Planning Commission

August 6, 2024 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Glen Ogden, Bill Scott, Dale Storer, Forrest Ihler. MEMBERS ABSENT: Marsha McDaniel, Arnold Cantu ALSO PRESENT: Assistant Planning Director Kerry Beutler, David Peterson Planner, Naysha Foster Planner, Brian Stevens 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 July 2, 2024, Ihler seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing: 1. RZN24-006: REZONE FROM R3A TO HC for Portions of Lots 4 and 5, Block 6 Hodson Addition. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Danny McFarlane. McFarlane owns block 1-5 here and this lot they want to rezone to HC to match surrounding zones. Scott asked if Woodruff Circle is dedicated. McFarlane stated it is dedicated 30 years ago and they are in the final stages of approving a development agreement with the City to put the road in. Wasatch Properties has installed a water line and sewer is in and now they have to put in storm drain and asphalt. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ogden asked which lot they were considering. Foster clarified Lot 4-5. No one appeared in support/opposition. Ogden closed the public hearing. Ihler feels it is straight forward and surrounded by other HC. Ogden agreed with Ihler. Ihler moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the rezone from R3A to HC for Portions of Lots 4 and 5, Block 6, Hodson Addition, Scott seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Storer, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 2. RZN 24-007: REZONE FROM LC TO HC for South 18,124 Square Feet of Lot 2, Block 2, Old Fashioned Way Division No. 1. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Adam Peterson, Skyline Animal Hospital. Peterson is looking to buy the property and wanting to make it a veterinary hospital. The zoning change would be necessary if they wanted opportunities for vet related services like doggy daycare. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. No one appeared in Support/Opposition. Ogden closed the public hearing. Storer feels it is straight forward and the area is consistent with the request. Ihler likes that this is making the area consistent. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 1 of 8 Scott moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the rezone from LC to HC for the south 18,124 square feet of Lot 2, Block 2, Old Fashioned Way Division No. 1. Storer seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Storer, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 3. PLAT 24:034: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR Aspen Meadows. Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Gilmore Jenkins, HLE 101 South Park Ave, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jenkins stated that is 104 acres zoned R2 and R3. The preliminary plat proposed consists of internal roads that they have worked with staff to determine collectors/residential. They worked with staff to determine access locations. The property is divided by the canal, and they will be providing a cross over the canal. They are proposing several mixes of density through the project with the larger lots that will be more for higher density allowed in R3 against the major arterial to buffer to the lower density residential as they move west to east. They have identified strategic storm pond locations to be used as public amenities. There are approximately 167 lots and 6 of them are storm pond lots. The development will be required to install turn lanes and accel/decel lanes at entrances. The project will be done in phases, and they have the project divided on the plat. They will develop strategically to make sure fire code is met and connectivity is available. Luke Bloxham, 1086 Jaylee Drive, Rigby, Idaho (developer). Bloxham stated that this property had a lot of thought to meet the city’s vision for the future development of the area north. This will have a good residential mix. There is a rezone application for this same area that is to be heard next. Ogden indicated that they had discussed switching items 3 and 4, but he was informed that the current plat would work with the current zoning, even if the rezone is not approved. Jenkins agreed that either way this layout will work. Jenkins added that they do have several stub roads shown. Ogden asked about the larger blocks 1, Division 1, 5 and asked if they are proposed to be zoned commercial or residential or is it up in the air. Jenkins stated that it depends on how the rezone goes. The intent is that if the rezone goes through then the lots against the major arterial 5th East would fit the commercial need and provide good buffer between the major arterial and the residential and provide means to have some of the traffic does not have to go all the way into town. If the rezone is not approved, it will be high density residential. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Support/Opposition. Tanya Rawlings, 6360 North Northside Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho. They are just outside of the 300’ notification regarding the meeting held in June. Rawlings stated that this has been ag for a long time, they are in the County, they have a well, and they have concerns about increased traffic and there has been a development taking place across the road (Teton View Estates) and there has been increased traffic and detours and they are putting in town homes in that development and that is denser residential. On the east side of 65th in the County they have 1 acre lots and she is concerned about traffic. They recently discovered that it had been annexed and they were not aware of that. There has to be a comprehensive plan and there needs to be additional housing, but she is asking that they consider the land around it that has been primarily agricultural, and they like to live outside of town, and they have the history and ties to the community. Rawlings is opposed to LC Zone. She understands that there will be a change from the reroute of I-15/US 20 corridor, and she is not sure where that is in relation to this development. Joseph Lemon, 6360 North Northside Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Lemon has lived there 27 years. Lemon stated that one the County lots a lot of people raise livestock, including cows, goats, hogs, chickens. There was an attempt by the City years ago to try and annex everything that was denied by the County. Lemon opposes the higher residential and the commercial. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 2 of 8 Applicant: Luke Bloxham, 1086 Jaylee Drive, Rigby, Idaho (developer). Bloxham stated that he appreciates the concern and as it is platted now, they zoned the north portion R2 which is a lower density than what the southern portion is. Ogden closed the public hearing. Ogden stated that the plat does fit the R2/R3 zones, and he has no problem with the mixed use residential. Ogden feels it is a valid use of the property and it is not an abrupt change for the county lots with R2 being a transition. Storer stated that there will be major changes in the area because of the change in the I-15 corridor. Storer stated that the options are to move forward in the City or sit back and let the property develop in the County. Storer feels that the change will be better inside the City. Storer feels they did a good job balancing the impact to the agricultural properties surrounding the area. Ihler stated that he likes that the developer went R1 next to the County properties so it is the least dense it can be and should be a nice blend to the County homes. Ihler stated that R2 is not considered high density. Ogden clarified that it is R2 against County properties and R3 next. Ihler stated that R2 and R1 do have a lot of similarities, and the R2 in this area could make some of the landscape requirements different. R2 is easier to place a house on the lots, and the look and feel is the same as R1. Ihler appreciates the effort to de-densify next to the suburban neighborhood. Ihler doesn’t like that the City is spreading, and he doesn’t like that the freeway is being rerouted to this area, and he feels it should stay in town. Ihler stated that the reroute is encouraging sprawl and they need to take seriously the preservation of farmlands in Idaho Falls, Ammon, and the County as a whole. Ihler stated that this is zoned, meets the zoning requirements. There are multiple entrances and exists to this development. Scott stated that he agrees with the other commissioners, and he feels it is unfortunate to see farmland used and the City expand as it has, but there is nothing they can do about ITD’s choice of route. Scott added that there will be changes to the land use in that area. Storer added that he regrets the consumption of agricultural grounds, but as they look at what is happening to the City as a whole you see a great amount of multi-family development inside the City. Storer feels that if they don’t approve of this, it would accentuate that problem. This will preserve the character of the single- family home with a large size lawn and residence and that is a good thing. Ihler asked if the 300’ law is Idaho State Law, or City. Beutler stated that is Idaho State Statute. Ihler thinks it should be changed and become farther out. Ogden stated that he is confused with Ihler’s position, as he is usually very pro high density. Storer moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Aspen Meadows as presented. Ihler seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Storer, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes. The motion passed unanimously. Storer moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Ihler seconded the motion. Ogden call for roll call vote: Storer, yes; Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 4. RZN 24:08 REZONE FROM R3 TO LC (Aspen Meadows). Ogden opened the public hearing. Applicant: Gilmore Jenkins, HLE 101 South Park Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jenkins stated that they are requesting a rezone for a portion of this property. There is a major road on the preliminary plat going north to south and that is the boundary for the rezone request. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this commercial node on the corner of 65th and 5th and that will overlap into the requested rezone area. There is also property on the southwest corner near the property (not contiguous) that is zoned LC. Jenkins feels LC would be good for this area because of the Comprehensive Plan and being next to the Lewisville Highway and having some Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 3 of 8 commercial against the frontage would be good. They are proposing to rezone 59 acres of the development and everything residential would still fit within that zone. Luke Bloxham, 1086 Jaylee Drive, Rigby, Idaho (developer). Bloxham stated that the reason for the rezone is to anticipate some of the growth that is coming. The Lewisville Highway is a major arterial road, and the LC offers more flexibility in alignment with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, as well as the USU study that has the vision for a more walkable center. Bloxham feels that there is sprawling that goes on in development, but the LC zone offers a lot of mixed-use capability to create more community hubs and walkable centers. The right vision can make that happen in this area. This rezone will lend the area to better traffic flows, and it will be a good buffer between the residential and Lewisville Highway. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ihler asked if the LC zone allows housing units with commercial below. Stevens agreed that it allows for commercial use on the first floor with housing above. Stevens directed Ihler to page 5 of the staff report for housing uses and set back requirements. Support/Opposition: Tanya Rawlings, 6360 North Northside Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Rawlings stated that she has questions as the proposed I-15/US 20 Proposed H2 is one option of the proposals that are being studied through ITD. Rawlings hasn’t heard that there has been a decision made. Rawlings understands anticipating possible options down the road, but she doesn’t want to get ahead of herself and assume that they need a node for mixed use area in the County. 65th is still in the County and how much control would the City have in putting in a stop light, as it is difficult to turn left from 65th onto Lewisville Hwy. Rawlings stated that in dealing with situations where City is butting up against County it is important to coordinate so that everyone is aware of what is going on and making sure things are flowing appropriately. Rawlings does understand that there is growth in the City, and she asked the Commissioners to consider the historical uses of the land. Joseph Lemon, 6360 North Northside Circle, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Lemon stated that controlling the sprawl could be done by keeping it residential and not commercial so that it is just for people to live. Applicant: Gilmore Jenkins Harper Leavitt, 101 South Capital, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jenkins stated that the BMPO has the County, City, ITD, Ammon, Iona, Etc. work together to talk about things regarding growth. Jenkins stated that if you have concerns or thoughts towards what might be going on or what the County may be thinking BMPO is a great place to go and discuss. Jenkins stated that they are looking at their transportation plan and reworking it. Ogden closed the public meeting. Ihler is torn. Ihler stated that he understands that the area is growing and likes that LC allows for the opportunity for mixed use with apartments above commercial as that is truly the only way to make an area walkable. The downside of LC is that it can be designed like any other area with big commercial building and big parking lot, and that is not walkable. Ihler is unsure how the developer plans to develop this area. Ihler stated that ITD has done all their research and all their outreach, and they have narrowed it down to two versions (H2 or E3). They have recommended to the Federal Highway Administration, which is where the money comes from, that they want H2. The idea that H2 comes from the idea that is what ITD has recommended. Ihler stated that they have LC and HC down by where the proposed interchange is going to be. Ihler feels that there is a plethora of business parks and commercial developments staggered all over the City and Ihler doesn’t know if Idaho Falls has the growth of commercial entities to match all of these different developments going on around town. Ihler feels it could take 2 decades to fill out with commercial. If the developer does it right, it can be a walkable center, but if he does it auto oriented it could take longer to fill in and it is creating commercial nodes all over the City on the peripheral that are slowly filling in. Scott stated that he is in favor of the rezone and thinks that the problem with walkable centers is if they don’t have the zoning to allow commercial developments and all they have is residential, where are those people going to shop or work? The City must accommodate to make it work. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 4 of 8 Storer likes the word nodes as the concept is that you are bringing the services to the people. Storer stated that they are trying to weed people from their automobiles and put them on their feet and the services need to be available, and LC does that. Storer stated that the uses are amenable to the services that would be sought by residents in a subdivision. Ogden stated that his concern was whether or not the large open areas of the plat would be very high density and that brings more traffic and trouble to Lewisville Hwy, than some spread out lighter commercial use for the property. Ogden went through to see if the zone change was inclined for apartments or some other high- density housing along the Lewisville Hwy, but based on the developers comments, and some of the uses that have been used for LC it alleviates some of the concern of the density of the housing in there, if it is commercial versus R3. Both zones allow for high density housing, and LC allows more options. Ogden feels LC is a better use than R3 as we don’t need more high-density housing. Scott moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the rezone from R3 with airport overlay to LC with airport overlay as presented. Storer seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes (cautiously); Ogden, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. 5. ANNX 24-008: ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF I&M. Storer moved to reschedule this item to September 3, 2024, Scott seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. 6. PLAT24-033: PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR EZ EXTERIORS Division No. 1. Scott moved to reschedule this item to September 3, 2024, Ihler seconded the motion, and the motion passed unanimously. Ogden indicated that he will be unavailable on September 3, 2024. Storer indicated that he is also out of town on September 3, 2024. Business: 7. PLAT24-028: FINAL PLAT for Ivywood Division No. 6. Applicant: Neil Humphreys, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Humphreys indicated that this is the continuation of Ivywood following the Ivywood West Preliminary Plat that was approved in 2021. There are 39 single family lots connected with a 60’ internal right of way. Montezuma will connect the eastern portion that is built out all the way to 15th West and Division 6 will extend north of Division 5 which is very close to approval. Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ogden asked if Montezuma would become a minor arterial. Peterson stated it will stay a collector as it is R1 which is low density and there are a lot of different connections in and out of Ivywood once it is built out. Beutler verified that 15th South of 65th is a major collector. No discussion. Ihler moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Ivywood Division No. 6. Storer seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 5 of 8 8. PLT24-030: FINAL PLAT for Fairway Estates Division No. 26. Ihler indicated that he has a conflict of interest as he works with the developer. He does not benefit financially. Ihler was concerned with a lack of quorum if he recused himself. Beck indicated that they had a Board of Adjustment with 3 members, and it was ok. Storer indicated that if you start the meeting with a quorum the quorum will continue even though you have a recusal. Ihler recused himself. Applicant: Gilmore Jenkins, HLE 101 South Park Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jenkins indicated this is Division 26 of Fairway Estates. This was presented over a year ago, and has been approved once before, and that application has expired. Jenkins stated that it is currently zoned R1, the lots are all residential lots, the final plat and improvement drawings have been reviewed by staff. The improvement drawings do include the remainder of Sage Lakes Blvd tying out to 5th East and Grassy Hill and Pevero Drive are on the plat. Jenkins stated that one thing that is included in the improvements is the installation of left turn and decel lanes on Lewisville Highway. Jenkins stated it is a long turn lane because of the speed on the Highway. Ogden is glad that the bridge is there, and they can develop the 3rd road to connect the neighborhood. Stevens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Ogden clarified that Lot 19 is the common lot. Stevens indicated it is the small one next to the road. Beutler indicated it appears to be lot 20 that is a small narrow piece of land next to lot 19. Ogden moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Fairway Estates Division No. 26. Scott Seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ogden, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. 9. PLT24-030: FINAL PLAT for Reed’s Corner Division No. 1. Applicant: Gilmore Jenkins, HLE 101 South Park Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jenkins indicated that this is on Broadway (Reed’s Dairy). Jenkins stated that there was a recent fire at Reed’s Dairy and the store and the drive thru ice cream parlor sits on Lot 1 that is currently unplatted. The improvements that they are working through to replace what was lost in the fire and some additional growth that was already projected will sit on Lot 2. They are platting the two lots because in order to build in the City it has to be platted. This existing lot will need to be brought up to standards so both can be platted. Jenkins stated that lot 2 will access through lot 1, and Lot 1 has access off Broadway. The plat has all the usual public utilities. Jenkins asked for approval so this business can move toward healing. Foster 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 Reed’s Corner Division No. 1. Scott Seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. 10. PLAT23-009: FINAL PLAT for Eagle Rock Town Center Division NO. 4. Applicant: Not present Peterson presented the staff report, a part of the record. Peterson stated that if there is any concern with access to the lot, the plat would not move forward until the easement is ready. Storer asked for history on why they have the funk shape of the utility easement with the box at the top. Peterson stated that it is an existing utility easement with existing stubs to service the rest of the lot. Storer is Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 6 of 8 concerned about the private water and sewer utility easements that are noted on the plat, and asked if those are dedicated/deeded private utility easement. Peterson stated that the private utility easements are for the service lines. Peterson added that depending on the age of the easement the City no longer accepts private utility easements. Peterson stated that in a lot of commercial developments the City has already taken maintenance of even though they are listed as private. Peterson stated that these might still be private, but if it is a main line and not a service line, it will eventually come into the City’s jurisdiction for maintenance. Storer asked who owns the private utility easement. Peterson stated that he assumes it is the property owner. Storer asked if there has been discussion about vacating the private utility easement. Peterson is not aware of any. Storer stated that the proposal on the table is for a public utility easement in the same access area as a private utility easement. Peterson agreed and stated that if the City is going to take over maintenance of the utility line, they require an easement, and the private easement would be vacated and a public utility easement created, and that process is outside of the scope of what is being discussed today. Storer is concerned that there is no dedication on the public utility. Peterson stated that the dedication signature page is the second page of the plat. Storer stated that he does not see a dedication of the public utility easement on the plat. Peterson stated that they are still going through technical reviews and that is something that the City surveyor will require before it goes to City Council. Storer stated that the Commissioners are being asked to approve this as a final plat. Peterson clarified that it is to recommend approval. Storer indicated that they do not have the final plat in front of them. Ogden indicated that it was approved a year ago and this is an extension of the final plat. Storer is concerned about that too. Storer indicated that the Subdivision Ordinance indicates that if it is not submitted within a year, it becomes void. Storer read from the Subdivision Ordinance Section 10-1-9. Peterson agreed that they did come to the Planning Commission later than the year, but the request for the extension did come before the year. Storer is still concerned that there is a private easement that has a public easement overlaying it. Storer asked if that creates an inconsistency where they are overlaying a public easement on top of a public easement, and he is not sure that is ok to do as there is nothing left to dedicate. Peterson stated that the assumption is that the private line is going to be taken over by the City and be replaced with a public utility easement. Storer stated that private easements should be vacated as part of the plat. Peterson stated that the situation with the easements is being worked out with City Survey. Storer voiced additional concerns with a water line being in close proximity to a sewer line. Peterson stated that in past projects where the City is acquiring right of way or easements that are already over top of private easements, they have required those easements to be vacated before the new public utility easement is granted. Beutler clarified that the owner’s dedication provides a statement regarding the easement that the owners and heirs grant a permanent private sewer and water service easement for water and sewer for the owner of lot 6, bock 1 as shown … and lies within the 20’ public utility easement. Beutler stated that what you have is the water and sewer are service lines, not public mains, and because you are splitting a building with a lot line between the middle, they are providing an easement so both the north portion of the building and south portion of the building would be able to have water and sewer service. The other utility coming in that is using the public utility easement is the power service. So, both are in the same location. There is not a conflict, and it is common to have multiple easements that overlap for different purposes. Storer is concerned about overlaying public and private easements and they could potentially be inconsistent. Storer feels dedication needs to be provided and shown. If you are going to have a public easement, you have to vacate the private easement first, otherwise there is nothing to dedicate. Beutler stated that what has been worked out through the City Survey office is not that they are vacating the easement, they are establishing that easement with the plat as well as a public easement. Both private and public are being established with the plat. The private easement does not yet exist as the plat is going to establish the easement. Beutler indicated that the private and public easements do occupy the same space. Storer confirmed that the private easement will have a sewer service line. Beutler stated that the private easement is for sewer and water service line. Beutler stated that the northern lot is given to the northern lot not the City because it is a private service, and the City doesn’t need ownership of it. Storer feels they are mixing a public and private easement and potentially they could conflict. Beutler stated that he will defer to the expertise of the City Surveyor. There was further discussion and disagreement regarding private and public easements and Storer wanted a recommendation added that the attorney’s office review the plats prior to going to City Council. Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 7 of 8 Storer stated that there is a lot that has been created without access to a dedicated street and lot 6 has no access. The subdivision ordinance clearly states that a lot shall have full frontage on and access to a dedicated street. Lot 6 will not have frontage on a dedicated street. Beutler agreed that they have answered that. Storer doesn’t feel it is answered satisfactorily. Storer feels that they can’t undo that problem as the lot already exists and the problem cannot be cured. Storer feels there is a safety issue in getting fire and emergency access, and if they are going to continue to ignore the subdivision ordinance, there is a potential for a damage claim against the City if there is a problem. Storer moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Eagle Rock Town Center Division No. 4, provided there is an appropriate dedication, with an additional recommendation that there is an opinion from the City Attorney as to whether or not this complies with the Subdivision Ordinance for lack of frontage, and also refer the matter to the City Attorney for clarification on whether you can have a public and private easement occupy the same area, before it is presented to City Council. Scott asked for clarification and restatement of the motion. Storer moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the final plat for Eagle Rock Town Center Division NO. 4 Extension, as presented with the condition that it first be referred to the City Attorney for clarification on whether or not they can have a public and private utility easement occupy the same area. Scott Seconded the motion. Ogden called for roll call vote: Scott, yes; Ihler, yes; Ogden, yes; Storer, yes. Motion passed unanimously. Beck stated that there was a question on the Fairway Estates Matter as to whether Ihler withdrawing dissolved the quorum. Beck clarified that his opinion is that Section 67-6504 of Idaho Code does discuss that if a majority of the voting commission is a quorum, and the 4 commissioners present do create that quorum, and if Commissioner Ihler were not here tonight it would cause a problem as it would pull away from the majority. However, by withdrawing himself from only that issue it does not dissolve the quorum based on case law. Ihler withdrawing himself from that vote is ok because he was still present, and the quorum was established before the meeting. Adjourned at 9:00p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes August 6, 2024 Page 8 of 8