Planning Commission

August 18, 2015 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners George Morrison, Natalie Black, James Wyatt, Darren Josephson, Joanne Denney, George Swaney, Donna Cosgrove. MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Wimborne, Brent Dixon. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer, Assistant Planning Director Kerry Beutler, Brent McLane, and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Morrison called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. Minutes: Cosgrove moved to approve the minutes of July 7, 2015, Denney seconded the motion and it passed. Wyatt abstained from voting as he was not in attendance on July 7, 2015. Public Hearings: 1. Preliminary Plat: Yorkside Subdivision. Cramer presented the staff report, a part of the record. Cramer noted that two letters of support were received from neighbors in Yorkside Division 1. Cramer summarized the letters stating that the neighbors are in support of the subdivision and feel that the revisions that have been made are evidence that the developer has listened to their concerns and done their best to address them. Morrison opened the public hearing. Applicant: Fred Walland, 645 Lincoln Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Applicant Walland stated that in 2014 the concern was the higher density of lots. Walland stated that the Preliminary Plat as presented shows less lots than the approved preliminary plat. Cosgrove stated that the southern boundary of Lot 12 appears to be north of the southern boundary of Lot 7 and they are both north of the southern boundary of Lots 5 and 4 on Division 3. Cosgrove asked why there is not a uniform east/west cut. Walland stated that it’s a function of the lot sizes in a cul-de-sac. Lots 4 and 5 in the cul-de-sac need to maintain a proper depth for those lots and then lot sizes work their way out north and the lot sizes are different on the adjacent street. No one appeared in support of the application. Opposition: Shelly Turnbow, 105 Southpoint Blvd, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Turnbow stated she is not opposed to the preliminary plat, but is opposed to things that need to be addressed before it is approved. Ms. Turnbow owns the County acreage that is being surrounded by the development. Ms. Turnbow submitted a letter that is part of the record. Ms. Turnbow stated there was a Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 1 of 9 mistake in the letter that was submitted under the section “Further Development” where Ms. Turnbow states the property wraps around the north side of her property and should state “south” side of her property. Ms. Turnbow stated that when a developer is developing next to an existing property and the developer is creating a negative impact on the existing neighbors that the developer should be considerate in offering or providing solutions to reduce the impact. Ms. Turnbow stated that Lot 7 of this phase will affect her property, which is on the east side of her property. Ms. Turnbow stated she stores equipment behind her barn and has a corral. Ms. Turnbow stated that the lots that border that side of her property will be exposed to the items stored behind the barn, including a barbed wire fence to keep traffic out. Ms. Turnbow stated that the barbed wire fence in the past was not well received by the developer and the property owners. Ms. Turnbow would like to have the developer install a privacy fence on that side of her property to avoid the future property owners complaining about her property. Ms. Turnbow stated that water from the Yorkside has ruined her plants and flowers. Ms. Turnbow stated that snake grass has transplanted into her garden area and she cannot get rid of it due to the water coming from the Yorkside lots over to her lot. Ms. Turnbow stated that she has been accused of intentionally sprinkling the contractors’ pickups and trailer. Ms. Turnbow stated that with flood irrigating her property there is a potential for the water to flow into the lot to the south of her property and could cause liability issues. Ms. Turnbow stated she has had problems with trespassing on her property and contractors dumping waste on her property (pictures in record). Ms. Turnbow stated that the bridge on her property that crosses the canal has had children playing in the canal which is a concern. Ms. Turnbow has taken the necessary steps to keep people from trespassing. Black asked what the main problem solving ideas Ms. Turnbow has. Turnbow stated that behind the barn a fence needs to be provided and as the development progresses on the south side there needs to be a berm and a fence created to avoid the problems with irrigation water. Black asked about the contractors using her property as a road. Ms. Turnbow stated that there are a lot of people that come through her property and create problems. Ms. Turnbow stated that they have been trying to put a fence in one area on her property, but have been waiting for a sidewalk to be poured that was required by the City. Black clarified that the sidewalk was not built with the development. Morrison asked if it is City or County property. Turnbow stated it is County. Swaney asked Staff where the sidewalk that Ms. Turnbow is talking about that was supposed to be installed from a previous plat. Cramer showed on the slide