City Council - Regular Meeting

S-226, which is the core tear two subdivision. The staff report is by Sean Holm, our senior planner. Sean.

All right. Thank you, Mayor Guggen. You did a great job describing how things would go this evening. Before we get started, I wanted to define a little bit more of what a de novo hearing is because Staff was a little bit confused on it too for a little while until we dove into the code and read the difference between your typical appeal and a de novo hearing. And so up on the screen I do have the city's code and I'm gonna read this real quick as everybody digests what's up there. So the meaning of a de novo hearing for a subdivision in Coeur d'Alene is that a de novo hearing refers to a new fresh review of a subdivision or preliminary plot proposal in the city starting from the beginning without relying on prior decisions or findings from the planning commission. So when does this happen? A de novo hearing is triggered when an affected person files a written appeal within 15 days of the commission's decision, which has happened. The appeal must be accompanied by the city council established fee and planning director notifies the city clerk to set a public hearing, which is why we're here tonight. The purpose of a de novo hearing is the city council is required to reevaluate the subdivision proposal independently of the commission's prior decision, to make a final determination on whether to approve, conditionally approve, deny, or to defer the request for specific information needed for a decision. The key points of this hearing is that it is public, It allows for testimony from the applicant, affected parties, and the public, and the council's decision is final, as the mayor has said. So in short, a de novo hearing is a full independent council review of a subdivision proposal after an appeal, ensuring that the final decision is based on the complete record and all applicable ordinances. Thank you for that time. So as the mayor has said, we do have an appeal hearing, this is a subdivision, S226AA. The owner is LREV33 through LREV39, those are LLCs. They're in care of Lakeside Companies, who's located at the address on the screen. The applicant is Connie Krueger, who's AICP, and her address is there as well. So the appeal is of a preliminary plot that was approved on January 1st, approved preliminary plot on July 14th of 2026. An appeal of that decision was timely filed pursuant to municipal code. And then the appellant was Madeline Knutson, who was here tonight. So the decision point tonight is that council must determine whether the proposed preliminary plat meets the applicable subdivision design standards and improvement standards and make the required findings to approve, approve with conditions, deny, deny without prejudice or defer action on the request until the next scheduled hearing in order to review additional information that it deems necessary in order to render a final decision. Getting into the meat of our meeting tonight. This is a description or an actual depiction of what the request is. So core tear in its entirety is outlined here in the black. Core tear two right here is in white. That is the subject for this evening's hearing. And then the adjacencies of roads, Pulline Avenue and Hanley on the north, and the Hutter Road to the west, I-90 to the south. And city limits is denoted in green. So this is a request for 320 residential lots with 21 tracks. Inside of that is also some R17, which represents approximately 213 multifamily dwellings in the future, a public park, a public school site, and that is across seven phased additions within the 202 acre request. So a little bit of background information here. Let me catch up to myself. So there was first an annexation. That request came before the city and was approved on March 21 of 2023. It represented approximately 438 acres and was annexed from Kootenai County. Following the annexation, actually concurrent with the annexation was a development agreement that was recorded that allowed up to 2,800 ERUs, commercial spaces, parks, transversing trails, sites for two public schools. And that represents over a 20 to 30 year build out period. Following that, there was a four lot short plat request, full circle tracks that was approved on December 6th of 2023. And that created four sites and parcels, one of which contains the city's water tower, another for a future school site, a commercially zoned parcel that was sold to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and then a remainder parcel. Following that came three amendments to Exhibit E, the first of which... let's see here, was heard by council on April 15th of 2025. It adjusted the wastewater utility timeline and relocated a well site. It also was part of a zone change request, which was ultimately denied. The second amendment was a change to the construction Exhibit E showed that there was cluster triplex on the east side, northeast side. That was changed to active adult senior living and multifamily. That was supposed to come forward with the church's request. The church did hold off for a couple of months. It was heard on December 2nd of 2025, this is Amendment 3, in which urban townhomes were changed to religious assembly to allow for the church. And last but not least, on December 9th of 2025, Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and unanimously approved a three-part request. One was a PUD, which was PUD 125 for a planned unit development, a subdivision that went along with that, as well as a landscaping plan that was on the northern part of the project, and the landscaping plan was for a parking lot in excess of 300 stalls. That is the background, and then obviously we have the subdivision that was appealed, which is why we're here tonight. So... This is the application summary. This shows what the applicant has requested.

Hi. Can we interrupt you for questions?

Oh, sure. I thought I was talking to the guy behind the scenes.

No, you're talking to this one. Christy has a question for you.

Just a quick question. Yes. I appreciate the rundown on everything that's been done. But if you go in the Wayback Machine, probably 2023, there was discussion about space being carved out for a police substation. And the developer happily agreed to do that. Did that get lost in translation?

No, that is in the development agreement. So there's a bunch of pieces to that development agreement. It was included with your staff report. It should be in there.

Well, that's a big report. I didn't see it. Thank you.

It is lengthy.

Okay, thank you.

But it's in there. Okay, I will spare it. Okay, so the request, as stated earlier, is 202 gross acres. 126.35 of those acres is proposed for actual development of private property. The existing zoning on the site is R3, R8, and R17. That stands for residential. The number stands for the number of units per gross acre that would be allowed theoretically. And then the phasing, as stated at planning condition, you would think that the first addition would be the first addition, but the first addition is actually addition. So there is seven total additions, the first one just known as addition. And the total number of lots associated with each and as well as the public park and public school It also provides on the slide the number of lots per zoning and then the affordable housing portion of this request, which is also found in the development agreement, comes out to be a little over 5%. They are required to provide 5% across the subdivision as its whole. So the grand total is 320 lots with up to 506 residential units. I'm getting a little bit of feedback up here on the mic Um, and I knew it was going to come up as a question because we also had quarter one and we've talked about the maximum number of 2,800 total units for the entire site, including quarter one. And if this is approved tonight would be a total of 1,101 total units, living units. And they have not requested any design deviations. so i had mentioned earlier about exhibit e this is the generally adhered to master plan for the development this is the southern end that represents quarter two the black outline shows where the request is located and as you can see here the the single family lots are to the north and northeast and they travel down to the south and wrap around to the south with the park the elementary school in the center and then the r17 which is the multi-family flanks the east the western edge of that And this is the adjacencies. So these are the associated existing neighborhoods of the area. So you can see North Shire to the north. So that's Kitty Corner, Indian Meadows to the east and Woodside Park to the south. There is some county property on the other side of Hutter and a vacant business that is zoned commercial in the county to the south. Existing city zoning so I had described what that zoning looks like in total number of units This is what it looks like on the land itself and you can see that this are three backwards L shape this was This caused a couple of hearings if everyone remembers back when this was annexed. This was a buffer yard or a buffer area that was placed there to help alleviate the R8 standards and multiple neighbors in the backyards of the existing homes and more like what existed in the neighborhoods adjacent. And then the R17 and then outside of the request that would come at some point in the future is the commercial portion. And then this is what it is currently used as in the generalized land use map as agriculture. So there are four findings that need to be made for a subdivision. And I wanted to talk about these findings for a moment because you will see that these do not carry your typical findings that you would find when you have a zone change request when they're asking for permission to do something beyond what code would already allow. So you will not see like comprehensive plan, does it comport with the comprehensive plan? Is this gonna cause a bunch of traffic problems? That is not one of the findings here. Although that is handled a little bit in the development agreement. And also neighborhood character. And that is what you would find in those findings for other types of land use requests where they're asking for changes rather than just what is allowed by right in the code if they meet the minimum standards of the subdivision ordinance. So we'll go through these. I'll read the note at the bottom. City Council shall base its findings on the statement of facts A1 through 21 on page 14 through 16 of the staff report. the full staff report, applicant presentation, public testimony, and all the other evidence received at the hearing this evening. First up, we have finding B1 that all of the general preliminary plat requirements have or have not been met as attested to by the city engineer. As far as I know, Chris Fosley, our city engineer, is here tonight. He has attested that those elements are in place in the plat. And this is a list of those condensed requirements. Basically, you need these items in your plat. This is what the plat looks like. And just like I'll explain, this is just like I did at Planning Commission. For everyone who hasn't seen one of these before, these dark lines are the cut lines or the quadrants. So as I move forward, you can see that there are three separate pieces and each one of those comport to its location. So this shows the zoning as well as the lots and the street layout and network. And R3, that backwards L shape, R8, which includes the park, and then the R17, which includes the future school site. Here are those anticipated future phases or additions as they're called here. Starting to the south is the first addition. This question came up, I rewatched the planning commission hearing and there was a question that came up and I think I didn't quite understand what it was but it was talking about future construction traffic and how it would access the site in the development agreement it says that none of that construction traffic is allowed to go through existing neighborhoods and so this connection over here off of hutter road would be the location of where that traffic would would come from the construction traffic as well as future traffic all right so finding b2 is that the provisions for sidewalks streets alleys rights-of-way easements street lighting fire protection planting drainage pedestrian and bicycle facilities and utilities are or are not accurate are adequate once again i need to catch up to myself i'll read these into the record starting off with sidewalks are proposed on both sides of all local streets throughout the development supplemented by perimeter multi-use paths and mid-block walkways where block lengths exceed 600 feet the sidewalk system provides continuous pedestrian connectivity with within quarter two and connections to the master planned trail network for the street system. The internal street network is designed to city standards for alignment grade intersection, geometry, and surfacing collector streets include quarter Boulevard and as purse road, no frontage improvements were required on Hunter road per the development agreement. That is the edge of city limits. Offsite transportation improvements include a roundabout at Hutter Road slash Access A and northbound left turn lane at Hutter and Mullen Roads. Consistent with the traffic impact analysis, stop controlled intersections will be identified on construction plans. So alleys, there were no alleys that were proposed. Rights of way, streets, right of ways, easements, and intersection geometry are designed to city standards. Platt identifies all proposed rights of ways consistent with the development agreement. Easements, it's required that a 20-foot easement is centered over water mains or sewer mains, and if they are combined, you need a 30-foot easement. easement that houses both of those. And those are reviewed prior to recording of the plat and issuance of building permits. Street lighting. Street lighting shall be installed to city standards concurrent with each phase of the development. Fire protection. So water distribution mains are sized to meet fire flows and hydrant spacing standards. Fire department access roads meet minimum width requirements, which are 20 feet for buildings up to 30 feet in height and 26 feet in width for buildings over 30 feet. Hydrant placement and spacing will be reviewed prior to the final plot recordation. The secondary means of egress shall be constructed prior to building permits for more than 30 single family dwellings or more than 200 multi-family dwelling units per the International Fire Code. So that's for access and safety. Planting, so street trees and landscaping shall be installed to city standards concurrent with each phase at the time of permitting. Drainage, stormwater management is handled by onsite infiltration and all storm drainage shall be retained on individual private lots. The stormwater management plan shall be submitted and approved prior to any construction activity. Pedestrian and bicycle facilities, perimeter trail systems include a 12 foot asphalt multi-use path along the eastern boundary, which goes from the north to the south, 10 foot path along the southern boundary connecting east-west And trail corridors will extend the full length of the development as it progresses by phase. The applicant has agreed to develop and dedicate two traversing north-south trails and two traversing east-west trails to city standards. And that's as a whole, not at the time of this request. So utilities, water systems include distribution mains sized for fire flow and demand connecting to the municipal system. Sewer systems connect to the municipal system via the Appaloosa trunk main, which shall be extended prior to the 454th equivalent residential unit, also known as an ERU, per the development agreement. All the utilities are designed to city standards. So as mentioned earlier, these are those cut sheets. This is the northern part of this request. As you can see, there's a roundabout up here in the northwest corner. This is the future park. The layout of the utility system and the street network, as well as the blocks of development. You can see that there are tracks here, unbuildable tracks that will help with connectivity for pedestrians. I'll also mention it here because it is a new, it's a new condition that was required by planning and it's just an oversight by the applicant is this lot 245. There's a buffer yard to the north here. This track is really tough to see, track G I think that is. What that does is it prevents what's called a double frontage lot. So you couldn't access it off of a busy road and you couldn't have, a driveway on either side. This one last lot on the roundabout did not have that, and so that was where that condition comes in for planning. And to the south, future school site, similar as far as layout for the street system and the utilities, the blocks, as well as the tracks for access, pedestrian access to trails, you can see along here. And then to the southeast, this is Hutter Road over here, the future access to Hutter Road, and then the street layout, utility layout, and then these connections for pedestrians for block links that are over 600 feet, and then the trail to the south in the tract. Last but not least, this is your typical street layout. The street design, so it's a roadway section is the official terminology for that. They are crowned roads, center line, and you can see here that there is either sidewalk, sometimes there's a trail, and then the street side swales which handle the stormwater. So finding B3 is that the proposed preliminary plot does or does not comply with all of the subdivision design standards contained in municipal code 16.15 and all of the subdivision improvement standards contained in 16.40. So the applicant has submitted a subdivision application checklist. This is also known as exhibit A in their application. This is to ensure that they are meeting the minimum standards of the development agreement. Chris Bosley has reviewed those plans for compliance. The preliminary plans meet both the subdivision design standards and improvement standards. And as I stated earlier, Chris is here to answer questions if there are any for him. So last but not least is finding before that the lots proposed in the preliminary plot do or do not meet the requirements of the applicable zoning district. And so with that, catch up to myself once again. So there are three different zones that apply to this request. The first is R3, which is residential at three units per gross acre. Those require a minimum of 11,500 square feet and 75 feet of frontage on a public street. Permitted uses are single family accessory units and garages and carports. R8, that requires a little less property for a single family lot. You need 5,500 square feet and 50 feet of frontage on a public street. These lots also will allow a duplex, but it is required at basically a two lot city minimum. So you would need 11,000 square feet for a duplex. So very rare to see that in R8. And last but not least, R17. And R17 allows similar for a single family house. In R17, you need 5,500 square feet, 50 foot of frontage. But for a multifamily unit, you need to have three units attached or greater. Requires 2,500 square feet per unit. except for a single family and duplex where duplex requires 3,500 square feet per unit or a total of 7,000 square foot on a lot for a duplex. And they each need 50 feet of frontage. So that describes the zoning and the minimum requirements thereof for the uses that they are requesting. are the products that they're requesting for the subdivision. So here are some photos. There's a number of photos that are in your staff report. These two are the ones for the future connections. I wanted to keep this as short as possible, but this is Appaloosa and where the connection would be on the right-hand side is to the north. So that would be the future connection. And then Nez Perce looking west into the subject property. So you'll find towards the end of my staff report that there is additional considerations and this speaks to the development agreement and what that development agreement required. There are also in here the staff responses as well and I will go through those. Let me find, catch up to myself here. All right. Sorry, give me a second. Okay. So for streets, the subject property is east of Hutter Road. It provides two vehicular connections to Appaloosa and as Purse Rose has defined, the annexation and development agreement no frontage improvement required on hunter all proposed interior streets meet the requirements of the development agreement and agreement and city standards all required street improvements were identified in the traffic impact analysis analysis and are discussed below under traffic all proposed roadway sections meet or exceed exceed city design standards so concerning traffic Traffic impact analysis was completed by CivTech for this phase of the development, which identified future traffic volumes, anticipated traffic congestion issues, and potential mitigation measures to relieve the congestion. This phase of the development anticipated 4,896 trips per day with 560 occurring during AM peak hour and 445 during the PM peak hour. As described in the TIA, the developer will be responsible for adding a left-hand turn on Hutter Road and Mullen Avenue and installing a roundabout at Hutter Avenue at the proposed Hollite Avenue. The Streets and Engineering Department agrees with the mitigation measures identified in the TIA. And so there's a clarification here that you'll see on page 30. This was added after Planning Commission It's in italics there. I wanted to read this into the record and this comes from Chris. The traffic modeling that was provided to CivTech for the TIA was from the KMPO 2035 no-build model, which only included projects in the existing TIP, which is 2025 through 2031. with the 2035 population employment forecast. At that time, Atlas Road was still in preliminary development, so that was not included in the analysis. The Atlas Road widening project is currently scheduled for 2031. This project will be completed prior to the 2035 traffic projection in the TIA. The KMPO traffic model does not show Appaloosa exceeding capacity in 2045. This was verified by KMPO on August 6th of 2026. And that was comments by Chris Bosley. So we go on to discuss stormwater and that'll be retained water. Water's comments are lengthy as well as wastewater. They're basically reiterating the requirements of the development agreement when they have to connect the utilities to the city system and upgrade those so that they can service the anticipated future development of the site. I won't read all of these pages into the record. Um, we did ask for a police comment. They said that core tear two would generate approximately 1130 additional residents based on the staffing ratios that have proved that have proven successful for providing appropriate police services to the city of Coeur d'Alene. The department would need an additional 1.89 soren positions to take on the extra call volume. Fire department, these are pretty boilerplate for them. They work with all of our departments to make sure that it meets the resident's need. They also get the proper access and road width surfacing and maximum grade to service the sites there was a clarification staff did planning staff did ask for this and it's concerning the Woodside Park subdivision so currently the Woodside Park subdivision if you remember is to the south there's a couple of dead ends there that will remain that way but the furthest one to the west will need to have an emergency fire access added to that one. Woodside does not meet the current standard. It was in the early 90s that it was subdivided and it is over the 30 homes with a single access. So that is one of the conditions is that the developer upgrade that so that it meets that minimum standard. All right, so parks, and parks explains very similarly the things that need to happen according to the development agreement as far as the trails and the parks and the size of them and when they must happen. And then affordable housing. So affordable housing, they must provide 5% and that is across units that are both rental and owned as well as different types of units. So a number of bedrooms and bathrooms across the entire site. So that is the affordable housing piece. And then phasing flexibility, I wanted to touch on that. The development agreement does allow for phasing flexibility. in section 6.1 and that will only be allowed if staff reviews that and is okay with the extension of utilities and streets access and all of those safety items must be in place prior to staff allowing any changes to the phasing. Right. Okay, so proposed conditions. You can see that there are a total, I believe, of 32 total conditions. I did get the numbers all in order this time. You can see fire department wants a number of things related to safety and what the minimum widths of street. A lot of these are very boilerplate and required by code, by their code, and no parking on roadways less than 26 feet in width. Planning, this is the new one that I spoke about earlier. So lot 245 in the third edition must have that buffer on the north end side to not create a double frontage lot. And then some other timing requirements.

Sean? Yes. Yes, there's a question.

I have a quick question. I think this is the time to ask. Yes. You just stated there are 32 conditions and I was, we just received this information from packet here on the diaspora. So I was looking through some previous conditions listed and there was 33 listed here and I noticed that two had been removed from the conditions tonight under engineering. I just want to make sure that wasn't an oversight.

It may have been an oversight.

The attachment you're referencing is from Planning and Zoning Commission findings. So they added two conditions. Because this is a de novo hearing, those conditions didn't carry over. So if you wanted them, you'd have to add them back in.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

I thought it was from the original staff report, but that's from after the approval. Now it makes perfect sense. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. So there's a total of 32. And we're in wastewater. These are basically reiterating what is in the development agreement required when the timing is for connections and improvements to the city's systems. So that is water as well as wastewater. And then parks, at the timing of that park at the 199th acre, since this is 202 acres and the one to the north is quite large as well, it'll be happening sooner rather than later. And last but not least is that 32nd, that condition as described in the TIA, the developer will be responsible for adding the left-hand turn lane on Hunter and Mullen and roundabout access at Halide Avenue. So with that, that concludes my staff report presentation and I'll stand for questions. Like I said, city staff is here to answer and I can certainly defer to them if need be.

Thank you, Sean. Are there any questions for Sean from council?

I think they want to hear the rest.

I think they want to hear the rest.

Before we have questions.

Oh, you want to? So applicant matters? Yeah. OK. That's what I'm hearing.

OK. Randy, this is considered testimony, right?

Not always, but I do think you can swear them all in. Let's swear them all in.

Okay, so anyone out there who, including the applicant and the appellant, if you plan on making testimony, will you please rise so that we can swear you all in as a group? Okay. Joanne, will you please swear them in?

Please raise your right hand and respond by saying, I affirm. Do you solemnly swear and or affirm that the testimony you're about to give is the whole truth and nothing but the truth? So help you God.

Very good. Thank you. The applicant come forward please.

Okay. Good evening mayor and members of the council. My name is Melissa Wells and I'm the president of the Kootenai County Land Company. Thank you for the opportunity to be here tonight. We are proud here tonight. So thank you all for taking time out of your busy schedules to be here. We've had a lot of people reach out to us to share their support for Porter and we're incredibly grateful for that. We fully recognize that not everyone shares the same support and that we're not all going to agree on every detail, but I do think that we can all agree that how we treat each other goes a long way. A little kindness, a little grace and a willingness to assume good intentions can go a long way. We care really deeply about this community and we're truly excited about the opportunity to create a new neighborhood that we believe is really going to be a wonderful addition to the city of Coeur d'Alene. So it's been more than three years since we stood before you and before the city during the core tear annexation hearings. At that time, the city, its staff, the agencies, our team, and the public discussed, and then ultimately agreed upon the key principles that govern this core tear We talked about zoning, density, access, infrastructure, parks, trails, schools, and concurrency. Those decisions were not casual. They were negotiated, publicly reviewed, approved, and recorded. Core Tier 2. I'll just jump here. is a compliant preliminary subdivision application. We are not asking for a rezoning, any additional density, any variances or amendments to the development agreement, or any deviations from the subdivision code. In fact, the slide before you specifically shows that no deviations are requested. City staff has reviewed the application. Engineering has reviewed and vetted the plans. The city engineer has confirmed compliance with the applicable standards. and Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously approved the preliminary plot. And we find that distinction to be very important tonight. The appellant and others may have opinions about standards they believe should be different, maybe different traffic assumptions or phasing requirements or infrastructure requirements, but a preference for a different rule is not evidence that we have violated the rules that exist. According to the rules that govern Quartier 2, or tear two meets the requirements.

