Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
DOCUMENTS - 06-00159 - 2006 Comprehensive Plan Amendments
~ ~ YKtiXGUgC i` c 's r C 1 T T O F REXBURG An~eriecs Farrtilr Can~rmntitr RESOLUTION FOR ADOPTION OF VISION 2020 REXBURG COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP Resolution 2006-06 WHEREAS, on the 17`'' day of Mw, 2006, the City Council for the City of Rexburg was duly convened upon notice properly given and a quorum was duly noted; and WHEREAS, the appropriate public hearings have been held before the Planning and Zoning Commission on Apri120~', 2006; and the City Council on May 17`'', 2006, with regards to amendments to the City ofRexburg Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map dated the 17`" of Mav, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and approved the requested changes as delineated by area with regards to amendments to the City ofRexburg Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map, dated the 17`'' of Mav, 2006; Area 3 (Located in the City of Rexburg) The following tract of land currently designated as "Agriculture" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 7 Township 06 North Range 40 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; and running thence S89°38'47"W 1,818.6 feet; thence NO°10'06"W 2,506.53 feet to the South right of way of U.S. Highway 20; thence along South border of said highway N54°52'48"E a distance of 433.58 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,358.83, an angle of 37°36'37", and a bearing of N82°11'14"E; thence S71°49'04"E 525.54 feet; thence S5°18'50"E 677.78 feet; thence N89°42'16"E 33 feet; thence SO°14'07"E 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 5 (Located in the City of Rexburg) The following tract of land currently designated as "Commercial" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Industrial", said property more particularly described as follows: ~ ~ Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 4 Block 42 of the Rexburg Original Townsite, and thence continuing NO°14'12"W 181.5 feet; thence N89°45'01"E 330 feet; thence SO°13'10"E to the west side of the Railroad right-of--way 48.88 feet; thence along said right- of-way S30°08'26"W a distance of 153.72 feet; thence S89°44'40"W 252.25 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 6 (Located in the City of Rexburg) The following tract of land currently having the designations of "Industrial" and "Agriculture", as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 8, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N89°43'55"E 1,818 feet; thence NO°16'04"W 2,621 feet; thence N89°55'07"W 1,723.35 feet; thence S05°31'29"W 609.58 feet; thence S89°39'45"W 32 feet; thence SO°14'07"E a distance of 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 7 (Located in the City of Rexburg) The following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Low-Moderate Residential", said property more particularly described.as follows: Commencing at a point that is N89°18'17"E 530.2 feet from the Southwest corner of Section 17, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N00°17'22"W 1,151.6 feet; thence N89°27'08"E 124.6 feet; thence SO°17'22"E 1,151.6 feet; thence S89°27'08"W a distance of 124.6 feet to the Point Of Beginning. NOW THEREFORE, by resolution duly adopted on the date first above written, be it resolved by the Mayor and the City Council the following: The City of Rexburg does hereby accept and adopt the recommendation of the Rexburg City Planning and Zoning Commission concerning adoption of the City ofRexburg Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan Map. RESOLVED this 17`k' day of May, 2006. City Council, City of Rexburg, Idaho !' SIGNED BY: Shawn Larsen, Mayor ATTEST: Blair D. Kay, Ci Clerk T --- _ __ _ _ -- ---- ~ ~, ~ ~; - ~~ G> '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~i, I 1 ~ ~%~~_ _- l ~ I ~~~ ~ 1 - ~'~ ~ ~ r - ~ - ~ iii''-1-t; -~" ' J ~ I © 0 ~r 71~~~ r~~ ~ ~-- I - ~ ~ ~ i l ~ -. ~~ ~~~~ I I ~ ~ _I I ( , I _, - ~. _, - I i i _ ~_~II ;, i ~«I~i it i L-1. _.-,-._ ~~ ~~ ~ Irl ill ~ ,. ~ --._ / ~ m C______ / ~fe ~._. __. +nF W4tM1N rneY Dairy Rtl ' i W3ntlN III ~~~~IIi ~1~1 J_ I I ` ~~ ~ ~;~I,~ t~~iu ~ I ;,~~~; ~~I,~ ~, WtstN - ~~ %~~ c m WMain 9f i EMain St 1' 3 m of r I i ~ ~O a~ - r nn W2ntl6 y i~a~l~lii ~ g , ~. ' ' W4N9 fltr~F il~_.' ENkIn90r -'~ f . ~~~ ~ i r 'Et ~ r~ ,\ ,~ , \V WURI6 I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~restvewa Q ar~~n a~~4 I J~ , L_ I I I L I _~ ~_.,.... __._ ,,o,, O i, LM-Residental to Commercial O 3, Agriculture to Commercial O 5, Commercial to IndusMal O 7, MH-Residential to LM-Residential O 9, LM-Residental to MH-Residential O 2, LM-Residential to Commercal O 4, Residential to Mized Use O 6, Industrial /Agriculture to Commercial O 8, MH-Residential to Commercial PROPOSED CITY OF REXBURG /~ ~.~~ REXBURG LAND USE AMMENDMENTS 06-00159 ~~.~ 'amityG rm ~~~:~ UpOalee. Marc~]9. NOfi Feet --~ Fnrrtee April t4, ]006 0 33066() 1,320 1,890 2,640 ~ • 2006 Land Use Changes ---- ~, Area 1 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: All of that property contained in the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 35 Township 06 North Range 39 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho. Area 2 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: All of that property contained in the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 35 Township 06 North Range 39 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho. Area 3 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Agriculture" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 7 Township 06 North Range 40 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; and running thence S89°38'47"W 1,818.6 feet; thence NO°10'06"W 2,506.53 feet to the South right of way of U.S. Highway 20; thence along South border of said highway N54°52'48"E a distance of 433.58 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,358.83, an angle of 37°36'37", and a bearing of N82°11' 14"E; thence S71°49'04"E 525.54 feet; thence SS°18'50"E 677.78 feet; thence N89°42'16"E 33 feet; thence SO°14'07"E 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 4 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Mixed-Use", said property more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point SO°14'35"E, 66 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 8, Rigby Addition, to the City of Rexburg, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; and running thence SO°15'0"E a distance of 247.5 feet; thence N89°45'01"E 305 feet; thence NO°14'58"W 181.5 feet; thence S89°45'12"W 90.5 feet; thence NO°15'06"W 66 feet; thence S89°44'55"W, 214.5 feet to the Point Of Beginning. ALSO: Commencing at a point that is S89°45'01"W 247.5 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 8, Rigby Addition, to the City of Rexburg, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing SO°15'08"E 132 feet; • L~ thence S89°45'02"W 57.5 feet; thence NO°21'37"W 132 feet; thence N89°45'06"E, 57.75 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 5 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Commercial" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Industrial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 4 Block 42 of the Rexburg Original Townsite, and thence continuing NO°14' 12"W 181.5 feet; thence N89°45'01"E 330 feet; thence SO° 13' 10"E to the west side of the Railroad right-of--way 48.88 feet; thence along said right-of--way S30°08'26"W a distance of 153.72 feet; thence S89°44'40"W 252.25 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 6 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently having the designations of "Industrial" and "Agriculture", as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 8, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N89°43'55"E 1,818 feet; thence NO°16'04"W 2,621 feet; thence N89°55'07"W 1,723.35 feet; thence SOS°31'29"W 609.58 feet; thence S89°39'45"W 32 feet; thence SO°14'07"E a distance of 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 7 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Low-Moderate Residential", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point that is N89° 18' 17"E 530.2 feet from the Southwest corner of Section 17, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N00°17'22"W 1,151.6 feet; thence N89°27'08"E 124.6 feet; thence SO°17'22"E 1,151.6 feet; thence S89°27'08"W a distance of 124.6 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 8 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 17, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N89°12'03"E 387.15 feet; thence SO°22'24"E 1,470feet; thence S89°12'03"W 400 feet; thence NO°22'24"W 1,470 feet; thence S89°12'03"E 12.85 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Y ~, • • Area 9 It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Moderate-High Residential", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Block4 of the Parker Subdivision, City of Rexburg, Madison County, State of Idaho, and running thence N89°45'02"E 660 feet; thence SO°14'53"E 130 feet; thence S89°45'02"W 660 feet; thence NO°14'53"W 130 feet to the Point Of Beginning. • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR THE CITY OF REXBURG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held May 17~, 2006, at 7:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, before the City CouncIl of the City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, to consider amending the current Comprehensive Plan Map as shown on the attached map. The proposed Map changes are located inside the City of Rexburg and in the Impact Area for the Ciry of Rexburg. The areas for the proposed changes are described below including the associated legal descriptions for each area. 2006 Proposed Land Use Changes: Area 1 (Located in the Impact Area for the City of Rexburg) Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: All of that property contained in the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 35 Township 06 North Range 39 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho. Area 2 (Located in the Impact Area for the City of Rexburg) Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the Ciry of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: All of that property contained in the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 35 Township 06 North Range 39 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho. Area 3 (Located in the City of Rexburg) Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Agriculture" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 7 Township 06 North Range 40 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; and running thence S89°38'47"W 1,818.6 feet; thence NO°10'06"W 2,506.53 feet to the South right of way of U.S. Highway 20; thence along South border of said highway N54°52'48"E a distance of 433.58 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,358.83, an angle of 37°36'37", and a bearing of N82°11'14"E; thence S71°49'04"E 525.54 feet; thence S5°18'50"E 677.78 feet; thence N89°42'16"E 33 feet; thence SO°14'07"E 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 4 (Located in the City of Rexburg) Rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission Aprr120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Residential" as shown on the Ciry of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Mixed-Use", said property more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point SO°14'35'•66 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 8, Rigby Addition, to the City of Rexburg, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; and running thence SO°15'0"E a distance of 247.5 feet; thence N89°45'01"E 305 feet; thence NO°14'58"W 181.5 feet; thence S89°45'12"W 90.5 feet; thence NO°15'06"W 66 feet; thence S89°44'55"W, 214.5 feet to the Point Of Beginning. ALSO: Commencing at a point that is S89°45'01"W 247.5 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 8, Rigby Addition, to the City of Rexburg, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing SO°15'08"E 132 feet; thence S89°45'02"W 57.5 feet; thence NO°21'37"W 132 feet; thence N89°45'06"E, 57.75 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 5 (Located in the City of Rexburg) Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. "336 West 1gt South was deleted from the Planning and Zoning Commissions recommendation." It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Commercial" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Industrial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 4 Block 42 of the Rexburg Original Townsite, and thence continuing NO°14'12"W 181.5 feet; thence N89°45'01"E 330 feet; thence SO°13'10"E to the west side of the Railroad right-of--way 48.88 feet; thence along said right-of--way S30°08'26"W a distance of 153.72 feet; thence S89°44'40"W 252.25 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 6 (Located in the City of Rexburg) Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently having the designations of "Industrial" and "Agriculture", as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 8, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N89°43'55"E 1,818 feet; thence NO°16'04"W 2,621 feet; thence N89°55'07"W 1,723.35 feet; thence S05°31'29"W 609.58 feet; thence S89°39'45"W 32 feet; thence SO°14'07"E a distance of 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 7 (Located in the City of Rexburg) Recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Low-Moderate Residential", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point that is N89°18'17"E 530.2 feet from the Southwest corner of Section 17, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N00°17'22"W 1,151.6 feet; thence N89°27'08"E 124.6 feet; thence SO°17'22"E 1,151.6 feet; thence S89°27'08"W a distance of 124.6 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 8 (Located in the City of Rexburg) Rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: 2 • Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 17, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N89°12'03"E 387.15 feet; thence SO°22'24"E 1,470feet; thence S89°12'03"W 400 feet; thence NO°22'24"W 1,470 feet; thence S89°12'03"E 12.85 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 9 (Located in the City of Rexburg) Rejected by the Planning and Zoning Commission Apri120, 2006. It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Maki be changed to "Moderate-High Residential", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Block 4 of the Parker Subdivision, City of Rexburg, Madison County, State of Idaho, and running thence N89°45'02"E 660 feet; thence SO°14'53"E 130 feet; thence S89°45'02"W 660 feet; thence NO°14'53"W 130 feet to the Point Of Beginning. It is proposed to review the current Comprehensive Plan Map and consider making amendments to the Map as needed to reflect the community's vision for the growth of the community in the next 10 plus years. As the community is experiencing substantial growth at this time, the community's vision for the growth of the City needs to be reviewed. At such Public Hearing the City Council will hear all persons and all objections and recommendations relative to the Comprehensive Plan Map revisions that will be proposed. The City Council encourages all City residents to participate in the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map. Citizen's comments may be submitted in writing or by email during the fact finding period to the City Clerk at City Hall located at 12 North Center Street, Rexburg, Idaho, prior to 4:00 p.m. on May 16~, 2006. All interested persons are invited to offer their views and vision for the City of Rexburg for the next 10 plus years of development. This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67-6508, 67-6509 and 67-6511 Idaho Code, and all amendments thereof. DATED this 27~ day of April, 2006. U•'QgpOR~q?,~' a ~G ~ ~::SEAL~ _ o /,,~~~~/i~q~E OF \OP~``~~ t iit ~ n ~ i i i i i i i-- t~ ~~~~\~ Published: Apri129, 2006 May 13, 2006 CITY OF REXBURG Blair D. Kay, City Clerk ~ _~ 3 • NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAP FOR THE CITY OF REXBURG NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Public Hearing will be held Apri120, 2006, at 7:05 p.m. in the City Council Chambers of the City Building at 12 North Center, Rexburg, Idaho, before the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission of the City of Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho, to consider amending the current Comprehensive Plan Map as shown on the attached map. The proposed Map changes are located inside the City of Rexburg and in the Impact Area for the City of Rexburg. The areas for the proposed changes are described below including the associated legal descriptions for each area. 2006 Proposed Land Use Changes: Area 1 (Located in the Impact Area for the City of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: All of that property contained in the Southeast quarter of the Northeast quarter of Section 35 Township 06 North Range 39 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho. Area 2 (Located in the Impact Area for the City of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: All of that property contained in the Northeast quarter of the Southeast quarter of Section 35 Township 06 North Range 39 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho. Area 3 (Located in the Ciry of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Agriculture" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of Section 7 Township 06 North Range 40 East, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; and running thence S89°38'47"W 1,818.6 feet; thence NO°10'06"W 2,506.53 feet to the South right of way of U.S. Highway 20; thence along South border of said highway N54°52'48"E a distance of 433.58 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 1,358.83, an angle of 37°36'37", and a bearing of N82°11'14"E; thence S71°49'04"E 525.54 feet; thence S5°18'50"E 677.78 feet; thence N89°42'16"E 33 feet; thence SO°14'07"E 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 4 (Located in the Ciry of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Mixed-Use", said property more particularly described as follows: Beginning at a point SO°14'35"E, 66 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 8, Rigby Addition, to the City of Rexburg, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; and rumung thence SO°15'0"E a distance of 247.5 feet; thence N89°45'01"E 305 feet; thence NO°14'58"W 181.5 feet; thence S89°45'12"W 90.5 feet; thence NO°15'06"W 66 feet; thence S89°44'55"W, 214.5 feet to the Point Of Beginning. • ALSO: Commencing at a point that is S89°45'01"W 247.5 feet from the Northwest corner of Block 8, Rigby Addition, to the City of Rexburg, County of Madison, State of Idaho, which point is the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing SO°15'08"E 132 feet; thence S89°45'02"W 57.5 feet; thence NO°21'37"W 132 feet; thence N89°45'06"E, 57.75 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 5 (Located in the City of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Commercial" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Industrial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Lot 4 Block 42 of the Rexburg Original Townsite, and thence continuing NO°14'12"W 181.5 feet; thence N89°45'01"E 330 feet; thence SO°13'10"E to the west side of the Railroad right-of--way 48.88 feet; thence along said right-of--way S30°08'26"W a distance of 153.72 feet; thence S89°44'40"W 252.25 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 6 (Located in the City of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently having the designations of "Industrial" and "Agriculture", as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 8, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N89°43'55"E 1,818 feet; thence NO°16'04"W 2,621 feet; thence N89°55'07"W 1,723.35 feet; thence S05°31'29"W 609.58 feet; thence S89°39'45"W 32 feet; thence SO°14'07"E a distance of 2,025.14 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 7 (Located in the City of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Low-Moderate Residential", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at a point that is N89°18'17"E 530.2 feet from the Southwest corner of Section 17, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N00°17'22"W 1,151.6 feet; thence N89°27'08"E 124.6 feet; thence SO°17'22"E 1,151.6 feet; thence S89°27'08"W a distance of 124.6 feet to the Point Of Beginning. Area 8 (Located in the City of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Section 17, Township 06 North Range 40 East, said point being the Point Of Beginning; thence continuing N89°12'03"E 387.15 feet; thence SO°22'24"E 1,470feet; thence S89°12'03"W 400 feet; thence NO°22'24"W 1,470 feet; thence S89°12'03"E 12.85 feet to the Point Of Beginning. 2 U Area 9 (Located in the City of Rexburg) It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Nlap be changed to "Moderate-High Residential", said property more particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of Block 4 of the Parker Subdivision, City of Rexburg, Madison County, State of Idaho, and running thence N89°45'02"E 660 feet; thence SO°14'53"E 130 feet; thence S89°45'02"W 660 feet; thence NO°14'53"W 130 feet to the Point Of Beginning. It is proposed to review the current Comprehensive Plan Map and consider making amendments to the Map as needed to reflect the community's vision for the growth of the community in the next 10 plus years. As the community is experiencing substantial growth at this time, the community's vision for the growth of the City needs to be reviewed. At such Public Hearing the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission will hear all persons and all objections and recommendations relative to the Comprehensive Plan Map revisions that will be proposed. The Planning and Zoning Commission encourages all City residents to participate in the process to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map. Citizen's comments may be submitted in writing or by email during the fact finding period to the City Clerk at City Hall located at 12 North Center Street, Rexburg, Idaho, prior to 4:00 p.m. on April 19~, 2006. All interested persons are invited to offer their views and vision for the City of Rexburg for the next 10 plus years of development. This notice is given pursuant to the provisions of Section 67-6508, 67-6509 and 67-6511 Idaho Code, and all amendments thereof. DATED this 29~ day of March, 2006. :~ `O44~JRA 7'~. ~L 5~ ~~o %.qTE OF ....~~~` CITY OF REXBURG ~- ~. -r~ Blair D. Kay, City Clerk Published: Apri101, 2006 April 15, 2006 • ~ 4REXBU C Findings of Fact ~ R .a ~ r City of Rexburg U.`~ o 12 North Center ; t Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org CITY O F REXBURG America's Family Community Comprehensive Plan/ Land Use Amendments 1. On March 6, 2006, John Hegsted e-mailed to the Rexburg City Attorney a Request for a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map (Refer to the Proposed City of Rexburg Land Use Amendments 06-00159 Area #3). 2. On March 15, 2006, John Hegsted, Shelley Hegsted, Diane Hegsted Clements, and Louis Clements presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Coordinator a Request for a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map (Refer to the Proposed City of Rexburg Land Use Amendments 06-00159 Area #3). 3. On October 30, 2005, Bonnie J. Anderson presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Coordinator a Request and Application for a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map (Refer to the Proposed City of Rexburg Land Use Amendments 06-00159 Area #4). 4. On March 25, 2006, John Harrison presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Coordinator a Request for a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map (Refer to the Proposed City of Rexburg Land Use Amendments 06-00159 Area #9) 5. On March 29, 2006, the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public Hearing to be published in the local newspaper for April O1, 2006 and April 15, 2006. A notice was posted on the properties on April 11, 2006. 6. On Apri120, 2006, the nine areas in question were presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission. Areas #1 and #2: Charles Andersen motioned to recommend to City Council to change the designation of areas #1 and #2 to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Joe Laird seconded the motion. Those in favor: Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, Mary Ann Mounts, Mary Haley, Ted Hill, Dan Hanna, Charles Andersen, Joe Laird, David Stein. Those opposed: Mike Ricks, Randall Porter. Motion carried. Areas #3 and #6: Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change areas #3 and #6 to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Mary Haley seconded the motion. Those in favor: Winston Dyer, Mary Ann Mounts, David Stein, Mary Haley, Thaine Robinson, Charles Andersen, Ted Hill, Mike Ricks, Dan Hanna. Those opposed: Joe Laird. Randall Porter abstained. Motion carried. Area #4: David Stein moved to reject this petition for a comprehensive plan change for area #4 for the reason that the board specifically crafted in connection with City Council the Project Redevelopment Option zone. East Main area is a prime target for this zone. It is vacant land and it would make a prudent use of a tool that was spent countless hours discussing. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Charles Andersen clarified the motion should be worded that they are recommending the motion. David Stein amended his motion to say they recommend to City Council to reject this particular request. Randall Porter seconded. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #5: Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change area #5 to Light Industrial on the Preferred Land Use map, but to not include the westerly parcel in the change. Mary Haley seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #7: Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change area #7 from aMedium- High Density Residential designation to aLow-Medium Density Residential designation on the Preferred Land Use map. David Stein seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #8: Joe Laird motioned to recommend to City Council to deny this request to change the Preferred Land Use from Moderate-High Residential to Commercial for area #8. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #9: Mary Haley motioned to recommend to City Council to deny this request to change the designation of area #9 from Low-moderate residential to moderate-high residential, for the reasons that they have problems there now, and changing the density on the Preferred Land Use map would not help any situation that has been brought to their attention. Charles Andersen seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING MAY 17, 2006 Areas #1 and #2: Council Member Young moved to table the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area One & Area Two; Council Member Schwendiman seconded the motion; Discussion: Mayor Larsen reminded the City Council this proposed action would be delayed six months into the future before any other land use actions on the Map could be proposed. Those voting ave Those voting naX Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Areas #3 and #6: Council Member Stevens moved to change the Comprehensive Plan land designation from "Agriculture" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map to "Commercial;" Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Those voting ave Those voting naX Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. • Areas #4: • Council Member Erickson moved to reject the proposed Comprehensive Plan change on the Map for Area Four; Council Member Mann seconded the motion; Discussion: Those voting ave Donna Benfield Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Areas #5: Those voting naX NONE Council Member Young moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan Map for Area Five (5) from "Commercial" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map to "Industrial;" Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Discussion: Those voting ave Donna Benfield Farrell Young Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Areas #7: Those voting naX Christopher Mann Council Member Erickson moved to accept the recommendation from "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map to "Low-Moderate Residential;" Council Member Young seconded the motion; Those voting ave Donna Benfield Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens Those voting naX NONE The motion carried. Areas #8: • Council Member Benfield moved to accept Planning and Zoning's recommendation to deny the proposal; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Those voting ave Donna Benfield Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Areas #9: Those voting naX NONE Council Member Erickson moved to deny the Comprehensive Plan Map change for Area Nine from Low-Moderate Residential" to "Moderate-High Residential"; Council Member Schwendiman seconded the motion; Those voting ave Donna Benfield Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens Those voting naX NONE The motion carried. Planning & Zoning Minutes April 20, 2006 12 Norfh Center Phone: 208.359.3020 Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022 `i^O~AQXBIIgG !' U ~ y 0 CITY O F 1~1~.17 V 1\G America's Family Community Commissioners Attendins?: Rex Erickson - Council Member Winston Dyer- Chairman Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson Joe Laird Randall Porter Mary Haley Charles Andersen Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Dan Hanna David Stein Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. City Staff and Others: Shawn Larsen -Mayor Chris Mann -Council Member Kurt Hibbert - P&Z Administrator Stephen Zollinger -City Attorney Emily Abe -Secretary Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners Mary Haley, Dan Hanna, Randall Porter, David Stein, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, Mary Ann Mounts, Mike Ricks, Charles Andersen, Ted Hill Minutes• A. Planning and Zoning meeting - Apri16, 2006 Corrections: P. 5 -Under Chairman Dyer's comments, change "inspected" to "expected." P. 6&7 -Under Discussion on City/County Administration of the Impact Area, change "Commission" to "Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission" throughout the discussion. Thaine Robinson motioned to approve the minutes for Apri16, 2006 as amended. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Mary Ann Mounts, Charles Andersen, and David Stein abstained for having not been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Dyer introduced a video outlining public hearing process and procedures, which was then shown. Joe Laird arrived at 7:12 pm. Public Hearings: 7:05 PM -Comprehensive Plan Amendments Chairman Dyer pointed out the difference between the Zoning map and the Preferred Land Use map, also known as the Comprehensive Plan map. The Preferred Land Use map designates what types of land uses are preferred in all areas of the city. The Zoning map indicates current zoning, which puts certain restrictions or certain liberties on the use of the properties. The Public Hearing tonight will be about the Preferred Land Use Map, and the preferred land uses for the areas. The issue of zoning may come up later. The Commissioners decided to discuss the different areas individually, starting with the area with the largest public representation. Area #4 Kurt Hibbert said the zoning on this area is currently Low Density Residential 2. The Comprehensive Plan calls for Medium-High Density Residential land use. The applicant is requesting the Comprehensive Plan be changed to a Mixed Use designation which would allow zoning other than Low Density Residential. It would allow professional office and the PRO zone. Chairman Dyer asked Kurt to review the differences in the land use designations. Kurt Hibbert said the current designation allows single family zones (LDR1, LDR2) up to medium density zones. The mixed use allows any of the Low Density Residential zones, along with Professional Office and Residential Business District. Mary Haley asked if Residential Business District requires a house. Since this zone was designed to keep houses looking like houses, what if there is nothing there? Kurt Hibbert said there is nothing in the zone that would preclude a property owner from removing their home and building another one, but it would have to blend in with the neighborhood. He said mixed use designation allows Professional Office, Project Redevelopment Options, and Neighborhood Business District. It also allows all the Low Density Residential zones, except Low Density Residential 1. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Opposed: Steve Oakev: 25 S. 3=d E. He represented the East Main Neighborhood Association. He thanked the Commission for their efforts. One of the indications of the proposal is that the East Main Neighborhood Association is a vigilantly group, but they are not. They are a volunteer, dues paying association that seeks out the best use to preserve our neighborhoods. They do not exert undue influence on any body. They do not represent every member in every dwelling in the community. There is no one decision that attends the association, but much discussion on a case by case basis. There is disagreement and agreement. On this particular issue, there was unanimous agreement that they should oppose this particular project. It stated in the proposal that without question this current situation is not the best use for the land, but this was not very well reasoned. There is no plan put forward and there is really nothing for them to grab onto as far as what would go into the development. They would prefer the buildings be residential dwellings. The applicant said there is a business directly across from the property and there are rentals in the neighborhood. These issues are law enforcement issues, and completely unrelated to what they are discussing here. Without question, a house will not yield as much cash as other buildings would on the property. However, the one thing they should discuss is that any construction completed on that site will have irreparable damage, harm or benefit to the neighborhood. Whatever is put there will in the future direct the uses of the surrounding residences. If they put residences there, it will strengthen the existing residences, and the people already there will be more likely to want to stay. Rentals existing there will probably not increase. If they 2 put commercial or mixed use there, there will be more willingness of other residences to sell or to convert into rentals, and they will see some deterioration of the neighborhood. This proposal was previously denied, and the applicant's explanation was that the application was poorly represented. He thinks this still applies today, since there is no representation. The explanation of what affect this would have on the community is vague and non descriptive. They hope that in the best interest of the residences in the neighborhood, the commission will deny this request. The applicant says it has been very difficult to develop the property, but more than one person has offered to develop the parcel. There have been opportunities, and there will be opportunities to develop the parcel. They ask the Commission to reject this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Written Input: - Letter from Bonnie Anderson, attached to the application. - Letter from Don Sparhawk, opposing this application. Rebuttal: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Thaine Robinson said he feels the same way he did six (6) months ago on this issue. The PRO zone offers a mechanism to develop the land. He feels strongly they should deny the request. Charles Andersen and Mary Haley agreed. David Stein motioned to reject this petition for a Comprehensive Plan change for area #4 for the reason that the board specifically crafted in connection with City Council the Project Redevelopment Option zone. East Main area is a prime target for this zone. It is vacant land and it would make a prudent use of a tool that was spent countless hours discussing. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Charles Andersen clarified the motion should be worded that they are recommending the motion. David Stein amended his motion to say they recommend to City Council to reject this particular request. Randall Porter seconded. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #9 Kurt Hibbert said the city had received petitions from some property owners, and then the city recommended the whole area be included in the discussion and public hearing. Tudy Hobbs: Owner/broker of Realty Quest 117 W. Main Street. She is authorized to represent the owner of 172 and 178 E. 2°d S. These properties axe listed for sale. The difficulty with an aging neighborhood this close to the university is that many of the houses have been used as dormitory-style housing. The property owners along there that were not in the proper zone were given notices that as of the end of the semester, they could no longer rent with dormitory-style housing. Mr. Harrison decided to put his properties on the market as duplexes. However, the lots are too small for them even to be used as duplexes. She thinks the time and the life of those homes have passed that they will be able to be maintained as quality single family homes. They have been converted to rentals. They don't have the character and care we all give to our personal homes. Mr. Harrison has reduced the prices on his properties so they probably will sell as single family residences. They ask this board to make changes so they can at least be used as duplexes. She believes the area will deteriorate more if they try to force these properties to be single family residences, because they simply aren't going to sell to people who will give them the care they need. 3 Chairman Dyer said the proposal is to change the area from Low-Moderate Residential, which would allow homes of a more single family nature, to Moderate-High Residential land use designation. This would allow a little higher density, but still residential in character. David Stein asked Kurt what it was about the properties that would not allow a duplex. Kurt Hibbert said it is the lot size issue. There has to be enough square footage to allow for the required parking. The houses axe almost all undersized on that side of the street. Mary Haley asked if the backyards on all the properties have been converted to parking. Kurt Hibbert said some of the owners have converted the backyard to parking. The advantage the properties have is that the parking is in the back by the alley. Chairman Dyer said the land use designations allow certain allowed zones. Kurt Hibbert said the zones allowed now are LDR1, LDR2, LDR3, RR1, RR2, and PRO zone. The change would allow the addition of MDR1, MDR2, HDR1, and HDR2. The Commissioners discussed the current situation of the homes. Chairman Dyer read a letter from John Harrison, owner of 172 and 178 E. 2°d S., which was included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Aaron Romnev: 53 Millhollow. He owns two (2) buildings on 2"d S. and Cornell. He read from a prepared written statement he had previously submitted, stating his reasons for supporting the application. Sid Muir: 245 E. 2"d S. He owns a home right by Romney's. As back as far as the 1950s, they have always had duplex style housing in the homes. He is in favor of matching the other side of the street so they can continue what they have been doing. Neutral: Opposed: Randall Reed: 224 Cornell Ave. He opposes the change because there axe students in these houses and there has been an increase in noise and traffic on their streets. Cornell already has a traffic problem being adjacent to the college. He feels this would increase the traffic problem for the residence on Cornell. A few elderly ladies that live on Cornell oppose this change. He bought the property to live there as a resident. They have college housing on the back of their property that is legal, so they are already facing the noise. This change would increase the noise. He questions when we are going to stop the housing moving into our residential areas. There is already ample housing for the students and this is just for financial gain. Written Input: Letter from Eugene Thompson opposing the change. Rebuttal: 4 Judy Hobbs reiterated the decline of that particular street. Cornell has done a beautiful job of taking care of the single family homes. The points have been good from the property owners on Cornell. There will not be an increase in students, but actually a decrease as some of the dormitory-style housing is replaced with simply duplexes. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Ted Hill asked Kurt Hibbert how the properties will qualify as moderate-high density if they don't qualify as low- moderate density because of the square footage issue. Kurt Hibbert said the change will allow a possible increase of number of units per acre, if the owners applied for a zone change. They would have to provide the parking required. They would still be in trouble with dormitory-style housing. Mary Ann Mounts said the owners would still have to tear houses down or combine properties. Chairman Dyer said he sees merit in the proposal for some subsequent zones that could go on the property, but there axe other zones allowed with that land use that would be troublesome. Mary Haley said Mr. Harrison knew what he was buying when he bought that property. For him to come back now and say he's not making the money he needs... He knew that going in. He has made repairs to try to come into compliance, but we have single family residents on Cornell, and they plan to gradually build up to not have high density next to single family residents. She thinks duplexes are fine there, if they have been a continual use. There axe people who are willing to put money into older homes. She doesn't feel this would fit in well in this area with what they had planned. Chairman Dyer clarified that under the existing zoning, they are allowed duplexes if they get the right square footage. Mary Ann Mounts agreed with Mary Haley that this isn't the best use for this property. Historically those homes are not that well taken care of when they have that many students. The homes have too many people living in them for their size. Mike Ricks stated his concern that they still will not have the square footage per lot that the applicant is asking for on the request. He wouldn't go along with the change because of the size of the properties. David Stein said the vast majority of campuses in the country have older homes around the schools that axe rentals. To him one of the common goods is to preserve the historic areas and historic homes. He is also sensitive to the fact that this is not always economically viable. We don't have enough tools in our ordinance. Maybe we should look for a different zone for older homes around the college, since these homes are usually built on smaller lots. Just because a neighborhood has shifted to rental doesn't mean it's inappropriate to keep houses there. He is concerned that the proposal opens up the area for tearing down the houses and building apartments. He would be against it, but they have more work to do so they can preserve those homes. Kurt Hibbert said the question really is what the board visions on the street in the future. Right now, it is a mixed use neighborhood, even on Cornell. Many of those homes have dormitory-style housing in the basements right now. There is a conflict of land use. They have a single family neighborhood struggling to survive, but it has been mixed use. There is a threat from additional housing in the neighborhood. It is not a cut and dry situation. The question is whether the area is accurate on the map, or if the whole nature of the block should be changed. Also, is there a need for additional densification next to campus? Historically, the whole side of campus was a single family neighborhood. The community was once asked to open their doors to the students, because of a lack of student housing. At that time, every one complied with the request and not with the zoning. Joe Laird asked how we would be able to take care of the parking on the lots if this change was approved. Kurt Hibbert said Provo ran into this problem south of BYU. They had small lots, but none of the properties were able 5 to do anything to redevelop. That was initially why they developed the Project Redevelopment Option, to give incentive for the aggregation of properties and the densification of those neighborhoods to solicit reinvestment. Thaine Robinson said if we change it, we will have to make that tool change at a later point in time. Changing the land use designation won't do any good at all. Kurt Hibbert said there is a business registration process opening up right now that might address some of the issues they axe talking about. The ordinance itself makes provision for apartments to be granted adjacent to campus and may in some circumstances become