Oct 08, 2026 City Council Meeting

[00:00:02]

THAT, THAT, UH, CLICK,

[1. Call to Order & Roll Call]

SO WE WELCOME YOU TO THE IDAHO FALLS CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IT IS THURSDAY, OCTOBER 8TH, 2026. UH, IF OUR CLERK WILL READ US IN OUR ROLE, UM, TO ESTABLISH OUR QUORUM, BUT THEN ALSO, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER LEE IS THE IDAHO FALLS SOCCER GIRLS COACH FOR VARSITY, AND THEY ARE IN THE DISTRICT TOURNAMENT TONIGHT, SO HE IS EXCUSED.

OKAY, THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS? HERE. COUNCILOR RADFORD? PRESENT. COUNCILOR ZIL DINGMAN? HERE. COUNCILOR FREEMAN? HERE. COUNCILOR LARSEN? HERE. THANK YOU, MAYOR. YOU HAVE A QUORUM.

THANK YOU. UM, TO BEGIN OUR NIGHT, WE HAVE ASKED, UM, MR. COLBY HATTON TO STAND AND LEAD US IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. 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. OKAY, UM, OUR NEXT

[3. Staff responses to prior public comment and other updates]

AND SO THIS ITEM NUMBER 3 IS FOR STAFF TO RESPOND PUBLICLY TO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE EITHER HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY KNOW ABOUT OR HAPPENING IN THE COMMUNITY, OR DIRECT RESPONSES TO THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN OUR PRIOR PUBLIC MEETING. I KNOW THAT CHIEF JOHNSON DOES HAVE SOME STAFF RESPONSE TO PRIOR PUBLIC COMMENT AND ONGOING PUBLIC CONCERN. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO AT LAST COUNCIL SESSION, THERE WERE 4 OR 5 PEOPLE WHO CAME UP AND TALKED ABOUT THE LICENSE PLATE READERS. SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING PEOPLE ARE STILL TALKING QUITE A BIT ABOUT. I DID, THAT WAS A JOKE, BUT I GUESS IT WAS ONE.

BUT YEAH, I DID, UH, WAS ABLE TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH ALL OF THEM EXCEPT FOR ONE THE NIGHT OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT TO SUM UP OUR LENGTHY CONVERSATION WITH ALL, THEY WERE STILL, DIDN'T REALLY LIKE THEM, BUT WE'RE GOING TO USE THEM THE WAY WE WERE DOING OVER WAY THEY WANTED PEOPLE TO DO IT. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME POLICY CHANGES FROM PUBLIC INPUT ON OUR LICENSE PLATE READER PROGRAM.

ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN WAS CONCERNED THAT OUR POLICY MENTIONED PROBABLE CAUSE AND REASONABLE SUSPICION, AND HE INTERPRETED THAT TO MEAN THAT YOU DIDN'T NEED PROBABLE CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION TO USE A LICENSE PLATE READER.

WHAT THE POLICY WAS INTENDING TO SAY IS THAT THE LICENSE PLATE READER DOES NOT CREATE PROBABLE CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION. IT'S JUST ONE ELEMENT, AND THE OFFICERS HAD TO INDEPENDENTLY ESTABLISH PROBABLE CAUSE OR REASONABLE SUSPICION, NOT RELY SOLELY ON THE LICENSE PLATE READER.

SO WHEN I LOOKED AT THE POLICY, I COULD UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DRAW THAT CONCLUSION. SO WE CHANGED THE POLICY TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IT IS, IT IS NOT, THE LICENSE PLATE READER IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT CREATE PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN ARREST. AND THEN ALSO A LOT OF THE COMMENT I WAS GETTING FROM FOLKS IS THEY REALLY APPRECIATED OUR ENHANCED AUDITS. WE WERE DOING THEM EVERY 2 WEEKS, BUT THE QUESTION ALWAYS COMES, WELL, WHO'S WATCHING THE WATCHERS? AND THAT IS A COMMON QUESTION THAT ALWAYS COMES BECAUSE IT'S IFPD THAT'S USING THE LICENSE PLATE READERS AND IT'S IFPD THAT'S DOING THE AUDITS. AND THAT'S A FAIR CRITIQUE. AND SO IN TALKING TO THOSE FOLKS AND DOING SOME INTERNAL CONVERSATIONS, WE HAVE A PLAN TO UPDATE OUR POLICY. AND IT WILL INCLUDE A PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TO OUR CITIZENS REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT'S APPROVED BY, BY MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

WE'LL PRESENT THOSE AUDITS TO THOSE 4 CITIZENS SO THEY CAN LOOK AT IT AND ENSURE THAT WE ARE DOING WHAT WE SAY WE'RE DOING. AND THERE'LL BE SOME SORT OF PROACTIVE POLICY IN THE WORKS OF MAKING THAT SO WE CAN HAVE SOME INDEPENDENT REVIEW OF OUR LICENSE PLATE READER AUDITS. AND LASTLY, THERE WAS A TOWN HALL WHICH I DID ON LICENSE PLATE READERS, AND THERE WERE 30, 40 PEOPLE THERE AND ANOTHER 100 OR SO PEOPLE ONLINE. AND SIMILAR FEEDBACK, IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THEM, USE THEM THE WAY THAT IDAHO CALLS TO USE THEM. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, CHIEF. AND HE DID APPEAR AT STAND UP FOR IDAHO, I THINK IS THE ORGANIZATION THAT HE WENT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. SO WE APPRECIATE, WE APPRECIATE THAT. I ALSO DID HAVE A CHANCE THIS WEEK, COUNCIL, TO TALK WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, RAUL LABRADOR, AND, OH, ARE YOU, CHIEF, YES, PLEASE. I'M SORRY, THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS GOING ON. AND THEN LASTLY, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS ASKED

[00:05:01]

THAT WAS AT MY REQUEST BECAUSE I NEEDED MORE TIME TO EVALUATE IT. WE ARE LOOKING AT 4 SEPARATE COMPANIES THAT ARE USING LICENSE, TO PROVIDE LICENSE PLATE READERS, INCLUDING ONE COMPANY THAT WAS RECOMMENDED TO US BY ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT'S BEEN HERE TO TESTIFY QUITE OFTEN ABOUT BLOCK SAFETY. SO WE'VE TRIED TO BE RESPONSIVE, AND WE'LL HAVE THOSE 4 COMPANIES TO PRESENT TO YOU WHAT THEY DO AND HOW THEY WOULD DO IT IN THE FIRST WORK SESSION IN NOVEMBER. THANK YOU. YEAH, I WILL FINISH JUST THAT ONE THOUGHT THAT I DID GET A CHANCE TO MEET WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL DID ACTUALLY MEET WITH CHIEF JOHNSON AS WELL, AND AS WE HAD THE CONVERSATION, HIS STAFF WAS ALSO VERY IMPRESSED THAT WE HAD TAKEN A STATE STATUTE FROM DOING THE AUDIT TWICE A YEAR ON FLAT CAMERAS TO TWICE A MONTH, THAT THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT THE STATE REALLY DOES NEED TO DO TO HELP CITIZENS AND HELP THE GOVERNMENT AND HELP THE POLICE UNDERSTAND HOW THESE CAN AND WILL BE USED AND NOT JUST LET IT LAG, LANGUISH. IT'S TOO MUCH TO DO AN AUDIT TWICE A YEAR, TOO MUCH INFORMATION. SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE OUR POLICE CHIEF FOR TAKING ALL OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN HOW LICENSE PLATE READERS ARE A BENEFIT TO HIS LAW ENFORCEMENT. ANY OTHER STAFF MEMBERS WHO HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD, UPCOMING? OKAY. NEXT IS OUR

[4. Public Comment]

WE'LL JUST WRAP UP THE CONVERSATION POLITELY. WELL, I AM SO HAPPY THAT FINALLY AMMON HAS DECIDED TO DO, TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GIFT PROGRAM BECAUSE IT IS DEFINITELY CHANGING A LOT OF PEOPLE'S LIVES ALREADY IN A WEEK'S TIME. SO I MEAN, MY, OH YEAH, I'M JUST NEVER, EVER. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I'M JUST, I REMEMBER MY BOYFRIEND AND I, WHO IS ALSO VISUALLY IMPAIRED AS WELL, WE WENT TO COCOA BEAN FOR DESSERT ON FRIDAY NIGHT LAST WEEK, AND WE WERE OUTSIDE THE DOOR AND WE WERE SO EXCITED, AND I LET OUT THIS LIKE SCREAM OF JOY. SO I WAS SO HAPPY WE FINALLY HAVE ANN PARTICIPATING IN THE PROGRAM, AND I LOVE THAT YOU SET UP THIS FUNNY, CORNY HEADLINE, THE GIFT THAT KEEPS ON GIVING. I THOUGHT THAT WAS SO CLEVER.

SO YEAH, SHOUT OUT TO NATE EATON AND HIS GREAT TEAM FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, FUNNY COMMENT, BUT IT'S SO TRUE.

BECAUSE BEFORE, WE COULDN'T GO TO ANY PLACES IN AMMON, AND NOW WE CAN GO TO BUSINESSES.

LIKE, I CAN GO TO THE DI AND ACTUALLY NOT HAVE TO PAY AN UBER $40 JUST TO GET THERE. SO I'M SO GRATEFUL FOR THAT, AND I HOPE AND PRAY TO HEAVEN ON EARTH THAT GREATER BONNEVILLE COUNTY CAN HEAR THIS AND UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A NEED, NOT A WANT. THIS IS A NEED, AND PEOPLE LIKE ME WILL BE ETERNALLY GRATEFUL IF YOU DECIDE TO PITCH IN AND MAKE IT A PRIORITY. SO ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO ADD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, I'M CHRISSY STATON. I DO NOT LIVE IN THE CITY, I LIVE IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY. I'M HERE, UM, REPRESENTING WORK ON YOUR ROUNDUP. AS YOU KNOW, I'M ONE OF THE 7 ADVISORY COUNCIL MEMBERS FOR WORK ON YOUR ROUNDUP, AND I'M A LITTLE DELINQUENT BECAUSE MY THURSDAYS ARE BUSY, BUT I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR SUPPORTING IDAHO'S OLDEST RODEO. THANK YOU FOR COMING AND LETTING US CELEBRATE YOU. AS SUPPORTING US. I HAVE PROBABLY

[00:10:03]

IT'S A WONDERFUL RODEO. IT'S A GREAT PLACE. OUR CONTESTANTS ABSOLUTELY LOVE OUR FACILITIES.

THE SANDY DOWNS CREW DOES AN AMAZING JOB, AND THE GRASS THAT THEY GET TO PARK ON AND LET THEIR HORSES HAVE A SENSE OF COMFORT IS HUGE TO OUR CONTESTANTS. AND WE GET, WE GET AMAZING CONTESTANTS BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH GREAT FACILITIES AND A GREAT RODEO.

BIG SHOUT OUT TO PARKS AND REC. I KNOW IT'S A LOT OF MANPOWER AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, IT'S WORTH EVERY DIME AND ABOUT 3 TIMES AS MUCH. SO IF YOU WANTED TO THROW MORE RESOURCES, WE WOULD NOT BE MAD AT ALL.

BUT WE HAVE SO MANY VOLUNTEERS.

IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY TO HAVE SUCH A GREAT FAMILY EVENT. WE'VE WORKED HARD TO MAKE THOSE 4 DAYS SPECIAL AND UNIQUE IN EACH, A LITTLE DIFFERENT EVERY DAY.

SO CELEBRATING FAMILIES TO, YOU KNOW, FULL-ON PARTIES.

BUT MOSTLY I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALLOWING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO SERVE AND TO BRING THIS EVENT TO THE COMMUNITY. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MISS STATON. THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR THAT AS WELL. AS WE SIT HERE, IT WAS EASY FOR ME TO SAY THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING, BUT THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND DEDICATION THAT YOU PUT INTO THE IDAHO FALLS AREA. THAT'S FROM DAYTON.

DAYTON. THANK YOU. OKAY, ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO COME AND.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS COLBY HATTON. I'M A RESIDENT OF IDAHO FALLS, AND I'M HERE ONCE AGAIN REPRESENTING STRONGER IDAHO FALLS. LATE LAST MONTH, I OPENED MY EMAIL AT WORK TO A REG, ON A REGULAR MONDAY MORNING TO SEE SOME HEARTBREAKING NEWS.

WHILE DRIVING HOME FROM THE I&L, MY COWORKER HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN A CRASH, KILLING HIM AT THE SCENE AND LEAVING HIS WIFE AND 2 CHILDREN BEHIND. OFTEN IN INCIDENTS LIKE THIS, NEWS MEDIA WILL REPORT THE CRASH AS AN ACCIDENT. WE HERE AT STRONG IDAHO FALLS DO NOT LIKE THE USE OF THAT TERM.

ACCIDENT IMPLIES A DEGREE OF HELPLESSNESS, PUTTING THE BLAME BEYOND OUR CONTROL. INSTEAD, WE PREFER THE TERM CRASH.

IN MY EXTENSIVE OSHA TRAINING FOR MULTIPLE CONSTRUCTION JOBS, THEY ALSO EMPHASIZED THE WORD INCIDENT. ACCIDENTS ARE UNAVOIDABLE. CRASHES AND INCIDENTS ARE A RESULT OF SYSTEMS, POLICY, AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT UNDERLIES THE WAY WE DRIVE AND TRANSPORT AROUND TOWN. IF YOU FIX THE INFRASTRUCTURE, SORRY. YEAH, FIX THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND YOU DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE NUMBER AND SEVERITY OF CRASHES. WHILE THE CRASH THAT TOOK MY COWORKER HAPPENED ON STATE-MANAGED ROADS OUTSIDE HIS CITY, THE WHOLE SITUATION STOOD AS A REMINDER TO WHY I ORIGINALLY JOINED THE STRONG TOWNS MOVEMENT AND STEPPED UP FOR STRONGER IDAHO FALLS. CAR-CENTRIC AND CAR-DEPENDENT INFRASTRUCTURE IS DEADLY, ESPECIALLY TO THOSE OUTSIDE OF A MOTOR VEHICLE. WHEN WE PRIORITIZE PEDESTRIANS AND CYCLISTS, WE MAKE THE CITY MORE LIVABLE, MORE SUSTAINABLE, MORE FINANCIALLY STRONG, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, SAFE.

THESE ARE OUTCOMES THAT ARE ALWAYS WORTH PURSUING, EVEN IF IT MEANS WE HAVE TO INCONVENIENCE DRIVERS. MY GREAT HOPE WITH STRONG RIDER FALLS IS THAT WE TAKE THESE LESSONS AND WE MAKE A CITY THAT WILL NEVER LET THIS KIND OF PREVENTABLE TRAGEDY HAPPEN WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HATTON. MY NAME IS MATTHEW MURPHY. MAYOR BURTENSHAW, COUNCIL MEMBERS, I'VE BEEN UP HERE BEFORE TO LET YOU KNOW OF A CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MURDER. THIS HAPPENED IN 2024. FORTH. AND I URGE YOU TO TAKE ACTION, AS I HAVE 3 OTHER ADULT WITNESSES AND A WITNESS TO OVERACTS THAT PROVE THIS. I ALSO HAVE PROOF THAT THE IDAHO FALLS POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE TAKING EXTREME MEASURES TO COVER IT UP FROM GETTING TO A PROSECUTOR'S DESK. THE REASON I URGE YOU TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT, THE PERSON THEY THREATENED TO KILL IS NOT THE MAIN VICTIM.

