room to grade it to get to
[1:19:29] the grade the minimal grade you need.
[1:19:31] >> I I really that I I can't believe
[1:19:35] someone
[1:19:36] >> developed that. That's
[1:19:38] >> I mean this was the design that their
[1:19:40] civil engineer laid out,
[1:19:42] >> Ken Bur.
[1:19:44] And
[1:19:46] so we just want to make sure that they
[1:19:50] got buildable lots there.
[1:19:52] >> Again, they could build with the bottom
[1:19:55] of their house just past the just, you
[1:19:59] know, ju just past the set back.
[1:20:01] >> Yeah.
[1:20:02] >> Just past the setback and everything
[1:20:03] else is cut into the hill, right?
[1:20:05] >> Yeah. Just retaining
[1:20:06] >> and they're retaining now.
[1:20:08] >> Um and and that's that's a when you look
[1:20:10] at this, that's a possibility. But when
[1:20:13] you look at the sewer, when you look at
[1:20:15] the septic spots for that, they're going
[1:20:18] to have to pump them.
[1:20:19] >> So, is there not sewer running through
[1:20:21] that main road? There isn't. Oh, there's
[1:20:23] no sewer on that whole side of
[1:20:24] >> Okay, that's that makes sense then.
[1:20:27] >> Yeah.
[1:20:27] >> Then to stop it stops on Deer Creek
[1:20:30] going down to
[1:20:34] » So, that's where we're at with them. And we're we're trying to
[1:20:40] find out if we still have their bond or
[1:20:43] not?
[1:20:45] >> How could they?
[1:20:47] >> The bank could have released it back to
[1:20:50] them.
[1:20:52] How would they do that without somebody
[1:20:53] from the city sign up?
[1:20:55] >> Exactly.
[1:20:56] >> It's been done before.
[1:20:58] >> Yeah.
[1:21:01] >> Some of these places. I would I would
[1:21:04] also have your attorney for the city
[1:21:07] write up something that says we are not
[1:21:10] in any way responsible for
[1:21:14] this area here or something.
[1:21:16] >> Yeah,
[1:21:17] >> just the retaining mechanism, the
[1:21:19] engineering, all of that.
[1:21:22] >> I you don't you don't need to even shoot
[1:21:25] grades to go tell that
[1:21:27] >> no situation.
[1:21:31] It'll tough.
[1:21:35] Yeah.
[1:21:37] So,
[1:21:40] » not like we can't approve it. It's been
[1:21:41] approved.
[1:21:42] >> We got to
[1:21:43] >> But they can't build,
[1:21:44] >> but there has to be some requirements to
[1:21:46] protect the city.
[1:21:47] >> They can't they can't sell the lot until
[1:21:49] it right. So, it's locked. I mean, they can't do anything. And that's where
[1:21:55] the Bells wanted to sell that lot so
[1:21:57] they could afford to do this. I know
[1:21:58] that's what they were, you know, that
[1:22:00] they we talked to the people who wanted
[1:22:02] to buy lot. Is it two and three?
[1:22:05] >> One and two. And interestingly enough,
[1:22:06] >> no, they want Yeah, but they wanted two
[1:22:08] and three,
[1:22:09] >> but Oxton has bought them back.
[1:22:12] >> Oh, really? Yeah.
[1:22:13] >> So, they own they own all of that now.
[1:22:16] Why Why has that happened?
[1:22:18] >> Well, two and three work together to
[1:22:20] make a buildable lot in my opinion. When
[1:22:23] you look at that, if you have two and
[1:22:25] three, you could if you could merge
[1:22:27] those two and get rid of that property
[1:22:28] line, you've got a place to build a
[1:22:30] house. It's a big old lot, but it's
[1:22:32] steep, right? Um, but you got a place
[1:22:35] you could actually build. If you merge
[1:22:37] those into We've had one person years
[1:22:40] ago who wanted to buy one and two and
[1:22:42] merge those together into
[1:22:44] >> Well, we had the people when this came
[1:22:46] out that wanted to do two and three,
[1:22:49] >> but one and two came up as well.
[1:22:51] >> And did that come up as well? So
[1:22:52] >> is that
[1:22:54] >> dangerous?
[1:22:55] >> Yeah.
[1:22:56] >> That's what they talked him out of it.
[1:22:58] So they don't have the right to sell
[1:23:00] that.
[1:23:01] >> Well, they do one and two.
[1:23:03] >> One and two. They could
[1:23:04] >> record it.
[1:23:05] >> But they couldn't sell three.
[1:23:06] >> Couldn't do three because that's part of
[1:23:08] this.
