Planning Commission

May 7, 2024 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Glen Ogden, Forrest Ihler, Bill Scott, Arnold Cantu, Marsha McDaniel MEMBERS ABSENT: Kristi Brower, Dale Storer ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kerri Beutler, David Peterson Planner, Naysha Foster Planner, Jacob Beck, Esq, Assistant City Attorney, and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Ogden called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES: Cantu moved to accept the minutes of April 2, 2024, Ihler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Business: 1. Resolution Validating Conformity of the First Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Eagle Ridge Urban Renewal Project with the City of Idaho Falls’ Comprehensive Plan. Applicant: IFRA – Meghan Conrad, Esq. Conrad indicated that this is a First Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Eagle Ridge Urban Renewal Project. Slide 1 - The purpose is to Deannex 8.4 acres of the existing Eagle Ridge Revenue Allocation Area (Area in Yellow) and a portion of Pioneer Road. If the City Council approves by Ordinance, the First Amendment, that action paves the way for this deannexed area and the adjacent parcels within the orange boundary to move forward and be consideration for a new Urban Renewal Plan referred to as Snake River West Urban Renewal District. These parcels must be extracted from the boundaries of Eagle Ridge to move on. The First Amendment is to deannex the parcel and amend sections to conform with the law, and update definitions such as amended project area. There are 3 specific attachments to the amendment including 1A and 2A Deannexation area map and legal description; 5A supplement to existing Economic Feasibility Study. That study found that the deannexation does not have a significant impact on the remaining Eagle Ridge Area. The deannexation is processed as a plan amendment, so it does have to run through the same process as a new plan. Slide 2 - Conrad stated that the Urban Renewal Agency did approve the First Amendment by Resolution 2024- 04. The Planning Commission needs to consider whether or not the deannexation is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan through Resolution No. 06-2024. Slide 3 – A deannexation does not trigger a base reset, and a deannexation does not extend the life of the existing revenue allocation area. Per the Statute the requirement under 50-2008 requires any urban renewal plan be submitted for conformity to the City’s Comprehensive Plan. This statute contemplates a new district, and there is no well-defined process to define deannexation and they need to make sure it is not inconsistent. Slide 4 – Shows the Geographic Area. Blue is full boundary of existing Eagle Ridge Project Area. Pink is River Commons District. Slide 5 – Showing area in yellow to form the geographic area of new Snake River West District. Slide 6 – Next Steps for the First Amendment include: First Amendment was mailed out to overlapping taxing districts on May 3; May 10 the notice will be published in the paper; the second meeting notice will be published on May 24; City Council public hearing on June 13; and the statutory publication will occur after. In order to get the values where they need to be the action has to be fully completed by the 4th Monday in July Ogden asked if there is a minimum acreage for a new District. Conrad stated that there is no geographic minimum to be included. Ogden asked about the deannexation revenue being returned to the District. Conrad stated that the value is right of way, and there is some value in the triangle, and the difference between the base and current assessed is the increment value and 80% of that increment value will be allocated to the new Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 1 of 9 construction rule, and available for budget capacity increase for overlapping taxing district. Up until the annexation the parcel had been in the County and so it is a small addition for a budget increase. Conrad stated that Attachment 5A has a good description of what value is attributed to the property. Ihler asked if there is a reason why they are deannexing this and putting it in a new District. Conrad indicated that the boundaries are drawn with the lighter yellow portion was a County parcel and is now annexed and because of the public infrastructure needs, which could be eligible for a future development, it makes the most sense to include where the S curve is for Pioneer and the triangle parcel for connectivity. The Snake River West has an eligibility Study prepared that has been approved by City Council recently. There will be an urban renewal plan that would make its way back through to Planning Council. When the parcel goes into the new District, the parcel with value coming out would come in with a base value being the current assessed taxable value the year it goes in. Ihler asked if they are creating the new District because they cannot extend the boundaries of another District. Conrad stated that you can and there are circumstances to extend a boundary of a District, however Eagle Ridge will expire in 2034 and the proposed development for Snake River West the public infrastructure would need the whole term of a future plan for the related reimbursement. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY OF IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO, ALSO KNOWN AS THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RECOMMENDING AND ADOPTING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE EAGLE RIDGE URBAN RENEWAL PROJECT, WHICH FIRST AMENDMENT SEEKS TO DEANNEX CERTAIN AREA FROM THE EXISTING EAGLE RIDGE PROJECT AREA; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIR, VICE -CHAIR, OR ADMINISTRATOR AND THE SECRETARY OF THE AGENCY TO MAKE CERTAIN TECHNICAL CHANGES; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CHAIR, VICE-CHAIR, OR ADMINISTRATOR TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION; PROVIDING FOR THE RESOLUTION TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. McDaniel moved to approve the 06-2024 Resolution Validating Conformity of the First Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan for the Eagle Ridge Urban Renewal Project with the City of Idaho Falls’ Comprehensive Plan. Scott seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; McDaniel, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing: 2. RZON 24-003: REZONE. Rezone from R3, Multiple Dwelling Residential to LC, Limited Commercial. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Connect Engineering. Travis Payne 2295 North Yellowstone Highway Unit 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Payne is requesting a rezone from R3 to LC for 7.015 acres. The Comprehensive Plan lists the area as mixed-use centers and corridors. The LC Zone is often seen in this area of the Comprehensive Plan. The property area has HC, LC, and County to the North with A1. They held a neighborhood meeting as they are required, and concerns were brought up about irrigation and that will not be influenced. Payne stated that the LC Zone if it is built residential, it converts to R3A and the residential standard for density is the same in LC as it is in R3. The rezone gives flexibility to the owner. They would have to expand Bellin to accommodate traffic. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ogden asked about the east side not touching Bellin Road. Peterson stated that Outlet Boulevard is a private road and makes the curve, and Bellin attaches to Outlet. It’s City property right of way. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 2 of 9 Cantu asked if that is the only entrance and exit. Peterson stated that the only access is off of the stretch of Belling/Outlet Blvd. Peterson stated that LC does allow for some large commercial, but because of the shape and size it would be limited. Support/Opposition: No one appeared. Ogden closed the public hearing. Ihler stated that it makes sense to have the developer change the zoning as R3 isn’t working, so to be developed it needs to have a change. LC Allows residential and limited light commercial. LC is nearby and it is by the Freeway and near an interchange. Ogden agrees that it has commercial all around the property and LC is appropriate. Cantu moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Rezone from R3 to LC for 7.015 Acres in the W ½ N ½ SW 1/4, Section 26, T 2 N, R 37E as presented. McDaniel seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; McDaniel, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 3. ANNX 24-003: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. Annexation with an initial zoning of R2 for approximately 52.61 Acres. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: HLE, Gilmore Jenkins, 101 South Park Ave., Idaho Falls. Jenkins stated that the lot is located west of the Airport, on the north side of 17th N and has canals on W, N E sides. The total acreage is 52.61 acres, and the lot is smaller than that closer to 50 acres, but the additional right of way being annexed totals 52.61. The initial zoning requested is R2. Jenkins feels this zoning request fits within the suburban transect of the Comprehensive Plan and R2 allows flexibility in lot size so they can have odd, shaped lots when they do a preliminary plat. The R2 zone allows 6,000 square foot lot instead of the R1 7000 minimum and does not have a maximum lot size. Jenkins stated that there are City utilities near enough to extend without much difficulty to serve the property (sewer, water, power). R2 does allow 17 units per acre, but with the odd shape of this property they cannot stick to square roads and square lots. R1 allows 8 units per acre and the R2 layout will be closer to 8 units per acre because of the shape and usability. Ogden stated that R1 is 6 units per acre and 6,000 or 7,000 square foot minimum lot size is a difference of 1/5 acre, but the bigger reason for R2 is to eliminate the need for 13,500 maximum lot size because of uniqueness in the property. Ogden asked if that is the potential for some of the odd peninsula areas. There are some plans for the developer to have some with PUD and larger landscape areas for the development. The larger lots available for open areas is desired. Ogden asked if they couldn’t dedicate a couple of the lots for the same purpose. Jenkins stated that is a possibility. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ihler asked if this area is considered in the area of impact. Foster stated it is not within the area of impact, and they can annex outside of the area of impact. Scott asked if any of the property that is contiguous zoned R2. Foster stated that the lot is contiguous to the City limits to the South, which is R1, and the rest is County. Support/Opposition: Ogden stated that they did receive written comments and they have spent a lot of time reading the comments for formulating thoughts for the hearing. Ogden stated that the comments are part of the public record, and the minutes and outcome will go to the City Council, and it is not necessary to repeat their comment if they submitted a written comment. Ogden wanted to address that the schools and density of schools is not something that the Planning and Zoning Commission can take into consideration and there is a different mechanism that legislation has put in place to manage schools and crowding over development. The planning Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 3 of 9 commission cannot deny a request for annexation and development because a bond hasn’t passed. Ogden would like to lobby the legislature to change that mechanism, and a different mechanism to grow schools is needed. Ogden stated that the road situation is not something they can take into consideration and the developer will be required to widen 17th North in front of their property. Roads happen with development. Ogden stated that there were comments about this parcel being brought up in another prior public meeting, however this is a new request, and they cannot address any prior issues in this request and it has to stand on its own merits. Foster stated that they are not to consider the old meeting as the Comprehensive Plan has changed since the last time this property was brought for consideration. Bryon Reed, 2277 North 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Reed owns the 80-acre parcel north of this proposed development and the property to the east and property further to the north. The 80 acres that this adjoins is important to his business and it is the farm headquarters that supports all of the other farming operations. Reed was surprised that this did come as an R2 request as it is in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan in several areas. This is in Area 3 of the new Comprehensive Plan that was recently updated. Reed stated that Table 5.8 of the Comprehensive Plan states that higher density housing is allowed near major intersections, and this is not near any major intersections. The closest major intersection is Highway 20 and Highway 26 west by the soccer property and that is over 2 miles away and you’d have to go 3 miles to get to any real services. Reed stated that that the next area in Comprehensive Plan states that “housing units should be developed within ¼ and ½ miles of identified walkable centers” and this is not near any of those things. Reed stated that the housing plan talks about neighborhood character and Action 2 of the Comprehensive Plan stated that you “should focus on infill development rather than sprawl to reduce consumption of agricultural land”. This is the complete opposite of infill, this is sprawl, it goes outside of area of impact, not infill, does affect productive farmland in the County. Reed stated that when they consider the consumption of farmland you need to consider the adjacent and adjoining farmland as well because it affects it. Reed has farmed the 80 acres adjacent to the RA2 County zoning with large County lots and he has never received complaints for the farming operations with dust and noise and other agricultural things. Reed stated that on the reverse side he farms land that is south of the soccer complex across Highway 20 and west of the Old Butte extension and to the east there were fourplexes built there 12 years ago and the first crop year after those were built, the first time they were putting on aerial application fertilizer the company received a complaint from one of the renters of the fourplexes and threatened a law suit and since that time the ability to grow different crops has changed on that land and they continue to get complaints. The fourplexes are infill and near major intersection and next to City services. Reed understands that those fourplexes are in conformity for the area, and they can conform to continue to farm in that area, but this proposal does not conform. Reed did a glance of property available for R2 zoning and there are multiple parcels that infill could be done to accommodate more R2 type development. Reed stated that there was a preliminary plat for this over a year ago, and it had fourplexes, dense housing, which he understands they would need to have density in order to pay for the development, and in part of the preliminary plat it and showed a road going to the north which is into his property. It makes sense to connect roadways for future growth, but unfortunately in this situation this parcel is forever land locked. This year the Idaho Legislature passed House Bill 608 which is agricultural protection zone. That requires counties to create ag protection zone and farmers can put their land in this zone and if you put your land in this zone, it ties the land up for 20 years minimum, with an extension on it, and when it goes into that zone there can never in those 20 years be further development, no condemnation for right of way, and it protects the land. Reed’s land to the north (80 acres), the land to the east (160 acres) and further north (160 acres) will all go to the ag protection zone. The Legislation goes into effect July 1 and the County will have this zone available to sign up for this fall this subject property will be landlocked. Reed stated that at the time the Comprehensive Plan was developed the Ag protection zone didn’t exist, but now it does. Reed assured the Commission that for the next 40 years and beyond that if his heirs follow his Will, the land surrounding this subject property will forever be in an ag protection zone and never be developed. Reed feels this proposal is in the wrong place. If this were an R1 or an RA1 there wouldn’t be a problem or a major concern. Reed understands that the property owner has rights to develop his property. The rights of a property owner need to be able to conform to adjacent land use. R2 does not conform with RA1 to the east. Reed indicated that the area in front of the proposed subdivision would be widened, but the rest of the traffic will dump into narrow Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 4 of 9 County roads that will not be widened, and the County parcels near this subject property do not receive services that will accommodate that many residents. Brad George, 3207 W 17th North, Idaho Falls, Idaho. George stated that showing future commercial nodes on 35th W and 33rd North is not going to happen as the Farmer in the area are not going to comply. The farmers just put up a $1 million cellar to the north that has a 100-year life span. The Comprehensive Plan is “Pie in the Sky” from the standpoint of Osgood and commercial nodes. If the farmers thought there was good commercial potential for the area, they wouldn’t have built a cellar. The developer is using the neighbors to annex their land for the roadway. George asked if the City is intending to annex with adverse possession. George stated that Silver Leaf is zoned R1 and if they took planning and zoning professionals from across the Country and had them walk that subdivision and then look at the zoning categories, everyone would say that RP should be the designation because of the density, lot size and the highest density designation adjacent to this proposed development is RP and the rest of the property that is developed in the area would be RE. The density adjacent, excluding the farmland, is 1 residence to 2 acres. The density increases of 35x for this subject property. Once it is zoned R2 they are able to maximize that density. George stated that everyone says they are going to put in parks and walkways and sometimes it happens. The shape of the land as a determination on an R2 zone is a terrible justification and reason to go to R2. That is not anyone’s concern besides the property owner. R2 is the only way they can make money because of the shape of the land. George stated that he owns land to the south and they all object to having 50’ of annexation of their property to widen the road. George stated that treating 17th N as a major corridor puts the existing homes close to the road. Ernie Tate 2265 N 26th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Tate stated that part of the justification for annexation is the subject property being contiguous to the property across 17th N to the south, and had it not been for the law that Reed brought up, they would be now, by annexing the subject property, make it contiguous to the ground to the north. Tate questioned the fact that North 17th is not a major collector as it is poorly maintained in the winter and 35th West might be. Tate stated that the intent to change this to R2 does not meet the criteria or the intent of the County Comprehensive Plan. Tate is not opposed to growth and if they were to follow the County Comprehensive Plan and put 3 houses per acre, he’d have no problem. Tate stated that if the City of Idaho Falls is turning into apartments all over. Apartments are not needed in that area. Tate stated that problems can come with the influx of people with apartments. Jared Tate 1740 N. Bramble, Idaho Falls, Idaho (corner of Bramble and W 17th N). Tate stated he bought the house 6 years ago, and it was a quiet County neighborhood and then the subdivisions that the City put in made the growth exponential and his sprinklers are run over every year, there is no sidewalk, the road is narrow. The majority of the people in the City Subdivision use W17th North, and this winter was bad because the County quit plowing. It took him 3 hours to replace sprinkler heads because there was so much traffic. 265 new units in a proposed subdivision could potentially be 500 new vehicles moving down that road, and the road cannot handle it. The developer only has to widen the portion of his section and 80% will not be widened. Tate stated that he works from home and there is significantly more traffic than the road can handle now. Joseph Belloff, 1735 N. Bramble Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Belloff stated that Idaho Land Holdings of Jackson Wyoming wants to develop a multi-family project, which will include fourplex units, and the residents of the County area are of the opinion that a 52-acre apartment project will cause a sudden radical change to the neighborhood. The 2013 City of Idaho Falls Land Use Plan shows the area surrounding the subject 52 acres as low-density estate housing. The staff report identified these 52 acres as being in the Suburban Transect. Silver Leaf is in the suburban transect, Stone Brook and South Point are all composed of single unit dwellings and would be identified by the present zoning designation as RP Zone. All developments north of Highway 20 and west of the airport are single family-owned occupied housing. Belloff stated that Idaho Land Holdings of Jackson Wyoming is proposing that the J Bar J subdivision to be developed on this 52-acre parcel consisting of single-family duplex, and fourplex townhomes, with a total of 265 units. Imagine IF stated that Linden Trails is a textbook example of a general urban transect. The developer of Linden Trail Subdivision is Idaho Land Holdings of Jackson Wyoming. Imagine IF suggests that a general urban transect should be located near a new walkable center and have commercial services. The closest area that fulfills this criterion is located closer to the urban core of Idaho Falls approximately 2 miles southeast. The proposed J Bar J development does not belong in a suburban transect. Imagine IF’s vision for suburban transect aims to have a mix of different Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 5 of 9 housing types and not be exclusively detached single units. Belloff quoted from the staff report stating that an R2 Zone would be necessary in order to achieve housing types beyond single dwelling units. That is not entirely correct as R1 does allow for attached dwelling units. Because the 52-acre plan is outside of the area of impact, the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan is subject to aspirational interpretation of the Imagine IF document. The plan is not an aid to land use and it is not a blueprint. Imagine IF on page 58-59 states no neighborhood should experience sudden and radical change, and the degrees of change should be smaller incremental change to reinforce the scale of the area. Although the City needs to rethink how it grows and develops it needs to be aware of how change can cause concerns in existing neighborhoods. Belloff quoted from the September 26 Staff report. Ogden stated that Belloff cannot quote from the prior meeting on this parcel, and his comments about the prior meeting should be eliminated and stricken from the record. Belloff stated that the book Missing Middle Housing states that the desired degree of change should be based on input from the local community. the potential positive recommendation for R2 zone to be placed on this parcel which would allow for a density of up to 17units per acre, would be inconsistent with the Imagine IF vision and inflict radical changes to the surrounding neighborhoods. Belloff requests that they deny the request for the R2 zone. Bryan Heyrend, 3012 W Wild Rose, Idaho Falls, Idaho. His back yard faces this property. Heyrend stated that he has seen change over the years. The road is County. Heyrend stated that things need planned out and thought out. Old Butte and 17th North are narrow and not well maintained. Even with development and that developed portion is widened, that still puts pressure on Old Butte and 17th North. Heyrend stated that they have a lot of bicyclists and families with kids walking along the road and people walk dogs. It is congested and you have to be careful, and this development will create a safety problem. Heyrend is not opposed to planned out incremental growth between County and City. Heyrend opposes this development. Brian Grosse 2430 N. Bramble, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Grosse did not submit written comments and he is opposed to the R2 designation zoning. The higher density is concerning to him for all the reasons already stated. Grosse stated that travel from his subdivision would be more difficult. Grosse does not want this to be developed at high density. Grosse stated that there was admission that the development would be 8 units per acre and R1 allows 6 units, so zone R1. Dennis Rainey, 180 County Road 199, Etna, Wyoming, Development Team. Rainey stated that it is not about development, but about annexation for R2 zoning. Rainey stated that he hears discussion about development, and that is not what the hearing is about, but what they have in mind is 5-6 units per acre, and the R2 allows affordability, not consume the farmland. Rainey thinks the City has addressed this through bonds, levies, and impact fees. They want to couple the development side and the annexation and R2 is the answer because the Comprehensive Plan allows for mixed use. They want single family lots, twin homes, and individually platted town homes with 4 to a building getting them to 5-6 units per acre. They request that they approve the application as requested. Todd Sorensen, 2895 West 17th North, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Sorensen stated that this property zoned R2 would not be consistent with anything around it, and it would be inconsistent with the surrounding property and the Comprehensive Plan. Kelly George 3207 W 17thN, Idaho Falls, Idaho. George stated that the applicant appears to be taking other people’s property to widen the road, and her concern is with the bridge, as the bridge is not built for the type of traffic. She cannot tell with the map that they have been provided if they will take care of the bridge. There are concerns with what they want to do with the R2. There is a reason why everyone that lives there is concerned about the high number of families in an R2 zone. Sherri Clark 1644 North Marchesa, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Her home would be across the street from this development and once this is rezoned it doesn’t have to be built to the specs that the developer is stating. Once it’s zoned they can do what they want within that zone. Clark stated that there are not plans submitted and that Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 6 of 9 bothers her because there is nothing to keep them to what they are saying they will do. Clark does not feel that this is about a rezone but keeping them to what they are stating they want to build. Amanda Belloff, 771 N 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Belloff stated that if it was R1 you wouldn’t’ have as many people at the meeting tonight. R1 gives growth that the City wants but stays away from and avoids the high density of fourplexes that an R2 allows. Donnie Tapp 3173 West 17th North, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Tapp stated his yard is one of the yards that is proposed to become part of the road to support the ability to have the property develop. Tapp stated that 99.6 % of the land surrounding this property is County and that leaves .4 % contiguous with Silver Leaf that is R1 and R2 would be 7x as dense as Silver Leaf. Brian Brussman 35th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Brussman stated that they had to call police at one time recently and for the police to respond took 45 minutes and that needs to be considered with the higher density. Applicant: HLE, Gilbert Jenkins, 101 Park Avenue, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jenkins stated that they are seeking R2 zone and that is considered medium density. Jenkins stated that R2 has the housing flexibility that they are seeking. The density goals of the development, and still allow for open areas and allow for the development to be a mix of unit types and price points R2 is a necessity. Some open areas will be massive storm water retention ponds. There was talk about not being held to what is being said if they are zoned R2. Jenkins stated that once they are through the annexation and zoning, they have to go through a preliminary plat process and there will be another meeting. They want to take advantage of the R2 flexibility to reach their goals and vision for this part of the world. Dennis Rainey. Rainey stated that the concerns of drastic change are no true, as a project like this would take 5 years to complete and so it wouldn’t be anything drastic. They have been building Idaho Falls since 2010 and they know what it takes, and it is more of a struggle than it’s ever been. They are confident that it will be a gradual process. Rainey stated that they are not bad people, and they can get along. Change is hard to accept, but it is the reality. Beutler wanted to clarify points of staff. Beutler stated that the questions of annexation of the right of way and what is proposed for annexation is just the annexation of the prescriptive County right of way, and not other people’s property. They met with Bonneville County last week to discuss this property. Beutler stated that they will annex the road right of way. Tonight are two decisions 1 should this parcel be within the City and what is the appropriate zoning designation. Other comments about future development should be considered. Ernie Tate 2265 N 26th West, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Tate stated that the decision will be made to annex or not tonight, but contrary to the comment of the developer, but once its annexed and changed to R2, then it doesn’t matter what future meetings, and what done is done. Tate disapproves of the R2 zone. Brad George, 3207 W 17th North, Idaho Falls, Idaho. George stated that according to the map, they are taking 50’ from the center line of the road and Prescriptive is 25 feet from the center line, and the map is showing 50’ from the center line. Clint Jolley, 101 South Park Ave, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley stated that it does show 50’ but it shows it from the south side of the road, so it would be the full 50’ of the road. George stated that it matches the fence line from the City which is 50’ off the center of the road. Jolley showed a jog near Silver Leaf and what Silver Leaf had to annex on the opposite side of the road from their side. Jolley stated that it is not a fence line, it is a section line. Ogden closed the public hearing. Scott stated that there is no justification for R2 as it can be developed as R1 and R2 seems out of place. McDaniel stated that she has heard the comments and taken notes, but it appears that the request is in compliance with the plans and ordinances and seems straight forward. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 7 of 9 Ihler is usually black and white on things, but this one is tricky because he agrees with multiple points on both sides. Ihler has heard from Mr. Reed how they need to preserve farmland, and it is important to do so. Ihler stated that this is contiguous to the City of Idaho Falls and the difference between R1 and R2 is not much of a difference, and they are both considered suburban. The Comprehensive Plan was agreed upon by the Planning Commission and City Council and had input from the members of the City of Idaho Falls. Ihler stated that this property is going to have development and single-family neighborhoods are a drain on City infrastructure and they do not bring in the taxes needed to support neighborhoods. Medium and higher density brings in more taxes than single family neighborhood. Ihler doesn’t like that there is a single family right next door with Silver Leaf. Ihler stated that to help cover the expenses of that neighborhood when it needs to start replacing roads and sewer lines, it needs to have a higher tax base and that is why he thinks an R2 is appropriate for this area. Ihler stated that he doesn’t think that high apartments, and high crime will be the case. The rents are higher than most people’s mortgages and so if you want to talk about socioeconomics, it doesn’t compute. Ihler stated that it does follow the Comprehensive Plan and Ordinances, and there are no grounds to deny this application. Cantu stated that this does align with the Comprehensive Plan, but as he’s said in previous meetings, he feels that the City is losing its rural identity and rural integrity. Higher density in a rural area doesn’t make sense and he doesn’t see the justification for it. Ogden stated that this is an annexation question and a zoning designation along with the annexation. What the property is developed to once it is annexed and approved is a different meeting. Ogden stated that whatever zoning designation put on the property is the zoning designation and the property developer is allowed to do whatever complies with that designation. Ogden stated that this is the once chance to get it right. If they look at the Comprehensive Plan the entire parcel is in the suburban transect, however per the Imagine IF they have stated that they would not have abrupt change and from a County zoning A1 adjacent to R2 is abrupt. The fact that if they were looking at a spot zone of the parcel that is already part of the City, the rules would indicate that it has to comply or be contiguous to another zone similar to it, and the fact that there isn’t anything around it that isn’t already R2 is concerning. The contiguous parcel on a very small portion of that property is R1. Ogden can go R1. Ogden stated that they are allowed to vote and accept the proposal as submitted with an R2 designation. They can entertain a motion to change and recommend a different zone. Ogden stated that the only outlets are 17th North it is insufficient property for R2 Zone. One of the things that everyone should be aware of is with the development they would have a traffic study and 100 units would require that. That traffic study would impact all the way to 35th West and the intersections. Development brings road construction and improvements. Ogden doesn’t want to deny, but rather has a motion for a change on the application to an R1 designation. Storer asked if they can do that. Ogden stated that they can suggest a different zone. Ogden stated that this is a recommending body and whatever the Planning Commission decides is not final. It will go to the City Council after this, there is another public hearing. Ogden moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation of 52.61 Acres in the South ½ of Section 10, and the North ½ of Section 15, T 2 N, R 37 E, with Initial Zoning of R1 with the Airport Overlay Zones. Cantu seconded the motion. McDaniel asked if the applicant could reapply for R2. Ogden stated that they cannot go back to Planning and Zoning, but they can make their argument to City Council. Beutler agreed that they will forward their annexation request as is, with the Commission’s motion and recommendation. Ihler stated that City Council does read all of the Commissioner’s comments and the reasons why they vote yes or no. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, no; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; McDaniel, No. The motion passed 3-2. Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 8 of 9 4. RZN 24-005: Amendment to Title 11 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Specifically Tables 11-2-1 Allowed Uses in Residential Zones, 11-2-2 Allowed Uses in Commercial Zones, 11-2-3, Allowed Uses in Industrial Zones and 11-7-1 Definitions. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Peterson stated that occasionally they notice things need adjustment, so things are concise and clear. The proposal is to allow home and group daycares in the RP Zone. Home daycares have a maximum of 5 children and group daycares have a maximum of 13 children. The RP zone is the largest lot other than the RE. Allowing daycares in RP will allow the areas to be more walkable. Alongside the childcare changes they need to add home occupation to the RP Zone to allow for administrative conditional use and limit the size and scale of the child care operation. They want to make a clarification for laundry and dry cleaning versus a laundromat. They have a laundromat as a personal service use, but they have had a laundromat submit for approval and the definition is not sufficient. They have included laundromat self-service in the personal service use definition and re-wrote the laundry and dry cleaning to be a professional service. The more intense industrial use of onsite professional laundry services will be relegated to heavy commercial and into the industrial zones. They will still allow self service laundromats to remain in the lighter commercial zones. These changes came due to a request from an applicant. Ihler stated that it is good to open up more services to more zones and how come RE can’t have daycares. Peterson stated that RP is the only one that was excluded. Ihler asked how many are in a center. Peterson stated that it is more than 13, and more commercial use. Group day care is 6-13 and home day care is 5 or less. Peterson stated that any home occupied childcare would not be considered a center that is reserved for commercial use. No one appeared in support, or opposition. Ogden closed the public hearing. Ihler stated that this is a good change for homeowners and kids. Ihler wants to see that a center can be used in a home as that is good for any neighborhood. Beutler stated that the commission can make that as a recommendation to the City Council. Beutler stated that a day care center is a commercial operation, so they do need to meet building code requirements for commercial building, which is why a residential home is unlikely able to be utilized. Beutler stated that schools are allowed by a CUP in residential areas. If the Commission felt it was appropriate, day care centers could be allowed with a C2 permit. Ihler stated that the Board of Adjustment would be able to approve or deny. Ihler would like to open up that option in RP and RE to have a day care center. McDaniel would like more research on the issue and stick to what is in front of the Commission. Ihler Moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendment to Title 11 Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Specifically Tables 11-2-1 Allowed Uses in Residential Zones, 11-2-2 Allowed Uses in Commercial Zones, 11-2-3, Allowed Uses in Industrial Zones and 11-7-1, Definitions. McDaniel seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; McDaniel, yes. Motin passed unanimously. Adjourned at 7:30p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes May 7, 2024 Page 9 of 9