5.C.2) Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Loock Subdivision, Division No. 3

[5.C.4) Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Willows Place Townhomes]

THANK YOU. NOW IS TIME FOR THAT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND REINSTATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE WILLOW PLACE TOWNHOMES. AND I WOULD DECLARE THE HEARING OPEN, AND THAT ALL TESTIMONY AND MATERIALS BE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. AND WE WILL BEGIN BY HAVING THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD. AND START. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING AGAIN. MAYOR AND COUNCIL BRAD KRAMER, NIAGARA FALLS PERSPECTIVE PLANNING AND CONSULTING. THE CITY. IF I CAN JUMP AHEAD TO THESE SLIDES HERE, I'M HERE AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT TEAM. MOUNTAIN WEST ENGINEERING IS ALSO HERE TONIGHT. THEY WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING WORK ON THIS PROJECT. I'M PART OF THE TEAM JUST HELPING TO UNDERSTAND THE REQUIREMENTS AND NAVIGATING THE PROCESS. BEFORE I INTRODUCE THE PROJECT, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT I KNOW THAT THE TESTIMONY GIVEN AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING OR THE PRESENTATION, I SHOULD SAY, WAS QUITE LENGTHY, IN PART BECAUSE I SPENT A LOT OF TIME RESPONDING TO THE WRITTEN TESTIMONY THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED. I'M GOING TO PRESUME THAT YOU HAVE THAT RECORD ALREADY, BUT I DON'T NEED TO REPEAT IT, ALTHOUGH I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR RESPOND TO WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. I'VE ALSO HAD A CHANCE TO READ THE TESTIMONY THAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THIS MEETING. IN LARGE PART, IT'S VERY SIMILAR. AND SO THERE AGAIN, I'M JUST GOING TO INTRODUCE THE PROJECT AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND THEN LATER OF COURSE RESPOND TO TESTIMONY. SO TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA ON THE LOCATION OF THE SITE, IT'S HERE OUTLINED IN RED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PLUM STREET, JUST WEST OF BELLEN.

SOUTH OF PANCARI, NORTH OF 17 SOUTH AND EAST OF OAKLAND ROAD. EXTENDED. IN TERMS OF LAND USE IN THE AREA, IT IS NORTH OF WEST SIDE ELEMENTARY, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS THE RED ROOF BUILDING IN THAT SLIDE EAST OF SINGLE FAMILY HOME DEVELOPMENT, WEST OF A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND DETACHED HOUSING, AND SOUTH OF OF A CHURCH. THERE'S ALSO A CHURCH AT THE EAST, THERE'S A CHURCH TO THE NORTH, SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMILY

[00:55:01]

ATTACHED DEVELOPMENT. FURTHERMORE, A CLOSER VIEW OF THE SITE YOU CAN SEE THE PROXIMITY TO BLUEBIRD LANE VELEN. THOSE HOMES ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THE PROPERTY ARE PRIMARILY THOSE WHO CAME TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WHICH WE DID HOLD, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT MORE LATER. I DO APPRECIATE THE ATTENDANCE AND FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED, AND LIKEWISE FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING. I SAID THAT I SHOULD SAY AGAIN TODAY THAT I THINK IT'S IT'S GOOD WHEN PEOPLE CARE ENOUGH ABOUT THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD TO COME AND TALK ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS. SO I APPRECIATE APPRECIATE ALL THE INPUT. WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS JUST THE ORIGINAL NEW SWEDEN ESTATES DIVISION WITH THREE. I INSERTED THIS SLIDE KIND OF LAST MINUTE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING IN RESPONSE TO ONE OF THE LETTERS ASSERTING THAT THE COVENANTS WOULD NOT PERMIT THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

IT THIS IS REALLY TO POINT NUMBER ONE. I COULDN'T FIND ANY OF THOSE COVENANTS RECORDED AT THE COUNTY. NUMBER TWO, THE PLAT INDICATES THAT MORE THAN JUST SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT WAS INTENDED HERE WITH THESE LARGER LOTS, BOTH IN THE NORTH AND SOUTH. IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT SHOWS THE AREA IS SUBURBAN. I'LL TALK MORE ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS HERE IN JUST A MOMENT. YOU SEE THAT SAME DESIGNATION TO THE EAST, WEST AND SOUTH. THERE'S ALSO SUBURBAN TO THE NORTH, AS WELL AS GENERAL URBAN TO THE NORTH. IN TERMS OF WHAT SUBURBAN MEANS, I KNOW IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT TO READ, BUT THIS COMES FROM THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND I'M GOING TO READ ALL OF THAT. BUT IT TALKS ABOUT THE NEED FOR VARIOUS HOUSING TYPES. AND SPECIFICALLY IT SAYS GENERALLY INCLUDING DETACHED AND DETACHED SINGLE UNIT DWELLINGS, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, DUPLEXES, TRIPLEX, FOURPLEX UNITS THAT HOUSE SCALE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SHOULD INCLUDE A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES, PRICE POINTS AND SIZES, AND SHOULD NOT BE EXCLUSIVELY DETACHED SINGLE DWELLING UNITS. SO THAT'S JUST THAT IS A QUOTE FROM THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ONE OF THE THINGS THE PLAN ALSO DOES IS BREAKS THE CITY INTO NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THREE. I'LL JUST BE VERY BRIEF. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO READ THIS, BUT I INCLUDED THIS JUST TO JUST TO SHOW THE PERCENTAGE OF HOUSEHOLD SIZES THAT EXIST OR EXISTED WHEN THE CENSUS WAS TAKEN. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE ARE MORE THAN HALF OF THE HOUSEHOLDS ARE 1 TO 2 INDIVIDUALS. AND SO THIS PROJECT DOES INTRODUCE A PRODUCT THAT'S RESPONSIVE AND REFLECTIVE OF A SMALLER HOUSEHOLD SIZE. ALSO IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AGAIN, THIS IS JUST CALLING FOR HIGHER DENSITY HOUSING ON THE PERIMETER OF NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS SPECIFIC TO NEIGHBORHOOD THREE WITH A FOCUS ON INFILL DEVELOPMENT AS A STRATEGY TO PROTECT SPRAWL AND TO AGRICULTURAL LANDS. YOU SAW IN THAT FIRST PHOTO JUST TO THE WEST, THERE'S A LOT OF PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND. INFILL IS ONE OF THE TOOLS TO HELP PROTECT AND PRESERVE THAT TYPE OF LAND USE. ACTUALLY, WE'LL SEE IT AGAIN HERE, WHICH IS WHY THIS SLIDE IS HERE. SO THAT AGAIN, YOU SEE THE SITE, THE SITE OUTLINED IN RED, YOU SEE THAT IT IS NEAR A MAJOR INTERSECTION, WHICH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTEMPLATES. IT'S ON THE PERIMETER OF A NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTEMPLATES AND IS INFILL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH AGAIN IS PRESERVING AGRICULTURAL LAND. THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED R-1 THAT ALLOWS BOTH SINGLE UNIT ATTACHED AND DETACHED DWELLINGS. YOU SAW IN THE PREVIOUS HEARING SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING. THIS IS ACTUALLY PER BUILDING CODE, THE SAME SAME TYPE OF HOUSING. THIS AGAIN, I KNOW YOU CAN'T READ THIS. THIS IS THIS IS FROM THE CITY'S ZONING CODE THAT DEALS WITH THE PURPOSES OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT. ONE OF THOSE I PUT THIS IN HERE AGAIN IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER ASSERTING THIS SITE WAS TOO SMALL. IT'S REALLY THE COUNCIL'S DETERMINATION THAT IF THE COUNCIL FINDS THAT A SITE IS WITHIN AN AREA THAT'S DEVELOPING AND IT IS AN INFILL PROJECT, THAT COUNCIL CAN FIND THE APPROPRIATE. TO TO PLACE NO ON THIS SIZE. SO THIS IS THE SLIDE I'M GOING TO LINGER ON JUST A LITTLE BIT TO GIVE YOU SOME OF THE DETAILS OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THE LAYOUT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES THERE IN THE GRAY THERE ARE 14 UNITS. YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S 25% OF THE SITE IS GREEN SPACE.

THERE ARE TWO AMENITIES SHOWN ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. ONLY ONE IS REQUIRED. IT EXCEEDS THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. ONLY 28 ARE REQUIRED, 42 ARE PROVIDED. THESE ARE TWO STORIES. I WOULD POINT OUT THAT TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE R1 ZONE.

THE LAND USE ITSELF SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE ZONE. THE REASON YOU HAVE THIS AS A PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT IS BECAUSE OF THE PRIVATE ROAD. WE. WHEN I WAS BROUGHT ON TO THIS PROJECT, ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS WE DISCUSSED WAS WHETHER OR NOT A PUBLIC ROAD COULD FIT. AND WE DID SIT DOWN AND TRY TO DESIGN ONE THAT WOULD ACCOMMODATE THE PUBLIC ROAD. BUT BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE REQUIRED CUL DE SAC AT THE SOUTHERN END, IT IT

[01:00:06]

DOESN'T IT DOESN'T FIT. IT'S NOT WIDE ENOUGH. BUT THE NORTH IS REALLY NOT QUITE BIG ENOUGH TO THE SOUTH. SO YOU HAVE A PRIVATE ROAD. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WOULD POINT OUT, ACTUALLY, TWO THAT I THINK ARE IMPORTANT, IS KNOWING THAT THE PRIVATE ROADS, PRIVATE UTILITIES HAVE BEEN A CONCERN WITH PLANNING DEVELOPMENTS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M REALLY HAPPY TO REPORT AS PART OF THIS IS THAT THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE PRIVATE UTILITIES. IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY SYSTEM IN A PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT BUILT TO A CITY STANDARD. AND SO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT BUILT TO A LESSER STANDARD. IT'S WHAT THE CITY WOULD REQUIRE ANYWAYS. YOU JUST HAVE THE PRIVATE DRIVE. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I WOULD POINT OUT IS THAT THERE ARE NO REQUESTS FOR A REDUCTION IN SETBACKS. I'VE SEEN LOTS OF PUDS THAT TRY TO PUSH THE BUILDINGS CLOSER TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. THE WAY YOU SEE THIS LAID OUT IS EXACTLY WHERE SOMEBODY COULD BUILD A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, IF THAT'S WHAT THESE WERE. IT'S A 25 FOOT REAR YARD. THAT'S THE MINIMUM REQUIRED IN THE R-1 ZONE. THERE'S NO REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE THERE. SO THE PUD ITSELF DOES COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE CITY'S STANDARDS IN SOME OF THE AREAS IT EXCEEDS THE CITY STANDARD, AND IT COMPLIES COMPLIES WITH ZONING AS WELL.

LOTS OF SMALL TEXT. THIS IS A SUMMARY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WHICH WE DID HOLD. YOU HAVE THE SUMMER, THE WRITTEN REPORT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT OR IN THE IN THE PACKET THAT WE DRAFTED. THE MAIN CONCERN THAT WE HEARD WAS THAT SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE LIVED NEXT TO THIS PROPERTY FOR MANY YEARS HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACCESS THEIR REAR YARDS ACROSS THIS PROPERTY.

AND THERE WAS CONCERN THAT WE WERE NOT MAINTAINING THAT. WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT IF THERE WAS SOME WAY TO ALTER, ALTER THE LAYOUT AND THE DESIGN. ULTIMATELY, THIS THIS IS THE MOST EFFICIENT. IT'S WE BELIEVE IT'S THE BEST LAYOUT FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. AND THE DEVELOPER REALLY HAS JUST CHOSEN NOT NOT TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW THAT, THAT ACCESS TO THE REAR YARDS, WHICH IS THEIR THEIR PREROGATIVE AS THE LANDOWNER. I'VE ALSO JUST INCLUDED AGAIN, FOR REFERENCE, THESE ARE ALL IF ANYONE WANTS THEM. THESE ARE STUDIES AGAIN IN RESPONSE TO SOME OF THE LETTERS THAT WERE SUBMITTED THAT SHOW DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT REDUCE PROPERTY VALUES, AS PEOPLE TEND TO THINK IT DOES. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S STUDIED WIDELY ACROSS THE NATION. SO WITH THAT, AGAIN, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. IT COMPLIES WITH YOUR STANDARDS. WE BELIEVE IT'S FIT WITHIN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER FRIEDMAN. AND THEN COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS. SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE PUD IS BEING REQUESTED MAINLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT'S LESS THAN TWO ACRES AND SO IT DOESN'T FIT THE THE CRITERIA. NO, IT'S IT'S REQUESTED BECAUSE OF THE NEED FOR A PRIVATE STREET. OKAY. THE CONCERN RAISED BY ONE OF THE LETTERS IS THAT YOUR ORDINANCE SAYS THAT A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST TWO ACRES, AND THIS IS NOT. BUT THE CODE ALSO SAYS THAT YOU, AS THE COUNCIL CAN FIND THAT A PUD IS STILL APPLICABLE IF IT'S AN INFILL SITE AND IF THE AREA IS DEVELOPING, WHICH THIS IS IN BOTH CASES. SO IF IT WAS A PUBLIC STREET, THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO EVEN ASK FOR THE PUD. CORRECT. AND AND THESE WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THIS ZONE. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME START. CAN YOU EXPLAIN I READ THAT PART OF THIS PART OF THIS LAND IS SET ASIDE AS PRIVATE FOR THE OWNERS, WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY USUAL IN MY VIEW, OF TOWNHOMES. AND PART OF THIS IS COMMON AND PART OF IT IS GREEN. THOSE THREE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. OR IS WHEN WE SAY PRIVATE, I WOULD ASSUME OWNER OF TOWNHOME GETS TO USE THAT PROPERTY, HIM OR HERSELF OR THE FAMILY, BUT IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY.

CORRECT. SO THIS THIS WILL BE PLOTTED AS LOTS FOR INDIVIDUAL SALE. SO JUST LIKE ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THE BUILDING THE YARD WOULD BE OWNED BY WHOEVER BUYS THAT PROPERTY, THE COMMON SPACES YOU'D FIND ON THE VERY SOUTH END AND THE SOUTHEAST, WHERE THE AMENITIES ARE THE STORM POND, THERE'S A PLAYGROUND AND A BASKETBALL COURT. THOSE ARE ALL COMMON TO THE TO ALL THE OWNERS WITHIN THE AREA. SO COMMON IS DIFFERENT THAN GREEN SPACE USING THE TERMS BECAUSE ALL THREE ARE USED IN SURE GREEN SPACE FOR THE CITY'S CODE. ARE THESE AREAS THAT ARE NOT COVERED BY BUILDING, BUILDING FOOTPRINTS OR ASPHALT. SO GREEN

[01:05:05]

GREEN CAN BE BOTH. GREEN CAN BE PUBLIC. IT CAN BE PRIVATE. BUT YEAH. SO THERE IS SOME OVERLAP INTERNALLY WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GREEN SPACE OKAY. SO MY SECOND ONE IS I THINK ACTUALLY THERE IS MORE THAN ONE REASON FOR THE PUD IN MY VIEW, BECAUSE THE IT'S LESS IT'S LESS THAN TWO ACRES. SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR US. WELL MAYBE IT'S STILL A PUD, BUT IT'S STILL THEY'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING VERY SPECIAL IN MY VIEW, TO DEVELOP THIS. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, FROM WHAT I READ, A PUD LESS THAN TWO ACRES REQUIRES SOMETHING TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.

AM I TOTALLY OFF BASE? TO SAY SERVING THE PUBLIC MEANS SERVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT JUST THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE, BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT WOULD JUST BE A REGULAR PUD OVER TWO ACRES WE SAY, OH, YOU HAVE TO HAVE 2 OR 3 AMENITIES DEPENDING ON WHAT HOW MANY DWELLINGS? OKAY.

BUT THAT WAS A REALLY KIND OF CLOSED AMENITIES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE. AND I'M SEEING THAT HERE. SO I WOULD BE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING THIS DEVELOPER IS DOING FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I WOULD CALL PUBLIC. SURE, SURE. AND HOW IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD FIT THAT CATEGORY? SO TO BE HONEST, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER ONE IS DURING THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO LOOK UP THAT THAT CODE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE READING IT THE SAME WAY. OKAY, OKAY. THE OTHER THING I'M GOING TO DO IS JUST CONTACT, MAKE SURE THAT I'M UNDERSTANDING FROM THE DEVELOPER CORRECTLY THAT THESE ARE COMING TO THE OWNERS AND NOT THE NEIGHBOR. IF THEY ARE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I'LL COME UP AND ADDRESS THAT QUESTION IF THAT'S OKAY OR. I DON'T KNOW IF THE INTENT IS TO OPEN IT UP TO THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY OR NOT.