[1:23:08] >> And all of this had to be done before
[1:23:10] they could sell three. And it had to be,
[1:23:12] you know, go through this whole process
[1:23:14] and get recorded. And we're still not
[1:23:17] there. And that's been
[1:23:19] over a year ago.
[1:23:21] >> Yeah.
[1:23:22] Y
[1:23:25] >> okay. So that's the report on that.
[1:23:29] >> Um
[1:23:32] I've seen him down working in uh brought
[1:23:34] up in in council the the one what's it
[1:23:37] called that's down here on
[1:23:38] >> Havenwood.
[1:23:38] And they've been down there
[1:23:40] working. I've been
[1:23:40] >> see problems.
[1:23:43] >> Not surprising.
[1:23:44] >> Put the ditch in the wrong place.
[1:23:49] That's what I thought. I was like,
[1:23:50] "What?" I drove through it.
[1:23:51] >> I haven't driven through it, but I saw
[1:23:53] him out there.
[1:23:54] >> Yeah,
[1:23:54] >> you'll see it.
[1:23:55] >> Ted's meeting with him tomorrow down
[1:23:56] there. This is after he spent quite a
[1:24:01] bit of time on the phone with one of
[1:24:02] them telling them what needed to be done
[1:24:04] and they didn't do it. So,
[1:24:08] >> they've still got more work to do.
[1:24:09] >> They do.
[1:24:10] >> Yeah.
[1:24:10] >> They got to fill in a ditch.
[1:24:11] >> They got to fill in the ditch now. and they got to tear out a driveway and
[1:24:15] put in a new one and and everything else
[1:24:17] before.
[1:24:18] >> Yes.
[1:24:20] >> Because that was all it was all
[1:24:21] contingent.
[1:24:24] >> Okay. So, that's kind of the update on Havenwood
[1:24:30] phase. Oh,
[1:24:32] >> the uh this is part this is 12.
[1:24:36] Um
[1:24:38] the uh
[1:24:41] we've been told by the county
[1:24:44] who's working on the roundabout
[1:24:48] that um they won't be ready to start
[1:24:53] work until next year on the roundabout.
[1:24:57] Uh a lot of their time and it's not
[1:24:59] completed yet is taking and getting some
[1:25:03] lights of way. They need more right way
[1:25:07] down 11200
[1:25:09] as well as the roundabout's going to be
[1:25:11] larger.
[1:25:12] >> So, they're getting property that's on
[1:25:16] each of the corners there uh with the
[1:25:19] roundabout.
[1:25:20] >> Will it be two lanes?
[1:25:22] >> Yeah. No, it's just one lane.
[1:25:25] >> Yeah.
[1:25:26] >> I thought they added a There's a pull in
[1:25:28] lane.
[1:25:28] >> There's a pull pull in
[1:25:32] >> to get the post office another lane.
[1:25:36] That makes sense.
[1:25:37] >> Um
[1:25:39] so
[1:25:40] um we're going to probably through the autumn here work on getting
[1:25:46] new post office box installed here. We
[1:25:49] have them here in
[1:25:51] >> uh but we won't be using it until until
[1:25:54] next year.
[1:25:57] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[1:25:59] So that's
[1:26:02] where that's at with
[1:26:06] the post office.
[1:26:07] >> So they funded the construction for
[1:26:09] that?
[1:26:11] >> Yes, they haven't yet, but they're they
[1:26:14] agreed to. Yeah, there's a there's a uh
[1:26:18] proposal that's been accepted by them to
[1:26:21] do the work on the post office putting
[1:26:24] those boxes in there.
[1:26:27] Um,
[1:26:31] let me uh
[1:26:33] then we're we're good. Give you a a
[1:26:37] future update. Um,
[1:26:41] >> later running. We're good.
[1:26:44] um on the federal case.
[1:26:48] Um
[1:26:51] the it's it's the first filing that
[1:26:54] they've made in federal court.
[1:26:58] The the state court ones are still
[1:27:02] pending. It's been no action taken on
[1:27:05] those. No decision or anything. We
[1:27:07] haven't heard uh on on the state court
[1:27:12] ones. They they filed one
[1:27:16] um
[1:27:19] complaint in federal court and
[1:27:26] there's there's what's called a
[1:27:28] magistrate judge and he's like one step
[1:27:32] below a federal judge, a regular federal
[1:27:35] judge and he's the one and they have
[1:27:37] those they have these throughout the
[1:27:38] country now and I think it's they did
[1:27:41] that to
[1:27:43] help the case load, lighten the case
[1:27:46] load of the regular judges a little bit.
