Planning Commission

February 6, 2024 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Conference Room MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Glen Ogden, Kristi Brower, Forrest Ihler, Marsha McDaniel, Bill Scott, Dale Storer. MEMBERS ABSENT: Margaret Wimborne. ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kerri Beutler, Planners Naysha Foster, Caitlin Long and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Ogden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Scott moved to accept the minutes of January 16, 2024, Brower seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Business: 1. PLAT 23-032: FINAL PLAT. MLV Industrial Park. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ihler asked if the private road is a driveway/easement or is it like a City Street more like a PUD. Foster stated it is private access to each lot, built to certain standards for Fire and that will come in the development agreement or as part of the site plan. Storer asked how they determine the standards for the road, pavement depth, gravel base, width. Storer is concerned with heavy fire engines going down a private driveway to get to the interior lots and sinking in the mud. Storer wants to know how they enforce the City Standard unless the City is a party, and is the condition included in a development agreement. Storer was also concerned with how to enforce parking nuisances along the edge of the road. Storer feels it is a safety issue that gives him concern when they build 2 interior lots and can they safely get emergency vehicles into those lots. Foster stated that during the predevelopment meeting there was a minimum width that was asked for by Fire and City Survey, and she went back through the review comments for the plat and there weren’t any concerns or comments that were made in regard to those widths that were requested. In the past Fire does an inspection and the City holds building permits or CO permits until the standards fire has asked for is met. Storer stated that there are no standards for a private road that is established by the City. Foster stated that there are standards in Fire Code. Storer quoted from the Subdivision Ordinance “Lots shall have full frontage on and access to a dedicated street.” The private road doesn’t allow full frontage for those 2 lots. Foster stated that they do have leverage to enforce the Fire Code. The Fire Code asks for 30’ to get a ladder truck in and Fire will enforce that. Foster added that the Subdivision Code does state what Stroer quoted, but in conflict with that, the Zoning Code doesn’t require frontage for any of the commercial zones, and in the past, they have consistently done it as frontage or access to a dedicated street. Storer asked how to regulate parking along the private road as City would have no jurisdiction to keep that road clear. Foster stated that is another reason that Fire asked for 30’. Fire will enforce that requirement and it is a big job. Storer asked how the City enforces an agreement that is it is not party too. Forster stated that they use the development agreement. Storer stated that if citizens park along the private road and there is a fire, no one is regulating the parking. Foster stated that Fire will have to deal with that. Scott asked if the private road goes through to Rollandet or dead ends at the canal as there is no indication of a bridge over the canal. Foster stated that there has been discussion with the canal company to make a culvert or move the ditch so the road can go through to Rollandet. Applicant: Horrocks Engineering – not present. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 1 of 12 Brower moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval the final plat for MLV Industrial Park as presented, Cantu seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, no; Ogden, yes; Scott, no; Ihler, yes; McDaniel, yes. Motion passed 5-2. 2. PLAT 23-035: FINAL PLAT. Snake River Landing Division No. 3- Third Amended. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Creek Hollow & Associates, Inc. – not present. No discussion. Ihler moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Snake River Landing Division No. 3, Third Amended, Storer seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes; Ogden, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; McDaniel, yes. Motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing (s): 3. ANNX 23-008: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation with an initial zoning of P, Public for approximately 1.791 acres in the southwest ¼ of Section of 6, Township 1 North, Range 38 East. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Foster stated that this is a technicality, and they are requesting an annexation with zoning if P for Public. The City has initiated the annexation as property owner. This property is contiguous to City limits. This is a City Well Lot, and it was deeded to the City in 2004, the well was constructed between 2017 and 2018 and the City prefers to have the public facilities within City Limits. This is in the County’s jurisdiction currently, and it is now contiguous and so the City would like to annex the property. The property does conform to the P zone. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Storer asked if the County has any problem with the annexation. Foster indicated that the County has no problem. Support/Opposition: No one appeared in support or opposition. Ogden closed the public hearing. Scott moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation of 1.791 acres in the SW ¼ of Section 6, T 1N, R 38 E, with initial zoning of P, Brower seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes; Ogden, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; McDaniel, yes. Motion passed unanimously. 4. ANNX 23-007: ANNEXATION/INTIAL ZONING. Annexation with initial zoning of R2, Mixed Residential and R3A, Residential Mixed Use for approximately 27.760 acres in the NW ¼ of Section 4, Township 1 North, Range 38 East. Ihler indicated that he has a conflict of interest on this agenda item and will recuse himself. Kirkham stated that this item has been heard previously on December 5, 2023, and due to Mr. Ihler’s conflict of interest it is now being heard again. Anything that has come into the record previously, including comments or discussion that Mr. Ihler made in the previous hearing. The only things the Commission should consider is what is being reintroduced in packets, or testimony that is given today. Ogden opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 2 of 12 Applicant: Connect Engineering, Barry Bane, 2295 North Yellowstone, Suite 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that this is a category A annexation that is requested by the property owner. The property is just under 28 acres. The property is located near the corner of 49th and 15th. It is contiguous to the City. The Comprehensive Plan and land use map identifies this as general urban and a small portion as suburban. There are a lot of the same designation in the area. The Comprehensive Plan General Urban designation … contains wide variety of housing types, lots are smaller and more compact. The initial zoning that is being sought on the north portion is R3A, and everything below will be R2. The zoning map shows that the R3A is contiguous to the R3A across the street and the R2 is a step-down zone. The zoning is consistent with the area. They have talked to City staff about the zoning and the only reason for R3A on the northern portion is one parcel has a shop on it, and in that shop is a business that performs environmental engineering and that is not allowed in R2, to allow that use to continue, they have asked for R3A zone for that area. They had a neighborhood meeting regarding the preliminary plat and the zoning was brought up. The original thought for R3A was down farther and in speaking with the residents in the neighborhood meeting they explained why they wanted R3A. They were asked to just do one lot R3A, but that would be spot zoning, and it is not allowed. They could leave that area out of the plat, and they were directed by staff not to leave the parcel out. Bane stated that they have tried to minimize the R3A area to be the least amount of property. They understand that zoning R3A allows anything in the future that is allowed in R3A. Bane stated that they can talk about the plat that will come in the future and they have tried to minimize the R3A to line up with future plats and lot lines if they were to come. Bane stated that one of the reasons for the R2 instead of R1, there isn’t a lot of differences except the 1,000 square foot difference on lot size. They are seeking R2 because the lot coverage amount in R2 is 80% and R1 is 40%. In R1, you cannot use as much of the lot as you can in R2. Someone could come in with R2 plat that meets R1 standards for square footage and density, but they can use more of their lot. Bane feels that the R3A and R2 are supported in this area by the land use map and the current land use in the area. Storer asked if they considered the possibility of zoning it R2 and then treating the existing business as non- conforming use. Bane stated that they would be open to anything that would allow the business to continue. They are not trying to put R3A in the area, and they are planning twin homes in the area. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Brower asked if this was zoned R2, and then the business owner is out of compliance, how does that impact them. Peterson stated that the business would be non-conforming, so any change to the use would potentially not allow the business to continue. Brower asked if the property owner has been notified of the conversation to annex. Beutler stated that the business owner is the same as the property owner. Beutler stated he is unaware of there was a conversation regarding being non-conforming. Storer asked why the non-conforming use couldn’t continue. Peterson stated that it could continue, but if something were to change on the property it could prevent the business owner from operating his business and the City doesn’t like to create non-conforming situations. Scott asked if there is a minimum size for R3A zone and does it have to include all the other property. Peterson stated that R3A zone 5,000 square feet. There is not a maximum lot size. Those kinds of questions as far as how the land is platted and split is out of the scope of annexation. Ogden stated that the total R3A is 3.14 acres, and the applicant stated that they couldn’t do R3A just around the business, and they have drawn the lines so that it would line up with potential plats of an R2. Is the applicant or City giving direction on the amount of R3A. Peterson stated that the reason the R3A was drawn was to connect the R3A from the north to the proposed R3A Zone to avoid spot zoning. Kirkham stated that there is no minimum amount that has to be designated as R3A or any zone, they could zone something small. The question is whether they are creating a spot zone, and if they are zoning something that is out of compliance with the Comprehensive Plan, which is spot zoning territory. The smaller the zone classification you get into spot zoning concerns and that is where the commission should look for whether it is in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Ogden feels that the staff has adequately addressed why they had to go in the direction they did to be contiguous to the R3A. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 3 of 12 Ogden stated that everyone has read the items that were sent in by email, etc. Support/Opposition: Sally Parks, Parks is glad they are redoing the hearing due to the conflict of interest. She opposes the R3A and R2, as they adversely affect her business and are not in conformance to the surrounding area with bigger lots being in the area. The current traffic is unbelievable. There was a traffic report done in 2022, there are no sidewalks and nowhere for people to go except onto her property. Sally has been in her area for 30 years, and she does not feel that they can make it so that people have nowhere to be. There are 541 apartments across the street, leave the high density across the street. They have a hard time with her business getting trucks and trailers into her property. There has to be something done. Parks stated that this impacts her business and would like that considered. Jimmy Greardon, 1403 N 615 E, Shelley, ID. His daughter attends Parkwood Equestrian. Greardon stated that the service provided at Parkwood in creating strong independent women is excellent, and he shares Sally’s concern. He studied urban planning in college, has a degree in construction engineering, and has managed a lot of institutional development projects, and he feels development is important, but it needs to be done thoroughly and responsibly. Greardon stated that the development in question with the annex and initial zoning he disagrees with R2 and R3A, as R3A will allow up to 35 units per acre, and that is a lot next to an equestrian facility and other multi-acreage properties. R2 allows 17 units per acre, and they need to consider the greater impact on the properties and businesses around the annexation. Traffic is a concern. Sheldon Dance, 5295 South 15th East, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dance lives in the property that corners the horse development. Dance stated that the difference between R1 and R2, is R2 allows single family, and duplex, triplex, fourplex. Dance is concerned that the front of the property line to the front of the dwelling in R2 is 20 feet and his truck is 22 feet and if he parks nose to nose to his garage door his truck will hang outside of the property line. The public sidewalk would be hindered by big cars, and small cars would barely fit. It will force foot traffic to go out and around. Dance stated that subdivisions that are R2 and R3 you get that type of a situation. Dance showed R2 zoned development on Pancheri and Broadway and showed multiple pictures showing issues with parking in driveways. Dance stated that in the R2 there is no place for snow removal and asked where the City would push snow. Dance stated that the Comprehensive Plan is designed to promote walking traffic to nearby stores and shops and that is fine as long as there is infrastructure, so they are able to walk. Dance stated that the R2 zone is inappropriate for this area. Dance stated that Providence Point is R1, and they are building twin homes. If the developer wants to build single family homes, that is fine until someone comes along and offers them money to change the plat to allow for higher density, then you get the density that is not good development practices. If the property could be maintained consistent with the zoning around it, it would be zoned R1. Pat Dance, 5295 South 15th East, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dance stated that per the Comprehensive Plan on the north side of 49th there are twin homes and Providence Point and Victory Ranch have 3 story apartments going in and that will add diversity to the area. They just annexed the property on the west side of 15th which is 80 acres that will have light commercial, 4 plex, multi-story apartments, and that will add to the diversity. The Comprehensive Survey Area 5 there were 116 people that took the survey and questions 11-19 asked where in a neighborhood does a …duplex, apartment, etc. make sense. The average number of people responded was 16 of which 45 percent said it doesn’t make sense in their neighborhood. With over 130 signed petitions for tonight from residents of the southeast quadrant of Area 5, the people have spoken that they want R1 in this area. Over 90% of the people in the area have voiced an opinion with the questions on the survey and a petition. There is great diversity already in the area. The Comprehensive Plan survey and the public wanted more recreation, they should not push Parkwood Equestrian Center should not be pushed out as it fits in for recreation and it should be made more compatible for that business that offers recreation. They are asking the Commission to vote consistent with the voice of the people. Greg Hodson, 1598 E 49th South, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hodson ‘s property sits next to Jim Foster. They have used Jim Foster along with his property to run horses, and in addition he has long horn cattle that are aggressive by nature. If there is high density the tendency to move into the area and cause problems with the Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 4 of 12 cattle, and injury could happen. Hodson has the same problem as Sally with pulling large trailers in and the traffic is a problem. Hodson wants the traffic taken into consideration. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Suite 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that Mr. Dance’s comments with the difference of R1 and R2 setbacks, he agrees with, one is 20 and one is 25’. The stuff MR. Dance showed was PUD and that is a different product that what is proposed on this property. A PUD would have to come back to the Commission to get it approved. Bane stated that it is not a fair comparison and Bane agreed that this development does have problems. Bane stated that the annexation and zoning for this property would propose City Streets. Bane stated that the PUD shown by Dance is private streets. City streets have high back curb, landscape strip, then sidewalk. Bane stated that they see growth and development, and lots of PUD’s and development and traffic issues. Part of the traffic issues are because upgrades do not come to City Streets without growth. The annexation and zoning will help 49th get built out, and the impact fees will help to build out 49th to get sidewalks along the road. The portion on the corner is LC and R3A so when the street is upgraded by the City through impact fees. Growth creates development and improvement to streets. 