Planning Commission

December 1, 2015 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners George Morrison, Joanne Denney, George Swaney, Brent Dixon, Julie Foster, Darren Josephson, Margaret Wimborne, Natalie Black, Donna Cosgrove. MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wyatt. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer; Assistant Planning Directors, Kerry Beutler; and Current Planner, 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. CHANGE TO AGENDA: Beutler asked if they could begin the meeting with the Business on the Final final Platplat, Taylor Crossing on the River, Division No. 12. Minutes: Morrison had minor typographical changes to the minutes of November 3, 2015. Swaney moved to approve the minutes of November 3, 2015 with the requested changes, Josephson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Business: 1. Final Plat: Taylor Crossing on the River, Division No. 12. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Cosgrove asked and Beutler confirmed that restaurants and bars are allowed in a CC-1 zone. Cosgrove asked if the City is wanting dedicated foot paths for the access requested. Beutler stated that there are some utility easements between the lots and it would be a matter of changing the note on the plat to be a utility and access easement so that it would allow the City to improve that access as the lots develop. Cosgrove clarified that the City’s concept is that you could walk the Greenbelt and walk up to the business, restaurant, etc. Black asked if the plat goes over the City’s sidewalk. Beutler clarified that the plat area is all on private land. Black asked what the distance or frontage between the sidewalk and the building. Beutler stated it will vary depending on the type of construction as there is not a minimum set back requirement. Black asked about the building to the wests of Lot 14. Beutler stated that the buildings shown are in the process of being removed, and are existing but were industrial type buildings and are outside of the proposed plat boundary. Cosgrove asked if there is a footbridge over the canal. Beutler stated that Simplot Circle goes over the canal and the round- aboutroundabout by Bridgeport has access over the canal. Beutler added that there is an access bridge over the canal. Cosgrove asked if there is an easement on the eastern shore of the canal for maintenance. Beutler stated he is unsure if that easement is recorded on the property and deferred to the applicant for further information. Dixon asked about Riverwalk appearing to not have a dedicated right right- of of-way south of the plat. Beutler stated that everything south of the roundabout at Bridgeport is a private road and everything north will become a public dedicated road. Cramer stated that Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 1 of 8 Riverwalk south of Bridgeport is private to Pancheri. Cramer stated that the Redevelopment Agency is engaged and interested in turning all of Riverwalk Drive into a public street. Cramer stated there are some challenges due to it being developed currently as a private street, including property acquisition, owner participation and funding. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Harper Leavitt Engineering, 985 N. Capital Ave., Idaho Falls, ID 83402. Jolley stated that there has been a lot of behind the scenes work to get this project ready to present to the Commission. Jolley stated they met with the adjacent property owner, Doug Hicks (Idaho Packaging), to disclose what they intend to do with Simplot Circle and in the area. Jolley stated that Hicks was fully on board with the plans. Jolley stated that the plat goes up against the service easement for the canal. Jolley stated that New Sweden Irrigation District requires a 16’ flat surface on both sides of the canal. Jolley stated that the right right-of of-way has been taken out of the plat, so the Irrigation District will be able to maintain their service. Cosgrove asked if the canal company will maintain the access bridge. Jolley stated he does not believe the Irrigation District maintains the bridge even though it is in the right right-of of-way. Jolley stated he did not talk to the Irrigation District about the footbridge where it is outside of the plat. Jolley stated that the Redevelopment Agency does want to see some additional access to the pathway and Jolley’s client is sensitive to that and wants to maintain as much access to the pathway as possible. Jolley stated that the location of the access points have not been determined and that will come as the property develops and there is plan for utilities and storm water. Cosgrove asked about the intentions with Lot 13. Jolley deferred to Jeff Stokes of Woodbury Corporation (Developer). Jeff Stokes, Woodbury Corporation, 6333 North Willow Creek Road, Utah. Stokes stated that Woodbury currently owns and operates the Residence Inn across the railroad tracks from this plat. Stokes stated that originally they were only going to focus on Lot 14 and the original plat ended at the cul-de-sac. Stokes stated that as they discussed added right right-of of-way with the City and Redevelopment Agency the plat grew. Stokes stated that at the Residence Inn there is a public access easement and public parking that has been partnered with the Redevelopment Agency to