Planning Commission

September 5, 2017 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners, Brent Dixon, George Morrison, Arnold Cantu, George Swaney, Gene Hicks, Joanne Denney, Lindsey Romankiw, Darren Josephson, Margaret Wimborne, Natalie Black, Julie Foster. MEMBERS ABSENT: None. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer, Assistant Planning Director, Kerry Beutler, Brent McLane, Brian Stevens and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Dixon 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 August 1, 2017, with the minor change Hicks indicated, Josephson seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearings: 1. ANNX 17-005: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING OF C-1 (LIMITED RETAIL BUSINESS). M&B 14.647 Acres Secs 22 & 23 T 2 N, R 37E (Shively). McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked if the property near the south-east corner is County. McLane indicated that property is County and owned by the church. Black asked about the landscaping requirements. McLane stated that Broadway and the other right of ways will require a 15’ landscape buffer with trees every 40’ on center. Dixon asked what the buffering is between the commercial property and the residential that is located east of the subject property. Cramer indicated that the buffering is an 8’ cinderblock wall that was developed prior to the current landscaping standards. Black asked about the property across the street (north) of the subject property. McLane indicated that it is a county property. McLane stated that most of Broadway was developed prior to the landscape standards so this property will be one of the better-looking properties due to the standards. McLane indicated that there was a letter received from one of the neighbors that is included in the packet. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that they are aware of the landscape and buffer requirements and the property will be developed per the City Ordinances. Hicks asked what they want to build on the property. Freiberg stated that they are discussing an INL Bus Lot. Chris Bargelski, Gethsemane Baptist Church, 2345 West Broadway, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bargelski stated that they are concerned with the buffering as there is a playground and there have been drainage issues with the City piling snow. Bargelski stated that they are concerned about the 300’ buffer for alcohol sales and added that the property across the street is less than 300’ that sells alcohol. McLane stated that the licensing for alcohol sales goes through the City Clerk’s Office and the Clerk will verify with the police department that all the requirements are met if a license is requested. McLane stated that the property across the street has been in that location for decades and the history of the license is unknown. McLane suggested having them talk to the City Clerk regarding the requirements. McLane stated that the entrance of a facility that sells alcohol must be 300’ away from the nearest, church, school and playground. Dixon asked how many feet of frontage is on Broadway. McLane was unsure of the frontage. Dixon asked if the parking lot would be required to be paved with curb and gutter. McLane stated that they would have to pave and have curb and gutter, as well as retain storm water and 10% interior landscaping. Lorraine Szulczewski, 260 S. Belin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Szulczewski sent a letter that is included in the record. Szulczewski asked if the public would have any input after the meeting for zoning as to what is going to be built on the property. Dixon stated that this meeting is to make a recommendation to the Mayor and City Council, and then there will be another meeting at that level, to determine if they will annex the property. Dixon stated that once a zone is established someone can develop anything that is allowed in that zone and there would not be a public hearing. Szulczewski stated that there are things that should be addressed (that are included in her letter) that would ensure that whatever is developed on the property is not a nuisance to the residential property surrounding it. Steven Herman, 2487 Sunnyvale Way, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Herman read portions of a letter he was going to submit but did not. Herman stated that his property is located south of the parcel. Herman stated that they enjoy the peace and quiet, except for the City dumping snow on the property at night, that is accompanied by loud banging. Herman stated that they have been awakened by the noise. Herman stated that he has complained to the City about the noise from 10 p.m. – 6 a.m. Herman stated that he is leery of the proposed annexation and would like the Commission to access and enforce the noise ordinances. Herman requested that the City extend the buffer zone beyond the minimum requirements and consider noise and light abatements. Herman requested that lighting on the property be directed down with limited height on the poles. Herman requested that access to the property on Sunnyvale Way be restricted. Herman requested a traffic study be performed on Bellin Rd. Morrison asked Herman to submit the letter. Daniel Kingston, Venture One Properties, (developer), 4885 Glenn Eagles Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Kingston stated that they are looking forward to the property moving forward with the INL for Park and Ride. Kingston indicated that she is taking the thoughts of the neighbors and things that would be important to them and will give them feedback as to the design of the project to ease the mind of the neighbors. Morrison asked if they have had public meetings with the neighbors. Kingston indicated they have not as they are still working with the project with the INL. Hicks asked if the bus lot will be a parking lot for people coming to get the bus. Kingston stated it is called Park and Ride Project and will include private cars and INL busses. Chelsea Searle, 447 S. Belin Rd., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Searle is not in favor of the annexation. Searle stated she is concerned about the increase of traffic and the safety of her family. Dixon asked staff how they will determine if a traffic study will be needed. McLane stated it will be based on trip generation. McLane stated that they will review the proposal and then determine if the site will need a traffic study based on the trip generation. McLane stated that he assumes that they will need a traffic study. Dixon asked what type of road Belin is. McLane indicated that Belin road is a minor arterial. Dixon asked if a commercial use would get access to all streets. McLane stated that Sunnyvale would not be an option for the property and Broadway would be determined by the State if they can have an access. Belin would be the access point and that would have to be improved to City standards with curb and gutter along the east side of Belin. Lorraine Sczulczewski, 260 S. Belin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Sczulczewski stated that Belin is now an arterial connection to Sunnyside and I-15. Sczulczewski stated that the traffic has increased due to that connection and a traffic study should be performed. Sczulczewski stated that the lot is shorter on Belin than it is on Broadway. Sczulczewski stated that the intersection is busy and has a lot of accidents. Doyle Stokes, 386 S. Harmony, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Stokes stated that they moved to get away from City lights and noises. Stokes requested along the southern boundary to increase the buffer to 30’ with berms and increase the density of trees and shrubbery to mitigate the noise, dust and light that would come from a parking area. Stokes expressed his support for the traffic study. Stokes suggested the lights being lower poles and qualify for the dark sky rules. Stokes stated that with proper buffering that this could possibly work. John Szulczewski (Ski), 260 S. Belin, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Ski stated that when he annexed his property he had to give detailed instructions on what he was doing on his building and now with this hearing there is no indication of what is going to happen with this parcel if it is annexed. Ski expressed his concern about his property value if a bus lot is built across the street from his house. Ski stated that Maverick is contemplating a Super Maverick, but if the bus lot comes in and has an exit/entrance on Belin Rd. then it might be too much traffic and the $4.5 million investment could disappear. Ski stated that there are a lot of accidents on Broadway and Belin Road is in terrible condition. McLane stated that traffic studies will be based upon the development and the trip generation. McLane stated he anticipates that a traffic study will be performed just based on the size of the property. Dixon asked when the traffic study would be done. McLane stated that the traffic study would come with the site plan submittal. Black asked if the property stays in the County what requirements would the County have. McLane stated that the County would not allow it to develop as it is an enclave. Dixon clarified that if the City denies annexation, then they can go to the County. McLane is unsure what the county would require for road improvements. McLane stated that the City is better at moving traffic and addressing traffic issues. Dixon informed the people in the audience about the Area of Impact and the agreement between City and County to not have the County develop property that is adjacent to the City unless the City has rejected the annexation. Dixon closed the public hearing. Hicks asked if the property is annexed and zoned C-1 then they can put in whatever they want if it is allowed in C-1. Dixon indicated that they would have the right to develop under C-1. Hicks stated that this item might not be ready to be presented until more details are ready for how the property will develop. Wimborne stated that the application before the Commissioners is the proposal to annex, that allows them to build anything within the C-1, but not without abiding by the City’s rules and regulations and development processes. Dixon reopened the public hearing so the applicant can have rebuttal. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow Ln., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that there are clear instructions in R-1 Zoning about buffering, including a 10’ landscape buffer with trees every 20’ along the boundary to the east and then along the right of ways there is a 15’ landscape strip with trees every 40’ on center. Freiberg stated that there would be landscape buffering all the way around the property. Freiberg stated that Danielle Kingston has already indicated that she wants to be a good neighbor and would consider upgrading the landscaping requirements. Freiberg stated that the landscaping requirements as they stand are good landscaping requirements and when they are done they look nice. Freiberg stated that the parking lot will have 10% landscaping within. Freiberg stated that all the storm water will be retained on site, which will be an improvement to what is currently the situation. Freiberg stated that this development will not have snow dumping in the middle of the night and no heavy equipment in the night. Freiberg stated that the site lighting will be pointed down pursuant to the City requirements. Freiberg stated that there is access management to determine where the driveways will be placed. Freiberg stated that ITD will control the access onto Broadway. Freiberg stated that Belin will be improved with curb and gutter to City standards and based on access management determine where the access onto Belin will go. Freiberg stated that there will be no access onto the County Rd to the south. Freiberg stated that there are issues that will be worked through with the City once they get the C-1 Zoning, and it will be an improvement for the corner. Black asked if this INL park and ride would replace another park and ride. Frieberg stated that the park and ride to the west would be replaced by this area. Dixon asked if they can use the storm pond that is next to the property. Freiberg indicated that they must have onsite storage. Dixon asked if they have ideas on how to limit the impact of headlights on residential properties. Freiberg stated that trees and grass make a better landscape buffer than an opaque fence, so they could increase the tree spacing or add some shrubbery to offset the lights. Dixon suggested when they go to City Council they have a better definition on what they are doing regarding mitigating problems with the residential neighbors. Dixon closed the hearing. Morrison pointed out that they are only approving an annexation and a rezone and the discussion about the bus lot is a moot point. Morrison suggested splitting the application into two pieces by passing the annexation and give the applicant a chance to meet with the neighbors regarding the C-1 zoning. Dixon stated that they need to determine if it makes sense for this property that is next to a major highway to be a commercial property. Swaney stated that the testimony from the public was focused on the lack of management of the property and the abuse of the agriculture use to store snow in the winter. Swaney stated that however this property is developed in terms of the C-1 zone it will be beneficial to the property owners because the City will manage the property better than the County has in the past. Swaney encouraged the Commissioners to consider favorably the request of the application for annexation and C-1 zoning. Wimborne referred the Commissioners to the land use map that show the area along Broadway is commercial and employment center and this C-1 zoning would be consistent. Wimborne stated that the neighbors have raised concerns about the INL Bus lot, but this zoning doesn’t commit anything to a bus lot. Wimborne stated that they need to determine if C-1 is appropriate for the area, and then trust that the City’s Community Development Department will work through to address the issues regarding traffic and access, and trust that the developer will follow through with her commitment to work with the neighbors. Black agreed that this area makes sense to be annexed into the City and the zoning of C-1 makes sense. Black asked if there is a zone that includes specifically park and ride. Black stated that the property will be improved by being annexed into the City, and her preference would be to not have a park and ride. McLane stated that park and ride is an allowed use pursuant to #1. Any use permitted in the RSC-1. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation and initial zoning of C-1 for M&B Approximately 14.647 Acres, Sections 22 & 23, T 2N, R 37E, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. RZON 17-008: REZONE. Removal of PT-1 Zone, East Half Blocks 24 & 37 Highland Park. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon clarified and Beutler agreed that with the PT-1 Overlay, until you have 30,000 sq. ft. no development can occur, even in an R-1 Zone. Black asked if the property owners are aware of the rezone on this property. Beutler indicated that the property owners were notified. Black asked the reasoning for bringing this application. Beutler stated that as people come in and inquire about a vacant piece of property this is a road block to the requested development, so staff is determining what areas this overlay should be removed. Black asked if the two lots on the application are the only lots in the area with the PT overlay. Beutler stated that PT-1 only exists on the two outlined properties. Beutler added that there is a PT-2 Overlay that allows for commercial uses and that is still appropriate along Fremont. Dixon asked if there is a reason that PT-1 was in the two sections with the section in between with no overlay. Beutler stated that it is difficult to speak to specifics of the area, but the concept at the time was to organize areas of undeveloped property and how to get the whole block to redevelop. Dixon asked if anything has developed since the overlay was put in place. Cramer stated that since the PT overlays have been in place is on the western side of Fremont in the commercial center, including Pit Master BBQ, Eagle Rock Engineering, dental office, etc. Cramer stated that all development has been on Fremont and not on the back lots that are the subject properties. Cramer stated that a property owner on the south came to staff and wanted to develop, but couldn’t because of the restriction, and Habitat for Humanity has looked in this area for lots and the ones that are vacant have the overlay. Dixon opened the public hearing. No one appeared in support or in opposition of the application. Dixon closed the public hearing. Morrison stated that it is always good to add more R-1. Swaney commended staff on recognizing a past error and removing the overlay. Wimborne agreed. Josephson asked about the widening of Science Center as there are vacant lots on the south side of Science Center. Beutler stated that those lots do not have the overlay that is restricting development. Beutler stated that the unimproved streets in the area have restricted development. Beutler stated that the Public Works office will be putting in the budget each year to begin paving the unpaved streets in the City. Beutler stated that a repaving project will be starting next summer and Habitat for Humanity is looking to develop some properties along Science Center and they will be required to put in curb and gutter. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Rezone from R-1/PT-1 to R-1 for Lot 19-24, Block 24 & Lots 7-24, Block 37, Highland Park Addition, Wimborne seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. RZON 17-009: REZONE. Amend Table 6, Billboards, Chapter 9, Sign Code of Title 7. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if there is any place else that gateways to the City have been designated or have differentiated a gateway from any other type use in the same zone. Beutler stated that nothing specific to gateways and when they made changes to electronic signs code they used corridors in the City, such as Sunnyside, Channing, 17th and 1st Street. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Eric Ensign, 2401 Foothill Drive, Salt Lake City, Utah. Ensign stated that for 3 years YESCO has tried to get a billboard on their property on Sunnyside. Ensign stated that most states that YESCO deals with from Colorado to California, look at lineal view rather than a radial view. Ensign stated that the Greenbelt is the defining thing of Idaho Falls, but there are mitigating factors. Ensign stated that he stood at the bridge on Sunnyside and could not hit the YESCO property with a golf ball so it must be more than 750’. Ensign stated that the turn in the road acts as a natural buffer, and a canal also acts as a natural buffer. Ensign stated that they could put up a big sign that advertises YESCO, but they cannot afford it as the high-resolution signs are expensive and so they need other advertisers to help pay for it. Ensign stated that there are 5 other spots along Sunnyside that a billboard could go, but that doesn’t mean that 5 property owners want a sign on their property. Ensign stated that the signs help in the gateways to the community. Ensign stated that Las Vegas Nevada has the strictest sign ordinance. Ensign stated that they think the two minor changes, changing the lineal vs. radial and change the setback would be beneicial. Black asked if most of the business is from local traffic or from visitors. Ensign stated that most of the business is local businesses advertising that are targeting people from outside of the City. Swaney commended YESCO for their participation on the Sign Ordinance in 2016. No one appeared in support or opposition. Dixon closed the public hearing. Dixon stated that billboards are directed at people from out of town. Morrison doesn’t believe it is wise to change the ordinance for a specific company and would set a bad precedent. Black agreed with Morrison that changing the ordinance to accommodate one company is not a good idea. Black indicated that they only recently changed the sign ordinance and she does not agree with making more changes. Josephson stated that he doesn’t see a negative to the changes being requested. Josephson stated he is open to the idea of the changes. Dixon pointed out that they are not only asking for a specific change for their property, but rather a general change to the Ordinance and could increase the density of signs on the roads. Morrison stated that the negative to the change is changing an ordinance for a special interest. Foster stated that it is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council denial of the Amendment to the Sign Ordinance (Billboards) because it conflicts with policies and implementation strategies of the Comprehensive Plan, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed 9-1. Josephson opposed the motion. Josephson stated that he doesn’t see a negative effect of changing the Ordinance and as time goes on the City will have to continue to fine tune the ordinance. Dixon asked Staff about adding information or descriptions of “gateways”. Dixon stated that there is nothing that covers mobile signs in the Sign Code, and multiple times that has become an issue, and there is a gap that needs to be addressed. Business: 1. PLAT 16-003: FINAL PLAT. Grandview Storage Units. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. No applicant was present. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Grandview Storage Units as presented, Foster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. PLAT 17-016: FINAL PLAT. Television Park Addition, 1st Amended. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if the tower overlay zone is compatible with R- 1. Stevens stated that it can have residential right up to the tower. Swaney asked if there is only one access being provided to Lot 7 (residential area) off Bower Drive, and no cross-access agreement with the other property owners to provide additional access. Swaney stated that is a concern when dealing with emergency response and property access. Stevens stated that there is only one access being proposed and that is allowed depending on the number of units being proposed in the area, and if they come in with a greater than allowed density they would need to create the secondary access for fire and emergency vehicles, that was shown. Stevens showed the location of a secondary access if a high density residential development would be developed in the area, and that second access would be gated. Dixon stated that a C-1 zone that would only have frontage onto a single public road in a residential area with no cross access to the other parts of the plat is concerning. Stevens stated that the BMPO shows limited access. Stevens stated that the PT Overlay limited the access onto 17th Street and they would need to generate a cross access agreement, which has been difficult. Stevens stated that to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan this is a great infill property. Dixon asked and Stevens clarified that this is different ownership that the other part of the parcel. Dixon stated that platting is the time to get cross access established. Stevens stated that the applicant has been unwilling to move forward with the cross access. Swaney asked what the limit of residential units that can be serviced by one access off Bower. Stevens indicated that it is 30 units. No Applicant appeared. Morrison stated that if they recommend this they will create an island in the residential areas and doesn’t believe it is a good idea. Morrison stated that one access for 30 homes that must be accessed through Bower is a bad idea. Wimborne stated that infill properties they must be innovative in how they allowed to develop so they can move forward. Wimborne stated there are obstacles and that is why the piece hasn’t been developed. Wimborne stated that she is concerned about the one access off Bower and is concerned that the applicant hasn’t been willing to pursue cross access agreement. Swaney agreed with Wimborne. Swaney stated that the suggested emergency limited access is something that the Commission has been opposed to in the past. Swaney stated that they typically require a primary and secondary access to residential developments as a concern for public safety. Black asked and Stevens agreed that right now it is zoned commercial and the only section that is zoned residential is where the access is. Cramer stated that it is zoned commercial and that is a mixed-use zone that allows dwellings that are built to the same standards as an R3-A Zone. Cramer stated that in the past they would have suggested a requirement that the development agreement include a provision for cross access, but there is no development agreement with the infill lots. Cramer stated that it does comply with the subdivision ordinance. Cramer stated that it is already platted and this is only a replat. Dixon clarified and Stevens agreed that the smaller lot cannot have an access onto 17th Street, so it will need to access through the larger lot to Bower. Dixon asked why they created a landlocked parcel with no access in the past. Beutler stated that at the time the property was platted in 1988 they did not have the restrictions from the access management plan that are currently in place. Dixon asked what do they do when changes in the ordinances have removed access to a piece of land. Black stated that it would be nice to hear from the applicant to see what their plan is. Wimborne asked why the applicant has not been willing to explore cross access. Stevens stated that there are two different firms pursuing the different components, with one doing the platting and that must go forward before the second firm can take action. Stevens stated that staff acknowledges there are significant challenges in the area. Morrison asked if the emergency services have any comments regarding the one access. Stevens stated that the fire department has indicated there must be a secondary access if there are more than 30 units, and there is a proposed location if it is needed. Josephson asked if they develop townhomes would it be considered one unit or two units. Dixon stated that the number of residences is the number of units. Stevens indicated that it is likely being proposed at a higher density. Morrison indicated approving this application will continue the mistake that was made prior. Morrison indicated he is not sure what the answer is for the property. Black stated that this is an odd piece of property and if they want to see some development they need to trust the fire department and the City Planning that they will ensure when something is developed it is done correctly. Swaney stated that final plats in the past have required cross access agreements. Swaney stated that this final plat with only one access and no assurance of any emergency access or cross access, should be denied, and the applicant should come back with a final plat that meets the expectations and requirements of the Idaho Falls Planning Commission. Foster stated that it is a cart before the horse issue as the other firm cannot move forward with the cross-access agreement until this plat is approved. Beutler stated that a lot of times the cross-access agreement is with one property owner. Beutler stated that this property is a different ownership. Dixon stated that the concern is a commercial lot that doesn’t have access to a minor arterial and they must develop an R-1 lot in order to develop a street and access through an R-1 area. Beutler stated that the amount of people willing to develop this parcel is limited due to the limited access. Dixon suggested that the motion should include the reasoning. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Television Park Addition, First Amended (Black added that: “This is a difficult property and access is an issue.”), Wimborne seconded the motion and it passed 8-2. Morrison and Swaney opposed the motion. Morrison indicated that this application needs more thought and he is surprised the applicant did not show up to discuss it. Morrison stated that he would like to see the property develop, but this is not the answer. Swaney agreed with Morrison that he would like to see the property develop, but the desperation to develop doesn’t need to result in disaster. Swaney stated that he would not like to be responsible for a mess off 17th Street. 3. PLAT 17-018: FINAL PLAT. Action Sports Addition, Division No. 2. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Justin Steffler, Wade Surveying, 4141 South 15th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Steffler stated that the main issue is access and there will be a cross access agreement on the plat. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Action Sports Addition, Division No. 2., Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 4. PLAT 17-021: FINAL PLAT. Eagle Rock Town Center, Division 4. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. McLane stated that the City surveyor has a standard note that is provided in the text portion of the plat that requires and provides cross access across the entire property. McLane stated that the cross access will include lot 6 and 7 and the property to the east (lot 5). Applicant: Shane Reamer, 5092 North 775 East, Shelley, Idaho. Reamer stated that the cross-access agreement is also coming from Walmart. Reamer stated that access will come from Panda Express on the north and they will share the same access to Pioneer Road, including the undeveloped lot. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Eagle Rock Town Center Division 4, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Cramer reminded the Commissioners of the September 22, 2017 work session to discuss the zoning ordinance. Cramer urged the Commissioners to watch the presentations so the time can be spent discussing the issues. Dixon stated that he will not be available for the meeting in October. Wimborne will not be available for the October meeting. Dixon Adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder