HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JUNE 16, 2011
1
Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others:
Winston Dyer - Chairman Mayor Richard Woodland
Thaine Robinson Rex Erickson – City Council Liaison
Richie Webb Val Christensen – Community Development Director
Jedd Walker Stephen Zollinger- City Attorney
Cory Sorensen Scott Johnson - Economic Development Director
Dan Hanna Jake Rasmussen – I.T. Technician
Nephi Allen Police Officer Ray Hermosillo
Scott Ferguson Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator Marilyn Rasmussen
Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:02 pm. He recognized Councilman Erickson, Mayor
Woodland, City staff, applicants, and interested citizens. This meeting demonstrates the great
American process, where everyone has an opportunity to have their say.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Nephi Allen, Cory Sorensen, Scott Ferguson, Dan Hanna, Winston Dyer, Thaine Robinson, Marilyn
Rasmussen
Gil Shirley and Mary Ann Mounts were excused.
Jedd Walker arrived at 7:03 pm.
Minutes:
1. Planning and Zoning meeting - May 19, 2011
Scott Ferguson motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of May 19, 2011. Thaine
Robinson seconded the motion.
Nephi Allen, Dan Hanna, and Marilyn Rasmussen abstained for not having been present.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Chairman Dyer explained that the Commissioners operate as a Commission under two enabling
documents. First, there is a state law which states that each community will have a Planning and
Zoning Commission. They are chartered and charged with looking at future growth in the
community. They look at specific proposals, shepherd the Comprehensive Plan, and guide the
development of the Development Code and other ordinances with regard to planning and zoning.
Each Commissioner is appointed by the Rexburg City Council or County Commissioners if they
reside in the City’s impact area. Secondly, the Commission operates under Robert’s Rules or Order;
all discussion is directed through the Chairman so that there is an orderly process. There is the
guarantee and the opportunity for everyone to have their fair say.
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
June 16, 2011
2
There are two main documents the Commission operates by in their planning and zoning efforts.
The Chair thought describing each of them would help explain why there are two different hearings
on what appears to be the same matter.
First, the Comprehensive Plan map was viewed. It is the preferred land use map of the City, the
dream map, or the wish list of what may occur with Rexburg’s development in different areas of the
City. It has been put together with the work of the P&Z Commission and the approval of the City
Council. It is a general map, showing the vision of Rexburg’s future for land uses.
The zoning map was viewed. It is more detailed and specific. It is the law. A proposal would have
to be consistent with what is allowed in a zone, or there can be a petition to change the zone.
Chairman Dyer clarified that the first public hearing tonight requests a change to the City’s
Comprehensive Plan map, followed by a hearing requesting to modify the zoning map.
Richie Webb arrived at 7:10 pm.
Public Hearings:
Chairman Dyer explained the process that is followed for public hearings. The applicant or a
representative will come forward to present the proposal to the Commission. The Commissioners
will be given the opportunity to ask clarifying questions. Because of the many interested citizens
here tonight, the Chair will allow the public the opportunity to ask clarifying questions in order to
better understand the proposal, so that when public hearing testimony begins the public can focus
on what they wish to say, rather than asking questions, which cannot be answered during public
testimony. Everyone is guaranteed their fair say without any intimidation of any kind. There will not
be any catcalling, or applauding, or cheering. Those are all forms of intimidation and mob mentality.
Everyone will be civil. If one wishes to speak to give public testimony, please state your name and
address for the record, and your affiliation, such as neighbor, interested citizen, etc. If someone has
already made comments that you agree with, please be kind enough to say you agree without
restating the issue.
After public input is closed, staff evaluation and recommendations will be given.
The Commission will then deliberate the matter, and thoroughly explore the pros and cons and all
sides of the issue, in order to reach a rational and reasoned decision on the matter.
The P&Z Commission is a recommending body, an advisory body to the City Council. The City
Council will make the final decision. All recommendations of the P&Z Commission are appealable
to the City Council.
Joseph West, in the audience, said since the issues of the first two hearings (Rexburg Hill Properties,
LLC) are similar, public comments may be similar for both of them. Would people need to make
public comment for both of the hearings?
Chairman Dyer said the Commission will give full hearing to both issues.
Because of the similarity, any public testimony given in the first Public Hearing for the Rexburg Hill
Properties, LLC Comprehensive Plan Amendment request, will also be considered to be relative to
their second Public Hearing requesting a zone change.
Chairman Dyer stated that several people have submitted written input letters. The Commission
can take the person’s letter or oral testimony, but not both from the same person, as this is seen as
allowing someone double input, or an unfair advantage.
3
Jedd Walker said that when the Commission allows the audience to ask questions before the public
input portion of the hearing, it is not testimony, but just clarifying questions to help everyone to
better understand what is being proposed.
Chairman Dyer reiterated that these questions would need to be to help in understanding the
proposal. Please do not editorialize or give an opinion at this time. Such comment would need to be
given during public input testimony and not during this question period.
7:05 pm – Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment – Rexburg Hill Properties, LLC –
110.4 acres directly adjacent to the South East Corner of the street intersection of 7th South and
South 2nd East.
Michael Batt and Ron Black were the representatives for Rexburg Hill Properties, LLC, the
applicant.
Michael Batt, 3313 Woodside Drive, Idaho Falls, representing applicant and property owner
Rexburg Hill Properties, LLC and its principal, Frank Vandersloot. The subject property was
purchased several years ago prior to the time the LDS Temple was in place. They have been
approached multiple times over the years about development of the property. Of all the properties
that Mr. Vandersloot owns, this is the one property he has particular interest and passion about and
is concerned about what happens with it. They have gone to extraordinary lengths to try and
understand the various different parties who have opinions on the property, whether it is the City,
the schools, the LDS Church or the community. They have tried their best to meet with the
different groups and hear their concerns. They have reviewed the Comprehensive Plan trying to
understand why it was drafted the way it was drafted and its key underlying principles. They have
tried to balance all the needs of the various interested parties as well as come within the guidelines of
the Comprehensive Plan. They have tried to be very sensitive, respectful and preserve the dignity
and the atmosphere surrounding the Temple. They have met with the community and understand
there are varying opinions. It is their hope that everyone will see they have done their best to make
sure the plan would work for the City, the Church, and the community, and it would be an
economically viable project as well.
A PowerPoint presentation for the proposal was shown. The property size is 110.4 acres. Currently
the land is being farmed. Mr. Batt explained the overall intent for the land as he went over its
different sections. He hopes they can now put together a plan that will be meaningful, so that
sometime in the future, whoever owns the property in the future will have to work within the
guidelines of the land rules they are proposing.
The vision for the piece right across from the Temple would be for a private park, privately owned
and maintained, for people to come and go. Photos were shown of how they envision the park to
be. There would be lawns, landscaping, rocks, bridges, and waterfalls. It could even be called
Proposal Park in conjunction with some of their other visions. It would be a place for people to
come, relax, stroll, and enjoy the atmosphere.
East of the park would be commercial – their vision is for a wedding reception and conference
center. It would be of high quality, as Mr. Vandersloot’s developments have been.
The third piece of this plan would be a buffer of single family homes around the park and the
center; there would possibly be some complementary type of commercial, such as a flower shop or
wedding shop, etc. They would anticipate and expect restrictions on the zoning for this type of
commercial.
There would be a buffer on 2nd East of about 80 feet in width.
4
There would be multifamily housing on the south. The depression, or basin, in the land would
facilitate this type of use and would provide for a very mixed community. They feel this is fitting
place because of the topography of the area.
The smaller section north of the multifamily housing and south of the single family homes would be
patio homes, requiring little maintenance, for seniors or retirees.
The next piece would again be high density for snow birds or other retired people who want
convenience of closeness. In the City’s Comprehensive Plan Map a Neighborhood Node is shown
on the east of the subject property – there could be a business such a Jamba Juice or neighborhood
grocery.
