Planning Commission

December 4, 2018 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners George Morrison, Margaret Wimborne, George Swaney, Gene Hicks, Joanne Denney, Natalie Black, Brent Dixon, Arnold Cantu. (8 present 7 votes). MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Foster, Lindsey Romankiw, Darren Josephson. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer, Assistant Planning Directors Kerry Beutler, Brian Stevens; and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: George Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. MINUTES: Black moved to approve the November 6, 2018 minutes, Wimborne seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Business: Items 1 and 2 are clean up items for the November meeting. There was general discussion, and some confusion regarding whether the Reasoned Statements met with stipulations that were included with the Motions that were made pertaining to the CUP. 1. REASONED STATEMENT FOR CUP 18-008: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Car Wash, Portion Lots 3-5 Block 1 Television Park Add Div. 1. Dixon indicated that this Reasoned Statement item 3 is inconsistent with the motion made on the CUP and should be changed to 1 year instead of 2 years. Cramer agreed that it should be 1 year in the Reasoned Statement. Dixon moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the Conditional Use permit for Vehicle Washing Facility, Portion lots 3-5 Block 1, Television Park Addition, Division 1 with the change to item II Decision (3) to read: 1 year of vacancy . . ., Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. REASONED STATEMENT FOR CUP 18-009: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Vehicle Washing Facility N ½ NW ¼ Section 36, T2N R 37. Swaney indicated that the minutes show there are 4 conditions that were attached to the CUP and the conditions are not included under II Decision. Wimborne stated that the CUP addresses the conditions in the Motion just not in bullet form. There was discussion as to whether the wall adjacent to the commercial portion of property is addressed in the Reasoned Statement as listed in item #3 on the Motion in the minutes. Wimborne moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the Conditional Use Permit for Vehicle Washing Facility, M&B: approximately 1.63 acres N1/2, NW ¼, Section 36, T 2 N R 37E, Generally south of W Sunnyside Rd., West of Yellowstone Ave., North of Pederson St. and East of the Snake River, with the addition of in the II. Decision to include: A wall adjacent to the commercial property along Yellowstone will be cooperatively arranged and configured to not adversely affect the adjacent property owner. Dixon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. PLAT 17-016: FINAL PLAT. TELEVISION PARK ADDITION, 1ST Amended. Stevens indicated that this Plat was previously recommended for approval in September, and due to the amount of time that has passed they felt it necessary to refresh the Commissions memory, make sure no codes had changed and that everything on the plat is still in line, prior to it moving forward to City Council. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Television Park Addition, 1st Amended, as presented, Wimborne seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearing(s): 4. ANNX 18-016: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. West Side Annexation Initial Zoning RE, RP, R1, R2, R3, R3A, LC, HC. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Beutler indicated that they had a neighborhood meeting with all property owners in October, and they moved the hearing back to ensure there was proper notice. Wimborne asked about the Category A vs. Category B annexation and why it was determined to move forward with Category B annexation. Beutler explained that Category A annexations the City is not required to do an annexation plan, or hold a public hearing, and they are generally requested by the property owner. Beutler explained that Category B Annexation includes non-residential property, enclaved properties, properties that have begun to subdivide. Beutler indicated that the higher standard for noticing and public hearings is the Category B Annexation and so they chose to do all the annexations with Category B standards. Wimborne asked about larger parcels that were included, and whether they were included because they had same ownership. Beutler agreed that many that multiple parcels with the same owner have one parcel that is already in the City. Dixon read from Title 50-222 (4 pages in under (b)) Procedures for Category B Annexation “The City may annex lands that will qualify under the requirements . . . that the land is laid off into lots or blocks or has started to be developed . . . or when the land is surrounded by the City.” Dixon asked why the City is only wanting to annex a portion of the enclaved land. Beutler stated that City Council gave direction to staff to leave the larger vacant parcels until they develop as they will need services to develop, and they did not want to annex property that is under agricultural use or large vacant parcels. Dixon indicated that he feels that all land that is enclaved by the City should be annexed to encourage development within the City, and he feels that there is not equity in the way the annexation is being brought forward. Beutler stated that