Planning Commission

December 5, 2017 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners George Swaney, Joanne Denney, Brent Dixon, Darren Josephson, Margaret Wimborne, Gene Hicks. MEMBERS ABSENT: Julie Foster, George Morrison, Arnold Cantu, Natalie Black, Lindsey Romankiw. ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Brad Cramer, Assistant Planning Director, Kerry Beutler, Brian Stevens and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Brent Dixon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. Minutes: Swaney moved to approve the minutes for November 14, 2017, Josephson seconded the motion and it passed. Business: 1. PLAT 17-026: FINAL PLAT. SILVERLEAF ESTATES DIVISION 2. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Kurt Rowland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Freemont Ave., Idaho Falls, ID. Rowland indicated that there are 2 accesses in division 1 for emergency. Rowland stated that the subdivision was finished early summer and every lot has been built on, and that is why they are moving on to Division 2 and Division 3 will be coming before the Commission shortly. Dixon inquired, and Rowland confirmed that the stub to the west ends at the canal. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Silverleaf Estates Division 2, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. PLAT 17-027: FINAL PLAT. TAYLOR CROSSING DIVISION 12. FIRST AMENDED. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked about, the building in the corner of the smaller lot on the aerial. Beutler indicated that it was a shed and it has been removed. Beutler indicated that there is an error in his staff recommendation and clarified that the recommendation is “approval of the amended final plat” as it meets the subdivision and zoning standards/designations. Wimborne asked how close Springhill Suites is to this site. Beutler indicated that Springhill Suite is on the northern end, next to the Residence Inn. Wimborne clarified that the parcel to the north is undeveloped. Dixon asked if the lots to the east are landscaped lots. Beutler indicated that everything to the east is developable lots. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Connect Engineering, 1150 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley clarified that there is a sewer line that runs across the property that ties into the sewer line in Riverwalk Drive. Jolley stated that the reason behind the plat is to affix property to the ownership lines that exist. Jolley stated that there is a pathway easement that runs east west on a previous plat for connection to the pathway along the River. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Taylor Crossing Division 12, 1st Amended, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearing: 1. ANNX 17-008: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING OF R-2A. M&B Midwest Townhomes Approximately 6.845 Acres NE ¼ Section 23, T 2N, R 27E. Cramer recused himself as “staff” for this hearing as his residence is within 300’ of the site. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne asked why they chose R-2A instead of R-2. Beutler deferred to applicant. Dixon stated that there are 2 developments across the street that are R-2A and asked Beutler if those developments would be allowed to develop the same way today with the current Code. Beutler stated that setbacks would be an issue and the condominium development would be developed under a PUD designation. Beutler stated that landscaping would be required along the road. Beutler added that from a use and density standpoint it could still be developed pursuant to current Code. Dixon asked if garages are considered rear yards. Beutler indicated that it would depend on how it is developed. Beutler stated that there are buffering requirements (10’) that are required to be landscaped. Beutler indicated that there is a letter in the packet from H. Sharon Wulfekuhle, 1704 Carmel Drive. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Connect Engineering, 1150 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley stated that there was one item in the R-2 that the planned development could not adhere to and that is why they chose R-2A. Jolley stated that there is R-2A in the area and the zone is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Jolley stated that the access will be on Carmel and one access point on Skyline. Jolley indicated that the plan is single story residential units. Swaney asked if the property on the northeast corner (that was previously annexed) is under the same ownership as the current site. Jolley indicated that it is the same owner and will become a single development. Dixon asked and Beutler agreed that they will ask for a rezone of that northeast corner if this current application goes forward Support of Application: Brad Cramer, 1742 Avalon, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Cramer stated that he recused himself as a staff member from this project and has not participated at all and will continue to not participate as a staff member. Cramer stated that he is in favor of county parcels as a tax payer and doesn’t like paying taxes twice to service a property. Cramer stated that a benefit of the development will be improvements, including sidewalks to Skyline, which will help the students walking to and from school. Cramer stated that R-2A offers a benefit versus R-3, with the height limitation of 25’. Cramer believes that R-2 is a less drastic change in densities between the R-1 (7 units per acre) and R-2A (24/25 units per acre). Cramer stated that if the R-2A is approved he is not afraid or worried about the zoning. Cramer stated that this public hearing is not required by law. Cramer stated that he was disappointed that the neighborhood did not get an opportunity to hear the ideas of the applicant. Cramer encouraged the applicant to do a public outreach with the neighborhood. Cramer indicated that he held a public meeting at his home to visit with his neighbors that are concerned and would be happy to do so again for any that weren’t able to make it. Cramer stated that once his neighbors understood the issues and questions and the process the discussion went well. Cramer read from the City’s Comprehensive Plan the first policy in Residential Developments “The City needs to develop a program to involve neighborhoods in the community development process early, as the unresolved opposition to land use development projects does not help us move towards our goals, nor does it provide a predictable environment for investment and growth.” Cramer invited the applicant to come and meet with the neighbors and listen to their ideas and concerns. Terry Thompson, 1873 Avalon, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Thompson was able to go to the neighborhood meeting and have a lot of his questions answered. Thompson stated that he is going to attempt to give solutions to his concerns. Thompson stated that the County island is an issue and it would be an improvement to have developed sidewalks, so the kids don’t have to walk through the mud and ice. Thompson stated that rooftops in the site will bring more business to the West side of Idaho Falls. Thompson stated that it will give more opportunities for small business and more jobs. Thompson stated that LaPrelle is across the street and is R-3 and the condos across the street are R-2A and Thompson believes that the high-density designation for the area has been met. Thompson proposed that the R-2 or R-2A be zoned at the front of the property and then have R-1 closer to current single family homes. Thompson stated that Blue Ridge has been developed into some multi-family townhomes and is a beautiful area. Opposition to the Application: Rodney Nef, 1674 Brentwood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Nef lives in the area with his wife and 6 kids. Nef stated that the field behind his home (“beloved field”) has been home to a lot of his families’ recreation as well as part of a garden. Nef stated that the trampoline in one of the pictures is his. Nef stated that his backyard does not have a fence. Nef indicated that he is speaking on behalf of Al Fueger, 1612, Brentwood Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Nef stated that he is not opposed to growth on the Westside, but due to the height differences, they would propose R-1 be placed on the eastern and southern edges of the property for 120’. Nef proposed that the R-2 zone could take up the remainder of the site. Nef stated that Al Fueger was concerned about multi-family dwellings looking into his backyard and not maintain the privacy. Nef stated that he has lived in his home for 16 years and they have not chosen to walk to the east into the higher zoned areas because it didn’t feel the same, and it felt better to take a walk around single-family dwelling. Nef stated that he proposed to have R-1 zoned for the 1st 120 feet adjacent to the current R-1 zone, and then after that R-2 for the rest of the site. Syd Withers, 1744 Brentwood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Withers stated that Nef’s proposal is positive. Withers stated that he would like single level residences adjacent to the R-1 Area, and there is nothing that constrains them to single level if it is zoned R-2A. Withers proposed R-1 adjacent to the existing R-1 and the rest of the lot be R-2. Withers stated that it would guarantee the neighborhood feel, as they would not have the potential of a second story if it was zoned R-1. Swaney asked Withers if he believed that R-1 does not allow 2 story buildings. Withers stated that he understood R-1 was limited to not having a two-story apartment building. Beutler stated that the height restriction in R-1 is two stories so you could have a two-story single residential unit. Beutler stated that in R-2A the height restriction is 25’, and R-2 is the same two stories as R-1. Dixon indicated that the zoning has to do with the density on the property and how many units can share walls. Withers asked if R-1 would be restricted to two sharing walls. Dixon clarified that it is up to 3 sharing walls. Garny Hardy, 1686 Brentwood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hardy stated that she bought her house in 1973 and was told that the field was zoned residential single family. Hardy stated that if the City did as Nef suggested the current R-1 residents would have another house next to you and the people who build the houses will know that they will have multi-family development as neighbors. Hardy stated that she is concerned that once the property is zoned that someone could do anything and not follow what the applicant is doing. Dixon clarified that a new owner would still have to follow the zoning, but not the particular plan that has been suggested by the applicant tonight. Dixon asked and Beutler confirmed that the County zone designation was A-1 (agriculture). Laura Wells, 1644 Brentwood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Wells stated that she has been in her home since 1963. Wells stated that they have suffered through the insects and bugs that came from the vacant property and the last few years the County has mowed the property. Wells stated that she would not like to see any high rise go on the property. Wells stated that the elevation difference would make apartment buildings bad. Wells stated that she would like it to stay in single family homes. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Connect Engineering,1150 Hollipark Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley thanked the public for voicing their opinion and will try to be considerate of the neighbors. Jolley stated that part of their plan will be to meet with the neighbors. Jolley stated that their first step is to try to find out if the zoning they need to do the project can happen and when that zoning is approved they would then proceed to a neighborhood meeting. Jolley stated that he will take the concerns that have been brought up tonight to the property owner and see if they can address the concerns. Jolley stated that in an R-1 a unit can be two stories and so a next-door neighbor with a two-story home can look into another neighbor’s backyard just the same as a two story multi-family unit. Jolley stated that in R-1 the rear setback is 25’ which is the same as R- 2A. Jolley stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls for a higher density adjacent to arterials and that is where this site is, next to an arterial and the services of Idaho Falls. Dixon suggested that Jolley meet with the neighbors prior to the City Council meeting. Jolley stated that is possible, and it is a plan to meet with the neighbors and show them their plans. Wimborne asked staff to clarify the density difference between R-1, R-2, and R-2A. Beutler stated that in R-1 the minimum lot size is 6,000 sq. ft. for each individual dwelling unit. Beutler stated that in R-2 the minimum lot size is 6,000 sq. ft., and an additional 1,000 sq. ft. for each additional dwelling unit. Beutler stated that in R-2A the minimum lot size for a single dwelling unit is 5,000 sq. ft., and then goes to 6,000 sq. ft. for 2-unit dwelling and an additional 750 sq. ft. for each unit above the two. Wimborne clarified that in R-2A there cannot be more than 8 units attached in a structure, but there could be multiple units on the site, R-2 there could be 4 units attached (4-plex) with a lot of 9,000 sq. ft. Beutler stated that R-1 can have 3 attached single family units with each 6,000 (18,000 sq. ft. for 3 units). Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney stated that the problem is that people have grown accustomed to an open field and a lack of care by the County for the open field and the adjacent property owners have started to care for the open field on their own. Swaney stated that as part of the progress of the City, City Council has asked the Community Development Department to look at enclaves that are surrounded by the City and gradually try to annex them. Swaney stated that the developer is asking for annexation. Swaney stated that there are always options in the development of property and the decision lies with the property owner as they are paying the bill to develop the property. Swaney stated that the developer has stated that they will meet with the neighbors and present what the ideas are for the development. Swaney cautioned that every developer has the risk of going under and having to sell the property and it can be developed within the restrictions of the zone. Swaney indicated that he supports this proposal. Wimborne agreed that it is good to have the County islands annexed into the City. Wimborne stated that her concern is with the initial zoning. Wimborne stated that although the R-2A Zoning complies with the Comprehensive Plan, the high density already in the area is across the street and adjacent to other high density, such as apartments and mobile homes. Wimborne stated that this property is adjacent to R-1 and an R-2 zone would be a better fit and provide a better transition. Wimborne thinks it would be too challenging for the property to have both R-1 and R-2 zoning. Wimborne stated that R-2 seems to be a better fit for the neighborhood to provide transition and can still meet the requirements for the Comprehensive Plan. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation and Initial Zoning of R-2A for M&B: 6.845 Acres, NE ¼ Section 23, T 2N, R37 E., Josephson seconded the motion and it passed 4-1. Wimborne opposed the motion. Wimborne opposed the motion because she believes the R-2 zone is a more appropriate fit for the neighborhood. Dixon stated that the Comprehensive Plan does show high density and both positions are accurate, so they will let the Mayor and City Council make the final decision. 2. CUP 17-011: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Carriagegate Division 6. Single family attached housing. Lots 1-12, Block 12, Carriagegate Division 6. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Stevens corrected the staff report regarding the request for a variance. Stevens indicated that through further research they found State Legislature had changed to support that the CUP can address the requested setback reduction from 30-20 feet. Stevens clarified that the variance can be taken care of with the Planning and Zoning and doesn’t need to go before the Board of Adjustment. Stevens indicated that if the Planning Commission does not approve the set back with the CUP it will then go forward to the Board of Adjustment. Stevens stated that it has been notified to go through the Board of Adjustment, but it would be best if the Planning Commission could make the decision. Dixon asked if there is a preliminary plat for the land to the south, as the area where it is developed was a single block and differences in set backs in the middle of a block are more obvious than if an entire block has the same set back. Wimborne asked where the alley access for the townhomes will be. Stevens indicated it will go down the middle between the town homes and is a private alley. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: No one appeared. Support of Application: Marion Ellison, 3817 Heartland Ave., Ammon (801 Regency Drive – new construction). Ellison is building on the property adjacent to the proposed Townhomes. Ellison indicated that they like the townhomes in Carriagegate and are in favor of higher density as they believe it is good for the planet. Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney stated that he finds it unusual that they are doing the job of the Board of Adjustment for the setback issue. Swaney stated that it is probably appropriate, but it is unusual twist. Swaney stated that he believes that this can be handled as one motion. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the single family attached housing use in lots 1-12, block 12, Carriagegate Division 6 with the setback adjustment from 30’ to 20’, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. RZON 17-014: REZONE. R-3A TO C-1. Lot 1, Block 1, 17th Street, Medical Plaza. Portion Lot 1, Block 1, Hoopes Addition, Lot 4-A, Block 1 Hoopes Addition Division 2 & Portion Lot 1, Block 1, 17th Street Medical Plaza Addition Division 1. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if there are cross access agreements, or is the only access to the site off Hoopes. Stevens deferred to applicant. Dixon asked if the residential aspect of R-3A would not fit in this area since it is designated as employment center on the Comprehensive Plan and C-1 would get rid of the residential. Dixon stated that it feels like a spot zoning behind the current R-3A that is adjacent to the street. Stevens stated that staff had that discussion and they are comfortable with the R-3A in the front. Stevens stated that changes that are going to be made to the zoning map could affect this area in the near future and there would be no fee to change the zone, it would be part of the ordinance revision. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that there is a platted 40’ access easement through the adjacent lot to 17th Street. Freiberg stated that there will be access to 17th Street and access to Hoopes. Freiberg stated that they came before the Commission in 2016 for a professional business park, and that project did not go anywhere. Freiberg stated that the new idea is a family entertainment center that would include a trampoline park, a bowling alley, and a climbing wall. Freiberg stated that they could not do that facility in a R-3A zone, so they need to rezone to C-1. Freiberg stated that it is surrounded by R-3A. Freiberg stated that this is an infill portion of the City that has been vacant. Opposition to Applicant: Russell Griffith, Teton Physical Therapy and Shoulder and Knee Center, 2037 E 17th Street, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Griffith stated that his building is adjacent to this site and his parking lot has the 40’ easement through it. Griffith stated that he is concerned about the easement due to his business. Griffith stated he is concerned about his disabled and medicated patients walking through the parking lot and if that is a busy access point to the site it would be a concern to him. Griffith stated that the Comprehensive Plan has it designated as an employment center and once its changed to C-1 anything that is allowed in that zone cane go in that place. Griffith asked if there is any other access in the bordering property to the north off Allen. Dixon stated that there is access off Hoopes. Griffith stated his concern about the access and about the limited parking that already exists. Griffith believes it is spot zoning. Dixon asked staff what an employment center is. Stevens stated that Employment Center has offices including: technology related business, research and development laboratory, limited retail uses, and business support services. Dixon asked where medical fits into that description. Stevens stated that the previous Comprehensive Plan did not include employment centers. Stevens stated that medical offices fall under employment center. Beutler indicated that the Comprehensive Plan will be broad and where you have employment center designation you will have a mix of zones for that designation, including R-3A, C-1, R&D, Etc. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg stated that he recognizes the need for care when using a cross access between uses. Freiberg stated that the main access will be on Hoopes with the secondary access off 17th for the property. Freiberg stated that whatever development is built would have to have enough parking for their site plan and would be self-sufficient. Swaney stated that it would be a good idea to do public outreach with the surrounding businesses/neighbors, that could gain them support in the project. Freiberg agreed with Swaney and indicated that they would entertain a meeting. Dixon closed the public hearing. Josephson stated that bowling alleys and climbing walls would generally be used in the evening and Saturdays vs. daytime traffic. Josephson stated that if it is approved as C-1 the developer could change their mind and put in a carwash and that would not be appropriate. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of a Rezone from R-3A to C-1 for Portion Lot 1, Block 1, Hoopes Addition, Lot 4-A, Block1 Hoopes Addition Division 2 and Portion Lotion 1, Block1 17th Street Medical Plaza Addition, Division 1, as presented, Denney seconded the motion and it passed 4-1. Josephson opposed the motion. Josephson stated that the area is surrounded by R-3A and C-1 might not be appropriate. Miscellaneous. Beutler stated that they delivered a copy of the final draft for the Zoning Amendments. Beutler stated they will be posting it to the website and sending it out to architects to get feedback. Beutler stated that next month they will bring forth the potential changes to the zoning map for the City, and some zones are proposed to be eliminated. Beutler stated that they will have the video presentations available for public outreach. Beutler stated that they will do public outreach the first part of the year and start having public hearings in February and March,2018. Wimborne asked if the Map in January is for review. Beutler indicated that the Map in January will be for discussion to get feed-back and comments from the Commission and will likely be done as a work session. Dixon asked if a property owner doesn’t like a zone that the City is attempting to change them to, what is the recourse. Beutler stated that will be part of the public hearing process. Beutler stated that some things are changing like they are removing HC-1 and will only have HC, and some zones will just be eliminated. Wimborne asked how they anticipate doing the public hearings. Beutler stated they are working through the process and will like feedback. Dixon stated that it is not necessarily the property owner, as much as the neighbor that might have concerns to the new zone. Beutler stated that they are also beefing up the buffering and landscaping requirements to address any potential issues. Stephens stated that the goal is to have a lot of public outreach and then have it only go to a couple of public hearings to get the map and the plan approved, and then if the Downtown Form Based code goes will, they could see more form based code in Idaho Falls. Stephens stated that Form Based Code is a better way to get what the City wants in an area, versus having the big overlaying zone. Dixon asked where the City/County items are currently at. Beutler stated that they had work sessions with City Council to make sure they are comfortable with the direction, and the main question is the extension of the utilities. Beutler stated that the Mayor’s office will be scheduling meetings with County Commissioner. Dixon asked if the turn over in City Council will delay it with reeducation of new members. Cramer stated that they are trying to get meetings before the end of the year so there will be less reeducation. Swaney stated that the County has not been discussing it at all during Planning meetings. Dixon Adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder