Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.18.17 P&Z Minutes 1 Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others: Heidi Christensen - Chairman Mayor Jerry Merrill Greg Blacker Brad Wolfe- City Council Liaison Bruce Sutherland Val Christensen – Community Development Director Steve Oakey Craig Rindlisbacher – Community Development Planner Rory Kunz Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Gil Shirley Natalie Powell – Community Development Compliance Office Colton Murdock – Community Development Intern Dan Torres – Economic Development Assistant Director Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the meeting at 6:33 pm. We would like to welcome Mayor Merrill here with us and Councilman Brad Wolfe. We would like to have the Mayor come up and make a presentation. Presentation: Recognition of Service for P&Z Commissioner Richard Smith Mayor Jerry Merrill stated he was honored to present a plaque from the City of Rexburg to Richard Smith in recognition of his dedicated service to the city as a P&Z Commissioner. He served from November 2015 through April 2017. He has stepped down. He is appreciated and has done a great job. He was thanked for his service to our community. Richard Smith stated he was thankful for the opportunity to serve. This is the second time he has served as a Commissioner. He served ten years on the Commission some time ago. It was really an enjoyable experience. He thanked everyone. Introduction of New Planning Staff – Val Christensen Community Development Director Val Christensen stated we have two new staff members in the Planning and Zoning Department. Craig Rindlisbacher is the new City Planner. He was formerly GIS (Geographic Information System) Director. GIS does the mapping for City and County. He is taking on the planner job for the City. He will represent planning staff and he will attend many of these P&Z meetings. Tawnya Grover is the new P&Z Administrative Assistant replacing Elaine McFerrin. Elaine is retiring and has done a wonderful job for the city. We are excited to welcome Tawnya to the City staff. Chairman Christensen welcomed the new staff and said the Commission is looking forward to working with them. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Attending: Steve Oakey, Gil Shirley, Rory Kunz, Heidi Christensen, Bruce Sutherland, Greg Blacker Mark Rudd, John Bowen, Darrik Farmer and Melanie Davenport were excused. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes May 18, 2017 2 Minutes: 1. From Planning and Zoning meeting – May 4, 2017 Steve Oakey motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of May 4, 2017. Rory Kunz seconded the motion. Heidi Christensen and Bruce Sutherland abstained for not having been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Public Hearings: None Unfinished/Old Business: None New Business: 1. PUD (Planned Unit Development) Pre-Application for Rocky Ridge Apartments – 398 Pioneer Road Chairman Christensen clarified the reason for this agenda item, as stated in the Development Code Ordinance No.1115, Section 4.15 Planned Unit Development (PUD), c. Pre Application Conference: “Prior to filing an application for a planned unit development, the applicant shall review the preliminary master plan with the Planning and Zoning Commission and one person from the City Council, or the Mayor, or a designated representative at a pre-application conference. The purpose of the pre-application conference is to inform the city of the nature of a likely PUD application at an early date and to provide the potential applicant with information on what will be needed to make an application complete.” This presentation before the commission tonight will count as a pre-application conference for the Rocky Ridge Preliminary Master Plan review, in order for the applicant to come back with a master plan application for approval. It is informational; a vote from the Commission is not necessary. Johnny Watson, 1152 Bond Ave., representing the applicant. This is a heads up - permission to go forward with the PUD process. About a year ago this parcel (398 Pioneer Rd) and an adjacent one were rezoned to Medium Density Residential 2. This property is on Pioneer Road with Highway 20 on the west. The neighbors were concerned at that time about traffic. The landowners are Mark Rammell and his wife. The developers’ intent is to put in a 4-plex development. To achieve their plans, they have to go through the PUD process. He showed a preliminary site layout of five clusters of 4-plexes. It is a long narrow lot, and they are working on using increased landscape. They are allowed 80% lot coverage, and they are only covering about 60% to provide great green space facing Highway 20. This also includes an increased front yard as you come down Pioneer Road. There are also increased parking buffers. They have also increased green space inside the complex and want to avoid the barracks-style developments that have been seen in the past. They would like to move forward and start the Planned Unit Development process. Chairman Christensen asked for any questions and comments. Bruce Sutherland asked if these units will be rentals, or is the developer going to sell the units? Johnny Watson said that each unit would be platted as an individual piece of property. Question from the audience: Are they selling each individual apartment or are they selling each individual building? Johnny Watson said he understood that each individual building would be sold. Their intent is actually to sell each cluster. There is the potential of an HOA (Homeowners Association). There are going to be common green space, common walks, parking, and other amenities. 3 Community Development Director Christensen said this presentation is just informational. The purpose is to allow questions of the applicant and for the applicant to ask questions of the Commission in order for the request to be clear. The P&Z Commission was fine with the developer’s intent to move forward with the PUD process. Non-controversial Items Added to the Agenda: 1. High Five Grant efforts to create a Parks Plan – Discussion Community Development Planner Craig Rindlisbacher said this is an opportunity for you to get to know me and me to get to know you. Dan Torres will speak about the High 5 Grant that the community has received. Some of the input I am hearing as I take on this new position is the concept of more planning, less reacting. Why do we plan? Why do we have a Comprehensive Plan? Email addresses have been provided on the document handed out (“Why Planning?”) for the Commissioners to give input. He wants the opportunity to listen to the Commission and City Council. 4 5 We have a Comprehensive Plan, because it is the process by which we can define a common vision for the whole community. That vision starts here and is then modified and adopted by the City Council. That vision determines community goals and aspirations and terms of community development. It is a single unified, physical design for the community. We have a need in our community to be frugal with our resources. Much of the property in our community is tax-exempt. That forces us to be more efficient with the resources that we have. If we grow like other communities, we are going to need the same tax base and resources that other communities have. That is not likely to happen in Rexburg. New growth can be demanding. It can be costly to the city: the roads, the water, the sewer. Even though the developers pay for much of that, we have the ongoing costs. If we are spread out all over the place, that can be more expensive. The configuration of growth impacts the ongoing costs of cities. This issue of private property rights can be a very emotional one, but I think we can all agree, that the right to acquire and hold property is the foundation for society and economy. Without the ability to assure the control of that property, we cannot develop capital, and economies suffer. We have an opportunity to think about this, to get ahead of this, to think about the negative impacts or conflicting uses that might be happening with land use and mitigate the effects. One of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan is to get ahead of those conflicts. If we are visionary in that, we can be less concerned about regulation and more concerned about good planning. Economic development is of interest to all of us. We want our children to stay here, and we want them to be able to prosper. We need economic growth to make that happen. We need strategies to attract new business, expansion, and retention. We also know the business needs of companies have changed. Companies want to be downtown. Companies are needing creative minds. They need innovative people, and innovative people want to be in a