MY DAUGHTER BEING PRESENT FOR IT, HOWEVER, WAS. SHE WAS 7 AT THE TIME. 2 DAYS LATER, SHE GOT TOLD BY THE CONSPIRATORS SHE'D NEVER SEE HER FATHER AGAIN. I HAVE CALLED. I, I'VE EVEN PERSONALLY, PURPOSEFULLY TAKEN

[00:15:03]

AND I URGE YOU TO DO SUCH BECAUSE ON JUNE 24TH, ON THE CORNER OF SAGE AND HIGHLAND, BETWEEN 6:55 AM AND 07:05 AM, MY KID'S GRANDMOTHER, THAT ONE OF THE CONSPIRATORS TO COMMIT MURDER, CHRISTY KELLY, TRIED TO HIT ME WITH HER CAR BECAUSE SHE KNOWS I WILL NOT, EVEN OVER ANYBODY'S DEAD BODY IN THIS ROOM, NO OFFENSE TO MY FELLOW COMMUNITY MEMBERS LET THIS GO. WHAT KIND OF FATHER WOULD THAT MAKE ME IF I DID? NOW, MISS BURTONSHAW, MY HEART IS BROKEN. I HAVE LEFT MY PHONE NUMBER WITH YOU. YOU DON'T WRITE, YOU DON'T CALL. WHAT DO I HAVE TO DO TO SIT DOWN AND SHOW YOU ALL OF MY PROBABLE CAUSE FOR AN IMMEDIATE ARREST WARRANT? I WOULD LIKE, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET A HOLD OF THE POLICE CHIEF FOR ABOUT WHAT, SINCE 2017? THAT'S 9 YEARS. THIS CONSPIRACY GOES BACK EVEN FURTHER WITH CONSPIRACIES TO COMMIT KIDNAPPING. THE REASON THEY WON'T LET ME SEE MY DAUGHTER IS BECAUSE THEY KNOW I WOULD BE ABLE TO, MORE THAN WILLINGLY, SHE WOULD GIVE UP ON FILM THAT GRANDMA DID SAY THIS, AND SO DID JIMMY. AND THERE WERE OVERACTS OF A PHONE CALL AND LOADING GUNS IN FRONT OF HER. SHE WAS EVEN IN THE ROOM WHEN THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO DO THIS. NO 7-YEAR-OLD SHOULD HAVE TO HEAR ABOUT PLANS TO MURDER SOMEBODY.

I CAN'T LET THIS GO. I WON'T.

I'D RATHER DIE FIRST. PLEASE HEAR ME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MURPHY. SORRY, PAIGE.

THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE WANT TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT? OKAY, WELL, WE WILL THEN TURN

[5. Consent Agenda]

WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. I MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE, ACCEPT, OR RECEIVE ALL ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS PRESENTED. SECOND. RADFORD.

AYE. LARSEN. YES. FREEMAN.

YES. FRANCIS. AYE. DINGMAN.

YES. THANK YOU, MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU. OUR

[6.A.1) City of Idaho Falls 457 Plan - Capital Group/American Funds]

[00:20:01]

FRANCIS? AYE. FREEMAN? YES.

DINGMAN? YES. LARSEN? YES.

RADFORD? AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

[6.A.2) Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) Between IBEW Local 57 and The City of Idaho Falls]

[6.B.1) MOU Meppen Park Irrigation System Installation Bid]

SO NOW DEVELOPING MEPN INTO A USABLE PARK SPACE IS REALLY THE FINAL STEP TO BRINGING US INTO FULL COMPLIANCE, AND WE'RE, WE'RE VERY EXCITED FOR THAT. THAT OPENS US UP TO FEDERAL FUNDING THAT IS REALLY A GREAT MECHANISM FOR PARKS AND RECREATION AGENCIES TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP, BUILD, AND ACQUIRE SPACE FOR GREEN SPACES. OUR TEAM HAS WORKED WITH MOUNTAINS WEST ENGINEERING THROUGHOUT THE SUMMER MONTHS, LATE SPRING THROUGH THE SUMMER, TO DESIGN AND ENGINEER THE PARK. AND AFTER RECEIVING OUR IRRIGATION PLAN A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WE OUR DEPARTMENT SOLICITED BIDS FOR THE INSTALLATION OF AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM ACROSS THE PARK, AND WE RECEIVED 3 BIDS THROUGH THAT PROCESS, WITH SUMMER RAIN INC. SUBMITTING THE LOWEST BID AT $98,900.

ACCORDING TO THEIR, THEIR BID, THEY'RE EXPECTING THE PROJECT TO TAKE 16 DAYS, WEATHER PERMITTING. THEY SAID AS LONG AS IT'S NOT MUDDY AND THAT, AS LONG AS THEY CAN GET IN THERE AND ACTUALLY WORK.

SHOULD BE 16 DAYS, AND THAT WILL COME WITH A 3-YEAR WARRANTY ON THAT IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND THAT WORK. SO WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THAT. TONIGHT I'M HERE ASKING COUNCIL TO ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FROM SUMMER RAIN INC.

TO INSTALL AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM ACROSS THE 8.5+ ACRE PARCEL, AND FOLLOWED DIRECTLY BY SOME SOD AND SOME PARKING IMPROVEMENTS, MAKING THIS A VIABLE, USABLE PARK SPACE SO THAT HOPEFULLY NEXT YEAR WHEN WE ARE AWARDED THE LWC GRANT THAT WE SUBMITTED, WE'LL BE ABLE TO BUILD A RESTROOM AND SOME PICKLEBALL COURTS, TENNIS BALL COURTS, AND PLAYGROUNDS IN A PORTION OF OUR COMMUNITY, AS MAYOR BURTENSHAW SAID, THAT HAS BEEN WITHOUT A GREEN SPACE IN A REACHABLE, WALKABLE DISTANCE FROM THEIR HOUSES FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, AND IT IS WELL DESERVED, AND IT WILL BE A GREAT AMENITY AND A GREAT BOOST TO OUR COMMUNITY. SO WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THEN LOOK FORWARD TO, YEAH, SO I'M SO GLAD TO SEE THIS HAPPEN FIRST, BUT ARE WE USING SURFACE WATER FOR THIS PROJECT, OR ARE WE USING POTABLE WATER? SO WE, THE END GOAL WILL BE TO, OR THE END PRODUCT WILL BE SURFACE WATER OUT OF THE, THE MEPPEN CANAL. BECAUSE OF WATER RIGHT ISSUES THAT WE'RE WORKING OUT AND WORKING WITH THE DISTRICT, IT PROBABLY WON'T BE READY IN TIME THAT WE WANT

[00:25:01]

I KNOW BECAUSE THEY WERE ALREADY RIGHT OUT THERE PLAYING. SO THANK YOU, DIRECTOR HOLM. THIS IS JUST SO EXCITING FOR ME. IT'S KIND OF NEAR A NEIGHBORHOOD I GREW UP IN. I'M REALLY EXCITED.

EXCITED TO SEE IT HAPPEN. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS REALLY, I'M REALLY HAPPY WITH THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH IS, UH, IN MAY WE HELD A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, PLANNING MEETING, WHERE WE INVITED, WE HUNG DOOR HANGERS ON 200 OF THE RESIDENCES AROUND. WE HAD ON MAY 12TH, WE HAD AN EVENT THERE ON SITE, AND WE ACTUALLY WERE ABLE TO GATHER FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHAT KIND OF AMENITIES THEY'D LIKE TO SEE. AND SO THAT'S HOW WE KIND OF CHOSE WHAT WOULD BE BUILT IN THE PARK AND WHAT WE WERE APPLYING FOR IN THAT GRANT. SO I'M HOPING THAT THEY WILL BE VERY INVOLVED FROM DAY ONE WHEN WE DO A RIBBON CUTTING. ALL OF US COULD BE THERE, HOPEFULLY, AND WE'LL SEE IMMEDIATE USE FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

EXCITED. THANK YOU. I'M READY WITH A MOTION. I WOULD MOVE THE COUNCIL ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE PROPOSAL FOR THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLATION AT MIPPEN PARK AND AWARD THE BID TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE, RESPONSIBLE A SUMMER RAIN INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $98,900. SECOND. LARSEN. YES.

FRANCIS. AYE. DINGMAN. YES.

FREEMAN. YES. RADFORD. AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL. OUR NEXT ITEM IS

[6.C.1) Professional Services Agreement with HDR Engineering in Support of the Rack Substation Rebuild Project]

SO, UH, TONIGHT I'M HERE TO DISCUSS A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT, UM, IN SUPPORT OF HDR ENGINEERING, AND THIS IS IN SUPPORT OF THE RACK SUBSTATION REBUILD.

WITH THIS, THE ACTION THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT. A LITTLE BACKGROUND WITH THAT AGREEMENT IS ON JUNE 20TH, JUNE 21ST, 2024, WE ESTABLISHED A MASTER AGREEMENT WITH HDR. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING, OR WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT, IS TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THAT AGREEMENT. THERE'S BEEN SOME NON-DISCRIMINATORY LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN ADDED TO THAT AGREEMENT. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THAT AGREEMENT AND FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, UM, AND A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES TASK ORDER WITH ACR ENGINEERING INCORPORATED FOR $386,000 FOR THAT, FOR HELPING DESIGN A RACK SUBSTITUTION.

COUNCILMEMBER FREEMAN, IS THAT AN ADDITIONAL $686,000 FROM THE AGREEMENT WE HAD WITH THEM PREVIOUSLY? $386,000? $386,000. IS THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF THE AGREEMENT OR IS THAT THE, THIS IS JUST IN ADDITION? THIS IS FOR THE RACS ADDITION. OKAY.

SO THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL SERVICES THAT ARE NEEDED.

OKAY, VERY GOOD, THANK YOU.

OKAY. ARE YOU READY TO MAKE A MOTION, COUNCILOR? YEAH, YEAH. I WOULD MOVE THAT COUNCIL APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE TASK ORDER WITH HDR ENGINEERING INCORPORATED FOR A TOTAL OF $386,000 AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE BOTH DOCUMENTS.

SECOND. DEMON? YES. RADFORD? AYE. LARSEN? YES. FRANCIS? AYE. FREEMAN? YES. MOTION

[6.C.2)Sole Source Procurement for Materials and Services with Western States Equipment Company for Peaking Plant Equipment]

[00:30:01]

AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION. I'M JUST GOING TO MAKE A POINT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DO, WE HAVE THE CAT UNITS IN, IN OUR PEAKING PLANT, AND IT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO HAVE A SOLE SOURCE PROVIDER BECAUSE THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO WORK ON THESE PARTICULAR MACHINES. I WOULD MOVE THE COUNCIL MAKE A DETERMINATION OF SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT OF MATERIALS AND SERVICES OF APPROVING THE WESTERN STATES EQUIPMENT COMPANY, ALSO KNOWN AS CAT, CUSTOMER VALUE AGREEMENT FOR ONE OIL CHANGE PARTS ONLY KIT TOTALING $94,689 AND PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE SERVICES TOTALING $565,390, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION TO THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENT.

COUNCILMEMBER ZILDINGLING SECONDED THAT. THANK YOU, DINGMAN. YES, FREEMAN. YES, FRANCIS. HI, RAFTER. HI, LARSEN. YES, MOTION CARRIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.

[6.D.1) Final Plat, Development Agreement, and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Willows Place Townhomes Division No. 1]

AT THE TIME, THE PLAT THAT WENT THROUGH WAS ACCOMPANIED WITH THE PUD, AND WE DID NOT TAKE THAT PUD BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AS WE MOVED THROUGH. I CHECKED THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE OKAY, AND I DO DEFER A LITTLE BIT TO LEGAL ON THIS.

FROM WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, THAT WE ARE OKAY TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE THE PUD WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED ACCORDING TO THIS CONFIGURATION, AND THEN THE PLAT CAME BACK FROM, UH, TO MAKE SURE IT WAS MATCHING WITH THE PUD THAT WAS APPROVED.

SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE OKAY, BUT I DO DEFER TO LEGAL A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. YES, WE'RE ALL RIGHT.

SO JUST EXPLAIN, BECAUSE IT'S SO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN THE, IN THE RECORD. SO YOU'RE ASKING, ARE YOU ASKING ABOUT THE, THE WHEREAS CLAUSES FOR THE REASON STATEMENT? WELL, IT COULD BE IN THE WHEREAS CLAUSES. I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AT RELEVANT CRITERIA STANDARDS NUMBER 4. THE NUMBER 04, THE ONE THAT SAYS THE FINAL PLAT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS A PUD, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT? YEAH, AND I'M JUST SAYING WHAT'S DESCRIBED AS THE FINAL PLAT IS NOT THE ONE PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. SO DO WE NEED TO MAKE A STATEMENT FOR TOTAL CLARITY THAT WE ARE REFERRING THERE TO THE ONE THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL? COULD YOU, COULD YOU INDICATE AGAIN WHICH PARAGRAPH ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHERE IT WAS TALKING ABOUT PLANNING AND ZONING? OKAY, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH.

TITLE NUMBER 1, UNDER RELEVANCE CRITERIA STANDARDS. IF I GO BACK TO, I'M SORRY, COUNCIL PRESIDENT, YOU'RE JUST TALKING

[00:35:01]

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE IN THE PACKET THAT, THAT'S PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD IS THE, THE MINUTES FROM THE, THE, UH, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. AND CLEARLY THOSE MINUTES WERE TAKEN ON NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025, BEFORE THIS FINAL PLAT WAS DEVELOPED. SO, COUNCILOR, WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS, IS THAT WE JUST AMEND IT TO SAY THIS FINAL PLAT ACCEPTED ON THAT DATE AT THE COUNCIL.

SO WE WOULD JUST INSERT A DATE THAT WHEN IT WAS ACCEPTED.

TO ME, IT'S CLEAR THAT WHAT THEY REVIEWED AS THE FINAL PLAT IS NOT THE ONE THAT'S BEING ACCEPTED TODAY.

UNDER THE MOTION.

UNDER THE MOTION. YEAH.

APPROVED. NUMBER 2. SO WHAT, WHAT PARAGRAPH ARE YOU LOOKING AT? I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT WORDING YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT'S CAUSING THE ISSUE.

SO WHAT I'M LOOKING AT THAT RAISES CONCERNS FOR ME IS BACK TO THE PACKET ITSELF. LOOKING AT THE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING, WHICH IS PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD, THAT FROM NOVEMBER 5TH, 2025, AND IT VERY CLEARLY SAYS THE PRIVATE STREET IS ON A COMMON LOT, LOT 15. THERE ARE 15 TOTAL LOTS, 14 BUILDABLE, 1 COMMON LOT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE FINAL PLOT THAT WE'RE APPROVING. YEAH, HE'S SAYING THAT ALMOST A YEAR AGO WHEN, WHEN P&Z SAW THIS AND THEY APPROVED THAT. CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE SINCE THEN.