allow the public to park and access the parkway from 8-6. Stokes stated that the Residence Inn has a parking agreement with Smitty’s. Stokes stated that he has proposed to the Redevelopment Agency to continue the parking easement and access along the new hotel to allow public parking and the public will have access to the stalls adjacent to the park. Stokes stated that Lot 13 is between the parking lot and the Greenbelt. Stokes stated that they propose to tie the area to the parking lot and do improvements to that area to make the park contiguous and that Lot 13 will be given to the City for the access and park improvements. Swaney clarified and Stokes agreed that they acknowledge that after the final plat is approved (1st version), they will make revisions to accommodate comments made by the City before the “real” final plat goes to City Council. Stokes stated there are challenges to work through to give the access that is desired. Stokes stated they have a lot of interest in the property, but no secured commitments for the other lots. Stokes stated that they will have to get the power and the storm to the parkway to tie in. Stokes stated that there are a few places that will make logical sense for trails and pedestrian pathways. Stokes stated that adjacent to the hotel property (Lot 14) there will be public access to the trail. Stokes stated that in the development agreement they can show that Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 2 of 8 they will provide public access and that will be defined later. Wimborne asked if Lot 14 will be a parking lot. Stokes stated that there is a parking lot on Lot 14. Stokes stated that Lot 14 will be a hotel and part will be used as a parking lot like the Residence Inn. Wimborne clarified and Stokes agreed that lot 14 will be connected with an improved road to the Residence Inn, so it can be accessed on Broadway and Simplot Circle. Stokes added that the parking lot will connect through the railroad right of way and the rail road right right-of of-way will have additional parking. Stokes stated that Lot 14 will be a Springhill Suites Hotel that will be tied into the park. Dixon asked if the rail road line is being abandoned in that area. Stokes stated that they are having discussions with the railroad to understand the rail road’s plans. Stokes stated that they have to get the crossing approved by the rail road and they currently have the access and ability to develop within 10 feet of the rail road easement. Dixon stated that this project will develop more in the next few years, and if the rail segment is abandoned then there will be additional land that needs to be platted and potentially some cross access agreements that will need to be developed in the future. Stokes stated that some of the Residence Inn is built in the railroad easement. Stokes stated that they have a large team of attorney’s that help them to ensure their access with the railroad. Stokes stated that the Springhill Suites on Lot 14 will not be built in the railroad right right-of of-way, but they are doing improvements within the parking lot that are in the rail road right of way. Black asked if Stokes developed the earlier stages of Taylor Crossing. Stokes stated that they were not the developer. Black asked if the new development will be similar to the current Taylor Crossing architecture. Stokes stated that they are building a Marriott and the national brands have a brand standard. Stokes stated they will marry the project to make it unique to Idaho Falls and this project. Stokes stated the building will not be prototypical and will have a modern look and be attractive with stone, stucco and earth tones. Swaney stated that a lot of effort has gone into preparing the plat and additional effort will be involved in getting the “final” plat to City Council. Swaney stated that the concept and the provision for continued public access and improved public access to the Greenbelt is appreciated and this is the type of development that Swaney believes should be along the river and will support improved use and access for the public and commercial development. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final final Platplat: Taylor Crossing on the River, Division No. 12, as presented, with the understanding that the Applicant will address all of the City’s review comments prior to proceeding to City Council, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearings: 1. Amendment to City Code: Amendment to Title 7, Chapter 9, Sign Code of the City of Idaho Falls, City Code. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. (Signs) Dixon asked if at the public hearings they asked about both portable and electronic signs. Beutler stated that they asked the public about portable signs and found that the same inequities exist for portable signs along the corridors of Sunnyside, Woodruff and 17th Street and the issue is the zoning designation that would not allow for a portable sign. Cosgrove asked and Beutler agreed that a portable sign could be a sandwich board that can be put out in the morning (Specials of the Day). Beutler stated it is a temporary banner, or sign. Beutler stated there are specific size and placement requirements that are associated with portable signs. Beutler stated that they will open the arterials up to allow the portable signs, regardless of the zoning. Beutler stated that portable Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 3 of 8 signs are allowed in commercial zones, but not in professional office, planned transition and neighborhood commercial zones. Beutler stated that Idaho Credit Union came to the Commission to rezone their property so they could have an electronic sign on the corner of Woodruff. Beutler stated that along commercial corridors the public anticipates signage and so that can be opened up for signage along those corridors. Beutler stated that they decided to maintain the corridors that were listed, and not open it up to all arterials. Dixon asked if the streets that are excluded still have both zones, so there is a potential for one side of the street to have a sign and the other side will not. Beutler stated that they do exist. Dixon asked if the public understood that factor, or did they specifically not want portable signs on that road. Beutler stated that the discussion was more on the electronic message centers. Dixon clarified that they are extending it to portable signs. Beutler stated that they talked a little bit about the portable signs, but more people were concerned about the electronic signs. Dixon stated that he believes it is still arbitrary as they can have a sign on these certain roads, independent of the zone, but on other roads you still have to be in the right zone to have a portable sign. Cosgrove stated that it sounds like the public was worried about electronic signs. Beutler stated that the public was very specific that Holmes and 1st Street were not streets that they wanted electronic signage opened up for. Black asked if they added any landscaping requirements for the new electronic signs. Beutler stated they did add requirements for landscaping for shopping center signs. Dixon stated that a portable sign is a non-permanent sign and he believes there should be a duration for the sign. Dixon stated that it looks trashy when someone puts up fence posts and wire a piece of vinyl between the posts and three months later it has fallen down and is not being taken care of. Dixon stated that portable signs should be temporary and have a limited duration. Beutler stated there are currently no regulations on duration of a portable sign. Dixon stated that there should be time limits as temporary signs do not hold up. Cosgrove stated that if she had a restaurant she would want to put out her portable signs every day with the specials of the day and not have restrictions on it. Dixon stated he is talking about the signs that get put up and then are abandoned. Swaney stated that as far as enforcement there is 7-9-41(F) states that: Permits for placement of such sign shall be the responsibility of the sign owner… Swaney stated that the permit for the portable sign will come to the Community Development Organization. Swaney asked if they could incorporate in the permit review process conditions for the duration of the sign. Cramer stated that they looked at that item 5 years ago and looked at other Cities City Codes that had restrictions. Cramer contacted the Cities that had the restrictions and asked how they enforce the duration. Cramer stated that every City stated that they do not enforce it because they do not have the man power. Cramer stated that currently as long as the sign is permitted they leave it alone. Dixon stated that the sandwich boards for the “Daily Specials” is not allowed by this ordinance because the sign is not firmly mounted. McLane stated that most of the sandwich board signs are designed to have a flat bottom to put sandbags or weights to firmly mount the sign to the ground. Dixon stated that his concern is really for the metal fence post signs with the vinyl banner that do not get taken down. Black asked if that restriction was in the ordinance would a code enforcer be allowed to take a sign down or do they just ticket the permit holder. Cramer stated that if the sign is in the right right-of of-way, they can take it down. Cramer stated that he understands Dixon’s concern and believes that adding language such as “signs will not be mounted in such a way that they become permanent” could remedy the problem. Dixon stated that if the sign is portable then they need to be maintained. Wimborne asked if they can address it with “all signs shall be firmly mounted and properly maintained.” Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 4 of 8 Swaney stated and Beutler agreed that 7-9-41(F) applies to the entire section of portable signs. Swaney stated that a portable sign that does not meet the restrictions in 7-9-41 the permit can be rejected. Swaney stated that the enforcement aspect for this ordinance is in 7-9-41(F). If the other criteria in 7-9-41 is changed then the enforcement can be through the permit process as outlined in (F). Cramer stated that if the Commission is on the same page and wants something about maintenance, Staff will work with the attorneys to figure out the right wording. Beutler continued to present the staff report, a part of the record. Electronic Message Centers, then Billboards. Dixon asked about Electronic Messaging (pg. 16), and the illumination and measuring distance. Dixon asked why you would measure a sign that is 10x25 ft. (250 sq. ft.) from over half of a football field away. Beutler stated that it is the standard for measuring with foot candles. Beutler stated they are using a light meter to measure it and see how much light the sign is putting out and it is based on the size of the sign as to how far you measure from. Cramer stated that when measuring nits you are measuring what the sign is putting out, but in foot candle situation you are trying to measure the change in ambient lighting. Dixon stated that when discussing the impact parking lot lights have on neighbors, it is measured at the neighbor’s property line, whether it is 10’ or 158’ away. Dixon is concerned that this system for measuring is a different standard using distance from the sign instead of the property line. Cramer stated that foot candles are more of an ambient light question. Black asked if this table and the standard for measuring has to do with driving and vision or is it for an area and how distracted a driver might be. Beutler stated it is a brightness and illuminance issue. Beutler stated that it will still require that they have automatic dimmers in all of the billboards. Beutler stated that in their research it shows that the foot candles measurement does a better job and is easier for a City to manage for enforcement. Swaney stated and Beutler agreed that the table that is listed is consistent with the tables of measurement of sign illumination that other Cities have used and so it is legally a more defensible standard. Beutler continued with the staff report, a part of the record 7-9-48 Master Planned Development Signs. Morrison asked if this ordinance would include developers south of town that are putting in 250 homes to have a sign to show the plat. Beutler stated that the intent is just for commercial development. Beutler stated that it will be added to the table within those commercial zones so it is clear. Dixon stated that item 3 (second set of numbering) has a sign size for commercial and residential. Morrison stated that builders like signs to put their lots on that show what is sold and still available. Beutler stated that the residential was added at the end. Cosgrove asked if Snake River Landing already had a water fountain sign. Beutler agreed that there is currently a sign for Snake River Landing. Beutler stated that sign was allowed as part of the master planned development PUD sign, and the square footage for the sign was determined by the nearest building. Beutler stated that Snake River Landing wants to put signage on Sunnyside and there are no buildings close to figure out the square footage. Cosgrove clarified and Beutler agreed that the change in ordinance would allow a development a certain amount of signage on an arterial regardless of what buildings are near the sign. Beutler stated that the use of a sign will be granted as an administrative conditional use permit issued by the Director of the Community Development Services Department. Beutler continued with the staff report. Dixon asked and Beutler agreed that if residential development has private covenants then they’d qualify under paragraph 2, but they would also have to have the master signage plan. Beutler added that their covenants could also address signage. Cosgrove stated that Snake River Landing could have 2 signs up. Beutler stated that Snake River Landing could potentially have 3 signs. Beutler read through the requirements for the signs 1-7 Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 5 of 8 listed on page 23. Dixon stated and Beutler agreed that Stonebrook has 3 entrances off of Sunnyside, but they could only put a sign at one entrance because it is along 1 arterial frontage. Cosgrove asked if Snake River Landing wants to put one next to the water fountain. Beutler stated that they could have a sign on Pancheri (arterial), but they’d have to modify the water fountain, they could not have both, they could have one on Snake River Parkway (arterial), and a sign at the entrance of Pioneer Road and Sunnyside. Dixon asked if signs could be placed on the freeway. Beutler stated that it is not allowed as it is an expressway. Dixon clarified that you don’t have to have an entrance off the arterial, you only have to have frontage on the arterial. Beutler disagreed with Dixon and stated that it does talk about the sign being at the entry way to the development. Dixon asked about Ivywood Subdivision and stated that it would not be allowed a sign because there is not an entrance onto the arterial. Cramer stated that he found a flaw in the ordinance. Cramer stated that Avalon Village qualifies for all of the steps requirements and has a big commercial lot on the south east corner and so they would qualify for a 600 sq. ft. sign. Cramer stated that it will need some fine tuning to cover the blanket 600 sq. ft. for a commercial parcel. McLane stated that where they have a small commercial parcel and the rest is residential it will need to be changed. Beutler showed multiple examples of other developments that could have multiple signs. Dixon stated that staff might consider making it 25 continuous acres per sign. Beutler and Cramer agreed with Dixon on his suggestion. Beutler stated that staff will look at the residential portion closer and make some changes. Dixon suggested that if the corner lot is commercial, but not 25 acres of commercial, then they do not get the commercial 600 sq. ft. sign. Black asked