Aug 06, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

[1. Call to Order & Roll Call]

[00:00:13]

AND WE WILL ASK THE CLERK TO DO A CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL. BUT I WILL SAY THAT AS WE WERE LOOKING FOR THIS SPECIAL TIME, BRENDAN LEE WAS ALREADY IN A OUT OF TOWN ON A FAMILY REUNION AND WHERE HE WAS GOING TO RECUSE HIMSELF ANYWAY, I TOLD HIM IT WAS OKAY NOT TO COME DOWN JUST TO RECUSE HIMSELF. SO, CITY CLERK, IF YOU'LL ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS HERE. COUNCILOR RADFORD PRESENT. COUNCILOR DINGMAN HERE, COUNCILOR FREEMAN HERE, AND COUNCILOR LARSON HERE. THANK YOU. MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.

THANK YOU. I FAILED TO DO THIS PRIOR, BUT WILL MR. ROENICK PLEASE LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TONIGHT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT HE IS. OH, HE IS IN THE BACK. YES, PLEASE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOU DOING THAT. OH. YOU KNOW. OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY I SHOULD HAVE NOTICED THIS PRIOR, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT'S NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS HEARING TONIGHT? OKAY. THEN WE WILL MOVE TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. AND THIS IS COMING TO US FROM OUR

[4.A) Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing-Request for Reconsideration of the decision to approve the application for the Planned Unit Development, PUD25-002, for Willows Place Townhomes for the property located at 1080 S Bellin Road.]

SURE. I GUESS I CAN INTRODUCE IT. AND THEN THE APPLICANT AND THE AND THEN THE MOVEMENT WILL.

YES. YEAH. I, I ALWAYS USE THE TERM APPLICANT. SO THAT'S FINE. YEAH. SO WHAT'S, WHAT'S BEFORE US TODAY IS A RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE BY CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 25TH OF 2026. WE ARE LOOKING PRIMARILY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE MOVEMENT WILL WILL BE BRINGING BEFORE YOU. A RECONSIDERATION IS REQUIRED BY STATE STATUTE.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S EVER AN APPEAL OF, I CALL THEM APPEALS OF A DECISION OF THE GOVERNING BODY, WHICH IS THE CITY COUNCIL IN THIS CASE, WITH LUBA. IF A RECONSIDERATION MUST BE BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, AND THEN YOU CAN RULE ON THE MERITS OF THAT RECONSIDERATION, A RECONSIDERATION MUST BE HEARD BEFORE. WITH EVERYTHING IN LAND USE, IT CAN BE APPEALED AND YOU CAN APPEAL AN APPEAL. SO WITH THE RECONSIDERATION MUST TAKE PLACE BEFORE. IF THEY CHOOSE TO APPEAL THIS FURTHER, THE APPELLATE OR THE APPEAL WOULD ACTUALLY GO TO DISTRICT COURT IN THIS CASE. SO THIS WOULD BE THE LAST REALM IN WHICH THIS WOULD BE HEARD ON THE LOCAL LEVEL. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT, BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS READY TO SPEAK AS WELL. AND I'LL BE DISCUSSING THE ITEMS THAT THEY BRING UP. BUT THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU, DIRECTOR CENTER. SO WE ARE READY FOR. WE HAVE SEVERAL MOVEMENTS. THEY THEY CAME IN TWO GROUPS. AND SO IF WE IF THE FIRST ONE, THE SMITHS WOULDN'T MIND COMING AND GIVING THEIR, THEIR ARGUMENT WHY THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED. AND THEN. AND THEN I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU BOTH ARE PLANNING ON SPEAKING. YES. OKAY.

YES. SO BOTH SPEAK. AND THEN AS AS EACH MOVEMENT MAKES THEIR& ARGUMENT, PLEASE DON'T MAKE THE

[00:05:05]

SO THANK YOU. THAT IS THAT IS EXPERIENCED COUNCIL MEMBERS. YES, PLEASE. YEAH, YEAH. PLEASE READ YOUR STATEMENT THEN, MR. FRANCIS. MR. SMITH, MAYBE YOU WANT TO SIT DOWN FOR A MINUTE, BECAUSE I WANT TO REPEAT WHAT I DID. OKAY. 25TH. I KNOW THAT KIND OF SETS THE STAGE A LITTLE BIT. I'M GOING TO MAKE IT THE SAME IN TERMS OF MORE, MORE PEOPLE IN THE ROOM THAT WERE IN THE ROOM AT THAT TIME. SO EVERYBODY HAD THE SAME STORY. SO, MR. JONES, COULD YOU START BY EXPLAINING EX PARTE? YEAH. SO JUST TO EXPLAIN FOR THE PUBLIC, IT'S NOT THAT COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT TO HEAR YOUR OPINIONS. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE MEETING HERE TONIGHT IS TO HEAR PEOPLE'S OPINIONS AND GET PUBLIC COMMENT. HOWEVER, THERE'S DUE PROCESS RULES THAT ONE PARTY CAN'T TALK WITH A DECISION MAKER WHEN IT'S A CONSIDERED A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER. SO ONE PARTY, IT WOULD BE BASICALLY IF YOU HAD A DIVORCE MATTER AND YOU SAID, HEY JUDGE, CAN I TALK TO YOU? BUT DON'T LET MY SPOUSE COME EASY. I JUST WANT TO TALK TO YOU ALONE. THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER DUE PROCESS. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, THEY SAID THEY LISTENED. THEY HEARD WILLOW'S PLACE AND THEY STOPPED. AND THAT'S PROPER BECAUSE WHAT IT ALLOWS, WHAT IT ALLOWS TO HAPPEN IS WHEN YOU PRESENT YOUR OPINIONS HERE, THE OTHER PARTY HERE, THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO TALK ABOUT IT, DISCUSS IT, PRESENT THEIR VIEWS ON IT INSTEAD OF HAVING A ONE SIDED CONVERSATION. SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR IT. AND WHAT COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS KIND OF A UNIQUE SITUATION, BECAUSE THE IDAHO CODE ALLOWS FOR MEDIATION IN SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, WHEREAS LAND USE DECISION. BUT MEDIATION NECESSARILY CONSTITUTES EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS BECAUSE THEY TALKED WITH THE DEVELOPER THROUGH THE MEDIATOR. RIGHT. SO HE'S GOING TO DISCLOSE WHAT THAT MEDIATION WAS. BUT AND WHAT THAT DOES IS ALLOWS THE, THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR THE MOVEMENTS TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE COMMENTS THAT WERE GIVEN EX PARTE. AND AGAIN, IT WAS JUST THE ONLY ONES THAT WERE PARTICIPANTS TO MEDIATION WERE COUNCIL MEMBERS, FRANCIS AND LEE. BUT AS A PRECAUTION. SO THEY'RE DISCLOSING WHICH IS WHICH IS WHAT THEY NEED TO DO WHEN THEY'VE HAD EX PARTE CONTACT. BUT AS A PRECAUTION, WE ARE ALSO HAVING COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS RECUSED HIMSELF FROM THE VOTE BECAUSE HE HAD THAT EX PARTE CONTACT. OKAY. COVER EVERYTHING. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WITH THAT BACKGROUND, LET ME EXPLAIN. I'M GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN THE MEDIATION PROCESS AND MY OWN

[00:10:06]

CITIGROUP RECOGNIZED THE REDUCTION IN PARKING SPACES ON THE STREET AND THE ADVANTAGE OF BREAKING UP THE LINE OF HOMES ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET AND ACCEPT IT AS A STREET SAFE STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT BEFORE MEDIATION AND THE DEVELOPER PROPOSED LENGTHENING THE DRIVEWAYS TO 25FT FROM THE ORIGINAL 20FT BY REDUCING THE EAST SIDE BUFFER FROM 10FT TO 5FT. CITIGROUP ACCEPTED THIS AS A REASONABLE RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL CONCERNS ABOUT THE STREETSCAPE. LOOK, A REQUIREMENT OF A FENCE WAS DISCUSSED BY THE CITY GROUP, BUT IT RAISED ISSUES OF ACCESS TO AT LEAST ONE KEY UTILITY PIECE. THE DECISION NOT TO REQUIRE A FULL LINE FENCE LEAVES THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE DEVELOPER THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 22ND, 2026, AS THE RESOLUTION OF THAT ISSUE, IN ORDER TO MOVE THE TWIN HOME AND PROVIDE FOR THE STORMWATER RETENTION, THE CITIGROUP ACCEPTED IN MEDIATION THAT THE COMMON SPACE COULD BE SLIGHTLY UNDER 25%. THAT WAS LATER RESOLVED DIFFERENTLY, BUT DIRECTOR SANDER CAN EXPLAIN THAT, AND I THINK I SHOULD SAY THE CITY GROUP CONSISTED OF THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT REPRESENTING THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY

[00:15:03]

JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY FOR MY OWN. CURIOSITY. YEAH. OKAY. IS THAT BETTER? YES. OKAY. OUT OF CURIOSITY, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY THE MEETING WAS WHY. IT WAS A SPECIAL MEETING, AND IT WAS MOVED THREE WEEKS. OKAY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THREE WEEKS BACK? WELL, MY INITIAL, WELL, MY INITIAL WAS ON AUGUST 13TH. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE THAT CAME OUT WAS ON AUGUST 27TH. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE THAT CAME OUT WAS AUGUST 6TH. I DON'T THINK ANYTHING HAD BEEN PUBLISHED. IS THAT. NO, NOTHING, NOTHING HAD BEEN PUBLISHED. WE DECIDED TO HOLD A SPECIAL MEETING JUST FOR THIS, SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE OTHER HEARINGS COMING THAT HAD BEEN LONG SCHEDULED. AND THIS WE JUST THOUGHT TO HOLD IT IN A MORE TIMELY MANNER. THERE WERE OTHER HEARINGS COMING UP, AND SO WE JUST DECIDED TO HAVE A SPECIAL ONE. SO WE WEREN'T RUNNING SOMEONE TOO LATE INTO THE NIGHT. AND WE'RE NOT AT OUR BEST. OKAY. THAT'S FINE. OKAY. I'M JUST GOING TO RUN DOWN PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE SAID ABOUT MEDIATION. IT'S JUST A IT'S AN OVERVIEW. IT'S NOT READING IT.

BUT ANYWAY, MEDIATION PROCESS, THE CREDIT FOR IN THE PROCEDURE USED BY UTILIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF MEDIATION PROPOSAL BEFORE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT WAS SPECIFICALLY DENIED. ON MAY 21ST, 2026 AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MEANINGFUL TIME AND MEANINGFUL MANNER WOULD HAVE BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE TIME. MEDIATION WAS SET FOR APPROVAL. IDAHO CODE 6765 REQUIRES ANY RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES THROUGH MEDIATION MUST BE THE SUBJECT OF ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE DECISION MAKING BODY. THE PUBLIC HEARING ITSELF IS THE REQUIRED PROCEDURAL STEP, OR THE MEDIATION IS PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED. THE COUNCIL'S PRE-APPROVAL OF THE MEDIATION PROPOSAL BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNDERMINES THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT AND CONSTITUTED A CONSTITUTES ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS ACTION AND OR A VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AT THE DECISION, AS THE DECISION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MADE BEFORE, THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS WAS COMPLETED. I'LL NOT READ THE CASE. THE REASON STATEMENT. WHAT? OH YEAH, I GOT TO CLICK YES. THE REASON STATEMENT PRODUCED AT THE HEARING DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COUNCIL ACTUALLY CONSIDERED THE PUBLIC INPUT, BUT RATHER RUBBER STAMPED OR RATIFIED A PREDETERMINED AGREEMENT. INVOLVEMENT IN A PRE-HEARING MEDIATION APPROVAL CREATES A SERIOUS DUE PROCESS. CONCERN REGARDING REGARDING IMPARTIALITY AND BIAS. WHEN THAT SAME COUNCIL APPROVES OF THE APPLICATION AFTER THE SAME CITY COUNCIL BODY AS A BODY HAS APPROVED THE MEDIATION PROPOSAL UPON WHICH THE NEW PD PUD APPLICATION IS BASED, NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES IS REPEATED, THAT THE COUNCIL IS NOT OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THE PUD. IDAHO'S LLP. DEFINITIONS. THE AFFECTED PARTIES IN A LAND USE MEDIATION TYPICALLY INCLUDE THE PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT APPLICANT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT PLANNING BODIES AND NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS WHO MAY BE ADVERSELY OR MATERIALLY AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DECISION, OFTEN INCLUDING NEARBY OR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS. THERE WERE NO NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MEDIATION, WHICH INDICATES A NEGATIVE BIAS TOWARDS NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS, IDAHO FALLS RESIDENTS AND AN UNWILLINGNESS TO ALLOW THEIR PARTICIPATION OR HEAR THEIR CONCERNS OUTSIDE THE CONFINES OF THE HEARING. HIGHLIGHTED BY THE FACT THAT THE ONLY ITEMS MEANINGFULLY NEGOTIATED WERE ONES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP BY COUNCIL MEMBERS. EXAMPLES. MOVING THE PLAYGROUND NEXT TO THE CLUB ROAD, IMPROVEMENTS TO THE STREET STREETSCAPES AND OPEN AREAS. EXAMPLES, ITEMS

[00:20:07]

THERE WE ARE. FENCING FOR NEIGHBORING. FENCING FOR NEIGHBORING LANDOWNERS THROUGH MOST SIMILAR, MOST SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS PROVIDE FENCING TO ADJACENT LANDOWNERS. FENCING AROUND THE CANAL WAS REJECTED BASED ON THE DEVELOPERS SUGGESTING. THAT THEY COULDN'T.

THEY COULDN'T BUILD ON THE CANAL EASEMENT. HOWEVER, NO ONE EXCEPT CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS EXPECTED TO BUILD ON THE EASEMENT. THEY WERE TO BUILD ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY MEANINGFUL, NOT REDUNDANT AMENDMENTS. OKAY, OBVIOUSLY THERE ARE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON THE MEDIATION PROCESS AND THE INTERPRETATION OF CODES RELATED TO IT THAT NEED TO BE REVIEWED BY A THIRD PARTY. AMENITIES. THIS IS AN INTERESTING. YOU INVITE THE PUBLIC TO THE PLAYGROUND, BUT THERE'S NO PLACE TO PARK NEAR IT EXCEPT ON PLUMBING. YOU INVITE THEM TO THE BASKETBALL COURT. THERE IS SOME PARKING FOR THEM, UNLESS IT IS ALREADY BEEN TAKEN BY RESIDENTS. SO THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN INVITED. PLUS, WHOEVER LIVES IN THE PUD AND THEN YOU PROVIDE AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE IN THE FORM OF AN UNFINISHED CANAL. I BELIEVE YOU REALIZE THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS LAWSUITS RELATING TO CANALS AND RESIDENTIAL AREAS. THAT'S WHY THEY COVER THEM ALL IN BOISE.

WHY DO WE NOT PROTECT THE PEOPLE WE ARE INVITING TO THIS PLACE? WHY DO YOU THINK THE WEST SIDE SCHOOL HAS A FENCE ON THEIR PROPERTY OUTSIDE OF THE CANAL EASEMENT? OKAY, HERE'S THE CANAL JUST FOR FUN. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU'LL NOTE THAT IT GOT PRETTY STEEP SIDES. AND I JUST POINT OUT THE BERM HEIGHT IN RELATION TO THE UTILITY BOX, BECAUSE LATER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. BUT ANYWAY, UTILITY BOX IS THAT LITTLE TINY DOT IN THE BACK.

COULD YOU MAYBE HOLD RIGHT BACK THERE? BACK THERE. THAT'S OKAY. ANYWAY, SO IT IF THERE'S ROOM THERE, SO THERE'S A CANAL, THERE'S ANOTHER PICTURE. THIS IS ME HOLDING A STICK. NOTE THE STEEP SIDES. HARD TO SEE A MARK ON THE STICK. THAT'S A TEN FEET. SO THAT CANAL. BERM THERE IS ALMOST HIGH. YES. THE WATER DOWN AT THE BOTTOM IS ONLY TWO FEET, BUT YOU GOT EIGHT FEET TO GET TO IT. OKAY, NOW, JUST AS A REMINDER, THIS IS A GRAPHIC OF THE CALCULATED ANGLE WITHIN THE CANAL. IT'S HARD SOMETIMES TO VISUALIZE THE PICTURES, HOW STEEP THE SLIDES BESIDES ARE.

THAT'S THE ANGLE 42%. YOU GO DOWN THERE, YOU'RE NOT GETTING OUT. AND THAT'S A REAL SAFETY CONCERN. AND JUST FOR FUN. THIS IS FROM ACTUALLY BOISE TELEVISION STATION. IDAHO HAS THE SECOND HIGHEST RATE OF CHILD CANAL DROWNINGS IN THE UNITED STATES. IRRIGATION CANALS CRISS CROSS MANY RESIDENTIAL AND RURAL PARTS OF THE STATE, POSING SEVERE SAFETY RISKS DUE TO FAST MOVING COLD WATER, STEEP SIDES AND HIDDEN UNDERCURRENTS FOR YOUNG CHILDREN AGES 1 TO 5 DROWN IN IDAHO IRRIGATION FACILITIES THAN IN ANY OTHER BODY OF WATER.