OKAY, THAT'S THE SHORT ANSWER. SO I'LL FIND THAT OUT. AND MY THIRD QUESTION IS. I MAY BE REMEMBERING WRONG, BUT I THINK WE DID A PUD AND WE REQUIRED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE. WHY WOULD THIS DEVELOPER SAY, WELL, I WILL ONLY DO SIX. DO THEY HAVE THAT POWER TO TELL US THAT? I THINK THEY TOLD THE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL YOU THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU APPROVED. OKAY. AND I GUESS MY LAST ONE IS, IS THE DEVELOPER PREPARED TO DO FENCING ACCORDING TO EACH PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST? SO, YEAH, MY MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WAS IT BECAUSE THERE ARE THERE ARE EXISTING FENCES ALREADY THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD WORK WITH WITH THE NEIGHBORS TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY TO, TO TO DO FENCE THAT MAKES THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE COMFORTABLE IF WE MADE THAT A PART OF THE LAW. SO I, I MEAN, I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT JUST AS LONG AS IT'S CLEAR WHAT THE STANDARD IS THAT NEEDS TO BE MET, THAT'S THE REAL CHALLENGE. SOMETIMES WHEN IT'S WHEN IT'S NOT REALLY CLEAR WHAT YOU'RE ASKING TO DO. OKAY. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. THERE'S A, A AN EASEMENT FOR PUBLIC EASEMENT FOR. WATER, SEWER, THAT KIND OF STUFF THAT RUNS THE FULL LENGTH OF THAT LEFT, THAT LEFT SIDE, THERE'S NOTHING IN IT. AND IT'S BEING VACATED. IT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE EXISTING HOMES THAT ARE TO THE WEST OF IT, OR IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY ON THE VERY EAST. NO. THERE. THAT'S. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. AND WE CAN'T WE KNOW WE CAN'T INTERFERE WITH THAT. SO THAT'S STILL PART OF THE DESIGN THAT NEEDS TO BE FINE TUNED AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. BUT NO, THAT IS AN ACTIVE EASEMENT TO SAY, OKAY. SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT THE FOLKS TO THE IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. NO, I THINK IT DOES WITH WITH WITH ELECTRICAL POWER. OKAY. BUT AGAIN, WE CAN'T DISTURB IT BECAUSE OF THAT OKAY. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. YES. GO AHEAD AND THEN AND I'LL ASK MY ANSWER. YOU ASK I'M ALSO READING HERE THAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE ASKING FOR ANOTHER VARIANCE. IF I'M READING IT RIGHT IT SAYS ONE ON THE FRONT SETBACK IS A MINIMUM 25FT. THE APPLICANT REDUCES THAT NUMBER. THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING FOR A PUD. SO YEAH YEAH YEAH. IF YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A PUBLIC STREET. YES. THIS IS THIS IS CLOSER THAN THAT TO TO THE ROAD.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY OKAY OKAY THEN MY QUESTION IS. I DON'T LIKE PUBLIC I MEAN PRIVATE STREETS. I THINK THAT THEY CAUSE ISSUES DOWN IN THE FUTURE. AND SO I'M WONDERING, COULD YOU HAVE A PUBLIC STREET IN THIS LOCATION AND JUST NOT HAVE LOTS, MAYBE 12, 13 AND 14 AND AROUND THE CUL DE SAC AND STILL BE ABLE TO BUILD ON THIS WITH A PUBLIC STREET, THE ACCESS WOULD STILL BE AVAILABLE TO THIS LOT. OWNER. CORRECT? I MEAN, WE HAVE TO ALLOW ACCESS TO SOME

[01:10:02]

PROPERTY. YEAH. SO YEAH, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COULD YOU BUILD ON THIS LOT WITH A PUBLIC STREET? YES. IT WOULDN'T BE FOR YOUR LOTS. BUT I HAD THE SAME QUESTION BECAUSE I HAVE SOME SIMILAR THINGS ABOUT PRIVATE STREETS. SO WHEN WE SIT DOWN AND LAY IT OUT, WHAT BECOMES REALLY INEFFICIENT IS THE VERY SOUTHERN END IN THE CUL DE SAC, TRYING TO MAKE THOSE FIT AND MEET THE SETBACKS. ANYWAYS, SO EVEN WITH THE CUL DE SAC, BECAUSE OF THE RADIUS YOU'RE BACK IN, YOU'RE PROBABLY EITHER ASKING FOR VARIANCES OR STILL A PUD IN ORDER TO EVEN MAKE FEWER LOTS. AS I RECALL. NOW THE ENGINEER IS HERE THAT'S DONE THE DESIGN. HE PROBABLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION BETTER THAN ME, BUT I DID THIS VERY SAME EXERCISE WITH THEM WHEN THEY BROUGHT ME ON. OKAY, CAN WE MAKE THIS WORK? CAN WE MAKE IT WITH A PUBLIC STREET? BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS, BUT NOT HAVE THE PRIVATE STREET AND JUST REDUCE THE NUMBER OF LOTS? OKAY, I WILL ASK THE ENGINEER. OKAY, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. YES, PLEASE. I AM CONFUSED ON THE DENSITY BECAUSE IF IT'S A PUD, THE DENSITY IN R1 COULD BE EIGHT. IS THAT CORRECT? AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, YES. IT'S NOT PUD. THE DENSITY IS ONLY SIX. I BELIEVE THAT'S I THINK IT'S SEVEN. 6666. I MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE I WORKED HERE. SO. SO SOMEWHERE IN THERE MORE OR LESS SAYS WE'RE COUNTING SEVEN DWELLINGS PER ACRE, BUT IT'S NOT TWO ACRES, SO THAT DOESN'T ADD UP TO 14. I DON'T GET HOW THE STATISTICS WORK OUT TO JUSTIFY 14. IF IT'S 1.815, SURE, THAT'S LESS THAN TWO, RIGHT? SO I TRIED TO DO THE MATH AND I CAME UP WITH 14.

IF IT'S EIGHT. YES. SO YES IT COMPLIES WITH THE EIGHT. BUT IN HERE IT SAYS REALLY IT'S SEVEN.

IT AMOUNTS TO SEVEN PER ACRE. BUT THAT'S NOT EXACTLY CORRECT. WHAT SAYS IT ANNOUNCED A SEVENTH GRADER. TOWARD THE END. I THINK SEVEN POINT SOMETHING. YEAH, I DID THE MATH, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE MATH SAID. THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE SEEING THAT NUMBER FROM. WELL, ONE PLACE IT IS IT'S IN THE REASON STATEMENT. AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT THERE YET, BUT THAT'S THAT'S PREPARED BY YOUR STAFF. SO YOU'D HAVE TO CALL THE DIRECTOR AND WE'RE WOULD BE APPROVING THIS ON THE BASIS THAT IT'S 1.8 ACRES AND THAT WOULD JUSTIFY 14 DWELLINGS BASED ON A PUD. CORRECT. IF THEY DIDN'T DO A PUD, THEY'D BE DOWN TO THE SIX. YEAH. WHICH WOULD PROBABLY ACCOUNT FOR A THERE IS THERE IS A THERE'S AN INCREASE IN DENSITY. BUT WHAT I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS DOES COMPLY WITH THAT DENSITY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. OKAY. ARE YOU ARE YOU SATISFIED WITH THAT ANSWER OR ARE YOU. DO WE NEED TO? FOR NOW, ASK DIRECTOR. ASK DIRECTOR SANNER HOW THAT ALL WORKS OUT THOSE NUMBERS. BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT NUMBERS ON THE DENSITY. BUT WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT RIGHT NOW? DIRECTOR TANNER, WOULD YOU? ARE YOU ARE YOU FINISHED WITH YOUR PRESENTATION? I'M NOT A PRESENTATION YET. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR CENTER, WILL YOU COME AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION? OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AND IF YOU'D LIKE, I COULD GO THROUGH MY PRESENTATION AND I WOULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION ON HOW THE DENSITY WAS CALCULATED.

I'M HAPPY TO. WHATEVER YOU WOULD LIKE. CITY COUNCIL. OKAY. I'M AT YOUR DISPOSAL. SO. SO JUST FOR CLARITY, FOR THE MINUTES THAT WE HAVE ASKED DIRECTOR CENTER TO COME FORWARD FOR THE STAFF PRESENTATION AND THEN WE WILL CONTINUE WITH QUESTIONS FOR HIM. THANK YOU.

I'LL GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE RATHER QUICKLY. THIS IS AN R-1 ZONE. AS WAS STATED THE IT WAS JUST A STRAIGHT R-1 ZONE. THE DENSITY IS SIX UNITS PER ACRE. SO YOU'RE CORRECT ON THAT. WITH THE PUD YOU CAN REQUEST A PD. AND IN THE R-1 ZONE DISTRICT, IT MOVES THE DENSITY UP TO EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE. SO THIS PROPERTY OR WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT IS 14 UNITS. THE PROPERTY IS 1.815 ACRES. SO IF YOU DIVIDE UNITS PER ACRE, IT COMES OUT TO 7.7.

YOU TYPICALLY ROUND UP ABOUT 38 POUNDS UPON, BUT IT'S STILL UNDER THE EIGHT. YEAH, YEAH.

COUNCILMEMBER LAWSON AND I ARE BOTH LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DIMENSIONAL

[01:15:02]

STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WHICH SHOWS THE SIX AND THE TABLE OF MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, WHICH IS IN THE RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS, WHICH INCLUDES THE EIGHT. SO IT'S THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN TABLE 11 TWO FOUR OF THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AND THE RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM DENSITY IS FOUND IN 11 3-1. GOOD THAT OKAY. THANK YOU. JUST OKAY. GO AHEAD.

CONTINUE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION PLEASE. SO AS WAS STATED, I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. JUST FOR CLARITY'S PURPOSE, I'M GOING TO SKIP THROUGH THIS BECAUSE WE KNOW IT'S R-1. IT'S IN THE SUBURBAN TRANSECT. I WANTED TO POINT OUT ONE THING. THIS PROPERTY WAS ANNEXED INTO THE CITY ON IN OCTOBER OF 1979. AND THE CUP THAT WAS REQUESTED. AND THIS DOES HAVE RELEVANCE TO ALL, BECAUSE IT WILL ADDRESS COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS'S QUESTION IS THAT THERE WAS A CUP THAT WAS GRANTED FOR THE PROPERTY FOR A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, SYNAGOGUES, CHURCHES, MOSQUES, ALL THOSE REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT.

AND THIS IS THAT CUP WAS GRANTED IN 1981. SO THIS PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT.

SO THE CHURCH WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE. THESE ARE GOOD CLARIFIERS. AND THE CHURCH WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND THIS PROPERTY HAS STOOD VACANT SINCE 1981, SO THAT THE CITY BASICALLY GREW UP AROUND IT. AND YOU HAD INQUIRED COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS ABOUT. SO THERE'S TWO PARTS TO THAT. YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT THE MINIMUM SIZE OF THE PUD. SO THIS IS FOUND JUST TO GIVE A REFERENCE IN 11 DASH. OH 11 2-6W AND SUBSECTION FOUR A, IT SAYS THE PUD SIZE, THE MINIMUM SIZE SIZE FOR PUD SHALL BE TWO ACRES.

SMALLER ACREAGE MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR PUD ON THE LAND THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS IS REDEVELOPING. SO I JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT'S LEFT TO YOUR DETERMINATION. IF THIS IS REDEVELOPING, THE ONLY REASON I POINT OUT THAT IT WAS THE CUP WAS ISSUED IN IN 1981. THROUGH AERIAL ANALYSIS, WE CAN SHOW THAT THIS IS NEVER DEVELOPED. SO IN ESSENCE THAT DETERMINATION IS LEFT TO YOU. IF THIS IS REDEVELOPING AND THIS CAN BE LESS THAN TWO ACRES.

SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CAVEAT WHEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT A SIZE. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSED PUD BECAUSE THERE'S TWO ELEMENTS TO THIS. THE FIRST IS, AS WAS ALREADY STATED, THEY'RE REQUESTING EIGHT UNITS PER ACRE.

THIS DOES HER STAFF'S DETERMINATION BE 11, TWO, FOUR. SO IT DOES MEET THE DENSITY PER REQUESTED WITH PUD SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS WHICH IS BEING PROPOSED.

HERE IS ALSO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE R-1. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO PARTS TO WHY THE PUD IS BEING REQUESTED. AND I'LL EXPLAIN THOSE A LITTLE BIT.

THE FIRST IS AS WAS DESCRIBED BY THE APPLICANT, IT IS THE PRIVATE STREET THAT WAS ALREADY KIND OF THAT POINT DOESN'T NEED TO BE BELABORED. THE OTHER ELEMENT OF IT IS THEY ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE. THE R-1 ZONE REQUIRES A 25 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. THEY ARE REQUESTING A 20 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. SO THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE TWO REASONS, IN ESSENCE, WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING THE PUD. THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE LOT IS VERY TIGHT UP ON THE NECK UP HERE TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO IS THEY WERE ACTUALLY TRYING TO SHIFT THE WHEN THE THROUGH DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF, THEY WERE TRYING TO SHIFT THE UNITS TO HAVE THE FULL 25 FOOT REAR SETBACK, WHICH IS REQUIRED IN THE R-1 TO MAINTAIN THAT BUFFER FROM THE PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. SO THAT'S WHY THEY REQUESTED THAT FRONT SETBACK IS TO SHIFT THE UNIT FORWARD SO THAT THERE WAS A, IN ESSENCE, A REGULAR REAR YARD FOR THE R-1.

SO AS WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED, THERE IS A 15 FOOT PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT, THAT IS A UTILITY EASEMENT THAT'S REQUIRED BY PUBLIC WORKS AND POWER TO ENSURE THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT ROOM WHEN THEY DIG UP THOSE UTILITY LINES. AND THEN THE APPLICANT DID STATE THERE'S TWO AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS. AS WITH PUDS, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO DO ONE AMENITY. THEY ARE PROPOSING SOME PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT RIGHT HERE

[01:20:03]

ON THE SOUTHEAST PORTION AS WELL AS THEY'RE INSTALLING A BASKETBALL COURT DOWN HERE ON THE SOUTH. I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT, RED, MAYBE TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION THERE WITH THE CUL DE SAC, THERE ARE DIFFERENT MEANS OF TURNAROUND. THESE TURNAROUND ELEMENTS HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY FIRE. IN THIS CASE. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS WHAT'S CALLED A HAMMERHEAD. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS RED IS RIGHT HERE ON THE SOUTH. FIRE HAS LOOKED AT THIS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE FOR THIS. IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN A PUD IS THEY'RE UTILIZING THE BASKETBALL COURT FOR A PORTION OF THAT HAMMERHEAD. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT AS STAFF THIS IS AN APPROVAL FROM FIRE. NOT TRYING TO THROW FIRE UNDER THE BUS OR ANYTHING, BUT THEY THEY EVALUATED IT. THEY CAME BACK WITH THE BASKETBALL COURT, AND THEY FOUND THAT WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WOULD MEET THE WEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THAT CONCRETE TO TURN AROUND. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S NOT A CUL DE SAC ON THIS PROPOSAL. THIS I KNOW A NUMBER OF PEOPLE ARE HERE. THIS THIS ITEM WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 7TH. THERE WAS EXTENSIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THIS. WE TRIED TO INCLUDE, AS ALL THE WRITTEN COMMENT THAT WE HAD, I WANTED TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT CAME TO MY STAFF IN THAT WE HAD TWO INDIVIDUALS CALL MY DEPARTMENT.

ONE OF THEM CALLED ON TUESDAY, AND THEY WERE QUITE UPSET WITH US BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE SOME ELEMENTS IN THE PACKET. AND I JUST WANT TO READ OUR NOTICING THAT WE SEND OUT WHAT WE DIRECTED US FROM STAFF IS WE SAID WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAND THOSE OUT, AND THEY ARE WELCOME TO COME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE WERE NOT TRYING TO DISCOURAGE ANY COMMENT. LAND USE ITEMS IN PARTICULAR REQUIRE PUBLIC INPUT, BUT THE ISSUE AROSE IS THAT WE COULDN'T PUT IT IN THE PACKET, WHICH THIS THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS VERY ADAMANT ABOUT BEING IN THE PACKET. AND I'LL JUST READ OUR NOTICE. THIS WAS SENT OUT ON DECEMBER 29TH OF 2025. THIS IS STATE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO SEND IT OUT 15 DAYS PRIOR TO. SO YOU KNOW THIS THIS WENT OUT 24 DAYS PRIOR TO THIS PUBLIC HEARING. THE NOTICE SAYS ONE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE HELD BY THE IDAHO FALLS CITY COUNCIL ON JANUARY 22ND, 2026 AT 6:30 P.M.

AND THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 680 PARK AVENUE, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO. FURTHER, IT SAYS PUBLIC COMMENT WRITTEN COMMENTS ON THE APPLICANT MUST BE APPLICATION MUST BE RECEIVED AT THE PLANNING DIVISION, 380 CONSTITUTION WAY, IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 83,402 TWO OR BY EMAILING THE. WHICH IS THE PROJECT MANAGER WHO IS CAITLIN LONG NO LATER THAN 5 P.M. ON MONDAY.

PRIOR TO THE MEETING, THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE TESTIMONY IN PERSON AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE ONLY REASON I KNEW THAT IS THEY WANTED THEY'RE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. THEY UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT MEET THAT DEADLINE. THE ONLY REASON THAT WE DIDN'T WE HAVE A DEADLINE ON THAT IS BECAUSE, FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE, THE GOVERNMENT, WE HAVE TO PUBLISH THESE SO THAT THIS SO THAT YOU AS CITY COUNCIL CAN REVIEW ALL THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND ALL REVIEWED LETTERS, EVERYTHING THAT WE GET, WE PUT THAT ALL IN THE PACKET. IF SOMEONE WANTS TO. BRING SOMETHING TO THIS COUNCIL HEARING, THEY ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO AND THEY'RE WELCOME TO PRINT IT OFF AND WE CAN HAND IT OUT. BUT THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS QUITE UPSET THAT WE WEREN'T TAKING IT AND PUBLISHING IT IN THE PACKET. AND THEY UNFORTUNATELY HAVE MISSED THAT DEADLINE. SO WE DIRECTED THEM TO PLEASE COME OR THAT WE COULD HAND IT OUT. AND THEY DID NOT FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. I JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE WE'RE VERY WE'RE VERY KEEN ON THAT. WE WANT EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK, AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO CUT OFF ANYBODY FROM HAVING THE ABILITY TO TESTIFY AT THIS HEARING.

THAT BEING SAID, AS I STATED, THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 7TH. THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKET. THERE WAS EXTENSIVE CONVERSATION. I WANTED TO JUST HIT ON. ONE POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS THEY DISCUSSED IGNACIO ON THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH. I BELIEVE THIS IS WHERE YEAH, THE CANAL BUTTS UP AGAINST THE PROPERTY. THEY TALKED ABOUT POTENTIALLY REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO INSTALL A FENCE ALONG THE CANAL. THEY DID NOT. THAT ACTION ACTUALLY DIED BECAUSE OF LACK OF SECOND. SO IT WAS PROPOSED BY ONE PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBER. THE OTHER PLANNING COMMISSION DID NOT FEEL LIKE THEY WERE GOING TO CONDITION THAT ON THIS APPLICATION. AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT WHAT WAS PROPOSED, THEY HAD TALKED ABOUT A BRIDGE

[01:25:04]

OVER THE CANAL WHERE THE WHERE THE FENCE WAS WOULD BE IN THE CANAL. FURTHER, THAT IS THE DETENTION POND FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. WE CANNOT IMPOSE ON A CANAL COMPANY SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ADHERED TO BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT WAS ONE REASON. FURTHER, IF A FENCE IS PUT THERE, THERE COULD POTENTIALLY BE PROBLEMS WITH DRAINAGE AND ACCESS AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. SO I JUST SAY THAT YOU'LL SEE THAT IN THE PUBLIC HEARING RECORD, THEY JUST DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE DEVELOPER. WITH THAT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION DID SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION. IT WAS NOT UNANIMOUS. THE VOTE WAS 5 TO 1. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. HOPEFULLY. DID I ANSWER ALL YOUR QUESTIONS? I HOPE AS I WENT THROUGH THAT. THERE FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL DIRECTOR SANDER IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IF THE IMPACT ON A NEIGHBORHOOD FROM A DEVELOPER OR DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE TO SEE AT LEAST 100 NEW CARS EACH DAY, IS THAT THE. IS THAT THE LEVEL THAT TRIGGERS AN IMPACT STUDY AT A ROAD CAPACITY STUDY? YES. VERY GOOD QUESTION.

THAT CAME UP AS WELL. THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT. YES, THIS THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS FOR 14 UNITS. IT IS 100 THAT TRIGGERS THE TRAFFIC STUDY. THAT BEING SAID, PUBLIC WORKS DID LOOK AT THIS TO SEE IF THAT POTENTIAL IMPACT. THEY DID NOT DO A TRAFFIC STUDY, BUT THEY JUST THEY WENT AND APPROVED THIS FOR THE PROPOSED UNITS. AND THEY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE TRAFFIC THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE GENERATED FROM THAT. BUT THEY DID NOT DO A TRAFFIC STUDY.

AGAIN. THANK YOU. YES. CAN WE HAVE DIRECTOR FREDERICKSON? WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

IF YOU CAN APPROACH THE PODIUM. COUNCILMEMBER. LANGUAGE. DIRECTOR. FREDERICKSON. SO THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY WITHIN OUR PACKET WITH COMMENTS REGARDING OUR WATER, SEWER AND SANITATION SYSTEM CAPACITY. AND SO I JUST WANT TO ASK YOU, AS OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, DO WE HAVE ISSUES WITH THE SEWER, SANITATION AND WATER SYSTEMS WAS SUGGESTED IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS BY AT LEAST ONE INDIVIDUAL THAT THE SYSTEM WILL BE A CAPACITY IN TWO YEARS, WITH NO PLANS TO UPGRADE UNTIL 2030. CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHETHER THAT IS ACCURATE AS IT RELATES TO THIS ISSUE, AND IF YOU SEE ANY ISSUES WITH THE SEWER, SANITATION AND WATER SYSTEMS RELATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT? WELL, FIRST, HOW WOULD YOU COMMENT AT PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWS ALL PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS? WITH THAT EYE TOWARDS THOSE ITEMS THAT WE SUPPLY. AND SOME OF THOSE UTILITIES THAT WERE MENTIONED ARE WATER AND SEWER PRIMARILY. BUT I THINK THE REFERENCE ACTUALLY WAS IN REGARDS TO A WASTEWATER FACILITY PLAN THAT WAS RECENTLY COMPLETED. ONE OF THE KEY ITEMS THAT WAS LOOKED AT AS OUR NEXT IMPROVEMENT WAS IMPROVEMENTS TO OUR DIGESTER.

SO ALL OF THOSE ARE BASED ON FORECASTS, PARTICULAR FLOWS THAT ARE RECEIVED BY THE TREATMENT PLANT. WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDER CONTRACT FOR THAT DESIGN WORK FOR THAT DIGESTER UPGRADE, PROBABLY HEARD IN THE BUDGETING PROCESS FOR QUEEN BEES BEEN MENTIONED A NUMBER OF TIMES TO HELP ADDRESS THAT. SO WITH THOSE IMPROVEMENTS IN THEIR DESIGN, WE HAVE NO CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH WASTEWATER TREATMENT SIDE OF THINGS IN WHICH THAT REFERENCES THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE. WE'RE ALSO CONTINUING TO LOOK AT THE CAPACITY WITHIN THE LINES, BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY TWO PARTS TO OUR WASTEWATER SYSTEM. THE LINES THAT COLLECT THE WASTE, TRANSPORT IT TO THE TREATMENT SYSTEM. BUT BUT IN THAT, ON A CITYWIDE BASIS, WE'RE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT AND OTHERS THAT ARE GOING THROUGH THE TOWN. AND THE SAME GOES FOR OUR WATER DIVISION. AS WE LOOK AT THESE AS WELL. WE'VE TALKED A NUMBER OF TIMES WITH CHANGES TO THE CITY'S WATER POLICY, AND WE'RE TRYING TO UTILIZE SURFACE WATER. THAT REALLY HELPS, I GUESS, CUTS THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT'S REQUIRED IN THE POTABLE SIDE SO THAT THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS AREN'T REALLY IMPACTING OUR PEAK FLOWS FROM OUR WATER SYSTEM. SO IN THAT REGARD, I WOULD SAY PUBLIC WORKS IS COMFORTABLE WITH BOTH OUR SANITARY AND OUR POTABLE WATER SYSTEMS, OUR SYSTEM STABILITY. THANK YOU, DIRECTOR FREDRICKSON. THERE WAS ALSO SOME COMMENTS REGARDING WATER PRESSURE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

ARE YOU AWARE OF WATER PRESSURE ISSUES AND AND AND REMEDIES? IF THERE ARE ISSUES, I KNOW THAT AS, AS CONCERNS THAT ARE RAISED WITH OUR WATER DIVISION, WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO GO OUT AND PURSUE WHAT THOSE MAY BE. SOMETIMES THERE ARE SOME CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. I THINK WE HAD A RECENT PUD DURING CONSTRUCTION, SOME OF THE VALLEY THAT HAS TO BE TURNED SO THAT THAT CAN ONLY BE FED FROM A SINGLE DIRECTION WHILE CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON. THOSE

[01:30:03]

CAN THOSE CAN ACTUALLY LEAD TO SOME OF THE IMPACTS THAT COULD IMPACT SOME OF THOSE WATER PRESSURES. BUT ONCE THAT CONSTRUCTION IS BASICALLY TAKEN CARE OF, THE WATER PRESSURE RESUMES. AND SO I'M UNAWARE OF ANY OF THOSE COMPLAINTS, NOR WILL OUR WATER DIVISION PEOPLE CALLING AND TALKING ABOUT PRESSURE ISSUES IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF TOWN. IS THERE A STORMWATER DRAINAGE AND RUN-OFF CONCERN? I KNOW THE DEVELOPER IS PAYING IMPACT FEES, I BELIEVE, RELATED TO THIS. IS THAT CORRECT? SO ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT IN IDAHO FALLS HAS TO ADHERE TO OUR STORMWATER POLICY, WHICH MEANS WE STORE OUR STORMWATER ON SITE. AND SO THAT'S REALLY FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE SUBDIVISION THAT'S ADJACENT. HAVE TO STORE THEIR OWN STORMWATER AS THIS ONE WILL AS WELL. SO STORMWATER IS ADDRESSED ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS IN THESE PLANTS. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN BY OUR PUBLIC WORKS STAFF. OKAY. LAST QUESTION FOR YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. ARE THERE ANY PLANS FOR STREET LIGHTS TO BE ADDED AT BELL AND ROAD? AND I THINK IT'S PLUMBING. I'VE BEEN HERE I WAS, I WAS, I WAS RAISED HERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I EVER SAID THE THIS STREET NAME CORRECTLY. I, I KNOW WITHIN THE CITY MEDICINE BUILDING HAS A NUMBER OF SPOTS WHERE WE'RE IN THE CITY. WE'RE IN THE COUNTY. YEAH, BUT BUT IF THERE IS A LIGHTING NEED, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WORKS. WORKS WITH PULSE POWER ON TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ILLUMINATION THAT WE FEEL LIKE IT'S NEEDED TO PROTECT.

REALLY, IT'S IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT FROM THE PEDESTRIAN USES WITHIN THE ROADWAY THAT WE'D LIKE TO ELIMINATE THOSE FOR. BUT IF THERE IS A CONCERN WITH LIGHTING, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN ADDRESS. THANKS FOR ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T SEE STEVEN BAUGHMAN HERE. SO I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT'S A QUESTION I CAN ASK FURTHER AS WELL. THANK YOU. WITH THAT, WE ARE READY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

IF YOU'LL JUST APPROACH THE PODIUM, GIVE YOUR NAME, STATE YOUR CITY. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND KEEP THEM AROUND THREE MINUTES. SO PLEASE I'LL DO MY BEST. I DO WANT TO COMMENT ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. BRAD, I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT BRAD IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONTRACTOR AND APPARENTLY WITH THE JUST FOR THE RECORD, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. COULD YOU STATE YOUR NAME? I'M SORRY, DAVE ROENICK, IDAHO FALLS TAXPAYER, HOMEOWNER AND BUSINESS OWNER. BUT I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT UP. AND SO I WANT TO READ THIS LITTLE NOTE TO YOU THAT I WROTE HERE. SO MAYOR BURNSVILLE AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. TONIGHT. UNDER IDAHO'S ETHICS, CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND OPEN MEETING LAWS, COULD STAFF CLARIFY WHAT GUIDANCE EXISTS REGARDING COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CONTRACTORS OR DEVELOPERS PRIOR TO COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OR APPROVAL? SO I'M ASKING THE COUNCIL IF BRAD IS ALLOWED TO REPRESENT THE CONTRACTOR AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT A CONFLICT OF INTEREST? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT BE CONSIDERED. SORRY BRAD, ANY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, HE CAME UP HERE FOR IT. HE CAME UP HERE FOR IT. SO I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND. OKAY. SO IT'S JUST FOR THAT. IT'S JUST FOR THE CONSIDERATION THAT AS WE AS WE. YES, YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE OTHER THING IS JUST GOING BACK TO THAT HOME RANCH DEVELOPMENT. YOU'RE GOING TO SPLIT THOSE BUILDINGS. PLEASE CHECK THE FIRE CODE. YOU KNOW, THOSE NEW. OH, I'M SORRY. WE THIS JUST IS SPECIFIC TO THIS ONE. I AND WE CAN I DON'T KNOW HOW TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT IF YOU GO AND PROVE IN APPROVE STUFF WITHOUT FURTHER QUESTIONING. YES. THAT WOULD THAT WOULD. YEAH, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY PASSED THROUGH FIRE BEFORE IT CAME TO COUNCIL AS A OKAY. BECAUSE I KNOW THE FIRE CODES HAVE CHANGED SINCE 1979 OR 1981, WHATEVER THAT WAS. YES. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP AS AS IT CAME FORWARD AS A FINAL PRESENTATION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION. AND I DON'T MEAN TO BE CONFRONTATIONAL, AND I THINK YOU ALL READ MY LETTERS.

I, I DID MY RESEARCH. ALL RIGHT. UNDER IDAHO CODE 67, 8201 THROUGH 67 8211 IMPACT. THESE EXIST TO ENSURE THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT PAYS ITS PROPORTIONATE SHARE OF GROWTH RELATED TO CAPITAL FACILITIES, AND THAT EXISTING RESIDENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO SUBSIDIZE THE IMPACTS OF GROWTH. MY QUESTION IS, WHEN WE JUST BROUGHT UP STREETLIGHTS, WHO'S PAYING FOR THOSE? SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE IMPACT FEES ARE THERE TO PAY FOR THIS. AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, JUST NORTH OF THIS, ACROSS THE OTHER SIDE OF PANCARI, THERE'S 64 OR 68 UNITS GOING IN THERE RIGHT NOW. HOW MANY HAVE THEY CAN HAVE? OVER EIGHT. NOW, SOMEBODY SAID, SO I

[01:35:06]

WANT THAT CONSIDERED I DON'T WANT I THINK WE'RE ALL HOMEOWNERS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT AREN'T WE. SO WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR THIS. OH, BY THE WAY, MY PROPERTY ISN'T ONE THAT'S 25FT OFF THE BACK DOOR OF THAT ONE HOUSE. OH, MAYOR, TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA WHAT 25FT IS, IF YOU'RE NOT AWARE, ME TO YOU IS 25FT. MY PROPERTY LINE IS ME. YOU'RE THE BACK DOOR OF THAT TOWNHOUSE. IN BETWEEN YOU AND ME, THERE'S AN EIGHT FOOT EASEMENT THAT SERVES THE TRANSFORMERS ALONG THAT FENCE LINE, MEANING THE PROPERTY OWNERS. THERE IS ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR TRANSFORMERS. IF IN FACT THERE IS A NEED IN TRANSFORMER EXPLOSION, HOW IS THE CITY GOING TO GET BACK TO THOSE IN AN EMERGENCY? NON-RENAL FIRE THOSE. THEY CAN STRETCH THE FIRE OUT, BUT HOW SOON ARE YOU GOING TO GET BACK THERE? THAT'S A QUESTION I HAVE THE THE PLANNED THE PUD PLANS ON PUTTING TREES BACK THERE. SO IF YOU PUT TREES BETWEEN YOU AND ME AND THERE'S A TRANSFORMER SITTING ON ME, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GET TO IT? THAT'S MY QUESTION. SO PLEASE CONSIDER THAT GROWTH AND HOUSING CONTEXT IDAHO FALLS CURRENTLY HAS A POPULATION OF APPROXIMATELY 69,500 RESIDENTS AND IS GROWING AND AN ESTIMATED 2.1% ANNUALLY. WHILE GROWTH IS OFTEN CITED TO JUSTIFY INCREASED RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, GROWTH ALONE DOES NOT RELIEVE THE CITY OF ITS RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY KEEP PACE. AT PRESENT, MARKET LISTINGS SHOW APPROXIMATELY 300. THIS IS AS OF TUESDAY. AT PRESENT, MARKET LISTINGS SHOW POSSIBLY 380 TO 400 APARTMENTS AVAILABLE FOR RENT AND 30 TO 40 TOWNHOMES AVAILABLE. AVAILABLE WITHIN IDAHO FALLS, PER ZILLOW. IN ADDITION, HUNDREDS OF APARTMENT AND TOWNHOME UNITS ARE ALREADY APPROVED UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR IN THE PLANNING PIPELINE, INCLUDING LARGE, MULTI-PHASE DEVELOPMENTS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THIS COUNCIL. THIS DEMONSTRATES THAT HOUSING SUPPLY IS ACTIVELY EXPANDING EVEN WITHOUT IMMEDIATE APPROVAL OF ADDITIONAL PUDS ADJACENT TO ESTABLISH SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. SECOND, INCOME AND AFFORDABILITY.

AFFORDABILITY. AND MR. RUDNICK, IF YOU CAN, WE'RE WELL BEYOND THE THREE MINUTES. YES, PLEASE.

MY NEIGHBOR, MY NEIGHBOR. YES, YOU CAN. YOU CAN FINISH. BUT PLEASE JUST BE. I UNDERSTAND, BUT BRAD WAS UP HERE A LONG TIME. YES, HE HE IS THE. YES, I UNDERSTAND THAT TOO. THIS IS JUST THE AS A TAXPAYER, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT I'M NOT. I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE. YES. I JUST AM SAYING I AM OKAY TO GO HOMEOWNERS. YES. I'M JUST I AM JUST TIMING IT AND WE'RE ALMOST I WANT TO GET DONE TOO. I'M MISSING A HOCKEY GAME. THEY MADE ME LOSE MY PLACE. OKAY.

I'M SORRY. YEAH. GOOD POINT. SECOND INCOME AND AFFORDABILITY. REALITY. THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN IDAHO FALLS IS APPROXIMATELY $69,600 PER YEAR. MEDIAN. OKAY. TO PLACE AFFORDABILITY INTO CONTEXT, A NEWLY BUILT TOWNHOME PRICED AROUND $350,000 CONSISTENT WITH RECENT APPROVALS, RESULTS IN AN ESTIMATED MONTHLY MORTGAGE PAYMENT OF 1800 TO $1950, EXCLUDING TAXES, INSURANCE AND HOA FEES, MARKET RATE. APARTMENT RENTS COMMONLY RANGE FROM 1300 TO 1700 PER MONTH FOR MANY HOUSEHOLDS EARNING NEAR THE MEDIAN INCOME. THESE HOUSING COSTS ALREADY EXCEED COMMONLY ACCEPTED AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLDS. THIS REALITY HEIGHTENS THE IMPORTANCE OF ENSURING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT FULLY FUNDS ITS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS, RATHER THAN SHIFTING COSTS ONTO EXISTING RESIDENTS. THIRD, ADOPTED IMPACT FEES.

MULTI-FAMILY TOWNHOUSES UNDER THE CITY'S CURRENTLY ADOPTED IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, MULTIFAMILY TOWNHOMES DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS WELL PLACE ARE ASSESSED IMPACT FEES DIFFERENTLY THAN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. AND I HEARD ABOUT THAT THE OTHER DAY WHEN I WAS IN HERE. TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES ARE ASSESSED AT APPROXIMATELY 1440 FOR 1000FT■S OF RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA FOR TYPICAL TOWNHOME UNITS RANGING FROM 1500 TO 1800 SQUARE FEET, THIS EQUATES TO ROUGHLY 2160 TO $2600 PER UNIT FOR TRANSPORTATION ALONE. IN ADDITION TO POLICE, FIRE, EMS, PARKS, IMPACT FEES ASSESSED UNDER THE MULTI-FAMILY CATEGORIES. ACROSS A DEVELOPMENT THE SIZE OF WOLF PLACE, THIS REPRESENTS HUNDREDS

[01:40:02]

OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN IMPACT FEE REVENUE, AND IT'S NOT QUITE HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

I WOULD NEED TO PUT THAT IN. IDAHO LAW REQUIRES THAT THESE FUNDS BE CLEARLY TIED TO SPECIFIC GROWTH RELATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS SERVING THE DEVELOPMENT AREA FOR TRANSPORTATION, SAFETY AND INFRASTRUCTURE IMPACTS WILL PLACE. PUD WILL HAVE CONCENTRATED TRAFFIC AND SERVICE DEMAND ONTO BELT AND ROAD, BROADWAY AND PAINCARE.

THESE QUARTERS ALREADY FUNCTION AS CRITICAL EAST WEST ROUTES FOR RESIDENTS, EMERGENCY RESPONDERS AND SCHOOL TRAFFIC, WHILE INDIVIDUAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS MAY GENERATE FEWER TRIPS THAN DETACHED HOMES, HIGHER DENSITY CONCENTRATE TRIPS FOR TWO DURING PEAK HOURS, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST CLARITY ON THE FOLLOWING. HOW WILL THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES WILL BE SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED TO IMPROVEMENTS ON BELT AND ROAD, BROADWAY AND PANTRY? WHAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ARE PLANNED AND WHEN THEY WILL BE CONSTRUCTED, AND HOW EMERGENCY ACCESS AND RESPONSE TIMES WILL BE PRESERVED ALONG BELT AND ROAD. GIVEN THE ADDED DENSITY, IMPACT FEES ARE NOT INTENDED FOR GENERAL SYSTEM NEEDS OR CORRECT EXISTING DEFICIENCIES.

