Planning Commission

January 16, 2024 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Margaret Wimborne, Glen Ogden, Kristi Brower, Forrest Ihler, Bill Scott. MEMBERS ABSENT: Dale Storer, Marsha McDaniel, Arnold Cantu ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Wade Sanner, Assistant Planning Director Kerry Beutler, Michael Kirkham, Esq. CALL TO ORDER: Wimborne called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Miscellaneous: 1. Election of Officers. Wimborne indicated that they are looking for a Chairman and Vice Chair. Wimborne asked the Commissioners if they have any interest in taking the role of Chairman. Scott moved to nominate Glenn Ogden to be Chairman, as he did an excellent job in the meetings that he Chaired at this year. Ogden indicated that he is ok with the nomination. Wimborne seconded the motion to appoint Glenn Ogden Chairman. Wimborne indicated that he would begin Chairing at the February meeting. Wimborne called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Ihler, yes; Wimborne, yes; Ogden, yes. Scott, yes. Motion passed. Wimborne asked for nominations for Vice Chair. Ihler stated that he would be willing to act as Vice Chair. Wimborne indicated that it wouldn’t be a lot of meetings. Ihler agreed to do it. Wimborne moved to nominate Ihler as Vice-Chairman, Brower seconded the motion. Wimborne called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Ihler, yes; Wimborne, yes; Ogden, yes; Scott, yes. The motion passed. Wimborne asked if Ogden should take over for this meeting, even though she indicated that he would be taking over in February. Beutler agreed that generally that is what is done. Wimborne asked if they need to amend the motion. Kirkham stated that if the motion states February, they need to restate. Recording Secretary indicated that Wimborne didn’t make the motion, Commissioner Scott made the motion, and it was only a nomination, and Wimborne seconded the motion, and then indicated that it would be in February. Wimborne turned the meeting over to Chairman Ogden. Ogden took over as Chair. 2. Planning Commission Training. Ogden turned the time over to Beutler, Sanner and Kirkham to move through the rest of the training. Kirkham handed out the City’s Public Service Handbook. It contains Ordinances, Policies, and Advice on how public meetings are to be done. Kirkham stated that the Commissioners are public officials as they have governing authority by recommendations to City Council and make decisions as outlined in the State and City Code, and the exercise of that power brings with it obligations to use the authority within the law. Kirkham Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2024 Page 1 of 5 stated that the main concern that the public has is that the governing power that is given to ordinary citizens could be abused by special interest or interest that does not reflect the communities wishes. Idaho Legislature has come up with ethic rules to guide public officials in their duties. Kirkham stated that the Commissioners cannot take gifts that are valued more than $50. The reason for the prohibition on gifts is so there is no concern created with the public, that Public Officials are not doing their job. Kirkham wants to cover the conflict-of- interest rule. There are 2 conflict of interest rules that apply to P&Z. The General Ethics in Government Act Conflict of Interest Rule. This rule states that if you have a conflict that is defined as the ability to derive pecuniary (monetary) benefit from the decision, or able to convey a monetary interest to a close family member or an employer, you would first disclose that you have that conflict, and once the disclosure is made, then you can participate and vote, but you must disclose first. That is the general rule that applies to all public officials in the State. When there is a land use planning act decision which is the exclusive decisions that this body does, there is an additional conflict of interest rule called the Economic Conflict of Interest Rule. The Economic Conflict of Interest Rule states that if there is a conflict of interest which is defined as: The ability to create economic benefit you have to disclose that, and then remove yourself from the debate and participation of the decision. For members of the Planning Commission, every time there is a decision, if you have a conflict, you must disclose and withdraw. The scope is broader as it applies to you, employee, employer, business partner, business associates, close family relationship within second degree and if those relations stand to make economic benefit from your decision, then the conflict arises. Kirkham defined a business associate as someone you do business with regularly. If a Commissioner is concerned that they may have a conflict of interest, they should reach out to Kirkham to receive advice to decide if a conflict exists. Reaching out to Kirkham’s office can avoid personal liability. Wimborne asked if the idea is there still has to be economic gain, not just a social acquaintance. Kirkham stated that this rule is concerned with close family members and business