COMMISSIONERS MINUTES                                 November 14, 2007

The Commissioners held a public hearing on the above date in the Commissioners Room, basement of the Elmore County Courthouse, 150 South 4th East, Mountain Home, Idaho.

The public hearing was to hear public comment on:

1. Proposed text changes to the April 7, 2004 Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 5 Land Use, specifically the Land Use Categories/Districts and applicable Goals and Objectives required to review applications under the proposed districts. The proposed new Land Use Categories/Districts are: a. Planned Community (PC) b. Planned Unit Development (PUD) and c. Planned Unit Development District (PUDD).

2. A proposed ordinance amendment to amend the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance to allow for development of Planned Communities, Planned Unit Developments, and Planned Unit Developments Districts.

3. A proposed ordinance amendment of the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance to adopt Chapter 4 – Planned Community Standards to allow for the orderly and regulated development of Planned Communities (PC).

4. A proposed ordinance amendment of the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance to repeal the current PUD ordinance, Article XV-1 Planned Unit Development (PUD) and to adopt Chapter 5 – Planned Unit Development Standards.

5. A proposed ordinance amendment of the Elmore County Zoning and Development Ordinance to adopt Chapter 6 – Planned Unit Development District Standards.

Present at the meeting were Chairman Larry Rose, Commissioners Connie Cruser and Arlie Shaw. Also present was Clerk Marsa Grimmett and Prosecuting Attorney Tina Schindele, Civil Attorney Richard Roats and Mr. Mark Pechennino, consultant regarding the proposed ordinances

Dan Weitz, 4343 Old Wing Road, Baker City, Oregon, appeared and asked about the density of lots. Regarding his proposed development he explained how this would affect him. Mr. Pechennino explained the density is dwelling units, not lots. Mr. Weitz then asked the Board to act quickly on the ordinances.

Todd Lakey, 17 12th Avenue South, Nampa, Idaho, appeared and gave the Commissioners packages of suggested changes for the Planned Community Standards, Planned Unit Development Standards and Planned Unit Development District Standards. Mr. Lakey spoke regarding the qualifications of the specialists and/or experts required for various aspects of the Planned Communities. He felt experience should also be an option. Mr. Pechennino stated the qualifications are to protect the County. Mr. Lakey stated on page 8 of the proposed PC Ordinance it reads under 3. b. The town center or village shall include commercial nodes and community gathering areas sized to meet the needs of PC residents. He would like the “shall” in the sentence to read “may”. Also the next sentence “The town center shall also include a mix of uses, including high density/clustered residential, commercial, retail, office, and civic uses. Churches and religious centers may also be allowed”. He feels the high density is inappropriate and should be optional. Mr. Pechennino stated the developer defines what the high density will be and only 3.5 percent of the gross acreage of the PC will be the town center or village center. Discussion followed and the paragraph will be changed.

Mr. Lakey went on to discuss several other suggestions in all the proposed ordinances such as open spaces, periodic evaluation, and amendment or termination of the final development agreement. Adjustments were made to the ordinance by Prosecutor Schindele. Under Article IX-4 Planned Community Required findings, 1.A.9-4 the word plans will be replaced by laws. 9.A.9-4 reads: The Planned Community Development Plan (PCDP) and Economic Analysis have demonstrated that upon build out, the Planned community will have a reduction of vehicle trips, contribute to the area’s jobs-housing balance; place higher density housing near commercial centers. Mr. Lakey was concerned about “will have a reduction of vehicle trips”. Mr. Pechennino and Prosecutor Schindele discussed what the intent was of the section. Mr. Lakey went on to review the PUD and PUDD proposed ordinances stating his proposed changes are the same in some places as the PC ordinance that was just reviewed. Mr. Lakey stated his main request is that both the PUD and PUDD are required to be in the area of impact or have a small portion in the area of impact and he would like them not be limited to the area of impact. Mr Pechennino explained why this was a requirement and feels the PUD and PUDD proposed ordinances have no place outside the municipality.

Spencer Hafen, 305 South 3rd Street, Panaca, Nevada, stated regarding the discussion of the town center and the village centers, if the purpose is to prohibit low density in those areas he suggested language pertaining to that should be included instead of just addressing high density. He also stated Mr. Lakey covered most of the other points he was concerned with. Mr. Hafen asked if open space can count as a right of way and landscaping and Mr. Pechennino stated yes.

Mary Frisch, 155 South Pronghorn Drive, Boise (Mayfield area), stated she was concerned that the applicants of the large scale developments can write their own comprehensive plans and ordinances and that will put an additional burden on County officials and the concerned public who would have to review and comment on these documents. Ms. Frisch explained the documents guiding growth should not be developer driven but County driven. Ms. Frisch is asking for a final decision to be postponed until town meetings can be held. Ms. Frisch also has concerns regarding large communities being allowed outside areas of city impact. Ms. Frisch closed saying she would like the Counties to listen to the agencies that comment on the impact of these communities and to balance the growth in Elmore County. Mr. Pechennino stated there were town meetings held on these ordinances to gather comment in the community. Ms. Frisch stated she was unaware of the town meetings.

Greg Johnson, 2037 East Terza, Meridian, Idaho, spoke that all of these developments depend on the market. Mr. Johnson stated as a developer he asks the questions of would he want to live in this community and raise his family. Mr. Johnson stated he was working on a community in Ada County that has taken two years. Mr. Johnson stated he is in agreement with Mr. Pechennino regarding the PUD and PUDD that they need to be close to the city of impact to make the community work. Mr. Johnson stated he would like the Commissioners to make sure these ordinances are as clear and defined as much as possible.

Chairman Rose asked what a circulation system was. Mr. Pechennino stated the road system in the Planned Community. Discussion followed on the various terms PPCP, etc. and should those terms be in the definitions. When the terms are used for the first time, they are defined at that time and are not included under the definitions. On page 20 in the PC ordinance there is a workshop that shall be held with transmitted agencies and service providers within 15 days and was that enough time. Mr. Pechennino stated it was adequate time and the developers are responsible to hold the workshop. Open spaces were discussed regarding the plan to ensure that open spaces are within a reasonable walking distance from residences. Mr. Pechennino explained the open spaces should be close to residences for more convenient use by the residents. Variations of roadway sections may be allowed with Director approval. Mr. Pechennino stated the various highway districts would still have a say if the developer and director proposed changes. On page 34 the fees were discussed. The appeal fee is listed as $50.00. Chairman Rose stated the hall where the meetings were held charges $25.00 and the Planning and Zoning Commission member fees are $30 per meeting therefore the $50 fee does not cover the cost of an appeal. Mr. Pechennino stated the fees might need to be increased.

The public hearing was continued to November 26, 2007 at 9:00 a.m.

Motion to recess by Rose, second by Cruser.
ROSE - AYE
CRUSER - AYE
SHAW - AYE Motion carried and so ordered.

/S/ LARRY E. ROSE, Chairman
ATTEST: /S/ MARSA GRIMETT, Clerk