Live stream not working in Chrome or Edge?

Transcript

Event transcript
David Billings is the one who made the application, but we've both been trying to help. 00:00:00
Korean Presbyterian Church with their efforts to relocate. 00:00:05
I'm not going to rehearse. What staff? 00:00:09
The Planning Commission have gone through you. 00:00:12
Read all of that and you're familiar with it. I did want to tell you a bit about the church and the struggles that they face, or 00:00:15
any church does, in light of the way the code's written. 00:00:20
The Korean Presbyterian Church started in 1980. They're well established. They've been in the Valley for a long time, and growth 00:00:25
and demographics has required them to move. And so they've listed and sold their property in West Valley City, which they will 00:00:31
have to exit. 00:00:37
Relatively quickly. So they're looking for new space and we've looked. 00:00:43
In your community extensively because of the membership that lives in this area and. 00:00:49
We actually have. 00:00:57
The property is described by Miss March under contract. 00:00:59
And in our due diligence period, which is 90 days typical in a contract, we have to resolve a variety of issues which includes the 00:01:03
zoning. 00:01:08
One of the difficulties with the P zone or the way that the city code is set up, is that to do a rezone. 00:01:14
You can't. 00:01:22
A property tied up long enough. 00:01:24
From a seller. 00:01:27
To go through the rezone process, and if you could and did and rezone it to AP, it damages the value of the property subsequently 00:01:28
because it reduces the options of what the property can be used for. 00:01:36
And that would then require. 00:01:43
Coming back and trying to rezone it to make it back into AC2 or a commercial property to expand its uses. 00:01:45
And So what we're seeking to do is. 00:01:52
Manages his staff has already indicated the Planning Commission is supported include the church in as a as a use within the C2. If 00:01:56
you look at codes in many of the other cities in the state, that's how it's set up so that churches can be in a variety of 00:02:03
locations. 00:02:09
We're anxious. 00:02:19
Do this as quickly as we can because of the purchase agreement. I know that's not your problem or your consideration and when the 00:02:22
modification of the code, but I think that what we're asking is similar to what's happened in most other cities and they can make 00:02:30
it work. And so we would encourage you to allow the churches to be included in in the C2 zone. 00:02:38
And as I said, you've looked at the report, so I'm not going to rehearse it. Can I answer any specific questions for you? 00:02:46
Well, my sense is that the issue we're going to wrestle with is the one that Councilmember Fotheringham brought up, and that is, 00:02:56
it has nothing to do with this church in particular if we text them in the zone that it's going to be open to. 00:03:02
All church. 00:03:08
And what are the down the road impacts of that decision? That's the something we'll be debating in. 00:03:09
Debating and you're welcome to stay and. 00:03:15
And listen to that discussion. Thank you. Are there any questions I can answer or any issues that have not been addressed for you? 00:03:18
Can I just ask and you might not know the answer to this? You said that many other cities have allowed this use in their 00:03:26
commercial zones. Do you know how they have resolved this 600 foot and 300 foot issue? 00:03:32
Frequently they do it as a conditional use rather than as an allowed use, and sorry I didn't write them all down and bring it. 00:03:38
I I actually chaired the Sandy City Planning Commission for 10 years and so the way we did it was we looked at it as a conditional 00:03:48
use. 00:03:52
And and we would we. 00:03:56
600 feet is really not that great a distance. If you look at a parking lot, it's frequently deeper than 600 feet. So I I recognize 00:03:58
that's a question, but it doesn't, you know, it doesn't cast such a broad net that it affects. 00:04:06
All of the buildings generally hits the parking lots, so it's not as big an issue. 00:04:15
But I can't give you a better answer than that. That's fine. Thank you any other. 00:04:21
Thank you. Well, we may we may have some questions for you later and I'll stay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. 00:04:25
All right. With that, we will open up the public hearing on this proposed amendment. Public hearings now open, so anybody from the 00:04:34
public. 00:04:38
That wishes to address the Council. 00:04:43
Time is now yours. 00:04:45
We knew I'd probably say something. Chris Langston, 4950. 00:05:00
Holiday holiday resident here 4954 Fairview Dr. Obviously. 00:05:04
You know if the 600 feet encroaches into. 00:05:10
The major commercial areas that are anticipated tax bases or tax bases for the city would have a significant impact. 00:05:14
On, you know plans that have been in the works and properties that have you know been in existence for 60-70 years and 00:05:22
representing you know holiday Hills, this 600 feet would encroach into that property. And we have restaurants as you guys are all 00:05:29
well aware that would be impacted like this and so unless some kind of resolution could be. 00:05:35
You know, worked out where it doesn't impact it, then you know, we're not opposed to having churches around us, but we can't. 00:05:43
You know that would eliminate our ability to do any of the restaurants that we have currently have planned and have existed for 00:05:50
years in in that area including. 00:05:55
That center and also the one on the West side of the street, so we. 00:06:01
Probably go on record saying that that would be extremely extreme burden on us as a property owner. 00:06:05
Thank you. 00:06:17
Anybody else for the public hearing? 00:06:23
OK, with that then I'll close this public hearing and again encourage you to stick around for. 00:06:29
The discussion. 00:06:36
How many are here and interested in listening to this? 00:06:40
Work discussion on this. 00:06:45
Issue if you just raise your hand. 00:06:48
I just want to get a sense of whether we're going to, if we want to do that here, move across back across the hall. 00:06:53
We may overtax our small room across the hall, I think. So we'll probably just, I think maybe we'll just stay over here for at 00:06:59
least a portion of the work session. 00:07:03
I think it will be easier for everybody so you're comfortable and you can listen to that discussion. 00:07:09
OK, public hearing on. I'm sorry, we're on item number 7. This is a public hearing on proposed amendments to Title 13.76, point 00:07:13
730. 00:07:18
And other chapters on Home, Occupation, and Carrie. This is your item again. 00:07:24
You want to address this with the Council quickly. 00:07:30
Or not so quickly if you want, It's up to you. 00:07:34
Well, you've all read the staff report, so we can go pretty quickly through this. 00:07:37
This is moving home occupations, which are currently conditional use that is overseen by the Planning Commission. They review 00:07:42
those and apply conditions based on specific impacts tied to the the home occupation. This moves. 00:07:50
Home occupations from a conditional use to a permitted use with standards. 00:07:58
The changes in the code in the staff report. 00:08:03
Original text is all. 00:08:07
Listed in there, crossed out in red. So it's a total rewrite of the code. Everything that's in there is new. 00:08:10
Significant changes are changing the employee number limited to one employee. It doesn't matter if that employee is a resident of 00:08:17
the home or not. I. 00:08:21
The other key change is involving in accessory building. Currently our code doesn't allow accessory building use. 00:08:28
So this changes that to allow an exterior accessory. 00:08:38
Building and the other significant change is. 00:08:43
Allowing owner occupied or defining what owner occupied is. 00:08:50
Currently conditional uses are used that run with the land, so home occupation would be tied to the property itself. 00:08:57
The Planning Commission overviewed that as owner occupied. 00:09:06
Meaning somebody who would have to live on the property or a relative living on the property. 00:09:10
Middle ground between that would be. 00:09:16
Tying that to property ownership. 00:09:20
Allowing home occupation, tying to the property owner itself, so the staff report. 00:09:23
Staff does propose clarifying language. 00:09:30
To allow for that owner. 00:09:35
The owner use of a home occupation instead of it being tied to somebody who lives on the property. That would be a consideration 00:09:37
that can be discussed in the in the work session. All the other summary of changes are listed in there. The standards are pretty 00:09:43
clear. If you have any questions I can answer any of those. 00:09:49
Any questions of council right now? 00:09:58
I'm just glad to. 00:10:01
Get into that one question of the staff report relative to the code in regard to. 00:10:03
Who and what family means and all that stuff. Could need some clarification. Never will. 00:10:08
Iron that out in the work session. 00:10:13
Right. All right. Thank you, car. 00:10:16
OK, that with that, we'll open up the public hearing on this proposed amendment. Public hearing is now open. 00:10:19
Anybody wish to address the Council on proposed amendments to home occupations? 00:10:25
There being then we'll close this public hearing. Thank you and move on to item number 8. This is a public hearing regarding the 00:10:34
creation of public infrastructure Districts Pid's at Royal Holiday Hills. 00:10:40
So we will start with our legal counsel. Mr. Godfrey, you want to? 00:10:46
Lead out on this one. Thank you Mayor. The city's received an application from the owners of property within the Holiday Hills 00:10:51
Project, former Cottonwood Mall. 00:10:55
To create what's known as a Public Infrastructure district. 00:11:00
Your city recorder has certified that petition as being adequate, and so it's now before you for a public hearing. 00:11:03
And your consideration for the creation of the district. The creation of the district. 00:11:10
Would allow the levy or the issuance of bonds and essentially the levy of attacks within the district. 00:11:14
To build infrastructure supporting that project. 00:11:20
The way the district boundaries have been drawn in the proposal, it excludes any owner occupied properties. 00:11:24
So while the tax should be assessed on commercial activities and potentially apartment projects. 00:11:30
There would never be a tax assessed against a an owner occupied residential unit. 00:11:35
So with that, I'll submit it to the. 00:11:41
Any questions for Todd or before we open up the public hearing? 00:11:44
OK, the public hearing is now open on the creation of public infrastructure districts Pid's at Royal Holiday Hills. 00:11:51
Anybody here that wishes to address the? 00:11:57
OK, there being none, this public hearing is going to remain open. There are some. 00:12:03
Questions that we intend to address during the work session, specifically from our staff to the applicants. 00:12:08
I think it's important that. 00:12:15
Get some questions clarified over the next the course of the next week or two and give the public opportunity to comment that over 00:12:17
the comment on those over the course of the next two weeks. 00:12:23
With the intent of posting this to the March 7th agenda. 00:12:28
Is that the way? 00:12:32
That's kind of the timeline we're looking at. We'll see how it goes. So this public hearing is going to remain open. 00:12:35
OK. The consent agenda, we don't have any. 00:12:40
Items to approve on the consent agenda, so we'll move to the city manager, report Gina Chamness. 00:12:45
Just three quick items. 00:12:53
We kicked off our spring lane. 00:12:57
Park. At least that's what we're calling it right now. Reuse plan. 00:13:01
With. 00:13:06
Meeting of both staff and other steering committee members as well as members of our Concept of design team, and you'll hear more 00:13:12
about that plan later in your work session. We also kicked off our historic exhibit Experience project with two meetings last 00:13:21
week, one of leadership including a couple of council members. 00:13:30
And staff and community leaders. 00:13:40
And then one of the general public. 00:13:42
We're really excited for this work to begin and and are excited to see what the direction it goes. We also have available a a form 00:13:46
that members of the public can use to share their stories of holiday history. You should have received that in in an e-mail 00:13:54
earlier today and we'll be circulating that on social media as well. 00:14:02
And then finally, just wanted to alert the council that we have posted the finance Director position and have received a number of 00:14:11
applicants for that position. 00:14:16
First round of interviews will be next week with and my intention is to make an offer hopefully by the end of the month. 00:14:22
Any questions for? 00:14:32
OK. Thank you. 00:14:35
Matt. 00:14:38
You want to start on council reports. 00:14:40
If I can get my microphone on, I will do that. Just a couple of things. I was able to attend one of the. 00:14:42
Meetings regarding the historical experience and it was a really exciting. 00:14:49
Opportunity. It was great to sort of. 00:14:55
People there and their interest in holiday and their interest in telling kind of the holiday story. 00:14:58
I also wanted to report on him. 00:15:05
Meeting we had the mayor and Holly and I. 00:15:07
Up at the Capitol this week, I was there on behalf of our Happy Healthy Holiday coalition. It was a anti addiction. 00:15:11
Meet lobbying effort on behalf. 00:15:21
A number of groups and we were able to meet with Representative Galen Benyon, who represents part of holiday. 00:15:25
Wanted to thank her for her time and we had a really productive discussion with her, I thought. 00:15:34
And then finally just wanted to. 00:15:39
Jared and some of our city staff, we have kind of. 00:15:41
One of those great storm water issues in my district that he's working with some residents on and he's been really, really great 00:15:45
about keeping them in the loop on what's going on and trying to address their problems. So wanted to recognize and thank him for 00:15:49
that. 00:15:54
Thank you. 00:16:00
Just one item this morning I was at UFA for benefits and Compensation committee. 00:16:02
Maybe it's just time to start throwing out a little warning out there that we might. 00:16:09
There might be a little heavier Ding this year than last year. Some of you might remember that. 00:16:14
The budget thing last year from UFA was pretty. 00:16:19
Probably won't be as late this year, but we'll see. When we talked about benefits in comp, we haven't done. 00:16:24
Any further than that as a board. 00:16:29
Beware. 00:16:34
Or be advised, beware is too strong a word. Don't mean to scare anybody. Be advised. 00:16:36
Better word. That's all I have. 00:16:41
Thank you. Just one. 00:16:47
Some of you may know that Morningside Elementary, that's in my district. 00:16:50
Because of the district. Because of. 00:16:55
At that school have a lot of parents who come and drop their kids off in the morning and pick them up and so. 00:16:59
Sort of the. 00:17:06
The latest iteration of. 00:17:09
Parking problems. 00:17:11
Traffic problems. 00:17:14
I appreciate both Chief Oil and Jared Bunch. 00:17:16
They're working on this. We we have had requests from parents. 00:17:21
Living on. 00:17:26
South side of the School for everything. 00:17:27
Lots of sidewalks to crossing guards to new crosswalks. And so we're sort of. 00:17:31
Going through these all of you know that holiday doesn't have a lot of sidewalks. 00:17:38
And we are actually putting in sidewalks along 27th East, a three-year project and that's. 00:17:44
Going to be great for school kids walking. 00:17:51
There's always a little bit more that are. 00:17:54
Of us. So we'll see. We'll see what happens with that. 00:17:57
So I sat on the board of Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling and a few weeks ago in Mill Creek, one of their trucks, one of their 00:18:05
recycled trucks. 00:18:11
Caught on fire and thankfully the driver was able to leave and. 00:18:17
UFA came and took care of things, was able to move the truck to another location, resolve everything fully. 00:18:26
Currently they believe it was because non recyclable materials were put in recycling. They their best guess at this time is that 00:18:34
batteries were put in and. 00:18:40
And sparked things. So this is just kind of a PSA to be careful about what you put in your garbage and your recycling. It caused 00:18:47
over $100,000 worth of damage to the truck. They're also in addition to the immediate costs. 00:18:53
One of the still lingering effects of COVID is garbage trucks are incredibly backordered right now. 00:19:01
So even if they had the money to replace this, getting the parts is really difficult so. 00:19:06
That's just a PSA for everybody. And then yeah, that's it. 00:19:15
Gosh, I think I communicated earlier that one of the issues being raised at legislature right now is this issue with gravel pits 00:19:22
and we've weighed in with. 00:19:26
Local representatives about our opposition that most mostly it's usurping. 00:19:31
Usurping may be an understatement in local control. 00:19:35
And so we will be tracking both those bills pretty closely to see if they're going to. 00:19:38
Make it to a vote. 00:19:46
Anyway, that's been a concern. 00:19:48
Amongst a lot of the mayors around the county. 00:19:50
I do want to thank John for. 00:19:53
You know, we've had this issue with the Britton home. I got your e-mail on that. It looks like that home is probably going to be 00:19:57
demoed. 00:20:00
It that home is demoed, it's a very, I just want to acknowledge that. 00:20:04
We acknowledge that that's an emotional issue for a lot of people. 00:20:10
And it's very difficult issue to balance. 00:20:14
Desire of a community to maintain a what they perceive to be a historical structure and also protecting people's private property 00:20:18
rights is. 00:20:23
Very. It's a difficult issue and. 00:20:28
And I have to say, I don't. I didn't get into the weeds on this, but I think that the owner of that did try. 00:20:31
To work with members of the Commission to see if there was a path forward and eventually he just. 00:20:38
He just couldn't get there and had to get to the. 00:20:45
Because of other issues, I think it became a nuisance in the community where. 00:20:48
They couldn't come to an agreement where it could be saved so but I appreciate you engaging with them and I know they appreciated 00:20:53
the fact that we were empathetic to the situation and did all we could to try to. 00:20:59
Try to reach a solution that would have saved the home, but it just it wasn't to be so anyway. 00:21:07
John, thanks for you and your staff for your engagement on that issue. 00:21:12
Just as an FYI or Interfaith council, Which? 00:21:17
Meets quarterly. We've got a meeting next week, but Monday. They've started monthly to meet and discuss certain topics. We'll be 00:21:22
meeting Monday night here at 7:00 PM for anybody that would like to attend. 00:21:27
We'd welcome. 00:21:34
And that is all that I have right now I think. 00:21:36
You ready for a ready? 00:21:41
Mr. 00:21:43
I move, we recess City Council and reconvene and work. 00:21:45
2nd. 00:21:48
OK, we have a motion to second all in favor, say aye, aye. 00:21:49
We are now magically in work session. 00:21:54
So typically we would move back across the hall and start working over there. But beings that there are a lot of people here to 00:21:59
list, do a discussion, I don't think we can accommodate it across the hall. 00:22:04
My suggestion would be that we handle two of the items that were we take the agenda out of order, we handle two of the items that 00:22:09
were public hearings, moderate income housing and then the the amendment to the C2 zone here. And then if we want to stay, I guess 00:22:14
we can all let staff start thinking about whether they just want to stay here, if they want to move across the hall after that, 00:22:20
so. 00:22:25
I don't think we need a motion on that. I don't think there's a lot to cover under the moderate income housing. 00:22:32
Issue item number. 00:22:38
Five on the agenda. 00:22:42
But there were a few questions I think from council that you had for Ann. So and you want to come back up and and we'll get to a 00:22:44
point where the council is comfortable and then we'll move on. 00:22:49
All right. We'll start if you don't mind. My first question had to do with. 00:22:57
On page one on the analysis section is the bottom of that page. The last sentence there talks about becoming eligible, so I just 00:23:02
wanted to go back and review. 00:23:07
Is this eligible? 00:23:13
This funding that's being talked about when we're in compliance. 00:23:16
Is this remind me? Is this a new part of? 00:23:21
Or is this an existing pot of funding that we've been eligible for but now is at risk? 00:23:25
No, it's a part of funding that's been there. It's the transportation funding. We just. 00:23:31
Didn't report on the five strategies that you need to report on and to become eligible to apply for those transportation monies. 00:23:38
OK, so an existing pot of funding we've typically had access to, which now has more constraints. 00:23:45
As a result of this legislation, OK, it's the stick. It's the stick. I just didn't remember if it was. 00:23:53
If the carrot part was a new part of funding, so it's putting at risk current funding, OK, got it. 00:23:59
So being. 00:24:06
Meeting those requirements means eligible means where we can receive our share or it is eligible mean we have a shot at funding. 00:24:08
It means we have a shot. So even if we're in compliance, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that we get funding, it just puts us. 00:24:17
Higher in the queue, yeah, we can apply for it, we can apply for it, but we still have to beg even after we have qualified. 00:24:27
So I guess the last point would be. 00:24:38
Because I saw some comments in the staff report, I think regarding the Planning Commission, there is some concern that we were 00:24:43
that we might be overcooking it and and so I just wanted to back up and and how I view this as. 00:24:50
This is a multi year campaign by the legislature to. 00:24:58
Gradually make this topic a little more onerous each year on the municipalities. 00:25:04
And so it's this, sort of. 00:25:10
Slippery slope that year by year gets steeper and steeper and more slippery and more slippery. 00:25:12
And and so our it seems our strategy should always be to be each year barely compliant because if you. 00:25:17
Are over compliant or you you put in some extra credit. It's not going to be to your advantage in the next year because you you 00:25:28
can't carry that over. 00:25:33
Is that a fair statement? 00:25:37
Once you've counted something, you can't keep counting it the next year you've got. 00:25:40
Add more right and so. So I just wanted to make sure and I'll just have to rely on on your expertise and staff. 00:25:44
That that if my presumption is correct that we're that we're not overcooking it that we're not showing off because we won't get 00:25:53
any extra credit for any over compliance that we want to slide in right on the nose so that any. 00:26:00
Additional compliance can. 00:26:08
Saved for what's coming. 00:26:10
In future years. So that's my only point is this. I presume that's the case, but I wanted to make sure that we're not overcooking 00:26:12
it because it's not to our advantage, because I remember our objective here with this thing, even though we all share the goal of. 00:26:19
Finding affordable housing. 00:26:27
And having portions of affordable housing in the community which we live. 00:26:30
Yeah. I share that goal with the legislature, but our goal with this is just to be compliant. 00:26:34
Actually part of the statute includes ongoing strategies and ongoing tasks. So if we, as you noticed on the staff report and on 00:26:41
the task, you'll see the frequency of the quarterly, annually, biannually type of notation on each task so that we can report on 00:26:51
them. That's the only way we can continue to report on them and stay in compliance is by adding those ongoing. 00:27:00
Words like frequencies. 00:27:11
But your your opinion is that we've we're just we're only adding enough. 00:27:14
We're not overcooking it, right? Great. 00:27:18
That's all I had. Yeah, we had that. We kind of had that discussion. When I read through the staff reports, like we'd identified 6 00:27:23
items and then we identified. 00:27:27
Three additional to add to it and to your. 00:27:31
It's like. 00:27:35
Should we just keep some of those in reserve? So, but when when I was talking to Ann about she said no, we can add. 00:27:36
We're not a lot of them we can't accomplish anyway, but they're on our list and we can continue to report on them as long as we're 00:27:43
working on them, right. They they don't necessarily have to be accomplished right. And so we may not what we have now may may 00:27:49
suffice for the next couple of years depending on how we. 00:27:55
Without adding anything. 00:28:02
So that was my question. Is it, it seemed strategic to identify areas where we could create ongoing goals for a longer period of 00:28:03
time, so we didn't have to come up with new goals. Is that part of the way we're approaching this is to look specifically for 00:28:09
things? 00:28:14
We can will take a long time to accomplish so that we don't have to every year. 00:28:20
Come up with something. Is that is that accurate? Yes. OK. 00:28:25
Anything else for you? And I also wanted to clarify, Drew, it's actually two properties that we have here that are. 00:28:32
We're looking to preserve. 00:28:39
OK. Thanks. 00:28:43
I just want to make a brief. 00:28:45
And I wish Mr. Hilton was still here because I think he was referring to the missing middle and that ongoing discussion. 00:28:48
And this as it relates to this particular issue which is bringing affordable housing to our communities and the solution to that 00:28:54
and the inferred solution to that is being. 00:29:00
Increase your density, which will increase inventory, which will lower the prices. 00:29:06
And what he was referring to in his next door post I believe is. 00:29:12
That Holton Park has added. 00:29:17
Smaller lots but. 00:29:20
Homes are for sale for in excess of $1,000,000, so. 00:29:22
In holiday, that doesn't seem to. 00:29:27
A formula for success in terms of bringing affordable housing. It's a it's A and I say that because I want to. 00:29:30
Empathize with the state that it's a problem, but it's a very difficult problem to solve in holiday just by increasing density. 00:29:37
Thanks, Ann. Appreciate it. 00:29:46
OK. We're going to move on now to item number six, which is this proposed amendment to Title 13, which and I have to, I'm going to 00:29:48
admit that I thought this was kind of a no brainer text amendment until Paul brought this up in the work session regarding this 00:29:54
600 foot. 00:30:00
I had not thought about that. 00:30:06
And I don't think it's an issue of a single application, although in this case it may be it's the ongoing issue of. 00:30:08
If we allow this use to be added to the C2 zone now. 00:30:19
If somebody comes in and it's a permitted use. 00:30:24
All of a sudden you have placed a ring around that particular location in terms of what can go there and that could be that. 00:30:28
I think is maybe the essence of your. 00:30:37
What are the? 00:30:41
Points from which the 600 or 300 feet are measured. 00:30:43
So for. 00:30:47
A Tavern license, essentially a bar. It's 600 feet and I don't think there's a straight line measurement for bars in the state 00:30:50
code. I'll have to check on that. But for a beer license, the proximity restrictions, like a a restaurant beer license or even a 00:30:56
restaurant full service license, the proximity restrictions are 300 feet and you measure from the door of the alcohol service 00:31:02
facility. 00:31:08
Along a normal pedestrian route to the property boundary. 00:31:15
Of the community location. 00:31:19
Then there's a straight line measurement that is 200. 00:31:22
That goes from the door of the serving establishment in a straight line to the property boundary. 00:31:25
Community location. So those would be the restrictions you would have in this case. 00:31:31
So the property line in this case, if they're, they're not actually the property owner, It'd be the property line of. 00:31:36
The I don't know. I don't know what the extension of that center looks like. I don't know if this parcel is part of the broader 00:31:42
center. If it's a separate tax parcel, I'm not sure how that looks. 00:31:48
That would be something we'd need to look. 00:31:55
Right. Because then does it include, yeah, the parking lot? 00:31:57
Of the one thing I didn't know until today was that we're talking about, we actually are talking about Creekside. 00:32:00
Right. And so, yeah, does that. 00:32:07
Just this, the front of the building, or does it include? 00:32:10
Parking lot. 00:32:13
Parcel and even and regardless. 00:32:15
That's going to go well. 00:32:19
Holiday. 00:32:21
And so. 00:32:22
Yeah, I mean, if you had existing church, there's already, there's already elbow room there, but. 00:32:25
But for anybody in the future, if the Church is there first. 00:32:33
Then it it. 00:32:38
They're the grandfathered 1 essentially. And so then anybody around there and would that even constitute of course, you know, of 00:32:40
course if they're. 00:32:44
Does that would that end up? 00:32:49
Even being equivalent of a taking from the surrounding land owners if suddenly their. 00:32:51
Ability. 00:32:59
Lease to a bar or a restaurant that inhibits their ability to. 00:33:01
It cuts off all of their options, yeah. I think your insulation from a legal takings claim is pretty good. 00:33:09
In this area, but what I think you want your staff to look at. 00:33:16
The measurement points and how that might affect what we see going on already on holiday hills, what their land use is, it's 00:33:20
established. 00:33:24
In certain parts of it and how then it might affect the other, the other blocks that remain for development, you know where we 00:33:28
know where their restaurant pads are are sort of. 00:33:33
I guess slated to go. 00:33:39
And my suspicion is. 00:33:41
You're outside the proximity restrictions, certainly for a restaurant license. 00:33:44
I don't know about a Tavern. 00:33:49
And I don't know whether there's any plans for a Tavern anywhere on that property. That's something to look at the the. 00:33:53
Brew pub that's been. 00:34:00
I don't know. 00:34:04
That looks like on the proximity restrictions without already having an approval it may not be an issue. 00:34:06
At this point. 00:34:12
But those are those are the things I think you want your staff to look at. 00:34:14
Yeah, when it comes to other properties besides the holiday hills, is there is it worth looking at rather than making it? 00:34:17
Permitted use, making it a conditional use option. So. 00:34:25
Because is that, I mean is that does that do anything I don't think, I don't think it buys you anything in terms of the alcohol 00:34:30
licensing issue. 00:34:34
And candidly, a conditional. 00:34:37
In almost every sense of permitted use now, it would only be what mitigating circumstances you could apply to some detrimental 00:34:40
effect of the use itself. I don't. I don't think that necessarily solves. 00:34:46
Any of the present problems you're discussing, I don't think. 00:34:52
Adds much to your consideration. And if we. 00:34:56
If we just go ahead and say, oh, it's OK, then we didn't really kind of lose control of. 00:35:00
Where it can happen within any C2. 00:35:06
Right, You can't say, well, it's OK there, but we'd rather have you over by 39th and Highland. 00:35:09
If you go there, we're fine, but once. 00:35:15
You give it a green light, it's going to go in any C. 00:35:18
And you know, I certainly have no objection other than this issue for a church to exist in a C2 and. 00:35:21
But but it's that elbow room and I wouldn't even be surprised if the the church members themselves cared about the 600 foot rule. 00:35:31
But it's not. That's not our call. That's a state imposed thing. You can't waive it. 00:35:38
And so, even though it might be something that neither the council nor the applicant cares about it. 00:35:45
It's imposed upon us and. 00:35:52
I'm uncomfortable with it because of that because I feel like. 00:35:57
It would affect. 00:36:01
The property ownership rights of anyone adjacent because even though you know, Woodbury I think owns that whole strip, if they 00:36:04
didn't, you know, say if they were two different owners and the church goes on the corner lot, then that affects the rights of the 00:36:10
property owner next door and who they can lease to. And it's that elbow room problem that that's kind of why I think we have 00:36:17
churches in the P zone because they're kind of in places that already. 00:36:23
Contemplate the elbow room needed. 00:36:31
And C2 does not contemplate that C2 is where we put our restaurants. 00:36:34
Yeah, so you got you know you. 00:36:40
This issue in particular of whether we allow it and then what? 00:36:42
Where are? Where is that 600 foot line and who's it going to affect? But it's also. 00:36:47
All the other C2 zones now have a There's a there's an entitled right there. 00:36:52
So if somebody puts a church in here and there's there's no bars or Taverns or whatnot within 600 feet. 00:36:58
They can do it, but now it is now it is excluding that use in that radius, right? And. 00:37:05
That's I got to work that out. 00:37:12
So. 00:37:17
Made reference to the fact that this had been done in other cities. Could we have the staff look at maybe how the issue has been 00:37:18
addressed in other cities? 00:37:22
Yes, I would like that as well. 00:37:26
So I'm a little bit confused. Can you clarify? I mean, Todd, a minute ago you were talking about 300 feet from the door. 00:37:30
But we've also been talking about 600 feet. So how does it actually work? The alcohol licenses, the different alcohol licenses 00:37:37
have different proximity restrictions. 00:37:42
So for a Tavern or a bar, it's a 600 foot proximity restriction for a restaurant. 00:37:47
That has either a beer license or a full service alcohol license. 00:37:53
It's a 300 foot measurement. 00:37:57
Along a normal pedestrian route or a 200 foot straight line measurement. 00:38:01
So the state code specifies for alcohol licenses the different kinds of licenses and the proximity restrictions that apply. 00:38:06
And you have adopted those in your city code, and candidly you don't have the ability to alter them. 00:38:13
Because even if you would say we would issue an alcohol license, the state wouldn't. 00:38:18
Based on the state code proximity restrictions. So they're the ones that issued the alcohol licenses. OK, thank you for that 00:38:23
clarification. Yeah, a practical example. 00:38:28
In our city. 00:38:34
Is where. 00:38:35
Right now. 00:38:40
They changed their license. 00:38:43
From A and I can't remember I. 00:38:46
I can't keep up with the liquor laws in the state, so they confuse me. 00:38:49
But when they change their liquor license, it changed the proximity requirement, correct? 00:38:55
And so has anybody been to mint sushis and tapas? 00:39:00
Well, you need to support your local businesses for starters. 00:39:06
But you cannot exit out of the back door. 00:39:10
It's locked because when they got that license. 00:39:13
That door fell within by two or three feet, the proximity distance that you're talking about, and that's why that door is locked. 00:39:16
So you have to walk around to the Plaza to get in. When they change the license to open up the bar to the public, it was a 00:39:24
different license, the proximity change. And so that's what we're talking about is. 00:39:29
Well, yeah, we don't have any issue with. 00:39:35
A church being there, but now what are the downstream effects it's going to have on? 00:39:39
On all the properties in any any potential C2 application. 00:39:45
So. 00:39:51
200 feet, 600 feet pedestrian rout. 00:40:05
Straight. 00:40:11
From the property line of the establishment to the entrance of. 00:40:14
Or sorry, the property line. 00:40:19
Community resource. 00:40:21
Better to the entrance. 00:40:25
We don't. That's not, we don't have a picture of that in the packet, Dewey, that shows this specific application and then the. 00:40:29
It would be helpful for me to see what that radius impact looks. 00:40:38
And here where? 00:40:42
A large property owner. 00:40:44
Is if you're infringing within the 200 feet. 00:40:47
Of any part of the property line is. It impacts the entire property. 00:40:52
I can't answer that question based on the language of the statute right now. I'd have to look at it a little more closely, Matt. 00:40:58
I suspect that's the case. 00:41:06
But that's something I would have to look at. 00:41:11
Well, certainly for me to be comfortable, you'd have to really, really know what the impact would be, if it's. 00:41:15
If a quasi public use is going anywhere in any of our C twos. 00:41:22
What's the impact to the the? 00:41:28
Property holders, do you have a sense that if we can get? 00:41:31
If we can get a better visual. 00:41:35
Reference on What does this actually mean in terms of this application? What it can mean for future applications? 00:41:39
Are we going to get to a vote on this on the 7th, do you think? 00:41:46
We'll see. Well, I think what we're trying to communicate here is this is not as simple as. 00:41:54
Is how it appears that. 00:42:02
It's creating an issue amongst this council. 00:42:04
What the immediate impacts are for this specific application, but more importantly, what does it mean to entitle this property 00:42:08
right in the C2 zone for all the C2 zones in the city down the road? 00:42:13
So that's something we're going to have to work out between now and March 7th and. 00:42:20
And part of it's going to be actually seeing. 00:42:25
What does this mean like show? 00:42:29
Where this application is and then where is that 200 foot straight line and what properties is it going to impact? Because I think 00:42:31
that may have a lot to do with how we land on this, yeah. And also might affect property owners outside of the city because we we 00:42:37
have C twos that border with Mill Creek. 00:42:43
Like our 39th South and Highland Dr. area. 00:42:49
We've got a bar on our side and there's a bar on the other side. 00:42:53
It gets complex. 00:43:00
OK, that actually leads me to another question. So if there's a bar already there and the church wants to come in, if we authorize 00:43:04
this, could the church just not come in? 00:43:08
If the church couldn't come in if they fell within that 200 radius of a community location, can locate within proximity to an 00:43:13
alcohol use if they choose to, but not the other. 00:43:19
One way St. I did not know that that's interesting. 00:43:27
OK. 00:43:31
So if there's bars or restaurants already there. 00:43:33
The community location, I just wanna make sure I understand. Yeah, you can set your daycare up next door if you choose to. 00:43:38
OK. 00:43:44
So that would be helpful to get from staff. Anything else? 00:43:49
That you can think of right now that would be helpful to get from staff as we start to consider as we start to move to that March 00:43:53
7th, they can consider this. 00:43:57
OK. 00:44:04
We'll give you. 00:44:23
I don't know if there's a way to determine. 00:44:25
Demand for churches, Like if we were to allow this, would we all of a sudden be? 00:44:28
Swarmed. I mean, that's kind of what I was thinking. I don't think this is something that's all of a sudden going to swarm holiday 00:44:33
with their religious fervor, so. 00:44:37
So I just, I I mean I I recognize that we do need to look big picture here and I appreciate that. But I, I, I, I don't think that 00:44:42
this is going to be a high demand situation is is my impression. But I would love to know more information on that. Yeah, it'll be 00:44:48
helpful to me to get to see this specific application. 00:44:54
And what that radius looks like, Yeah, just because it may not be. 00:45:01
It may not be as big an impact as I'm thinking it might be if it extends into holiday hills and starts reducing. 00:45:06
The ability of holiday hills to put a use in that concerns me. 00:45:14
Because that's pretty big rad. 00:45:19
But they've already gotten like they said there was a. 00:45:22
Tavern or something that had already been approved, like it's already been approved then they have, right? So, so Holiday Hills is 00:45:25
already kind of figured out what they're doing where then would that they would all be grandfathered in, but if it's been approved 00:45:30
and it changes to C2? 00:45:35
A church could still go in within that radius because it's a one way St. in terms of yeah, that's what I'm saying. The Tavern 00:45:41
wouldn't be affected. Yeah. OK, Yeah, Yeah. Right. That's good to know. OK. 00:45:46
So we're skipping all over the place and typically we'd be over there, but my suggestion is. 00:45:52
With a apology to MHTN, who's here for spring lane that we handle the other public hearings right now and then take a a brief 00:45:59
break and move over to handle the Spring Lane issue. Is that OK? 00:46:04
And for those that are here for this, we're done talking about this right now. We're not going to be offended if you get up and 00:46:14
leave, but if you want to stay, you can. 00:46:18
You're welcome to thank. 00:46:22
The home so home occupations. 00:46:26
I thought this one was pretty simple too, but I thought the C2 was. 00:46:33
But to restate again, this one really to me was. 00:46:38
It was a long staff report that basically. 00:46:43
The home occupation things becoming a bigger thing and if we could just create some basic simple standards that allowed staff to 00:46:47
approve these applications. 00:46:52
It could take care of a lot of the administrative workload and then if it goes outside of whatever those standards are, then we 00:46:59
all then it can come back to the Planning Commission to create conditional uses, correct Todd? 00:47:05
So I have no real problem with that other than the issue that we talked about, which is. 00:47:12
And maybe Carrie, you can clarify this a little bit, the issue of. 00:47:18
Can my concern? 00:47:23
Can somebody who owns a home and doesn't live in the home? 00:47:26
Which is becoming more common? 00:47:30
Then approve. 00:47:33
Home occupation permit or a use in that where they don't occupy it is that that's a concern I have. Can they do that the way this 00:47:36
is currently? 00:47:41
Constructed. 00:47:48
Uh-huh. Come on up and we're going to grill you. 00:47:49
So, and that was Councilman Fotheringham's concern with the language as is. So the language stated in the code is that owner 00:47:55
occupant is defined as and specifically item A. Is that correct? 00:48:03
The Yeah. So, So. Well, first, let's back up just. 00:48:12
When you say current code, because we had this conversation before about what is current code versus what's changed because the 00:48:17
whole thing is new. Whereas I came into it thinking what was in black was actually current code and the red and blue was the 00:48:24
change. But that's not necessarily the case. The whole thing is pretty much new and red and blue meant. 00:48:31
Subsequent edits of the original draft, which is all a change. 00:48:39
And so then in the staff report. 00:48:46
In the key significant changes item number 3. 00:48:50
We've got the item which is allowance for onu occupied, owner occupied with a specific definition of owner occupied. 00:48:54
The previous language was person residing in the home. I presume in previous language was pre to all of this whole change which 00:49:03
says just the resident only, not anybody else and then the next thing the reasoning implies that we're just talking about 00:49:10
expanding that definition a little bit. 00:49:18
From person residing in the home to person residing in the home and his dad essentially. 00:49:26
Related party. 00:49:33
So I'm thinking, well, that sounds fine. 00:49:35
But then we go to the actual code. 00:49:37
And that was like line 82 ish I think it was. 00:49:41
And standards. 00:49:47
Sorry, what? What line did you say? So starting in line 8282. OK standards. And this is where we start talking about this is where 00:49:49
this is start talking about owner occupied staff report implies the person who lives there, whether they own it or rent it. 00:49:57
But now adding Dad if dad owns it and Dad can own a home business that his son occupies, that's a pretty narrow expansion that 00:50:07
everybody, I presume, would be cool with. 00:50:13
But then in the standard, it says a dwelling must either be the primary place of residence. That's fine for the person conducting 00:50:20
home occupation, that's current. 00:50:25
Or be owner occupied. 00:50:31
So or be only owner occupied. So then I see that last phrase there on sentence 2. 00:50:35