49th Does need widened and it will happen as impact fees are paid and the City deems it time. Bane does not feel that this development would push out Parkwood Equestrian Estates. Bane doesn’t feel that anything with the zoning request would stop their business. Bane agreed again that traffic does need to be addressed. Bane stated that it does align with the Comprehensive Plan in the area, and the area is General Urban. This zoning will align with the Comprehensive Plan. Bane understands traffic issues. The zoning and annexation are supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Brower asked about the business in the corner of R3A if that were to be zoned R2, that could have a harmful impact on that business owner and are they aware of this conversation. Bane stated that he hasn’t spoken to the business owner about it being zoned R2 and be non-conforming. Bane doesn’t want the zoning to harm the business. Bane feels the zoning they are seeking will not impede anyone from doing their business, but if they don’t zone as requested it could impede the business. Mike Hicks, 284 Palamino, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hicks stated that they met with the City to find out what would be the ideal use for the area. Hicks stated that the meeting was held, and they understood what the zone was and what would be in compliance with that zone. Hicks stated that they are creating the least impactful zone that met the intent of the City. Hicks stated that the conversations happened a long time ago. Hicks stated that any developer will meet with the City and find out what the City is looking for in this area, and the developers need to work to comply with that. Hicks stated that in the first meeting the lot was specifically discussed, and the lot owner is the landowner of the property. The conversation evolved and they asked to just zone that lot or leave it out of the plat and create an access agreement, or zone it separate. They initially thought it might work to only zone that lot, and then they felt it could be seen as spot zoning, and they’ve been working for years to get County islands out of the city. So, they created the R3A zone, and minimized the R3A to still be usable within their concept. There is a plat that has been developed consistent with what the City wants to see with a slightly higher density use. They made adjustments based on comments from homeowners that came to the meeting. Terrell Transtrom 5277 Long Cove Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Transtrom stated that the concern about the development is limited to the developer’s interest and Brower demonstrated the support that brings them together, and how does it impact the family and their business. The attention given to the families and homes impacted was appreciated. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering, 2295 N Yellowstone, Suite 6, Idaho Falls, ID. Bane stated that he felt that Brower was asking if the applicant had a conversation with the owner about it being zoned R2, and not R3A. Brower agreed that the notifications show R3A. Bane stated that R3A will not impact him, but R2 would impact him. Bane stated that Mike Hicks has spoken to the property owner about the R3A zone, but not R2. The R2 would impact the owner and his business. Ogden closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 5 of 12 Brower is ok with the annexation as it is presented. Brower is uncomfortable with the option to go R2 as it impacts a business owner that doesn’t know it is happening. Ogden clarified that rather than make a change, to just deny and have it brought back. Brower says to move forward as written is her intention. Ogden stated that this body is a recommending body and not the final say. They are reviewing and getting insight and making a recommendation to Council, and another hearing will be held before the City Council. Ogden stated that even if they made an amendment to this application, the property and business owner could make opinion known. Brower asked if that follows the rules about the meetings. Kirkham stated that the local land use planning act requires property owners within 300’ receive notice of the annexation and proposed zoning. It is a Legislative Zone, but the notice that the property owner received was for R3A and if the property owner is here, didn’t speak, and they heard from Mike Hicks that the property owner made the request and his representatives are here, and he is not sure if that gives the commission enough confidence to move on it. The notice was delivered. Brower disagreed that it was not for R2, and that is her hang up. She doesn’t know if they can vote if people haven’t been notified of the correct thing. Kirkham stated that if they are not comfortable with modifying, with what is proposed then vote no. Nothing decided tonight is final, and there will be opportunity for people who disagree/agree to have another opportunity to testify with the City Council. Brower understands that there is a set of rules of how people are notified. Kirkham stated that they do, but the concern is that the notice didn’t have the possibility that a different zone would be adopted. Beutler stated that the notices would show what was requested. The Commission has recommended alternative zoning for City Council and the subsequent notice would have both the applicants requested action and the Planning Commission’s recommendation. So, if the Commission did make an adjustment, then the second notice would notify the different recommendation. Ogden stated that they have made changes to items in the past without re-noticing. Brower stated that she hasn’t seen one that made a direct impact on a property owner. Ogden stated that the impacted business is the landowner. Kirkham stated that he could give information on a non-conforming use. Ogden and Brower understand what the non-conforming use is and what it would mean. Ogden stated that they need to vote on the request, or if there are other ideas and thoughts with changes, they can entertain those discussions on changes. Ogden is open to R3A, so it doesn’t impact the business, but R2 is not appropriate for the rest of the property and R1 fits better and if they were to see the overlay of the Comprehensive Plan there is R1 in a portion. Ogden feels that R2 fits better to the west. Ogden stated that if he made an amendment, it would be to leave R3A, and put R1 on the rest of the property. Brower feels R1 is limiting and in the area, they have seen R3A and r2 come in and it allows for more use of the property and more types of homes to be built, and less limiting than R1. Ogden stated that gives pause as we are to look at future potential, not the next business item. Ogden stated that plats can be changed, and the zoning once designated is difficult to reevaluate. Ogden wants to vote on the proposal as is unless there is an amendment to be made. Storer agreed with that approach. 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. McDaniel seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Cantu, no; Storer, yes; Ogden, no; Scott, yes; McDaniel, yes. The motion passed 4-2. 5. PLAT 23-034: PRELIMINARY PLAT. Wood Crossing. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Suite 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that the plat is for the property that was just heard for annexation, and has 87 lots total in 27.76 acres, Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 6 of 12 and 84 buildable lots and 3 storm pond longs. The overall density is half of what R1 designation with 3 units per acre. This plat has public streets throughout, built out with curb gutter and sidewalk. Connection on the south for City utilities. They spoke with City staff and each twin home will have their own lot with a shared common wall. They conform with the R2 zone and most of them conform with R1. They asked about a traffic impact study to the City Engineer, and they were told it was not needed as through the impact fees there will be an upgrade to 49th. The final design on the roads is in conformance to City Standards and will be on the final plat with the improvement drawings. They will conform with City Standard and be approved by all City Departments. The Development Agreement will have the agreement for upgrades and what the developer is responsible for. Applicant feels the plat conforms with Comprehensive Plan, the zone, and the density that is provided in the R3 and R2 and feel it is supported by the Comprehensive Plan. Storer asked about comment in staff report that development is limited to 30 dwelling units until the road network connecting is developed connecting S 15th East and 49th. Storer wants to know what is the vehicle by which the limitation is accomplished. Traffic concerns are legitimate. Storer feels that the Legislature needs to address the ability of Cities to fund infrastructure prior to the development, instead of waiting for development. Storer is concerned with how the City can limit the number of units until the streets are constructed. Bane indicated that the limitation of 30 dwelling units is from the International Fire Code. Up to 30 units/ lots/ houses, until secondary access is required. The way it gets regulated is that the City will not give building permits for homes over 30 until the road is constructed and approved by the City. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Support/Opposition Marsha Richardson 227 Tolgate Place, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Richrdson stated that the traffic study that was done for Victory Ranch, and it stated that the intersection failed before that housing development went in. She is concerned that the report indicates that the signal will be put in by 2035 (11 years). When will the City annex 49th to Hitt so the City can provide the sidewalks and 4 lanes that it really needs. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering, 2295 N. Yellowstone, Suite 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that Richardson’s statement is the back and forth and what happens in the City, and the City will upgrade eventually, how, and when. How does the City get right of way? When people develop and give Right of way to the City. It’s a hard balance, and the struggle is there. The City changing developers to upgrade the streets with impact fees, and it should help take those funds and do things in places that are needed. Bane doesn’t agree with the impact fees, but it is a step in trying to make situations like this better. It is in the City’s control. Ogden closed the public hearing. Brower moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Wood Crossing, Scott seconded and the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Storer, Yes; Cantu, no; Ogden, no; McDaniel, yes; Brower, yes; McDaniel, yes. The motion passed 4-2. Cantu opposed the motion as he is concerned with density and traffic with the huge apartment complex, and adding to the high density he is afraid that Idaho Falls is losing their Agricultural rural identity and turning into a concrete jungle. Cantu feels that the previous project would be more appropriate as R1. Ogden opposed the motion. Ogden agrees with Cantu and stated that what is around this site and the way this property is developing R1 is more appropriate with larger lot sizes for this property. Brower moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards; Scott seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Storer, Yes; Cantu, yes; Ogden, no; McDaniel, yes; Brower, yes; McDaniel, yes. Motion passed 5-1 Ogden called a recess for 5 minutes. Ogden called the meeting back to order. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 7 of 12 6. RZON 24-001: REZONE. Rezone from I&M, Industrial and Manufacturing and LC, Limited Commercial to LM, Light Manufacturing and Heavy Commercial Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Preston Walker, 124 E 25th Street, Idaho Falls. Walker is the property owner, Allison Schindurling is the manager for the business and can answer questions. The business, U-Pick, is seeking a rezone for the parcels to LM so they can add some attractions that require them to pull a permit from the City, and that attraction is only permitted in the requested zone. The portion of the property that they want to place the attraction is now in LC and that zone will not provide for that use. Walker indicated that he has read the neighborhood letters and concerns and wants to address those. The Applicant stated that he lived in the house on the property for 12 years. Walker stated that he understands the concerns the neighboring homes have of having a business nearby. Walker stated that the business has evolved over time to have competitive attractions to compete with the 3 or 4 other Agri-tourism businesses in Idaho Falls. Walker stated that other businesses are always adding things, and this business has to make decisions to keep the attraction popular with people coming. Walker stated that they have done a good job over the years and the business has grown, and that comes with foot and car traffic. The business has been successful. Walker stated that the property owner supports the rezone, and it won’t be that much different than the existing zone, it will allow them to do what they want with the business. Walker stated that the traffic on Rollandet with parking on the road causes concern. Walker stated that he had people park in front of his home and his driveway and he understands that it is frustrating, however, there is sufficient parking for the business. Walker is unsure how the City calculates and determines how many parking spots are required for the business, as they don’t have building square footage to calculate. Walker stated that there is plenty of parking with 200 + stalls in the parking lot next to the zoo in the lot that is leased from the City. They don’t want people to park up and down the roads. They have 100 stalls on-site in addition to the City lot. There are people that won’t park in the parking lot, and he is unsure how to solve that parking problem and welcomes enforcement. Walker stated that you are in fishbowl living near the business for 2-3 weeks, there is a period of time when the business is not that busy and towards Halloween it gets busy. It operates 6 weeks out of the year and is busy 2-3 weeks. There is a storage unit between the Pumpkin Patch and Thayer Bridge, and he feels that the storage units are enough of a barrier between the business and Thayer Bridge. The Applicant feels the concerns are manageable and he feels the business should be able to go forward and adapt in a competitive environment. They have always done the slide in some form, which is the reason for the rezone, but this slide will be safer and not made out of haybales which could be a fire concern. They haven’t received any complaints from neighbors when they are operating. They will do their very best to accommodate concerns and keep neighbors happy. McDaniel asked if the business is open 6 weeks per year. Walker stated the rest of the year it is a quiet farm growing pumpkins. The biggest seller on the property is the pumpkins and that is the reason that people come. It is Agri-tourism business, and the other attractions are to stay competitive. McDaniel asked about parking with 300-400 spots. McDaniel asked if it is completely full during the 6 weeks. Walker stated that it is usually full during the weekends and busiest times. Ogden asked how long the lease for the parking lot is. Walker deferred to business owner. Owner Allison Schindurling- Schindurling stated that it is yearly lease, and they resign every year. She understands that the Zoo does have plans for that parking lot in the next 5-12 years, and they will have to make adequate parking on site. They are open 6 weeks. On 3 Saturdays out of the 6 weeks the parking is full, and people try to park as close as they can. The entire purpose of the rezone is to be in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and it was suggested by City Staff to rezone part of the property. The commercial zone will have a slide and the rezone is to accommodate that slide. The barn will continue to operate as it was in the past and it won’t be louder than they have been, or be any less loud, if they don’t get the rezone. Schindurling agreed to do a decibel test on the music, as there have been concerns. Long pointed out a correction to the rezone and the boundary that happened after the notices were sent out. Long indicated that the property owner has requested that the home be removed from the rezone, as if it is included in the rezone, will make the home non-conforming. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 8 of 12 Long presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ihler asked if they didn’t approve this would they still have to do the strawbale slide. Long stated that if it is denied they would have to meet all the requirements of the zone, and outdoor amusement and Agri-tourism is not permitted in LC. Indoor amusement is permitted in LC. Ihler stated that it could potentially make them scale back the operation. Support/Opposition Renae Miller 3182 Thayer Bridge, Idaho Falls, Idaho. HOA Board Member. Miller is advocating for the 46 members in the Thayer Bridge community. Other Board members are Kerri and Jerri Schide, Chander Whitt, Debbie Richards, Bob Knowles, and Chery Ashment. Miller is representing those that are in opposition of the zoning change. Thayer Bridge has been in existence longer than U-Pick and was formed in June 1990. The Red Barn Operation has gone from a quiet industry to something much bigger and noisier and one of the concerns is that with the rezone the U- Pick will go from 6 weeks to more weeks once a slide is put in. The City is working with the applicant to bring the business into compliance as the straw bale slide is out of compliance and they are recommending the rezoning because they believe it is consistent with the principles of the Comprehensive Plan, however the Comprehensive Plan only provides general guidelines for zoning in the City and does not have zoning codes and does not establish development rights. The Commission needs to consider the Tautphaus Park Master Plan and the 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan. The Tautphaus Park Long Range Plan is to move the entrance further north on Rollandet and to expand the Zoo north, and the applicant will no longer be able to use the parking space with 200+ spots. The business will not have sustainable parking when they do not have off-site parking. The 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan predicted Rollandet to be a congested roadway segment in 13-25 years, which is in 2029 2-2041. This needs to be taken into consideration when thinking of future land use off of Rollandet. Agri – tourism generates vehicle traffic and the Comprehensive Plan states that the best transportation plan starts with a good land use plan. Miller stated that the Comp Plan shows this area as an industrial transect, but the land use does not meet the criteria of an industrial transect with lower intensity and lower land use. Outdoor Amusement Center/ Agri- tourism generates a higher intensity of land use. Industrial Transects are also supposed to have lower tax revenue per acre. The City sites that changing the zone will create uniform land use. There are many zones around this property. There is a mix of land use currently. Miller stated that staff comments on traffic congestion stating that the changes in the zone might incur traffic changes, and any additional road improvements will be addressed by the site development plan. Rollandet is narrow without shoulder, gutter, and sidewalks. Customers park on the west side of Rollandet due to lack of parking, more than 3 Saturdays, its often at 5 o’clock when people get off work, and when vehicles are parked on the side of the road, it forces vehicle traffic to slow down and pedestrian traffic walking along the road without gutter or sidewalks. When you are parking on a street and impeding traffic flow it is a violation. The City will have to install No parking signs on the west side of the road near the applicant’s property and the restriction will have to be enforced. That will cause an increased need for Public service. It is not safe for the community and not safe for customers. The staff report addresses the potential nuisance, and the high volume of customers, lack of parking and restricted traffic flow is a nuisance. The addition of amplified sound, which the business owner said they’d turn down, but Miller will be monitoring and reporting to the Police if they violate the City Code to not exceed 65 decibels at the property line and normal conversation is 60 decibels. There are apps that can measure and report to the City. Miller stated that the site is large enough to accommodate for the required access parking and landscaping for the proposed use, and the applicant has stated that the property has remained unchanged for 17 years, and if this is true, there wouldn’t be a rezoning hearing. Miller stated that the property has changed, and they’ve added a silo, a kitchen, pillow jump area, food trucks, train rides, bathrooms, and air blaster pumpkin cannons, and now they want to add a permanent slide, but it is on LC land and that would be in violation of the zoning of LC. Excluding the house they do not have much room parking. The City has sent the applicant a letter stating they need 9.5 – 16 parking spaces per acre and that works out to 36-60 parking spaces for their property. They don’t have room for 100 parking spaces on the property. The planning needs to consider whether this site is big enough and the necessary parking. Miller asked the commission to consider the capacity and resources of this parcel of land. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 9 of 12 Debbie Richards, 3042 Thayer Bridge Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Richards is a resident of Thayer Bridge and on HOA Board. Richards stated that the pumpkin patch has been enjoyable for her kids 10 years ago, but things have changed that have impacted Thayer Bridge. Earlier today they heard from Wood Crossing and the decision to zone their property one way or another to allow different types of properties. Richards stated that the Thayer Bridge residents didn’t have that opportunity, as things grew and grew and grew outside of the zoning restrictions. They are at a place where it impacts Thayer Bridge. Richards stated that multi-purpose recreation centers require parking at ratio of 9.5 -16 per acre, 35-60 recommended parking spaces is not sufficient. There might be that many parking spaces for business if they are using the road, and the parking should not be on both sides of the road. The numbers she used in her letter to the City regarding parking spaces were due to the following: The permitted use has to consider all uses, including additions of new amusement things. In the future they have to look at having more items being created. Amusement Center would require 810 parking spaces. The acreage of the current parking spaces they are using it would be 475 parking spaces by City standards. That discrepancy needs to be addressed. Tautphaus Park expansion is 2-12 years. Code 11-4-5 written guarantee of parking before construction permit is granted. If the zoning were to take place, and if they wanted to put up the slide and other additions, they need a 5-year plan for parking, not a year to year. The people that are providing the parking for the year-to-year lease were not made aware of the rezone request. Other parking options do not exist as the business to the west is not interested in selling as they want to reduce traffic on McNeil Drive. The area to the west is zoned industrial because there are big vehicles coming through with the concrete company and that is not safe for public. Richards stated that the options are LM has to have parking and the only feasible option is to purchase property from MLV and that doesn’t seem to be an option or property from the concrete company. Whether or not it is LC or LM another option is to have onsite parking. This would cut the revenue. August last year there was a letter that the use of the hay bale slide was not approved. The last option would be to relocate U-Pick Barn. They want the City to support the rules and the laws. Richards passed out a table that was not in the packet that has recommendations of the residents. Ogden clarified that what Richards is passing out is residents’ options for U-Pick but is not incumbent upon the Commissioners to follow any of the recommendations that are listed. Kerri Schide, 10701 South 1st East, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Her husband Jerry Schide is former City and County P&Z Commissioner and urged her to keep her comments short. They own 2 Townhomes in Thayer Bridge and a condominium (Tri-plex) on the corner of Augusts and Rollandet. They are speaking on behalf of the east side of the street, as opposed to Thayer Bridge, however they agree with the Thayer Bridge residents. Schide objects to the rezone for the same reasons including parking. Changing the zoning to allow the slide will bring in more people. Schide stated that the City Zoo Master Plan has use for the leased parking space, so she asked Dave Pennock, and he knew nothing about the rezone request. They didn’t get an invitation to the neighborhood meeting. Dave Pennock is 100% committed to moving into the leased parking lot and it will be fenced. The staff for Pennock told her on Monday it could be as soon as 2 years, and when that happens no longer parking for U-Pick. Pennock expressed concern about safety traffic issues posed by all the traffic. Pennock recalled to Schide an incident on Rollandet where a pedestrian did get hit, and the victim’s shoe landed in the camel yard. Schide feels that as U-Pick grows it is making it hard for residents to have good quality of life. Please reject the zoning request. Connie Bates 2668 Rollandet, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bates stated that 7 weeks out of the year living next to the pumpkin patch is not good. Changing the zone will make trespassing, music, lights, garbage, late hours (they close at 10) even more. The people block her driveway so she cannot get in or out. The noise is interesting, cannon noises, rotten pumpkins. Lack of parking is an issue, and the no parking signs on the side of the road are not being enforced. Traffic is blocked as they are parked on both sides of the street. Bates is concerned that they will extend to 14-20 weeks if the rezone is approved. Bates sees new things go up every year at the U- Pick and what will be built next. Sue Prisener 3048 Thayer Bridge, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Prisener brought up briefly, if the Zoo is planning on extending the zoo into where the parking area is, there are going to be zoo animals there, and there are already zoo animals close to the pumpkin patch, the bears are close, the camels are close, and they will put more Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 10 of 12 animals in the parking area, as the zoo expands, if this amusement park is allowed to expand, and the noise and congestion and chaos that goes along with that expansion, how will that affect the animals. Ogden closed the public hearing. Cantu wants to know what is pushing the change. Beutler stated that the reason for the zone change is the operations are not in compliance with the zoning code, and one way is to change the zone to allow what they are doing as LC does not allow it. Ogden stated that they have to look at unknown consequences that could be allowed on the property if they change the zone. Amusement center would be allowed in LM and that has gone beyond the scope of Agri- tourism. The current zone of LC doesn’t allow for Agri-tourism or amusement center, and to change the entire property to LM would be short sided of the Commission. Parking is a reason that has been mentioned, and the fact that the lease on the Zoo is in question, and that becomes an issue. Parking is not available if LM was on the property. If it is denied it would require the owners to reduce the scale and operation and bring up the LC side on Rollandet and remove the parking issue, it would eliminate the option for the mega slide and keep the property Agri-tourism and not an outdoor amusement. Ogden feels that they should deny the request for the rezone and have the property owners reconsider how they are using the property. Brower stated that taking testimony as evidence is hearsay, and the business owner understands that the parking is available for 5 years, and the business owner should know as it is their lease. Ogden doesn’t disagree, but if they have to consider all intended use for the zone that parcel doesn’t fit LM zone. Ihler is torn as he understands concerns from both sides, but he doesn’t understand what is wrong with parking on McNeil. It is a public road, and anyone can park on the road. Vehicles parked on the road does slow traffic down, but slow vehicles are safer vehicles. Ihler stated that if McNeil is allowed to have parking on the street, which is plenty of parking. Ihler feels that the business owners will adjust to handle parking. The parking on Rollandet is an issue as Rollandet is an old County road. Ihler feels that parking mandates are nonsense, and status quo and not based on anything. Parking cars are associated with people, and cars aren’t a thing, they are associated with a person that makes decisions and human behavior. If they rezone to LM, then the business owner will have to figure it out and maintain compliance. If it is rezoned then parking will be worked out because the City is trying to make the property in compliance, so the City will not suggest a rezone, and then not make them have adequate parking for their intended use. Ogden feels it is clear there is no parking on one side of Rollandet and that is not enforced and the longer it goes it becomes an accepted use to park there with no enforcement. Brower stated that the same problem happens at Community Park and the City started to enforce it. Brower feels there is remedy for a lot of the problems and the citizens need to report the problems. Ihler stated that LM would bring this entire area LM and denying the LM for this property would make it messy. Some of the concerns are enforcement issues and out of the Commissions control, and whether the zone changes or not, they are currently happening. Kirkham stated that if Ogden is going to take additional testimony from Schindurling, he reopens the public hearing and that reopens it for the entire public. Ogden reopened the public hearing. Allison Schindurling, Owner, 310 W 1st South, Rigby. Schindurling indicated that Burns is in support of the business expansion and has leased the property the back field for parking, and there is a letter from Burns in the packet. Ogden closed the public hearing. Ihler moved to approve the rezone from I&M and LC to LM for U-Pick Red Barn, as presented, Brower seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Storer, no; Cantu, yes; Ihler, Yes; Ogden, no; Scott No; Brower, Yes; McDaniel, yes. The motion passed 4-3. Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 11 of 12 Ogden indicated that he gave a lengthy reason for why he was opposed to the rezone previously. Storer is concerned with the parking as it is fluid at this time. Storer stated that there is uncertainty with the existing parking and the proposed use of the slide will generate additional parking needs. Rollandet is a disaster and when U-Pick is running there is parking on both sides. Scott stated that about the parking and about the rezone there is nothing that says this can only be a 6- week activity and could go year-round and the business should be expected to comply with the current zoning and not rezone because they are out of compliance. Next meeting March 5, 2024. Adjourned at 9:45p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes February 6, 2024 Page 12 of 12