The final piece to the east of the high density on Sunrise Drive would be a lot that would dedicated
for an LDS Chapel.
Their goal is to develop a project that fits, with a lot of different uses that meet the needs of a lot of
different people and still preserves the dignity and the atmosphere of the LDS Temple.
As they met with the City and the citizens, one of the concerns was about multifamily housing. Ron
Black will address this issue and explain why they feel this particular plan is conducive to the best
possible use for this piece of property.
Ron Black, 1388 Clarence Dr., Idaho Falls, representing the applicant. He explained why the plan is
laid out as they have shown. As they met with the residents, they found there were feelings about
having a large three story building at the top of the hill where everyone could see it.
An animated map was shown. They have changed the plan. They have moved the location of the
apartment clubhouse from the back of the property up to the front and top of the hill. They have
tried to make it so neighbors’ views and the view when traveling down the street, will not see large
apartments. The clubhouse would be one-story, with the view of apartments behind it. The view
from anywhere along the street would not be any worse than having single family homes in the area.
There would be 15 multi-family buildings. There would also be a small park with a setback of 200
feet, near the clubhouse. The park and developments will be beautiful. There would be trails near
the basin area. They would hope the City would plant grass and perhaps have a soccer field.
The 80 foot wide buffer would help to make 2nd East very beautiful. Views on top of the hill would
not be blocked.
A rendering of the multifamily buildings was shown. They are not trying to build something that
looks like some of the other apartments in town. They want this development to be the nicest place
in town, top of the market, for people to be proud to live in and live by. It would be beautiful in the
summer and the winter, with lots of landscaping and green space. They are currently planning a
project near a ski resort in Utah which will have condominium buildings with this same design.
Mr. Black showed a slide of some existing apartments allowed under the current Comprehensive
Plan allows in the Medium Density Residential 1 zone. They do not want to do row upon row of
buildings. They believe something that is classy and that looks good will make much more sense.
They would be willing and there intent is to have 20 units per acre, in order to maintain greenspace,
even though high density allows for much more. They want to maintain something that is attractive
and is also a useful place for people.
They have been asked why single family homes are not planned at this location. There are a total of
261 single family lots that are not selling in this area. It was figured that about 228 residences are
needed every year at the rate of growth projected for Rexburg. How many of those would be for
high-end homes? Not very many. The median income in Rexburg is less than 40 thousand dollars a
year.
5
They would hurt the existing subdivisions if they put in single family homes. Founders Square, just
to the south of their proposal, would likely have more sales if their presented plan is done. An
additional number of single family lots exist throughout Rexburg.
It does not make any economic sense to put all the subject property into single family homes.
Another concern that was expressed is the road. Their maps show the road coming into 2nd East at
Crest View. They are willing to put the road in to 2nd East wherever the City would like it to be. Mr.
Black is assuming there will need to be a traffic study by professionals to determine the safest place.
They understand they are asking for a Comprehensive Plan Map change. If the Comprehensive Plan
was different and allowed for more than a 4-plex, they could live with the current Comprehensive
Plan designations. They feel if they were to go to larger buildings, it provides more green space with
less strain on the City’s infrastructure. It would reduce building costs but would allow the developer
to add more amenities to make the buildings even nicer. Mr. Black reiterated they would be willing
to limit the development size to 20 units per acre.
Thaine Robinson asked for clarification on the private park that was shown directly across from
the Temple, and what “private” actually means. Would it be only for some, not allowing others?
Ron Black said they are referring to who owns the park. It would be privately owned and privately
maintained, and open to everyone. They would build it and pay for it, so that they would be able to
make it as it is envisioned.
Scott Ferguson asked about the proposed Neighborhood Business District zones on 7th South
near the planned park and the piece to the east of the multi-family. How many and what types of
businesses do they envision?
Ron Black said the size of the area on 7th South is about 3 acres on the east side of the planned street
and 2 acres on the opposite side. The businesses here would support weddings, possibly a small strip
center of 5 or 10 shops with a flower shop, dress shop, etc. The property near the multi-family
housing could possibly have a convenience store, dry cleaners, juice store, etc.
Mr. Ferguson asked for clarification on the term “patio homes”.
Mr. Black said the term applies to homes with very little maintenance. There would be about 44
patio homes.
Thaine Robinson asked how much of the 110 acres is intended for High Density Residential 1
zoning.
Ron Black said there would be about 60 acres.
Thaine Robinson clarified that this housing would not be dormitory style.
Ron Black said that was correct. There would not be any single student housing. There would be
married housing.
They do not want to build a multiple story building. They want something that looks nice and fits
down in the basin area.
Dan Hanna asked if it was the developer’s intent to have twenty (20) units per acre.
Ron Black said 20 units per acre is their intent, with a total of 360 units.
Richie Webb asked if an effort was made to understand traffic flow patterns.
Ron Black said they have looked at traffic patterns. The development could be entered from
Sunrise Drive. There are 2 different routes in addition to 7th South. They feel that married student
housing will have a limited number of vehicles.
6
Dan Hanna asked if the developer owns the property near South 4th East to the east of the subject
property.
Ron Black said the property is owned by someone else.
Chairman Dyer asked if they have talked to the property owner.
Mr. Black said they have not.
Scott Ferguson asked the size of the single family home lots.
Ron Black said the sizes are between a third and a half acre.
Richie Webb asked about phasing and which area would be developed first.
Mr. Black said multifamily to the south would be Phase 1. They would begin construction as soon as
they are given permission to do so. They would also start the park as soon as they could depending
on weather.
Chairman Dyer said the question before the Commission is a proposed change in the
Comprehensive Plan Map; it is not a zoning question at this time.
The tracts shown on the subject property were clarified by the applicant. This is the proposal in
terms of the Comprehensive Plan:
Tract #1 No change from the current Low- Moderate Density Residential
Tract #2 Change from Low-Moderate Density Residential to Moderate-High Density Residential
Tract #3 Change from Low-Moderate Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed
Use
Tract #4 No change from the current Low-Moderate Density Residential
Tract #5 Change from Low-Moderate Density Residential to Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed
Use
7
The Chair said the Commission needs to consider, in terms of the Comprehensive Plan, if these are
appropriate visions for land uses in this 110 acre parcel. He asked how the shown tracts came to be.
Were they all individually held parcels under one owner?
Ron Black said the entire property was just one property. The tracts were the applicant’s invention
to show what they would like to see here.
The Chair asked if the applicant envisions eventually subdividing this 110 acre piece as indicated;
the actual tract descriptions given do not yet exist.
Mr. Black said that is what is envisioned. They wanted to define the different areas and what they
entailed regarding changing the Comprehensive Plan for the different land uses.
Val Christensen said the purpose of the tracks is 1) breaking out separate areas regarding defining
the Comprehensive Plan requested map changes; and 2) the areas would be further defined during
the zoning hearing.
Chairman Dyer clarified that this proposal in this hearing is a land use issue. What will this land be
used for? It has nothing to do with the amount of buildings, etc. Is it appropriate to change the
designated land uses?
Eventually at some point in time, there would be a development proposal. It is helpful to see where
the applicant is going with this issue. The presentation was very professionally done and laid out, but
the Chair did want to reiterate this is not a development proposal. Once the land uses are approved,
the next step would be zoning. When zoning is approved there could be anything that is allowed in
that zone.
The Chairman said this proposal is all under one ownership at this time, but the applicant alluded
to the intention of subdividing where other individuals would eventually be able to purchase pieces
of the land.
Ron Black said their intention is to set the rules and restrictions for future land use and to set the
zone. They may develop some of the land themselves. The high density tract on the south for multi-
family housing would be sold to Troy Kartchner and his development company.
Chairman Dyer said this information is not germane to the discussion, but it helps everyone to
understand land uses and where land uses could go. Once the property is zoned, and possibly sold as
a separate parcel, the zone has certain rights - development may or may not be any of the things that
were talked about tonight.
The Chair said the applicant spoke of the higher density being down in the basin. There is no outlet
for storm water. It is pumped out and down 7th South. The idea was the higher density development
would be down in this basin where it could be hidden. There are hillsides here. If the Commission
in the future were to suggest that development needed to be restricted in height because of this
higher ground, would that be agreeable?
Ron Black said they would comply with whatever would work.
Chairman Dyer said what has been described tonight would fit very nicely under the City’s
planning tool of a Planned Unit Development (PUD), which could have different uses in different
areas. It gives the opportunity to cluster, create open space and have different uses, to get a better
mix and match, and be able to demonstrate to the community why such a development is in the
community’s best interest. It offers more flexibility, as was planned for Founders Square which has
smaller lots bringing houses closer to the street, clustering, more open space and paths. There was
8
negotiation, a trade-off – in return for things helpful to the developers; there were things that were
helpful to the community - three parks and a connecting pathway.
The bottom line is, did the applicant consider a PUD?
Ron Black said they have considered a PUD. He feels Rexburg’s Comprehensive Plan says it best –
a development that serves all the needs of a community, all ages, all income groups. They think they
have designed something along those lines and believe it would fit as a Planned Unit Development.
Chairman Dyer asked Mr. Black to review why, as far as the land uses proposed, their proposal is
in the community’s interest.
Ron Black said they have designed what would be a wonderful place. The park planned for the
corner of 7th South and 2nd East will be of great benefit to everyone in the community. It would be
a beautiful landmark for Rexburg, a place of great dignity, peace, and something that should be
preserved. In Rexburg, marriages often happen, because of the University. His daughter and son-in-
law got engaged on this campus. A reception center would be of benefit to the community to
provide a wonderful place for wedding receptions, family gatherings, other community events, etc.
When the applicants met with Church representatives about their proposed plan, they were
encouraged by the Church to have such a center. It would be a wonderful showplace with beautiful
grounds.
They believe the community would benefit from nice custom homes planned for the single family
lots. It may take a little bit of time for the market to be ready. They feel this will be one of the nicest
single family residential neighborhoods in the City.
They want to serve people in the community of all economic levels. Apartments to the south would
be in walking distance to the University and the Temple. They are trying to cover the spectrum for
all age groups. From looking at the Comprehensive Plan and at the design for the University, he
thought the other half of the hill would someday become part of the University. So the apartments
would be very close and would serve the lower income level of the students. Seniors, Sunbirds, or
others who are here for a few months each year can also be served by the multi-family housing.
There would also be low maintenance patio homes.
They are trying to cover the spectrum of all age groups and all economic groups, so they can all have
a place to live they can be proud of. The parks, the walkways, and all the other amenities are
something that everyone can enjoy.
Chairman Dyer asked the public if they had any questions to help clarify their understanding of this
land use proposal. Public testimony expressing any thoughts and feelings will be taken later on in the
meeting.
James Helfrich - He lives close to the location of this proposal. He loves the City’s Comprehensive
Plan and how it was put together by people who have the community’s best interest at heart. Why
does there need to be such a large change to the Comprehensive Plan? Is it inadequate?
Ron Black said they do not believe the Comprehensive Plan is inadequate. They believe the
Comprehensive Plan should be available for adjustment. They do not believe it is that big of a
change. If one looks at the high density areas in the Comprehensive Plan, most married housing is
on the west side of the City, further away from the University and not within walking distance. They
wanted to provide an area for married students here on the east side of town.
Bill Riggins - An 80 foot buffer was mentioned. If 2nd East had to be widened, would the buffer
remain 80 feet?
9
Chairman Dyer said the applicant is proposing giving 80 feet from the existing right-of-way line for
landscaping, green space, etc. All property owners would be contacted and there would be
discussions if there needed to be any change.
Michael Madsen - If the applicant is successful with the Comprehensive Plan change and the zone
change, the applicants mentioned the intent they have for what would happen in the area. However,
once zoning is changed, is there any guarantee the property would develop in the way presented?
Chairman Dyer said there is no guarantee. The guarantee is provided in the zoning ordinances.
There are certain permitted uses in a zone and certain conditional uses that can be applied for in
addition to those given by right for that land use. Occasionally, the Commission has considered
granting a rezone with conditions that the applicants do exactly what has been presented in a certain
time frame or the zoning would revert back to the original zoning, such as occurred for a project on
4th North near Cal Stores. That is also why a Planned Unit Development (PUD) was mentioned,
because it is a very useful planning tool that would allow more exactness with a development.
Scott Kidd – So far discussion has centered on this land as being medium density residential. He is
confused about the actual zone.
Val Christensen clarified that the subject property is zoned Low Density Residential 1(LDR1).The
Comprehensive Plan Map land use designation is Low-Moderate Density Residential. An LDR1 lot
size is a minimum of 12,000 square foot lots; a duplex is not allowed. Low Density Residential 2
(LDR2) minimum lot size is 8,000 square foot lot plus 2,000 additional square feet for a twin home
or duplex (with a Conditional Use Permit).
Chairman Dyer said the way that the Comprehensive Plan land use designations currently are for
this subject property, the applicant could not bring forward a proposal for any commercial for the
property. It is a progression and a sequence.
Scott Kidd said the issue is confusing. Would there be a way to postpone the decision? The
presentation was cloudy and mixed everything together. They may end up with two conflicting
decisions.
The Chair understands the confusion. The Commission must necessarily look at the
Comprehensive Plan first before they can consider anything in zoning. Without any change in the
Comprehensive Plan, some of the zoning proposals that come in the next hearing right after this
one would be moot.
Stephen Zollinger clarified that under the current Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Low-
Moderate Density Residential, the Medium Density Residential 1 zone (MDR1) would be available
to the applicant as a zone option. They would be allowed to seek a zone change with no change to
the Comprehensive Plan.
Serena Kugath - The applicants said they would provide accessible, affordable homes. At the
neighborhood meeting held at the Marriott, she asked what the rental prices for the apartments
would be and was told $800.00 to $1200.00 a unit. Do they think that amount is affordable to
married students?
Ron Black said they would charge market rents.
Sheri Howard- She asked the size of the park that is planned to be across from the Temple.
Ron Black said the size would be approximately 4 acres.
10
Duane Jorgensen- He lives in Rexburg; he has also lived in Teton Valley. His current project is the
Huntsman Springs development. The economy has tanked; it only took three years to do so. How
does this play in to the Commission’s decision making?
Chairman Dyer said it does not play in the decision making with regard to land use decisions. They
are looking at what the land can be used for, how it should be planned, and what would be best for
the community. Later, at the time of a development proposal, the issue may be addressed in a
development agreement process between the developer and the City. When someone proposes a
development, they actually take out a bond and enter into a commitment with the community that
they will finish a project. If they do not finish the project, the City has the bond and can finish the
streets, parks, infrastructure, etc.( not the buildings).
Todd Hammond. - Would the proposed development be possible under the current Comprehensive
Plan with a conditional use permit or would it require a zone change?
Stephen Zollinger they could build up to 16 units per acre with just a zone change.
Val Christensen said the planned 24-plexes would not be allowed under the current Comprehensive
Plan.
Chairman Dyer asked if staff had additional clarifying information about the proposal.
Val Christensen said they have been thorough. He stressed to remember this hearing is a land use
issue and not a development issue.
Jedd Walker wondered where tract #5, in the northeast corner of the subject property, lands within
the Neighborhood Node circle that is shown on the Comprehensive Plan map.
The map was examined. It was clarified that the land section in the node is in the Moderate-High
Density Residential land use designation, but the applicant would like it to be Neighborhood
Commercial/ Mixed Use land use designation.
