Planning Commission

October 20, 2020 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Building MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Gene Hicks, Brent Dixon, George Morrison, Joanne Denney, Arnold Cantu, Margaret Wimborne. MEMBERS ABSENT: Natalie Black, Lindsey Romankiw ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Directors Kerry Beutler; Brian Stevens; Michael Kirkham, Esq.; and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Brent Dixon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. MINUTES: Hicks moved to approve the October 6, 2020 Minutes, Denney seconded the motion. Dixon called for roll call vote: Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Hicks, yes; Wimborne, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing(s): 1. PLAT 20-038: PRELIMINARY PLAT. Providence Point Division No. 2. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Kurt Roland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Freemont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Roland is presenting 104 R1 lots and 2 R3A lots. Roland indicated that it will be a 55+ community and there will be a club house in the large green space near the retention pond. Dixon asked about the larger lot at the intersection of Township. Roland indicated that is a single-family home lot. Roland stated that there are parks in each corner NE and SW corner. Roland stated that there is a walking path proposed to go around the project. Hicks asked if there is only one way in and one way out. Roland stated that Division 1 of Providence Point has been approved and that will be developed first, so there will be another access off of 49th going into Providence Point. Roland stated that Division 1 has an access that will go to the north and to the proposed park where the HK Gravel pit is located, as well as another access to the east to Brookside subdivision. Roland confirmed that Division 1 will be completed before this project starts. Dixon asked and Roland confirmed that there is a walkway to each of the corner parks. Dixon asked if there is a private road across from the club house that would get to the norther R3A lot. Roland indicated that road is for emergency access only to create circulation within the R3A lots. Dixon asked if the R3A will have direct access to Township. Roland indicated that there will not be access to Township. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Beutler clarified that there is sufficient distance for one more access after 49th that would be on the western end of the property that is zoned R3A. Dixon asked if that would restrict the property owner to the west to having an access. Beutler stated that would require a shared access at the property line, and the property to the west won’t meet the access management plan, and the only way to meet the AMP is to have the entrance on the property line. Beutler stated that the R3A are zoned higher density and commercial, so they would be shown in a different platting process separate from this or a Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 1 of 8 commercial site plan review and they would address the access issues. Beutler indicated that they are working through technical issues with City staff and the fire department for the lack of access to the lots immediately adjacent to the open space and club house that have no frontage onto a City street, and the alley way is the only access point. Beutler stated that is why there is a PUD next on the agenda to work through this new concept. Dixon asked if that is within the requirements for R1 or will it only work with a PUD. Beutler confirmed it only works with a PUD as the regular zoning has to have a minimum frontage onto a City Street, but the PUD gives them the flexibility to adjust the standards. Dixon asked if they need to look at the PUD before the final plat. Beutler stated that this is only the preliminary plat, and the final plat is not until Item 3. Dixon is concerned about the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria stating that it will develop into a PUD. Wimborne suggested not doing the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria until after the PUD hearing. Kirkham stated that the plat is only preliminary so as long as the PUD is finalized before the final plat is finalized it won’t matter what order the items go tonight. Dixon asked about the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standard and whether it can be signed before the PUD is approved. Kirkham agreed that they can condition the approval on there being the PUD that is approved or wait to adopt the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards. Wimborne stated that since the applicant has presented and they are halfway through the staff report, she would suggest signing the document after the last public hearing, Morrison agreed. Kirkham agreed that can be done without changing the Agenda. Beutler continued with the staff report. Morrison asked about the two lots to the west and what the plan is for those lots. Beutler stated that they are zoned R3A so more than likely they will develop for high density residential and potentially commercial. Beutler added that they are developing separately from tonight’s plat. Beutler stated that they would develop and see the site plans through a site review process. Morrison asked if the two sections are part of the PUD project, and if so, will they include in the HOA. Beutler stated that the R3A parcels are excluded from the PUD. Dixon asked about the 55+ development, but there is nothing in the staff report, so will it only be through HOA and covenants that the planning doesn’t get involved in. Beutler stated that is up to the applicant and developer. Hicks stated that the 55+ is quite the process to go through. No one appeared in support or opposition to the application. Dixon read a question in the chat about a roadway easement off of 49th South. Beutler is not sure what the person is referring to about the roadway easement plan off of 49th. Dixon stated that the plat shows ½ of the roadway being dedicated as part of this. Beutler indicated that they will be dedicating additional right of way for 49th as part of the platting process. Dixon read the clarification on Chat that asked if the roadway will be widened. Beutler indicated that roadway is an arterial so it will need to be widened to City standards. Dixon clarified and Beutler confirmed that they will have two lanes each direction and a turn lane. Dixon closed the public hearing. Hicks moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Providence Point Division 2&3 as presented, Wimborne seconded the motion. Dixon called for roll call vote: Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Hicks, yes; Wimborne, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 2 of 8 Dixon indicated that they would defer the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards until after the PUD for Providence Point. 2. PUD 20-007: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Providence Point PUD. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant Kurt Roland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Roland is presenting the Planned Unit Development for Providence Point Divisions 2 and 3 on the R1 portion. Roland stated that the reason for the PUD is they are asking for the alley ways on 3 blocks that will have the homes face the streets, and a double car garage will be accessed by the alley. Roland stated that the homes that are near the park will face the park and they will have an alley way with a two-car garage. Roland is working with the City and fire department to figure out what pavement and extra fire hydrants will be required. Roland stated that there is a walking path around the project. Roland stated that the project has extra green space for dog parks and pickle ball courts in the green space. Roland stated there is access off of the City right of way to the parks. Roland stated that this PUD is buffered between the R1 to the east with a 30’ landscape strip and a walking path and the west side has a 30’ green space with the walking path. Dixon what is in the middle of the road at the entrance. Roland stated that it is a landscape island. Dixon asked if they are twin homes. Roland stated that some are twin homes. Roland directed Dixon to block 3 that has twin homes, and everything else is single family detached. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked if the garages in the back are detached. Kurt Roland stated that all the garages are attached to the homes. Dixon asked if the perimeter blocks will have the garages in the back. Roland indicated that the perimeter homes will be a typical single-family home with the garages in front. Dixon asked and Roland confirmed that the homes are between 1500 and 1700 sq. ft. Roland indicated that the interior homes would have no basement. Hicks asked if there is a parking area or space for visitors. Roland indicated that visitor parking is on the street, and these are full width City standard streets with 60’ right of ways. Hicks has a problem and feels that wide streets are problem and if you put 100+ lots with parking on the street. Hicks is concerned that there is no additional parking for visitors. Beutler clarified that the units that have front facing garages toward the street, there will be a driveway which would provide for guest parking, and the 60’ wide street is wide enough to accommodate parking on both sides of the street and drive isles in both directions. Beutler stated that modern street sections should not feel tight like it is over parked. Beutler stated that parking is not a concern. Dixon stated that R1 subdivision does not have separate guest parking, it is just street parking and driveway parking. Beutler stated that they do not experience parking problems in the R1 up to date subdivisions. Dixon stated that the blocks with the alleys will not have driveways on the street, so it will allow more parking on the street for those blocks. Hicks stated that there will be trailer homes and mobile homes, and he is still concerned with the street parking because there will be a lot of cars. Kirkham edified the Commission and stated that the City has a revision on Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 3 of 8 parking trailers or mobile homes on residential streets for a period of longer than 48 hours. Dixon clarified that trailers cannot be stored in the front yard of a property in R1. Beutler clarified further that it has to be outside of the front set back and cannot overlap onto the sidewalk. Dixon stated that the option would be in the rear yard and that would depend on the design as to whether there would be room for the property owner to park in the rear yard. Dixon stated that the tenants will likely have to rent space to store them some where else. Hicks wants that addressed in the HOA. Roland stated that the developer is putting together CC&R and HOA’s and they will not be able to store trailers on their property and all cars have to be parked in the garage, they cannot park outside. No one appeared in support or opposition to this application. Dixon closed the public hearing. Morrison complimented the developer and believes this development will be a good area for this City and is in favor of the development. Dixon stated that the large drainage area near the club house might need a slope that people 55+ can access for recreation purposes, rather than a steeper bank. Roland stated that they are making that an 8-1 slope so you can’t hardly tell it’s a slope. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Planned Unit Development for Providence Point Division 2 and 3 as presented, Morrison seconded the motion. Dixon called for roll call vote: Hicks, yes; Morrison, yes; Wimborne, yes; Cantu, yes; Denney, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Dixon stated that the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, item No. 5, needs to say that it is recommended to the Mayor and City Council that it is developed as a PUD and that has not been approved and change the chair name to Dixon. Morrison moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for the Preliminary Plat for Providence Point Division 2 and 3, Hicks seconded the motion. Dixon called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Wimborne, yes; Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Hicks, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Business: 3. PLAT 20-035: FINAL PLAT. Sand Creek Estates Division 1. Applicant: Barry Baine, Connect Engineering, 1150 Hollipark, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Baine stated that the Final Plat is the first of 4 divisions for a preliminary plat was seen earlier this year. Baine has worked with staff to get the final plat ready, that consists of 28 single family lots. Baine stated that 15 lots are R1 and 13 lots that are in an RP zone and those lots around the perimeter are bigger than the interior lots. Morrison asked about the 4 properties on the west. Baine stated that there is a non-buildable landscape lot. Baine added that there is 8’ that will be given as right of way to get the full section needed for the street widening. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 4 of 8 Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if there are adjustments still being made, should they act on this tonight or wait. Stephens stated that the adjustments will be required to be made based on staff comments and they will be technical comments before they go to City Council. Dixon asked if the corner lots in the R1 (western lots in Block 3) are they the required 10% larger than the rest of the lots. Stephens stated that they are not, and that is one of the things that is being addressed and they have sent in a second submittal that corrects that. Stephens confirmed that the corner lots will be the correct size and meet the 10% per the requirement when it moves to City Council. Dixon asked if it applies to the in lots in the RP that are right up against 15th East. Stephens stated that there is one that it would apply to and is considered a corner lot, and the rest are not considered corner lot, as the landscape lot fixes that. Stephens stated that the 10% is for the entirety of the preliminary plat. Stephens stated that the preliminary plat has been approved and the technical issues are still being worked through. Dixon asked where there are two different zones, are they treated separately, and do the corner lot determination by zone. Stephens stated that they do not treat them separately, and in the second submittal for the final plat Division 1 they have met the requirements without dividing the zones. Baine stated that he believed they were doing them separately in the zones and the corner lots in RP would be 10% larger than the RP lots and the corner lots for the R1 would be 10% bigger than the R1 lots. Stephens stated that he ran them through the exercise for the entire preliminary plat and they all came out as true given the average of the lots size. Beutler stated that staff is comfortable bringing them forward because there aren’t going to be major changes that are going to shift the right of way or lot layout, then it wouldn’t be brought forward, but the small changes will be technical and won’t result in a major change. Hicks asked when it goes to Mayor and City Council it is a clean document. Beutler agreed that when it goes to City Council it is ready for signature. Wimborne understands that staff will be taking care of some clean up and those will be resolved before it moves forward and everything else is in order. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Sand Creek Estates Division No. 1, Morrison seconded the motion. Dixon called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Hicks, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 4. PLAT 20-036: FINAL PLAT. Energy Plaza Division No. 2. Applicant: Johnny Arbuckle, Scratch Development 4267 Summer Meadow Drive, Bountiful, UT. Arbuckle stated that they have submitted a plat to move a lot line between two existing parcels that were recently annexed and a rezone. Arbuckle stated that they will be shifting the lot line further to the east to align with Allied Ave. that will need to connect to Energy Drive. Dixon asked if there is a need to align Allied Ave, with the area across the street from Energy Drive. Stephens stated that the City street Department hasn’t made any comments about aligning those. Stephens is not concerned about traffic on Allied Ave., because Highway 20 and the train tracks are a significant barrier. Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 5 of 8 Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Hicks recommended to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Energy Plaza Division 2, as presented, Denney seconded the motion. Dixon called for roll call vote: Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Hicks, yes; Morrison, yes; Wimborne, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PLAT 20-037: FINAL PLAT. Final Plat for Rose Nielsen Addition Division No. 101 Fifth Amended. Applicant: Mitch Duryea, Duryea & Associates, 2702 North Perry, Spokane, WA 99207. Duryea represents Brookfield Properties, and the purpose of the project is to develop a new or separate parcel for the former Sears store. Duryea stated this is a similar process to what they did with Dillard’s to create their separate parcel. Duryea stated that the current proposed user is a group called Building Hope and they are proposing a new charter school and remodeling the shell store for their future uses. Duryea stated that the project will be a under a CUP and will come up for review at a later point. Duryea is just asking at this point to create the parcel to be able to sell the property to Building Hope. Duryea has submitted the draft and has been reviewed and had some follow up comments and emails to complete the process. Dixon asked about the parking only being dedicated on 1 side, instead of three sides, and what was the determining factor. Dixon is concerned if there is enough parking being dedicated to the new lot. Duryea stated that the reason there was so much included in the Dillard’s parcel, was it was a requirement of Dillard’s that they have ample parking on a stand-alone parcel. Duryea stated that there is an overall reciprocal parking agreement and as long as the parking for the entire mall property is fulfilled, then they don’t need to worry about individual parcels having their own parking allotment. Dixon confirmed there is a shared snow removal and shared maintenance, Duryea agreed with Dixon. Duryea stated that the parking lot will be part of the charter school development area and outdoor uses and might not be used as actual parking. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if changes in the future would be reviewed by this body or City Council, or only reviewed by staff. Stephens stated that if the property does go through as a school, the school is a permitted use in the LC Zone, but there will be site, plan so there will not be another reviewing body. Morrison asked if they would close off the hallway inside the building so the students don’t go shop during school. Stephens is not aware of the plans for that, but it is not a Planning problem. Dixon asked if the plat includes the cross-access agreement. Stephens stated it would be worked out in the reciprocal agreement. Hicks moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Rose Nielsen Addition Division No. 101, Fifth Amended, Wimborne seconded the motion. Dixon called for roll call vote. Hicks, yes; Morrison, yes; Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Wimborne, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 6. County Liaison Report. Hicks stated that one of his hang ups that he mentions often is traffic, parking, etc. Hicks feels his concern is getting bigger, and Ammon is going to annex one square mile south of their current area of impact which would put the City of Ammon beyond Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 6 of 8 York Road with about 25,000 expected new homes and residents. Hicks stated that from the east to the hill it will grow, and this planned expansion all of the traffic will go west. Hicks discussed with the County (Searle) who wasn’t cooperative. Hicks is concerned about the traffic patterns in the future. Hicks stated that traffic to the south of the City on York will have a lot of access points. Hicks stated that he wanted the City to be aware of the expansion in Ammon and population and the increase of traffic. Hicks asked who looks at traffic for future roadways in the City. Dixon stated that York intersects I15 and York along the area of Idaho Falls is getting right of way when they annex to have 3 lanes in both directions (6 lane road), but he is unsure of what happens in Ammon. Dixon thinks it is BMPO that is the first designator of the major arterials. Beutler stated that BMPO is the regional transportation group that works on transportation issues in the urbanized area of Bonneville County, that includes Bonneville County, Idaho Falls, Ammon, Iona, Ucon, and each of the jurisdictions send representatives to BMPO s technical advisory committee (Beutler sits on) and staff from BMPO, and there is a policy board that has each municipality on the Policy Board. Beutler stated it is those groups that look at transportation issues. BMPO is in the process of updating the long-range transportation plan and are looking at planning horizon in 2050 and trying to model the population growth. Beutler stated that 65th South (York) is a principal arterial so it is a major roadway and it is identified as a strategic arterial, so the long range transportation plan through BMPO it talks about a beltway system around the City and York is part of that system. Beutler agreed with Dixon that they are gaining additional right of way when they do annexations. Beutler stated that the BMPO is a planning organization and has no regulatory authority. Hicks asked if York will be part of the beltway and 7 lanes. Beutler confirmed that in the future York is planned to have 3 lanes each direction and a center turn lane, as well as a pathway system. Hicks feels like it would cost too much to buy the land to turn that into a 6-lane road. Beutler stated that is why as development occurs it is requested as easement, and not waiting until later when they have to purchase the property. Hicks believes its too late. Stephens stated that it puts burden on Ammon to help work with the City to get a great road to support their population. Stephens stated that the State Highway Department can help fund it. Beutler stated that Bonneville County has a lot of urban development and will have a responsibility for trying to make it work. Hicks asked if the County and Cities are all working together in the committees? Beutler agreed and stated he gets the idea that there isn’t a lot of dialogue and he doesn’t feel that they are looking downstream. Beutler stated that there are the meetings, but not always the participation, and not always participants from Bonneville County. Beutler stated that BMPO just sat down as a working group and went through every traffic analysis so that will all be worked into the overall model and future population and growth. Beutler stated that they talked about the future, and land uses. Dixon reiterated/summarized that there is going to be development on the south end of Ammon and the main way to move the traffic is planned by BMPO is for York Road to be a primary arterial and Idaho Falls has identified it as a strategic primary arterial and any time that the City is annexing land into the City along York, the City is asking for enough right of way to build it Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 7 of 8 out to be 7 lanes which would be the biggest road in town. Dixon stated that there is no guarantee of how things will annex in in a timely manner, and there may be sections that are not developed by the City in a timely manner because they haven’t been annexed and the City doesn’t have jurisdiction. Hicks also reported that there is a lot of home development in the Ammon area, so general housing in the near future should look better than it does right now. Dixon stated that he would like a staff to update on the status of the negotiation between the City of Idaho Falls and the County on the Area of Impact Agreement update. Beutler stated that it has not been finalized, and they were looking at more discussions in early spring, but Covid ruined that, and that hasn’t been discussed again. Beutler stated that the County wanted to revisit the map, which is a concern as it would start the entire process over again. Beutler stated that the next meeting is November 10, 2020 and was moved because of Election Night. Dixon adjourned the meeting at approximately 8:40 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes October 20, 2020 Page 8 of 8