Remarks by Indra Nicholas
74 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 1 of 3
“Yes, I have a question. It seems contradictory. On Article 17.418 , it says the approved development is still subject to the requirements and development standards that apply to the parent lot. So you have a parent lot, and say you have a structure, and I'm assuming a standard is there's a setback standard, but then on page Article 12.1543 on 14, it says that middle housing land divisions are exempt from providing minimum frontage or access along a public street for each individual child lot. So can you make that make sense?”
“So these new structures on the child lots can be right on the street or sidewalk? There's no setback? Is there a setback?”
“This seems unusual. Is this because it's skipped going through the UAPC and usually they would go back and forth with the developer and get things right and then bring it for a vote? Because we're certainly, I speak for myself, not an expert in all of this. So is this coming to us because it skipped the process with the committee?”
“So is one of the options to go to take these five to the Planning Commission for them to review?”
“So if this is not approved, where does it go from here?”
“I just want to briefly state that I was not in favor of going forward before because I don't feel that it was clear and I feel that going around the planning division who are experts in the field was a really bad idea and sets a bad precedent. This in no way affects the expertise and knowledge of the developer or the engineer in any way. I'm just saying it's a bad precedent that for the council it was a majority vote to pass it to to approve this, and now we're dealing with these things, which we don't even really know about, quite honestly. I mean, Rick might. So I am gonna vote for it…”
“Yes, I'm not opposed to the project at all. I encourage housing. However, now I'm changing my mind on the vote because we have residents that live there that cannot get questions, their concerns answered. And that concerns me. And so I would like more time to research this so I could be more of an expert, so I could make the decision and maybe everything's good, but maybe it's not. So I would ask for this to be deferred until we have more time to really look into this and out of respect for the homeowners who are gonna be directly affected by what's going on there. Thank you.”
“Yes. Is the 401 replacing the 457 ? Or they're going to both be available?”
“Can the 457 be, is that matching as well, or can it be?”
“So you said something interesting that the 401 , we're not gonna start out doing any matching, but then you mentioned the unions could use that as a bargaining So that would be something that would be behind the scenes in union bargaining, right?”
“Yes. We don't typically get into the weeds with that kind of thing.”
“Okay. As long as that would be highlighted and brought forth, I would appreciate that. Thank you.”
“It kind of along those lines, so in 10.3.1, the city's subordinate to all the mortgages. In my experience, subordinate is getting paid last. So if things go south, the banks are gonna get their money first, including the property. I mean, the city could be left with nothing, correct?”
“Okay, and then in, let's see, the beginning, sorry, D, recitals, D, it redlined including scope of development. Why was that taken out?”
“YES, JUST ANOTHER QUESTION BECAUSE THAT BRINGS UP SOMETHING I WAS GOING TO ASK BUT DIDN'T, BECAUSE IN 634 IT SAYS THE CITY SHALL COORDINATE WITH DEVELOPER TO ENSURE THE CITY'S ACTIVITIES DO NOT OBSTRUCT, HINDER, IMPEED OR DELAY DEVELOPER'S DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. SO WHAT, IS THERE SOMETHING IN HERE? WHAT HAPPENS IF THE CITY IS SLOW OR DOESN'T, OR IMPEEDS, DO THEY HAVE RECOURSE AGAINST THE CITY?”
“Jesus Christ is my Lord and Savior and I love him and I love prayer. And I pray all the time. To me, this is not a matter of what's constitutional or not. It's a matter of what Jesus would want and what's right for our community and what's right for me and my conscience to vote. Somewhat, we are regulating prayer. We're regulating it. Prayer is not objective. Prayer is subjective. It's your communication with your heavenly father. And so to me, Not having prayer is not taking away my right to pray in any way. I pray on my way here, I pray during the meetings. Jesus isn't here and our Heavenly…”
“or god is about any further discussion indra just really quick i forgot i i wanted to say i i agree with everything that you all said tonight um of the christian faith and i want to thank you for coming and expressing your thoughts here tonight thank you any further discussion”
“Yes, we hear about water a lot, but I just want council members to think about we are really hurting businesses with the water rates. I agree with that. I mean, residential is high. It used to be 75. Now it's 95 minimum. we can't afford to water our lawns a lot of us but businesses are hurting because of the water rate so i think that's something we should look at and then i just feel not to cause controversy but prompted to say that the one who is inspired by what occurred today with our Christ-centered talks and all that we appreciated is the same one that calls me gross, a horrible person,…”
“I DO. THANK YOU. HI, JUSTIN. SO ALONG THOSE LINES, BRAD MENTIONED THAT PART OF THE review of the Planning Commission is looking at comments and feedback from citizens in the area. Would you agree that that's part of the process that was not done?”
“We went through a full hearing process So you're saying because That's not my understanding from what Brad said, that they didn't even get to that part. That people might have spoken up, but the planning commission itself didn't talk about what the people said, what the citizens said, and come to decisions on that. Did that happen? Do you know? Or was that, that was, it sounds like it was dropped because of the substantial Variances they just stopped it and didn't go through with that part. My concern really is that citizen input part Would you agree that that wasn't I'm just asking you your…”
“YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND THEN HAVE YOU HAD OTHER PROJECTS? I am not an expert whatsoever in any of this planning. Have you had other projects? It seems like because you did make substantial changes but still by not going back to the planning commission you're expecting the council to just approve it and we're not experts in doing that. Have you had other projects that where you've completely let you sidestepped the planning commission and just gone to council for approval? Is that a common thing?”
“YOU'VE NEVER HAD TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION EVER?”
“Yeah, I did. So I just want to clarify. So is the reason for the street extension and the variances, is part of that reason or is to get more units in that area? Whoever could answer that.”
“Right, but they both asked for variances in street length. That's why I'm asking if the cul-de-sac was, if the street was shorter, the cul-de-sac would be pulled in more, you maybe wouldn't get so many of those houses back there. That was my question. And then, I mean, what's the reason to extend the street length, I guess is what I'm asking.”
“Yes. Way earlier in our discussion, I think Joel asked a question about the 20 units. There's nowhere in the agreement with the feds that it had to be 20 units. Is that what was the consensus?”