Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes_Planning & Zoning Meeting_07122023 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING IONA COMMUNITY CENTER July 12th,2023 6:30 P.M. PRESENT: Chairman James West, Member James Cooper, Member Bill Koester, Member Clint Reading, City Attorney Andrew Rawlings, and Assistant City Clerk Rylea Farrens. ABSENT: Member Ray Hart. VISITORS: None. Chairman West welcomed everyone and asked Member Cooper to lead with the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes: Member Cooper moved to approve the meeting minutes for June 14th, 2023 as written. Member Reading seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion carried. Member Koester moved to approve the Special Meeting minutes for June 26th, 2023 as written. Member Cooper seconded the motion. All were in favor, the motion carried. Items of Business: Chairman West asks for public comment. No one comes to the stand. Approval of Ordinance identifying an Area of Impact within Bonneville County for the City of Iona, as well as the Agreement for administration and enforcement of said Area of Impact(Ord. 287-07-23) Chairman West asked Attorney Rawlings to present on the ordinance and agreement. Attorney Rawlings clarified that the Area of Impact is enacted both by the City and the County. The City agrees so that the area of impact can match up with the county and also so that the City can grow in an orderly fashion. He noted that the proposed area of impact is larger than the old area of impact, a little in every direction but mostly to the north. New high density and commercial development would ideally be in the corridor to the south of Highway 26. Any new development would largely be residential development. The agreement states that for the area outside of the City,but in our Area of Impact the County would be responsible for any enforcement of the City Code. In contrast to the prior agreement, the new agreement has a timeline for renegotiation in 2030. Chairman West stated that at this point we enter the public hearing portion. No one is in attendance. Chairman West closed the public portion and the commission deliberated as a board. Member Cooper asked if this was what was already agreed upon. Attorney Rawlings stated that yes,this is what he and Austin Black from Bonneville County have worked on. There has been a subcommittee from the City Council that has been working on it as well. They have gone through section by section with the County to make sure we understand all of the provisions of the agreement. Member Koester asked if we did anything to get the cemetery in the boundaries. Attorney Rawlings responded that it is already in the Ammon Area of Impact. Currently it's not a priority to have the cemetery in the Area of Impact because we wanted to get an agreement in place; however, we have a subcommittee in City Council working with the Ammon Mayor to potentially have that be a possibility in the future. Member Koester asked if a green space requirement was part of the agreement. Attorney Rawlings clarified that because they wouldn't be annexed into the City it wouldn't be a requirement. Chairman West stated that the County can ask that they meet the City Code,but they can't require it. Attorney Rawlings stated that the only time they could require it is if the property were contiguous. Member Koester recommended that the City Council approve City of Iona Ordinance 287-07-23 an Ordinance of the city of Iona, Idaho and of Bonneville County, Idaho; identifying an area of impact for the city of Iona; providing for the application of plans and development ordinances within the identified area of impact; providing for the administration and enforcement of such ordinances; providing for severability; setting forth a process for renegotiation; and establishing an effective date. Member Koester also moved to dispense with the rule of reading the ordinance in full and on three separate occasions. Member Reading seconded the motion. Chairman West asked if there was any discussion, and there was none. All were in favor, the motion carried. Amendment to Iona City Code 5-5-7 and 10-1-17 to allow for drainage swale options (Ord. 288-07-23) Attorney Rawlings gave an introduction to the Ordinance. He stated that Public Works Director Zech Prouse worked with the City Engineer to create alternative swale formats that citizens could use. He then addressed that City Code 5-5-7 is part of the criminal code, which prohibits anyone to fill in the swale. Since there are multiple options for homeowners to choose from, it makes it easier for homeowners to adjust their swale if so desired. The City can keep some alternative approved drawings on file, and because the drawings are not codified, this allows Director Prouse and the City Engineer to alter or add to the drawings on file. The homeowner would be able to change the swale to adhere with drawings the City has, or appeal with a different drawing that would need to be approved. Member Koester asked if the homeowner would need to get any other plans engineered. Chairman West noted that it doesn't require an engineer,but that it might require a presentation to the City, and they would need to have the City Engineer or Director Prouse look at the plans to approve or deny. Attorney Rawlings clarified that this leaves it up to the Mayor, Director Prouse, etc. they might not even require it to come to City Council. Chairman West asked if there was any further discussion. He asked if they thought that this goes too far, and if the commission thinks that this gives too much power to the City. Attorney Rawlings noted that his biggest concern might be lack of consistency. Member Cooper agrees. Member Reading then asked that if there are any issues ten to twenty years down the road with the consistency, if there would be any kind of record of approval on file. Attorney Rawlings noted that if they brought in their own plans, we would have it on file however; if they're following the standard drawings there wouldn't be a paper trail. Member Koester asked what would happen if it stopped draining, and Chairman West clarified that it would become a code issue because it would no longer be functioning. Member Cooper stated that it would come down to enforcement. He believed that it was flexible enough but still gives teeth because it requires approval. Member Cooper moves to recommend approval of Ordinance 288-07-23, An Ordinance of the City of Iona, Idaho; amending sections 5-5-7 and 10-1-17(e) of the Iona city code; allowing various road cross-sections and swale types to be used in the city; providing methodology; preserving prior ordinances in each instance; providing for severability; and establishing an effective date. I also move that we dispense with the rule of reading the ordinance in full and on three separate occasions. Member Koester seconded the motion, all were in favor, so the motion carried. Amendment to Iona City Code 11-5-9,pertaining to garage or carport requirements in the R-2 Zone (Ord. 289-07-23) Chairman West asked for some of the history of this ordinance. Attorney Rawlings stated that in the R-2 zone it came to the office's attention that manufactured homes required garages whereas single family and multifamily homes didn't. He noted that the City is trying to make the code meet the standards of the Fair Housing Act. Chairman West noted that Council President Rob Geray was concerned that the code changes that were suggested would require a fourplex to have 4 garages. There are certain multifamily units allowed in the R-2 zone, and this change would mean that any single-family dwelling would require a carport or garage, but multifamily homes would not have that same requirement. Member Reading asked if this language is already in the R-1 portion of the code. Attorney Rawlings believes that it is. Member Reading stated that the discussion from last time was concerned with bringing this portion of the code up to the R-1 standard. Attorney Rawlings clarified that our residential section mirrors State Code. The issue for the Fair Housing Act would be that single family homes didn't require a garage or carport in our code but manufactured homes did. Chairman West moves to recommendapproval of Ordinance 289-07-23 an Ordinance of the City of Iona, Idaho; amending section 11-5-9 of the Iona City Code; adding a requirement for a garage or carport of like materials to the residential structure within the R-2 zone; providing methodology; preserving prior ordinances in each instance;providing for severability; and establishing an effective date. Chairman West also moved to forego the requirement of reading the ordinance in its entirety and on three separate occasions. Member Cooper seconded the motion. Chairman West asked if there was any further discussion. Member Koester admitted some confusion, he thought the discussion was about the R-1 zone. Chairman West explained that the purpose was to bring it up to the same standard,but the issue was that manufactured homes in R- 2 required a garage or carport, Attorney Rawlings clarified that the R-1 and R-T zones both had that requirement,but R-2 did not, so we are bringing them all together. All were in favor, so the motion carried. Discussion of Open Park Space Ordinance for New Developments Attorney Rawlings said the idea here is that the subdivision requires the developers mitigate the wear of the park system that they create by adding new homes to the area. The discussion is based on the size of green space or park that we want to require. The City Council liked tying it back to EDU(Equivalent Dwelling Unit). Attorney Rawlings read the new requirements from the proposed ordinance,then stated that in general, other cities have had the goal to have 1 acre per 1000 new residents. 100 EDUs comes out 300-400 people which would require a half-acre park, or an acre per 600-800 residents. Member Reading restated that the reason for this was mitigation of usage on the City's Park system. He asked if there could be parks in these developments that are not openly accessible to any City resident. He asked then if the City Council had any discussion of an HOA(Home Owner's Association)doing a recreation center or something like that instead of a park. Attorney Rawlings expressed that they really haven't discussed it. He believed that it would be fine, if the developer put trees around the recreation center in order to comply with the 15 tree per acre requirement. Chairman West asked Attorney Rawlings if that language could be added to number 5, to include an indoor facility in the code. Chairman West noted his concern with item 4. He felt like 15 trees per acre seemed excessive, and stated that there should be some way to prohibit fruit trees so the City isn't required to clean up the mess that they make. Attorney Rawlings noted the forestry requirements for the Code might help with that, and that the number of trees is fair game, as those are up for discussion. The commission discussed how many trees are in the Iona City Park, and what would constitute a tree for this requirement. Chairman West noted that even little pine trees could be trees too, so he is fine with the current number requirement set at 15. Attorney Rawlings agreed to look into the forestry chapter and make sure we close the fruit tree loop. Chairman West asked if there were any concerns or suggestions from the commission. Member Koester stated that the developers are making plenty of money. More useable green space per EDU is where I would like to push it. Member Reading agreed. Attorney Rawlings stated that some cities have gone as high as 10% Chairman West postulated 7.5? 8? Member Reading thought those numbers sounded better. Member Koester stated that once you put houses in and the developer drives away there's no way for us to change how much green space there is. Attorney Rawlings noted that because of Iona City Code 10-1-24(C) any park that is created has to comply with other City requirements. This new park can be dedicated to the City, or be taken care of by an HOA. The City has to have some contractual right for maintenance, and City Council wanted to leave that as an option. The commission discussed concern about active HOAs vs. dormant HOAs. Chairman West asked if this addressed frontage space. Attorney Rawlings did not believe that it counts. That would be the public way, so it is not a park. Chairman West asked if we need a separate ordinance to define that. Attorney Rawlings noted that public way is a defined term found on pg. 263 of the Code. He noted that a new development would still require plat approval. Member Cooper stated that he doesn't believe the code for development takes into account green space. Attorney Rawlings clarified that if there's a private green belt along the road the developer could argue that it could be part of their green space, but as a requirement it has to be useable. Chairman West clarified that the commission wants to require that green corridor on the road as well as usable green space. Maybe an additional ordinance needs to be made for that green space. Attorney Rawlings further clarified that if they are talking about making a greenbelt requirement, would they only require the green belt on arterial roads. Chairman West affirms,main roads, such as49th North, 55th East, etc. Attorney Rawlings circled back and asked if they were okay with 8% as far as percentage. He then asked if they wanted to change the EDU. Chairman West said that he is of the mindset that if we don't have a separate ordinance for the green beltway,we should push it to 10%. If we are going to require the beltway in addition, it's fine to leave it at 7.5%. Attorney Rawlings explained that 35 acres is about 100 EDUs. 10%of that is about 3 acres. Chairman West asked the commission if they thought two acres was sufficient. Member Cooper and Member Reading agreed. Attorney Rawling asked if the consensus was two acres per 100 EDU. Chairman West affirmed. He stated that the bottom line is we're still one of the cheaper areas to develop, and very sought after for development. Developers are looking at Iona. We're either going to get walked all over, or we're going to put in these requirements. Chairman West proposed a scenario. What if a developer came in but the City Council wanted to put in a new ballfield. If the developer didn't have space in his plat to put in green space, could the developer purchase 3 acres in a different part of town for the City to turn into a ball field and have that count as their green space?Attorney Rawlings stated that as the code is currently written he doesn't think that would satisfy the requirement. It has to be adjacent to the development. They couldn't purchase land farther away,but they could buy 3 acres next door. Chairman West recommended changing that to within City boundaries. Attorney Rawlings stated that the trick is the City can own properties father away. He wondered if that provision would open it up too much. Member Cooper stated that we could make it so that the City Council would have the ability to accept or reject any non-adjacent green space. Chairman West furthered that if we had two developers come in, we should allow them to combine their green space together. This would create more useable space unlike the small parks at Country Haven, the splash park, etc. Member Cooper agreed that a bigger park would be more useable. Chairman West asked if there was anything else they wanted to discuss. There was none. Discussion of Annexation Plans for Green Valley and Nu'R Subdivisions Attorney Rawlings explained the reason for the discussion. The