Planning Commission

IDAHO FALLS PLANNING COMMISSION February 2, 2016 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners James Wyatt, George Morrison, Joanne Denney, George Swaney, Darren Josephson, Margaret Wimborne, Natalie Black and Julie Foster. MEMBERS ABSENT: Donna Cosgrove, Brent Dixon ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer; Assistant Planning Director, Kerry Beutler and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Vice-Chairman Wimborne called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. CHANGE TO AGENDA: Wimborne offered Staff the opportunity to modify the agenda to provide the Commissioners with the opportunity to discuss planning items. Cramer addressed the Commission, and asked if they wanted to dedicate 30 minutes at the end of the meeting to discuss planning items. Morrison stated that the schedule tonight is busy and he suggested moving the item to next month’s agenda. Black stated that at the training they decided that the discussion would be at 6:30 before the meeting instead of at the end. Wimborne stated that the Staff is interested in hearing what issues the Commission would like to discuss (i.e. estate designation). Wimborne suggested that the Commissioners email the items to Cramer that they would like to discuss. Minutes: Morrison moved to approve the minutes of January 5, 2016, Josephson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearings: 1. CUP 16-001: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. First Evangelical Lutheran Church. Cramer presented the staff report, a part of the record. Swaney asked if the CUP will need a reasoned statement of relevant criteria and standards. Cramer stated that will need to be brought to the next meeting. Wimborne opened the public hearing. Applicant was not present. No one appeared in support or opposition to the application. Wimborne closed the public hearing. February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10 Morrison moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the First Evangelical Lutheran Church Open Air Pavilion, Lot 1, Block 1, First Lutheran Church, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. PUD 16-001: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. St. Clair Townhomes. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Swaney indicated that the letter from the Bjornsons was not included in the packet. Beutler read the letter into the record. Wimborne clarified that the staff recommended approval of the PUD with the described buffer on the north end, but staff did not address the Moody Canal as the buffer or set-back. Beutler stated that Staff has no concerns with the variances the Applicant is requesting. Swaney clarified that attachment 6 as referenced in the staff report is the same letter that Beutler read into the record. Black asked if the City has moved forward with plans for a landscaping bond to guarantee money for landscaping and streets. Beutler stated that it is included in the Subdivision Ordinance for rights of way for street improvements, but no bond is required for landscaping. Black asked what tandem parking would look like. Beutler showed a picture of proposed townhome that showed a single car garage and driveway to park. Black asked if there is room on the street for guests to park. Beutler indicated that the street will be 24’ wide so cars could park on one side of the street. Beutler stated that Public Works has reviewed the plan and has no problems with the proposal. Black asked about the smaller set back, going from 25’ to 15’. Beutler indicated that since there is open space throughout the development, they would like a smaller set back to fit the units. Morrison asked if they will have guest parking. Beutler stated they have not proposed guest parking. Josephson asked about the walk path. Beutler stated that it is a perimeter walking path that would be included in the 15’ set back. Beutler deferred to the applicant for further information. Foster asked if traffic studies have been done for St. Clair. Beutler indicated that the traffic study information should be in the report. Wimborne indicated that the traffic study information is in the packet for the Final Plat for Lorin C Anderson, later in the meeting. Beutler stated there are traffic concerns on 17th Street already and the traffic study indicated that the development would not cause additional concerns. Beutler stated that St. Clair will be widened to 3 lanes (north, south, turn lane), plus a bike path going north and south, for the length of the development. Beutler added that the City is looking at a future project at the intersection of 17th and St. Clair to widen that area. Black asked if the widening of St. Clair will affect the Moody Canal. Beutler stated that the Applicant will have to move the canal to the eastern edge of the right of way. Beutler stated that the applicant is proposing that the Moody Canal will make up the additional 5’ for the 20’ buffer. Denney asked about the buildings on the south west corner of the property. Beutler indicated they are single family residences. Denney clarified that there will only be a 15’ buffer next to that south west edge. Wimborne opened the public hearing. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Harper Leavitt, 985 N. Capital, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley indicated they have engaged in discussions with the Bjornsons to try to alleviate their concerns. Jolley indicated that Bjornson’s shop/garage is located on the back edge of their property and is accessed from Applicant’s property. Jolley indicated they are trying to work out an access easement that would give the Bjornsons the ability to come in off of St. Clair into the development and still access the garage. Jolley stated that the southern edge of the Bjornson home there are mature pine trees that February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10 are on the subject property. Jolley indicated they are trying to work out a way to put a fence in and leave the trees, by either putting the fence on Bjornsons property or farther onto the subject property. Jolley indicated that from the Bjornson’s property line to the townhomes there is 50’ buffer. Jolley stated that Public Works has given permission to do less width on St. Clair in order to minimize the effects of moving the canal on the residence. Jolley indicated that the Bjornsons have some aesthetically pleasing features that could be affected if the canal had to be moved right up against it. Jolley indicated they are asking for variances in the Ordinance with tandem parking. Jolley stated that the reason for the tandem parking is to maintain the feel of a residential neighborhood for the development. Jolley stated that the current cross section on St. Clair will be 43’ of oil from lip of curb to lip of curb. Jolley indicated there will be curb and gutter on the east side of St. Clair and will provide a 5’ sidewalk on the east side of St. Clair. Jolley stated that St. Clair is currently 28’ wide. Jolley indicated that Public Works is allowing parallel parking on the west side of St. Clair. Morrison asked if once the road is striped they will not allow parking on either side. Jolley clarified that they will still allow parking on the west side of St. Clair. Jolley stated that the traffic study indicated that the development will not cause an undue hardship on St. Clair. Wimborne asked for information about the walking path. Jolley indicated the intent is to put a path around the full exterior of the PUD within the setback. Swaney asked if there are numbers for the traffic study, not just statements indicating “minimal”. Jolley stated that they hired an outside firm to do the traffic study according to the BMPO Standard. Jolley stated that the City Engineer did not have concerns with the numbers listed from the traffic study. Beutler indicated that the full study is large with technical data and thus only the conclusions and the summary of the study were provided. Morrison commended Jolley for working with the Bjornsons. No one appeared in support. Opposition: Ken Krivanak, 2185 St. Clair, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Krivanak lives on south east corner of the property. Krivanak indicated that Jolley has not discussed anything with him. Krivanak stated that the PUD does not address his buffer zone the same as the Bjornsons. Krivanak stated that the traffic pattern for St. Clair has been overloaded since the Teton Apartments went in. Krivanak indicated that 8 years ago when they were talking about a PUD it was planned to have two exits onto Woodruff and none on St. Clair. Krivanak would like to have one exit onto St. Clair for emergency vehicles and 2 onto Woodruff. Krivanak stated there is no landscaping on the south end of the property. Krivanak suggested a 30’ off set, mound of soil and vegetation and a wall/fence for a buffer. Krivanak stated that widening only one portion of St. Clair will form a bottle neck in that area. Krivanak indicated that allowing traffic to park on the west side of the road will exacerbate the problem of bottle necking. Krivanak suggested eliminating the parking on the west side of St. Clair. Krivanak suggested cutting out through traffic on St. Clair. Kris Manley, 2165 St. Clair, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Manley’s property is on the south west corner of the proposed development. Manley stated that the 15’ set back is a minimal space and is concerned about that minimal space. Manley stated that St. Clair is busy and adding additional cars from the development will put stress on St. Clair and the intersection of 17th Street. Manley stated that the residents on the southern boundary of the property should have a privacy fence. February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10 Morrison asked if Manley would mind if there was no parking on the west side of St. Clair. Manley indicated that he would appreciate no parking on either side of St. Clair. Bruce Bjornson, 2015 St. Clair, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bjornson indicated his home is located in the center of the PUD. Bjornson stated that with a few requests he could support the plan. Bjornson stated that moving the canal affects a brick fence on the front of his property and suggested not having a turn lane south of Big Lots, and having a bike/walk path one side of St. Clair, which would allow room to widen the street without affecting Bjornson property. Bjornson stated that if the canal has to be moved that they leave a lawn mower width maintenance strip in front of his brick fence. Bjornson is concerned about maintaining 519 linear feet of fence and as such, requested a solid, no maintenance, non-vinyl perimeter fence. Bjornson stated that the north end of the property has a car port that snow and ice fall from and would stress and damage a vinyl and wood fence. Bjornson suggested a solid concrete fence such as the fence that was built for the residents on the north end of the Teton Apartments on the corner of St. Clair and Woodruff. Bjornson showed pictures of the concrete fence. Bjornson stated that the road on the north property line uses a portion of the Bjornson property. Bjornson stated he is willing to negotiate to allow them to consume the property, if they ensure permanent access to the garage door on the north side of the shed, with a gate that is wide enough to back a trailer into the shed. Bjornson stated that the north driveway property border has to have enough room to maintain the current level of asphalt as the property line does extend past the asphalt. Michelle Frank 955 E 21st, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Frank indicated that her grandparents developed the Jennie Lee addition and the apartments on St. Clair across from proposed site. Frank indicated the density of the PUD is a concern to her. Frank indicated that her home, on the corner of 21st and Jennie Lee has a lot of traffic. Frank indicated that the traffic is a problem and needs to be addressed. Ken Krivanak, 2185 St. Clair, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Krivanak agreed with Bjornson that the fence suggested is similar to what was discussed 8 years ago for the southern property. Krivanak suggested a concrete fence with berm and trees and vegetation with 30’ set back. Wimborne clarified and Beutler agreed that the only proposed fencing is around the Bjornson home. Applicant: Blake Jolley, 985 N. Capital Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley stated that there are large concerns regarding St. Clair. Jolley indicated they are working on the concerns with Public Works. Jolley indicated that the owner proposed to not do anything to St. Clair, but with the overall future planning, it became a requirement that the applicant address issues with St. Clair in order to develop the property. Jolley asked if there is residential fence on the backside of the southern property. Beutler indicated that some of the homes do have fencing. Jolley stated that if there is currently a fence, he does not see a need for a double fence. Jolley stated that if there is not a fence, then that is something that can be worked out with the adjacent property owners. Jolley stated that they did a traffic study to see what the impact on St. Clair would be with the PUD and the traffic study indicated the impact to St. Clair would be minimal. Jolley stated that the current property owner has no access to Woodruff. Jolley stated that the buffer on the south west corner of the property can be worked out that will benefit the developer and the owners. Jolley stated that the Ordinance, without a variance, would be 25’ maximum. Jolley stated that St. Clair is on the list of things the City is wanting to address and Public Works will decide what February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10 is best for the City on 17th Street and St. Clair. Jolley indicated that the density of the PUD (12.7 units per acre) is under what is allowed in an R-3A (35 units per acre.) Morrison asked if Jolley would consider the concrete fence. Jolley stated they could discuss the fence with the property owner. Kris Manley 2165 St. Clair, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Manley stated that the depth of his property is 150’ and 30’ of his backyard is fenced with wood and vinyl. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Swaney stated he is concerned with the traffic study and the “minimal” impact that could occur to St. Clair before any improvements occur to St. Clair and 17th Street. Swaney indicated that in the past there has been a huge concern by residents about the impact of traffic and the safety of the roadway. Swaney recommended to Staff to include the numbers on the traffic study showing how many trips at peak hour. Swaney stated that the roadway at the north end of the property is stubbed at the end so it appears that in the future it could connect to a road that would eventually go out to Woodruff. Swaney stated that the Bjornson concern about fencing is legitimate, but the property negotiations with the developer is their problem, and not for the Commission to decide. Swaney believes the fencing issue needs to be addressed in a stipulation of some respect in the recommendation to City Council. Wimborne asked Staff and Staff confirmed that the Commission can include stipulations in a PUD. Black is concerned about the density of the property and believes it will have a large impact on St. Clair. Black is concerned about the reduced set-backs and reduced landscaping buffer. Black is concerned for the lack of parking. Black stated that a guest parking area would be a good idea. Black is concerned about the fencing for the different areas of the property. Morrison asked Staff how they could get St. Clair to have no parking on both sides. Beutler stated that it is something that Public Works would do that and the City Engineer would assign it as no parking. Morrison asked what would stimulate the conversation. Beutler stated that conversation has been had and there is no parking on the east side of St. Clair. Morrison stated that no parking on both sides would facilitate the movement of traffic better. Morrison indicated that a motion should include fencing along the north edges of the surrounding property. Wimborne clarified that Morrison is talking about Bjornson property and not the north part that borders the commercial, or south that borders the homes, only around Bjornson. Morrison is concerned about the lack of guest parking. Wimborne summarized the stipulations to include the fencing around the Bjornson property, reference to additional parking and fencing on the southern edge. Swaney stated that a motion should standardize the fence that will be used for the purpose of buffering for all of the adjacent residential property. Denney indicated she is concerned with the southern set back and how close it will be to the adjacent residents. Wimborne clarified with Staff that they recommend the described buffer which would include the reduced set back. Beutler stated that in the R-3A zone the required buffer between R-3A and R-1 is a 10-foot landscape strip for the set back. Wimborne stated that within that set back there is a walking path as well as a landscape buffer. Beutler stated that the 7-10’ buffer would be on the north side next to the commercial. Beutler stated that on the south side and next to Bjornson the required buffer in R-3A is a minimum 10’ wide landscape buffer. Wimborne stated that with the requested variance they could still do the 10’ landscape buffer and still have 5’ within the recommendation. Beutler stated that is why staff did not include additional buffering requirements on the set back. Morrison asked if they can have two types of fencing. Beutler stated that if the fences are meeting different needs or February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10 requirements they can be different. Josephson asked if there is an HOA with the PUD. Beutler stated that the PUD Ordinance requires that the development be maintained as one and under unified control. Josephson stated that the streets will be private home owner owned streets. Josephson asked and Beutler agreed that the fencing, if on the development property would be part of the HOA for future maintenance. Beutler deferred further clarification to the applicant. Wimborne summarized the issues the Commission has to include: standardized fencing for residential, guest parking, and set back on southern area. Black clarified that the buffer for the commercial strip is a 7-10’ planting strip, trees and 6’ tall opaque fence or hedge. Black asked if the fence for the commercial edge of the property would have to match the residence fence. Wimborne stated that it has been expressed that it would make sense to have the fences uniform. Wimborne stated that the Ordinance requires the 7-10’ planting strip to buffer between residential and commercial. Black stated that the residential could have matching fences and the commercial fence could be something different. Wimborne does not feel comfortable requiring a specific material for the fencing. Morrison stated that the concern of Mr. Bjornson of maintaining fence would be alleviated if the fence is on the applicant’s property and covered by the HOA, so some kind of solid fence would be appropriate. Beutler stated that the PUD Ordinance requires long term maintenance of anything that is part of the development, but defers to the applicant for arrangements with adjacent properties. Wimborne re-opened the public hearing. Applicant: Blake Jolley, 985 N. Capital Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho, Jolley indicated that the HOA will maintain the fence for the term of the development. Jolley stated that the proposal is to have the entire fence placed on the subject property. Swaney asked if putting a fence along the southern residential property is feasible. Jolley stated that is a reasonable request. Wimborne asked about consistency of fencing. Jolley stated that the owner would probably be amenable to do something specific for the residential and have an option to do something to buffer the commercial. Wimborne clarified that all residential would be one kind and commercial could be a different type of fence. Jolley indicated he would prefer it left open to work out individually with each home owner. Morrison asked if there is room for a berm for the southern properties. Jolley stated it could be looked at and they could start the discussion with the southern property owners. Wimborne re-closed the public hearing. Swaney stated that he agreed with a minimum standard for the fencing. Swaney stated that the fencing along the north side of the property is being provided to buffer the PUD from the commercial. Black stated she is concerned about no guest parking lot. Morrison agreed with Black that there needs to be a no parking on the streets and there is a need for guest parking. Wimborne asked if staff wanted to add anything about parking. Beutler stated that parking is not a concern that has been raised by any of the departments in the City as the project was reviewed. Beutler stated there is not a standard for guest parking for developments. Wyatt stated that the Board of Adjustment has recently approved tandem parking on a development. Wyatt stated that the PUD is on private property (Bjornson) and that will need to be cleared up. Beutler stated that the issue will need to be resolved and it will be addressed when they come in for the formal site plan review. Cramer clarified that prior to going to City Council the property issue will be resolved. Cramer stated that when it is resolved the property owner will sign an Affidavit of February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10 Legal Interest, which grants the applicant, or its representative, permission to bring their property forward. Cramer stated there needs to be a sale of the property, or an Affidavit of Legal Interest provided before the project will more forward to City Council. Swaney stated that the Commission is making a recommendation to City Council and whatever stipulations are added to the proposal need to be clear for City Council. Josephson moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development of St. Clair Townhomes Addition with the stipulation that fencing is agreed upon by all parties for minimum standard purposes, Morrison seconded the motion. Black asked if the motion meets the requirements that the Staff had with a recommendation with the condition of the described buffer be included on the north end of the development. Wimborne stated that it would be best to amend the motion so that the recommendation to Mayor and City Council approval of the PUD for St. Clair Townhomes with the condition that the described buffer be included and a stipulation that fencing with minimum standard. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development of St. Clair Townhomes Addition with the condition that the described buffer be included on the north end of the development as noted in the staff notes, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Wimborne called for a roll call vote for the original motion as amended. Morrison, abstain; Black, no; Denney, yes; Josephson, yes; Foster, no; Swaney, no; Wyatt, no. The motion failed 2-4. Morrison stated that he has concerns with parking and believes the situation could be addressed by eliminating 1 or 2 units. Black stated that the PUD is adding more than minimal traffic to St. Clair and 17th Street. Black stated that it is too large of a development for the property, and the request for variances on set- back, landscaping, and parking concern her. Foster stated that her concern is for the traffic and does not see how 184 potential vehicles will make a minimal impact. Foster stated that there no need for additional parking for residents of the PUD if they are going to reduce parking on St. Clair. Foster stated it is unfair to reduce the parking on St. Clair and reduce them within the PUD. Foster stated that the absence of an access to Woodruff concerns her. Swaney stated that he is concerned about the minimal impact on the traffic. Swaney stated that the idea of leaving it to the developer to negotiate with property owners about fencing is a bad idea. Swaney stated that he believes that one of the property owners has more leverage than the other property owners as the developer needs the Bjornson property for the development. Swaney stated that the fencing is to provide the separation for minimal standards for everyone and there needs to be an equity and fairness established. Wyatt stated he is concerned about the 15’ set back. Wyatt stated that a nice solid fence would solve some of the 15’ issue. February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10 Cramer informed the Commission that they still have to have a recommendation to the Council. Cramer clarified that the Commission had a motion to recommend approval and that motion failed, so a new motion needs to be presented. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council denial of the Planned Unit Development for St. Clair Townhomes, Black seconded the motion and it passed. 7-1. Josephson voted no. Josephson stated that he believes the PUD meets the minimum criteria and standards, the developer and the home owners do have leverage each with each other. Josephson stated he believes the parking is appropriate and the only concern he has is the 15’ buffer to the south. 3. RZONE 16-001: REZONE. Grandview Storage Units. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne opened the public hearing. Applicant: Kurt Rowland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Rowland stated that the rezone is requested to make the parcel consistent with the rest of the property in order to build storage units. No one appeared in support or opposition of the application. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the rezone from M-1 to HC-1 of the Grandview Storage Unit property, Foster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Business: 1. PLAT 16-003: FINAL PLAT. Grandview Storage Units. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked what it means to “address the City’s review comments prior to proceeding to Council.” Beutler stated that the review comments that are outstanding are technical comments from the City Surveyor. Swaney asked if one of the comments is showing the access off of Foote Drive on the final plat. Beutler stated that the plat does not show specific access, it only shows frontage. Beutler stated that the applicant is aware that they will only have access to Foote Drive. Josephson asked if this incudes drainage provisions. Beutler stated that will be part of the site plan development when they come in for the commercial site plan, they will show that they can maintain the drainage on the property. Morrison asked if it is unusual to not have a street access shown on a final plat. Beutler stated it is not unusual. Beutler stated that the City used to Plat little intersection/right of way “knobs” but technically it is dedicated City right of way so the City is required to provide maintenance and it can be difficult as properties develop if the access is in the wrong spot, then they’d have to come back to Council and ask for vacations. Beutler stated that typically they just plat the properties adjacent and note where the access should come from. February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10 Applicant: Kurt Rowland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Rowland stated the access will come off of Foote Drive and will align with the access across from it. Rowland stated they do not put the access on the plats unless it is a dedicated public right of way. Wimborne asked for a technical definition for access “knob”. Rowland stated it is the radius that is going into the property. Rowland stated that the property will be cut down so it is not as steep and they will be putting drainage swells along Foote. Wyatt asked about the temporary easement on the plat along Grandview. Rowland stated that ITD is going to widen the road for Grandview this spring, and that will be a temporary construction easement. Josephson asked if there is a sidewalk easement along the south property border along Grandview. Wimborne stated there is not currently a sidewalk, but it will be part of ITD widening project. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Grandview Storage Units as presented and included in the Staff Report, Josephson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. PLAT 16-004: FINAL PLAT. Ivywood Subdivision, Division No 1. Cramer presented the staff report, a part of the record. Cramer corrected an error in the staff report, that stated the common lots on the east side of the property needed to be referenced not only as common lots, but also including berming and landscaping. Cramer stated that the improvements drawings depicted required berms and landscaping. Cramer stated that the staff recommendation would change to say the plat does meet the subdivision requirements and they would recommend approval. Josephson clarified and Cramer confirmed that this is the first phase of Ivywood. Black asked if the walking and biking path connect to the subdivision. Wimborne stated that the applicant is nodding and can address that point. Applicant: Clint Boyle, Horrocks Engineers, 901 Pier View Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Boyle stated that this phase of Ivywood will not include the pathway connections as the bike path connection will be from the intersection and will be included in another phase to the north. Boyle confirmed that they will not be utilizing knobs in this project, but will have streets with appropriate turn arounds. Boyle stated that the way the plat is set up there are common lots that are 50’ wide that are proposed along the ultimate build out of Park Road. Boyle stated those lots will have common maintenance by the HOA. Boyle stated that all lots meet the 150’ depth requirement if they extend out past the common lot. Boyle stated that the alternative would be to run the lots out to the street and provide an easement. Boyle believes this is a better approach in terms of maintenance as buffers. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Ivywood Subdivision, Division No. 1, as presented by staff, with the stipulation that the recommendation on the set back, in the staff report, has been withdrawn, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. PLAT 16-006: FINAL PLAT. Lorin C Anderson, division No. 1 3rd Amended. Wimborne clarified that previous discussions on the PUD do not have any impact on this item. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Black asked about the storm pond shown on Lot 13. Beutler stated that is off the plat boundary, and is part of the commercial property. February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10 Swaney asked if any recommendation made has to mention that the property that is not included under the current ownership has to be resolved. Beutler stated that would be appropriate with the plat. Applicant: Blake Jolley, 985 N. Capital Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley indicated that in the plat itself there is no request to plat the Bjornson’s property. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Lorin C. Anderson, Division 1, 3rd Amended, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. PLAT 16-007: FINAL PLAT. Milligan Commercial Plaza. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne asked with the addition of the cul-de-sac and vacation of the road where will the access be. Beutler stated that one parcel has access onto Bridgeport, and frontage onto the cul-de-sac. Beutler stated that the other parcels that would have frontage onto Milligan already have frontage onto Utah so there would be no loss of access. Wimborne clarified and Beutler agreed that the access will come off the cul-de-sac from the north and south. Applicant: Kurt Rowland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Rowland indicated that they are asking to plat this piece of ground so it can be developed in the City of Idaho Falls. Rowland stated that the City Engineering department asked the applicant to vacate Murray Street and plan the cul-de-sac. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Milligan Commercial Plaza, as presented, Wyatt seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Wimborne encouraged the Commissioners to email planning items to Brad Cramer, to discuss before the next meeting. Beutler stated that the joint meeting with the County Planning Commission is on February 17, 2016 at 6:30 p.m. at Council Chambers. Wimborne adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder February 2, 2016, Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10