Planning Commission

October 4, 2022 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Building MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Joanne Denney, Lindsey Romankiw, Glen Ogden, Brent Dixon, George Morrison, Kristi Brower (via Webex), Arnold Cantu (late via Webex). MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Wimborne ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Brad Cramer, Assistant Planning Director Kerry Beutler; planner Naysha Foster and David Peterson. and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Joanne Denney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CHANGES TO AGENDA: Item #2, ANNX 22-018 has been withdrawn. MINUTES: Morrison moved to accept the minutes of September 6, 2022, Ogden seconded the motion. Denney called for a roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Dixon, yes; Ogden, yes; Brower, yes; Romankiw, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing(s): 1. ANNX 22-017: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of LC for 6 Acres. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: No applicant was present. (Eagle Rock Engineering) Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked what access this property will have. Foster indicated the property surrounding the subject property has a preliminary plat and the accesses will be part of a preliminary plat and it will have access and will be developed with the surrounding property along Pioneer Road. Ogden asked if it is the same owner for both properties. Foster confirmed that it is the same owner. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Dixon feels that it is a straightforward application, and this property will be added to the existing development. Dixon feels it is consistent with the general area. Dixon would like the staff notes augmented before this item goes to City Council to clarify that it is added to the other developments. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation of 6.361 acres for the W ½ of the SE ¼ of Sec 26, T2N, R37E, with initial zoning of LC and the Controlled Development Airport Overlay Zone, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Dixon, yes; Ogden, yes; Brower, yes; Romankiw, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 1 of 6 2. ANNX 22-018: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of I&M for 13 Acres. Withdrawn 3. ANNEX 22-019: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of R1 and I&M. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Beutler presented for the City. Beutler stated that this is a City initiated annexation and they are proposed for annexation because they receive City utilities, and they are contiguous to city municipal boundaries or enclaved and are now eligible for annexation as a category B annexation. Beutler reviewed the City’s clean up of its boundaries starting in 2016 with 300 parcels that received City services that were not annexed into the City. Beutler indicated that these properties are the final 4 properties of that project. Beutler began with 1055 W Sunnyside Road. Beutler indicated that this property was left out due to a clerical error, as they didn’t realize that this property received City services, or they would have been included previously. 1055 W Sunnyside Road receives water and sewer services from the City, is enclaved, adjacent to City limits and there is Industrial Zoning to the west and RMH to the east. Beutler indicated that the proposed zoning is I&M, and that proposed zone is consistent with the industrial park along professional way, and the zoning will allow the existing use of outside storage facility. Beutler indicated that the Comprehensive Plan shows industrial as the future land use designation, so the I&M proposed zone is consistent. Beutler moved to the 3 properties on N. 5th West. Beutler stated that these properties were left out of previous annexations because they were not yet contiguous, but with the recent annexations in the area, these parcels are now contiguous and now eligible for annexation. Beutler stated that the parcels do receive water service from the City and are enclaved by the City municipal boundaries. Beutler stated that they comply with the annexation principals that the City Council adopted when they began this process and compliant with State Statute as far as city-initiated annexations. Beutler stated that the R1 zone is consistent with the land use, as each property has a home on the property. Beutler adjusted the requested zone for 4114 N 5th W (east side of road) to RE as the property is over an acre in size and they have farm animals and would like to maintain the ability to have farm animals and the RE is consistent with the zoning in the area. Beutler stated that in addition to the R1 and RE the lots would have the limited development airport overlay zone. Beutler showed that the Comprehensive Plan shows this area as suburban and special use and the R1 and RE designations would comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Beutler indicated that the properties have signed Outside City User Contracts and part of those contracts include that they will be annexed at the time that they are contiguous and having City utilities is implied consent for annexation per the State Statute. Morrison asked if the animals that are allowed in the City is defined somewhere specifically. Beutler indicated that the City has an animal control ordinance which defines specifically what is allowed based on the size of land that you have. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 2 of 6 Dixon asked if the property that is larger than one acre would still be greater than an acre if N 5th W needs to be widened and needs to take some of the lot. Beutler stated that they might be just under an acre, but per the State Code, if a property is made smaller because of right of way acquisition, they still look at it as the 1-acre zone and RE is still appropriate. Dixon asked how the properties on the west are adjacent as it appears they are only adjacent to the road that is annexed. Beutler stated that they are contiguous at the corner (diagonally) and then when the property on the east is annexed there would be more connectivity with the properties on the west side of the road as well. Dixon stated that the three properties are within larger county enclaves that are surrounded by the City, why is the City not annexing the entire enclave. Beutler stated that statutorily if the property is larger than 5 acres and has agricultural purposes it is not eligible for the City to initiate annexation and City Council has directed staff to annex properties that receive City services and the surrounding parcels do not have City services. No one appeared in support or opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Morrison feels it was a good result from staff to annex the 300 properties. Ogden asked if any of the residents of the 3 parcels reached out to the City or have any concerns. Beutler stated that he did visit with the property owner on the west side of the street, and they are concerned with the City tax rate, and that was one of the property owners that signed the agreement, and he is the owner that signed the agreement that said they would annex when they were contiguous. Dixon thanked Beutler for his presentation and his questions were to make clear on the record why these properties were annexed and not the other properties. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation of the subject properties, including 1055 W Sunnyside Road with an initial zoning of I&M and 4114 N 5th West with an initial zoning of RE with the Limited Development Airport Overlay Zone, 4129 N 5th West and 4167 N. 5th West with initial zoning of R1 with the Limited Development Airport Overlay Zone, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Dixon, yes; Ogden, yes; Brower, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, abstain as he was late to this portion of the meeting. The motion passed. Business: 4. Resolution validating conformity of the urban renewal plan for the proposed Pancheri East Bank Urban Renewal Project with the City of Idaho Falls’ Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: Brad Cramer, Executive Director of the Idaho Falls Redevelopment Agency. Cramer gave a brief overview of Urban Renewal Districts in Idaho. Cramer directed the Commissioners to Urban Renewal Plan page 3 that shows the list of potential projects in the area A-J that will give a general sense of what the plan intends to accomplish. Cramer stated that per State Statute the Commissions role is, before the City can create and adopt an urban renewal district, the planning and zoning commission has to consider the plan as to whether it is consistent with the principals of the Comprehensive Plan and what the plan hopes to accomplish in the boundary area. Cramer state that if the Commission approves the resolution tonight, the Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 3 of 6 City Council will approve the Plan in November, then it will establish an Urban Renewal District. Cramer stated that an Urban Renewal District’s primary role is to establish a tax increment financing area (TIF). Cramer stated that it is an economic development tool in Idaho that takes the base taxable value of whatever is in the boundary and as development occurs in the area, then the initial base value taxes go to the City and County and any incremental value created by development and improvements comes to the Urban Renewal Agency, and the Renewal Agency is charged with reinvesting the tax dollars back into the boundary. Cramer gave examples of past districts in Idaho Falls (Hotel Row on Lindsey, Downtown Idaho Falls, Etc.) Cramer walked through the proposal. Cramer showed the difference between this proposed District and an the old Pancheri Yellowstone District that was closed in 2019, including the exclusion of Candlewood Suites, and the addition of a property on the southern boundary which will make it possible, if there are enough funds, to develop a full intersection on the southern boundary. Cramer stated that the catalyst for this proposal is the demolition of the former jerk packaging plant that will be replaced with a new hotel. Cramer stated that demolition and disposal of waste is one of the things that urban renewal funds can help with. Cramer stated that as they talk with other owners in the area, there is interest in the area to develop the last remaining vacant parcel on the southeast end, and some mild interest to the north. Cramer stated that the Redevelopment Agency has interest in improving the access to the site, as the only access currently is through the signalized intersection at Capital and Pancheri and the rest of the access to the area is driveways that are too close to the intersection of Pancheri and Yellowstone. Cramer is hopeful they can improve access on the southern end as much as they can and as owners are willing to get better access through the site and as development happens with the hotel, they will do their best to improve access thereto. Cramer showed the Comprehensive Plan for this area, and this has a mix of urban core, and mixed-use corridors and commercial centers. Cramer stated that if they were able to work with property owners in this area, they could send out RFPs with design standards that need to be met. Cramer showed the zoning map with HC, Industrial, and he anticipates that rezoning would be necessary in the area, and they will work with property owners as development presents itself to get some of the industrial away from the river and focus more on Highway commercial zoning. Cramer showed photos of the site. Cramer showed the deteriorating sidewalk along Yellowstone and stated that is a big issue in this area. Cramer stated that the City has tried to improve this for years through grants and have not been successful, so urban renewal is a tool that works well for these kids of projects to get infrastructure built as the funds from the tax revenue have to be reinvested into public infrastructure in the site and prepping the site for development. The hope to have enough funds eventually to improve this area and build actual sidewalks. Cramer stated that this section of Yellowstone Highway leads to a couple of the shelters in the City where people don’t have a vehicle to get where they need to go and GIFT has helped with that, but those on foot or bike this area is difficult to get to downtown services. Cramer stated that once developers find out there is assistance with prepping the site and building the infrastructure, these sites become more attractive. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 4 of 6 Cramer asked the Commission to find the proposed Plan consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and he feels it meets many of the objectives to help this area develop with services that would support the general area. Ogden asked how come the original Pancheri Yellowstone area ended, and none of the projects happened in the last attempt. Cramer stated that some of the owners haven’t shown interest and some of them that remains the case still. Cramer stated that there has been some elevated interest along Yellowstone. Cramer stated that the project for street improvements didn’t happen because of the realignment proposal and the resistance that the business owners showed, and the Redevelopment Agency was asking for a little bit more in terms of landscaping and lighting than they were able to acquire for right of way and there was need for land purchases or condemnation and they have tried to stay away from condemnation. Cramer stated that by the time they got to the street improvements they ran out of time. Ogden asked about the limitation on the time of a District. Cramer stated that the Idaho Statute reduced the amount of time from 28 years to 20 years, and this is proposed to be a 20-year plan. Cramer stated that they are hoping to accumulate enough funds to do projects towards the end. Ogden asked what things bring optimism that it might be successful this time. Cramer stated that they never open an area unless there is already a development partner in place, so they know the hotel is happening and that is the catalyst of the area and that debt for the demolition of the building will be paid off quickly within the first few years of the plan and then there is an extended period where they continue to collect taxes. Cramer stated that they now have added interest that they didn’t have until the end of the Pancheri Yellowstone District at the southern end of the property. Cramer stated that the southern property owner needs help with developing street frontage as it is very expensive to develop all the infrastructure necessary with the amount of return on the development. Morrison asked if there were any funds left over from the original Pancheri Yellowstone District and do those funds roll back into the new District. Cramer stated that there were funds left over, but at the end of the District those funds are required to be paid back to the City and County for distribution. Dixon clarified that they spend money up front and then get money back through the increase in value and then the Agency can use the increased tax increment to pay off the developments. Dixon clarified that the one hotel in the previous District generated enough change in tax to pay everything back, or where they scaled back on what they did because things weren’t developing, so the plans were changed. Cramer stated that there wasn’t a huge amount of development cost in the original Pancheri Yellowstone District, so the Agency was able to pay the developer back the costs that were fronted. Cramer stated that they do have the ability to bond and go into debt, but they never do it that way, and always ask the developer to front the funds and they are repaid with their own taxes through an Owner Participation Agreement (OPA). Cramer stated that they were able to pay back the developer quickly and then towards the end of the District there was $1.5 million in the bank that needed to be spent and when no other developer came forward that was ready, they started to look at the infrastructure projects, and then ran out of time. Cramer stated that the table on page 4 shows that over time taxes add up to a big pot to put towards something. There was talk about current zoning versus proposed future development zoning and Cramer indicated that they would work with landowners as development occurs to rezone appropriately. Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 5 of 6 Dixon asked if the north side of Pancheri is an urban renewal district. Cramer stated that it is not, and it is an area that the Agency would like to see a district in, but they are waiting for a development partner. Dixon asked if the road went through on Capital to get to the new hotel, would it wipe out the opportunity for greenbelt on that section. Dixon asked how they are going to provide access off Pancheri. Cramer stated that they have talked a lot about this and one of the hopes is to figure out how to connect Capital to Yellowstone. Cramer stated that there are no access points on Pancheri, so they would have to look for access onto Yellowstone. The Recording Secretary read the resolution by Title. RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, VALIDATING CONFORMITY OF THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE PANCHERI EAST BANK URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT WITH THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS’ COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. Dixon moved to approve the Resolution as presented, Ogden seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Dixon, yes; Ogden, yes; Brower, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Beutler introduced David Peterson as a new planner in the office who replaced Caitlin Long. Next Meeting November 1, 2022. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes October 4, 2022 Page 6 of 6