Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.15.17 P&Z Minutes 1 Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others: Heidi Christensen – Chairman Brad Wolfe- City Council Liaison Melanie Davenport Jordan Busby Bruce Sutherland Mayor Jerry Merrill Gil Shirley Colton Murdock – Community Development Intern John Bowen Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Greg Blacker Sally Smith – City Council President Darrik Farmer Donna Benfield Kristi Anderson Tisha Floor Mark Rudd Val-Community Planner Rory Kunz 5:30 pm – Work Meeting – City Council and P&Z Commission Chairman Heidi Christensen welcomes attendees. Heidi turns the power over to City Council President Smith. City Council President Smith welcomes guests to the meeting. Some Rexburg high school students will present their survey called Project Citizen on short-term rentals. Also, a Planner from Idaho Falls will present. Brandon Lemon and Kim Alowitz introduced themselves. Kim presented a map with the areas they surveyed boxed in red. The boys determined the areas with their statistics teacher, Mrs. Palmer. They were trying to get some diversity from different places in the city. Brandon showed the results were uniform throughout the different zones and shared the statistics they calculated for their project. The total polled were 240. 211 were registered voters. Of those registered voters, 23.6% were opposed to Airbnb. 76.4% were in favor for Airbnb. The boys are 95% confident that the people in Rexburg are in favor of Airbnb. Statistically, according to the survey results, 60.838%-82.957% are in favor of Airbnb. This means that the people are marginally in favor of short-term rentals in lower-density zones. Kristi Anderson asked, how did you ask the questions so you were not partial? Brandon We stated that we were high school seniors there to do a survey. The boys did not share their individual opinions. 6 people participated in the polling. Those who conducted the surveys did not survey the zones they lived in to maintain their anonymity. Mrs. Palmer approved the format. Melanie asked, how did you do the survey? Brandon replied that they did the survey in person with a list of questions they would ask. Melanie asked, if you polled more areas, do you think you would have received a different result? Brandon said no. Independence is required in a population survey. No apartments were represented. LDR 2&3 zones were represented in the survey including the following subdivisions: Rex Palmer Subdivision by the Junior High off of Mel hollow, Indian Hills, Starlight & Evergreen, and Artic Willows which was RR2. The boys asked their questions to every third house in these neighborhoods. The boys did not poll occupants of the same home. One person per home was surveyed. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes June 15, 2017 2 City Council President Smith asked, “Do you think statistically you did more in low density 2 & 3 because there are more homes there?” Brandon answered this is a cluster sample. Our teacher helped us determine which areas would best follow the criteria of this kind of a sample. John Bowen asked, in LD1, can you tell us numbers of people you surveyed in those areas? Brandon responded, proportion wise, the same number of people were talked to. 60-82% were in favor in each region. The actual numbers were turned in to Project Citizen. Mayor Jerry Merrill thanked the boys for their presentation. They did a pretty professional job. The Mayor introduced Kerry Beutler who is in the Community Development Division of Idaho Falls. Idaho Falls has already done what Rexburg is needing to do in terms of short-term rentals. As a result of the presentation, the Mayor is hoping Kerry can give us some ideas on how to move forward in Rexburg’s process. Kerry Beutler We started this process last fall. The City of Idaho Falls started in January reaching out to the public. Their ordinances never dealt with short-term rentals, so they felt they needed to reach out to the public. They did an online survey through Survey Monkey and talked to other communities. Idaho Falls employees asked these communities: What questions they asked? What did they learn? This helped them come up with the list of questions for their online survey. Idaho Falls also conducted a public open house and asked those present to take the survey. The survey was restricted to one survey/computer terminal. 669 people responded. Over 70% surveyed thought the city of Idaho Falls should allow short-term rentals. The majority said they wanted short-term rentals regulated. They asked their participants about their knowledge of Airbnb. This allowed them to learn what issues were present. A historic neighborhood in Idaho Falls is using short-term rentals to generate revenue to revitalize the area. Jordan Busby asked How many attended public open house? Do you feel that most of the surveys were completed the night of the open house? Kerry answered, He doesn’t know the numbers, but they were busy all night. Most of the surveys were completed prior to the open house. His impression is that the general consensus is almost 50/50. Typical concerns of people against short-term rentals were about traffic, late nights, people they don’t know in their neighborhoods. Another questions arose, Is this a commercial use in a residential neighborhood? Once Idaho Falls determined the concerns, the issue turned to regulation. Are there ordinances on the books already that address this use? Traffic, parking, noise, and trash/litter ordinances were already in place. Stranger danger was another issue. This is true for every part of the city. There are already people that are trying to find their way through the city. With short-term rentals, there is a personal or direct