FAIRMONT– The Fairmont Planning Commission held a public hearing for a re-zoning request of 93 acres north of George Lake and west of Holland Street in Fairmont on Tuesday evening. The request, from the Carlson Walters Group, is to re-zone a portion of the parcel from its current designation of R1 single family residential to A agriculture transition.

On June 7 the Planning Commission first held a public hearing to review a proposal from the same applicant to re-zone the property to B1 neighborhood business. At that time the Planning Commission denied the request because the proposal was too broad and included potential uses not consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

The 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the area of land to be Mixed Use Neighborhood.

The issue of access was also one of the reasons the Planing Commission denied the request. At the June 7 meeting, more than a dozen residents spoke out with concerns on the lack of access and a desire not to have campers traveling down residential streets.

Planning and Zoning official, Peter Bode, said that the property owner plans to develop a campground on the land with future potential expansion of residential housing and a restaurant.

“At the applicant’s first public hearing in June, staff did not make a recommendation for or against the proposal and instead provided some topics of analysis to aid the discussion. Evaluating this request, we believe this application takes a step away from the topics discussed at the last meeting. The Commission discussed wanting more detail, possibly in the form of a subdivision or PUD (Planned Unit Development) and they did not indicate agriculture transition as a desired zoning designation,” Bode said.

He added that staff recommends the request be denied because the proposal as described approaches a subdivision more than a simple re-zone. He also said that staff recommended denial because the proposed agriculture transition district is not consistent with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan.

Brandon Edmundson, an attorney representing the Carlson Walters Group, said, “the group has attempted to work with the city to try to develop a plan for this site that meets everyone’s objectives, the biggest of which is a campground that caters to veterans.”

Edmundson said the group had previously worked with the city suggesting an agriculture transition zoning for the property with the understanding thy would need a conditional use permit to get a campground, which is specifically mentioned as a conditional use of an agriculture transition district.

“I want to make clean on this point that right now the conditional use permit is not being applied for today. We are not anywhere near the point in development and design where we would be presenting a conditional use permit today,” Edmundson said.

A few residents spoke up during the public comment portion voicing their dissatisfaction with the proposal. Then members of the Planning Commission discussed the request.

Commissioner Tom Lytle reminded the commission that its job was to look at the application as it was submitted, which was to re-zone to A agriculture transition, leaving R1 in place as it was submitted in the request. He said they should put the subdivision discussion to the side.

“We’re really talking about, are we comfortable re-zoning this property to A agriculture transition?” Lytle said.

Commissioner Rin Porter asked what the practice is for taking part of a parcel and re-zoning it. Bode said the city considers that bad practice because it divides the lot into two entities of sort.

“There are a number of parcels in the city that do at this time happen to have two zoning designations as the result of a subdivision. These are generally older parcels subdivided and zoned a long time ago,” Bode said.

He added that it’s generally a small sliver of the parcel which may have been more of an oversight rather than the actual intention of re-zoning.

Commissioner Jon Omvig said he didn’t know why anyone would subdivide a property if they didn’t have the zoning in place or indication that zoning would follow without knowing what the property lines were.

“If you look at most municipalities, it’s common practice that zoning is a uniquely separate item from a subdivision,” Omvig said.

However, he said the request before them was for a re-zone, not for a subdivision or a conditional use permit. Omvig said he, too, had questions about the conditional use permit and the issue of access points.

Omvig pointed out that most of the board’s re-zoning requests, other than this one, have typically been accomplished in an evening. He said if it was re-zoned agriculture transition and at some point someone wanted to re-zone it to residential, they could request to re-zone back to residential.

“Although R1 isn’t consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. B1 is, and we denied that,” Omvig said.

He said he saw the probability of two projects, one being a campground and one being a residential subdivision. Omvig said he thought a conditional use permit would need to be requested first.

“We need to make it clear to the homeowners here that this is zoning and it’s not okay to just do it. There’s a conditional use permit down the road,” said Commissioner Ron Davison.

Lytle added that that will give them an option to address the zoning and other issues that are challenges.

Omvig made a motion to approve the re-zoning to agriculture transition for the western portion of the parcel with the finding that it allows some uses that are compatible with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. Lytle seconded the motion.

“Based on the zoning, I’m in no position to deny it. The zoning is accurate, that’s what we’re here for. I’m in no position to deny it so I have to say aye,” said Davison.

In a roll call vote, the motion passed 3-1.

Now the re-zoning request will go to the Fairmont City Council, which will hold a public hearing before making a final decision.