Planning Commission

December 3, 2019 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Natalie Black, Joanne Denney, Brent Dixon, Gene Hicks, George Morrison. (5 present 4 votes). MEMBERS ABSENT: George Swaney, Lindsey Romankiw, Arnold Cantu , Margaret Wimborne ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Brad Cramer; Assistant Planning Directors Kerry Beutler, Brent McLane and Brian Stephens; and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Natalie Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. MINUTES: Hicks moved to approve the November 12, 2019 minutes, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Business: 5. ANNX 19-013: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of I&M. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Bryce Esplin, 3834 Professional Way, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Esplin stood for questions. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation and initial zoning of I&M for Lot 4, Block 1, Sunnyside Industrial and Professional Park, as presented, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearing(s): 1. RZON 19-012: REZONE. RP TO R3. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if there are major and minor collectors. Beutler and Stephens both concurred that there are both types of collectors. Dixon asked Cramer to provide additional information on the apartment complex to the South and when that came in because he believes the Comp Plan designation of higher density came in after that complex was built and was done to be consistent with the apartment complex. Dixon believes the R3 is out of place relative to everything that is around it, and he wants more history on how the original R3 got in the area. Stephens stated that Cramer forwarded 709 pages of information and he shared that with Dixon. Stephens stated that the property was originally annexed in 1978 and brought in as R3 and the developer chose to develop around at a lower density and the R3 density developed later. Stephens stated that the hearing regarding the apartment complex was over the R3 zone, but the R3 zone existed on the property simultaneously to the other zones as it was all the same developer (Rose Neilson Plat). Stephens stated that the hearing document was over 100 pages and in his brief review it appears that the neighbors felt there was a technicality in the way the annexation and initial zoning happened because the person who sought the zones didn’t own the ground at the time, so there was contention about the timing of things, but when it was said and Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 1 of 8 done, as is obvious the apartments were built, so that in the end the application was upheld in Court. Dixon indicated that this hearing was the hearing he attended prior to joining the Board. Dixon asked if St. Clair was an arterial then they wouldn’t allow access to St. Clair, but because it is a collector do, they encourage access to the collector for high density. Stephens stated that this property is unique infill property. Stephens stated that all of the infill properties have challenges and this property has a challenge of where they should have the primary access, and the engineer and staff believe the majority of their traffic should go onto St. Clair, although they are not opposed to a second access onto Richards. Stephens indicated that this is an item for a technical item for site plan review and not in the rezone. Morrison indicated that he disagrees with staff and believes the intersection is too busy and a multi-unit development would be too much. Beutler stated that the Access Management Plan states that if it is an arterial, they would allow access, and they allow access from commercial and high-density residential development to arterials and the question is the spacing between access points. Beutler stated that when they go from collector to an arterial the spacing gets greater. Beutler stated that Woodruff is an arterial, St. Clair is a major collector and so the R3 is correctly placed pursuant to the Comprehensive Plan regarding high density residential. Beutler stated that the access issues on St. Clair would be an issue if the property developed as single unit residential, then there would be no access to St. Clair. Dixon indicated that the Moody Canal runs along the west side of the property and development of any kind will require curb, gutter, sidewalk improvements and possibly piping the canal. Dixon stated that the other side of the street hasn’t done anything and further north there is no development along the canal until the recent higher density development behind Hallpark. Dixon asked why they are going to make this one develop to City standards if nothing else has been required to develop to City standards. Stephens assumes that across the street was likely County developed or at that point in time the City didn’t have the same road sections. Beutler stated that the development that backs on to the street is single family residential and that was developed years ago, and it was not required of the developer to improve the back side of the street. Beutler stated that as development occurs along St. Clair then they do require the improvement of curb, gutter and sidewalk and this improvement will complete the section from 25th to Woodruff that has a solid connection of curb, gutter and sidewalk. Black asked why the City chose RP for the zone during the City initiated annexation. Stephens stated there was discussions on the property in what the Comprehensive Plan and what actually resided on the ground (big parcel and single residence). Stephens stated that to put the current structures in compliance with the zoning ordinance and consistent with adjacent property, they chose RP. Beutler stated that they worked with the property owner during the annexation process and at the time the intent of the owner was to maintain the single residence and RP seemed to fit with the area. Beutler stated that since the annexation, public works has determined that even development of a single residence on the property will require curb, gutter and sidewalk. Beutler stated that refurbishing the home to make it livable is challenging. Black asked what the density of housing that would be allowed in R3. Stephens indicated that 35 units per acre is allowed. Black opened the public hearing. Applicant: Nathan Saunders, 2550 Richards Ave. Idaho Falls, Idaho. Saunders resides on the subject property. Saunders stated that when the annexation happened, he had only owned the property for 1 day when he got the annexation notice and he had no idea what it meant. Saunders felt at the time that RP would be fine, but things have changed. Support: Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Sterling Barnes, 2031 Autumn Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Barnes is working with the applicant as the developer for the property and owns some multi-family in town. Barnes believes that it is increasingly difficult to find affordable housing. Barnes has enjoyed managing the multi-family and allowing his family to help manage the property. Barnes wanted to help Saunders develop and build and own the units. Morrison asked if there are firm plans for development. Barnes stated that they have drawn up sketch drawings, including four-plexes and possibly higher depending on the zoning and setbacks required, and improvements that are necessary. Barnes stated that what they develop will be driven by the requirements and access. Morrison asked about their thoughts on access to St. Clair and Richards. Barnes stated that they have looked at designs for both scenarios. Barnes is aware that the neighbors on Richards might not want access to their neighborhood. Barnes stated that it might make sense to have all the access onto St. Clair. Barnes stated that they have discussed about having foot traffic access on the back side for residents to go for walks, etc. Black reminded the Commissioners that this hearing is about the zoning and the preliminary plat will come later. Dixon asked what the cost difference would be to develop only one road instead of both roads. Barnes stated that it can be significant as there is more frontage on the St. Clair side, and the improvements on the St. Clair side would be wider and burying the canal will be expensive, and the improvements needed on Richards are yet to be determined. Opposed: Davete Bogart, 2530 Richards Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bogart is concerned about the access to Richards. Bogart stated that Richards is like a cul-de-sac/dead end and they already have homes coming out onto the property. Bogart agrees with the idea of having foot access from the subject property. Bogart asked why the property has to go to R3 versus R2. Bogart feels like the property is small, and twin homes would go well on it. Jeremy Westwood, 2644 Legend Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Westwood stated that R3 and R3A have no height restrictions so the zoning of R3 or R3A leave the ability to go up and only governed by setbacks. Westwood stated that as the property increases in height the setbacks continue to grow. Westwood stated that on a 35-unit complex if they built 6 on the bottom, they could go 6 stories high on the property which would allow the tenants on the 6th floor to look into the backyard of the homeowners adjacent to the property. Westwood stated that when Teton Apartments were approved as R3, and at the time there was not an R2 designation, however, there was a compromise that they would only build 2 stories high to appease the neighborhood. Westwood doesn’t believe that R3 development would be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Westwood believes R2 would be better. Westwood stated that Richards is a local street (minor). Westwood stated that the Comprehensive Plant doesn’t allow multi-family to dump onto a local or minor street. Beutler stated that they are encouraged to not do that. Westwood stated that in the past it has not been allowed. Beutler stated that there are examples in the City that has multi-family going onto local. Beutler stated that they would recommend that they not go onto local streets. Westwood suggested having the property zoned R2 with landscape buffering onto Richards and no access onto Richards. Westwood believes it should be treated as a transition zone and R2 fits better in the area. Westwood gave the example of the rejection of the request of the rezone from R3 of the property on the corner of East Sunnyside Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 3 of 8 and Springfield 2 years ago. Westwood stated that the application was rejected because it was adjacent to R1 and the height was too high, and you would be looking into the neighborhood of the adjacent properties. Westwood stated that if they were to be consistent with other decisions that Planning and Zoning has made then this property would be zoned R2 or less. Westwood stated that he does developments and helped with the development of Big Sky, Valencia and the new property on Skyline. Westwood understands the need and desire for multi-family housing in Idaho Falls, but believes it needs to be consistent with the adjacent properties. R3 or R3A is not consistent with this property and it needs to be reconsidered to R2. Luke Stallings, 2648 Legends Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Stallings asked if this decision can require the access or is that in a later process. Beutler and Black both indicated that is a later process. Stallings asked if the zoning is allowed then the discussion on access can come later. Black stated that would go with the Preliminary Plat. Stallings asked if the preliminary plat came before planning and zoning for a decision. Beutler stated that there won’t be a preliminary plat on this piece of property because of the size, so there would only be a final plat and it is not a public hearing, only a business item. Stallings confirmed that it wouldn’t be open for public comment, but Planning Commission would take everything discussed here into consideration when the final plat is discussed. Stallings agrees with Westwood’s assertion. Stallings stated that he and Westwood own property management companies locally and they see the need for multi-family residential. Stallings is also a local real estate agent. Stallings property borders the current R3 property. Stallings stated that with the garage buffer and the landscaping they have never been bothered by the R3. Stallings believes it is developed to an R2 standard. Stallings stated that he doesn’t believe there are 35 units on a single acre on the property to the south and so 35 units on the one single lot would be a blip in the map. Stallings feels strongly that the property should be rezoned to R2 and that would fit better and would restrict what could be put on the property to fit in with what is around the property. Applicant: Nathan Saunders. 2550 Richards, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Saunders stated that the people who testified have houses that currently look into his backyard. Saunders stated that his Great Grandfather Merlin Prestwich property and this is all that is left of the farm and his ultimate goal was to continue the development of the City. Saunders stated that they will not be more than 3 stories high. Saunders stated that Barnes has an idea with limiting the access onto Richards, along with possibly having it be lined with garages and buffer, so there aren’t apartments right up along side the current houses. Denney asked why they chose R3 over R2. Saunders stated that once they have the cost of developing the land, they want to spread it over as many units as possible. Saunders stated that he has not desire to turn the property into a metropolitan area, but wants it developed as a beautiful place for people to live. Black asked Staff if Richards is a public street. Stephens indicated it is a local street owned and maintained by the City. Black asked about the differences between R3 and R2 including the density, parking, etc. Black asked if there is room on that piece of property for 35 units with parking and setbacks. Stephens directed the Commission to the table 11-3-4 and discussed the differences between R2 and R3. Dixon asked if the minimum set back would start behind the canal company’s property or from the street. Stephens is unsure how that lies but when they go in and do the final plat the canal is on the property and when they go forward from the property line they will go back 15’ so the canal could be buried in the 1st 15’ of setback. Stephens stated Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 4 of 8 that the setback is to protect the canal from having a structure built over top of it. Beutler stated that the canal is not a separate parcel and is part of the parcel that the applicant owns, and they have an easement or prescriptive easement and the setback would start at the property line or edge of right of way. Dixon asked about the front setback and the back setback would be based on which street they have access to. Stephens stated that if they develop with the buildings facing both streets, then they would be treated as the front. Stephens stated that if they face St. Clair, they would have a front, rear and side setback requirements. Stephens stated in multi-unit they are allowed to configure that in a flexible fashion, but likely the parking will be used for the 25’ rear set back. Denney clarified that the taller the building goes the more land that is lost due to setbacks and if they have frontage on both streets, they will lose more property to build on. Beutler clarified that they are required to landscape the 15’ adjacent to both streets, not allowed to have parking within the front setback, there is a requirement for a 10’ landscape buffer adjacent to the north property line, which will give restrictions to the actual buildable area. Beutler stated that it is not uncommon for multi-family to access onto a local street and both Valencia and Midwest Townhomes access onto a local road. Beutler stated that the comprehensive plan and the access management plan both encourage that they be located near collectors and near arterials, so they are not sending multi-family traffic through neighborhoods. Black closed the public hearing. Morrison doesn’t like the access onto St. Clair that close to the corner. Morrison has reservations about the R3 zone because there are more things that can go into an R3 Zone and believes R2 would be better. Dixon agreed with the comment about R2 and that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan calling for higher density. Dixon stated that if this was more than 2 stories it would be the only more than two story building in the area. Dixon believes it is far enough from the corner especially because the corner is a 4 way stop. Dixon believes that having a height restriction in that area makes sense and R2 would provide the height restriction and would be consistent with the construction of the existing R3 which is constructed at no more than 2 stories and provides a buffer. Morrison stated that the corner might not be a 4 way stop for long. Morrison stated that Richards is long and there is plenty of space to have a couple of entrances onto Richards. Hicks agrees that it should be R2. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Rezone from RP to R2 for the property including 1.28 acres NW 1/4, NW ¼, SW ¼ Section 28, T 2N, R 38E, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. AMENDMENT: Amendment to Form Based Code. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. There was discussion regarding barriers, and speed limits that would limit the areas that Parklets are allowed. Dixon asked questions about bike riders. McLane confirmed that the parklet wouldn’t stick any farther out than a parked car. Hicks asked if this is for food trucks. McLane stated that this isn’t a food truck thing and the permitted uses are very specific as to what is permitted. Black asked if there is a specific reason not allow food trucks. McLane stated that food trucks can park in any stall as long as they are abiding by the parking requirements. Dixon asked if the 10% limit is first come first serve. McLane stated that there is a Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 5 of 8 lease requirement that would need to be renewed and if it becomes an issue that people are feeling like they are not getting the opportunity to participate they might have to address it in the future. Black asked if this is something that is being requested. McLane stated it is the City being proactive as well as some requests for something like this. McLane believes that parklets will create vibrancy on the street and bring the product out to the street which is valuable for the property owner. McLane believes it is a good use of the right of way. Dixon asked about the short sides of blocks where the alleys come out and expressed a concern about the maximum 10% and minimum length of 20’. McLane stated that the minimum size would be one parking stall. McLane stated that it will be restrictive where they can go. McLane stated that in the Code they are restricted to specific sub-districts for compatibility. Black opened the public hearing. City is the Applicant. No one appeared in support or opposition of the application. Black closed the public hearing. Morrison likes it and thinks it’s a good idea. Hicks stated that he has seen it in a lot of cities around the world and they are great. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendment to the Form Based Code for Parklet, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 3. RZON 19-011: REZONE. Amend Zoning Ordinance Blank Walls and Screening. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Stephens went through and addressed each of the concerns the Commission had at the previous hearing. Stephens presented that after discussion they have decided that 24’ of wall for commercial would be a good measurement and anything smaller would be excluded from blank wall requirements. Stephens indicated that they want the signs governed by the Sign Code and not allow signs to count towards the blank wall. Stephens indicated that they have rearranged in the Code the requirements that they were actually looking for beginning with windows, etc. Black likes the way they repositioned the items. Dixon asked about a building that is 3-4 stories high and suggested having an area, and not a horizontal length. Stephens stated that when they discussed it, they decided primarily they are concerned with street level. Morrison commended staff on their efforts. Stephens discussed relief and indicated that Relief is defined as a sculptural technique where the sculpted elements remains attached to the solid background of the same material to create a sculpture relief to give the impression that the sculpted material has been raised above the background plane. Black discussed Shopko’s building and how the new buildings are interesting, but the Shopko building itself is mostly blank wall. Stephens stated that it is a redevelopment property and if it does redevelop, they will try to get them to put in internal landscape. Stephens stated that there are things in the Ordinance now that would require them to do something different. Black asked if the use that went back into Shopko stayed the same would they not have to bring it up to Code. Beutler indicated that if the use stays the same and they don’t modify the parking lot, then they wouldn’t be required to meet the internal landscaping requirements. Dixon asked about different colors or textures being a way to break up a blank wall. Stephens stated that they discussed architectural features and they don’t think its appropriate right now. Stephens stated that they want to get this working good and then at a later date they can address some of the architectural Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 6 of 8 things (5th Section for Architecture, including paint, etc.) Stephens stated that a bump out would be relief however it is more architectural so it was left out so they can get the current 4 pieces working well. Black asked if the developers are pushing back. Stephens stated that a lot of the developers have pushed back on the window percentages and they are coming in around 15-18% not the 20% required so they are doing landscaping to make up the percentage. Stephens stated that there is always a lot of pushback on landscaping. Stephens continued on with the screening section of the staff report. Black asked if this is only for residential and doesn’t cover the residential (multi-family) where they put the garbage dumpster in the front. Stephens stated that multi-family is treated as “some residential” but are required to have a commercial site plan. Stephens stated that the new ordinance does require an enclosure. Dixon indicated some concern about the fencing height around containers and suggested stating that the enclosure be 1’ higher than the item being enclosed or 6’ whichever is less. Beutler stated that they will all likely have the full-size dumpster. Stephens stated that they are accommodating to their sanitation department. Stephens stated that most of the easy to develop properties in Idaho Falls are priced high, so no one wants to build, or already developed, so the development that is happening is the hard challenging in-fill properties. Dixon discussed Stephens drawings and asked if there is a way to change the wording, so the fence is not next to the sidewalk. Stephens stated that could be future working group projects. McLane stated that the fence requirement cannot be more than 3 feet tall in the first 15’. Black closed the public hearing. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendments to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Section 11-3-6 (D) and 11-4-1(I) for Blank Walls and Screening, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. RZON 19-010: REZONE. Amend Subdivision Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Beutler reported his findings as requested from Commission members regarding neighborhood meetings in other jurisdictions, and the result of hearings when a meeting was had versus no neighborhood meeting. Dixon suggested if they had the option of requiring a neighborhood meeting between appearing at Planning and Zoning and City Council, however if Planning and Zoning approves Preliminary Plats that is not feasible. Beutler stated that they could postpone the decision on the plat to allow a developer to address specific issues and that might include addressing them with the neighborhood. Beutler indicated that the neighborhood meetings with the annexations have been perfected over time and have made the meetings less contentious and they are helpful when they happen with a PUD. Cramer stated that since he was defeated again on the neighborhood meeting. Staff will put together a guidebook on how to do a good neighborhood meeting and give it to developers with a strong recommendation for them to do a neighborhood meeting for their project and see how that goes for 6-12 months. Beutler asked if there are any other questions about how to conduct quasi- judicial hearings and the attorney has worked through that and outlines it in specific terms. Dixon asked about spiral bound booklets and Dixon suggested having the specific order for meetings and what type of motions can be made in their booklet. Black opened and closed the public hearing. Dixon was concerned about the neighborhood meetings on 10-1-8 that it was still included. Beutler clarified that the motion from last month excluded the neighborhood meeting, so there is no recommendation on that portion and the motion is for the rest beginning with Title 11. Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 7 of 8 Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendment to Title 11, Chapter 6 Administration of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Section 11-6-4 Decision-Making Criteria, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Miscellaneous: Dixon stated he has been confused about maximum density for R2 and R3 and there is nowhere in the City that comes close. Dixon asked staff to look at the maximum density and come back with a recommendation to reduce them down where they differentiate and not ridiculously high. Dixon cannot envision what the density would look like. McLane stated that it would look like Rexburg and there are areas in town that it would work. Stephens indicated that it doesn’t hurt the City to have higher density as it spreads the taxes and gets more taxes in a smaller dense area. Dixon stated that it may make sense for the City core, but R3 can be used anywhere. Beutler asked if it would still make sense near a grocery store or services even though it wasn’t near the City core as that is what the Comprehensive Plan dictates is that the higher density should be near services. Black stated that she can see large properties developing high density but the small pieces that come in with R3 she cannot envision it. Stephens indicated that the buffers would be so great and the cost of the land and cost to do underground parking, etc. would be too expensive. Black adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes December 3, 2019 Page 8 of 8