Loading...
02062008PZMinutes 4/7/2008 CITY OF AMMON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 6, 2008 AGENDA: CITY OF AMMON PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION February 6, 2008 7:00 P.M. AMENDED AGENDA I.Pledge of Allegiance: II. Minutes: December 5, 2007 and January 2, 2008 III.Public Hearings: th A.2008-002 – CUP w/Variance – Cell Tower – 4381 S 25 E (Hitt Road) th B.2008-003 - CUP w/Variance – Cell Tower – 2593 E 14 N C.2008-004 – Comprehensive Plan Map Change th D.2008-005 – Rezone Request – R-2 to C-1 (near corner of 17 & Ammon Rd) E.WITHDRAWN 2008-006 – Rezone Request – PB to R3-A – (at Pearl House site) IV.Action Items: A.Recommendation on Public Hearings. 1.2008-002 2.2008-003 3.2008-004 4.2008-005 B.Preliminary Plat – Brogan Creek V. Discussion Items: A.Work meeting on February 20? B.Confirmation of attendance of AIC workshop March 8, 2008 C.Open Discussion VI.Reports: A. City Council actions B. City of Idaho Falls Planning and Zoning actions – Cindy Donovan C. Bonneville County Planning and Zoning actions – Tom Hunsaker VII. Call for Adjournment: MINUTES The meeting was called to order by Chairman Tom Hunsaker at 7:00pm in the City Building at 2135 S. Ammon Road, Ammon, Idaho. Members Present: Tom Hunsaker, Chairman Richard Jaussi Quinn Simmons Scott Wessel Steve Richards Dave Hill Members Absent: Cindy Donovan Greg Maeser Rick Butler City Officials Present: Ron Folsom, Planning Director Gay Leming, Deputy Clerk Lance Bates, Engineer Steve Richards led the Pledge of Allegiance. Planning & Zoning 2-6-2008 Page 1 4/7/2008 MINUTES: December 5, 2007 and January 2, 2008: Tom Hunsaker talked about Page 3 the third paragraph for December 5, 2007 and made a change. Richard Jaussi motioned to approve the minutes from December 5, 2007 with the change. Quinn Simmons seconded. All in favor, the motion passed. Tom Hunsaker talked about Page 2, Item B on the January 2, 2008 and made a change. Quinn Simmons motioned to accept the minutes from January 2, 2008. Steve Richards seconded. All in favor, the motion passed. PUBLIC HEARINGS: th A. 2008-002 – CUP w/Variance – Cell Tower – 4381 S. 25 East (Hitt Road): Planning Director Ron Folsom explained why there is a hearing on the cell towers. He explained both this and the next hearing’s towers were built before the land, on which they sit, was annexed into the City and thus are grandfathered. Because no public hearing on either tower has even been held before the City of Ammon, tonight’s co-location requests trigger a need for these public hearings. The hearing will decide whether to allow co-location, not about whether the tower should be there. Once we have the co-location hearing on each tower, then we won’t have to have hearings for additional co-locations on either tower. There are also variances to the ordinance because the towers weren’t built to our guidelines. He explained where this tower is located. John Knapek, Goodman Networks – Digital Bridge, stated he is here to answer any questions on the proposal. He explained there will be antennas that will be approximately 4 feet tall, similar to T-Mobiles. The equipment cabinet sits on a concrete form. The proposed platform with the cabinet will be no more than 4 -5 feet from one of the legs of the tower. Ron Folsom explained it will all be contained inside the fence line and will not expand out of the area. It was questioned if what they are proposing will change the look of the tower. John Knapek stated they have an agreement with the tower owner to place the antennas at an open elevation on this tower with about 6 – 8 antennas. There will be one co-locator. It was questioned why there is a variance requested to extend the 18” antenna length. Tom Hunsaker explained how the ordinance was written and why this will not fit. John Knapek explained how the cabinet will look. There will be battery backups inside the cabinet and the security would be sufficient. Tom Hunsaker inquired about any time constraints. John stated the client wishes to get on the air as soon as possible. Tom Hunsaker talked about legal language in the proposal. Tom Hunsaker closed the public hearing portion as there were no requests to speak. The commission discussed the options. Richard Jaussi motioned to accept the proposal for collocation at this tower site, for public hearing 2008-002. Scott Wessel seconded. All in favor, the motion passed. Quinn Simmons motioned to recommend the denial of the request for variance 2008-002 for the cell tower th located at 4381 S. 25 E. until further information can be obtained. Dave Hill seconded. All in favor, the motion passed. Tom Hunsaker stated the denial was due to lack of information needed for the variance request. th B. 2008-003 – CUP w/Variance – Cell Tower – 2593 E. 14 North: Planning Director Ron Folsom explained this is the same request as the previous item. He explained where this tower is located. It was discussed the diagram of this tower is a little different than the previous tower. John Knapek, Goodman Networks – Digital Bridge, stated this is the same sort of proposal and has nothing else to add. Tom Hunsaker commented this is a shorter tower at 120 feet and we are close to having the tower full. Tom Hunsaker commented they will need to know how much further the antenna will stick out and why the elevation is critical. Tom stated they would like to know the frequencies being used for the antennas that will be communicating with the customer equipment. He explained that determines when you can go into operation. Tom Hunsaker closed the public hearing as there were no requests to speak. The commission discussed the outcome would be the same for this proposal. Quinn Simmons motioned to recommend acceptance of the collocation request for 2008-003 Cell tower at th 2593 E 14 N. Richard Jaussi seconded. All in favor, the motion passed. th Steve Richards motioned to recommend denial of the variance request 2008-003 for cell tower at 2593 E 14 N. Quinn Simmons seconded. All in favor, the motion passed. C. 2008-004 – Comprehensive Plan Map Change: Planning Director Ron Folsom explained where the property is located and they are requesting to change it to commercial. He explained the development agreement allows no more than two townhomes per building (that is, no more than twin homes) in the R-2 zone, but this zone still allows up to eight dwelling units per acre.. Jerry Kurshaw, representing West State Investments – 3171 E. 10000 S. Sandy, Utah, stated they have owned the property for about a year now and it has been approved for 8 duplexes per acre. In the following hearing it was noted that only town homes, not plexes, are allowed in this zone. The commission discussed talking about each item (items C & D) separately even though they are related. Jerry Kurshaw stated they are willing to move ahead with the way the plan has been approved. They got together with the neighbors and presented two options, they are glad to build these the way they are. There is another option that seems to be acceptable to a great amount of neighbors. That is Planning & Zoning 2-6-2008 Page 2 4/7/2008 what they would like to present as an option for neighborhood concerns regarding both density and traffic. They bought the property to move ahead with 8 units per acre, but he thinks there is a better way. The Commission said the developers could present this option in the second part of the discussion. Tom Hunsaker inquired why he feels the property would be better served as commercial rather than high density. Jerry explained it addresses most of the concerns with the neighborhood as far as traffic, density, and usage. They feel it is less impact on the neighborhood. They would like to put storage units on the back and commercial on the front with the through road on the west being eliminated. The amount of traffic going in and out would be reduced and there would be less impact on churches and schools. Jerry Mitchell, 3751 Marlene – Ammon, stated he has a lot of questions. He inquired if it was changed to a commercial zone, what could go in there. He is very concerned about the change from residential to commercial because of what can go in there. Ron Folsom explained that anything like the Ammon Town Center could go in there. Jerry Mitchell inquired if a funeral parlor could go in there. Ron stated yes. Ron explained what kinds of stores could th go in there. Jerry Mitchell inquired about the 17 Street frontage on the property and if it is zoned the same. Ron explained Eagle Pines is zoned C-1 and the rest is R-2. Jerry Mitchell stated he feels his questions were answered. Tom Hunsaker commented on the north side and Johnston property is A-1. Tom explained that when it comes time to grant a zone change, if we grant the change, we have the right as a city to say it is too liberal, etc. Jerry Kurshaw inquired if Mr. Mitchell is for or against the change. Jerry Mitchell stated he is against it. Lorraine Sant, 3665 Marlene – Ammon, inquired if we are talking about the comprehensive zone change or just about the corner. Ron explained the only thing we are talking about right now is the comprehensive plan change for this property and this is different than the zone change. Lorraine stated she is not against this if they do what they th say they are going to do and there are some restrictions to the type of commercial that will go along 17 Street. th Brad Pratt, 3683 E. 17 Street, explained he is not against it also, as long as, they do what they presented. He would like to see the proposal and make sure they do that. He has talked to several neighbors and they would like to be put on a map as commercial, as well. Gary Sant, 3665 Marlene, stated he is with Lorraine. He explained they live at the property directly south of the proposed property. He feels they will do what they say and he is happy with their proposal. He would like to make sure we can limit what can go in there. He also talked about his water rights. Ron explained that the City of Ammon attorney always recommends against conditional zoning. This means that if the zone change is approved, the property owner would be allowed to build whatever is granted by the zone, there would most likely be no restrictions. Melissa Lola, 3525 Greenfield, stated if the commercial property is used, as proposed, then she is for it. Debra Chambers, 3523 Greenfield, stated she is the secretary for Greenfield Townhouse Association and explained they had a meeting on Monday to discuss this with a pretty good turnout, about 1/4 to 1/3 of the homeowners present. She explained they do not want to have duplexes behind their homes. They are not opposed to the plan of going commercial if they do what they say they are going to. Tom Hunsaker inquired to both Melissa and Debra about the street not going through, if that affects them. Lorna Gordon, president of the Greenfield Townhouse Association, came to the microphone with Debra th Chambers. Debra explained they do not want the road to continue through to 17 Street for safety reasons. She explained the bus stop is right on the street. She feels it will be dirtier and louder. Melissa Lola stated she agreed. Lorna Golden stated she agreed. Quinn Simmons inquired that if they do exactly what they said then you are for it. Debra agreed. Quinn explained as a city, we cannot do this; you have to do what is in the guidelines. He inquired if they are okay with the types that are in Ammon Town Center because he cannot guarantee what these people will actually do. Debra inquired if they are asking whether or not they want commercial or residential. She stated if they are stating that if it goes commercial, they can get stuck with anything on that list, then she is against that. She stated she is not against what they have proposed to us. Richard Jaussi asked Tom if we could restrict what was put in there. Ron Folsom explained we can change the zone and that this is the most restrictive zone. Ron explained that if they change it to commercial and if they are granted the C-1 zone, and even if they build exactly what they want – in the years down the road they liquidate it, someone can come in and convert it to what they want as to what is allowed in that zone. He stressed the city attorney always advises against doing conditional zone changes. He explained they can put restrictions on the development as far as buffers, etc. He stated it is very unlikely the city attorney would allow them to say a certain item can only be in there. Debra explained the only things on the list she opposed are the gas station and pawn shop. th Terry Taylor, corner of 17 and Ammon, stated Brad Pratt said everything he would like to say. He would like to go on record as supporting the proposal. He stated he does not have any objections to the proposals. th Leslie Grigg, 3623 E. 17 Street, stated as far as the comprehensive change is concerned – he inquired if it is changed to C-1, would the process be allowed, to be pursued, to also zone the whole 20 acres to the north of this property into commercial and what would be the process for doing that. Quinn Simmons stated that property is not in the City of Ammon so it would have to be requested for annexation first. Ron Folsom explained if it develops low density residential, which is what it is today, we are fine with that. He explained that if the property owners want to go commercial, they need to come to the City as a group and request a comprehensive map change, annexation and a zone change. They would need to ask for specifically what they want to do. Leslie stated as far as the proposal is concerned, Planning & Zoning 2-6-2008 Page 3 4/7/2008 it would make more sense than putting in dwelling units. He is somewhat favorable towards their proposal and the C-1 change. He is also sensing that this property will be prime commercial property, in the future. The development of the commercial zones has not allowed for buffer zones and he is concerned there is no buffer planning. He is not sure what their proposal for buffer zones is but stated normally P&Z Commissions have them in their plan. He would like to represent his neighbor, Kim Hall, and he read the letter to the commission. Leslie stated he would still like to see the proposal. He stated he would put himself, at this point toward the proposal, but he would still like some more information. Dwight Whittaker, 3801 Marlene Street, stated his wife Kathryn is here also. He explained they have lived here for about 36 years. He read a letter he wrote to the commission. He attended the meeting with the developers and they were very congenial and courteous. They told him they could have a total of 80 units on the property, which would be about 320 people. His understanding was that the property only allows for 4 units per acre. He explained they presented the plans for the C-1 zone and the impact for the storage unit would be approximately 21 cars per day and 75-100 cars per day entering the neighboring commercial shops. He feels these numbers were understated. They are opposed to the proposed zoning from R-2 to C-1 and believe the property is best suited for residential and not commercial. They are concerned about the cascading effect of commercialization with business failures and it could be changed to any other commercial activity. They are concerned about traffic issues also. They feel the current zoning is adequate and appropriate. He explained one other observation he wanted the commission to be aware of is the property to the south is church property and the potential impact. Tom Hunsaker stated everyone who turned in a sheet had their chance to speak. He inquired if the commission would like to take a vote now or hear the proposal. Quinn Simmons stated