SURE. DO WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT IN SOME WAY TO ENSURE THAT WHAT WE ARE APPROVING IS WHAT IS IN THE PACKET THIS EVENING, WHICH WE RECOGNIZE IS NOT WHAT P&Z SAW A YEAR AGO? IS THAT RIGHT, COUNCIL PRESIDENT? YEAH. NO, I DON'T THINK SO.

OKAY, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT WHAT THEY APPROVED A YEAR AGO, AND IT'S MOSTLY BECAUSE THEY'RE A RECOMMENDATION BODY, AND SO THEY, THEY DON'T. THEIR VOTE DOESN'T HAVE FINAL SAY OF THE LAW. SIMILAR TO THE PUD. THE PUD WAS ALSO PRESENTED TO PLANNING AND ZONING. IT CHANGED AFTERWARDS AFTER COUNCIL DENIED IT, AND THEN IT WAS REVISED, BUT IT DIDN'T HAVE TO GO BACK DOWN TO P&Z. NO. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. YEAH. THE WAY THE WHEREAS IS PHRASED IN THE RE, IN THE REASON STATEMENT, IT JUST SAYS THIS MATTER CAME BEFORE THE IDAHO FALLS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DURING A DULY NOTICED PUBLIC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 25TH, 2025. IT SAYS THIS MATTER, NOT THE PARTICULAR, THE, THE MATTER IS THE PLAT, BUT THE, THE PLAT CAN CHANGE AND STILL BE THE SAME MATTER.

AND MAYBE TO HELP YOU, COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS, WHEN WE DO A PLAT, SO THE PLAT WAS APPROVED BACK IN, WHEN IT WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2025, IF I REMEMBER. WE DON'T TYPICALLY TAKE PLATS BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNLESS THE LOT INCREASE, THE LOTS HAVE INCREASED. AND IN THIS CASE, WILLOW PLACE, IF YOU REMEMBER, THROUGH MEDIATION, THE LOTS ACTUALLY DECREASED.

AND SO WE DIDN'T NEED TO BRING IT BACK DIRECTOR SANNER, IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PLAT AND A PUD SITE PLAN? YES, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PUD CONCEPT THAT IS APPROVED, BUT A PLAT IS SEPARATE, AND A PLAT IS REGULATED THROUGH CHAPTER 65 OF THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT.

SO EVEN THOUGH THE PLAT CAME THROUGH, WE REDUCED THOSE THROUGH MEDIATION WITH THE DEVELOPER. AND THAT'S WHY WE DID BRING IT BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. SO THE PLAN IN OUR, AND IF THAT'S WHAT YOUR QUESTION, NO, I'M NOT ASKING.

OKAY, IT'S JUST FOR THE CLARITY FOR THE FUTURE WHEN SOMEONE LOOKS. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD THAT FIRST SOMEONE HAS A PROBLEM WITH ANYTHING THAT'S DONE, THE FIRST THING THEY WOULD GO TO IS THEY WOULD GO TO THE REASONS STATEMENT.

THAT'S WHY WE TRY TO BE REALLY THOROUGH WITH THEM. AND I'M JUST SAYING, TO ME, THERE'S ONE MISSING PIECE OF THE REASON STATEMENT WE'RE PASSING TONIGHT. I'M NOT ASKING THAT IT SHOULD HAVE GONE BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING, AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND ALL THAT.

OKAY, ALL I'M SAYING IS NUMBER 4 IN THE RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS SAYS THE FINAL PLAT WILL BE DEVELOPED AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS ACCEPTED BY COUNCIL, AND THAT COULD BE ANYWHERE IN THAT SENTENCE ON THE DATE COUNCIL ACCEPTED THAT PUD.

BUT THAT, THAT STATEMENT ISN'T ABOUT THE PLAT. WHICH PLAT?

[00:40:02]

THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.

SURE, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION WITH, I MEAN, YOU CAN MAKE THAT MOTION WITH THAT DATE IN IT IF YOU'D LIKE. UH, THAT WAS THE DATE THAT THE PUD WAS LEGALLY. IN MY OPINION, WE, WE HAVE THE, THE PLAT THAT'S IN FRONT OF COUNCIL. SO ANYBODY WHO REVIEWS THE MINUTES OR IN THE RECORD OF COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO SEE CLEARLY THIS WAS THE PLAT AT ISSUE, THIS IS THE PLAT THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE REASON STATEMENT. SO I THINK IT'S CLEAR AS IT IS WITHOUT THAT STATEMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, I'M READY WITH A SERIES OF. OKAY, COUNCIL MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT.

YEAH, SO FIRST, UM, I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR WILLOW PLACE TOWNHOMES DIVISION 1 AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN SAID AGREEMENT.

SECOND. DINGMAN? YES.

FRANCIS? AYE. FREEMAN? YES.

LARSEN? YES. RADFORD? AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. AND I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR WILLOW PLACE TOWNHOMES DIVISION 1, GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR, CITY ENGINEER, AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE FINAL PLAT.

SECOND. FREEMAN? YES.

RADFORD? AYE. LARSEN? YES.

DINGMAN? YES. FRANCIS? AYE.

MOTION CARRIES. AND I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE FINAL PLAT FOR WILLOW PLACE TOWNHOMES DIVISION 1 AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND.

DINGMAN? YES. FRANCIS? AYE.

FREEMAN? YES. LARSEN? YES.

RADFORD? AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

[6.D.2) Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and Initial Zoning of I&M, Industrial and Manufacturing - Annexation and Initial Zoning Ordinances and Reasoned Statements of Relevant Criteria and Standards for approximately 4.482 acres]

THIS IS FOR AN ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF IM, WHICH IS INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING, AND I WOULD WELCOME OUR, IF WE HAVE OUR DEVELOPER HERE OR THE PROPERTY OWNER. YES, PLEASE, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND APPROACHING THE PODIUM. FIRST, WE WILL HEAR FROM THE DEVELOPER, THEN WE WILL HEAR FROM STAFF PUBLIC COMMENT. WE WILL ALLOW THE COUNCIL TO DO SOME BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, ASKING QUESTIONS OF EACH OTHER.

AFTER COUNCIL FEELS LIKE THEY'VE HAD ALL OF THEIR QUESTIONS ANSWERED, THEN WE WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND ALLOW COUNCIL TO DELIBERATE. SO WELCOME. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND GIVING US YOUR NAME. YEAH, MY NAME IS DEVIN KNIGHT. I REPRESENT GATEWAY IS, WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OWNER.

UM, WE'RE, I GUESS, SERVING AS THE DEVELOPER AT THE SAME TIME. AND SO WHAT, ANY, ANY INFORMATION YOU'RE JUST REQUESTING, YOU CAN JUST TELL US WHAT YOU'RE HERE FOR? UH, YEAH, CERTAINLY. SO WE CURRENTLY OPERATE A RECYCLING FACILITY, UM, ON YELLOWSTONE UNDER THE ENTITY NAME OF MILL CREEK METALS. UH, WE ALSO HAVE A FACILITY DOWN IN BLACKFOOT, UM, AND WE ARE LOOKING TO MOVE OUR FACILITY THAT IS ON YELLOWSTONE TO THIS NEW LOCATION ADJACENT TO THE IPULL FACILITY ON 15TH STREET. WE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY FROM THEM. THEY WERE DOING AN ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT, WAREHOUSE OR INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AROUND THERE. THEY'VE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY, AND SO AFTER EVALUATING OUR OPTIONS, WE DECIDED IT MADE THE MOST SENSE FOR US TO ALSO ANNEX OUR PARCEL IN AND LOOKING TO DO THAT AT THE, IN CONJUNCTION SUBMITTING FOR A PLAN TO BUILD OUR FACILITY THERE AT THAT SITE. THANK YOU, MR. KNIGHT. AND NOW WE ARE READY FOR OUR STAFF REPORT. IF DIRECTOR SANNER WILL COME TO THE PODIUM. THANK YOU, MADAM COUNCIL. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A PROPERTY OWNER INITIATED ANNEXATION, ANNEXATION 26-006. THE PROPERTY, AS THE APPLICANT STATED, IS ON NORTH 15TH. THE REQUEST IS FOR 4.482 ACRES AS WELL AS SOME RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA OF IMPACT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE I AND M ZONING, AND THAT IS THE ZONING THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IN GRAY. SO TO THE SOUTH, THAT'S SOUTH AS WELL AS TO THE EAST. THE PROPERTIES

[00:45:02]

IMAGINE IF SHOWS THIS AREA AS THE INDUSTRIAL TRANSECT, AND SO THE REQUESTED ZONING IS APPROPRIATE PER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THEN THIS IS JUST A RENDERING OF THE PROPERTY REQUESTING TO BE ANNEXED, AND THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE CURRENTLY. THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 5TH, 4TH OF 2026. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENT OR PEOPLE THAT SPOKE IN OPPOSITION OR FOR THIS, THIS APPLICATION, AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SANNER? OKAY, NOW WE HAVE TIME FOR THE PUBLIC TO COME, AND IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ANNEXATION OR THIS INITIAL ZONING OF IM? YOU'RE WELCOME TO APPROACH THE PODIUM. OKAY, SEEING NONE, AND IF COUNCIL HAS NO MORE QUESTIONS, I WOULD CLOSE THE HEARING AND ALLOW FOR EITHER A QUICK MOTION OR DELIBERATION AMONG COUNCIL. I'M READY WITH A MOTION. IT'S SO STRAIGHTFORWARD. IT'S JUST, WE'RE GOOD. OKAY, SO I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 4.482 ACRES IN THE EAST HALF SECTION OF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 2, NORTH RANGE 38 EAST, AND ASSIGN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF INDUSTRIAL. AND UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULE REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS, REQUESTS TO BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. SECOND. RADFORD.

AYE. DINGMAN. YES. FRANCIS.

AYE. BREMANS. YES. LARSEN.

YES. MOTION CARRIES, AND I'LL READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO.

PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4.482 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY WITH THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY, AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. ALL RIGHT, I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 4.482 ACRES IN THE EAST HALF SECTION 8, TOWNSHIP 2 NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND.

DINGMAN? YES. FREEMAN? YES.

FRANCIS? AYE. LARSEN? YES.

RADFORD? AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

AND I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING INITIAL ZONING FOR INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING AS SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE EXHIBIT UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING 3 COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUEST TO BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY, THAT THE CITY LIMIT DOCUMENTS BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE AREA ANNEXED HEREWITH AND THE CITY PLANNER BE INSTRUCTED TO REFLECT SAID ANNEXATION. TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INITIAL ZONING ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS LOCATED IN THE PLANNING OFFICE.

SECOND. DINGMAN? YES. LARSEN? YES. FRANCIS? AYE. FREEMAN? YES. RADFORD? AYE. MOTION CARRIES, AND I'LL READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 4.482 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE AS I&M, INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY, AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE.

OKAY. ONE MORE? YEAH, ONE MORE.

OKAY, I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF I&M, INDUSTRIAL AND MANUFACTURING, AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND.

DINGMAN? YES. FRANCIS? AYE.

RADFORD? AYE. LARSEN? YES.

FREEMAN? YES. MOTION CARRIES.

MAYOR, COULD I MAKE A COMMENT? YES. UM, IT'S JUST CURIOUS TO ME THAT WE SAY APPROXIMATELY 4.482 ACRES, RIGHT, OVER AND OVER AGAIN. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T SEEM VERY APPROXIMATE. SEEMS PRETTY

[00:50:01]

BUT THANK YOU. AND THAT IS DUE TO THE SURVEYOR. IT IS THE SURVEYOR WHO IS VERY PRECISE.

WELCOME TO THE CITY. THANK YOU.

YES, YES, THIS IS, LOOKING FORWARD TO SEE THAT DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING SOON. WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING PART OF THE COMMUNITY. THANK YOU.

[6.D.3)Legislative Public Hearing for the Annexation and Initial Zoning of HC, Highway Commercial - Annexation and Initial Zoning Ordinances and Reasoned Statements of Relevant Criteria and Standards for approximately 2.23 acres.]

YEAH, JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, HE WAS HERE. HE IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS BECAUSE THIS IS A PROPERTY OWNER-INITIATED ANNEXATION. THE NEXT ANNEXATION IS 26-007. THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON NORTH WOODRUFF JUST SOUTH, LINCOLN IS JUST RIGHT UP HERE OUTSIDE OF THIS PICTURE.

WE'RE LOOKING AT 2 LOTS AND A THIN SLIVER OF ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG WOODRUFF. HENCE WHY THERE'S THIS LITTLE SLIVER RIGHT DOWN THERE. THE REQUESTED ZONING FOR THIS PROPOSED, REQUESTED ZONING FOR THIS PROPOSED ANNEXATION IS HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL. THE SURROUNDING, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A COUNTY ISLAND, AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH WEST AND SLIGHTLY SOUTH ARE ALL HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, AND THEN YOU HAVE INDUSTRIAL UP HERE TO THE WEST, AND THEN LC IS RIGHT OVER HERE TO THE EAST. HOWEVER, THIS IS IN, FOR OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT'S IN THE MIXED-USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS. IT'S COMPLETELY EMBEDDED IN THAT TRANSECT, SO HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE ALLOWS FOR A MORE INTENSE COMMERCIAL USE.

SO IT'S COMPLETELY IN LINE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS IS WHAT THE PROPERTY LOOKS LIKE CURRENTLY. IT CURRENTLY IS BEING USED AS A FOOD TRUCK PLAZA IN THE COUNTY, AND THIS WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE HC ZONE. THIS WENT TO PLANNING COMMISSION ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026. THERE WAS NO PUBLIC COMMENTED ON THIS APPLICATION, AND IT PASSED UNANIMOUSLY TO SEND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO YOU. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS ONE. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THAT LITTLE STRIP WHITE LINE THAT GOES ON SOUTH? ARE WE ADDING THAT, LIKE, SIDEWALK ON THE EDGE OF THE ROAD, OR THIS RIGHT HERE? THAT WAS WE'RE ANNEXING THAT? YES. BUT NOT THE WHOLE PARCEL? CORRECT. SO JUST EXPLAIN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF DOING THAT. IT WAS MORE FOR, IF I REMEMBER, RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, WASN'T IT? FOR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY? IT'S ALREADY DEDICATED. OH, IT'S ALREADY DEDICATED. SO IT WAS JUST FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEDICATED AS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND IT WAS JUST UNDER COUNTY JURISDICTION. AND SO THIS MAKES IT SO THAT WE WOULD HAVE FULL CONTROL OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY AND FULL JURISDICTION OVER IT. SO TECHNICALLY THAT'S PASSING FROM THE COUNTY TO THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY, DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ANNEXATION INTO THE CITY? OKAY, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING. AND ALLOW FOR COUNCIL TO DELIBERATE OR TO MAKE A MOTION. I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. GREAT. THAT MIGHT BE EASY. ALL RIGHT. I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ANNEXING APPROXIMATELY 2.23 ACRES FOR LOTS 2 AND 3, CARLISLE IRMA SUBDIVISION NUMBER 1, ASSIGN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION OF MIXED-USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS AND UNDER A SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING THREE COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS, REQUESTS TO BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY. SECOND. DINGMAN.