pedestrian only apartments. This may be a tool the city can use to address some of these issues. Mary Haley motioned to recommend to City Council to deny this request to change the designation of area #9 from Low-Moderate Residential to Moderate-High Residential, for the reasons that they have problems there now, and changing the density on the Preferred Land Use map would not help any situation that has been brought to their attention. Charles Andersen seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #8 Kurt Hibbert said the city initiated this public hearing based on the Planning & Zoning Commission's recommendation. We felt there were the same reasons fox doing this that there was six (6) months ago. They want to see if anything has changed in the neighborhood, or if the neighbors would support this change. Mary Haley clarified this is exactly adjacent to the Stonebridge development, on the west edge. Chairman Dyer said the proposal is to change the tract currently designated as Moderate-High Residential to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Brett Hastings: He represents the developer of Stonebridge subdivision, which is immediately to the west of the area in question. One concern they have is this is the second time they haven't received notification of the public hearing. They stand as a neutral party, although they have grave concerns. Obviously placing a commercial designation next to a residential piece of ground is something that is not very common. In their letter that is on record, they stated their concern that the placement of large commercial buildings may cast a shadow onto the residences already built in Stonebridge. They are concerned about the proximity of a potential big box store to 7`h North. They could back onto 7th North and change the area significantly. Buffering is certainly an issue, but he thinks it could be done in a way that could enhance the area. They are concerned about how it would be buffered: with a wall, with landscape, how far the buildings would be place from the residential zone, how close any kind of building would be placed to 7th North, how the parking lot would be handled. Lighting of the parking lot could become an issue. They have many questions, and that is why they are concerned about the change. They are not necessarily opposed to the change, but they cannot say they are in favor of it without knowing there would be significant restrictions placed on any kind of commercial activity that would happen there. They are planning to continue on with their subdivision. It is approximately fifty (50) acres, and will eventually hold as many as 140 to 150 homes. They are moving forward now with other phases of the development. It is a very nice neighborhood, 6 and they want it to stay that way. They are concerned with this proposal, and hope that if it is approved, it is approved with major conditions and restrictions on what could develop there. Opposed: Maxine Adair: She lives in Stonebridge, and her home is right over the fence from the area in question. She and her husband think it is a lovely neighborhood with young people and many children and has been absolutely delightful. When they moved here, they looked at many areas and homes, but settled into this, their dream home. Hex husband enjoys the view out the back. He watches the sunset every single day. They can see 2°d East, but the lights are fax enough removed that they don't bother them. The idea of having a noisy, boisterous, bright lighted area right beyond their fence is very sad to them. They understood when they moved in that there was a buffer zone there. She asked them to leave it the way it is if they can. She urged them to reject the proposal. Travis Blacker: 680 Meadowbxook. He read a prepared statement, expressing his concerns with the proposal. His concerns included increased traffic, safety for the children and increased crime. He presented a petition against the proposal, signed by many residents of the Stonebridge subdivision. He asked that the Planning & Zoning Commission understand their concerns, and vote against the proposal as the City Council did previously. Tav Warnick: 637 W. Stonebridge. He said he came with appreciation fox the City Council's unanimous vote six (6) months ago. Words of sympathy were expressed on the homeowners' behalf. His bubble was burst to hear the city was the applicant of this proposal. He appreciates what has been said about buffers. He has been in the landscaping business for fifteen (15) years. They have all been in and around the big box stores and he thinks there is no buffer suitable to help them preserve the privacy and security they deserve. He agrees that Stonebridge is a great neighborhood and is developing. If this change were to take place, this positive development would cease, and the neighborhood would regress. Rebuttal: Kurt Hibbert said right now, as a point of information, the zoning adjacent to the neighborhood is Medium Density Residential 1. This allows sixteen (16) units per acre. He explained the buffering requirements on this zone, which is a minimum four (4) foot wide landscaping strip, and/or a suitable fence to be put around parking of more than five (5) vehicles. One thing the neighbors should be aware of is that the buffering requirements axe much more restrictive on a commercial zone. A berm of no less than six (6) feet in height, containing a double row of evergreen or deciduous trees planted at specific intervals is required. Additional landscaping may be required by the Planning & Zoning Commission to affectively buffer adjacent land use as deemed appropriate. The commission would have a lot of latitude in a commercial zone that they don't have in the residential zone. The MDR zone is pretty soft as far as buffering between zones. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Chairman Dyer declared a perceived conflict of interest because he has performed services in the recent past for the property owner and is currently employed by a neighbor. He excused himself from the table. Thaine Robinson was selected to act Chairman for this issue. Randall Porter asked Kurt Hibbert to explain why this property was originally designated Moderate-High Density on the Comprehensive Plan map, and why the city has asked that it be changed. Kurt Hibbert said the discussion was about having a large enough piece of land for a commercial development that would need additional depth. It was zoned MDR at the request of the property owner four (4) years ago. It is a stepping from Commercial to Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Randall Porter said he thought this looked like a nice transition between the Low Density Residential neighborhood and a Commercial 7 neighborhood. Kurt Hibbert said from the City's perspective, they have seen what can happen in MDR zones. There are instances all over the city where it is about as neighborhood friendly as an industrial site. There is a lot of concern about the impact on that neighborhood. They have better buffering capabilities with Commercial than they do with MDR. If the neighbors were aware of the density allowed by the MDR zone, they would be a lot more concerned. 7`'' South is probably the best education in town on what can be done on an MDR property. Charles Andersen asked what had changed in the last six (6) months other than the buffer issue. Kurt Hibbert said the reason for the public hearing was to find out if anything had changed. Dan Hanna asked if Kurt Hibbert was authorized to make the presentation. They should have had someone from the city explain why they wanted to make this change, whereas six (6) months ago, the neighbors clearly understood the city was in agreement with them. Kurt Hibbert said the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended six (6) months ago that the change be made. The City Council denied it. Mary Haley said when they originally looked at the Preferred Land Use map, they decided the buffering from commercial to single family residential needed some kind of gradual step down. She doesn't see a change there. She understands that they axe looking fox more campus type developments, but this is not the place fox it. Not only does it have substantial residential there, but there is more planned. There are other areas where large campus-type commercial zoning could be used. She opposes the proposal. Joe Laird said they had quite a discussion in this area, and the need to step down the zoning from Commercial to MDR to LDR. He still believes this is the right way to do this, but he agrees with Kurt that they need to something much more than what they have as far as buffering MRD and LDR. David Stein said he doesn't think anything has changed since this was denied six (6) months ago. Dan Hanna asked if it would be appropriate for Kurt Hibbert to quantify what affect sixteen (16) units per acre would have on the property. Kurt Hibbert said there are twenty-three (23) acres on the parcel, and with sixteen (16) units per acre, there could be 368 units on the parcel. Each unit would have two (2) cars. Dan Hanna said what they have heard is if a big box were placed here, the back would be to the East of this neighborhood. He believes there is very little traffic and noise in the back of those big box stores. From his perspective, the big box would not have that much of a negative impact on the neighbors in Stonebridge. Joe Laird motioned to recommend to City Council to deny this request to change the Preferred Land Use from Moderate-High Residential to Commercial for area #8. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Winston Dyer returned as chairman. Area #5 Kurt Hibbert said three (3) parcels were noticed for hearing: the parcel on the corner, the parcel behind it, and the single family residence behind that. The Commission received a letter from the owner of the home on the third parcel stating his desire to not be included in the change. Chairman Dyer said the proposal is to change this tract of land that is currently designated as Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map to Industrial. Clint Galbraith: 64 S. 3`a W. He said the application was to change this area to Industrial to bring it into conformity with the existing use. The use has been a cabinet shop for at least 38 years. This application includes the second property behind the existing cabinet shop in the land use, to make it all Light Industrial. This main property was initially zoned Community Business Center, and this body felt it would more appropriately fit into Light Industrial. The third property with the single family home was not intended to be included on the proposal. Chairman Dyer clarified the third parcel on the west was not intended to be included in the application. Kurt Hibbert said this is correct. The Flaker home was included in the legal description, but this was not the intent. Randall Porter asked if the applicant was the owner of the property in question. Clint Galbraith said yes, he owns the property in question. Joe Laird asked what the plan was for the area west of the cabinet shop. Clint Galbraith said he plans to have another building there for storage. The property is now vacant. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Amy Carol: 77 S. 5`" W. #1300. She thinks it is appropriate for the area to be changed, since it has been light industrial use for many years. She sees no problems with changing the back parcel if it will be strictly for storage. The business just to the north is also of an industrial nature, so it shouldn't have any affect there. Neutral: Lash Laker: He sold the applicant the lot, and if he didn't want him to expand, he wouldn't have sold it to him. He does not want his home to be included in the change. Opposed: Written Input: Letter from Mr. Laker requesting his property not be included in the proposal. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Ann Mounts said she is in favor of the proposal. The highest and best use as well as the preferred use on properties along the railroad is Light Industrial. Mary Haley agreed, but she would like to pull Mr. Laker's property off the application. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change area #5 to Light Industrial on the Preferred Land Use map, but to not include the westerly parcel in the change. Mary Haley seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #3 and #6 The Commissioners decided to treat both areas simultaneously. 9 Chairman Dyer said both areas are currently designated Agriculture on the Preferred Land Use map. One piece is designated Industrial. They axe proposed to be change to Commercial Preferred Land Use. Louis Clements: He represents most of the property in area #3. He said it is quite obvious with the highway interchange there that this area of Rexburg is going to develop as Commercial, so it needs to have a Commercial designation. This would allow this land to be used in accordance with rest of 2"d East. Mary Haley asked if this proposal included the Century Farm. Louis Clements said this is part of the Hegsted property. Four Hegsted siblings own property and are in favor of the change. Randall Porter asked if the request is for the entire farm, ox if there are parts of the farm that are not included in the request. Louis Clements said the circular part at the top belongs to Bruce Shirley, and he has asked to be included in any change requested. Randall Porter asked if there is any other property owned by the Hegsted family. Louis Clements said there is one resident there that he does not represent. Randall Porter asked who owns the property to the west. Louis Clements said it is owned by Kazuo Sakota. Chairman Dyer asked if this would take in all their property. It would. He asked what the dimensions on the property are. Louis Clements said it was 107 acres. Kurt Hibbert said they mirror-imaged the parcel on the other side, so the dimensions are the exact same on both sides. Dan Hanna asked if there was an application on area #6. Kurt Hibbert said the City included this area. They felt if there was a change on one side, there should be a change on the other. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Louis Clements stated that they are in favor of this proposal. Neutral: Opposed: Written Input: Letter from Louis Clements in favor of the proposal. E-mail from John Heisted in favor of the proposal. Letter with the signatures of the owners of the Hegsted and Clements properties requesting the change be made. Letter from Wanda Harris Chairman Dyer noted this letter addresses the annexation issue, not the Comprehensive Plan issue. Letter from an Gallu with remarks on area #3 and #6. Rebuttal: Louis Clements said he had never heard a lot of the things in the letter from Jan Gallup, and he didn't know it was bad to thank city officials for taking care of the city. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. 10 Mary Ann Mounts said she stands by hex old recommendation as pointed out in the letter. She thinks it is the obvious thing that is going to have to happen. Thaine Robinson said he agrees, they do want commercial there, so they should show that on the Preferred Land Use map. Mary Haley said the size now proposed is better than what was proposed before. She has researched more into it, and she feels if they want something other than strip malls, they should make places available for campus-type developments. Chairman Dyer said he agreed, if they didn't do this with the right geometry, they would facilitate one type of development over another. Joe Laird said we didn't really know what would happen on the interchange. We felt it would no doubt preferably be commercial, but they didn't know how wide it should be. If they do get the campus-type development, the dimensions will be very good. On the other hand, they could still get the commercial development right along the highway, and it would be no different than what was discussed before. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change areas #3 and #6 to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Mary Haley seconded the motion. Dan Hanna asked if area #6 also included a proposed change to Light Industrial. Kurt Hibbert said a portion of the parcel is Industrial on the Preferred Land Use map. On the Zoning map, there is quite a bit of Industrial out there. They would basically be pairing it back and replacing it with Commercial land use designation. Area #6 is a mix of Agricultural and Industrial right now. Chairman Dyer commented if we keep chasing the industrial out now, he wonders where it is going to go. Kurt Hibbert said the zoning would stay on the property until there was an application for a zone change. This proposal only changes the Comprehensive Plan map. Randall Porter asked if they superimposed the area and dropped it into the middle of Rexburg, they are almost doubling the Commercial area in the City of Rexburg. He asked if they need this much Commercial property, or if they are changing too much. Chairman Dyer said they probably will have too much Commercial, but how do they split someone's property up? Randall Porter asked what they will do when someone wants to build medium density or high density housing in that area. He asked if they should look at the area incrementally, instead of bringing it all in at once. Chairman Dyer pointed out there is protection in that any further action has to come forward as a requested zone change. Mary Ann Mounts said they talked about the possibility of frontage roads, and if they go deep enough, it would allow for that. David Stein called for the question. 11 Those in favor: Winston Dyer Mary Ann Mounts David Stein Mary Haley Thaine Robinson Charles Andersen Ted Hill Mike Ricks Dan Hanna Randall Porter abstained. Motion carried. Areas #1 and #2 Those opposed: Joe Laird Kurt Hibbert said this request came from discussions in an earlier Planning & Zoning meeting. This entails eventually extending University Boulevard up onto the hill. The Comprehensive Plan map shows University Boulevard also extending eventually to the west. They have already initiated development with Rexburg Motor Sports, and some other new facilities. All this is currently zoned Commercial. With this change, all four quadrants at the interchange would become Commercial. They want public input on the issue. Chairman Dyer said the areas are currently designated as Low-Moderate Residential, and it is proposed that they be changed to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Mike Ricks asked who owns one of the properties. Kurt Hibbert said it is the school district's property. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Opposed: Written Input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Ann Mounts asked if the school had been notified. Kurt Hibbert said he and the Mayor had a discussion with Mr. Thomas about this, and he did not object to this proposal. Mike Ricks said the property on the north should be used for the building of schools, since the school district has purchased it. Chairman Dyer asked if the property could still be used for a school. Kurt Hibbert said you can build a school in virtually any of our zones. Randall Porter said his same argument applies on this issue. We have enough Commercial property for two or three more Rexburgs. There is no plan here for infill and gradually working our way to these properties. 12 Thaine Robinson asked if they had talked about the land use allowing multi-housing developments out there. Charles Andersen said as it is currently designated Agricultural, someone could go out there and put apartments in. He asked if we want more High-Density Residential in that area. Joe Laird said we had indicated we would probably need more commercial development on this interchange because what we had there was very limited. This is the same problem they had on the North interchange. The addition of two small areas would indicate that we recognize that is going to go commercial in some form. They should show they know it will not remain agricultural or single family dwellings. Mike Ricks said the area to the north would be better as school buildings than as commercial. Dan Hanna said a few years ago, he had a conversation with Winston Dyer about the future of Rexburg and what was going to happen commercially. Everyone was quite concerned about sprawl. In Idaho Falls there is a lot of fragmentation of retail. No one will do very well. He asked if we going to let it sprawl all over in Rexburg. David Stein said optimally commercial developments are always around major intersections. Rexburg is one of the fastest growing cities in the state, and Idaho is one of the fastest growing states in the country. We should have some large parcels designated commercial to allow more regional type centers. He is in favor of the proposal. Charles Andersen motioned to recommend to City Council to change the designation of areas #1 and #2 to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Joe Laird seconded the motion. Those in favor• Winston Dyer Thaine Robinson Mary Ann Mounts Mary Haley Ted Hill Dan Hanna Charles Anderson Joe Laird David Stein Those opposed: Mike Ricks Randall Porter Motion carried. Area #7 Kurt Hibbert said where the road would extend out of Stonebridge Subdivision, the idea was to not leave a little remnant of multi family, but to make it single family. Staff felt it was still a good idea, regardless of any other decisions in the area. Chairman Dyer pointed out that to the west is commercial designation. Kurt Hibbert said the proposal is to change the area from Medium-High Density Residential designation to a Low- Medium Density Residential designation. Mary Ann Mounts asked if the city was the applicant on this proposal. Kurt Hibbert said this is correct. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: 13 Neutral: Opposed: Written input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. The Commissioners discussed the area in question. Thaine Robinson said this is such a small piece of ground that he would prefer just leave it the way it is. Charles Andersen said they are pulling at little strings that really are not issues. Kurt Hibbert said it is all about presentation of the map. This is really just a house keeping issue. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change area #7 from aMedium-High Density Residential designation to aLow-Medium Density Residential designation on the Preferred Land Use map. David Stein seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Dyer called fora 5 minute break. 7:30 PM -Rezone request from MDRl and CBC to LI at 330 West 15` South (Interwest Cabinet) lint Galbraith 64 S. 3`d W. They would like to rezone the property to Light Industrial so they could build a storage wilding behind the cabinet shop. )an Hanna asked if this would affect parking in the area. Clint Galbraith said only in that they are required to gave a certain number of parking spaces fox employees, and they have enough parking planned. hurt Hibbert clarified that the two (2) parcels currently have different zones, but they axe both requested to be changed to Light Industrial. Chairman Dyer opended the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Opposed: Written Input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the zone change at 330 West 15` South and 64 South 3`d West to Light Industrial. Randall Porter seconded the motion. 14 None opposed. Motion carried. 7:45 PM -Rezone request from RR1 to CBC at Highway 33 and 12t'' West - (My Storage and Neighbors) Dave Christensen: Owner of one of the parcels and applicant for the zone change. He said he is not here to discuss the specific use of the property, but for the request for a zone change from Rural Residential to Community Business Center. Kurt Hibbert pointed out this request does conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and the existing uses will be recognized as grandfathered once this zone is applied. All businesses on the land will be able to continue as they have. City Attorney Zollinger said he has met with the other two (2) owners of the land on the application, and they both continue to support this request. Randall Porter asked if the applicant meets all the lot size requirements. Kurt Hibbert said it varies. Some lots conform and some don't. Right now CBC is the only zone we can apply in the impact area until the County adopts Ordinance 926. City Attorney Zollinger said these lots would be considered conforming when they axe rezoned, since they are formed before the zone change. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Sid Pierce: Owner of a house next to the application. He asked what is allowed in CBC. Kurt Hibbert said he could look it up in Ordinance 926. City Attorney Zolllinger said it is generally businesses type uses. Rick Hill: He lives in front of Sid Pierce. He is concerned with hooking up to the city sewer and water, and if they will eventually have to too. He doesn't want to be in the city limits. Opposed: Written Input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Ann Mounts said they don't have any reasons of safety or traffic to deny the change. David Stein said he is in favor since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mary Haley said it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is also consistent with what is already there. She has no objections. Chairman Dyer said later on when development proposals come forward, there would be some issues that need to be discussed. 15 David Stein motioned to recommend to the County Commission to rezone the properties on 12~' West from Rural Residential to Community Business Center. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. New Business• Unfinished/Old Business Compliance• Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: Report on Projects: Tabled requests: A. Rezone request from RR to LDR2 at 1139 East 9`'' North -(Mark Liebel) B. Preliminary Plat -Riverwoods Townhomes, Div. 2 Dan Hanna motioned to pick the Preliminary Plat for Riverwoods Townhomes, Division 2 up off the table. Maty Ann Mounts seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion Carried. Brandon Jenks said they are classifying this as a Planned Unit Development. As for architectural style, they will mirror the development across the street. They will extend the Home Owner's Association from the development across the street. The required maintenance building has been built on the other property. Their covenants specifically state you can park nothing there for more than 48 areas, so they don't need storage areas. The ordinance calls for four (4) visitor parking spaces. They have looked at different options. The only option that would work would be to put them on the ends of the units, which would eventually put parking between buildings. They don't want this. With the uniqueness of the lot, the best bet is to keep the parking where it is with some type of specific accommodation for this property. He has discussed this with John Millar and Kurt Hibbert, and they axe in favor of this. Kurt Hibbert said since most of the parking is out of the setback, they could accommodate it rather than try to place it somewhere else on the lot. City staff felt it would negatively impact the streetscape to put parking on the sides of the buildings. Also, since this is all part of the same home owner's association, he actually has excess parking than what is required with what is already across the street. They felt it would be better to have this here on this lot as well. Mike Ricks mentioned it was suggested to change the driveway from 22 feet to 24 or 30. Brandon Jenks said they would be willing to do this if this is required. David Stein asked if the area to the east belongs to the applicant. Brandon enks said this belongs to Bagleys, and they have landscaped it. It looks nice, and they would like to leave it they way it is. Kurt Hibbert stated his appreciation for the developers addressing the code very specifically. 16 Chairman Dyer clarified fox the Commissioners not present at the last meeting that the request had been tabled because of the parking in the front yard setback. Kurt Hibbext said they have excess parking on the other side of the road that would fulfill the requirement, but they would rather have some guest parking on this side of the road as well. The encroachment of the setback is on the rear of the structures, on what might be considered an alley way. They felt this is a better option that trying to move it between the structures. David Stein asked what justification they have to approve this. Chairman Dyer said they discussed it at length, and this property is surrounded by streets on three (3) sides, which makes it difficult to keep parking out of the front yard setback. City Attorney Zollinger said the developer doesn't need these parking spaces at all. The City has always had and maintains the right to allow parking in the setback per agreement. Chairman Dyer said the Commission has major concerns with this. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat fox Riverwoods Townhomes, Division 2 without the guest parking. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. Those in favor: Those opposed: Winston Dyer Mary Haley Mary Ann Mounts Joe Laird Dan Hanna Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson Charles Andersen Ted Hill David Stein Randall Porter Motion Carried. Building Permit Application Report: None Heads Uu: Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 11:00 pm. 17 Ci~ ~our~ul N'~t~~1v.;~ eS ~-~1 ~~~ Council Member Schwendiman asked if the F16s could come to the Air show. Terry explained F16's have to be booked a year in advance. The Municipal Golf Course will close from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. to allow for a scatter pattern if the planes have problems. Council Member Stevens asked about liability insurance for the people that get the free ride. City Attorney Zollinger will check with John Bagley. Council Member Erickson reviewed the financial status of the Flight Museum. Terry explained all the money flows to the City under a special account. In the last two months ticket sales and sponsors have donated about $14,000. There is utility expenses and $8,000 in insurance costs (only while the airplanes are on display in the Museum) for a year. There will be a monthly financial report for the Flight Museum given to the City Council. Council Member Erickson has heart burn over the insurance costs. He was not sure how the City could justify insuring private planes on the City's bill. Financial Officer Horner explained the planes would not be allowed in the facility by the owners without the insurance on the planes when they are in the Museum. Public Hearinsrs• B. 7:30 P.M. Amend the Comprehensive Plan Map. Public Works Director John Millar reviewed the nine areas that were in a Planning and Zoning Public Hearing. Of the nine areas; three areas were not recommended for a Comprehensive Plan Map change. Areas One and Two are on the west side of the south interchange. The School District and the Kauer family own these parcels. Area Three is at the north interchange on the west side of 2na East from Moody Road to the interchange. Area Four is property at 2na South and 2na East. Area Five is a commercial cabinet shop on 3`a West and 151 South. Area Six is at the north interchange on the east side of 2na East from Moody Road almost to the interchange. Area Seven is a small piece of property on the north side of 7a' North adjacent to a future LDS Church. Area Eight is directly west of the Stone Bridge Subdivision. Area Nine is property on the south side of 2na South between 151 East and 2na East. Planning and Zoning recommended denial of areas Four, Eight, and Nine. The other areas were recommended for approval. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the proposed changes to the Comprehensive Plan "Land Use" Map: He noted the Map can be changed every six months. Comprehensive Plan change for Area One (1~ & Area Two (2~: Mayor Larsen asked for public input on "Area One" and "Area Two:" It is proposed the tracts of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial." Those in favor of the proposal: NONE Those neutral to the proposal: NONE 5 Those in opposition to the proposal: NONE Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for City Council deliberations. Council Member Young asked if the School District Plans for the new High School property would be in conflict with this proposed change to the Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Erickson explained the School District could sell off part of their investment for added revenue. This proposed change is in the Southeast corner of the School District property. A Commercial land use designation would be more valuable to the School District. Council Member Stevens asked about Commercial land designations around the School District property. Council Member Erickson noted two Planning and Zoning members were concerned with having too much commercial property in the City at this time and added traffic for the area. Council Member Stevens is used to having a residential area around the current High School. Lane Hemming (Assistant Superintendent) was not aware of the requested change to the Comprehensive Plan coming from the School District. They came to the meeting to see why it was recommended. They were planning to have this discussion in a School Board meeting in a few days. Planning and Zoning Commissioner Thaine Robinson noted the property is close to the interchange off Hwy 20 coming into Rexburg. The Planning Commission recognized the value of Commercial property around the interchanges into the City. They were concerned with the lack of control on the development of the area under the current land use designation. Council Member Erickson mentioned Dr. Geoffrey Thomas was contacted about the proposed change to the property and he did not have a problem with the change. The proposed change was viewed as a preferred land use for the property. Council Member Young asked who initiated the proposal. Planning and Zoning Administrator Hibbert initiated the proposal and he contacted the property owners for their approval. Thaine Robinson said the City was the petitioner. Council Member Young moved to table the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area One & Area Two; Council Member Schwendiman seconded the motion; Discussion: Mayor Larsen reminded the City Council this proposed action would be delayed six months into the future before any other land use actions on the Map could be proposed. Those votingT Those voting nay Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. 6 Comprehensive Plan change for Area Three (3,1 & Area Six ~l: These properties are on both sides of 2"d East just south of the North Interchange. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area Three (3) & Area Six (6): It is proposed the tracks of land currently designated as "Agriculture" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial." Those in favor of the proposal: NONE Those neutral to the proposal: NONE Those in opposition to the proposal: Jan Gallup at 309 South Austin Avenue, Sugar City, Idaho, wanted to make it known she was speaking as an individual, not as a consultant for Sugar City or any of the property owners. She noted that two property owners in this proposal have been annexed into Sugar City. Two documents signed by the property owners demonstrate the land owners want to be part of Sugar City. She wanted the property owners desires respected. She noted a commercial land use designation was an appropriate direction for their property. Sugar City has planned to have it designated as a commercial land use also. She submitted a letter to the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission briefing her concerns with Rexburg's proposal to change the Comprehensive Plan for this area. She wanted the City Council to take these comments into consideration as part of their deliberations. She was in favor of letting the property owners do what they wanted to do with their property. Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for City Council deliberations. Council Member Young asked if the Mayors for Sugar City and Rexburg have made any further progress to come up with a resolution to the boundary dispute between Sugar City and Rexburg. Mayor Larsen noted Rexburg has annexed these properties with the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation. He mentioned the two Cities are still communicating on the dispute on a regular basis. He is still looking forward to a resolution (compromise) to the dispute with Sugar City in this area. Council Member Erickson explained the property had been annexed by Rexburg also. Council Member Young recommended making the change to prepare for future deliberations. Council Member Mann wanted to proceed with the proposed change for these properties. Council Member Stevens respected Planning and Zoning's decision on the proposal. 7 Council Member Stevens moved to change the Comprehensive Plan land designation from "Agriculture" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map to "Commercial;" Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Those voting aye Those voting nay Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Comprehensive Plan change for Area Four (41: Council Member Mann disclosed he attended this portion of the Planning and Zoning meeting on the deliberations for area's Four and Nine. Council Member Erickson explained this property is on South 2"d East where a burned out house was located. It is one block south of the new Walgreen's store. It is on the east side of the street. Area Nine is located on south side of 2°d South between 1S` East and 2"d East. Mayor Larsen explained the land use change proposals. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area Four (4): It is proposed the tract of land currently designated as "Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Mixed-Use." Those in favor of the proposal: NONE Those Neutral to the proposal: NONE Those in opposition to the proposal: Steve Oakey at 25 South 3`d East spoke in behalf of the East Main Street Neighborhood Association. He asked the City Council to follow the recommendation of the Planning and Zoning Commission and deny the request. He read two paragraphs from the applicant's application. He noted some gross falsehoods in reference to the East Main Street Neighborhood Association. They are a dues paying group and they are not a monolithic. There have been disagreements on this issue for Area Four. The neighborhood has never claimed to represent out side of the dues paying members. They make a great effort to invite all neighborhood members to their meetings or come to the meetings and participate. Only dues paying members can vote on neighborhood issues. They represent those willing to engage in the discussion. In the second paragraph concerning the application, Steve noted there is no question that single family residential use is not the highest and best use for this property. He recommended the ProZone for this property. Two other proposals would fit better in the neighborhood. The future development of this proposal will greatly affect the future of the neighborhood. High density office space may spread to other neighbors. They are against multiple use land uses for their neighborhood. He thanked the City Council. He recommended following the Planning and Zoning recommendation and deny the request. Don Sparhawk at 37 South 3`d East indicated they are in solid older residential areas of the City. The Neighborhood Association and Planning and Zoning Commission have worked to keep these areas residential. They recommend smaller patio style homes for this area. These homes would compliment existing homes. He asked the City Council to continue to visualize this as a residential area. Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for City Council deliberations. He read the Planning and Zoning motion. Area #4: David Stein moved to r ject this petition for a comprehensive plan change for area #4 for the reason that the board specifically crafted in connection nrith City Council the Project Kedevelopment Option done. East Main area is a prime target for this done. It is vacant land and it would make a prudent use of a tool that seas spent countless hours discussing. Randall Potter seconded the motion. Chortles Andersen clarified the motion should be worded that they are recommending the motion. David Stein amended his motion to say they recommend to City Council to r ject this particular request. Randall Porter seconded. None opposed. Motion cattied. Council Member Erickson moved to reject the proposed Comprehensive Plan change on the Map for Area Four; Council Member Mann seconded the motion; Discussion: Those voting aye Those voting nay Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Comprehensive Plan change for Area Nine (91: Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area Nine (9): It is proposed the tract of land currently designated as "Low-Moderate Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred I~rnd Use Map be changed to "Moderate- High Residential" 9 Those in favor of the proposal: NONE Those Neutral to the proposal: NONE Those in opposition to the proposal: Eugene Thompson on 112 East 2°d South noted the Planning and Zoning Commission came to a rational decision. There is not enough square footage and parking for dormitory style housing. They were opposed to dormitory style housing in the area. He is willing to live and let live without dormitory style housing. They are not opposed to having students in the area. Don Sparhawk reiterated his testimony for Area Four as being the same for Area Nine. Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for City Council deliberations. He read the Planning and Zoning motion. Area #9: Macy Haley motioned to recommend to City Council to deny this request to change the designation of area #9 from L.ow-moderate residential to moderate-high residential, for the reasons that they have problems there nosv, and changing the density on the Preferred Land Use map avould not hep any situation that has been brought to their attention. Charles Atrdetsen seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Council Member Erickson moved to deny the Comprehensive Plan Map change for Area Nine from Low-Moderate Residential" to "Moderate-High Residential"; Council Member Schwendiman seconded the motion; Those voting aye Those voting nay Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Comprehensive Plan change for Area Five (51: Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area Five (5): It is proposed the tract of land currently designated as "Commercial" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Industrial." Mayor Larsen indicated the proposal is a cabinet shop and he asked the requestor to open the discussion. Clint Galbraith at 64 South 3`d West indicated his desire to build a storage building west of his cabinet shop. The Planning and Zoning Commission wanted the zoning changed to Light 10 Industrial. He was in favor of the land use change. The business has been his for twenty years; the business has been a cabinet shop for thirty eight years. Those in favor of the proposal: Clint Galbraith indicated he was in favor of the proposal. Those Neutral to the proposal: NONE Those in opposition to the proposal: Kevin Snell at 3784 East 175`" North in Rigby, Idaho, owns one house through the block. He wants a residential (Townhouses) community cottage area. It was Comprehensive Planed for Commercial apartments. He is concerned with changing the block to industrial and in the future this property may change to a different industrial use. The railroad tracks are not being used for that purpose. He is not opposed to have a storage building; however, he was concerned with the future of the area if this parcel is changed to an Industrial land use designation. He does not want a total land use change. What if he wants to sell? P&Z noted it was by the railroad. He did not agree with railroad section logic. He read some of the zoning applications for Industrial. He is opposed to changing the Land Use from Residential to Industrial. Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for City Council deliberations. Discussion: The Comprehensive Plan needs changed first before a zone change would be considered. Part of this action is to clean up the land use designation on the cabinet shops existing lot which has a residential strip on the western edge of the lot. Council Member Erickson explained that CBC was not welcomed by the Planning and Zoning Commission. CBC was the original requested land use change proposal. They wanted to change the land use designation to fit the existing business. Chairman Dyer explained the current use does not fit in a CBC Zone. It would bring the cabinet shop into the correct land use designation. Council Member Stevens was comfortable with the recommendation of Planning and Zoning. They spent a lot of time and energy to come up with this decision. Council Member Erickson explained hours and hours and days and days were spent deliberating the issues for this parcel. Council Member Benfield commented that it does not affect the other properties. Council Member Young moved to approve the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation to change the Comprehensive Plan Map for Area Five (5) from "Commercial" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Maki to "Industrial;" Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Discussion: Those voting aTe Those voting nay Donna Benfield Christopher Mann Farrell Young 11 Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Comprehensive Plan change for Area Seven (71: Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area Seven (7): It is proposed the tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Low- Moderate Residential" Those in favor of the proposal: NONE Those Neutral to the proposal: NONE Those in opposition to the proposal: NONE Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for City Council deliberations. Council Member Erickson explained it is a house keeping process with the surrounding area. A new church is planned east of this parcel. Council Member Erickson moved to accept the recommendation from "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map to "Low-Moderate Residential;" Council Member Young seconded the motion; Those voting aye Those voting nay Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. Comprehensive Plan change for Area Eight (8): Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing for public input on the proposed Comprehensive Plan change for Area Eight (8): It is proposed the tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial." Those in favor of the proposal: NONE 12 Those Neutral to the proposal: NONE Those in opposition to the proposal: Jay Warnick at 636 West Stonebridge supports the Planning and Zoning Commission's decision to reject the requested change. At the Planning Commission's Public Hearing on April 20, 2006, Jay quoted minutes to deny the petition. Planning and Zoning Administrator Kurt Hibbert was quoted comparing Medium Density Residential as being as friendly as an Industrial site due to the allowed density in an MDR Zone. The choice of a supper big box store or an Industrial site (MDR) is a lose -lose situation. He asked the City to take a good look at the City's codes for buffering to protect single family neighborhoods like the Stonebridge Subdivision. Mayor Larsen closed the Public Hearing for City Council deliberations. He noted the property is adjacent to the Stonebridge Subdivision. Council Member Erickson explained the proposal is not for light industrial. It was a comparison quote for Planning and Zoning Administrator Kurt Hibbert. Council Member Benfield moved to accept Planning and Zoning's recommendation to deny the proposal; Council Member Erickson seconded the motion; Those voting aye Those voting nay Donna Benfield NONE Farrell Young Christopher Mann Rex Erickson Randy Schwendiman Bart Stevens The motion carried. C. 8:00 P.M. Impact Area Zone Change from Rural Residential (RR) to Community Business Center (CBC) -12~' West north of Hwy 33. City Attorney Zollinger explained the petitioner, Mr. Christensen has complied with Planning and Zoning's recommendations for this Zone request. They approved the proposed CBC Zone for these parcels. He reviewed the different parcels on the overhead screen next to Mother Hibbard's Country Store on 12~' West and Hwy 33. Mayor Larsen opened the Public Hearing. Those in favor of the proposal: 13 March 15, 2006 ~ ~p ~ Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission 12 N. Center St. Rexburg, ID 83440 Re: Change in Comprehensive Plan Dear Commission Members: Pursuant to our oral request in February to be zoned commercial and as owners of the property on the west side of 2°`~ East at the north overpass, known as the Hegsted property, we would like to request that this parcel of land (106 acres) be zoned commercial in the city's comprehensive plan. This area will provide the gateway into the city from the north and is being looked at by several commercial developers. We want it to become an attractive and inviting shopping area for not only our community but also to the communities to the north. Having that zoning change made immediately is important in this development. Sincerely, Hegsted C Louis Clements • ~ Page 1 of 1 Stephen Zollinger From: John Hegsted [heggie66@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:11 PM To: Stephen Zollinger Subject: Comprehensive Plan Steve, I am sending this Email to remind you that, as we previously discussed, we would like our farm to be zoned "commercial" on the comprehensive plan. Thanks, John Hegsted 3/7/2006 4 ~ • \ V ` October 30, 2005 To: Rexburg Planning and Zoning If I understand correctly the function of this board is to look to the future. To envision what the highest and best use of land is today, tomorrow and if possible in the future. Your planning and decisions help a city grow with grace. What a challenge! I'm having trouble then understanding why the latest comprehensive plan goes backward. Specifically, how can the block where the doctors have buildings and our block on S. 2"d East be Rl zoning? The large almost 2 acres of undeveloped land on S. 2°d East has been in our family for four generations. My ancestors had single family, multifamily, and a commercial business use of this land. Most of the houses in our block and across the street have rental units in them. Across the street is a commercial sign indicating a business use. This block has always had mixed use. Why did you put RI use when it has NEVER held a major use of Rl? I have recently witnessed a vigilantly group (East Main Neighborhood Assoc.) have great influence over your board. They said in a public meeting that they represent the wishes of all the neighbors. This is a gross falsehood. We have never been contacted by this group! We certainly do not want this neighborhood to remain single family use only. There is no question that Rl zoning is not the highest and best use . People living on my block are flagrantly violating this zone. How does the city intend to bring everyone in compliance with such a zone? If you don't bring them into compliance I feel that I am being discriminated against. It is very difficult to develop my property. I have already been told that a ProZone is possible but difficult, time consuming and restrictive. How can someone across the street run a business when I am prohibited from doing the same? These are hard questions that your board must face fairly. It is clear, to me at least, that a mixed use must be allowed on this block. It is the only use that makes sense and will ultimately benefit the city as a whole as Rexburg continues it's fast pace of growth. Sincerely ~~ Bonnie Anderson Gary Anderson B~aw,. nYa~.~~A""e~.'~~.~ ~~.~.u~..n:..~.PCe.,. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Application Submittal Requirements Complete this application, provide all supporting documents, and submit to the Community Development Department. MAP CHANGE REQUESTS WILL BE PROCESSED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL OTHER REQUESTS AT THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY FOLLOWING THIS SUBMITTAL. THE COMMISSION MAY TAKE ACTION BEFORE THIS TIME IN THE EVENT THE CHANGE IS TIME SENSITIVE OR IT HAS BEEN AT LEAST 6 MONTHS SINCE THE LAST AMMENDMENT DATE. TEXT AMMENDMENTS MAY BE PROCESSED ON AN ONGOING BASIS AND DO NOT NEED TO WAIT SIX MONTHS BETWEEN REVISIONS. ~~ % yon- z L9-.zdo~ Name:~ailsdL*iP f .~/t1c~c`'I'~~~/il" Phone:N3~~~z~iN-~'ZLS Address:1~7.~1 ~~ Cy~n7`G~r CLu,~ i>~~ Ya/"yc~/, GI T~1 tI ~~17y/ 1. Does the amendment request(s) concern a specific property? YES_~ NO 2. Is this amendment request for a change in land use designation? YES~_, NO 3. Are you the owner or authorized agent of the property? YES„~_ NO 4. Provide a description or a map of the area that this application affects. Sep ~~~~~ - ~1 ~~~w ~ u ~ .z- N~sGL,y~~~Q ~ZY~'u 5. Provide a reference to the section(s) of the Comprehensive Plan that you propose to amend. including the page-if applicable (i.e., Comp Plan, Page xx, Line xx). L/E Ct ~~F' Zc~ ail d /'- 4 , t-/.fir? ~vt (,~ ~' S /GP P 1~(~ tc L 1 ~U Z ~ /L/i It~y ~ ~ ~f1i X~ c~ t[ St' 6. Provide proposed amendatory language. Attach separate sheet(s) if necessary. Sef' Fl~/c'~i°~rrl~u m 1 7. Explain the reason(s) for this amendment proposal. 3P~ itiiilc;~~'yrT u vrt 1 Application Year ~ ~ ~ication Number Fee Required: Y_ N_ !~`~ Amount: $ . 8. Please desc~e how our ro osed amendment meehe followin selection criteria. Use a y p P g separate sheet(s) if necessary: a. Was this proposed amendment denied during a previous Comprehensive Pian review cycle: If Yes, briefly explain wfty (if known): G' b. Explain how the amendment advances the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan: c. What are the cumulative effects of this proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Pian: ~' 9 Ap icant's Signature Date Property Owners Authorized Agent: If you are the property owner's agent, you are required to provide a notarized letter from the property owner authorizing submittal of this application. I hereby certify that 1 have read and examined this application and know the same to be a true under penalty of perjury by the Laws of the State of Idaho and am authorized to make this application as the agent of the property owner. Agent's Signature: Date: Print Name: Phone: Application Year Application Number Fee Required: Y N____ ~~:` Amount: $ 66 ~''t- t :it -., .j rte, -~ {~ ~ ~~ 13Z s W O W ,~ ..1 AS,`t ~ r^ i ~ ~, ;~: j ~ / co ~ ~~ _ ~-VE c* 5 66 t~ ~ ~~ :~'; '~. .,~ ~~ ~ r: ~ a t ~.. >;, a, ! W { { ~~~ ~ _ i ~~.... ~ i ~ ! ~ •;, ! ._ 1 ~ ~---T- i . _ .-~_____~ `i ~ _____.~ ~~~ _ n. 49.3 ~. "`' 66 Q6 „- ~~ C` ~~ .. ... tp t ,, ~ ~~~ O N 1 ~ ~ y ~ ~ N ~ ) ~'~~ ~ ti U J J ~i ~ i O ~ ~~ a ~ 1 ~ i , ~e +~ . ~) ~ I - ~' ~ _. _. __ _ _ _._ _-__.~r ~_._._.__ -a ~ ~: ~• N to t1~ ~D fV N N cJ1 ~ ~~.*....... t7~ _ ~~ ~ ;V~, ~, o_ o ~ ~, ~; t *~ ~=. ..~ -- .' ~ o ~ ~;~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ 5..~ ~ . ,r ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~. • ~ ~~ March 25, 2006 Rexburg City Council, Mayor Larsen; I am writing to request a change in the zoning designation for my properties on the south side of Second South Street between Second East and Cornell Street. This area is currently zoned for use as single family homes, when in actuality, the area on both sides of the street are dominated by homes that have, in years past, been converted to off- campus unmarried university student housing. With the close proximity to the BYiJ-I campus these homes provide students anoff- campus housing experience that is not dependent on owning a car, and allows these young citizens to live in a traditional home-like environment with closer personal associations than is possible in the mega-complexes that are coming to dominate the student housing market in Rexburg. I am aware that the city and residents along Cornell Street have an interest in trying to maintain asingle-family neighborhood feel, however the neighborhood along 2nd South has changed years ago, to a younger, vital community that is an asset to the university and the city character. I am requesting that the City review this change and recognize the value these residents bring to the character of the city. Since I purchased these properties in late 2000 and 2001, I have made continuing efforts to improve them to fit pleasingly into the neighborhood. I have recently discovered that the restrictive zoning of my properties as LR2 will prevent me from recovering the significant improvement costs I have invested in my properties including working with the city to comply with the City's Life/Safety ordinance. At the request of the City, I will cease and desist operating my homes as single student `dormitory-style' housing as of the first of May, 2006. Complying with the City's request will make it impossible for me to generate rental income on these properties to cover my current costs, in effect driving me out of business. I am requesting the my properties specifically, 172 East and 178 East Second South be rezoned to match the character of the neighborhood and to match the zoning of north side of Second South as MDRl. This change will provide a fair and consistent opportunity for all properties on 2°a South and allow me to continue to invest in the quality and value my properties. John Harrison, Owner 172 -178 East 2nd South Rexburg, ID ~~~ 2 a 2006 CITY OF REXBURG ~~~~~~ Monday, April l o, 2006 App ~ ~ 2006 CITY OF REXBURG Dr. Mister Dyer: I have recently been notified of a zoning meeting that is to be held on the Third Thursday of this month to discuss a request for a Zone Change. As I read the letter, it is a call for a change to high-student (i.e. rental) occupancy from a multiple family area. As I've done many times before, I oppose such a change. In fact, I would like our zoning to be changed to strictly single family occupancy. I shall not push that, however; I know that others have the right to apply for Zoning Changes; while I shall oppose any attempts to change current zoning laws, I'm willing to follow the laws as presently written, provided the current laws are enforced. Here are my reasons for opposing the current Zone changes: A Zone change will disrupt family life. I live next to amultiple-family rental unit (in fact, two units). I know the problems large numbers of students bring, though I have nothing against students per se. Students keep late hours (especially in warm weather); they don't care for their property. They bring multiple cars which are parked on lawns, in no parking areas, etc.. In excessive numbers, they drive out families. Our family has contributed to this area in taxes for many years. We participate actively in the ward. We don't want the demographics of the area changed. There are plenty of housing units available. I haven't researched this, but people tell us repeatedly that there is a housing glut here. No need to open up things to more students. Ours is a residential area. Recently, a home on our street was sold to a single family (Morris Christensen); the homes of Bruce Williams and Steven Terry on 2°d East have also sold to single families. There is a viable residential market in our area! I think it makes for wise planning to keep residential areas near the campus, if possible. Many of us enjoy the area and we want it to stay that way. I understand that many of my friends on Cornell will be visiting your Zoning meeting to reiterate this view. I want to see current housing restrictions enforced! There are good reasons to resist the developers who simply want to put in for-profit housing! They tear up lawns and shrubs and coat everything with blacktop. They let neighborhoods run down. I recently invested a large amount in my property. I don't live where I live for profit. Do we have to let it all go to the dogs because some people want a rental unit? I think not! Eugene Thompson, 112 East 2nd South Rexburg, Idaho ~EI'V~C~ Q-PR ~ $ 2006 37 south Third East Rexburg, ID 83440 C~7Y pF REXBURG April 18, 2006 Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission Rexburg City Hall Rexburg, ID 83440 Dear Commission Members, I am writing to express my opposition to proposed Change 4 to the Comprehensive Plan that has been submitted by Bonnie J. Anderson of Kanab, Utah. I commend the Planning and Zoning Commission for consistently rejecting any attempt to allow business or commercial development in this residential area. This azea is currently designated for residential use and should remain so. During the past six months, I personally know of two individual parties who have expressed interest in this land for residential development, but unfortunately the owners have rejected the proposals. The neighbors aze not opposed to development of this property, and I believe our vision for this area is very reasonable and would be a very profitable venture for the property owners. Many of the neighbors believe the vacant land in this azea would be an ideal location for patio homes and condominiums that would be especially attractive to older families and retirees, particularly those who may want to live close to the new Rexburg Temple. I would like to remind the commission that the Project Redevelopment Option (Pro Zone} is akeady allowed in this azea. This is a tool that is akeady in place to help the Anderson family and others develop their property, while at the same time protecting the existing neighborhood and entire city. Many of us would like to see this neighborhood remain much the way it is today. We already have a good balance of homes and professional offices. This azea is one of the best maintained older neighborhoods in the city and we have permanent homeowners who wish to live here for many years to come. Thank you for the support that you have given to our neighborhood in the past, and I hope you will continue to be maintain this area as residential in the future. Sincerely, { Don Spar awk ~EC~1~tEC k~~ 1 ~ ZQD6 Apri120, 2006 Public Hearing Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission: My remarks concern Areas 3 and 6 as shown on the proposed land use amendment map 06-00159. These are the specific points I desire to make. 1. Areas 3 and 6 are part of judicial petitions filed in Seventh District Court by property owners and the City of Sugar City. The petitions state that the annexation process conducted to establish Rexburg Annexation Ordinance 948 was not in conformance with state statute 50-222 or the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Code, Ordinance 929. The petitions request that Ordinance 948 be declazed null and void. 2. On March 2, 2006 a motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts and seconded by Joe Laird "to hold a public hearing on extending the commercial land use designations out to the north interchange, in a strip at least as wide as the current commercial strip." The motion failed. Now this commission is reversing that decision and holding a public hearing regazding the area at the north interchange. 3. On July 7, 2005 a request for a comprehensive plan map change from agriculture to commercial in Area 6 was denied by Rexburg Planning and Zoning. On August 17, 2005 Rexburg City Council denied the comprehensive plan map change because "the land is being used for agriculture. There is no commercial development planned at this time." Property owners in Area 6 were trying to start commercial development but Rexburg officials would not allow it. 4. Now, property owners Clements and Hegsteds have requested a comprehensive plan map change as designated in Area 3. Were Clements and Hegsteds required to complete a comprehensive plan application and pay the $500 application fee? This request has indications of bias by the city, preferential consideration and a mandated out come. a. On December 29, 2005, at a public hearing held by this commission regazding the petition by the City of Rexburg to annex property at the north interchange, Mr. Clements stated, "We'd just like to state that we are in favor of the annexation." Mr. Hegsted then stated, "And it concerns the same property that Louis just mentioned and I'm in favor." Mr. Clements and Mr. Hegsted were the only two property owners giving their approval to the annexation. Rexburg had to have the approval of at least one property owner in order to facilitate the annexation, which includes Area 6. Are Mr. Clements and Mr. Hegsted now receiving special consideration because of their testimony from December 29, 2005? b. On January 3, 2006 Mr. Clements submitted a letter to this commission thanking them for "a job well done." He goes on to say, "People who have narrow interests and loud opinions always take the cowazds way to express themselves. Hang in there and know that there are a lot of us who aze very appreciative of your hazd work and diligent efforts." Was Mr. Clements referring to the property owners in Area 6 who did not want to be annexed into Rexburg? Is interest in their property narrow? It appears that Mr. Clements is the only one allowed an interest in decisions regarding property near the north interchange. This commission has already been influenced by his letter, which was read at a planning and zoning meeting in January. c. On March 6, 2006 Mr. Hegsted sent an email to the city attorney reminding him of a change to the comprehensive plan "as previously discussed." I have to ask what was previously discussed? Has Mr. Zollinger made promises to Mr. Hegsted on behalf of the city? d. On March 15, 2006 Clements and Hegsteds requested that their property be changed to a commercial designation because several commercial developers are considering the property. Clements and Hegsteds have positioned themselves to receive special considerations and favors from the City of Rexburg. Clements and Hegsteds stand to make a great deal of money; and, Rexburg acquires property through an improper annexation by this mutual cooperation, which has been established between property owners in Area 3 and Rexburg City staff. On the other hand, Rexburg officials denied the same request last August to property owners in Area 6. Now, Rexburg holds these same property owners in Area 6 hostage by denying reasonable access to wastewater treatment if they do not consent to Rexburg's plans and proposals. I believe a judge might look at this scenario in an unfavorable light. The City of Rexburg is profiting one group of property owners while coercing another in order to get gain (tax revenue). It would be wise for this commission to review Areas 3 and 6 very carefully before making a recommendation to City Council. Caution for another 6 months may be in order until the legality of Rexburg Ordinance 948 is determined. Jan Gallup 309 South Austin Ave Sugar City, Idaho 26 3 January, 2005 i ear Planning and Zoning Board: I just =wanted to send you a note to thank you for a job well done. I know that there are Ciiy jobs in which the only time you hear from the public is when they want to criticize. I want you to know,that there are a Iot more of us out here that appreciate the job you are doing for us all. I have worked in public positions in this community for over forty years and am thankful to live here. I am glad that we have people on your board who are concerned with the overall welfare of the community who are not afraid to make the decisions for the good of the City even though you will have to take the guff of letters to the editor in the next few days. People who have narrow iriterests and Ioud opinions always take the cowards way to express themselves. Hang in there and know that there are a lot of us who are very appreciative of your hard work and diligent efforts. ,`;i Thanks again, .~- -~ ~r ~"~ . Louis Clefts Page 1 of 1 Stephen Zollinger From: John Hegsted [heggie66@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 06, 2006 7:11 PM To: Stephen Zollinger Subject: Comprehensive Plan Steve, I am sending this Email to remind you that, as we previously discussed, we would like our farm to be zoned "commercial" on the comprehensive plan. Thanks, John Hegsted 3/7/2006 F' March 15, 2006 Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission 12 N. Center St. Rexburg, ID 83440 Re: Change in Comprehensive Plan Dear Commission Members: Pursuant to our oral request in February to be zoned commercial and as owners of the property on the west side of 2"d East at the north overpass, known as the Hegsted property, we would like to request that this parcel of land (106 acres) be zoned commercial in the city's comprehensive plan. This area will provide the gateway into the city from the north and is being looked at by several commercial developers. We want it to become an attractive and inviting shopping area for not only our community but also to the communities to the north. Having that zoning change made immediately is important in this development. Sincerely, J He Diane Hegsted Louis Clements This is a statement concerning Area 9 of the public hearing to amend the comprehensive plan map for the City of Rexburg to be held Apri120th, 2006. Planning and Zoning Commision members: I have recently learned that property I own is being included in a request for a comprehensive land use map change. I own 2 buildings on the corner of 2"~ South and Cornell. They were built around 1918 and as far as I can tell have always had a common owner. The corner property was originally used as a maternity hospital. Since then it has been used as a 4-plex and as early as the 1970's was used to house students. The other building has been a tri-plex since at least the 1970's and has also been used to house students. I bought the properties in 1987. Due primarily to their age, they have been difficult properties to own. In 1998 it was decided that it was not worth the trouble and expense to fix them up so they were put up for sale for less than the tax assessed value. They were listed for over a year with no offers and little interest. I decided to fix them up the best I could and have since spent a lot of money upgrading electrical, heating systems, plumbing, etc... The history and economic viability of my property is quite different for other nearby properties. For example, all of the homes on Cornell are newer and have a different history than my property. I know that they are concerned with preserving their homes as single family dwellings and I fully support them in that desire. I also understand that there is an interest in maintaining the historic appearance of the oldest homes in Rexburg. If this is to happen there has to be an economically viable way to do it. BYLTI has torn down all of their buildings from this era and the city is currently struggling with how to retain the historic Romance Theater and make it economically viable. Changing the comprehensive plan to "Moderate-High Residential" is consistent with the economic situation of my old buildings. It is also consistent with the MDR zone which encourages "restoration or rehabilitation of older homes (2002 zoning ordinance, pg. 16)." I hope to continue to make improvements on the property and hope to be a good neighbor. RECEIVI;[~ APR ~ ~ 2~~s CITY OF REXBURG Thank you, Aaron Romn 53 Millhollow Rd. Rexburg, Id 6411912006 18:16 8615476764 Wanda Harris 847 North Sheppard Creek Parkway A-~04 Farmington, Utah 84025 BREAKOUT BAIL BONDS PAGE 61 RECEIVED ppR 2 0 2006 CITY OF REXBURG City o~Rexburg 12 N. Ceztter Rexburg, Idaho 83440 To Rexburg City Pla~~ning Commission: .A.pril 19, 2006 It is difficult fo.r me to understand why Rexburg is attempting to block the annexation of my property into Sugar City. I believe we have the same concerns anal principles foz au orderly development o#' the 2°`~ l=ast corridor that Rexburg has proposed. X have noticed that Sugar City has been agreeable to a cozxxproza~.ise but Rexburg is quite adatxtant about keeping control of my property. I attended Riclcs College iz~ 1947. I have seen very little growth in Rexburg iz~ all these years an,d I have seen in other cities. Sugar City, on the other hand, has been anxious to grow and could use some prosperity to bezzeht the citizens in the co~m;munity. I believe I am in the right and the right is worth fighting for. 1 would znueh rather see this resolved peaceably with some compromise agreeable to both cities. Teamwork togetlxer we achieve t>~.e extraordinary. I thank you for your attention azad please express my feeling in the planning comrxxission meeting. Regards, ~~~~-~ ~. <r~izeei Wanda Harris Harris Family Trust 6 ~ 6 ~~ ~ , ~ ;~ W Age ! ~ . } p ~d I 3 46 } I j ~ , ~ ~ Y Y I P i i I i r i ' ~~+ ~ ~ ~; ~~ Z0 39t~d ~.; ~' ,:' ." \' ~ .' J U ' ' ~1. v ert~ ruw ~~-. THE'I'ETON CENTER REXBURG, IDAHO SQNOg ~lIt1S 1f10~1d3~1g PASKER GOUi.D AMES.& WE Ynn~onlw.vw ~•Ypl~ iuw~~,~rtr.a woy ~p71~IN b0L9LbSl08 0I~8T 900ZI6ZIb0 ~~~~iv~® ASR 2 0 2006 My name is Travis Blacker. I live at 680 Meadowbroq~-~F RExBURG the Stonebridge Subdivision ~, ~~ J~ r .~,~,~ h{~-~ ~ ~~'~'~ ~ Tonight I'm here in opposition to the proposed change to area 8 which plans to change this area from "Moderate- High Residential" to "commercial". By changing this land to commercial, this brings many concerns to both myself and my neighbors. Concerns like: Traffic problems- By changing this, it would bring increased traffic to this area. Currently there are 3 traffic lights between Albertsons and just past Horkleys. This area is very congested at times and by making this proposed area commercial, it would bring more traffic and possibly the need for an additional traffic light. That would put 4 traffic lights in an area that is .3 miles long. Safety problems for our children. Most of the children in Stonebridge walk to the bus stop and wait for the bus on the corner of Stonebridge and ~ ~*~*~ ,*~~* * . Increased traffic on that road would create safety problems for our children. I think this might also increase the crime in the area. Sometimes large stores and large parking lots attract criminal activity. Attached to my statement is a petition signed by residents of the Stonebridge subdivision stating that they are against this change. We showed a strong support at the City Council Meeting 6 months ago and the council voted not to change this area to commercial because of the reasons we stated and because of the need for a buffer zone in between residential areas and commercial areas. We ask that the Planning and Zoning Committee also understand our concerns and the need for a buffer zone and leave this proposal for Area 8 as Moderate to High Residential. Thank you. '~ April 19, 2006 By signing this petition, you are stating that you oppose the changes that are considered to Area 8 which state, "It is proposed that the following tract of land currently designated as "Moderate-High Residential" as shown on the City of Rexburg Preferred Land Use Map be changed to "Commercial""... Name Signature Address Date c t n.~pc( ST E1N~K'_T C..-~~,; ~.:~- ,~~'U ~ (~d I i"VI CZ 1 1 ~1 ~~ ~08~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~ 66 ~~~ a - ~-.. r., z~q . ~ s r ~. -a y~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ ~;~ . ~ , ~ d LJ` ~ (i r k- r~c~ ~ 2 ~~ ~t'Z~t' 1 R lYo ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ (.t~ ~ 5 r~cz~ l ~~-b - w- - ~ o - v~- ~ "1 W ` ~ - -, ~~ ~ ~ ,,,r -i y~~ 5~ '~' ~ STotic~~~s~i / v ,~ l ~ ~ r 1 ~r '` 't . ~"! X77 . ;j F~~~, r~~~i ~ `-~~-;° u.k`~ ,, ,7 '~~'~1 ~O