[1:27:49] But anyway, he he's the one that's been
[1:27:51] assigned and then there's a a regular
[1:27:53] federal judge over him that work with
[1:27:56] him if needed. But uh they're they're
[1:28:00] move for the bar and everything else.
[1:28:03] uh they're appointed by
[1:28:06] the district court judge
[1:28:10] um federal I should say federal district
[1:28:13] court judge and they're appointed for
[1:28:15] eight years so they're kind of in it for
[1:28:18] a while. So anyway the food just filed a
[1:28:22] 90page
[1:28:25] complaint
[1:28:27] um typical for them with the length
[1:28:32] of it. And um
[1:28:36] I'm trying to think this was a number of
[1:28:38] months ago and just this week the
[1:28:41] magistrate
[1:28:44] and I don't know for sure how this goes.
[1:28:46] This is I know the federal court system
[1:28:48] quite well but they've changed since I
[1:28:52] was involved with it. But he filed a
[1:28:56] recommendation
[1:28:58] report
[1:29:00] and His recommendation was that the
[1:29:03] Fujas violated federal rules of civil
[1:29:06] procedure number eight.
[1:29:09] And what that particular
[1:29:12] rule is is that motions are filed in
[1:29:16] court need to be
[1:29:18] short, succinct to a point
[1:29:23] and pages.
[1:29:26] >> 90 pages. Yeah. So he
[1:29:31] Um,
[1:29:33] what's the word I'm looking for? He
[1:29:35] denied it, but he said, "I'm giving you
[1:29:39] another opportunity
[1:29:41] >> to redo this." Okay.
[1:29:44] >> Short and succinct.
[1:29:46] >> And that's what he said. That's it has
[1:29:47] to be that way. And if it comes back
[1:29:50] long again, he implied that he may would
[1:29:53] dismiss it.
[1:29:55] So, they've got 14 days to resubmit this
[1:30:00] new motion.
[1:30:02] Um,
[1:30:04] so we haven't heard. They could contest
[1:30:07] it
[1:30:09] if they chose to take that route.
[1:30:13] Um
[1:30:18] but so
[1:30:21] we'll see where that where that ends up.
[1:30:24] There was there was another ca there's
[1:30:26] another state case where the fues filed
[1:30:31] an objection. I don't know if I told you
[1:30:33] about this or not. the two engineers
[1:30:36] that we had, David Alter who was working
[1:30:39] for the city and Brad Gillson who was
[1:30:43] the engineer for Adam's home.
[1:30:47] They
[1:30:49] hired the same attorney to represent
[1:30:51] them
[1:30:51] >> their insurance
[1:30:53] >> through their insurance company did
[1:30:55] that.
[1:30:55] >> The same company that represents each of
[1:30:57] their firms.
[1:30:58] So Fu just filed a motion that
[1:31:02] they didn't feel it was right for the
[1:31:06] same attorney firm to represent the two
[1:31:08] engineers
[1:31:10] as Fuj's belief was that there'd be
[1:31:14] conflict between each of them. And we
[1:31:17] listened to the the hearing on it and
[1:31:21] the attorney said, "No, both these
[1:31:24] engineers are in sync. They're both same
[1:31:29] way. They they agreeable. They're
[1:31:30] agreeable to this and us representing
[1:31:34] both of them because the issues are the
[1:31:36] same
[1:31:38] um that that they have. So the judge
[1:31:41] ruled in favor of the uh the engineers.
[1:31:46] So uh but they haven't haven't heard the
[1:31:50] case yet. So that was another
[1:31:54] long long The state court doesn't follow these federal rules of
[1:32:00] civil procedure. So,
[1:32:05] one of the Fuja's
[1:32:08] motions was like 300 pages long of
[1:32:11] exhibits and everything in state court.
[1:32:14] >> So,
[1:32:17] anyway, we're that's kind of where
[1:32:19] things are at with with them.
[1:32:28] any issues or questions that any of you
[1:32:31] have about
[1:32:35] you're probably swimming like
[1:32:38] >> why did I get myself
[1:32:40] >> happy to help
[1:32:42] >> well we appreciate your willingness to help kind of this is kind of a long agenda so let me go shut that
[1:32:59] Yeah. You want to make it?
[1:33:01] >> I just made it.
[1:33:01] >> Just made it.
[1:33:02] >> Okay. Second it.
[1:33:03] >> Second. Okay. All in favor?
[1:33:06] >> I
[1:33:20] You're not doing splash cylinder.
[1:33:23] No, I'm so bummed out. Don't give me I
[1:33:26] haven't even trained for it. So I train
[1:33:29] better for I'm better shape than I now
[1:33:31] than I was when I did the win basin.
[1:33:34] But I have have to be a responsible