HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.19.2020 P&Z Minutes_exppdf
1
City Staff and Others:
Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator
Will Klaver – Planning Technician
Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer
Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant
Spencer Rammell – City Attorney
Kristi Anderson is filling in as chairperson for Rory Kunz. Chairperson Kristi Anderson opened the
meeting at 6: 30 p.m.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Present: Greg Blacker, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally
Smith, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence.
Absent: Chairman Rory Kunz, John Bowen, and Vince Haley.
Minutes:
Planning & Zoning Meeting November 5, 2020 (action)
MOTION: Move to approve the minutes for November 5, 2020, Action: Approve, Moved by Greg
Blacker, Seconded by Randall Kempton.
VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 1).
Yes: Aaron Richards, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally
Smith, Todd Marx.
Abstain: David Pulsipher.
Vince Hailey arrived at 6:32PM
Roll Call.
Present: Greg Blacker, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall
Kempton, Sally Smith, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence.
Absent: Chairman Rory Kunz, John Bowen.
Alan Parkinson will update the Commissioners on the status of a few of the projects in the city. Kristi
had asked about the stoplights on 7th N. The City is currently installing the stoplights. Alan drove by
yesterday. One stoplight was standing on its base. The lights are being assembled down by the water
tower on 7th N, moving them and putting them in place. The lights will be timed together with the lights at
the intersections of the road to Sugar City. Alan does not know the date of completion. Greg Blacker
asked if the Sugar City Highway will be rerouted. Alan answered; the road will not be closed at this time.
The intersection will be monitored to determine if the light coordination will work. If it does not work, a
road will need to be connected from Thomson Farms Rd to N 2nd E, the Sugar City Highway would end at
a cul de sac. The City will close the road only if necessary. Greg Blacker asked if the road by
Christensen’s is a sure thing. Alan said the right of way has been established and dedicated to the city. No
funding has been dedicated to this project, yet. The road would include another crossing of the railroad
tracks and coordination with the state for Highway 33 and collaboration with Sugar City. Greg Blacker
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
November 19, 2020
2
confirmed the Sugar City Highway is State Highway. If the road is closed, will the state abandon that
section of the road for maintenance? Alan said the State wants the city to assume Hwy 33 through the city.
Sugar City and Madison County have assumed the portion of the Hwy 33 outside Rexburg city limits.
Keith Davidson has run the numbers and even if the road is built up to perfect condition, the city does not
have the money to maintain Hwy 33. At one point, an option for road trade was offered to include 2nd E
to the interstate in exchange for Hwy 33. The State did not like this option. The sidewalks, curb, gutter
and high traffic on the road were a deterrent. The maintenance would be a higher cost then on Highway
33.
The Moody Highway connection to Highway 33 is mostly completed. “Road Closed” signs remain to limit
traffic. The project looks good; the pavement is done. Rings around the drains are being completed.
The Commissioners asked about the lights at Sky Meadows and Founders Square. Founders Square has
lights. Sky Meadows does not. For an extension, Sky Meadows came before Planning & Zoning and a
condition of streetlights was made. Alan visited with Aaron Robertson about 30-45 days ago. They are
having difficulty getting the streetlights. The factories for the lights have been closed due to COVID.
Tentatively, they are telling Sky Meadows will get the lights in November. The deadline for installation is
the end of 2020. Alan told them to put in the bases before the weather, so installation can be completed.
Alan drove up today and nothing has been done. Alan will give Aaron a call, because he believes the
building permits will be restricted until the lights are installed. This involves the City Attorney, Stephen
Zollinger, for enforcement.
Vince Haley asked about these same delays with other developments. Alan said Kenneth Square is in the
same predicament. Thomson Farms is another one; they have some lights, but do not have them all.
Kenneth Square has a few items they need to finish up; the city is having difficulty contacting the
developer. Vince asked about Summerfield; he knew there are bases in for the lights, but no lights have
been installed. The lights are being installed. The delay is happening in multiple industries: try to buy a
refrigerator, washer, dryer, stove or freezer and some are four to six weeks backlogged.
