YEAH, THEY SHOULD HAVE IT THAT WAY. WELCOME TO.
[Call to Order and Roll Call]
[00:00:15]
GOOD AFTERNOON. COUNCIL PRESIDENT FRANCIS. HERE.COUNCILOR RADFORD. PRESENT. COUNCILOR ZIEL-DINGMAN.
HERE. COUNCILOR FREEMAN. HERE. COUNCILOR LARSEN.
YES. COUNCILOR LEE. HERE. THANK YOU. MAYOR, YOU HAVE A QUORUM.
[Office of the Mayor]
COUNCILOR FRANCIS, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND STARTING US OFF WITH ANY OF THE REPORTS, CONCERNS OR ISSUES, QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE COME TO A WORK SESSION OR JUST BE ANSWERED BY DIRECTORS DIRECTLY? OKAY. JUST THREE QUICK THINGS.BUT WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW KIND OF BRIEFLY IS WHAT'S THE APPETITE FOR STILL PURSUING CITIES BEING ALLOWED TO JOIN THE STATE INSURANCE POOL? ARE WE STILL INTERESTED IN HAVING AIC TRY TO TAKE A POSITION? THEY REALLY DID NOT. THEY THINK THEY DID, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY TOOK A POSITION LAST YEAR.
YEAH, THEY WERE TERRIBLE FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
SO IS IT STILL THAT WAY OR IS IT.
I THINK THAT THE STATE INSURANCE JUST TOOK A HUGE 20% LEAP.
AND SO THEN THAT WAS DIRECTLY PASSED ON TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.
I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE STUCK IN A SITUATION WHERE WE TALK ABOUT GROUP SIZE.
AND THEN THIS YEAR IT WAS JUST A HUGE INCREASE TO THEM.
THEY JUST DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER THE PLAN. THEY CAN'T GO BACK AND RENEGOTIATE ANYTHING.
THEY'RE REALLY JUST AT THE MERCY OF THE STATE, RIGHT? THAT LOSS OF CONTROL CAN BE A BIG CHANGE FOR US.
COULD WE EVER COMBINE WITH, LIKE, OTHER MUNICIPALITIES LIKE SHELLEY AND RIGBY? AND WOULD THAT EVER BE SOMETHING WORTH EXPLORING? LIKE A CLOSER REGIONAL APPROACH? YES. AND I THINK ALL OF THAT SHOULD STILL BE ON THE TABLE.
I REALLY DO. I THINK IT SHOULD ALL BE ON THE TABLE.
I KNOW THAT DIRECTOR JONES FROM HR HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS SUSTAINABILITY PIECE AS WELL.
WE DON'T HAVE. SO I JUST THINK AS LONG AS WE KEEP HAVING THE INSURANCE CONVERSATION, I'D SAY, LET'S SEE WHAT THE STATE HAS TO OFFER, BECAUSE IF WE'RE TAKING IT ON THE LOW AND WE ONLY HAVE A THREE YEAR COMMITMENT, AND WE PLAN FOR THAT.
BUT BUT ONE OR TWO REALLY HIGH CLAIMS. YEAH. YEAH.
RIGHT. THAT'S NOT ON SELF-INSURANCE.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? NO. ON OUR SIZE OF A GROUP RIGHT NOW.
YES. WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY JOHN? YOU'RE RIGHT.
IF WE'RE NEGOTIATING ON THE OPEN MARKET WE GET REALLY BOUNCED BECAUSE OF THAT.
BUT IN SELF-INSURANCE YOU TAKE OUT A STOPGAP INSURANCE AND THOSE HIGH THINGS DON'T HURT YOU IN THE SAME WAY OTHER THAN YOUR STOPGAP INSURANCE WILL GO UP IN YEARS WHERE YOU HAVE TO PAY THOSE OUT, BUT I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.
AND YOU COULD BUILD ON THAT MODEL AND YOU COULD DO THAT THROUGH MUNICIPALITIES.
AS LONG AS THE CITIES ARE SELF-INSURED AND THEY HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES THAT THEY DON'T DAMAGE US AND WE'RE NOT SUBSIDIZING ANYONE, THE INCREASED LIVES HELP. BUT AT SOME POINT THE HEALTH OF YOUR POOL IS WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT.
IT HAS BEEN TURNED OVER TO FINANCE IN ORDER TO KIND OF MARK IT OUT.
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? WHAT KIND OF DISCIPLINE? I MEAN, THAT GENUINELY WOULD THE ELECTED OFFICIALS HAVE TO HAVE TO TAKE 8.5% EVERY YEAR, GOOD YEARS, BAD YEARS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET 4% ONE YEAR, YOU THINK, OH, GREAT, 4%, WHICH YOU STILL HAVE TO TAKE THAT HIGHER TO TRY AND STABILIZE IT. IF YOU WANT TO SPEAK AT ALL TO THAT.
[00:05:02]
WE WILL HAVE A BIGGER CONVERSATION, BROADER CONVERSATION.IT'S NOT JUST LIKE ONE SIMPLE ANSWER, BUT WE ARE TRYING TO MODEL THAT SAYS, WHAT WOULD IT BE LIKE TO BE QUASI INSURED, WHICH MEANS DICTATOR ALL THE WAY TO RETURN TO MAINTAIN THAT LEVEL OF INCREASE THAT LEVEL.
AND THERE'S A MATTER OF AGGRESSIVENESS, RIGHT? BECAUSE SOME CITIES LIKE WE WERE AT AIC AND THERE WAS A PRESENTATION FROM OHIO WHERE A CITY SUED PHARMACEUTICALS FOR THEIR OVERPAYMENTS.
FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, THEY GOT $20 MILLION. THEY TOOK THAT, BUILT A CLINIC AND THEN AND HIRED DOCTORS WITH THAT CLINIC SO THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY CLAIMS. YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD A COLD, IF YOU HAD ANY OF THE INTRODUCTORY THINGS, YOU WENT TO THE CITY RUN CLINIC AND THAT WAS ALL OWNED.
AND SO THERE'S AGGRESSIVENESS AS TO WHAT YOU TRY TO CONTROL TO ALL.
DESIGN AND COST AND HOW TO WEIGH THOSE TWO. AND THEN THE COUNTY'S EXPERIENCE, JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME.
I THINK YOU HAVE THOSE NUMBERS, BUT THEY'VE HAD YEARS WHERE THEY'VE REALLY HAD ZERO INCREASES.
THEY DON'T PAY TAXES ON THEIR POLICIES. I MEAN, THERE'S JUST LIKE HUGE ADVANTAGES TO.
THAT WOULD BE INTERESTING. YEAH. DOES THAT PRECLUDE US FROM BEING A PARTNER WITH THE COUNTY? BECAUSE THEY'RE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT. BUT I MEAN, IT'S LIKE I'M KIND OF IN MY HEAD RELATING IT TO I CRAMP.
RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL IN THAT TOGETHER. US IN THE COUNTY? BOTH. RIGHT. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE THAT WE ALL HAVE THAT RISK INSURANCE.
GREAT POINT THAT YOU COULDN'T BE A CONTRACT EMPLOYMENT GROUP WITH THE COUNTY.
USE THEIR BENEFIT OF HAVING THE STATE'S RULES AND THEN HAVE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT JOIN US AS WELL.
LIKE YOU HAVE PROBABLY 5000 OR 2000 LIVES BETWEEN THE COUNTY, THE CITY AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
AND THEY'RE ALL TAXPAYERS. WE'RE SEVEN. THEY'RE 15.
YEAH. I MEAN, WE'RE WE'RE WELL ABOVE THAT. YEAH.
AND SO AND TAXPAYERS ARE FOOTING THIS BILL. IT'S $15 MILLION EVERY YEAR FOR US.
IT'S 15 MILLION FOR THE COUNTY. THAT'S 15. IF WE COULD ALL COMBINE AND THEN LOWER COSTS FOR TAXPAYERS, I THINK IT'S A WIN. COULD YOU SEND ME A DESCRIPTION OF THE COUNTY PRIVILEGE SO I CAN BRING IT UP? YES, BECAUSE THEY HAVE PEOPLE THAT CAN LOOK INTO THAT.
FOLLOW UP WITH THAT. WHAT THE COUNTY PRIVILEGE IS THAT WE DON'T HAVE.
IS ANYBODY ELSE PLANNING TO GO? I MAY. WHEN IS IT? IT'S DECEMBER. I THINK IT'S DECEMBER 1ST. YEAH.
OKAY. OH, YEAH. I HAVE IT ACTUALLY, TOO. OKAY.
SO SOMEBODY WHO CAN GET A REPORT. AND THE LAST THING IS JUST KIND OF AN INTERESTING POINT.
WHEN WE ALL VOTED FOR THE POLICE COMPLEX, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS ALWAYS IN MY MIND IS A PLACE THAT WAS MORE WELCOMING TO THE PUBLIC, A COMMUNITY WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO WALK THROUGH A METAL DETECTOR TO GET INTO IT.
AND THEY HAD COFFEE WITH THE COP AT THEIR TRAINING FACILITY ROOMS, THOSE BIG ROOMS THAT ARE ALSO COMMUNITY ROOMS. AND DEPUTY CHIEF GILBERT SAID IT WAS THERE WERE LOTS AND LOTS OF PEOPLE, INCLUDING SEVERAL BUSINESSMEN FROM AROUND JUST STOPPED BY. AND SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE THAT ROOM USED THE WAY WE WERE HOPING IT WOULD BE USED AS A COMMUNITY BASE.
THAT'S GREAT. COUNCILOR BRADFORD, JUST THAT WE HAD A GOOD EXPERIENCE AT TRUNK OR TREAT AND HAD SOME FUN THERE REPRESENTING THE CITY COUNCIL. LOTS OF SUCKERS.
THAT WASN'T. BUT IT WAS A GOOD GROUP. AND THE ONLY OTHER THING IS IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE NEEDING TO COMMUNICATE WITH US ON THE E MOTORCYCLE E SCOOTER FRONT.
WE'RE GETTING CLOSER TO SEEING THAT GET READY.
SO I'VE TALKED TO CHRIS WRIGHT A FEW TIMES ABOUT THAT AND THEY WOULD, THEIR COMMITTEE WOULD PREFER US TO HAVE SOMETHING AND THEN ASK THEM WHAT THEY THINK OF IT, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING THAT BE CREATED BY COMMITTEE.
THEY WOULD RATHER WEIGH IN ON WHAT WE ARE THINKING RATHER THAN VICE VERSA.
I THINK WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE. THE TWO THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND IS WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH KIDS 14 TO 18, AND WHAT LEVEL DO YOU WANT THEM TO BE ALLOWED? RIGHT NOW, IT'S LOOKING LIKE PEDAL ASSIST AND UP TO 15 OR 20 MILES AN HOUR, BUT NOT THE FULL 40 MILE AN HOUR,
[00:10:03]
YOU KNOW, ELECTRIC, BECAUSE AT THAT POINT THEY GET A LICENSE AND GO BUY A MOTORCYCLE.YEAH. YOU'VE BEEN TO COSTCO, RIGHT? YEAH. COSTCO.
AND THEY'RE SELLING ONE OF THOSE THAT GOES 40 MILES AN HOUR THAT'S GOT WHEELS ON IT ABOUT THIS BIG.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS 100 KIDS ARE GOING TO GET FOR CHRISTMAS THIS YEAR.
AND IT DOES SAY CHECK YOUR LOCAL LAWS ON THEIR PRICE TAG.
YEAH. GOT TO SEE IT. YEAH. SO JUST KNOW THAT THAT'S GETTING CLOSE.
AND I THINK WE'RE CLOSE ENOUGH TO SEND IT TO HIM AND THE OTHER MOTORSPORTS.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE SELLING A LOT OF THEM LOCALLY. THAT'S INTERESTING TO HEAR THAT HE IS. YEAH, IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS A LOT OF ONLINE SALES FOR $1,200 AND NOT MUCH MARGIN FOR.
COUNCILMAN RADFORD WAS THERE WITH ME AS WELL.
GREAT DISCUSSION. I KNOW THAT THEY'RE MAKING A PRESENTATION TOMORROW.
THAT I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE'LL HAVE LOTS OF OUR STAFF THERE FOR REPRESENTATION.
THOUGHT SOME GOOD IDEAS AND GOOD EXCHANGES CAME OUT OF THAT AND LOOK FORWARD TO FUTURE COLLABORATION, PARTICULARLY WITH OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT CHALLENGE.
TRY. JUST ONE ITEM, AN UPDATE FROM PUBLIC WORKS.
I THOUGHT THIS WAS KIND OF A GOOD THING. ISU INTERNS WORKING.
I THINK. THAT'S A GREAT THAT'S IT. I HAD A COUPLE OF CALLS AND I HAD MY SON ACTUALLY BRING IT UP TO THE ICE RINK HAD KIND OF A ROCKY START.
WE HAD SOME COMPRESSOR PROBLEMS THAT WERE ON THEIR FIRST WEEKEND AND ICE GOT SOFT, BUT THEY GOT IT ALL FIXED NOW AND EVERYTHING'S BACK UP AND RUNNING AS IT SHOULD BE. SO THEY HAD ICE AND THEN THE ICE MELTED AND THEY HAD STUFF SCHEDULED AND THEN A REALLY BAD ICE.
NOVEMBER 20TH. SO TAKE A LOOK AT IDAHOFALLS.GOV FOR THE SCHEDULE AND THE LITTLE MAP TO GET YOUR CURBSIDE PICKUP LEAVES. THOSE ARE GOING TO OUR NEW COMPOSTING PROJECT, SO THAT'S EXCITING.
HAVE WE MOVED IT BACK A COUPLE WEEKS BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER OR ARE WE ON THE SAME SCHEDULE WE ALWAYS ARE? WE HAVEN'T LOST THAT MANY LEAVES THOUGH. THEY'RE GOING TO START NORTH OF TOWN.
SO I WON'T BE HERE FOR THE COUNCIL SESSION WITH THE SISTER CITIES TRAVELING THAT DAY.
SO OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE TRIED TO. ALSO, THE ROUNDABOUT ON BOULEVARD AND BIRCH IS OPEN AS WELL.
SO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. I'M EXCITED TO DRIVE THROUGH IT.
AND THERE IS GOING TO BE. I GUESS THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS THERE WILL BE A ROLLING THAT WILL BE CLOSED BEHIND THE ZOO FOR SOME REPAIRS AND IMPROVEMENTS. SO PART OF ROMAN DEBT DOWN THE SUNNY SIDE, STARTING AFTER THE STARTING NEXT WEEK, STARTING MONDAY. IS THAT THE START OF OUR FREE HALLOWEEN PATHWAY? IS THAT GOING TO. NO. IT'S GOT TO DO WITH WATER LINE.
SURE. WELL, YEAH. AT THE ZOO. I THINK THAT IS THE BROKEN WATER LINE AT THE ZOO.
OH, SO SO I CAN'T WAIT TILL AFTER. SO I CAN'T WAIT.
THAT'S ALL. OKAY, WELL, EVERYONE COVERED ALL OF THAT.
CAN I ASK, IS ANYBODY DRIVEN THROUGH 49 SOUTH AND HOMES YET? YES. IT'S AWESOME. YES. YEAH. OKAY, SO I HAVEN'T SEEN IT YET, BUT I HEARD IT'S.
IT IS OPEN. YES. AND THERE IS A SIGN THAT I DON'T KNOW WHO PUT IT UP, BUT IT DOES SAY IS YOU'RE HEADED SOUTH. I WAS GOING TO ASK STREETS ABOUT THIS.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE SIGN'S BEEN UP. I DON'T KNOW WHY IT'S CLOSED.
IT'S LIKE FREE BEER WEEK. I THINK THEY I THINK THEY MOVED IT.
SOMEBODY MOVED IT FROM THE HOLMES INTERSECTION. SO THEY DID.
[00:15:03]
I THINK THAT'S ALL IT IS. I SAW IT ABOUT A WEEK AGO.WELL, THAT'S WHY I WAS WONDERING WHAT WEEK WERE THEY TALKING ABOUT? IT'S BEEN UP FOR AT LEAST A WEEK. YEAH, IT'S LIKE A DATE.
CERTAIN. YEAH, LIKE. AND IT'S RIGHT AT THE INTERSECTION.
SO YOU'RE NOT COMPLETELY SURE WHICH ROAD. SO.
[Community Development Services]
SERVICES. WE CAN HAVE DIRECTOR CENTER COME FORWARD.THIS PROBABLY. I'M HOPING THAT THE STATE HOUSING ALLIANCE TALKED ABOUT THIS A BIT.
WE DID. I AM ASSUMING THAT THEY DID. BY THE WAY.
I THOUGHT REPRESENTATIVE BINGHAM WAS VERY ARTICULATE SPEAKING ABOUT CITIES AND OUR CHALLENGES.
I'M SO PLEASED THAT SOMEONE IN THE LEGISLATURE HAS THE KNOWLEDGE BACKGROUND THAT SHE GETS.
SHE GETS IT, AND SHE REALLY DOES TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DIG IN.
YEAH. AND BEFORE WE START, I ASKED THE MAYOR JUST FOR A QUICK SECOND.
WE HAVE COMING UP ON NOVEMBER 16TH, WE WILL BE DISCUSSING PUDS AGAIN.
WE ARE RELEASING A TOUR TOMORROW MORNING. I'LL SEND IT TO CARLA, AND I'LL SEND IT OUT TO ALL OF YOU.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT. THIS IS A TOUR THAT CAN BE DONE.
WE'VE LISTED A NUMBER OF PUBS. SOME OF THEM ARE WHAT WE CALL LEGACY PUBS.
WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE FIRST PUB THAT WAS APPROVED IN THE CITY.
WE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET OUT AND WALK AROUND THESE BEAUTIES YOU'LL SEE IN THE TOUR.
IT'S ALL ELECTRONIC. WE'LL CALL OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS TO LOOK AT.
MOSTLY DEALING WITH ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
AND THEN EACH PUD HAS TWO AREAS WHERE YOU CAN FULLY COMMENT ON WHAT YOU LIKE OR DON'T LIKE ABOUT IT.
SOME OF THEM WE CALL OUT PARKING, SOME OF THEM WE CALL OUT THE PRIVATE STREETS.
SOME OF THEM WE CALL OUT THE AMENITIES IN THE DETENTION PONDS OR AMENITIES IN GENERAL.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT. IN THE TOUR, YOU'LL SEE THE PUD.
WE ALSO HAVE THE SITE PLAN. SO YOU CAN CLICK ON THAT LINK AND IT'LL OPEN THE SITE PLAN.
SO YOU CAN LOOK AT WHAT WAS APPROVED AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES FOR THAT.
SO ANYWAYS, SO THAT WOULD PROVIDE FOR THAT WAS DONE.
SO WE COULD FIGURE THAT OUT. WHERE DO WE FIND THAT PLAN.
SO WE'LL I'LL SEND IT TO YOU TOMORROW. WE'RE RELEASING IT TOMORROW MORNING.
AND WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT YOU GO AND DO THE TOUR.
WE ARE RELEASING IT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS WELL.
BUT WE'RE COMING BACK ON NOVEMBER 16TH. SO YOU HAVE ABOUT THREE WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS.
YOU KNOW, YOU SAY YOU GOT LEGACY. YOU GOT THE FIRST ONE, YOU KNOW, IS IT 20 YEARS OLD? 30 YEARS OLD? WELL, YES, THE FIRST ONE THAT WAS APPROVED WAS IN THE 1980.
THERE'S TWO LEGACY PUDS ON THERE. ONE IS FROM 2004.
THERE'S NORTH PARK VILLAGE. ONE OF THE FIRST PUDS WAS THAT.
WE DON'T KNOW. AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE ONE THAT WAS IN 1986 OR NO, IT'S SUNRISE EDITION.
OKAY. AND WITH THAT CAITLIN HAS ACTUALLY TAKEN THE BALL ON THIS ONE FOR THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION CODE REVISION. SHE'S PREPARED A PRESENTATION, AND I GUESS WE'LL JUST GO THROUGH IT.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. SO THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO KIND OF GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF THINGS.
I'M GOING TO GO OVER THE TIMELINE SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE WE'RE AT AND WHERE WE CAME FROM.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE AND THEN IN YOUR PACKET AND ON THE SLIDES, I HAVE THE DRAFT CODE, AND I'M GOING TO KIND OF GO THROUGH THE PARTS OF THE CODE PIECE BY PIECE, JUST TO BEFORE WE START TAKING IT THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO AS A REMINDER, THIS HAS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY FEBRUARY 1ST, 2027.
THIS IS JUST KIND OF A REFRESHER OF WHAT THE CODE WAS AND HOW THE STATE HAD DEFINED IT.
[00:20:01]
SO THE TIMELINE CAN WE GO BACK. YEP. ABSOLUTELY.HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSION IN RELATION TO THAT LAST SENTENCE THAT SAYS WHILE MAINTAINING COMPATIBILITY WITH SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS AND WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH SUBJECTIVITY TO IT. THE CODE.
DOESN'T, I DON'T. IT'S A VAGUE THING, RIGHT? WELL, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING IT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO WE TOOK THIS ACTUALLY TO A WORK SESSION OF PLANNING COMMISSION ON AUGUST 8TH.
SO THEY HAVE HAD A WORK SESSION ABOUT IT AND THEY HAVE DISCUSSED IT.
AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS DISCUSSED. THERE WERE SOME OPTIONS, RIGHT.
AND THAT WAS THE DIRECTION THAT COUNCIL HAD GIVEN US.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE WENT. THAT STARTED A SUBCOMMITTEE, A STARTER HOME SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND I'LL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF THAT IN THE NEXT SLIDE. THAT SUBCOMMITTEE MET ON AUGUST 27TH, 2026 OF THIS YEAR. AND THEN, WE TOOK THAT FEEDBACK.
WE DRAFTED SOME CODE AND WE MET AGAIN ON SEPTEMBER 26TH.
PLANNING COMMISSION WITH THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE DECEMBER 11TH FOR THE CITY COUNCIL.
I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROCESS. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PROCESS AND THE CODE AND THIS STATE CODE, IT'S ALL BRAND NEW, RIGHT? WE'RE REALLY TAKING A STAB AT THIS TO KIND OF CREATE SOMETHING ON OUR OWN.
SO I THINK AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, THINGS WILL BE TWEAKED.
THE CODE MIGHT BE TWEAKED. SOMETIMES WE THINK SOMETHING'S A GOOD IDEA AND THEN WE IMPLEMENT IT.
IT WOULD. AND THE DECIDING BODY ON THAT WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
SO THAT'D BE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS OF LIKE, HOW DO I KNOW IT'S A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION? HOW DO I KNOW? THERE'S A COUPLE WAYS. THE SIMPLEST ONE IS YOU WRITE IT ON THE PLAT.
WE WOULD CREATE A CASE IN CITYWORKS THAT WOULD BE A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION.
SO WE WOULD HAVE THAT PROCESS SET OUT INTERNALLY AS WELL.
BUT THAT LEAVES IT UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO CHOOSE TO DO THAT.
RIGHT? CORRECT. YEP. SO WHERE DO WE DEFINE ATTAINABLE? WHAT ATTAINABLE? WE DON'T .
I MEAN, I'M BACK TO AIC, BUT ONE PERSON IN THE AIC SAID, WELL, YOU CAN TAKE THE MEDIAN HOME PRICE AND THEN WORK IT THROUGH FROM THE MEDIAN INCOME FOR A FAMILY AND THEN TAKE A PERCENTAGE PER YEAR.
I DON'T KNOW. I'M STUCK ON IT. WHAT IS ATTAINABLE? I THINK WHAT THE STATE HAS SAID IS ATTAINABLE.
SURE. THIS IS WHAT'S IN YOUR SCOPE OF WORK TO MAKE IT ATTAINABLE.
THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO. THAT'S WHAT WE TRY TO DO.
RIGHT. WE DON'T CONTROL PRICES OF LUMBER OR CONSTRUCTION OR LAND OR THE MARKET.
WE'RE ACTING WITHIN WHAT THE STATE HAS GIVEN US TO TRY TO MAKE IT ATTAINABLE.
SO YOU CAN DO SQUARE FOOTAGE, YOU CAN DO LOT SIZE, YOU CAN DO THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS COMING AT THE TIME OF PLAT, NOT ANNEXATION.
CORRECT. CORRECT. SO IF IF IT'S THE BAIT AND SWITCH IT IS.
THAT'S MY QUESTION. IT IS. IT'S R-1 AND MAYBE WE ADDRESS THIS LATER ON, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE COME UP WITH ANYTHING YET TO UNDERSTAND WHEN SOMETHING'S BEING ANNEXED IS THE INTENT TO DO THIS OR TRUE? R1 IT'S A PERMITTED USE. THE STATE SAYS IT'S A PERMITTED USE.
WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. IF THEY ANNEX IT IN AND THEY WANT TO DO CERTAIN FORMS OF DIVISION, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE ABOUT THAT IS IF THEY BRING IT IN AS R1.
IT WON'T. I MEAN, THEN THEN THEY COME BACK AND SAY, WE WANT TO DO STARTER SUBDIVISION.
THAT'S WHEN WE GIVE THEM ALL OF THE RULES FOR THE SEWER, THE WASTEWATER.
THEY'LL BRING IT IN AS R1 AND THEN NOT BRING OUT A LOT OF PEOPLE.
[00:25:08]
RIGHT. YEAH. AND THEN THEY'LL BE ABLE TO TO WHEN DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING? THEY'LL HAVE TO HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING PRIOR TO APPLICATION FOR THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. SO THEY WILL HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WOULD BE THAT APPLICATION, THAT APPLICATION. SO THAT'S WHAT WILL BRING PEOPLE OUT TO.SO WITHOUT PLANNING AND ZONING AND THEN THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO THE COUNCIL.
YES. BUT IT'S HARD BECAUSE IT'S STATE CODE, RIGHT.
SO IT'S YEAH, YEAH. SUPERSEDES WHATEVER WE DO.
WE FORESEE THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEARINGS TO BE QUITE VOCAL.
YES. SO OUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO ASCERTAIN WHAT'S GOING ON IS THAT ANNEXATION.
BUT IT'S IT'S KIND OF THAT SAME THING. WE CAN'T SAY, WELL, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD? AND THEY CAN SAY, WE DON'T KNOW YET. YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S LIKE, WE DON'T KNOW. YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US THE RIGHT. THEY DON'T HAVE TO TELL US. MOST ANNEXATIONS, WE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE THAT. YOU DON'T TELL US WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING. WE PROBABLY NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK. YEAH, YEAH. BUT WHY ARE WE NOT SUPPOSED TO ASK? WE'RE NOT. WE. BECAUSE WHY? WE'RE JUST TALKING LAND USE.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ULTIMATE USE. YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE PROPOSED ZONING, AND IT HAS TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE CONFERENCE. SO IT SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING ON WHAT IT ACTUALLY BUILDS AS LONG AS IT'S BUILT TO THE ZONE.
CAN WE DEFINE WITHIN THE STATUTE WHAT ATTAINABLE IS? COULD WE SAY WE WANT THIS TO BE 30% OF THE INCOME OF THE AVERAGE WORKER AND SAY THAT'S THE ATTAINABLE PRICE? BECAUSE IT WOULD STOP THIS DEAD IN ITS TRACKS. LIKE THAT WOULD SAY NO ONE COULD BUILD FOR THAT.
I WOULD THINK, AND THEN YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS THAT MUCH.
ABSOLUTELY. I HAVE THAT DEFINITION. I THINK YOU'D STRUGGLE JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE STATE CODE, AND I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO DEFINE WHAT A STATE CODE MEANS RIGHT NOW.
YEAH. THOSE TWO WORDS ATTAINABLE. BUT THEN THAT'S SO WE COULD TRY.
AND THEN THE COURTS COULD TELL US NO, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THAT WOULD BE. THE COURTS WILL LOOK AT THE. BUT THAT'S TYPICALLY TO LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THIS WAS TO BE AFFORDABLE AND ATTAINABLE.
AND IF WE DEFINE THAT IN A STRICT TERM, THAT WOULD BE OF INTEREST, I THINK.
INTERESTING. I THINK THE CODE ALLOWS YOU TO BE LESS RESTRICTIVE.
BUT WE DON'T ALSO HAVE THE WORD ATTAINABLE IN MOST OF THE CODE.
RIGHT. SO I JUST THINK IT'S, IT'S A WORD THAT IS ASKING THAT IT'S BEGGING THE QUESTION.
WELL, THAT AND THE WORD OF COMPATIBLE TO ME IS SO SUBJECTIVE.
IT WILL NEVER BE COMPATIBLE. RIGHT. LIKE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE.
NO, THIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE BASED ON STATE STATUTE.
YEAH. THIS IS NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING.
SO MAYBE WE DON'T EVEN WRITE IT INTO THE CODE. WELL THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE TO TALK TO EVERY CHARGE.
IT SAYS REP. YOU'D SAY WELL THIS ISN'T COMPATIBLE WITHIN THAT.
BUT BUT HERE'S THE QUESTION THOUGH, IS THAT IF WE ANNEX RIGHT AND WE GRANT, GRANT THE USE BY RIGHT, WHICH LET'S JUST SAY IT'S LET'S SAY IT'S RE RIGHT.
AND THEN THEY SUBMIT A PLAT THAT BY CODE THEY'VE MET THAT ORDINANCE.
WE'RE NOW A PROCESS OR A POINT IN THE PROCESS WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ANY ABILITY TO SAY, NO, THIS ISN'T THIS IS NO LONGER COMING TO US FOR APPROVAL.
RIGHT? I MEAN, IT DOES, BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD THAT THAT IS REALLY RIGHT.
YEAH. WE WE CAN'T WE CAN'T DENY IT. BUT DOES THAT DOES THAT STATEMENT OF SAYING COMPATIBILITY NOW GIVE US AN ABILITY TO SAY ACTUALLY, NO, I DON'T KNOW. NOW I THINK WE COME BACK TO THE LEGAL STANDPOINT.
WE GOT A LOT OF QUESTIONS. THE WAY I READ IT IS COMPATIBILITY.
COULDN'T YOU IS INFORMED BY THE REST OF THE STATUTE WHERE IT'S SAYING IT HAS TO BE PERMITTED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES, WHICH WOULD MEAN NOW IT'S COMPATIBLE WITH ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES.
IT'S KIND OF A CIRCULAR LOGIC, BUT THANK YOU LEGISLATURE.
YEAH, BUT DOESN'T THE PUD CODE USE THE WORD COMPATIBILITY? YES. AND HOW'S THAT WORKED? NOT WELL. WE DEFINE THAT BASED ON BULK STRUCTURE.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION FOR COMPATIBILITY.
CEILING IS ANOTHER MAN'S FLAW OR AFFORDABILITY.
I DO, YEAH, I DO. I DO THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER ROUTE.
AND THAT IS THE REASON STATEMENT OF CRITERIA.
WE COULD DENY THESE WHEN THEY CAME TO US WITH THE STANDARD.
I'M SAYING TELL US IF THIS IS GOING TO BE ATTAINABLE BY BEING 30% OF INCOME OF PEOPLE THAT ARE AN AVERAGE WORKER AND SAY, AND JUST WRITE THAT AS YOUR REASON STATEMENT OF CRITERIA, AND IT DOESN'T BECAUSE THE CODE SAYS IT NEEDS TO BE ATTAINABLE.
[00:30:03]
SO THAT COULD BE AN OPTION AS WELL.TECHNICALLY $1 MILLION HOUSE IS ATTAINABLE. IT'S JUST NOT ATTAINABLE TO SOME.
RIGHT. AND SO IT'S IT'S NOT WELL WRITTEN IN THE STATE CODE, BUT IT'S SO VAGUE.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO ANY FURTHER DEFINITION WITHOUT.
WHICH IS WHY WHEN YOU DO THAT KIND OF STUFF, WE CAN PUSH BACK WHEN THEY MAKE THOSE KIND OF ERRORS.
THEN WE HAVE WAYS TO FORCE THEIR HAND. SO YOU MADE THIS ERROR TO FIX IT.
WOULD IT BE KNOWLEDGE THEN THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE.
YES. THEY WOULD NEED TO SHOW A LAYOUT OF WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE.
YEAH. AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE PUD. YOU'RE ALSO SEEING ELEVATIONS.
NO ELEVATIONS WILL BE SEEN FOR A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION UNTIL A BUILDING PERMIT IS SUBMITTED.
SO YOU JUST SEE THE LOT SIZE. SO COMPATIBILITY RIGHT.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT LOT SIZE AND SHAPE. YEAH.
CAN WE GO BACK A COUPLE SLIDES. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE SIZES AGAIN ON THOSE.
YES. AND I'M GOING TO OH ARE YOU GOING TO DO ALL.
I HAVE ALL THE CODE. AND SO SO WE CAN JUST START INTO THE WE'LL JUST GO RIGHT OUT.
SO WE DID HAVE A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION SUBCOMMITTEE.
WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS, PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, ENGINEERS, DEVELOPERS, AND IN AMMAN CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, AMMAN PLANNING STAFF. AND OF COURSE WE WERE THERE AS WELL.
THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM THEM, AND YOU'LL SEE THE MINUTES IN YOUR PACKET WAS A FEW THINGS.
PARKING WAS A CONVERSATION LOT DENSITY OR LOT COVERAGE PERMITTING, ATTACHED HOMES AND DENSITY.
SO THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD DURING THAT SUBCOMMITTEE.
AND THAT WOULD BE THAT. IF YOU WERE IN ZONES THAT HAVE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER DENSITY, YOU MIGHT BE MOVING MORE TOWARDS THOSE ZONES, AND YOU COULD DO A SMALLER PLOT OF LAND FOR A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION.
BUT THE CITY OF OTTAWA ALSO DID THIS IN A WAY.
AND SO I DEFINITELY HEAR THE RPRE ANNEXATION CONVERSATION.
AND SO I'VE TRIED TO DO SUBTLE IMPLEMENTATIONS OF THAT AS WE DO THAT.
YEAH. THAT DOESN'T GIVE ANYONE HEARTBURN. THE NEXT ONE.
THAT'S AN IMPROVEMENT, I THINK, ON THE BILL. YES.
SO PERMITTED USES. SO THE BILL SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE DWELLING SINGLE UNIT DETACHED.
WE BUILT A LOT OF SINGLE UNIT ATTACHED. AND IT WAS IMPORTANT TO THE COMMITTEE THAT WE INCLUDED THAT.
AND I, WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS AN ADDITION THAT WOULD BE WILLING TO DO.
THEY WOULD ONLY BE PERMITTED IN A CERTAIN SUBDIVISION.
THE RE AND RP ZONES AGAIN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT COMPATIBILITY.
IF IT'S ANNEXED WE'RE SAYING IN THOSE ZONES YOU CAN ONLY DO DWELLING SINGLE UNIT DETACHED.
SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO ATTACHED IN THE RPP ZONES.
AGAIN THAT'S A SUBTLE WAY TO KIND OF TRY TO PROTECT THOSE ZONES AND THAT COMPATIBILITY.
SETBACKS. SO THE STATE CODE SAYS THAT THE FRONT SETBACK HAS TO BE 15FT.
WE KEPT THAT. THE REAR SETBACK IN THE CODE SAYS 15FT.
WE'RE SUGGESTING TEN. TEN IS WHAT'S IN THE TEN ZONE.
AND THIS ONE IN THE LOT SIZE KIND OF ADDRESS A SIMILAR THING.
EASEMENTS, TRANSFORMERS, ROADS, ALL THAT STUFF.
WE CAN'T QUITE CHANGE INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT I CAN ADDRESS A SETBACK AND I CAN ADDRESS A LOT SIZE.
RIGHT. AND SO IF WE DO A TEN FOOT REAR SETBACK THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM, IF THAT 15 FOOT FRONT UTILITY EASEMENT, WHICH CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN IT, THAT MEANS THE HOME HAS TO BE BACK 16FT, RIGHT? THAT TEN FOOT JUST GIVES IT A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM.
AND THE TEN FOOT IS WHAT IS IN OUR END ZONE. AND REALLY, THAT IS THE TRUE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST. SO WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS.
BUT IN THE END, WE HAVE AN ALLEYWAY. YES. YES.
[00:35:05]
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN'T PUT PARKING IN THE FRONT. AND THEY DO HAVE AN ALLEYWAY DON'T USE.YES. AND THEN THEIR ADJACENT NEIGHBOR. RIGHT.
OKAY. AND THEN OF COURSE, WE PUT THE REAR YARD SETBACK MAYBE.
THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR CODE TODAY. SO WE JUST WANTED TO ADD IT TO THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION.
IS THAT WHAT. AM I READING THE MAP RIGHT? OKAY.
I KNOW THIS IS GOING TO GET ME LAUGHED OUT, BUT AS SMALL AS THIS IS.
BUT WHAT ABOUT AUXILIARY DWELLING UNITS? YEAH, I KNOW WE ONLY ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT IF YOU CAN USE AN AUXILIARY, COULD YOU END UP WITH TWO LITTLE TINY HOMES ON A LOT LIKE THIS? YOU COULD, IF YOU CAN FIT IT TO YOU. BUT MAYBE YOU CAN'T LOGISTICALLY.
BUT I'M JUST THINKING BECAUSE ADS ARE ALLOWED BY STATE STATUTE NOW.
YES. SO WE HAD TO ADDRESS THAT AS WELL. YES. REMIND ME.
YES. THE SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM WHAT? THE PROPERTY LINE.
FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE FOUNDATION WALL.
DOES THAT MEAN BECAUSE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR CURB AND GUTTER, DOES THAT MEAN FROM CURB AND GUTTER FROM THE PROPERTY LINE? AND A LOT OF TIMES THE PROPERTY LINE MIGHT BE BEHIND THE SIDEWALK, ACTUALLY.
OKAY. SO IT COULD INCLUDE THE SIDEWALK OR MAYBE NOT.
DEPENDS ON HOW IT'S BUILT. GENERALLY DOES NOT.
DOES NOT. SO IT'S FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE BUILDING.
AND THE REASON I ASKED THE QUESTION IS, IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE, IT SEEMED LIKE A COUPLE OF THE DEVELOPERS WERE VERY INTERESTED IN TANDEM PARKING BEING PERMITTED AND 15FT WOULDN'T ALLOW FOR TANDEM PARKING, WOULD IT? NO, I MEAN, YOU'D HAVE TO HAVE AT LEAST 20 OR 30FT.
RIGHT. OR AM I THINKING THE MEASUREMENT WRONG? A PARKING STALL. STANDARD PARKING STALL IS TEN FEET BY 20.
20FT. YEAH. SO 15 FOOT IS NOT GOING TO LET YOU HAVE TANDEM PARKING.
CORRECT. YOU'D HAVE TO SET IT BACK AT LEAST 20FT.
AM I THINKING RIGHT? YOU WOULD. YEAH. YEAH.
I MEAN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME UP FROM A COUPLE OF PEOPLE IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT.
YEAH. THEY COULD STILL DO THE TEN. OKAY. SO THE LOT SIZE.
THIS IS AN INTERESTING ONE. THE STATE CODE CONTRADICTS ITSELF.
STATE CODE SAYS IT HAS TO BE. CAN'T BE MORE THAN 1500.
CAN'T BE LESS THAN. FROM THAT THERE WAS TWO LEGAL OPINIONS.
ONE WAS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICES OFFICES FROM THE IDAHO STATE LEGISLATURE.
THAT BASICALLY SAID THAT THEY ALLOWED A MINIMUM, MAXIMUM SUPER HELPFUL AND THAT THE INTENT WAS ESSENTIALLY THAT IT CAN BE A MINIMUM OF 1500. BUT ALSO YOU CAN DO LESS THAN 1500.
THERE'S ANOTHER LEGAL OPINION THAT CAME OUT OF GEM STATE HOUSING ALLIANCE THAT VERY CLEARLY SAYS, IN SHORT, CITIES CANNOT REQUIRE A MINIMUM LOT SIZE ABOVE 1500FT², LOT SMALLER, LOTS SMALLER THAN 1500FT².
WHEN I TOOK THOSE LEGAL. OPINIONS WE CAN DO A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 1500 OR WHAT I PROPOSE IS LOT SIZES SHALL BE SIZED INTO IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.
IF IT'S PARKING. IT'S NOT 20FT. IF IT'S A 15 FOOT EASEMENT, THAT JUST GIVES A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY.
OUR SUBDIVISION CODE SAYS THAT CORNER LOTS HAVE TO BE, YOU KNOW, 10% LARGER.
THIS JUST SAYS MEET THE TWO FRONT SETBACKS. THE LITTLE BOLD DOES THAT.
HAVE YOU LOOKED, LIKE, LET'S SAY IF A DEVELOPER SAYS, OKAY, I'M GOING TO DO A 600 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING, WHAT WOULD BE THE LOT SIZE TO INCORPORATE THOSE SETBACKS AND 600FT²? DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT LOT SIZE WOULD NEED TO BE? IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE TO THAT 1500, ISN'T IT? YEAH. PRETTY CLOSE. OKAY, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS MATH.
YEAH, MAYBE A LITTLE LESS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WOULD BE.
ANYWAY, I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE SOMEONE WOULD GO SMALLER THAN 600, BUT 600 FEELS LIKE I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GO MUCH SMALLER THAN 600FT ON A SINGLE.
YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD I'D HAVE TO DRAW IT OUT. SO SO MAXIMUM COVERAGE IS 80% THOUGH.
[00:40:03]
THAT'S WHAT WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT WE HAVE 80% IN OUR OTHER ZONES.AND THEN IT DOES. AND THAT'S ANYTHING THAT'S UNDER A ROOF, RIGHT.
OKAY. SO THAT DOESN'T COUNT YOUR DRIVEWAY OR YOUR PATIO. AND THAT GIVES A LITTLE BIT OF, AGAIN, ABILITY TO MEET THOSE SETBACKS TO BUILD AND MAYBE ALLOW FOR CAR PARK OR SHED OR YOU.
THE NEXT PART IS THE DENSITY. SO THE CODE DOESN'T ADDRESS DENSITY.
THE NUMBER WE CAME WITH AS WE DID SOME CALCULATIONS ON SOME OF THE EXAMPLES IS 15 UNITS PER ACRE.
THAT IS, AGAIN, THE TEN ZONE DENSITY OR OR IF IT'S GREATER THAN THE UNDERLYING ZONE.
