September 10, 2008 Council Meeting

 City of Heyburn Council Meeting and Public Hearing Minutes

September 10, 2008

7:00 P.M.


Council Present:

Cleo Gallegos, Rocky Baker, Leann Smith and Dee Ray Bailey.

Employees Present: Linda Dayley, Scott Spevak and Steve Tuft.

Visitors Present:  John Walsh, Gina VanTassell, Kylee VanTassell, Marcus Meek,  Norma and Bill Morrison, Darrell and Janet Tilley, Paul Aston, Faye Cole, Kathy Adams, Scott Pratt, Karen Pratt, John and Janean Hendrickson, Ralph Buttars, Clayne Zollinger, Jr., Kristi Toolson, David Nevarez, Rian Pine, Chuck Loveland, Laurie Welch, Ila VanLeuven, Herbert Banda, Marion Wadsworth, Karen and Davis Vansant, Brent Stoker and Stan Zielinski.


Meeting conducted by Mayor George A. Anderson.


Pledge of Allegiance led by Mayor George A. Anderson.


Mayor Anderson amended the agenda to include Barajas/Banda construction in a Utility Easement.


Approve Minutes of the Council Meeting on August 27, 2008.

Motion by Dee Ray Bailey to approve the minutes for the Council Meeting on August 27, 2008 as written. Second by Rocky Baker. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Approve Minutes of the Special Council Meeting on September 3, 2008.

Motion by Cleo Gallegos to approve the minutes for the Special Council Meeting on September 3, 2008 as written. Second by Leann Smith. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Approve paying the Bills except the Bailey Oil Bill.

Motion by Dee Ray Bailey to approve paying the bills except the Bailey Oil bill. Second by Cleo Gallegos. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Approve the Bailey Oil Bill.

Motion by Rocky Baker to approve paying the Bailey Oil bill. Second by Leann Smith. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Abstained.


Discuss/Approve Amphitheater Activities - Marcus Meeks.

Marcus Meek, who serves on the Amphitheater Committee, owner of a local merchant and have a guitar shop in Burley and is active with the kids in the community in the field of music. Marcus updated the Mayor and Council on some of the events at the amphitheater and had some suggestions for the council to consider:  We have had some incidents and would like the council to see the brighter side of the letter that was received from one of the RV users. A few things that may help in the future use of the amphitheater:  a form letter, the sound system (how many decimals), what kind of music, who would be responsible, submit references from prior shows or possibly an adult sponsor, reconsider the time of evening and make the applicant check in with the Police Department. We have some really good kids in the area.


Clayne Zollinger and John Walsh spoke in favor of the events and music at the amphitheater and both complimented Marcus for all that he does.


After discussion, the Council decided to continue with the usage of the amphitheater and support the kids in the area.  Visitors in the RV Park when they check in would be informed that there is going to be a concert or post the information by the pay station. The concession of the council was to have the Amphitheater Committee set up the guidelines and bring back their suggestions for council approval.


Attorney Steve Tuft suggested updating the park ordinance.


Discuss/Approve Continuation of the Public Hearing for Elk Meadows for a Planned Unit Development.

Norma Morrison, Vice Chairperson for Planning and Zoning:  This is in reference to the Public Hearing for the Elk Meadows Planned Unit Development-PUD application by Terra Firma Properties for the preliminary plat approval. This was a hearing continued from last month so that the applicant could address concerns of the neighbors and zoning commission.


Richard Woods of Terra Firma Properties addressed the Planning and Zoning Committee on Monday, September 8, 2008 with some solutions to some of the concerns that we had. 


*Irrigation ditch: Terra Firma agreed to install an 8” irrigation pipe underground from the canal takeout adjacent to the east end of the proposed development with a valve at the end of the pipe so that the users may continue to receive canal water.

*Lighting: Terra Firma has had new drawings done of their plat to include lighting within the project.

*Fair Housing and ADA requirements: The project is under the requirements of the Fair Housing and ADA. The Minidoka County Building Department will enforce the codes for these entities.

*Wall or single story units along the Pratt property line: Terra Firma has agreed to put a row of trees along the boundary line between the Terra Firma project and the Pratt property line. It was not discussed as to the size or the kind of trees to be planted. This should be discussed prior to the final plat approval. The trees shall be planted in a timely manner and be determined prior to final plat approval.


Density of the project: Originally the Planning and Zoning Committee had concerns of the density of the project. Upon further investigation, we are comfortable that Mr. Woods

meets the building codes for the City of Heyburn.


*Playground Equipment: Mr. Wood is very adamant that he will not provide any playground equipment because of the cost of insurance. He has offered to contribute financially to the City of Heyburn to acquire some playground equipment in their city park which is adjacent to the south of the proposed project. The Code does not indicate that he is required to provide playground equipment. The code states that the PUD must have 10 percent of the gross land area developed, shall be reserved for common open space, and recreation facilities for residents or users of the area being developed.

 *Traffic: At this time there seems to be no resolution for this problem. The City Code reads as follows: The streets and thoroughfares proposed are suitable and adequate to carry anticipated traffic and increased densities will not generate traffic in such amount as to overload the street network outside the PUD.


There were discussions of Terra Firma purchasing additional property to put in a road to the west of Western Dairyman, however, this might or might not happen.


There was also mention of opening of 19th Street, which would allow an additional means of egress and ingress and would probably divert a portion of traffic in other directions. This will take much more investigation and working with the city to see if there are possibilities of doing this. Mr. Wood seems to be eager to work out what he can to be a good neighbor and a good asset to the City of Heyburn. The Planning and Zoning Commission in a unanimous decision that there needs to be a resolutions to the traffic situation and recommends that the City Council along with the Developer and Planning and Zoning seek to resolve the problem.


With this in mind, it is the Planning and Zoning Committee’s recommendation to the City Council that they approve the preliminary plat for the Elk Meadows Planned Unit Development-PUD and prior to the final approval the problem of traffic and playground equipment is resolved.


Mayor Anderson opened up the Public Hearing for the Elk Meadows.


