Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MARCH 02, 2006 ORM F EQUEST R RAVEL T P&Z LANNING ONING M INUTES 12 N. Center (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x312 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3022 www.rexburg.org planning@rexburg.org March 2, 2006 Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Winston Dyer– Chairman Kurt Hibbert – P&Z Administrator Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts John Millar – Public Works Director Mike Ricks Charles Andersen Emily Abe – Secretary David Stein Thaine Robinson Joe Laird Mary Haley Randall Porter Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. Roll Call David Stein, Ted Hill, Thaine Robinson, Joe Laird, Winston Dyer, Charles Andersen, Mary Haley, Mary Ann Mounts, Mike Ricks, Randall Porter Chairman Dyer handed out copies of the current Rexburg Zoning Map to the Commissioners. Minutes: A. Planning and Zoning meeting – February 16, 2006 Corrections: None. Randall Porter motioned to approve the minutes for February 16, 2006. Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion. Michael Ricks, Charles Andersen, and Mary Haley abstained for not being present at the meeting. None opposed. Motion carried. Public Hearings: None Unfinished/Old Business: A. Review plans of condition fulfillment on rezone request from LDR2 to RBD at 280 East Main Street (Liahona, Inc.) Chairman Dyer asked if the lighting plan was in conformance. Kurt Hibbert answered that the applicant understands the lighting must be full cut-off lighting. John Millar accepted the applicant’s plan as presented. The 1 wall pack was not a concern, but the shielding was the concern. John Millar is satisfied on the four conditions that could have been problems. He added the drawing is not completely accurate, that the four (4) foot green strip along the driveway is wider than shown. The applicant has indicated that he has no intention of changing the width of the driveway. Chairman Dyer noted the green strip is nine (9) feet instead of four (4) feet. Also, that the driveway is sixteen (16) feet instead of eighteen (18) feet. Kurt Hibbert said this reflects actual measurements taken. Chairman Dyer asked if the plan complies with the requirement that only forty (40) percent of the yard could be taken up for parking. Kurt Hibbert answered that the pavement is an existing condition, and that the applicant has no intention of adding any paving. The parking has been reconfigured to remove the three (3) stalls with questionable accessibility. The key thing the applicant wanted to do was to get the cars out of sight and put them behind the structure. Mary Haley said there have not been vines on the fence for the last few years. The applicants don’t have to re- plant anything there. Chairman Dyer noted there are as few parking spaces as possible. He asked about the sign issue. Kurt Hibbert said the plan for the sign on the yard has been removed. The applicant will comply and have a wall mounted sign with 2 ft. x 2 ft. dimensions. Mary Haley asked about any lighting on the sign. Kurt Hibbert explained the applicant has not indicated any plans for lighting on the sign. Randall Porter asked to go over the other lighting issues. Kurt Hibbert said there are no other lights. Randall asked if the ordinance required white lights or high pressure sodium lights. Kurt Hibbert said the only requirement on the lights is the full cut-off lighting. Any requirements would be up to the Commissioners’ discretion. Randall said he would like the applicant to use high pressure sodium lights unless they need to show color on the sign at night. He thinks it would suit the long term look of the city in terms of night time lighting. He would highly recommend and encourage the applicant to use these lights. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve the plan and asked that the applicant conform to the recommended lighting and the corrections presented on the site plan. Mike Ricks seconded the motion. Thaine Robinson noted that the applicants have been very patient and pleasant to work with. None opposed. Motion carried. B. Comprehensive Plan Changes Kurt Hibbert said the City has advertised in the paper that they are accepting applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Since the six (6) month waiting period expired on February 17, 2006, they are now able to consider these requests. H added they need to gather a few applications and move on them all at one time. The commission is not required to consider these applications right away, but they could not consider them until the waiting period expired. However, they should be careful delaying the petitions, since most of the applicants have been very patient. The public information advertisement in the paper was meant to help people understand that the waiting period is over. He doesn’t anticipate a huge rush of applications. Currently there is only one application on his desk. This is from Bonnie Andersen, whose house burned down. She is asking for the same change she previously requested. As for a time frame, Kurt would anticipate they would gather applications for 30 or 60 days and then take action. 2 Chairman Dyer asked for a discussion about time frame from the commissioners. He reminded them that they should try to be accommodating to the public, to have due diligence on the subject, and give the opportunity for open participation on this process, but to manage it well. Mary Ann Mounts said 30 days would be good. Mike Ricks said 45 would be better, since this would give the public time to fill out applications. He thinks 60 days would be too long. Mary Haley said 30 days would be too short, and 60 days would not be too long. Ted Hill asked when the waiting period would start again. Kurt Hibbert said it would begin the minute the City Council makes a motion on the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes. Chairman Dyer commented they should have had the announcement out thirty (30) days ago, so it would be out more in advance of when the waiting period ended. Then they could process the changes sooner. Ted Hill commented that many of the applicants will be forced to wait much longer than necessary if they do not plan ahead more efficiently. Kurt Hibbert suggested the Commission let him come back in a couple weeks and report about what has happened with applications so they can get a feel for what is happening in the community. Chairman Dyer pointed out that once they decide to move forward with an application, they then have to notice for a public hearing, which could take three (3) or four (4) more weeks. Thaine Robinson asked when the 30 days would begin, or if it had already begun. Kurt Hibbert said it would start after the waiting period ended on February 17, 2006. Thaine noted that since they are already two weeks into the application period, he would recommend a longer period of application acceptance. Mary Ann Mounts asked if they could advertise ahead of time so people have time to submit applications before the deadline comes up. Ted Hill said they should have the two hearings on each application as close to the six (6) month waiting period deadline as possible. Discussion on this issue continued, and it was decided that City Council must act on all the applications in one night, since an action on any application would start the six (6) month waiting period. Chairman Dyer asked the Commissioners to come up with a consensus on when they would notice for public hearings on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications. Any applications submitted after this date would have to wait to be processed until the next six (6) month waiting period was over. He suggested this date be April 6, 2006. Kurt Hibbert suggested the Commission wait a week and see how many applications they receive before they officially lock in a deadline. The city could put another advertisement in the Paper and see if there is a big rush for applications. He said the public has had six (6) months to submit applications, and the City has been very open with them concerning this. Most of the public have been aware, but the City is going to an extra effort to inform them that they may apply for an amendment. Mary Haley suggested an advertisement be placed on the City web site. Ted Hill voiced his concern that the timing on the amendments could delay developers if they are not able to start construction until the late fall. They would have to wait until spring to really be able to start their developments. Ted Hill motioned the next meeting to be the deadline for accepting applications for Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Charles Andersen seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. 3 Chairman Dyer asked that they try to set up a February – August cycle in the future. Kurt Hibbert said it is hard to be on a strict schedule, since the City Council also has to review the applications. He said the Planning & Zoning Commission could try to process the applications prior to the deadline, so the applications could immediately be ready for City Council review after the waiting period is over. This would need to flow around the calendar, since it would be impossible for it to work like clockwork with possible extra hearings, tabled items, etc. The whole process is not a very smooth one. Chairman Dyer said they would at least want to have the applications ready to roll once the six (6) month waiting period is over. Kurt Hibbert pointed out that Rexburg does not have to entertain Comprehensive Plan Amendments every six months. Some municipalities only change their Comprehensive Plan once a year, at the first of the year. Thaine Robinson commented as long as the public were notified well in advance of the waiting period expiration that they could apply for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and then the Commission could act immediately after the waiting period was over. Ted Hill motioned that they recommend to City Council that there would be a Comprehensive Plan change every six (6) months with a two (2) week time frame of consideration. Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion. Ted Hill clarified that after the waiting period had expired, then there would be an additional two (2) weeks for those who had not already applied to submit an application. Randall Porter suggested they plan the application deadline for a specific Planning and Zoning meeting. This way, instead of waiting for two (2) weeks, they could look at the applications in a P&Z meeting right away. Charles Andersen pointed out that the six months are really driven by the City Council and the day they actually move on the applications. It would be hard to plan on a specific date. Chairman Dyer suggested the motion be amended to say the Planning and Zoning is in the position to hold the hearings at the six month expiration. Ted Hill amended the motion accordingly. Mary Ann Mounts concurred. Chairman Dyer explained that this way City staff could prepare all the applications to be brought forward in the P&Z meeting directly following the six month expiration. None opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Dyer suggested that he or Kurt discuss this with Rex Erickson and explain what they are trying to accomplish, so they council can be in sync with these objectives. Kurt Hibbert explained that there are petitioned changes that the public apply for, and there are non-petitioned changes that the City initiates. 