Planning Commission

June 21, 2017 6:30 p.m. Area of Impact City Annex Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: City Commissioners Brent Dixon, Gene Hicks, Joanne Denney, Arnold Cantu, George Swaney, Lindsey Romankiw; County Commissioners Doyle Beck, Terry Koster, Kim Ryan, Tom Hunsaker. ALSO PRESENT: City Assistant Planning Director Kerry Beutler; County Planning Director Steve Serr. Call To Order: County Commissioner Beck opened the meeting at 6:30. Changes, Additions or Modifications to the Agenda: None. Minutes of May 17, 2017: Swaney moved to approve the minutes of May 17, 2017, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Revised Draft Area of Impact Agreement: Beutler presented the changes that were discussed at the May 17, 2017 meeting and highlighted them in yellow. Beutler started with Comprehensive Plan and indicated that they edited No. 3 to state Idaho Falls will add a commercial node at the intersection of 65th South and 15th East (Sandy Downs). Beutler moved to Zoning Ordinance and indicated that they added 1. Add a minimum landscaping requirement of 20% of the total lot area as is done in the County’s C-2 Zone within the C-1, HC-1, P-B, I&M- 1 Zones. And 2. Remove hatcheries from C-2 Zone. Beutler moved to Utility Extensions. Beutler indicated that previously the agreement stated that the City would be required to provide, and now it states The City of Idaho Falls may offer to provide utilities . . . Beutler indicated that he reordered the paragraph so that the front portion deals with water/sewer. Existing Developments. Beutler stated that the agreement read that the City would require any necessary upgrades . . . and now it reads If City of Idaho Falls utilities are requested the City may require any necessary upgrades to utility infrastructure to meet City Standards. City Review. Beutler stated that where the agreement now reads utilities . . . it previously read improvement drawings and the paragraph is dealing with is utilities (water/sewer). Periodic Review. This title used to read Annual Review, and it is not necessary to review the document every year. Beck asked on Existing Developments if when it states the “City may require” is it talking about the phases moving forward or the phases that are already constructed. Beutler indicated that it deals with both as the City utility will have specific standards that must be met to hook on and that could require upgrades to existing infrastructure. Beck stated that if something is not built to City Standards, going back in after the development is completed is impossible cost wise. Dixon stated that they can always continue to maintain the utilities as they currently exist. Dixon stated that it is not a requirement that they upgrade, but if they want to connect to a new provider they may be required to do upgrades. Hunsaker stated that the new provider would then be responsible for maintenance and upkeep. Hunsaker stated that the current wording leaves room for negotiation, but generally they transfer ownership and responsibility when they connect to a new provider. Beck asked if there is a fully constructed development that has Falls Water and they are not built to City standards and now they want to hook onto City utilities, would the City be opposed to an agreement to supply the water, but not maintain system. Beutler stated that there are developments where the City provides the utility to the beginning of the development and then beyond that point it is a private system and has private maintenance. Beck and Dixon discussed extensively different scenarios of when the City “may” require necessary upgrades. Beck asked if the rate for service will be the same if they don’t have the City do the maintenance. Beutler indicated that the rate will be based on the usage and if they are annexed there won’t be the outside user rate. Koster asked if they wanted to upgrade infrastructure in an existing subdivision how they would go about it. Beutler indicated that they could do an LID. Koster asked who would be applying for the extension of services in an existing subdivision. Beutler indicated it would likely have to go through the HOA and do the entire subdivision. Beck stated that an HOA cannot force someone to annex, and that would have to be 30 approvals and 30 annexations. Dixon indicated that the annexation issue is separate from the utility paragraph, as they are not requiring that they switch over to the City utilities, they must request the services. Beck asked if the City of Idaho Falls will not extend utilities unless the annexation occurs. Dixon indicated that if the property is within the Area of Impact, then the HOA can request the service. Beutler indicated that the recommendation above for Utility Extension is that the City will offer the utilities and the developer must make the request. Swaney indicated that it is the developer’s decision and it is negotiable. Beck stated that they have to annex. Hunsaker indicated that they agree that they will be annexed, once the requirements are met and the City is ready to annex. Ryan and Koster indicated that if a developer is developing within the Area of Impact the developer will go and find out what the building standards are within the impact Area prior to development and he should use the standards of the City whose impact area the development is within. Serr stated that Mauna Lani Lane is a subdivision on Township that the City is wrapped around and they have a central community water system and each parcel has its own septic tanks. Dixon stated that if the well stops working and they want to tie into City water, then the City would check to see if the subdivision