Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MAY 1, 2003CITY OF REXBURG PLANNING AND ZONING MINUTES May 1, 2003 7:00 p.m. Chairman: Winston Dyer Members: Robert Schwartz Ted Whyte Mike Ricks Steve McGary Doug Smith -Excused Jerry Hastings -Excused Mary Haley Jordon Dyer David Stein Joseph Laird P.F.C. John Millar P & Z Administrator Kurt Hibbert City Attorney Stephen Zollinger City Clerk Blair D. Kay Portions of the meeting were recorded. ConsentAgenda: The consent agenda includes items which require formal Planning Commission action, however they are typicallyroutine or not ofgreat controversy. Individual Commission members mayask that anyspecific item be removed from the consentagenda for discussion in greater detail Explanatoryinformation is included in the Planning Commission's agenda packet regarding these ite;ins. i. Minutes from the April 17, 2003 meeting Jerry Hastings asked to be excused from the meeting. Ted Whyte moved to approve the consent agenda; Joseph Laird seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. • 1 Noncontroversial Items Added to Agenda: Kurt Hibbert -Introduced Joshua A. Garner, a Summer employee for the City of Rexburg. He will help Kurt with the preparation of the new Zoning Ordinance. Zoning Compliance - No issues were discussed. Public Hearin: Winston Dyer -Explained the process for giving testimony in a Public Hearing. Kurt Hibbert -Explained the reason for the request coming before the Planning Commission. Planned Residential Developments (PRD) require a Conditional Use Permit. 7:05 p.m. Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development in an 1VIDR Znne green (cables IT - 350 South Pioneer Rd -Randy Webb Randy Webb - 2526 Mesa, Idaho Falls -Commented on the request. They are trying to sell off the four-plexes to individual owners in a Planned Residential Development (PRD). Those in favor of the proposal: Randy Webb -Explained the reason for creating the PRD. They are trying to finance the buildings individually to expedite the development of the project. Karl Peterson - 3890 Taylorview Lane, Idaho Falls is a part owner ir. the development. Karl offered additional comments on the need to finish the project that has been before the City of Rexburg for about a year. Those neutral to the proposal: None given Those against the proposal: None given Winston Dyer - Led a discussion on the trend of changing requests from rental projects into Planned Residential Developments (PRD). Discussion on the PRD requirements for an applicant. Stephen Zollinger -Commented on the technical review for Planned Residential Developments. He indicated that it was the role of the City Staff to complete the technical review. L~ 2 • Mike Ricks moved to recommend a Conditional Use Permit for Green Gables II as a Planned ~ Residential Development with the following conditions: 1) Approval of City Staff 2} Meet the requirements of PRD Ordinance 854 as described below: SECTION Ic PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICABILITY A Planned Residential Development (PRD) may be permitted as a conditional use within any. zone, except the LDR zone, subject to the provisions of this section and all other applicable laws or ordinances. SECTION II: PURPOSE A. The purpose of the PRD Ordinance is to create diverse and quality housing in the City of Rexburg. B. The purpose of the PRD Ordinance is accomplished by: 1. Allowing design flexibility in residential development; 2. Establishing standards far landscaping, building and site design, public safety, parking, aesthetics, traffic circulation, fencing, lighting, and other similar site improvements; and 3. Requiring standards that enable PRDs to integrate into the surrounding neighborhoods. SECTION III. WHERE ALLOWED, TYPES AND USES. A. A Planned Residential Development, hereinafter referred to as a PRD, is a permitted use in all residential zones, except LDR. B. PRDs include single-family dwellings, twin homes, condominiums, townhouses, zero lot line developments, and apartments developed under this Article. SECTION IV. SITE PLAN. A. Site Plan Application Anyone desiring to develop a PRD shall first submit a Development Review Application for site plan approval. The applicant shall provide all requirements of the site plan to the City before the City considers the application submitted and before action is taken. The application for a site plan shall include all necessary fees and documentation required by this Article. 2. The City Building Department shall review the site plan and give it's recommendations to Planning & Zoning along with the plat. B. Site Plan Approval 1. The site plan must be approved by the Planning Commission before the final plat can be approved. 2. The developer shall submit a Development Review Application for final plat approval of all or part of the PRD together with all required fees. The final plat shall be prepared by the developer's surveyor and engineer. 3. The City Building Department shall review the final plat and give their recommendations to the Public Works Director. 