since there is not anything bound by the zoning, he feels we can talk about the change of the comp plan. Jason Brown, Jerry Kurshaw’s business partner – 3171 E. 10000 S. Sandy, Utah, stated when they bought this property they knew it was a hornet’s nest. They came here because this is where his wife is from and they really liked this property. They do not want to create discord. They do residential and commercial developing and they presented two plans so they could get what was best for everyone. th Tom Hunsaker closed the public hearing. The commission discussed the property and about widening 17 th Street. City Engineer Lance Bates explained this property does not have a large frontage on 17 so, at the very least, he th feels we would require an additional right of way dedication. He is not sure it makes sense to widen 17 Street for only th this portion. Since the other side of the road is not in Ammon, we cannot force that. 17 is an arterial street and it will eventually look like it does on the other side of Ammon Road. Ron explained there is only one long term agreement on this property that was filed with the County in March 30, 1999. It does not have a density requirement; it only restricts this property to twin homes. There is nothing about th restricting access to 17 Street. Every development that is done is referenced to annexation or development agreement in the City of Ammon. Ron explained in the State of Idaho you cannot restrict a developer the right to request a zone change. He explained what a long range comprehensive plan is. th, Tom Hunsaker discussed what the Council would like to see north of 17 east of Ammon Road and south of Briar Creek Lane, the northern strip of which is already annexed and zoned commercial. There is more room for residential type developments but no place to tie into adjacent neighborhoods. He is not sure what will happen on the north side. He has seen high density northeast of WinCo and where low density dominates the high density. Quinn talked about what type of development we want to see in that area, as far as, the comprehensive plan. th We need to decide what type of development we want to see along 17 Street. Tom Hunsaker inquired of Ron and Lance what is the biggest type of anything we could put on the proposed property. Lance stated there are 11 acres and leaves a lot of room. It was discussed you could put a Kohl’s there, if the zoning was correct. Tom commented about the inability to provide a second residential access, if the south side of the property remains residential, with a change to commercial on the north side. Richard Jaussi motioned to accept the comprehensive plan map change to the 11.6 acres to be changed to a commercial designation. Scott Wessel seconded. Five in favor, one against. Dave Hill stated he would like to see this remain a residential section for the long range plan. He feels we have other areas available for commercial. The motion passed. th D. 2008-005 – Rezone Request – R-2 to C-1 (near corner of 17 & Ammon Road): Ron Folsom explained where the property is located. Jason Brown, 3171 E. 10000 S. Sandy, Utah, presented pictures for their proposed site. He presented what the residential proposal looked like. He explained that duplexes are investor targets. He explained the impact of the commercial proposal, and where the storage units would be, compared to the impact of the duplexes. The impact would be less for traffic and security for the storage units. He has not seen any impact on the property values. Tom Hunsaker inquired about the restricted hours for the storage units. Jason explained you can apply for a special entry code for after hours use so they can control the use and security. Jerry Mitchell inquired about developers being responsible for the improvements for the road. He explained that part of the road is not part of Ammon. He doesn’t understand how the City will handle which comes first, the road, Planning & Zoning 2-6-2008 Page 4 4/7/2008 the development, the widening, the compound, etc. Lance Bates explained the minimum is the dedication of the right th of way. He is not sure it makes a lot of sense unless other commercial widens their portion of 17. We have to take the bigger approach and bond for improvements. He is talking about an escrow fund type of the bond that the developer has to provide for. Gary Sant, 3665 Marlene Street, stated we have two choices - the high density housing, which everyone has always been against or this strip mall with a low impact storage unit behind it. He stated he votes for it. Jeff Glissendorf, 2865 Glenwood Drive, stated he is here to represent the party on the corner which is the Cellar Restaurant and Eagle Pines Plaza. He stated they are for turning it into a commercial zone. He also stated there th is a second lane on 17 Street, in front of the Cellar, and feels there is plenty of room. Melissa Lolo, 3525 Greenfield Drive, inquired if they are going to fence the storage unit, she would like to know if it affects her current fencing. She would like to know if they would have the black iron or her current fencing. Jason Brown stated it would be her choice. Tom Hunsaker stated that if you did not have fencing it would be the commercial property owner’s responsibility for putting something up. It has to be at least 6 feet high and must be something you do not see through. It must be a fence, a wall, a burm, or hedge. He stated most people want a white vinyl fence. You do not have to tear it down since it is already there. She inquired about the security and understands someone will be on site and the access codes. She inquired about alarms, dogs, lights, etc. Jason stated it is low impact so there will not be loud sirens. Melissa inquired about garbage. Jason said they take care of it. She inquired how long they plan to keep these. Jason stated economically it doesn’t make sense to tear them down. They plan to keep them. The chances are slim, although they cannot guarantee anything. She inquired how long these type of units stay up. Jason stated they use steel units and their life expectancy is 75 years. They are color coded and they look nice. Melissa stated with this proposal as it stands, she is for it. Ron stated in regards to the fence, there would need to be clarification for security purposes - is a vinyl fence enough? The other secure storage units in the City have block fences. Debra Chambers, 3523 Greenfield, stated she is concerned about fencing being solid or being able to push things underneath or digging under. She worries about duplexes going behind, and the types of people that could be there. She stated she is for commercial instead of residential. Tom Hunsaker commented about what the ordinance stated regarding R-2. Debra stated that they already have some unsavory characters in their vicinity at the townhomes they live in. She feels the prices would be reduced for the duplexes proposed and could bring in other people that she is not comfortable with. Dwight Whittaker, 3801 Marlene, stated he remains opposed to the same reasons as stated before. He feels commercial is not the best use of the property for the community. Jason Brown stated they are good unless the commission has any other questions. Tom Hunsaker closed the public hearing and opened the discussion within the commission. The commission discussed favoring the commercial over high density. They talked about the corner being commercial anyway. We th need a long term plan for 17 Street (Dave Hill). They talked about the storage units being a good buffer zone. Tom Hunsaker talked that a service station would be allowed in this zone, but talked that no alcohol would be allowed in the zone. Quinn Simmons motioned to recommend the rezone of the 2008-005 rezone request from R-2 to C-1 near the th corner of 17 Street and Ammon Road to the City Council. Richard seconded. Five for, one against. Dave Hill stated the same reasons as he previously stated. E. 2008-006 – Rezone Request – PB to R3-A – (at Pearl House site): WITHDRAWN ACTION ITEMS A. Recommendation on Public Hearings. 1. 2008-002: Tom Hunsaker stated they will already be holding one on this. 2. 2008-003: Tom Hunsaker stated they will already be holding one on this. 3. 2008-004: Tom inquired if the commission felt City Council needs its own public hearing or if we have enough information to give them. Quinn felt they needed to have an additional hearing in order to allow input from the community. Dave agreed. Tom commented that City Council will take public input, but it will not be as formal as a public hearing. He stated years ago State statute required two public hearings, but later the State legislature determined that was overkill. Tom stated most of the testimony was for, but a lot of “ifs”. Ron stated if the P&Z Commission recommends that City Council have a hearing, it is published for a hearing and goes to City Council as a public hearing. If the Commission recommends against a public hearing, it goes to City Council as an action item. If City Council determines a second hearing is needed, after all, they will stop it and reschedule it as a public hearing. Ron stated the last time City Council held a second public hearing for a comprehensive plan change (which was one without an accompanying zone change request) one person showed up after the City spent $1000 on it. The commission wanted to make sure they hear the pubic. Ron stated they do. Tom Hunsaker commented about the requirements for the public hearings. With the information given, the commission decided no public hearing is needed. Planning & Zoning 2-6-2008 Page 5 4/7/2008 4. 2008-005: It was discussed no public hearing was needed for this issue also. B. Preliminary Plat – Brogan Creek: Planning Director Ron Folsom stated he wanted to explain a procedural issue on this property. The P&Z Commission has the authority to order a public hearing on preliminary plats. Traditionally Ron recommends a public hearing on preliminary plats containing more than 10-20 lots. Alan and Ron discussed that this property has been preliminary platted and approved. It is in an area that people know is going to being developed and that is why did not hold a hearing on it. Even with this information, if the commission feels a hearing is warranted, they can order it and the developer will proceed with one. The commission discussed that they were comfortable without the new hearing. Ron explained where the property is located. Alan Cunningham, 1020 Lincoln Road Idaho Falls, stated the previous preliminary plat was turned into the planning commission in the spring of 2005 and was approved by City Council. He explained they expire after one year, and there was a second preliminary plat aside from this one. This was done by a potential owner and went before the planning commission but petered out after that. So the preliminary plat for this property has come before the planning commission twice, but only once to City Council. He stated that is why they did not have a public hearing, but stated if you would like to have one it is fine. He explained the differences between the original preliminary plat and the latest proposal. He explained this one has a little higher density in homes. He thinks there were about 80-85 lots originally and those lots were bigger. These lots are still huge and are zoned RP-A. They tried to stay at 125-130 frontage on some of the lots. He explained the LDS church is looking at property within this plat. They are proceeding with the preliminary plat. It has an access onto Sunnyside and into the Cottages. It has three other accesses that stub to adjacent properties - one to the southwest and the others to the property of Ed Biddulph. Tom Hunsaker inquired about the lots that are bigger than one half acre, and the water that each home can have. Lance Bates stated if it was on an individual well, it would be something different. Tom Hunsaker inquired about Block 6, Lot 2 and the size of it. Alan stated it is 1.9 acres right now. He stated Lance has given some comments on that lot and it has increased to 2 acres which allows for 1.3 inches in rain that can be stored in the storm pond. The preliminary plat encompasses about 88 acres and he included about 95 acres in what they need to store. Tom Hunsaker inquired about Block 1, south of Lots 4 – 11. Alan explained that the annexation went to where the bearing and distances are. There is a piece there and Ray’s house is south and he wants that open. Lance commented there is not a Lot 6, but two Lot 13’s. Alan stated there are a couple of typos. Tom Hunsaker inquired if we had some escrow to bridge the other side of the canal. Ron stated the north side is escrowed. They talked about the names of the roads. Steve Richards motioned to recommend approval of the preliminary plat for Brogan Creek. Quinn Simmons seconded. All in favor, the motioned passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS: th A. Work meeting on February 20: Ron Folsom reported on the variance request on the side yards in the R-E zone. The applicants were denied at City Council and one of them called and asked if they could be on the P&Z work meeting. He would have to petition the City for the setback and would like to come and talk, if you have a work session. There will be other issues as well, such as the comprehensive plan. Tom Hunsaker stated there is one other thing we need to do with the comp plan and would like to have a work session within the next few months and sit with our Parks Director to discuss some issues. He would like to be able to go to the BMPO with some ideas. Ron explained what the RE zone requirements are for setbacks and why the 50 feet was in question with the particular owners of two lots. Tom commented they would need to change the zone to make it work. It was discussed whether or not he came in, the City may not change the setback requirement. It was discussed their foundations are in and they do th not want to discuss the variance on side yards but they do want to have a work session on February 20. B. Confirmation of attendance of AIC workshop March 8, 2008: Ron asked to confirm who is going to the workshop. He stated six people out of nine are going. C. Open Discussion: The commission inquired about how we start rezoning an area. Ron explained that anytime the City tries for a rezone there is a potential of a taking. An example of a taking would be if you rezone property that is valued at $30,000 per acre and you rezone it to something worth $15,000 per acre. In Ron’s discussion with Scott Hall, there was a concern of the City having to pay for a taking. There are ways we could achieve some rezones by offering to rezone a property for the property owner and the City paying for the hearings. Some property owners will take that offer and some would not. REPORTS: st A. City Council Actions: Ron stated they are talking about getting Curlew through to 1Street and John Adams through to Hitt. He explained the size of the project is overwhelming and where we can get the money to do the project. Tom explained they are looking at a Local Improvement District (LID). Planning & Zoning 2-6-2008 Page 6 4/7/2008 B. City of Idaho Falls Planning and Zoning actions – Cindy Donovan: Cindy Donovan was absent, no report. C. Bonneville County Planning and Zoning actions – Tom Hunsaker: Tom reported the Bonneville P&Z meeting had no items in Ammon’s impact area, nor (particularly at 11:00 pm) any he believed would be of general interest to Ammon P&Z Commission members. The meeting was adjourned at 11:00 p.m. ____________________________________________ Tom Hunsaker – Chairman ___________________________________________ Leslie Folsom – City Clerk Planning & Zoning 2-6-2008 Page 7