YES. FRANCIS. AYE. FREEMAN.

YES. LARSEN. YES. RADFORD.

AYE. MOTION CARRIES. DO YOU NEED TO READ IT? LET ME READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. THANK YOU. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE ANNEXATION OF APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE, AMENDING THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE CITY WITH THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY AND STATE AUTHORITIES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY, AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE. I MOVE COUNCIL

[00:55:02]

LARSEN? YES. RADFORD? AYE.

DINGMAN? YES. FREEMAN? YES.

FRANCIS? AYE. MOTION CARRIES.

AND I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING THE INITIAL ZONING OF HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AS SHOWN IN THE ORDINANCE EXHIBITS UNDER THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES REQUIRING 3 COMPLETE AND SEPARATE READINGS AND REQUEST TO BE READ BY TITLE AND PUBLISHED BY SUMMARY, THAT THE CITY LIMITS DOCUMENTS BE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE AREA ANNEXED HEREWITH, AND THAT THE CITY PLANNER BE INSTRUCTED TO REFLECT SAID ANNEXATION AMENDMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND INITIAL ZONING OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING MAPS LOCATED IN THE PLANNING OFFICE.

SECOND. DEMON? YES. FRANCIS? AYE. FREEMAN? YES. LARSEN? YES. RADFORD? AYE. MOTION CARRIES, AND I'LL READ THAT INTO THE RECORD. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, PROVIDING FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A OF THIS ORDINANCE AS HC, HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, PUBLICATION BY SUMMARY, AND ESTABLISHING EFFECTIVE DATE.

AND I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR THE INITIAL ZONING OF HC HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. RADFORD.

AYE. LARSEN. YES. FREEMAN.

YES. FRANCIS. AYE. DEMON.

YES. MOTION CARRIES. OKAY, OUR

[6.D.4)Quasi-Judicial Public Hearing - Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Higham Riverfront Townhomes.]

COUNCIL CAN ASK QUESTIONS. OUR STAFF WILL THEN PRESENT ONCE AGAIN WITH QUESTIONING, AND THEN WE WILL TURN TIME OVER TO THE PUBLIC TO GIVE COMMENTS, WE WOULD ASK THAT THOSE COMMENTS BE KEPT TO ROUGHLY 3 MINUTES. AND ONCE AGAIN, COUNCIL, FEEL FREE TO, WE'LL KEEP THE HEARING OPEN AS LONG AS YOU CONTINUE TO HAVE QUESTIONS. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS TYLER BRIDEMORE. I'M HERE AS THE APPLICANT. UM, YEAH, IS THAT BETTER? YEAH, SORRY. UM, MY ADDRESS IS 2688 NORTH URANIUM DRIVE, SARATOGA SPRINGS, UTAH. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT THE, UH, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ON HIGHAM STREET. THIS IS AN INFILL DEVELOPMENT. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED R-2, WHICH PERMITS 17 UNITS. WE ARE PROPOSING 15 UNITS. THIS LOT IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN ODD SHAPE, SO YOU'LL SEE THAT COME INTO PLAY LATER WITH THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.

THE REASON WE DECIDED TO PURSUE A PUD IS TO ALLOW THOSE LOTS TO FRONT THESE PRIVATE STREETS.

THE FIRST ITEM I WANTED TO REVIEW WITH YOU WAS THE REQUEST FOR THE REDUCED FRONTS LANDSCAPE BUFFER. DURING OUR MEETING WITH PLANNING COMMISSION, THEY SEEMED AGREEABLE TO THIS REDUCTION AND THE FACT THAT HIMES STREET IS A DEAD-END STREET. NO PLANNED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE WEST, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE A MINIMAL IMPACT COMPARED TO MAYBE SOME OTHER PLACES IN THE CITY. THE REASON WE ARE PURSUING THE 5-FOOT REDUCTION IS SIMPLY JUST TO MOVE THOSE BUILDINGS 5 FOOT SOUTH AND GET A GREATER LANDSCAPE BUFFER.

ALONG THE NORTH. SORRY. OH, THERE WE GO. SORRY, ONE SECOND.

UM, YEAH. NO PROBLEM. FIGURE IT OUT, BUT DO YOU MIND HOLDING IT BACK UP? YEP. SORRY, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GO THROUGH THE SLIDES. JUST THE SITE PLANS, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S

[01:00:07]

THE SECOND ITEM I WANTED TO REVIEW IS THE PARKING, AND I'LL TRY AND GO TO THE PARKING EXHIBIT I PUT TOGETHER.

OKAY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO READ. THIS IS A REAR ALLEY LOAD PROJECT SIMILAR TO THE ONE I PRESENTED TO YOU PREVIOUSLY.

FORTUNATELY, ON THIS PROJECT, WE WERE ABLE TO GET MORE FAVORABLE PARKING RATIOS. AND THAT, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IS THERE'S 41 UNITS TOTAL.

THE GARAGES ARE 20 FEET DEEP.

THERE'S 5 UNITS ON THE EAST THAT WE ARE WORKING WITH THE EASTERN PROPERTY OWNER TO GET DRIVEWAYS ON SO THAT'LL PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 10 GUEST PARKING. ON THE NORTHWEST, THERE'S 5 VISITOR PARKING, AND THEN HERE ON THE EAST, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 5. AND THEN THERE'S ROOM FOR ROUGHLY 8 ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS ON HIGHAM STREET. I BELIEVE IT'S I BELIEVE IT'S OVER, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO READ, SORRY. IT'S 26 ADDITIONAL SPOTS IN ADDITION TO THE GARAGE LOCATIONS. THE LAST ITEM I WANTED TO REVIEW WAS THE DOG PARK AND PROPOSED AMENITIES. WE WANTED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL AMENITY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. ONE, WE THINK IT MAKES A MEANINGFUL IMPACT WE WANTED TO GIVE LIKE A DEDICATED SPACE, UM, TO GO GATHER OUTDOORS. SO WE HAVE A COMMUNITY GARDEN THAT WE WERE PROPOSING, AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, A DOG PARK. THIS IS ALSO, WE FELT THAT IT WAS, IT WOULD HELP OFFSET THE VARIANCE FOR THE FRONT LANDSCAPE OVER.

WE BELIEVE THAT THE DOG PARK IS IN A CENTRAL LOCATION. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERN ON THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS AND DURING THE PEA APPLICATION, SO WE THINK THIS LOCATION IS PROBABLY THE MOST CENTRAL LOCATION FOR, FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S NOT INTO A ROADWAY.

THAT WAS IMPORTANT TO US. THAT BEING SAID, WE'RE OPEN TO THE LOCATIONS OR ANY INPUT THE COUNCIL HAS ON THAT, IF ANY.

UM, DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION FROM THEM TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE SCREENING, AND IF YOU REVIEW THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SOME ADDITIONAL TREES.

THEY'RE A COLUMNAR EVERGREEN TO THE NORTH OF THAT DOG PARK JUST TO PROVIDE A SCREEN. UM, I KNOW THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL COMMENT, UM, MADE IN THAT PLAN DURING THAT APPLICATION PROCESS ABOUT A CONCERN ABOUT THE RUNOFF FROM THE PET, THE DOG PARK.

IN THE PUD, IT IS CALLED OUT AS PET TURF SPECIFICALLY, AND THE INTENT OF THAT IS A PERMEABLE PET TURF TO PREVENT RUNOFF FROM ONTO THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY. AND I, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO DISCUSS, SO I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR, YEAH, ANY QUESTIONS? YES. JUST WHAT'S THE, I MEAN, IF I'M IN MY PACKET AS I READ THROUGH THIS, THIS IS ADJACENT TO OUR GREENBELT, RIGHT? YES, SIR. AND WHERE WOULD PEOPLE LIVING HERE ACCESS THE GREENBELT WALKABLE? SO THERE'S A PATHWAY ALONG THE SOUTH HERE. ALL OF THESE UNITS ARE ACTUALLY INTERCONNECTED WITH PEDESTRIAN CROSSING

[01:05:01]

SO THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY PROVIDING SIDEWALK ALONG THE FRONTAGE AND THEN CONNECTING INTO THAT TRAIL SYSTEM IN HOPES THAT, I BELIEVE IT'S LOTTA AVENUE, WILL HAVE THAT CONNECTIVITY ADDRESSED LATER.

AND THERE JUST WASN'T A WAY, DO IT IN THIS CORNER? UM, SO THAT WAS A DISCUSSION THAT I'VE HAD WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND IT JUST DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE TIMING WORKED OUT WELL. WE DO HAVE SOME PROPOSALS TO CLEAR AND GRUB AND CLEAR AND GRUB AND RESTORE THIS BACK TO NATIVE SINCE IT'S DISTURBED, BUT THAT'S ABOUT THE EXTENT THAT WE WERE ABLE TO.

COUNCILMEMBER. A QUESTION ABOUT PARKING. UH, COUNCILMEMBER, WOULD YOU SPEAK INTO YOUR MIC? THOSE GARAGES ARE 20 FEET DEEP. OBVIOUSLY THERE'S PICKUPS THAT ARE LONGER THAN THAT, SO IF THEY LEAVE THE DOOR OPEN, PICKUP STICKS OUT, IS THAT ANY ISSUE AS FAR AS ACCESS FOR OTHER PEOPLE? NO, SO THERE'LL BE, UM, BETWEEN THE, THE BACK OF THE CURB AND THE, AND THE GARAGE DOOR, THERE'LL BE 3 FEET OF DRIVEWAY APRON. SO THERE'S A BUFFER BETWEEN THE STREET AND, UM, THE GARAGE. YEAH, 20 FEET'S TIGHT. I, I HAVE A PICKUP AND I MAYBE HAVE LIKE THIS MUCH ROOM WHEN I PULL IT INSIDE, SO I GET IT.

BUT YEAH, THERE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH THAT. AND TO JUST CLARIFY ON YOUR PARKING, I THINK YOU SAID THERE WAS 25 PARKING. THAT INCLUDED THE PUBLIC STREET PARKING ON HIGHAM AS WELL AS THE ONES THAT YOU HAVE OFF-SITE AND THEN THE DRIVEWAY? I'M GOING TO PUT THIS DOWN. I BELIEVE IT'S 26.

OKAY, 26. AND THAT, OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS THAT COME FROM WHAT VARIOUS COMMISSIONERS RAISED IN PLANNING AND ZONING, AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE'S RESOLVE. SO I GOT A LITTLE CONFUSED FROM WHAT WAS SAID THERE.

THERE WAS TALK ABOUT A FENCE, BUT IS THE ONLY FENCE ON THAT NORTH SIDE WHAT YOU'RE DOING FOR THE DOG PARK? THERE'S NOT ANOTHER FENCE, IS THERE? SO THERE IS AN EXISTING FENCE, UM, AN EXISTING WOODEN FENCE THERE, AND IT DOES MEANDER ON OUR PROPERTY SO THAT PORTION WILL NEED TO BE REPLACED.

BUT YEAH, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY OTHER FENCE OTHER THAN THE ONE FOR THE PARK. OKAY. AND THEN YOU DID MENTION WHAT KIND OF TREES. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

THE DOG PARK WOULD ONLY BE FOR RESIDENTS, OR WOULD IT BE FOR NEARBY NEIGHBORS? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THE ONLY WAY TO RESTRICT IT WOULD BE WITH LIKE A KEY FOB OR SYSTEM, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S PROPOSED.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S NECESSARILY A WAY FOR THEM TO, I THINK THE INTENT IS FOR RESIDENTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S LIKE A LOCK SYSTEM ON THAT NECESSARILY. YOU MENTIONED 10 PARKING PLACES ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT YOU WERE STILL NEGOTIATING THAT, SO THAT'S, YEAH, STILL IN THE AIR. UH, NO. IT'S JUST IN PROCESS. SO WE'LL BE GETTING A CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY, AND THEN IN EXCHANGE WE'RE PROVIDING A PRIVATE STORMWATER EASEMENT FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. SO IT'S, IT'S TWO, IT'S A QUID PRO QUO SITUATION.

IT'S A, WE'RE NEGOTIATING THAT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. THIS IS AN EXCHANGE, SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS, THIS WOULD BE AS IT WOULD BE BUILT. THERE ISN'T A WAY TO GO BACK AND SAY, OH, WE DIDN'T GET THAT. THIS IS WHAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING.

AND SO IF THAT CROSS-ACCESS EASEMENT IS NOT APPROVED AND THAT EXCHANGE DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN THIS WOULD NOT WORK. I MEAN, THIS WOULD NOT BE APPROVED.

CORRECT. AND WE DIDN'T, SO I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK, COME BACK. YEAH.

SO THANK YOU, THAT REALLY HELPS. YEAH. UM, BUT THEN THERE WAS THERE WAS A STATEMENT HERE, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE WORD RIGHT. IT SAYS YOU STATED THAT ON-SITE LIGHTING WOULD, COULD BE WHERE THE TRAIL CONNECTS TO THE SPUR AND PROVIDE A LIGHT AT THAT POINT. IS THAT A FIRM COMMITMENT? BECAUSE IT COULD BE, IT'S NOT EXACTLY FIRM. SO WE WEREN'T ABLE, PREVIOUSLY THERE WAS THAT WESTERN SIDEWALK, IT HAD A CONNECTION STRAIGHT DOWN TO THE TRAIL, AND SO THAT WAS THE AREA WE WERE DISCUSSING. AND WE AREN'T ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT SINCE IT'S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

SO WE SHOULDN'T COUNT ON THAT? YEAH, THAT LIGHTING FEE. EXACTLY. OKAY, OKAY. AND I BELIEVE THAT STREET POLE, THERE'S SEVERAL UTILITY POLES

[01:10:02]

FOR THE NORTHERN BUFFER.

PROPERTY LINE TO THE FRONT OF THOSE BUILDINGS, I BELIEVE, IS 26 FEET. AND THAT WILL BE A QUESTION THAT WE CAN ASK STAFF AS WELL. YEAH, YEAH, OKAY. TO THEN VERIFY. I THINK THAT'S ALL. OKAY, THAT'S EVERYTHING, BUT I'M SURE THERE WILL BE SOMETHING ELSE FOR YOU TO COME UP AND ANSWER AS THE HEARING GETS GOING. SURE, THANK YOU.

WE ARE NOW READY FOR STAFF TO GIVE THEIR REPORT. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. YEAH, SORRY. YEAH, GO TO THE FRONT OF THE, THIS IS ACTUALLY MY PRESENTATION. MAYBE I JUST SAY BEEP OR SOMETHING SO YOU CAN ADVANCE IT FOR ME. UM, YEAH, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS PD 2603, THE HIGHAM RIVERFRONT TOWNHOMES. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT BEFORE I START, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT WE REDID THE STAFF REPORTS. SO IN YOUR PACKET, THAT'S WHY IT'S A LITTLE LONGER, WE WENT THROUGH EACH SECTION OF THE PUD ORDINANCE AND YOU'LL SEE THAT'S WHAT THE ALMOST SPREADSHEET ITEM IN THE BACK. SO WE WENT THROUGH EACH ITEM IN THE PUD ORDINANCE AND HOW EACH SECTION MET CODE OR DID NOT MEET CODE OR WHY THAT WAS REQUESTED.

