Either yes or no on that one to just end this community amendments amenity community amenities section um at the at the sentence where it says are accessible to residents of the development and the public and then just period stop it there um not allow a piece of artwork to be used to increase the density of a zone or increase the intensity of use or or relax the setbacks so that things aren't had don't have to be set back.

I don't I think uh artwork is too uh uh subjective and it's it's too easy of a way out, I I would say, for someone who's developing property to put one piece of artwork out there and now they can they can increase density.

I I would want council to really think about what we're doing there if we're gonna allow a small piece of artwork to be used to uh circumvent our zoning, which is what it would be used for.

I don't agree with that.

Yeah.

Um and as uh Kevin Walker planning director noted, I think it's important in that uh recommendation for further amendment or modification of the the ordinance language is that this uh the establishment of a PDZ is a decision of this body.

So whether that language is in there or not, you as the city councils, members of city council have the discretion to vote no because you feel that community amenity that has been put forth by the developer is either too subjective to whatever it might be.

Um hopefully you're still following the criterion code, but um it's just I think I see where you're coming from to eliminate all reference to to public art throughout the unified development code.

Um but I think ultimately the criteria that are in place and the opportunities that this provision of code provides, it just affords greater flexibility or opportunity for you as the decision makers to custom tailor that kind of contract zone to be a benefit for the larger community.

Okay.

Well, first I'd like to offer the well, if you're ready, madam president, I'll offer the amendment to remove public art as a replacement for articulation.

But if there's still more discussion before that, happy to wait and then offer it.

Because then I would say that look maybe we sort that one out and then move on to the broader uh no public art for uh PDZ designation or PUD.

Councilman Bailey.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Madam President.

Um I agree with Councilman Donaldson that I personally think that substituting public art for the articulation is a is a bad idea, but I don't know that future councils will share that view.

So I'm I'm content with leaving the language here with the understanding that the process allows for the manager who gets to make that decision to learn from and reflect the sense of the council that uh that he or she is working for.

Uh so I I'm not convinced that striking it completely is the right way to go.

I would have preferred to see that with the rest of the packet as an alternative, so then I could chew on a little bit and think about it and talk to some people about it, having it dropped on me here.

I'm my instinct would be to say, let's just go with the ordinance that we've been presented because we have talked about it and have worked through this process in um uh in working uh a working session before.

So um let me leave you with a question.

Are are you satisfied that that process of the the manager taking the lead from the council as it exists at the time for an individual project would kind of alleviate the concern that I have about or and the concern that I think I understand Councilman Donaldson having about yeah, some little statue does not change a solid concrete wall um as far as the impact on the community?

Yes, I think certainly it it does not change that discretionary authority because again, as I said, council, you it rests with you on that decision.

But you know, if I if I may use one of uh Pro Tem Risley's statements from earlier today of having tools in a toolbox when we're looking at a PDZ and we're trying to really thread that needle of a project to make it work within a set parcel of land, um you know, having more available tools for us to have those negotiations before you ultimately see it as a decision-making body gives us a greater opportunity to to have that that uh to get a benefit or or a quality product for the broader community.

Uh I will also just note I mean, uh, again, with similar to the articulation provision of code, which we've uh made that uh recommended change for, or to accommodate that change is that we have not to this date since the adoption of the UDC seen a developer seek to utilize this provision in a requested PDZ zone, because again, usually when those PDZs are coming into us, they are very specific in what the vision is for the developer.

Um and when you start talking about works of art, that's even though they may get some or maybe seeking some adjustment to a regulatory standard.

Works of art are not cheap, especially when you're talking about at a bigger development scale of a sculpture or some type of fountain feature or something like that, those are really expensive components of that most developers tend to shy away from.

Uh and they also then pose a greater challenge from a maintenance perspective moving forward for that community, uh, which most of the new PDZs are being supported by uh a district.

So long answer to your short question there.

Councilman Hingem.

Uh thank you, Madam President.

So I by the way, just as a point of order, there is a motion and a second for the um the ordinance as presented to us already on the floor.

Um but in terms of this question, I I too don't know why we would take away the option for something that could actually um which hasn't been used yet, clearly isn't used very often, but why would we want to take away something that um through the lens of what's possible?

I mean, I'd like to think that, man, some really cool things could be proposed that add incredible value to the development and to therefore to the city and to the public for art that is quite uplifting and supports uh a sense of beauty in our community and attraction to our community.

People love to go see public art.

Um I just my daughter was just in Chicago for work, and what did she send me but a picture of herself in front of the bean, right?

I mean, it it's those kinds of things that um that people really enjoy and create connection and um really improve our community.

So I don't know why we would want to take that away, um, especially given that ultimately council still would have the authority um to approve or disapprove something if it if it felt that the piece of art was um in some way inappropriate.

So I I'm I stand by and thank you for your work on this very much, Dan, and uh uh remind us that we have a motion and a second on the floor for the ordinance as is.

Thanks.

Councilman Williams.

Thank you, President Kerr Iverson.

I just wanted to repeat and ask the question of something I heard something about increasing density.

And I don't think there's anything in front of us today that has anything to do with increasing density.

Is that correct?

No, the only reference that I was making uh council member Williams to density is with respect to the community many's provision uh of the code that we're suggesting changes to, that is uh nested within the establishment uh regulations for PDZ zone districts.

So in those zone districts, we oftentimes see developers seeking to do uh a higher density or modified development standards than what are otherwise uh applicable in a base zone district.

So it's a contract zone, but we're not proposing increased density.

Nothing to do with public art is going to affect the density.

They will go through that process to have that conversation about density.

But the public art is not going to increase or decrease the density.

Correct.

There's not an apple's like, hey, you give us this piece of art, we're gonna increase your density by 10 DUs per acre.

No.

Okay, thank you.

Councilman Risley.

Thank you, Madam President.

I just want to underscore the topic that we're discussing here, which is that this is a PDZ, right?

Planned zone district.