meets the standards they are willing to accept, and then they could tie on. Ryan indicated that the home owners would still have to maintain from the street to their house. Serr and Beck indicated that they are discussing the trunk line that goes down the street, not the service lines. Beck again asked that if they want to hook onto services do they have to annex into the City. Serr stated that the sentence in Existing Developments that reads . . . the City may require any necessary upgrades to utility infrastructure in order to meet City standards. is different than the discussion that has been ongoing, that if they maintain their own system, they can connect and not do upgrades to that system. Serr stated that the sentence needs to be reworded. Dixon indicated that the request for services can be withdrawn if they do not like what the city decides on upgrading the system. Serr suggested inserting “the City may require upgrades if they take over maintenance of the system”. Beutler stated that it is still a question of whether they are hooking on as the City might tell them that the system is not compatible and it cannot be connected. Hunsaker stated that the concept is if the City utilities are requested the City may offer to provide the utility subject to the current owner still maintaining responsibility for all maintenance, or, the City will require upgrades to meet City standards if they will take on the maintenance. Ryan believes that the “may” doesn’t protect the person requesting the services (individual/developer). Beutler stated that the individual is protected by the ability to withdraw the request or not request at all. Swaney indicated that if it is an individual home owner it is simple, but this paragraph is talking about an existing development and would not be individual home owners, rather HOA or developer. Beck stated that in the case of Mauna Lani Lane there is no way that they can bring the development to City standard. Swaney stated that it is negotiable and they negotiate with the City as to what needs to be brought to City standards. Beck again asked if they take the service are they required to annex. Beutler stated that if they are contiguous now, they need to annex. Beck stated that if that is the requirement it is impossible and it will never happen as they cannot reconstruct the subdivision. Beutler clarified that if they are asking they should meet standards, but if they don’t want the utility then there is no reason to annex. Beutler stated that even if they are annexed they do not have to request City utilities. Ryan asked if they are annexed and they request utilities is it to each home, or to the central main trunk. Beutler stated it would depend on how they annex, if they annex as the whole subdivision or one property at a time. Koster asked if the City would annex a development if they are surrounded by City and do not have City services. Beutler stated the City could, but it hasn’t been the City’s policy to annex developments that are not asking and/or have City utilities. Beutler indicated that they have annexed properties that keep their water or sewer and only hook onto one or the other of the City utilities, but they can request the utility at some point, and then they may be required to upgrade their system to hook onto services. Beck asked if they upgraded with curb and gutter/storm drain, etc. Beutler indicated that it still has a County road section. Dixon stated those items are grandfathered when they were annexed. Swaney stated that when the City annexed Prestwich Estates, that didn’t have curb and gutter to City standards, the City did not require they change that. Beutler stated that if it is residential they do not require them to install curb/gutter/sidewalk when they are annexed. Beck asked if Mauna Lani Lane wanted to hook to water, would they have to do anything with the storm drain system, pavement, curb and gutter, and then who would maintain the streets. Beutler stated that the City would maintain the streets, and if they wanted improvements like curb/gutter/sidewalk later then the City would help them to form an LID. Beck indicated that was his concern was the entire infrastructure that would have to be brought to City standards. Dixon clarified that if the development is in progress, the remainder of the development can still be developed to the standards of the first part of the development, except for, if they are wanting City utilities, the City may require them to upgrade the infrastructure for the utilities. Beck clarified that in an existing subdivision that is annexed, the only standard that are required to be upgraded are sewer and water. Beutler stated that the City will not require them to upgrade curb/gutter and the City will maintain the streets. Beck indicated that situation needs to be written into this paragraph so it is clear to people in existing developments. The Commissioners discussed different ways to insert the language. Beutler was concerned that they were getting to specific in their descriptions. Dixon suggested stating that the words “tax supported maintenance” could be used. Serr agreed with Dixon that “tax supported” would cover what would be grandfathered. Romankiw expressed concern and indicated that they need to make sure to state, “upon annexation” The commissioners agreed to insert the language into Existing Developments “Upon annexation, tax supported infrastructure shall be grandfathered.” Dixon asked about the review process that City and County staff were going to try to straighten out in the City Review section. Beutler indicated that they changed the paragraph. Beutler stated that it previously read that the