Russ Benedict - He asked about an area of requested high density. Is it going down the back side of
a hill?
The map was examined. When one goes down 7th South, the street hits bottom and begins to climb
back up.
Chairman Dyer said that before getting into the public input portion of the hearing, he wished to
ask Joseph West about the neighborhood petitions he had submitted to the Commission and the
methodology of the petition signing process. How was it done?
Joseph West said there was a neighborhood committee meeting. At the meeting, people volunteered
to go door to door with the petitions in the different neighborhoods to collect signatures.
Chairman Dyer said this information helps the Commission to put things in perspective. Going
door to door is one effort; people making their own effort to go to a location to sign a petition is
another story.
Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion of the hearing.
In Favor:
Letter from Michael Ross (included under Written Input below)
Neutral:
Judy Hobbs, owner/broker of Realty Quest, 117 West Main. As she has listened to the proposal
tonight and thought about the issue for a number of days before this hearing, it has occurred to her
11
that everyone has been impacted by a very down economy. These are really difficult decisions for
the Commission and the City Council to make about what is good for the overall City and
community – not just one developer, not just one neighborhood, but what is good for everyone. We
all want growth; we all want the economic benefit that comes with it. It is understood that there may
be as many as 1,000 new students coming to BYU-Idaho every year. Those students need to go
somewhere, which is part of the decision. There has been a lot of criticism about some
developments such as Hyde Park, which at one time she was an owner in, looking like a bunch of
boxes, a bunch of ugly 4-plexes. She knows the Commission had real heartburn with that.
If we are going to attract desirable developments to town, they have to be in desirable locations.
They cannot be across the tracks or buried someplace where nobody else wants to go. Medium
density does bring rows and rows of 4-plexes, even if they have a little extra green space.
The tough decision is, if we have the potential of a good development, it is going to have to be
placed in a good location, balancing what is good for the City as a whole and good for the
neighborhoods, and will attract strong developers.
Opposed:
Aaron Robertson, 83 N.Cambridge Drive, Rigby. He loves the presented development but his
biggest concern is the manner in which it is being done. He is the owner of the Sky Meadows
development, so this proposed project, regardless of what goes in, will have an impact on a
significant investment. He is not a proponent of trying to get another developer to do more single
family housing. At the same time, looking at land uses and understanding what is allowed, he cannot
agree with the land uses being proposed. When they made the investment in the Sky Meadows
development, they were looking at the surrounding ground being the low density residential land use
designation. Jumping from the Low Density Residential 1 zone up to high density is too big of a
jump. It jeopardizes his project and the projects of other developers in the area, as well as the
homeowners who live in the area.
Mr. Robertson’s position could easily be switched if the applicant would consider taking a more
negotiable approach via a Planned Unit Development (PUD) or by working within the current
Comprehensive Plan allowances and going with changes within the code. If they want to do some
Medium Density Residential types and be allowed to have larger buildings, he is in favor of that, but
the current code needs to be changed – a different process. Doing a blanket zone change is an
inappropriate approach. There is a node for commercial on the Comprehensive Plan. It is
inappropriate to expand the commercial node. There is a large quantity of high density in the
proposal. There will be more traffic if the land is zoned for high density.
The applicants spoke about the financial feasibility of the project and it not being financially viable if
they cannot get the requested density. He currently owns a project that is not financially viable. He is
strongly against the idea of creating land uses that are inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
with the current zoning in an attempt to create a PUD. If that is what the applicants are trying to do,
they should follow the proper steps to do a PUD. Creating property rights for the subject property
to be high density and medium density is inappropriate and inconsistent with the values of the
community, and inconsistent with the precedent set by the City of Rexburg. Not a stone’s throw
from that subject spot, Mr. Robertson tried to put in twin homes. He was denied, because of
community opposition.
There is lot of other ground for high density that would meet the University’s needs and have lower
traffic impact. There is no reason to force it in this location. It is improper to sacrifice the value of
the current properties here. High density does not belong on the hill, period.
12
Joseph West, 125 Crestview. He is speaking for himself and to also summarize some neighborhood
concerns. He got the neighborhood petitions together. Those people they missed when going door
to door did come to their home to sign the petition.
In the Cresthaven subdivision, 88 per cent of the people are against this proposal.
First, they are afraid that changing the density will have a negative impact on the character of the
neighborhood and will probably have a negative impact on their property values. Second, they feel
Rexburg’s Comprehensive Plan, which was just recently completed with a great deal of effort and
time and funds, should not be changed needlessly. Property owners, both current and future, should
be able to make long term decisions based on this Comprehensive Plan and its stability. Third, the
City currently has enough property that is zoned for higher density. Once the zone is changed,
intentions can change, too. This point really concerns the neighborhoods a great deal.
Finally, they are concerned because the LDS Temple is a unique asset for this community; they feel
that it should be kept unique and treated that way.
James Helfrich, 626 Autumn Court. A big part of tonight’s proposal was that the Comprehensive
Plan does not fulfill the needs of the community. It does not provide enough high density housing
for students and young married couples. He disagrees. He comes from a community that had a
strong comprehensive plan. Tonight, he feels the requested changes to the Comprehensive Plan are
significant; a 23 per cent increase in high density residential is gigantic – that is what this proposal
entails. Beautiful pictures were shown of a park and low density homes, but the plan is to increase
high density housing. The change would not benefit those who currently live near this location
because they will be isolated from everyone else. High density would challenge the integrity of the
neighborhood. He believes high density should be put near high density.
The Comprehensive Plan has basically the entire Rexburg hill as low density. It is a great place to
raise a family. He loves this community and its Comprehensive Plan, which was put together so
recently. He is concerned about the Comprehensive Plan being changed so fundamentally without
obvious benefit to the community.
Jay McMaster, 625 Harvest Drive. He volunteered during one of the neighborhood meetings to just
give a little background of how he came to live where he lives now and why, and how this proposal
change would impact them. He moved here five years ago, first living in a home right near Porter
Park. There are wonderful people in that area; it is not high density, but it is definitely busy, of
medium density. They rented a home with the basement rented out and with a 4-plex next to them.
There were also apartments close by. There was a fair share of noise and traffic.
After looking at various areas of Rexburg, Mr. McMaster and his family decided to live in the
Harvest Heights subdivision because it had the home, the lots, and the area usage they wanted. At
that time, they asked about possible additional developments. They were told the area would remain
low density. He loves the fields around him but realizes that Rexburg will not always be that way.
Their home is a substantial investment. Now this area adjacent to them is asking to be something
entirely different. This proposal will have an impact. He understands there are studies that say it
would decrease the value of their home. This concerns him, but the monetary value of his home is
not the biggest deal. The intangibles - the integrity of their neighborhoods, the safety, the traffic, the
noise, the business - he likes having good access to businesses, but does not want it right next to his
home. If the Comprehensive Plan and the zones change, all he has invested into his home and the
homes many others have invested in will go down. Because of these issues, he wanted to express his
disapproval of the proposed changes and wants the area to remain low density, to keep the tangible
and intangible values of their neighborhoods.
13
Sheri Howard 642 Harvest. She had submitted a written input letter, but chose to read that letter as
her public testimony tonight. She added that she feels the 4 acres designated for the park across
from the Temple is too small.
14
15
16
Judy Hobbs, owner of Realty Quest, 117 West Main. She represents 2 clients she sold properties to
that are on either side of the proposed development - Scott Peterson; and Bill Collins and Stuart
Sugarman of Founders Square. She read their statements for the record. (An earlier written input
letter received from Founders Square was withdrawn).
17
18
Eric Sundberg, 930 South 2nd East. He said the Madison County Transportation Plan identified that
traffic volumes are a good indication of existing conditions and can be used for judging future
conditions on roadways. In 2003, the stretch from 7th South and down 2nd East had an existing
average for daily traffic of between 2500 to 25,000 vehicles. In comparison, Main Street had about
10,000 to 17,000 vehicles a day. The stretch of 2nd East going north from Main Street was
significantly higher. The plan identified that these locations, because of the higher volumes of traffic,
also becomes susceptible to higher amounts of car accidents. Access points along those routes tend
to increase the potential for accidents. Main Street and North 2nd East are the highest in the County
for crash rates– approximately 1 ½ times the average of the rest of the County. The County’s
Transportation Plan recommended the cities and the County use this information in making sure the
existing land use data supported the types of traffic that would go along with developments.
In 2000, Ricks College became BYU-Idaho. The student populations began to increase. A survey
was done at that time of the students living in the area surrounding the University; it showed that
students made approximately 4.87 trips per day. Seventy-six percent of those trips were similar to
trips made by non-students.
Those who live in the neighborhood of this proposal understand that the area will grow. From the
360 apartments that are planned for the first phase of the proposal, with most residents having 2
cars, there would be about a 300 vehicles per day increase in the area between Sunset and 7th South.
This figure would double in the second phase of development. 2nd East would then have a traffic
volume similar to that of downtown Rexburg. Those who live in the area find that unacceptable
from a safety standpoint and from a property value standpoint.
The existing Comprehensive Plan allows moderate and low density. As someone who lives directly
across from where the proposed construction would occur, Mr.Sundberg does not feel it is
advantageous for him to remain living on 2nd East if the proposal is approved. His family would try
to move before the development began in order to protect their property values.
He would encourage the Commission to keep the zoning as it is today – low density residential.
Kelly McCandless, 223 Jill Drive. He represents about 83 people who have signed a neighborhood
petition he is submitting tonight. He is president of the homeowners’ association in the Henderson
subdivision. About ninety per cent of the signatures on the petition are from the Henderson
subdivision. He stands in agreement with many of those in opposition to this proposal.
He feels the requested Comprehensive Plan change is inappropriate at this time. He is saying “at this
time” because he is in favor of growth and expanding residential and commercial areas. However, he
believes that this time, given the allowance the Comprehensive Plan makes for this proposed
development to occur in Rexburg, it should be concentrated in those areas. As a builder, he feels it
makes total sense and that an open development like this one be done in those areas.
Mr. McCandless believes in the wisdom of the Comprehensive Plan. He and those he spoke with in
his neighborhood feel strongly that the proposed idea of having commercial space so close to the
LDS Temple is inappropriate. It has been mentioned tonight that great ideas do not always pan out.
With a Comprehensive Plan change and then a zone change, there is no guarantee of what will be
developed.
He reiterated that, with a great amount of wisdom, this Commission and the City Council
endeavored and embarked to create the Comprehensive Plan, at great expense. To change it this
quickly is not appropriate.
Ted Whyte 369 Eagle Court, also representing homeowners in the Eaglewood subdivision. He
appreciates all the work and time of the Commission. He sat on the P&Z Commission for eight
years and understands the diligence the Commission goes through to make wise and accurate
19
decisions. He thanked the applicant for the presentation tonight; there was a lot of foresight in its
preparation. There has been strong opposition expressed from neighboring subdivisions; there is not
an eagerness or willingness to allow for multi-family dwellings in this location. The area has been
designated as single family residential on the Comprehensive Plan for many years. He sat on this
board which made distinct decisions ten or fifteen years ago to cut off multi-family housing at 2nd
East and 7th South. They approved the Ridge several years ago as probably the last high density use
on the hill.
It is not just a whim that the area has been planned for single family development. The existing
subdivisions on the hill were all created with the understanding that the adjoining properties would
be for single family development in the future. Mr. Whyte reiterated some of the prior testimony
that the personality and quietness and nice environment of the neighborhoods are just some of the
benefits for a family living in this area. Prior to the announcement of the building of the Temple,
Mr. Vandersloot and other landowners were aware of the assumption of single family development
for the area. After acquiring land, there are the entitlements, which are being looked at tonight.
Residential land is about $20,000. to $30,000. per acre; high density land is about $200, 000. per acre.
The windfall is in the acquiring of the zoning. With zoning, someone could develop the land as it is
proposed or it could be entirely different because it could be on the market tomorrow for someone
else’s vision.
Tonight’s presentation was beautiful. However, Mr. Whyte believes the land needs to remain single
family residential based on the prior developments of other single family residential neighborhoods
and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan has been an evolution, a
master plan of the future growth for Rexburg. The vision of the area has not changed in the twenty
years he has been selling real estate. He would hate to see it being changed on a whim that would
allow a very large area of high density and a commercial area across from the Temple.
Bruce Cook, 1249 Red Cedar Rd. He is principal of Lincoln School on East 2nd South, one of the
schools that serves this area. He agrees with those who have expressed opposition to this proposal.
The developers mentioned they had communication with the school district and possibly approval
of this plan. He has never heard that from the school district, so he was curious who they visited
with or what kind of meeting was held. He did not see in their plan any thought for a school.
Lincoln is currently at capacity, with about 27 students per classroom.
With young families, come kindergarteners, 1st graders, 2nd graders. If this development is allowed,
where will those children go? Does it mean another bond to build another school on this end of
town? Currently, Adams School has room to expand and is building two more classrooms; Hibbard
School is also expanding and adding classrooms – with no more bonds.
For these reasons, he opposes the proposal.
Randall Schwendiman, 940 Greenhaven. He lives across the street from this proposed development.
He was a member of the Rexburg City Council when they updated this Comprehensive Plan. He
believes that the Comprehensive Plan has integrity, and he hopes that will be maintained. He is
totally opposed to this high density development; he does not think it belongs there. He is not sure
they could fill it with students, based on its being a high-end development. He does not believe
commercial centers would survive out of these neighborhoods. If this development is allowed to
proceed, it will impact the neighborhoods. Mr. Schwendiman lives where he lives because he likes
the neighborhood and did not want to be close to high density development.They have a good
project but he does not feel it belongs where it is being proposed. There are ample areas closer to
the University. If this proposal moves forward, there would be two winners – the owner of the
20
property and the developer. The rest of the residents in the area would be long-term losers. He
hopes the proposal is not approved.
Serena Kugath, 198 Crestview Drive. She is withdrawing the written input letter she submitted and
chooses to give public testimony tonight. She lives directly across the street from the proposed
development. She helped gather signatures for the neighborhood petitions; many neighbors
contacted her to make sure they would be included, even someone who is currently in Australia.
She understands what this body wants – good analytical thought and data on why this proposal
would not be feasible, but they do not live in a vacuum devoid of emotional pathways and
spirit.
As Mrs. Kugath has observed at the many neighborhood meetings discussing this issue, she saw
amazing educated men and women, influential leaders of this community, taking considerable time
and effort to address these concerns. They, as she, were passionate not only about this proposal, but
because this was their home – their homes, their yards, their peace. Their future nest eggs, their sky,
their atmosphere – were at stake. It was personal, and the personal element cannot be removed from
this issue. The Third Reich dehumanized those they slaughtered in concentration camps by not
referring to them with human pronouns. They cannot distance themselves from the people that this
issue actually affects.
Mrs. Kugath’s mother taught her the power of a good word picture, and she has three pictures
tonight. She has spent every day of the last 20 years of her life being a mother to nine children.
The first word picture is about teen-age dating. Her first three daughters are all lovely girls and are
all of dating age. One of her responsibilities as a mother is to help them set moral standards
regarding their behavior before they are in a situation where attractive dates can cloud the issue and
distract them from what had once seemed so obviously the right choice. The girls would of course
be our beautiful sacred land, the jewel of our community, our hilltop seen from everywhere.
She sees the Comprehensive Plan as the standards we set when we were clear-headed and this
development proposal and the money it could bring in to the City’s budget as the tempting suitor.
After the girls, they had six boys in a row. With the boys and a husband who is a recreation
professor, they have done their share of throwing rocks in the pond. When you throw a rock, the
ripples continue out in every direction until they reach the shores on every side. Granting this zone
change and going from the lowest density housing possible to the very highest available, throws a
giant rock in their neighborhood pond. It leaves them dealing with a lifetime of ripples.
She believes it will affect many who do not even realize it, as these ripples move outward. One
example is the hilltop intersection, which she lives at the corner of, at Crest View and South 2nd
East; it is very dangerous. They have personally helped three accident victims. In the winter they
keep a shovel, a bucket of salt, and a screen to put under people’s wheels to help those who get
stuck on the hill almost every week. Most of the time they have to back way down the hill and get a
running start. Can they imagine what would happen if this became a busy and slow 4-way stop? It
would then dictate the kind of vehicle their neighborhood would have to purchase, the kind of tires,
the length of their commutes, the time they leave, and ultimately the time they wake up. Just another
ripple in the pond, and there are so many more. The person who throws the rock has not control
over the ripples after they let go.
Grocery shopping on an empty stomach – everyone has done it, purchasing foods we crave and
more than we might normally buy. In these economic times we might look at the money these
projects could bring in as a stimulus to the local economy, but we have a Comprehensive Plan. This
21
Comprehensive Plan was to take the City to an 81,000 projected population. There is plenty of room
set aside for high density housing as it is needed. The developers should choose to follow the City
plan; they would be able to build, and both they and we would economically prosper. The money
will be injected into the economy. We do not need to make hasty decisions that could leave us sick
to our stomach, over-budget, and overweight.
Scott Kidd, 975 Hill View Drive. It seems that most of the comments made will apply to both the
Comprehensive Plan proposal and to the Rezone proposal. He wanted to clarify that those who
oppose the proposal are not against growth. They simply want the existing use and zoning to remain
in place – low density residential. At the proposed density of 18 units per acre, the developer could
build approximately 1,036 units. Imagine the impact of several thousand people being dropped in
the middle of that little valley between all the neighbors who oppose this plan. It would significantly
impact their lives and their neighborhoods.
If this proposal is approved, the property could then be sold to someone else. They would lose
control of what happens to the property. He appreciates Mr. Vandersloots’s intent for the property.
The presentation was beautifully done. However, when the trigger is pulled, control is lost. The
neighbors would lose protections that are now in place with the current zoning.
Mr. Kidd appreciates the developer’s desire to create a private pocket park across from the Temple,
but the fact is temples are consistent with low density residential. The 4-acre park does not offset
the 57 acres of high density residential.
As a father, he is concerned about his children and the intersection of Crest View Drive and South
2nd East that is used on their way to school. It is a very dangerous intersection.
These issues will impact all the families in that area. He urges the Commission to please vote no on
this proposal. Mr.Vandersloot understood what the constraints were when he bought the property.
Wendy Williams, 331 Eagle Summit, in the Eaglewood subdivision. No one recruited her; no one
came to her door. She wanted to address specifically Tract #3 on the parcel, which the applicant
wants to change to Neighborhood Business District. The Eaglewood subdivision is very close to
that area. She is very concerned that, while words about preserving the dignity of the Temple sound
very good, she questions putting a commercial zone in the area and saying that it preserves the
dignity and atmosphere around the Temple. The park would be lovely, as the previous person stated.
However, she feels the park is not necessary; frankly it is probably an enticement to get people to
the reception center. Adequate commercial zones are available for a reception center, a wedding
store, etc. - Mr. Vandersloot could pursue this issue without this kind of change that is basically
putting something that looks like lipstick on a pig here.
She is completely opposed to the proposal.
Written Input:
1. Letter from Stephen McGary, opposed to the proposal - read by Chairman Dyer
2. Letter from Cody Howard, opposed to the proposal- read by Commissioner Robinson
3. Letter from Lee and Carol Workman, opposed to the proposal – read by Commissioner Hanna
4. Letter from Kim Woodruff, opposed to the proposal – read by Commissioner Rasmussen
5. Letter from Ben Woodruff, opposed to the proposal – read by Commissioner Walker
6. Letter from Michael Ross, in favor of the proposal – read by Chairman Dyer
22
It was noted that, as there cannot be double testimony for a public hearing:
A written input letter from Serena Kugath was withdrawn, as she gave public input testimony
tonight.
A written input letter from Sheri Howard was withdrawn; she read the letter as her public input
testimony tonight.
A written input letter from Founders Square owners was withdrawn; their written statement was
read for them as public input testimony tonight by their representative Judy Hobbs.
The Chair noted that a number of neighborhood petitions were received before this meeting;
all of them were opposed to the proposals.
Neighborhood Petitions from Cresthaven, Harvest Heights, Eaglewood, and Valley View
neighborhoods, had this opening statement, read by the Chairman:
“Because the proposed development on the east side of Second East from 7th South southward
would pose a threat to the safety, integrity and well-being of existing adjacent neighborhoods, we
request that the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Council deny any attempts
to change the zoning designation of this property from its existing Low Density Residential
classification.”
A Neighborhood Petition for the Henderson subdivision, opposed to the proposal and submitted by
Kelly McCandless tonight, had a different opening statement. Chairman Dyer summarized the
opening statement:
They are opposed to the development on the grounds that it would drastically alter the
neighborhood by the Temple. It would place commercial businesses unacceptably close to the
Temple. It would interfere with the aesthetic focal points of Rexburg and would create 57 acres of
High Density. The changes are inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan.
The Chairman noted the receipt of 322 total collected signatures on the petitions.
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Rebuttal:
Ron Black – Many people voiced concern about their property values and the destroying of the
neighborhood because of the proposed high density development being across the street from their
homes.
He quoted from Rexburg’s Comprehensive Plan, page 133 – “…A recent study completed by the
Urban Land Institute concluded the following with regards to higher-density development: the
compact nature of higher-density development requires less extensive infrastructure to support it; no
discernable difference exists in the appreciation rate of properties located near higher-density
development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher-density development can
increase property values…”.
Mr. Black stated they are not making a claim one way or another, but the Comprehensive Plan says
that higher density okay. The question is the location. One of the people from the Harvest Heights
area who spoke tonight said the property near him was designated to stay low density, yet the
Comprehensive Plan shows commercial right across the street on 7th South.
Regarding the mentioning of putting the reception center downtown - it would be appropriate to
look out the window of the reception center and see the Temple. This is the place for it and not in
the old junior high downtown.
Another concern was the alignment of the road with 2nd East. They have no problem with moving
the alignment of the road to where ever they would like it to go.
The lack of sales in Founders Square is not all due to recession. There is a development like it in
Idaho Falls. It is not working. Troy Kartchner is here tonight; he is building the Summerfield
subdivision on the west side of town – they have built many new homes in the midst of the
recession. The problem is not the recession; the problem is the product. You have to have the right
product in the right place. They believe in a mix that will bring success to the area.
Many of the married students going to the University do not have elementary school-age children. If
there were jobs to keep the married students here after they graduate, it would be a bigger issue.
They do not see their proposal having a huge impact on the elementary schools. As the town grows,
that may change, and the growth will support bonds.
Many people made comment that having commercial and high density around the Temple is totally
improper. They respect that opinion, but high density and commercial do exist around many
temples. The Church is building their own apartments around some of them. In Idaho Falls, the
Church’s bookstore is right across the street from the Temple.
Michael Batt – He said clearly they are outnumbered. They are in the fortunate situation where they
do not necessarily have to do the developing today. They have been approached by many people
about developing this project. A lot of it does fall within the current Comprehensive Plan. He felt it
should be noted that Mr. Vandersloot is sensitive to what is developed here. They understand and
respect the concern about the long term and what could happen, given certain zoning changes. As
they come forward with this application to change the Comprehensive Plan, they do it purely
because they found a group they think provides a product that is in demand and will be in demand
and is compliant with the vision they have for the property. If their application is denied, time will
go on, and time will change the options. In the future, they may not be the owners at that time and
the options will be different. What they are hoping and proposing and planning is: they are a group
which has specific concerns and interest in the current development; they hope the citizens
appreciate that and realize that the fuss they, the applicants, are making will shape the future of what
will happen to this property and will make it so that ten years down the road when there is more
demand and different demand, the citizens control their own destiny, and control what goes there
32
now. They feel the projects and the concepts they are proposing are in line with the best interests of
the community.
Break was called.
The meeting resumed.
Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion of the hearing and asked for the staff evaluation
and recommendations.
Val Christensen clarified who is on City staff for those in attendance tonight. The term “staff”
denotes the City’s Ready Team, which is comprised of himself as the Community Development
Director, Public Works Director John Millar, Mayor Richard Woodland, City Attorney Stephen
Zollinger, Economic Development Director Scott Johnson, City Clerk Blair Kay, and Geographic
Information Systems Director Craig Rindlisbacher.
On this request to change the Comprehensive Plan Map, staff was split. Therefore, staff cannot
recommend this request to move forward with this Comprehensive Plan Map change.
After the directive from the University about increase in student numbers, and when they began to
see increased growth, staff and the P&Z Commission and City Council went through and modified
the Comprehensive Plan with some different planning designations. This area had been designated
Low Density Residential and was changed to Low-Moderate Density Residential at that time.
Staff feels the Low-Moderate Density Residential designation is adequate. However, should the P&Z
Commission see the issue differently; staff has given two recommendations as stated in the
Community Development Staff report:
1) Tract #2 identified as Moderate to High Density Residential should be left at Low to Moderate Density
Residential.
2) Tract #3 identified as Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use in past conversations with the applicant was
identified to be created for a Wedding Reception/Convention Center. The change of the Comprehensive Plan
Map and the subsequent zone change to Neighborhood Business District should be conditioned on Wedding
Reception/Convention Center and the businesses associated with it only. Also, Staff recommends that the
facilities to be set back and buffered from the single family homes to the north. Approval should be
conditioned upon the completion of an appropriate master plan.
Chairman Dyer asked for declarations of conflict of interest from the Commissioners.
Scott Ferguson declared a perceived conflict of interest, in that he and his wife own property on
South 2nd East directly across the street from the proposed development. He does not have any
monetary or other interest in the proposal.
Stephen Zollinger said this application is a general application and not a parcel specific application; it
is up to the Commissioner whether he recuses himself or not.
Mr. Ferguson did not recuse himself; he remained on the dais as part of the Commission.
Chairman Dyer declared a perceived conflict of interest, in that he was the engineer of record for
Founders Square and also for the development to its south. Those were finished some time ago.
The contracts were done and closed out. He no longer has any interest in those developments or the
outcome of this proposal. He decided to remain on the dais as part of the Commission.
33
Chairman Dyer said the Commission’s duty is to make sure they have explored both sides of the
issue and discussed it thoroughly. He believes that from the input they have had - the presentation,
the public input, the questions and answers, the staff input, that they have looked thoroughly at both
sides of the issue. He asked for the Commissioners thoughts on what the salient points of this issue
are, in order to deliberate and reach a consensus.
Marilyn Rasmussen is concerned with the location of the park and the reception center. She does
not feel it is the right location. She is also concerned about the location of the commercial areas.
She has lived in communities where they put commercial next to other things. She believes with
high density and the price range they are going to have to have, that it will impact the schools. She
thought the schools in Madison County are almost at their total bonding limit. She also feels the
aura of that particular area near the Temple is one of the most important and pristine area in the
valley. There needs to be a little more vision of what is going to go in and where it is going to go.
She knows the City needs mixed use, but hates to see very well established neighborhoods impacted
with higher density right in the middle.
Thaine Robinson agrees with most of the comments that were opposed to this proposal. There
are a number of mixed areas in town, but he does not think that every development that they see has
to have a high density component to it. They need to protect the hill a little bit. It may be the last
full area where there is low density as a whole in the City. He might be in favor of what City staff
recommended.
Richie Webb said when they put the Comprehensive Plan together and the commercial nodes were
recommended, the discussion at that time included whether they needed commercial spread
throughout the City – the thought process was that at some point quite possibly yes, as the City
grows and expands. Those areas were designated for possible future growth; he does not think we
are there yet. He feels that commercial is not necessary in this area; it is not fitting with the Temple
there. Like Mrs. Rasmussen, he has lived in areas and has seen planned communities that have
commercial in them. One does not even know commercial is there until one goes into the
community; they are smaller and unobtrusive from the outside looking in. The plan presented
tonight is not a good, strong planned community. A reception center is a good idea and is needed
here in this community, but its proposed location, sitting out front, does not make sense, nor does a
strip - type environment. It goes against the integrity of the area. Aspects of the plan may make
sense under a PUD, but the proposed 57 acres of high density is a large amount and is
inappropriate.
Mr.Webb recognizes this proposal is a land use question, but the options that would be available
under the requested change concern him far more than what was presented. Because the applicants
have the ability to get the entitlement and sell it, the Commission could be facing some issues that
would be very inappropriate for that parcel.
Jedd Walker acknowledged the need for multi-family housing because of community growth.
However, there are other areas in the City where multi-family housing can and should occur first. He
would like to see other areas of the City develop and densify a little more prior to going to a green
field and developing it.
Chairman Dyer noted that the City’s Comprehensive Plan is a living, breathing dynamic
document. It is his 11th year sitting on the Commission. Every time the Commission has looked at
the Comprehensive Plan and the subject area, they have designated the area to remain single family
34
low density. The area has been a topic of certain and purposeful discussion each time. Therefore,
they have set expectations. He believes the Comprehensive Plan is sustainable and supportable, and
it has been for many years, not that it could not ever change. This particular proposal, as was alluded
to by many concerned citizens, is a lot of change all at once, in a fairly large area. He agrees with
what was said by Mr. Walker, in that presently high density could be put elsewhere. The P& Z
Commission, the City Council, and City staff are having discussions on where more multi-family
housing could be in the community, so it is already something that is on their minds. They do need
to keep pace with the proposed increase in development of the University.
Lastly, Chairman Dyer feels the better tool here would be a Planned Unit Development (PUD),
where a proposal could come in quite specific but would be negotiable, rather than having to take an
all or nothing approach.
He feels he cannot support this particular application to change the Comprehensive Plan.
Scott Ferguson agreed with the PUD approach. He supported the Chair’s comments.
Scott Ferguson motioned to recommend to City Council denial of the Rexburg Hill Properties,
LLC, Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment request. Nephi Allen seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
7:30 pm – Rezone - Rexburg Hill Properties, LLC
Ron Black, representing the applicant and owner Rexburg Hill Properties, LLC, requested that the
Rexburg Hill Properties, LLC Rezone request be tabled until their Comprehensive Plan proposal
which just went through Public Hearing, has gone before City Council (July 6, 2011 meeting).
Chairman Dyer noted that all testimony given on the previous hearing tonight for a
Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment would be accepted for consideration in this rezone hearing.
Thaine Robinson motioned to table the Rexburg Hill Properties, LLC rezone request until the July
7, 2011 P&Z meeting. Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
7:45 pm – Development Code Ordinance No. 1026 Amendments:
A.Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Language for Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2):
1. Change From: “five (5) and up to ten (10) dwelling units per building”
To: “buildings with more than four (4) dwelling units”
B.Land Use Designations: Add “MDR2” to the current “Low to Moderate Density
Residential” – current code approved by “Resolution 2010 – 12” for LDR2, LDR3, and
MDR1.
The change would allow an additional four units per acre in Low to Moderate Density Residential land use
applications.
Note: Current code approved by “Resolution 2010 – 12” on the 18th of August, 2010 allows
MDR1, MDR2, HDR1 and HDR2 in “Moderate to High Density Residential” Land Use
Designations.
35
Thaine Robinson acted as chairman for this hearing.
The Commission looked at item #A.:
Val Christensen presented this first proposed amendment to the Development Code 1026.
It would allow larger buildings in Medium Density Residential 2 through a Conditional Use Permit.
The Development Code language to change:
From:“five (5) and up to ten (10) dwelling units per building”
To: “buildings with more than four (4) dwelling units”
Mr. Christensen said as has been brought up in recent development requests on South 5th West and
South 4th West, where the City would like to keep some developments to medium density, some
developers do not want to do 4-plexes. If there is going to be some clustering in medium density, it
would be nice for the developer to have the option to do bigger buildings. The buildings would not
be bigger in height but only in units.
They would be less barracks-looking than a bunch of 4-plexes.
Councilman Erickson had asked Mr. Christensen to move this issue forward. Mr. Christensen feels
this is a really good, thought-out request.
Mr. Christensen said MDR1 should also have been included in this change.
Stephen Zollinger advised that the Commission could move forward with the building size change
for MDR2 and include MDR1 through hearing at a later date if tonight’s request is approved by City
Council.
Marilyn Rasmussen asked if this building size change is approved, would it affect what the
developer would be able to have on the South 4th West and South 5th West developments that were
before the Commission several meetings ago?
Stephen Zollinger clarified it would not allow any higher density. What it would allow is instead of
having four 4-plexes in a row, the developer could go to a 16-plex or a 24 plex.
A Conditional Use Permit would be necessary. He reiterated there would be no increase in density.
Val Christensen said the necessity of a Conditional Use Permit application would allow the
Commission one more time to see the development.
Scott Ferguson thought this was a cosmetic issue.
Stephen Zollinger said the reason this topic came up before the Ready Team is that every time they
speak of MDR development the bad examples are reintroduced. The barracks approach is driven by
the inability of the developer to do anything but 4-plexes. This change would be a way to resolve
that problem.
Scott Ferguson felt this was a win-win change. It is good for the developer and for the City.
Cory Sorensen said if they all agree the 4-plex approach is not good, why do they need to see every
one in a public hearing? Why not only look at the buildings if they are over 12 or 16 units?
Dan Hanna said the proposed change would allow a huge gain in green space. Financing also drives
the issue; 4-plexes do have an attractive market.
Chairman Robinson stated for clarification the change that is being considered - a language
change for MDR2 under conditional use permits –
From: “five (5) and up to ten (10) dwelling units per building”
To: “buildings with more than four (4) dwelling units”
36
He opened the public input portion of the hearing.
In Favor:
Troy Kartchner, 601 West 1700 South, Logan, UT. He feels this change would be positive.
They have done a few projects in Rexburg, including homes and multi-family housing. With this
change, a developer would not have to go to high density, which is currently the only choice. There
would be more options. City beautification is important; that is one reason he pushed for park
impact fees. He is supportive of a larger building in medium density. There are places available to
build higher density that he does not want to build on, because of what has already been allowed to
be built in those areas. He does not want a product he is going to build which he feels is very nice,
that is a higher level product that should be in a more quality area, in such a location. There are a
few things that need to be addressed, not only this building size change which allows for a better
product. If there is not better design criteria, the product will not get any better either. There are 12-
plexes and 24-plexes already in the City with horrendous design.
He is very supportive of this proposed change allowing bigger buildings in MDR2. In addition,
design criteria are important and need to be better, and better enforced, in order to have a quality
product, to enhance the City.
Ron Black 1388 Clarence Drive, Idaho Falls. As they looked at their project and working with
Kartchner Homes to develop, they noted they trust each other but what would they do in their next
phases. It is a concern. They do not want something ugly. As Mr. Kartchner said, the only way to
get the bigger buildings was with a high density request; they had no choice. If it was a medium
density request, it fits the plan, and they would be in here on a whole different set of concepts. As
the owners of 110 acres on the hill, they strongly believe that the quality buildings and the quality of
things that can happen here in Rexburg would be greatly enhanced with the increase in building size
for MDR2.
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Input: None
Stephen Zollinger clarified there would be an overlap in the Low-Moderate Density Residential and
Moderate-High Density Residential land use designations by adding the Medium Density Residential
2 zone in the Low-Moderate Density Residential designation (Item B. under this hearing).
The intent of tonight’s public hearing is to target the issues that are already being demanded.
Chairman Robinson closed the public input portion, as there was no further testimony.
Winston Dyer said if they move MDR2 into the Low-Moderate Density Residential land use
designation, are they peeling off layers of protection if the language is changed? Is that opening up
areas they were trying to protect and preserve for very modest development? Someone may then say
it is their right.
Stephen Zollinger said when talking about a zone change, there is no such thing as an inherent right.
There is the right to ask for it.
The problem in the recent past was having the same names on the Comprehensive Plan Map as on
the Zoning map. This issue was corrected, and when they went back to the original names, they left
MDR2 out of Low-Moderate.
37
Val Christensen said there are a lot of good places in the City which need to be looked at on their
own merits. They want overlap and flexibility.
These requested changes to the Development Code did not come about because of the issues
addressed earlier tonight.
Cory Sorensen said he never liked the 4-plex issue. There are so many areas they can see where that
has been horrible. If there are 16 units per acre, he much prefers a 16- unit building with a big open,
beautiful, landscaped area. They are not giving developers any more density; they are just making it
more appealing.
Jedd Walker concurred with what Mr. Sorensen stated.
Winston Dyer was in favor of adopting this change both for the improvement it will make for the
community side and the development side, but he is concerned. The concept is all right, but how
will they manage it? Developers want to maximize their profit on a project. They want to get the
maximum density allowed. Each zoning request will have to be looked at on its merits.
Scott Ferguson said the current system forces those issues to come before them already.
The safeguard is there.
Stephen Zollinger said this body has never shown any hesitance over the last 24 months to say no to
an MDR2 request and grant the applicant an MDR1 request. They are trying to correct what got
undone when the Comprehensive Plan designations were renamed. They are trying to get back to an
overlap system by offering MDR2 in the Low-Moderate Density Residential designation.
Richie Webb said for a developer to be able to come in and have at least a broader category when
coming before this body to make their case, is helpful. It makes the process a little more user
friendly.
Jedd Walker motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the Development Code changes
as stated:
A. Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Language for Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2): Change
From: “five (5) and up to ten (10) dwelling units per building” To: “buildings with more than four
(4) dwelling units” and
B. Land Use Designations: Add “MDR2” to the current “Low - Moderate Density Residential”.
Scott Ferguson seconded the motion.
Cory Sorensen said the Commission should not need to look at everything over a 4 plex as a
conditional use.
Dan Hanna thought the reason for the Conditional Use Permit is to take into consideration how
the neighbors are affected, to look at the location, etc. It may be very appropriate for the
Commission to look at the requests.
38
Those in Favor: Those Opposed:
Jedd Walker Cory Sorensen
Marilyn Rasmussen Richie Webb
Thaine Robinson
Winston Dyer
Dan Hanna
Scott Ferguson
Nephi Allen
Motion carried.
The Commission recommended that if these specified Development Code changes are approved by
City Council, staff should pursue having a public hearing in the future to amend the Development
Code to include Medium Density Residential 1 in the change under Conditional Use Permits for
from “five(5) and up to ten (10) dwelling units per building” to “buildings with more than four (4)
dwelling units.”
Unfinished/Old Business:
1. Discussion – Other Bridge Crossings over the Teton River within Rexburg – Deferred
New Business: None
Compliance: None
Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: None
Report on Projects: None
Tabled Requests: None
The meeting was adjourned at 11:30 pm.