they could annex the enclaved areas, but the current direction for City Council is to exclude those parcels. Dixon asked if the streets are improved in the future who would be responsible for the cost. Beutler stated that if it is new development the developer would have to address their frontage and make the improvements, other areas the City might go through and make improvements from a safety stand point, or it can sit with a County road section indefinitely. Dixon asked what kind of road maintenance is being provided if they are not annexing any of the road. Beutler indicated that the annexation includes 10 right of way parcels, but the roads such as Stosich Lane that are not annexed will continue to be maintained how it has been in the past. Dixon asked about grandfathering current uses and how long can the use be discontinued before the property owner would lose the right to continue the grandfathered use. Beutler indicated that if the use is discontinued for a continuance 12 months. Dixon asked whose choice it is to participate in the Rocky Mountain Power buyout. Beutler explained that it must be at the request of the property owner, and then they would work with Idaho Falls Power, who would work with Rocky Mountain Power on the buyout. Dixon asked if the City’s 50% of the buyout is automatic, or can the City elect to not participate. Randy Fife, Esq., indicated that the City entered into an agreement that allows, after annexation, the property owner can go to Rocky Mountain Power and ask for services, then Rocky Mountain Power decides if they will agree to transfer the services to the City, and if the City wants to, then the City enters into an agreement, if they get enough people in the area to agree to move from Rocky Mountain Power to Idaho Falls Power, and then built into the rate the City has established, the City will pay ½ up front to Rocky Mountain Power and the property owner pays a higher rate until their ½ is paid (approximately 2 years) and then it reduces to the regular Idaho Falls Power rate. Dixon asked Fife to clarify that the City gets to decide whether they will participate. Fife agreed but added that it is irrelevant to a consideration regarding annexation, because the City doesn’t want to be accused of pirating Rocky Mountain Power customers. Dixon asked why some developed properties are being annexed and some are not. Beutler indicated that some of the developed residential properties have City services and the commercial property does not have services, even though there are some parcels that do not have City services that are being proposed to be annexed. Cramer stated that the Commission had asked previously that staff not bring mixed annexation, including residential and commercial, so this annexation bring only residential with the exception of the piece on the north because of its circumstances. Wimborne suggested that the comments should go in order as much as possible with the piece off Pioneer; Skyline/Grizzly; Grizzly north, so they can address similar issues in certain areas. Morrison opened the public hearing. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. No one appeared in support. Opposition: Jim Key, 2510 W Eldorado, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Key asked if Bonneville County has had any opposition to the proposal. Cramer indicated that Bonneville County receives notice of every public hearing along with packets. Celeste Nashtag, 223 West 17th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Nashtag asked that no matter who is giving the “outburst” that everyone is treated equally. Morrison indicated that this Board always treats everyone equally. Doug Hammond, 1315 S. Skyline, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hammond submitted a letter, a part of the record. Hammond indicated that in Title 50-222 annexed is authorized under this section, but it must pass the test of reasonableness. Hammond stated that the cost increases is an unreasonable burden. Hammond indicated that they live on fixed income and chose to live in the County. Hammond indicated that the forced annexation will bring a burden of cost to him. Hammond stated that depending on some factors the cost of annexation to him will be between $60,000 - $250,000. Hammond stated that if the City widens Skyline that would initiate a “change” and all the costs would be brought at one time, and that is an unreasonable burden. Hammond indicated that the annexation will provide him nothing, and he has not requested City services, and does not have City services. Hammond read a portion of 50-222 regarding “cost effective municipal services”. Hammond stated that water is over 1000’ from his property and the cost is $46/ft = $46,000 to get it to his property, and $15,640 to run it in front of his property. Hammond stated that power, sewer, curb, gutter, sidewalk will all be costs. Hammond stated that the hookup fees from the City and the contractor fees to connect the services is over $30,000 and that cost is unreasonable. Hammond stated that many out of town and County residents use the City roads, and every gallon of gas purchased in Idaho goes towards paying for roads and the City receives a greater portion of the tax. Hammond indicated that the City is annexing I-15, but not annexing Skyline Drive in front of Hammond’s home which will create confusion