The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutP&Z MINUTES FEBRUARY 13, 2002PLANNING & ZONING February 13, 2002 7x00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dver Members; Ted Whyte Glenn Walker Bobette Carlson Robert Schwartz LaDawn Bratsman Jacob Fullmer Mike Ricks P.F.C.: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger Minutes: Janet Williamson Winston Dyer welcomed everyone to the meeting and excused some of the members. Ted reported on lets meetmg with the new r.ommittae nn ciµl~ divrsrons. TTP rs gathPring rata from many surrounding counties and will be prepared to report at the next P & Z meeting. Glen asked that they discuss street lighting again and will be prepared to report at the next meeting. Ted moved to approve the minutes. Bobette seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed: Site Plan and Parking Review- Ross Fanner - 2"`' 1~ ~ 2"`~ S John Millar explained where the property was located that is being modified and an explanation of the plan. Ross Farmer explained his plans. There are more parking spots then the number of students they will have. There will probably not be anymore then 20 students between the two houses and there are 23 parking spots. John pointed out that he had not allowed for drainage and Mr. Farmer said he would work with the City to allow for that. Robert asked what his plans were to beautify the area. John explained that if you look at just this one lot the parking plan covers more then what is allowed; but, where he owns the adjacent lots there is plenty of room for landscaping, etc. Ted moved to approve this site plan subject to city departments approval. La Dawn seconded the motion. All aye: None opposed. Motion carried. (Mike Ricks arrived.) Tom Croasmum- 458 Yale -Request for Conditional Use Permit for Apartment John reported that the proposed CUP would be to allow two living units in an existing home. On the application it shows three parking spots and the ordinance requires 4. Tom stated that it is not for a duplex but for a basement apartment. There are 2 parking spots in the garage, 2 outside and one to the side. They would rent to a married couple and stipulate only 1 car. There is an outside entrance to the basement. Ted is not opposed to this going to public hearing but the house across the street belongs to Stones and they were denied a CUP. Ted moved that it go to public hearing if he meets with the city to verify the parking conditions. Glen seconded the motion. All aye. None opposed. Motion carried. 7030 -Public Rearing -Proposed Changes to the Comprehensive Plan Winston Dyer made opening comments explaining exactly what was happening and a few rules of conduct. (Remarks attached} After a poling of the audience it was decided to take the numbered items in order of priority. Irv- ~tl' `s1e~t bctvr'ceia iiiaiii ~t< and ~"`l bvTOrtil . John explained that this is the area along the west side of Stl` West -those lots that front on to Stl` West from the east. This would be going from single family to multi family. Winston opened the hearing to public comment. David Daniels - 138 I~ Street. His backyard runs against the proposed change. He asked what criteria needed to be met to bring about the change on the comprehensive plan and Winston explained. They are opposed to this change. They have lived in their home for 2 1/2 years and this is the third time they have been before the commission for this same issue. Their concern is that a change to multi-family would open this up for a possibility for high density with no transitional area to their single family home. When they bought the home they asked what the zoning was and they thought the comprehensive plan would protect them. There has not been any change in this area to justify this change on the plan. He would hope that the comprehensive plan would protect their neighborhood. They have submitted a letter with signed petitions against this change. They are concerned with high density bringing in more traffic, crime, etc. Chairman noted that written comment was submitted and the commission was reviewing it. (Letter and petitions attached.) 2 John Hawker - 126 K street He and his wife concur with Mr. Daniels. Mrs. Howard - 155 N. 5`~ W. She and her husband have tried hard to keep this a nice area and if high density goes in there it would make it hard to sell their property for enough to relocate somewhere else. Marv McCulloch. - 125 N 5r'' W If this changes she could have apartments completely around her home. She has lived there for 30 years and doesn't think it would be right. She agrees with everyone else. Mike Thueson - 581 Summerwood Having been on the commission he understands their position. Looking back in the record you can see how many times this area has come up and been denied Please be sensitive to how many times they have come. They have built and invested in this area because of original plan. He asked that all those that were opposed to this change please stand. (Approx. 