Planning Commission

November 12, 2019 7:00 p.m. Planning Department Council Chambers MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Margaret Wimborne, Joanne Denney, Brent Dixon, Arnold Cantu, Gene Hicks, Natalie Black, George Morrison. (7 present 6 votes). MEMBERS ABSENT: George Swaney, Lindsey Romankiw ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Brad Cramer; Assistant Planning Directors Kerry Beutler, Brent McLane and Brian Stephens; and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Margaret Wimborne called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. MINUTES: Morrison and Dixon had changes to the minutes regarding wording of their comments. (Pages 7, 8, 16 and 17). Cantu moved to approve the October 2, 2019 minutes with the suggested amendments, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Business: 1. ANNX 19-012: ANNEXATION/INITIAL ZONING. 1754 Milligan Rd. Annexation and Initial Zoning of CC. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if they have a picture of how this will tie into the rest of the Snake River Plan. Stephens stated that BMPO has outlined roads and there is a connection that is planned to go in by the park that is coming in at the South of Snake River Landing where ground has been donated. Stephens added that Snake River Landing had no control over the land so they cannot dictate in their plan what this is and this can be developed as long as it is consistent with the City Plan and it will be a continuation of the pathway along the side of the river . Stephens added that once the other County pieces tie in they will expect to see it go all the way through. Dixon confirmed that this is only annexation and not platting. Dixon confirmed that road right of way dedication will be in the future. Applicant: No applicant present. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the annexation and initial zoning of CC for 1754 Milligan Road, as presented, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 2. PLAT 19-023: FINAL PLAT. Alturas Parkway Plaza Subdivision. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked why they are not doing a preliminary plat. Beutler stated that they do a preliminary plat if there are several lots in the subdivision or something that is raw ground. Beutler stated that this has previously been platted and is an existing development, and there is no need to do a preliminary plat. Dixon asked about Lot 4 and the note about blanket easement and questioned whether that note should also apply to lot 2. Beutler stated that they will look at that and work with the City surveyor to get the right verbiage on the access notes. Beutler stated that Lot 2 will also provide cross access for the rear of the building and cross access will need to be covered as well. Applicant: Applicant had no additional information to add. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 1 of 12 Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the final plat for Alturas Parkway Plaza Subdivision, Black seconded the motion. Dixon moved to amend the motion to include a cross access agreement for Lot 2, similar to Lot 4, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Wimborne called for a vote on the original motion, as amended and it passed unanimously. 3. PLAT 19-025: FINAL PLAT. MANCHESTER ESTATES. Wimborne recused herself from this item. Black will chair this item. Black confirmed that she works for the School District also but is a college and career advisor for a high school and sees no reason to recuse herself from this item. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked about the difference from the Preliminary to the final plat on the landscaping lots that were to include a fence, and sidewalk, and now only have 4’. Beutler stated that there is the park strip that will run adjacent to the street, a detached sidewalk, then the 4’ wide landscape lot then the perimeter fence on the property line, and then the actual lot. Dixon recalled a 15’ landscape lot, not a 4’ lot. Beutler stated that wasn’t a condition of the approval. Dixon stated that is what the applicant had proposed. Beutler stated that the preliminary plat matches identically to the final and the landscape lots are the same size. Applicant: Kurt Rowland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1331 Fremont Ave., Idaho Falls, Idaho. Dixon asked what they are going to do in a 4’ landscaping lot. Rowland stated that they will put grass and bushes and maybe some trees and a fence. Black asked if the strip of grass and sidewalk will look similar to what is across the street in the neighborhood. Rowland stated that City standard from back of curb to the sidewalk will be used. Black asked about the storm pond on lot 9 and why it was chosen to go there. Rowland stated that there is an existing storm pond for the school near that lot, so they put the storm pond on the boundary line so it if for any reason the subdivisions storm pond overflows it will go into, the school’s storm pond. Greg Hansen, 4743 Tanglewood, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Hansen stated that there is a 10’ wide path so they will not be going through the storm pond and some of the subdivisions to the west can use that pathway as it is safer that the arterial streets. Hansen stated that on Castlerock there is some side parts where it is curb and 4’ sidewalk. Hansen stated that they had indicated that they would have a green strip, 5’ sidewalk, and then the additional area, and that is the 15’ from the curb to the back of the property line. Hansen stated that in the green strip there will be 5’ of grass, 5’ of sidewalk, then more grass as well as trees. Hansen stated that it is consistent with Stonebrook out to Sunnyside. Dixon asked where does the road right of way end and is there another 11’ beyond the curb and gutter to allow for a 15’ development as was just explained. Beutler stated that he would have to look at the improvement drawings to see how the widths are working out. Beutler stated that it shows on the plat there is the existing Stonebrook right of way and that would include the park strip and sidewalk and next to the landscape lot. Dixon asked how much further to the left of the sidewalk does the road right of way end. Dixon believes they are short 7’. Beutler cannot show on the photo where the right of way will end up. Beutler indicated that the curb, gutter and sidewalk is generally in the City right of way. Beutler stated that Public Works reviewed the plat and it will require sufficient right of way to accommodate the necessary cross sections for street, and curb, gutter, detached sidewalk, and the landscaped lot would be where the start of the private property would begin and the end of the right of way. Dixon clarified that the City would Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 2 of 12 be responsible to maintain the grass strip between the sidewalk and the landscape strip would be maintained by the HOA. Beutler stated that per City Code, the resident is required to maintain their sidewalk, curb and gutter and the park strip adjacent to the home, and the HOA will be responsible for maintaining the landscaped lots because they are a common lot for the development. Black asked about snow removal. Beutler stated that the homeowners will be required to remove snow on both sidewalks on their property. Beutler stated that the developer has indicated that they will likely use a service to clear snow. Morrison is still opposed to this development. Morrison stated that Downtown there is form based, and even though this is not Downtown, the configuration does not match the rest of the neighborhood. Dixon would like to see a stipulation in the motion that staff verify the street right of way and how the reverse frontage area with sidewalk, landscape strip would be configured and ensure that there is enough space before it goes to City Council, so City Council will have the additional information in a clear format. Cramer pulled up the improvement drawings for the entire subdivision and verified that there is space between the existing and dedicated property, there is sufficient space for the park strip, and the sidewalk, and the 4’ of landscaping as a separate lot that is privately owned. Dixon would like that to be part of the presentation when it goes to City Council. Dixon indicated that because City Council denied the appeal, then there is no point in this Commission trying to override that decision, as they are the elected officials. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat, as presented, with the provision that they augment the staff report prior to going to City Council, to show how the landscaping will be done on the reverse frontage. Denney seconded the motion and it passed 4-1. Morrison opposed the motion for the reasons previously stated. 4. PLAT 19-026: FINAL PLAT. Rose Nielsen Division 101 Fourth Amended (Mall). McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked when they realize this is the busiest intersection in the City and they do need right turn lanes on all 4 corners, what would happen to this plat. McLane stated that if Public Works decides that they need more right of way, they have a process to go through to obtain the right of way from property owners and it can be addressed at that time. McLane stated that Public Works has reviewed this plat and it isn’t something they are planning to do at this time. Hicks asked what the purpose of this final plat. McLane stated that these are properties so the business owners can own their lot instead of being part of the same lot as the mall. Applicant: Kaden Fuhriman, Horrocks Engineers, 901 Pier View Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Fuhriman stated that they are separating the lots because now the pieces of property are leased over long term leases and this will allow the business to buy the lot and it will separate it from being attached to the mall. Fuhriman stated that there is a designated ring road for the cross access that all the lots within the mall use, so that will be the access. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 3 of 12 Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Rose Nielsen Division 101 Fourth Amended, Dixon seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 5. PLAT 19-026: FINAL PLAT. Rose Nielsen Division101 Fifth Amended. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Black asked about the corner going south and asked why it doesn’t go all the way down. McLane deferred to the applicant, but assumes it is to square it off, and have the mall be responsible for that portion. Applicant: Kaden Fuhriman, Horrocks Engineers, 901 Pier View Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Fuhriman stated that it is an arbitrary point where they cut it off, but it is an agreed point. Dixon asked about the parking lot between Garcia’s and Pizza Hut and why there isn’t a cross access at that point. Fuhriman stated that it gets tricky because Pizza Hut is a separated lot and not part of the Mall’s conglomeration. Fuhriman stated that the property line cuts it in half, but it is shared parking right now. Fuhriman stated that the owner that is addressing all the parking in the agreements within the lots themselves. Fuhriman indicated that each lot will have to have x amount of lots per the use, so they platted it, so they have enough parking for the individual lot use and then any other access and cross-parking is between the lot owner. Cantu moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Rose Nielsen Division 101 Fifth Amended, Denney seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 6. ANNX 18-014: EXTENSION OF ANNEXATION AND INITIAL ZONING. Loder Subdivision. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Applicant chose to not add anything. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Annexation and Initial Zoning of HC for the Loder Subdivision as presented, Hicks seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 7. PLAT 18-022: EXTENSION OF FINAL PLAT. Loder Subdivision. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked about the west end where Pioneer starts to curve south and asked if there will be a small amount of landscaping that will not belong to the development. Stephens stated that the yellow part will go to the City and when they do the site plan, they might not need sidewalk on that side of the street in that area because it abuts the freeway. Stephens stated that they will determine all the necessary portions of sidewalk when the site develops out. Dixon indicated he is concerned that the City has a poor record of maintaining small islands in the middle of right of ways and he believes the property owner would do a better job at maintaining the landscape so its not just weeds. Applicant: Kaden Fuhriman, Horrocks Engineers, 901 Pier View Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Fuhriman stated that all the yellow shown is designated for right of way and most of it has been constructed and installed, including pavement, curb, gutter. Wimborne believes its difficult to encourage a property owner to take something on that has already been worked out that is going to the City. Wimborne suggested doing a clean motion but make notes to the staff that they convey that concern to the City Council. Dixon stated that since the development on the ground is complete, they know what is going to be concrete and what is Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 4 of 12 not, and it seems that the difference of a few feet is the difference of landscaping they will maintain or not and will not change their costs, but if the City is responsible for it, then we know what it will turn into. Wimborne urged Dixon to have faith in the City staff as they work with the developers that they will address those things and adding something like that to a motion is concerning. Morrison suggested just paving the small area and that would get rid of the problem. Black agreed. Black stated that it has been stated that the City in the site plan will make sure its covered and there isn’t a little dessert of no landscaping or sidewalk. Black believes that just making a note of it in the comments is sufficient. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for the Loder Subdivision, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed 5-1. Dixon opposed the motion because he is concerned that the City wont’ address the small corner and its use and he is concerned it will end up being weeds. Dixon added at the end of the meeting: Dixon wanted to add another reason to Item 7 Final Plat for Loder Subdivision, where he voted against the motion. Dixon added to his reason that the City, prior to accepting a gift of property should ensure that they have the means and the plan of how to maintain the property to proper standards. 8. PLAT 19-022: FINAL PLAT. Micro Investments. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Applicant: Black Jolley, 1150 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley stated that they had to work around an existing power easement that feeds the building and that is why the lots are configured how they are. Dixon asked why the lots are configured the way they are to the west. Jolley stated that there is a potential development that might go in there they want each portion of the development to be on its own lot and be either kept or sold. Black stated that she lives and works near this area and is hoping that something fabulous will go in this development. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Micro Investments Addition, Division 1, 1st Amended, Cantu seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. Public Hearing(s): 9. RZON 19-009: REZONE. R2 TO R3A. Pancheri and Skyline. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Black asked about the single-family home next to the property. Stephens indicated it’s a duplex. Black asked when that was zoned R3A. Stephens was unsure. Black confirmed that there is no maximum building height in R3A, and they are doubling the maximum density. Stephens stated that if they choose to do residential it would have a higher density, although R3A offers light commercial. Dixon asked if there is a reason R3A would increase the value because there is more flexibility, and does this give an opportunity for “horse Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 5 of 12 trading” getting rid of the access off of Pancheri and making all the access be further away from the intersection and further away from the right turn lane. Stephens stated that they will use the shared access on Skyline and the access off of Pancheri serves the duplex that they don’t own. Stephens showed the parcel that is requested for rezone and shows the skinny one that is closest to the intersection and the duplex is one lot to the east. Dixon confirmed that the depth of this lot is 2 lots deep. Wimborne opened the public hearing. Applicant: Blake Jolley, Connect Engineering, 1150 Hollipark Drive, Idaho Falls, Idaho. Jolley stated that his client is trying to make the parcel all the same zoning so there is more flexibility with opportunities to develop it as one parcel versus two. Jolley stated that they have had discussions about the locations of the access to push it as far to the north as possible. No one appeared in support or opposition of the application. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Morrison moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the rezone from R2 to R3 for the 0.367 Acres SW corner SW ¼ NW ¼, Section 24, T 2N, R 37E, as presented, Denney seconded the motion and it passed 5-1. Black opposed the motion because it is not all under one ownership and is not likely to be one big development, so R3A on that individual spot makes her nervous that it would turn into a very high density on the small parcel. 10. RZON 19-011: ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. Stephens presented the staff report, a part of the record. Blank Wall: There was some discussion to clarify that the blank wall is only required if the building is 130’ or closer to the street, and the buildings that are farther set back from the street will have other landscaping requirements. Stephens indicated that the purpose of the Blank Wall is to make the buildings that are close to the wall look good. Black is concerned when they were discussing the Shopko building. Cramer stated that the idea is to create more inviting streetscape. Cramer stated that won’t apply to something that sits farther back. Cramer stated that if Shopko was developed under today’s standards 20% of the massive parking lot would be landscaped and there would be landscaping along the street. Black is concerned that if someone moves into the Shopko building, they won’t have to do anything to the parking lot and the Blank Wall wouldn’t affect them either. Black asked what problems they are seeing and why they are wanting to change the wording. Stephens started to go through his slides to explain starting with Shopko, then moving onto Cash and Carry. Stephens continued with his staff report. Dixon wants them to define a minimum square footage of wall and below that minimum you don’t have to do anything because there are walls that are pretty small. Dixon thinks they will need to be more specific about the discussion on artwork. Dixon stated that the point where they talk about common or open space and the back side of the City Electric building is a huge blank wall that is really ugly and you could do something very cool with that wall, and at what point is it common open space. Stephens clarified that this will be for things moving forward from the adoption of the rule. Dixon asked when signage counts as something on a wall. Stephens suggested leaving it the way it is but is open to making changes to go to City Council the way the Commission wants. Dixon stated that another thing they can do if they are worried about taller walls, is rather than saying a mural, sculpture, etc., just having a difference Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 6 of 12 in color and texture break up the monotony and that is the purpose. Wimborne reminded the Commission that the emphasis is on the streetscape, not the building scape. Black asked about the sample picture of the mosaic and sample landscaping and what the response from the developers has been. Stephens stated that they haven’t shared this out with developers. Stephens moved on with the Screening: Black asked if this will affect Lucy’s that has a garbage bin with no screening. Stephens stated that there is a trash enclosure for Lucy’s. Wimborne asked about the language around buffer requirements of the code has been scratched. Stephens stated that it is just telling you where to go to get the list and that is being struck. Stephens stated that they are reviewing the plant material and they are less concerned with the specific species as long as it is dense and covers. Wimborne is worried that there are not enough guidance and people can pick whatever they want. Stephens stated that they are primarily hoping to receive walls and fences. Beutler clarified that 11-4-1 is a buffering table and they were trying to separate out the buffering from the screening. Beutler explained you would buffer from an adjacent use, and screen something. Dixon asked what this new regulation would require if Fred Meyer was being built under this proposed ordinance, where the dock area faces Anderson. Stephens stated that they wouldn’t need to do anything because they are further than 30’. Beutler stated that the code separately requires landscaping adjacent to the right of way with street trees, and then the loading dock section could either screen with a solid fence or with additional landscaping. Dixon asked when a solid fence becomes a blank wall. Dixon asked about the “temporary outdoor storage/sales areas”. Beutler stated that most of them are more than 30’ back and so they wouldn’t fall under the screening requirement. Stephens stated that those areas are outside of what is being discussed. Wimborne opened the public hearing. No on appeared in support or opposition to the application. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Wimborne clarified that staff is comfortable with taking input and then not taking action on this item and have it come back in December. Cramer clarified that they would need to recess it until that date. Black thanked the staff for adding more beautification to the City Ordinances. Wimborne indicated that Dixon had issue with the artwork section (4) for blank walls and perhaps different building materials within the building could act as a relief/sculpture. Dixon stated that they would have to do percentages of the wall so its not just “trim”. Dixon stated that they are trying to avoid a cinderblock wall. Wimborne indicated that Dixon had issue with the introductory language and believes there needs to be minimums on the size of blank wall. Dixon agreed and indicated that if the wall is 10x10 it is probably small enough to be ignored, but there needs to be a minimum. Wimborne indicated that Dixon had issue with when does signage become the art on the wall. Dixon stated that he is unsure on the specifics of the landscaping. Dixon doesn’t believe that a lot of the landscaping blocks the view of anything, and it needs to be thought through more to have an approved set of trees. Wimborne indicated that buffering is different than screening and can be brought up in a workshop. Dixon feels that it does have to do with the blank wall. Dixon Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 7 of 12 stated that there was an approved list of trees and some would be appropriate for screening of a blank wall, where others wouldn’t be appropriate, and that existing list could be used and divided into appropriate sections. Hicks confirmed that this ordinance would apply to anything new. Hicks thinks it will look worse if part of the City looks good (new development) and part of it looks bad (old development). Dixon stated that eventually development turns over. Black would like to have discussion only the streetscape or the building because she has a problem with the Shopko example. Dixon moved to recess the Zoning Ordinance Amendment until the December 3rd meeting, Black seconded the motion and it passed unanimously. 11. RZON 19-010: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Wimborne asked if neighborhood meetings are becoming more common. Beutler stated that Staff always recommends anyone who comes in for an application, not just a preliminary plat, and it is a mixed bag of who does or doesn’t do the meeting. Cramer stated that part of the reason this is finally being put in the Ordinance is because it was recommended a few times and each time the Commission just wanted to “strongly recommend”, but staff was witnessing that the Commission was treating applicants that did have a neighborhood meeting better than the applicants that didn’t have a meeting. Cramer stated that if you are going to treat it differently and judge your vote on whether they did, then just require the meeting, or don’t even ask. Black asked if they are required to mail notices out for the neighborhood meeting and will requiring the meeting be an added expense. Beutler stated that it will vary with the project. Beutler stated that preliminary plats are usually larger developments including multiple phases, so it could have a larger pool to be notified for the neighborhood meeting. Dixon asked about the page numbering 15-16, 15-18 that show there are changes, but he can’t find the change. Beutler indicated those changes are formatting adjustments and the last sections are the repeal and replace section for the zoning ordinance. Dixon is concerned that the neighborhood meetings will result in last minute changes and he would like something worked into the Ordinance about how soon the revisions need to be submitted prior to the planning hearing. Beutler stated that developers who value the neighborhood meeting and the response are going to have the neighborhood meeting early enough that they can respond and get the application in. Beutler stated that the language is specific that it can’t be less than 10 days prior, but it could be sooner. Beutler stated that they require the applications to come into their office 5 weeks prior to the planning and zoning meeting so they have time for review. Beutler stated that if there is a significant change after the neighborhood meeting, then Staff’s response would be to postpone the application as they haven’t had sufficient time to review the revisions. Dixon asked if there is something that is small enough that would not require a neighborhood meeting, such as a one lot plat and the lot is less than 1/5 acre, and the zone is the same as surrounding zones. Beutler stated that this is the preliminary plat portion and most likely in a situation like that they would go straight to a final plat, so the neighborhood meeting wouldn’t be required. Dixon expressed concern that they would avoid the preliminary plat and go straight to final. Beutler explained the reasons that they would necessitate a preliminary plat. Dixon asked where the changes are regarding “sense of community” and “fitting in with existing development”. Beutler indicated that those types of items would go in the Comprehensive Plan. Beutler stated that the Subdivision Ordinance is City Code and needs to be more direct, rigid code language. Dixon Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 8 of 12 believes the Downtown Code is blurring the lines between what is strict code and what is “feel right or look attractive”. Beutler stated that the Form Based Code has both the idealistic statements as well as a very rigid code, so it results in a stricter code than the traditional zoning. Beutler again clarified that the subdivision ordinance (how land is divided) is different than the zoning ordinance (land use). Beutler continued with the staff report. Wimborne opened the public hearing. No one appeared in support or opposition of the application. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Black still has a problem with requiring a neighborhood meeting. Wimborne echoed Commissioner’s Black concern. Wimborne is concerned about the requirement and if there are too many roadblocks in the way what does it look like. Morrison doesn’t want to complicate it. Morrison is unsure where to draw the line but is unsure they should require the meetings. Dixon has some questions regarding quasi-judicial hearing taking two meetings. Wimborne clarified that it is Commission and then City Council. Dixon asked proposed saying that speakers shall be limited to 5 min. unless the Chair allows for longer time limits. Wimborne stated that the primary purpose for this piece is to align with State Code and the language still gives discretion. Dixon noticed that the public comments are less and less organized and more and more repetitive. Wimborne believes it is more of the nature of things that have been recently brought up like the forced annexation that are more emotional. Dixon would like to recommend that for that portion of this Ordinance that they recess it until they have a chance to read through what is in there. Dixon didn’t realize that the multiple pages are brand new and it will affect directly how the meetings have to be ran. Wimborne asked if the other Commissioners are comfortable recessing. Wimborne believes there are enough Commissioners that are comfortable to move forward that if there is a motion then we can see where to go. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Amendment to Title 10 Chapter 1 Subdivision Ordinance of the City Code, Sections 10-1-8 Preliminary Plat Approval Process with the exclusion of 10-1-8(b)(6) the requirement for the neighborhood meeting; 10-1-9 Final Plat Approval Process; 10-1-13 Administration and Title 11, Chapter 6 Administration of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Section 11-6- 4 Decision-Making Procedures, Denney seconded the motion. Dixon proposed an amendment to the Motion. Dixon moved to exclude Title 11 Chapter 6 Section 11-6-4 for Decision-Making Procedures because the notes that the Commission was given there was a different number given, didn’t indicate that it was a change, and that is 10 pages of material that some of the Commissioners have not reviewed. Morrison seconded the motion. Wimborne called for a vote on the amendment to the motion (exclude 11-6-4). The motion tied 3-3. Morrison abstained. Dixon questioned whether Wimborne could vote unless it’s a tie. Wimborne indicated that she can vote whenever she wants. Dixon stated that in the past it was used as a tiebreaker. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 9 of 12 Morrison voted for the amendment. Amendment passed 4-3. Wimborne called for a vote on the original motion with the amendment that just passed. The motion passed 6-1. Hicks opposed the motion. Hicks indicated that in his 2 years on the Commission he believes more times than not a neighborhood meeting would have solved a lot of problems early on. Wimborne suggested to staff to bring back section 11-6-4 to the December meeting and then maybe some more discussion on the neighborhood meeting requirement. Cramer asked if the motion was to say that they recommend that it not be approved, or they want more discussion about the neighborhood meeting. Wimborne indicated that her vote was not approve the neighborhood meeting at this time, so that would open the door for more discussion. Cramer stated that when the brought the Ordinance to Council they will specify that they voted not to recommend approval of that piece. Wimborne clarified with the other commissioners that was their intention. Denney indicated that she would like more discussion. Denney would like a recess. Black’s vote was to not recommend to Mayor and City Council. Morrison and Dixon both want to recess the matter. Wimborne stated that the motion was to not approve the amendment. Wimborne believes the cleanest going forward is to go to City Council and state that the Commission does not approve, and the staff comments state that they are going to take another look at it. Cramer stated that they will chat internally about whether they want to take everything to City Council until they have a chance to re-review everything. Cramer stated that City Council is very interested in having the discussion about the neighborhood meeting. Cramer asked if they want to have a more thorough discussion or take it to City Council with the information that they’ve been given. Dixon stated that he proposed the amendment, and the reason he gave was because they hadn’t had time to study it, which sounds like even though the motion didn’t state it, the motion was prefaced by “we need time to study this.” Dixon stated that the original motion that specifically excluded the one paragraph was different. Wimborne indicated that the motion was specific to not take it forward to City Council, but after polling the Commissioners it appears there is some interest with some Commissioners to look at it again. Wimborne stated that another discussion during a meeting will not help. Wimborne stated that if they are the only community in this side of the State that requires it, she is not comfortable with that. Wimborne asked Denney what information she would like if they recessed the matter. Denney would like to see how often the Commission acted “in favor” of an applicant that did have a neighborhood meeting. Denney stated that she knows they ask frequently and then add that its sad that they didn’t do a meeting. Black asked if City Council wants to look at Planning Commissions discussion more, or do they want to have the discussion. Cramer indicated that City Council wants to have their discussion, but this Commissions discussion would be helpful. Cramer stated there is no rush. Cramer stated that they could have a workshop on Friday if they posted it tonight or wait till December as December agenda is light. Dixon added that he is not sure that they should require a meeting of everything because some things don’t make sense to have a neighborhood meeting. 12. SOUTH DOWNTOWN. McLane presented the staff report, a part of the record. Black asked what kind of development pressures for this area, that this will help. McLane stated that the most obvious has been the expansion of Johnson Brother’s Property and the desire to preserve the residential area. McLane stated that they are seeing a lot of turn over in the area of Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 10 of 12 people looking at redevelopment and they need to decide what they want it to be. McLane stated that it is a historic part of town and they want to retain the history. McLane stated that the warehouse area has some potential and it has changed ownership recently so there has been talk about development. McLane wants the vision in place, so they are not reactionary. Morrison asked about their intent with historic versus run down homes. McLane stated that they want to maintain the feel of the neighborhood. McLane stated that they can promote future development and write Code to prevent things from changing the feel of the area. Black thinks this is a prime property to go into an area and put mixed use with some different housing, restaurants, commercial and this does help promote that type of development. McLane stated that the warehouse area has huge potential for that type of development. McLane stated that the form- based code takes the concepts and helps promote those things. Dixon stated that there is a lot of good and a lot of things that need more discussion and things that are unclear. Dixon is unclear that the Bonneville Hotel redevelopment is unclear whether its private or public activity. McLane directed Dixon to the implementation section that has a bunch of implementation options and these will be a wide array of things that will happen. McLane stated this isn’t just the City doing things, most of this is going to happen through public means and the City won’t be involved financially, but they will look at ways to address the desires to promote those things. McLane stated that there will be some capital improvements that will happen through the City. McLane clarified that they are bringing forth the whole City Core Plan, the Downtown section has been approved and hasn’t changed, only formatted to fit with the South Downtown section (28-40). Dixon stated that the cross walks by Civitan are a problem and they need modifications. Wimborne opened the public hearing. No one appeared in support or opposition. Wimborne closed the public hearing. Wimborne clarified that the motion would need to be a recommendation on the South Downtown Plan. Black stated that there are great ideas and a great plan. Black stated that it is only a matter of getting developers to implement it. Wimborne stated that the form-based code will guide the development as people think about projects. Morrison believes it’s a good start and it needs to pass. Dixon believes the concepts are good, and the definitions of the parts of South Downtown are good. Dixon believes there is a bigger picture that has come up with the roads. When Memorial was redone there was a way to avoid the traffic circle by going to Yellowstone. Dixon stated that if the purpose is to get people off the roads and make it more pedestrian friendly then they are going in the right direction, however if that is done south of Broadway there is no alternative travel route. Dixon explained concern about having the focus on the roads be local and pedestrian, etc. as opposed to moving traffic across the City there needs to be alternate routes of where the traffic will go to get to Pancheri. Black moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the South Downtown Plan as presented, Morrison seconded the motion and it passed 5-1. Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 11 of 12 Dixon opposed the motion for the reasons previously stated. Miscellaneous: County Planning & Zoning Interface Report. Hicks reported on how lucky the City Commission is to have such nice facilities and wonderful staff supporting them, as compared to the County. Hicks reported on a housing project south west of melaleuca that the County is planning that has 400+ houses. Dixon is concerned that the Counties are ignoring the State Statutes about the purpose of incorporating Cities and the City should look at if there is anything legally that can be done to challenge the County sprawl where they are ignoring the State’s intent of developing urbanized areas as incorporated areas. There was additional discussion regarding developments. Dixon wanted to add another reason to Item 7 Final Plat for Loder Subdivision, where he voted against the motion. Dixon added to his reason that the City, prior to accepting a gift of property should ensure that they have the means and the plan of how to maintain the property to proper standards. Wimborne adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:30 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes November 12, 2019 Page 12 of 12