Okay.

Just move on here. All right. In Sean's staff report, he already walked you through the three zoning districts in this phase. There's three zones, R3, R8, and R17, and he's already walked through all of everything that's permitted with each of those zones. One of the important commitments within Cortere is to help deliver affordable housing for working families in our community. And we've followed the process, we've met the standards, and we're ready. We're really excited to deliver the housing that the community says that it needs. Cortere 2 is not just a lot of lots on a map. This phase includes an over 12-acre park, a 10-acre elementary school site, open space, trails, and affordable housing. These are not afterthoughts. They are integrated into a subdivision design and into the commitments made in the development agreement. And that's exactly what master planning is designed to do. We're supposed to provide housing while also delivering the schools and the parks and the trails, the infrastructure and the amenities that make communities work. Okay. All right, so we have a little bit up here on sewer and water. These typically don't get the same kind of attention that traffic do, but they do illustrate something really important about how we develop Cortere. For every component of this project, we hire the appropriate professionals, we coordinate directly with the responsible city departments, and then design to the standards that the city requires. Our sewer system, for example, has specific triggers that established in the development agreement. For example, including the improvement to the Appaloosa sewer line before the 454th ERU. For water, we coordinated directly with the city water department and we commissioned a study used to determine the required main sizing. That is how this project works. Professional analysis, city review, defined infrastructure triggers, and compliance with adopted standards. The same process applies to transportation. In a moment, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Sean Messner with CivTech. He's a third-party traffic engineer. And Sean will specifically address the technical issues raised in the appeal, including ADUs, the Atlas improvement, traffic modeling, infrastructure phasing, and the professional standards that are used to evaluate roadway performance. Several of the appellant's alleged violations depend upon technical interpretations that Sean will help clarify for you tonight. Everyone is entitled to disagree with the facts on record, but again, disagreement is not evidence of noncompliance. Sean will address the traffic engineering, and then after Sean, Gabe Gallinger, another civil engineer, will discuss the internal street layout, and then finally Michelle Fulgham will provide the applicable land use clarifications that pertain to the subdivision application. So with that, Sean, I'm going to pass it over to you.

Thanks, Melissa. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, members of the council. Sean Messner with CivTech. I'm a licensed civil engineer with an emphasis on traffic engineering, and I've been doing this for over 20 years. I wanted to talk a little bit about the history of the Corte traffic study, starting back with the master traffic study that was completed in 22. We worked with the city and the KMPO. The KMPO actually did the modeling for us, and the result was a master traffic impact study that looked at build-out conditions. And so what was important about that study is that the findings showed that all of the roadway network with improvements could accommodate not only our development at build out, but the surrounding build out of the KMPO region. Another part that came out of that master traffic impact study was the stipulation that we must either update the master traffic study every two years or prepare a phase traffic study within that two year period, but also that each phase that comes in has to do its own traffic study at that point in time. So we're not just doing the master study and then moving on. We're now looking at these individual phase studies and building upon that. So what happened shortly after that was the Quartier One traffic impact analysis that was completed. We started that in 24 and it was completed and approved by the city in November of 25. What came out of that report was a list of improvements, both project-specific improvements and then system improvements. The project improvements are those that Cortere will build and are stipulated to build, and then there's system improvements by which impact fees and taxes can be allocated for those. The table on the right shows our, or Cortere 1's, responsibility for that, and what the table does is help the city hopefully prioritize those improvements and where the impact fees would go. So before I kind of go through the core tier two results, I wanted to talk a little bit about what we do in the process. So we look at trip generation for each site. At that master plan level, it's a more regional model in nature, and we coordinated directly with KMPO for that. But for each one of the phase studies, we look at it much, much closer and look at the individual lots, what type of lots those are, and the different components for each one of the phases. So Quartier 2 has single family homes, and what we use to look at the trips that are generated by that is the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. So what that does is it has a list of different land uses, and it has average rates, and it has equation rates. Those rates are developed across the nation by looking at different sites that have those individual uses. They take counts of those uses, and these rates are developed. So for single family homes, Some of those homes had shops with apartments up above. Some of those shops or homes had basements that might be rented out. ADUs are inherently accounted for within that ITE trip generation rate. This is a national standard and national practice. The same manual that I use here is used in Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, across the country. Also as part of what we did for Cortere 2 was we looked at the elementary school and looked at that trip generation independently. We coordinated with the school district to determine the maximum number of students that might be at this school and accounted for that within our trip generation rates. Normally at this stage elementary schools might not be accounted for because there's no site plan, there's not a lot of information about the students, but we started that process early so that we could account for those impacts. We did not include the park. The 12-acre park that's there is likely going to be used by the residents of and the surrounding communities that use the multi-use paths and the sidewalks to get to the park. Typically, parks inside neighborhoods don't have a lot of trip generation. The reason for it, they're an amenity for that development. If we looked at the park independently, it would generate less than 10 peak hour trips. So we excluded the park from our trip generation calculations. I wanted to talk a little bit about the data collected for this traffic study. So through coordination with the KMPO and with the city, we identified 12 intersections that we collected traffic count data at. These are the 12 intersections that are shown here on the screen. Again, along Hutter, Hanley, and Atlas. Talk a little bit about the data that was collected. We collected the peak hour counts, AM and PM peak hour counts. in March of 2025. The CORTAIR 2 traffic study was submitted in April of 26. So the analysis started within a year of the traffic counts being completed. The analysis was finalized shortly one year after the traffic counts were completed. And it's important to note that because the industry standard is that traffic counts are typically good for two years. You can use those traffic counts if they're within a two-year period. The associated highway districts of Cuny County, so what Post Falls Highway District and Lakes Highway District use is the same standard of two years. So if traffic counts are collected within that two year period, they can be used for that traffic study. If we did a larger study for an agency, we would defer to FHWA and FHWA says traffic counts collected within a five year period can be used. On top of collecting those traffic counts, we grew those counts by 2.3% per year from 2025 to 2030 and to 2035. What that does is it accounts for background growth and it's tied to the KMPO model and historic traffic counts along Atlas, So the 2.3% accounts for some of that, but we also added the Cortera 1 site traffic. So Cortera 1 was approved before we started this. We included that Cortera 1 traffic as background traffic into our study. So we're building upon what was approved before. I wanted to talk a little bit about level of service just to illustrate what level of service A is through level of service D and onward. So level of service A is free flow. It's like 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning. There's no traffic out there. Very much a free flow situation. Level of service B is more you're starting to see some of your neighbors. It might be early in the morning, but not a lot of congestion to speak of. Level of service C is typically right before the peak hour, where you're starting to see your neighbors, they're going to work, and you start to see moderate congestion on the roadways and at the intersections. Level of service D is the typical agency standard for traffic signals, where you have a certain amount of delay, and that's caused by the traffic that's there, but it's within acceptable range. And so that would be you're waiting at a traffic signal for maybe less than a minute. Typical agency standards in the area for traffic signals is level service D. Level service E is when you start to see more stop and go traffic. The slowing of the roadway starts to occur. It's typically during portions of a peak hour. Some agencies within the region use level service E as the standard for stop controlled intersections. So intersections that have a stop sign as the control, typical driveways to arterials, those typically have a level of service standard of an E or better. Level of service F is when we have a lot of congestion, start to see failures, and at traffic signals you might be waiting for more than a minute and a half to get through the traffic signal. So with CORTAIR 2, we use level of service standards for the region. Coeur d'Alene doesn't necessarily have a published set of standards, but they use regional standards. So Post Falls, for example, has level of service D for traffic signals and level of service E for unsignalized intersections. City of Hayden has level of service D or better as the standard. ITD has level of service D or better. And CORTAIR 2, when we analyze that and CORTAIR 1, We used the regional standards for looking at improvements and the needs for the intersections. So CORTAIR 2 meets or exceeds all of the agency and adjacent agency regional standards. All of the studied intersections that we reviewed are leveled service D or better. I wanted to talk a little bit more about what CORTAIR 2 also has that may not be measurable by level of service standards. Quartier 2 is providing that additional access out to Hutter. So while our site traffic is using Hutter, other communities directly to the east can also use Nez Perce and Appaloosa to gain access to Hutter. So there will be cross traffic that happens, not just from our site, but from the existing neighborhoods. Quartier 2 is paying impact fees And those can be used to match the Atlas improvements, which in the staff report, Mr. Bosley indicated that was going to be moved up to 2031. So our impact fees that we're paying as part of the development can be used for that or at the city's discretion. If there's other improvements that rank higher, the city can prioritize those through the TIP and through coordination with the city engineer to implement. Similarly, for sidewalks or other multimodal infrastructure, our impact fees can be used for that. It's completely at the discretion of the city. One thing that we are doing that's not noted within the traffic study, but at the trail crossings for collector and arterial roads within our site, we are going to be putting in those flashing beacons, the rectangular rapid flashing beacons. We see that that's a good safety improvement for the trail crossings within the community, and we want to do that. So that is part of our multimodal improvements within the site. So Quartier 2 was approved by city staff this year. It does include the Quartier 1 site traffic, and it's consistent with the city and regional policies and guidelines for developing traffic studies. The Quartier 2 report, the traffic impact analysis, identifies again system and project improvements. The project improvements, Mr. Holmes has already talked about, the roundabout at Access A in Hutter and then the northbound left turn lane at Hutter and Mullen. But we also recognize that we're proportionately responsible for some of the other improvements that are listed in this table and the impact fees can go towards those improvements. We are required through the development agreement to connect in with Nez Perce and Appaloosa. So Nez Perce is currently a minor arterial unless Chris was able to get it reclassified, which he's trying to do. Chris is trying to get that reclassified as a collector roadway. The minor arterial capacity is 18,000 trips per day, generally speaking. A collector roadway has a capacity of about 15,000 trips per day. The ADT stands for average daily traffic. The existing volumes based off traffic counts that we collected, which were peak hour, and then we calculated the ADTs from that, are 1,400 trips per day, roughly. The modeled volume with existing traffic, with the growth rate applied, and then with our site traffic is expected to be about 5,000 vehicles per day on Nez Perce, well underneath the capacity of a minor arterial and well under the capacity of a collector roadway. Appaloosa is a local residential with a capacity of about 3,000 trips per day. Again, I use the word about because each agency kind of has different standards, but generally speaking, it's about 3,000 per day. Existing traffic volumes based off of peak hour counts that we collected and then calculated the daily traffic is about 1,200 trips per day. The modeled volume from Cortere We're only adding about 600 trips per day, and I use that word only because there's not a lot of traffic from Quartier that can get to Appaloosa because of the roadway network, and Gabe will talk about that in a little bit. But the model volume with existing traffic on top of the growth rate with our site traffic added is about 1,800 trips per day. Again, underneath the capacity of a local residential roadway. We're also required by the development agreement to install traffic calming, and all of that's being designed as part of the construction documents. Another thing that we've heard is construction traffic, and Mr. Holmes talked about this as well. We've been coordinating with the city to work on the size of the sign that's presented here, residential traffic only, no construction traffic going through. These signs we place on Appaloosa and Nez Perce, but on top of that, If a subcontractor has staff that doesn't follow that, we're working on this subconsultant or subcontractor agreement in which the first offense is a written warning. From there on, a monetary value will be impacted on that subcontractor. And if multiple offenses continue, It may be a material breach of the contract, so we won't be working with those people.

Sean, you would be implementing those fines, not the city, is that correct?

Yes, that's correct. One of the other items I wanted to talk about was the trip distribution that we used in the traffic study. What we used matches the master study and what we had in the core tier one study all through coordination with the KMPO and with the city from prior studies. Within our site and the layout, we are trying to push traffic as much as we can to Hutter and Hanley. That's part of our development agreement. And through the design, we're doing that to the greatest extent reasonably possible. That will happen when the overall site is developed. And even with this phase that we're talking about, Quartier 2, we're building that connection to Hutter for multiple reasons. That's the first phase of what we're doing. One, for construction traffic, but two, to make it the fastest way for traffic from our site, Quartier 2, to get out to the public system. Once Quartier Boulevard is completed and designed, by default, it's designed to push traffic north to Hanley and out to Hutter. Individual phases of Cortere, again, will be looked at with each phase of the traffic study. This isn't the last traffic study that will be submitted to the city, and it will continue to build upon this. So when it's completely built out, it will end up distributing traffic more towards Hanley and over to Hutter. So with that, Gabe will talk about some of the other transportation details. Some questions for you, Sean. I'll stay here for a bit.

Thanks, Sean. Not so fast. Sean, I heard you talk about that you believe that the impact of ADUs is incorporated into the traffic study already. And you mentioned another thing. I'll have to go back and find my notes. So you felt that that traffic study did take that into consideration. But what I didn't hear you mention was that the traffic modeling that was provided, Atlas Road was still in preliminary development, so that project was not included in the analysis. I didn't hear you address that. Did I just miss it?

No, I didn't talk about that. And so what we looked at within our traffic study was Atlas's existing conditions and then in the future we had that turn lane in there. And so when we look at traffic modeling and projecting future traffic volumes, it's using the growth rate of the 2.3% and then added background traffic from approved sites. But when we look at those individual intersections, we start with what's out there today. So at Nez Perce, for example, there's not a left turn lane. It's just a through right for southbound and a through left in northbound. And we look at that analysis for that specific intersection to start with. And then we move forward with continuing improvements. And in the year 2035, we noted that the left turn lane is needed.

Okay. And that will come up for further discussion. The next question I have is, let's see. You mentioned cross traffic into Indian Meadows and Northshire from existing neighborhoods would gain access to Hutter. And you kind of said that in a positive light. And I would imagine you can understand that the neighborhoods might not see it. That's even more traffic now being kind of directed from Coeur d'Alene, from existing neighborhoods, to get over to Hutter. So I thought that was interesting that you saw that as a positive.

I do in the sense that people that live closest to where those connection points are might find it faster to go through our site to gain access to Hutter. So that's the positive light that I was talking about.

We'll revisit that one too. Let's see. You also said that Nez Perce is not currently classified as a collector, but it is identified on the mapping that has been provided to us as a collector. So how do we accept that it's a collector, but we're waiting for something to happen in the future, but we accept that right now?

That's a great question. I mean, before it was classified as a minor arterial, Chris just downgraded that if it did get approved, I didn't, I wasn't aware that it was recently approved, but at the planning commission, he was still trying to get it declassified to a collector. And any additional improvements that are needed to the existing roadway can certainly be prioritized by the city using the impact fees that we're contributing or through other projects that go into the TIP. I don't know if that answers the question.

That may be true, but we might have other uses for those impact fees, right? Sure. Okay. May I continue, Mr. Mayor? Thank you. Then you stated that the traffic count, I don't think you gave the current traffic count on Nez Perce, but you gave the projected of 5,000. You did give the current on Appaloosa. Do you have the current for Nez Perce?

Yeah, we, I did have it on the slide, it was 1,400 and that was based off our existing peak hour counts and calculated.

So it would go from 1,400 today to 5,000?

That's correct with the completion of quarter two.

Okay, we'll revisit that too, thank you.

And looking at full build out at 2035. So quarter two with the background trip rates grown, so yes. Okay, thank you. So yes.

and English. Mine is on the construction traffic and the, you know, kind of my question is how much experience have you had that being an issue for you know developments and all of that and it it seems like well it must be it must be a pretty regular issue because that's a pretty um um you know kind of a layered thing of where you know gee first offense and second offense and then maybe you can pull their right to be in there. So how much, you know, talk about construction and traffic and how, what's your experience with the impact? I mean, are some better than others or the contractors?

Yeah, so I can talk a little bit about it, but Gabe probably has more recent experience with it. My experience with it comes from both the public sector and then on the private sector. So on public works projects, there's typically work meetings that are established well ahead of time, and it's within the specs of where contractors are supposed to go to and how they get there. On the private side, it's They don't get a set of specs. They get the plans and then there's usually construction meetings at the very beginning that lay out these expectations and there's constant monitoring. So there are some contractors that might not abide by it and it's not always the contractor. It could be just individual workers. And so that's why we're proposing this. It's not that we're expecting that to happen. We just want this to be put in place so that It legitimizes the importance of it. Yeah, you can add.

Yeah, that's exactly right. We don't see this very often to be honest. When we develop we're typically extending public roads that are open to the public and we as developers don't have the authority normally to limit traffic on public roads. In this case we agreed to a development agreement condition where we would to the greatest extent feasible try and limit traffic on the existing subdivisions. So these are some of the mitigation measures that we're coming up with. So this is a new subcontract agreement. This isn't something that we've historically used extensively. And the signage is new and unique as well for this particular development.

Thanks.

Mr. Gabriel. Thank you, Mayor. Sean, you talked about traffic calming efforts. Can you help me with that real quick? What are you talking about there? Would that be speed bumps and stuff like that, or it's your responsibility for traffic calming efforts?

Yeah, so we've been coordinating with the city. Both the engineering and the operations agree upon what traffic calming would look like within Quartier 2. There will be a stop sign at Appaloosa coming out from our site. So site traffic leaving Quartier 2, getting onto Appaloosa will have a stop sign. Gabe, do you want to talk a little bit more about the traffic calming that you're working on?

We've also discussed some raised pedestrian crossings at those intersections, which they're not speed bumps, but they act similar. They alert people that something's different where the pedestrians cross. We've also, on the collectors, talked about adding the RRFBs, so the rapid flashing beacons for pedestrian crossings. And we're willing to listen to the city and see what else they will allow. We've talked and proposed multiple things, chicanes, speed dips, speed bumps. And not all of those are favorable by the city street department. So we have to work within what they'll allow.

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Christy, again.

I'm just following up on Councilman Gabriel's question. The traffic calming, first of all, I appreciate your efforts at mitigation. So my questions are really trying to be solution-based. They're not critical. So the traffic calming measures that you're talking about, though, those are inside of Cortair, with the exception of maybe the rapid flashing beacons on maybe Appaloosa or Nez Perce? Is that what you're talking about?

No, the rapid flashing beacons would be where our perimeter trail crosses. Well, it's not Appaloosa, but on our development, and then as it crosses Nez Perce going north.

So Appaloosa and Nez Perce are very lengthy streets. And I understand that you're responsible just for your side of the development. But you understand the impact on those two streets with no traffic calming measures. And so I haven't heard from our staff either any proposal there. That's not your responsibility. You'll follow up with our staff.

Yeah, absolutely. I think that's a good use for impact fees as well.

Well, back to trying to take the impact fees.

Are there any other questions? Yes, Dan Sheklar.

I had a question. I think it goes back to the development agreement. Section 4.3 talks about not connecting to some of these other streets. I wasn't there when that was formed. I don't want to abandon that. I know that's part of the agreement. But it strikes me as funneling traffic down to Appaloosa road as opposed to connecting to Arrowhead Road if you're connecting between you know a house and quarter if kids make friends between neighborhoods and parents might have to drop off a kid in one neighborhood in the next neighborhood and they can't travel across Arrowhead to the other neighborhood they have to go all the way around traffic around all of those homes just to go all the way back up and right next door what's the rationale for that and then is that something that the city's imposing on you with the development agreement and or or what give me some background on that please i'll start and then i'll let you pick up the pieces so

Part of what we are doing as part of Cortere is there will be multimodal access at those points. So there will be trail connections from Arrowhead and other places where a roadway might have been initially thought of, there will be those multimodal connections. So people hopefully will walk across and into the development versus driving around. But the other part to that with the roadway connections is We did do some analysis at the beginning with the master study that showed some of those connections. And then as we went through the development agreement process, some of those connections were removed by the council at that point in time. Gabe, do you want to talk about that?

Well, so my presentation is going to address some of that as well. But ultimately, during annexation, we deferred to the city, city staff, and emergency services to tell us what connections were necessary. And that development agreement condition 4.3 was developed at that time, and we agreed to it. So we have revised the plans to adhere to that condition.

I see it looks like there's some sort of reserved property that's not going to be a lot next to some of those connections, or at least next to Appaloosa, if 30, 40 years in the future. Is that wide enough to make a street? If some other entity decides that this isn't working, it's not connecting between neighborhoods, can they change that? Or is that land conveyed?

I don't believe it is. The minimum right-of-way width for a local access street is 55 feet. And a lot of those areas that you see have been prioritized for pedestrian access and storm drainage facilities for the new public roads that we're building in the subdivision. So they aren't 55 feet? At this point, no. And the development agreement runs with the land in perpetuity and doesn't allow connections to those spots other than pedestrian. So the current plan doesn't allow for that.

And so I guess my last question is, is that provision of the development agreement, was that one that you agreed to because we made you, or was that one that you made us agree to because you made us agree to it, so to speak? I mean, would you be willing to modify that if necessary at some point in time?