City Council's plan is a Category C Annexation. This means that if they can get more than half the property owners to vote for annexation,the City can annex them. Attorney Rawlings stated that as part of the process the City needs to have an explanation of the reason for annexation. There are 5 things that are required,he reads the parts subsection 3 of the annexation plan. The idea is you have to tell them how is being part of the City beneficial for you, how much is this going to cost you? Does this affect other governmental issues, and what does the city plan to zone this. Attorney Rawlings stated that it is more or less a sales pitch. We are explaining to the residents why it is a good idea to vote yes. He then goes over the reasons we would be a good City to be a part of. He wants the commission to"sell"it. We need to explain to the development that we would like to annex that this is mutually beneficial. Member Koester asked how many people will vote. Attorney Rawlings stated that only the people affected vote. The good thing is that some of the talk already has been really positive. There has to be that continuity. The Nu'R Subdivision does not currently like the idea of annexing. Member Cooper asked if the City can do any marketing. Attorney Rawlings stated that the City can do more than for example a school can for a school bond. We do not have to be impartial. Chairman West stated that he's all for it. Attorney Rawlings asked the commission what the selling points are of being an Iona Resident. Chairman West listed snow removal,being a resident gives Iona the power to do more for them even though we are already providing them better police protection and parks. Attorney Rawlings asked if it is cheaper for residents to participate in sports. Assistant to the City Clerk Rylea Farrens noted that she will talk to Sports Director Randy Homer about that being an option. Attorney Rawlings stated that essentially for lack of a better term there is a freeloader problem. The people in the surrounding areas get the benefits like parks, and events, so how do we reframe that to be positive, and make it so they want to help contribute to the City. Chairman West stated that if we start charging better rates for Iona residents sports, etc. they'd have more of a reason. Chairman West pointed out the fiber project, and what the City did there. Had the Green Valley subdivision annexed sooner they would have been given access to the free fiber internet installation. He stated that the City has an amazing office staff that goes after grants to improve our parks and public spaces. Maybe we could look into talking to Direct Communications so we can tell them that we're willing to bring fiber internet to their neighborhood if they annex. Attorney Rawlings stated that we can frame that as "look at all of the things we are doing for our residents". Member Cooper brought up enhanced police patrol. Chairman West stated that the added code enforcement that our officer provides can remove some of the burden of the HOA. Chairman West added the maintaining of the roads, our Public Works Department is amazing at maintaining the road. It was especially important after this winter. The pothole fixing was so quick and effective. It is not only roads in the winter that can be a problem. Chairman West asked for further discussion. There was none, so they moved to the next item. Discussion of Variance Process Attorney Rawlings introduced the discussion item. He stated that rather than requiring a hardship, there could be a basis that's more objective,but also more flexible. He asked if the commission had any language they would like to add that provides sufficient reason for a variance. He noted that with everything subjective there's always more risk which is something to consider. Chairman West stated that he thinks this is much better,however; even though he agrees with it he fears it being abused. Not by our current council,but a future council. With the requirement of a hardship the line was a little clearer. Attorney Rawlings asked what kind of language would Chairman West use to tighten it up. Chairman West added that he doesn't know,but it's a great question. Member Cooper said that it provides flexibility but on the other side of that there's the ability for council to approve or deny. It's not hard and fast. Chairman West stated that sometimes that is what we need. It allows common sense to prevail. In the case of Council Member Pete Wadsworth's property,he improved it by paving it. It would make sense to allow it,but code-wise that was not allowed. It was better for him, and his neighbors, and really in the City as it disallowed weeds to grow in the right of way, which is technically owned by the City. Member Cooper noted that if you provide some language to take away a little of the flexibility it might be better,but Chairman West rebutted that it still has to go through a voting board. Chairman West asked for any further discussion. There was none. Member Reading motioned to adjourn. Member Cooper seconded. All are in favor, motion carried. Meeting Adjourned: 8:055 p.m. P&Z APPROVED: VI I ames West, Chairman ATTEST: � n� J17(4 Rylea Farrens,Assistant to the City Clerk