Planning Commission

IDAHO FALLS PLANNING January 5, 2016 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Brent Dixon, George Morrison, Joanne Denney, George Swaney, Darren Josephson, Margaret Wimborne, Natalie Black and Donna Cosgrove. MEMBERS ABSENT: James Wyatt, Julie Foster. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer; Assistant Planning Director, Brent McLane; and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Dixon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. CHANGE TO AGENDA: None. Minutes: Cosgrove moved to approve the minutes of December 1, 2015, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearings: 1. Annexation with Initial Zoning (Rochester Estates). Cramer explained that the hearing on the annexation and initial zoning for what will be known as Rochester Estates has been postponed. Cramer stated that he requested the applicant cancel/postpone the annexation hearing until such time as they have a final plat ready to present. Cramer stated zoning establishes a development right and doing so at this time is premature. 2. Preliminary Plat: Rochester Estates. Cramer reviewed the procedural requirement for a preliminary plat. He also reviewed the staff report, a part of the record. Cosgrove asked how binding a preliminary plat is, and does it put any onus on the City to force the development on the parcel to look like the preliminary plat. Cramer stated when the preliminary plat is approved then a final plat needs to come forward within 18 months or the preliminary plat expires and is no longer valid. Cramer added that with each new preliminary plat, there is the required hearing process. Cosgrove stated that one of the letters mentions a legal arrangement when the parcel was sold. Cramer stated that he spoke with the City Attorney and the agreement that is mentioned in the letter is a private agreement between two individuals and it has no bearing on the consideration of the preliminary plat. Cosgrove clarified that tonight’s consideration is solely upon whether the preliminary plat meets the Subdivision Ordinance and follows the Comprehensive Plan. Cosgrove asked if the preliminary plat that was approved would have been phase 3 of the Castlerock development and what happened to the other proposed preliminary plat. Cramer stated that there was never a final plat so the preliminary plat expired because a final plat was never approved and developed. Morrison asked why Castlerock has no curbs and gutters. Cramer stated that in the Subdivision Ordinance there is an exception for typical City street section development. Cramer stated there are two exceptions (1) if the average lot size is greater than 1 acre per lot; (2) if the minimum lot width of each lot is 250’ wide. Cramer stated that if either of those exceptions are met the City would permit a county road section, such as what is developed in Castlerock. Morrison asked if the Commission could make an exception to the street rule so that curbs and gutters are not Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 1 of 11 required. Cramer stated that would be handled as a variance to the subdivision ordinance. Cramer stated the appropriate time for the exception would be when a final plat is submitted, which would include improvement drawings, along with a request from the applicant for a variance from the standards. Cosgrove asked if the Subdivision Ordinance stipulates that access should be from higher density to lower density or would preclude lower density to higher density. Cramer stated that there is a policy in the Comprehensive Plan that talks about higher density housing being located at arterials. Cramer stated that the Comprehensive Plan’s definition of higher density is 8 units or more per acre; lower density is 7 units per acre. Cosgrove clarified that the application, by definition of the Comprehensive Plan would be going from low density to low density. Wimborne asked if there are buffering requirements. Cramer stated that buffering is only between higher density to low density and commercial to residential, and where the application is proposing to be the same zone there would be no required buffer. Cramer addressed the neighborhood concerns that were stated in letters, which are attached as part of the record. Cramer stated that the lack of the connection to the east does help mitigate what was already proposed for a development of roadways. Cramer gave information from the Institute of Transportation Engineers, stating a typical single family home generates 1 p.m. peak hour trip. Cramer stated that the 15 homes as proposed in the preliminary plat would generate 15 p.m. peak trips. Cramer stated that traffic studies are not required until there is 200+ trips in the p.m. peak hours. Cramer stated that he spoke with the Public Works Director and asked his opinion about traffic and for 15 homes there was no concern. Dixon asked about the size of the canal to the east and how hard would it be to bridge. Cramer stated that he does not know the width of the canal, but it is narrower than the Idaho Canal. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that the preliminary plat complies with the Zoning Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan Policies. Freiberg stated that there is water, sewer and power stubbed to the end of the street, and part of the Comprehensive Plan Policy encourages development in areas served by public utilities. Freiberg stated that the lots are ½ acre or larger and the minimum lot size in R-1 is 7,000 sq. ft. Cosgrove asked about the curb and gutter issue. Freiberg stated that the lot size for removing curb and gutter are 1 acre lots or 250’ frontage and the lots as proposed meet neither of those requirements. Cosgrove asked if the applicant would potentially agree with asking for a variance. Freiberg stated that he does not believe they would get the variance to eliminate the curb and gutter, and part of the worry with removing the curb and gutter is what to do with the storm water. Dixon stated that this area is identified as Estate in the Comprehensive Plan and there is an estate residential in the zoning ordinance which is existing homes on lots of one acre or larger, which is similar to Castlerock to the north and the aerial view shows that Castlerock has been developing well given the down turn in the economy. Dixon asked why they are considering half acre lots instead of one acre lots. Frieberg stated that they did some cost estimates based on larger lots and Freiberg’s clients determined that the half acre lots will be easier to sell and there is more of a market for the half acre lot versus the one acre or larger lots. No one appeared in support of the application. Opposition: Mike Groberg, 540 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Mr. Groberg stated that his dad (Richard Groberg) and Philip Carr were the original developers of Castlerock Estates in 2000. He discussed the history of the development of Castlerock and the desire to be respectful of the existing Kinsman Country Estates to the north. Groberg stated that Richard Groberg and Phil Carr visited with the neighbors and City Staff and were counseled to make sure the lots were compatible with the Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 2 of 11 Kinsman Country Estates. Groberg stated that when the plat was submitted, the City required them to submit a preliminary plat that included the area to the south where Rochester is now being proposed, in order to have a general idea of what could happen in that area even though they did not own or control the property. Groberg stated that when Castlerock lots started to sell a lot of the neighbors would go to the City and ask what the plan for the property to the south is, and they’d be shown the preliminary plat that had the 7, larger than 1 acre lots. Groberg stated that the neighbors relied on that information when they decided to purchase their lots. Groberg explained that they eventually purchased the area where Rochester is being proposed, but later sold it. The new owner proposed 3 different concepts for a preliminary plat, all of which included lots of over an acre, but none of them ever made it to the Planning Commission. Groberg stated that the proposed Rochester Estate is designated as Estate in the land use plan. Groberg stated that Castlerock is low density residential and when you read the definitions they are identical. Groberg stated that if you asked any ordinary person what an estate designation meant, the image that would be in their mind is a home with acreage. Groberg suggested that the City have the estate designation actually mean something. Groberg stated that those things give justifiable cause for the neighbors to expect and anticipate lots to develop at a rate of greater than one acre. Groberg stated that their contract with the original buyer afforded them a right to record an irrigation easement to serve the parcels west of the proposed subdivision as 2 lots have water rights out of the lateral canal. Groberg stated they will have to coordinate with the developers and get them an irrigation pipe so they have a viable way to maintain the estate water rights which has not been addressed on this plat. Groberg stated that the sale contract also included the right to record a public utility easement which has not been addressed. Groberg stated that half acre lots are not small lots, but, they are not in harmony with the existing estate lots that surround the proposed Rochester Subdivision. Groberg stated that on page 66 of the Comprehensive Plan, it states: To reduce land use conflicts, existing land uses are recognized as starting points for future development patterns. Groberg stated that due to that statement, they expect the new subdivision that is adjacent will be compatible. Groberg stated that page 39 of the Comprehensive Plan states: Higher density housing should be closer to arterial streets. Groberg stated that this proposed subdivision is the exact opposite of that statement, meaning that you come off of Holmes through the less dense larger lots and proceed to the more dense smaller lots. Groberg stated that the average lot size in Rochester Estates would be 200% or 3 times denser than the lots in Castlerock. Groberg stated that the Sunterra lots were only 15% smaller than the lots adjacent to them. Groberg stated that if you consider the County lots that will touch Rochester Estates, it will range from 400% - 900% more dense. Groberg stated that the area has a history and expectation to develop as an estate subdivision which he believes is greater than 1 acre. Groberg stated that page 30 of the Comprehensive Plan states: The City will develop a program to involve neighbors in the community development process early. Groberg stated that this did not occur. Groberg stated that no one was contacted by the applicant to get any neighborhood feedback and no one was informed of this proposed subdivision until after Christmas. Groberg stated that he believes there is 100% opposition from all City and County neighbors to this subdivision. Wimborne clarified that Groberg’s agreement was with the previous owner, not the current applicant, and when the previous owner sold, Grobergs were not involved. Dixon asked if there is discussion in the minutes for the previous preliminary plat for this area about the estate part of the Comprehensive Plan versus the estate zone and one acre or less than one acre lots. Dixon stated that the proposal was greater than one acre. Cramer stated that the theme of estate versus low density did not come up. Cramer stated that the themes were the roadway connecting across to the City subdivision. Cramer stated that there were a couple of connections, one up Kinsman Drive, and originally this plat had a stub road to come across and that was one of the big discussion items during that hearing. Cramer stated there was talk about traffic. Cramer stated there Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 3 of 11 was some discussion about lot sizes, but mostly concerns about traffic and connections with City subdivisions. Dixon stated that if development occurs with the same or larger lots to what is already in the area, then eventually if taken to the extreme, there would be no lots less than 1,000 acres. Dixon stated there is a point when City comes up against County, City has to develop smaller than what is currently there, so there is a compatibility issue. Groberg agreed with Dixon and stated that what he was trying to say is that where Castlerock was designated low density residential and this proposed development was designated as estate an ordinary person would assume that the estate designation would be larger lots than the low density residential. Groberg stated that the compatibility issue is not so much that it is impossible to go smaller, but it is an irresponsible leap to go 200%-900% smaller. Dixon stated that sometimes the choice of a zone has to do more with home occupations, as home occupations are allowed in R-1, but are not allowed in estate, RP or RPA. Dixon stated that could have been a consideration for the zoning of R-1 for Castlerock. Groberg stated that his wife cuts hair out of their home and they are thankful that the area is zoned R-1. Swaney asked what the smallest buildable lot in Castlerock Estates. Groberg stated that it is his lot. Groberg stated that his lot was 1 acre. Richard Groberg, 620 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Groberg complimented Staff and the Commission on their service and efforts. Groberg stated that the neighbors in attendance are opposed. Groberg stated that the previous plans that people had relied upon have now been changed. Groberg stated that he purchased the two houses facing Holmes and then sold the houses and was left with the 11 acres. Groberg stated that the plan was always to plat the parcel in at least one acre lots. Groberg stated he would like the lots to be about the same size at what is currently in the Castlerock Estates. Groberg stated that the neighbors relied on the previous preliminary plats to make their purchase in Castlerock. Groberg stated that in 2001 their preliminary plat had 7 lots with the idea that they could be larger with fewer lots. Groberg stated that from the beginning the City planners have wanted similar lots as shown, and the area was shown on the Comprehensive Plan map as estate. Groberg recommended that the Commission reject the preliminary plat as it does not fit the Comprehensive Plan and should be platted with at least one acre lots. Groberg stated that he has been invited by lawyers and attorney’s to act as an expert witness on real estate values and appraisal values. Groberg stated that location is important. Groberg stated that in an appraisal report for residential there is a spot where they check the neighborhood to see if it helps the land or not. Groberg stated that if he was called to testify in something like this situation, he would testify that smaller lots being only 1/3 of the size of the current lots would have a tendency to devalue the current Castlerock lots. Groberg stated that the Planning Commission has to go with what is the right thing, not what is technically in the subdivision laws. Groberg stated that going east on the traffic was never really in the plan and it would have just been for the sewer convenience. John and Alison Chambers (Alison spoke), 710 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Chambers stated their home is on the corner of Ronda and Castlerock. Chambers stated that Castlerock is similar to Kinsman and they flow one into another, with no curb, no gutter, large lots and maintains the estate feel. Chambers stated the developers live in Kinsman. Chambers stated the applicant (developers) are neighbors and did not talk to anyone. Chambers stated that the proposed subdivision will have curb, gutter and sidewalks and Castlerock does not which does not keep the land consistent. Chambers stated that there was a bridge that was put in from Kinsman over the canal running to the subdivisions and in the morning and afternoon there is a highway of kids going to Taylorview. Chambers stated that there can be a compromise, and if the developer could get the lot sizes up to at least an acre it would flow better and maintain the consistency and feel of the neighborhood. Chambers stated there is no other road to get to this proposed Rochester Estates except through Castlerock. Chambers stated that if there was another entrance it would be a different story. Dixon asked about the walking path on the side of the road. Chambers stated that there is black top separate Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 4 of 11 from the road that is maintained by the neighbors. Josephson asked when Chambers was notified of the proposed preliminary plat. Chambers stated that it was the 23rd or 24th of December. Chambers stated that other neighbors are out of town and some just got home from Christmas vacation. Josephson asked and Chambers agreed that the applicants live in Kinsman. Chambers stated that the owners bought in Kinsman because of the estate look and feel. Lynette Meek, 3591 Summerfield, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Meek stated that in September they purchased a lot in the Kinswood Estates. Meek stated after the purchase they were contacted by someone to see if they would subdivide and sell them two of the 4 acres they had purchased. Meek went to the Bonneville County Zoning and Planning Commission and asked what the guidelines for subdividing were. Meek stated they were advised that they could not subdivide into smaller than the existing current lots in Kinswood Estates. Meek stated there was a one acre lot so that is the smallest that they could subdivide into is 4 once acre lots. Meek stated she believes that could be of relevance to this discussion. Meek stated she spoke to Suzanne Stoddard in Bonneville County Planning and Zoning, and Stoddard stated that talking to your neighbors is very important, even if the planning and zoning grants approval, it could be halted by a civil suit from a neighbor. Swaney asked Cramer when the notice officially went out for the public hearing. Cramer stated that the letters were sent on December 18, 2015. Wimborne asked how the notices are sent, whether regular mail or registered. Cramer stated that they are sent regular mail. Lisa Baker, 715 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Baker stated that her lot is at the end of Ronda. Baker feels it is important to consider good planning, not just zoning. Baker stated she bought her lot in 2004 and finished her home in 2006 and has resided in her home for 10 years. Baker stated that they looked in the County, but they liked living in the City and wanted to be City residents and were excited to find the lots in Castlerock because they wanted land. Baker stated the respect shown by the Grobergs as they developed was impressive and you could not tell there was a difference between the Castlerock subdivision and Kinswood Estates. Baker stated that when they were building they had discussions with the Groberg’s about what the plans were for the southern property and they were assured that the intention was one acre lots and the City had preliminarily approved one acre lots. Baker stated that she went personally to the City twice and was told twice that it was an estate zone at one acre. Baker went to the City and was advised by Kerry Beutler to read the City of Idaho Falls Comprehensive Plan, which she read the 300 page Idaho Falls City Comprehensive Plan and it listed: Implementation Strategies and Plan for Residential Development (1) Develop a plan to involve neighbors in the community development process. Baker requested that the Commission not only consider the legality of whether this application fits in the zoning laws, but whether this is something the established residents would want in the plan. Baker stated that it does not need to be a fight, and the neighbors would be accepting of a one acre minimum, which is actually smaller than most of the lots in Castlerock. Baker stated that the average lot size in Castlerock is 1.7 acres. Baker stated that if you talk about a natural progression of getting smaller, Kinswood lots are higher with an average of more than 2 acres, Castlerock is 1.7, and so one acre is a progression to smaller. Baker stated that it is a big issue for the traffic and that is one reason that she went to the City twice when they built, because anything that came down Ronda would have to go past Baker’s house. Baker stated that the pathway is not on her side of the road. Baker stated that the pathway is on the south side of the road and only goes as far as Ronda. Baker stated that her son was one of the three students as well as Lynette Meek’s son that went before the City Council and got petitions and were instrumental in getting the bridge put in across the canal. Baker loves to see the kids coming through the neighborhood and over the bridge. Baker stated the Comprehensive Plan talked about how they are encouraging walking and biking. Baker stated considering traffic, they need to consider the kids walking through from the Meadows and Summerfield. Baker stated the one acre lots would allow them to change the road pattern to maintain consistency and they could hold their own storm water. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 5 of 11 Baker stated she would be happy with one acre lots. Baker stated that Whitepines went in north of Kinswood, which is a much more dense subdivision that does touch Kinswood, but that subdivision has its own access to the homes. Baker stated that she would not be arguing if Rochester Estates would have their own access, but every single vehicle going into Rochester has to go through Castlerock. Marvin Smith, 585 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Smith stated he respects what the Staff has said about traffic, but as stated in his wife’s letter, a part of the record, the incremental increase in traffic volume based upon Taylorview and Sunnyside being along Castlerock Lane on the other side of Holmes. Smith stated that this morning on his way to work there were no fewer than 20 vehicles at the intersection. Smith stated that he has been involved in no fewer than 25 developments in Jefferson, Fremont, Ada and Custer Counties and when there is an intersection impacted by traffic volume, even if the Engineers state there is no need for a traffic study, possibly the residents of the neighborhood might want to do a traffic study, which is one reason that Smith is urging the Commission for a continuance of the hearing. Smith stated he is unaware of any condition that allows plats to be approved when there is not a demarcation of easements as described by Mr. Groberg. Smith stated irrigation or utility easements have to be clearly marked so everybody knows what is going on with the plat and what delineation of unit they are going to be able to purchase. Smith urges the Commission to give the neighbors more time to develop their argument, as he believes that the intersection will have to be a controlled intersection at some point. Smith stated the incremental increase to the intersection could be the tipping point. Smith stated that with the demarcation of easements it has to be on every plat for everyone’s protection in the future. Dixon asked staff if Mr. Smith’s comment about easements would apply to preliminary plats or only to final plats. Cramer stated that definitely on final plats and there are standards that always require a 15’ easement across the front of any lot for utility purposes. Cramer stated that the easements in question, irrigation and public utility easements that are found in a separate agreement need to be figured out as to where they will go. Cramer stated the document that has the agreements needs to be reviewed by the City Surveyor to determine where the easements should go. If the easements affect the layout of the plat as it is being proposed it is possible a new public hearing would need to be conducted. Wimborne asked if the previous preliminary plats that have been mentioned and withdrawn, were withdrawn, but still on record. Cramer stated they are still in a file but none were considered at a public hearing. Cramer stated one was recently withdrawn when the developer decided not to move forward. Wimborne asked and Cramer agreed that if a resident is looking to get information about adjoining property or property that is nearby, she could go and look at the file and see things in the file, that were not up to date or current or had gone through the public hearing process. Cramer stated that the file are public record. Dixon stated that in the staff report under ordinances and recommendation, it says: Staff has reviewed the plat and finds it in compliance with the Subdivision Ordinance, Zoning Ordinance and is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Dixon asked how Cramer feels this is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Cramer referenced Comprehensive Plan policy statements as noted in the staff report. In response to a question from Cosgrove, Cramer stated in the City the preliminary plat needs to meet the Comprehensive Plan, Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Cramer stated that is why he asked for the zoning and annexation to be postponed because the zoning establishes the minimum standard and the minimum standard in that zone is 6,000 sq. ft. lots. It did not seem appropriate to talk about this evening. Cosgrove clarified that because we are at the preliminary plat stage it is apples and oranges and we are not subdividing an already platted subdivision and in that case one would have to come in and revise the plat. Cramer stated that there is no recorded plat on this property. There was further discussion regarding the location of potential easements. Cramer emphasized that the City Surveyor will need to be consulted. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 6 of 11 Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated as far as easements that are required to run across the property they will work with the Grobergs and the City Surveyor to make sure that they are shown on the final plat. Freiberg stated the final plat will have all of the easements in place to move irrigation water or for public utilities. In response to a question from Cosgrove, Freiberg stated there is a ditch along Lot 7. When the improvement drawings are developed any water that needs to be conveyed to adjacent properties will be dealt with. Freiberg stated that the lots are 25,000 sq. ft. Freiberg stated some of the nicer subdivisions such as Stonebrook, Southpoint, and Sunterra the lots are generally 10-15,000 sq. ft. Freiberg stated ½ acre lots are unique to Idaho Falls. Freiberg stated that R-1 lots that are developed are 7-15,000 sq. ft. lots. Freiberg stated the lot size is a unique point of this project. Freiberg stated Castlerock will not notice the traffic flow because the subdivision will be tucked to the south, so the people that live in Castlerock generally won’t be in Rochester. Freiberg stated that the estate flow that is in Castlerock is nice, but once Rochester is built, it will not be that noticeable to those that live in Castlerock. Dixon stated the traffic would still have to go through Castlerock. Freiberg agreed, and stated that it is 15 lots and the traffic flow generated by 15 lots is not extreme by any stretch of the imagination. Black asked what size of homes they are anticipating. Freiberg deferred to Launie Shelman. Black asked about the storm ponds. Freiberg stated the storm ponds will be designed to hold the City of Idaho Falls storm flows. Black asked if there will be landscaping. Freiberg stated there will be grass lined landscape similar to Waterford and the Meadows. Launie Shelman, 772 Kinswood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Shelman stated she is a real estate agent and has been working for 10 years in Idaho Falls. Shelman stated she has a hard task to find homes that fit buyers. Shelman discussed her view of the housing market and stated that trying to find a home between $400,000 – 600,000 with a half-acre lot is difficult. Shelman stated the only way to fix the problem is to develop the property herself. Shelman stated she is the biggest advocate for growth in Idaho Falls. Shelman stated they have to stand as a community to keep the buyers in Idaho Falls and not have them buy in Ammon. Josephson stated by going to acre lots Shelman could get a variance for not putting in curb and gutter. Shelman stated she does not think that variance is worth the risk of sitting on the market waiting for the one particular buyer that wants an acre, when the half acre lots will sell soon. Shelman added that curb and gutter is a huge value. Shelman stated that the Cottages in Ammon do not have curb and gutter and they have had so many problems. Opposition: Phillip Carr, 2605 Fieldstream, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Carr stated he worked with the Grobergs. Carr stated he has had no problem selling the lots he owned. Carr stated that the one lot he owns that is still vacant, he will probably build on that lot. Carr stated he is happy to compromise with 1 acre lots. Carr stated that the ½ acre lots will detract from what has been done in Castlerock. Carr stated he does not think there is a problem selling larger lots and nicer homes. Candace Ybarguen, 795 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ybarguen stated that when Shelman was talking about the house that took 5 years to sell, she stated that is the home she just bought in May and it was on the market for only 2 years. Richard Groberg, 620 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Groberg stated that if there is demand for the ½ acre lots, there is land all over the valley for sale that you could zone into the City and plat into half acre lots. Groberg stated that if there is a market then it doesn’t have to be developed here, where everyone except the developers are opposed to it. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 7 of 11 Applicant: Colby Shelman, 772 Kinswood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Shelman stated if he as a developer is going to invest money into the project he wants to build a product that will sell. It will be a great addition to the City. Cramer stated that under the regulations for the preliminary plat, the application and plat shall accurately and fairly describe and depict all . . . easements and shall contain such other information as may be necessary to determine if the proposed subdivision complies with the requirements of the chapter. Cramer stated that easements are supposed to be shown if they exist. Cramer stated that may be why the easements are not on the plat if they don’t currently exist and if this agreement wasn’t picked up in any title search. Opposition: Lisa Baker, 715 Castlerock, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Baker stated no one is implying they need large homes on the lots. Baker stated that any house will be fine. Baker stated density is the problem, not the type of the home. Baker stated they like the larger homes with less traffic coming through. Baker stated the neighborhood will be impacted by the traffic coming through to Rochester. Swaney stated that typically they allow the applicant to have the final rebuttal. Applicant: Launie Shelman, 772 Kinswood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Shelman stressed the importance of moderate growth. Shelman stated she is excited for the community and the potential Idaho Falls has. Shelman stated the traffic is not the issue. Shelman stated that more problems come from each of the households in the neighborhood with their own kids driving recklessly. Shelman stated it is not productive for the growth of the City to develop lots that won’t sell and develop quickly. Shelman asked the Commission to look at the plat and see that it is not tiny lots and not starter homes. Shelman stated it will complement the neighborhood that has beautiful homes. Shelman stated she is not adding 200 homes, it is just a small lot. Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney stated he appreciated everyone that testified at the public hearing. Swaney stated the staff report is correct, it meets the Subdivision Ordinances, it meets the requirements imposed by the City ordinance, and it meets the spirit, if not the letter of the Comprehensive Plan. Swaney stated the objections appear to have some credibility, but traffic studies are not required for this small of a development. Swaney stated he would approve the preliminary plat because it meets all of the requirements and the property owners have a right to develop their property consistently with City Ordinances. Swaney stated that to present a preliminary plat and then have to meet other standards established during the hearing process seems to be unfair and inequitable to property owners in general. Morrison complimented the public on their attendance and interest in the issue. Morrison stated the lot sizes comply with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Ordinances. Morrison encourage the owners of the property and the neighbors to get together and cooperate to work out as many kinks as they can. Black stated she disagrees with some of the information and the opinion of the Comprehensive Plan. Black stated there is an Estate Residential designation, and the City needs to be clearer on that Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 8 of 11 designation. Black stated she agrees with Groberg and that the estate is a distinction and is a larger lot and would like to see the preliminary plat revised to be one acre. Black believes it would go with the existing land use. Black thanked public for their comments. Wimborne agreed the City needs to look at the definition of Estate. Wimborne stated the application does meet the City’s Subdivision and Zoning Ordinance and with the definitions is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Wimborne stated unfortunately at this point the Commission has to work with the Zoning Ordinances and the definitions that are in place and under those criteria it meets the City's requirements. Wimborne hoped the developer could work with the neighbors and find some compromises. Wimborne stated there is an obligation as good neighbors to work together to develop the City. Cosgrove stated the only question in her mind is the question of representing easements on the preliminary plat. Cosgrove stated there is not an estate zone. Cosgrove stated that R-1 and RPA are the lowest density zones. Cosgrove stated this preliminary plat is well within the Subdivision Ordinance. Cosgrove stated that a foot bridge of 15’ is the barrier that changes from densities of 1 house per 3 acres in Kinsman to 7 houses per acre. Cosgrove stated that ½ acre lots are huge in the City and she does not see anything wrong with the preliminary plat. Dixon stated there wasn’t a presentation slide of the Comprehensive Plan, but it was in the staff notes. If you look at the aerial and compare it with the Comprehensive Plan and compare areas that are low density versus estate, one thing that is found is estate is already built out in the County, with the exception of the subject area, the area immediately to the south, between the backs of the existing homes, along the east side of Holmes and the canal that comes diagonally down through is the only area that has open acreage. Josephson stated the plat meets the regulatory requirements. Josephson stated the half acre lots are very marketable. Josephson stated due to the shortness of notice and the issue of the Comprehensive Plan suggesting that the developer and home owners have an opportunity to visit and reach a mutual agreement. Josephson believes that more time needs to pass before a preliminary plat is approved. Morrison moved to approve the preliminary plat for Rochester Estates as presented, Denney seconded the motion and it passed 6-1. Josephson objected to the motion as he believes that more time and studies need to be done. Business: Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for Rochester Estates. Dixon stated that he noted that (1) the presentation from staff included that the peak hour traffic added would be 15 trips per hour which is 1 trip every 4 minutes; (2) the Road network has a walking path from South Holmes, up Castlerock Ln., until the intersection of Castlerock Lane and Ronda, at which point it ends. Dixon stated that could be relevant because that is the part of Castlerock that the traffic in this area would be going down. Swaney moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for Rochester Estates 1-7 as presented, with the addition of the two items presented by Chairman Dixon (1) The presentation from staff included that the peak hour traffic added would be 15 trips per hour which is 1 trip every 4 minutes; (2) The Road network has a walking path from South Holmes, up Castlerock Ln., until the intersection of Castlerock Lane and Ronda, at which point it ends. Dixon stated that could be relevant because that is the part of Castlerock that the traffic in this area would be going down. For a total of 9 items, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 9 of 11 Cramer stated pursuant to Ordinance, if there are those that wish to appeal the decision to City Council, there is a deadline once the document is signed. Cramer stated that if there are people that wish to appeal, contact him and once the document is signed he will make contact so you are aware that the time has started and you have 14 days to file an appeal. Dixon added that this is a preliminary plat, and if the development goes forward there are two additional steps as a minimum and one is the annexation which also is a public hearing. Dixon added that on annexations and final plats the Commission makes recommendations and the Mayor and City Council will make the final decision. Wimborne asked if an appeal is filed, will the people that receive notice about this hearing, receive notice of that appeal hearing. Cramer stated that if there is an appeal filed it will be handled as a new public hearing which includes the same noticing requirements. Public Hearing: Rezone of 7.17 Acres: Lot 1, Block 1, Greyridge Division 1: McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Black asked why this is being rezoned when it was just initially zoned. McLane stated that it was annexed and zoned as RSC-1, then the property was sold and the new buyer wants to rezone to MS. McLane stated that RSC-1 has lots of steps and hoops to jump through as far as site plan reviews. McLane stated the RSC-1 designation has a 30’ landscape set back along public roads, and the MS zone only requires 15’ set back. McLane stated the 30’ set back would take up a lot of the buildable space. Black asked if the property to the east along Sunnyside had a 15’ set back. McLane stated that property is a PUD. McLane stated that two corners of the intersection (Sunnyside and St. Clair) will be MS and directly to the south is MS. The property to the east is PB and PB with a PUD overlay. Black asked what the set back and landscape requirements are. McLane stated in an MS zone the setback requirement is 15’ and believes the property along Sunnyside has a 15’ setback. Dixon asked and McLane agreed the walking path on Sunnyside is within the right-of-way and then the setback starts beyond the right-of-way. Black asked and McLane confirmed it would be consistent with the PB that is adjacent. Dixon asked if Bucks has a 30’ setback. McLane stated that Bucks was grandfathered in and built prior to the zoning requirement. Dixon asked about the access limitations. McLane stated that has been a big question during the development meetings. Dixon stated that where Broulims wanted to go in there was limited access. McLane stated there will not be any access allowed off of Sunnyside. McLane stated there will be an access on St. Clair, Elk Creek, and from the private drive to the east off of Merlin. Dixon asked if Bucks will still meet the requirement that RSC-1 has a minimum 1 ½ - 2 acres. McLane stated Bucks was zoned RSC-1 prior to this property being zoned RSC-1, so it must have met the requirement. Dixon asked if there are differences in buffering requirements. McLane stated there is no buffering requirement between any of the properties that are adjacent. Dixon asked what it means when under MS it states: can have Motel/hotel, when found to be in compliance with hazards and nuances planned transition zone standard, the service and loading area, planned transition performance standard and the finding subsection of the RSC-1 zones development plans requirements approved by the Planning Commission as a conditional use. McLane stated the number of standards that are in place with the PT Zone, there are a lot of those standards that would have to be met and would come to the Commission for approval prior to them getting that type of use. McLane stated they would have to obtain a conditional use permit from this body. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Zane Powell, 1885 Silver Horse Shoe Drive, Rexburg, Idaho. Powell is an employee of the new owner and acting as the agent and construction manager. Powell stated the new buyers are not Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 10 of 11 interested in a retail development. Powell stated that the zone line on the map is approximately 25’ further east of Bucks to allow future expansion of the carwash or a second tunnel or if they need extra room for parking or drive-around on Bucks. Powell clarified that the zone line is not on the property line. There was discussion about access onto Sunnyside Road, St. Clair, and Elk Creek Drive. No one appeared in support or opposition of the application. Dixon stated he recalls that the previous hearing had discussions with no access off of Sunnyside and was one of the reasons Broulims felt like it was too restrictive for them and maybe why they moved. Dixon suggested checking the minutes from the past meeting because the Commission needs to be consistent. McLane stated he will review the comments that were made at the time of annexation. Dixon stated this still has to go to City Council, so that information could be included at that point. Cosgrove stated with every rezone you have to consider if the rezone will allow some odious use that would be incompatible with the surrounding uses and the MS is a nice justifiable set of uses and is very compatible to how the area has developed out. Cosgrove stated this is a good proposal for the area. Wimborne agreed with Cosgrove. Dixon closed the public hearing. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council rezoning from RSC-1 to MS for 7.17 Acres of Lot 1, Block 1, Greyridge Division 1, as presented, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: None. Dixon adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted, Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes January 5, 2016 Page 11 of 11