And then I've got AB and C, which I believe just applies to that second part of sentence two. So either you're the resident or 00:50:41
owner occupied with the owner occupant defined as. 00:50:47
The person who's on the deed. 00:50:56
That's not necessarily the resident's dad. That's anybody. 00:50:58
Right. There's no condition for occupation with that, right. There's there's no relationship there. So that expands what's been 00:51:02
proposed in the staff report significantly. 00:51:07
Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is not the same. 00:51:13
Right. And then or any person who is related by blood, marriage, adoption, not the person living, but to the deed owner. 00:51:16
So that means that not only I can. 00:51:24
Home business. 00:51:28
In a property that I own, but I'm renting to an unrelated neighbor. 00:51:30
Also my brother. 00:51:36
Can operate a home business in the home that I own but is occupied by my unrelated neighbor. 00:51:38
Or your wife's great uncle. I mean, we were talking about related by blood, marriage or adoption. I mean, yeah. So it has nothing 00:51:44
to this language has nothing to do with the relatives of the occupant, which the staff report seemed to imply. 00:51:51
Before right. 00:52:00
That that specific point is brought out in kind of this subset bullet point. 00:52:03
Where staff is proposing clarifying language to allow home occupations by the property owner. 00:52:09
Examples of that are on the second page. 00:52:17
Where you might have situations where somebody has purchased a property, maybe they don't live on the property. 00:52:21
But are using it. 00:52:29
To operate their business. 00:52:31
Photographers. Pretty common if they have an in home studio. Maybe they rent out the basement and are using the main portion of 00:52:34
the home as a studio. Same thing with like a significant yard use agricultural. 00:52:40
Photography studio kind of thing, where we have these larger estate properties. Maybe you have a photographer who owns a property 00:52:48
who wants to use it for their business and have clients come to the property, but they don't actually live on the property, so 00:52:53
that's. 00:52:57
It was intended as a recommendation to extend that just to. 00:53:03
The owner of the property. 00:53:08
One for simplification so that you're not getting into. Are you renting this? Do you have? Are you related? How are you going to 00:53:11
prove a relation if it's just extended to the owner of the property and the? 00:53:17
Property maintenance, property care is all within the standards that are in home occupations. 00:53:25
That is where that recommendation for extending that to the owner of the property. 00:53:32
OK. And so that's that may be well and good, I haven't really processed that. 00:53:38
But I just thought that the staff report as I was reading it, we were saying. 00:53:44
The entitlement is here. We're going to expand it to here by adding Dad. But the language isn't that at all. It's if you own it. 00:53:50
Regardless of who you've rented to, you can have also have a home business. 00:53:58
In that home that you own so. 00:54:04
And you're renting out even though, so it still has to be a primary residence to whomever. But we're not talking about just what 00:54:08
it was which, which the staff report implied previous to all this, was that the occupant? 00:54:15
The resident, whether they're the owner or not, it was limited to them. 00:54:22
Now we're saying, but then the staff report implied, well, but let's add Dad, because maybe he owns the house. 00:54:28
And he's related to the occupant. 00:54:36
But then, this language in the ordinance is not that at all. 00:54:39
Right. The language in the ordinance is if you own it, doesn't matter who's in it, you can do a home business in there. 00:54:43
As long as the. 00:54:53
Use is still the. 00:54:55
Resident occupant. 00:54:58
Right. And that that owner use is the is recommended in the staff report it's. 00:55:00
3rd bullet point that's in there. 00:55:08
Is it possible to just tighten up that language on that to be on line 88 to kind of? 00:55:10
To close that loophole that Paul is mentioning. 00:55:16
Right. And that's the consideration. Do you want to limit? 00:55:20
A home occupation to somebody who either resides there or is related to the property owner. 00:55:24
I guess the property owner has to or. 00:55:31
Simpler, cleaner to just extend that to the property owner? Well, I guess that's a policy question that I'm wondering about now. 00:55:34
Because to me, part of the reason for. 00:55:42
The business owner to reside on the property. 00:55:47
Is that they were there. They could observe what was happening. They had a relationship with their neighbors. They were going to 00:55:51
be responsible if it's somebody who owns the property but doesn't live there. 00:55:57
What's the policy reason for that recommending that expansion? 00:56:04
The recommendation is based off of. 00:56:10
Sometimes significant property investment or. 00:56:14
Just a use of a property as a property owner. 00:56:19
That they would. 00:56:23
Possibly still have that same investment in the property. They'd want to maintain it for business purposes. 00:56:25
If they're seeing clients at the home. 00:56:31
As is a property owner could own a property rent. 00:56:34
The main portion of the house and then still use an accessory building for their own personal use. The difference when it goes to 00:56:39
a home occupation with a permit is when they're having clients who are coming to the house. 00:56:45
Home occupations largely are either. 00:56:53
When it's somebody who's living at the house, when we're looking at the. 00:56:56
Does it make a difference if it's the person who's living at the house versus? 00:57:01
Somebody who doesn't live at the house. 00:57:05
Are those impacts all mitigated with the standards? All the parking has to be on site? 00:57:07
The hours of operation are limited. There's noise ordinance issues. You know, there's occupations that are expressly prohibited. 00:57:15
So all of those standards. 00:57:20
As staff, we feel that those standards mitigate those impacts. Typically, if you have an issue with a home occupation, neighbors 00:57:27
are pretty aware of that and will call code enforcement if there are issues. 00:57:34
And so the. 00:57:41
You've talked about a lot of best case scenarios where property owners care about their properties. 00:57:44
Even if they don't live in them. I mean generally properties owners would. 00:57:49
Tend to care more about the one they live in. 00:57:54
But we've also seen property owners who? 00:57:57
Rent out residences and. 00:58:02
Dives. 00:58:06
But perhaps we're saying that that's going to happen regardless of whether or not there's a. 00:58:07
Business also being run by the property owner. 00:58:12
Right, by having the the licensing we do. 00:58:16
That then comes with the ability to inspect property to make sure that they are in compliance with the standards within the code. 00:58:21
So if there are significant issues, then licenses can be revoked or discontinued. Fines can be issued tied specifically to the 00:58:29
business operation. 00:58:33
In our code for property maintenance. Right now our existing code only entails, you know, specific property maintenance standards 00:58:39
with appearance and other issues. 00:58:45
To properties that are being rented. So those same property maintenance standards don't currently extend to properties that are 00:58:50
owned, but they are extended to properties that are rented. So there's a property maintenance coverage when you're renting a 00:58:56
property versus a property maintenance coverage that isn't there for an owned property. 00:59:03
In how our code is currently. 00:59:10
My concern is that if this if. 00:59:13
Businesses go South. 00:59:17
You're saying, you know, we can go in, we can revoke the? 00:59:19
The license and everything but that is after there are problems and I am just. 00:59:23
I am hesitant. 00:59:28
Expand this as. 00:59:31
The current language says it's expanding, I think. 00:59:34
Someone who is living on the property. 00:59:38
Should have a connection to that business. 00:59:41
I I I don't know. I guess I've just had so many problems with short term rentals in my area that. 00:59:46
You know, like Paul. 00:59:52
It's Some owners just don't care, and that's a problem. 00:59:54
And there can be consequences, but that means the neighbor has the neighborhood has to go through those consequences before the 01:00:00
problem is resolved. 01:00:03
Yeah, you're going to have to. 01:00:09
Sounds great and then? 01:00:11
Start collecting data. Start taking pits, or start showing us. Prove it. 01:00:15
And it drags on and on and on. 01:00:20
And so is the intent of this to. 01:00:24
Expand. 01:00:27
So the way this is written, I got to think of this. 01:00:30
Right now. 01:00:34
Owner does not have to reside on the property where the business is. 01:00:36
With the current language, it states that the property owner or that the person has to occupy the property. 01:00:42
To be eligible for a home occupation. 01:00:51
Does the resident have to own the property? No. So Paul could buy a house in his neighborhood. 01:00:54
And he could rent it to a. 01:01:00
Who can then apply for a home occupation? I'd be the one applying. 01:01:03
So well, both. Either one how it works is that the property owner signs a property ownership affidavit and then authorizes the 01:01:08
tenant to. 01:01:13
To apply for a home occupation. So then the tenant who resides on the property is operating the home occupation. 01:01:19
So owning a home, neither one of us could apply for home business for that location, whether I'm the owner or whether I'm the 01:01:27
occupant. And so I guess where I went wrong was was in that first that reasoning paragraph. It gave an example, but that wasn't 01:01:34
the universe. It was one of many examples. It just happened to be. 01:01:41
One example that happened to be a related party, but the related party wasn't. 01:01:49
The related party being the resident, not the. 01:01:55
Just happened to be. 01:01:58
One of many possible circumstances where I. 01:01:59
I got off the track where I thought that was the limit of the expansion we were talking about. 01:02:03
Right, but that was not the case. The other perspective that staff looked at was conditional uses and. 01:02:08
Home occupations that would run with the land, so conditional uses stay tied to a property. 01:02:15
This removes A conditional use that would run with the land, so. 01:02:22
It was created as a balance of. OK, if you retain ownership of the property, can you continue the use as? 01:02:26
Accessory business use even if you don't reside on the property. 01:02:34
Considering that, that would. 01:02:39
A land use that stays with the land. 01:02:41
That would transfer to another owner if another owner purchased the property and wanted to. 01:02:44
Continue a home occupation. 01:02:50
Yeah, I'm. 01:02:54
I yeah, I got to think about this here. I mean, I'm more aligned with Drew on this one, I think. Here's my concern is. 01:02:55
We're already having problems with short term. 01:03:04
And the people evaluating the purchase of a home as an investment tool. 01:03:07
Which is in my opinion side note driving, driving up the price of homes and creating. 01:03:13
A problem with affordable housing site issue. 01:03:20
But now we're going to expand the opportunity for people who are buying homes as in investments. 01:03:24
As an investment to allow somebody to run a home occupation business and not occupy that home. So now not only do they really not 01:03:30
care about that home, but they don't care about the business that's going to go into that home. 01:03:37
And are we just adding another problem on top of? 01:03:45
A problem that we're already seeing in terms. 01:03:49
Of non owner occupied homes in our communities. 01:03:53
Am I not thinking about this right? It's legitimate? 01:03:58
It also it also seems like. 01:04:03
Like you. 01:04:06
It makes it more likely to move away from the purpose of the residential zone as residential like it. It creates some greater 01:04:08
economic incentive for people to look at this as an investment or as a business situation and not as a residential situation in 01:04:13
the way that they develop the land and take care of it, even though there are standards they have to maintain once again if they 01:04:18
don't. 01:04:24
You have to go through the whole process to have them stop. Yeah. You know, people, It's just philosophically people, I think, 01:04:29
move into a particular neighborhood to live in a neighborhood with their neighbors. 01:04:35
And we've got this situation that's evolving where? 01:04:42
That's becoming less and less of a reality because people are buying these residential homes to rent them out for profit. 01:04:46
Not that I'm against people making profit, but now we're getting. Now we want to expand that. 01:04:53
Oh, and also we're going to expand the ability for people to run businesses out of there that don't even that don't physically 01:04:59
reside in that home. 01:05:02
It seems like we're exacerbating a problem that. 01:05:07
I got it. I think I'm OK with your one objective, which is to codify, you know, and make it not take away the condition used that 01:05:12
runs with the land and and. 01:05:18
To standardize home occupation licenses. 01:05:25
It's but, but there's a second piece in here which happens to do with. 01:05:28
The rights of Home occupation. 01:05:33
And property ownership rights and expanding that to include stuff there. There's two objectives there. I think we can still be OK 01:05:36
with your first objective, which is try to codify and how far do we want to go in terms of of the requirements we're going to have 01:05:43
for the owner to live on the site. I have no issues with creating standards and trying to make it easier for staff to approve 01:05:49
these and keep it away from the Planning Commission, but. 01:05:55
How narrow narrowly we define. 01:06:02
To me, it's about I want the owner. If they're going to run a business out of there, I want the owner to live on that property, 01:06:07
because at least they have. 01:06:11
Responsibility and hopefully take some pride in what they're doing and they have some sort of responsibility to the neighbors that 01:06:15
these home occupation businesses. 01:06:20
Or next to. Yeah, and I was even OK with the. 01:06:25
The wrong understanding that we were just expanding that a little bit to be in the family. 01:06:29
So that. 01:06:35
You know, if it was Scotty house or Jordans house, you had a business there and. 01:06:36
You allowed an inheritance to of that house to go to Jordan for instance. 01:06:41
That that business could still keep going even. 01:06:46
He lived there instead of. 01:06:49
That's only that's still an all in the family. That's the first example in the reasoning that seemed OK. 01:06:50
Go ahead if I could ask a question because. 01:06:58
Not sure I understand the full concern to the Council. Is the concern to the Council that the business operator reside? 01:07:02
On the. 01:07:09
Or is the concern of the Council that someone with an ownership interest in the property? 01:07:10
Reside there and conduct the business. 01:07:16
That sounds like you understand. So if you looked at line 85, and they're not the same thing if you looked at line 85 and you 01:07:23
strike the word either. 01:07:26
And then on line 86 you strike everything from the home occupation. So it says dwelling unit must be the primary place of 01:07:30
residence for the person conducting the home occupation. 01:07:35
And then you strike those subsections. 01:07:41
Does that get to the Council's concern? 01:07:46
Or are you wanting to impose a requirement? 01:07:48
That for a home occupation to be undertaken within a residence. 01:07:52
The residence has to be owner occupied. 01:07:56
Well, you're saying that renters under one of these renters couldn't do that under the other condition that you're saying renters 01:08:01
could not? 01:08:04
Concerned about the home occupation being operated by an owner of the property, a renter couldn't run a home occupation in a home 01:08:10
they were renting. 01:08:13
However, long term their rental may be, it seems to me it's more important to have the occupant who's living there. 01:08:18
Because the current standard is the occupant. 01:08:25
Yeah, I'm fine with that. 01:08:29
Your concern has been that we could allow someone who doesn't live at the residence doesn't live there. It is completely unrelated 01:08:34
to the occupant, Yeah, to conduct the business, right? 01:08:39
Because that initial staff report paragraph that I got missed, that I misunderstood was I thought we were only expanding. 01:08:47
The resident. 01:08:55
Requirement to the resident and. 01:08:57
Residents. 01:09:00
Essentially, is it possible to take this language to make it what you understood it to be, so that it is just? 01:09:01
The resident and the. 01:09:08
A parent, because it was it language, were centered on the resident and not the owner. I think that would get me there. 01:09:10
Because this is about the rest of the I was just gonna say Todd can draft anything if we come up with the idea. 01:09:17
Current state subdivision ordinance is a mess. 01:09:25
I think it's just important that we know from a policy standpoint. 01:09:29
If your concern is that it's an owner of the property that conducts the business, or if your concern is that it's a resident on 01:09:34
the property that conducts the business. 01:09:39
Because if you're if you're worried about a family business being able to pass. 01:09:44
I don't think a family will have a problem figuring out how to make that happen if it's a home occupation, right? 01:09:50
Somebody in the next generation who is the primary occupant of the house will be in charge of the business. Now whether mom and 01:09:56
dad stay involved, right? 01:09:59
They have. They have a means to address that. 01:10:04
If you're second, if it's you really want owners. 01:10:06
To be able to do home occupations and not renters, that's a different issue altogether. I think that maybe has some legal. 01:10:11
Issues in the back of it that make me a little bit uncomfortable. 01:10:19
I'm perfectly comfortable if your requirement is you have to live there. 01:10:22
Yeah, that's all that's easy. I think that's the concern that the person operating the business is there on site interacting with 01:10:26
the neighbors. 01:10:30
With the ties to that neighborhood. 01:10:36
So can you create language? 01:10:39
I think or does this say that we've just been going in a big we can put some clarifying language that narrows it to primary 01:10:42
residency? I think that revision is easy. 01:10:48
Good. Thank you. 01:10:55
Is that the major concern? I think that was the big topic. 01:10:57
Anything else on that before we just one one little kind of parochial question. So there's this little. 01:11:01
Home Occupied Flower Farm across the street from me does this. 01:11:10
And is that use included? 01:11:15
The uses identified in this. 01:11:19
Provision and so we would apply to them, but as long as. 01:11:23
Live there and meet all the other requirements there. 01:11:27
Right. 01:11:31
There's, yeah. So they would have the. 01:11:34
There's a fall under the conditions that were applied to their conditional permit. It would change over if they were to move and 01:11:37
another property owner. 01:11:42
Purchase the property they would have to apply for a new home occupation permit under the standards that are being proposed. So 01:11:47
would that would the way this is. 01:11:52
Knowing what that use is, would that be a staff approval or do you think that would have to go to the planning flower farm? 01:11:58
A flower farm would be a staff approval, OK? 01:12:05
It's out. If there's a use that falls outside of what these standards are, then it would go to a conditional use for review by the 01:12:08
Planning Commission. 01:12:12
Thank you. 01:12:18
All right. Thanks. 01:12:20
Sorry to grill you like that. 01:12:22
Thanks Ho. 01:12:26
All right. So the last public hearing we have is on the Pids. 01:12:31
The Public Infrastructure district and the application that has been delivered to the city. 01:12:36
And I think the primary. 01:12:44
There's a lot in there in terms of how it's created and those sorts of things. 01:12:47
My my sense is. 01:12:51
This is really going. 01:12:55
The Our Council. 01:12:58
You and our outside counsel that's working on this and. 01:13:00
Getting to a point of comfort. 01:13:05
To tell the council, yeah, I think we're good on this. I think we're going to defer to since we've never done this, have deferred 01:13:08
to council and staff a lot on this. So my questions are mostly centered around the bullet points that were in the staff report of 01:13:14
questions that you had, I believe for the applicant. 01:13:20
Regarding what they had submitted to the. 01:13:27
So what do you want to review? How do you? I'll turn this over to you and let you walk through the council on this. 01:13:30
On this one. 01:13:37
All right. 01:13:40
So. 01:13:43
We have, as a staff and Council, including our outside counsel, review the governing document and had identified a number of 01:13:45
issues that required either further clarification or where we were asking for further information. 01:13:54
And and just in the last day or so have received another draft that resolves some, but not all of those issues. There are a couple 01:14:06
of issues I think the council might want to discuss this evening, including clarification of governance and board requirements. 01:14:16
And then clarification of phasing costs and individual and the costs of individual parking structures within each of those pit 01:14:26
areas. 01:14:31
Todd, I don't know it maybe you could summarize the governance issues and what our recommend. 01:14:37
Yeah, the the creation of a board to govern this public infrastructure district, which is a governmental entity that will be 01:14:45
created inside of the City of Holiday. 01:14:48
There are. 01:14:54
Statutory means in ways to have that. 01:14:56
That board created, and at the outset in the governing document you can establish who will serve on that board. 01:14:59
And they need to either be an owner of property within the district or be an agent of an owner of property within the district. 01:15:08
And that requirement has to continue throughout the life of. 01:15:14
The Infrastructure district. 01:15:20
Some of the questions that come up are and and the one that is most prominent in our mind is. 01:15:23
Because the the levy that is proposed to be authorized inside of this district. 01:15:30
Could be relatively heavy. 01:15:38
It could work in to be a fairly substantial number. 01:15:40
Do we want to provide for the opportunity for a property owner who isn't an owner of the property now? 01:15:44
That it say somebody buys a portion of this. 01:15:52
Is operating in there as a commercial operator of some kind has a substantial interest. Do we want to provide for them to have the 01:15:56
right to have a seat? 01:16:01
On that district board. 01:16:06
One of the things we always think about from a policy standpoint, one of the biggest issues you can have with government is 01:16:07
representation in the levy of taxes. 01:16:11
And if you have a substantial property. 01:16:16
Who purchases later? 01:16:19
And is being taxed in this. 01:16:21
Do you want them to have a seat at the table? 01:16:24
Government governance in that, and there are different ways we could do that. We could talk about proportional ownership and how 01:16:27
that might look. They have to get to a certain percentage of ownership before they have the right to have a seat on that board. 01:16:34
I don't think we want to require them to sit on the board because you may have a substantial operator who doesn't care. 01:16:42
Who buys understanding what the levy is and doesn't care to be on the board of the district? And I wouldn't want to force them to 01:16:48
serve, but if they wanted a substantial, you know. 01:16:52
That seems to make some sense so. 01:16:58
That's one of the questions that we would like some guidance from the council on as we've talked through the issue with. 01:17:02
The folks who are proposing to create the Infrastructure district. 01:17:09
I think you make a good point in that. 01:17:14
It seems like there would even be in the current property owners interest to a degree I think. 01:17:18
To allow for in that governing document. 01:17:24
To have that sort of, you know, minimum, you won't necessarily want to be. If you have tiny slivers of ownership, that wouldn't 01:17:28
qualify, but a standard. 01:17:32
Board governance agreement where if you own at least X percent, then you have an opportunity to have a weighted voting share That 01:17:37
could also be. 01:17:42
Proxied. If they didn't want to exercise it individually, they could proxy it to the. 01:17:49
Management company. 01:17:56
CEO People just like State Farm does, you know, And they said that. So yeah, I'd say a minimum ownership of X percent. I'm not 01:17:58
sure what that is. 01:18:03
With the right to, you know, gather proxies. If they didn't want to set, I'd agree with that. 01:18:08
Same, are there statutory requirements about what the size of the board is or anything like that? 01:18:14
So I think it's a minimum of three. And I think there's something that has to be in the odd number unless there's more than 01:18:20
eleven, Yeah. So you know, we're usually not getting in that range, but generally we recommend. 01:18:27
5. 01:18:34
Just to keep it from the casual, two people get together. Oh, you've got a. 01:18:36
And can those governing can that count also be adjustable based on numbers of major owners? 01:18:42
You could have adjustments. We've seen spring boards and upon certain thresholds it goes from a three seat to A5 seat. You could 01:18:51
do the opposite as well. 01:18:56
Yeah, so if you have like. 01:19:03
20% then you have an up to 5 member board. 01:19:06
If you had 20%? 01:19:09
A board seat is 20% too much. Should it be 10? 01:19:12
What makes sense? 01:19:16
I think a larger percentage would feel more comfortable. 01:19:18
From my seat and I'm sure for the owners they would prefer that that be larger, but that's something we can discuss with them 01:19:22
offline and bring something back to you, yeah, I think, I think. 01:19:26
Everybody's in agreement that. 01:19:32
A scenario. 01:19:35
You've created a pit. You've created a pit board that the city really is not involved with at that point. 01:19:37
And you're. 01:19:43
They're taxing themselves now. Somebody comes in as an owner. 01:19:45
And they could basically be tax. 01:19:49
Without representation. 01:19:52
And if they have, I don't know, whatever the percentage is that you would think if there's a certain percentage of ownership that 01:19:54
was changed hands. 01:19:58
That they should have a right to be represented on that pit board if they're going to tax themselves. 01:20:03
Essentially. 01:20:09
That makes sense to me. However, you, however, the legal people come up with that language with the developers. But yeah, I think 01:20:12
we agree on that. 01:20:16
Yeah. 01:20:21
One of the other issues that we are. 01:20:22
To to really evaluate closely with better information. 01:20:26
Is there's a maximum? 01:20:31
Is it a maximum bond issuance number? 01:20:34
Of 80 million that's in the governing document now. 01:20:38
We we're trying to get a little better handle on that number for a lot of reasons. 01:20:42
If you're going to authorize the levy up to a dollar amount, you kind of want to know why and what the background is there. So 01:20:49
we're asking for information and they're working to provide that. We've gotten some information now and we expect. 01:20:55
So that's that's the other major question that has been out there from our perspective I think. 01:21:01
That we anticipate we'll be able to get resolution on and. 01:21:06
Something more certain by the. 01:21:10
Yeah, so is the question here. 01:21:13
We are going to approve the ability to create this PID to as a source of funding, bond funding. 01:21:18
To build. 01:21:26
Infrastructure, which according to document I'm reading is $50 million, let's say. 01:21:28
And so why would we approve? What's the justification? I understand the concept of well. 01:21:33
We're not tax, we're not taxing our, they're taxing themselves. So what difference is well. 01:21:40
I think it comes down. 01:21:46
Trying to be responsible and that we're going to create this for a specific purpose. 01:21:48
So why do you need to fund it beyond what the specific purpose is? I guess that's a question. That's the question we have and 01:21:54
that's why we're waiting for that information. There's a student in the back here. 01:21:59
You're welcome to come up here too. 01:22:06
Keep in mind, we're learning as we go here. We've never done a pit, so we're asking. 01:22:14
Todd may know a lot of answers these questions, but we've never done this and so we're trying to understand. 01:22:19
You know the justification behind some of these things that are going to be in the approval of this document if it's approved or 01:22:23
this pit if it's approved and and Aaron Wade with Gilmore Bell. So we've been the outside pit council here the the primary reason 01:22:29
that you would see like. 01:22:35
Two or so years of the project until. 01:23:16
The revenues can match the debt service. Usually there's a 10% reserve funded and then there's just cost of issuance. You got to 01:23:18
pay your lawyers, you got to pay your accountants, all of that kind of stuff. And so that's what. 01:23:25
Might take a $50 million project fund. 01:23:32
And make it a $70 million bond and then there's headroom. So that's that's why there's, you know there's always going to be a 01:23:36
lower project number than the requested debt limit just to account for those things. But I think what's being asked for is can we 01:23:42
just see a little bit more backup to help us understand is 50 million the right number and is 8 million, 80 million 01:23:48
correspondingly the right debt limit. So it gives them a little bit of. 01:23:55
Of wiggle They're going to fund this project. I think there's language inside of the agreement that basically says the funding has 01:24:02
to go to this. 01:24:06
But if. 01:24:11
If it goes over, it creates an Ave. for them. 01:24:13
To raise that mill rate, To raise the funds depending on what the actual cost ends up being, but it's still all going to be 01:24:16
directed to. 01:24:20
This public infrastructure, and these are not just we can raise more money, we're going to put it over here. 01:24:24
Right, right. 01:24:30
And to that point Mayor, that is another area of discussion that we have had with the applicant. So Section 4 details the benefits 01:24:33
of the districts and and has a broader definition than we have. We have discussed previously with the applicant that included 01:24:41
parking structures, sewer and wastewater improvements, water lines, landscaping, streets. 01:24:49
Curbs and sidewalks, we have discussed narrowing that definition a bit and so I anticipate that in the next draft you see that 01:24:58
language would would be related to parking structures and other and related improvements rather than the broad definition you 01:25:04
currently see. 01:25:11
OK. 01:25:19
I'm going back to the bulleted list to see if there's anything else we want to highlight briefly. 01:25:25
Erin, since you are there, maybe you would highlight dissolution requirements. 01:25:33
And then annexation potential as well? 01:25:40
Yeah, so. 01:25:44
Dissolution I'm trying to remember at the. 01:25:46
What the language in the latest draft said, But generally speaking, a local district or now they're called special districts. 01:25:49
Would dissolve, you know, upon its board determining that its purpose is no longer needed. And so here for this district, 01:25:56
generally that would be when the debt's been discharged and the ownership of the parking structure has been settled. And so I 01:26:01
think. 01:26:06
Yeah. So currently the language right here in front of you shows upon a determination of the City Council and the recommendation 01:26:12
that we forward and we'll note to follow up on is just change that from City Council to the the board, because under state law, 01:26:16
the City Council doesn't. 01:26:21
You know, doesn't make that finding, and I don't think you guys will want to be supervising. 01:26:26
That anyways, so we just change it that the board would look around and say, OK, our bonds are gone, our parking lots. 01:26:30
Sorted outlets dissolve and stop charging, but you have to dissolve. 01:26:36
But you would, yeah. So what's the purpose? And we could put some stricter language that upon that they shall take those steps if 01:26:40
that's kind of the. 01:26:44
The preference, but for now it's it would be just a discretionary. 01:26:48
You know item because I think at the work session last time we kind of discussed there might be after the bonds are discharged, 01:26:53
there might be a need for the district to hold. 01:26:57
That continue to own the parking garage for a longer time just to sort through any issues on that side, but we could put some 01:27:01
parameters that would push them towards a dissolution. 01:27:05
If would they be able so the parking structure, in this case parking structure is finished, the bonds are retired. 01:27:13
What would be the reason to allow the pit board to continue to impose? 01:27:23
Attacks when the purpose of that tax has been extinguished. 01:27:28
So that I think the district could probably. 01:27:33
Continue to exist. But I don't. They wouldn't be able to levy the property taxes without a justification because at that point it 01:27:36
would be just levying for their own administration, right? To cover their audits and to cover. 01:27:42
Those kinds of expenses, but not operations so so they wouldn't be able to maintain at the 1 1/2 mills without. 01:27:49
Yes. Well, the money has to go to a specific purpose. So this gets back to Gina's comment that you were going to tighten that down 01:27:56
a little bit. 01:27:59
I just want to make sure the money is going to what it's intended for, and if the bond has been extinguished and the parking 01:28:04
structure is there and there's all sorts of other stuff included in what can be funded. 01:28:09
Are we going to be OK? 01:28:15
Oh well, let's. 01:28:17
Impose. 01:28:19
Tax. 01:28:21
Keep the tax in place to do all these other these improvements that. 01:28:23
So I'm assuming we'll just tighten down what the money can go towards, right? 01:28:28
That's the intention. 01:28:34
And then one other thing we did want to highlight was just the right now, the governing document would allow the creation of three 01:28:40
distinct. 01:28:45
Pits it would. It also provides a annexation area and Aaron as you explained that is permitted under statute. Yeah. Yeah. So if I, 01:28:50
I don't know if somebody whoever is controlling could show the the map it's kind of the I think it's maybe like exhibit A. 01:28:59
But the state law allows. 01:29:10
The the Council to. 01:29:12
Oh yeah, that was the one with the red and the blue. 01:29:14
State law allows. 01:29:18
City to approve the districts with an annexation area at your discretion. And so here you can see the maps in the blue, they've 01:29:20
got the three PID areas and then there's the additional parcels in red, which would be the annexation area. And essentially what 01:29:26
that would allow is for any of the three districts, they could annex any of that red property without having to come back through 01:29:32
a process with the City Council. 01:29:38
And the general purpose for that that we. 01:29:45
Is just to. 01:29:48
Changes to accommodate changes in their phasing, right. So maybe this is a little bit different than like a single family 01:29:50
residential, but if you owned 1000 acres, you might not know exactly where each St's going to go for the next 5 or 10 years. 01:29:57
So it allows flexibility to annex. 01:30:04
You know neighborhoods that will be financing improvements around the same time. You know here are the applicant could probably 01:30:07
speak more to the the plans but this just gives them the flexibility to adjust boundaries only within this pre designated area 01:30:14
without going through a full city process. I guess that would come back though I mean it would raise that question to me of. 01:30:20
Ownership within the annexation area and having those owners have an Ave. to the pit board. 01:30:28
Because there would be a scenario where. 01:30:34
What if, say, the old Macy's building was sold to somebody else, but it's part of the pit annexation area and the pit board 01:30:38
decides they're going to annex that area and now they am I. So is this like way out? Am I thinking way out there? Because the 01:30:46
concern would be then they can the pit board can then impose a tax. 01:30:54
A position. 01:31:34
To be part of that process, they can't. 01:31:35
Yeah, They couldn't reach out and grab it and drag it and then say, oh, and by the way, here's your head tax, right? Yeah, you're 01:31:38
exactly right. OK. 01:31:44
So Mayor, I think that is all the significant issues that we had highlighted in the staff report. I don't know if council members 01:31:56
have other questions or questions for the applicant. 01:32:01
Well, I mean, I don't know if the other council member, this is all this is all new to me. It all makes sense at this level, but I 01:32:07
am. 01:32:11
I am really. 01:32:15
Council and and staff to understand what our concerns are to make sure we have an agreement. 01:32:18
That makes sense. 01:32:24
And you know the council I think is going to deferred a lot to our council and city manager and to say, hey look, I think we've 01:32:28
got a good clean agreement then we can look at it and see what what clarifying questions we have. 01:32:34
And so I think it's a matter of how hard everybody wants to work on this between now and March 7th. 01:32:41
What's your you've done this before, Todd. I mean, what's your sense of where we're at with this? It doesn't seem like there's a 01:32:47
lot of. 01:32:52
Outstanding, major issues. I don't see anything that looks like an impediment to getting something done and ready for the. 01:32:56
Right now. 01:33:03
OK, so we'll just count. 01:33:06
Yourself and working with the developers to answer those questions and getting comfortable and then we'll see where we end up. 01:33:08
Any other questions? 01:33:17
From other council members. 01:33:19
No, I've gotten comfortable with the concepts. But yeah, the devil's in the details and that's where we rely on you guys, I think 01:33:22
in. 01:33:25
But overall, conceptually I don't have a problem. 01:33:28
Mac did. 01:33:33
Kind of the first comment we were getting to about how we create the pit board. One of the issues we have is so our initial 01:33:41
company is a land holding company and then we create development companies that all have. 01:33:46
Separate ownership. It's controlled by similar, you know US and other affiliates but. 01:33:52
Managing OK. 01:33:58
Which of these companies have, what percentage of the overall property do they own? How do we make sure they have the right number 01:34:00
of board seats? And then does that all of a sudden trigger us having to go back before you to get the same people reelected under 01:34:03
different? 01:34:07
Ownership. 01:34:11
Is just was complicated to us. 01:34:13
In the end, like if we have a large commercial user that's coming in, they're not going to care what percentage they owe and 01:34:16
they're just going to see the PID there and say no, no, we're required to have a board seat, which will then come before council 01:34:20
asking for them and it'll become contingent on their deal anyway. 01:34:24
Which is all allowed. That's in the document right now. So I guess all I'm saying is we'll work with Todd to come up with what 01:34:29
that right language should be. But we were trying to just keep it broader and simpler not to try and make it so we have some 01:34:32
uniform. Oh, we just. 01:34:36
Dictate over new property owners or something just. 01:34:40
We know this is going to be a bunch of different property owners of our affiliate entities. 01:34:43
If and when or there is a large commercial group that comes in that wants to buy property or operate in this property. 01:34:47
More than likely they're going to come in and say. 01:34:54
We don't care what our percentage is. We want to be on the. 01:34:57
We're going to come before you and we're going to add a board member seat or replace one of ours or whatever their stipulations 01:35:00
are in order to have that user. 01:35:03
Here. So I think it's it's valid. We should address it and we'll get there. I'm just not sure it's as easy as just saying like a 01:35:07
20% allocation or something. I think I think our goal rather is just to have a minimum standard and but but yeah if you've got a 01:35:13
negotiated deal with. 01:35:18
Guy who doesn't meet that standard you want to put on the board, fine. I think it's more of a a minimum standard that that you're 01:35:25
not excluding a significant property owner, but being inclusive. 01:35:31
Building your board pick. 01:35:37
It's on you, Part of your part of what you're saying, too. 01:35:40
Regardless of what we put in the document for protections. 01:35:45
Buyer is not. It's going to be part of a due diligence where they say look if. 01:35:49
There's a pit involved here and we're going to have a piece of the ownership. We're going to demand to have a stay in it, just 01:35:55
we're going to demand a position on the board. 01:35:59
Just recently we were looking at buying a building that was where we were part of a condo association that owned a parking 01:36:05
structure and. 01:36:08
And you were 99% of the way there turned into who actually controls the voting rights over ongoing maintenance of this deck. 01:36:12
Turned out we didn't have authority to actually make sure our parking rights were always there. 01:36:17
And so we wound up not being able to close on the deal all because. 01:36:23
You know of underlying issue that you're going through and due diligence gets you and there's no way for us to get on that board. 01:36:26
And so we obviously have to have the door open, which I think it already says the door is open, but then at the same time. 01:36:31
If it if it's really complicated and restrictive, so it's like oh this percentage has to be on, you know so like as we create all 01:36:37
these separate entities, how many, how many entities have to have the? 01:36:42
Members or different members or how many times we have to come back every time we bring in a new development company to like. For 01:36:48
instance, the Macy's building will be another Woodbury development company. 01:36:53
But it's different than the land. 01:36:58
Kind of where like the fitness center is going to be or some of the other retail and so. 01:37:01
Do we have to have a board member allocated to the Macy's building because they're now 20% of the land area or something? And a 01:37:04
board member, I don't know, just added kind of complication stuff which I'm sure we can resolve. I just wanted to bring up that. 01:37:10
We were just trying to keep it simple because we knew how many moving parts there were going to be and we knew this was going to 01:37:16
be. 01:37:19
Anytime like a large commercial user comes in, the first thing they'll do is review all the governing documents, review all the 01:37:21
encumbrances and. 01:37:25
They're going to want to have a physician on everyone of those boards and have the ability to kind of direct their own destiny and 01:37:28
so. 01:37:31
Anyway, I wasn't trying to make more complicated. Well, it doesn't sound like. It doesn't sound like. 01:37:34
The issues we've got are not that great and as long as people want to work hard on it between now and March 7th, we should be able 01:37:42
to resolve them and get something to the council that makes sense to us and we can. 01:37:47
Your confidence. 01:37:54
That's an attorney comment. 01:38:00
So Mayor, one last thing I wanted to highlight and this is for our policy conversation that will come after consideration of this 01:38:03
application. This is a pretty labor intensive for staff and outside counsel and our city attorney, so many cities have imposed a 01:38:11
fee for applicants applications for Pids and I would. 01:38:20
I think that's would be something that council should consider as part of a future policy. 01:38:29
Yeah, it was. My understanding is it's presented when I looked at other policies that it was the applicant that cover, you know. 01:38:36
Had the burden of those costs, but yeah, you would think that would be part of something we'd want to. 01:38:43
OK. Thanks everybody. We are. Is there anything else, anything else from council? 01:38:49
Then I think what we're going to do is move across the hall. 01:38:56
Recess for a few minutes as we move across the hall, and once we're convened over there, we'll take up the issue on Spring Lane. 01:39:02
Is that right? All right, thanks everybody. 01:39:09
That. 01:39:14