relationship between the owner of the property and the person renting the property. Idaho Falls has seen better upkeep with short-term rentals then those who are a long-term tenant. Each of these issues was not really any different than any other normal neighborhood concern. In the end, Idaho Falls felt a very limited regulation was necessary. Idaho Falls focused their concern with the number of guests at a particular property. How do you restrict this? Kids come home for Sunday dinner. You end up with a bunch of cars out friend and a bunch of kids in the yard. How is that any different than a family coming for college graduation? The impact of a short-term rental is the same as a residential. If a person of a home was renting out each individual bedroom separately each to different guests, this would present a difference to a neighborhood as opposed to someone renting a house for a weekend. Our regulation states one can only rent to one guest per building. We know it will be difficult to enforce. Accessory structures on Air B&B include people renting sheds, campers, pool houses. That is a concern with safety and building codes. Idaho Falls will not allow people to have an accessory structure to be rented out. Idaho Falls short-term rental ordinances have been in place 3 2-1/2 to 3 months and they haven’t had a single complaint; however, they know that the eclipse is coming. Jordan asked the question, what is the consequence? Kerry answered We don’t have a registration process. The consequence is going to be the same for any other violation. The City of Idaho Falls is in the process of rewriting their enforcement language so they can basically write a compounding ticket. Bruce asked question What kind of use is the City considering short-term rentals? Do you have any ordinances? Kerry answered– The short-term rental use is comparative to any other residential business. Jordan. Did you have any problems with ADA concerns? Kerry We talked with the building official. No. It was like any residential use. Some cities have a registration process. Questions that arose were: What do you do with those who don’t register? Now you have created an enforcement issue. How do you prove they are operating Airbnb? What is the consequence if you can’t find the person? How much staff do you find? How much time do you want to designate staff to be patrolling pictures in cases of proof? It just wasn’t practical for our office. Having a registration process wouldn’t gain Idaho Falls anything. John Bowen It sounds like this is going to require a lot of supervision. Who pays for that? I am concerned about the cities. Will the City have additional costs? The City should be compensated if you are going to supervise. Kerry we have maybe 50 short-term rentals in our city. There was no benefit for registration or fees. That is the question you need to ask: How much do you want to supervise? And how will you determine the fees to cover that extra cost? From our standpoint there was no benefit for applications and registrations. I don’t think you would be able to see the data that would specifically be a result from short-term rentals. Kristi Did the homeowner lose their exemption when they choose to rent? Kerry This would be a question for the County Assessor. I would be surprised, because they are still using the place as their primary residence. A person could rent the entire home or they could rent one bedroom or three bedrooms to the same entity or guest. It is restricted by booking. One booking could be one responsible guest and those with them. The question was asked; Does the owner have to be on site? Kerry answered No. We have not had one call. Prior to adopting the ordinance was 1 complaint. The issue was between property owners. Brad Wolfe said You are taking the host at their word. You are going to let it self-regulate until a problem arises then deal with it? Kerry said, yes. Discussion on taxes. Some websites take care of the taxes, others don’t. Mayor Jerry Merrill – Do you have zoning ordinances? Kerry We have zoning ordinances. Since a rental is less than 30 days, short-term rentals fell into our hotel definition. Airbnb wasn’t around when our zoning ordinances were written. Idaho Falls adjusted their definitions. Short-term rentals area allowed city wide. City Council President Smith brought up House Bill 216. We have until January to determine how we are going to approach our response to this bill. There is a meeting of attorneys coming up which will include interpretation of the bill, which can go in several different directions. Should we form a task force? If we were to do that, we feel the best approach would be to pick 2 Council members, 2 P&Z members, and 3 or 4 citizens from the community. There are a lot of questions that need to be answered. We would like to provide the task force with a list of Staff available to them as a resource to answer questions. Mayor Jerry Merrill I want folks who feel like they could really listen. 4 City Council President Smith recommended the chairman be from P&Z. P&Z and Council will come up with some names of citizens they feel would serve well on the task force and represent different viewpoints among the community. P&Z staff should discuss at their meeting today who will serve on this task force. Steve Oakey wrote a letter and asked it be read at the meeting. Chairman Heidi Christensen read Steve Oakey’s letter. Mayor Jerry Merrill shared his concerns about people respecting one another. He suggested people look at what is best for the city as a whole. He thanked Kerry for coming. 6:30 pm - P&Z Meeting Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the meeting at 6:37pm. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Attending: Rory Kunz, Bruce Sutherland, Kristi Andersen, Gil Shirley, Melanie Davenport, Chairman Heidi Christensen, Darrik Farmer, Mark Rudd, Greg Blacker, John Bowen Steve Oakey was excused. Minutes: 1. From Planning and Zoning meeting – June 1, 2017. Melanie motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of June 1, 2017. Chairman Heidi Christensen seconded the motion. Rory, Bruce, Gil, Darrik, and Mark, John Bowen and Greg Blacker abstained. None opposed. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 1. 6:35 pm – Rocky Ridge Planned Unit Development (PUD) – Preliminary Master Plan/Preliminary Plat - 398 Pioneer Road - Sweetwater Investments Chad Richards presented. -720 Centennial Loop- Rocky Ridge Development. There is a vacant 3-acre lot with MDR2 zone right now. Chad wants to put in seventeen 4-Plexes. We are trying to cluster the buildings to create more green space. These units face towards each other and the parking is to the side. In order to get the higher density, a number of points are needed to get the approval. He is working with city staff to determine 83 points to go from 13 allowed in the acreage to the 17 units. We are making improvements to the buildings like higher profile shingles and higher-end finishes. The site plan will add trees to screen the neighboring street. We will increase the landscaping to 50% more trees than 2 trees/complex. They have added lighting to other green space areas that may be used. There is a myriad of ways these points can be determined. Chairman Heidi Christensen asked for clarifying questions. Melanie Davenport asked about snow storage space indicated on plans. Is this part of your green area? Is there some grading on that? Would it be usable space other than when there is snow? Chad Yes. Melanie asked are you asking for reduced parking? No. even with the additional units, they meet the parking requirements. 5 Community Planner Val Christensen, was asked for clarifying questions. We were hoping to have the point totals tonight. In order for you to move on this, I am asking you to trust we will determine these points as per staff review. He did not receive the landscaping plan until the previous evening. Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the public hearing. In Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Heidi Christensen closed the public input portion of the hearing. Community Planner Val Christensen Fire department didn’t have any concerns. They built in a turnaround and they have the widths the fire department requires. PUD required to provide 1 tree/2 units. 4 units/building. 8 bushes/4-plex. A PUD pushes for clustering to get green space, getting energy efficiency like shade trees to shade buildings to save on electrical bills, and higher quality design and materials. A requirement is that the development be under single ownership. To achieve this, control would have the common ground be under a homeowner’s association once all the units have been sold with a 1/17th ownership responsible for the entire complex. This ownership stays with the developer until all the units have been sold. They also have to submit their CC&Rs. We check to make sure in the CC&Rs that they would not violate City laws and ordinances. There are no natural features that needed to be kept. In their landscaped areas, they are required to have low- volume irrigation systems like a drip system. The base open space required is 10%. They have exceeded this percentage. Hardscape is far below the requirement. They are required to have a common activity area. The Planner is happy with use of the green space between the 4-Plexes; it is usable space. Landscapers will choose drought-resistant varieties. Public works did not comment on traffic concerns. They are not required to have special lighting for a PUD. If they do, Committee has a say in how it might look. Val has already suggested lights on the West side or back of the buildings. Staff recommendation was to take public hearing and determine if the preliminary plat needs any major changes on the plat need to be made before approval. Final review of CC&Rs will be required prior to recording the plat. The zone requirements would need to be met up until you get to setbacks and density bonus points: all utilities placed underground, water conservation, trash bins will have to be screened, and lighting standards. The plan creates an open space which will be private. Is this a creative site plan? Staff would require a highway buffer with landscaping bushes and trees. Density Bonuses. Many more bushes and trees will screen the parking lot from view which has a possibility of up to 20 points. A fence you can’t see through would be put up on the side with storage units. The Planner and Rocky Ridge are working together to negotiate the point total. Some points were given, and possibilities were discussed on how to gain more. Lights that match or are similar throughout the project have been discussed. Val liked the clustering of the buildings, making each set of 4 buildings like a neighborhood on their own. To put the buildings that close, they have to fire-rate the walls. The porch areas face each other to show community. They need to get to 87 bonus points for what they are asking. The total points determined were over 100. Chad. I think with the shingles we have our point totals. Let’s hold off on the stucco and stone exterior. 6 MOTION: Bruce Sutherland made the motion to accept the plans. Melanie Davenport Do they meet the requirement of being in a proximity of a park? It was determined this is not infield redevelopment. The City is looking on doing an activity study. Is this an adequate space for their recreation? Darrik They are 4 blocks from Evergreen park. Val showed examples of others and what developers have done without a PUD. He showed a development without density points. When you let them cluster, and are able to sell the units separately. Without a PUD they would not be required to have any trees, bushes, or recreation items. To do the clustering, the setbacks between themselves are withdrawn and they would not be able to sell the units individually. For sales purposes they are asking for the PUD. They are asking for the higher density by doing the density bonuses. They are going from 20 units/acre to 26 units/acre. Melanie If we value activities and green spaces; if we value those things, she feels like you should give more points if the developer chooses to do those things in their design. Our community has said that we value recreation. The City values recreation, so a good place to start would be to start with the development. Rory Kunz We are getting outside the realm of the intent of this meeting. Is the PUD allowable? Is it favorable to our community? Is the increased density and the agreed on upgrades applicable? Is it enough? It looks like a pretty nice-looking facility. It is going to be screened from traffic. There are going to be nice shrubbery and trees. There is going to be open space and a recreation area. Are the things they are telling us they are going to do enough to match the increased density? Does the PUD match? I think it does. Based on those items we either approve or deny it, but I am in favor. Melanie I agree if the open spaces are enough to match the increased density. She is just trying to clarify. Rory It sounds like they will be. Val The Commission needs to decide which density bonus points they would prefer to emphasize. You could look at the point sections you would trade off to get something better. He discussed the siding of stone, stucco, and vinyl siding. It is up to the Commission to decide what is important and what is not. There may be some parts of these bonus points that you are not as worried about. Perhaps, you are not as worried about the number of trees. Rory Trees are important to me. At this point, we understand Val’s point. Let the Commission decide what we think is important. Rory clarified this is what Val is intending is the Commission’s option. Rory requested the Commission talk about what is important. Melanie If they are at their points, she recommends that the green space be more functional for the community at large, especially if you are going to increase density. Melanie would need to make a different motion. Darrik How many trees are planned? Chad He doesn’t know exact number. 34 around building and 15 or so against Highway 20. Some are along the dumpsters. I don’t know the total amount, but there are a lot of trees. Mr. Shirley Public Works comments – Have these comments been met? Water, Sewer, Streets, Sidewalks? Has that all been addressed already. Val This will be addressed with the base requirements for subdivisions. Design standards will also have to be met. Than the PUD has all these other requirements. In addition, there are also density bonuses. Staff has already determined these requirements will be met. 7 Mark Rudd The number needs to meet 87 in order to approve the PUD. We need to designate where those points are. Motion stands Rory Kunz seconded the motion. VOTE For: Bruce Sutherland, Greg Blacker, Gil Shirley, Rory Kunz Opposed: Kristi Anderson, Melanie Davenport, John Bowen, Darrik Farmer Motion carried. 2nd Hearing: 6:45 pm - Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment - 407 West 1st North - to change from Moderate-High Density Residential and Neighborhood Commercial /Mixed Use to all Neighborhood Commercial/Mix Use for the specified property – Homestead Letter of withdrawal is read Kristi introduced herself. She has a Masters degree in Public Administration. She was intern with the City of Rexburg. She has 7 kids and is a stay-at-home. She is ready to use her education. She lives in the impact area. She replaced Richard Smith. Unfinished/Old Business: None New Business: 1. July 6th P & Z meeting: Kristi, Rory, Darrik is maybe, Mark Rudd. It is determined there would be no meeting on July 6th. A quorum will not be available to meet. 2. Chairman explained work meeting Task force & Possible citizens. It was decided two members from the Commission be on the task force. Who would like to volunteer? The purpose is to gather information. Greg Blacker and Rory Kunz volunteer. Rory has been asked to be the Chairman of that group. Do we have any idea for citizens on the task force? P&Z Committee will bring ideas for names due by June 23rd. Compliance: None Non-controversial Items Added to the Agenda: None Report on Projects: None Tabled Requests: None Building Permit Application Report: None Heads Up: None Rory Kunz made motion to adjourn meeting until July 20th and Gil Shirley seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 8:00 PM Steve Oakey’s letter: Dear Mayor Jerry Merrill 8 It is very unfortunate that I am unable to attend the joint City Council/Planning and Zoning work meeting June 15th due to a prior family commitment. However, because I have been actively involved with issues involving land use in Rexburg and, more specifically to this meeting, the issue of short-term rentals, I feel that my voice should not be absent. I ask you to read aloud and submit this letter for public record in order to convey my strong conviction that personal ownership of labor and real property is the engine of wealth generation and human flourishing. To the degree that coercive barriers are placed in the way of voluntary transactions, personal and societal well-being diminish, and the initiative and innovation of the individual producer are retarded by the dead hand of the collective. I will assume that because those attending this work meeting hold the legal power to effect other peoples’ personal lives, that everyone has read and is familiar with the recently passed Idaho House Bill 216 and comes prepared to discuss its implications on existing Rexburg development codes governing short term rentals. I also acknowledge from the start, that I hold inferior standing when it comes to legal/legislative interpretation and the weight of my argument must be persuasive enough to overcome this limitation. I think it is accurate to say that a simple reading of HB 216 conveys both the intent and goal of those lawmakers who introduced the bill and the majority who voted for the bill. However, a thin threadlike escape mechanism in the bill has been discovered by those intent on circumventing its clear purpose. Quoting from the text will clarify the point of dispute. Page 2, line 48 reads as follows (italics are mine): “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 forgoing 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,” I accept the Merriam-Webster definition of throughout as “all the way from one end to the other of: in or to every part of”. That is, short-term rentals are permitted in each and every zone throughout each and every city in the State of Idaho, including Rexburg. Nonetheless, HB 216 retains for each and every city the responsibility to secure the health and safety of its citizens and the “general welfare”. Note that health, safety and general welfare are not distinguishable or exclusionary from one city zone to the next, so that citizens, whether in trailer courts, or million dollar homes are to expect the same access to health, safety and general welfare. Allowing short- term rentals in one zone while prohibiting it in another is a clear violation of HB 216 and has no bearing on a residential neighborhood’s general welfare. The city’s police power to protect against force, fraud, violence and general nuisances such as noxious smells, untimely loud noises, or public intoxication, to mention a few, are still retained by the city, not excludable to any citizen regardless of economic status or political connection. When one citizen or a faction of citizens enjoin the government, using “general welfare” as a pretext to bestow preferential value and life style over their neighbors’ preference, they are asking more than the government can provide and are asking what is constitutionally prohibited. The Constitutional legal scholar Randy Barnett has argued that the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments equitably retain for each 9 and every citizen an infinite number of rights, without preference, prejudice or bias and that no citizen, not even a majority of citizens, have a legal claim on the value produced by another citizen’s exercise of those rights. The State cannot produce value; it can only confiscate value from one person and transfer it to another that it deems worthy, as Rexburg has done with its ill- conceived short-term rental law. The beneficiaries of Airbnb in Rexburg, while transacting a harmless exchange, feel victimized by the confiscation of the value of their labor and property, which value is then preferentially transferred to others. In his definitive study of The Fifth Amendment, “Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain”, the legal scholar Richard Epstein has said, “The fatal preoccupation with questions of value is wholly inconsistent with any theory of property rights”. Since the writing of the Constitution the term “general welfare” has been the hammer used by factions, cartels and statists to demand exclusive government intervention for self-interest. James Madison took a very limited interpretation of the General Welfare clause as applying to those few and narrow, enumerated constitutional rights and opposed to those “who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, averse to the rights of other citizens”. For a long time, advocates for a big, confiscatory government have embraced a permissive interpretation of the General Welfare clause in order to pry open the government purse, to abuse the police power and to enact a heavy litany of social engineering barriers and regulatory takings People must create and pursue their own preferred values and life style choices through voluntary interaction. I live in a neighborhood with several home rentals and as to be expected they are not cared for as well as owner occupied homes. Some weeks ago my wife walked to the end of our street and offered to the occupants of such a home to mow the lawn, whose grass had grown quite long. Since that time the renters have been more diligent, though not perfect in caring for the yard. This is how adults deal with nuisances and objectionable behavior with those they desire to interact with and it is a rewarding practice that we have pursued for many years. Under such circumstances, asking the city to intervene with threats of fines, and coercion is to create an adversarial neighborhood of spies, revenge seeking and gossip whispering. From the beginning of this controversy I have suggested a compromise to solve the potential nuisance problems of short-term rentals. It is a simple concession that I believe will eliminate most all nuisance problems with Airbnb customers. I repeat it here. Allow Airbnb in all neighborhoods, but require owner or manager on site in low-density neighborhoods. Any past abuses or nuisances would likely have been avoided under such circumstances and placed the onus where it belongs, on the property owner to govern behavior. With the passage and inevitable enforcement of HB 216, the city of Rexburg must now demonstrate its good will, before the January 2018 deadline, and restore for everyone, the same unbiased usage of their property. Thank you for your indulgence Steve Oakey