Planning Commission

November 10, 2020 7:00 p.m. Planning Department City Annex Building MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioners Natalie Black, Gene Hicks, Brent Dixon, George Morrison, Joanne Denney, Arnold Cantu, Margaret Wimborne. MEMBERS ABSENT: Lindsey Romankiw ALSO PRESENT: Planning Director Brad Cramer; Assistant Planning Directors Kerry Beutler; Naysha Foster; and interested citizens. CALL TO ORDER: Natalie Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CHANGES TO AGENDA: None. MINUTES: Morrison moved to approve the October 20, 2020 Minutes with the requested correction, Hicks seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Public Hearing(s): 1. RZON 20-017: REZONE. Rezone from LC, Limited Commercial to HC, Highway Commercial. Black opened the public hearing. Applicant: Douglas Clegg, Spring Creek Enterprise (Miriam LLC). Clegg indicated that they are the original owners that developed Camping World, and the additional property that is left over (11 acres) was originally going to be put into married housing student apartments, but due to Covid and the impact on the university system in the United States and the educational intentions of most universities going forward with it likely that the large portion of the curriculum that has been taught in person at universities will go virtual going forward permanently and as a result it will have a large impact on the student housing industry. Historically there were a lot of graduate students living in Idaho Falls and commuting for school and working in Idaho Falls. Clegg stated that due to that impact on housing, they are now wanting to do a KOA Campground and a convenient store in companion with the KOA Campground. Clegg indicated that KOA is a Good Sam affiliate and so is Camping World. Clegg stated that the sister relationship with Camping World and a KOA Campground is a compatible match for people that are traveling on I-15, and those who want to camp and commute to the surrounding areas like Targhee, Yellowstone, Jackson Hole. Clegg stated that they met with staff to discuss this idea, and the historical plat that they had a variety of mixed zoning that overlayed. Clegg stated that 3 years ago they vacated the lots and the right of ways with those original plats and now only have 2 lots with an easement for a public access. Clegg stated that a portion of the 11 acres is already HC and then the remaining portion is LC, and they want the entire 11 acres rezoned to HC so they can do the campground. Black is surprised that there is not a market for young couples housing. Clegg stated that there is a housing shortage for multi-family in Idaho Falls, but most of that is on the east of Idaho Falls near the retail district and the amenities that are associated with that Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 1 of 13 area, is a draw for the younger families. Clegg stated that the area is in a social movement and 8 years ago most economic analyst were studying the movement of population and found they were moving for economics (job opportunities, etc.); and now people are moving from larger metropolitan areas for social reasons, causing a mass exodus in California, Oregon and Seattle, coming to Treasure Valley, Salt Lake, Nevada, New Mexico and as a result there is an inflation in construction cost. Clegg couldn’t make the numbers work for a non-student multi-family project (student housing has a different reimbursement relationship) and they cannot make the numbers work due to the cost of construction. Clegg stated that they are seeing an eclipse which means the cost of construction vs. the appraised values and the lenders willingness to lend money is reaching a close out-. Clegg stated that they are seeing this in Treasure Valley too. Clegg stated that the cost of construction is moving faster than the consumers willingness to pay for an increased rent. Clegg stated that KOA has a massive movement for millennials and Senior Citizens to have motor homes as a primary residence, and many people are buying this type of housing that has the interest from the mortgage as tax deductible. Clegg stated that Camping World’s stock in March was $3.72 and in 12 weeks it went from $3.72 to $35 (1000% increase in stock value) that is being driven by the pandemic of purchase. Clegg stated that the availability for locations for KOA campground are limited. Black stated that they have had a few items come before them that have different forms of housing that they didn’t expect in some areas. Hicks would not like to see a trailer court in that part of the City which is close to the freeway and businesses. Hicks feels that putting a trailer park there would be like putting a trailer park in Downtown. Morrison stated that this is a zoning issue, and they shouldn’t discuss what goes on the property. Wimborne agreed and stated that the request for the Commission is to recommend approval of the rezone from LC to HC. Black stated that they need to look and agree with things that can go in HC. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Morrison asked what the zoning is on the remaining section. Beutler stated that the rest of the property is zoned HC. Beutler added that one of the considerations for the applicant is having the entire parcel that is owned by them to be under the same zone. Black asked about the landscaping difference between the two zones. Beutler stated that the street frontage on both zones requires the same 20’ of landscaping adjacent to the street. No one appeared in support or opposition to the application. Clegg confirmed that having one parcel with multiple zones is problematic for a developer. Black closed the public hearing. Black stated that when Camping World came this was zoned for residential and they decided that along the freeway it was better to have HC and no one would want to live there. Black feels that this is further down and has no direct connection to the highway. Black feels this is getting down into residential, dentist office, Skyline High School and it concerns her. Black understands Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 2 of 13 that matching zones would be easier, but some of the uses trouble her. Black stated that it is harder to get to the area from the freeway, not a simple pull off. Morrison agrees that switching from LC gives him heart burn because it is close to residential. Wimborne stated that when she looks at the different uses between LC and HC the biggest difference, she can see is that multi-unit dwellings are not allowed in the HC zone, and cannot have a B&B or a boarding house. Wimborne stated that those are the biggest differences between LC and HC. Wimborne stated that for the most part the uses are the same and she understands the concern about getting into residential, but to the west is commercial, the residential that is kiddy corner is not facing Pancheri and across is multi-family and some commercial. Wimborne doesn’t feel that there is a big difference between LC and HC, and it does make sense to her to have the same zoning for the whole lot. Black stated that the light industrial and the recreational vehicle park is making her uneasy. Black asked for clarification between a storage yard and a storage facility. Beutler explained that Storage Plus to the east has indoor storage in the main building and has outdoor storage for RVs and other traditional storage. Beutler indicated that LC allows for the indoor storage with a single building and inside storage, the HC zone allows for indoor and outdoor storage. Beutler stated that there are screening requirements for storage yards. Wimborne stated that there is not a huge distinction of the current zone and the requested zone. Wimborne moved to Recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Rezone from LC to HC for approximately 5 acres, Part of the SW ¼ Section 24, Township 2 North, Range 37 East, as presented, Denney seconded the motion. Black called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Hicks, no; Dixon, yes; Wimborne, yes. The Motion passed 5-1. 2. RZON 20-018: REZONE. Amendment of the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Table 110401: Minimum Landscaping Buffer Requirements, modifying the percentage of total lot area to be consistent with other lot coverage requirements of the Code. Black opened the public hearing. Applicant: City of Idaho Falls. Beutler presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked what was the source of the difference between the corner and the interior for only these two zones and no other zones. Beutler stated that it was a left over from the previous zoning code and they didn’t recognize the conflict between the two. Dixon asked about the areas that were rezoned TN for the rezoning effort are there any of them that are no in compliance with the 50% lot coverage. Beutler stated that there probably are, as the TN is in the numbered streets, and those that are out of compliance were historically out of compliance. Beutler stated that the 50% that was developed in 11-3 came from staff going out and walking the neighborhoods and doing windshield analysis to determine what the neighborhoods were like. Beutler stated that predominately they comply with the 50%. Dixon asked what the justification for jumping R2 up to 80% which matches R3 instead of doing something graded between R1 and R3. Beutler stated that they are looking at the adjustment to uses, and R2 has multi-unit as an allowed use. Beutler stated that property coverage normally with zoning they see the gradual Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 3 of 13 step, but some of the setback in R2 have the same as R3 and R3A and once you have those same uses, they should be allowed to develop in a similar way. Beutler stated that there are additional things including setbacks and height that will allow R2 to live easier together with R1. Beutler stated that there is a lesser of landscaping requirement. Beutler stated that the Opticos report highlighted portions of the code that make it challenging to develop the missing middle. Black clarified that the Opticos report suggested lowering the landscaping requirement. Beutler stated that this change will make it consistent with the other zones (R3 and R3A). Black agreed they do want to fill in the missing middle. Black stated that a business owner told her that the landscaping requirements are very costly. Beutler stated that you don’t see as much R2 and they could see more if they do these changes. Beutler stated that from the street you will still have the same 20’ landscaping required front setbacks and the 20’ can count toward the 20% so you will likely see less landscaping in the back, and they can accommodate parking and storm drainage, but from the street it should look similar. Black asked if they are swapping landscaping for parking. Beutler stated that they are allowing them to use more of the property for parking. Beutler stated that this area is cold and snowy, and people have vehicles, so they have to balance the parking. Dixon asked if a driveway up to an R1 home is not considered part of the lot coverage, but it is considered for a twin home under R1. Beutler stated that anything that is multi-unit (3 or more), so a duplex or twin home or single dwelling it would not count the driveway in the lot coverage requirement, but for 3-4-and up it would count. Dixon asked why they count it in one instance and not in the other. Beutler did not have an answer. Dixon reminded Beutler of the discussion about RV pads and widening driveways to 3 spots and trying to discourage people from paving the entire from yard, but if he paved his yard because he is in RP it wouldn’t count against his landscaping. Dixon feels that the inconsistencies are multiple. Beutler stated that the real reason they are brining this is to remove the conflict. Beutler feels they need a broader conversation about how to apply the missing middle, etc., and they will be talking about property coverage and landscaping and parking long term down the road, but here they are trying to fix a problem with the code, and the two tables not being consistent, and once they have that fixed, they will have the broader conversation to determine how to address the missing middle. Cramer stated that he struggles with the fact that they don’t have a minimum landscaping requirement in the single-family zones, so he has tried to determine why. Cramer stated that some of it is an issue of practicality because they don’t sit in their office and review every single single-family home. Cramer stated that they do on apartments, but the zoning check is for setbacks and lot coverage. Cramer stated that looking at concrete and grass has been out of the staff’s scope, but it could be part of their scope in the future. Cramer stated that there is some administrative reality involved. Cramer stated that they do not require a permit to pave it is something that can be done with no checks or inspections. Cramer stated that if there is a requirement then you have to decide if you are going to chase that and create a code enforcement case where you are asking them to rip out the concrete. Cramer stated that as a City they give more deference to home owners and allow them to do what they want with their property than what they have done with multi-family as there is more hesitance and so the standards have been more prescriptive because it is seen as an intrusion into neighborhoods and the planning office does review every single multi-family development. Cramer stated that there are two tracks of zoning changes and tonight they are trying to accomplish track 1 where you recognize a problem and put a stop to it so you can fix it and make it workable. Cramer stated that the 80% in the R2 Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 4 of 13 is similar to what it was before they overhauled the zoning ordinance. Cramer stated that they will do a longer-term fix and sit down and talk and model. No one appeared in support or opposition to this application. Black closed the public hearing. Dixon has been looking at multi-family areas and trying to get a feel for what is under concrete and what is not. Dixon stated that Henryanna has little backyards and some have been put into patios (concrete) and other than that there is not much landscaping. Dixon stated that Valencia has more landscaping with yard but % wise where does it come in. Dixon feels that it needs to be looked at more and until it is looked at more, he is hesitant to jump from 35% for R2 to 20%. Dixon feels like they need to look more at what is actually going on and what is being counted, instead of just simply saying it matches R3 because R2 is not the same as R3. Black stated that there is a 4 plex going across from WinCo and it appears they have parking in the front. Beutler stated that property is zoned R3A so it would be 80% including building and sidewalks and 20% for landscaping. Beutler stated that the front setback of 15’ has to be landscaped. Beutler stated that Valencia is a PUD, and he cannot remember the precise number, but it was close to the minimums. Dixon believes that before they jump R2 from 35% to 20% they need to determine the impact and look at examples as it will be harder to go back up if they want to change later. Dixon stated that if the point is to remove the inconsistency that is fine but removing the inconsistency while reducing the requirement makes him uneasy because they haven’t studied the impact of reducing the requirement. Dixon suggested remedying the inconsistency without changing the requirement. Hicks asked about the WinCo property and asked if it accommodates a 2-car parking space per unit. Beutler indicated it does meet the requirements, and they will have landscaping in the back because the rear setback has a 25’ rear setback. Beutler confirmed that the WinCo development is in compliance with the 80% property coverage and 20% landscaping requirement. Morrison agrees with Dixon and feels they are tying themselves in a knot and it is not a good idea. Black agrees with Dixon and feels that if they go forward to be consistent that it is difficult to go back and she is uncomfortable with the numbers. Wimborne asked what they would recommend addressing the inconsistency, would they change table 11-4-1 to match 11-3-1. Dixon stated that he would recommend that on R2 where they were changing it from 50 and 35 down to 20, instead just change it to 35 and then on 11-3-1 instead of making it 80, make it 65. Wimborne stated that 11-3-1 is currently 80, so they would need to change both tables. Dixon stated that 11-4-1 is currently 50 and 35, so you would just remove the 50 and then making 11-3-1 consistent with 11-4-1 instead of the other way around. Wimborne asked Beutler to address why they didn’t do it that way and was it because of the Opticos report. Beutler stated that previously the R2 was an 80/20 split then there were additional requirements for the multi-unit on the corner and the interior. Wimborne clarified and Beutler confirmed that the standard has been 80/20 for most of the zoning documents, its just 11-4-1 that is inconsistent. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 5 of 13 Beutler stated that if they do want to make an alternative percentage it is ok. Beutler stated that this conflict makes it hard on development because they don’t’ know which standard applies. Beutler would like it cleaned up with whatever the percentage is versus leaving it with 2 different percentages. Wimborne stated that if 80/20 has been the standard and that is how it appears in most of the zones and most of the tables she would be ok with the proposal from staff because that is the standard everywhere else in the zoning ordinance. Dixon asked how many other places this is referenced. Beutler stated that there are not other locations where property coverage is discussed, so these are the 2 tables. Dixon stated that the question is do they want to make it consistent with R3 or do you want to have less coverage than R3 reflecting that R2 is a lower density zone than R3. Dixon is concerned that the idea that the hard surfaces are covered as not being landscaping and understand what the impact of that is and if it is ridiculous like you can’t have driveways then maybe they need to go to 80% but if there is plenty of room for off street parking and only adds more landscaping than R3, then the density is lower than R3, so it might be appropriate. Wimborne stated that the R2 change is that 20% of the property would be set aside, and for R2 that is probably ok. Wimborne understands the importance of landscaping, but they need to think about how property is being used and address some of the issues in the zoning. Beutler clarified that the lot sizes are larger in the R2 so you will end up with more landscaping any way because of the larger lot size requirement versus the R3 and R3A. Beutler stated that in R3A the minimum lot coverage is 5000 sq. ft. so 20% is 1000, and a 6000 sq ft lot has a minimum of 1200 sq ft so even if everything is only to the minimums you’d still have 200 square feet more landscaping in the R2 because of the lot size requirement. Beutler stated that there are differences because of the other differences in the zone. Dixon was going to make motion but is not totally comfortable because he doesn’t fully understand the impact of requiring that the hard surface not be counted as landscaping. Dixon moved to recommend to the Mayor and City Council approval of the amended language to the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance for TN as presented; but for R2 to make the minimum landscaping requirement in Table 11-4-1 35%, removing the difference between corner and interior lots and in table 4-3-1 making the maximum lot coverage 65% instead of 80%. Morrison seconded the motion. Black called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Cantu, yes; Denney, no; Hicks, yes; Dixon, yes; Wimborne, no. The motion passed 4-2. Denney is thinking how much would be taking up by landscape rather than building for a home and she feels it is too much Wimborne agreed that the proposal is more than 1/3 of the property set aside for landscape and that is too much for R2 and it will put too many limits on the builders especially on the kids of properties that we keep saying we need in the community and then continue to put more restrictions on. Dixon wants to recommend to Staff before it goes to City Council to develop more information and some examples to help City Council understand the difference because of the hard surface Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 6 of 13 treatment so that they are better informed on whether 35% is excessive or not. Dixon voted for the motion because it was his motion but wanted to abstain. Business: 3. PLAT 20-040: FINAL PLAT. Carstens Subdivision. This item was withdrawn. 4. PLAT 20-041: FINAL PLAT. Alderwood Professional Plaza. Applicant: Jeff Freiberg. Freiberg stated that they presented this plat in 2016 and then it went away. The owners were wanting to build a bowling alley and fun center on the property, but they never completed the platting process. Freiberg stated that the Doctors from 17th Street Medical Plaza bought the piece behind them and the platting process needs completed to clean up the property and build something for the doctors. Dixon asked if there is a single lot on the plat. Freiberg stated that when it is recorded there will be a single lot. Foster presented the staff report, a part of the record. Dixon asked if this property would have access to 17th Street through the property to the south. Naysha deferred to applicant. Freiberg stated that the ingress/egress easement is in place and will be utilized to give the property access from Hoopes and 17th Street. Dixon recommended to the Mayor and City Council approval of the Final Plat for Alderwood Professional Plaza, as presented, Morrison seconded the motion. Black called for roll call vote: Morrison, yes; Cantu, yes; Denney, yes; Hicks, yes; Dixon, yes; Wimborne, yes. The motion passed unanimously. 5. Comprehensive Plan Workshop. Cramer indicated that they are wanting opinions on what an updated Comprehensive Plan would look like. Cramer stated that on the website right now is the Social and Economic Profile that was done by an assistant planner that was tasked with doing the profile and doing stuff Downtown. Cramer stated that the information is older, and the census needs to be updated and as that information is released that document will be updated. Cramer stated that the background studies are looking at utilities, roads, pathways, growth in population. Cramer stated that they have the Community Health Assessment and one of the trends in planning is to look at overall community health, and right now the largest indicator of your life span is your zip code, so communities are looking at what is going on in those communities. Cramer stated that they have a consultant out of Boise that looks at these data points and look at hot spots that have health issues, including physical, mental, trauma, and that report is almost done. Cramer stated that they have been working with AgnewBeck out of Boise to design a public engagement strategy. Cramer stated that they needed additional help because it’s a major update and because the Corona Virus has precluded them to go to grocery stores and talk with people, so they had to get creative. Cramer stated that they have data on historical growth patterns that Brian has been putting together and will be able to review next month. Cramer stated that Comprehensive Plan update will be a standing item on the agenda for the future. Cramer stated that they also have a future growth activity that they will be working on and they will have that ready to go in a few weeks. Cramer stated that they need to discuss housing in a different way using specific geography, so they are planning specific areas of the Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 7 of 13 City and not assuming “one size fits all rules”. Cramer stated that they want to talk about what density really means and should that be the guiding principle because people don’t understand what density looks like on the ground. Cramer stated that Transect is a visual tool that communities are using more to prescribe what is appropriate for areas. Cramer stated that City of Idaho Falls is primed for a boom again. Cramer stated that this area is not slowing down, and they have a new out of state apartment developer contact the City to look for land because Idaho Falls is on the radar for multi-family. Cramer stated that there is a cost to growth. Cramer stated that they want to finalize the background studies and public out reach plan in the next few months and implement it in phase I to listen and learn in January – March; Draft the document March – May; Go back to public May – July; Finalize July- September; Adoption September – December. Cramer wants this adopted before 2022. Cramer stated that 2021 is an election year and its not a good time to be adopting a plan after a lot of public turn over because new Mayors and City Council are busy trying to learn the City and how things work, so they want this adopted and approved before 2022. Cramer asked and invited the new members of the Commission (quieter members) to respond to the questions. Cramer stated that he has heard from members that they aren’t sure how to apply the Comprehensive Plan when it comes to the applications. Cramer wants to learn and figure out how the plan can be changed so it is more useable. Cramer asked: What are the biggest frustrations with the current Plan: - Black stated that her biggest frustration is people coming to the saying this is not what is in the Comprehensive Plan so we can’t make the change, but then other times they are told the Comprehensive Plan is just a guide and not set in stone, which is conflicting information. -Morrison doesn’t feel that the public understands what the Comprehensive Plan is, and they try to stick the Commission verbatim with points. Morrison wants a public education program. - Cantu feels he doesn’t understand the Comprehensive Plan and is trying to familiarize himself with it and will try to devote more time to understanding it. - Denney indicated that she doesn’t have a problem with the Plan, and she feels it is more of a guide where there are painted areas with broad brush strokes and it identifies nice locations for certain things, and sometimes the vision needs to be changed. -Dixon is frustrated that if it doesn’t mean any thing and all it is is a guide and it is always over ridden with something particular, then why have the plan, but if it does mean something then instead of over ridding it, a step back needs to be taken from the particular and look at the more general that is covered by the Comprehensive Plan and say does it make sense to change the Plan in this area, and is it out of date, before the particular gets passed. Dixon feels that if the particular is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan it should not be approved, and if it is because the Plan is out of date then the Plan needs to be updated and then address the particular that could then be consistent with he updated plan. - Wimborne asked how often they need to update the Comprehensive Plan. Cramer indicated that there is not a specific time frame. Cramer stated that the Area of Impact is required to be reviewed every 10 years, but he does not recall a statute about the Comprehensive Plan. Naysha Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 8 of 13 stated that there is statute that requires it be reviewed every 10 years, but not changed. Cramer suggested every couple of years doing some tweaks if needed, and then a major update every 3-5 years because things are changing quickly in this area. Wimborne stated that the growth has been surprising lately and the needs have changed and the Comprehensive Plan needs to provide guidance, but it needs to be a fluid document and they need to find the sweet spot between it not being used and constantly overriding the Plan. - Dixon feels that Costco is like a new anchor store being added to the mall on a bigger scale, and now anything close by Costco needs to be re-looked at in that area to see what needs changed for that large commercial magnet. Dixon feels instead of changing the Plan they incrementally did tiny approvals that didn’t fit, instead of reviewing the entire plan that could have made things easy. - Dixon stated that the Plan has an example of a square mile showing that higher density should be near arterials. Dixon stated that there are areas tat were developed in the last 15-20 years where the higher density wasn’t near the arterials. Dixon stated that the area near Taylorview doesn’t have higher density near the arterials. Dixon feels that it is being repeated near IvyWood that has big single family right near two arterials and no high density was required near the arterial. - Black stated that if they are updating in more often they need to look at the vacant land and instead of high density being squished into an odd lot, they need to find areas that would make sense and make sure the Comprehensive Plan shows that. Black added that they need to look at zoning as well. - Not enough time to work on planning. Cramer asked the Commissioners what they liked about the Plan. - Denney stated that the Plan is general broad-brush strokes. - Black likes that it is planning that was actually sat down and planned out something. - Morrison likes that it has public input before the final product. - Dixon likes the 1-mile graphic that shows different ideas of what goes where but would like something similar for commercial and manufacturing. - Cantu likes that it is a guide but can add input when necessary. Cramer asked the Commissioners what they wish the Plan had that it doesn’t currently have or do. - Dixon wants more detail as he feels it says the same 12 things 6x, but never goes into more detail. Cantu agreed. - Wimborne stated that the introduction is lovely, but too aspirational. Wimborne suggested having it less dreamy and more real world. (Wimborne is not advocating for “Killing Dreams”). - Wimborne stated that they should have examples of what different kinds of housing looks like. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 9 of 13 - Cramer stated that Plans from around the Country, he would like to see the Plan more goal oriented, because the Plan now is so broad it is hard to know when to apply when, and doesn’t set goals and time lines. Cramer wants it more prescriptive. - Dixon feels that something like the South Downtown Plan is what he feels is missing in the Plan. Dixon wants something showing how a commercial development should go with quiet on the outside, and louder and busier towards the center. - Black stated that there is a lot of vacant area around the mall and they need to figure out what they want to see there. - Foster wants it to be more supportive and encouraging to redevelopment, instead of always new development. - Hicks feels they need to be futuristic with some of the plans, and infill can accommodate things that residents need day to day. Hicks feels that this will be a different City in 5-10 years. Black agreed and feels that housing and office trends will be changing due to Covid. Dixon asked if they should have something in the Plan about actions to get redevelopment to take place. Cramer asked if they are wanting policies that drives development to areas that need redevelopment. Cramer stated that the Comprehensive Plan can be used for that through policies and goals. Cramer gave an example about the City implementing impact fees, and one of the first questions was can the fees be waived for in-fill projects, so the Comprehensive Plan can drive that discussion. - Cramer suggested partnering with the Redevelopment Agency and finding out what they are working on. Cramer feels the TN zone has been a big success for infill on vacant lots. Cramer stated that part of it should be exploring what doors have been inadvertently closed and how to open them back up to encourage people. Black asked what the people who are contacting him want to build in Idaho Falls. Cramer stated that the main conversation is for apartments. Cramer stated that they are struggling to find land in Idaho Falls, and so they are directing them to existing buildings like Shopko and DI building. Cramer stated that the area around Costco is where they are wanting to look, but the landowners are wanting to hold out for commercial. Dixon indicated that if the Comprehensive Plan identifies an area for a specific use, then the land owner shouldn’t be holding out for a different use, and if they want a different use, they need to come to the Commission and explain why they should change the Plan to allow the use in the area. Wimborne stated that the property owners aren’t thinking about the Plan or how it fits in, the owners are just going from an idea of how much they want for their property. Cramer asked what issues or policies they need to cover in the Plan. - Cramer believes redevelopment is big. - Dixon added in-fill development. - Morrison asked if there is a way to consider transportation systems. - Cantu believes that it is coming because TRPTA settled their bankruptcy and they are forming a public transportation system called GIFT. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 10 of 13 - Hicks wants them to look at roads and traffic. - Black wants them to look and plan for large housing developments and make sure they have room for roads and bike lanes and kids to play. - Hicks agrees that there is a lot of open space within the Area of Impact and they need to work on in-fill. Cramer asked how they can make the Comprehensive Plan more useable. - Black feels it should be updated more often so it is more relevant. - Wimborne asked if as part of the outreach for regular meetings is there a way to explain the different components and the role of the Comprehensive Plan and how planning and zoning fits into it. Wimborne feels that people come to the meetings and the things they are worried about aren’t things they can address. Wimborne wants a way to help people figure out how the pieces fit together. - Comprehensive Plan 101 - Cramer indicated that Boise area (Idaho Smart Growth) has a citizen planning academy and cover topics and invite speakers. - Morrison feels the meetings are longer because the public thinks they know everything. - Black suggested planning with traffic and infrastructure built so they are not trying to play catch up with growth. 6. Process and Procedure Review. Cramer wants to spend time talking about how the Commissioners feel things are going with meetings, reports, presentations, staff interaction, public interaction, Commissioner interaction. Cramer asked what is going well, what is not going well and how to improve. Cramer asked what is going well. - Dixon likes the idea of having the applicant present first and they are getting information that they weren’t getting before. - Cantu believes the meetings are going well and well-constructed and well thought out, with good agendas. - Morrison likes the documents that are presented by staff. - Black stated that the work the staff does is great and the notes that they added from the applicant and why they are asking for the change. - Dixon indicated that the minutes have been really good. Dixon asked what staff feels is going well and what could be better. - Cramer stated that the Commissioners are being troopers with Webex. Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 11 of 13 - Foster stated that the two meetings a month this summer was busy and the Commissioners understanding and dedication to attend the meetings was great and staff felt the appreciation of the Commissioners. - Beutler feels the Commission is supportive of staff and has been open to trying new things. - Black loves the training meetings with the developers. - Dixon feels they can do more with the training and hear from the people that are committing their savings and livelihood to doing development. Dixon wants to hear what they are seeing with trends. - Hicks stated that the County is getting inquiries from out of state developers as well. Hicks stated that there might be something available for out of state developers to make it better understood what is available, requirements, etc. - Dixon feels that if there is going to be a growth spurt in Idaho Falls the County shouldn’t be doing checkerboard development in unincorporated areas. Naysha feels that they need to organize an outreach with people from the City, the County, and Ammon to sit down and talk about growth patterns and boundaries and make sure there are compatible uses. Cramer asked what could be better. - Hicks stated sound could be better - Denney asked why they don’t use a common consent calendar for part of the agenda where the items that are pretty straight forward and non-controversial can’t be packaged together and approved. Cramer indicated that the council uses it. There might be a statutory problem with the due process. Cramer stated that besides minutes the only thing that could go on it would maybe be a plat, but there is some process due. Cramer will look into it. Denney stated that if there is a question about the property it can be removed from the consent calendar and openly talk about it. - Dixon stated that it is frustrating when there is a lot of public comment and they keep repeating the same thing and suggested time limits on long agendas. - Wimborne feels that having the applicant first needs to have a smoother process because the staff report is repetitive of what the applicant has said, and sometimes the applicant when they start talking about things that are not before us, like rezoning to build XYZ, then things get discussed that don’t have anything to do with what they should be considering. Wimborne suggested tweaking it so the information builds on each other. - Foster stated that if the Commission has questions after receiving the staff report, please reach out to staff prior to the meeting. Foster clarified that they could reach out to staff, but not to others. - Cramer stated that City Council has a liaison system where Cramer’s two Council members meet with him every Tuesday before a meeting and he answers questions and cover relevant points and things to be aware of so the meetings go smoothly because they’ve had more prep. Cramer feels that the Commissioners are coming in cold, or not asking the questions they had Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 12 of 13 when they read the report. Cramer suggested the Commissioners call staff to discuss questions before the meeting. - Cramer asked if the Commissioners are getting the information, they need in the staff report in a clear form that is understandable. - Hicks likes the reports and feels they are complete. - Cantu feels there is enough detail. - Black suggested more information like on a PUD—why are they requesting the PUD, and the reasoning behind the request. - Dixon asked if they could have the information in general on applications, why are they asking for what they are asking for. Dixon stated that when they do the presentation they sometimes get into things that are not part of what is being decided, so if they are asked to specifically address why they are asking for the change, and what is it about what they have now that prevents them from doing what they want to do. Dixon feels it would keep them to what is before them for the zone, etc., and not the particular use. Black agreed and stated that the PUD is confusing to her and she would like to know why they are asking for a PUD. - Cramer added Stick to relevant facts with the applicant. - Cramer stated that the Commission needs to stick to relevant facts too, as it is easy to get excited about the project. Cramer stated that he has felt that there has been more “head butting” between the staff and commission and he feels that it hasn’t felt right. Cramer stated that this is helpful to hear the concerns of the Commission and make sure that staff and Commissioners have a good relationship. Black adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:00 p.m. Respectfully Submitted Beckie Thompson, Recorder Planning Commission Minutes November 10, 2020 Page 13 of 13