relationships; so social friends wouldn’t create a legal conflict of interest, although it could raise to a perception of a conflict, and your own personal code of ethics could cause you to withdraw in order to preserve the public’s confidence. Scott asked if they run into someone at a store that has something coming up in front of the Planning Commission, and the topic comes up, is there a problem with that discussion. Kirkham stated that some of the rulings are Quasi-Judicial (making a decision on how the law applies to a specific piece of property or situation), and in those situations the responsibility of the Commissioners is like a judge and under the Local Land Use Planning Act, you cannot have ex-parte discussions (discussions outside of the public meeting). So, the friend that brings up their application that is coming to the Commission and if that information could be used in the determination, you should end the conversation immediately and disclose the discussion at the meeting. Kirkham stated that they should avoid discussions about applications until the meeting. Beutler stated that the handbook calls out what is Quasi-Judicial vs. Legislative items. If a Commssioner needs to be recused, they need to do it at the beginning of the item and the agenda, and if would be helpful to give the Chairman a heads up that you plan to recuse themselves. Then the Commissioner would disclose that they have a conflict in the matter and will be recusing themselves from the discussion. Kirkham stated that there is no rule to remove themselves from the stand, but it is a good visual to the public that they have removed themselves, and they cannot participate in any way, even as a citizen. After the item is over, they can rejoin the Commission for the rest of the Agenda. Kirkham stated that Section 2 and 3 are written clearly and not in “Legaleeze”. This handbook is a good resource for the Commissioners to read. Kirkham wants them to be confident to exercise their duties as a Planning Commissioner. Scott asked if someone recuses themselves is there a problem with a quorum if the number drops to below a quorum number. Kirkham stated that the conflict rule in the State Code addresses that issue. Kirkham stated that he will dig into that and find out. Wimborne stated that in the past when she has recused herself it didn’t affect the “quorum” status. Kirkham went through Roberts Rules for the order of the meetings. The rules that the City uses are modified. Under Idaho State Code there is no particular parliament process that must be used. The Chair is in charge and directs order and makes sure the commission is on track. The Chair calls for motions and votes, and that is so there is someone that has the ability to keep order of the meeting. Roberts Rules of Order direct that in order to Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2024 Page 2 of 5 compel the body to take an action on an item a Commissioner needs to make a motion to compel the action to approve/deny/or some other action. There is flexibility to make the decisions clear for the record. Wimborne stated that traditionally they’ve had the discussion, motion, second. Is there a need for discussion after the motion has been seconded, as some Commissioners have indicated the need therefor. Kirkham stated that Roberts Rules do state that there can be discussion on the motion, after the second. Due to the small size of the Commission, there is usually not confusion, and they can just vote. Kirkham advised the new Chair that if someone wants to make a clarifying point after the second, permit the conversation, but the Chair is not required to have discussion and if you can tell from the tempo on the Commission that people are ready to vote, the Chair can call for a vote. A Commissioner can call for point of privilege to slow things down, or bring an issue that procedurally they are uncomfortable with, then the Chair should let discussion happen. Wimborne clarified that the discussion after the motion is seconded is just to clarify, not to rehash every topic of the agenda item. Kirkham agreed that it is to clarify a condition of the motion. Kirkham thanked the Commission for their hard work and indicated that his office is always available to answer questions and give advice so they can make decisions. Beutler had slides for the Commission. Beutler wanted to remind the Commission that as they move through land use applications, they often feel that they are just checking boxes and rubber stamping. Beutler showed a visual of a triangle showing how the scope goes from Broad to narrow as far as what is to be discussed and could be changed. Beutler stated that when they are checking the boxes, which is exactly the job that they are asked to do. Beutler stated that the public comes and wants to talk about overcrowding in schools, water rights, or other things, those things are out of the scope for the Commission. It is hard for the public have a place to be heard, but also to understand that the Commission has a very narrow role and cannot fix all issues. Beutler stated that the best way to manage the public is to restate that they have been heard, but that they cannot manage that portion of the problem. Ihler indicated that restating and redirecting them to City Staff is helpful. Beutler agreed that it is always appropriate to refer them to staff. Brower stated that the public always wants to ask the Commission question. Beutler stated that they are surprised by who shows up with major concerns and they haven’t called to talk to Staff with their concerns. Beutler stated that you need to be careful to make sure the relationship stays positive with the public. Beutler indicated that County Planning meetings run differently than City Planning and Zoning. Beutler stated that the application has to be submitted 5 weeks prior to the meeting that the application will be put on. If there is a major comment coming from Fire or Public works that will result in a complete rework of the project, they will not bring it to the Commission for that Agenda, they will work with the applicant to rework that application. If it makes it to the Agenda, it is as clean as staff can get it so that the Commission can make an educated recommendation to the City Council. Ihler stated that there is always someone saying that they didn’t get notified, and what is the process of notification. Kirkham relayed a story about a hearing he was in with a judge and there was a claim that there was no notification of a hearing, but the judge stated that since the man was present at the meeting, the lack of notice wasn’t prejudicial. Beutler stated that they are required to notify people within 300’ of the property line for the property in question. They go through GIS, and it pulls in property owners’ information. The notice is sent out that tells them about the project, including QR Codes for information, the notice also includes a statement/notice that it is not a question-and-answer meeting, but an opportunity to provide testimony and the testimony should be associated with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, the Zoning Ordinance. Repetitive testimony is discouraged. Beutler stated that staff is professional, and when people come and talk to staff, the staff is helping the public with their testimony. Staff provides facts to all sides; they do not hide things from anyone. Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2024 Page 3 of 5 Wimborne asked if there is a way to redirect frustrations because when people come to a meeting, it is past the point where anything that is concerning to them, can be done. Wimborne asked if there is a way to engage people sooner. Kirkham stated that the Commissioners are neck deep in the process and understand how it works with land use planning, and when those terms are given to the public, it sounds Greek. Kirkham stated that there is a right on the underlying property owner to have predictable outcomes. When decisions are being made on whether a proposed plat is conformity with the zoning code, the Commission does take into consideration the objectives of the Comprehensive Planning documents, you cannot deny the plat on the basis of what is in the Comprehensive Plan because it is not law, it is the required step in developing the law. Land use planning needs to start with the big picture of the Comprehensive Plan. Ihler asked if there is testimony that should change the Commissioners decision, and what is an example. Kirkham stated that if someone came up and said I’m looking at the plat and this is zoned in a TN with a 15 units per acre density allowed and there are 16 houses in this acre, it should be denied. The Commission is checking to make sure it complies with the law. The public is not usually informed enough and so they provide irrelevant testimony. Beutler gave another example of testimony that could/should/would cause the Commission to deny an application: Beutler showed Ivywood that is south of town and 8th West is a County right of way, and it has an informal cul-de-sac, and the Subdivision Ordinance states that they will extend existing street networks. When the Commission saw the initial proposal, there was no stub road to connect to the existing right of way to the south. Bonneville County Public Works testified of the need for the stub road. Beutler gave an outline of what staff reviews prior to the application coming to the Planning Commission. Beutler stated that they are the technical staff and do the review, so the Commission has a proper application and recommendation from staff. Beutler stated that because they are being business friendly, they are doing reviews while the plat is coming to the Commission, and as long as there isn’t going to be major changes to easements, lot lines, etc. the final plat will be brought to the Commission. Beutler stated that a final plat has no hearing. The Preliminary Plat has most things squared away before it comes to the Commission. Beutler stated that they had a preliminary plat last month that was going to require some redesign, and so they pulled it from the Agenda, until they can get it cleaned up. Wimborne asked Kirkham if there is anything in Idaho Law that allows the Commission to look at the impact