We would definitely potentially look at that, sure. The original master plan had five connections to the existing neighborhoods, and then the condition 4.3 just limited to the two that are specified at Nez Perce and Appaloosa. So we've modified our plans and everything to be compliant with that.

And then my last question goes back to you, Sean. It bounced off of, I think, Council Member Wood's first question about ADUs and the modeling of the traffic with ADUs. Was that based on our current city code's ADU? Or was that based off of this new statute that the legislature passed that's going to expand ADU use? Or was it modeled off of either?

It's just a national standard, right? So those trip rates are determined and calculated based on real-world traffic counts across the nation. Some of those traffic count locations had houses with shops that had ADUs in it. Some of those count locations had basements that were rented out. So the ADUs are inherently incorporated into that traffic rate that we use. So it was regardless of whether It didn't really have any impact on what just recently happened from a traffic engineering perspective. Those were already accounted for.

And I guess then if that's a national kind of average, do our local laws that are becoming much more permissible to ADUs change the calculation?

Not at this time.

Well, just to clarify, you're part of the, I mean, about those connectors. Of course, some of us, I mean, we've been working for several years, and that's been a kind of a regular topic of how many and which ones. And frankly, you know, the reason they've kind of changed and stuff, I would say, is because of the input we've had from colleagues. from public and, you know, some of them are more desired or less desired and probably, you know, for some people who are close to one they like the idea of it go through and some don't. So those have ebbed and flowed and I'm, you know, I'll be curious when we get to what's the final, how many and where will they be. But that's been a real evolving process. And it's mostly changed because of public comment, in my mind.

I'll also add on the ADU item and the trip generation. So the trip generation rates for single-family homes include one-bedroom, one-bath homes, two-bedroom, one-bath homes, two-bedroom, two-bath, three-bedroom, two-bath. So there's a wide array of homes that are included within that. So that's why I answer not at this time because that trip rate is average and it accounts for many different types of residential units as part of that.

Any other questions at this point? Okay. Continue. Gabe, you've been talking. I'll turn it over to Gabe. Okay. Please introduce yourself. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Gabe Gallinger. I'm a civil engineer with Kootenai County Land Company. And I'm here tonight to talk about the local street layout for Quartet 2. And now that we've heard from Sean and reviewed the traffic study, seen the mitigation, and understand how the traffic study was created, I want to spend just a few minutes to discuss the internal street design of Quartet 2 and how it relates specifically to condition 4.3 of the development agreement. So this is not a new approach. If you recall, during the annexation hearings in March of 2023, council specifically asked us to demonstrate how the street network could be modified to discourage traffic originating in Cortair to discourage it from traveling east through the existing neighborhoods and encourage it to travel west out to Hutter and ultimately north to Hanley. So starting with Nez Perce, The original master plan shows two connections mid-block, one on the north, one on the south. So our proposal was to eliminate those connections, therefore discouraging traffic onto Nez Perce that could travel east out to Atlas. So we removed those. So instead of allowing those streets to feed directly into Nez Perce, the current design directs traffic internally to the south and to the west out to Hutter. So this is an important distinction when discussing the appellant's claim of an eastern exit bias. Traffic distribution is not determined by simply counting number of connections or exits. The configuration of the internal street network determines how easily those exits can be reached. So here, the network was intentionally designed to make Hutter the more direct and natural route for Cortair 2 while maintaining the Nez Perce connection, which is specifically required in the development agreement. So the same design approach is even more apparent on the south side of the project. First, as required by the development agreement, we eliminated vehicular connections at both Woodside and Arrowhead. Then we looked specifically at how to discourage traffic from using Appaloosa. The original master plan included long north-south connections that would have provided relatively direct access down to Appaloosa. We intentionally interrupted two of those routes and redirect them west on Hutter. So these are the two. We took those out, redirected them to the west. And then we also extended that east-west local road all the way out to Hutter Avenue to provide a direct route to the arterial system through the new roundabout that we're going to construct. And then at Appaloosa itself, the development agreement requires the connection, so it has to remain. But rather than create a straight-through movement, the proposed configuration includes a stop-controlled intersection requiring traffic leaving Quartier to stop and turn left onto Hutter to continue east, if that's the direction they're going to travel.

I'm sorry, did you mean onto Appaloosa?

Appaloosa, yeah.

You said Hutter.

So now Cortere 2 you can see that the slides you just saw were the slides we presented back in 2023. This is a street layout of Cortere 2. It applies to all of the things that we proposed back in 2023 during the annexation process. And this provides for emergency access, pedestrians, bicycles, and deliberately limits routes into the existing neighborhoods. And the appellant's presentation is going to propose further disconnecting of streets within Cortere 2. It's not sound transportation planning to disconnect streets that compromise connectivity and the long-term functionality of the street network. The first when they're going to propose is Nez Perce. So, seen in their proposal, they want to disconnect Nez Perce from Cortere Boulevard. These are both collector streets, and collector streets are intended to connect, allowing local traffic to get out to the arterial system. Disconnecting them undermines the transportation network. Likewise, eliminating additional internal street connections to the south reduce mobility, redundancy, and create emergency service concerns. And then from a traffic engineering and public safety standpoint, these connections should remain as shown on the proposed plan. Okay. Court Tier 2 should not be required to compromise connectivity, safety, long-term functionality of its internal street network to address traffic allegations from an adjacent neighborhood. The appropriate standard is compliance with the development agreement, city requirements, and applicable traffic and concurrency criteria. So city staff has reviewed the street network and concluded that it satisfies the development agreement. The staff report also confirms that the proposed interior streets meet the city standards. So this is not our interpretation of condition 4.3. It's the same roadway approach presented to city council during annexation, incorporated into the recorded development agreement, reviewed and approved by city staff. And with that, I will turn the presentation over to Michelle Fulgham to address applicable standards after I answer questions.

Thank you. Thank you. Just backing up a little bit. Yes, there was a development agreement but there was never any final decision on the connector roads. That's why we're here tonight as far as whether we would approve Appaloosa the way it's presented or Nez Perce, just to clarify that. Not saying you haven't followed development agreement, you have, but it's come back to us for a final. The neighborhood obviously has concerns about that traffic coming through a legacy neighborhood. I'm wondering what your thoughts are on why you wouldn't, unless our staff is maybe kind of came to a conclusion and you're doing your best to follow that conclusion, that's fine. But why we wouldn't try to place our traffic volume that's going to come from this subdivision, that volume and that burden on infrastructure that's designed to carry it, such as Hutter, Prairie, Kathleen. Certainly it's not designed for Appaloosa and Nez Perce. And so what's your flexibility in your mind on placing that traffic where the infrastructure could handle it?

Well, first, I think this layout does that. Every new resident in Cortere is closer to Hutter than it is to Atlas. So just naturally, If they have a direct route to Hutter, they're going to take that. That's the closest arterial to any of the homes. And by disconnecting these north-south routes that kind of aim down toward Appaloosa, all the residents of Cortere, once they're on this street, it's much easier to get out to Hutter and enter Hutter, the arterial system, through a roundabout than it would be to go down and backtrack, hit a stop control, take a left turn, go out to What we'll probably hear is a very congested Atlas Road at this point. So from a travel time standpoint, I think this layout does those things.

You and I agree with that. So then why wouldn't we just consider making that Appaloosa connection off of Woodside an emergency access only, since the thoughts were- This one? Yeah.

Or farther down on Woodside. So one of the conditions in Quartier 2 is to provide emergency access connections, so a 20-foot paved path with emergency gates on both sides at this location.

That's perfect.

Yes.

So then we've met the standard for emergency vehicles. Yes. Which was the concern back in 2023. Yes.

I believe the staff reporter, somewhere I saw there's 51 homes in the Woodside development on a single access currently. So providing that second emergency access, which is incorporated into this design plan.

So then we really don't need the Appaloosa exit onto Atlas.

We do for vehicular access. At this point, it's a condition of the development agreement that is required. We don't have the ability to change that, so we have to comply with that.

You're saying it's a condition for Appaloosa to be a collector?

It's not a collector. In Sean's report, it's a local street that has a 3,000 approximately ADT traffic limit, currently 1,200 ADT. At 2035, with build-out of Courtier 2, 1,800 ABT, so just over half of the capacity of Appaloosa will be traveling on it.

Well, again, we're trying to make those decisions here tonight. Thank you.

Hi, good evening. My name is Michelle Fulgham. I'm a land use attorney here in Coeur d'Alene. I've practiced land use law about 34 years. in Kootenai County. And my role is to address the legally binding standards that apply to this application. And primarily, the governing criteria are set out in the annexation order, the development agreement, and the city's subdivision code.

Thank you, Michelle. I'd also like just to mention for counsel that Mr. Adams is our legal representation. And if you need legal advice up here, please ask him.

Feel free to jump in. The annexation order and the decision, we had multiple hearings, public input, due process. Some of that's coming to light here, but there were five connector streets previously, and the neighborhood group really wanted those eliminated and reduced, and that's how we got down to just Nez Perce and just Appaloosa, based upon response to the neighborhood group's opposition back in annexation. And it did become a development agreement condition. I think it's in 4.3 that the owners agree only Nez Perce Road and Appaloosa Road shall be allowed to connect to the property with residential subdivisions to the east and south. So that was the condition that was in response to neighborhood opposition. And it became binding. It was in the development agreement, which was negotiated, vetted, agreed, finalized, and it's recorded. It's now a encumbrance against title to this property in perpetuity. And those vested, the development agreement, the annexation order and decision, those established and transferred vested real property rights in favor of the developer for the subject property. Those decisions are now closed, they're final, they're legally binding on both parties. The next legal standard that really controls the outcome here is City Subdivision Code 1625030. And it's important to note that this residential subdivision application is an outright permitted use. It's a use allowed by right under the city code. There's no conditions, no deviations, no waivers, no variances, no changes sought. It's an outright permitted use allowed by right under city code. So when we go under 16.25030 and we look at the four elements, all of these are met. The first city code requirement, which is B1 in your materials, requires that all of the general preliminary plat requirements have been met as attested by the city engineer. The evidence in the record, staff report, page 18, Chris Bosley attests, the preliminary plan submitted contain all of the general preliminary plat elements required by municipal code. So element number one, check. City engineer on page 18 has provided that evidence. Item number two, sidewalks, streets, alleys. Mr. Holm went through that. This finding, this element is fully complied with. In your staff report, pages 19 through 21 lay out how the streets, sidewalks, no alleys, easement, street lighting, all of those things are met and complied with. And the staff report also on page 29 states by Chris Bosley, the city engineer, all proposed interior streets meet the requirements of the development agreement and city standards. There you have it. All required street improvements were identified in the traffic impact analysis and were discussed below. All proposed roadway sections meet or exceed city design standards. City engineer Chris Bosley. So we really don't need to be analyzing changing the streets or reconfiguring them because they meet city code and they meet the development agreement. and your city engineer has indicated and documented that in the evidence in the record. Additionally, the staff report on page 29 states that city staff has reviewed the design of the street network, connections with Nez Perce and Appaloosa, and agree the design satisfies the development agreement. Finally, on page 29, Sean Holm, the senior planner, documents that the signed development agreement specifically defines these streets as allowed, Appaloosa and Nez Perce, and they cannot be altered by this subdivision request. And Mr. Holm is correct. The staff report on page 29 is accurate in stating that. The next criteria, item number three, is also fulfilled. Oh, I forgot, sorry. Page 30, Chris Bosley also states, the streets and engineering department agree with the mitigation measures identified in the traffic impact analysis. So because the city agrees with the mitigation measures, and it's documented in the evidence, that it fully complies with city code in the DA, there's really no rational basis or rational nexus to go beyond that to impose new or additional mitigation requirements. Now getting back to number three, B3 in your packet. The proposed preliminary plaque complies with design standards chapter 16.15 and construction improvement standards 16.40. Page 24 of the staff report, finding B3, Chris Bosley states, engineering has vetted the plans for compliance. The preliminary plans meet both subdivision design standards, 16.15, and improvement standards, 16.40. So item number three, complied with, city engineer has documented. Last one, item four, the lots meet the zoning district standards. This is on page 25 of your staff report, and it states correctly, all lots are designed to meet the minimum lot size. All lots are within the permitted maximums for each district. the park and the school district are consistent with the zoning assigned. All R3, R8, R17 lots meet the minimum frontage and lot size requirements. And this is also set out on page 15 in findings A8 and A9. So because the application meets the criteria and meets the requirements, there's no additional mitigation that's warranted or that's needed. And a lot of the opposition focuses on traffic and I just want to touch on a couple of things from Mr. Messner's report because he is the traffic engineer. He's the licensed credentialed expert witness in this area and there's really no scientific competent expert witness or testimony to contradict Mr. Messner. 100% of the traffic impact for the Hutter Road Access A roundabout is gonna be imposed upon the developer. The traffic study warranted that. That impact is 100% developer's mitigation requirement. 100% of Hutter, Mullen, Northbound Lane. These project improvements, he assigned 100% of the mitigation for those based upon the impact of the development. His scientific analysis allotted 4% of the Atlas Hanley, 13% of the Hutter Celtis, and 21%. And there's a whole chart of them. And the reason I bring that up is because that's really the competent, scientific, licensed engineer evidence that controls what's the impact of the traffic and what's the mitigation that should be imposed in response to this development's traffic impact.

Michelle?

Yes, sir.

Can you please, for me, what does unrebutted imply?

There's no other expert witness. There's no other scientific, licensed traffic engineer who's competent to present traffic study data analysis. There's opinions, and there's anecdotes, and you know.

So the absence of evidence is evidence of absence?

Whoa, sorry. There's no, it's unrebutted scientific expert testimony.

I don't mean to impugn his character, but just there was no effort made to find anyone to contradict him, nor would you have a reason to do so.

Well, that's why your decision is based on the evidence presented, and the evidence presented is unrebutted. This is the scientific traffic data analysis.

Thank you. Oh, Christy has a follow-up.

Well, Michelle, and I'm not trying to be adversarial at all. We're here looking for solutions. Part of your presentation is that this is final. Council, this has been decided. It's final. Yet here we are in an appeals hearing with the authority to certainly make additional requirements. Randy, could you weigh in on that?

uh yes i can uh one section of the code not mentioned is 1625050 um which says that the city council must make the findings that are outlined in the four subsections that Ms. Fulgham mentioned. It is clear that the city council is the one that makes the findings. The city engineer can attest, but the city council still has to make findings based on facts, based on what is presented at this hearing. But it's not over until I won't say the fat lady, but the council, until the council sings.

We sing. That's right. Thank you.

Any other questions?

Yeah.

There's no disagreement in that. You make the findings, but it's got to be based on the substantive evidence presented. And that's all my point is, is that the substantive evidence presented by the traffic engineer and by your city engineer indicates it fully complies. The next slide kind of goes to where we might be going, and I don't want to belabor this point. You're well familiar with Nolan and Dolan. You're well familiar with the regulatory takings analysis. But when a municipality imposes mitigation requirements on a developer that exceed the rational basis or the rational proportionality of that development's impact, then you creep into the unconstitutional regulatory takings area. Because if you impose mitigation that exceeds the proportional rational nexus of the development's impact, then you run the risk of violating Dolan and Nolan and the unconstitutional takings. And so because the evidence here is really uncontradicted, that this impact is adequately mitigated pursuant to city code, pursuant to the development agreement, pursuant to city engineer pursuant to civil engineer, pursuant to traffic engineer testimony, there really isn't any rational basis or evidence to go beyond those mitigation impacts under Nolan and Dolan.

Mr. Mayor? Yes. Just to clarify with Randy or somebody, if somebody hadn't filed an appeal on this, because this is a little sidelined, and in terms of deciding and we have the final vote, what would be the next step if there hadn't been an appeal on this? There will still be a final approval by us, or is that tonight, potentially?

No. If there was no appeal, the approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission would stand.

And we'd be developing lots and building houses, because we had the final approval. The last code section I want to briefly... Oh, sorry, sir. I apologize.

Mr. Mayor, who figures out what a rational nexus is? Okay. Who gets to make that decision?

I think the fact finders do. I think that's a finding of fact. You know, what is the impact and what mitigation warrants to address that impact? So it's got to be based upon evidence. It's got to be based on substantive. You know, under Idaho LUPA, you can't be arbitrary or capricious. You can't impose standards that aren't imposed on all other residential subdivisions. You know, it's got to be a... logistical based upon your code and based upon your requirements. But yeah, that is your balancing as the finders of fact. The last point is Idaho Code 66.

I have a question for you. I had a couple questions. It relates to B2 and it pertains to drainage. We have to find that the provisions for drainage are adequate. And you had referred us to pages 19 to 21 of the staff report. I didn't see a stormwater management plan that had been completed at this stage. I do see a paragraph about drainage, and it says that it'll be handled by on-site infiltration, and the storm drainage shall be retained on individual lots. but there's no stone water management plan that I'm aware of now. Could you help me understand what evidence there is that the soils are adequate to allow for on-site drainage in the record?

I'm going to leave that to the engineer, the civil engineer, to address that in terms of the science behind that.

So you're correct, a stormwater analysis has not been completed at this point, but anecdotal evidence and development in the area all has been consistent with supporting on-site infiltration. We've developed a property just north of Cortair called the Trails Subdivision. We are moving forward with Cortair 1, which is the north side of the subdivision that does have a full drainage report submitted with the plans that are in the city for review right now. And all of the on-site soils that we have encountered in that area are suitable for on-site infiltration. So there's some anecdotal evidence, but there's no soil samples? We have not done. No, the city does not require soil samples and a drainage report at this time consistently with the subdivisions.

So if the public had other anecdotal evidence that they have water flooding on their property nearby, you know, might rebut that.

Potentially, all of those things are contemplated and resolved during plan review with the city. So the construction plans are developed, the drainage reports are developed, submitted to the city, reviewed, and only on approval can we move forward with infrastructure development.

I guess going back to Ms. Fulgham, my other question also related to Section B2, and it was pertaining to fire protection. And page 19 to 21 also has a blurb about fire protection for the water distribution mains. But as I understand it, there's been no hydraulic study to determine that the new lines and proposed well are adequately sized or the supply is sufficient for the projected demand. So I guess my similar question is, what evidence is there that there's sufficient water available for fire protection?

So we did work with City Water Department to commission a study so that the city actually commissioned the study to be completed by jub engineering for the entire quarter site and we paid for that study that the city commissioned and managed and is Has been approved and our plans comply with that study that was completed by the city wastewater our city water department So as the has that been completed yes and

I'm looking at page 31 of the staff report, and it says, JUB must complete a hydraulic study. That study has been done.

It has been done, and yeah, we paid for it. It has been completed, or it will be completed? Has been.

And it determined that the lines in proposed well are adequately sized?

It actually determined the sizing and location of the water mains that we incorporated into our layout. So we actually did that prior to CORTAIR 1 approval, the PUD approval on the north side. But the study was for the entire CORTAIR annex area. And so CORTAIR 2 also complies with the requirements of that study.

OK, thank you.

Any other questions at this time? Please continue, Michelle.

The last point was partly, I think, related to a previous question you had. Council Member Sheckler, Idaho code 676539 is a recently passed Idaho statute, which it doesn't have any application really to this subdivision application because that code took away the city's ability to overly regulate, permit, require additional standards for ADUs. And now the city under that Idaho code provision can't impose any additional criteria permits or anything on ADUs beyond what is applicable to a single family residence. And ADUs have already always been permitted in all of the zones of our application. So the statute, it's nothing new about ADUs. And these lot sizes typically, there have been no requests for them. These lot sizes don't typically support that anyway. But the statute didn't really change anything because they were already allowed in all of the zones. And they were included in the modeling and the calculations for the traffic impact analysis already. So because it complies with the four elements under 16.25.030, we request that it be approved again.

Actually, it's de novo. So I just request that it be approved.

Yeah, and I put in the Planning Commission information because de novo doesn't limit you to the record. De novo allows you to consider anything and everything, so that was put in to be considered, unlike an appeal typically where you're just limited to the record.

Randy, would you like to comment on that?

Your decision must be based on the evidence presented at this hearing. And I take it what Ms. Fulgham is saying is that the Planning Commission made a decision based on its record before it, and you will make your decision based on the record presented to you, not what was presented to the Planning Commission.

Thank you. Any questions for the applicant at this point in time? OK, thank you very much. Now the appellant, Madeline, if you want to come forward. And you've already been sworn in. And you have a presentation. Is that ready? I do, yes. Excellent.

Thank you. Just allow me a minute to pull that up here. I think we're in presentation mode. There we go. All right, thank you so much here for the time tonight.

Introduce yourself.

