[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.

[8:55] 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.

[3:26:30] 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.

[3:40:53] Okay. Thanks everybody. 10:00.

City Council Meeting 9-1-26

Transcript