with emergency service response. Hammond stated that if I-15 is annexed then the residents should be protected by the noise with a 15’ sound proof wall or fence like they do with carwashes. Hammond stated that he feels they are targeting the rural properties on the west side of Idaho Falls. Hammond believes the annexation is unreasonable and would like to be exempt from the annexation. Black asked about Hammond’s letter regarding the estimate of the costs and what would cost $250,000. Hammond stated that if he initiates the change, he would be responsible to cover 21 ½’ of road down Skyline; 342’ of frontage for curb and gutter; $30,000 for water; $30,000 for sewer. Hammond stated that he got examples from Knife River and at a maximum $250,000, but at a minimum, he’s over $60,000 for water and sewer with best case scenario. Dixon asked the City to clarify the cost of road improvements, connecting to utilities being optional, and the State Gas Tax. Cramer indicated that the Gas tax allocation goes to the County first and then it is distributed down to the City and part of City taxes can go toward road maintenance. Hammond stated that Skyline has been surveyed to be a 4-lane road and he has survey stake in his front yard. Cramer stated that he sent an email to the Hammonds indicating that there is no initial cost to annex, other than the increase in taxes, and you are not required to hook up to sewer, water, build a street, connect to power. Cramer stated that a change is development and if the house stays a house, there is no costs, unless they are requested by the owner, so if the City or developer improve Skyline, there is no method to go to the adjacent property owners to collect money to reimburse the developer for roadway improvements. Cramer stated that there is a way to recoup sewer and water extensions, so that is a potential, if the property connects to the services. Hammond indicated that he would potentially have an opportunity to hook up, and at that point he would have the costs to bring the water and sewer to him. Cramer stated that if septic system fails there is an application for new septic that goes to the Department of Health and part of that application asks if there is a municipal services within 200’ of the property and if the answer is no, then the septic permit should be granted, but if the answer is yes, then the director of the Department of Health may deny the permit, and the Director will have to determine if access is reasonable. Karl Kolbet, 3659 North, 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Kolbet is speaking on behalf of his father who owns property next to Skyline High School. Kolbet indicated that they have annexed a portion of the property into the City for commercial development but left a buffer from the City for his property to remain in the County. Kolbet stated that they were supplementing income on poor farming years by selling off parcels. Kolbet stated that some property they had intentions to do additional divisions, but his father always wanted to maintain the buffer, so he could remain outside of the City of Idaho Falls. Black clarified that they did subdivide and annex some commercial property into the City. Kolbet showed the property that was annexed in 1996 and indicated that they annexed the property for income because farm ground wasn’t worth as much as commercial property, and that was a benefit to them. Dixon asked Fife about qualifications for Category B Annexation, including the land being laid off into lots or blocks containing not more than 5 acres of land each, or whenever the owner or proprietor has sold or begun to sell off contiguous or adjacent land by meats and bounds and tracks not exceeding 5 acres. Dixon asked if they start to sell off any portion that is less than 5 acres that would trigger that qualification for annexation. Fife indicated that if you start to divide your land into segments then it would be eligible for Category B, if it meets the other requirements for the City. Scott Johnson, 1846 West 17th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Johnson thanked the Commission members for taking a detailed look at this. Johnson sent in a letter that is part of the record. Johnson read a statement. Johnson’s property is not part of the annexation but is within ¼ mile of the area. Johnson is worried about the next round of annexation, including his property. Johnson has property in the County, so his 5 children can learn to garden, and be outside. Johnson feels it has been difficult to get information from City officials. Johnson quoted Title 67, Chapter 65: “To protect property rights while making accommodations for other necessary types of development…To ensure the adequate public facilities are provided to the people at a reasonable cost.” Johnson applauded Black for her respect of private property rights. Johnson does not feel that this annexation protects the private property rights of the citizens and doesn’t offer public facilities at a reasonable cost. Johnson has made many calls to City Staff, County Staff, realtors, etc., to figure out the scope of the cost to them when they are annexed. Johnson stated that the City has not given adequate cost analysis on many of the issues, and some of them cannot be given. Johnson stated that his best estimate is a minimum of $60,000 up to $140,000 based on the costs