Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES APRIL 20, 2006 Planning & Zoning Minutes April 20, 2006 12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020 www.rexburg.org Rexburg, ID 83440 Fax: 208.359.3022 Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Rex Erickson – Council Member Shawn Larsen - Mayor Winston Dyer– Chairman Chris Mann – Council Member Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson Kurt Hibbert – P&Z Administrator Joe Laird Randall Porter Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Mary Haley Charles Andersen Emily Abe – Secretary Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Dan Hanna David Stein Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:05 pm. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners Mary Haley, Dan Hanna, Randall Porter, David Stein, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, Mary Ann Mounts, Mike Ricks, Charles Andersen, Ted Hill Minutes: A. Planning and Zoning meeting – April 6, 2006 Corrections: -P. 5 – Under Chairman Dyer’s comments, change “inspected” to “expected.” -P. 6&7 – Under Discussion on City/County Administration of the Impact Area, change “Commission” to “Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission” throughout the discussion. Thaine Robinson motioned to approve the minutes for April 6, 2006 as amended. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Mary Ann Mounts, Charles Andersen, and David Stein abstained for having not been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Dyer introduced a video outlining public hearing process and procedures, which was then shown. Joe Laird arrived at 7:12 pm. Public Hearings: 7:05 PM – Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1 Chairman Dyer pointed out the difference between the Zoning map and the Preferred Land Use map, also known as the Comprehensive Plan map. The Preferred Land Use map designates what types of land uses are preferred in all areas of the city. The Zoning map indicates current zoning, which puts certain restrictions or certain liberties on the use of the properties. The Public Hearing tonight will be about the Preferred Land Use Map, and the preferred land uses for the areas. The issue of zoning may come up later. The Commissioners decided to discuss the different areas individually, starting with the area with the largest public representation. Area #4 Kurt Hibbert said the zoning on this area is currently Low Density Residential 2. The Comprehensive Plan calls for Medium-High Density Residential land use. The applicant is requesting the Comprehensive Plan be changed to a Mixed Use designation which would allow zoning other than Low Density Residential. It would allow professional office and the PRO zone. Chairman Dyer asked Kurt to review the differences in the land use designations. Kurt Hibbert said the current designation allows single family zones (LDR1, LDR2) up to medium density zones. The mixed use allows any of the Low Density Residential zones, along with Professional Office and Residential Business District. Mary Haley asked if Residential Business District requires a house. Since this zone was designed to keep houses looking like houses, what if there is nothing there? Kurt Hibbert said there is nothing in the zone that would preclude a property owner from removing their home and building another one, but it would have to blend in with the neighborhood. He said mixed use designation allows Professional Office, Project Redevelopment Options, and Neighborhood Business District. It also allows all the Low Density Residential zones, except Low Density Residential 1. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Opposed: rd Steve Oakey: 25 S. 3 E. He represented the East Main Neighborhood Association. He thanked the Commission for their efforts. One of the indications of the proposal is that the East Main Neighborhood Association is a vigilantly group, but they are not. They are a volunteer, dues paying association that seeks out the best use to preserve our neighborhoods. They do not exert undue influence on any body. They do not represent every member in every dwelling in the community. There is no one decision that attends the association, but much discussion on a case by case basis. There is disagreement and agreement. On this particular issue, there was unanimous agreement that they should oppose this particular project. It stated in the proposal that without question this current situation is not the best use for the land, but this was not very well reasoned. There is no plan put forward and there is really nothing for them to grab onto as far as what would go into the development. They would prefer the buildings be residential dwellings. The applicant said there is a business directly across from the property and there are rentals in the neighborhood. These issues are law enforcement issues, and completely unrelated to what they are discussing here. Without question, a house will not yield as much cash as other buildings would on the property. However, the one thing they should discuss is that any construction completed on that site will have irreparable damage, harm or benefit to the neighborhood. Whatever is put there will in the future direct the uses of the surrounding residences. If they put residences there, it will strengthen the existing residences, and the people already there will be more likely to want to stay. Rentals existing there will probably not increase. If they 2 put commercial or mixed use there, there will be more willingness of other residences to sell or to convert into rentals, and they will see some deterioration of the neighborhood. This proposal was previously denied, and the applicant’s explanation was that