4. The Public Works Director is the final approving authority for final plats and shall approve the application request if it meets the requirements of the approved site plan and all applicable City ordinances. Failure to submit a final plat within two (2) years of the date of approval of the site plan shall terminate all proceedings and render approval of the site plan null and void. The final plat shall expire and be void one (1) years after approval by the City, unless the Office of the Madison County Recorder has recorded the plat. C. Form and Contents of the Site Plan and Amended Site Plan 1. Submittal. The applicant shall submit the site plan for a PRD to the City Building Department. At that time the applicant shall pay a fee in an amount established by Resolution of the City Council. No development, construction, revisions or additions shall take place on the site until the Planning and Zoning Commission has approved the site plan, the City has approved the final plat, and the developer has posted the necessary bonds, recorded the final plat, and obtained the appropriate permits. Applicants for amended site plans for PRDs shall follow the same procedures, pay the same fees, and be bound by the same development standards and requirements as applicants for site plans for PRDs. The Public Works Director or designee has the authority to make minor amendments to the site plan where such amendments are in compliance with the ordinance and the site plan is not materially altered. 2. Contents of Site Plan. The site plan for a PRD shall be a document consisting of one or more pages of maps. and drawings drawn to scale. The applicant shall submit five (5) copies of the proposed site plan to the City Building Department. 4 One of the copies shall be 11'x17", and the other four copies shall be at least 81 /2"x 11 ", but not larger than 22'x34". The applicant shall also submit one computer aided design (CAD) drawing on a computer disk formatted and compatible with the City's computer system of each sheet of the site plan. The developer shall submit a site plan drawn to a scale large enough to clearly show all details and in any case not smaller than sixty feet (60') to the inch. The application and site plan for a PRD shall include the following items: a) b) c) d) e) g) 1, l ~.~ Name of Development Name and address of applicant Name and address of owner of property North arrow Scale of drawing Area of lot in square feet Lot line dimensions A .';Clnlty map COrltalning ~i~ffrient infnrmatinn to aCCUrately locate the property shown on the plan. Tabulation table in the following format: Square Footage Acreage Percen of Total Total Area 100 Total Building Area Total Impervious Area Total Landscaped Area Total Consolidated Open S ace Total Number of Parking S aces: Covered: Uncover red: j) Names and locations of fronting streets and locations and dimensions of public streets, private streets, and driveways. k) Footprints of existing and proposed buildings and structures, including a notation of each unit's height above the grade. 1) Location and size of existing proposed sewer lines and manholes, storm drain and manholes, supply main valves, water lines, culverts and fire hydrants within the tract and within two hundred (200) feet of the boundaries of the proposed development. m) Location of existing and proposed fire protection devices. n) Location, dimensions, and distance to property lines of existing and proposed drive access. o) Location and dimensions of existing and proposed curbs, gutters • and sidewalks. p) Location and dimensions of off-street parking spaces. q) Location and type of surface water drainage system and method of storm water disposal. r) Detailed landscape plan showing the specific types and locations of landscaping. s) Drawings of proposed structures, including covered or enclosed parking, showing the height, dimensions, appearance and materials proposed. t) Location and description (height, materials) of existing and proposed fences. u) Location and description (dimensions, distance to property lines and type of lighting (direct or indirect) of existing and proposed signs. v) Location and dimensions of consolidated open space. ~,.~) Location and type of solid waste disposal facilities. x) Traffic analysis when required by the City Engineer. y) Dwellings and other structures, parks, playgrounds, common areas and facilities limited common areas, private areas and facilities, and other improvements within the PRD. z) A map of existing and proposed contours drawn at two foot intervals with spot elevations showing existing and proposed drainage plans. D. Site Plan Review Procedure: 1. City Building Department. The City Building Department shall review the site plan while considering whether it complies with the Rexburg Comprehensive Plan and all City ordinances, resolutions, and policies. The site plan shall comply with the Rexburg Comprehensive Plan and all City ordinances, resolutions and policies before the Planning Commission can review the application. 2. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall review the site plan and be the final approving authority for all site plans for PRDs. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether the proposed site plan complies with all City ordinances, resolutions, and policies when reviewing a site plan for a PRD. E. The applicant shall not amend or change any approved site plan without f rst following the procedure for approval of site plans. F. The Planning Commission may impose conditions on the site plan to mitigate hazards. 6 SECTION V. FINAL PLAT. A. The form and contents of the final plat shall contain all of the requirements listed in the City's subdivision ordinance. The final plat shall also contain the following information: 1. A designation of common areas, limited common areas, and private ownership areas. 2. For condominiums, three dimensional drawings of buildings and building elevations. In the case where the PRD is a condominium project, the developer shall submit a copy of the condominium documents prepared by an attorney who is licensed to practice in Idaho. This written statement shall be the attorney's opinion that the condominium declaration, the subdivision plat and the other supporting documentation comply in all respects with the Idaho Ccndnmiri~um (l~z~rerchiln, Act as well as all applicable federal; state and local laws and ordinances and that when the office of the Madison County Recorder has recorded the condominium declaration and final plat, the proposed project will be a validly existing and lawful condominium project in all respects. 3. Written copies of any required agreements with property owners adjacent to the proposed PP.D, or with any other person. 4. Written approval of adjoining ditch or canal companies authorizing mandatory fencing of canals or piping of ditches. 5. Plat restrictions, lot restrictions, and other information required by the Planning Commission or City Council. B. PRD projects may be built in phases as long as each phase of a PRD complies with all of the requirements of this ordinance, except, however, that a phase of a PRD may be not less than 1.5 acres. Consideration will be given for staging of common areas, R. V. parking areas and other functions of the development that are not feasible to phase. C. The Director of Public Works shall approve the final plat of the PRD provided he/she finds that: The applicant has redrawn the site plan to incorporate all the requirements as approved by the Planning Commission and has submitted the corrected site plan with the final plat. 2. A final landscaping plan shall be submitted with the final plat. The plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and include the proposed irrigation system layout. 7 3. The applicant has incorporated all of the improvements and conditions of the approved site plan into the final plat. 4. The City Engineer has approved all construction drawings of the PRD. D: The Developer shall record the final plat after it obtains all of the required signatures and should then submit the required bonds and fees. SECTION VI. BUILDING PERMITS. The City shall not issue a building permit for any project until the final plat has been recorded. All other permit issuance procedures shall be as set forth in the applicable planning, zoning or subdivision ordinances. SEC TIOI~T Vii. COI:iPLETiON AND MAINTENANCE Off' IMPROVEMENTS. A. The Developer must complete all of the improvements required by the approved site plan for the final plat within two (2) years of the date of recording of the final plat. If the improvements are not completed within the time specified, the City shall have the option of taking action on the bond to complete the improvements. B. Every PRD shall conform to the approved site plan. The applicant or any • other person or entity shall not add any structures or make any improvements or changes to a PRD that did not appear on the approved site plan. The applicant and subsequent owners and applicable associations shall maintain all improvements shown on the site plan in a neat and attractive manner. Failure to complete or maintain a PRD in accordance with this Article and with the approved site plan is a violation of the terms of this Chapter. The City may initiate criminal and/or civil legal proceedings against any person, firm, entity or corporation, whether acting as principal, agent, property owner, lessee, lessor, tenant, landlord, employee, employer or otherwise, for failure to complete or maintain a PRD in accordance with this Article and with the approved site plan. SECTION VIII. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS. The City requires the following development standards and requirements with all PRDs. A. Density. The maximum density allowed in dwellings per gross acre (D/Ac) shall be determined by the underlying zones. B. Height. The maximum height for all structures in a PRD shall be thirty fee (30). . However, if contiguous property to the proposed PRD has been developed with • residential dwellings, then any structure within the PRD that is within 100 feet of the lot line of the adjacent lot containing a residential dwelling shall have no more stories than the adjacent residential dwelling. For example, if there is a single story home adjacent to a PRD, then no structure within the PRD that is within 100 feet of the lot line containing the single story dwelling shall be over one story. C. Minimum Area. The minimum area required for any PRD shall be two (2) contiguous acres. D. Setbacks. Setbacks from property not part of the PRD and from all public streets shall be at least twenty-five (25) feet. All garages/carports shall be set back a minimum of twenty (20) feet from a private street or access driveway. E. Utilities. The public sewer system and the public water supply shall serve all dwellings. A11 utilities shall be underground. The developer shall individually ~~~eter natural gas and electricity for Pach indi~Tidual dwelling except that with apartment developments each building is required to have a minimum of one meter for natural gas and electricity. No water or sewer mainlines shall be Located under covered parking areas. F. Fences. Developers shall erect a fence with a minimum height of six feet (6') on the perimeter of all PRDs, except that no fence is required along street frontages. E,+ However, if the applicant desires a fence along a street frontage, the Planning Commission may approve the fence upon a favorable recommendation from the City Engineer that the fence does not interfere with traffic safety and is in compliance with the fencing requirement of the zoning ordinance. The perimeter fence shall have a consistent design throughout the project and use the same construction materials for the entire fence: The purpose of the fencing requirement is to buffer the surrounding residential neighborhoods from the PRD and to buffer the PRD from surrounding commercial and industrial uses. The Planning Commission may waive the fencing requirement if the topography is such that the fence does not meet the purpose of the fencing requirements. If the developer uses sight obscuring materials, the materials are to be painted with a high grade oil base paint/sealant that resists graffiti. Vinyl fences and chain link fences with slats do not need to be painted. G. Landscaping. 1. All land within the PRD not covered by buildings, driveways, sidewalks, structures, and parking areas, shall be permanently Landscaped with trees, shrubs, lawn, or ground cover and maintained in accordance with good landscaping practice. All landscaping shall have a permanent underground sprinkling system. / • 9 2. At least fifty percent (50%) of the net acreage (area of the development less ( public and private streets) of the entire development shall remain permanently landscaped. 3. At least one (1) deciduous tree at least two (2) inch caliper measured four feet (4') above the ground, one (1) evergreen tree at least five (5) gallons in size, and sixteen (16) evergreen shrubs at least five (5) gallons in size are required for every two dwellings. H. Lighting Plan. All PRDs shall include a lighting plan. The lighting plan shall be designed to: 1. Discourage crime 2. Enhance the safety of the residents and guests of the PRD; Prevent glare onto adjacent properties; and enhance the appearance and design of the project. All PRD homeowners' associations and apartment owners are required to control and meter all outside lighting shown on the lighting plan except for front and back door lighting. The lighting plan shall designate which lighting shall be commonly metered to the association or owner. Parking. There shall be a minimum of two (2) parking spaces provided for each dwelling, one of which shall be covered. There shall also be a minimum of one half ('/z) parking space for each dwelling for guest parking within the development. Guest parking shall be located within one hundred fifty feet (150') of the dwellings served. All parking spaces shall measure at least nine feet (9') by eighteen feet (18). Developers shall pave with asphalt and/or concrete all parking spaces, parking areas, and driveways and provide proper drainage. Drainage shall not be channeled or caused to flow across pedestrian walk ways. The architecture of all covered parking structures shall be compatible with the architecture of the main structures within the PRD. Recreational Vehicle Storage. Recreational vehicle owners shall comply with Section 4.8.A. of the zoning ordinance governing parking of recreation vehicles. Owners shall not store recreational vehicles within a PRD except in an area the City Council has approved as part of the site plan for the storage of recreational vehicles. This requirement, with appropriate enforcement provisions, shall be included in all Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, that run with the property; homeowners association bylaws; leases; rental agreements, etc. Land included in an approved RV storage area maybe counted towards the 50% landscaping requirement; provided however, a maximum of 2% of the net acreage of the project may be used for this credit, so that in no event will the total amount of 10 { • actual landscaping be less than 48% of the project net acreage. The developer shall enclose RV storage areas with a six foot (6') high sight obscuring fence and pave the area v~~ith concrete or asphalt. K. Streets 1. For the purposes of this Article the following definitions apply: a. Public Street shall mean aright-of--way owned by the City that has a minimum width of at least sixty eight feet (68') and complies with the street plan in the comprehensive plan. b. Private Street shall mean a vehicular right-of--way owned and maintained privately that has aright-of--way width of less than sixty-eight feet (68') and not less than thirty six feet (36') in width. c. Private Drive shall mean a vehicular right-of--way owned and maintained privately that is less than thirty-six feet (36') in width and is not Less than twenty-four feet (24') in width. 2. The minimum public street shall have a five foot (5') wide concrete sidewalk, ;.• a seven foot (T) planter strip and curb and gutter on each side and at least ~ thirty-nine feet (39') of asphalt or concrete paving. 3. A private street shall be paved with either concrete or asphalt, include a five foot (5') wide sidewalk on at least one side and curb and gutter. 