My name is Madeline Knutson, and I'm the appellant for tonight's appeal. I do appreciate the time that you've taken to hear our appeal. And first, I would just like to make it very clear why my neighbors and I are in this room tonight. Contrary to some of the ideas that seem to be flying around in the press, we are not here to stop development or to try to change the connectivity of Nez Perce and Appaloosa roads. We are here to appeal Planning and Zoning's approval of Quartier 2 to the City Council and ask you to enforce the development agreement and to ensure that roads, intersections, sidewalks, bike lanes, and emergency access keep pace with development. Um, this has been a neighborhood project and we've all worked together on this. And since I drew the short straw, I will be presenting, um, these items to you that lead neighbors and I to believe that quarter two was incorrectly approved as is by planning and zoning. This development is governed by state and municipal code, and it is also governed by the development agreement. However, planning and zoning has been directed by staff on multiple occasions to evaluate each plat in a vacuum with no consideration of impacts or influences outside of it, despite the fact that the development agreement signed by the developer governs all development in Cortere and contains specific directions about the connections with Appaloosa and Nez Perce that must be followed by the developer. The development agreement is a binding contractual agreement And the city council is the only body with enforcement authority, according to state code, since planning and zoning has been instructed by the city attorney to ignore the development agreement and consider a compartmentalized analysis. It is appropriate. I think that the city council have the opportunity to review the proposed development and come to its own conclusions about whether or not the plaque complies. My neighbors and I find that there are several flawed assumptions in what was presented. and approved as adequate findings by Planning and Zoning on July 14th, 2026, and we have now appealed to City Council. I do have 13 slides to present to you tonight. I have been told by the city that I have 10 minutes to present them and... Take your time. Okay, thank you. I want to make sure that I do present the whole truth to you tonight. So, to summarize, the July 14th approval by Planning and Zoning adopted flawed findings A8, A-12, A-13, A-19, A-21, B-1, and B-2. Tonight, I will show two things. First, that Quartier 2 in defiance of section 4.2.3 of the development agreement was inappropriately approved by relying on transportation infrastructure improvements that cannot occur until after proposed build out of the development in 2030. And two, Quartier 2 was inappropriately approved in defiance of section 4.3 of the development agreement and in violation of municipal code 16.15.05. That code is that local streets which serve primarily to provide access to abutting property only must be designed to discourage through traffic. So we will begin with finding A8. Over 293 by-right accessory dwelling units were omitted from the applicant's subdivision application, staff report, concurrency analysis, and the traffic impact analysis documents for Cortera 2. Now it is being claimed that ADUs were included, but based on the research that we have done, A single family home generates an average of 10 average daily trips. And an ADU generates between four and six typically. That code is classified. You can kind of see the notes here as an ITE 2.20. Combined that is more than the 9.28 average trips per day. that is listed in the traffic trip generation table and there is no separate, there's no separate category for ADUs and they were not brought up in the July 14th meeting and so we assumed based on the fact that ADUs do generate more than that 9.28 figure when added to a single family dwelling that those were not included. So, um, that's what we have there, uh, under SB 1354, which was passed into state law on July 1st, ADUs are protected and permitted by right in R3, R8 and R17 zones. Now, however, the city's parking and step back requirements no longer apply, and this makes ADUs easier to build in R8 and R17 zones. ADUs can be built in basements above garages as additions and garage conversions. And in today's economy, where multi-generational family living is becoming more and more necessary, it is highly likely that the developer and new residents will take advantage of this new right to build ADUs. The traffic impact analysis incorrectly counts the trips from over 293 by right ADUs as zero, yet does count these same ADUs as sewer generating units against the cap. If ADUs count for sewer generating caps, as city staff confirmed they do on July 14th, they must not be excluded as traffic generating units, but be included in the traffic impact analysis. If we're going to use averages for the traffic count, we should have used averages for the sewer.

Madeline? Yes. While we're on that topic, it's easier just to ask the question while you're on the topic. So the applicant has presented to council that they use the national standard for ADU. Do you have a rebuttal or anything you'd like to include to that?

A rebuttal to the national standard? Yeah. I have some neighbors, as this was a community effort, I do have neighbors who are speaking more on each of these. I know that's inconvenient for you, but I thought I had 10 minutes. So we've divided it up.

Thank you.

We'll move on to fact A12. The traffic impact analysis model claims that the Atlas road widening is complete at the early estimated build out in 2030. However, the city engineer confirmed on July 14th at the planning and zoning hearing that the Atlas Road widening is slated for 2033 or 2034. Now, which is great, the date that we've been given tonight for Atlas widening has been moved up to 2031. However, whether 2031 is the year for design or construction or completion, this is still after the 2030 build-out date in the traffic impact analysis. which remains a violation of development agreement 4.2.3. Staff also report that 2035 is the traffic projection to justify alignment with Atlas widening construction, but 2035 is not the build-out date. It's the build-out date plus five years. Additionally, there are contradictions within the city's own reporting. The traffic impact analysis states that Atlas Road improvements are, quote, included as a three-lane section in the analysis as an improvement in the background and total scenarios, unquote. Sean Messner confirmed that Atlas widening was used as a background improvement in this TIA. However, now staff testifies that the widening was not included as a baseline improvement, which gives us conflicting testimony and narrative. The traffic impact analysis states that Atlas Road's future improvements, which were set for some time within the five years after the 2030 build-out date given for Quartier 2, were considered in the analysis. And this violates development agreement 4.2.3, which demands independent utility of each stage and prohibits relying on subsequent improvements that are anticipated in future phases. Fact A13, street network. The approved street design directly contradicts the requirement of development section 4.3 which states the developer quote, shall design and construct the connections with traffic calming features to discourage speeding and to the greatest extent reasonably possible through traffic and to ensure designs that encourage traffic originating in Quartier to exit onto West Hanley Avenue and North Hooder Road instead of to the east. I ask that you do take a look at the proposed street network. We see that there are two roads to the east. There is one to Hutter and there are zero in this phase to Hanley as directed in the development agreement. We actually would like more connectivity. There's street designs that are required to encourage traffic originating in Corterra to exit onto West Hanley and North Hutter Road instead of to the east. and yet we do not have that north road to Hanley in this phase, and only one to Hutter. By funneling at least 50% of Corteira traffic into Indian Meadows, we run into some serious safety hazards. There are zero sidewalks to safely connect families and pedestrians between the Faith Walk Park, North Shore Park, and the future Corteira II Park even though the comprehensive plan designates Appaloosa as a pedestrian and cyclist corridor. On Nez Perce, vehicles frequently park in the 28-foot median, creating dangerous visual obstructions that will worsen with thousands of new Corteira II vehicle trips. Plow berms shrink the already limited 16-foot travel lanes, forcing pedestrians and vehicles to share a tightly constricted and icy bottleneck. Snow piled along the median also creates a visual blind spot, making intersection crossings and routine navigation exceptionally dangerous all winter long. We do value the pedestrian paths between Quartier 2 and Indian Meadows and think that's fantastic, but there is nothing to make them safe once they're in Indian Meadows. Approving this plat without upfront mitigations exposes existing homeowners to significant financial liability as well. A future city council could invoke the sidewalk code section 12.28.210 to force current residents to pay out of pocket for sidewalk installations to improve safety that was destroyed by poor city planning. Fact A-19. Here you can see that additions that core tier two will be built in. Development up to the third edition creates a capacity cliff by front loading traffic on Appaloosa before the Nez Perce connection opens. Per CivTech at the July 14th hearing, Appaloosa Road is designed to carry 3,000 daily trips as a local residential street. If Cortera 2 stalls at the third addition, Appaloosa's capacity would be exceeded by localized and regional cut through traffic indefinitely, resulting in infrastructure failure. We'll get to the math in a second, but infrastructure failure for a street is very similar to infrastructure failure of a sewer line. What goes in has to come out. Exceeding the capacity of Appaloosa and of the Atlas intersection will cause traffic backup at Atlas on all the Indian Meadows roads as exits, as traffic flows down other streets to find easier egress. This destroys the utility of residential roads. From July 14th through the 16th, existing traffic counts were updated by the city and found to be currently 1,598 average daily trips, which is updated from Cortere's presentation on July 14th of an estimated 1,200 average daily trips. We are already just over half capacity on Appaloosa Road. Let's look at the math. With a physical capacity cap of 3,000 trips per day, and existing traffic at 1,598 trips up through the third edition, the anticipation is another 1,360 new trips. That leaves us with only 42 trips to spare on Appaloosa until it hits capacity. However, as mentioned earlier, we are missing traffic trip counts from 293 buy right ADUs, generating up to 1,013 trips on their own per day. Additionally, zero allowance is given for regional growth and zero allowance is given for cut through traffic. Even without these, Appaloosa's 3,000 trip capacity is far exceeded. You may be wondering, what about Nez Perce? Won't that handle some of the traffic burden? It's important to keep in mind that the phasing shown here You can see third edition, second edition, first edition, the school edition. This phasing is conceptual and reorderable. The park and Nez Perce connection in the fourth edition could be built dead last. They aren't required to build the park and presumably the future Nez Perce connection tied to it until development commences on quote, the 199th acre or by phasing, whichever comes first, unquote. While the phasing trigger is meaningless because phases can be reordered at the developer's discretion with no need for approval by City Council or Planning and Zoning, the requirement trigger tied to acreage is no better. This trigger for acreage is not reached in Quartier 2. Quartier 1 and Quartier 2 combined are only 190.5 acres of development. The applicant can legally postpone the fourth addition, build all 506 residential units, and rely on Appaloosa for 100% of the traffic generated. That's about 5,800 trips per day. Delaying the Nez Perce connection would result in direct violations of both section 4.3, the discouraging of through traffic, and section 4.2.3, which is independent utility. We haven't even talked about the C-17 commercial development, which does exceed 11,000 trips, but according to council, you aren't allowed to consider it because that's another phase. According to the development agreement, you must. A21 is concurrency. The finding disregards Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization's 2045 regional traffic modeling. KMPO modeling from November 2024 projects Appaloosa will receive up to 4,700 daily trips in 2045. That means Appaloosa is already expected to be 57% over capacity by 2045. The question I believe is not if Appaloosa will fail, but rather how soon. My follow-up question would be what is the city going to do when that happens? I think deferring safety and infrastructure to future periodic concurrency studies is a fatal error. By the time a study is confirms failure, the homes are already built, and any engineering solutions available are gone. In your packet, you'll notice a statement from staff stating that KMPO traffic model does not show Appaloosa exceeding capacity and that this was verified by KMPO on August 6, 2026. Per a recent email with the engineering department, It was revealed that this new KMPO study mentioned in the staff report only includes quarter one and quarter two and not the full build out. This study has not been provided for the public record and we have it on record in this email that this data was given via phone call. So there is no study available that we have to present to you based on the engineering department's testimony there to us. I do have the email if you would like to see it. In our appeal, we are presenting the data that is publicly available in writing. B1, general concurrency. The traffic impact analysis ignores traffic loads generated by ADUs, interim capacity issues, and the KMPO 2045 projections of the failure of Appaloosa Road. The traffic impact analysis incorrectly relies on the unbuilt 2034 or maybe 2031 Atlas widening as a baseline improvement and assumes that this will be completed by 2030, which it will not. Flexible phasing legally permits the developer to delay the Nez Perce connection as long as they like, funneling 100% of eastbound traffic into Appaloosa Road. Routing thousands of trips into the Atlas and Appaloosa intersection prior to Atlas widening creates queuing issues for cars entering and exiting Appaloosa, as well as a safety issue due to the no sidewalks. Finding B2. The current layout of Quartier 2 violates development agreement section 4.3 by creating a two to one eastern exit bias that funnels traffic east. I don't know about you, but if I was over here and I was going to be headed downtown, I would go through a nice straight street and just head east to Atlas instead of heading west and then south to Saltice. The record already shows that Appaloosa and Nez Perce are unsafe for walking and cycling. They do lack bike lanes and there is zero designed or funded improvement plans for them. Chris Bosley recognizes that Appaloosa structurally cannot be widened without massive retaining walls. Coeur d'Alene's 2024 comprehensive plan labels Appaloosa as part of a bike lane system and it is a pedestrian corridor, but designating an unsafe failing residential road as a pedestrian corridor does not seem like very comprehensive planning. Approving this layout without pedestrian infrastructure is not only unsafe and avoidable, but it paves the way for a future City Council to use sidewalk code to force Indian Meadows residents to pay for road improvements. In conclusion, it is logically incongruent to have been required to evaluate transportation capacity of a sewer line, but not transportation capacity of roadways in and out of this development. These points demonstrate that Quartier 2 needs to be redesigned to truly discourage traffic flow to the east as many of you on council previously advised during the annexation and development agreement hearings. Until this is done, the design simply violates the requirements of the development agreement and leaves the city and taxpayers holding the bag for near-term improvements that must occur to provide relief as the local road network reaches capacity and fails. Lakeside may claim that future phases of development will provide the needed Hutter and Hanley connections that will distribute traffic away from Indian Meadows, but this argument is a direct confession that this application violates development agreement section 4.2.3, which mandates independent utility. It explicitly states that current improvements must handle trips generated by the current phase and they, quote, may not rely on any subsequent transportation improvements anticipated in future phases, unquote. If Cortair 2 needs the roads from a future phase to prevent Appaloosa from failing, then Cortair 2 does not have independent utility. You cannot legally approve 506 homes right now based on the promise of a master plan that will not be completed for another decade. That's pretty heavy and feels like enough bad news. So I think there are plenty of possible solutions to these issues. This is just one possible idea. I am not a city planner and I am not an engineer, but I believe that the development team many capable people on it and they are more than capable of coming up with excellent solutions that will rectify the issues presented if they're given a chance to satisfy the development agreement mandate to discourage Eastern through traffic some simple internal street realignments could be made remove the straight shots interrupt the grid and redesign the internal street network add Hanley and a second Hutter exit to quarter two in order to actually encourage traffic West and North and prevent some regional cut through traffic through Indian Meadows. Yet to the point of the appeal. Now, uh, my neighbors and I are appealing for city council to take action on the following items by denying or denying the current quarter to application without prejudice, please send it back and allow them to comply with the development agreement in the following ways. Number one, revise internal connections. Require the internal street network to eliminate the two to one eastern exit bias and discourage through traffic, adding connectivity to Hanley and more connectivity to Hutter in this phase. Number two, require revised traffic modeling. Require updated traffic impact analysis and KMPO models to account for realistic build out timelines and buy right ADUs to prove that residential roads and intersections will not fail. Number three, require safe phasing. Require the Nez Perce connection to be fully operational prior to the issuance of the 225th Quartier II residential building permit to prevent Appaloosa Road from failing. Additionally, we ask you to protect taxpayer liability. Please require the city to secure plans and funding for safety improvements prior to opening residential connections to shield existing homeowners from out-of-pocket sidewalk installation costs to keep our neighborhood safe. Again, this appeal is not about closing down development. By denying core tier two without prejudice and allowing them to come back with a redesign that is in compliance with the intent and the language of the development agreement, you will be ensuring that the development is done properly and in accordance with the law. We all ultimately want the same thing, safe and friendly places for our families and to build communities. By enforcing code that already exists and contracts that are already in place, you're planning for the long-term success of Coeur d'Alene and her residents. Thank you for your time.

Madeline, can you hang on for questions?

Absolutely.

You did mention, or I heard, so maybe you want to clarify. Did you say that our city attorney told the Planning Department or the Planning Commission to ignore the development agreement?

It's happened on multiple occasions, yes.

What's your evidence for that?

I was at the planning and zoning meetings where this happened. We can pull up the minutes.

Randy, what's your memory?

My memory is that I told the Planning and Zoning Commission that the development agreement could not be modified by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I did not tell them that they should ignore the provisions of the development agreement, only that that was not an issue before them. Okay.

And that applies to us too?

That applies to you as well. The amendment of the development agreement is not before council.

Okay. And Madeline, you said you had some traffic research done. How did this research done or do you have a methodology that you can share with council?

So this is something that I have another neighbor presenting who did the research and is going to be able to present it a lot better than I can.

OK, so we can wait until then.

If you're all right with that, then yes. If not, I can have that.

No, that's fine. We can wait if he's signed up. Also, you mentioned that we could send it back to planning. We cannot. We have to make a final decision. So just to make sure you understand that. Now, those are my questions. Does council have any questions? Christy Wood.

Thank you. Madeline, through this process, we have asked that the developers and staff work with representatives from the neighborhood to try to find workable solutions. I mean, you are correct that no one's trying to stop responsible development. We're trying to minimize the impact to a legacy neighborhood. What kind of meetings have you had? Have there been public meetings on this topic with the developer and when?

We had one meeting with the developer very early on in, I think it was the annexation stage. I think that was 2022. 2021. So nothing since then? Nothing since then. And we've only had public comments to give testimony. And during public comments, which are our only outlet for communicating with both the council and the developer. We have been told to limit our comments to the phase that we are in when different phases and different aspects of Cortera have been up for discussion. So we have not had any time where we could comprehensively have a discussion with council and with the developer.

Thank you. Thank you. Any questions? Kiki.

I just want to see if I'm tracking with some of the things that you said in that, and there's a call to action for council, is what is council going to do when Appaloosa fails? And that's a good point. Council should maybe have a backup plan there. But it sounds like what you said was we need more connection into Corterra. And so my recollection going through the annexation process is the original five connections were conceded to by the developer because of the pressure from the Indian Meadows neighborhood to not have them go through. But now you're saying we want more connections so that it won't fail those roads that the two that were left.

Yes, I can see how I may have misspoke and led you to believe that. Our neighborhood is asking for compliance with the development agreement within this phase. The connection with Hanley North, which is mentioned in the development agreement, is not included in this phase. In this phase, we only have the connection out to Hutter to the west, the connection to Appaloosa in the east. By improving connection, by adding the NESPERS requirement for that to be open as well, and for the street to be open at Hanley during this development phase, and maybe one more road out to Hutter, we see that as allowing traffic to go where it needs to go instead of everything having to come down Appaloosa or the exit to Hutter. Does that clarify that statement? Thank you.

Affirmative. Any other questions for Madeline at this time? Thank you, Madeline. Thank you. Before we get into the public testimony, I'm going to take a brief recess. So we are going to be recessed for five and a half minutes. Thank you. We are calling the hearing back into order. Please remember that if you are testifying that you've already been sworn in. And at the end, I'll ask if there's anyone else who wants to testify, and we'll swear you in at that time. So I'm going to start with, we had one online sign up, Brad Marshall, who is for, is Brad here? Okay, we'll hit do. Are you Brad?

Yes.

Excellent, thank you.

You have to go first. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I'm Brad Marshall, 745 West Hanley Avenue, Coeur d'Alene. I'm a 35-year resident of the Coeur d'Alene area and also a partner in JEB Engineers, which is a local civil engineering company. I did assist with the Corotare annexation a couple years ago, but tonight I'm here on my own because I have confidence in the city staff, the Planning Commission, the Council, and the overall project in support and approval of of corridor two subdivision. I have known the owner of the Cooney County Land Company for over 20 years. I have worked with Melissa and Gabe for over 10 years. They're reputable developers who give back to our community. They have developed some of the best projects in the region, Parkland, Foxtail, and Falls. The trails and the enclave in Coeur d'Alene are great examples of well-developed projects. Cortera will create jobs, real estate, title, trades, whether or not framers or electricians, plumbers or cabinet makers. And to build out, the Cortera will create substantial tax base for the city. The subdivision includes a 12-acre park, trails, system open to the public. If you think about it, Coeur d'Alene itself is landlocked to the north of the city of Hayden, the mountains to the east, river to the south. To the west is a logical area to grow, and a well-planned project like Cortere is the perfect project. The city is fortunate to have a great staff of engineers, planners, a great planning and zoning commission who unanimously approved the Cortere 2 subdivision with conditions of approval, with finance. Corterra will create a variety of housing types, price points from single-family homes, cluster, row homes, townhomes, apartments, whether or not senior living. So you can move out and about within the project without moving away. There's an opportunity for everyone.

Can you hang on a second, please? As we grow. I'm sorry. I'm sorry, Brad. Can you hang on just a second? Sure. Our clerk is being distracted. Are you back?

Okay.

Thank you. Please continue.

Thanks. The developers are already working with Paha on first-time buyer affordable housing programs. Traffic studies have been completed. Layouts have been changed to reflect those studies to encourage traffic to use Hunter, then Saltice, instead of existing neighborhood streets. And additional studies will be completed for each phase over time. Water and wastewater studies have been completed to ensure that there will be adequate services for the project. Again, the Planning and Zoning Commission approval found the application met the requirements of the Development Agreement and the City Code to Standards of Approval. In other words, the findings of approval. I encourage the City Council to approve the Quartier 2 subdivision. Thank you.

Thank you, Brad. I forgot to mention that Brad is in favor. So there was a column on the sign-up sheet. that asked if you were in favor or opposed, and I heard there was some confusion about that. It's whether you're in favor of the subdivision or opposed to the subdivision. So if I read that wrong, please let me know. So in other words, if you're in favor of the appeal, let me know. So we're going to start off with Dave Naren. He is in favor but does not wish to testify. Allison Crows is in opposition and does wish to testify. Is Allison here? And I apologize if I didn't get your last name correct.

Good evening. I'm Alison Cross. I live on Buckskin Road. Thank you for hearing us tonight. I just want to point out again that the neighborhood is in favor of this development. We're not opposing the development. We're opposing the traffic, and that's what I want to speak on tonight. It's been said that we're very emotional. Us neighborhood people are emotional, and we are. But I'd like to point out, too, that we also need to look at things through the lens of common sense. How can the street layouts meet the development agreement when traffic has only been studied in individual phases? Mr. Messner keeps saying that 5,000 trips on Nez Perce is going to happen after phase two. But what about the impact of the following phases? I want to point out to you, currently Nez Perce has 1,400 trips a day. I did simple math and divided that by 24 hours in a day. That's 58 cars per hour. And we know that's not true because nobody drives down that street in the middle of the night. Phase two, supposedly, will have only 5,000 trips a day only. That's 208 cars per hour doing simple math. What about at peak? Now, if that street is reclassified from an arterial to a collector to have only 15,000 trips per day, 625 trips per hour. What about at peak? Think about that. Have you driven down Nez Perce? It has houses that open straight onto it with driveways that go straight onto Nez Perce. What's that going to look like? We need to use common sense here. I am not a traffic expert, but I can look at what's happening. There is supposedly development that's going to happen on the other side of Hutter. So people are going to come down from the Highlands Golf Course, down Mullen, cross onto Nez Perce, and come straight over to Atlas to go to North 40, to go to the fairgrounds, to go to Home Depot. What's that going to look like? We haven't even looked at that in the traffic study. because we are only looking at individual phases. Phase two does not take into consideration what's happening in any of the further phases or across the street on Hutter. It just seems, you can call me emotional, but you also have to look at common sense. So I'm urging you, please think about that. I appreciate Ms. Wood, the things that you've said tonight kind of It's helpful. You're looking at that. I hope that everybody else is. Please look at the continued impact. We've seen from Madeline's presentation that there is an alternative layout. And I'm going to propose that we don't use Appaloosa or Nez Perce at all. I love Madeline's layout because there's no straight through traffic. There is no way to come from Post Falls through Mullen Antonez purse and go to all the places in the east so it is possible I just asked that you would do that that you would take a close look at that that you would That you would deny disapprove This tonight and again, like I said We know the projects going to be completed. I think it should be completed I think that there's elements of the project that are beautiful. I love the parks. I love the open everything But we just really need to look at how we can not impact these legacy neighborhoods. So I ask that you would do that this evening. And I thank you so much for your time.

Thank you, Alison. Michael Crows is next. He is in opposition and did not specify whether he wanted to testify or not.

No, I do not.

He does not want to testify. Moving on, this is a hard one to read. but they are in favor and they did not wish to testify. I have Robert Kohler, who is in opposition and does not wish to testify. Lori Robb is in opposition and does not wish to testify. Bill Dodd is in opposition, does not wish to testify. Keith Pila is in opposition, does not wish to testify. Ryan Rogers is in opposition and does wish to testify. Brian.

MR. Counsel, I'm here. Good to be here. Brian Rogers, I'm on 7132 East Greta, and this project affects me for sure. I'm going to remind everybody about the Nuremberg defense. Yeah, it's a great one. Let's kill thousands because it's our job. It's a good way to do it. So I heard a lot of that tonight, and I just want to bring that forward as one of the starting principles of all this. The second one is the smoke and mirrors for details that should have been taken into account by either the builder or the planning commission years ago. And I'm going to do a quote in a second that shows you in 2022, we already brought up a lot of what's being discussed by the planning commission tonight. The further thing that we see is a continued lack of transparency to the taxpayers by the city planners and other representatives and in the KNPO. As you heard earlier, I've dealt with the KNPO for years. It's been very difficult to get transparency, even underneath the Freedom of Information Act. In fact, they want to charge us every time we ask for details. Then I heard that we should rebuttal and bring in experts. That's money. It's more money from us. We're already paying the taxes to do this. That's what the professionals are supposedly here to do. But now I've got to bring in a professional on my own dime to argue with the professionals that are supposed to be here on my behalf that I pay taxes for? That sounds a little absurd if it's just my opinion. The other thing that I love to hear, and I've worked in a company with a lot of lawyers, and everybody looks at them. for information as if they know what they're saying. The interesting thing is, judicial interpretation is authoritative and binding. Judicial means a judge. Lawyering interpretation is advocative, advisory, and non-binding. So besides the degree and years of experience, it's about as good as the rest of us, just to be clear. The code and requirements for this area are not created for the scale of housing and road growth that we're seeing. Let's just be honest. We keep arguing with the codes. We keep arguing with how we scale and how we grow. Unfortunately, some of these developers are getting ahead of our ability, which by the way, we also wrote about in 2022, they're ahead of us. We're trying, we do want to see the best for everybody, but they're pushing the envelope and we're not there with them on making these, these changes. The Hanley intersection, we quoted years of experience in roads, but I don't see that coming through clearly. Do not put neighborhood streets, driveway, or other ingress, egress inside the functional area of a signalized intersection. That would be from the Federal Highway Administration. And it's within about 600 feet. Well, guess what? We have roads in their development 700 feet from the intersection of Hanley. So we're getting close to violating everything with roads that's possible. Now, roundabouts.

You can finish it in a couple of seconds.

Sure. CivTech also said that we will have failure on Southeast by 2045 on the roundabouts, and we will need more than four lanes to handle the throughput in their 2022 report. Where is that tonight? So thank you.

Thank you, Brian. Rob Robinson is opposed and does not wish to testify. Chris Husick is opposed and does not wish to testify. Kathy Kinsell is neutral and does not wish to testify. Joshua Tripp is in favor and does wish to testify. Is Joshua still here? Very good. Please come forward, sir.

Wouldn't that be something if my nose got erased? My name is Joshua Tripp. I live at 2011 East 30th Avenue in Spokane, Washington. And I'm just curious, will you remind me again the phrase of the hearing tonight? Is it de novo? That basically means in absence of any historic information or something like that. In a vacuum? Okay. All right. Anyway, with that, Mr. Mayor and Council, my name is Joshua Tripp, landscape architect. I'm guided by nearly three decades of professional practice in the industry. And in that time, I've had the ability, I've worked with a lot of developers of every kind, as you can imagine, across the western United States. And a lot of those treat leftover land and community as an afterthought. is simply rack them, stack them, numbers, density, lot sales, minimums. And I can tell you that the space in between these homes is where life happens. This is where the character, the quality of life, walkability, and the essence of what makes your neighborhood unique, that's where this happens, is in the land, in the space, in our backyards. And I can tell you that Kootenai Land Company, in my opinion, is the latter. They are your neighbors. You've heard this. They live in your community where they work. They're not an outside factor just dropping money and leaving. They live here. I know a lot of them and I know that they give back and I know that they're here and they have great cause. They place a high value on the communities they develop and the lifestyle and the places where their friends and families live. So as we've heard, there's a lot of opposition to growth and development and change and there always will be. But I can tell you that this project is many phases deep into a long careful approval process as you all know. The current phase is consistent with that record and I support this project and I respectfully ask that you deny the appeal of this phase. And I also think that the sign in sheet was a little confusing because it's appeal and deny and you're denying, so I'm on record denying the appeal. Meaning I support it. There we go. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Joshua.

Next up, I have Rosalind Korshak, and she is in opposition and would like to testify. Okay, Rose, that changed her mind. Sorry about murdering your last name. Next, we have Tiffany Bruner, who is in favor and does not wish to testify. Nathan Arman is in favor and does wish to testify. Hello, Nathan.

Hello.

Arman.

OK. Yeah. I'm Nathan Arman. I live in Post Falls, Idaho. And I just wanted to speak about why I support the development. What was that? So I like to think about what is the purpose of the levers of government and it's to provide as much good to our community as you can. And I've recently benefited because I was planning to not be able to live here anymore. I couldn't afford a house and I was fortunate enough to be able to apply for some workforce housing. And I was able to purchase my own home, which I now live in. And I'm surrounded by neighbors who were in the same situation and now have housing. I see this project has workforce housing options on it. And that's truly the thing that I'm focused on and I think is amazing. And I think you guys have done a great job in making sure that it's going to be there. So thank you very much. I just hope that you guys consider that you're giving people in our community a chance to have somewhere to live as this town grows. So thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Nathan, and congratulations on your home and to the Miracle on Britain project. Okay, Brad, did Brad sign up twice? Okay. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's fine. We have, I believe, Lee Irwin, who is in opposition and does not want to testify. Dan Gardner did not specify but does wish to testify.

Thank you, Mayor and City Council. I believe the engineers, the city engineers might not have taken into account the city code that allows two large animals in our one rated housing and my wife and I have a couple of Those animals I wouldn't consider them large We have a pony Sir, you do know this is a hearing on a development.

I

Yes.

I'm working there, okay.

We have a mini horse that we use on our roads because Indian Meadows, where I live, does not have sidewalks. And this is a picture of six-year-old granddaughter learning how to manage a cart behind the mini And we're very grateful for where we live. And the amount of traffic will change the quality of our neighborhood to the point where you know, the danger will be overwhelming to what we do there. And again, it's been stated that our neighborhood does not oppose Cortere, it's just the direction of the traffic that comes through our neighborhood. I would ask that you reconsider using the industrial park as an east-west corridor. It already has a stoplight that feeds into Atlas Boulevard. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. I apologize for my misunderstanding. OK. Summer and Joshua Gottschalk are in favor and did not say whether anyone wanted to testify. Nancy Barr is opposed and did not say whether she wants to testify. Miranda Latcha is in favor but does not want to testify. Bridget Sundahl is in opposition and would like to testify.

Hi, I'm Bridget Swindoll.

I'm sorry, you're in opposition.

I'm in opposition. Sorry, I apologize. I live on Broken Arrow in Coeur d'Alene, and I've lived there for almost 20 years. Thank you, all of you. Paid people, volunteered people, elected officials, everyone has invested in this. We've been working through the details for a long time, and it's very clear. The Kootenai Land Development Company is top shelf. They got a river, they got parks, they got schools, they got church, everything is what you want it to be. But it does appear that they would like to go through Indian Meadows, not connect to Indian Meadows. And what I mean by that is with the building and planning commission and everything we've gone through, they were using their person or expert person. But that expert person was using minimum standards, national standards. Coeur d'Alene is minimum nothing. Coeur d'Alene is Coeur d'Alene. So if I was promising something, I would be really sure. You know, I'm going to add up some numbers in my head. Okay, that's a minimum standard. Okay, I'm going to do maybe a national standard and I'll put it on a piece of paper. I'm gonna put it on Coeur d'Alene standard and I'm gonna put it on a spreadsheet and I'm gonna look at it. Because if you're using data and you're extrapolating that data using information from two years ago and pretending that you just didn't connect Post Falls with Coeur d'Alene using the Hanley opening and you're pretending that that 2.3%, that minimum standard is gonna cut it, for us as a community, It is not top shelf. If they did the same work that they did on their traffic study as they do to plan these beautiful committees, I think we would have a different result. I believe that what started as maybe the planning commission saw the streets and would that work, and they said maybe we don't need those streets. We've been doing this for years. So somehow we came to this, but we all have vested rights. I would be here for any community that was on the chopping block that said, you know what? We aren't going to work you into this equation until later. And I think that is a gross disservice. And I don't think that's your intention. I think we should hash this out. It isn't decided who is going to pay for tearing up someone's front lawn and putting in a sidewalk to meet the standards, findings 82. Indian Meadows doesn't meet findings 82. And God bless them for making it meet for courtier and it will be beautiful. But we don't meet those standards and we deserve to be treated the same way as you're treating another legal entity. And our vested rights are, they're on the chopping block. So I hope that you consider all of our all of our concerns and all of our facts. Thank you.

Thank you, Bridget. Pam Holcomb is in opposition and would like to testify.

Mayor Gookin and members of the City Council, my name is Pam Holcomb. I've lived on Nez Perce for 34 years, and my focus tonight is on safety. Recently, our son's house in Acreage came within 600 feet of burning down. And throughout it all, there was really only one thing that was important, and that was safety. So let's talk about safety for Indian Meadows. So here's some facts. In the Cortere development, sidewalks are required on both sides of all streets to meet pedestrian safety requirements. Nez Perce and Appaloosa roads lack continuous sidewalks, so where is our pedestrian safety? Well, it's not there. Cortere Boulevard connects with Nez Perce and it's designed as the central collector for the entire development. The Cortere master plan is gonna funnel 10,000 cars into a rural neighborhood street without sidewalks or bike paths. The last time that Nez Pierce Road was worked on was 33 years ago, and this was when Indian Meadows was hooked into the city's sewage system. So as you can imagine, did somebody say something? Okay. The Planning and Zoning Commission acknowledged on record that the Corotare project creates pedestrian safety hazards, for our roads and identified the need for sidewalks. Yet the commission failed to make these mitigations a condition of approval. And the impact on us is not 20 to 30 years away anymore. It could be as soon as two to three years and sooner for Appaloosa. Once this project is approved, the city is going to lose its legal leverage to require safety mitigations. The city is approving a high density subdivision while acknowledging that its primary eastern access routes are unsafe and lacks any funded plan for improvements. So it seems like your regulatory duty is to ensure infrastructure adequacy before authorizing development. And approving this project without a plan for safety improvements sounds like it could be a failure of duty. And we are not asking for the development not to happen, and we're not asking for our roads to not be used, although I would love that. We are asking for a compromise to benefit the residents of Coeur d'Alene, and this includes the Cortere residents. So I request that the Cortere internal connections be revised, no through traffic from Cortere Boulevard to Nez Perce Road, add another exit onto Hutter Road, I mean, God forbid, if there was a fire in Cortere like recently happened in Spokane, if we have another western exit onto a major arterial, it's going to really help with evacuations. I request a new design for, I'm almost done, may I continue?

Please continue.

I request a new design for Indian Meadow Road improvements before approving phase two. Let's mandate some binding conditions of approval for all safety mitigations including sidewalks, signaling, and crossing infrastructure. And lastly, I request secure funding and plans for safety improvements prior to opening residential connections. If we don't have the money via the developer declining to pay or the city not having the money, Please consider an emergency moratorium on new construction, Idaho Code 67-6523. This would create a 180-day pause for new construction until funding can be obtained for sidewalks and road improvement. And you know, when we thought our son's home was burning down and 15 firefighters came and saved him, There was help, we weren't in it alone, and they knew what to do, and that is your job tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you, Pam. Carol Root is in opposition and does not wish to testify. Rhonda and, I believe, Averin, thank you, Bowling, they are in opposition and do not wish to testify. Linda Robinson is in opposition and is considering testifying.

My name is Linda Robinson. I'm a 50-year resident of Coeur d'Alene. We live on Pine Ridge, which intersects Atlas. I'm totally opposed to it. I don't want any changes or anything. I used to cross country ski where this development wants to go into and it saddens me that it's coming to this. My husband and I won't be alive when this is probably completed. Just as a side note, I drove down here at 10 minutes to five, left the house. Took me, no sorry, I left at 25 till. Took me 25 minutes to get down here. What's that, five miles? Traffic. We're all impacted. I don't know how many of you were here 50 years ago. It's totally changed. Thank you. One signal. One signal. That was it. And it saddens me once again to see the changes. I guess it's progress. But I'm opposed. That's it.

Thank you, Linda. We have Shannon Tate who is in favor and would like to testify. Very good.

Yes, my name is Shannon Tate. I'm a homeowner in Post Falls. I'm speaking tonight in support of the development because they've allocated 5% to workforce housing, which has been referenced as affordable housing here. The home I purchased is in the Britain Miracle on Britain neighborhood. So I wanted to share. Homeownership isn't just about a house. It's about stability and generational wealth. I know that firsthand. I rented in Hayden for years before I was able to purchase a home in Post Falls through a shared equity program, the same kind of program that will make up 5% of the quarter neighborhood. That home is giving my daughter and me stability during her senior year. She's a dual credit student at NIC, graduating with her associates in May and from Coeur d'Alene High in June. She's been inspired by my ability to purchase a home and is setting home ownership goals for herself. Research shows homeowners move five times less than renters. That stability shows up directly in children's lives, in their schools, friendships, test scores, mental health. And it doesn't stop with kids. Families who put down roots are the ones who show up to the school board meetings, community groups, and hearings like this one. Homeowners also shop at the local stores. They eat at the local restaurants. They reinvest in the local economy. Homeownership creates generational wealth for families. And these families, as in the Miracle in Britain neighborhood, there are bankers, business owners, our pharmacy techs, the auto techs, police officers, firefighters, librarians, and teachers. They're the people that keep this community running. So I'm in favor because of the workforce housing.

Thank you. Thank you, Shannon. Congratulations on your home. Dylan Williams is in favor but does not wish to testify. Rebecca Rodriguez is in favor and does not wish to testify. Thomas Hauser is in favor and wishes to testify.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Thomas Hauser, and I was born and raised in Post Falls, Idaho. Growing up, I knew I'd want to stay in the community that molded me into the man I've become and invest for the next generation. However, for a long time, I thought that buying a house was unattainable and so far out of reach for my wife and I. My wife and I have two young children, and she stays home and takes care of while I work as a police officer for the city of Spokane. The reality is that for most Most of you don't know is the feeling of getting priced out of your own community. It's sobering and undesirable and is a feeling that many hardworking families in my generation are experiencing currently in our community. It wasn't until I learned about the program Miracle in Britain that I regained hope in homeownership in my community that I grew up in love. I was fortunate enough to be able to buy one of the 24 houses through the program and I'm extremely grateful for that. But there are many men and women in the same situation as my wife and I that are not as fortunate. Hardworking families in North Idaho, I did not wish to be displaced, but I've been due to an influx of people in a rising market. I urge everyone to vote to approve the new development for programs like Miracle in Britain, because it gives a chance to keep the people here that made our community special in the first place. It warms my heart to know that my little boys will have a house to grow up in, a yard to play in, a garage to store their bikes in after a hard day of playing, a tight-knit community of other like-minded families, and somewhere they can call theirs. I understand and share the frustration about the rapid growth and development in North Idaho, and wish that the affordable housing models like Paha and Fannie Mae were more than 5% of the proposition, as I believe that the community needs it. However, I understand that growth in a community is inevitable, and 5% is better than 0%. Even through talking to prior neighbors and friends, I've seen multiple of them regain hope and ask me to get in contact with the Panhandle Affordable Housing Association, which is Paha, just to be put on a waiting list in hopes of one day being able to open a home. My hope is that the proposition helps keep the native population here instead of displacing them in the process or leaving them to rent their whole lives and not have something to pass on to your children. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Thomas. Congratulations on your home. This cop key is in favor and does not wish to testify. Tom Sanner is opposed and of course he wants to testify.

Mr. Mayor, council members, I've got quite a list here of things. But after listening to what has been hang on a second, could you state your name, please?

Oh, I'm sorry That was what you're about to get me.

Okay, Tom Sanner. I live in Northshire I'll give you seven more seconds Based on all the information here tonight, I think that you have what you need and And just to make it short, there's a lot that has to be presented. It's never too late to make it right. Thank you.

Thank you, Tom. Brian Tilly is in opposition and would like to testify.

Sorry.

Mr. Mayor, council members.

and state your name.

Brian Tilly.

Thank you, sir.

I've lived in Coeur d'Alene the last seven years. I love it as it is. It was for my health. I have epilepsy. The cooler temperatures, the cleaner air, I love it. But the big topic was traffic. Okay, well, I ride from Coeur d'Alene to Post Falls on a regular basis. And going from Hooter, from Hanley, past Hooter, on the pull line, that is a dangerous, dangerous area. Once you pass Hooter and you're going down towards 41, I've ridden my e-bike down through there, and I literally could have reached out and grabbed a rock truck that was passing me. And I mean, as far as the traffic, it is backed up once you get about halfway to 41. And it's just not safe. And safety is our main priority, not a development or anything like that. We all live here now. This is what's going on now, not some traffic report that says, well, this is what it's going to be. 10 years, 15 years. We as the people of Coeur d'Alene have to deal with this now. The constant construction is going to be going on. You're going to have trucks, construction going on for the next 15, 20 years. And, you know, we're going to have to deal with that. Now, it's the design as far as The roads should be the first priority to help keep people safe. Once you get past, about halfway past 41, I think it's, there is a bike lane, but it stops at a certain point, and then it's like an old country road. So, you know, the traffic impact Analysis how long ago was that two years ago? You know and I Really think I'm not an engineer. I'm not an expert. I can just tell you real-world facts That's what it is. I live here. I use the roads. That's what I see. That's what I experience so it's not safe for to Have it as it is now I mean, imagine adding 2,800 more people. What's that going to be like? That's just going to make things even worse. So I think the roads should be developed prior to any development. So that way everybody sees that bicyclists and traffic can get through there safely.

