Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.06.2021 P&Z Minutes_exppdf 1 City Staff and Others: Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Spencer Rammell – City Attorney Chairperson Sally Smith opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Greg Blacker, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Jim Lawrence. Absent: Chairman Rory Kunz, John Bowen, and Aaron Richards. MOTION: Motion to move the Items for Consideration for the Summerfield Plats to be action items , Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Vince Haley, Sally Smith. Minutes: Planning & Zoning Meeting April 15, 2021 (action) MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes for the April 15, 2021, meeting as recorded , Action: Approve, Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Kristi Anderson. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 1). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Abstain: Sally Smith. It is not yet 6:35PM. Alan reported on the Stonebridge Rezone was denied at City Council. The Birch property rezone was also denied at City Council at the prior meeting. Chairperson Sally Smith asked about the update on the Comprehensive Plan. Staff has worked through sixty-five (65% - 70% ) to seventy percent of the document internally. Staff hopes to get the Plan to the Commissioners by the end of the year. Randall asked if Alan was referring to the map or the whole document. Alan answered he is talking about the 187 pages of the document itself. The map is just one portion of the Comprehensive Plan. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes May 6, 2021 2 Public Hearings: 1. 6:35PM – (21-00189) – 2332 W 2000 S – Rezone adjacent portion to the church from Low- Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) (action) – Brandt Monette CURRENT PROPOSED Applicant Presentation – Brandt Monette was not in attendance; City Staff presented. Alan will present the Staff Report before the applicant’s presentation. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – This rezone located near Motel 6. The land is currently zoned Community Business Center (CBC) along 12th W. The remainder of the property is zoned Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). The Applicant is asking to change a portion of the LDR2 zone from the CBC western boundary to a line running north to south to coincide with an existing road east of the church at 2332 W 2000 S to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2). Alan read the “Background” section of the Staff Report: The parcel is currently used as an agriculture farm. In March 2007, the property was part of an annexation and rezone from Agriculture 1 & Agriculture 2 to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). During the Planning & Zoning meeting on March 1, the motion was made to match the Comprehensive Plan Map designations allowing the west portion of the lot to be rezoned to LDR2, but to keep the commercial designation zoned as Transitional Agriculture 1 (TAG1). At the City Council meeting, March 21, the City Council upheld the Commission’s decision. Steps were made to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation to Commercial along S 12th W. And, on June 20, 2007, Ord. 989 rezoned the portion along S 12th W to Community Business Center (CBC). In 2012, a Conditional Use Permit for the LDS Church Stake Center at 2332 W 2000 S was approved. In 2012, a Building Permit application was received and the building was finished in September of 2013. Staff has looked at the request and reviewed what the Applicant would like to do in this zone; it matches the current Comprehensive Plan Map. Where the commercial is located along the frontage of S 12th W, the MDR2 is a good buffer between the commercial and the LDR2. The city has adequate capacity for sewer and water to meet the needs of the subdivision in this place. This applicant’s request will be part of a Traffic Impact Study with University and 12th W. Infrastructure will have to be built out to meet the requirements of the study. The applicant’s request meets the Development Code requirements. Staff would recommend the Commissioners recommend the rezone to City Council for approval. 3 Commissioner Questions for Staff: Kristi Anderson asked what the zoning is for Motel 6. Alan answered Motel 6 is in the Community Business Center (CBC) zone. Kristi asked to see the proposal as it is currently zoned on the GIS map. Alan said this is a joint venture with the current landowner and the developer. Vince asked, what are Keith’s thoughts about sidewalks and public access. The developer will have to build their share of the road, sidewalks, and gutter to current city road standards. These standards will be reviewed at time of platting. Vince asked about any concerns about Medium-Density Residential (MDR) away from any other MDR zoning. Alan answered; people have approached Staff about housing for medium-density and high-density between this request and Madison High School. Keith says this use fits the infrastructure in the area. The developer for this project will have to work with Motel 6 to build out the road along S 12th W from W 2000 S to the Iron Horse plat project increasing the sidewalk connectivity in this area. Vince asked for the record, what is directly happening across the street from Madison High School. Alan said, on the record, commercial, retail, and restaurants are proposed. The Applicant for this Iron Horse project is currently working on getting the Plat ready to bring to the Commission. The Plat currently consists of seven (7) different lots. Vince asked does the project encompass all of the land at the corner or does the project extend to the West to city limits. Alan clarified the project covers about ten (10) acres submitted for development right now. Iron Horse has an option to purchase more land, but the land has not changed hands, yet. Kristi asked for the location of Iron Horse be shown on the map. Alan said during the platting process, Staff would require connectivity of roads between projects and zones to allow for multiple access points. David said the zoning map shown earlier looked like a Plat; is this how the development is being planned? Alan said the map was a conceptual image to show the zoning; no Plat has been submitted for any of this development. He recommended the Commissioners look at the maximum for the zone vs. the conceptual plan viewed during the presentation. Vince asked about the number of acres in the request for MDR2. Tawnya found the information; the MDR2 portion is approximately 15.6 acres. Greg asked in lieu of the rezone denial the previous evening - was there some concern about apartments around the church? Alan said one of the citizens had concerns about the types of homes adjacent to a church. Council did not have any concerns. Council recommended a step-down in zoning against a Transitional Agriculture zone. The request tonight is different because the zone requested is stepping- down from commercial. The request tonight is similar to the R Mountain application the Commission and Council recently approved. The idea is to buffer the commercial enough, that by the time you get to single-family homes, the homes are not up against the industrial or commercial uses. Sally asked Alan if there is water and sewer on 2000. Alan responded; city water and sewer service the church. Vince asked as this is built out in the zoning of CBC, would the frontage from 2000 to University be built-out? Alan said the commercial on the west side of the road would be built-out until development happens on the east side of the road. Vince asked if the developer would be required to build any roads MOTEL 6 IRON HORSE 4 on the south side of this property. The developer will have to match the road as built by the church at least to the end of the MDR. Conflict of Interest? - Chairperson Smith asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. Chairperson Smith said she owns property in this area already zoned CBC, but she has nothing to gain from this application being approved. Chairperson Smith reviewed the public hearing procedures. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:49p.m. Commissioners Discussion: David said, generally this proposal makes sense. The buffer between CBC and LDR2 phases the development down nicely overall. The request seems reasonable and corresponds with the Comprehensive Plan; this is a nice solution. Kristi brought up the Comprehensive Plan amendment also on the agenda tonight. This area at meetings was proposed Low to Moderate Density vs. Medium to High and we stuck with Low to Moderate. If we approved, this proposal would be out of compliance with the future Comprehensive Plan map, as it will be presented tonight. Alan said the decision should be based on the current, approved Comprehensive Plan. The current map allows you to approve causing a grandfathering situation. MOTION: Move to recommend to City Council to approve the rezone of the middle portion of the land adjacent to the church at 2332 W 2000 S from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2), based upon the fact that it helps to buffer from the Community Business Center (CBC) zoning to the Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zoning and the request fits the current Comprehensive Plan., Action: Approve, Moved by David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker seconded. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 2. 6:40PM – (21-00057) – Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment & Designation Chart – Reducing the number of Comprehensive Plan Map designations to follow parcel lines and amending the Comprehensive Plan Map to reflect those designations. Link to Interactive Map: https://bit.ly/326BBzt (action) – Alan Parkinson, City of Rexburg 5 6 Applicant Presentation – Alan Parkinson – It seems the group has spent a lot of time working on the Comprehensive Plan Map. The Map is a guideline or tool for planning densities and general uses in parts of the City. The City is not locked into the map, but the designations need to line up with the request for a rezone. The designation grouping has been simplified to consist of fewer designations. Designation areas have been grouped to general areas within the City. Open, public, work meetings were conducted with Planning & Zoning and City Council. One of the problems in the past were several designations on a single parcel. Half of a parcel may have been correct and another half may not. Each time, the land owner had to change the Comprehensive Plan as well as Rezone. By following parcel lines, this situation can be avoided. One resident, Brad Archibald, said he has a challenge with his entire property going to Open Space. The lower ground is fine in Open Space, but the upper ground is developable. He knows this would split his parcel, but he would be in agreement; he does not anticipate the lower lands being developed. This could be a condition of recommendation to adjust Brad’s property to match the rural designation (green) in this area. Commissioner Questions: Randall asked if this was an element of the request tonight or a proposal for the future. Alan said this could be part of tonight’s motion. Kristi asked about that location. Alan located the parcel on the map at 995 N 5th W. Chairperson Sally Smith clarified this item would be a condition of approval as an amendment to the proposed map. Vince asked if this is something Staff could be open to for the next couple of months; his concern is the vigilance of the public – the public, when they notice their land’s designation would have to come in and request a change. Alan identified any amendments requested after the Comprehensive Plan Map is approved by the governing body would need to go through the application process. Alan said this is a request made before the approval. There could be a situation where the fees could possibly be waived, but this is not up to him. Attorney Rammell said without the request entered as a Conditional Use. Brad Archibald entered his comments prior to tonight’s hearings as public input. Chairperson Smith thought the designations were what was being approved. Alan said that tonight we are accepting the map and the designations as changed. Spencer said because the application tonight is for a large, broad change (the whole city), not an individual parcel, the condition could be made. Commissioner Questions for Staff: None Conflict of Interest? - Chairperson Sally Smith asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. Chairperson Smith reviewed the public hearing procedures. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None 7 Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Sally Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:01p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Randall said this change in designations addresses a concern he had about being too specific in the designations. This method allows some blurry boundaries, allowing the Commissioners to look at the areas and evaluate the neighborhoods. He likes the ability to be broad in what might happen in the areas of the city. He believes this will make it easier for the Commission to zone parcels. Kristi said she would counter this statement. In the rezone for hearing #1, she would have denied it, because the proposal was for Medium to High Density and we do not want higher densities away from our city core. Because the new Comprehensive Plan Map was not in place, yet, the Commission could allow the MDR2 to be zoned. She knows we talked about this a lot. Generally, she supports the broader designation boundaries. Because of the grouping, we might have allowed a designation because the land was individually designated, but because of the broader areas, we might deny a proposal. David said he understands the challenges; he is pleased in general with the range. We just decide which designation within a certain range is appropriate for a certain part of the city. It seemed the Commission was always locked into the previous Comprehensive Plan Map. The Commission can look at the map to see the Low to Moderate designation and decide in this place LDR fits, but not MDR. He feels this would reduce the number of Comprehensive Plan Map changes coming before the body. Vince said we have heard the Comprehensive Plan is not a governing document, but a belief of what the community feels should go in certain places in the city. The Plan can be changed. He understands the Commissioners’ points-of-view. He likes the simplification overall. He likes the change he appreciates the time that has gone in to the preparation of the Map. Greg understands the Comprehensive Plan is a living document. He also likes the flexibility, the time taken, and the process for these changes. He has no problem with the proposal. Sally agrees, but she is concerned about the seeking of the highest density allowed in each range. She appreciates the simplicity. Randall said as he has lived in various places around the country, and when there is a healthy mix of population densities is a good thing. It is good to have a combination of townhouses, MDR, and higher densities to share those perspectives together, instead of segregating those uses and polarizing them. MOTION: Move to recommend to City Council to accept the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Comprehensive Plan Map Designation Chart with the exception of Brad Archibald's upper property to be Rural instead of Open Space, because a lot of time has been invested in this proposal and these are the best compromises that could be made., Action: Approve, Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commission Discusses the Motion: Kristi said the “upper portion” rural designation seems vague. Alan said the map would be adjusted only on Brad Archibald’s property to show the property accurately for City Council. Vince said there might be some property owners who come to the city and say, “Hey, you changed the Comprehensive Plan for my land to something I don’t necessarily want.” Attorney Rammell has said that at this point we have to move forward. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 8 3. 6:45PM – (21-00170) – 4 parcels at Approx. 459 W Main - RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, RPRRXB10430160, RPRRXB10430100 – Rezone from Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) & Mixed-Use to High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2). The three west parcels were approved for HDR2 zoning in 2012 with a 36- month sunset clause to revert in zoning if no Building Permit was obtained and a 1:1 setback requirement. No Building Permit was obtained causing the zoning to revert to MDR1 (action) – Rachel Whoolery Applicant Presentation – Rachel Whoolery – 131 Charles Place, Rexburg – The property is a field about two (2) acres bordered on the south by the mobile home park, twinhomes on the west, Cambridge, a 3-story apartment complex on the East, and to the North across Main Street is Homestead, Senior-Living. Under the current zone, MDR1, we can build the same uses: duplexes, multi-family, residential facility for elderly persons, and mobile homes as you can in HDR2. Every use found around this property could be built on this parcel as it is currently zoned. In the MDR1 zone, 16 units can be built per acre at a height of four (4) stories. HDR2 would allow 42 units per acre and a height of five (5) stories. The current owners have had the property for over five (5) years. Rachel created a project that was amazing and beautiful, but because of the construction costs and the very, low rents the project was postponed. The developers have been waiting for rents to go up and construction costs to go down. Construction costs are not doing great right now, but they have high hopes that within this next year, it will get better. Rents have improved in Rexburg to a point they can build, but with sixteen (16) units per acre they can not pencil the project. The developer is sitting with this property that is walkable to Broulim’s, Porter Park, BYU-I, but it sits as a vacant field on the main corridor going in to Rexburg. The developer knows its an eyesore. They cut the weeds down and spray them. The land has been waiting for just the right moment. If they matched the uses of the surrounding land, the best use of the land would be residential housing. The Mixed Use zoning on the east parcel could be a commercial/residential mix. The land really isn’t commercial at this location. Having the elementary school and the walkable amenities would support housing. The cost of land, Impact Fees, and higher taxes are pushing the multi-family to the periphery of the city. This increases busing and traffic in to town to get to the amenities. Then, more parking is needed. As you are looking at the density, we want the housing near our walkable areas. The zoning of this parcel would support putting the density where it needs to be – close to downtown. One concern was traffic – Main Street is a highway with four (4) lanes. This is a place where the traffic could handle the increase. When she met with the city, Staff was very concerned about the access and the safest way to flow traffic in and out of a development. The last thing the developer wants is to see the flow of traffic be disturbed for the neighborhood . Another concern was property value. Rachel helped to build Windsor Manor. She purchased one of the properties to build the Manor at $136,000 in 2012. A house with the same specifications across the street from Windsor Manor sold for $212,000. The only difference was Windsor Manor was built. She understands there is a concern about what happens when things change. Putting an attractive building with the required landscape buffers is far more attractive then an empty field or weed patch. The impact is already at this location – a 4-story building of multi-family housing can be built in the current zoning. The question is how many units. The parking requirements control the amount of units for the property. The situation is not how many units we can put in, but how many units can we provide the parking for. 9 In the letter submitted, there was concern about morning sunlight and how the adjacent properties would be shaded. With a 5-story building, how would the shadow hit the homes? What it looks like, is the first three (3) hours of sunlight, it is possible the shadow would touch the property line. She appreciates neighborhood concerns. The focus is to design a beautiful place you can look at. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Sally Smith asked about the entrances and the control on Main Street. Rachel answered the State has control. Kristi asked if the State has denied accesses, because they think there are too many. Sally and Alan said the entrances are controlled by a certain distance requirement. Alan continued two (2) accesses would be required for this project. A Traffic Impact Study will also be required. Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – When the projects come in to Staff and they are located along Hwy 33, one of the first things Staff has the developer do is contact the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Staff also discusses the project with ITD to determine what Staff needs to be aware of. All access on to Hwy 33 has to be approved by ITD. As was stated, a while back this property was zoned as High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2). When the previous zoning was approved, there was a sunset clause, which stated if no development happened within three (3) years, the zoning would revert to the prior zone, which is Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). The change of the zone was recently discovered and reverted the zoning a few months ago. Then, Rachel came in with her request. Staff has reviewed the application. This request is in an area where we do want to see higher- density residential, because the roads are already built, and the sewer and the water infrastructure is already in place. There is minimal impact to city expenses. This development will increase the tax base that supports the County, the City, and the School Districts. The concerns submitted by the citizens will be taken in to consideration when a Lot Layout Plan is submitted affecting neighbors. A Traffic Impact Study will be needed. Staff recommends the Commissioners recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Kristi confirmed the current zoning of the twin homes to the West are currently in a Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone matching the current zoning of the property proposed to be rezoned. Greg asked about during the discussion of the buildings if the placement of the buildings was set back away from the houses to the west. Alan said there is a part of the Development Code that says when a High-Density Residential (HDR) zone comes up against a residential zone; there are certain setbacks that have to be met. Greg clarified the side setback of 1:1 will affect the placement of a building in relationship to the twin homes. Jim asked when the twin homes were built. A lady from the audience explained the twin homes were built in 1996 and 1997. Greg asked about the required parking. Alan said 1.5 spaces are required for 1-bedroom units 2 spaces per unit for 2-bedrooms or more. Greg confirmed the lighting would have to be shielded. Vince asked Alan about the reasoning of the sunset clause. Alan said during this time, sunset clauses were common, to encourage developers who were serious about building to develop their land and not complete land actions then let land sit idle. He encouraged the Commissioners to avoid sunset clauses; the Commission believes either the request is right or it is not. Vince restated it was an encouragement to get moving on development, not sitting on the land to wait for the highest bidder to come along. Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Sally Smith asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. 10 Chairperson Sally Smith said a petition has been received from a number of the homeowners. She consulted Attorney Rammell about what should be done. Some of the people are probably in the audience. Should we read the letter? It is against the proposal. The people who signed the petition may not need to testify. What is the best thing to do? Attorney Rammell said the letter should be read as the signees’ written statement. Discussion about the written statement or the spoken statement being accepted – one or the other. Chairperson Sally Smith reviewed the public hearing procedures. Favor: Jenny Campbell – 513 Boulder St, Rigby – She is the realtor that sold the property. She represents both the seller and buyer. Jenny has also brought the builder with her tonight. Rachel has already designed the Windsor Manor and did a fabulous job for the community. She has brought in a lot of revenue through the tax base. There has been multiple meetings with the City to work through the processes. They would not have moved forward on this project is they had not received positive feedback from Alan and Rachel. We want to bring money to your town. We like to see people make money. We like to see people come in and use this property. We want to utilize the community’s assets. We want to bring money to Broulims and downtown. We want to provide a walkable property. Many people live out of town and commute in. We would like to beautify the property. Neutral: None Written Correspondence: We received a petition from the homeowners in the Courtyard H.O.A in opposition of the zoning request. Chairperson Smith read the petition: 11 12 Anyone who is not found on this petition, who would like to speak, can come forward and speak in opposition. A question was spoken from the audience clarifying those who submitted the letter would not be able to also speak at the hearing. Attorney Rammell was consulted. There is nothing in the Idaho Code or Open Meeting Law that requires spoken testimony, although the City usually allows it. It is a general rule to allow one method of input or the other to reduce the amount of time to read 50 written statements. This is up to the discretion of the Chairman. Chairperson Smith said if there were anything someone would like to add to the opposition statement, he or she could be heard for reasons other than those stated on the petition. Opposed: Linda Newton – 29 S 5th W – She is the president of the Homeowners’ Association. Linda appreciates the comments shared today. The statement has been the developer does not want to impact the neighbors, but the development will impact the neighbors. This morning she looked out her back window and saw a beautiful sunrise. If the Commissioners allow a 5-story building to go on this property, she will never see this again. Seeing a sunrise is a part of life; people want to see a sunrise from the kitchen. Some of the families in these homes have small children. Parents should not have to worry if their children are going to be safe due to an apartment complex behind their home. The neighbors’ privacy is important to them. Several years ago, she feels one of the reasons for the sunset clause was the Commissioners listened to the neighbors’ concerns. Linda hopes Commissioners will listen to the neighbors again. The homeowners have concerns – they do not want a 5-story building in their backyard. She understands the property will be developed; there is not a lot that can be done about it. Impact on Main Street will happen. The condition of Main Street is already poor. More traffic on the street will only deteriorate it further. The City has a tough time filling the potholes right now. How are they going to do it then? Please do not make this property high density. Thank you. Donna Funk – 23 S 5th W – She wants to make a correction. Oxford Apartments is only 2- stories. Cambridge is east of Oxford Apartments. Homestead is across Main Street to the North. Jeanine Nelson – 19 S 5th W - If you change this to high-density, Rachel stated they can put 80 units on their two (2) acres. This will cause about 160 additional cars coming out onto Main Street. Some students walk, some do not. On Main Street or 2nd E during certain times of the day, you can see the cars lined up. Cars line up from Walmart to 7th N. People in Rexburg drive to the store. Increasing the traffic, will make it worse. Dwayne Seeley – 33 S 5th W - In four days, he will be 94 years old. His wife is 89 and she has cancer. How much longer do you think we will be at the location? If you wait this out, you may have to deal with my children. He does not want to be upset; he will go with it. Rebuttal: Rachel Whoolery – We understand there will be an impact in construction; it will be hard. We are already neighbors and we want to make the transition as easy as possible on you. One thing I was given permission to say is the project will not be 5-stories. Parking lots take a lot of room; the parking lot takes up more room than the footprint of the building. Each parking stall is 9’ x 20’. The building will be 4-story. There will not be hundreds of cars. The project is planned to comply with the current building height requirements in the MDR1 zone. The problem is the property is in the city. She lived in Hibbard for the country living. Infill and density needs to happen in the downtown. We are doing our part to infill the empty spots, which is ideal for development. It is hard when you are next to the development. I am so sorry. This is 13 a tough meeting to hear the plans for the lot. It has been a field for a long time. When we build, it will be beautiful. She designed every aspect of Windsor Manor. To her, Windsor Manor is beautiful. We are thinking about where we are going to place the building. Many elements are taken into consideration. They are working to minimize impacts. This is what Jenny meant when she said we are talking with Staff. Chairman Sally Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:44 p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Kristi said in past meetings, we have been talking about what we are discussing about downtown living. We do want density to be located downtown. This is a good spot for high-density. She noticed in the beginning the request is for high-density next to smaller homes. Looking at land use, the application makes sense to have HDR here, because the property is walkable. What buffering could be at this location to reduce the impacts? How far would the building be set back from these homes? Alan said the parking could be placed up to the property line, but the building would be required to put a fence between the parking and the homes. You would have at least twenty (20’) feet for the depth of a row of parking stalls and a drive aisle of twenty-four (24’) feet, and possibly a row of compact stalls at sixteen (16’) feet before the building, then 6’ of sidewalk. Possibly, the building could be sixty (60’) feet from the property line. Kristi confirmed the parking would push the building farther from these homes. Alan said the minimum rear yard in the HDR2 zone would be twenty (20’) feet. Chairperson Smith said we want to know the side yard setback. Jim said, given how much parking would be needed, and the possible density, how many units could go on a 2-acre parcel with parking requirement? Alan said roughly 65 units would be the maximum. There is not enough area for parking to go higher than 65 units; this would maximize their number of units. Tawnya read the side yard setback in the HDR2 zone (4.09.080 D.) “Each lot or parcel of land in the HDR2 zone shall have a side yard of at least six (6’) feet or six (6”) inches of setback for every (1’) foot of building height, whichever is greater. Exception: A setback of ten (10’) feet shall be allowed within side yards that abut other HDR zones, MDR zones, Commercial zones, or Mixed-Use zones, regardless of building height.” Alan clarified parking could be within this setback, but the building cannot be within this distance. There is no reduced parking; the property is not in the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED) zone. Parking structure have not been proposed. Jim said we also have to consider the worst-case scenario. Potentially, they could have parking within the setback area. Alan said there is a setback buffer between HDR and MDR that forces the building to be farther away. Alan said this applies to the South and West, but the density on the East is similar and no buffer is required. Chairperson Smith reminded the Commissioners, this is a rezone and we cannot consider the project. Kristi said as the building height increases, the setback also increases, and the number of units decreases. Greg asked about green space requirements for the parking lot. Alan answered; the developer will have to handle the snow. Ten (10%) percent of parking is required for snow storage. Sometimes people put in landscaping strips adjacent to their parking for a place to put the snow, but this is not a code requirement. Kristi said to address the traffic issue; the Commission rely on the State to monitor the road. Alan said not just the State, the Traffic Impact Study would determine which changes are needed. This applies to ins and outs and the distance from the stoplight. The project would not be able to move forward. The State maintains the highway. The City has tried to help this year with that maintenance. Greg confirmed the developer pays for the Traffic Impact Study. Randall said growth is coming and where to put it is the problem. One thing he knows is he lives on 5th W and he runs the road often. He has eight (8) children. He has watched apartment complexes go in – some 14 good and some not as far as their outward appearances. Randall knows Rachel’s work; we could have worse neighbors. David expressed appreciation to the group for coming in to express their views. He is impressed with the active homeowners’ association. He is a former president of a neighborhood association. Taking away a sunset is a huge consideration. The sunset was considered in a recent hearing on signs. Sunsets are part of living in a rural community. This is a difficult situation. Jim said as a reminder as we consider this vote; consider the rezoning and not who is building on it or the promise of what will be built on the property, because things can change. Randall asked about the advantage of the zone change from MDR1 to HDR2. Alan said the benefit is density. Vince said a Cheat Sheet is in the “Commissioner docs” in the Laserfiche or Google folder. (This has been updated to match the Development Code changes within the last year.) David said the space is limited by the size of the parcels. He is concerned about the impact on the neighbors. Vince asked the Google street view of Main Street heading west at the corner of the Mixed Use zone be shown. Cambridge Court is attractive for this area. There are no single-family homes next to it or behind it. He feels the Commission may be enabling a project trying to fit a too tall building in a place that does not quite fit the neighborhood. He is not as concerned about the sunset, as he is about the height enabled by the zone change. Abri is too high at its location. This a place that does not have that much height around it. He will vote no for these reasons. Chairperson Smith asked Alan about the height of the buildings allowed in the HDR zones. Alan believes the height is fifty-five (55’) feet. Tawnya read an exception: (4.09.100 D.) “Buildings or portions of buildings within fifty (50’) feet of a residential zone other than HDR1 and HDR2 shall be limited to thirty-five (35’) feet.” Jim explained this rule to Vince into the microphone so he could here through ZOOM. Greg has driven by the property for 35 years. He watched when the houses were there, when they were torn down, and he knew something would be built. He knows he should not say this, but as far as he is concerned, he trusts Rachel and she will be a person of her word. He lives by an empty field behind his house and he has always known something like this will be built on that property in the future. Greg walks downtown to the restaurants. He believes development will encourage more pedestrian traffic. Vince reminded Greg the property could be sold. Chairperson Smith said we have gone over the limitations to the property for any developer. Jim asked about frontage distance for the property. Alan measured MOTION: Move to recommend to City Council to deny the request, because it does not fit the surrounding area., Action: Deny, Moved by Vince Haley, None seconded. Motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: Move to recommend City Council approve the rezone these four parcels at approximately 459 W Main: RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, RPRRXB10430160, RPRRXB10430100 from Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) & Mixed-Use (MU) to High- Density Residential 2 (HDR2), because the higher-density will be located near the center of town to use the city services well., Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Greg Blacker. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx. No: Jim Lawrence, Vince Haley. 15 Items for Consideration: 1. (21-00097) - Summerfield PH9 – W 690 S – Plat – (action) – Dan Larsen Applicant Presentation – Dan Larsen – He appreciates the opportunity to present before the Commission. Both Plats tonight are phases of the Summerfield Planned Unit Development (PUD). There are larger lots by the church off of 12th W. Lot 9 on the West is not a buildable lot, but will be a water retention area and miniature park, continuing into the phase adjacent to the West. This lot is 14,000 sq.ft. and not the same size as the others. Commissioner Questions: Vince asked if there has been changes made to the PUD from the original application. Dan answered that is a good question; the answer would be, yes. When the PUD first came in, this parcel was not included as part of the PUD. There have been no changes since the last approved amendment to the PUD. Chairperson Smith confirmed these lots will all be single-family. Vince confirmed the church shown is the church on 12th W. Dan said the lots shown on this Plat in a previous phase will all be built on by the end of 2021. This PH9 Plat is part of the inventory beginning in the Fall of 2021 and finishing up in the Spring 2022. Vince asked about the canal issues on the last phases. He said during the previous phase, there were a number of canal issues that had not been resolved. Have those issues been resolved? Dan said the water users that are serviced by the canal running through Summerfield were able to use their water last year; this has been taken care of. Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Staff has reviewed this Plat and found the PH9 Plat is in compliance with the PUD Master Plan. Staff approves a recommendation by the Commission to City Council. 16 Commissioner Questions for Staff: Vince said Summerfield is growing. He tells people the development is like popcorn. What has Keith said about the recognition for the traffic on 12th W? Alan responded; Keith has said 12th W is not close to capacity, yet. The are three (3) accesses for this subdivision are working well. Two (2) access are on to W 1000 S and one (1) on to S 12th W. MOTION: Move to recommend to City Council to approve this Summerfield PH9 Plat, based on Summerfield is a great addition to the community and there are some really great people who live there., Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Randall Kempton. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 2. (21-00098) - Summerfield PH10 – Parcels around PH7 – Plat – Dan Larsen 17 Applicant Presentation – Dan Larsen – As you can tell, this is kind of a different plat. As they were finishing PH7, shown in the center of this plat, while working with the Engineers and City Staff, we did not like the way the road was coming together. The previous plat required the build-out of a little more than half of the road. While the road was being built, it was determined the seam would not be in a convenient location for this plat’s road build-out. PH10 will allow the build-out of a full width road all the way around those townhomes and any lots that would front those streets. The infrastructure is already in, but to get the whole right-of-way (ROW) built, we are platting PH10, which will also give the developer a couple more lots to build on next year. Commissioner Questions: Vince questioned the missing lots on the Northwest corner. Dan said the original design the lots front north and south, not to front east, which is why they are not included. The developer is not ready to develop all of the land to the east. Dan confirmed this is the same situation on the Northeast corner. Vince clarified nonstruction is not ready to move East, but because the seam on the road needs to be built, they might as well put the lots in place. Dan stated there are about two (2) phases and two (2) more roads to be built between PH10 and PH9. Vince asked about the energizing of the light poles; the light poles have been put up but do not seem to be energized. Dan said while working with Rocky Mountain Power, the conduits are not in place to all of the light poles. He is working with the City to get all the conduits in the correct places and elevations. Once they are all in place, they will request Rocky Mountain Power come out and energize them. Dan assumed Vince is talking about the lights in PH6. Yes, Vince said he noticed the lights are vertical, but they are not turned on. Dan said this should happen fairly quickly. Alan said Staff is not concerned; the Summerfield development has made sure to put the lights in in a timely manner. Kristi asked about the location of the PH9 and PH10 Plats in the Master Plan MOTION: Move to recommend City Council approve the Summerfield PH10 Plat, because it is part of the Master Plan and it will allow the completion of the roads, which is beneficial for that section of the subdivision, Action: Approve, Moved by Jim Lawrence, Seconded by Greg Blacker. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Adjournment Heads Up: May 20th Hearings: None Items for Consideration: 1. (21-00080) – Iron Horse – 1076 S 12th W - Plat 18