SO, DO YOU MIND ADVANCING IT? THANK YOU. PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS LOCATED AT HIGHAM, WHICH IS A DENHAM STREET, AND ROUGHLY ABOUT LEYTON, AND IT'S SOUTHEAST OF FREEMAN PARK. DO YOU MIND ADVANCING IT? THE PROPERTY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND A FEW THINGS ON THE SITE, AND OF COURSE OF COURSE, MY PRESENTATION IS JUST IN REGARDS TO WHAT'S REQUESTED, HOW DOES IT MEET CODE OR NOT MEET CODE, AND JUST TO PRESENT IT THAT WAY. I DO HAVE A BIT OF DETAIL JUST TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF WHY STAFF FELT LIKE SOME THINGS MET CODE, BUT THE DETAIL OF THIS PROJECT, OF COURSE, IS IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO I'LL HIT THE MAIN POINTS. AS I GO THROUGH. BUT, AND I ALSO HAVE DAVID PETERSON, WHO IS THE PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT, SO THE BACK AND FORTH, IF YOU EVER HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT, HE'S MORE ADEPT AT EXPLAINING THOSE THINGS.

BUT THE SITE IS 2.7 ACRES.

IT'S BEEN UNDEVELOPED FOR 120 YEARS. THE FIRST ATTEMPT THAT WAS MADE TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY WAS BACK IN 1981. AND IT WAS PART OF THE CONDO DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A PUD TO THE NORTH. THAT NEVER MATERIALIZED, AND SO THIS PROPERTY HAS REMAINED VACANT SINCE THEN. HIGHAM, AS, AH, THANK YOU. HIGHAM, AS WAS STATED, WAS A CUL-DE-SAC. YOU'LL NOTICE THIS CUL-DE-SAC KIND OF KNUCKLE RIGHT HERE. THAT WILL BE VACATED AS WE COME THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS.

BUT THERE'S ALSO RIGHT-OF-WAY BEHIND THAT STUBS RIGHT AT THE END OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DOES CONTAIN, AS WAS STATED, A TRAIL SYSTEM WHICH CONNECTS TO THE OVERALL GREENBELT AND INTO FREEMAN PARK. CURRENTLY, A CONNECTION TO THE NORTH DOES NOT EXIST.

THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS PART OF THE CUD. AND THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS, IS AN OFFICE USE. PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST, THE EAST ARE TOWNHOMES, THE NORTH ARE CONDOS, AND THEN TO THE WEST IS FREEMAN PARK.

YEAH. WHAT'S LEFT ON THAT SLIVER? CAN YOU GO BACK? IT'S REALLY HARD NOT TO CONTROL. WHO OWNS THE SLIVER? BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE RED LINE THAT'S ON THE SLIDE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THIS PORTION? ALL THE WAY UP, YEAH. THAT'S CITY PROPERTY, SO WE HAVE THAT EASEMENT ALL

[01:15:01]

IT'S JUST ACTUALLY OWNED, IT'S PART OF THE FREEMAN PARK, YEAH. OKAY, THANK YOU, LINDA. I WANTED TO SHOW JUST THE EXISTING CONDITIONS THAT ARE THERE ON SITE. I REALIZE THIS IS A VERY, THIS IS HOW OUR GIS SYSTEM LOOKS. I'M PRIMARILY WANTING TO HIGHLIGHT THIS EASEMENT.

IT'S A 15-FOOT UTILITY EASEMENT ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. OUTSIDE OF THAT EASEMENT IS ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS THIS RED LINE AND YOU CAN SEE THESE POWER LINES THAT RUN ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. ADVANCE.

THANK YOU. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED R-2. PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST WERE BOTH PUDS, AND THEY HAVE THE R-2 DESIGNATION. PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS LC, AND THEN WE HAVE P, WHICH IS PUBLIC, OVER HERE TO THE WEST ENCOMPASS FREEMAN PARK. THANK YOU. THE IMAGINE IF, THIS IS DESIGNATED THE PROPERTY IS RIGHT HERE. THIS TAN IS THE URBAN CORE TRANSECT THAT RUNS, SO THE PROPOSED, OR THE R-2 IS WITHIN THE URBAN CORE TRANSECT.

SO THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. I JUST WANT TO GO THROUGH THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE THINKING THAT THE DEVELOPER COMMUNICATED TO US, SO I'M JUST REGURGITATING SOME INFORMATION. THE PROPERTY IS IN IRREGULARLY SHAPED. IT'S NOT A PERFECT RECTANGLE, SO IT HAS A SLIGHT SLANT ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. WHAT THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING WAS, THE CONSTRAINTS OF THIS SITE WERE, ONE, THAT THE FREEMAN PARK ADJACENT AND THE SLANT ON THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE WEST, AS WELL AS TRYING TO UTILIZE THIS ALLEYWAY, WHICH IS A DEDICATED ALLEYWAY TO THE EAST. AND AS WAS SAID, ADJACENT IS A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY OF HIGHAM STREET. THE APPLICANT ALREADY STATED THAT THEY ARE AT THE 25% OPEN SPACE, SO THEY ARE EXACTLY AT IT.

THERE'S NOT ANY MORE. THE STORMWATER RETENTION, THE REASON YOU'RE NOT SEEING A STORMWATER POND ON THIS IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UNDERGROUND THAT STORMWATER FOR RETENTION. THE PROPOSED PUD IS PROPOSING, AND ONE REASON THIS AND A VARIANCE ARE WHY THEY'RE REQUESTING A PUD, THE INTERNAL STREET NETWORK IS A PRIVATE STREET.

WITH PRIVATE STREETS, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PARK ON THEM. SO THESE ARE ALL REAR-LOADED PRODUCTS. SO THEY'RE FACING THE TOWNHOMES OUT TO THE WEST AND TO THE NORTH, AND THEN THESE ONES INTERIOR, THEY FACE INWARD TO EACH OTHER TO A COMMON GREEN SPACE. OR NOT TO A COMMON GREEN SPACE, SINCE IT'S AN ALLEYWAY RIGHT THERE, SORRY. PRIVATE STREETS REAR-LOADED, THEY ARE, AS THE APPLICANT ASKED, THEY ACTUALLY ARE 35 FEET FROM THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

THEY'RE PROPOSING 41 UNITS, WHICH WOULD EQUATE TO 15 UNITS PER ACRE. THE PUD ORDINANCE WITH R-2 DOES ALLOW FOR THEM TO GO UP TO 17 UNITS PER ACRE, SO THEY ARE REQUESTING LESS UNITS PER ACRE THAN WHAT THEY COULD ASK FOR. THANK YOU. THEY ARE PROPOSING A PHASED DEVELOPMENT IN 10 PHASES. AS WITH TYPICAL PHASING, THEY HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE THE AMENITIES IN THE FIRST PHASE, SO PHASE 1 IS DOWN HERE AND THEN IT KIND OF GOES AROUND IN A CIRCLE TO PHASE 10. AND THE AMENITIES, AS I SAID, THEY HAVE TO, THEY'RE REQUIRED ONE AMENITY BECAUSE THEY'RE AT 41 UNITS.

AT 50 UNITS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE ONE AMENITY. THEY ARE PROPOSING 2 AMENITIES WITH THE TRAIL CONNECTION. I'LL GO INTO THAT IN DETAIL IN A MINUTE. YEAH, SO THE AMENITIES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED, THE 2 AMENITIES ARE A COMMUNITY GARDEN RIGHT HERE, INTERIOR TO THE PROPOSED SITE, AS WELL AS A DOG PARK ON THE NORTH, OR A DOG PLAY AREA ON THE NORTH PART OF THE PROPERTY. THEY ALSO ARE PROPOSING TO CONNECT THE TRAIL SYSTEM HERE TO THE SOUTH. AND YEAH, THANK YOU. I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THE VARIANCE THAT WAS BEING REQUESTED. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS COMPLETELY CLEAR WITH THE APPLICATION BUT THE VARIANCE IS PER 11-4-4, A LANDSCAPING BUFFER, A 20-FOOT LANDSCAPING BUFFER, WHICH I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED HERE IN GREEN, IS REQUIRED ALONG PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AS A VARIANCE IS TO REDUCE THAT FROM 20 FEET TO 15 FEET. THE THINKING WAS THEY CAN'T REDUCE IT ANYMORE BECAUSE OF THAT PUBLIC UTILITY, IF YOU REMEMBER SHOWING YOU THAT EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION

[01:20:01]

REQUEST OF THE VARIANCE. THEY ARE ALLOWED TO ASK FOR REDUCTION IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG A PUBLIC STREET, AND SO STAFF FELT LIKE THIS WAS REASONABLE TO SHIFT IT SOUTH TO PROVIDE MORE BUFFERING TO THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH. SO THAT WOULD OVERALL SHIFT THE PROPERTIES OR THE UNITS 5 FEET SOUTH.

SORRY, LINDA. THANK YOU. WE OFTEN LOOK AT HOW DOES THIS THE BULK AND CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS.

JUST IN TERMS OF BULK, AS WAS STATED, THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND EAST BOTH ARE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENTS. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, THE CONDOS WERE DEVELOPED AT 25 UNITS PER ACRE IN THE 1980S. PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE TOWNHOMES, WHICH WERE DEVELOPED AT 13 UNITS PER ACRE. SO, UM, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, DOES THIS MEET THE CHARACTER OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD? AND STAFF'S ESTIMATION, THIS MEETS CODE. THEY'RE ASKING FOR 15 UNITS, IT'S JUST WITHIN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY. AND THEN THE APPLICANT WENT THROUGH THE PARKING A LITTLE BIT. I JUST WANT TO HIT ON A COUPLE POINTS. UM, THE, OUR CODE REQUIRES ONLY THAT 2 PARKING SPOTS PER UNIT. IT DOESN'T REQUIRE DRIVEWAYS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE ARE LOOKING AT PUD REVISIONS CURRENTLY. SO THESE ARE REAR-LOADED, AND THE APPLICANT ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE GARAGE. I JUST WANT TO HIT ON THE POINT TO THE EAST, THEY ARE PROPOSING DRIVEWAYS ALONG THE ALLEYWAY, AND THEN THEY ARE PROPOSING 5 GUEST PARKING IN THE NORTHWEST. AND 5 GUEST PARKING TO THE EAST. WHEN WE LOOK AT PARKING CALCULATIONS, SOMETHING TO NOTE IS HIGHAM, YOU ARE ALLOWED TO PARK ON PUBLIC STREETS. SO THOUGH THEY CAN'T PARK INTERNALLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT, THEY CAN PARK ON HIGHAM. WE MEASURED THAT. THIS WAS ACTUALLY AN EXHIBIT THAT WAS PROPOSED FROM THE DEVELOPER, BUT IN STAFFING, LOOKING AT THAT, WE ACTUALLY ESTIMATE ABOUT 8 PARKING SPOTS ON THE NORTHERN PORTION OF HIGHAM AND 8 ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION BECAUSE THAT'S A PUBLIC STREET. SO WE ESTIMATE THAT REALLY THE GUEST PARKING ON SITE IS GOING TO BE 10 SPOTS. THAT'S WHERE THAT 26 NUMBER COMES FROM, IS THOSE POTENTIAL 16 ON PUBLIC. AND THOSE WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE 2 REQUIRED.

THANK YOU. AS PART OF A PUD, WE DO REQUIRE ELEVATIONS. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD POINT OUT IS THE BALCONIES, THEY HAVE KIND OF AN INDENTION ON THEIR FRONT FACADE, AND THE BALCONIES JUT OUT, SO THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A PRIVATE SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THESE UNITS. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE BACK OF, THERE'S NOT MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THE BACK OF THE UNITS, THAT THEY WOULD BE BLANK WALL WITH GARAGE DOORS FOR A 2-CAR GARAGE, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE CONDOS TO THE FRONT. AND YOU CAN JUST GO THROUGH THESE, THANK YOU, JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT THEY'LL LOOK LIKE. I WANTED TO ALSO ADDRESS, SO IN THE PACKET YOU'LL SEE FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, THERE WAS TALK ABOUT EXTENSIVELY ABOUT TREES AND PARKS DEPARTMENT, SO I WANTED TO EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT.

SO, UM, THE, UH, WHAT THE REQUIREMENT FOR TREES ARE, THAT THERE ARE 05,000 SQUARE FEET PER TREE, AND THIS PROPERTY IS A LITTLE OVER 2.5 ACRES, SO THAT EQUATES TO, UM, UH, WHAT WAS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED? 23 TREES WERE TOTALLY REQUIRED ON THE PROPERTY, AND THEY ARE PROPOSING ABOUT 37. SO INITIALLY WHAT THEY APPROACHED THE CITY WITH IS THEY APPROACHED TO, IF YOU REMEMBER FROM THE, I WISH I COULD GO BACK, THE AERIAL, THIS PORTION ON THE WEST IS UNDEVELOPED, OR IT'S, IT'S JUST THERE'S NO VEGETATION, THERE'S NO GRASS OR ANYTHING.

SO THEY INITIALLY PROPOSED PUTTING TREES ON THE WEST AND KIND OF THAT SOUTHWEST PORTION. I'M SORRY, THIS CLICKER IS JUST GIVING ME PROBLEMS TODAY. SO, UM, ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, UM, WHEN THEY APPROACHED PARKS, UM, THAT, UH, ONE THING WITH PARKS IS THEY WANTED TO REQUIRE THAT THESE WOULD REMAIN IRRIGATED.

UM, THEY DID NOT WANT TO HAND, UH, WATER EACH TREE,

[01:25:01]

THAT'S THE DOG PARK AND THE OPEN SPACE. THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH, DURING THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, AS WAS ALREADY STATED BY COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF CONCERN ABOUT THE DOG PLAY AREA BEING ON THE NORTH SIDE. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO TAKE SOME OF THOSE TREES AND VEGETATION AND PUT THAT ON THE NORTH SIDE TO BUFFER THE DOG PLAY AREA TO THE NORTH. ALSO BE COGNIZANT THAT WE DO HAVE A NUISANCE ORDINANCE, SO THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING, SO IN REGARDS TO SMELLS, SOUNDS, AND THOSE TYPE OF THINGS, THIS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO NUISANCE ORDINANCE. BUT THE NEIGHBORS WANTED SOME BUFFER THERE. THEY WANTED THE DOG PARK TO BE SHIFTED HERE TO THE COMMUNITY GARDEN AREA SO THAT IT WAS MORE INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY. THIS ITEM, IF YOU MIND ONE MORE, THERE'S A PICTURE. THANK YOU, LINDA. SO THIS IS WHAT THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY SITS, IS CURRENTLY VACANT. YOU CAN SEE THE CONDOS TO THE NORTH.

