Palmer zoning raises debate

PALMER -- A new zoning proposition for land near Palmer High School has more than a few Valley residents concerned. The land in question would, under an ordinance currently before the Palmer City Council, be changed from an R-1 (single family residential) designation to a C-G (general commercial) designation.

The lot in question lies to the south of Palmer High's cross-country track, east of the Valley Pathways buildings, and west of the city of Palmer proper. The rezoning would allow for the land to be used for commercial enterprise rather than housing. Such a change has received a mixed reception at best from residents, several of whom turned out at the May 25 Palmer City Council meeting to voice their concerns.

Ty Corbridge, a resident from the area, spoke in favor of moderation in the zoning process.

"This is a fairly conservative town, and to go from R-1 directly to general commercial seems somewhat drastic," he said.

Corbridge went on to say he didn't think general commercial zoning was necessarily the right choice for the land at all.

"I'm in favor of commercial development for our economy, but this is disheartening for a resident such as myself," he said.

Council Member Tony Pippel, sitting in for Palmer Mayor Jim Cooper, said there wasn't much of a middle ground between residential and commercial zoning.

"There's no light blue or light green on the map; it's just either blue or green," Pippel said.

Pippel suggested placing a buffer zone between the residential developments in the area and any future commercial construction, but wondered how much of the area in question would be consumed by such a measure, and how the developer would feel about that.

Julie LeMay, who said she has lived in Palmer for more than 25 years and had recently bought a home near the proposed rezone, drew up a petition and went door to door in the neighborhood, asking residents their opinions. She collected roughly 60 signatures from people who opposed the rezone, she said at the meeting.

LeMay added that she didn't particularly relish knocking on doors to try to extract input from her neighbors, but the proposed change warranted such a measure.

"We don't want the Palmer-Wasilla Highway here in Palmer to look like the Parks Highway in Wasilla," she said.

Snodgrass said the 60 signatures presented by LeMay might constitute a "people's protest," or an action in which more than one-third of the involved property owners state in writing that they oppose the project. Though the ordinance could be passed by the council anyway, Snodgrass said, the matter probably deserves more contemplation.

"People love Palmer so much," said LeMay, "but they like the area just the way it is."

Eowyn LeMay Ivey, Julie's daughter, also turned out to speak against the ordinance.

"This council has done a good job in keeping the difficult balance of development," she said, adding that she didn't think that keeping the area in an R-1 classification would limit the city's ability to develop.

Council Member Brad Hanson agreed that juggling all of the elements of a prosperous city is quite a handful, especially in cases such as this one.

"It's a delicate balance, trying to put together all the elements of a community that it needs to be successful," he said. Hanson said easy access and proximity to a major thoroughfare for the lot in question make it ideal for commercial development.

"From my perspective, I believe that CG is the appropriate zone," he said.

Council Member John Combs said he liked to see new developments coming to the area, but he has mixed feelings about the proposed rezoning.

"I don't want a bar right next to Palmer High School, but whoever put a bar next to PHS would be out of business pretty quickly anyway," he said.

"It's such a tough decision, when the neighborhood was there first and the piece of land is so close to the highway," Combs said. "Zoning is really there to help people get along with each other."

The council remained divided on the issue at the end of their meeting, but decided to reconvene later, after taking into account the input they had received from residents.

"This indicates a significant level of unhappiness on the part of the residents," Pippel said, just before the council voted to delay action on the ordinance until their June 8 meeting.

Contact Daniel Spoth at daniel.spoth@frontiersman.com.