Planning Commission

Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 2016 City Annex Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners, Brent Dixon, Joanne Denney, George Swaney, Julie Foster, Margaret Wimborne. MEMBERS ABSENT: George Morrison, Darren Josephson, Natalie Black ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer; and Assistant Planning Director, Kerry Beutler, Brent McLane, Isabella Liu, and interested citizens. WORK SESSION: They did not have a quorum to start the work session. The Commissioners read letters that were recently received, that were not in the packets, for the upcoming hearings. CALL TO ORDER: Dixon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. Minutes: None. Public Hearings: 1. ANNEXATION/INITIAL 16-013. Annexation of R-1 (Residential Single-Family) Zone. Prestwich Country Estates. Cramer presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne asked about the need for an agreement for individual property owners addressing the issue of sidewalks, goats, etc. Cramer stated that the City has no objection to inventorying what is currently in place and what will legally exist, and if there needs to be an agreement that states they will not be required to build more infrastructure, the City is happy to sit down and talk about the agreement. Dixon asked if other Cities in Idaho have municipal electric utilities. Cramer stated it is unusual. Dixon asked and Cramer confirmed that the continuing current uses would apply if someone sells their home. Dixon asked how long the use can lapse and still be resumed. Cramer stated it is typically one year. Dixon asked if the cul-de-sacs are large enough for City plows. Cramer stated they require a 90’ radius. Dixon stated that Title 50-222-5(b)(3), it states that it is required that the City prepare and publish a written annexation plan, that includes (a, b, c, d, e) that is to be included. Cramer stated that the City has not prepared an annexation plan as it is only required for category B and C annexations. Cramer stated that they modeled how they approached answering the questions after an annexation plan. Wimborne clarified that Idaho Falls Power cannot get involved until the property is annexed, and Rocky Mountain Power is not willing to layout the buyout scenario until the property is annexed, but there is no risk that the residents would lose power. Cramer stated that if Rocky Mountain stopped serving them, then Idaho Falls Power would be willing to serve them. Cramer stated that the concern is Rocky Mountain Power’s rates are higher, so if they are annexed and power is not converted now you have higher taxes and higher utility rates. Wimborne stated that the other issue is the cost of the August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 20 buyout. Cramer stated that the residents would bear up to 50% of the buyout. Cramer added that the City is annexing these parcels for the efficiency and provision of services and equity in provisions of the services. Cramer added that anything happening in this subdivision currently has to be serviced by different providers, including Sheriff’s office, Fire District and different utility. Cramer stated that the roads, and parks surrounding the area are financed by City tax dollars. Dixon referenced the letter that showed the cost of the transfer for Fielding Memorial Cemetery and the transfer costs included: Infrastructure Compensation, Revenue Reimbursement, and legal/transaction fees. Dixon asked which categories the residents would have to pay. Cramer stated that they would have to pay infrastructure and revenue compensation, but is unsure on the legal/transaction fees. Dixon asked and Cramer confirmed that the buyout with Fielding Memorial happened after the City told Rocky Mountain Power they were not interested in renewing the agreement at the end of the expiration. Dixon stated that it appears that the City and Rocky Mountain are generally working together with the same terms, even though there is not a legal agreement in force currently. Cramer agreed that in that case yes, they did work together. Dixon opened the public hearing. The City is the Applicant for this hearing. Support: Joyce Pole, 1710 Delmar, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Pole stated that she submitted a letter in support of the application. Pole stated that her concern is with the issue of open fire in the county. Pole stated that on at least 3 occasions they have had to call the fire department because of open fires in the back yard adjacent to her yard, that created a lot of smoke in her house. Pole asked if the annexation is not approved is there a way to have open fires disallowed due to the proximity to the residential city neighborhoods. Dixon stated that he is unaware of any statute. Dixon added that the area is governed under the County Ordinances and provisions. Opposition: Delwin W. Roberts, 3232 Merlin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Roberts stated that they have considered as a community, the prospects of joining the City. Roberts stated that the problem is there are unanswered questions and the need for consideration of the issues before they can give people the advice and answers they need to make a well- founded decision. Roberts stated that a good reading of the Statute on part (A) also incorporates the same doctrinal basis and same planning ordinances that are set forth prior to section 50-222. Roberts stated that those sections all require that there is consideration of services. Roberts stated that the same procedures in (B) are reflected in (A) if you look at the entire statute as a whole. Roberts stated that services are what drives this whole issue. Roberts stated that Randy (City Attorney) told him, based on a Northern Idaho case, that the prompting of moving into an annexation process triggers certain things. Roberts stated that his position is that the annexation puts the City in a bad situation visa vi Rocky Mountain Power because when you pursue annexation, you take the public trust easements over which Rocky Mountain Power is delivering their services to the Community. Roberts stated that it is an interesting conflict. Roberts stated that the problem in the process is that in the past there has been an agreement with Rocky Mountain Power, so the City and residents could rely on that agreement. Roberts stated that they don’t feel comfortable as a August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 20 community being put in the situation to depend on the good nature of Rocky Mountain Power with regard to the valuation of the equipment, etc. Roberts stated that his subdivision wants the time to make the arrangements in advance of moving forward with the dealings with the City, so they can level the playing field with Rocky Mountain Power. Roberts stated that the subdivision would like to have the matter tabled until they are able to deal with the situation of Rocky Mountain Power. Roberts stated that if the subdivision is brought into the City, but forced economically to stay with Rocky Mountain Power, it will be a significant problem in the valuation of their property. Roberts stated that this subdivision went through the same process in 2003 and the power problem has always been the driving force. Roberts stated that this subdivision does not want to be in between the fight between the City and Rocky Mountain Power. Roberts stated that at the time of the Agreement with Prestwich County Estates, the only thing the City did in terms of water was to provide the main line. Roberts stated that the City has no distribution rights beyond the main line into the subdivision. Roberts stated that they need to negotiate how water will be handled and how much the City will take care of, and how much the residents will be responsible for. Roberts summarized that the residents need to sit down and negotiate the issues with all interested parties, including Rocky Mountain Power. Roberts stated that they discussed with staff that one of the provisions of annexation would be that if the residents had difficulties in working things out with Rocky Mountain Power, the residents could get something in writing from Rocky Mountain Power and if necessary could invoke a request for mediation on the issues and could invoke the PUC to deal with the issues. Roberts stated that the Planning and Zoning Statute has a mediation provision that could apply to resolve the issues with all interested parties. Roberts apologized about the smoke problem and stated that the neighborhood does not condone outlandish fires. Roberts asked for the time to work out the problems so they can make the transition to City as economically soft as possible. Roberts stated that if you look at the cost of Fielding Memorial Cemetery, Rocky Mountain Power got $49,000.00 for some poles and transformers. Roberts wants to be in the position to go to Rocky Mountain Power and explain that they’ve amortized the property already. Roberts stated that if they apply the same kind of valuation to the subdivision, based on what they did with Fielding Memorial Cemetery, they are looking at $100,000.00 and the City is looking at $100,000.00 to Rocky Mountain Power, which will eat up 2 years of the subdivision tax base. Roberts stated it would take people in the subdivision 15-20 years to amortize out the amount of money needed to buy out Rocky Mountain Power. Roberts stated again the request to table the process. Swaney stated that they have expressed an interest in negotiating with Rocky Mountain Power, but the last time this was before the Commission in 2003. Swaney asked how many times they have met with Rocky Mountain Power about the future of the subdivision since 2003. Roberts stated they have not met with them. Roberts stated that in 2003 there was discussions with Rocky Mountain Power and that was the major reason that the residents were opposed was because the amount of money involved in the buyout was substantial. Dixon stated that in 2003 they got to a hearing and things stalled out. Dixon asked if there was an estimated cost for the buyout in 2003. Dixon indicated that in the staff notes there are signed statements from 18 of the 23 residence stating that Roberts is their spokesman. Dixon asked how Roberts feels about the proposed zone of R-1. Roberts indicated that R-1 is not a problem. Roberts indicated that non-conforming uses should be in writing and that has been addressed by staff. Patricia Craner, 3268 Merlin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Craner has been a resident since 1987. Craner stated she remembers in 2003 that Rocky Mountain talked to the residents about the fact August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 20 that they’d have to pay 16 months of electric bills as well as buyout of the infrastructure. Craner brought up the cost analysis that was sent to the residents in the subdivision. Craner voiced concern over the contents of the cost analysis as being inaccurate. Cramer stated that he would clarify the cost analysis. Dixon indicated that the cost estimate was not included in the staff report. Craner stated that she is concerned that the City is stating that they will not make them put in sidewalks, but that statement is not in writing. Swaney stated that the purpose of the presentation and the public hearing is to put on the public record, what the City’s commitments are and the City committed that there will not be any requirement to change the existing uses. Dixon stated that he believes on an individual basis there may be some items that need to be grandfathered, such as goats. Dixon asked staff to make a copy of the cost analysis that Craner had so the Commissioners could have the document in front of them to discuss. Scott Miller, 3233 Nina, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Miller stated that he moved to the subdivision because it was in the County and that was important to them. Miller stated that he understands that the City wants to create revenue. Jayson Wood, 3101 Merlin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Wood stated he is opposed to the annexation. Wood stated that he wants to place on the record that he owns goats. Wood stated they bought in that subdivision because it was in the County. Wood agreed with Roberts comments. Wood stated he would like additional time to negotiate with Rocky Mountain Power to reach a mutually beneficial resolution between all parties involved. Wood stated that the City is exposed to issues in this as well. Wood stated that any resolution that is reached voluntarily will be better. Wood suggested the City come and participate in the negotiations between the residents and Rocky Mountain Power. Wood stated there are questions raised under the US Constitution 42 USC Section 1983 regarding regulatory takings, regarding substantive and procedural due process issues, as well as equal protection issues. Wood again asked the City to step back and work things out. Alecia Wood, 3101 Merlin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Wood stated that the letter from Sam and Joyce Pole and the accusations therein, should have to be proven. Wood stated that one statement in the letter that was quoted came from her and it is inaccurate. Newel Richardson, 2088 E 49th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Richardson thanked the Commissioners for their service. Richardson stated that he submitted a letter to the City. Richardson stated they are strongly opposed to a high density zone in the place designated. Dixon stopped Richardson and corrected him. (Richardson was wanting to testify on Sandpoint.) Applicant: Dixon asked Cramer to explain the cost estimate and explain why the Commissioners did not have it before. Cramer stated that prior to the neighborhood meeting, staff looked at existing costs for taxes, water rates, sewer rates, electrical rates as they stand today and what the rates would be if the property was annexed. Cramer stated that a cost estimate was sent for each parcel. Cramer stated that it was mistakenly left out of the packet. Cramer stated that the power numbers were taken based on an average kilowatt hour that a City resident uses in a year. Cramer stated that it was based on Idaho Falls Power’s numbers and looked at the residential customers and took the average kilowatt hours of what they used. Cramer stated that they could not specifically estimate the actual cost because they have no right or ability to contact Rocky August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 20 Mountain Power and ask for utility bills. Cramer stated that Idaho Falls Power has created a tool that any resident can use and enter their information to see what the real cost would be. Dixon asked about the City and County sewer fees. Cramer stated that it’s just a label. Cramer stated that to be clear on what they were comparing they could not say annual city sewer fee for both spots, so to clarify they labeled the current city rate (for county residents) as County sewer/water. Dixon clarified that County residents are paying a different rate than City residents. Cramer stated that County residents on City water are paying double what a City resident pays and sewer is a minimal increase. Dixon asked which part of the cost estimate was based on the individual properties. Cramer stated that everything is based on the individual property except power. Cramer stated that they went to the County tax records and looked up what they are paying today, calculated the new levies, took out supplemental items, such as the library, and came up with the number listed on the cost estimate. Swaney stated that a concern appears to be who is going to negotiate with Rocky Mountain Power the potential transfer of services. Swaney stated that that the negotiation would be solely between the City of Idaho Falls, if the annexation occurs and Rocky Mountain Power. Cramer stated that the most recent communication from Rocky Mountain Power is that once the property is annexed they would like for the neighborhood to contact the City, the City would then submit the letter of request to change services, and the City would work and negotiate on the buyout number. Cramer stated that if the number is too high or unacceptable, the residents still have the choice to not switch over. Dixon asked if Cramer had an estimate for the cost to the residents. Cramer stated that Idaho Falls Power is very hesitant to provide even a ball park figure, so they do not appear to be pirating customers. Dixon stated he understands the unease of the residents as they do not know what the number might be. Cramer stated that one piece of the buyout could be estimated by a resident by looking at the power bills and can figure out that portion of the buyout. Cramer stated that the infrastructure is the wild card. Dixon stated that in City subdivisions you only pay a hook up fee, you do not pay for the power poles, capacitors, transformers, etc. Dixon asked why is it in this case, where the infrastructure will transfer to the City Electric Division, that the residents would be paying 50% of the infrastructure. Cramer stated that it used to be the City’s policy to take the utility infrastructure to the new development, but now in a commercial development the developer pays for all of the infrastructure coming to the property and on the property, and for residential subdivisions they pay $1,100.00 per residential unit to cover the cost of infrastructure and labor. Cramer added that City Council made the decision and it is in the current City Code that the City may pay up to 50%. Cramer stated that Idaho Falls Power explained it by asking how much burden should be borne by the rate payers. Cramer stated that Idaho Falls Power revenues are coming from its rate payers, so they had to make a decision as to whether it is fair for the rate payers to have to pay for the infrastructure, or at what point does the neighborhood or individual switching over need to pay for their conversion cost. Dixon clarified that the residents could have to pay more than 50%. Cramer stated that it is possible, but he is not aware of a case where the City did not pay their share. Wimborne clarified that it’s not time that needs to happen, it is the annexation, as the annexation of the property is what will trigger all of the other pieces. Cramer stated that the City is open to not pursuing the September 22, City Council date. Cramer stated they want to get through this current stage and start talking with Idaho Falls Power to see what they think. Wimborne asked if there is any indication that Rocky Mountain Power might be willing to enter into negotiations after this body makes a recommendation, but before City Council takes action. Cramer stated that the email that he has seen, said “once the property is August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 20 annexed” then they will talk about it. Dixon asked if there is a main line going under the streets in the neighborhood and asked for clarification as to the boundary between public and private on the water line. Cramer stated that he understands that the City’s portion ends at the valve and the private portion starts on the other side of the valve. Dixon clarified that if something breaks upstream of the valve, under the street, etc., the City takes care of it, but if something breaks down stream of the valve, which would be from the middle of the street into the person’s property, then that is the private responsibility. Cramer stated that he pulled up the plat and the radius in the cul-de-sac’s is sufficient for snow plows. Cramer stated that the State Statute provides for in a category A annexation is that the City may elect to conduct a category A annexation by Ordinance, which has been done occasionally. Cramer stated that the process they have followed is if you do hold a hearing it has to be subject to the local planning procedures and any other procedures you have set up in the local ordinances. Cramer stated they have mailed the notices, they have published in the newspaper and they will have to do it all again before it goes to City Council. Cramer stated that the fire issue will have to be addressed by the County. Opposed: Lance Peterson, 3202 Merlin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Peterson stated that the roads are owned by the County currently and the City has provided water mains and sewers. Peterson stated that the developer was responsible for connecting the water line from the main, under the street to the curb stop and then from the curb stop to the house. Peterson stated that the City keeps using the words “the valve” with nothing specific to identify which valve. Peterson stated there is a valve on the main which connects to a pipe that runs under the street to his house. Peterson stated that the water main is on the east side of Merlin Drive. Peterson stated there is a valve on the water main and a valve in everyone’s yard. Peterson stated that the home owner is responsible from the curb stop to their house. Peterson stated that in Prestwich estates they own all the way out to the main. Peterson stated that his main just broke and he spent thousands of dollars digging up a public street to repair the main with a two- year warranty because he is not in the City and the City would not help. Peterson stated that is why they want to delay this hearing so the details can be worked out and are important to the residents. Peterson stated that the basis for his numbers on Rocky Mountain Power change-over is in the testimony that has been given. Peterson stated that the Fielding Memorial Cemetery cost $49,000.00 to do the power transfer. Peterson stated that for 6 telephone poles and 1,000 feet of copper wire and 6 meters. Peterson stated that he calculates that 4x the cost of the transfer is what the Prestwich Country Estates is looking at for a buyout. Dixon stated that as a rough estimate $200,000 divided by 23 residents is $10,000.00 per resident and if the City pays 50% then each resident would pay $5,000.00 per resident. Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney thanked the citizens. Swaney brought up the original commitments of the subdivision developer to pursue annexation of the subdivision in the future as well as the documents of people agreeing to have City services provided (water/sewer) and in that agreement, agree to be annexed when the City deemed it appropriate. Swaney stated that in 2003 it was clear that the City thought it was a good time to annex the subdivision. Swaney stated that now they City is again requesting to annex the subdivision in order to provide revenue for the City. Swaney stated that in equity and fairness the people that derive the benefits from parks, improvements of Sunnyside, and all City services they are already receiving, should pay a fair portion of those August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 20 City services. Swaney stated that Rocky Mountain Power has the authority to deny any transfer of services, which would change nothing for the subdivision. Swaney stated that he believes the annexation is the right thing to do. Wimborne stated that she understands the major concern is the cost of power transfer, but there is no way to get good answers on the cost of the transfer until they proceed with the annexation. Wimborne stated that Rocky Mountain Power, by Idaho Statute, must continue to provide power to the customers and Idaho Falls Power cannot pirate the customers. Wimborne stated that this is a clear case of where annexation should occur. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation with initial zoning of R-1 for Prestwich Country Estates, with direction to the Community Development Services Department to continue to work with the residents of the subdivision to address their issues before it goes to Idaho Falls City Council, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 16-004. Temporary Location for Alturas International Academy Charter School. Wimborne stated that due to her position with the School District she will recuse herself from Public Hearing #2, CUP for Temporary Location of a Charter School. Liu presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if there is a cross access agreement between the subject building and the building to the north. Beutler stated that the property was developed as one building and it is the same owner for the entire piece. Beutler stated that the arrangement with the school is just to lease the building temporarily. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Kevin Bodily, NBW Architects, 990 John Adams Parkway, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bodily stated that there is a connecting corridor which is the small white bridge section between the larger white building and the black building and that is common access. Bodily indicated that the Boy Scouts own both buildings and the Charter School is only renting the second level of the southern building. Swaney asked if the applicant would be amenable to a sunset provision stating that on a specific date, the CUP will lapse and the Charter school would not be allowed to use the facility. Bodily stated that they have started the process on the OE Bell Building. Bodily deferred to Colin Hunter. Colin Hunter, 188 Cobblestone Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hunter stated that they have the conditional use permit approved for the O.E. Bell building and are close to closing on the building. Hunter stated that they anticipate only being in the temporary location for a year, but would like the option of having a 3-year CUP as worst case scenario. Swaney stated that 3 years for sunset provision would be September 2019. Dixon asked if they looked at any other provisions where traffic could get off of Yellowstone Highway more quickly for drop off. Dixon suggested using Pederson street to the South. Bodily stated that they looked at that option of bringing busses off of Pederson, but it puts the door on the wrong side of the bus and the students would have to get off on the traffic side of the bus. Bodily stated that they looked at bringing the buses behind the building, but there has to be a place for the children to play. Dixon asked if they intend to fence off the portion of the building that will be used for the August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 20 play area. Bodily stated that there is a fence between the playground for the daycare and the existing parking lot. Bodily deferred to Hunter for further information on fencing. Colin Hunter, 188 Cobblestone Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hunter stated that they now plan to use the courtyard that sits between the two buildings for the play area. Dixon stated that would open up the possibility of the buses dropping off in the rear. Bodily stated that that scenario would impact the parking lot for the other businesses in the building. No one appeared in support or opposition. Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney stated that any motion presented should include a sunset provision and that provision should be included in the Relevant Criteria and Standards. Dixon suggested that the Commissioners provide the option to the applicant that if exiting South Yellowstone safely does become problematic, that they can enter and exit off of Pedersen without coming back to the Commission. Foster asked if they need to include anything about the Union Pacific concerns and request for fencing, pavement markings, and other access deterrents. Foster stated that the Commissioners need to pay attention to the railroad safety concerns. Dixon stated that 3rd graders aren’t likely to go across Yellowstone and then stop because they see a no trespassing sign. Foster stated that they are requesting fencing. Liu stated that there is fencing on the west side and showed pictures that depicted the fencing, which was included as part of the staff report. Dixon asked where they would stop the fencing if they started. Foster stated that the railroad has valid concerns and need to be considered. Foster suggested holding Operation Life Saver meetings for students, parents and faculty. Swaney agreed that they need to include a provision, but limit it to the property they have control over, as the applicant is just leasing the space from Boy Scouts. Swaney stated they need appropriate signage and restricted access to the rail road spur, but only within the boundaries of the property they are using. Dixon agreed with a presentation to the student body, such as Operation Life Saver. Swaney stated that Conditional Use Permits can have conditions to address concerns, such as this. Foster stated that the comments and suggestions from the railroad need to be addressed and incorporated into the plan. Dixon stated that Union Pacific requested the developer and the City to examine the project impacts associated with increased likelihood of trespassing and set forth appropriate mitigation measures. Dixon asked if the City has any suggestions. Swaney moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the temporary location of a Charter School located 3910 South Yellowstone Ave., with the additional provisions: That a sunset provision is included that would require the Conditional Use Permit to expire in September, 2019 with the understanding that the applicant can always request renewal and another conditional use permit if the operations need to continue at 3910 South Yellowstone; and The recommendations included in the Union Pacific Railroad letter dated July 28, 2016 in regard to at grade rail crossing safety and trespassing be considered by the architect and developer of the Charter School to make sure that, especially on the west side of the facility, appropriate fencing is provided, recognizing that the 4 lane highway should be equal to any kind of fencing in regard to the rail line on the east side of Yellowstone, Foster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 20 Dixon stated the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards needs a #8 stating: The Conditional Use Permit is applicable through September, 2019; and #9 stating: The Union Pacific letter dated July 28, 2016 in regard to at grade rail crossing safety and trespassing be considered by the architect and developer and appropriate fencing be provided on the west side. Denney moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards with the addition of #8: The Conditional Use Permit is applicable through September, 2019; and #9: The Union Pacific letter dated July 28, 2016 in regard to at grade rail crossing safety and trespassing be considered by the architect and developer and appropriate fencing be providing on the west side, Swaney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING 16-010. Annexation of RP-A (Residence Park) Zone. Darcy Stewart. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon stated that they typically do the annexation and plat at the same time. Beutler stated that recently they have seen both occur. Beutler stated that this piece has a preliminary plat that will appear in an upcoming agenda. Dixon stated that since this parcel is adjacent to a large lot subdivision he is concerned that 8,000 square feet lots as the minimum would be small compared to the lots it would be up against. Beutler stated that even with a preliminary plat the property could be sold and a new preliminary plat could be proposed that is much different. Beutler stated they need to be comfortable with the zone. Dixon asked where the utilities are located currently. Beutler stated that the Dunes subdivision to the east has utilities, as well as utilities north of Township. Beutler stated that some of the intent is to bring utilities down 15th and then over to provide water service, and sewer service will come through the Dunes. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Fred Walland, 645 Lincoln, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Walland stated that there is a sewer line stubbed out of the Dunes, but it is shallow and won’t serve much past the Dunes. Walland stated they are proposing a lift station close to 65th (York) that would serve sewer throughout the subdivision. Walland stated that as part of that subdivision the City Water Department has required them to hook up to water south of Sunnyside at the south end of St. Clair Estates, which will include a 1 ½ mile water line to serve the subdivision. Walland stated that the Dunes subdivision as it exists does not have the desirable water pressure to connect on. Walland stated that they have submitted a preliminary plat for this parcel to the Community Development Department. Walland stated that the preliminary plat that is submitted has large lots. No one appeared in support. Opposition: Scott Tennace, 5458 Wild Dunes, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Tennace stated that one of the points made is that they are going to have large lots. Tennace stated that most of the lots in the Dunes are half acre. Tennace stated that the Developer stated that the large lots will be consistent with the Dunes, however the plat map that was received from the City. Wimborne stated that she believes the plat Tennace is referring to is for the next public hearing. August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 20 Ron Croone, 5252 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Croone suggested that they hear Agenda items #4 and #5 first then this item. Croone believes that those hearings will provide enlightenment to this annexation. Swaney stated that there is a separate annexation request and a separate preliminary plat for the other property, and this property is separate, and all the Commission is looking at is an annexation and zoning request and that is all that is being considered. Dixon stated that there will be another hearing at the City Council level to get all information into the record and the next hearing with the City Council, then both this annexation and the other items will be in the record. Croone recommended against annexation until they get a complete story. Terrell Transtrum, 5277 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Transtrum asked the Commission to not approve the request for annexation without the plat to accompany it, and without further consideration of what follows the annexation. Ryan Bare, 5343 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bare asked for more specifics as he feels the applicant is ambiguous regarding water and sewer. Bare stated that he is unclear how that plan would affect this annexation. Bare asked for more specifics to know the affect that it will have on the surrounding subdivision to make sure there is no undue stress to the subdivisions. Vicki Durbin, 5604 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Durbin stated that she agrees with everyone else that they need to have more information as the plat can affect property values, traffic and safety. Quinn Whipple, 5080 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Whipple requested that the Commissioners delay annexation until the total impact to the Dunes between this parcel and the parcel to the south can be determined together. Applicant: Fred Walland, 645 Lincoln, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Walland stated that the preliminary plat is the suitable place to address issues of traffic, water, sewer and lot sizes. Swaney asked if Walland would consider withdrawing the annexation application until the preliminary plat is ready to be presented along with it at a single hearing. Walland stated that he is not in agreement with withdrawing the annexation application. Terrell Transtrum, 5277 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Transtrum stated that they are unsure how the water and sewer situation will impact the Dunes east and north, and without a full understanding of how it will connect into 65th, then he believes there is a problem that needs a resolution. Steve Zwifle, 5225 Wild Dunes, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Zwifle stated that the applicant stated there would be a pump station near 65th for the sewer, so evidentially they are considering the property together, and he would ask for the same consideration of having the items considered together. Dixon indicated that it was advertised as a separate item, and it has been legally advertised as separate, so it needs to be considered separate items. Zwifle stated he is against the annexation until they have the whole picture. Cole Hall, 5469 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hall stated that he is concerned with the accessibility of the property and the traffic and safety of the children in the Dunes. Hall stated August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 20 there is one access point to the property and that would be through the Dunes that already has 70 lots. Hall stated he is concerned for the accessibility of emergency vehicles and the amount of traffic. Cramer explained that the question of annexation is whether or not the City is willing and able to provide fee supported and tax supported services. Cramer stated that if the application doesn’t demonstrate that, then the Commissioners can recess or deny the application. Cramer stated that the preferable approach has been to see the preliminary plat and then an annexation, however State law requires that once they receive an application, they have to consider it within a certain number of days and there is not a process that requires a preliminary plat to go first. Cramer stated that they have an application and it has to be processed. Dixon closed the public hearing. Wimborne stated that neighbors are concerned with what may happen with the plat, but those are issues that are addressed as part of the preliminary plat and that will be up for hearing soon. Wimborne stated that the application before the Commission tonight is whether this property makes sense to bring to the City and whether the zoning is correct. Wimborne stated that RP-A make sense with the surrounding land use. Wimborne encouraged the Community Development Services Department to see if there is a way to have the annexation and preliminary plat go to City Council together. Swaney stated that the proposed annexation and zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is consistent with the existing zoning in the area and the existing development, the Dunes, which is also RP-A. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation with initial zoning of RP-A for Section 4, T1N, R38E (Darcy Stewart), Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING 16-008. Annexation of RP-A (Residence Park) Zone. Sand Pointe. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne stated that the zoning being requested would make the area all low density, and would essentially erase the high density blob. Beutler agreed, and stated that the high density was probably for townhomes adjacent to the golf course, but this would change the entire area to low density. Applicant: Fred Walland 645 Lincoln, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Walland stated that it is lower density than what the Comprehensive Plan showed. Walland stated that some of the comments were concerned with high density and he disagrees with that comment and stated that this will be low density RP-A. Dixon asked how Walland plans to maintain the sand dune. Walland stated that the preliminary plat shows the sand dune as common area, so that it would be a HOA responsibility and not an individual problem. Walland stated they will try to mitigate the sand dunes before houses are built. Wimborne noted that the piece before the Commission for this hearing is just the annexation and zoning and the next hearing is the preliminary plat that can handle density, traffic and access. Dixon clarified that the proposed zone is the same one as the neighborhood to the north. No one appeared in support or in opposition. August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 11 of 20 Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney stated that the recommendation of Staff to approve the annexation and initial zoning is appropriate and consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and the existing neighborhoods in the area. Swaney stated he believes it is appropriate to approve the requested annexation and initial zoning of RP-A. Dixon stated that the Comprehensive Plan does have the high density area, and this would remove that high density area. Dixon asked if they have to modify the Comprehensive Plan. Cramer stated that the Comprehensive Plan Map doesn’t truly assign the designation until it is annexed. Cramer stated that when they write the ordinance for annexation, it states that it is annexing and assigning the official Comprehensive Plan designation. Cramer stated that these are blobs and ideas of what may happen. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of Annexation with initial zoning of RP-A for Section 4, T1N, R38 E (Sand Pointe), Foster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 5. PRELIMINARY PLAT 16-021. Preliminary Plat for Sand Pointe. Dixon asked if the Mayor and City Council do not approve the annexation and initial zoning, would this preliminary plat become moot. Cramer stated that they could still ask for annexation with a different zone. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne stated that one of the major issues is the impact of traffic from this development, because of the access to the Dunes. Wimborne asked if there wasn’t the issue of the Dunes needing a second access, would this development need to connect to the Dunes. Beutler stated that they always try to connect neighborhoods and have overall traffic circulation. Beutler stated that even if the Dunes met its emergency access, they would still be looking for it to connect. Wimborne asked if they have looked at the impact of traffic. Beutler stated that there was not a traffic study done for this development. Beutler stated that was the decision of the City Engineer. Wimborne asked if that is because he thinks the traffic will go south onto 65th and the out to 15th East. Beutler stated that is the thought, and anything south of the large dune in Sand Pointe would likely go South to 65th. Wimborne asked if this developer held a community meeting. Beutler stated there was not a neighborhood meeting. Swaney asked how the Dunes subdivision has only one access. Beutler stated that they tried to address emergency access with a canal access road for emergency response. Dixon stated that the frontage along Township was not long enough between the two canals to allow for a second access point and still meet the access guidelines. Swaney asked what the average lot size of the Dunes. Beutler stated that the average square footage in the proposed preliminary plat is 20,000 square feet, and the average lot in the Dunes for Phase I, was 24,000 square feet, and for Phase II, was 26,000 square feet. Beutler stated that there are several properties in the Dunes where people own more than one lot. Dixon asked what the acreage is for the lot size and are they equal, or are there lots that are larger or smaller on one end of the subdivision. Beutler pointed out the smallest lot. Beutler stated that there is a mix. Beutler showed the larger lots on the north end that are close to ½ acre. Beutler showed some of the smaller lots. Beutler stated that the same is true on the south end where you have larger lots and some smaller lots. Dixon asked when Phase 4 of the development is developed will they run into a long single block problem. Beutler stated there are no issues with the phasing schedule. Dixon asked if they have looked into the soil issue for the development. Beutler deferred to the applicant. Beutler stated they are providing a lot of detention throughout the development. Dixon asked about the comment that they are platting only half of Long Cove Drive. Beutler August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 12 of 20 stated that the final plat would have to have coordination between the developments to plat the street. Dixon asked how much frontage on 65th S would they be in charge of developing, and would that occur at the time of the project or later when 65th is widened. Beutler stated that the right of way is there with the City property and as part of the Development Agreement they will address the issue of widening the street. Beutler stated that with arterial streets, Public Works is willing to accept payment in lieu of development. Beutler stated that this development does not have frontage onto York and is having to get access through City owned property to make the connection, so they would have to negotiate with Public Works to determine their responsibility. Dixon asked if there are options to control speeding through the neighborhoods. Beutler stated that the City Engineer and snow plow drivers are not in favor of speed bumps, and would have to defer to the City Engineer for design and speeds. Dixon asked why they did not require a stub to the west along the ½ mile stretch to provide connectivity. Beutler stated that he discussed that with the City Engineer and because they have to bridge the canal, there was not enough benefit to require the applicant to have to bridge the canal and it would cross the pedestrian and bike path. Beutler stated that they would propose with the future development that there be a connection from the north down to the south into the area. Beutler stated that the frontage along 15th, there is a potential for 2 more access points into the area for future development. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Fred Walland 645 Lincoln, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Walland stated that they have addressed the “long straight street” by introducing 6 curves that are the minimum radius that the City Engineer allows. Walland stated that they have shown a connection to the west on the north end of the development. Walland stated that it is not reasonable to show a connection through a County subdivision (Sand Creek Dunes, Division 1, Bonneville County). Walland stated that this will not be a high density development, contrary to what the Comprehensive Plan showed. Walland stated that the lots adjacent to the Dunes are similar size to the Dunes. Walland stated that all lots are well above the minimum required for an RP-A Zone. Walland stated that they are required to show the streets dead ending at other people’s property as that is the policy and a way to provide emergency access. Walland stated that the street being designated a collector is not something he can control and he is required to connect to the Dunes. Walland stated that the two developers are looking to develop the road at the same time and that is how the northern piece got added for annexation, so they can work together to develop the road. Walland stated that it is more convenient for traffic to go to 65th. No one appeared in support. Opposition: Brian Smith, 414 Shoup, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Smith is the attorney for the HOA for the Dunes. Smith had those involved in this matter stand to show how many were there in opposition. Smith stated that there are no goats in the Dunes that need to be grandfathered. Smith stated that given the annexation and zoning, there is no high density on this property and that is now a non-issue. Smith stated that the plat calls for a 16’ walking/bicycle path that will be joined to the one in the Dunes. Smith stated that the Comprehensive Plan states that walking/bicycle paths are to provide easy access to employment centers, schools, and shopping. Smith stated that this plat has August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 13 of 20 no shopping, schools and no employment centers near, so there should be no need for a 16’ walking path, and it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Smith asked if you can approve a plat with things removed or modified, such as the walking path. Smith stated that the applicant doesn’t own the access to the south. Smith asked if the average for the lot size included any of the common areas. Smith stated that the HOA is concerned with the traffic. Smith stated that Long Cove Drive is a ½ mile straight shot, and that is a valid concern for the Dunes residents. Smith stated that the Dunes residents know, based on current use, what is going to happen on Long Cove. Smith stated that the access to the South of Sand Pointe is across from Sandy Downs and where traffic backs up when they have events, such as Beer Fest. Smith stated that Long Cove will become a through road from Sandy Downs after events. Smith stated that Long Cove Drive would be the main entrance for at least 25 people and that will be more traffic than ever before. Smith stated that if you want to head to the hospital, movie theatre, or any shopping, that is immediately north of the Dunes, so it doesn’t make sense for people to drive south to 65th, when they want to go north. Smith stated that Stonebrook is directly across from the Dunes and now there will be more traffic in front of the other subdivision and the Dunes. Smith stated that Ron and Kelly Croone suggest that bollards be installed between the two subdivisions. Smith stated that bollards are consistent with what the City has already done. Smith stated that Spring Meadow subdivision has 25 homes and there are bollards between Spring Meadows and South Point. Smith stated that bollards give emergency response two points of access, but stops through traffic. Smith stated that Mauna Launi Lane connects to South Point and there are bollards between the two. Smith stated that there are two examples that have already been applied to other subdivisions. Smith stated that bollards would satisfy the traffic safety concerns and enable the Dunes to comply with the emergency access issues. Smith stated that installing bollards would comply with the Comprehensive Plan, page 41, that state: One goal of subdivision layout should be to reduce through traffic in residential areas. Smith stated that Idaho Falls City Code, Title 10, Chapter 3, Purpose and Declaration and Intent of Zoning and Boundaries. … Lessen congestion in the streets. Smith stated that the Comprehensive Plan on page 39 states: Standards, Plan for Residential Development: At least one east/ west collector and one north /south collector street should be located in every square mile of residential development. Smith stated that this development does not have a collector on the west. Smith stated that access to the north, south, east and west is to provide sufficient access for emergency vehicles. Smith stated that the Idaho Falls Planning and Zoning Commission Staff Report, states: The connection in this case is critical for resolving the emergency access issue, as the Dunes only has one connection. Smith stated that installing bollards would address the sufficient access for emergency vehicles, and address the traffic safety issues. Smith stated that the Comprehensive Plan states: If such collector streets provide access to homes, the design of the collector shall discourage through traffic. Smith stated that the bollards would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as it would discourage through traffic. Smith stated that the annexation should be approved and approve the plat, subject to the installation of bollards between the subdivisions. Smith stated that if the Commission does not want to add bollards, then the Comprehensive Plan on page 76, state: When it is anticipated 200 trips will be generated for peak hour of adjacent street by proposed development, a traffic impact analysis will be required. Smith stated that the letters from the residents in the Dunes would suggest that the development would be very close to the 200 trips per peak hour. Smith asked for a traffic impact analysis be completed for the subdivision. August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 14 of 20 Tom Wood, 1800 E 49th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Wood owns an equestrian center to the north of the subject property. Wood is a geologist. Wood stated that this is a poor area to build a subdivision as the sand dunes are moving. Wood stated that there are trees in the golf course that are covered in sand. Wood stated that the lots to the north west are going to shrink as the sand dune is moving. Wood stated that there needs to be a traffic light on the corner of 49th and 50th East. Wood asked that the developers improve the roads ahead of time. Terrell Transtrum, 5277 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Transtrum stated that the walking path that is platted through the Dunes takes a loop and one side of the loop goes through his backyard along Sandcreek. Transtrum stated that its attractive for nuisance traffic to go through the area. Transtrum stated that the walking path will open the neighborhood up to general public. Scott Tennace, 5458 Wild Dunes, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Tennace asked where the second access for Phase I will be. Dixon stated that Phase I is not long enough for it to matter, and when it starts to matter is Phase 4. Dixon stated that they will have to have an emergency access pathway available similar to what staff was describing on Wild Dunes. Ron Croone, 5252 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Croone stated that the existing Long Cove Drive, when connected, does not appear to have traffic calming measures. Croone stated that the bollards were suggested as a reasonable solution that would provide good compliance. Ron Fischer, 5647 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Fischer stated that he is at the far end of Long Cove near the dune. Fischer stated that a lot of traffic comes down Long Cove and turns around, or park to climb the dune. Fischer stated that the dune attracts a lot of people. Fischer stated that if there is a bike path that would draw more people, which is maybe good, maybe bad. Fischer stated that Long Cove would be a long straight stretch if connected. Fischer stated that he would welcome the opportunity to meet with the developer in a neighborhood meeting. Robin Baker, 5679 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Baker stated that other neighborhoods beyond Sand Pointe that are planned, but not yet approved will also add to the traffic, and asked the Commissioners to keep that in prospective. Quinn Whipple, 5080 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Whipple stated along the golf course the homes are set back far and there is a nice sidewalk that is set off the street and adding a second path on the rear side of people’s property isn’t needed for general public traffic. Whipple stated that the sidewalk is 14’ off the asphalt. Whipple stated that the homeowners in the Dunes have already invested in nice sidewalks with grass, tree lined buffers. Whipple stated that a new walk path does not need to be created. Applicant: Fred Walland, 645 Lincoln, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Walland stated that the bollards that were brought up are between the City of Idaho Falls, and Bonneville County and they are not what the City Public Works wanted to see, and was more of a dispute between neighborhoods. Walland stated that he installed bollards in one spot in the City off of 25th Street in Cedar Ridge for a second access for the fire department into a long cul-de-sac. Walland stated that the end of Long Cove is meant for traffic and meant for connectivity. Walland stated that Long Cove is currently platted that just before the west boundary there is a sharp curve that would not be allowed in a new collector street, which is a traffic calming measure. Walland August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 15 of 20 stated that a collector is intended to move more people than a local street, but still keep it as a slower moving street. Walland stated that the areas that are shown to have lots have been farmed so they should be buildable. Swaney stated that the southern access of 65th south is not included in the preliminary plat. Swaney asked who owned the property that will provide access to 65th South. Walland stated that the property is owned by the City of Idaho Falls and is annexed. Dixon asked if they have an agreement with the City for access. Walland stated that they have submitted and shown on the preliminary plat the street being built across City property, and have not been told no. Walland stated that in the past if they cross City property, when the Mayor and City Engineer sign the plat they are approving the use of City property. Dixon asked about access to the dunes for maintenance. Walland showed a common lot that will allow access to the dunes for maintenance. Dixon asked where the walking path will be on the plat. Walland stated that it is not shown on the plat, and that is why Beutler is saying that he wants the Commission to tell the applicant to put it on the plat. Walland stated that as part of the City’s plan to develop paths, they have designated that it should connect to the one that is platted within the Dunes. Walland showed that the path, if platted, would go along Sandcreek and the previous annexation would connect to the Dunes. Dixon asked and Walland agreed that the west access would be a 70’ collector. Walland stated that the City has designated that Long Cove Drive would be a collector, and is shown on the plat as a 70’ right of way, and Long Cove Drive is currently a 48’ back to back street. Wimborne asked if the walking path behind the homes near the golf was created by the City, or the HOA. Beutler stated that the 16’ wide pathway was created when the Dunes was platted and is actually dedicated to the City. Beutler stated there is not currently a pathway system there, but the Connecting our Communities Plan, which is a more specific and detailed plan, does show this area as a shared pathway throughout the Dunes and along Sandcreek. Beutler stated that is why staff is recommending the continuation of the path to connect from 65th to 49th, and along Township there are wide paths planned that would connect to Hitt that also has a pathway system. Wimborne stated that the path is proposed to go on the west side of the subdivision and along the canal and not connect behind the houses. Beutler stated the path would go along Sandcreek and connect into the Dunes, and when it connects with the Dunes it is behind the existing homes. Beutler clarified that the 16’ area exists, but the pathway has not been constructed. Wimborne asked about using bollards for emergency access, but not through traffic. Beutler stated that there are three locations, one location is between the City development and a County development, the area on Mauna Launi Lane is an issue as the County did not require the developer to complete the street, but within the City the street connects to the edge of the development and it is intended to connect and then the bollards would be removed. Beutler stated that bollards were placed along Tollgate and those bollards have been removed. Beutler stated they do not work out well and have caused issues and do not provide for good connection. Dixon stated that the County right of way on Mauna Launi went all the way over and connected to South Point, but the County only developed the road up to the houses and not between the lots, so there is a space of about 300’ that had no road developed. Dixon stated that the County wanted the City’s developer to develop the County road. Wimborne clarified that the bollards would not be a solution as the City wants the connectivity. Beutler stated that the overall transportation network needs to work and move traffic sufficiently. Beutler stated that from fire/emergency vehicle access, they would like multiple accesses and they are not in favor of driving their trucks over bollards and possibly damaging the vehicle. Wimborne asked about the August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 16 of 20 traffic study not being warranted, as the City Engineer believes the north/south route will carry the traffic. Wimborne asked what triggers and impact study. Beutler stated that they look at the number of trips that a development would create and if it’s over 200 trips, potentially they would require a traffic study. Wimborne stated that sometimes the traffic study numbers make sense, and sometimes they don’t, but if you are looking at 87 houses and more to the north, it would generate 200 trips. Beutler stated that they also look at the existing conditions and the proposed layout and whether they feel the traffic study would be warranted, and in this case they did not feel it was warranted. Dixon asked what the current right of way for Long Cove. Beutler stated it is a 60’ right of way. Dixon stated and Beutler agreed that after Long Cove Drive turns west on the new plat, it has to be a 70’ right of way. Dixon is concerned with a 70’ right of way feeding a 60’ right of way to get to the exterior. Beutler stated it will still function as a residential collector, and so the engineer asked that the right of way be there so it will do a better job than having the narrower street section. Fred Walland, 645 Lincoln, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Walland stated that the width of the street will be the same and the issue of the right of way width is more of a liability/legal issue where planter strips on the outside of a 48’ back to back street necessitates the sidewalk being outside of the right of way. Walland stated that the reason to go to a 70’ right of way to make sure the walks are in the right of way. Dixon clarified that the pavement is the same. Walland stated that on the plat you will see two different right of way, but the pavement will look the same. Quinn Whipple, 5080 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Whipple stated that the kink in Long Cove Drive does not mitigate traffic speed. Whipple stated that 3 weeks ago he had to run down an orange Z06 Corvette owned by the property owner that was going down Long Cove at over 60 mph. Whipple stated that large SUV’s and construction vehicles pulling trailers go way over the posted speed limit. Whipple stated that the speed limit of a residential collector is not 25 mph. Whipple stated that the bollards are engineered devices that are designed to sheer for the purpose of emergency vehicle access. Whipple asked if there are bollards between South Point and Solstice. Whipple asked if they were removed to resurface the road and are being put back in. Beutler indicated they were removed permanently by the choice of the City. Whipple stated that between the Dunes and the proposed plat they are approaching 200 parcels and with each household having 2 vehicles every part of Idaho Falls would be a northern path. Ron Croone, 5252 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Croone stated that post 9/11 there are removable bollards all over the Country. Croone stated that they picked this neighborhood because he has a paraplegic son that is in a wheel chair and it gives him great access. Croone stated that he would request they get more information before they approve this preliminary plat, to include a traffic study and understanding the area to the north will actually connect. Terrell Transtrum, 5277 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Transtrum stated that the developer is taking liberties with Long Cove Drive to explain why they should be permitted to have a feeder into the Dunes. Transtrum stated that there are issues that need to be solved and he asked that they consider the testimony that Long Cove Drive is fine and the Commission needs to consider the impact of opening Long Cove Drive up. Transtrum asked for a traffic study before they make a decision. Dixon closed the public hearing. August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 17 of 20 Dixon summarized the three hearings and the contents of the hearings. Dixon stated that if the development goes forward each part will have a final plat that will have a public hearing. Dixon stated that the end of Long Cove Drive is a stub, rather than a cul-de-sac, which is an indication that it was designed to be extended. Swaney stated that he does not object to the preliminary plat as presented, and most comments have been addressed. Swaney stated that the pertinent concerns of the community, including the Dunes, is for the impact of this plat and two subsequent plats that when there is a final plat it should be a comprehensive final plat, and there be a comprehensive traffic study that represents what the impact to Hitt Rd., 65th, 49th and Long Cove Drive. Swaney stated that many of the roads are County roads and the city will not require developers to go and remotely install a traffic light on County roads. Swaney stated that the preliminary plat should be approved, but the comment to the City is to not proceed with a final plat until there is a comprehensive final plat for the areas that are going to be included in the multiple phases of the development, not just the 6 in this preliminary plat, but the others that you can see that have been submitted to the City Engineer for consideration. Swaney moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Sand Pointe Subdivision as presented, Foster seconded the motion. Denney asked about the pathway and if it should be included in the motion. Swaney withdrew his motion. Denney moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Sand Pointe Subdivision as presented, with the addition of the staff recommended pathway to be included through the development. No one second the motion and the motion died. Swaney moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Sand Pointe Subdivision as presented, which does not include a pathway at present, which could eventually show up in a final plat, Foster seconded the motion and it passed 3-1. Wimborne opposed the motion. Wimborne stated that she agrees with much of Swaney stated, as there are good things about the Preliminary Plat, but Wimborne is concerned with the impact of traffic from this and the other subdivisions that are to follow. Wimborne stated that it is important to consider them as a whole rather than individually. Wimborne opposed the motion to make sure the concerns are in the record and are addressed. Swaney stated that #5 of the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards needs to be deleted since the Commission did not recommend the inclusion of the pathway. Beutler stated that the condition for the pathway is also in the Decision and would have to be stricken as well. Dixon stated that in the Decision, beginning with the word “with” and going to the end of the Decision should be removed. Swaney moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards with #5 being deleted and the Decision to read: “Based on the above Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria, the Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Idaho Falls approved the Preliminary Plat for Sand Point Subdivision.”, Denney seconded the motion and it passed. Wimborne abstained from voting. August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 18 of 20 6. ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING 16-012. Annexation of R-1 Residential Single- Family) Zone. Silverleaf Estates. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Kurt Rowland, 1331 Fremont, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Rowland stated that they are proposing annexation with R-1 zoning. No one appeared in support. Opposition: Lyle Stephenson, 644 Calliope Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Stephenson will be purchasing one of the two lots that will remain in the County. Stephenson just wanted to make sure that as the process proceeds the lines are appropriately drawn and that his lot is not included in the annexation for the City. Stephenson asked if the City has already purchased or been deeded the land for the roadway. Staff indicated that it has not yet been deeded. Stephenson stated that as part of his transaction, he purchases half of the roadway. Stephenson stated he would like to be appraised of the process and have some input and be able to talk with the developer to work out the details. Stephenson believes the zoning is appropriate. Dixon closed the public hearing. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation with initial zoning of R-1 for approximately 45.450 acres NW ¼ Section 15, T 2N, R 37E (Silverleaf Estates), Swaney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 7. PRELIMINARY PLAT 16-023. Preliminary Plat for Silverleaf Estates. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Swaney stated that the traffic study has good numbers, but lacks reality. Swaney stated that there are not three accesses, there are only 2. Swaney stated that when there is a third access to Ernest, there is no contribution for any other development being considered to the trips that are going to the third access. McLane agreed with Swaney. McLane stated that the property to the south is owned by the City and it is designated to be a City park, so there will not be a huge residential component. Wimborne stated that the access on Ernest could be a speedway. McLane stated that if it is designed properly with the right curves it could be calmed. McLane stated that when the future development comes in it can be addressed. McLane showed that the intended traffic flow should come across Simon and then up. Dixon asked if there is a way to connect to Clarence. McLane stated that it is a possibility. Dixon stated that it would be better to have some of the traffic connect to Clarence. McLane stated that can be asked for as the City park property develops. McLane stated that a lot of the property will come to 17th North, rather than go through the subdivision. Swaney asked if there were any neighborhood meetings held with the Village. McLane stated that there were no neighborhood meetings. McLane stated that they received two letters and both were worried about traffic going through Simon. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 19 of 20 Kurt Rowland, 1331 Fremont, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Rowland stated that the plat has the 70’ right of ways so it is not a straight shot. Rowland stated that the south west corner that goes into the park will have some curves to slow traffic. Rowland stated that they are working with the City Engineer to determine exactly where they want the road. Swaney asked about the access to the north for the piece of roadway that is being annexed, but is not being platted. Swaney asked if Rowland has had conversations with the property owner to make sure everyone is satisfied. Rowland stated that they have met with Joe Belloff (owner of County property) and he has agreed to give a 100’ access that will be constructed to City standards. Wimborne asked if the letter that asked for the north west cul-de-sac to be an intersection was not considered as the access points would be too close together. No one appeared in support. Opposition: Lyle Stephenson, 644 Calliope Ln., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Stephenson asked about the access to the west and asked if there will be anything that will hook into an adjoining subdivision to access 35th West. Rowland stated that eventually that is the intention. Dixon asked if they want align the access to the west up with Simon so that everything from the west will want to go straight out. McLane stated that it is a collector so it is a logical place to cross over to a new subdivision so they don’t have the problem like with the Dunes and collectors tying into a street that is not a collector. McLane stated that it would make sense to have a turn to not make it a long straight roadway and that can be addressed in a future plat. Dixon stated that another possibility could be to move it south one block that would still connect to the collector, but it requires a bit of winding and would encourage traffic to go south rather than east. McLane stated that there is a significant grade change along the canal that would prohibit that idea. Lyle Stephenson, 644 Calliope Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Stephenson stated that the plat shows that his property will not be platted in the City, and he wants to make sure that when they do the plat map and the annexation map that they match up to keep his property in the County. Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Silverleaf Estates Subdivision as presented, Wimborne seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Wimborne moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Foster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Dixon adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder August 2, 2016 Planning Commission Minutes Page 20 of 20