Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08.17.17 P&Z Minutes 1 Commissioners Attending; Heidi Christensen - Chairman Greg Blacker Steve Oakey John Bowen Darrik Farmer Gil Shirley Rory Kunz Kristi Anderson City Staff and Others: Val Christensen – Zoning and Building Official Craig Rindlisbacher – Planning Official Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Colton Murdock – Community Development Intern Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the meeting at 6:35 p.m. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Attending: Steve Oakey, Darrik Farmer, Gil Shirley, Kristi Anderson, Bruce Sutherland, Heidi Christensen, John Bowen, Rory Kunz, and Greg Blacker Melanie Davenport, Bruce Sutherland, Brad Wolfe, and Mark Rudd were excused. Minutes: 1. From Planning and Zoning meeting – July 20, 2017 Darrik Farmer motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of July 20, 2017. Rory Kunz seconded the motion. Steve Oakey, John Bowen, and Greg Blacker abstained for not having been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Heidi Christensen stated, “We are going to let people speak. In the development code, the following rules for a hearing are recorded: Participating in a Hearing  Every citizen has a right to be heard on a given request.  Treat the presiding body with respect.  No person permitted to testify or speak before the Commission unless such person has signed his/her name and written his/her residential address on sign-up sheets provided at the hearing.  Approach the podium  State your name and address for the record.  Try to focus on the facts and potential impacts.  Speak to the decision makers - Commissioners  The time limit for oral testimony is usually 5 minutes.  Once the hearing is closed, no public participation can occur. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes August 17, 2017 2 Conduct: Hearing Opens 1) Support (for) 2) Uncommitted (neutral) 3) Opponents (against) 4) Rebuttal of applicant Hearing Closes” One of the audience members brought a letter that states the hearing begins at 6:45p.m. The agenda states the hearing is at 6:35p.m. Due to conflicting information, the beginning of the hearing has been delayed until 6:45p.m. Steve Oakey asked if a change to the motion for the minutes needs to be made. In previous minutes, it did not specify the 3rd item in the hearing procedures.  No person permitted to testify or speak before the Commission unless such person has signed his/her name and written his/her residential address on sign-up sheets provided at the hearing. Val stated this criterion is part of the development code. In the development code, it states: Development Code 6.14 Hearing Procedures a. Each person testifying shall be asked to state his/her name and address in such a manner as to assure that it will be recorded by electronic means. The Administrator may require that those who wish to testify complete a sign-up sheet with name and address prior to giving testimony. b. No person shall be permitted to speak until such person has been officially recognized by the presiding officer. Val said in different jurisdictions, due to the public notice, people can sign up to speak. This will keep the meeting running smoothly. This procedure is a pretty common occurrence at planning and zoning commission meetings. Then, the commission calls the names of those who wish to speak from the sign-up sheet, instead of asking for them by position. Heidi asked if the procedures for a hearing are sent with the notice in the mail. Tawnya responded that a paper for the conduct of a hearing has recently been included in the mailing notices. Val expressed concern about people who will attend the meetings and have not received notice in the mail. Steve suggested signage as people come in to identify the need to sign in to be able to speak to help people know the procedure. Perhaps, a sign on the glass doors as people walk in, a notice in the paper, a person standing at the door directing people to sign in, or a placard by the sign-up sheet were other suggestions. Rory Kunz talked about personal experience during meetings he has attended. He has been unsure what side he is representing until he has heard the information and testimony during the meeting. The Commission decided by signing the paper as you enter, you ensure the opportunity to speak. The position the speaker represents will be expressed by the speaker. The procedures will be placed on the screen before each hearing. Public Hearings: 1. 6:45pm - Ringel Rezone – 20 South 12th West - (#17 00324) Requesting a rezone from Rural Residential One (RR1) to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) for tract 2 and Low- Density Residential 2 (LDR2) for tract 3. (See Dev. Code p. 219-220; Comp. Plan Ch. 6) Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:45p.m. Rod Jones – 3720 W. Mountain View Dr. – Representing the Ringels. The Ringels are requesting the land on tract 2 be zoned MDR2 and tract 3 be zoned LDR2. Bruce requested to see where this 3 is in reference to the City. The City GIS map was shown on the screen and the land was identified. Val reminded the Commission the front 250’ is already zoned CBC. This was changed with the annexation/rezone. The back 600’ is where the request for lower density is located. Chairman Heidi Christensen asked, Does the public have any questions to clarify? Ann Dexter asked for clarification. Commercial was identified. The colors representing each zone were defined. The densities for each of the proposed zones were explained: MDR2 allows up to 20 units/acre, LDR2 allows a minimum of 8,000 square feet for a single-family dwelling. Maximum buildable heights are 32’. They both have the same yard setbacks. The uses with MDR2 allow apartments, townhomes. LDR2 only allows duplexes and single-family homes with conditional use permits. Chairman Heidi Christensen asked if the staff has anything to clarify. Staff has nothing to clarify. She opened the public hearings. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: Ann Dexter-150 S. 12th W. – She is not against growth. She is concerned about traffic. The intersection at Main street and 12th W. is very busy already. The traffic increases during the school year. There is a lot of commercial already there at the corner. She is worried that if you add more density, more problems will occur on the corner. She would also like to see uniformity on the East side of 12th W. Meadows is already there. Summerfield is there. She is asking the Commission to use 12th W. as a line. She suggested the Commission allow the land to the East be filled in first with development. Pine brook is a beautiful subdivision. She is hoping the west side on 12th west stay residential for now. Ann requested the Commission try for something uniform rather than to allow the apartments to grow out in this area. Written Input: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Heidi Christensen closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:53PM. She invited staff to report. Val Christensen stated, the subject property is currently a farm field. On the comprehensive plan map, a node is shown in this area for what is considered neighborhood type growth. Surrounding a node, should be moderate to high density and buffer off into lower densities. Val read the staff review notes for Craig and Keith. Craig – Planning & Zoning: Having Medium Density Zoning between Low Density Zoning and Commercial Zoning falls in line with staff recommendations. The Planning and Zoning Commission should determine if the amount of Medium Density Zoning is appropriate for this area. Keith - Public Works: Access will need to be worked out with the Plat. The City has capacity for water and sewer at this location. All storm water will need to be handled on site. All water rights associated with this development will need to be transferred to the City once development takes place. Staff feels the medium density zone is appropriate. The amount of medium density is in question. Keith didn’t talk about traffic at this time. The traffic survey that has recently been done does not identify this as a problem area at this time. This is managed with traffic flow, lights and signs, etc. Traffic studies are usually requested at the platting process. If the change meets the needs of the comprehensive plan and the amount is sufficient, the Commission would approve this request. Will more MDR be allowed later? Think around that intersection, not down in the neighborhoods. Steve Oakey asked Val to explain the Horrocks Engineering county-wide traffic study. Val explained Horrocks identified with their computer program the areas in the near future that would 4 be problematic. Any point that crosses the interstate will have to be addressed. Up by Wal-Mart at the river crossing on 2nd E., was determined as the most hazardous area. Main street is another part that will show up. Both intersections on Main and the South will become problematic a few years down the road. When they do, the state will make the necessary changes at the actual highways before the problems get to the point they are dangerous situations. Kristi Anderson was thinking the high school is a dangerous situation at certain times of the day. Craig talked about Keller and Associates, a company who is looking at problem situations in those areas for the overpasses. Kristi stated the people might view these areas problematic before the state does. Val said look at it from the state’s perspective. The state has certain criteria that the state uses to evaluate systematically the level of danger for streets. Staff needs to work with engineering equations that have been time-tested, not growing pains. Steve Oakey talked about the view of the future is limited. Steve used the University as a model. The University doesn’t pave all the surrounding sidewalks when it develops an area. The University watches where to pave the sidewalks for students due to traffic. The City can use this same process. Now that the people are moving out to the new high school, and traffic has been determined, a solution can be found. Val explained the Ringels’ project will not push the traffic on this road into problematic. Heidi Christensen is clarifying Val’s comment about the MDR amount. Val talked about thinking about the area in general. MDR is a buffer. What is the Commission prepared to see in this area? Are we prepared to provide more density to the North? I am not expecting more MDR to the south. Adjacent areas may want the same zoning as the Ringels. However, the node is not meant to grow. A buffer is expected around the commercial. The Comprehensive plan in this area has changed over time. Consider what you want across the road as you make your decision. Commission deliberation. Kristi talked about 223 possible units in the Ringel rezone. This seems like a lot for this area. Darrik says it is along a highway too, next to commercial. Greg talked about driving this regularly. He thinks the traffic should be figured out first before adding units to this area. He thinks the Commission should not allow the rezone. Greg believes the off-ramp should be fixed first. Kristi talked about needing a traffic signal needed here, even though the state does not feel this. She asked what kind of information is on a traffic study. Val said you can ask for a traffic study. It can be something you ask for with a zone change. It is more often done in development. The Ringels’ rezone can be tabled until a traffic study has been conducted. Greg agreed to a traffic study. If someone sat on this intersection, he thinks it would be an eye-opener. Darrik had to get out and direct traffic to go southbound, because cars were backed up past Pioneer. People are having to turn right to self-manage. People on Main Street were more of an issue. The state is not going to push the issue until the numbers tell them. The state has already shown that a light is not warranted yet. Rory says traffic is a concern for some people. We can’t say no to each proposal that comes before us and hope we can force the state to make a move in this area. The proposal needs to be looked at from a comprehensive plan perspective, the zoning for the area, the standards in the code and the request as presented. This proposal does these things. Until traffic increases in the area, the state will not make changes. Steve weighs on the side of the property owner and developer. He is assuming the Ringels are going to maximize their property and the value of the property and the customer base. They are selling a product. The Commission doesn’t have money at stake in making this decision for the Ringels. He suggests approving the zone change, and allowing the City and the State to decide how to follow the developments to make the traffic flow. 5 Kristi wants to know how much MDR2 the board suggests is acceptable for this area. She would like to shrink the MDR. Darrik agreed. As far as infrastructure, close to the highway allows for traffic dispersal on to the highway. Kristi asked, will you still feel that more MDR can go in? Darrik explained higher density is better by these main arteries. The development as it stands needs to be developed on a case by case basis. Heidi how far will we let it go? Rory reminded the board that each development needs to be taken on its own merits. Otherwise, implications that are not favorable for the City may merit approval or disapproval. Does the project meet the requirements, yes or no? Darrik asked staff is this enough? What are staff’s thoughts? Craig approached the engineering firm that the state hired on the conditions of the interchanges. Their response was they need to design the infrastructure to match the land use. Traffic is to serve the community at large. What are the community’s interests at large? In the comprehensive plan this is defined clearly. Darrik addressed the potential of two other projects on this same intersection. Staff does not have an opinion. Steve said this property request would be yes no matter whose name is on the property. He sides with the person who has a personal stake or ownership. Darrik asked, is this too much on the outskirts of town? We want to push more to the core of town instead of the outskirts of town. Steve is prepared to make a motion. MOTION: Steve Oakey recommends to City Council the request be accepted, because the comprehensive plan was approved by the City Council as per request., staff has no immediate concerns, and the property owners’ request will allow them to make a substantial investment in our community. John Bowen seconded the motion. Commission Discusses the Motion: Darrik says medium density needs to be there. Greg says this amount would adversely affect people on this side of town. Steve says a medium density home will be available for people who can’t afford a larger home. In the minutes of the last meeting, one of the City’s comprehensive plan goals is to assist in the development of housing for a multitude of demographics in the city. A customer base is being opened to allow those who could afford to live on the outskirts of town. Land Use Objective 1.4: As appropriate, protect the quality of existing residential neighborhoods, ensure new residential development is of high quality, and provide a variety of housing opportunities to meet the needs of all Rexburg residents. Housing Objective 1.6: Through the Comprehensive plan, plan for a land use policy that encourages housing to meet the demands of all stages of the life cycle, including starter and senior housing. Gil thinks if we turn them down, the whole stretch along there will come back before the Commission as commercial instead of medium density. Kristi asked Craig about the roads. Craig talked about connecting the grid. Val said the streets are not hard wired into the zone change. Heidi says if we don’t pass this, do we tell them to go back and redraw this with less MDR2? Darrik says we can approve it with less MDR2, but not increase the MDR2. Val says you could make more LDR2. Because it is advertised as the sizes it has, you can go down in zone, but not up in zone levels. Steve says if they decide for the applicant the property value, what sort of reasonable formula are we going to use to justify our actions? He is going to assume the Ringels have determined the best value for their property. Kristi says maybe we don’t decide the amount to diminish the area. Maybe, we have the applicant come up with the configuration with less MDR2 that will be cost effective to the applicant. John suggested the motion pass as requested. Let the problems figure themselves out over time. Who knows how fast things will develop? He likes the 6 proposal. Darrik is prepared to vote. I don’t pretend to know what the potential is. I am trying to figure out how we want the community to grow. This is what I am trying to weigh in. Is this proposal best for the City as a whole? Rory talked about trying to keep the density in the core. This is medium density, not high density. As the city grows, the boundaries are going to expand. We are keeping the density to the core. Future commercial will provide a need for housing, for people that are not students who don’t want to live near the campus, without making an issue of being too far out. VOTE: Those in Favor Chairman Heidi Christensen Steve Oakey John Bowen Darrik Farmer Gil Shirley Rory Kunz Those Opposed Kristi Anderson Greg Blacker Motion Carried. Chairman Heidi Christensen asked about the status of the Airbnb Committee. Rory, chairman of the committee responded Air B&B has not started yet. At the last meeting with City Council, there was not enough community members. Now, there are enough members. Rory needs to get with the City to figure out who all the people involved are. Unfinished/Old Business: None New Business: None Report on Projects: None Tabled Requests: None Building Permit Application Report: None Heads Up: September 7, 2017 P&Z Meeting: Hearings: 1. T Family Farm Rezone – Approximately 472 N. Yellowstone Hwy. – (#17 00439) Requesting a reconfiguration of zoning in their parcel. No change in the size of each zone on parcel. Zones on parcel will stay CBC, MDR1, and LDR2. Business: 1. Rocky Ridge – 398 Pioneer Road – Final Plat – (#17 00256) Includes density configuration and density bonus points. Moved to September 21, 2017 P&Z Meeting: 2. U Wrench Annexation – 1334 N. Yellowstone Hwy. - (#17 00461) Due to expansion and additional hook-up to city water and sewer the lot adjacent to city limits, the city is requesting the lot be annexed into the city. Rory Kunz motioned to adjourn the meeting. Greg Blacker seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:43 pm.