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Unable to preview the file. Make sure you have Adobe Reader installed

Transcript

Event transcript
David Billings is the one who made the application, but we've both been trying to help. 00:00:00
Korean Presbyterian Church with their efforts to relocate. 00:00:05
I'm not going to rehearse. What staff? 00:00:09
The Planning Commission have gone through you. 00:00:12
Read all of that and you're familiar with it. I did want to tell you a bit about the church and the struggles that they face, or 00:00:15
any church does, in light of the way the code's written. 00:00:20
The Korean Presbyterian Church started in 1980. They're well established. They've been in the Valley for a long time, and growth 00:00:25
and demographics has required them to move. And so they've listed and sold their property in West Valley City, which they will 00:00:31
have to exit. 00:00:37
Relatively quickly. So they're looking for new space and we've looked. 00:00:43
In your community extensively because of the membership that lives in this area and. 00:00:49
We actually have. 00:00:57
The property is described by Miss March under contract. 00:00:59
And in our due diligence period, which is 90 days typical in a contract, we have to resolve a variety of issues which includes the 00:01:03
zoning. 00:01:08
One of the difficulties with the P zone or the way that the city code is set up, is that to do a rezone. 00:01:14
You can't. 00:01:22
A property tied up long enough. 00:01:24
From a seller. 00:01:27
To go through the rezone process, and if you could and did and rezone it to AP, it damages the value of the property subsequently 00:01:28
because it reduces the options of what the property can be used for. 00:01:36
And that would then require. 00:01:43
Coming back and trying to rezone it to make it back into AC2 or a commercial property to expand its uses. 00:01:45
And So what we're seeking to do is. 00:01:52
Manages his staff has already indicated the Planning Commission is supported include the church in as a as a use within the C2. If 00:01:56
you look at codes in many of the other cities in the state, that's how it's set up so that churches can be in a variety of 00:02:03
locations. 00:02:09
We're anxious. 00:02:19
Do this as quickly as we can because of the purchase agreement. I know that's not your problem or your consideration and when the 00:02:22
modification of the code, but I think that what we're asking is similar to what's happened in most other cities and they can make 00:02:30
it work. And so we would encourage you to allow the churches to be included in in the C2 zone. 00:02:38
And as I said, you've looked at the report, so I'm not going to rehearse it. Can I answer any specific questions for you? 00:02:46
Well, my sense is that the issue we're going to wrestle with is the one that Councilmember Fotheringham brought up, and that is, 00:02:56
it has nothing to do with this church in particular if we text them in the zone that it's going to be open to. 00:03:02
All church. 00:03:08
And what are the down the road impacts of that decision? That's the something we'll be debating in. 00:03:09
Debating and you're welcome to stay and. 00:03:15
And listen to that discussion. Thank you. Are there any questions I can answer or any issues that have not been addressed for you? 00:03:18
Can I just ask and you might not know the answer to this? You said that many other cities have allowed this use in their 00:03:26
commercial zones. Do you know how they have resolved this 600 foot and 300 foot issue? 00:03:32
Frequently they do it as a conditional use rather than as an allowed use, and sorry I didn't write them all down and bring it. 00:03:38
I I actually chaired the Sandy City Planning Commission for 10 years and so the way we did it was we looked at it as a conditional 00:03:48
use. 00:03:52
And and we would we. 00:03:56
600 feet is really not that great a distance. If you look at a parking lot, it's frequently deeper than 600 feet. So I I recognize 00:03:58
that's a question, but it doesn't, you know, it doesn't cast such a broad net that it affects. 00:04:06
All of the buildings generally hits the parking lots, so it's not as big an issue. 00:04:15
But I can't give you a better answer than that. That's fine. Thank you any other. 00:04:21
Thank you. Well, we may we may have some questions for you later and I'll stay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. 00:04:25
All right. With that, we will open up the public hearing on this proposed amendment. Public hearings now open, so anybody from the 00:04:34
public. 00:04:38
That wishes to address the Council. 00:04:43
Time is now yours. 00:04:45
We knew I'd probably say something. Chris Langston, 4950. 00:05:00
Holiday holiday resident here 4954 Fairview Dr. Obviously. 00:05:04
You know if the 600 feet encroaches into. 00:05:10
The major commercial areas that are anticipated tax bases or tax bases for the city would have a significant impact. 00:05:14
On, you know plans that have been in the works and properties that have you know been in existence for 60-70 years and 00:05:22
representing you know holiday Hills, this 600 feet would encroach into that property. And we have restaurants as you guys are all 00:05:29
well aware that would be impacted like this and so unless some kind of resolution could be. 00:05:35
You know, worked out where it doesn't impact it, then you know, we're not opposed to having churches around us, but we can't. 00:05:43
You know that would eliminate our ability to do any of the restaurants that we have currently have planned and have existed for 00:05:50
years in in that area including. 00:05:55
That center and also the one on the West side of the street, so we. 00:06:01
Probably go on record saying that that would be extremely extreme burden on us as a property owner. 00:06:05
Thank you. 00:06:17
Anybody else for the public hearing? 00:06:23
OK, with that then I'll close this public hearing and again encourage you to stick around for. 00:06:29
The discussion. 00:06:36
How many are here and interested in listening to this? 00:06:40
Work discussion on this. 00:06:45
Issue if you just raise your hand. 00:06:48
I just want to get a sense of whether we're going to, if we want to do that here, move across back across the hall. 00:06:53
We may overtax our small room across the hall, I think. So we'll probably just, I think maybe we'll just stay over here for at 00:06:59
least a portion of the work session. 00:07:03
I think it will be easier for everybody so you're comfortable and you can listen to that discussion. 00:07:09
OK, public hearing on. I'm sorry, we're on item number 7. This is a public hearing on proposed amendments to Title 13.76, point 00:07:13
730. 00:07:18
And other chapters on Home, Occupation, and Carrie. This is your item again. 00:07:24
You want to address this with the Council quickly. 00:07:30
Or not so quickly if you want, It's up to you. 00:07:34
Well, you've all read the staff report, so we can go pretty quickly through this. 00:07:37
This is moving home occupations, which are currently conditional use that is overseen by the Planning Commission. They review 00:07:42
those and apply conditions based on specific impacts tied to the the home occupation. This moves. 00:07:50
Home occupations from a conditional use to a permitted use with standards. 00:07:58
The changes in the code in the staff report. 00:08:03
Original text is all. 00:08:07
Listed in there, crossed out in red. So it's a total rewrite of the code. Everything that's in there is new. 00:08:10
Significant changes are changing the employee number limited to one employee. It doesn't matter if that employee is a resident of 00:08:17
the home or not. I. 00:08:21
The other key change is involving in accessory building. Currently our code doesn't allow accessory building use. 00:08:28
So this changes that to allow an exterior accessory. 00:08:38
Building and the other significant change is. 00:08:43
Allowing owner occupied or defining what owner occupied is. 00:08:50
Currently conditional uses are used that run with the land, so home occupation would be tied to the property itself. 00:08:57
The Planning Commission overviewed that as owner occupied. 00:09:06
Meaning somebody who would have to live on the property or a relative living on the property. 00:09:10
Middle ground between that would be. 00:09:16
Tying that to property ownership. 00:09:20
Allowing home occupation, tying to the property owner itself, so the staff report. 00:09:23
Staff does propose clarifying language. 00:09:30
To allow for that owner. 00:09:35
The owner use of a home occupation instead of it being tied to somebody who lives on the property. That would be a consideration 00:09:37
that can be discussed in the in the work session. All the other summary of changes are listed in there. The standards are pretty 00:09:43
clear. If you have any questions I can answer any of those. 00:09:49
Any questions of council right now? 00:09:58
I'm just glad to. 00:10:01
Get into that one question of the staff report relative to the code in regard to. 00:10:03
Who and what family means and all that stuff. Could need some clarification. Never will. 00:10:08
Iron that out in the work session. 00:10:13
Right. All right. Thank you, car. 00:10:16
OK, that with that, we'll open up the public hearing on this proposed amendment. Public hearing is now open. 00:10:19
Anybody wish to address the Council on proposed amendments to home occupations? 00:10:25
There being then we'll close this public hearing. Thank you and move on to item number 8. This is a public hearing regarding the 00:10:34
creation of public infrastructure Districts Pid's at Royal Holiday Hills. 00:10:40
So we will start with our legal counsel. Mr. Godfrey, you want to? 00:10:46
Lead out on this one. Thank you Mayor. The city's received an application from the owners of property within the Holiday Hills 00:10:51
Project, former Cottonwood Mall. 00:10:55
To create what's known as a Public Infrastructure district. 00:11:00
Your city recorder has certified that petition as being adequate, and so it's now before you for a public hearing. 00:11:03
And your consideration for the creation of the district. The creation of the district. 00:11:10
Would allow the levy or the issuance of bonds and essentially the levy of attacks within the district. 00:11:14
To build infrastructure supporting that project. 00:11:20
The way the district boundaries have been drawn in the proposal, it excludes any owner occupied properties. 00:11:24
So while the tax should be assessed on commercial activities and potentially apartment projects. 00:11:30
There would never be a tax assessed against a an owner occupied residential unit. 00:11:35
So with that, I'll submit it to the. 00:11:41
Any questions for Todd or before we open up the public hearing? 00:11:44
OK, the public hearing is now open on the creation of public infrastructure districts Pid's at Royal Holiday Hills. 00:11:51
Anybody here that wishes to address the? 00:11:57
OK, there being none, this public hearing is going to remain open. There are some. 00:12:03
Questions that we intend to address during the work session, specifically from our staff to the applicants. 00:12:08
I think it's important that. 00:12:15
Get some questions clarified over the next the course of the next week or two and give the public opportunity to comment that over 00:12:17
the comment on those over the course of the next two weeks. 00:12:23
With the intent of posting this to the March 7th agenda. 00:12:28
Is that the way? 00:12:32
That's kind of the timeline we're looking at. We'll see how it goes. So this public hearing is going to remain open. 00:12:35
OK. The consent agenda, we don't have any. 00:12:40
Items to approve on the consent agenda, so we'll move to the city manager, report Gina Chamness. 00:12:45
Just three quick items. 00:12:53
We kicked off our spring lane. 00:12:57
Park. At least that's what we're calling it right now. Reuse plan. 00:13:01
With. 00:13:06
Meeting of both staff and other steering committee members as well as members of our Concept of design team, and you'll hear more 00:13:12
about that plan later in your work session. We also kicked off our historic exhibit Experience project with two meetings last 00:13:21
week, one of leadership including a couple of council members. 00:13:30
And staff and community leaders. 00:13:40
And then one of the general public. 00:13:42
We're really excited for this work to begin and and are excited to see what the direction it goes. We also have available a a form 00:13:46
that members of the public can use to share their stories of holiday history. You should have received that in in an e-mail 00:13:54
earlier today and we'll be circulating that on social media as well. 00:14:02
And then finally, just wanted to alert the council that we have posted the finance Director position and have received a number of 00:14:11
applicants for that position. 00:14:16
First round of interviews will be next week with and my intention is to make an offer hopefully by the end of the month. 00:14:22
Any questions for? 00:14:32
OK. Thank you. 00:14:35
Matt. 00:14:38
You want to start on council reports. 00:14:40
If I can get my microphone on, I will do that. Just a couple of things. I was able to attend one of the. 00:14:42
Meetings regarding the historical experience and it was a really exciting. 00:14:49
Opportunity. It was great to sort of. 00:14:55
People there and their interest in holiday and their interest in telling kind of the holiday story. 00:14:58
I also wanted to report on him. 00:15:05
Meeting we had the mayor and Holly and I. 00:15:07
Up at the Capitol this week, I was there on behalf of our Happy Healthy Holiday coalition. It was a anti addiction. 00:15:11
Meet lobbying effort on behalf. 00:15:21
A number of groups and we were able to meet with Representative Galen Benyon, who represents part of holiday. 00:15:25
Wanted to thank her for her time and we had a really productive discussion with her, I thought. 00:15:34
And then finally just wanted to. 00:15:39
Jared and some of our city staff, we have kind of. 00:15:41
One of those great storm water issues in my district that he's working with some residents on and he's been really, really great 00:15:45
about keeping them in the loop on what's going on and trying to address their problems. So wanted to recognize and thank him for 00:15:49
that. 00:15:54
Thank you. 00:16:00
Just one item this morning I was at UFA for benefits and Compensation committee. 00:16:02
Maybe it's just time to start throwing out a little warning out there that we might. 00:16:09
There might be a little heavier Ding this year than last year. Some of you might remember that. 00:16:14
The budget thing last year from UFA was pretty. 00:16:19
Probably won't be as late this year, but we'll see. When we talked about benefits in comp, we haven't done. 00:16:24
Any further than that as a board. 00:16:29
Beware. 00:16:34
Or be advised, beware is too strong a word. Don't mean to scare anybody. Be advised. 00:16:36
Better word. That's all I have. 00:16:41
Thank you. Just one. 00:16:47
Some of you may know that Morningside Elementary, that's in my district. 00:16:50
Because of the district. Because of. 00:16:55
At that school have a lot of parents who come and drop their kids off in the morning and pick them up and so. 00:16:59
Sort of the. 00:17:06
The latest iteration of. 00:17:09
Parking problems. 00:17:11
Traffic problems. 00:17:14
I appreciate both Chief Oil and Jared Bunch. 00:17:16
They're working on this. We we have had requests from parents. 00:17:21
Living on. 00:17:26
South side of the School for everything. 00:17:27
Lots of sidewalks to crossing guards to new crosswalks. And so we're sort of. 00:17:31
Going through these all of you know that holiday doesn't have a lot of sidewalks. 00:17:38
And we are actually putting in sidewalks along 27th East, a three-year project and that's. 00:17:44
Going to be great for school kids walking. 00:17:51
There's always a little bit more that are. 00:17:54
Of us. So we'll see. We'll see what happens with that. 00:17:57
So I sat on the board of Wasatch Front Waste and Recycling and a few weeks ago in Mill Creek, one of their trucks, one of their 00:18:05
recycled trucks. 00:18:11
Caught on fire and thankfully the driver was able to leave and. 00:18:17
UFA came and took care of things, was able to move the truck to another location, resolve everything fully. 00:18:26
Currently they believe it was because non recyclable materials were put in recycling. They their best guess at this time is that 00:18:34
batteries were put in and. 00:18:40
And sparked things. So this is just kind of a PSA to be careful about what you put in your garbage and your recycling. It caused 00:18:47
over $100,000 worth of damage to the truck. They're also in addition to the immediate costs. 00:18:53
One of the still lingering effects of COVID is garbage trucks are incredibly backordered right now. 00:19:01
So even if they had the money to replace this, getting the parts is really difficult so. 00:19:06
That's just a PSA for everybody. And then yeah, that's it. 00:19:15
Gosh, I think I communicated earlier that one of the issues being raised at legislature right now is this issue with gravel pits 00:19:22
and we've weighed in with. 00:19:26
Local representatives about our opposition that most mostly it's usurping. 00:19:31
Usurping may be an understatement in local control. 00:19:35
And so we will be tracking both those bills pretty closely to see if they're going to. 00:19:38
Make it to a vote. 00:19:46
Anyway, that's been a concern. 00:19:48
Amongst a lot of the mayors around the county. 00:19:50
I do want to thank John for. 00:19:53
You know, we've had this issue with the Britton home. I got your e-mail on that. It looks like that home is probably going to be 00:19:57
demoed. 00:20:00
It that home is demoed, it's a very, I just want to acknowledge that. 00:20:04
We acknowledge that that's an emotional issue for a lot of people. 00:20:10
And it's very difficult issue to balance. 00:20:14
Desire of a community to maintain a what they perceive to be a historical structure and also protecting people's private property 00:20:18
rights is. 00:20:23
Very. It's a difficult issue and. 00:20:28
And I have to say, I don't. I didn't get into the weeds on this, but I think that the owner of that did try. 00:20:31
To work with members of the Commission to see if there was a path forward and eventually he just. 00:20:38
He just couldn't get there and had to get to the. 00:20:45
Because of other issues, I think it became a nuisance in the community where. 00:20:48
They couldn't come to an agreement where it could be saved so but I appreciate you engaging with them and I know they appreciated 00:20:53
the fact that we were empathetic to the situation and did all we could to try to. 00:20:59
Try to reach a solution that would have saved the home, but it just it wasn't to be so anyway. 00:21:07
John, thanks for you and your staff for your engagement on that issue. 00:21:12
Just as an FYI or Interfaith council, Which? 00:21:17
Meets quarterly. We've got a meeting next week, but Monday. They've started monthly to meet and discuss certain topics. We'll be 00:21:22
meeting Monday night here at 7:00 PM for anybody that would like to attend. 00:21:27
We'd welcome. 00:21:34
And that is all that I have right now I think. 00:21:36
You ready for a ready? 00:21:41
Mr. 00:21:43
I move, we recess City Council and reconvene and work. 00:21:45
2nd. 00:21:48
OK, we have a motion to second all in favor, say aye, aye. 00:21:49
We are now magically in work session. 00:21:54
So typically we would move back across the hall and start working over there. But beings that there are a lot of people here to 00:21:59
list, do a discussion, I don't think we can accommodate it across the hall. 00:22:04
My suggestion would be that we handle two of the items that were we take the agenda out of order, we handle two of the items that 00:22:09
were public hearings, moderate income housing and then the the amendment to the C2 zone here. And then if we want to stay, I guess 00:22:14
we can all let staff start thinking about whether they just want to stay here, if they want to move across the hall after that, 00:22:20
so. 00:22:25
I don't think we need a motion on that. I don't think there's a lot to cover under the moderate income housing. 00:22:32
Issue item number. 00:22:38
Five on the agenda. 00:22:42
But there were a few questions I think from council that you had for Ann. So and you want to come back up and and we'll get to a 00:22:44
point where the council is comfortable and then we'll move on. 00:22:49
All right. We'll start if you don't mind. My first question had to do with. 00:22:57
On page one on the analysis section is the bottom of that page. The last sentence there talks about becoming eligible, so I just 00:23:02
wanted to go back and review. 00:23:07
Is this eligible? 00:23:13
This funding that's being talked about when we're in compliance. 00:23:16
Is this remind me? Is this a new part of? 00:23:21
Or is this an existing pot of funding that we've been eligible for but now is at risk? 00:23:25
No, it's a part of funding that's been there. It's the transportation funding. We just. 00:23:31
Didn't report on the five strategies that you need to report on and to become eligible to apply for those transportation monies. 00:23:38
OK, so an existing pot of funding we've typically had access to, which now has more constraints. 00:23:45
As a result of this legislation, OK, it's the stick. It's the stick. I just didn't remember if it was. 00:23:53
If the carrot part was a new part of funding, so it's putting at risk current funding, OK, got it. 00:23:59
So being. 00:24:06
Meeting those requirements means eligible means where we can receive our share or it is eligible mean we have a shot at funding. 00:24:08
It means we have a shot. So even if we're in compliance, it doesn't necessarily guarantee that we get funding, it just puts us. 00:24:17
Higher in the queue, yeah, we can apply for it, we can apply for it, but we still have to beg even after we have qualified. 00:24:27
So I guess the last point would be. 00:24:38
Because I saw some comments in the staff report, I think regarding the Planning Commission, there is some concern that we were 00:24:43
that we might be overcooking it and and so I just wanted to back up and and how I view this as. 00:24:50
This is a multi year campaign by the legislature to. 00:24:58
Gradually make this topic a little more onerous each year on the municipalities. 00:25:04
And so it's this, sort of. 00:25:10
Slippery slope that year by year gets steeper and steeper and more slippery and more slippery. 00:25:12