where the sidewalk that was required from a previous plat. The road labeled Seyfert Court has what appears to be an undeveloped lot in between two homes and the sidewalk is to go in that location. There is curb and gutter and a curb cut. That is not a lot, that is a deeded access for the Turnbows. Cramer has been talking with Public Works to find out why the sidewalk is not constructed. Cramer stated that he is dealing with different developers and has not been able to ask the developer of Division 1 why the sidewalk was not constructed. Swaney stated that the sidewalk is pending, but the City is obligated to eventually install that sidewalk for the access easement. Cramer stated that if it was the City’s mistake to let the developer walk away without constructing it, then the City will have that responsibility, but they are looking deeper into agreements. Shelly Turnbow, 105 Southpoint Blvd, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Turnbow stated that there was an agreement with the developer that they would be responsible for the sidewalk and it was put in with a special provision with the City when the property was annexed. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 2 of 9 Cosgrove asked on Lot 7 (corner that touches Turnbow’s property) what would be standard to require, i.e. privacy fence. Cramer stated that a requirement as a condition of the approval of the plat, there could be a berm and a fence, or just a privacy fence that is opaque. Cosgrove asked if it would be just a fence around Lot 7 or a fence around the entire perimeter (western edge of proposed preliminary plat). Cramer stated that most of the western edge is adjacent to Division 1 of Yorkside. Cosgrove stated that it would not be the whole of Lot 7, just the small corner that touches Turnbow property. Cosgrove stated that many of Ms. Turnbow’s issues are legal issues. Swaney asked about an unbuildable lot, just south of Lot 7 (Lot 24), which may be intended to be an access easement. Swaney asked if there will be something more enforceable established when the next plat comes around. Cramer stated that if it does become an access easement they will deal with that. However, Lot 24 is a remainder piece from the original plat. This was a buildable lot, but the divisions are cutting it down to such a size, that when future divisions of Yorkside come in, they will have to address that lot, and either make it an easement or a buildable lot and adjust other areas. Black asked what the City’s recommendation would be to help Ms. Turnbow from contactor’s dumping on her property. Cramer stated that they need to find the right enforcing agency, so beyond posting the private property signs, this Commission has no enforcement. Applicant (Owner): Alan Kilsch, 7466 S 15th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Mr. Kilsch stated he is the current owner of the land. Mr. Kilsch stated that he believes Ms. Turnbow’s concerns are more of a final plat issue, but he will address them. Mr. Kilsch stated that Division 1 was approved with specific agreements. Mr. Kilsch did agree to have restrictions placed on the Restrictive Covenants that would limit Lot 7 in Division 1 to a single story dwelling and that was put in the Covenants of Division 1 of Yorkside. Kilsch complied with the agreement in setting the Restrictive Covenants. When the builder obtained a permit, nothing was refused by the City as to the building permits. Kilsch stated that the current home is considered a single story home, but does contain a bonus room above the garage. Kilsch worked with the Turnbows to mitigate the disagreement and the Turnbows agreed to have Kilsch build a fence between their property and Lot 7 (which was done). Kilsch also filled the Turnbow’s access easement with fill dirt to make it level with the current subdivision. Kilsch stated that trees were planted by the owner and the developer as agreed to on Division 1. Kilsch stated that the HOA and the developer took care of the trees and a sprinkler system was installed, some trees died and were replaced. The City has now taken over the storm pond and Kilsch was unaware of the Turnbow’s having to water any of the trees. The property on the south and west side of the ponds is owned by the Turnbow’s which was given to them by Kilsch when Division 1 was approved. Kilsch stated that he spoke to Brant Johnson (developer of Division 1) and he indicated he would complete the sidewalk. Kilsch spoke to Ms. Turnbow in early summer 2015 and she stated there was a conflict as to how to pour the sidewalk due to issues with the fence and when that issue was worked out then Ms. Turnbow would let Mr. Kilsch know, so he could move forward with the sidewalk. Mr. Kilsch stated that it was agreed that the developer would pour the sidewalk, but does not want to pour it and have the Turnbows not agree to it and have to tear it back out. Kilsch stated that property was given to Turnbows when Division 1 was approved. Kilsch stated that the current access at that time to the Turnbow property came from the west side of the canal by the storm pond. Kilsch showed a drawing showing the property. Kilsch gave the property to the Turnbow’s that their current access was on. Kilsch stated that additionally, property was given to the Turnbows on the south side of the newly created storm pond which gave the Turnbows Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 3 of 9 additional property and a roadway to their house and property. Kilsch stated that additional property was given for a wider access along Turnbow’s barn. Kilsch stated that part of the property that was given to the Turnbow’s extended further east than Division 1. Kilsch stated that the property was given to the Turnbow’s as a buffer and there is no need for a fence to act as a buffer. Kilsch has given the Turnbow’s right of first refusal to buy the “cellar” property if it is ever sold, so they have the opportunity to have an additional buffer. Kilsch stated that the garden area that Turnbow’s referred to is in the access easement that was given to the Turnbow’s to be a secondary access to their property from Seyfert Court. Kilsch stated that the Turnbow’s have constructed a barbed wire fence along the western border “secondary access” between Lot 3 and their property, which is an eye sore. Kilsch stated that owners with water rights have a responsibility to take care of their water and not flood their neighbor. The developer or owner should not be required to create a buffer to keep the neighbors water out. Opposition: Shelly Turnbow, 105 Southpoint Blvd, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Turnbow stated that when Mr. Kilsch stated he gave the property to the Turnbow’s, there was a half mile easement that went to Township and Turnbow’s relinquished that so that the subdivision could go in and there were negotiations that took place between Southpoint Subdivision and Yorkside and that property that was given to Turnbow’s was just part of the agreements. Morrison closed the public hearing. Cosgrove reminded the Commissioners that this is a preliminary plat and the issues that have been discussed are not germane to this Preliminary Plat. Cosgrove stated that when comparing the previous Preliminary Plat, this seems like a reasonable modification and is well within the Comprehensive Plan and Subdivision Ordinance. Cosgrove moved to recommend approval of the preliminary plat: Yorkside Subdivision as presented, with the stipulation that future preliminary plats need to continue to modify Jolyn Road to conform with this preliminary plat, Josephson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. Rezone from R-1, R-2, R-3A (Residential) and PB (Professional & Business Office) to C- 1 (Retail Business). Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Cosgrove asked if it is possible to put conditions on a rezone such as rezoning to C-1 with a stipulation of a wider buffer between the property and residential. Beutler stated it is not recommended. Beutler added that additional conditions would come with a conditional use permit or with the platting of the property or when the property is subdivided there could be a development agreement associated with the property. Cosgrove asked and Beutler agreed that it is possible to re-zone a portion of the property as presented. Cosgrove asked about the extension of Jennie Lee to the South. Beutler stated that if the City wanted to extend Jennie Lee, they would need to acquire the right of way and do the construction, but that would come as development occurs on that property. Black stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows that if Jennie Lee is extended to 25th that goes through residential. Beutler clarified that it is high density residential. Morrison opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 4 of 9 Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that Ben Lee is the owner of the property. Freiberg stated that this parcel has been the subject of several rezone applications that have been denied. Freiberg stated that residential developers and professional business developers have no interest in this property or it would have been developed already. Freiberg stated this is a vacant parcel that only has commercial interests. Freiberg stated that traffic will be an issue regardless of what goes in the property. Freiberg stated that Jennie Lee will eventually be completed to 25th within the next 5 years, which will take the majority of the traffic from 17th to 25th. Freiberg stated that Ben Lee is in discussions with Jack in the Box (north west section), Les Schwab (north east section), and Deseret Industries (south section). Wyatt asked where the information for Jennie Lee extending in 5 years came from. Freiberg stated it is a hunch. Freiberg added that Ben Lee’s father passed away and owned the property and the property is prime for development. Cosgrove asked if Mr. Lee would be amenable to leaving a strip along the eastern boundary that is in the current R-1 zoning. Freiberg stated that R-1 would not fit in. Cosgrove clarified that it would be an unbuildable narrow strip to serve as a buffer. Freiberg stated that they would not be opposed to anything that would create the buffer that is appropriate such as an easement on a plat that is noted on a development agreement, but feels it is awkward to have a 20 foot strip of R-1. Cosgrove asked if Freiberg would be agreeable to a more significant buffer than what is required in C-1. Freiberg stated they would be amenable to negotiate the buffer. No one appeared in support of the application. Opposition: Jason Lebel, 2324 Craig, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Mr. Lebel