Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MARCH 27, 2002REXBURG PLANNING & ZONING • DOWNTOWN VISION COMMITTEE WORK MEETING March 27, 2002 6:00 p.m. Present were the following: Chairman: Winston Dyer Commission Members: John Watson Jacob Fullmer Glenn Walker Bobbette Carlson Ted Whyte Doug Smith Ladawn Bratsman P.F.C. John Millar Minutes: Janet Williamson Attending from Downtown Vision Committee: Mitch Neibaur Lynn Archibald Marilyn Fife John Watson Dave Pincock Rick Merrill • Some of the items which the committee wished to discuss with the Planning and Zoning Commission: Full Time Planner Off-Street Parking Historic Preservation Business & Employment Growth Education .Recreation Complex Library Madison Memorial Hospital Married Housing State Highway 20 City Planning & Zoning County Planning and Zoning Winston felt a work session with the City Council and the Commission would help them identify items that they could recommend to the vision committee. Pros and cons of a full time planner discussed. He could also be a grant writer. Struggled with defming planners role -too broad or too specific. Mitch showed a conceptual drawing of what could happen on Main Street -center divider, conversational corners, parallel parking, off-street parking, clean up alleys, bury utilities, different areas of improvement. They need to set priorities. Funding is most restrictive and all comes back to the State. • ~ P~~N~~~G & zoN~N~ 1Vla~ch 27, 2002 7:00 p.~o Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Ted Whyte John Watson Mike Ricks (8:30) Glenn Walker Bobbette Carlson Ladawn Bratsman Doug Smith Jacob Fullmer P.F.C.: John Millar City Attorney: Stephen Zollinger (10:00) Minutes: Janet Williamson Winston opened the meeting. Doug moved to accept the minutes of February 27th with proposed changes. Bobette seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed: Minutes of March 13`h -Bobette moved to accept the minutes with proposed change. Doug • seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Non Controversial items: Chair has items he will preseni at the end of the meeting. Also, results of the work meeting at 6:00 p.m. with NIr. Neibaur and the Downtown Vision Committee will be given at the end. Due to a large attendance from East Main Neighborhood Association, Chairman moved that item on the agenda to following the two public hearings. Public Hearing -Zone change from HBD to HDR Westates Companies - 7t" South and Old Hwy 191 John Millar explained the proposed zone change for the Westates Development that was annexed over a year ago. 1=Ie showed the area that would be changed from IUD to FIDR -approximately 4 acres. (block 21ot 3 of the Westates Subdivison). Ted declared a conflict of interest. Winston explained the procedures of the public hearing process: - Explanation of proposal by staff - Applicants explanation - Review of any written correspondence - Testimony by those supporting the application • 1 They will help develop one site of off-street parking in exchange for parallel parking. Rick • said the parking we give up they will compensate 1 to 1. They are pushing for more. This would fall under safety funds. i Planned repaving of Main Street discussed. They asked that the commission keep the zoning by the highway complimentary. Ted felt it would be advantageous to the community to enhance the exits off the highway. LJ • -Testimony by those uncommitted to the application - Testimony by opponents to the application - Rebuttal. by the application - Close hearing to public input - Commission discussion and decision making Stan Rolland -Representative for Westates They have an intended use for a possible landfill on the lot just South of this that they feel will make it hard to sell the one that they are trying to change the zone on in its current zoning. They are proposing a 4 Plex subdivision here. No written input. No testimony for or against. Hearing closed to public input. Doug could not see any reason not to do this and asked if it fit with our comprehensive plan. It was determined that this was an overlapping area and could go either way. The remainder of it will remain HBD and Winston would like to protect that area along old highway 191. This is against other property that is like zoned. John ~~v atson did not See triis as reacting to the developer. It ~s cons~ste_n_t with what we had planned. Doug moved that they recommend to City Council the zone change of lot 2 block 3 Westates Subdivision from HBD to HDR. Ladawn seconded the motion. All aye. None opposed. Motion carried 7:20 Public Hearing -Zone change from HDR to HDR2 Randy Bird - 455 S. 2°`' E. John Millar showed the proposed property and explained the area on 2nd East by Central High. The site with the 2 parts together exceeds the 2 acre minimum as required by the zoning ordinance. Access is available on either the west or east side. Area on the east is zoned LDRl . Tom. Sainsbury - 439 S 3rd E -representing Randy Bird, Developer Tom read Randy's proposal for the change. (On file). They are applying for a zoning change from I-~R to HDR2 for the main reason of constructing affordable one bedroom and studio apartments. They would be for married students. Handout compares similarities and differences between the HDR and HDR2 zoning. Winston asked how going from HDR to HDR2 drops the number of tenants. The parking regulation dictate what you can actually build on the site. No written comments received other that Mr Birds explanation. 2 In favor: Jason Dransfield -45 S S 2nd E -Manager of Mission Home He is here with wife and they are in support. Talked to about 40 different students that do not live in college approved housing. They are unsatisfied with their current living conditions or their location and they are looking to improve their situation and this would be a good opportunity to provide that kind of housing. Tom Sainsbury -neighbor Tom is a neighbor to this development and if he had his choice between married or single students he would prefer married. Hol1_ie Drar_sfield -Manager of Mission Home The main reason she is in support of this development is right now most married student housing is located far away from campus. She would like married student housing closer to campus and not old and run down. Uncommitted: None Opposed: Dave Reeser - 450 S 3rd E `v~'itli the zoning change from nliR to irivR~ what is to stop the next owner or this owner from making this single student housing and not married student? Also wl-~y HDR2 next to LDR1? (Chair put the question on hold and said the answer would come up in their discussion) Brenda Reeser - 450 S 3rd E They are concerned with the impact with the access to Harvard Ave. They get parking on both sides of the street now. Will a buffer be provided between this area and Harvard? gill access be towards the college? As a homeowner they are concerned with the appearance of this development. (Brenda showed pictures of what already exists there that is unkept and undesirable..) She is a homeowner in this area and wants it to look and be residential. Darren Hatch - 447 S 3rd E His biggest concern is the access to Harvard. They do not want high amounts of traffic on their street. There are a lot of other locations that are addressing this issue of married student housing. He is more in favor of married student housing but would not like access to Harvard Ave and would like something done about garbage. Closed to public input. Chair reminded the commission that the question before them is yes or no to send this onto public hearing to the City Council. Many comments have been made that will be addressed with a site plan review. • In answering the previous question asked by Mr. Reeser, John Millar said our current Zoning Ordinance requires for single housing 1 parking stall per student. This will be providing 1.5-2 parking stalls per apartment and would only allow them to put 1.5-2 people in each apartment. Our ordinance will not allow this to become single student housing because it will not meet parking requirements. John Watson feels that now many people are using Harvard to avoid traffic on 2nd E. In this particular application, in the limited space, they are committed to married student housing. Many of the concerns cannot be addressed without the site plan. Glenn moved that they send this on to City Council ~Nith approval of the zone change from HDR to HDR2. Bobette seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. East 1!'Iain Neighborhood Association: Don Sparhawk:37 S 3rd E Don thanked Mr Dyer for allowing them to talk about this now and for his sensitivity and he apologized for any thing he may have said in emotion and would like to work with the commission. He came here a month ago and since that tirrie they have formed East Main Neighborhood Association in response to their concerns with a proposed professional overlay in their area. The association is located in the same 3 blocks that was being considered for the overlay. They are here to ask that they protect the neighborhood from commercial development. They have a desire to protect the historical value of this area with many lovely homes and Smith Park which is in this area, from being surrounded by commercial or office development. A park needs to be in a residential area. If there is a need for additional office space they would ask that the commission investigate other areas in town. He was impressed with renewal areas in downtown Provo . For him personally, we should look at downtown area for offices before goinb elsewhere. This has happened in Provo and now they have a thriving downtown area. Also, they would like to suggest there are other undeveloped areas that are close to the hospital. They do have a petition signed by most people in the neighborhood asking that they not even. have a public hearing for an overlay in this area. (Petition on file) Most of their area is shown as commercial on the comprehensive plan and they were all surprised at that. It is their intent in the future to come to the board and ask that they consider changing it back to residential to reflect the current use of that area. This association is something new. Other cities have these that work closely with P&Z and that is what they would like to do. 4 Doug mentioned that the East side of 2na E between Main and 1St S, was not represented. Don said 2 people signed. the petition, some were not sure, some would not sign, and doctors have bought 2 of the homes and there are renters in them. Those that signed the petition were opposed to the 3 block overlay. Winston asked if their association had considered a possible reduction in that area. Don said they had only discussed the 3 block overlay. A member of the association asked if they do an overlay and if it passed what could happen? Winston read definitions from the Zoning Ordinance; Page 16: 3.9 -Professional Office Overlay District (POD The PO is established to provide land for professional offices near the community's medical facilities and in areas of transition from residential to commercial. Such offices shall be located and designed to conform to the residential character of the neighborhood. Site plan review by the Planning and Zoning Commission is required to minimize the potential nuisance activities of offices in the residential neighborhoods. Page 22: PO Uses -By Right: Medical and Dental Offices, Laboratories, Out patient services, Pharmacies, Professional office not medically related. Conditional Uses: Business, Finance, and Real estate services. Standards for uses by right: Same setback as underlying zone. Site plan approval by Plar~r~lr~g and Zori1rg Cornmisslon required. They are allowed a 70% maximum lot coverage so they can't go wall to wall. They are allowed a maximum building height of 30 feet. On page 45 the parking requirements are spelled out. All is triggered by willing seller and willing buyer. If someone has a home or a group of people or an association has homes and they are unwilling to sell or consider these types of uses then there is nothing there that can trigger that happening. This ultimate protection lies with the existing property owners. Any new use would always have to come to board with site plan. If a doctor bought a home on 2na E, what would be the difference of procedure if there were no professional overlay verse if there is? Winston responded that if it is a residential neighborhood then it is not a permitted use. Under the professional overlay they would make a proposal before this body who would consider the proposed site plan and how it lays on the land, how it ties into the neighborhood and there would be discussion and probably conditions placed on the proposal to make sure it was in character with what the planning board feels ought to be done and probably could get approved under the right conditions. Citizens could comment but at that point we would not hold official public hearings. So if the neighborhood association wants to prevent professional office buildings in their neighborhood in the future, now is the time to voice their opinion on this overlay. If the overlay goes into effect their voice would not be as substantial. (Mike arrived) i Chairman reminded everyone that the issue before the Planning and Zoning Commission this evening is, in light of past circumstances and concerns that have been raised, the public hearing process that was scheduled has been cancelled. The issue that they are wanting to look at now as a Commission is where do they want to go with this issue - do they want to kick it back out, do they want to get further public input, do they want to schedule it for public hearing, do they even want to talk about it? Don had nothing more to add. Glenn asked the association for other locations. Are there any areas in their area no matter how small that they feel would be appropriate. The Commission have discussed and looked at a professional overlay and it has been done in keeping with what the ordinance suggests - it is an allowed and appropriate use in Rexburg near the hospital and also helping in transition. Why was the overlay not east or north of hospital? As a commission they started with a larger area. John Watson's opinion about the overlay is a very long range look. That is their job as a planning board. There are nice, lovely looking homes there today. but in 20 years would an overlay allow for homes to be sold and develop into a professional corridor as you continue Main Street up to the hospital. Score owners ire this area would like to sell. The extent and bounds is open to discussion. It is a way of establishing gradual, changing growth as the community and property owners elect too. These people though, are looking at a threshold decision. Doug as a property owner in the plaza and in the area declared a conflict of interest. He has an interest in pursuing this. It makes sense for medical offices here. Jacob felt if the people there don't want it to happen they would not sell. Discussion. Doug said we already have a professional overlay there, inside the block. Ted, as a realtor has been contacted by owners there wishing to sell, realizing that selling as an office is more beneficial then residential. Glen would like the association to put some ideas together and revisit this at a later date. John Watson asked that it be within a 6 month time frame -discussed as a commission and come up with best plan in 6 months and go to hearing. Ted asked the association to bring ideas to the Commission within the next 60 days. General consensus of board felt this way. Mr Dyer directed Mr Sparhawk to put together ideas and efforts to resolve their concerns with his association and bring them back to the board. John Watson requested that the press refer to them as the commission and the association and not individuals. • Site Plan Review -Legacy Cove - 2"d E and 7`" S. John showed the proposed site plan explaining that it was in an HDR zone. It is a single student complex, 648 beds, 108 apartments. The development is for both men and women housing. There will be two separate recreation centers. It has been reviewed by staff and short of some information by the fire department it has been approved Zane_Morris -Draper Ut -representing the developer Zane handed out elevation plans and explained what the units would look like inside and out. Single student housing with individual rooms. A lot of parking stalls all convenient and close. Units and development explained. It will probably take a few years to build - 1 or 2 buildings this Fall. They will start on 2"d E facing the school. It will be on-site management and 24 hour maintenance. Water drainage was a concern. They have 2 flows one to the west and one to the north. John pointed out the storm drains. There is on-site detention. Landscaping explained. (Mostly lawn). John pointed out the landscaping is higher then our ordinance requires. Roads have been aligned. John pointed out that one deficiency is the east side of the development is abutting residential and would req. buffer, fencing or both. They did have a preliminary review of the site plan earlier and they will have a 6 foot vinyl fence. For the record Ted explained that he sold this parcel of land to this group. He now represents the neighbors to the East. A declared conflict of interest but is clean and can stay at the table. Chris Huskinson explained that after reviewing the original drawing he asked that they have more fire hydrants. This is an updated drawing and he has not had a chance to review it. Nyle Fullmer asked if they will have to put in 1/2 of 7"' S. the length of this complex as well as into the new sub division, curb gutter and sidewalk. John said that was correct. These developers will take it to the East border of their property. John Millar said they are required to develop it to the standards of a residential street and beyond that the. City covers the costs. Doug moved to approve this site plan with buffers on the East, fire hydrants as approved by fire department, their construction of their half of 7`~` S. to residential street standards, with curb, gutter, and sidewalk, anal subject to departmental approval. Mike seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Site Plan Review -John Millar - 586 S 1500 W John Millar, speaking as owner and developer of this property, explained the development. He explained the proposed alignment of roads. He is proposing doing three 4 plexes with garages, play area, garden area, etc. This lot is approximately 1..15 acres with 12 units so it is just slightly over 10 units per acre. It is just barely over meeting the requirement for LDRl density. He tried to get the density down to more of a residential area then a MDR area. Sewer and water will be provided by new lines being constructed along 1500 W. Drainage handled on site. Zoning and annexation was completed at previous meeting including city council. Buffering on S end will be open to allow working with adjourning property owner. Ordinance does not require buffering between MDR and LDRl. Curb, gutter and sidewalk discussed. • Ted moved to approve the site plan as drawn with the conditions that if the streets adjacent (1500 • W) are deemed to have curb and gutter that the developer put these in, with buffering on the Southend as agreed to with adjourning property owner, and subject to departmental approval. Jacob seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Site Plan Review -Keven Snell - 164 S 3rd ~, This lot on 3rd W is across the street from the carousel and the block is zoned MDR. John explained the plan to commission. There may need to be buffering on property line. Departments have not reviewed this plan. Keven Snell explained it meets all the zoning requirements with existing complex behind it. The parking lot would be paved. His understanding is they could go to the property line with a fence. There is a solid 6 foot fence on 2 sides already. The whole property is fenced. Discussion. Chris Huskinson explained hydrant requirements and access. Mike moved that they approve this project subject to departmental approval. Glenn seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Request for Conditional iTse Permit - 24 S. 15` W - Wayne Holladay This request for a CUP is for an existing house on the corner of ls` W and Main St to come into compliance with the ordinance for existing apartments that are within the structure. This is to go to a duplex existing use. Wayne Holladay explained that it is HBD now and it was grand fathered into have apartments. They have 9 girls in it. They want to conform with the conditional use on the house to extent into the addition apartment that they remodeled in the garage. There is adequate parking. The structure has remained the same. They have remodeled the interior. Winston asked Stephen if the ordinance strictly addresses residential use or does it address single or multiple family? Stephen said as to grand fathering it does not address distinction. If they had attempted to expand their residential use they would be governed by the 10% expansion rule, but the structure has remained the same -they have just modified the interior use of the structure to allow for 2 residential units. Legally there is no problem with this. Doug moved that they grant a CUP to bring them into compliance with the ordinance. Bobette seconded the motion. Discussion: Does granting them a CUP mean they will now be required to have City inspections or will they be grand fathered and not required? Stephen said they will be inspected. No further discussion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Site Plan Review -Collaborative Genetics at The Rexburg Business Park John Watson declared a conflict of interest. • Proposed project is at the business park and was explained by John Millar. The departments have reviewed this and find it in compliance with the ordinance and it has been reviewed by the Business Park committee. All facilities were provided by the Business Park and are all ready in. John Watson -Developer He bought the property and is building the building and is speaking for JRW and Associates. This is the_first biotech facility to come to the Business Park. It is a research and development business. They hope to be done by the ls` of September. He asked about the plans for the development of Bond Ave to the North. Millar explained it is not in the immediate future. Discussion of design of the building, etc. Ted moved to approve as drawn subject to city departments and Business Park Association approval Mike seconded the motion. All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. University Ordinance Stephen handed out the new proposed ordinance. They have inserted new ratios for parking. The 342 spaces that were shared with other properties have been taken out of the universities count. They give both sides of the street to the public if the public uses one side. There is a problem on the north bui they fell These will be alleviated by class growth in the buildings on the south half of campus. The city would control all exterior streets and some of the interior streets. As the growth progresses the council would be open to consideration of regulating the parking on 2nd S with meters, parallel parking, residential parking permits, etc., if the problem persists or does not go towards the south. They are seeking tonight a recommendation from this commission relative to the proposed amendments. This ordinance does not require site plan reviews in the university zone. Health and Safety is done through engineering and plan reviews. They are required to do all of the building permitting like anyone else. By ordinance we have said this is a University District. These amendments are an attempt to fine tune the parameters or what input the board will have into how they use that property declared as University District. It is designated currently as University District and by the way the ordinance is currently structured they do have power of review.. With these amendment they would no longer have that. There was concern that if anyone else in town comes before the commission, building something on their own property, the commission has responsibility and right of review. With this we would have a property owner where in the commission does not have this responsibility or right. From a legal stand point, the reasons that did not cause any concern at the stafflevel is this is not a business that is going to have direct access onto a street. The interior streets are all controlled by the campus. That might be an amendment we would want to look at - if their structure was to have a direct access onto any of the exterior streets, then it be reviewed for site plan. The • difference between the University and the average business, is a business is required by our statute to effect the flow of our traffic on the streets that are used for multiple purposes. On the campus their streets are maintained and managed by them. Their buildings will effect their traffic control. Stephen emphasized that a site plan review only allows them to decide proximity and orientation. Richard Smith -Attorney for BYU-Idaho Much of the concern has to do with input from the city for city streets and that. hasn't changed. Under the ordinance he would suggest that there are many that could go before the P&Z administrator and be approved. Under the ordinance, there are many buildings that could come and get full site approval with the zoning administrator and if they are in compliance with the zoning ordinance and Uniform Building Code, they move ahead. That is the way Planning and Zoning Commissions work throughout Idaho. There isn't amicro-management by the Planning and Zoning Commission. The parking study was done be a reputable firm. Their findings indicated that right now there is ample parking. It is the City's desire to not allow BYU-Idaho to count 342 spaces that will not be used by anybody but visitors and they are owned by the City. The change in the ordinance puts both the City and the University in a positive position. It doesn't tie parking to an individual building but to enrollment. As the University grows parking spaces are going to be built. Winston explained options before the board. Discussion of streets, parking, conditional uses, orientation of surrounding streets, application to other properties (ex: hospital), etc. Stephen said that staff review of this is that they feel confident that these ratios will provide adequate parking forever on campus because the ratio grows with bodies not with the facilities. Doug asked for clarification of the ratios. I-Ie feels that the commission are planners not micro- managers .They need to stick to the ordinance. In this instants they should let BYU-Idaho regulate their affairs on campus. Glenn agreed with Doug -allow the university to have control within the university zone. Richard Smith asked that they look at the history of the University. Every week they have a committee that looks at these issues. They are being responsible and it is their intent to continue to do so. John Watson moved that the proposed amendment to the Rexburg Zoning Ordinance (University Ordinance) go to the City Council for approval as written. Doug seconded the motion. Discussion: Ted asked about visitor parking that was not listed in the ratios. Richard explained that in this study, the policy of the University is that there is so much visitor parking right n.ow. As a visitor comes and parks in student or faculty parking, if he gets a ticket, on the reverse side of the ticket is a spot to sign if he is a visitor, turn it in and it goes away. That is their open door policy to anyone that wants to come. In addition to that there are currently visitor parking areas. There is a 6% increase built into the numbers that the staff have suggested. In addition to that there are the 342 spaces that they are not counting. 10 Voting on motion: All voted aye. None opposed. Motion carried. Miscellaneous Items: - Glenn Walker has worked on a letter about getting lights on our exits from the highway. (Letter entered into the record.) John Millar said we can also apply for enhancement funds. - Parliamentary Procedure Brochures will be ordered for everyone on the commission - At the training session in Pocatello March 16~', there was a handout entitled "Idaho Community Planning and The local Planning Act" that everyone should have received. The chairman recommended that everyone become acquainted with it. The Commission was asked by City Council to consider ways in which Planning & Zoning can be more proactive rather then reactive. Also, how they can better coordinate with that body. -Winston has been trying to attend City Council meetings and work sessions and explain planning and zoning reasons for decisions. -Perhaps we could meet with the council in work sessions to see their vision of where they want us to go. -Glen agreed with Winston and felt we need to react to their comments. -Doug said there are times we bring feelings to this board because of what people have said to us. Could we have a general public input session on tbie agenda to share ideas? -John Watson fells the city has. come far. City Council needs to look at the make up of the commission. They bring a lot of different backgrounds and expertise to the commission. -Glenn suggested that it would be beneficial to both the community and the commission if they did a series of articles on what the Planning and Zoning Commission does, the Comprehensive Plan, Public Hearing procedures, etc. Meeting adjourned at 10:45 p.m. 11 • Request foa~ HDR2 Zoming Mission Hame Apartments is applying for a zoning change from HDR to an HDR2 zone for the main reason of constructing affordable one bedroom and studio apartments. One of our purposes is to provide a suitable housing environment for newly married young couples attending BYUI. Currently a