on schools when deciding property uses. Kirkham stated that some states and communities have put the schools and zoning authority under the same body. In Idaho, schools are divorced from every other governmental body and are treated independently and so that impact is not something that can be weighted in the Commissions decision. Kirkham stated that the school districts are authorized to create impact fees. Wimborne stated that she doesn’t think that the school districts can levy impact fees. Kirkham stated he might be wrong. Beutler stated that during annexation is the proper time to oppose something, because once the property is zoned, the property has rights to development. Kirkham agreed that is the time, as they determine annexation, and whether it is appropriate for the governing body (City) to take over the land. Beutler stated that they do notify political subdivisions, and that is not required, but it is good practice. Beutler stated that the Commission will hear zoning, plats and re-plats and those items are in the narrow parts of what the Commission has latitude to change. Ogden asked when does the Commission recommend widening of streets. Beutler stated that is in the long- range transportation planning process that is done with BMPO. Beutler stated that they have a 2050 long range transportation plan. Beutler stated that when an application comes before the Commission, the applicant is entitled to the rules and regulations that are on the books the day they make application and cannot make up rules and regulations as part of the review process. Road widths and road classifications are done as part of the long-range transportation planning, and they apply a functional classification. Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2024 Page 4 of 5 Ogden asked when and how to get notice of a meeting that discusses road widths and classification. Beutler stated that it would be part of the BMPO process, and it is updated every 5-10 years. BMPO creates a steering committee, outreach, and that is when they should look at the street classifications. Ogden asked if staff would provide additional notice to the Commissioners to attend the BMPO meeting. So, they can give feedback on things and participate in planning. Wimborne clarified that they could give input as individual Commissioners, but not as “Idaho Falls Planning and Zoning Commission.” Beutler agreed that if there is something big coming, they could ask BMPO or ITD to come and do a presentation to the Commission. Ihler asked if they could have the ITD come back and do a workshop around the new interchange and have conversations about how the Commission would like to see land use planning around that decision on the new interchange. Beutler stated that once a decision is made the City will do some land use planning. Beutler wanted to discuss a scenario: Beutler showed property on the west side of town, not within the city. Beutler asked what they would see as problems. Ihler stated that County residents won’t want the traffic. Wimborne stated that the transition zone (R2 or R3) would make County residents unhappy. Beutler went to the BMPO Functional Classification Map and showed that this road (Old Butte Extension) would have 100’ of right of way, and they need to address how would that affect and change this area. The Comprehensive Plan would direct that area to be Suburban, which is planned residential like R1 and R2 to meet the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Wimborne stated that the current County zoning doesn’t matter and is only informational. Beutler stated that there is momentum and redevelopment, and that is challenging for public to understand that there will be a shift. Beutler stated that the theme in the last several meetings has been a comment and concern about fences and walls and Beutler have the Commission be cautious, as each property owner needs to take care of their own property, and fences are bad conditions on preliminary plats, and they are hard to enforce. If the concern is it will be dense, the Code is already written that if you are doing multi-family next to single family there is already a buffer and fence required. When they are trying to connect communities, fences are not conducive to connectivity to daily services. Ihler asked if a neighborhood does go into his scenario, is there rules to upgrade the County road. Beutler stated that through the traffic study that is done during the preliminary plat, and the traffic study would look at offsite improvements. They would talk to County public works and County Planning and Zoning for comment, and they can say if they need wider shoulder, turn lane, and direct the traffic study where to look during that traffic study. Brower stated that walls and fences perpetuate the avoidance of diversity of income class. Beutler agreed and stated that the Zoning Code takes care of a lot of the things. Wimborne moved to adjourn, Scott seconded motion and the motion passed unanimously. Next meeting February 6, 2024. Adjourned at 8:40p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes January 16, 2024 Page 5 of 5