Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES AUGUST 17, 2006 Planning & Zoning Minutes August 17, 2006 12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020 Rexburg, ID 83440 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Rex Erickson – Council Member John Millar – Public Works Director Winston Dyer – Chairman Emily Abe – Secretary Mike Ricks Randall Porter Dan Hanna Thaine Robinson David Stein Mary Haley Ted Hill Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:06 pm. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners Ted Hill, Randall Porter, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, David Stein, Mary Haley, Mike Ricks Charles Andersen was excused. Minutes: A. Planning and Zoning meeting – August 3, 2006 Corrections: P. 3 – Under Chairman Dyer’s comments, change “since it didn’t need access to the street” to “since it was not on the street.” Thaine Robinson motioned to approve the minutes for August 3, 2006 as amended. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Mary Haley and Ted Hill abstained for not having been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 7:05 PM – Conditional Use Permit for Dormitory Style Housing at 276 and 264 Steiner Avenue Alicia Thornburg 264 Steiner Avenue, owner and applicant. They are proposing to put in a parking lot where there is an existing concrete pad to accommodate dormitory housing in the basements of the duplex homes. Families will live in the upstairs of both homes, and there will be three (3) to five (5) students in the basements of the homes on rd 264 and 276 Steiner Avenue. The home at 366 West 3 South will remain a single family home. All the homes 1 have been inspected for life safety requirements. They have all been approved. There is plenty of room for parking and green space. rdrd Mary Haley said 276 faces Steiner and 366 faces 3 South, and the 3 South building has a cement pad in the back. Alicia Thornburg said the 276 home has the concrete pad that is existing. This is where a shop used to sit. The pad belongs to 276 Steiner. All the parking is on the property of 276 Steiner. We are proposing that the traffic enters rd on 3 South as a one way continuing through and exiting on Steiner Avenue. Because the traffic is exiting, not entering, on Steiner Avenue, they feel this will not cause more traffic on Steiner Ave. Ted Hill asked if there will be enough parking. Alicia Thornburg said there are ten (10) parking stalls along the back for the students. The isles are wider than required for the 90 degree parking. Ted Hill asked if the parking would be buffered between the adjoining neighbors. Alicia Thornburg said there will be a fence going in along the 264 Steiner Ave. property line. There is also an existing fence along the back of the rd properties. There is also a fence along 366 W. 3 S. They are putting in a six foot privacy fence along the setback against 264 Steiner’s property line. Thaine Robinson asked if this would be non-student housing, since the College rules prohibit families and students being together. They can’t have non-managing families above students, or vice versa. Alicia Thornburg said they wanted to make sure everything was compliant with the City before they went to the school for approval. rd Chairman Dyer asked what the existing uses have been. Alicia Thornburg said her sister will live in 366 W. 3 S. after she gets married. There have been families in the upstairs and downstairs in 276 Steiner. She has lived in 264 Steiner, and her brother and his friend have lived in the basement. She said they have been renovating the homes. 264 was completely renovated a year and a half ago. They are currently renovating 276, and 366 was completely renovated a year ago. Because of the winter months, they haven’t been able to finish the landscaping, but they are doing it now. They will have it completed before winter this year. Dan Hanna arrived at 7:25 pm. Thaine Robinson asked how they will control one-way traffic. Alicia Thornburg said they will paint to show that rd it is one-way, and they will also post “do not enter” signs on the Steiner access and “entrance only” on the 3 South access. Thaine Robinson said that is a lot of signs for a residential neighborhood. Mike Ricks said when you paint and stripe on the pavement, it is covered for many months out of the year. Mary Haley asked if Alicia would be responsible for managing the dormitory apartments. Alicia Thornburg said rd she would. 366 West 3 South will remain a single family home. David Stein asked if the apartments will be sharing parking lot. Alicia Thornburg said the homes each have a parking spot in the garage and one in the driveway. They will share the ten (10) parking spots on the asphalt in the back. David Stein asked if the lots have been joined, or are they two separate parcels. Alicia Thornburg said they are two separate parcels. They will put in the contract that the tenants will abide by the parking and one-way traffic. She will be there to regulate it. Mike Ricks asked how many students will be in each home. Alicia Thornburg said they have the capacity for five (5), but are planning to rent to three (3) with private rooms. John Millar commented on the staff review of the proposal. He said generally speaking, the site plan meets requirements. The issues were that all storm drainage needs to be retained on site. The site plan appears to discharge the storm water onto the street. Sanitary collection needs to be identified. The third property is not 2 included in the proposal for dormitory housing. The existing zoning is MDR1. Dormitory housing is allowed in this zone with a conditional use permit. Chairman Dyer asked if there are other conditional use permits for dormitory housing in the area. The property at rd 336 West 3 South, directly across the street from the proposed property, has a conditional use permit for dormitory housing. David Stein said the code does not allow parking in the front yard setback. John Millar said there is an allowance for one location to be counted in front of the garage, which is what this site plan shows. David Stein asked if the two properties could share the parking. John Millar said we would need to have an executed joint use agreement between the two facilities, so it would run with the property. Chairman Dyer said you could share parking within a certain distance, and this application is well within that distance. Mary Haley asked how many single family homes are left in the neighborhood. Alicia Thornburg said there are three (3) on Steiner Avenue. Randall Porter asked if the homes had been rented to two (2) families. Alicia Thornburg said they did, but right now they are vacant for remodeling. John Millar said duplexes are allowed in this zone as long as they are family units, but when it goes to dormitory housing, a conditional use permit is required. Mary Haley said we have asked that the sanitary collection be screened. She asked if they have shown how they will do that. John Millar said typically smaller units have two (2) or three (3) 90 gallon containers. We do not require screening on 90 gallon containers. Chairman Dyer said the question before the Commission is shall a Conditional Use Permit be issued to allow dormitory style housing in the basements of these two (2) properties. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: None Neutral: rd Bonnie Garner; owner of a dormitory style house at 326 West 3 South. She said they learned the hard way that simply having a young married couple on top in a managerial capacity does not prevent that property from becoming an eye sore. The first two (2) years they rented this way, and they were in compliance as far as they knew. The first couple they had as managers did a pretty good job. The second couple let weeds grow over the fence, and they hardly knew what was going on. She and her husband knew they wanted to come live here, but that convinced them to move. They have done a good job keeping up the property. She said it is one thing to have a newly married couple say they will handle it. This may last for a couple of years, but when you have circulating managers on top, the property looks go down. They don’t maintain things the way an owner would. She wonders if they realize that the couple on top have to be certified as managers through the college. Just from experience, she has seen the character of the properties go down that have not been maintained in ownership style. Apartment complexes have the money for upkeep, but this is different. Residential property values go down when the owner is not in residence. Opposed: Fred Calder; 244 Steiner Avenue. He has owned this property for the last 34 years. They have loved living on Steiner Avenue and have raised their eight children there. They consider living in Rexburg to be an honor. When 3 they moved here, they knew they were moving to a good family oriented community. However, many things have changed over the years. Most changes have been for the good. Rexburg has a bright future. Steiner Avenue was designed some 37 years ago, when engineering requirements for road installation were not as high as they are today. New road construction under today’s regulations is required to have 5 feet of sidewalk on both sides, 7 feet of landscaping, and 44 feet of pavement. New road construction must have set aside not less than 68 feet. When Steiner was designed, 34 feet was set aside for the street. No allowance was made for sidewalks or landscaped strips. No allowance was made for a turn around. It is simply a dead end. Steiner Avenue is a very narrow street, with questionable parking capacity, and no turn around. Mary Haley said she used his driveway to turn around earlier that day. Fred Calder said if a car should come down the street, it would use the driveways to turn around. That is okay, they have enjoyed the area and had no objections to the public doing that. It is a design flaw. He is personally acquainted with Mr. Steiner, the builder of the subdivision. He indicated that it was necessary to make the street narrow at the time to make the building lot fit the proper dimensions. The conclusion is that Steiner was not designed with utilization in mind, it was designed with the intent of maximizing profits. If a plot plan for Steiner Avenue were to be submitted today for approval, it would be flatly turned down by the engineering department. Yesterday’s approvals by Planning & Zoning committees, we live with today. We have lived with this. Nevertheless, living on Steiner Avenue has been a blessing. There has been very little traffic and lots of room for children to play. Over the years they have paid their mortgage off, and are looking forward to many years of retirement. Steiner Avenue and the adjoining blocks of property, clear to the college, are zoned MDR1, meaning medium density apartments can be built and operated. Since Ricks College has expanded to a four (4) year University, many things have changed. Many homes are being converted to apartment dwellings for student living. Even though when converting to an apartment adequate parking is required by the city, vehicle parking becomes a major problem. Students simply park wherever is most convenient. In this case, we have parking that will come in and park on the pad. But, the cars park here and back up near the house and come out between the two homes. As he saw the presentation, he took it that there was 10 feet allowable between the two homes. This is a narrow strip of land for a car to get through. They will be coming out on Steiner Avenue. It will be the natural tendency for the students to come from the college down here and park along Steiner Avenue. They have seen this done, since more student housing has come to this neighborhood. This is not something they say they might see in the future, this is already happening. Some homes in the area have student housing, but have not been approved. Students simply park wherever is convenient. Steiner Avenue is no exception. We have gone from a few cars to many cars park on the street. If the committee approves this Conditional Use Permit, it would open the door for all property owners to apply and get the same privilege. Steiner would go from little parking to full parking on both sides of the street. This would be a big problem. The problem would be that full parking would present unacceptable conditions for emergency vehicle access and egress from such a narrow street. If the streets are full, and the driveways are full, where would an ambulance or fire truck turn around and make a timely exit? These questions need to be addressed. The Planning & Zoning Commission is under obligation as described in the Planning & Zoning manual, to avoid undue concentration of population and overcrowding of land and to ensure safety from fire, and to provide adequate open spaces for light and air. He believes that if this is granted, than all people should have the same privilege. They are setting up a situation where catastrophe could happen with emergency vehicles. The street is so narrow, that there is an increased possibility of traffic accidents, including injury of small children. The Commission would be responsible for that if that should happen. As far as he can determine, the purpose of the subject property owners to request a Conditional Use Permit is to maximize profit. This is the only reason that has been brought up. To allow a Conditional Use Permit for the purpose of maximizing profits is wrong. He asked the Commission to please vote for the right purpose. Their vote has forever lasting effects on our good city. He urged them to vote no for the sake of the citizens on Steiner Avenue, and for the whole good of the citizens of Rexburg. Written Input: Letter from Amy Hanks, 253 Steiner Avenue, opposing the proposal. 4 Rebuttal Alicia Thornburg addressed the maintaining of the properties by younger couples. She is a graduate of BYU-Idaho. She has lived here for ten (10) years. She loves the school and she loves the City, that is why she has continued to reside here past her graduation. She has managed Shelborne Apartments, and she has managed Breckinridge Apartments. She has been approved through the school and endorsed as a manager. She has managed for 2 ½ years before they purchased these properties. Also, there is twenty (20) feet between the homes where the proposed driveway is. It is not a narrow area, there is plenty of room for exit only. In the time that she has lived here, almost two (2) years, she hasn’t noticed an abundance of off street parking at all. In Mrs. Hank’s remarks, she mentioned the yard not being kept. The lawn at 264 Steiner is kept, and is beautiful and green. The property at 276 has been torn up for sprinklers, and the front yard at 366 has been graded and they have removed some trees to improve the yards. They will finish this landscaping this summer. This will not be a problem in the future, since she will be there to maintain it, and she is a homeowner. She will also maintain the other properties. She takes great pride in her homes, and wants them to be appealing to the neighborhood. They have put in sidewalks at 366, and on 276 they are existing. They have spoken to the City about how they would like them to put in the sidewalks on 264. This will be put in this summer also. Also, the garbage man backs into the street. The owner of 244 Steiner owns a bus that he also backs down the street. It doesn’t seem a problem to do this daily. They are providing parking behind the homes for any emergency vehicle. They will have adequate space to reach these homes. Mike Haney, Alicia Thornburg’s father. He is a general contractor in Portland Oregon. They purchased these homes for their kids so they could live here while they attend the College. They have taken down the trees that were planted too close to the sidewalks. The homes have been completely renovated. They were terribly kept up when they bought them. One had been repossessed. Chairman Dyer asked Mike Haney to confine his comments to rebuttal, rather than introducing new testimony. Mike Haney said standard street width for a residential area is 32 feet, not 34. This allows for off-street parking. Even with cars parked on both sides of the street, they have 20 feet for a car or any emergency vehicle to go down. This meets all requirements for residential areas. There is plenty of room in the back to enclose the garbage. Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Randall Porter asked John Millar to review the width of the road and the road requirements. John Millar said the road appears to be 32 to 34 feet, which is substandard for current requirements. If they had a car parked on both sides of the street, it would only allow for one car to go through. It would allow an open access way for at least one vehicle. Randall Porter asked if it would be large enough for emergency vehicles. John Millar said it would. David Stein said the standard says we don’t have to grant a Conditional Use Permit. It is a right with the property, but it can be denied if it seems that a particular development would create a nuisance or safety hazard for neighboring properties or generate traffic in excess of capacity on public streets. The design should be harmonious with existing characteristics of the neighborhood. What concerns him is that this is still, while it is zoned MDR, a predominantly duplex area, not a dormitory style housing neighborhood. He recognizes there is one on the corner, but that is the only one that has been permitted. He doesn’t want to change the character of the neighborhood. Our experience with dormitory housing is that unfortunately, people don’t park where they are asked to park. They park where it is convenient. Mike Ricks said it looks like the driveway is within 3 feet of the house. If someone had a fight and drove out of here in a rage, someone could get hit walking by the house. Mary Haley said she has known Steiner Avenue for several years now. She reacquainted herself on the current status of the road. It has not changed. It is a very narrow street. She had to use Mr. Calder’s driveway today 5 because there is nowhere else to make a turnaround. She waited to come back out of Steiner, because there was a car parked in front of 263, and there were 3 other cars parked on the west side. Someone was coming in to Steiner. She had to wait to come out. She is quite familiar with dormitory housing. Whether the dormitory housing has sufficient parking for themselves is one thing, but for their guests, it is quite another. She doesn’t see any guest parking there. This means guests will park where they can, which will be the street. Young marrieds living on the top of both houses tend to have friends come and visit. Students have friends come visit, and there is no extra parking for them. Duplexes are okay here, but dormitory housing is too crowded for this street. Randall Porter said whenever a home is turned into an apartment, there is not enough revenue generated to take care of the upkeep. Wherever you see a dead lawn, or no lawn, or a lawn full of dead weeds, you can pick it out as a rental unit. He is not saying this would go this way, but this is a general problem throughout the city. His feeling is that before we continue to permit these requests, we should look at the ordinance and see what can be done to get the existing landlords to keep their properties cleaned up. This road is quite narrow, and he would hate to see this proposal shoehorned into an already tight situation. Dan Hanna asked if we have any statistics into how many students have cars. John Millar said originally parking was required at 0.4 ratio, then 0.7. Now it is one stall per individual in dormitory housing. Some students have no cars, some have two or three with a trailer. Dan Hanna asked if there are any plans to remedy Steiner Avenue. John Millar said there really is no way to do it. Chairman Dyer said when the University announced, there was an effort to encourage private sector to step up and provide for married student housing as opposed to getting the University involved in that particular business. This was one of the driving factors in changing the zoning. In the underlying MDR zone, this Conditional Use is a right associated with the zone. It is a right that is associated with the property owners. There are other properties in the neighborhood that have already applied for and received this particular right. He struggles with some being able to do this and others not. He also recognizes the street issues. Thaine Robinson said looking out a few years from now, if we decide to do this, this area will not look the same. The area will be rental units from there to the tracks. Mary Haley said she understands the concern about some being granted this Conditional Use Permit and others not, but as a Commission, they have the welfare of the whole property, not each individual property owner in mind. She thinks this is perhaps a first-come, first-serve situation. If you get in first, and there is enough room for you, there is not going to be enough room for everyone to have dorm housing on the street. If you provide enough parking for your tenants only, you still create a hazard on the road for visiting guests. You would have to make this an “owner-only” parking street. Duplexes are perfectly acceptable there. Married couples without any children will more than likely have two cars. David Stein motioned to deny the Conditional Use Permit at 264 and 276 Steiner Avenue because the introduction of dormitory housing further into this neighborhood is not harmonious with the existing character of the neighborhood. The street construction is substandard, potentially introducing a safety hazard as density of the street increases. Mary Haley seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Rex Erickson said to make sure the applicant knows that they have the right of appeal this decision to City Council. 6 th 7:10 PM – Rezone from RR1 to MDR1 at 1000 West 7 South (Timberhawk, Inc.) Trever Einerson; 82 Douglas Drive; Superintendant for Timberhawk Construction. He passed out pictures of the th property in question. He pointed out the property they have purchased, from 7 South to Willowbrook Subdivision, on the map. Most of it is zoned Medium Density Residential 1. Their development is entry level condominiums. They want to sell to entry level students, or young families that are just starting out here in Rexburg. The whole area is MDR1. The property is question used to be an old homestead. The old owners tore the old trailer down and left a large pile of the leftovers. The weeds were chest high. They purchased the property August 1 and came up to start working on the property. They have cleaned up the front area and taken out some trees that were a hazard. They cleaned it up for a park they would like to put in. They would like to put in a clubhouse on an angle, similar to the design of what The Village Apartments used. They would like to put one (1), possibly two (2), more 4-plexes in the area. The rest of the area would be devoted to a park. They currently have a six (6) foot privacy vinyl fence going along the highway. They also have fences along the back of the property. The previous owner built a very square box which would not meet the design standards currently required. They have changed the design and would like to put buildings here for a model home, and to cover portion of the other plain buildings. This will be very complimentary to the neighboring developments. They want to change it to Medium Density Residential 1. There is only one little section that was not zoned MDR1, because they had not purchased the property at the time. Chris Jaussi; Vernal, Utah, Owner of Timberhawk Construction. They submitted the conceptual drawing before they had purchased the property. It was very conceptual when they submitted it. The idea of the clubhouse and the park won’t change. What might change is how they can configure the units. They are first trying to get the zone changed, and then decide how to do the one (1) or two (2) units. Mary Haley said right now there is a road on the South end of the existing 4-plexes. It comes between the zone change. She asked if they are planning to keep it open, or to close it. Chris Jaussi said it would remain open. John Millar said staff reviewed the proposal, and did not have a lot of comments. They felt this would conform to the Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommends that the Commission allow this request. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion. In favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion. Chairman Dyer reminded the Commission that the question before them is shall this particular piece of property be rezoned from Rural Residential 1 to Medium Density Residential 1. If it is rezoned, without any particular stipulations, there is no guarantee that the things that we have seen here tonight would be the case. It would entirely possible for the entire parcel to be developed in accordance with the underlying density, which is 16 units per acre. David Stein said the property was before the Commission before, when the previous owner wanted to expand the units further back. At the time, they did not own this front lot, and there was an access issue. It was strongly encouraged that he develop a second access to the properties. 7 Dan Hanna asked what security they have that this will be developed as it has been represented. Chairman Dyer said they have made zone changes in the past upon the condition that the property be developed as presented. If it does not follow that, then it reverts back to the previous zone. Chairman Dyer said he thinks this is entirely appropriate for this property to be changed to MDR1. With the entryway, the freeway visibility, he would like to see that we get what has been presented instead of eight (8) more units. Mary Haley said they approve things as a Commission, and they just assume that what they approve is going to happen. As she has watched this property, she realized there had been a change of owners here. The privacy fence they wanted for buffering along the highway has finally gone up. The driveway on the west side feels twice as wide as the one on the east side. She is concerned about trash collection, since there is no screening of that right now. The upkeep on the property has degraded over the years, at no fault of current owner. As we talked to the previous owner, it was also his idea to put in a clubhouse. Our standards are different. The new housing cannot look like the old housing. She thinks this is appropriate for the area there. Mike Ricks said he thinks this is a good idea, but he would like to see stipulations that they will build what has been indicated. This is an appropriate zone. We should maybe put something in there to tie them to no more density that what is shown. Chairman Dyer said he would not like it to be too restrictive, but maybe stipulate the positive aspects. Dan Hanna motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the zone change on this 1.24 acres with the stipulations that the development follow the concept and density presented. Randall Porter seconded the motion. Randall Porter suggested we be more specific on the stipulation and specify the drawing presented to them and dated July 14, 2006. Mary Haley said she doesn’t believe they can stipulate the density. If this is approved, the density is set. John Millar said whatever density is allowed in MDR1 would be allowed. Dan Hanna said the developers have demonstrated enough responsibility and commitment to earn his trust that they will do what they have presented. David Stein said if they had never even seen the drawing, this would be an appropriate area for MDR1. It would be preferred that the developer would do a concept like this, but he doesn’t feel they should tie them to it in the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. Unfinished/Old Business: A.American