shortage of multi-family housing is causing many to live away from campus in Idaho Falls, Rigby and St. Anthony. Dozens of these couples & families are on waiting lists, one & two years long, hoping for an opening near campus. Mission Home apartments can construct close proximity housing for .small families at affordable rates, as outlined in the below section 3.8 HDR2 description. The land consists of 2.783 acres, as detailed in it's legal description and meets the 2 acre minimum. The following information supplies our comparison of the similarities & differences between, the HDR and the HDR2 zoning as they relate to this housing project. We are currently coned HDR and as such, can construct student housing with up to 194 tenants. Parking restricts further growth. As HDR2 we will house fewer tenants, (188) but we need the zoning change to increase the # of units to accommodate the 1-2 tenants per unit. Characteristics Current HDR Proposed ~-IDR2 # of Tenants 194 .188 # of Apartments 30 -three bedroom + 4 in old bldg. 72 one bdrm, 18 studio, 4 old bldg. Type of Tenant 6 si3l~ie tenants per unit v Family consisting of 1 - 2 adults, r arkirig s tails required i 94 14 i Building type 2 story with basement 2 story with basement ana ers on remises Yes Yes 3YUI approved housing Yes Not necessary, only singles are appr. Visitors, friends Boys & girls visiting, dating, etc. More mature students and couples Noise, cars, late night activity We expect the typical dating activities and noise that accompany single students of this age. We expect a more civil and quiet atmosphere with married couples. City of Rexburg Zoning Descriptions 3.7 High Density Residential (HDR) The HDR zone is established to provide higher density residential housing areas served by collector and arterial streets. The zone shall be characterized by dwellings for three and more families, ample off-street parking, higher traffic volumes, proximity to BYCTI and other traffic generator and low nuisance potential. Thirty (30) dwellings units per gross acre is the maximum density in HDR 3.8 High Density Residential 2 (HDR2 The HDR2 zone is to plan for multifamily housing units but to fill housing needs for families at affordable rates. Construction to be done in larger tracts of ground and owned in common as larger apartment complexes and not sold as individual units. Maximum density is based upon bedroom capacities with parking and landscaping adjusted in accordance. One bedroom units are 1.5 parking stalls per unit. Maximum units per acre are 42 units: Two & three bedroom units are 2 parking stalls per unit with maximums units per acre of 38 and 34 respectively. Minimum acreage per development is 2 acres. We ask the planning and zoning board to recommend this zoning change and submit it to the city council for a vote. Respectfully: Randy Bird. (Owner) Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Overlay ~z 7_ ..77,,,~ .]__~: ,..v ~.] ~__ ~~~~_`..] ~~ ~ ~__~~ 7 L iL_'n ___L_._~. Tt„~~:-... ~~A 7._~:... ,_ !'~,. _..,. ~:,,..:..... VV G Llle U11UG1 J1tJ'llGU Q1G V~J~UJGU LU Q ~.11 V~U5A1 Uy L11G nGXUUIY r1Q.lllll11~' Q11U L1V1ll11~' 1.U11ll1llJJ1V11 to create a Professional Office Overlay on athree-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital. and from First North to First South. If approved, v~~e believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDRl Zone. Name Address 1. 2. 3. 4. ~~5 Z ~~ ~ ~~~~ 6s ~ ~ ~-- e t ( ~ c ~ ~ 9. ~ qq Q ! n :1 ~~ ~ 11. L'.,r ~ ~ , ~,~ ~ ~ ~, ~~~ t i~~~z ~ t .rig ,~~. 12. 13. 14. • ? ~. ~ ~. ~ ~y~,c,c~,~--; /, Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Bloek Professional Overlay ~V lie the Ulidel slglled Q.re opp UJGU tV CL prVpo.~lal by the RGhbl.'llg Plalllal_Llg alll~l ZVrlirlg ~.olllllllsslorl to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North to First South. If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destntction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials orl the Planning and Zoning Commission. and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDR1 Zone. Name Address ~ ,. ~1 ~. 2. 3. 4. s. 6. 7. $. 9. lo. Il. 12. 13. • l4. 15. ~~~ l7, -~ ~G{~,ri S ~}v5~t t1S av4~ ~,, ~ ~ ~~ , .~.~` i R ~ ~~ ~f ~ ~~ 7 1 ~.) r ~"~ L_~ ~( `~ r~ er ---a i r^~~1, ~ n ~, v ~l~ ~~ Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Overlay vv c Luc uuuciai~tscu are opposed `LO a propOSal by the ReXDUrg Yiaruung and ZOTllng C~OlI1iTllSSlon to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-black area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First 1~TOrth to First South_ If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families; our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDRl Zone. • Name Adda~ess 2. 3 4 A.. ! ~~ _i 6. _ _~ 9. lo. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. ~ ~~~ j r C ~' ' tl Gi G~ C/ lF ~ f~ ~C p ,- t`'z~1 ~~ ~~ ~,~ ~ lv 7 t--~,9-~~- /~~i~ ~~ CJ Petition b~7 ~-Iomeavc~ners ~~p~s~ng P~~~~se~ ~'ee-~1c~ck Pr~fessi~~~~ ~~~e~~~.~ `vv e the undersigned are opposed to a proposal by the icexburg Planning and Zoning Commission to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and 1~~ladison Ivlemorial Hospital and from First IvTorth to Pirst South. If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destnzctian of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residenfial 1 Zone in which we Live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2QQ2, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDRI Zone. 2. • 3. 4. s. ~. 7. g. ~. I~. I1. 32. ' 13. 14. Address 72 ~ S~ I5. Name _Q/~ Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Overlay • ~~Te the unders~gr~ed are opposed to a proposal v j% t h~ RBXbiirg Piaiuuiig and Zonng CoiiuiuSSiurl to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North to First South_ If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent .our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDR1 Zone. Name Address ., ~ ~. _ ~' / ~ v i r~ 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. • f ~ .~ • I• Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Overlay `rv~e tiie uiider3igiied are opposed to a proposal by the ReXburg Planillllg and ZOning C02111111SSlOn to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North to First South. If approved, we believe ~'1is proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families, our homes;- and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices: We ask that the ReXburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDRI Zone. Name Address '} f f f 2. -~~~f ~~ t~' 4. J. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14 "_ ~._ ~ , ~~5~ J ~: 1 5. Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Overlay . ~ vTe the iindersig"sied arc OppvSCd tU a prUpOSa'1 by the ReXDUrg Planlllng and ZOning C,OTT11nISSlOn to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North to First South. If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we Live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDR1 Zone. Name Address 1. ~-~ ~~~ ~~~ ~ 2. ;. ~ 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 1L 12. 13. 14. 15. Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Overlay .., -~ Tx74 +L, a ,,.,.a ~~ .J ~~ .l ~ ~ t L V It-- n ___L-- g Tt g ,_ t n g n rr ~ ~ii~. uuuerSi neu are v"'"v5cu tU A rV OSal U Li1C iCCXC)Ur YlaiSIIlI7 dnCl L,oI17I1 l,OminlSSlon to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North to First South. If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and. to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDR1 Zone. Name Address ., n 1. ~ / 7 ~~ v~i~'r~ i= ~'~v.