Planning Commission

December 5, 2023 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Glen Ogden, Kristi Brower, Forrest Ihler, Marsha McDaniel, Bill Scott. MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Wimborne, Scott Geddes, Dale Storer. ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kerri Beutler, Planners Naysha Foster, and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Wimborne called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Scott moved to accept the minutes of November 14, 2023 with small modifications on members present and also present, Ihler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing (s): 1. ANNX 23-007: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING OF R2 AND R3A FOR 27.760 ACRES. Wimborne opened the public hearing. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Suite 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane is presenting a category A Annexation, for property located on 49th South and East of 15th East. The property is just under 28 acres (27.76), inside the area of impact, and contiguous to City Limits. There are City utilities in the area that are available to be extended. The property is designated as General Urban in the Comprehensive Plan. The property is surrounded by a mix zones, including R1, R3A, LC, R2, R3. The zone being requested for this property on the northern part is R3A, which is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan; and then the rest of the property would be zoned R2. There is a preliminary plat and final plat that will be presented at another time. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Support/Opposition: Sally Parks, Parkwood Equestrian Center, 1800 E 49th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Parks is opposed to this annexation and zoning of R2 and R3A as it is a detriment to her business, and inconsistent with the zoning or properties in the area as properties surrounding her and the subject property are agriculture, and there is no infrastructure to support the zoning designation. Parks has owned and operated her business (Parkwood Equestrian) for 30 years (Since 1987) and during that time has provided a valuable service to the people of Idaho Falls and surrounding communities. Parkwood Equestrian is a significant agriculture livestock-based business and placing a high density residential/small business development adjacent to her business will result in conflict, encroachment and trespassing onto Parkwood property and it could result in injuries to animals and people. Parkwood is an agricultural business, and high-density housing will hurt the husbandry of animals. There is only one entrance to the property on 49th right next to Parkwood Equestrian and the increased traffic at its current level makes it unsafe getting in and out of Parkwood at this time. There is already traffic backed up past Parkwood Equestrian. Parks doesn’t want tiny houses built next to her, they want it to look nice out there and she is supportive of growth, and she is opposed to people coming in and asking for R3A. They shouldn’t be allowed to build that type of structure in that area, as it is still rural out there. Parks doesn’t think that the Planning Commission should prioritize developers over current residents in annexation decisions, and they should support what is best for the community, not just developers. Greg Hodson, 5098 E 49th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hodson showed on the map where his property is located. Hodson is concerned with the boundary that will be up against his property. He runs horses and has long horn cattle. Hodson is concerned with safety and is concerned that there will be a conflict with small children and nowhere to play except for in his fields. Hodson wants a barrier, so they don’t have issues with the horses or cattle on the fence line. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 1 of 5 Sheldon Dance, 529 S 15th East, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dance has 10 acres that borders the west side of the proposed development. Dance has visited with the residents around the proposed subdivision on the south side of 49th South. Not one resident has been in favor of the proposed annexation. Sally Parks (Parkwood Equestrian) has gathered over 80 signatures on a petition to consider a different zone, and Dance has 100 signatures on a petition to present. Dance went back and studied the Comprehensive Plan, and it appears to control growth in the area, but the application of an R3A zone at the top seems inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Dance sells real estate for the last 35 years and has been in lots of different neighborhoods. Dance quoted from Comp Plan regarding General Urban section, which is the designation for the proposed annexation. Dance read the examples of neighborhoods that would be consistent with General Urban, and Dance indicated that Bel Aire has no sidewalks, narrow streets, and is congested with the traffic that tries to go through the area. Dance doesn’t want that same type of congestion in this area. Dance doesn’t think it makes sense for families to drive through a denser residential and commercial zone to get to a less dense zone. Dance wants the Commission to consider these facts and the wishes of the people surrounding the property. Jan Grimmett, 5422 Wild Dunes, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Grimmett’s property backs Parkwood Equestrian. Grimmett is concerned that R3A allows for 35 units per acre and is not comparable to what is in the area, with the exception to the development across the street with Victory Ranch. Victory Ranch has 300 units with no garages and 600 vehicles will be emptying from Victory Ranch onto 49th South and this development could have over 800 vehicles and 49th South cannot take it. Grimmett would like the Commission to look at the traffic study. This area can exit onto Sandpiper Way in Sandcreek Estates and Long Cove and 800 vehicles could exit onto those 3 areas that are all residential, and it doesn’t seem appropriate for the area. Grimmett and the other residents have questions for the developers and want to know what the development would look like. Grimmett feels that this proposal is not in line with what is existing in the area. Luke Hoss, 2010 E 49th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hoss is next to Parkwood Equestrian on the east along the canal and has 10 acres with a new house built 1.5 years ago. Hoss was brought to this area, was the proximity to town, but the space they have, sunsets, livestock, acreage. Hoss understands it is a balance, and across the street they have 3 level apartments. Hoss doesn’t feel that the presentation is consistent with what is in the area with 5 and 10 acre lots and R1 neighborhoods. Derek Harms, 5702 Long Cove, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Harms stated that his streets are busy now, and that the egress will make it busier. There are a lot of kids in the neighborhood. Harms stated that they bought in the area because it was in a rural area, and away from apartments. He is worried about traffic and crime. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Suite 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that they feel they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning in the area, the R3A and R2 is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and surrounding area. R3A can be single family attached homes and any multi-family that would potentially go there, there are set buffers and setbacks that would have to be followed and those buffers will be shown at the time of plat or site plan. Bane stated that they will have an entrance off 49th and a connection to another development and stubs for future development. There will be multiple access points to the development. There will be City streets with sidewalks for pedestrian access. If they put R3A any place other than at the front of the property, that would be in contradiction to the Comprehensive Plan and what is wanted, as the Comprehensive Plan wants the higher density near the collector, so all the multi-family doesn’t go through single family neighborhood. Bane stated that there will be a plating process and currently they are only asking for annexation and initial zoning. They are going to have a neighborhood meeting on Thursday at 5 at their office to show a preliminary plat to discuss. Bane stated that the traffic improvements and requirements will come at the time of platting. Ogden asked about the street pattern shown on the R1 below this property. Peterson stated that there is already connection planned for 15th East into that area. Bane indicated that they are developing the R1 neighborhood too, and they will connect sewer and water to the proposed annexation from that R1 neighborhood. Bane stated that there are utilities in the area. Ogden closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Peterson reminded the Commission that they need to consider all the allowed uses, and it is not a proposed development project. The proposed zones do fit with the Comprehensive Plan and R2 is a small-scale medium density residential zone and is appropriate for general urban and suburban transects. Ogden confirmed that they are looking at the annexation and zoning and providing a recommendation for the City Council and the City Council will make the final determination as they are the final approving body. Cantu is concerned about the congestion on 49th South. Cantu thinks it is too congested currently and is concerned with the traffic. Before the 4-way stop there were numerous accidents. One access to a high-density property will limit police and fire access. Cantu feels that it is overkill and adding more to it would add to congestion. Scott sympathizes with the comments and if he lived in this area, he wouldn’t like it. Scott stated that LC is across both streets, and there is development happening and it has to go somewhere, it is within the strictures of the Comprehensive Plan in the general urban. Scott agrees with Cantu. Scott stated that LC across the street and across 15th East it is hard to justify that they don’t want a development there. Ihler stated that this is a no brainer for approval as it fits the Comprehensive Plan perfectly with same zoning nearby, this property is on a County island, it’s within the area of impact and growth is inevitable. The logic of saying they can only have R1 next to R1 would make the entire City R1 and there has to be a buffer at some point. 49th is an arterial street, and the road will be improved and as growth happens the road will improve. Most of the traffic on 49th is passing through the area, and not only because of this development, and there are 2 access points for fire and police, and all the traffic isn’t leaving at the same time. Ihler stated that 49th will continue to handle more traffic and is designated an arterial to handle more traffic and it will be improved. Ihler stated that there are other developments in the area that will be required to put money towards improving the roads. The City has strict standards now, and this development will not be like the neighborhoods that were built 70 years ago. Sidewalks are required and other things are required. R3 and R2 does not mean it will be a shanty. There are zones that have R2 and R3 that have beautiful townhomes like the townhomes by Castle Rock. Higher zone doesn’t mean less desirable. Ihler stated that statistically there is no correlation between higher density and more crime. Ihler feels they have to be fiscally responsible as a City and if they are going to grow outwards, they need high density to help with the tax burden. Higher density subsidizes lower density development. Ihler stated that just because it is R3A or R2 doesn’t mean it will be a huge, tall building. After meeting parking and landscape requirements it limits the density. Brower agrees with Ihler and doesn’t feel that they can discriminate against this developer as growth is going to happen here. Brower is uncomfortable with the idea that they only want large properties in this area, as if people that live in smaller houses are not as welcome in this community, and that is not ok. They are needing higher density housing as the City grows and with LC across the street, it is obvious where it is going. There will still be traffic studies and changes will be made. Brower feels at this time growing is uncomfortable, but inevitable. Ihler grew up in a rural area, and his gramma had livestock and he understands that they can be dangerous for little kids, and you have to learn to be around them and respect them. Ihler would suggest addressing a trespassing issue between the City and developer. Ihler is for the growth of the area, and it is a good step in zoning, but they have to keep in mind the people that are already there. Ogden agreed right now they cannot address trespassing, but that would come with the final plat or preliminary plat. Ogden would feel more comfortable with an R3 to the west of the property, although those parcels are not being addressed, as it would fit more with other corners for LC and R3 and moving east to this subject property, this looks like R1 and R2 that is surrounding the property. Ogden suggested R2 along 49th and R1 below where there is already R1 that is being developed next to it. Ogden is more inclined to present a recommendation for approval to the City Council of R2 and R1 rather than R3 and R2. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 3 of 5 Ihler understands having R1 near the RP and R1, however if you were to go into an R2 neighborhood, they feel like R1 neighborhoods, with the only difference being flexible with twin homes and they cannot go much more than that. R1 is difficult and less flexible for the developer. R1 could look and feel worse than R2 because R2 gives the flexibility to do twin homes in places and single family in another section. You can do R1 homes in an R2 development. Ogden stated that it likely wouldn’t occur. Ihler wants to give flexibility. Ihler stated that R3A is across the road, so why not have R3A on this property. R1 limits things and R2 opens options and the opportunity for the developer and community to bring something together. Brower moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation of 27.760 acres in the northwest ¼ of Section 4, T 1N, R 38 E, with initial zoning of R2 and R3A. Ihler seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: McDaniel, yes; Brower, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, no; Scott, yes*; Cantu, no. The motion passed 4-2. Scott voted yes but has reservations and feels there is time for further comments before this goes to City Council. Ogden would recommend different zoning for the parcel and the zones requested are more fitting for the property to the east not this parcel. Cantu agrees with Oden and feels it will be overly crowded on the small property. Business: 2. PLAT 23-030: FINAL PLAT. Ivywood Division No. 5. Applicant: Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Not present. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Scott asked if Montezuma will be built through to 15th West. The preliminary plat is in the packet and Montezuma already connects to 5th West and the bridge has been built across the canal and Division 4 has improvements completed and foundations are going in. Montezuma will go through to 15th West. Peterson stated that in the preliminary there is a section of that plat, that has smaller lots in the final plat that is being presented by the applicant. Peterson stated that there are 4 or 5 fewer lots on the preliminary plat and Peterson added that if they are not creating more than 5% extra lots there isn’t a need to come back to the planning commission. Peterson wanted to advise the Commission of that change. Scott moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Ivywood Division No. 5. Brower seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call: McDaniel, yes; Brower, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Scott, yes; Cantu, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 3.PLAT 23-029: FINAL PLAT. Second Amended Westridge Commercial Plaza Division No. 1. Applicant: Harper Leavitt Engineering – not present. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Odgen asked with the airport overlay, what can be built on the property. Foster stated that commercial can be built there, but not residential. Ogden asked if there are height restrictions. Foster stated there are no height restrictions in this zone. Ihler asked why there is current residential in the area. Foster stated that the structures were built before the overlay was added. Foster stated that it is zoned LC which allows residential, but the overlay doesn’t allow residential. Scott asked about the property that is grandfathered, is there a certain amount of remodel that could be done before it triggers compliance with the zone. They could do a remodel of the interior, but not include an addition to the structures, but if the use changed they would have to conform to the current overlay zone. Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 4 of 5 Ogden confirmed and foster agreed that there is not a plan to demolish the current buildings. Ihler asked if gas stations are allowed in LC. Foster agreed they are, but the square footage is limited. Ihler hopes that a convenient store goes there for the neighbors. He has no problem and feels the overlay is a blessing in disguise. McDaniel moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of Final Plat for Second Westridge Commercial Plaza Division No. 1. Ihler seconded and the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: McDaniel, yes; Brower, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Scott, yes; Cantu, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 4. PUD 22-002. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. Falcon Crest Estates Extension. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Foster confirmed that nothing has changed on the PUD, there was a delay in getting utilities lined up. Cantu moved to approve the Extension of the Planned Unit Development for Falcon Crest Estates. Scott seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. 5. PLAT 22-024: FINAL PLAT. Final Plat for Falcon Crest Estates Extension. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Brower moved to approve the extension of the Final Plat for Falcon Crest Estates. Cantu seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. No agenda items for January. No meeting in January. Ogden would like to have some training. Beutler stated that they look for input from the Commission on topics, general workflows, what things are being looked at, etc. so they get a bigger picture of who sees the application before the Commission sees it. Revisit past applications and how they went and how they would like them to go. Ogden felt concern about an item from last month and would like to discuss in a training session. They are looking for a mid-January meeting and Ann will send out dates. Ogden asked to possibly elect officers in the mid-January meeting. Idaho APA is doing some surveys, and they want responses from planning commissions response. Beutler asked them to respond to the link. Next meeting February 6, 2024. Adjourned at 8:15 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes December 5, 2023 Page 5 of 5