Planning Commission

July 2, 2024 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Glen Ogden, Kristi Brower, Forrest Ihler, Bill Scott, Arnold Cantu, Dale Storer. MEMBERS ABSENT: Marsha McDaniel ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kerry 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: Scott moved to accept the minutes of June 4, 2024, Brower seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing: 1. PLAT24-021: AMENDED PRELIMINARY PLAT for Park Place Subdivision. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Justin Scott, Horrocks Engineers, 2194 Snake River Parkway, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Scott stated that the property was recently sold to a local builder, and he is requesting an amendment to the preliminary plat for divisions 8-10. There are 19.3 acres remaining and the previously approved preliminary plat had 52 lots, and they want to increase to 71 buildable for a density of 3.6 units per acre which is within the R1 zoning of 6 units per acre. There are no changes to right of way. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting and one person showed up and discussed the project on May 20, 2024. The preliminary plat does meet the R1 zoning requirements, density, and setbacks. They are not requesting any land use change, or zone change. Storer indicated that he is distantly related to one of the principles, RJ Taylor and Sons (Tory Taylor). Storer is related to Taylor’s mother by 1st cousin. Storer has looked at the matter to determine if he has a conflict of interest, and a conflict of interest would occur only if the member of the Commission were related in the second degree, and he is related in the 5th degree. Storer stated that he has no interest in the development, or RJ Taylor and Sons, and has no financial or pecuniary interest in the matter. He is intending to fully participate in this hearing. Jacob Beck, Esq. (Assistant City Attorney), asked for clarification on the City Code regarding R1 zone allowing up to 6 lots per acre, but he believes it is 8 lots per acre. Beutler stated that the zoning code in a PUD there is a density bonus that would allow 8 units, but just a regular development 6 units are correct. Storer added that he has discussed his potential conflict with the City Attorney and the attorney concurs that there is no conflict. The rest of the Commissioners agreed that they feel there is no conflict. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ogden stated that there was concern from the public, which was addressed by staff, on noticing of the hearing. The City is required to send a letter to individuals within 300’ of the development as well as the sign that was addressed by staff. The City complied with the law for noticing. Ogden stated comments regarding the density of schools, traffic, etc., the Planning and Zoning Commission is limited on what can be addressed. Schools are a State issue and Planning and Zoning cannot do anything about it. Traffic is going to be an issue in the neighborhood and Maggie Drive is the collector whether there are 52 or 71 homes. Planning and Zoning is tasked to look at the future and the property to the west and north is designed for higher density, suburban, or commercial. Those things could be higher density than what is on the agenda. The Commission is looking at this development and also what could come in the future. Ogden stated that this proposal will give the current Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 1 of 12 neighborhood a buffer from future higher density. Ogden added that usually, Planning and Zoning will give a recommendation and then City Council will make the final decision, as they are the elected officials. However, this is a preliminary plat and so the Planning Commission will have the final say on this amendment to the preliminary plat. Storer stated that this is a preliminary plat and there will be a final plat and the final plat will be reviewed and approved by City Council. Storer spent time reviewing the emailed comments and he commended the residents on how well prepared their comments were presented. This is only a preliminary plat and the concerns articulated related to zoning, compatibility uses, effect on schools, and those would be of interest in a zoning hearing, and they aren’t particularly relevant in this meeting. Ogden urged the public to keep the comments to 2-4 minutes. Ogden asked for background noise, applause, jeering to not happen. Support/Opposition: Sam Rizzo, 712 Jeffs Lane, Idaho Falls, President of HOA. Rizzo addressed the zoning Code Section 11- 14-b states the provisions of the zoning shall be in addition to and shall not be deemed to repeal, negate, impair any other ordinance, regulation, easement, covenant, or deed. There are covenants that they do have within their CC&R that this plat would be in violation of, including one detached single-family dwelling unless approved is by the Committee is allowed. There has been no request to allow this type of land use. They have 12 total town homes in the neighborhood representing (6%) and this change of 68 or more twin homes would represent 26% of the neighborhood. They have square footage requirements and garage requirements that have to be met, and resubdivision is not allowed to the plat unless there is approval of the HOA Board and Committee. Variances are allowed, but if they are not approved, they proceed as if they are not approved. Maggie is a collector to go to 65th, but if the homes are going north, they go the other way, not to Maggie, and that would be a big increase heading north. There are multiple bus stops for schools on the route heading north. Fox Run will also take a lot of the traffic, and those are acreage homes, and they will be impacted. Beck stated that it is the City’s position that it does not get involved in HOA and CC&R, which is a contract between the developer and homeowners’ association. Storer stated that the provision that was cited and the City’s view in the past is merely a guide to judicial interpretation. Storer agreed that whatever the City does in this meeting, it will not affect the CC&R’s and those will remain enforceable, and nothing done in this meeting will affect the ability to enforce the CC&R’s as the City has no jurisdiction to get involved in HOA and it would need to be determined by Court of Law. Beck agreed with Storer, and the matter is between the developer and the homeowners, and CC&Rs would go to Court, not to this commission. Candace Willright, 641 Brigham Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Willright stated that it is different buying a home or twin home, in a place that you know is urban property versus buying a home in a subdivision and then have it changed 10 years after you’ve lived there in a market that is hard to move out of. It is changing the neighborhoods perception of their neighborhood. Susan Black, 5960 Zachary Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Agrees with Sam and Willright and asked for the Commission to not change the preliminary plat. Courtney Evans, 733 Deacon Court, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Evans stated that on Brigham Drive where the main traffic does go through, there are 6 school bus stops, and if you add 20 additional homes, and 40 extra vehicles for her kids to dodge, she feels it is a safety concern. Evans is terrified that different types of families will move in and will not be courteous to her kids. Evans agrees with Sam and everyone else. They built in that neighborhood with the intention of what they were told it would be. Evans wouldn’t have built if she had known that they would have the density being suggested. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 2 of 12 Brower asked what Evans meant by “different families.” Evans stated that smaller income families. Brower asked how that impacts the safety of the children in the neighborhood. Evans stated that she believes it does. Braden Williams, 667 Brigham Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Brigham is the main exit before Maggie was built. They saw a lot of speeding during construction, and he is confident that the same speeding and driving will happen again during construction. He understands that expansion will happen, but the additional 20 new homes will increase the construction, and the amount of people going in and out, will go through Brigham because it is more convenient to get to the main part of town. Maggie is designed to be the exit, but it is flawed, and no one uses it as the primary exit, as 5th West is more convenient than 65th N. Williams is an engineer, and if he designed a product to the minimal viable product to meet exactly what the customer needs, that would not be acceptable as there is no margin to what is considered the minimum viable product. Williams stated that 8 family homes to an acre is the minimum, and if they are comparing themselves, they need to meet more than just the minimum viable product and meet the needs of the neighborhood. Williams stated that the placement of the sign, may have met City regulations, it still upset residents because they were not well informed, and there was a reason that only one resident showed up to the neighborhood meeting. Williams stated that you can exceed what the law wants. Williams stated that Park Place previous plat did not have green space. Idaho Falls prides itself on green space, and he looks at the modern urban development with zero green space, and the only space that does exist in neighborhoods is the space for drainage ponds and the swing sets that are in the ponds float. Williams would like green space encouraged in all developments. Williams stated that everything that is presented tonight is to increase the bottom line of the developer. Jennifer Walker Harveson 1634 Mallory, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Harveson has been in Park Place since 2017. She moved in because it was decent size lots, single family dwellings, well taken care of larger lots. There have been some duplex and twin homes lots built and those lots were vacant for a long time, and it took effort from the HOA to get the homeowners keep the lots up. Harveson stated that Zachary Drive is in their neighborhood, and there were several lots on Zachary that were platted to have single family attached, and they replatted for single family detached because they would not sell. Harveson is concerned about how long it will take to sell once they are developed in this proposed fashion. Haverson stated that the density of single family attached homes lends itself to investors that will turn into rentals. HOA has had a hard time getting the exterior of homes and lawns taken care of. Harveson feels this preliminary plat is too dense and there could have been a better outcome, if the developer had contacted the HOA directly and discussed with the homeowners their plan. Beck stated that any comments on HOA or CC&Rs are not to be considered. Cindy Gonzalez, 6450 Fox Run, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Gonzalez stated that they were at the Council meeting years ago when the houses for Park Place were discussed and they understood that they lived on a County road, and they weren’t going to stop development. Gonzalez has noticed over the last 5 years Fox Run exit has seen a huge increase in its driving enter and exit on to 65th Street. Maggie drive is not used as the main enter/exit. Fox Run is narrow and a County Road. Extra traffic on Fox Run will cause it to deteriorate faster. Gonzalez stated that they have seen a lot of erosion because of all the extra traffic. Gonzalez would like to be able to see something to encourage people to use Maggie. Fox Run has hard visibility to see what is coming from either direction and that causes a lot more potential for problems. Gonzalez stated that the green space in Park Place is a swamp. Robin Price, 719 Maya, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Price’s property backs up to Brigham Drive. 20 additional homes are 40 more cars in the neighborhood, and no more entrances or exits are being added for the additional cars. Price feels the bus stops are already over filled and by adding additional cars it will be a problem. If the plat goes through, they need to add an additional exit to make it safer. David Gonzalez, 6450 Fox Run, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Gonzalez has noticed that all the construction comes down Fox Run and not Maggie. Gonzalez is concerned that all construction will go down Fox Run and not Maggie, and Fox Run is too narrow, it has cracks, and he hates to see that type of heavy traffic down that road. Gonzalez wishes the signage was different for the hearing, and he wouldn’t have known unless the UPS guy told him that there was a sign hidden back in the corner 6-7 empty lots away from houses. Gonzalez came to Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 3 of 12 the meeting years ago when they did Park Place and they asked to close Fox Run, and instead urge traffic to Maggie, but half the plat will come through Fox Run. The wrecks happen because Fox Run is lower. They talked about making Fox Run a right turn only so there wasn’t the east turn and he feels this all needs to be looked at, as the traffic was not supposed to go to Fox Run. Ogden asked if the concerns Gonzalez addressed would be the same with 52 versus the 71. Ogden asked if the amendment to the plat makes a difference. Gonzalez stated that it is more construction with the amendment and additional 20 lots. Jacob Peterson, 722 Emma Court, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Peterson stated they chose Idaho and Park Place because he wanted a place with a nice yard. Peterson plans for the future, and he worries about his kids’ future, and the density increase in this area, they are setting a precedent for all areas north and west, and that could be expected in those areas, and that is a lesser opportunity and chance for their kids to enjoy the same quality of home and property that he has now. Peterson agreed no one goes to Maggie. They go to Sadie Lane, and it will drive a lot more traffic to the area. Peterson is asking the Commissioners to think forward about a precedent being set by establishing higher density. Jennfer Marico, 700 Cole Court, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Marico moved in 1.5 years ago from California, and the reason they left are because of stuff like this where the high density was being built and stacking people on top of each other. Park Place gave them the large lots and children playing. They didn’t have that where they moved from. The proposed homes are in the very back and everyone will have to drive through the neighborhood to get to the homes. Marico understands that rules were followed, but no one knew about the hearing or neighborhood meeting, and she finds it appalling that they didn’t reach out to the neighbors. Marico is enraged to see that they are already up against high density. Mike Blanc 6150 Zachary, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Blanc agrees with everything that has been said. Blanc stated that buying a home is for an investment, and he is worried about his property value. Blanc stated that the traffic is getting worse, but it is heart breaking that the high-density housing is coming to them. He is curious where all the people are coming from to live in all this building of high density. He doesn’t want the density in his neighborhood. Applicant: Justin Scott, Horrocks Engineers 2194 Snake River Parkway, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Scott thanked the Commissioners and neighbors for coming out tonight. Scott stated that this density would be considered good buffer to the north and west that could become higher density and that is a good planning practice and talked about in the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Scott stated that he was involved in the discussions about Fox Run and they had long meetings with City Staff and Engineering to try and avoid the impact to Fox Run as it is County road and narrow. The intent for the new development is to exit out of Maggie and minimize the impact on Fox Run. The project does not exceed or warrant a traffic study as it would have very little impact with the added 19 lots. Scott stated that this project exceeds the minimum requirements as they are still under 4 units per acre. This project is not considered high density as it still falls within the R1 zone. Scott stated that previous subdivisions in this area, including Division No. 4, 5, 6 have the non-buildable lots along the Gustafson Canal that are dedicated to the City of Idaho Falls, with hopes that it could someday be part of the Connecting Communities. Ogden asked about retention ponds or water management in the plat. Scott stated that this was all master planned to go to the Regional Storm Water Pond that the City of Idaho Falls has ownership over. Ogden closed the public hearing. Brower has no concerns, and feels it fits the R1 Zone, they aren’t building too big, this is not high density. Brower doesn’t have any power to tell people where to exit a subdivision. Brower stated that Fox Run is County, and the City cannot do anything about it. Brower stated that this preliminary plat does meet the R1 zone. Ogden agreed that they are limited in their ability to make decisions, and if the plat meets the zoning requirement, their hands are tied, and it does meet the standards, even if it is higher density than what the Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 4 of 12 neighbors want. Ogden stated that exists out of the neighborhood look to push the traffic out of Maggie. There are two additional egress points to the north that are locked right now, and based on the City’s master plan when the property to the north and west will be higher density. Additional egress can only come if development happens. Ogden stated that the discussion was housing in Idaho Falls has gotten expensive and there is concern as to how our children will buy a home. Ogden feels finding opportunities for more affordable housing is important. Ihler stated that this is low density, and nothing high density about this. It is still R1, single family attached, and each unit has its own lot, which tends to bring higher owner occupancy. Ihler explained the characteristics of twin homes. Ihler is a realtor, and people who buy twin homes are retired couples, or younger families. Twin homes are still on the more expensive side of entry level homes. These homes will be $400,000 and that is not low income. That is a working family or retired couple. Twin homes are a great entry point for families to own something without having to do a single- family home. Twin homes provide options for people and are very popular and they are being developed all over Idaho Falls, and Ammon. Developers like them because they are easier to build and they have higher profit margins, and they provide a great product. Ihler stated that the people that are going to speed if they are speeders, it doesn’t matter what type of home they live in. Ihler agrees with the need for green space, and they are pushing the City Council to require more green space in different types of developments. Ihler stated that there are already neighborhoods in Idaho Falls, which are intermingled with single family and twin homes. There are neighborhoods that have more homes and less entrances. Ihler stated that at the end of the day it meets every single ordinance, zoning rule, and the Comprehensive Plan. Storer reviewed the information provided by the homeowners and was impressed with the thoroughness. Idaho Falls is on the cusp of the title wave of growth, and they will be faced with the citizens being asked for more restrictive provisions in the Zoning Code to try to protect the environment they have enjoyed in the past. There is merit in looking into that from the City perspective. They are constrained by the subdivision ordinance and that is the limited scope. The density requirements are met. There was mention made of CCR’s and as the Assistant City attorney has mentioned the City doesn’t get involved in CCR’s as they are a private contract between owners and developer and people need to be educated that if they want things to be more restrictive than the City’s ordinances, then you need to do CCR’s and that is the remedy to require something more restrictive than what is in the City Code. The Commission is bound to ensure the ordinances are complied with and this preliminary plat does meet the ordinances. Brower stated that they hear the concern that higher density is lower income, which means less safe, and we want to keep our City the same, and that is concerning to her as a social worker, as it is denying diversity and Idaho Falls has a plan to create diversity and statistically there is no bearing that lower income = not safe. This is a free city, and anyone can live here. Ihler stated that the City is trying to stay fiscally responsible, and Idaho Falls has grown with auto oriented development and that stuff has to pay for itself, and single-family neighborhoods cannot pay for themselves as there is not enough density to pay for itself. If they are going to continue to have single family neighborhoods on the outskirts of towns, they have to have higher density intermingled. Scott stated that he appreciates all of the public coming out and sharing opinions and he sympathizes and understands. Scott stated that people are moving here, and they need to enable the City to grow responsibly to allow those people places to live and maintain a great community. Scott stated that the developers and developments need to stay within the law and subdivision ordinances. Storer stated that a few years ago he sat in on a conference call with 5 City Attorney’s across the State and the issue being discussed was how to stop growth. The answer he gave them, is you cannot stop growth, you can only manage it. Many cities have tried to adopt restrictive codes and you push the problem to the County and the County government is not as good as City’s in managing growth. Brower moved to approve the Amended Preliminary Plat for Park Place Subdivision as presented, Scott seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 5 of 12 Brower moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Cantu seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2. PLAT24-027: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR REED’S CORNER Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Scott Dressin, HLE 101 South Park Ave, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dressin stated that the preliminary plat is for 24.4 acres, and they are seeking to develop the industrial and manufacturing portion to cover manufacturing and freezer storage and they were informed by Planning and they had to do a full single lot plat, or to do a preliminary plat and a proposed subdivision for the lot in the future. They are proposing 4 future divisions encompassing 7 different lots. The 1st Division includes existing lot where the existing improvements and facilities exist, as well as the lot 2 second lot for the future warehouse development with additional divisions to follow. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ihler asked if anything could be done in Division No. 4. Beutler stated that airport overlay is restrictive, and cows are grandfathered as previous use, and could remain as they were the original use. The airport overlay restricts open space, landscaping, trees, as they bring birds and birds and planes don’t get along. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Ogden closed the public hearing. Brower feels it is straight forward and no brainer. Storer moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Reed’s Corner as presented. Ihler seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Cantu Moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Brower seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Ogden called a 5-minute recess. Ogden called the meeting back to order. 3. ANNX24-006: ANNEXATION AND INTIIAL ZONING OF I&M. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Peterson stated that there is a slight change to the exhibit map as there were quick claim deeds from the County to property owners and so that portion has been removed. It is now just under 10 acres. City of Idaho Falls owns the property. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Support/Opposition. James Boone, 3000 N 15th East, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Boone represents Lemhi Enterprise. Boone wanted to address contiguity to the City Limits, Idaho Falls Statement of Annexation Principles which clearly state that except in response to unusual circumstances, they need to avoid annexation to properties contiguous merely by touching corner which do not have primary structures in and do not have immediate access to utilities. Boone stated that this property is not contiguous, the County right of way is on one corner and the road right of way in the annexation plan needs to occur on both sides of the right of way. Pursuant to the Annexation Principles City Public Works needs to meet with the County Public Works to determine the appropriate limits for Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 6 of 12 annexation. Boone asked if the meeting happened, and if so, what considerations were made, as it does not meet the requirements of the Statement of Annexation Principles. Randy Waters, 700 S. Woodruff, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Waters indicated that there are boundary issues on this property that the Commissioners may not be aware of. Waters is a realtor and was contacted by the City - Pam Alexander and Chief Dwayne Nelson to locate property for a fire station. Waters looked and identified this property and there are things in play, and they were able to get this property for the City. The papers Waters passed out to the Commissioners shows that this was one big parcel (shown in red) and the City wanted 7 acres and this is larger than 7 acres and splitting it would not net them the 7 acres. The property above on the 1st page has an L shape lot, and it was changed and split. Vision Collision wanted a parking lot for a compound, and the lighter shaded lot was left open and the little corner piece on the bottom south was given to the City, and between that piece and the larger piece that got the 7.2 acres the City required. In doing so, it took time to get the legal description. Waters wrote up the offer. Page 2 of the packet shows a dirt line which is a sewer line providing services to Anderson Business Development. In the offer that was wrote, Waters identified (Page 3) water and sewer that would go to this lot. The disagreement is the property line is in the wrong place the line should have been parallel with the sewer line and that would enable this lot to have the City sewer and water connection. The bigger lot already has water and sewer as it is stubbed in the parcel. and the boundary should. Waters presented on page 4 an email that was sent to Chief Nelson regarding the location. Page 5 shows a screen shot with his phone identifying where the sewer line is and where the property line should be. The Purchase and Sale Agreement is shown next, and the City was adamant that it had to be approximately 7 acres and they did not want to extend over $900,000. Waters indicated that by combining the 2 lots, it gave the City 7.2 acres. Exhibit A on the purchase and sale agreement is an exhibit that Waters made showing that the property line is parallel to the City Sewer Line. There is an addendum to extend closing waiting for the survey from Cornerstone Geomatics, there was a second addendum to extend as they were still waiting. The legal description was received, and they closed September 29, 2022. Through time, he built his building near this property and in January he started to look at the legal description and noticed that the line is in the wrong spot, and he contacted Pam Alexander and Chief Nelson to meet regarding the problem. Alexander and Chief Nelson met with Waters in January, and they stated that they see the problem and asked them to get a new legal description and they will run it by the legal department. Legal turned it down and stated that it belongs to the City. Waters agrees that by law it is the City’s, ethically it is not right, and it belongs to the lot that it needs to provide water and sewer to the adjacent lot. Waters doesn’t feel that they should annex into the City until there is a resolution to this problem. Waters stated that adding that extra corner is .4 acres, and the City was promised approximately 7 acres (7.2) and with this mistake they net 7.6 acres. There is an error, and discrepancy in the line that should be parallel to the City Sewer. Waters stated that it doesn’t make sense for the seller to willingly give away the water and sewer that is needed to develop the remaining property. Waters stated that it was an error, and they would like the City to be ethical and make the right decision to resolve the problem and get it fixed. Waters had Cornerstone Geo Matics draw up a quick claim deed to put the line in the correct place. Storer asked if the City owns the property. Waters agreed that the deed they have includes everything. Storer asked how the property dispute relate to compliance with the subdivision ordinance. Waters stated that it negates the neighboring property from having water and sewer as it was sold to the City in error, and the property is not buildable unless they work out a deal, and that only leaves a 20’ access to the adjacent lot. It’s an honest mistake that he didn’t catch as a realtor, there were issues in trying to split the lots and there were boundary issues, and the map he got was an overlay and he didn’t catch that the line was in the wrong place. The City isn’t getting anything less than what they were promised in the purchase and sale agreement. Shane Reimer, Cornerstone Geomatics, 5497 Rammell Road, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Reimer is the surveyor that made the error and feels it was a miscommunication between himself and Waters. Reimer stated that it does not make sense at all that the developer would have given up sewer and water services to go to the City lot. Reimer did locate sewer stubs existing and it was the intent of the developer to develop the lot, and the line that is currently shown cuts the developer off from the sewer and water. Reimer stated that the easiest thing is to modify the line to make it where it was intended to be. It does restrict the road frontage as there is no access to Yellowstone to be granted and there wasn’t any in the preliminary stage as it is too close to Woodruff Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 7 of 12 intersection. Reimer stated that he is against moving ahead on annexation as it will be harder to resolve this issue. Reimer would like more time to find a solution. Ryan Anderson, 3024 Boeing Street, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Anderson is the developer of the land. In working with the City, he worked through Randy Waters and the City was looking for 7 acres. When they were parceling it off, Anderson was informed that it might go just over 7 acres and he was ok with that, and they set a price. If they can resolve with the City, the City still gets 7.28 acres which is over ¼ of an acre that wasn’t considered in the sale price. He was willing to work with them to get them what they needed but had to maintain his ability to develop with the water and sewer. He is opposed to annexation until they can resolve this issue. Jacob Beck, Esq, Assistant City Attorney, 444 D Street, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Beck passed out additional documents for the Commissioners to review. Beck stated that the land is technically deeded to the City of Idaho Falls. Beck stated that in conducting this purchase, the final showing of what property was purchased, was what the City understood it was purchasing, and it was not a onetime showing of what the property lines would look like. There were multiple documents showing what the property being purchased would look like. Beck showed the first picture and email to Pam Alexander of what was to be purchased, and then a second email with a legal description that was recorded in September 2022. Beck indicated that the City Surveyor conducted his own survey, and everything matched up. This is what the City believed they were purchasing. Beck stated that legal does not feel that this is the venue to be addressing this issue, and it would be more appropriate for Courts and not a matter to be decided by Planning and Zoning. Beck stated that they are open to talks, but do not want to discuss in Planning and Zoning meeting. Ogden stated that on page 2 of Beck’s document it has a parcel showing 6.734 acres on parcel 4, .949 acres on parcel 3 and those 2 combined equal 7.683, which the City’s document shows 7.682 and the adjusted area shows a .403. Ogden stated that if the .403 is included which is what is shown, that would actually equal 8.086 acres. Ogden asked why there is a discrepancy on acreage. The document the City provided stated that the parcel with that corner equals 7.682 acres. Ogden asked which document is accurate. Beck is not sure which one is more accurate. Beck stated that the first document was the attachment that was provided in the first email and any discrepancy between the two as far as acreage, he cannot answer, but each document shows the triangular piece taken from the sewer line heading towards Boeing Road and the triangular piece is included in both of the pictures. One of the requirements that the City was asking for in the purchase and sale agreement, there was more included, as the City was requiring access to Boeing and getting that triangular piece is what gave the City access to Boeing Road. Ogden stated that Exhibit A in the Commission’s packet shows the total tract acreage at 10.079 and that is where he sees Commissioner Ihler’s point regarding Woodruff. Ogden thinks the total is 8.086, not 7.682. Beck stated that Legal’s stance is that the appropriate venue is within the Courts with a motion for quiet title. Storer asked if Beck concurred that the City owns the property as described in the legal description. Beck feels the City owns the property. Storer stated that as long as the City owns the property and wants to annex it, the jurisdiction for resolving the issue can be resolved, but not before the Planning Commission. Randy Waters, 700 Memorial Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Waters agrees that this is not the venue, but it should not be annexed as there are problems. Waters agrees it is the City’s property. Water questioned why a seller would cut his throat and sell the water and sewer to the lot next door. Waters stated that it should not be annexed because there is an issue with the property. James Boone, 3009 N 15th E, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Boone stated that the reason he is familiar with the Statement of Annexation Principles is that when he met with the City in 2021 they cited that document to refuse the opportunity for him to apply for annexation, and the property that is shown on the top left of the red outline does not have an address, and the Statement of Annexation Principles was cited to refuse to allow him to apply for annexation. Beutler clarified that State Statute does not prohibit the annexation on a point, and it does allow that to be contiguous and rights of way are not considered barrier for annexation. Beutler stated that the agreement with Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 8 of 12 Bonneville County is for arterial roadways, such as this, they will annex the entire roadway at the time they are annexing property on one side. They meet monthly with Bonneville County to discuss annexations and this annexation has been discussed, and the County is also recommending annexation. This property is contiguous and eligible for annexation. The document regarding Principles of Annexation as stated is accurate, other than the document was specifically developed when the City was annexing property without the property owner’s permission or desire, in order to develop some sort of format for that annexation. Tonight, the applicant and owner (City of Idaho Falls) is requesting annexation, so it is a different scenario and State Statute does not prohibit annexation at a point. Ogden closed the public hearing. Brower stated that they need to look at annexation and zoning and they are not here to rule on anything else besides that. Ihler stated that if it gets annexed then the City has that much more opportunity to not work it out with the developer and it is messing up development. Ihler understands that they don’t have say over the details. If this were any other property owner, and they were having land disputes with another private developer, they would want to table or wait until the issues were dealt with. Ihler stated that the City is the applicant and should be looked at as another developer. He is not comfortable annexing something if it does go to Court. He is not saying one way or the other how the resolution should be, but he does believe they should hold off on annexation. Scott confirmed that they are only recommending to City Council. Ogden asked for the zoning Map to be shown. Ogden stated that they don’t want to create County Islands, and, in this instance, they are creating a City island and contiguous is a stretch and it does create a County island. Ogden feels that until some of that is annexed, it goes against other things that the Commission has done and doesn’t touch where it needs to be touching. Ogden will vote nay. Storer noted that he agrees with Brower that it is not wise policy to get involved in property and boundary line disputes and those types of things have a forum to be resolved. If they go down the trail to determine who is right or wrong, they are opening the quagmire. Ogden stated that he doesn’t feel that it touches the zones that are required to not create County islands. Storer stated that annexation and the question is whether it is contiguous. Ogden stated that with annexation they would create a County island and they have repeatedly agreed to not create County islands. Storer stated that with annexation the only question is whether it is contiguous. Ogden and Storer disagree on that fact. Ogden clarified that his comments are not based on the additional information, as he does agree with Storer and Brower, that they do not have a say in the property dispute. Ogden stated that all his comments are based on what is within the prevue of the Planning Commission. Brower moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation of 10.079 Acres in a portion of the Southeast ¼ of the northeast ¼ Section9, T 2N, R 38 E, with initial zoning of I&M. Storer seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, no; Ogden, no; Cantu, no; Storer, yes. The motion tied 3-3. 4.ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R1. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Scott Dressin, HLE 101 South Park Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dressing is bringing forth annexation of 2 parcels owned and used for The Christ Community Church and they have intentions to do additional development and has considered both County and City development and it was determined that it would be good to go forward with Annexation in R1 as it is contiguous to the development south, and surrounding additional zoning and use of the adjacent lots is residential. The use of the lot is for religious institution. Religious Institution use is a conditional use approval for all residential zones, and any intent for future development would have to go forward with a CUP and all of the required meetings that are necessary. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 9 of 12 Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ogden asked what the plan or action by the City for the property south that would create a County island. Foster stated that there have been some changes in legislation for annexation, there is no longer a category for annexation, so you cannot force an annexation of a property, unless they are receiving City services, and the property to the south is not, so until the property owner receives City services or initiates the annexation, there is nothing the City can do. Foster added that it is a new law that went into effect on July 1, 2024. Beutler clarified that it does not mean that the City cannot initiate annexation. If the parcel is larger than 5 acres, and used for agricultural purposes, the City cannot initiate annexation, but if the parcel is smaller than 5 acres, the City can initiate annexation, whether or not they have services, the City could potentially attempt to annex property. Beutler clarified that the City Council has not indicated a change to their policy regarding annexation. Applicant: Scott Dressin, Harper Leavitt, 101 South Capital, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dressin stated that in addition to the parcels for annexation, South 5th West extending to 65th South will be included in the annexation so it will sever the adjacency of the lot to the south with the additional County zoning A1 across the street. Ogden clarified that it is creating a true County island. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Ogden closed the public meeting. Ihler sees this all being City at some point, and there is not a way to annex in a perfect straight pattern and if they are annexing 5th West it will reduce the need for the County to maintain that section. Brower agrees and feels it is straight forward. Cantu Moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation of 17.297 Acres in a portion of the southeast ¼ of Section 1, T 1 N, R 37 E, with initial zoning of R1. Scott seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. Business: 5. PLAT24-024: FINAL PLAT for the Narrows Division No. 2. Lots 41-48, Block 39, Lots 1-6, Block 40, Part of Block 41, and vacated portions of right of way of Highland Park Addition. Applicant: Eagle Rock Engineering – not present. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ogden asked if there is any known impact or discussion about the interchange in that area for I-15 and Hwy 20. Ihler showed that it doesn’t. Storer asked if this has been reviewed by the Fire Department. Foster stated that there has been 1 review by Fire and City Engineer regarding the street network and they are working through the technical comments, and they are aware there can’t be an additional access, and it has been presented that it will be commercial development in LC, so the buildings will be sprinklered. Ogden asked about the variance in the motion and what it should say. Foster stated that the motion should state that “Motion to approve with the variance as discussed in the staff report.” Storer is sensitive to fire safety and accessibility of fire equipment/ambulance. Storer is concerned about the variance. Storer stated that the only thing that addresses his concern is the turn around easement, and there would be an easement to have the vehicles come across that property for turn around purposes. Storer is concerned that the development of easement for emergency vehicles would not require the applicant to develop the easement to be useable, and the City would have to build the turn around. Storer agrees there are unique circumstances that would warrant the extension, but he is concerned about granting the variance without a Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 10 of 12 requirement of a turnaround easement, and that the City would have to create. Ogden clarified what Storer is asking that if the City is to grant the variance, the City would then develop the turnaround at the same time. Storer stated that the variance should be granted only on the condition that the property is dedicated. Beutler stated that the plat to the north on Narrows Division No. 1, is a recorded emergency access easement and that is recorded and done at the time that it was to be developed so they could have emergency access, and this plat they are connecting and extending that and proposing an additional 24’ emergency access easement in order to connect back into that. They are concerned that fire can get in and out. Storer is still concerned as the access is not meaningful unless it is developed. Storer is concerned about emergency vehicles on Latah and the ability to turn things around. Beutler stated that the improvement drawings are in the packet, and as things develop of Latah the turn around is required, and the development agreement wording always refers to the improvement drawings. The turn around will be developed the same time Latah is developed. Beutler stated that the intent is to be constructed at the same time as the development. Brower moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for the Narrows Division No. 2. Lots 41-48, Block 39, Lots 1-6, Block 40, Part of Block 41, and vacated portions of right of way of Highland Park Addition with the variance for block length as stated in the staff report. Ihler seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. 6. PLAT24-025: FINAL PLAT for Woods Crossing Division No. 1. Ihler is recusing himself for this item as he has a professional conflict. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering, 2295 North Yellowstone Suite 6, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Bane stated that this plat is east of Sandcreek and South of 49th. This Division 1 has 10.5 acres, 29 total lots, with 2 unbuildable. Average lot size is 10,000 square feet (just under ¼ acre). The lot on the south is non buildable storm/public utility easement with a lift station in that lot. The lot along the canal will be deeded to the City for future access on the trail system. This is one of the first subdivisions that the City will start using irrigation rights for pressure irrigation. There will be a pump and an irrigation easement. They will connect to the west, future stubs to the east and north and they have temporary turnarounds. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Storer moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Woods Crossing Division No. 1. Scott seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, recused; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. 7. PLAT24-026: First Amended Final Plat for Virlow Village Division No. 1. Lots 1-18, Block 1 of the Virlow Village Division 1. Ihler is recusing himself for this item as he has a professional conflict. Applicant: Barry Bane, Connect Engineering Bane stated that this property is an amended plat and they had to adjust lot lines slightly because of building changes. The recorded Virlow Village Division No. 1 compared to the first amended has lot line adjustments and Public Works was not happy with the plan for sewer and water coming out of 1st Street. They looked deeper and were able to pull sewer and water from Virlow, so there are also utility easement changes in the amended plat. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Brower moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the First Amended Final Plat for Virlow Village Division No. 1. Cantu Seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, recused; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 11 of 12 8. PLAT24-014: FINAL PLAT for Edgewater Division NO. 1 Extension. Applicant: Eagle Rock Engineering – Not present Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Beutler stated that the applicant has been working on the project continuously but need an extension. Storer Moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Edgewater Division No. 1 Extension. Ihler Seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Brower, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Cantu, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. Adjourned at 10:00p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes July 2, 2024 Page 12 of 12