POCATELLO — The Pocatello Planning and Zoning Commission’s denial of an application for a residential development on Wednesday night has at least temporarily shelved a Utah company’s plans to build over 80 townhomes near the Gate City’s Ammon Park.

Over two dozen local residents voiced opposition to the townhome development during the commission’s meeting at Pocatello City Hall, which was standing room only for most of the nearly four-hour public hearing on the project.

The public comments came after Joel Dixon with the Pocatello-based Knudsen Engineering, the project manager for what has been named Park Place Townhomes, provided the commission and those in the audience with an overview of the development. Representatives for the company behind the project, CMJ Holdings of Utah, did not speak during the meeting.

The commission ultimately denied the project after six of its seven members who were present were unwilling to provide an exception to a requirement under city code that required the townhome development to meet a particular percentage of undisturbed land based on its overall size.

PROJECT MANAGER DISCUSSION

To begin the public hearing, Dixon explained that the project calls for the construction of 86 townhomes on 10.34 acres of undeveloped land located north of Ammon Park and west of Interstate 15.

Dixon spoke about historical drainage paths that lead into the subject property area and that most of the current stormwater that enters the paths comes from developments on the east side of Interstate 15. He said the townhome project would involve the addition of four drainage ponds for stormwater runoff located inside of the planned development as well as the need to improve a drainage pond located in the southwest corner of Ammon Park from its current capacity of 8,000 cubic feet of water to 40,000 cubic feet.

“The pond at the southwest portion of Ammon Park is not adequately sized,” Dixon said.

The project would involve connecting Ammon Street with Lakeview Drive via a new road, to be named Park Place Circle, that would run through the planned townhome development.

The townhomes will have multiple different floor plans with both two- and three-story buildings, which Dixon said will assist developers in limiting the amount of grading that would be required during construction.

“We also have a variety of front facades on the project that will limit how repetitive everything is through this area,” Dixon said.

Additionally, the townhome development will include a clubhouse that will have an exercise facility, meeting room and rental office, said Dixon, adding that developers have also proposed an additional upgrade to Ammon Park, which could come in the form of pickleball courts, restrooms with plumbing to replace the current outhouse-style facilities, or any other amenity that is similarly priced at the recommendation of the Pocatello Parks and Recreation Department.

Dixon said the development will include sidewalks along Park Place Circle as well as ramps for pedestrians and a paved connection to the gravel road that extends from the bottom to the top of Ammon Park.

Much of the discussion between Dixon and planning commission members centered on the specifics of a slope analysis and undisturbed area. According to city code, because most of the townhome development property is located on slopes steeper than 35 percent, a slope analysis was required. The Pocatello Engineering Department’s staff report stated that with a planned development unit of this size, at least 1.59 acres of land must be designated to be undisturbed.

Dixon requested some flexibility from the commission on that section, asking that the commission make an exception to the rule and allow the development to move forward with just .55 acres of undisturbed land, something he said would be offset by the developers adding an amenity to Ammon Park.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Not one local resident spoke in favor of the townhome development during Wednesday’s meeting. Three people who spoke were uncommitted to the project and 30 people spoke against the project. More than half of those who spoke against the project were concerned about the impact that 86 new townhomes would have on traffic in the area.

Traffic concerns centered on the slope of Ammon Street and how it can be a dangerous road in the winter with slide offs.

Many of the residents who spoke Wednesday also pointed out that the city’s estimation of only one or two additional cars per minute as a result of the townhomes would be a big increase considering the only current traffic in the area is from the residents who already live there.

Fears were also expressed by the residents who spoke that the existing neighborhoods around Ammon Park lack sidewalks and the extra cars could pose additional risks to pedestrians, particularly children.

“It’s going to be a zoo,” one local resident told the commission on Wednesday.

Several local residents also expressed concern about the stormwater drainage system and planned changes to the drainage pond located in Ammon Park. Residents noted that even though there are historical drainage paths that descend into that pond currently, stormwater first travels through the area subject to development. Many residents believe that most of the stormwater runoff from projects east of the interstate is absorbed into the undeveloped land and that if 86 new townhomes are constructed in its place the drainage pond in Ammon Park, which some said never has any standing water, will become both a drowning hazard for youth and become unsightly.

“I have never seen that part of Ammon Park ever fill up with water,” one resident said about the drainage pond in the southwest corner of the park. “It was never a pond… I have never seen water in that pond for a day, let alone 48 hours. That is a huge concern for me, especially with small children.”

Many of the local residents who testified during Wednesday’s public hearing were related, with generations of families choosing to buy homes close together, particularly in the neighborhoods around the park.

If 86 new townhomes are built near neighborhoods that contain mostly single-family homes, residents voiced concerns that crime rates would increase, property values would plummet and the overall quality of life would decline.

“A Utah developer is going to come in here and destroy that neighborhood,” one resident told the planning commission. “It’s going to lower property values, increase crime and the quality of life is going to tank in that neighborhood. Don’t do this.”

COMMISSION DECISION

After just over two hours of public comments from those in the audience, the planning commission ended the public hearing and discussed the project before voting. Two of the members of the commission said they either grew up in the Ammon Park area or frequently recreated at the park.

Much of the conversation among the planning commissioners centered around the balance between community needs and property rights in a developing residential area. Personal experiences and values were shared while commission members stressed the importance of this project to meet the necessary city ordinances as they related to planned development units such as this.

The commission felt it best to not provide the developers with an exception on the amount of undisturbed land and unanimously voted to deny the townhome development’s application. The denial came after some work among commission members to find a compromise, though Pocatello Planning and Development Services Director Brent McLane explained that any approval of the application without the necessary exception would significantly alter the proposal, so much so that much of it would need to be redesigned anyways.

The next step for the developers to revive the townhome project will be another public hearing, only this time in front of the Pocatello City Council. Because of the requirement to properly provide 15 days notice to those living within 300 feet of the subject area, the next available City Council meeting that a public hearing on the matter could be scheduled is July 11.

Dixon said Knudsen Engineering does intend to put the project in front of the City Council and is looking forward to the opportunity with the tentative plan to hold the public hearing on July 11. Additionally, Dixon thanked those who attended Wednesday’s meeting.

“We’re still working through our exact path forward but there is another hearing on July 11,” Dixon said. “We’re a little disappointed in the verdict, but we believe that more awareness is always better. It was exciting to see all of the people that were involved and passionate about this and it does make me proud to be part of a community that is active in local government.”