Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES FEBRUARY 17, 2011 1 Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others: Winston Dyer – Chairman Val Christensen – Community Development Director Dan Hanna Thaine Robinson Jake Rasmussen – I.T. Intern Mary Ann Mounts Jedd Walker Mario Puente – Community Development Intern Richie Webb Nephi Allen Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator Scott Ferguson Cory Sorensen Gil Shirley Marilyn Rasmussen Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. He welcomed applicants, interested citizens, the representative from BYUI, City staff, and the Commissioners who serve and give so willingly of their time and efforts to help improve this community. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Scott Ferguson, Jedd Walker, Gil Shirley, Marilyn Rasmussen, Nephi Allen, Richie Webb, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, Dan Hanna, Cory Sorensen, Mary Ann Mounts Minutes: 1. Planning and Zoning meeting - February 3, 2011 Marilyn Rasmussen motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of February 3, 2011. Nephi Allen seconded the motion. Richie Webb, Mary Ann Mounts, and Dan Hanna abstained for not having been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 7:05 pm - Conditional Use Permit – 208 East 3rd South and 345 South 2nd East – to take advantage of lowered number of parking spaces through the use of the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ), Ordinance No. 1021, and to allow less than a ten (10) plex – David and Lana Chang Chairman Dyer explained the procedure that is followed for a public hearing. First, there will be a presentation given by the applicant or representative about the proposal. The Commissioners will then ask clarifying questions. The public will also be given the opportunity to ask clarifying questions in order for them to better understand this proposal. Any judgments or comments about the proposal should be given during the public input of the hearing. The Commissioners may then ask questions of staff so that they have a good foundation of knowledge about what is being requested. The public input portion of the hearing will then be opened for those who wish to testify in favor, as neutral, or as opposed to the request. If there is opposition, the applicant will have the right of rebuttal, much as in a court of law. Staff evaluation and recommendation will then be given, followed by deliberation by the Commission to make a decision. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes February 17, 2011 2 Lana Chang, owner/applicant, 179 Mariposa Ave. Yorba Linda, CA. and Chad Alldredge, project architect, 243 S. 1st E. They presented the proposal. Chad Alldredge explained the site plan, shown on the overhead screen, of the existing site, with Kensington Manor and the home on the corner of East 3rd South. The site plan showing the planned new buildings was then shown. The 8-plex on the corner of 3rd South and 2nd East will be 2- story with a basement under it and will have forty-eight students. The 6-plex to the south of it will be 3-story with thirty-six students. They plan to keep some of the existing foliage. There will be new walkways. Some of the parking will be removed to accommodate the 6-plex. A photo of the property was shown with the planned units superimposed over it. They are meeting the required setbacks. The scale of the planned buildings is not much larger in footprint than the surrounding neighborhood homes. Chad Alldredge displayed the rendering of what they would like the 8-plex to look like. They want it to look as attractive and like a residential home as is possible. The same brick would be used as it is on the existing structure to tie them together, along with use of some stucco. Chairman Dyer clarified that the question before the Commission tonight is to consider a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). The CUP is required for four reasons – for parking reduction through use of the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ) requirements, for a building smaller than a 10- plex (6-plex is being requested), for an 8-plex to be allowed in a Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) zone which allows only up to a 6-plex unless there is a CUP, and for dormitory use in the MDR2 zone. These four reasons are stated in the Community Development staff evaluation. 3 In the future there will be actual design proposals and building site plans at the time of the building permit application. Some of those things are helpful to look at tonight in granting the Conditional Use Permit. Gil Shirley asked for clarification on the displayed plan - that both the 8-plex on the subject corner property and the 6 -plex south of that corner property and just north of the existing Kensington units would be newly built. Chad Alldredge said that was correct. The existing building will not be modified in any way except possibly for fire protection. Thaine Robinson said a major concern expressed by the neighbors was that aesthetically the building should look more like a home than an apartment complex, especially on 3rd South. The existing Kensington apartments were likely built before design standards were in place, as he did not think it now would be allowed to have a back-facing apartment building on a major thoroughfare. Now, the applicant intends to add on to it. He wondered what the 6-plex would look like with the back side facing 2nd East. The elevations of the planned 6-plex were shown on the overhead screen. Chad Alldredge said it would be the same design as the planned 8-plex, but a story taller. There is a main waterline that runs between the two parcels; there would still be enough room if they have to turn the 6-plex due to the waterline. Thaine Robinson asked what the minimum parking requirement would be through taking advantage of the PEZ Zone requirements. Chad Alldredge said there would be a minimum of about 20 spaces, plus 48 spaces for the 8-plex – about 20 per cent. There would be a total of 193 spaces. Lana Chang said that because of location, which is the best location as far as proximity to campus, historically they have not needed all the parking but have had problems with people other than residents using their parking. They plan to have a certain number of parking contracts based on the amount of spaces they will have, and they plan to have non-parking contracts. To motivate students not to bring cars, the contracts may be about $100.00 less in cost. She has also spoken with University officials; the University is planning on putting in long term parking so that students could have a place to park their cars that they will use only occasionally. Thaine Robinson said this applicant will have more than ample parking above and beyond what is the minimum required for the PEZ Zone. He said that is refreshing. Jedd Walker asked for clarification on the height of the new 6-plex building and how it relates to the existing structure. Chad Alldredge said the height is comparable. The height was stated as 38-feet at the ridge. Lana Chang said the current structure is partially sunk into the ground. Chairman Dyer asked if Val Christensen had seen the proposed elevations. Chad Alldredge said Mr.Christensen has seen the elevations. Chairman Dyer asked how these proposed elevations fit with design standards. Val Christensen said as far as design standards in Medium Density Residential 2, the 8-plex would have to have a 2- foot bump out for every 40 feet of wall. The applicants meet that requirement. 4 They are required to have material changes; they will have more than is required. They are required to have roof line changes, which they have met. They meet the requirement of having a certain percentage of windows. They are not held to the design standard of a canopied entry, because the front of the building is turned away. However, that issue could be brought up for discussion. Where it is a U-shaped building, they would meet the requirement of a defined entry. Chairman Dyer asked how they are making the 8-plex’s view facing 3rd South look like a residence, which was a condition stated at the time of the Changs’ rezone request (August 19, 2010). Chad Alledredge pointed out the material changes and the windows to help make the building look more residential. They have tried to keep the height down. What they have tried to achieve is that this view will look like the front of a house. Chairman Dyer asked about the possibility of a front door. The drawing from the rezone hearing was shown. from August 19,2010 P&Z meeting Val Christensen said it was discussed at the rezone hearing that they could not have a pedestrian entrance to the street on this elevation. Chad Alledredge said they did not want to have a mailbox, solicitors, traffic, etc. coming to this side of the building. 5 Lana Chang said the entrance to the 8-plex is not on 3rd South. They did not want it to look like an entrance. Chairman Dyer said the people in the neighborhood were quite concerned about the building’s appearance and that it fit and look like a residence that belongs in their neighborhood. Mary Ann Mounts thought that the building could look like a residence without having a door. A door would create traffic. She would rather have a tree than a door. Cory Sorensen said if there is a door on the 3rd South elevation, people will park and walk up to that side. Thaine Robinson wondered if a couple of the windows could be bigger so that they are not all the same cookie cutter appearance, without changing the design of the building. This is a great looking building, but the Commission really wants to protect the wishes of the neighborhood. The building needs to look like the front of a house. Chad Alldredge thought such a change would be possible. Mary Ann Mounts thought tonight’s meeting was to state conditions on the conditional use permit and not on how the building should look. She does not want them to belabor what they are here to do. The building design could be addressed as a condition. Dan Hanna said the intent of his motion for the rezone was that the building should look more residential than like a apartment. For clarification, Val Christensen referred to Dan Hanna’s motion at the rezone hearing on August 19, 2010. He read the five conditions stated in that rezone motion: “1) The site plan and elevations be consistent with what was presented tonight and that there not be any access onto 3rd South; 2) the proposal be limited in density to no more than 8 units (48 beds); 3) the site plan includes sufficient landscape buffering to enhance the residential neighborhood; 4) the application for a building permit be initiated within 12 months following rezone approval by City Council (or the property would revert back to the current zone); and 5) at the time of the Conditional Use Permit proposal/public hearing, any concerns of the neighborhood are addressed through conditions.” Cory Sorensen said it has been repeatedly brought up that the Commission, in consideration of neighborhood concerns, would want the building to look like a residence. That is important. The current building’s front door is not very visible. If someone wanted to rebuild a home on that lot, the builder could decide about the door but still meet design standards. For the Commission to want a door a certain way – how can the Commission do that? The developer has to meet design standards, which should address concerns. Chad Alldredge pointed out the required two-foot bump outs. They are trying to get depth. Chairman Dyer asked if anyone in the audience had questions to help them to understand tonight’s proposal. Dorothy Erickson asked if there is a third level going down in the ground that is part of the corner building. Chad Alldredge said there was a third level. 6 Dorothy Erickson asked if windows on this third level will be visible from the street. Chad Alldredge said the windows would not be visible. Dorothy Erickson said they are adding 84 students. What will the decrease in parking spaces be? Chad Alldredge said spaces will be lessened by about four or five spaces. The subject property is in the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone 1(PEZ1) which would allow them to have less parking. The existing building is in the PEZ Zone. For the 8-plex, they need to provide one to one parking. They are required to provide at least 10 per cent parking for the PEZ Zone. They intend to have forty-five spaces above the minimum required. The idea is to encourage walking and to have fewer cars and less parking spaces. The Chair clarified that the property owners would be required to issue a certain number of non- parking contracts to the residents who will not be bringing cars. Dorothy Erickson asked if the developer would be moving any soil or changing anything on residences surrounding Kensington Apartments. Chad Alldredge said they would not. A man in the audience asked about regulations for the number of exits for the apartments, including those on the lower level. Chairman Dyer said regulations require that there be emergency egress from each of the apartments; the egress is examined through window size and available doors. These are called life safety requirements. Window wells and ladders would be necessary for the basement level if it is occupied. An audience member asked about long term parking and when the University would have such parking available. Lana Chang said the University did not give them a time schedule. Val Christensen said he has spoken with University representatives. They will have long term parking in the lot just north of the Temple because it is an overflow lot and is available now. It will help them to get a feel with how much parking lot space they will need to construct. The audience member also asked the roof line height of the 6- plex in relation to the existing building. Chad Alldredge said the roof lines would be fairly even. A woman in the audience asked that the west view of the 8-plex be shown on the overhead screen. The rendering of the building was shown on the overhead screen. The woman said the view is not what the neighbors were led to believe the building would look like, which was to look more like a house in order to blend into the neighborhood. She wondered why the applicant did not go with the drawing shown at the rezone meeting in August 2010. She could go with the earlier drawing. The drawing presented tonight does not look like a house. Chad Alldredge said he had a different understanding of what was wanted. He has tried to make it look residential by keeping the height down and giving material variations to the facade. Gil Shirley asked about snow storage. Historically, has it been a problem? Lana Chang said snow storage has always been a problem. They have hauled snow away before, and they will haul it away again if necessary. It may affect the number of parking contracts they can issue. 7 Val Christensen commented that the building drawing presented tonight is two dimensional; the earlier drawing was three dimensional. Any input from neighborhood citizens would need to be specific, because the drawings may not clearly show relief through contrast. Chairman Dyer clarified the Commission’s stance. The Commission was concerned about protecting the neighborhood, and they made requirements about the presentation, the visuals and aesthetics, on the portion of the building facing 3rd South. They did not put any stipulations on the portion of the building facing 2nd East, by virtue of the fact that the area has several apartments and that there are a number of design standards to aid in the building being an attractive presentation. Chairman Dyer asked Val Christensen if he had any clarifications on the proposal for the Commission. Val Christensen said the Commission had covered the four reasons the Conditional Use Permit was necessary. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion of the hearing, reiterating that everyone is given the opportunity to express their concerns. In Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion of the hearing. He stated that the question before the Commission tonight is, shall a Conditional Use Permit be recommended approval (or not) to City Council to be granted, modified, etc. and to address the four reasons for the Conditional Use Permit as stated on page two of the staff evaluation. The Chair asked for the staff evaluation and recommendations. Val Christensen went over his staff report. The request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan’s designations of Low-Moderate Density Residential and Moderate-High Density Residential for the specified properties. It meets the Development Code zoning requirements. Regarding PEZ Ordinance requirements, the overall percentage of parking for the complex would be about 47 percent, during the winter. What the applicant is asking for is reduction down to 28 per cent on the new Kensington portion. 100 per cent parking is included for the 8-plex. The site location is the friendliest as far as access to campus. The applicant will be required to do parking and non-parking contracts and have bicycle racks for the students, as part of the PEZ requirements. Snow storage, which was originally shown in the right-of-way and was also not adequate, has been addressed. Marilyn Rasmussen asked if there is a charge if students park in the campus lot. Val Christensen said there is. Lana Chang will pay the University for a certain amount of spaces, which will be passed to a certain number of students. The Standard Conditions for a Conditional Use Permit, as stated in the Development Code and addressed in the staff report, were reviewed, including that the project be constructed and designed in a manner that is harmonious with the existing character of the neighborhood. 8 The Commission discussed what would be seen as “harmonious” with the neighborhood. Chairman Dyer said one question to consider would be: is what they have seen tonight consistent with what they saw before (building looking like a home) at the August 2010 rezone hearing? Val Christensen reiterated that the Commission’s rezone motion said there should not be access onto 3rd South from the subject property, and that the rear of the building facing 3rd South have features that make it look like the front of a nice home. Buffering of neighboring properties was discussed. A landscape plan is requested as one of the proposed conditions of approval. Val Christensen said there is lot of existing foliage that the developer can work with. There could be some buffering on the side yards. There is a requirement to effectively buffer the development from existing surrounding properties. The two-story height is also a positive. The four reasons for this Conditional Use Permit request as stated on page two of the Community Development Staff Report were discussed by the Commission. 1. Take advantage of PEZ requirements for reduction in parking 2. Building smaller than a 10-plex (6-plex) 3. MDR2 - building larger than a 6-plex (8-plex) 4. Dormitory Use in MDR2 The consensus of the Commission was that they were okay with each of these four points, which had each been explored. The Commission discussed the proposed conditions of approval as stated in the staff report. Mary Ann Mounts asked the square footage on the main level of the 8-plex that would replace the Porter home. Chad Alldredge said there was about 4000 square feet on the main level. Mary Ann Mounts said she knows of houses in the City with that same square footage. She does not feel that a door in the street-facing side of the 8-plex is needed to make it look like a home. Bigger windows may be good. She has walked the neighborhood. How is one going to define the word “harmonious” with the character of the neighborhood? They should not get on their high horses about the issue. Chairman Dyer said at the August 2010 rezone hearing for this property, the meeting room was filled to capacity, with people from the neighborhood overflowing into the foyer who were concerned that the development should fit into and be consistent with their neighborhood. Mary Ann Mounts said she understands the neighborhood’s concern, but needs clarification. Dan Hanna said they had a capacity crowd that night; some people were very hostile. Few in the neighborhood wanted to see the project proceed. The Changs came forward with a plan that indicated that they would make their development harmonious with the neighborhood. The intent of the motion was that the building on the corner of 3rd South and 2nd East look like the front of a nice home. Mary Ann Mounts said she agrees with the neighbors wanting this, but how do you define it? 9 The Chair said the Commission did react to the public input and felt they had a responsibility to help mitigate potential impact to the neighborhood. Dan Hanna said the fact that there was not written or verbal input tonight might indicate that the neighborhood has some faith in the P&Z Commission. Scott Ferguson said if a front door is on 3rd South, it would be inviting traffic on 3rd South. There has to be a balance of the concerns of the neighborhood with the reality of what the building is going to look like. The rendering shown tonight is a huge improvement from what is there now, although it does not look like a house. Dan Hanna said he feels they should follow the intent of the motion that was made for the zone change. He is a little uncomfortable that tonight’s presentation does not look more like a nice home. Gil Shirley said he would rather not see a door on 3rd South. He suggested varying the window size to make the building look more like a house. Using the same size windows makes the building look like a dormitory. Cory Sorensen said in regard to the rezone motion statement that there be no access onto 3rd South - a front door would create pedestrian traffic access. Richie Webb thought most everyone on the Commission felt there could be improvements made to make the 8-plex more residential in nature. He felt suggestions could be made, and then this issue could be addressed in a Design Review Committee meeting. Scott Ferguson asked Dan Hanna to clarify his concerns. Dan Hanna said he wanted to protect the integrity of the motion made at the rezone hearing. The Chair clarified that the rezone motion protected the neighbors. Mary Ann Mounts felt this issue was hard to define. Chairman Dyer said not everything is clearly black and white. Sometimes they get into subjective areas, and this is one of those times. Dan Hanna said when the rezone presentation was made, it was the observation of the people that were present that the building should look like a nice home. He does not care how the nice home appearance is done, whether with varied windows or additional landscaping, etc. – he just feels a responsibility to protect the motion made at that rezone meeting. The Chairman asked the Commissioners if they had any suggestions on what might help the 8-plex to look more residential in nature. Mary Ann Mounts suggested enlarging some windows and adding shutters on some of them. Good landscaping would also help. Richie Webb suggested that a change in the pitch of the main roof of the building could give it more of a residential flavor. Raising the dormers might be helpful. Dan Hanna suggested that a swing would be a nice additional feature. Cory Sorensen said they are dealing with the term “nice home” - it should be left up to the architect to decide what his vision of a nice home is. The Commission should not determine that. Everyone has likes and dislikes. The overall appearance, if it is beautiful and adds positively to the neighborhood, is the concern. They could just say to the architect that the building needs to be designed to look like a nice home. Chairman Dyer said the Commissioners are not being prescriptive, but rather they are just giving some general ideas that might be considered. 10 Dan Hanna thought Richie Webb’s suggestion of having a Design Review Committee meeting to address design concerns, was excellent. The Commission discussed the proposal. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend approval to City Council for a Conditional Use Permit for the property located at 208 East 3rd South and 345 South 2nd East, to take advantage of a lowered number of parking spaces through use of the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ), Ordinance No. 1021; to allow a building smaller than a 10-plex (requesting a 6-plex); to allow a building larger than a 6-plex (requesting an 8-plex) in Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) zone ; and to allow dormitory housing in the MDR2 zone; and to include the seven (7) Proposed Conditions of Approval in the Community Development Staff Report. Scott Ferguson seconded the motion. Nephi Allen asked if the intent was for the side of the 8-plex facing 3rd South to look like the front or to just look like a nice home. Chairman Dyer clarified that it was the intent for the building to look like a home in the neighborhood, so that it would not detract from the character of the neighborhood. PEZ requirements, including visitor parking and parking contracts, were discussed. Richie Webb felt that having a design review meeting should be a proposed condition. The Commission has made some suggestions that may be improvements to fitting into the neighborhood. The architect should be given the opportunity to incorporate some of the suggestions and show them to the Design Review Committee. Mary Ann Mounts amended her motion to include proposed condition #8): a Design Review Committee meeting will be held. Scott Ferguson seconded the amended motion. None opposed. Motion carried. The Chair thanked Lana Chang and Chad Alldredge. He suggested they work with Val Christensen in preparing to address the 3rd South building presentation at a Design Review Committee meeting. Val Christensen called for clarification on the purpose of the Design Review Committee meeting – was the meeting only to address the 3rd South presentation or the entire project? Chairman Dyer clarified that the Design Review Committee meeting would be held to address just the 3rd South building presentation. Proposed Conditions of Approval #11 00029 CUP – David and Lana Chang 1. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping, parking, snow storage, drainage, etc. shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. The existing snow storage as currently shown does not meet city requirements. 2. A landscape plan shall be provided and approved by Staff prior to the issuance of building permit. 3. Lighting shall be low (under 15-feet in height) and not create glare, and as a minimum shall adhere to the City’s lighting ordinance. 11 4. To encourage alternative travel options, i.e. bicycling, bike racks and hard surface must be provided. Location of racks needs to be shown on revised site plan. This requirement is identified in the PEZ Ordinance. 5. Sidewalk and pathway maintenance to be performed as per the PEZ Ordinance. 6. Parking Contracts to be approved by the City Attorney. 7. Requirements of the PEZ Zone Ordinance to be applied to this project. 8. A Design Review Committee meeting will be held to address the 3rd South building presentation. Unfinished/Old Business: None New Business: 1. Discussion on Parking Val Christensen distributed a parking study document - Parking Average for Student Housing 12 13 Val Christensen said parking space size has been a discussion issue and concern of the City’s for several years. More recently, it has come up on a few different complexes that had asked Mr. Christensen if as part of the PEZ Zone, they could request different ratios of parking space sizes based on student housing parking versus commercial parking such as at Walmart. The issue was brought to the City’s Ready Team staff. The Ready Team decided that the issue should be investigated. Prior to this time, some private citizens had done their own investigations and given results to City staff. However, it was felt the City should do its own study. City Intern Mario Puente was sent out to do a study of the lots listed on the Parking Average for Student Housing document the Commissioners have been given. This document shows his findings. The reason why the Ready Team felt the parking space size issue should be looked at was that it was felt that student parking and housing parking are a lot different than commercial parking. Students do not have the same cross section of vehicles as the general public. The City Intern did a cross section study of cars parked in the lots at the listed housing complexes. The City also did other research on the parking space size issue. City Attorney Stephen Zollinger, as a member of the City’s Ready Team, researched online and found that the average car size in the United States is 13 to 15 feet long. The Ready Team also looked at vehicle widths, which they felt were more important than the length. The majority of cars do not fit well in an 8- foot wide parking space unless the vehicle is a true compact. The standard car width was found to be about 6-feet. The City is willing to reduce some asphalt areas to get more density and less wasted materials, in parking near the University The study findings show that in the eight listed complexes, fourteen per cent of the cars would require large size spaces. Mr. Christensen said the staff recommendation is to go to twenty percent longer size spaces and eighty percent regular space sizes in student and multi-family housing. Staff is asking the Commission to consider length. All spaces would be 9 feet wide. The regular parking space size would be 9 feet by 16 feet. The longer parking space size would be 9 feet by 20 feet. The compact parking space size would be eliminated. Thaine Robinson wondered how problematic the changes would be for the apartment complexes that are squeezing in spaces. Val Christensen said these parking space size changes would be for new developments and not existing developments. Thaine Robinson clarified he was speaking about new complexes. He likes the idea but thinks it may be problematic. Cory Sorensen said it would come down to the design of the whole layout. On an average size parking lot, there would be a net gain in the amount of parking space. Chairman Dyer said to keep in mind that this is not changing anything with the ratio of the number of spaces provided. That is not the issue. It is just the geometrics of the parking space itself. 14 Val Christensen stated that the proposal is to change parking space sizes in student and multiple- family housing, and to have two sizes of parking spaces. Regular parking space size would be 9 feet by 16 feet, and the longer parking space size would be 9 feet by 20 feet. Compact size spaces would be eliminated. There would be a ratio of eighty per cent regular size spaces and twenty per cent longer size spaces. The Commissioners discussed the proposed changes. Dan Hanna asked about visitor parking. Chairman Dyer clarified that there is no requirement for visitor parking spaces except in the PEZ Zone. Val Christensen said the Commission could decide how they would like to address visitor parking space size. The Chair said he likes the idea of nine foot wide parking spaces instead of eight foot wide parking spaces. The parking space size change would be generated through the City, with an amendment to the Development Code 1026. The P&Z Commission could make a motion to City Council. There would be a public hearing at City Council level for an ordinance change. Scott Ferguson motioned to recommend to City Council to hold a public hearing for an ordinance amendment to the Rexburg Development Code 1026, for multiple-family and dormitory housing to have a ratio of eighty per cent (80%) regular size parking spaces (9 foot by 16 foot) and twenty per cent (20%) longer size parking spaces (9 foot by 20 foot); all visitor parking spaces will be the longer space size (9 foot by 20 foot). Dan Hanna seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. The Commission will be notified of the date this Ordinance Amendment public hearing will come before City Council. 2. Discussion of 2nd East Alternative The Commission had identified the 2nd East alternate route as their number one planning concern. Chairman Dyer thought the discussion should include: how do they approach this issue as a Commission? They are an advisory body. They could simply say, “Please get it done”. They could send up a recommendation after thorough discussion. They could look at what to do now and later. They could focus on roadways and how they would get connected. Mary Ann Mounts wondered about the possibility of doing a traffic study, as was done several years ago regarding Viking Drive - by surveying drivers on origination and destination. Students helped to do this study. It was difficult, but the information was invaluable. Marilyn Rasmussen said Sugar City and Rexburg have given the Madison County Commission their recommendations. The County Commission knows what both cities want. It is just down to the County Commission to make a decision. The issue was tabled. 15 Scott Ferguson thought the way the Commission could be most useful would be to bring political pressure. They should say, “Let’s get something going Now.” Gil Shirley wondered if there could be a workshop with the P&Z Commission and the City Council. It was expressed that there have been several public meetings. Marilyn Rasmussen said why would they not go with the City Council’s recommendation. They could ask the City Council to bring pressure to the County to accept the City recommendation. The Chair clarified that he meant they should educate themselves sufficiently to be able to say they have looked at this matter thoroughly - this is what they are behind, and this is why. Dan Hanna felt it was important to stay with the grid. Cory Sorensen said if the purpose is to relieve 2nd East, he feels that 2nd West and Airport Road are options. There is a need for multiple roads in addition to the east corridor. It would benefit the City. Val Christensen said the City of Rexburg has endorsed the Keller Associates traffic study plan. The City is endorsing findings of this engineering study. The other proposals are coming from individuals. The area just east of 2nd East is a projected area of growth. The route will relieve 2nd East of future growth. Thaine Robinson agreed with Cory Sorensen and Val Christensen – the east corridor is necessary, but other grid points and bridge crossings need to be looked at. Scott Ferguson noted that there are two issues they are talking about – the east corridor, and access on the west side of town. They are separate issues. They need to have separate discussions. There was Commission consensus that more time is needed to study the information they have about the issue of the 2nd East Alternative. Chairman Dyer suggested that at the next P&Z meeting, they should address this issue, in hopes of getting a consensus recommendation to support the City in what the City Council already recommended to the County. Then, in continuing discussions in future meetings, the Commission can address the issues of other bridges, corridors, etc. 3. Discussion of Pioneer Road Concerns Chairman Dyer said he would like the Commissioners to give their input as to what the concerns are regarding Pioneer Road. They will then address these concerns at a future meeting. Pioneer Road concerns: 1. Fence along the right of way 2. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk 3. Condition of road 4. Pedestrian safety improvement 5. Striped biking path 6. Lighting 7. Landscaping 8. City property clean-up on Main/Pioneer 16 Compliance: The Compliance Officer will be notified of two issues. 1. Quality Inn – overgrowth of weeds 2. Pawn shop – not looking good - status report Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: 1. Design Review Committee meeting report – Broulim’s Plaza The Commission viewed the presentation boards the project architect had brought to the February 9th Design Review Committee meeting. Chairman Dyer said the Commissioners had expressed concern about Broulim’s east wall and its long expanse. Broulim’s is expanding the building a few feet to the east and extending to the west by moving the current next door tenants further to the west. They will also be adding to the back, to include a truck dock. There will be remodeling inside to include a mezzanine for diners and expansion of the produce area. The pharmacy and the pharmacy drive-up window will be on the west corner of the building. The south end of the east wall will have a canopy that wraps around from the front of the building. This south corner will have an entrance for the Pizza Pie Café. Broulim’s also plans to have an outdoor eating area on this southeast end. The north end of the east wall of Broulim’s will take the look of the east wall’s front brick columns and put them flush with the building, to help bring visual relief. Color change will also help to visually break up the wall and make it more attractive. The meeting was a win-win situation for the community and the developer. Val Christensen asked the Commission members if they felt the Design Review Committee make up of a P&Z Commission member, a City Council person, and a community professional is working. It was an experiment and could be changed. They could rotate through the entire P&Z Commission. Chairman Dyer felt they have done well, but there is a weakness of a person new to the committee not knowing anything about design standard requirements; when there is a gray area, they have no framework to make a judgment. It is good to have unanimity in their decision. The end result is there, but getting there sometimes is a little problematic. Thaine Robinson said the outside person that is invited often does not know design standards requirements. He agrees with the Chair that there needs to be unanimity in their decision. The outside person may not see the compromise of give and take between the City and the developer. Dan Hanna felt it would be beneficial to have at least two P&Z Commissioners at the Design Review meetings to further reinforce each other’s understanding and vision. This issue could be further discussed in the future. Report on Projects: None Tabled Requests: None Building Permit Application Report: None Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 10:13 pm.