*Applicant Richard Wood for Elk Meadows Subdivision (Terre Firma Properties).

In the Planning and Zoning meeting: Our biggest concern with the playground equipment is the fact that it is a liability that we are not willing to take simply because someone can get hurt. This is why we take care of the parking lot, the sidewalks and maintain the units in the way that they should be maintained. The playground equipment is just not something that we want to deal with. The property lines right up to the park, we wouldn’t be opposed to putting in a sidewalk, putting in a fence and a gate so that the kids could go straight to the park. Then again donating some money for either what you have there or what you would like to add. With the park being so close it is just right there anyway. We could put in some access so they can get to the park without going out into the streets.

* The lighting problem, we have talked about putting lighting in the subdivision in between each unit. These lights are not big halogen lights. They are basically lights that will light the sidewalk, the parking lot and entryways.

*I don’t have the perfect answer for the traffic concerns. I was at my development at Chubbuck and with my units and some other units next to them there are probably 10 to 15 more units then what we want to build here plus the neighboring residential housing. So, you have traffic coming from them as well. I haven’t had this issue before with traffic. It wasn’t brought up in any of the other meetings before.  I wanted to see what the traffic problem looked like at different times of the day and at no time did I see more than two people driving on that road before one was exiting. So as far as the traffic issue, I really don’t see the traffic issue. Granted I don’t live there. So what I consider not a problem and what they would consider a problem is going to be different.  Also, the whole reason we are buying this property is because it is zoned to do what we are doing. With that zoning it is going to have traffic. Commercial General is going to have some traffic regardless of what it is. As far as that goes if you guys have any other questions that I can answer any concerns I would be happy to.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey:  What are the widths of your streets, curb to curb?

* Mr. Wood: The width of the street is 52 ft back to back.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: How wide do you figure for 20th Street coming into there? 

*Mr. Wood: 40 ft of pavement.

*Steve Tuft: The minimum is 40 ft.

*Steve Tuft: The cul-de-sac is on the plat is showing it as 100 ft in diameter and I think Mr. Aston was saying that the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Fire Department might require it to be a little bit larger.

*Paul Aston: Probably be in the neighborhood of 120 ft.

* City Superintendent Scott Spevak: On the end of these streets is the Fire Department good with that.

* Paul Aston: Yes, as long as it a durable surface and they can move around. Both of those ways you can meet the fire service turn around or cul-de-sac the other is a T.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: According to this loop across the end that’s on city property that’s not on their property.

*Paul Aston: That’s true it’s like an alley. The loop would be out in the dedicated 19th Street.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: That has been abandoned.

*Paul Aston: No that’s not been vacated. Not that I could find.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: I was sure that we vacated that a long time ago. So that they could put that fourth ball park in there.

*Superintendent Scott Spevak: Paul would have a record of it if it was vacated.

*Paul Aston: I searched the county records and I could not find any indication where it had been vacated.

*Attorney Steve Tuft: Dee, if I had to guess, I would guess that we closed the street to use but it hasn’t been vacated.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: That may be what we did. I just remember that we made some moves so we could extend that ballpark and put diamonds in there.

*City Superintendent Scott Spevak: Your reasoning for not making this a full blown street with asphalt with curb and gutter is the cost.

*Richard Wood: Yes, we can’t use it anyway, there is no way to go, all it is for us to link it all back together for the Fire Department, so it is no use to us.  No one can get out or in on that road. We designed it so that we meet the Fire Department’s code and that’s where it ended.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: Residents will be driving around in it.

*Councilperson Cleo Gallegos: How will the Fire Department get in?

*City Superintendent Scott Spevak: They would have to come in through 20th Street.

*Richard Wood: Basically these are designed so that inside the subdivision they don’t have to go in and out in each loop without backing up or turning around.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: Have you approached any of these property owners about going through their property to 21st Street or 20th Street?

*Richard Wood: Have I personally? No. Apparently our realtor has talked to them about what we could do and try to figure out if we could actually get enough of the land so that you could make a continuous road through there. That’s what I last heard. The problem is whether we put a road there or we tie it to this road. The majority of the traffic is going to go towards town.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: No particularly if it goes to 21st it would be easier to get to 21st than from there than it will to go over.

*Richard Wood: How’s that?

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: Because you’re located here.

*Richard Wood: That’s right in the middle of the two streets. So if you’re going that way you’re going to turn that way.

*Dee Ray Bailey: Part of them will go that way and part of them will go the other way, but they all won’t go in the same direction. It will take the weight off the street over here.

*Superintendent Scott Spevak: If you did go to 21st Street you are going to pickup more traffic. If you were to head out to 18th Street it might would be a better option.

*Richard Wood: I can’t tell you one way or the other whether we could or couldn’t. I don’t know who owns the property. That’s what we usually run into we end up buying property so that we can use it the way it is without having to buy other parcels that we don’t know if we can buy in the first place. So that’s why this is designed the way that it is. Meeting all the codes. 

*City Superintendent Scott Spevak: Addressing the playground equipment unless you make it unavailable to the community you are going to have people coming over from the ballpark playing on that and pretty soon the city would have to take that park over. If you did want to contribute something the city has a real nice park (GaLawn) over here. We could surely utilize that money and put in some playground equipment over there, but you can’t keep these people over here out of there unless it is a gated community.

*Richard Wood: That’s what I’m saying.  With us building whatever we need to access into that road, sidewalk, path or whatever to get them into that.  There is going to be a lot of open space but it is not all together it is scattered all over through out the whole subdivision, so you know as far as them having enough play room to actually play ball next to the buildings is probably not going to be.  There are a few areas here where there might be whether or not they would have enough room to. 

*Councilperson Leann Smith: If you had a family in one of the units who chose to buy a swing set for their children, would you allow that or would you not?

*Mr. Wood: No, because we couldn’t control it. We couldn’t control a neighbor kid from getting on it and breaking their leg.

*Councilperson Leann Smith: So that would be something that would be included in your protective covenants.