SO AGAIN THAT RE THAT RPR1 STILL THEY COULD MEET THE 15 UNITS BUT NOT GO GREATER THAN THAT.
DOES THAT CONFLICT THOUGH WITH THE BILL IN ANY WAY? IT DOESN'T ADDRESS DENSITY. SO THIS WOULD BE US ESTABLISHING IT.
IT WOULD MAKE IT SO IT'S ACTUALLY LESS RESTRICTIVE.
PARKING. THIS WAS A HARD ONE BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT ABOUT PARKING.
SO WE WERE SAYING PARKING SHALL BE TWO PARKING SPOTS PER LOT AT THE STANDARD SIZE.
SO IF YOU HAVE A ONE CAR GARAGE ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE AND YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT, YOU COULD HAVE ONE IN THE GARAGE, ONE IN THE DRIVEWAY, THAT WOULD BE YOUR TWO STALLS.
IF A PRIVATE ALLEY IS INCLUDED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE PARKING MAY BE REDUCED TO ONE PARKING STALL.
OVERALL ACCESS FROM THE PRIVATE ALLEY. AND AGAIN, THAT MAKES IT WHERE IF IT'S FROM AN ALLEY, YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THESE DRIVEWAYS. SO THERE'S MORE STREET PARKING WHERE WE WOULD ALL DO THAT.
WHY WOULDN'T THEY ALL PUT TOOK THE EXCESS FROM THE ALLEY? THEN THEY ALL HAVE TO HAVE ONE PARKING SPOT. THEY'D HAVE MORE ROOM TO BUILD THE ALLEYS WAS AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE.
THEY FELT. NOT IN LOVE WITH THEM BECAUSE IT'S AN ACTUAL.
IT'S AN EXTRA COST, RIGHT? YOU'RE BUILDING A PUBLIC STREET AND THEN YOU HAVE AN ALLEY BEHIND IT, AND IT'S A PRIVATE ALLEY. THAT'S AN EXTRA COST TO BUILD IT.
IT'S ALSO AN EXTRA COST OF MAINTENANCE, NOT AS MUCH AS MAYBE A PRIVATE STREET, BUT.
I LIKE ALEX. I DO TOO. SO THESE WOULD HAVE PUBLIC STREETS, RIGHT? YES. SO IF YOU BUILD IT, IF THEY DECIDED TO BUILD AN ALLEY, THEY HAVE TO KEEP IT CLEAR OF SNOW AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
HOWEVER, THEY WANT TO DO THAT. YEAH. WHAT ARE WE, ARE WE ADDING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS? SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. NO. DOES NOT ADDRESS PARKING AT ALL.
SO WHY ARE WE BOTHERING? BECAUSE IF WE ADD TWO PARKING STALLS AS IS, IT BECOMES A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT TO BUILD AND IT INCREASES THAT LOT SIZE AGAIN, THAT ABILITY. SO WE TRY TO GIVE THEM OPTIONS TO AGAIN, BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CREATIVE IN HOW THEY DEVELOP THIS.
BUT WOULDN'T THE MOST CREATIVITY BE TO DO NO PARKING STANDARD IN THESE? WELL, YEAH, THAT COULD BE. BUT I THINK THAT'S UNREALISTIC.
WELL, I THINK THE CAPITALIST SOCIETY SAYS I'LL BUILD WHAT PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO BUILD.
I DO AGREE WITH THAT. SO THAT'S WHAT YOU BUILD PARKING.
IF YOU BUILD SOMETHING I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I CAN'T ARGUE WITH THAT.
I WOULD SAY WHAT WE SUGGESTED IS MAYBE IN BETWEEN THAT IDEA AND THE STANDARD PARKING.
YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I MEAN, ONE OF OUR ISSUES.
I MEAN, IT GOES BACK TO WHAT WE'VE BEEN ARGUING TO ABOUT PUDS.
AND I MEAN, PRETTY SOON ALL YOU'RE GOING TO GET IS A DRIVEWAY AND THEN WHERE'S THE SNOW GOING TO GO? RIGHT. YOU'RE GOING TO GET A DRIVEWAY. AND THEN EVERY, EVERY, EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO BE TAKING A SNOW PLOW DOWN AND TAKING IT OFF THEIR DRIVEWAY TEN FEET.
TAKE THAT OFF THE DRIVEWAY. I MEAN, IT'S JUST GOING TO BECOME ANOTHER PUBLIC WORKS NIGHTMARE TO TRY.
AND, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE A PUBLIC STREET. I GUESS YOU'LL JUST PLOW THE CARS RIGHT INTO THE.
[00:45:01]
AND MAYBE YOU'LL GET TO THIS. SO SO JUST TELL ME IT'S COMING. BUT DO YOU TALK AT ALL ABOUT ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE PUBLIC STREET REQUIREMENTS? NO. SO THAT'S OUR STANDARD AS WE HAVE IT TODAY WOULD STILL APPLY TO THIS STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION STREETS.THOSE STREETS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE BUILT TO THAT STANDARD.
WE DON'T FEEL THERE'S ANY ANYTHING IN THE BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE US TO MODIFY THOSE STANDARDS.
DOESN'T ADDRESS IT AT ALL. WHAT IS THAT WORTH AGAIN, 28FT? OR IS THAT THE 66, 68, 64. MY POINT WAS IT'S 3033.
DO YOU HAVE A STREET? I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
IT'S LIKE, WHERE'S THE SNOW GOING TO GO? YOU CAN'T GO IN THE DRIVEWAY.
WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PILE SNOW UP ON RIGHT NOW? YOU DO IT ON THE STRIP. BUT IF YOU GOT A STRIP, IT'S ONLY THIS BIG.
EVENTUALLY THE SNOW HAS TO GO SOMEWHERE. DOES OUR DOES OUR 60FT UP FOR PUBLIC WORKS? DO WE REQUIRE OR HAVE ANYTHING REGARDING MOST TRIPS OR ANYTHING FOR SNOW LIKE WE DO RIGHT OR.
I BELIEVE THE. THAT'S WHY THEY'RE THERE. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. SIDEWALK.
YEAH. THE CORRECT THE PROFILE HAS I THINK THEY CALL IT A BOULEVARD.
OKAY. AND SO ALSO BY CHANGING THE PARKING, SOME AMOUNT OF COVERAGE FROM THAT STANDPOINT AS WELL.
OKAY. OKAY. THAT'S HELPFUL. WELL, I THINK YOUR POINT IS INTERESTING.
MAYOR THAT'S JUST FIRST COME TO MIND RIGHT NOW IS THAT IN MY STREET, BECAUSE IT IS A 60 FOOT WIDE STREET, CARS START PARKING. LIKE IF THE PLOW WENT THROUGH AND IT HIT AND IT DIDN'T GO ON THE SIDEWALK.
RIGHT. SO IT GOT PLOWED TO THE CURB. AND YOU START GETTING ON OUR BIG WINTERS.
THEN CARS START PARKING. CORRECT. AND THEN OUR FIRE, THEN OUR 26FT IS NOT THERE AT ALL.
RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I THINK WE HAVE TO REQUIRE SOME PARKING.
WELL, TO NOT HAVE ANY IS JUST GOING TO PUSH. THOSE CARS WILL BE ON THE SIDEWALK.
AND THEN DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, THAT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT THAT THERE'S A PLACE TO PUT THE SNOW TREE LAWN OR WHATEVER? YEAH. BUT IF YOU HAVE A CAR THAT'S PARKED ON THE STREET BECAUSE THERE ISN'T REQUIRED PARKING. THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THEM TO TAKE THEIR CAR.
WE'RE JUST GOING TO PLOW THEM IN. SO I WOULD.
OR THE OPTION OF THEY'RE ON THEIR LAWN. YES. SO I'M JUST SAYING I AM IN SUPPORT OF.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT YOU PLOW PEOPLE IN AND THEN THEY DON'T LIKE.
THAT'S THAT IS WHERE THEY GO. THAT'S WHAT EVERY OTHER CITY DOES.
LIKE IT'S JUST TOO MUCH WORK FOR CITIES. THAT'S WHAT THIS WILL BE.
THAT'S INTERESTING. WE COULD DO THAT THROUGH VOLUNTEERS.
I MEAN, COULD WE REQUIRE THAT THEY HAVE TWO PARKING PLACES OFF STREET, OR IS THAT ALREADY A REQUIREMENT? IT IS. IF I GO BACK, WE ALLOW THEM TO HAVE. THEY CAN HAVE REGULAR PARKING IF THEY WANT TO MAKE THAT WORK.
WE'RE JUST ALSO ALLOWING TANDEM PARKING, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING WE USUALLY.
WE ONLY PREVENT THAT AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T. PUDS.
AND THE TANDEM WAS A DIRECT RESULT OF INPUT FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.