CANALS CAN FILL RAPIDLY FROM SNOWPACK, RUNOFF AND SEASONAL OPERATIONS. STEEP SIDES AND SWIFT CURRENTS MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE OR PETS TO CLIMB UP. IT'S A REAL SAFETY CONCERN BECAUSE IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE. SO. THAT'S ENOUGH PEED APPROVAL ZONING CODE 689 B MAJOR CHANGES TO A PDB MUST FOLLOW THE REVIEW. PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING PROCESS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL PUD. THAT'S INTERESTING. THIS WAS NOT FOLLOWED. THERE WAS NO REVIEW BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WITH THE PUBLIC NOTICE OF HEARING PEOPLE ON MAY 21ST AT THE MAY 21ST MEETING, WERE GIVEN THE IMPRESSION THAT PUD. WOULD GO THE MODIFIED. THE MODIFIED WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS AS REQUIRED BY THE CODE,

[00:25:08]

[00:30:09]

IT COLLAPSED. WOW. AND THEY DID. NOT PARTICULARLY GREAT AREA FOR BUILDING. SO AS THE PLAT SHOWS, THE DEVELOPER ONLY PUT BUILDING LOTS ON THE NORTH EDGE THAT HAVE A HIGHER ELEVATION. SO THAT'S THE OLD PLAT. AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE'S THREE BUILDING BLOCKS ON THAT NORTH END LOT.

NOTE ALSO THAT THERE IS A 20 FOOT ACCESS IN BETWEEN LOT OF SIX AND SEVEN, SO THAT THEY COULD GET BACK INTO THAT AREA. I WANT TO SHARE THAT WITH YOUR. SHOW THAT WITH THE HIGHLIGHTER HIGHLIGHTER. YEAH. I THINK RIGHT THERE, THAT'S THE ACCESS. OKAY. THIS IS A PICTURE LOOKING NORTH TOWARD COLEMAN. IF YOU LOOK, I'LL HIT THE LIKE BUTTON. YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THROUGH HERE, THERE'S A BERM AND IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN PART OF A HOUSING UP HERE, SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE AREA DOWN HERE. AND SO THAT'S THE BERM. AND YOU CAN SEE THE BERM GOES AROUND BACK TO INCLUDE PLUMBING. AND JUST FOR FUN, THERE'S YOUR PUBLIC HEARING SIGN RIGHT THERE. OKAY. THIS IS LOOKING TO THE WEST. THIS IS ALL MOST OF THE CONTINGENT NEIGHBORS. IF YOU LOOK THERE, YOU'LL ALSO SEE A BERM, RIGHT RUNNING RIGHT ALL THE WAY DOWN THROUGH HERE. YOU'LL SEE THAT IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE FLAT AREA DOWN IN HERE. SO THERE'S BERMS OVER HERE. THIS IS LOOKING SOUTH TOWARD THE CANAL, AND THE BERM RUNS THE BOTTOM OF IT'S RIGHT THROUGH THERE. SO THERE'S A BERM THERE.

CANAL BANK IS WHAT WE CALL IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE AREA AROUND IT ON THIS SIDE.

INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER SIDE, IT'S LEVEL WITH THE GROUND. SO IT'S NOT A NATURAL FEATURE. HERE'S THE DRAINPIPE FOR OVERFLOW INTO THE CANAL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CANAL COMPANY FOR DEQ REQUIREMENTS. SO WE'VE GOT AN OVERFLOW PIPE THERE. INTERESTING. ALSO YOU CAN SEE AT THIS POINT THE SLOPE UP TO THE CHURCH PARKING LOT.

IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT'S PRETTY SLOPED ABOUT 30. LOT FOR SUBDIVISION THREE IS A FUNCTIONING DRAINAGE RETENTION BASIN, NOT INFILLED AS IT'S CLAIMED THE AREA SHOULD HAVE STRUCTURES AS THE PLAT SHOWS, DUE TO BEING A BASIN. OTHERWISE, DRAINAGE CALCULATIONS WOULD BE EFFECTIVE. TRIED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE DIFFICULT IN THREE MINUTES AND WITHOUT PICTURES. YEAH, OKAY. NOW ON THE SHARED DRAINAGE RETENTION BASIN, WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO HAVING A P D APPROVED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT RETAINING IT ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY. SO IT'S A SHARED RETENTION BASIN WITH THE CHURCH. ACCORDING TO STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REGULATIONS, THIS ARRANGEMENT IS ONLY LEGAL WITH THE CONTRACT.

EASEMENT HAS BEEN WRITTEN UP TO SHOW THE CHURCH'S AGREEMENT WITH THE USE OF THEIR STORM DRAINAGE POND AND DETAILS WHAT THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED TO AND REGULATE. POLLUTANT LOADING.

WITHOUT A FORMAL AGREEMENT, THIS ARRANGEMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN UNLAWFUL

[00:35:02]

MOST OF THE QUESTIONS, HOWEVER, WERE ANSWERED WHEN A SEARCH OF BONNEVILLE COUNTY RECORDS SHOWED TWO DOCUMENTS A RIGHT OF WAY DEED WITH WARRANTY AND A GRANT OF EASEMENT WITH WARRANTY.

THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS SIGNED ON 16TH OCTOBER 2025, A WEEK AFTER THE PLANNING AND ZONING HEARING HEARING ON THE PUD, IT PROVIDES THE CITY WITH A 3072FT■S OF CHURCH PROPERTY AT THE PRICE OF $1 FOR PUBLIC STREET, HIGHWAY AND ASSOCIATED PURPOSES, WHICH ANSWERED IN PART THE BELL ROAD PROJECT. THE GRANT AMUSEMENT WAS SIGNED 25TH NOVEMBER 2025. THIS WAS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT GRANTED TO THE CITY BY THE CHURCH AGAIN FOR A DOLLAR. THE RESULT OF THIS EASEMENT WAS CITY ELECTRICITY BEING PROVIDED TO THE 70 TOWNHOUSES ON THE CORNER OF BELL AND BANCHORY.

BECAUSE THE PROPERTY HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN IN THE COUNTY, IT WAS OBVIOUS THAT THE FIRST TWO HEARINGS. THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS UNHAPPY THAT THE REQUEST FOR THE PED HAD BEEN DENIED. WHEN THEY APPARENTLY FULFILLED THIS REQUEST FROM THE CITY. THIS IS WHEN THE EASEMENTS WERE RUN OUT, EVEN THREATENING A LAWSUIT. AT THE RECONSIDERATION HEARING. NOT SURE WHY THE DEVELOPER SEEMED TO TYPE THE APPROVAL OF THESE EASEMENTS, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN. IT WOULD HAVE HELPED RESIDENTS TRUST IF THEY HAD BEEN EXPLAINED. AND JUST TOUCH BRIEFLY ON THIS. THIS WAS INTERESTING. NOVEMBER ELECTION CHANGE IN CITY ADMINISTRATION AFTER THE ELECTION AND BEFORE THE FIRST CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON THE PROPOSED PUD PROBABLY SLOWED THINGS UP AND I COULD PROBABLY PROVIDE A LOT MORE BACKGROUND, BUT WE WON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. THE ELECTION CAUSED A LARGE PUBLIC OUTCRY ON THE BALLOT, AND CITY OFFICIALS PROBABLY WANTED TO PUT SOME TIME BETWEEN THE ELECTION AND APPROVAL OF THIS PUD, AND PLUS SHOW A TOKEN RESISTANCE TO THE DEVELOPMENT. STRATEGY WORKED. AFTER TWO DENIALS, MANY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THOUGHT THAT THE ISSUE HAD BEEN DECIDED AND WERE SURPRISED TO HEAR THAT IT HAD BEEN APPROVED AFTER MEDIATION. THE ELECTION LAST FALL WAS A STUDY IN POLITICAL SCIENCE, WITH VOTER TURNOUT WAY HIGHER THAN USUAL IN AN OFF ELECTION YEAR. THE FIRST GO AROUND, THOSE OPPOSED TO DEVELOPMENT WON. SO IT WAS A HOT ISSUE AND CONTINUES TO BE SOMETHING TO

[00:40:04]

FINAL THOUGHT A WISE MAN ONCE. OH, QUICK, I BETTER QUICK. DON'T WANT TO MISS THAT FINAL.

A WISE MAN ONCE TOLD ME THAT THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO STOP DEVELOPMENT IN IDAHO FALLS, WHERE IT SHOULDN'T BE ONE BY THE PROPERTY YOURSELF, AND TWO THE BALLOT BOX. WE OFFER TO BUY THE PROPERTY FROM THE CHURCH ABOUT A YEAR BEFORE THE DEVELOPERS DID AND DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE, SO WE LOST ON THAT. I GUESS THE ONLY OPTION LEFT IS THE BALLOT BOX, THOUGH IT WILL PROBABLY BE TOO LATE FOR US. THANK YOU. OKAY. EXCUSE ME. SO YOU YOU, AS THE COUNCIL NOW HAS A CHANCE TO ASK YOU QUESTIONS. IT'S NOT JUST A YEAH, WE GET TO NOW HAVE TO HAVE SOME OF THE. I JUST KNOW THAT. YEAH, YEAH. BACK AND FORTH. COUNCIL. DO YOU HAVE ANY ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. SMITH AT THIS TIME. AND THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY AS OTHERS CONTINUE TO SPEAK, THAT WE MIGHT ASK YOU TO COME BACK AND WE CAN ASK YOU ANY OF THESE QUESTIONS. OKAY. SORRY FOR ALL.

AM I DONE? ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. WELL, I DO HAVE A COUPLE. SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT THAT YOUR POSITION IS THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL BE UNABLE TO USE ANY CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES TO ADDRESS ANY OF THE ISSUES THAT YOU BROUGHT UP AS FAR AS DRAINAGE? AND NO, I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T. I'M JUST SAYING IT'S GOING TO BE A PROBLEM. AND SOME OF THOSE PROBLEMS HAVE ALREADY EXISTED IN THE AREA. AND SO I'VE HAD THE SAME I'VE HAD PROBLEMS MYSELF. AND SO I KNOW THAT THEY EXIST. OKAY, OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE I WAS JUST WONDERING IF THERE WAS SOME REASON THAT IT WAS LIKE, NO, THERE'S NO WAY THAT HE COULD HE WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. OKAY, I, WE PROBABLY WILL CALL YOU BACK UP, BUT, BUT I WOULD OH, IS THERE IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR, I GUESS, COMMENTS RELATED TO LIKE DIRECTED TOWARD? WELL, NORMALLY IT'S A QUESTION. YEAH. QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS.

AND THEN WE CAN HAVE DELIBERATIONS AND THEN COMMENTS BACK. YEAH. AFTER. BUT I THERE WILL BE SEVERAL MOVEMENTS AND THEN WE WILL HAVE DIRECTOR CENTER GIVE US A STAFF REPORT AS WELL. I ALSO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY BASED ON SOME OF THE COMMENTS WHICH WE SHOULD WE HOLD THOSE FIRST? I WOULD HOLD THOSE. YES. UNTIL WE HEAR FROM CITY STAFF. THANK YOU.

THANKS. OKAY. I'D BETTER GO BACK. MY NAME IS TERRY SMITH. I'M A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS.

MY COMMENTS ARE MORE. THEY'RE NOT AS THOROUGH AND THEY'RE NOT AS LONG. I REALIZE THAT YOU THINK THAT WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT IS A SMALL, IRRELEVANT ITEM OF CLARIFICATION. BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO ME BECAUSE WE SEEM TO GET CONFLICTING INFORMATION ALL THE TIME AS RESIDENTS. THE FIRST PROPOSAL OF THE PUD ASKED FOR A VARIANCE OF A 25 FOOT SETBACK TO A 20 FOOT SETBACK. I KNOW THAT IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEDIATION, IT WAS DISCUSSED AND EVEN BROUGHT UP BY MR. FRANCIS THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD MORE OR LESS EXCHANGE THE FIVE FOOT DIFFERENCE WITH THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE CHURCH PARKING LOT. I KNOW THAT MR. SANTER INDICATED THAT THE SETBACK WOULD BE 25FT. HOWEVER, THE MAP THAT WAS SENT TO US THAT WAS ON THE PUBLIC NOTICE BOARD AND THAT WAS IN THE AGENDA PACKET, STILL INDICATE THAT THAT SETBACK IS 20FT. THAT FRONT SETBACK IS 20FT. ALSO IN THE AGENDA PACKET NUMBER 31 IN THE FINDINGS OF FACT DOCUMENT, STILL INDICATES A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE OF A 20 FOOT SETBACK.

IS THERE ANYWHERE IN WRITING. AND IT MAY JUST BE THAT I HAVEN'T SPENT ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK FOR IT, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE APPARENT TO ME. IS THERE ANY WAY IN WRITING THAT INDICATES THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL MAKE THAT SETBACK 25FT? AND THE NEXT THING HAS TO DO WITH. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED AT VARIOUS MEETINGS THAT THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT DICTATE WHAT SOMEONE DOES WITH THEIR OWN PROPERTY. WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT, AND ON THE SURFACE THAT

[00:45:01]

[00:50:05]

[00:55:10]

THAT DITCH WHICH MACK TALKED ABOUT, VERY CONCERNED. AND AS FAR AS THE EASEMENT, THE EASEMENT EASEMENT IS FOR THE CANAL COMPANY IS 25FT FROM THE EDGE OF THE CANAL IN INTO THE LAND, INTO THE PROPERTY. AFTER THAT, IT'S THE LANDOWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY. AND THAT IS A VERY, VERY BIG CONCERN. YES, PEOPLE WALK UP AND DOWN THAT CANAL ALL DAY LONG. PEOPLE RIDE THEIR MOTORCYCLES, THEIR BICYCLES. I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THESE LITTLE KIDS THAT MIGHT MOVE INTO THIS. WHAT DO YOU CALL THESE, THESE HOMES THAT ARE FOR? LOW INCOME EARNERS? YOU KNOW, I DON'T SEE THAT EITHER. NOW, AS FAR AS THAT WAS A SAFETY. BUT I GUESS WHAT I ASK IS JUST. THE VOTERS WERE REALLY STOOD BEHIND WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN IDAHO FALLS. ALL THE GROWTH, ALL THE TRAFFIC. I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS FOR THE ACCIDENTS ON 17TH STREET, BUT THEY'RE PUBLIC RECORDS. IF YOU CALL THE POLICE, I'M SURE, BUT I READ ABOUT IT QUITE A BIT. THERE'S QUITE A FEW ACCIDENTS AND A LOT OF DISGRUNTLED DRIVERS, A LOT OF PEOPLE PULLING OVER AND PULLING SOMEBODY ELSE OVER. WE'RE JUST MAKING OUR SITUATION WORSE. NOW I REALIZE THIS IS PROBABLY GOING TO GO IN, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT IN THE FUTURE WE HAVE TO CONSIDER WHAT'S GOING ON IN IDAHO FALLS. THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM. AND YOU HAVE YOU, NOT YOU. BUT I DON'T EVEN THINK THE CITY PLANNERS HAVE ANY IDEA HOW TO ADDRESS THE FUTURE. AND I BELIEVE IT WAS BRAD LITTLE AND SCOTT BEDKE WERE IN TOWN YESTERDAY OR THE DAY BEFORE, AND THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT SMALL TOWNS, KEEPING THE SMALL TOWN FEELING. AND IN OUR CITIES, IDAHO FALLS HAS LOST IT. IT'S NOT SMALL TOWN ANYMORE, AND WE HAVE NO ANSWERS HOW TO HOW TO MAKE PEOPLE SAFE. SO ANYWAY, BY THE WAY, I'M DAVE ROENICK FROM IDAHO FALLS. I WANT TO THANK YOU. I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT ALL YOU DO, I REALLY DO. I WOULDN'T WANT TO BE IN YOUR POSITION. NO WAY. THANK YOU. OH, QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. OKAY. MR. STANTON, WE ARE READY FOR A STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE THE. HOW MY PRESENTATION WILL GO IS AS PART OF A REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE MOVEMENT. IF YOU DON'T MIND, I'LL JUST USE APPLICANTS. BUT THE APPLICANT MUST SUBMIT THEIR PROTEST IN WRITING. THEY SUBMITTED 15 POINTS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP AGAINST THE RECONSIDERATION. AND SO MY PRESENTATION IS STRUCTURED TO THAT. SO I WILL TAKE THOSE 15 POINTS. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THESE 15 POINTS THOUGH THE APPLICANT DID BRING UP AND AND SO THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED AS I GO THROUGH MY PRESENTATION. SO FORGIVE ME IF I'M READING SOME. AND GOING BACK AND FORTH HERE. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WILLOWS PLACE PUD AND A RECONSIDERATION OF THE DECISION THAT WAS MADE ON JULY OR JUNE 25TH OF 2026. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE FULL TIMELINE JUST FOR INTEREST OF TIME, BUT REALLY, WHAT'S THE ISSUE IS FROM THIS POINT OF MAY 5TH ON. SO WE ARE WE'RE THE

