Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES FEBRUARY 20, 2014 1 Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others: Winston Dyer – Chairman Brad Wolfe- City Council Liaison Dan Hanna Thaine Robinson Val Christensen- Community Development Director Mary Ann Mounts Jedd Walker Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney W.C.Porter Melanie Davenport Natalie Powell – Code Enforcement Nick Cummock – Community Development Intern Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:05 pm and welcomed everyone. The Commission is grateful to have so many interested citizens in attendance tonight. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Dan Hanna, Chuck Porter, Mary Ann Mounts, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, Jedd Walker, Melanie Davenport Gil Shirley, Mark Rudd, Richie Webb, and Cory Sorensen were excused. Minutes: 1. Planning and Zoning meeting - February 6, 2014 Dan Hanna motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of February 6, 2014. Melanie Davenport seconded the motion. Mary Ann Mounts, Thaine Robinson, and Chuck Porter abstained for having not been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Tabled requests: 1. Rezone – 1042 West 7th South – Rural Residential 1 to Medium Density Residential 2 At the January 16, 2014 P&Z meeting, because of the Commission’s recommendation to City Council to deny the Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request for the subject property, this rezone request for the same property was tabled, in order that the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request go to City Council for the final decision. On February 5, 2014, the City Council approved the Comprehensive Plan Amendment request to change the property’s land use designation to Low- Moderate Density Residential. Chairman Dyer stated a motion must be made to pick up the Rezone request from the table to be addressed for public hearing. He noted that the applicant is present and ready to address the matter, and the interested citizens who signed in at the January 16th P&Z meeting have been notified that this issue would be addressed tonight in public hearing. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to pick the Rezone request for 1042 West 7th South up off the table. Thaine Robinson seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes February 20, 2014 2 Chairman Dyer gave introductory remarks. He first wanted to declare for the record that in the interest of helping the citizens, he has discussed with interested parties the procedural and protocol-type questions on this issue. Several people wanted to know and understand how things would proceed; in each case the conversation was prefaced with the fact that they could not discuss the merits of the request, or any information concerning the proposal because it has been advertised for public hearing, but that it was fine to help make sure the citizens understood the process. The Chair asked if any of the Commissioners had any other potential or perceived conflicts of interest regarding the hearing that needed to be declared. There were none. Chairman Dyer apologized to the citizens for any confusion he felt he may have caused in the last meeting on this matter, which addressed the Comprehensive Plan of the property. He mistakenly reported that the decision needed to be appealed to the City Council. However, the issue was just a recommendation from the Commission to the City Council to deny the requested Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment change. The City Council proceeded forward and voted to approve the change. He cannot speak for the City Council. That is their prerogative. They are the elected officials who make the final decision. The P&Z Commission is a recommending body. Because of that City Council action, tonight we are here to discuss a subsequent request related to the Comprehensive Plan change – the potential change in the zoning of the subject property. Although it is normally not a matter of discussion here, because concerns were expressed about matters that took place in the City Council meeting, Chairman Dyer wanted to clarify that Dan Hanna, a P&Z Commissioner here, was asked by the applicant to be a part of the formal presentation of her Comprehensive Plan proposal at the February 5th City Council meeting. Therefore, he was given the opportunity to speak because of being a part of that applicant team, whereas others that were interested in perhaps having input may have felt they were not given that opportunity. Chairman Dyer reviewed the public hearing procedure. Tonight there will be a complete hearing on the proposal to change the zoning of the subject property. The applicant will present the proposal to the Commission. The Commissioners may ask clarifying questions. Because of the community interest, citizens may ask questions to help them understand the proposal. This would not be the time to express feelings but would rather be to help in clarifying what is being proposed. The public input portion of the hearing would be the time to express opinions, feelings, and thoughts. The Commission has received ten written letters, and some citizens are interested in giving their input verbally tonight. You can do either/or - if someone has written a letter of written input, the letter can stand as representing their voice, or they may give public testimony – but a person cannot do both because that would be an unfair advantage. Everyone has one voice. The Commission is interested in public input and will take the time necessary to hear whoever wishes to speak. Because of the amount of input that we are anticipating, we ask that you be brief. If someone has already spoken about a certain concern, as a courtesy please say you agree rather than repeating the same concerns. 3 The Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. They advise the City Council with recommendations. The City Council members are elected officials and have the final say on this matter. There has been some confusion in the past about public hearings. According to Section 6.13f of the Development Code Ordinance No. 1026, the City Council will conduct a formal public hearing on this matter based on the outcome of tonight’s meeting. This second hearing is a requirement for a zone change, and it is still in effect although changes are being proposed that have not been formally adopted yet. In order to get proper notice in the newspaper and affected property owners, etc, it appears the City Council public hearing would occur on Wednesday, March 19th. The City Council will conduct their own hearing, will receive their own input much as is being done tonight, and they will deliberate and make the final decision. After the Commission receives public input tonight, the City staff will give their evaluation of the proposal. The Commission will then deliberate the matter, looking at advantages and disadvantages, and the merits and impacts of the proposal in order to make a decision. The question before us tonight is shall the 2.5 acre parcel at 1042 West 7th South be rezoned from the current Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2)? The Commission has the charge to recommend approval, recommend approval with conditions or modifications, or recommend disapproval of the request, to the City Council. The Commission also has the power to table the action if found to be necessary. Chairman Dyer asked if any citizens in the audience had questions on procedure for tonight’s hearing: 1. Will City staff evaluation be given here tonight? Yes. Community Development Director Val Christensen will give the staff report which addresses requirements regarding rezones, which are stated in the Rexburg Development Code Ordinance No. 1026. 2. Will the public be allowed to be here for the staff summary? Yes. It will be done after public input is given. 3. After the public input, would the audience be given the opportunity to ask more questions? After public input is taken, that would conclude interaction or questions back and forth with the public, the reason being a kind of double jeopardy. The Commission would not interact or discuss more with the applicant either, but they may occasionally ask a clarifying question that requires only a yes or no answer. Chairman Dyer stated it is perceived that there is concern about what is going to be said in the staff report that is given after the public input testimony, and the audience wanting to know that and perhaps speak to issues during public testimony. He asked Val Christensen to explain what is looked at in the staff report during his clarification of the rezone proposal before the public input is given. There were no other questions on procedure from those in attendance. Chairman Dyer expressed that he does not want anyone to be intimidated by the formality of the proceedings. This is your community. We serve you and want to make sure the process is understood. Everyone has the right to give their input without fear or intimidation. 4 The Chair clarified what is occurring tonight. Due to the action of the City Council, this particular property has now been comprehensively planned as Low-Moderate Density Residential. This land use designation may allow certain zones. Those potential zones are Low Density Residential 2 and 3 (LDR2 andLDR3) and Medium Density Residential 1 and 2 (MDR1 and MDR2) . The current zoning of the property is Rural Residential 1 (RR1). The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s vision for the future. The Zoning is the law, what can and cannot be done on the property. Under RR1, 1 house per lot is allowed, with the lot size being 1 to 5 acres. It would be a single family home. On this subject property, 2 homes would be allowed. The requested zone is MDR2 – this zone allows up to 20 units per acre of multi-family housing. There could be as many as 50 units on the subject 2.5 acre property. Height restriction is 30 feet, whether a home or other residential building. Potentially, this could be as much as 3 stories above ground. This introduction sets the background, where we are and where we could go. Lisa Ellis, 1042 West 7th South, the property owner and applicant. She stated that in light of everything she has learned since the last meeting and everything she has educated herself on since the last meeting, she feels she is obviously asking for too high a zone. Ms. Ellis said she would accept a lower zone of Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) instead of MDR2. She is requesting the zone change for the future planning of her property. She has no current plans. There is no developer, no buyer, and no realtor. She wants the most value for her property and is in no hurry to sell. This is laying the groundwork for a possible case in the future. She does not want to rehash what has been said in past meetings about the property during the Comprehensive Plan proposal. The Chair said she is welcome to go over any things that may have been stated in earlier meetings. Ms. Ellis said the precedent has been set on the zoning she is asking for. She is asking for MDR1 next to the existing MDR1 of the Meadows to the east; other existing zones around the property are RR1 and RR2. Her property was annexed into the City from the County. The City allowed the Willowbrook developer to come in on the north without any egresses in and out of the Meadows to help alleviate the traffic problem. She understands it would be on a developer’s shoulders to address the issues of sewer, water, helping with the roads, etc. Any development would also probably trigger the putting in of sidewalk on 7th South, which would make the road much safer. Chairman Dyer asked if the Commissioners had clarification questions on the proposal. Melanie Davenport said at the earlier P&Z meeting on this property one of Ms. Ellis’ concerns was that she feels her property is landlocked. Lisa Ellis said that she does feel her property and the property of her neighbors on the west are pretty much stuck with 2.5 acres each in the RR1 zoning. Chairman Dyer clarified for the record that the proposal tonight is for 1 parcel and does not include the neighboring property on the west, which was part of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment request in 2012. 5 The subject property was pointed out on the projected map. Chairman Dyer said the applicant mentioned a willingness to accept an MDR1zone (potential density of 16 units per acre) change instead of the original request for MDR2 (potential density of 20 units per acre) zoning. At the time of the Comprehensive Plan hearing, there was some allusion to matching the density of the Meadows, which staff determined is about 11 units per acre for the entire piece of the Meadows property. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation of the Meadows is Moderate-High Density Residential. The Chair asked if Lisa Ellis would be willing to match that density of the Meadows or if she is looking at the potential of MDR1 for 16 units per acre. Lisa Ellis said she is willing to look at a density that is consistent with that of the Meadows – about 11 units per acre. Chairman Dyer asked if any the citizens in the audience had questions for clarifications on this proposed zone change. This would not include opinions, which can be given during public testimony. He clarified that this rezone request is a land use discussion. Development question will come later. 1. What were the personal costs of the 2 applications (Comprehensive Plan and Rezone applications)? Lisa Ellis said the fees for the 2 applications came to $1650.00. 2. Can the Commission legally limit the request to 11 units per acre for an MDR1 zone change? The Chair said the Commission is allowed to set conditions on land use matters, not arbitrarily but with justification and to mitigate impacts. 3. The Comprehensive Plan is the vision of the City. When changes are made how does it affect the vision? The Comprehensive Plan is an effort to try and look at what land uses are conducive with what is already going on in a neighborhood, and with what is foreseen to be coming for eventual growth and development. It is a living, breathing, changing document. In the past, the Comprehensive Plan could not be changed for at least eighteen months. Now, the law has been changed by the State, and application requests from interested citizens to change the Comprehensive Plan can be taken at any time. A Comprehensive Plan change opens the doorway into several zones that correspond with that designation. In Lisa Ellis’ case the Comprehensive Plan change to Low-Moderate Density Residential from Single Family Residential was requested and was approved by the City Council. This opens the door for inclusion of the two Medium Density Residential zones as possibilities for zoning along with LDR2 and LDR3. The original Comprehensive Plan of the property was Single Family Residential, which allowed as possibilities the two Rural Residential zones and the three Low Density Residential Zones. The applicant now has standing to come forward with the requested zone change, which is the subject of tonight’s hearing. 4. But the idea of the Comprehensive Plan is seen as a long term vision. The Chair said that is correct. It is the vision of the community planners and the City Council of how growth and development and types of uses will be done in certain locations. With growth and neighborhood transitions, changes may come if such requests are legitimate and deemed to be appropriate by the elected officials. 5. What would be half way between the two zones of MDR1on the east and RR1? Will what is on both sides of the property be looked at? 6 The zoning of the neighboring properties is something that could be looked at during the time of deliberation after public input is given. The current zoning of RR1 for the subject property allows 1 home per acre. The LDR2 and LDR3 zones range from 2 to 8 units per acre. The MDR1 and MDR2 zones allow up to 16 and 20 units per acre. It could be seen as 1 or 2 units in the neighborhood now versus the 11 to 13 units per acre of the Meadows. 6. When the Commission makes recommendations to the City Council, is the recommendation in the City’s best interest or the citizens’ best interest? Chairman Dyer said a person has property rights. According to the Development Code, there are certain privileges and rights associated with a property. The Code also allows them the right and the privilege to explore improvement and further development of their property. Rexburg has zoning to try and achieve an effective balance between the private property rights and the greater common public good. It is the thin ice we consistently walk. It is very challenging. Who wouldn’t want the opportunity to develop their property and maximize their investment? Who would want a medical waste burning facility built next door to them? These are the things that the Commission constantly tries to balance. When the Commission makes a decision, the Commission tries to balance the benefit and advantage to the community and the private property rights. It needs to be thoroughly explored and evaluated. It is a fine line. Then, too, comes the issue of timing. At one point in time, a proposal may not be appropriate. At a later point in time, that may change. If the question is regarding do we listen to public input, the answer is yes, absolutely. It is one of many factors that is weighed in the decision-making against what is permissible and allowed, and the opportunity of the applicant to make the proposal. 6. How will the information from tonight’s proceedings be given to the City Council? Chairman Dyer said the information will be passed on to the City Council with the P&Z Commission’s recommendation. This includes the oral testimony and written public input. The mechanism for passing the information on is the minutes of the P&Z meeting. Each time testimony is given, the P&Z secretary will capture the essence of what is being said. Often the written input letters are inserted into the minutes as part of the official record. Chairman Dyer asked Val Christensen to briefly explain the staff review process prior to the citizens having the opportunity for public input, in case they wanted to address this. Val Christensen said when an application is submitted to the City, it begins with the P&Z Coordinator/secretary, who processes the application. The application is then routed to staff, according to what type of application it is - to himself as the Community Development Department Director, to the Geographic Information Systems Department, to the City Engineer, and sometimes to the Fire Department, for staff review. The first thing Mr. Christensen looks at is if the request meets the requirements of the ordinance. An example is that there is a minimum lot size for the different zones. He also looks at minimum width and other basics. If he determines that the request meets the basic requirements, he addresses the administrative rules/criteria listed in his report. This covers the chapter in the Development Code regarding zone change and looks at if the application meets the criteria: 7 Conformance to the City’s Comprehensive Plan; street, water ,sewer, storm drainage, solid waste collection and disposal, and other utilities; capacity of existing public services, including public safety services, public emergency services, schools, and parks; potential for nuisances or health and safety hazards that may adversely affect adjoining properties; recent changes in land use in the area, etc. Finally, he makes a recommendation based on that group of criteria. He does not say to approve or to deny the request. He states in his report that if the Planning and Zoning Commission determines that all of the criteria are met, and based on any public testimony that is taken, information given, and that the proposal is not detrimental, etc, it is left up to the Commission to make the call on the proposal.. Mr. Christensen will give his staff report after the public testimony portion of tonight’s hearing. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion of the hearing. In Favor: Two letters in favor of the proposal were submitted - by Gabriel and Ruthlee Hernandez, and by Sally Heinz. The letters are included below under the Written Input section of these minutes and were read into the record by Chairman Dyer. Neutral: None Opposed: Eight letters opposed to the proposal are included below under the Written Input section of these minutes. Seven of the letters were read into the record by Chairman Dyer. One letter was read into the record by Paul Scholes. Paul Scholes, 1118 Coyote Willow Way. He is an interested citizen, and he is also representing a number of Willowbrook Neighborhood residents who have signed a letter that was submitted . He read their letter that is included below under the Written input section of the minutes. (The names of Wade and Judy Pugh, for the record, were struck from this letter because they submitted a separate letter that is included under Written Input. They were not at the hearing tonight). For clarification, Chairman asked if this neighborhood letter represents the Willowbrook Homeowners Association (HOA) or if this letter is separate from that. Mr. Scholes said this letter is representing the neighborhood at large. Rex Barzee, 1145 Arctic Willow Drive. He speaks in opposition because he thinks most citizens in his experience would consider the border between the Meadows and the Willowbrook subdivision to be a mistake. This situation is a higher density neighborhood bordering on a lower density one. By zoning Ms. Ellis’ property as either MDR1 or MDR2, we will continue to perpetuate this same mistake. He would ask the Commission to consider the request made in the neighborhood letter that was just read – the rezoning of the subject property to LDR3. This would stop perpetuating the mistake of having higher density housing right next to lower density housing. It would provide a buffer or compromise between the zone to the north and the zone to the east. Chandra Scholes, 1118 Coyote Willow Way. She wanted to remind Planning & Zoning of their responsibility as described at rexburg. org. – “…The Planning and Zoning Department reviews potential development opportunities to ensure compliance with zoning, setback, parking, landscaping, access, and other city requirements. ..” The purpose of the Planning & Zoning 8 Commission and the Zoning Code of the City of Rexburg includes – “… to promote the health, safety and welfare of residents of the City of Rexburg ; to protect the property rights and enhance property values; to provide for the protection and enhancement of the local economy; to avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land; to ensure that development is commensurate with the physical characteristics of the land; to protect life and property in areas subject to natural hazards and disasters; to avoid undue water and air pollution; to secure safety from fire and provide adequate open spaces for light and air; and to implement the Comprehensive Plan…” This is all her neighborhood is asking for – to try and compromise in order to meet these objectives. She cautions allowing for increased density in order to have a developer pay for poor road conditions or problematic sewer issues. There are protected private property rights in the City’s charter. Moderate density does not protect property values or secure safety or avoid undue concentration of the population. Until February 5, 2014, when the City Council in a closed meeting overturned the P&Z Commission recommendation to deny a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Low- Moderate Density Residential for this property, moderate density zoning here did not implement the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Rexburg. Written Input: The letters are part of the official record of this Public Hearing. Chairman Dyer read the first nine letters that are listed. Paul Scholes read the letter (#10) from Willow Brook Neighborhood citizens. 1. Letter from Gabriel and RuthLee Hernandez, in favor of the proposal 2. Letter from Mark and Susan Pugh, opposed to the proposal 3. Letter from Wade and Judith Pugh, opposed to the proposal – (their names were striken from the Willowbrook community letter so that their written input letter could represent them; they were not present). 4. Letter from Rich and Tammy Geddes, opposed to the proposal 5. Letter from David and Lindsey Barrus, opposed to the proposal 6. Letter from Mike and Michelle King, opposed to the proposal (new letter replacing their first letter of January 14, 2014) 7. Letter from Sally Heinz, in favor of the proposal 8. Letter from Barrett McCoy, opposed to the proposal 9. Letter from Daniel and Teresa Moldenhauer, opposed to the proposal 10. Letter from Willowbrook Neighborhood citizens (41 names), opposed to the proposal. 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Chuck Porter asked if people who are in opposition to the proposal could stand, and then if people in favor could stand. The Chair felt such a request would not be following protocol. Stephen Zollinger said this request could be done. The majority of people in the room were against the proposal. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion and asked if the applicant wanted to speak in rebuttal. Rebuttal: Lisa Ellis thanked the neighbors for coming tonight. She has lived in this location for 20 years. She has dealt with all of the development there including the Meadows and Willowbrook. Not once did not she go to a P&Z meeting to oppose any sale of any property or any development. She did not feel she had the right to walk in and try to tell someone what they can or cannot do with their land. So, she just has dealt with the changes. All she is asking for is the same respect. The Chair asked for the staff evaluation. Val Christensen said with the approved change of the Comprehensive Plan to Low-Moderate Density Residential for the subject parcel, this rezone request is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Public Works Director’s review comments include that access to adequate water for any type of development is not a problem; an arrangement would be required for a developer to access the sewer lines in Willowbrook or the Meadows; regarding streets, there is concern with any significant increase in traffic due to the fact that there is only one outlet to serve this area and the existing traffic of the Meadows. The recommendation is, if the P&Z Commission determines that all criteria are met, staff requests that the P&Z Commission recommend to City Council to proceed with the requested zone change. Melanie Davenport asked if Countryside Avenue is a public street. Stephen Zollinger said the interior roads of the Meadows complex are all private. Mrs. Davenport asked if this request moves forward to development, would it be considered infill? Val Christensen said it would not. Mrs.Davenport asked if there are any grandfathered rights. Stephen Zollinger said no as it relates to this request. There are grandfathered livestock rights. When a use changes the grandfathered status is relinquished. Melanie Davenport asked for clarification on density. Val Christensen said all that is being looked at now is possible units per acre. Chairman Dyer stated that in theory based on gross acreage, MDR2 would allow 20 units per acre. In reality the property would get somewhere around 80 percent of that capability after streets, access, and setbacks are included. Val Christensen said if there are 3 stories, it would be a very different layout than 2 stories. Mary Ann Mounts said there currently is the right to put a 3 story building there. Melanie Davenport asked for a clarification on density for LDR1 and LDR2. Chairman Dyer said the minimum lot size for LDR1 is 12,000 square feet, so there could be about 3 homes per acre. 23 Val Christensen said LDR2 has a minimum lot size of 8000 square feet. With 10,000 square feet there could be a twin home or duplex with a CUP. LDR3 has a minimum lot size of 6000 square feet. With 8000 square feet, there could be a twin home or duplex with a CUP. It was clarified that the Comprehensive Plan map is a planning tool. Chuck Porter asked why the City Council meeting was not of a public nature. Stephen Zollinger clarified that the City Council meeting was not a closed meeting. It was just not a public hearing. It was a general City Council meeting. A Comprehensive Plan change request does not require two hearings. A Rezone does require 2 hearings at this time, one at the P&Z Commission and one before the City Council. He also clarified that Dan Hanna was given the opportunity to be heard as a private citizen because the applicant Lisa Ellis had requested him be there because in the course of their conversations, he expressed things to her that she thought were relevant to her presentation. It was not unethical, illegal, or inappropriate in a legal sense. Mary Ann Mounts clarified that Mr. Hanna was not representing the P&Z Commission. Dan Hanna asked for clarification regarding Mr. Christensen’s staff review and the health and safety issues. Val Christensen said he is looking at odors and noise, and not the street – the City Engineer looked at the street. The City Engineer basically said that the request would not be the straw the breaks the camel’s back. Melanie Davenport asked for clarification of the boundaries of the Willowbrook subdivision. The subdivision boundaries were pointed out on the overhead screen map. She asked if the MDR1 zone would be nonconforming. Val Christensen said that should be determined. It would not be a spot zone because it would be up against a similar zone. Dan Hanna stated that the Meadows had 2 phases. Then it was annexed into the City.There was no public hearing other than at the County level. Chairman Dyer clarified there was a public hearing regarding the annexation into the City, and the assigning of the zone. Stephen Zollinger said there was opposition expressed about the Meadows development. It was approved over the opposition. There were also not many residents in the area at that time. Dan Hanna said a lot of people moved into the area with the Meadows basically pre-existing. Chairman Dyer reiterated that the question before the Commission is, shall the subject property at 1042 West 7th South be rezoned from RR1 to MDR2 or a lesser zone? The Commission’s charge is to discuss the merits and the challenges of the proposal. Look at the public input and the potential for compromise. For the record, look at why this would be good and why it would be impactful, and then move toward what ought to be done with the request. Mary Ann Mounts stated she definitely sees two sides. She feels sad that Ms. Ellis, who has owned the property a long time, perhaps felt she did not have the right to come in to meetings when changes in the area were taking place. Mrs. Mounts is grateful that the Meadows began under the auspices of the County so that the City does not have to take full responsibility for it, because maybe some mistakes were made there. 24 The road, being expanded to the size it is, does not allow for lot of choice in what can be put there. She realizes Ms. Ellis’ situation and sees her need to do something more with the subject property; it is her right. She wouldn't want these people to feel that we don't pay any attention to comprehensive plans and she, in fact, advises everyone to look at the Comprehensive Plan when buying property so they are informed about what may happen in the future growth of an area. This situation has been complicated by the fact that the comprehensive plan was modified to seemingly fit the zone change request and has left the neighbors feeling like they were misled about what could be done in their neighborhood. She is very much in favor of a compromise and is more inclined to go with LDR3 zoning for the property. Thaine Robinson said one struggles on both sides of the issue when looking at something like this. He agrees with Mrs. Mounts and would be more in favor of a compromise if that can be done. Also, he does not care if anyone loses or makes a dollar. On land use issues, the Commission is trying to to do what is best for the city and citizens. At the same time, he cannot see a developer coming in and buying that piece of property, and paying for the infrastructure. He does not see it being a money maker regardless of how many units there might be. The Chair stated that in deliberation, if there are impacts or concerns that would merit a possible compromise, they should be identified. Chuck Porter said he is still not convinced about the change in the Comprehensive Plan, which was recommended by this body to keep it as it was; he is not comfortable with the change. The neighbors proposed what he feels is a reasonable compromise, although he is not sure the landowner would be happy with it. Any time you have high density and low density coming together, the border creates a lot of stress. Melanie Davenport stated the problem she has is that this is just the corner property. She has life experience that tells her that a small development coming in could create conflict with established neighborhoods. There is a different lifestyle with high and medium density than those people who live in established neighborhoods. It does create conflict in a lot of different ways. She agrees with compromise, but she would be more comfortable with the LDR2 zone. There could be quite a few homes, duplexes, or twin homes, and it would still be more in keeping with the neighborhood. Jedd Walker stated that he has read and re-read the February 5th City Council minutes, trying to understand the reasoning for the decision. It is still not clear as to what impacts or mitigation efforts were considered in that decision or not. He does not know why the decision was made but it was made. Three things have been going through his mind: timing, density, and property rights. Regarding timing, he will go back to the comment that he made on two previous occasions. The Comprehensive Plan has been used to help navigate where density is wanted. This was not one of the areas. There are other areas where we want to see greater density developed first. On the south, the land is comprehensively planned to be commercial, so on the north side of 7th South at some 25 point it may be more dense; but, that is going to be years down the road. He feels that the timing is not right Regarding density, it goes back to why the P&Z Commission’s recommendation to deny the Comprehensive Plan change request was not taken in the first place, because the Commission talked at great length about buffering. He feels the LDR3 zone could have been requested without changing the Comprehensive Plan map. That could have been a great buffer. He can understand the property rights as well. It is where the compromise comes in to play. He is not comfortable with anything higher than an LDR3 zoning for an effective buffer. Chairman Dyer agrees with Mrs. Mounts in regard to the situation for the applicant; they lived out there by themselves, and then development came and “encroached” around them. Ms. Ellis has the right to pursue the highest and best use of her property as long as it fits within the plan and what is trying to be accomplished. He also understands the investment of the neighborhood. They had the Comprehensive Plan and the zoning which both indicated that the area would be reserved for lower densities. Each side has a valid standing and point. The Chair appreciates what Mr. Walker said about the timing issue and the density. There is also the potential for additional people on the roadway. There is the opportunity for compromise. Chairman Dyer clarified that 16 units per acre are allowed on the Meadows side of the subject property, and 2 to 7 units per acre are allowed on the other side. Something in between would be on the order of what the Meadows actually ended up being developed at - around 11 units per acre. Chairman Dyer stated that an LDR3 zone as a compromise would allow 13 twin homes on this property – 26 single family units (10.4 units per acre). They would be single family residential style. Although twin homes or duplexes are allowed, apartments are not. This may appeal to the spirit of compromise, with the neighbors’ concerns. It would require a Conditional Use Permit to allow twin homes or duplexes in this zone. An LDR2 zone as a compromise could get 10 twin homes – 20 single family units (8 units per acre), with a Conditional Use Permit. The advantages of such compromise would be preserving single family style homes for matching the existing neighborhood, but giving an opportunity for some greater density and a little bit of step- down from the higher density of the apartments without having additional apartment buildings constructed. Melanie Davenport felt with the LDR2 zone, Ms. Ellis would be able to sell pieces of her land; she would not have to sell the whole thing. It would be an advantage to her, and it would help to preserve the feel of the neighborhood. It does not make sense to take something rural and then put something, even an LDR3 zone, on that one corner. It would change the light and the sound of the location from the rural residential perspective. The Chair said the issue could also be looked at from the higher density perspective as well. Mrs. Davenport felt the area has already been buffered; a whole new buffer would have to be created on the other side. Mary Ann Mounts said the applicant’s property and the property of her adjacent neighbors to the west already existed when the Meadows was developed. When the neighboring homes were built, the initial phase of the Meadows already existed. She reiterated that a person buying property should look at the Comprehensive Plan to see the potential for growth in an area. 26 Dan Hanna said the City would never have approved the Meadows the way it is now. It was poor planning, poor traffic, and did not allow for buffers or for a good Comprehensive Plan transition. The reason he went to the City Council meeting on February 5th and spoke on behalf of Ms. Ellis was so the Planning & Zoning Commission could address the rezone request and have this discussion. Had City Council approved the P&Z recommendation for denial of the Comprehensive Plan request, this request probably would have just died. Ms. Ellis spent the money, and she has a right to make the request. We have had a great discussion. Melanie Davenport said the neighbors have, as a group, said they would support a rezoning to LDR3. Thaine Robinson wondered if the applicant would support a zone change to LDR3. Stephen Zollinger said the applicant does not have to accept a lower zone recommendation, but the Commission has the ability to recommend anything lower than the requested zone under that Comprehensive Plan designation of Low-Moderate Density Residential, or they may make no change at all. If the applicant would rather stay where she is at rather than the zone specified in the recommendation, she could also choose to withdraw her request. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend approval to City Council of a rezone for 1042 West 7th South modified - to change from Rural Residential 1 to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3), instead of the requested Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2). Dan Hanna seconded the motion. Those In Favor: Those Opposed: Chuck Porter Melanie Davenport Dan Hanna Mary Ann Mounts Winston Dyer Thaine Robinson Jedd Walker Motion Carried. The Chair thanked everyone for their interest in the community. Break was called. Public Hearings: see above Tabled rezone Unfinished/Old Business: 1. Development Code changes – Discussion This discussion will continue at the next P&Z meeting on March 6, 2014. It will be a work session to include Title 14 Manufactured-Mobile Homes Ordinance and further Development Code changes rewrite discussion. The Commission can go to rexburg.org> Government> Development Code > Temporary Special Section for P&Z Commissioners – look at the current edits and updates and then come to the meeting prepared to 27 discuss any issues. We are under a charge to try and get the Development Code review completed in the next few meetings. Val Christensen stated he would like to get through Chapter 5 (Parking Regulations) and Chapter 6 (Administrative Procedures) of the Development Code. New Business: None Compliance: None Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: None Report on Projects: None Building Permit Application Report: None Heads Up: March 6 – Development Code Changes – Discussion continued March 20 – 1. Rezone – 529, 549, 559, 579, 589, & 609 South Millhollow Rd. – LDR1 to LDR2 2. Pedestrian Emphasis Zone Area 2 (PEZ2) concerns with Visitor Parking – Various Complex Owners The meeting was adjourned at 9:47 pm.