Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES FEBRUARY 02, 2006 ORM F EQUEST R RAVEL T P&Z LANNING ONING M INUTES 19 E. Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x326 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3024 www.rexburg.org planning@rexburg.org February 2, 2006 Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Winston Dyer– Chairman Kurt Hibbert – P&Z Administrator Ted Hill Charles Andersen Emily Abe – Secretary Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson David Stein Joe Laird Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 6:59 pm. Roll Call Michael Ricks, Joseph Laird, Winston Dyer, David Stein, Charles Andersen, Thaine Robinson Rex Erickson, Randall Porter, and Mary Ann Mounts were excused. 1. Minutes: A. Planning and Zoning meeting – January 19, 2006 Corrections: - P. 6 – Move discussion on the letter from Lue Clements to Non-controversial items on page 5. Michael Ricks motioned to approve the minutes for January 19, 2006 as amended. Charles Andersen seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Ted Hill arrived 7:01 Chairman Dyer took a moment to talk about the award presented to him at the Farmer’s Merchant Banquet Celebration. The award was concerning the work by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Chairman Dyer noted that the work was one of many, and he accepted the award on the behalf of the entire Commission. He appreciated all the good work and looks forward to much more in the future. He expressed appreciation to the great Planning and Zoning staff who has really done remarkable things to help them move forward the Planning and Zoning principals for the City of Rexburg. 1 Michael Ricks introduced Natalie Powell, the new Conformance Officer, to the Planning and Zoning Commission. He welcomed her to the meeting. Chairman Dyer told Natalie that they appreciate the work and support she provides. 2. Public Hearings: th 7:05 PM - Rezone request from RR to LDR2 at 1139 East 9 North – (Titan Development) nd Kurt Roland: 325 N. 2 E. He represented the developer for the project. He pointed out the neighboring subdivision of one (1) acre lots. The subdivision is full, with houses on each lot. The parcel they want to rezone is in the flood plane, but they are planning to try to get it out of the flood plane. The road is three feet above the plane. They would like to get city water and sewer out to the project. He pointed out the boundaries all around the project. David Stein asked if they are still working on a planned residential development without a rezone. Kurt Roland replied that the new developer is trying to go with the 1/3 acre lots. Chairman Dyer asked what fees had been paid, and if they wanted to be annexed at this time. Kurt replied that eventually they will want to annex the property, but they are not applying for that at this time. Chairman Dyer pointed out there have been no direct discussions about hooking the area up with city utilities with the City Engineers or City Council. He asked if there had been any kind of preparation or agreement or any indication from the city that they would be willing to provide city utilities to the site. Kurt Roland replied that he had spoken with John Millar earlier that day and he said he would not approve it until some plan was presented to show that it would work. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In Favor: th Paul Muir: 1346 East 9 North. He explained it was his farm, and they are now in the process of trying to develop it. He pointed out that they are within a mile of Wal-Mart and Albertsons. They had considered selling the land to a developer who wanted to divide the land into one (1) acre lots, but they decided since they were within a mile of the city utilities, they wanted to go with someone who wants to take the sewer out to them. Neutral: th Paul Jeppesen: 848 South 7 West, Sugar City. He explained one of the parcels is next to the 40 acres that his parents own. Their family wondered what the proposed density was as compared to the density in town. He asked if the proposed density would set a precedent for others in the area to have the same density. He also asked if others in the area had requested the same zone change. He noted the developers seemed to have a good plan in place for the roads. The developers here seem more reasonable than in other places. Opposed: th Justin Hodges: 1044 East 9 North. He explained he was not against the development, but was against the zone change. He would rather the area be developed in the zoning already established with one (1) acre parcels. He is concerned with sprawl. He chose to live out of the city a little bit so they could have more open space and land. He is concerned that the zoning will set a precedent for the other people to sell their land and parcel it off in smaller lots. He is concerned with the number of homes in the proposed development and whether there is any open space planned. He said that in that size of a subdivision there needs to be some benefit to the community and he would like to see the developers put in a park or something rather than just a bunch of homes. He is also concerned with 2 the road being able to handle the traffic this proposal might bring in. He is curious about the demographics studies there are that would justify a subdivision of this size. He asked how long they anticipate it would take to open it up, and if they would do it in phases or all at once. Written Input: None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Rebuttal: Kurt Roland answered they intend to phase the project and develop it with smaller lots so they can pay to take the water and sewer to it. He thinks it would benefit the city and city residents to have the water and sewer in the area for contamination reasons. Joseph Laird asked whether they would hold the area undeveloped under the new zone and wait for a developer that will take the water and sewer out to the project. Kurt Roland clarified the property has already been sold to a developer that will take the city utilities to the site if they get the city’s permission to do so. Chairman Dyer asked Kurt Hibbert what zoning the property is currently zoned and what density that zoning allows. Kurt Hibbert replied it is zoned Rural Residential with one (1) to five (5) acre lots. He answered Mr. Jeppesen’s question about density by clarifying that LDR2 allows a minimum lot size of 8,000 square feet, but if they want a duplex, they would need to increase that to 10,000 square foot lots. A duplex in Rexburg ordinance would be like a basement apartment. Chairman Dyer pointed out the density in the neighboring subdivision is also one (1) acre lots. David Stein asked if they could zone something LDR2 if they don’t have an agreement with they city for city services. Kurt Hibbert replied they could zone it, but the developer could not develop at the high density it without the services. Chairman Dyer asked about the issue of open space, which is usually settled with the payment of impact fees. He asked if the impact fees applied in this case, since the area is not in the city limits, but is in the impact area. Kurt Hibbert replied those fees apply only in the city limits. Chairman Dyer said maybe there should be some other discussion on how to deal with this. Kurt replied there is some discussion with the county right now about not being able to water more than half with culinary water unless you have water rights on your property. He recalls it was the intent of the developer to maintain the water rights on the property, but the county is going to start mandating that those water rights be used for irrigation purposes. He said in reality, many of the subdivisions in the county have been developed out of one (1), two (2) or five (5) acre lots. They have an area of irrigated property within ¼ to ½ acre around the house, with weeds around the rest of the lot. The county is re-working their clustering ordinance right now to try to group homes together in little areas and try to keep green areas around them to irrigate. Kurt thinks we will see a change in the way the ordinances are administered outside the city limits. Michael Ricks said he worried about the subdivision being like another that was outside the city limits that received the city services and signed an agreement that they would be annexed when the city was ready. They then put up a fight when the city actually wanted to annex them. He wants to make sure that when the city is ready to annex, the people in this subdivision will not resist. He thinks if it is developed, it ought to be developed with the city services because of the amount of homes that would be upstream from the city wells. If the land is going to eventually be annexed, then one acre lots are much too big. He pointed out when the owners become more mature citizens, they often have trouble with the maintenance on the large lots. He is also worried about the traffic. Since the city requires wider roads than the county, he thinks the streets should be the city standard in width. The area should be annexed as soon as possible. 3 Chairman Dyer asked about the city’s policy on extension of services beyond the city limits. He said that the city used to refuse to do this, but now allows it on a case-by-case basis with the understanding and requirement that it is a mandatory consent for annexation. Kurt Hibbert clarified it is an implied consent under state law that is part of the development agreement that will be written up. Thaine Robinson commented the plan was not provided by the developers. He said that it is too far from the city limits for him to feel comfortable with it. Chairman Dyer reminded the commissioners that this is a rezone issue, not a site plan review. The layouts and plans would be needed later. Kurt Hibbert pointed out this development is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. Joseph Laird asked about the one (1) acre lots. He wondered if in the LDR2 zone they would need to be 8,000 to 10,000 square feet. Kurt Hibbert said they could draw on (1) acre lot sizes in LDR2 if they wanted to, but they need to make a business case. They are working through the numbers on this with John Millar. David Stein mentioned continually extending one (1) acre lots contributes to sprawl. Although he knows we need to plan subdivisions in this area, he is concerned that this subdivision is the densest subdivision in terms of zoning. He doesn’t want to zone this without