City would send comments to the County, the County would make changes, then send them back to the City and start the process over again. Beutler stated that they completely struck that sentence. Serr indicated that 15 working days is too long and adds an extra month to the processing time for plats. Beutler stated that the City is busy and it is hard to get comments turned around in the 15 working days. Ryan stated that if something is building within the Area of Impact it will likely be a longer process. Serr stated that it shouldn’t be a longer process. Serr indicated that it is unlikely that there will be something that is non- compliant as it is the same adopted policy that the City has. Serr asked Beutler how many times they have to have revisions on a City plan. Beutler stated that every time they have plans submitted by a developer, there is something that the City is requesting to be changed. Serr suggested that they move the preliminary plat through quickly as it shows very little detail, and then they can have additional time for the detailed drawings for the final plat that is a staff function. Swaney and Hunsaker suggested removing the word preliminary from the paragraph. Koster moved to remove the word “working” from City Review, giving the City 15 days to return comments to Bonneville County, Dixon seconded the motion and it passed. Hunsaker opposed the motion as he feels 15 days is too restrictive. Hunsaker wanted to add words to the Comprehensive Plan paragraph (1st paragraph). Hunsaker suggested inputting a new paragraph that would read: “Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Map within the Area of Impact shall be coordinated between the County and the City so both the County and the City designations for subsidiaries of land within the area of impact remain in sync with one another.” Hunsaker stated that legally both City and County must have hearings to change the Comprehensive Plan. Hunsaker stated that he is suggesting that if a parcel of land is being suggested to be changed, then both City and County need to agree and pass the change. Serr indicated that the County’s Comprehensive Plan would be the plan that mattered as they have the jurisdiction within the Area of Impact. Beutler indicated that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is not binding. Dixon agreed with Hunsaker that they need to sync their Comprehensive Plan changes in the future. Serr stated that if a parcel asks to rezone that would change the Comprehensive Plan, then the two jurisdictions need to coordinate and notify one another. Serr stated that the City’s Comprehensive Plan has no teeth outside of the City limits and if the City annexes the property then the County doesn’t care, but it is misleading to the public if the plans are different. Dixon suggested that the Periodic Review portion of this agreement can take care of this issue, if they discuss the changes that are proposed during that periodic review. Serr suggested adding a statement “Make sure notifications are given to each jurisdiction when changes are being proposed to their respective Comprehensive Plans.” Hunsaker moved to add a sentence stating, “When there is a proposal to make a change to the Comprehensive Plan Map within the Impact Area of either jurisdiction, that they notify each other and coordinate the changes”, Koster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Dixon stated that they still need to discuss the City’s Comprehensive Plan not extending beyond the Area of Impact and the County’s designation of urban development not including areas that are outside of the Area of Impact of a city. Serr indicated that at the last meeting they decided they cannot define urban and so they deleted the concept of trying to plan urban policy. Hunsaker stated that the county designated that area as urban residential because whether it develops outside or inside City limits it will become residential. Dixon indicated that if the land is going to develop to urban density (non-ag), it should be developed into a city, and therefore it should be within a cities area of impact. Dixon suggested that the County reduce the amount of land that is identified for non-ag development and restrict it around cities. Hunsaker stated that it is not clear what the State statute says as there is a second interpretation and the language needs cleaned up. Hunsaker stated that the County will not allow people to develop to urban density unless they are adjacent to something that is already that same density. Dixon brought up Cloverdale as an example of urban sprawl from the past. Hunsaker stated that the policy now is to not “spot” zone. Serr stated that the definition of spot zoning is rezoning a piece of property that is not adjoining another existing zone similar use or under a single ownership. Serr indicated that the County has denied the rezone for most of the requests to “spot zone” in the last 5-10 years. Beck asked if it is different when it is in the City. Dixon stated that it is more compact development because the County will not allow them to extend the boundaries out 5 miles for the area of impact. Swaney suggested accepting the progress that has been made in this area of impact agreement and move forward and not introduce new issues that are unresolvable. Beutler asked the Commissioners for a motion for this agreement to move forward to public outreach. Swaney moved that the presented document, with the noted changes, move forward to present for public outreach on the area of impact for public comment, Koster seconded the motion and it passed. Dixon and Hunsaker opposed the motion. Public Outreach. Serr stated that to adopt