City Council - workshop

August 25th, 2026. Recording in progress. All right, welcome to the Provincial Council Work Meeting, August 25th, 2026 at 1 o'clock p.m. We'll do a roll call of elected officials. Rachel Whipple. Becky Bogdan.

Jeff Whitlock.

Katrice McKay.

Greg Christensen. Gary Garrett.

And we have Travis Hoban on Zoom. Is he there yet, Kevin? Okay, he'll be joining us later. Is proposed that we approve, although this is a public meeting, only the presenters and those invited by the council may speak or ask questions, unless otherwise invited by the chair. Please wait to speak until called on by the council chair. When speaking, please be sure to use a microphone so that the record is clear and those attending virtually can hear you. Please also be sure to limit side conversations as they interfere with the audio recording. If you need to have a side conversation, please step out of the work meeting room. And we'd like to recognize that Mayor Marcia Jenkins has joined us. It is proposed that we approve the following minutes. August 11th, 2026 work meeting. Are there any objections or requested changes?

Did we get that change?

We got those changed.

I'm good, okay. All right, seeing no objection, I'll declare the minutes approved by unanimous consent. Our first item of business is an ordinance regarding outdoor lighting standards as presented by Britton Johnson, our council intern.

Okay.

We'd like to announce that Travis Hoban is on Zoom.

Okay, perfect. uh good afternoon council this is a little bit more of a crowd than the last time i presented a couple weeks ago it's good to see everyone in person um yeah i'm just here to talk about um some updates to our outdoor lighting code um based off of our discussion a couple weeks ago so to start i just wanted to do a brief recap for those who weren't here of our last meeting discussion these are the three main proposed changes to our outdoor lighting code the first would require all new and replaced outdoor lights to meet a correlated color temperature standard, which would be 3000 Kelvin or less, except for a few exceptions, one of those being sports facilities that allow 5700 Kelvin on the playing surface. Secondly is requiring full shielding for all new outdoor lighting. um rather than cut off lighting as it was written in our our current code uh and that implies that the light is fully recessed in the fixture that all the lights directed downward and that none of it escapes above the 90 degrees 90 degree plane And then lastly is updating our language for off-premises electronic display signs to better mirror our on-premises electronic display sign code in Title VI of Provisive Code. Any questions on that actually before I move on? Okay, cool. The reason that your presentation is slightly different than what you saw in your packet is because in the first iteration of the proposed change for the electronic signs, nighttime hours were defined as from dawn until dusk. which doesn't really make sense because dawn is sunrise and dusk is sunset. That would be during the daytime. So to clarify that, we updated the language to match better what Title VI says. So that's one slight change that we made. I don't know. Good question. What did you... Okay. So... Regarding the discussion from last meeting, it felt like the council at large wanted some more clarification on residential outdoor lights, what will happen to existing lights and when they would necessitate compliance with the new standards for color temperature and shielding and so in the exemption section we've written this it says any existing outdoor lighting fixture attached to a structure on a residential property as of today um would be exempt meaning that if you replace like the light bulb or the component level piece of your fixture, you wouldn't have to change it to meet the new standards. So let's say you had like a 5,000 Kelvin light, a super bright white, and it burnt out. If you can replace it, just the bulb, you could replace it with a 5,000 Kelvin light the way that this is written. However, if the entire fixture needs to be replaced, like it says in the second sentence, then the exemption does not apply. So the entire fixture needs to be replaced, then it would need to meet our standards with the color temperature and shielding. And I'm open to discussion on that, but that was what I came up with. Councillor Bogdan had a question about lower color temperature lights and the cost difference between higher color temperature ones and wanted some information. To explain kind of how LEDs are manufactured, they start with this semiconductor chip, and that's like the main cost in producing an LED. Then after that, a phosphor coating is put on top of the light emitting diode, and that's called color tuning, is the kind of recipe of the blend of phosphor that they put on the chip will determine how warm or how cool the light comes out and so it requires a tiny bit more phosphor to have a warmer color temperature light but it's fractions of the sun per unit so you don't see any difference in costs both at the retail and the wholesale And the last thing I wanted to address that I probably should have last time. I'm sorry, just a moment.

Yeah, go ahead. Sure, I could go back one. And that also would mean that there's no significant difference in terms of the actual electricity used.

Correct. There's no difference in electricity used between a lower color temperature and a higher color temperature. The output and color temperature are not equivalent. So you could have a really, really high output warm light or really, really low output cool light or blue light. Does that answer your question? Okay. So with that in mind, last thing I wanted to talk about was public education. During my research as I talked to other cities, this was a big point of emphasis in that if some of these proposed changes move forward, that the public has some kind of resource to answer questions that are frequently asked and some misconceptions with lighting. I think one thing that this example does really well, this is from Weber County, is the visual examples of what would be compliant and what would not be compliant with the full shielding on the bottom right. I think something like that could be beneficial. And in talking with Patricio, our director of power, he said that he'd be happy to collaborate on creating something like this to help our residents. So with that, we can... amend anything in this these proposed changes um continue this to a future work meeting or um let this go to our our night meeting item later today okay we still have a recognition it's joking it's joking

Okay. I have a couple of questions. Number one, what about like memorials or flag lighting where they're lighting up the flag?

So if you could pull up the ordinance, Kevin, there is a cutout for that. Okay, great.

My other question is, we've heard a lot from citizens and mostly they're excited for this. Like they think it's long overdue and they really hate a lot of the bright jelly light type things so i've had a couple citizens though also emailed that have the jelly lights and love them and are very concerned about the safety of them so um and i asked them if their jelly lights because there seems to be a huge difference in the brightness yeah there's a wide there's a wide variety but specifically the jelly light people i talked to said there is no ability to change the brightness do you think that's an install feature like when they buy it are they picking their brightness or is one brand just one thing and another brand's another thing and you know what i mean um that's something i could look into between now and the night meeting if you'd like and and get some more clarification on that Like, you know, the jelly lights.

It's like year-round holiday lighting that people put around their house.

Yeah.

Some of them are like very dim and not very, well, some of them are like.

They look like the C9 bulbs, but they can control the colors.

Yeah, like some flash and they're like flashing off.

Yeah, the permanent lighting.

Yeah, the permanent lighting, yeah. I thought I had one more question. I think that's it.

Becky? I have a lot of concern about it. Halloween is getting to be a bigger and bigger and bigger holiday. And our house has a lot of Halloween lights. Becky has the best Halloween house in the city.

It's true.

And I haven't had any issues with the neighbors. We do shut ours off at 10, 1030. We are considerate. The neighbor across the street, he absolutely loves it. Sends his grandkids over. Becky, we need to work out parking. Your vehicle needs to go in my driveway or over here or something because we have lots of people coming. And he's out there on the porch handing out Halloween candy. And ours goes for a month. And you can't tell me that we're the only ones that have that. So I do have a concern. I'm the only one in the city that has it. It's not true. We do have some on the West side that have some pretty big Halloween go through and you got your Spook Alley. There's quite a few. And it's getting to be a bigger and bigger, bigger holiday. So I do take issue with, and even with the jelly lighting, every holiday is a holiday. Every holiday has lights. You can even go to even the Walmart and you can pick up inflatables and things for the different holidays. So to me, it would be more of a, if you have the bright lights and if you have the Christmas vacation lighthouse, maybe you need to turn it off at like 10, 10, 30, you know, have a cutoff date. That's interesting. Have it open because, you know, there's some people that leave them on all night long. Yeah. If you're going to go big and bold and go home, then maybe you need to shut it off at 10.30 at night, which is what we do.

In the research I've conducted, most of the cities that have a curfew for lights like that is 10 p.m. Like our sound ordinance, that would make it easy.

And I do have concern for those people that have jelly lights because it is fun to drive through 4th of July and you see the red, white, and blue flashing. It is fun to see whatever colors that they have going on. The other thing I have concern about is the floodlights for the backyard. I have those. Travis and Benedict had those. So you can't tell us we're the only ones that light up the backyard.

Those would be loud still. And as you mentioned, even once it burns out, you could replace the light bulb.

Even so, I would like to replace that as it dies. I mean, my house is... going on 50 years old just because you know kids playing with them Gary but again I think it needs to have a cutoff time because you know kids do have they play in the backyard at night they just do you do things in the backyard at night that's true you have swim parties in the backyard at night trampoline parties somewhere at night there's a reason why people have that flood lighting that eliminates their backyard And we are to the point now where when we first moved in, we were just like struck with all the light that comes from the street light, but I've gotten those blackout curtains. So there are things that do dim it within the house. So those are just my concerns. I would like to see some of that changed and accommodated for.

So at the very least, Becky, should the exception be changed to October instead of November to January, if it were changed to October to January?

I would be amenable for that. Usually our stuff goes up October 1st. And it's a big deal. October 1st to the end of October, and then it goes down. And then we have a big Christmas display. And again, I do the same thing. You know, we turn it off at like 10, 10.30. Because we are the Chevy Chase house.

Well, I think you make a really good point. That would take care of the jelly light issue, too. Because one woman emailed saying she has it as safe because her house didn't have any lights on it. So she has them as security lights. One in every fourth one is on. It's not that bright or something. But the ones that are zipping around the colors all really bright would be... I think a turn-off time would be good. And that's something you can easily do on their permanent lighting, right? Because it's all controlled by an app, I think.

Yeah, the schedule is my understanding.

Yeah.

Okay, I did want to speak to Becky's concern about floodlights. There are floodlights that are fully shielded, but still kind of point downward where you can still see all of your yard. So I can show you some specs for those if you'd like.

Maybe I haven't. I don't know.

But they do exist. So there are floodlights kind of like with the intent of illuminating a backyard that exists that would meet these changes.

Floodlights is an interesting one because I totally agree with almost everything you said. It does go both ways, though, because there are examples of floodlights that are extraordinarily bright and go into people's windows and are quite obnoxious when people are trying to sleep. shielding to me seems like a reasonable compromise and that everyone would be grandfathered but there's trade-offs for sure I don't that's it this is of the whole things in this ordinance this is probably one of the things I care less about so I'm super open to compromise or planning something else for most people there's an exemption for sports lights right yep and Georgia

Churches.

Churches, temples, buildings, churches.

Did you scroll down to the exemptions?

While you're up there, Patricio, I've had a couple of emails about our city lights, but currently our city lights are dark sky lights, correct? The ones that have been put in the last couple of years?

That's correct. So we're using the modernizing compliance with dark sky, which is the 3,000 way. However, they want them inherited or that they haven't gone bad, They're still green. Oh, okay. I mean, they're yellow, so people still count like yellows.

But they are brighter.

They just don't have the focal point down. Oh, okay.

And what about those new ones we have? Did you say they're changeable, like they're within a...

Yes, they are changeable. However, we do not change them because they're already in compliance with the dark sky. we don't want to change it because there is also a different standard there is the dark sky standards and there is also the safety standard and we want to make sure we find the balance between the two the moment that we reduce the amount of watts then we might create patterns where there is direct spots and then it's not safe okay awesome thank you i have another question for patricia patricia what is the current um lifespan of the uh

the street lights would be changed out to the new dark sky compliant fixtures? We don't really know.

Okay. It's hard to tell. Okay. I think that's, and that was one of the, as we did the research, we had about 40% with the new lights, which are in compliance with the new standard. But as they get that, and this has been a period probably of 10 years that we have been doing this. So we could guess, but it wouldn't be all like guesswork.

Kind of like our pipes.

Yeah. My crystal ball doesn't go that far.

I would guess in the next 100 years, you're going to be good. Oh, go ahead, Travis.

I just wanted some clarity. So if I'm understanding this correctly, then somebody that were to put in jelly lights after we enact this would then not be able to have red white and blue on fourth of july i guess i just want to really understand the implications for something like jelly lights another thing i wanted to bring up is there are holidays like ramadan that don't fall between november and january i think we might be creating potentially something problematic for ourselves if we only accommodate the holidays that fall between november and january so just some thoughts there but but yeah clarity on the on the jelly lights would be useful for me thanks

Based on how I interpret the code, and Brian can maybe speak to this, anything in black is no proposed change. That's what's currently in our code. And jelly lights would not be allowed to be illuminated if they weren't during those months, as far as I understand.

okay so yeah i'm happy to propose an issue i want to make a motion to do so the alternative approach would be what uh councillor bogdan's suggestion of just having a sort of a bright light curfew of sorts that would be another potential

Yeah, I can definitely get behind that for any time of year, frankly. So I could be supportive of that. I guess I like when I see they're green for a Provo High game or they're blue for a BYU game or holiday, 4th of July. I don't have an issue with that personally. I guess maybe if the others do, I can appreciate that. But I personally would want people to be able to have jelly lights throughout the year. But maybe there is some sort of I don't know if it's a brightness standard or I definitely can get behind the timing standard of it. Thanks.

Isn't there, aren't they also under the eaves where they aren't like they're not shooting up, right? Was that considered shielded?

Okay. Yes.

But it's just based on where it's installed.

Yeah. I believe that that would be considered. Okay. That makes sense then. Yeah, you're right. Thanks, Katrice. That makes sense.

I like the 10 o'clock show a lot.

Yeah. The only thing that might not be in compliance if jelly lights are around year round is the color temperature at that point. If it's a bright green light for St. Patrick's Day or something like that. But the shielding would be adequate if it's within.

But if we do the time, then that would help with all those.

Decorations too.

And you're suggesting then 10 o'clock, 10 p.m.? like that what we do with the sound it seems like it'd be good to keep them aligned yeah so maybe um exemption number one could read holiday lighting period and then with another sentence all holiday lighting must be turned off at 10 p.m something like that it doesn't follow it outside of the christmas schedule well outside of the dark sky yes anything outside of dark sky goodbye because like you said if you had

the warm brown, orange, yellow tone for fall, if that's compliant, that could be on all night long. But if it's not, if it's the blue tones, like the blues and the greens. Does that get too complicated?

Yeah. This is my personal opinion, but I'd recommend if that is the route that you want to go, that we allow holiday lighting during any month of the year, just to keep it simple.

Yeah.

That's just my opinion as the intern.

So we're thinking year round, but have that 10 o'clock moratorium.

Okay. Would anyone like to make a motion to do that?

You're going to look like he was making a motion.

So I'll make a motion that exemption number one, read holiday lighting during any month of the year. And that... With the time?

10 o'clock.

And then another sentence, all holiday lighting should be turned off by 10 p.m. Okay. And that this continue on our agenda for tonight. Okay. With that added. Perfect.

All right. Let's second that.

Okay, we have a second one. Craig, any discussion on the motion?

I'm curious if that resolves your concerns, Becky.

Like I said, my lights are usually off at 10 anyway. 10, 10.30. It's on time as well. Is it more stressful?

Yeah. What were you going to say, Rachel?

Yeah. So it's interesting because a lot of the holiday lighting may not be a violation of the sky thing anyway. But if people are doing floodlights on features in their yard or something like that, that would be. So it would make sense to put those on a timer. Another thing that we're not necessarily addressing, but I think is kind of fun is the stadium has extraordinarily bright lights. And I regularly hike the Y at 530 in the morning. Most of the year, it's dark at that point in time. And there have been times when I'm hiking and suddenly there's a brightness because they have turned on the stadium lights. I don't know why. They're like, I don't know, maybe a practice or something. But that light from the stadium like hits us up there. So there is really good reason for these dark sky ordinances, right? Like if we can break that light down. Oh, yeah, they're exempt. But in general, it makes sense because we have so much light pollution, ambient light from the lights in our city that I never need a headlight when I hike the Y in full dark. There's just that much light. And so if we can gradually cut that down, I think it would be really useful. So I'm really happy that we're addressing this.

I have one more question. What about, you know, people have security lights that are crazy bright, like motion detector type lights. What does that follow?

I believe that is also mentioned in the code. If you scroll down a bit, Kevin.

And security lights should be shielded and still brightly shine on the areas. Yeah.

So this is the section on security lighting. That has, it's not in the exemption section, but it kind of exempts itself from some of the other standards.

And we didn't even change any of that. Just took some stuff out.

Yes.

Because the point isn't that you're dimming that light that's in the area that needs to be seen or filmed. It's that you're stopping light from escaping upwards and outwards. So having that more directed light is really useful. It's more efficient use of your light.

Okay, anyone, anything else? All right, thanks, Britton.

Okay, awesome.

Oh, we need to vote on them. Oh, yeah, sorry. All right, Councillor Whipple. Yes. Councillor Bogdan. Yes. Councillor Whitlock.

Yes.

Councillor McKay, yes. Councillor Christensen. Yes. And Councillor Garrett.

Yes.

And Councillor Hoban.

Yes.

All right, so that passes 7-0. All right, next we have a discussion regarding a request from Taylor Terrace Homeowners Association for city acceptance, infrastructure upgrades, and financial assistance for its private water system. This will be presented by Lane Pierce, our water resources engineer, and Mark Doyle from Taylor Terrace HOA. We have Lane Pierce, Chris.

Thank you. So I just have a quick, Slide show that I'll go through. The council, last time I was here two weeks ago, asked a couple questions. So the two questions, the slides that I'll go through kind of answer the questions. There we go. This is the city code we kind of went over last time. Let's see. Is this the slide show I sent to you?

This is the slide that was submitted on office.

OK. Then I submitted the wrong ones. They'll be honest with you. Because what we had was a bunch of examples because the city asked two questions. They asked for examples of other places that we did this.

We did see that. Keep going through, Kevin. See if it's further down.

Yeah, it's at the end.

I think this is last most.

Yeah, this is last time.

All right, go back to OnBase and find it, Kevin. Good.

Thank you, Council. So it's there somewhere? Yeah, it is. We have seen it.

Yeah, it's the request part two PDF.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But there were a bunch of them.

Yeah, there were a bunch of them. Is that all of them? No, I would say there's dozens. There's probably, we didn't count, but there's probably 30, 40-ish of unique privately owned streets. I have like five or six and I'll go through them quick. I'm not going to belabor it, but it'll just kind of give you a flavor of what's out there of these privately owned kind of Taylor Karras type slides. But there are a bunch.

Is this the one? No. But maybe they're the largest included. Maybe those are the largest.

Some of 1 of them might say that the colony 1 is 1 of the larger ones. If you saw that 1, just off and I think it's where a bunch of students live. So that in your packet and then there's 2 of them in there. The Grand Terrace one. Yeah, this is the slideshow. They keep coming to our office. They want us to take over their system too. Okay, thank you. So here's the two questions we kind of, you asked, what did Provo City do for Quail Valley? And then other examples of the private lines. So what we did for Quail Valley, just a quick history. Remember the temple?

The church wanted to get rid of the street.

They paid us $150,000, $175,000 for it. We needed to buy property here to kind of shore up our Luther Station and make it good square property lines. So we bought property back from the church for $125,000. And then we had the excess of $50,000, and we applied that to Quail Valley. So we did give Quail Valley $50,000, but part of that is we kind of had cash on hand, you could say, you know what I mean, instead of taking it out of the budget. But that's what we did for Quail Valley. there's the resolution didn't the quail valley one also give us access to some fire hydrants that were private yeah we did take over their their hydrants also so we took a they had a bunch of upgrades right it was considered a huge asset as far as fire prevention and fire fighting if something happened in the foothill yeah you could say that we did take over the whole system of the fire hydrants were part of it um So then here's the examples of other privately owned utilities in streets. So this is the temple right here, the Rock Canyon Temple. So this is just called Cambridge Core. I highlight them all yellow, kind of where private and what's not private. That's just an example. Three fountains. These guys have come in also. They want us to take over their system. This is University Canyon Road. And that's, you know, the yellow is kind of where the water lines are. This is Grandview Manor. Like I said, they've come in to talk to us and want us to take over their system because they have leaks and problems and such. You know what I mean? Same idea. This is the colony. Ninth East is right over here. BYU students, you know, they have leaks and just different examples. This is one. This is the old Provo High School track. A couple of businesses are on it and then these apartments are on this private line.

That's interesting. Why is that one private? Like that's a weird mix.

Yeah, I would say because a lot of these are private streets like that. You know, these aren't city maintained streets. So a lot of times the private lines follow the private streets.

So is that whole thing owned by one person then?

I don't know. This is, and correct me if I'm wrong, Gordon and Ryan, but this is owned by like businesses. And then this is owned by like department complex. If we turned on parcels, it is not one big.

Oh, okay.

It is not one big thing.

That's unexpected.

This is one I found just over by Center Street. It was a Center Street exit. You know, and this one's tricky. It goes across. It looks like under the pool and across the yards and stuff. And then this one's behind Lakeview Elementary. So part of it is to show that, you know, maybe we're not setting a precedent today because they're so unique. Each one seems to be a little bit unique and a little bit different. you know, different than the other one. So those are just a few examples. And like you said, I probably, we probably have 30, 40. I didn't count how many we have out there. This is what we proposed, right? Talking to the HOA marks here from the HOA, the HOA president. We think the best idea is to follow our standard, get the water meters in the park strip, and then and then they can take their ladders to their homes in the city we've been talking i've talked to gordon mark and the city's okay if the council decides that we should perform the work from in our right away from the meter from the meter to the cans and then the hoa would take the cost of the can to the house and we did i didn't get it in time because we had to do a quick turnaround i did get a cost estimate and the cost estimate was roughly for the city and we would do it with our team our crews we wouldn't pay to do it right the cost estimate though from the contractor was like 60 000 for us and their portion was like 74 75 ish thousand so if you're looking at kind of percentage wise what is that 60 40 or something 40 for us 60 for them.

So would you be doing their work and they pay you back or would they be contract that that would all be them?

Yeah, they would contract themselves to do this. Our city crews would come out. They know how to set cans and they would do all the labor. We'd have to buy parts, but we would do all the labor ourselves. Our city crews would do all the labor ourselves.

And are those things that you would do, are they used by anyone else? Are they, are they, are they used, used as the city or through other

Yeah, everyone uses them. We all have cans and meters. Is that what you're asking, Patrice? There are parts that we do have, but we still order a lot of them because every house should have, other apartments have a can and a meter in your front yard. And so that's the kind of... I'm sorry.

No, I guess my question is, is that totally private infrastructure if no one else uses it but them? Or is it used in our whole system? Is it part of a bigger system?

We own to the can, so we would own the infrastructure we're building. So we don't need your hand. so every meter of the city wheel and then the can so it's probably yeah you guys have never heard that the can to that round thing if you open your lid there's like it looks it's just an empty and your meter's in there it looks like a pipe stuck in the ground a pit it's like a pit where you can work on things there's not dirt as a metal yeah okay so we would do these red circles yeah we do to the red circles including the red circles we would put in the meters yes which is great because yeah they're done right and then they would they would have a feeder's console here yep to the house so they'd have to fix the sidewalk right because they're going to tear up the sidewalk they'd have to fix all the the asphalt and you know they have to connect to the houses pick up the yard if they have to wherever it connects they would have to do all that from the city's perspective

Does this help you guys? Is this a benefit to have them set up traditionally as we do them?

Yeah, it is a benefit to have everything traditional. Because if it happens again, just like in your own personal house, if it breaks here, we guarantee it's them. They have to fix it. Our code says we own to the can, right? So it's a benefit, Gordon.

And the other part of that is if there's a leak, we're charging for the water of that thing. Because right now we have water going into the system that no one's paying for.

Yeah, because their meters are up here and the leaks here, right? Their meters are here.

Were we able to get any estimate on how much water that is, like even order of magnitude ballpark? We haven't looked at that.

Yeah, I haven't looked at it, to be honest with you.

Is it like substantial or miniscule? That's just kind of... Is it like someone's leaving their hose on all day? It's... We... Two flushes and we toilet it.

We don't want to lose any water through leaks and we have a ton of leaks all over the city, but in the scope of how much water we produce, how much we sell, it's not a lot, but the issue is not that just we have leaks. It's probably going to create some damage and some problems. We just don't like water not going where we want it to go. So there's a lot of issues with the water. Is it, um, these guys doing hundreds of millions of gallons of no.

not when you compare it to that it's awful from punishment yeah that that's all i have i can stay up here and answer questions but that's all i have okay we have a question from gary garrett

Yes, you said that so far two other developments, Grandview Manor and Three Fountains, have approached you about possibly taking over their water system.

They have approached us. They approached not me, but my fellow Shane.

So based on what you've proposed for this terrace, would that be a sustainable approach for these other developments?

well in terms of cost and budgeting and ryan's here he he knows maybe better but i'll speak ryan correct me if i'm wrong but well we don't know we haven't discussed taking it over too much but what would probably happen is we might end up taking this main line for grand view terrace i i don't know ryan what's your in in this case the

main roadway through this area is plowed as a public street. Okay. So most likely we'll take over the water line and the sewer line in the public street as a public utility.

Okay.

And then they would be responsible for everything behind the meters, like we typically do in all cases.

And on three fountains, I don't know, same idea, I don't know what we'd do. I don't know if we thought about it much or...

Yeah, we haven't looked into this one quite as much.

It's a good question.

And then, Lane, did I also read that with the current code, these kinds of private water systems are no longer allowed in developments? Or are these perpetuating?

We don't allow. We do sometimes. they propose something like this and we have to get uh an agreement what is it called utility agreement yeah private utility agreement and and then we use that going forward and say hey here's our agreement you agreed to this that if it breaks or something we're not helping you here so we don't we don't like it but when it comes push comes to shove and help someone out to develop we get a private utility agreement is buckley draw proposed to be private I don't think so. No, I don't believe so.

So I think, I think the other thing you see is, and I could be wrong, but I haven't seen any of these come through their private except their one property owner. So in other words, we see it for multifamily, whereas only one owner. Sure. I haven't really seen it in the town homes or any of the others. So I haven't seen it.

More like a flag lot, a home.

Yeah, a flag lot. Yeah, and they have a pretty good system. So the kind of things you're seeing here are not getting approved and no one's doing this kind of stuff. So we are not perpetuating this problem. I haven't seen anything like that.

Councilman Bobbin. Ms. Lane, back on the Grandview one and the others, if we take it over, they're going to have to be responsible for getting everything up to code before we take it over, correct?

Yes, that's what we proposed. Quail Valley, I'm looking at Gordon and Ryan, but I believe that's what we would propose, correct, Ryan and Gordon? That's what we would like to see.

I don't know that we're going to dig up every water main and verify. We may do spot checks. We would check the meters, fire hydrants, things like that before we take them home. But we're not going to dig up all the buried infrastructure.

But that's a good precedent we'd like to set, right? If we take something over, it needs to be to our standard.

Well, I thought that was what was in code, but I was just concerned with the city. I mean, we have enough of our own pipe that we have to replace, that we own. We all know that. We're responsible for that. They're responsible for theirs. So if we take theirs over, we need to make sure that it's up to par before we take it over, right? That's correct.

Because we're not taking over any pipe with this one we're looking at, correct?

No, we're not. And we're actually eliminating a problem pipe in the system by doing what we're recommending, putting the meters out on the curve.

All right. Do we want to do a motion to move it?

Go ahead, Jeff. I guess my one question, one of my upshots from the meeting last time was there's 20 to 30 similarly situated situations, 30 to 40. We've seen a couple here, which I think is helpful. One of the things that I felt like was one of the primary things that we were interested in was like, what are the guiding principles or a framework for how to handle these? And I'm kind of missing that still a little bit. Like, it seems like what I'm hearing is it's sort of one-off basis, or maybe there is a guiding principle of like, we'll just take it to do the minimum we can to take, to connect it to the main. Anyway, just like that, that sort of articulation I think would be helpful so that we're seeing this as like a broader policy discussion rather than like a one-off, you know, we have to deal with this situation. And then I just want to flag that like, you know, if there's 30 to 40 and a hundred thousand dollars each, you know, we're talking three to $4 million. So kind of like liability of precedence we're setting. And so just want to make sure we're comfortable with that.

okay so i don't know is there is there any kind of like could you articulate like i can just take this i can take a shot i would say like like council person um bogdan said that you know if it's something like this that they bring it up to our standard like we did with quail valley type thing and then um try to do the work that the work that we're doing keep it within our right-of-ways and stuff i do think they'll still be unique situations along the way also. I think it'll be difficult to set parameters for everything, but that's what I'd say the initial parameters would be. I don't know if Gordon or Ryan want to weigh in on anything. Mark, the HOA president wants to say something. Is that okay? I'm not in charge.

I think isn't the ordinance like from the past couple years that Quail Valley operated under, isn't that the framework? How these things are considered and addressed?

Yeah, which is bring them up to standard, right?

Yeah. I don't know if that answers all of our questions.

I mean, I think the caveat there is it's bring them up to standard unless you ask the council to appropriate money, which is what's happening here. And you're trying to say, what are the principles that are going to guide the principal in answering that question every time?

That's exactly what I meant. And I felt like we asked for the last time. Yeah. um yeah because i again i know you're new to the situation i don't want to be really tough here but i'm just thinking like So I'm part of an HOA board and, you know, we collect our fees and we have a reserve fund and, you know, I think we have a pretty good HOA board. And like, I think we are very cognizant of the various liabilities we take on, but the second order effect here is it's like, Hey, you know, you underfund your situation for a long time. Then you come to a city for an appropriation. I'm not saying that's what you're doing.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I do think you bring up some good points because there's 30 or 40 of these or maybe even more. They're all hitting an age where we're starting to see that they want to be taken over. And I think some of them are shocked to find out that they own these systems. And so I'm not saying good or bad or justifying or not justifying, but I do think the council put that ordinance into place about four years ago we're trying to think about how that applies not just for the city taking them in but also what the potential cost would be in doing this and it's it's all over the place because we've seen some of these we have a a mobile home park that is complete disaster and it would be more than a million dollars to fix just that place and it's continual leaking and we have others that are just that we can continue the path we're doing or we can look for a solution the path may be the right what we're doing may be the right thing let it leak um it goes to the meter first, then we're probably okay. But those are some of the things that we're, I'm not saying good or bad. So these are so unique and each one of these are so different that we try to look at a policy, oh man, we don't want to do that yet. stay reasonable and not break the bank as we deal with these bits. People are going to start demanding to do something. I don't know what the right call is yet. We did. This would be number two. I suspect you'll see these every other year popping in.

Because you're in your feeling there's like a cohort of time where this was a really common way of doing things.

Yeah.

And that cohort is aging to the place where this is going to be a common problem.

Yeah. So you guys will be able to make some really I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.

AND THIS CAME UP LAST TIME TOO. WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THE CITY SHOULD COVER A PENNY OF THE NORMAL COST AT ANY OF US. I THINK YOU MENTIONED YOUR STEWART LINE. EACH OF US, YEAH, NO FUND. BUT WE'RE SEEING of a water line from your house to the city meter but because of legacy infrastructure problems from 50 years ago that none of us were going to the city well i can't say wants to the city could take the portion of bringing the meters up to code for us so i just want to make sure that that's clear we're not asking the city to cover any costs that they just normally have to run or repair a water line out to the street so thank you

Okay, any other discussion, Councilor Whipple?

Yeah, so it sounds like for some of these, if the plan would be to take over those private utilities as a public one, it looks like it's going along a roadway and everything. We're not crossing through a big HOA common area as we are in this particular instance. So just the geography of these different projects means they're situated differently. So I think some sort of a policy would need to take that into account. Like how easy is it to shift it over to be a public system? How much of this pipe needs to go through what would still be HOA or common space? Does that help define the difference here a little more? I still don't know what the answer is. Well, they're private, so they're still all private.

Yeah. I mean, how I'm seeing the decision before us today, again, people could see it differently, is not should we spend $100,000 in this particular place? It's should we commit to doing $3 million of infrastructure work for the city, for everyone? Because I think that's really because I don't think we could then we could say yes to one and say no to the next. And is that benefit for the city? I think that's the decision.

Yeah. I think they are each individual. Yeah. And they suggested that the only reason people would ask us to take it over is because they are experiencing some sort of failure.

Yeah. And then I think there's externalities to that failure. I wish we could quantify those a little better, but there clearly are consequences and risks of leaking water underground.

Yeah. And do we want to help pay to address the failures of their system? And in this one, we've got kind of cost-sharing things. That does make sense, more or less, in this case. But is that what we want to always have to do?

Yeah.

Well, a sinkhole. I mean, if it's a sinkhole, we definitely don't want that liability.

Exactly. That's what I was trying to get at. Because it's a very obvious decision if there's that kind of risk.

Right. And the sinkhole occurring on the HOA property is different than a sinkhole occurring in the safe street.

Yeah. And if we take over an ill-maintained system and we have ownership of it, then all of a sudden there's a sinkhole because it's been leaking for years. I don't want that liability. I think that liability needs to be within HOA.

Well, and water moves too. So even if the leak is within the private property, that doesn't necessarily mean that's where the damage is going to occur, which is the fun part of it.

All right, is this going to come up for a vote? Wayne?

Well, I think only if the council makes a motion to move it forward. Move it forward to a council meeting. This would have to come to a council meeting or it can be resolved here.

So let me ask you, if we're using our forces and it's not allocating funds. I'm talking to Brian right now. I'm having a sidebar.

Not that I don't want to come back next week, next time I see the council, but I'm just seeing if this is staff or if this is ... Generally speaking, the way the code is written is that if money needs to be appropriated in order for the property to be brought up to code, then they have to come to council for the appropriation. If there's no appropriation needed, then that probably is not, at that point, a council decision.

So right now, we got the price, so you kind of get a relative idea of what manpower labor funding could be attributed to it. But we could do this with our own. Right now, I'm tending to do this with our own forces. So I'm not, I'm just suggesting maybe we pull something off your agenda in two weeks. But I'm not, that was Brian's suggestion. I'm all of the city attorneys.

I would second that. Would you third it?

okay i mean not to me there's a difference between you know uh using existing capacity that are existing full-time costs versus an additional appropriation through contractor but i don't want this to be done that you're not aware of it because like this is going to come back multiple times and we won't always have the option to use our own forces because the projects will be larger and so From our standpoint, we want to have the well run so it doesn't have a lot of leaks, whether it's private side or public side or anything. We take it all personally. We probably don't need to come back. We'll probably move forward if everybody's nodding that way. I don't know if it needs to be a vote.

Brian, do we have some kind of a thing that releases us of any liability for any damage that was done? Like, if there's a single that comes up, well, we took it over.

I mean, we did that last time with quail value and I would say that we do need to do it again. Now that part of in addition to the administrative review by public works and development services and everybody else of what it takes. there is an agreement that needs to be signed in order to actually take ownership of the private property. And that agreement is going to include identification and whole harmless provisions.

But we're not technically taking over anything, right? Not anymore, yeah. We're doing it standard of what we do on everything now. They're keeping it all.

Yeah, that's true. But I think there is still an issue that Gordon and I probably need to talk about afterwards online. But if we are doing work in exchange for something, if we're doing work that we wouldn't just normally schedule and do, I think we need to think through how do we document that. So I don't think that's terribly complicated.

I think it's basically . And it wouldn't involve the spotting.

No. I mean, but I think it's a good question to raise here because I think really what it amounts to is Gordon, you and I need to talk before you send out that. I will sit down and talk to trench diggers.

I guess my question for you, Brian, is like totally if this is 100% administrative side doesn't require an appropriation. That's how our system of government works. I don't think we need to do anything. But but is it helpful in case there is some costs above and beyond that line, like for us to have an item and vote on it?

Well, I mean, I think that as I view it, I think that is up to Public Works in the sense that if they're going to ask you for money, that money is going to come from outside of the budget because they're not supposed to be under the way that chapter is written right now. They're not supposed to be.

More than $50,000.

The complication here is they're not actually taking ownership of something. They're not supposed to be spending money out of their budget in order to take ownership of something without coming and asking you for that money and you voting on an appropriation. So I would say it sounds like they have a plan where they don't need to do that. If at any point that changes, they need to schedule a hearing in an evening meeting for the appropriation of whatever money they want. Does that answer your question?

Yeah, it does. And can't they ask, can't they not shuffle around more than $50,000 or something without... Well, yeah, there's a $50,000 limit in the budget

uh resolution about how they do uh cip things i don't remember now exactly what it says but that is in the budget ordinance about how they make changes to the cip plan uh which again that have to come to you if they were going to change the cip plan all right so you guys will take this offline and we'll go yeah okay but this has still been useful for us to have a heads up about an issue that's in our city so not wasted time at all And if the council has any concerns about, I guess, to lay out the future, if you have concerns about how this one's being handled, we could always change the ordinance that governs the process.

Well, thank you. Thanks, Lane.

Thanks, Lane.

All righty. Number three, a discussion regarding the Best for Amphitheater Project Development Agreement. This will be presented to us by Tanner Suguchi. Is it you, Brian? It's just both. Okay. We're going to hear from Brian Jones, his attorney.

Tanner told me he was ready to step in if I needed to run to the restroom.

