[0:09] Okay. We are ready to start our big city council meeting
[0:15] today on September 9th,
[0:19] and we will do-
[0:23] 1st.
[0:23] What?
[0:24] 1st. September 1.
[0:26] What did I say?
[0:27] 9th.
[0:28] I said 9th?
[0:28] What's nine times? You just admitted it.
[0:33] I've had a long day. Well,
[0:38] don't know where that came from. September 1st. Thank you.
[0:43] And we will do a roll call.
[0:46] Council Member Podkalski?
[0:49] Here.
[0:49] Council Member Knowles?
[0:50] Here.
[0:51] Council Member Johnston?
[0:52] Here.
[0:53] Council Member Makowski, not present. Mayor Christensen?
[0:59] Present. Let's go ahead and start with the pledge of
[1:04] allegiance.
[1:09] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
[1:15] Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,
[1:21] with liberty and justice for all.
[1:26] Thanks everybody for joining in. And we'll go ahead
[1:32] and get started with our community input time.
[1:36] Before we start, I'd like to just go over the protocol for that.
[1:41] This is an opportunity to come up to the podium and speak up
[1:47] to three minutes. You are able to state your name and your physical
[1:54] place of residence, in addition to, this is
[1:59] not for any quasi-judicial matters, which are private land use
[2:05] matters.
[2:09] And if you have any input to share on a listed public hearing,
[2:15] you will also wait until the time for the public hearing and not during public
[2:21] input time
[2:23] or community input time. So if anybody would like to come up,
[2:29] this is the time to come on up to the podium.
[2:38] And I'll just ask that you, if you could turn the microphone on.
[2:43] Thank you.
[2:43] Okay. Hi. Okay. I'm trying to do, and if you're, actually just as a resident, 420
[2:49] Cowboy Trail, having been to a lot of these city meetings over the years.
[2:53] And a lot of jurisdictions in Idaho require people presenting testimony
[2:59] to take an oath or an affirmation, so to tell the truth, the whole truth.
[3:03] And Caldwell has adopted this practice since 1982, and they require staff,
[3:08] applicants, experts, consultants, engineers, and witnesses to do this in
[3:13] quasi-judicial land use proceedings.
[3:16] Coeur d'Alene has done something kind of similar for the last 11 years.
[3:20] Payette, Fruitland, Bonner, Bonners Ferry, Dalton Gardens, Franklin, and Melba also
[3:25] require oaths and affirmations in specific fact-finding hearings.
[3:31] And I think that this is a practice that the city should consider adopting.
[3:35] I think that there's a lot of new projects that come before you, and a lot of
[3:39] issues and fast-moving questions.
[3:41] And so I think that it would be to great benefit of the city.
[3:45] I do believe the city clerk has the authority to do this.
[3:49] 5207 of the Idaho Code gives the clerk the authority to administer oaths, and it
[3:54] says, "The city clerk shall keep a correct journal of the proceedings of the
[3:57] council and shall have custody of all laws and ordinances of the city.
[4:02] The clerk may administer oaths to any person concerning any matter submitted to
[4:07] them or the city council." So I think that this is a, and this is actually also
[4:12] further codified in
[4:17] 9 Section 1401, Who May Administer Oaths.
[4:21] "Every court, judge, or clerk of any court, every justice and notary secretary of
[4:26] state, and every other officer or person authorized to take testimony in any action
[4:31] or proceeding, has the power to administer oaths and affirmations." And I do
[4:36] believe that this could be a great benefit to the city. Thank you.
[4:40] Thank you, Your Honor.
[4:55] Kathleen Harris, 6987 West, 4000 North, Cetonia.
[5:00] My adult life has been about details, whether debugging software, preparing tax
[5:06] returns, coaching trampoline, or trying to save school district and staff a little
[5:11] money. If the details are correct, the results are solid.
[5:17] However, if the details are questionable or flat out incorrect, the results will
[5:23] be equally flawed. I am not an attorney or an accountant or a computer
[5:29] engineer, but I am good at finding things that don't quite make sense,
[5:34] things that don't follow from what was previously said.
[5:39] I read and I ask questions. You all were elected because the community
[5:45] trusts you. You are not expected to be brilliant or to know everything, but you are
[5:50] expected to study the laws, codes, requests, and comments and ask questions of
[5:56] city staff and your attorney and whomever else you believe might be helpful.
[6:02] And you need to continue asking questions until you thoroughly understand whatever
[6:07] it is you need to know. Your constituency does not want you to simply
[6:13] accept whatever you are told from your attorney or your staff or anybody
[6:19] else. You are the elected oversight for city staff and the city
[6:24] attorney. You were hired to judge their work. Please do so. Thank you.
[6:31] Thank you. Anybody else?
[6:47] Good evening. My name is David Harmon.
[6:51] I'm also at 6987 West 4000 North in Cetonia.
[6:57] I attended the last meeting and got to thinking about all the comments that I heard
[7:03] relevant to the subdivision, and it occurred to me to approach it perhaps from a
[7:06] little different angle.
[7:08] So I'm going to have to ask you to stop there.
[7:10] All comments to do with the subdivision that you're mentioning is to be
[7:16] saved, as I stated at the beginning, during the public hearing comment period.
[7:20] I'm sorry. I did not understand.
[7:24] Thank you.
[7:32] Anybody else?
[7:41] Okay, we'll move on to our consent agenda. Before...
[7:49] Yes, we'll move on to our consent agenda.
[7:53] Before we move on to anything else, I would just like to
[7:59] state that in the claims,
[8:03] we need to be able to pull out the item 121090
[8:09] for the airport runway repair, and we will be, if we need to
[8:15] bring that back, we'll be bringing that back at a future council
[8:18] meeting.
[8:24] I make a motion to approve the consent agenda, omitting item number
[8:28] 121090 off of the claims.
[8:33] I'll second that.
[8:34] Motion to second. Any discussion in regards to the minutes from August 4th,
[8:40] August 18th, and the claims?
[8:44] I appreciate the corrections. Thank you.
[8:50] All in favor?
[8:52] Aye.
[8:53] Aye.
[8:53] Aye.
[8:55] Thank you.
[8:59] Now we're going to move on to agenda item number four for the LTCH presentation of
[9:03] road scholar
[9:14] All right. My name is Lisa Moffatt with LTAP.
[9:16] Thank you for allowing me to be here today to give an award to one of your staff
[9:20] for their outstanding achievements.
[9:22] Just a little bit about us and the program, so you understand how we go through to
[9:25] get this award. Our mission at LTAP is to advocate, support, and train all local
[9:31] highway jurisdictions. That's every highway district, city, and county with road
[9:35] authority in the state. We have a Teach 2 Center that is part of a national
[9:40] program. We provide training and technical assistance to meet the needs of highway
[9:45] jurisdictions in Idaho. So the training portion of our Teach 2 Center is offered in
[9:49] the form of classes. They're held throughout the state during the spring and the
[9:53] fall. The classes we offer cover a wide variety of topics, including safety,
[9:57] professional development, and the largest portion being construction and
[10:01] maintenance techniques. Most of the courses have an exam that requires an 80% on an
[10:06] exam to pass. So we offer three different programs.
[10:11] The first one is Road Scholar, and that's not here to present today.
[10:14] It includes approximately 80 hours of instruction, seven core classes, and four
[10:19] electives. Each student will have four years to complete this level.
[10:23] Our second program is the Road Master. It builds upon the Road Scholar.
[10:27] Includes another variety of classes, 80 hours of instruction, and four years to
[10:31] complete. And then we also offer a leadership development program.
[10:36] So at this time, we'll bring up Tanner Roberts.
[10:39] If you'll
[10:40] please
[10:47] Here's your hat. Does everybody want to meet?
[10:50] Yeah.
[10:54] Can I take a picture?
[10:55] Yes.
[10:58] Sorry.
[10:58] Can we take a picture with LTAP?
[11:01] We're going to
[11:04] take a picture.
[11:05] Okay, perfect.
[11:08] Here, jump in there.
[11:14] Mom, you should probably-
[11:15] Okay. Do you want to search on my phone?
[11:19] Yeah. Thanks.
[11:20] Oh, yeah.
[11:20] So
[11:23] you're just
[11:32] That way?
[11:33] Perfect.
[11:34] In our camera for one time.
[11:42] Cheese.
[11:46] Hey.
[11:48] If you have some-
[11:56] Wait, don't go yet, Tanner.
[12:00] Tanner, we're so proud of you, and we just really appreciate your dedication to the
[12:06] city of Driggs and taking the time to do this education for
[12:12] yourself and for the city. And it's people like you that matter to
[12:17] our town to make everything better and for all of our residents here.
[12:21] And so-
[12:22] Thank you
[12:22] ... I'm just really proud of you. Thank you, Tanner.
[12:25] Thank you. It's been a pleasure.
[12:33] Aw.
[12:36] We all need a little positive, good news in our day, and it's wonderful to be
[12:42] able to have opportunities like that to acknowledge our staff, our
[12:48] hardworking staff here at the city of Driggs.
[12:51] So thank you for being a part of it here tonight.
[12:58] We are going to move on to agenda item number five.
[13:01] This is our public hearing for the preliminary plat for Corona Valley, and
[13:07] this was tabled on August 4th until tonight.
[13:14] So, a few things that I'm going to review before we start
[13:20] here is
[13:23] this was indeed tabled. And this was tabled for a number
[13:29] of reasons, which I'm going to go over here.
[13:33] The motion was to be able to have
[13:38] additional information for council and to
[13:44] further consider public comment in regards to the new information.
[13:49] The first one was regarding new information of finding number three, updated
[13:54] improvement plans that are stamped and fully accepted by public works and
[13:59] incorporate recommendations from Keller regarding water.
[14:03] Two, related to finding number four, proposed phasing is clearly shown with more
[14:08] clarity and consistency in phasing plans.
[14:12] Three, regarding finding number five, need more information on
[14:18] satisfactory mitigation measures.
[14:21] So,
[14:24] that's the new information that we will be hearing tonight.
[14:30] And so we'll go ahead and start. Will we be starting with staff or the applicant?
[14:36] I can go first, yeah.
[14:37] Okay, come on up. Thank you, Jake.
[14:47] Good evening, council. I'm Jennifer.
[14:49] Making sure everything is going on good.
[14:56] The mayor already went over the motion particularly, but it is included on the last
[15:01] page of your staff report in the packet.
[15:05] The materials that were submitted by the applicant, staff tries to clearly
[15:10] articulate, by parentheses, new.
[15:14] There are a lot of documents, so we did try to do that.
[15:19] There are some additional information
[15:23] in the mitigation sections which staff is suggesting as city council makes a motion
[15:27] this evening to incorporate into the development agreement.
[15:31] That includes the voluntary contribution to the school's growth
[15:36] contribution fund,
[15:39] which is a new fund that's starting based on essentially the impact they've studied
[15:44] from the school district. And they'll be presenting on that at your next city
[15:47] council meeting. But that's the voluntary contribution this developer has
[15:53] suggested, and has broken out by phases of the development.
[15:58] The other mitigation measure was a contribution to the sheriff's department,
[16:03] excuse me, Teton County Sheriff's Department, which would require
[16:08] a separate agreement. So those things staff would recommend be incorporated into
[16:13] your city in motion made.
[16:18] The last mitigation measure that I wanted to mention, which has been discussed, and
[16:24] is within the development agreement currently, but there were some questions about
[16:29] signage,
[16:31] local traffic-only signage on Highway Trail south of Ross
[16:36] Avenue, where the narrowing boulevard bulb-outs are proposed by this developer.
[16:41] So as an off-site mitigation. This is off the property south of Ross Avenue.
[16:48] We've discussed signage, it's in the development agreement, but if City Council
[16:51] would like further clarification, I would suggest local traffic only.
[16:56] That's the sign that we previously discussed.
[16:59] So that sign isn't specifically called out, but signage is in the development
[17:04] agreement for that off-site investigation.
[17:09] Are there any questions for... Oh, and lastly, we do have Keller Associates
[17:15] online. If there are specific questions for them, I believe that you
[17:20] can find Davis and Collier, sorry.
[17:32] Thank you. Is there any questions from City Council for staff at this time?
[17:41] Regarding anything, as in, for new information or?
[17:47] You can discuss anything related to the application.
[17:54] I'll break the ice with something simple.
[17:58] There was
[17:59] in the agenda packet, as far as dedicated park space, there was three different
[18:04] numbers drawn out. In one place, it said 6.5 acres of park space is dedicated.
[18:10] Another
[18:12] page said 5.074, and another said 6.9, and just wanted to
[18:18] clarify
[18:20] What is the dedicated park space
[18:23] ?
[18:23] Well, the dedicated park space is what's being dedicated to the City of Driggs.
[18:28] It might be confusing because there's more than the required amount, but not all of
[18:32] it is going to the City of Driggs. The City of Driggs, or at least in staff's
[18:36] recommendations, to only accept the soccer field section.
[18:41] Those other small pocket parks and stormwater parks would
[18:47] be owned and maintained by the development.
[18:49] Great. Thanks.
[18:53] Before we move on, I just want to...
[18:55] If anybody is out in the gallery area, there's three open seats up front.
[19:00] I see one open seat in the middle over here,
[19:06] and I think there's one over there in the far corner.
[19:11] Sorry. Okay, any
[19:14] other questions for staff at this time?
[19:18] Yeah, this is
[19:20] Phil.
[19:21] I was just going to say same here that I do have some questions, but I was
[19:24] wondering if I can hold them until after the
[19:27] Yeah.
[19:27] Presentation. They might just be able to-
[19:30] That's fine.
[19:33] This is just something that got brought up at the previous hearing.
[19:38] In the new engineering response, it
[19:43] suggested that the lighting was non-conforming.
[19:49] But I think the point of the new photometrics plan, did that address it?
[19:55] Of the 4,000 foot candle development.
[19:59] Yes. Certainly not the only change that was made, which was adjusting the
[20:05] 4,000 foot candle on the fixtures.
[20:08] Right.
[20:12] I would like to just pause us because I didn't ask, even though this was tabled,
[20:18] I didn't ask electeds if, because this is a quasi-judicial matter, if
[20:24] there was any additional
[20:27] information that you received outside of this
[20:32] information from this
[20:35] last meeting or in the packet,
[20:39] or had any additional input.
[20:42] No.
[20:43] Miles?
[20:44] No.
[20:45] Sarah?
[20:45] No, I'm not.
[20:48] Thank you. I did have a brief conversation with somebody that lives in the
[20:54] valley in regards to
[21:00] wording in our land development codes,
[21:06] and interpretations.
[21:10] Sorry, okay, so any additional questions for staff?
[21:20] During the last meeting, you had said this, "Well, the sort of haven't reached out
[21:24] for to make a comment." Is that true now the case?
[21:28] They haven't made a statement about-
[21:31] They are finalizing their written form, which will be used to respond to all
[21:36] development requests throughout the valley.
[21:39] They did not make a specific one on this application, but we did talk about it,
[21:44] they've looked at it, and I did share this mitigation proposal with them, so
[21:49] they're aware.
[21:51] Okay.
[21:51] So no formal comments, but a conversation was had.
[22:02] Additional questions before we hear from the applicant?
[22:10] Okay, thank you.
[22:13] And if you are standing up, you can feel free to stand up, or there are a couple
[22:17] empty chairs.
[22:20] Okay, so we are ready to hear from the applicant.
[22:30] Okay, hold on. Nicole, can you give me share permission? Okay.
[22:36] Hit connect.
[22:36] Is that connect to connect? Okay.
[23:03] You should get a window saying, become a panelist.
[23:09] No?
[23:10] Not happened yet.
[23:13] It said-
[23:14] It's saying
[23:14] It said you declined.
[23:16] So if you accept-
[23:18] There
[23:19] ... we'll be in business.
[23:21] Okay.
[23:39] Good evening. Mike Knight with Knight Engineering.
[23:42] For the applicants, 2295 North Idaho Highway Unit 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho.
[23:49] Going over Chrome Valley again, I do have one question before I continue.
[23:53] Do-- Can I only go over parts three, criterion three, four, and five that were
[23:59] reopened, or does this apply to
[24:03] 1206 as well?
[24:06] It's my understanding that this was tabled to be able to have new
[24:12] information for council as requested, which was the three, four, and five.
[24:17] Let me just confirm that that is indeed the focus of the
[24:24] meeting.
[24:26] Yeah. That should be the focus.
[24:28] Okay. Thank you.
[24:30] Thank you.
[24:30] Yeah. Actually, I don't want to waste anybody's time talking about stuff we don't
[24:33] need to talk about, but I appreciate it. So going over Chrome Valley.
[24:38] We've gone through the comments that we received from council previously, and we
[24:43] tried to address those. We addressed them in a few different ways.
[24:46] We provided a narrative that you should have for the TIS, and how we incorporated
[24:51] and used the mitigation for the traffic impact study from Keller.
[24:56] And then we also provided an updated narrative as far as criteria five and those--
[25:01] and how those mitigations are being mitigated through the development.
[25:07] And then I'll go into that and elaborate a little bit on that, touch on those
[25:11] verbally, but the real detail is already in that narrative or in those narratives.
[25:16] Additionally, with that, we've also
[25:19] drafted up two new plan sets. So in other words, we revised the master plan set
[25:25] that had been previously reviewed.
[25:28] And we had
[25:31] really just addressed the comments that we're still retaining for that.
[25:34] So from there, we drafted a whole new set, which was the phase one.
[25:40] We delineated those two to really delineate the phasing as we were asked right from
[25:46] the previous council meeting. And I'll go into a little bit of how all that is
[25:50] going together.
[25:52] So criteria we're going to go over today are three, four, and five, improvement
[25:56] plans, phasing, and mitigation. So I'm going to skip over the next slide here
[26:02] as we go into just the criteria three. We'll start here.
[26:09] So the improvement plans, the standard.
[26:11] Improvement plans approved by City Public Works, City Engineer, Teton County Fire
[26:17] Protection District, Idaho DG, and other agencies with jurisdiction.
[26:21] So that's the standard. What we-- What we were asked, and we were asked to complete
[26:25] stamp plans accepted by Public Works, phasing delineation, and incorporate Keller
[26:32] water recommendations. We submitted
[26:35] two new sets on August 12th, a full improvement set and a separate phase one
[26:41] set sealed by Blake Charlie, PE.
[26:45] The current status of the plans have been in a city review since August 12th.
[26:50] Remain-- Because there are some remaining comments, mostly on clarification for the
[26:55] new phase one plan set, and this is the initial review of that plan set.
[26:59] We only had time for one review given the time allotted.
[27:04] With that, the DQ review is still pending, and that is just part of the ordinary
[27:09] process. We can't do that until we have a will serve, which is provided after
[27:13] approval. We asked the remaining Public Works comments along with DQ review
[27:18] approval be made conditional of approval as a comment of the preliminary plan.
[27:27] Criteria four, phasing.
[27:30] So phasing is laid out as such. Phase one, we have 48 units, 14 detached
[27:36] and 34 attached. Phase two, we have 36 attached units.
[27:41] Phase three, 32, eight detached and 24 attached.
[27:45] And then phases four and five, 32 attached for each of those.
[27:49] We've also outlined these in blue or in different colors.
[27:54] You can see phase one is all in blue.
[27:56] Making progress.
[27:58] That would consist of all of Cowboy Trail, all of Comanche, the park area,
[28:04] and then all of the phase one area.
[28:08] Phase one was reduced from the original phasing.
[28:11] So it's an important distinction here.
[28:13] The original phasing, which may have caused some of the confusion, had 85 units
[28:18] in-incorporated phase one and two.
[28:21] That has since been broken down into two separate phases.
[28:24] Phase one is now at 48 units. We now have two drawing sets, a stand-alone for just
[28:30] phase one and the master of all five phases.
[28:35] Orderly build-out. Phase one builds, again, the Cowboy Trail collector segment and
[28:40] the parks first. We have no direct block driveways on Ross Avenue or Hooch Way in
[28:45] any phase.
[28:48] In each later phase, again, we'll be zoned for literary and final plat.
[28:52] Total build-out is 180 units, no change.
[28:57] Criteria five, this is the big one here.
[29:00] Broken down list, this is the traffic portion and how these mitigations were met.
[29:04] Criteria is mitigations must be proportioned to impact and locked in the
[29:08] development agreement.
[29:10] First is the developer proportion of shares from the updated traffic impact study
[29:16] that was completed by builders with its 2025 TMP travel demand
[29:21] model. That is written into the DA as the proportion of shares
[29:27] that will be provided by the developer.
[29:31] In addition to those, we have the existing pathway removed and replaced with a
[29:37] 10-foot asphalt pathway that was directed by Public Works along Hooch Way.
[29:43] Continuing from the previous CIS,
[29:47] zero collector driveways on Ross Avenue and Hooch Way
[29:51] for any of the phases.
[29:53] Another additional that's outside of the TIS recommendation, and it's just an
[29:58] addition, is a light at parks for crossing with marked light across walks with ADA
[30:03] detectable warning signs between the two parks.
[30:08] And then lastly is the TMP street hierarchy, as we're establishing Cowboy Trail as
[30:13] a collector, a minor residential collector, which will allow Hooch Way in the
[30:18] future to no longer be that collector road.
[30:23] With that, Cowboy Trail will build out south of Ross to calm traffic and reduce
[30:27] cut-through continuing south
[30:30] through Cowboy Trail. And again, as you spoke to earlier with the included signage,
[30:35] which is part of the development agreement.
[30:39] Second part of criteria five and how we're meeting those mitigations.
[30:43] First is water. Water rights will be transferred at 28,000 a minute per ERU,
[30:50] with a total of approximately 153 gallon per minute for residential demand and
[30:55] irrigation, as accepted by the city.
[30:59] Phases one and two, formerly phase one, as shown in figure six, which was from the
[31:03] review from Keller and Mensch,
[31:07] do not require offsite transmission improvements.
[31:10] Phase three, four, and five will require either acceptance of offsite transmission
[31:14] line or city accepted engineer findings.
[31:17] These requirements are included in the development agreement and conditions of the
[31:21] approval.
[31:25] Sewer. The Keller water memo of April 8, 2026, the gravity system has the capacity.
[31:31] Main lift station has a peak flow of 500 gallons per minute.
[31:35] We will be at with 180 units, that would be 83% of current capacity, below
[31:41] the 85% trigger that would require improvements.
[31:48] The system currently has capacity for all 180 units.
[31:55] Parks and open space. 6.5 park acres of park space,
[32:01] pathway network, including recreational fields. That's all inclusive.
[32:05] That's all of the parks together. The code requirements is 5.04
[32:11] acres. And then we are above that. The dedication to the city, plus the HOA
[32:16] maintained open space, which is the combined 6.5 acres,
[32:21] is provided within the development to include offsite
[32:27] crosswalks and the existing restroom improvements at the adjacent park.
[32:34] Workforce housing, the WHIP.
[32:39] Just real quickly, currently we are required for five restricted units.
[32:45] The developer is continuing to almost double that with nine deed restricted
[32:49] ownership with no impact fee or water right waiver assumed.
[32:57] Schools. Staff says that ongoing school revenues are expected to offset the service
[33:03] costs over time. District did not file opposition.
[33:08] Developer asked a voluntary $158,852 for the
[33:13] near-term capital during build-out.
[33:16] This would be allocated by phase proportion.
[33:21] Fees and public safety. City impact fees, parks, fire and rescue, transportation.
[33:27] The FYI planning estimate is $1,297,754, roughly
[33:33] 1.3 million. With addition of the TIS share of
[33:37] $271,800.03
[33:42] and a voluntary public safety offer of $225,000 over five years
[33:48] is in the FYA revision two
[33:51] and becomes part of the DA if the council is willing to accept it as a conditional.
[33:59] And
[34:01] criteria six is not applied per se.
[34:06] So phasing three, we have provided the sample plans.
[34:12] They have only had one review from Jay, so we're going to need to continue with the
[34:16] review on that. Again, the
[34:21] points that are there are largely delineation back points as far as just being able
[34:26] to get hashings and stuff corrected to more clearly
[34:32] identify some of the splits. But everything else, no
[34:37] major shifts for that one at all, which is actually very good considering we
[34:43] had everything put together.
[34:46] Mitigation. That's right, mitigation. Staff finds that everything is conforming.
[34:53] These are the experts that we've worked tirelessly with staff.
[34:57] Again, probably to the point of we're driving them a little bit crazy.
[35:04] Big eyes here to a project that conforms, and it conforms at every level.
[35:10] And we're extremely proud of that.
[35:12] We're extremely proud of the work and effort, and we want to thank the staff for
[35:16] the effort that they've shown with us to get us to a product where we know that it
[35:21] conforms. We know it does.
[35:25] And then with that, I'll leave myself open for any questions that you may have.
[35:29] One final thing is we are asking approval today with the conditions as directed by
[35:35] council.
[35:37] Thank you, Michael.
[35:38] Thank you.
[35:38] Any questions from council of the applicant?
[35:44] Yes. Michael, what is the parcel number of the land affected by this
[35:50] application?
[35:51] I don't know that off the top of my head.
[35:54] Your narrative from April 16th says that it's parcel
[35:57] 0000035625. Is that correct?
[36:02] I don't know that off the top of my head, Ms.
[36:05] Regan, I don't have it in front of me.
[36:08] Okay. Maybe you'll know this off the top of your head.
[36:12] Who is the owner of the land?
[36:13] LVM Properties.
[36:15] Okay. Your narrative says that the property is currently owned by Ross Avenue
[36:21] Holdings, LLC.
[36:22] That was the previous owner, I believe.
[36:26] Or not previous owner, but a previous name.
[36:30] That it be completed?
[36:33] Okay.
[36:35] Who is the applicant of record?
[36:39] The applicant of record is my agent, right?
[36:42] Do you have a signed and notarized letter of authorization from the owner of that?
[36:47] Yes.
[36:53] Thanks.
[36:54] Any other questions from council?
[37:00] None from me.
[37:02] Okay, thank you. We'll go ahead and start our public hearing.
[37:10] So just to remind everybody, we're going to do our public hearing.
[37:16] So we will start with for,
[37:20] then neutral, and then against. You'll have three minutes,
[37:26] and I will be keeping track of that, and so I ask that you respect the three
[37:31] minutes. You'll hear my timer.
[37:38] Just to remind everybody, we have the public hearing because we have
[37:44] new information, and so this would be an opportunity to give your public
[37:50] comment in regards to this new information.
[37:55] And when you come on up, you will go ahead and share your
[38:00] name and your address for the record.
[38:05] So if you are here and would like to come on up to the podium...
[38:10] Can you actually, staff, can you remind me, do we start with for? Yes.
[38:18] So if you are here in favor
[38:22] of...
[38:32] If you're here in favor of the preliminary plat,
[38:37] application, and master plan, this is what you are going to come up for. Yep.
[38:43] I just wanted to ask you, before we proceed with the public hearing, I do have more
[38:47] questions
[38:50] of staff and of the applicant.
[38:52] Okay.
[38:52] Would you like me to ask those before-
[38:54] Yes
[38:54] ... the public hearing so the public can also take that into account in their
[38:58] comments?
[38:58] Now's the time for questions.
[39:00] Okay.
[39:02] Would you like the applicant or just first staff to come on up?
[39:05] I have a couple more for the applicant first, please.
[39:09] Michael, if you'd like to come on up to the podium. Thank you.
[39:14] Can you please pull up lot four, lot one?
[39:22] Is that something on your screen at all?
[39:25] No, I don't have that.
[39:28] Should be in set four, though.
[39:33] Can you go ahead with your question?
[39:36] It appears to be shown as a single-family lot on all the
[39:42] schematics, and yet page two of the plat has a table with the area of each lot, and
[39:46] it shows the area of lot four, lot one as being less than 7,000 square
[39:52] feet. So I'm curious, does that lot comply with the zoning to be
[39:58] eligible for a single-family home or not?
[40:02] Yes, all lots conform, and we'll be going through the review with the county
[40:08] surveyor who's expert on that. We'll be going through that after that happens.
[40:13] That review happens after city council approval. They do the county review.
[40:18] That's part of the ordinary process.
[40:22] Okay. And just to be clear, that lot is, even though it's currently shown as less
[40:27] than 7,000 square foot in the on calculations, that is counted as being one of the
[40:33] family lots for all the... When you say there's this many in this phase and this
[40:38] many in this other phase, that one's counting towards that even though it's
[40:43] not 7,000 square foot.
[40:46] It may be a minutes adjustment, and we're talking seconds or hundredths of an inch.
[40:51] I don't know. I need to see specifically what is in front of me, and the surveyor
[40:56] would need to be able to do that right here.
[41:01] And he did do that already, I think.
[41:03] Yes, we have several times.
[41:05] Well,
[41:06] page two of the plat shows
[41:10] calculated area for each of the lots, and that
[41:16] lot is not shown as what is on the schematics, and it is clearly
[41:25] We'd have to look at it and review it with the county surveyor.
[41:29] Okay.
[41:30] Well, I'm sorry. I'm Mark Yabione, too, with LJ Connect Engineering, 2299
[41:36] West Suite 6 in Idaho Falls. I would also ask if Jay and/or Jay has any comment
[41:42] concerning that, where it's been reviewed by them numerous times concerning that
[41:46] specific. I would say that there may be a slight adjustment, as Mike mentioned.
[41:51] The lot next to it could be slightly over, and this one could be slightly adjusted
[41:56] to be that, which his calculation would then be accurate according to the split
[42:00] those.
[42:01] So I would say that that is a very minor detail concerning the application.
[42:07] Okay. I did have another question about the applicant of record.
[42:12] I pulled up your Connect Engineering narrative on the project, and at the very top
[42:18] it says that the applicant is actually Corona Valley LLC of Idaho Limited Liability
[42:23] Company. So is the applicant you guys, or is it Corona Valley LLC?
[42:29] Jay, do you know if they went ahead and submitted the application correct as a
[42:34] representative of Corona Valley?
[42:36] As a representative of Corona Valley LLC, an Idaho Limited Liability Company.
[42:41] Yes.
[42:43] Yes. Okay. So I pulled up the Secretary of State's website,
[42:48] and I found no record of the existence of any such entity.
[42:53] Sarah, we're just focusing on questions in regards to what is on the agenda.
[42:59] And what is on the agenda is an application and in regards to a
[43:05] quasi-judicial land use.
[43:08] Thank you. I guess part of what I asked for at our last hearing was consistency
[43:12] among the various plans, and Jay, could you come up and speak to this
[43:17] question about the lot four, lot one?
[43:26] Um, Bruce, if you don't mind, I'd like to talk about the ownership.
[43:30] Okay.
[43:31] The property is owned by LFM Properties LLC.
[43:35] They have submitted their documentation as an LLC.
[43:39] Their record of filing is generally what we accept.
[43:43] And then the registered agent has submitted letters of authorization to Connect
[43:48] Engineering and Corona.
[43:51] And are those signed and notarized?
[43:53] Yes.
[43:54] Is there a reason those are not included for
[43:57] council to see or for the public to see?
[44:01] We typically don't include them as application items because it's internally things
[44:05] that we check on our end to make sure we have accurate representation from the
[44:09] owner of the property. If council would like to set a policy moving forward that
[44:14] they want staff to include that and to redact all the necessary information, we
[44:18] can,
[44:19] but I would suggest we talk about that as a separate policy item.
[44:23] Thanks.
[44:27] In terms of the... I see what you're saying.
[44:30] I did just go double-check the schematic.
[44:34] The schematic shows it
[44:37] as being an attached home lot.
[44:41] Which schematic? Of what?
[44:42] It was your lot four lot-
[44:47] Lot?
[44:48] Of the 211.
[44:51] I don't believe the schematic 100% represents the plat in terms of lot sizes, and I
[44:56] think the schematic is slightly off.
[44:59] Okay, and that is something that I
[45:02] think I was pretty clear about in the last hearing, that it's really hard to review
[45:05] this stuff if things aren't consistent.
[45:09] And this is one that on whichever schematic I was looking at when I reviewed this,
[45:13] it was not shown as an attached home, and the square footage is less than
[45:18] 7,000, and it's not one of the common lots like the stone lot a lot or something
[45:23] like that.
[45:28] So this is just a time for questions.
[45:30] If there's a question for staff, this is the time.
[45:33] Otherwise, deliberation can happen after the public hearing.
[45:36] Okay. Jay, I was reviewing LDC Section 14.5.6.L.B., which states the name,
[45:42] address, and phone numbers of the subdivider and the owner must appear on a plat
[45:48] document. Is that information on the plat?
[45:52] I don't have it in front of me. I can go look.
[45:55] The preliminary plot has permission.
[46:05] Are you saying that the preliminary plot doesn't need to have that information?
[46:12] Typically, yes.
[46:14] You're saying typically it would include that information or-
[46:17] One moment, please. One moment, please. Nobody's at the podium.
[46:41] You asked about the address and phone number of applicant?
[46:45] I asked about name, address, and phone number of the subdivider and the owner.
[46:50] It must appear on the plat document.
[46:55] The preliminary plat does include all the information for Connect.
[47:01] But a preliminary plat wouldn't be recorded, right?
[47:05] A final plat would, and that would require the owner's certificate.
[47:09] And it sounds like that's the document that you're saying is the plat and not the
[47:12] preliminary plat. Are there any other questions?
[47:17] Yeah. Michael, could you come up to say what you were saying before, but into the
[47:22] mic, please?
[47:22] What was the question? We're asking questions right now.
[47:26] I was asking whether or not the plat complied with Section
[47:30] 14.5.6.D of the LDC, which says, "Preliminary Plat Application.
[47:37] Upon completion of concept review, the subdivider may proceed by submitting a
[47:42] preliminary plat application."
[47:46] And it says that that plat must be created by a licensed surveyor and must
[47:52] not be more than a year old and must include the name, address, and phone number of
[47:57] the subdivider and owner.
[48:00] Is that not the case?
[48:01] I would defer to what Jay said. Exactly what she said.
[48:04] What I read was exactly-
[48:06] No, we're just doing questions right now.
[48:08] We're just doing-
[48:08] No, sure. What Jay says. She's the expert.
[48:11] She said it wasn't on.
[48:14] We're going to take a three-minute break. Three-minute break.
[48:19] We'll come back at 6:51.
[48:25] Doug and Sam, can I speak with you, please?
[48:33] There's nothing
[48:39] wrong with
[50:34] .
[51:45] 6:51.
[51:46] It's okay.
[51:47] We're going to go ahead and get started again-
[51:53] Yeah
[51:55] ... with our meeting.
[52:03] And
[52:06] thank you, Council Member Johnson, for your
[52:10] detailed questions.
[52:13] It is important to be able to have some of these details, but it's also
[52:19] important to be able to deal with the agenda item before us.
[52:25] Please make note of things that you would like to be able to
[52:31] see being added, and we can move on to any
[52:37] substantial questions focused on the application before us.
[52:41] Yep. I have three questions for Public Works.
[52:44] Okay. Jay, would you like to come on up?
[52:52] Thank you.
[52:53] Are you ready?
[52:54] I really appreciate having stamped plans in here to review.
[52:58] One thing that, different versions and stuff, I just want to make sure that
[53:04] I'm clear on and everyone else is, too.
[53:07] We don't have an updated technical memo from Keller saying how much of the
[53:12] development can be served and when, and given the phasing shifts and the revised
[53:16] infrastructure, does that conform to what their recommendations are now?
[53:20] So I'm assuming you both reviewed this.
[53:23] Do you feel that the engineered plans as supplied meet the Keller
[53:29] requirements for the water system?
[53:31] For the modeling system? Yes.
[53:32] No, for the water system.
[53:34] Yeah, for modeling of the water system.
[53:36] Yeah, Keller modeled the system, they looked at the number of units in the looping
[53:40] originally, I don't know if you served on phase one, and I feel that yes, the
[53:47] layout still works. There's some minor tweaks from the original layout, and now
[53:53] some road changes that have helped pressure busted the better line roads.
[53:57] So I thought in their recommendations that Keller had some pretty specific things
[54:01] that they had changed. They had suggested some connections, some sizing changes,
[54:06] and that they changed their model in order for this to pass.
[54:10] Did all of those changes actually happen in the engineer?
[54:15] Yeah. So one of those changes was not connecting, I believe, at Connection Road.
[54:20] There was one connection they wanted to be removed.
[54:22] That needed to be removed because that did not meet its internal pressures.
[54:26] That would be in a different charity.
[54:28] And so the looping that was requested by Keller happened.
[54:33] The connections for the transmission line into Ross happened.
[54:37] There were some other technical pieces, and I can't remember exactly what they were
[54:41] off the top of my head right now. But
[54:46] based on the Keller memo and based on modeling, phase one can be served by the
[54:52] existing structure as laid out.
[54:55] Okay. And then the next question-
[55:00] Cowboy Trail will be a collector in the future, correct?
[55:04] As part of Cowboy Trail north of Ross Ave.
[55:08] So just the new part of Cowboy Trail.
[55:11] Correct. Not south of Ross.
[55:11] Not south of Ross.
[55:12] No
[55:13] Just the part of the city's street network
[55:18] . Okay. As a connector, is it allowed to have driveway connections?
[55:23] It's allowed to have driveway connections.
[55:25] Our code says to minimize them to a maximum extent possible.
[55:29] And so what we did was try to work with the applicants, was eliminated any of the
[55:35] twin home accesses or the smaller double lots along Cowboy
[55:41] Trail, have them reconfigure multiple numbers of their lots so they can
[55:46] access off the side streets. And I believe there are seven or eight of them that
[55:51] don't have that property. Single family homes that still do access off of Cowboy
[55:56] Trail. Because our code doesn't expressly prohibit it, it recommends
[56:01] minimizing those accesses.
[56:04] Okay. Thank you for the clarification on that. And then third and final question.
[56:08] Well, there's cultural questions, but third and final topic.
[56:13] How many equivalent residential units are in this proposed development?
[56:17] That would be the same as the number of units.
[56:20] So that would be whatever the proposed number of units, like it's 186, 187, I
[56:26] can't-- Off the top of my head, that was the total number of units that would be
[56:29] 186 or 187 proposed.
[56:31] Okay. And then the current city, inter-city agreement, says that any single
[56:36] connection in excess of 10, major trunk line or connection system outside and
[56:40] inside the city limits of
[56:42] Durango may only with expressed written consent of both cities.
[56:45] Does Durings have expressed written consent from Victor for this connection?
[56:51] No.
[56:51] Has Durings requested expressed written consent for this connection?
[56:54] No.
[56:59] Okay. Did the staff report say if they would ask them, they didn't oppose it, but
[57:02] I'm assuming
[57:03] No,
[57:04] that was the staff report for the slug drive.
[57:08] Oh, I thought I saw this. Thought this one was done, correct.
[57:11] No, we're waiting for a council.
[57:14] We will typically resubmit plans to TQ.
[57:18] We typically have them doing inter-agency submittal between subdivisions, city of
[57:24] Durings and city of Victor. That's a recent occurrence the last.
[57:29] We haven't submitted to Victor.
[57:31] Okay, thanks for the clarification.
[57:35] That's all the questions I have again.
[57:37] Great.
[57:40] Okay.
[57:42] Any other questions from council at this time?
[57:49] Oops. Okay, we're going to move on to the public hearing.
[57:53] Like I said before, we're going to start with four.
[57:58] This the Corona Valley Phase 1 preliminary flat application and master plan.
[58:04] If you would like to speak in favor of this preliminary plat, now's the time to
[58:10] come on up to the podium.
[58:21] Yeah. Thanks. Brad-
[58:22] Wait till you're in the microphone.
[58:25] Thank you
[58:25] Brad Sims, sometimes the County Council of Northville.
[58:30] I'm a builder. I've been a builder in the valley since 1988.
[58:35] And about every two weeks, I have young families, young people leave my office in
[58:40] tears because they cannot get in front of the inflation cycle that's coming.
[58:45] This proposed development offers a lot of different on-site styles that looked,
[58:51] be desirable to a lot of young families just starting out. First time he's...
[58:57] Second house moving up. So it, it also makes perfect sense because it's
[59:02] close to schools, it's close to shopping, it's close to healthcare, public parks,
[59:07] and public transportation. And a lot of people in this room like the idea of a
[59:11] 15-minute cities. What do we do? Let's have that, because if you want to add in my
[59:15] assistant county, out in the county, then I'm all for it, because I'm the builder
[59:19] who's going to pick that up once you write your lots.
[59:21] And I'll have water gardens going in like state flowers everywhere.
[59:25] This makes sense and it's smart. You should take it up.
[59:28] So-
[59:28] Thank you. What was your name again?
[59:30] Brad Sims.
[59:31] Thank you.
[59:43] Evan Howard.
[59:45] 752 Creekside.
[59:48] I'm for development growing.
[59:52] I also see the need for affordable housing,
[59:57] housing for people that are employed in this valley to service the valley.
[1:00:04] See a lot of people traveling from other areas.
[1:00:06] See this problem where us, a lot of us traveling from here to Johnston to up there.
[1:00:12] You'll see the same issue in Idaho Falls and Rexburg travel here because housing
[1:00:19] is expensive here as well. So I'm in favor of it because it gives the
[1:00:25] opportunity for people to attain some sort of housing value, as well
[1:00:31] as the proposed employee housing for teachers.
[1:00:36] I have young kids that are in school, and I've seen numerous times where teachers
[1:00:41] would have to move on to other places to afford a home.
[1:00:44] That's really sad to see those very qualified people leave the valley to work, to
[1:00:50] listen.
[1:00:52] Yeah.
[1:00:53] I'm also a mechanical training designer
[1:00:57] and
[1:00:59] when I look at design, I look at the experience that people have with a thing, a
[1:01:04] product.
[1:01:06] And when I see this, I see a product that's been fully fleshed out.
[1:01:10] It's been examined, it's been tested, it's been modeled.
[1:01:17] It's gone forward in front of a lot of people to have it reviewed.
[1:01:23] It seemed like a great product, especially for people in this sort of starting out
[1:01:28] time in their life.
[1:01:31] Also, a lot of us, if we moved here earlier on, we obtained a home when
[1:01:37] they were affordable. So I'd like to just, I'm for it again because it
[1:01:43] allows some people to get into affordable housing, where some of us were able to do
[1:01:48] that before. A lot of our younger kids.
[1:01:52] I hope my kids can live here someday, and this would provide hopefully a pathway
[1:01:56] for them in the next few years so they'd be able to live at home with me as well.
[1:02:00] So thank you.
[1:02:02] Thank you, Evan.
[1:02:07] Anybody else like in person like to speak for the preliminary plat for now?
[1:02:16] Seeing none, moving online. If you're online, click raise hand to be able
[1:02:22] to share your public comment for.
[1:02:32] Philip, go ahead.
[1:02:34] Hi, my name's Philip. I'm a mic guy. I'm for this.
[1:02:38] Now, I understand we've had a lot of issues when it comes to concerns with
[1:02:42] transportation and things along those lines.
[1:02:45] But in my time in the valley, the underlying and most prevalent argument and
[1:02:49] concern has been access to affordable housing.
[1:02:54] The unfortunate fact of the matter is, right now, you can't find a single
[1:03:00] family home of--
[1:03:04] or I should say, they're going to be very, very few and far between to find
[1:03:07] anything less than $700,000. If you find anything at 700, likely it'll be,
[1:03:14] it's hard to get into. And again, few and far between.
[1:03:20] I know the developer. I know what their plans are.
[1:03:22] I know what we've discussed at length what they'd like to put in.
[1:03:26] And frankly, from the beginning, and this isn't the first time they've tried to
[1:03:31] supply affordable housing for the valley.
[1:03:34] They are working hard to provide accessible housing
[1:03:41] for people, for regular people in Teton Valley.
[1:03:44] You-- I mean, around this area, there are at least
[1:03:50] one, two, three, four homes that are well above
[1:03:54] $800,000. The fact of the matter is that's not affordable, that's not accessible
[1:04:00] for
[1:04:02] most
[1:04:04] two-earner families,
[1:04:07] let alone a single earner family
[1:04:10] So, if we want to see a change and see an opportunity for the people and our
[1:04:14] children,
[1:04:16] and we talk about teachers, we talk about hospitalists, we talk about police
[1:04:19] officers, we talk about firemen, firefighters.
[1:04:22] In order to have a functioning city, we need to provide housing that is accessible
[1:04:27] for people on state and city wages.
[1:04:31] If we continue to push these developers out,
[1:04:35] we will continue to see prices that are in excess of a million dollars on homes,
[1:04:39] and we will have...
[1:04:42] The biggest fear that we hear is, we don't want it to become another Jackson Hole.
[1:04:46] If we continue to push these developers out, that's exactly what we'll have on our
[1:04:50] hands. So again, I'm in favor of this.
[1:04:54] I'm in favor of,
[1:04:57] let's get out of our own way and make it possible for us to achieve what we
[1:05:03] want to in our cities. Thank you.
[1:05:05] Thank you, Philip. Anybody else online?
[1:05:10] Feel free to click raise hand.
[1:05:15] Seeing none, we'll move in person to neutral.
[1:05:18] If you would like to speak neutrally in regards to the Crona Valley
[1:05:24] Phase 1 Preliminary Plan Application and Master Plan, please come on up to the
[1:05:29] podium.
[1:05:35] Seeing none, if you're online and would like to speak neutrally, please click raise
[1:05:39] hand and we'll promote you to speak.
[1:05:47] Okay, we'll move against. If you would like to speak against the Crona Valley Phase
[1:05:52] 1 Preliminary Plan Application and Master Plan and you're in person, please come on
[1:05:56] up to the podium.
[1:06:05] David
[1:06:13] Hart, 6987 West, 1000 North, Etown.
[1:06:18] According to the website Census Reporter, the 2025 data for Griggs, Idaho, notes a
[1:06:23] footprint for the city of approximately 3.6 square miles with a population of
[1:06:29] 2,925 and 941 households. It states a density of
[1:06:34] 805 people per square mile and 3.1 people per household.
[1:06:39] It also notes that 59% of the dwellings are single family, 35%
[1:06:45] are multifamily, and 6% are mobile homes.
[1:06:50] The proposed subdivision is 38.8 acres containing 180 dwellings,
[1:06:56] 158 of which are detached houses. Assuming the same ratios as the
[1:07:01] 2025 data, that equates to an additional 558 people with a
[1:07:07] density of 9,270 people per square mile, which is an increase in density by
[1:07:13] more than an order of magnitude compared to the rest of the city
[1:07:17] and an increase in the city population of almost 20%.
[1:07:22] For the website Demographia, the average city density within the US is
[1:07:27] 3,100 people per square mile, and the city center region is
[1:07:33] 7,700. Clearly, the density of this proposed subdivision exceeds that
[1:07:39] of most US cities. People in our valley live here because it's not a densely
[1:07:44] populated city. We have animals, trailers, snow machines, boats, 400 bikes,
[1:07:49] motorcycles, campers, RVs, and pickup trucks.
[1:07:52] Such a density cannot avoid significant impacts to traffic, parking, snow removal,
[1:07:57] animal control, waste management, utility infrastructure, maintenance, and
[1:08:01] conflicts between neighbors. Numerous sections of the land development code are
[1:08:06] violated in at least some portion of that plan, like the ratio of single family to
[1:08:11] multifamily, the 20% ratio limitation on pavement to front lawn, about the traffic
[1:08:16] analysis and minimum lot size, and much information is missing.
[1:08:21] For example, snow removal, housing footprints, and housing designs.
[1:08:26] Where the city and the developer somehow concluded that this proposal complies with
[1:08:31] the RS7 zone is both wrong and irresponsible. Thank you.
[1:08:36] Thank you, Dave. Next.
[1:08:50] Kathleen Hart, 6987 West, 4000 North, Etownia.
[1:08:56] At the August 4th meeting, after the public comments, the project manager for Crona
[1:09:02] Valley pointed out that the independent reviewer of the traffic study, Aaron Van
[1:09:07] Egeren of Heath Associates, was not a registered engineer in Idaho,
[1:09:12] suggesting that Van Egeren was not qualified for Idaho standards.
[1:09:17] The National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying provides the same
[1:09:22] professional engineering test to all states.
[1:09:25] Comity with another state is generally an administrative matter.
[1:09:31] Further, beyond his standard professional engineer credential, Van Egeren holds a
[1:09:36] professional traffic operations engineer designation, which requires additional
[1:09:42] testing and 25% more professional development each year than does
[1:09:48] the Idaho PE license.
[1:09:51] At that same meeting, the city's attorney declared that the word primarily was
[1:09:55] throat-clearing language, which WordRake defines as empty openers that
[1:10:01] delay the presentation of your argument.
[1:10:04] WordRake recommends that you ruthlessly revise to cut out these plotting space
[1:10:09] wasters. If we cut the word primarily, as well as the word intended, based on
[1:10:15] the same logic, the Drake's Land Development Code reads, "RS7 accommodates
[1:10:21] single-family detached houses with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square feet,"
[1:10:26] period. No attach. Privately, Mayor Christensen explained that
[1:10:32] primarily referred to the city as a whole, not to individual subdivisions, which
[1:10:37] negates the attorney's statement, as well as the common reading of code.
[1:10:42] This would create chaos. Early developers could build higher density housing, and
[1:10:48] latecomers would be faced with more restrictive conditions within the same zoning.
[1:10:53] Balancing each subdivision is easier to manage, is more fair, and creates a
[1:10:59] better balance of housing types within the cities.
[1:11:03] Finally, the school contribution is only about 10% of what
[1:11:09] will actually be needed for any new construction. Thank you.
[1:11:15] Thank you.
[1:11:17] Anybody else?
[1:11:25] Anna Trevithan with Trevithan Law Office.
[1:11:28] I'm here as a Griggs resident who lives on Highway Trail, and also I'm representing
[1:11:32] several neighboring property owners.
[1:11:34] It is black letter law in Idaho that you are not bound by
[1:11:40] staff reports or the staff's interpretation of ordinances.
[1:11:44] Their reports are merely advisory. They are not binding mandates.
[1:11:48] In fact, you are legally, affirmatively required, independent decision-makers, to
[1:11:53] weigh the evidence and reach your own conclusions.
[1:11:56] The worst kind of decision you could make in a situation like this is to just say,
[1:12:00] "Well, I go with what the staff recommends." I would caution you against making a
[1:12:04] decision based on that. At the last hearing, the developer's engineer raised two
[1:12:10] novel legal arguments on rebuttal, and I'd like to address those.
[1:12:13] The first is he said that, well, base density determines the controlling factor
[1:12:18] here and that additional housing can theoretically be built on the single-family
[1:12:22] lots, so long as it doesn't exceed the base density.
[1:12:26] And the second theory he would put forth is that the primarily language we're all
[1:12:29] fighting over is really only the character of the neighborhood.
[1:12:33] I do not agree with those contentions.
[1:12:35] First off, their argument basically paves the way to say we can put duplexes
[1:12:41] on the single-family lots as well.
[1:12:43] And if that's the case, you don't know what the final unit count is here, and you
[1:12:47] don't know if your traffic studies and water studies have taken any of that into
[1:12:50] account. There are allegedly 22 single-family lots in this development, so you're
[1:12:55] talking about an additional swing of 22 more units.
[1:12:58] Secondly, if the character of this neighborhood is supposed to be single-family
[1:13:03] lots over 7,000 square feet, there's no way to conclude a neighborhood primarily of
[1:13:08] duplexes on lots that are 45% smaller than even what is on Bush
[1:13:14] Way is the character of the neighborhood.
[1:13:17] Idaho has adopted what we call the plain meaning rule, and that means you are
[1:13:21] supposed to read your ordinances as a whole and implement the plain, ordinary
[1:13:27] meaning of the words that are before you. And I think the choice is very stark.
[1:13:32] Now regarding criteria four and five, what I heard tonight is that they reshifted
[1:13:38] phase one and two, but it's still the same number of units, and that the conclusion
[1:13:43] is there's really only enough water for the first number of homes in phase one.
[1:13:47] Your ordinance, 1212, has a standard zone requirement that each phase must be fully
[1:13:53] freestanding and be able to supply all the necessary infrastructure and services.
[1:13:58] How can you make that finding here?
[1:14:00] And secondly, this clearly doesn't comply with the R7 zone or the transportation
[1:14:05] master plan. I have submitted findings for denial.
[1:14:09] I hope you've read them, and I hope you will consider them.
[1:14:12] One of the findings in there is that I have completed the calculations using the
[1:14:16] help of a neighborhood engineer, and we looked at how many lots would violate the
[1:14:20] lot coverage standard for driveways.
[1:14:23] Your ordinance says
[1:14:25] driveways and parking areas cannot take up more than 40% of the front yard.
[1:14:29] Twenty-one lots will exceed that standard, and by my count, there would be nine
[1:14:34] driveways emptying onto Cowboy Trail.
[1:14:36] And if we go with that, if we put a duplex anywhere in theory, it could be 18
[1:14:41] driveways.
[1:14:42] Thank you, ma'am.
[1:14:43] Thank you.
[1:14:43] I don't have how many
[1:14:46] times.
[1:14:53] Next. Anybody
[1:14:54] else?
[1:15:01] Mark Law, 500 Parsons Road, Trace.
[1:15:04] What was your name?
[1:15:04] Mark Law.
[1:15:06] Thank you.
[1:15:07] 500 Parsons.
[1:15:09] I'm going to keep my comments short and to the point, and I'm going to try to boil
[1:15:12] them down to really basic so they seem simplistic.
[1:15:16] But the issue that I see here is we have a developer that wants
[1:15:22] to stretch the boundaries of what is permissible in Trace under the way the city
[1:15:27] has been set up in the past. If he gets his way, he takes the money, and the money
[1:15:31] leaves the valley. People that are left get stuck with infrastructure build-out,
[1:15:36] water build-out,
[1:15:38] all services that are going to need to be provided for this high-density
[1:15:42] subdivision. I just don't see that as being fair.
[1:15:46] So, he takes the money and leaves, and I think that the town seems justly what it's
[1:15:51] saying up there. Those are my comments, and they weren't too simplistic.
[1:15:56] Thank you.
[1:15:56] Good
[1:15:56] evening.
[1:16:13] Tom Ryan. I live in Teton County.
[1:16:17] You guys got some guidance from your counsel.
[1:16:19] We asked for it, and yes. Thank you.
[1:16:21] 691
[1:16:23] Remode.
[1:16:23] Thank you.
[1:16:24] Guidance from the counsel at the last meeting.
[1:16:26] I got some respects on that I'd like to share with you.
[1:16:30] There was talk about findings and a motion being based on specific facts and
[1:16:35] evidence. Absolutely true. But you need to look at your criteria.
[1:16:39] Some of them are very factual. Criteria one speaks to a plat that's been prepared
[1:16:43] by a surveyor that's licensed and stamps the plat.
[1:16:47] That's factually what-- That's factious.
[1:16:50] Criteria five of six, subdivision design says satisfactorily mitigates for effects
[1:16:55] of development. Number, uh, number five.
[1:16:58] Number six, plans substantially conform to underlying zoning and land code.
[1:17:02] Those are highly judgmental, and those judgments need to be based on a factual
[1:17:07] basis, but they're judgments. One of you may react one way, the other another way.
[1:17:13] It doesn't mean one of you are wrong or right.
[1:17:15] They're judgments that you need to make based on the evidence presented to you, and
[1:17:19] you weigh that against the criteria in the code when you evaluate this project.
[1:17:24] Review process allows for your opinions. That's fine.
[1:17:26] You have five, six times four because we all have different perspectives at your
[1:17:30] regular table in making a decision.
[1:17:33] You're the decision-maker, and in doing so, you can, you should, and you will
[1:17:36] hopefully make judgments regardless of what you've been told, the staff and their
[1:17:41] recommendations.
[1:17:43] You heard repeatedly, the staff are the experts.
[1:17:48] They're professional. They know what they're doing.
[1:17:50] This call has nothing to do about Jade, and Jade, it has to do with all the staff
[1:17:54] and all the council. But what you heard last time,
[1:17:59] this is from a transcript of me, "My recommendation would be if you're going to
[1:18:03] find that the project does not conform with the criteria, make sure you state
[1:18:06] specific facts under five to six, where you think it does not meet the criteria
[1:18:10] because in the event that it's challenged, I think this is exhibit A of the core
[1:18:15] challenge for something. Would be attachment F from the staff, where staff goes
[1:18:18] through a detailed analysis that finds everything conforms to the land development
[1:18:22] code."
[1:18:24] Further, and so when you have experts like Jade, and she consults with city
[1:18:28] engineers, and she consults with public works and fire, and they all come through
[1:18:32] and they say, "Yes, it conforms," council, you'd have a pretty good reason and some
[1:18:36] evidence as to why this is not conforming to the code.
[1:18:41] As you say, you're not compelled to follow what the staff says.
[1:18:45] You need to consider what the staff says.
[1:18:48] But what this reads, you read between the lines, it's basically saying if you take
[1:18:51] action, it's against what the staff says.
[1:18:53] Well, you're not the offensive legal counsel, and that's not the way to handle land
[1:18:57] use process. You need to base it on your review and verification of how the product
[1:19:01] conforms with the applicable criteria.
[1:19:06] Lay this out. Does this mean that every time the staff says recommendation this,
[1:19:10] that, or the other, that that is what council needs to do?
[1:19:14] This is very stimulating, foundational stuff that I think lies at the base of how
[1:19:20] the development process should work.
[1:19:24] This notion presented first by your applicant and supported by your attorney that
[1:19:28] the primary single family, take it literally, means the duplex cannot be built on a
[1:19:32] duplex lot. First of all, it's absolutely absurd. Pardon me. It makes no sense.
[1:19:38] Secondly, it can be addressed simply by the plat stating which lot is a duplex,
[1:19:42] which lot is single family, but the pilot doesn't even do that.
[1:19:44] Thank you.
[1:19:44] Super.
[1:19:49] My name
[1:19:52] is
[1:20:03] Carol Smith. I live at 351 Palestine Trail in Riggs.
[1:20:09] This is something I was not planning to speak to, but after listening to when you
[1:20:13] talk about affordable housing, you're talking about nine homes,
[1:20:18] nine residences. Just because they are done as
[1:20:24] duplexes, twin homes, whatever you want to call them, does not mean that they are
[1:20:28] affordable. If you talk to the people who live, who are here, who live on Bush Way,
[1:20:34] that have bought one of the twin homes on Bush Way and find out the prices that
[1:20:40] are being paid for those, they do not qualify as affordable housing.
[1:20:46] Most of them are in the $100,000 range from ones that have been
[1:20:52] purchased. So that is not going to solve the problem.
[1:20:58] And I also want to say that this subdivision does not conform to the zoning code
[1:21:03] R7. The code states that dwellings must quote, "primarily be single
[1:21:09] family detached housing." And Idaho Supreme Court
[1:21:15] in Nelson versus Peppies in 2020 stated that the
[1:21:20] objective statute word language begins with the literal language of the statute.
[1:21:26] The statute should be considered as a whole, and words should be given their plain,
[1:21:30] usual, and ordinary meanings. It should be noted that the court must give effect to
[1:21:35] all the words and provisions of the statute so that none will be void,
[1:21:41] superfluous, or redundant.
[1:21:45] According to the American Webster dictionary, primarily means mostly.
[1:21:49] Also, according to Merriam-Webster, mostly means mainly or largely.
[1:21:56] The plat being presented does not allow for primarily or mostly
[1:22:01] or mainly detached single-family houses.
[1:22:05] Primarily is not probe-clearing language.
[1:22:09] It is a word that is commonly used, and its meaning is easily
[1:22:15] understood. I ask the council to live up to responsibilities.
[1:22:23] You make the final decision. That is your job,
[1:22:27] not the staff. The buck stops with you.
[1:22:31] And thank you for giving us the regimen of my comment.
[1:22:34] Thank you.
[1:22:48] Good evening, Mayor, city council members. My name is Jen Calder.
[1:22:52] I reside at 962 Dusty Trail in Driggs.
[1:22:56] While others tonight are addressing specific concerns regarding the proposed Corona
[1:23:02] Valley development, such as traffic, safety, environmental impacts, I want to share
[1:23:08] a few thoughts on the role of the city council.
[1:23:11] I want to emphasize that you three council members are the ultimate
[1:23:15] decision-makers, not staff, not the Planning and Zoning Commission, and not the
[1:23:21] contracted city attorney. While city staff does outstanding work, no denying that,
[1:23:27] the recommendation in a staff report is simply that, a recommendation.
[1:23:32] It does not dictate the only path forward, nor must it be followed.
[1:23:37] The council always retains the authority to vote against staff recommendations.
[1:23:43] This is precisely what occurred in April of 2022, during my
[1:23:49] tenure on this council, when we voted unanimously to deny approval of the Rivers
[1:23:55] West development, despite recommendations for approval from both planning and
[1:24:01] zoning staff and commissioners. I highlight this history simply to
[1:24:06] illustrate that the final authority rests with you.
[1:24:11] Thanks for your time, your service, and your consideration.
[1:24:14] Thank you, Jen.
[1:24:24] I know we do have many people in person and online, and so just want
[1:24:30] to remind you, feel free to come on up back to back, and
[1:24:36] feel free to remind us that if you agree, and move on so that we can make sure to
[1:24:42] get to everybody's comments. Thank you.
[1:24:45] Hi, my name is Susan Fence, and I live at 430 Cowboy Trail.
[1:24:50] I guess I want to address a few things.
[1:24:54] First of all, the process of allowing developers to submit new
[1:25:00] information whenever they want,
[1:25:03] it just hugely and unfairly limits meaningful engagement from your
[1:25:08] constituents, and so I have a problem with that.
[1:25:11] For example, tonight, we had a new PowerPoint.
[1:25:14] Could that PowerPoint have been posted online on the Drake City website?
[1:25:18] Absolutely.
[1:25:21] But that process rewards developers with open
[1:25:27] access to all information, and it gives them the ability to make last-minute
[1:25:31] changes and additional time and opportunity to engage the council.
[1:25:36] And then limiting public comment to three minutes,
[1:25:41] in this way is akin to saying, "We don't care what you have to say.
[1:25:45] What the developers say is more important." So, I want you to think about that
[1:25:50] perception. Okay. So, the next thing that I'd like to address
[1:25:56] is this huge assumption that because we're going to have small lots and small
[1:26:01] homes, that they're going to be affordable.
[1:26:04] The homes on Steephill Road, I think last year, were around
[1:26:08] $550,000, and as a former teacher, it's not
[1:26:12] affordable. Okay.
[1:26:17] We haven't been given specific home plans at the neighborhood meeting.
[1:26:21] I asked the developer if the homes that were presented in that meeting were the
[1:26:26] plans that the homes that were to be on those lots, and he said, "No, not
[1:26:31] necessarily. It's just a rendering." We don't know how much the lots will cost.
[1:26:36] We don't know how much the homes will cost. Okay.
[1:26:39] So we've had people stand up here and say, "This is affordable housing," but that's
[1:26:43] an assumption. You don't know that. You don't know where that price tag will land.
[1:26:54] I'd also like to address the word "primarily," and I know you've heard some of
[1:26:59] this. I am a senior technical writer, editor, and an analyst.
[1:27:04] I work with Department of Energy engineers, and I can tell you
[1:27:10] that not paying attention to that word would be
[1:27:14] negligent in my job.
[1:27:20] Okay. It has to be exact. Right? It should be precise.
[1:27:24] It should be exact, and your land use development code is written that way, and you
[1:27:29] need to adhere to it.
[1:27:32] Thank you.
[1:27:34] Thank you, Susan.
[1:27:42] Hi, my name is Amy Cutting, and I live at 910 Powder Valley Lane.
[1:27:47] And I'm here tonight to ask the council to deny further approval of the Corona
[1:27:51] Valley subdivision, primarily because I believe that there are many issues, but
[1:27:57] I also believe that the traffic issues around this development are still
[1:28:00] unresolved. There was nothing addressed, I think, that I could tell in the
[1:28:06] comments from the developer about a new traffic impact study, which was promised
[1:28:11] when this was tabled, I believe back in April.
[1:28:15] As a Powder Valley resident, I see firsthand what the effect of large numbers of
[1:28:19] homes being built at one time,
[1:28:24] what the effect is.
[1:28:26] And in a subdivision this size, which is way bigger than what's currently going on
[1:28:31] in Shoshone Plains and in 2 1/2 and in Bellevue, and a number of subdivisions that
[1:28:37] are going on right in that exact same area.
[1:28:41] And there's been a huge change in the traffic pattern.
[1:28:45] The 2025 Driggs Transportation Plan openly acknowledges a severe lack of through
[1:28:50] routes in the area
[1:28:54] where this subdivision is planned, the northeast quadrant is what that was referred
[1:28:59] to. Yet the long-term solution is meant to solve this problem, like the La Grande
[1:29:04] Gear extension to Steephill Road, remain completely stalled at an estimate of $4
[1:29:08] million. Forcing high-density growth onto an incomplete
[1:29:14] road network directly contradicts orderly municipal planning.
[1:29:19] It also forces traffic out small neighborhood roads, such as Powder Valley, roads
[1:29:24] that were never meant to handle large amounts of traffic.
[1:29:28] In fact, Powder Valley was intended to be a private road.
[1:29:31] It still has a sign that says private road that is largely ignored from what I can
[1:29:36] tell. The roads are narrow, there are no sidewalks, and the exits
[1:29:42] from our
[1:29:45] townhome units onto Steephill Road are completely blind.
[1:29:50] Yet people drive down there and expect to go out onto Steephill Road without a
[1:29:54] problem. Since the increase in building in Shoshone Plains, there's been a
[1:29:58] noticeable increase in all traffic, especially construction-related traffic.
[1:30:03] There are huge trucks that roll down those roads, and there are kids out there,
[1:30:07] people with dogs walking. It's a recipe for disaster.
[1:30:13] And I believe until the northeast quadrant traffic access issues get resolved, I
[1:30:17] think it's premature to approve a development of this size.
[1:30:22] I'm not saying that a development of somewhat of size might not be okay in the
[1:30:26] future, but at this point, I think it's premature to approve this development.
[1:30:30] Thanks.
[1:30:32] Thank you.
[1:30:46] Christina Hileman, 545 Bouche Street.
[1:30:51] I am going to keep this short and sweet, and I want to start by saying that I
[1:30:55] appreciate all the hours that everyone has put into this application and
[1:31:01] decision, and that the effort is real.
[1:31:04] And the effort also deserves to be met with the kind of verification that lets this
[1:31:09] whole community trust the outcome. I'm going to go to my handy.
[1:31:14] This is not about being against growth, it's about developing responsibly with a
[1:31:18] traffic study that is up to date and relevant, and an application that honors our
[1:31:23] land and development code. It's also about the size of what's being decided,
[1:31:28] increasing the size of Driggs by about 25% with 180 units next to our schools
[1:31:34] for decades to come. Decisions this big deserve due diligence and maybe even
[1:31:39] outside eyes. I do believe city council members have the right to bring in its own
[1:31:44] independent counsel on a decision of this size.
[1:31:47] I stand with my neighbors on this, so please just deny this application tonight.
[1:31:52] Thank you.
[1:31:53] Thank you.
[1:32:06] Dawn. Excuse me. I'm Dawn Smith, and I live at 916 East
[1:32:12] Ross. That's Calabasas Valley, directly across the street from the subdivision.
[1:32:18] I am not opposed to this parcel being developed.
[1:32:23] I am opposed to upzoning this parcel, I'm opposed to non-compliant
[1:32:29] development of this parcel, and I'm opposed to poorly planned development of this
[1:32:34] parcel.
[1:32:37] I live in the RS-7 zone. My density is 2.84
[1:32:43] units per acre. That is my RS-7 zone.
[1:32:49] I, in my professional opinion, do not believe this is actually a preliminary plat
[1:32:55] for RS-7 zoning. I feel that, by definition, it is either an
[1:33:01] rezoning
[1:33:03] or a PUD. It is not a preliminary plat for RS-7 zoning.
[1:33:10] Thank you.
[1:33:25] Good evening. I'm Patty Leisure. I live at 685 Bouchoux Street.
[1:33:31] I agree with everything that's been presented already.
[1:33:34] I just want to add another angle to the RS-7 intent.
[1:33:41] The other uses that are presented in the matrix are presented in the
[1:33:47] definition
[1:33:49] as additional, not other alternative,
[1:33:55] other options. They are additional.
[1:33:58] So really, it's in addition to the primary percentage of
[1:34:04] 51%.
[1:34:08] That's one perspective.
[1:34:11] The other thing
[1:34:13] I wanted to mention is
[1:34:18] mitigation measures for traffic issues on Bouchoux.
[1:34:23] I don't think those have adequately been figured into the costs
[1:34:29] to residents.
[1:34:31] The park that's back there, it has wonderful parking, but not
[1:34:37] located
[1:34:39] where it will be used. Human behavior
[1:34:45] will go the path of least resistance.
[1:34:47] People are going to try to park on Bouchoux or that soccer field.
[1:34:52] It's sort of zig and zag to get to Chili Street to access that parking.
[1:34:59] That Chili Street doesn't connect North Ward to the East West Road, North
[1:35:05] and Pinkney's Valley.
[1:35:09] There's a missed opportunity for making that more obvious, if this goes through.
[1:35:16] So I think just a little more consideration of mitigation measures for the Bouchoux
[1:35:20] issues if this happens. Thank you.
[1:35:23] Thank you.
[1:35:35] Name's Wendy. I've been down at the 14 Cowboy Trail.
[1:35:41] Thank you for your time. If you have lived in the valley over the last 20
[1:35:46] years, which most people here have, we've all experienced the boom and bust of the
[1:35:51] real estate market, the recession of 2008, where many of us were probably able to
[1:35:56] buy homes here.
[1:35:59] And we're talking about the phase one infrastructure and the ability to
[1:36:05] support phase one with water.
[1:36:08] Last meeting, the developers talked about the build-out of all five phases to
[1:36:14] be about five years. If we only have the infrastructure to support phase one, are
[1:36:19] we going to be able to upgrade our infrastructure within five years to support all
[1:36:23] of those phases? Because I think usually infrastructure takes a while.
[1:36:28] So what is the chance that we're going to sit with phase one build-out and
[1:36:34] two through five, this empty like little ghost subdivision, which we've seen for
[1:36:40] the last 20 years? This is an important piece of property and a very critical
[1:36:46] location, and it deserves a thoughtful plan.
[1:36:49] This decision will have ripple effects within our community for years to come, and
[1:36:53] it sets a precedent for every other subdivision behind it.
[1:36:57] So this is a lot to weigh on you guys, but this is a very important decision that
[1:37:04] shapes the way our community looks, feels, its safety, the way people move through
[1:37:10] it.
[1:37:11] And for those of us who have given and invested in this community, it feels a
[1:37:17] bit like we're being thrown with like the baby with the bathwater just for someone
[1:37:23] to make a business transaction. So please consider that.
[1:37:26] And thank you for your time.
[1:37:28] Thank you, Ms. Wendy.
[1:37:42] Hello. My name is Kim Bailey. This is Holland, and we live at 480 Cowboy
[1:37:48] Trail, which is on the corner of Cowboy Trail and Ross.
[1:37:52] So we're right across the street from all of this and particularly concerned about
[1:37:57] the effect that this will have on Cowboy Trail.
[1:37:59] I do not believe the build-outs are a solution to this problem.
[1:38:03] I do not believe that a sign that says, "Local traffic," is going to make any
[1:38:09] difference whatsoever to someone who's trying to get to work quickly, does not want
[1:38:12] to go down past the high school. So that's just not going to work.
[1:38:16] We need a subdivision that is recognizing that we cannot extend Cowboy Trail.
[1:38:21] And I'm sure that in rotation we can find something. And that's all I say.
[1:38:26] In addition, I agree with everything that everyone said, but I won't say it again
[1:38:30] because you got it. So thank you.
[1:38:33] Thank you, Holland and Kim.
[1:38:43] Okay, we'll move online.
[1:38:51] Hi. Sherry with Robbie, 1487 Hoshi Bank.
[1:38:55] My question is, what is the definition of affordable housing?
[1:39:00] Every developer that comes through our valley and wants to build subdivisions and
[1:39:05] condos and apartments, it's going to be affordable. Affordable for who?
[1:39:10] The square footage now, I think, in the average home is like 450 a square foot.
[1:39:15] Don't quote me on that, but that's what I heard recently.
[1:39:20] So I would like to ask Philip, who is online there,
[1:39:24] how much are these houses going to cost?
[1:39:26] Because 7 to $800,000 is not affordable for a majority of the people that I've
[1:39:31] known for the many years that I've lived here and all these young people that want
[1:39:36] to come in cannot afford that. People that come over from Jackson can afford $7 or
[1:39:41] $800,000, but they want to live there, but they can't, so they come over here.
[1:39:47] But the average young person that comes in here today cannot afford 7, $800,000.
[1:39:52] So my question to the developer, how much are these houses going to cost?
[1:39:58] Can I ask that question?
[1:39:59] No, but thank you.
[1:40:00] Well, I want to throw that question out there because I'd like to know.
[1:40:03] So thank you.
[1:40:16] Thank you, Sherry.
[1:40:19] My name is Dirk Leisure. I live at 685 Bouchoux Way.
[1:40:25] And as you might be able to guess, I'm going to talk about the unsatisfied
[1:40:30] mitigation of the traffic impacts.
[1:40:33] I'm very disappointed that Keller hasn't been asked questions.
[1:40:38] The process, I understand, is that after the public hearing,
[1:40:43] you move immediately into deliberations.
[1:40:46] And I was really candidly looking forward to hearing Keller explain a lot about
[1:40:53] this. I myself am very skeptical of what Keller might say
[1:40:59] in their one and a half page letter, and I recommend you be skeptical as well.
[1:41:03] I'm going to take a minute to remind you why
[1:41:08] Everything I show you has been in the public record, has been in the record for
[1:41:11] this since August, so well over a month.
[1:41:18] I think Keller has a confidence that you should be well aware of.
[1:41:23] When Keller received the traffic impact study, they wrote a
[1:41:30] two-and-a-half-page letter that you have seen, and in it,
[1:41:36] they say, quote,
[1:41:40] "It was not feasible
[1:41:43] to meaningfully compare data and scenarios through the report." This is in
[1:41:49] comment 10. You've seen this, I'm sure.
[1:41:52] And then they go on to say comments nine and 10 are addressed to TIS preparers
[1:41:58] for future submittals. So they didn't require it for the 2022 or
[1:42:04] 2023 submittal. They then
[1:42:10] went ahead and gave their approval on a cursory basis,
[1:42:16] recommended approval to Drake's in the final TIS.
[1:42:21] But that final TIS is very interesting.
[1:42:24] If you look at it,
[1:42:27] in the very early pages, starting on page seven, there are numbers which are
[1:42:33] inconsistent between the paragraphs and the
[1:42:38] tables. And these are very important
[1:42:44] intersections.
[1:42:46] The problems were brought to Keller's attention prior to the March
[1:42:52] P&Z meeting. They were asked if they wanted to withdraw their approval.
[1:42:57] They didn't. They let P&Z rely on that approval in March, in May.
[1:43:03] They let you rely on it in August. And as far as I'm aware, I don't think they've
[1:43:08] taken their approval out yet. Finally, they've given a one-and-a-half-page letter,
[1:43:14] and they basically say, "Trust me." I'm sorry.
[1:43:18] After this history, that's too tall an ask for me, and it should be too tall an ask
[1:43:22] for you. Please deny the application.
[1:43:25] Thank you, sir. Can you take your poster with you?
[1:43:29] Yes.
[1:43:30] Anybody else in person?
[1:43:42] I'm Nikki Van Trease at 876 Easy Street.
[1:43:47] I'm not against the development. I think having a nice development close to
[1:43:53] the schools for families with children is a great idea, but I don't think that
[1:43:59] this amount of density is good for us.
[1:44:02] I don't think it fits our city codes, and
[1:44:08] I'm concerned about the water being there for phase one but not for phases two,
[1:44:13] three, four, and five. And if we approve this one, what happens to all the others
[1:44:19] in the pipeline behind it that also show similar problems but then get approved?
[1:44:25] So I'm against this particular development. Thanks. Thank you, Nikki.
[1:44:31] Anybody else in person?
[1:44:40] My name's Tracy Hall. I live at 710 Buffalo Trail.
[1:44:45] I've grown up here my entire life. I'm a school teacher here.
[1:44:48] This is my 18th year teaching. I teach at Drake's Elementary, and I'm just going to
[1:44:52] echo all my friends and neighbors here and say, please deny this tonight.
[1:44:55] Thank you.
[1:44:57] Thank you, Tracy. I can't believe you've been teaching for 18 years.
[1:45:00] Oh, me either.
[1:45:03] You were just a mom when I first--
[1:45:05] I
[1:45:07] know.
[1:45:08] Hello, my name is Paige Chensky, and I live at 1270 River Trail.
[1:45:13] I just want to agree with all my neighbors here and for all the same reasons, and
[1:45:18] ask you to deny this. Thank you.
[1:45:24] Thank you.
[1:45:24] I'm Kelly Waller, and I live at 650 Easy Street.
[1:45:28] I agree with the opposition to this development.
[1:45:32] I'm
[1:45:35] unconvinced that it is not going to impact our infrastructure beyond
[1:45:40] possibility, and I really hope that we can make the decision for Spartan
[1:45:46] Valley, grow our infrastructure at the same pace that we're growing our homes.
[1:45:52] And I also feel like this development is maximizing the land use
[1:45:58] code density in a way that it just doesn't feel that's the
[1:46:04] right thing to be doing in our community.
[1:46:07] Thank you.
[1:46:14] Hello, Brian Millican, 445 Cowboy Trail.
[1:46:17] I'm here to
[1:46:19] show my opposition to this development, in particular with the water issue.
[1:46:24] As we all know, water scarcity this year in particular is most likely going to get
[1:46:29] worse. We have over-allocated water in all of Idaho, all up here
[1:46:35] northwest, and where is the water going to come from the next phase?
[1:46:40] Again, thank you for your time, and that's it.
[1:46:43] Thank you, Brian.
[1:46:55] Okay, let's move online.
[1:46:58] If you are online and you would like to speak in opposition to the Canyon Valley
[1:47:03] Phase 1 Preliminary Plat Application and Master Plan, please click Raise Hand, and
[1:47:09] we'll promote you so that you can share your public
[1:47:12] comment.
[1:47:22] Robert Anderson, you can go ahead and unmute.
[1:47:27] Yeah, that's Robert Anderson. I live at 1050 East Ross.
[1:47:31] I'd like to just look at the big picture.
[1:47:33] The infrastructure roads do not support this at all,
[1:47:40] and the whole boondoggle with the wastewater thing is still up in the air.
[1:47:46] The roads do not support the traffic. You denied it before.
[1:47:50] I don't understand how you could approve it with more people.
[1:47:54] And
[1:47:55] you serve the citizens of this valley.
[1:47:59] Just look into your hearts and say, "Most people here do not want this," and what
[1:48:04] is right for the citizens, what's going to be good for their safety.
[1:48:08] This area around the schools and Bush Way is so congested and dangerous currently.
[1:48:14] This would be ridiculous to increase that.
[1:48:19] And all these details about the lots and the whatever. Look at the big picture.
[1:48:25] See what serves the people of this valley and the people that live in this
[1:48:30] neighborhood.
[1:48:32] I don't see how you'll be responsible to make any other decision other than to deny
[1:48:37] this.
[1:48:39] Thank you.
[1:48:41] Thank you, Robert.
[1:48:53] Robbie Crouch, go ahead.
[1:48:56] This is Robbie Crouch. I live at 700 Buffalo Trail.
[1:49:00] I agree with everything that's been said already.
[1:49:02] No new comments, except I don't think that the traffic study includes everything
[1:49:05] happening on Ross, including the high schoolers dragging sofas down the street and
[1:49:12] the traffic impacts that we have during lunchtime and when school's getting out,
[1:49:17] and all the bus traffic that's around.
[1:49:18] I think that the traffic study is inadequate. Thanks.
[1:49:23] Thank you, Robbie.
[1:49:33] Yeah.
[1:49:33] Hi.
[1:49:38] That's my husband. Hi, this is Jay Pence.
[1:49:43] Hi.
[1:49:43] Hey, Jay. Go ahead.
[1:49:45] Hi. I'm sorry. I'm a fire complex in Oregon.
[1:49:47] That's okay.
[1:49:49] Hey, I live at 440 Cowboy Trail. I really want to thank you guys for what you do.
[1:49:53] I'm not opposed to this development of the parcel.
[1:49:56] I'm just opposed to this development.
[1:49:59] I feel that you lack the information to make an informed decision tonight, as it
[1:50:04] doesn't meet the RS-7 zoning. As a minimum, please get a plat that fleshes out the
[1:50:09] driveway widths in the homes and sizes, ensure that it'll accommodate the
[1:50:14] residents' vehicles, snow storage.
[1:50:17] I can't even see how kids can have a trampoline in some of the yards on the lots
[1:50:21] just due to the density scale of this large subdivision.
[1:50:26] What's being proposed- is an answer to affordable housing.
[1:50:30] That's what everybody's saying. You got those tiny homes on Skeel Road are like 500
[1:50:35] to 700 square feet, and they're selling for $500,000.
[1:50:39] These are not going to be affordable houses.
[1:50:42] And so this is not the answer to affordable housing.
[1:50:45] We have thousands of lots in the
[1:50:48] county, and just adding to that thousands is not going to make it any better.
[1:50:53] So,
[1:50:57] please add traffic calming measures to Cowboy Trail in the form
[1:51:03] of humps or dips in the existing Cowboy Trail in Down Howard, especially by the
[1:51:07] hospital. And if you approve this subdivision, you're making those streets
[1:51:13] collectors in violation of your traffic plan that you...
[1:51:17] And
[1:51:18] I guess that's about all I have to say. Appreciate it.
[1:51:22] Thank you, Jay.
[1:51:27] Ron Becker.
[1:51:33] Hello, Ron.
[1:51:35] Hello?
[1:51:36] Hi, Ron. You can go ahead.
[1:51:42] Hi, Ron. Are you there?
[1:51:45] We can't hear you if you're talking.
[1:51:51] Try one more time. We heard you once.
[1:51:54] Yeah, we heard you say hello. We know you're there.
[1:51:57] Okay, we're going to move on. If you can
[1:52:03] try again, go ahead. Anybody else?
[1:52:06] Yes, can you-
[1:52:07] Oh, yes. Now? Yes.
[1:52:10] No.
[1:52:11] Lost you. Sorry.
[1:52:12] One more time. Can you hear us, Ron?
[1:52:15] Yeah, can you hear me?
[1:52:17] Yes.
[1:52:19] Okay, great. I'm sorry for that.
[1:52:23] I'd like to just echo
[1:52:25] what the other community members have said regarding the RS7 thing.
[1:52:31] I don't want to bore you to tears. You heard that number probably.
[1:52:35] You might wish you never hear it again.
[1:52:38] I would say, however, that at the very least in the building code document, it
[1:52:44] would be helpful if you have a definition of terms section.
[1:52:47] So when you see a term that's obviously a key term, like primarily, that it would
[1:52:52] be defined in the way that it apparently has been by decision-makers up to this
[1:52:57] point,
[1:52:59] meaning that they don't necessarily see it as meaning majority of
[1:53:04] or more than 50%. I'm not a mathematician, but 15%
[1:53:10] I don't believe equals 50%. So there is a problem, and I understand where people
[1:53:15] are coming from. Some other comments, and this has been the big picture comment
[1:53:20] that was just made, and a couple other folks have made it.
[1:53:23] I live over here in,
[1:53:26] LSA Trail 426, LSA Trail with my wife.
[1:53:30] We've been here for almost a decade, so that's almost 10 winters.
[1:53:35] Come on over if you don't live in this area and see what's going on, on a winter
[1:53:39] day when there's snow on the roads and without sidewalks, when people are
[1:53:45] walking dogs and trying to play, do whatever they do.
[1:53:51] I try to visualize more cars on these roads when people have nowhere to walk their
[1:53:55] dogs, et cetera. So you can kind of fill in the blanks on that.
[1:53:59] I just feel like the density that's proposed, the number of people that would come
[1:54:04] in if they do a build-out in five years, it's going to be chaotic over here.
[1:54:10] Most people run their dogs. They don't walk them on leashes.
[1:54:12] Of course, that's in violation of city code too.
[1:54:18] And we've already had a dog mauling over here in this part of town a few years ago
[1:54:23] of a young kid playing in his yard. I hate to bring those things up, but the
[1:54:28] traffic impact study obviously didn't stand over there on Powder Valley Road when
[1:54:32] people want to go skiing over here on a powder day.
[1:54:35] I have all that traffic coming up Bouche Way and up
[1:54:41] Ross Avenue. What's the path of least resistance?
[1:54:44] Straight through Shoshone Plains over to Ske Hill Road.
[1:54:48] I made an inquiry a while back about when are they going to finish Grand Pierre
[1:54:51] through to Ske Hill Road and found out it's in the 6 to 10-year plan.
[1:54:57] Well, 6 to 10 years, the show's over.
[1:54:59] There will already be lots of folks over here, and they figured out where they want
[1:55:03] to go. What do we do for that interim until we get an intersection there from
[1:55:08] Grand Pierre on Ske Hill Road?
[1:55:11] These are things that I think need to be considered because we're living here now,
[1:55:17] not in 6 to 10 years.
[1:55:20] So again, I appreciate the time and effort that you folks put in.
[1:55:24] I know you're all not making six figures doing what you're doing here tonight.
[1:55:28] So I appreciate that, and I know it's a lot of work.
[1:55:32] But these are serious concerns, and I sure hope that they're taken into
[1:55:36] consideration. Thanks a lot for your time.
[1:55:38] Thank you, Ron. Anybody else online? Click raise hand and we will promote you.
[1:55:46] Seeing no more, we will go ahead and close the public hearing at 7:56.
[1:55:52] Now is the opportunity for the rebuttal from the developer.
[1:56:04] Michael from Pegas Engineering, 2295 North Hills Highway, Boulder.
[1:56:09] We do have several points to rebut here and several
[1:56:15] personnel to address those rebuttals. I'll hand it to engineering.
[1:56:20] We have
[1:56:22] others that can handle some of the other aspects and other rebuttal.
[1:56:26] I'll just ask that everybody keeps to the rebuttal instead of having new
[1:56:31] information.
[1:56:32] Right.
[1:56:34] So first is the water rights. There
[1:56:39] are enough water rights for this project
[1:56:45] to account for all the water necessary for the homes.
[1:56:50] There's 153 gallons per minute. It's in an area, this was also shown again here
[1:56:55] this evening.
[1:56:58] So that water may engage in the water rights. There is water for this.
[1:57:03] The property has those water rights.
[1:57:05] So
[1:57:07] that is really a non-question of is the water available.
[1:57:12] The question then goes into how can the system service the 180
[1:57:17] units right now for this phase, plat one for division one?
[1:57:22] Yes, it can. For phase two? Yes, it can.
[1:57:25] Two, three, and five, there needs to be an update to the transmission line.
[1:57:31] In the development agreement, it
[1:57:34] stated that within the development agreement that
[1:57:39] those conditions, that has to be updated prior to either by the city or the
[1:57:44] developer, right? To update that transmission line in order to service three, four,
[1:57:49] and five. So there is a plan in place to ensure that the water line has the
[1:57:55] capacity to build, so that was done through the guidance from Keller and
[1:58:01] staff.
[1:58:03] Secondly, sewer, again, we have the capacity at
[1:58:08] 83%. It does not trigger the 85% threshold that was sent out in the Keller memo.
[1:58:17] And then from the TIS, all of the TIS questions, I would
[1:58:23] defer to staff and to Keller so that they can speak directly to their traffic
[1:58:29] impact study. The traffic impact study was requested by the
[1:58:35] staff for us to pay for, for the developers to pay for that.
[1:58:39] However, they sourced the engineering firm to do that and to take care of that
[1:58:44] study. The developer simply just paid for that.
[1:58:48] And that was for the updated from Keller, and I would refer those questions to
[1:58:53] staff and to Keller specifically, as it's their
[1:58:59] report. Other than that, I'll leave it to Jared.
[1:59:03] Thank you.
[1:59:08] Hi, good evening. My name is Jared Flutie.
[1:59:10] I'm an attorney for the applicant, and at 109 North Arthur, fifth floor in Boulder.
[1:59:19] I made numerous notes of comments that were raised tonight, and I just want to
[1:59:24] mention a couple of them.
[1:59:28] Michael just mentioned the water concern.
[1:59:32] The one thing I would have to say about that is that is the developer's
[1:59:35] responsibility. You're only considering phase one tonight, and the site report
[1:59:41] tells you that the water's there for phase one.
[1:59:44] You'll have to approve subsequent phases as they come up.
[1:59:47] And as far as future development of the infrastructure for the water system, there
[1:59:52] was a comment about concern about can we really get that done in five years.
[1:59:56] Well, again, that's the developer's problem, not yours.
[1:59:59] If he doesn't get it done, the next subsequent phases don't come along.
[2:00:04] I'm sure you understand that, unless the city's done it on their own anyway.
[2:00:15] I think somebody else is going to talk, there were some comments about the
[2:00:18] affordable housing and pricing comments of these units, and somebody else, I think,
[2:00:22] is going to address that more than me, but I would just mention it's a basic
[2:00:26] economics, it's a supply and demand situation.
[2:00:30] If there's more inventory, prices will reflect that.
[2:00:34] Obviously, the shortage of inventory now is why the prices are so high.
[2:00:39] So
[2:00:41] can I promise you that these units will be affordable based on median household
[2:00:45] income? No. But will it help that problem? Probably.
[2:00:50] I think more inventory is going to improve prices.
[2:00:55] I want to address the numerous concerns that came up
[2:01:01] about the R7 zoning and then the length of term primarily language.
[2:01:09] I agree with the city attorney's characterization of that term last month.
[2:01:17] And I remind you that this application at certain tonight is not a variance, it's
[2:01:21] not a rezoning request, it's not a special use permit.
[2:01:25] The applicant is not requesting anything different than what's already allowed
[2:01:29] under your current zoning code. And
[2:01:35] the applicant's not the one that set the zoning for this property here.
[2:01:39] That was done before them. So the question for the council is whether
[2:01:45] this preliminary plat satisfies approval of the criteria in the LDC under
[2:01:50] 14-56. The staff has concluded that it does.
[2:01:54] The planning zoning commission has concluded that it does.
[2:01:58] And there's been multiple hearings, additional technical review.
[2:02:02] The applicant has accepted conditions addressing the remaining technical issues.
[2:02:08] Public testimony is certainly relevant, and it does deserve consideration, but
[2:02:13] opposition to development is not an approval criteria.
[2:02:18] If the council concludes that the application should be denied, Idaho law requires
[2:02:23] that that decision be based upon identified applicable criteria and supported by
[2:02:28] findings resolving the relevant dispute facts.
[2:02:34] I think that the better reading and interpretation of that primarily language is
[2:02:37] that it is one of-- and I also think it's one that the court would arrive at in
[2:02:43] reviewing that, is that the word primarily describes the intended character of the
[2:02:47] R7 zone as a whole, rather than a numerical requirement that each individual
[2:02:52] development must itself contain a majority of detached single-family homes.
[2:02:59] There was a comment that said that this doesn't meet the specs for density because
[2:03:04] the ratio is not compliant. There is no ratio listed in the LDC,
[2:03:09] not that I'm aware of. Please stop me directly if I'm wrong with that.
[2:03:16] And there's nothing in the R7 zoning or in the LDC that says that this is
[2:03:22] each development or project specific application, each subdivision, each phase.
[2:03:27] It doesn't specify any of that.
[2:03:31] The same provision that gives that familiar language does authorize, outright
[2:03:35] permitted five different types of structures, besides and including single-family
[2:03:41] homes.
[2:03:43] So theoretically, it would be possible to have as little as 21% of one type of
[2:03:48] structure to be primarily if you were applying it that way, if you had a mixed
[2:03:52] development that used all five types.
[2:03:57] There is nothing in the code that draws a line about 50 or 51%, and
[2:04:03] I think the plain language of that code is the strongest evidence of that
[2:04:08] interpretation.
[2:04:10] The fact that all those other building types are outright permitted.
[2:04:15] I think that the city,
[2:04:19] when they adopted the LDC, if you did intend that primarily language to impose a
[2:04:23] project-level threshold, I think that I would have expected the code to say
[2:04:29] something explicit about that, something that's at least 50% or something along
[2:04:33] those lines, and it simply isn't there. It's not in the code.
[2:04:36] So it's difficult to reconcile the argument that
[2:04:43] when it permits all those other structure types that simply
[2:04:49] because a developer might propose too many of a certain type, that it doesn't
[2:04:54] comply.
[2:04:56] Another
[2:05:02] evidence that I see in the code about that is that the code leaves unanswered
[2:05:07] fundamental questions about what primarily is measured against.
[2:05:11] Does that mean number of lots, number of structures, number of acres developed?
[2:05:18] Acreage occupied, frontage? There is no clarification in the code that if primarily
[2:05:23] means something, what is primarily being measured against?
[2:05:26] There's no denominator and no percentages given in the code.
[2:05:30] And I think that omission is significant in characterizing that language as its own
[2:05:36] purpose rather than a project-level numerical requirement.
[2:05:39] Thank you, Jared. Do you have any additional rebuttals that you'd like to?
[2:05:42] I just want to make sure that we get to everything.
[2:05:46] Yes, I do.
[2:05:50] Just to finish on that topic, I'm not suggesting the term primarily has no legal
[2:05:54] significance. It does. Rather, I'm suggesting it's zone-wide planning,
[2:05:59] and not an individual project. And I would call to your attention,
[2:06:05] a project that I found on your website, this is in the R7 zone
[2:06:11] also. And this was approved in 2024, and this is on
[2:06:17] Teton Avenue Development. There were 15 lots developed, and every one of them was
[2:06:22] duplexes, 100% duplexes. And maybe I wasn't involved or around when that happened,
[2:06:27] so you probably are more familiar with that than me, but Teton Avenue Development
[2:06:31] LLC, represented by Jace Holt.
[2:06:35] I drove over there before I came to this hearing, and I see two new duplexes going
[2:06:40] up on that already.
[2:06:43] So as far as I know, from what I can see on the website, there was never any
[2:06:48] discussion about the primary language in the R7 zoning when that application was
[2:06:53] being reviewed. So again, that shows that the city is not maybe applying their code
[2:06:59] consistently between developments in the R7 zone.
[2:07:08] There were several comments tonight about your responsibility as the city council,
[2:07:14] what you're required to find tonight. And I don't disagree with those.
[2:07:19] I agree that you have the ability to reach a different conclusion than what the
[2:07:24] staff has. You are the ultimate decision-maker, and we respect that, and we respect
[2:07:29] the public's right to be involved and be heard in the process.
[2:07:33] But again, the legal question is not whether this project has opposition, it's
[2:07:37] whether the application meets the criteria.
[2:07:43] If you determine that your city staff and the other experts that have been hired,
[2:07:49] that they're wrong,
[2:07:51] you can reach that. But me, as an attorney, who potentially is going to have to
[2:07:56] deal with this on review in the future, I would just ask you to carefully identify
[2:08:02] the particular approval criteria that is not met, and the evidence and the record
[2:08:07] that establishes that deficiency, and why that evidence outweighs the technical
[2:08:12] analysis that has come from the experts that have weighed in on this.
[2:08:18] And if you believe there is a legitimate remaining impact that can be
[2:08:24] addressed through an appropriate condition, then I would ask you to consider that
[2:08:28] as well, because this applicant has demonstrated repeatedly that it's willing to
[2:08:33] work with the city to resolve concerns and address those things.
[2:08:41] I just want to bring it-- this has been 12 minutes now, so I just want to be able
[2:08:45] to wrap up the rebuttal so that we can move on. Thank you.
[2:08:49] Okay. Well, there's someone else that has to speak, somebody I'll talk to, so I'll
[2:08:53] turn it around.
[2:08:59] Thank you. My name is Mike Allen. I'm an attorney here representing, uh, LKM and
[2:09:04] Ruben Corona.
[2:09:05] What was your last name?
[2:09:06] Mike Allen.
[2:09:08] Allen?
[2:09:08] Allen. A-L-L-E-N.
[2:09:10] Thank you.
[2:09:10] Um, uh, yeah, Jared covered most of the substance of staff, I would probably say.
[2:09:16] I won't repeat that.
[2:09:17] Thank you.
[2:09:18] I mostly just want to stand up because there were some, I guess, comments or
[2:09:22] questions concerning LKM's involvement, so I can address those as needed.
[2:09:28] LKM is aware of this project. They are...
[2:09:32] They have signed off on it, they are supportive.
[2:09:35] They were aware of and are aware of the zoning property when they acquired it, and,
[2:09:42] uh, again, to echo what Jared just said and what the application
[2:09:48] says concerning the appropriateness and of this-
[2:09:52] Thank you
[2:09:53] ...
[2:09:58] application.
[2:09:58] Thank you. Okay. So we have had a rebuttal from the applicant.
[2:10:04] We've had our public hearing.
[2:10:07] We've had our questions for staff and applicant, and now is the
[2:10:13] time for council to deliberate.
[2:10:19] Um, as per our council following Rosenberg's Rules,
[2:10:25] um, if we have any other questions, then feel free to make a motion,
[2:10:32] and then you may be able to start deliberating.
[2:10:35] There's Albert Still.
[2:10:41] Uh, let's look.
[2:10:46] Who was with us from Keller?
[2:10:49] Ben.
[2:10:49] Ben, are you on?
[2:10:50] Yes.
[2:10:50] We're waiting for you. Oh, can you hear us?
[2:10:54] Yep.
[2:10:55] Okay. Thank you, Ben.
[2:10:56] Seeing as the developer, uh, deferred to, uh, speaking about the TIS, and
[2:11:02] wanted... Keller might be able to speak to it, wherever you are,
[2:11:09] Ben.
[2:11:09] So yeah, no, good, good questions and discussion on that.
[2:11:13] So I want to be clear, we did not prepare the initial TIS.
[2:11:18] That was done by HLE, so any questions regarding that initial TIS need to be
[2:11:24] diverted to that professional engineer. Keller worked for the city to review that.
[2:11:30] We reviewed that for just general conformance, standard practice.
[2:11:35] And after our review, we were asked, um, by the city to
[2:11:41] prepare what the proportionate share cost allocations were, and this was based off
[2:11:46] the original 2022 study. Um, as a result of the development, what were the
[2:11:51] proportionate share for the traffic impacts based on the transportation master plan
[2:11:57] projects, impacts to intersections, roadways at that time.
[2:12:01] And then more recently, um, since this has evolved, Keller
[2:12:07] has been involved with the transportation master plan.
[2:12:11] Obviously, that's been approved.
[2:12:12] As part of that, we did an extensive traffic model of the entire city of Driggs.
[2:12:17] So the city and the applicant actually asked us to update the proportionate share
[2:12:23] allocations based on the more current modeling.
[2:12:27] And so we used that to, um, compare, uh, prices,
[2:12:33] impacts, and come up with a recommendation for what we saw as a appropriate cost
[2:12:39] allocation for the impacts caused by the development, um, based on the current
[2:12:44] modeling, current pricing for 2026, et cetera.
[2:12:49] So that's really the work that, that we did. Um, hopefully that makes sense.
[2:12:54] And I do have someone on too that, um, did all, all the modeling
[2:12:59] specifically for this, if there's any questions specifically about the modeling.
[2:13:03] So we didn't do, nor were we scoped or asked to do a entire TIS
[2:13:08] update. Our work was specific to the proportionate share amount.
[2:13:18] Thank you, Ben. Are there any other questions for Keller?
[2:13:21] Yes. Thanks, Ben. Um, did Keller check the TIS assumptions,
[2:13:27] inputs, or calculations?
[2:13:30] We did just for general conformance, but the level of our scope is more of a
[2:13:35] cursory review in nature. So we are, we're spot-checking.
[2:13:39] We're not actually going into the model and triple-checking every single thing, if
[2:13:43] that makes sense.
[2:13:45] I thought I saw-
[2:13:46] That's, that's standard practice for a TIS review when we're scoped from the city.
[2:13:50] So I thought I saw a letter from Keller saying specifically that the inputs were...
[2:13:57] or that the, the Keller review assumed that the inputs and the calculations were
[2:14:01] correct and then-
[2:14:02] That's correct. Yeah. We, we rely on the other, the professional engineer that put
[2:14:08] together that modeling, that they did their due diligence to quality control and
[2:14:13] check all of that that's going into the software.
[2:14:16] Mm-hmm. And then-
[2:14:17] So our, our review is more spot-checking the actual TIS, making sure that this is
[2:14:22] up to, you know, general conformance with your code, et cetera.
[2:14:27] Thanks for clarifying that. And then, just so I understand what then triggers the
[2:14:32] next thing, did the original TIS identify which off-site
[2:14:37] mitigations were needed that then went into your allocation model?
[2:14:43] Uh, yes, I believe so. And then we ran that with, um, current cost numbers at that
[2:14:48] time to determine an appropriate cost allocation that the developer would, would
[2:14:54] provide to mitigate such impacts.
[2:14:56] And then we further updated that based off of our travel demand model for 2026
[2:15:01] conditions. So this is fast-forward to now, and that work was done in April.
[2:15:07] Okay. But did that re- did that reopen the question of
[2:15:14] where, where are off-site mitigations needed?
[2:15:17] Or had you already identified the where's, and then it was just a question of how,
[2:15:21] how much allocations?
[2:15:23] A, a little bit of both. Because we had went through the transportation master
[2:15:27] plan, um, the city's priorities were more specifically identified in that
[2:15:33] master plan. So we were actually able to-- Some of the intersections, for example,
[2:15:39] that were identified in the master plan had impacts from this development.
[2:15:45] So we were able to take a project that is in your capital improvements plan with a
[2:15:50] cost that's in your capital improvements plan and provide a proportionate share
[2:15:55] based off of the traffic impact contribution for that project.
[2:15:58] So it's a little bit of both, where we had some that were still the original from
[2:16:03] 2022, but we looked at it more holistically, folding in that, um, transportation
[2:16:09] master plan and your actual approved capital improvements list, if that makes
[2:16:13] sense.
[2:16:14] Yeah. My understanding with that model and what council authorized, uh, initial,
[2:16:20] additional services or at some point was to include in that model not just this
[2:16:25] development, but other proposed developments in the pipeline so that we were
[2:16:29] getting a more holistic view.
[2:16:31] That's correct.
[2:16:33] And the, the allocations were informed by that original
[2:16:39] TIS that is part of this allocation.
[2:16:43] But we, we updated it based off of the more current model.
[2:16:47] But yeah, we, we actually, in that letter that we submitted, we provided all of the
[2:16:51] original allocations from the original TIS and showed where we changed.
[2:16:56] The result, actually, it, um, led to about an additional 100 extra thousand
[2:17:02] dollars going to the city for your improvements.
[2:17:09] And do you feel like that is adequate to keep up with inflation?
[2:17:14] Inflation does factor in, surely.
[2:17:17] But, um, a- and that's part of the reason we wanted to update this.
[2:17:21] I, I believe that the city wanted us to look at this again as this has evolved over
[2:17:25] the last, what, four or five years. Inflation's real.
[2:17:29] We have more updated projects. We have a more recent model.
[2:17:32] So yes, inflation is included in those numbers, that's safe to say.
[2:17:37] Thank you. That's... I can just-
[2:17:40] Any other questions for Keller?
[2:17:45] Thanks for being with us, Ben.
[2:17:47] Yeah, 100%.
[2:17:52] I move that we take a five-minute recess for bathroom break.
[2:17:56] Mm-hmm.
[2:17:58] Awesome.
[2:18:00] Okay. We will come back at 8:23.
[2:18:14] It's 5:23, so we're going to go ahead and get back from our break, and
[2:18:20] we are ready for the next step for council.
[2:18:27] I move to deny the proposed Corona Valley Subdivision preliminary plat phase
[2:18:32] one and master plan, based on finding the application as presented
[2:18:38] does not meet the criteria for approval, number one or number two or number
[2:18:44] four or number five or number six, as listed in the staff report and
[2:18:50] in article 14.5.6 of the Graveland development code.
[2:18:59] We have a motion.
[2:19:03] Awesome.
[2:19:05] We have a second. Time for discussion.
[2:19:12] Can you go over reasonings?
[2:19:14] Yes.
[2:19:14] Bring it up.
[2:19:15] Absolutely. First of all, though, I wanted to thank staff.
[2:19:23] Thank you so much for organizing this staff report and the attachments in a logical
[2:19:29] fashion this time around. It made it so much easier to navigate, and I really
[2:19:33] appreciate the attention to that detail. That really, really helped.
[2:19:38] And I also wanted to be clear,
[2:19:43] Mayor, that for the record, I have been encouraged on many occasions to
[2:19:49] discuss applications like this with staff prior to the public hearing, and I want
[2:19:54] to be very clear, both for the applicant's benefit and for the public's,
[2:19:59] I want to be crystal clear that all the information I am basing my decision on is
[2:20:05] the same information that we have in common.
[2:20:09] I chose not to discuss this application with staff because I did not want my
[2:20:15] decision-making today to be biased either way by information the staff shared with
[2:20:20] me in private conversation. So, thank you for letting me explain that.
[2:20:25] And then to jump into these individual criteria for approval.
[2:20:28] Number one, the plat has been created and stamped by a licensed land surveyor of
[2:20:33] the state of Idaho, and it includes the minimum requirements set out in the Idaho
[2:20:37] statutes. When I look in the land development code section
[2:20:43] about this, it is very clear that a name and address for the
[2:20:49] submitter and the owner need to be part of that.
[2:20:53] I don't think that's included. I don't think it meets that criteria.
[2:20:57] Criteria number two-
[2:20:58] So hang on a second. So,
[2:21:01] when here it says,
[2:21:04] "Created and stamped by a licensed land surveyor"?
[2:21:08] "And meets the minimum requirements." And so I have my
[2:21:13] copy of the Graveland development code right here for review reference, and
[2:21:19] on page 14-16, it says, "Preliminary plat application.
[2:21:26] Upon completion of the concept plan review, the submitter may proceed by submitting
[2:21:31] a preliminary plat application for review by the P&Z and the council." And then it
[2:21:37] lists various requirements. Plats must not be more than a year old.
[2:21:43] It must be prepared by a licensed land surveyor, which it appears that they are.
[2:21:48] But identification and descriptive data are variously missing.
[2:21:54] And that-
[2:21:55] And that's in Idaho Statute 50-1304?
[2:21:59] I am not familiar with that statute. I am not a licensed land surveyor.
[2:22:02] That's what it says here.
[2:22:05] It says, "The minimum requirements set out in Idaho Statute Section 50-1304."
[2:22:12] I have not reviewed that, and there has not been a review to me for that, so I
[2:22:16] can't make that finding. In reviewing the land development code, the requirements
[2:22:21] for a preliminary plat are not met.
[2:22:24] There is no name, address, or phone number of the subdivider or the owner.
[2:22:29] Furthermore...
[2:22:33] Here. Find the next section.
[2:22:39] I'm just trying to go by number one, and it doesn't talk about the land development
[2:22:43] code.
[2:22:46] It doesn't say minimum requirements of the land development code.
[2:22:50] And I want to
[2:22:53] hear what you have to say, but I also want to make sure that I know that
[2:22:59] in Idaho, that it is very important that the
[2:23:04] requirements be very clear
[2:23:08] to why something is denied
[2:23:13] because there are lots of private property rights in the state of Idaho, and Idaho
[2:23:18] State Statute makes that clear.
[2:23:21] Okay.
[2:23:21] So I want to make-
[2:23:23] Can you-
[2:23:23] I'm talking. I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing here.
[2:23:29] Number one does not say the minimum requirements of the land development code.
[2:23:34] It says the minimum requirements set out in Idaho Statute
[2:23:39] 50-1304.
[2:23:44] So, I just want to make sure that council is understanding what number one
[2:23:50] says and making clarifications on understanding
[2:23:56] that.
[2:23:57] I want to be clear that I do not have the state statute printed out in front of me,
[2:24:02] and none of the review from staff addressed the state statute on this specifically.
[2:24:08] And the page I'm looking at in the LDC does reference State Statute
[2:24:14] Title 50-1304, Essentials of Plats, and it
[2:24:20] then goes on to outline what the essential items of plats shall be.
[2:24:26] I would hope that our LDC is in conformance.
[2:24:30] But either way,
[2:24:33] this is not in conformance with our LDC, which is part of approval criteria
[2:24:39] number six. So even if it is in conformance with state statute on this
[2:24:44] particular point,
[2:24:47] it doesn't affect my final decision one way or another if it is not
[2:24:53] in conformance with the LDC that I have in front of me.
[2:25:01] Does anyone else have anything to say about approval criteria number one?
[2:25:09] I just need to say, you talked about not being biased and not
[2:25:15] wanting to ask questions, and I find it very valuable myself to
[2:25:21] talk to staff when I'm allowed because I never feel like my
[2:25:27] decision-making is swayed. I feel like I could ask questions that could be
[2:25:32] answered. I'm not meant to know everything, and I'm aware of that, so I
[2:25:38] feel the valuable tool for us as council, and I fully respect your position
[2:25:44] because that's how I feel about that.
[2:25:47] Thanks for addressing that.
[2:25:49] Yeah.
[2:25:52] For approval criteria number two,
[2:25:58] it says, "The plat contains an owner's certificate specifying ownership and
[2:26:03] maintenance responsibilities with respect to roads, parks, open space, and other
[2:26:08] public refined facilities or areas." This plat does not have an
[2:26:14] owner's certificate block, period.
[2:26:21] So I cannot make that finding.
[2:26:27] I have the plat pulled up in front of me.
[2:26:30] I don't see an owner's certificate on there.
[2:26:41] Approval criteria number four says, "Any proposed phasing is clearly
[2:26:47] shown on a development master plan and provides for orderly development of the
[2:26:53] land conforming at all times to this land development code."
[2:26:58] So again, looking to the LDC plat
[2:27:03] process,
[2:27:05] section 14.5.6 in the process overview says that when we're
[2:27:11] dealing with phased development, the master plan for future phases must be
[2:27:17] submitted with the first phase, and then each phase must have
[2:27:22] a standalone preliminary plat and final plat that are approved
[2:27:28] independently
[2:27:30] from the rest of what's covered by the master plan. So there's two.
[2:27:34] If the development is not phased, you only need one of these things.
[2:27:40] You only need the plat. But if it's a phase development, you have the plat, or you
[2:27:44] have the master plan, which shows the whole thing and breaks down the phasing, and
[2:27:49] then you have what's called the plat.
[2:27:51] And the plat is only for the current phase that is being platted and
[2:27:56] approved in this meeting. And this application does not
[2:28:02] have both of those documents. What is labeled preliminary plat seems to be
[2:28:08] a master plan that is improperly labeled and does
[2:28:14] not show a phasing breakdown, but there is no
[2:28:19] independent preliminary plat document for phase one at all, at least not that I
[2:28:25] could find in the packet. So I don't think we can make that finding
[2:28:31] at all.
[2:28:34] Approval criteria number five is
[2:28:39] the longest and
[2:28:43] the most complicated.
[2:28:45] It reads, "The development agreement and subdivision design satisfactorily mitigate
[2:28:51] for the effects from the development and phasing timelines on the ability of
[2:28:56] political subdivisions of the state," Centerton would be a political subdivision of
[2:29:00] the state, "including school districts," so the Centerton School District 41, "to
[2:29:05] deliver services without compromising quality of service delivery to
[2:29:11] current residents or imposing substantial additional costs upon current
[2:29:16] residents to accommodate the proposed subdivision.
[2:29:21] Delivery services include, but are not limited to, transportation systems, public
[2:29:26] utilities, highways, law enforcement agencies, services, waste, water," on and on.
[2:29:34] I think all of these are very important, but to me, the biggest
[2:29:40] glaring thing that I cannot make this finding or even
[2:29:45] seriously consider any of the other portions is the traffic.
[2:29:53] LDC section 14.5.11.8.1 requires a traffic
[2:29:59] impact analysis. This requirement is not negated by the fact that staff asked
[2:30:05] for traffic modeling from the city's consultant or that the applicant paid for
[2:30:08] that. The TIS in the application packet that is in front of us
[2:30:14] today is riddled with irregularities.
[2:30:18] The traffic impact study should be current.
[2:30:21] It should name and represent this development. It should be accurate.
[2:30:26] It should be transparent. It should identify the existing infrastructure,
[2:30:32] or it should identify if existing infrastructure can indeed support the
[2:30:37] development and what off-site improvements are necessary.
[2:30:43] I
[2:30:45] have huge
[2:30:48] qualms with making that finding, that this existing road network
[2:30:54] can support it. One thing one of the public commenters said, the roads do not
[2:30:59] support the development. It's up to the applicant and their documentation,
[2:31:03] including the traffic and impact study, to prove otherwise, and despite multiple
[2:31:09] opportunities, that has not been done.
[2:31:14] The information I have reviewed makes me deeply skeptical of this road network
[2:31:20] being able to support this development in a way that is safe, and here I'm quoting
[2:31:25] from approval criteria number five again, "and does not compromise the quality of
[2:31:30] service delivery to Centerton residents or impose
[2:31:36] substantial additional costs upon current residents to accommodate the proposed
[2:31:42] subdivision." Maximum densities are just that, maximum, not an entitlement, and all
[2:31:48] other requirements must be met. This approval criteria is simply not
[2:31:53] met by this application.
[2:31:57] The final
[2:32:00] approval criteria number six
[2:32:03] says, "The plat and development plans must substantially conform with
[2:32:09] the underlying zoning and applicable provisions of
[2:32:16] this title and conform with the city's comprehensive plan and other applicable
[2:32:21] plans and policies, such as the transportation plan and recreation master plan." So
[2:32:27] ours, if you're uncomfortable with
[2:32:31] approval criteria number one, I could amend my motion to drop that because the same
[2:32:37] problem of it's not complying with the LDC,
[2:32:41] approval criteria number six says has to comply with the LDC.
[2:32:44] So I can route that into number six.
[2:32:50] But in addition to that, there are several other conformance issues with the LDC.
[2:33:00] One is that the phases, which was already talked about.
[2:33:08] But the LDC goes on to say more about the master plan.
[2:33:13] It says that, "There will be multiple phases.
[2:33:17] The master plan of the subdivision with the necessary attachments in accordance
[2:33:21] with the definitions and requirements shall be recorded and shall be binding upon
[2:33:26] the applicant and subsequent owners of the property."
[2:33:30] This is required by our LDC. It is non-negotiable, and we don't have it.
[2:33:36] We can't hold the applicant and current and future owners to a master
[2:33:42] plan if we fail to require it in the first place.
[2:33:48] And the LDC also addresses parking and says that combined--
[2:33:54] So LDC
[2:33:56] 8.18.1.A.2
[2:34:03] says, "The combined parking and driveway area cannot constitute more than 40% of
[2:34:08] the frontal corner yard." LDC 11.1.3.A
[2:34:14] requires single-family detached housing to provide two off-street parking
[2:34:19] spaces. And as depicted in the application
[2:34:25] materials, block 2, lot 5, block 8, lot 8, and block
[2:34:31] 1, lot 6, along with many others, do not appear to comply with
[2:34:35] that.
[2:34:48] So I cannot make a finding that the application is meeting
[2:34:54] criteria number 6. All right. So how do you feel about number one?
[2:34:58] Would you like me to amend my motion?
[2:35:01] So you're saying number six, you're saying that the LDC is not
[2:35:06] compliant because of the phases and parking for the specific
[2:35:12] lots that you mentioned?
[2:35:17] Approval criteria number six says that the plat
[2:35:23] and associated development plans substantially conform with the
[2:35:28] underlying zoning and applicable provisions of this title.
[2:35:34] So this-
[2:35:36] I'm asking what your-- You said
[2:35:42] two things. You said that it didn't comply in the LDC from
[2:35:48] phases and parking of the specific lots that you mentioned.
[2:35:52] Are those the two that you're mentioning?
[2:35:55] I also mentioned the-
[2:35:59] One related to approval criterion number one,
[2:36:04] which is where the LDC says that the preliminary
[2:36:09] plat must have the owner and developers-
[2:36:14] No, I'm just talking about number six right now.
[2:36:16] Yes.
[2:36:19] So approval criterion number six says the development has to be in compliance with
[2:36:24] the LDC, and the LDC says that... Hang on, let me get to
[2:36:30] that page again.
[2:36:31] That's okay, you already mentioned it before.
[2:36:34] I'd like to ask staff some clarifying questions when you come up to the podium.
[2:36:51] And if somebody's standing next to the temperature, can you push the button so
[2:36:57] that it's not so freezing?
[2:37:00] Sorry.
[2:37:00] I know you're probably hot in the audience-
[2:37:03] Yeah
[2:37:03] ... but it comes directly here, and I feel like I'm having back pain because I'm so
[2:37:07] cold.
[2:37:08] So how high do you want it?
[2:37:10] It's very hot.
[2:37:10] To like a comfortable.
[2:37:12] Okay.
[2:37:13] Okay, thank you.
[2:37:16] So one of the questions that I have
[2:37:21] is one that was mentioned earlier in regards to specific lots
[2:37:28] being of one size of another. And
[2:37:33] in a
[2:37:38] phase one preliminary plat application and master plan, is now the time
[2:37:45] to be able to
[2:37:51] show by fact that they have to be meeting the,
[2:37:57] not that the parking and driveway meet not more than 40% of the front
[2:38:03] yard?
[2:38:05] That would be at the time of the building permit.
[2:38:07] Every lot would be required to meet the standards of the LDC related to parking and
[2:38:11] driveways.
[2:38:12] So that's at the time of building permit?
[2:38:15] Correct.
[2:38:17] The time
[2:38:19] what's in front of you now should be ready to confirm that the lot size is
[2:38:24] conformed to the zoning district.
[2:38:27] Thank you. And then in regards with
[2:38:33] the phasing
[2:38:36] and
[2:38:40] with number six, complying with number six and the phasing
[2:38:46] of what's present in the application, can you
[2:38:51] give your
[2:38:54] perspective on that?
[2:38:57] I'm not sure I understand the question.
[2:38:58] I know. I don't know if I understand my question either.
[2:39:03] Oh, this doesn't?
[2:39:08] This is to do-
[2:39:12] This one.
[2:39:12] Right. With what was the map... Yes.
[2:39:16] You want more information?
[2:39:17] Well, Sarah was saying that she didn't, that you didn't see or find a, was phase
[2:39:23] one of the master plan.
[2:39:24] Well, they did, with the revision, they did a much, much, much better job with the
[2:39:29] improvement plans. So the improvement plans have standalone improvement plans for
[2:39:33] phase one and then a master plan for the whole development improvements.
[2:39:39] That should be mirrored in the plat.
[2:39:43] There should be a plat for phase one, and there should be a plat master plan
[2:39:49] that shows the phasing of the whole development, and that is not complete.
[2:39:54] So this is a preliminary plat, so let's hear from
[2:39:59] our staff of what here
[2:40:05] at the City of Driggs and the State of Idaho that we need to be able to have at
[2:40:09] this time.
[2:40:11] Yeah. I see what Councilwoman Johnston is referencing, and I would agree.
[2:40:17] It does appear that plat just for phase one is missing detail.
[2:40:22] In our stats review, there's quite a lot going on in this application, and we've
[2:40:28] certainly focused on the master planning component and the phasing plan.
[2:40:33] But the plat is, and the owner certificate is something I would
[2:40:39] suggest that you would ask to see in another review,
[2:40:44] and not rely on those two specific components for a motion of approval on that.
[2:40:53] Reviewing state statute 15-1304,
[2:40:57] the
[2:40:59] master plan as presented met those components, but Sarah Johnston was correct
[2:41:05] that the application requirements of the LDC are different.
[2:41:10] Not in an illegal way, but just that they ask for more information up front.
[2:41:19] Okay.
[2:41:21] So
[2:41:23] you mentioned that the owner certificate is something that can be referred
[2:41:29] to.
[2:41:32] That should be included, yes.
[2:41:34] Sorry. That's fine. I'm like, again, the tense from the cold is
[2:41:39] making me go a little off right now.
[2:41:41] What about the condition of approval, or is that typically just something that
[2:41:47] happens?
[2:41:49] It would, it will happen on the final plat because that's what is going to be
[2:41:53] recorded. The city council could initially approve.
[2:41:56] They could table this application a second time to see something.
[2:42:01] It's up to their decision.
[2:42:06] Okay. I'd love to ask a few questions.
[2:42:10] So
[2:42:13] can
[2:42:21] you share a little bit more information about
[2:42:27] number five and in regards to
[2:42:33] the
[2:42:38] traffic impact study
[2:42:44] and the aspect that was mentioned about inaccuracies in addition
[2:42:50] to
[2:42:53] the quality and cost on residents for roads?
[2:42:59] Because this is a large-scale development subdivision, Article 14-511
[2:43:04] has specific requirements for anything of this scale.
[2:43:09] And I'll just read the version one, and it states, "A quantified analysis of
[2:43:14] impacts on public services that would be provided to the development, including the
[2:43:18] traffic impact analysis." And that is the extent to which we talk
[2:43:24] about the requirements of our traffic impact studies in our development code.
[2:43:30] There's no requirement for when it's expired, when it's
[2:43:36] still valid.
[2:43:39] We're relying on best practices and our third-party consultants to really do those
[2:43:43] reviews for us. So I can't comment on any irregularities
[2:43:49] or anything like that. But you're also welcome to ask other staff
[2:43:55] questions, too.
[2:43:56] Not just Joe? Thanks.
[2:44:03] Ask
[2:44:12] the question.
[2:44:12] Yes, go ahead.
[2:44:13] Sam,
[2:44:15] has your position changed on the definition of the word "primarily"?
[2:44:20] I'm happy to discuss and have lengthy debates about that word, but I don't think
[2:44:25] the motion addresses that, so I don't know that it, was it part of the motion?
[2:44:33] No, but I'll add. Would you like to hear my input?
[2:44:36] Sure.
[2:44:36] Okay. This has been a really interesting part of this
[2:44:41] aspect, and I know that a lot of people have commented on this part of it
[2:44:47] and even hinged all their weight on this word.
[2:44:53] This is our code for a zone.
[2:44:59] It is not for a piece of property.
[2:45:03] The land development code that's being talked about is for
[2:45:08] RS-7 zone
[2:45:13] It is not talking about RS-7 for a single piece of property.
[2:45:20] So if we were doing it for a single piece of property, there are
[2:45:27] many, many, many individual properties in Shoshone Plains that are in this zone,
[2:45:34] and one piece of property has a duplex.
[2:45:40] There are others. I'm just using that one as an example.
[2:45:44] Now, if we took the description of this primarily
[2:45:50] word in the RS-7 zone, and we put it to a piece of
[2:45:56] property,
[2:45:58] like in Shoshone Plains, it would not conform.
[2:46:05] This specific subdivision or proposed subdivision that we have before us is one
[2:46:09] piece of property.
[2:46:13] It is not flat out.
[2:46:17] This is for a definition for a zone and not a piece of property.
[2:46:22] And that is very clear because this is a RS-7 zone.
[2:46:29] It's not for a single piece of property.
[2:46:31] And we would be able to understand that, again, whether there's any individual
[2:46:36] property in the RS-7 zone that has a duplex.
[2:46:41] Well, and the reason I bring this up is because for me personally, I think my two
[2:46:45] issues with this development, and then is this the appropriate use of RS-7
[2:46:51] according to the land development code?
[2:46:53] And, is the traffic impact study correct in
[2:46:59] that do we have infrastructure to support this development?
[2:47:03] And,
[2:47:06] to the second question, we have Kelly here.
[2:47:09] I've read through that 160-page document again, and I
[2:47:16] believe, I think that their conclusions are correct.
[2:47:21] And I don't want anybody to be confused by my seconding Council Member Johnson's
[2:47:27] motion here, and that I support it necessarily as is.
[2:47:32] We just need to make second in order to continue the council discussion per
[2:47:36] Robert's Rules. But as it stands now, I don't
[2:47:41] see myself supporting this motion.
[2:47:45] Can I-- Miles, I didn't mean to really dodge that question.
[2:47:48] Let me just-
[2:47:48] Sure.
[2:47:49] So RS-7, the wording in our code, it says RS-7 is primarily intended to
[2:47:55] accommodate single-family detached houses with a minimum lot size of 7,000 square
[2:48:01] feet. It goes on, obviously, to talk about building types allowed, and then it
[2:48:06] lists out the four or five different categories of building types allowed, which
[2:48:09] include the duplexes.
[2:48:12] That initial wording of primarily intended carries over to RS-5.
[2:48:18] It carries over-- RS-5 starts exactly the same way.
[2:48:22] RS-5 is primarily intended to accommodate single-family detached houses with a
[2:48:26] minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet.
[2:48:28] The difference there is the lot size changes.
[2:48:31] And then some of the densities change because of that. Same thing in RS-3.
[2:48:38] And so I look at that wording and think that a court would interpret that to
[2:48:43] say that overall, the city is talking about, clearly intends to talk
[2:48:49] about single-family detached houses.
[2:48:52] However, other uses are listed, and any time you have a general phrase at the
[2:48:57] beginning of a statute that is then qualified by more specific words or phrases,
[2:49:04] my belief is the court would interpret that the city needs to apply the uses under
[2:49:09] the building types allowed, which include the duplex and the side-by-side front and
[2:49:14] back. So,
[2:49:16] yeah.
[2:49:19] So that's what I think. I think if a court were to look at that, the court-- and if
[2:49:23] we denied it just based on the word primarily, I think the court would look at that
[2:49:26] and say, "No, you've got to apply the more specific provisions in that code section
[2:49:29] and allow duplexes because you specifically called them out for use." And I think
[2:49:34] the applicants, one of their attorneys made a good point, that if we have approved
[2:49:38] this Teton Ave Subdivision, I hadn't gone back and reviewed that ahead of this
[2:49:42] meeting, where it was all duplexes.
[2:49:44] It seems as though in the past we've probably applied that wording to allow
[2:49:49] duplexes in a RS-7 situation. So anyway.
[2:49:55] Yeah, I agree, and I think the developers' attorney spelled it out correctly on the
[2:50:01] slide, noting that precedent had been established,
[2:50:07] but in that if we want to restrict greater density in
[2:50:13] RS-7, I think be more specific in how to phrase it.
[2:50:22] Thomas, could I follow up to your questions with
[2:50:26] Jake?
[2:50:29] Yes.
[2:50:31] Jake, please come back up. Sorry.
[2:50:43] So it sounds like you were saying that a sphere phasing plan and a properly
[2:50:49] shared master plan are not really required in the full final plat because none of
[2:50:54] that's something you reported?
[2:50:56] I said the opposite.
[2:50:57] Oh.
[2:51:00] You said that again?
[2:51:01] That we're doing a survey, a technical survey review is done with the final plat.
[2:51:06] The kind of surveyor who's able to do that.
[2:51:09] So that's really when we're deep diving into that analysis.
[2:51:13] But you did call out that a preliminary plat should have been provided to you to
[2:51:17] just show phase one.
[2:51:19] Okay. And then,
[2:51:21] obviously, it does say the master plan.
[2:51:23] So again, I'm just looking under the preliminary plat application section.
[2:51:28] It says, "The master plan of the subdivision with necessary attachments
[2:51:34] shall be recorded and shall be binding on the applicant and subsequent owners." So
[2:51:39] I was discussing that under phase one or under
[2:51:43] preliminary plat as though both the phase one and the binding master plat should be
[2:51:49] drafted and presented to us for consideration at this stage in that whole process.
[2:51:55] Right. When the final-- We would record the development agreement with those
[2:52:01] attachments. And the master plan can be changed in the future.
[2:52:05] We've seen several master plan developments change recently with future
[2:52:11] phases. They're able to do that so long as they meet the other requirements of the
[2:52:15] LDC.
[2:52:16] Okay. And then when you were talking about the driveways and lot coverage being
[2:52:21] addressed at a building permit, that totally makes sense.
[2:52:26] And I am very hesitant to approve
[2:52:32] a plat and
[2:52:35] associated documents where the supporting documents clearly show
[2:52:41] driveways and clearly show lot coverage that is
[2:52:46] not in conformance with the LDC.
[2:52:51] Could you speak to that?
[2:52:52] I can't be referring to that schematic.
[2:52:55] The desert is not adhered to the full lot coverage of 60% or
[2:53:01] the 40% driveway coverage. It doesn't show me where the parking really is.
[2:53:06] It doesn't show me how big their units are. I don't have any concept.
[2:53:10] They look like pretty small units.
[2:53:13] I broke out my scale bar, and some of them, according to my scale bar, they
[2:53:19] don't look very big ones.
[2:53:20] I think that's a question of the applicant, but I think if you needed to see
[2:53:26] something with an updated schematic, that's something you could ask for.
[2:53:31] It's hard when it's a subdivision of lots that are being created without--
[2:53:36] They're not pulling building permits for that phase tomorrow.
[2:53:41] This is just phase one. So they may not have home plans for that section drawn up.
[2:53:47] Do we have to have schematics to scale in preliminary plats?
[2:53:53] No, it's not required.
[2:53:56] And so if they're approved, and this is very much a question for you, not for the
[2:54:02] applicant. My hesitation here is I feel like if we approve
[2:54:08] something showing
[2:54:11] these driveway configurations that then when they come in to get building permit
[2:54:15] aren't actually possible to do for us with the code at the time of building
[2:54:21] permit-
[2:54:23] We're going to be in an awkward spot where we approved it, and then later,
[2:54:28] after the horse has left the stable, we're trying to deny the building permits
[2:54:32] based on it not complying with the LDC requirements.
[2:54:36] I think it's very problematic to have...
[2:54:41] And when I say semantic, I'm talking about like... Let me pull up an example here.
[2:54:47] I think I was meaning the development landscape plan because it was the most clear,
[2:54:52] but I think the same background
[2:54:56] is in many of the improvement plans, but where it shows
[2:55:02] driveways and building footprints is I think what I'm looking at.
[2:55:07] And some of those
[2:55:10] do not appear to comply in, so
[2:55:16] I feel like it would be a bad faith to approve this and then turn around and
[2:55:22] deny building permits for attached homes because some of them just can't even
[2:55:28] meet the driveway parking requirements of the LDC based on configuration.
[2:55:32] I think that is something that should be hashed out in preliminary plat, and that
[2:55:37] we should know that all these lots that we're creating are able to be developed as
[2:55:43] intended and depicted in the project plans for the LDC.
[2:55:48] I understand that, Sarah. This is not the phase for it, though, here at the City of
[2:55:54] Driggs. And-
[2:55:56] This is not the phase we're figuring that out.
[2:55:58] I just said that I really think it is the phase for this.
[2:56:01] You can think it is, but it's not part of the application and what was
[2:56:07] required in this application.
[2:56:10] It's my understanding, right, that you're looking at lot size as far as the plat,
[2:56:15] correct?
[2:56:16] Lot size-
[2:56:17] That's what it says
[2:56:18] ... and driveway access to Cowboy Trail is the main components that
[2:56:23] we're-
[2:56:24] I think it's just really important. I'm going to pause this here.
[2:56:27] I think it's really important because we can want to have certain things, and we
[2:56:32] can want to have these, but Idaho Law is also very black and white,
[2:56:38] and we need to be aware of what are we making decisions on that
[2:56:44] are before us and part of this process versus
[2:56:51] wanting to have certain things or thinking that it should be part of this
[2:56:55] preliminary plat right now. And I think that it's important for council to be
[2:57:01] aware of the different aspects of it and
[2:57:05] trying to remain within the balance of that.
[2:57:11] Um,
[2:57:14] Miles or Jason, do you have additional questions for staff while
[2:57:20] they're up at the podium?
[2:57:23] I do not.
[2:57:24] Jason?
[2:57:27] This isn't regarding
[2:57:32] any of what Sarah talked about, but I did want to talk about phasing.
[2:57:36] And I guess when I hear a timeline from the applicant of five to
[2:57:42] six years for such a large development,
[2:57:50] I feel like it's somewhat of a red flag.
[2:57:53] When you really look at the big picture of the safety of the community, safety of
[2:57:57] the neighbors, you're looking at construction of infrastructure, you're looking at
[2:58:03] construction of the units, and that's 30 units
[2:58:09] a year on top of the park space, landscaping,
[2:58:15] building. And I feel like, is there a way in council that you could
[2:58:21] require a timeline as far as phasing
[2:58:25] that reflects
[2:58:30] a safe process? I feel like it's next to schools.
[2:58:34] I imagine trucks and construction workers, and when it first came
[2:58:40] to us five to six years, it felt like it was unrealistic.
[2:58:46] And as far as safety, is that something that council can
[2:58:52] require as far as an approval? And maybe that's something for Sam question as well,
[2:58:59] because Jay looks over.
[2:59:02] Jay wants to pawn that off on me.
[2:59:03] Yeah.
[2:59:04] Is there anything, Jay, that you're aware of in our land development code that
[2:59:07] talks about timing for phasing?
[2:59:11] Yes. There are... The approval criteria does talk about it, but it would need to,
[2:59:16] in my review of this, the specific impact would need to be directly tied to the
[2:59:21] phase that you're concerned about.
[2:59:24] I think it's complicated to get it so-
[2:59:26] Each stand on its own
[2:59:27] ... each does stand on its own, and each is reviewed at a building and
[2:59:33] final plat phase with city council again.
[2:59:36] And I just, as a general matter, would be uncomfortable with the city attempting to
[2:59:41] impose either a time maximum or a minimum for completing phasing.
[2:59:46] There are so many components that go into that from an owner's development
[2:59:50] perspective, including just financing and construction.
[2:59:53] But to impose that feels arbitrary, and we have to avoid arbitrary and capricious
[2:59:59] decisions of the city.
[3:00:02] I just haven't heard evidence in the record suggesting one way or the other that
[3:00:07] there is some evidentiary basis to impose that.
[3:00:11] Each phase of development under construction is how to the standards within the
[3:00:16] development agreement, which does have specifications for, it must be constructed
[3:00:21] within seven, eight years, or there are some specific provisions in
[3:00:27] case something happens. Always can ask for an extension, but each phase does have
[3:00:32] that for construction.
[3:00:35] Thank you. Okay, council, I'm going to encourage you to
[3:00:41] either move on your motion or have continued deliberation or make a new
[3:00:47] motion.
[3:00:51] Is any of the information or concerns you have, Sarah, is anything would
[3:00:57] be more suitable for a table if you just need more information? Or do you...
[3:01:02] I feel like denials, you need to be solid, and it should be concise.
[3:01:07] Yep.
[3:01:08] No, thanks for asking. That is exactly what was on my mind right now.
[3:01:12] And I wanted to be really clear that some of the things I brought up are very
[3:01:18] easily fixed with a tabling and additional information, with
[3:01:24] the exception of criteria number five.
[3:01:29] Criteria number five
[3:01:33] requires that
[3:01:38] the city is capable of providing all the services
[3:01:43] without imposing substantial additional cost of current
[3:01:49] residents to accommodate development or compromising the quality of serve, delivery
[3:01:55] service. And again, a delivery service includes the transportation system.
[3:02:00] I think several of the other things in this list, if we were satisfied with the
[3:02:04] traffic, it would mean to dive deeper into these other pieces as well.
[3:02:10] But I feel like the traffic situation is a fatal flaw of this development.
[3:02:15] I think this application should be denied,
[3:02:20] on the basis of criterion number five not being met, and
[3:02:27] maybe that's something that the developer wants more time to
[3:02:33] address, and that they would address.
[3:02:35] I
[3:02:39] really think that... So the traffic impact study, Jason pointed out that there are
[3:02:43] no specific requirements about what that has to be in the LDC.
[3:02:48] There are, however, industry standards and
[3:02:53] criterion number five, which says we as decision-makers have to feel confident
[3:02:59] that there are no unmitigated risks, that we're not compromising quality of
[3:03:05] service, and that we're not imposing additional costs on the current residents.
[3:03:10] And the traffic impact study, as presented, does not meet industry standard in my
[3:03:16] opinion, and it does not give me enough information as decision-maker to make this
[3:03:22] finding. So-
[3:03:26] I don't want to keep just kicking the can down the road and then having these
[3:03:30] little Band-Aids applied. I would want to see a much better
[3:03:36] application, and documents. I would rather-- And because of
[3:03:42] the whole...
[3:03:47] Things get complicated to review when there's revision after revision, after
[3:03:51] revision, and people get lost in the versions.
[3:03:54] I would like to see this bring-- If we don't deny it outright,
[3:04:00] I'd want to see it go back to planning and zoning and come back to us with a clean
[3:04:04] brush
[3:04:06] application. Not really sure if that's possible.
[3:04:11] Maybe it would have to have the prior versions in there, but hopefully,
[3:04:17] very clear what all the different stuff is so that there's not confusion between
[3:04:22] old versions. But I really think this is a good law.
[3:04:26] I think this-
[3:04:27] Thank you, Sarah.
[3:04:29] Let's tidy it up. I want to make sure that we hear from multiple people-
[3:04:34] Can you let me finish, though?
[3:04:35] If you have some new information.
[3:04:37] Yes. I think this part of Drake's, as the public commenter pointed out, that is
[3:04:43] bottlenecked by the schools and the airport runway configuration.
[3:04:50] I am not convinced that this area can support
[3:04:56] additional development, and especially at the scale.
[3:05:01] It-
[3:05:01] Thank you
[3:05:02] ... does not seem like a good idea.
[3:05:04] Thank you.
[3:05:05] Are you advocating for a new traffic study or set aside back to planning and say,
[3:05:10] "Collect the information, and we will get it provided?"
[3:05:17] My personal feeling is that
[3:05:22] I am very uncomfortable with the idea of the infrastructure
[3:05:28] around this area, the road network, being able to support the development of this
[3:05:32] scale, period. The burden of proof is on the developer to prove otherwise, and
[3:05:39] repeatedly, they've been asked for an updated traffic impact study, flag PC,
[3:05:43] anybody else, and that has not been provided.
[3:05:49] I can't answer that. I don't know that it wouldn't or that it would,
[3:05:55] but
[3:05:57] an updated traffic study that's done properly and includes the schools and, yes,
[3:06:03] addresses those concerns brought up by the residents and
[3:06:08] the public
[3:06:12] would need to convince me that criterion number five is met by the law.
[3:06:20] Okay, I'm going to encourage... Yes?
[3:06:24] Can I chime in on one point?
[3:06:26] Yes.
[3:06:27] Just to your point, that last comment that you made, Council Member Johnson, on you
[3:06:33] didn't know if that area, considering its configuration, could support this kind of
[3:06:38] development. Right? Did I get that roughly correct?
[3:06:42] Just make sure when you articulate the decision, it's important under Lupo, in
[3:06:47] addition to stating the ordinance and standards used in evaluating and making your
[3:06:53] decision, which I think you've done on your motion, and the reasons for approval or
[3:06:57] denial, the Idaho Code Section 67-6519
[3:07:03] says that you should also state the actions, if any, the applicant could take to
[3:07:08] obtain approval. And sometimes we talk about those in terms of conditions for
[3:07:12] approval, but even if you're going to deny it, I think stating the actions, if any,
[3:07:16] that the applicant could take to obtain approval are important.
[3:07:20] And I just think as a thought process that, if the decision-maker cannot
[3:07:27] declare what those are and just gets back, "It's just not going to work," let's
[3:07:33] question whether or not
[3:07:37] we're just telling them no.
[3:07:39] Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up and saying it that way. That's really helpful.
[3:07:44] And
[3:07:46] let me just say it as clearly as I can, and you can tell me if that makes sense to
[3:07:52] you.
[3:07:56] I feel like the burden of proof is on the developer for their application materials
[3:08:00] to support the development and support the decision-makers in making the findings
[3:08:05] and are these criteria met. And
[3:08:10] these impacts to the level of service and additional costs
[3:08:16] on current residents,
[3:08:20] I'm hearing from the residents that they think there is going to be a loss in
[3:08:24] delivery of service. I'm hearing that they think it's going to cost more.
[3:08:30] And
[3:08:31] the traffic impact study in front of me, I cannot rely on to
[3:08:38] be able to make a finding
[3:08:42] that matches what the LBC says that this criteria needs to
[3:08:48] be. So,
[3:08:51] I don't know that an additional traffic study would.
[3:08:55] I know that if I was going to make this finding, I would need to have a complete
[3:09:00] traffic study that I felt like I could trust and rely on, that the conclusions of
[3:09:04] that said that there
[3:09:08] is capability. The city of this place is fine for this much development, and the
[3:09:13] roads can handle it. I don't know if someone can write that traffic study or not.
[3:09:18] I don't know if it's possible because I don't know if our roads are capable of
[3:09:22] that.
[3:09:23] Thank you. Okay.
[3:09:24] Is that quick of what you were getting at, Sam?
[3:09:27] Yeah, I just wanted to make sure you're aware of that provision in the code, that
[3:09:30] that's something that the statute says we should do, is state the actions of any
[3:09:34] that the applicant could take to obtain approval.
[3:09:38] Okay. So we're going to move on. We have other agenda items as well tonight that we
[3:09:43] need to get to. So, council, now's the time to be able to-
[3:09:49] Sorry, just real quick. Sorry. I guess I might as well ask Jay, from your
[3:09:54] perspective with the public works,
[3:09:58] is the city capable of providing service with this development?
[3:10:03] Based on the traffic impact study, the mitigations, and our transportation master
[3:10:08] plan, yeah, the network is designed to handle the transportation that's added
[3:10:13] for development in this area.
[3:10:16] Thanks.
[3:10:29] Next motion.
[3:10:30] Please.
[3:10:31] I move to approve the proposed redeveloped subdivision preliminary plat based on
[3:10:35] the master plan and based on the finding of proposals presented meets the criteria
[3:10:40] for approvals listed in the staff report and are for 14.5.6 of Drake's land
[3:10:44] development code.
[3:10:48] So I have denied my fair share of applications here on council,
[3:10:55] all on very legally defensible grounds with maybe one
[3:11:00] reasoning of on comprehensive plan that I think it might even have been Corey
[3:11:05] Tamsan.
[3:11:07] I understand the community's concerns with this development, and I don't
[3:11:13] see any legally defensible criteria in which to deny this approval.
[3:11:19] I also think this development,
[3:11:22] having been on council when the previous
[3:11:26] Rivers West development was being proposed and denied, this is
[3:11:32] a substantial improvement with a lot of benefits for the community.
[3:11:37] Is it going to be tricky to mitigate the impacts? Absolutely.
[3:11:41] Are there also positive benefits that the community can see? I believe so.
[3:11:47] So that's why I'm with the group.
[3:11:53] I agree, Miles, that there is some important conditions-
[3:11:56] Oh, sure
[3:11:57] ... that need to be addressed.
[3:12:02] Oh, yeah.
[3:12:04] One, I'll remain-
[3:12:06] Wait, say that you're going to amend your motion.
[3:12:09] I'll amend my motion to include the following conditions.
[3:12:11] One, I'll remain executive of all the works comments to be addressed in these
[3:12:14] amendment and improvement plans prior to submission to DQ for review.
[3:12:19] Two, a navigation easement be executed and referenced on the final plat.
[3:12:24] Three, developer to provide one additional ADA parking spot to the ADA compliant
[3:12:29] with the workspace. Four-
[3:12:32] Staff incorporate the additional mitigations measures into the development
[3:12:36] agreement. A, developer agrees to voluntarily contribute $158,852
[3:12:42] to offset directly capacity impacts to Teton County School District.
[3:12:46] This will be proportionate by phase and unit and paid to the school district prior
[3:12:49] to the recognition of each phase's final plat.
[3:12:53] Talk to
[3:12:55] the units. Okay, phase one units, 14 detached plus 34 attached,
[3:13:00] 45,988. Phase two units, 36 detached,
[3:13:04] 29,808. Phase three units, eight detached and 24 attached,
[3:13:10] $30,064. Phase four units, 32 attached,
[3:13:15] $26,496. Phase five units, 32 attached,
[3:13:20] $26,496.
[3:13:23] And B, developer agrees to contribute 45,000 annually for five years from the first
[3:13:29] building permit to the Teton County Sheriff Department.
[3:13:31] A separate agreement will be negotiated in that situation.
[3:13:36] I'll second.
[3:13:41] Okay. So this is our second motion, and
[3:13:46] it was seconded.
[3:13:50] Is there any discussion?
[3:13:59] Miles, do you feel that approval criteria five is met, that you can say with
[3:14:05] confidence that
[3:14:09] the quality of service of
[3:14:14] the transportation system, law enforcement, emergency services, healthcare,
[3:14:20] schools, et cetera, will not be compromised?
[3:14:26] I do. And if I take admission with that and would ask questions of our
[3:14:31] associates that we previously asked for, I feel that is being
[3:14:36] met.
[3:14:41] Any other discussion?
[3:14:44] I just want to say into the record that I disagree.
[3:14:47] I
[3:14:51] do not feel that approval criterion number five is met with the
[3:14:57] information we have in front of us and the incorporation of those conditions of
[3:15:02] approval. Don't think we're there.
[3:15:09] We'll call the vote. All in favor, roll call.
[3:15:12] Council Member Popilski?
[3:15:14] Aye.
[3:15:14] Council Member Knowles?
[3:15:15] Aye.
[3:15:16] Council Member Johnston?
[3:15:18] Nay.
[3:15:19] Thank you.
[3:15:21] Thank you for being here and for coming.
[3:15:25] I would like to say publicly that I have heard many of you in your public comment
[3:15:30] make comments about not going along with our staff.
[3:15:36] Our staff, our residents, they are dedicated,
[3:15:41] they are neutral, and they follow our Idaho
[3:15:47] code and law, and I appreciate the dedication
[3:15:53] of our staff every day. And thank you to the
[3:15:59] three remaining public that stayed to hear me say
[3:16:05] that. Thank you.
[3:16:06] Thank you so much. I appreciate your time.
[3:16:11] Well, Dave wants to say something.
[3:16:14] You can comment on it.
[3:16:16] Yes, we'll take a break for 10
[3:16:17] minutes.
[3:16:28] Yes.
[3:16:36] Just
[3:16:38] to mention it to Jennifer.
[3:16:46] It
[3:16:48] doesn't,
[3:17:08] no.
[3:17:11] Okay, it's 9:22. We are back
[3:17:18] from our one-minute break,
[3:17:21] and we will move on to
[3:17:24] action items number
[3:17:30] 6A. We have a will serve for the slide drive-in.
[3:17:36] I have a potential conflict that I want to disclose.
[3:17:39] Okay, go ahead.
[3:17:42] Is now the time for that?
[3:17:43] Yes, at the beginning of the agenda item.
[3:17:46] I am... Sorry, my bad.
[3:17:52] I am employed by a company that is employed by the applicant, and I feel I
[3:17:58] have a likely
[3:18:00] conflict of interest due to that. So I would like to recuse myself.
[3:18:05] Thank you.
[3:18:09] With recusal, we will not have a quorum.
[3:18:16] And so we will need to table this item until we have the full
[3:18:21] council so that we are able to address this item.
[3:18:29] So we will table this until-
[3:18:34] 9:15
[3:18:35] ... 9:15, where we hope to have a full council present.
[3:18:42] And 9:13. I know.
[3:18:46] Made a difference.
[3:18:48] October.
[3:18:54] Okay,
[3:18:56] 6B.
[3:18:58] We have a motion for the proposal selection for administrative services for
[3:19:01] wastewater facility improvement project.
[3:19:06] So this is hiring an administrator to oversee funding,
[3:19:12] as well as
[3:19:16] many other tasks that were outlined in the
[3:19:20] RFQ for the wastewater treatment facility improvement
[3:19:26] projects. And we received two proposals, one from Great West Engineering and one
[3:19:31] from Altura. We had a committee of three review those,
[3:19:36] myself, James Slusky, and Maggie Manos, treasurer, and
[3:19:42] we all agreed that Altura was the higher-ranked
[3:19:48] candidate on
[3:19:50] experience, project experience, team qualifications, as well as their approach
[3:19:56] and on schedule. So it really wasn't much of a contest looking at the proposals.
[3:20:02] But we have attached the two proposals as well.
[3:20:07] And happy to answer any questions or discuss our story.
[3:20:11] Director, any questions for staff?
[3:20:14] Yeah. Do either of these
[3:20:21] firms
[3:20:24] have a professional relationship with the city of Victor?
[3:20:28] Altura provides, they're kind of a quasi-governmental organization that provides
[3:20:34] community development and economic development services across region seven of the
[3:20:38] state. And so they would provide services to Victor with the treatment
[3:20:44] facility and such.
[3:20:49] That's Rick Miller, right?
[3:20:50] Yeah.
[3:20:51] Altura is Rick Miller?
[3:20:52] Yes.
[3:20:52] Yeah.
[3:20:58] Is that who provides our grant, helps us identify grants and funding?
[3:21:04] Exactly.
[3:21:05] And does he provide the same service to Victor regarding their potential future
[3:21:10] wastewater treatment plant there?
[3:21:12] Yeah, generally, block grants, the SRF
[3:21:17] funding, that kind of funding is available, assistance with
[3:21:23] applications, Altura provides that as a service to all communities in District 7.
[3:21:31] Okay
[3:21:35] Was that the accounting department as well?
[3:21:38] It was not. It was not part of the criteria that was published.
[3:21:44] Okay, but that criteria wasn't included here, so it's not what it is.
[3:21:51] My personal feeling is that there's a potential conflict there, and I would rather
[3:21:57] work with an outside firm who does not have a relationship with Victor regarding
[3:22:02] wastewater treatment plant and everything.
[3:22:04] So now it's the time for questions for staff, and then after a motion is made,
[3:22:08] we'll look to deliberate with council.
[3:22:10] Thanks.
[3:22:13] Any questions for staff?
[3:22:21] Hearing none, I'll call for the motion.
[3:22:24] I'll move to select Alta Community Consulting for consultant to push a negotiated
[3:22:28] contract for administrative services for the wastewater treatment facility and
[3:22:31] group project, as described in the published request for proposals.
[3:22:35] I'll second.
[3:22:36] Motion and second. Any discussion?
[3:22:40] I believe that
[3:22:43] we have had a relationship with Rick for how long?
[3:22:46] A long time.
[3:22:48] That is. It's my understanding that he's one of the few specialists in this area,
[3:22:54] and I don't know if we had talked about going outside, but I am now under the
[3:22:59] impression that there isn't a lot out there.
[3:23:03] And I don't know, I feel like I've
[3:23:08] had a positive
[3:23:11] experience with the city working with him.
[3:23:20] Bill, any other input?
[3:23:25] You want me to repeat my-
[3:23:26] Yes.
[3:23:27] Okay.
[3:23:28] I mean, if you want to.
[3:23:30] I mean, other than not repeat it, my stance is that...
[3:23:35] Or just my initial feeling is that I would rather work with different consultants
[3:23:40] than Victor so that there's no conflict of interest there regarding the wastewater
[3:23:44] treatment plant.
[3:23:45] I know they would talk with us about the subject with Rick specifically, and I know
[3:23:50] that
[3:23:54] he is open to have the competition.
[3:23:58] Yeah. I really feel that
[3:24:03] some of the consultants stand to earn more money
[3:24:09] if-
[3:24:10] They are non-profit, so they're not for profit.
[3:24:15] They still have a budget. They still need to have income.
[3:24:21] Just they earn money if Victor builds its own plant versus stays with Drake's, and
[3:24:27] so I feel like there's an inherent conflict in using the same consultants,
[3:24:33] and I would rather use different consultants.
[3:24:36] I think that's about my...
[3:24:40] The difference, what was the difference in the proposals?
[3:24:46] Base, are you asking about cost?
[3:24:49] Yeah.
[3:24:50] There's no cost yet. It's just a review of-
[3:24:54] Qualify.
[3:24:55] Yeah, gotcha.
[3:24:58] But, I mean,
[3:25:01] I feel like the... I mean, if things weren't moving in a positive direction,
[3:25:07] seemingly, Victor,
[3:25:10] I think I would express more reservation, as you have.
[3:25:18] I think the experience that he has working with us is a very positive thing.
[3:25:23] I don't know anything about
[3:25:28] Rick last,
[3:25:30] other than they're not doing.
[3:25:34] Could we table this, and could you bring it back at the next meeting when Allison
[3:25:39] is here and include the criteria that we used, like the
[3:25:45] criteria that was advertised and then the scoring that was applied to these
[3:25:50] applications and the results?
[3:25:52] Yes.
[3:25:54] So in that case, I move to table this to our next meeting so that staff can add
[3:25:59] this additional information, and so that Allison, he has it to deliver.
[3:26:03] I'll second.
[3:26:05] Motion and a second. Any discussion?
[3:26:09] Will that two weeks derail anything on wastewater treatment plant, Rick?
[3:26:14] I don't believe so.
[3:26:15] Not at all.
[3:26:16] Thank you.
[3:26:21] Hearing none, I'll call below all in favor.
[3:26:29] Aye.
[3:26:29] Aye.
[3:26:30] Cool.
[3:26:32] Thought-
[3:26:33] Oh
[3:26:33] ... it's not a conflict
[3:26:34] Not for table.
[3:26:39] Did you respond, sir?
[3:26:41] I said aye.
[3:26:42] Okay, the next item is 6C, the lease purchase agreement at 108 Harmony
[3:26:48] Creek Acre, DBA, You and I Fibers.
[3:26:57] This is a tenant moving into an vacant space in Depot Square.
[3:27:02] It's a great business idea.
[3:27:07] I don't think we need any further questions.
[3:27:09] I move to authorize execution of lease agreement with You and I Fiber, LLC, for
[3:27:14] Depot Square Unit 108. Pass with those.
[3:27:19] I'll second.
[3:27:20] Motion and a second. Any discussion?
[3:27:28] Hearing none, all in favor, vocal.
[3:27:30] Council Member Johnson?
[3:27:32] Aye.
[3:27:32] Council Member Knowles?
[3:27:34] Aye.
[3:27:34] Council Member Hopkins?
[3:27:35] Aye.
[3:27:37] Thank you. We have 6D, a motion for the joint grant
[3:27:43] target EIS objection resolution request letter to Teton County, Wyoming.
[3:27:51] This is a request that we got from Teton County, Wyoming,
[3:27:57] Chair of Board of County Commissioners, Mark Newcomb,
[3:28:02] asking if we wanted to be able to sign on with them for
[3:28:07] this
[3:28:11] request letter.
[3:28:16] And I wanted it to come before it comes
[3:28:20] home. This is in regards to the EIS,
[3:28:27] decision of the Forest Service
[3:28:33] for grant review.
[3:28:36] This is not
[3:28:39] a lawsuit. This is
[3:28:45] a meeting in person.
[3:28:47] Right. And so requesting an in-person meeting with the Forest Service to review the
[3:28:51] objection and propose mitigation.
[3:28:55] And they have asked if we would be a partner because having multiple agencies has
[3:29:01] more
[3:29:02] power or-
[3:29:05] Exactly
[3:29:06] ... united front.
[3:29:11] I'm in support of it, but again, I wanted it to come before council
[3:29:17] for a decision, instead of just me deciding.
[3:29:21] I move to authorize the mayor and/or the city administrator
[3:29:28] to
[3:29:30] add the City of Drakes to the attached letter in support of convening an in-person
[3:29:36] objection resolution meeting.
[3:29:42] There's a motion. Is there a second?
[3:29:44] I'll second.
[3:29:45] Motion and second. Any discussion?
[3:29:49] Does that help our meeting, authorization meeting?
[3:29:52] Yes.
[3:29:53] Oh, fine. Was there any discussion, please?
[3:29:58] I'll call for the vote. All in favor will call.
[3:30:03] Council Member Johnson?
[3:30:05] Aye.
[3:30:05] Council Member Knowles?
[3:30:06] Aye.
[3:30:06] Council Member Victoria Smith?
[3:30:08] Aye.
[3:30:09] Thank you. Next, we have 6E. This is an agreement to amend
[3:30:15] the Hall Engel and Associate City Attorney retainer agreement rate
[3:30:21] increase.
[3:30:24] Can I discuss this for a moment? Can I present?
[3:30:27] Yes, come to the
[3:30:28] podium.
[3:30:36] I just want to briefly describe what this change is.
[3:30:39] This is the agreement that I entered into with the city five years ago in June of
[3:30:43] 2021. It sets forth the rates that you guys pay me on flat rate to come to council
[3:30:47] meetings and give advice to city staff. I'm not changing that rate.
[3:30:53] It hasn't changed since I started.
[3:30:55] But I am changing the rate at which we charge the City of Driggs for work that's
[3:31:01] done outside of the retainer agreement.
[3:31:03] So this is when we retain my law firm to do defense of pieces of litigation.
[3:31:09] The rate was previously at $250 an hour for me, and something less for associate
[3:31:14] attorneys. I need to raise that. The primary reason I need to raise that is I have
[3:31:18] to be competitive with my associate attorneys.
[3:31:20] I need their help defending these pieces of litigation.
[3:31:22] And rates have changed in the last five years.
[3:31:25] And to the extent that I have to divert them away from other work that pays at a
[3:31:29] higher rate in my law firm, I just can't do that.
[3:31:31] So, I'm bumping that rate up by $25 an hour so I can give my associates a
[3:31:36] corresponding bump in rate and pay within my law firm, and hopefully keep them
[3:31:40] happy doing defense work for the City of Driggs.
[3:31:44] I would point out just by way of comparison on a couple things, just so you know,
[3:31:50] just using the Parsons Behle numbers.
[3:31:53] They were the attorneys that represented Driggs out of real estate and the lawsuit
[3:31:57] they filed against us. It'll just give you an idea of what rates are going out in
[3:32:02] the rest of the world. John Sandquist, an attorney with 20 years of experience very
[3:32:07] similar to me, is charging $435 to $525 an hour.
[3:32:12] Courtney Sawings, his associate who's been out of law school for four years, is
[3:32:15] charging $350 an hour. Sam McHash, out of law school
[3:32:21] eight years, is charging $300 per hour.
[3:32:24] John Cover, out of law school for a few years, is charging
[3:32:29] $435 an hour. Oh, excuse me. Yeah. Yeah, he's $500 an hour.
[3:32:33] But anyway, just some of the rates in the area for this stuff.
[3:32:37] If I can't use my law firm as the city attorney, I would simply recommend that we
[3:32:43] engage other law firms to do this outside litigation, and it would be Parsons Behle
[3:32:47] or Holley Drocel, or Davis, Durst, Overbye in Boise or Dreier St.
[3:32:51] Clair when they represent Victor.
[3:32:53] I don't want them, but we've been looking around for land use specialists in that
[3:32:58] area, and I just know that their rates are in that $300 to $400 to $500 an hour
[3:33:02] range. I really just want to represent council. I do try to keep those rates low.
[3:33:06] I try to do that in the context of my overall profitability practice, and I'm
[3:33:10] trying to be respectful of both entities, so I would mind crunch us something.
[3:33:15] So much to touch on that.
[3:33:19] Thank you. Does council have any questions?
[3:33:22] Thank you for spelling that out. I really appreciate it.
[3:33:27] It is not very easy. And I heard
[3:33:30] everything, and I would feel wonderful
[3:33:36] thinking about this at our next meeting with Allison.
[3:33:41] So if I move to table this item to our next meeting for
[3:33:47] further discussion of the council and hopefully a full council.
[3:33:52] Is that going to set back any of the associates, Sam, in the wave?
[3:33:56] No. If you want to do that, that's fine. We can manage for a couple more weeks.
[3:34:00] Yeah, cool.
[3:34:01] I'll second.
[3:34:04] Motion and second. Any discussion?
[3:34:08] Hearing none, all in favor will call or all in favor of just tabling.
[3:34:13] Aye.
[3:34:15] Great. Okay, we will table that.
[3:34:21] Okay, we're on to mayor and council updates. I have a couple things.
[3:34:28] One is
[3:34:31] for the 250 anniversary, there's a Liberty
[3:34:36] Bell in the state of Idaho
[3:34:41] that is going to be on a truck and coming around to not every single
[3:34:46] town, but Driggs is included. I
[3:34:52] just looked up the date. Oh, it's like next week.
[3:34:55] Anyway, I'll try to get all the details for you.
[3:34:58] I have need to choose a specific address for it to go, and they're
[3:35:04] waiting for this. I just found this out this afternoon or right before our meeting.
[3:35:13] So anyway, I wanted to see if the address could go to our schools and if teachers
[3:35:18] would be willing to be able to take the time and bring some of the classes out to
[3:35:24] that. But I'll update you. Just wanted to let you know that that is an appeal and
[3:35:29] that the Liberty Bell of Idaho will be in Driggs.
[3:35:34] Yeah. Who's bringing this around?
[3:35:37] It's the
[3:35:40] Idaho-
[3:35:44] America 250 in Idaho
[3:35:46] ... and the Idaho State Treasurer's Office.
[3:35:50] It's a replica.
[3:35:51] It's a replica. It's not the actual one.
[3:35:55] What?
[3:35:55] No, sorry.
[3:35:57] Sorry, kids.
[3:36:01] Okay, just kidding. And the other one that I did want to
[3:36:06] touch on is just wanted to make sure that all council
[3:36:12] members are checking their council emails on a regular basis.
[3:36:17] This may mean
[3:36:20] daily. This may mean every day.
[3:36:24] Sometimes you'll get emails, and sometimes you won't.
[3:36:27] And it's important to be able to
[3:36:32] be responsible for your duties as a council member.
[3:36:37] Thank you. And otherwise,
[3:36:41] let's go into executive session for legal.
[3:36:44] I have a quick one.
[3:36:45] Oh, one second. I did want to ask.
[3:36:48] But there's a graduate researcher out of
[3:36:52] University of Idaho in Moscow that's gathering information on...
[3:36:57] This doesn't usually come, but River Access in the lower Teton, MEES
[3:37:03] partnering with the BLM to gather information on what the public wants for
[3:37:08] access and how they feel about the access and stuff to start a management plan the
[3:37:14] BLM is going to work on.
[3:37:16] Mm-hmm.
[3:37:16] And I feel like
[3:37:19] it's a good step to create awareness of that section of the Teton,
[3:37:25] because you never know, there could be a dam over there.
[3:37:31] Yeah.
[3:37:32] So I feel like it's good awareness of our natural beauty
[3:37:38] and the value of that lower Teton, which is rarely used, but quite
[3:37:44] amazing. So if anyone wants information or if anyone listening wants more
[3:37:49] information on how to get ahold of them, I have that.
[3:37:52] You can email me if you're listening-
[3:37:55] Thank you
[3:37:55] ... otherwise.
[3:37:56] Thank you, Jason.
[3:37:57] Yeah.
[3:37:57] Could you forward that to all of them?
[3:37:59] Sure. Yeah.
[3:38:02] Do you have an update-
[3:38:04] Oh, okay
[3:38:05] ... about 5th Street construction with LJ?
[3:38:10] I live in that neighborhood.
[3:38:14] Well, maybe I should back up and say when they first broke ground, I
[3:38:19] asked Jay about how notification, because I asked him some specifics, and he said
[3:38:24] that it was the contractor, not the city, that would be alerting the residents in
[3:38:29] that neighborhood.
[3:38:32] And I thought, "All right, gee, not big of a deal." And got busy and did not, and
[3:38:35] then decided that I would just wait and kind of see how that was as a resident as
[3:38:40] opposed to reaching out. And fast forward to today, they have not contacted
[3:38:47] my household at all. And I went to leave for work today and got to the end of
[3:38:53] my driveway, and there was the drop-off this big that I could not navigate in the
[3:38:58] vehicle I was in. And I went back and parked it and got in my
[3:39:03] truck
[3:39:06] and was able to get out. But I was not given any advance
[3:39:11] notice of that or warning that my driveway would not be accessible
[3:39:17] unless you had a large clearance.
[3:39:22] Thank you. Any other updates?
[3:39:28] Hearing none, we'll move into executive session for legal.
[3:39:34] Somebody wants to make a motion.
[3:39:36] Move to enter executive session pursuant to Idaho Code 7-46-260E.
[3:39:42] I'll second.
[3:39:45] Motion and second. All in favor, will call.
[3:39:48] Council Member Popielski.
[3:39:50] Aye.
[3:39:50] Council Member Knowles.
[3:39:52] Aye.
[3:39:52] Council Member Johnston.
[3:39:54] Aye.
[3:39:57] Yeah.
[3:39:59] Please.
[3:40:01] Do you want to-
[3:40:03] Can you take off-
[3:40:04] We'll take off-
[3:40:06] Recording
[3:40:06] ... everyone.
[3:40:08] Yes.
[3:40:11] I was waiting to see if you wanted to say anything to the folks online.
[3:40:17] But no, we are going to be taking you off.
[3:40:24] We
[3:40:38] are out of executive session,
[3:40:42] and I'll entertain a motion.
[3:40:44] Motion to adjourn.
[3:40:46] Second.
[3:40:47] Motion and second at 9:59. All in favor?
[3:40:51] Aye.
[3:40:52] Aye.
[3:40:52] Aye.
[3:40:53] Okay. Thanks everybody. 10:00.