1) Petitioned nd Kurt Hibbert explained the only petitioned application he has is from Bonnie Anderson on 2 East. She owns the property where the house burned down, and she also owns a separate parcel across Harvard Avenue, to the East of the large parcel. She would like to see the blocks developed and used for professional offices. He said the property is zoned MDR1, and it could be changed to mixed-use or commercial. He showed the commissioners the parcel in question on the Comprehensive Plan Map. Chairman Dyer said there are property rights that are inherent in owning property, and there are also rights established by designation in the Comprehensive Plan or by zoning. He wanted the commissioners to understand there is no existing property right that forces the Commission to consider Comprehensive Plan change or a zoning 4 change. The property owners have a right to request, but the commission should not feel pressure or an obligation, since it is not a right that goes with the property. He asked if the Commission can grant or deny a request to be heard, or if they have the hearing and then make a decision on whether to move forward with the requested change. He said there have been occasions in the past where they were certain the request would not work, so they denied it a hearing. He wonders if this application should be sent for a public hearing. Mike Ricks commented everyone has a right to have a public hearing. The commission has the right to deny the requested change, but the applicant has a right to have a public hearing. Chairman Dyer questioned whether it was a legal requirement, or just Rexburg protocol. Kurt Hibbert said he understood that in the past they have worked with the property owners and advised them not to waste their money on a public hearing, since the request would probably not be granted. However, under the law, property owners always have a right to ask and to have a public hearing. There may be compelling public arguments out there that the Commission is not aware of. The Commission has a right to hear those arguments. He said some things do ripen. Mary Haley commented the professional office buildings are not going in this area, but are going in larger complexes like the Bagley’s. In her view, this would not be coexistent with what is happening, or what is on the map. Chairman Dyer commented they have previously struggled tremendously with having to consider every request that was brought forward. They ended up approving things because they didn’t have the tools and mechanisms to review the applications properly. They consciously decided to re-do the Comprehensive Plan and re-write the ordinance to make standards of their vision of the community and how they would manage and control growth. As the applications came in, they would be held up to the standard. If the application had merit, it would be deliberated. If it did not, they would tell the applicants to modify their requests. The Comprehensive Plan is the key element, because it lays the foundation for all subsequent zoning requests to be evaluated. Mary Haley said her vision has not changed regarding the property on the application. This application does not fit in the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was meant to be the first filter. If the applications didn’t fit the plan, then they would be filtered out. Kurt Hibbert asked if the Comprehensive Plan was a ten (10) year vision or a twenty (20) year vision. He said he has been asked if the P&Z Commission seriously thinks the land on the North Interchange will be agricultural. Charles Andersen said it is a living plan that can change year to year. David Stein said they spent a lot of time on this application already. They developed the PRO zone and told the applicant she should use this tool. It seems like a waist of time to hear the case again, since she was given the tool to use and she hasn’t used it. Charles Andersen said if the Comprehensive Plan has not changed, and she has been heard and was provided a tool, and she hasn’t used that tool, then why should they go through the process again, just to deny it again? Chairman Dyer asked the commissioners if their vision has changed for the area in question. He asked if the area in question needed a Comprehensive Plan Change. Kurt Hibbert said any applicant has the right to come forward with a request and be heard. The Commission can deliberate whether the vision has changed for the area after the public hearing. Ted Hill commented the property has not sold with the LDR2 zoning designation on it. The owner has been approached, but she has not sold. He asked the commissioners if they were content to let the property just sit there 5 if it wasn’t going to sell for that use. Chairman Dyer responded that they don’t want the property to sit there, and that is why they developed the PRO zone. The PRO zone is what ought to be pursued, not a Comprehensive Plan change. The applicant should apply for the PRO zone. A Comprehensive Plan change is not necessary to employ the PRO zone. Joe Laird pointed out there are other residents in other areas that have the same problem. He asked if they can leave some people out and not others, since they have the same problem. Chairman Dyer asked the Secretary to include the minutes from this deliberation in the next packet to the commissioners. The commissioners deliberated whether or not the applicant should be heard. Kurt Hibbert told the commissioners that they don’t have to accept the changes to the Comprehensive Plan, but they do have to hold hearings for each applicant. Mary Haley said the applicant needs to know if she hasn’t changed her application at all, then the Commission will probably have the same view as last time. Charles Andersen said they can’t deny members of the community to be heard, even if they say the same thing every time. However, he said the Commission can very strongly state where they stand, and that they are not going to change the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant might understand that it might not be worth their effort, but the Commission does have to hear the community. nd Joe Laird said he thinks a lot of things have changed with what they are going to do on 2 East. Randall Porter said there is a plan for twin-homes across from the Temple intended for retired people to be able to walk to the Temple. Charles Andersen suggested the Comprehensive Plan Map also be labeled “City Preferred Land Use.” This would help people understand what it is and how it is different from a zoning map. Kurt Hibbert said the Commission has to hear the public hearings. Chairman Dyer asked if this application absolutely had to go up to hearing. Kurt told him it did. B) Non-petitioned… Kurt Hibbert asked the Commissioners for things they see need to be changed on the Comprehensive Plan Map. He pointed out a few issues he thinks the Commission would want to address. One was Mr. Galbraith’s property, on which they would want to change the Comprehensive Plan from commercial land use to industrial land use. He asked if they would want to change half the block to industrial, or more. Right now the entire block is showing commercial. They would at least have to change the parcel his building is on, and the one next to it that he is going to build on. Chairman Dyer asked if the whole area were changed, if the existing uses could continue. Kurt answered they could. Mary Ann Mounts said she would like industrial all along the railroad tracks. Ted Hill asked if they had talked about the lot to the West of where the storage building is being built and everything on the west side of 3rd West, which would take in the Body Shop, the church and some residents. He 6 asked if they hadn’t already talked about that area being a light industrial area. Chairman Dyer said he didn’t know if they had been that specific. Kurt Hibbert said they have usually gone parcel based on their zoning, without splitting parcels. He wondered if rd they should just include the parcels that front 3 West. He showed the commissioners the area on the map. Chairman Dyer pointed out that if they changed the Comprehensive Plan to industrial land use in that area, it would prohibit anyone in the future from extending the multi-family area. Kurt Hibbert pointed out a couple blocks that are currently zoned industrial and are Comprehensive Planned to go to High Density Residential. Mary Ann Mounts asked Kurt to clarify that they can’t build a high-density apartment in an industrial zone. Chairman Dyer said they would have to change the Comprehensive Plan map first, and then apply for a zone change. thth David Stein pointed out that the area on Yellowstone Highway, from 4 South to 7 South, is starting to go into different things, including commercial. Kurt Hibbert asked if he would be directed to change Galbraith’s two parcels along with the parcels that front the railroad. Mary Ann Mounts said she wouldn’t go up to Main Street. Chairman Dyer explained that they changed the Comprehensive Plan map from a bubble map to a parcel by parcel map. This prevents white gaps and parcels with two different designations. David Stein said he is not comfortable taking industrial over to Main Street. He said he is fine with the south side, but not the lots fronting Main Street. Kurt Hibbert suggested they just change the parcels in question until they get more of a vision of the area. They don’t have any requests from anyone in the North to go to industrial land use. If they changed the whole area, the existing owners would all become non-conforming. They could leave the compatible commercial land use there until they see a need to change it. Kurt Hibbert then said the City has sent letters out to people in the North Interchange area informing them that they are accepting Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications. This area might need to be changed. No one has replied, but Louis Clements came in for an application. A developer is also coming in to his office to discuss some plans for the area. Chairman Dyer commented right now the area is planned commercial up to Moody. He commented on the flood plane area, and said the County feels they have a greater degree of control if they don’t allow any zone changes in the flood plane area. This way, they don’t ever come across the development issues. Right now the area is zoned Single Family Residential, but in reality, it can’t develop that way. He asked the commissioners to discuss these areas one by one. David Stein said he would prefer the North area to be commercial. When this was considered earlier, they didn’t have any design standards, so they didn’t change it. In the year since then, they have a better ordinance to manage it. They have seen some commercial developments go in, and he thinks it is a good area for this. Chairman Dyer commented that there was also a concern with sprawl. David Stein answered it was a concern, but sprawl is relative. Chairman Dyer asked if the conditions had blossomed in the area so that this might be considered now. He asked the commissioners to keep in mind that they are only talking about hearing the issue, not making a final decision. 7 Mary Ann Mounts said she does not consider commercial development along a highway exit to be sprawl. Thaine Robinson agreed that the area all the way to the freeway exit, on both sides of the road, would have a commercial preferred land use designation. Mary Ann Mounts said this would be the right thing to do. nd Ted Hill asked how much of the property on either side of 2 East they are talking about changing. Chairman Dyer said the first consideration would be to extend the corridor, and then they could talk about doing anything greater or lesser. Kurt Hibbert said the Regional Business Center zone was created to accommodate a large, campus-type shopping center. They only have the ability to do that in certain areas of the city, this northern area being one of them. He said they need to look at their vision of where they want that to go in the city someday, whether it is in this area, or somewhere else. That will have an impact on how wide or broad the section they change will be. The commissioners discussed possible widths of the change they could make. They discussed leaving enough room for a frontage road. Kurt Hibbert suggested they start conservative, and then change it later if they have to. Nothing is going to be built out there for a little while. Ted Hill said he wouldn’t do anything until they have someone request a zone change. Randall Porter agreed. Chairman Dyer asked if hearing the public would be an advantage to answering their questions. Charles Andersen pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan map is a preferred land use map, and if they prefer commercial in the area, it should be commercial on the map. By putting it on the map, they are not saying exactly what it is going to be. Mary Ann Mounts said they should change it so when the people come in with applications, their process is simplified, and the city doesn’t lose their business. Randall Porter commented they need to bend over backward to protect the community, instead of bending over backward to protect the developers. Chairman Dyer agreed that the minute you designate commercial as a preferred land use, it is almost an invitation for someone to come in and do something with it. In the past, they have kept it in agriculture as an added measure of protection. Mike Ricks said the main reason they left this area in the agriculture zone is because that is the easiest zone to transition out of. He would rather see what is coming. He thinks we are close enough to the highway with the commercial zoning on the map. Thaine Robinson said that as long as they are talking about preferred land use, they ought to change it from agricultural, since they don’t see agricultural being out there. They see it as being commercial, so they might as well designate a little bit of it and let it grow properly. Mary Haley said she thinks they should designate the whole area out to the highway commercial. Charles Andersen said it would be interesting to hear what the people have to say about it, verses what the Commission thinks. Maybe they should hold a public hearing. Randall Porter said he didn’t know if he could make a decision on it right then. He said if they had a big box store coming, someone who wanted to develop a campus, they wouldn’t limit themselves to the commercially zoned areas. They would spend weeks and months studying traffic flow, population base, current developments, etc. They would then choose the best spot for their store, wherever it might be. They would ask the commission to 8 accommodate them in their desires. They will pay whatever it costs to be where they want to be. They would seek the ideal location. Chairman Dyer clarified that the question they are trying to answer is not whether the land should be changed, but if the issue should be heard. Mary Ann Mounts said she disagreed with Randall, saying that most large stores come in with a formula for the best place for their business. That is the reason they should change the land use on the area, so they can say no to the companies when they want to do something that would not be good for the City. This way they could say they are not going to give in. Mary Haley commented that had the Commission had more of a plan, Jack-in-the-Box would not be looking like it is now. They have learned from that, and they have their ordinances in line. She thinks the less they plan, the more hurt they will be. It is better to plan more than to plan less. Chairman Dyer suggested since they didn’t have a consensus on the issue that they should move on to the next and discuss this at another time. Mary Ann Mounts then motioned to hold a public hearing on extending the commercial land use designation out to the north interchange, in a strip at least as wide as the current commercial strip. Joe Laird seconded the motion David Stein said he was concerned that it would be to narrow of a strip. If they are going to change it, they should at least go out to the section lines on the left side. Mary Ann Mounts amended her motion to extend the commercial to the center of the section line. Joe Laird would not second the motion, because he would extend it to 1/8 of a mile at the most. When a company comes in and wants to develop something, they can always ask for more. Mary Ann Mounts agreed and withdrew her amendment. She said they need to change the land use designations because they don’t see the area remaining agricultural, they see it going commercial. Randal Porter said he was concerned that potential applicants could be a series of little strip malls along the corridor, rather than campus developments. He fears that if they allow it to accommodate strip malls, then that is probably what they are going to get. A big box could come in after the strip malls are in and not want to develop behind them. Mary Ann Mounts said they can’t do that, they don’t have the right. They can’t make preferences like that. Randall said that is why they should wait until someone comes forward with an application. Chairman Dyer said what they can do is facilitate some types of development by the decisions they make. That is their responsibility. Kurt Hibbert said one of those decisions will eventually be zoning. The zoning is what will determine whether strip malls will be able to come in there. Chairman Dyer said he was inclined to change the land use until some of the commissioners made convincing arguments otherwise. He commented that leaving it would give them an extra layer of protection and control over the property. He said unless someone could convince him, he would not be inclined to vote for the change. Charles Andersen commented that preferred land use is different from zoning. They could zone different to help accommodate the growth they want within the commercial area. Randall Porter said the reason it is designated the way it is on the map is that they were waiting for someone to present something to them that would give them a vision of how the whole area could be developed. That is the reason they turned down the Balls and the Browns earlier, because they needed a better idea of what they wanted. 9 Mary Ann Mounts said that if they changed it to commercial, they could show people that they have an idea and a plan to develop as commercial. The question was called for to approve or deny the motion to extend the preferred land use corridor as commercial from the Moody Highway to the north interchange at a width of 660 feet (1/8 mile) on each side to match what exists on the south edge. Those in favor: Thaine Robinson Mary Ann Mounts Joseph Laird Charles Andersen Those opposed: Winston Dyer Randall Porter Mike Ricks David Stein Ted Hill Mary Haley The motion failed. Kurt Hibbert pointed out another area on the map that may need to be changed. Chairman Dyer commented that the Commission previously had a discussion about the preferred land use designation as commercial. They all understood that commercial was the best use for the area, especially around a freeway interchange. At the time, they had quite a bit of discussion about how far that should extend either th direction, and because there were no particular development pressures west of 12 West at the time, they decided to th cut it off at 12 West. They are now asking if circumstances have changed, or if there is a reason to do something different in the area. They are also aware that the school has bought some property there, and under consideration is the construction of a new high school and two (2) new elementary schools. This would not be done all at once. Kurt Hibbert added that there have been no specific requests in the area, but there have been some general comments about whether it is realistic to expect Single Family Residential on that street. Charles Andersen commented that the arguments and issues are the same on the north and on the south. Mary Ann Mounts said a lot of people will want to live around the high school. Kurt Hibbert commented on what a great Comprehensive Plan map they have developed, since there are only a couple of issues that are coming up. The map was really developed well. Mary Haley said she is not comfortable extending the land use in this area, since there are homes and subdivisions going up in the area. Kurt Hibbert pointed out that they could compare it to the University exit in Orem, Utah. The expectation in that area is that it will be the same as going into Provo. The commercial development that sprung up along that boulevard has become a major commercial driver. Whether that is the Commission’s vision or not, they could think of that as an example. That could be the logical trend that could probably happen. 10 Charles Andersen asked if the Commission would be comfortable with someone putting a subdivision in next to John Deer. Right now, they would be able to. If they don’t know what they want there yet, they should change it to agricultural, since they can control that better than they can anything else. Chairman Dyer clarified that if they were to change the area to agricultural, it would then become a two (2) step process for anyone to develop something there. This would give them greater protection and control. He asked if this was necessary in this area. Mike Ricks commented that nothing is going to come into that area until they start building schools. The schools will drive what develops in the surrounding area. He would suggest leaving it alone and wait to see what comes. Mary Ann Mounts said she thinks this could possibly be a more volatile area than the area in the north. Schools are going to attract houses, no matter where they are located. She thinks they would be smart to plan it at this point. Kurt Hibbert commented when there is commercial on two (2) quadrants of the intersection, it tends to make them prime for development. Chairman Dyer agreed with Kurt that something ought to be done there. Joe Laird said they should extend commercial out only 1/8 of a mile. They could square it up and give the inference that they are feeling good about extending commercial to the west of there. Kurt Hibbert asked if they should extend it one block or two blocks. Ted Hill said he would like to see it stay just the way it is, because any developer that wants to buy a piece of that ground to build a house on, would leave the ground next to it for commercial development, since they could get more money out of it. The majority of that area could be mostly single family units. There might be some multi- th housing developments go in there. He doesn’t see the commercial going beyond 12 West. Chairman Dyer said if they are planners, and they do it right, they can tell people where to develop for the good of the community. Charles Andersen said this is something they are responsible for. Joe Laird said the street going west will carry traffic for all the area, for the next three (3) miles west, and provide the access to the interchange and to the City of Rexburg. Charles Andersen said once the arterial goes in, there will be a commercial draw coming off the interchange. It is inevitable. There may be a buffer zone where the school and residential area is, but the corridor at least a mile down from the interchange will have commercial draw. Mary Haley said they are at a point right now where they can act, instead of react. They have a window to do some planning. Mike Ricks said most of the single family residents are going in other areas, not in this area. Charles Andersen said if there is a large development in the East, it will be higher end. If a school goes up, it will be more of a middle income area. David Stein said he agrees that most developers wouldn’t put a house there, but if someone does decide to put a few houses there on the boulevard they wouldn’t be able to do anything to stop them. Even though it wouldn’t make any sense, they could do it. 11 Mike Ricks said nothing is uglier than seeing commercial when coming in to a community. He would rather see apartments along the side of the road than big industries on the main corridor. Randall Porter asked what the mixed use designation is. He asked if they would be creating bigger problems if they tried to put mixed use in the area. Chairman Dyer answered it is a designation of a mixture of residential and commercial. It is more oriented toward urban setting than a rural area. Mary Haley asked what the County’s vision is for the area. Chairman Dyer answered that they envision residential in the area. Mike Ricks said if they change designations around in the area, they set the land values and prices. Ted Hill said it is more the location that sets the land values. Chairman Dyer said there is no argument to that, but the Commission’s job is to set the vision for the community and try to determine what the preferred land uses are. Mary Ann Mounts motioned they change the four corners to commercial preferred land use. They should go as far out as the bottom, to match up with the current designation. The size of the extension would be 1320 feet north and south, and 660 feet west. Joe Laird seconded the motion. Randall Porter asked if they needed more commercial to go with the commercial that is already there. Chairman Dyer reminded them they are talking about preferred land use, not zoning. Subsequent requests for zoning would eventually follow. Mike Ricks said he wouldn’t support that on the other side, going out on the four corners. If the school is going to build out there, the traffic would be terrible. Chairman Dyer asked if the proposed change was in the school’s property. Kurt Hibbert said he believes the school district will be coming in the future to ask the Commission for commercial zone along there. Mary Haley commented that at the school where she works, there have been terrible car accidents when students have gone out for lunch and tried to make it back for class. She would rather the commercial be right by the campus, for convenient student lunches. Joe Laird said the ground would be developed to arterial standards with five (5) lanes of traffic, four (4) through lanes and a left turn lane in the middle, and probably right turn lanes on the sides. Randall Porter asked if they just accept that the school is out there. Chairman Dyer answered they never accepted that as an okay location for what they are planning. They tried to convince them to do something different. Randall said there is so much commercial out there already, that they might not need any more. Charles Andersen called the question to approve or deny the motion to extend the preferred commercial land use with the stated dimensions. Those in favor: Winston Dyer Mary Ann Mounts Mary Haley Charles Andersen Thaine Robinson David Stein Joe Laird 12 Those opposed: Randall Porter Mike Ricks Ted Hill The motion carried. The issue will be posted up for public hearing. Kurt Hibbert said there are some open space issues, some places that need to be shown on the map. Joe Laird said the Commission needs to look at the area just east of the Temple in the next few months, because it is going to be developed in some way. They want the development to be good for the Temple. Kurt Hibbert said the public facilities areas, like the water treatment plant, the nature park, etc. need to be looked at. They need to make some changes showing a public facility area. They would like to show the open spaces on the map also. The green belts need to be clearly indicated. He said staff would work on that and bring it back to the Commission in the future. nd Chairman Dyer said they need to talk more about the area on South 2 East. Someone may develop into storm drainage ponds or recreational areas because of its low-lying nature. He said the designation on that land could affect the land use that is already going on. Kurt Hibbert discussed some other possible changes, including indicating the flood plane on the map. The commissioners agreed that should be done. Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: Chairman Dyer explained that Commissioner David Stein has been re-designated as an official city member of the Planning & Zoning Commission. This creates a vacancy for the jointly-appointed City/County member in the impact area. Chairman Dyer has been in discussions with the City and County about getting that position filled. He asked the Commissioners to give any recommendations they have to him as soon as possible. They will give these recommendations consideration, and then work with the two governments to move forward. Chairman Dyer reported on the joint meeting between the Madison County, the City of Rexburg, and the City of Sugar City. The first meeting was March 1, 2006. The concept is for two (2) representatives from each of the Planning & Zoning Commissions to meet and discuss issues of common interest. It is an abbreviation of the meetings they used to have when all three (3) commissions would meet together. Hopefully the smaller group will be able to accomplish more than the large group. The County has given this committee the charge to look at where the impact areas meet and make sure the uses on all sides are similar. It would be difficult if each community wanted different things from the same spot of land. The County would like there to be some uniformity and commonality in the terminology used. For example, Rexburg’s RR1 designation is different from what it is in the County. They are starting with the Comprehensive Plan designations because they are broad, general, and more easily matched up between the three (3) governments. Later they could advance and go into discussion about zoning, and possibly look at making the requirements similar. The concept would be that someone coming into town would be generally aware of what they will be faced with everywhere. This would help prevent “developer gerrymandering,” where developers go to the other government when one doesn’t give them what they want. Tom Luthy from the County P&Z Commission was named chair of the group. Jan Merril also represents the County. 13 Winston Dyer and Charles Andersen will represent the City of Rexburg. Sugar City sent Sharee Palmer and Garry Jeppesen. In the first meeting, each government brought their staff, which was helpful and appropriate. However, in the future, the committee will lead the discussions and the staff will fade into the woodwork. Everyone was careful to make sure there was balance and no undue influence from one group over another. They will meet twice a month on Wednesdays. They hope to finish by the end of April. He invited any Commissioners with questions or ideas to express them to the commissioners attending. Tabled requests: st A. Rezone request from MDR1 to CBC at 330 West 1 South – (Interwest Cabinet) th B.Rezone request from RR to LDR2 at 1139 East 9 North – (Titan Development) Kurt Hibbert reported that Titan Development had sold the project to another company, who said they would contact the City in the future. New Business: Multi-family Design Standards Kurt Hibbert showed the Commissioners some issues with the Multi-family Design Standards. He and Val have had some problems as they have talked to developers about what is required on the end of structures. The code requires anything in excess of forty (40) feet to be treated with the building form treatment, which means an extension or recess on the wall. On structures of large magnitude and scale, they are forced to alter the roof structures on the end of the buildings in order to add a little abutment. They did this on Peterson Point and Green Gables. The developers are forced to do this to conform to the code, and it doesn’t look good. Val and Kurt have thought maybe there is a threshold on the wall width, possibly forty (40) feet and under, that they should not be requiring this. They maybe could look for an alternative, like surface treatment or something. He wonders if the Commission would accept some alternative form of treatment in these situations. He asked if they could amend the ordinance to include landscaping as an option. Val and Kurt feel they would rather have streetscapes than glue-ons on the side of the buildings in some cases. Windows don’t work as well, since this makes the buildings very energy inefficient. Charles Andersen said if they use landscaping, they better designate the diameter of the trees, or they will end up with sticks that die within a year. Chairman Dyer stated his concern that landscaping is not permanent, as a fixture on the building is. He said it would look nice, but it might not last. Kurt Hibbert asked if he could write something up for them to look at. Charles Andersen pointed out that the landscaping on the BYU-I campus is what makes the area look good. He is afraid, however, that it might not be taken care of well in other developments. Randall Porter said he thinks there should be some level of landscaping required in any event. Kurt Hibbert suggested they tweak their design standards to be a little more accommodating to scale, since we are probably the only city that requires the jut-out on a building of that magnitude. 14 Charles Andersen said if they used landscaping features, not just trees, they could make something that looks really nice. However, they would have to use a professional landscape designer. Mary Haley said she thinks they should still require the structures on the buildings. Kurt Hibbert said he believes there would be more value in landscaping than there would be in paste-ons on the buildings. Especially on the forty (40) foot ends of buildings that face the street. Mary Ann Mounts said she would be willing to look at something different. Kurt Hibbert then said that a lot of times, it is the replication and repetition of this that makes it a problem. It may look good on one building, but by the time it is on every building in the development, it looks bad. He said he wanted to bounce this idea off the Commissioners before he has the design review meeting. Mike Ricks commented that twenty-four (24) feet to turn into a driveway is fairly narrow. He wondered if they could change their entry ways to thirty (30) feet. Kurt Hibbert said he would have to check their snow situation, because they have to have place to dump their snow beside the entry. Report on Projects: None Compliance: None Heads Up: Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting 10:48 pm. 15