that he could access. Johnson stated that his family cannot take that kind of financial burden, along with higher taxes. Johnson read from 50-222: “Services should be delivered in an economically viable manner.” Johnson does not believe these costs are economically viable and does not feel his property rights are being protected. Johnson wants to know if there will be an overpass put in right in front of his home, and it has been denied by the City, County, Idaho Road and Bridge, Department of Transportation, however, the February 20 City Council Meeting Minutes discuss a proposed overpass being put in. Johnson stated that he doesn’t feel that there is transparency being given to the residents and property owners. Johnson stated that the meeting was not held in November because the City did not give adequate notice to the property owners based on 50-222. Johnson stated that they could have given notice in 2014 so they could make decisions for their families at that point. Johnson stated that this annexation is not reasonable. Johnson stated that the properties vary in the annexation, and there has been no reason given for the inconsistencies. Johnson asked the Commission to not recommend this annexation because the services will not be made available to the people being annexed. Johnson stated that Stosich lane will continue to be a dirt road that is plowed by the County and they will pay higher taxation without receiving anything. Danni Hansen, 3080 South 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hansen is not impacted by the annexation but is in proximity to it. Hansen stated that she has a background in real estate and searched her title insurance and there was no mention of any prior consent, and it made her wonder about the consent in Category A and B. Hansen stated that many of the property owners moved in after consent was given. Hansen stated that Title 50-222 requires that those consents be recorded in the Clerk’s office and has any one checked to see if the consents are recorded and where they included in title policies. Hansen stated that there are technical variances in language between City and County regarding livestock, etc. Hansen stated that Title 50-222 has a Legislative Intent Statement. Hansen read the statement that indicates the policy of the State of Idaho that cities should be able to annex land which are reasonably necessary to assure the orderly development of Idaho cities. In order to allow efficient and economically viable provisions of tax supported and fee supported municipal services… and to equitably allocate the cost of public services in management of development on the urban fringe. Hansen asked the Commission to consider the Legislative Intent and get detailed answers of what the benefit to the City is. Marian Hilton, 1848 Stosich, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hilton submitted comments a part of the record. Hilton says there is one positive thing that came from the annexation with her meeting new neighbors and contacting them regarding this annexation. Hilton submitted a letter a part of the record. Hilton stated that the lack of information has been frustrating, and they have had to do a lot of their own research to find out costs. Hilton stated that the cost sheet in the annexation packet did not give accurate cost estimations for the County residents. Hilton stated that the sewage line is 500’ from her house and she will never be able to use that service and participate in that equitable allocation of services. Hilton stated that by not annexing Stosich Ln. they are not cleaning up the service island and the County will still have to maintain the road. Hilton stated that 14 years ago they asked about annexation and at that time were told that annexation occurs as requested by the land owner, and so this annexation application blindsided them and made them angry. Hilton stated that this annexation has been stressful for her family. Hilton indicated that they knew it would be reasonable as development happened that their home would be annexed and that is orderly developed as services are developed onto the street. Aaron Johnson, 2025 Stosich, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Johnson’s home is on a City lot and has enjoyed what the City has to offer. Johnson questions the City’s motives that enclaved the area years ago, and asks why now bring the annexation, as there has not been any changes in the area or development. Johnson asked why is there urgency to do it now. Johnson indicated that annexation is inevitable as development happens, but there is no development. Celeste Nashtag, 2223 West 17th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Nashtag resides at the property and it is owned by her parents Wayne and Marlene Southwick. Nashtag stated that this annexation could change her livelihood. Nashtag indicated that they put a double wide for a temporary residence, and the septic system was denied because they assumed that the property was City. Nashtag stated that her property would be over 1000’ to connect to City water, and she is under the assumption that if she has to redo something on her well, she could be required to attach to City water. Nashtag stated that at the City meeting to gain information they were met with a lot of “I don’t know” or exceptions. Nashtag stated that her property is agricultural and across the street from the hay field that is not being annexed. Nashtag has a horse breeding business. Nashtag asked about grandfathering in her business of breeding horses and selling cattle and was not given adequate answers. Nashtag stated that Residential Estate allows for 2 livestock animals per acre, and currently in A-1 it allows for 5 animals per acre. Nashtag is unsure how to get her property recorded with the provisional use of boarding/breeding animals so she can be legally grandfathered in. Black asked Cramer to clarify the non-conforming use. Cramer indicated that what is allowed and legally established is still legal in the City once annexed. Cramer stated that if the land use exists it continues. Nashtag stated that non-confirming uses are outlined specifically, however there is nothing that states that A-1 can be grandfathered into RE zone. Randy Fife, Esq., stated that there is the legal right with an established use to continue the use in the State of Idaho, and there are lots of case law. Fife indicated that you cannot intensify a use, and cannot expand a use, but if it is allowed under the zoning at the time of annexation, it continues because you have established a property right. Wimborne asked if in the County they are allowed 5 animals per acre, but currently only have 2 and the property is annexed, can they only still have 2? Fife stated that it’s the use that is allowed, not how the use is being used. So, if you have the legal right to have 5 horses, you can still have 5 horses, even if you only have 1. Wimborne asked how they establish that they have the use. Fife stated that all ways to establish evidence is available, pictures, etc. Fife indicated that Idaho protects non-conforming uses. Nashtag stated that if she is annexed, does she then lose the right to change what the property is used for. Nashtag stated that 5 acres are in pasture, but they have discussed putting that area in alfalfa, however RE does not allow her to farm that acreage. Nashtag stated that her property is surrounded by property that has lava rock on it, and her property does not, and it would be easy to develop so it could be sold easily. Nashtag stated that when she discussed this property prior to her purchase she was told the property could be annexed if she applied. Nashtag had a developer offer to purchase her property and they were working through plans; however, they want the zoning changed that the City was proposing and have no pulled their offer back. Beutler stated that the RE zone does allow for agricultural uses, especially for the personal use of the property owner. Beutler added that he talked to the real-estate agent on the property and the conversation was that they were looking at potential development and potential zoning to a higher density zone. Beutler stated that if the property owner wanted to consider a different zoning than what was being proposed that the City would be open to considering that zoning. Nashtag stated that RE does allow for agricultural use, but not on a commercial level, only for personal uses. Diane Holist, 2803 West 17th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Holist breeds/trains horses on her property and board horses with Celeste Nashtag. Holist is now looking for property out of the area because if they are annexed, they will move as it is unreasonable to suggest that she can afford $30,000 to hook up to sewer. Holist was not told about any agreement with City services when they bought the property 17 years ago. April Sutton, 2775 West 17th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Sutton is military wife and is home with her kids and wanted them to be able to raise animals. Sutton watched for this house and did her research and bought the house to use the land for what it was designed for in the County. Sutton stated that she does have City water and sewer and does pay the higher rate for both those services. Sutton was told by the real estate agent about the new power poles but was never told about the annexation. Sutton stated that in 1970 the owner at the time did sign for the annexation, but she was not aware of the agreement when she bought her home. Sutton stated that the land west of her has been bought by Rockwell and will likely be developed in the next few years and does that mean that she must put in curb and gutter with a cost to her. Sutton’s kids ride a bus to school, and she is concerned if that will change with the annexation. Sutton indicated that the County’s animal policy is put into units (lambs – ½ unit; cow – 1 unit), so translating that to City standards are confusing. Mark Hansen, 3080 South 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hansen asked if the grandfathered uses cease when the property is sold. Fife indicated that non-conformity is a use and doesn’t have to do with who owns it, so it will not cease unless the new owner ceases the non- conforming legal use. Hansen stated that the property tax for the City is a significant increase over the County and he feels that is taxation without representation. Hansen urged the Commission to be mindful of people’s property rights and possible break apart this annexation request. Cramer stated that the State Statute prohibits the annexation of half the road, so with Stosich Lane they could not simply annex the half that is adjacent to the proposed annexed property. Cramer added that the City’s street department has Stosich Lane marked as a private road, and if it is a public road, they can reconsider the annexation of Stosich Lane. Cramer stated that Category B or C consent is defined by a written request or a recorded document with agreement, and the Statute includes an exception to that agreement that is about implied consent that if you are hooked onto sewer or water and the connection occurred prior to 2008 the consent is implied whether the document was recorded. Cramer clarified the difference between tax supported and fee supported services. Cramer stated that the additional City taxes do not pay for sewer/water, etc. as it is a fee supported service. Cramer stated that tax supported services are already being received by people. Cramer added that the cost to provide the service isn’t any higher than what an existing City resident would pay. Beutler stated that when right of way improvements are completed the adjacent property owner is not required to pay for the improvements. Beutler indicated that school bus stops are through the District and nothing to do with annexation. Beutler stated that this annexation really should have been done sooner, and not proceeding with the annexation will perpetuate these issues with more property owners who are unaware of agreements. Beutler stated that this is the 7th annexation and it is similar in many ways with some people not having a sewer or water main in front of their property. Beutler stated that City Council has determined that it is reasonable to consider these properties for annexation, and it is appropriate for the orderly development and growth of the City. Beutler clarified that the City is not targeting people on the West side of Idaho Falls. Swaney indicated that the City and County recently went through the Area of Impact discussions and there was an advocacy by the County to annex County properties that exist or are contiguous to the City, so the pressure comes from Bonneville County and from City Council. Celeste Nashtag, 2223 West 17th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Nashtag stated that only 4 states in the United States are allowed to do forced annexation, and one of the 4 is now revoking the forced annexation. Nashtag believes the forced annexations are not the way to do business. Mark Hansen, 3080 South 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hansen stated that taxes are higher when annexed into the City regardless of what the taxes are used for. Hansen stated that the County has not requested or asked for the annexations pursuant to his conversation with County Zoning. Morrison explained that the Area of Impact wasn’t specifically discussing plots like they are discussing today, but it was a general idea of annexing properties within the City and Area of Impact. Randy Fife, Esq. stated that whatever the law is it must be followed. Fife indicated that annexation is a question about applying governance in a certain area. Fife stated that the question is whether this area is a place that the City should impose its governance, and it is not taxation without representation. Danni Hansen, 3080 South 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hansen urged the Commission to look at the intent of the law that is contained in the Legislative intent statement. Hansen stated that they need to look at how this annexation will benefit the City and improve the services. Morrison closed the public hearing. Dixon stated that the Area of Impact discussions are per State Statute. Dixon stated that the intent of the law from the State is to orderly plan for urbanization, so the City and County can agree on what areas are part of the City’s area of impact, and all areas discussed in this application are within the area of impact. Dixon indicated that the things listed in Title 65 are not pertaining to individual parcels but are a broader picture for incorporated cities to provide municipal services at a reasonable cost. Dixon stated that tonight they are determining what areas can legally be annexed per the rules and what areas are functioning as part of the urbanized area and should be sharing in the costs, so the costs are reasonable for everyone in the area. Black stated that there are mixed uses in this area, and some of the large areas that are not being annexed tonight need to be investigated so that the City can plan for the developments with the City standards. Black stated that if your septic fails you will have costs whether you connect to the City or not, and this annexation will give you an option on what to do. Black stated that the emergency services are already confusing throughout the City because of the enclaved parcels. Black stated that she believes the City Council wants to be aggressive with the annexation, and the City is doing this in chunks and trying to slowly move through areas. Black commended the Community Services Department for investigating and giving the Planning Commission great notes for their meetings. Black reminded that the Commission must think about the entire City and not just individual property owners, and the benefit needs to be created for the entire City. Black stated that the Legislative intent statement makes a perfect case to annex the vacant land, so people can see what is going to happen and are not surprised. Black stated that the City does great outreach and people only become aware of issues when it affects them. Dixon stated that when the County develops urban density has different standards, such as curb and gutter is not required, and at a certain urban density you need to do things like have a municipal sewer/water system. Dixon explained that when a developer builds in the City, he passes the cost of certain things like curb and gutter onto the person who purchases the home. Dixon is concerned that the annexation plan in the staff notes is lacking in some areas. Dixon is concerned that the annexation is inconsistent, and the City has not provided a clear basis for why this property is being annexed and not that property, Dixon showed two homes in the area that are not being included. Dixon is concerned that some of the properties being annexed are over 5 acres and could potentially have agriculture on them, and there is a place in the State Statute that pertains to the 5-acre rule. Dixon would like clear criteria for the annexation and is currently opposed to this annexation as presented. Swaney stated that the community development staff prepared this annexation as directed by City Council. Swaney stated that vacant land and large agricultural areas that are being left out are at the direction of City Council. Wimborne stated that there are aspects that are new and different, but the annexation involving Sunnyside and Holmes had mixed uses, and staff is trying to respond to direction from City Council and direction from the Planning Commission. Wimborne believes that staff must move through some bigger proposals or it will take years to go through annexations with individual parcels. Dixon stated that the work session with City Council was not included in this item for public record, and a short statement of what is the criteria if there were criteria added, would address his concerns. Dixon stated that the only differentiation he can find in State Statute for larger parcels and smaller parcels is over 5 acres, and under 5 acres. Hicks agrees with the comments made and understands the area will eventually be annexed. Hicks hoped for more public participation. Hicks indicated that he is currently not in agreement with the application. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation and initial zoning for the West Side Annexation with initial zoning of RE, RP, R1, R2, R3, R3A, LC, HC, as presented, Denney seconded that motion. Morrison called for roll call vote: Cantu, no; Dixon, no; Wimborne, yes; Hicks, no; Denney, yes; Black, yes; Swaney, yes. The motion passed 4-3. Morrison called a recess. Morrison called the meeting back to order. Miscellaneous: Conditional User Permits to be Heard by the Board of Adjustments. Cramer proposed allowing the Board of Adjustments to hear Conditional Use Permits. Cramer indicated that the Board of Adjustment historically has only considered land variances and one type of CUP; and now recently review code enforcement violations. Cramer stated that the Board of Adjustment is only meeting one or two times a year. Cramer believes that the Planning and Zoning Commission’s time can be better spent dealing with planning uses for the City and not Conditional Use Permits. Cramer indicated that annually there are 7-10 CUPs. There was a consensus among the Commission Members to allow Board of Adjustments to hear Conditional Use Permits. Overlay Zones for Airport. Cramer stated that next month there will be a presentation by staff, the airport director, and a group in Rexburg called Voice that does public outreach. Cramer indicated that there have been developments in the City that the FFA is unhappy about. Cramer stated that in the past if a plat came forward near the airport, they put a note on the plat that the area has a loud decibel level. Cramer stated that the Airport is funded heavily by FAA Grant and when you receive a Grant you sign an assurance that you follow rules. Cramer stated that one of the rules is to protect the land uses around the airport from potential land nuisances. Cramer stated that the threat is to pull the funding and retroactively require a payback of all funding. Cramer stated that they were having conversations with a developer to build 800 homes in an area that homes are not allowed per FAA standards. Cramer stated that they were unaware the rules were that strict. Cramer stated that they will bring forward a code that does a giant overlay over the City, and the area east of the river, north of University to the County subdivision west of Fairway Estates will have to be changed form low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan to something else, and they will discuss development needs that are allowed and change the Comprehensive Plan to match interest. Cramer stated that it will come before the Planning Commission in February and on to City Council in March. Next meeting is January 8, 2019. Nomination of Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary for 2019. Chairman – Margaret Wimborne Vice-Chair – Natalie Black Secretary - Joanne Denney Dixon moved to elect for the 2019 year: Margaret Wimborne as Chairman; Natalie Black as Vice-Chairman; and Joanne Denney as Secretary, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Morrison adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder