Planning Commission

November 1, 2022 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Building MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Joanne Denney, Lindsey Romankiw, Arnold Cantu, George Morrison, Brent Dixon (via Webex. MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Wimborne, Glen Ogden, Kristi Brower ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kerry Beutler; planner Naysha Foster, Caitlin Long and David Peterson; and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Joanne Denney called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CHANGES TO AGENDA: MINUTES: Morrison moved to accept the minutes of October 4, 2022, Cantu seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing(s): 1. ANNX 22-018: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of LC for 13 Acres. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: James Billman, JTL Consulting. Billman is the real estate agent representing JTL Consulting in this transaction. Billman stated that the when the property went under contract they visited with the County. Billman stated that it is an interesting piece with a home right in the middle. The property is zoned I&M, and County told them they would need to meet standards and codes, and only break into two smaller lots so as to not diminish the value of the residential homes. Billman stated that they looked to see what would work and they feel that condos or townhouses would work in the area. County suggested annexation with the City. Dixon asked why they aren’t requesting a residential zone. Billman stated that the City recommended LC. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked about the grey dashed line. Foster indicated it is the City limits. Dixon stated that the property across the street is I&M in the City, and the rest is County and Heyrend Addition has its own water and sewer and so the City cannot get water and sewer from there. Dixon asked about the choice of LC because the City in the area is I&M and to the west is I&M and east and northeast is residential and feels that LC is spot zoning. Beutler stated that when staff looked at this property it is in an interesting area of town. Beutler stated that the I&M to the north is the City sewer treatment plant and heavy commercial and industrial to east and south along 49th, but also on 49th there are single family homes, and single-family homes to the west, and a County residential subdivision to the west, as well as City park facilities and City beach and boat dock at the end of 49th. Beutler stated that the County residential uses are not going to change, and they are larger County residential lots, but small for redevelopment. Beutler stated that this section of 49th is more residential. Beutler stated that if they are looking for a zone that is compatible with all the land uses and zones (commercial and residential) the Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 1 of 11 LC zone does provide for that compatibility. Beutler stated that the applicant has indicated that they intend to do residential, but that might not happen, and initial zoning needs to be zoned with the best fit and what make sense for the property and the area. Beutler stated that this could develop residential or commercial. Beutler stated that the City is recommending the LC zone for a transition in this area. Beutler stated that commercial is consistent and residential is consistent within the area, and staff continues to support LC for this property. Dixon asked what County C2 is. Beutler stated that County C2 is more of a heavy commercial zone that allows for commercial uses, and some manufacturing and industrial uses and would be consistent with highway commercial. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Morrison observed that there is discussion of this being a walkable community, and he feels that term is being overused, and he doesn’t want to dilute the value of the term, but there are no walkable facilities within 3-4 miles of this location. Morrison asked staff to not use it on every single item. Dixon stated that part of this property that is on the east side of the U is up against some industrial and it is across the road from the City sewer field, Dixon stated that the field could be expanded to have sewage treatment equipment on it and that is an odd place to have residential. Dixon agrees that the west side makes sense for residential. Dixon wants it split in half and one half designated for commercial and industrial and the other half for residential with R2 or R3. Dixon doesn’t feel that it will be pleasant to live across the street from the sewer field. Romankiw stated that is why LC fits because you can put residential on the west and have commercial on the east. Romankiw feels it is a good transition. Morrison agreed that the LC designation pushes towards lighter business on the east side rather than industrial. Romankiw moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation of 13.589 acres in the NW Corner of NW ¼ of Section 2, T1N, R 37E, with initial zoning of LC, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. 2. ANNX 22-020: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of R3 for 79 Acres Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: Kurt Roland, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Roland stated that on North 5th East and E 65th N (Lewisville Highway), Roland is asking for annexation with an R3 zone. Roland stated that R3 is north and west of this property and R3 would be a good fit for this location. Dixon asked if Derek Lane connects to this or is the access only from N5th E. Roland stated that N5thE is the only access now, but Derek Lane will come down eventually. Dixon stated that it is a half mile wide site and Roland agreed. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 2 of 11 Morrison asked what eventually means, during the project. Roland stated that when development happens the road will come down. Long presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked what is on the corner of 65th N and 5th E in the red. Long indicated that it is LC. Dixon asked about the property to the east and southeast and whether it has not been proposed for annexation. Long agreed that it has not been proposed for annexation No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Dixon stated that he has no problem with the requested zoning but is concerned about using Derek Lane as an access because it goes into a very low-density County subdivision, and it should be protected as a County road. Dixon stated that when the property around it is annexed a road system can be built from the east, but right now N5th E is an arterial and it would be best if the access of this high density is funneled towards the arterials rather than to low density on Derek Lane. Cantu moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation of 79.175 Acres of the S1/2 of the NW ¼ of Section 32 & N ½ of the NE ¼ Section 31, T3N, R 38 E, with initial zoning of R3 with a portion of the approach surface airport overlay zone, Romankiw seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. 3. ANNEX 22-021: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation and Initial Zoning of R&D. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg, 946 Oxbow Ln., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Freiberg is asking to annex 17.4 acres near Iona Road to the north and MK Simpson to the South and 5th West to the east. They are requesting R&D zoning. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Denney asked if the request for 33rd N annexation is in this request. Peterson stated that the initial annexation request did not include 33rd N, but that is being requested by Public Works. Morrison asked if 33rd North is the only access to the site or will there be other access points. Beutler stated that University Place runs along south of this property and will connect back into MK Simpson and the plan would be to extend that to the north to connect with 33rd, and as the property developed, they would address the right of way connection with the platting. Dixon confirmed that the request is to include the road, but currently it is not included. Dixon asked about the road to the east. Beutler stated that portion is annexed and was annexed with the R3A area, if they include the rest of 33rd in this application, it will clean up the remainder of 33rd area. Beutler stated that Public Works and Bonneville County have requested annexation of the remainder. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 3 of 11 Morrison asked if that needs to be part of the motion. Beutler stated that it is up to the commission, but it is part of the record. No one appeared in support or opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation of 17.395 Acres of Section 2 North, Range 37 East with an initial zoning of R&D Research and Development including the Limited Development Airport Overlay Zone and including the remaining portion of 33rd N as requested, Romankiw seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. 4. RZON 22-010: REZONE. Rezone 0.325 acres from P, Parks to Open Space and I&M Industrial and Manufacturing. Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Foster stated that this is City owned property that is currently storm retention pond. Foster stated that last month there was an application for final plat of this property and there is going to be a land swap and in order to develop it needs to be rezoned according to the rest of the property. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Romankiw moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the rezone of 0.325 acres of S1/4 Corner of Section 7, T 2N, R 38 E, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. 5. RZON 22-011: REZONE. Amendment Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning Denney opened the public hearing. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Beutler presented several amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Beutler stated these are house cleaning items. Beutler stated that he has slides for some of the significant changes, and the rest he will talk through, but all proposals are part of the record. Beutler stated that there are general changes in the table of contents to identify the neighborhood meeting section as it was overlooked when the ordinance was adopted. Beutler stated that the RMH Zone is now in the table to establish the zone as it was not listed. Beutler stated that there are some references to density changing things from being gross density and net density and the proposal for the code will be gross density and that will standardize the way it is calculated throughout the zoning ordinance. Beutler stated that there is clarification on evergreen buffers to ensure they don’t conflict with the utilities in the easements, and it gives an option to switch from evergreen to deciduous if it is recommended by the City Forrester. Beutler stated that there is repeated Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 4 of 11 removal to references of low medium high density. Beutler stated that they are now referring to general transects and the references to density need to be removed. Beutler stated that there is a minor change to the agricultural definition to remove dairy animals and goats that are not allowed per the City’s Animal Control Ordinance, and the removal will align the Animal Control Ordinance with the Zoning Ordinance definitions. Beutler stated that there were changes to PUD height to standardize the language throughout the Code relating to the buffer requirement that for every foot of height over 2 stories there is an additional two feet of setback from certain uses. Beutler stated that they are requesting a removal of specialized setbacks for properties within specific subdivisions zoned RP and RPA. Beutler explained that these are historic setback requirements and when they changed the zoning ordinance in 2018, they had concerns when they were making reduction to the front setback and reduction to side yards, and they were concerned because they didn’t know how that would play out in existing neighborhoods. Beutler explained that they have found 4 years into the adoption of the code that there hasn’t been a significant impact or change to the look of the neighborhood. Beutler stated that they are running into an issue what has residents that want to build a shed, garage, or addition, but their subdivision has specific setbacks, and it creates confusion if it is not known that they are in a unique subdivision with specific setbacks. Beutler stated that it is creating a challenge for staff and public and they feel it is best to remove the specialized setbacks and have all setbacks apply across the zone and the City. Beutler stated that the parks and open space was created in 2018 to identify parcels owned by the City and were intended to have a park or open space and also a holding zone for the City to hold property that it has acquired and doesn’t have an identified use for, and this zone was a holding zone until they determined what the use was going to be. Beutler stated that it has caused concern with the parks department when they do grants with the State as other entities view this parks and open space zone as a future park, and that is not always the case. Beutler stated that the proposal is to switch the names of park and open space to Public, and the language is modified to show the actual intent of it being a holding zone for public property. Beutler stated that the R&D zone is largely located within the University Place and INL Campus and that zone was identified as a special purpose zone to create a campus feel. Beutler stated that there is desire to allow for residential within the zone district to meet their needs. Morrison is concerned it could get sticky and complicated. Beutler stated that the proposed language would be to allow residential on the upper story, and they don’t want to lose the ability to have commercial and R&D spaces. Beutler stated that they feel the mixed use is a possibility. Beutler doesn’t feel it is a concern because they can meet separation requirements through the building code to allow the uses to co-exist. Beutler wants to preserve the R&D for research and development, but if there was the possibility for a dwelling it could benefit the area. Beutler stated that it is a mechanism to keep the R&D but still allow for some residential if that is the developers request. Beutler stated that home-based businesses are restricted to those who live in the home. Beutler stated that smaller day care operations (no more than 12 children) have faced a challenge because they cannot operate the business if they get sick because of lack of employee options. Beutler stated that daycares have approached and asked if it is possible to have a single Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 5 of 11 additional employee allowed as part of the home operated business. Dixon asked if the home daycare limit was always 12. Beutler stated that there are 2 versions at the home (1) smaller version of 6 or less; (2) larger version up to 12. Beutler stated that it is new for the City to allow an employee as they do not allow that for other home businesses to maintain the residential neighborhood integrity, but daycares are convenient for the residential area and a benefit. Beutler stated that day cares are a unique home occupation that closing for the day affects more than just the business, it affects all parents that have kids at the daycare. Beutler stated that they are including a minimum tree requirement for commercial properties. Beutler stated that commercial developments currently they have to do a landscape requirement, including the perimeter adjacent to the street as a buffer and some internal landscaping in the parking lot if there are more than 24 spaces. Beutler stated that there is maximum lot coverage in PB zones, and you are required to landscape 20% of the property. Beutler stated that the code doesn’t set out specific code requirements for landscape material, and landscaping right now is defined as a mix of ground cover, shrubbery and trees and they have seen properties that don’t have a single tree on the property and that is a concern as the City likes trees and landscaping needs levels and heights. Beutler sated that they are proposing that the minimum internal landscape is required to provide 1 tree per 5000 square feet of the required area and 2 shrubs for each required tree to ensure the landscaping includes trees. The standard is coming from the PUD standard, and it has been working well and they can mimic that standard here. Beutler presented a modification to dwelling unit definitions. Single Unit Attached Dwelling and change the definition from 2 to 3 and form multi-unit moves from 3 to 4. Beutler stated that when they made the changes in 2018 it created a conflict in the Code, so they changed the Code in 2019 to resolve the conflict and reduced it to 2 and 3 to resolve the conflict, but that wasn’t staff’s intent is to reduce the number they just needed to resolve a conflict. Beutler stated that the conflict has been resolved in the code, and they want to return it to 3 and 4 like it was in 2018. Beutler stated that 4 and above is an industry standard when it comes to multi-dwelling units’ definition. Beutler added that the change in 2019 did make some properties non-conforming. Beutler presented an ordinance dealing with R3A zone to add food processing and food store to be built in the R3A zone. Beutler defined small scale food processing with 3000 square feet or less (small operation) like a jam or canning business. Beutler defined food store is a typical food store to buy food products and many square footages are associated therewith. R3A is mixed use and allows for high density residential and commercial and office uses. Beutler stated that allowing for a food store would allow for a corner bodega and introduce the food product into a neighborhood to make it more accessible. Beutler doesn’t want neighborhoods to transform, but R3A is on a collector or arterial and access should be better with higher volume of traffic. Dixon asked where the two different types of daycares listed and differentiated. Beutler stated it is in the definitions and the daycare group is up to 12, and Daycare home is 6 or less, Daycare center is a commercial operation. Dixon has gone through all the changes and has individual comments. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Denney closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 6 of 11 Dixon began with page 1 to establish zones. Dixon asked them to consider renaming LC to Commercial Residential Mixed Use similar to R3A is Residential Mixed Use as they are seeing LC more residential than commercial. Dixon moved to page 2 showing the uses and LC is left off the list because it is not considered a residential zone even though that it the primary way that the zone is being used Dixon moved to page 5 to agricultural uses. Dixon stated that the elimination of cows, pigs, goats and sheep goes against the description and the purpose is limited to provide family food, and he feels cows and goats are milk providers, and one cow or goat can provide all the milk for a family. Beutler stated that the purpose is the City’s animal ordinance only allows llamas and horses, and doesn’t allow for cow, pig, goat or sheep. If they left them as allowable in the zoning ordinance, it would be out of conformance with the Animal Control Ordinance, and this change is only an effort to bring the two ordinances together. Dixon went to page 6 for R&D multi-dwelling units on the top floor but worries if the 1st floor is used for a laboratory, as the possibility of fire or some sort of chemical problem and people above having to be evacuated. Dixon asked if they could work that into the change. Dixon went to page 7 public right of ways should be excluded when calculating gross density. Dixon asked if they have a private road, that would be included as the gross density. Beutler agreed. Dixon went to No. 9 stating that no home occupations should generate the need for off street parking, but the proposal to add an employee to the daycare would require a need for a parking spot, and a day care with 12 children is going to have high traffic. Dixon suggested considering parking as a requirement if they have a non-resident employee on the premises. Dixon feels they shouldn’t change it, and they should keep it to 6, not the 12, as 12 draws from an area, not a block. Beutler agreed to look into it. Dixon moved to page 33, Chapter 3 zoning regulations. A1 mark out doesn’t read right. Beutler will change that. Dixon moved to page 33 near the bottom, item 2 was struck out that added additional minimum area per lot in R2 zone if there are additional dwelling units, Dixon asked why delete that, because if you add additional dwelling units you need more room. Beutler stated that it is a cumbersome issue to plan, so the intent is in R2 if they are going to meet the minimum requirement for 6000 lot area, it should be sufficient, and it will adjust itself naturally, and they don’t have to require the additional square footage per unit. Beutler stated that as they get into more intense uses the R2 has 4 plexes you will naturally see more square footage to accommodate parking and storm drainage. Beutler stated that the requirement is a cumbersome way to review square footage. Dixon asked if when the accessory dwelling units were put through, does that require anything. Beutler stated that the accessory dwelling unit was exempted from the density requirement, so it doesn’t count towards. Dixon stated that you added density without taking account for it. Beutler disagreed with that view. Dixon moved to 34 C 2 and reiterated LC comment. Page 17 11-3-9. Changing Parks and Open Space to Public. Dixon feels it could be used for any public building, including Courthouse, City Hall, etc., and that is a huge change from parks and open space as those buildings provide service to the public, but not near what Parks and Open Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 7 of 11 Space was. Dixon feels that they are changing the uses allowed in this zone and he would like them to step back and structure it better, as anything that is publicly owned can be put in that. Beutler stated that they aren’t changing to allowed uses in the use table. Dixon stated that it is intended for public sites, buildings were uses and activities conducted provide service to the public, and that sounds like City Hall. Beutler stated that each land use is identified in the table. The purpose statement is written generally, and it doesn’t give an allowed use to all the uses, and they’d have to be something that is allowed. Dixon feels they will end up with a case where the description of the zone, doesn’t match the allowed uses of the zone. Kirkham interjected that Public facilities are currently permitted in the parks and open space zone. Kirkham asked what the concern actually is, is it the title that seems inconsistent with the uses or is there an objection to the use table itself. Dixon stated that the concern is that it went from parks and open spaces which implies, trees, grass, playgrounds, to something that would allow multi- story commercial downtown buildings and that is a drastic change of what is being allowed, and that drastic of a change shouldn’t be a house cleaning item. Beutler referenced what is allowed in the use table in the P Zone: (Allowed through a conditional use) Ag, ag tourism, amusement center, cemetery, RV Park, and a public service facility defined as something related to utilities; (Permitted use) is a limited public service facility, park or rec facility and public service use which is identified in the code as the use of the site for administrative, judicial, cultural activities provided to the public from City, State, Federal for non-profit. Beutler stated that it could allow for some of the things Dixon is concerned about, but they are already allowed. Kirkham stated that the change is not a change it is already permitted. Kirkham stated that there is not an additional use added to the P zone. Dixon wasn’t aware that those uses were allowed but feels that if it is multi-story or over a certain size, it should go through a hearing process, rather than just being an allowed use Dixon feels that they are changing from something that implies open air, etc., to something that is anything owned by the government. Kirkham stated that is why the change is being suggested because the City is under fire for using the park and open space zone for uses that the planning Commission and City Council have approved as uses by right, because people will say that it is a park and open space zone, and what you are trying to do is not a park or an open space. Kirkham stated that the change is to provide transparency to the public on what the zone actually is and not change on what the uses are. Kirkham stated that if the concern is the need for a park and open space zone, that is a different thing, than saying that the zone is changing radically, because it is not changing. Dixon wondered if this came about by minor changes that resulted in this, or if this was always there, and he didn’t realize what it meant. Dixon moved on to page 25 changing 2 to 3 for single unit attached, and he is concerned relative to the erosion of R1. Dixon stated that originally in R1 attached dwelling units were only allowed as a special use and now there are entire neighborhoods that are composed of attached units, and now they are moving higher from 2 attached to 3 attached, and it will further erode R1. Dixon would support this if they went back to an R1 that attached had to be special use permit only, as R1 is not single family anymore residential, it is now multi-family even though they are single unit attached. Dixon is against that change. Beutler stated that per the zoning code an individual unit on its own lot is not considered multi-family, even though it is attached to an adjacent unit, also on its own lot. Beutler stated that they cannot mix terms when they talk about things, even though they have opinions on what they are, the zoning code is clear that single family dwelling on its own lot, is a single-family dwelling. Dixon stated that Cramer reminded him that if you go back far enough in the zoning regulations, you will find that attached in R1 required a special use permit and over time it has evolved and now it allows 2 units with no Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 8 of 11 special use permit, and now they want to move to 3 units attached with no special use permit in R1. Dixon stated that a special use permit should be needed for R1 if they want to go back to what it was before the change. Beutler stated that it has changed from special use permit because if there is a use that has unique characteristics or unique impact to the area, it would be appropriate to have a CUP required. Beutler asked what is unique and needs additional review or conditions made. Beutler stated that they are not creating anything unique or different than a single-family home, and that is why the conditional use permit was removed as it didn’t address anything. Dixon stated that it was used for special cases with a unique lot and a way to utilize the lot, so you might see one or two locations in a neighborhood that you would see single family attached within R1, and it has now evolved to entire neighborhoods that are attached units. Dixon feels R1 has been eroding into assemblance of R2 and they are losing the idea of affordable single family detached housing and now the only place to get single family detached is RP and RE which are large expensive lots and expensive properties, so they are basically saying to those who cannot afford that, they can no longer be guaranteed to have a neighborhood that is single family detached. Beutler stated that in his professional opinion, he disagreed with Dixon. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendment to Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning as presented with the exception of: That if there is a home occupation day care that allows a non-resident employee, that additional parking must be provided; use of dwelling units in R&D zone on the second floor and above not be allowed if the first floor is used as a laboratory; provision to go from 2 units attached to 3 units attached is not included. The motion died for lack of second. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendment to Title 11, Comprehensive Zoning as presented and moved previously by Dixon with the exception of the last item (removal of 2-3 dwelling units), Romankiw seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, no; The motion passed 3-1. Dixon opposed the motion because he wants to differentiate R1 from R2 and they are evolving until R1 and R2 are not different other than they are on different legal lots, and the structures will look the same, and someone driving down the street won’t know the difference. Business: 6. PLAT 22-030: FINAL PLAT. Sparrow Hill -1st Amended. Applicant: Kurt Roland Eagle Rock Engineering, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Roland stated that Sparrow Hill was first approved over a year ago, and they are building phase 1 and they are asking for an amendment to subdivide it from existing 2 lots to 3 lots so they can build in phases and the bank is asking for it to be platted into phases for financing. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Foster showed where one of the buildings is cut in half, and she would recommend that the final plat be modified to meet the building layout for the club house and building 4 so that they are on the same lot. Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 9 of 11 Romankiw asked if the request is to have the west line of lot 4 to bump out and encompass the club house and then go back in. Foster sated that they should either do that or exclude the club house because the property line cuts through the existing building, so it needs to include or exclude the club house, so the lot line is not dissecting the building. Denney clarified that it is building 4. Roland clarified that the reason they did it that way is the property line will go down a common wall line of the club house and the apartment, and they needed to get the green space per phase and meet the parking stalls for each phase, so they had to jog the property lines to make it work. Dixon asked if the construction that is going on now is all on lot 3. Dixon asked if the club house has been built. Roland indicated it has not been built. Dixon asked when the club house will be built. Roland stated that the club house will be in phase 3 the final phase. Dixon is concerned that a major amenity is in the last portion of the construction because they have had a case in the past where an apartment development similar to this on 1st Street behind Smiths had the club house as the last thing and it was never built and sold the land, and no club house was built. Dixon asked if the City has a mechanism to ensure that the amenity is built. Foster stated that there is not an amenity required and he can build it by right, but the site plan has been approved so they will hold them to the site plan. Cantu moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Sparrow Hill 1st Amended, Romankiw seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. 7. PLAT 22-031: FINAL PLAT. Terrace Gate Apartments and Barnwood Estates Applicant: Kurt Roland Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls. Roland stated that this is on Skyline Drive south of the intersection of Pancheri and Skyline near the dental offices. Roland is proposing a final plat for the project, and they are splitting it into one big lot for the apartments and townhomes on the south portion of the property. Tara Street has been vacated from the north portion of the property. Roland stated that the PUD was approved by City Council last week. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked what is involved in the PUD. Foster stated that Mayor and City Council approved it, and the PUD has all the required amenities and parking; 7 three story buildings, club house; and townhomes. Dixon confirmed that it is all residential. Foster agreed. Dixon asked about the property to the south. Foster stated that the property has been annexed, but no further applications have come forward. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval, Cantu seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. 8. PLAT 22-032: FINAL PLAT. Energy Plaza Division No. 2 Applicant: Kurt Roland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Roland is presenting the final plat for Energy Plaza Division NO. 2. The property is on Energy Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 10 of 11 Drive and Energy Place. The Plat divides the property into two lots and the road will be built on Allied Avenue and the temporary cul-de-sac will go away on the plat as the road will be built. Site is 4 acres. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Romankiw moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Energy Plaza Division No. 2, as presented, Morrison seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. 9. PLAT 21-029: FINAL PLAT. Final Plat for Amerigas Propane Division No. 1 Extension. Applicant: Steve Ellsworth, Ellsworth and Associates. Ellsworth stated that they need an extension as they got hung up in the platting process and are under a second review currently. Dixon asked how long of an extension is needed, whether it is for months or to the next meeting. Ellsworth is asking for 1 year but hope to have the plat recorded in months. Ellsworth stated that it is typically extended for 1 year. Long presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked about the property to the south and whether it was annexed. Long stated that it is not annexed and under different ownership. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Amerigas Propane Division No. 1 Extension as requested, Cantu seconded the motion. Denney called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Romankiw, yes; Cantu, yes; Dixon, yes; The motion passed unanimously. Next Meeting December 6, 2022. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes November 1, 2022 Page 11 of 11