*Mr. Wood: Yes, we have everything, dogs, cats it specifies every little thing because we run into things all the time that we add because we’ve never had it happen. That’s the reason we want a PUD so that we could control it. It’s not like having 40 or 50 neighbors that don’t want to take care of their yards. We get to control everything so that the units that we’ve invested in are going to stay nice.

*Councilperson Leann Smith: So are you renting to just adults with no children?

*Mr. Wood: No, we are renting to whoever would like to rent them.  It is not specified one way or the other.  The bottom units all have to be fair housing and a certain amount of them have to be handicap accessible.  There is a little bit of difference there but not a whole lot.  Any other questions?


Mayor Anderson: You will have an opportunity later to rebuttal. Is there anyone here that wants to speak in favor of the project?


*Darrell Tilley: Owner of the property. Darrell read the following letter dated August 27, 2008.

Dear Planning and Zoning and City Council,

            I think the developers of Terra Firma Properties have bent over backwards to resolve the concerns of the neighbors. They have had plans made and met with the City Manager.

            I would suggest that some or all concerned go to Pocatello and check out their properties. People have discussed the pros and cons of an association. There is an association by the river. The lawns are mowed for them and their yards are kept up on the appearance. There is a house that has been vacant for a while that is located on 18 River Run Estates. Go look at this nice yard. I know that when people have moved from houses that the lawns are not watered and the yards are in bad shape.

            This development would provide jobs for those that are building the units. The developers are spending millions to provide this to the community. Those who come to live will be retired or workers that will provide jobs and money for the economy. There will be more tax revenue for the area. If there are more people, the utilities and taxes can be shared with less burden on the rest of the community. This can be a real asset to Heyburn.

            Let me discuss some of the oppositions concerns. Miss Pratt eluded that my grandchildren play at her house and that I am not concerned for their safety. This is of course ludicrous. Miss Pratt works during the day and most of the year my grandchildren are in school. They are not at her house that much and I have not seen them playing in the street at her home. We used to live on 21st Street and O Street. That is the four way stop on Alfresco. I am sure that there is probably ten times the traffic there than there would be on 20th Street from this development. I love my grandchildren. I never had one injured or hurt from traffic while we lived there. There are many people who live on 21st Street. I lived in Heyburn for over fifty years and I can’t remember any children being injured or killed on this busy street.

            I really have not seen that many children playing on H Street. The families are usually in their homes or in their back yards. Most of the children are grown in the neighborhood. Most of the people work and are not home during the day and I can only think of one student that is in school most of the year.

            I have talked to some who were against this development. One said, “I don’t know if now I am for or against the development.” Another said. (I won’t mention names) “It probably won’t be any worse than, so and so, speeding around the corner.”

            The Christensen’s live on the corner of 21st Street and H Street. Amber was worried about her dog getting hit. It is more likely that her dog would get hit on 21st than H Street.

            Another referred to the sign, Welcome to Heyburn. Welcome means to gladly receive; permitted or invited in. I think we can invite new people into Heyburn. I think there will be new friends and acquaintances made with these new people.

            With teaching school for thirty-two years in Heyburn, I know that enrollment at the school has dropped about two hundred. With a new school coming to Heyburn, I am sure that people would be encouraged to enroll their children in school.

            The developers have told me that time is of the essence. They have worked hard to solve the concerns of the neighbors. I believe they will work hard with the City of Heyburn to solve any problems. I know that this is a great opportunity for the City of Heyburn. Do not let this opportunity pass you by. This will create jobs, bring money and tax revenue and boost the economy of the City of Heyburn. Sincerely, Darrell Tilley.  Thank You      

*Marion Wadsworth from Mountain West Realty: I want to address your concern with some of the property owners around. Dee Yeaman graciously offered to sell property. He has sold a couple of those parcels so he needs to check to see if a road will fit in there and the Dairyman Association has been absorbed into a bigger company. What I would like to kind of reiterate is that this property has been zoned commercial general so for good developers and we have good developers and they are coming and they are looking for property. They are looking at Heyburn they’re looking at the Mini-Cassia area. We have a lot to offer developers. The reason I’m here is that these are good developers; they want to stick to codes and want to meet the code guidelines. They want to work with the City of Heyburn. They have done this before.  They want it to be a beautiful place. It’s harder to get a loan to buy a house. Apartments in the area are needed. Elk Meadows will have people of all ages. It will be a beautiful block in the City of Heyburn. If we could get this passed this and go for a final plat.

*Greer Copeland: I attended the zoning meeting the other night. I am not really affected by this but I’ve known Mr. Wood for about fifteen years. I’ve seen his lots in Bannock County in Inkom and Pocatello both. It’s not his first one that he has developed. I know there is a lot of a concerns with the surrounding residents. Its fair housing, the road and the traffic, that’s a plight that we are all going to have to go through with development. I have also set on the school board for twelve years. I know what kind of reduction in population we’ve had in the last ten years. Whatever Richard does I am going to guarantee.  He is not new to the community. He owned a home on 600 South for a couple of years. He is here a lot; he loves to play in the river. I‘ve known him and whatever he tells you is going to be the truth. As far as development; we would love to see it. We are always talking about it on the school board. We want to see industry and residential coming into the area. The Planning and Zoning, I would like to correct a couple of things, when they were talking about trees inbetween the subdivision and the Pratt residence. He (Richard) has stated, Mr. Tuft maybe you can reiterate this, he had stated that he would put in trees on the backside of the property in Pocatello because the Mayor had wanted it. I don’t think he made an agreement to put in trees between his property and Pratt’s so that maybe should be clarified by the planning and zoning.  I didn’t hear it in that meeting and maybe someone else did.  I don’t know.  That’s a clarification that maybe Mr. Tuft can clarify that to you, but I never heard it.

*Attorney Steve Tuft: We will let Mr. Wood clarify that himself.

*Greer Copeland; Okay, thanks for your time and like I say, Richard lives in Minidoka County its not the first property that he has owned and developed. He is here all the time, back and forth. It’s not property that will go to heck. He has proper management. He is willing to drop millions of dollars for the City of Heyburn. I’ve seen Richard’s property and it’s immaculate.  Thank you.