[01:00:04]

THERE WILL BE JUST A SEAMLESS NEIGHBORHOODS OVER TWO ACRES. WHAT THEY'RE REFERRING TO, AND I FORGOT TO MENTION, I'M NOT GOING BACK TO THE REVISED PUD. I'M JUST ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS PER DUE PROCESS OF WHAT THEY BRING UP. SO THEY ARE STATING THAT THE DECISION BY THE CITY COUNCIL WAS FAULTY. FOR ONE, THAT THIS WAS UNDER TWO ACRES. SO I'LL JUST I'LL JUST POINT OUT CITY CODE, THE POD CODE, WHAT IT ALLOWS AN 11-2-6. IS THAT A MINIMUM SITE SIZE FOR PUD SHALL BE TWO ACRES. SMALLER ACREAGE MAY BE CONSIDERED FOR PUD ON LAND THAT THE COUNCIL FINDS IS REDEVELOPING OR PROVIDES A PUBLIC BENEFIT OR AMENITY. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT DISTINGUISH PHASING OF A DEVELOPMENT, JUST PURELY STATES THE SIZE OF THE PLOT IN WHICH THE PUD IS PROPOSED. SO JUST BE COGNIZANT OF THAT. WELL, THE APPLICANT DOES STATE SKYLINE MANOR AND SKYLINE MANOR DIVISION TWO, AND HE'S REFERRING TO A PRESENTATION THAT WE MADE BACK ON THE REVISION. HE IS CORRECT THAT THOSE WORDS. HOWEVER, THEY WERE UNDER TWO ACRES AND THEY UTILIZED THIS PORTION OF THE PUD ORDINANCE. COUNCIL IS THE ONE THAT DETERMINES IF IT IS REDEVELOPING. IT IS IN WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION AS A CITY COUNCIL. ON THE JUNE 25TH HEARING, THEY DID. THEY DID DISTINGUISH THAT AS REDEVELOPING. AND I HAVE THE DEFINITION HERE FOR HOW WE CLASSIFY AS REDEVELOPING. I DID STATE DURING THAT TIME THAT, YES, THERE WERE THREE PROJECTS. WHEN YOU DO A QUERY IN CITYWORKS AND YOU LOOK FOR THE SIZE OF THE LOT, THERE ARE THREE THAT POP UP AND THESE ARE THE THREE. THERE'S ACTUALLY FOUR. AND THE APPLICANT WAS RIGHT TO CALL ME ON THIS. I WAS INCORRECT IN THAT PRESENTATION BECAUSE THE CLEVELAND PUD WAS HALF AN ACRE. IT WAS APPLIED

[01:05:04]

NO TAX DEDUCTION. IT MAKES IT SO THEY CAN BUILD THE PUD. I CANNOT ADDRESS THE LATTER PART OF THAT STATEMENT. I JUST FRANKLY CANNOT COMMENT ON THAT. BUT I CAN COMMENT ON THE ALLOWED ADJACENT PROPERTY. AGAIN, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT WE ARE LOOKING AT THE WESTERN PROPERTY. THAT IS WHAT IS IN THAT IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. THAT WAS BEFORE YOU ON THE 25TH.

THERE ARE TWO PROVISIONS THAT YOU CAN UTILIZE OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS IN OUR CODE. THE FIRST IS WHAT'S CALLED A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT THAT DOES ALLOW FOR PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENTER AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THAT PARKING AGREEMENT MUST BE FILED WITH MY DEPARTMENT, AND YOU CAN SHARE PARKING IN IN. MOSTLY IT'S DONE ON A COMMERCIAL BASIS. IT'S RARELY, IF EVER, DONE. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY CASES. I WAS TRYING TO FIND SOMEONE ON A RESIDENTIAL BASIS AND I COULD NOT FIND ANY. HOWEVER, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THEY STATE THAT THE. THE CHURCH IS UTILIZING IT FOR PARKING. PARKING IS COMPLETELY COMPENSATED ON THE PROPERTY AS PROPOSED IN THE LOWEST PLACE. DO YOU DO THE DWELLING UNIT THAT'S. THAT'S REQUIRED FOR PARKING IS TWO PARKING SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT, THE WILLOWS PLACE, BECAUSE THEY ARE PROPOSING 12 UNITS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE 24 PARKING SPACES. THAT'S TWO SPACES PER UNIT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 42. THEY DO COUNT GARAGES IN THIS CASE, WHICH I WOULD ARGUE, BUT THEY ARE PROPOSING TWO UNITS OR TWO PARKING SPACES PER UNIT, AS WELL AS SIX GUEST PARKING UNITS. SO THEY ACTUALLY ARE EXCEEDING THE PARKING ON SITE FOR REQUIRING. THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT ASPECT THAT CAN BE SHARED BY PROPERTY OWNERS IS FOUND IN 60.4 IN OUR PUBLIC WORKS STORMWATER DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS. YOU CAN SHARE STORMWATER DETENTION THAT IS ALLOWED FOR OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS. HOWEVER, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS THAT YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN DOING THAT. SO IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, YOU CAN HAVE MULTIPLE DEVELOPMENTS SHARING ONE DETENTION POND THAT IS ALLOWED FOR OUR ENGINEERING STANDARDS. WHAT MUST OCCUR IS THEY MUST SUBMIT A STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM MASTER PLAN ALONG WITH THE CALCULATIONS FOR CITY APPROVAL. SO IT MUST BE DESIGNED BY CITY ENGINEER, AND IT MUST HAVE A MASTER PLAN COMPONENT TO IT. INCLUDED WITH THAT MASTER PLAN, IT MUST SHOW ALL PIPING, LIFTING, ANY TYPE OF. I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT THE DESIGN MUST BE STAMPED AND SIGNED BY AN ENGINEER LICENSED IN THE STATE OF IDAHO. THIS WAS FOLLOWED AND THIS WAS DONE. SO THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED IT TO THE ENGINEERING TO MY DEPARTMENT. IT COMES THROUGH MY DEPARTMENT. IT GETS ROUTED TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, WHO ARE ALL THEY ARE CERTIFIED ENGINEERS. THEY REVIEWED THE ENGINEERING THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE DEVELOPER AND THEY APPROVED IT. SO WE HAVE TWO ENGINEERS STAMPING THE DETENTION POND PLANS. THEY WOULD NOT SIGN OFF ON IT, AND IT WOULD NOT COME TO PUBLIC HEARING IF THEY WERE NOT OKAY WITH ENGINEERING WAS NOT SOUND. SO I JUST STATE THAT. AND ON THE STORMWATER DETENTION, YOU CAN SHARE THAT, BUT REALIZE IT HAS IT GOES UNDER SCRUTINY OF THE ENGINEERING TEAM. THE THIRD POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. I'LL TRY TO MOVE QUICKLY. I'M SORRY. THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING WAS JUST A TESTIMONIAL FOR THE DEVELOPER. WE HAD TWO PEOPLE WHO WERE BROUGHT IN BY THE DEVELOPER TO TESTIFY OF HIS WONDERFUL DEVELOPMENT, BUT I WILL ACTUALLY SKIP AHEAD A LITTLE BIT. BASICALLY, WHAT THE ARGUMENT HERE WAS, WAS THAT THE TESTIMONIAL WAS IN FAVOR OF THE DEVELOPER AND DID NOT FULLY REPRESENT THE PUBLIC. I WOULD JUST POINT TO OUR PUBLIC TESTIMONY IN THE QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING SECTION OF OUR CODE, WHICH IS 11-6 FOR THE CHAIR OF THE DECISION MAKING BOARD, WHO IN MOST CASES IS EITHER THE CITY COUNCIL PRESIDENT OR THE

[01:10:03]

I'VE BEEN IN A LOT OF LAND USE HEARINGS AND WE DO NOT DISCRIMINATE ON WHO SPEAKS. SO THE ABILITY TO SPEAK IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THESE LAND USE DECISIONS. SO I JUST POINT THAT OUT THAT THOUGH THEY MAY NOT DISAGREE, THEY MAY DISAGREE WITH WHO CAME. THAT'S FUNDAMENTAL TO THESE CASES. SO THE THE NEXT ASPECT WAS MEDIATION REPRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT STATED THE MEDIATION DIDN'T INCLUDE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR ELECTED OFFICIAL DID NOT REPRESENT PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND HE HE BASICALLY FORMULATED THIS POINT. I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THIS SECTION OF MEDIATION, THAT MEDIATION, HOW IT WORKS IS IT ACTUALLY COMES FROM STATE STATUTE. MEDIATION CAN BE REQUESTED. ANY PART OF THE LAND USE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. MEDIATION COULD BE REQUESTED. NOW. IT COULD BE REQUESTED WHEN WE HAVE AN APPLICATION, IT COULD BE REQUESTED AT ANY TIME DURING THE PROCESS. HOWEVER, IT IT'S ALL DEPENDENT ON THE APPLICANT OF THAT MEDIATION REQUEST. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE MEDIATION REQUEST WAS MADE BY THE DEVELOPER APPLICANT AT THAT TIME. AND THAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE BECAUSE ANYBODY CAN ACTUALLY FILE MEDIATION. BUT THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE WAS THE ONE WHO FILED. SO BECAUSE HE FILED, WHAT HAPPENS THEN IS IT THEN COMES BACK TO THE MEDIATION OCCURS BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY. AND BECAUSE YOU, AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CITY, THAT'S WHY YOU WERE CALLED UP TO MEDIATION. SO YOU REPRESENT THE CITY. AND IN THIS CASE, THAT THAT RESPONSIBILITY WAS DESIGNATED TO COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS AND COUNCIL MEMBER LEE. THUS, AS THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, THEY REPRESENTED THE CITY IN THAT MEDIATION AGREEMENT. THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO NEIGHBORHOOD REPRESENTATION IN MEDIATION PROCESS. THE NEXT ONE IS IN REGARDS TO THE THE DEVELOPER REFUSES TO BUILD A PRIVACY FENCE FOR THOSE NEIGHBORS WHO WANT TO NEED ONE WHO WANT OR NEED ONE, AS HAS BEEN DONE WITH OTHER PUD DEVELOPMENTS. SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE. MOST OF THE NEIGHBORS HAVE FENCES, THE ONE THAT DOESN'T. THEY MIGHT CONSIDER GOING ON IN HALF WITH THEM. SO THIS, I BELIEVE, IS IN REFERENCE TO THE WESTERN PROPERTIES OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THE PUD ORDINANCE ONLY CALLS. AND THAT'S WHAT WAS REQUESTED IN TERMS OF THE LAND USE APPLICATION WAS A PUD. IT WAS NOT REQUESTED TO BE AN R-1 DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS NOT REQUESTED TO BE AN R-3 DEVELOPMENT. A REZONE WAS NOT REQUESTED. IN THIS CASE, A PUD WAS REQUESTED. IN THIS CASE, THERE'S ONLY TWO INSTANCES I COULD FIND IN THE PUD ORDINANCE WHERE FENCES ARE ALLOWED, OR I SHOULD SAY FENCES ARE REQUIRED.

THE FIRST IS WHEN YOU HAVE A RESIDENTIAL BUTTING UP AGAINST A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT FENCE IS REQUIRED. SO THINK OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. THERE IS MITIGATE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. SO IF THERE'S A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT NEXT TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, YOU WOULD WANT A FENCE OR SOME TYPE OF BUFFERING THERE. THE OTHER IS ACTUALLY CALLED OUT IN OUR AMENITIES ELEMENT OF THE CODE. AND IT SPECIFICALLY CALLS OUT DOG PARKS THAT DOG PARKS MUST BE FENCED. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO AREAS IN WHICH THERE IS A THOU SHALL. THE OTHER ELEMENT THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS SPECIFICALLY THAT APPLIES TO WILLOWS PLACE IS IT DOES DOES REQUIRE LANDSCAPE BUFFERING, AND THAT DOES REQUIRE FOR IT TO MITIGATE CONFLICT BETWEEN DENSITIES. AND IN THIS CASE, WHAT'S REQUIRED IS I JUST CALL OUT THE SECTION OF CODE RIGHT HERE. I REALIZE THAT SOMETIMES READING A LOT OF CODE ON THE SLIDE IS NOT THE MOST ENJOYABLE THING. MAYBE READING IT IN GENERAL IS NOT THE MOST ENJOYABLE THING, BUT BUT THERE IS A BUFFER REQUIREMENT PART OF THAT BUFFER REQUIREMENT. THEY DO HAVE THE OPTION TO INSTALL A SIX FOOT FENCE, SO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT. HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPER DID NOT REQUEST THAT HE REQUESTED ACTUALLY A LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. IN SO DOING, HE MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PUD ORDINANCE. NOW, IS

[01:15:05]

THEY DID EVALUATE THAT, ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF A CROSSING ACROSS THE CANAL. THE REASON THEY'RE WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THE REASONING, I SHOULD SAY, WAS THAT THAT WAS CANAL PROPERTY AND COULD HAVE. THE CITY COUNCIL REQUIRED A FENCE ON THE ON THE DEVELOPER'S PROPERTY, ON WILLOWS PLACE PROPERTY. YES, BUT THAT DISCRETION WAS NOT UTILIZED AND THUS IT WAS NOT REQUIRED. SO THAT'S THAT'S THE ISSUE OF THE FENCING. THE NEXT ONE IS THEY BRING UP AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THIS ONE'S A VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. THIS IS ISSUE SIX IN YOUR PACKET THAT THERE WAS A HOUSING SHORTAGE. THEY THEY SAY THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO RAISE THE HOUSING PRICES. FRANKLY, THE. THIS ISSUE OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE CITY COUNCIL'S RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA. SO WHAT MAYBE WAS AN ISSUE FOR THE APPLICANT? IT WAS NOT AN ISSUE FOR APPROVAL. SO IT IT WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS A HEAVY CRITERIA OF WHY YOU VOTED TO APPROVE THE WILLOWS PLACE PUD ON THE 25TH. THE SECOND ONE WAS AMENITIES. THEY. THEY STATE THAT THE AMENITIES ARE REDUNDANT AND DO NOT PROVIDE BENEFIT. THE DEVELOPER REFUSED TO OFFER ALTERNATIVES AND CITY ACCEPTED. THE ONES THAT DEVELOPER GAVE TO THE PROJECT COULD BE APPROVED. THE PUD REQUIREMENTS REQUIRES ONE AMENITY PER 50 UNITS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUIRED, IN THIS CASE ONE AMENITY. THEY ARE PROPOSING. TWO. I JUST LAY THEM OUT HERE. IT DOES CALL THEM OUT IN THE PUD ORDINANCE. ONE KEY COMPONENT IS SIMILAR AMENITIES WHICH REFLECT THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION AS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO YOU DO HAVE DISCRETION. IF A IF A AN AMENITY IS REDUNDANT ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, YOU CAN APPROVE THAT REDUNDANCY. SO THAT REALLY IS UP TO YOUR DISCRETION. AND YOU USED THAT DISCRETION THERE WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE PUD DISCREPANCIES. I, I APOLOGIZE IF THERE WAS BY THE PUBLIC OR BY THE APPLICANT IF THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THIS. HOWEVER, WHEN WE WENT TO PUBLIC HEARING, THIS IS WHAT WAS SHOWN, THIS PUD CONCEPT, AND THIS WAS WHAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE PUBLIC AND THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS CALLS OUT ALL THE DIMENSIONS IN WHICH CALLS OUT IN A PUD, AND THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THIS IS THE PUD. I SOMETIMES I UNDERSTAND WITH WITH YOU, YOU GO THROUGH A LOT OF MEETINGS AND LAND USE. YOU HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. THEY WENT THROUGH A FIRST PUBLIC HEARING. THAT PUBLIC HEARING WAS DENIED. WE WENT THROUGH MEDIATION AND THEN IT WAS REVISED. I MEAN, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 4 TO 5 DIFFERENT BACK AND FORTHS. WHEN WE REVIEW THESE, I CAN TELL YOU, JUST AS SOMEBODY WHO HAS REVIEWED THESE, SOMETIMES EVEN WE GET CONFUSED, BUT WE ALWAYS KEEP THEM IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER SO THAT THEY'RE EASY TO REVIEW. BUT THAT BACK AND FORTH CAN GET CONFUSING. WE TYPICALLY THEY DON'T GO BACK AND FORTH BEFORE THE PUBLIC AS IT DID WITH THIS ONE. THAT'S WHY WE DO THAT INTERNALLY. SO WE CAN WE CAN FINE TUNE THESE BEFORE THEY COME TO PUBLIC PROCESS. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS SHOWN TO THE PUBLIC PRIOR, ESPECIALLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, BECAUSE WE DON'T ATTEND THOSE, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO SWAY ONE SIDE OR ANOTHER TO THE CONVERSATION. BUT THIS IS WHAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS IS WHAT WAS APPROVED. THEY ALSO BROUGHT UP IN THERE. THEY TALKED ABOUT THE NOTICES THAT THE MAIL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ARRIVED ON MONDAY AFTER THE THURSDAY. I JUST WANT TO GO OVER NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ACTUALLY A STATE STATUTE. FORGIVE ME IF THIS IS A LITTLE LENGTHY. A LOT OF TIMES IT WAS ASKED BY THE APPLICANT, WHY DID IT MOVE SO FAST? I THINK ANOTHER POINT IS WHY DOES IT MOVE SO SLOW IN GOVERNMENT? THE COGS OF GOVERNMENT MOVE SLOW FOR A REASON, BECAUSE YOU WANT VERY THOUGHTFUL DECISIONS AS YOU GO THROUGH THESE LAND USE DECISIONS. SO I JUST LAY OUT