the application was poorly represented. He thinks this still applies today, since there is no representation. The explanation of what affect this would have on the community is vague and non descriptive. They hope that in the best interest of the residences in the neighborhood, the commission will deny this request. The applicant says it has been very difficult to develop the property, but more than one person has offered to develop the parcel. There have been opportunities, and there will be opportunities to develop the parcel. They ask the Commission to reject this amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Written Input: - Letter from Bonnie Anderson, attached to the application. - Letter from Don Sparhawk, opposing this application. Rebuttal: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Thaine Robinson said he feels the same way he did six (6) months ago on this issue. The PRO zone offers a mechanism to develop the land. He feels strongly they should deny the request. Charles Andersen and Mary Haley agreed. David Stein motioned to reject this petition for a Comprehensive Plan change for area #4 for the reason that the board specifically crafted in connection with City Council the Project Redevelopment Option zone. East Main area is a prime target for this zone. It is vacant land and it would make a prudent use of a tool that was spent countless hours discussing. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Charles Andersen clarified the motion should be worded that they are recommending the motion. David Stein amended his motion to say they recommend to City Council to reject this particular request. Randall Porter seconded. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #9 Kurt Hibbert said the city had received petitions from some property owners, and then the city recommended the whole area be included in the discussion and public hearing. Judy Hobbs: Owner/broker of Realty Quest 117 W. Main Street. She is authorized to represent the owner of 172 nd and 178 E. 2 S. These properties are listed for sale. The difficulty with an aging neighborhood this close to the university is that many of the houses have been used as dormitory-style housing. The property owners along there that were not in the proper zone were given notices that as of the end of the semester, they could no longer rent with dormitory-style housing. Mr. Harrison decided to put his properties on the market as duplexes. However, the lots are too small for them even to be used as duplexes. She thinks the time and the life of those homes have passed that they will be able to be maintained as quality single family homes. They have been converted to rentals. They don’t have the character and care we all give to our personal homes. Mr. Harrison has reduced the prices on his properties so they probably will sell as single family residences. They ask this board to make changes so they can at least be used as duplexes. She believes the area will deteriorate more if they try to force these properties to be single family residences, because they simply aren’t going to sell to people who will give them the care they need. 3 Chairman Dyer said the proposal is to change the area from Low-Moderate Residential, which would allow homes of a more single family nature, to Moderate-High Residential land use designation. This would allow a little higher density, but still residential in character. David Stein asked Kurt what it was about the properties that would not allow a duplex. Kurt Hibbert said it is the lot size issue. There has to be enough square footage to allow for the required parking. The houses are almost all undersized on that side of the street. Mary Haley asked if the backyards on all the properties have been converted to parking. Kurt Hibbert said some of the owners have converted the backyard to parking. The advantage the properties have is that the parking is in the back by the alley. Chairman Dyer said the land use designations allow certain allowed zones. Kurt Hibbert said the zones allowed now are LDR1, LDR2, LDR3, RR1, RR2, and PRO zone. The change would allow the addition of MDR1, MDR2, HDR1, and HDR2. The Commissioners discussed the current situation of the homes. nd Chairman Dyer read a letter from John Harrison, owner of 172 and 178 E. 2 S., which was included in the Comprehensive Plan Amendment application. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: nd Aaron Romney: 53 Millhollow. He owns two (2) buildings on 2 S. and Cornell. He read from a prepared written statement he had previously submitted, stating his reasons for supporting the application. nd Sid Muir: 245 E. 2 S. He owns a home right by Romney’s. As back as far as the 1950s, they have always had duplex style housing in the homes. He is in favor of matching the other side of the street so they can continue what they have been doing. Neutral: Opposed: Randall Reed: 224 Cornell Ave. He opposes the change because there are students in these houses and there has been an increase in noise and traffic on their streets. Cornell already has a traffic problem being adjacent to the college. He feels this would increase the traffic problem for the residence on Cornell. A few elderly ladies that live on Cornell oppose this change. He bought the property to live there as a resident. They have college housing on the back of their property that is legal, so they are already facing the noise. This change would increase the noise. He questions when we are going to stop the housing moving into our residential areas. There is already ample housing for the students and this is just for financial gain. Written Input: Letter from Eugene Thompson opposing the change. Rebuttal: 4 Judy Hobbs reiterated the decline of that particular street. Cornell has done a beautiful job of taking care of the single family homes. The points have been good from the property owners on Cornell. There will not be an increase in students, but actually a decrease as some of the dormitory-style housing is replaced with simply duplexes. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Ted Hill asked Kurt Hibbert how the properties will qualify as moderate-high density if they don’t qualify as low- moderate density because of the square footage issue. Kurt Hibbert said the change will allow a possible increase of number of units per acre, if the owners applied for a zone change. They would have to provide the parking required. They would still be in trouble with dormitory-style housing. Mary Ann Mounts said the owners would still have to tear houses down or combine properties. Chairman Dyer said he sees merit in the proposal for some subsequent zones that could go on the property, but there are other zones allowed with that land use that would be troublesome. Mary Haley said Mr. Harrison knew what he was buying when he bought that property. For him to come back now and say he’s not making the money he needs… He knew that going in. He has made repairs to try to come into compliance, but we have single family residents on Cornell, and they plan to gradually build up to not have high density next to single family residents. She thinks duplexes are fine there, if they have been a continual use. There are people who are willing to put money into older homes. She doesn’t feel this would fit in well in this area with what they had planned. Chairman Dyer clarified that under the existing zoning, they are allowed duplexes if they get the right square footage. Mary Ann Mounts agreed with Mary Haley that this isn’t the best use for this property. Historically those homes are not that well taken care of when they have that many students. The homes have too many people living in them for their size. Mike Ricks stated his concern that they still will not have the square footage per lot that the applicant is asking for on the request. He wouldn’t go along with the change because of the size of the properties. David Stein said the vast majority of campuses in the country have older homes around the schools that are rentals. To him one of the common goods is to preserve the historic areas and historic homes. He is also sensitive to the fact that this is not always economically viable. We don’t have enough tools in our ordinance. Maybe we should look for a different zone for older homes around the college, since these homes are usually built on smaller lots. Just because a neighborhood has shifted to rental doesn’t mean it’s inappropriate to keep houses there. He is concerned that the proposal opens up the area for tearing down the houses and building apartments. He would be against it, but they have more work to do so they can preserve those homes. Kurt Hibbert said the question really is what the board visions on the street in the future. Right now, it is a mixed use neighborhood, even on Cornell. Many of those homes have dormitory-style housing in the basements right now. There is a conflict of land use. They have a single family neighborhood struggling to survive, but it has been mixed use. There is a threat from additional housing in the neighborhood. It is not a cut and dry situation. The question is whether the area is accurate on the map, or if the whole nature of the block should be changed. Also, is there a need for additional densification next to campus? Historically, the whole side of campus was a single family neighborhood. The community was once asked to open their doors to the students, because of a lack of student housing. At that time, every one complied with the request and not with the zoning. Joe Laird asked how we would be able to take care of the parking on the lots if this change was approved. Kurt Hibbert said Provo ran into this problem south of BYU. They had small lots, but none of the properties were able 5 to do anything to redevelop. That was initially why they developed the Project Redevelopment Option, to give incentive for the aggregation of properties and the densification of those neighborhoods to solicit reinvestment. Thaine Robinson said if we change it, we will have to make that tool change at a later point in time. Changing the land use designation won’t do any good at all. Kurt Hibbert said there is a business registration process opening up right now that might address some of the issues they are talking about. The ordinance itself makes provision for apartments to be granted adjacent to campus and may in some circumstances become pedestrian only apartments. This may be a tool the city can use to address some of these issues. Mary Haley motioned to recommend to City Council to deny this request to change the designation of area #9 from Low-Moderate Residential to Moderate-High Residential, for the reasons that they have problems there now, and changing the density on the Preferred Land Use map would not help any situation that has been brought to their attention. Charles Andersen seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #8 Kurt Hibbert said the city initiated this public hearing based on the Planning & Zoning Commission’s recommendation. We felt there were the same reasons for doing this that there was six (6) months ago. They want to see if anything has changed in the neighborhood, or if the neighbors would support this change. Mary Haley clarified this is exactly adjacent to the Stonebridge development, on the west edge. Chairman Dyer said the proposal is to change the tract currently designated as Moderate-High Residential to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Brett Hastings: He represents the developer of Stonebridge subdivision, which is immediately to the west of the area in question. One concern they have is this is the second time they haven’t received notification of the public hearing. They stand as a neutral party, although they have grave concerns. Obviously placing a commercial designation next to a residential piece of ground is something that is not very common. In their letter that is on record, they stated their concern that the placement of large commercial buildings may cast a shadow onto the th residences already built in Stonebridge. They are concerned about the proximity of a potential big box store to 7 th North. They could back onto 7 North and change the area significantly. Buffering is certainly an issue, but he thinks it could be done in a way that could enhance the area. They are concerned about how it would be buffered: with a wall, with landscape, how far the buildings would be place from the residential zone, how close any kind of th building would be placed to 7 North, how the parking lot would be handled. Lighting of the parking lot could become an issue. They have many questions, and that is why they are concerned about the change. They are not necessarily opposed to the change, but they cannot say they are in favor of it without knowing there would be significant restrictions placed on any kind of commercial activity that would happen there. They are planning to continue on with their subdivision. It is approximately fifty (50) acres, and will eventually hold as many as 140 to 150 homes. They are moving forward now with other phases of the development. It is a very nice neighborhood, 6 and they want it to stay that way. They are concerned with this proposal, and hope that if it is approved, it is approved with major conditions and restrictions on what could develop there. Opposed: Maxine Adair: She lives in Stonebridge, and her home is right over the fence from the area in question. She and her husband think it is a lovely neighborhood with young people and many children and has been absolutely delightful. When they moved here, they looked at many areas and homes, but settled into this, their dream home. nd Her husband enjoys the view out the back. He watches the sunset every single day. They can see 2 East, but the lights are far enough removed that they don’t bother them. The idea of having a noisy, boisterous, bright lighted area right beyond their fence is very sad to them. They understood when they moved in that there was a buffer zone there. She asked them to leave it the way it is if they can. She urged them to reject the proposal. Travis Blacker: 680 Meadowbrook. He read a prepared statement, expressing his concerns with the proposal. His concerns included increased traffic, safety for the children and increased crime. He presented a petition against the proposal, signed by many residents of the Stonebridge subdivision. He asked that the Planning & Zoning Commission understand their concerns, and vote against the proposal as the City Council did previously. Jay Warnick: 637 W. Stonebridge. He said he came with appreciation for the City Council’s unanimous vote six (6) months ago. Words of sympathy were expressed on the homeowners’ behalf. His bubble was burst to hear the city was the applicant of this proposal. He appreciates what has been said about buffers. He has been in the landscaping business for fifteen (15) years. They have all been in and around the big box stores and he thinks there is no buffer suitable to help them preserve the privacy and security they deserve. He agrees that Stonebridge is a great neighborhood and is developing. If this change were to take place, this positive development would cease, and the neighborhood would regress. Rebuttal: Kurt Hibbert said right now, as a point of information, the zoning adjacent to the neighborhood is Medium Density Residential 1. This allows sixteen (16) units per acre. He explained the buffering requirements on this zone, which is a minimum four (4) foot wide landscaping strip, and/or a suitable fence to be put around parking of more than five (5) vehicles. One thing the neighbors should be aware of is that the buffering requirements are much more restrictive on a commercial zone. A berm of no less than six (6) feet in height, containing a double row of evergreen or deciduous trees planted at specific intervals is required. Additional landscaping may be required by the Planning & Zoning Commission to affectively buffer adjacent land use as deemed appropriate. The commission would have a lot of latitude in a commercial zone that they don’t have in the residential zone. The MDR zone is pretty soft as far as buffering between zones. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Chairman Dyer declared a perceived conflict of interest because he has performed services in the recent past for the property owner and is currently employed by a neighbor. He excused himself from the table. Thaine Robinson was selected to act Chairman for this issue. Randall Porter asked Kurt Hibbert to explain why this property was originally designated Moderate-High Density on the Comprehensive Plan map, and why the city has asked that it be changed. Kurt Hibbert said the discussion was about having a large enough piece of land for a commercial development that would need additional depth. It was zoned MDR at the request of the property owner four (4) years ago. It is a stepping from Commercial to Medium Density Residential to Low Density Residential. Randall Porter said he thought this looked like a nice transition between the Low Density Residential neighborhood and a Commercial 7 neighborhood. Kurt Hibbert said from the City’s perspective, they have seen what can happen in MDR zones. There are instances all over the city where it is about as neighborhood friendly as an industrial site. There is a lot of concern about the impact on that neighborhood. They have better buffering capabilities with Commercial than they do with MDR. If the neighbors were aware of the density allowed by the MDR zone, they would be a lot more th concerned. 7 South is probably the best education in town on what can be done on an MDR property. Charles Andersen asked what had changed in the last six (6) months other than the buffer issue. Kurt Hibbert said the reason for the public hearing was to find out if anything had changed. Dan Hanna asked if Kurt Hibbert was authorized to make the presentation. They should have had someone from the city explain why they wanted to make this change, whereas six (6) months ago, the neighbors clearly understood the city was in agreement with them. Kurt Hibbert said the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended six (6) months ago that the change be made. The City Council denied it. Mary Haley said when they originally looked at the Preferred Land Use map, they decided the buffering from commercial to single family residential needed some kind of gradual step down. She doesn’t see a change there. She understands that they are looking for more campus type developments, but this is not the place for it. Not only does it have substantial residential there, but there is more planned. There are other areas where large campus-type commercial zoning could be used. She opposes the proposal. Joe Laird said they had quite a discussion in this area, and the need to step down the zoning from Commercial to MDR to LDR. He still believes this is the right way to do this, but he agrees with Kurt that they need to something much more than what they have as far as buffering MRD and LDR. David Stein said he doesn’t think anything has changed since this was denied six (6) months ago. Dan Hanna asked if it would be appropriate for Kurt Hibbert to quantify what affect sixteen (16) units per acre would have on the property. Kurt Hibbert said there are twenty-three (23) acres on the parcel, and with sixteen (16) units per acre, there could be 368 units on the parcel. Each unit would have two (2) cars. Dan Hanna said what they have heard is if a big box were placed here, the back would be to the East of this neighborhood. He believes there is very little traffic and noise in the back of those big box stores. From his perspective, the big box would not have that much of a negative impact on the neighbors in Stonebridge. Joe Laird motioned to recommend to City Council to deny this request to change the Preferred Land Use from Moderate-High Residential to Commercial for area #8. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Winston Dyer returned as chairman. Area #5 Kurt Hibbert said three (3) parcels were noticed for hearing: the parcel on the corner, the parcel behind it, and the single family residence behind that. The Commission received a letter from the owner of the home on the third parcel stating his desire to not be included in the change. Chairman Dyer said the proposal is to change this tract of land that is currently designated as Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map to Industrial. 8 rd Clint Galbraith: 64 S. 3 W. He said the application was to change this area to Industrial to bring it into conformity with the existing use. The use has been a cabinet shop for at least 38 years. This application includes the second property behind the existing cabinet shop in the land use, to make it all Light Industrial. This main property was initially zoned Community Business Center, and this body felt it would more appropriately fit into Light Industrial. The third property with the single family home was not intended to be included on the proposal. Chairman Dyer clarified the third parcel on the west was not intended to be included in the application. Kurt Hibbert said this is correct. The Flaker home was included in the legal description, but this was not the intent. Randall Porter asked if the applicant was the owner of the property in question. Clint Galbraith said yes, he owns the property in question. Joe Laird asked what the plan was for the area west of the cabinet shop. Clint Galbraith said he plans to have another building there for storage. The property is now vacant. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: th Amy Carol: 77 S. 5 W. #1300. She thinks it is appropriate for the area to be changed, since it has been light industrial use for many years. She sees no problems with changing the back parcel if it will be strictly for storage. The business just to the north is also of an industrial nature, so it shouldn’t have any affect there. Neutral: Lash Laker: He sold the applicant the lot, and if he didn’t want him to expand, he wouldn’t have sold it to him. He does not want his home to be included in the change. Opposed: Written Input: Letter from Mr. Laker requesting his property not be included in the proposal. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Ann Mounts said she is in favor of the proposal. The highest and best use as well as the preferred use on properties along the railroad is Light Industrial. Mary Haley agreed, but she would like to pull Mr. Laker’s property off the application. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change area #5 to Light Industrial on the Preferred Land Use map, but to not include the westerly parcel in the change. Mary Haley seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Area #3 and #6 The Commissioners decided to treat both areas simultaneously. 9 Chairman Dyer said both areas are currently designated Agriculture on the Preferred Land Use map. One piece is designated Industrial. They are proposed to be change to Commercial Preferred Land Use. Louis Clements: He represents most of the property in area #3. He said it is quite obvious with the highway interchange there that this area of Rexburg is going to develop as Commercial, so it needs to have a Commercial nd designation. This would allow this land to be used in accordance with rest of 2 East. Mary Haley asked if this proposal included the Century Farm. Louis Clements said this is part of the Hegsted property. Four Hegsted siblings own property and are in favor of the change. Randall Porter asked if the request is for the entire farm, or if there are parts of the farm that are not included in the request. Louis Clements said the circular part at the top belongs to Bruce Shirley, and he has asked to be included in any change requested. Randall Porter asked if there is any other property owned by the Hegsted family. Louis Clements said there is one resident there that he does not represent. Randall Porter asked who owns the property to the west. Louis Clements said it is owned by Kazuo Sakota. Chairman Dyer asked if this would take in all their property. It would. He asked what the dimensions on the said it was 107 acres. property are. Louis Clements Kurt Hibbert said they mirror-imaged the parcel on the other side, so the dimensions are the exact same on both sides. Dan Hanna asked if there was an application on area #6. Kurt Hibbert said the City included this area. They felt if there was a change on one side, there should be a change on the other. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Louis Clements stated that they are in favor of this proposal. Neutral: Opposed: Written Input: Letter from Louis Clements in favor of the proposal. E-mail from John Hegsted in favor of the proposal. Letter with the signatures of the owners of the Hegsted and Clements properties requesting the change be made. Letter from Wanda Harris Chairman Dyer noted this letter addresses the annexation issue, not the Comprehensive Plan issue. Letter from Jan Gallup with remarks on area #3 and #6. Rebuttal: Louis Clements said he had never heard a lot of the things in the letter from Jan Gallup, and he didn’t know it was bad to thank city officials for taking care of the city. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. 10 Mary Ann Mounts said she stands by her old recommendation as pointed out in the letter. She thinks it is the obvious thing that is going to have to happen. Thaine Robinson said he agrees, they do want commercial there, so they should show that on the Preferred Land Use map. Mary Haley said the size now proposed is better than what was proposed before. She has researched more into it, and she feels if they want something other than strip malls, they should make places available for campus-type developments. Chairman Dyer said he agreed, if they didn’t do this with the right geometry, they would facilitate one type of development over another. Joe Laird said we didn’t really know what would happen on the interchange. We felt it would no doubt preferably be commercial, but they didn’t know how wide it should be. If they do get the campus-type development, the dimensions will be very good. On the other hand, they could still get the commercial development right along the highway, and it would be no different than what was discussed before. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change areas #3 and #6 to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Mary Haley seconded the motion. Dan Hanna asked if area #6 also included a proposed change to Light Industrial. Kurt Hibbert said a portion of the parcel is Industrial on the Preferred Land Use map. On the Zoning map, there is quite a bit of Industrial out there. They would basically be pairing it back and replacing it with Commercial land use designation. Area #6 is a mix of Agricultural and Industrial right now. Chairman Dyer commented if we keep chasing the industrial out now, he wonders where it is going to go. Kurt Hibbert said the zoning would stay on the property until there was an application for a zone change. This proposal only changes the Comprehensive Plan map. Randall Porter asked if they superimposed the area and dropped it into the middle of Rexburg, they are almost doubling the Commercial area in the City of Rexburg. He asked if they need this much Commercial property, or if they are changing too much. Chairman Dyer said they probably will have too much Commercial, but how do they split someone’s property up? Randall Porter asked what they will do when someone wants to build medium density or high density housing in that area. He asked if they should look at the area incrementally, instead of bringing it all in at once. Chairman Dyer pointed out there is protection in that any further action has to come forward as a requested zone change. Mary Ann Mounts said they talked about the possibility of frontage roads, and if they go deep enough, it would allow for that. David Stein called for the question. 11 Those in favor: Those opposed: Winston Dyer Joe Laird Mary Ann Mounts David Stein Mary Haley Thaine Robinson Charles Andersen Ted Hill Mike Ricks Dan Hanna Randall Porter abstained. Motion carried. Areas #1 and #2 Kurt Hibbert said this request came from discussions in an earlier Planning & Zoning meeting. This entails eventually extending University Boulevard up onto the hill. The Comprehensive Plan map shows University Boulevard also extending eventually to the west. They have already initiated development with Rexburg Motor Sports, and some other new facilities. All this is currently zoned Commercial. With this change, all four quadrants at the interchange would become Commercial. They want public input on the issue. Chairman Dyer said the areas are currently designated as Low-Moderate Residential, and it is proposed that they be changed to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Mike Ricks asked who owns one of the properties. Kurt Hibbert said it is the school district’s property. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Opposed: Written Input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Ann Mounts asked if the school had been notified. Kurt Hibbert said he and the Mayor had a discussion with Mr. Thomas about this, and he did not object to this proposal. Mike Ricks said the property on the north should be used for the building of schools, since the school district has purchased it. Chairman Dyer asked if the property could still be used for a school. Kurt Hibbert said you can build a school in virtually any of our zones. Randall Porter said his same argument applies on this issue. We have enough Commercial property for two or three more Rexburgs. There is no plan here for infill and gradually working our way to these properties. 12 Thaine Robinson asked if they had talked about the land use allowing multi-housing developments out there. Charles Andersen said as it is currently designated Agricultural, someone could go out there and put apartments in. He asked if we want more High-Density Residential in that area. Joe Laird said we had indicated we would probably need more commercial development on this interchange because what we had there was very limited. This is the same problem they had on the North interchange. The addition of two small areas would indicate that we recognize that is going to go commercial in some form. They should show they know it will not remain agricultural or single family dwellings. Mike Ricks said the area to the north would be better as school buildings than as commercial. Dan Hanna said a few years ago, he had a conversation with Winston Dyer about the future of Rexburg and what was going to happen commercially. Everyone was quite concerned about sprawl. In Idaho Falls there is a lot of fragmentation of retail. No one will do very well. He asked if we going to let it sprawl all over in Rexburg. David Stein said optimally commercial developments are always around major intersections. Rexburg is one of the fastest growing cities in the state, and Idaho is one of the fastest growing states in the country. We should have some large parcels designated commercial to allow more regional type centers. He is in favor of the proposal. Charles Andersen motioned to recommend to City Council to change the designation of areas #1 and #2 to Commercial on the Preferred Land Use map. Joe Laird seconded the motion. Those in favor: Those opposed: Winston Dyer Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson Randall Porter Mary Ann Mounts Mary Haley Ted Hill Dan Hanna Charles Anderson Joe Laird David Stein Motion carried. Area #7 Kurt Hibbert said where the road would extend out of Stonebridge Subdivision, the idea was to not leave a little remnant of multi family, but to make it single family. Staff felt it was still a good idea, regardless of any other decisions in the area. Chairman Dyer pointed out that to the west is commercial designation. Kurt Hibbert said the proposal is to change the area from Medium-High Density Residential designation to a Low- Medium Density Residential designation. Mary Ann Mounts asked if the city was the applicant on this proposal. Kurt Hibbert said this is correct. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: 13 Neutral: Opposed: Written input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. The Commissioners discussed the area in question. Thaine Robinson said this is such a small piece of ground that he would prefer just leave it the way it is. Charles Andersen said they are pulling at little strings that really are not issues. Kurt Hibbert said it is all about presentation of the map. This is really just a house keeping issue. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to change area #7 from a Medium-High Density Residential designation to a Low-Medium Density Residential designation on the Preferred Land Use map. David Stein seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Chairman Dyer called for a 5 minute break. st 7:30 PM – Rezone request from MDR1 and CBC to LI at 330 West 1 South (Interwest Cabinet) rd Clint Galbraith 64 S. 3 W. They would like to rezone the property to Light Industrial so they could build a storage building behind the cabinet shop. Dan Hanna asked if this would affect parking in the area. Clint Galbraith said only in that they are required to have a certain number of parking spaces for employees, and they have enough parking planned. Kurt Hibbert clarified that the two (2) parcels currently have different zones, but they are both requested to be changed to Light Industrial. Chairman Dyer opended the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Opposed: Written Input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. st Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the zone change at 330 West 1 South and rd 64 South 3 West to Light Industrial. Randall Porter seconded the motion. 14 None opposed. Motion carried. th 7:45 PM – Rezone request from RR1 to CBC at Highway 33 and 12 West – (My Storage and Neighbors) Dave Christensen: Owner of one of the parcels and applicant for the zone change. He said he is not here to discuss the specific use of the property, but for the request for a zone change from Rural Residential to Community Business Center. Kurt Hibbert pointed out this request does conform to the Comprehensive Plan, and the existing uses will be recognized as grandfathered once this zone is applied. All businesses on the land will be able to continue as they have. City Attorney Zollinger said he has met with the other two (2) owners of the land on the application, and they both continue to support this request. Randall Porter asked if the applicant meets all the lot size requirements. Kurt Hibbert said it varies. Some lots conform and some don’t. Right now CBC is the only zone we can apply in the impact area until the County adopts Ordinance 926. City Attorney Zollinger said these lots would be considered conforming when they are rezoned, since they are formed before the zone change. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: Neutral: Sid Pierce: Owner of a house next to the application. He asked what is allowed in CBC. Kurt Hibbert said he could look it up in Ordinance 926. City Attorney Zolllinger said it is generally businesses type uses. Rick Hill: He lives in front of Sid Pierce. He is concerned with hooking up to the city sewer and water, and if they will eventually have to too. He doesn’t want to be in the city limits. Opposed: Written Input: Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Mary Ann Mounts said they don’t have any reasons of safety or traffic to deny the change. David Stein said he is in favor since it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Mary Haley said it is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. It is also consistent with what is already there. She has no objections. Chairman Dyer said later on when development proposals come forward, there would be some issues that need to be discussed. 15 th David Stein motioned to recommend to the County Commission to rezone the properties on 12 West from Rural Residential to Community Business Center. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. Motion carried. None opposed. New Business: Unfinished/Old Business Compliance: Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: Report on Projects: Tabled requests: th A. Rezone request from RR to LDR2 at 1139 East 9 North – (Mark Liebel) B. Preliminary Plat – Riverwoods Townhomes, Div. 2 Dan Hanna motioned to pick the Preliminary Plat for Riverwoods Townhomes, Division 2 up off the table. Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion Carried. Brandon Jenks said they are classifying this as a Planned Unit Development. As for architectural style, they will mirror the development across the street. They will extend the Home Owner’s Association from the development across the street. The required maintenance building has been built on the other property. Their covenants specifically state you can park nothing there for more than 48 areas, so they don’t need storage areas. The ordinance calls for four (4) visitor parking spaces. They have looked at different options. The only option that would work would be to put them on the ends of the units, which would eventually put parking between buildings. They don’t want this. With the uniqueness of the lot, the best bet is to keep the parking where it is with some type of specific accommodation for this property. He has discussed this with John Millar and Kurt Hibbert, and they are in favor of this. Kurt Hibbert said since most of the parking is out of the setback, they could accommodate it rather than try to place it somewhere else on the lot. City staff felt it would negatively impact the streetscape to put parking on the sides of the buildings. Also, since this is all part of the same home owner’s association, he actually has excess parking than what is required with what is already across the street. They felt it would be better to have this here on this lot as well. Mike Ricks mentioned it was suggested to change the driveway from 22 feet to 24 or 30. Brandon Jenks said they would be willing to do this if this is required. David Stein asked if the area to the east belongs to the applicant. Brandon Jenks said this belongs to Bagleys, and they have landscaped it. It looks nice, and they would like to leave it they way it is. Kurt Hibbert stated his appreciation for the developers addressing the code very specifically. 16 Chairman Dyer clarified for the Commissioners not present at the last meeting that the request had been tabled because of the parking in the front yard setback. Kurt Hibbert said they have excess parking on the other side of the road that would fulfill the requirement, but they would rather have some guest parking on this side of the road as well. The encroachment of the setback is on the rear of the structures, on what might be considered an alley way. They felt this is a better option that trying to move it between the structures. David Stein asked what justification they have to approve this. Chairman Dyer said they discussed it at length, and this property is surrounded by streets on three (3) sides, which makes it difficult to keep parking out of the front yard setback. City Attorney Zollinger said the developer doesn’t need these parking spaces at all. The City has always had and maintains the right to allow parking in the setback per agreement. Chairman Dyer said the Commission has major concerns with this. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve the Preliminary Plat for Riverwoods Townhomes, Division 2 without the guest parking. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. Those in favor: Those opposed: Winston Dyer Mary Haley Mary Ann Mounts Joe Laird Dan Hanna Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson Charles Andersen Ted Hill David Stein Randall Porter Motion Carried. Building Permit Application Report: None Heads Up: Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 11:00 pm. 17