I believe this is Cal Walker, who is in favor but does not wish to testify. Mary Hoffman, I believe that's how, yeah, Mary Hoffman is opposed but did not specify whether she wanted to testify. Okay, we have Christiane Hoffman, who is opposed and did not specify whether to testify. Chelsea Halls is in favor and does not wish to testify. Ammon Adams is in favor but does not wish to testify. Jerry Reed is in favor but did not specify. Kathy and Greg Thornton are opposed but do not wish to testify. Tina Thompson is in favor and does not wish to testify. Maggie Lyons would like to testify, and she checked both boxes.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. My name is Maggie Lyons. I live in Hayden, Idaho, and I serve as the Executive Director of Paha. As part of its development with the City of Coeur d'Alene, as you've heard, so so proud of Coeur d'Alene for this the 5% dedication to workforce housing it's it's encouraging it's a model that I hope other cities will start following and this project did not start overnight I mean lakeside companies have been involved in this for 14 years it's been through planning, agency coordination, public reviews. We've been working closely with Corterra to figure out how they can get these 5% homes in their development, because it's not easy. It's hard to do this. And they're willing to do it, and they agreed to do it contractually with you. These will be dedicated to shared equity, fee-simple homes, meaning land and home are owned. And just like we do in Britain, we will manage the deed restrictions for them. Those deed restrictions include just a number of deed restrictions, but predominantly owner occupied and a resale formula so that every time it sells, it creates wealth, but it stays affordable for the next buyer. So Shannon's already shared with you, but this is who we are housing in these 28 homes. We've got Two nurses, a firefighter, two police officers, a teacher, two electricians, two welders, an IT specialist, and the list goes on and on. The very people who keep our community healthy and vibrant, and they need to live where they work. Several have been here to speak tonight. I will tell you, all 28 wanted to be here tonight. Do you know why they're not here? You want to know why their voices aren't heard? Because they got off of work at 5 or 5.30. They had to go pick up kids. And they are home, putting them to bed after they feed them. The constituency is huge. And you heard from Tommy and Bo Shannon and Nathan on this need for this housing. And this is why I'm so proud of the city of Coeur d'Alene for doing this. And proud of Corteire for stepping up and really working with us to figure out how to do it. This partnership matters. It matters. You're setting a stage. You're setting a vision for this to be followed. This is what workforce housing can look like when the public, private, and nonprofit sectors work together to solve a problem that none of us can solve alone. We just simply cannot. And it is here. It is here to stay in this county. Tonight, you have the opportunity to turn that partnership into homes for the workforce we've been talking about. I respectfully ask that you deny the appeal. Uphold the unanimous decision by the Planning and Zoning Committee Commission.

Thanks Thank You Maggie for clarification council is merely voting on the subdivision here We are not voting on an appeal and there there's not upholding a position that's already been taken Suzanne Knutson is Opposed and wishes to testify

Good evening. I'm Suzanne Knutson. I live in Coeur d'Alene. I live on Appaloosa, in fact. I've lived on Appaloosa for nine years now. And I'm just going to say one thing really quick. I hope everyone here who's speaking about home ownership will join me at future public hearings when Cortera changes their plans to get rid of home ownership in favor of rentals. It's happened before. I've spoke on it before. Equity is really important. That's what allowed us to move to Coeur d'Alene. We had equity in our home. I'm so thankful for that. But I am going to address this appeal tonight. This is our only process. Under state municipal code, this is all we have. As affected persons who will be most affected by the impacts this subdivision application is causing, I'm not a professional. I'm not an expert witness. But it seems that all of the professionals have their personal areas of specialty, but they're missing the big picture when it all comes together. We're asking the city council to take a look and see that procedures have not been followed according to the development agreement based on city council directions. We're not asking the city to stop development. We're not asking Corterra to go away, even though the article in the press said that's what we wanted. We are asking you to redesign the internal streets to enforce the mandate to discourage eastern traffic under the development agreement 4.3 and the other ones that Madeline mentioned. We're asking you to hold a developer to the terms of the voluntary contract That is a basic enforcement and not a legal taking. I do find it interesting that the applicant chose to submit a subdivision and not a PUD, but I'm not surprised. This is a very compartmentalized process. And I have some opinions about the development agreement process that I will share tomorrow night during public comment at council. I don't know why Mr. Messner is using national numbers for ADUs to address the questions that were asked by council. but because each state has their own ADU laws. And so I don't know why we're using national ADU standards for traffic when Idaho's laws are different from every other law in every state in this nation. At the planning and zoning meeting on 12-9 of 26, commissioners were told by city staff that they can only consider what is in front of them. So again, this compartmentalization is not helpful. and no concurrency was allowed to be considered. We've heard several references tonight to traffic calming measures, and what's come up before when we've talked about it, we've heard about it at city planning and zoning public hearings, is that signage is what is available to us according to the city traffic calming policy. Signage, a sign. I'm not sure that is what city council meant when they asked for traffic calming to be included in the road work in Corteira within the development agreement. Traffic calming slows cars down. A sign does not slow cars down. Traffic calming does not change where they go. You can't claim to discourage eastern traffic when your physical design creates a two to one eastern exit bias and fails to provide the required connection at Hanley. If phase two residents have no path to the west or north, they're mathematically forced to the east. Signage does not cure a fundamental geometric failure. Thanks.

Thank you, Suzanne.

Yeah.

Jason Fletcher is in opposition and would like to testify. And so is Janine Fletcher is listed too. So just one of you come up and then the other one can come up if you like.

She already went home to make dinner for the kids, so it's just me. Okay. My name's Jason Fletcher, I live on Appaloosa Road. I'm just, a few little kind of clarifying things. I feel like I generally agree with what the others opposed are saying. Could I get a show of hands from the council, like who's actually driven through Indian Models and looked at the five roads that potentially would connect into the new neighborhood? So, half-ish?

I used to patrol those roads. I'm very familiar.

Okay. All right. When they were built. This notion that the neighborhood somehow agreed that Appaloosa and Nez Perce would be the sacrificial roads, I didn't get the petition. No one asked me about it. I disagree. There are five roads that dead end into that neighborhood. I understand that I'm all about growth, especially workforce, housing, all of that. I just feel like There's a guy here that has a horse that he pulls a cart with it. And I don't know if we need to ask him if the cart is supposed to go in front of the horse or behind it, but I think he knows. I've seen him doing it, and he knows. This idea of restricting five roads down to two for the good of the neighborhood or at the will of the neighborhood is baffling to me. The idea that the road that I happen to live on, Appaloosa, is going to be impacted by far the most of all potential connections for some number of undisclosed years with loopholes as to when they might expand as purses, baffling and very disturbing to me. The entire west side of that entire, this proposed development, borders Hutter. Hutter has very few egresses onto it, meaning very few driveways that actually access directly onto Hutter. Hutter's already slated to become like the next north-south highway. Why are we diverting this entire phase one through Appaloosa, a country road where people are riding horses and walking their dogs? It's mind-boggling. And then in this entire time, the only time that the industrial loop has even been mentioned was one person here with a public comment. Well, I live there. I've seen industrial loop. We're saying that a wide open place that already has a stoplight, that the only... buildings on it are commercial buildings is somehow off limits that we don't want to expand on that to improve the traffic flow as opposed to the one rural road. On the southern end, which by the way, on the east side, Appaloosa is the only one that doesn't have a direct line into that neighborhood. I don't know if you guys, when you, those of you that visited saw, Appaloosa doesn't run into the neighborhood. It runs south of the neighborhood and then you have to go up north into this proposed neighborhood. So just some slight clarifications that I thought Maybe we're worth putting out there. Thanks a lot.

Thank you, Jason. Patrick McHale is in favor and does not wish to testify. Patrick Hatfield is opposed and did not specify. No? OK. Rob Knutson would like to testify but did not specify in favor or opposition.

My name is Rob Knutson. Thank you, Mayor and City Council. I know this is dragging out for a very long period of time. Councilman English, I know you missed Jeopardy. I apologize. You mentioned that earlier. Seriously, I'm going to save you about 90 seconds of my talk. I've rewritten it, and I'm not going to mention anything that's already been spoken of. But I do want to bring up something that hasn't been mentioned yet, and I don't want it to be forgotten. On July 5th, 2022, the city council voted to pass municipal code that pertains to development agreements. This is in chapter 17.50. There's a section in there about performance part B, 17.50.040. One sentence. The city, without incurring any liability, may engage in actions that otherwise would constitute a breach of a development agreement if the city council makes a determination after a public hearing that the action is necessary to address a substantial risk to public health, safety, or the general welfare. Health, safety, general welfare. Just wanted to leave you with that. Thank you.

Thank you, Rob. Randy, do you have any comment on that?

That is what our ordinance says. A substantial risk to public health, safety, or the general welfare, which I think comes out of the state statute on development agreements.

Okay, and this is a hearing, is that correct?

And this is a public hearing, but not about the development agreement.

So do you believe that that part of our code only applies to a hearing on the development agreement?

It just says that a city can engage in an action which violates the development agreement after a public hearing. A public hearing. And it wasn't on the agenda that the development agreement would be considered. So at least for that reason, we probably can't talk about that today.

That would be your advice.

What was that?

That's your advice.

That is my advice. Thank you.

Lisa Briner is in favor and does not wish to testify. Lorelei Ruddick is in opposition and does not wish to testify. This might be Sean Salmon is in favor and does wish to testify. I apologize if I did not read that correctly. It looks like S-E-O-N. Okay. Nate Dyke is in opposition and wishes to testify.

Nate Dyke for the record. I live on Appaloosa. Thank you guys for hanging with us. Appreciate the consideration and all the questions. I think they're super helpful. So the traffic study, I'm going to talk a little bit about the traffic study. The traffic study assumes Nez Perce will be open to distribute traffic. However, the record indicates it could potentially be delayed until the end of the project. Finding the fact A19 states that the phasing flexibility is allowed. The staff report says that the phasing is merely conceptual. And the development agreement section 6.1 defines the phasing plan as a general outline, requiring only that the council be notified of changes, not that they need to be approved. Because the phasing is flexible, the only trigger for the Nez Perce connection appears to be the community park, which is required at the 199th gross acre. However, core tier two development will only be at 190 acres when completed, meaning the contractual requirement to build the park and presumably the road is never actually met. If this delay occurs, the impacts are devastating. Based on CivTech's data, Appaloosa will exceed its 3,000 trip capacity around the third edition. We don't know exactly when because the TIA didn't study this scenario or the resulting congestion at the Atlas-Appaloosa intersection. If Nez Perce is delayed until the end of this project, Appaloosa could carry up to 5,800 trips. And this is counting for civ text data plus the recently new measured data that's available on the CDA map website. This shatters its classification as a local street, violating section 4.3, which mandates streets discourage eastbound traffic. So a little bit on the ADU topic. ADUs are not mentioned anywhere in the concurrency analysis or itemized in the TIA. This creates a severe legal trap. The development capacity or the development agreement strictly caps total units based on maximum wastewater capacity. Once that cap is reached, if a homeowner applies for an ADU, the city must either approve the permit, violating the agreement and overloading the sewer, or deny the permit and violate the homeowner's property rights. In response to the ITE national standards for ADUs, I did not see a document in the application or the TIA that shows how many ADUs were assumed and at what locations they were put at. So how do we verify that methodology? Was it one? Was it 200? Just a couple more seconds. This is something that all the cities are grappling with because it's a new law. The point of the ADU argument is that simply under this new environment that we're in, There needs to be a more detailed accounting of these units and not just a broad brush stroke across new development. We have to be accounting for them in infrastructure development. So thank you for your time. I appreciate it.

Thank you, Nate. Ethan Holcomb is in opposition and would like to testify.

Mr. Mayor, council members, my name is Ethan Holcomb. I've lived on Ness Pierce Road for 34 years. I'm very concerned with the lack of attention that is being given to the safety of the residents of Indian Meadows. It's been shown by the KMPO TIA, the developer, and the planning department that the traffic on Ness Pierce will increase tenfold. That's not disputed. When Ness Pierce Road was initially built, it was not designed or engineered to be a collector of 10,000 plus cars a day. Indian Meadows was a small subdivision, and the roads were built to handle residential traffic. The road condition now is starting to fail, and the city's maintenance is minimal due to new growth overwhelming the city road department. With Quartier 2 forcing 50%, and I'm sorry, these numbers may look different, but the slides that they showed at the last presentation said that 50% of their traffic would go through Indian Meadows. All the streets will be affected there. Cut through traffic because Atlas Road is inadequate. Because all of Indian Meadows roads have had minimal maintenance, they will degrade rapidly with such a major increase in traffic. Which brings me to my point. The street department budget was cut $125,000 due to the budget deficit. The city is proposing tax increases to existing residents up to 7%. So I'm going to have to pay more for less. When I worked for the county in the early 90s, Mike McDowell, the deputy assessor, would quote the mantra that all local government entities would use. New development pays for itself. It sure seems to me that for the last decade, the city of Coeur d'Alene's mantra, is to make citizens pay for the damage of the new development. As Mr. Sappington stated in the Coeur d'Alene Press Sunday, developers should not receive the benefits of rapid expansion while existing homeowners inherit the long-term cost. Why do I have to pay for the upgrades to make Nez Perce safe for our kids because the developer is forcing 10,000 more cars to use a street that was not designed or built for that volume? So in closing, I formally request that Mayor Gookin impose an emergency moratorium on new construction for 180 days in accordance with Idaho Code 67-6523, as the city did in 1982 due to inadequate infrastructure. 180 days will hopefully give you, Mr. Mayor, and the Council enough time to review the planning and zoning process and make the changes required to stop paying developers' profits with existing citizens' tax money. Thank you.

Thank you, Ethan. Keith Wells is in favor and would like to testify.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, and passionate public. My name is Keith Wells, and I'm a 23-year resident of Coeur d'Alene. I've attended most information sessions, hearings, planning and zoning meetings, et cetera, on court air beginning with the first one they held back at the Kroc Center through annexation. And I've deliberately chosen not to speak. My wife is part of the development team, and I never wanted my relationship to the applicant to distract from the merits of the project. However, having sat through the hearings, I do feel compelled that I just wanted to get something on record and say something tonight, something that I personally witnessed, which is the character and the professionalism of the team. At one of the recent planning and zoning hearings, a neighbor referred to the group probably sarcastically as the dream team. I think they got that right. I've had a front row seat to this process for more than a decade. I'm very familiar with the communities that the team has developed. I've watched the extraordinary amount of work that goes into them. They care about the parks. They care about the people. They care about the trails. They care about what the neighborhoods look like now, 10 years, 20 years down the road. I've watched them make decisions that probably cost more money than they should, simply because they believe they would create a better community now and a better legacy community in the future. I've also watched the entire team pour years of their lives into Cortere. They don't approach this as an adversarial fight to be won. They really approach it as a partnership with the city, making revisions, answering questions, meeting with, listening to certain neighbors, helping to try and address. I mean, we don't always get everything, but helping to try and address their concerns. I've even watched them sit quietly a little bit while their motives and sometimes even the character's been questioned. But they continue to take the high road. And I just want to make sure that that gets acknowledged. As far as the traffic, I get it. I'm not an expert. You've heard from the experts. They've studied it. City staff reviewed it. Planning Commission, blah, blah, blah. We all deal with traffic. And we don't all have to agree on every aspect of growth, but I do think we should be able to agree that they've been a responsible developer. I've heard it. I've heard it from the public. I've heard it from you. They're following the rules. I just want to make sure that everything is treated fairly under those rules. This is a good project developed by good people who care deeply about this great community. I mean, 23 years we've been here. We love it. We're not going anywhere. So I just want to say for the record I think it's time to let the project move forward and I appreciate all your time and attention.

So thank you so much Ginny Marquez or Marquez would like to testify but did not specify there you are Say your name please again, I'm sorry

Oh, I can't hear very well. Anyway, my name's Jenny. I live in Northshire, Lancaster. My property is up against where the field used to be. Well, anyway, where they plant things. I've been living here since 1980. I lived in my property there for over 40 years. I used to attend a lot of city council meetings and I learned a lot about what goes on. I believe Mr. English over here, he probably saw me many times. I approve of the appeal. I'm against the plan or the development. I hear a lot, you know, about all these concerns, all these factors, all these issues, and the traffic. I mean, all you have to do is get behind the wheel. That's it. You know, you don't have to come and make all kinds of explanations of this and that. All you have to do is get behind the wheel and see what's going on. I was against all this development when I ran for city council, when I ran for city mayor. Okay, so right now, my main concern is that I'd like my water to come out clear, okay? And it's starting to get all muggy or whatever, you know, it's not clear anymore. So I'm really concerned more about the people's health, okay? Now, a few years ago and how long ago, there was some drilling going on behind my backyard. They couldn't find no water. Now, I knew the owner of the farm there. And he told me that there wasn't any water. So I don't know if there's water or not water. But my concern, like I'm saying, is about the health of the community. We already know about the traffic. I mean, good god, just get behind the wheel. So now my concern is the wastewater treatment plant, where Mr. English knew I was concerned about that, the cost and the development and all that All the needs, you know, I'll stay here all the time. We need this, we need that, all the time. But never listen to what I have to say. So that's all I want to say. I'm concerned about your water, my water, my community's water. That's my biggest concern. And their health, and your health, too. Eventually it'll catch up to you. I know it catches up to you when you're on the road. You can't deny that. You cannot deny that. Okay, that's all I have to say because I'm still doing my gardening. I'm still outside doing my gardening. So thank you so much for your time. I appreciate that. But don't forget, it's all upon you when you think about the people's health. And yours too, don't forget. Thank you.

Thank you, Ginny. Betsy Bullard did not specify favor or opposed or whether they want to testify. Is Betsy here? Okay.

I don't need to testify.

Okay, thank you. And the last name I have here could be Rob Murphy. Rob wanted to testify. Okay. Now that's the end of the sign-up list that I have. Is there anyone in the room who would like to testify who did not sign up or whose name I mangled and missed? Okay. Well, we can have the applicant come up and give their closing remarks.

Yeah, would you mind if we took a short break to sort of focus?

Absolutely. We'll take another five-minute recess. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor.

closing remarks absolutely we'll take another five minute recess thank you

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

We are still in the testimony section of the hearing. The applicant will be wrapping up and addressing any issues that were raised during public testimony. We have, I see Michelle and Melissa are ready to let us hear it.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and Council. And I'll preface the rebuttal comments with they may not be well articulated in a thematic flow, but I'm going to go chunk by chunk kind of topic by topic of what the opposition was raising. And one of the early comments, and I think the appellant herself was claiming, you know, I personally would go this way down Appaloosa. I would not go west to Hutter. And certainly that is personal opinion. That is personal testimony. It's part of the record and you're allowed to consider that. Nothing wrong with that. But she also went and continued and said, I'm not a planner. I'm not an engineer. The development agreement, the development team is capable and competent, and they can design it in a way that it won't fail. And they have. The development team has designed it in a way that doesn't fail, that complies with city code, and that complies with the development agreement. And page 29, Chris Bosley, the city engineer, addressed both of those. I mean, a lot of the opposition says, we think there's a violation of the development agreement. But there's not. It's compliance with the development agreement. And the record states all proposed interior streets meet the requirements of the development agreement and city standards. So it's not a violation of the development agreement that it connects to Hanley when those improvements are made. It's not a violation of the development agreement to do what we're doing. We're sending traffic out to Hutter, we're sending traffic north, we're diverting it away from the two connections at Appaloosa and Nez Perce. Speculation is not substantive evidence. And we need to stick to the licensed engineers who have the credentials, the education, and the knowledge to say All proposed streets meet the requirements of the development agreement and city standards. So we really shouldn't be changing that. The design team has designed them in a way to comply. The next kind of general topic relates to the requirements in the city code are what govern. And all four of those compliance standards have been met. And if there are new or different standards, like some of the comments were saying, well, the city needs to have a new way to count ADU traffic, or the city needs to do something different based upon this new state law. Two points. One, this application vested before that new state law ever took effect. So we're governed under the old rules. We have legally protected development rights that vested No later than June 2026. The statute didn't change until July 2026. Number two, if the city wants to implement new standards, new criteria, new rules, then the city code needs to be amended to do that. Maybe additional, more than four for the subdivision review. They can't be imposed midstream in the middle of the hearing because we've vested under the rules in place. And it would be an arbitrary or capricious abuse of discretion to come up with new standards, new rules, new criteria now that are not in the city code and that weren't in place when we vested. I don't know how much weight it carried with you in terms of hypotheticals about if they changed the phasing or if they changed the timing of the park and the connection of those things. Again, if it's a speculative hypothetical scenario, it's not substantive evidence in the record that would support a decision under scrutiny. I think those were the general kind of topics in terms of the rules in place apply now. And consideration of problems in the adjacent neighborhood that are not impacts created by our development are not proper for mitigation. The Nolan and Dolan cases, I think it's a few down. Those rely upon the impact of the development, core tear two. That's what's the parameters of the application. That's what's considered in terms of what impact needs to be mitigated and not going beyond that to other projects, other areas, other neighborhoods.

Go ahead. Okay, Mayor, Council, we've certainly heard a lot of information tonight, a lot of really thoughtful discussion about Cortere. And I just want to thank everyone for sharing their thoughts tonight. As you've heard this community benefits so many. And as a developer, we have to look at the full picture, the broader good of the entire community. And now after all this discussion, I'd like to ask that we return to the question that's actually before you and that's, does this application meet city standards? And we strongly feel that the answer is yes. And that that is the conclusion is supported throughout the record. We've all heard tonight that your staff supports it, along with your engineers and the department heads. Fire and emergency services reviewed the connections. And after considering the technical evidence and hours of testimony, your planning commission unanimously voted to approve the application. Starting with the pre-application process, this project has been under city review for more than a year. It has been thoroughly studied, reviewed, questioned, and refined. And we're asking to move forward with the property that is already entitled under the rules that this city established. You've heard a great deal about traffic. And so let's focus on what the traffic actually shows. The traffic accounted for future growth. It modeled it. It accounted for schools and ADUs. It looked forward to 2030 and 2035. And the analysis shows the transportation will operate within the applicable standards. And that's the professional analysis reviewed by the city. Cortere is responsible for addressing the impacts attributable to Cortere and satisfying the city's infrastructure and concurrency analysis. And we believe we've done that. We've heard a lot of opinions tonight about traffic along with a number of very hypothetical scenarios. But I think there's a fundamental misunderstanding of how phasing and traffic concurrency actually work. With every phase of core tear, we are required to perform traffic concurrency analysis or update that analysis every two years, whichever is sooner. Traffic conditions are not analyzed just once today and then ignored for the next 10 or 20 years. They are continually reevaluated as the project redevelops. And in development, two years goes by really quickly. We're already more than three years in, and guess how many homes we've built? None. So we have to be careful about making decisions based on hypothetical traffic scenarios, years in the future, as though everything is being built tomorrow, because it isn't. And ultimately, we have to rely on people who are actually qualified to do the job. I'm going to be candid, a lot of numbers, figures, and calculations and assumptions were presented tonight as though they were established facts. In several instances, they're just simply not accurate. And some of the conclusions are based on hypothetical scenarios that are just not consistent with the actual project or the technical studies in the record. We respect everyone's right to express an opinion, but when numbers and technical conclusions are presented as facts, we have an obligation to make sure that the council is working with accurate information. We cannot replace professional analysis with hypothetical scenarios and personal opinions about where traffic should and shouldn't go. Our job is to make sure Cortair works within a larger system, and the evidence demonstrates it does. And importantly, Cortair doesn't just fit within the transportation network, it improves connectivity. Our roadway network provides connectivity west to Hutter, creating alternatives and distributing traffic rather than forcing people towards Atlas. And that's a positive outcome for the larger transportation network. We also recognize that new connections affect the people who live closest to it. And that's exactly why we didn't make those decisions in isolation. A lot of you asked some questions tonight. So there actually weren't five connections originally contemplated. There were seven. And I can't even tell you the number of hours and days and reconvening that we spent on this topic. And we said, you know what city emergency services, you guys decide, you tell us how many you want and where you want them. And guess what? That is what was given to us. We were told those are the connections and those are the only ones you can have. And that's where you have them. And so I just want to put that on the record. Appaloosa and Nez Pierce were selected at the direction of the city. Those decisions reflect a larger planning responsibility, balancing individual concerns with connectivity, engineering, emergency response, and the need of a community as a whole. And that is precisely what good planning is supposed to do. And so now after years of planning and more than an entire year of review of this application, we are ready for the next step. Planning and zoning unanimously approved quarter two. And tonight we respectfully ask you to affirm that decision. Thank you.

Does council have any questions for the applicant at this time? Christy.

Thank you. I guess I'm not sure who I would direct. It'll be a traffic question. Thank you. You heard a lot of the discussion from the appeal. There were certainly some conversation about whether the development agreement was followed for the mandates on independent utility. Can you speak to that?

I can speak to it from the traffic engineering perspective and the process that we go through for phase studies. So the master traffic study that we did looked at the entire network, right? It looked at the entire build out of the property and these connection points that we've talked about and that we're discussing today. When you have a master traffic study like that, the outcome of that is typically where do you connect into these other residential roadways or into the network system from your development? Once that's established, then each one of the phases of the traffic study are completed. So in this case, it's a large study for the entire development and then each one of these phases comes in and that's partly why we're stipulated to do those independent traffic studies for the phases as they're developed. It's built that way or done that way and it's done that way in a lot of other communities as well and the purpose of it is to look at that detailed information of each phase and determine the impacts of that phase in conjunction with what's already been approved. So when we look at that and we look at the distribution for each one of the phases, I would say, yes, it does follow that. I mean, it would be funny if I came forward and said, hey, we're only going to put 5% of the traffic on Nez Perce. People also would say that that's not right either because that's not where traffic is going. So distribution of traffic was coordinated with KMPO. through traffic counts that were collected. And so the distribution of our site is very much, if I lived here, how would I get from point A to point B? That's why we're showing that distribution. When you look at Appaloosa Connection, there's hardly, I'll have to be careful with, there would be very, it would be unlikely for traffic in the north end of Quartier to drive down Quartier Boulevard and then go through the residential development to Appaloosa to gain access to Atlas when there's a connection at Nez Perce. And with Quartier One, there was discussion about the connection and industrial loop. The traffic that we're projecting here today at Appaloosa is likely going to be about the traffic that would be on Appaloosa at build out simply because all of the other development happens north of here and there's connection points that will go to Nez Perce and out to Hutter and up to Hanley when those connections are made. So when we look at the description within the development agreement of trying to design things and distribute traffic independently and to push as much traffic or encourage traffic to go to Hanley and Hutter. With this phase, that's exactly what we've done. Gabe talked about how we designed the roadway to push more traffic and make it a straight shot to Hutter. and how we have purposefully limited the amount of development and straight connections to Appaloosa. So I think within the context of each one of the phased development traffic studies, yes, we're looking at that independently. We're looking at that concurrently in the sense that we're incorporating traffic from previously approved phases. And we're looking at the network that's available to us to distribute that traffic.

Did you have any discussion at all during your development study about one-way traffic on either Appaloosa or Nez Perce?

No, we did not.

Dan English? Sure. A couple of times the industrial avenue has come up, and I live in Coeur d'Alene Place, and I think I've mentioned in prior hearings that You know, it's not unusual for four or five times a day that I go up and down Atlas from, you know, Celtice getting up to Coeur d'Alene Place and all of that. And the Industrial Avenue just seems like a... like a no brainer why, you know, a lot of the infrastructure there and I don't know if that's something for you or who decides that but I guess I just, I don't know why that went out of the picture because it seems like, One, we've got to have multiple, and that's the one that makes the most sense to me. And I don't know in the process scheme of things. One thing I'm really respectful of, you know, the time you guys have put in and all of that, and don't want to, you know... burden up the thing although if we take a little more time but anyway whether it's tonight or something but I wonder whatever why not that industrial avenue and maybe that could be decided that later maybe that's not so we're not picking the actual path tonight are we or are we well we have we're the final deciders Yeah, okay.

Any other questions for the applicant? Kenny.

So if you would kind of shine up your crystal ball for me, please. When do you think you're going to build out Nez Perce? When do you think you might put that through?

I'll have to ask Gabe about the attrition rate. But the way that we, well, Gabe, I'll ask you to come up.

Well, my crystal ball says that we will start the project on the south where the addition or phase one was shown on the phasing map. and then we will build subsequently phases to the north. I get that. Really that, Nespresso's at the north end of that, so it'll be toward the end of the phasing, and it'll be based on market conditions and how fast the homes sell. You know, honestly, typically those phases are set up to be one phase per year. If we see a dip in the market, then there could be a year gap, there could be a two-year gap. We could see an increase in the market where we would expedite and build out faster.

I don't think you like the question, but I think you could see why I asked it.

Yeah, it's hard to give a determination that's accurate at this point in time. But we certainly plan to build from the south toward the north based on having the Hutter connection in phase one so that we have an open and accessible route that doesn't rely on the existing neighborhoods to the east. And then, Dan, back to your question on industrial loop. It wasn't a requirement in the original annexation and development agreement because it was separated from our property by private property that we did not own. Since then, we have acquired that property and we have proposed that condition. It is in the plan set for core care one that the city is currently reviewing right now. So that connection. So it's still a possibility. Okay. It is proposed to be constructed, yes.

Okay, great.

Can I follow up on that?

No, Kiki's next.

Sorry.

Go ahead. No worries. I'm glad to hear that about industrial loop. That was on my list of questions to say that was a hope. I have a couple of questions here. In the beginning, there was a conversation that Chris Bosley was trying to get Nez Perce re classified from an arterial to a collector. And so what's the reason for that? And did that happen?

Come on up.

Actually, Chris, will you wait until after the testimony is done since you're staff? Thank you.

I can maybe speak towards that a little bit. Previously, it was classified as a minor arterial. Based off the connection and the roadway network that we're proposing with Cortera Boulevard as a collector, it makes a lot of sense to have a collector connecting into a collector that would then go to the arterial atlas. So from a planning perspective, I think it makes a lot of good sense. From the roadway network perspective and connectivity, it makes a lot of sense. And so I think that's partly the reason why he was trying to get that downgraded to a collector roadway.

OK. And so I guess this ties back into my quick math on this ADU conversation because there's some conflict as to whether that was handled properly and accounted for. Using the numbers of 435, which is what I think they said could be built there, and nine traffic trips a day at 435, my point being here is that if every single ADU went out Appaloosa, Appaloosa would fail. But that would assume that every single ADU was built and that every single traffic created by that ADU didn't use any other exit, and none of the roads in your study would fail, even if everybody built an ADU. Am I mathing that correctly?

So within our study, we used the ITE trip rate 210, which is single-family residential. There's not an ITE trip rate for ADU. And the reason for that is it's captured under the single-family ADU. Got it. So the single family has an average trip rate of 10 trips per day per household or per house. That house can be a one-bedroom or it can be a 10-bedroom. And the average rate is still 10 daily trips. That's just a practice. That's an industry standard of how we do it. trips generated. And so the ADUs that are a part of the single family residential, again, they go out there and they take traffic counts at residents across the country. There's several hundred of these studies. I think there's close to a thousand, in fact, for this particular land use code. Those homes range, again, from one bedroom to not 10, but four or five typically, right? And almost all of those either can have a shop or might have a shop or have a basement that's being rented out. I have a 19-year-old son that's living in my basement. It doesn't generate any more trips than when he was 17 living there. That's the math behind why that IT land use code is used and why ADUs are accounted for in that. It doesn't matter what the laws are. The laws in Washington are different than here, but it doesn't change the fact that if someone gets zoned to have an ADU there, it could be possible.

I guess I just want to be comfortable with that even if you were wrong, even if you are 100% wrong, and the other numbers presented were accurate, there still isn't a road failure in the system.

I don't know. I did not analyze their numbers.

Well, they used 9 and you used 10 per resident. So it just added that many more. And I think that that's what the answer is there. There was one other one, and this had to do with, I guess this is just a thought I need to clarify with somebody at Citi. And that's about sidewalks. Because I can't recall right now, but if you pull a permit to do a certain value of improvement on your property no matter where you are, Nez Perce, Thomas Lane, south of Sherman, you're going to be required to put a sidewalk in. And the city doesn't do that.

If there's a connecting sidewalk.

If there's a connecting sidewalk, right. So that's kind of where I went. I get that. But that's a whole code issue that isn't specific just to Indian Meadows, right?

Yeah, it would apply there. If there was a sidewalk within 500 feet or something.

Whatever the code is. OK. I just wanted to double check that I remembered that one.

Christy.

You know, my question's for staff.

Oh, okay, for staff.

Anyone else have a question for the applicant? Okay, thank you, gentlemen, ladies. Thank you. As a presiding officer, I did not hear any new evidence introduced during the rebuttal, so I will close the public hearing at this time. Sean, can you come up? John, if you could review what our role is at this point in time.

As counsel?

Yes. What are we deciding? You had a slide earlier that listed what our findings are.

Oh, yes.

There are four findings that need to be made. What does the finish line look like? All right. Let me pull that up. So here is your finish line. These are the action alternatives. So City Council will need to consider the subdivision request and make separate findings to approve with conditions, approve without conditions, deny, deny without prejudice, or defer the action on the request until the next scheduled hearing in order to review additional information that it deems necessary in order to render a final decision.

Council understand where we're going to go. Can you explain just briefly, because we don't do this as often as the Planning Commission does, what would be a condition? What would be a condition? Yeah, you could use an example that they had at the planning since that was thrown out, but what was a condition?

A condition can be a number of things. I've seen them usually for a PUD or something of that nature where a neighborhood next door to something that is contemplated such as a subdivision with a PUD may require a buffer yard or a fence or something to go up between the two. But those conditions can be wide-ranging. They can be a number of different things. They could require that a certain height be met. City code may allow 32 feet, and they say the condition may be you can only build houses that are 30 feet tall. It may require more parking or something like that. But generally, those are with PUDs and PUDs Something where they are asking to the city to acquiesce something inside of their code and also if the council decides to Set a condition.

Is it true that the applicant can say now we don't want to do that That is correct. Okay, so we can ask you can ask. Okay Understood.

Is this the time to you may ask questions? Yes, please do This is a discussion point that I'd like to just bring up so council can hear on adding a condition So I feel like 25 years down the road, there's going to be folks who look at this access point situation and think that we were all a little crazy here in what we did by taking seven access points and reducing it to two. So I'd like to have a discussion, and if the developer is amenable, I do not want to open up the development agreement for changes, but I'd like to ask them that if we impose a condition that all those access points be unobstructed, not just for a bike path, but big enough for a roadway should a few decades down the road. There is some issues with road failures. We don't have a crystal ball as to what exactly is going to happen with traffic. And if they would do that to just not have a building structure be put where those connection points are so that it leaves the potential in the future open to have more access through that area.

And I would like to clarify, would that be a modification of the development agreement, or is that germane to our topic tonight?

That would be a question I would defer to legal. Because there's other parts to that that matter, such as utilities. you know, how the lots line up, they may lose more than just one developable lot. Um, so it, it does matter.

So, um, It does not, as I understand the proposed condition, if it is a proposed condition, it is not a change in the development agreement, but it allows for a future change of the development agreement. And just to clarify on the takings, council can impose a condition not agreed to by the applicant, but it could result in a takings where the city would have to pay just compensation. So, yes, you can impose a condition that's not approved, but you risk a takings analysis. And so it's usually if you get an agreement by the applicant for a condition, then that's taken off the table.

Thank you for the clarification. Does that answer your question?

It does.

Okay.

Yes, Christy.

well I just before we have our closing remarks there were a number of I guess, points brought forward by the appellant that we had not abided by the development agreement. And I don't know if you took notes on that as we went, but there's certainly a perspective that we have not abided by the development agreement. So can you speak to, I'll just throw one out here, 4.2.3, The development agreement would be in violation because we didn't have independent utility of each stage.

So my understanding is that one speaks to, so I have it right here, cumulative traffic impacts. And so I would defer to Chris Bosley, who has come up but didn't speak yet, to come up and speak to that. Another one prior to having Chris come up that I have heard about a lot of is the ADUs. And so there's some misconceptions, and Randy, please, correct me if I'm wrong on this, but the development agreement limits the number of living units to 2,800. And whether or not 15 years down the road, you know, they're built out. If you hit that number, that is the number. If it's limited, as I understand it, the state changed this to allow for the adus but if the utilities cannot handle that there is no requirement that the city allow that adu to be built so there is some limitations built in it's not just you automatically get them I have talked to the applicant about this. They don't anticipate very many, if any, ADUs to be built based upon what is happening to the north of this, which is their other development. But I have also talked to the building department and IT about tracking these because once it's sold to a private individual, they are no longer tracking that property for those 2,800 units. And so it'll be up to the city to make sure that we are tracking the total number of ERUs that have been developed in Cortere to make sure when they hit that 2,800 that that is the end.

Does that help? That helps. I would just want to hear from Chris on some of the traffic.

Okay.

Thanks. Thank you.

Chris, if you could come up. And was that Kiki? Did you have a question as well?

I think mine was on what's the rationale. I think they answered it a little bit, but he can just confirm that that was accurate.

So what is your question?

The rationale on that they said you were trying to get Nez Perce reduced to a.

Yes, because it was originally identified in the federal classification system as an arterial and an arterial is more like Ramsey Road. You know, you don't think of Nez Perce as being something that's going to carry that much traffic. And so when periodically we have to reevaluate these things through KMPO. And so I put in the request to reduce it to a collector because it acts more like a collector. where it's taking local traffic and bringing it to an arterial such as Atlas Road. That hasn't been approved federally yet, but it's on its way.

So what are the advantages or disadvantages of being a collector or an arterial? Would it be advantageous to the neighborhood or not?

It is still federally classified, functionally classified, so we can still get funding for it. Either way, it's just a lower level of classification. So it doesn't really impact it much. It just seemed out of place to have an arterial that, especially when it dead-ended at a field.

Christy, did you have a question?

CHRISTIE WOODARD- Yeah, thank you. Chris, you heard tonight and certainly in the appeal documents that there is a number of areas where they felt that we were not complying with the development agreement, 4.2.3. the utility at each stage. That was one we just talked about with Sean. But there was more. There was one that the development agreement was to include Hanley Avenue. And let's see. The traffic studies, they felt that those did not take into the phasing. So if you could speak to some of those concerns that have come. You've seen the packet. Yeah. Can you speak to some of those concerns? Because what's really important to us is that we are following the development agreement.

Right. So as far as connection to Hanley, um, they did that with core tear one. Um, actually prior to that, even with full circle tracks, I believe was their first minor subdivision they did up there and created that connection. But now that they've jumped to the south end of the property, there's no connectivity between the two. Eventually, it'll be filled in with connectivity to Hanley, but it's a big ask to get a developer to build a road for that long of a distance with no sellable lots on there. Perhaps we could have convinced them to just progress from north to south but they jumped to the south and I mean that's a decision for them.

Does that honor the development agreement by not having that connecting road?

I don't know how to answer that because at full build out it will meet the development agreement. I don't know if they were required to just tag on to that and just keep building from north to south like that?

I guess maybe we look to our legal then. How does that impact the development agreement for compliance?

Well, you look at 4.3, which is where you're, what the language you're referring to in that says the owners in consultation with the city shall design and construct connections with traffic calming features to discourage speeding and to the greatest extent reasonably possible through traffic and to ensure designs that encourage traffic originating in Corteira to exit onto West Hanley Avenue and North Hutter. So it's a fairly loose standard in terms of are those designs encouraging that type of exit, and the portions that they have designed, that's up to council to decide whether that is sufficient at this point, again, given that the whole process Project hasn't been developed, but are they working toward? Encouraging that type of traffic flow while they're developing from the south first So there is some going on something going on at the at the north end as well and Hanley was improved and there's a light now there and So there are some there is some work, but minor. It's not a Well, I guess there's the care facility is in the north end of Corteira, and that exits onto Hanley.

Yes, and they are creating that connection to Industrial Loop as well.

That's all great stuff for the future, I think, but how far out are we talking? And the concern was what's the impact for the next maybe five, ten years on Appaloosa? I think that's a relevant question.

Yes, I'm sorry. I was reading the development agreement. It's fascinating. Amy.

Thanks, Chris. These questions are for you. So a few things that came up in public comment. And let me see. Some of these have been answered here. Safety on Appaloosa being a bike and pedestrian corridor. I know you're very familiar with our bikes and pedestrian corridors. Can you speak to that?

Yes, it has been identified as a bicycle pedestrian corridor in the comprehensive plan. It is a challenging site due to steep drop off in some areas. Some of that traffic or pedestrian traffic that come out of Cortere could go up Buckskin to get onto a lower traffic street. But over time, hopefully we can improve Appaloosa to include more space for pedestrians and bicyclists. But right now there are some challenging portions of that due to the grade.

Thank you. May I keep going? Yeah. Okay. Another comment that we heard tonight was about the traffic calming. I believe it was referencing Appaloosa. Correct me if I'm wrong. But that they were told that signs were the option there for the traffic calming. Do you have any more information on that?

So we have a traffic calming policy that we follow. And when a street reaches to the level of warranting traffic calming based on the 85th percentile speeds that are out there, Our policy is to go with the least restrictive traffic calming measure that we have in our catalog of, in our toolbox. And speed feedback signs seem to be the most popular for that. We could go with something like a speed table, raised intersection, curb extensions, things like that. But they're way more costly than a speed feedback sign. So that's what we've been going with over the last probably eight years now is with speed feedback signs. So that is our traffic calming of choice right now, just due to budget, because we have $40,000 a year budgeted for traffic calming, and it gets eaten up by speed feedback signs and similar things.

Thank you. And then one more question that I need you, or maybe statement I need you to confirm or tell me I'm off base. If I understand this correctly, a new traffic study will be – prompted by the next phase of the development or two years, whichever is soonest.

Correct.

So if the neighbors are correct in their predictions of the impact on Appaloosa and Nez Perce, we will see that not immediately, I understand. You guys may see it in the neighborhood immediately. But we'll see it come through in an upcoming traffic study Every two years.

Correct.

Yes. We should be able to stay on top of the impact to those streets. My follow-up question to this is, I think most of us remember roughly three, four years ago when we started working through this project about the connecting roads, those seven roads. and trying to find a balance with the neighborhoods, with the developer, because we know this is a great project that's going to greatly benefit the community and how to do that. If we come to a traffic study or a point in time where we need to revisit what is in the development agreement with those roads. I understand that part of this development now has been built around those roads not being open, and it might be a bigger can of worms than obviously we're ready to talk about tonight. That's not my question. My question is, can the development agreement be revisited in the future if there are safety concerns primarily around traffic brought forward? Does that make sense, what I'm asking?

Yeah, I think that might be a question that's directed towards Randy.

Yeah, I think so. I'm looking at you, but I mean Randy.

Well, yes, any agreement can be modified. The question becomes can we force a modification if there's a public safety issue? And that really just is a case-by-case discussion. basis or analysis that you have to run because otherwise you do risk a taking of an existing right.

Thank you.

Yes. Questions for Chris or for staff at this point?

Kenny? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Chris, I'm going to dig just a little deeper if I could on the Appaloosa safety issue. And we talk about in the future. What is in the future? I'm not looking for an answer right now. What I'm looking for is a confirmation to these folks that it's very important to say that we're not just going to sweep it under the rug. We're going to actually do something. And we're going to try to make it safer for them there. And I think that's a huge concern of mine.

Understandably. Since Appaloosa does not have a federal functional classification, we likely wouldn't be able to get federal funding for it, which those take time anyway. I mean, look at the Atlas. I mean, yes, it was going to be 2033, 34, whatever, when that was going to be constructed. And we actually won the funding for it a few years ago. Fortunately, it's been moved up to 2031 with design starting in 2029 now, so that's... positive for that but any improvements that we make to Appaloosa would have to come from city funds unless there are some grant out there that we could find to do that that would be something we'd have to budget in but that's something we can definitely pay attention to and we definitely will be because they're going to be traffic entering that within the next couple years Christy

Chris, just off the top of your head, the distance from Atlas to the entrance to Corterra on Appaloosa, is that a mile? Half a mile. Half a mile? So a complete road construction to make it a viable arterial for traffic. How many millions are we talking?

Couple to a few.

Right. First of all, I appreciate your feedback because you are always an honest broker with council and I appreciate that. I'm very positive about this development. I want to make that clear, but I want it to mitigate traffic as much as possible. When we look at possibilities, Does it violate any sort of development agreement to have the mitigation be one way, one way traffic, either on Appaloosa or, and Nez Perce, because that's one more thing to lower the traffic and it doesn't cost us anything. Um, we know we have an emergency access that was important. Uh, so that's aside from the one way, uh, what kind of discussions have you had about that or your thoughts?

We haven't had any discussions about making it one way. Turning street into one way does have its challenges, especially for people who live on that street. They may have to come in a different way or out a different way.

So I appreciate you said that. So what about that one way is only exiting? Only for the Cortere. The local traffic, it would continue to be a regular road. But we could make it a one-way for the Cortere development. Does that make sense at all?

Coming out?

Coming out of Cortere, you can only go one way out. You can't use it as a two-way. But the existing development would continue with their normal traffic habits. Same with Nez Perce. I have some other thoughts down on Nez Perce.

I think it's a possibility, but I think it's challenging.

Could be challenging, but it could be more affordable, and it could mitigate some of the traffic concerns.

Chris, that would be a decision that the city could make regardless of whatever is decided tonight. Is that true?

Yes, that's true. Yes. I think getting compliance with it might be challenging, but it's not out of the question.

Are we done?

Yeah. I don't know when we're going to go into discussion about deliberations.

If we have any other questions for staff, that's where we're at. Okay. Thank you, staff. We will now enter into deliberations, which is the fun part.

Okay.

So any thoughts for council? Christy.

Thank you. Well, first I want to acknowledge, Michelle, you are correct that you followed what council's directive to our staff for Appaloosa and Nez Perce. And so I think you've done a commendable job every step of the way of listening to our feedback. You can't solve something by just being against it. We have to offer solutions, right? And so I want to start with what I'm for. and then we'll get into some maybe possible other solutions. I am for this responsible development. I think that one of the neighbors said that you were class act, that you've worked hard on this and I tend to agree with that. The development as proposed is really attractive and an asset to the community. I am for the fact that you on your own with probably some encouragement, but you scaled back the density because you heard from us and you heard from the neighborhood. I appreciate that. I am for the fact that you donated 12.3 acres for a community park. That is a really kind thing for a developer, responsible thing for a developer to do. And it'll have a huge impact on the Cortere community moving forward. I'm certainly for the fact that you donated land for schools. That has a huge impact on the rest of our community. So I commend you for that. I'm absolutely for the fact that you work so hard to minimize the impact of construction to the existing neighborhoods. That was really important. Nobody wants to live with construction trucks all day long, which are going to be numerous. So I commend you very much for that. I'm absolutely for that. And I am for the fact that you took the development work with our staff, Hillary and Sean, and tried to push as much traffic as possible out onto Hutter and industrial loop hopefully someday because those roads are designed for it. In my mind, Appaloosa and Nez Perce, those are neighborhood roads. They're not designed to be arterials for major traffic. So I'm for all of that and I want to commend you for the efforts that you've made every step of the way to listen to us. I appreciate that. I think we're so close. I think that we're close to a win-win for everybody. And that's where I want to get to. I certainly don't want to say no to a responsible proposal from your company. But we have to still address, Michelle, you said you're responsible for the needs of core tear were responsible for the needs of the entire community. So we have to close that gap somehow. And so what I'd like to do is to have council give some direction to staff on how to close that gap further, not a long period of time because time is money in your business. And I understand that, but I think we're just not quite there. And so I will be making that proposal to defer.

Thank you.

Hang on. Randy, defer. So can you explain the process to council and to the applicant for what a deferral would imply?

The ordinance says that the city council may defer action on the request until the next scheduled hearing in order to review additional information that it deems necessary to render a final decision. So the parameters for deferring are fairly narrow. I don't think we can defer to the next meeting, which is tomorrow night. It would have to be the next reasonable hearing, which would be the second hearing in September. But it would have to be for the purpose of reviewing additional information that council deems necessary to make a final decision.

I can be specific.

Very good.

I would like our staff to come back with us with the ability to maybe do some one way traffic mitigation. And I meant to also tell you that I absolutely am for and appreciate your work on affordable housing championed by councilwoman Miller. I think that's a key part of this and I really appreciate that you did that. So I don't want to, I, I'm not adversarial. I'm trying to get to where it's good for everybody.

Chris, I might have to ask you this. So tonight we're talking about a subdivision. And I think the discussion has to be specific to the subdivision. I don't think we can make requirements for streets beyond what the applicant is asking. Is that correct, Randy?

well again one of the criteria or one of the one of the decision points is that the provision for sidewalk streets etc are adequate and that would be within council's purview to determine the adequacy of the street plan for the subdivision and so i do think that's something you can decide okay

All right. So I'm going to say that that is a motion, so we can discuss that as a motion.

Do I have a second?

You don't need a second. OK, good.

So discussion point. I thought you had just clarified that we wouldn't need to defer this. We could make a decision tonight, and that Chris could take a look at the one-way option, because that's really outside of what is on the table tonight. And it could still be an option, right?

Not according to our legal.

Excuse me. Could you repeat that?

I just want to be clear that we could move forward tonight without deferring, make a decision, but we could still ask Chris to take a look at the one-way option. Is that right?

That could be a condition to approval, if that's what you would like to do, yes.

The condition would then be to have city staff look into one way. It would not be wider.

Even to discuss with the applicant. Although both of these streets are outside the development, so it wouldn't be up to the applicant to make them one-way streets anyway.

That's kind of what I was thinking, too. They're separate.

So correct me if I'm wrong and shut me up if you want to. But I don't want to put conditions on this. And I don't know that I want to slow it down. But I want to make sure that the people that were here tonight know that we're paying attention. And one of the things that I heard that's very important to me is the industrial loop. And not that I want to keep throwing conditions on there, but can we make sure that we have a discussion and can we make sure that we move forward on making industrial loop a viable way out of there and into there.

I think we can. I think planning has heard that. But what depends on is when the applicant comes forward with that part of the development.

And I heard Gabe talk about it as well. Thank you.

Yeah, and I need backup for legal on this, but I believe that is a separate question. entity in and of itself. So quarter one is detached into the north and the plans are in, you know, to do those improvements. and you'll need the connection between the southern end and the northern end before that becomes viable for the southern end. So I don't think you can make a condition on a PUD subdivision landscaping plan that had already been passed, but I could be wrong. Deferred illegal on that one. That's a new one to me.

My understanding is that they are doing it, but it's just the connection between Corterra and Industrial Loop. It doesn't involve, if I'm correct, any improvement to Industrial Loop itself or to the intersection at Atlas and Industrial Loop. Corterra. And that is a industrial area. Indeed. And the road is not in great shape. Perfect.

Are you good?

One more, sir? Please. And just so you know, I don't think you're trying to trick us. And by asking the question, it's just by no means do I think that you're trying to pull one over on us. I don't. And I just want to make sure that everybody gets to hear this, OK? So thank you for that. Now I'm done, sir.

Any other questions? So we're talking about Christy's condition, her motion to have that condition.

If I could expand a little bit more. Please do it. I guess my concern with approving this tonight, rather than giving us a couple more weeks to hear a viable solution from staff, is that all I require to do is take a look at it. So the horse is out of the barn. What's moving forward is moving forward, and we have no power. And so I would really like us to, A couple of weeks isn't going to stall any project, but it could have a huge impact moving forward tonight forever on a community that already exists.

Before we move forward, I think the implications of coming up with a solution like that in that period of time might be difficult. I'd like to hear Chris's take on how quickly you can resolve something like that. I'm not sure that the solution should necessarily come from staff directly. It should be something that should be directed towards the developer, since they're the ones with the pocketbook.

Well, we're talking city streets, though. We're talking existing Nez Perce and Appaloosa that is not their concern.

So you're saying Appaloosa would be one way?

Coming out.

I'm just wondering, because almost every one-way street I've ever seen has another street going the other way.

Well, yeah, and I'm talking about this first.

I'm just trying to understand and figure out how that works.

If you're just talking about something that's outside the development, it doesn't need to be done as part of the development. as part of the decision tonight.

Well, it has to be done for traffic mitigation, which is the biggest concern that we've heard tonight.

That's what I handed to Chris. Our road's how we want to. So if we wanted to create a one-way road, we could do that tomorrow. We could do it independent of the subdivision.

Well, actually, they're counting on having that be a connector into Cortere. So we wouldn't want to do that after the fact.

But my concern is that we have a plan that's been engineered to distribute traffic to Hutter and to Hanley. And to ad hoc re-engineer that, to redesign that, I don't think it's appropriate. I think what we should do is look to whether or not the subdivision meets B1, B2, B3, and B4.

I am.

And if it does, if it's adequate, and I think it is, then I think we should approve it. And if we want to at some point in the future look to make things one way in certain neighborhoods, we could certainly do that as a council. But I don't think we need to make it part of the subdivision process.

Mr. Mayor.

Go ahead.

So I am looking at whether they've met the development agreement criteria and traffic mitigation is a concern and we have one opportunity to address it. Not to hold up a great development plan, but to address the actual traffic concern. We have one chance to do that. Whether it's a month down the road, you come back to us with some other mitigation plans for traffic, and we decide a month isn't going to bother anybody that much, but it would have a huge impact if we just move forward with ignoring the concerns of traffic.

Dan English. Well, I've, you know, and I came in tonight thinking that, you know, it might make sense to, you know, kind of take a little pause, but I'm, you know, I'm feeling, after hearing what I heard tonight, which is where I make the decision on what I heard tonight, is that I think... Yeah, I think they've done what they need to, and I am in favor of approving that to go forward. So I guess that would be to deny the appeal and let that go. The other thing is... In terms of a one-way, two one-way streets, that is a huge, there's no way you can take care of that in a month or six months. Frankly, for some of us, the jury is still out on the third and fourth street. But one-way stuff is a big, big deal. So I don't think that would get resolved quickly, and I don't think it should. So I think, yeah, got to focus on kind of what's on the table.

Any other comments regarding Christie's motion to defer and discuss the traffic on the way?

Mr. Mayor, just a point of order, I suppose. There hasn't been a second to the motion, which usually occurs before discussion.

I'm being a little casual here on that.

Said we didn't need it.

We're not that formal, so if you prefer, we can do that in the future if you think that would be better.

Well, if there's no second, then there's no need to discuss it either.

Well, let's go ahead and see, is there a second now that we've already discussed it? Okay, sorry.

No, I'm not surprised.

But you got to say your thing.

Sure.

So now we're back to where we should be, and just to clarify, We're not, the decision is not on the appeal. The decision is on the subdivision, those items that Sean showed us earlier. And we're still in deliberation.

Mr. Mayor, I'll make a stab at a motion.

Please stab away.

All right.

Wait, do we read the development agreement, or do we read the findings first and then read it, or do we do the motion and then do the finding?

No, do the findings first.

OK, so if you want to take a stab at the findings.

All right. This matter came before the city council on August 31, 2026 to consider S2-26AA, an administrative appeal of the planning zoning commission's approval of preliminary plat to subdivide plus or minus 202 acres into 284 single-family and 36 multi-family lots, a public park, a public school site, and associated non-buildable tracts on property zoned R3, R8, and R17, known as core tier 2 subdivision. Pursuant to municipal code 16.25-050A, the city council is holding a de novo hearing on the applicant's subdivision request. The appellant, Madison Knutson. The applicant, Connie Krueger. Owner is L. Reeve 33 LLC through L. Reeve 39 LLC Lakeside Companies. Location, property located in the southern portion of the core TerraMaster planned community, north of West Woodside Avenue, south of the future West Nespers Road extension, east of North Hutter Road, and west of North Buckskin Road. Findings of fact, the City Council finds that the following facts, A1 through A26, have been established on a more probable than not basis, as shown on the record before it, and on the testimony and exhibits presented at the public hearing. The testimony was conflicting and the City Council determines that the more credible and convincing evidence establishes the following.

Say the city council adopts findings A1 through A26, and that'll prevent you from reading all that.

The city council adopts findings A1 through A26.

B, conclusions of law.

Based on the foregoing findings of fact, the city council makes the following conclusions of law. B1, that all of the general plat requirements have been met as attested to by the city engineer. B2. that the provision for sidewalks, streets, alleys, right-of-way, easements, street lighting, fire protection, planting, drainage, pedestrian and bicycle facilities are adequate. B3, that the proposed plat does comply with all the requirements of the subdivision design standards contained in municipal code 16.15 and all the subdivision improvement standards contained in municipal code chapter 16.40. Before the lots proposed in the plan, do you meet the requirements of the applicable zoning districts? Decision. The city council, pursuant to the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, has determined that the preliminary plan does comply with the required evaluation criteria, and the request should be approved with conditions.

Do you have conditions?

I have conditions. So we have here. Shirley, do you want me to read all these?

Does that imply new conditions, or does that imply the project conditions?

It's project conditions plus anything else council would like to add.

So I'd like to move to adopt the project conditions, which is four from fire, five from planning, looks like six from wastewater, Several from water.

I don't think you guys want me to count them all. There's a lot.

One from parks and one from engineering. I'd also like to include that city staff explore the possibility of Appaloosa and Nez Perce being one-way roads. Does that capture, Christy, your request? Just those two roads, right? Appaloosa and Nez Perce is what you'd like the city staff to explore?

I'd like them to, yeah.

Okay. Randy, does that meet? Does my language meet what's needed? Or do you want to help guide me through that?

That is very vague. I don't know if you want them to report back to you in a certain period of time or how you want that presented to council.

I could use some guidance on this, council.

I would just set an item for a future agenda to review the possibilities of one-way streets and set it for, I don't know, sometime that's inconvenient to Chris.

Yeah, with a report from the city engineer. Yeah.

OK, a report from the city engineer.

On the feasibility of the one-way streets, and then we can follow up on that.

And the time frame, you don't need it.

Chris, what would be a good time frame for you to do a report on the one-way streets? Not tomorrow.

Three months? Two months?

Well, the only concern I have with the report back, I guess, is traffic impacts and how that would affect the traffic impact study. Because that would definitely change traffic circulation. OK. Well, that can be part of your report. Yeah.

OK. We don't need to work on it tonight.

And we have a request for one more condition that was mentioned earlier. And that is if city staff would have a conversation with the development team to consider leaving the connecting access roads available for potential future use.

use just a discussion on that okay now I think you make your motion so there's two motions here Randy there's one that's part of the part of the findings in order there's another one listed on our agenda yes I think you I think the motion with as part of the findings is sufficient you don't need to do two of them thank you

Period. Oh, you want me to say it again? OK, so I'll make a motion to adopt the foregoing findings in order and approve with conditions the request until the next scheduled hearing in order to review. No. Sorry, you guys, this is getting rummy here. Okay, let me start this over.

No, I think you're fine. I think you've made the findings and the motion. Okay. We need a second. We need a second. Second.

Okay, motion and a second. Are there any discussion? Christy?

Thank you. Well, I certainly appreciate Amy's efforts to capture some discussion about one-way traffic to mitigate some of that traffic. And let me be clear, that one-way traffic is just for the quartier, not for the rest of the subdivision, the existing subdivision. The last condition. I just can't agree to that, because that undoes everything that we worked on for several years, including the developer at our direction, to only have those two access roads. So that just undoes everything we've done for years. So I can't agree to that, and I can't agree to finding number A13. And I'm skeptical on finding A12. For that reason, I'm not able to support it. But I want to be very clear how much I appreciate the work of the developer to do a first class project. And I'm in a terrible position of not being able to totally support this project because I don't think our work is done on how it impacts an existing neighborhood, the traffic impact that will be forever. And then, of course, that last condition that would change everything that we've already discussed. So I'm just not able to support it. I'm sorry.

Mamie.

I just want to clarify that on that last condition, it was just a discussion. It wasn't just an exploration. And Mr. Mayor.

So Dan Sheckler's next.

Okay, Chris.

Wait, Dan Sheckler.

It's Sheckler, not English, Sheckler.

I don't think we should have the condition pertaining to the one-way streets. I think that complicates it. I think that we should strike that, so I would move to amend it to strike that condition.

There's a motion to strike the condition for one-way streets. Is there a second?

Well, Mr. Mayor, under discussion?

You got a second? OK, I'll second it for discussion. Second.

I'm going to go against it, but I'm seconding it for discussion. What Amy mentioned was not that it's a condition. She mentioned discussion.

Is that true?

Mm-hmm. A condition that staff have, the discussion. Yeah, it was just a discussion. It wasn't.

For the one-way streets?

Yeah. It's just discussion.

OK. Are you good then? I'm good with that. You want to withdraw your motion? I'll withdraw that. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, just to clarify, because that was my condition, is that I am not saying that we are undoing anything and connecting these roads. What I want to put out to the public and to the developer is that somewhere down in the future, I don't want to have the city of Coeur d'Alene be totally blocked off with not having the potential of considering having those connector roads open. Nobody knows what's going to happen with all of this in the future. And it might be a good idea, depending on what happens with the schools and the traffic and the churches and the parks. So that was my thought, is to put out into the public realm that we have them consider leaving the connecting access roads available, not connecting them.

Thank you. Any other discussion on the motion? Randy?

If they aren't conditions, then they shouldn't be listed. listed as conditions, and you as the mayor can instruct staff to do those two things, and we should stick with the 30 conditions.

Okay, so we're going to go ahead, and Amy, do you want to modify your motion just to remove the conditions?

Yes, I'd also like to clarify that there's the... One second here. that the project conditions listed here, there's 32. The numbering was incorrect. So that's where I figured that out when I was asking Sean earlier. So there's actually 32 if you count them. On page 6, they're incorrectly numbered. I don't think that's a point, though, to this. I would like to amend my motion to include the 32 listed conditions and remove the two additional conditions but ask staff to have those conversations.

Does the second concur?

Second.

Good. And I will give direction to staff on those items that you mentioned. Any other discussion on this motion?

Kenny. Very belief you, Mr. Mayor. I'm going to vote in favor of this before you boo me. Understand that I believe with Councilmember Wood that our work is not done and that we are going to keep a close eye on this. And I will do what I can to help make those streets safer.

Any other further discussion? I'm probably not going to vote on this. I just wanted to touch on a couple of things. It was mentioned moratorium a couple of times. It really has to rise to a very high level before we can do a moratorium on public safety. The last one we did was because the Roosevelt was going to imminently be torn down, and that was what motivated that moratorium on demolition. And so moratoriums have to really be some serious issue on public safety. I hate to say that, but it's one of the things that we have to deal with is generally something bad has to happen before it can trigger that. um traffic traffic's always funny for me in in any of these situations when we do these hearings mostly because traffic is always okay until it isn't and that's just the problem with traffic you can look at ironwood every development on ironwood the city approved until suddenly it was a disaster so i wish there was a better way to do that council has heard about indian meadows The problem we have is that when this annexation first came in, that was when the battle was lost, and we did. I was on council, so was Christy, and we fought really hard to try to protect the surrounding neighborhoods. We lost that battle. And so as much as I would like to do that, I think we've heard from council. we are going to do the best we can to preserve the character of that neighborhood given the development and so i don't think you guys can say hey the city's city hates us the city's giving up because we will look into whatever we can to make sure that your quality of life is maintained as much as possible and i think the developer agrees with that too so moving forward that's going to definitely be on the radar I wish there was better news we could tell you, but we'll see how it goes. So there's a lot of empathy up here, I think. Will we do a roll call, please?

And to clarify the motion, it's...

This is to approve the development.

To approve the development. Right.

So we'll do a roll call right now.

English? Yes. Wood? No. Evans? Yes. Miller? Yes. Gabriel?

Yes.

Sheckler?

Yes. Motion carries. Seeing that there's no other business, unless you guys want to stay here for the next 20 hours, take a motion to adjourn.

So moved. Second.

Motion to second. All those in favor? Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all. you guys want to stay here for the next 20 hours take a motion to adjourn motion a second all those in favor all right we are adjourned thank you all