about the landscaping requirements for the signs. Beutler stated that there is 7x10 landscaping requirement in the electronic message centers, and shopping centers have a requirement, and the master plan have a requirement of 10 x10, but the regular monument sign or free standing sing sign on a single lot does not have a landscape requirement. Dixon suggested that residential developments be allowed to have a sign on collectors as well as arterials. Morrison opened the public hearing. No one appeared in support or opposition of application. Morrison closed the public hearing. Cosgrove moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendment to the City Code: Amendment to Title 7, Chapter 9, Sign Code of the City of Idaho Falls, City Code, with the modifications suggested by the Commission, Wimborne seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Black had to leave the meeting. The Commission discussed having enough members for a quorum throughout the entire meeting. Cosgrove asked and Cramer agreed that if they have a quorum to open the meeting and someone has to recuse themselves from an item, it is ok, but if someone has to leave the meeting, that will drop the Commission below a quorum, that is not ok. Business: 2. Area of Impact. Cramer presented the staff report, a part of the record staff’s recommendations for proceeding with discussions with the County. Wimborne asked if they will they take a bit at a time and work through the areas, or will they start with the whole map. Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 6 of 8 Cramer stated that he had originally proposed to do a bits and pieces approach by topic. Cramer stated that the County proposed to start with the entire map at once and then break it down. Cramer stated they will start with a big map and then as questions come they can be taken piece by piece. Dixon stated that he is concerned that there is inconsistency with how the different cities in the County are treated. Dixon stated that the County might state that the City has tentacles going out every which way, even though there are tentacles shooting up the hill from Ammon. Dixon does not want to be treated differently than other cities. Cramer stated that is a legitimate comment and if compact development is what everybody wants, then everybody should promote it. Swaney stated that since he has been serving on the County Planning Commission, he finds it interesting that when he first attended meetings, Byron Reed emphasized the importance of protecting agricultural areas and not commercializing the County, however the last 12 months they have done nothing but commercialize the County. Swaney stated that they are taking more and more agricultural areas and turning it into residential subdivisions, much faster than the City. Swaney stated that everybody wants development, but there is no rhyme or reason to what the County is doing. Cramer stated that those are legitimate things to talk about when they start to discuss growth patterns. Cramer stated that if any of the Commissioners did not attend the Area of Impact Boot Camp the tool kits from Idaho Smart Growth and University of Idaho heavily influenced the time line. Cramer has multiple copies if the Commissioners need them to study. Cramer stated that the map and policies are online. Dixon stated that some boundaries, such as fire and ambulance, do not lineup with the area of impact and so people do not understand where the line is for those services. Dixon stated that the lines are blurred and there is no reason to develop in the City because you get a lot of the same services developing in the County and the City residents are taxed for County services. Cramer stated that the taxation part will have to be changed by legislature. Cramer stated that services that cross City/County lines are being discussed at the City Council level. Cosgrove stated that the City shares a long border with Ammon and so the City of Idaho Fall’s area of impact and Ammon’s area of impact, impact each other. Cramer stated that Ilene Cleig with Idaho Smart Growth was pushing the idea of Ammon joining in and doing it all together, but logistically it would be hard. Cramer stated that Iona is in the middle of things with the Area of Impact and Commissioner Radford would like the City of Iona to pay attention to how things are being handled. Cramer stated that he has included Ammon behind the scenes. Cosgrove asked at what point small municipalities get absorb. Cramer stated that it would be when there is enough political will to do it, and it would have to make business sense to do it. McLane stated it would probably require a voting process. Cramer stated he is willing to talk to Ammon to see if they want to engage in a regional discussion. 3. Election of Officers. Swaney thanked Morrison, Wyatt and Black for their service as Chairman, Vice Chairman and Treasurer in the past year. Swaney presented the slated proposal of new Officers as follows: Chairman: Brent Dixon Vice-Chairman: Margaret Wimborne Treasurer: Julie Foster Swaney moved to appoint the officers as slated, Josephson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 7 of 8 Miscellaneous: None. Morrison adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted; Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes, December 1, 2015 Page 8 of 8