stated that he has small children that play near the street and he has to jump out of the way of people going down his street at 40 mph on a regular basis. The street is 50’ which is smaller than regular residential streets and it has double the amount of traffic that it is made for. Mr. Lebel is frustrated that he cannot be in the front of his house with his children due to the traffic. Mr. Lebel stated that unless the City is going to extend Jennie Lee and do something to relieve the traffic then it is ridiculous to add additional traffic to the area. Mary Klingler, 1934 Tiffany, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Klingler has served on the Board of Adjustment, Planning Commission and City Council. Ms. Klingler stated that she is the designated voice of Tiffany Drive. Ms. Klingler stated that the people in the area have been at this since 1979 and gave quotes from past hearings from Commissioners. This property has 5 times been denied by the Commissioners and twice by the City Council. Ms. Klingler stated that the constant threat of commercial on Jennie Lee Drive would result in devaluation of the properties, increase in traffic and all promises that it will be residential will be broken. Ms. Klingler stated that the homes on Craig do not need any more traffic. Ms. Klingler stated that Jennie Lee is not an arterial or a collector street for the current development, and therefore does not deserve a C-1 zone. Ms. Klingler stated that if C-1 is zoned that close to 17th Street, it could cause other areas a block off of 17th Street to request to be rezoned to C-1. Bree Rolstum, 1854 Tiffany, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Rolstum is new to the street. Ms. Rolstum stated that the aerial shows mature tree development, but the trees don’t block the noise. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 5 of 9 Ms. Rolstum agrees that if it was going to be residential, it would probably already have been done. Ms. Rolstum stated that the 6 foot privacy fence that she maintains with a mature tree boundary is not enough to block the view of the Les Schwab tire store and the snow plows. Ms. Rolstum stated that the current proposed buffer on a C-1 would be insufficient, and if it were to get rezoned, she would like mandates as to how the garbage would be maintained. Ms. Rolstum stated that she has had multiple people try to climb over her fence and if the property was zoned commercial, she feels that it would create more trespassing problems. Ms. Rolstum stated that she would like to see a 6’ privacy fence. Ms. Rolstum has to replant two of the trees that are bordering the property because they have died. Ms. Rolstum stated that if it went to C-1 that the businesses would take over maintenance of the trees. Ms. Rolstum stated that if the rezone goes through she will be selling her home immediately. Shirley Barrett, 1845 Tiffany, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Barrett stated that she is the oldest living person that came to Tiffany. Ms. Barrett was the first house to be built. Ms. Barrett stated when they built, they could see all the way to Holmes. Ms. Barrett stated they bought the home and lot because in 1962 (53 years ago) it was a plush lovely area to build a home. Ms. Barrett stated they did not build their homes there to hope that the values would be decreased due to restaurants, lights and noise. Ms. Barrett stated that Arden Lee promised that this would be a nice residential area. Ms. Barrett stated that it is too hard to get onto 17th Street from Tiffany and so they go out to Craig and 21st. Ms. Barrett stated that you do not make Idaho Falls a more beautiful place by putting hot dog stand in your backyard. Amber Haywood, 1802 Tiffany, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ms. Haywood stated that her home is located on the north west corner of the proposed change. Ms. Haywood’s home borders Les Schwab, Taco Bell and Happy Chinese. Ms. Haywood can hear everything going on at those businesses. Ms. Haywood can only imagine that anything additional will be much worse. Steve Klingler, 1934 Tiffany, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Mr. Klingler thanked the Commission for their service. Mr. Klingler stated that the neighborhood has very well maintained homes and is a viable neighborhood. Mr. Klingler stated that Jennie Lee is one of the oldest neighborhoods in Idaho Falls, but it is still occupied and maintained. Mr. Klingler stated that he is 73 years old and will not live long enough for a tree to grow up tall enough to block out a solar vapor light on a 50’ standard in a parking lot. Mr. Klingler stated that the noise is a factor. Mr. Klingler stated that litter from parking lots blows into the yards. Mr. Klingler stated that the area to the west of them was going to be a mall back in 1979 and when it was zoned commercial it had a PB on the west side of Jennie Lee Drive and the PB and R-2 on the east side of Jennie Lee Drive as a buffer for the residents. Mr. Klingler stated in the past Gary Voigt approached the neighbors and wanted to get their blessing for building more offices on the east side of Jennie Lee. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Mr. Freiberg read a paragraph out of the Comprehensive Plan Policy, which addresses buffering commercial development from adjacent residential development: “Allowing commercial development, especially in neighborhood centers adjacent to residential development moves us toward our goal of a convenient City, one in which walking and biking are reasonable alternatives.” Freiberg stated that there will be residential and commercial development next to each other. Freiberg stated that the Comprehensive Plan map shows the red and yellow abutting next to one another. Freiberg stated Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 6 of 9 that the Comprehensive Plan states that it does require careful attention to buffering. Freiberg stated that he is ready to rezone to C-1 and will pay careful attention to buffering. Freiberg stated that no residential will want to come and develop that lot and no matter what goes in that parcel, it will increase the traffic. Freiberg stated that the majority of the traffic generated by any new development would go north to the traffic signal. Freiberg stated that Jennie Lee will be completed some day and it will alleviate the traffic problems that have been brought up. Josephson asked for clarification that there has been no interest for professional office buildings. Freiberg stated that there has not been any developable interest. Josephson stated that he was involved with Gary Voigt several years ago and inquired about this property to build buildings and was told that it was not for sale at that time. Josephson stated he had an interest and still has an interest in building professional office buildings. Freiberg stated he does not know who Ben Lee has talked to. Freiberg stated that the reason this is brought up at this hearing is the Jack in the Box people first approached Ben Lee and are very interested in that north west corner. Freiberg stated that the discussions with the Les Schwab people have been ongoing for years. Freiberg showed the buffering fence that Natural Grocers put in to buffer the store from the residential. Freiberg stated the fence is 8’ and wood, that is in front of the existing neighborhood fence. Freiberg stated that is a good buffer and thinks that buffer works. Cosgrove asked Staff if the R-3A on the west side of Jennie Lee is meant to buffer between the businesses and Jennie Lee or are some of the businesses built in the R-3A. Beutler stated that the businesses are built on the R-3A. The parcels have both commercial and R-3A zoning. Cosgrove asked if the buildings have to be in the commercial part. Beutler stated that the office buildings are a permitted use within the R-3A. Cosgrove stated that R-3A provides an option for some viable commercial development along Jennie Lee. Beutler stated that R-3A would allow for some office development and professional offices, beauty salons, barber shops, clinics and hospitals, pharmacists, mortuary and funeral home and pet care clinics are allowed in R-3A. Cosgrove asked about the buffering requirements for R-3A to an R-1. Beutler stated that there is a 10’ landscape buffer. Cosgrove asked if it would be viable to have a dual zone on this parcel. Beutler stated that there have been 4 up to this point, so two would be viable. Beutler stated there are many areas that have steps in zoning with buffering to residential and that could be possible here. Cosgrove stated and Beutler agreed there are many places in the City that has commercial up against residential. Beutler stated where it is done successfully, such as Natural Grocery, there is a transition zone over the top of it, which allows for some performance standards. Beutler stated that other zones have some standards to them, such as RSC-1 has site plan review. Beutler stated that C-1 is next to residential in many places in the City. Cosgrove asked what Natural Grocers requested for the zoning. Beutler stated that Natural Grocers had requested a transitional overlay zone, which required them to come to the Commission with their site plan proposal as well as meet the performance standards, including hours of operation, landscaping, buffering and lighting. Morrison closed the public hearing. Swaney stated that regardless of how the Commission acts on the C-1 zoning, the Commission needs to recommend to the City Council that they seriously consider extending Jennie Lee Drive to 25th Street, as the current conditions are not acceptable to the community. Swaney stated that it is not the responsibility of the Planning Commission to figure out how to develop property. Swaney stated that the zones in place were put on that parcel for a reason and to grossly change Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 7 of 9 the parcel to commercial zone and open it to anything that is allowed to be put in a C-1 is unfair to the community. Swaney stated this parcel could be rezoned a number of ways, such as two zones, PUD or R-3A, but C-1 is unacceptable. Black stated that Starbucks on the corner was a beautiful addition to the area, but does bring a lot of traffic with it. Black stated that Natural Grocery is a wonderful example of how you can put commercial up against residential. Black stated that you cannot get away from noise, but it can be limited. Black agreed with Swaney that C-1 is not adequate for this area. Black stated the Commission is constantly hearing about traffic problems and she would like the City to do something. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council denial of the rezone from R- 1, R-2, R-3A (Residential) and PB (Professional & Business Office) to C-1 (Retail Business) for 5.13 Acres of E ½ of the NW ¼ Section 29, T2N, R38E, Denney seconded the motion and it passed (5 votes to pass motion). Cosgrove abstained from voting. 4. Annexation with Initial Zoning of R-1 (Residential and Final Plat). Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked about the arrowhead shape on the plat. Beutler stated it was part of the landscape lot, and the applicant can elaborate more. Morrison opened the public hearing. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that the bullet lot that is going to be a landscape retention pond. No one appeared in support or opposition of the application. Morrison closed the public hearing. Swaney stated it appears to be a nice proposal for annexation and zoning to R-1 and everything seems consistent with the plans for the City. Cosgrove agreed. Josephson moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation with initial zoning of R-1, and final plat, Southpoint Division No. 8, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Business: 1. Final Plat: Printcraft Addition, Division No. 1. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Cosgrove asked and Beutler agreed that the applicant still has the right to come in with an amended plat if they wanted to further divide the area. Black asked if the fencing and landscaping is all worked out. Beutler stated that City Council approved the parcel with fencing and landscaping requirements. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that in the Special Conditions for the Development Agreement for Annexation there are provisions for the north property line buffer that addresses the 20’ wide landscape buffer with 8’ high chain link fence and 6’ high dirt berm and 10” diameter evergreen trees planted on the south face of the berm at 40’ on center. Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 8 of 9 Black stated that she recalled the discussion being that chain link would not be a good option for the fence. Freiberg stated that since they agreed to do the 6’ high berm then they could do chain link along the property line and then 6’ high berm with trees on top of the berm. Wyatt stated that he was not at the meeting, so he trusts that the other Commissioners will look at this application and make sure all concerns are covered and have been dealt with. Cosgrove stated this matter was discussed at length and the application is straight forward and the applicant has met the requests of the Commission. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council, approval of the final plat for Printcraft Addition, Division No. 1. Wyatt seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. Final Plat: Fremont Avenue Subdivision. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Cosgrove asked if there was a preliminary plat for this property. McLane stated there was no preliminary plat. McLane stated that a preliminary plat is not necessary as this is not changing what would be allowed in the area. Josephson asked what the PT-2 Zone is. McLane stated that it is a planned transition for commercial and multi-family residential development which is similar to what has been discussed with Natural Grocers. PT-2 has strict design standards and standards that are required. McLane stated that one of the requirements is you have to have at least 30,000 sq. ft. of a lot to develop, and so in this instance, it would require two parcels to develop at the same time. McLane stated the purpose of this final plat is to make this area much more developable. Josephson asked and McLane confirmed that multi-family is allowed. Cosgrove asked and McLane confirmed that the existing buildings to the west are residential. McLane stated the apartments are to the south west. Cosgrove asked if there is a residence that fronts to Science Center. McLane stated that the homes front to Lotta, but there is an access onto Science Center. Wyatt asked if the PT overlay requires 30,000 sq. ft. minimum lot. McLane stated it requires an area to be developed at one time. McLane clarified that if the initial development would have to be at least 2 lots and then a third or fourth lot could tack onto it at a later time to be continuous with the existing PT development. Wyatt clarified that it is 30,000.00 ft. regardless of the number of lots. Wyatt stated it would take one owner to buy multiple lots or owners to go in together and develop together. McLane stated that if the two top northern lots developed together, the third could develop on its own in association with the two top lots, and the fourth could tag along as it developed, as long as it is a continuous chunk of land. Wyatt asked and McLane confirmed that is consistent to what is developed to the South. Blake Jolley, Harper Leavitt Engineering, 985 North Capital Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley stated they are just making this property more developable. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council, approval of the final plat for Fremont Avenue Subdivision, Division 1. Josephson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: None. Morrison adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes August 18, 2015 Page 9 of 9