20-25) Wilma Parkinson -Owner of Rexburg West Apartments - 75 N. 5`h W. When they purchased their property in 1976 it was zoned MDR. When the zoning was changed from MDR to single family she was out of state and did not know this was going on. She would ask that it be put back to lV~R. Her north lot is now worthless. Some time in the future they may want to h~.:i~d to eF7ta9y hnmeu Thnor h ,-4 L. Fb9a S~ °a a A Al1T) vu~. vuyiug sivttix vb n1~.r 1SneyW iL was zV11eC! 1VJ1J[~. Tom Williams -Realtor. • The city does not want spot zoning but contiguous. They are not asking HDR but MDR and the plans are not going to be any higher then the homes surrounding it. The city should restrict what can go in there. Clint Parkinson -Owner Rexburg West Apartments - 75 N. 5`l' W Their property was originally zoned for 4 plexes otherwise he wouldn't have built eight 4 plexes there. All the way from Main St to 2"`~ N back to the K St. boundaries was zoned 4 plexes. They never knew that the city changed the zoning from MLR to single . Ile would ask that they put the zoning back to where it was originally. If people bought in the last 5 years they could see the 4 plexes that exist. John clarified that the old zoning was R2 and allowed for 4 plexes. in 199 i it went from R2 to LDR1. The zoning was done about 5 years before the comprehensive plan (July 1998 the Comprehensive Plan was adopted) Hearing closed to public comment. Mike Ricks was concerned with the depth of the lots. Most single family residents would not want that deep of lots. 3 Ted commented that they are aware that these people have been here before but the commission is concerned with how this will ever develop. If left single family would these lots ever sell or just be weed fields and an eye sore on the community. They see this going MDR.. Winston explained that the issue before the commission was single family verse multi family. Exact zoning would come later with more public hearings. (Discussion) Mike moved to deny the change and have it remain single family. I,aDawn seconded the motion. Discussion that under the present zoning of I,DRlthere are still opportunities for development here. As it stands now, a duplex would be allowed as a conditional use. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. #7o Noe-th 1Vlain between 4t'' and 5t'' West. Winston declared a potential conflict of interest and asked Glen Walker to chair this issue. John presented the area in question. It is proposed to go from single to multi family. Ralph Brian - 450 West Main Mr. Brian owns property by this area. He speaks for l'at and Graydon Burton also who are on a mission at this time. He is in agreement with Dr. Daniels. He feels that if the council is not careful on where apartments are placed Rexburg is going to become a seriously undesirable place to live. l'uttnng a hngh derasnty co~i~picx Mere would add to tiie traffic on ivlann Street and 5th Tw esi. Cindy Wakefield 23 N St'' W She is concerned that this will become an undesirable area of the community. The area is already burdened_with subsidized housing. David Daniels - If you look at the comprehensive plan there are 16 areas to go to multi family. He understands that the city is doing a study that has not come out and feels they should wait and look at the study. Christine Beesley - 66 N St'' W. This has always been a nice residential area. There have been a lot of traffic changes and she is concerned with the increased traffic. She agrees with Dr. Daniels and Mr. Brian. She is opposed to apartments in her back yard. Craig Hammond - 451 w 1st N There are homes all along here. He feels it should be kept single family. There are cement trucks going up and down 5th W and apartments would add to the traffic. DJ B arney - 410 W 1St N He is a business and property owner in this area. He explained conditions of the existing properties. The whole area fell through the cracks after the flood with planning and zoning. There are many • different uses of the entire area already. A lot of it is turning to weeds. They were here a year a go to have this be commercial. This property has not been used and it is time to find a use for it. Public comment closed. John clarified that the south half of the block is NCR and can be developed without a comprehensive plan change. (Discussion) Clarification from Stephen: They can reduce the area without going back to publication but they cannot increase the area. Mike moved that they approve the change to multi family on the comprehensive plan. Jacob seconded the motion. Discussion of what area to include. The homes on 5th W and 1St N that are already single family would stay single family. Voting aye: Mike Ricks Glen Walker Robert Schwartz Bobette Carlson Jacob Fullmer Ted Whyte Voting nay: LaDawn Bratsman Abstaining: Winston Dyer ~~otion carri°~ aivu. #9, 2"`' East between 1St & 2°"' S, aa-d 2'ed S®utt- bet`veen 1St ~ 2"`' E The request is for this area to go from single family to multi family. John explained the area and mentioned that most ofthe homes on 2n~ S between 1St and 2n`' E are existing multi family units.. Also on 2n`' E from lst S. to 3r`' S. He clarified where multi family and single family are now at current use. The meeting was opened to public comment. Craig Rindlisbacher - 266 Harvard. He works for the city but is here as a concerned citizen. He does not live in this area but is a neighbor and friend to those who do. Submitted comments. (Attached) Major concerns were: homes designed to function as single family dwellings, long-term consequences of changing the land use in the comprehensive plan; `dismantling the community str-picture', rejects notion that these neighborhoods are already in transition. Gwen Butler 225 Harvard Ave Gwen explained what has happened in the neighborhood. She agrees with Craig in protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. She asked what was driving all these changes. She feels they are not given enough single family living. There are not enough parking spots around the college now. What do you look at in the next 10, 20 years. So many cities are asking to revitalize downtown areas and 5 restore old homes and many of the homes in this area are beautiful. Silvin Butler - 225 Harvard Silvin reflected on where he lived in Provo 30 years ago and walked to school through single family housing. Now it is all apartments. He would hate to see that happen in Rexburg. 2nd East has become a major artery of traffic going to campus and traffic coming down the hill going to Madison High School. A lot of the traffic is shifting over to Harvard Ave. Many elementary children walk to school in this area. He is opposed to what is being proposed for this area. Doug Craig 174 Rosewood Agrees with all the previous comments. Preserve single family. Tom Williams - realtor Safety issues are viable but the University is going to grow. They need some student housing close to the college. Trina Craig (lives in Rigby} She is for the change to multi family. They are considering buying the home at 138 E. 2nd S. She pointed out that in the neighborhood in question that most of the homes are already student housing. BYU code requires house parents in the home for students to live there. There is no affordable housing for married students. Deteriorating houses need to go through many changes to improve and ~~~eet code ift hey are iiiulti a~iuiy. If single farriily they would not have to rneei code. Aii thai have spoken tonight against this change do not live in this area. Closed to public comment. Discussion: 90 per cent of area is multi family now. East of 2nd E needs to be preserved as single family. Jacob Fullmer lives at 236 S. 2nd E. and declared an interest in this area. Mike made a motion that the block 1S` S. to 2nd S. and 1S` E to the west side of 2nd E be planned multi family and the rest of the proposed area be L,DRl . Ted seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion passed. #18 - 150 E. Cemetery Rd. & 100 & 120 W° 1500 1V®rth This area is commercial and HBD and proposed io go multi family. John explained that this area changed a year ago from single family to commercial. Now it is proposed to go multi family He showed other multi family in the area but they are quite far away. Ted declared a conflict of interest. The trailer park in the area was an existing use prior any of the comprehensive plan or zone changes. It is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan but it is an existing condition. Opened to public comment. • Ken Benfield - 201 1Vlillhollow Ken is the owner of this property. When they zoned it commercial last year it didn't work. Multi family would make a better transition. They would be developing this area for married student housing. Mark Andrews :6605 Rim Rock Dr, Idaho Falls Mark is helping develop this area. They feel this would be a better buffer to the single family area then commercial and would like to start work right away. Public comment closed. Discussion and clarification of when this area was before the commission. C71en moved to accept the change from present zoning to multi family. Bobette seconded the motion. All voted aye .None opposed. Ted Whyte abstained. Motion carried. #130 1500 We 500 S< & #140 7"' So Nest of the railr®ad John showed area in question. It is currently single family and proposed to go multi family. Ted declared a conflict of interest. R~ASSell 6'Pa11AlLGrl- 732 S. 1J6V eW. Russell asked if notices were supposed to be sent out. Stephen explained that any comprehensive . plan change that effects in access of 150 parties publication in the newspaper is considered sufficient notice. Mr. ~anAllen mentioned there are over 100 acres of land here to be developed. He feels they should wait until the study comes back before making any decision out of consideration to the neighbors in this area. Dee Jones 5`h S. 1500 W downs 4 acres here} They are looking at changing the zoning to MDR for the purpose of developing family units. As a developer he is thinking it would be a nice buffer zone between the highway and 1500 W. and a good location for multi family units. Brent Anderson -land owner of # 14 being discussed. No one knew what to do with this area next to the freeway. He would like to do MDR and do it nice where is wouldn't effect the area. Sally Smith 460 Rolling Hills - There is room here for MDR, parking, and takes away from t7niversity area. Ted Whyte -public comment Speaking specifically to #13 - on the South side is the Rexburg Canal on the North are storage units, on the West is freeway - it is a very isolated piece and lends itself to a development for multi family. 7 • Mark Andrews - He supports the proposal. This is a nice area where it doesn't impact a lot of single families. Closed to public comments. Winston commented that from a planning perspective and talking about proper transition and buffering it is an appropriate use there coming offthe freeway. There is an established single family residential neighborhood that needs to be preserved with buffering. Discussion. Not many single home owners. would want to build next to highway 20. Mike moved that they approve the change at #13 and #14 to multi family . CTlen seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Ted Whyte abstained. Motion carried. #l0o So of 3rd S between 3rd & 4tn W North half of block between 3rd and 4th W and 3rd and 4th S -John explained that 4th W. has the canal on it. South half of this block is currently on the comprehensive plan as commercial. North half is single family residential. The north half of the block which is in question is zoned MDR. There has been a request that a piece of property in the north half of this block go to a HDR and the existing zone is not is compliance with the comprehensive plan and requires the comprehensive plan be modified to fit the zoning. Even though the zoning is shown as MDR to go beyond that it requires a charge in t he coiizpreriensive pion thus the request to go muiii famiiy. Rick Wadholm - 347 S. 4t'' W. He is a property owner in this area. He expressed interest in changing the zoning to multi family with the intent of going HDR at a later date to build married student housing. There are storage units in the area, a few businesses and across the street is Rex Motel. Mitch Neibaur - 3685 W. Highway 33 Mitch owns a rental home in the SW corner of this property. It seems consistent with the growth of the college in the area to go to multi family and he gives his support. Closed to comments. Winston explained that it is within this commissions prerogative to make recommendations other than what has been pr®posed. John .clarified that he had misstated the proposal. The north half of this block is currently zoned NIIJR. The south half that includes Mr. Wadholms property is zoned HBD and commercial on the comprehensive plan and it would be an interjection of multi family in the transitional area. Discussion. • Mike moved to change this area into multi family. Glen commented that you are seeing the business district moving out of this area. Jacob seconded the motion. Glen wondered if they should be looking at a larger area. Ted asked for clarification of area. Discussion of the changing use of this area. Winston expressed concern about the preservation of the HBD corridor along there. Mike withdrew his motion until area could be clarified. Stephen said they could extend the NII~R into the transitional area only. Mike made a motion to change to multi family the area on the map and the transitional area and to exclude those properties facing 4~' S. Bobette seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed Motion carried. #8. ~estside Estates - l_s` South This area is west ofPorter Park. It is proposed to go from single family to multi family. It is adjacent to a trailer park. The driving force behind this has withdrawn their request. . ®pened to public. No input. Closed to comment. Discussion. Bobette moved to leave as is. LaDawn seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. #5. 255 Wo 2"`~ No John explained that this is site specific driven to allow for a zone change. Current zone: east half industrial, west half LDRI single far~rily residential. Request to go from single family to multi family. Opened for public comment. Tom Williams -Realtor Currently a single wide mobile home is here and eventually they plan to move it out and build multi family housing. More likely a duplex not a 4 Alex. Closed to public input Discussion. Limited area. Current LDRl would allow a duplex. Tom clarified if zoned MDR they can put 2 duplexes.. They would leave traiier in front and put duplex in back and years later remove trailer and put another duplex. Bobette moved to leave as is. Mike seconded. All voted aye. None opposed. (Commission felt this was small enough to be spot zoning) #11 & #17 were on the map and were in the notice incorrectly. Planning and zoning did not recommend those to go to public hearing. • • ®pened for public comment. No comments. Closed to public comment. Glenn moved to recommend to council that no action be taken in areas #11 and #17 for the reason that they did get advertised but were not supposed to be. Ted seconded. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried #1. 'Teton View Drive Inn Property Comprehensive plan shows this as Agricultural, the zoning map has it listed as LDR2 and the use is HBD John: The proposal is the area along state highway 33 . Those properties fronting 33 to go from Agricultural to Commercial. ®pen to public comment. Jeff Vail - 262 S. 3rd W. Mr. Vail currently operates the drive inn theater and would like to expand and bring in some additional entertainment. The landlord is worried about losing his option to build here later. Closed to public input. Ted moved to convert #1 to commercial. Bobette seconded. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion Carrlcde r • Bob made a motion to table the remaining items on the comprehensive plan until later in the meeting. Glen seconded the motion. All voted aye. Site Plan Review Carl Madsen Property - 140 S. 3ra W This property is west of Porter Park and is currently zoned MDR He is looking at student housing. Parking is adequate. May have problem with fire supply but the city will deal with it. They have adequate snow storage. Storm drainage will connect to the system on 1S` S. Departments recommended approval accept fire department who has not had a chance to see it. Discussion. Lighting was a concern. Ted moved to accept the site plan subject to city department approval. Bobette seconded the motion. Commission expressed concerns with lighting in parking area. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Site Plan Review -Marv Keele - 2"d West and 6t'' South (Between Shelborne Apartments and the Rexburg Nursing Center) John explained area in question--- surrounding apartments, parking, storm drain, existing storm drain, grade; street requirements. The development is 563 feet long. ~~ 10 Marv Keele -The buildings are stepped down to meet grade. They plan to build an 8 plex with a . managers house. City staflFhas no problem with this plan. Glenn moved to accept the site plan subject to staff review. LaDawn seconded the motion. Again, they are concerned with lighting in the parking area. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Request for Zone Change from Rural Residential to MDR John Millar - 586 S, 1500 W. John explained that this is in a transitional area between two comprehensive plan zones, HDR and existing single family. He is requesting that this go to public hearing. Ted moved to send this to public hearing for a zone change. Mike seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Winston asked to table the sign ordinance. DJ Barney -Barney Towing and Recovery - 410 W 1S` N suggested poling signs to get standardization and asked to be invited back to discuss this with the commission. ~'nmpg'`ahen~ic~n„ Plan Psulvli~ Aearxia~ revpeu~u #2. North Barney Daia°y Road ®n the current plan this is partially commercial and single family residential and they have requested it be considered multi family. Glenn declared a conflict of interest. ®pened to public comment. No input. Closed to comment. Mike moved that they approve the change to multi family. Bobette seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Glenn abstained from voting. Motion carried. #3. 7 East 2"d North is site specific. (Property owner driven) This is currently open space on the comprehensive plan and the use is single family LDRl . Requested to go to multi family. #4. 2"`' North by the railroad tracks (City driven) This goes to mid block. It is currently industrial and requests multi family. ®pened for public input. No input. Closed to public comment. Ted felt that #3 starts to crowd residential area with MDR. Glen can't see #3 as being viable. 11 • • Ted made a motion to leave #3 with no change. Bobette seconded the motion. AlI voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Reason: Encroaching on single family Glenn moved to approve #4 as multi family from the Bollinger line to the city line. Jacob seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. #12. 1Edenderson 1500 West to Sty' West John explained the proposal and surrounding area. They have requested that the west half of this property go to multi family. Opened to public comment. No comment. Closed to public comment. Chairman reminded the commission that they had specific discussion about this area and felt there was no harm in sending this to public hearing but they had not approved it. Ted moved that this not be recommended for a comprehensive plan change. Bob seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Reason: Bordering existing uses; wanted to maintain single family residential. #15. West side of US 20 This is not in our impact zone. County has approved it for 4 plexes. Our comprehensive plan shows it ac a traneitinnal araa Hearing opened to public comment. No input. Closed to public comment. Discussion. Jacob moved that #15 go to multi family. Mike seconded. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. #16. Area South of the Widdison Addition Proposal is to change from agricultural to single family residential. Opened to public comment. No comment. Closed to public comment. Discussion. LaDawn moved that #16 go to single family. Bobette seconded. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. #19. North of Erickson Pontiac on Main St., South of JBaker Trailer Court The proposal is to take this from industrial zone to commercial. Opened to public comment. No comment. Closed to comment. • 12 Discussion. Ted has a current listing on this property. • 13obette moved to properly zone this area as commercial. 1~1ike seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Ted abstained. Glen moved to adjourn. All voted in favor. 13 • • 1 . Cfl .~ 07 _a OD ~ ~ _a 1 ~ ~ CSi ~ .A .~ W ~ N ~ -~ .~ O CO C O W ~ I O ~ Ul 1 ~ W N ~ Z O ~- D ° ~ m ~ ~ = o ,- ,- o rn • eta ~ ~ ~ < m S~ ~ Q a ~ m ~ ~ cn --a- m v~ a ~ C = 7 ~ r ~ n ~ - rt -j m n o ~ s_v . p N ~. ° ~ ~ p CD ~ (n ~ c D - ~ ~ O C 7 ~ ~ 1 D ~' CD ~ C/1 CD V? ~ ~• W ~ ' ~ O ' N ~ ~ ~ CD O ~ CD ~ ° cD ~ ~ ° TJ 'D ' ~ ~. O' s ~ tn I W `~~ ~ p ~ cn o ~' ~ ~ . cn ~ ~ r- n ~~ rn cn w W . ~ ~ - _ W ' .~ z ~ p ~ Do ~ I W W O ~ -1 n ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ -p ~ O~ ~ ~ O O ~ N ~ Cfl ~ O ~ ~ rn -, cn ~ o , c n s o o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ W ~ ~ ~ o rn O ~ m ~ ~ ~ 1 Q Q tD Z ,~ ~ ° C ° o ov ~' ~ Z ~ Z ~ ~ ° o -I- a Z ~ Z p p ~ o o .~ ~,•, o -~ CA , o ~Q ,-t G m ~ ' ~ v sv ,~- ~• ~- ~, .-1- c ~, o ~ o v ~ v ~ O ~ ~ Z7 ~ ~ N ~ N 1 a ~ ~ ~ m Z CD _ ~ . ~ -' sv Cn cn ~• o ~ ~ ~ ~ rn - D = C~ ~ D D ~ cn cn c~ c~ cn cn cn to cn cn to v~ - Ocn D cn o~ -~ ~ . ~ _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z D ~p O CD n ~ C. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ al ~ dls ~ .fll ~ ~. ~ .fU ~ N ~ -- LU ~ ~ --f - ~ - - _ _. _ - _ - _ n ~ ~ ~ 0 ` ` Z o = c ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7 S ~ ~ ~ n n ~ ~ c c c c ~ c c c- c ~ c ~ ~ c c ~ o = m ~ o 1 T 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ° ~ 1 -n 1 -n 1 ~ 1 -n I -r7 1 ~ I -n I -n ( ~ r'" 1 -r-( •--i- 1 - r-~ ry- 1 l - - r•-+- 1~ - r-rt I - ~ ~ ~jr Z C ~ m su TV a~ sv n~ v v v v v v m n v rt n vv n v n v o ~m rn~ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _- _ ' _ = SV O D D D Z DD D D p Z D r' ~ r D p p pD p D D ~~ o • o o rt • • o o rn rn o cv m o ~ cn ~ o m m ' m ' m " mss ~ o c n cn m m o m i o 0 Q Q Q O Q Q Q Q ' ° Q ~ ,~,- ~ Q 1 - 1 1 Q f ~ ~ ~ 1 cn ~ ~ m ~'• ~ ~ rC p n Rt ~ Q.. ~ rn Z ~- • ~ ~- ~ ~ tv ~ ~ o ~ n ~ v ~ ~ ° Q X N o -i Q ~ Q ~ ~ m ~ o ~ - o ° O r-~- _ ~ o .~- _ uJ ~' C ~ _ ° ~ ~. z 3 ' _ ~ O ~ ~ ~ C ~ = ~' G~ ~.. ~ C D . N . v Q.. .. ' Ti ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ _ ~ , -,- m p m rn n m 2 m Z rn r D Z n Z Public Hearing Opening Statement Feb. 13, 2002 • Public hearing portion of meeting introduce self, representing • welcome city representatives, property owners, and citizens interested in the city and its future conditions • Want to establish some background to answer general questions about what is being proposed, why this is being done, who is involved, where it goes from here, when this may happen, etc. • Also want to establish guidelines for how the public hearing will be conducted so that everyone has a fair chance to be heard, the business can be considered by the commission in a timely fashion, and the meeting will not have to go on all night. • P8Z 101: Mayor and city council of Rexburg have the ultimate authority for planning, managing, and controlling growth and development in Rexburg. By charter they have authority to pass ordinances and make resolutions that address what type of development can occur within their jurisdiction and where it can be located. In layman's terms, this is called planning and zoning. C7 • zoning is important for two reasons: to protect and preserve private property owner rights and land uses, and to provide for the orderly growth and development of the community. An example of each of these situations -home in quiet lovely residential area, medical waste burning facility; announcement of university expansion and need to accommodate growth in logical fashion that makes efficient use of available public facilities and local resources. • the process for implementing such controls in Rexburg has been adopted through a zoning ordinance. The ordinance lays out actions and steps that must be taken before a property can be developed or changed from its present status. • the first step is to establish comprehensive plan. Broad sweeping generalization of land uses in the community. Initially established to reflect existing development and modified through time to respond to growth trends and the type of development that actually occurs, but also a statement of locations where various types of development are desirable to occur. Refer to map. • Next step is establishment of specific zoning areas which specify exact terms as to what type of development or changes can occur. Development or uses inconsistent with the designated zoning are not allowed (back to medical waste burning facility example). As a further precaution, the zoning map must be consistent with the comprehensive plan: Refer to map. • the third and final general step is for a proposed development to have its site layout and plans approved through the city building permit process. • why here tonight, comprehensive plan changes needed due to way area is developing and be a position to provide proper guidance and management of future development. Comprehensive plan is first step • to assist the city council with all of these responsibilities and steps, the planning and zoning ordinance calls for the establishment of the planning and zoning commission. The purpose of the commission is to look at proposed land use changes and developments from a technical perspective to see how the proposals stack up with the ordinances, laws, and regulations that have been established. That's the body that you see before you tonight and the role that we will be performing. It is particularly important to understand that any political considerations on such matters are not the jurisdiction of the P&Z commission but are left up to the city council to weigh and consider. Therefore one of the things we will ask of you tonight is said to your input on proposed changes to the city comprehensive plan be addressed as best possible to technical issues (examples). There will be another opportunity for this matter to be heard before the city council at which time all issues, including political, can and will be considered. • briefly review the process proposed changes to comprehensive plan, two hearings (P&Z recommendation and council consideration), proposed changes to zoning, two hearings, building permit and city review process, final approval. • discuss timeframe • how we will proceed: go through each of the proposed changes to the comprehensive plan, have city staff project maps and aerial photographs of the areas in question on the screen and explain the proposals, invite public to give input on the proposal first by those who oppose and then by those who support, discussion and consideration by P&Z commission, and a vote by P&Z commission as to recommendation for city council. Then move on to next area. • some areas will generate more discussion than others but if we averaged 10 minutes discussion on each area the meeting would be three hours. We welcome and encourage public input and want everyone to have the opportunity to participate in this form of government of the people, by the .people, and for the people. At the same time we ask for the public's consideration and courtesy with regard to the task before us: -please state name and address for the record and give us indication as to whether you are property owner, developer, neighbor, interested citizen, business interest, or whatever - Please limit remarks to more no more than three minutes, if someone else has already expressed one of your thoughts or ideas, please don't repeat the issue but simply state I agree with Mr. John Q. public on his thoughts about... -Remember we are discussing the technicalities of the proposals with respect to planning and zoning and therefore, as with regard to individuals are personalities, living conditions, ways of doing business, and so forth are inappropriate -in America and under this form of government if we cannot reach consensus, we agree to disagree and respect the rights of others to have and express their own opinions • lastly, realize that some of these areas generate more interest or perhaps controversy than others. Rather than having everyone sit all night would like to get a feel for which are the areas of highest interest. Show by raising hands number of people here who are interested in the • various proposals and then try to discuss them in order of priority. February 12, 2402 • To Whom It May Concern: Several years ago a comprehensive plan was put into piece in order. to develop a nice residential neighborhood in the Sammerwood Subdivision. This has been accomplished with the building of a few quality condominiums and many single-family homes, valued up to $340,404.00. There have been no changes in the area to justify a change in the zaning to allow malti-family residentia! units, which would dramatically decrease the value ofthe.existing homes in the area. The parties who are initiating this change have no vested interest in the community. Their motivation is simply to make money, ~n the other hand, the many residents who will be affected by this change are natives to Rexburg, some second and third generation, who currently hold jobs in Rexburg, are paying taxes, and have a long time commitment to the area. There is nothing that shows just cause for high-density residential buildings to be put directly behind single-family units, where there is absolutely na buffer zone. Amer all, who wants to have the typical three- stoly bax with handrails built in the backyard of his family home. Furthermore, 5`h west is a road many children now use going to and from Kennedy School. Apartment buildings mean more cars, more traffic, and greater risk for cur children. Several real estate agents and city officials leave indicated there is plenty of property zoned for high-density housing that is currently not being developed. These are areas in whiclY high-density housing would not adversely affect single-family residences. We have offered several times to buy the property behind out homes, at or above fair market • value. They have refused, obviousl~j hoping for the higher.price that high-density-housing real - estate would bring. Summerwaod residents era not opposed to having town homes or , condominiums built in the area, as long as they are tastefully integrated into the mix already established. Wouldn't the profit fy°om building such units be sufficient: The residents cif Summerwoad sincerely request that the Planning and Zoning Committee and City Council remain committed to the current zoning plan and remain immune to the get-rich- quick mania that has swept our town since the arpnouncement of B~'LJ Idaho. The residents further request that any person an the Planning and Zoning Committee or on the City Council who stands to gain financially front a change ire zaning be exempt from discussion on this issue. In addition we ask that Area #6 of the Corrsprehensive Flan be permanentD.y zoned as single-family residential Sincerely, David and Kari Daniels Jahn and Sheri I-Iawker P.S. Attached is a petition with signatures of people who oppose a change of the Comprehensive Plan for Area #6. .] February 11, 2602 We the people in the area ~~ forth ~c~ il~est and K Street, which is I'ene~r~or as area ~ in the ~cacnprehensi~ae Sian, are opp®sed to a ~hartc~e tra~a sirtc~ie family residential t® rYtultiple fan~il~ resident°ral. te I ~ a- s i ~ ,+ ,~ i (~ f V ~~ , ~ r ~ .~.~ yr l °~ . ~ 1 t ~ ~ -r-~~ .~ ~,~ _ _ --- ~ f "" t ~ ,~' rt'-- . ,- r' ~ ~... ... -. .' ~~~~• ~ ~ ~w l~~ • February 'i'i, 2dti~ 1~Je the pe®p1e in the area ®f (Vot~h ~t~ hest an~S ~ S#reet, ~hF~.h is knornrn as arse 6 in the Comprehensi~te Phan.. are +~pposec~ to a change from singe famit~ residential to mu[tipie fa~tiiy resident€ai. l_.J • Fatxruary '~ 1, 2~~2 • We the peopta on the area of North 5~' bast and ~ Street, which is known as area 6 in the ~ornprehensive Plan, era opposed to a change troct~ single (amity residential to mu6tipie family residentiaiq N a l~r~+dress l~ho~e l ~ ~ ~~ ~ry l FF / `~ ~=' r~ ~' .i~` ~ • •~~V ~~~~ 3~"°t~ ~ ~ d~ (~ ~~~~~ '`T~~~`. ~~ February 1 °l, 2002 We the people in the area of North ~~"` rest and ~ treat, v~hiclt is known as area 6 ire the Compr~:hensi~re Plan, are opposed to a change fr®rn single family residential to rt~ultiple farrrily residential. ~J • ~~~`~` My name is Craig Rindlisbacher I live at 266 Harvard Ave. As most of you know I work for the City and the County. I'm here speaking as a concerned citizen not as an employee. While I don't live in the area of the proposed change #9, I consider this part of the neighborhood in which I live. I attend church with the people in this area. My kids go to school andplay sports with the kids who live there. I know and care for these people. This neighborhood is the base from which the entire SE side of Rexburg developed. I find it interesting that many in the community refer to the homes in this area by the original owner's name. The homes in this area are designed to function as single-family dwellings. They are modest in size and still relatively inexpensive to own. Proximity to the college campus was part of the frugality of the day in which they were built. I'm deeply concerned about the long-term consequences of changing the landuse in the comprehensive plan for this area. I'm worried about the acceleration of what I see as the "dismantling the community structure" in the areas around the University Campus. I can find nothing in thecomprehensive plan or zoning ordinance, which would prohibit the neighborhood from entering. into to the same painful decline that other areas adjacent to the college have experienced if this change is made. I reject the notion that these neighborhoods are already in transition. They may be under attack, but the majority of homes are still in single-family use. I also reject the idea that a change to student housing is inevitable. It is only inevitable if the City pushes the land use in that direction though its policies. In my opinion it would be benefit both the City and the University to maintain some single family housing in close proximity to the University Campus. This lessens the need for additional parking lots, and provides a healthy and less costly alternative for faculty seeking housing. Multi family use is not objectionable in and of themselves, in fact in my opinion it may be desirable in this area both for the owners and for the University, but the neglect and high turn over experienced in single student, non-owner occupied housing is disruptive and damaging to the community structure of these neighborhoods. It would be extremely unfortunate if this change in the comprehensive plan were implemented without additional safeguards to protect the integrity of the existing family oriented community. Dealing Wlth the pressure from „n;ve.rsity g,-nu,th and sim,,atane0usly deal wit:: the need to preserve the character of this neighborhood my require new approach. It may require us to "think outside of the box". It may require a new land use category or a mixed-use zone. Maybe a homeowners association would help to keep the neighborhood intact. As we plan for the growth ahead, I fee] that it is important for Rexburg to be both "accepting and open to change" while at the same time "protect the exiting good in our community". Protecting this part of Rexburg will help to meet a community need for efficient affordable family housing, and at the same time preserve part of our community heritage. Thank You,