And and so our it seems our strategy should always be to be each year barely compliant because if you. 00:25:17
Are over compliant or you you put in some extra credit. It's not going to be to your advantage in the next year because you you 00:25:28
can't carry that over. 00:25:33
Is that a fair statement? 00:25:37
Once you've counted something, you can't keep counting it the next year you've got. 00:25:40
Add more right and so. So I just wanted to make sure and I'll just have to rely on on your expertise and staff. 00:25:44
That that if my presumption is correct that we're that we're not overcooking it that we're not showing off because we won't get 00:25:53
any extra credit for any over compliance that we want to slide in right on the nose so that any. 00:26:00
Additional compliance can. 00:26:08
Saved for what's coming. 00:26:10
In future years. So that's my only point is this. I presume that's the case, but I wanted to make sure that we're not overcooking 00:26:12
it because it's not to our advantage, because I remember our objective here with this thing, even though we all share the goal of. 00:26:19
Finding affordable housing. 00:26:27
And having portions of affordable housing in the community which we live. 00:26:30
Yeah. I share that goal with the legislature, but our goal with this is just to be compliant. 00:26:34
Actually part of the statute includes ongoing strategies and ongoing tasks. So if we, as you noticed on the staff report and on 00:26:41
the task, you'll see the frequency of the quarterly, annually, biannually type of notation on each task so that we can report on 00:26:51
them. That's the only way we can continue to report on them and stay in compliance is by adding those ongoing. 00:27:00
Words like frequencies. 00:27:11
But your your opinion is that we've we're just we're only adding enough. 00:27:14
We're not overcooking it, right? Great. 00:27:18
That's all I had. Yeah, we had that. We kind of had that discussion. When I read through the staff reports, like we'd identified 6 00:27:23
items and then we identified. 00:27:27
Three additional to add to it and to your. 00:27:31
It's like. 00:27:35
Should we just keep some of those in reserve? So, but when when I was talking to Ann about she said no, we can add. 00:27:36
We're not a lot of them we can't accomplish anyway, but they're on our list and we can continue to report on them as long as we're 00:27:43
working on them, right. They they don't necessarily have to be accomplished right. And so we may not what we have now may may 00:27:49
suffice for the next couple of years depending on how we. 00:27:55
Without adding anything. 00:28:02
So that was my question. Is it, it seemed strategic to identify areas where we could create ongoing goals for a longer period of 00:28:03
time, so we didn't have to come up with new goals. Is that part of the way we're approaching this is to look specifically for 00:28:09
things? 00:28:14
We can will take a long time to accomplish so that we don't have to every year. 00:28:20
Come up with something. Is that is that accurate? Yes. OK. 00:28:25
Anything else for you? And I also wanted to clarify, Drew, it's actually two properties that we have here that are. 00:28:32
We're looking to preserve. 00:28:39
OK. Thanks. 00:28:43
I just want to make a brief. 00:28:45
And I wish Mr. Hilton was still here because I think he was referring to the missing middle and that ongoing discussion. 00:28:48
And this as it relates to this particular issue which is bringing affordable housing to our communities and the solution to that 00:28:54
and the inferred solution to that is being. 00:29:00
Increase your density, which will increase inventory, which will lower the prices. 00:29:06
And what he was referring to in his next door post I believe is. 00:29:12
That Holton Park has added. 00:29:17
Smaller lots but. 00:29:20
Homes are for sale for in excess of $1,000,000, so. 00:29:22
In holiday, that doesn't seem to. 00:29:27
A formula for success in terms of bringing affordable housing. It's a it's A and I say that because I want to. 00:29:30
Empathize with the state that it's a problem, but it's a very difficult problem to solve in holiday just by increasing density. 00:29:37
Thanks, Ann. Appreciate it. 00:29:46
OK. We're going to move on now to item number six, which is this proposed amendment to Title 13, which and I have to, I'm going to 00:29:48
admit that I thought this was kind of a no brainer text amendment until Paul brought this up in the work session regarding this 00:29:54
600 foot. 00:30:00
I had not thought about that. 00:30:06
And I don't think it's an issue of a single application, although in this case it may be it's the ongoing issue of. 00:30:08
If we allow this use to be added to the C2 zone now. 00:30:19
If somebody comes in and it's a permitted use. 00:30:24
All of a sudden you have placed a ring around that particular location in terms of what can go there and that could be that. 00:30:28
I think is maybe the essence of your. 00:30:37
What are the? 00:30:41
Points from which the 600 or 300 feet are measured. 00:30:43
So for. 00:30:47
A Tavern license, essentially a bar. It's 600 feet and I don't think there's a straight line measurement for bars in the state 00:30:50
code. I'll have to check on that. But for a beer license, the proximity restrictions, like a a restaurant beer license or even a 00:30:56
restaurant full service license, the proximity restrictions are 300 feet and you measure from the door of the alcohol service 00:31:02
facility. 00:31:08
Along a normal pedestrian route to the property boundary. 00:31:15
Of the community location. 00:31:19
Then there's a straight line measurement that is 200. 00:31:22
That goes from the door of the serving establishment in a straight line to the property boundary. 00:31:25
Community location. So those would be the restrictions you would have in this case. 00:31:31
So the property line in this case, if they're, they're not actually the property owner, It'd be the property line of. 00:31:36
The I don't know. I don't know what the extension of that center looks like. I don't know if this parcel is part of the broader 00:31:42
center. If it's a separate tax parcel, I'm not sure how that looks. 00:31:48
That would be something we'd need to look. 00:31:55
Right. Because then does it include, yeah, the parking lot? 00:31:57
Of the one thing I didn't know until today was that we're talking about, we actually are talking about Creekside. 00:32:00
Right. And so, yeah, does that. 00:32:07
Just this, the front of the building, or does it include? 00:32:10
Parking lot. 00:32:13
Parcel and even and regardless. 00:32:15
That's going to go well. 00:32:19
Holiday. 00:32:21
And so. 00:32:22
Yeah, I mean, if you had existing church, there's already, there's already elbow room there, but. 00:32:25
But for anybody in the future, if the Church is there first. 00:32:33
Then it it. 00:32:38
They're the grandfathered 1 essentially. And so then anybody around there and would that even constitute of course, you know, of 00:32:40
course if they're. 00:32:44
Does that would that end up? 00:32:49
Even being equivalent of a taking from the surrounding land owners if suddenly their. 00:32:51
Ability. 00:32:59
Lease to a bar or a restaurant that inhibits their ability to. 00:33:01
It cuts off all of their options, yeah. I think your insulation from a legal takings claim is pretty good. 00:33:09
In this area, but what I think you want your staff to look at. 00:33:16
The measurement points and how that might affect what we see going on already on holiday hills, what their land use is, it's 00:33:20
established. 00:33:24
In certain parts of it and how then it might affect the other, the other blocks that remain for development, you know where we 00:33:28
know where their restaurant pads are are sort of. 00:33:33
I guess slated to go. 00:33:39
And my suspicion is. 00:33:41
You're outside the proximity restrictions, certainly for a restaurant license. 00:33:44
I don't know about a Tavern. 00:33:49
And I don't know whether there's any plans for a Tavern anywhere on that property. That's something to look at the the. 00:33:53
Brew pub that's been. 00:34:00
I don't know. 00:34:04
That looks like on the proximity restrictions without already having an approval it may not be an issue. 00:34:06
At this point. 00:34:12
But those are those are the things I think you want your staff to look at. 00:34:14
Yeah, when it comes to other properties besides the holiday hills, is there is it worth looking at rather than making it? 00:34:17
Permitted use, making it a conditional use option. So. 00:34:25
Because is that, I mean is that does that do anything I don't think, I don't think it buys you anything in terms of the alcohol 00:34:30
licensing issue. 00:34:34
And candidly, a conditional. 00:34:37
In almost every sense of permitted use now, it would only be what mitigating circumstances you could apply to some detrimental 00:34:40
effect of the use itself. I don't. I don't think that necessarily solves. 00:34:46
Any of the present problems you're discussing, I don't think. 00:34:52
Adds much to your consideration. And if we. 00:34:56
If we just go ahead and say, oh, it's OK, then we didn't really kind of lose control of. 00:35:00
Where it can happen within any C2. 00:35:06
Right, You can't say, well, it's OK there, but we'd rather have you over by 39th and Highland. 00:35:09
If you go there, we're fine, but once. 00:35:15
You give it a green light, it's going to go in any C. 00:35:18
And you know, I certainly have no objection other than this issue for a church to exist in a C2 and. 00:35:21
But but it's that elbow room and I wouldn't even be surprised if the the church members themselves cared about the 600 foot rule. 00:35:31
But it's not. That's not our call. That's a state imposed thing. You can't waive it. 00:35:38
And so, even though it might be something that neither the council nor the applicant cares about it. 00:35:45
It's imposed upon us and. 00:35:52
I'm uncomfortable with it because of that because I feel like. 00:35:57
It would affect. 00:36:01
The property ownership rights of anyone adjacent because even though you know, Woodbury I think owns that whole strip, if they 00:36:04
didn't, you know, say if they were two different owners and the church goes on the corner lot, then that affects the rights of the 00:36:10
property owner next door and who they can lease to. And it's that elbow room problem that that's kind of why I think we have 00:36:17
churches in the P zone because they're kind of in places that already. 00:36:23
Contemplate the elbow room needed. 00:36:31
And C2 does not contemplate that C2 is where we put our restaurants. 00:36:34
Yeah, so you got you know you. 00:36:40
This issue in particular of whether we allow it and then what? 00:36:42
Where are? Where is that 600 foot line and who's it going to affect? But it's also. 00:36:47
All the other C2 zones now have a There's a there's an entitled right there. 00:36:52
So if somebody puts a church in here and there's there's no bars or Taverns or whatnot within 600 feet. 00:36:58
They can do it, but now it is now it is excluding that use in that radius, right? And. 00:37:05
That's I got to work that out. 00:37:12
So. 00:37:17
Made reference to the fact that this had been done in other cities. Could we have the staff look at maybe how the issue has been 00:37:18
addressed in other cities? 00:37:22
Yes, I would like that as well. 00:37:26
So I'm a little bit confused. Can you clarify? I mean, Todd, a minute ago you were talking about 300 feet from the door. 00:37:30
But we've also been talking about 600 feet. So how does it actually work? The alcohol licenses, the different alcohol licenses 00:37:37
have different proximity restrictions. 00:37:42
So for a Tavern or a bar, it's a 600 foot proximity restriction for a restaurant. 00:37:47
That has either a beer license or a full service alcohol license. 00:37:53
It's a 300 foot measurement. 00:37:57
Along a normal pedestrian route or a 200 foot straight line measurement. 00:38:01
So the state code specifies for alcohol licenses the different kinds of licenses and the proximity restrictions that apply. 00:38:06
And you have adopted those in your city code, and candidly you don't have the ability to alter them. 00:38:13
Because even if you would say we would issue an alcohol license, the state wouldn't. 00:38:18
Based on the state code proximity restrictions. So they're the ones that issued the alcohol licenses. OK, thank you for that 00:38:23
clarification. Yeah, a practical example. 00:38:28
In our city. 00:38:34
Is where. 00:38:35
Right now. 00:38:40
They changed their license. 00:38:43
From A and I can't remember I. 00:38:46
I can't keep up with the liquor laws in the state, so they confuse me. 00:38:49
But when they change their liquor license, it changed the proximity requirement, correct? 00:38:55
And so has anybody been to mint sushis and tapas? 00:39:00
Well, you need to support your local businesses for starters. 00:39:06
But you cannot exit out of the back door. 00:39:10
It's locked because when they got that license. 00:39:13
That door fell within by two or three feet, the proximity distance that you're talking about, and that's why that door is locked. 00:39:16
So you have to walk around to the Plaza to get in. When they change the license to open up the bar to the public, it was a 00:39:24
different license, the proximity change. And so that's what we're talking about is. 00:39:29
Well, yeah, we don't have any issue with. 00:39:35
A church being there, but now what are the downstream effects it's going to have on? 00:39:39
On all the properties in any any potential C2 application. 00:39:45
So. 00:39:51
200 feet, 600 feet pedestrian rout. 00:40:05
Straight. 00:40:11
From the property line of the establishment to the entrance of. 00:40:14
Or sorry, the property line. 00:40:19
Community resource. 00:40:21
Better to the entrance. 00:40:25
We don't. That's not, we don't have a picture of that in the packet, Dewey, that shows this specific application and then the. 00:40:29
It would be helpful for me to see what that radius impact looks. 00:40:38
And here where? 00:40:42
A large property owner. 00:40:44
Is if you're infringing within the 200 feet. 00:40:47
Of any part of the property line is. It impacts the entire property. 00:40:52
I can't answer that question based on the language of the statute right now. I'd have to look at it a little more closely, Matt. 00:40:58
I suspect that's the case. 00:41:06
But that's something I would have to look at. 00:41:11
Well, certainly for me to be comfortable, you'd have to really, really know what the impact would be, if it's. 00:41:15
If a quasi public use is going anywhere in any of our C twos. 00:41:22
What's the impact to the the? 00:41:28
Property holders, do you have a sense that if we can get? 00:41:31
If we can get a better visual. 00:41:35
Reference on What does this actually mean in terms of this application? What it can mean for future applications? 00:41:39
Are we going to get to a vote on this on the 7th, do you think? 00:41:46
We'll see. Well, I think what we're trying to communicate here is this is not as simple as. 00:41:54
Is how it appears that. 00:42:02
It's creating an issue amongst this council. 00:42:04
What the immediate impacts are for this specific application, but more importantly, what does it mean to entitle this property 00:42:08
right in the C2 zone for all the C2 zones in the city down the road? 00:42:13
So that's something we're going to have to work out between now and March 7th and. 00:42:20
And part of it's going to be actually seeing. 00:42:25
What does this mean like show? 00:42:29
Where this application is and then where is that 200 foot straight line and what properties is it going to impact? Because I think 00:42:31
that may have a lot to do with how we land on this, yeah. And also might affect property owners outside of the city because we we 00:42:37
have C twos that border with Mill Creek. 00:42:43
Like our 39th South and Highland Dr. area. 00:42:49
We've got a bar on our side and there's a bar on the other side. 00:42:53
It gets complex. 00:43:00
OK, that actually leads me to another question. So if there's a bar already there and the church wants to come in, if we authorize 00:43:04
this, could the church just not come in? 00:43:08
If the church couldn't come in if they fell within that 200 radius of a community location, can locate within proximity to an 00:43:13
alcohol use if they choose to, but not the other. 00:43:19
One way St. I did not know that that's interesting. 00:43:27
OK. 00:43:31
So if there's bars or restaurants already there. 00:43:33
The community location, I just wanna make sure I understand. Yeah, you can set your daycare up next door if you choose to. 00:43:38
OK. 00:43:44
So that would be helpful to get from staff. Anything else? 00:43:49
That you can think of right now that would be helpful to get from staff as we start to consider as we start to move to that March 00:43:53
7th, they can consider this. 00:43:57
OK. 00:44:04
We'll give you. 00:44:23
I don't know if there's a way to determine. 00:44:25
Demand for churches, Like if we were to allow this, would we all of a sudden be? 00:44:28
Swarmed. I mean, that's kind of what I was thinking. I don't think this is something that's all of a sudden going to swarm holiday 00:44:33
with their religious fervor, so. 00:44:37
So I just, I I mean I I recognize that we do need to look big picture here and I appreciate that. But I, I, I, I don't think that 00:44:42
this is going to be a high demand situation is is my impression. But I would love to know more information on that. Yeah, it'll be 00:44:48
helpful to me to get to see this specific application. 00:44:54
And what that radius looks like, Yeah, just because it may not be. 00:45:01
It may not be as big an impact as I'm thinking it might be if it extends into holiday hills and starts reducing. 00:45:06
The ability of holiday hills to put a use in that concerns me. 00:45:14
Because that's pretty big rad. 00:45:19
But they've already gotten like they said there was a. 00:45:22
Tavern or something that had already been approved, like it's already been approved then they have, right? So, so Holiday Hills is 00:45:25
already kind of figured out what they're doing where then would that they would all be grandfathered in, but if it's been approved 00:45:30
and it changes to C2? 00:45:35
A church could still go in within that radius because it's a one way St. in terms of yeah, that's what I'm saying. The Tavern 00:45:41
wouldn't be affected. Yeah. OK, Yeah, Yeah. Right. That's good to know. OK. 00:45:46
So we're skipping all over the place and typically we'd be over there, but my suggestion is. 00:45:52
With a apology to MHTN, who's here for spring lane that we handle the other public hearings right now and then take a a brief 00:45:59
break and move over to handle the Spring Lane issue. Is that OK? 00:46:04
And for those that are here for this, we're done talking about this right now. We're not going to be offended if you get up and 00:46:14
leave, but if you want to stay, you can. 00:46:18
You're welcome to thank. 00:46:22
The home so home occupations. 00:46:26
I thought this one was pretty simple too, but I thought the C2 was. 00:46:33
But to restate again, this one really to me was. 00:46:38
It was a long staff report that basically. 00:46:43
The home occupation things becoming a bigger thing and if we could just create some basic simple standards that allowed staff to 00:46:47
approve these applications. 00:46:52
It could take care of a lot of the administrative workload and then if it goes outside of whatever those standards are, then we 00:46:59
all then it can come back to the Planning Commission to create conditional uses, correct Todd? 00:47:05
So I have no real problem with that other than the issue that we talked about, which is. 00:47:12
And maybe Carrie, you can clarify this a little bit, the issue of. 00:47:18
Can my concern? 00:47:23
Can somebody who owns a home and doesn't live in the home? 00:47:26
Which is becoming more common? 00:47:30
Then approve. 00:47:33
Home occupation permit or a use in that where they don't occupy it is that that's a concern I have. Can they do that the way this 00:47:36
is currently? 00:47:41
Constructed. 00:47:48
Uh-huh. Come on up and we're going to grill you. 00:47:49
So, and that was Councilman Fotheringham's concern with the language as is. So the language stated in the code is that owner 00:47:55
occupant is defined as and specifically item A. Is that correct? 00:48:03
The Yeah. So, So. Well, first, let's back up just. 00:48:12
When you say current code, because we had this conversation before about what is current code versus what's changed because the 00:48:17
whole thing is new. Whereas I came into it thinking what was in black was actually current code and the red and blue was the 00:48:24
change. But that's not necessarily the case. The whole thing is pretty much new and red and blue meant. 00:48:31
Subsequent edits of the original draft, which is all a change. 00:48:39
And so then in the staff report. 00:48:46
In the key significant changes item number 3. 00:48:50
We've got the item which is allowance for onu occupied, owner occupied with a specific definition of owner occupied. 00:48:54
The previous language was person residing in the home. I presume in previous language was pre to all of this whole change which 00:49:03
says just the resident only, not anybody else and then the next thing the reasoning implies that we're just talking about 00:49:10
expanding that definition a little bit. 00:49:18
From person residing in the home to person residing in the home and his dad essentially. 00:49:26
Related party. 00:49:33
So I'm thinking, well, that sounds fine. 00:49:35
But then we go to the actual code. 00:49:37
And that was like line 82 ish I think it was. 00:49:41
And standards. 00:49:47
Sorry, what? What line did you say? So starting in line 8282. OK standards. And this is where we start talking about this is where 00:49:49
this is start talking about owner occupied staff report implies the person who lives there, whether they own it or rent it. 00:49:57
But now adding Dad if dad owns it and Dad can own a home business that his son occupies, that's a pretty narrow expansion that 00:50:07
everybody, I presume, would be cool with. 00:50:13
But then in the standard, it says a dwelling must either be the primary place of residence. That's fine for the person conducting 00:50:20
home occupation, that's current. 00:50:25
Or be owner occupied. 00:50:31
So or be only owner occupied. So then I see that last phrase there on sentence 2. 00:50:35
And then I've got AB and C, which I believe just applies to that second part of sentence two. So either you're the resident or 00:50:41
owner occupied with the owner occupant defined as. 00:50:47
The person who's on the deed. 00:50:56
That's not necessarily the resident's dad. That's anybody. 00:50:58
Right. There's no condition for occupation with that, right. There's there's no relationship there. So that expands what's been 00:51:02
proposed in the staff report significantly. 00:51:07
Not saying it's right or wrong, but it is not the same. 00:51:13
Right. And then or any person who is related by blood, marriage, adoption, not the person living, but to the deed owner. 00:51:16
So that means that not only I can. 00:51:24
Home business. 00:51:28
In a property that I own, but I'm renting to an unrelated neighbor. 00:51:30
Also my brother. 00:51:36
Can operate a home business in the home that I own but is occupied by my unrelated neighbor. 00:51:38
Or your wife's great uncle. I mean, we were talking about related by blood, marriage or adoption. I mean, yeah. So it has nothing 00:51:44
to this language has nothing to do with the relatives of the occupant, which the staff report seemed to imply. 00:51:51
Before right. 00:52:00
That that specific point is brought out in kind of this subset bullet point. 00:52:03
Where staff is proposing clarifying language to allow home occupations by the property owner. 00:52:09
Examples of that are on the second page. 00:52:17
Where you might have situations where somebody has purchased a property, maybe they don't live on the property. 00:52:21
But are using it. 00:52:29
To operate their business. 00:52:31
Photographers. Pretty common if they have an in home studio. Maybe they rent out the basement and are using the main portion of 00:52:34
the home as a studio. Same thing with like a significant yard use agricultural. 00:52:40
Photography studio kind of thing, where we have these larger estate properties. Maybe you have a photographer who owns a property 00:52:48
who wants to use it for their business and have clients come to the property, but they don't actually live on the property, so 00:52:53
that's. 00:52:57
It was intended as a recommendation to extend that just to. 00:53:03
The owner of the property. 00:53:08
One for simplification so that you're not getting into. Are you renting this? Do you have? Are you related? How are you going to 00:53:11
prove a relation if it's just extended to the owner of the property and the? 00:53:17
Property maintenance, property care is all within the standards that are in home occupations. 00:53:25
That is where that recommendation for extending that to the owner of the property. 00:53:32
OK. And so that's that may be well and good, I haven't really processed that. 00:53:38
But I just thought that the staff report as I was reading it, we were saying. 00:53:44
The entitlement is here. We're going to expand it to here by adding Dad. But the language isn't that at all. It's if you own it. 00:53:50
Regardless of who you've rented to, you can have also have a home business. 00:53:58
In that home that you own so. 00:54:04
And you're renting out even though, so it still has to be a primary residence to whomever. But we're not talking about just what 00:54:08
it was which, which the staff report implied previous to all this, was that the occupant? 00:54:15
The resident, whether they're the owner or not, it was limited to them. 00:54:22
Now we're saying, but then the staff report implied, well, but let's add Dad, because maybe he owns the house. 00:54:28
And he's related to the occupant. 00:54:36
But then, this language in the ordinance is not that at all. 00:54:39
Right. The language in the ordinance is if you own it, doesn't matter who's in it, you can do a home business in there. 00:54:43
As long as the. 00:54:53
Use is still the. 00:54:55
Resident occupant. 00:54:58
Right. And that that owner use is the is recommended in the staff report it's. 00:55:00
3rd bullet point that's in there. 00:55:08
Is it possible to just tighten up that language on that to be on line 88 to kind of? 00:55:10
To close that loophole that Paul is mentioning. 00:55:16
Right. And that's the consideration. Do you want to limit? 00:55:20
A home occupation to somebody who either resides there or is related to the property owner. 00:55:24
I guess the property owner has to or. 00:55:31
Simpler, cleaner to just extend that to the property owner? Well, I guess that's a policy question that I'm wondering about now. 00:55:34
Because to me, part of the reason for. 00:55:42
The business owner to reside on the property. 00:55:47
Is that they were there. They could observe what was happening. They had a relationship with their neighbors. They were going to 00:55:51
be responsible if it's somebody who owns the property but doesn't live there. 00:55:57
What's the policy reason for that recommending that expansion? 00:56:04
The recommendation is based off of. 00:56:10
Sometimes significant property investment or. 00:56:14
Just a use of a property as a property owner. 00:56:19
That they would. 00:56:23
Possibly still have that same investment in the property. They'd want to maintain it for business purposes. 00:56:25
If they're seeing clients at the home. 00:56:31
As is a property owner could own a property rent. 00:56:34
The main portion of the house and then still use an accessory building for their own personal use. The difference when it goes to 00:56:39
a home occupation with a permit is when they're having clients who are coming to the house. 00:56:45
Home occupations largely are either. 00:56:53
When it's somebody who's living at the house, when we're looking at the. 00:56:56
Does it make a difference if it's the person who's living at the house versus? 00:57:01
Somebody who doesn't live at the house. 00:57:05
Are those impacts all mitigated with the standards? All the parking has to be on site? 00:57:07
The hours of operation are limited. There's noise ordinance issues. You know, there's occupations that are expressly prohibited. 00:57:15
So all of those standards. 00:57:20
As staff, we feel that those standards mitigate those impacts. Typically, if you have an issue with a home occupation, neighbors 00:57:27
are pretty aware of that and will call code enforcement if there are issues. 00:57:34
And so the. 00:57:41
You've talked about a lot of best case scenarios where property owners care about their properties. 00:57:44
Even if they don't live in them. I mean generally properties owners would. 00:57:49
Tend to care more about the one they live in. 00:57:54
But we've also seen property owners who? 00:57:57
Rent out residences and. 00:58:02
Dives. 00:58:06
But perhaps we're saying that that's going to happen regardless of whether or not there's a. 00:58:07
Business also being run by the property owner. 00:58:12
Right, by having the the licensing we do. 00:58:16
That then comes with the ability to inspect property to make sure that they are in compliance with the standards within the code. 00:58:21
So if there are significant issues, then licenses can be revoked or discontinued. Fines can be issued tied specifically to the 00:58:29
business operation. 00:58:33
In our code for property maintenance. Right now our existing code only entails, you know, specific property maintenance standards 00:58:39
with appearance and other issues. 00:58:45
To properties that are being rented. So those same property maintenance standards don't currently extend to properties that are 00:58:50
owned, but they are extended to properties that are rented. So there's a property maintenance coverage when you're renting a 00:58:56
property versus a property maintenance coverage that isn't there for an owned property. 00:59:03
In how our code is currently. 00:59:10
My concern is that if this if. 00:59:13
Businesses go South. 00:59:17
You're saying, you know, we can go in, we can revoke the? 00:59:19
The license and everything but that is after there are problems and I am just. 00:59:23
I am hesitant. 00:59:28
Expand this as. 00:59:31
The current language says it's expanding, I think. 00:59:34
Someone who is living on the property. 00:59:38
Should have a connection to that business. 00:59:41
I I I don't know. I guess I've just had so many problems with short term rentals in my area that. 00:59:46
You know, like Paul. 00:59:52
It's Some owners just don't care, and that's a problem. 00:59:54
And there can be consequences, but that means the neighbor has the neighborhood has to go through those consequences before the 01:00:00
problem is resolved. 01:00:03
Yeah, you're going to have to. 01:00:09
Sounds great and then? 01:00:11
Start collecting data. Start taking pits, or start showing us. Prove it. 01:00:15
And it drags on and on and on. 01:00:20
And so is the intent of this to. 01:00:24
Expand. 01:00:27
So the way this is written, I got to think of this. 01:00:30
Right now. 01:00:34
Owner does not have to reside on the property where the business is. 01:00:36
With the current language, it states that the property owner or that the person has to occupy the property. 01:00:42
To be eligible for a home occupation. 01:00:51
Does the resident have to own the property? No. So Paul could buy a house in his neighborhood. 01:00:54
And he could rent it to a. 01:01:00
Who can then apply for a home occupation? I'd be the one applying. 01:01:03
So well, both. Either one how it works is that the property owner signs a property ownership affidavit and then authorizes the 01:01:08
tenant to. 01:01:13
To apply for a home occupation. So then the tenant who resides on the property is operating the home occupation. 01:01:19
So owning a home, neither one of us could apply for home business for that location, whether I'm the owner or whether I'm the 01:01:27
occupant. And so I guess where I went wrong was was in that first that reasoning paragraph. It gave an example, but that wasn't 01:01:34
the universe. It was one of many examples. It just happened to be. 01:01:41
One example that happened to be a related party, but the related party wasn't. 01:01:49
The related party being the resident, not the. 01:01:55
Just happened to be. 01:01:58
One of many possible circumstances where I. 01:01:59
I got off the track where I thought that was the limit of the expansion we were talking about. 01:02:03
Right, but that was not the case. The other perspective that staff looked at was conditional uses and. 01:02:08
Home occupations that would run with the land, so conditional uses stay tied to a property. 01:02:15
This removes A conditional use that would run with the land, so. 01:02:22
It was created as a balance of. OK, if you retain ownership of the property, can you continue the use as? 01:02:26
Accessory business use even if you don't reside on the property. 01:02:34
Considering that, that would. 01:02:39
A land use that stays with the land. 01:02:41
That would transfer to another owner if another owner purchased the property and wanted to. 01:02:44
Continue a home occupation. 01:02:50
Yeah, I'm. 01:02:54
I yeah, I got to think about this here. I mean, I'm more aligned with Drew on this one, I think. Here's my concern is. 01:02:55
We're already having problems with short term. 01:03:04
And the people evaluating the purchase of a home as an investment tool. 01:03:07
Which is in my opinion side note driving, driving up the price of homes and creating. 01:03:13
A problem with affordable housing site issue. 01:03:20
But now we're going to expand the opportunity for people who are buying homes as in investments. 01:03:24
As an investment to allow somebody to run a home occupation business and not occupy that home. So now not only do they really not 01:03:30
care about that home, but they don't care about the business that's going to go into that home. 01:03:37
And are we just adding another problem on top of? 01:03:45
A problem that we're already seeing in terms. 01:03:49
Of non owner occupied homes in our communities. 01:03:53
Am I not thinking about this right? It's legitimate? 01:03:58
It also it also seems like. 01:04:03
Like you. 01:04:06
It makes it more likely to move away from the purpose of the residential zone as residential like it. It creates some greater 01:04:08
economic incentive for people to look at this as an investment or as a business situation and not as a residential situation in 01:04:13
the way that they develop the land and take care of it, even though there are standards they have to maintain once again if they 01:04:18
don't. 01:04:24
You have to go through the whole process to have them stop. Yeah. You know, people, It's just philosophically people, I think, 01:04:29
move into a particular neighborhood to live in a neighborhood with their neighbors. 01:04:35
And we've got this situation that's evolving where? 01:04:42
That's becoming less and less of a reality because people are buying these residential homes to rent them out for profit. 01:04:46
Not that I'm against people making profit, but now we're getting. Now we want to expand that. 01:04:53
Oh, and also we're going to expand the ability for people to run businesses out of there that don't even that don't physically 01:04:59
reside in that home. 01:05:02
It seems like we're exacerbating a problem that. 01:05:07
I got it. I think I'm OK with your one objective, which is to codify, you know, and make it not take away the condition used that 01:05:12
runs with the land and and. 01:05:18
To standardize home occupation licenses. 01:05:25
It's but, but there's a second piece in here which happens to do with. 01:05:28
The rights of Home occupation. 01:05:33
And property ownership rights and expanding that to include stuff there. There's two objectives there. I think we can still be OK 01:05:36
with your first objective, which is try to codify and how far do we want to go in terms of of the requirements we're going to have 01:05:43
for the owner to live on the site. I have no issues with creating standards and trying to make it easier for staff to approve 01:05:49
these and keep it away from the Planning Commission, but. 01:05:55
How narrow narrowly we define. 01:06:02
To me, it's about I want the owner. If they're going to run a business out of there, I want the owner to live on that property, 01:06:07
because at least they have. 01:06:11
Responsibility and hopefully take some pride in what they're doing and they have some sort of responsibility to the neighbors that 01:06:15
these home occupation businesses. 01:06:20
Or next to. Yeah, and I was even OK with the. 01:06:25
The wrong understanding that we were just expanding that a little bit to be in the family. 01:06:29
So that. 01:06:35
You know, if it was Scotty house or Jordans house, you had a business there and. 01:06:36
You allowed an inheritance to of that house to go to Jordan for instance. 01:06:41
That that business could still keep going even. 01:06:46
He lived there instead of. 01:06:49
That's only that's still an all in the family. That's the first example in the reasoning that seemed OK. 01:06:50
Go ahead if I could ask a question because. 01:06:58
Not sure I understand the full concern to the Council. Is the concern to the Council that the business operator reside? 01:07:02
On the. 01:07:09
Or is the concern of the Council that someone with an ownership interest in the property? 01:07:10
Reside there and conduct the business. 01:07:16
That sounds like you understand. So if you looked at line 85, and they're not the same thing if you looked at line 85 and you 01:07:23
strike the word either. 01:07:26
And then on line 86 you strike everything from the home occupation. So it says dwelling unit must be the primary place of 01:07:30
residence for the person conducting the home occupation. 01:07:35
And then you strike those subsections. 01:07:41
Does that get to the Council's concern? 01:07:46
Or are you wanting to impose a requirement? 01:07:48
That for a home occupation to be undertaken within a residence. 01:07:52
The residence has to be owner occupied. 01:07:56
Well, you're saying that renters under one of these renters couldn't do that under the other condition that you're saying renters 01:08:01
could not? 01:08:04
Concerned about the home occupation being operated by an owner of the property, a renter couldn't run a home occupation in a home 01:08:10
they were renting. 01:08:13
However, long term their rental may be, it seems to me it's more important to have the occupant who's living there. 01:08:18
Because the current standard is the occupant. 01:08:25
Yeah, I'm fine with that. 01:08:29
Your concern has been that we could allow someone who doesn't live at the residence doesn't live there. It is completely unrelated 01:08:34
to the occupant, Yeah, to conduct the business, right? 01:08:39
Because that initial staff report paragraph that I got missed, that I misunderstood was I thought we were only expanding. 01:08:47
The resident. 01:08:55
Requirement to the resident and. 01:08:57
Residents. 01:09:00
Essentially, is it possible to take this language to make it what you understood it to be, so that it is just? 01:09:01
The resident and the. 01:09:08
A parent, because it was it language, were centered on the resident and not the owner. I think that would get me there. 01:09:10
Because this is about the rest of the I was just gonna say Todd can draft anything if we come up with the idea. 01:09:17
Current state subdivision ordinance is a mess. 01:09:25
I think it's just important that we know from a policy standpoint. 01:09:29
If your concern is that it's an owner of the property that conducts the business, or if your concern is that it's a resident on 01:09:34
the property that conducts the business. 01:09:39
Because if you're if you're worried about a family business being able to pass. 01:09:44
I don't think a family will have a problem figuring out how to make that happen if it's a home occupation, right? 01:09:50
Somebody in the next generation who is the primary occupant of the house will be in charge of the business. Now whether mom and 01:09:56
dad stay involved, right? 01:09:59
They have. They have a means to address that. 01:10:04
If you're second, if it's you really want owners. 01:10:06
To be able to do home occupations and not renters, that's a different issue altogether. I think that maybe has some legal. 01:10:11
Issues in the back of it that make me a little bit uncomfortable. 01:10:19
I'm perfectly comfortable if your requirement is you have to live there. 01:10:22
Yeah, that's all that's easy. I think that's the concern that the person operating the business is there on site interacting with 01:10:26
the neighbors. 01:10:30
With the ties to that neighborhood. 01:10:36
So can you create language? 01:10:39
I think or does this say that we've just been going in a big we can put some clarifying language that narrows it to primary 01:10:42
residency? I think that revision is easy. 01:10:48
Good. Thank you. 01:10:55
Is that the major concern? I think that was the big topic. 01:10:57
Anything else on that before we just one one little kind of parochial question. So there's this little. 01:11:01
Home Occupied Flower Farm across the street from me does this. 01:11:10
And is that use included? 01:11:15
The uses identified in this. 01:11:19
Provision and so we would apply to them, but as long as. 01:11:23
Live there and meet all the other requirements there. 01:11:27
Right. 01:11:31
There's, yeah. So they would have the. 01:11:34
There's a fall under the conditions that were applied to their conditional permit. It would change over if they were to move and 01:11:37
another property owner. 01:11:42
Purchase the property they would have to apply for a new home occupation permit under the standards that are being proposed. So 01:11:47
would that would the way this is. 01:11:52
Knowing what that use is, would that be a staff approval or do you think that would have to go to the planning flower farm? 01:11:58
A flower farm would be a staff approval, OK? 01:12:05
It's out. If there's a use that falls outside of what these standards are, then it would go to a conditional use for review by the 01:12:08
Planning Commission. 01:12:12
Thank you. 01:12:18
All right. Thanks. 01:12:20
Sorry to grill you like that. 01:12:22
Thanks Ho. 01:12:26
All right. So the last public hearing we have is on the Pids. 01:12:31
The Public Infrastructure district and the application that has been delivered to the city. 01:12:36
And I think the primary. 01:12:44
There's a lot in there in terms of how it's created and those sorts of things. 01:12:47
My my sense is. 01:12:51
This is really going. 01:12:55
The Our Council. 01:12:58
You and our outside counsel that's working on this and. 01:13:00
Getting to a point of comfort. 01:13:05
To tell the council, yeah, I think we're good on this. I think we're going to defer to since we've never done this, have deferred 01:13:08
to council and staff a lot on this. So my questions are mostly centered around the bullet points that were in the staff report of 01:13:14
questions that you had, I believe for the applicant. 01:13:20
Regarding what they had submitted to the. 01:13:27
So what do you want to review? How do you? I'll turn this over to you and let you walk through the council on this. 01:13:30
On this one. 01:13:37
All right. 01:13:40
So. 01:13:43
We have, as a staff and Council, including our outside counsel, review the governing document and had identified a number of 01:13:45
issues that required either further clarification or where we were asking for further information. 01:13:54
And and just in the last day or so have received another draft that resolves some, but not all of those issues. There are a couple 01:14:06
of issues I think the council might want to discuss this evening, including clarification of governance and board requirements. 01:14:16
And then clarification of phasing costs and individual and the costs of individual parking structures within each of those pit 01:14:26
areas. 01:14:31
Todd, I don't know it maybe you could summarize the governance issues and what our recommend. 01:14:37
Yeah, the the creation of a board to govern this public infrastructure district, which is a governmental entity that will be 01:14:45
created inside of the City of Holiday. 01:14:48
There are. 01:14:54
Statutory means in ways to have that. 01:14:56
That board created, and at the outset in the governing document you can establish who will serve on that board. 01:14:59
And they need to either be an owner of property within the district or be an agent of an owner of property within the district. 01:15:08
And that requirement has to continue throughout the life of. 01:15:14
The Infrastructure district. 01:15:20
Some of the questions that come up are and and the one that is most prominent in our mind is. 01:15:23
Because the the levy that is proposed to be authorized inside of this district. 01:15:30
Could be relatively heavy. 01:15:38
It could work in to be a fairly substantial number. 01:15:40
Do we want to provide for the opportunity for a property owner who isn't an owner of the property now? 01:15:44
That it say somebody buys a portion of this. 01:15:52
Is operating in there as a commercial operator of some kind has a substantial interest. Do we want to provide for them to have the 01:15:56
right to have a seat? 01:16:01
On that district board. 01:16:06
One of the things we always think about from a policy standpoint, one of the biggest issues you can have with government is 01:16:07
representation in the levy of taxes. 01:16:11
And if you have a substantial property. 01:16:16
Who purchases later? 01:16:19
And is being taxed in this. 01:16:21
Do you want them to have a seat at the table? 01:16:24
Government governance in that, and there are different ways we could do that. We could talk about proportional ownership and how 01:16:27
that might look. They have to get to a certain percentage of ownership before they have the right to have a seat on that board. 01:16:34
I don't think we want to require them to sit on the board because you may have a substantial operator who doesn't care. 01:16:42
Who buys understanding what the levy is and doesn't care to be on the board of the district? And I wouldn't want to force them to 01:16:48
serve, but if they wanted a substantial, you know. 01:16:52
That seems to make some sense so. 01:16:58
That's one of the questions that we would like some guidance from the council on as we've talked through the issue with. 01:17:02
The folks who are proposing to create the Infrastructure district. 01:17:09
I think you make a good point in that. 01:17:14
It seems like there would even be in the current property owners interest to a degree I think. 01:17:18
To allow for in that governing document. 01:17:24
To have that sort of, you know, minimum, you won't necessarily want to be. If you have tiny slivers of ownership, that wouldn't 01:17:28
qualify, but a standard. 01:17:32
Board governance agreement where if you own at least X percent, then you have an opportunity to have a weighted voting share That 01:17:37
could also be. 01:17:42
Proxied. If they didn't want to exercise it individually, they could proxy it to the. 01:17:49
Management company. 01:17:56
CEO People just like State Farm does, you know, And they said that. So yeah, I'd say a minimum ownership of X percent. I'm not 01:17:58
sure what that is. 01:18:03
With the right to, you know, gather proxies. If they didn't want to set, I'd agree with that. 01:18:08
Same, are there statutory requirements about what the size of the board is or anything like that? 01:18:14
So I think it's a minimum of three. And I think there's something that has to be in the odd number unless there's more than 01:18:20
eleven, Yeah. So you know, we're usually not getting in that range, but generally we recommend. 01:18:27
5. 01:18:34
Just to keep it from the casual, two people get together. Oh, you've got a. 01:18:36
And can those governing can that count also be adjustable based on numbers of major owners? 01:18:42
You could have adjustments. We've seen spring boards and upon certain thresholds it goes from a three seat to A5 seat. You could 01:18:51
do the opposite as well. 01:18:56
Yeah, so if you have like. 01:19:03
20% then you have an up to 5 member board. 01:19:06
If you had 20%? 01:19:09
A board seat is 20% too much. Should it be 10? 01:19:12
What makes sense? 01:19:16
I think a larger percentage would feel more comfortable. 01:19:18
From my seat and I'm sure for the owners they would prefer that that be larger, but that's something we can discuss with them 01:19:22
offline and bring something back to you, yeah, I think, I think. 01:19:26
Everybody's in agreement that. 01:19:32
A scenario. 01:19:35
You've created a pit. You've created a pit board that the city really is not involved with at that point. 01:19:37
And you're. 01:19:43
They're taxing themselves now. Somebody comes in as an owner. 01:19:45
And they could basically be tax. 01:19:49
Without representation. 01:19:52
And if they have, I don't know, whatever the percentage is that you would think if there's a certain percentage of ownership that 01:19:54
was changed hands. 01:19:58
That they should have a right to be represented on that pit board if they're going to tax themselves. 01:20:03
Essentially. 01:20:09
That makes sense to me. However, you, however, the legal people come up with that language with the developers. But yeah, I think 01:20:12
we agree on that. 01:20:16
Yeah. 01:20:21
One of the other issues that we are. 01:20:22
To to really evaluate closely with better information. 01:20:26
Is there's a maximum? 01:20:31
Is it a maximum bond issuance number? 01:20:34
Of 80 million that's in the governing document now. 01:20:38
We we're trying to get a little better handle on that number for a lot of reasons. 01:20:42
If you're going to authorize the levy up to a dollar amount, you kind of want to know why and what the background is there. So 01:20:49
we're asking for information and they're working to provide that. We've gotten some information now and we expect. 01:20:55
So that's that's the other major question that has been out there from our perspective I think. 01:21:01
That we anticipate we'll be able to get resolution on and. 01:21:06
Something more certain by the. 01:21:10
Yeah, so is the question here. 01:21:13
We are going to approve the ability to create this PID to as a source of funding, bond funding. 01:21:18
To build. 01:21:26
Infrastructure, which according to document I'm reading is $50 million, let's say. 01:21:28
And so why would we approve? What's the justification? I understand the concept of well. 01:21:33
We're not tax, we're not taxing our, they're taxing themselves. So what difference is well. 01:21:40
I think it comes down. 01:21:46
Trying to be responsible and that we're going to create this for a specific purpose. 01:21:48
So why do you need to fund it beyond what the specific purpose is? I guess that's a question. That's the question we have and 01:21:54
that's why we're waiting for that information. There's a student in the back here. 01:21:59
You're welcome to come up here too. 01:22:06
Keep in mind, we're learning as we go here. We've never done a pit, so we're asking. 01:22:14
Todd may know a lot of answers these questions, but we've never done this and so we're trying to understand. 01:22:19
You know the justification behind some of these things that are going to be in the approval of this document if it's approved or 01:22:23
this pit if it's approved and and Aaron Wade with Gilmore Bell. So we've been the outside pit council here the the primary reason 01:22:29
that you would see like. 01:22:35
Two or so years of the project until. 01:23:16
The revenues can match the debt service. Usually there's a 10% reserve funded and then there's just cost of issuance. You got to 01:23:18
pay your lawyers, you got to pay your accountants, all of that kind of stuff. And so that's what. 01:23:25
Might take a $50 million project fund. 01:23:32
And make it a $70 million bond and then there's headroom. So that's that's why there's, you know there's always going to be a 01:23:36
lower project number than the requested debt limit just to account for those things. But I think what's being asked for is can we 01:23:42
just see a little bit more backup to help us understand is 50 million the right number and is 8 million, 80 million 01:23:48
correspondingly the right debt limit. So it gives them a little bit of. 01:23:55
Of wiggle They're going to fund this project. I think there's language inside of the agreement that basically says the funding has 01:24:02
to go to this. 01:24:06
But if. 01:24:11
If it goes over, it creates an Ave. for them. 01:24:13
To raise that mill rate, To raise the funds depending on what the actual cost ends up being, but it's still all going to be 01:24:16
directed to. 01:24:20
This public infrastructure, and these are not just we can raise more money, we're going to put it over here. 01:24:24
Right, right. 01:24:30
And to that point Mayor, that is another area of discussion that we have had with the applicant. So Section 4 details the benefits 01:24:33
of the districts and and has a broader definition than we have. We have discussed previously with the applicant that included 01:24:41
parking structures, sewer and wastewater improvements, water lines, landscaping, streets. 01:24:49
Curbs and sidewalks, we have discussed narrowing that definition a bit and so I anticipate that in the next draft you see that 01:24:58
language would would be related to parking structures and other and related improvements rather than the broad definition you 01:25:04
currently see. 01:25:11
OK. 01:25:19
I'm going back to the bulleted list to see if there's anything else we want to highlight briefly. 01:25:25
Erin, since you are there, maybe you would highlight dissolution requirements. 01:25:33
And then annexation potential as well? 01:25:40
Yeah, so. 01:25:44
Dissolution I'm trying to remember at the. 01:25:46
What the language in the latest draft said, But generally speaking, a local district or now they're called special districts. 01:25:49
Would dissolve, you know, upon its board determining that its purpose is no longer needed. And so here for this district, 01:25:56
generally that would be when the debt's been discharged and the ownership of the parking structure has been settled. And so I 01:26:01
think. 01:26:06
Yeah. So currently the language right here in front of you shows upon a determination of the City Council and the recommendation 01:26:12
that we forward and we'll note to follow up on is just change that from City Council to the the board, because under state law, 01:26:16
the City Council doesn't. 01:26:21
You know, doesn't make that finding, and I don't think you guys will want to be supervising. 01:26:26
That anyways, so we just change it that the board would look around and say, OK, our bonds are gone, our parking lots. 01:26:30
Sorted outlets dissolve and stop charging, but you have to dissolve. 01:26:36
But you would, yeah. So what's the purpose? And we could put some stricter language that upon that they shall take those steps if 01:26:40
that's kind of the. 01:26:44
The preference, but for now it's it would be just a discretionary. 01:26:48
You know item because I think at the work session last time we kind of discussed there might be after the bonds are discharged, 01:26:53
there might be a need for the district to hold. 01:26:57
That continue to own the parking garage for a longer time just to sort through any issues on that side, but we could put some 01:27:01
parameters that would push them towards a dissolution. 01:27:05
If would they be able so the parking structure, in this case parking structure is finished, the bonds are retired. 01:27:13
What would be the reason to allow the pit board to continue to impose? 01:27:23
Attacks when the purpose of that tax has been extinguished. 01:27:28
So that I think the district could probably. 01:27:33
Continue to exist. But I don't. They wouldn't be able to levy the property taxes without a justification because at that point it 01:27:36
would be just levying for their own administration, right? To cover their audits and to cover. 01:27:42
Those kinds of expenses, but not operations so so they wouldn't be able to maintain at the 1 1/2 mills without. 01:27:49
Yes. Well, the money has to go to a specific purpose. So this gets back to Gina's comment that you were going to tighten that down 01:27:56
a little bit. 01:27:59
I just want to make sure the money is going to what it's intended for, and if the bond has been extinguished and the parking 01:28:04
structure is there and there's all sorts of other stuff included in what can be funded. 01:28:09
Are we going to be OK? 01:28:15
Oh well, let's. 01:28:17
Impose. 01:28:19
Tax. 01:28:21
Keep the tax in place to do all these other these improvements that. 01:28:23
So I'm assuming we'll just tighten down what the money can go towards, right? 01:28:28
That's the intention. 01:28:34
And then one other thing we did want to highlight was just the right now, the governing document would allow the creation of three 01:28:40
distinct. 01:28:45
Pits it would. It also provides a annexation area and Aaron as you explained that is permitted under statute. Yeah. Yeah. So if I, 01:28:50
I don't know if somebody whoever is controlling could show the the map it's kind of the I think it's maybe like exhibit A. 01:28:59
But the state law allows. 01:29:10
The the Council to. 01:29:12
Oh yeah, that was the one with the red and the blue. 01:29:14
State law allows. 01:29:18
City to approve the districts with an annexation area at your discretion. And so here you can see the maps in the blue, they've 01:29:20
got the three PID areas and then there's the additional parcels in red, which would be the annexation area. And essentially what 01:29:26
that would allow is for any of the three districts, they could annex any of that red property without having to come back through 01:29:32
a process with the City Council. 01:29:38
And the general purpose for that that we. 01:29:45
Is just to. 01:29:48
Changes to accommodate changes in their phasing, right. So maybe this is a little bit different than like a single family 01:29:50
residential, but if you owned 1000 acres, you might not know exactly where each St's going to go for the next 5 or 10 years. 01:29:57
So it allows flexibility to annex. 01:30:04
You know neighborhoods that will be financing improvements around the same time. You know here are the applicant could probably 01:30:07
speak more to the the plans but this just gives them the flexibility to adjust boundaries only within this pre designated area 01:30:14
without going through a full city process. I guess that would come back though I mean it would raise that question to me of. 01:30:20
Ownership within the annexation area and having those owners have an Ave. to the pit board. 01:30:28
Because there would be a scenario where. 01:30:34
What if, say, the old Macy's building was sold to somebody else, but it's part of the pit annexation area and the pit board 01:30:38
decides they're going to annex that area and now they am I. So is this like way out? Am I thinking way out there? Because the 01:30:46
concern would be then they can the pit board can then impose a tax. 01:30:54
A position. 01:31:34
To be part of that process, they can't. 01:31:35
Yeah, They couldn't reach out and grab it and drag it and then say, oh, and by the way, here's your head tax, right? Yeah, you're 01:31:38
exactly right. OK. 01:31:44
So Mayor, I think that is all the significant issues that we had highlighted in the staff report. I don't know if council members 01:31:56
have other questions or questions for the applicant. 01:32:01
Well, I mean, I don't know if the other council member, this is all this is all new to me. It all makes sense at this level, but I 01:32:07
am. 01:32:11
I am really. 01:32:15
Council and and staff to understand what our concerns are to make sure we have an agreement. 01:32:18
That makes sense. 01:32:24
And you know the council I think is going to deferred a lot to our council and city manager and to say, hey look, I think we've 01:32:28
got a good clean agreement then we can look at it and see what what clarifying questions we have. 01:32:34
And so I think it's a matter of how hard everybody wants to work on this between now and March 7th. 01:32:41
What's your you've done this before, Todd. I mean, what's your sense of where we're at with this? It doesn't seem like there's a 01:32:47
lot of. 01:32:52
Outstanding, major issues. I don't see anything that looks like an impediment to getting something done and ready for the. 01:32:56
Right now. 01:33:03
OK, so we'll just count. 01:33:06
Yourself and working with the developers to answer those questions and getting comfortable and then we'll see where we end up. 01:33:08
Any other questions? 01:33:17
From other council members. 01:33:19
No, I've gotten comfortable with the concepts. But yeah, the devil's in the details and that's where we rely on you guys, I think 01:33:22
in. 01:33:25
But overall, conceptually I don't have a problem. 01:33:28
Mac did. 01:33:33
Kind of the first comment we were getting to about how we create the pit board. One of the issues we have is so our initial 01:33:41
company is a land holding company and then we create development companies that all have. 01:33:46
Separate ownership. It's controlled by similar, you know US and other affiliates but. 01:33:52
Managing OK. 01:33:58
Which of these companies have, what percentage of the overall property do they own? How do we make sure they have the right number 01:34:00
of board seats? And then does that all of a sudden trigger us having to go back before you to get the same people reelected under 01:34:03
different? 01:34:07
Ownership. 01:34:11
Is just was complicated to us. 01:34:13
In the end, like if we have a large commercial user that's coming in, they're not going to care what percentage they owe and 01:34:16
they're just going to see the PID there and say no, no, we're required to have a board seat, which will then come before council 01:34:20
asking for them and it'll become contingent on their deal anyway. 01:34:24
Which is all allowed. That's in the document right now. So I guess all I'm saying is we'll work with Todd to come up with what 01:34:29
that right language should be. But we were trying to just keep it broader and simpler not to try and make it so we have some 01:34:32
uniform. Oh, we just. 01:34:36
Dictate over new property owners or something just. 01:34:40
We know this is going to be a bunch of different property owners of our affiliate entities. 01:34:43
If and when or there is a large commercial group that comes in that wants to buy property or operate in this property. 01:34:47
More than likely they're going to come in and say. 01:34:54
We don't care what our percentage is. We want to be on the. 01:34:57
We're going to come before you and we're going to add a board member seat or replace one of ours or whatever their stipulations 01:35:00
are in order to have that user. 01:35:03
Here. So I think it's it's valid. We should address it and we'll get there. I'm just not sure it's as easy as just saying like a 01:35:07
20% allocation or something. I think I think our goal rather is just to have a minimum standard and but but yeah if you've got a 01:35:13
negotiated deal with. 01:35:18
Guy who doesn't meet that standard you want to put on the board, fine. I think it's more of a a minimum standard that that you're 01:35:25
not excluding a significant property owner, but being inclusive. 01:35:31
Building your board pick. 01:35:37
It's on you, Part of your part of what you're saying, too. 01:35:40
Regardless of what we put in the document for protections. 01:35:45
Buyer is not. It's going to be part of a due diligence where they say look if. 01:35:49
There's a pit involved here and we're going to have a piece of the ownership. We're going to demand to have a stay in it, just 01:35:55
we're going to demand a position on the board. 01:35:59
Just recently we were looking at buying a building that was where we were part of a condo association that owned a parking 01:36:05
structure and. 01:36:08
And you were 99% of the way there turned into who actually controls the voting rights over ongoing maintenance of this deck. 01:36:12
Turned out we didn't have authority to actually make sure our parking rights were always there. 01:36:17
And so we wound up not being able to close on the deal all because. 01:36:23
You know of underlying issue that you're going through and due diligence gets you and there's no way for us to get on that board. 01:36:26
And so we obviously have to have the door open, which I think it already says the door is open, but then at the same time. 01:36:31
If it if it's really complicated and restrictive, so it's like oh this percentage has to be on, you know so like as we create all 01:36:37
these separate entities, how many, how many entities have to have the? 01:36:42
Members or different members or how many times we have to come back every time we bring in a new development company to like. For 01:36:48
instance, the Macy's building will be another Woodbury development company. 01:36:53
But it's different than the land. 01:36:58
Kind of where like the fitness center is going to be or some of the other retail and so. 01:37:01
Do we have to have a board member allocated to the Macy's building because they're now 20% of the land area or something? And a 01:37:04
board member, I don't know, just added kind of complication stuff which I'm sure we can resolve. I just wanted to bring up that. 01:37:10
We were just trying to keep it simple because we knew how many moving parts there were going to be and we knew this was going to 01:37:16
be. 01:37:19
Anytime like a large commercial user comes in, the first thing they'll do is review all the governing documents, review all the 01:37:21
encumbrances and. 01:37:25
They're going to want to have a physician on everyone of those boards and have the ability to kind of direct their own destiny and 01:37:28
so. 01:37:31
Anyway, I wasn't trying to make more complicated. Well, it doesn't sound like. It doesn't sound like. 01:37:34
The issues we've got are not that great and as long as people want to work hard on it between now and March 7th, we should be able 01:37:42
to resolve them and get something to the council that makes sense to us and we can. 01:37:47
Your confidence. 01:37:54
That's an attorney comment. 01:38:00
So Mayor, one last thing I wanted to highlight and this is for our policy conversation that will come after consideration of this 01:38:03
application. This is a pretty labor intensive for staff and outside counsel and our city attorney, so many cities have imposed a 01:38:11
fee for applicants applications for Pids and I would. 01:38:20
I think that's would be something that council should consider as part of a future policy. 01:38:29
Yeah, it was. My understanding is it's presented when I looked at other policies that it was the applicant that cover, you know. 01:38:36
Had the burden of those costs, but yeah, you would think that would be part of something we'd want to. 01:38:43
OK. Thanks everybody. We are. Is there anything else, anything else from council? 01:38:49
Then I think what we're going to do is move across the hall. 01:38:56
Recess for a few minutes as we move across the hall, and once we're convened over there, we'll take up the issue on Spring Lane. 01:39:02
Is that right? All right, thanks everybody. 01:39:09
That. 01:39:14