AND THOSE TOWNHOMES TO THE EAST. BOTH OF THESE ARE REAR-LOADED PRODUCT TYPE DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS, STAFF GOT A LETTER FROM A LAW FIRM, A FULLER LAW FIRM, THAT WE INITIALLY HAD TO PACKET TOGETHER AND THEN WE PUT THAT IN, SO IT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET. THERE'S A NUMBER OF KEY POINTS THAT ARE PART OF THAT OBJECTION TO THIS PUD.

I IMAGINE THAT THAT INDIVIDUAL IS HERE AND WANTING TO SPEAK DIRECTLY TO THOSE, BUT WE INCLUDED THEM IN YOUR PACKAGES SO YOU HAVE THEM.

THERE WAS SOME OPPOSITION TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, MOSTLY FROM THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH. HOWEVER, PLANNING COMMISSION, THROUGH THEIR DELIBERATION, THEY DID PASS IT UNANIMOUSLY AND SENT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO YOU FOR FOLKS. SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, OR IF YOU, I'M HAPPY TO JUMP UP ANYTIME YOU NEED ME, I GUESS. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SANNER AT THIS TIME? OKAY, WE WILL NOW ENTERTAIN ANY PUBLIC COMMENT THAT IS HERE. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND APPROACHING THE PODIUM AND GIVING YOUR NAME AND.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. IF YOU COULD PUT THE BACK UP A COUPLE. OKAY. WE'RE TEACHING ME HOW TO USE IT.

IT'S NOT QUITE WORKING EITHER.

I COULD TEACH YOU, BUT OKAY.

LET'S I'LL LEAVE IT THERE TO START. OKAY. MADAM MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MY NAME IS MARK FULLER. I'M AN ATTORNEY. I WORK HERE IN IDAHO FALLS, DID FOR 40 YEARS.

NOW WE RESIDE IN BONNEVILLE COUNTY. I'M HERE AS COUNSEL FOR THE OWNERS OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THAT'S THE NORTH PARK VILLAGE CONDO ASSOCIATION. AND I WANT TO BE CERTAIN THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WE ARE NOT IN OBJECTION TO THIS PUD. OUR PRIMARY CONCERN IS THE DOG PARK LOCATED TO THE NORTH, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY. THIS IS NOT JUST A DOG PARK. IT ALSO IS PROPOSING TO BE A DOG WASH. THEY INTEND, THEY DIDN'T COMMENT ON THIS, BUT THEY INTEND TO PUT IN PRESSURE WASHER MACHINES WHICH WILL PUT OUT NOISE IN ORDER TO WASH DOGS THERE. WE BELIEVE THAT PLACEMENT, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE INDICATED THEY ARE, THEY WANT TO MOVE THE WHOLE THING DOWN 5 FEET IN ORDER TO GIVE A GREATER DISTANCE AT TOP, A GREATER BUFFER, 35 FEET IS, I THINK, WAS THE CALCULATION. AND THEN THEY FILL A LARGE PORTION OF IT WITH THIS DOG PLAY AREA. AS YOU'VE SEEN FROM THE EARLIER MAPS, THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED LITERALLY

[01:30:04]

THE AREA TO THE FAR SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY, THOSE INDIVIDUALS CAN ACCESS FREEMAN PARK MUCH EASIER THAN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO ACCESS, UH, THE, UH, THE DOG PARK. UH, YOUR ORDINANCE, SECTION 11-26F1, SPECIFICALLY STATES, QUOTE, ALL OUTDOOR ACTIVITY AREAS MUST MAINTAIN A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 50 FEET FROM CONTIGUOUS RESIDENTIAL ZONE USES. EVEN WITHOUT THE DOG PARK THERE, THEY'RE NOT MAINTAINING THE 50 FEET REQUIRED. RESIDENTIAL, IN RESIDENTIAL PUDS, THE ESTABLISHED SETBACK MUST CONSTITUTE THE MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE PERIMETER AREAS OF THE PUDS WHICH IT'S CONTIGUOUS WITH. AS YOU SAW FROM THE OTHER PICTURES, THE DEVELOPMENT IN NORTH PARK EXTENDS DOWN ON THE WEST END AND EXTENDS INTO THE AREA LITERALLY WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THE BOUNDARY. BE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO WHERE THIS PARK IS LOCATED.

CAN I ASK THE CITY CLERK TO PLEASE PULL UP THAT, UH, I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BACK TO MAYBE, OH, RIGHT. I BETTER NOT, I BETTER NOT PUSH IF SHE'S GOING TO. IF YOU CAN, IF YOU CAN PUSH ONE MORE SO THAT WE CAN SEE THE, THE NORTHERN ADJACENT PROPERTY RIGHT THERE.

IS THAT, THERE YOU GO. IS THAT A GOOD ONE? YOU CAN SEE HOW FAR SOUTH THOSE EXTEND TO JUST WITHIN A FEW FEET OF THE BOUNDARY. LITERALLY, THAT IS, OKAY, THANK YOU. OH, THE MIDDLE? AT THE TOP. THANK YOU. UM, YOU CAN SEE HOW CLOSE IT EXTENDS RIGHT DOWN HERE, AND THIS IS LITERALLY WHERE, RIGHT THERE WHERE THE ARROW IS, THAT'S WHERE THE DOG PARK IS GOING TO BE, DIRECT, LOCATED DIRECTLY ACROSS THE BOUNDARY FROM THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL AREA. YOUR OWN STATUTE REQUIRES, QUOTE, AMENITIES SHALL BE PLACED IN A LOGICAL AREA THAT ALLOW CONVENIENT ACCESS TO MOST OF THE OCCUPANTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE BECAUSE THE DOG PARK IS BEING LOCATED AT THE FAR NORTH END. MANY OF THE RESIDENTS, IF THEY WANTED TO USE THE FACILITY, WOULD HAVE TO GO COMPLETELY ACROSS, ACROSS THE, UH, I'M GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION.

LITERALLY ACROSS THE PARK TO GET TO, ACROSS THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION.

TOP, BOTTOM. SO IF I RESIDED IN ONE OF THESE LOWER AREAS, I'M NOT GETTING AN ARROW.

THERE YOU GO. IF I RESIDED HERE, I'D HAVE TO WALK LITERALLY ALL THE WAY ACROSS THE AREA, DOWN THROUGH THIS AREA, AND UP TO HERE. OR I COULD JUST GO OUT IN MY BACK AREA AND I'M IN FREEMAN PARK. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DOG PARK OF THIS TYPE AT THAT LOCATION. IT'S NOT LOCATED CONVENIENT TO ACCESS OF THE OTHER RESIDENTS. IT IS LOCATED, FRANKLY, AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO THE RESIDENTS ON THE NORTH. MY CLIENTS ARE VERY CONCERNED WITH ODOR, WITH NOISE, AND WITH RUNOFF FROM THE ARTIFICIAL PET TURF.

THEY INDICATE THEY INTEND TO PLACE IT THERE. YOUR STATUTE MANDATES THAT IT BE LONG.

THEY'RE INDICATING THEY ONLY WISH TO SURROUND IT BY A CHAIN-LINK FENCE. IT WILL BE A NOISE ISSUE, IT WILL BE A NUISANCE ISSUE, AND THERE ARE REALLY SEVERAL REAL EASY RESOLUTIONS TO THIS, AS WAS EXPLAINED TO YOU BY STAFF. BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY 41 UNITS, THEY ONLY NEED ONE AMENITY.

FOR PURPOSES OF MARKETING, THEY'VE MADE THE DETERMINATION THAT WE WANT TO OFFER BOTH A GARDEN AREA AND A DOG PARK AREA. THEY DON'T NEED BOTH.

THEY CAN STILL BE COMPLETELY APPROVED UNDER YOUR ORDINANCE IF THEY SIMPLY ELIMINATE THE DOG PARK AREA COMPLETELY AND LEAVE IN THE GARDEN AREA.

OKAY, THERE'S ANOTHER EASY OPTION, AND THAT'S JUST SWAP THE 2 ALMOST IDENTICAL AREAS ZONED FOR THE DOG PARK AREA AND PUT THE DOG PARK AREA IN A CENTRAL, CONVENIENT LOCATION ACCESSIBLE TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE PUD. ITS NOISE WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE WHO RESIDE THERE.

THEY WON'T BE IMPOSING THE NOISE, THE ODOR, AND THE RUNOFF ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS.

IT'S, I RECOGNIZE THEIR DESIRE TO MARKET THIS, BUT THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE, THIS IS AN OUT-OF-STATE DEVELOPER COMING IN HERE TO MARKET THEIR FACILITY, AFFECTING YOUR EXISTING RESIDENTS WHO HAVE LIVED THERE FOR MANY YEARS. THERE ARE SEVERAL VERY EASY RESOLUTIONS.

WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THIS COUNCIL EITHER APPROVE THE PLAT WITH THE, WITH THE ONE REQUIRED AMENITY, WHICH IS THE GARDEN AREA, OR SIMPLY REQUIRE THAT THEY SWAP THE 2 LOCATE THE GARDEN IN THE BUFFER AREA WHERE THERE WON'T, CARROTS DON'T MAKE NOISE,

[01:35:06]

COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. FULLER? JUST ONE. SO, BUT THE SPACING THERE THAT MAY NOT MEET THE 50 FEET, YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT IF THERE'S A GARDEN THERE? YOU'RE OKAY WITH IT? THERE'S NOT A DOG PARK THERE, WE'RE NOT CONCERNED WITH THAT SPACING. OKAY, IT IS, IT IS SLIGHTLY TOO LITTLE, RIGHT? BUT ALL OF THE NUISANCE ISSUES THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED BY THE DOG PARK, AND LET ME COME BACK, THIS IS NOT GOING TO JUST BE BARKING DOGS, IT'S GOING TO BE A HIGH-PRESSURE WASH AREA, AND THE MAP ITSELF IDENTIFIES RECEPTACLES FOR DOG WASTE. I DON'T KNOW HOW OFTEN THOSE ARE GOING TO BE CLEANED UP. WE DO ANTICIPATE NUISANCE ISSUES WHICH CAN EASILY BE AVOIDED BY JUST SWAPPING THE TWO. THEY CAN STILL HAVE BOTH AMENITIES IF THEY WISH. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO SIMPLY SAY YOU ONLY NEED ONE AMENITY.

YOU'VE GOT A CENTRAL LOCATION.

YOU DECIDE YOU WANT A GARDEN, THAT'S FINE. YOU WANT A DOG PARK, THAT'S FINE. IT GOES IN THERE'S NO NEED FOR A SECOND AMENITY THAT CAUSES OFFENSE AND SPECIFICALLY VIOLATES YOUR COMPREHENSIVE ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS. YES, PLEASE. YES, WELCOME TO THE PODIUM. YOU'LL JUST STATE YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS PAUL BROOKE. I'VE BEEN I'VE BEEN ENJOYING THE NORTH PARK CONDOS, THE AREA, FOR OVER 35 YEARS. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A REALLY COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT 35 YEARS AGO, BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED. I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE DOG PARK.

MR. FULLER HAS DONE A VERY NICE JOB OF EXPLAINING MY CONCERNS. YOU HAVE TO REALIZE REALIZED THAT MY CONDO IS 30 FEET AWAY FROM THIS DOG PARK. SO IN THE NORTH THERE, MY FRONT DOOR IS 30 FEET AWAY FROM YOUR DOG PARK IDEA. SO THE STINK AND THE WASTE AND THE NOISE IS A MAJOR PROBLEM. I ALSO WONDER ABOUT DISCHARGE OF FECAL MATERIAL, ETC., INTO WILLOW CREEK. FINALLY, I TALKED TO ONE OF MY PATIENTS TODAY, AND HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IVORY ON WOODRUFF, RIGHT ACROSS FROM MY OFFICE, TETON MEDICAL SPECIALTY BUILDING. HE SAID THEY'RE HAVING REAL PROBLEMS WITH THEIR DOG PARK AND THEIR WASHING MACHINES FOR THE DOGS. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE NEAR THERE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE NOISE THAT TENDS SMELL. SO I PLEAD WITH YOU TO TRY TO GET THE SWAP. THEN, MR. FULLER, I, I WOULD ENJOY HAVING A GARDEN OUT MY FRONT DOOR, BUT NOT THE STINK AND THE WASTE OF THIS DOG PARK. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU, MR. BURKE. HI, MY NAME IS BRAD HITCHENS. I LIVE IN NORTH PARK VILLAGE. I'M KIND OF AN INTERESTING RESIDENT. I DON'T OWN A CAR, SO I COMMUTE AROUND BICYCLE YEAR-ROUND HERE IN IDAHO FALLS. WHEN THEY BUILT THE ORIGINAL TOWNHOUSES ON LAKE PARK, PARKING WAS BROUGHT UP AS BEING AN ISSUE BECAUSE BEING ON A BICYCLE AROUND TOWN BEING AROUND CAR DOORS BEING FLUNG OPEN. ALSO, VISION OBSTRUCTIONS IS AN ISSUE, AND THEY STATED THERE ISN'T ENOUGH PARKING IN THE BACK ALLEY WITH THE GARAGES. COMING INTO WORK TONIGHT, OR TO THIS COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT, RIDING MY BIKE, THERE WERE 15 CARS PARKED ON WAY-TOW AVENUE TONIGHT THAT BELONG TO THOSE TOWNHOUSES THEY JUST BUILT. IT WAS THE FIRST PHASE OF WHAT THEY'RE BUILDING NOW.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT THESE NEW UNITS IN ALREADY PLANNING ON USING 16 PARKING SPOTS ON A PUBLIC STREET, THAT REALLY SEEMS LIKE THAT'S A BAD PLAN TO MOVE FORWARD. WE'RE ONLY ONE OF THE ONLY COUNTRIES IN THE WORLD THAT ALLOW PEOPLE

[01:40:01]

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND IT WAS HUTCHINS? YES. THANK YOU, MR. HUTCHINS. PLEASE. I'M ALSO A RESIDENT OF NORTH PARK VILLAGE, WHICH IS A UNIT JUST NORTH OF THAT. AND I JUST HAVE A QUESTION HERE REALLY, AND MAYBE THE GENTLEMAN HERE CAN ANSWER IT, BUT MY CONCERN IS YOU HAVE THIS FLOW OF DRAINAGE THAT HEADS NORTH ON THAT, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A ROAD OR ALLEYWAY OR SOMETHING, BUT IT DID DRIVE UP INTO NORTH PARK VILLAGE. SO I WONDER WHAT IS THE PLAN IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH THAT FLOW? DIRECTOR SANNER, CAN YOU PLEASE HELP ADDRESS, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT'S QUITE UNDERSTOOD. YEAH, WITH THE, DO YOU WANT THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER? WHICHEVER ONE IS, BECAUSE IT MAKES IT, I'M NOT COMPLETELY SURE WHAT THE QUESTION IS. AND SO TO DEAL WITH THE TRAFFIC FLOW, IS IT ON A PUBLIC STREET? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT? NO, IT'S A DRAINAGE FLOW. OKAY, WOULD YOU GO AHEAD, MR. TYLER? YES. TRY THIS AGAIN. I APOLOGIZE. SO THE QUESTION IS IN REFERENCE, IF YOU MIND, OR MAYBE I'LL JUST USE MY POINTER LIKE THAT SO I DON'T BREAK ANYTHING. THESE RED ARROWS RIGHT HERE ARE INDICATING THE DRAINAGE OF THE ROADWAYS. WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED, THIS HAS ACTUALLY BEEN UPDATED SO THAT THE, IT SLOPES SOUTH. THIS PORTION I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU FROM THE NORTH END OF THE ROAD, IT ACTUALLY SLOPES BACK DOWN TO THE SOUTH. SO THE ARROW IS IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. YOU SHOULD HIGHLIGHT YOUR SLOPEING CONCEPT. SO THIS IS THE ARROW IN QUESTION, AND IT'S ACTUALLY WITH OUR SITE PLANS IN THE MIDDLE, IT'S BEEN REVERSED. SO THIS ROADWAY ACTUALLY DRAINS THIS WAY, SO THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY THANK YOU. IN ADDITION TO BREAKING TREE, ARE YOU NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THAT ROAD GOES, THERE IS NO FENCE FOR THAT ROAD. MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ON THE MIC SINCE IT'S RECORDED. WAIT, LET'S, LET'S FINISH WITH HIS, WITH, UH, YOUR TESTIMONY, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, AS YOU PUT IN YOUR NAME. AND SO, ARE YOU, HAVE YOU CONCLUDED? HAVE YOU CONCLUDED THAT TESTIMONY? OKAY, IF YOU COULD SPEAK TO ANOTHER ISSUE IF YOU WOULD LIKE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

AND SO YES, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, JUST FOR ALL OF THIS BEING ON THE RECORD, WE'RE SURE TO KEEP MINUTES.

AND SO PLEASE. THANK YOU, MAYOR BURTENSHAW. JOHN MILLER. AND I'VE ONLY BEEN A RESIDENT OF NORTH PARK FOR 5 YEARS, AND IT DIDN'T REALLY DAWN ON ME UNTIL BOB WAS POINTING THAT OUT, IS THAT, SO THERE'S THE NORTH-SOUTH ANGLED ROAD ON THE WEST END OF THE PROPERTY.

AT THE NORTH END, IT'S ACTUALLY FEEDING DIRECTLY INTO, THERE IS NO FENCE THERE, AND IT'S FEEDING DIRECTLY INTO OUR PARKING. AND SO THERE'S CONCERN, WELL, PEOPLE ARE JUST GOING TO DRIVE THROUGH, UH, NORTH PARK. SO THERE HAS TO BE, I THINK THAT AS I'M LOOKING AT IT, BUT I MIGHT BE WRONG, THAT THIS IS A CURB AND GUTTER.

THERE'S A SIDEWALK, KIND OF LIKE A FLAT ROOF AND THEN A SIDEWALK AROUND IT. SO THE NORTH END TERMINATES, IT'S BECAUSE IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A CUL-DE-SAC. IS THAT RIGHT? YES. YEAH. OKAY, GOOD.

SO ON OUR PROPERTY. OKAY, SO A COUPLE OTHER JUST MINOR THINGS, THEN I'LL SIT DOWN. IS THAT NOBODY'S POINTED OUT THE FACT THAT GOOD OLD IDAHO PREVAILING WIND COMES OUT OF WHAT, SOUTH-SOUTHWEST? WELL, THAT'S STRAIGHT

[01:45:01]

THOSE, THOSE DARK GRAY AREAS, I CAN'T SEE ANY RED ARROWS BECAUSE I'M COLORBLIND, BUT THE RED, THE DARK GRAY AREAS, ARE THOSE ALL PAVED? YES, SIR. SO IS OPEN SPACE SIMPLY IT'S NOT LIKE GREEN SPACE, IT'S JUST NON-BUILDING SPACE.

IS THAT WHAT THE DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE IS? BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE HOW THAT'S 25% OPEN SPACE. I'M NOT AN ARCHITECT OR CIVIL ENGINEER. AND THE OTHER THING IS, UH, THE GENTLEMAN'S PRESENTATION INDICATED THEY WERE RELYING ON POWER FENCE, THE FENCE RATHER THAN PUTTING IN THEIR OWN FENCE AROUND THEIR PROPERTY. NOT A GOOD IDEA. THAT FENCE, I HAVE NO IDEA HOW OLD IT IS, BUT IT'S FALLING DOWN. ALSO, FOR YEARS NOW, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS NOT MAINTAINED WEED CONTROL. THERE ARE MASSIVE THISTLES WITH TRUNKS THIS BIG, 10 FEET IN THE AIR, PUSHING OUR FENCE OVER. SO THAT FENCE ISN'T GOING TO LAST MUCH LONGER. AND I THINK IT'S, CONSIDERING IT'S NEW PROPERTY, WOULD BE A VERY GOOD IDEA TO REQUIRE THEM TO PUT IN A FENCE, A PRIVACY FENCE THERE. AND SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE OTHER THAN THE QUESTION ON THE 25%. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. WE'LL GET, WE'LL GET IT. CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT, ABOUT THE FENCE ITSELF. IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, YOU COULD COME BACK UP. I THINK MAYBE HE IS ACTUALLY, SO THE FENCE THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE NORTH PARK VILLAGE PROPERTY, IS THAT PART OF YOUR HOA? IS THAT MAINTAINED BY THE HOA OR? YES. WHO MAINTAINS THAT? OKAY. YES. SO WOULD THERE BE, DO YOU THINK THE HOA WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER AS FAR AS MAINTAINING THAT FENCE? YES. YES, THE PRESIDENT JUST SAID YES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. IS THAT SOMETHING THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO DO? YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO, YES, OKAY. I JUST WASN'T SURE BECAUSE I WATCHED YOU DANCE. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS ALEXANDER KURSKY. I'M A RESIDENT OF THE CONDOS UP TO THE NORTH. I JUST WANT TO SAY, I AM, I DO LIKE DOGS. I LOVE ANIMALS.

THEY'RE A CRUCIAL PART OF THIS COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, MAN'S BEST FRIEND, RIGHT? BUT I DO ALSO ENJOY MY SLEEP. I AM A SITE WORKER ALONG WITH, YOU KNOW, A MAJORITY OF THE RESIDENTS IN, OR NOT A MAJORITY, BUT A BIG PORTION OF RESIDENTS IN IDAHO FALLS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT DOG PARK IS THERE. THE SLEEP, MY SLEEP COULD BE AFFECTED. I MEAN, I CAN'T AT LEAST SPEAK FOR EVERYBODY THAT WORKS ON THE SITE, BUT I WAKE UP AT 04:45 IN THE MORNING AND I GET HOME AT 6:30 PM. MONDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. IT'S A LONG DAY. SO I WOULD, I MEAN, I HAVE LITTLE DOGS LIKE I SAID BEFORE, SO I THINK A SWAP WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

BUT THAT'S ALL I JUST WANT TO SAY. I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE OTHER SITE WORKERS WITHIN THE CONDO ASSOCIATION AS WELL, IN THE COMMUNITY AND NEARBY SURROUNDING AREAS. SO I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. CRUZ CHECK? CRUZ GO. CRUZ GO. MR. HATTON.

ALL RIGHTY. UH, GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS COLBY HATTON. I AM HERE REPRESENTING STRONGER IDAHO FALLS, AND I'M GLAD THIS ONE IS SO MUCH LESS HOSTILE THAN THE LAST ONE. UH, SO WE HERE AT STRONGER IDAHO CALLS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED DENSE HOUSING THAT CAN SUSTAIN ITSELF FINANCIALLY AND SUPPORT NEW MEMBERS OF THE CITY AND THEIR FAMILIES.

THIS IS DOUBLY TRUE WITH DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE EASY PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO PARKS, RESTAURANTS, BANKS, CORNER STORES, AND OTHER AMENITIES.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES. WHEN I WAS LOOKING TO BUY MY FIRST HOME, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, ACTUALLY, LITERALLY THOSE CONDOS, WAS A HIGH PREFERENCE ON MY LIST BECAUSE OF THOSE AMENITIES.

IN ADDITION TO OUR AMAZING GREENBELT THAT LIES RIGHT NEXT TO IT. AS WE'VE MENTIONED IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS, 2 OF THE GREATEST ACHIEVEMENTS THE CITY COULD MAKE IN THE, IN THE NEAR TERM IS ZONING REFORM THAT WOULD ELIMINATE MANDATORY PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND OPEN UP ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING TO ALLOW NON-INTRUSIVE BUSINESSES THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE HISTORY OF AMERICA THAT'S BEEN MADE WORSE BY ADDING CORNER STORES, BAKERIES, OR BARBERSHOPS.

BECAUSE OF ITS ACCESS TO LOCAL AMENITIES AND THE SELF-SUSTAINING NATURE THAT DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE LIVABLE

[01:50:01]

THANK YOU, MR. HATTON. GREAT.

DIRECTOR SANNER, WILL YOU PLEASE COME AND ADDRESS THE 25% OPEN SPACE, PLEASE? YEAH, SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION? YES, HE WAS ASKING ON THE SITE PLAN WITH THE GRAY, WHAT DOES CONSTITUTE OPEN SPACE? I'LL TRY TO HOLD MY HAND PRETTY STEADY HERE, BUT BASICALLY OPEN SPACE WOULD BE EVERYTHING THAT ISN'T GRAY. SO IT'S THESE AREAS THAT ARE AROUND EACH BUILDING, SO THERE'S OPEN SPACE IN HERE, IN BETWEEN THE UNITS RIGHT HERE.

THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER DOES NOT CALCULATE AS OPEN SPACE, AND THEN THE OPEN SPACE UP HERE TO THE NORTH. WHAT OPEN SPACE CAN CONSTITUTE IT? IT CAN BE GRASS, AMENITIES, UM, UH, I'M TRYING TO THINK OF WHAT ELSE THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE, BUT IN SHORT, THOSE ARE WHAT THE OPEN SPACE WOULD BE.

BUT LANDSCAPE SPACE, YOU CAN'T COUNT SIDEWALKS YES, THAT'S CORRECT. SO ANY IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, CORRECT.

SO SIDEWALKS, THIS GRAY, JUST TO ANSWER THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION, THIS GRAY IS A PRIVATE STREET RIGHT HERE, SO THAT WOULD NOT BE CALCULATED.

AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE SOME SIDEWALKS IN HERE, SO THIS ONE IS REALLY TIGHT.

IT'S 20 TO 25%, BUT IT'S RIGHT UP TO 25%. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR DIRECTOR SANNER? WELL, JUST VERIFY THE DOG PARK WOULD COUNT AS OPEN SPACE. IT WOULD BE PART OF THEIR OPEN SPACE CALCULATION.

THAT'S CORRECT. SAME WITH THE COMMUNITY GARDEN AS WELL.

COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER OR FOR DIRECTOR SANNER? MR. PETERSON? YES. OR YES, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER. OKAY, YES PLEASE. WELL, AND COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS, AS A REMINDER, AS COUNCIL STARTS TO ASK QUESTIONS AMONGST EACH OTHER, THAT WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE HEARING OPEN. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLOSE IT AND THEN HAVE QUESTIONS ARISE AMONG COUNCIL'S OWN QUESTIONS.

WE CAN, THE HEARING IS OPEN, SO YET YOU DON'T HAVE TO FEEL RUSHED IS ALL I'M SAYING. YOU CAN ASK THE QUESTION AND THEN COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS THIS. IT'S NOT GOING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO CLOSE THE HEARING UNTIL COUNCIL HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO. YEAH, IT'S JUST A QUESTION ABOUT THE GARDEN, AND THAT IS, IS IT, IS THERE A PLAN FOR THE HOA MAINTAINING IT UNTIL ENOUGH PEOPLE START USING IT? SO YEAH, IF IT COMES WITH PHASE 1 AND ONLY ONE PERSON'S THERE, YOU STILL NEED TO MAINTAIN IT, RIGHT? SO, SO IT WOULD BE BOTH AMENITIES WOULD BE HOA MAINTAINED. AND DO YOU HAVE COMMITMENT TO WHICH PHASE ONE AMENITY COMES FIRST? UM, SO THE, THE PLAN IS ALL OF THE HORIZONTAL CONSTRUCTION, SO ALL AMENITIES, ROADWAYS, ALL THAT WILL BE DONE WITHIN THE FIRST PHASE. AND THEN VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION IS WHAT IS GOING TO ACTUALLY BE PHASED. OKAY, THANK YOU. AND THEN WHAT'S YOUR RESPONSE TO NOT MOVING AND SWAPPING OR IS THAT, WHAT IF THAT WAS KNOWN? WHAT WAS THE HANGUP? UM, AND TALKING TO THE DEVELOPER, I MEAN, I THINK THE PREFERENCE WOULD JUST BE REMOVE IT. UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'RE TRYING TO PROVIDE THAT AS A BENEFIT TO THE RESIDENTS, BUT IF IT'S, IF IT'S GONNA BE TOO MUCH OF AN ISSUE, THEN WE WOULD RATHER JUST REMOVE IT THAN SWAP IT BECAUSE JUST BEING ADJACENT TO THE ROADWAY, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A, YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I WOULD HAVE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS HERE? OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR DIRECTOR SANNER. SO LET'S SAY, LET'S SAY WE REMOVE THE DOG PARK AND WE, AND WE STILL HAVE THAT DRAINAGE AREA THERE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT UNDERGROUNDED THERE. IT'S, THERE'S AN ACTUAL TRENCH, OR IS IT UNDERGROUNDED? UH, I, IS THE STORMWATER, I KNOW IT'S BEEN MENTIONED THAT THEY UNDERGROUNDED THE DRAINAGE.

YEAH. IS THAT THE DRAINAGE THAT GETS UNDERGROUNDED, OR IS THAT UM, SO IT'S THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT WILL GO TO AN UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION TRENCH, UH, IN THAT AREA, AND THAT'S IT.

BUT THAT'LL BE LEVEL TO THE GROUND. SO THE, ON THE SURFACE, YOU WON'T SEE ANYTHING AT ALL. IT'LL JUST BE SOD OR IN THIS CASE TURF. OKAY, BUT YOU COULDN'T PLANT TREES THERE BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE A CONCRETE VAULT UNDERNEATH IT, OR, UM, IT WOULD BE, UH, GRAVEL. IT

[01:55:04]

I'M JUST. I'M JUST. YEAH.

OKAY. YEAH. SO IT'S ACTUALLY JUST BECAUSE OF THE SLOPE OF THE SITE. IT'S ACTUALLY PRETTY DEEP. IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT DEEPER THAN YOU THINK. OKAY. THERE SHOULD BE PLENTY OF SPACE. ALL RIGHT.

YOU WANT ME TO START? YES, WELL, I MEAN, I, I AGREE WITH MR. FULLER AND MR. BROOKS ABOUT, ABOUT, UM, YOU DON'T NEED THE DOG PARK BECAUSE WE HAVE A PARK RIGHT NEXT DOOR.

IF YOU WANT TO GO WALK YOUR DOG, YOU TAKE IT TO THE PARK, AND WE HAVE DOGGY BAGS IN THE, IN THE PARK. UM, I JUST THINK THAT THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE TWO COULD BE ENHANCED IF WE DON'T HAVE THE DOG PARK THERE.

YOU COULD PUT THE TREES FURTHER FROM THE BORDER, FROM THE, FROM THE FENCE, AND, AND PUT A FEW MORE IN THERE AND HAVE A REALLY NICE BUFFER BETWEEN THOSE, THESE 2 DEVELOPMENTS. I THINK IT'D BE REALLY NICE. AS FAR AS THE UNDERGROUND, HOW MUCH OF THAT WHOLE NORTHERN BOUNDARY, IS THAT UNDERGROUND? IT'S, IT'S PRETTY LARGE BECAUSE IT'S ALSO SIZED FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST AS WELL. SO IT'S, IT'S OVER 200 FEET LONG, AND IT'S, UM, IT'S A, WHAT IT IS, IS IT'S A GRAVEL. IT'S UNDERGROUND, IT'S GRAVEL, AND THERE'S SOME LARGER PERFORATED PIPES IN THERE.

FROM A USER PERSPECTIVE, YOU WON'T NOTICE ANYTHING AT ALL. SO IT'S KIND OF A VERY LARGE FRENCH DRAIN.

EXACTLY, YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT DESCRIPTION.

THE ONE THING, AND THIS PERHAPS ACTUALLY ISN'T FOR YOU, IT MAY BE MORE FOR THE PART OF THE COUNCIL CONVERSATION, YOU KNOW, I HAVE BEEN WORRIED ABOUT PARKING AS WELL.

BUT IT SEEMS TO WORK FOR THE NORTH PARK CONDOS THAT JUST HAVE PARKING STRAIGHT INTO THEIR GARAGES. I MEAN, I HAVE A FRIEND WHO LIVES THERE ON NORTH PARK CONDO. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT SPILLS OUT, AND IF IT DOES, IT'S NOT NOTICEABLE. SO THAT IS ONE, I THINK THAT THE 5 PARKING ON, SO 10 INTERNAL PARKING PLUS A FEW ON THE PUBLIC STREET. IT ACTUALLY, IN THIS CASE, IT ISN'T AS OBVIOUS JUST BECAUSE IT HAS SEEMED TO WORK FOR THE NORTH PARK CONDOS FOR A LOT OF YEARS TO JUST HAVE DIRECT IN, INTO THE GARAGE PARKING. SO THAT ONE, IN THE CASE OF LIKE THE BULK AND THE SCALE, I, THIS DOESN'T, THIS SEEMS TO FIT WELL WITHIN THIS AREA, ESPECIALLY WITH THE PARK RIGHT THERE.

WELL, I'D LIKE TO START SOME DISCUSSION AND, UM, AND THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING. YES.

OKAY, SO I WILL SAY I AM VERY PLEASED THERE'S NO DRIVE AISLES IN THIS PUBLIC, THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, THAT THERE ARE PARKING AREAS, WHICH IS MEANS THERE'S NOT PARKING BACK TO BACK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, AND IT MEANS WE DO HAVE A STREET AND WE HAVE A SEPARATE PLACE FOR PARKING. I KNOW THERE'S LIMITED PARKING, AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT CONCERNS ME. THE, UM, I, IF THERE WAS ONLY GOING TO BE ONE AMENITY FOR ME, THE COMMUNITY GARDEN IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE, AND IT'S RAISED BEDS, SO IT SHOULD, IT CAN BE MADE TO LOOK VERY WELL KEPT BY THE HOA IN TERMS OF STANDARDS, SINCE IT'S, I ASSUME IF I READ IT RIGHT, IT WAS ALL RAISED BEDS. SO I LEAN TOWARD THAT. I THINK THE IDEA OF MOVING IT AND TAKING THE 5 FEET ON THE NORTH SIDE COMPARED TO THE SOUTH SIDE DOES MAKE SENSE TO ME, AND I'M WILLING TO GIVE THAT ONE.

IN THOSE RESPECTS, I'M PRETTY, I'M FAIRLY SUPPORTIVE, BUT I AM A LITTLE BIT OPEN-MINDED.

IN TERMS OF THE DOG PARK, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT WHAT DOG PARKS ACTUALLY CREATE IN TERMS OF POTENTIAL NUISANCE.

SOMEBODY COULD HELP ME WITH THAT. BUT I DO NOTICE THAT THE REFERENCE THAT WAS RAISED FOR THE SECTION IN THE LAND USE REFERS TO AMUSEMENT CENTERS OUTDOORS. I DON'T KNOW IF A DOG PARK EXACTLY IS AN AMUSEMENT CENTER.

SO I NEED MAYBE IF WE DECIDE TO KEEP THE DOG PARK, A REFERENCE ON THAT

[02:00:02]

READY FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO SPEAK? WE HAVEN'T BEEN IN LOVE WITH PUDS LATELY, SO WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVES? COUNCIL, DO YOU RECALL IN THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT, UM, I THINK IT WAS SAID TO MR. FULLER THAT THE DOG PARK EDGE IS 30 FEET FROM THE DOOR OR THE PROPERTY LINE? YEAH. SO I DO KNOW A LOT ABOUT DOG PARKS. I'VE BUILT ONE. I GUESS I COULD SAY THEY, IF THEY'RE WELL MAINTAINED, THEY SMELL BETTER THAN YOU THINK. HOWEVER, I TRULY HAVE, AND NO ONE IN THIS ROOM LOVES ANIMALS MORE THAN ME, AND I WOULD NOT WANT TO LIVE 30 FEET FROM A DOG PARK. IT IS A CONCERN FOR ME. UM, LIKE I SAID, I, I DO THINK THAT WHEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED, AND I ALSO MAINTAIN A PET-FRIENDLY TURF, LIKE PROBABLY EXACTLY WHAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE PROPOSING, AND IF YOU DO MAINTAIN IT WELL AND YOU'VE GOT PROPER DRAINAGE, IT REALLY DOESN'T HOLD SMELL NEARLY AS MUCH AS YOU THINK THAT IT MIGHT. UM, I WORK A FEW HUNDRED FEET FROM A DOG PARK AND I NEVER HEAR IT. SO THE NOISES MAY BE, AGAIN, DEPENDING UPON CIRCUMSTANCE.

FUN FACT, MOST DOG PARKS ARE UTILIZED IN OUR AREA BY ONE PERSON AND ONE DOG. SO THERE'S A LOT LESS NOISE, IT TURNS OUT, THAN PEOPLE ARE TYPICALLY EXPECTING, BECAUSE I'VE DONE SOME RESEARCH ON THIS. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE COMBINATION OF ALL OF THE THINGS, TO ME THAT'S JUST, THAT'S WAY TOO CLOSE TO SOMEONE'S DOOR. SO I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, AND I FEEL LIKE I KNOW A LOT ABOUT DOG PARKS. THE REST OF IT, I MEAN, I'M GONNA PROBABLY SAY THIS AT EVERY PUD. IF YOU WANT TO LIVE SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE A CHRISTMAS PARTY, THEN BE MY GUEST. JUST LIKE YOU CAN GO BUY UGLY SHOES AND AN UGLY CAR, YOU CAN GO LIVE SOMEWHERE WHERE YOU, WHERE YOU CAN'T HAVE A BOOK CLUB TO YOUR HOUSE, ESPECIALLY IF THE OTHER PET PROTESTER WANTS IS ACCURATE THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING A LOT OF THE ON-STREET PARKING. SO IT DOES MEET OUR REQUIREMENTS. SO I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO SAY ABOUT THAT, BUT I AGREE THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR THE DOG PARK. AND IF I UNDERSTOOD RIGHT, THE DEVELOPER IS QUITE WILLING TO JUST ELIMINATE THAT FROM THE PLAN. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, SO I, I, I CAN AGREE WITH THE SENTIMENT THAT YOU'RE NEXT TO A PARK, THAT'S, THAT THEY'RE EQUAL.

PEOPLE UTILIZE DOG PARKS TO HAVE THEIR ANIMALS OFF LEASH. WE DON'T WANT ANIMALS OFF LEASH IN THE CITY. IT'S AGAINST OUR ORDINANCES. SO WE DON'T WANT THEM MEETING IN PARKS. SO IT'S NOT APPLES AND APPLES. IT'S DEFINITELY BOTH FRUIT, BUT IT'S NOT APPLES AND APPLES.

BUT YEAH, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THE DOG PARK CONTINUING IN THE LOCATION THAT IT'S AT.

AND IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE THAT THEY MAKE IT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S STILL THE 30 FEET IS TOO CLOSE.

OKAY. YEAH, I THINK IT'S KIND OF FUNNY BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE THAT MUCH SPACE, YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE DOGS THERE ANYWAY, BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORS WALK DOGS AND YOU HAVE TO LET THEM OUT TO GO TO THE BATHROOM. SO I THINK YOU'D ACTUALLY GET A BETTER SERVICE MAYBE WITH A DOG PARK. I, I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD ARGUMENT BECAUSE I AGREE WITH YOU WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT THEY COULD NOT PUT A DOG PARK SIGN UP, BUT IF THERE'S A FENCE, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LET THEIR WELL-BEHAVED DOGS OUT TO GO POTTY, AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GONNA CHANGE THAT.

BUT THE DOG WASHING STATION IS KIND OF A WHOLE OTHER ELEMENT.

I'VE SEEN IT WORK REALLY WELL IN SOME PLACES. I'VE SEEN IT NOT WORK. IT DEFINITELY CAN MAKE NOISE. AGAIN, FOR ME, IT'S JUST TOO CLOSE. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS GETTING RID OF IT.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CONSENSUS. BUT I DO DON'T. I DON'T THINK THIS SOLVES YOUR DOG PROBLEM BY GETTING RID OF A DOG PARK.

WHAT IS IT? YOU SAY THAT IDAHO HAS THE HIGHEST DOG OWNERSHIP, 50% OR SOMETHING. YEAH, YEAH.

IN IN THE COUNTRY, STATISTICALLY, I THINK THE LAST TIME THEY REALLY DID WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. WE HAVE THE HIGHEST DOG OWNERSHIP PER CAPITA IN THE COUNTRY. SO THERE IS A REASON WHY IT'S A VERY MARKETABLE FEATURE, AND YOU'RE SEEING THE LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, EVEN THE HIGH-DENSITY ONES, YOU'RE SEEING THEM ALLOW DOGS WITH DEPOSITS. AND IF HALF THE PEOPLE, IT'S PRETTY HARD TO DO THAT. YEAH. OKAY, IF COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER OR FOR DIRECTOR SANNER, I WOULD CLOSE.

MAYOR? OH YES? HAS THE APPLICANT HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE REBUTTAL. I KNOW HE'S RESPONDED TO QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL. I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S

[02:05:01]

IF YOU WOULD, UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS, JUST WE'RE WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE WHATEVER YOU GUYS, WHATEVER DIRECTION YOU WANT TO PURSUE. UM, AND YEAH, OKAY, WELL THEN I WILL ASK THE QUESTION. THE REMOVAL OF THE DOG PARK AND PARTICIPATING WITH THE NEIGHBORING HOA FOR A FENCE. WAS THAT KIND OF THE VERBAL AGREEMENT HERE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AND ALLOW COUNCIL FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION OR FOR A MOTION TO BE MADE.

WELL, I JUST ASKED, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION? BECAUSE IF THERE IS, I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT BEFORE I READ THE MOTIONS.

NO, NO, WE'RE OKAY. YEAH, ALL RIGHT. SO, UH, QUESTION ON WORDING THE MOTION. DO WE WORD IT WITH REMOVAL OF THE DOG PARK, OR IS THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ENOUGH OF THAT? BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO CHANGE THE REASON STATEMENT TO ADD THAT. YOU CAN MOVE TO APPROVE THE PUD WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT THE DOG PARK IS REMOVED FROM THE PUD SITE. AND THEN DO WE ALSO SAY WE ARE DIRECTING THE DEVELOPER TO COOPERATE OR ATTEMPT TO, WE CAN'T MAKE THE OTHER SIDE AGREE TO THEM, BUT ATTEMPT TO COOPERATE ON THE FENCE? I THINK THAT'S A MATTER BETWEEN THE 2 PARTIES BECAUSE WE CAN'T TELL THE OTHER SIDE, RIGHT? THAT THEY HAVE TO, RIGHT? I WON'T PUT THAT IN THE MOTION, BUT I WILL PUT THE REMOVAL OF THE DOG PARK. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR CHATHAM RIVERFRONT TOWNHOMES WITH THE ADDITION THAT THE DOG PARK BE REMOVED FROM THE PLAN.

SECOND. DAMON? YES. RADFORD? AYE. FREEMAN? YES. LARSEN? YES. FRANCIS? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. AND I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE REASON STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS. I'M SORRY. NO, IT'S OKAY. I REALLY NEED TO DRAFT IT. I WOULD DO ONE QUITE QUICKLY. IF YOU'LL GIVE ME JUST A MINUTE TO DRAFT, WE COULD TAKE A RECESS. TO ADD TO THE REASON STATEMENT? CORRECT. WHAT YOU JUST PUT IN THE MOTION. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IF IT PASSES THE REASON STATEMENT RIGHT NOW, IT'S GOING TO BE DOG PARKING AND WE DON'T HAVE THE CONDITIONS REMOVED.

BUT CAN WE JUST, WITHOUT DRAFTING IT, CAN WE JUST SAY WITH THE REMOVAL OF THE REASON STATEMENT AND THEN WE CAN DRAFT THAT? SO MAKE THAT PART OF THAT MOTION TO REMOVE THAT PART FROM THE REASON STATEMENT.

OKAY, LET ME TRY THAT. OKAY, I MOVE COUNCIL APPROVE THE RECENT STATEMENT OF RELEVANT CRITERIA AND STANDARDS REFLECTING THE ADDITIONAL POINT THAT THE DOG PARK BE REMOVED FROM THE PLAN FOR THIS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT OF HIGHAM RIVERFRONT TOWNHOMES AND GIVE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. SECOND. DINGMAN? YES. FRANCIS? AYE. FREEMAN? YES. LARSEN? YES. RADFORD? AYE. MOTION CARRIES. COUNCIL,

[7.Announcements]

AND WE DO, WE DO APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR ACTIVE PARTICIPATION.

COUNCIL, IF WE CAN START TO OUR LEFT AND JUST MAKE ANY, ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE. OKAY. I HAVE NOTHING.

BOO AT THE ZOO, IT'S OCTOBER, THERE'S A TRUNK OR TREAT. SO MANY GREAT, SO MANY GREAT REASONS TO LIVE IN IDAHO FALLS. COUNCILMEMBER FRANCIS. COUNCILMEMBER FREEMAN. I JUST THINK IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THAT OUR LITTLE TOWN GREW AGAIN BY 6 OR 7 ACRES TONIGHT.

APPROXIMATELY. OKAY, COUNCIL, WE ARE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.