In your 90 minute.

But I figured I would. All right. Do you have the slideshow that I sent Kevin?

Okay.

So I sent Kevin a slideshow a few minutes ago. It's mostly just the agreement split into slides, which makes it easier to read than trying to see the PDF of the agreement. uh so we'll bring that up so uh like approving anybody buckled up ready for 90 minutes of development agreement hopefully i'm hoping it'll be faster than that but it's going to depend more on your questions and policy decisions than it is on presentation itself presentation is fairly easy let's see let me make sure i know how to Okay, so the intent here, let me give a couple introductory remarks before we go forward. And we've split the development agreement and the real estate purchase agreement, which I'll often refer to as the REPC addendum into two separate agenda items. We're going to go through the development agreement first, then I think there's a break before we go over the REPC addendum. There are The intent here is that this is a presentation of the latest draft, and there have been various drafts circulating. One of them was seen at the Planning Commission meeting. And the intent here is to present to you in detail the current draft of what's been proposed for you to approve in the case of the development agreement in line with the rezone. There's been an application for a rezone, that application proposes a development agreement and you're being asked to follow our normal process of approving the rezone contingent upon execution of the development agreement. It's just that this development agreement is much more detailed and in-depth than you're used to seeing. So we're gonna go through it and make sure that you understand everything about it and that anything you want changed, that we get changed before you're voting. So that's really the intent. Now, having said that, What my hope is that as we go through this, and we're going to go through kind of slide by slide, section by section, my hope is that as you want things changed, that you make motions about the things that you want changed. Because it can be very difficult to try to take seven persons' individual feedback and turn that into a draft. So if there's something in any one of these sections that you think is not the way that you would want it, what i'm counting on is that you are going to make a motion and we're going to find out if the majority of the council wants it changed the same way that you do any questions about that when we get started okay let's dig in so uh i'm going to start the development agreement i'm not going to go through every single paragraph i will later with the repc but the first two pages of the development agreement are just some recitals about the which property we're talking about um and it's all standard boilerplate stuff The substantive part of the agreement that starts on page two, paragraph one just references the recitals above. Paragraph two talks about the zoning. Paragraph three is the first one where there's been some questions, okay? So paragraph three is the governing standards. And there's two things I want to point out about this. Most of this falls right in line with our standard template. There's two different, well, actually, there's only one difference. One of the things that has come up in some of the previous discussions is this phrase here, all developer submittals must comply generally with the concept plan. There's been some critique publicly of the word generally. I will say this is what our template says. Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about it because what the sentence says is submittals must generally comply. every submittal is still going to get reviewed by our entire process for compliance with the development agreement and compliance with the code, and they won't be approved unless they comply. So this is the standard sentence out of our template about the fact that they need to follow the concept plan when they're submitting applications.

Okay. On that note, the concept plan, you mentioned in the email that since the planning commission denied it, there is no concept plan.

Well, I mentioned that there isn't one that goes back to the Planning Commission. So the concept plan, and I was going to get to this in another slide, but it's a good point to make right now. The concept plan will be an exhibit to the development agreement. It's currently listed as exhibit B to the development agreement. as some of you have pointed out and some of the public pointed out the current draft does not have the current concept plan in it i spoke with brian about this this morning and vespa is essentially waiting to get all the feedback that they get from this meeting to incorporate into a new site plan that will be the exhibit b that will be that will be in the development agreement that comes to you when it's time to vote so a planning commission will be approving it but we would be approving it in our vote of a zone change correct And then the next thing that would go back to planning commission, assuming that everything proceeds as normal is the project plan. Would go would go to planning commission as they were looking for permits and for the project to proceed forward.

Oh, okay. So even after whatever we do, a project plan still goes with planning commission. And they can make changes and what could.

But the project plan is just reviewed in accordance with code and now the development. So planning commission's review would be, does this project plan comply with the code and does it comply with the development agreement? Okay. Exactly. The other...

Okay, Becky, I'm sorry. Oh, yes. Counselor Bond. So the one thing that I know some of the people that I've talked to, they're really concerned about the parking garage, making sure that it blends in and it's set back the way that it is in the current concept plan. They don't want it out right by the road. How much leeway does Bill have where that's actually located? Can they stick it if the concept plans everything's approved and then it comes that there's a fault line right through that parking garage area, could they move it next to the road or is there like 20% around where it goes?

Great question. So the concept plan that's going to be approved in the development agreement is going to have a site plan that's going to show where the buildings go. That's going to be binding except as modified by this paragraph. So this says non-material variations Actually, this is skipping a sentence, sorry. There's a sentence before this that's not shown on the slide that says, non-material variations to the concept plan may be approved by the city's development services director without city council or planning commission approval. That's why this definition of non-material is so important because that's the discretion that Bill has to deviate from the exhibit.

What is non-material?

And that's what's defined right here. Non-material variations include alterations to building footprint locations and pedestrian walkways, adjustments to accommodate engineering specifications, locations of open space and parking, updated architectural designs and features of similar quality, and other such modifications so long as such variations do not material change permitted uses or the overall design and development standards of the project. Now, before I answer your question more, I'm going to go to the next slide. Because this is what I just read to you. This is actually what's in our template. So this is where we usually start from. this is what the developer has proposed, which is more expansive than our normal, right? Because under our normal template, um the only but the developer can or sorry the development services director can has discretion over exact building locations and exact locations of open space and parking now those are exactly the ones that you were just talking about so that was still included in our um in our overall template right um but they can't choose they can't change density use and intensity so again we can narrow that down uh as much as we need to as and as much as is feasible i think it's at some point whether it's now or later during the q a we'll probably hear from the developer about how concrete the plan can be at this moment but if what you're specifically worried about is the parking garage One option is also to have a specific provision about the location of the parking garage, even if other things are still modifiable, if that makes sense.

Councillor Whittemore. I understand that a full geotechnical study has not been done and things may need to be shifted within the site to accommodate that. But I like that in our template, Bill has the authority to

approve that and in the current thing it doesn't look like bill's approval is necessary well i'm sorry it's in the sentence that i read that isn't on the slide it's still it's still bill's decision to make any to approve any deviations from any non-material variations from the concept

says it may be approved by the city's development services director right when he gets to another one of our little meaning meaning that if he doesn't approve it it's he does not to approve it and he's not required okay when it says since we've taken out no they can't change the maximum density but we already have that another provision that the maximum density is right right so why what was that important to remove that i don't know i that uh we'd have to ask

the developer and i'm assuming that they don't let me be clear what is that matching density well again the reason why this is in the in the development agreement in the first place the reason why it's in our in our template is because 95 of the times that we're doing one of these it's we're talking about a residential project where the zone allows 50 units per acre and we don't want it to be more than 25 and so this that phrase is in here to say If the development agreement says you can't do more than 25 units per acre, the development services director cannot change that. That's what it's in there for. So given this project, what would we consider maximum density? I don't know that there really is a maximum density in this project because there's no residential units and the parking, the hotel, and the amphitheater all have individual caps on their size and the commercial space has its own individual cap as well.

Let's take the amphitheater. The maximum density according to this is 20,000 seats. Correct. Does that mean 20,000 attendees or 20,000 seats? That's a great question. You could have open up several thousand people with grass seeding or whatever.

Okay, so to that, which is in one of the later slides, that's been one of the questions that's asked, and it was in the materials. Malia and Tanner prepared questions that were sent to Vesper. They sent back answers. One of the answers to that was that they will not allow seeding on the grass area and that they're fine to put that in the development agreement, although it's not there yet. So maximum density for that would be 20,000 individuals. Correct. Any other questions about this particular paragraph? Can you see why I stood with 90 minutes? Okay. So this is, so section four is about the permitted uses. There's been a lot of discussion about this, but this goes through and it says that Pursuant to the agreement, they can do the indoor-outdoor amphitheater venue on a year-round basis. Notwithstanding whatever else the SC3 zone says, they can only do the following things, the venue, public assemblies, plaza activities, the hotel of up to 75 rooms, ancillary commercial and retail uses, which I'll talk about in just a second, underground parking, temporary stadiums. These are the only uses permitted on the property. with, and you probably have questions, but I'll skip ahead. I'll go ahead to this before we take the questions, which is this definition of and slowly use. So let me back up. Back here where it says ancillary commercial and retail uses compatible with the amphitheater use. That's modified by this, which means it has to be incidental, subordinate, integrated with the amphitheater, the hotel, guest service, food and beverage, et cetera. Only permitted if the amphitheater has been completed and is active use, so they can't Build the other stuff.

That was one of my questions. So the amphitheater has to be built and usable before they can use the hotel or the commercial space.

The commercial space, yes. I don't think as currently written that this prevents the hotel from being used. So ancillary uses may be constructed concurrently with the construction of the venue and the hotel, but the uses are only permitted if the venue is completed and in use, but the hotel is not one of the ancillary uses. So the hotel could operate first, as currently written. Are there questions about that? And then just some legal speak to say, even though that we have to record those uses on the property and that those are the only uses permitted in perpetuity. Okay, Councilor Buck.

Is this the one that caps the commercial that it can only be like 100?

No, that is... Okay, so that's a little bit later.

Okay, then I'll wait for my question.

Okay, as long as we're getting to it, I had put this in to Councilor Christensen's question a few minutes ago. This was something that VESPR had put in the materials that were distributed earlier, which was both that they're willing to add to the development agreement the ban on the grass seeding and also to specifically specify that a tram is not a permitted use. My view wouldn't be anyway because it's not in the list, but because there were some concerns raised about it, they said we're fine to put in explicitly that it's prohibited.

Can I just mention?

Yeah.

Brian.

Can you stand up to the microphone though?

Yeah. Brian Halas with Vesper Development. I don't, I think, You've kind of mentioned a few different ideas. The idea is that 20,000 can't be exceeded. And that's the commitment that we're making here. It's not that we can't see people on the grass. So as long as we're below the 20, exactly. Yeah, it's the 20 is the cap. And so we could still see people on the grass if we chose to do that. We haven't made that decision yet, but the 20,000 is

All right, so then getting on to, well, let's see, we're still not quite to Becky's question yet, but we'll get there. So I guess my slides skipped over. My slides skip over section five. Section five is the height standards. So as you may recall, structures can't exceed three stories or 50 feet, even though the SC3 zone allows higher, except for the specific theatrical rigging fly loft, which can be up to 125. Okay, so now we're up to Becky's question, which is, these are the caps. So 20,000 seats, so we'll clarify this, that that means 20,000 people, not 20,000 seats plus other area. 75 rooms for the hotel. And then there's this cap of 150,000 square feet on aggregate square footage of commercial uses. That is listed here as total gross glory of merchandise, restaurant, food and beverage, guest service, event support, administrative operations, other projects serving building areas. So that's what's included at the moment. Doesn't include the amphitheater or the hotel. or the parking.

Okay. So that 150,000 square feet is not the hotel and that is not the amphitheater and that is not parking.

Correct.

So it was brought up that Riverwoods is what, 180,000 square feet? So this is a mall with a hotel and a concert venue. Why would you need 150,000 square feet Why would you need a will less than a river would expect?

Like, yeah, I would like to really specify that it is going to be the only retail could be, well, besides the food retail, that's those old things. But the merchandise for the artists performing and then sundries, right? Like band-aids or whatever for... like a convenient thing for like, because people are going to pick up their biking and hiking and doing their stuff and like, that'd be great. But it does, like, people are worried it's going to be a mall. They keep saying a mall. It's not going to be a mall. I don't think anyone intends it to be a mall. But I think we need to make that clear.

And I had a conversation with Brian a couple times about this over the last, over the, since Thursday. And Essentially, I think, as I understand it, and I'll let them speak for themselves here in a second, but I think the thought process was, because if you look at this,

including retail and operations.

And then they list essentially everything that's not the hotel, the venue, and the parking. So as I understand it, the idea was not to say we can build 150,000 feet of commercial. It was to say we can build 150,000 square feet of everything else and then their concept plan shows what those things are but there have been a lot of concerns expressed about that and i think that's something so i don't know if this would be a good time to invite them to address that

Okay, Council Whipple. Yeah, I mean, partly on the retail facing side, you're going to want that spread out because if you have a lot of people there, they can't all go to one little bodega size thing. So I think that's one portion of it. And on sales, I want to be able to like buy a Vesper t-shirt or something just like you could at Sundance, right? That would be part of their centuries, I would expect, is their own brand thing as well as the artist things. But what I'm wondering is, this operations would this include like the area where you've got like the loading base where you've got the performers and their big trailers coming in to unload their equipment and everything up like that seems like that would be operations and i think that would take up a lot of space so i don't expect that all of this aggregate square footage ends up being consumer facing or client facing probably some portion of it is back in and they may be able to tell her what that percentage would be

And one of the conversations that I had with him over the weekend is that, because I know there's been a lot of concern about this, is maybe this definition is so broad it needs to be split up into two categories itself.

It absolutely does. I mean, that tells me nothing. People's concern is small up there, and they have every right to be concerned. So if it really is a part of what we talked about at the very beginning with some merch, that's a costco of merch um that doesn't make sense so if that's not what's meant we got to specifically call out x number of feet maximum in retail square footage that that would be helpful for me okay council whitlock

Yeah, just a related question. I think the language in the previous slide that you said, and we'll talk about this in a minute, it was like associated.

Well, the ancillary uses. And so yes, you're right that, again, if we go, because the two work in conjunction. So the square footage limitation is not the only limitation. They also have to abide by the permitted uses. And under that, any retail that did not meet this definition would not be permitted, no matter what the size was. They couldn't build 10 square feet of retail that doesn't meet this definition, let alone 150,000 square feet. Which is not to say that it may not still be useful to be more granular about that square footage.

Could you give me lawyer to layman translation of that C term, of what that defines? Of the ancillary uses? Yeah.

So, yeah, good question. Because a lot of these are uses that we do use all the time. So essentially, if... I think probably the layman's way of defining incidental, subordinate, integrated with is any retail that if the venue wasn't there, wouldn't be there, is not permitted. Does that kind of make sense? If you're not building the retail

because you built the amphitheater it would not be permitted could i give you a couple of cases and you can interpret it for me yeah so a restaurant at the hotel well that's not even that's already got a different that's already explicitly uh permitted in a different cause okay yeah what about a uh a bunch of restaurants that are not explicitly associated with hotel

This explicitly allows restaurants. So at the moment, there's no ...

But those don't have to be explicitly connected to the hotel and how it's written? No. So you could, for example, have a Riverwoods of restaurants and bars up there. Is that permitted according to this?

You theoretically could have up to 150,000 square feet of restaurants and bars. Okay. All right.

I just want to make sure I'm understanding this. Thank you.

Councilor Whipple.

Yeah. So I'm wondering, guest services, does that also include restrooms? How many square feet of restrooms are you going to have to provide if you're going to host 20,000 people?

And that is one of the, when Brian and I have talked about this before, the restrooms are included in the 150,000 square feet. But again, that kind of goes to the, at least in my view, the idea of that category being so broad that it would be better if it was at least two categories instead of just one.

Yeah. because it looks like we've got, you know, back end operations included in this. We've got absolutely necessary guest services that have to be there for this facility to work. And then you will have retail and these more commercial things that are going to fit in after you've hit those mandatory things for the project. But we don't know what those percentages are.

Actually, they do.

They do. Well, I mean,

That looks like on the slide.

We are people who are emailing us. And so that's why we need to talk about this and have it clearly out and open.

Would it be appropriate to have Brian address this slide now that he just put up? Yeah. That'd be great. Go ahead, Brian.

Okay. So thank you for these good questions. These are really important questions that we want to make sure we're being as explicitly clear as we possibly can be. And it's exactly what Brian said. So there are caps on everything in this project. So the amphitheater has a cap. The restaurant has a cap, and so we've kind of looked at the restaurant cap as anything that's associated with the restaurant is included in that cap. So we've got the amphitheater, we've got the restaurant, and then we've got separately a parking cap. So you can see those three caps up at the top. And then we said, okay.

What do you mean hotel cap?

Yeah, hotel, the rooms, the number of rooms. That's exactly right. I'm sorry. I meant hotel. Yeah. The restaurant would be included in the additional square footage. And we heard loud and clear. It's like we were very concerned. about this turning into a mall. So we specifically said in the uses, a mall is not a permitted use. So that's one way that we said, no, that's not our intent, and we're willing to put that commitment in writing. And then the second way, we felt like this was kind of a belt and suspenders approach, It wasn't, Greg, that we have the approval to go do a Costco. It's the idea that we wanted to provide some context to say we can't just go do whatever we want up there. In addition to not being able to do them all explicitly, we wanted to give some context to say, hey, we right now are planning on an additional 111 square feet of retail space. Admittedly, there's a lot of things that we have yet to do in terms of design in the back house. And there's always things that are changing. If you look at recently at amphitheaters, one of the big changes that's happened recently in the last five years, and you know amphitheaters, and you've probably seen this, is the VIP use of an amphitheater is significantly higher than an older amphitheater. So we kind of said, hey, look, we're going to be building this thing in the next three years. We want to give ourselves some love. We don't want him to come back to the city to have this conversation again. And so here we think 150 is a reasonable amount of space. And here are the uses that we're currently anticipating to get us to that 111 square footage. So we've got food and beverage at 21,000. That would include a restaurant. We've got a merchandise subtotal, which again, Like Ifris was saying, this is not a major component of the project, but we kind of bucketed everything else at this 150 because we didn't have any other way of kind of breaking it down. So we said, okay, merchandise, we've got performer spaces subtotal. This is a number that we could see flexing pretty dramatically. Operations and support subtotal. I mean, that's the size of a pretty big retail store, but that's just our maintenance. We've got to have a place to store, you know, our snow scraping equipment and our, you know, landscaping and some of those things. So restrooms subtotal, circulation and support subtotal, MEP, that's mechanical engineering, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing infrastructure. So like anything that we had, we just jumped it in there. Now, if we didn't do this well enough, we're happy to take your feedback, but this was our way to say this is a belt. The belt being we can't do them all. And the suspenders being, here's a breakdown of what the square footage was. So we felt like we were being very explicit. And the additional language that provided an ancillary commercial, we felt like really clarified that it has to be directly connected. It couldn't be a VESPAI that we decided to put up there. That's not directly connected to anything we're doing at VESPR. So again, if there's a better way to do that for the council, we are very much open to your suggestions, but we felt like this was over and above.

So what I've proposed a couple of times, and I don't know, and maybe this isn't even enough granularity for the council, but having seen this slide before, if it were me, I would divide the 150,000 into this group and this group. Yes. And maybe these numbers all go up to total 150 instead. So they've got some wiggle room. I don't think we necessarily need to pin them down to wiggle room. But I would divide these two into their own category and this into a separate category. And I think that would address most of the issues that I've heard so far.

Yeah, I agree. That's great. And is this something, so you'd put this in agreement? It's not part of the concept plan. It would be part of the agreement.

Right. OK. Should we make a motion on that? I would love one. Trying to follow your feedback.

We're going to make a motion, what Brian just said, to put together into two categories, the ancillary commercial in categories of food and beverage and merchandise as well. And then the other category will be the performer spaces, operations, restrooms, circulation, and MEP infrastructure.

I'll second that.

All right. Seconded by Jeff. Any discussion on that piece of it?

um yeah i just want to be clear so the numbers that they put in i think represent the core and so they've defined the floor for each of those categories right now they haven't defined what the ceiling is because the general overall ceiling is 150. oh i see because it's one right well i think they can do it up to 150 in those two categories yes

Well, actually, no. That's what we just got done talking about.

If they said, well, we actually don't need that space, we just need... Well, not $150 each, but the two combined go up to $150 with specific tax. Again, speaking just for myself, I'm anticipating that this number is not going to be 27, it's probably going to be 32. I think all of these numbers will go up somewhat proportionally to reach $150,

there will be a number for these two and a number for these schools is what i'm yes contemplating yes right that way we wouldn't be adding just another um 39 000 to food and beverage to get up to the one right right right okay all right should we take a vote on that then okay counselor bogdan yes counselor whitlock

yes councillor mckay yes councillor christensen yes councillor barrett yes i almost called on you councillor whipple yes and do we have travis still yes was there anything so that past 7-0 was there anything else we decided before taking a vote that you were concerned about i swear one more thing well that was uh well i guess

The one that comes to mind is I am anticipating, even though you didn't make a motion on it, I am anticipating that we will incorporate what they have already offered about the 20,000 seat limit and about the no tram thing. Since those were already proposals by them, I'm just assuming that we're gonna incorporate those even though you didn't vote on it. Those are the only things that I've heard so far that the council affirmatively wants changed.

Well, there's not the moving to the parking, that the park...

Well, okay. Now that's a good question because there wasn't a motion on that. So, uh, there were some opinions expressed, but if we, oh, you got to go back to mine. Yeah. Can you go back to mine?

That is one of the big sellers on the parking is that hidden rock natural. Yeah.

Invisible parking. Yeah.

So there wasn't a motion to change any of this. Now let me actually go forward a little bit. I'm going to skip.

Would it be more appropriate to say that there's no buildings or structures within, because that still is a parking lot, but it's got to be screened by heavy vegetation and there's nothing within like, I don't know, 40 feet of the road or something like that?

those are all possibilities uh you know bill would have to bill could discuss already what's already in the code that would apply to that the other thing that occurs to me is maybe instead of changing paragraph three and somebody remind me after i get done with this that we skipped seven and i gotta go back to seven but um there's this paragraph in it already which is about designing materials and based on counselor bogdan's comments about what her concern is one possibility might be to add more language to this paragraph about the parking garage, and where it specifies something about, I don't know, I'll rely on Bill and probably the developers to think about how to actually say it, but that the parking structure has to be enclosed and make designs.

Yes, because that I would consider material. Yeah. That issue I think would be material to most of us. Yes, I agree.

Okay. We go with that or do you need a motion?

uh i actually have a quick question as a question i'm not opposed to it but i just to help me understand a little better is like so the the agreement caps the parking does have a minimum amount of part it has a minimum two correct there's no minimum but there is a minimum required by city my city because one one out of four so it's Say that again. Anyway, sorry. Keep going.

Yeah. Yeah. There's a minimum that's going to be required by city code. We don't know what that number is yet because we don't have a final plan to base that number off of my recollection is that Aaron said last time it was around 5,500. Yes, more or less, but we don't know for sure.

That was my understanding. So there's an effective minimum. My question is on this motion is like, when you look at the cap of the 15 acres, the effective minimum parking, the site layout, like, is there really any other place they could actually put the, like, I don't know. I'm just wondering, like,

Bill could probably speak to that better than I can.

I mean, they're going to have to put a garage somewhere or else they can't meet the Rubik's cube of problems.

Yeah. Right. Exactly. If the technical state says they can't build the garage, then that's the death of the project, really. Because there's no way to meet the standards.

Because you can't build a parking structure on a fault. The parking structure is not an occupied building. It's more expensive if you're going to build it on top of a fault, but you can do that.

Yeah. Oh, man. The insurance for that, if all of those things collapsed on those cars...

The representation for me is that the attractiveness about putting the parking structure where they proposed is that material they'll take out of there is helpful to build the rest of the development. But if you're worried about that issue, to me, put a setback on the parking structure. It can't be within 100 feet of the road. That's what you're worried about. Why did you all of a sudden do that? We do not want 100 foot or 150 foot setback on the parking structure.

And in the current plan, how far would that structure be from the road? Because what we'd be doing is constraining how much closer it could get if it's necessary to shift it, right? Because I don't think it's planned to be closer to the road than that. Yeah, it's right there.

Well, conceptually, no. Reality. Right.

Yeah.

And I don't know that, I guess I would say this in the interest of, because I know there's a lot of details and we're going to have to work some stuff out, but I don't know that we necessarily have to determine every number in this meeting, but for example, with this one, if somebody were to make a motion saying, in consultation with development services, we want there to be in the development agreement a setback on the parking structure from the road, then that gives us the direction we know we need to go work that out.

So Bill, what about the screening? What about the plants on the road? What's their code say there?

The SC3 design doesn't add a lot in terms of screening because this site generally will sit above the road, right? It's just that change in elevation and landscaping that will take place between the road and the first parking. That's going to provide pretty good screening anyway, but there is a section on that.

The pictures they put forth for the screen look amazing. Is that part of the concept plan? Is that something that can be voted on?

That has to be maintained.

together with the concept and this paragraph also again uh talks about both screen and it also talks about integration site i mean again not opposed to any clarity that the council wants but frankly between this paragraph and the concept plan i don't think that bill could put the parking structure on the other side of the property because it's got to be integrated into the into the topography i have one other fault question related to this

line of discussion so the and it could be related to what we're just talking about but like the the documentation permits the underground parking lot but i didn't see anywhere where like explicitly requires it is that because it's implied by the it's implied it's implied by the it's implied by the con by the

This combined with the minimum limit.

So, yeah, it was kind of what I was saying before is like, but couldn't they do above ground? Like, why would that be?

But then we've got the height limit cap.

So is that where the operatives?

That's a good question, Bill. If they, I mean, if they build... 15 acres of three-story parking, how many parking spaces could they get? I don't know the answer to that. Sorry. That's just my question around this whole... Well, again, if that's what you want in there, again, this is your agreement. I'm happy to put anything in here you want. I just didn't know what it is.

Well, again, I think this is material because part of what we're trying to do is preserve the aesthetics. And everyone agrees on aesthetics until the invoice comes due. So that's the rub. I would feel much more comfortable if we were very clear about, because everything we've heard so far is subterranean parking. So I'm anticipating, in fact, until we actually got this, I hadn't even realized, oh my goodness, this could actually end up know as tall as it can get in a place where you don't want to look at it because that's more so we're trying to balance it i would feel more comfortable if we actually specified subterranean parking want to make a motion yeah i'll make a motion that but yeah here's here's the challenge i i don't know specifically what was the motions made i think i i specifically don't know i i don't know the specifics other than yeah let's do subterranean all right well you got two or what did i do it's not all subterranean it goes well i know but i I don't even know how to make a motion here.

Let's think through it because the proposal is to have the 15 acres of surface parking and a subterranean essentially garage that may come up a little bit, but it's tucked in somehow. But they've also got in the proposal that if that ends up not being enough parking and they need to build up, that they would take one of the surface lots and put a second layer above it. And so are you opposed to like a double decker parking area?

I prefer not to have that. I would prefer to put as much in the ground as we can to preserve the aesthetics of the entrance of the plane. So those aesthetics are important to me.

Because that sounded like they were going to do sort of like a split level situation where they'd go down four feet and so it would be up a little bit. I think that could be screened in a way incorporated, but I don't know. And the real question is, If you're okay with that kind of expansion, would you want to limit that and say, well, you absolutely can't do two layers?

The best representations to this point are that we're going to have a lot of this subterranean. It's one thing if a good chunk of it is subterranean and then whatever kind of, you don't need 8,000, you actually need 10. Okay, that's different than, let's put in minimal subterranean, which is also more expensive. And then we start putting in double deckers everywhere there's parking.

That to me, that's a different- The real idea is that you couldn't do double decker on the surface parking if you haven't already built the subterranean.

Yes, and I don't know how to articulate the subterranean.

Yeah, well, I think at this point, I thought, sorry, I thought you had a motion already in mind. I think at this point, it's probably actually useful to hear from the developer. And they've heard your concerns now. I think it'd be useful for them to stand up and say, here's what we think we can commit to that would address the concerns we've heard. The one thing I will say before Brian stands up is that at one point, we had actually talked about having a percentage of subterranean and a percentage of surface, we went with this. The 15 acres of surface was intended to mean the same thing, we just didn't put them both in. We could always go back to that model, but Brian.

Yeah. Can we just back up maybe a couple of steps? I think these are all really important questions to consider. the project from the original 10,000 cap to the 8,000. And then I think the biggest change that's happened in the last probably three weeks has been this idea, well, not three weeks, probably been a month and a half now, but just the offsite parking. So that's not really a concept that we really even considered in the language of the development agreement. So I think if there was a way for us to conceptually take a step back and say, what is our commitment and what do we both expect? What does the city expect and what are we committing to? I think the first thing is number one is that it will be screened from the road. So that's an incredibly important commitment. I think that's already contained in the development agreement. So that's number one. Number two, as we've talked about offsite, I do feel like our hope would be that we could add language in here that would allow us to go below the 55. We actually, with Aaron, we calculated 5180 was based on a square footage of the numbers that we were just talking about because that's what drives the parking. We actually talked about 5180 being the minimum requirement. We would love the ability, if we can find several thousand off-site stalls, to be able to reduce that below the 5180 on-site. So that's an important component that we would request the council to consider as part of this conversation. And then thirdly, I think it's this second, this double-decker idea that we've been talking about. Let me make sure I'm really, really clear on that because I want to make sure I'm understanding what your concerns are. The idea would be that that would effectively look like a surface parking lot. So we would have surface parking that would be a grade. And then if we were to put something like a double deck, if, for example, after the project or after Vesper is built, we recognize we need another 500 stalls, we would come in and lower that parking stall probably three to four feet and then build something on top of that. So the effective height above ground would be three to four feet. So my hope would be that we could kind of lock in the expectations on that to Greg's point. Like I wanted, we need the ability to expand that parking. That's very, very important for us. And so if there were some design criteria that would allow us then as long as we met that criteria to build that additional parking, that would be our preference is to include that language in there. So there would be a way to say, you know, it cannot exceed, you know, let's just say five feet of grade or above the existing surface parking lot, how it requires to go down in order to get the height needed to build that second story of parking. So I would love to make sure that's part of this component. So that's a long-winded answer.

I don't know that it specifically addresses. That's helpful. Can you speak to the parking garage and subterranean?

Yeah. So every stall that we can get out of that parking structure and put somewhere else is going to save us a tremendous amount of money. So your concerns are warranted. They're valid. In order to get the parking that we need, we have to do a subterranean. And we are motivated to do that because we need the material that's coming out of that. Whoever said that, I think it was Bill or maybe even Brian. But we need that material in a desperate way to build that square to make it work. So we are very motivated to put it in that spot and pull that material out. So we are committed. We will absolutely commit to doing subterranean parking in that location. How much and to what height? We can't exceed the 70, the 50, I think it's 50. Three stories or 50 feet. Yeah, three stories or 50 feet. So yeah, that's exactly right, Jeff. So we're able to commit to that. And if we need to go down further, it would be above three stories, but it would be down on the ground. And so that would not be effective height. In terms of, so yes, we are willing to make that commitment. We're ready to make that commitment to go subterranean. The distance from the road becomes a little bit more problematic. We can't get super close to the road, but I don't know exactly what that spacing would be. But if we can maybe leave a blank in there for the offsite, the offset from the road to address Becky's concern, I think that's valid. I think we'd be willing to talk about both A, A, subterranean like Greg has talked about, and then an offset from the road that Becky has talked about. And I think 100 feet would be something that we could commit to right now, but we may need to go back and kind of adjust those numbers down the road. So that's a lot.

Can I ask you a question? Yeah, please. With your subterranean, so that's that rock face.

Right.

Is that rock face not over three stories high?

Well, so the way that they measure the resource, that height, that 50 feet can be measured from the foundation of the building. So we could effectively go down and that wouldn't impact where the 50 feet starts. But our 50 feet design in our own building, and you correct me if I'm wrong, but it's from where the foundation touches the building. That's where our 50 foot height requirements start.

We don't want you to waste like 20 feet at the top.

Exactly. Exactly. No, we want to put the parking structure in that same spot. Black-owned 15, yeah. So hopefully that's helpful as we talk about it. And the motion I think that we would be readily willing to commit to would be yes, subterranean, absolutely. We would like to have the language in there to be able to do the surface parking as long as we don't exceed some height. I think five feet is reasonable. It doesn't make it look like it's a second story or first story of parking. And then we would have the ability to go below the minimum required parking. Again, these aren't all things that we need to motion on today. We would propose this. I don't want anybody here to be surprised by anything we submit in our next round, but that would be something that we would really want to include in there, is to say that we could do that second story in the parking. Parking elsewhere is a contract. Yes, yes, that's right. Yeah, exactly. Okay, so that's a good point. So, You can pull the site planning in, Kevin.

But I don't think it matters if it's a map.

Yes.

You don't care about that big setback.

I think there's a very interesting gap, and I think Spencer's raised it well. The parking structure location, can I go up to the map up there? The parking structure location, Amy? um be closer than 100 feet like for example this setback right here that's where the rock is this setback right here oh this setback right here does it give you every time all right so that's set back right there maybe closer than 100 feet or Brian, even on the corner down below, that's what you're talking about right here. So this, this would be to me, it's gotta be something I'm not sure where that a hundred feet starts, but yes.

But you have the natural screen there. Like we don't care about that.

That to me is that's the point to trees that I was trying to make.

We're talking about if you could have been there, like then it's the any exposed.

Correct. Yeah. So like this stuff over here, yes, this is going to be exposed. It's going to be visible. And that's the piece that we would say, yes, we're going to meet that 100-foot requirement. But if there's some part of this parking structure that's within a 100-foot setback that's not visible, then I think we should be able to, again, my request would be that we're able to encroach in the 100 feet.

So you can separate your terms, did you get that?

see all three doors yes yeah right yeah just want to make sure well that's where we do the whole thing that's why it's it's difficult to see from this angle um much more helpful to actually see from the the great elevation yeah can we pull that one because i i can't remember exactly where the hillside is and yes and that's how that helps is that what you're referring to so there's an elevation you see the landscape ones front elevation it should be in that exhibit those were the two that were

I think it may not be in this one. It's in the other one, though, for sure. Yeah, the answer one that we just submitted this last week.

While he's looking for that, let me make two comments. Sorry, Brian. You were OK there. The idea, we've talked before about this idea of reducing the minimum required below the code if there's sufficient offsite. The one legal problem with that is that the development agreement can't exempt you from code unless the exemption has been before the planning commission so i think that i think i at least i expect the council is very open to that idea it will probably that particular idea will probably require an amendment to the development agreement in the future just to address that issue or a change to city code where we put something like the tvm or a tdm overlay back in and give them an exemption through a code amendment so that's probably going to be something that won't

be able to be in here in two weeks.

And then the other question is that I have for you while you're talking, based on what I heard Councilor Christensen saying is, You talked about being willing to commit to subterranean, but it being very important to have the ability to build that upper deck. I think what I kind of hear Councilor Christensen saying is that ability to build the upper deck might need to be contingent, not just on the height and the screening. but on the fact that the subterranean meets some kind of certain limit. I think what I hear you saying is you don't want them to build a one-story subterranean parking garage, put a whole bunch of spaces offsite, and then build 15 acres of double-decker surface parking. Correct? something for you to think about yeah talk through that i'd have to beat you on that one for a minute and again i'm not excited i'm not expecting you to know the answer here i want to put in your mind but i think that's what's what's something a concept that's probably going to be in the motion when you get to it okay jeff has a question uh more just a comment just did like quick back down vote math and you could probably fit for four to five thousand parking spots on 50 makers at three stories

So I think that's like, again, I'm not, well, the representation here.

And then we talked about doing double-decker, so maybe that's another limit that we, the overall limit is three stories, but the parking can't be three stories, the surface parking.

Yeah, again, I don't think we're actually asking or talking about anything other than what's being represented. It's just the challenge of like, hey, this is more expensive than we think. We have these other abilities to put 15 acres of triple-deckers and we meet our minimum parking requirement. And I think that would be not an ideal outcome based on what's being presented.

Well, and wasn't the idea that the double-decker parking would only be for one of the lots, not for the one that's up the hill?

Yeah, that's the other thing. It's only supposed to be that surface lot, correct, not the parking lot?

Correct, yeah. The one up the hill would be a lot harder to make that work. These are all really good, really good things that we need to kind of think through. I don't know. I guess if we can provide a motion that allows us the flexibility to go back and kind of analyze some of these things, because Craig, I hear you loud and clear, and that makes a lot of sense. So we would love to try to accommodate something that seems reasonable while still allowing the flexibility that we're hoping to maintain as we move forward and kind of finalize those offsite stalls.

So I'm just anxious to see it locked in. Yeah. Because what you're asking for is locked in zoning. Yeah. And so I think what I'm asking for is the locked in capacity levels. So it's not up for debate. It's not up for special assignment. That's our clear understanding as we go into this. Makes sense.

And I think you made an interesting point of like, just trying to be as helpful here as possible. It's like you said, we may be open to the offsite thing. Is that something worth taking a motion on so that there's clear guidance? Like what's the best way to meet the needs here at that point?

I suppose it's helpful probably just for the developer to know how the council feels about it. I don't think because of what I explained about the legalities of not being able to exempt them from the code, I don't think we're making any decisions about that. But if the developer wants to know, if we come back in the future and we want to be under the current minimums because we have offsite parking, is that something you're at this moment in time

uh open to certain then then emotion at least gives them an answer to that question the reason why i say that and maybe i misunderstood you but it sounds to me like that's potentially an important piece to the puzzle for you on the financing side and making this all pencil and so i would hate for things to move forward under that assumption and then for it to come back later and us not to be supportive of that idea generally it's just because of the issue with the planning commission creating the sequencing problem right

Yeah, that's a great point, I think. Yeah, I agree.

And so would we want to say that the City Council is inclined to approve an agreement for them to provide up to, say, 2,000 offsite parkings? They would have to provide contracts and things like that to show that they actually have that?

how would we if it was me i probably wouldn't go to that level of detail i think i had more in mind something along the lines of emotion that says the council is supportive of the idea about in the future some exemption from the minimum parking requirements if those minimum parking requirements have been offset through off-site parking oh i like that more general and then they get to come back with your support for the plan. Right.

And the plan would have the details and information about where it would be, contract, shuttles, and things like that, so that we would believe that the plan is...

Right. And that's why I think I want to keep it general, because they've kept saying they're working on all of these ideas, but they don't have any of them nailed down. The ones they do have nailed down, maybe they can't share. So I don't think that we're in a position yet for them either to say how many they can get, et cetera.

Right.

Right now we've got 1,000. So we could improve that significantly.

Well, let's look at this on the flip side. If they don't have enough parking on site and they don't secure enough parking somewhere else within the city, where would these people park along I-89 over at the parks. I mean, where would they park?

Well, they're going to be bound to meet sitting minimums unless they come back for you and satisfy you that they don't need to.

And even if that were the case, Becky, if we brought a proposal back to say we would like to go below the minimum on site, the 5,100 or 5,200 stalls, we'd have to say we're going to replace those elsewhere. So there would still be that minimum number of parking required for pro cities ordinances.

I think what Councillor Bogdan is just suggesting is that if people choose not to partake of those options because of the friction involved, what are people going to do alternatively park on the side of the road? I think that's her point. Is that right?

Yeah.

And that's a legitimate policy question about why you might not support the proposed bonus just thrown out, which is now why it's even more doubly important for the motion to find out.

And that's why I want to look at both sides is because if they don't have them, I'm not sure that they're going to not sell 20,000 tickets. Where would they park? Because, I mean, they obviously can walk. There's going to be a trail. There's going to be a place to bike and go across. So I would say the first thing would be public parking that would fill up, which would be the parks across the street, which you mentioned that you probably would have to rent those out every time to prevent that anyway. Correct. Is there parking allowed on both sides of 189? No.

They'll get a ticket if they do that.

So where would be the next best place? Go up a little bit further to another park and park and then walk back down the trail? I mean, are we going to create a problem if we don't have enough parking on site that each one of our parks going up to Canyon is going to be inundated with?

We have to have enough parking or else they can't sell the tickets.

I think the next maybe viable option would be somebody parking down in Orem. and walking on the Pearl River Trail up to the venue.

But still we're taking away public spaces for a private event, right?

Yeah, but this is my point on why I felt like it would be helpful to have the motion just to give them clear direction, because that is a concern of the council, that people are not going to partake of the off-site options and instead just kind of DIY it in ways that are unhelpful, then that's the crux of the question, I think.

People do that for BYU games all the time, right? You see them parking in just weird spots and then walking it. And so I don't see this being any different. Well, to the nature everywhere.

I do like the idea of Mama Chew selling out their parking lot and letting people walk, though. Because, like, people do that for football games, right? $10 to park. $10 to park.

I love Mama Chew's, by the way. Shout out to a great local business. Yeah. I love it. They might be more expensive. I think they're probably more expensive.

It's a tough balance we're trying to strike because it feels like. Totally, because traffic is, yeah. The concern has been we don't want the vehicles up the canyon and it's ignored. And so our proposed solution was that shuttles are a great option. Hollywood Bowl and a lot of other places use shuttles extensively in their operations. And that's something that we would love to propose because we think it's a very viable alternative. I don't know that we can, I would hope that we don't approve or not approve the project based on what the DIYers are going to, where they're going to park. We've got to figure out some petroleum with Provo City. We've got to figure out petroleum with Orem City. We've got to figure out petroleum with Utah County. There's a lot of folks that are involved, and we met with some of those folks to start those conversations. So we can't really do much until the zoning is done, but it's a problem that we've got to address and we've got to figure it out.

And just understand from our perspective, it's not about patrolling and ticketing and towing. We deal with that all the time. And you're swimming upstream. We don't want to swim upstream. There needs to be adequate parking.

Yeah.

So I would not be inclined to say, well, let's get as skinny as we can and hope the other things work because the creativity is boundless and we're just going to swim upstream every time there's a big event and let's not do that.

Yeah. And I think it can be helpful too as they're selling their tickets and everything to have very clear instructions about parking and shuttles.

When it comes to parking, it's a whole different thing.

Yeah. it's the wild west yeah but if they say if you want to be able to park on site you're going to need to also buy your ticket to park on site and otherwise look at doing the shuttles there you know there are lots of solutions yeah okay so we get a motion though that the council will um consider waiting that minimum parking requirement if we are satisfied that there is off-site parking What was your better length?

Well, it's a good question. Now Jeff's left. I mean, it depends on... depends on how much of an inclination you want to show i mean one option is you can make a motion that just says we're willing to consider a future request for reducing the required on-site parking if we're satisfied with your off-site parking proposal that doesn't really say very much because they can always bring that proposal anyway if you If it reflects your policy desires, you could say, we're excited to receive such a proposal, but I don't know if that's really true or not.

I'd like to see an adequate parking. So I don't want to, I wouldn't vote or support anything he says. And if you don't want to do it and it doesn't work out, obviously if it doesn't work, yes, they'll come back. But I don't feel the need to make that kind of motion. Maybe others do.

I mean, at the end of the day, you're not really, on this particular issue, you're not deciding anything right now other than whether you're sending them a signal to keep working on it.

If there's not a parking case, a total fail, I don't know. Other disaster. Agreed. Yeah. Frustration and more traffic. Going back and forth that other so.

Craig, did you want a motion about limiting double decker parking or screening?

Well, I actually think I actually think we covered it. Because again, I don't I don't know what to specifically to say, I just expressed the concern. So they're become back with, that will be it. But it, but the idea of, of expanding and creating Again, as you go in the canyon, I don't want to look over and see parking garages. And I don't think any of us do. So I don't know that I need to make a motion. I think we've been clear about that.

Well, if you make a motion, couldn't you say they come back in two weeks?

Okay.

That you come back in two weeks with a proposal that doesn't have parking garages everywhere.

Would that be helpful? Yeah, I think it would be helpful. I was going to say, not to be pedantic, we can do a straw poll, but I think it's helpful if you just make a motion saying that you would like the next draft to incorporate what has been proposed about addressing your parking concerns.

I make a motion to do the next draft, incorporate what we've discussed about subterranean parking and any kind of visible parking.

the double decker park and the double decker parking i would second that greg all right any discussion on the motion yes yes counselor yes counselor yes yes okay seven oh

Perfect. Okay, we're two-thirds of the way through our time and a third of the way through my materials. So, Kevin, can you switch back to my slideshow? But I think most of the rest, I think we've hit some of the worst stuff, but we'll see.

Good news is, Brian, they are going to come back. So we can just say we're going through this much, we'll go through the rest of it.

And I do think that we... underestimated how much time this one will take and overestimated how much time the next one will take. But we'll see if I'm right about all of that. Okay, so we've talked about vested caps, we've talked about parking, so conservation easement. This is a hairy one that I want to try to simplify down into something that doesn't have to be discussed that much right now. so the conservation easement paragraph is completely dependent on how much property the city sells them which has not been decided yet so this paragraph is going to have to change so i don't want you to get too hung up on what it currently says because what it currently says is a placeholder based on one idea for the property transaction that still has to be decided So what it currently says is if we sold them the entire 66 acres, that they would have to put at least 50% of that into a conservation easement. Some of the questions that were asked in the council materials and that VESPR responded to addresses some of the concerns that have already been raised. So again, not currently in here, but already anticipated based on conversations between Brian Bayless and I, VESPR is fine to specify in the development agreement that the holder of the conservation easement would be a 501 nonprofit dedicated to open space preservation without necessarily picking one. but it won't be a commercial entity or a subsidiary of VESPA or anything like that. And they're open to the idea of specifying more thoroughly in this section of the development agreement what the permitted and prohibited uses of the land subject to the conservation easement would be, right? so those are all things that they've already committed to negotiating further but whether we even need to or not is contingent upon another decision about how much actually gets sold because if we only sell them 33 acres this whole paragraph just goes away does that make sense um so yes please the city will then have to do the lateral right that means we could we have an absolute right Well, not to put in a conservation easement. So the proposal is to, the application is to rezone the entire property SC3 This would say once conservation is done, or once construction of the trail system is done, the conservation easement is in place, we can rezone the conservation easement portion of the property, OSPR. They can't object. We don't need an application from them. We just rezone it.

Okay. Why not do that at this time of closing? Why the delay?

Well, I mean, the flip side, the way I think what you're proposing is essentially actually change the rezone application so that we don't rezone the undeveloped park. Bill can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it poses some problems to the trail creation for the property to be in the OSPR while the trails are being built and the bathrooms are being built, etc., Is that right?

How would that be a problem? Is that accurate, though? It creates complications?

OK. So that's certainly another option. That's something that we can look at. To the degree my anticipation, and Brian's kind of nodding his head, my anticipation is that if you only want to rezone, well, here's the other part. Normally, we rezone entire parcels. And right now, it's all one part. The city piece is all one parcel. So it would be unusual for us and a little bit complicated to rezone through the middle of a parcel. It's not that we haven't ever done it before and we theoretically do it.

And why not the alternative of just selling the land they need?

Well, that is... That is entirely why I said, let's not worry about the details of this one too much until that decision is made. But that decision gets made later in the other agreement. Does that make sense? So when we get to that, when that- Okay, yeah, the REPC, you're talking about. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. When we get to the REPC, that might make this paragraph completely moot. Okay.

But as far as this is concerned, the revegetation is now, and they're doing the trail for sale.

Right.

And 50% of the contributions are for sale.

yes if we if we end up selling the entire piece yep okay any any other questions about the conservation movement section okay uh let's see and i actually think they had got a couple slides i threw in a couple slides from what they this is what they actually put in their answers. Now, this one pretty much just repeats what the development agreement already says. And so does this, actually. So Brian and I had a conversation after these answers were submitted to the council. And that's when he talked to me about being willing to specify that it's a nonprofit and add some restrictions. OK. This paragraph we actually went over a little while ago about the parking garage. So I won't dig into it in great depth unless there's any, but I'll leave it up for a second for you to tell me if there's any concerns about this paragraph.

And if something starts happening that you don't think fits in this body, that's Bill's team to notice that and say.

Right. And so that's the one. Is this specific enough? The question for the council is, is this specific enough combined with the concept plan, or do you need something more specific than this?

So how detailed is the concept plan in terms of finishes and building materials and things like that?

Well, not very would be my take on that. Bill, Mr. Pepperoni? Sorry, Terry's distracting me. He's looking at the code. I'm kidding. He's looking at the code for us. The concept plan doesn't show a lot about finishes, and it's more about locations.

Right. Yeah. The residential plans, again, we have elevations attached to the development agreement. But since this is in a residential development, it's not at this agreement.

So could we anticipate that? I mean, couldn't we include that building materials, finishes, all that? Is there a reason you couldn't include that?

No. Just the more that you include, the less possibility they have.

Yeah. The challenge is that to say high quality canyon integrated destination environment, that would mean seven different things to seven different people. I'd love to see specifics on what is that? What does that look like?

Not just in terms of a rendering, but also... And there's three different ways of doing that, kind of in increasing restriction on flexibility, right? The one way is to, the only thing that we add is if there are materials that are prohibited. You list those and say, whatever it is, it can't be this. That's the most flexible while still being more stricter than this. The next one is to say, we're not going to say exactly what it has to be, but it has to be these things. You have to give them a list of what it can be, but not specify. And then the most restrictive and least flexible and probably pretty difficult for them at this point is to say, you've got to show us pictures, and that's what it's going to be. So I don't know if you have thoughts on that range or those options, but.

Yeah.

And this is one where it would be very useful for the BMO.