THIS NEXT ONE IS REALLY TRYING TO ALIGN WITH OUR CURRENT CODE.
WE HAVE A WHOLE SEPARATE TABLE FOR SETBACKS FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
THIS, WE'RE JUST KIND OF SAYING IT WOULD MEET THE SETBACKS.
AND IT DOES CONTRIBUTE TO YOUR MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, WE WOULD BE SAYING IT HAS TO BE WHAT'S THE UNDERLYING ZONE YOU FEEL LIKE THAT DIDN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED? AND THEN THE APPROVAL PROCESS WOULD JUST ALL THE PLANNING PROCESS AS OUTLINED IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
AND THEN THE DEFINITION. WE PUT A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION THAT IS DESIGNED FOR COMPACT HOME.
SO THE NEXT ONE, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT DEFINITIONS FOR SINGLE UNITS AND DETACHED DWELLING UNITS,
[00:50:01]
YOU ALL MIGHT REMEMBER A TIME ABOUT IMPACT FEES WHEN IMPACT FEES WERE BEING DISCUSSED.THERE WAS CONVERSATIONS WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS ABOUT DEFINITIONS, RIGHT? AND HOW WE DEFINE OUR DEPARTMENT WENT THROUGH AND WORKED THROUGH A LOT OF THESE DEFINITIONS DURING THAT TIME PERIOD WAS ACTUALLY LAST SEPTEMBER, LAST OCTOBER TRYING TO ALIGN WITH THE IMPACT FEE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAPPENING WITH BUILDING CODE AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT. AND SO WE CAME UP WITH THESE DEFINITION CHANGES AT THAT POINT.
IMPACT FEES KIND OF WENT TO SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THIS KIND OF WENT TO THE SIDE.
AND SO WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS THE TIME TO BRING THIS BACK.
AS WE START DEFINING DETACHED AND WHAT'S PERMITTED, WE WANTED TO BRING BACK THESE DEFINITIONS.
THEY HAVE BEEN REVIEWED. THEY WERE REVIEWED BY LEGAL PRIOR TO STAFF REVIEW.
TO JUST KIND OF CLEAN UP THE CODE A LITTLE BIT AND MAKE SURE IT ALIGNED WITH AS WE EMBARK ON THIS.
AND THEN THIS IS JUST, IF YOU WERE IN THE SUBCOMMITTEE, YOU SAW THIS.
I DON'T THINK SO. WHAT I HAVE BEEN TAUGHT IS 5 TO $20,000 FOR ANY PARKING REQUIREMENT THAT YOU'RE ADDING TO THE COST OF ABOUT A HOUSE. SO IF THIS IS REALLY TRYING TO HELP US GET ATTAINABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THEN ADDING A PARKING REQUIREMENT TO OURS, WE'RE ADDING 5 TO $20,000 TO THE HOUSE. SO THAT'S JUST THE COST.
YEAH, YOU RAISE AN INTERESTING POINT. THERE'S CERTAINLY A COST, YOU KNOW, OF THAT 20,000 TO ME IS, IF YOU'RE DOING THE GARAGE RIGHT. AND THAT'S RIGHT.
AND IF YOUR LAND VALUES ARE HIGHER, WHICH OUR LAND VALUES USED TO BE LOWER.
AND SO WE PROBABLY WERE CLOSER TO 5 AND 20. BUT NOW WE'RE PROBABLY TEN.
YEAH. SO I IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
IT'S MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THEY WANTED, BUT WITH SOME FEW GUARDRAILS THAT I THINK MAKE IT BETTER.
CAN WE LEGALLY REQUIRE ELEVATIONS IF THEY'RE DOING A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE? I WOULD SAY PROBABLY NOT. DOES IT LIST IT? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY OKAY.
THIS THIS LEGISLATION DOESN'T ADDRESS THAT AND BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS IT ON SUBDIVISION LINES, SO I'M ASSUMING WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO. SO I KNOW THAT BUILD A TEN STORY HOUSE.
YEAH. THERE'S NO HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. YEAH. WE HAD TWO STORIES.
I'M REALLY GLAD THAT WE HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING. YEAH, LIKE I REALLY AM.
I THINK IT'S BEEN GOOD FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AND I THINK THAT THIS IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THAT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WE WOULD BE CLAMORING FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.
BECAUSE I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE BAIT AND SWITCH IS LESS LIKELY.
I THINK THAT'S AN INTERESTING POINT. AND MAYBE IF WE DO A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING OR WE ASK YOU AS PROFESSIONALS TO LET EVERYONE KNOW THAT THIS WAS A STATE MANDATE, THAT THIS ISN'T A CHOICE THAT WE CAN MAKE. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANT YOU TO HAVE INPUT HERE.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS GOING TO HAVE.
YES, I'M SURE WE'LL HAVE TALKING POINTS AT THAT POINT WHEN THERE'S A LOT OF PUBLIC CLAMOR ON THIS.
I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO SHARE THIS WITH GEM STATE AND AIC.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU CAN TOMORROW, BUT IF YOU'RE ABLE, SO THAT THEY CAN SEE HOW WE'RE TRYING TO IMPLEMENT THIS BILL THAT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO US, BECAUSE WHAT ELSE I'D LIKE TO DO IS BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM SOME IDEAS, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU ALREADY REFERENCED IT, THAT THEY PLAN TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY AN AMENDMENT TO THE BILL TO TIGHTEN IT UP, MAKE IT MORE CLEAR.
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO PROPOSE SOME OTHER THINGS FOR THEM TO, TO CONTEMPLATE IN THAT AMENDMENT, TO MAKE IT BETTER, BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE HEARING IS THE ONLY THING THEY WANT TO AMEND IS THAT DEFINITION, AND THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN MUCH ELSE. THEY MAY NOT BE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE MAY WANT WE WON'T SHARE WHAT OUR THOUGHTS ARE TO IMPROVE IT.
AND THERE MAY BE AN APPETITE FOR IT AND MAYBE NOT, BUT I'D LOVE TO AT LEAST SHARE WHAT WE,
[00:55:02]
HOW WE THINK IT COULD IMPROVE. IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE AIC HAS BEHIND ITS FIREWALL A A SECTION ON HOUSING THAT HAS SOME SUGGESTIONS FROM OTHER CITIES OF HOW THEY WERE APPROACHING THIS.I DON'T KNOW IF YOU THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR US TO ADD TO THAT LIST OR NOT.
I MEAN, WE COULD GIVE THEM THIS AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN IDAHO FALLS.
BUT BEHIND THE FIREWALL MEANS ONLY MEMBER CITIES CAN LOOK AT IT.
WE'LL PROBABLY BE OUT. NO, THIS WOULD ONLY BE THAT IT MIGHT HELP OTHER DIFFERENT APPROACH.
ARE THEY PUSH. ARE YOU SEEING THAT THEY'RE PUSHING BACK TO THIS BILL AND TRYING TO.
YES. YES. WHEREAS THEY'RE TRYING TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT WORK.
THEY'RE TRYING TO FIND WAYS TO ESSENTIALLY PUSH IT TO THE SIDE.
YES. OR MAKE IT NOT BE ABLE TO BE TO OCCUR WITHIN THEIR COMMUNITY.
ONE, ONE CITY IS SUGGESTING PUTTING IN THEIR CODE ONE LINE THAT SAYS SUB.
AS A PLANNER. YEAH, I AGREE. WELL, THAT GIVES SO MUCH LEEWAY AND INABILITY TO PLAN.
LIKE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE. YES. SO I GUESS THERE'S THE TIMELINE AND ALL THOSE THINGS WORK, OR WE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.
AND YEAH, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO GET ON THE TIMELINE.
HAS TO BE. YEAH. IS WHAT IT IS. THIS PUTS US.
YEAH. WITHIN IN ORDER TO BE COMPLIANT. RIGHT.
AND IF IT'S DECEMBER 1ST DECEMBER, THEN YOU'RE NOT IN THE SECOND PART OF THE HOLIDAYS.
THE 1ST JANUARY THEN YOU'RE AT THE LAST ONE. THAT HAS TO BE. SO THIS FELT LIKE THE RIGHT TIME.
THAT'S LIKE FOUR ACRES IMPLEMENTED IN CASE THE LEGISLATURE BLOCKS THAT CAN CHANGE FROM A DEVELOPER.
HAVE THEY ASKED US FOR POINT OF VIEW? I DON'T KNOW OF ANY.
WE'VE HAD A FEW PHONE CALLS HERE OR THERE IN THE SUMMERTIME OF PEOPLE BEING LIKE, HEY, WHEN ARE YOU GUYS DOING THIS? WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY. YEAH, I THINK THEY'RE MAYBE TRYING TO WAIT TO SEE BEFORE THEY START.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETINGS ON IT.
IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW IT PLAYS OUT. REMIND ME THE DATE THAT IT HAS TO BE FEBRUARY 1ST.
SO THAT WILL BE THE DATE THAT WE WILL SAY THIS IS EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 1ST.
SO IF THEY COME IN AND REALIZE SOME OF THEM HAVE REALLY HAD A LOT OF UPSET COMMUNITIES.
AND SO THAT'LL BE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL KNOW THAT AS WELL.
YES, THEY'VE BEEN THERE. IT'LL BE FEBRUARY 1ST.
YES. THEY'RE AWARE OF THIS LEGISLATION. YES. BUT NOT EFFECTIVE.
YEAH. COUNCIL. YOU'D BE UP TO THE COUNCIL WHEN YOU'D LIKE TO IMPLEMENT IT.
IMPLEMENTATION OF. YES. CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION FROM YOUR REVIEW OF THE BILL AND THIS STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION? IS THERE ANY PROHIBITION FOR COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE LIKE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE PART OF THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS? DOES IT TAKE KICK THOSE OUT? IS THERE THOSE COMMUNITIES STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW OVER OVERSIGHT, SO TO SPEAK, OF WHAT'S BEING DONE? I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING.
MY ASSUMPTION WOULD BE THAT IF IT WAS ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND ALREADY A PART OF THE REGULAR STANDARD PROCESS, THEY COULD CONTINUE WITH THAT. BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT'D BE SOMETHING YOU COULD DO IN ADDITION TO. SO IN IDAHO, CAN YOU HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW? BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE TO LOOK AT ELEVATIONS.
OTHERWISE YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, DO YOU? BUT YOU CAN'T HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW, I WOULD ADVISE IT SLOWS UP THE PROCESS AND IT ALSO, IN TERMS OF BEING DEVELOPER FRIENDLY, ALSO ON TOP OF THAT, SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY COME BACK TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY HAS SAID THEY DON'T LIKE THEM BECAUSE SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT COME BACK ARE SUBJECTIVE. I DIDN'T ASK THE QUESTION THE RIGHT WAY.
OH, SORRY. IF IT'S LEGAL TO HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE IN THE STATE OF IDAHO, WHY WOULDN'T IT BE LEGAL TO LOOK AT ELEVATIONS? BECAUSE WOULDN'T AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE LOOK AT ELEVATIONS? YES. I MEAN, WHAT ELSE WOULD THEY BE FOR? SO THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING.
I'M TRYING TO GET ELEVATIONS IN HERE BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THEIR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ELEVATION IS WHAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE IF THEY'RE ALL.
[01:00:03]
AND THIS COULD LEND ITSELF TO THAT. THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE CONSISTENT WITH VERY MANY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN IDAHO FALLS, BUT IT CAN ALSO TALK TO THE IDEA OF ATTAINABILITY.EXACTLY. SO SO THEY'VE GOT, AGAIN, ALMOST A CONTRADICTION BUILT IN HERE.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT RESIDENTIAL IN THE STATE OF IDAHO.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN HELP US IDENTIFY EXACTLY.
I COULD ALSO SEE WHERE IT WOULD BE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE CODE, WHICH WE WOULDN'T BE PERMITTED TO DO PER STATE STATUTE, BECAUSE THIS IS THIS IS A SUBDIVISION. THIS ISN'T A PUD.
SO THAT'S WHY THERE IS A DIFFERENCE. THEY SPECIFICALLY CALLED IT THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION, WHICH THEN WOULD FALL TO THAT SECTION. AND ACTUALLY THIS IS A SEPARATE SECTION.
AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING BY THE WAY THAT WE CREATE.
NO, THAT'S OKAY. AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
BUT TO JIM'S QUESTION, I GUESS I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHETHER OR NOT THAT, AGAIN, DOES THIS SUBDIVISION BILL THAT WAS PASSED DO ANYTHING TO ESSENTIALLY NULLIFY IF IF CERTAIN COMMUNITIES ALREADY HAVE THAT, LIKE I THINK EAGLE DOES? AND THE ONLY REASON I SAID THAT ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURE, MY INITIAL COMMENT WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE ADVISORY TO YOU AS THE COUNCIL. AND THAT'S THE INPUT WE'VE GOT BACK FROM THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE ABOUT AN ARCHITECTURE COMMITTEE.
THEY DON'T LIKE IT. THE SLOW UP AND THE. I CONCUR FROM THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE.
NO, THE NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WILL PUT PLENTY OF INPUT ON HOW THESE LOOK.
YES. OKAY. THOSE GUYS. ENOUGH. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO SAT ON THE COMMITTEE AND SUPER HELPFUL.
THANK YOU FOR PULLING IN LOTS OF ADMIN AND JUST EVERYBODY BECAUSE IT'LL BE A REGIONAL.
WE HAD SOME GOOD INPUT ON IT. DO YOU GET THE SENSE? DOES AMAN FEEL LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING COMPARABLE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING, OR ARE THEY DOING THEIR OWN? SEE WHAT IDAHO FALLS DOES. BUT IN MY CONVERSATION WITH THEIR STAFF, AND I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO GO A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ROUTE, BUT WITH A LOT OF WHAT WE HAVE IN THERE. WHAT WOULD YOU THINK IS GOING TO BE THEIR DIFFERENCE? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THAT I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO RESTRICT DENSITY AS MUCH AS THEY CAN.
THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION I GOT WITHOUT KNOWING THEIR CONVERSATIONS AND WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING.
THE RIGHT LOCATIONS. IT'S PERFECT. YEAH. OKAY.
ONE MORE THING JUST BEFORE YOU. I KNOW THAT THE REST HAVE LEFT.
AND REALLY, THIS IS MORE FOR YOU SPECIFICALLY, WOULD YOU JUST MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE WORKING WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS TEAM? YEAH. THE PIO IS REALLY SPECIFICALLY GETTING THEM IN THERE, LETTING THEM ASK THE QUESTIONS OF YOU GET ANSWERS, REALLY GO BACK AND FORTH WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE A LOT OF THE.
DO YOU WANT TO? FOR SURE. YES. AND I'M ASSUMING WE PROBABLY WANT TO DO SOME TYPE OF RELEASE, OR. I THINK EVENTUALLY, BUT I JUST THINK THAT THE MORE INFORMATION WITH THE COMMUNICATIONS TEAM GENERALLY HAS.
THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WORK WITH THE PIO TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY'S ON THE SAME PAGE.
THEY DON'T GET HIT WITH IT WITH A NEWSLETTER THEY WANT.
[City Attorney]
LET'S DO THE RECOMMENDATIONS NOW AND THEN WE CAN.YES. OKAY. I MOVE COUNCIL RECEIVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE OCTOBER 6TH, 2026 MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PURSUANT TO THE LOCAL LAND USE PLANNING ACT.
AYE. FREEMAN. YES. DINGMAN. YES. LARSEN. YES.
I MOVE COUNCIL MOVE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO IDAHO CODE 74-2061F, TO COMMUNICATE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL FOR THE PUBLIC AGENCY TO DISCUSS THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF AND LEGAL OPTIONS FOR PENDING LITIGATION OR CONTROVERSY IS NOT YET TO BE LITIGATED, BUT IMMINENTLY LIKELY TO BE LITIGATED.
[01:05:10]
SECOND. LARSEN. YES. FRANCIS. AYE. LEE. YES. DINGMAN.YES. FREEMAN. YES. RADFORD. AYE. MOTION CARRIES.
BUT WE COME BACK INTO OPEN SESSION IN ORDER FOR COUNCIL MEMBER TO MAKE A MOTION AND THEN FOR COUNCIL TO LISTEN TO THAT MOTION AND THEN APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE THAT ACTION. OKAY, BECAUSE I MOVE COUNCIL GRANT AUTHORITY TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO NEGOTIATE AN EASEMENT SETTLEMENT WITH KAREN AND JOHN BAN DEVENTER, AND COUNCIL AUTHORIZES THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH KAREN AND JOHN VAN DEVENTER.
I'LL SECOND. DINGMAN. YES. RADFORD. AYE. LARSEN.
YES. LEE. YES. FRANCIS. AYE. FREEMAN. YES. MOTION CARRIES.
[Announcements]
SO ENJOY JAPAN. THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING THE CITY AND THE GIFT EXCHANGE, SO IT SHOULD BE GOOD.THANKS FOR THE TIME. OKAY. NOTHING ELSE. THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED.
EARLY VOTING TODAY. IT WAS VERY PRAGMATIC. SO I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.