Planning Commission

September 6, 2022 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Building MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Joanne Denney, Margaret Wimborne, Lindsey Romankiw, Glen Ogden, Brent Dixon George Morrison (via Webex), Kristi Brower (via Webex). MEMBERS ABSENT: Arnold Cantu ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kerry Beutler; planner Caitlin Long, Naysha Foster, Brian Stevens, Assistant City Attorney Michael Kirkham, Esq. and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Joanne Denney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. MINUTES: Morrison moved to accept the minutes of August 2, 2022, Wimborne seconded the motion and the motion passed. Dixon abstained as he wasn’t in attendance of the meeting in August. Public Hearing(s): 1. ANNX 22-016: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of LC for 8 Acres. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: Matt Bird, 4980 Riverbend Way, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bird would like 8 acres of land near Skyline Highschool annexed with an initial zoning of LC. Bird stated that the land adjacent to the north is zoned LC and LC is in line with the Imagine IF plans. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne clarified that access would be 17th South and Skyline, but not off Stosich, Foster agreed. Dixon asked about the annexation of 17th South that is against the Interstate. Foster stated that generally they annex the road, and it is part of this proposal. Dixon asked about the proposal of connectivity with Stosich. Foster stated that there has not been discussion about Stosich, as it is County road and then private. Dixon feels that it matters what is being developed with connectivity, and if it is residential, you’d want connectivity to other residential, but if it is commercial, it shouldn’t be connected, but LC allows both. Foster stated that they will look at that in the Plat and site plan. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Dixon feels that this makes sense for the use of this property with the surrounding zoning along Skyline. Dixon asked if the full right of way of Skyline would be annexed and if this is approved it would create 2 very small county islands. Dixon asked about the potential for forced annexation in the future of the small islands, and how does the Freeway get counted in that. Foster stated that the Freeway is treated as any other road, and it is not annexed as it is a State Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 1 of 16 Interstate. Dixon was asking if the county island on the west would then be considered adjacent to the county property to the east that is across the interstate. Beutler stated that the property on the south side of Pioneer Road has been proposed for annexation, but hasn’t been completed, and so there would be 3 enclaved county islands and the Freeway would be annexed as the City has property on both sides to clean up boundaries. Dixon asked if that action would happen to the freeway north of this area, as there is already both sides annexed. Beutler stated that it is done periodically as clean up. Dixon asked if Skyline is annexed on both sides. Foster stated that Skyline is annexed down to this property. Beutler clarified that annexing the rest of Skyline is a review comment on this annexation, so that right of way would be proposed to be included as it proceeds forward to City Council. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation of 8.804 acres for part of the SE 1/4, Sec 23, T 2N, R 37 E, as proposed, with initial zoning of LC with Controlled Development Airport Overlay Zone, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2. ANNX 22-013: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of LC for 15 Acres. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Connect Engineering, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley identified this property as southwest of Bish’s RV. Jolley is requesting LC zone. Jolley stated that there are different zones in this area, and this is a mixed-use area. Jolley stated that Highway 20 frontage could create opportunities for commercial. Jolley stated that the staff report includes annexation of 33rd so they can improve that roadway. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked about the property to the northwest has been annexed to the center line of the road and the none of the right-hand side has been annexed. Stevens agreed with Dixon’s observation and indicated that they will annex the road when they annex the adjacent property. Stevens will put that in the review comments. Beutler clarified that it is a review comment, and this is an arterial road so they will annex the full right of way as part of annexation of this property. Beutler stated that 6 months ago City Council changed their policy for arterial roadways to annex the road as it came into the City as there is value in annexing the right of way so that improvements can be made and deal with traffic generation. Dixon asked if they have to wait for more development before the road is developed or is the new impact fee giving the funding needed for arterials as they go. Beutler stated that the challenge is that even if they annex the right of way, it is unlikely that they would have the full width of the right of way to develop the street section for the entire roadway. Beutler doesn’t feel that they can get the additional right of way necessary (100’) from the property on the north side of the road until they annex, and the City has jurisdiction to request that right of way. Dixon understands that it doesn’t make sense to have a road go wide, then narrow, then wide. Beutler added that it will be a case-by-case basis as they look at arterials. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 2 of 16 Ogden moved to approve the Annexation of 15 acres a Part of Sec 7 T2N R 38 E, with initial zoning of LC with Controlled Development Airport Overlay Zone as presented, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 3. ANNEX 22-012: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of R1 for 51 Acres. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: No applicant appeared. There was discussion on whether they should table the item. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked Stevens to explain what housing units are allowed in R1. Stevens explained that R1 allows for single family attached up to a twin home and single family detached. Romankiw is concerned that there are a lot of people present for this hearing and there is no applicant. Romankiw asked for advice on tabling the action. Romankiw suggested that if they table it, they should do it now, before time is wasted on testimony. Kirkham stated that this is the date and time set for this item to be considered. Kirkham stated that the applicant requested this hearing, and he received notice of the date and time for the hearing. Kirkham recommended that the Commission take public testimony and at the end of the hearing if the Commission doesn’t feel like they’ve received enough information, then the Commission could table the application and reopen the public hearing at a separate date, and that will require re-noticing and accepting additional public testimony. Kirkham doesn’t feel that there is any significant due process deprivation from the applicant not appearing. Ogden asked to see the zoning map. Ogden asked at what point the City comes west to the County property. Stevens indicated that the airport is close to the east and the current soccer complex is to the south. Stevens indicated that there is not a lot of City property on the west side of the airport. Ogden asked if the property to the east of the subject property (Rosewood Subdivision) would be annexed by the City. Stevens stated that is up to the property owners in Rosewood if they ever want City services. Stevens stated that in 30-50 years all the properties would need City services. Ogden asked if the homestead is part of the annexation. Stevens stated that the home is not part of the annexation request. Wimborne confirmed that the City doesn’t have an ag zone, so the other options for zoning that are less dense than R1 would be RP and RE. Stevens confirmed that R1 is the most common in the City. Wimborne asked for clarification on what is allowed in R1. Stevens confirmed that R1 allows for twin homes. Wimborne confirmed that if it was zoned R1 it could only be built out in single family detached houses and possibly twin homes, and four plexes and tri-plexes would not be allowed. Wimborne asked about the Idaho Code 42-1102 Concerning District Right of Ways, and how that would impact this property. Wimborne asked if there is anything in this letter that would impact R1. Kirkham stated that the canals should be considered roads and the code section refers to an irrigation ditch that is in the ground has priority rights of being there. Kirkham stated that the City cannot annex an area with pre-existing irrigation canals and tell the Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 3 of 16 irrigation company that they have to move the ditches because they want to build something. Kirkham stated that unless there has been a specific grant for the canal right of way, generally the canal right of way is where the banks of the canal are, plus additional room for canal company to maintain ditch approximately 25’. Kirkham stated that if it is prescriptive, which means there aren’t any recorded rights of ways, it will depend on if it is dedicated it is whatever the dedication is. Dixon asked where the new soccer complex will be built. Stevens showed on the slide a field along 35th W and Broadway. Dixon stated that some canals are like rivers, and some are small and can be stepped across. Dixon asked what size these canals are. Stevens stated that when he looked one is smaller than the other, and they come together and there is a headgate. Stevens showed a bridge that would need to be replaced soon in the County, if this property were to remain in the County. Stevens stated that this canal is not as large as the one that runs along Holmes. Dixon stated that elevated canal banks can serve as buffers between different land uses, but it doesn’t sound like these canals would provide the visual break from one type of land use to the other. Stevens stated that they are substantial canals. Ogden asked if this property is annexed would the replacement of the bridge become a development requirement from the City for the developer. Stevens stated that the developer will participate in ¼ of the bridge reconstruction. Stevens stated that 17th N is a major collector and there have been talk of it becoming an arterial and the City wants to have good roads in place for arterials on a tight time frame so they can avoid accidents and provide the services that the City is used to providing. Ogden asked if there would be an opportunity to work with the County where ¾ would still be County. Stevens stated that Lance talks about that bridge needing to be replaced, so they sound like they are willing to participate. Ogden suggested writing letters to County Commissioners. Beutler stated that the bridge discussion will be had during the subdivision and platting process. Beutler doesn’t feel that the bridge is pertinent to the annexation discussion. Support/Opposition: Gerald Grover, 3469 Francesca, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Grover asked what a twin home is. Denney explained it is two houses sharing one wall. Grover stated that since the applicant is not here, and people are here to ask the applicant question and have him present his plans, Grover would like this tabled so the public can hear his presentation. Denney clarified that this hearing is about annexation and not what the plans for the land are going to be. Grover argued that since the applicant isn’t here, he feels that he doesn’t want to face the people who are in opposition to his application. Todd Sorenson, 2895 W 17th N, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Sorenson gave 4 reasons that the Commission should reject the application. Sorenson stated that the density being proposed with the R1 zone is inconsistent with the surrounding area, as this is an agricultural area. Sorenson stated that the R1 is represented as a less automobile oriented, more walkable development pattern with a somewhat denser residential environment, and generally located near limited commercial services. Sorenson stated that this property is not located near limited commercial services. Sorenson stated that R1 would be inconsistent zoning. The City has property across the street, but there is not contiguous piece that is zoned R1 and everything else surrounding is zoned A1 or R2A as this is an agricultural area, and R1 would be inconsistent zoning. Sorenson stated that the plan that the applicant shared with the neighbors calls for 265 units and if they Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 4 of 16 have 1 car each, the roads in the area cannot support that traffic. Sorenson understands that the City would make some changes upon annexation, but this is an agricultural area, and the homes have large lots. Sorenson stated that the schools are full, and it is irresponsible to zone this R1 with the proposed density in a school district that is over subscribed. Sorenson asked the Commission to consider a different zone or reject this application. Roy Nelson, 1867 N. Bramble, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Nelson pointed out that the houses on Meadow Lark Lane and Bramble Lane are typically like an RE profile. Nelson has no problem with future RE development in that area. Nelson stated that within the Imagine IF there is a call for a traffic study before this turns into an R1. Nelson stated that this is a small area that will be annexed City and the rest is County, so the road widening would go big, then small, then big, small. Brad George, 3207 W 17 N, Idaho Falls, Idaho. George clarified that the canals on the property are major feeders and feed all of New Sweden, and the other canal is a slough, and it is 20’ deep. George stated that any development to the west is going to require a major lift station. George asked about the replacement of Old Butte Road, as that road comes into play here. George stated that there are 350 households in the village, 150 in Silver Leaf, 100 households in Rosewood. George asked if the replacement of Old Butte would be a done deal and has it passed legal hurdles and potential lawsuits from the Village. George stated that this project is downstream from that project, and until that is resolved, adding another several hundred residential household, as the developer has said that they are going for initial R1, but they want R2 and the developer has made that clear as they have four plexes, duplexes. George feels it is premature to approve this project when there is a giant project that is unresolved with Old Butte Road, and there will be 1000’s of trips into town and 35th West cannot handle that traffic and the intersection of 35th West and Broadway is an unsafe intersection with some going south to the interstate and a lot turning left into town, and that is crossing 4 lanes of traffic to turn into town. George stated that the developer told the neighbors that traffic was not his problem, but it is everyone’s problem. George feels that it is too soon, and this application needs to be rejected and addressed at a later time. Dixon asked about Old Butte Road replacement. Denney asked Dixon to wait until after the public hearing. Kirkham stated that there is no information on Old Butte that is germane to the application before the Commission. Kirkham reminded the Commission that the question is whether annexation is appropriate, and if so, what the appropriate land use zoning that should be applied. Kirkham stated that Old Butte may change, but it may not. Kirkham feels that the Commission can consider whether Old Butte in its current configuration or a different, would make it more or less appropriate to annex the property, or whether that makes a particular zone more less appropriate, but do not speculate beyond that. Lloyd Perry, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Perry is just west of the property and have been there since 1970. Perry is in support of R1. Perry agrees that there is a traffic problem. Perry stated that as 35th hits Broadway it is a traffic problem and that could be resolved with a stop light, and Old Butte does have a stop light. Perry supports the City turning this property to R1, as the property is difficult to farm as it is surrounded by canals and with modern farming equipment it is difficult to farm. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 5 of 16 Joe Belloff, 1735 N. Bramble, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Belloff has been involved in all the development on the west of Reed’s Dairy since the 70’s. Belloff stated that the first development was Westridge, and they brought the utilities around and did the Village, and Rosewood Acres on top and those were 1 acre county lots. Belloff stated that the plan was always to have the densities become less and less as they went north of Highway 20. Belloff stated that if you look at the development going north, the development has become less and less. Belloff stated that it is interesting to note that in 2018 all the zones were changed. Belloff stated that when Silverleaf was developed in 2016 and R1 zone had larger side yard setbacks and rear yard requirements than the present R1 does. Belloff stated that if you were to read the requirements the R1 that presently exists is an RA zone that only allows a density of up to 2 units per acre, and the density of Silverleaf is less than 2.5 per acre. Belloff stated that if the developer were to do a PUD it could be 8 units per acre. Belloff stated that he is not opposed to the annexation of the property, as it is inevitable, but R1 is not an appropriate zone, lacking a plat, because once the developer is given the R1 zone he has freedom to do what he wants within that zone. Belloff suggested that they Annex with RA zone as that would be appropriate for the land use in the surrounding area and the residents would not oppose that zone. Dixon asked what RA zone is. Belloff stated he misspoke and meant RP. Nick Contos, 26th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Contos stated that the City stated they are seeking to infill and this not infill, it is an outreach, appendage and peninsula. Contos stated that this property is not walkable to commercial spaces. Contos stated that it would be a big change to the area. Contos asked that they not give the developer multiple changes to speak because he is not here. Sky Halter, 2722 W 33rd N, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Halter stated that it might not be appropriate to consider the lawsuits regarding Old Butte Road, but since in this presentation it was mentioned that Helix Blvd might go to the new soccer complex, so it shows that they are already assuming that North Old Butte Road will be removed. Halter stated that they need to think that Old Butte Road might be removed. Brynn Brunson, 1946 N. 35th W, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Brunson doesn’t feel that this is a compatible zoning. Brunson has 2 acres and the canal behind her house is a river. Brunson stated that the canal is deep and connects with all the canal roads. Brunson stated that there are canals that surround the property and meet up at a diversion. Brunson’s brother farms the farm to the north of the subject property. Brunson stated that R1 is not compatible zoning to back up against people with 2-acre properties. Brunson stated that there are crop dusters and if the buildings are too tall, they cannot fly good. Brunson stated that the high density would cause issues. Colter Angel, 2164 N. Bramble, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Angel spoke with Westside Elementary school teacher and was informed that Westside is at 120% capacity, and then to add the HUD housing and this proposed housing it would be way over capacity. Angel stated that there are not currently plans to build a new school. Angel wants a good education for his kids. Angel has been a law enforcement officer not in this County. Angel worries about the additional housing coming into neighborhoods. Angel stated that they just learned from the press that they are unable to prosecute mini crimes and so basically no misdemeanor would be prosecuted. Angel stated that housing like duplexes are the majority of the locations that he goes to for law enforcement calls, and if those people aren’t going to be prosecuted, they will continue to live in Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 6 of 16 the neighborhood with his children. Angel asked the Commission to reject the proposal. Angel finds it interesting that the applicant didn’t show up tonight to speak. Don Clark, 1644 Marchesa Ln., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Clark has lived in Idaho Falls for over 30 years. Clark has been in this area in Rosewood and on Marchesa for over 22 years. Clark has seen what has happened over the years. Clark stated that Old Butte and Highway 20 only had a stop sign not a traffic light, just like there is on 35th W and Highway 20. Clark stated that 35th W has a 55mph speed limit, and it took a long time to get a stop light in at Old Butte and Highway 20, and how many people died at the stop sign. Clark is concerned about high density. Clark’s daughter was transported to EIRMC after a car wreck at the stop sign of Old Butte and Highway 20. Clark stated that the major pathway for this annexation and development to the business area of town is along 35th W and 17th N, there is a shortcut that people will take through Marchesa, to Francesca to avoid the stop sign on 35th W and 17th N. Clark stated that the developer has showed what he plans to do with the development. Clark wants a traffic light at 35th W and Highway 20 before this development takes place. Clark asked how many deaths does it take before a light is warranted. Denney closed the public hearing. Denney reminded the Commission that they are deciding annexation and initial zoning. Denney stated that the highest density zoning is R3 that allows 35 units per acre. Denney stated that this is R1 which is considered low density. Denney stated that a traffic study is triggered during the preliminary plat process which would be another hearing. Denney stated that the amount of housing will trigger a traffic study. Denney stated that schools get built because there is more students, and if a school is at 110% capacity, more students will help the school district to build more schools and bring the % back down, and this Commission has no control over schools. Denney asked about the lift station that was mentioned and having to dig under canals for sewer. Denney asked where the utilities would come from. Stevens stated that the preliminary plat and final plat will require utilities to be designed for the area and depending on where they come from, they might not have to cross the canal. Denney asked the difference between a duplex and a twin home. Stevens stated that a twin home is both homes are a single-family residence, with a common wall, with a common property line, sitting on separate parcels, so each individual owns their own parcel, and they abut on the property line and wall line. Stevens stated that a duplex is a single parcel owned by one owner, with two dwelling units in it. Stevens stated that they are different. Morrison feels that a common courtesy is to have the applicant at the meeting, and the Commission is at a disadvantage when the applicant is not there to make an equal information share. Morrison feels that there is confusion between County and City zoning, and they are not matching up and the public doesn’t understand that. Morrison is concerned about the small footprint that attaches to this land and will create large, small, large, small roadways. Morrison stated that the roads are determined by State Legislature and money is given out as they see fit. Morrison stated that most school bonds are voted down and that can be resolved at the ballot box. Morrison feels there are holes in this project as it is being presented, and he is against the project. Ogden stated that the proposal last month was similar, with narrow roads and wide-open spaces abutting the property and this is a more restrictive with R1, than those were with R3 zoning. Ogden doesn’t see with an R1 directly south that this is inconsistent with the area. Ogden stated Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 7 of 16 that this zone would fit the property with the Imagine IF master plan. Ogden is disappointed that the applicant didn’t appear. Ogden feels there will be more opportunities to talk to the applicant as they go through their plan. Ogden wants to do something about roads and traffic signals, but that is County, and the public should write to County Commissioners. Ogden agrees with Morrison that there is only a small connection to existing City property, but he is not bothered with the R1 designation. Dixon stated that this is an area that hasn’t been part of the big picture view, as it has always been just on the other side of the airport, and they haven’t discussed what goes north. Dixon stated that Mr. Belloff’s comments are informative. Dixon stated that when the Village was developed, they argued for a zone that had smaller setbacks even though they wanted to develop as single family because he wanted a more compact area, with the intention that after it was developed it would be rezoned to a zone that would not allow multi-family and that has happened. Dixon stated that the Old Butte Road comment was brought up because the Airport and the FAA have rights to the land and could take it over for airport expansion in which case Old Butte Road could go away and if that was the case the concern would be that access to this area for arterials would only come from the West and no connection from the east. Dixon stated that connectivity from both sides can support higher density, but connectivity from one side supports the idea that the property is isolated and lower density. Dixon stated that R1 used to be low density and only single family. Dixon stated that R1 before the zone change in 2018 changed R1 to what R2 used to be with twin homes and narrower setbacks. Dixon stated that RP used to be R1. Dixon stated that when the Commission looks at it and hears R1, it is not the R1 that is in existence all over the City. Dixon is concerned about connectivity on both ends of W 17th N, or only accessing it as an arterial from N 35th W. Dixon stated that there isn’t an answer, but if there is the potential that needs to be considered because part of what they are doing with this applicant is considering the annexation and the zoning. Dixon stated that if access from a major road is only one direction you don’t want a lot of density in that area. Dixon understands that the land to the north of the canal is higher, and this land is lower, so the idea of larger lots overlooking smaller lots is easier, than the opposite. Dixon stated that there is a large county area in large lots and that is on one side of the canal and that would define a break. Dixon is concerned where the large lots extend onto the south side of W 17th N because there is not an argument for that area coming into the City and therefore, there would be no argument to change from County road section to a City road section because you have developed county on both sides. Dixon stated that a collector that is county a road section is ok, but if it needs to be an arterial, and there was a comment that BMPO has considered turning 17th N to an arterial, and that would be hard to develop as there is enough County that forced annexation would not be in the future. Dixon again stated that the issue of Old Butte Road is important as that is the easy vehicular access from this proposed area. Dixon stated that the plan presented to the public was a lot of twin homes which equated to higher density, like R2 that is now an R1 zone, as opposed to single family homes that you see in all the developed R1 to the south, so it is not compatible with the R1 that is in place currently. Dixon is mixed and wants more information. Dixon feels that this area and how it would develop north of the airport has not been discussed. Wimborne feels it is important that when they look at annexation properties that they look to see if it makes sense to annex the property and what zone would make sense. Wimborne wants the Commission to do that independent of what the developer is talking about. Wimborne stated that she doesn’t feel the developer could bring her any more information tonight. Wimborne wants to Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 8 of 16 make sure that they aren’t approving a zone that suits the developers plan, but rather approving a zone that makes sense for the property and the surrounding area. Wimborne feels that this property makes sense to have it annexed, but she is struggling with the correct zone for this property. Wimborne stated that the large county development to the east, it could make more sense to do RP versus R1. Wimborne looked at the dimensional standards for residential zones, and there is not a huge difference between RP and R1, but there is a difference in the lot area, setbacks, and the difference of 4 units per acre net for RP versus 6 units per acre for R1, and the biggest difference is the allowed use, and RP does not allow attached single family. Denney gave the Commission choices for recommendation are approve as presented; approve annexation with different zone; deny; table. Morrison would like to see a combination of R1 and RP zoning in this area, and the way that is laid out should be up to the developer. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council denial of the annexation with initial zoning of R1. Morrison’s motion died for lack of second. Dixon stated that if they looked at different zone it would have to be a lower density zone than R1 if they want to recommend a different zone. Dixon is trying to figure out how to propose a different zone, as he could see an argument for the area near the collector being R1 and the area farther to the north not being R1. Dixon feels RP would be a nice transition from the County that is developed in what would be an RE zone. Dixon feels it makes sense to annex it in a lower density zone. Dixon is thinking of tabling the application until the developer comes back with a proposal that divides the property into the two zones. Morrison agrees with Dixon. Wimborne objects to letting the developer decide where the line is, as they cannot approve the property based on what the developer wants. Wimborne stated that the developer can put together a plan for approval, but this isn’t about the developer, and it is about what zoning makes sense for this part of the City. Morrison agrees with Wimborne, but he doesn’t feel the developer did his job as he didn’t show, so he feels they should table it, or vote no. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation of 51 acres of part of Sec S ½ Sec 10, T 2N, R 37E, with initial zoning of R1 and RP with no more than 30 acres being zoned R1 and the remainder RP, and the R1 should be on the South and west area with the RP on the North and east area with a dividing line determined before it goes to City Council, with Limited Development Airport Overlay Zones. Wimborne asked why 30 acres. Dixon stated that he needed to insert a number and so he went just higher than 50/50. Dixon stated that the RP on the northeast will give protection to the large county area, whereas if the major arterial is 35th W then it puts R1 density along the collector, but closer to a major arterial. Wimborne clarified that no more than 30 acres was R1, and the rest is RP. Wimborne seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, no; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed 5-1. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 9 of 16 Ogden opposed the motion because the property didn’t come to the commission with that split, and he doesn’t feel they have the right to reject with that type of stipulation. Denney called a 5-minute recess. Denney called the meeting back to order. 4. ANNX 22-015: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of TN and R3 for 63 acres. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: Alex Drecksol, Layton Construction. Drecksol thanked staff for responsiveness. Drecksol introduced himself as the Development Director at Layton Construction and they are working on behalf of Well Tower Inc., to identify and develop wellness housing across the intermountain west. Drecksol stated that the development will be a highly amenitized community, with an emphasis on walkability, landscaping, social interaction, and overall wellness of the residents and offers a differentiated housing product with variety and flexibility for Idaho Falls residents. Deborah Nelson, Esq., 601 W Bannock, Boise, Idaho. Nelson is a land use attorney working for the applicant team. Nelson stated that Innovation Point is a proposed residential development on 62 acres located at Iona Road (33rd North) and N. Boulevard, just north of US 20. Nelson is requesting that the property be annexed and zoned into two zones TN and R3 to allow the development of single-family homes in the TN Zone and apartments in the R3 zone. The subject property is infill parcel that is contiguous to the current City limits on all 4 sides. Nelson stated that they have concurrently submitted a preliminary plat application. Nelson stated that the requested zone is consistent with the surrounding zoning, with R3 to the west and southwest, HC to the east and south, industrial south across Highway 20, research and development for the INL is west and R1 to the north. Nelson stated that the proposed zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Nelson stated that the general urban transects from Imagine IF envisions a variety of housing types, smaller and more compact lot sizes and streets arranged in a grid like pattern to promote connectivity. Nelson stated that TN and R3 support this housing variety. Nelson stated that the proposed zoning and development meet a specific need called out in the Comprehensive Plan to provide missing middle housing. Nelson stated that of the 24,000 units in Idaho Falls in 2020, 93% were single unit townhomes and large apartments, and only 7% were smaller homes. Nelson stated that young professionals or young families might not be ready for mortgage and maintenance responsibilities, and this development will serve the missing middle. Nelson stated that this property is ideally located near INL and could house recent transfers. Other employers in the area include ISU, CAES, NORCO, etc. Nelson stated that this development can serve these employers by providing needed housing close by for their workers. Innovation Point also supports the Comprehensive Plan’s goal to create a walkable center in the innovation center with INL. This development accomplishes this with compact lots and grid like streets to provide connectivity. Nelson stated that wellness is called out in the new Comprehensive Plan and there needs to be healthier, more sustainable neighborhoods, and the plan designates this property as a location within tier 1 and area 4, making it one of the least healthy areas of the City. Nelson stated that one of the goals of the plan is to make healthier communities by improving green space availability, promoting walkability, and bike ability, diversify housing stock, and reducing dependence on personal vehicles. This development will Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 10 of 16 create a community that encourages social interaction and healthy lifestyle with significant amenities, open space, and connecting sidewalks. Nelson stated that this project meets many other goals within the Comprehensive Plan including infill development. Nelson stated that this request is supported by the Comprehensive Plan as the proposal doesn’t burden City services, as water and sewer is available to serve the property and the site is surrounded by City limits making it an efficient utilization of City services and infrastructure without adding to sprawl. Nelson stated that Well Tower did conduct a traffic study to identify potential traffic impacts of the development, and with the full build out of this development and other developments planned in the area, all of the roads and intersections in the area, will continue to operate at an acceptable level, with the recommended mitigation, and the only recommended mitigation to serve this development and other developments in the area was to improve the intersection of 5th and Iona (33rd), with turn lanes and stop controls. The applicant will work with the City and BMPO to contribute to the intersection improvements. Dixon stated that they like to see the higher density closer to the main roads so that there isn’t traffic driving through a lower density neighborhood, but this proposal is for R3 at the back of the lot. Dixon stated that if there was an outlet to Fremont Ave, which is more of an arterial then it would make sense. Nelson replied that the R3 in the southern portion of the site is to have the proximity to the highway, with the industrial property directly across, it is appropriate to plan higher density closer to the more intensive uses and then bring the transitional housing with the smaller lots to the north of that, and then transition to R1 in the northwest corner, so it can provide a nice progression. Nelson stated that there will be significant public roads connecting throughout the entire property. Nelson stated that this has public roads, 2 access points off N. 33rd, coming down into the development and will extend North Boulevard and widen it along the entire east side of the property with grid like streets coming through. Nelson stated that they will be extending MK Simpson through their site, and the extension of that road will provide future residential collector with a wider street when things develop to the west. Nelson stated that there will be significant connectivity and that will provide the direct east west connection to the INL. Nelson added that until the western property develops, the internal public streets will be fully developed with the first phase of the development to ensure connectivity. Long presented the staff report, a part of the record. Denney asked if the airport overlay zone effects the height of the building in R3. Long stated that there is no restriction for height. Support/Opposition: Gaylon Williams, 3754 E 97 N, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Williams has farmed the subject property and surrounding farms for 30 years. Williams made a phone call to an engineer in Boise and explained to him some water problems and was assured that the issues would be addressed. Williams explained that at the corner of N. Boulevard and W 33rd N, there is a major irrigation ditch that flows across the top and down N. Boulevard and the ditch drains farther west and co- mingles with one of the City wells goes, under East River Road and into Willow Creek and back to the Snake River. Williams stated that the land that is still farmed to the north and the east (40- 50 acres) still has their water rights and the right to drain the water. Williams stated that the ditch ½ mile up borders the Bonneville County Landfill on the east side and then goes into the Idaho Canal. Williams stated that in the past the wind would blow debris and when the water goes under the head gates and bridges, it has a tendency to plug. Williams stated that the Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 11 of 16 engineer assured Williams that they could pipe the water all the way down Boulevard. Williams stated that he is not opposed to the development and sounds like they are building Shangri-La and he is ready to move in. Williams stated that he is concerned that when they build the homes and have beautiful walkways, and the piped canal plugs and floods the development. Williams is questioning who to call if there is a plugged pipe. Williams stated that presently if he has a ditch under a county road that plugs, he calls the County and they send someone to fix it. Williams asked if the property is annexed, who would he call to fix the plug in the ½ mile pipe along N. Boulevard. Williams knows it will happen as a lot of water comes through the Idaho Canal, and until the other farms are bought out and developed, next spring he will turn water in to irrigate the adjacent land. Williams stated that if he understands the Code, there is not irrigation water allowed on annexed property. Williams asked who he should call when the pipe plugs and asked if he would be liable for the damage that the water would cause when the water backs up. Williams wants some assurance up front that when they develop the land, that he can run the water to the river. Denney stated that as far as she understands the irrigation canal was there first, so she doesn’t think they can make changes, or if they do, then it would be to the City for liability. Denney stated that she cannot give any assurances. Williams stated that the lands elevation flows down to the bottom, and if the water backs up it will follow the natural flow. Denney reiterated that she cannot give any assurances. Williams asked who he should talk to, to get an answer. Wimborne stated that the comments are part of the record. Williams wants it addressed for his protection. Applicant: Deborah Nelson, Esq., 601 W. Bannock, Boise, Idaho. Nelson appreciates that Mr. Williams has been farming in the area and does not want to disrupt his operations. Nelson stated that there is a right and rider law to relocate irrigation and drainage facilities that cross your private property, so long as you do so in a way that doesn’t damage their use. Nelson stated that they will do that. Nelson stated that their engineer Brandon McDougal does have a plan to address the existing drainage water across the property and the plan currently is to take it across W. on 33rd and down South on the west side so that it ends up really flowing to the same location and the piping will be engineered to accommodate the flow in a safe way. Nelson stated that there will be less run off as this area won’t be farmed and their site is required to keep their own storm water on site. Nelson stated that the pipe will be sized appropriate for the tail water. Ogden asked if the irrigation water in question is flood ditches, not irrigation canals that are continually running, so you have to open the gate to run the water into the property. Nelson agreed that it is tail water. Denney closed the public hearing. Dixon stated that the issue of irrigation is handled all over the City and the unique thing here is the source of blown debris. Dixon stated that they handle canals and creeks all over the City, and he is confident that proper engineering can take care of the issue in general, and any canal or pipe occasionally does have need for maintenance. Dixon appreciates the information on how they want to tie into MK Simpson Blvd to alleviate the concern of R3 being away from 33rd N. Dixon stated that this is an integrated development. Dixon has suggested denial of R3 in the core Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 12 of 16 of the neighborhood in the past, that was when the rest of the neighborhood was already developed and the roads weren’t developed to carry the R3, and this case, the developer is responsible for everything including the roads to service the R3. Dixon feels this is a good location for this development as the INL Site continues to grow and there is a need for housing in the area. Dixon feels it is compatible with the other development in the area including R3 to the southwest and R1 across to the north. Wimborne stated that she is excited about this project as she is a big fan of the TN Zone. Wimborne feels it is exciting to see it morph to other parts of the City and this education/research center it is the perfect fit. Morrison thanked the applicant for the professional and comprehensive presentation. Morrison thinks that this project will fit in this area well. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation of 63 Acres of the E1/2 of the NW ¼ of Section 7, T 2N, R 38 E, with initial zoning of TN and R3 with controlled Development Approach Surface Airport Overlay Zone, Romankiw seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PLAT 22-028: PRELIMINARY PLAT for Innovation Point. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: Deborah Nelson, Esq., 601 W Bannock, Boise, Idaho. Nelson is appearing on behalf of Well Tower. Nelson stated that this application is for the preliminary plat for Innovation Point on a 62-acre site of Iona and N. Boulevard. Nelson showed the site plan that showed the proposed phasing and layout to include 270 single home lots and single lot in the southwest corner for 240 apartment units. Nelson stated that the first phase of the project will include the apartments int eh R3 area to the south, as well as all of the new public streets and the adjacent street improvements including landscaping and sidewalks as required. Phase 2 will include the north half of the compact single-family homes and the access alleys. Phase 3 will include the remainder of the single-family homes. Nelson stated that the TN Zone encourages attractive alley accessed homes for more efficient compact lots. Nelson stated that the alley access homes are being provided to enhance the pedestrian experience and facilitate the size of lots. Nelson stated that alley access lots provide attractive frontage because you don’t have garages and driveways and encourages community gathering for safe pedestrian. Nelson stated that the preliminary plat will include MK Simpson Blvd to be extended as the east west residential collector through the site. Nelson stated that the project will improve and extend N. Boulevard down the east side for potential future connection to US 20 as the City decides to do that. Nelson stated that the main boulevards through the development include the median landscape improvements, the traffic calming to deter speeding, the plan also includes a large, centralized amenity area, with club house, pool and gathering areas, plus 4 additional pocket parks disbursed throughout. Nelson stated that the plan also includes a larger park site in the southeast and the applicant has been in discussions with the City Parks department as to whether they want to use this site for public park facilities, such as multi-sport or soccer fields, and this site is designed to fit those needs regardless of what the City decides to do. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 13 of 16  Dixon asked how many acres the park is. Nelson stated that the big park is 3.75 acres. Dixon asked about parking for it, if it was used by the public. Nelson stated that if this is designed as a City Park, parking will be laid out appropriately, and there is public access from the street along the north side. Dixon identified the pocket parks, and Nelson agreed with his identification. Nelson added that the pocket parks are evenly distributed to provide amenities throughout the development. Long presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked how many units attached the TN zone allows. Long stated that the TN allows a max of 15 units per acre, and they are planning detached. Beutler stated that TN allows for apartments buildings and other types of development, so there is not a limitation on how many attached townhomes it allows. Support/Opposition: Mike Marshall, 3734 N 5TH West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Marshall has no objection. Marshall stated that there is no way to tie into the high density without his property. Marshall has given the City permission to go across his property with power lines. Marshall asked at some point they will want to tie into 5th W, and he is wondering how they will tie in the two planned subdivisions. Applicant: Deborah Nelson, Esq. Nelson stated that they will have the north south spine road that goes along the west side. Nelson stated that will provide the opportunity for any stub streets and connecting streets to come in from the west. Nelson stated that when those properties develop, they will have the opportunity to stub in appropriately. Nelson stated that it looks like the City is intending to create a grid like traditional neighborhood. Denney closed the public hearing. Wimborne moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Innovative Point, as presented, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Wimborne moved to accept the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards with a change to I.3 changing from 19 common lots to 20 common lots, Dixon seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Business: 6. PLAT 22-023: FINAL PLAT for Roderick Business Park. Applicant: No one appeared. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked about the knob being traded for the triangle portion that is green. Foster indicated that the green area is zoned park because it is a City storm water retention pond, and the City is willing to swap the property. Dixon asked if they’d have to go through a rezone to do that swap. Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 14 of 16 Foster stated that will come later. Beutler stated that the rezone will occur prior to the development. Ogden moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Roderick Business Park, as presented, Wimborne seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, no; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed 5-1. Dixon opposed the motion because he feels the zoning should be cleaned up before they have a final plat. 7. PLAT 22-026: FINAL PLAT for Cassiopeia Parks Subdivision. Applicant: Barry Bane, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that this property was recently rezoned to TN and a PUD. Bane stated that the final plat coincides with the PUD. Bane stated that this is over 3 acres, and the plan is 50 lots total 48 are buildable, and the 2 unbuildable lots is the overall common area, including storm pond and private drives. The private drives have a cross access easement and public utility easement. Bane stated that other non-buildable lot is south of Lola and that is at the request of the City for additional right of way. Dixon asked if this Final Plat changes anything that was presented before. Bane stated that what was brought to the Commission before was the PUD and this coincides with the PUD. Dixon stated that any changes to the PUD would have to come back to P&Z. Long presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Cassiopeia Parks Subdivision as presented, Romankiw seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously 8. PLAT 22-027: FINAL PLAT for Valo at Bellin. Applicant: Barry Bane, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that this property came for annexation and initial zone of R2 and that was passed at City Council. Bane stated that this is 5.5 acres with 1 buildable lot. Bane stated that it will have cross access and utility easements through it. Bane stated that the right of way has been dedicated for Pancheri and Bellin. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if the access to Pancheri is close to the crest of the hill and may cause safety issues. Bane stated that they worked with the City Engineer and City Staff on both access points. Bane stated that they have been directed by the City Engineer to put the access points where they are at. Bane stated that the new design of Pancheri will bring the entire road up. Bane stated that they are working with staff as needed. Dixon asked if the development proceeds will they have access to Pancheri. Bane stated that they will have access, and they will create their access to work with the existing grade, as well as the future grade. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Valo at Bellin, as presented, Brower seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 15 of 16 vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 9. PLAT 22-029: FINAL PLAT for Black Feather Apartments. Applicant: Gilmore Jenkins, HLE, 101 S. Park Ave., Suite 210, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jenkins presented a 2-lot plat and both lots are buildable with cross access easements through both lots providing access to the development and future plans to the north that is unplatted. Jenkins stated that this is north of Anderson, next to Bush Elementary. Dixon asked if there is a platted road on the west side of the property. Jenkins doesn’t believe there is a platted road. Dixon is concerned with the cross access in the northwest corner as it goes into the adjoining property. Jenkins stated that there is a master plan that will address that concern and will be accounted for with the plans for the remainder of the lot in the future. Dixon asked if the area has lava. Jenkins stated that this area has a lot of lava, and the owner is aware of the lava, and is aware of the challenges for getting sewer off of this lot. Jenkins stated that their intent is to blast as needed and build up where required to fill in the low areas. Jenkins stated that sewer is available to the south in the neighborhood. Jenkins stated that the depth allows for this area to be served without a lift station, but to go further north, they will be required to look into a private lift station. Dixon confirmed that the same owner owns the rest of the R3A that is not school. Jenkins agreed with ownership. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked how close the off ramp is to the portion of east Anderson on the northeast corner of the area. Dixon asked if that will be restricted, and no access points will be allowed. Stevens stated that this area is being studied as one of 2 options for the I15 Highway 20 connector and that entire area could be consumed by an off/on ramp situation. Dixon confirmed that the access will come from the south via the cross-access agreement. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Black Feather Apartments, as presented, Wimborne seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Wimborne, yes; Romankiw, yes; Ogden, yes; Dixon, yes; Brower, yes; Morrison, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Next Meeting October 4, 2022. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes September 6, 2022 Page 16 of 16