Planning Commission

June 6, 2017 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners, Brent Dixon, Margaret Wimborne, Natalie Black, Julie Foster, George Swaney, Gene Hicks, Joanne Denney. MEMBERS ABSENT: George Morrison, Arnold Cantu, Lindsey Romankiw, Darren Josephson ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director, Assistant Planning Director, Kerry Beutler, Brent McLane; Brian Stevens and interested citizens. WORK SESSION: 1. Area of City Impact. Beutler stated that there are some outstanding issues that need worked through including: a. Commercial Nodes: Dixon indicated that the City nodes are in places that historically have worked, like a knight moves on a chess board, and the County has a node very two miles. Beutler stated that the one mile to two miles is in the zoning ordinance in the residential shopping zone. Beutler indicated this is not major commercial, and would encompass small commercial businesses that provide services to a neighborhood (i.e. gas station, dry cleaner, small grocery). Beutler indicated that the commercial node that is in conflict is located on 65th (York) near Sandy Downs. Beutler clarified that the City shows their commercial nodes by the Comprehensive Map coloring, including Commercial (red), Employment Center (blue), and High density residential (orange). Dixon asked if there is an existing use in the commercial node. Beutler indicated there is a preliminary plat that was done for Southpoint for the area, and along York they have larger lots and one is intended for elementary school site, high density residential and some other commercial use. Dixon asked if the school District has shown interest in the elementary school lot. Wimborne indicated that that the School District has an elementary lot farther to the west. Beutler showed the County’s commercial nodes. Beutler indicated that the County has a commercial node at the intersection by Sandy Downs and the City’s node is one mile north (intersection of Township and St. Clair). Beutler asked if the Commissioners are comfortable with moving forward with putting a small node of mixed use at the same place as the County’s node. Swaney indicated that if the area is included in the City Area of Impact it doesn’t need to be discussed because the City’s Comprehensive Plan will govern the Area of Impact. Beutler stated that part of the discussion for the area of impact has been to match what the County has for commercial nodes. Beutler indicated that there is some existing zoning that talks about commercial use in the area that the City has designated for commercial node. Swaney indicated that a commercial node near Sandy Downs would be supportive. Beutler stated that it would signal to the development community that they are considering commercial near that County node, so they are not trying to develop along York, but rather at the intersection. Beutler indicated that part of BMPO’s long range transportation plan included belt routes around the City. Beutler indicated that they are not now leaning toward a freeway cross June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 9 section along York, but instead turn York into something bigger than Sunnyside and the Access Management Plan refers to a strategic arterial which is 120’ wide and has 3 lanes either direction, plus a center turn lane and it would require limited access along the corridor. Dixon indicated that a commercial node would not be conducive to traffic flow. Beutler stated that if they only allow it in certain areas and manage the access, it will be ok. Beutler stated that the surrounding area is all residential and they will need some support services. McLane indicated that there is a commercial node 1 mile north (Bucks, etc.) of the proposed City Commercial node. Beutler stated that the options are: leave it the way it currently is and wait for someone to request an annexation and comprehensive plan amendment; or, designate a commercial node that matches the County’s node. Wimborne clarified that this is the only commercial node that conflicts with the County. Black stated that in the last meeting the County was correct with some of their zoning and the City changed to match. Beutler asked the Commissioners for direction. Dixon asked the Commissioners for show of hands on who would like the Staff to bring a formal proposal to change the commercial node. 5 Commissioners voted yes, Hicks was undecided. b. Comprehensive Plan Boundary. Beutler indicated that the City’s Comprehensive Plan extends outside of the Area of Impact, and it has been discussed that the City would bring their Comprehensive Plan in to meet with the Area of Impact. Dixon stated that a related issue is whether the county should have anything designated for urban level development that is not within the Area of Impact of a City. Dixon stated he is curious what public comment would be on the issue given the State Law. Beutler stated that a lot of the “public” live in the areas that are residential and want to be in the County, so you would get mixed reviews from public. Beutler indicated that as he’s spoke with the County, the County has indicated that any time they do development that is more than 10-acre density they will require public water and sewer. Dixon indicated that the County insists that if they change the designation, it would be considered a “taking”. Dixon suggested telling the County that the City is willing to pull in the border of their Comprehensive Plan, if they are willing to reduce the large area identified as urban density, and anything that is within 3 miles of an incorporated City that is identified as urban density needs to be included in the city Comprehensive Plan and included in the Area of Impact. Swaney stated that the County will reject that. Wimborne asked if this is an issue that must be resolved. Beutler stated that you are only making recommendations regarding the agreement. Dixon suggested proposing the City’s position to the City Council/County Commissioner and asking the County if they want to join, or if the County wants to have their own position. Wimborne indicated that if there are areas that do not make sense to the staff to have in the Comprehensive Plan, it would make sense to pull those areas back. Beutler stated that the next meeting for Area of Impact is June (21) to finalize the recommendations and go to the public in July or August, and try to get in front of elected officials early Fall, 2017. CALL TO ORDER: Dixon called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and reviewed the public hearing procedure. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. Dixon indicated that the City has an ordinance about weeds being a public nuisance, and there are weeds that are waist high in the front of the building. Minutes: Wimborne moved to approve the minutes for May 2, 2017, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed. Foster abstained from voting as she was not in attendance. June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 9 Public Hearings: 1. CUP 17-00: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Falls Valley Elementary. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne asked if the loop is for only one car or if there is room for a car to pull out and around the other cars. Beutler indicated that there is room for a line of parked cars and lane to drive past for efficiency. Wimborne asked if most of the traffic will come from the north on Hitt, or are there people coming South and turning left. Beutler stated that they went out and watched and cars came from both South and North on Hitt. Wimborne asked if there would be room for two cars to turn in and one car to pull out. Beutler stated that the intent is to have a single car pulling in and single car pulling out from the School. Hicks stated that Hitt Road is already busy and asked how far Hitt Rd. backs up. Hicks asked if there is any way to make a center strip and a deceleration strip to accommodate cars as they are waiting to turn. Foster clarified that the current drop -off system has cars entering and exiting onto Hitt Rd. Beutler agreed and showed pictures of the existing access onto Hitt Rd. Hicks stated that the City is growing and more traffic will result. Beutler indicated that the school will not grow and you will not have more parents and students coming/going. Hicks asked if it is feasible to have a turn out lane for both sides. Beutler indicated he’d have to talk to the City Engineer. Dixon indicated that there is a center turn lane that does help with backup. Black asked Beutler to show the route from the school to the pick- up/drop- off. Beutler stated that the children will likely come to the access door on the east side of the school. Black asked if there is a walking path. Beutler stated that there is a sidewalk and there will be a pedestrian path that is striped. Beutler indicated that the buses will go out onto Verlow. Dixon asked if there is a right and left turn for the outlet. Beutler indicated that it will be right only. Dixon asked how much queuing space to exit will be between the outlet and the end of the drop-off. Beutler indicated that they can que into the entire separate isle as it is wide enough for two cars. Dixon suggested shifting the entrance farther north to accommodate more queuing exit space. Beutler stated that they must space it to conform to the Access Management Plan. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Kurt Rowland, 1331 Fremont, Idaho Falls, Idaho. (Representing School District #93). Rowland indicated that the turn lane going out will be right hand turn only. Rowland stated that the large cul-de-sac for drop-off will have cones down the center lane so there will be two lanes to have a drop off lane and a departure lane. Dixon asked Rowland to explain the bus circulation and how the students will get to the busses and to the pick-up lane. Rowland indicated buses come in off Verlow and will wrap around the parking lot and back out on to Verlow. Dixon asked if there is plenty of room for a bus to make a U-turn. Rowland indicated there is plenty of room, and the fire department has approved the drawing. Hicks asked if there will be anything in the west section of asphalt. Rowland indicated it will be fire lane access. Dixon asked if there is a plan for fencing between the sidewalk and the parking lot where the busses will park. Wimborne indicated that every school site is different depending on the traffic flow. Wimborne stated that this configuration is an improvement with pulling the parent drop-off away from the bus drop-off. Black asked if the applicant is concerned about kids running into the busing area. Rowland stated that the School District has not brought that issue up, but Rowland will pass the concern along. Denney stated that she works for District #93, and the busses pull up to parking spots and are lined up and once all the kids are loaded, then they will June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 9 all pull out at the same time. Swaney stated that a lot of the letters in the package from staff indicate that they have better ideas to address the problem. Swaney asked if there were any meetings with public to participate in the development of the plan. Rowland indicated no meetings were held. Support: Steven Sheep (Principal of Falls Valley Elementary), 759 N 3600 E, Menan, Idaho. Sheep stated that the students coming out onto the east side of the school to load into buses is not significant, as there is 1 bus to pick up regular education kids (70 students) and 4 special education busses that pick-up pre-school students in wheel chairs. Sheep stated that children that are not loading onto a bus will not go out the east side of the building. Sheep stated that children can exit out the back side of the building through class rooms and the main exit outside of the library. Sheep stated that students going to the pick-up lane will go out the back, students walking can go out the main exit in the front and onto Verlow and down to the cross-walk. Sheep stated that he created this drop-off concept and they did not meet with public to discuss the configuration. Sheep stated that he has seen it backed up down Hitt to the light from Verlow, and down to Eastview before he created the double pick up line in the parking lot. Dixon stated that anything they can do to make the entrance/exit smooth so you can enter without having to slow to a crawling speed. Hicks asked how many cars come in the morning and afternoon. Sheep stated that morning drop-off is not a problem as it is a drizzle in beginning at 7:30 until 8:15. Sheep stated that busses show up approximately 8 a.m. Sheep stated that the pickup is a disaster with cars on both sides of Verlow. Sheep stated every day he has to ask parents to move so he can get the busses onto Verlow to load children. Dixon asked if there are over 100 cars. Sheep stated that it would be close to that many cars, but he has not counted. Dixon asked how many cars can que in the loop. Sheep is unsure and has not measured, but it is more than the current drop-off pick up situation. Opposition: Bruce Hendricks, 2488 Eastview Dr., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hendricks stated that he was concerned about the original layout, but was happy with the current proposal and configuration. Hendricks stated that he is concerned with the barrier that will be placed at the end of the loop closest to his house, and would like a barrier that he did not have to maintain, such as a cement or brick wall, and not bushes. Hendricks stated that the trash from the school ends up in his corner of the world, and the bushes would trap the trash and make it more difficult to clean. Dixon indicated that the bushes will be away from the property and might catch the trash before it gets to Hendricks’ fence. Bill Whipple, 2431 Eastview, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Whipple was concerned with Hitt Rd. and the growth of the City. Whipple indicated that when the light on 1st and Hitt, cars back up north of Eastview Dr. Whipple is concerned about cars backing up onto Hitt and clogging the Verlow entrance and the Eastview entrance, then people cannot get out of the drop-off lane. Dixon clarified with Whipple that the southbound traffic on Hitt backs up to Eastview. Whipple is concerned that EITC becoming a community college will also add to the traffic that is backed up on Hitt. Whipple stated that CAL Ranch stores will also add to traffic, as well as the gas station at Walmart. Whipple indicated that he would like the entrance bigger than 24’ wide and add a deceleration lane to get off Hitt into the pickup area. Whipple indicated a concern for the parking requirements at the school. Dixon stated that the guidelines is based on the number of class June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 9 rooms and not the number of staff. Beutler stated that the minimum requirement is 1 parking spot per class room, plus 5 additional spaces. Beutler stated that there is no concern with the parking requirements. Whipple indicated that Eastview has a lot of cars in the evening picking children up. Whipple stated that there is a walkway that is owned by the District that comes from Eastview to the school that has not been maintained and there is a cement wall that is going to fall over. Whipple stated that the District has done no maintenance on the walk way. Whipple is concerned who will water the bushes used as barriers behind Hendricks’ house. Whipple stated that in front of the school on Verlow there is a line of trees and there would be room to move buses or cars on Verlow, which would free up some room so there are plenty of parking spaces. Whipple stated that he does not believe the car count is accurate as the count was done during a period when Hitt was closed due to construction. Steven Sheep, 759 N 3600 E, Menan, Idaho. Sheep stated that they did consider the front of the school being used for buses and drop off and it would not get enough of the cars off the street (approximately 10-15). Sheep stated that they wanted a permanent fix for the problem. Sheep was unaware that the District owned the walking path. Hicks asked who owns the property next to the school. Sheep indicated that the church owns the property next to the school. Hicks indicated he was contemplating putting a road through the church property to the school property instead of coming from Hitt. Sheep stated that there are houses all along that street. Dixon closed the public hearing. Black stated that the traffic on Hitt will get worse, the school enrollment will likely not grow much more, and the school is trying to take the traffic off Hitt and put it onto the school property. Black encouraged the District to involve the neighbors and parents more especially with the landscaping and/or barrier. Black stated that she believes this is the best solution to the problem. Wimborne agreed with Black that this is a good solution to a hard problem, and commended Sheep for separating the different types of drop-off/pick-up, and minimizing conflicts between kids and cars/buses. Wimborne indicated that the proposal gets more cars off Hitt than other potential options. Black reminded the Commissioners that improvement to Hitt Rd., including turn lanes, etc., is the City and County and that is not the School Districts problem and not something that the Commissioners can recommend with this CUP. Hicks stated that it may not be part of the prevue, but it should be a concern of the Commission. Hicks stated that with the continued growth in the area he would urge the City/County and School District to work together to minimize future hazards on Hitt Rd. Swaney stated that a CUP is the only issue before the Commission, and the Commission cannot suggest anything else, and can only address the CUP. Swaney stated that if the Commissioners agree that this is a reasonable and rational approach to dealing with the problems that Falls Valley School is experiencing, then the vote should be to approve the CUP. Swaney added that if the Commissioners think there needs to be more planning and involve the County/State/School District and start over, then the motion should be to reject the CUP and encourage the District to start over. Swaney stated that the Commissioners cannot re-engineer the proposal. Dixon stated that the current drop-off is unsatisfactory and schools in the District have been upgrading to provide separate bus drop -off and parent drop-off. Dixon stated that moving the June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 9 problem to the front of the street, would only transfer the problem to Verlow and you still must get people on and off the local streets to the main streets. Dixon added that if they went onto Verlow it would impact residences. Black moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a new drop-off at Falls Valley Elementary as presented, Wimborne seconded the motion and it passed 5-1. Hicks opposed the motion as he believes there needs to be more emphasis reducing the traffic off and on to Hitt Rd. Wimborne moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. CUP 17-004: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Sandy Downs Substation. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked how close the substation is to the 14th Green on the golf course. Beutler stated that it is in proximity but the vegetation along the golf course is dense and there should not be a conflict. Wimborne asked if there will be any landscaping to the west to buffer the new development that is coming in. Beutler stated that the development is north and has topography to create screening. Dixon asked if the City owns the triangle to the east of the proposal. Beutler indicated that it is owned by the City. Dixon asked if additional landscaping could be put in that area if needed. Beutler stated that if needed they can do additional landscaping, but they would need to work with power to make sure it is appropriate. Black asked what kind of landscaping will be put in. Beutler indicated it is landscaping to make it look more pleasant from the street. Black asked what else is in the area. Beutler indicated that there is the archery range, and then Sandy Downs and County agriculture land. Dixon indicated that he is unaware of any substations that have landscaping. Beutler stated that they will model it after well sites. Hicks asked if the connection will be overhead. Beutler indicated it will be overhead. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: No applicant was present. Support: Tim Lohse, (Golf Course Superintendent), 701 E Elva, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Lohse stated that the substation is behind the 14th green. Loshe added that there is an American Kestrel box in the area and it is a native area. Black asked Lohse if this is a good spot for a substation. Loshe indicated that due to the protection behind the 14th green from trees, it should not affect the golf course. Foster asked if they ever require an environmental assessment when placing a substation. Beutler stated that you could if there was concern and environmental questions. Dixon closed the public hearing. Wimborne believes this area is a good choice for a substation based on the natural barriers. Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a Substation at Sandy Downs along 65th South, as presented, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 9 3. CUP 17-002. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. Billboard Sign at Sand Creek Golf Course. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if this is an electronic sign. McLane indicated that it is a billboard that is lit that must have the advertisement pasted. Dixon asked where it indicates that the sign will be for park use only. McLane stated that it is in the staff recommendations. McLane stated that the application doesn’t specify that so the motion would need include the staff’s recommendation. Black asked why the sign is on one side instead of the diagonal. McLane deferred to applicant. Foster asked if the trees will completely cover the sign. McLane stated that they will remove the trees now prior to the expansion of the road. Dixon opened the public hearing. Applicant: Tim Lohse (Superintendent for Golf Course), 701 E. Elva, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Lohse stated that they did not go diagonal due to the items in front of the diagonal, including poles and it would not fit between the two poles. Dixon asked if the height of the metal structure next to the power lines will cause a problem. McLane indicated that there is a required distance that is being met. Black asked if this will be similar to the sign by Pinecrest. Lohse stated that it is the same concept to advertise the zoo, etc., but will be smaller. Lohse indicated that they have changed the layout of the sign several times as they considered the future of what is going to develop and become of that intersection. Lohse indicated that traffic in that area travels generally, one way in the morning and one way at night so people will see the sign, depending on what direction they are traveling. Dixon asked if they are planning on planting a second row of trees to the south of the current row that will be outside of what public works needs for widening the intersection. Lohse stated that they have thought of it, but are unsure due to the length of the driving range, so they need to put up a netting structure instead of trees along the new widened intersection. Black asked what the anticipated time line is for the road. Lohse stated that he thought it would go in with Cabelas, but then it got knocked out of line, so hopefully near future. Dixon suggested putting netting in front of the new trees. Lohse indicated that part of the driving range might have to be turned into a retention pond. Swaney suggested putting landscaping behind the trees and make it compatible with the rest of the driving range and golf course environment. Lohse indicated that they do want it to look nice coming into the golf course. No one appeared in support or opposition. Dixon closed the public hearing. Swaney stated that this is a good example of a good application for a sign, close to the facility that it is supporting so it can provide information to the public. Black stated that she loves the signage that the City has been adding. Black added that she hates when the City cuts down trees, and indicated that it shows poor planning that they keep having to cut out landscaping to widen roads. Wimborne moved to approve the Conditional Use Permit for a Billboard at Sand Creek Golf Course on the corner of S 25th E and E 49th South, to include the staff recommendation that the sign only be used to promote events associated with the Idaho Falls Parks and Recreation Department, Foster seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 9 Swaney moved to approve the Reasoned Statement of Relevant Criteria and Standards for a Conditional Use Permit for a Billboard Sign located generally south of E 49th South, West of S 25th E., North of E 65th S., and east of S 15th E., Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Business: 1. PLAT 17-011: FINAL PLAT. Belmont Estates Division 2. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if the final plat has fewer lots that the preliminary plat. Beutler stated that there is one less lot. Dixon asked how long Thatcher Ave. is. Beutler stated he is unsure of the distance with both Division 1 and 2. Dixon indicated that it appears to be a long straight run. Beutler stated that it is all internal neighborhood traffic, and not a through street. Dixon asked and Beutler agreed that the drainage goes to the existing drainage basin between Lapoloma and Gatehouse. Beutler indicated that the drainage has been improved as a park for the neighborhood. Wimborne asked if the fence and berm is for the entire perimeter. Beutler stated that it includes the entire perimeter including the east. Wimborne asked if it would cut off the access to 49th until the access becomes a reality. Beutler indicated that the access would not be developed until the property owner wanted to dedicate right of way. Black asked about the access onto Holmes. Beutler showed the proposed access points. Beutler indicated that Thatcher will not go through to the South. Black asked if there are any bike lanes or park lots within the division. Beutler stated that there is an existing park in Division 1 that will serve both neighborhoods and Holmes will be developed with landscaping and wider section with detached sidewalk. Applicant: Kurt Rowland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dixon asked if someone wanted to build on the lot just east of the lot that was purchased, would they allow them to tie into the cul-de-sac. Rowland indicated that they probably could as the cul-de-sac touches the north boundary. Rowland stated that the existing park is large. Dixon asked if they can calm traffic on Thatcher. Rowland stated that originally it was planned to not go through to Township, but the owner of the property wanted the access. Black asked what size homes will be built. Rowland stated they are 1600 sq. ft. for minimum on main floor ($250,000). Dixon asked if the lot sizes are consistent with the lot sizes in the previous division. Rowland indicated they are similar and range from ¼ acre to 1/3 acre lots. Swaney indicated that this is an example of how the developer in Division 1 and 2 have followed through with what was presented in their earlier preliminary plat with only minor modifications. Dixon asked why the turn -around has been eliminated, as it could calm traffic on Thatcher. Beutler stated that you would still have speed on Thatcher because it would be a loop to Holmes. Beutler stated that there were previously 2 lengths of lots and that distance was long enough that it required a temporary turn around for fire purposes, but now it is only 1 lot deep they do not need the additional turn around. Dixon asked if there is an existing second access to Division 1. Rowland indicated there was a temporary access. Black indicated that she does not feel like Division 2 will look like Division 1. Black stated that they seem to continually allow things they don’t want like the straight road on Thatcher, and only 1 park for all the houses in the subdivision. Black indicated that she is discouraged, but hopes it will be a beautiful development. June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 9 Wimborne moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final plat for Belmont Estates Subdivision, Division No. 2, with the staff recommendation that it include a 3’ berm and 6’ opaque fence around the perimeter of the development, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. Plat 17-010: FINAL PLAT. Growth Center, Division 1, 2nd Amended. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Fred Walland, 441 Rockingham Street, Idaho Falls, Idaho. No questions for applicant. Swaney moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Growth Center, Division 1, Second Amended as presented, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously, 3. Downtown Plan. McLane informed the Commissioners that they are not ready for a vote or recommendation from the Commission. McLane indicated that they are going through the plan with the Steering Committee (Department heads, Mayor, City Council Members, and Downtown Development) next Monday. McLane asked the Commission to look at both parts of the document including the 1st part which is the visionary plan, and the 2nd part is the form based code. McLane stated that the form based code is very technical. McLane asked the Commissioners to reach out to him and ask questions that they have regarding the documents. McLane stated that the visionary (plan) part is something that the Commissioners will be familiar with as it is a guiding document to provide context for what they would like downtown. McLane asked the Commissioners to give him feedback so when they are ready to present the Plan to the Commissioners there is an understanding and a good recommendation can be given to City Council. Dixon asked if this Downtown Plan would address the letter to the editor regarding Planning and Zoning and the Downtown area. McLane stated that the Downtown Plan will not specifically address design reviews. McLane stated that the form based code helps control how a building fits in its area, such as placement, building styles, building types, height, bulk, size, placement of windows, landscaping, signage, etc. McLane stated that it is designed to create place making and drive what the City wants and give more requirements. Black asked why they are only doing this for Downtown where everything is built up already. McLane stated that Downtown is unique and has unique needs and they want to preserve the Downtown feel. McLane stated that it could be used in other places, but they want to start small. Black asked McLane when they will get the entire document. McLane stated that he will send out a recently updated draft to the Commissioners. McLane indicated that they want to bring the Downtown Plan before the Commission at the July meeting for action, and then take it to City Council for an adoption. McLane informed the Commissioners that the code would be a separate section in the City Code, separate of the Zoning Ordinance. Wimborne clarified that the next meeting is July 11, due to the 4th of July holiday. Wimborne adjourned the meeting. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder June 6, 2017, Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 9