Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.07.2020 P&Z Minutes_exppdf 1 City Staff and Others: Scott Johnson – Economic Development Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Chairman Rory Kunz opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Melanie Davenport, Greg Blacker, Steve Oakey, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, Keith Esplin, Todd Marx. Absent: Bruce Sutherland, John Bowen, and David Pulsipher. Minutes: From Planning and Zoning meeting – February 20, 2020 MOTION: Motion to approve the minutes for February 20, 2020, as recorded, Action: Approve, Moved by Steve Oakey, Seconded by Kristi Anderson. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Keith Esplin, Kristi Anderson, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Melanie Davenport abstains. Steve Oakey asked if there was a chance the Commissioners would be able to meet in person for the next meeting. Scott Johnson says we are attempting to bring back Staff on a limited basis. We will be looking at public meetings too. A limit of 50 people in a single gathering needs to be followed. The intent is to bring the meetings back. What will probably happen is the Commissioners will be in the Council Chambers, but everyone else will be on line for the May 14th meeting. Vince Haley confirmed the next Commissioner meeting will be Thursday, May 14th. Due to time constraints for the request, there will be a meeting on May 14th and not on May 21st. Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures. Public Hearings: 1. 6:35 p.m. - (20-00079) – Sign Height near Highway Interchanges – Ordinance Amendment - Proposed to change sign height for 1500’ radius of each interchange from 40’ from grade to 50’ – City of Rexburg. (action) – Scott Johnson 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes May 7, 2020 2 Chairman Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they had any conflicts of interest or had been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. Chairman Rory Kunz opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:35 p.m. Applicant Presentation – Scott Johnson, Economic Dev. Admin. – This request is Staff driven, specifically the Economic Development department in partnership with Planning & Zoning. The sign height was adjusted about seven years ago from 24’ to 40’. The City has had several requests to go a little bit higher. Staff went out, adjusted the height of a sign, and drove up and down the highway to identify when the signs were visible. Staff believes 50’ is the appropriate number to be seen over the interchanges. A higher height did not improve visibility; lower than 50’ did cause problems in some areas. Staff is recommending a change to the sign height from 40’ to 50’ for the 1500’ radius from each of the interchanges. Vince Haley – Please explain further. Scott Johnson responded, the request to go from 24’ to 40’ was at the request of some businesses. One request including 4-5 businesses near an interchange prompted this research. A lift truck with a standard size height board was raised to several different heights. Several community members were part of the research group. 50’ was very visible. Below 50’ did hurt in some areas, over 50’, there was not much gain. Vince Haley asked, how high is the Burger King sign? Can you give me some references? Conoco’s sign is probably in that range. The Conoco sign is grandfathered. Any of those signs that are taller are grandfathered. The approval of this application will apply to any changes of future signs in the interchange radii. Melanie Davenport – She felt the change was being made for one particular sign. A couple of businesses have requested the change. One group is from a business park. Will this require existing signs be raised to a higher height, so they would not conflict with the signs at the new height? Scott Johnson and his research group did not see a situation like this that would arise; the group considered it. If this kind of situation does arises, it will be on an individual basis. Site angles are the biggest factor. Those signs that could potentially be in conflict, everything becomes clear with adequate time to decide to turn off or not. Chairman Rory Kunz clarified this is not a requirement for business to change their signs, businesses can choose to change the heights of their signs. Melanie Davenport focused on the financial burden that may affect the existing businesses. Scott Johnson said there were no complaints when the height was raised to 40’. The angles of the highway make it difficult for the overlap. Tawnya Grover reminded the Commissioners that Staff reviews new signs and changes to existing signs due to the Sign Ordinance in the Development Code. Greg Blacker did not know this was a requirement. Rory Kunz confirmed the process for signs. He reminded the group an application for the change of sign height should be the Commissioners’ focus. Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Many people were involved in the evolvement of the request. Permits for sign changes are reviewed by Planning & Zoning Staff prior to a change being made. Part of the review process is to determine if the sign will block any current sign. Staff recommends the Commission 3 recommend the City Council approve the request. Staff believes the change in the sign height will be an asset to those who want to develop around the highway interchanges. No further questions from the Commissioners. Chairman Rory Kunz said, currently the Development Code states 40’ is the limit. The Planning & Zoning Commission needs to decide if the height of the sign in the interchanges should be changed to 50’. Written Correspondence: None Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Rory Kunz closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:49p.m. Kristi Andersen feels like this is a good proposal. If it helps the visibility of the signs, she supports the proposal. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the amendment of the Sign Ordinance from 40' to 50' within the 1500' radius of the interchanges., Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Todd Marx. No further Commissioner discussion. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Keith Esplin, Kristi Anderson, Melanie Davenport, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 2. 6:40 p.m. - (20-00141) – 150 N 2nd W – Rezone from Light Industrial (LI) to Mixed Use (MU) (action) – Ray McDougal Chairman Rory Kunz opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:51p.m. Applicant Presentation – Ray McDougal – He is representing the Hepworths. The request is for the corner piece of W 2nd N and N 2nd W, by the old fertilizer elevator. Rory Kunz confirmed this parcel is across the street from the power company. The parcel is 0.9 acres currently zoned Light Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan lists the area as Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use. The rezone is to build a Boutique Hotel. The applicants feel like the zone of Mixed Use best fits this proposed use. There is nothing like this in the city. It is a short-term stay, but longer than a hotel, shorter stay than an apartment – a couple of weeks. The units will have kitchens like an apartment. This boutique hotel is a new product for Rexburg and is intended for those visitors of students, locals or vacationers. The Applicant would like to put some commercial on the main floor, like a bakery. This housing would be near the downtown corridor and city parks and a 4 positive addition to the neighborhood. The proposal would fill up a corner that has been an eyesore, to spur further development and beautification of this area. The commercial component will provide services to nearby residential neighborhoods. Steve Oakey asked about the required landscaping. Have you gotten this far in the design? Ray McDougal answered; they are not far into the design. Some of the beautification will be included in the design of the exterior of the structure, in addition to the building and parking requirements. There is an agreement with Keith Davidson; the area owned by the City can be used for some green space until the road needs to be widened. Rory Kunz reminded those present, the request to the zoning and potential zoning of the parcel is the focus of the request. Melanie Davenport asked if the Applicant contacted any of the adjacent properties. Why or why not? Ray McDougal has not talked to any neighbors. Jeff Lerwill to the east of the request could have been interested in being part of the request. Sephlin Hepworth talked about contacting Jeff via email and he was not in attendance. Jeff Lerwill sold the property to the Hepworths and identified the parcel should be able to be rezoned to Mixed Use. Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Staff has met with the Applicants. Public Works identified storm drainage will have to be contained on site. A traffic study may need to be conducted, depending on the traffic needs, depending on peak hours. Staff has some concern with noise from neighbors. Adjacent to the property is a mechanics shop, a contractor shop, and a powder coating business, which are strong industrial business. The wedge south of this property was recently rezoned to Light Industry. The request does comply with the Comprehensive Plan. Hotels are allowed in a Mixed Use zone. Currently, Staff is neutral on this request. Steve Oakey asked if you are rephrasing the Staff Report to a neutral stance. Alan Parkinson answered, yes, Staff’s position is neutral. A change was not able to get this change out to the Commission in time. Vince Haley asked what is going to happen for development in the future. Alan answered, he does not see anything happening with Rocky Mountain Power to the West and the North. South of the property could develop like a car repair shop. Premier Powder Coating has not given any indication of changing locations. Across 1st N, there is potentially some housing. In the near future, the City does not see much going on in this area. Vince Haley confirmed the property behind Wolfe Lighting changed a few months ago to Mixed Use. Alan restated, short term no changes are anticipated, but long – term, Staff sees the area transitioning to more residential housing. Mickelsen’s and a nearby warehouse are currently vacant. The economy will decide. Steve Oakey says the willingness of the Hepworths and the Lerwills to develop in this area; this is an indication of the likelihood of the where the development is going. Melanie Davenport asked about this being a spot zone. Alan clarified this would be a spot zoning in the fact Light Industrial will surround this parcel. 5 No further Commissioner questions. Written Correspondence: None Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Rebuttal: Ray McDougal confirmed this is a spot zone, but the proposal does match the Comprehensive Plan. Change has to start somewhere. A willing investor is a good opportunity for the city. Initially, Ray did not feel like an apartment complex would be a good fit for this area, but it is not uncommon for hotels to be adjacent to industrial zones in other areas. He feels the use will enhance the neighborhood. Chairman Rory Kunz closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:07p.m. He asked for any conflicts of interest among the Commissioners that need to be expressed. None. Steve Oakey thinks it is good for us to recognize the cost to make the request. At the February 19th meeting, he felt there was a conflict between Staff and this request. He brought up the long lists of acceptable businesses in certain zones. This is a good example of the preferences of a property owner running up against the limitations of zoning lists. Second, the comment was made; it may be difficult for the Hepworths to conduct their business at this particular location. He does not believe either of these reasons are relevant. The developers are putting many, many dollars on the line to determine if their business model will work or not. The fact we have zoning that prevents them from taking on this experiment and their ideas do not appear on a list. He does not feel the developers need the Planning & Zoning Commissions’ permission. Steve would be in favor of granting them the opportunity to try if a motion is put forth. Melanie Davenport feels 1) she does not agree with the spot zone, 2) Ray McDougal identified he was not initially for the rezone for the project until he understood the use better. The use was given a higher priority than the zone. She would be more inclined to vote for the proposal, had the neighboring properties joined the application, especially since adjacent property owners have been contacted. Keith Esplin agrees with Ray McDougal’s analysis. It feels like a strange place for a boutique hotel. As he thinks about the places he has been, he has seen hotels near industrial uses. He does not feel this is a good place for apartments, for example. He feels that this is a transition area and he would support the proposal at this point. Greg Blacker drives by this place every day. It is a mud hole in the winter and springtime and a weed lot in the summer. He feels a use in this area would improve the location. He would be for the proposal. Melanie Davenport says, with a zone change, the property will not necessarily be used for the stated purpose. The zone could be changed and something completely different could be built. She is against the proposal. Vince Haley noted that since the Lerwills are not hear, we cannot take anyone’s word for what they would say or do if they were here or what they would want. 6 Attorney Rammell stated, from a legal standpoint, if we deem something a spot zone, it cannot be given a negative connotation. The zone change needs to fit with the Comprehensive Plan. The courts have made this very clear. If the proposal fits within the Comprehensive Plan and it is a single parcel, there is not an issue with approval for the reason of a “spot zone.” Chairman Rory Kunz referred to a previous question, what do we see for further development in this area? Ray McDougal said change has to start somewhere. From Rory’s perspective, he does not feel Light Industrial will be in this location long-term. 20 to 40 years from now, he does not think Light Industrial will be here. Light Industrial will move to the fringes of town. Where the Comprehensive Plan does support Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Used and may contradict his stance in the past. Kristi Anderson referred to Attorney Rammell’s comments. She confirmed spot zoning has come up several times in the past. Is this a weak reason to deny a request? Attorney Rammell said the Idaho Supreme Court in 2003, identified two types of spot zoning. One type dealt with the change of zoning that does not match the Comprehensive Plan. Alternatively, it can be used as a more general term, where someone says, it is a lone zone, but it matches the Comprehensive Plan. The court cases state that the term, “spot zoning,” is not to have any negative connotation. The most important factor is to determine if the request is within the Comprehensive Plan. Steve Oakey does not feel if the Commission lacks the vision and financial attachment, the Commission should punish the Hepworths or any other developer. He feels the Hepworths should be allowed the right to try. MOTION: Recommend City Council approve the request to rezone 150 N 2nd W from Light Industrial to Mixed Use to allow them the right to try their business., Action: Approve, Moved by Steve Oakey, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 1, Abstain = 0). Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Keith Esplin, Kristi Anderson, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. No: Melanie Davenport. *City Council will hear the application on May 20, 2020. Items for Consideration: 1. Deannexation of parcels (from Urban Renewal District) and restated North Highway District Plan (action) – (Scott Johnson on behalf of Richard Horner) 7 Scott Johnson – Clarification is needed: “Neutral” means some Staff is for and some Staff is against the proposal. Stephen Zollinger has done a good job in the past helping us to understand spot zoning. Staff does look at the types of situations that could be spot zoning. He has been asked to stand in for Richard Horner on behalf of the Urban Renewal agency. Deannexation is not from the city itself, but from an Urban Renewal District. Steve Oakey asked for clarification of the Urban Renewal districts. The first example of Urban Renewal was the old Wal-Mart and Albertsons area. The City looked at potential additional costs that would occur in order to make that development happen. The bridge needed to be expanded, 8 part of the road needed to be paved and a signal needed to be put in; these items were extraordinary to development anywhere else in the city. A geographic area was created around this development. The Urban renewal agency bonded for these extraordinary improvements and the net new taxes for the geographic went towards repaying that bond over time. The Mariott is another example; they had to widen the road and move Rocky Mountain power lines and that expense was extraordinary to traditional development. Urban Renewal looks at these kinds of things. Chairman Rory Kunz thanked Scott for the explanation and asked him to explain the application. Scott continued the Urban Renewal group is looking at removing parcels from the current renewal district and placing them in a new Urban Renewal district. In order to do this, the parcels have to be deannexed from the current Urban Renewal district to be placed in a new Urban Renewal district. Steve Oakey asked if this redirects the funds into a different project in that geographic location or is this housekeeping. Scott Johnson answered, as Urban Renewal looks at this new area, they have to identify projects that are extraordinary to development. In this district Urban Renewal is proposing, there is a need for redevelopment of 2nd E in a major way. When students come back this year, the traffic studies show there are locations of failure. Also, the location of some of the East Parkway Corridor to allow a second route across the river, a bridge, by Barney Dairy to create some new access and help future development in this area. Vince Haley asked if the Urban Renewal districts are time-sensitive. Does the time start over? Scott Johnson answered, in order to form an Urban Renewal district, you not only have to have a specific geographical area, you have to identify a time limit for the district. The net new taxes after the district is created go to the Urban Renewal agency to do the funding. The school district is exempt. The City and the County are the ones who do not receive the net new taxes during the time. The parcels added do start over their time. The new district has not been officially created, nor has a time been attached to it. The length of time maximum is about 20 years. City Council and the County Commissioners have to approve this change. Deannexing is the first step in a greater process. Kristi Anderson asked when the taxing district starts over, the businesses pay the same amount of taxes. The revenue from the taxes has to go toward the projects. By deannexing parcels, some revenue is taken away from projects in the current district and the current district is stated to end in 2022. Does this create a shortfall? Scott Johnson says they would not be looking to deannex if the funds were needed in the current district. He cannot speak to the specifics. Vince Haley asked how are the specific parcels or groups of parcels for deannexation determined? This is a specific Richard questions. A specific analysis is needed due to ratios of taxation and a whole bunch of other things. The parcels have to be contiguous. Scott does not have the analysis. Attorney Rammell confirmed a recommendation or denial is needed. MOTION: Recommend City Council deannex these parcels from the North Highway Urban Renewal district., Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Keith Esplin. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). 9 Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Keith Esplin, Kristi Anderson, Melanie Davenport, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Commissioners will be in City Hall, it is still to be determined if the public will be allowed to attend. Heads Up: Hearings: May 14th – (20-00189) 150 N 2nd W - CUP for Dormitory June 4th – (20-00266) Teton River Flats – Comp. Plan Map change Low to Moderate Residential & (20-00268) Rezone to MDR2 (20-00076) – Thomson Farms – Comprehensive Plan Map change Adjournment: Commissioner Rory Kunz adjourned the meeting at 7:38PM.