[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

Planning Commission Meeting August 19, 2026

Transcript