THEY MUST ADDRESS THE INCREMENTAL IMPACT CREATED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT. FIFTH, LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AND PLANNING LOGIC. THE PUD IS PROPOSED AT DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A WELL ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD WHOSE RESIDENTS PURCHASE THEIR HOMES WITH A REASONABLE EXPECTATIONS OF LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE. THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EMPHASIZES COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN ADJACENT LAND USES, GRADUATED TRANSITIONS AND DENSITY, AND PROTECTION OF ESTABLISHED NEIGHBORHOODS. GIVEN THOSE PRINCIPLES ARE RESPECTFULLY ASKED THESE QUESTIONS. WHAT IS THE PLANNING LOGIC FOR PLACING A HIGH DENSITY PUD IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO LONG STANDING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, RATHER THAN ALONG ARTERIAL CORRIDORS FOR DESIGNATED TRANSITION AREAS? WHAT ENFORCEABLE MEASURES ARE BEING REQUIRED TO MITIGATE IMPACTS RELATED TO TRAFFIC INTRUSION, PARKING NOISE AND NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? AND HOW DOES THE PROPOSED THIS PROPOSAL ALIGN WITH THE CITY'S OWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES ON DENSITY TRANSITIONS? SHE DOESN'T MATTER. I HAVE ASBESTOSIS WHILE SERVING THIS COUNTRY. IN YOUR BREATH. IN SIX YEARS OF MY LIFE IN THE NAVY, FINALLY, ABSENT CLEAR FINDINGS AND ENFORCEABLE MITIGATION, THE PROPOSAL RISK PLACING A DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN ON EXISTING HOMEOWNERS. CONTRARY TO THOSE SOUND PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND IDAHO LAW, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT. GIVEN THE AVAILABILITY OF APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES, TOWNHOMES, A SUBSTANTIAL PIPELINE OF APPROVED AND UNDER-CONSTRUCTION UNITS, THE AFFORDABILITY CHALLENGES FACED BY MEDIAN INCOME HOUSEHOLDS, AND UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS REGARDING IMPACT FEE ALLOCATION, INFRASTRUCTURE DELIVERY, AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL POSTPONE APPROVAL OF THE RULE OF PLACE PUD UNTIL IMPACT FEE REVENUES ARE QUANTIFIED AND TIED TO SPECIFIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. TRANSPORTATION AND EMERGENCY SERVICE IMPACTS. ONGOING ROAD, BROADWAY AND PANTRY ARE FULLY DOCUMENTED. IN DENSITY, TRANSITION AND NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY. FINDINGS ARE CLEARLY ARTICULATED AND ENFORCEABLE. AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR MY SHORT BREATH. IN CLOSING, THIS REQUEST IS NOT ANTI-GROWTH. YOU'RE OKAY. YOU CAN I DON'T I MEAN, I KNOW THAT I'M YOU'RE FEELING RUSHED, BUT I, I DON'T WANT YOU TO I AM RUSHING I DO HAVE ASBESTOSIS. I KNOW YOU'RE OKAY. IT'S OKAY. I DON'T WANT YOU TO FEEL THAT WAY AND YOU DON'T WANT ME TO. FAITH IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I SAY THAT I CARE ABOUT YOUR HEALTH MORE THAN I CARE ABOUT THE TIME OF NIGHT. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO TAKE. I KNOW IT'S OKAY, I APOLOGIZE. YOU'RE OKAY. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW I DIDN'T CLOSE. AND THIS REQUEST IS NOT ANTI-GROWTH.

IT IS A REQUEST FOR THOUGHTFUL, LAWFUL, AND EQUITABLE PLANNING THAT RESPECTS BOTH FUTURE RESIDENTS AND THOSE WHO ALREADY CALL THIS NEIGHBORHOOD HOME. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT, AND I APOLOGIZE. I WAS A LITTLE LONG AND A LITTLE OUT OF LINE IN THE BEGINNING. I DO HAVE A COPY OF WHAT I JUST READ, IF YOU WOULD LIKE. I GIVE IT TO EMILY AND AND SHE DOES TAKE THOSE MINUTES AND THAT WOULD HELP. JIM. YES.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MR. THANK YOU. AND I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT MY INHALER. GO UP.

YOUR NEIGHBORS. YEAH. IF YOU AND I KNOW YOU'VE STATED IT ONCE, BUT IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.

THANK YOU. I'M OKAY. MY NAME IS TERRY SMITH. I LIVE IN IDAHO FALLS. MY HOME IS. I LIVE ON

[01:45:05]

BLUEBIRD, DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PROPOSED PROPERTY. IS YOUR LASER POINTER. CAN I PLAY WITH THE CLICKER? NO, I CAN DO THE LASER POINTER. TERRY, VERY GOOD QUESTION. IF YOU WANT TO POINT TO JUST JUST TO SHOW YOU THE PROPERTY. OKAY. LET'S SEE IF I CAN DO THAT. IT MIGHT TAKE YOU TEN MINUTES. MY PROPERTY IS NOW I CAN'T FIND IT RIGHT THERE. YEAH. SO THIRD THIRD FROM THE FROM PUBLIC STREET BLUEBIRD. IF YOU GO THREE HOUSES DOWN, THIRD FROM PLUM STREET, YOU CAN SEE MY MY TRAILER IN THE BACKYARD THAT I WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO PUT IN MY BACKYARD IF THIS IS APPROVED. OKAY. AND TO BEGIN WITH, JUST A LITTLE CLARIFICATION. THE THE THE THE LOT THAT'S IN QUESTION HERE WAS OWNED BY THE CHURCH THAT IS THERE ON THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN CONSTITUTE THAT AS BEING VACANT JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T DEVELOP YOUR PROPERTY.

DOES THAT MEAN IT'S VACANT? GREAT QUESTION. SO JUST THAT THAT QUESTION, EVERYBODY'S REFERRING TO THAT AS A VACANT LOT. IT WASN'T A VACANT LOT UNTIL THE DEVELOPERS PURCHASED IT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY, I AM ENCOURAGED BY THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I WAS A LITTLE DISCOURAGED AFTER READING THE NOTES FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. I WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND BECAUSE OF A PREVIOUS COMMITMENT THAT HAD BEEN IN THE PLANNING FOR ABOUT A YEAR, AND BUT I WAS ABLE TO ATTEND THE NEIGHBORS MEETING AND IT JUST AFTER READING THE NOTES FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE NEIGHBORS MEETING, IT JUST KIND OF APPEARED TO ME THAT THE PUBLIC HEARINGS REALLY DIDN'T SERVE ANY PURPOSE, BECAUSE THE OUTCOME SEEMED LIKE IT WAS ALREADY DETERMINED. FOR INSTANCE, THE COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER STORER AND SCOTT BASICALLY SAID THAT THEY HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL BECAUSE THE PUD MET THE QUALIFICATIONS, COMPATIBILITY, COMPLIANCE, AND SO THEY HAD NO CHOICE BUT TO VOTE FOR IT. I WAS ENCOURAGED BY COMMISSIONER CANTU'S STATEMENT THAT SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT JUST RUBBERSTAMP SOMETHING JUST BECAUSE IT'S COMPLIANT, IT IT APPEARS THEN FROM THOSE COMMENTS THAT THE CITIZENS COMMENTS DON'T REALLY COUNT BASED ON THEIR COMMENTS. IF IT'S COMPLIANT, THEN IT SHOULD BE APPROVED. AND AND I DON'T I DON'T FEEL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL FEELS THAT WAY, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THE FEELING THAT THAT I HAD AFTER READING THAT, THAT THOSE PARTICULAR COMMENTS, THE ZONING CODES, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, WERE CHANGED IN THE LATE 1990S, WHICH STOPPED PROTECTING HOMEOWNERS FROM THESE SORTS OF DEVELOPMENTS. WE THOUGHT OUR ONE STILL MEANT THE SAME AS WHEN WE PURCHASED OUR HOMES OVER 30 YEARS AGO, THINKING THAT WE WERE PROTECTED FROM HIGH DENSITY. THAT'S WHY THE PEOPLE IN THE CITY SOMETIMES APPEAR TO BE A LITTLE UPSET OVER THESE DEVELOPMENTS. HOWEVER, IT SOMETIMES FEELS ALSO LIKE THE FLEXIBILITY IN ZONING STANDARDS FAVOR THE DEVELOPERS OVER THE RESIDENTS BECAUSE THE WRITTEN STANDARDS CAN BE CHANGED WITH VARIANCES AND WITH DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS. ONCE AGAIN, IT SEEMS LIKE THEY CAN JUST BE REWRITTEN TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPERS TO GET IT APPROVED. IT'S LIKE WHEN NAIVE CITIZENS READ IN THE ZONING CODE THAT THESE TOWNHOUSES SHOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBORHOODS. WE'RE THINKING THAT THESE BUILDINGS SHOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SAYS COMPATIBLE, FOR INSTANCE, WHERE THE CODE SAYS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, BULK SCALE, STRUCTURE, MASS, AND CHARACTER DEMONSTRATED BY SIMILAR BUILDING TYPES, CONSTRUCTION, SEPARATIONS, AND HEIGHTS. WE LOOK AT THAT FACT THAT THEY ARE ONE BUILDING IN THREE UNITS, AND OUR HOMES ARE SINGLE, DETACHED. IT SEEMS THAT THE DEVELOPERS OF THE PROJECT SUGGEST THAT THERE WHEN ONE BUILDING, WHICH IS THE THREE TOWNHOMES GROUPED TOGETHER, IS EQUIVALENT TO ONE OF OUR HOMES, I DON'T RECALL ANY INDIVIDUAL HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING 81FT LONG, 35.5FT WIDE, AND TWO STORY RECTANGLES SITTING IN A ROW AND LOOKING THE SAME. SO WHEN SOMEONE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LOOKS OUT THEIR BACKYARD IN THE SUBDIVISION AND THERE IS ONE HOUSE DIRECTLY BEHIND IT, NOT THE FOUR THAT WILL BE BEHIND MY HOUSE. IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED AND THEY WILL BE ABLE. SO I WILL HAVE FOUR NEIGHBORS THAT WILL

[01:50:04]

BE ABLE TO LOOK INTO MY BACKYARD BECAUSE IT'S 25FT, AS OPPOSED TO ONE NEIGHBOR LOOKING INTO MY BACKYARD. SO NO, WE WE DON'T THINK IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE DON'T THINK THEY ARE SIMILAR BUILDING TYPES. THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING, MR. KRAMER STATED THAT IF THEY WERE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED INSTEAD OF ATTACHED, NOTHING WOULD CHANGE IN THEIR LOCATION. THEY COULD SIT AS DESIGNED. AND MR. EILER STATED THAT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED AND OR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED WOULD BE THE SAME, AND THAT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR PRIVACY CONCERNS. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PROJECT. IF IT WERE CHANGED. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PROJECT AND THE SINGLE DETACHED HOMES IN THE ADJACENT OR CONTINUING CONTINGENT SUBDIVISION, BUT MAKING THAT COMPARISON, IT DOESN'T SEEM, SEEM TO BE ALLOWED. SO I GUESS IN ESSENCE, PER THE PROJECT INTERPRETATION, HAVING FOUR NEIGHBORS LOOKING INTO MY BACKYARD, WHETHER ATTACHED OR DETACHED, SHOULDN'T BE A PRIVACY CONCERN TO ME. I SHOULD JUST BE GRATEFUL THAT THEY'RE THERE. IF I WALK PAST 14 HOMES IN THE SUBDIVISION, I'M 1300 FEET DOWN THE ROAD, NOT 500FT LIKE IN THIS PROJECT, BUT IN PUD CODE THAT SEEMS TO BE EQUIVALENT. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE IT REFERENCED IN THERE ALSO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SELFISH IF WE GET THE FEELING THAT WE'RE BEING SELFISH AND UNINFORMED BECAUSE WE DON'T NECESSARILY FEEL LIKE THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WILL HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS SMITH. IT'S YOUR TURN. YES. AND I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHERS WHO WANT TO TESTIFY. I'M. I'M GOING. I HAVE BEEN TIMING BUT NOT BEING VERY STRICT TO THAT. BUT I'M GOING TO TRY A LITTLE HARDER. IF YOU WOULDN'T, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND AS WELL. MAYBE. OKAY. NO, THAT WILL NOT WORK. I'M KIND OF GLAD TO HAVE THE SLIDES UP HERE, BECAUSE I'VE GOT TO CORRECT A COUPLE OF MISCONCEPTIONS THAT MR. KRAMER ALREADY GAVE YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THOSE SLIDES OR NOT, BUT THIS IS WHERE THE CHURCH IS. OOPS. GO BACK TO THAT PLAT. SO NO, THE PLAQUE THAT HE GAVE ON SUBDIVISION, THE OLD. BACK THERE. OKAY, THAT'S A NICE ONE.

AND HE ALSO HE COMMENTED THAT THIS PARTICULAR THING WAS ON THE EDGE OF A OF A SUBDIVISION.

IT'S NOT. IT'S WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. IF YOU PULL THE PLAQUE FOR THE NEW SWEDEN ESTATES DIVISION ONE, WHICH I HAVE HERE, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE PLAT RUNS ALL THE WAY DOWN BELLE AND ROAD, INCLUDING WHERE THE CHURCH IS. THE CHURCH IS WITHIN THE PLAQUE, RIGHT? YEAH, THE CHURCH IS WITHIN THE PLAT. THE CHURCH IS ACTUALLY BUILT ON LOTS THAT WERE PLATTED. AND SO IT IS WITHIN. THE SUBDIVISION. AND ON THIS YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE ORIGINAL PLAT HAD ONLY PUT THREE LOTS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA. THEY LEFT THE REST OF IT OPEN. IT WASN'T BECAUSE THE CHURCH BOUGHT IT. AT THAT POINT. THIS PLAT WAS MADE WAY BEFORE THE CHURCH WAS. THE CHURCH PURCHASED THE LAND. AND SO THAT BASICALLY THAT THIS LOT OR THIS AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS INTENTIONALLY LEFT OPEN, AND IT WAS PROBABLY FOR THE DRAINAGE FROM DIVISION ONE AND DIVISION FOUR. BUT BUT OKAY, THAT'S THAT. SO IT IS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION. THE PROJECT OFFERS NO AMENITIES BENEFITS. DID I SAY MY NAME? MY NAME IS MATT SMITH. I LIVE IN THE SAME PLACE. YES. SOMETIMES. SOMETIMES MOST OF THE TIME. PROJECT OFFERS NO AMENITIES OR BENEFITS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT AREN'T ALREADY AVAILABLE TO THIS AREA, OR EVEN THE PROPOSED PROJECT. THE EXISTING CHURCH HAS BASKETBALL WINGS. WESTSIDE ELEMENTARY HAS PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT, BASKETBALL COURTS, AND A CITY PARK, AND THE AREA IN QUESTION IS ALREADY A STORM POND OR CATCH BASIN AND SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED FOR FILL IN OR REDEVELOPMENT BECAUSE IT IS WORKING JUST FINE AS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. THERE IS ALWAYS

[01:55:05]

STANDING WATER IN THE BASEMENT IN THE BASIN IN THE SPRING, RIGHT WHERE THOSE TOWNHOMES WOULD BE BUILT. I MEAN, PROBABLY WOULD MESS UP THE DRAINAGE. IN FACT, THE LOT DIDN'T BECOME VACANT, AS MY WIFE MENTIONED, UNTIL THE DEVELOPERS PURCHASED IT OVER A YEAR AGO AND STOPPED MOWING. THE PREVIOUS OWNERS ALWAYS KEPT IT, ALWAYS KEPT IT MOWED AND KEPT THE WEEDS DOWN. SO THE DEVELOPER SAID IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING THAT THEY WOULD MOW, BUT THEY DIDN'T. AND I IMAGINE THAT THEY DID THAT. SO IT WOULD LOOK MORE LIKE A VACANT LOT. SO IT COULD BE REDEVELOPED. THE ORIGINAL CHURCH THAT HAD THE LOT WAS ADAMANT ABOUT NOT SELLING THE LOT. WE ALL TRY, ALL THE NEIGHBORS TRY TO BUY IT. THE REAL BENEFIT WAS THAT BEFORE THE DEVELOPERS GOT HOLD OF THE LOT, THE PROCEEDS FROM THE MORTGAGE WENT TO A COUPLE OF LOCAL CHARITIES WHO WERE BENEFITING FROM THE PAYMENTS.

IT HAD TO BE RECONVEYED BACK TO THE EXISTING CHURCH AFTER THE DEVELOPERS BOUGHT IT, AND THEN TO THE DEVELOPERS. SO I'M GUESSING THE LOCAL CHARITIES LOST OUT ON THE INTEREST OR CONSISTENT PAYMENT STREAM WHEN THE MORTGAGE WAS PAID OFF. TOO BAD. IT WAS TOO BAD. IT WAS A NICE GESTURE BY THE BAPTIST CHURCH. I'M GLAD MR. KRAMER GAVE AN ECONOMICS LESSON ON SUPPLY AND DEMAND AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. HOWEVER, HE DIDN'T MENTION WHICH I THINK MR. AUCMIC WAS REFERRING TO, BUT HE DIDN'T MENTION THAT THERE WERE 1673 MORE HOUSING UNITS THAN HOUSEHOLDS IN IDAHO FALLS, ACCORDING TO THE STATISTICAL WEBSITE THE CITY DIRECTS FOLKS TO. AND THEY WANT TO KNOW ABOUT IDAHO FALLS. AND THIS FIGURE CERTAINLY DIDN'T INCLUDE THE HUNDREDS OF HOUSING UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN RECENTLY FINISHED AND ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION WITHIN JUST A COUPLE OF MILES OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, NOT TO MENTION ACROSS THE CITY. IN FACT, IN LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE, THE CORNER OF BELL AND PANCHERI, WHICH WAS MENTIONED, THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT GOING IN WITH 80 PLUS UNITS. MAKES YOU WONDER WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT THAT IS LOCATED INSIDE THE NEW ESTATE SUBDIVISION. IT ALSO PROVIDES CONTEXT AS TO WHY THE NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T WANT. THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE DEVELOPMENT OF 14 UNIT UNITS MAKES LITTLE DIFFERENCE, LITTLE OR NO DIFFERENCE TO THE SUPPLY AND DEMAND FOR HOUSING UNITS WITHIN THE CITY, BUT IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE TO THOSE WHO LIVE BY IT AND IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

DRAINAGE INFORMATION IS NOT READILY APPARENT ON THE PLAT OR PROPERTY DESCRIPTION, AND WE ONLY HAVE MR. KRAMER'S WORD. IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE DRAINAGE FROM EXISTING HOUSES AND THE TOWNHOUSES WILL PROBABLY END UP PULLING OVER THE UTILITY EASEMENT WITH THE NEW FIBER OPTIC CABLE AND OTHER UTILITIES. THIS IS A CONCERN BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION HAS POWER OUTAGES, BECAUSE OF THE WATER GETTING INTO THE UNDERGROUND ELECTRICAL CABLES.

BUT OF COURSE, THAT'S NOT THE DEVELOPER'S PROBLEM. ALSO, THE POWDER LIKE SOIL OF THIS OLD POTATO FARM CAN DISAPPEAR QUICKLY UNDER A CONCRETE SLAB OR OTHER BARRIER DRAINAGE IF NOT HANDLED PROPERLY BECAUSE OF THE FRACTURED LAVA FLOWS A FEW FEET DOWN. I HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS WITH THIS. AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO SEE THESE $300,000 TOWNHOUSES BEING HORRIBLE AFFORDABLE WHEN IT'S WHEN THAT'S BEEN AND THAT'S BEEN MENTIONED. BASICALLY, THE MEDIAN INCOME IS BETWEEN 63 AND 69,000 PER HOUSEHOLD AND ON A ON A ZILLOW CALCULATOR, THAT ENDS UP INDICATING THAT IF YOU WANTED TO BUY A $300,000 HOME, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE $80,000 IN THE HOUSE TO PURCHASE THAT. THEN YOU ADD TO THAT THE FACT THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE PROBABLY A 200 TO $300 PER MONTH HOA. ON TOP OF THAT, BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT LAWNS, PARKING AREAS AND THIS PRIVATE ROAD THAT ALL WILL HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED, INCLUDING SNOW REMOVAL. SO THAT JUST ADDS THAT MUCH MORE COST. SO ACTUALLY THE HOMES IN THE SUBDIVISION ARE BETTER VALUE AT $165 PER SQUARE FOOT COMPARED TO THE 189 THAT THEY'RE OFFERING AT $300,000.

SO THE 160 RATE THESE TOWNHOMES SHOULD BE PRICED AT ABOUT 250 4K, A PRICE POINT WELL BELOW

[02:00:03]

THEIR STATED. YEAH, I KNOW IT'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEW AND EXISTING HOMES, BUT IT'S JUST A COMPARISON. I FOUND IT WAS INTERESTING THAT EVERY CONCERN OUTSIDE OF ZONING UP UNTIL THIS POINT SCHOOLS, TRAFFIC, WATER PRESSURE, SEWER, CANAL, ETC. WAS PRETTY MUCH BRUSHED ASIDE AND AND IT SEEMED TO BE NO CONCERN TO THE DEVELOPERS OR EVEN THE CITY PLANNER. MR. SMITH, I, I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS, BUT I ALSO DO WANT TO HEAR FROM, YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE HERE TO GIVE TESTIMONY AND AND IT'S OKAY. I'LL SPEND TEN MINUTES ON THAT. HOW'S IT WORK? AS FAR AS A LOT OF PRESSURE WHEN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WENT OVER THERE ACROSS ON BELLAMY ROAD TO THE EAST AND BLUE RIDGE, OUR WATER PRESSURE DID DROP. AND IT'S EASY IF YOU'RE NOT TAKING A SHOWER IN THAT PLACE. THE SAME AMOUNT OF PRESSURE DROP AND TAKE THE SHOWERS AND A LOT OF PRESSURE IS GOOD. AND SO THAT'S A THAT IS A REAL CONCERN. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THESE BROADER ISSUES NEED TO BE ADDRESSED RATHER THAN JUST THE NARROW ISSUE OF A PROJECT APPROVAL.

BUT THAT'S OBVIOUSLY UP TO THE COUNCIL AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS CYNTHIA FELICIANO AND I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WITH ALL OF THESE FINE PEOPLE. AND I'M KIND OF LATE TO THIS, THIS BANDWAGON. SO I APPRECIATE ALL OF THIS FANTASTIC RESEARCH THAT THEY HAVE BEEN DOING. THEY'VE DONE THEIR HOMEWORK. MY ONLY QUESTION IS VERY SUCCINCT. WHAT ABOUT THE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE? WHAT ABOUT US? DON'T YOU REPRESENT US? DO YOU REPRESENT OUR WISHES AND OUR DESIRES? THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT REASONS THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE STATED WHY IT'S NOT A GOOD IDEA TO PUT THOSE HOUSING UNITS THERE. I ALSO, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO GROWTH. I'M NOT. WE HAVE HAD ALL KINDS OF GROWTH HAPPEN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. ALREADY MENTIONED THE ONES ACROSS BELEN. WE'VE HAD SOME ON SKYLINE, WE'VE HAD ANOTHER UNIT GO UP ON PANCARI, JUST AT THE CORNER OF SKYLINE, AND PANCARI IS ON PANCARI ITSELF. WE HAD THE UNIT GO UP ON 17TH STREET AND BELEN JUST ACROSS FROM THE FIRE STATION. THERE'S NEW HOUSING GOING UP SOUTH OF SKYLINE HIGH SCHOOL. IT'S ALL AROUND US AND WHETHER WE WANTED IT OR NOT, WE'RE GETTING USED TO IT. IT'S OKAY. BUT THIS RIGHT HERE AT THAT SPOT, I HATE IT, I DON'T LIKE IT. WHAT ABOUT OUR WISHES? HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WERE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT? HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE FOR ANYBODY? WAS THERE ANYONE IN FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS YAY! LET'S DO IT. I WASN'T THERE BECAUSE LIKE I SAY, I'M LATE TO THIS PARTY, BUT I AM NOT FOR IT. JUST THAT PARTICULAR SPOT SEEMS LIKE THE WRONG SPOT. CAN WE FIND A DIFFERENT SPOT? I'D BE HAPPY WITH A DIFFERENT SPOT, BUT THAT PARTICULAR PLACE RIGHT THERE, I JUST DON'T REALLY WANT IT THERE AND ARE MY WISHES AND DESIRES ARE MY NEIGHBORS WISHES AND DESIRES. ARE THEY WORTH SOMETHING TO YOU? DO THEY COUNT? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. I WOULD LIKE TO ALSO ASK FOR A POSTPONEMENT OF THIS. WHATEVER IT IS, THE APPROVAL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT PLAN TO THINK ABOUT IT. ACTUALLY, WHAT I REALLY WANT TO ASK IS THAT IT'S NOT APPROVED AT ALL, PERIOD. BECAUSE I JUST DON'T WANT IT THERE. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK GOOD. I IT'S JUST NOT WHAT I WANT. AND I'M SORRY, BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I WANT. SO I'M JUST PRESENTING THAT TO YOU. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

LADIES FIRST. OH, DEAR. ARE YOU GOING TO BE. YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME SIT UP HERE AND AND BE IN THE QUEUE IF YOU NEED MY STEPS. BUT THANK YOU VERY. BRIDGET HALL. I JUST A LITTLE LOUDER, OKAY? MY DAD ALWAYS TOLD ME ABOUT IT. MY NAME IS BRIDGET HALL. I LIVE IN IDAHO FALLS. THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE AS MUCH RESEARCH AS EVERYBODY ELSE. EVERYONE. IT'S

[02:05:01]

GOOD TO KNOW HOW INTELLECTUAL EVERYONE IS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THE STATED PURPOSE OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE IS TO PROMOTE THE HEALTH, SAFETY, PEACE, CONVENIENCE, AND GENERAL WELFARE OF INHABITANTS OF THE CITY BY IMPLEMENTING THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. YOU CAN SEE BY THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE SPEAKING HERE AND WHO HAVE WRITTEN IN AND SPOKEN AT THE PLANNING MEETING AND WHO ATTENDED THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, THAT THIS PROPOSED VARIANCE TO THE ZONING CODE DOES NOT PROMOTE, PROMOTE PEACE OR GENERAL WELFARE OF THE INHABITANTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE NO. MUNICIPAL CODE. TITLE 11 COMPREHENSIVE ZONING. WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SECTION ABOUT PUDS. IT STATES THAT WHILE THE PURPOSE OF THE PUD IS TO ALLOW VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING CODE, ITS INTENT IS TO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY THAT RESULTS IN DEVELOPMENT, PROVIDING AN IMPROVED LIVING ENVIRONMENT, INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBORHOOD AS SPOKEN BEFORE. TAKING A LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO FIT THIS DEVELOPMENT IN UNDER INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT. SO TAKING A LOOK AT THOSE RULES, IT STATES THAT OR TO ENSURE THAT INFILL DEVELOPMENT QUOTE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THIS IMPORTANT PART, EXISTING USE AND CHARACTER. LIKE SHE WAS SAYING, THE CHARACTER OF THIS AREA IS, IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD OF DETACHED, OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSES. DURING THIS DISCUSSION IN THE PLANNING COMMITTEE, ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS THOUGHT THAT THE FEEL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS HARD TO QUANTIFY, SO I THOUGHT I WOULD THROW OUT SOME NUMBERS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHICH THIS IS SURROUNDED BY. I COUNT ABOUT 401 HOUSES, SINGLE DETACHED HOUSES, TWO CHURCHES, AND ONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. THERE ARE EXACTLY ZERO TOWNHOMES. TO FURTHER MY POINT ABOUT THE CHARACTER, I WOULD ARGUE THAT, WELL, SIX NEIGHBORS AND THE PLANNING COMMITTEE SIX NEIGHBORS SPOKE AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND ONE THE DEVELOPER FROM TETONIA SPOKE IN FAVOR. MORE OF OUR NEIGHBORS WROTE IN OPPOSING, BUT NONE OF THOSE LETTERS WERE INCLUDED IN THE MINUTES. FOR WHATEVER REASON, I'M NOT SURE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE NEIGHBORS UNDERSTAND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT EVERYONE TESTIFYING IN THIS COMMUNITY IS TELLING YOU THAT THIS WILL NOT MEET THE GOAL OF AN IMPROVED LIVING ENVIRONMENT. I ALSO ARGUE THAT THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE STREETS. IN ORDER TO GET TO THE WEST SIDE, AND WE KNOW BECAUSE OF CONSTRUCTION RECENTLY, WE ALL KNOW THAT WE CAN ONLY GET OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RIVER WITH ON FOUR ROUTES, YOU HAVE TO GO FROM THIS LOCATION, YOU HAVE TO GO NORTH ON BELDEN OR TO GO UP TO THE HIGHWAY OR TO BROADWAY, OR YOU CAN GO NORTH AND CARRY AND OVER, OR YOU HAVE TO GO SOUTH ON BELL AND SUNNYSIDE AND OVER.

OKAY. SO PANCARI IS A GOOD STREET. THAT'S I DON'T HAVE ANY QUALMS WITH THAT. BUT FALLON IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. FALLON, RIGHT NEXT TO THE DEVELOPMENT, BELEN HAS NO SHOULDER ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE ROAD, BUT THE ROAD ITSELF. I MEAN, IT'S WIDE ENOUGH JUST SOUTH OF THAT INTERSECTION, HOWEVER, IMMEDIATELY. SO THE ROAD IS ONLY 27FT ACROSS. AND ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE ROAD IS A CANAL. AND THEN FURTHER SOUTH THERE'S THE SCHOOL. AND ANY PARENT KNOWS THAT YOU CAN'T DRIVE SOUTH ON BELEN DURING SCHOOL DROP OFF HOURS BECAUSE THERE'S NO SHOULDER NORTH OF PANCARI AND NARROWS TO 25FT, AND THAT TURNS INTO GRANDVIEW DRIVE, WHICH IS 24FT ACROSS, GOING SOUTH ON BELEN AT THE FIRE STATION, THROAT IS 37FT ACROSS. THAT'S OKAY. THAT NARROWS TO 25FT, AND THEN LESS THAN 21FT AT THE BRIDGE ACROSS THE CANAL, IT WIDENS BACK OUT TO 27FT BEFORE IT CURVES TO CONNECT TO GLENSIDE. SO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH ROOM ON BELMONT FOR THIS TRAFFIC. THIS TRAFFIC. WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE 8080 UNITS JUST ON PANCARI AND BELEN. AND THEN, FOR REFERENCE, THE MINIMUM, THE MINIMUM WIDTH OF A DEDICATED ALLEY IS 20FT.

PARK AVENUE IS 35FT ACROSS. THAT'S 15 MORE FEET THAN THAT BRIDGE. NO TRUCKS ARE ALLOWED ON THAT BRIDGE. LET'S SEE. AND AS WAS STATED, THE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY DIVIDING THE LOT THAT THE CHURCH THAT HAD A CHURCH IN THE FIELD. THIS AWKWARD PARCEL WAS SOMEHOW APPROVED. AND THEN

[02:10:06]

AND NOW, BECAUSE IT WAS CREATED, THE DEVELOPER SAYING THAT THE PUD IS THE ONLY SOLUTION FOR THIS AWKWARD PARCEL THAT THEY CREATED. SO I WANT YOU TO REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A VARIANCE TO THE ZONING RULES. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS SPENT SIGNIFICANT TIME AND MONEY IN PURSUIT OF THIS VARIANCE, BUT I WOULD LIKEN THIS TO A PERSON ASKING YOU TO BEND THE RULES SO THAT THEY CAN DRIVE 50 INSTEAD OF 35, JUST BECAUSE THEY BOUGHT A FERRARI. IT'S NOT FAIR TO EVERYBODY ELSE. IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE OWNERS WHO INVEST IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT'S MORE THAN JUST THEIR MONEY. IT'S THEIR LIVES AND IT'S THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE. SO I HOPE THAT YOU'LL TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. I AGREE THAT THE PLANNING COMMITTEE DID MAKE ME FEEL POINTLESS TO TALK TO TO TALK TO YOU. SO I DO WITH IT WHAT YOU WILL. BUT THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN JOHNSON AND I LIVE IN THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS. I HAVE A BUNCH OF COPIES FOR YOU FOLKS IF YOU WOULD LIKE THEM WHILE I TALK, OR IF I JUST GIVE THEM TO SOMEBODY WHEN I'M DONE. OKAY.

AND I WOULD LIKE TO TELL HIM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR AN I WAS ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT CALLED. I CALLED TODAY BECAUSE I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT THERE WERE REQUIREMENTS TO GET ALL THE FUN STUFF TO YOU BY MONDAY. AND SO SHE WAS VERY PLEASANT. SHE WAS AWESOME, AND SHE GOT ME ON THE TRACK TO HOPEFULLY SUCCESS. SO AS YOU LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT, I'M A LITTLE OCD. SO THE FIRST TWO PAGES ARE REPLICATED ON PAGES THREE AND FOUR, BUT THREE AND FOUR ARE FOR THE BULLET POINT PEOPLE. I'M NOT A BULLET POINT PERSON. PERHAPS YOU ARE. THE FOLLOWING PAGES ARE JUST GOOGLE EARTH. SCREENSHOTS OF THIS GENERAL AREA THAT'S UP ON THE MAP. BUT AS YOU'LL NOTICE ON EACH PHOTO, THERE IS A TIMELINE FOR WHEN THAT PHOTO IS I LIKE. OKAY, PERFECT. THAT ONE WORKS PERFECTLY, SO IT JUST SHOWS YOU PERIODICALLY FROM 2017 THROUGH 2022 HOW OUR AREA HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. SO I SCREWED UP LAST TIME I WAS HERE FOR THE COMMISSION MEETING. I THINK I HAVE TO PUSH A BUTTON. OKAY, HOLD THE TOP BUTTON. ALL RIGHT. PERFECT. SO I SCREWED IT UP. SO AS YOU'LL NOTICE IN 2017, ALL OF THIS STUFF RIGHT HERE DIDN'T EXIST. AND THEN IF YOU GO DOWN HERE, IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE ON THOSE THINGS BECAUSE THEY USE THE WORDING FOR THE CHURCH. BUT ACROSS FROM FIRE STATION FIVE, THAT LITTLE AREA, THAT HALF ACRE WAS EMPTY AND EMPTY FOR OBVIOUSLY A LONG PERIOD OF TIME WASN'T DEVELOPED IN 2017, WASN'T DEVELOPED IN 2018. WHEN YOU GET TO THE PICTURE, I THINK IT'S LIKE 2022. YOU START SEEING THAT THEY PUT SOME NEW APARTMENT COMPLEXES THERE OR TOWNHOMES. SO NOW THAT I CAN INTRODUCE MYSELF, I'M GOING TO APOLOGIZE WHEN I START MY THREE MINUTES RIGHT NOW AND I'LL TRY TO STICK WITH MY THREE MINUTES. BUT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS, THE AMENITIES I TALKED ABOUT. WE HAVE BASKETBALL COURTS AT WEST SIDE ELEMENTARY. THE CHURCH RIGHT NEXT DOOR HAS BASKETBALL COURTS ALREADY. I SEE KIDS PLAYING IN THOSE BASKETBALL COURTS ALL THE TIME. THEY'RE NOT KIDS THAT GO TO CHURCH THERE. THEY ARE KIDS THAT SHOW UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR SURROUNDING AREA AND GO THERE TO PLAY BASKETBALL. SO HAVING A REDUNDANT HALF COURT BASKETBALL INSIDE A PUBLIC AREA PUBLIC THAT WE THINK IS REALLY GOING TO BE A PRIVATE AREA, THAT'S NOT REALLY GOING TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN THEY CAN JUST GO TO THE BASKETBALL COURT OF THE CHURCH. I DON'T SEE THAT AS AN AMENITY THAT BENEFITS MY NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'M GOING TO TALK FAST FOR A LOT OF THESE THINGS. SO I APOLOGIZE WHEN I TALK ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I'M A WEST SIDER. I WORKED FOR THE CITY. I FORTUNATELY RETIRED FROM THE CITY A COUPLE YEARS AGO, BUT THE WEST SIDE IS DETERMINED DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF IDAHO FALLS. WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IDAHO FALLS, THEY TALK ABOUT IDAHO FALLS. BUT WHEN YOU MENTION WEST SIDE, THEY CALL IT THE WEST SIDE. RIGHT? WE HAVE A LITTLE COMMUNITY OVER THERE, SO WE HOLD THINGS NEAR AND DEAR TO OUR HEART. LET'S SEE THE HAMMERHEAD TURNAROUND. OKAY, I'VE HELPED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BLOCK TRAFFIC SO THEY CAN BACK THEIR APPARATUS AND EQUIPMENT OUT. I SEE THAT AS A FALLACY. I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT FOR ONE OF THE BIG TRUCKS, ESPECIALLY THE LADDER TRUCK, TO DO A SUFFICIENT TURNAROUND. WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO END UP DOING IS THEY'RE JUST GOING TO PARK AT THE END OF THAT, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BACK OUT THE WHOLE WAY UNTIL THEY GET OUT ONTO CLOMID. TALKING ABOUT PLUMBING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN I MOVED THERE, AND I'VE ONLY BEEN THERE FOR 21 YEARS. I'M

[02:15:03]

NEW TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT PLOWMAN IS ACTUALLY SWEDISH FOR PLUM AND THE OTHER STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, EXCEPT FOR WHEN YOU GET OVER TO NEWMAN, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL AND FURTHER TO THE WEST. MOST OF THE STREETS ARE NAMED AFTER SOME KIND OF FRUIT OR VEGETABLE.

IN SWEDEN, YOU EVEN HAVE A STREET CALLED SISKIN THAT IS JUST ACROSS FROM WESTLAKE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. OH, THAT SOUNDS LIKE A VERY SWEDISH NAME. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NAME PROPOSED FOR THIS STREET DOESN'T FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LET'S SEE, SOMEBODY TALKED ABOUT THE COST TO LIVE THERE. LOOK AT WHAT THE AVERAGE IS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.

NO. CITY EMPLOYEE. AVERAGE CITY EMPLOYEE. YOUR PARKS AND REC WORKERS, YOUR POLICE OFFICERS THAT JUST GOT THE JOB, YOUR FIREFIGHTERS HAVE JUST GOT THE JOB, CAN AFFORD TO LIVE IN WHAT'S PROPOSED FOR THE COST OF THESE TOWNHOMES? THE AFFORDABILITY DOESN'T EXIST.

THEY TALKED ABOUT ALL THE HOUSEHOLDS IN THAT AREA ARE ONLY 1 TO 2 PEOPLE. OKAY. SO IF WE LOOK AT WHERE THEY THEY TALK TO PEOPLE, IT WAS RIGHT WITHIN THAT LITTLE REQUIRED AREA TO VISIT THE NEIGHBORS. I'M OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA. I LIVE DOWN HERE AT THE END OF BLUEBIRD. OKAY. THEY NEVER CAME TO TALK TO ME AND I NEVER GOT AN ADVERTISEMENT SAYING, HEY, COME TALK TO US, LET US KNOW ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO TALK TO ME. I APOLOGIZE FOR THREE MINUTES IS UP, BUT I'M GOING TO MOVE FAST. SO IT'S NOT TRUE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD, THERE ARE A LOT MORE THAN 1 OR 2 PEOPLE IN EACH HOUSEHOLD. MY NEIGHBORS TO MY LEFT, AS I SIT IN MY FRONT LIVING ROOM, HAVE A HUSBAND AND A WIFE, AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE UP TO FIVE CHILDREN AT THIS POINT. OKAY, KUDOS TO THEM. WE HAVE A BURGEONING NEW BLOOD NEIGHBORHOOD. IT EBBS AND FLOWS. WHEN I CAME IN, MARRIED WITH TWO KIDS. KIDS ARE TRYING TO MOVE OUT. CAN'T AFFORD AN APARTMENT IN IDAHO FALLS, SO ONE OF THEM STILL LIVES AT HOME BECAUSE THAT'S THE REALITY OF THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. IF YOU TWO THINGS I WANT TO COVER, AND THEN I WILL STOP. BUT I'LL ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU FOLKS HAVE FOR ME ON NUMBER SIX. NUMBER EIGHT TRAFFIC STUDY I FOUND A TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS DATED 2019. THAT TRAFFIC STUDY WAS DONE BEFORE THEY DEVELOPED. THE LINE WAS SCREWED UP BEFORE THEY DEVELOPED THE APARTMENTS BY FIRE STATION FIVE AND BEFORE THEY DEVELOPED ALL OF THIS STUFF UP HERE, BEFORE THEY DEVELOPED THIS THING THAT'S GOING IN CURRENTLY ON THIS ACREAGE AND BEFORE THIS. THE REALITY IS, FOLKS, THAT AND YOU'LL SEE I GET A LOT MORE MORE OF A DISSERTATION IN MY NOTES. BUT ELEMENTARY THE PARENTS START SHOWING UP TO PICK UP THEIR KIDS. THEY PARK ON BELLA ALL THE WAY AROUND ON THE NEWMAN AND PULL IN THE PARKING LOT. IT TURNS IT INTO A ONE LANE ROADWAY. WHEN THE PARENTS ARE DROPPING OFF AND PICKING UP KIDS. THE ALTERNATE ROUTE FOR PEOPLE TO GO TO WORK IS COMMON, BUT WITH CONSTRUCTION AND ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC, I. I FEAR THAT THAT IS GOING TO ENCUMBER THE NEIGHBORHOOD EVEN FURTHER WITH TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. GO UP TO THE NEW INTERSECTION AT BELLEN AND PANCARI, RIGHT UP HERE WHERE THEY'RE DOING THAT NEW MONSTROSITY. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DRIVE BY IT BECAUSE YOU WILL SEE WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO PROBABLY BUILD THE ROADWAY INTO THERE, AND IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT 30FT OFF OF THAT POINT. SO AS PEOPLE LEAVE THAT THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GO IS THEY ACTUALLY HAVE TO INTERJECT THEMSELVES INTO TRAFFIC IN A SHORT SPAN OF DISTANCE TO GO WEST, SORRY, EAST. OR THEY HAVE AN EASY OUT WEST. THIS IS GOING TO COVER THAT FURTHER BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE 400FT AWAY FROM THAT INTERSECTION. THAT INTERSECTION IS TWO LANES ON THE WEST SIDE, FOUR LANES ON THE EAST SIDE, TWO LANES GOING NORTH ON TWO LANES GOING SOUTH. IT DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR WHAT YOU FOLKS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED TO ADD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE LAST THING IS PARKING. THEY TALK ABOUT ALL THE EXTRA PARKING. IF YOU LOOK AT MY NOTES, I WANT YOU TO GO ON A LITTLE FIELD TRIP, PLEASE. SAINT CLAIR BETWEEN 25TH STREET DOWN TOWARDS FIRE STATION THREE FOUR.

THANK YOU. AND OUT OF THE GAME A LITTLE BIT. YOU WILL SEE THAT THE RESIDENTS CAN'T PARK INSIDE THE PARKING LOT FOR THAT COMPLEX BECAUSE THEY'RE OUT OF ROOM. THEY CAN ONLY AFFORD THESE APARTMENTS BECAUSE THEY ADD TWO, THREE, FOUR ROOMMATES. EACH ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE COME WITH A CAR. THAT'S HOW WE WORK AS A SOCIETY, RIGHT? SO NOW YOU SEE OFF STREET PARKING ALL THE WAY DOWN THAT ROAD. GO TO THE NEW COMPLEX OVER BEHIND RON SAWYER OR THE DODGE. SAME

[02:20:04]

PROBLEM. AND WE'RE SEEING IT IN OFF CENTER. THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. THEY HAVE A PRIVATE STREET OFF OF CALL AVENUE, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT CAN'T PARK IN WHERE THOSE ARE, SO THEY PARK ON CALL AVENUE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, YOUR TIME AND YOUR EFFORTS. I REALLY WOULD LIKE YOU TO TAKE EVERYTHING THAT EVERYBODY SAID INTO CONSIDERATION, WHICH I KNOW YOU WILL. I VALUE THE TIME THAT YOU TAKE IN, BUT I ALSO VALUE THE THOUGHT THAT WE ELECTED YOU TO REPRESENT US AS A COMMUNITY. AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY OR EVEN. THANK YOU. MY NAME IS KERRY WILSON. I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND FOR MY LITTLE FALLS, BORN NOT IN IDAHO FALLS, BUT I'VE LIVED HERE ALMOST MY WHOLE LIFE. I GREW UP GOING TO SCHOOL WITH THE CHILDREN OF A BUNCH OF THESE PEOPLE. I KNOW THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WELL, AND I'VE LIVED HERE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS. MY CONCERN IS THE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS THAT WE HAVE PUT IN. MR. JOHNSON'S ALREADY SAID, THESE APARTMENTS, THESE TOWNHOMES RIGHT HERE DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL 2017. THIS APARTMENT ON A HALF ACRE, LOT OF 20 APARTMENTS ON A HALF ACRE DIDN'T EXIST UNTIL 22. I WENT TO SKYLINE. I USED TO STAND ON THAT CORNER AND WATCH MY SCHOOL GO BY FOR OUR CHEER OR OUR HOMECOMING PARADE. CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE IT'S FULL. THE PLACE UP HERE, THIS IS RISING SUN TOWNHOMES. THERE ARE OVER 100 TOWNHOMES IN THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, AND MORE STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE PUT IN WITHIN.

NOT TO MENTION THIS 80 TOWNHOMES BEING PLACED RIGHT HERE. IF YOU GO UP HERE JUST A LITTLE BIT OVER BEHIND SOPHIE'S CAR WASH ON BROADWAY, THERE ARE OVER A HUNDRED THAT ARE PLACED RIGHT THERE WITHIN A MILE AND A HALF OF THIS ONE LOCATION. WE HAVE HUNDREDS, NEARLY 500 NEW TOWNHOMES, APARTMENTS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM BEING BUILT OR HAVE BEEN BUILT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THIS SEEMS INSUBSTANTIAL TO PLACE 20 OR 14, EXCUSE ME, 14 UNITS RIGHT HERE.

IT IS INCONGRUOUS WITH THE REST OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. I LIVE OVER HERE ON LOWELL. I AM NOT PRIVILEGED ENOUGH TO BE IN ONE OF THE SWEDISH NAMED. I AM ON THE FAR END, AND AT SOME POINT THERE IS GOING TO BE A ROAD THAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT RIGHT BEHIND MY NEIGHBOR'S HOUSES TO CONNECT THESE TWO PLACES. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE KNEW THAT WHEN WE MOVED IN, WE KNEW THAT THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THESE PEOPLE WHO LIVE RIGHT HERE DID NOT KNOW THAT THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND THE RUG GOT PULLED OUT FROM UNDER THEM BY THIS PUD. THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BE PLACED FOR OUR COMMUNITY. IT'S ALREADY OUR SCHOOLS. I'M VERY HIGHLY INVOLVED WITH WESTSIDE ELEMENTARY. IT IS ALREADY SO FULL. WE ARE TURNING KIDS AWAY AND SENDING THEM TO THE OTHER SCHOOLS BECAUSE WE CAN'T FIT EVERYBODY. SO I GET THAT. THE RESPONSE WHEN I BROUGHT THAT UP WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION WAS, OH, WELL, ONLY A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE KIDS THERE. THAT'S NOT BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WITH PEOPLE MOVING INTO THESE OTHER TOWNHOMES, THESE OTHER TOWNHOMES ARE MULTIPLE FAMILIES LIVING TOGETHER, OR THERE ARE FAMILIES WITH YOUNG KIDS. AND I'M I'M A HOUSEHOLD OF FIVE. I AM NOT ONE OF THE WHATEVER THEY TALK TO AND SAID THERE'S ONLY 1 OR 2 FAMILIES, PEOPLE PER HOUSEHOLD, AND I CAN GIVE YOU A WHOLE LIST OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE FIVE, EIGHT PEOPLE, SOMETIMES TEN PEOPLE LIVING IN A HOUSE, BECAUSE THAT IS HOW WE CAN AFFORD TO HAVE HOUSES. THESE UNITS ARE NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT ARTISTS, COMMUNITY, OUR PEOPLE. THESE ARE MY PEOPLE. HALF OF THEM I DON'T EVEN KNOW. AND GUESS WHAT? THEY'RE MY PEOPLE BECAUSE THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY AND WE ELECTED YOU GUYS. ACTUALLY, I DIDN'T ELECT HALF OF YOU BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE. I DEFINITELY DIDN'T REALIZE YOU. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU GUYS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO LISTEN TO US, TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH US. I'M GRATEFUL THAT YOU'RE LISTENING, BUT I TRULY HOPE THAT YOU LISTEN AND ACTUALLY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, AND WE DO NOT WANT IT. WE DO NOT WANT THIS.

AND SUCKS FOR THEM THAT THEY BOUGHT IT, AND THEY PUT THIS TIME AND EFFORT INTO IT, AND

[02:25:05]

THEY LITERALLY DID IT SO THAT THEY COULD PUT US IN A BARREL, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER OPTION. ONCE THEY MAKE IT THIS UNUSABLE VACANT LOT, IT'S NOT A VACANT LOT. IT WAS A PLACE THAT THAT CHURCH SPECIFICALLY HELD IN RESERVE FOR USE FOR THEMSELVES. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, I APPRECIATE IT. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MARK WEAVER FROM IDAHO FALLS. THEY PRETTY MUCH HIT ALL THE POINTS I WAS GOING TO HIT, BUT I JUST I DO WANT TO REITERATE THE FACT THAT THE PUTT DOES REQUIRE TWO ACRES, AND THE LANGUAGE IN THERE STATES THAT IT SHALL BE TWO ACRES. SO THAT'S MANDATORY. BUT IT DOES HAVE THE CLAUSE IN THERE THAT IT MAY BE CONSIDERED, BUT THAT'S PERMISSIVE. YOU GUYS AREN'T REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THIS. THAT SHE STATED WITH REGARDS TO THE BEING COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD WITH REGARDS TO BUILDING AND TYPE, THIS OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T FOLLOW SUIT. EXCUSE MR. SANTER. YES. OH, I THINK HE WOULD DO. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. SO ON THIS SLIDE I WOULD LIKE YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT THAT WITH REGARDS TO SCALE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE HOMES TOUCHING THE DEVELOPMENT AND YOU SEE THE SIZE OF THOSE VEHICLES COMPARED TO THE DRIVEWAYS AND THE PARKING SPOTS, AND AS OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE STATED, THIS LOT IS VERY SMALL, AS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR HAVE SAID, YOU GUYS HAVE TO MAKE A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY CODE WITH REGARDS TO THE FIRE APPARATUS, THE HAMMER, WHATEVER THEY CALLED IT, AND THEN, MAYOR, YOU BROUGHT UP A PUBLIC ROAD WHICH IS A LOT LARGER. AND I MEAN, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT I HAVE IS IN CITY CODE, IT ASKS THAT THE STREETSCAPES ARE NOT DOMINATED BY PARKED VEHICLES, GARAGE ENTRANCES, AND AS OTHER INDIVIDUALS HAVE STATED, THE AMOUNT OF CARS THAT WILL BE PARKED BACK THERE AND PEOPLE TEND TO HAVE TRAILERS AND BOATS, AND THIS NOT BEING A PUBLIC SIZE ROAD AND BEING SMALLER IN NATURE, THE LIKELIHOOD THAT SOME OF THOSE VEHICLES AND TRAILERS WOULD BE PARKED ON PUBLIC STREETS OUTSIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS HIGHLY LIKELY. AND THEN. WITH REGARDS TO COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS'S QUESTION, THIS THE PRIVATE STREET IS NOT THE ONLY REASON FOR THE PUD. SO AS AS AS BRENDAN BROUGHT UP. WE HAVE EIGHT UNITS VERSUS R1 SIX PER ACRE. BUT THE OTHER ISSUE HERE IS THE LOT SIZE. SO THE LOT SIZE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT IS ROUGHLY 20 500FT■!S, WHEREAS R1 REQUIRES A MINIMUM OF 7000FT■S. AND THEN LASTLY. ON THE NOTICE, IT SAYS THAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT WILL BE 29FT FROM THE NOTICE THAT WAS POSTED TO THE PUBLIC. BUT IDAHO CODE STATES A MAXIMUM OF 20FT. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU. FURTHER TESTIMONY.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL GIVE. OH YES PLEASE. MY NAME IS CHRISTIAN ASHCRAFT AND I LIVE IN IDAHO FALLS. PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN MOST OF THE PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT TODAY. NOT NECESSARILY FOR OR AGAINST. I KIND OF WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT MAYBE SOME OF THE PATTERNS I'M SEEING. I GUESS SOME THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS YOU GUYS DELIBERATE THIS ONE

[02:30:06]

AND FUTURE, FUTURE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. I DO THINK THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT DECISION.

IT DOES APPEAR THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TRIED TO BE VERY CREATIVE WITH SOME OF THE TIGHT CONSTRAINTS THAT THEY'VE HAD, AND I COULD SEE WHY PEOPLE WOULD BE VERY UPSET WITH IT, BECAUSE I CAN SEE WHY THE DEVELOPER IS TRYING TO DO WHAT THEY'RE DOING. SO I THAT'S WHY I SAY I'M NOT NECESSARILY ADVOCATING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT SOME THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU AS A COUNCIL IS KIND OF WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF RESPECTING NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IS IT RESPECTING THE SAME EXACT TYPE OF HOUSE SIZES? IS IT, YOU KNOW, JUST SLOW DEVIATIONS? I THINK. I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY FOR THE PEOPLE OF WHAT YOU GUYS MEAN WHEN YOU SAY RESPECT CHARACTER TO, TO HELP THEM NAVIGATE THESE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS BETTER. A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE JUST EMPHASIZED EVEN JUST THE SHEER AMOUNT OF DISLIKE THEY MIGHT HAVE FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, AND WOULD LIKE TO HEAR KIND OF WHAT THE WHAT WEIGHT THAT CARRIES FOR YOU IN YOUR DECISION MAKING, PURELY JUST PUBLIC PERCEPTION, PUBLIC PERCEPTION, EVEN IF A DEVELOPMENT HAS CHECKED ALL THE BOXES AND SATISFIED ALL CRITERIA, HOW MUCH DOES JUST PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD PLAY INTO YOUR DECISION? AND THEN, YOU KNOW, FINALLY JUST BETTER COMMUNICATION OF THE REASONS WHY YOU APPROVE THINGS WHEN YOU DO APPROVE THEM. I THINK SOMETIMES PEOPLE FEEL A LITTLE LESS HEARD WHEN THE RESPONSE IS, WELL, THEY'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO. AND I UNDERSTAND THE REASON WHY YOU MIGHT SAY THAT, BUT I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE OF, WELL, WHY THOSE REQUIREMENTS MATTER AND WHY THAT'S ENOUGH FOR YOU STANDING BY. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE TO HAVING CONSISTENT PROCESS AND PREDICTABILITY FOR DEVELOPERS SO THEY CAN COME IN WITH THEIR BEST OPPORTUNITY IN MIND. AND I KNOW THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF BENEFITS TO INFILL. AND EVEN WHEN THINGS GET A LITTLE BIT NOT IDEAL, THERE ARE STILL BENEFITS. AND I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR HOW THAT WEIGHS INTO YOUR DECISION RATHER THAN JUST IT CHECKED THE BOXES AND THAT'S ALL WE CAN DO. AND I THINK THAT'S IT. I THINK THAT FOR ME, I'D JUST LIKE TO HEAR SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT COULD HELP THE CONVERSATION FEEL MORE CLOSURE AND REAL LISTENING INVOLVED. SO THANKS. THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS ROBERT ADKINS, IDAHO FALLS I CONSIDER MYSELF BEING A NEIGHBOR OF THIS PROPOSED, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF NOTIFICATION FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING REQUIRES, BUT I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET, SO I. I GUESS I'M NOT CONSIDERED A NEIGHBOR. TO PUT THIS IN THAT AREA. WE'VE ALREADY HAD THIS THE VERY SMALL LOT DOWN BY THE FIRE COMPANY THAT WENT IN WAS NEVER INFORMED ABOUT THAT. IT DOESN'T MATCH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT ALL. YOU HAVE THE LARGE DEVELOPMENT GOING UP AT HARRY AND MELON AND DID NOT DO A TRAFFIC SURVEY OR ANYTHING ELSE. PAINT CARRIES PAINT, CARRY AND MELON HAVE ALREADY SEEN AN INCREASE THAT IT CAN HANDLE. AND TO STUFF THIS STUFF, 14 OF THEM IN THAT AREA THAT THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE TO ME. AND, YOU KNOW, TO KEEP IT SHORT, WHICH I MEANT TO DO, BEING A D DRIVER, WHICH SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT PICK UP AND DELIVERY DRIVER. THIS ROAD IS A NIGHTMARE. AND FOR THE SIZE OF THE TRUCK THAT I DRIVE, I WOULDN'T EVEN LEAVE THE TERMINAL WITH THAT DELIVERY BECAUSE I WOULD HAVE TO BACK DOWN THAT ROAD. AND AS FAR AS SANITATION OR FIRE, HAMMERHEAD NOT GOING TO WORK. I'VE DRIVEN TRUCKS FOR 38 YEARS. I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO NEAR THAT INPUT. THERE'S NO WAY OUT. IT'S A DEAD

[02:35:01]

END. AND TO ME, IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE A GATED COMMUNITY. SO NOT BEING PREPARED FOR JUST HEARING ABOUT THIS A COUPLE DAYS AGO, THAT'S ABOUT ALL I HAVE FOR IT. AND I'M I DON'T SEE ANY USE FOR IT OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE TO BEING SAYING THAT. SO THANK YOU. OKAY. GOOD MORNING. IS THERE ANY FURTHER PUBLIC TESTIMONY? ALL RIGHT. WE WILL LET THE MR. KRAMER COME BACK WITH REBUTTAL TO THE TESTIMONY. OKAY. THANK YOU. I TOOK A LOT OF NOTES. I MEANT IT WHEN I SAID I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK, I DO. I WANT TO RESPOND TO IT. WE MAY NOT COME OUT ON THE SAME SIDE OF I'M SURE WE WON'T. BUT, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE THINGS I WOULD JUST MAYBE LEAD OFF WITH. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THE ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT. ETHICS. AND I THINK COMMUNICATION, I DON'T REPRESENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. I HAVE NO CONTRACTS WITH THE CITY. I DON'T I DON'T REMEMBER ANY OF THAT. I WAS STAYING HERE AT THE APPLICANT IN THE PRIOR YEAR, AND I WAS REPRESENTING DEVELOPMENT AGENCY. SO I'M VERY CAREFUL ABOUT THAT. I'M NOT VIOLATING ANY CONFLICT OF INTEREST LAW. I'M ALSO A WEST SIDE. I LIVE NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD HEAR. AS MR. FINISHED HIS TESTIMONY, PATTED ME ON THE SHOULDER, SAID, I'M NOT PICKING ON YOU, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I WANT THEM TO KNOW. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M GOING TO SAY I'M NOT PICKING ON THEM. I'LL STILL SHOP AT ROCK NEXT, SO THANK YOU. GREAT. I HOPE THE MAYOR DOES TOO. WITH THAT SAID, I KNOW THERE'S JUST THERE'S ALWAYS A NATURAL TENSION BETWEEN WHEN YOU SHOW THESE DEVELOPMENTS. THEY DO COMPLY WITH THE LAW. THE LAW DOES PROVIDE PREDICTABILITY. IT PROVIDES. YOU KNOW, FOR FOR SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THE LAW IS MEANT TO TELL US WHAT YOU WANT AS A CITY. YOU'RE TRYING TO GET CLOSER TO THE GOAL. I DO IT EVERY MEETING, EVERY MEETING. THE LAWS, THE LAWS ARE WRITTEN TO PROVIDE THAT PREDICTABILITY.

