City Council - Regular Meeting

The City Council will come to order. It's the time and place as advertised. Our regular meeting for the month of September. Our first order of business is the Pledge of Allegiance. If you'd please stand and join us in reciting our pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, Thank you everyone and welcome to tonight's meeting council as well. Thank you. Our next order of business is citizen comments. This is an opportunity for individuals wishing to comment on agenda items or other matters they wish to bring to the council's attention. Excluding those scheduled for public hearing, as there may not be another opportunity to comment once an agenda item is addressed, individuals are encouraged to speak at this time. Individuals are encouraged to discuss operational issues in advance with the mayor and consideration of others wishing to speak. Commentary is limited to 3 minutes. So this is a reminder, if you're here for the public hearings, we have two of them tonight. We'll have a public hearing later on. So if you have other citizen comments that you'd like to offer, we will take those now. If you have comments to submit, we just need your name and your city of residence. We don't need your physical address and we have a microphone in the middle of the floor. You can stand up right there and you'll have three minutes to provide comments. So with that, I will open the floor for citizen comments.

Sure welcome go city of Lewis and I'm looking at the. The active agenda item G, I would like to, I would like clarification on the staffing costs responsibility with went in county. For covering the cost of personnel who would be stationed, I would assume 24, 7 and available at the time service. I'd like to know. How emergency priorities would be handled if Whitman county has an emergency at the same time in the city. Which jurisdiction receives priority. Unless those couple that are stationed for women county are specific. Will there be a separate teams specifically designed to the station. And personnel to for specifically Whitman county, or would it be. for both Whitman County and the city of Lewiston. Then on the active agenda item H, I know the city has had a contract with the Stoughton County for some time now. This is just to extend the contract. But my question is, is the cost of providing these services fully being covered by Stoughton County under that contract? And has those services created any interference, delay in servicing the city's own residents? I believe the same question should be considered with the proposal for Whitman County contract. If city resources or personnel are gonna be committed to another county, how will the city ensure that its own residents receive priority when demand is high and emergencies occur?

Thank you, Joe. Further comments. OK, we'll close this in comments and we will move on to presentations. Roman numeral four item a Constitution week proclamation proclaiming September 17th to the 23rd, 2026 is Constitution week in the city of Lewiston. I have a proclamation here that I'm going to read and I'm going to invite land to come up front with me here and I'll read that and then we have. A photographer that's going to help us today. Thank you Dave. or pat i called you your dad okay proclamation city of lewiston idaho whereas the constitution of the united states of america the guardian of our liberties embodies the principles of limited government in a republic dedicated to rule by law and whereas september 17 2026 marks the 239th anniversary of the drafting of the Constitution of the United States of America by the Constitutional Convention, and whereas it is fitting and proper to accord official recognition to this magnificent document and its memorable anniversary and to the patriotic celebrations which will commemorate the occasion, And whereas Public Law 915 guarantees the issuing of a proclamation each year by the President of the United States of America designating September 17 through 23 as constitutionally Now therefore I, Dan Johnson, Mayor of the City of Lewiston, proclaim the week of September 17 through 23, 2026 as Constitution Week in the City of Lewiston, Idaho, and call upon all residents to reaffirm the ideals that the framers of the Constitution had in 1787 by vigilantly protecting the freedoms guaranteed to us through this guardian of our liberties, remembering that lost rights may never be regained. In witness whereof, I appear unto set my hand and seal of the City of Lewiston, Idaho, to be a fixture to this 14th day of September 2026, Daniel T. Johnston, Mayor, Lewiston, Idaho. Congratulations. Yeah. Thank you. Smile for Patrick.

Thank you, Pat. Thank you. Thank you.

Also, next step, we have room in a row 5 public hearings and related action items item a public hearing for zone chain application. See, and see 26 to accepting testimony on 26 to an application from Jessica and Kyle being, which proposes to rezone the 2.01 acre parcel located at 352513 street. From the low density residential zone to the museum density residential or 3 zone. This is an action item. We have our assistant city planner with us here, Ms. Katie Collins, to present this to us. I will open the public hearing. We'll hear from Ms. Hollingshead, then the applicants will have an opportunity to present. We'll accept testimony from the public in favor or against. And then the applicant will have a chance to rebut that testimony if they'd like, and then we'll close the public hearing. Council, after that you'll deliberate, discuss relevant criteria and standards, identify relevant facts and information, and articulate detailed reasons for the proposed decision. Public members wishing to provide comments. You have three minutes to provide your testimony. So if you have that, please again at the middle of the floor, we'll take your name and city of residence and we have a big clock that will run up top. So with that, I will open the public hearing and turn it over to Katie. Welcome.

Good evening Mayor, Council Members, Katie Hollingshead, Assistant Planner. Our first public hearing tonight is for ZNC 26-2. This is an application by Jessica and Kyle Bean to rezone a 2.01 acre parcel of land from our low density residential R2A zone to our medium density residential R3 zone. So, like, usual, we are going to go through some maps and then some photos. Um, so our subject property is approximately 2.1 acres. Um, it is the parcel that is located at the corner of Cedar Avenue and 13th Avenue. Um, it currently contains a single family dwelling and 2 accessory structures. Um, so single family dwellings kind of here in the middle. Next to all those trees, and then accessory structures on kind of the southern end of the property. 13th street is here running North and South Cedar Avenue is here running East and West. So same picture kind of blown out a little bit. Um, so you can see the zoning map. So, in bright red, this is our C3 zone. Um, subject property is right here hash in black and currently in the, and then this red hash is the other R3 zone property in the surrounding neighborhood. So you can see there's this 1, um, single family dwelling that's on the corner. That is R2 a, and then on this East side is where that also exists, including the subject property. But otherwise, this are 3 kind of zigzags as it connects with the C3 commercial zone. So, in this neighborhood, there is a mix of both small and large multi family dwellings, duplex dwellings and single family dwellings. And then that red area is commercial businesses. So, a little hard to see. on the big screen it works out okay and so subject property is right here where my cursor is parcel with the black hatches are all parcels that have some sort of multi-family on them and kind of surrounding um the subject property so those either have more than one single family um detached dwelling on the same lot or they have a duplex or they have a triplex or they have a fourplex and then this larger one right here is a large multi-family apartment complex that's at 1226 borough ave and it's called the western village apartments so we have some smaller ones here some smaller ones right here along 13th and some small like duplexes kind of dotting we have some multiple single families here again some duplexes on all these little hashed ones again same map and this has our comprehensive plans future land use map layer on and you can see the red is our neighborhood commercial neighborhood commercial areas um call from lower intensity commercial uses to multi-family residential uses so they serve as a buffer from commercial corridor which is here along plane i mean is right here moving outward where you would have um some sort of multifamily residential and then the lower and suburban residential following that. And then photos of the subject property. So subject property as shown in the other maps is at the intersection of 13th Street and Cedar Ave. The portion of 13th Street that abuts the property between Grell and Cedar is one way with only northbound traffic allowed. You can see the no enter sign right here at the corner. So this is 13th. This is Cedar. Both 13th Street and Cedar Ave are designated as local roads in this location. Then I'm looking south down 13th Street from the intersection of 13th and Cedar. Subject property is located one block south of the intersection of 13th and Burrell, right where it intersects at the fairgrounds. Burrell is a collector street. There is a transit stop located at the Nesbitt County Fairgrounds, like I said, located at 13th and Burrell. That's this big white building here in the background. Then pivoting subject property has single family dwelling. Um, so that's shown here. I'm at the far southern end of the property. And so here's 1 of those, um, detached accessory buildings. Signed there at the corner. And then at the other end, so the most eastern end of the property, so I'm at that northeast corner on Cedar. Cedar Ave is a 20-foot right-of-way. It does not have any curb gutter or sidewalk currently installed. It is one of those old orchard track alleys that was later turned into a street. 13th Street is a 50-foot right-of-way with a 20-foot paved driving surface. It also does not have any curb gutter or sidewalk currently installed on it. Then I'm looking east down Cedar. So where I was standing before is on our right-hand side. I'm now looking down the road to the east. So this property is 3522 13th Street C. That road goes right here. Then pivoting again. So I'm still looking east, but I'm looking at the houses that are across the street on the northern side of the street. single-family dwelling here. I believe down here is a duplex. And then this is that bare land that was shown in the map. That is where the C3 kind of dips around that house that's on the corner. On one end of this that touches Burrell, there is, I believe, an eight-plex built there. Same person owns this part and just has not continued that development. So as I said, this property goes all the way from Cedar to Burrell and has those eight units on it. and is currently zoned R3. And then turning again, looking west on 13th Street. So this is where that commercial zone starts. So Perfection Tires, one of their detail shops is there, a taxidermy shop. Intersection of Cedar Ave and Thane also houses the Winco Stove Store, Casey's Burgers, and the Cap Room Bar. So those are all further down this way. And then again, just making circles. And so this is the rear of protect perfection tire. So this is where it comes through from thing over here to that 13th street. Entrance got back here. This looks like where it's most of their employee parking. And 1 of their other buildings, they own, like I said before, all the way from thing over to this 13th street. And then finally looking up at the corner of, from the corner of the subject property to the intersection of 13th Street and Grell Ave and Thane Road, which is up here where the light is. So all of this is commercially zoned. So there are some single family dwellings on this in-between part before you get to these storage buildings that are single family dwellings in a commercial zone. And then looking west down Cedar Avenue. So again, you have single family that are over here. This is a duplex. There's a couple more single families before you hit Thane back here. And then all of this is commercial property on the south side of Cedar. And then, just for kind of demonstrations sake, and so the property is currently are to a, so we are to a zone allows for single family and duplexes or single family with an accessory dwelling unit has a minimum lot size of 7500 square feet. So I took some time with the measurements from our geographic information system for the property. So it's 300 feet along theater. It's 287 feet along 13th Street, and I broke it into how many lots you could do just as it sits in that R2A zone. So potentially you could do 18 dwelling units, both single family dwellings and accessory dwelling units would make up that 18. And those could be built without any additional approvals as it sits in its current zone. And so just for, again, demonstration's sake, I showed how many... Driveways that a subdivision would possibly create on to. Um, Cedar Avenue, if you did, if you just broke it up into a single family dwelling subdivision. So, 123456. Um, they're included in your packet was public testimony from the planning and zoning commission meeting where people were concerned about traffic on Cedar. traffic already exists on Cedar. You'll hear from our applicant that they are hoping to do a manufactured home park, a 55 and older type of park. They would most likely be utilizing a single in, single out. So you would kind of the property. And even if they did not develop that, someone who might develop something else, such as a multifamily property, apartment complex or a series of duplexes or series of fourplexes or what have you would probably also utilize a similar one in one out situation rather than single family homes who are all going to want to have their own driveway. Jenny, you want to exit out so they're not just staring at a black screen. Thank you. So, also included in your packet is the reason statement that was developed by the planning and zoning commission after they held their public hearing that was done in July on the 22nd comments from that meeting are included in the packet. So you can see that. And we did have neighbors who wrote in who were concerned with things like the traffic and like the potential of number of units that could be put on the lot, which is part of the reason why I showed what could happen currently that you could have just 18 as it currently stands without any additional permission, we'll say without changing anything, you could have 18. And so, in my staff report included in your packet, so this would start on page 29. Um, I referred to the comprehensive plan and that this particular neighborhood is in our neighborhood commercial area, which is meant to provide low to mid intensity commercial services primarily for surrounding residents. Um, including, um, a transition from those commercial services to single family residential. So transition areas include things like medium and higher density residential. Where you have kind of that stair step mentality, where you have a more intense commercial use a higher intense residential use and then you go into the lower and suburban residential uses. Specifically, um, from our comprehensive plan and residential attached and residential multi unit are listed as supporting uses for this neighborhood commercial feature land use designation. Um, and I listed several items from our comprehensive plan for the council to consider as part of your reason statement. The property is also located in the Lewis and orchards irrigation district. There is an email from who is the general manager of Lloyd included in the packet and saying that he has already discussed the project with the applicant and water services are not a problem for them.

Okay.

And I think with that, I would stand for questions if there are specific things you guys want me to cover other than what I have shown in my presentation.

Thank you Katie council. Do you have questions?

You have questions for Michelle and said, at this time.

There, if it was converted to an R3 zone, what's the maximum number of units that it could have on it?

Maximum number of units under the R3 based on the land size would be 55 units. And so there is a paragraph in the staff report that says it could be developed with up to 55 units. If able to physically fit that number of units in the 50% lot coverage that is allowed. So you can't cover. Every inch with buildings and cover 50% with buildings. So that knocks you back to an acre that you can cover with buildings. Right? And you would also have to provide 55 parking stalls along with 288 accessible stalls. Again, if you could physically fit that many on that lot, a standard parking stall for in the city code is 18.5 feet deep by 9 feet wide with a 26 foot backup file. And then 88 cells are 11 feet wide with a 5 foot landing strip that goes next to him for someone to be able to exit a vehicle safely. And again, 26 feet for backup file follow up for clarification.

So, but to be clear, this isn't something we're approving at this moment. If something.

It's what is allowed by that. So council should consider that all of the things that are listed by right in the R3 zone are things that could potentially happen on the property. Our applicant was hit by a bus after the meeting, and the property was sold to someone else and you guys approve the R3. they could do anything that was allowed in the R3. We hope that doesn't happen, but that's what you're looking at all of the uses that are allowed by right.

But that would still have to be approved by council later on correct?

For the R3 yes, but if it's a use by right in the R3, then that would just once. Once you have passed the ordinances and the reason statement, then the properties R3 and a developer can do any of those uses allowed by right in that R3 zone.

Councillor Spickelmeyer.

Thank you Mayor. Um, so in it, um, I know we're just talking about changing the zoning, but if there was a development put in there, would they have to be required to widen the street? Um, around that similar to like, they did up there on 21st and grill where it was really narrow with our orchard streets and then where that development is, it's like, twice as wide because they're turning lane and all that.

I don't know and that would be a question for public works. Um, usually frontage improvements are handled at the building permit stage. Um, I don't know if the requirement currently would be for a dedication of additional. Right of way along Cedar, or if it would just be like a curb better sidewalk situation.

Follow up counselor, so I'm on that line and if it's a 1 way where you come in on 13th street, where you come in, that's that 6 way intersection on thing and grow.

Yes.

So, right now, there's not very many people that turn on 13. I'm there all the time. So, I think to me is if you add that much traffic on it, it's going to become part of our thing corridor study. Um, I just every time somebody turns on that 1, nobody is ready for him to do it. It almost caused an accident. So, I guess, to me, the testimony that there's no traffic impact. I can't agree with that.

I would probably refer that question to either Pat severance who's development supervisor who would review it at building permit or Justin Johnson public works director. That's not something I review.

Yes, it was more of a statement.

Okay.

Now, sir, Maury Katie on your map where you have the, uh. Fame and 13th street with the red shows page 58 on the. The handout on the digital and then the red stripe, which incorporates a Western village. Being the, or 3 yes. the house that's on the north, what I would call the northeast corner of Cedar and 13th. That's an R2A currently. Is that correct?

Yeah.

Yeah. The 3519.

Yes. Yes. And then the subject property is currently an R2A also. Yes. And everything to the east of that is all R2A. Yeah. Thank you.

I don't see any more questions, Katie, um, elsewhere enforcement.

Um, and I, and I have that question answered about the traffic. I know it's out in here, but I just kind of want here for really. We suspect that it's not going to cost further traffic and just.

Justin Johnson, public works director, um. So, again, this is kind of zoning. And so anything that's zoned to this, and if it's a principal use, you wouldn't see it again. We have done a main corridor study that evaluated traffic and evaluate all those node sections. So the city's aware of. And evaluated some of the trouble spots that are on thing. Um, I typically on these types of zoning, we don't get deep in the weeds of traffic analysis just because. If it is a dense, uh. that's a conditional use permit or some sort of a large site plan that would trigger we would do we would require a traffic analysis that would isolate the specific areas that would trigger improvements off-site improvements and whether it's frontage improvements access or an intersection that's of concern we know that Thane with all of those goofy angles up there as you put more traffic on it it's just going to become more problematic but If it's not this development, it's going to be another development or another development or another development. So, um, the best we can do is to keep our traffic model current as, you know, traffic patterns are updated. So I don't know that anything can be done at a zone zoning change here. That, um, is overly alarming with what, what, what could be done with this zoning and what could be done with the up zoning. So, I'm, I'm kind of. Trying to not give you any commitment here with this statement, because it is just a zone change. Uh, and don't want to get too far down the weeds of of traffic analysis, but it is, it is a consideration for you with any up zone. Um, however, I, I, I'm kind of telling you that, um. Typically, when we get the site plan or building plan development is when we really start looking into accesses and where we could, um, Max or minimize the impact with any development.

So if I'm understanding, we're saying that obviously we can't make assumptions that this rezone would cause traffic because we're not talking about what's actually being built there. We're just talking about zoning in general. I think that would cause until we get those types of permit requests.

Yeah, 1, 1 way I like to look at this and it's probably an easier because everybody sees traffic. Um, a case in point would be, let's say, you know. Barney meds from Lloyd gave the green light that there isn't any water concerns, but what if there was. That typically isn't reason to not permit the up zone. It would be on the developers back to upsize any water mains that need to be upsized for that development. Same could be said for traffic when they come in and if it's an intersection, it's almost always an intersection that can accommodate that growth. They would need to upsize that intersection just like they would upsize water sewer.

And just for clarity's sake as well, then you're saying the current zoning it in and the current zoning it could be. Uh, both could cause, depending on what gets built in traffic concerns that would then result in.

Yeah, and this 1 being so so close to fame being the principal arterial. I'm going to go out on a limb and say any development that goes on to this site is not going to break thing. I mean, thing is, you know, 4 lanes wide. It's got, I don't know how many 15 to 25,000 cars a day. The traffic that's going to be generated by this, they're going to be coming on and off that road, which is already kind of at its edge of functionality. But as Lewiston grows and grows out into that East orchards area that we've talked about a lot over the last couple of years collectively, they will start causing, uh. Degradation of those intersections, it will be reflected on levels of service and accidents and we've already see a lot of accidents and we also see a lot of levels of service, not necessarily on thing, but more on Brighton, but kind of caused by that same general. Growth, which, which is what we want.

Counselor, thank you. So, I guess it's for back for Katie, I guess. Sorry. Um, 1 of the pictures you showed, um. Um, it was showed the existing our 3 zone. Um, little red spot, but to the, um, would be the East of it. It doesn't show. Is that all still continue our 3 past that? Like, down past grill and towards, um.

Powers and such there's some pockets as you go farther, but it's not a continuous. Zigzag. There are additional pockets of our 3 as you go farther, like, towards grill and up to even rip on, but it's not continuous. It's more spotty.

Thank you counselor morning.

Katie on your 1 grid map that you showed with the block dimensions and your highlight or showing 8. Possible locks that were in there I may have misheard you. Or I might be dense. I don't I'm not sure which. But you said under the current, they can have 8. That can be say that again, 18 dwelling units could be built 18 dwelling units. 18. okay. And if it is. Moved to an R3, then I can have as many as 55. yes. And that I would assume that that's going up. To get your 55, I would imagine you would need to go up.

Yes. Cause you can only cover half of that lot with buildings.

Okay. Um. Does the applicant have an intended use for this or is it strictly just.

They do if you're done with questions for me at this point, I can bring them up this week.

Sure.

Thank you. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make tonight?

No, I don't have a presentation. Kyle Bean, Lewiston, Idaho. I'm the owner of this lot. Our intent is a 55 and older community, so we're not looking to go up two stories or anything like that. As me and my wife are both active real estate agents, there's a huge need in the valley for 55 and older communities. When we look at communities like the Martin Brothers manufactured home park on, what is it, 15th and Gorel, those barely, barely, rarely come up for sale. And the same with the Andrews Park, which is over on 16th Street. um they just want to come up for sale they don't last on the market long and so there's a big need for this um especially when prices of homes get more and more and more so that's where our ultimate goal would be to build a 55 and older community counselor's question counselor forestman uh can i get one clarity though from um

We can't go certain heights, even at the R3 though, right? I mean, these can't be high, even if they wanted to make high-rise apartments. Looking at the state says, oh, we cannot go beyond.

Correct.

Hang on, let me get into the code section.

So what Mr. Bean is talking about for a 55 and older community is a manufactured home park. Just FYI, which are single level. The height of building in the R3 zone is 45 feet. Before stories.

Thanks, Mr. Moore.

So, Mr. Bean, you say that you're planning on a 55 and older community of manufactured homes in there. Do you have an idea? Because I am concerned about the traffic that's on 13th and Cedar and the one way that's there. Will it be coming off of 13th there at Grail? Is it going to have to be capped off like what it is there by Orchards Elementary? know for traffic control and this is something that i'm not i'm not asking you to answer mr b i'm just saying this is what as we're asking these questions this is what's going through my mind uh i have two grandchildren that were raised right there on on cedar avenue and i'm very very familiar with the amount of traffic just through there i understand a 55 and older should not generate a bunch of hot rods up and down the street how many homes do you plan on putting

I mean, it's very, we're in the beginning stages of it all. I mean, obviously this zone change is a big factor of that. You know, we're not to be able to put 55 units as Katie stated on this lot. So, obviously, we want to maximize the amount of units, but also we have to be within the guidelines. And so I don't have a for sure number yet.

I dream all the time. I'll just, as I look at this lot, because I have looked at this lot, I see a 1 in 1 out horseshoe, you know, of what you're doing.

Yeah, we have your plan is a very narrow street. So we're not going to utilize that because it's not going to be. Feasible or, I mean, 13th street makes way more sense to be the in and out on it.

Okay, thank you. Is that your testimony your presentation?

I don't have anything.

All right, is there anyone from the public?

Um, I have 1 thing to add, um, just based on counselor Maury's question. So, under the R3 manufacturers home park is number 8, um, under uses that are allowed by right and says, subject to the provisions of chapter 23, which has all of, like, the spacing and parking requirements for those units with a maximum density of 16 dwelling units per acre. So. If everything laid out correctly, they could do 32 units. Okay, thank you.

Here's your testimony from the public. I don't hear any. Do you have anything else to add?

Not unless there are any other additional questions for me.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to find it in here, but how far can you go with the current zoning that it is, which is the R2A, correct?

Yes, it is on page 25 of your packet and you can go 35 feet.

If you'd have nothing further, then I will close the public hearing. Thank you. Council is now your turn to deliberate, discuss relevant criteria and standards, identify relevant facts and information, and articulate your detailed reasons for the proposed decision. Council. I'm sorry thank you.

So just looking through the the planning and zonings. Findings with the their answer statement the first one the proposed rezone it is this all right I go through this. Okay, thank you the proposed rezone is in general conformance with the lewiston comprehensive plan. I find that I agree with their, their reason statement, looking at looking at the testimony from Katie Hollingshead. This is in our comprehensive plan to be going toward an R3 in this area. And it does create a buffer for the R2 properties that would be further back and further away from the arterial streets. So that's my thoughts on I don't want.

That's what's become our consumer.

In looking through these men with the testimony for me the number 2 relevant criteria and I have to disagree with the commission's the subject property is at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing my disagree I think that The comprehensive plan, yes, it does agree with it, but I think with the size of the streets and that neighborhood, I disagree. I don't feel it does. It's not as well suited.

Councillor Spickle Meyer Jennifer to Ghana City attorney is there any information that was presented today or that's in the packet that supports that so the information that you're relying on that does not support that.

Yes, the one way streets and the size of the streets.

Thank you.

Councilors, further discussion? Council again, what we're looking for is discussion on the relevant criteria standards, relevant facts, information that you may use to make a decision as our city attorney just asked a minute ago. If there's something you can draw either from the presentations from Ms. Hollingshead or a testimony that we received from Mr. Bean, please use that in your discussions.

Mr. right, thank you. So, on that same. On that same number, the subject property is at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district. I mean, again, I think this goes to that. You've got commercial right there and you've got thing. um if the if the density that gets built in r3 requires improvements to to the road or some redesign to get the permitting that's a that's another process that they would go through i i think the the buffer is is the the more important piece long term that this this should be an r3 zone not an r2 zone because you've got commercial right there and you've got you've got thing right there um and and eventually you know as other areas are developed as as we heard there's going to be more traffic on these streets as well um but but that's my thought on the thank you counselor

Yeah, for 2 way, I was kind of torn between it and until kind of getting some more information from, um, Dustin Johnson and and to looking at just this as a, as a reason. Which is how we're supposed to be looking at this not necessarily what the future of the property will be because then those will have to come through their own. Processes and. All right. And when whoever, whatever is built, there will then have to accommodate for that and do traffic studies and make sure that the road. Is able to withstand the increase of traffic flow. I don't know how. that we could say that affects on the relevant criteria to saying that it will affect it when those to me don't seem to line up when you're going into what the actual project would be would have to be where our decision making on whether it will or will not affect it or not so i would say as it stands it will not affect and it is better suited as well suited or better suited for the proposed rezone

To assist the council, um, I propose that we go through each criteria 1 at a time and essentially do a roll call. Um, so go through the criteria for number 1, have the council state the information that they are relying on. Um, generally, as far as what they want in their reason statement, and then, um, when it comes down to making the determination, whether the proposed rezone is, or is not essentially do what amounts to a roll call. Um, this council is not required to be unanimous on each of these and, um, not all of them are required to be for or against a particular decision. Um, collectively, though, they are used to justify the ultimate decision, whether to approve or deny the application itself. And if you'd like, I can go ahead and guide you through each of the questions, um, starting with number 1, and then, uh, proceeding proceeding all the way through, um, to the last 1.

Any questions. Jennifer, would you mind taking the lead on that?

So, starting with the 1st criteria, whether the proposed rezone is, or is not in general conformance with the comprehensive plan counselor, right? Already stated that he did agree that it was in conformance with. Is there anyone else that would like to provide any information that they're relying on or any statement as far as whether they think that it is or is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan.

I'm sure.

All right, then I will take a just a, we can just do a voice roll call style. Um. Uh, all in favor that it is in conformance with the comprehensive plan say, I, all those who say it is not in conformance with the comprehensive plan say, I. For number 2, the subject land is, or is not as. Least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district. I think so far it's a mix. Um, counselor has stated that he believes that is not at least well suited for the proposed zoning district as the current. But, um. Councillor Wright and Councillor Foreman have presented comments that they think that it is better suited for the new zone. Is there anyone else that would like to provide comments? Okay, so then moving forward with the vote on that, all those that believe the subject land is at least as well suited or better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing, please say aye.

Aye.

All those who say it is not at least well suited, please say aye. For number three, the proposed rezone does or does not present foreseen inmedicable impacts of incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity.

So of course,

I would say that it does not present foreseeable medical impact due to there was no evidence to support that it would with water traffic the way it's currently zoned. And also the possibility of putting high rises is not feasible under either zoning, so.

So, the proposed reason does not present we're seeing in mitigatable impacts of incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity. And I would agree with the planning and zoning that this. This neighborhood is identified in the comprehensive work plan. As being appropriate for the zoning and. The reason and subject property would continue an existing segment of our 3 zone property for their South and would help to create the desired buffer zone between the existing commercial zone for the West. I agree with that.

Counselors further comments.

Okay, all those who believe that the proposed rezone does not present a medical bull impacts of incompatible uses or development. Please say, I all those who say that the proposed rezone does present such impacts. Please say, I The effects of the proposed rezone are, or are not anticipated to place undue burden upon the delivery of services provided by any political subdivision within the planning jurisdiction, including school districts.

Mr. right Thank you. I agree that the effects of the proposed rezone are not anticipated to place undue burden upon delivery of services provided by any of the political subdivisions within the planning jurisdictions, including school districts. The reason for that is in the. In the information that we received. Opposing comments from other political subdivisions, and I did hear testimony that there were no concerns on water.

Council for the comments.

Okay, all those in favor of saying that the effects of the proposed rezone are not anticipated to place an answer.

Go ahead.

Oh, you go ahead.

No, I was just going to add that there was no information provided tonight that would contradict the findings of the commission.

Okay, so those in favor of saying there are not anticipated. To place undue burden on the delivery of services, please say, aye. All right, those that believe the effects of the proposed result are anticipated. Please say, aye. City Council Chambers, The size type intensity and density of development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of this reason is or is not suitable for the area and will or will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure or environmental resources. City Council Chambers, And typically when we address this one in planning and zoning we talked about the is or is not suitable first and then the will or will not unduly burden the neighborhood second. City Council Chambers, As it can be a mix.

I have a question so, in this 1 here, it doesn't make any sense to me how you could the density of development expected to occur. We're not voting on what their development is. They could get it changed and sell the property and. I mean, it doesn't make any sense.

Um, so generally in those kind of situations, um, the development expected to occur is pretty vague. Um, we do. We do instruct planning and zoning and the city council not to consider the specific type of development that is proposed, but the general types of development, um, that could be. Done at the property, um, there may be more of an effect if you're switching from residential to industrial in which you can anticipate the type of development expected to occur. Might have a more of an effect versus 1 type of residential versus another 1, although, depending on the type of residential, there's always the possibility and it's for the city council to weigh the information that's presented and make a determination on whether or not, um, the, the type size type and intensity of the development expected to occur, you know. Beats these requirements, or, you know, have the ability to unduly burden the neighborhood, um. Public infrastructure, environmental resources follow up.

So, I guess then the, the, um, information provided by the commission, um, stated more of the impact of Lloyd. where Lloyd could provide a certain amount of water or sewer to a development of the proposed size.

Yes, because at this point, Lloyd hasn't, uh, it's my understanding on the information presented. Lloyd hasn't said 1 way or another. Um, whether or not they can provide services that it's going to be dependent on, um, the proposed what the development ultimately becomes. So, um, Lloyd retains the, or reserves the right to make a determination when. More details are specified and so. You know, generally they think that they can, um. I believe that's what's in here that they think that they can, but they, they can't say for sure. So that is a consideration at this stage of the development itself. Um, whether or not there is going to be a negative. Impact or any kind of impact on the weight itself.

Customer portion clarifying question. Um. When they go to develop, or if this changed and they went and someone else came in and bought it, I wanted to develop it. Well, they have to go to Lloyd again for permitting and everything to confirm that it's not going to cause any burden on the water.

So, at this stage, the, the rezone. Only changes the, the possibility of uses for the, the, the land. Um, it doesn't actually approve any particular project. So, once the rezone itself has been approved, then, um, if the property owners want to subdivide it, or do some kind of master plan for a community, they will have to coordinate with the various political subdivisions, um, including Lloyd's. um the city and whoever else to make sure that that proposal is feasible within the ability of those political subdivisions to provide services so this is one step of a long process of development and they will have many other opportunities to consult with political subdivisions and get told they can or can't proceed as planned

So, as it stands now, we're not seeing that, nor did they give evidence of any concern, but then when a development happens, and they would decide whether that would be a concern or not.

Yes. Yes. Right now, um, the commission or the, the council should consider all of the possible choices, um, permitted by right as being, um, a possible use for this particular property. Okay.

Thank you.

That's the right the size type intensity and density of development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of this rezoning is suitable for the area. I believe that to be the case as. Came from the planning and zoning. I, I don't see an unsuitable difference between having. The are three density versus multiple different, um, driveways coming out onto these streets, multiple different spots. If it was left as a, or two. I see it as suitable.

Thank you counselor.

And what about the will not portion will or will not?

Well, I wasn't sure you were ready for that yet.

Mr. Mayor counselor.

Ah, and will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure or environmental resources. I didn't hear any testimony saying that there would be any unduly burden to the neighborhood, public infrastructure or environmental resources. And our 3 zone is appropriate for. The comprehensive plan that we're working on achieving in this area.

Thank you counselor further counsel comments.

Okay, so then, um, the size type intensity and density of development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of this rezoning is suitable for the area and will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure, environmental source resources. All in favor of that say, I. Anyone that wants a different designation say, I. And then we have an additional provision that was identified by state code and we have not updated it in city code and that's the proposed rezone is in conformance with Idaho code section 67 dash 6537 use of surface and groundwater. And that. I'm just going to let, you know, no testimony was received 1 way or the other about this and we typically treat that meaning that it is in applicable. Um, but it's still your decision to make about whether or not it is, or is not in conformance with that Idaho code section.

Council enforcement asked when we're getting, we're trying to get that testimony. Is it just overall public? Or do we ask a certain entity? Whether they.

Feel that that's gonna, it's a combination of the application itself. And then when we submit for comments from the various political subdivisions, um, at this point, um. There's no information 1 way or another to indicate that they're not going to meet the requirements of Idaho code. So, at that case, typically, the presumption is. When you develop your land, you're going to follow the law. No information has been presented to indicate otherwise. Thank you. So, for that 1, the proposed rezone is in conformance with Idaho code section 67 6537. All in favor of that say, aye aye. Now, um, now we're open to accepting a motion, whether to approve or deny this particular application and then drafting a reason statement to that effect.

Council.

That's the present Claiborne make a motion to direct staff to draft the region statement. Approving 26-2.

Okay, it's for discussion or amendments. Okay, hearing none those in favor please signify by saying aye aye. Post motion carries. Thank you. Council. Thank you, Jennifer. Council next we'll move on to item B. 1st, reading of ordinance 4976, considering implementing the city council's decision and CNC dash 26 dash 2. Declaring that certain real property be removed from the low density residential R2 zone to the medium density residential R3 zone. And amending the official zoning map, this is an action item council.

Yeah, that's respect my most approved the 1st reading ordinance number 4976 by title only. So. To discuss your amendments.

Doing those in favor please signify by saying aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye

An ordinance of the city of Lewiston implementing the city council decision and the 26 dash to declaring that certain real property be removed from the low density residential are to a zone to the medium density residential are 3 zone amending the official zoning map of the city of Lewiston and providing an effective date.

Thank you for your counsel. Next we move on to item C public hearing for plans in a development application dash 26 dash 1. Accepting testimony on dash 26 dash 1, an application by Rick Keene of millennium trust LLC, which proposes an amendment to the therapy terrorist development to change the zoning designation for 2.65 acre parcel Darby subdivision. Block 2, also known as RPL040500200000 from single family residential, similar to the low density residential R2 zone to higher density residential R4 zone. This is an action item and again, we have our Assistant City Planner with us here tonight, Ms. Katie Hollingshead to present to us. Prior to that, Council will explain to the process. I'll open the public hearing. We'll hear from Katie, then we'll accept applicant's presentation. And then any testimony from the public. Then a reminder to you that no additional evidence or testimony may be received once the public hearing is closed. So council, this is the time to ask questions that you have for the public, the applicant. And our staff, if we receive public testimony, the applicant has the right to rebut that evidence, but, um. As a reminder, the rebuttal is not to introduce new information, but to address the comments provided by the public. After that, I'll close the public hearing and then once again, council will deliberate, discuss the relevant criteria standards, identify relevant facts and information and articulate detailed reasons for the proposed decisions. Then after that, we'll entertain a motion and then a vote. Now, I would also encourage you to take notes if you need to handwritten notes. To prepare you for your decision on the recent statement, if that will help, it will probably go through a similar process with Jennifer if she's willing and able. And then counselors reminder that if it's denied, then you are going to have to address. Uh, if there are any actions set, the applicant can take to obtain approval. Yes or no. If so, what those actions would be and if not. Uh, why and what those actions would be again, you're encouraged to be as specific as possible as it becomes an essential. An essential element of the recent statement with the public, you'll have 3 minutes to provide public testimony when it's your turn. With that, I'm going to open the public hearing and turn it over to miss Holland said welcome Katie.

Gavel or do I just get to go? So are you going to do your gavel? Thanks, sir. No, you do the gavel. I'm waiting for it. Mayor and council members, Katie Hollingshead, assistant planner. So our second public hearing tonight is a planned unit development, so a PUD amendment for Fairview Terrace. So this is PUD 26-1. This is an application by Rick Keene of Millennium Trust LLC to Propose an amendment to the fair views, terrorist plan, new development to change the zoning designation. So I'm going to use words that are a little different this time. So, in a planned unit development, that is the zone. Right within this planned unit development, there are different zoning designations, which allow for different land uses within the itself. Okay. So, this particular request is for the 2.65 acre parcel, which is also known as Darby subdivision block 2. And then the number was provided in your history sheet from single family residential. So, single family only that's all someone can build. It's just single family residential. To, um, so it's and it's, uh, setbacks density and things like that lock coverage are similar to our, our 2 zone, but you can only do single family residential. Okay. To our higher density residential are 4. Which allows for multi family by right and a higher density, um, of homes within. The same land. To build a residential community consisting of 3 residential buildings with 48 dwelling units spread between the 3 buildings. The planning zoning commission handled a public hearing on this application on June 10th of 26, and they drafted a reason statement recommending denial. To the council, so same as usual, we're going to go through maps and photos and information for the council to utilize tonight. So applicant is requesting that a vacant 2.65 acre parcel in the Fairview Terrace planned unit development be reclassified from single family residential to higher density residential R4 zone. As I said, applicant is proposing to build three buildings that have 48 residential units. So, because this is an unaddressed parcel, we use it's lot and block and it's RPL number, but in general, it is located along the 17th street grade right above the Houston Plaza Professional Center. So it's this big open one. So here is 24th Avenue, that cul-de-sac's in here. Over here is 14th. To the north is McSorley Elementary. Also to the north is Fairview Dental and then the Regents Campus. Okay, so we have a subdivision in here. This is that derby village subdivision that has single family dwellings and appears 25th avenue down here is 23rd 24th is the cul-de-sac so we're specifically talking about this vacant piece that is along the 17th street. That same photo with our zoning layer the hash marks with the red show that planned unit development that's what the PD needs. Your. covers this whole section, so that Houston Plaza. There's a small multifamily development down here. There's a portion of the McSorley playground is included in this planned unit development because of a land swap that happened at one point between Regents and the school district. And then there's some duplexes right here, Houston Plaza, and then the single family dwelling development right here. And to to this red color is our C six zone, so you can see, to the east, on the east side of 17th street is C six so that encompasses the mall, which is farther north and then vacant land that's directly across the street and then that regions campus is also in that C six. So then like I said, zoning designation within the planned unit development is different than like how city zones work, right? Because the planned unit development is the zone. So within Fairview Terrace, planned unit development, it was originally designed with four zoning designations. So it had a single family residential, a two family or duplex residential, multifamily residential and commercial. So in the green, you can see, this is the section that is currently called multifamily residential. Red, this is a section that is currently commercial and then R is the single family residential. There is no more two family or duplex residential that exists underneath this planned unit development. So then our future land use map called out. So the property is located in our community commercial designation, which is this kind of darker yellow color all the way around. And then you can see, no, sorry. The darker red is the community commercial. The darker yellow is a community residential, sorry. Talking before I'm reading all my things. So the darker red is that community commercial. Doctor yellow is community residential. And so community residential does fall out for. Multifamily units as being an appropriate use.

Can I ask a question at this point? That's the right. Thank you. Mr Mayor. Along 17th Street, why do we have community residential going on right along 17th Street? And as you get further south there in the comprehensive plan, I would think it'd be a higher density right next to that busy road.

Community residential is the higher residential. Oh, it is? Yes, because neighborhood residential is that lower density residential.

Okay.

So neighborhood residential is more like the R1, R2, R2A residential. Um, community residential is more, uh, multi family, um, attached units. So, duplexes, triplexes, four plexes. Um, so more like the R3 and R4 zones would fall into this land use designation.

Gotcha. Okay. That that makes sense. Because, uh.

there's there's apartments further up that road as well and there's on both sides there's you know there's big one on one side and then some smaller smaller ones yes so the community residential is the higher density future land use designation gotcha and neighborhood residential is the lower density land use designation for residential on the on the comp plan map

So, all of this, all this yellow that I'm seeing right now is community residential, the yellow, darker yellow.

So it goes to about here. Right and so then you can see there's a lighter yellow and says neighborhood residential where you get to the school actual building, but this whole section. And then going this way, so this lighter yellow here again is the neighborhood residential. But the slightly darker color that touches. Virtual area, basically same idea, making that buffer zone.

Perfect. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Thank you.

So, moving on, we're gonna look at photos. Okay. So I am standing at the bottom of 24th street. I am looking East. So the last undeveloped lot in the village subdivision is right here. The draft area. So on the right. And then I pivoted and there is a natural drainage that runs on the West side of the Darby village subdivision. So I'm looking South at that drainage. So that lot that I was just looking at is over here. And then this building back here is on a flag lot. So that 1 empty lot sits in front of that house. And then this is that natural drainage that occurs. Then pivoting and so I'm on, this is like, the other side of that same drainage ravine is over here and then you can see some of the buildings from the from the Houston Plaza professional center. I'm at the top of the cul-de-sac so I'm at the Eastern edge of the cul-de-sac on 24th Avenue. So I'm standing in front of the home at 1537 24th Avenue. I'm looking. West, there are 7 single family dwellings along this cul-de-sac and 1 undeveloped lot. So, then just kind of pivoting around so, um, same location of just looking Southwest now. So you can see. 1 again to my left. And then this is, um, what is considered an alley, um, between the cul-de-sac on 24th and the 2 houses up on 25th Avenue. So this is a public right of way. It contains water and sewer utilities. It runs in between 1534 and 1536 on that 24,000 cul-de-sac. And then it sits behind 1609 and 1621 25th Avenue above it. It does not connect to the subject property, but it is. Oh, it is showing as being like an access and for those utilities. but that's right here. It goes then behind those houses along. So this map also shows existing utilities on the site. So green is sewer. So sewer line is in that Um, ravine, and then it goes up into the cul-de-sac goes right there. It goes into the subject property through another, um, right away access. And then again goes behind these houses on 25th. There's also sewer line here in 25th and then that. Over here to where Edward Jones building is along 17th. And then blue. is water, so you see water lines down here, water lines here, water in the cul-de-sac, but there is not any water lines in 17th. And purple is stormwater. And so this is that same alley that I showed on the map and the previous pictures I'm just on 25th street or 25th Avenue. Sorry. Um, so I'm just at the top of it. So I was previously down here in the cul-de-sac so you can see it. There, and then this gravel area over here is where it extends behind those homes that face 25th Avenue. I'm standing in the driveway between 16, 05 and 16, 09 on 25th Avenue. The river rock is where the private property ends. and the alley right of way begins. But back in the cul-de-sac, I'll show you the other access that I showed on that map. So I'm looking east. So this is the alley between 1535 and 1537 24th Avenue. This is city right of way. It also contains water and sewer utilities, which I showed you on that map, specifically the sewer going into the site. But it does not propose to be an access into the subject property. And then up on 25th, I'm looking East and so the North side of 25th app is part of the fair view terrace plan unit development. And it's also located in that Darby village subdivision. And there are 5 single family dwellings on that North side. And then there are also 5 single family dwellings on the South side of the property. But those properties are not in the planned unit development. Um, and they're not part of that particular subdivision. So they are a separate subdivision and they are, um, zoned low density residential R2. so they are a standard city zone. On the southern side, these are included in that subdivision and the plan unit development. These ones are not. And then, so now I'm above Houston Plaza, and I'm standing on the end of the subject property. So, on the end of the subject property, the Houston Plaza, you can see the parking lot and adjacent to me on the North end. And as you can see from the photo, there is substantial topography. Of these houses sit well above that parking lot and those buildings. Um, so there's quite a bit of difference between, um, where those buildings with the commercial designation are sitting and where those single family dwellings up in the cul-de-sac are sitting. And then up into the subject property, I'm standing at the North East corner of the subject property looking Southwest. So these are those single family dwellings in the cul-de-sac. Appear like this yellow house are the ones up on 26th. So, still in that Northeast corner of the subject property and looking directly West. So this is where that little job is on the partial that you can see that kind of wraps between the Houston Plaza and the single family. That's right here. This is Houston Plaza houses. And then again, sitting at that Northeast corner, I'm looking South so you can see these houses. Oops. The distance are up on 25th Avenue. This is 17th. burned again, and you can see the Houston Plaza Professional Center below me. It's across 17th Street, so this is the vacant land that sits above the mall property, and it is zoned at C6 Commercial, much like the mall is. Now I'm standing at the southern end of the subject property, so I'm almost at 25th. Looking north, so single family drawings that exist on 25th. This is 1 of their fences. They're over here 17th streets right here. You can see them all down here. The big white 1. And then this is the site plan provided by the applicant. It is also in your packet. Um, so you can see the applicant proposes the 3 buildings. 3 parking stalls, um. The applicant has a video that he'll show you that demonstrates that there will be parking underneath the buildings also. Um, but access into the site would come from 17th. And I just come into the property and either park underneath the building or park in the parking that would be adjacent to 17 and then. Access back out would also just be on that.

Ask a question, please. Thank you. Mr. that is that a 25 foot step back between these buildings and the those residential properties yeah that's what that is meant to convey is the 25. okay um is that is that a standard is that Is that the normal or is this just some initial design that we've received?

My understanding is this is just some initial design. So the R4 has a 20 foot front, 20 foot rear, minimum side yard with a combination of 15.

So R4, you have to have 20 feet. Yeah, 20 foot front, 20 foot rear. Okay. So this is exceeding that, at least in this design picture. Okay, thank you.

Okay, so then I'm standing at the center, the southern end of the subject property. I'm looking south along 17th street. So you can see, um, 25th is. Right here, um, 25th is a dead end. So this is the dead end because 25th is a dead end. It just kind of tease off right there. edward jones is over here on my left so i'm standing probably a little bit higher than where that because there's not measurements for that part of it, because it is a preliminary design provided by the applicant and probably a little bit higher up than I would then where that entrance would be. Then I went across the street. Um, so I'm standing on the East side of 17th street across from the subject properties. I'm looking West. Um. And like I mentioned before, you could see that the subject property sits higher than the roadway. Um, and so hard to see from the roadway at very least those houses that are sitting along 24th Avenue. Um, there is. Quite a bit of topography both to get up into the site and then from the site above, um. This is kind of that crest of the road exists. And then again, just pivoting, so I'm standing on the East side of 17th street, I'm looking Northwest across 17th street and subject property. You can see the roots of the homes that are on 24 that that's what these are. So, included in the packet is the application from millennium trust. And they are here tonight to speak to their development. And, like, I said, they do have a video they would like to show you. And so the proposal is for 3 residential buildings with 48 dwelling units. These would be 4 stories called buildings that are approximately 49 feet in height with sub training and parking facilities. And then you can see from that preliminary site plan, they also plan for some exterior parking as well. As noted in my staff report, Fairview Terrace Plan Development is a fairly old PUD for the City of Lewiston. It was originally developed in 1978 by a company called Baldwin Skelton Land Company. And the idea was to create lands that would cover commercial, multifamily, two-family, and single-family land uses. Our applicant became an owner in the early 2000s. There have been several requests for amendments to the Fairview Terrace Plan to Development over the years. In 2002, an amendment was made to change the southwest corner of 23rd Ave from high density residential designation to commercial designation. That amendment also requested an amendment to the comprehensive plan land use map. So that was under our 99 comprehensive plan. And that action was approved, but limited the use to professional offices only. And that is how Houston Plaza Professional Center came to be in that lower section that I showed you on the maps. And there was also an amendment request made in 2003 to change the PUD designation of the 1600 block of 23rd Ave on the south side for multifamily and two family residential designation to professional offices. And that allowed for a addition to the Houston Plaza. So I'll go back to that section of the map just to kind of show you what I'm referring to. And so originally the multifamily included all of this section, and so the request and allowed for the 1st section to be built and then the 2nd request allowed for the section 2nd section to be built. Uh. So, after those amendments were made, a 2nd amendment request was made in 2003 to change the designation from the 1600 block of 25th on the North side from single family residential designation to 2 family duplex residential designation. So that would have been. This section of 25th. That request was ultimately denied by the council. Um, and after that request was denied is when the subdivision request for just a single family was done and the Darby village subdivision started development. Um, in 2005, a comprehensive plan map amendment and his own change request was granted to remove. And about 2 acres, which is this section up here that contains the region's campus. To remove it from, um, the and to reason it to the regional commercial, so that, uh, Regents blue shield could expand their, um, campus. And that amendment was approved. Obviously, because you can see it's now in red with our. And then in that same year, in 2006, that Darby village subdivision plot was completed and approved by city council. It created the cul-de-sac on 24th and the dead end street on 25th and it's subdivided approximately 6.978 acres into 613 single family dwelling building lots. And that block 2 of Darby. Darby village subdivision that we're speaking about tonight. And that lot was not included in the subdivision is just referred to as walk to. Another amendment request was made in 2007 asking to allow for 8 duplexes or 16 residential units to be built on the subject property. The same lot that we're talking about tonight. And that request was also denied by city council. And going back to the photos that I showed showing the topography, and there is approximately 56 feet of elevation drop from the southern property line to the northern property line. Up here down here drop between the 2.

Question counselor Thank you. Mr. mayor with the, with the elevation dropping down. Is it does it did it look like it was dropping it kind of the same rate with the houses that are built there already on the kind of that West side? of asking slope wise so if i built a two-story house kind of toward the bottom am i about the same height as the the house that's already built there over to the west or is the slope greater on this this undeveloped property i think the slope might be slightly greater especially when you get kind of farther to the north and as you can see from this photo um it really so it's

it really kind of dives down once you get past these houses that are at the far end of the cul-de-sac. It kind of shoots down. And that's also, like I mentioned earlier, kind of where the crest of 17th is, where you really start to go up the hill.

Gotcha. So if I could really quick, I've got the slide pulled up where it's got building one, building two, building three, the one that we were talking about before.

on on this one would you say building one it's about level with the other houses like the the couple that are sitting um just north of it and then the couple that are sitting to the west of it um it would be hard to tell um the houses that are within the subdivision um are uh building height limited by their hoa um and the proposed buildings are four stories at 49 feet

well i mean more the ground did the ground seem level like that the house kind of on the west here the house kind of on the north here and if i was standing where building one is proposed is that about level ground that question making sense yeah i'm trying to um given that all the buildings the houses around that are single level

I think it would be taller. I think building three, because that's where it dies off my, because it would like, just generally sit lower because the topography is lower in that corner. It might be. I don't know that I would say that it's. Yeah, single family dwelling, they're all height limited. So they're not necessarily tall. They don't have good high peak troops or anything like that. Um. It would probably be the lowest right in the stair step situation. What I'm trying to get a sense of, but I don't know that I would be confident to say that it would be the same. Um, just because the proposed building height on. This development is pretty tall, right?

Yeah. So building 1 would seem definitely more like a 3 story building and building 3 might seem less much less like a 3 story building.

Is that fair to say that would be a fair statement?

Okay, thank you.

I've missed anything. I think the only other thing to maybe include, um. Okay, so in, um, the staff report and on page 100. Um, it speaks to so there were a couple of references to the previous comprehensive plan in 1999. Um, and amendments being requested, um. At that point, um, so our updated comprehensive plan was done in 2024 as the council knows. Um, so it designates the subject property like we saw on the maps and the associated neighborhood to the West as community residential community residential is described as that made to high intensity residential use designation. Um, and. It covers kind of a range of residential place types. So small single family, town homes, multifamily and suggested density range for that land use designation is 8 to 18 dwelling units per acre. And over 18 dwelling units per acre can be considered with some following with some, um. Essential considerations, some additional considerations, right? And so I did list those in the staff report. Um, so that would be things like. Um, intensity or providing transition in intensity for adjacent uses or zones access and that it be located on a collector or an arterial roadway. 17th is an arterial roadway. Um. That the existing or plan infrastructure is adequate to meet the needs of the proposed use compatibility that it provides appropriate transition and building scale from the surrounding uses. Um, the higher density residential are 4 zone would allow for up to 70 dwelling units based on the 2.65 acre size. And I gave you what that math is in the stack report. And just for, uh. Comparison sake, and the single family residential neighborhood and block 1 of Darby subdivision has block sizes ranging from point to 2 acres, which is the smallest to 1.14 acres at the largest. And like I mentioned, uh, they do have restrictive covenants on them for height and to create like a view corridor. For those problems, um, also included with the staff report, um. Is a, um, a corridor study, um, that the public works department provided, um, speaking about specific, um, Lee, 17th street. Um, because currently there is not an access into the subject property from 17th street and that is part of the proposal. Um, and so I did, uh, attach those actual portions of that corridor study and that were done on 17th street. Um. Public works also did comment that traffic impact study would be required as part of the building permit submittal to evaluate the proposed connection point to 17th street as well as traffic volume impacts to the street network, including site distance and safety considerations that might need to be mitigated by the applicant. And I believe I also included. Water information, because as I showed on the 1 map, there is not water in 17. Yeah, there's also a water study from Stan tech included in the packet. It starts on page 112. And that kind of just evaluates where it makes the most sense for water to come from. And the subject property is kind of at the top part of the city's water network and the bottom part of Lloyd's water network, the list and orchards irrigation district. that I would stand for questions before applicant show his video and presentation.

Thank you Katie council questions. We've been saving them up counselors. Pickle Meyer.

Thank you. Mary. So, Katie, I was looking at some of the. Information provided here, and this development's. 48 units dwelling units, but the existing coding would allow up to 70 dwelling units.

Yeah, the existing land use designation under the plan you in development would only allow for single family. So, he would have to further subdivide the property into single family dwelling.

But the proposed zoning could allow up to 70. correct. Okay.

That's the right Thank you. I, I want to try and better understand this covenants. I was reading about that and I, I heard you speak about it just a moment ago. Did the city of Lewiston sign into any agreements about. Homes being built at a certain height in this area, or anything like that through a homeowners association are not dictated by the city.

They're not part of what we would review. They're usually recorded against the properties. Um, and are operated on by a homeowners association and the city does not that's separate from the city.

So, how does this work with this piece of property that's not owned by the homeowners? Is it is this covenant saying that. This undeveloped property can only be developed. With this height of building, because there's an agreement with the homeowner, not the homeowner association.

Covenants do not apply to this.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Another thing I was reading in here about it with the commission found it made a statement that. Do the proposed density and scale it would produce noise, light pollution, traffic congestion and possible. Traffic safety problems, how can they say would did they do a study of the proposed buildings or something?

I imagine they're basing that on the testimony received at the meeting and the application. So, um, the application is for 48 units spread over 3 buildings with the buildings being 49 feet tall.

So, they know that those proposed buildings would produce a certain amount of noise and light pollution.

I think that that is the conclusion that the commission came to. Yes. based on the statements they made in the recent statement.

Councilor Forsmith.

Can I get maybe Dustin to help explain the water pressure thing? I read through it and there was also a proposal on how to fix it, but it didn't seem based on the response that it would actually solve the water pressure issue, especially because of the geography of the So what would fix that?