Mayor Anderson asked if anyone else wanted to speak in favor of the Subdivision. Hearing none we will listen to those who oppose.


*Gina VanTassell: I live on H Street. Even though the density meets the code the change of the community is going to be huge. The concerns with that have an increase of crime and violence. We currently have one rental in our neighborhood. With that one rental it has brought several problems into our neighborhood.  We’ve had theft, vandalism and at one point there was a meth lab there. That concerns us that these are just rentals and these people are just temporary. They’re coming in and due to their circumstance of their situation they might be single parents. That’s what we had across the street, we had single parents who were working and the children were just left to run a muck, if you will.  That concerns us.  Also the concern obviously traffic it would either have to go down 20th Street and or turn at H Street where we live and as Amber Christensen isn’t here tonight.  She’s ill.  She brought up the point the other night that if there are 92 units that going to be at least one vehicle per unit.  Generally, most households have more than one vehicle so we are talking close to 200 vehicles and possibly more.  Just on our street, the four houses that are there, she counted 15 vehicles that we own and that’s not counting Bohon’s motorcycles.  So, anyway, it will be a huge difference in our neighborhood as far as the traffic.  I have nothing against the developer, nothing against progress and the fact that we are always looking for a better community. On our street that we live on we’ve had city councilman.  We’ve had little league directors.  We have registered voters and concerned citizens of Heyburn. We are probably the second to the last ones that actually moved there and we have lived there 27 years. I know the same people have lived there and we look out for each other. It’s been a great little neighborhood.  I might mention, too, that all those in favor of the project stand to benefit in a monetary sense and also those who are in favor of the project don’t live in Heyburn. They have no interest in our city.  They may say that they want to develop the city, but it’s a monetary thing and I can’t blame them for that.  Everybody is out to take care of their families and take care of themselves, but that’s a concern of mine and the fact that those who are in favor don’t even live here.  It would be great to have a road there by the ballpark, but if you open 19th Street back up you are eliminating two of the ball fields and also the hockey rink right there. If you bring a road out to 18th Street you are going to be having the same problem. You will have a busy road with a ballpark and to me that does not make sense (busy road - little kids). Like I said, I don’t have anything against the developer and a comment was made that they can’t control how many live there.  Well, surely they can control that.  They could be single-family homes back there or just duplexes, less units.  That would control the density and possibly help with the traffic.  As long as they are to code and as long as we could have meet and agree with something that would be with the traffic that wouldn’t be such a concern, that would be great.  I don’t know if it would be feasible to take a road straight out to the highway and just go over the railroad tracks.  We have two roads that go over the railroad tracks.  I don’t know, but generally like I said, we have a great little neighborhood and I enjoy living there and I appreciate your time. Thank you. 

*Karen Pratt: I own the property adjoining this piece that is for sale. I’m going to let my brother in law speak a little bit longer than I am. I have a few items.  One of them is we requested that a fence be put up between my property and this property. The trees would be nice, also, don’t get me wrong but if it goes through we would like a block wall. Mr. Woods stated that in Chubbuck that you put up a vinyl fence up between the properties, which would be really nice. The ballpark is a big concern.  He stated at Planning and Zoning that he could open 19th Street could be opened and that traffic could go down that direction. 19th Street is, as far as I know has never been closed at least not on my end. My fence that adjoins the ball field is on my property. The city is using all of the roadway. That would mean that the backstops that are there, the bleachers and the lights. Everything in those two backfields, the irrigation water. All of those things would be affected if they opened 19th Street on that end anyway. We really believe that there needs to be another way that if they do in, that these vehicles can exit because again it would be against a park and children and play area.  The traffic is something that we are really concerned about.  The gentleman last month stated that he figured that there was one car every three minutes would be down that road in an 18-hour period.  That’s a lot of cars on that road and I don’t know that any of you have that many that go past your house.  A car every three minutes and basically those are the points I want to cover.  I’m going to let my brother-in-law cover a few others. 

*John Hendrickson: I’m Mr. Hendrickson, brother in law to Karen Pratt and my wife is the administrator over the Virginia Pratt Estate there so this is our interest in this matter. Mayor did you and the Council receive the letter that I gave the Planning commission the other night.  I’m not sure that was in your packets or not.    

*Attorney Steve Tuft: Apparently not Mr. Hendrickson.  It is available as far as a record.

*John Hendrickson: That’s why I asked the question. Otherwise I have a copy that I can give them. I don’t want to read it because they can read it themselves but I do have a second one that I do want to read if you don’t mind.

*Attorney Steve Tuft: It is up to you if you them to read it and if they don’t have it then they can’t make a decision tonight and I’m not sure that’s in everybody’s best interest. Because they would have to take the time to read it and its not available to them. If you want to summarize it like you did and you feel that’s okay, that’s your choice or you can read it verbatim.

*John Hendrickson: Okay, I have two letters then. Can I give them the letter then and read it. Then read the second letter because it is a response to what happened in the Planning commission meeting.

*Attorney Steve Tuft: That’s up to the Mayor.

*Mayor Anderson: Yes that would be okay.

John Hendrickson: Read the following two letters: 


Mayor and City Council                                                           September 5, 2008

City of Heyburn


Chairperson and Commissioners

Heyburn City Planning Commission


RE: Elk Meadows Development


Dear Mayor, Council and Commissioners:


In August you took under consideration the development of a 23-building, 92-unit complex on 20th Street.  Additionally, it was proposed that 43 storage units would be built at one end of the project, at the end of the 775-foot dead-end street.  The Commission’s recommendation to the City Council, after hearing testimony, was that they refer it back to the Commission for further consideration and review of several particular items, namely: traffic congestion and street improvements, open-space improvements, irrigation ditch alignment, types of buildings allowed adjacent to neighbors lots, and site improvements and development.  The Council accepted the Commissions recommendation and it is now back on the Planning Commission’s Agenda.


At the time of the first meetings, living out-of-state, I had very little time to review the City’s codes.  They are not on line at the Heyburn website.  There is no link or mention that most of the code is in the Minidoka County codes and these are on-line.  I would suggest that this be corrected.  After the hearings with both the Planning Commission and the City Council I was able to finally obtain copies and review on-line the applicable codes.  I discussed these matters with Mr. Aston, the Zoning Administrator.  The code structure is not particularly easy to follow, but, after a review of the codes, I am satisfied that multi-family residents are allowed to be built in the Commercial General Zone.  I am also satisfied that a multi-family PUD as proposed may be built to the densities sought.  However, there are requirements that are not met in the specific Elk Meadows proposal.


Chapter 9 of the Zoning Code (Title 8) deals with the requirements of a Planned Unit Development (PUD).  Among those requirements that deal with the concerns of the Elk Meadows PUD are the following:


  1. Traffic/Traffic Congestion – Section 8-9-4-C., which describes one of the requirements of a PUD, states, “That the uses be located and so designed to provide direct access to a collector or arterial street without creating congestion or traffic hazards”.  The Elk Meadows PUD is located on 20th Street, a 775- foot dead-end local street that is 50-feet wide.  As acknowledged by the developer, the development would produce a minimum of 1 car ever 3 minutes over an 18 hour period.  We know it won’t happen exactly like that, but, any rational individual, even in a larger community, would describe that as “congested”.  The remedy allowed is that the project have “direct access to a collector or arterial street”.  The nearest collector road is Alfresco which is one block away to the north.  There is no connecting road with direct access.  However, an offer was made by a land owner that is adjacent to both 20th and Alfresco, opposite the development, to sell the land so the road could be built.  We believe this connector road should be required as one way to meet the conditions of 8-9-4-C.  We also believe that a 100-foot diameter cul-de-sac turn around at the end of 20th Street also be built.  Additionally, we would recommend that the speed limit on 20th Street be lowered to 15 MPH because of the amount of cars that will use the road.  We agree with the proposal that the road should be widened with curb, gutter and sidewalk on at least the proposed developments side of 20th Street.


  1. Open Space Improvements – In Section 8-9-6, titled, “Common Open Space”, it states, “A minimum of ten percent (10%) of the gross land area developed in any residential PUD project shall be reserved for common open space and recreation facilities for residents or users of the area being developed”.  We believe that the word “and” in the paragraph is important as it means that the developer does not have an option of whether to put in recreational equipment or not.  It must have open space and recreational facilities.  Elk Meadows Development did not include this in their plans and should be required to do so.  Also, we believe that the recreational area should be required to be built no later than 25% of the buildings are completed.


  1. Irrigation Ditch Alignment – There is an irrigation ditch that supplies our properties with water from the Minidoka County Irrigation canal.  We would request that a minimum of an 8-inch pipe be installed underground from the canal takeout adjacent to the east end of the proposed development with a valve at the end of the pipe so that we may continue to receive canal water.  The developer acknowledged that he would provide the access and we might suggest that he investigate how the development may also benefit from this irrigation system.


  1. Types of Adjacent Buildings – We had requested that single-story buildings only be allowed along the western boundary line of the development.  We would renew that request and also ask that a 6-foot sight-barrier fence be required along the west boundary and that it be in place prior to the occupancy of the first unit built in the project.  If single-story buildings are not required along the western edge, we would then request that trees be planted every 20 feet along and inside the developments property between the units and the fence.  This would at least help meet one of the intended purposes of the PUD, which is to provide “… harmony with land use density …” surrounding the development.


  1. Site Improvements and Developments – In Section 8-9-4-B. and D. of the PUD code, it states, “B. That the uses are intended to serve principally the residents at the PUD”, and “D. That a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of the proposed residential development occur prior to the development of the related commercial … land uses.”  We request that requirement (B) be specifically included in the CCR’s of the HOA and both B. and D. are included in the conditional requirements of any approval for the project.  Section 8-9-9 states specifically, “Planting screens or fences shall be provided on the perimeter of the commercial areas abutting residential areas”.  We request that the developer, as part of the approval process, provide this landscape and screening plan as well as the timing of installation and that the commercial development may not be started prior to 50% of the residential portion being completed.  Section 8-9-9 further states, “All areas designed for future expansion or not for immediate improvement shall be landscaped or otherwise maintained in a neat and orderly manner”.  We ask that you require the developer to provide the method and manner in which he will meet this requirement.  Finally, we request that the developer indicate how they will handle on-site and off-site drainage.  We request that no Final Development Plan is approved without an assurance that adjacent properties will not be affected by storm drain or watering run-off.

 We would like to thank the Planning Commission and City Council for their time and deliberation on this matter.  We believe that there may be at least a couple of items that you may want to consider with regards to future planning so that others are not affected as we feel we will be by this development. 


1.      We would suggest that a specific section of the code be written dealing with dead-end streets and cul-de-sacs.  We would suggest that no dead-end street or cul-de-sac be allowed longer than 600 feet and a residential density of no more than 25 units be allowed on that cul-de-sac or dead-end street of that length.  These standards are common in numerous communities and are consistent with the recommendations of fire departments everywhere.

2.      That a simple change in the “permitted” versus “special” uses in the General Commercial zone, or any other zone for that matter where the primary use is different than the intended use, be made so that all uses other than the primary uses are approved under a “special use” designation.  This would allow the Commission and Council to review and require developments that may be incongruent with current surroundings to develop in a way that helps mitigate intrusive elements of the proposed development.


Again, thank you for your attention to this matter.


Sincerely yours,


John and Janean Hendrickson                                        Karen Pratt

(Administrator of Estate Adjacent Property)                  (Adjacent Land Owner)


And that’s the letter that I read to the Planning commission.  I will say that most or a lot of those things have been addressed by the developer and we appreciate that.  We think that he may be a very fine developer and fine gentleman.  I haven’t had a chance to go to Pocatello and look at the development. 


September 10, 2008


Mayor and City Council Members

City of Heyburn

Heyburn, Idaho


RE:  Elk Meadows PUD


Dear Mayor and City Council Members:


My understanding is that you have received my letter dated September 5, 2008, addressed to both you and the Planning Commission, concerning the development of the Elk Meadows Planned Unit Development (PUD).  In these remarks I will not particularly repeat what I wrote in the September 5th letter other than to address a couple of specific concerns that are required of this development and a concern that they are addressed directly in any approved Development Plan.  Also, I want to address some of the recommendations that the Planning Commission will make regarding Elk Meadows PUD.


First, as I pointed out in the September 5th letter, Section 8-9-4-C requires that the PUD development have direct access to a collector or arterial street.  It was agreed by the Zoning Administrator that 20th Street, which is the street abutting the development, is a local road and not a collector street.  He also agreed that “H” Street is a local street.  It is our contention that the nearest street to the development that can be construed to be a collector street is 21st Street (Alfresco).  It is our contention that “direct access” means access either to the street abutting the property or to a road that can create an immediate, short, straight line access to a collector road without taking turns to get to that collector road.  We’re sure a court would agree with this view.  Residents in the development, without a second road that directly accesses onto Alfresco, will have to travel 300-800 feet down 20th Street, take a right turn on “H” Street, and travel another 300 feet to Alfresco.  We contend that utilizing 20th Street and then “H” Street does not meet the definition of “direct access” and therefore, unless the second road is built connecting 20th to Alfresco, the development should be denied. 


The developer contended in the Planning Commission Meeting that requiring him to install this second road may put an undue financial burden on the development.  However, we would like to remind the Council of a couple of points.  It is not a requirement that you make a development fiscally viable.  You are the determiner whether the requirements have been met, not the developers prerogative.  The code requires that Elk Meadows have direct access to a collector road.  The other point is that the City of Heyburn has already taken a large financial burden off the developer.  The City, at its own cost, on the day prior to the last City Council Meeting, paved 20th Street from “H” Street to end of 20th Street.  The distance was about 800 feet and would have been a development requirement of the developer, thus saving the City that cost.  Having already saved the developer the cost of building and paving that 800 feet, it is hard for us to understand why the developer believes building a shorter street to 21st Street (about 300 feet) will be the financial burden he claims, even though he would have to buy the right-of-way.  Again, we would ask that he be required to build the second, direct access road.


The second concern is not as critical, but does address the “open space” requirement in Section 8-9-6 of the code.  Again, we contend the code requires both open space and recreation facilities for the developments residents.  While the term “recreation facility” is not defined, it is again up to you and not the developer to define what this means.  The developer contends that he cannot afford the liability insurance of a “tot lot” but would be glad to pass that onto the City in a form of donation.  We contend that the code requires the facility to be on site for the benefit of the development residents and putting it off-site and somewhere else, including the adjacent park, does not fulfill the requirements of the code.  Additionally, in speaking with an HOA management company, they indicated that a “tot lot” would add a “negligible cost” to any current liability policy.  Again, the Elk Meadows HOA will be responsible for the liability policy and so we do not see why the cost of a liability policy should be determinant in whether you approve or deny the requirement.  We believe the requirement should be implemented not with a donation but with an on-site recreational facility - like a tot-lot.


We would concur with the other recommended requirements suggested by the Planning Commission.  The developer indicated to the Planning Commission he would abide by all development codes.  We are not opposed to well-planned and constructed and maintained family housing projects such as those proposed.  However, we do not believe that this is the best site for the number of units being built, and so, without the second road and the other improvements required in the codes and those recommended by the Planning Commission, we believe you should reject the proposal.


Again, thank you for your time and consideration. 




John and Janean Hendrickson                                    Karen Pratt


Since I have taken so much time, I won’t take much else.  I did talk to a person who deals with liability insurance, and I would gladly give you his name.  I think the difference was about $500 a year spread over 93 units was about 50 cents a month per HOA unit to have a recreational facility on site and I think my sister in law was correct, I don’t think that property down on that end may be abandoned and if you did abandon it, I don’t remember who told me this.  Maybe it was Paul, was that you do have to deed, when you abandon a road, you deed it to both property owners on both sides and I’m sure you know that and I’m sure you know that.  Anyway, those are my comments.  Thank you for your time.  If you have any questions, I would be glad to answer them. 


Mayor Anderson asked if there were any more questions or if any one else that would like to speak again. Hearing none he opened the hearing up for rebuttal:


Richard Wood:

Trees on the fence line: No I did not agree to do that, but I’m not opposed to it.  We are going to plant trees anyway, but no I did not agree to do that.

Irrigation ditch: I did not agree to the size of an 8-inch pipe with a drain line with a gate. That’s mostly up to my engineers to decide what size that’s supposed to be and how it is supposed to be put in. I did agree that we would take care of the irrigation ditch. Just for the record that we are not held to putting in an 8-inch pipe when it supposed to be 12-inch, but whatever it takes to do it right is what I am saying we will do.

There was some talk about why can’t this be for single families? It is not zoned for single families. That’s why we are doing what we are doing because it isn’t zoned for single families.  It is zoned commercial general property.  We would have to come into the same meetings that we are coming to right now to do single families.  It is just not zoned to be single families.  It is zoned to do what we are doing.

Storm water: Every bit of storm water that is from the project will be maintained and kept on the project on this subdivision.

Street for Traffic: Like I said before, there is no way that I can guarantee that we can do that. We don’t have the property to connect it to 20th Street nor do I know that we can get it. There is no other way to take the traffic out as it is right now. Also, I just don’t see it as a problem. For commercial general property, this kind of traffic is not a problem.  This  is what it is supposed to be.

Playground equipment: We cannot control the usage (who plays on it) or control the equipment. It is there without anyone being there to watch it to see if people are watching their kids or what’s going on there.  Not only that, to know the kids that are living there that they are the only ones playing on it, therefore bringing more liability off the park and putting it on our equipment.  It’s not designed to be a playground.  It is designed to have backyards and bar-be-que and have nice things but no playground equipment.   When we looked at the property, the playground and the park right behind it was obviously a big thing to us so they do have someplace to go if they don’t want to be in the backyards or in the common area of the subdivision. 


Once again, I just wanted to say that these are going to be nice places. We are not here to throw millions of dollars away. If we do not take care of our properties, if we let them get run down we will not get them rented for a good price to pay for the property itself. It is in our best interest, as a PUD and the owners to take care of this property. Which is why we are here in the first place to make it a PUD so that we can control how it is taken care of.  Any questions?


*Councilperson Cleo Gallegos: I am looking at your boundary lines of your fencing in the area that is connected to the ballpark or is that just going to be open.


Mr. Wood: We can, like I say, we haven’t gone to our final plat. There are a lot of things that we need to negotiate. We have to decide one way or the other. I, personally, think it would be a good idea.  Whether or not is going to be the way it is, I don’t know.  It hasn’t been engineered that way. 


*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: I have a problem with you calling our ballpark a playground. It’s a ballpark and a skate park.  There is not playground equipment over there. But my main concern is a road to 21st Street - direct. I visited with Mr. Yeaman on the phone as I came walking in here. He didn’t say anything about a realtor approaching him about a street through there or buying that property. I know him quite well. Him and I share the same grandkids. So, anyway he doesn’t own it clear through to 21st Street. Barry Spaulding has the front lots and Yeaman has the back lots. But I’m still not in favor of it without going to 21st Street - direct. Not with that much traffic. I think you could do your homework and figure out what that would be.

*Mr. Wood: I cannot buy somebody’s property who doesn’t want to sell it.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: You have to visit with them to find out if they want to sell it first.

*Mr. Wood: We have tried like you say he doesn’t own it all the way to 20th Street. There is no way for us to talk to him or talk to.   It’s one of those things.

Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: Sure there is. You have a realtor that’s setting you and him up there is other people that you can approach, but I’m not going to set and argue with

you. My issue is that you need to go to 21st Street.

Mr. Wood: And it does. From H Street.

*Councilperson Cleo Gallegos: That’s the only way that I can see it so that it has another access road because I would totally fight it going through the ballpark area.

Councilperson Leann Smith: I just don’t see why everybody is so intent that everybody is going to go down here and make a turn and go down H Street. They can keep going and go down I Street. You can keep on going and go on J Street. Then come right over and head over to Burley. I don’t feel like that all the traffic is going to be funneled down H Street. My daughter lives on I Street and you talk about traffic to that ballpark. There is a whole lot more traffic than just this.


Attorney Steve Tuft: If I can make a suggestion that this is the time to get any information that you need to during the hearing. Ask questions of Mr. Wood and then close the hearing and have this kind of discussion. This may not be totally appropriate for this point of the hearing.


Mayor Anderson asked if there were any other questions for Mr. Woods.


*Councilman Rocky Baker: I have got some issues with the fire access. This proposed 20 ft graveled service road. I don’t like the thought of it taking out our ballparks. If you have to loop that in order to get the fire trucks around then the only access is off 20th Street. How do we mitigate the service road when it takes our ball fields out? Have you talked to anybody about that?

 *Mr. Woods: That service road is actually part of the property unless it has been taken out. Right. There is no other way to get around to the back of the property without having access into all those units. I mean I’m kind of cut off with 19th Street gone so there is no way to access the back of the property.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: You could shorten up your development. That’s how you would do it. 

*Mr. Wood: Push it all into our property. So push our street that is supposed to be there onto our property.

*Attorney Steve Tuft: This is kind of a staff question. I wonder if you want to ask Mr. Aston any questions that you can ask during the hearing. You can’t after.

*Councilman Rocky Baker: Paul, what are your thoughts?

*Paul Aston: All I know is that it meets fire code requirements. I’m not going to get into the issue of  I’ve not measured to see if it will take out any ballpark or ball diamonds or anything like that. Scott would probably have a better feel for that. To my knowledge it is a dedicated street. A 20 ft wide graveled surface would comply to the fire code.

*Councilperson Cleo Gallegos: So Scott, regardless, or Paul if say we pass this and agree with that then they are coming clear into that ballpark and skate park is.

*Paul Aston: They are using basically the north half of the north of 19th Street, excuse me, 19th Street for that loop. And like I say I have not been out there to measure to see if that will interfere with the ball diamonds. I don’t think it will cut into the skate park.

*City Superintendent Scott Spevak:  It would cut into maybe one ball field. I think Mrs. Pratt said that her fence was the property line. The skate park sets further to the south. It wouldn’t involve the skate park at all. It would probably take some of the ball field closest to the skate park. It is a dedicated street unless it has been vacated and I don’t think it has.


Attorney Steve Tuft: What is in front of you tonight is the approval or disapproval of the preliminary plat. It doesn’t mean that all questions have to be resolved. It means that if you think you can approve this as a concept and you think it is a viable concept and there aren’t any deal breakers out there,  that if you feel that this just isn’t a concept that can’t work then you don’t want to approve it. If you think that the concept is fine but that a lot of things are open ended and you approve the preliminary plat and then between now and the final plat then you can visit with staff, which is basically Scott, Paul, myself and others then you come to agreements or recommendations and the developer submits a final plat based upon that and either says that they will comply with that or I want a waiver and then you go to the final plat process. Does that answer your question?  I think that’s where you were going. 


Mayor Anderson asked if there were any more questions for Mr. Wood? Hearing none he closed the Public Hearing.


Council Discussion and Comments


*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: I don’t have anything against these gentlemen and what they want to do, because I see rentals as being a good deal. But, I still believe that we have to have controlled growth with it set up the way it needs to be so that everybody is affected properly. We want the safety of the residents that are living there as far as fire protection being able to get in and out of there, street access for buses and emergency vehicles. I don’t have a problem with the development at all but I wish it was set up a little bit differently.

*Councilperson Leann Smith: Like I said I feel like the traffic issue that we have good streets there that have been accepting a lot of traffic as it is and I don’t foresee that every person here is just going to go up here and turn on H Street. I think if you were heading to Burley that you would go clear on down and turn on the other access road. I don’t feel that the congestion is going to be that definite on that one street. I guess that you learn to live with the growth that comes around you. I think that the cul-de-sac needs to be increased to the 120 ft., That is one of the stipulations that need to be made. As far as the looping around, if that street hasn’t been vacated that’s their property.

