Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
November 19, 2001

PRESENT: Mike Davis (Chairman), Bill Smith, Deb Coleman, Kurt Eidam, Connie Ottesen, Dirk Mace, Linda Crapo, Karen Lords (P&B Administrator) and Sue Sommer (P&Z Secretary).

OTHER ATTENDEES: Jerry Woods, Rod Eastvold

WELCOME: Mike Davis called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.

MINUTES: Upon review of the minutes, Dirk Mace motioned to approve the minutes as written. It was seconded by Deb Coleman and approved unopposed.

FINAL PLAT – RIVER ROCK ESTATES – SID AND ADRIENNE KELLER – RICK BYREM This Final Plat is to revert the plat back to only the front nine (9) lots. They wish to exclude the larger four (4) lots in the rear of this subdivision. This is for the ‘record only,’ and to clear up any confusion on the inclusive lots at the previous two Final Plats for this subdivision. After a brief discussion by the Board, Connie Ottesen motioned to accept the Final Plat as now modified. Dirk Mace seconded and was approved, unopposed.

PUBLIC HEARING – HOG HOLLOW HEIGHTS SUB–95 ACRES/32 LOTS – D. PARKINSON PROPERTY: Leslie Parkinson called and CANCELLED the Public Hearing until January or February - 2002.

PUBLIC HEARING – BATES SUBDIVISION – 83 ACRES/5 LOTS – CARL BATES - ASHTON: Karen Lords advised that proper notice was mailed out, posted and published as required. The Board members declared that there was no conflict of interest and, therefore, Public Hearing could go forward. Karen displayed the Preliminary Plat Map and photos taken of the site. Included and/or passed out with the packets were copies of the Public Hearing Notice, Administrator’s Memo, a letter from Lynn Hossner, a letter from Dennis Aslett (representing the Fish & Game Dept), the Development Review Checklist, several photos of the proposed site, and nine signed form letters from people in the vicinity of Timberline Subdivision. Karen read the P&B Administrator’s Memo relevant to this project and then Chairman, Mike Davis, asked if there were any questions for Karen relevant to the proposed project. There were some questions, but the questions were put aside until after hearing from Mr. Bates and Ms Lords by further describing the proposed project access roads. Carl Bates got up and briefly explained his plan for this project and Ms Lords presented the plat map showing the entrance and access roads. As she displayed the plat map, Ms Lords explained that the road that Mr. Hossner was referring to in his letter is pre-existing and has nothing to do with this proposed project. The proposed access road to this project is in a totally different area than what Mr. Hossner is referring to. Karen stated ‘if Mr. Hossner has an issue relevant to the road he is referring to in his letter, he will need to pursue it on a personal basis with Mr. Bates.’ Ms. Lords read signed form letters from Bill Bates, Myron Sheafer, Ty Nuguyen, Walter Carter, John C. Bates, Bonnie Bates, R. Carl Bates, David Ross and Brent Hendricks relevant to having no objection to the proposed subdivision. Ms. Lords read the letter from Mr. Lynn Hossner relevant to a request of not recording a plat showing access across his property. She, also, read the letter from Idaho Fish & Game’s, Dennis Aslett. Chairman, Mike Davis, asked if there were any questions for Mr. Bates or Ms Lords. There were none and, therefore, Chairman, Mike Davis, opened the meeting to Public Comment. Roy Stegelmeier: No comments. He didn’t realize that he put his name on the Public Comments list. Carl Bates: No comments. With no further Public Comments Chairman, Mike Davis, closed the meeting to Public Comment and referred discussion back to the Board. Fish & Game had recommendations listed in their letter that the Board felt should be included as conditions of approval for the project. Dirk Mace motioned to accept the proposal with the listed recommendations of Fish & Game as conditions of approval. Before it could be seconded and after a brief discussion among the Board, Deb Coleman Amended the motion to approve the project under the conditions that #5-8 of the Fish & Game recommendations (listed in letter dated November 15th, 2001) are met and to maintain and retain as much of the trees and vegetation as possible. The Amended Motion was seconded by Linda Crapo and opposed only by Kurt Eidam and accepted by the balance of the Board and, therefore, passed by majority.

PUBLIC HEARING – DAVE MURDOCK SUBDIVISION – 500 NORTH 27 ACRES/5 LOTS: Dave Murdock CANCELLED this Public Hearing until further notice.

PUBLIC HEARING–CELL TOWER–KUNZ’ PROPERTY–LANCE STEINMANN/LEE STAKER: Karen Lords advised that proper notice was mailed out, posted and published as required. The Board members declared that there was no conflict of interest and, therefore, Public Hearing could go forward. Ms Lords read the Administrator’s Memo, relevant to this project. She passed out a copy and read the letter from the Fish & Game, which was received too late to include in the mailed packet. Included in the packets were copies of the Public Hearing Notice, Class II Permit Application, Administrator’s Memo, photos of the site, the Development Review Checklist, Property Description with plat maps and several photos of the proposed site. Chairman, Mike Davis, asked if there were any questions about the Administrator’s Memo or the Fish & Game letter. There were none and, therefore, Mr. Lee Staker was asked to speak on his proposed project. Mr. Lee Staker stated that he represents Century 21 Advantage in Idaho Falls. They, also, represent Lance Steinmann of Bear Cat Builders. He made comment to the Fish & Game letter and that the bulk of it’s content refers to FAA guidelines and this project will comply with all FAA requirements. He, briefly, described the project and where it is located. They proposed this location because there are, already, two other towers in the area and, therefore, a prime ‘farm’ tower location which is located on a piece of non-productive cropland property and easily accessible off the county road leading to the county landfill. Deb Coleman asked Mr. Staker, ‘why are there no co-location providers on these towers? Mr. Staker stated that he represents a tower building company and, ideally, later there will be other cell companies contacting them for co-location sites on these tower. But, at this point and because cell towers are so early in the game, there is only one provider, ClearTalk, which has a spot on this particular tower. Usually, Sprint or Nextel co-locates on these types of towers. The Idaho Falls towers, owned by Century 21 Advantage, all have co-locator on them and each has at least two co-locators and one tower is currently in the process of adding a fourth co-locator (tower by Walmart). Lance Steinmann briefly spoke on what his company does. His company builds towers and NTCH/Clear Talk has contracted his company to provide a tower for them as a carrier/provider on that tower. The plan for the future is to have co-locators on all their towers, thus reducing the costs of the construction and maintenance of the towers by leasing space on the towers being built. New cell companies, preferably like to lease space on a tower, thus reducing pass-down costs to their users. Chairman, Mike Davis, asked if there were any questions for Mr. Staker, Mr. Steinmann or Ms Lords. There were none and, therefore, Chairman, Mike Davis, opened the meeting to Public Comment. No one signed up for Public Comments and, therefore, Chairman Davis closed the meeting to Public Comment and referred discussion back to the Board. After a brief discussion by the Board, Dirk Mace motioned to approve this project. It was seconded by Deb Coleman and accepted unanimously.

COMMENT FOR THE RECORD: The Hobb’s tower (summer of 2001) was located less than 50 feet from utility/power lines and because there were no Development Codes in place governing Cell Towers in regards to the placement from utility/power lines in the CRUMPLE ZONE, this Board has no jurisdiction over this existing tower. When the new Development Codes are established for Cell Towers, the CRUMPLE ZONE will be an enforceable issue.

SKETCH PLAN – DEERCREST AT STONEGATE – 59 Lots / 109.9 ACRES – RAY FINCH: In the packet there was provided a copy of the Sketch Plan Review. Last month, we had this same project before the Board for Sketch Plan. There was an issue brought up about Community Sewer. DEQ became involved and during their discussion, Mike Vickers decided to have more lots and will hook into community sewer. They are not required to have community water, but please realize that the overall density has reverted to a smaller number of acres because of the community sewer issue. They, however, are sizing their acres larger than the overall density requirements. They’ve transferred development rights from Bill Enget. (This means that Bill Enget will be recording documentation on his property that he cannot development in the future on his property and has transferred all development right over to Deercrest at Stonegate project in order to protect wetlands in the future.) Permits for water/wells have been approved on 1-4 lots on a well. (Wells can be given to each lot or up to four lots can share a well per explained by Jerry Woods.) Kurt Eidam motioned to accept this Sketch Plan and to go to Public Hearing. It was seconded by Deb Coleman and was approved, unopposed.

ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT: Attached to the Board Members’ Agenda was a list of the Permits that were issued for last month.

DISCUSSION OF CODE CHANGES RELEVANT TO: Sign Ordinances: Commissioner Glen Davis met with Karen Lords relevant to ‘sign ordinance’ changes. She relayed information to him about the P&Z Board NOT wanting to change the sign ordinances. He wants it changed because of the Golf Course issue. The Commissioners will be meeting and discussing what changes they want made to the sign ordinance. They will provide their results to the Board by the next meeting in January. Splitting parcels of ground: The P&B Department has been approached by numerous people about the splitting of parcels of property. We would like to help families without making them go through a subdivision hearing. The problem is that we have those who know how to circumvent the code and they are trying to come up with three and up to six lots. State statute says that once you hit the number five (5) you are required by law to go through a subdivision hearing. Karen Lords and Rod Eastvold passed out a Memo dated April 29, 1995 by Lee Nellis, Consulting Planner. In this memo, it has suggestions for setting up a Minor Subdivision (1-5 lots in size). Karen explained how the current Development Code is written and how it has been abused. Rod Eastvold gave input on the Minor Subdivision and his overall recommendations were his approval of the Minor Subdivision. These Minor Subdivisions would be handled as a Class I Permit (approved by the Administrator) rather than a Class II Permit (approved by P&Z Board and Public Hearing). If a Class I Permit decision were appealed, it would go before the P&Z Board and if their decision is appealed - it would then go to the County Commissioners and on to the District Court. The P&Z Board monthly does NOT review class I Permits. This would eliminate a needless step for the Boards workload. The only time they would get involved, would be in an Appeal situation. Ivel Burrell had input relevant to when a lot split is done, there are no platted roads and you’ll end up with an area as out by the Relay Station – no platted roads and a mess. Linda Crapo commented that she, possibly in the future, would like to deed some property over to her children and to require her to do a Subdivision is a phenomenal cost to a family. She declared she doesn’t know the solution, but objective input is a way of helping find a solution and/or direction to take. Karen Lords suggested that the Board think about these Code changes and we’ll discuss again at the January meeting. Cell Towers/Windmills: May want to combine/include Windmills as a type of Tower (and/or Utility Tower) Impact Fees: Karen Lords gave a copy of a proposed letter from the P&Z Board Chairman to the Commissioners, relevant to the suggestion of Impact Fees. She suggested that the Board begin promoting support of these fees to the Fremont County Commissioners.

MOTION TO ADJOURN: Linda Crapo made a motion to adjourn the meeting and it was seconded by Connie Ottesen and was approved, unopposed. Meeting was adjourned at 9:25 pm.