having a plan of what it will look like, what open space it will have, and what city services will be provided. They want to make sure the neighbors are comfortable. Chairman Dyer mentioned they were very unified with the comprehensive plan showing this area to be residential. They are concerned that the area has been developed in a rural residential type style. They are concerned with the number of homes this would bring it to the area. He is uncomfortable granting the zone change until they know that the city is willing to extend their services to the subdivision. This will give them greater control as to what the zoning will bring them on the project. David Stein moved to table the zoning request until they are able to gather more information on the city services agreement and a better understanding of the nature of the development. Thaine Robinson seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Dyer encouraged the developers to work on gathering this information so the commission can meet again and take the matter further. 7:15 PM - Rezone request from LDR2 to RBD at 280 East Main Street – (Liahona, Inc.) Discussion on this issue began at 7:40 pm. Robert Collette: Owner of the home at 280 East Main. He explained the nature of their business as a home-health hospice and professional care services for people in their homes in an area of Ashton, to Rigby, to Tetonia. Almost everything they do is in the home of the customers. Virtually nothing they do from a business standpoint is done in the office. They do have three employees that they keep in that location to handle the administrative work and the collection of information. They have employees and contractors that will visit the location from time to time. He said they met with the Neighborhood Association twice. He said the neighbors are concerned with having a business in that area. He pointed out that there are already businesses all over that area. Their business would not have much of an impact on the area, relative to what is already going on. Their business would front East Main, and there are hundreds of cars that drive up and down that road every day. They are confident that they will be good neighbors to the people with homes around there. He showed some charts to clarify what they are planning and what they are about. He showed the home they own, and that the only change they would make would be to eliminate the garage. This would expose 1225 square feet of concrete. There is an additional 1200 square feet concreted area behind that. This is available for parking the three or four cars that would be there at any time. He said there would be no need to change anything else about the yard after removing the garage structure. He likes the trees and everything in the back yard, so they will not be changing that. He said the neighbors preferred that no 4 fence be built. He wants the neighbors to know that as far as he can tell, there is no legal reason for him not to be there. However, they are sensitive to the fact that they are really concerned that there is a minimal impact on what they do. He added that it is important to the company that they have a chance to fix any problems that arise. He asked the public to come to them when they have an issue, and they can try to fix the problem. He likes this house because of what they do as a business, being helping people to stay in their homes when they would otherwise end up in assisted living centers. Most of the people they serve are out of this area, so their workers will not be in the area often. David Stein asked what the hours of operation for their business will be. Robert Collette answered the hours would be from 8:30 am to around 5:00 pm. David then asked about signage. Robert answered they would seek signage that would fit the requirements of the ordinance, and would be consistent with the look and character of the house. He added they will have little traffic coming to them from patients or clients. Typically, since they are in their homes, they have little reason to visit the office. This location would be compatible with their type of business. Thaine Robinson asked if rezoning this property would inhibit other RBD zoning to be zoned within close proximity to this structure. Kurt Hibbert answered it would not, as long as they are adjacent to the required zone. Chairman Dyer clarified this could not leapfrog to neighboring properties. Kurt said it could not, since RBD does not qualify as a required adjacent zone. David Stein mentioned the ordinance requires a fence. Robert Collette said they will build one if they have to, but the neighbors might not want them to. If it is not a problem with the neighbors that they don’t have a fence, then why should they build one? However, they will do whatever they are required to do. If new neighbors move in later and want a fence built, then they will build one. Chairman Dyer asked what Mrs. Clark’s preference was on the fence issue. Robert Collette said they had visited with Mrs. Clark and her home is part of a trust, of which her son is a trustee. They sent a letter to the city opposing any kind of zone change in that whole area. However, when Robert visited with her, she was fine with them being there, only not under that zone change. She also told them that she preferred there not be a fence built, since it would block her view. Robert said that they will do whatever the neighbors want them to do that is within the ordinance. Charles Andersen quoted from a letter from Mrs. Clarke, “I oppose a business being located at this site. I also oppose any modifications to the garage or the historic rock wall that divides our properties.” Robert answered that regardless of the zoning on this property, they have the rights to do what they want with the garage. They could take it down right now if they wanted to. Joseph Laird asked where the people would park when they had meetings. Robert Collette said they discussed this with the neighborhood association. Once a month when they had their meetings, there would need to be eight to twelve cars parked in that neighborhood. He said he would suggest that people find a legal place to park and walk. They can always schedule those meetings off site if it is a large concern. Chairman Dyer said because this is the first application for RBD zoning, and because it is in an area where they have received a high degree of public input, he thinks it would be appropriate to let interested citizens to ask questions of the applicant. The other commissioners agreed. Chairman Dyer opened the meeting for public questions of Mr. Collette. Public Questions: 1. Would anyone live in the home? Robert Collette: No, no one would live in the home. There would be someone the home Monday through Friday, and there would be an occasional person on the weekends. 5 2. What measures will you take to protect the property when the business is closed? Robert Collette: One of the reasons we love Rexburg, is that it is not a high crime area to start with. However, we will work with you if you see that we need to do something. We would do what is necessary. In terms of security, I don’t perceive a huge need for there to be some, but if there is, and the neighbors take special measures, then we will certainly do the same. We will keep the back yard area well lit, not enough to bother the neighbors, but enough to be able to tell if someone is in there. The backyard area is a little overgrown, so we will take a little out to make the area look better and make the yard more visible. We need to make sure that it is not inviting for someone to come break in there. That is another reason we want to take the garage down, so you can see through the entire property. If you see something that would help, let us know, and we will certainly adapt. You have our word on. 3. Would you have this in your neighborhood? Robert Collette: Yes, I would. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Linda Orchard: 675 Harvest Drive. She is the clinical director at Rexburg Home Health, and is a Registered Nurse. She is in charge of all the people that come into the office. She said she probably has the best bird’s eye view of the traffic that would come into the office on a daily basis. She wants the employees out in the field, to keep them busy and to take care of the clients. They would rarely come in to the office. If they did it would be to get paperwork or to fax an order. She said the people she works with are professionals. She noted that a citizen had asked if they would have this in their neighborhood. She said she would not have a problem with it, because of how the business is run, and because of the type of people that work there. She said they do good work, and they do good for a lot of people. They do not have people driving big trucks with loud stereos. As far as the concern for the safety, she said she played tennis a couple times a week last summer at the park and there has been no one there bothering the property. She always looks out for the house. They went and looked at the house the other day and there have been no footprints in the snow. No one bothers the home. She has never felt it was at risk. She drives by the home on her way home from work, and it is in an area where it is not hard to keep an eye on. She is not worried about the security issue. They won’t be keeping any medication there, or anything that people would seek out. Derek Collette: Provo, Utah. He is the son of Robert Collette. He wanted to comment on the promises his father has made to the neighborhood association concerning the business. He stated his father is a very honorable and honest man. He has always been honest in his business dealings. He said he is easy to work with. If he needs something done, he will do it. He is good on his word. His business is a wonderful business. He said that for what it is worth, his father is an honorable man. Neutral: Ron Bird: He said he is in real estate. He said most of the neighbors do not want this in the area, because they do not want to lower the value of the homes. Opposed: Don Sparhawk: 37 South 3rh East. He lives within 200 feet within the house in question. He said if the commission is going to approve this, which he in not in favor of, he agrees with Mr. Collette that where he wants to put the parking is probably best place for it. He doesn’t believe the back yard would work for parking; it is not rd practical and is on a hill. He would rather see the parking come out onto Main Street than onto 3 East. In his rdrd mind, 3 East is a residential street. He would hate to see commercial businesses entering and exiting off 3 East. He doesn’t have problems with the plan, but is concerned with the parking situation when they have meetings. He asked if the city requires them to have a parking plan for when they have meetings. He asked if they can park in the residential area. He thinks the commission needs to address this as they pass this new RBD, because it is a 6 problem. They are going to face this problem when they try to zone residential areas as RBD. He said that this property is eligible for RBD because it is across the street from High Density. He wants the commission to realize that there are single family homes on every single side of the property, even on the North side of Main Street, even though it is zoned High Density. He feels that it is not ready to be changed, because it is a residential area. It is eligible, but I don’t think it is ready. He commented that even though Mr. Collette has said in the past that this property is a logical place for offices because it is close to the hospital, he does not agree. He said that all around the hospital is residential, on every side. It should remain that way. He can’t imagine putting professional offices all around the hospital, because they are lovely neighborhoods right now. He said that he knows that when the commission passed the RBD, they said that it would be one tool kit, and they wouldn’t necessarily have to use it every time someone applies for it. He thinks this isn’t the proper place for the RBD zone. There are hundreds of people that would love to live in the home in question. He said it was priced too high on the market that families couldn’t afford to pay for it, so it was sold to a business that could pay the price for it. He said he only knows of one neighbor in the neighborhood that is in favor of this zone change. The rest are opposed to it. He asked that Mrs. Clarke be asked about the fence. He said that the previous owner, before he died, was a member of their neighborhood association. He said he actively wanted to keep the neighborhood as a residential area. Unfortunately, his children did not care as much. He said if he were still alive, he would want the property retained in the residential zoning. nd Pat Hinton: 55 S 2 East. She said the beauty of the back yard is one of her main concerns. The chain link fence around the property had ivy on it for privacy. She and the neighborhood would like to see the ivy on the fence preserved. She said that is why they were concerned with the six (6) foot cement wall. The look of the place will be lost if the six foot fence is enforced. Her biggest concern about parking is when the business has staff meetings, and how this will be controlled. She said Main Street is busy and with all the ice it is hazardous. Another concern she has is the security and lighting of the property in the evening and at night. She asked the commission to keep those things in mind and possibly have something in writing that these requests will be enforced. Suzanne Larson: She lives in the neighborhood and wonders who is in favor of this rezone. She said most of the neighbors are against it. She said they like the business, but want it go somewhere else. She wanted the commission to know that there are more people than those who have spoken against this that do not want the property rezoned. Written input: -Telephone call from Jerry and Dorothy Glanville opposing the zone change. -Letter from LaRae Clarke opposing the zone change. Rebuttal: Robert Colette said this is not a purely residential area. There are many business offices in the area. This has been a mixed use for decades. He said characterizing this issue as rezoning this single lot as changing the character of the neighborhood is a mischaracterization. The house fronts one of the busiest streets in Rexburg, and anything they do will be off this already busy street. Most of these people won’t even see a car coming down their street. He said being across the street from the park, the neighborhood must be used to the parking on the streets. Their employees have plenty of public parking available, and this will not change the current situation. He pointed out they are not adding a parking lot; he will not be putting in another ounce of concrete. He recognizes they do no want any other businesses there. However, he said those people do not want any change at all, ever, in a community where $50 million is about to be spent. There is going to be change, and if it is legal and lawful, it ought to be allowed to happen. He added the same people who maintained that property when the former owners owned it have been maintaining it since he purchased it. They did forget to leave the gas on and had some water damage, but the place is not run down. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. 7 Charles Andersen left at 8:25 pm. Thaine Robinson said if he had to have a business next to him, this is the type of business he would want. He was concerned about section 3.25.130 of the RBD ordinance, where it talks about project plans being submitted before it may be approved. Chairman Dyer clarified this is talking about approving the plans for occupancy of the building. They may approve the zone change without the specific plans. Kurt Hibbert added this may be implied someday on some vacant lot in the middle of a neighborhood where a home may need to be constructed and must conform with the surrounding neighborhood. Thaine said he knows that it is a hotly contested issue, but this is the kind of business he would want across the street from his home. Especially, he said, since all access is off Main Street. The thing he would be worried about more than anything would be if this business someday sold the house to another business that would not be so ideal for the area. Chairman Dyer asked if they could put in a condition on the rezone that would make the zoning revert upon a different, non-conforming business purchasing the property. He asked how the conditions transfer to the future. Kurt Hibbert replied it is at the discretion of the commission to decide how to do that. They could do that now if they wanted to abide the ordinance. He said having the site plan come forth for review as a separate process after the zone change would be appropriate. If the established criteria was not met, then the zoning would revert. Chairman Dyer asked if when a new business came in wanting to use the property, they would have to approve their site plans also. He clarified if their plans were not approved, then the zoning would revert. He said they are trying to be really sensitive to the needs of the citizens and try to see the end from the beginning. David Stein said he lives in an LDR zone and there is a dance studio down the street. As he looked at the intent of the zone being a non-intrusive, low-demand that can peaceably co-exist with the surrounding neighborhood. He pointed out this zone is unique because they can zone a parcel for a specific business. He said the type of business presented meets the conditions they need, and it will probably be less intrusive than the dance studio by his house. He said they should apply specific conditions. He is still concerned that a landscaping plan, a fencing plan, and a parking plan needs to be presented clearly in writing. He thinks if the monthly meeting someday becomes a five- day-a-week meeting, then the zone should revert back, since it would no longer be a non-intrusive, low-demand business. Chairman Dyer asked if they could approve the zone change, and still require the applicant to present his plans to fulfill the conditions set by the commission. He asked when the zoning would become effective. Kurt Hibbert said that they could approve the zone change with delayed submittals. Chairman Dyer stated his concern over the property being a corner lot. He said that Main street frontage with rd visible back yard on 3 East is troubling, because the parking in the back would be visible. He requested that this be addressed in the landscaping plan. Michael Ricks said the parking shouldn’t be a huge problem, since it is similar to when a family has all their children come home. He doesn’t think lighting the parking lot is necessary if parking is only for three vehicles. They can’t ask any business to plan their parking around a peak load. He has businesses around his house, and they don’t bother him. He understands people want to keep it all residential, but times are changing and people don’t want to build homes on busy streets. He feels this is a good location for this kind of business. He also thinks this business could fit in any neighborhood. He thinks they should put a restriction on the approval so that the zoning will revert if a new, non-conforming business tries to come in. He feels he can support his decision with those restrictions. Ted Hill said he could also support this decision. He also requested when the garage is taken down, the side of the house exposed be sided and finished to look like the rest of the building. David Stein added he thinks the price asked for the house when it was on the market was a reasonable price, considering the historic value and beauty of the home. The only problem was that it was on a very busy street, 8 since most families with children would probably not want to be on such a busy street. He thinks this business is a good way to preserve the historic look of the home. David Stein moved to recommend a rezone on the property to RBD subject to the conditions that an acceptable landscaping plan, lighting plan, signage plan, fencing plan, and parking plan be presented to and accepted by the P&Z Commission, and that the type of business in the home remain a home-health business with non-intrusive, low demand. Also that when the garage is torn down, that the exposed section of the house be finished similar to the rest of the home architecturally. Ted Hill seconded the motion. Kurt Hibbert added all the plans for fulfilling the conditions could be included on one site plan. None opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Dyer encouraged Robert Collette to work with Kurt Hibbert to fulfill the desires of the commission to explore this fully in terms of their ability to protect the neighborhood. 7:30 PM – CUP One West Builders, LLC. 180 unit development Discussion on this issue began at 8:47 pm. Chairman Dyer prefaced the hearing with the information that they did hold a public hearing on the matter in their January 5, 2006 meeting. Minutes from that meeting have been provided for review. They had good input, information and deliberation, but the adjacent land owners had not been appropriately informed. The 300 foot notification had not been completed. They have agreed to open the hearing anew, since the notification has now been completed. Chairman Dyer suggested the commission give reference to input already received and deliberation made and bring that back into the discussion. Cory Daniels: One West Builders. He said they were requesting the CUP for two purposes. One was to allow for a density of 25 units per acre instead of 24 units per acre that is currently allowed on the site. The second was to allow the use of a 24-plex size building on the side, along with the 12-plex. The sight plan has not changes since the last public hearing. Chairman Dyer asked if the 25-plex v. 24-plex was part of the original proposal. Cory Daniels answered it was. Chairman Dyer asked if there is any proposed change to the site plan that was approved in the last meeting. Cory answered there has been no change. Kurt Hibbert noted nothing has changed from what was discussed on January 5. Chairman Dyer opened public input portion. In favor: Cory Daniels: One West Builders. He said the owner has taken great care to conform to the current zoning allowed. He needed the additional units to maximize as much as the site as possible. They are taking great care to make a beautiful project for the site. Neutral: None Opposed: None 9 Written Input: -Telephone call from Joe Westenskow, owner of The Village, expressing his opposition to the proposal. No reasons were stated. Rebuttal: Cory Daniels said the opposition from Joe Westenskow was likely in regard to competition. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. The commission referred to the January 5, 2006 meeting minutes and decided to make the same motion previously made by Mary Haley. Michael Ricks motioned to grant a CUP to Copper Creek Development, with the stipulation that they comply with Article 6.13 in Chapter 6, page 179 of the ordinance and that we understand that it is a CUP to increase 1 unit per acre. Reason being is that it doesn’t change the general atmosphere of adjoining neighbors and doesn’t create any more hazards. Also, that the CUP be granted with the idea that the concept plan presented on January 5, 2006 be changed very little, if any, with the granting of the CUP and that the 24-plex be allowed, and that the motion include the developer’s idea that a pre-cast cobblestone looking fence be required on the north side of that property. Thaine Robinson seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. nd 7:45 PM – CUP Dallin Howell. Basement Apartment at 322 West 2 North Discussion on this issue began at 9:04 pm. Kurt Hibbert presented the site plan to the commissioners. He explained the home is an existing home with an LDR2 zoning. The house has a basement entrance, a two(2)-car garage and two (2) parking stalls in the front. The applicant actually fits four (4) cars tandem in the parking spaces, so the property can fit six (6) cars. However, this parking overhangs the sidewalk, so only two (2) spaces were counted in the front yard setback. Chairman Dyer asked if the parking on the side of the property was legal. Kurt Hibbert replied it is legal there. Only two (2) spots are put on the front yard setback, but the ordinance allows for 40% of the front yard be for parking. Hence, many people park on the side legally. Chairman Dyer asked if the parking on the side of the garage is hard surface, and Kurt replied that it is not. It is not a problem, because the applicant only needs four (4) spaces. The applicant has passed his life-safety ordinance. Ted Hill asked how the parking would work if the cars in the driveway were parked behind the ones in the garage. Kurt Hibbert replied each unit is allowed one slot in the garage and the corresponding driveway slot behind their garage space. That way, the tenants would not block each other in. Chairman Dyer pointed out the property has been in use as a duplex basement apartment for quite some time, and this application is an attempt to come forward and make it legal and recognized. Kurt Hibbert replied he thinks this is correct. Chairman Dyer then asked about the staff review and if there were any concerns. Kurt replied there were no concerns, this is zoned appropriately, and the building and parking requirements are met. Chairman Dyer voiced his concern that at least four properties around the area have similar use and similar zones that do not respect the parking requirements. Kurt Hibbert replied they should have another discussion about that 10 issue. He said because of the Life Safety Ordinance and compliance with the zoning, there have been conflicting messages going around. When the life safety ordinance was put in place, zoning was not considered. It was all about buildings and life safety. The people were given certificates from the city saying that they are a legal unit. They then have assumed everything they are doing is legal. Kurt explained that this issue is going to play out in the next few weeks. Chairman Dyer stated they shouldn’t be worrying about the other neighbors, but he doesn’t want the applicant to observe the wanton disregard for their zoning requirements in the surrounding properties and try to apply the same to their property. Joseph Laird asked if the property had the access windows in each basement bedroom. Kurt Hibbert replied yes, this home has passed the life safety requirements and has a certificate. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Thaine Robinson stated he doesn’t see any reason why they can’t grant the CUP, since the applicant is in compliance. David Stein made the point that just because the applicant is in compliance with everything, it doesn’t mean the CUP is granted. The reason why this application is appropriate is because of the number of multi-family units surrounding it. This is not going to cause more traffic or more noise than is already there. nd Thaine Robinson moved to grant the CUP to Dallin Howell’s basement apartment at 322 West 2 North with the condition that the conditions are met in Section 6.13 Subsection B in the ordinance, and that they would meet the zoning requirements, notwithstanding what may be happening on surrounding properties in the neighborhood. Michael Ricks seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. 3. Unfinished/Old Business: A. Comprehensive Plan Kurt Hibbert explained about the recreation SWOT analysis completed by the City Council, and asked them for any additions or alterations they would make to the list. He said he has prepared a presentation for the City Council that has a compilation of light lists for each of the land-use areas. As soon as the City Council has had a chance to look at and add to these lists, then he will bring them back to the P&Z Commission for their input as well. They will continue to address all of the issues that are on everyone’s minds that they may continue to develop policy for implementation and integration in the Comprehensive Plan. They don’t want to leave out any important issues. He asked the commission to comment on any input they have. 11 There was general discussion on the SWAT analysis, and some suggestions for revision were considered. Chairman Dyer asked Kurt to keep the Commission updated on what they needed to do to help in the revision process. Kurt explained he intends to have the City Council look over each land-use section, and then he will bring their work back to the Commission for their input. He explained he has all the SWAT analysis for all the land-use areas ready for City Council review, so they can look at them all at once. The commissioners will then review the same list. 4. New Business: None 5. Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: Chairman Dyer commented there are concept plans for the Southeast section of Rexburg. These plans propose to infill this area of Rexburg in the next year. Kurt Hibbert showed the map to the Commissioners for discussion. 6. Tabled requests: st A. Rezone request from MDR1 to CBC at 330 West 1 South – (Interwest Cabinet) Chairman Dyer commented this will be allowed to naturally gravitate towards review the Comprehensive Plan Map changes, which can be addressed after February 17, 2006. 7. Report on Projects: None 8. Compliance: None Heads Up: Rezone request for 1114 North Yellowstone Hwy – LDR3 to CBC Kurt Hibbert commented that there are only two parcels zoned LDR3 in the city. He said this zone is pretty much useless. The only difference between this zone and LDR2 is the lot size issue. He wondered if the commission would consider eliminating this zone completely if they rezone this property to CBC. They are not accomplishing anything with that zone that they could not accomplish with a higher density zone. This would help simplify the legend on the map as well. Kurt Hibbert asked what the Commissioners’ disposition was on the North Rexburg interchange. Chairman Dyer responded he thinks they need to let all the legal ramifications be sorted out before they take action on the issue, even if the Comprehensive Plan Map could be changed after February 17. Chairman Dyer added something needs to be done to mend the fences on this issue. He said we cannot live with this level of animosity in the area; it will be downhill from here. People are going to have to stand up for what they know is true and right. Kurt Hibbert asked if this Commission had ever had any discussion on the Burns property and whether or not they would approve it. Chairman Dyer answered they had. He said they were denied. Kurt Hibbert said it was communicated in the press that the P&Z Commission would quickly approve it. Chairman Dyer said that is an 12 erroneous statement, that he does not know where that information was obtained. He added they would be willing to talk about it in an industrial zone. Kurt Hibbert then asked if the Commission had ever discussed including Salem in Rexburg’s impact area. Chairman Dyer said on the contrary, they had stated that they had no interest or need of going north of the highway to anyone’s knowledge at this point in time. He added the minutes in the past are very clear on these matters. Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting 10:05 pm. 13