Uh, so Dustin Johnson, public works director, uh, so this is a real interesting part of the city where it is where Lloyd comes down the hill and the city goes up the hill and this is the magic middle that doesn't have any water or pressure. So, uh, I think the neighbors who you may hear from a little bit, uh, there's a lot of those houses that are on on individual booster pumps. And so. It is a known water pressure issue, um, which is, um. Interesting because Lewiston usually has high water pressure, but this is a 1 rare instance where we have low water pressure, uh, going back to this is the rezone. Uh, well, let me go back further. So this area is a known a known area of low water pressure, particularly the stuff mostly was focused on the other side of the mall or on the other side of the street just behind the mall. Um, but this area is in that same zone, uh, and so the city did, uh, do a study kind of looking what they could do to bring in more water. Um. It's basically bringing in pipes directly East. It's the same pressure. It gives you more water. Um, it would alleviate a lot of the issues, but. Without booster pumps, you're not going to get additional water pressure and that's why a lot of these, um, residents are in on a booster pump. With all that being said, um. There's nothing in this area that can't be fixed by booster pumps, bigger water mains, a reservoir, another well, whatever it is that can be solved by additional infrastructure. Um, there are, um, you know, we're talking about multi family housing, so there's fire code, there's, um, you know, pressures that the DEQ requires us to have for fire hydrants and municipal use. And so when this development is designed, obviously we'll be reviewing all the drawings and whatever infrastructure they plan on bringing in there. I have had conversations with the developer. He is aware that they have inadequate water pressure currently, and it will be up to them to find a way to fix it.

Just for clarity, they would have to in order to get

Yeah, to tie into a public water system, you have to meet a certain water pressure and. Because there's houses that are below them that barely scrape by that. Minimum standard, so if this is higher, it obviously would not have more more pressure. So, yeah, they, they are aware.

Counselors more questions for Katie.

Councilor Forsman? I think to go back to Councilor Zuckelmeyer's thought on the noise and the light pollution and everything, how do typically people quantify that? Obviously, having so many people in a condensed area versus individual homes, I would think that would cause more issues and more noise, but how do people Um, kind of, uh, statistics behind our data behind to say that that's.

I don't know that the commission, um. I don't know that there are statistics or. Data that could be presented on that. I think that the commission, um. Relied on the testimony that they received at their public hearing, all of which was included in your packet. Um, and the application from. Um, the applicant with number of units, um. Size of the units height of the units. I think those are the things that they concentrated on based on their recent statement.

That was a valid reason statement that they can make out.

Behind that, I'm going to refer to Jennifer on that 1. thank you.

This is where I get confused. I'm like. I need some clarity here was in our rights to say yes or no, or.

Our conspiring Jennifer to the attorney, um, council enforcement, that's ultimately a factual determination. Um. Of of the governing body, so, um, at the last meeting, it was the planning and zoning commission, and there was information presented, including pictures. Um, there's. Potentially a video that might might be presented of what this proposed property is intended to look like, um, plus the testimony from the neighbors. um and that testimony that ultimately the commission relied on they determined that there would potentially be some kind of night or light pollution and increased noise volume from the anticipated development with that being a factual determination it's up to you to weigh the information that's presented to you and make a decision on what you accept as fact it's not that much different than the classical example of being a jury and having the plaintiffs say you know the light was red and the defendant saying the light was green ultimately you have to make the determination was the light red or green in this particular instance the question to the planning and zoning would you know would there be a potential for a unmitigated unmitigable nuisance and they made the determination that yes there would be the potential Um, and they laid it out in their reason statement.

Katie, why don't we give you a break and, uh, we'll open it up for testimony from the public.

Sure. Applicants speak.

1st, right after we hear from the applicant.

Okay, so we have a video. There we go.

It's just the applicants video.

Yeah.

Okay. Rick, welcome. Please introduce yourself. For the record, the floor is yours. Thank you.

My name is Rick Keene. I represent Millennium, and I live in rural Lewiston. I have a Lewiston address. Okay. Unfortunately, it's too bad there's no sound. It sounds like we're all deaf and mute. The request before the city counts, the list and city council and mayor and members of the list of the city council. Want to thank you for the opportunity to present our request concerning the approximately. 2.65 acre Darby village block to property. Millennium respectfully request approval of the planned unit development. Amendment will allow and are for higher density residential designation on this for this property. Is higher density residential use appropriate for this property under the city's present vision for Lewiston's future growth? We believe the answer is yes. 1, the city's comprehensive plan. 1st, and foremost supports this type of development as Katie is clearly. Displayed in July of 2024. The Lewiston City Council adopted the Envision Lewiston 2044 Comprehensive Plan to guide development and growth for the next generation. The subject property is within the Community Residential Future Land Use designation, which anticipates residential multi-unit and residential attached development. Our proposed development is approximately 17.5 dwelling units per acre within the approximately 18 dwelling units per acre contemplated for this designation. This is not a request asking city council to disregard its comprehensive plan. We are merely asking council to implement it. The comprehensive plan represents the city's determination of where and how Lewiston should accommodate future growth. This property was included within the future land use planning area and our application follows that direction. This property has a long history of planned development. This 2.65 acres should not be considered in isolation. It is the remaining portion of a much larger development area. That our company began developing approximately 25 years ago, including Darby village, residential development, the Houston professional Plaza. Substantial privately, not substantial 100%. Privately funded public infrastructure and the remaining block to property now before council. I might add the city did not give me 1 nickel with those streets all those water lines in all the sewer and everything. And by the way, I worked on that project with my own hands. I'm just 25 years older now. Um. The larger property historically included higher density zoning before creation of the was created to provide flexibility for different uses and development patterns as Lewiston group. And might I add that. Keyword flexibility 25 years later housing needs. Have changed drastically in the city has adopted a comprehensive plan identifying this area. For community residential development, I want to reiterate that again. It's been overlaid right on the property. It was done a year and a half ago. Number 3, tonight's request is a land use designation. Definitely not a building permit. I'm going to have to jump to. A lot more hurdles as I've done in the past on every property on Thane road that I developed throughout the entire city of Lewiston. 3, um, there is there has understandably been discussion concerning water. Fireflow traffic access, lighting, landscaping, building systems. Those issues are important, but tonight we are requesting a land use amendment. We are not asking the city council to approve construction, drawing or issue building permits. For construction can occur the project must still proceed through the city's development in development, engineering, fire, building and permitting processes processes and satisfy the applicable requirements of those departments. Approval tonight does not eliminate those protections. It establishes the land use framework under which the project can proceed to detailed engineering and development review. For infrastructure and fire protection, although detailed engineering follows the land use decision, we have already begun addressing infrastructure. Preliminary engineering has evaluated approximately 1650 lineal feet of 8 inch C, 900 water main connecting the lower municipal water system near next 1st grade by sparkling a spark light. with the water infrastructure along 17th Street. Preliminary analysis indicates that this interconnection could provide approximately 4,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi, together with additional fire hydrants. The improvement could increase available fire flow improve system redundancy, strengthen fire protection, improve the municipal water network, and support future development along 17th Street corridor. We are prepared to continue working with City Engineering and the Fire Department on final requirements. 5 traffic has been addressed. We have undertaken a preliminary traffic analysis, addressing projected trip generation and traffic flow. And that analysis has been submitted as an exhibit. We recognize that access must be safe and functional and are prepared to work with city engineering staff concerning site distance. Ingress and egress circulation and reasonable improvements identified through development review. The existence of traffic on 17 street does not by itself mean additional residential development should be prohibited. It means traffic must be professionally evaluated. And appropriately engineered, and we have. That process has begun 6. we have listened to the neighbors. We understand concerns about views. Privacy lighting noise traffic and the transition between single family homes and higher density residential development. Rather than dismiss those concerns, we intend to address them through design. Design mitigation and quality commitments approximately. An 8 foot privacy wall where appropriate, and we've even considered higher, but we don't want to look like we're in a little prison. Call it compound, but we want to make it look nice. Um. Together with landscaping and architectural screening exterior lighting designed to minimize unnecessary spill over and light pollution, modern glazing and privacy light control technology is intended to reduce nighttime illumination visible outside of the buildings. We've done some really incredible investigating on these new types of windows. We call it glazing. Touch of a button, you can actually air out interior light to the outside at night. Lights that Blacked on the walls very lightly on the fronts of the buildings instead of. I've seen buildings around town. I'm just testifying in my own behalf of. Very blatant ugly lights that shine outward. Nothing like that. That's not going to do it to a nice looking aesthetically pleasing property. Modern glazing and privacy light control technologies intended to reduce nighttime illumination visible outside the buildings. Mechanical systems designed to minimize exterior noise. Conventional residential condensing units are not intended to hang around the building exterior. Evaluation of centralized high efficient radiant and hydronic glycol based heating and cooling concepts is what our intention is, which is very modern. highly insulated concrete construction with wall assemblies targeting approximately R50 performance subject to final engineering. Belmont Estates is intended to be an architectural asset. Belmont Estates is envisioned as a premium condominium development. 3 architecturally coordinated residential buildings, approximately 48 condominium residences. 4 story construction, subterranean parking, high performance, concrete construction and substantial landscaping controlled access. high quality exterior finishes and architectural detailing intended to complement the surrounding community. Architectural and precast expertise being considered for the project includes firms with experience on prominent high building, high quality projects, including work associated with Spokane's Davenport Hotel. Our objective is straightforward when these buildings are completed. We want them to be an asset that Lewiston is proud of. 8 housing is a part of the public benefit. Every additional housing unit contributes to Lewiston's housing inventory. 48 new residences create opportunities beyond the 48 households that ultimately live there a homeowner moving from an existing list and resident. residents into belmont may make another home available someone downsizing may free a larger resident family residence and someone moving into the lewiston may purchase economy rather than competing for an existing single family residence adding quality to residential inventory provides additional choices throughout the market and nine private covenant concerns some comments have raised Private restrictive covenants associated with Darby village. We respect those concerns. However, private covenants and multi land use regulations. Are separate matters tonight's question before council is the appropriate municipal land use designation for this property under the city's. And zoning framework and comprehensive plan any questions concerning whether. Particular private covenants apply to a particular property and their legal enforceability is a separate private legal matter. We respectfully ask council to evaluate this application under the city's adopted land use standards. Number 10 change does not automatically mean incompatibility. 25 years ago, develop development of portions of this area generated substantial neighborhood concern. Houston professional plaza was controversial when proposed. Today is an established part of the community and I can test to you. It was horrifying. In fact, I demanded that the city police be there on the next 1. And remove people that were yelling comments out at me and making derogatory remarks about. What a terrible human I am for the community and I raised 4 beautiful children that all graduated from Lewis and high school. And it still hurts me to know that there were many, many people in that meeting hundreds that came there to throw eggs at me. Growth and excuse me growth inevitably changes communities. The purpose of planning is not to prevent change. It is to ensure that change occurs. Thoughtfully safely in accordance with an adopted long range plan. That is what we are asking the council to allow us to do. Our request. We respectfully request that the lowest and city council approve the proposed amendment, allowing our 4 higher density residential use. Of Darby village block to the request is consistent with the direction established by. Lewiston cities recently adopted comprehensive plan. It adds housing, it utilizes the existing infrastructure. It creates the opportunity for additional privately funded infrastructure improvements and it allows for approximately 2.65 acres of privately owned property to be developed in a manner contemplated by the city's long term planning vision. We are not asking council to waive engineering standards. And we are definitely not asking council away fire protection requirements and we are certainly not asking council away building codes and we are not asking council to approve construction tonight. We are asking council to approve the land use framework contemplated by its own comprehensive plan of which. The city council approved already previously in 2024, and allow us to proceed through the council, the city's normal development process. We are prepared to invest substantial private capital into this property and it's supporting infrastructure and we are prepared to work with our neighbors. We're prepared to work with the city engineering community development, the fire department and other city departments, and we are prepared to design and develop worthy of this location. What we respectfully ask from the city council tonight is the opportunity to do so. These approve the R4 PUD amendment and allow Belmont Estates to move forward into the detailed development and engineering process. I don't have anything further. You're welcome to ask me all the questions you'd like.

Thank you, Rick. Counselor Wright.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. As far as the view, the neighboring houses' views are concerned. So I did read some concerns about that in the packet I received. How do you think you could address the concern, particularly with Building 1? That one seems like there's two properties, two or three properties kind of right there, and Building 1 would really be right up

Overall, all of those properties at the top there, I don't mean to sound evasive or mean about this. But I'm going to be blunt, I live on a ranch outside of town. When I leave outside the background, so my patio, I look over web. I have no right to privacy once I accept my building. People can have telescopes and watch what I'm doing. I have no privacy. Since I leave my building, I have no, now I bought all the land behind me. So nobody's going to build a building. However, when I put in my request for the Darby Village phase one, now this is block two, block one and block two, not to be confused. When I put in my request, I had everybody there opposed my development for housing. You're gonna block my view with a house in front of me on 25th. I had people saying, where am I gonna walk my dog to the bathroom? There was clearly signs posted, no trespassing. I had to have the police come up there several times when people were dumping their trimmings, their trimmings from their trees. I had the police come up and I'm not gonna mention names, but they had to make them remove the trimmings. They were dumping them on my property. I would have had to have removed that. I got opposition for everything I've done on every development on Thane Road, every building I had built on Thane Road, and I probably built 15 buildings on Thane Road. I've seen it all. Can't build right there. It's gonna block my view of Thane Road. I've seen it all. I just, I scratched my head on this. So to answer your question, That property had been for sale. If people wanted to buy it, it had been for sale. They had the opportunity to buy it if they want to protect their view. I don't mean to sound invasive, but I don't know what else to say. A building. It's a building if they wanted a view, they should have bought the property. Um, and it'd be big, it's going to be beautiful. It's going to house. I'll say this, I flew back in from Phoenix to Seattle and I wrote with the guy next to me on the plane. He's a doctor. He's an ER doctor. He said to me, he goes, oh, this is great. You're showing him the video satellite didn't have the sound because the sound really gives you a nice overall. A fact, but he said, yeah, I've been trying to buy a house here, something nice and this is right up my alley. Um. He still rent because he hasn't made a decision to buy here. He comes for a month and works. Then he goes back to Phoenix and works for a month back and forth. Um, I don't know what else to say. I can't say that. I'm going to lower it into the ground further. It's, you know, I mean, I've considered going a little shorter, but it still doesn't. You're still going to have a building there, whether it's 48 feet or whether it's 40 feet or 35 feet. Um. As they go down, you know, people in the 1st building are going to get the best view. The last building is going to have the best view. Oh, because the Houston plaza, you know, it's down a little bit lower when we blasted the rock. Now, which brings me to people have said there'll be blasting. I don't think it's prudent to blast. Um, there are. Much more modern techniques since we blasted 25, 26 years ago, I think when we blasted. There is grout, but they bore a hole, they put grout in it and it just expands and cracks and then you just move it out. So talking to earth movers, they say, oh, we'd be in and out of most of these places within two to three weeks getting your sites prepared. So blasting is not really what we, We don't want the liability, so. I don't know what else to say.

No, thank you.

Thank you. Um, question 1 of the things that was brought up was the issue around the utilities. Mainly the water. Yeah. Have you had any thoughts on how you would address that? That wouldn't impact the city.

I, I read that. I, I don't know if you caught that. Um. I talked to Dustin, we've already been talking back and forth. Let me re, re, read this again. Uh, the water concern, we did a report on it. Did did you bring that Dustin? I didn't bring it because I thought it would be passed on to you guys. It was at the. Um, general statements, find a general state. Oh, you got it. Okay. It's pretty detailed about the water. I mean, I'm willing to. Work with the city and put her by 1650 lineal right here. I've got a little synopsis, although detailed engineering follows the land use decision. We have already begun addressing infrastructure. Preliminary engineering is evaluated approximately 1650 lineal feet of agency 900 water. City water main. City water main connecting the lower municipal water system here and as 1st grade, we went down and I went down to spark light. I've identified based on city maps, right? Where we could interconnect and go directly West bound. I think that the, um. Talk to the, um, the person in charge of the property to the East of us. If we're going to run a water line, we're going to drop 2 fire hydrants in makes their property worth more money and ready to they can't even develop it because there's no water. So, with our water line going in, they get developmental property.

Do you want to yeah, a specific page.

Yeah, if you want them to make, it's got a lot of the analysis already on there. With maps that we did.

So, this is the materials that were provided as a part of the packet. And it's looking at it on the online agenda packet. Item 7.6 water study. Directly from the public website for the.

And the materials that were and so in preliminary analysis indicates that this interconnection. We provide approximately 4,250 gallons per minute at 20 psi together with that additional fire hydrants. The improvement could increase available fire flow, improve system redundancy, strengthen fire protection and improve the municipal water network and support future development along 17 street order. And as I stated in the, you know, final remark, we are prepared to continue working with city engineering, the fire department on final requirements. That's a huge upgrade to interconnect. 2 separate pieces of water systems together at the highest level of this at the highest. Elevation level in the city before you hit. We've been a lot of, you know, Pre design. Okay.

Council questions.

Mr. murder. No, sir. Maureen. Which team you have a vision. Property that I personally don't know is suitable for that location. Um, I do have experience in governance and restrictions. Um. One question I do have for you is, you said that there were two Darby villages, one and a two? Block one and block two. Block one and block two? Block two, yeah. And which one is this? Block two. That's going on block two. So block one would be the existing? Yes. Okay. And both those blocks were developed?

At the same time, is that correct block once I've had completed block 2, we brought the infrastructure in. So we already have existing fire hydrants. And sewer system stubbed into the property. Correct. No roads or no, no additional infrastructure, just the underground.

Correct. But with the vision of the phase 1 and phase 2 or lot 1 and lot 2. The residential portions were sold off. Yes. And there were covenants and restrictions that were in those, correct? Block one. Okay.

Not block two.

I understand that. But you own both of them at the same time, correct?

It's all under one PUD.

Okay. I've lived here for 26 years and I've seen this come kind of develop along. I never did understand everything that was there. But whenever I looked at buying one of those properties that was there and the covenants and restrictions, I was told by a lawyer the only thing that can enforce it is anybody that has a problem with it. And on page 6 of 20 in your reason statement, it says as to the building heights and views, he noted that the proposed building heights follows local regulations and the comprehensive plan. And that the neighbors are focusing on CC&Rs that affect their subdivision, but have no application or regulation over the subject property, which was excluded from the CC&Rs. The proposed development efficiently uses a topography within the subject property. The applicant further questions the focus on affordable housing when the city has also missed opportunities for luxury housing options. He notes that the city is missing out on a desirable market for luxury housing, which this development would meet. He stated that the units were proposed to sell at $500,000 to $800,000, with buyers having additional options for interior finishes that range from another $150,000 to $600,000. For example, he plans to incorporate bathtubs valued at 25,000. I don't see what you're describing fits in with that particular piece of property and that location. I think it is a good idea what you have and you have a great marketing tool with a video. You said that you rode on an airplane and met with a doctor who said that they'd like it, but that's only one person. I'm not paying $800,000 to live in the apartment myself personally. And if I bought one of those pieces of property and the CCNRs didn't give me air rights to what was abutting it, I would take it in good faith that the person that was selling me that property was applying the same covenants and restrictions to what he owned as to what he was selling me. To me, that's just the way that I was raised and that's what I've come to believe. I'm not saying that you have ill intent towards the neighbors or anything like that, but if you're going to build a 49 foot building beside my property, I will be fighting you because I don't believe that that high density, four story building next to a single family, 35, I believe it's 35 or 37 foot height restriction in that subdivision per their CC&Rs is the right thing to do. If I want to stand out on my back porch and look at 17th street and watch the traffic come and go, that should be my prerogative because whenever I bought my property and I built my house, that was where I wanted to look at. I like watching the sunrise in the east. There's not very many of those houses that are going to be able to do that with three 49 foot structures there. The other thing that I, that draws my attention is you have one entrance off the 17th and each structure has how many units in it? 49? Or 45?

No, there's 16 structures. I'm sorry? 16 units.

16 units in each one. Okay. Then my math was off on that. I still have concerns about the traffic on 17th going up and down the hill there. That is a high speed area and whenever you come across Vineyard to turn north on the 17th, there's already restrictions with the power poles and the people that park their vehicles right on the edge of there right away right there.

So, a couple may I may I say it again? Sure. Okay. Um. I still can't build unless I meet, you know, city requirements on traffic study and mitigation, how flow traffic ingress and egress. So I'm still going to be required that they're not just going to hand me. Oh, go ahead and build 1 and 2. When you said, I don't know if this is appropriate place. I've looked all over City of Lewiston, not just because I own that. I've met with the McCanns. I've met with all the McCanns. I met with Mike and Pat, well, their representative. Where else would there be? There is no high end. Lewiston has not arrived yet into the upper echelon of high class. We don't have that yet. We've had requests from people from Seattle that have reached out to me. They would like to move here, but don't have really... what they're looking for. Um, and, uh, also to discuss a little bit, not trying to be, you know, agitating, but when we built the Houston Plaza, the only thing I did wrong was didn't, I didn't go up high enough. Cause I still get calls 20 some years later, do you have space in the Houston Plaza? We, that was our four and we changed it to see what was it, Katie? We changed it to see, Commercial, so we, we, we adjusted the desk that excuse me the designation. Um. When we were in front of the city council, I had John white there who's been he's passed yet. He's 1 of the founders of Ray J. White and sons. He was a very close friend of mine. There were, uh, at the time, I remember there were 51 vacant commercial properties in Lewiston and the city council had said. Who we're going to buy these buildings who's going to move into these big fancy buildings you're building at the Houston Plaza and John got spoken. He says, how about if you just designate what we're asking for and we'll worry about selling the buildings. That's what we do. We market buildings and we just need land use designation. And they just said, we just don't know who's going to buy these buildings. Those were sold out so fast. The only, the only thing I did wrong was not go up another level because we had plenty of parking. Um, so with that said, it's. There are people that want to buy and is it in the right location? It's close to the hospital. It's on a main arterial. It is a. 2nd, largest arterial in Lewiston thing being the number 1. This is number 2, um, since it's just west of of Thane road, um. It's got grocery shopping, the mall, it's close to everything right above us is. over 200 apartments a block away that was passed and rezoned that was also R1 that had to be re-designated into R4. And our medium, I don't know if I want to classify them as low income. I don't think they're section 8, but they are, they're nice departments. Um, so we think that this is a great area and if it's passed, we're gonna, we're, we're gonna build them and make them nice. We're gonna try to do the best we can to make it a nice appropriate fit to the community. It's like, when the Houston Plaza was built, when regions built their building. Everybody protested that where was it going to go? It had nowhere else to go when social security built our building. I've been I've been here my whole life. I can remember. Every development that's happened in this community. I grew up in Idaho, so I watched Lewiston. Thane road go from a 2 lane road past Kmart. I was in the ravine, and when they did that, everybody protested, oh, my gosh, you're going to build four lanes. This is terrible. And imagine not having it, not having North 40, not having all the infrastructure. It's called development growth. Downtown Spokane used to be housing, and it urbanized, just like we're doing. And unfortunately, I just happen to be the guy that knows how to urbanize things.

No further questions.

Thank you.

Thank you. Counselor counseling.

I was wondering why you went with an R4 instead of an R3. Stone on this 1 is a developer.

The development costs are so expensive. I might bring water lines in. I have the infrastructure. I've got water and sewer in to do those water and sewer lines. Nowadays is half a 1Million dollars. um paving walls all the infrastructure the more you have to sell the lower you reduce your development costs um can we mitigate some of those costs and lower it yeah we can i mean we're we'll entertain a compromise if if that's where this is headed i mean we're always open to a compromise with the city we want to we want growth to happen in the city of lewis we just watched jessica and kyle bean That is exactly the same as us. I'm surprised there weren't more people coming to. Contest against it, I was blown away. They, they got it passed. Um, in the residential area, you just pass something off that. Legally now they could go build. 43045 feet high, and they could build and mitigate the parking. They could build 2 buildings there. And build, uh, for acre 36 units, 18 units per acre, 36 units in a. 45 foot high building and there's nothing nobody can do now. So, you see what I'm saying? You guys just passed something that is literally an R3 that allows 45 foot high building. They could literally walk out of here and say, we're not going to do 55 and trailers, you know, uh, pre pre manufactured homes. We're going to do a couple of big buildings. There's not a thing the neighbors can do. So, I'm in the same boat here. I mean, I could, I could, we had comments at the that said. Why don't you do 1 of the members? Why don't you do, uh. What's the word not low income, um, tiny homes or something. Do you remember what they were requesting? And I just I said, well, if I went in and was asking for low income housing, I would get protested against it. No matter what happens. Nobody wants change. I've learned this through my many years of doing land development. I don't know if that answers your question.

Not really, because I'm looking at that same, like, you could come in and build 70 units.

And no, I can only do 18 units per acre maximum. 18 units per acre if I have enough. If I don't overgrow, I have to have enough. What's the ratio green space for. Parking there's a ratio 50% of the land. So. Yeah, that interested 70 years. You asked why I wouldn't go lower. Yeah, I would if we have to. I did answer mitigate the cost of development cost. So we try to get as many as we can without. Making it look, I mean, we felt like 3 buildings, 16 units. The overall view with a nice, you know, elevators, the atrium in the front, um, making it look decent. Um, if we had to go a little smaller, I would entertain that.

It seems like the are 3, the are 3 zoning would still accommodate everything that you're asking for and that's what. That's what I'm my biggest concern is that you're going over. Over surpassing what you're you're proposing and so it makes me feel. A little uneasy about accepting it thinking maybe you want more than what you're proposing.

If we did an R3, we would end up each. we'd end up with about it's still going to be a high building it's still going to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 38 feet i mean if i if i build a single family home there on the southern end of the lot and i went 10 foot stories and built two stories with an eight foot Roof line, I'm going to have 28 feet, you know, right? Use. I'd be 10 feet shorter than if I went a 3 story building. Just saying, I'm just trying to put it in perspective here. I'm, you know, I'm trying to be reasonable of my thought process so that people can see. I could actually maybe Katie and I, and I've talked to our staff and how we could build if we did a lot and did duplex style and did, you know, 2 stories with, you know, something aesthetically and high end looking. Don't really want to do that would prefer to have something people want a place to live where they don't have to go maintain their yard. They don't have to do they can drive into their place, go up the elevator, go to their apartment or their condominium and relax. Something higher, something that lowest and doesn't have.

That's his question. Okay. Why don't Mr. King? Why don't we give you a rest and we'll see if there's unless you have something else too. Okay. And we'll ask for any public testimony and then you'll have an opportunity to rebut the testimony, but not to add information. So if they say something you disagree with, you can certainly rebut that. Okay. Thank you. okay with that i'm going to open up for a public comment if you have some we just need your name and you need to let us know that you're from lewiston if you're going to provide testimony on this particular action so and we'll give you three minutes

Good evening. My name is Lindy Kilfoyle, and I live at 1635 25th Avenue here in Lewiston. You saw the back of my house in some of those pictures. Building one would be the second floor of building one would be approximately at my deck level. So picture yourself sitting out on your deck, and you have to look up 20 to 30 feet to see the roof line of the building that's right next to you. Jerry, myself, and many of our neighbors purchased our homes based on a reasonable expectation about the long-term character and use of this area. Rezoning stable, established R2 neighborhoods into substantially higher density zones fundamentally upends the expectations we relied upon when choosing where to invest our hard-earned money, purchase our homes, and raise our families. This proposal asks existing homeowners to accept a massive burden. I don't know anyone who would willingly want three huge 49 foot tall buildings constructed just 25 feet from their property line. The negative impacts on our daily quality of life are crystal clear. First, a total loss of privacy and aesthetic character. Towering four story buildings will permanently obliterate our neighborhood's visual appeal and invade the privacy of surrounding single family lots. Second, the environmental disruption. Sudden dense crowding will inherently bring intrusive light pollution and increase daily noise to a currently calm, peaceful space. That's not even mentioning the grueling months or years of construction, the disruption we will be forced to live through. Public safety on our local streets deserves your absolute highest attention. Increasing density naturally multiplies vehicles and more vehicles mean more traffic interactions. The introduction of a 48 unit development will cause a sharp influx of cars entering and moving along 17th Street. This isn't just a matter of minor congestion. It creates valid daily safety risks for our local pedestrians, neighbors and children. Ultimately, you're making life altering decisions for existing property owners who are the backbone of this community. I strongly oppose this rezoning proposal. I urge you to do what is best for the current residents who live here, pay taxes here and love this town. Please reject this proposal, keep the R2 designation and preserve a neighborhood of single family homes with yards and room to breathe. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Let's see if you have a question from any council members before we let you go. Council questions? Thank you.

Do we have anyone else?

I've never had the mic to myself.

Welcome, Doug.

My name is Doug James. I live at 16 25th Avenue. I met Rick in around 2006, my wife and I, Kim James. We decided to buy a vacant lot on 25th Avenue, lot 11. One of the main selling points for me and my wife were the protective covenants. I wasn't going to invest $60,000 back in 2008, which was a lot of money in 2008. Today's market that we're dealing with, not so much, but 2008, that was a lot of money. We built our dream home there. We were promised a secure view. That's why we located there. We attended the planning and zoning committee meeting previously, and I know the common theme they had was the compatibility. They didn't feel the three 50-foot buildings, towers would be compatible with the existing integrity and vision of darby village and i agreed with them lot two or block two has never been for sale so we couldn't have purchased it had we wanted to in the plat mat plat map that we have on the protective covenants it clearly says block one and two so you could you can conclude that it was all part of the vision that mr keene had when he was selling the lots it was our understanding that he would develop Block one, sell the lots, and then he would develop lot two because they already have power around to them, sewer, and water. So the infrastructure's already in the ground. He did mention 20 PSI, that won't run your sprinkler system. In fact, it'll barely get out your hose. The fire hydrant that we have on 25th Avenue, I think it produces about 20 PSI right now. It wouldn't put out a fire. All of our homes up there have, we have water pumps. variable speed water pumps so i'm not sure how that would even work but as lindy pointed out no none of us would want to walk outside and have towering buildings looking down upon us it would basically ruin our property value we'd have to probably all sell our homes i would i would not stay there because i know our home values would plummet meanwhile i don't think our assessed values would go down but you know the integrity of the subdivision would would be forever compromised so i would urge you to support the PNZ's decision. I think they made a wise decision. They thought it out. They evaluated everything, all of the arguments, pro and con. And I think their decision to keep it R2 is what I wish you would make as well. I think we should revisit the eight duplexes that Mr. Keene suggested that was denied back in 2008. I think that would be more appropriate for the subdivision and the long-term vision that we all thought We were buying into, thank you.

Thank you. Let's see if there's any questions. You're off the hook.

Nothing. It is my birthday. I'm here on my birthday. If that has any way.

Happy birthday.

Happy birthday.

Okay, do we have some more citizen comments? Yeah, thank you again. Your name and city residents.

I'm good evening. My name is Gina Thomas and I live at 1638 25th Avenue and I've lived there since 1994. you asked why they're single family dwelling along 17th street. It's because it was built 32 years ago before any other discussion. So that's, um, I live the 2nd house in on 25th on. the south side. This is the third time I've stood before this committee. I was here in 2003 and again in 2007 when there was contemplation of what should be done with what we knew then as the field and I stand here tonight asking that you deny the rezoning once again I'm a teacher at Whitman Elementary which means that daily at 8 20 I sit at the stop sign at 25th avenue before exiting north onto 17th street to get to work 17th street was recently updated so that the two southbound lanes merge into one lane right at 25th avenue traffic coming up Or traffic coming north crest over the hill and cars typically pick up speed there as they go downhill towards 25th avenue. it's already challenging to turn left under 17th street I can't imagine what it will be like if you add 48 more households. 48 to 96 cars trying to get to work, all at the same time with their only exit about 75 feet from my exit on 17th street. Looking at the proposed buildings, they are beautiful, but the setting is all wrong. We have a lovely neighborhood filled with single-family homes. These are nice homes. They're not posh. They're not extravagant. They're just nice family homes of working citizens. Plopping three four-story units that are huge right up against our fences is like David standing next to Goliath. These buildings are massive, and with that massiveness comes the noise of the 48th. air conditioning units, whether they're inside or outside, the garage doors going up and down, the light, and mostly just that lack of privacy as the second, third, and fourth floor residences look down into our yards. So please do as previous city officials have done and protect our neighborhood, protect our citizens, and deny this rezoning once again. Thank you.

Thank you, Tina. Questions, councillors, before we let Tina go? No. Thank you.

Welcome, I'm Debbie Kelly and I live on 1535 24th and I don't like speaking, but I like many here sent letters in opposition of the proposed zone change for the Darby village subdivision block to. The zone change in question is not fitting for our neighborhood we brought our kids up to believe right place right time his facility is amazing if it's the right place out on some plateau or it's got a view. Why would you want to spend $600, $700, $800,000 and you look at the rooftop of WinCo? I ask that you take the letters you've received, the words of those speaking tonight, then the copies of the planning and zoning, and as they opposed the zone change, I would ask you to do the same. I did want to say, too, that we bought our home a year and a half ago. We're, like I said, 1535 24th, so our house exactly is one of those that our backyard would be right border to that. When we purchased our home, we knew that was an empty lot. We knew somebody could build there, and we knew it was zoned R2. So you're going to have a residence of some kind. You could have multiple residences, but single residences, not a four-story, 48-unit building. Thank you very much, and I beg of you to oppose this.

Thank you. Absolutely. Questions? No?

I'm a little tired, okay? So I am Karina Williams. I am at 1533 24th Avenue. So I would lose that beautiful view to the east. I wouldn't see the sunsets anymore if those buildings came in. And I would have to put up privacy for me because I wouldn't want them looking on me in my kitchen. So the most important thing is your land use. You guys have really made it very clear here that it's to be LU211, scale appropriate housing options across Lewiston. This is a huge building. it's like taking the courtyard Marriott splitting it up into three and putting it on that on that property it sticks out like a sore thumb on 17th it doesn't blend in it it's a beautiful building I understand but it just doesn't fit there and as other people have said the traffic is a big issue one of our neighbors she almost got killed pulling out on 23rd um onto 17th it's just the way the the road is sloped up and slanted a bit you can't see around vegetations it's just a no-brainer it's just not that many cars out there just isn't it doesn't make sense um the other the other thing is is We want to allow density by ensuring compatibility. Build additional housing types in scale-appropriate ways that fit into the existing neighborhood. This doesn't fit. I'm sorry. go over by the theater. You have that beautiful view there. And I look at his little video shows no houses around at all. And it's up on a plateau. You can do anything with video. And I just want him to do what he is honorable. He did the Darby section. He put in his covenants. He made us do a certain height restrictions. He promised people not to block views. We can't even have trees over 30 feet. We have honored those covenants. I know it's not up to you guys to make that decision. But if he's not willing to be honest and honest morally right and honor what he has set up with the darby then i don't think you should trust him and i'm asking you and i stand firm please vote this down thank you thank you council questions all right we'll let you go i'll roll the dice here for us

I'm Pat Kelly. I live right next to Karina. She's a wonderful neighbor. I got just a few things that I would like to say in no particular order. When Mr. Hakeem bought this land, he's saying it was zoned R4. It was R2 when he bought it. We all bought our homes there based on R2. Somehow, magically, that was in 2000. Is that correct, sir, when you bought the property? 2000? 2000, since I can't get an answer. 2006, we all had covenances. We could only have a 20 foot tree. Your house couldn't be over 25 feet tall. We all agreed to everything and we still do. In 2006, somehow lot two got changed. And the covenances that were wrote into the bylaws for our development down there said it took 75% of the homeowners to vote to change the covenances. And somehow lot two got changed. The covenances didn't apply to lot two anymore. That's fine. So here we are today. There's original homeowners here that bought their land and they were told that they would never have to worry about their view. That's changed. I'm just not seeing that. I'm not feeling the love here, I guess. So if it's good for the goose, it's good for the gander. I think R2 stays. And here's another fun fact. Increasing water volume does not increase pressure. You guys need to understand how that works. You can run a one foot pipe down there full of water. The time you put it into a half inch pipe, it's the same pressure is equal to both of them. It takes 22 PSI to run water up 50 feet. Doesn't mean it's flowing, it just means it's there. So if you want 20, 30 pounds of pressure at 48, 50 feet, you gotta have 50 PSI at the start of it, because you lose 20 going up. Somebody needs to know that. It's everywhere. It works. It's common. What I propose is that we stay with R2. Planning and zoning was correct. This is a residential neighborhood. We all live there. We have our dreams. I think what Mr. King's development is phenomenal, although it shows a three story building and I think that's proposed to be four. So they're a little bit shorter. I don't want King Kong in my neighborhood. I would like to see a development back there, though. We all agree to that. But let's do something that's right for the neighborhood and Lewiston. Thank you.

Thank you. Just looks like we have questions.

Yeah, thank you. I live at 1635 25th Avenue. I'm 1 of the houses on number 1. it would totally obliterate our view would be right behind us. You've heard a lot of things from the neighborhood residents about water pressure, traffic noise, and all the other negative things. that will affect current residents if this proposal gets approved for the corporation. Of the five main criteria questions the Planning and Zoning Commission considered in their meeting on whether or not this met the condition to be rezoned, one was 50-50, could be interpreted either for or against, the other four were a resounding no with multiple exclamation points. What I want to communicate to the council is what I really think is happening here. I've been associated with a 2,500 seat theater in Southern Utah for the last 15 years. And one of the things that fascinates me the most is the art of misdirection that is involved in putting on a Broadway quality production. You're directed to look at one side of the stage with bright lights and noise while at the same time on the other side, an unexpected change is being prepared to surprise the audience. City Council Chambers, This is what I think is going on here with a splashy distracting well that Ai generator proposal. City Council Chambers, is designed to convince us to be concentrated on one viewpoint when, in reality, the only reason for this narrative is the ultimate goal of getting this property rezone to our for by any means necessary. I have a feeling that if this is accomplished, this project will be scrapped for unforeseen circumstances and replaced with an even more intrusive behemoth that would be allowed under our four restrictions. I think the different proposal, I think a different proposal will be closer to twice the density of this being presented today. There's only one reason for this request for the change from R2 to R4, and it's simply profit. You can make more money stacking buildings four stories tall and putting the maximum amount of units allowed in the area under R4 designation. You simply don't make as much money building residential units on single lots that would conform to the existing neighborhood. The corporation wants to change the property to high density zoning. It doesn't live next to it they're not affected by the negative aspects, it would bring they do not have any interest in the deterioration of the quality of the surrounding already established community. It seems the only thing they're interested in again is profit, we need to retain and protect the R2 status of the property in question. the corporation doesn't want to build single-family homes on this acreage to seamlessly continue the continuity of what has already been developed they can simply sell the property to someone who will thank you thank you welcome good evening uh mayor

My name is Rinaldo Phillips and I'm at 1537 24th Avenue. I submitted, my wife and I have both submitted our letters to the Planning and Zoning Commission and to you. I just wanted to be here in person and just.

Thank you.

Jennifer Tingano, resident. I am a Lewiston resident. I just wanted to make a comment, not necessarily as legal advisor, but just to call your attention to something in the application materials that were presented today in the proposal. Mr. Keene indicated that there were 48 units proposed on 2.65 acres, but he stated that the density would be 17.5. But if you divide 48 by 2.65, the total density would be 18.11. And in the comprehensive plan under the proposed community residential designation, it does state that with 18 plus dense dwelling units per acre, they may be considered. But the following essential sorry, I don't know why I get all I'm tired and I'm hungry. The following essential considerations also need to be considered the intensity. Does it provide a transition and intensity from adjacent uses and zones? Access, it needs to be located on a collector or arterial roadway with adequate access for the proposed use. Infrastructure, the existing or planned infrastructure is adequate to meet the need of the proposed use. And compatibility provides an appropriate transition in building scale from surrounding uses. So I'm not a mathematician, I'm a lawyer. And I'm not sure how that 17.5 designation for the dwelling use is being calculated. But, um, when you get down to considering, is this in conformance with, I do encourage you to address, um, those specific elements because they are considered essential considerations when determining whether or not it's in accordance with the comprehensive plan.

Jennifer, let's see if there's questions, counselors, any questions we have Jennifer there. I'm so far. Yeah.

Uh. Are we saying there's a concern. for the density and the traffic flow? I wanna make sure I'm understanding this.

For the designation itself of community residential, the suggested residential density, and this is in the staff report, it's eight to 18 dwelling units per acre, but for 18 plus dwelling units per acre, it can be considered in conformance with, but there's the following essential considerations. The staff report it's not formatted the same way as in the comprehensive plan, and in the comprehensive plan these elements are bolded for what you want to take that in consideration with. Again, in his presentation he says it's 17.5 dwelling units per acre, which would essentially take it out of those essential considerations. But with it being 18 plus, then these are essential considerations to determine whether or not it's in conformance with that particular designation for the comprehensive plan. We just would want to review those. It's like extra criteria.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

But I'm a lawyer, not a mathematician, also not a developer. So there might be some pluses and minuses in there that gets you to that 17.5, but just straight division does not get you there.

That's the right what were the essential considerations.

Um, uh, so there's several different things. Um, I can pull them up if you want, but yeah, I can if that would be easier.

Yeah, I can pull them up to where.

Perfect again, all of this is public information. But these items right here, entity access infrastructure compatibility. So that's where it says 18 plus can be considered with the following essential considerations.

As soon as you have further comments, questions for Jennifer. Oh, not for Jennifer.

I guess I have 1. uh, well, it might not actually be for you, but if. With the R4 zone being considered, and for some reason the plans change and it does become the 18 plus, would then it have to come back to either planning or zoning for councils to review these?

Once you've made the determination to rezone it to R4, then that designation stays. Then they have to meet all the development requirements and other requirements associated with an R4 zone. Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Questions council now okay thank you Joe.

Go lewis and. I hear everyone's disapproval and I totally understand. But lewis has been stagnant for way too long something has to change. maybe not the r4 zone because it gives a little too much leeway into bigger and more extravagant things maybe r3 should be concerned considered because it will limit what he can do but if we want to go to our plan of making lewiston the regional hub that we want it to be something's got to change There's many steps, many processes within that that contribute to change. And yes, we're going to have to screw up somebody's view and somebody's 25-year-old idea of what their house was going to be. But something's got to change. So I would consider an R3 zoning change rather than the R4 because it will limit what he can do. And we do need something to change to grow.

Thank you. Counselors any questions yes, Mr.

I'm sorry and a question for ricking if we wouldn't well we have we're just a minute please work make sure done with her.

Uh, testimony from the public, or we opened up and then we'll give him an opportunity to rip up anything that was said. Okay. Just trying to be patient here. We also have the option to continue this hearing. Is there further public testimony. Okay, hearing none, then, Rick, if you'd like to take the stand. Councilor Wright has a question for you, and then you have the opportunity to rebut testimony from the public, and it has to be something that they brought up. And if you could just provide more clarification for that. We're not looking for new evidence, if you will, at this point. Thank you. Okay. Councilor Wright.

Thank you Mr. Mayor, I just wanted to clarify based off Jennifer's testimony what the what the number was for. Occupants per acre. What the what the plan was, is it is it under eighteen or is it over eighteen?

It was seventeen point five is what the math came out to.

Okay, thank you.

That's the present playbook.

It's dwelling units, not occupants.

Well, thanks.

Mr, can you have the opportunity to rebut. Any of the comments from a citizen testimony very quick and short.

1st thing I want to address is, I don't mean this derogatory. I mean, this very in heartfelt that the ethics, the emotions and the attack on my character is blatantly inappropriate on the call and uncalled for. And there were several of those, and it's uncalled for. There has not been 1 single statement that would allow the comprehensive plan established by the city council. These people didn't make 1 statement in all their theatrics. That would established by the city council, and is the only legal basis this council should be addressing. Is the comprehensive plan and how it's been addressed. We would still entertain a compromise from the city council, but I want to also go into. Let's talk about HOAs and CCNRs. Under the Idaho Statutes, Title 55, Idaho Code Chapter 32, has specific administrative requirements. The HOA, in order to be legal, must hold a membership meeting every calendar year, give required notice of meetings, keep minutes of membership, board meetings, and preserve them for at least 10 years. A step on and on and on. I'm not going to go on it. That has not happened. It's all been abandoned. They've walked away from it. If I walked down there and police and said, oh, let's enforce that tree or anything. Those are abandoned the doesn't even exist. So, with that said. I do want to just finish by saving. That city's comprehensive plan supports this type of development in July 2024. The city council adopted the invasion Lewis in 2044. Overlapped it right onto my property. Why? They obviously had a vision to help develop and grow like this gentleman just. Testified, I don't know who Joe is, but his testimony makes valid sense. We got to move forward in the 21st century and I heard testimony about it's all in the name of money. Um, it's all in the name of getting more housing. Some nice housing is I'm growing older. I would absolutely entertain living in 1 of these units. Because I don't want to continue. I have a branch. I don't like working every day on my ranch.

Um.

At what point should I even discuss the part? Okay, I'll go ahead then, because, you know, we discussed this before. Alternative request for council consideration, and this man said it. As a council member client, I can't read your name. It's so small. No, no. Yes, it mentioned why 48 units it mitigates the cost. You know, we have to cover our costs, our development costs. That's the 1st and foremost in order to do this. We can't just throw money out there and it sits there, you know, all this infrastructure and we don't build buildings because it's just to get the development. Ready for buildings, it's an immense amount of money and I've already put in the water in the sewer and we've talked about. We got a guy here that's not an engineer. He's making claims that has no basis whatsoever. Dustin is an engineer. I have engineers in my family. My daughter has a master's degree in civil engineering. We've discussed. Proposed ways to mitigate the and to raise that. There's things that we have to do. I cannot get a building permit until these things are addressed period. We're here tonight specifically to address. A comprehensive plan that has been overlaid onto my property that is now growing weeds and I'm paying an immense amount of property taxes on every year. And I don't think any 1 of you would like to have to buy the pay bear the cost of the property taxes that I pay in the city of Lewiston. In order to mitigate that, I need to develop it and otherwise it becomes maybe a local kids motocross track or something. Just to have kids entertain themselves somewhere. I'm not going to get into that. Our request remains approval of the are for higher density residential amendment. And we respectfully believe the record supports that request. However, if council concludes that it is not prepared to approve the full R4 designation, we respectfully ask council to consider a reasonable. Alternative then leaving the property without a workable path towards appropriate residential development. Let's sit there for 25 years and I'm getting up there in age. I'm 60 now. I've known a couple of people my whole life. I mean, I've known Jim my whole life and Dan and we've grown old together. Um, 1st, alternative would be 1st and foremost above the R4 below the R4 would be R3 as Joe here stated medium density residential. I would entertain that. Again, I want to reiterate our 4 is mitigate our development cost. It's most important. Um, our preferred alternative would be our 3 medium density residential would recognize this property as appropriate for more intensive residential development than conventional low density while providing a transition between the adjoining single family neighborhood and a higher density residential development contemplated by the city's comprehensive plan back to them. Nice 3 words and our 4 alternative will allow us to return to the design process and substantially redesigned Belmont estates around a reduced development envelope. Potentially including reduced overall residential. Density and fewer dwelling units reduce building mass and scale and potentially lower heights and. Would lower the heights and subject to final design applicable standards, greater setbacks and transitional areas adjacent to existing residences. Continued structure and subterranean parking, if and where feasible and privacy walls, landscaping, architectural screening and low spill. Exterior lighting. Quiet centralized mechanical systems again, and continued infrastructure and fire flow improvements are 3 would therefore represent a meaningful compromise and would allow and would acknowledge concerns expressed by neighboring property owners. While also recognize the city's adopted planning direction. Excuse me and the owners responsible. Reasonable opportunity to develop the property for residential use remember residential use. We would return to the community development and engineering and redesign the project to comply with standards associated with an amendment. Why we're offering alternatives. This is not an attempt to negotiate against our application. We continue to believe our force the appropriate designation. But the city's comprehensive plan identifies this area for community residential development. They proposed our Ford concept. Was designed in response to that planning directions. It was done in 2024. The substantial primary work has already been contemplate completed concerning traffic, water, fire, flow, architectural site development. We also recognize the land use decision. Sometimes require compromise if council believes that proposed our 4 building envelope represent 2 significant transition from adjoining neighborhood. And we respectfully ask council to allow us to reduce that transition. Rather than simply stopping development. Um. Give us the opportunity to redesign, give us the opportunity to reduce density and building mass and give us the opportunity to address the concerns council believes are legitimate and allow us to work with city staff toward a development that the city surrounding neighbor and property owners can ultimately support. Our final alternative request, if city council is unable to prove our for amendment, we respectfully ask the council to consider the alternative. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you got questions.

Um, I would just, I just wanted to say 1 thing, um, assistant city planner, um, to Rick's, um, uh, consideration of the, um, that would still allow for 48 units based on the size of the lot. It would reduce the building hype to 45 from 50 feet. Which is only 5 feet and it still allows for the 50% block coverage. So, just though. Because that information is not included in this portion of the packet, but that are 3 information is included with the previous public hearing information. That was in your packet, but those are just kind of the, um, the differences there.

Currently, sorry, currently it's an R2, right?

Currently, it is single family only dwelling, which is our 2 a. No, we do not the city of Lewiston does not have residential zoning designation that only allows for a single family.

So, the only next step in rezoning is our 3. uh.

No, um, so all of the cities residential zoning designations allow for duplexes by right and based on lot size and the are 3 is where so that's our 1 are 2 and our 2 a. Um, our 3 is where multifamily kicks in and allows multifamily by right. Based on the size of the subject property, um, he would still be able to do 48 units on that 2.65 acres. And then our 4 is that higher density. So then, you know, the density really kind of goes up from there.

Okay, but to add to that, our 3, I don't think we could do 48 because of the perfect size of units. We want. We don't want thousands or more.

So, 50% lock coverage applies to both. Yeah. He would probably have to drop it down from 4 stories to 3 stories. Yeah, we'd have to definitely drop a way down. Because then 45 is the building height rather than 50 being the building height. And I believe the proposed building is 49.

Yeah, yeah, we would get it clear down to probably in the thirties.

And just just from a code perspective.

Current zoning that it is the only zone change the only zone change you could go to where you would be allowed. To do anything, but a single family home is our 3 and above.

Now, all of our zones would allow for more than what that is currently allowing. PUD doesn't allow duplexes.

The height is where that comes in.

The height restriction is not tied to the PUD. That was a homeowner's association covenant, which is separate from the PUD. The PUD does not have, if I'm remembering correctly, the PUD does not have a height restriction in its PUD.

Um, sorry, 1 last question there and I don't I know that the, uh, some of the citizens mentioned the, uh, I wrote it down here. Oh, protected covenant. I'm trying to understand and I know that doesn't have the city doesn't have anything to do with that. Nor do I think we have, like, legal standing to stand by that protected covenant. Anyway, um, I'm more curious. Is that something that they did have in. What is the significance behind that? Because I'm a little confused on. The citizens are they're concerned of that covenant and how it is if we went towards this. Would be going away from what they thought that protected covenant was block 1 had protective cut.

This is block 2. this is 2. Separate he does not have jurisdiction or 0 Jennifer city attorney.

Um, so. When Darby village was plotted, it was plotted with 2 blocks. You had block 1, which was the actual amount or portion that was being plotted and block 2, which was unplanted and excluded from. um that and identified for future development and when block one was plotted it did include the ccnrs and it did indicate that those ccnrs only applied to specific lots in block one for darby village so the ccnrs are a bit of a red herring in this particular land use application because they have no application or no and no force of law to anyone that buys a lot within block two so they have no applicability to this Um, I would also note that when the PUD was approved, the city only had single family designation. So this property is not even an R2. So to, to clarify the PUD has the zoning designations in effect in 1978 when it was first created. And then it's been amended over time, um, to include the various amendments that, uh, uh, Rick Keene has done since he's owned the property. in 2002. so he did buy the property and then the first amendment occurred I believe in 2003 to allow for additional changes so that he could begin development of uh Houston Plaza and then there was some other applications between 2003 and 2007-ish time frame So this property is limited to only single family. And while we nowadays refer to that as R2, this is not even an R2-benefited property. It's strictly single family. So any kind of rezone would provide for more intense development than it's currently allowed.

Thank you.

Here.

Councilor Klein.

Jennifer, while you're there, We are only approving our 4. Designation right at this point, we can't amend it to an R3. Right now, can we without having to go back and redo everything.

I would say that, um, as a part of considering this application, Mr. keen is prohibited from reapplying for another zone change for, um, I believe 6 months. So, if the commission were, or if the council were to decide that this, um, application was in conformance with the comprehensive plan, but at a lower. Land use designation there's nothing in city code or state code that would essentially prohibit you from that. Um, other than the property owners objection. Because it's his application. If you do deny the application, there are additional considerations that are asked of you to include what the applicant could do to get approval. And 1 of those possibilities is to lower the density or change the zoning designation, which I believe was part of the recommendation from planning and zoning for a less intense zoning designation.

Thank you.

objecting to it. I said in my question,

There, I would note, too, there is a financial benefit for him because of, um, and a time benefit and as we know, in land development time is money. And so, um, if if we're able to save him the cost of reapplying re, publicizing re, noticing and doing all that, there is a cost saving element to to him as a member of the public. Um, and, uh. That the city council has a history of previously reviewing, uh, zoning application and, um. Approving a different zoning designation than what was requested.

But, but he would object it anyways, if we were to do that.

Um, no, he's saying right now that he would not object to a lower land use designation.

I just read it the final alternative request. If council is unable to approve our requested. We respectfully ask council to consider the alternatives in. The following are 3 medium density density residential, allowing us to redesign the project and reduce density and scale.

I would know that is what he intended. He did say are for a couple of times during his presentation, but he did mean that he would he would consider an R3 designation if the council weren't inclined to do an R4.

Thank you.

Councilor, thank you.

I guess the question for Katie. I was looking at the reasoning statement from the commission, and they had a comment in there about the comprehensive plan had a goals to occur to create buffer areas. And it stated that a medium density residential are 3 would be considered a buffer area. Page seventeen, I think it was.

Okay.

So I believe in reading that.

Um, so when we have talked about buffer zones before, and as I had shown on that map that showed the commercial that's on the East side of 17th street, um, my understanding from these comments from the planning and zoning commission was that they felt it would be more appropriate for there to be. Are for immediately adjacent to a commercial zone and then are 3. Immediately adjacent to that are 4 zone. Then flowing into that single family or are 2. No, where you would have kind of that buffer where you go from the most intense commercial, then you would have, like, the highest density residential. Then you would have the medium density residential and then you would go into a lower density residential. Um, part of their argument, um, under that question, um, part of the reason for denial was that you wouldn't have the ability to have. And our 4 and our 3, and then, and the single family, it would go immediately commercial are for single family. And there would be no additional buffer between the single family residential and that higher density residential.

All right. Okay.

Now, so for the questions comments of the applicants.

I just want to make sure, I guess I understand. The cancer clients kind of trying to understand it. If we said no to the R4 today, but we can say yes to an R3 without the applicant having to go through. whole public hearing and all the paperwork again is that what you were saying jennifer

That is correct. You could use all of the information presented, um, today and previously in support of, um, the decision to approve or disapprove of the application. But you can, um, at the applicant's request provide for a modification instead of, um, so you could approve it as amended, um, as an R3, or you can, um, deny it, or you can approve it as applied for. Also, you do have the opportunity to review the materials and consider this more to continue the public hearing. And that way you can develop additional questions because once you close the public hearing, you cannot get any more information from anyone related to whether this application should be approved or denied one way or another.

But mayor, once we do any kind of amendment or proposal amendment, then we have to close, we would have to just write as it stands continue. The public hearing, but not making a decision correct? Whether 4 or 4 or 3.

no once once you close the public hearing it's at that time that you consider whether to approve or deny the application and you deliberate the basis on that approval or denial including any um you know approval with an amendment i'm going to say we want to go towards an r3 but continue the public hearing to allow more public to be able to speak on that Well, you could do that, but you're not making the decision at this time, right? So, if you want to consider whether an R3 would be appropriate, you could. Continue the public hearing to a later date allow for not only the applicant, but the public to provide additional comment related to whether or not an R3 development or an R3 designation is appropriate. I would note that. Regardless of how, like, the zoning designation itself, um, the, the, the, in conformance with comprehensive plan, um, has considerations that are not zone dependent. So it's, it's more use dependent. So, um, as Katie had stated, you know, this development could still even in an R3 zone could potentially have 48 units. But depending on how the math. Lays out if that's more than 18 dwelling units per acre, you still have those essential considerations to follow. But if it ultimately is less than that, then, um, you don't have to consider those essential considerations that those are. those are not triggered i guess you would say um you know to if you just do the straight math again not a developer you know 46 units would still would put it under that 18 unit threshold so um you know that's more of a use specific and it's not necessarily zone specific question okay

The council, I can close the public hearing if you're ready for that.

If you're before you close it, if Mr, because. I'm not allowed the last word Mr. Keenan allowed the last word if he has anything else he'd like to say before we close the public hearing or decide to continue. He is afforded that that right?

Thank you counsel. Do you have questions? Before we close this.

Mr. King, we're not approving a building permit. We're not approving 48 units. I still have by with. Any staff all their punch list. Maybe an insurmountable amount of stuff that may not even may not even allow me to do it. Um, testing his own change and again. As I said, my last comment, I, I'll just finish saying that again. Not that's what I want. But I'll just read it 1 more time. We're not asking for a building permit. We're not asking for emotions, you know, a decision made on all these emotions because that's irrelevant. We have a comprehensive plan that was passed. That's why there's a comprehensive plan for guidance for growth for the city. Without that comprehensive plan like this gentleman in front of me said, we need growth. Um, there's a lot of. Things that have been said tonight, final alternative request. I'll just reiterate it 1 last time. I have to comply with Pat severance and Dustin and, um. Katie, uh, Joel, there's a whole city staff. I have. All kinds of things we'd have to comply with jumping through a lot of circus hoops is what I call them in the developer end. They have those standards that we have to meet. If Council is unable to approve our requested R4 PUD amendment, we respectfully ask Council to consider the alternatives in the following. One, an R3 medium density residential, allowing us to redesign the project at a reduced density and scale. Or it sits vacant for the next 25 years and I'll be dead and my kids will be back up here. Trying to maybe I'll live to be 90. I don't know, but my kids will be in here 25 or 30 years from now. Asking for approval, and it's going to sit there and collect dog feces and people's yard trimmings, which are there now. People's trailers and boats that are parked neighboring property owners and back their equipment onto my property. They're not paying taxes on it. I am. Any help. I'd like to get it developed. We have an opportunity tonight. I ask that you guys, uh, move forward and make this happen. Um, I don't know if they got any questions.

I think we're done if you're done. All right, thank you. Thank you. Mr. council. I'm going to close the public hearing. At 924 in council now, it is your opportunity. To deliberate discuss relevant criteria and standards, identifying. Relevant facts and information articulate detailed reasons for. Your decision, so, um. Jennifer, would you like to walk to like, we get the 1st time or.

We take a quick recess. I. We'd like to use the facility. Thanks. Thank you.

What's that?

May we take a recess?

No.

We have to use the restroom, Mayor.

All right. Council biddies. I also come to order prior to going to these. Uh, council was, um. In the process of. Deliberating and discussing relevant criteria standards, and then identifying relevant facts information and articulate detailed reasons for your proposed decision. In the public hearing for planning and development application. So, I would open up to you.

So, counselors, um, in reviewing the criteria, we'll just go through the same steps that we did before. Um, I would note that in addressing whether or not the proposed rezone is, or is not in general conformance with the comprehensive plan. There is additional criteria that's called out for. under the community residential about those additional considerations when the proposed development is more than 18 dwelling units prior to discussing that i do recommend that you consider the fact of whether or not it is or is not 18 plus because that's a factual determination that you'll have to make as a part of your considerations so number one The proposed result is, or is that in general conformance with the comprehensive plan?

Counselors counselor, right?

So, I believe that the. The reason to our core is within the comprehensive plan. The evidence we were presented was 17.5, so that's under 18. uh, But even with that said, the intensity, I don't see that as inappropriate. The access is going to be planned out with the traffic impact study, along with infrastructure. Compatibility, the difference between R4 and R3 I don't see that making a significant compatibility difference. And the challenge here is that this is on an arterial road, the, the appropriate. Zoning and type of structure that should be built here for 20 years from now for 50 years from now. is an r4 style zoning that's that's what should be here that road has the potential to get busier and busier and busier maybe turns into a four lane someday it's not an r2 or a single family spot that's That's what I would like to get through that 1. okay.

So now it's my turn for questions. So you stated the compatibility difference between our 3 and our 4 is not significant. Can you please elaborate?

Yes. So the. The testimony that was received was concerns with. Privacy due to the height of the structure the height significance, you would be able to see over the back fence in either case. The view in either case the view is still obstructed even in our to you are arguably the view. is obstructed so i don't i don't see any significance significant difference there and then with occupancy if we're at a 17.5 or it were at an r3 or an r4 17.5 i don't see a significant difference between the two

That's all I counselors for the comments about whether or not the proposed reason is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan. Council President, they work.

I agree with council. Right? 100%.

That's a council President Kleeberg. Is there anything specific that council rights stated that you are drawn to?

The regional application was for our 4 or our 4 and we spent many years doing the new comprehensive plan. And we're still working on it. If that's. And that's what we should be talking about. Views, the side, all the rest of it. Whatever gets built out of this after the zone change is what gets built.

Councillor Forsman.

um putting all the other things aside and just looking at the comprehensive plan and what how that lays out i would say it is in conformance with it um just for the overall um goal of what the city is heading towards

Is there one of the specific goals in the comprehensive plan that you are?

I try to increase higher density housing and the goal to try to increase higher density housing.

Are there any other of the goals in the comprehensive plan that lean towards your determination? I would say this meets 1 criteria.

It will be different.

Okay, council, you're ready to move on.

Before you move on, is there anything in the planning and zoning commissions? Section one that you agree or disagree with? Or that you'd like to adopt?

I think we're talking about planning and zoning. Um, City Council Chambers, criteria list of criteria, they did mention for the proposed reason I believe if i'm looking at for the comprehensive plan, I said the Commission determined that the key goals regarding neighborhood compatibility traffic safety and scale were not met. City Council Chambers, I would say that you can't say that at its current standing. City Council Chambers, And even with the reason if once they rebuild those would be need to be approved and works through to be met so i'm not sure. If I agree that those could be used as evidence of why it did not meet.

Which part was that? Because I show that they stated that it was in conformance.

Well, they said they were not meant mainly related to compatibility, traffic and safety. Yeah, we're not met. They believe that they that this was not met due to. Traffic safety and compatibility, neighborhood compatibility.

Okay, and what about, um, the different goals related to the commission agreed the following statements from the comp plan were applicable and were in general conformance. L, you to L, you point to L, you point 2.1 L, you point 2.3. H, 1 H. 3.3.2 agree with all those. So, any other comments from the commission about whether or not this application is in conformance with the comprehensive plan.

Well, I, I disagree with the planning and zoning. On them saying, um, namely the. The we're not met namely compatibility, traffic, safety and density. Traffic safety will go through a review separate from this. i i don't see that as not being met and density at 17.5 and you're sitting right on an arterial i don't see that as not being met anything else from anyone

Hey, the proposed free zone is in conformance with the general with the general is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan all in favor with that statement say, aye aye. Any who oppose say, aye. The subject land is, or is not at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zone and district.

Uh, this is going to seem contradictory to 1, but I would have to agree with the planning and. COMMISSION ON THE 40 FEET TALL WITHIN THE 48 UNITS WERE DEEMED INCOMPATIBLE IN SCALE AND DENSITY WITH THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES NEARBY VILLAGE. FURTHERMORE, THE AREA LACKS A MEDIUM DENSITY BUFFER BETWEEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND HIGH DENSITY ZONE. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. THERE IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE BUFFER BETWEEN HIGH DENSITY TO LOW DENSITY. I WOULD AGREE WITH PLANNING ZONINGS ON THAT FOR THE CRITERIA, TOO.

Find the wording in here.

A few paragraphs for the comments.

I do, I'm just trying to find that exact wording spot.

Mr. All right here.

Mr. Mayor, I do have counselor. Thank you. So, in in regards to. Roll back up again and I'll state the beginning of this and I'll go back down. The, the subject property, and this is from planning and zoning. So their statement subject property is not. At least as well suited or better suited for the proposed zoning district and the existing zoning district I don't think that's accurate, I think the subject property is at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district. They had noted. that the allow for density by ensuring compatibility build additional housing types in a scale appropriate way that fits into the existing neighborhood the what how I see this is there there's two competing sides you've got 17th street on one side and you've got commercial to the north and then you've got this this more specialized single residence or single family residential in in the north and the west this has to be filled in with a higher density on 17th to follow the comprehensive plan The the proposal of going to an R4 and building 8 foot fences, building shrubs trees. Ways to block the noise using newer technology that will lower the sound. This is, I think this is a compromise to get the type of zoning that needs to be next to that busy street. with the lowest impact to this area that was built so close to 17th originally.

Anything else from anyone about whether or not this is or is not as well suited or is better suited? Okay, um, so then this, um, the proposal is the subject land is. At least as well suited, or is better suited for the proposed zoning district in the existing zone and district all in favor with that statement state. I, I, I. All those that. Hi, that.

Can you explain why you oppose that? My 1st statement agreeing with planning and zoning.

Okay, number 3, the proposed rezone does, or does not present foreseen impacts of incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity.

I would agree with planning and zoning on this. In the instance of increased light and noise, regardless of how you go about it, you're going to have an increase in noise and hazard because you're just adding more buildings. Not to say that that doesn't mean it's not within use of this place or not suitable, but you will regardless have an increased amount of noise with a higher density versus lower.

A counselor Forsman. So in the statement that summarize that the development will just in general create more light noise and potential hazards. Does that or does not present? Does that or does it not present foreseen immutable impacts of incompatible uses or development in the same vicinity?

I don't know if I'd say it's incompatible. And in medical or a medical. Now. Well, I think that's hard one. It'll I will, it will increase noise and I'm sure light, but I'm not sure if it makes it.

There any testimony that you may have received today about potential. Mitigating things that the developer is going to do, or. Inmedicable effects of this development that can't be changed regardless of what the developer does.

As far as the height goes, I mean, you can only put so high of a fence without it being looking like a prison cell. So I think that will. Although help with the noise and and the. visual appealing of it, but you're not going to completely eliminate that people are going to be looking in other people's yard or seeing other people's backyards, front yards. That's not going to be able to be solved with a fence.

What about the light and noise? Same thing. Maybe you received testimony from the applicant that he's taking steps to have low light and. Energy efficient, um, apply or, uh. Air conditioning and heating methods.

I would care conditions are allowed. I don't think you're going to completely get away from that noise, but I would say the. Reflective lighting on there, or what he mentioned on the windows. I'm not exactly sure what he called that, but I could see how that could make less of a glare to those surrounding communities. Um, or surrounding houses, I should say.

Comments from anybody Mr. mayor.

So I disagree with planning and zoning the proposed rezone that they said the proposed rezone does present for seeing in mitigated in mitigable impacts of incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity. I believe it does not. We we received testimony from the from the developer that brings more information that perhaps planning and zoning did not have. They said the commission agreed that the proposed density and scale of the development would produce noise, light producing pollution, traffic congestion and possible traffic safety problems that could not be overcome. The traffic safety problems I see that is outside to an extent are decision tonight. There will be a traffic impact analysis completed and that's part of the development process, not the zoning process. The production of noise that was spoken to directly with technology so that you wouldn't have air conditioning and heating units out in the back of the yard of these apartments like you see in older apartments where you have these loud air conditioner units. That's not going to be the case here. The light produce pollution. We're not going to have normal street lamps. We're going to have lights that are pointing at the building there. That was spoke to directly as well. And so that's why I disagree with that. As far as the other testimony, I've spoken to that earlier when it comes to a tall building. The difference between R3 and R4, we're still going to have a tall building, even if we do, to an extent, go against our comprehensive plan and say, okay, we'll do R3 here, even though it looks more appropriate for an r4 you're still going to have a building that is overlooking that area so if this doesn't get built somebody else buys the property they get zoned for r3 they decide to just build big old 50-foot apartments or some kind of stacked duplexes or something you're going to be up over that anyway they're going to be seen into the the property That's why I disagree with planning and zoning.

Anyone else. So, then, um, the statement. The proposed rezone does not present foreseen in medical impact of incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity. Do you agree with that? Say aye. Disagree, say aye. Aye. Can you, Councillor Forsman, state why you disagree with that?

Like I mentioned before, the 8 foot privacy fence or modern building cannot mitigate the drastic height disparity or the resulting loss of privacy and sunlight from neighboring single family homes. Uh, the major jump in surrounding single family developed without traditional medium density buffer zone represents represents an issue. Uh, the. The, uh, incline of the driveway and the slope of getting out, it calls blind spots and high speed traffic can create pedestrian safety hazards that I'm not sure it can be mitigated without major offset roadway and interact and intersection construction.

Number four, the effects of the proposed rezone are or are not anticipated to place undue burden upon the delivery of services provided by any political subdivision within the planning jurisdiction, including school districts.

Councilor Speckemeyer.

On this one, I think just looking through it, I don't think there was any public comment during that made that would contradict the findings of the commission where the, uh, fire department, um, school districts, um, nothing contradict contradicted their outcomes. So I agree with the are not anticipated.

Do you agree so much that you'd be willing to adopt their prior finding?

Their prior findings.

Yes. So the findings and their reason statement, do you agree what was. Provided enough so that you would be willing to adopt that finding.

Yes.

Anything else from anyone else about whether or not the effects are, or are not anticipated place undue burden upon. Delivery of services. Okay, so if you agree that the effect of the proposed rezone are not anticipated to place undue burden upon the delivery of services provided by any political subdivision within the planning jurisdiction, including school district school districts. Please stay I, if you disagree with that statement, please stay I. For 5. the size, type, intensity, and density of development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of this rezone is or is not suitable for the area and will or will not unduly burden the neighborhood, public infrastructure, or environmental resources.

I'm suspecting there.

On this one, I disagree with the Commission's findings. I think that the applicant's explanation and information provided, they had a statement in here that, trying to find it here, about the water system. The Commission noted additional public infrastructure is available, developed in a lower density Basically, they stated that because there wasn't something in place that should be delayed until the services were provided. And I believe that the applicant provided a. A good enough explanation of his plans to.

Um, address those issues that's on page 17 counselor.

Oh, there you go. Okay.

Was there anything that the applicant provided that you want to point to specifically?

I would say the report that he provided to send the packet.

Counselors, further comments?

I also disagree with the findings of planning and zoning. I believe that the results of this rezoning is suitable for the area and will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure or environmental resources. On the neighborhood, this This comprehensive plan requires us to move to an R3 potentially, well, R4 zone or potentially an R3 zone when we're right up next to 17th Street and right next to commercial. on public infrastructure counselor specklemeyer addressed that the water will be part of the development process and the street infrastructure the pulling in and out of this these apartments will be part of the development process and i didn't hear any testimony on environmental resources That would cause an issue.

Anything else from anyone else.

I have to disagree on the water and maybe that's just my misunderstanding, but I know there was some talks of being able to mitigate some of the water issues, but I don't recall that. We actually said we would be able to address the water pressure.

Can you elaborate please?

Uh, they talked about the bigger pipes, but then as far as I understood the explanation behind that, that wasn't going to solve the water pressure issue. So I'm not exactly sure what is going to act other than putting. Additional I don't know if it was, um, pump or. To be able to help with that water pressure, but I wasn't given a very good explanation of how they were going to solve the water pressure issue. For the residents. and in future development and currently even now that stands. I don't disagree with the other statements though.

Mr. Mayor.

Councilor Ryan.

Thank you. I did hear testimony on the water pulling in a new line that would likely benefit other properties, undeveloped properties as well on 17th and correct the water pressure issues that exist now in that area as one of the potential options that would be looked at during the development of this project.

The size type intensity and density of development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of this rezoning is not suitable for the area and will unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure and environmental resources. Through this, I agree with Councillor Wright in the fact that it is a C4 up against, or excuse me, an R4 up against 17th Street. Where I disagree is that you have an R2 that's already established. So you're trying to box in something that, in my opinion, does not fit in that particular spot. I believe that it will unduly burden the neighborhood with the size of the structures. I agree with Mr. Keene that whenever he built the offices down below, he made the mistake of not going high enough. and I can see where he would be wanting to recoup those losses or those errors in ways on this particular property. But the difference is the property down below runs roughly at the same elevation east to west. This property running north to south has a 56-foot drop in elevation from top to bottom, meaning the top of the roof of the building that's at the lowest elevation will be below the footings of the highest one. I believe that with that, the residential properties that abutted on the west side of it, that those people that are residing in the towers would have unfettered access to the privacy of those residents that live behind them. A six-foot fence, an eight-foot fence, or an 80-foot fence, you're still going to have something that you're going to have to look at that whenever the People who purchased and built were under the assumption that the contract that they purchased with would take care of that. Public infrastructure has been addressed with water issues. That is a known area for deficiencies. And I just think that the, uh, the streets are out there, it's going to put too much traffic in that congested area.

Okay, so this is there any other comments. So, the size type intensity and density of the development expected to occur to occur on the subject property as a result of this rezoning. Is suitable for the area and will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure or environmental resources. Those in favor say, aye aye. Those who disagree with that. Hi. to either counselor Maury or counselor Forsman want to provide comment on why you disagreed other than what you've already stated so far. And then the last one, the proposed result is in conformance with Idaho code section 6765 37 use of surface and groundwater. City Council Chambers, Again, I would know no testimony was received related to this and the presumption, then, is that. City Council Chambers, The developer will comply with the law and. City Council Chambers, The proposed area would there's no credible information to indicate the proposed area would not be in conformance with Idaho code section 6765 37. City Council Chambers, Anyone have any comments. That related to this particular section.

Mr mayor, that's all right.

I agree with planning and zoning. The proposed reason. Is in conformance with Idaho code 6, 7 dash 6, 5, 3, 7, use of service and groundwater. And for their own reason, no testimony was received regarding the use of.

Okay, so the proposed result is in conformance with Idaho code section 67 to 6537 use of surface and groundwater all in favor say aye. Anyone that disagrees say aye. Okay, that is all the relevant criteria.

Thank you, Jennifer counselors. Um, at this time, what I, I would entertain a motion. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Motion to direct staff to draft the reason statement approving PDU dash two six dash one.

Okay.

We don't have a second on that motion councilor second I didn't hear you. Move by councilor I second by council president Kleeberg to direct staff to draft the recent statement approving PUD-26-1. Is there a further discussion or amendments? Councillor Klein.

Um, I'd like to, I'd like to amend the motion to lower the land use designation to R3 zone instead of an R4.

Okay.

The council has been moved by Councilor Wright, seconded by Councilor Forsman to lower the zoning from R4 to R3. client yeah client you said council right council I have um counselor enforcement written down did I get that wrong well it is after 10. okay so further discussion bearing on those in favor please signify by saying aye aye aye aye those opposed no hey hey They're probably what you call the role on that 1.

I'm for President Kleeberg. Hey, that's all right. Okay. Council enforcement. Hi. That's our client. Oh, counselor, Maury counselor. Speckle Meyer.

All right.

3, 3, 3, 3. Okay, counselors. Further amendments. Okay.

So for clarification, the amendment to the motion failed for a lack of a majority, but the motion itself is still outstanding.

Yep. We got it. Council, we're going to vote on the main motion. Those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed?

Nay.

Clerk Brockie, call the roll, please.

Council President Kleeberg.

Aye.

Councilor Wright. Aye. Councilor Forsman. Aye. Councilor Klein. Aye. Councilor Morey.

Aye.

Councilor Spickelmeyer.

Aye. 3-3 again. Okay. Well, councilor, we're going to open this public hearing back up and start with. Are there further motions?

Okay, you gotta do something unfortunately, in this particular matter, because this is a, uh, a land use application. You're required 1 way or another by Idaho code to approve or deny the application.

Mayor does get the boat.

If he desires to break the tie. Or he can abstain.

Council, I'm gonna put it back on you. Is there another motion?

Mayor.

Councillor Forsman.

Motion to direct staff to draft the reason statement denying PUD 26-1. Second.

Good move by Councillor Forsman, second by Councillor Morey. Direct staff to draft a reason statement denying PUD-26-1.

is there further discussion counselor would you like to speak your motion oh we got to go somewhere so you might want to meet in the middle further discussion yeah mr mayor counselor right when we were going through building our reason statement um i thought we landed on yes so denying it Seems to go against our own our own findings as a as a group. All I would add.

Council enforcement, I had quite a bit of nose on mine. So, for my recent statement, I wouldn't. For the relevant criteria would not be against what my original thoughts were.

Would you like me to go over the recent statement again? Mayor as far as the conclusions that were reached please?

Thank you. Jennifer.

So, for the price 1st criteria, it was a 6 0 vote that. The proposed reason is in general conformance with the comprehensive plan. Number 2, it was a 5 1 vote with council enforcement in opposition that the subject land is at least. As well suited, or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing district. Number 3 to a 5, 1 vote with counselor Forsman in opposition. That the proposed reason does not present foreseen in medical impacts of incompatible uses or development be located in the same vicinity. Number 4. Was a thick 0 vote that the effects of the proposal proposed reason are not anticipated to present. To place undue burden upon the delivery. Oh, wait, hold on. Let me double check. Yeah, are not anticipated to place undue burden upon the delivery of services provided by any political subdivision within the planning jurisdiction, including school districts. Number five was a Or to vote with counselor Maury and counselor Forsman in opposition. That the size type intensity and density of the development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of the rezoning is suitable for the area and will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure and environmental resources. City Council Chambers, And number six to a six zero vote the proposed reason is in conformance with Idaho code 67 6537 use of surface and groundwater. City Council Chambers, If this motion were to pass, I would recommend that the Council provide guidance on how the reason statement would be amended to indicate that the application should be denied. I do concur with counselor right statement that the. The way that it's proposed currently that it is in favor of approval.

Jennifer does that, um. Does that favor support amending, um. The motion from our 4 to our 3, is that how you recorded that?

There are some comments related to our three versus our four. Primarily counselor writes comments that there's not a substantial difference between the two and that any that most of the differences are minimal. But otherwise, there are not specific comments related to the proposed zone that would need to be addressed if you do go from an R four to an R three instead.

Okay, council, since I'm part of this discussion now, if we vote on this emotion to deny the PD, it will be open for any amendments. If it passes, if it doesn't pass, and you'd like to go back to the original motion as amended. To approve the dash 26 dash 1. The amendment was to go from an hour 4 to an hour 3. I would be prepared to vote on that. The move by council force my second my counselor Maury to deny beauty dash 26 dash one those in favor please signify by saying well I should ask if there's. This is where it gets sloppy. Those in favor please signify by saying aye aye opposed name. But rocky please help me because I don't hear well up here.

The president paper hey. Councilor Wright? Aye. Councilor Forsman? Aye. Councilor Klein? Aye. Councilor Morey?

Aye.

Councilor Spickelmeyer? Aye. 4-2.

Motion fails. Okay. Thank you. Councilor Klein, would you be willing to make your motion again, the original motion? Approving to be dashed by 6 dash 1.

Motion to approve reasons. Motion to. Right yeah, to direct staff. Uh, to draft the reason statement, uh, dash 26 dash 1.

approving approving oh yeah approving cud sorry counselor enforcement would you be willing to second your original motion for the three or three zone approving the pud i'm sure i'm understanding for the original motion of r3 zone right

I think what I made the I can second it a second.

Okay. There's been moved by counselor client second by counselor, right? To. Hmm, direct staff to draft the recent statement, approving to D dash 26. Dash 1 is their discussion or amendments.

I would like to amend the motion to change it from an R4 to an R3 land use designation. Second.

It's been moved by Councillor Klein, seconded by Councillor Forsman to amend the motion changing it from an R4 to an R3. Those in favor please signify.

With that motion, if you approve that motion. We do have to go over the relevant criteria and standards that are specific to the proposed zone versus the existing zone and address how an R3 would be. Applied in that instance, instead of an R4. All successful, not all 6 of them. But, um, number 2. And number 4. And number 5.

Okay, well, that's our business. Counsel did you understand what Jennifer was saying to us. Right or a call for this. Okay, so now you don't have to help me. Did we vote on the amendment again? No. Okay, so it's been moved by. That's a client segment council enforcement to amend. Um, dash 26 dash 1 from an hour 4 to an hour 3. Those in favor please signify by saying aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye aye Okay, what's the call please click rocky. 3, 3, 3, 3. okay. Motion guys again. Well, I'm going to, I'm going to vote for that. I get to vote.

So we still have the original motion to to address.

Well, I'm going to vote for the amended motion. Tremendous for more for our 3. So I will vote for that. Then we have the original motion, which is to direct staff to draft the reason statement. Approving the PD dash twenty six dash one now is amended. From our four to our three. We school come.

Do you want to address sections two, four and five before your vote or after your vote?

You're going to tell me what I need to.

If you address it before your vote, you'll know exactly what your. Approving or disapproving as far as the motion to direct staff to draft a reason statement approving 26 dash 1 amended or with the amendment that the zoning designation will be our 3 instead of our 4.

Okay, well, before I call for the vote, can we go over that then please.

So, number 2. The subject land is, or is not at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district of our 3 than the existing zoning district of single family.

There.

I would say it is at least while student. Or better suited for proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district. Um. Really due to the fact that the current zoning district still will allow for multiple stories. This allows at least the. Property to have more housing within 1 property. Um, but still not as a drastic as a 4 story high building. So it still brings it down to that. I believe it's 45 foot, which isn't I don't think far off from what currently can be built on with a 2 story house.

Any other input from anyone else?

So, fine, I believe that are in our 3 designation. Would allow that buffer that the. Funding and zoning, uh, previously talked about meeting between the residential and the commercial.

So, do you have any comments?

I think that, uh, moving to an R3 would address some of the public comments about building heights as mentioned before.

There, do you have any input on this? You voted in favor as well.

Um, no, I want to add to that 1. thank you.

Okay, then, so. Under the R3, the subject land. Is at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed running district than the existing district. Those in favor of that statement say aye aye aye. Those opposed to that statement, I'm just going to do a roll call because I think I got it, but, um, council president cleaver. Hey, that's all right. Okay. Councilor Forsman. Hi, that's our client. Hi. Yes, sir. Maury.

All right.

There was the motion again.

Number 2, the subject land is at least as well suited or is better suited for the proposed zoning district than the existing zoning district. With an R3 specific to the R3.

Oh, yes, amended.

Yes, as is being amended.

Okay. All right.

Number 4, the effects of the proposed rezone 2 are 3 are, or are not anticipated to place undue burden upon the delivery of services provided by any political subdivision within the planning, jurisdiction planning jurisdiction, including school districts. So, this is specifically considering the effect of our 3 instead of our 4. Previously you said.

are not anticipated so just the question is is there any difference between the r4 to r3 designation that you think would change your prior determination mayor council enforcement uh with r4 being actually a higher density and less going to a lower i don't see how that would cause any more of a nuisance or a burden upon those political subdivisions than if r4 would and with r4 being that there was no concern i would say it still stands

Anyone else okay, so the effects of the proposed reason are not anticipated to place undue burden upon the delivery of services provided by any political subdivision, but then the planning jurisdiction, including school districts all in favor of that statement. Say, aye. Any opposed. And number five, the size type intensity and density of development expected to occur on the subject property as a result of the rezoning to our three is or is not suitable for the area and will or will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure or environmental resources. Previously, you stated that with a four to determination, it is not and will Oh, wait, I'm sorry is suitable and will not I was looking at the wrong part of my notes.

It's not suitable and will under the burden.

Um, is so the previous determination. By the majority was that it. Is suitable and will not unduly burden the neighborhood with an R that was with an R4 designation. So, with an R3 designation. What are your comments?

There is no change to the reasoning statement.

Uh, counselor, Maury, you previously disagreed and believed that the size type and intensity is not suitable and will unduly burden. Do you have any different comments related to if it were R3?

Based on Councilor Wright's comments, there's negligible differences between the R4 and R3. I stand with my previous statement. I do believe that it's not suitable for the area and will create burden to the neighborhood.

Councilman Forsman, you were also a nay previously. Do you have a different outcome if this is R3 instead of R4?

The only concern I had for the last one was the water, which I would say putting any new housing or any new burden on the water is going to create Waterflow issues, but they're going to have to mitigate that somehow. I still don't feel like my question or my concerns were adequately answer to whether they can solve that problem. So I'd still say it's a no.

Okay, so I'm going to go with the 1st statement. That was originally approved, so the size type intensity and density of development expected to occur on the subject property. And the result of the rezoning is suitable for the area and will not unduly burden the neighborhood public infrastructure or environmental resources all in favor with that statement state. I. All those that oppose that statement state. I. And just for the sake, because, um, assistant city planner Hollings had raised the question and for the sake of the record, um, we're going to address number 3. Um, that the proposed rezone does, or does not present foreseen in medical impact of incompatible uses or development being located in the same vicinity with this being an R3 versus our 4, um. Designation. Previously, you stated that it does not. Councillor Forsman, you were a nay. Do you have any changes in your prior determination if it were to be an R3 instead of an R4? I did correctly.

My nays were surrounding fencing, lighting, mitigation concerns. That is correct. Let's say with a little less height. that they could mitigate not all but some of the privacy concerns and noise mitigation.

Did anyone else have any comments that they'd like to add? Okay, so the proposed rezone does not present foreseen in medical impacts of incompatible uses or development being located on the same vicinity. All those in favor of that statement say aye. All those that oppose. Okay, you've amended your reason statement. Back to the main vote.

Okay, Council. Let me try this here. The motion was to direct staff to draft the recent statement approving PUD-26-1 as amended. That was moved by Councillor Klein, seconded by Councillor Forsman. Do I have that correct?

I had the second by Councilor Wright. Same.

Councilors, do you understand the motion before I call for the vote? Okay, those in favor, please signify by saying aye.

Aye.

Opposed? Aye.

Sorry.

You guys have it. For clerk Rocky, please help the president Kleeberg.

No, that's all right. Hi, counselor Forsman. Hi, counselor Klein. Hey, counselor, Maury counselor. All right.

So, for follow up, um. At the next meeting, we will present both a reason statement and the proposed ordinance. So typically we have the ordinance prepared when the recommendation from the planning and zoning commission is to approve. So we don't have an ordinance proposed and we don't have 1 on tonight's agenda. So, um, when you go to approve the reason statement, you'll do your 1st reading of the ordinance at that time.

Okay, thank you counsel. Council next we move to roman numeral six and sent agenda all items on the consent agenda are considered retained by the council will be enacted by one motion will be no separate discussion on these issues less accounts or so request in which case that it will be removed from the consent agenda and consider on the active agenda under items move from the consent agenda counselors.

I suspect Meyer motion to approve the consent agenda.

2nd, it's been moved by counselor respect tomorrow. 2nd, by couch or more to approve the consent agenda clerk rocky council president. Hi, right?

Hi. Hi. Hi.

Thank you. Council next. We'll move to Roman number 7, active agenda item, a urban renewal agency in this 1st, kind of represent for appointment concerning the appointment of handle it to the urban new agency of the city of Boston. Idaho is the next 1st counties representative. This is an action item counselors. I think most of us know commissioner and it's. Uh, I endorse her for this appointment and think she'll do great for the urban real agency. So I moved to approve the appointment of handle it to the urban real agency. So, and that's 1st county's representative 2nd removed by mayor Johnson. 2nd, by counselor Klein. To prove the appointment of analytics to the urban new agencies in this 1st counties. Representative this takes a 2 thirds of voice vote those in favor please signify by saying aye aye aye aye. Motion carries thank you Kelso next we move to item B resolution twenty twenty six test forty three concerning approving the assignment of license agreement for waterline crossing between the great Northwest railroad LLC and the portal Lewis into the city of pollution authorizing the mayor to sign the denim to license agreement this is an action item or public works director Dustin Johnson's here tonight and our work executive director stuck it out with this so thank you for being here Scott director Johnson welcome.

Evening mayor city council, Dustin Johnson, public works director, uh, as you've already called out our special guest Scott Corbett is here. Diligently here, 4 and a half hours into this meeting, we thank him for his patients and we think everybody who's here tonight for their patients without snacks. So, um, before we get too much more punchy on this generally, we have, uh, any publicly named, uh, owned and maintained infrastructure. Exclusively water and sewer lines, uh. In time, they cross another entity, whether it be a state highway district, uh, army corps of engineers. Uh, in this particular case, it's a railroad. We have a license, uh, that we, um, cross it with it and it's. Uh, to protect both entities, if there's a failure in either 1 of those, um, and this is a standard agreement. This is because of the improvements that the, um, the port has been investing in, um, on the facilities they've been doing across the river. We try and support them where we can. The only issue within this 1, we've cleaned it up quite a bit, but, uh, there is an annual lease. And so, um, that's just something that we need to recognize. Uh, you know, it's unfortunate there's lease agreements or payments for when we do lease agreements with the core, uh, and railroads. There isn't 1 necessarily with the county or, but there are, there is payments on that. So, um, staff is always aware of these things because there is a cost to them. And so that's just the annual cost of operations. Um, and no, we can't pass the cost onto the port because they are, uh, publicly owned. And maintain, uh, infrastructure, so they are no longer the port put them in, but the city now owns and maintains them. So it is the responsibility of the city to cover the cost of that. So I stand for questions.

Thank you. Director councils. Also, if there's no questions, I would entertain a motion there.

Motion to approve resolution 2026 dash 43.

And moved by counselor client 2nd, right? Counselor spec a mark to approve resolution 2026 dash 43 clerk rocky.

Council President cleaver counselor, right? All right. Counselor Forsman. All right. Counselor client. All right. Counselor Maury counselor. All right.

Motion carries. Thank you. Council. Thank you. Clark rocky. Next step. We have item C resolution 2026 dash 44, considering approving the assignment of license agreement for sanitary sewer crossing between the great Northwest for LLC and the portal ocean to the city of Lewiston and authorizing the mayor to sign the addendum to license agreement. This is an action item once again, public works director, Justin Johnson.

Same pitch just this is the sewer instead of the water. So it's just a, just an agreement with the railroad.

Um, is this double. Would it be double or is it just the 1,900.

A year, this is double it's separate. It's a separate agreement, separate agreement.

So it'd be.

1800 total between the 2. yeah, spread across the 2 different utilities.

Councillor Klein, I would note to their 2 separate pipes and 2 separate locations. So it's not like 1 pipe. That covers both 1 location that covers both.

Couch or client motion to approve resolution 2026 dash 44.

Second move by counselor client 2nd, right? Council more to approve resolution 2026. Dash 44, click Rocky.

Council President Kleeberg. Hi, Councilor Wright. Hi. Councilor Forsman. Hi. Councilor Klein. Hi. Councilor Morey.

Hi.