*Councilperson Cleo Gallegos: I just want to make sure that the fire codes and the access and all of that is done so we don’t look back and say this was a big mistake. I’m not against the development but I feel that it’s an awful lot of units to put in that area. I can’t quite visualize it but I’m not a builder either.

*Councilman Rocky Baker: I still would like to see a road from down Yeaman area over to 21st Street. I hate to lose a ball field. I don’t know where the city would get the money to put it elsewhere. If we could run a road over to 21st Street and alleviate Pratt’s and the rest of the residents concerns with the access to figure out this loop down at the ballfield, the density, that Paul talks about, they are met. The code says you can do it. It looks awful busy to me.

*Councilperson Cleo Gallegos: I drove down from 20th right straight through to Spaulding’s and I know Spaulding’s have not been approached at all for their property.


Mayor asked for any more comments:


*Councilman Rocky Baker: I guess, my thoughts are to keep going towards this and work the situation out and mediate our problems. That is what we need to do. I don’t want to see it go somewhere else. I really don’t. I would like to see this project happen. But like Dee said there are things that need to happen here that we as councilman feel that we haven’t let our citizens down that are already living here and the future citizens that are going to be living here, having good access in and that’s the way I feel about it. We need to work this out with you. I think that we can do it. I really do and it’s just going to take level heads and trying to get some accesses and do it.

*Councilman Dee Ray Bailey: I would like to see the effort made before we approve the preliminary plat approval, personally. I would like to see some evidence that they have tried to figure out a way to get to 21st Street and take care of that situation.

*Councilperson Leann Smith: Could we approve what they are doing with the exceptions of these things that need to be worked out. Like you said it’s not the final plat and there’s room for improvement in the plan.

*Attorney Steve Tuft: If you approve the preliminary plat, you are approving concepts. You are not really approving details, just like on a subdivision plat. You are saying Yes, I want this to go forward and refine it into a final plat. Just say hypothetically if that’s what you want to do, you could also give some direction. To Paul, for example, Mr. Aston has areas that you thought needed to be addressed, that need to be resolved between now and the final plat if that’s your choice.

*Councilperson Leann Smith: My question is: If they purchase this property and we have our ballpark on their property, can’t they come and tell us to move it? I’m just saying are we on their property? Has anybody really decided, yet, if we are?

*Attorney Steve Tuft: I don’t know the answer to that. I don’t think so.

*Superintendent Scott Spevak: We haven’t vacated that. It belongs to the city.


Discussion on vacating of 19th Street, codes and definition of direct access. Traffic study defined the arterial collectors.


Councilperson Leann Smith: I don’t want to see this project go away. I think it’s a good thing for our community. I think we do need rental properties available and nice ones. That’s what I would like to see and this one looks like a nice development. I’ve been around the River Run Estates and that’s beautiful the way they have it set up as an association where they take care of everything. I think that we need this kind of housing.  I think it’s a good place for it to be. 


Attorney Steve Tuft: I would encourage you to make a decision again, because I’m trying to remind you that this is a preliminary plat not a final approval. If you believe that this concept simply cannot work then you need to reject the plan. If you believe that it could work or it could work with some adjustments then really I think your obligation is to accept the plat, as a planning document to see if it could be worked out to a final plat. 


Motion by Dee Ray Bailey to approve the Preliminary Plat, with the street figured to go to 21st Street and get the fire access road within their property lines. Second by Rocky Baker. Vote: Rocky Baker - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye; Cleo Gallegos - Abstain; Leann Smith - Abstained.  Motion carried.


Discuss/Approve Public Hearing for a Rezone from Residential Medium to Commercial Local.

This item will be back on the agenda for October 8, 2008.


Update on the Chamber of Commerce - Brent Stoker. 

Brent Stoker gave a presentation on the Mini-Cassia Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center - The Front Door of Our Community. It represented the Visitor Center purpose, features, stats of walk-ins, phone calls, information, website, opportunities and challenges, maintenance and a chart on the operational expenses.


Discuss/Approve Ordinance No. 514 - Adopting a Revised Area of Impact.



Motion by Dee Ray Bailey to read Ordinance No. 514 by title only with one reading. Second by Leann Smith. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Attorney Steve Tuft read Ordinance No. 514 by title only.


Motion by Dee Ray Bailey to accept Ordinance No. 514 - Revised Area of Impact. Second by Rocky Baker. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Discuss/Approve Second Revised Agreement as to Administration of Area of Impact of the City of Heyburn.

Paul Aston reaffirmed the Mayor and Council that the agreement is basically the same except for the dates.


Motion by Rocky Baker to approve the second revised agreement as to administration of the Area of Impact of the City of Heyburn. Second by Dee Ray Bailey. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Discuss/Approve Ordinance No. 515 Adopting the Application of the Area of Impact.



Motion by Leann Smith to read Ordinance No. 515 by title only with one reading suspending the rule of three readings. Second by Dee Ray Bailey. Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Attorney Steve Tuft read Ordinance No. 515 by title only.


Motion by Cleo Gallegos to adopt Ordinance No. 515 for the Application of Plans and Ordinances for the City’s Area of Impact. Second by Rocky Baker. Roll Call Vote: Cleo Gallegos - Aye; Rocky Baker - Aye; Leann Smith - Aye; Dee Ray Bailey - Aye.


Discuss/Approve Barajas/Banda Construction in a Utility Easement.

Paul Aston explained that Mr. Banda had done everything right, he filled out a building permit and the site was inspected but there was an easement that runs through the back of the property, which was missed by Planning and Zoning. After discussion it was decided to inspect the site for utilities at 2031 16th Street Drive and bring this item back to the next council.

Meeting adjourned at 9:30 p.m.


/s/George A. Anderson, Mayor

/s/Linda L. Dayley, City Clerk/Treasurer