Public Hearings:
1. 6:35PM – (20-00781) - Rescheduled for December 3rd due to Newspaper Error
2. 6:40PM - (20-00661) – Development Code Ordinance Amendment - Remove Technology Office
Zone (TOZ) from the Development Code. No parcels in the city are zoned TOZ. (action)
Applicant Presentation – Alan Parkinson – City of Rexburg – This is a request for an amendment to
the Development Code. All of the parcels that were previously zoned Technology Office Zone (TOZ)
have been rezoned to Community Business Center (CBC). There are no parcels within the city designated
as TOZ. The scope of the TOZ rezoning was to remove this section from the Development Code. The
uses that were previously permitted uses in TOZ can be handled in other zones. Staff is recommending
Planning & Zoning recommend to City Council to remove TOZ from the Development Code.
Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked about the specific technology uses of
TOZ moving to the commercial zones. She has not seen any changes in the Development Code
specifically. Alan answered, the computer uses are covered under general descriptions in commercial uses.
The manufacturing uses would be allowed in Light Industrial area. The uses are not specifically listed. He
reviewed the uses and identified the uses formerly in TOZ would not be restricted in the commercial or
3
industrial zones. When TOZ was designed, internet access was limited and a technology park was enabled.
So many changes have developed from that point forward, some uses don’t even exist anymore other than
a commercial application. Todd Marx asked about the numbering in his printed copy does not match the
numbering identified for TOZ. Tawnya answered, the numbering has been changed as modifications are
made, including the transition to Municode. Alan further explained, when rewriting, the numbering is
nonsubstantive, the language is the substantive changes we consider. Vince asked if the form-based code
would have removed TOZ anyway. Alan said form based code will not affect a lot of this. Even minor
assembly can be done in a form-based area. Form-based code will come before the Commissioners the first
of 2021. Vince said a lot of the heights and regulated measurements are very similar to CBC.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Staff has never seen a Staff Report for an
ordinance change. Staff has reviewed the proposal. Staff does recommend this change for approval.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: None
Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of
interest or if they have 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. None.
Chairperson Kristi Anderson reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor: None
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Correspondence: None
Rebuttal: None
Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 6:47p.m.
Commissioners Discussion: David Pulsipher says, given the Commissions’ previous actions, this
proposal makes perfect sense to clean up the Development Code.
MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council to approve the proposal to remove
Technology Office Zone (TOZ) from the city’s Development Code, because no parcels in the
city are zoned TOZ, Action: Approve, Moved by Sally Smith, Seconded by David Pulsipher.
Commission Discusses the Motion: None
VOTE: Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall
Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
3. 6:45PM - (20-00816) – 215, 217, 219 & 225 N 3rd W – Rezone from Low-Density Residential 2 to
Medium-Density Residential 2. These parcels are across the street, N 3rd W, from land recently rezoned to
Medium-Density Residential 2. (action)
4
Applicant Presentation – Barry Bame – Connect Engineering, 1150 Hollipark Dr, Idaho Falls –
The property, as was recently stated, is directly across the street from land recently rezoned to MDR2. The
proposed rezone property is just east of the fairgrounds. In this area, there are a couple of different uses:
LDR2, which is what the property is currently zoned, LDR3, MDR2, HDR1, in the general area. We don’t
feel it is out of the norm to ask for an MDR2 zone. Currently, there are mobile homes on the properties
proposed for rezone. This request is in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan with a low to moderate
density residential designation. The plan is to build affordable housing on these lots. There is easy access
onto 2nd E, so he doesn’t feel the traffic will be a burden to the area or the surrounding single-family homes
that are there.
Commissioner Questions: None
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – This property has mobile homes, with one that
has been vacant for a while. The proposal agrees with the Comprehensive Plan. The request meets the
intent of what is going on within the neighborhood. Public Works says the city can service the proposal
with water and sewer. Staff does not have any reservations recommending this proposal for approval to
City Council.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: Greg Blacker talked about the property bordering the canal. He
asked about concerns for possible development deeper into the lots. The request is to rezone the front
two lots that front N 3rd W. The parcel lines were identified for the property proposed to be zoned. There
are no concerns with the canal at this point. Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked about two single-family
homes to the West of this request. Is there a third single-family home? A shop was identified north of one
of the homes. Greg asked about the bare ground behind the shop to determine if the same owner also
owned the bare ground. It was determined there was one owner for this entire parcel
Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict
of interest or if they have 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. Sally Smith said she
sold Mr. Henrie this property, but she has not financial interest in the projects.
Chairperson Kristi Anderson reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor: None
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Correspondence: None
Rebuttal: None
Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 6:56p.m.
Commissioners Discussion: Aaron Richards drove by the property when the tract to the east was
being rezoned. This is a great way to set up this area for redevelopment. Right now, the area is
blighted. Any type of housing, even with a higher density, will improve the neighborhood.
MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the rezone of the properties at 215, 217,
219 and 225 N 3rd W from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium-Density Residential 2,
5
because it fits what we want the neighborhood to be., Action: Approve, Moved by Greg Blacker,
Seconded by Jim Lawrence.
Commission Discusses the Motion: Randall Kempton said the rezone fits the Comprehensive
Plan; regardless of what the Commissioners want the property to develop into, which is a strong reason.
He is in favor of the motion. David Pulsipher likes the motion as made, because the Commissions’
responsibilities are shifting to not only fitting the Comprehensive Plan, but the proposal also has to
make sense for the area. He does think the proposal makes sense for the area.
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall
Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
4. 6:50PM - (20-00821) – Development Code Ordinance Amendment - Remove TAG2 and amend
TAG in the Development Code (action) – Alan, City of Rexburg
Applicant Presentation – Alan Parkinson – When reviewing what is happening with Transitional
Agriculture, he found most of this zoning in the Impact Area. The current code designates a Transitional
Agriculture 1(TAG1) and a Transitional Agriculture 2 (TAG2). The only difference is the lot width:
TAG1 requires 80’ and TAG2 requires 250’. Do we need two separate designations? Do we have the
correct lot size? The minimum lot size is currently two (2) acres. Staff determined one zone is needed.
The zones have a lot width of TAG1 80’, TAG2 250’, RR1 150’, RR2 120’, LDR1 80’. The lot widths do
not seem to flow. When looking at a two (2) acre lot in the Impact Area and within the city, these are lots
we do not want these lots to become blighted. Without city water, you cannot irrigate from a well for two
full acres. Access to an irrigation system is needed like a canal, irrigation ditches, etc., or a large portion of
the ground goes to weeds. One acre, without city water and sewer, will meet the Health Department
requirements. A caretaker dwelling did not seem to fit with a change to a one acre minimum. People, who
have a larger lot, can split their lot if they have enough for two one-acre lots to add another dwelling on a
separate lot. The change to the Development Code will be followed by a rezone of the TAG1 and TAG2
parcels to a single TAG zoning. The change today is for just the Development Code.
Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Kristi Anderson says it looked like there were some additions
to the residential uses. She asked about the changes shown in green. Alan answered; when the
amendments were first sent out, the print was so small and we could not get the print to be larger.
Municode added some of the tables and information incorrectly. Modifications were made and now the
items we print should have readable-sized font. Aaron Richards likes the idea of going from a two-acre
minimum to a one-acre minimum. When you keep the 250’ lot width, it is like trying to fit a round peg in
a square hole. This creates a lot with 250’ width and 174’ deep, which is an inverted triangle shape. It
would be punitive for someone who is actually trying to build these projects because you tripled the
amount of lot frontage. For a one-acre lot, the ideal width is 150’ and 290’ deep, which is a rectangle.
Alan said these are the minimums, but the lots can be larger. When you create too narrow of lots, the
number of driveways on roads increase. TAG1 was 80’; TAG2 was 250’ frontage and lot width. Aaron
says the 80’ does not make sense, but he is not sure the 250’ is the right number either for a one-acre lot.
This didn’t make sense because the RR1 goes to 150’. With a 10’ side yard, if two lots were together you
could have a 20’ driveway. In his mind, the width needs to be reduced and the side yards need to be
increased. Alan understands what Aaron is saying. Aaron agrees a transition is needed; he believes the
geometry is off. Sally Smith asked to see the zoning map and see where the TAG areas are. Alan said
6
there are only two areas that are TAG2 on the north side of town. Most of the TAG is located outside city
limits in the Impact Area.
Section 9 was reviewed, Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked about the permitted accessory uses for
Caretaker Dwellings and Livestock showing in green. Alan answered; the caretaker language is being
removed. The Livestock language remains the same and only applies to new livestock uses; existing
livestock uses are grandfathered. Tawnya clarified some of the language in green could also be moved
from one section to another. Vince Haley asked about any properties that have the caretaker dwellings.
Alan could not find any property that had this situation. The only place he could see someone having a
caretaker dwelling is if there was a large farm operation and built another house there for a farm hand or
ranch manager. Otherwise, it would be considered a duplex, an apartment or a mother-in-law suite.
Mother-in-law suites can be put in a home. Aaron asked about the mother-in-law dwellings and if they
have to be connected to the dwelling. Alan said a living space has to be shared, so it has to be connected
to the main dwelling per the building code. A separated dwelling would be considered an accessory
apartment and would have to have a full foundation under them. Vince recalled the accessory unit issue
about a year ago. If there are any accessory homes, will they be grandfathered? Yes. The removal of the
caretaker dwelling will apply to those new, moving forward. Manufactured homes were made a permitted
use; they would no longer require a Conditional Use Permit. Sally Smith says Aaron’s comment about lot
geometry. There will be some minimum lots. Aaron was doing the math, 200’ wide and 217’ deep is
almost a square. Possible side setback amendments were discussed of 20’. Alan said they really had not
looked at this change that deep; this is a good catch.
Alan asked Attorney Spencer Rammell if an amendment could be made to this request. Spencer
confirmed this is a code amendment. Under 67-6509, an amendment could be made tonight.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: None
Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict
of interest or if they have 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. None.
Chairperson Kristi Anderson reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor: None
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Correspondence: None
Rebuttal: None
Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 7:18p.m.
Commissioners Discussion: David Pulsipher says Aaron’s suggestions are good to increase side
yards and reduce the lot width to 200’. Vince asked Aaron, if someone did not visualize what Aaron
was saying about the one-acre minimum. 43,560/250 = 250’ wide, 170’ deep to use the minimum lot
size. This is an awkward geometry. This is all road frontage; people do not want road frontage, they
want privacy. At least make the lot a square, and if they want more privacy, they will need more land.
150’ to 190’ is ideal. A transition is needed. 200’ makes sense. The other issue is we do not driveways
puncturing the right of ways and a change of side yard could remedy this, because the garages are always
7
on the end of a house. Either increase the side yards or put some specific language for driveways. He
has not heard anywhere there is driveway setbacks. Vince asked Alan what the county’s minimum is.
Alan does not know; he tried to recall when he built. Rural Residential is the next step from TAG.
Greg Blacker said the parcels in TAG right now, tend to be deeper than wider. He asked if 180’ would
work. 180’ gives a depth of 242’. Kristi and Greg like 180’, giving people the privacy they are looking
for. Sally said people usually do not like long, skinny lots, but she does not consider a lot with 180’
width, a long, skinny lot. Until you get down to 150’, you do not reach the long, skinny lots. She sees a
lot of subdivision lots that are 200’ by 200’. 20’ side yards make this size as desirable. Sally asked if
driveways would still be regulated. When they go to build, a Lot Layout Plan is submitted and Keith will
look at these situations as they come up. The recent approved plats the Commission approved, the
driveways did not have restrictions. The driveways could be placed right next to each other. Vince is
looking at the cheat sheet. The RR1 is 1-5 acres lot size. If TAG is taken down to 1 acre, another
conflict is made. Rural Residential 1 has limitations on both ends, the minimum and maximum lot area.
The only restriction on TAG is a one-acre minimum, but there is no maximum. Aaron said this places
some uniformity on the zones for minimum acreage. The caretaker removal will require people to go
through the proper channels to make another lot. Once you get out into the county for Ag in the
County, there is a whole other set of regulations. Most of the TAG land in the Impact Area is rented
land. Usually, this land is waiting for potential development. Aaron asked about someone who has five
acres and they want their parents to live in a separate structure, could they do this. The land would have
to be platted to put the structure on its own property. Alan said you could only do so many splits
before platting is required. This would be the punitive side of increasing the side yards. 10’ side yard
from your property line is required for fire code. Driveways can be shared; however, a Restrictive Lot
Covenant would be needed for continued access for both lots. Vince Haley confirmed side setbacks
only affect the buildings. Chairperson Kristi Anderson feels some hesitation; she has a neighbor with
an apartment in a separate building above a garage. This should not be restricted with the larger acreage.
The problem comes when the property sells; life safety requirements have to be met. A family
occupancy has different building occupancy requirements, than a rental property. The problem is these
structures are in areas that do not allow duplexes where they are located. Kristi feels people should
know what they are buying. Alan said, some people do not. Recently, a property was purchased and
advertised for dormitory use. It was not allowed to be dormitory and many changes have to be made to
bring the building standards up to a different occupancy. The people were very upset, putting them in a
bind for what they are trying to accomplish. We try to get people to come in and talk to us prior to
purchasing the land.
Spencer Rammell referred to problems between owners and sellers. This is especially apparent in
college towns. College students sometimes live in a cardboard box; it comes down to money. Students
in Colfax, Washington, has the same situation. The city removed some codes, someone sold and before
you knew it, students were living in chicken coop/hostels. In more rural areas with a grandmother suite,
this is a different occupancy than eight or nine students sharing one bathroom, is a situation the city
would not have signed off on initially. Aaron Richards clarified accessory buildings are allowed, but
not accessory apartments. A caretaker use requires a Conditional Use Permit right now and does not
require a plat. Alan said by taking it away, a lot split has to be shown in case the structure is sold.
Aaron Richards is backpedaling on the change in the side setbacks with the 180’. Aaron understands
what Alan is saying. Vince Haley said this subject is futurisitic. Thinking agriculture, he does not see
anyone in town can afford to pay ranch manger within the area. Agriculture is so tight right now, you
are either doing the farming yourself or you are selling the land. You have to think in the future, the
accessory buildings will be rented in the future and he would prefer they be regulated. Chairperson
Kristi Anderson is not thinking of a farmer as a caretaker. Alan said a “caretaker” is a farmer and is
8
just a person to live and manage the farm. A mother-in-law suite is a separate issue and would need to
be attached to the same structure. Greg asked what the process if for a Lot Split. The request for a lot
split still comes to the city for review. A lot split is administratively approved. $135 is the cost. Sally
believes the group is visualizing this zone incorrectly, as country instead of city. Land is worth too
much for someone to want to do a caretaker dwelling. If TAG does not fit, then a rezone may be
needed. Alan said the Health Department regulates septic systems to no less than ½ acre. You cannot
put two houses on one (1) acre. Jim says the discussion has been good and has covered the points he
was concerned about. Vince confirmed 180’ is the width the group has settled on. Aaron does not see
a change needed for the 10’ setback.
MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the removal Transitional Agriculture 2
(TAG2) and amend Transitional Agriculture in the Development Code, including proposed
changes with the exception of the lot width of 180', Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley,
Seconded by Aaron Richards.
Commission Discusses the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall
Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
Heads Up:
December 3, 2020 Hearings:
1. (20-00851) – Development Code Ordinance Amendment – Planned Unit Development
2. (20-00606) – RPR6N40E173007 (E Moody Rd) – Rezone to Community Business Center (CBC)
3. (20-00781) – 376 W 4th S - Rezone to High Density Residential 1 (HDR1) – Amanda Smith
Vince Haley asked about applications for the second meeting in December. Monday was the last day
for submittal for the December 17th meeting. Applications were submitted, but those submittals still
have not be completed. No application submittals have been completed by the deadline. The second
meeting in December will be canceled.
Adjournment