[01:20:03]

SO YES, YOU COULD BE OUTSIDE OF IT. AND YES, YOU COULD NOT GET A NOTICE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT IN THAT 300 FOOT RADIUS. THAT NOTICE WENT OUT ON THE EIGHTH. I CANNOT EVER GUARANTEE WHEN AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER RECEIVES THAT NOTICE. SOME PEOPLE DON'T PICK UP THEIR MAIL FOR TWO WEEKS. SOME PICK IT UP THAT DAY. I JUST CAN'T I DON'T KNOW HOW THE FEDERAL MAIL SYSTEM WORKS. NONETHELESS, WE HAVE TO GET YOU NOTICE TWO WEEKS PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND START THAT PROCESS. AND WE DID THAT ON THE THIRD. WE ALSO POSTED THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT SHOWED THAT THAT WE DID POST TO THE PROPERTY. IN FACT, I WAS JUST OUT THERE THREE DAYS AGO. I GO OUT AND VISIT THESE SITES, ESPECIALLY VERY CONTENTIOUS SITES. I NOTICED A LADY GOT OUT AND WAS TAKING PICTURES OF THE NOTICE. SO WE TRY TO GET THE NOTICE OUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, WE'RE BOUND BY STATE STATUTE ON THOSE. COULD WE NOTICE MORE PEOPLE OFTEN ARE MAKE THAT ARGUMENT? YES, BUT THAT COSTS TAXPAYER MONEY. AND IF WE'RE MEETING WHAT THE CODE, WHAT THE STATE STATUTE REQUIRES OF US, WE NEVER FEEL LIKE IT'S WE DON'T WANT TO BURDEN THE TAXPAYER WITH MORE NOTICING. SO I REALIZE THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE BEST ANSWER FOR THE PUBLIC. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO NOTICING AND WE MET STATE STATUTE AND IT WAS THERE. I ALSO WANTED TO SHOW THE SPECIFIC NOTICES. JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT, ACTUALLY, THIS IS WHAT WAS SENT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THIS IS WHAT WAS POSTED IN THE REGISTRY. WE ALSO POST REGISTER. WE ALSO ARE REQUIRED TO DO WHAT'S CALLED A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION NOTICE.

AND THAT GOES OUT ON WEBSITES AND ALL OVER. AND THIS IS THAT DOCUMENT AS WELL. THEY BROUGHT UP FOR NUMBER TEN. DRAINAGE WAS NEVER ADDRESSED. AND I WOULD I WOULD JUST POINT BACK TO WHAT I HAD STATED EARLIER ABOUT PUBLIC WORKS REVIEWS. THESE. IF THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS ADDRESSED, ALL THESE DOCUMENTS. ONCE AN APPLICANT SUBMITS, THEY ARE OPEN RECORD. YOU CAN REQUEST THEM AS A PUBLIC. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST. WITH MY DEPARTMENT. WITH ENGINEERING, YOU CAN MAKE A REQUEST WITH THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO KNOW HOW YOUR CITY OPERATES, YOU CAN REQUEST. I JUST STATE AGAIN THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE. THE APPLICANT MAY NOT FEEL LIKE IT WAS ADDRESSED, BUT IT WAS ADDRESSED THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS. AND THEY ARE CERTIFIED ENGINEERS THAT LOOK AT THIS AND DESIGN IT. AND WE DON'T ACCEPT NON-CERTIFIED ENGINEERS STAMPED. THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO STAMP IT WITH THEIR ENGINEERING STAMP OR WE DON'T ACCEPT IT. AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE WANT GOOD DESIGN IN THE CITY. AND WE WANT THINGS TO FUNCTION AS THEY SHOULD. THERE WAS THEY ALSO NOTED .11 WITH THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT WAS ANNOUNCED IN. A PUBLIC COMMENT WAS ALLOWED. HOWEVER, PEOPLE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SAID THE CITY MADE IT SEEM THAT THE MEDIATED PUD WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE REQUIRED HEARING ROUTINE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PNC. APPARENTLY, THERE WAS NO CASE, SO MANY WERE SURPRISED BY THE SHORT TIME IN WHICH IT CAME TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS MISUNDERSTANDING, PLUS THE TIMING OF THE HEARING, THAT THE FEW IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SHOWED UP. SO HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE JUNE 25TH HEARING. AGAIN, I JUST GO BACK TO THE NOTICES AND THE NOTICING TIMELINE. I ALSO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THIS POINT, THAT THIS IS PART OF THE NOTICE THAT WENT TO THE NEIGHBORS. IT STATES WILLOWS PLACE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT WILL COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AFTER MEDIATION AND RESPONSE TO THE COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDATION OF THE PREVIOUS DENIAL. THE APPLICANT HAS SUPPLIED AN UPDATED PUD PLAN FOR THE WILLOWS REPLACE PUD, SO IT CLEARLY STATES IN THEIR NOTICE THAT THIS WOULD COME BACK TO YOU, THE CITY COUNCIL, IN A PUBLIC HEARING IF THEY DID NOT RECEIVE THIS NOTICE. IF THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT, THEY ARE WELCOME TO CALL US TO KEEP US INFORMED, KEEP THEM INFORMED AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE NOTICING PROCESS. THEY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT. I'M ALMOST THERE, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. AT THE HEARING, THE CITY COUNCIL TREATED APPROVAL AS A FOREGONE CONCLUSION WITH THE WAY THE HEARING WAS

[01:25:04]

I POINT THESE OUT BECAUSE YOU CAN GO ON OUR WEBSITE AND YOU CAN VIEW EACH OF THESE. THEY'RE UPLOADED A DAY AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. YOU CAN ALSO, THERE'S A TAB THERE THAT YOU CAN EITHER CLICK ON THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING. YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE TRANSCRIPT. I WILL WARN YOU, THE TRANSCRIPT IS DONE BY I THINK IT'S DONE BY AI. SO YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE YOU'RE GETTING WHAT YOU WANT. BUT I JUST I'M NOT TRYING TO QUOTE YOU DIRECTLY, BUT I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE PARTS IN THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT, PUBLIC HEARING, IN PARTICULAR, SOME OF THE PUBLIC WAS THERE. FIRST OFF, THE MAYOR DID SAY AT THE OPENING OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT, PUBLIC MEETING, SHE SAYS, QUOTE, THAT THIS THERE WILL STILL BE A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING WHERE THIS IS BROUGHT FORWARD, MEANING THE PUD. IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THIS WAS THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION, THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS COMING BACK FOR A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING FOR THE PUD PUBLIC HEARING. FURTHER, AS THEY WERE MAKING A MOTION, COUNCIL MEMBER DINGMAN SAID IN EXPRESSING HER SUPPORT OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT, SHE STATED THAT THERE'S A WHOLE OTHER LEVEL OF APPROVAL THAT'S GOING BEFORE US AT THIS MEETING. SHE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION AS WELL. AFTER THE DECISION HAD BEEN MADE TO APPROVE THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT, THE MAYOR REITERATED SHE WAS IN A DISCUSSION WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY, AND THEY BOTH REITERATED THAT THIS WILL COME BACK FOR A FULL QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING. AND SHE COMMENTED NOT TO HAVE EX PARTE COMMUNICATION. AND AT THAT POINT, ATTORNEY JONES THEN REITERATED, HE SAID, THAT'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THE PUBLIC CAN COMMENT AT THAT QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING, AND THE PUBLIC WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INPUT ON THE REVISED PUD THAT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT. FURTHER, ON JUNE 25TH, WHEN THE REVISED PUD CAME BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. SO THIS IS AFTER THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT HAD BEEN APPROVED. THEY SUBMITTED THAT NIGHT FOR THE REVISED PUD. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS PREPARED A STATEMENT THAT HE READ FROM.

HE SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN THAT HE. HE REMINDED THE CITY COUNCIL. REMEMBER, EVERYONE, THAT COUNCIL IS NOT OBLIGATED TO APPROVE THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT JUST BECAUSE WE ACCEPTED THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT. SO IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT A FOREGONE CONCLUSION. IT CAME BACK THROUGH DUE PROCESS. DUE PROCESS IS ESSENTIAL IN THESE CASES. AND IT WAS THEY CITY COUNCIL UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS A QUASI JUDICIAL HEARING AND THAT THE REVISED PUD WOULD BE HELD ON ON ITS OWN MERITS. SO I THINK THAT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO NOTE, THAT THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS DIDN'T FUNCTION IN THIS CASE, AND IT FUNCTIONED PROPERLY. THE LAST. YEAH. 13 THE HEARING WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT MODIFICATION TO THE CHURCH PARKING LOT WAS INDICATED, NEVER WAS EVEN MENTIONED IN THE PAST OR RECEIVED NO REAL MENTION IN THIS HEARING OTHER THAN BEING BRUSHED ASIDE, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE PUD ROAD WIDENING STANDARDS, I WOULD JUST POINT BACK TO WHAT I HAD STATED ABOUT PARKING, THAT THE PARKING FOR THE PROPOSED PUD FOR WILLOWS PLACE WAS ALL CONTAINED ON SITE, AND THE CHURCH PARKING LOT IS ON A SEPARATE PARCEL. IT'S NOT PART OF PUD IF THERE IS AN AGREEMENT. SO I CALLED OUT HERE, THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN WHICH WE'RE LOOKING AT THE CHURCH PARKING LOT IS RIGHT HERE ON THE PROPERTY. IF THERE IS A PARKING AGREEMENT THAT'S ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE AND THE CHURCH, THE CHURCH PROPERTY, THAT IS FINE. THEY CAN ENTER THAT, BUT THEY DON'T NEED TO ENTER THAT AGREEMENT TO MEET THEIR PARKING STANDARDS. SO THAT PROBABLY IF THE PUBLIC FELT DISMISSED ON THAT, IT WAS NOT A MOTION OF DISMISSAL. IT WAS JUST THAT THE PARKING HAD BEEN MET ALREADY ON SITE AND THUS DID NOT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. THERE WAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE CHURCH CUP AND THEIR SUBMITTED DOCUMENTS. THEY. THE QUESTION WAS RAISED IS THAT THE CUP WAS APPROVED FOR THE CHURCH ON JUNE 6TH OF 1981 AND THAT IT COULD BE FOUND I. I DON'T DISAGREE THAT SOME OF OUR

[01:30:03]

SORRY FOR THE TYPO ON THE SOUTH EDGE, BUT SO IT WOULD CUP. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS IN OUR COMMUNITY REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE ONLY REASON THAT THEY'RE REQUIRING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. WE CANNOT DENY A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. AND WHEN I SAY RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION, I DEFINE IT DOWN HERE. THAT CAN INCLUDE BOTH A CHRISTIAN CHURCH AS WELL AS A ISLAMIC MOSQUE OR A JEWISH SYNAGOGUE OR ANY TYPE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. WE CAN'T DENY. HOWEVER, THE SUPREME COURT DOES ALLOW US TO DO CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS TO MITIGATE AND CONFLICT. PRIMARILY, IT'S DEALING WITH TRAFFIC. THE APPLICANT IS CORRECT THAT FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF AN APPROVED CV CAN CAUSE REVOCATION. AND THEY'RE EXACTLY RIGHT ON THAT. HOWEVER, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT. THAT TO THIS ONE, THE CHURCH AND THE CUP IS DESIGNATED FOR THESE PROPERTIES. OVER HERE WE ARE LOOKING AT THE PROPERTY IN RED. SO WHETHER THIS CHURCH PROPERTY AND WHATEVER IS HAPPENING OFF SITE OVER HERE, WE HAVE DETERMINED OUR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR AND HE HAS TO GO THROUGH ME, IS WE'VE DETERMINED THAT CHURCH IS STILL OPERATING AS A CHURCH. AND BECAUSE IT'S STILL OPERATING AT THE CHURCH, WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE RELOCATION AGAINST THE CUP.

IT'S STILL OPERATING AS A CHURCH. THEY'RE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THEIR CITY. AND THEN THE LAST. DID WE LOSE IT THERE, LINDA? SOMETIMES WHEN IT GOES TO SLEEP. GETTING BACK OVER THERE. PERFECT, PERFECT. THANK YOU. THE LAST ISSUE THAT THEY RAISED IS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF I QUITE UNDERSTOOD THIS ONE, BUT IS THE LOSS OF EASEMENT BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS ACROSS THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE PUD WILL BUILD? I, I THINK WHAT I'LL SHOW YOU A PICTURE, BUT I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY'RE STATING THERE AS THEIR OBJECTION. BUT I SHOULD NOTE THAT ZONING ACTION. SO A REZONE AND A PUD DO NOT INSTANTLY VACATE AN EASEMENT OF THE EASEMENT CANNOT BE VACATED EXCEPT THROUGH ANOTHER LAND USE ACTION. SOME OF THAT CAN BE DONE BY PLATTING, BUT SOME OF IT, AND MOST OF IT IS DONE THROUGH WHAT'S CALLED AN EASEMENT VACATION. SO THAT'S BROUGHT BEFORE YOU A CITY COUNCIL. YOU'VE SEEN THOSE THOSE ITEMS THEN ARE VOTED ON AND THEN WE VOTE VACATE THEM. I SHOULD KNOW, BEFORE A VACATION OCCURS. AN EASEMENT IS WHAT IS CALLED AN ENCUMBRANCE ON A PROPERTY. WE OFTEN THINK THAT BECAUSE WE OWN A PROPERTY, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT ON THE PROPERTY. IT'S A COMMON MISCONCEPTION BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE ENCUMBRANCES ON YOUR PROPERTY. FOR EXAMPLE, UTILITY COMPANIES HAVE EASEMENTS ON YOUR PROPERTY. AND I WOULD I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY 99.9% OF THE PROPERTIES IN OUR CITY HAVE AN EASEMENT ON IT. YOU DO NOT HAVE RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER YOU WANT ON THAT EASEMENT. THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE INTEREST IN THAT EASEMENT, THEY CAN DO THINGS ON YOUR PROPERTY. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, A UTILITY COMPANY CAN BURY A UTILITY LINE ON YOUR PROPERTY. THEY CAN ACCESS THAT UTILITY LINE, THEY CAN DIG UP THAT UTILITY LINE, THEY CAN REMOVE YOUR FENCE TO ACCESS THAT UTILITY LINE. SO JUST BE COGNIZANT OF WHAT AN EASEMENT IS. SO DOES THE PUD VACATE EASEMENT. NO, IT DOES NOT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH SOME OTHER INSTRUMENT TO VACATE THE EASEMENT. THE UTILITY EASEMENT.

AND THIS IS WHERE I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS BEING PROTESTED. HERE WAS THIS EASEMENT ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, WHICH I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN. THAT EASEMENT HAS RIGHT BY IDAHO FALLS POWER. IDAHO FALLS POWER HAS A RIGHT ON THAT EASEMENT.

IT'S A 15 FOOT EASEMENT FOR A POWER LINE THAT RUNS ALONG THE BACK PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE HOUSES TO THE WEST, AS WELL AS TO THE EAST. I ACTUALLY, I COULD BE WRONG IF POWER LINE MAY COME IN FROM THE WEST SIDE. I SAY ALL THAT BECAUSE IN REVIEWING THIS PUD IDAHO FALLS POWER, SPECIFICALLY, THEIR DESIGN TEAM REVIEWS THIS. IN REVIEWING IT, THEY SIGNED OFF ON IT. THEY MAINTAINED THEIR RIGHT TO THE EASEMENT. THEY DID NOT REQUEST A VACATION OF THAT EASEMENT. AND THUS THAT EASEMENT STANDS. SO THIS PUD DOES NOT VACATE

[01:35:04]

I ACTUALLY HAVE THIS PULLED UP TO ZACH. SO THANK YOU. THIS IS. THE REFERENCE ON THIS. THIS IS A PROCEDURES AGE CHAPTER SIX. LET ME READ IT AND THEN I'LL GET THE REFERENCE. THAT'S FINE COUNCILMEMBER. SO THERE IT IS. SO IT SAYS PUD AMENDMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES.

THIS IS SECTION NINE. P OF THE AMENDMENTS SHALL FOLLOW THE FOLLOWING PROCEDURES FOR MINOR AND MAJOR CHANGES. AMENDMENTS SHALL BE IN KEEPING WITH PREVIOUS PHASES OR APPROVED PUD DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND SHALL MEET THE SAME OBJECTIVES AS THE ORIGINAL PUD. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO ALTER THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS. OBJECTIVES. THE APPLICANT WILL JUSTIFY HOW IT FITS WITHIN THE WHOLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. MINOR CHANGES TO THE PUD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT MAY BE APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY AND IN WRITING, SO THERE'S PERCENTAGES THAT ARE CALLED OUT. WE CAN CHANGE PUDS ADMINISTRATIVELY, MEANING IN MY DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, MAJOR CHANGES MUST FOLLOW THE SAME REVIEW. PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING PROCESS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL OF THE INITIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. MAJOR CHANGES SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING. A CHANGE IN THE GREATER OF THE DEVELOPMENT. A CHANGE OF GREATER THAN 5%. A REDUCTION IN THE APPROVED COMMON SPACE, AND A CHANGE IN THE LOCATION AND PLACEMENT OF BUILDING GREATER THAN 20% AND INCREASED NUMBER OF LOTS, WHICH WE MAY NOT SEE. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS A REDUCTION OF LOTS, AND ANY OTHER CHANGE TO THE PLAN NOT DEFINED AS A MINOR CHANGE.

SO I WOULD LEAVE INTERPRETATION TO YOU ON THAT ONE. BUT SO YOU'LL NOTICE IN THAT CODE SECTION THAT YOU READ TALKS ABOUT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. CAN YOU. YEAH. IF YOU GIVE US A REFERENCE AND THEN SPEAK LOUDLY INTO THE MICROPHONE PLEASE. SO THIS IS TITLE 11, CHAPTER SIX, SECTION THREE, SUBSECTION H. SUBSECTION NINE. SO THE WAY THIS CODE IS WORDED, IT TALKS ABOUT THE PREVIOUSLY TO, YOU KNOW, IF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS INTENDED TO ALTER THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANS. SO THIS IS A PROCESS THAT HAPPENS ONCE THERE HAS BEEN AN APPROVED PUD. SO SAY HYPOTHETICALLY SOMEBODY GETS A PUD APPROVED AND THEN LATER THEY WANT TO MAKE A MINOR CHANGE TO IT AND NOT REQUIRE TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT ENTIRE PROCESS. IF THEY MAKE A MAJOR CHANGE, THEN THEY GOT TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGED THE APPROVED PUD HERE. WE DID NOT HAVE AN APPROVED PUD. THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE APPROVED. AND THAT WAS THE REVISED PUD. AS SUCH, IT WAS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THIS CODE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THAT'S MY THAT'S MY LEGAL OPINION. THAT MAKES SENSE. AND THAT IS BECAUSE ONCE WE ONCE WE OR COUNCIL APPROVES ANY KIND OF PUD OR SITE PLAN, BY THE TIME IT WORKS THROUGH THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES, THERE ARE SOMETIMES MINOR CHANGES. BUT THIS IS TO LET A DEVELOPER KNOW YOU CAN'T GET SOMETHING APPROVED AND THEN COME BACK WITH SOMETHING ENTIRELY OR MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. SO IF THEY TRIED TO CHANGE IT LATER, AFTER IT'S BEEN APPROVED, AFTER IT'S BEEN APPROVED, SO IT AND HERE THE APPROVAL HAPPENED ON THE REVISED PUD AT THE JUNE HEARING. RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY

[01:40:04]

I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT THE ONLY ONE FOLLOW THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS ONLY PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS, RIGHT? THEY DON'T THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT THE THE FINAL DECISION MAKERS. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SANTER. MR. SMITH BROUGHT UP THAT SHE WAS CONCERNED THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT THE 25 AND THE 20 FOOT SETBACKS. COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? BECAUSE ON ON THE PICTURE THAT I HAVE IN MY POCKET, I SEE A 20 FOOT SETBACK ON LOT ONE. YEAH. WRITTEN ON THAT ON THAT PLAN RIGHT THERE. YEAH. LINDA, COULD YOU BRING THAT UP? THE MAP OF THE PUD. AND I'LL TRY TO FIND IT. WHERE IS IT? ARE YOU CALLING OUT? AND SO IF YOU LOOK IN FRONT OF LOT ONE, IT SAYS 20FT RIGHT THERE, RIGHT THERE. AND IT WAS CALLED OUT IN THE REASON STATEMENT WHERE IT STATES THAT. YEAH, IT WAS IN THE RECENT STATEMENT, NUMBER 17, IT SAYS THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED THE FRONT SETBACK TO BE BURIED FOR 25. AND THEY WERE SHIFTING. THIS REAR SETBACK IS 25 AND THE FRONT THEN WILL BE CALLED OUT AS 20. SO IT WAS CALLED OUT IN THE RECENT STATEMENT WHICH WAS APPROVED. IT WAS APPROVED IN THE REGION STATEMENT AT 2020. YES. I FEEL LIKE IF I REMEMBER IT RIGHT, BUT I WAS ON THE PHONE, IS THAT THEY THAT THEY SHIFTED. I MEAN, AND I'M SURE THAT WE'LL HAVE A CHANCE, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THEY SAID, WELL, WE'LL GIVE MORE BUFFER TO THE BACK NEIGHBORS. YES. THEY WANTED THE VARIANCE ORIGINALLY TO THE BACK. THAT WAS FOR THE. BUT IT WAS. BUT SO THEY SAID, OKAY, WELL WE WILL SHIFT THE TO SO THAT THERE WAS TO MOVE IT FORWARD SO THAT THERE WAS 25 IN THE BACK. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THEN SO IT REDUCED THE LOT SIZE IN THE FRONT TO 20 TO ALLOW A GREATER DISTANCE TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE BACK WHO ARE THE, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. THE ONLY THING I WOULD JUST POINT OUT IS IT'S JUST CALLED OUT. AND IT WAS APPROVED IN A RECENT STATEMENT THAT 20. AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION JUST TO HELP WITH MR. MATTHEWS QUESTION ABOUT LOT SIZE, COULD YOU EXPLAIN AGAIN IN ROW ONE WHEN YOU HAVE ATTACHED SEPARATE OWNERSHIP BUILDING THE LOT SIZE CHANGES IN R1? IT'S I HAVE SOMETHING I HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT. OKAY, SO AND THIS IS IN OUR CODE, IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS I'M SORRY. YEAH. IN OUR IN OUR PD CODE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THERE'S, THERE SHALL BE NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE. YES. SO AGAIN, WHEN YOU'RE UNDER PUD SET OF RULES, IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF RULES THAN IF YOU'RE R1, RIGHT? YES, YES. THANK YOU. AND DIRECTOR CENTER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY WE HAVE A PUD IN OUR CODE AND NOT JUST R1? WHY DO WE HAVE PUDS AS AS EVEN BECAUSE THEY ARE CLEAR IN THE CODE. AND SO WHEN THE WHEN A DEVELOPER COMES IN, THAT IS ONE OF THE ABILITIES, ONE OF THE TOOLS THAT THEY CAN DEVELOP UNDER, WHICH IS CODE AND IT'S BEEN ADOPTED AND IT'S BEEN IN THE CITY FOR DECADES. YES. THE PUD ACTUALLY, THE REASON WE HAVE IT, I WANTED TO READ. FORGIVE ME, AMERICAN, JUST A SECOND. TRYING TO GET TO THAT SECTION OF I TYPICALLY USE PAPER. I KNOW I'M A MILLENNIAL, BUT I LIKE PAPER BECAUSE I CAN REFERENCE IT FASTER. A PUD LUPA, WHICH WAS REFERENCED THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT. THAT'S THE STATE LAW THAT'S DELEGATED FOR LAND USE AUTHORITY THAT ACTUALLY ALLOWS. IT DOESN'T SAY YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PUD ACTUALLY IN YOUR IN YOUR ORDINANCE, YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE. BUT IT SAYS YOU MAY WE AS A CITY COUNCIL, AS A CITY OF IDAHO FALLS HAVE SAID THAT WE WOULD LIKE A PD AND I'LL JUST READ THIS BECAUSE THIS ACTUALLY COMES FROM STATE STATUTE AS WELL. FORGIVE ME.

[01:45:04]

SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS THAT THEY'RE IN THERE. AND THIS ACTUALLY COMES FROM STATE. SO BELIEVE IT OR NOT, THESE OR NO, THE PUD ONES I REMEMBER KERRY CORRECTED ME THESE ONES ARE ACTUALLY ONES WE DEVELOPED. SO WE SAID, YES, WE WILL TAKE A PUD IN OUR ZONING CODE. AND THEN WE LAID OUT, SORRY IT WASN'T FROM STATE ON THE CRITERIA. I MADE THAT ERROR IN THE PAST, BUT REALLY, IN SHORT, I JUST WANTED TO READ ALL THAT. SO IT WAS ON THE RECORD THERE.

BUT THE REAL PURPOSE OF A PUD IS THE FLEXIBILITY IN WHICH IT GIVES. THE WAY I OFTEN DESCRIBE IT IS ZONING IS DESIGNED FOR RECTANGLE LOTS. HOWEVER, THIS LOT IS A. THIS IS A VERY PERTINENT EXAMPLE. THIS IS AN L-SHAPED LOT. AND HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THE ZONING AND THE DEVELOPMENT TO FIT ON AN L-SHAPED LOT? OKAY, IF YOU DO IT WITH AN R1 AND THROUGH DESIGN, YOU PROBABLY. CAN YOU DO IT WITH A PUD AS WELL? PROBABLY. COULD YOU DO IT THROUGH A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ZONING CATEGORY? PROBABLY, BUT IN THIS CASE WITH THE APPLICANT REQUESTED IS THEY THEY SAID A PUD IS THE FLEXIBILITY WHICH WE NEED FOR THIS IRREGULAR SHAPED LOT. SO THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF IT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR CENTER? OKAY. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS. WE ARE STILL IN A HEARING, SO PLEASE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC. AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AND HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN WE WILL LET THE THE. ARE WE GOO? OKAY. OKAY, NOW IS OUR SECTION FOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND THESE WILL BE THREE MINUTES AFFORDED TO EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND WE WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPERS TO ALSO HAVE THREE MINUTES, BUT WE WILL AFFORD THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO LAST. AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT. MAYOR. OH, YES. AND AND COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS IS GOING TO THE PUBLIC HAS HAD A CHANCE TO RESPOND TO ANYTHING I SAY BEFORE I RECUSE MYSELF. OH, OKAY. YES. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY A POINT IN THE MEDIATION AGREEMENT THAT I MENTIONED THAT CAME UP EARLIER, THE ONE OF THE THINGS DISCUSSED IN MEDIATION, THE QUOTE REQUIREMENT OF A FENCE WAS DISCUSSED BY THE CITY GROUP, BUT IT RAISED ISSUES OF ACCESS TO AT LEAST ONE KEY UTILITY PIECE, THE DECISION NOT TO REQUIRE A FULL LINE FENCE LEAVES THE WRITTEN STATEMENT BY THE DEVELOPER. SUBMITTED AT THE JANUARY 22ND, 2026, AS THE RESOLUTION OF THAT ISSUE. THAT

[01:50:02]

WHAT IS THE NEED FOR THE THING AND WHAT BENEFIT WILL WE GET FROM IT? AND WHAT IS THE OUTCOME, THE DESIRED OUTCOME, THE POLICY OUTCOME. NOW, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SAID THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE IS NOT YOUR HIGH PRIORITY. BUT WHAT WE SAY A LOT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. AND AS I THINK ALL OF YOU KNOW, I AM A PROPONENT OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. I AM A HUGE PROPONENT OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. BUT WHEN WE DO WHAT I THINK, WE NEED TO BE DOING IT THOUGHTFULLY AND THINKING ABOUT WHAT OUR OUTCOMES ARE. AND A LOT OF TIMES WE TALK ABOUT OUR OUTCOMES AS BEING AFFORDABILITY AND HAVING MORE HOUSING TO EASE OUR CRISIS. SO I DON'T EXPECT ANY OF YOU TO HAVE ACTUALLY READ MY OP ED FROM DECEMBER 2025, BUT I HAD A LOT OF NUMBERS IN THERE ABOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND HOW IT'S NOT IN IDAHO FALLS, AND HOW HAVING OUR HOUSING GLUT HAS NOT ACTUALLY BROUGHT DOWN PRICES. BUT I WENT BACK TO MY ORIGINAL SOURCES AND DECIDED TO SEE WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS TODAY. SO FOR DECEMBER 25TH TO TODAY, AUGUST 2026, DECEMBER 2025, THERE WERE 1500 MORE HOUSING UNITS AVAILABLE IN IDAHO FALLS THAN HOUSING HOUSEHOLDS. SO WE HAD 1500 EXCESS UNITS HERE IN IDAHO FALLS TODAY AND AUGUST 20TH OF 2026, WE HAVE 1800 MORE HOUSING UNITS AVAILABLE THAN WE HAVE HOUSEHOLDS IN IDAHO FALLS. SO WE HAVE 1800 EXCESS UNITS OF HOUSING IN IDAHO FALLS SINCE THEN, ACCORDING TO REALTOR.COM, ARE OUR HOUSES SOLD? OUR AVERAGE HOUSE SOLD IN IDAHO FALLS HAS GONE FROM $382,000, UP TO $400,082. SO EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE EXCESS HOUSING UNITS, OUR HOUSING PRICES HAVE NOT BEEN COMING DOWN. THAT EQUATES AT, YOU KNOW, A 3.5% DOWN PAYMENT, WHICH IS WHAT I USE BECAUSE THAT'S FHA AND BANK RATES INCREASE AT AN AVERAGE FOR OUR AREA, OUR AVERAGE INTEREST RATE. SO THAT MEANS THAT THE AVERAGE MORTGAGE JUST PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST ONLY HAS GONE FROM $2,300 A MONTH TO $2,749 A MONTH. IN IDAHO FALLS, THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME USING THE 30% RULE, WHICH I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL AWARE OF, YOU NEED 15751575 IS WHAT MAKES AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENT HERE IN IDAHO FALLS. THESE WERE POST TOWNHOMES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BETWEEN 300 AND $350,000, GOING ON THE LOW END OF THE $300,000 MARK. WE'RE LOOKING AT A 2142 MORTGAGE PAYMENT THAT IS PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST. I HAVE IT ALL HERE IF YOU NEED IT LATER. SO THESE ARE NOT AFFORDABLE. THE PURPOSE OF PUTTING HERE IS NOT TO EASE SOME SORT OF HOUSING SHORTAGE.

WE HAVE EXCESS HOUSING. IT'S NOT AFFORDABLE. IT'S NOT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THE ONLY THING I CAN FIGURE IT IS TO GET RID OF SOME EMPTY SPACE, SOME FIELD THAT HAS BEEN AN AMENITY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD FOR MORE THAN 30 YEARS. SO IT GETS RID OF THE AMENITY, BUT DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY HOUSING EASEMENT. THE BELEN, THEY'RE NOT FULL. CASSIOPEIA TOWNHOMES, NOT FULL. ALSO ALL ABOUT $2,000 A MONTH. THE AVERAGE RENTAL PRICE FOR A THREE BEDROOM IN IDAHO FALLS SINCE DECEMBER 2025 HAS GONE FROM 1500 TO 1588, SO THAT IS BARELY WITHIN AFFORDABLE HOUSING. ANYWAY, I URGE YOU, I'D LIKE TO SEE I LIKE TO SEE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, BUT WE DO HAVE THE TIME TO TAKE A STEP BACK, REQUIRE DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE ACTUAL AMENITIES AND ACTUAL GREEN SPACE AND ACTUAL THINGS THAT BENEFIT OUR NEIGHBORHOODS, RATHER THAN JUST PUTTING UP HOUSING WILLY NILLY. THAT ISN'T PROVIDING US WITH ANY ACTUAL BENEFIT. THANK YOU, MISS BUCKET. OKAY, I DON'T KNOW. I'M SORRY. WHAT THE BUILDER NO, NO, NO, I AM NOT THE BUILDER. I

[01:55:14]

OKAY. YES, YES, IF YOU'RE READY. YEP. LOOKS LIKE WE PROBABLY HAVE TWO. AND IF YOU IF YOU DON'T MIND, JUST COMING TO SIT KIND OF SO WE CAN KNOW WHO ELSE IS PLANNING ON TESTIFYING. OH, I WAS ABOUT TO CLOSE THE. OH. WELL, I'M NOT SURE. SO. OKAY, I AM ANGELA KLINGLER. I'M FROM IDAHO FALLS AND I'M ADDRESSING MAYOR LISA. BRIAN SHAW AND COUNCILMAN. I AM A MOTHER OF SIX. THEY WERE RAISED HERE IN IDAHO FALLS, THREE OF WHICH LIVE HERE IN IDAHO FALLS AND CALL IT HOME. ALL SIX OF THEM WENT TO EAGLE ROCK AS WELL AS SKYLINE. WE ARE LOOKING AT A PROPERTY, LOOKING AT. I APOLOGIZE, WE ARE LOOKING AT CLOSING ON A PROPERTY NEXT FRIDAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND AT THE WALKTHROUGH FOUND A FLIER ON THE DOOR ALERTING ME TO THIS SITUATION. I HADN'T BEEN AWARE BEFORE THAT I HAVE LOVED LIVING AND RAISING OUR FAMILY HERE IN THIS AREA. I AM NOW THE GRANDMOTHER OF SOON TO BE 25 GRANDCHILDREN. I COUNT THAT A BADGE OF HONOR FROM THEM. AND ONE OF THEM IS A VOTING AGE NOW AND MANY MORE TO COME. I LOVE MY GRANDCHILDREN AND I WANT THEM TO LIVE HERE. AND I LOVE AND LOVE RAISING THEIR FAMILIES. HERE. I HAVE AND WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE GENERATIONAL INFLUENCE. MY HUSBAND WILL TELL YOU I HAVE A LONG MEMORY AND I DO NOT FORGET WRONGS AND MISTREATMENT. I CAME SOME TIME AGO. IT'S BEEN IN 2020, MAYBE 21, TO SPEAK AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING. ON THE BATHROOM ORDER ORDINANCE. AND I WAS NOT ALONE. THERE WERE OTHERS OUT THERE IN THE PARKING LOT LOOKING FOR HOW TO GET IN, AND IT WAS LOCKED BECAUSE OF COVID. AND I HADN'T GOTTEN THE MEMO. AND IT WAS

[02:00:02]

BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE I HAD ALREADY MISSED THE DEADLINE BECAUSE WE JUST GOT THE REQUIREMENTS. AND IF WE RECEIVE IT AFTERWARDS, WHAT WE DO IS WE HAD ONE THAT WAS LATE, BUT WE WE PRINTED IT OUT AND IT'S WITH COUNCIL. SO THAT'S HOW THAT GOES. MAYBE I CAN SEND ANOTHER LATE ONE. MAY I, MADAM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, I'M CARRIE WILSON, I'M A MEMBER OR A CITIZEN OF

[02:05:09]

BUT I DO THINK SOME OF THE FINER POINTS WE HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON. WITH THOSE EMAILS OR CALLS THAT ARE RECEIVED BY THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. IS THERE A REASON WHY THEY CANNOT BE FORWARDED TO. DEPUTY CENTER OR TO THE PLANNING OFFICE OR SOME OTHER WAY FOR THAT INFORMATION TO THEN STILL GET PASSED ON RATHER THAN JUST BEING DELETED? I THINK THAT'S KIND OF DISHEARTENING FOR PEOPLE TO, TO HEAR THAT THAT THEIR INFORMATION WAS OR THEIR COMMENTS WERE DELETED. BUT IS THERE A WAY THAT THAT INFORMATION COULD NORMALLY BE PASSED TO WHERE THEY AREN'T READING IT? OR, YOU KNOW, WHAT I MEAN? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IS THERE A WAY AND I BELIEVE IN THE IN THE IF MEMORY SERVES, WE HAVE HAD TIMES WHERE SOMEBODY EMAILED A COUNCIL MEMBER AND I'LL GET AN EMAIL SAYING, HEY, ALL I READ WAS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A QUASI JUDICIAL MATTER. I'VE STOPPED READING IT. YOU LOOK AT IT AND THEN I FORWARDED IT ON AND THEN IT GETS INTO THE. IS THAT TYPICALLY IS THAT I MEAN, IS THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT WAS WHAT HAPPENED THIS TIME AROUND VOICEMAIL. SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A. SO THERE WERE VOICEMAILS, BUT SOMEBODY SAID THAT THEY GOT AN EMAIL AND THEY STOPPED READING.

BUT DIDN'T YOU SAY WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER I GOT A VOICEMAIL, A VOICEMAIL, I'M SORRY, I VOICEMAIL AND HE DOESN'T GET TO VOTE SO. RIGHT. AND HE DOESN'T GET TO VOTE. I GET THAT, BUT OKAY, I JUST IT WOULD BE I KNOW THAT I'VE SAID THIS IN THE PAST, BUT WHEN EX PARTE RULES ARE IN PLACE OR THINGS LIKE THAT, AT LEAST IN THE PACKET, IT WOULD BE SO HELPFUL FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT. AND WE CAN BE MORE PREPARED SO THAT WE'RE BEING MORE EFFICIENT WITH YOUR TIME. THAT WAS JUST A COMMENT I HAVE ON THAT. WE I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AS FAR AS DISCLOSURES. DO THE APPLICANTS HAVE TO DISCLOSE CONVERSATIONS THAT THEY HAVE, OR IS IT JUST YOU GUYS. IT ONLY APPLIES TO DECISION MAKING. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO JUST MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. AND SO, MISS WILSON YES, THIS IS JUST FOR FOR YOUR TESTIMONY. ONLY THOSE KIND OF QUESTIONS. I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN ANSWER THOSE AFTER. BUT THERE THERE'S REALLY NOT A GOOD PLACE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS IF I'M BEING YOU. RIGHT. LIKE AS THEY DO PERTAIN TO THIS PROCESS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. I ACTUALLY HAVE CALLED YOU AND I HAVEN'T GOTTEN REPLIES, SO I'LL JUST SAY THAT HONESTLY, BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR PART AND I WILL CALL YOU DIRECTLY NEXT TIME. SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY. I WANTED TO SHARE WITH THE INFORMATION THAT I SHARED JUST SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN SEE. IT'S A PICTURE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AS YOU CAN SEE IN RED, I HAVE THREE HOUSES THAT ARE MARKED. THEY ARE HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE MARKET, THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE MARKET, THAT STILL HAVE NOT SOLD, AND NOW MAYBE THIS 104 DAYS ON THE MARKET. MAYBE THIS IS THE SELLERS THAT THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, IN THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING, MAYBE THAT'S THE CASE, BUT THESE THREE HOUSES HAVE BEEN ON THE MARKET. AND IN TALKING WITH THOSE FAMILIES THAT ARE TRYING TO SELL THESE HOMES, THE FEEDBACK THAT THEY GET IS THAT THEY HAVE TOWNHOMES BEHIND THEM OR NEXT DOOR TO THEM, BUT ACROSS THE STREET. BUT IT IS STILL RIGHT THERE. I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHERE WE HAVE SAID THAT THOSE HAVE NO EFFECT ON INDIVIDUAL HOMES PRICES, BUT IT DOES BECAUSE THESE HOMES HAVE ALREADY GONE THROUGH PRICE DECREASES IN ORDER TO MAKE THEIR HOMES MORE LIKELY TO BE PURCHASED. I DO QUESTION HOW MUCH THESE ADDITIONAL TOWNHOMES WILL AFFECT THE HOMES THAT LIVE ON BELEN, ON PLOWMAN AND BLUEBIRD LANE WITH THE EFFECT OF THESE ADDITIONAL HOMES. SO THAT IS ONE POINT I WANTED TO MAKE. THE OTHER WAS THE VERBAL CONFIRMATION AND DISCUSSIONS OF THE FENCING AND SOMETHING FOR THE CANAL. YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN THAT THE APPLICANT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WILLOWS HAS SAID ONLINE THAT NOW THEY KNOW

[02:10:03]

HOW HOW ARE THESE BEING ENFORCED AND HOW ARE THESE VERBAL AGREEMENTS AND THESE, YOU KNOW, HANDSHAKES BY THE CITY COUNCIL? AT WHAT POINT WOULD THEY BE ENFORCED? I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK THAT I HAVE THAT. I'LL HAVE AN ANSWER BACK, BUT THAT IS A CONCERN FOR ME BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT OF VERBAL, OH, WELL, WE HAVE THIS AGREEMENT OR WILL WE WILL DO THIS OR WE'VE DONE THAT, BUT AT WHAT POINT DOES IT ACTUALLY STAY THE CASE? THE PUBLIC, THE PLAYGROUND IS SUPPOSED TO BE POSTED AS PUBLIC, BUT AT WHAT POINT? WHO WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY DECIDE AT ONE POINT THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LET IT BE PUBLIC? OR, YOU KNOW, THE HOA FOLKS, IT'S NO LONGER PUBLIC? DO THEY KNOW THAT THEY CAN'T VOTE, THAT IT'S NO LONGER PUBLIC? ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES, THE BELEN IS BEING DEVELOPED CURRENTLY, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THE RETAINING WALL AT VALLO IS ON THEIR ON THEIR ACTUAL PROPERTY. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY PLAT OR THEIR THEIR ZONING OR APPROVED PLOT, IT'S NOT ON THERE. I CALLED THE CITY AND TALKED WITH PLANNING AND I TALKED WITH BUILDING, AND THEY BOTH SAID IT'S NOT ON THEIR, BUT IT'S HERE. AND THEY SAID THEY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT IT, AND I APOLOGIZE. I KNOW THAT I'M GETTING CLOSE ON TIME. THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS HAPPENING AT THIS OTHER TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT WHERE THINGS ARE NOT BEING THOUGHT THROUGH. THE NEXT PAGE. THERE'S LESS THAN NINE FEET OF GREEN SPACE FOR THESE POOR HOUSES. YOU WANT TO TALK AFFORDABLE.

THESE ARE $2,000 A MONTH AND YOU GET NINE FEET AT MOST BY ABOUT NINE FEET. SO YOU GET THAT MANY SQUARE FEET OF GREEN SPACE FOR YOUR UNIT. YOUR THEY'RE NOT EVEN OFFSET. SO IF YOU OPEN YOUR WINDOWS AND YOU LOOK OUT YOUR WINDOW, GUESS WHO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE EVERY MORNING? SOMEBODY ELSE IN THEIR BEDROOM, BECAUSE THE BEDROOMS ALL FACE THE SAME PLACE. WE ARE ALLOWING. YOUR TIME IS UP. I AGREE, I APPRECIATE THAT WE ARE ALLOWING THINGS TO WILLY NILLY BE APPROVED WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE IMPACT IMPLICATIONS ON THESE PEOPLE.

THIS RETAINING WALL, IT'S OVER FOUR FEET. IT NEEDS TO HAVE A HANDRAIL. AND I TALKED TO THE DEVELOPER TODAY AND THEY SAID THEY HAVE NO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT A HANDRAIL IN. BUT I CONFIRMED WITH THE CITY TODAY THAT YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE ONE. IF IT'S OVER FOUR FEET, THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE OVERSIGHT WITH WHAT THESE GUYS ARE, ARE PLANNING AND DOING AND MAKING SURE WHAT THEY DO IS WHAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO. I'M CONCERNED THAT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN HERE, THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE HELD TO DO THE THINGS THAT THEY SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO. I HAVE MORE TO TALK ABOUT, BUT THERE'S HOMES. AS MISS MARQUART SAID, THERE'S MORE HOMES AVAILABLE THAN THERE ARE PEOPLE TO MOVE IN AND MORE AND MORE EVERY DAY KEEP GETTING BUILT. YOU CAN'T SELL A TOWNHOME RIGHT NOW. HAVING TALKED WITH MY OWN ATTORNEY, REAL ESTATE AGENT WHO IS ONE OF THE LARGEST IN THE CITY, WE NEED TO BE MORE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE APPROVING, WHERE WE'RE APPROVING, AND HOW WE'RE APPROVING IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. AND WE WILL GET BACK WITH YOU ON THAT FOUR FOOT I HAVE YEAH, I HAVE COMMENTS IN WITH BOTH PLANNING AND BUILDING. OKAY. THANK YOU. HELLO, I'M STEPHANIE AND I'M A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS. I GREW UP ON THE WEST SIDE, RIGHT BY ETHEL BOYES ELEMENTARY IN A SINGLE UNIT HOME WITH A YARD. AND I LIVE NOW ON BLUEBIRD STREET IN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH MY FIVE CHILDREN. AND MY PARENTS STILL LIVE OVER BY ETHEL BOYCE. THE ROAD AND THE CROSSING AT BELEN AND PANCARI IS ALREADY SO DANGEROUS THAT I DON'T LET MY PRE-TEEN BOYS RIDE TO GRANDMA'S ONE MILE AWAY WITHOUT MY BEING WITH THEM. IT IS TOO DANGEROUS.

I HAVE MYSELF IN THE PAST YEAR, BEEN THE FIRST PERSON AT AN ACCIDENT WHERE A JEEP WAS PLOWED THROUGH AND A WOMAN WAS. I TOUCHED THE BUTTON, BUT A WOMAN WAS KNOCKED OUT OF HER JEEP AND HER BRAINS WERE ON THE STREET. TWO YEARS AGO IT WAS SAID THAT YOU WERE PUTTING IN A STOPLIGHT AND THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE ALL RIGHT, BUILDING ALL OF THAT, IT'S CALLED. OH, YEAH, BUILDING. IT WAS GOING TO BE ALL RIGHT BECAUSE THERE WAS GOING TO BE A STOPLIGHT WITH A CROSSWALK. WELL, THAT HAS NOT OCCURRED. THERE'S THE INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU CAN SEE ON THE POST THAT THERE IS AN AREA FOR A STOPLIGHT THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED. AND SO IT IS STILL

[02:15:05]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MISS KINCAID. HI, I'M BRIDGET HALL FROM IDAHO. I WAS DEBATING WHETHER OR NOT TO EVEN SAY ANYTHING, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT ANYTHING THAT WE DO SAY WILL MAKE IT THROUGH. BUT THE CITY'S MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWS HIGH DENSITY APARTMENT APARTMENTS NEAR THE CITY CENTERS. AND THEN GOING DOWN GRADUALLY TO TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE, THIS BIG APARTMENT WITH SMALLER APARTMENTS, THEN

[02:20:03]

WE'LL GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO TO TESTIFY AFTER WE HAVE THE DEVELOPERS. THANK YOU. YEP.

OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE READY FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THEIR THREE MINUTES AND THEN WE WILL LET THE APPLICANTS ALSO THEN HAVE THEIR TIME TO REBUT. GOOD EVENING. I'M COLIN HUNTER AND I LIVED HERE FOR OVER 15 YEARS AND I LIVED TETONIA CURRENTLY. BUT I KNOW WE HAVE A VERY PASSIONATE, VERY WE HAVE VERY PASSIONATE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE BEEN ATTENDING HERE. AND IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME AT ALL. I DON'T HOLD ANY MALICE TOWARDS ANY OF THEM FOR IT. I KNOW THIS PROPERTY HAS BEEN A WEED PATCH THAT HAS NOT BENEFITED THIS.

[02:25:06]

SO THANKS. THANK YOU. YOU STATE YOUR NAME AGAIN. I DIDN'T. COLIN HUNTER. THANK YOU. COLIN.

YEAH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE. OKAY. THEN. WE WILL LET THE APPLICANTS HAVE A MINUTE TO REBUT ANYTHING THAT THEY HAVE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY. MR. YOU ARE YOU WITH THE APPLICANT WAITING FOR THE LOSS? OH, OKAY. IT'S NEXT TO THE BOSS, DAVE. HEY, I WANT TO CORRECT YOU. STEPHANIE. IS IT IF THEY'RE DOING A JOB, THEY'LL GO THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION 3 OR 4 TIMES TO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND. I'M JUST CURIOUS. WE'VE HEARD THIS DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE AGREEMENTS, BETWEEN THE CONTRACTOR AND THE CHURCH. IS ANY OF THAT IN WRITING OR GOING BACK TO WHAT MR. WILSON, MR. WILSON JUST SAID? IS THERE ANYTHING IN WRITING THERE? DO WE KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO HAPPEN THERE? I THINK WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT THE CHURCH HAS AGREED TO, SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE PROBLEMS DOWN THE ROAD. I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, GO BACK TO MY INITIAL STATEMENTS, SAFETY AND PRIVACY. VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. AND YOU WOULD WANT PRIVACY AS WELL. I'M A CONSTITUENT OF YOUR OF THIS CITY, AND I THINK I DESERVE PRIVACY FOR SOMETHING

[02:30:07]

WATER DRAINAGE, EASEMENT PARKING OR THREE OF THE THINGS I HEARD. OKAY. SO YES, I REMEMBER HEARING THEM TALK ABOUT THE PARKING. THE PARKING WAS SATISFIED WITHIN THE PUD.

YEAH. BUT DID THE CHURCH AGREE? I MEAN, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN WRITING OR IS THEY DON'T THEY DON'T HAVE THEY DON'T HAVE TO. OKAY. WELL, THAT TAKES CARE OF ONE OF THE TWO. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING. I WAS I WAS HOPING FOR THAT LIST. YEAH. OKAY. SO. I'M GRETCHEN AND I'VE NOT SPOKEN IN ANY OF THESE BECAUSE. AND ARE YOU PART OF THE THE APPLICANT STILL PART OF THE APPLICANT? YES. OKAY. SHE'S MY BETTER HALF MAYOR. I JUST DIDN'T SIGN THE THING. I DON'T SIGN ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, MR. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE SURE FROM OUR ATTORNEY THAT IT IS OKAY TO HAVE SOMEONE WHO IS NOT. YOU COULD CONSIDER HER TESTIMONY, PUBLIC COMMENT INSTEAD OF THE APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY. OKAY. SHE DIDN'T SHE DIDN'T SIGN. SHE COULD HAVE HAD SOMEBODY SIGN ON HER BEHALF BECAUSE WE YEAH, I MEAN, YOU CAN TAKE IT AS PUBLIC COMMENT.

