HomeMy Public PortalAboutMinutes_Planning & Zoning Meeting_03122014COUNCIL/PLANNING & ZONING
SPECIAL WORK MEETING
IONA COMMUNITY CENTER
MARCH 12, 2014 6:00 P.M.
PRESENT: Council President Robyn Keyes, Council Member Rob Geray, Council Member
Kathy McNamara, P&Z Chairman Dan Garren, P&Z Member Roy Hobbs, P&Z Member Bette
Lovinus, P&Z Member Mike Taylor, P&Z Member Melanie Shirling, Public Works Director
Prouse and Clerk Julie Hammond.
ABSENT: Mayor Brad Andersen and Council Member Dan Gubler.
VISITORS: None.
Category B Annexation Discussion: Council President Keyes and Council Member Geray
explained that Council had decided, at a Special Meeting held on February 26, 2014 in Executive
Session, to proceed with annexation of lots in the Nu'r Subdivision and the Green Valley
Subdivision.
P&Z Chairman Garren asked what the benefits of the annexation were. It was explained that it
would increase the City's tax base to support the infrastructure. The people in these areas are
already using the City's roads, schools, and churches and should help maintain them.
P&Z Member Taylor referenced Attorney Storer's letter "Exhibit A" regarding the annexation
and stated it was a 50/50 chance at best to be successful in annexing the property but that it will
eventually happen with -in the next thirty years. If Iona doesn't annex the property, Ammon is
very close and may annex it.
A map of the Nu'r Subdivision "Exhibit B" was passed around which had originally indicated
only two lots to be annexed but it was best to take the whole subdivision, to be contiguous to the
Green Valley Subdivision, so it didn't look like a strip annexation. Public Works Director
Prouse indicated that the City would potentially have to provide a water line.
P&Z Chairman Garren asked why the City was doing this. Council President Keyes stated it was
to help maintain the integrity of growth of infrastructures within our impact area. P&Z Member
Taylor stated for continuity of the growth of the City. Public Work Director Prouse stated it was
to control and manage growth for the City.
P&Z Member Lovinus asked how much the homeowner's property taxes would go up once they
were annexed into the City. Public Works Director Prouse indicated that it could possibly go up
$50 to $60 a month per Ronald Longmore, Bonneville County Clerk. Council President Keyes
stated that the Nu'r Subdivision pays $40 per month to maintain their community well and would
be able to use the City's water system if they chose to do so.
P&Z Chairman Garren asked what the benefit to the homeowner would be if they were annexed
into the City. It was explained that they would have increased police protection and their streets
plowed. P&Z Chairman Garren asked if a homeowner decided to come in voluntarily could the
City offer a free water hook-up. Council Member Geray explained that it was a possibility and
several homeowner's had been approached but they all said no. He thought offering benefits
might not make it any easier to take. It was hoped that in the long run the people that would be
affected would see the benefit.
Council President Keyes indicated that the Nu'r Subdivision could be land locked. Public Works
Director Prouse agreed and suggested this could happen within five years. It was asked why the
four lots on Iona Rd between Iona and the Nu'r Subdivision were not going to be annexed.
Public Works Director Prouse stated that the City would have to provide services to these lots as
well if they were to be annexed.
Council President Keyes suggested a Town Hall Meeting be held in April during the regular
Planning & Zoning Meeting.
P&Z Member Hobbs asked if the annexation aligns with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Council President Keyes stated that it did align with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
Meeting Adjourned 6:30 p.m.
Holden Kidwell
Hahn & Crapo P.L.L.C.
LAW OFFICES
February 24, 2014
Mayor Brad Andersen
City of Iona
P. O. Box 487
Iona, Idaho 83427
1000 Riverwalk Drive, Suite 200
PO Box 50130
Idaho Falls. Idaho 83405
Ie1: (208) 523 0620
(2(1e) 5 23-9518
WWW. holdertleg.l.con,
F-mail! dstorerrtsholdenlegal.com
Re: Annexation of Lots Adjacent to Freedom Ave., in the Nu'r Subdivision and in
the Green Valley Subdivision
Dear Mayor Andersen:
This letter will summarize the substance of my conversations with Zach Prouse
regarding the proposed non-consensual annexation of the above -referenced properties.
Specifically, it is my understanding the Council wishes to explore the possibility of
undertaking a non-consensual annexation of one or both of the Lots located on the north and
south sides of Freedom Avenue between the existing western boundaries of the City and
Crowley Road.' These two Lots are part of the Nu'r Subdivision, a Bonneville County
Subdivision that was platted on October 4, 1971. I understand the Council also wishes to
examine the possibility of annexing the Green Valley Subdivision which is a new Bonneville
County platted subdivision located immediately west of Crowley Road and adjacent to the
above two Lots.
I also understand that the two Lots bordering the north and south side of Freedom
Avenue in the Nu'r Subdivision are unwilling to consent to annexation. Recently, the
developer of the Green Valley Subdivision advised the City it will consent to the annexation
of the subdivision, only if it has not sold a Lot at the time of the proposed annexation.
Previously this developer had expressed an unconditional willingness to annex into the City.
The new condition placed upon the annexation of the Green Valley Subdivision greatly
complicates the annexation of this subdivision, all as discussed below.
General Annexation Principles
Idaho Code § 50-222(3)(b) sets forth the requirements for a non-consensual
annexation. A non-consensual annexation is defined as a "Category B Annexation" and there
For reasons discussed below. I recommend the Council consider annexing both of the lots bordering Freedom Avenue.
Es:L7%li;lyen' in I 896
"Exhibit A"
Mayor Brad Andersen
February 24, 2014
Page 2
are certain prerequisites which must be established as a condition for the legality of a non-
consensual annexation. I will first generally discuss each of these principles, and then
conclude with a specific analysis of the strengths and weaknesses for a non-consensual
annexation for both of the properties noted above.
Idaho Code § 50-222(3)(5) requires satisfaction of a number of prerequisites, to wit:
1. Lands proposed for annexation must be contiguous or adjacent to the city and
must lie within the city's area of impact.
2. The land proposed for annexation must have been previously platted or part of
a larger parcel from which one or more metes and bounds described parcels
less than 5 acres in size have been sold and partitioned off.
3. Preparation and publication of a written annexation plan.
4. Compliance with the statutory notice and hearing procedures set forth in § 67-
6511, Idaho Code.
5. A finding must be made that the annexation is `'reasonably necessary for the
orderly development of the city."
I will generally discuss each of these principles below.
Contiguity/Area of Impact
This requirement is not particularly difficult to apply. It is simply a matter of
examining the location of the land proposed for annexation and determining its proximity to
the existing city boundaries, as well as its inclusion within the area of impact. Contiguity
cannot be achieved by annexation of a "shoe string or strip of land" intervening between the
city boundary and the land proposed for annexation. As discussed below, this issue may
become very critical with respect to the Green Valley annexation. The terms "shoe string"
or "strip of land" are not defined in the statute and the case law is somewhat conflicting in
terms of how this restriction is interpreted and applied. In general, courts in other
jurisdictions have examined the ability of the city to readily provide public services to the
land proposed for annexation and as long as there are no undue difficulties with providing
such services, courts have generally approved the annexation. Unfortunately, the case law
in Idaho is not particularly clear on that issue.
The question of whether or not the land proposed for annexation lies within the area
of impact is relatively straight forward. It is simply a matter of ascertaining whether or not
Mayor Brad Andersen
February 24, 2014
Page 3
the land is located within the area of impact, based upon an examination of the Area of
Impact Agreement and Ordinance with Bonneville County.
5 Acre Rule
As noted above, the land proposed for annexation must have been previously platted
or part of a larger parcel of property from which a parcel less than 5 acres in size was sold
off and conveyed by a metes and bounds description. Once again, this requirement is not
particularly difficult to apply, rather it is merely a matter of examining whether or not the
subject property has been platted or was part of a parcel from which another parcel was
partitioned off in less than 5 acre increments.
Preparation of a Written Annexation Plan
The statute requires five specific elements that must be included within a written
annexation plan. The elements essentially address the means of providing tax supported
services, changes in taxation, means of providing fee supported municipal services, a brief
analysis of the effects of the annexation on other taxing units and the proposed land use plan
and zoning designation for the land proposed for annexation. Once again, such annexation
plan is fairly well defined in the statute and it is not particularly difficult to prepare such a
plan.
Compliance with Notice and Hearing Procedures
The statute requires publication of notice of the proposed annexation and the mailing
of a written annexation notice to the properties proposed for annexation. This process is
fairly straight forward and is essentially the same as for other zoning platting matters.
Council Finding: Annexation Reasonably Necessary for Orderly Development a City
This requirement is much more subjective than the previous four requirements.
Specifically, testimony must be produced at the public hearing demonstrating the need for
annexation in the context of continued orderly development and expansion of the City. I
would strongly recommend hiring an expert witness to provide this testimony.
Lots in Nu'r Subdivision
Contiguity
The two lots on both sides of the Freedom Avenue extension are clearly contiguous
and adjacent to the western -most boundary of the City. Similarly, both lots are located within
Mayor Brad Andersen
February 24, 2014
Page 4
the Area of Impact identified in the Iona/Bonneville County Area of Impact Agreement. I
anticipate no difficulty in meeting this requirement.
5 Acre Rule
Both of these Lots are part of a previously platted County subdivision. As such, the
City should have little difficulty in meeting this requirement.
Written Annexation Plan
I anticipate little difficulty in putting together a written annexation plan containing the
components required by the statute. A short discussion of each of these components should
suffice and I do not believe a court would quibble with the substance of the plan, unless it
is patently flawed.
Compliance with Notice and Hearing Procedures
Once again, I anticipate little difficulty with meeting this requirement. The
publication and hearing procedures are virtually identical to those required whenever
property is zoned within the City. (i.e. publication and mailed notice) and as long as care is
taken to comply with the publication and time frames set forth in the statute, I do not
anticipate any difficulty in this regard.
Reasonably Necessary for the Orderly Development of the City
As noted above, this requirement is considerably more subjective and in order to avoid
a finding by a court that the annexation was arbitrary, I recommend retaining an expert
witness to provide testimony that would support this component. The possible testimony
would be as follows:
1. The annexation is necessary in order to gain control over the extension of
Freedom Avenue to Crowley Road. In essence, the argument would be that by
obtaining control over the Freedom Avenue extension, such control would
facilitate further development of and enhance public safety access to the
interior of the City. Annexation of both Lots would make this argument much
more credible. If supported by such testimony, I believe a court would not
likely disturb your finding in this regard; or
Such annexation is necessary in order to prevent the City from becoming
landlocked and precluded from annexing property on the west side of Crowley
Road. This argument is however somewhat weak and if followed to the
Mayor Brad Andersen
February 24, 2014
Page 6
In sum, I believe a good case can be made for the annexation of both of these
Subdivisions, or at least the Lots therein, although it is by no means a slam dunk. The
success of the Green Valley Annexation will largely depend upon the creativity, expertise
and professionalism of your expert witness. Green Valley's recent decision to oppose
annexation if it does not occur prior to the sale of any Lot, significantly complicates both
annexations. That change in posture is very unfortunate, although it does not totally bar the
possibility of a non-consensual annexation. The Council should keep in mind that forced
annexations are very unpopular and are viewed very dimly by the public as a whole. You
should anticipate a considerable amount of public opposition and outcry and a very real
possibility of litigation. Given the possibility of litigation, you certainly need to be very
careful to make a good record and to assiduously adhere to the statutory requirements.
I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss these issues at
greater length should you so desire.
Very truly' yours,
Dale W. Storer
Attorney at Law
cc: Zech Prouse
G. PDATA,.DWS\2708 City of lona\CORRES\Brad Andersen 2014.02 On Itr. Wpd'snr
3
lot37
..8 pq!ux3..
;I
NCR • SUBDIVISION
BONNEVILLE COUNTY, IDAHO
FART OF
NW I/r4 SEC.I2 T2N., 1138 E. B. M.
BENTON ENGINEERING CONSULTING ENGINEERS
IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO
SCALE: r•200'
NIMI 1/4 COR. BEC. I t
SRN RSI EMIL
•C.rRodcos CCAalr-sae 1Pe0.vf..a! fegysrweaanf. 7/,if ?*rune e../air•-s•.•�
,.,.e„! .v/.4.4 • /esl os. "erril f
..,le/Are A.. s/iwY C�>%.r,.�r
Orteff
N.W. COI*. RE 1 _ -'•
TEN Rs, e.B.N. • .. �ue
I I • w.Ti't
•
•
ire/aP fl /..ws• 44.rav+Irerby % de S*fe
ps�errl..►waf af` i d.fi % iy Nerw.o/S girt' %
P.b rr ,awe,* E.w.„►aar /a.! . 09, »,, ~A o / osoiesoviirr
air a.. fr/e• ',WO 8maramv/.6 !dvn/,;i hii+e.rid6 Girlie
ti
CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE
Coma/ ttiis
day of to hAQ /9_, of which time�this Sobe ivision was
apprwrod also/ aerepteo!
nAtterted Mayor
COUNTY APPROVAL • AND ACCEPTANCE
IP/mental to Mx County B n1 of Cominisr
✓outer th smear_ aby af_ .4.D /9_21, at a Inch /one this
Subdaysaan tans aoev»vr el crier atelptxd.. •
;•4/tes/e6/ ate:-etiChairman
-•fir. .�8.....�6' 7�a� ++
12
,e-
W b I
v=it/
TEN E.B.
ort4 CA/ ,. 6a;dLr� l ..
Ut �cf''far filedf
G ree (Set le arch 6p,
CIC
RECORDER'SCERTIFICATE NO. 4 f3//7
eat l UV ce r 1�i Q . �l/e, / 1�ea* c�rrh files
this
a�tt
Bear ems /,Ed /e ,fI ,n ferlS�.
poyrl of s7•e rower/MeV M A N. x&Flyh/ fir, m,
arse / fwtYrr.' awh/j. riful• Me hacwq a✓ 1Y.vs past
signaller is ors exact copy/ of the or/Prmo1/
Cooney
ENGINEER'S APPROVAL
i certify that / hove! hia!
it Is
g/97i to alxrp`
ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE
/, David E. Benton, es/ userel Profess/o.ea/
Engineer do hereby cer lf, Ma/ a/ the request
of the ou eers, / hose s rveyed the tease/ of
/ado' shavers ow this p/a/ and described
be/am and have RAWir/dev' solo' fray/ of ,(aai`
i»/v Locks, /oh and street,' /v he ,fawn os
/Vui 9ubdirr/sravr , arrev /
/coo,
certify /hot the tracing of has plat beano*,
my signature is an exact ropy of the
orgina/ map.
Dave en/on RE.
/daho 2r/rflcate itte 711
BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION
Begwaarry of Me ~Aces/ cavner a/
See/,on rt r,N ?3 £.dr tl inn' eiewtintr
//mixer Weitasrss-,E aeisva sxrrisy .des
4P/.ao /erf,• Mewed. 9o`orarie ',zee feel,'
~nee Nes'erse-e .1s.+1f /Het: Aks.re
9O10PS /AaAaofeeft hoover aeftl.IrE
/B1.•A7 leaf; therxr .rowaS'/I• imam feat";
ev/ ,i Ow//N1e a10 .Raw' f. W IS.! f
Awn/ Detan Were:PP Art' 4rsalo "ter
/ices /he Mgr/ q4.ni/ir arms, s, e/ .osas'
.Bert.*? /t; ///*rice NOGSOs E' elafa p
him ...TOVAGV7 vsA9p7./o ii Me
C5.9/4 /7cat
DEED OF DEDICATION
bS�eej /t Almon ?fast: We •the undersigned ab /iere-
the above certify that
he 6� Mort of Move
caused /he sonar rb be trnbdivided arta b/ac fs,
/ots and streets to be fr.eeaun as
Ncir Sabel/✓/sion Bonneville Cocci/*,, . .
qoha and cue do Ater4igive,
f and dedicate As the pob/ic for
perpetual peb/ic use • a// streles a//e s and
ea�sen,ents shaerss heist far hie' par are os
holed air the oeeavnpanying map.
/n Wetness ,hereof Nis hare herravr s set` arc
signafurer this.XZ'`rdo of_Se .4 A Iral.
JACK M. FLy/Vi1/ LANDS INC.
on idaafo car/eavforr
f�ramined end Awl hid/
so /or Erxyineer
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
.Stole of /ahlao
Caved*, of as e,edw//e
Rw-ama/4r */worm' ,6et rr . Hzeit-
.tippped.4444w7 AYN/e, iYiv awe hhie, onser
�.n Aerie esr known la me fe br .the sgwerr
of toe abort. Akre of Lied/eat/levr aad
arrf000r , b hie Om? ,S ey ex lira!
stomt.of CDdre/ Jo?6Vi�Xo.C� thfiSema. aef
Air .eD.,�.��.:P�'G�.1.
Caoeashman e
/16tbry Pue%t
GREEN VALLEY ANNEXATION - DEFENSIBILTY ANALYSIS
(Listed in Order of Most Defensible to Least Defensibile)
1. Consensual annexation by Rockwell
2. Non-consensual annexation of entire Nu'R Subdivision
3. Non-consensual annexation on both sides of Freedom Avenue
4. Non-consensual annexation of one lot on the north or south side of Freedom
Avenue.
G:\WPDATA\DWS\2708 City of Iooa\ANNEX\Greea Valley Estates Div. No. l\Defensibility Aoalysis.wpd:sm
"
P R E R E Q U I S I T E S F O R A N N E X A T I O N
1 . P r e p a r a t i o n a n d p u b l i c a t i o n o f a w r i t t e n a n n e x a t i o n p l a n .
2 . C o m p l i a n c e w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y n o t i c e a n d h e a r i n g p r o c e d u r e s s e t f o r t h i n � 6 7 - 6 5 1 1 ,
I d a h o C o d e .
3 . A f i n d i n g m u s t b e m a d e t h a t t h e a n n e x a t i o n i s " r e a s o n a b l y n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e o r d e r l y
d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e c i t y . "
" I f f i n d i n g s a r e t h o u g h t f u l l y d r a f t e d , C o u r t s w i l l g e n e r a l l y g i v e b r o a d d e f e r e n c e
t o C o u n c i l ' s d e c i s i o n .
4 . T h e l a n d p r o p o s e d f o r a n n e x a t i o n m u s t h a v e b e e n p r e v i o u s l y p l a t t e d o r p a r t o f a
l a r g e r p a r c e l f r o m w h i c h o n e o r m o r e m e t e s a n d b o u n d s d e s c r i b e d p a r c e l s l e s s t h a n
5 a c r e s i n s i z e h a v e b e e n s o l d a n d p a r t i t i o n e d o f f .
5 . L a n d s p r o p o s e d f o r a n n e x a t i o n m u s t b e c o n t i g u o u s o r a d j a c e n t t o t h e c i t y a n d m u s t
l i e w i t h i n t h e C i t y ' s a r e a o f i m p a c t .
" A " s t r i p " o f l a n d w i l l n o t s a t i s f y t h e c o n t i g u i t y r e q u i r e m e n t .
" C a s e l a w o n w h a t c o n s t i t u t e s a " s t r i p " i s u n c l e a r .
G : \ W P D A T A \ D W S \ 2 7 0 8 C i t y o f I o n a \ A M E X \ G r e e n V a l l e y E s t a t e s D i v . N o . ( \ P r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r A n n e x a t i o n . w p d : s m
AGENDA
PLANNING AND ZONING
MARCH 12, 2014
AT 6:30 p.m.
1 Welcome
2. Pledge of Allegiance
3. Minutes Approved
4. Recognize Citizens from the Floor
5. Items of Business
a. O.K. & Verneta Edwards of 5533 E Iona Rd Public Hearing — 6:30 p.m.
Conditional Use Permit for a Manufactured Home in an R1 Zone
Variance Request for a minimum lot size of 13,500 in an R1 Zone
b. Bonneville County Area of Impact Agreement
c. Clean-up Revision of Title 10 — Subdivision Ordinance
d. Generic Flag Lot (access to one lot) Ordinance Discussion
6. Reports
a. Commission Members, Commission Chair, Clerk
b. Previous action items
Motion to Adjourn
Any person needing special accommodations to participate in the above noticed
meeting should contact the City Office the day before the meeting at 523-5600
PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING
IONA COMMUNITY CENTER
MARCH 12, 2014 6:30 P.M.
PRESENT: Chairman Dan Garren, Members — Roy Hobbs, Bette Lovinus, Mike Taylor,
Melanie Shirling, and Clerk Julie Hammond.
ABSENT: None.
VISITORS: Kay Edwards.
Chairman Garren welcomed Kay Edwards and Member Taylor led with the Pledge of
Allegiance.
Minutes Approved: Member Hobbs motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning (P&Z)
Minutes of February 12, 2014 as written and the P&Z Special Work Meeting Minutes of
February 21, 2014 with the following correction. Remove "by certified letter", first page, second
paragraph, last sentence of the Bonneville County Area of Impact Agreement discussion.
Member Shirling seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
O.K. & Verneta Edwards Conditional Use & Variance Request Public Hearing: Chairman
Garren explained the public hearing process and asked Mr. Edwards to present his proposal.
Mr. Edwards of 5533 E Iona Rd explained that he currently had a 1965 Marker Double Wide on
his property and would like to upgrade to a new manufactured home with foundation or a stick
built home. He stated that he was applying for the Conditional Use Permit because a
manufactured home was a conditional use not a permitted use. He was also applying for a
variance request because his property is only 13, 500 sq. ft. instead of the required 14, 520 sq. ft.
Chairman Garren closed the public hearing and opened discussion since there was no one else in
attendance.
Member Lovinus asked if Mr. Edwards was removing the old foundation and replacing it with a
new one. Mr. Edwards replied, yes. Member Taylor asked if this would be a permanent
foundation. Mr. Edwards stated a permanent foundation would replace the current cinder block
foundation.
Member Taylor asked if this would be a new manufactured home. Mr. Edwards stated it would
be brand new.
Member Hobbs asked if he had a variance for the garage. Chairman Garren explained that there
is not a problem with the garage because it is an existing garage. The drawings indicated an
accessory building. Mr. Edwards explained that the accessory building met with City Code.
Member Taylor stated that the request shows improvement and motioned to recommend to
Council to approve the O.K. & Verneta Edwards Conditional Use Permit and Variance Request.
Member Lovinus seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
Bonneville County Area of Impact Agreement: Member Hobbs explained the information
packet to Chairman Garren and Member Taylor who were absent from the P&Z Special Work
Meeting on February 21, 2014. He stated that the comprehensive plan needed to be worked on
before an expansion of the impact area could be done and that Chad Stanger, John Price, and a
couple of others guys would help. Chairman Garren asked if there was something specific that
needed to be worked on because Iona's Comprehensive Plan was published in 2007 and should
last ten or more years. Member Hobbs indicated that the comprehensive plan must align with the
impact area expansion.
Chairman Garren asked what has changed since the last time the City asked for an impact area
expansion. Member Hobbs explained that we needed to provide a letter from the Iona
Bonneville Sewer District (IBSD) stating they would be able to provide the sewer service for the
expansion area. Member Taylor stated that IBSD doesn't know what they have. Member Hobbs
explained that they are going step by step and as they make repairs they are scoping the lines.
Member Taylor stated that the City would need an agreement for growth for all utilities not just
the sewer service.
Member Shirling asked what the steps to proceed were. Member Hobbs stated we needed a
letter form IBSD stating they would commit to provide services to the City's expanded area of
impact. Member Hobbs asked everyone to view the Association of Idaho Cities (AIC) video
training on the rules of impact area expansion. He stated we would need a legal description of
the area and prove the City had finances available for expansion. Member Hobbs would draft a
letter for IBSD to sign, stating their commitment, and put it in an e-mail for P&Z Members to
review by next week.
The following are items needed to proceed with the impact area expansion: IBSD Letter
committing to provide service; Letter to all parties affected (City of Ammon, Bonneville County,
IBSD, and Idaho Falls Public Works) by the expansion with a fourteen day response time, if no
response the City has a right to move forward with the expansion; and hold an Impact Area
Expansion Public Hearing (possibly May).
Chairman Garren asked if we should be in contact with Bonneville County. Member Taylor
stated as long as it meets their code we shouldn't have a problem. Chairman Garren reminded
everyone that code says you have to provide services (water line) to the development. Member
Hobbs indicated that this could be subsidized by the developer. Chairman Garren was concerned
that a development might not be adjacent to Iona's City limits; it may be closer to Highway 26,
would the City then have the funds to get a water line to the development.
