Planning Commission

August 16, 2017 6:30 p.m. Area of Impact City Annex Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: City Commissioners Brent Dixon, Gene Hicks, Joanne Denney, Natalie Black, George Swaney, George Morrison (via telephone); County Commissioners Doyle Beck, Kim Ryan, Richard Horne, Mark Thompson, Tom Hunsaker. ALSO PRESENT: City Planning Director Brad Cramer; Assistant City Planning Director Kerry Beutler; County Planning Director Steve Serr; and interested citizens. Call To Order: City Commissioner Dixon opened the meeting at 6:30 and went over the public hearing process. Changes, Additions or Modifications to the Agenda: None. Minutes of June 21, 2017: Hunsaker asked if the County had a quorum for the June 21, meeting. Hunsaker indicated that he did forget to count George Swaney twice as he sits on both City and County. Hunsaker indicated that he thought he had brought up another point about the County having a public hearing for annexation and zoning before the County, but if he failed to that is ok. Swaney moved to approve the minutes of June 21, 2017, Ryan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearing to Consider New Area of City Impact Map and Agreement. Cramer gave a brief overview of what the Area of Impact is and why they City and County are meeting to discuss its boundaries. Cramer stated that the State requires the City to negotiate an area of city impact with its respective County. Cramer stated that the line is to show and determine where a city intends to grow and can reasonably be expected to grow in the future. Cramer stated that the trade area, geographic features, and where can a city reasonably be expected to grow are factors that help determine where the line will be placed. Cramer stated that the area of impact deals with annexation, and standards that are enforced within the area of city impact. Cramer stated that the area of city impact doesn’t mean that the city cannot grow beyond the line, it only illustrates where the city intends to grow and doesn’t affect Category A annexation. Cramer stated that the area of impact has an influence on category B and C annexation, which has been referred to as forced annexation or city initiated annexation. Cramer stated that the County’s ordinances and plans apply in the Area of Impact and the City has no jurisdiction outside of the annexed boundaries. Cramer stated that within the area of impact, they have agreed to what standards would apply. Cramer stated that if a property were to develop in the county, but within the area of city impact, then some of the city standards would be adopted by the County and apply, or they have reviewed the standards and determined that they are close enough that there are no changes needed. Cramer stated that they discussed places where the City will make changes and places where the County will make changes to ordinances. Dixon asked Cramer what the State’s intent on having city areas of impact. Cramer stated that the purposes are the same as planning, and to make sure growth is orderly, and the City can serve the area, and encourage growth within the city. Cramer stated that Idaho Falls Area of City Impact is small compared to other small towns in Idaho. Dixon asked what the requirement is for doing the process and how often does it have to be done. Cramer stated that the process begins with the city and county agreeing to have the discussion, and the elected officials set forth the time frame that they want the recommendations back. Cramer stated that the Statute does indicate that every ten years the city and county need to review and see if the area of impact needs to be updated. Cramer stated that the last area of impact was passed in 2001. Beutler stated that in the May 2016 meeting of the joint Commissions they made the recommendations for the map. Dixon asked if Beutler had a map of what the City looked like in 2001 to show why there was a need to revisit the map. Cramer showed the map from 2000 on the southern end of the City and compared it to the 2016 aerial map showing significant growth in the City. Cramer stated that there are places that the City boundaries are touching the area of impact line, or have crossed over the line of area of impact. Dixon suggested that when the recommendation goes to City Council that they have a map that shows what the City looked like in 2001 and a current map. Beutler indicated that on the map the current city boundaries are shown in tan. Beutler stated that the map has a blue line that is the existing current area of impact line, and the red line is the proposed area of impact line. Beutler stated that in many cases there is no change to the area of impact line. Beutler stated that on the south the line was on York road until 5th West where the line went south to 73rd. Beutler stated that the proposal now will be to have the line go along 73rd South and that change was universally accepted when the map was discussed. Dixon asked about the diagonal line on the south-east end of the map. Beutler stated that is where the regional sewer line goes through and the City has no intention of providing service on the other side of the regional sewer, so the line was retracted and now aligns with the road. Beutler stated that there will be a major utility line constructed down York, and it makes sense that the City will serve both sides of the utility line. Beutler went to the west of the southern boundary that shows a red line (option A) and a green line (option B). Beutler stated that the green line is the same as the existing area of impact line. Beutler stated that part of the discussion was to pull the area of impact line back to Yellowstone Highway as there is existing County development and it is unlikely that it will be annexed into the City. Beutler stated that there was some discussion between the Commissioners about keeping the existing line in place, so it is listed on the map as Option A and Option B. Cramer stated that there was a push to only have a certain number of years’ worth of acres within the area of city impact and this was a way to pull acres out. Beutler went to the western edge of the City boundary along 35th West. Beutler stated that the initial proposal was to move the line to the green line (Option B) along 35th West and then there was discussion to pull the line back to make sure that the acreage was within a specific year time line. Beutler moved north along the west line that shows the City has experienced annexation that touches the existing area of impact line and so it was agreed to extend the line out to 35th West. Beutler moved to the northern section of the City and indicated that they agreed to leave the line where it currently is and there was no change to the existing area of impact line. Beutler moved to the north eastern portion of the City. Beutler indicated that the City has had discussions about a large annexation in that area and so the City proposed the line would capture the potential annexation, and there was an agreement to move the line to the north to the proposed red line. Beutler indicated that the eastern edge of the city is the line between Ammon and the City of Idaho Falls. Dixon asked how much land is proposed to be added. Cramer stated that it is approximately 2.5 square miles being added (1600 acres). Dixon asked how much land has been annexed in the current area of impact. Cramer stated that the average is 3700 – 4300 acres has been annexed in the last 16 years. Area of Impact Agreement Document Beutler stated that after the June meeting the City attorney reviewed the document and had minor changes to the Agreement. Serr indicated that the County legal counsel did not review the document. Beutler started with the Comprehensive Plan. Beutler stated that the Agreement indicates that City and County will attempt to keep Comprehensive Plans in sync. Beutler stated that there are 4 adjustments that the City of Idaho Falls will make to make the Comprehensive Plans more in sync. Zoning Ordinance. Beutler stated that within the Area of Impact the County’s ordinances will apply. Beutler stated that the recommended changes were trying to adjust and bring the County’s commercial standards with landscaping more in sync, as well as removing hatcheries as a use in the C-2 Zone. Dixon asked Beutler why it is important to have the area of impact develop to City standards. Beutler stated that the planning intent to have development appear more seamless and continuity of standards to maintain utilities. Subdivision Ordinance. Beutler indicated that there was nothing that was substantially different between the City and County and it will be the Bonneville County Subdivision Ordinance that applies in the Area of Impact. Development Agreements. The language remained the same. Utility Extension. Beutler stated that the City Attorney did add “In its sole discretion” to the first sentence. Beutler stated that it is still a “may” for the utility extensions. Beutler stated if they will be extending utilities the City wants to be able to review improvement documents and do inspections so that it can come onto the City system. Beutler stated that as the developer or property owner would be working with the City and the County to review the documents and have the discussion regarding extension. Beutler clarified that it will not include power as the City of Idaho Falls Power cannot be extended unless the property is within the City limits. Dixon stated that the current policy is to not extend utilities beyond City limits and this agreement would change the policy. Dixon stated that at the option of the developer they could request that the City extend utilities and if the City accepts then the developer pays for the extensions and develops to City standards. Beutler stated that the City departments that oversee the utilities are nervous about the extension option and the elected officials will have to make that decision. Annexation. Beutler stated that the City will adopt a written annexation policy as part of the City Area of Impact Agreement. Beutler stated that as the lands are developed and eligible for annexation the City will work to bring them in. Beutler stated that the end of the Annexation section states that Bonneville County will not approve a request for rezone unless the applicant has filed a request for annexation with the City first and the City has denied the request. Beutler stated that the intent is if the property is eligible for annexation and that property is wanting to develop and adjust the zoning designation to denser or a different use, then they need to apply to the City and let the City review the rezone and annexation, and if the City is not interested then they can develop in the County. Dixon clarified that this annexation only applies to property within the Area of Impact and that is adjacent to the City. Beck indicated that he doesn’t remember agreeing to this portion. Beutler clarified that it doesn’t prohibit development in the current County zone, but if they want to rezone then they need to apply to the City first. Cramer added that they have to be within the area of impact and contiguous to the City. Beutler stated that the initial proposed language included subdivisions, CUP, site plans, etc., and that language would have restricted someone from developing, and the County commented appropriately that they cannot restrict development in the current zone. Beck stated that with this statement they do not have a right to rezone in the County if they are contiguous to the City. Dixon stated that they have the right, but they need to ask if the City would like to annex them as a contingency to the right. Thompson asked how long the annexation process takes. Beutler indicated that a typical annexation process takes 2 ½ months. Beutler stated that the intent is within the Area of Impact if things are to develop and change, and it is eligible for annexation, then it needs to come into the City. Dixon asked if there was anything that discussed rezoning to an urban type zone. Beutler stated that the discussion on urban development was determined to not go down that path. Beck stated that if someone has property that is contiguous and they don’t want to be annexed into the City and they have to apply to the City before they can apply with the County. Beutler stated that they can develop under their current zone, but if they want to change zones then they need to go to the City, and that process should take a little longer and be examined. Ryan clarified and Beutler agreed that if they apply to the City and the City determines it is not something they are interested in annexing then they can go to the County. Beutler also clarified that it is a “should” and not a “shall” and so if the County wanted to rezone without sending to the City they could. Dixon indicated that the State Statute states that none of the above shall prevent the County from developing. Beutler stated that the intent is not to prevent development, but rather the process should go slower and it should be considered if it should develop in the County or the City. Beutler stated that the State Statute dictates the annexation process with the public hearings. Thompson clarified and Beutler agreed that if the property is not within the area of impact this annexation statement doesn’t apply. Ryan asked if there is a way to expedite the process. Cramer stated that if it is a category A annexation they do not have to hold a hearing and if the annexation can be done by ordinance and that would speed up the process up. Cramer stated that they typically do the hearing for the purpose of discussing zoning, but they can forgo that step and speed the process up. Beck asked if someone is contiguous to the City and they don’t want to be annexed, why are they required to come to the City. Ryan stated that if they are in the area of impact it would seem logical that they follow through with the review process. Beck stated that he believes property owners need to have rights, and this process doesn’t give him rights. Hunsaker indicated that Ammon and City of Idaho Falls have the boundary of 25th Street, and if you want to develop property on the east side of 25th in Idaho Falls, you must first ask Ammon even though you would like to have to in Idaho Falls. Hunsaker stated that the land owner might not like the idea of developing incorporated versus county and this is a negotiation process and it’s been decided for the governmental balance of things to have property within the Area of Impact go to the City to see if it can be accommodated. Ryan stated that he assumes staff will get together and work out differences. Beck asked Ryan what his position on the County Board if someone came and asked for a rezone and stated that they don’t want to be in the City. Ryan stated that if they are in the Area of Impact they already know that they have responsibilities both ways and they need to satisfy both boards. Dixon stated that with all planning no matter what you want to rezone to you have to go to a government body and ask permission to develop, and no property owner has the right to just develop the land as whatever the property owner wants to. Dixon stated that the planning implemented by the State indicates you have to go and ask permission from a government body. Beck indicated that if you are asking for your property to be brought into compliance with the comprehensive plan is not asking permission. Ryan stated that people buy ground with an idea in mind and then they do have to rezone and they do have to go to one of the governing bodies to rezone, and you know that when you purchase the property. Ryan stated that it doesn’t make any difference if you have to satisfy both boards. Hunsaker indicated that it is not appropriate to have this discussion during a public hearing. Beutler moved to Existing Developments. Beutler stated that if a development begins to develop in the County in phases, and at some point, becomes annexed during the development, that development can continue to develop the remaining phases according to the standard established by the County. Beutler added that if they do want City of Idaho Falls utilities they may need to upgrade the utility requirement to meet minimum City standards. Beutler stated that Administration and Enforcement is the responsibility of Bonneville County and hasn’t changed. Beutler stated that City Review didn’t change. Beutler stated that Periodic Review was changed to have the planning commissions meet annually to discuss growth patterns and determine if the Area of Impact needs to be revised and revisions will be done on an as needed basis. Dixon asked if the two documents (map and agreement) represent what was asked for by the elected officials. Beutler stated that the map and agreement are what the elected officials need, as well as this public hearing to compile public comment to move forward to the elected officials. Hunsaker indicated that in a past meeting they agreed in the City Review section to take out “preliminary”. Dixon indicated that he agreed that they were going to take out preliminary plats. Ryan added that the final plat review will take care of anything that the preliminary plat would show, and it would be a duplication process that is unnecessary. Ryan asked Beutler if a review of the final plat would be sufficient. Beutler stated that anything that has improvement drawings associated with the utilities would be sufficient. Thompson asked what the biggest difference between City and County standards. Dixon stated that they have worked to minimize the differences. Serr stated that most issues were resolved with the exception of water system piping. Beck stated that he feels like from the training from the Smart Growth manual, there should be a 10-year growth estimation to a maximum of 20 years and that is the growth that should be dealt with. Beck stated that this current proposed Area of Impact Map has over 50 years of growth. Cramer indicated that on average this proposed Area of Impact is 26 years., based on the average annexation over the past 40 years. Beck stated that in the last 10 years the City averaged 2,150 acres. Beck stated that if you add the undeveloped ground that is already annexed and the proposed impact area it is close to 14,000 acres. Horne stated that this is not part of the hearing process and should not be discussed. Dixon indicated that the County has many more acres in the Comprehensive Plan identified for urban type development that is not within the area of impact of any city, which represents approximately 100 years of development. Beck stated that he would not have a problem with people who are contiguous going to the City first to rezone, if this was in fact a 20-year plan, but it is a 50-year plan and that creates a problem. Dixon stated that per State Statute, if a city is within 3 miles of another county they can negotiate for an area of impact within the other county, which implies that a city’s area of impact can extend more than 3 miles beyond their existing boundary and the City is currently asking for moving at between ¼ mile to 1 mile of the City boundary. Beck stated that Smart Growth indicates that growth beyond 20 years is questionable and motivated by a desire to control land use with unrealistic expectations about the ability to serve and annex. Serr stated that there was a one-word change in the Periodic Review. The Board recommendation was to meet on an “as needed basis” and the City Attorney added into the paragraph “at least on an annual basis”. Swaney stated that it states “should” meet at least annually, which gives the option to both groups to determine if they will meet annually. Dixon opened the public hearing. No one appeared in support or in opposition. Beutler stated that he double checked on the City Review and the intent was to remove the word preliminary, so that will be removed prior to this Agreement moving forward to elected officials. Dixon closed the public hearing. Dixon asked staff if they need a motion to move the map forward and a motion to move the agreement forward. Cramer stated that the intent was to get public comment tonight, and no public comment has been received by the City or the County. Cramer stated that they would like a motion to make a recommendation to the elected officials. Serr stated that there are a few variables on the maps and if they make a motion to move forward the motion needs to incorporate a note that they have the options. Serr stated that it is difficult giving elected officials options, because if they make a significant change to the map in theory it should come back to the joint commissioner to review the map. Dixon suggested that on the map it is clear that there is a majority agreement for the majority of the map and the 2 areas that they could not agree on should now be passed on to the elected officials. Dixon stated that if the elected officials take either of the options they are going along with the recommendation and it doesn’t need to come back to the Commission. Hunsaker stated that the map might be able to be resolved tonight, as they have made a lot of progress in a year. Hunsaker suggested discussing the options on the map and see if they can come to an agreement to resolve the options on the map. Swaney stated that all they need is a motion to put the narrative agreement together with the changes to remove preliminary, and have the motion indicate one of the two options (A or B) on the map, and if the motion passes they can move on and if the motion fails then they can look at a motion for the other option. Morrison agreed with Swaney. Dixon directed the Commission to the map showing south of Township and along Yellowstone and asked if there is any information that is needed before a motion is made. Thompson asked if the people that are on the other side of the red line want to be annexed. Dixon stated that the area is primarily industrial park. Dixon stated that if they are outside of the area of impact, but adjacent to the City they can still apply for annexation. Thompson asked if they are applying for annexation. Cramer stated that they are not. Hunsaker stated that the triangle was not proposed to be removed, but staff decided that there was no interest by the current land owners to be part of the City, and the property has already developed. Swaney stated that the suggested originally that it didn’t make sense to draw the line back, but if that is the only way to make an agreement to move forward than he is ok with that. Swaney stated that the line (Option B) was the existing line for the current area of impact. Beck stated that the closer they can get to 20 years would be good. Dixon stated that the line (Option B) has been there for 16 years and no action has occurred. Ryan clarified that the red line is Option A (retract line) and green line is Option B (existing area of impact line). Horne moved to accept Option B (existing boundary), Morrison seconded the motion. Swaney objected as he believes that they should vote on an entire map not piece meal. Ryan clarified and Dixon agreed that the Green line (Option B) is the existing line for the current area of impact. Dixon called for vote on Motion made by Horne, to accept Option B (existing boundary). The motion passed. Beck and Morrison opposed the motion. Beck indicated that he opposed the motion because that is the Heyrend Industrial Park and there is nothing that meets City standards within that area and they are not going to annex into the City and there is no reason for them to be in the area of impact and it increases the 56 years of growth to 56.5 years of growth. Morrison stated that if someone wants to be annexed it can be addressed and if not, they need to accept the area as it is. Dixon moved to the second area along 35th West. Dixon indicated that Option A (green line) is to push the line out to 35th and Option B (red line) is to keep the existing area of impact line. Beck indicated that there is already 56 years of growth and this would increase it. Dixon stated that it is 26 years of growth. Beck stated that it is 56 years as Cramer was not including the undeveloped ground. Hunsaker stated that farther north on 35th there has been interest for annexation into the City and so that line makes sense to be within the area of impact, but the property south on 35th has land that is big enough to be viable agriculture ground. Hunsaker stated that the Option A would be better. Horne moved to accept Option A (existing boundary), Ryan seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Horne moved to recommend to the City Council and County Commissioners approval of the map with the red line with the exception of the south west corner which will be the green line (option A) as previously agreed per motion, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed. Beck opposed the motion as he believes it is 56 years of expansion. Dixon moved on to the Agreement. Ryan clarified that the word “preliminary” will be taken out of the City Review section. Hunsaker had concerns. Hunsaker stated that the first comment is that Item #1 under Comprehensive Plan. “Idaho Falls should amend its Comprehensive Plan to reduce the size of the plan area to more closely match the boundaries of the area of impact.” The County should not care about that as the County’s philosophy on the comprehensive plan is different than the City’s. Hunsaker stated that he is concerned with the Subdivision Ordinance. Hunsaker asked why they haven’t already had the Public Works Departments review and determine the adjustments prior to this action moving forward to the elected officials. Cramer stated that one of the reasons that they have not asked Public works to review the standards, is Cramer is unsure if the utility extension is going to be approved by the elected officials and there was not a necessity to go through all the standards if the utility extension was not going to be approved. Once there is a determination on utility extension then they can dive into the issue. Dixon clarified that if the elected officials agree to the Agreement without changes, then the elected officials through their approval would be directing the Public Works departments to get together and review the standards. Hunsaker stated he is worried about the use of the word immediately in Development Agreement. Hunsaker believes that the word immediately will bind the City Council to annex, even if they are not ready. Hunsaker stated that in Utility Extension the word immediately is again used regarding annexation and again binds the City Council. Dixon stated that the word immediately is directing the property owner who requests City utilities to “immediately” offer their property for annexation. Dixon stated that the term immediately is to the property owner, not the City. Hunsaker stated that if the City attorney interprets it the same he is ok. Horne asked if the County attorney has reviewed the document. Serr indicated that it has not been reviewed by the County attorney. Hunsaker stated that Annexations is worrisome to him. Hunsaker narrated a scenario where the County has a mixed-use designation that allows residential and less intense commercial and someone comes to the City and asks for general commercial in an area that the City is not interested in having commercial as it is not compatible and the City wants houses in the area, so the City rejects the rezone request. Hunsaker stated that now the applicant has met the requirements of being denied by the City and can now go to the County with another zone such as residential. Hunsaker believes the language needs to be tightened as to why the City rejects the annexation and rezone (i.e. the City doesn’t want to annex or the request was ridiculous). The commissioners discussed different language to clean up the paragraph to tighten the language. Hunsaker moved to direct Staff to modify the final sentence under ANNEXATIONS so that the County will not approve a request for rezoning until after a request for the same zone has been submitted to the City of Idaho Falls and the City has rejected the application, Horne seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. The Commissioners discussed the term “annually” that was added to the Periodic Review and determined that there are no changes necessary. Cramer stated that he and Serr were discussing in Annexation section that it is not explicitly stated that in the County the property owner can develop to whatever is allowed in the existing zone. Cramer proposed that they need to change the wording to make it more explicit that the property owner is entitled to develop in their current zone. Serr stated that the wording states when the land is developed and how is that determined. Dixon asked if they added a sentence that indicates if development will occur without a rezoning then this section would not apply. Cramer suggested changing the word development to rezoning. Serr agreed. Hunsaker suggested it read: When land is eligible for annexation pursuant to State Code Section 50-222(i.e. is contiguous to City limits), Bonneville County should not approve a request for rezoning unless an applicant has filed a request for annexation with the City of Idaho Falls and the City has denied the request (or whatever new language staff comes up with pursuant to the previous motion). Ryan suggested having the staff come up with the language. Cramer indicated that staff (Cramer and Serr) have agreed that the wording will be: When land is proposed for Rezoning in the area of impact and such land is eligible for annexation per State Code, Section 50-222, Bonneville County should not approve request for rezoning unless the applicants . . . Beck moved to change the word development to rezoning in the ANNEXATION section to, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Horne moved to recommend to the City Council and County Commissioner approval of the Area of Impact Agreement with the changes as agreed upon, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed. Beck abstained from voting. Dixon adjourned the meeting at 8:30. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder