Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

OK, roll call.

BRYDE? GERBER?

Present.

MCCAULI?

Here.

SMITH?

Present.

OLLAND?

Here.

ACORAM is present.

OK, we'll begin the meeting with the next item, which is the consent agenda on the agenda. Mr. Chair. Yes, Commissioner Orland. Would you like a motion? That would be great. I'm sorry. Pardon me? No, there's not an opportunity for that. While we're here, we're just going through the agenda, doing a consent agenda on what was presented at the last board meeting. And then that's it. We have not posted any opportunity for that. The next time you'll have a chance to speak in regard to this would be before the city council, because that's where it's headed right now. So yes, you're right. Yeah. You want to pull this off as something to be discussed? OK. All right. Do we have a request for that to be pulled up? Yes, ma'am. What would you like to say?

OK. Thank you, appreciate it. This document is meant to- Can you pull that down?

I need your name and address. Okay. I'm sorry.

I'm sorry. My name is Elizabeth Volger. I live at 10455 West Prairie Road. I just want to say thank you. This document is meant to state the basis for the Commission's action on CUP 2026-13, but it doesn't address two of the most significant changes made to this application. One, the reclassification from the conditional public service facility to the permitted emergency services use. and the deletion of the original condition limiting this property to only its approved use. The only explanation ever given for the reclassification that the initial proposal titling was done in error was a verbal statement at the August 17th meeting. It was never put in writing, not in the staff report, not here, and never questioned on the record to my knowledge. The deletion of the original condition limiting this property to its only approved use was never questioned or documented in the public record either to my knowledge. I'd ask the Commission to address tonight whether these findings are meant to cover those two changes or whether a separate explanation exists that hasn't been made public. I'd also like to point out that the fire training tower, which Commissioner Gruber specifically called out as the greatest concern and the entire reason the Commission remanded this application on August 3rd, isn't treated separately in these findings either. it gets one paragraph the same as the fencing material and parking lot surface. Can you address that?

Yes, I'll try to address it. When the motion was made to send this item back before the staff, we legally were not allowed to do that unless there was an agreement to do so from the presenters or those who brought this issue before the planning and zoning. And unfortunately, our attorney did not point out the fact that we could not do that. And we did not find out until the next meeting that we had incorrectly sent that back. And we had to basically unwind, unring the gong, so to speak. And that's why it was brought back before the P&Z. And we had to vote on basically that initiative that was presented to the P&Z the night when most people were here. So basically, all P&Z was allowed to do was to either recommend yea or nay on that item, which we should have done that night. And instead, we sent it back erroneously to the staff. So they brought that back. Our attorney pointed out the fact that it's being brought back to you because you have to make a decision on this. And the decision of the P&Z at the last meeting was send it on to the city council. Tonight we are basically saying these are the minutes of the meeting that say that's what's happening and that's what we're approving tonight are the minutes of the meeting that says here's what happened in the last council meeting that this is being sent on now to the city council. That'll be the next opportunity for input from the people who want to testify on that issue.

Can you address the fact that the reclassification and the deletion of the original condition limiting this property to its only approved use, those two items, that the list changed. Number one was not on the list anymore, and a change like that seems like it should have to go back for public discussion.

Well, the original, what came before the P&Z at the last meeting was what was in that original proposal, and those changes Those items, I believe, were in that original proposal on what was requested as part of that application process.

The August 3rd application showed the, let me see, sorry, the site-specific conditions. Number one was the maintenance and training facility for Eagle Fire District and City of Eagle Public Service Facility is the only approved use. with this conditional use permit. Any changes in use shall require a modification to this conditional use permit. On the August 17th, site-specific conditions for approval, that was no longer number one.

Yeah, Commissioner Orland, I think you made the motion, I believe, at the last, at that, meeting and added a couple items or something.

So the, yes ma'am. The question about the allowable uses, um, what's what planning staff explained to us at that second hearing was that, um, they had actually interpreted the code incorrectly. Um, and that the use that is proposed here is actually already allowed by zoning and it didn't require a CEP. So that, that's why it was stricken. So, so the, the instruction to us, as P&Z Commission legally was that's no longer something you're even talking about. You're not talking about whether this use is permitted. You're just talking about these design standards. So that couldn't have been part of our motion.

Okay. My argument is that how do you change an application from one meeting to the next meeting without any additional

Yeah, I think that's a great question for the city attorney at the mayor and council hearing because that's not an answer we have. That was something planning department, planning director determined and the process for that, I'm not sure.

You have no input on something like that happening and not questioning at the meeting why are we seeing a different number one? Like why are they out of order now?

The planning directors, his job is to administer the zoning code, and so that's where the buck stops. And so if he's decided this is a permitted use according to the code, then it's just not.

If he said, here's a permitted use, then we accept the fact that we're being told by the administrator who's in charge of this that it is a permitted use, and that was why we basically go along with a number of the things, and I, in some cases, entirely happy about it, but that's what we're told by our attorneys, by the administrator, and that's why we acted as was the guideline we were presented at that point in time. Yeah, I'm sorry, it's...

This is a very messy... Well, it is. And...

Quite frankly, I was probably the one guilty as much as anything when I sent it back, and they did not catch the fact that it shouldn't have been sent back because we didn't have the ability under Section of Idaho Code for P&Z to be able to overrule or whatever or send it back. We should not have been able to do that, and that wasn't caught at the time that it was done. That's why they brought it back to the P&Z and said, no, you screwed up. or we screwed up or whoever, and that's why the activity took place at the last meeting and now basically we're...

So you just have to take their word for it as far as the use?

Yeah, well, basically that's what you do is take the word of your attorney and the administrators. If we don't have...

Do you see this often where a use is changed like this?

No. In fact, it probably would not have been changed if we hadn't gone back to Senate staff to begin with. It would have come through at that other meeting.

They might have made the change, caught it between PNZ and council. We're not sure. But again, I mean, his job is to administer the code.

I do understand your frustration because we were frustrated at the last meeting about what was going on and what could and could not happen and things at that point in time. But we basically acted as we were advised, in essence, legally, and that's what the decision was by PNC at that point in time. And as we just pointed out, your next step is, if you've got concerns about the legality of things, it needs to be presented now at your next opportunity and that is with the city council, and they may include this on a consent agenda, and you should do the same thing you did to us tonight, and that is ask to have that pulled off of the consent agenda if that's how it's coming through at the council meeting, and have the opportunity to do your presentation at that point in time.

Thank you, I appreciate your time.

Okay, I'm sorry about that. It's about the confusion.

I just want to make sure that this is all going to be reflected in the minutes, correct?

Yes. Okay, thank you. Yes, it will be. And she's due in the minutes. She'll guarantee that for you. Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Okay, thank you. Okay, now that we've done that, now we would accept a motion for the consent agenda approval.

Mr. Chair, I move that we approve the consent agenda.

Okay, second. Second. Okay, second by Christian Macaulay. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, we have no unfair business. Mr.

Chair.

Yes.

I'm going to recuse myself from this entire discussion just so that my standing is safe. Okay. And doesn't cause any further complications. So I'm recusing myself of all that has been said this evening. Okay.

Commissioner Smith, as you had recused yourself at the previous meeting. As I did last week. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All those in favor of the motion, say aye. Aye. Okay. Chairman votes aye also. So the consent agenda is approved. Unfinished business, there is none. There are no public hearings. There is no new business. And do we have any reports from the commission? I was going to, Mr. Chair.

Yes. I confess that my question was why this special meeting was being held when the when the request was sent out for a special meeting tonight, I had the feeling it was something critical, something urgent that came up. And when I read the email that came out on last Thursday or Friday, I was confused by, I recognized the subject and I thought, I wasn't quite sure where it stands, et cetera. So I was curious why, was it two weeks ago we called this special meeting for tonight for some reason i had a sense of urgency to it but apparently at that stage something else was in the in the cooking so i mean i've been confused about this one all along yeah okay we have been periodically too frankly uh um no other commission

How about the city attorney report obviously we're not gonna get one tonight I wish he had been here to do that so he could answer that question and staff report anything Okie doke. All right, then I would I Would accept a motion for German Second Hey All those in favor say aye. Aye.