4. A private drive shall be paved with either concrete or asphalt. All streets that are shown on the Rexburg City Master Street Plan shall be developed as public streets according to the size and general location shown on the Rexburg. City Master Street Plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission has the authority to require streets in a PRD to connect with other public streets outside the PRD where such connection is necessary for good traffic circulation in the area. All streets in a PRD shall be public streets constructed to City Standards and Specifications and dedicated to the City. However, private streets and private drives maybe permitted provided that: a. They will not extend to or provide service to another property or parcel not included in the PRD unless there is no reasonable way to access existing parcels contiguous to a private street. ', • 11 -- b. They will not provide access or travel between, or otherwise connect ( with two (2) or more public streets unless the street or driveway is designed to discourage through traffic. c. They are designed by a qualified licensed civil engineer and constructed to City Standards and Specifications. d. They are designated on the final plat as perpetual rights-of--way and public utility easements. d. All access points from public streets have "Private Street" or "Private Drive" signs installed. The City Council may require private streets/drives to be wider than the minimum width if necessary to insure traffic and pedestrian safety and to reduce traffic congestion. L. Off-site improvements. The City shall require off-site curb; gutter and sidewalk along street rights-of--way bordering the site when the proposed PRD impairs off site safety or surface water drainage and there is a nexus between the required improvements and the governmental purpose provided the amount of the improvements are roughly proportional to the amount of the off-site impact caused by the PRD. • M. Irrigation Ditches. Developers shall pipe irrigation ditches within the PRD or along street rights-of--way adjacent to the PRD. N. Storage Areas and Solid Waste Receptacles. All outside storage areas, except RV storage areas, and all solid waste receptacles which are not located within a building, shall be enclosed on at least three sides with materials that are compatible to the exterior of the main structures within the PRD. O. Front Facades. The front of each attached dwelling shall have offsetting facades of at least one foot (1'). P. Homeowner's Association. The applicant shall establish a home owners association for every PRD containing common or limited common property, with more than one owner for the purpose of maintaining the PRD. The homeowner's association, the individual property owners, and tenants shall maintain the PRD in accordance with the approved site plan. Q. Consolidation of Open Spaces. All PRDs with a density over nine units per acre shall include at least two (2) or more open spaces in the fifty percent (50%) landscaping requirement. An open space is a single, contiguous landscaped area that may also include recreational facilities such as playground equipment, • 12 -. basketball or tennis court, swimming pool, etc. The consolidated open space shall '~ be at least two hundred twenty-five (225) square feet for each dwelling unit in the PRD and shall not be located within any required setback adjacent to a public street. Developers shall landscape the open space and design it as a recreational area for both children and adults. The open space shall be designed so that a horizontal rectangle inscribed within it has no dimension less than forty feet (40'). The consolidated open space requirement shall not have more than fifty percent (50%) of the area with slopes more than thirty percent (30%). R. Storm Water Runoff Plan. All PRDs shall have a storm water runoff plan designed to accommodate a 25- year storm and a detention system with a maximum allowable discharge rate of sixty gallons per minutes per acre (60 g.p.m./ac) S. Existing Homes. No PRD shall include an existing single family dwelling. If a single family dwelling exists on the property where a PRD is proposed, the applicant shall plat separately a lot containing the home. The plat shall comply with the requirements of the Rexburg Subdivision Ordinance. SECTION IX. BONDS A. Purpose. Prior to the recording of any documents concerning an approved PRD • and prior to the issuance of any building permit on ground covered by a PRD, the applicant shall post a bond with the City sufficient in amount to cover the cost of all public improvements required by ordinances, landscaping including sprinkling system, asphalt, curb, gutter, sidewalk, fencing, recreational facilities, piping of irrigation ditches, and any other item required as part of the approved site plan. The bond shall be a guarantee that the proper installation of all required improvements shall be completed within two (2) years of recordation of the approved final plat and that the improvements shall remain free form defects for six (6) months or until July 15 of the following year, whichever is longer. The City shall not release this bond until the City accepts the improvements. B. Type. The bond shall be an irrevocable letter of credit, escrow bond cash bond or combination bond in favor of the City. The City reserves the right to reject any of the bond types if it has a rational basis for doing so. The bond shall be delivered to the Public Works Director. C. Amount. The Public Works Director or his designee shall determine the amount of the required bond by estimating the cost of completing the required improvements. The amount of the bond shall be at least one hundred ten percent (110%) of the estimated costs of the required improvements. • 13 D. The Developer shall not record the final plat until the developer of the PRD has • tendered the bond and entered into an agreement with the City in which the developer agrees to install the improvements as required by this Article and agrees to indemnify and hold the City harmless from any claims, suits of judgments arising form the condition of property dedicated to the City, from the time that the property is dedicated to the City to the time when the improvements on the dedicated property are finally accepted by the City (including the passage of the warranty period). E. An applicant may request an extension from the Public Works Director for the completion of improvements of up to two (2) years. The Public Works Director may grant an extension of one year if the applicant demonstrates good cause for not completing the improvements and demonstrates the present ability to complete the improvements. F. If, for any reason, the bonds providing for the guarantee of improvements are insufficient to properly complete the improvements, the developer shall be personally liable to complete the improvements required by this Article. G. The bonds required by this Section are for the sole benefit of the City. The bonds are not for the individual benefit of any citizen or identifiable class of citizens, including the owners or purchasers of lots or units within the PRD. The bonds are not for the purpose of ensuring payment of contractors, subcontractors or • suppliers of labor or materials, and no contractors, subcontractors or suppliers of labor or materials shall have a cause of action against the City or the bond for providing labor or materials. SECTION X. VIOLATIONS -PENALTIES. Any persons or persons violating the provisions of this Ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be punishable in accordance with the provisions in the State Statute governing general misdemeanors, applicable at the time of the violation. In addition, all persons found guilty will be assessed costs. SECTION XI. REPEALING ORDINANCES. All ordinances or portions of ordinances in conflict herewith are hereby repealed. SECTION XII. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ORDINANCE. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage, approval and publication. Steve McGary seconded the motion; Discussion from the Commissioners requiring the applicant to comply with the Planning and Zoning Ordinance Section 6.13 as a condition. 14 Mike Ricks amended his motion to recommend a Conditional Use Permit for Green Gables II f • as a Planned Residential Development with the following conditions: 1) Approval of City Staff 2) Meet the requirements of PRD Ordinance 854 3) Comply with Section 6.13 of the Planning & Zoning Ordinance 725 Steve McGary seconded the amended motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. 7:10 p.m. Rezone properties from (MDR & HBD) to HDR- 4th East & Barney Dairy Rd - Tom O' Toole Winston Dyer - Declared a conflict with this request and stepped away from the table. Winston asked Ted Whyte to chair the meeting in his absence. Tom O' Toole -Reviewed the property on the overhead screen. He explained the reason for asking for a higher density zone. Tom indicated that the property would be expensive to develop. Only part of the property will be developed as high density. The developers have two proposals under review for this property. The property adjacent to the river is being considered for townhomes in four or six unit buildings. Married housing could allow 420 plus units on the entire property. The Barney Dairy road could be diverted to go through this development. Tom indicated that the property will only develop with ~ • rents on the higher end of the rent scale. The plan calls for married housing in the proposed development. Kurt Hibbert -Explained the City's intent to connect Barney Dairy Road with a road through this development. Discussion on the property owned by John Watson. John called the City Clerk before the meeting to remind the Commissioners during this discussion that Walker Avenue on the Southwest corner of this parcel was constructed to accommodate this property. Those in favor of the project: Ray Walker - 1270 Barney Dairy Road -Commented on the time frame for the property being developed. It will have a green belt near the river. Ray is in favor of the zone change. Those neutral to the proposal: None given Those against the proposal: None given Public testimony was closed. ( • 15 Discussion on the proposal and the density that could result from HDR. • Mary Haley - Indreated that. a traffic study would be m order. David Stein -Reviewed the property being compliant to multi-family zoning. It fits the layering concept of going from HBD to HDR to MDR to LDR1, etc. Robert Schwartz -Discussed possibilities of buildin~ sizes that would result in an HDR Zone. Gary NlcGary -Reviewed the maximum of 30 units per net acre that could be allowed in an HDR Zone. Tom O'Toole indicated that there are 26 acres in the proposal. The physical limitations on the property will not allow the maximum density of 30 units per net acre. David Stein -Indicated that there is a need to have residential growth near Commercial areas. Ted Whyte -Requested if the applicant would consider MDR2 Zoning which is up to 24 units per net acre with a Conditional Use Permit. Tom O'Toole indicated that there is no possible way to develop the property for less than the HDR request of 30 units per net acre. They want HDR to allow for the development of student housing. John Millhr -Reviewed his concerns with the traffic problems that will result from high density housing in this area. He is not recommending denying the HDR request, however, he would desire a fact finding study on the traffic issues. Discussion on the need for a traffic light on 2"a East to allow additional traffic onto 2"d East if this Zone change is approved. Mike Ricks -Commented on the possibility of allowing the MDR2 Zone for this area. He discussed the offer of a ladder truck from the developer to the City of Rexburg for the Fire Department if this zone change was approved. Discussion on John Millar's concerns with the possibility of increased traffic volumes and the positive aspects of the development proposal which include a green belt and the redirection of traffic off Barney Dairy Road. David Stein moved to approve die zone change request from MDR to MDR2; Jordon Dyer seconded the motion; Discussion of the traffic flow problems if the request is approved. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Discussion on the allowed use of an MDR2 Zone. The size of the buildings allowed in MDR2 -would restrict the possibilities for this development. Discussion on allowing a development agreement to restrict density on an existing zone. • 16 David Stein moved to reconsider the motion to approve the MDR2 Zone for the Tom O' Toole Rezone request that was just passed; Jordon Dyer seconded the motion to reconsider the motion; Discussion on the need to reconsider the motion. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Discussion on creating a zone change agreement to limit or restrict the~allowed density for a parcel in a particular zone change request. Stephen Zollinger -Commented on the need to justify the reason for creating a singular event change to the zone instead of changing the zone. Stephen continued discussion on the proposal for limiting the density in an HDR Zone due to infrastructure problems. If the density is limited in a zone due to an infrastructure problem, the developer can say: "then I will build a better road or bridge to correct the problem". Discussion on approving an HDR Zone while restricting the development or density by a development agreement if there are infrastructure limitations. David Stein moved to approve the Tom O' Toole request to rezone the property from MDR to HDR with the intent of the Planning Commission to limit the development to 24 units per net acre or require a traffic study; Jordon Dyer seconded the motion; Discussion on requiring the bike path and the lower the elevation of buildings near the river. All voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Chairman Winston Dyer was excused from the meeting. Winston commented to the Commissioners concerning the next public hearing for George Wilson. He indicated that the next. proposal is adjacent to an industrial zone and to have the Commissioners consider the rights that come with a particular zone. Ted Whyte became the Chairman for the meeting. '7:15 p.m. Rezone request from MDR to MDR2 at 355 West 2na South -George Wilson George Wilson - 630 Taurus Drive _Reviewed the property on the overhead screen. They will only be able to rent to 23 married couples. If left as single rentals he could get more people on the property. George reviewed the properties in the area that have converted from single family units to multi-family units. George indicated that MDR2 zoning would be a good buffer to the Industrial Zoned property to the West of his property. His plan is to build two bedroom apartments for married couples. • 17 Kurt Hibbert -Indicated that Staff has reviewed the request without any findings of fact to disapprove the MDR2 Zone change request in this area. Those in favor of the request: Ted Whyte - Read a letter from DaWarma Cox, an adjacent property owner, who indicated that she was in favor of the request. Mary Ivie - 227 %z South 4~1' West -Commented on a rental she owns in the area. She wants clear access to her rental. Her only access to the street is by an easement through the Wilson property. Mary rents to married couples. Dianna Wilson - 630 Taurus Drive -Addressed the letter from the Cox family. They are not in any confrontations with the Cox family. They are trying to develop the property with their neighbor's desires in mind. George Wilson -Gave additional comments on the reason for the zone change. George reiterated the fact that ahnost all homes in this area have converted from single family homes to multi-family homes. George named several properties in the area that have transitioned into rental properties. He is in favor of the request. _ Those neutral to the request: _ Fred Calder - 244 Steiner Avenue -Reviewed the location of his property on Steiner Avenue. He was not aware of the MDR2 lone. Discussion on the allowable use in the MDR2 Zone. The MDR2 Zone will allow 24 units per acre with a Conditional Use Permit. Fred commented on the intent of the MDR2 Zone to be a transitional Zone. He indicated that he would prefer to have MDR2 Zoiung on the West side of the railroad tracks. Fred is in favor of married housing at this location. He would like to have his property protected from higher density development. He desired to have the property rights of the single family home owners protected. Those opposed to the proposed zone change: None given Rebuttal: George Wilson -Reiterated that his maximum density for singles would be 60 singles or 42 Married couples. He reviewed the properties in the area that are adjacent to his property. He reviewed properties in the area that could be developed with units in the back yards. His proposal is to build three six plexes. Public Testimony was closed. 