~ /!~ `. • 3 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. • 14. 15 Petition by Homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Overlay ~vv~e the finder Si sled are o used t0 d T`O O$al'U Zile RexbUl Planlllll and ZOnlll C,On1TIl1SSlOn ~ pp- p p y~ g g g to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North tc First South. If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city oi~cials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7,.2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDRl Zone. Name Address 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. • 15. Petition by I-homeowners Opposing Proposed Three-lock Professi®nal Overlay vv e the undersi red are o- osed to a ro osai b the Rexbur riannin and Zonin Commission pp_T P P Y g" g g to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North to First South. If approved, we believe. this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development, including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDR1 Zone. Name ~ Address ,,-~ 1. ~ 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. i0. 11. 12. 13. • 14. i~ Petition by Homeowners ®pposing Proposed Three-Block Professional Qverlay ~. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. Tirve the undersigned are opposed io a proposal by the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission to create a Professional Office Overlay on a three-block area between Second East and Madison Memorial Hospital and from First North to First South. If approved, we believe this proposal would lead to the eventual destruction of our well-established residential neighborhoods that currently are legally protected by the Low Density Residential 1 Zone in which we live. Instead, we ask our city officials on the Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council to represent. our desires and to protect our families, our homes, and our neighborhoods from further encroachment by commercial development,. including additional professional offices. We ask that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission reverse its January 7, 2002, vote to hold a public hearing on this unnecessary and harmful proposal that disregards the protection we enjoy living in this LDRl Zone. Address ~:~ ~ ~~ ~~ r~~~ , ~_ • Proposed Amendment to the Rexburg Zoning Ordinance 3.15 The University campus is unique in its nature as to those who visit, work and attend the University. Parking on the campus should be located in a manner which will serve the needs of invitees to the campus. Because of its unique nature, the University campus should be considered as one parcel. All buildings, playing fields and other structures on the Campus should be deemed served by all parking lots on campus, wherever situated. The campus as a whole is served by all public streets adjacent to and running though the campus as well as private roads and streets owned and maintained by the University. 3.20 Table 2 Land Use Schedule -see attached revision with permitted and conditional uses highlighted in red. 5.2 Distance for Private Off-Street Parkin Except in the University District, ail required off-street parking shall be located within two hundred feet (200') of the primary entrance of the building. 5.3 B. (4) In the University District, the provisions of subsection (1) here of shall not apply, however, the University shall provide information which demonstrates that the parking facility proposed to be considered for joint use, will lessen the demand for other parking facilities located in the University District. 5.10 Regulations for University District The University shall not be required to provide the minimum parking spaces required in subsection 5.8 hereof but shall be regulated in accordance with the University Parking Ratios as set forth below. In determining the ratio for this subsection, all parking spaces located upon the University Campus together with all on-street parking where the University Campus occupies both sides of the street shall be included. The term Full Time Equivalent shall be as established in the BYU-Idaho Parking Study published in 2002. A. University Student Ratio: .20 spaces per Full Time Equivalent Student. B. University Faculty Ratio: .585 spaces per Full Time Equivalent Faculty. ,~ C. University Staff Ratio: .585 spaces per Full Time Equivalent Staff. Proposed Amendment to the Rexburg Zoning Ordinance 3.15 The University campus is unique in its nature as to those who visit, work and attend the University. Parking on the campus should be located in a manner which will serve the needs of invitees to the campus. Because of its unique nature, -the University campus should be considered as one parcel. All buildings, playing fields and other structures on the Campus should be deemed served by all parking lots on campus, wherever situated. The campus as a whole is served by all public streets adjacent to and running through the campus as well as private roads and streets owned and maintained by the University. 3.20 Table 2 Land Use Schedule -see attached revision v~ith p~,-rn;tted ~nrL~~„a:+;^r~i „„oa ~~i~~ar-rc~-- ~~- 5.2 Distance for Private Off-Street Parkin Except in the University District, all required off-street parking shall be located within two hundred feet (200') of the primary entrance of the building. • 5.3 B. (4) In the University District, the provisions of subsection (1) here of shall not apply, however, the University shaii provide information which demonstrates that the parking facility proposed to be considered for joint use, will lessen the demand for other parking facilities located in the University District. 5.10 Regulations for University District The University shall not be required to provide the minimum parking spaces required in subsection 5.8 hereof but shall be regulated in accordance with the University Parking Ratios as set forth below. In determining the ratio for this subsection, all parking spaces located upon the University Campus together with all on-street parking where the University Campus occupies both sides of the street shall be included. The term Full Time Equivalent shall be as established in the BYU-Idaho Parking Study published in 2002. A. University Student Ratio: .20 spaces per Full Time Equivalent Student. B. University Faculty Ratio: .585 spaces per Full Time Equivalent Faculty. C. University Staff Ratio: .585 spaces per Full Time Equivalent Staff. TABLE 2. LAND USE SCHEDULE USE SCHEDULE ermitted Use C =Conditional Use LAND USE DISTRICT LDR LDRI MDR HDR PO CBD HBD LDR? HDR? RESIDENTIAL Single family dwelling P P P C C Home for mentally/physically handicapped P P P P P Two family dwelling C P P P Three family dwelling p p p Four family dwelling p p p Five & Six family dwelling or development C P P Twenty-four units per building or development C Dormitory, fraternity, sorority C P Boarding house C P F Bed & Breakfast p p Home occupation P/C P/C P/C P/C Manufactured home 24' or more in width (new) P P C Mobile home or manufactured home less than~24' in width Approved mobile home court or subdivision Mobile home park (See mobile home park ordinance) C C Mobile home subdivision (See above ordinance) C C Nursing home C P P C Religious dormitories - p P P Motel hotels P p LDR LDRI MDR HDR PO CBD HBD LDRI HDR2 iV1ANUFACTURING Pood and kindred products (SIUC 21) Meat products (211) Dairy products (2I2) Canning and preserving (213) Grain mill products (214) Bakery products (2I5) Sugar (216) Confectionery, candy (217) Beverage (218) Other food products extile mill products (SIUC 22) Apparel and other clothing products (SIUC 23) Lumber and other wood products (SILUC 24) Sawmills and planing mills (242) Millwork (2431) Vcncer and plywood (2432) Prefabrication wooden buildings (2433) Wooden containers (2440) Other Furniture and fixtures (SIUC 2~) P Paper and allied products (SIUC 26) Printing, publishing, including newspapers (SIUC 27) P P I A OS RR AGI AG2 U C P P P C P P P C C C C C C C P P P P P C C I A OS RR AG1 AG2 C C P P P C P P C P P C C P P P P C P C P C P P P P C P P C] LA~iD USE SCHEDULE D USE DISTRICT LDR LDRI iViDR HDR PO CBD HBD LDR? HDR? M~\'UFACTURING -continued Chemicals and allied products (SIUC28) Petroleum refining and related industries, including paving materials (SIUC29) Rubber and plastic products (SIUC 31) Stone, clay, and glass products (SIUC 32) Piat glass, glass, glassware (321,323) P Cement manufacturing (323) Pottery and related products (325) P Concrete, gypsum and plaster (326) Cut stone products (327) Other Primary material industries (STUC 33) Fabricated metal products (SIUC 34) Ordinance and accessories (341) '_vlachinery except electrical (342) Electrical machinery, equipment, supplies (343) C Transportation equipment (344) Other Professional, scientifiq optical goods (SIUC 35) C Laboratory and research instruments (351) P Instruments for measuring (352) P Optical instruments and lenses (355) P Photo4raphic supplies and equipment P Watches, clocks (357) P Jewehy manufac~uring (3S1) P Musical instruments (392) P Other C LDR LDRI MDR HDR PO CBD HBD LDR2 HDR2 I AO OS RR aG1AG2 C C C P C C P C P C C C P C P P P C P P P P P P - P C I AO OS RR AGl AG2 TRA?y~SPORTATION & UTILITIES Railroads, including terminals and yards (SIliC 41) C P P C Bus passenger terminals (SIUC 4121-4123) ~ P P P Bus Garaging and equipment maintenance (4214) C P P Motor freight terminals (4221) C P P Motor freight garaging and maintenance (4222) C P Airport fields and terminals (4311-4314) P Aircraft storage and equipment maintenance (4315) P Automobile parking lots, garages (SIUC 46) C P P P P Telephone exchange stations, microwave towers (471) C C C P C P C C C C Radio and television broadeastin~ station (475) C C C Radio and TV transmitting stations and towers (4?32) C C C C C C C C P C C C Other communication facilities C C C Electric generation plants; utility substations C P C Ltility storage yards P Water treaument plants C P P P V~%astewater treatment plants C P C C Solid waste disposal sites (SNC 4S5) C C Other utility facilities C C C C C C C P • P P n P P P P P P P P P P ~J LAUD USE SCHEDULE ~D USE DISTRICT LDR LDRI ~IDR HDR PO CBD HBD i AO OS RR AG1AG2 LDR2 HDR2 WHOLESALE (SLUG ST) Electrical goods (516) P P Hardware, plumbing, heating & supplies (517) ~ P P Drugs and druggists supplies (5121) P P Farm products, grain (~ 121) C P Professional equipment and supplies (51&3) P P Dry goods and apparel {513) P P Petroleum bulk stations and terminals (5192) C Scrap and waste materials (junkyards)(5193) C Recycling centers entirely enclosed in buildings P All others C C LDR LDRI VIDR HDR PO CBA HBD I AO OS RR AG1AG2 LDR2 HDR? RETAIL TRADE Lumber yards and building materials (DSIUC 521) P C Heating and plumbing equipment (SIUC 522) P P C Paint, glass, wallpaper (523) P P Electrical supplies (524) P P C Hardware (5251) P P Farm equipment (5252) C P General merchandise (deparunent, variety, etc)(53) P P Groceries and other foods stores (54) P P P Seasonal food sates (roadside stands) P P Convenience stores P P P vehicles (551) C P C batteries, accessories (552) C P C .1e service stations (553) P P P Apparel and accessories (56) P P Furniture and home furnishings (57) P P Restaurants (581) P P Drug scores (591) P P P Pharmagies P P P P Shopping centers, including malls C C Other retail stores (59) P P LDR LDRI MDR HDR PO CBD HBD LDR2 HDR2 SERVICES Finance, real estate & insurance services (SIUC 61) Laundry services (6211,6212,6213,6215) Laundry and dry-cleaning, sell service (6214) Photographic studios (622) Beauty and Barber Shops (623) Funeral and crematory services (624) P P P P P P P P C P P P P P C C P P i AO C1S RR AG1AG2 C P P • LAND USE SCHEDULE ' ''D USE DISTRICT LL_'R LDRI AIDR HDR PP^v CBD HBD LDR2 HDR2 SERVICES continued Laundry pick-up, shoe repair, alteration (625) Other personal services Business services (SIUC 63) Credit and collection services (632) Photocopying, blueprinting, and stenographic services (633) Employment services (636) Research, testing services (6391) Consulting services (6392) Equipment rental acid leasing services (6394) Detective, protective services (6393) Auto and truck rental services (6397) Other business services Warehousing ar~d storage services (637) Farm products warehousing and storage (6371) Stockyards (6372) Refrigerated warehousing (6373) Food lockers (6374) Household Qoods warehousing and storage (6379) General warehousing and storage (6375) Repair services (SIUC 6Q) Automobile repair services (6411) Automobile wash services (6412) Electrical repair services (6491) Radio and television repair services (6492) ,h, clock; jewelry repair services (6493) ,holstery and furniture repair services (6496) Professional services (65) Physicians offices (6511) Dental offices (6512) Medical laboratory services (6514) Dental laboratory services (6515) I~ospitals (6513) C C C C Out-patient medical services (6591) Legal services (652) Engineering and architectural services (6591) Educational and scientific research services (6592) Accounting and bookkeeping services (6593) Contract construction services (SIUC 66) Building contractor offices (6611) Buildin; contractor storage yards (661 I ) P lambing, i~eating, air conditioning services (6621) Painting, wall papering, decorating services (6622) Electrical services (6623) Masonry, stonework, and plastering services (6624) Carpentering, wood flooring installation (6625) Roofing and sheet metal services (6624) Concrete services (6627) Water well drilling services (6628) P P C C C P P C P P C P P C P P P P P C P P P C P C C C C C I AG 05 RR AG1AG2 P P C P P P P C P P C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P 1I ,I u P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P LAND USE SCHEDULE ~D USE DISTRICT LL^'R LDRI MDR FIDP. Pv CP~D HBD i AO OS RR AG1AG2 LDR2 HDR2 Governmental services Police protection (6721) C P P Postal service (673) C P P Fire protections (6722) C P P C C C Municipal, county offices (671) C C P P Educational Services Nursery schools, day care centers (6811} C P P P P P C C C Schools (6812, 6813) C C C C C P College buildings Vocational schools (6832) C C P P C Business schools (6833) C P P Barber and Beauty School (6833) C P P Art and music schools (6834) C P P Dancing schools (6835) C P P Driving schools (6836) P P Correspondence schools (6837) C P P P Miscellaneous services (SIUC 69j Churches, synagogues, temples (6911) C C C C C C Welfare and charitable services (6920) C C P P Business associations (6991) P P P C Professional membership organizations (6992) C P P Tabor organizations (6493) P P C Civic, social, and fraternal organizations. (6994) C P P • LDR LDRI MDR HDR PO CBD HBD I AO OS RR AGIAGZ LDR2 HDR? CULTURAL, ENTERTAINMENT, AND RECREATIONAL Cu]tural activities (SICJC 71) Tibraries (7111) C C C P P C Museums (7112) P P C C C