different environment than a business in the business park on the edge of town. This inspires the idea of place-making - the idea that we need to create more than just the raw infrastructure; we need to create the social infrastructure that will create business opportunities. People are interested in quality of life issues. They are concerned about their health and their safety. There are comments made all the time about the happiness of citizens in Rexburg and what a joy it is to live in Rexburg where people feel safe and can walk the streets. They enjoy the culture of a small-town community, and they want single-family neighborhoods where they know their neighbor and they feel comfortable and safe. One of the components that the community provides that improves quality of life is the park system and trail system. Community Planner Rindlisbacher introduced Dan Torres of the City’s Economic Development Department to speak about the Parks Plan grant. Assistant Economic Development Director Dan Torres gave a PowerPoint presentation. About a year ago, the Mayor approached him to go after a grant that is to promote healthy living communities. It is particularly centered on K-12 children. It is a private, competitive grant through Bluce Cross of Idaho. There were 25 cities in Idaho that applied, and three cities were awarded a 6 grant: Rexburg, Bonners Ferry, and Sandpoint. It is a three year grant that runs from 2017 to 2019. The $250,000. grant has five different phases: community assessment, community action plan, outreach phase, an implementation phase, and a review phase. We are in the first phase. Blue Cross of Idaho wants the project to be something that can be tracked. When the grant was applied for, the City of Rexburg partnered with Madison Memorial Hospital and Madison School District. The focus is: How can we make our community healthier and more active? Possible strategies such as trails and safe routes to schools and long-term planning projects were discussed. They are looking for ideas to maximize the return on this money. So far, the emphasis has been to spend the monies on long-range plans to help the city understand the needs of the community and build a mechanism to achieve those plans. One of the things they are looking at is a parks plan and also private recreation programs. They would work with the school district and the hospital to help develop after-school programs that would increase physical activity. In 2017 - so far, they have worked with the school district to put out a survey (faculty, students, parents) to find out how active the families currently are, their access to nutrition, and their understanding of what it means to be healthy. In 2019, the hope is to resurvey the same pools of students, and see if change was made. They are also now looking at community trails and sidewalks to identify current resources for walk paths and the parks plan. This project is built on the foundation of Envision Madison which reached out in various ways for community input. Two thousand community members were involved in participating in town hall meetings, open houses, and online surveys. It was one of the largest participatory projects that the city has undertaken. One of the big ideas to come out of Envision Madison was a desire for recreation. “Residents want proximity to great open spaces and recreational opportunities to help people to do things they enjoy most and spend good times with family and friends and a high-quality of life of freedom, happiness, and peace of mind.” They wanted to promote future recreational opportunities in our community. Another key aspect was getting around town: biking and walking paths. In the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Rexburg, two main goals are about parks. “A network of urban trails is a desire of the City and its residents. A trail system would allow residents, both young and elderly, to easily access the resources of the City without driving. Public places should be linked to residential neighborhoods and commercial areas by a well-maintained trail system and landscaped roadways, so that the community’s amenities are noticeable and convenient for visitors and residents.”( Vision Statement in Rexburg Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan) Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan contains more information about parks and recreational facilities and space. The parks plan contains goals and objectives to attain those goals and some suggested policy. He encourages P&Z Commission to review the existing plan. The city is looking to possibly work with a consultant to take some of the financial burden off of the city to create the long-range plan. The city is hoping to use some of the High Five Grant monies to create a long-range comprehensive plan. It would take $25, 000 to hire a consultant on this project. Steve Oakey asked, were there required matching funds from the city for the $250,000 grant? Dan Torres said there are no required matching funds. Blue Cross is really looking for change and being able to document that change. This is an information-sharing situation for their granting program with other communities involved in the granting process in the future. Mr.Oakey asked,what financial obligations does this press the city into? Dan Torres said the consultant $25,000 allocation is still to be determined. Mr. Oakey asked if it is required in the grant to hire an outside consultant. Do we have the talent within the city to do this? 7 The Mayor stated the City has a lot of ideas. The thought of bringing in a consultant would be to have someone help us with things we have not thought of. A lot of businesses use outside consultants. This person could identify things the city might not be seeing. If we don’t have to spend that much, we won’t. Bruce Sutherland asked if this money would be broken down into three equal payments. Dan Torres said no. It is allocated as they identify projects. They would like to create a community action plan and take it back out to the community to determine if they match. Then, they would work toward implementing the action plan. Mr. Sutherland asked, do they have criteria that is required? Dan Torres stated he works in conjunction with a contact person at Blue Cross of Idaho. He submits everything to her (Shannon McGuire). She takes it before her board to make sure it matches the conditions of their grant and the goals they are trying to achieve. If it does, Blue Cross would allocate the money. The city pays for costs and gives receipts to Blue Cross, and Blue Cross reimburses the city. Chairman Christensen asked how the community can follow this process. Dan Torres said there is a committee with city members and there is a website: rexburghighfivegrant.org. There is also a facebook page. Right now, it is more informative, but they would like to solicit more of the community’s input in the future. Gil Shirley said, is there an expiration date on the grant? If you don’t use it in a certain time, do you lose it? Steve Oakey is concerned about trying to determine health and nutrition needs in the school district because of funneling the survey through Madison School District and the hospital. Dan Torres said Blue Cross really wants emphasis for K-12 students on nutrition and physical activity. Steve Oakey said if x number of dollars are being spent on a consultant, how much money would be spent on administration and surveying as opposed to actual implementation of a bike path or playground equipment? He is concerned about money spent on bureaucracy. Are there requirements of a percentage being implemented into a physical structure? Dan Torres said not that he is aware of. The idea here is if you have a plan, the money can be used to greater effect. A plan will help identify all aspects of city structure such as location, where roads need to go, and where development could occur. If we have a plan, we would know what we are doing with the monies. Craig Rindlisbacher said if our intent is to update the Comprehensive Plan, sometimes you can throw the old comprehensive plan out and begin again, or sometimes you can just update the existing plan. There was a lot of work done with Envision Madison on the subject that is not in the current Comprehensive Plan. He recommends that the Commission start with review of Chapter 10 of the Comprehensive Plan .Then start a discussion about what we can do to set the framework for these activities. He asked if there were any questions. Chairman Christensen requested updates on these issues for the Commission at future meetings, to keep the Commissioners informed. Steve Oakey said what are you talking about in the Comprehensive Plan? Are you talking about revisiting it? We seem to already revisit it often and make changes when a request comes forward. 