18 Discussion on the proposal with concerns on changing the density of buildings in the f neighborhood. The Commission reviewed the overall density of buildings that are allowed with an MDR Zone or an MDR2 Zone. Robert Schwartz -Reviewed the Commissioners frustration concerning maintaining the property rights of the existing property owners in conjunction with the requests from developers. Steve McGary -Commented on the rights allowed by the separate zones and the right of an owner to develop his property. Joseph Laird - Commenied on the buffer that TvlDic~ would be to the Industrial Zone on the West side of the property. Discussion continued on the size of building that would be allowed in the different Zones. Mary Haley -Indicated that MDR is sufficient for a buffer to the Industrial Zone to the West of the Wilson property. Jordon Dyer -Agreed with the request to have married housing in this location. Mike Ricks moved to deny the rezone request due to fact that the request is in conflict with the City Comprehensive Overlay Plan and MDR provides an adequate buffer for the Industrial Zone to the West of this property; Mary seconded the motion; Discussion on the profile of the buildings in the neighborhood and appearance of a single family neighborhood. Mary reviewed that MDR is a significant buffer from Industrial; She indicated that additional buffering is not needed. Finding of Fact is that the request is inconsistent with the current Comprehensive Plan. Those voting aye Robert Schwartz Ted Whyte Mike Ricks Mary Haley Jordon Dyer David Stein Joseph Laird Those voting nay Steve McGary The request to rezone to MDR2 from MDR was denied. • 19 New Business: Final Plat for Willow Brook Estates -Division No. 2 -Approx. 500 S. 12t~' W. Harper -Leavitt Engineering, Inc. & Kirby Forbush Lisa Ellis - 1778 West 1000 South -Provided comments to the Commission requesting a buffer to the Willow Brook Estates Subdivision to protect her animals. Her property boarders the property on the South side. Kirby Forbush - 3800 West 1000 North -Reviewed the changes on Preliminary Plat and the access to the property to the North. The property has been annexed and meets all of the conditions of the preliminary plat approval The development will have road profiles with swells for storm water run off and sidewalks. Discussion on the changes to the Plat to include full streets easements adjacent to the lots in the Final Plat. The infrastructure for City services has been installed in the subdivision. John Millar -Indicated that if the homes are developed to access the existing streets, a side street would not be required until the next Plat is submitted to include the side street. There were two lots ir. question. that would require the homes to face existing streets. The road right of way should be secured for the two lots in question. Road construction would be covered in a development agreement. Joseph Laird -Inquired about the plan for storm water retention. John indicated that the storm water would be retained on individual properties. Discussion on the request to buffer the neighbors horse properties from this development. The comment that "good fences make good neighbors" was reviewed. Discussion on the ditch on the West side of the property. Kirby did not indicate a final resolution to the barrier for that ditch. The ditch users did not want additional culverts installed in the ditch. A cove-red ditch would probable not be acceptable to the ditch users. Ditch cleaning access would be from the County road. There is adequate right of way by the ditch for maintenance. Steve McGary moved to approve Willow Brook Plat Division No. 2 with the following Conditions: 1) Staff Department approvals; 2) Fire Hydrants as required by the Fire Department; Show road dedications for each lot in the Division No. 2. Robert Schwartz seconded the motion; Those voting aye Those voting nay Robert Schwartz, Joseph Laird Ted Whyte, Mike Ricks, Mary Haley, Jordon Dyer, David Stein & Steve McGary The motion to approve Willow Brook Final Plat Division No. 2 was approved. Za Preliminary Plat Quail Ridge Subdivision -Off 7th South &Millhollow Road Richard Smith Richard Smith - 637 South Millhollow Road -Reviewed the Plat on the overhead screen. His current home is on lot #9. Discussion on the proposed development coming up to 7th South, however the homes would not have access to 7th South from their individual lots. Discussion on the need to have 7th South in this area as a major arterial. The property was described as being annexed to 7tn South in the most recent annexation, however the legal description did not indicate the 7tn South description. Anew annexation proposal will include the correct legal description for this proposal. Staff approves the concept of the preliminary plat. Robert Schwartz moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for Quail Ridge Subdivision; Mike Ricks seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried. Richard Smith -Indicated that a new name will be offered for the development instead of Quail Ridge since it is similar to an existing subdivision in the County. Kurt Hibbert commented on the need to obtain a biography of the Planning Commissioners for the upcoming Comprehensive Plan survey for that will be brought before the public. "~' Unfinished/Old Business: Work Meeting -Comprehensive Plan and Zoning - No discussion Report on pro~e~ ,cts: None Tabled Requests: None Adjourned 21