THAT'S PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED THOUGH. SO YOU HAVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC. DID WE CLOSE IT? AND I GIVE THIS TO MY HUSBAND AND TELL HIM WHAT I WANT TO SAY. OH, I JUST WANT TO MAKE I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A VERY I MEAN, WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW THIS TO THE T TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE.

THE ONLY THING I WOULD RECOMMEND IS AFTER SHE SPEAKS. BECAUSE IF WE. IF WE REOPEN THE DEVELOPER, REBUT. OKAY, IF THE DEVELOPER CHOOSES. YEAH. OKAY. WE WILL DO THAT. YEAH. AND MINE IS A WHATEVER REAL BIG. BUT THE DEVELOPER, COLIN HUNTER AND PRESENT YOU ANYWAY, HE KEEPS COMMENTING THAT THE WEEK THAT FILLED HAS BEEN A WEAK PATCH FOR 20 YEARS, AND IT'S ONLY BEEN A WEEK PATCH SINCE THEY'VE OWNED IT. THE CHURCH KEPT IT UP UNTIL THEY BOUGHT THE. THEY WOULD GO IN AND MOW THAT FIELD MULTIPLE TIMES THROUGH THE SEASON. YEAH, THEY HAD A FARMER THAT BROUGHT IN A TRACTOR AND AND MOWED THE MODE IT DOWN. AND MY CONCERN, I GUESS, ALONG WITH MY HUSBAND, IS THE FENCE. AND WHEN YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DRAINAGE. THAT'S WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ON THE PUD. IF THE DRAINAGE IS TAKEN CARE OF IN THE PUD. OPPOSITE WHATEVER FROM THE CHURCH, SOME. THAT'S. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IT'S TIME FOR ME TO MOVE. AND I WOULD LEAVE IT OPEN TO THE DEVELOPER FOR ANY REBUTTAL. IF NOT, IT'S FINE.

THANKS. WITH WHAT WE'RE CALLING OTHER MIGHT CAN CLARIFY A COUPLE OF POINTS. I KNOW THIS IS A Q&A, BUT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. DRAINAGE HAS COME UP AND WE. THE CITY'S CODE IS VERY SPECIFIC ON THE AMOUNT OF STORMWATER YOU HAVE TO RETAIN AND HOW FAST YOUR POND HAS TO DRAIN. AND SO WE'VE, WE'VE CALCULATED AND DESIGNED A POND THAT CAN HANDLE A HUNDRED

[02:35:03]

THE CHURCH WILL HANDLE ITS OWN. I KNOW THE CHURCH ISN'T PART OF THIS CONVERSATION, BUT. WHEN WE WHEN WE DESIGNED THE TOWNHOUSE PIECE, WE TRIED TO SET THE CHURCH UP TO STAND ALONE AND NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE CHURCH IN ANY WAY. I GUESS I SHOULD POINT THAT OUT. NOT RELEVANT TO THIS CONVERSATION, I KNOW, BUT AN EASEMENT. WE DO HAVE A CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WILL BE RECORDED WITH THE PLAT AFTER THIS PROCESS TAKES PLACE FOR OUR ALL OUR DRIVE ISLES, IT WILL ALLOW THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO GET IN THERE AND, AND ACCESS ALL THE ALL THE LAND.

THAT MAJOR. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. DIRECTOR SANDER, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. OKAY, SO I WILL. CLOSE THE HEARING. WE NEVER GOT A CHANCE. MOORE. OKAY. WELL, AND THEN MR. ROENICK IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TO IF HE WANTS TO SPEAK FURTHER, HE MAY. OKAY. DR. SMITH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO. MR. JONES JUST SAID THAT. MR. ROFF HE CAN. MR. ROENICK CAN ANY ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY SIGNED THE. NO, I SPACED IT. I'M SORRY. OLD AGE. NONE OF YOU GUYS THAT UNDERSTAND. I'M SORRY. SO. SO BASED ON WHAT? OH, MATT SMITH, IDAHO FALLS. BASED ON WHAT WAS JUST SAID, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE DRAINAGE HAS CHANGED BECAUSE THE PLAQUE SHOWS CLEARLY THAT THERE'S AN EASEMENT FROM THE PUD OVER TO THE CHURCH DRAINAGE. SO WHAT IS IT? SEE, THIS IS THIS IS THE PART THAT GETS EXCITING. WE FINALLY HAD THE DEVELOPER TELL US THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A 25 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE ROAD. AND THAT WENT BACK AND FORTH AND STUFF. AND NOW WE'VE GOT THIS DEAL WHERE, OH NO, WE'RE GOING TO RETAIN IT ALL OUR PROPERTY. BUT THEY DON'T SHOW THAT IN THE PLAT, DO THEY? IF YOU BRING THE PLAT UP THAT WE HAD, I DON'T THINK IT'S SHOWN IN THE PLAT. AND IT WAS CLEAR. AND THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT. THE STATEMENT BASICALLY THAT THE THAT I MADE IS THAT THE. THAT LOT HAS BEEN OPERATING AS A DRAINAGE POND FOR 40 YEARS. THAT'S WHAT IT WAS SET UP FOR. AND I DON'T KNOW, I NEVER GOT AN INFORMATION, ANYTHING FROM PLANNING THAT. THEY CHECKED THAT OUT OF IT. THERE WAS A FOOTPRINT FOR THAT, BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN WORKED THAT WAY. AND THE CHURCH DID MAINTAIN IT.

THE EAGLE ROCK CHURCH, EAGLE ROCK BAPTIST CHURCH, ONCE IT WAS SOLD, THAT'S WHEN IT BECAME OVERGROWN. NONE NOT MAINTAINED. THEY JUST MOWED IT A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AFTER THREE COMPLAINTS TO THE CITY. SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING THING. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S OKAY. THEY CAN CALL IT VACANT LOT AFTER THEY TAKE IT OVER. THAT'S GREAT. OKAY, SO THAT'S ANOTHER ITEM.

NOBODY'S EVER ANSWERED THAT. AS FAR AS DRAINAGE GOES. OUR DRAINAGE GOES IN TO THAT LOT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE CALCULATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN THE WATERSHED, AS THEY CALL IT. THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED. YOU SEE, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS PART OF THE WATER, IT GOES IN TO THE PUD. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S CALCULATED. AND THAT'S NEVER BEEN GIVEN TO US.

[02:40:04]

THAT'S GREAT. HE WORKED THERE FOR 17 YEARS. AND WE'RE UP AGAINST SOMEBODY LIKE THAT.

WHEN THE CONSTITUENTS COME IN HERE AND TRY TO TALK ABOUT CODE AND ALL THAT STUFF, IT GETS HARD. AND WE ONLY HAVE THREE MINUTES TO BE ABLE TO TRY TO HALLUCINATE THAT KIND OF INFORMATION. IT'S NOT FAIR. IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO FAIR. I GUESS THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED QUASI JUDICIAL, BECAUSE IN A JUDICIAL HEARING, BOTH SIDES HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME.

OKAY, MY WIFE'S PROBABLY GOT STUFF. I'LL JUST. THANK YOU. TERRY SMITH, RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS. SOME OF MY NOTES ARE KIND OF DISCOMBOBULATED. SO IF THEY'RE NOT ALL IN ORDER AND ALL TOGETHER, PLEASE EXCUSE. FIRST OF ALL, I'M GLAD THAT IT WAS FINALLY CLARIFIED THAT SOME OF OUR CONCERNS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN APPROVED AND STAMPED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

THERE AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO HOW DO WE FIND OUT THIS INFORMATION? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS EVEN HAPPENING? THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT ON THE PUDS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT MEETINGS, THE ANDERSON PUD. YES. THE FIRST ONE WAS UNDER TWO ACRES, BUT IT WAS A PHASED DEVELOPMENT. AND WHEN IT WAS FINISHED WITH BOTH OR IN THE PROCESS OF BEING FINISHED WITH BOTH. PHASES COMPLETED, IT WILL BE OVER THREE ACRES. THE SKYLINE TOWNHOME MANNER. YES.

EACH OF THE TWO PHASES WERE UNDER TWO ACRES, BUT TOGETHER THEY WILL BE OVER TWO ACRES AND THEY WILL. BOTH OF THOSE WILL HAVE TWO ACCESS POINTS. THE. WE. WE REALIZE, MR. SMITH AND I REALIZE THAT THAT THE CHURCH PARKING LOT, THE PUD, IS NOT DEPENDENT ON THE CHURCH PARKING LOT FOR THEIR PARKING. HE BELIEVES THAT OUR ISSUE WITH THE. THE DEVELOPER BEING DEPENDENT ON THE CHURCH PARKING LOT IS THAT AT PRESENT, ON THE WEST END OF THAT PARKING LOT.

AND AGAIN, MY DIRECTIONS. RIGHT. YES, THE WEST END OF THAT PARKING LOT. THE CHURCH HAS TWO ENTRANCES TO THEIR PARKING LOT. SO THERE'S AN EAST ENTRANCE OFF OF PLOWMAN, AND THERE'S A WEST ENTRANCE OFF OF PLOWMAN TO THAT CHURCH PARKING LOT, WHICH GIVES THAT CHURCH PARKING LOT TWO ACCESS POINTS FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. AND THAT SORT OF THING. IN ORDER FOR ZOE LANE.

NOW I THERE AGAIN, MAYBE, MAYBE WE'VE READ THE CODE WRONG FOR ZOE LANE TO BE MEET CODE THAT WEST PARKING LOT ENTRANCE TO THE PARKING LOT NEEDS TO BE CLOSED. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE

[02:45:05]

THE OTHER THING THAT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE IT CAME UP AND IT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION, WAS THAT. IF THE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION IS DENIED, CAN WE AS AFFECTED NEIGHBORS FILE OR REQUEST ANY. THAT WITH WITH THE CITY COUNCIL? THAT'S A QUESTION THAT I HAVE LEGALLY. OKAY. BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP. THE OTHER THING THAT I THAT I HAVE ABOUT THE MEDIATION IS THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY. WELL, I WOULD JUST READ THE CITY MAY REPRESENT THE CITY COUNCIL IN THE MEDIATION. OUR ISSUE IS THAT THAT OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS SHOULD ALSO REPRESENT THE CITIZENS. AND WE JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE ALL OF OUR CONCERNS WERE REPRESENTED AT THAT MEDIATION. AND THEN THE OTHER PART IS, IS THAT THE MEDIATION, WE FELT LIKE THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUBLIC COMMENT AT THE MEETING THAT THE MEDIATION WAS APPROVED AT. SO THAT MAY 21ST MEETING, WHEN THERE WAS NO PUBLIC PUBLIC COMMENT ALLOWED, BECAUSE THAT WAS THAT WAS TO APPROVE THE MEDIATION, NOT TO APPROVE THE PUD. IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH APPROVING THE PUD. IT HAD TO DO WITH APPROVING THE MEDIATION. AND SO WHY WAS THERE NOT PUBLIC COMMENT ALLOWED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CITY COUNCIL SHOULD HAVE APPROVED THE MEDIATION? THERE'S ALSO BEEN A FEW REQUIREMENTS, AND THOU SHALT. BUT THERE CAN ALSO BE DISCRETION ON THE BEHALF OF THE CITIZENS. IT SEEMS THAT ALMOST ALL OF THE DISCRETION IS USED ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPERS, AND NOT ON THE SIDE OF THE CITIZENS. THERE'S A LOT OF DISCRETION THAT THE COUNCIL HAS. YES, THEY HAVE THE DISCRETION TO APPROVE A PUD THAT'S LESS THAN TWO ACRES, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. IF THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE ARE AGAINST IT, WHY CAN'T THEY USE THEIR DISCRETION TO. DENY IT? BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS IT HAS TO BE TWO ACRES, OR THEY HAVE THE

[02:50:03]

I CAN'T FIND IT. I CAN'T FIND ANYTHING ON IT. THE ADVERSE THE EASEMENT THAT WE WERE REFERRING TO IS THE ADVERSE EASEMENT THAT THE CONTINGENT NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD OVER THAT PROPERTY FOR THE LAST 35, 40 YEARS. WE WILL LOSE THAT EASEMENT, THAT ADVERSE EASEMENT. WE WILL NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO OUR BACKYARDS BECAUSE OF THAT. LOSING THAT ADVERSE EASEMENT HAS ALREADY WILL COST ME $10,000 BECAUSE I'VE BEEN USING THAT ADVERSE EASEMENT TO PARK MY TRAILER IN MY BACKYARD, AND I WILL NO LONGER BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO IT'S GOING TO COST ME $10,000 TO PUT MY TRAILER SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO THAT'S THE EASEMENT THAT WE ARE REFERRING TO. IT'S THE ADVERSE EASEMENT THAT THE THAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE NOT THE EASEMENT FOR THE UTILITIES.

OKAY. ABOUT THE FENCE FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN THE JUNE 25TH MEETING. AND I, THE DEVELOPER, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE FENCE A LOT, RIGHT? AND THEY'RE NOT ABOUT WHETHER THEY'RE REQUIRED TO OR WHETHER THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO. IT'S BEEN APPROVED. IT WAS APPROVED WITH THEM NOT HAVING TO DO ONE, BUT IT WAS MAYBE SUGGESTED, PARTICULARLY FOR ROCK NECKS BECAUSE THEY

[02:55:05]

MATTHEWS HAS A FENCE, THOMPSON HAS A FENCE, BUT IT WAS MENTIONED BY THE DEVELOPER IN THE JUNE 25TH MEETING THAT HE MIGHT BE WILLING TO GO HALF WITH MR. ROUGHNECK ON THE FENCE.

SO DO YOU. OKAY. AND THAT'S ALL ABOUT 25 FOOT. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? I'M STILL NOT CLEAR ON DRAINAGE. WELL. YEAH, BECAUSE BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THEY SAID THAT THEY WERE GOING TO SHARE THE DRAINAGE WITH THE CHURCH. AND THEN JUST AND JUST NOW HE SAID THAT, THAT THE DRAINAGE WOULD BE SELF CONTAINED. SO, SO THERE'S SOME QUESTION THERE ALSO AS TO ARE THEY SHARING THE DRAINAGE WITH THE CHURCH AND THE DRAINAGE POND OR THEY'VE SAID IT BEFORE OR ARE THEY NOT. SO AND CAN THEY EVEN BUILD ON IT BECAUSE IT IS DRAINAGE? AND CAN THEY EVEN BUILD ON IT BECAUSE IT IS A DRAINAGE POND. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS? I THINK I'VE DONE. THANK YOU. ARE ANY OF OUR OTHER APPLICANTS STILL. OKAY THEN I AM READY TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND GIVE TIME TO COUNCIL TO DELIBERATE ALL OF THE. ALL OF THIS IS RECORDED AND WILL BE PART OF THE MINUTES. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANCIS IS STEPPING DOWN FROM THE DAIS AND I WOULD TURN THE TIME OVER TO COUNCIL FOR DELIBERATION. COUNCIL MEMBER EDWARD. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SPEND SOME TIME WITH LEGAL. SO THAT WE ARE FRAMING THIS CONVERSATION CORRECTLY ABOUT WHAT WE ARE ACTUALLY CONSIDERING TONIGHT AND WHAT WE SHOULD LISTEN TO AND WHAT WE SHOULD WEIGH IN THIS QUASI JUDICIAL SITUATION. I, I'M AWARE, I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR EVERYONE. YES. SO OUR CODE SETS FORWARD CERTAIN LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED IF SOMEBODY APPLIES FOR A PUD, IF THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE MET, THEN THEY GET THE BODY. THAT'S HOW THE CODE IS SET UP. NOW, AS WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF TESTIMONIES TONIGHT, THERE ARE MANY REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO LAND USE, RIGHT? THE PUD IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH WHETHER TO APPROVE OR DENY. IT ONLY HAS TO DO WITH THE FACTORS AND THE STANDARDS AND THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN THE PUD CODE PORTION OF THE CODE. SO THERE COULD BE OTHER THINGS THAT OTHER REQUIREMENTS LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, LET'S SAY THAT WHILE THEY'RE DEVELOPING, THEY COME ACROSS AN ENDANGERED ANIMAL, RIGHT? THAT TRIGGERS A DIFFERENT SET OF CODES, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO EVEN IF EVEN IF THERE WAS AN ENDANGERED ANIMAL THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THE PUD SHOULD BE APPROVED OR NOT. IT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF REGULATIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, RIGHT? SO NOT EVERY WHAT I'M SAYING IS NOT EVERY LEGAL REQUIREMENT IS A REQUIREMENT FOR PUD, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

THERE ARE CERTAIN FACTORS. AND SO COUNCIL, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, COUNCIL HAS TWO HATS.

ONE IS THE LEGISLATIVE HAT. THAT IS WHERE THEY SET THE RULES, RIGHT? SO THEY SAY THAT'S WHERE THEY CAN BE CREATIVE AND THEY CAN SAY, TO GET A PUD, HERE'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO RIGHT NOW. ONCE THEY HAVE SET THE RULES AND PASSED IT BY AN ORDINANCE, RIGHT THEN WHEN SOMEBODY SAYS, HEY, I SEE YOUR RULES. BECAUSE AGAIN, OUR GOVERNMENT, OUR U.S. SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IS A GOVERNMENT OF LAWS, RIGHT? WE WANT PREDICTABILITY. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HERE IS THE LAW. SO SOMEBODY SO ANYBODY IN THE UNITED STATES CAN SAY, THIS IS THE LAW. AND THE JUDGE SAYS, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. EVEN IF A BUNCH OF OTHER PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT IT. AND SO COUNCIL SETS THOSE RULES WITH ITS LEGISLATIVE HAT. WHEN SOMEBODY APPLIES AND SAYS, I WOULD LIKE A PUD, THEN COUNCIL PUTS ON ITS OTHER HAT, WHICH IS A QUASI JUDICIAL QUASI MEANING. IT'S A QUASI JUDICIAL. IT'S IT HAS A SEMBLANCE OF BEING A JUDICIAL FUNCTION BECAUSE THEY ARE JUDGING WHETHER THEIR LAW WAS FOLLOWED OR NOT. AND SO COUNCIL CURRENTLY THEY HAVE THAT QUASI JUDICIAL HAT ON, AND THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE. THEIR SOLE ROLE

[03:00:03]

UNLIKE SOME JUDICIAL MATTERS AT THE STATE LEVEL, THEY GET TIME AND BREAKS AND MONTHS TO WRITE THESE OPINIONS. AND WE GET A VERY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME RIGHT NOW. I ALSO KIND OF WANTED TO GO BACK TO A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS, AT THE BEGINNING, AS COUNCILOR BRADFORD WOULD HAVE INDICATED, THAT I THINK THAT THERE IS A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT OUR ROLE AND STAFF'S ROLE UNDER THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT, LAND USE DECISIONS DO HAVE TO BE BASED UPON VERY EXPLICIT STANDARDS AND CRITERIA SET FORTH, AND THAT YOUR LOCAL BODY, IN THIS CASE, THE CITY COUNCIL, HAS TO WRITE THIS REASON STATEMENT THAT GOT BROUGHT UP EXPLAINING OUR RATIONALE. AND IDAHO'S APPELLATE COURTS HAVE REALLY BEEN VERY CONSISTENTLY ENFORCING THAT. APPROVALS OF DENIALS CANNOT BE ARBITRARY.

YOU'RE HEARING THIS WORD A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND IT HAS TO BE TIED DIRECTLY TO THE RULES IN OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT, I GUESS I APPRECIATE MR. MR. JONES AND COUNCILMEMBER BRADFORD'S COMMENTS ABOUT QUASI JUDICIAL. I'M GOING TO SAY IT IN ANOTHER WAY, BECAUSE I STILL AM NOT SURE THAT IT'S BEING SPOKEN PLAIN ENOUGH FOR US UNDER IDAHO LAW, A CITY COUNCIL. WHEN WE ARE MAKING A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION OR WE'RE ACTING ON A SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION AS A QUASI JUDICIAL BODY. WE ARE JUDGES. WE ARE NOT POLITICIANS. SO WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY REPRESENTING OUR VOTERS. IDAHO LAW HAS MADE THIS VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT OUR CITY'S ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN APPLIED, AND THAT A DUE PROCESS, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS BEEN FOLLOWED. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS MIGHT BE A TERRIBLE ANALOGY, BUT IT'S WHAT I COULD COME UP WITH RIGHT NOW. IF A DRIVER, IF IF WE PULL OVER SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING 35 MILES AN HOUR IN A 35MPH ZONE, A JUDGE CAN'T GIVE THEM SPEEDING TICKET BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS THINK THAT 35MPH IS TOO FAST FOR THEIR STREET. THE DRIVER POSTED. THE DRIVER FOLLOWED THE POSTED LAW. TONIGHT WE ARE JUDGES. WE DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE DEVELOPER FOLLOWED OUR POSTED ZONING LAWS, FOR EXAMPLE, AND IF THEY DID, WE CAN'T LEGALLY PENALIZE THEM. I APPRECIATE THAT RESIDENTS HAVE DONE A LOT

[03:05:04]

THEY DID TAKE THE STEP OF AWARDING THE DEVELOPER ITS FULL ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS.

FOLLOWING THIS TOTAL LOSS AT EVERY LEVEL OF THE STATE COURT SYSTEM, MEANING THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WENT AHEAD AND APPEALED ALL THE WAY UP, AND THEY ENDED UP HAVING TO PAY A $3 MILLION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THE TAXPAYER THE JUDGMENT WAS ACTUALLY $19 MILLION, BUT THEY PAID 3 MILLION. I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT, AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY EXPLAINED, WE'RE ONLY CONSIDERING A PORTION OF THE CODE. THERE ARE MANY OTHER REGULATIONS AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS THAT WILL HAVE TO BE UPHELD. IN THIS CASE, OUR VOTE REFLECTED ONLY THE PUD PART OF OUR ORDINANCE AND WHAT WAS REQUIRED. AND I THINK THAT IN OUR ORIGINAL DECISION, I THINK THAT IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT I AND THE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS WHO VOTED BELIEVE THAT DENYING A PD SOLELY BASED UPON WHETHER OR NOT THE PUBLIC DISLIKES THIS. THIS DEVELOPMENT IN A IN A HIGH DENSITY AREA, AND I LIVE NEXT TO. I LIVE VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE HIGHEST HIGH, THE BIGGEST AND THE LARGEST HIGH DENSITY PROJECT IN OUR CITY, AND SAT THROUGH HEARINGS JUST LIKE THIS.

AND I VERY MUCH UNDERSTAND IT. BUT DENYING SOMETHING LIKE THIS, I THINK, IS A FAST TRACK TO REGULATORY TAKINGS OR A LAWSUIT FOR SUCH. AND I THINK IN A JUDICIAL REVIEW, WE WOULD LOSE.

AND THE THOUGHT OF RISKING A A BILL THAT OUR TAXPAYERS GET STUCK WITH BECAUSE WE AREN'T FOLLOWING OUR OR OUR OWN ORDINANCES ISN'T SOMETHING THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH. SO I WOULD BE VOTING TO AFFIRM THE DECISION THAT CITY COUNCIL MADE. AMAZINGLY WELL SAID. BUT I'LL JUST ADD THAT OF THE CONCERNS WE HEARD TONIGHT, WE DO HEAR THOSE, AND WE DO AGREE WITH MANY OF THEM. AND WE ARE WORKING ON REWORKING THE PUD ORDINANCE. WE ARE WORKING ON MAKING THESE RULES DIFFERENT SO THAT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HEAR, WE HEAR THESE CONSISTENTLY, AND WE KNOW THAT THERE MIGHT BE FIXES, BUT THERE MIGHT NOT BE FIXES WITH THE STATE LAW. BECAUSE TO BE HONEST, IF THIS CAME FORWARD, WE WOULDN'T BE SEEING A PUD. NOW, UNDER THE NEW STATE LAW THAT STARTED JULY 1ST, YOU WOULD HAVE 12. SO 24 UNITS WOULD HAVE BEEN IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, UNFORTUNATELY. AND THAT'S A STATE LEGISLATURE THING THAT WE ALL TRIED TO FIGHT AGAINST THAT WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE WE THINK LOCAL DECISIONS SHOULD BE HERE LOCALLY. AND I KNOW THAT DOESN'T SOUND VERY SATISFYING TONIGHT, BUT. WE'RE AMPLY AWARE OF THE CONCERNS AROUND DENSITY AND, BUT AND THERE IS A REAL ISSUE ABOUT PROPERTY RIGHTS. THAT'S THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH TO WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. AND SO AND OUR STATE LEGISLATURE IS ONLY TAKING AWAY MORE CHOICES, MORE. YEAH. MORE CHOICES FROM LOCAL BODIES SUCH AS CITIES AND COUNTIES. AND THEY'RE ONLY INCREASING DENSITY. THEY'RE ONLY REMOVING REGULATIONS FROM EVERYTHING FROM AIRBNBS, ACCELERATING ADUS, PARKING MINIMUMS. THE THIS IS A STATE LEGISLATURE CONVERSATION BECAUSE THEY'RE ONLY TAKING

[03:10:02]

I MEAN, THAT THAT IT IS GROWING. I MEAN, WE CAN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM COMING HERE. SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN CONTROL. THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF TALK ABOUT HOW THE PROJECT'S DENSITY WILL ADVERSELY AFFECT SCHOOLS AND THE TRAFFIC, ETC. BUT I DON'T THINK 12 UNITS, SIX BUILDINGS IS LIKELY. PROBABLY IT'S PROBABLY VERY CLOSE IN THE NUMBER. IF YOU PUT SIX HOUSES INSTEAD OF THOSE SIX BUILDINGS ON THAT SAME AMOUNT OF PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT BACKS THESE FIVE BUILDINGS THAT ARE ON THE ONE SIDE, BACK UP TO FIVE HOMES TO FIVE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IF WE PUT SIX HOUSES IN THAT SAME SPOT AS A SIX TWIN HOMES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE LIVING ON THAT PROPERTY. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S KIND OF A NONSTARTER FOR ME. LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE FIVE HOMES THAT WILL BACK UP TO FIVE TWIN HOMES. AND LEGALLY, AS EVERYONE ELSE HAS HAS STATED, WE HAVE TO HAVE A REASON TO DENY THIS PUD LEGALLY. AND WE DON'T. THEY ARE DOING THINGS BY THE LAW. WHY DID YOU DENY IT TWICE BEFORE? YOU DIDN'T KICK ME OUT. IT HAS CHANGED. IT HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME. IT HAS CHANGED SINCE THAT TIME. AND I DID VOTE TO AGAINST IT THE FIRST TIME. THE SECOND TIME, EXCUSE ME. AND I VOTED TO APPROVE IT THE THIRD TIME AFTER THEY CHANGED THE PUD AND THEY AND THEY MADE IT FIT IN THE PROPERTY BETTER. AND IT'S NOT JUST SIX UNITS. YOU'VE GOT MANY, MA'AM, MA'AM, THAT'S THAT PERSON'S OVER. SIX.

COUNCIL MEMBER. I KIND OF WANT TO SAY DITTO TO WHAT'S BEEN SAID. I THINK JOHN'S COMMENTS ABOUT. IT'S NOT VERY SATISFYING TO HEAR WHAT OUR JOB IS TONIGHT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND THE LAW'S THE LAW. AND I THINK THE POINT BEING BROUGHT UP THAT IF WE DON'T CONFORM, IF WE DON'T LIVE BY OUR OWN CODE, WHICH IS ALSO STATE LAW AND A LOT OF SITUATIONS, WE'RE JUST OPENING OURSELVES UP FOR A REVERSAL AND EXPENSIVE REVERSAL. NOBODY WINS. WHEN THAT HAPPENS. I I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT AND IT WAS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT AND THAT IS TRAFFIC ON. IT. I MUST SAY, COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN'S COMMENT ABOUT I DON'T THINK 12 IS GOING TO MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE IN TRAFFIC. AND I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK IF YOU LOOK UP THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN A HOME, A TWO BEDROOM, ONE HOME, IT'S THREE, RIGHT? IT'S THREE PEOPLE. OKAY. NOW, SOME OF THOSE ARE ADULTS. A FEW OF THEM ARE KIDS. BUT YOU GET THE POINT. THE NUMBERS REALLY DON'T AMOUNT TO A LOT. AND I THINK IF I'M GOING TO DIG INTO THIS, I'VE GOT THIS IN MY NOTES.

I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE ON PARTICULARLY PAN CARRY.

GOING EASTBOUND, I THINK, IS IT'S NOT EVEN CLOSE TO CAPACITY. I LIVE VERY NEAR THESE HOMES.

AND SO I, I DRIVE PAN CARRY, I GO THROUGH PAN CARRY AN INTERSECTION A LOT. SO BUT I WANT TO LEARN ABOUT, ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SITUATION THERE AND UNDERSTAND THAT IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP SCHOOLS. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN SOMEBODY WORKS IN A SCHOOL, THEY KNOW THAT SCHOOL AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT SCHOOL. BUT I JUST LOOKED UP THE POPULATION, THE STUDENT

[03:15:03]

AND WE ARE ON A PRECIPICE OF THAT AGAIN. BUT I DON'T I IT'S IT'S KIND OF NONSTOP THE, THE GROWTH, THE NOT GROWTH. AND, AND I SOMETIMES DO WORRY THAT WE MIGHT END UP A MILL TOWN IF WE AREN'T CAREFUL HOW WE DO MANAGE THIS GROWTH. I THINK THERE'S, THERE'S VALID CONCERN WITH TOO QUICKLY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF IF WE DON'T BUILD IT, IF WE AREN'T EMBRACING THE GROWTH, IF WE AREN'T EMBRACING THE TECHNOLOGY AROUND THE INL, WE WILL WE WILL FIND OURSELVES ON A DIFFERENT END WHERE OUR HOUSING WILL BE ABUNDANT. AND, AND SO I DO HAVE I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT HOW MUCH SENTIMENT AND EMOTION WAS HERE TONIGHT SURROUNDING THIS. I THINK I YOU KNOW, WE SEE IT ONLINE ALL THE TIME. I THINK THAT GROWTH IS ADDING ALL KINDS OF PRESSURE TO THIS COMMUNITY. AND I THINK IT IS REMINISCENT OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE LATE 40S AS WELL. AND AND THIS IS WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES WHEN ALL OF THOSE SCHOOLS WERE BUILT.

THERESA BUNKER, EDGEMONT, LONGFELLOW, ALL OF THAT CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED AT THE INL. AND THAT'S HAPPENING AGAIN. AND THIS GROWTH IS BEING DRIVEN LARGELY BY THAT. AND WE ARE IN THAT. WE ARE IN THAT MOMENT OF TIME AGAIN. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO TURN OUT. IT'S GOING TO TURN OUT A LOT FROM HOW THE COMMUNITY RESPONDS TO TO THESE DEVELOP, NOT THE THE HOME DEVELOPERS, BUT TO THE DEVELOPERS OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AND OF THIS SUPPLY CHAIN. AND I JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT KIND OF AT THE FOREFRONT OF PEOPLE'S

[03:20:02]

DINGMANN. YES. LARSON. YES. RADFORD, I THANK YOU. MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. WE ARE ADJOURNED. MAYOR, DO YOU WANT IS THERE IS A PROPOSED WRITTEN STATEMENT. DO YOU WANT TO ADOPT THAT TONIGHT OR SET A SET A MEETING FOR THAT. I THINK WE NEED TIME TO WE'LL WORK THROUGH THAT OTHER WORK AND COME BACK. YES. AND THEN ALSO HOLD ON ONE SECOND. ONE THING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL, BECAUSE THERE'S STILL THIS IS A DECISION, RIGHT? BUT IT'S NOT FINAL YET. THESE ARE STILL POTENTIAL FOR PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. SO THE EX PARTE RULES STILL APPLY. SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THIS MATTER, TELL THEM WE CAN'T AT THIS TIME. OKAY. I DON'T WANT TO. COUNCIL MEMBER FREEMAN. MAYBE I SHOULD GET SOME LEGAL ADVICE FROM COUNSEL. IS IT IS IT ON BETTER SOLID GROUNDS THAT WE ADOPT THE REINSTATEMENT OF THE RELEVANT CRITERIA TONIGHT? NO, WE HAVE TO GET A DECISION OUT BY SEPTEMBER 7TH. OKAY. THAT'S OUR DEADLINE. SO IT DOESN'T CHANGE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN. I MEAN, IT'S BEEN 4.5 HOURS OF LONG AND EMOTIONAL TESTIMONY. SO I WOULD IT WOULD I JUST FEEL LIKE IT WOULD BE OH, SORRY. START AT SEVEN, 3.5 HOURS. AND SO I JUST FEEL LIKE IN ORDER FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO, TO CONSIDER. I HAVE A AND SO BUT YES, AS FAR AS EX PARTE RULES, THEY WILL APPLY UP UNTIL. SO IF IF IF IF THERE IS A PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW, THE EX PARTE RULES WILL CONTINUE THROUGHOUT THAT PROCESS. IF THERE'S NO PETITION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FILED WITHIN 28 DAYS, THEN THEN THE EX PARTE RULES WILL NO LONGER APPLY. IS THAT 28 START NOW OR WHEN THE RECENT STATEMENT IS PUBLISHED? NOT THAT IT'S FROM THE RECENT STATEMENT FROM THE WRITTEN DECISION. SO I TAKE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.