THERE'S A NATURAL TENSION WHEN SOMETHING COMES UP FROM THE FOLKS THAT ARE ON THE GROUND EVERY DAY. AND THEY'RE THEY'RE WITNESSES TO HOW THIS MAY OR MAY NOT WORK AND MAY OR MAY NOT FIT. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE HEARINGS, SO THAT WE CAN UNDERSTAND IF THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THIS. OLD PLAT TO START OFF WITH. I WANT TO RESPOND. YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZE. I PROBABLY MISQUOTED THE LAW. I WAS TALKING ABOUT THE TWO ACRES. I USED, THE WORDS INFILL OR DEVELOPING. SO I WANT TO READ THE FULL STATUTE. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. PRINCESS. MR. SANTER QUOTED PART OF IT, BUT NOT THE FULL THING. IT SAYS MINIMUM SIZE FOR COMMUNITY SHALL BE TWO ACRES. SMALLER ACREAGE MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR A PUD ON LAND THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS IS REDEVELOPING, OR PROVIDES A PUBLIC BENEFIT OR AMENITY. THEY'RE NOT EITHERS OR THEY'RE NOT ANDS, THEY'RE ORS.

SO THAT IS YOUR PRIORITY. WE UNDERSTAND THAT, AND THAT IS A REQUEST THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT A P TO BE LESS THAN TWO ACRES BE CONSIDERED, AND THAT YOU FIND THAT IT'S ONE OF THOSE THREE THINGS. I'M GOING TO ARGUE THAT IT PROBABLY PROVIDES AT LEAST TWO, IF NOT ALL THREE, STARTING WITH REDEVELOPING. I KNOW THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT IT'S BEEN A VACANT FIELD AND NEVER DEVELOPED, BUT IF YOU LISTENED TO THE TESTIMONY OF THE PUBLIC, THEY THEMSELVES USED THE WORDS REDEVELOP SEVERAL TIMES. PART OF THAT STEMS TO THIS OLD PLAT. THIS WAS PLATTED IN A WAY THAT IS NO LONGER BEING DEVELOPED. SO DEVELOPMENT CAN BE CERTAINLY CAN BE WHEN YOU HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE ABOVE THE GROUND THAT IS THEN DEMOLISHED OR REPURPOSED OR SOMETHING TO A DIFFERENT STRUCTURE ABOVE THE GROUND. I THINK WHAT YOU HEARD TONIGHT IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A USE OF THIS PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN RESERVED BY THE CHURCH.

IT'S BEEN USED FOR ACCESS ACROSS TO NEIGHBORS BACKYARDS. THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF REDEVELOPMENT. THIS PLAT WILL NO LONGER BE PERMANENT TO THE SITE THERE. THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF. REDEVELOPMENT HERE IN TERMS OF PROVIDING A PUBLIC BENEFIT. THAT WAS GOING TO BE DEBATED

[02:40:03]

DEEPLY, BUT I, I THINK I SAID IN THE HEARING, I'M AN UNAPOLOGETIC ADVOCATE FOR HOUSING. I DO THAT IN MY PRIVATE LIFE. I DO THAT IN MY I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE IN PROVIDING HOUSING. I THINK THAT IS A PUBLIC BENEFIT IN TERMS OF THE PUBLIC AMENITY TO YOUR TO YOUR QUESTION, MR. FRANCIS, I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH DEVELOPER, THE TWO DEVELOPERS ON THIS PROJECT. THERE'S CERTAINLY MORE THAN WILLING TO MAKE ALL OF THE AMENITIES IN THIS PROJECT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THAT'S NOT A CONCERN AT ALL. IN FACT, ONE THING I DID NOT KNOW THAT WAS BEING PROVIDED AS A REQUEST FROM THE CHURCH, ACTUALLY, AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT FAINTLY ON THIS PLAN FOR THE REQUEST FOR THE CHURCH. IF YOU LOOK JUST TO THE RIGHT OF THE STORM POND, YOU'LL SEE WHAT LOOKS LIKE A SOCCER FIELD. AND THAT'S BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS. AND THE DEVELOPER IS PART OF THIS PROJECT WILL BE PROVIDING THAT AMENITY AT THE CHURCH'S REQUEST.

SO HAPPY TO ALLOW THOSE ANY, ANY OF THOSE TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY DO NOT HAVE TO BE PRIVATE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE RESIDENTS THERE. IN TERMS OF THE FENCING, SIX FOOT, EIGHT FOOT MATERIALS, I THINK THE DEVELOPER JUST WANTS TO KNOW WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS. IT CAN WAIT TO BUILD WHATEVER IS REQUIRED. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. IN TERMS OF THE KIND OF READ THROUGH ALL THE NOTES, I APOLOGIZE. I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS ABOUT I AGAIN, I DON'T LIVE TOO FAR FROM HERE. I DO TRAVEL ON VELLUM. SOME OF THOSE THOSE ROAD WIDTHS ARE A PRODUCT OF THE BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, THE CITY ACTUALLY REQUIRED THAT PART OF BELMONT BE DEDICATED FROM THE CHURCH. SO A QUITCLAIM DEED HAS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF TO PROVIDE 20 ADDITIONAL FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THE CHURCH FRONTAGE, THAT THAT HAPPENS REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THIS IS APPROVED OR NOT.

THAT WAS, AS I UNDERSTAND FROM THE DEVELOPER ALREADY, REQUIREMENT FROM THE ENGINEER THAT'S ALREADY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF. SO JUST LIKE ANY DEVELOPMENT THIS DEVELOPER IS HAVING TO PAY FOR IT AS THEY SHOULD. THEY WILL PAY IMPACT FEES. THEY'LL PAY FOR THE IMPACTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. IN TERMS OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT EMERGENCY SERVICES, TURNAROUNDS FOR SANITATION, FIRE TRUCKS UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NARROW. THE THE TURNAROUND HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY YOUR CITY DEPARTMENTS. IT MEETS THE STANDARD. IT MAY NOT BE THE MOST IDEAL THAT SOMEBODY ELSE WOULD WANT, BUT IT MEETS THE CITY REQUIREMENT. AND THAT WOULD BE TRUE FOR UTILITIES. ANYTHING THE CITY REQUIRES IS WHAT THIS PROJECT WOULD NEED IN TERMS OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE. IF THERE ARE CONCERNS BROUGHT UP DURING THOSE REVIEWS, AND THIS HAS BEEN THROUGH SEVERAL REVIEWS ALREADY, THEY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THE QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE SHOULD BE, I MEAN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME THAT'S DETACHED VERSUS ATTACHED. I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT AGAIN, THAT'S ALLOWED IN YOUR R-1 ZONE REGARDLESS OF PD, AND IT HAS BEEN IN THE CODE FOR AT LEAST TWO DECADES. IT USED TO BE AS A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REASON THAT WAS REMOVED IS THAT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ONLY STANDARDS WERE TO SEE IF IT MET THE BUILDING CODE AND FIRE CODE.

IF IT DID, THERE REALLY WASN'T A WAY TO NOT APPROVE IT. SO THAT SEEMED LIKE A A HEARING THAT SET PEOPLE UP FOR FRUSTRATION, THAT THEY WOULD COME AND TALK ABOUT THINGS THAT WERE REALLY NOT RELEVANT TO THE CRITERIA. SO YES, IF THERE WERE A PUBLIC STREET, THE SETBACKS WERE MET TOWNHOMES, SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM. THESE ARE ALLOWED BY WHAT? I DON'T THINK THAT QUESTION IS REALLY ON THE TABLE. IT'S AN R1 ZONE. IT ALLOWS IT WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS THE PUBLIC STREET APPROPRIATE, THE DENSITY APPROPRIATE FOR THE AMENITIES MAKING UP FOR THOSE ADJUSTMENTS? THAT'S THAT'S THE POINT OF THE AMENITY REQUIREMENT IS TO MAKE UP FOR. THE LACK OF THE PUBLIC STREET AND THE INCREASED DENSITY. THE THE POND. THERE WAS SOME CONCERN MENTIONED ABOUT WATER STANDING THE STORM POND THERE ON THE SOUTH. THIS IS ACTUALLY QUITE A SHALLOW POND, AND FOR THE CITY IT HAS TO DRAIN WITHIN 48 HOURS. AND AND SO THAT THAT IS ADDRESSED. I UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES THESE THINGS DO STAY SOGGY, BUT. AGAIN PER THE CITY'S REQUIREMENT, THIS THIS DOES HAVE TO DRAIN WITHIN 48 HOURS. THE REALITY ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER HAS COME UP A LOT, AND I DO I DO

[02:45:10]

UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. IT IS THAT THE REALITY IS IT IS DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY WHAT THAT MEANS. YOUR CODE DOES IT AS BEST IT CAN BY TALKING ABOUT SIMILAR SIZE AND HEIGHTS. THIS ISN'T ANY TALLER THAN OUR LIMIT WOULD ALLOW. THE SETBACKS MATCH WHAT THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS ARE REQUIRED TO DO WITH THE 25 FOOT REAR YARD. IN MANY WAYS, THIS IS CONSISTENT. I THINK WHAT WHAT THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF INCONSISTENCY IS, IS THREE UNITS IN A BUILDING VERSUS ONE AND BUT BEYOND THAT, THESE ARE STILL CONSIDERED UNDER THE BUILDING CODE, UNDER THE ZONING CODE, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THEY JUST HAPPEN TO BE ATTACHED. SORRY. TRY TO READ THROUGH THE NOTES. AND LOSING MY VOICE A LITTLE BIT HERE. I DO WANT TO ADDRESS THE NOTICES THAT'S COME UP SEVERAL TIMES WHEN WE HOST A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. THE CITY ACTUALLY PROVIDES THE LIST OF NAMES AND ADDRESSES THAT ARE WITHIN THE REQUIRED BOUNDARY. IT MATCHES WHAT THEY SEND OUT TO WHAT THEY WILL SEND OUT FOR PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES. THAT'S SET BY STATE STATUTE. THAT'S NOT SET BY US. IT'S NOT SET BY THE CITY TO STATE REQUIREMENT. THOSE DID GO OUT WHO WE SENT IT TO. IT'S IN THE IN THE PACKET AND WHO WE SPOKE WITH. SO I GUESS I WOULD I WOULD JUST COME BACK TO AGAIN THE EFFORT, THE EFFORT TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH WITH YOUR CODE REQUIREMENTS. AS A CODE, IT IS BELOW TWO ACRES. THAT IS A CONCESSION THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. IT IS A PRIVATE STREET. THAT'S A THAT'S A CONCESSION WITH A SLIGHTLY REDUCED FRONT SETBACK. AGAIN, HOWEVER, UNLIKE MANY OF THE PUDS THAT EXIST IN THE CITY, WE'RE STILL PROVIDING PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE AND EASEMENT, WHICH TO ME IS A VERY IMPORTANT, VERY IMPORTANT PART, PROVIDING AN EXCESS OF AMENITIES BEYOND JUST THE ONE REQUIRED THE BASKETBALL COURT, A PLAYGROUND. AND ALTHOUGH NOT PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT RIGHT ADJACENT TO THE SOCCER FIELD, HAVE ALREADY DEDICATED 20FT OF MELANIN IN CONCERT WITH THE CHURCH. AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, THE DEVELOPER WILLING TO DO WHAT'S REQUIRED OF THE FENCE. AND IF CREATING A PUBLIC AMENITY AND MAKING THE AMENITIES IN THIS ACCESSIBLE TO ANYBODY, THAT'S JUST FINE. IF THE KIDS WHO ARE CURRENTLY PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THE CHURCH PLAY BASKETBALL HERE, THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S PART OF THE COMMUNITY. SO THERE'S THERE'S NO QUESTION THERE THAT THAT'S THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. SO I HOPE I'VE COVERED EVERYTHING. IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO ADDRESS, I'M STILL HAPPY TO HAVE THE ENGINEER AND DEVELOPER AS WELL.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COUNCIL READY TO DELIBERATE OR ARE THERE QUESTIONS THAT YOU WOULD STILL LIKE TO ASK OF THE. OKAY, OKAY. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER ENGLAND. GOOD EVENING, MR. JONES, OUR LEGAL COUNSEL. SORRY TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT WITH A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE BECAUSE THIS ISN'T THIS ISN'T THIS ISN'T SOME KIND OF EXERCISE. I TRULY WANT TO UNDERSTAND YOUR LEGAL OPINION, BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN QUESTIONS RAISED ABOUT HOW MUCH COUNCIL CAN AND SHOULD CONSIDER PUBLIC INPUT, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU KNOW THAT THAT MATTERS TO US. BUT I WANT TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ON WHAT YOU MIGHT SAY ARE LITIGATION. RISK IS IF WE DENY A PUD BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK IT FITS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

IF YOU DENY A PUD BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE IT. AND THAT'S THAT'S PART OF OUR RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA. WHAT'S THE LITIGATION RISK? WE DENY IT. WELL, THE LITIGATION RISK WOULD BE SOLELY ON THE IF THE DEVELOPER DECIDED TO APPEAL THE DENIAL, THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY PERSON THAT WOULD HAVE STANDING TO APPEAL. RIGHT. AND THEN IT WOULD JUST BE. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IF IT'S DENIED BASED ON THE CITY REQUIRING CERTAIN CONDITIONS THAT THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T AGREE TO, THE DEVELOPER MAY HAVE A TAKINGS ACTION THAT THEY CAN FILE, AND THAT'LL HAVE TO BE LITIGATED IN COURT. BUT THAT'S IN ADDITION TO THE THE APPEAL, THE PETITION TO JUDICIAL REVIEW. RIGHT? YEAH, I'M KIND OF I'M KIND OF SPEEDING TO THE END IN THEORY. IF, IF, IF THEY GO THROUGH THAT, THAT PROCESS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. BUT AS FAR AS THE PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, THAT'S A THIS IS A DISCRETIONARY DECISION BY CITY COUNCIL BASED ON THE LEGAL STANDARDS. SO AS LONG AS YOU ARE APPLYING THE LEGAL STANDARDS AND YOU'RE WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION, IT WILL BE WHAT YOUR DECISION IS, WILL BE UPHELD ON A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, AS LONG AS IT'S BASED ON THE FACTS AND THE LAW. MR. I BELIEVE MAYBE HER QUESTION WAS SPECIFICALLY IF

[02:50:05]

PART OF THE REASON STATEMENT UMBRELLA CRITERIA IS THE CHARACTERISTIC, IT DOESN'T FIT THE CHARACTERISTIC OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YES, THAT'S ONE OF THE CRITERIA. AND IF YOU DENY IT BASED ON THAT CRITERIA, THAT JUST DIRECT STAFF TO EVEN EVEN THOUGH CITIES ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO MAKE LAND USE DECISIONS BASED ON ZONING AND INFRASTRUCTURE, I CAN SLOW DOWN WHEN I SAY THAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION. SO EVEN THOUGH CITIES ARE LEGALLY REQUIRED TO MAKE LAND USE DECISIONS BASED ON ZONING AND INFRASTRUCTURE, WE COULD WE COULD DENY AN IRRELEVANT STATEMENT THAT WE WE'RE JUST DENYING SIMPLY BECAUSE WE DON'T THINK IT FITS THE CHARACTER. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE CRITERIA FOR FOR A PUD. SO THOSE CRITERIA FOR PUD, YOU GET TO APPLY AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK THIS CRITERIA HAS BEEN MET AND WE'RE JUST WE'RE DENYING IT FOR THAT FOR THAT REASON. OKAY. BUT YOU GET TO LOOK THROUGH THE CRITERIA AND THE COMPATIBLE COMPATIBLE USE IS CRITERIA. SO AS LONG AS YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE THE FACTS TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE, AND THEN YOU MAKE THE FINDING LEGALLY THAT IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE. SO WE'D HAVE TO PROVIDE FACTS OF WHY WE BELIEVED. YES, CORRECT. ON THE TESTIMONY HERE TODAY. THOSE WOULD BE THE FACTS THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER AS FAR AS WHETHER IT'S COMPATIBLE OR NOT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEP. JUST. OKAY. ALL RIGHT THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND ALLOW FOR COUNCIL DELIBERATION. MR. FRANCIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TO LEAD THAT CONVERSATION OUT, PLEASE? I'M GOING TO START OUT WITH MY BASIC STATEMENT AND THEN I'LL TRY TO DEFEND IT, BUT IT'S OPEN TO CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHERE THE PEOPLE TEACH ME. AND THAT IS I WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS AS IT STANDS, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT AS NECESSARILY BY DEFINITION AS REDEVELOPMENT. AND THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FROM THE STAFF THAT IT MEETS THE STANDARD OF REDEVELOPMENT. YOU HEARD SOME WORDS TODAY THAT IT COULD, BUT WE JUST WENT THROUGH STANDARDS FOR REDEVELOPMENT IN THE ELIGIBILITY REPORT. SECOND IS.

I DON'T SO IT'S IT'S LESS THAN TWO ACRES. SO WE HAVE SOME REAL STRENGTH TO SAY NO ON THAT BASIS, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE I DON'T SEE HOW IT GIVES BACK TO THE PUBLIC. AND YES, WE CAN MAKE AN ORAL STATEMENT THAT THIS IS OPEN TO ANYBODY TO PLAY BASKETBALL. IT'S A PRIVATE STREET WITH THE BLUE SIGN. IT MORE OR LESS SAYS, THIS IS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT OPEN, BECAUSE IT WAS ANNOUNCED IN THIS MEETING THAT IT WAS OPEN. IT'S NOT IN ANY AGREEMENT THAT'S WRITTEN IN ANY DOCUMENT THAT WE HAVE IN HERE. AND ALSO, I'M NOTICING THAT THE 20 FOOT OR WHAT I ASSUME IS CLASSIFIED AS PRIVATE FOR EACH LOT OWNER IS, OF COURSE, THE DRIVEWAY AREA OF THE PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF THEIR GARAGE. SO IT'S NOT GREEN SPACE. I DON'T KNOW, THERE'S JUST TO ME, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT AREN'T QUITE RIGHT WITH THIS IN MY MIND. SO MY INCLINATION IS, AT A MINIMUM TO SEND IT BACK AND REDESIGN THIS AND LEAVE IT AT SIX DENSITY INSTEAD OF EIGHT, BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE SOME RIGHTS UNDER R-1. THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. THEY HAVE THOSE RIGHTS. THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENSITY OF SIX. THEY DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO A PRIVATE STREET JUST UNLESS THEY GET THE PUD. SO WHAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT THROUGH R1 IS THEIRS. SO MY INCLINATION IS AT A MINIMUM GO BACK AND REWORK THIS. BUT THAT MAY NOT BE AN OPTION. AND I'M OPEN TO OTHER PEOPLE'S TEACHING ME PRETTY MUCH MONEY. WHATEVER.

SO YEAH, GO AHEAD. I GOT A LIST OF PLUSES AND MINUSES HERE AND I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THEM OKAY. ONE OF THE PLUSES I'LL GO I'LL DO THE PLUSES FIRST. YOU KNOW PUT THEM TOGETHER. SO IT WAS IT. THESE COULD HAVE BEEN BUILT AT SIX UNITS PER ACRE WITHOUT A PUD.

IF WE HADN'T HAD TO HAVE THE THE PRIVATE STREET, THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ANY REASON THAT IT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN BUILT. SO THE DENSITY PROBLEM IS KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A DOES IT REALLY GAIN A LOT OF TRACTION WITH ME? BUT THESE ARE EIGHT UNITS AN ACRE. AND I, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE A I WOULD BE MORE SUPPORTIVE IF, IF THEY WERE SIX. THERE IS A NEED FOR HOUSING IN THIS PRICE RANGE IN THE CITY OF LITTLE FALLS. WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THAT PINNACLE OR THAT POINT YET WHERE WE'VE FLATTENED OFF, OR WHERE WE'VE BUILT ENOUGH

[02:55:01]

HOUSING TO BRING THE PRICE OF OTHER HOUSING DOWN. SO THAT'S A PLUS FOR IT. I DON'T THINK 14 UNITS ARE GOING TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC. I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS WITH BELT AND ROAD AND WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IT TOO. IT IS. IT IS A REALLY NARROW ROAD WITH A LOT OF TRAFFIC, AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT. BUT IT'S A YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE ISSUE WITH THE CITY VERSUS THE COUNTY GOING BACK AND FORTH, IN AND OUT, IN AND OUT OF, OF THE CITY.

ANOTHER PLUS, THE CHURCH HAS A RIGHT TO SELL THAT PROPERTY, AND THE NEW OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT WITHIN REASON. AND THE CODE. BUT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH MINUSES NOW.

AND AND I'M SORRY I'VE GOT SO MUCH. BUT THE 20 FOOT SETBACK IN THE FRONT, I THINK WILL CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH A NARROW ROAD ALREADY. I, I, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE A PICKUP THAT'S LONGER THAN 20FT AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PARK IN THE DRIVEWAY AND NOT HAVE IT POKING OUT IN THE ROAD. AND AND IF YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO GET A LADDER TRUCK DOWN THIS, THIS STREET, ALL IT TAKES IS ONE CAR TO PLUG THAT STREET UP. AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THEIR WAY DOWN THERE. I'M NOT REAL HAPPY WITH THE LONG DRIVEWAY EITHER. AND THE HAMMERHEAD, I KNOW THAT FIRE SIGNED OFF ON IT, BUT I, LIKE YOU SAID, I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT TO BE THE GUY BACK IN THAT TRUCK OUT OF THERE. YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT ALL FOR ME. BUT, YOU KNOW, I TALKED ABOUT HOW THE THE NEW OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD WHAT THEY WANT WITHIN REASON AND THE CODE, BUT THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY VARIANCES, I THINK, THAT ARE TAKING PLACE FOR ME TO SUPPORT THIS AT THIS TIME. SO. I THINK THE, THE, THE FOCUS PROS AND CONS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT COVERS MOST OF THOSE ISSUES. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO ONE ISSUE, AND THAT IS, IS THAT IT DOES NOT FIT THE CHARACTER. I UNDERSTAND THAT FEELING. NO ONE DESCRIBED WHAT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEW NEW HOUSE SHOULD LOOK LIKE, BUT I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT IS THE SUBDIVISION THAT'S ABOUT 25 YEARS OLD. IT'S GOT TOWNHOMES ON THREE SIDES, BUT OUR SIDE, THE WEST SIDE AND THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE'S A LITTLE PIECE ON THE WEST SIDE THAT DOESN'T BECAUSE IT'S COUNTY PROPERTY.

THERE ARE TWO LARGE HOMES TALKING ABOUT THAT SPOT. SO AND THERE ARE OTHER EXAMPLES AROUND THE CITY I JUST DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEM AS CLOSE TO YOU. SO I STRUGGLE WITH THE CONCEPT THAT IT DOESN'T FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK IT VERY, VERY MUCH DOES FIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT I DO AGREE WITH SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT. THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD, WHICH IS ALWAYS A PROBLEM WITH PRIVATE ROADS. THE PARKING IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE. TO YOUR POINT, I'VE BEEN IN NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE YOU CAN'T EVEN PARK THAT AVERAGE SIZED SUV IN THE DRIVEWAY WITHOUT CROSSING THE SIDEWALK. THOSE CONCERNS. I KIND OF LANDING ON THE THE SIX LOTS PER ACRE CONCEPT AS WELL. I DO. I'M ALWAYS THE SURPRISE, SO I LIKE TO BE AT THE END. YEAH, I, I THINK THAT ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE HAVE SAID A LOT OF, I THINK REALLY RELEVANT THINGS.

WHEN YOU GO THROUGH THE PUD STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT OFF THE BAT, YOU KNOW, SO PROMOTE REDEVELOPMENT AND REUSE OF PREVIOUSLY DEVELOPED PROPERTY. SO I THINK THAT I AGREE, I'M NOT SURE I CALL THIS REDEVELOPMENT, BUT IT DOES QUALIFY IN THAT IT IS A REUSE OF PROPERTY. I WILL GIVE IT THAT. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY, COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO THINK ABOUT THE COMMON SENSE USE OF HOW PEOPLE NAVIGATE NEIGHBORHOODS AND HOW FAMILIES LIVE AND PEOPLE LIVE. AND I AGREE 100% THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO FEEL PUBLIC. I THINK IT'S GOING TO FEEL AWKWARD. I DON'T THINK THAT THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FEEL LIKE THEY JUST GOT SOME NEW AMENITIES IN THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO WALK IN THERE AND FEEL LIKE THEY'RE WELCOME. YOU MIGHT AS WELL BE A GATED COMMUNITY. I JUST I WHOLEHEARTEDLY DISAGREE THAT THE WAY THIS IS DESIGNED MAKES IT FEEL PUBLIC. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE BEEN VERY STEADFAST IN WITH PUDS IS ENSURING THAT THERE ARE AMENITIES THAT MAKE THESE

[03:00:01]

COMPROMISES IN THE LAW VALUABLE AND WORTH IT TO TO THE NEIGHBORS. AND I JUST DON'T I JUST DON'T THINK I SEE THAT HERE. YOU KNOW, ANOTHER PART OF THE PUD QUALIFICATIONS IS PROVIDING ATTRACTIVE STREETSCAPES. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY LEFT UP TO THE EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. BUT, YOU KNOW, IDAHO CITIES ARE THEY'RE CREATURES OF THE STATE, MEANING THAT WE ONLY HAVE THE POWERS THAT THE LEGISLATURE GRANTS EXPLICITLY TO CITIES, AND WE CAN'T INVENT THAT AUTHORITY. SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'LL JUST SAY A FEW THINGS, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF PUBLIC COMMENTS, WHICH IS THAT IDAHO IS NOT GRANTED CITIES THE POWER TO IMPOSE PRICING CONTROLS. SO WE CAN'T DENY A PUD OR ANY KIND OF DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE HOW MUCH THOSE UNITS MIGHT COST. BOISE ACTUALLY TRIED SEVERAL YEARS AGO TO START PUTTING IN SOME OF THESE TYPES OF LAWS, AND THEY WERE INVALIDATED BY THE COURT IMMEDIATELY. SO REMEMBER THAT YOUR CITY IS OPERATING UNDER THE AUTHORITY GIVEN TO IT BY THE STATE. AND SO PAY ATTENTION TO WHO YOU'RE ELECTING TO THE STATE POSITIONS, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE THE POWER TO CHANGE THAT. YOU KNOW, WE WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CAP THE PRICE ON PRIVATELY BUILT HOMES. SO ALTHOUGH I THINK THAT'S REAL, I THINK THAT THE CONCERN ABOUT CROWDED SCHOOLS IS REAL. I HAVE RAISED FOUR KIDS HERE. MY YOUNGEST IS IN HIGH SCHOOL, IN A SCHOOL WITH A SINKING GYMNASIUM AND HOLES IN THE ROOF. SO I GET IT. VERY MUCH SO. BUT SCHOOL DISTRICTS PLAN FOR GROWTH FOR SCHOOLS AND UNFORTUNATELY WE HAVE GONE OVER THIS MANY, MANY TIMES THAT DENYING A DEVELOPMENT BASED UPON THAT HOLD ALONE IS NOT LIKELY GOING TO HOLD UP IN COURT, AND IT'S GOING TO COST TAXPAYERS SIGNIFICANTLY. PEOPLE DON'T NECESSARILY REALIZE THAT WHEN WE GO INTO LITIGATION, TAXPAYERS ARE PAYING FOR THAT. SO IF WE ARE IN A SITUATION WHICH LEGAL COUNSEL IS SAYING, HEY, THIS IS REALLY QUALIFYING THESE STANDARDS, WE DO HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO THAT. SO I THINK THE SOLUTION FOR THAT IS FOR RESIDENTS TO CHOOSE TO INVEST IN OUR LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS, NOT ILLEGAL DENIALS OF PROPERTY OWNER RIGHTS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO. AND SO IT'S VERY IT'S A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING WHEN THOSE ISSUES COME TO US BECAUSE WE'RE ALL THINKING IT AND WE'VE ALL WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE LIVED HERE, MOST OF US HAVE LIVED HERE OUR ENTIRE LIVES ARE ALMOST OUR ENTIRE LIVES. SO WE UNDERSTAND THESE CONCERNS. BUT BUT BUT YEAH, I THINK COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS AND FREEMAN, I THINK YOU REALLY NAILED IT ON ON I THINK MY CONCERNS ARE AND PERHAPS WE NEED TO SEND THIS BACK. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO WEIGH IN AS WELL. I, I WOULD I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE MORE OF A DENIAL TO DENY IT AS OPPOSED TO SENDING IT BACK AS, LIKE AS A PUD. I WOULD SAY IT'S A IT'S A DENIAL. I THINK NOT HAVING A PUBLIC STREET, ALL OF THE POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S SENT BACK AND REWORK IT AND BRING IT BACK. I WOULD SAY IT'S A DENIAL AS A PUD. THAT WOULD BE MY. YOU KNOW, WHERE I STAND. I KNOW THAT I AM ONLY THE TIEBREAKER IF IT COMES TO A TIE TONIGHT, BUT THAT IS WOULD BE MORE OF WHERE I WHERE I LAND ON THIS. I THINK THAT THEY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO SIX LOTS AND A PUBLIC STREET ON THIS PARTICULAR AREA. IT IS THEY KNEW THAT WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT OR WHEN THEY SUBDIVIDED IT AND BOUGHT IT. IT'S AN R1. THEY DO HAVE LEGAL RIGHTS TO THAT, BUT LEGAL RIGHTS ARE A PUBLIC STREET AND SIX UNITS. SO I TOLD YOU THAT WAS MY MINIMUM POSITION. OKAY, I'M GOOD WITH IT. BUT I WOULD SAY EVERYBODY IN THE ROOM, ALL OF US HAVE TO REALIZE THIS CAN DEVELOP AS TWO STORY BUILDINGS ATTACHED AND SIX DENSITY. THAT IS THE LAW. AND WE DON'T CHANGE THE LAW. IN THE MIDDLE OF A HEARING. I WILL POINT OUT ONE THING THAT I DON'T SEE ON HERE.

THAT WOULD BE ANOTHER REASON FOR DENIAL. THERE IS SPECIFICALLY IN PDUS THAT CONNECT PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION TO EXISTING PROPOSED SCHOOLS, PARKS, PUBLIC LANDS AND PATHWAYS. I COULD SEE THAT WE ONCE DENIED SOMEBODY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BRIDGE ACROSS THE CANAL TO MAKE A CONNECTION. SO AND THEN THE LAST THING I NEED TO SAY IS I VOTED FOR A LOT OF PUDS. BUT THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT ABOUT THE WAY THIS WAS PRESENTED THAT I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE THE SAME WAY I USUALLY HAVE, BECAUSE WE'VE DONE ONE WHERE THE DEVELOPER REALLY TRIED TO ADAPT TO WHAT THE NEIGHBORS WERE SAYING. I REALLY MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES AND PUTS A GOOD DEAL OF MONEY IN DOING THAT. AND THIS IS NOT

[03:05:06]

THAT TO ME. YOU'RE YOU'RE AN ABSOLUTE MAX OF DENSITY. AND AND THAT'S PUD PUD. MAX, THAT'S NOT OUR ONE. MAX. NO, I'M QUITE WILLING TO VOTE NO AND WORK OUT THE REASON STATEMENT OF AND.

YEAH, I'LL NOMINATE COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS TO TO WRITE OUR REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERION STANDARDS. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE TO DO IT TONIGHT? THAT'S UP TO MR. JONES.

I COULD DO THAT, MAYOR. YES, PLEASE. COUNCILOR BRADFORD WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. IS THAT OKAY? YES, PLEASE. COUNCILOR RADFORD. I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO ADD. I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS HOW I FEEL ABOUT PC, SO I'M JUST LISTENING RIGHT NOW, AND. WHAT I THINK, I MEAN, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT PEOPLE HEARD ABOUT PB. OKAY. THANK YOU. IF COUNCIL IS READY TO MAKE A MOTION. FOR A SECOND, I'LL DO THE FIRST MOTION. DOES THAT HELP YOU? I'LL MOVE TO DENY THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILLOWS PLACE TOWNHOMES AS PRESENTED SECOND. WE ARE READY FOR THE VOTE. BRADFORD. ALL RIGHT. FREEMAN. YES, FRANCIS I. LARSON.

YES. DINGMAN. YES. MOTION TO DENY CARRIES. WHEN IT COMES TO THE. NOW, WE DO HAVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA. AND I THINK THAT THAT IS SOMETHING IF IF WE CAN TAKE A SHORT BREAK AND WORK THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND WE WILL COME BACK IN FIVE MINUTES, YOU FEEL LIKE THAT'S I MEAN, WE DON'T NEED ALL OF THE REASONS, BUT WE YOU KNOW, WE NEED THE LEGAL. SO WE WILL WORK THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA. WE WILL COME BACK IN FIVE MINUTES AND OO WE HAVE. OH OKAY. SO WE HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON FOUR ONE, WHICH WAS TO DENY THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILLOW PLACE TOWNHOMES. AND NOW WE ARE ON TO ACTION ITEM TWO WITH THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA. AND WE ARE COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS HAS PREPARED THAT WITH LEGAL. YEAH I THINK I GOT IT. WE'LL TRY IT. I MOVE COUNCIL DIRECT STAFF, INCLUDING THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT AND THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, TO DRAFT A REASONED STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE DENIAL OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR WILLIAM PLACE TOWNHOMES AND GIVE UP. JUST STOP RIGHT THERE.

YES, THEY'LL BRING IT BACK TO US AND THEN WE WILL. AND I WOULD LIKE TO SET A DATE CERTAIN NEXT WORK SESSION, WHICH WOULD BE FEBRUARY 9TH. WE WOULD SEE THE DRAFT. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE TO SEE THE DRAFT? NOT TO ACT ON IT, JUST TO SEE IT? WE WOULD WE WOULD MAKE AN ACTION ITEM ON OKAY. THAT WAY, EVEN THOUGH IT'S IN A WORK SESSION, WE WOULD DRAFT AND THEN THE ACT ON IT, ACT ON THE REGULAR MEETING. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD OKAY. SO THE DRAFT CERTAIN. WHAT WHAT. OH I WAS JUST SAYING DO YOU WANT TO PUT IT TO A DATE. CERTAIN. YES. THE DATE CERTAIN. FEBRUARY 9TH. YEAH. WORK SESSION I BELIEVE THAT'S THE NEXT WORK SESSION FEBRUARY 12TH. TO CONSIDER WHETHER TO ADOPT OR. YES. YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE FIRST. YES.

I'LL SECOND. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN. SECONDED. AND IF WE COULD GET THE VOTE, AS WELL AS ASKING COUNCIL MEMBER RADFORD WHO IS ON THE PHONE. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS A RADFORD.

YEAH. DID EVERYONE HEAR THAT? HE'D SAY YES. OKAY. GARY. LARSON. YES. FREEMAN. YES.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. YES, WE DO HAVE. YES. WE WE ARE ON TO ANNOUNCEMENTS. AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY SOMETHING OR TAKE A POSITION OF PRIVILEGE. NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO WORD THIS,

[03:10:04]

BUT I WANT TO SAY I APPRECIATE VERY MUCH MR. KRAMER'S EXPLANATION OF WHY THERE WAS NO ETHICS PROBLEM ON HIS PART, AND I TOTALLY SUPPORT THAT AND AGREE WITH IT THAT HE IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, CORRECT? HE IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY, BUT I JUST APPRECIATE THAT HE RESPONDED DIRECTLY TO THAT CHALLENGE. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE TO MAKE? ANY CALENDAR ITEMS? OKAY. THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Jan 22, 2026 City Council Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item