Art galleries (71li) P P Public assembly (SIUC 72) Motion picture theaters (7212) P P Drive-in movies (7212) P Auditoriums, performing theaters (7231, 7214) P P Stadiums; arenas, field houses (7221, 7222) C C Amusements (SIUC 73) Fairgrounds (7311) P C C C Amusement parks (7312) P Arcades (7391) P P Miniature eolf (7392) P P C Golf driving ranges (7392) P C P Go-cart tracks; four wheeler tracks (7394) C C C Radio controlled airplanes C C P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P P • LAND USE SCHEDULE • ' STD USE DISTRICT LDR LDRl VIDR HDR P~ CSD HBD i AO OS RR AG1AG3 LDR? HDR2 Recreational activities (SIUC 73) Golf course (%411) C C C C C P C C C Golf course with country club (7412) C C C C C C C C Tennis courts (?413) C C C P C P C C C P Roller skating (7415) p p P Ice skating (7414) C C C P C P p Riding stables (7416) C C C C C Bowling (7411) p p P Skiing and tobogganing P C C p Athletic fields (7423) C C C C P C p Recreation centers (7424) C C C P p p Athletic clubs and gymnasiums (7425) p p P Swimming pools (7432) C C C P P C P Campgrounds and travel recreation vehicle courts (7491) P C C Parks, including playgrounds (7610) C C C C P C P C C C P Skate Park C C C C C C C C LDR LDRl NIDR HDR PO CBD HBD I AO OS RR AG1 AG2 LDR2 HDR2 AGRICULTURE Farming, fibers, grains, fruits, vegetable (811-814) P P P P P P P P P P P P Farming, dairy (815) C P Farming, livestock (8161 C C P P Farming, poultry (817) ~ C C P P Aericultural processing (821) p Small animal veterinarian services (totally enclosed)(8221) p p C I anima] veterinarian services (8221) C F altural services (8291) P C C P P P Plant nurseries P C P C C P P P Kennels C p MINTING Sand, gravel pits C OTHERS Cemeteries C C C C C P P C C C uses not related to above under SIUC codes C C C C 1. The above table of land uses permitted in each zone is based on the uses described in the Standard Land Use Coding Manual, 1977 edition A copy of the manual is available in the Office of the Clerk of the City of Rexburg 2. Residential uses by right in tire CBD, except for motel and hotels, are limited to the second floor and above. Residential uses on the first floor are conditional uses. 3. Manufactured homes on individual Lots and not in mobile home parks shall meet the standards set forth under Note 8 of Table 1. Land Use Table. • • ~iIIADISON COUNTY P.O. BOX 389 March 13, 2002 RExBURG, ~DAHo 83440. Tom Cole, PE Idaho Transportation Department POBox97 Rigby,.Idaho 83442 Re: South Rexburg, Main and Thornton Interchange Request for' Safety Enhancement Dear Tom: We are excited and pleased to see the transportation improvements occurring in our area with regard to U.S. Highway 20 and I-15. Surely these improvements will provide a substantial increase in the safety and functional performance of this important highway. • We are concerned, however about a related safety condition in our-area that needs appropriate attention in order to make existing portions comparable in safety to the new work being constructed. The purpose of this letter is to describe our concern and respectfully request that appropriate action be taken. Three interstate style interchanges effectively serve the City of Rexburg and BYCT-Idaho by providing appropriate access to/from US 20 and the local transportation network. Of these, the South Rexburg interchange receives by far the most traffic, primarily due to the numbers of college students accessing South Rexburg. The city of Rexburg will soon begin final design on a federally approved route for a major arterial link across South Rexburg that will connect major streets serving the college campus to the South Rexburg interchange. In short tl-,is interchange is already highly used and its function and importance will only increase as Rexburg continues to improve the transportation network and the College is expanded as a four-year institution. Our safety concerns with the Rexburg interchanges is with regard to the lack of appropriate highway lighting. We recognize budgetary constraints and the nature of the highway at the time the facilities was originally constructed may have precluded being able to include appropriate lighting for the interchange ramps. Certainly it is needed now and would be the right thing to do. After meeting together and considering the matter, both the City of Rexburg and Madison county strongly feel that the volume of use of these interchanges and the.general overall upgrading of US 20 to "interstate" standards both strongly suggest that the- interchanges should be provided with adequate highway lighting for improved safety and operational performance. We note that the other interchanges now being constructed include appropriate lighting, substantiating our position that the. new interchange being planned for the Menan-Thornton area and the Rexburg interchanges should-have it as well. Madison County therefore respectfully request that ITD give the matter urgent attention and consideration, and that lighting for enhanced safety on the new Menan-Thornton interchange and the interchange to Rexburg be given due consideration. Thank you for considering this matter and for all the work you do to make our highways safer and more functional. We look forward to hearing from you on this request. Sincerely, Reed B. Sommer, Madison County ~ Roger uir • March 19, 2002 Madison County Commissioners PO Box 389 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Re: South Rexburg, Menan-Lorenzo and Thornton IC Lighting Dear Commissioners: / • Thank you for your letter of concerns about the safety of current and future interchanges in the Rexburg area. The Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) also shares your concerns for safety of these interchanges. We are currently in the process of updating our State Transportation Improvement Plan (STIP). In the update process we identify new project we propose to include in our future plans. As part of identifying .future projects, our District Traffic Engineer has recommended lumination at all three Rexburg interchanges on US-20. Unfortunately based on the available funding it appears that during this update period- we will be unable to include them in the proposed program. The STIP includes project planned to be under construction in the Next three. years. It also includes information on projects proposed for inclusion in the following three years for a total of six years. Beginning this year, internally in District Six, we are developing our own 20-year plan. The hope is that many of the projects that we can find room in the program to include will be able to tentatively placed in our 20 year plan allowing us to better plan for the future. All three of these projects will be in our 20-year plan. As far as the proposed interchanges and Menan/Lorenzo and Thornton, they will be designed with lighting, similar to what was included this past year in the Sugar City interchanges. and Bonneville/Jefferson County line interchange. We agree with you that lighting improves the safety and functionality of the interchanges, but have had a tough time upgrading the existing interchanges. Page 1 - An Equal Opportunity Employer - TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT DISTRICT 6 P.O. BOX 97 RIGBY, ID 83442-0097 (208) 745-7781 Again thank you for your letter, and I hope that this has answered your concern. If you should have other questions, please contact me at, -208-745-7781, in Rigby. Sincerely, TOM E. COLE, LS/PE District Six Engineer l~ ~J Page 2