Construction Supply Building – Greg Stoddard Chairman Dyer said the Design Review Committee has been involved in discussion on a proposed building in the Airport Business Park. There are some concerns about the situation there that would go beyond what the Design Review Committee can handle, Greg Stoddard was invited to come and indicate his particular concerns. Greg Stoddard, representing the Cedar Falls development company and the DEPATCO construction company. He thanked the Commissioners for their time. Two years ago, they had clients looking to rent or purchase 8 buildings to use for wholesale, warehousing, etc. At that time, there was about one commercial park in town. The setbacks allowed were not conducive to their development. The City has since realigned the property lines and made the lots bigger. They could not find any lots in town that would work for the buildings they wanted to build. They found a location by the freeway on Jet Stream Drive. They looked at the land and what was going on in the area at the time. The airport, the city treatment plant, the county shops and equipment, a Light Industrial Zoned area, and Pioneer Equipment were all in the area. They felt this was the best place in Rexburg for their development. Some of the lots are under an acre, and a couple are an acre and a half. At that time, they had one client, Platt Electric, who wanted a building. They negotiated with them, bought the ground, and did the development for them. They had other clients that were very similar to Plat Electric. They need a very inexpensive building to warehouse and wholesale their supplies. Less expensive buildings are usually not made of mortar and brick, but more of a metal building type construction. They built a metal building for Plat Electric. Since then, Platt has bought seven (7) of the lots. When they did the subdivision, they had protective covenants. They tried to make covenants that could be suitable to people like this, while trying to give them some aesthetic looks. Since then, the City has developed the Design Standards for structures. He has read through parts of it. They are zoned a Highway Business District. With this zone, they fit in the design standards criteria. If they were to change their zoning to Light Industrial, they would still fall under the same design criteria. In the Design Standards for the City of Rexburg, reference is made to predominate exterior materials. He read from the code. The standards exclude them from buildings any pre-engineered steel structures in the city of Rexburg. When they did the development, they talked with several City individuals, told them what kind of structures they wanted to build in there. They then zoned it the way they did, feeling they could build the kind of buildings they wanted in there. Things have changed now so they cannot build inexpensive buildings for clients. At DEPATCO, they have a client that has purchased two lots and would like to build a building in this subdivision. The client is American Construction and Supply. They are a concrete supplier of various tools and products dealing with concrete. They need a very inexpensive building to warehouse their materials. They met with the Design Review Board, went through the plans, and tried to find ways to make the building fit closer to the standards. He said he would like to go through the plans and show them where they hit, where they don’t, and what they can accomplish to try to fit within the guidelines. Given that, there are probably a couple they are going to struggle with. Greg Stoddard showed the Commission the building plans. The first issue was the requirement to break up the façade of the building with jogs or some feature. He proposed adding a covered awning over the entrance on the side that does not meet the criteria. This would break the building up. He asked if this would meet the criteria. The awnings would be 4 feet by 6 feet. Randall Porter asked if they could put in windows to break up the façade. Greg Stoddard said they would be more than willing to put a window or two in. Chairman Dyer said they have a consensus that this would fulfill the requirement. The Commissioners discussed the zoning in this area, and the applicable Design Standards. Ted Hill declared a conflict of interest. The Commissioners did not see a problem. Greg Stoddard said the second issue is the predominant building material requirement. Chairman Dyer said predominance could be interpreted different ways. From an architectural standpoint, predominance would be what catches the eye. If a metal building incorporates the right architectural features and treatments, you can come away not thinking of it as a predominantly metal building. Greg Stoddard said they have tried to doll the building up on the front. He showed the Commission what they have done. He proposed they put a ribbon along the top of the building to give it a little more detail. 9 Greg Stoddard said the other issue is with the sidewalks and setbacks. They have a fence shown that is pretty close to the property line. They will have it moved back so there is a 20 foot distance from the street to the fence, and they will landscape that distance. Chairman Dyer asked what kind of fence they are putting in. Greg Stoddard said it is a chain link fence with privacy slats. Chairman Dyer said the Commission is particularly sensitive to the terminology and physical presence of “bone yards.” Greg Stoddard said in an industrial park, there will be some of those. They can’t get rid of all of it, but there are measures they can take to take care of them the best they can. The Commissioners discussed the Design Standards. Greg Stoddard said one major concern is that the Design Standards don’t differentiate between locations. They are exactly the same. Randall Porter said after this building is built, the next building may look better than this building. This will continue. If we can get someone started in the right direction, others will follow. When people drive along the highway, they will see attractive buildings. The Commission further discussed the Design Standards. Greg Stoddard said the other issue is the pedestrian walkway provided from the public right of way to the principal customer entrance. They have a sidewalk in the front, and along the street. There is asphalt in between the two sidewalks. He said they could paint a cross walk from the building to the sidewalk. Ted Hill said asphalt walkways are all around our city parks. Asphalt works. Greg Stoddard said the two major issues are the building jogs, and the predominant building material. Chairman Dyer said to stay away from building a landing shed over the entry ways. Greg Stoddard said another issue is the six (6) foot planter area between the sidewalk and the building. They have obtained a foundation permit, and have already poured the foundation. The Commissioners discussed the parking situation. The Commissioners discussed the zoning on the property. It will probably be changed to Light Industrial. The Commission decided since the land would probably be changed to Light Industrial, this landscape strip is not necessary. Chairman Dyer said we need to see these requirements on a set of plans before a building permit is issued. New Business: Compliance: Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: The Commissioners discussed Walgreens. 10 Thaine Robinson said there were supposed to be pavers coming in from the street on both sides, but they have just striped it. Chairman Dyer said a more important issue it that their landscaping is supposed hide the parking from the street. This was a foundational principal when they were approved. The condition of their approval was to hide the parking from the street. The Commission discussed the Walgreens development. Report on Projects: Tabled requests: A.Preliminary Plat – Pioneer Park (Planned Unit Development) Randall Porter motioned to pick the Preliminary Plat for Pioneer Park up off the table. Thaine Robinson seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. A representative from the development company and Sainsburry Construction presented the preliminary plat. They changed the setbacks on the plat. They renamed the project as Rock Creek Hollow. Guest parking now meets the requirement. They were not clear what was required for accessory vehicle storage. They re-designed the front yard setbacks, so the closest distance between buildings is 44 feet to the entryways. The jogs on the rear of the buildings are now two (2) feet. The maintenance building is also shown on the plat. Randall Porter asked if they ended up having to reduce the size of the units to make everything fit. The representative said they lost two (2) units in phase 4. They also lost the park area at the very end, to have more space in the center. Mike Ricks asked what the distance is between the drip line of the buildings. The representative said it is probably 50 feet. David Stein said he likes the improvements, but sees a problem with the location of the maintenance building right on the street. Chairman Dyer said it is more open, and looks a lot better than the previous drawing. Mike Ricks asked how long the parallel parking spaces are. They need to be at least 22 feet. The Commissioners discussed the plat, and the setbacks. John Millar said setbacks are not flexible, they are defined by the zone. The subdivision ordinance needs to be finished, which has a section on Planned Unit Developments. John Millar said they could approve phase 1, since it meets the setback requirements. This would allow time for the Planned Unit Development Ordinance to be developed. This might allow flexibility on the issue. The Commissioners discussed the plat. Mary Haley motioned to table the Preliminary Plat for Rock Creek Hollow. 11 No one seconded. Motion died. The Commissioners further discussed the plat. Dan Hanna asked John Millar what his recommendation would be. John Millar said he doesn’t have a problem approving phase one. The risk is with the developer that he may not get the changes in our ordinance, and may be required to meet the code on the subsequent phases. Thaine Robinson motioned to recommend to City Council to approve Phase 1 of the Rock Creek Hollow Preliminary Plat with the exception of moving the maintenance building off the street. David Stein seconded the motion. Chairman Dyer said he wants to make sure the developers and the Commission understand that the 25 front yard setbacks on phase 1 are required. Randall Porter asked the developer, Tom Sainsbury, if he understands that the code may not change, and that he might have to comply with the full 50 foot setback requirements. This might require him to make the buildings smaller, and suffer whatever economic impact this may have on the development. The developer said he understands. Thaine Robinson amended his motion to include Chairman Dyer’s concern that the front yard setbacks are required to be 25 feet on phase 1. Those in favor: Those opposed: Chairman Dyer Mary Haley Mike Ricks Thaine Robinson Dan Hanna David Stein Randall Porter Ted Hill Motion carried. Building Permit Application Report: Heads Up: Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 11:02 pm. 12