Planning Commission

May 2, 2017 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners, Margaret Wimborne, Natalie Black, George Morrison, Arnold Cantu, George Swaney, Gene Hicks, Joanne Denney, Darren Josephson, Lindsey Romankiw MEMBERS ABSENT: Brent Dixon, Julie Foster ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer; and Assistant Planning Director, Kerry Beutler, Brent McLane; and interested citizens. WORK SESSION: 1. Downtown Plan. McLane presented to the Commission a Form Based Code. McLane indicated that they started working on this project in the Fall of 2016 and have had lots of stake holder groups, public meetings, input gathering activities, met with business owners and public, met with special interest groups, and tried to gather a broad input from different people within the community. McLane indicated that there is a plan document that is similar to the Comprehensive Plan that is a guiding document that gives vision, goals, objectives and a plan of how to achieve the objectives. McLane indicated there is a second detailed component that is a Form Based Code that is complex that has a lot of elements. McLane indicated that the objectives and visions will not be surprising to the Commission. McLane asked the Commissions to read the objectives and vision and give him feedback. McLane indicated that the Form Based Code is different than what the City is used to, as the entire City is zoned with a use base zoning. McLane indicated that the Form Based Code takes a different approach, and it is based on how does the building fit in the environment. McLane confirmed that it is not design guidelines that would regulate color and/or materials., but rather it is the form of the building and structures and the site. McLane stated that the Form Based Code will be very applicable in areas like Downtown or older neighborhoods that are zoned and do not conform to the regulations of the current zoning. McLane indicated that the hope is to incorporate some of the Form Based Code into some of the old neighborhoods that need help. McLane stated that there is a lot of details and asked the Commissioners to read through the code and call/email him or Brad with questions. McLane indicated that the Downtown area is broken into districts and the plan would cover from the River to Yellowstone and from Cliff Street to “G” Street. McLane directed the Commissioners to page 7 that showed the different sub-districts within the Downtown area. McLane indicated that each of those areas shown have different needs and so they have different form guides. McLane indicted that the Form Based Code will look at many different elements and will apply them to the sub-districts that are very specific to address all the needs of the different areas in the Downtown area. Black asked how the builders have accepted this Form Based Code. McLane indicated that local builders will be unfamiliar with it, but outside of Idaho it is more common. McLane indicated that the Code is based off a template that originated in Utah. McLane indicated that they have May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 hired a consultant out of Utah (CRSA) to help them with the Code. McLane indicated that they will take the template and run Downtown Idaho Falls through it and fine tune it to fit Idaho Falls. McLane indicated they are in the process of testing it to see how it will fit with what Idaho Falls has. Black stated that they have had so many different plans for Downtown, and is disappointed with what the City Council is approving as she finds some of the subdivision and development unacceptable. Black asked if this Plan will fix that problem. McLane indicated that they hope it will. McLane indicated that the intent is for this to replace the zoning Downtown and it should address some of the things that the use space zoning doesn’t address. McLane indicated that the intent is to unify Downtown through this process and promote the feel of the Downtown to create an active Downtown. Black asked if they will only do Downtown or if it works will it spread to other areas. McLane indicated that the long-term intent is to do some neighborhood planning for neighborhoods that are in need. Black stated that Boise is building like crazy and they are building very attractive developments. Wimborne asked what the next steps to move forward. McLane indicated that the intent is to bring the Plan to the Commission in June for action. McLane stated that he needs the Commissioners to do some homework and really read through it, discuss issues with McLane and Brad and ask questions to get educated. McLane stated that it would then move to City Council and then they would have to rezone the area to adopt the plan. Wimborne asked if there is opportunity for public input. McLane stated that they have had a lot of public input through the process, but it will be open to public hearing at the rezoning portion. Wimborne asked if the rezone will be piece by piece. McLane indicated it would be one hearing for the entire Downtown. McLane responded to Morrison’s question, stating that they will remove the existing zoning and put the new zone in place instead of an overlay. Black asked what the consensus during the meeting with the different groups. McLane indicated there wasn’t a consensus. McLane indicated that a lot of people don’t understand the Form Based Code and the details haven’t been rolled out to individual property owners. McLane indicated that the public has been involved in the plan portion and most people are very excited and supportive. McLane indicated that the zone change will not affect the usability of the buildings and will open a lot of uses and potential for the buildings. Wimborne asked if the City will adopt the Downtown Plan and then the Code. McLane indicated they will be together and it will be imbedded into the Downtown Plan. McLane indicated that they are two different documents that will go together. Josephson asked if the City will be ready to present the Plan in June. McLane indicated they will be ready and they have had a lot of focus groups who have looked at the Plan besides staff. Josephson asked if this Plan could eventually expand to the west side of the river. McLane indicated that it could apply as its own district eventually. Hicks clarified and McLane agreed that the Downtown area will be one district and there could be districts away from zones all over the City. Hicks asked if this could be a way to “square up” the City and fill in the blanks. McLane disagreed, and indicated that this will not annex property or clean up unutilized property. McLane indicated that the intent is to address special needs of certain areas and will not be applied City wide. McLane indicated they are working a rewrite of the Zoning Ordinance that will address the City but this Plan will be utilized in certain areas, not May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 City wide. McLane indicated that this Code would be adopted as a separate chapter within the City Code. Morrison asked about the townhomes near Big Lots and what zone would that be in. McLane indicated that what they have designed the Plan for the Downtown and it would not apply to that area, so that hasn’t even been looked at to determine what it might be zoned. McLane indicated that they are not looking to apply this Code to new development right now. Black asked when they will have the completed packet. McLane indicated that there are a few chapters to review and they will be distributed immediately. Black asked if they approved the Code, would it be changes or create flexibility. McLane indicated that it will be similar to what is in place now where a change of use might dictate the current standards be met, or if a property undergoes a renovation of a certain percentage then they would have to be brought up to the standard. Wimborne asked McLane to send a reminder email outlining the tasks they are to be doing. CALL TO ORDER: Wimborne called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. Minutes: Morrison moved to approve the minutes for April 4, 2017 with minor changes, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearings: 1. CUP 17-002: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Billboard Sign at Sand Creek Golf Course. This item was tabled until the June 6, 2017 meeting. 2.RZON 17-004: REZONE. Linden Park Gardens Phase 2, R-1 to R-3A. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Black asked if the Lot is buildable. McLane clarified that the plat shows that the lot is the entire area, not just what is being rezoned, so it would be a buildable lot. Wimborne asked if it would impact access onto Syringa. McLane indicated that part of the development requires road improvements and access onto Syringa. Wimborne opened the public hearing. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Connect Engineering, 1150 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley stated that as part of the site plan when the portion of Bonneville that the City maintained for a pathway was vacated to the land owner, then land owner and the City agreed that they would allow for an easement for a pathway that could extend to 1st Street. No one appeared in support or opposition. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Morrison indicated that the application is straight forward and the Commission has dealt with this piece of property before. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Rezone for Linden Park Gardens Phase 2, from R-1 to R-3A, as presented, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 3. PLAT 17-009: PRELIMINARY PLAT. Jackson Hole Junction Preliminary Plat. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Swaney clarified that along with the plat if the preliminary plat is approved there is a reasoned statement of relevant criteria that will need to be amended and approved. Beutler agreed with Swaney. Black asked if there is room for a biking path near the freeway and Pioneer Road. Beutler stated that would have to be worked into the right of way of Sunnyside Road and it would extend on the east side, but no plan for the west side of Pioneer as the connecting the community plan doesn’t call out that area for connection as it utilizes the canal system and Sunnyside Road. Morrison asked for phasing time frame. Beutler deferred to the applicant. Hicks asked about the property between Pioneer Road and the freeway. Beutler stated that parcel is under separate ownership and not part of this development or application. Beutler added that the applicant has tried to include that parcel in the development and the property owner was not interested. Hicks asked if the development will be light industrial. Beutler indicated that it will be more highway commercial, including hotels, restaurants and gas stations. Wimborne opened the public hearing. Applicant: Clint Boyle, Horrocks Engineers, 901 Pierre View Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Boyle stated that the property between 1-15 and Pioneer Road was sought after to be included in the development and the property owner is not interested in selling at this time. Boyle indicated that BMPO did a corridor study from I-15 to the River to look at access points and where signals would go. Boyle indicated that eventually the intersection near the property between I-15 and Pioneer will be a right in and right out entry with a median. Boyle indicated that despite the applicant’s best efforts the property owner is not interested in selling at this time. Boyle indicated that the Phasing is put in 6 separate phases. Boyle stated that the applicant has a lot of interest in the property and they are working on deals currently. Boyle stated that the reason for the phasing split into 6 pieces is due to the City’s Ordinance that allows a certain time frame to record the next phase and the applicant wants to make sure he does not bite off too big of a chunk and doesn’t have the tenants and would have to come back to the Commission to get more phases approved. Boyle stated that some of the phasing design is based around deals that are already approved or pending. Boyle stated that with this project they will provide a 12’ pathway along Sunnyside which will eventually tie to the trail that is along the river. Boyle stated that Commercial Drive was involved in a major regional traffic study that went from Sunnyside to Pancheri and from 1-15 to the River. Boyle indicated that as part of the study Commercial Drive was outlined in the study as a major road to go through the property and continue north and drop in at the Event Center site. Boyle stated that Commercial Drive and Snake River Parkway will be the two main entry drives from Sunnyside into the Event Center. Boyle stated that Commercial Drive has 8’ wide pathways that are separated by a 10’ landscape planter (similar to Snake River Parkway). Boyle indicated that the New Sweden Irrigation District is not strong proponents of pathways along their canal system. Boyle stated that Snake River Landing does have a pathway that is started along the east side of the canal. Boyle stated that there is a very specific agreement with the Canal Company that they can shut the pathway down at any point. Boyle stated that the main approach to Commercial Drive has been constructed as ITD puts a time limit on their approvals for the approach and they were nearing the end of the approval time limit. Boyle indicated that the signal will go in at the time that the traffic counts require it. Boyle indicated that the signal bases are in place and when necessary they can put up the poles and run the components to the traffic controllers. Boyle stated that through the traffic study, Commercial May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 Drive for this project is only required to be a 3-lane road, however the applicant, in anticipation of working with the City and State and realizing this will be a major route, is oversizing the road to 5 lanes which will benefit the City. Boyle pointed out the 6 main drives that will be within the development. Boyle indicated that they worked with Staff and the fire department on the main drives within the development. Boyle stated that those access points will have cross access and utility easements. Boyle indicated that they will go through the review process for site plans when the tenants start to come in. No one appeared in support or opposition. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Hicks asked for assurance that the businesses that will go into the development will be conducive to a good entry way to the City. Wimborne indicated that Staff stated that it will be restaurants and hotels. Hicks asked if the back of the buildings will face the freeway. Beutler stated that it is preliminary to know where the buildings might face and it will happen as they go through the final plat. Beutler indicated that they will make sure that the Freeway and entry way is pleasant. Black thanked the applicant for the information and indicated that it looks good and hopes it will be great and have beautiful building and beautiful landscaping and will create a wonderful entrance to Idaho Falls. Swaney moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Jackson Hole Junction as presented, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Morrison moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Cantu seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. ANNX1 17-003: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Handly Avenue Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-1. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked if the payments on the buyout with Rocky Mountain are extended over a period. Beutler indicated he is not positive how the payments are extended or if it is a lump sum. Beutler indicated he would look into that. Hicks asked if it must be the whole subdivision that changes to Rocky Mountain Power or can it be individual homes. Beutler indicated that Rocky Mountain Power has indicated that they would like to see the whole subdivision at one time in one request. Wimborne indicated that the power issue is governed by the Public Utilities Commission and is out of the Planning and Zoning Commissions jurisdiction. Black asked who has been responsible for street maintenance and plowing. Beutler indicated that it is County and the City has not been involved in street maintenance/plowing. Wimborne opened the public hearing. City is the Applicant. Opposition: Dennis Westerberg, 3475 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Westerberg indicated he has lived on Handly since 1965. Westerberg stated that he knows the taxes will almost double and with the cost of the buyout with Rocky Mountain Power being unknown it makes him nervous. Westerberg stated that he is not in favor of the annexation. Westerberg stated that for the 1st time since 1965 the County plowed Handly last year and they have done no road repair on Handly. May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 Dave Stever, 3410 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Stever stated that he is not opposed to being annexed, but there are too many unanswered questions about mail delivery, schools, taxes. Stever stated that the City should be held accountable for what it will cost in taxes and utility buyouts. Stever stated he was concerned that people with children would have to switch to a “City” school and leave their “County” school. Stever indicated that he spoke with the post man and was told that there shouldn’t be changes to mail delivery. Stever stated that when the County plowed it made a bigger mess. Robert England, 3525 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. England indicated that he loves the community and the City of Idaho Falls. England stated he didn’t know when he moved onto Handly that they were in the County. England gave Kudos to the Commission for doing well with the community. England stated that Idaho Falls Power was a great foresight for the community and the revenue that is received is great for the community. England stated that if they all annexed they could get Idaho Falls Power and the rates would be less. England stated that he spoke with Roger Christensen (County Commissioner) and was able to get the streets plowed. England stated that he has seen the City grow and is excited about the growth. England stated that if he will not be unhappy about being annexed. Peter Sue, 3333 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Sue indicated that his home and property was annexed in 2004. Sue stated that they have lived in their house for more than half of their life. Sue stated that his kids are grown and live on the east coast and want him to move to the east coast, but he loves living in Idaho Falls. Sue stated that before the church was built the subdivision had its own water, and the City asked them to transfer to the City utilities and bring water down Sunnyside past the subdivision. Sue stated that at the time they were not old and living on social security, like they are now, and the City told them that if they join they would pay $1,000/each. Sue stated that the neighborhood decided it was a good idea to pay the $1000 to the City to hook onto the City water. Sue suggested to the Commissioners that if they approve the annexation for the rest of the subdivision, they do not make the residents pay the buyout cost to Rocky Mountain Power. Sue indicated that the sticking point to the annexation is the payment of the buyout. Don Lancaster, 3455 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Lancaster stated that he was reading his Bonneville County Tax Statement and asked if the County is District #93. Wimborne clarified that the school district boundaries are not aligned with the City or the County, but define their own area and overlap the City/County boundaries and the annexation will not impact what school your children will attend or what District Taxes you pay. Lancaster indicated that was a concern they had that the children would have to change schools, but that problem is now alleviated. Lancaster indicated that he did not want to be annexed if it will change the way they survive on Social Security. Lancaster stated that if they must pay thousands of dollars that would be bad, but if they could get a number on the cost that would help them to decide. Perry Bugbee, 3465 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bugbee stated that the biggest concern is the cost of the buyout. Bugbee asked if they get annexed into the City and transfer power to City of Idaho Falls Power, would the power poles that are in the backyards be moved and transferred underground. Bugbee indicated that his wife was concerned that they would be digging up backyards. Bugbee asked if the City will install street lights if they are annexed. Bugbee stated that the City plowing the streets in the winter would be beneficial. Bugbee asked what the other costs that will come into the annexation outside of the buyout, such as taxes. May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 Larry St. John, 3490 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. St. John stated that he has questions about the power buyout. Jessica St. John, 3490 Handly, Idaho Falls, Idaho. St. John stated that the Commission can make recommendations and asked that the Commission recommend that the City pay for the power buyout rather than make the resident pay half. Black indicated that is out of their jurisdiction. St. John stated that they are living on fixed income and their taxes will go up. St. John indicated that she understands that if one person doesn’t want to do the buyout that will affect the entire neighborhood. St. John stated that there are two rentals on the street and doesn’t think that landlords would want to pay to have the house put on City Power as the tenants pay the power bill. Wimborne stated that the power piece is governed by the State Public Utilities Commission and the Planning Commission has no jurisdiction over that. Beutler stated that mail delivery shouldn’t be changed or modified and it is not different for City versus County and the Post Office can determine how they deliver mail and in what capacity they deliver it. Beutler stated that the City rate for taxation is more. Beutler stated that the City believes they provide a lot of amenities that benefit the residents through the taxes, such as parks system, streets, maintenance and services from fire and police. Beutler stated that to get specific amounts they would need to speak with the County Assessor’s office on how the rate on their home would modify and change. Beutler stated that water and sewer bill will decrease. Beutler stated that power is the wild card and they are limited by Rocky Mountain Power but it is not required that they change power. Beutler stated that if they did change to City Power the City can use the same infrastructure that was used by Rocky Mountain Power. Beutler stated that the subdivision is platted with utility easements along the rear of the properties and the City would use the same easements. Beutler stated that he would have to look into street lights for the neighborhood and can find the answers prior to proceeding to City Council. Beutler stated that the previous payment that Mr. Sue brought up about the water is new information to Beutler and he will look into that, as there is not a lot of historic information for Division No. 1. Beutler stated that Division No. 2’s residents were required to sign an outside user agreement which is included in the packet. Beutler stated that once he locates the information regarding the prior payments, he can then talk to the City Attorney and Idaho Falls Power and determine how that would affect the buyout procedure. Beutler stated that City Code currently states that the residents will pay the 50% and Beutler is unsure if there is latitude in the code language. Wimborne clarified that the neighborhood can stay with Rocky Mountain Power and they do not have to change to Idaho Falls Power. Beutler agreed with Wimborne. Wimborne asked if the residents make the request and then change their mind can they back out. Beutler indicated that it is voluntary and if they start they process they are not committed to it and they can back out. Beutler indicated again that Rocky Mountain Power will not discuss buyout numbers until the property is annexed into the City. Black asked if it was only the first Division that became contiguous to the City in 1978. Beutler indicated that it was only the 1st Division that was contiguous in 1977 when the property to the north was annexed. Beutler stated that he has business cards and if people will give him their contact information he will follow up with everybody with answers that he finds with discussing the issues with the City. Morrison asked if there is a way to get a history on the buyouts and the cost of it. Beutler stated that it varies too widely to get a rough estimate. Romankiw asked what County taxes will be eliminated once annexation occurs. Beutler stated that the Fire District Tax would be removed and the library tax May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 would be eliminated. Romankiw suggested that the residents call the Bonneville County Assessor’s office to get more details on what taxes will be eliminated. Beutler stated that taxation is not the motivation for the annexation, rather that motivation is cleaning up the way they provide service and general governance. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Morrison indicated that it is frustrating that they cannot get more cooperation from Rocky Mountain Power. Morrison stated that the one advantage to annexation is reduced utility rates and a few County taxes eliminated. Morrison stated that there are a lot of unanswered questions and doesn’t feel that this annexation needs to move forward without those answers. Swaney stated that the letters that went out to the residents went out March 29 and there is indication that some questions were pursued, but all the questions that were presented tonight are questions that the Community Development staff could have answered prior to the hearing. Swaney does not see a reason to delay the annexation. Swaney stated that the direction from City Council has been to pursue the annexations for enclaves. Swaney stated that Prestwich Estates was successfully annexed and there haven’t been any cataclysmic circumstances associated with that annexation. Hicks asked if the Prestwich annexation is the only one that there is documentation of the cost of change over power. Beutler stated that there have been several properties annexed that went through the buyout process, but Prestwich is the only City initiated annexation. Hicks asked if they could figure out a ball park for a buyout number. Beutler indicated that they vary too widely to come up with a number. Hicks asked if there are not comparable sections in town. Beutler stated that the date of the infrastructure goes into the calculation for Rocky Mountain Power, date, type, pole height, etc. Beutler stated that there are too many variables to get a generalized number. Hicks believes that they could come up with a range to give to the homeowners. Beutler stated that Idaho Falls Power is uncomfortable with giving numbers for Rocky Mountain Power. Beutler stated that it is difficult and they tried to do it with Prestwich and it only delayed the process. Black agreed with Swaney and indicated that the property was eligible to be annexed in 2004. Black stated that they must look at the City as a whole and this property is surrounded by the City of Idaho Falls and the residents can talk to their neighbors to see what their taxes are. Black stated that the taxes will be more, but there will be benefits to the annexation. Black stated that it is their responsibility to recommend approval of the annexation. Morrison indicated that he has changed his original opinion through the discussion. Black stated that they only recommend the annexation and it has nothing to do with the fees. Morrison indicated that when this annexation goes to City Council the residents can then speak to the elected officials. Swaney reminded the Commission that they are recommending annexation and zoning as R-1. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation with initial zoning of R-1 for Sunnyside Park Subdivision, Divisions No. 1 and 2 and .252 acres in the NW ¼, NW ¼, Section 32, T 2N, R 38E, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Wimborne encouraged staff to follow up on the issues brought up, especially the City services that have already potentially been paid in for (water), and those payments should have consideration given. Beutler stated that the process will include another public hearing in front of City Council and the residents will be notified again for the hearing that could potentially be the last meeting in June. Wimborne Adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder May 2, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9