this agreement it must go to a public hearing, that must be published, noticed, and people are invited to come in and make comment. Serr asked why they need to have two public comment periods, and suggested skipping the public outreach, and just move forward with a public hearing. Beutler said that they were trying to take care of any comments or concerns outside of the public hearing, so the public hearing is easier and smoother. Beutler stated that if the Commission is comfortable just having the public hearing for the adoption process they can do that. Dixon stated that in the past changes to the comprehensive plan have had a public outreach, then the Commissioners have a working session on the draft and then have a public hearing on the draft. Dixon stated that the joint commission has already met and developed the draft. Dixon stated that the City Council and County Commissioners must approve this agreement and must have a public hearing to do that approval. Beutler stated that they do not have to do the public outreach step and they can just move forward with the public hearing for adoption, then move to City Council and County Commissioners. Serr agreed and stated that they should just move forward to a public hearing and skip the public outreach. Dixon clarified and Beutler agreed that the meeting currently being held is a publicly announced meeting and it could count as a public hearing. Hunsaker stated that a public meeting is different than a public hearing. Hunsaker stated that public outreach is part of what the State Statue want you to do when working on the comprehensive plan. Serr stated that last time they changed the area of impact they held a joint hearing with the two planning boards. The Commissioners discussed agreeing that they do not need to do the public outreach portion. Swaney suggested posting the information on the website for a period, that informed the public of when they will have the public hearings, and not having any formal public outreach. Dixon suggested having the Post Register interview Serr and Cramer and the interview can bring attention to the website. Beutler stated that the work program that the City and County agreed to include some public outreach, but it wasn’t defined, and could be some press releases, and contact information on the City website and then have a joint hearing. Hunsaker indicated that he has more things he wants to talk about on the agreement. Hunsaker felt that without Cramer present to give the ok, they shouldn’t move forward. Beutler indicated that Cramer will be fine with the Commissioners decision to drop the public outreach portion. Hunsaker stated that if someone wants to change a zone in the impact area in the County, they must first approach the City, and if the City says no, then they can bring the rezone to the County. Hunsaker asked if it should also include a change to the comprehensive plan designation, because a reason the City might not accept an annexation request could be due to the comprehensive plan designation and changing that designation could clear up the problem with annexation by the City. Beutler stated that if the comprehensive plan maps for the City and County match, it should alleviate the problem. Dixon suggested stating that Comprehensive Plan changes need to be disconnected from zoning changes. Beutler stated that he doesn’t see that the comprehensive plan is going to cause a problem for annex/zoning requests. Hunsaker suggested adding to Development Agreements. “Properties requesting utility service from the City of Idaho Falls shall record with the County Recorder’s office the desire to and acceptance of annexation by the City of Idaho Falls, with said annexation to occur at such time as the property meets all requirements of annexation and the City is ready to annex the property.” Hunsaker stated that recording the document with the County recorder will make it legally binding. “All developments of the utility infrastructure be in accordance with the City of Idaho Falls standards and requirements.” Hunsaker stated that anything going in the public easement has to be up to City Standards. “Upon acceptance by the City of Idaho Falls, it shall become owned and operated and maintained by the City. The City shall also have the right and responsibility of inspecting the utilities infrastructure from the time construction begins until the time the infrastructure is accepted by the City.” Hunsaker also suggested adding the language: “All fees associated with annexation to the City shall be paid upfront at the time of connection to the City utility.” Beutler stated that he worries about the specificity and there are other paragraphs that deal with utilities and infrastructure requirements. Dixon disagreed with paying the fees for annexation at the time of connection. Dixon asked why the agreement to be annexed is not legally binding. Hunsaker stated that it will become legally binding when it is recorded. Serr stated that all development agreements are currently recorded with the County and so the agreement is already recorded and binding. Beutler stated that the City would also require an outside user agreement. Hunsaker stated that the City of Ammon took an extra step and makes sure that the agreement is recorded with each plat and each lot on the plat, so it is available for the title company to tell the owner. Denney moved that for the public outreach that they publish to the City website and go through media such as newspaper to announce the joint public hearings, Cantu seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Beck adjourned the meeting at 8:30. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder