HomeMy WebLinkAboutMEETING MINUTES - Valley Wide CO-OP - Variance for Sidewalks�O()4 F k. -
Discuss variance on the sidewalk for the Valley Wide CO-OP Subdivision
1175 West Main Street — Valley Wide CO-OP
Scott Spaulding representing Valley Wide COOP presented a site plan for review. Because
each one of the businesses in the Business Park are required to provide their own parking, Scott
asked if the developer could eliminate the sidewalks that go from one business location to
another business location.
Discussion on eliminating the interior sidewalks. The developer is asking for the same variance
that was granted to the Rexburg Business Park which does not require sidewalks.
Scott Spaulding mentioned that there is no value in having sidewalks in Commercial
developments. These are private streets in this development. They are not eliminating any
landscaping by eliminating the interior sidewalks.
Jerry Hastings indicated that Planning Commission does not have any control over the request
to eliminate sidewalks. There is no reason to come to this Commission with this request.
Scott Spaulding indicated that the sidewalks are required in the Subdivision Ordinance
according to John Millar. The reason for the request is that there is no value to have the
sidewalks, there is only additional cost to the developer.
David Stein indicated that this type of development would benefit from sidewalks. He
recommended that the City Council review the request.
Scott Spaulding commented on the individual parking areas for each business in the
development. With individualized parking, the developer does not see any benefit to have a
sidewalk join each business. They would be happy to add additional landscaping or treatments to
make the Subdivision look nice. The sidewalk itself does not have any value to the development.
Jerry Hastings reviewed the look and feel of the Commercial Subdivision without interior
sidewalks.
Rod Jones indicated that this would be just like the Rexburg Business Park where there are
separate lots and separate buildings.
Discussion on the individual look of this Commercial Subdivision.
Mary Haley reiterated her position on the need for sidewalks.
Randall Porter discussed the differences with this type of Subdivision verses a shopping center.
There is not any centralized parking in this development. The parking will be at each location.
David Stein reviewed the different options that could be developed in this Subdivision.
An example would be a store that could buy multiple lots for a store or village style
development.
Jerry Hastings reviewed the requirements of the Subdivision Ordinance. This request is a
variance to a Subdivision that has already been approved.
Scott Spaulding mentioned that the approval of the plat is not for sidewalks. The approval of
the plat is for the layout of the individual properties.
Discussion on the next step for this request.
Mary Haley moved to recommend sidewalks to City Council; David stein seconded the motion;
Discussion: Mike Ricks did not recommend sidewalks on the interior of this development.
Jerry Hastings reviewed the location of the storm sewers. Scott Spaulding indicated that it goes
to the States storm sewer system in the area. Robert Schwartz did not feel that sidewalks were
needed in this situation. Mary Haley reiterated the need to comply with the Subdivision
Ordinance. Randall Porter reviewed the location of the planned sidewalks for the individual
stores. Scott indicated that all businesses would have sidewalks around them facing their own
parking lots. The request is that the sidewalks would not be required to parallel the road. Scott
Spaulding reviewed the location of the green space in front of the buildings. They would be
happy to have green space installed in place of the sidewalk that parallels the road. Question:
Those voting aye — 3
Those voting nay — 4
The motion failed.