Nov 04, 2026 Planning Commission

SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL NOW GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS MEETING.

JUST KEEP YOUR COMMENTS FIVE MINUTES.

UNFORTUNATELY, THIS ISN'T A Q&A, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE ANY CONCERNS, BRING THEM UP, AND WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO ADDRESS THEM, POSSIBLY LATER IN THE MEETING.

AND WHEN YOU GET UP, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, DO YOU HAVE ANY TAKERS? NOPE.

ALL RIGHTY, OK, THEN I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION, WHAT DO WE THINK? PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

EASY ENOUGH? ANY CONCERNS? NO? ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? BILL SCOTT: ALL RIGHT, I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL.

GLEN OGDEN: NO.

BILL SCOTT: I'M SORRY, I'M ON THE WRONG ONE.

I'M SORRY.

I SKIPPED A PAGE.

I'LL START IT OVER.

I MOVE THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R-2 MIXED RESIDENTIAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR 2.709 ACRES IN THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 30, TOWNSHIP 3 NORTH, RANGE 38 EAST.

INITIAL ZONING OF R-2 MIXED RESIDENTIAL.

FORREST IHLER: DO WE HAVE A SECOND? MARY SCALES: SECONDED.

WE WILL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

STAFF: OGDEN, THUMBS UP? GLEN OGDEN: AYE.

[LAUGHTER] FORREST IHLER: PERFECT.

ALL RIGHTY, IT PASSES.

SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH

[2. ANX26-012: Annexation and Initial Zoning of LC, Limited Commercial for approximately 4.122 acres in the SE ¼ of Section 33, Township 2 North, Range 38 East. Located north of E 49th South, east of East Sand Creek, south of Commodore Road extended, and west of S 25th East. ¹]

IS THE ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING OF LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL THERE ON PIT ROAD.

HOW MANY ACRES? 4.1.

YEP, RIGHT THERE.

DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT FOR THAT.

ROUND TWO.

GLEN OGDEN: ROUND TWO.

JUSTIN SCOTT: JUSTIN SCOTT WITH EAGLE ROCK ENGINEERING, 1331 FREMONT AVENUE.

[INAUDIBLE] WE'VE GOT ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING FOR 4.1 ACRES LOCATED ALONG PIT ROAD.

THE REQUEST IS FOR PRE-ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF LC, LIMITED COMMERCIAL.

THIS LIMITED COMMERCIAL ALIGNS WELL WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

THAT'S WHAT'S NORTH OF HERE.

AND LIMITED COMMERCIAL MIXED-USE ZONE, SO COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL USE.

THERE'S CURRENTLY UTILITIES ON PIT ROAD ALREADY ALONG THE PROPERTY FRONTAGE, AND THEN ACCESS WOULD COME FROM PIT ROAD.

AND AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THAT ACCESS WOULD ALIGN WITH TONAQUINT DRIVE, WHICH

[00:10:03]

IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM THERE, AND THE EXTENDED WEST INTO PROPERTY.

YEAH, BEYOND THAT, AGAIN, IT JUST FITS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MATCHES SURROUNDING USES AND USES ALONG THE ROAD CORRIDOR.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSIONER MAY HAVE.

FORREST IHLER: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO.

OK, THANK YOU.

GOOD.

JUSTIN SCOTT: THANK YOU.

FORREST IHLER: THANK YOU.

NOW WE'RE CLEAR FROM THE CITY.

STAFF: ALL RIGHT, SO TODAY, WE REQUESTED ACTION IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

THIS ANNEXATION WAS REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

THE PROPERTY IS IN THE AREA OF IMPACT AND IS CONTIGUOUS TO CITY LIMITS ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE.

AND THE PARCELS ARE CONSIDERED A COUNTY ENCLAVE [INAUDIBLE].

AND THEN THE DIVIDING LINE-- SO PIT ROAD OR SOUTH 25TH EAST, WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL NAME OF THE ROAD.

IS OUR DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN AMMAN AND IDAHO FALLS? SO THIS WOULD BE ON THE IDAHO FALLS SIDE.

TO THE NORTH, YOU HAVE R-3A.

LC [INAUDIBLE] RESIDENTIAL WOULD ADHERE TO R-3A.

THE COMP PLAN SHOWS US AS MIXED-USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS, WHICH IS GOING TO BE A MIX, IS REALLY INTERESTING THAT MIXED-USE BUILDING, SMALL SCALE COMMERCIAL AND HOUSING.

IF I GO BACK, ABOVE THE R-3 AND ALONG MOST OF SOUTH 25TH EAST IS LC.

SO THE LC REALLY DOES ALIGN QUITE WELL AS YOU GO UP THIS CORRIDOR.

THE PROPOSED ZONING IS IN LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

UTILITIES ARE IN THERE.

YOU TALK ABOUT THE ACCESS.

THERE IS ALIGNMENT.

SUPPORTS THE LC ZONE.

AT THIS LOCATION, IT WILL ALLOW FOR FULL TRAIN MOVEMENTS IN THIS, AND SO IF YOU USE FOR COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL.

THEY WOULD BOTH BE FINE HERE IN THIS LOCATION.

I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE MUCH ELSE.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED EVERYTHING.

IT CALLS COMPREHENSIVE ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF LC ZONE.

ANY QUESTIONS? FORREST IHLER: QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YEAH.

COMMISSIONER: FROM THE SATELLITE IMAGERY, THERE'S EXISTING STRUCTURES AND USES ON THIS LAND.

IS THAT CONFORMING WITH THE LC THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO BRING IT IN UNDER? STAFF: SINGLE-UNIT DWELLING RESIDENTIAL IS PERMITTED UNDER LC.

COMMISSIONER: OK, THANK YOU.

FORREST IHLER: ANYTHING ELSE? COMMISSIONER: NO.

FORREST IHLER: OK, THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, NOW, SINCE THIS IS AN ANNEXATION, WE'LL DO THE-- I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SAME THING AS BEFORE.

JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

NO ONE? ALRIGHTY, OK, THEN I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONER, WHAT DO YOU THINK? THOUGHS? IT'S ALL GOOD? STRAIGHTFORWARD, NO CONCERNS? OK, WHO WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

MATTHEW MEEHAN: I DO.

FORREST IHLER: COMMISSIONER MEEHAN.

MATTHEW MEEHAN: I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF LC LIMITED COMMERCIAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

FORREST IHLER: ANYONE WANT A SECOND? DALE STORER: I'LL SECOND? FORREST IHLER: PERFECT.

WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL, SORRY.

OK, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS ANOTHER ANNEXATION.

[3. ANX26-013: Annexation and Initial Zoning of R1, Single Dwelling Residential for approximately 5.25 acres in the SE ¼ of Section 31, SW ¼ of Section 32, Township 2 North, Range 38 East; NW ¼ of Section 5, NE ¼ of Section 6, Township 1 North, Range 38 East. Located at the intersection of E 49th South and S Holmes Avenue. ¹]

IT WILL BE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING, R-1 SINGLE-DWELLING RESIDENTIAL, APPROXIMATELY 5.25 ACRES.

THIS IS JUST THE ROAD, THESE IS HOMES.

SO I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY.

STAFF: WE ARE INDEED THE APPLICANT.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION.

THE REQUESTED ACTION TONIGHT IS TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF AN R-1 SINGLE-DWELLING RESIDENTIAL.

IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING ANNEXING IN RIGHT-OF-WAY AS R-1, BUT IT'S A STATE STATUTE REQUIREMENT THAT DOES NOT EXEMPT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

THIS ANNEXATION IS ALL DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE COUNTY ALREADY, SO WE'RE NOT BRINGING ANYTHING EXTRA.

LET'S SEE.

SO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BORDERS CITY STREETS ON THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTH ALREADY,

[00:15:01]

AND SOME CITY AND COUNTY PROPERTIES ALONG THE WHOLE LENGTH, INCLUDING R-1, RP, AND R-2, SO THE R-1 IS NOT BAD.

SO WHY WE'RE BRINGING IT IN IS WE HAVE A WONDERFUL NEW INTERSECTION HERE, BEAUTIFUL NEW INTERSECTION THERE AT HOLMES AND 49TH.

SO WE'RE BRINGING IT IN SO WE CAN TAKE CARE OF IT, AND MAINTAIN THE ROAD, THE INTERSECTION, AND THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LEADING UP TO IT, GETTING THE TURN LANES AND WIDENING THAT EVER HAPPENS.

LET'S SEE.

AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT IS THAT WE'VE REVIEWED THE ANNEXATION INITIAL ZONING, THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR COMP PLAN AND OUR COMPREHENSIVE ZONING CODE, AND WE APPROVE OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION.

AND ANY QUESTIONS? FORREST IHLER: ANY QUESTIONS? NO? ALRIGHTY, CONSIDERING YOU ARE APPLICANT AND STAFF, I THINK WE'RE GOOD.

SO AWESOME.

NOW WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU.

YEAH, YOU.

STEVE JENSEN: OK, HELLO, MY NAME IS STEVE JENSEN.

I OWN THAT PROPERTY ON THE CORNER OF THE 49TH AND HOLMES.

FORREST IHLER: COULD WE GET HERE AT THE OFFICIAL ADDRESS? STEVE JENSEN: 4881 SOUTH HOLMES ROAD.

FORREST IHLER: THANK YOU.

STEVE JENSEN: I GUESS THIS IS A FIRST FOR ME.

I'M NOT SURE IF I'M DOING THIS RIGHT.

WHAT JUST HAPPENED? [LAUGHTER] IS IT JUST FOR THE INTERSECTION, OR IS IT FOR THE PROPERTY THAT WENT WITH THAT INTERSECTION? COMMISSIONER: WE CAN ADDRESS THAT-- FORREST IHLER: YEAH, YEAH.

COMMISSIONER: --IN COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION, IF THAT'S OK.

NOT REALLY A Q&A, BUT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN OUR DISCUSSION.

FORREST IHLER: YEAH, SO I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO, JUST SO WE CAN FOLLOW DECORUM-- YEAH, ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.

UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT A Q&A, BUT WE ASK OUR QUESTIONS, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE'LL GET ALL THE ANSWERS.

STEVE JENSEN: I GOT IT.

FORREST IHLER: WE JUST FOLLOW THE RULES HERE.

STEVE JENSEN: SO LIKE I SAID, THIS IS A FIRST FOR ME.

FORREST IHLER: NO, NO I APPRECIATE IT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND YOU'RE WONDERING THE PROPERTY THAT OR EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING ANNEXED, IS IT THE ACTUAL PROPERTIES ON EACH SIDE, OR WHICH PROPERTIES EXACTLY? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW.

STEVE JENSEN: IT IS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT INTERSECTION.

AND THEY JUST TOOK OUT A BUNCH OF MY DRIVEWAY TO REDO THAT INTERSECTION.

IS THIS FOR THE INTERSECTION, OR IS THIS FOR THE PROPERTY ALSO TO BE ANNEXED? FORREST IHLER: OK, UNDERSTOOD.

STEVE JENSEN: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

FORREST IHLER: YEP.

ALRIGHTY, YEAH, WE CAN HEAR FROM [INAUDIBLE].

STAFF: SO WE'LL GO BACK TO THE SMALLER [INAUDIBLE].

IN THE PACKETS, YOU MIGHT SEE THAT-- SO THIS PROPERTY HERE IS THE ONE THE GENTLEMAN IS TALKING ABOUT.

THIS IS ALREADY DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY, SO NO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS BEING MANAGED HERE.

IT'S JUST [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY THAT'S BEING BROUGHT INTO THE CITY.

FORREST IHLER: SO JUST TO CONFIRM, THERE'S NO PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING ANNEXED? IT IS JUST-- STAFF: THAT'S CORRECT.

IT'S JUST THE DEDICATED RIGHT-OF-WAY.

FORREST IHLER: OK, GOTCHA.

OK, SWEET.

HOPEFULLY, YOU HEARD THAT [INAUDIBLE].

GLEN OGDEN: I WILL SAY, LIVING JUST UP THE ROAD, I LOVE THE NEW INTERSECTION AND THE NEW LIGHT.

I HOPE IT CUTS DOWN ON ACCIDENTS AT THAT INTERSECTION, WHICH HAVE BEEN FREQUENT.

I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

FORREST IHLER: COMMISSIONER, LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

GLEN OGDEN: OH, I APOLOGIZE.

FORREST IHLER: NO, NO.

YOU'RE GOOD.

I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO GET IT MUDDY.

GLEN OGDEN: I GOT ALL EXCITED.

FORREST IHLER: I DID, TOO.

LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THERE WE GO.

GO FOR IT, AND I'LL REITERATE WHAT WAS SAID, TOO.

GLEN OGDEN: YOU ALREADY HAVE THAT, OR YOU WANT IT REPEATED? STAFF: I GOTCHA.

FORREST IHLER: OK, WE'LL PRETEND THAT HAPPENED AFTER WE CLOSED.

BUT ANYWAY, SO REDUCING ACCIDENTS-- GLEN OGDEN: OBVIOUSLY, HOLMES IS GOING TO BE WIDENED AT SOME POINT, AT LEAST TO THAT INTERSECTION, IF NOT BEYOND IT.

IT ALREADY IS A LITTLE WIDER SOUTH OF THERE,

[00:20:01]

WHERE IT IS NOT ANNEXING INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, OWNERS' HOMES, OR ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY.

AND IT'S JUST CONVERTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THAT FUTURE WIDENING.

I SEE NO CONCERN OR ISSUE HERE.

FORREST IHLER: GOTCHA, FOR SURE.

SO YEAH, THE CURRENT RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT BONNEVILLE COUNTY ALREADY HAD IS NOW JUST GOING TO IDAHO FALLS.

NOTHING ADDITIONAL, NO PRIVATE PROPERTY IS BEING ANNEXED.

AND SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT AS WELL.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? GLEN OGDEN: I WOULD.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE OR RECOMMEND TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING OF R-1 SINGLE-DWELLING RESIDENTIAL FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG HOMES ON 49TH STREET.

FORREST IHLER: WHO WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT? DALE STORER: I'LL SECOND THAT ONE ALSO.

WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

STAFF: MOTION PASSED.

NOW WE'LL GO TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE STARTER HOME

[4. RZN26-008: Ordinance amending Sections 11-2-3 Allowed Uses in Residential Zones, 11-2-4: Allowed Uses in Commercial Zones, 11-2-6: Standards for Allowed Uses (P) Dwelling, Single Unit Attached and (BB) Starter Home Subdivision and 11-7-1: Definitions. ]

SUBDIVISION.

SO WE'LL HEAR FROM CITY STAFF ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

STAFF: ALL RIGHT, COMMISSION, SO TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO FORMAT THIS IN A WAY WHERE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY TO MY PRESENTATION.

I'M GOING TO BE SHOWING THE PROCESS OF HOW WE GOT TO THE CODE AND GIVE YOU ALL SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION AT ALL.

SO THIS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

SO IN THE IDAHO LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION, THEY PASSED SENATE BILL NUMBER 1352, STARTER HOME SUBDIVISIONS.

THIS COMES FROM THE BILL, AND THE BILL WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL.

IT'S MEANT FOR RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS WITH SMALLER LOTS.

AND THEY'VE ADDRESSED SOME THINGS IN HERE, SUCH AS THAT IT SHOULD BE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, THE LOTS SHOULD BE 1,500 SQUARE FEET AT THE MINIMUM, OR NO GREATER THAN.

WE'LL GET TO THAT POINT IN A MINUTE.

AND IT HAS TO BE ON 4 ACRES.

AND THIS HAS TO BE PERMITTED IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

SO A PART OF THIS IS WE HAVE TO IMPLEMENT THIS PER THE STATE STATUTE FOR CITIES OVER 10,000 BY FEBRUARY 1, 2027.

SO THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH TO GET BACK TO THAT DATE.

SO I WANT TO GIVE YOU SOME TIMELINES AND WHERE WE STARTED AND WHEN WE'VE GOTTEN HERE.

YOU MIGHT REMEMBER A NICE HOT SUMMER DAY IN AUGUST 8, WHERE WE BROUGHT THIS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AS A WORK SESSION AND GAVE YOU A HEADS-UP.

THIS WAS COMING.

WE ANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR YOU AND TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THIS.

AND WE TOOK IT TO A WORK SESSION AT CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 10.

AT THAT POINT, WE PRESENTED TO COUNCIL A FEW DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND WAYS TO GO ON THIS BILL.

IMPLEMENTING IT AS THE STATE HAS WRITTEN IT MAKES IT PRETTY MUCH UNDEVELOPABLE IN A LOT OF WAYS.

OR WE COULD GO AND TAKE THE STATE STATUTE, AND THE STATE STATUTE DOES LET YOU BE LESS RESTRICTIVE AND CREATE A CODE THAT WORKS FOR IDAHO FALLS AND GIVE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE ACHIEVABLE, WHICH DOES MEET THE INTENT OF THE STATE CODE.

FROM THERE, WE CREATED A SUBCOMMITTEE.

AND I'LL TALK ABOUT SUBCOMMITTEE, THE NEXT SLIDE.

BUT WE TOOK THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, AND WE MET WITH THEM ON AUGUST 27, 2026.

WE TOOK ALL THEIR INPUT, AND THEN WE CRAFTED DRAFTED A CODE TO TOOK THAT TO THEM ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2026.

AND THEN I GAVE THIS VERY SIMILAR PRESENTATION TO [INAUDIBLE] COUNCIL AGAIN ON OCTOBER 19 OF LAST MONTH, AND NOW HERE WE ARE, NOVEMBER 04, FOR PLANNING COMMISSION.

SO THE PROCESS ONCE ADOPTED-- THE COMMISSION, YOU HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHEN IT COMES TO YOU? HOW DOES THIS WORK? TO GO OVER IT QUICKLY, IT WOULD BE SUBMITTED AS A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION, WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

OUR ONLINE PERMITTING SYSTEM-- WE CAN CREATE A SEPARATE PROJECT FOR THAT, SO ALL THE REVIEWER, ALL CITY STAFF WOULD KNOW AT THE START OF THE SUBDIVISION.

THEY REVIEW IT THOSE GUIDELINES.

ONCE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT IS APPROVED, YOU, AS A PLANNING COMMISSION, ARE THE DECIDING BODY ON THAT ONE.

THEN THEY WOULD FINALIZE THE PLAT IT, AND THAT IS A BUSINESS ITEM, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, AND THOSE WOULD GO TO YOU AND CITY COUNCIL.

FROM THERE, IT'S A BUILDING PERMIT.

THEY WOULD SUBMIT BUILDING PERMITS.

AND I PUT TRAINING BUDDY REVIEW.

SO OUR BUILDING PERMIT REVIEWS RESIDENTIAL SITE PLANS.

[00:25:01]

WE WOULD BE DOING TRAINING WITH OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT OUR PLANNERS ARE ALSO REVIEWED AS THIS IS NEW.

WE'LL BE REVIEWING THOSE SITE PLANS AS WELL WITH OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THEY MEET ALL THE SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING.

SO I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

WE CREATED A SUBCOMMITTEE.

WE HAVE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS, TWO PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS, ENGINEERS, AND SOME IN THIS ROOM HERE, DEVELOPERS.

WE HAVE AN AMMON COUNCIL MEMBER AND AN AMMON PLANNING STAFF, AND OF COURSE, YOUR CITY PLANNING STAFF WERE THERE AS WELL.

SO THE FEEDBACK WE GOT FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS PARKING, LOT COVERAGE, PERMITTING ATTACHED HOMES AND DENSITY.

AND THOSE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT THE BILL DOESN'T COVER.

SO, WHEN I OUTLINE MY STAFF REPORT, YOU CAN SEE THE BILL DOESN'T TALK ABOUT A LOT.

IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT DENSITY, PARKING, LOT COVERAGE, THE USES EXCEPT FOR SINGLE-DETACHED HOMES.

SO WE TRY TO ADDRESS IN THAT CODE.

AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH-- AND POINT OUT A FEW THINGS THAT WE'VE CHANGED, OR WE'RE SUGGESTING FOR FEASIBILITY.

AND THIS IS HOW THE CODE READS.

SO THE STATE SAYS THAT IT HAS TO BE 4 ACRES OR LARGER IN ALL RESIDENTIAL ZONES.

WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT IT COULD BE REDUCED TO 2 ACRES IN R-2, TN, R-3, R-3A, RMH, LC, AND CC.

THAT IS A TAKE AND PUSH IT MORE TOWARDS THOSE ZONES THAT MIGHT HAVING HIGHER DENSITY OR MORE PRONE TO HAVE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THAT.

AND THE NEXT PART IS THE STATE CODE SAYS THAT IT SHOULD BE SINGLE-UNIT DETACHED.

WE ARE ACTUALLY SUGGESTING THAT IT CAN BE THAT OR SINGLE-UNIT ATTACHED.

THAT WAS A BIG FEEDBACK FOR THE SUBCOMMITTEE, WITH THE TWO CAVEATS.

ONE IS THE CC ZONE, OR CENTRAL COMMERCIAL ZONE ACTUALLY DOES NOT PERMIT SINGLE-UNIT DETACHED HOMES.

IT WILL PERMIT ALL DWELLING UNITS EXCEPT FOR DETACHED HOMES.

SO IN THE CC ZONE ONLY-- YOU CAN ONLY DO SINGLE-UNIT GET IT DETACHED IF IT WAS A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION.

IN THE RE AND RP ZONES, WE'RE SAYING THE ONLY DWELLING SINGLE-UNIT DETACHED CAN BE PERMITTED, AS THAT'S WHAT'S PERMITTED IN THE UNDERLYING ZONE.

SO THAT WAS A WAY TO-- THERE WAS CONVERSATIONS OF DO YOU ZONE SOMETHING RP AND THEN A CERTAIN ONE COMES IN? THAT WE CAN'T HELP, BUT THIS IS A WAY TO KEEP IT TO WHAT'S ON THAT UNDERLYING ZONE.

IT STILL MEETS STATE CODE.

SO THE SETBACKS-- SO THE STATE STATUTE SAYS THAT THE MINIMUM SETBACK CAN'T BE GREATER THAN 15 FEET.

WE'RE PROPOSING THAT SETBACK CAN'T BE MORE THAN 5 FEET.

WE'RE GOING TO STICK WITH THAT.

THE STATE SAYS THAT THE REAR SETBACK HAS TO BE 15.

WE'RE ACTUALLY SUGGESTING 10 FEET.

AND YOU'LL FIND THE THEME WE'RE PULLING A LOT, ACTUALLY, FROM OUR TN ZONING, OUR TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE.

THAT'S KIND OF LIKE OUR MODEL FOR SMALL LOTS, AND IT'S WORKED WELL.

ALSO, ON TOP OF THAT, THESE SUBDIVISIONS STILL HAVE TO MEET ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS.

UTILITIES, FIRE WE'RE GOING TO PUT A TRANSFORMER.

IF WE DO 10 FEET, IT GIVES THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM ON THE LOT TO PUT WHAT THEY NEED FOR THOSE UTILITIES.

THE REAR SETBACK MAY REDUCE TO THREE FEET FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE WHERE THERE'S AN ALLEY.

THAT'S ALREADY IN OUR CODE, SO WE JUST WANT TO ADD THAT TO THE STARTER HOMES AS WELL.

THE LOT SIZE.

SO THE STATE STATUTE ACTUALLY CONTRADICTS ITSELF.

IN ONE PART, IT SAYS IT CAN'T BE GREATER THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET IN ONLY THE TWO PAGES.

THE SECOND PART SAYS IT CAN'T BE LESS THAN 1,500 SQUARE FEET FOR THE LOT AT THE HOME.

THAT'S THE LOT.

FROM THERE, THERE'S TWO LEGAL OPINIONS, ONE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE OFFICE SAYING THAT THEY PROBABLY MET THE MINIMUM.

IT'S THE INTENT OF WHAT THEY SAID.

THERE'S ANOTHER LEGAL OPINION THAT SAYS THE CODE DOES ALLOW BOTH.

IT COULD BE UP TO-- IT COULD BE IN.

AND WE HAVE HEARD THAT IN THIS NEXT SESSION THEY WILL BE CORRECTING THAT.

SO WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO WAS SAY THE LOT SIZES SHALL BE SIZED IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE REQUIRED SETBACKS.

SO IT'S NOT 1,500.

IT'S JUST IT NEEDS TO MEET YOUR SETBACKS.

A PART OF THAT IS ALSO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SAYS THAT CORNER LOTS HAVE TO BE LIKE 10% LARGER.

THIS ACCOMMODATES THAT AS WELL WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE ANOTHER CHANGE IN ANOTHER PART OF THE CODE.

SO IF THEY'RE IN A CORNER LOT, THEY HAVE TO HAVE TWO 15-FEET SETBACKS.

I THINK THIS WAS A WAY TO-- AND IF THE STATE COMES BACK AND CHANGES IT, WE MIGHT SEE AMENDMENTS AS THIS GOES THROUGH.

[00:30:01]

THIS IS ALL BRAND NEW.

WE'RE DOING OUR BEST.

AND IT'LL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW THIS GOES.

ON THE LOT COVERAGE-- SO THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, WE'RE SUGGESTING BE 80%, AND THAT IS ONLY AREAS THAT ARE UNDER ROOFS.

THAT'S NOT YOUR PARKING PAD.

THAT'S JUST ROOFED AREAS.

THAT WAS, AGAIN, SOMETHING THAT CAME FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

WE HAVE 80% OTHER ZONES, AND WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE SMALL LOTS.

THE DENSITY-- THE STATE STATUTE DOES NOT ADDRESS DENSITY.

AS WE LOOKED AT EXAMPLES ACROSS THE CITY OF OTHER SIMILAR SMALLER LOTS, AND I LOOKED AT THE TABLE, WE DECIDED 15 UNITS PER GROSS ACRE WOULD BE THE DENSITY FOR THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISIONS, OR THE DENSITY OF THE UNDERLYING ZONE IF GREATER.

AGAIN, 15 IS THAT TN ZONE DENSITY.

PARKING.

SO PARKING WAS A REALLY BIG ONE THAT CAME FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

AND WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT PARKING SHALL BE TWO PARKING SPACES PER LOT AND STANDARD SIZE, BUT IT MAY BE TANDEM ON AN APPROVED DRIVEWAY THAT LEADS TO EITHER A GARAGE OR PARKING, SO BEHIND THE FRONT SETBACK.

SO YOU CAN HAVE A ONE-CAR GARAGE, THE DRIVEWAY THAT LEADS TO IT.

THAT WOULD BE YOUR TWO PARKING STALLS.

OR IF YOU HAVE A PRIVATE ALLEY, THAT'S INCLUDED ON OR ADJACENT TO THE LOT.

PARKING MAY BE REDUCED TO ONE PARKING STALL THAT YOU CAN ACCESS FROM THAT PRIVATE ALLEY, BECAUSE THEN YOU COULD HAVE ONE ON-STREET PARKING BECAUSE THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY.

AND THESE ARE PUBLIC STREETS.

THESE ARE NOT ON PRIVATE STREETS.

SO THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO NOTE.

THESE ARE MORE-- WE ADDRESS ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.

OUR CODE, WHICH IS PROBABLY PART OF THE CODE YOU DON'T SEE A LOT-- WE HAVE A WHOLE SEPARATE TABLE FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN DIFFERENT ZONES.

SO WE JUST ADDED THIS.

IT'S VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER ZONES.

HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE THE HEIGHT FOR THE UNDERLYING ZONE.

WE DIDN'T FEEL THE NEED TO CHANGE THAT.

WE FEEL LIKE THAT WORKS FOR THOSE ZONES.

THE APPROVAL PROCESS-- AND THEN IN THE DEFINITION, WE DID PUT THAT IT HAS TO HAVE FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC STREET.

SO THAT WAS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF.

NOW, AS WE TALKED ABOUT USES AND DWELLING UNITS, ABOUT A YEAR AGO, WE WERE WORKING ON IMPACT FEES.

AND WHEN IMPACT FEES, THAT CODE WAS CHANGING, WE WERE LOOKING AT DEFINITIONS OF OUR DWELLING UNITS.

AND WE WERE TRYING TO MATCH UP MORE WITH WHAT BUILDING AND FIRE AND EVERYONE BECAUSE WE FOUND THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS.

SO LAST YEAR, WE CAME UP WITH THIS.

IMPACT FEES [INAUDIBLE] LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY.

WE DIDN'T BRING THIS TO YOU QUITE YET.

BUT THIS HAS BEEN SEEN BY LEGAL, BY OUR COUNSEL ALREADY, AND BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

AND SO WE THOUGHT AS WE TALKED ABOUT USES AND WHAT'S PERMITTED IN THE SUBDIVISION, WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO BRING THIS TO YOU AS WELL, TO INCLUDE IT IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING KIND OF LINES UP FROM THE GET-GO.

SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN THIS.

THIS IS OUR USE TABLE.

I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THE STARTER HOME AS IT COMPARES TO OUR OTHER ZONES.

SO AGAIN, 15 FEET FOR FRONT SETBACK.

THAT'S NOT OUT OF THE NORM FOR OUR CODE.

SAME WITH 5 FEET, AND SAME WITH THE 10 WITH OUR TN ZONES, THE DENSITY YOU CAN SEE HERE, AND THE LOT COVERAGE.

I THINK THAT'S IT.

SO FROM THERE, THAT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

GLEN OGDEN: I HAVE ONE QUESTION.

FORREST IHLER: GO OGDEN, AND THEN SCOTT.

GLEN OGDEN: I'M JUST CURIOUS ON-- WAS THERE ANY-- I WAS LOOKING FOR IT IN THE MINUTES FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEES.

BUT ANY RATIONALE ON WHY EVERY LOT NEEDS TO FACE-- OR HAVE SOME FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROADWAY, WHY COULDN'T DO SOME INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE LOTS? I JUST THINK YOU CAN GIVE MORE HOMES ON A FOUR-ACRE OR LARGER LOT IF NOT EVERY LOT HAS TO HAVE FRONTAGE TO A CITY STREET, SO I WAS CURIOUS WHY THAT IS.

STAFF: CURRENTLY, THE SUBDIVISION OR ORDINANCE SAYS IT HAS-- ANY LOT HAS TO HAVE PUBLIC STREET FRONTAGE.

IF IT DOESN'T, THEN IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ON A PRIVATE STREET, AND THAT WOULD BE A PUD.

SO WE DIDN'T REALLY WANT TO START TO MIX THEM.

BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO A PRIVATE STREET LIKE THAT, YOU WOULD JUST DO A PUD.

GLEN OGDEN: OK, THAT'S WHY.

SO YOU COULD STILL DO IT, IT JUST WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THE DEFINITION OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT AS A PUD, NOT A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION.

STAFF: CORRECT.

GLEN OGDEN: THANK YOU.

THAT CLARIFIES [INAUDIBLE].

FORREST IHLER: COMMISSIONER SCOTT.

BILL SCOTT: I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IT SAYS, THAT STARTER HOME SUBDIVISIONS MUST BE ALLOWED

[00:35:05]

IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.

OK, A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

IT SAYS FOUR ACRES OR LARGER, IS THERE A MAXIMUM SIZE? STAFF: NO.

BILL SCOTT: SO IS THERE ANY REASON WHY, EVEN IN AN R-1 ZONE, IT COULDN'T HAVE A LARGE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION? STAFF: YOU DEFINITELY CAN.

ABSOLUTELY.

YES, THEY JUST HAS TO BE, IN R-1 ZONE, A MINIMUM OF FOUR ACRES OF THE PARCEL, BUT IT CAN BE FOUR ACRES OR GREATER.

BILL SCOTT: SO ESSENTIALLY, YOU CAN TAKE A WHOLE 30 ACRES OR WHATEVER-- STAFF: CORRECT.

BILL SCOTT: --AND MAKE IT A STARTER HOME, EVEN IF IT'S IN AN R-1 ZONE? STAFF: CORRECT.

BILL SCOTT: [INAUDIBLE] CREATE A BUNCH OF PUBLIC ROADS [INAUDIBLE] SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS [INAUDIBLE].

I GUESS MAYBE THAT'S-- IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT'S DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF HAVING R-1, OR R-2, OR ANYTHING.

BUT THAT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW [INAUDIBLE].

FORREST IHLER: CORRECT.

DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? STAFF: MR. CHAIR, CAN I ADD TO YOUR-- I THINK, COMMISSIONER SCOTT, THAT IS THE STATE'S INTENT.

SO ONE OF THE PURPOSES THE STATE WAS LOOKING AT AND REQUIRING THIS ACROSS THE STATE IS SPECIFICALLY SO COMMUNITIES COULD NOT PROVIDE FOR IT, THAT WE ARE PROVIDING FOR SMALL LOTS IN ALL PARTS OF OUR CITY, WHERE RESIDENTS ARE ALLOWED STILL PLAN AND WORK THROUGH, BUT ALLOWING IT EVERYWHERE.

SO YOU'RE TRACKING JUST RIGHT, BUT I THINK THIS WAS EXACTLY THE STATE'S INTENT, WAS TO PROVIDE FOR SMALL LOTS IN AN R-1 ZONE OR RP ZONE.

FORREST IHLER: I HAVE A QUESTION.

AT SOME POINT IN THE PRESENTATION, YOU MENTIONED THAT THEY CAN BE ATTACHED, SINGLE-FAMILY, ESSENTIALLY R-2 AND UP, BUT THEN ONLY DETACHED FOR RP AND RE.

WHAT ABOUT R-1? STAFF: SO IN THE RE AND RP, YOU ONLY HAVE SINGLE-UNIT DETACHED.

R-1 COULD BE ATTACHED.

R-1 SINGLE-UNIT ATTACHED IS ALREADY PERMITTED IN R-1.

FORREST IHLER: OH, OK.

JUST BECAUSE HERE IT'S SAYING ALSO R-2, TN-- STAFF: THAT'S THE SIZE, UP TOP.

SO THE B IS THE SIZE, FOUR ACRES VERSUS TWO ACRES, AND THEN C IS WHAT'S PERMITTED AS A USE.

NO WORRIES.

I FIGURED THIS OUT A LOT, SO DON'T YOU-- I GOT YOU.

THE RE AND RP WOULD BE ONLY THE [INAUDIBLE] DETACHED.

BECAUSE I THINK WE HEARD A LOT OF IT'S RP, AND NOW YOU'RE PUTTING ALL THESE HOMES.

THAT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF PROTECTION THAT WE CAN GET IN THIS CODE.

MARY SCALES: I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DURING OUR WORK SESSION, BUT WHAT AREAS OF THE CITY ARE POTENTIALLY IDENTIFIED FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND ARE THEY CONSISTENT WITH YOUR CURRENT ZONE FOR THIS LEVEL OF POTENTIAL DENSITY AND THAT SORT OF THING? STAFF: CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE? MARY SCALES: ARE WE GOING TO SEE ANY ISSUES IF SOMETHING LIKE THIS COMES TO COMMISSION, WHERE WE HAVE SOME NEWNESS TO THE LAW AND THE APPLICABILITY OF THE CODE? WHERE MIGHT WE SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

STAFF: I THINK YOUR LARGER ACRE OR ON THE OUTSIDE, OF THE OUTSKIRTS-- AND SO BY DOING THE TWO ACRES, WE CAN MAYBE LOOK AT MORE INFILL OR OTHER PLACES NOT TO DO THEM.

FORREST IHLER: TAKING THE PRESSURE OFF OF THE PERIPHERY OF TOWN.

YEAH, SWEET.

STAFF: YEAH, TO BE HONEST, THESE COULD BE TOUGH HEARINGS FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND IT'S HARD BECAUSE THE STATE HAS TOLD US.

MARY SCALES: FOR THE TWO-ACRE ADJUSTMENT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY STAFF HAS CHOSEN TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, AS AN ASPECT OF THE LAW THAT'S ALLOWED WITHIN THIS PROCESS.

STAFF: YEAH, YOU CAN BE LESS RESTRICTIVE.

AND THE COMMITTEE WAS GOOD WITH IT.

WE PRESENTED THIS TO COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE], AND CITY HOTELS ARE DOING SOMETHING QUITE SIMILAR.

MARY SCALES: OK, AWESOME.

STAFF: MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD JUST ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE? LOOKING AT THE COMP PLAN, I THINK MAYBE WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS THE STARTER HOME WILL STILL ALIGN WITH THE SUBURBAN TRANSECT.

AND SO I THINK IF WE WERE THINKING ABOUT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A ZONING DESIGNATION, NORMALLY WE ALL OF US WOULD THINK THAT SUBURBAN TRANSECTS ARE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT DETACHED, SINGLE, LARGER LOT, AND IS THAT GOING TO WORK OR ARE WE GOING TO BE OUT OF STATE.

BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE TRANSECT DEFINITION IS WORDED, IT ALLOWS FOR THE MIX AND THE SMALLER UNITS.

[00:40:02]

SO I THINK WE'RE STILL IN SYNC WITH THE COMP PLAN TO THE ZONE, TO THEN THE EVENTUAL USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION.

SO WHEN WE'RE CONSIDERING THE PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND WE MAKE THAT STATEMENT THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE COMP PLAN, WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT.

AS WE'RE APPROVING THE PLAT, WE'LL STILL BE ABLE TO SIT THERE AND BE IN SYNC.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET SOME WEIRD JUXTAPOSITION THERE.

STAFF: YES, WE LOOKED AT THAT BECAUSE THE LAW DOES STATE THAT CITIES HAVE TO ALSO UPDATE THEIR COMP PLANS IF THEY DON'T MATCH WITH THAT.

BUT WITH [INAUDIBLE] I THINK ARE IN SUPPORT WITH IT.

AND I DON'T THINK [INAUDIBLE].

MATTHEW MEEHAN: I'LL SAY, FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR CO-COMMISSIONERS, COMMISSIONER IHLER AND I SERVED ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE THAT HELPED PUT THIS TOGETHER.

IT WAS A PRETTY EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS WHERE WE DISCUSSED A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE PRESENTED HERE OF, HEY, THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS ROAD FRONTAGE, THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS LOT COVERAGE, THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS PARKING, ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE IN OUR CODE THAT WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT.

AND I AGREE, IT IS LIKELY TO LEAD TO SOME DIFFICULT HEARINGS IN THE FUTURE.

I THINK WE CAN POINT TO THE FACT THAT THIS IS A STATE-LEVEL MANDATE.

BUT I THINK YOU'VE DONE A REALLY GOOD JOB OF FIGURING OUT THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, THE LETTER OF THE LAW, HOW WE CAN ADAPT IT TO OUR CITY TO BE MORE LENIENT WHERE WE NEED TO BE, AND I WANT TO BE AND NOT FALL FOUL OF IT IN THE AREAS WHERE WE CAN ENFORCE THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE.

SO [INAUDIBLE] DID A GREAT JOB.

FORREST IHLER: ABSOLUTELY.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO? OK, SWEET.

NOW, SINCE THIS IS AN ORDINANCE CHANGE, THIS IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING.

OK, SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS.

NO ONE? NOPE? OK, WE'RE ALL GOOD.

I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION, YOUR THOUGHTS, FEELINGS, DESIRES? GLEN OGDEN: THANKS FOR TAKING ONE FOR THE TEAM, COMMISSIONER IHLER AND COMMISSIONER MEEHAN, AND PARTICIPATING IN THAT PROCESS.

IT WAS EXHAUSTIVE.

I'M SURE A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO IT.

I WISH WE COULD PUT A FEW MORE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR DIFFERENT ZONES, BUT IT WAS DESIGNED TO NOT ALLOW THAT.

AND I THINK THE PROPOSALS, AS THEY STAND, PROVIDE AS MUCH PROTECTION AS WE'RE ALLOWED LEGALLY TO HAVE, AND I CAN'T SEE ANY IMPROVEMENT.

SO WELL DONE.

FORREST IHLER: YEAH, I AGREE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE-- I THINK SOME CLEVER THINGS WERE DONE TO NOT-- BY DOING THE TWO ACRES, IT'S GOING TO HELP RELIEVE PRESSURE OFF OF POTENTIAL SITES ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE CITY WHERE WE COULD START SEEING PEOPLE HAVING ISSUES WITH IT.

SO WE'RE NOT UNDERMINING THE LAW.

WE'RE JUST PUSHING IT IN A BETTER DIRECTION THAT FITS OUR CITY WHILE STILL FOLLOWING THE NEW LAW.

SO I THINK IT'S A PERFECT BLEND PERSONALLY.

ANYONE ELSE? NO? OK, WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MATTHEW MEEHAN: I'LL DO IT.

FORREST IHLER: COMMISSIONER MEEHAN.

MATTHEW MEEHAN: I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION CODE AMENDMENTS ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 11-2-3, ALLOWED USES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, 11-2-4, ALLOWED USES IN COMMERCIAL ZONES, 11-2-6, STANDARDS FOR ALLOWED USES P, DWELLING SINGLE-UNIT DETACHED, AND BD, STARTER HOME SUBDIVISION AND 11-7-1, DEFINITIONS, TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO SECOND THAT? GLEN OGDEN: I CAN.

WE WILL TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE.

STAFF: MEEHAN MATTHEW MEEHAN: AYE.

STAFF: MOTION PASSED.

THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE ON THAT.

THAT WAS A LONG--

[5. Resolution validating conformity of the Urban Renewal Plan for the Proposed Skyline-Broadway Urban Renewal Plan with the City of Idaho Falls’ Comprehensive Plan. ]

THAT WAS A VERY LONG AND EXHAUSTIVE THING FOR THE CITY TO DO.

AND SO YOU GUYS DID REALLY GOOD WORK.

STAFF: THANK YOU ALL.

FORREST IHLER: YEAH, WE'RE ALMOST OVER THE FINISH LINE WITH THAT ONE, SO MUCH APPRECIATED.

OK, NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA.

WE GOT THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR SKYLINE BROADWAY.

WE'LL HEAR FROM BRAD.

BRAD CRAMER: I'VE BEEN CALLED WORSE.

YEAH, THE APPLICANT.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

BRAD CRAMER.

[00:45:02]

I'M HERE IN MY CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY.

AND AS YOU MENTIONED, TONIGHT IS A FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION OF A NEW URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT THAT'S BEING TITLED THE SKYLINE BROADWAY RENEWAL DISTRICT OR RENEWAL AREA.

WE'RE NEARING THE END OF THE PROCESS OF CREATION OF THE DISTRICT.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, IT'S ALREADY GONE THROUGH APPROVAL OF THE ELIGIBILITY STUDY BY BOTH THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY, NIAGARA FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL.

IFRA HAS ALSO APPROVED THE ORIGINAL PLAN AND THE ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY STUDY.

SO TONIGHT, THIS IS BEFORE YOU AND YOUR ROLE BEFORE THE STATE STATUTE TO REVIEW THE PLAN AND ITS CONFORMITY WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MUNICIPALITY AS A WHOLE.

SO THAT IS YOUR ROLE THIS EVENING.

AND WHAT I'VE TRIED TO DO IN PREPARATION OF THE MEMO THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET AND THE SLIDES IS TO JUST SUMMARIZE HOW THE PLAN RELATES TO-- HOW THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN RELATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT DIRECTLY TIE INTO [INAUDIBLE], AS WELL AS SOME GENERAL PLANNING POLICY GOALS.

SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE ON THIS SLIDE IS THE STUDY AREA.

IT'S ROUGHLY 90 ACRES, MOSTLY LOCATED SOUTH OF BROADWAY, EAST OF SKYLINE, WEST OF I-15, AND NORTH OF PANCARI DRIVE.

PART OF THE REASON FOR ALL THE JOGS THERE TOWARDS THE CENTER AS IT FOLLOWS THE PROPERTIES ALONG SATURN, IS THAT TO THE WEST OF THOSE LINES, THERE REALLY WEREN'T ANY REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN TERMS OF VACANT LOTS, BUT TO THE EAST THERE ARE SEVERAL PARCELS THAT HAVE NEVER DEVELOPED.

THERE'S ALSO THIS SUBDIVISION HERE.

THIS WAS FOR MANY YEARS A COUNTY ISLAND DEVELOPED TO COUNTY STANDARDS.

IT WAS ANNEXED JUST A FEW YEARS AGO AS PART OF THE CITY'S EFFORT TO CLEAN UP PARCELS THAT HAD CONNECTIONS TO CITY UTILITIES.

THE REASON I POINT THAT OUT IS IT'S CURRENTLY A SUBDIVISION THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SIDEWALKS, AND IT DOES HAVE SOME DETERIORATING INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY PERHAPS, IF THE DISTRICT IS SUCCESSFUL PASSING FUNDS AVAILABLE TO ASSIST WITH IMPROVING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE ORIGINAL REQUEST THAT CAME FROM THE DEVELOPER WAS ACTUALLY JUST THIS CORNER HERE AT SKYLINE AND BROADWAY.

THERE ARE SOME PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT THERE.

IF YOU'VE DRIVEN BY, THERE IS A COUPLE OF SIGNS OUT THERE THAT HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE MASTER PLAN [INAUDIBLE] THE DEVELOPER IS.

AS THE AGENCY AND CITY LOOKED AT THIS, THERE'S JUST ENOUGH OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, PARCELS TO THE NORTHWEST, FOR EXAMPLE, AS WELL AS SOME OF THESE PARCELS ON THE FAR EAST OF THE BOUNDARY, THAT HAVE DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT IT MADE SENSE TO EXPAND THAT BOUNDARY AND TRY TO CAPTURE SOME ADDITIONAL REDEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES.

IN TERMS OF THE ELIGIBILITY OF THE DISTRICT, THE STATE OUTLINES 15 CRITERIA THAT A PROPERTY HAS TO BE EVALUATED AGAINST.

IT ONLY HAS TO MEET ONE OF THEM.

BUT PER THE ELIGIBILITY STUDY, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WERE MET.

THE MOST OBVIOUS ISSUES WERE THE UNSUITABLE TOPOGRAPHY, THE SUBSTANTIAL DETERIORATION OF STRUCTURES ON SITE, AND THE ECONOMIC UNDERDEVELOPMENT AND ECONOMIC DISUSE OF THE AREA.

IF YOU GO OUT AND DRIVE OR WALK THIS AREA, YOU'LL NOTICE, ESPECIALLY ON THE FAR EAST, YOU HAVE NOT ONLY VISIBLE BASALT, BUT IT'S ELEVATED UP ABOVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

IT'S SIGNIFICANT, VERY, VERY DIFFICULT, CHALLENGING, AND EXPENSIVE TO REMEDIATE.

ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PARCEL,, AND ONE OF THE ORIGINAL REASONS FOR THIS REQUEST, YOU HAVE SOME SERIOUS DROPS IN TOPOGRAPHY FROM SKYLINE JUST DOWN TO WHAT IS NOW THE U-HAUL BUILDING.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE OLD US BANK WAS BEFORE IT WAS DEMOLISHED, THERE'S STILL A VERY TALL [INAUDIBLE] ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES.

THAT REMAINS A CONDITION THAT IS AN ISSUE.

AS I ALREADY MENTIONED, ALSO, A LOT OF DETERIORATION OF THE SITE, ESPECIALLY THE CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK THAT DOES EXIST EVEN ON SKYLINE AND BOULEVARD.

AND THEN OTHER AREAS, WHERE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE, THE ASPHALT IS ALSO DETERIORATED SUBSTANTIALLY.

IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-- I'LL DO THIS PART REALLY QUICKLY BECAUSE YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THIS PLAN.

THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S A MIX OF GENERAL URBAN AND MIXED-USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS.

I WILL NOT READ ALL OF THIS BECAUSE YOU PROBABLY READ IT ALL THE TIME IN YOUR PACKETS.

BUT THESE MIXED-USE CENTERS AND CORRIDORS ARE REALLY A PLACE THAT YOU'D EXPECT TO FIND A MIX OF USES, ALL KINDS OF HOUSING, AND COMMERCIAL USES, WHERE PEOPLE

[00:50:01]

CAN GATHER AND TAKE CARE OF BASIC NEEDS, AS WELL AS THE WALKABLE AREA.

GENERAL URBAN IS SIMILAR, ALTHOUGH PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL.

THESE ARE AREAS THAT ARE CLOSE TO A MIX OF COMMERCIAL USES AND SERVICE USES.

AGAIN, IN A WALKABLE AREA.

ONE THING I WOULD HIGHLIGHT FROM THIS DEFINITION, THAT VERY LAST LINE, IS THAT THESE AREAS SHOULD BE NEAR AN EXISTING OR PART OF A NEW WALKABLE CENTER.

AND THE REASON THAT'S IMPORTANT WILL COME UP IN A COUPLE OF SLIDES.

SO LET ME JUST HIT ZONING REAL QUICK.

THIS IS AGAIN A MIX OF ZONES, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THOSE TWO DESIGNATIONS.

YOU HAVE MEDIUM AND HIGHER-DENSITY ZONES, AND WITH THE R-2, AND R-3A, AND THE R-3, AND THEN A COMMERCIAL ZONES AS WELL WITH THE LC AND HC ZONES.

SO YOU WOULD EXPECT TO FIND A MIX OF USES HERE IS WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WOULD EXPECT.

I'D ALSO HIGHLIGHT HERE IN THE CENTER ALL OF THE PUBLIC AND OPEN SPACE ZONING THERE.

THOSE ARE ALL CITY-CONTROLLED PROPERTIES ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR PARKS.

DUE TO THE SHALLOW BASALT, THOSE PARKS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE TO DEVELOP.

AND SO HERE, AGAIN, IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP WHERE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING CAN ASSIST WITH DEVELOPING THOSE PARKS.

AND I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AS WELL BECAUSE THAT PARK ON THE LARGER PARCEL THERE ON THE EAST SIDE OF SATURN IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS AREA.

SO BACK TO OPTICAL CENTERS, THIS IMAGE HERE IS FROM A DOCUMENT THAT THE CITY PUT TOGETHER WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PROGRAM FROM UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY.

THE IMAGINEIF DOCUMENT CALLS OUT, AS A POLICY GOAL, THE IDEA OF DEVELOPING WALKABLE CENTERS IN THE CITY WHERE RESIDENTS COULD EASILY WALK TO OR BIKE TO A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES AND SERVICES AS WELL.

AND ONE OF THEM IN IMAGINEIF IS IDENTIFIED SPECIFICALLY AS SKYLINE AND BROADWAY.

AND SO UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOOKED AT THE POTENTIAL WALKABLE CENTERS AND DEVELOPED VERY THESE ARE VERY CONCEPT-LEVEL PLANS.

THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN HERE.

BUT THIS IS ONE OF THE IMAGES FROM THAT DOCUMENT THAT SHOWS THERE IN THE CENTER THAT IS THE SKYLINE AND BROADWAY INTERSECTION THERE.

EXCUSE ME.

NO, IT'S NOT.

THAT'S ACTUALLY HERE IN BETWEEN THE TWO.

THAT'S SATURN AND BROADWAY.

SO DEFINITELY AN AREA THAT WAS CONTEMPLATED AS A WALKABLE CENTER.

THIS IS SHOWING THE INTERSECTION OF SKYLINE AND BROADWAY.

AGAIN, YOU SEE THE PUBLIC PARKS THAT THEY'VE PORTRAYED THERE AREN'T CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO.

BUT CERTAINLY THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN CALLS FOR ENHANCED PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES THAT YOU MIGHT FIND HERE, LIKE YOU SEE THERE IN THE PHOTO, THE RENDERING ON THE RIGHT.

AND SO IT'S THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH BOTH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS IDEA OF [INAUDIBLE] DOCUMENT, THAT THIS IS AN AREA THAT SHOULD DEVELOP WITH A VARIETY OF USES AND INCREASED WALKABILITY AND ACTIVITY.

ONE OF THE POLICY GOALS FROM IMAGINEIF, IN THE SECTIONS OF THE DOCUMENT TALKS ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SOME OF THE GOALS.

THAT IS AN AREA WHERE THE PLAN TALKS SPECIFICALLY SEVERAL TIMES ABOUT USING TAX INCREMENT FINANCING, WHICH IS WHAT URBAN RENEWAL DOES.

THAT IS THE ONLY TOOL IN IDAHO TO BE ABLE TO USE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING.

YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE POLICY TO SPECIFICALLY WORK WITH THE IDAHO FALLS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO REDEVELOP OLDER PARTS OF THE CITY.

SO WE'RE SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSING THOSE POLICIES THERE.

WE GET INTO THE SPECIFIC AREA.

THIS IS WITHIN WHAT IMAGINEIF CALLS OUT AS AREA 3, WHICH IS THE WEST SIDE OF IDAHO FALLS.

THIS IS THE MAP OF AREA 3.

I HIGHLIGHTED SPECIFICALLY THERE IN YELLOW THE IDENTIFICATION OF SKYLINE BROADWAY AS A FUTURE WALKABLE CENTER.

AND IF WE LOOK AT A COUPLE OF VERY MUCH MORE SPECIFIC POLICIES-- I MENTIONED THE PARK ON SATURDAY.

YOU CAN SEE THAT CALLED OUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON PAGE 155.

THAT PARK WOULD BE FINALLY DEVELOPED.

AND THEN BELOW THAT, BECAUSE AREA 3 SITS NEXT TO SO MUCH PRIME AGRICULTURAL LAND IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST, AREA 3 SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT A POLICY TO FOCUS ON INFILL DEVELOPMENT RATHER THAN SPRAWL.

AND SO PUTTING URBAN RENEWAL IN AN AREA LIKE THIS, THAT IS STRUGGLES TO DEVELOP BECAUSE OF THOSE TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES AND DETERIORATING INFRASTRUCTURE, THE HIGH COST OF DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS SPECIFICALLY A INFILL POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THAT POLICY.

SO TO SUMMARIZE-- I'M SORRY I'M GOING THROUGH THIS TOO QUICKLY.

I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE LONG NIGHTS.

SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE, IN TERMS OF POLICIES THAT FROM A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT, THE URBAN RENEWAL

[00:55:01]

PLAN IS STRIVING TO ADDRESS, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S TRYING TO PROMOTE INFILL RATHER THAN SPRAWL.

IT IS UTILIZING URBAN RENEWAL, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING AS A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE TOOLS AND TO PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN THAT IDENTIFIED FUTURE WALKABLE CENTER THROUGH SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT IT IDENTIFIES WITHIN THAT.

SO WITH THAT, WE WOULD, AS THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU FIND THAT THE RENEWAL PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND RECOMMEND IT TO CITY COUNCIL.

AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

FORREST IHLER: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YES.

BILL SCOTT: HOW DOES THIS AFFECT THE CURRENT PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE AREA? IT'S OPTIONAL FOR THEM TO PARTICIPATE, OR THEY'RE GRANDFATHERED IN? HOW DOES THAT WORK? BRAD CRAMER: YEAH, SO THAT'S A REALLY GOOD QUESTION.

I MIGHT, BEFORE I ANSWER IT, CLARIFY BY MAYBE WHAT THE CONCERN MIGHT BE, AS FAR AS HOW IT AFFECTS THEM SPECIFICALLY ASKING ABOUT ZONING, OR TAXES, OR WHAT DO YOU HAVE IN MIND? BILL SCOTT: I GUESS, ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY'RE IN AN URBAN RENEWAL AREA, WITHOUT NECESSARILY HAVING THE PART IN THE PROCESS SO FAR.

SO I'M CURIOUS, JUST ASKING HOW THAT AFFECTS THEM, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANT TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS.

BRAD CRAMER: OK, YEAH.

SO YEAH, GREAT QUESTION.

AND SO IN THIS CASE, I'LL POINT OUT THAT URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT DOES NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATIONS, SO NOTHING CHANGES THERE FOR THESE RESIDENTS.

IT DOES NOT AFFECT ZONING.

NOTHING CHANGES THERE.

SO ALL OF THE ALLOWED LAND USES, THE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS-- THOSE ARE ALL THE SAME.

ONE OF THE COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS IS THAT AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT INTRODUCES A NEW TAX, OR THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL TAX ON THE PROPERTY.

THERE IS NOT.

ALL OF THE TAXES WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THEY WOULD BE WITHOUT THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT.

THE DIFFERENCE IS WHERE THOSE TAX DOLLARS GO.

AND SO THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOT IMPACTED AT ALL IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX THEY WOULD PAY.

BUT FOR EXAMPLE, THE CORNER THERE OF SKYLINE BROADWAY, AS IT DEVELOPS AND THEIR TAXABLE VALUE INCREASES, THAT INCREASED TAX, INSTEAD OF GOING TO THE COUNTY, AND CITY, AND SOME OF THE OTHER TAXING DISTRICTS, IT COMES TO THE URBAN RENEWAL AGENCY FOR THEM TO REINVEST SPECIFICALLY BACK INTO THAT DISTRICT.

AND SO, IN TERMS OF IMPACT, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANY CHANGE TO A PROPERTY OWNER DAY-TO-DAY IF THEY CHOOSE TO DEVELOP AND THEY HAVE OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE FROM TAX FINANCING, ROCK BLASTING AND BUILDING CURB [INAUDIBLE] SIDEWALK, BUILDING PUBLIC UTILITIES OR ROADS, THEN THEIR IMPACT FOR THE POSITIVE BECAUSE THEY CAN BE REIMBURSED FOR THOSE COSTS.

BUT FOR EXAMPLE, A RESIDENT LIVING IN ATLANTA-- THEY SHOULD SEE NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL OVER THE COURSE OF THE 20 YEARS.

TO THAT POINT, I'LL JUST MAYBE POINT OUT ONE MORE THING IS THAT THE LAW ACTUALLY-- FOR AN AREA LIKE THIS, AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE REALLY IS NO OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE ENCOMPASSED IN THIS RENEWAL AREA.

IF THEY ARE IN THE COUNTY, OR IF THEY ARE WHAT'S CONSIDERED AN AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY AT ANY TIME WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS, THEY'VE HAD AN AG EXEMPTION ON THAT PROPERTY, THEN THEY DO HAVE TO CONSENT.

AND THERE'S A DIFFERENT PROCESS WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES ARE PROTECTED, I SHOULD SAY, FROM THIS PROGRAM.

THAT'S THE WRONG WAY TO SAY IT.

BUT THEY AREN'T AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED.

THEY HAVE TO.

THAT'S THE ONLY GROUP THAT HAS TO ELECT TO BE INCLUDED IN AN URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT.

BILL SCOTT: IS THERE ANY OF THAT IN THIS? BRAD CRAMER: IN THIS CASE, THERE WAS NOT.

WE HAVE ONE OF THE FEW I'VE WORKED ON THAT DIDN'T REQUIRE THAT.

BILL SCOTT: THANK YOU.

FORREST IHLER: ANYONE ELSE? YES.

DEANNA HARGER: I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE WALKABLE.

I THINK THAT WAS THE QUESTION ABOUT THE WALKABLE, OBJECTIVES-- WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND ESPECIALLY ALONG BROADWAY, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT IS-- AS FAR AS WHAT TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT WILL SUPPORT THAT.

LOOKING AT THE KINGSTON COMMONS, IT LOOKS VERY AUTOCENTRIC, AND I KNOW BROADWAY IS AUTOCENTRIC.

SO I'M WONDERING IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.

BRAD CRAMER: YEAH, SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE URBAN RENEWAL PLAN TALKS ABOUT IS IMPROVING THE OVERALL PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE, FOR STARTERS.

SO THAT'S WHERE THAT SPECIFICALLY

[01:00:02]

CALLS OUT ADDING CURB, GUTTER, AND SIDEWALK IN THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD.

IT TALKS ABOUT REPLACING THE CURB AND GUTTER AND SIDEWALK THAT'S REALLY DETERIORATED ALONG SKYLINE SPECIFICALLY AND A LITTLE BIT ON BROADWAY.

BUT BROADWAY WAS ALSO SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT.

IT'S GOT SO MANY ACCESS POINTS THAT IT'S BECOME UNSAFE, BOTH FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS.

SO SOME OF THOSE THINGS WOULD HELP IMPROVE THE OVERALL WALKABILITY AND SAFETY.

BUT YOU ALSO BRING UP AN INTERESTING CHALLENGE BECAUSE THE DEVELOPMENT CODES THAT ARE THERE ON THAT PROPERTY ARE STILL THE DEVELOPMENT CODES.

AND URBAN RENEWAL DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MAKE THOSE DEVELOPMENT CODES MORE WALKABLE.

AND SO, TO THE EXTENT THE CITY CAN, IF THEY WERE TO DEVELOP A WALKABLE CENTER OVERLAY, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S WHAT WOULD REALLY HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE IT A WALKABLE AREA.

URBAN RENEWAL'S ROLE IN THAT WOULD BE TO HELP INCENTIVIZE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE IT MORE WALKABLE, BUT IT CAN'T REQUIRE IT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

DEANNA HARGER: THANK YOU.

FORREST IHLER: ANYONE ELSE? STAFF: MR. CHAIR, BEFORE YOU LEAVE THE PRESENTATION, TO [INAUDIBLE], I WANTED TO JUST MENTION A CLARIFICATION ON THE AGENDA.

SO THE AGENDA INDICATES THAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING TO THE COUNCIL, WHICH YOU ARE RECOMMENDING THE PLAN TO THE COUNCIL, BUT THESE-- THE AGENCY STUFF GETS A LITTLE DIFFERENT IN THAT YOU DO HAVE AN ACTUAL RESOLUTION DOCUMENT IN YOUR PACKET.

SO AS THE COMMISSION YOU WOULD BE ACTUALLY-- YOU WILL BE APPROVING THE RESOLUTION.

FORREST IHLER: SO IT'S A TWO-PARTER? STAFF: RIGHT, WELL, YOU CAN ACTUALLY JUST DO IT WITH JUST A SINGLE [INAUDIBLE].

FORREST IHLER: [INAUDIBLE] ONE VOTE.

STAFF: IF THE COMMISSION THINKS THAT IT IS COMPLIANT WITH THE COMP PLAN, YOU CAN JUST DO A SINGLE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION DOCUMENT.

THAT WORKS AS WELL.

FORREST IHLER: THAT SOUNDS GOOD.

I THINK WE'RE ALL GOOD.

WELL, WE'VE SEEN THESE A FEW TIMES BEFORE, AND I'M PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THEM.

AND THIS IS A GOOD ONE.

I REMEMBER THE CITY SENT US OUT TO GO WALK AROUND HERE AND GET OUR OPINIONS ON THIS AREA, AND I REMEMBER FEELING PRETTY DREADFUL.

SO I'M GLAD THAT SOME WORK IS BEING DONE TO IMPROVE THIS AREA OF THE CITY.

SO WITH THAT, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR RESOLUTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION? YEAH, GO FOR IT.

DID YOU SEE THAT RESOLUTION AT THE END? COMMISSIONER: [INAUDIBLE] FORREST IHLER: LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIND IT.

STAFF: IT'S ROUGHLY THE SAME WORDING AS ON YOUR AGENDA.

SO IF YOU WANTED TO JUST USE YOUR AGENDA FOR THE WORDING, THAT WOULD ALSO WORK.

BILL SCOTT: OK, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION VALIDATING CONFORMITY OF URBAN RENEWAL PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED SKYLINE BROADWAY URBAN RENEWAL PLAN WITH THE CITY OF IDAHO FALLS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND THAT? DALE STORER: I'LL SECOND THAT.

GOOD.

YEP.

THAT'S GREAT.

FORREST IHLER: NICE.

LET'S DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

FINAL PLAT FOR HIDDEN BRIDGE SUBDIVISION [INAUDIBLE].

OK, NEXT BUSINESS ITEM.

[6. PLT26-029: Final Plat for Hidden Bridge Subdivision, First Amended. NE ¼ of Section 30, Township 2 North, Range 38 East, including a replat of Lot 11, Block 1 of Hidden Bridge Subdivision. Located north and west of Hidden Bridge Lane, east of S Higbee Avenue, and south of E 20th Street. ¹]

YEAH, THE SECOND DIVISION.

HIDDEN BRIDGE.

DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? BARRY BANE: THANK YOU.

MY NAME IS BARRY BANE WITH CROSSROADS ENGINEERING FROM SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE D IN PERTH.

THIS FINAL PLAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY IS IT SAYS IS A FIRST AMENDMENT FLAT.

YOU CAN SEE, IF I GO THE OTHER WAY, THIS IS BASICALLY-- THE BLOCK THAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW IS BASICALLY WHAT THE ORIGINAL PLAQUE IS-- THIS IS A TN ZONE, LOCATED JUST SOUTH OF 17 AND THEN WEST, ACROSS FROM HOME DEPOT, ACROSS FROM THE CANAL OVER THERE.

SO THE ORIGINAL PLAT IN THIS TN ZONE PLATS, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TOWNHOMES IN HERE.

SO THIS FIRST AMENDMENT PLAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, IS WE'RE TAKING THIS AREA HERE, WHICH-- THE RECTANGULAR PIECE IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED FOR A STORM POND.

AND THEN WHAT WE ARE DOING IS WE ARE TAKING--

[01:05:02]

SO THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE CURRENTLY IS DESIGNATED FOR A STORM POND.

SO IN THIS PLOT, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE TAKING THAT RECTANGULAR PIECE AND PUTTING IT INTO SOME MORE AVAILABLE HOMES.

AND THEN THEY ARE PURCHASING THIS TRIANGULAR PIECE BACK HERE, WHICH WILL BECOME THE NEW STORM POND BACK THERE.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE BASIS OF IT.

WE'RE WORKING WITH CITY STAFF THROUGH THE PLAT AND THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS FOR THAT.

SO THESE FOUR HOMES WILL BE EXACTLY WHAT'S THERE RIGHT NOW.

THEY'LL HAVE ACCESS OFF OF THE PUBLIC STREET, WHICH IS GROWTH CURVE RIGHT THERE.

SO WE'LL JUST REROUTE THE STORM INTO THAT STORM POND AND BE ABLE TO HAVE FIVE ADDITIONAL HOMES UP TO THIS POINT.

SO I'LL FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.

FORREST IHLER: ANY QUESTIONS? NO? OK, THANK YOU.

GOOD.

ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS FROM THE-- OH, EVERYONE IN THE APPLICANTS.

AND I'M SORRY BRIAN.

WE'LL HEAR FROM THE CITY NOW, SORRY.

STAFF: I'M JUST GLAD TO COME.

I DON'T GET BEFORE THE COMMISSION VERY OFTEN.

BARRY COVERED ALMOST EVERYTHING.

I LIVE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND A HIDDEN BRIDGE FIRST AMENDED WOULD BE A GREAT ADDITION.

AND PRIMARILY, I JUST WANT TO HIT-- LET ME SEE IF WE CAN GET HERE TO THESE SLIDES.

THIS PROJECT WAS STARTED, AND THEN IT CAME TO A STOP.

AND THERE WAS A BIG BRIDGE, AND A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE PUT IN FOR A FEW HOMES.

AND SO THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF THE STAFF REPORT TODAY IS THIS NEW LAW CREATES PART CREATED BY THIS PLAN WILL ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDABLE FORM CONSISTENT TO THE ORIGINAL HIDDEN BRIDGE PROJECT.

COMPLETION OF THE HIDDEN BRIDGE PROJECT WILL CHANGE PREVIOUSLY UNDEVELOPED LAND INTO ACTIVE ROOFTOPS, PLACING RESIDENTS NEAR EMPLOYMENT, RECREATION, SCHOOL, AND DAILY SERVICES.

THIS LOCATION ALSO BENEFITS FROM A WELL-ESTABLISHED GRIDDED STREET SYSTEM AND CLOSE PROXIMITY TO PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS, AND IT INCREASES THE OVERALL LOT COUNT WITHIN THE URBAN CORE.

AND IT'S DIRECTIONALLY AN-- IT HELPS WITH THE AFFORDABILITY OF THE COMPLETION OF THIS PROJECT.

OTHERWISE, IT'S TN.

IT'S SURROUNDED BY TN.

IT'S BEEN VACANT FOREVER, AND IT'S GONE THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENT PLANS.

WE GOT STARTED.

IT CAME TO A STOP.

THIS HOPEFULLY HELPS GET IT TO THE FINISH LINE.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR-- FORREST IHLER: COMMISSIONER MEEHAN.

MATTHEW MEEHAN: I'LL JUST SAY I HAPPEN TO DRIVE-THROUGH THIS AREA RELATIVELY RECENTLY, BEFORE IT CAME UP ON OUR AGENDA.

I WAS EXCITED TO SEE THIS INFILL HERE, AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT SPOT FOR THAT.

JUST MY ONLY QUESTION FOR CITY STAFF THAT ROLE IS THE AMENDED PLAT, I ASSUME, WHERE IT'S MOVING THE STORM POND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY THERE FOR THESE UNITS.

AND WE'RE ADDING MORE UNITS.

THE NEW PROPOSED STORM POND MEETS THE VOLUME REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FOR THE EXPANDED NEIGHBORHOOD? STAFF: IT WILL.

SO THE PLAT HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY-- THEY HAVE NOT PROVIDED THOSE DESIGN DETAILS, BUT THAT WILL BE A REQUIREMENT THAT WE EITHER PUT SOME UNDERGROUND, OR THEY HAVE A REQUIREMENT TO MEET 0.33 INCHES AS IF THE GROUND WERE TO BE FROZEN, AND THEY WILL MEET THAT OR THEY WILL NOT GET SEALS.

MATTHEW MEEHAN: PERFECT.

FORREST IHLER: THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? NO? OK, WELL, GOOD.

SO GLAD TO SEE THIS ONE'S MOVING FORWARD.

PERSONALLY, I DRIVE PAST THIS EVERY DAY.

THIS IS KIND OF INSTALLED OVER THERE FOR A WHILE, SO GOOD TO SEE SOME SOLUTIONS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN.

SO WITH THAT, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE.

MATTHEW MEEHAN: PERFECT.

I MOVE THAT THE COMMISSION RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAT FOR HIDDEN BRIDGE SUBDIVISION, FIRST AMENDED, TO THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.

FORREST IHLER: DO WE HAVE A-- DEANNA HARGER: SECONDED.

WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

OK, AWESOME.

OK, NOW ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, FINAL PLAT IN THE HIGHAM

FORREST IHLER: SWEET.

[7. PLT26-030: Final Plat for Highland Subdivision. Lot 5, Block 99 of Riverside Addition to Eagle Rock. Located north of Highland Drive, east of Canal Avenue, south of W Elva Street, and west of Idaho Avenue. ¹ ]

[01:10:03]

SUBDIVISION.

DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT? TYLER BEAN: GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS TYLER BEAN WITH [INAUDIBLE] CAPITAL.

ADDRESS IS 1423 REMINGTON TRAIL IN HAMMOND.

THIS ONE'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

THE GOAL HERE REALLY IS JUST TO MAKE A MORE EFFICIENT USE OF THAT SPACE SO I JUST WANTED TO SPLIT THAT LOCKS INTO TWO AND EVENTUALLY BE ABLE TO BUILD TWO TOWNHOMES THAT ALLOW US TO DELIVER A MORE AFFORDABLE PRODUCT.

SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

FORREST IHLER: I'M ASSUMING THIS ALL USED TO BE ONE PROPERTY, RIGHT, THE CORNER RIGHT THERE? TYLER BEAN: YES.

FORREST IHLER: AND SO NOW YOU'RE SPLITTING TWO OFF.

IS THE ONE ON THE COMPLETE EAST ON THE CORNER-- WILL THAT STAY A LOT FOR THAT HOUSE? TYLER BEAN: IT WILL.

IT'S ON A SEPARATE LOT.

FORREST IHLER: GOTCHA.

SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY MAKING A TOTAL OF THREE LOTS HERE TODAY? TYLER BEAN: YES.

FORREST IHLER: OK, MAKES SENSE.

DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO? OK, WE'LL HEAR FROM CITY STAFF.

STAFF: ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

AN IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE IS THAT THERE'S TECHNICALLY ALREADY TWO LOTS HERE.

THERE'S AN ORIGINAL LOT LINE DOWN HERE.

SO TECHNICALLY, THERE'S TWO LOTS.

SO WE'RE ONLY CREATING TWO LOTS.

IT'S A WEIRD LITTLE TO QUIRK OF THOSE OLD PLOT LINES.

SO THE ONLY TWO THAT WE'RE CREATING ARE THESE TWO-- THERE ARE THREE LESS.

AFTER THIS, THERE WILL BE THREE PLOTS IN THAT AREA, BUT THERE'S ONLY TWO CREATED.

THEY'RE BOTH BUILDABLE.

THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2 OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET.

A LITTLE HISTORY.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY PLATTED AS PART OF THE RIVERSIDE ADDITION IN 1891, WHICH IS COOL.

AND IT WAS ANNEXED INTO EAGLE ROCK IN 1889, AND THEN IDAHO FALLS IN 1891.

THAT'S KIND OF COOL.

THAT'S A LITTLE BEFORE MY TIME.

SO THE FINAL PLAT CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 0.16 ACRES, TWO LOTS, BOTH BUILDABLE.

THEY'LL HAVE ACCESS ONTO THE ROAD HERE, HIGHAM DRIVE [INAUDIBLE].

AND THEN THEY HAVE FREE ACCESS ONTO, WHICH THEY CAN KEEP PARKING OFF OF.

LET'S SEE.

STAFF.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THE FINAL PLAN AND FIND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN.

IT ALSO MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE, SO WE RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL OF THE FINAL PLAN.

FORREST IHLER: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? GLEN OGDEN: I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION IF THAT'S OK.

I'M LOOKING AT THIS PICTURE.

I'M SORRY JUST TO-- DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE HOME THAT EXISTS IN THIS NEW LOT LINES? I'M LIKE, CAN YOU EVEN GET OUT THE BACK DOOR THERE, OR? STAFF: SO THAT'S A QUESTION THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY AS WELL.

I SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT THAT UP.

I APOLOGIZE.

GLEN OGDEN: THAT'S OK.

STAFF: SO THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT REAR DOOR AND THE LOT LINE IS 2 AND 1/2 OR 3 FEET.

AND THE CONSENSUS FROM THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT WAS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER PUT THEMSELVES INTO THAT SITUATION BY SELLING THAT LOT.

IT IS NOT A CONCERN OF THE PLAT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT, BUT IT DOES PUT THAT HOUSE IN AN EXISTING ILLEGAL, NONCONFORMING STATUS OF BEING THAT CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO DEAL WITH IF THEY EVER WANT TO REDEVELOP.

I CAN'T SEE IT HERE.

BUT THEIR REAR STAIRS ACTUALLY ENTER THE LOT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DECIDED [INAUDIBLE].

GLEN OGDEN: BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THAT HOME IS WHO SPLIT OFF THIS-- STAFF: THAT'S CORRECT.

GLEN OGDEN: --PARCEL TO THEN SUBDIVIDE? STAFF: YEP.

GLEN OGDEN: SO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING? STAFF: YES, THEY DID.

GLEN OGDEN: AND HOPEFULLY THEY'RE SKINNY.

[LAUGHTER] FORREST IHLER: SWEAT.

SO DID YOU SAY THAT LINE IS AN EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY? STAFF: THAT'S CORRECT.

SO THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THIS IS LOTS, I THINK, 98 AND 99.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE EXACT-- BUT IT'S TWO LOTS IN THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

SO THAT'S THEIR DELINEATION ORIGINALLY.

FORREST IHLER: SO ESSENTIALLY, THIS PROPERTY

[01:15:01]

IS ALREADY NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE ITS STRUCTURE CROSSES THE LOT LINE? STAFF: IT DOESN'T CROSS THE LINE BECAUSE IT'S 2.5 AWAY FROM THE BUILDING.

[INAUDIBLE] HAVE STAIRS [INAUDIBLE].

FORREST IHLER: STAIRS ARE NOT COVERED BY A ROOF.

STAFF: RIGHT, YEAH, SURE.

MARY SCALES: WHEN WAS THAT PARCEL PREVIOUSLY SPLIT? DO YOU KNOW? FORREST IHLER: THAT'S THE ORIGINAL.

STAFF: YEAH, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINALLY ADDED, I ASSUME, IN 1891, THE ORIGINAL HIGHAM SUBDIVISION.

MARY SCALES: I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE PARCEL VIEWER ONLINE, AND IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT DIVISION.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING.

STAFF: THERE'S A LAYER THAT HAVE THE ORIGINAL LOT LINES.

SO I GUESS WHEN THEY WERE PURCHASED AND BUILT UPON, THEY WERE CONSIDERED AS ONE THAT LINE STILL EXISTS IN [INAUDIBLE].

FORREST IHLER: BECAUSE THAT LINE STILL TECHNICALLY EXISTS, IT CAN STILL BE WORKED WITH BECAUSE IT WAS AN ORIGINAL LOT.

BUT FOR TAX PURPOSES, IT WAS ALL PUT INTO ONE LOT ACCOUNTING SIZE FOR JUST A MINUTE.

STAFF: WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE COUNTY PARCEL MAP, IT SHOULD SOMETIMES JUST SHOWING OWNERSHIP, NOT THE ACTUAL LEGAL DESCRIPTION.

FORREST IHLER: RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING.

SO IT'S JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER ON THEIR PART.

STAFF: IF IT WAS ORIGINALLY-- IF YOU SAW THE ORIGINAL OUTLINE, IT WOULD LOOK VERY MUCH LIKE THIS.

THERE WOULD BE THE SAME WIDTH AS THESE TWO LINES.

SO IT WOULD BE THE-- IMAGINE THAT LINE DOWN THE MIDDLE.

FORREST IHLER: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THESE ONES ARE FUN.

I LIKE THESE ONES.

THESE ONES ARE INTERESTING.

SO, SWEET, I THINK YOU'RE GOOD.

ALL RIGHT, WELL, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS.

WE'RE JUST SMART INFILL HERE.

WE'RE JUST USING EXISTING LOTS AND 25-FEET-WIDE LOTS.

YOU SEE THAT IN THE TN ZONE ALREADY.

SO PERSONALLY, I HAVE NO ISSUE.

WHO WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? OR UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING-- COMMISSIONER.

COMMISSIONER: I MOVE, THAT WE APPROVE THE FINAL PLAT FOR HIGHAM SUBDIVISION.

WHO WOULD LIKE A SECOND? COMMISSIONER: I SECOND.

FORREST IHLER: WE'LL DO A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE.

FORREST IHLER: SWEET.