8 Craig Rindlisbacher said we need to look at the goals and objectives, the text part of the comprehensive plan and identify anything that has changed in the community. Identify the work that has been done. Use everyone’s’ feedback and incorporate them into the document. Community Development Director Val Christensen said the Comprehensive Plan changes the Commission sees here are usually map changes. They are tied to uses and locations. Some of the Comprehensive Plan itself was written before BYU-Idaho came here, for example. We need to update the document as required by the State. We need to be proactive. Bruce Sutherland said is the current requirement to update the Comprehensive Plan every 10 years? Community Development Director Christensen said the City needs to update the plan currently, as the existing plan was adopted in 2008. Community Planner Rindlisbacher said the Comprehensive Plan is a living document. The intent is for it to be regularly updated. The map has been updated numerous times, but not the text. Steve Oakey had a legal question to ask City Attorney Stephen Zollinger about the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan acts as if it is an extra layer of zoning because people are required to come in and change it before a rezone. Is there a state statute that requires Comprehensive Plans to be legally binding prior to zoning changes or can the comprehensive plan simply act as a visionary directive? Can we bypass the layer of change in the Comprehensive Plan before a rezone? Stephen Zollinger said no. The State Land Use Planning Act requires that all zones be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The theory is that the Comprehensive Plan is not a regulatory document. You’re right; it effectively curtails your ability to move rapidly on zone changes if the Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with the desired zone change. There is no mechanism for bypassing that in the current statute. Steve Oakey said would we be able to be provided with a copy of the statute? Stephen Zollinger referred to Idaho State Statute – Chapter 65 of Title 67. It is known as the Land Use and Planning Act. Copies could be provided if you don’t have access to the Internet. 2. State of Idaho House Bill No. 216 relating to Short-term/Vacation Rentals – Discussion Chairman Christensen clarified that the purpose of the presentation is to be informational, not confrontational. We do not want to have a controversial discussion. We are just hearing what it is. City Attorney Stephen Zollinger - I was told Idaho House Bill No. 216 has created some confusion and questions among Planning and Zoning members. So I am here to present kind of the evolution of House Bill No. 216 and where we believe it stands as of right now. It was originally introduced early in the session as House Bill 66 or a version of it was introduced as House Bill 66. It was anticipated that it would be adopted on the taxation side. The problem that was being addressed principally by the original version was ensuring short term rentals were given the same treatment as other lodging facilities. Representative Nate may know who the original sponsor was. It came through on the taxation side and it had language that was more specific to ensuring that all forms of lodging had the same amount of taxing – across the board from the hoteliers and from the realtors lobbies but it did not garner any support from the counties or the cities in its original form. So the factions came together and had some discussions and the bill was redrafted. The language was modified slightly. They added health, safety, and welfare which made it consistent with the land use planning act. They relocated it and pulled a lot of the same language through with respect to the platforms, the Air BnB or VRVO platforms that were operating. They 9 pulled that language through and made that a state managed function that local government would not have any ability to interfere or interact directly or regulate the platforms. So what that effectively accomplished was local governments can’t say we will not allow advertising on VRVO sites or on AirBNB sites. We aren’t going to have any regulatory authority from a local government standpoint over the platforms. It did however then carve out an exception for health, safety, and welfare, which is a fundamental tenant of planning and zoning. Everything you do as a zoning commission has to have its foundation in health, safety and welfare. The general police power that authorizes planning and zoning to have any affect is health, safety and welfare of the community. So, in House Bill 216, the final draft that got voted on, it carved out in the limitations of the regulations of short-term rentals, it ends with a statement that says: “Neither a county nor a city may enact or enforce any ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals or vacation rentals throughout the jurisdiction of such county or city. Notwithstanding the foregoing prohibition, a county or city may implement such reasonable regulations as it deems necessary to safeguard the public health, safety and general welfare in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate. A short-term rental or vacation rental shall be classified as a residential land use for zoning purposes subject to all zoning requirements applicable thereto…” So effectively what House Bill No. 216 does is it requires that you go through the process and you have to treat short term rentals – it defines them as not being hotels. You have to treat it just like you would any other residential rental use if people are cooking, eating, living in that structure and it’s being operated as short term rental. It did leave the municipalities the opportunity of regulating through zoning – managing the time, place, and manner. Several of the cities have adopted their ordinances subsequent to House Bill 216 and have chosen a different approach. Idaho Falls has chosen to say we are going to allow it throughout the city; we are going to regulate through parking and other requirements that restrict single family homes as a short term rental. Idaho Falls chose not to deal with a time frame. Coeur d’ Alene since bill 216 was passed did impose a time restriction of 2 days as the minimum number of days you can rent short term rentals. It’s evidence of the legislative options that remain available to municipalities – to regulate through your zoning as long as you consider it to be a health, safety, and general welfare rationale. Steve Oakey - Let’s start the discussion. I wonder how many people on the board have actually read House Bill No. 216. Stephen Zollinger - For those of you who haven’t read it, I just read the portion that applies to short term rentals. Steve Oakey - I think it would be within our interest to read it and then I would like to make a motion to open it up for a broader discussion. I see Representative Nate. I think that Representative Nate was instrumental with the process of intent. There is a statement of intent in House Bill No. 216. It would benefit us to read it to put our own understanding on it before it is regurgitated by other people. I would like to hear some background and intent, perhaps some discussion that took place in the House of Representatives from Representative Nate if that were possible. I would like to make that motion. Chairman Christensen seconded the motion. Those in Favor: Those Opposed: Steve Oakey Bruce Sutherland Heidi Christensen 10 Greg Blacker Rory Kunz Gil Shirley Motion Carried. Steve Oakey - Shall we have Rory read it for us and we follow along? Put your own take on it and then I would invite, I have requested that Representative Nate stand at the podium and give us background of intent and the process that took place to pass this, which incidentally was voted near unanimously by both the houses in the State Legislature. Rory, if you could read it. I don’t know if it would be appropriate to allow public discussion before we have our own deliberation and perhaps make a motion for consideration to the City Council to either implement what we think it means, which is in our right as a recommendation, or just to read it. Chairman Christensen - I feel kind of rushed if we are trying to make some ideas off something we are just reading now . Would it be ok to just have a discussion? Stephen Zollinger - In trying to understand what Mr. Oakey is driving at, you really don’t have the ability or authority to change State legislation. It is what it is and stands as written and is being interpreted throughout the state by multiple legal counsels to mean what it means. Chairman Christensen – So we do not really have an opportunity to say this is what we think the city should do because this