When we put together the rivers and trails guidelines, great detail in terms of this kind of material, this kind of wood, this kind of that, this kind of height, and great detail to create the right ambiance that we were talking about. Of course, we don't want it to be onerous, but what is canyon integrated destination? What is that? And so that actually seen that it's, it's hard to say, yeah, of course we don't want aluminum siding.

Right.

Um, but beyond that, it seems like some detail would be helpful.

Yeah. As I said, I don't know if, uh, Bill or anybody on his team wants to speak to it, but essentially at the end of the day, that means what they think it means.

So Dale varsity and the insurance standards for

Brian wanted to make a comment. Is that okay? This is what we're talking about, whether this is specific enough.

I guess I'm just thinking because it says natural materials and natural design elements must be substantially incorporated into the finished product, including meaningful use materials such as wood, stone, glass, and other materials of similar quality and character. They have to be assigned to respond to the site's topography, views, and mountain setting. I mean, it keeps going here. Is there something in this? This doesn't hold the developer to anything then?

Well, it does. I mean, it does. But the question is, is it specific enough for the council?

I just don't know if they've... Okay. Yeah. Look at that. And I think this would be where to start, not necessarily the I don't know. Yeah, if there's going to be changes, would this be the place where they would do it then?

Yes, I think that's exactly what we're proposing. The question for the council is, do you want this paragraph to be more specific than it is?

Yeah. Can I maybe mention something? Yeah. Kevin, I don't know if you have access to our application. But in the original application, it went through and kind of identified each one of the different uses. So it talked about hotel. It talked about the amphitheater. It talked about the materials. And it gave specific exhibits of what we were talking about. As design and architecture changes, again, I don't think it's going to change that much in two to three years. But you just look at how architecture changes every 10 years, it seems like there's kind of a whole new wash of architectural elements and components that are important to people. We want to be sensitive to that. But I think that provides a good baseline. And I would maybe if there was a way to reference those exhibits, we spent quite a bit of time on those. We would love to incorporate those into this plan if that gave enough specificity. They are. Yeah, they are. And Kevin, do you by chance have that? It's our actual original application. And I haven't... It's in the slide. I can pull that up in the next round.

Are you interested in seeing it or are you just interested in the idea that they're willing to incorporate it?

I'd love to see it. I mean, at some point, we're going to want to see it. Right. You're going to see it when you... If there's a consensus of, yeah, that. Right. Because, again, everything we've talked about sounds great. It sounds very semantics, very... But again, this doesn't do it for me. Right.

You don't want that to be replaced with cardboard covered in stucco. That's right.

Yeah. And again, even that paragraph right there means a lot of different things. So if we've got pictures and we've already gone through that, yeah, let's...

Right. Yeah. I mean, I don't think it means that, but it's open to some interpretation. Okay. So I think I'm going to move on with the general idea that you're okay with the idea of those things being incorporated and that those things are going to be in the next draft when you see the next draft so that you can say this is okay, sufficient enough. Okay. So we'll move on to... okay there we go so there's paragraph about dark sky and signage uh must be designed to be dark sky compliant to the extent reasonably possible uh i i suppose i guess i would say in addition to this um the new lighting standards are going to be in place and they have to be and they have to be compliant with the code so that what was talked about earlier today will already be in place and binding as well even if they submitted this application before that's yes because there's a paragraph uh there's a paragraph elsewhere in the development agreement in the boilerplate that talks about like um about the code in place at the time the development agreement is approved so it's not like you can change the code forever and ever and ever but uh and we can be more specific about that too if we need to i guess the question is um please do okay yeah as well i suppose the biggest question for moving the conversation along is as long as that's explicit that those standards are binding any other concerns or comments about this paragraph um just some dumb questions like would this permit a big electronic billboard sign or like a sign well uh something along the lines of like what we see on university avenue going Well, I mean, that's already not permitted, right? So, no. I mean, this specifically says that they're subject to the city sign code.

But there are permitted. Yeah, I mean, there's a river with one. Yeah, we do allow electronic signage.

So those code sections do not allow electronic signage.

Okay. That's why that's good. Okay, great.

Okay. So I didn't know we had so many out-of-compliance signs in the city.

No. So Brian, help me with help me with dark sky to the extent reasonably possible. When is it not reasonable to be compliant?

in this um great question and the kind of why i was trying to punt this with my comment about the other code provision being applicable because if the other code provision is applicable then that addresses it and this sentence kind of becomes meaningless uh i think that is up to at the end of the day it's up to bill's team in approving an application the application is going to have a lighting plan in it the developer is going to have to say, here's this one light that for safety reasons needs to be this way. And Bill says, oh, that's a reasonable deviation. And if not, he doesn't approve it. Bill, do you want to add anything to that?

Well, and dark sky compliant could be that general idea of dark sky. So we have adopted a particular version of that to be our city code. And so... Or we will be. We may.

We may.

By the time this comes to it, we may have adopted.

And in fact, I think that's actually the point I just made actually is a really important point for thinking about the process of this. I think a lot of the public perception of the development agreement has focused around once they screw up, how do we use the development agreement to claw them back? But in actuality, the development agreement is about the guidelines that Bill's team will use to approve the permitting applications before they build. So if they're not in compliance with the development agreement, they're not going to get to build the screw up. Does that make sense?

So just one more question on the, on the signage billboard, like an uplift billboard, would that be permitted here? No. Well, if it's so. Come see the battery boys.

No more billboards. Okay.

Well, it would just have to be within the NIT limit we just are looking at.

It'd have to be within the NIT limit. It'd have to be within size limitations for that zone and area. It'd have to meet all of the lighting requirements. I don't know off the top of my head about this. I would say just for the purpose of this discussion, it wouldn't be a billboard. Because a billboard means advertising off-premises stuff, which wouldn't be allowed. That's just flat out prohibited. So it could only be a sign that advertises their shows, what they're offering on site. Bill could speak to better what the code allows than I can.

Those code sections are very restrictive. The SC3 zone is very permissive. That's why we went in and particularly exempted out the provisions of the SC3 zone by those code sections there. Those are very restrictive.

Can I make a mention of a few things? So one of the things that will be important for us is to be able to advertise who the performers are, and those will obviously change every week. And so the electronic signage, There's brightness requirements, and there are the frequency of changing requirements. So you can't change it like every 10 seconds, because that's going to really distract our investors from coming down the canyon. But having an electronic sign there to let people know what performance is an important component to this. So it is not like... We're not planning on using it to, you know, average. It's not a billboard. You know, there might be hit, the merch is, you know, open or the restaurant's open for these hours, but it's mainly here to the performers. And we kind of float through those. I think it's every 30 seconds. And some of those requirements are not just Provo City. It's also UDOT. So those UDOT requirements, we've got to also meet those requirements as well. But it is important that we do have an electronic sign up there.

But isn't that contrary to what was just said? Yeah, I thought that. Yes.

That's not allowed.

The electronics are going to have to make some exception for what he wants, because that's not allowed. I knew this. signage was going to be a big deal in the mouth of the can. So that's why we do that.

And that's why I just want to make sure we are all aligned and have a conversation about this.

We were pretty explicit about making sure we would have the ability to do, I think it was a 75 square foot electronic sign. So if that's not accurate, we will absolutely need to change that because that's going to be something that's very important.

I'm not open to that. Not in the canning. I'm not open to that.

are you open ed greg electric no no i haven't thought about that too well let's think about snowbirds they have wooden signs they don't have a huge big blue for snow or solitude right um but they also i mean performing the performance venue perspective i guess my hope would be

It's not like we're, it's not a, it's not a casino. It's something that allows us to put in, you know, according to UDOT's requirements, we can put in a small electronic sign to be able to advertise who's coming through there. So it's very low key. And again, I realize this may not be super popular with the council. whoever it is that's going to be coming.

No, the mall has one that's under UDOT requirements, and it's a problem. I would not be supportive of it in any way, shape, or form, if UDOT has control of it or not.

How is it a problem? In what ways is it a problem? Can we fix those problems on Vesper?

I don't know because it's an enforcement problem.

Yeah.

And it's a huge enforcement problem. The turn, it's a huge problem.

Yeah. And we don't want to be a problem. Obviously, from a safety perspective, that's something that's incredibly important for us. But, you know, again, I don't know how we let people know who's coming to the venue. Having an electronic sign, even if it's a minimal sign that's very, you know, bland or, you know, blurry colors or whatever it's going to take to make sure it's not a distraction. we have to have the ability to put that out there. So that's something that's really important for us.

Councilor McKay, Chair McKay.

I just want to better understand your concern. Is your concern any sign or is that because the mall sign is not, you are absolutely right that that is not in compliance with anything. So if the sign were in compliance, Would it still be a problem for you, or is it that you're worried it will be out of compliance? I just want to better understand your concern.

I wouldn't want anything electronic in the mouth of the canyon at all, period. And I was addressing his concern of we have certain things in play that UDOT has rules and standards.

And I'm like, no, they may have those, but it's been a fortunate problem. It has been. Right. So what I'm just wondering, is it the enforcement that's the problem or is it just any sign in general? I think any sign in general of the county.

Yeah, I would weigh in as well. UDOT is no comfort to me at all.

Good.

especially since it's in the canyon. That's part of the challenge of having this in the canyon. So yeah, any kind of electronic I think is problematic, not necessarily the enforcement, but I don't think it meets the aesthetic of the canyon. That's the challenge.

Are there design elements that we could try to work through with the council to find some solutions on that? Because again, having somebody with the gas issue with the sign, you know, go and put in the letters and numbers, that looks very unprofessional. But I don't know how else we would advertise who's coming to the site other than online, which is where most of the work's going to be done anyway. But something very kind of muted, not bright, not loud, but something that allows.

Have you seen the remarkable pad that people use and they write on? It looks like a book. And people buy it so they can get this. That's an electronic device. So it's something like that where we don't have to actually pay somebody to walk out and put up letters.

But you see, that's different. A muted black and white and gray, that's different than a color sonic.

Perfect. So I think that's where I'm trying to get to is it maybe isn't the electronic that's the problem.

It's the radiant light.

The aesthetic, yeah. So maybe we can come back Maybe you guys can make a motion that would say, you know, this is kind of what we want. And then we can come back with some ideas of what that sign would look like. But we definitely don't want a big colorful sign flashing Backstreet Boys and their colorful stuff. We're just trying to be able to advertise without sending an employee. Jeff, why don't you make that exemption?

Well, I think I think there's also just to your I think there's just a question, too, about those code that reference code on what our definition of electronic is, because as of right now, it's actually not what we're saying in this meeting that's operative. It's that code that's operative. Right. So what?

Yes. So that's why I want to pull everyone to the code. So if Kevin could pull up 1438-010.

well subsection three can i because we're so short on time i have a i have an alternative idea okay i think this is the first that most of us we are hearing explicitly that an electronic sign is is anticipated yes so rather i think than delve into what the the development agreement currently says and what our code currently says it seems to me like the two avenues are if the majority of the council is no matter what no matter no no how no way there will be no electronic signs then a motion to say that right now and get that on the table would be great alternatively what i'm hearing is i think that in the next version of the development agreement the developer needs to make an explicit proposal that allows them to do what they want to do that they think will satisfy your concerns and you'll review that when they've submitted it

that that i think is probably the better option than trying to dig into what the agreement in the code says right now but if that's the case enforcement is still a problem right i mean we can't get anything done with that mall sign we haven't been able to do it for years the big one on the freeway that turns really fast and is too bright and you talked about the problem yeah yeah probably town center mall yeah fine well um

Yeah, I don't know. I think that sounds reasonable. Yeah. We don't know. Yeah, you've heard our concerns. No electronic, not even like colors. But if it was muted, if it was in house presented, that would make a difference to me. Again, I would want the venue to be successful. I don't want it to even look remotely like the mall or like Vegas or anything like that. And we all say that.

And the reason I want to bring up the code is what it's referred to says animated signs are prohibited. So no animations at all. And even for this area, if they use an electronic display one, they can't do any short hold time electronic displays where this is located.

Yeah, we looked at this pretty extensively, Rachel, to Rachel's point. And that's important for us. Having the ability to do electronic sign is important for us.

So some of the things that we're scared of, Bill has already put in by this reference to the code that would make it so that would not happen.

Yeah, exactly.

We're saying that what the ordinance says is what we're comfortable with living. Oh, that says that we can do electronic signs in the ordinance. That's why we. Yeah, but it can't be.