Category B Annexation Discussion: Member Shirling motioned to add a forced annexation
discussion to the agenda. Chairman Garren seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion
carried.
Member Taylor stated if we fail with the forced annexation; why proceed with the impact area
expansion. Member Hobbs stated that the Comprehensive Plan was the governing power.
Member Shirling stated that P&Z still needed to proceed with the impact area expansion.
Chairman Garren expressed the need for P&Z to be in control and united during the Town Hall
Meeting regarding the forced annexation.
Clean-up Revision of the Subdivision Ordinance: Member Shirling motioned to table the
Clean-up Revision of the Subdivision Ordinance until next month's meeting. Member Taylor
seconded the motion. All were in favor, motion carried.
Generic Flag Lot (access to one lot) Ordinance Discussion: Member Lovinus motioned to
table the Generic Flag Lot Ordinance Discussion until next month's meeting. Member Shirling
seconded the motion. A11 were in favor, motion carried. Clerk Hammond would locate a sample
Flag Lot Ordinance.
Action Items at a Glance:
All Members — 1) View AIC Training Video on Impact Area Expansion; review IBSD
Commitment Letter; and revision of Title 10 — Subdivision Ordinance.
Member Hobbs — 1) Draft letter for IBSD Commitment of Services to Impact Area Expansion.
Clerk Hammond — 1) Locate a sample Flag Lot Ordinance.
Meeting Adjourned 7:40 p.m.
CITY OF IONA
3548 N Main
P.O. Box 487
lona, Idaho 83427
March 12, 2014
Bonneville County
605 N. Capitol Ave
Idaho Falls, ID 83402
Re: Area of Impact
Dear Chairman,
Phone: (208) 523-5600
Fax: (208) 535-0087
I am writing to inform you of the City of Iona's intent to renew and amending the existing
Area of Impact Agreement and its intent regarding pursuing an expansion of its Area of Impact,
pursuant with Title 67-6526 in Idaho Code. In October 2011 the Iona Planning and Zoning
Committee met with Steve Serr, who represented Bonneville County in a discussion regarding
this intended expansion. At the time of this meeting, we were directed not to pursue an
expansion greater than what the Iona Bonneville Sewer District could currently support. Since
that time, the City of Ammon no longer contracts services with IBSD, which frees up a
substantial amount of service that the City of Iona could potentially use. We have not received a
response from Bonneville County since we submitted our initial expansion request dated April
22, 2011, and a third letter of intent dated March 15, 2013. This fourth letter serves as notice of a
scheduled public hearing set April 9, 2014 at 6:15 p.m. and is attached to this letter. The hearing
will include: 1) Renewing the existing agreement;. 2) Amending the existing agreement to align
with the City's updated building codes; and 3) Increasing the City's impact boundaries.
Regarding the expansion, we intend to encompass land to the east and north of the current
impact area. The western boundary will remain as it is but extend north to Highway 26.
-�1
We believe this request is consistent with the requirements presented in Chapter 65 of the Idaho
Statutes, and that the new impact area is considered (1) a trade area with the City of Iona; (2)
geographically consistent with the City of Iona; and (3) is an area that can reasonably be
expected to be annexed to the City in the future.
Although the City cannot currently provide infrastructure for development in the newly
expanded bounds outlined below, we want to be able to shape development in this area
consistent with the rest of the City's impact area. We anticipate being able to provide
infrastructure in the future as the City expands within the bounds of the newly established impact
area.
The proposed expansion is as follows:
From the existing southern boundary extend the impact area east to the section line closest to the
intersection of the Bone Road and Lincoln Road; from this point straight north to the
intersection of Highway 26; at this point we wish to follow Highway 26 westward until it is in
line with the existing west boundary; at this point straight south until it meets up with the
existing western boundary.
Should you have any questions regarding this issue, please do not hesitate to call the City
Office at 208-523-5600
Sincerely,
Brad D. Andersen
Mayor
CC: City Files
Council Files
Attorney Files
Iona Bonneville Sewer District Files
Idaho Falls Public Works Files
City of Ammon Planning and Zoning
Bonneville Joint School District 93