is what the city’s doing. Stephen Zollinger – You certainly, that’s your responsibility as a Planning & Zoning Commission, to make recommendations to the City Council, but as it stands right now, House Bill No. 216 has no legal impact upon your particular ordinance because you have gone through the process of administering a health, safety and welfare decision, as long as the ordinance is in place due to health, safety, and general welfare. This bill does not restrict how you apply that. Is there anyone on the Commission that believes the ordinance when it was enacted was not in accordance with health, safety and wellness? If so, your next option would be to request an amendment or modification of the existing ordinance. The ordinance was implemented through due process. This does nothing to change the process. If we had enacted an ordinance that was not a health, safety, and welfare ordinance, then this would have restricted that and require that it be revisited. There are some cities like Stanley and Ketchum which have both been considering outright prohibitions of Air B&B. If this would have done, they would be required to go back. It is crass, the example that is being used throughout the state, but it is analogous to the sexually-oriented businesses. The Federal government came in over the objections of state legislators and said, we don’t care whether you like it or you don’t; it is a constitutionally protected right to have sexually-oriented businesses. So if you ban them outright throughout your city, we are going to come in and override you. But, if you regulate them on the basis of time, place, and manner, then we are going to enforce your local government decisions relative to where an appropriate place for a business of that nature is. At the risk of overturning the foundation of what constitutes planning and zoning, you are really left with one option, and that is, if you don’t like the end result, then you make a recommendation to the City Council to modify the existing ordinance and take into account what I assume Mr. Oakey is implying, and that is that we should have a free-for-all with respect to short-term rental as a result of this statute. Mr. Oakey – I have made the motion, can we please follow through on it? Before too many accusations about my personal preference are displayed by the city attorney. Chairman Christensen – Yes, we are going to start reading right away. Then, we will have Representative Nate, and then we will rally back up from there. Stephen Zollinger – That is fine with me. Rory Kunz - Am I reading from line 1? 11 Chairman Christensen – Yes. Rory Kunz read aloud the Idaho State House Bill No. 216 document. 12 13 14 15 Chairman Christensen – Thank you. Representative Nate, would you like to come up and give us the background of the things you know, please? State Representative Ron Nate - Good evening, Madam Chairman and members of the Commission. It is a pleasure to visit with you tonight and talk about House Bill No. 216. I heard it was on the agenda and thought it was a good place to show up and maybe talk a little about the background if you were willing and wanted it. House Bill 216, as Attorney Zollinger has noted, was approved after the second round of the bill. It was first introduced by a gentleman named Jim Clark, and as bill 216 the lead sponsor was Janet Trujillo. It was presented to the committee on revenue and taxation on the House side. All tax bills have to go through the revenue and taxation committee. It was presented to our committee, and we took testimony from interested parties. There was an individual homeowner who spoke in support of the legislation. Teresa Baker of the Idaho Association of Counties spoke in opposition to the House bill. She fielded several questions. It passed the House with a 63 to 5 and 2 absent vote. In the Senate, the bill passed unanimously, and it was signed by the Governor. The interest to me of the bill as a legislator was when the first one came across, it seemed that there were a lot of limitations on short-term rentals, a lot of limitations on homeowners and property owners. It became apparent very quickly to the members to the sponsor and members of the committee that the bill didn’t have much of a chance to move forward, so they worked on it. Things I would like to point out - first of all, the legislative intent on this is clear. The legislative intent is that it is designed to promote access to short-term rentals, by limiting local governments’ authority to prohibit the beneficial property uses and specifically target them for regulation, except for circumstances necessary to safeguard public health and welfare. It is designed to preserve personal property rights and promote property owner access to platforms. In the statement of purpose that comes along with each bill to kind of give a background of what each bill is, the statement of purpose is that this legislation protects private property rights of the homeowners by ensuring that the right to rent their properties is maintained. So, when we read the text of the bill, I think the key question and the thing that has perhaps made it controversial in Rexburg – by the way I appreciate that this is in the non-controversial section of the agenda – it is great to have a discussion before it gets to any controversy. The section about limitations on the regulation for the rentals… 67-6539 :“Neither a county nor a city may enact or enforce any ordinance that has the express or practical effect of prohibiting short-term rentals or vacation rentals throughout the jurisdiction of such county or city…” That is one of the key phrases that we were focused on as legislators - we do not want local jurisdictions to prohibit short term rentals. We recognize private property rights. On the issue of property rights, the Constitution is very clear on protecting the rights to life, liberty, and property. The Fifth Amendment also talks about protecting peoples’ property and property rights. In fact, a law says no private property may be taken for public use except with just compensation being provided. Anything that limits your use of property, and property is a bundle of rights, becomes a regulation, and becomes a taking of a sort. We need to be very careful when we have any ordinances that limit peoples’ uses of their property. Up until a few years ago, there was no such thing as an internet marketplace for short-term rentals. These rights have been possessed by homeowners all along until we get to a place here where we are saying, well, maybe we should have an ordinance that limits that. We need to recognize that when we are doing an ordinance like that, we are taking away a right assumed to be held by property owners. We need to be careful. The intent of the legislature was that we don’t want localities to be 16 taking away rights that property owners already possess, but we do want to still have the ability to pass ordinances for public safety and general welfare issues. As to the point of whether or not the ordinances as they stand would pass legal muster, I would point out that the intent and the statement at the bottom of page 2 of Bill 216 states we would not have ordinances which would have the effect of prohibiting short-terms rentals. The presumption all through this legislation is that local governments cannot prohibit short-term rentals. Even in the notwithstanding part where it says they can pass reasonable regulations, not reasonable prohibitions – we have chosen the term prohibition but we didn’t say prohibition; we said reasonable regulations on short-term rentals, for the purposes of health, safety, and general welfare. Notice how that sentence ends. It also says “… in order to protect the integrity of residential neighborhoods in which short-term rentals or vacation rentals operate.” The presumption there is that short- term rentals and vacation rentals operate, that they are not prohibited. So, we tried to be very careful with the legislation to make sure that the presumption is that rentals will be operated, would not be prohibited, but still allow the local jurisdictions the ability to pass ordinances for public safety, which is perfectly reasonable. We do it in other areas; we don’t want certain activities happening near schools. Ordinances are allowed for that sort of thing. Ordinances are allowed so that you maybe don’t have a half-way house in the middle of a residential neighborhood. Those are public safety issues. I think the key issue here is about preserving property rights. I think that if ordinances give rights to the level of trying either with the intent or effect of prohibiting short-term rentals in some way, I think that would be scoffing the law, because the law here is clear. The legislative intent is that short term rentals ought to be allowed – and I’m sure that Rexburg wants its ordinances obeyed. Ordinances are passed at the city level about parking, about zoning, whatever – we want them obeyed. I think that if Rexburg were to pass ordinances that had the effect of prohibiting short-term rentals, it would be hard for them to then go back and say we want all of our ordinances obeyed but we’re going to obey the state law. My advice is let’s be careful when we are looking at ordinances for regulations, and the intent of those regulations should be specific about health, safety, or general welfare, but not general in terms of trying to stop activity that maybe some don’t like because that is not the intent of the law. Community Development Administrative Assistant Tawnya Grover – What is the intent of the state regulated tax end of this? Representative Nate – It provides a mechanism so that marketplaces could be taxed. We want to make it an easy way for tax to be collected. It be burdensome for property owners and for the state tax commission to apply a tax on each and every rental owner that did a rental. It would be a hard tax to collect, so they decided when it is done through marketplaces, that the marketplace has the obligation to file with the state tax commission, and then the marketplace, who is already in contact with the homeowner, can assess those taxes with the homeowner. It makes it an easy way of applying taxes without the state tax commission having to be all over the state. Steve Oakey - When it says throughout the jurisdiction of the city or county, and then the key phrase – “notwithstanding the foregoing …” - it allows the city to continue its health, safety and general welfare. Of course general welfare has been a contentious issue constitutionally. It’s been broadly used and interpreted, depending on one’s political philosophy. Given the intent of the legislature, could we then therefore substitute “general welfare” in this paragraph, to be health, safety, and “nuisance”? Because we know that health, safety, and general welfare apply to every zone throughout the city. They don’t only apply to medium and high density zoning in the city. The 17 city’s responsibility is to apply all these equitable rules throughout the city. Health, safety, nuisance laws should be all applied to every zone throughout the city and not prohibited in low density, or medium density, or high density. Could we substitute “general welfare”, as far as your understanding, to be “nuisance”? Representative Nate - I understand the concern about nuisance and that my neighbor is doing a rental and I’m worried it’s going to have an impact on me. I don’t know all the legal case law issues behind the term, general welfare, constitutionally and if that transfers over. I don’t know all the legalities about those things. So I would hesitate to go into that area and say we could just substitute the word and understand the same way. Perhaps Mr.Zollinger has more insights on whether we could substitute those words. I think the legislative intent here is that of we respect the right of localities to make sure that what is going on in neighborhoods is compatible with health and safety and welfare concerns, but not to the point of an intent of creating a prohibition where none was intended by the state. We use the term reasonable regulations, and that term, reasonable, is one that has been tried and tried again in a court of law. We are able to let the courts sift out what reasonable regulations are. When it gets to the point where it is so unreasonable that nobody can operate one, I think you have really crossed the line. Bruce Sutherland – Is that an opinion? Representative Nate – That is my opinion. I should preface everything I say - I am not speaking for the legislature; I am not speaking for the committee or the House. This is just one legislator’s view of how the process looks at things. Also, in my real life, I play an economist; I teach economics at BYU-Idaho. I did a little background look at this issue. Because it is so new, there have been very few studies on what short-term rentals mean. One study I found was from Williams College. A couple of authors looked at the effect of short term rentals on property values. I know the fear from neighbors is that with all this activity happening next door, they might feel danger; they might feel uncertainty. The short-term rentals so far have an effect of between 6% and 31% of an increase on property values when they are allowed in neighborhoods. There is talk of incentives all the time. Really, if I am renting out part of my house, I need to have it well-maintained and I need to have it safe, or I could get sued by a short-term renter. I would want to have it looking nice so that I would get good reviews. A great thing about internet marketplaces are the reviews. It is what drives repeat business. I’d want to make my property as nice as I can so that when people stay in it, I would get good reviews, which would get more people to stay in it. It tends to raise property values throughout the neighborhood. Not only that, I would be reviewing my tenants, too. Tenants do not want to get black marks on their record, either, because they like the service. So, tenants have an incentive to behave well when they are in a rental. The incentives flow is in the system for properties to be well-maintained and tenants to be well-behaved. It seems to be complimentary with what the concerns of the neighborhood are. Tawnya Grover – The short-term rental is also an incentive from a personal point of view because if you are taking your family, it is very economical to stay where there is a kitchen and the facilities that you need when you are staying for a short time - kind of a home away from home versus more of a hotel feel. You have a lot more flexibility. Questions from the audience: Audience member - One of the biggest concerns I have found is that property values would go down with short-term rentals in a neighborhood. I wanted to repeat that. Representative Nate – The study I have seen shows property values going up, between 6% and 31%. It showed positive effects of the rentals. There was also an AirBnB study done on this. 18 What these found is that many of the rentals were in high end neighborhoods, because that’s where people want to rent. If you are renting in a high end neighborhood, rates would probably be a little higher and you have less potential conflicts. Audience member - Why was an ordinance prohibiting short term rentals originally set up? Representative Nate – I do not know the history of how ordinances have been set up in localities. I think there is a natural fear of what we call in economics “negative externalities” - one person’s activity negatively affecting you. I can understand that. That’s why neighbors have fences. That’s why they like buffer zones and things like that. In terms of rentals, once in a while there are bad actors that do bad things, and those become publicized because they are truly extraordinary. But the ordinary circumstance is that renters want to behave well and the people renting to them want to maintain their property well. Community Development Director Val Christensen - From a zoning standpoint, for example a hotel or a motel. From what I am hearing on short term rentals, would you say that someone in a neighborhood would have that type of a pre-existing right to put a hotel in their neighborhood? Representative Nate – As far as building buildings, this isn’t talking about a right to build a hotel or motel. It is about renting out all or part of their residence. Director Christensen – So if they had 16 rooms that would that be acceptable? I am hearing you say that people have rights going in, with their houses. Representative Nate - I think under a negative system of rights, you have the right until it is taken away. Sometimes we have rights we didn’t know about because it didn’t become an issue. In terms of renting out your place for a short-term basis, property owners have a right to rent out the rooms of their house. There is no ordinance limiting the number of rooms renting like that. Director Val Christensen – If there was an ordinance beforehand that did address that, you are saying they still have the assumed rights? Representative Nate – You are asking me these legal questions about whether the ordinance carries over. This bill takes effect January 1, 2018 - it says you cannot have ordinances that prohibit short-term rentals. You can have reasonable regulations for health, safety, and general welfare issues. I think if we got to the point where ordinances were prohibiting it or we were saying look we have a prohibiting ordinance and the thinking in our minds was health safety, and general welfare, I think you would be inviting lawsuits and heavy expence. The clear legislative intent here is not prohibiting but reasonable regulation. I think it would be for the court to decide is it reasonable to rent out 16 rooms? Is it reasonable to limit that? Audience member - Would one of the reasonable regulations be about parking? Representative Nate – Again, I am not the attorney and I am not the court to decide. From my perspective, parking would be a reasonable regulation. Chairman Christensen – This is how I am seeing this work. The mayor can come up and speak. Then we can have some questions regarding the legislation that was passed directed to Mr. Zollinger or to the P&Z Commission. Mayor Jerry Merrill – I appreciate this discussion. I have been looking at this issue for a while, and I do appreciate Craig’s and Dan’s presentations and all of things they are trying to do that I think will help make Rexburg a better community and in planning. Sometimes planning is viewed as land graphs and things like that. We are trying to look ahead 20-30 years and what is going to happen, because Rexburg is a growing community. If you don’t do any planning it would be kind of like not planning for retirement. We are trying to making sure things happen in a good way going forward. 19 On the short-term rental issue, I have been troubled. Like a lot of people, I am concerned about the peaceful nature of our neighborhoods, and I don’t want that to be violated. I do not want my neighborhood turned into a hotel zone. Since I had questions on House Bill 216, I took it upon myself to do a little research. I’ve read it many times trying to figure it out. It is confusing in a couple spots. It is a little confusing on what we can and cannot do. I spoke today with Senator Hill and earlier with Representative Raybould and Representative Nate. Today I also spoke with Representative Brian Zollinger of Idaho Falls and Representative Janet Trujillo of Idaho Falls, who was the sponsor of this bill. I am just trying to understand from them what is really the intent of this legislation. All 5 legislators said the intent was to make the personal property rights of people available to rent their homes. Regulations were not to prevent that in any part of the city or county. They said the health, safety, and welfare is something we can regulate by adopting reasonable regulations. Those reasonable regulations generally are things that we already have in Rexburg. If your neighbor is making a lot of noise and you can’t sleep, you call the cops and they take care of it. If there is a wild party that is bothering you and disturbing the peace, you could ask for that to be taken care of. They all said the intended legislation was to allow the use of property for short-term rentals, as a residential use. A regulatory authority would be given to our cities to protect the quality and peaceful nature of our neighborhoods. It was pointed out to me earlier today - why should the State be regulating cities and counties? Isn’t it best to have regulations as close to home as possible. To some degree, I think we brought this on ourselves by regulating our citizens so that they don’t have the usage of their personal property in ways that they desire, as long as they are not infringing upon their neighbors or causing problems in their neighborhood. I believe if we hadn’t been limiting the personal property rights of our citizens, this legislation probably would not have been necessary, but it has come to pass. I have been thinking about this, actually before the legislature took it up. I have a thought, just an idea. In Rexburg right now, we allow short-term rentals by right in high density residential neighborhood; anyone can do it. These neighborhoods are by nature more transient, with people moving in and out. In the medium density residential zones, they are less transient and it is allowed with a Conditional Use Permit, which I think is a reasonable regulation because if it looks like it is going to change the character of the neighborhood, these can be looked at on a case by case basis, and approved or denied depending if we feel health safety and welfare are addressed and if we are protecting the integrity of the neighborhood. Director Christensen - Also, for clarification, short term rentals are allowed by right in medium density if the property is owner occupied. Mayor – In my mind then, the next logical step would be, in low density neighborhoods that are typically stable, why would it not be a reasonable regulation to allow rentals if the property is owner occupied? It would be the primary residence; the owners are there during the rental period that provides an accountability factor. I think it would give people the opportunity to use their home in a way they desire, but yet have a reasonable regulation on there because the people are there – they can be responsible for their renters. Bruce Sutherland - Didn’t the City Council vote and decide on this issue? Mayor Merrill - The Council voted on the eclipse allowing it. It was not voted on specifically on short term rentals regarding low density. It was never really voted on. It was talked about in the work meetings. 20 Steve Oakey - I was part of those discussions. One of the concessions that was made was that on the user side, was what you just mentioned, that the owner would be present to address concerns of the neighbors – the health, safety, and nuisance issues or general welfare issues. But it never came up for a vote by City Council. That suggestion was made but it never came up because there were other laws on the books that already governed beds & breakfasts, and boarding houses. Mayor – We wanted to make those better defined, and that’s what we voted on at that particular meeting. We voted to have Val Christensen and his group define these better. Steve Oakey - The opposing side was never willing to concede any concessions. The opposing side came in several times to oppose the relaxation during the eclipse, and wanted a strict prohibition. In fact, there were even some on the opposing side that wanted prohibition throughout the city regardless of zoning. But the user side I think was very willing to make concessions including owner- occupied during the stay of guests. So there have been concessions on one side but not the other. Mayor - My perspective is it seems to me that there are a lot of issues that have been brought up. It seems to me that biggest issue and biggest fear is that people are hesitant because they say; we don’t know who is going to be our neighbor. Who is going to be next door to us? I can understand that fear. I think one of the things we have to look at in our discussion as to whether we make any changes or not, and that is determining what is reasonable and logical. If you look at the demographic of who is coming to Rexburg to stay, it’s people that are coming to graduation, or dropping off kids for school, or for an event at the temple, or are families or tourists on their way to Yellowstone Park. I think that’s one of the reasons why Idaho Falls looked at this and said we are willing to go ahead and open it up. Stephen Zollinger – They addressed the required parking. Mayor – My suggestion if we were to try to make a change is if someone is coming to town with evil intent, I think a reasonable regulation would be to take a picture of them, their car, their license plate - it would be more of a preventative measure instead of after the fact (say a security camera) which would be a curative measure. It would make people think. It is a good way to allay peoples’ fears. Those are some of my thoughts. All the legislators I talked to said the intent of the legislation was to make access available to property owners to be able to rent their property if they desire, and second, to make it available so that we could have a level of the playing field and be able to collect taxes and things like that which are owed for occupancy. Chairman Christensen – We will take some questions. Please keep your questions brief and to the point. Audience member - I would like to know how many people here have stayed in an Airbnb. There was a raising of hands. Chairman Christensen - We are not making any decisions now. We are just talking about the legislation. Bruce Sutherland - One of the problems is that we have zoning in effect that protects the neighborhood. Whether you like it or not, that is the way it is. The only way to change it is to change the zone. You have to go through that. But I have worked with zoning for 30 years and there is a reason for it. Idaho Falls changed their ordinance and not the zone. 21 Director Christensen – Our discussion tonight is not to have for and against. We are trying to understand the law. We wanted to focus on what the law said. The comments we have had, the way the approached it and Representative Nate and Attorney Zollinger, have been really good. Property rights are a hard thing to get your arms around. A public hearing and town meetings were held and this was discussed in great detail. We could have another one later if the Commission and City Council want to go in that direction. Mayor Merrill - Representative Trujillo pointed out to me that if a person lives in a neighborhood with CCRs (Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions) or an HOA (Homeowners Association) agreement and they have signed an agreement , they are bound to obey that agreement. Steve Oakey – Those are voluntary private contracts as opposed to government coerced behavior. I’m in total agreement with that. If the majority of the neighborhood or those concerned make an agreement amongst themselves to prohibit whatever activity they desire, I think that is enforceable by legal contract. But the government does not ask for voluntary arrangements like that. Rory Kunz - Mr. Zollinger, I have questions some questions for you. I was part of the discussions prior to this meeting. On the decisions we came to before, you had mentioned that we as a body, it was our job, to make sure we were regulating or imposing zoning restrictions based on health, safety, and general welfare. Stephen Zollinger – Correct. Rory Kunz – I think that was the intent of everyone that was on this body. I am personally more for looser restrictions, but I think that we came to a compromise because of the evidence that was before us at the time. We had a lot of people involved, with a lot of opinions. The part that I get concerned about is that this state legislation came after the fact. It has caused me concern both as a property owner as well as a member of this board, as well as a member of our city where it talks about that there shall be no taxes or fees. Also the interpretation of what general welfare means, and what its impact will be on our city. I want to understand the implication as it applies to our ordinances, as well as, whether we can or can’t defend it, what fiscal effect will it have on our city as well. City Attorney Stephen Zollinger – To be clear, I’m not recommending that you pick a fight. I also can’t give you what I consider to be bad legal advice. Despite the Mayor’s poling of five legislators, only one of whom is an attorney, their interpretation of what they actually reduced to writing and voted on, is unanimously contradicted by all of the attorneys that we visited with. The Mayor visited with a number of attorneys over the last few weeks, none of whom believe that this affects our ability to enforce our current ordinances. That being said, if the intent was clearly what the legislators wanted to accomplish, then they are going to need to make a couple fixes. The first of those would be that they are going to need to move the word ‘throughout’ outside of the sentence structure they have got it in, because as it is currently drafted, it says it prohibits cities and counties from prohibiting short-term rentals throughout the city. If their intent was to say, we are going to implement a rule that will encompass the entirety of the city and it will prohibit cities and counties from regulating short-term rentals, then it needs to be outside of that sentence. It is a simple fix. If they have the goals for it once they move that word outside, then we would need to make the necessary adjustments. The other problem that this legislation has from a purely legal assessment - just to be clear, I would draft the ordinance however you want it. I am not certainly anxious to fight a fight because of the ambiguity of the statute. But, as it is currently written, general welfare of a neighborhood is what you witnessed as a body. There were parties that came in and said we consider short-term rentals to be a detrimental impact on our neighborhood. Your definition of neighborhood and my definition of 22 neighborhood might be different. That is going to be something that is somewhat subjective and it gets to the voting, to the politicians, and the politicians have to cast their votes based on their personal belief systems. It may be that the protection of a neighborhood’s environment does not rise to the level of general welfare in the mind of the people who get to vote. If it doesn’t then that’s how it comes down. Even after all that is said and done, you still have to get passed judges. Judges are not of the same mind as legislators. The judicial system frequently kicks the legislative intent back and says you can’t have that. I believe that the legislators are currently fighting. They have taken the executive committee to task and are asking a judge or a panel of judges to decide whether the executive committee acted inappropriately as relates to the legislative intent. So, the balance is something that I’m not here to argue with you about. If as a body you feel like the clear intent was to accomplish a particular goal, then you have the ability to modify the ordinance and accommodate what you believe the intent was. I have no reason to question Representative Nate’s understanding of what the intent was. That being said, I’m not sure they gave a unanimous vote when they rearranged this language. I can assure you that the Association of Idaho Cities would have openly and vigorously opposed this had they believed that it was a taking away of local authority. It is across the board that they resist any effort on the part of the state to take away local government control away. They didn’t resist this one. The counties may have at the House level, but by the time it got to the Senate the counties had gotten on board because of the rewrite. The rewrite may have been misinterpreted. Some of the legislators may have thought, okay, with the rewrite, we are okay with this. I don’t know. I am not going to speculate on that. I am simply telling you that as written, I have yet to meet a municipal attorney who believes that it does what they think it does. That is what I am here to give you, legal advice, not personal advice, not social advice, and not economic advice. I can only give you what the legal analysis is of this particular strategy. Across the board, the Municipal Attorneys Association has interpreted it as not taking away your right to regulate zone by zone. Coeur d’Alene has just implemented their statute - specifically as a zone by zone application. If you feel strongly as some of you apparently do, then it is your job to make a recommendation to the City Council that you reopen this discussion and consider modifying it. You have until January 1st . The judges may agree with the legislators; they may not. If they don’t, the legislators will fix it. In talking to Brian Zollinger of Idaho Falls, his indication was, well we wanted our intent to be what we say it is, so if we have to tweak it a little bit we will do it the next legislative session. I don’t think we should be the ones to force that issue. We should do what we think is right. But don’t ask me to tell you this law says what they wanted it to say if that’s what they all wanted it to say. It doesn’t quite get there. That may have been because of the re-write. I’m not blaming the legislators. They got handed a rewrite and they knew what they wanted to accomplish, but it doesn’t always get there. Gil Shirley - My thought is the last sentence on first page it has owner occupied residential home that is offered for a fee, for 30 days or less. Is that per year or per month or what? Stephen Zollinger – I think they were trying their best to reach a compromise that would get everybody to understand what the goal was. The legislative intent and the sections you are reading are all in the taxation section. Then they threw in a land use planning act amendment at the back that is a different section. You would be pretty hard pressed to argue that the legislative intent of chapter 18 carries over to the legislative intent, because if you read 67-65 there is a legislative intent in front of that as well. The legislative intent in front of 67-65 is to facilitate planning, reasonable 23 growth and management of communities. It is the zoning again. It is less than 30 days in a run, and could be done all year long The legislators have the ability and have effectively accomplished designating short-term rentals as residential uses. Gil Shirley - Does the city get involved? Stephen Zollinger - The city registers all businesses. We regulate our residential rentals, short term or long term, for non-family members, on a per person parking ratio. So every one of these short term rentals would have to disclose how many people they are willing to bring in to their facility, and they would have to have .75 parking stalls on site for every person. It’s not related to whether it’s a family or whether it is six individual teenagers who all drive there together. We regulate it base on our residential demographic. Right now, our residential demographic says every person who sleeps in a residential unit that is non-family has to have .75 parking stalls. That may be something you want to visit. We have put ourselves in a conundrum - are we going to regulate short-term rentals differently than other residential users. This statute says we can’t. We are facing a problem of how do we balance legally treating short-term residential uses like every other residential use that we have. They have legislatively designated short term rentals as residential use, more like an apartment, not a business. Greg Blacker - CCRs and HOAs are only enforceable if those residents get together, pool their money, and pay for an attorney to enforce those rules, is that right? Stephen Zollinger – Technically, yes. The city will not enforce these. Greg Blacker – If someone is violating an issue, and they don’t come up with the money and don’t want to do that, then it is not binding. Stephen Zollinger - It is binding but it is not enforced. One of the things Idaho Falls looked at according to their legal counsel, was that most of the newer subdivisions to the south of Sunnyside have been built with CCRs so they don’t have the same issue that Rexburg has of our high-end homes on the hill that were built prior to the use of CCRs. We have a lot of single family residential units in Rexburg that are not governed by CCRs. Idaho Falls probably has as many but they are not in the neighborhood that are as outspoken as we have experienced here. It was not as difficult for them to simply say we are going to let it go; we’re going to let it ride. They already determined they weren’t going to fight the fight. They regulated it on parking and number of rooms. I’m not sure how they are going to defend the number of rooms. If this bill gets revised slightly to implement what Representative Nate said that it should, I don’t think you can regulate the number of rooms. I also don’t believe legally we could regulate owner-occupied if this gets tweaked a little bit. Tawnya Grover – On the city level we could do that legally? Stephen Zollinger – No, not if it’s tweaked to be all – encompassing. I would be willing to bet that they can’t get a unanimous vote if they tweak it, making it very clear that they are taking away all rights to regulate, other than general welfare. Audience question: What are the studies or specific sources regarding general welfare?. Stephen Zollinger - General welfare is a very subjective standard. For example, to the Mayor general welfare may not be the impact that it has on your neighborhood, but to Craig it may be different. That neighborhood has pushed back vigorously against what they perceive to be a degradation of the quality of their neighborhood, what makes their neighborhood good. General welfare allows for an interpretation. When this was put to the public for discussion, there were large vocal groups on both sides – one that said it should it never be allowed anywhere, and the other that said we don’t understand what the harm is to our neighborhood. 24 Audience member - Who decides, the majority? Stephen Zollinger - No, it is the elected officials who decide. There are six Rexburg City Council members. Community Development Director Val Christensen - The P&Z Commission is a recommending body to the City Council. The P&Z Commissioners are not elected. The City Council members are elected and make final decisions. Stephen Zollinger – Whether you call it a vote or not, the City Council made a motion to be done with it and not address and not address any further issues on it. As of right now, they voted on what they considered to be relevant. Steve Oakey – That preceded the House Bill 216. Stephen Zollinger- That is absolutely correct. If they believe House Bill 216 changed the dynamics, that is something they could pick up on their own. You can lobby. There is a referendum process. January 1st will come long before that. Audience member – How does renting one bedroom as a rental infringe on rights of neighbors? Stephen Zollinger- It is a difficult concept. The closer knit a community becomes, the closer you are to your neighbors. The more likely your behaviors are to impact your neighbors. Government does the best they can to craft regulations - minimally invasive but sufficiently invasive to protect your neighbors from each other. Mr. Oakey has espoused a theory that neighbors could enter into civil contracts; that is not the way that American government is currently set up. Right now, government exists at all levels to impose certain restrictions on your property rights. The recourse is to elect other officials. At some point the balance is reached. The question becomes which side does the weight need to be put on to restore balance? Does you renting one room create an imbalance against a neighbor who thought he was moving into a zone that wouldn’t allow that. That is the question that the City Council gets to answer. Steve Oakey - Current law in the city of Rexburg allows you to operate a certain type of business in your home and some of your neighbors are conducting businesses in their home. Current law also allows you to rent for a period of more than 30 days but you can’t rent for less than 30 days. Currently law allows you to have any guest in your home of your choosing for any period of time. But the minute you charge that guest money, you are in violation of the law. If Joaquin Guzman was released from prison today, I could invite him into my home for free. If I invited Pope Francis into my home and charged him a dollar, I am in violation of the city law. Stephen Zollinger -That is correct. Chairman Christensen- Thank you to everyone for participating and listening and being willing to be good citizens for Rexburg. I would like to make a suggestion - if we have ideas we would like to change – that we talk about it on a different night. Steve Oakey - Are we closing this discussion? If so I want to make a motion. Stephen Zollinger has mentioned we can make a recommendation for the city to have a discussion. House Bill 216 came after the vote on short term rentals. I think it is an appropriate recommendation that we bring this up for more discussion in the City Council, with fair representation, and to perhaps have differing legal counsel to provide for a different interpretation of House Bill 216. I’d like to hear 25 perhaps Representative Nate and others could be invited, Mr. Raybould and Mr. Hill , and alternative legal counsel. Chairman Christensen – Is that something we need to make a motion on? Stephen Zollinger - No. You have to start the process. It starts here in P&Z. It is not a motion. It would have to be on the agenda for the next meeting or other future date. Steve Oakey – Can we make a motion to City Council today to reopen this issue. I want this on an agenda for further discussion to lead to City Council. Stephen Zollinger - It would be an amendment to an ordinance, which means it will have to start with you (P&Z) making a recommendation not just to revisit but a recommendation on what you want to have them do. Every land use action starts here and goes to Council with a recommendation. Steve Oakey motioned to put on the next P&Z Commission agenda a discussion with the end goal of presenting to the City Council a recommendation regarding a re-reading of House Bill 216 as it is to bear on current Rexburg code. Rory Kunz seconded the motion. Those in Favor Those Opposed Steve Oakey Bruce Sutherland Rory Kunz Gil Shirley Heidi Christensen Greg Blacker Motion Carried. Report on Projects: None Tabled Requests: None Building Permit Application Report: None Heads Up: June 1, 2017 P&Z Meeting: Rezone – 703 West 7th South – Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to High Density Residential 2 – Bron Leatham (Cook property) Conditional Use Permit – 486 South 3rd West – to allow reduced parking. The applicant is requesting a parking reduction to 65% through the use of the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED), per the Rexburg Development Code. The zoning for the property is High Density Residential One (HDR1). Annexation & Rezone – Approximately 20 South 12th West – Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to Community Business Center (CBC) for the east 250' as described in the legal description; the rest of the parcel remains Rural Residential 1 (RR1) – Ringel Final Plat – Kenneth Square– Approximately 814 North Yellowstone Highway – Bryce Dorion and Eagle Rock Engineering Rory Kunz motioned to adjourn the meeting. Bruce Sutherland seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:49 pm.