HomeMy WebLinkAbout03.04.2021 P&Z Minutes_exppdf1 | P a g e
City Staff and Others:
Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator
Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant
Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer
Spencer Rammell – City Attorney
Chairman Rory Kunz opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx,
Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Jim Lawrence.
Absent: Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Aaron Richards.
JOINT CITY COUNCIL & PLANNING & ZONING MEETING:
5:00PM - Comprehensive Plan Map Discussion – Alan Parkinson, City of Rexburg – Motion to
postpone this meeting until further notice (action)
MOTION: Motion to postpone the Comprehensive Plan Map until further notice., Action:
Reschedule, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Todd Marx.
Commissioner Discussion of the motion: None.
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton,
Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
Minutes:
Planning & Zoning Meeting February 17, 2021 (action)
MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes for February 17, 2021, as recorded.,
Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by David Pulsipher.
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton,
Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Public Hearings:
1. 6:35PM – (20-00928) – 165 & 191 N 1st W– Rezone from Light Industrial (LI) to High-
Density Residential 1 (HDR1). The parcel at 165 N 1st W is reduced by the railroad right-of-way as
listed in the legal description of the property. The Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as Moderate
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
March 4, 2021
2 | P a g e
to High Density Residential. 119 W 2nd N was contacted to participate in this rezone and chose not to
be included. (action) – Will Wade
Applicant Presentation – Will Wade – 2141 E Parleys Terrace, Salt Lake City – Also, Bill Eckersell
is the owner of record; he is in attendance. Will is requesting a zone change from Light Industrial to
High-Density Residential 1 for the property at 165 and 191 N 1st W. The property currently
accomodates a small cabin and barn used for storage. The intended use is a multi-family development
project. To the west there is Light Industrial and Mixed-Use on 2nd W. To the immediate east is High-
Density Residential 1 (HDR1) and High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2) with some Mixed-Use parcels in
the vicinity. Brent McFarland is the architect the applicant is working with on building plans. The
parcel is serviced by city water and sewer. The parcels have frontage on N 1st W.
Commissioner Questions: Kristi Anderson confirmed both parcels are part of the application. As a
courtesy, Will Wade reached out to neighbors to the south and to the north of Bill’s parcel. Will talked
to the people south of this parcel and they plan to request HDR1 or HDR2, but they were not ready to
do so at this time. Chairman Rory Kunz thanked the applicant for communicating with his neighbors.
David Pulsipher confirmed both parcels with this application are both currently zoned as Light
Industrial.
Aaron Richards joined the meeting.
Roll Call.
Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx,
Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence.
Absent: Greg Blacker, John Bowen.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Stephen Zollinger – The request is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. The property to the west, the old Arnold Printing, was contacted and chose not
to participate in the application. From the staff perspective, the infrastructure is adequate at this
location to accommodate any use proposed to meet the zone requirements. The proposal is consistent
with the traffic demands of this area. Staff does not have any issues with the Commission considering
this proposal.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: None
Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz 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.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor: Bill Eckersell – 125 E 2nd N – He feels development on this site would be a benefit to
the city by bringing in additional taxable income.
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Correspondence: None
Rebuttal: None
3 | P a g e
Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 6:43p.m.
Commissioners Discussion: Vince Haley says this area is currently Light Industrial. He was
looking at the warehouse on the south side; the property was just purchased by a management
company for more of a commercial use. He does not see any problems moving forward with this
request. Sally Smith reminded the Commissioners to think of the future of Light Industrial.
Chairman Rory Kunz said the Comprehensive Plan shows Moderate to High Residential, so he
does not believe this will have a negative impact. Kristi Anderson requested people speak louder
into the microphones. Sally knows there is a shortage of Light Industrial. The Commission
needs to be mindful of these areas changing along the railroad tracks. She supports this change in
this spot. Vince said the lot is small for a Light Industrial use. Aaron Richards apologized for
coming late. Aaron is in agreement with the other Commissioners: based on the location, the
rezone makes sense. Randall Kempton shares Sally’s concern about the location of Light
Industrial. This does not seem like the location to ask the question for Industrial, because the
Comprehensive Plan already identifies this area as residential. In general, we keep asking the
question: Where is Light Industrial going to go? However, in each particular application, piece
by piece, we are changing the light-industrial areas.
MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council to rezone 165 & 191 N 1st W from Light
Industrial to High-Density Residential 1 (HDR1), because it meets the Commission's
criteria and matches the patterns of the area., Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley,
Seconded by Randall Kempton.
Commission discusses the motion: None
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Jim Lawrence, Kristi
Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
2. 6:40PM - (21-00074) – Development Code Amendment – Mixed-Use (MU). The
requirement for a mixture of residential and commercial has been included. Permitted uses and
yard requirements have been amended. Some density requirements and parking requirements
have been removed. (action) – Stephen Zollinger, City of Rexburg
Applicant Presentation – Stephen Zollinger – This is a city-driven change for the
Development Code. Staff went through the Mixed-Use zone and reworked troubled areas the
city has been having with applications. In the past, there was a Mixed-Use 1 and Mixed-Use 2,
which were combined into a single Mixed-Use zone. Builders and Architects were still coming
to Staff with questions and concerns about the results of the requirements of the Mixed-Use
zone. Alan Parkinson worked with Staff to bring forward these changes presented tonight for
commissioner consideration.
Commercial Requirement. Staff has removed the ability to have 100%
commercial or 100% residential. The changes include an incentive for commercial
on the ground floor, by allowing the building to sit on the property line for the
commercial component. Residential uses on the bottom floor would need to be set
4 | P a g e
back 5’. The commercial interaction allows for a pedestrian experience. Developers
felt this was a reasonable compromise.
Fixed Density. The density is a fixed number going forward. Mixed-Use cannot be
used to get a better density than is available in other zones. We have taken away the
problem of people seeking Mixed-Use to gain net density instead of using High-
density Residential with no intention of integrating commercial. Mixed-Use was
being used to build buildings up the sidewalk and increase the number of net units.
Removal of PED Language. The Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED) is not
where we are getting most of our requests. We carved away the emphasis on the
PED, designating Mixed-Use as an available zone as long as the request meets the
requirements of the zone and matches the Comprehensive Plan.
Amended Use Table. The permitted and conditional uses have been modified.
This is one more try to get Mixed-Use to work.
Commissioner Questions: Chairman Rory Kunz confirmed the commercial element would
be allowed to have their setback at 0’. In the first paragraph, the language reads, “A commercial
element requires a minimum of one-thousand (1,000) square feet or 10% of grade-level footprint, whichever is
greater.” Stephen Zollinger confirmed the size of the commercial could be greater. Whatever
portion is commercial is allowed to scoot forward. NorthPoint was used as the model, the
minimum standard to be considered for Mixed-Use. Anything less than NorthPoint should be
designated High-density Residential. If NorthPoint had chosen to wrap their commercial
component around the corner and on down 1st W, they would have been allowed to move their
entire building out to the sidewalk, the way it is built on 2nd S. Kristi Anderson read, “Mixed-
Use facing Main Street between 2nd W and 2nd E must have 100% commercial at grade-level.” During the
form-based discussions we have been having, the use is not defined, but the form is the same.
This statement seems contradictory. Stephen answered; this sentence is to bridge the gap. We
do not want a project to come in between now and the form-based zoning is approved. Mixed-
Use will not be available in the downtown once form-based is adopted. Therefore, this sentence
will not apply. In form-based zoning, the form will be built to accommodate commercial on the
ground floor and if someone wants to put residential there with 12’ ceilings, they could. Kristi
asked about the conditional and permitted use changes. Stephen said the use list was a clean-up
effort. Staff looked at the list to make sure Staff knew what those uses are. Staff could not
define some uses. In the past, a book for uses was used nationally. One of them was
“Membership Lodging”; none of us knew what this was, so we removed this use. A short-term
rental cannot be controlled by the City the way it has been controlled due to state laws.
“Religious Reading Rooms” has not been requested. We do not regulate where you read your
religious books or gather to read your religious books; this would be a complicated problem in
Rexburg, Idaho. We will still refer to the national book if a proposed use is not on our list; we
will go to the book and find that use to compare in category to a use listed in the zone. Staff
doesn’t believe they took out anything that would preclude a use intended to be kept in the zone.
Kristi asked about townhouses; why are we deleting those parts? Stephen said one of the
primary drivers in the Mixed-Use is to intensify the density. This is a spin-off of form-based; if
two-story buildings are allowed to be built, we will not recapture that density.
5 | P a g e
Sally Smith asked for the zoning map be shown to see the Mixed-Use areas. Stephen said
Mixed-Use is mainly around the campus along E 1st S. On the North side of E 1st N between N
2nd E and N 1st W, there is a row of Mixed-Use. Ollie Manor on the corner of N 1st E and E 1st
N is the first building that is built right out to the street, and is the first venture to Mixed-Use.
The corner of E 1st N and N 2nd W behind Broulims and most of the block for Wolfe Lighting is
Mixed-Use. The property around Wolfe Lighting is mostly vacant. Main Street has homes
designated as Mixed-Use. Mixed-Use fronts Main Street between N 3rd W and N 5th W. Some
of this property has assisted living and apartments for elderly living. Mixed-Use, as is currently
designated, falls in all of the areas we have been planning to become denser, but we have not
seen the movement we have hoped for in the further west properties. This does not change the
fact the infrastructure is in place and the traffic patterns would accommodate Mixed-Use or
higher-density residential uses. There has been conversion of some single-family homes to
rentals on Main Street, but no further consolidation has occurred. The Commission will be able
to apply this zone in a more meaningful manner then we have in the past.
Aaron Richards said he likes the catch of requiring the commercial; so Mixed-Use is not a
work around for increased residential density; good job. The townhome fits in some mixed-use
areas; possible 3-story 20’ wide product. Stephen stated the mixed-use designation used to have
two zones: one was more of an integrated use and another was more of a stacked use. No
requests were made for the integrated use allowing townhomes and commercial built side-by-
side. Staff is looking to create more vertical density for Mixed-Use. Townhomes are landing
mostly in medium-density or low-density. Summerfield has 114 townhomes. Townhomes are
slated for the north part of town. We do not have a deficiency of townhome availability in
Rexburg. We continue to have a high-demand for vertical residences for couple rentals.
Townhomes are moving away from being owner-occupied to rental properties.
As we become more sprawling, we look at Portland, Oregon, where they have created more
outlying commercial components, so people do not have to drive all the way into the downtown
area. For Stephen, it is a six-minute drive on the west side of town to work. The short drive
time reduces the need to put a commercial component out by his home. Some consultants came
in a few years ago and placed commercial nodes every two miles. Staff was troubled by one of
the placements of the commercial nodes at the cemetery. Randall Kempton looked at pg. 2
and saw townhomes and twin homes are available with a Conditional Use Permit. Aaron
Richards asked about nursery schools. Nursery schools are six (6) children and less. Day care
is defined as seven (7) children or more. The state uses a licensing difference. “Spas” was
moved to a different place in the use list.
Vince Haley appreciates Alan’s work on this zone. The addition of the 0’ setback for the
commercial use, in a PED zone fits well, but outside of this area, to have commercial up to the
property line is concerning for him; he does not believe this fits in some areas. We have some
island zones, which could go up to the property line with this requirement. Stephen said the
parcel Vince is referring to is one of those who have taken advantage of the Mixed-Use zone for
a higher-density. This issue would be addressed during site plan review. Ingress and egress
would become an issue if they wanted to build up to the property line. To go right up to the
property line and go vertical as tall as possible is a perfect fit in the PED area, but not in all areas
currently designated as Mixed-Use. By Sonic, off of 2nd E, this would not fit at all. Stephen said
we are stuck with the current zoning. Staff concluded, if we would allow 30 units/acre, doors
could swing in and a person could walk out onto the sidewalk. Vince says it is hard to tell
someone no, when the rules of the city say yes.
6 | P a g e
Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz 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.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor: None
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Correspondence: None
Rebuttal: None
Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of
the hearing at 7:18p.m.
Commissioners Discussion: Vince Haley does not have more to add. Sally Smith asked if people
in the mixed-use zones were notified. The owners of the mixed-use parcels were not notified by mail
of this development code change. Chairman Rory Kunz said in most of the areas that are Mixed-Use,
the commercial use makes sense; there are two to three unique parcels. In the other areas, the sheer
size and shape of the lot will govern the density. Light blue on the map is Community Business Center
(CBC), calling for commercial uses. Vince Haley clarified he likes the use of commercial; it is the
going up to the property line with the commercial he feels does not fits all the areas zoned Mixed-Use
now. Aaron Richards said the requirement for commercial outweighs the community impact of the
zero-lot line; he likes the incentive for applicants who include the commercial to be able to wave the
setback. He likes the townhome use requiring a Conditional Use Permit, requiring further scrutiny.
This eliminates manipulation by the private sector; he likes the changes.
MOTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council to approve the changes to amend the
Development Code for Mixed-Use, because it is about time we cleaned this up and the zone
made sense., Action: Approve, Moved by Sally Smith, Seconded by Randall Kempton.
Commission Discusses the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 8, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson,
Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx.
No: Vince Haley.
3. 6:45PM - (21-00079) – Development Code Amendment – Sign Height in the Interchange
Areas. Applicant is seeking a sign height of 70’ for signs in the interchange areas. City Council
approved a sign height of 50’ in the interchange areas on May 20, 2020 (20-00079). (action) – Matt
Berry
Applicant Presentation – Matt Berry – 1130 University Blvd - The Applicant showed various
pictures of signs to illustrate the visibility from the highway. His current sign is a pole sign 40’ tall. A
year ago, there were discussions to change the sign height. Matt claims he was not part of the
discussion for changing this sign height. A lift was used at that time with a piece of plywood on the
7 | P a g e
top. The City contacted Matt Berry, letting him know the City would be willing to adjust the maximum
sign height to 50’. Matt didn’t agree to 50’; he just wants a sign equal to his competitor, Conoco. The
signs for Conoco or Berry Oil cannot be seen until passing John Deere. Matt is seeking equal height
for his sign and Conoco. The picture was taken at 592 yards.
St. Anthony recently granted a sign height variance to match the sign height of a competing
business for a new build. Blackfoot also recently changed their sign height. The Exxon station on the
Sunnyside exit in Idaho Falls was granted an 80’ sign height for the Exxon sign with a Special Use
Permit and now the sign height is part of their ordinance. The sign height is equal to an existing hotel,
even though the two are not like businesses, due to visibility. At the Malad exit Phillips 66 on left,
Chevron on right, both have the same sign heights. Jerome’s sign height is 85’ and is visible right off
the freeway. No additional businesses are built nearby yet. Jackson Oil and Shell sign off of Chubbuck
exit also have equal sign heights. Visibility is necessary for Matt’s kind of business for truck-reaction
time.
The last slide is a letter from Lytle Signs in support of taller signs. The following letter was read:
8 | P a g e
In conclusion, Matt Berry is trying to solve a detriment to his business; visibility and first impression
for drivers is key in their industry. Berrys inted to bring in 50 jobs to the town and he is seeking an
additional 20’ tall sign to match his competition for an equal playing field. He appreciates the
Commissioners’ time.
Commissioner Questions: Aaron Richards confirmed in the pictures, the Berry sign is only a pole.
What is the height at the top of the pole? The city measured the top of the pole at 40’. When the City
was measuring, they put plywood on top made a total 50’ sign. Aaron asked for the grade rate of
change. The Applicant does not know. Sally Smith asked how tall is the Conoco sign. The Conoco
sign is estimated at 70’. Chairman Rory Kunz asked why the request was not for a Conditional Use
Permit instead of a Development Code amendment. Matt was told, by the City, this is the process he
should follow. Stephen Zollinger said there is not a mechanism in the code for a Conditional Use
Permit to increase the height of a sign. Nor does this application meet the requirements for a variance.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Stephen Zollinger – Staff was approached by the Economic
Development department to determine if a taller sign height was needed in the interchange areas. Six
to eight years prior, around these interchanges, an area with a radius of 1500’ was established. Stephen
suspects Matt Berry’s request prompted the discussion. The Council directed Staff to determine the
sign height that would allow visibility of a sign at each of the interchanges. We took our bucket trucks
out and put a piece of plywood on top, allowing Staff to drive back and forth across the interchange.
At the south interchange, we left the sign up for visibility for the Council to view. At 50’, the sign was
visible from all directions in the driving lanes. This sign height is not as tall as the Conoco sign; we
believe the Conoco sign is 72’ tall. There was no visibility impediment prior to your ability to exit.
Coming from the South was the worst and John Deere affected visibility with their buildings.
Nevertheless, when you were anticipating the exit, the sign was visible. While Staff is sympathetic
regarding equity with the Conoco sign, staff’s position is the Conoco sign is a mistake; it would not be
allowed now and should not have been allowed when it was built. 50’ would have been more than
adequate. To perpetuate the problem is not what the Staff encourages. We do recognize the Conoco
sign will always be taller than the Berry’s sign, if we do not amend the ordinance. The McDonald’s sign
would be the tallest sign in Rexburg, even if the amendment is approved. These are highway
interchanges, not freeway interchanges and are at a slightly lower grade; there is about 2’ difference. 50’
is readily visible from all points of access, including from the McDonald’s intersection at Mr. Berry’s
current location. It is a split decision in the Staff. The Commission will determine what to recommend
to City Council.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: None
Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz 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.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor: Tanner Pocock- 2964 N 5000 E, Sugar City – Tanner is in favor of amending the sign
height to allow a taller sign in the city interchanges. His family is looking at putting in an Arby’s
restaurant. They are excited about the growth on the south side of Rexburg. Arby’s believes it
would put them at a competitive disadvantage to Burger King and Subway on the east side of
9 | P a g e
highway 20. Tanner is not looking for an advantage, just a level, playing field. The location on
the south end of town will be friendly to semi-trucks. A taller sign would allow these trucks to
make a safe, exit plan.
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Correspondence: Winston Dyer letter:
10 | P a g e
Rebuttal: Matt Berry has met with several people in the city and talked about the Applebee’s sign
history. He disagrees with Winston’s comment, the business did not come based on the beautiful
vistas. Applebee’s came because there was no other franchise, sit-down restaurant, and there was
great opportunity for business and profit. Berry’s business is not all about profit; it is about
providing jobs and employment for people. Matt has not talked to Applebee’s; his opinion is
based on his understanding of business and making good, business decisions. Rexburg is a good
place to have a restaurant. Buffalo Wild Wings was interested at one time. It is not always about
the beauty, but there is an aspect of driving revenue for the business. Matt will have to make his
decisions about keeping his business where it is or whether they move the business to another
municipality based on the groups’ decision on this matter.
Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of
the hearing at 7:47p.m.
Commissioners Discussion: Chairman Rory Kunz reminded Commissioners this change affects all
three interchanges for the city and encouraged them to keep in mind Mr. Berry’s concerns. David
Pulsipher sympathizes with Mr. Berry’s frustration with the existing 70’ sign for a direct competitor.
He said every fast food restaurant could use the same reasoning for the 120’ sign of McDonald’s. David
wishes the mistakes had never happened, creating a disadvantage for other businesses that want to come
to Rexburg. At the same time, he does not believe the answer is to change the sign height for all of the
businesses in these interchange areas, because we made those mistakes. He concurs with Mr. Dyer’s
11 | P a g e
view about the visibility of Rexburg’s assets; one of the beauties of our community is we don’t have
these types of signs everywhere. David believes Rexburg looks better than some of the examples that
were shown. There is an asset to our visibility; it should be preserved. He would not be in favor of
raising the sign height. At some point, we have to say the height is tall enough. 50’ seems to be a
reasonable height as demonstrated. Aaron Richards has some strong feelings about this application.
Signage is your life-blood as a developer. At a typical overpass, there is a potential 19’ disadvantage.
The McDonald’s sign is gross; it is ugly. Fortunately, we are only talking about the interchanges. The
ordinance is broken and needs to be fixed. With all due respect to Mr. Dyer, the signs do not affect
vistas. He goes out with his son in the evenings and the two take pictures of the sunsets from up on the
hill. He has not seen the Conoco sign show up in any of those pictures. Signs at the interchange do not
affect the vistas. I think the 70' sign height is market. There is a need for additional retail at all three of
these interchanges. He does not feel 70’ is unreasonable; he would support the change in the sign height
for the interchanges. Jim Lawrence says this is not an easy decision; he has not been swayed to vote
either way. On Google maps, it is hard to say what it would look like if the sign were not there. There
are other ways to draw attention to a business. ITD has information signs you could place your
business on. When he travels down the interstate, he looks at those informational signs as he
approaches the interchanges. Vince Haley said, as Commissioner Lawrence pointed out, it is hard to
envision what this would look like, because right now there is only a pole. The curve of the highway
takes you naturally to the Conoco sign, because this is where your car is pointed. There are potentially
some other disadvantages working against the Berrys that a marketing guru could probably tell us.
Vince goes to Berry Oil to fill up, even though it costs him a little bit more per gallon. He loves the fact
that there are few tall signs in our community; this makes us different from those in our valley. As hard
as it is to look across the highway and see a competitor that has the higher sign height, Vince does not
support a 70’ tall sign. Randall Kempton said just because every other community is doing it, this does
not make it right for here; he does not agree with this reasoning. Mr. Richards almost convinces him
that it is a good idea for 70’. Sally Smith said a few years ago when the Council deliberated before on
the sign height. There were just as many pictures that came in that did not have tall signs. There could
be more arrow signs as you came off the off-ramp to direct motorists. She feels like 50’ tall signs are
plenty tall. Not very long ago, we thought 40’ was good. I think much of what people do, is based on
what a business has to offer. Signs has been a controversial topic in this city for many years. Todd
Marx is in support of the businesses, but he is torn in the aesthetic value. He would tend to not agree
with raising the sign height. Kristi Anderson said most of what she thinks has been said. She is not in
favor of changing the sign height; she was here when the height was changed in May 2020. She recalls
when they were trying to decide, various heights were used to determine the 50’. It helped to raise the
sign height from 40’ to 50’, but beyond that, she recalled there was not an advantage. She believes the
Conoco sign was a mistake; this group was not the group that approved that height and it should not
have been done. Kristi does not want to see all of these signs popping up that are 70’. She agrees with
Sally, people are drawn to the quality of what you are offering. The pictures you are showing us do not
show a sign, only a pole. Conoco is visible because the sign is on the pole. In addition, the Berrys can
put their sign 50’ tall. You can still be very visible; it is not the same height, but you can still have a
successful business. Vince Haley confirmed Scott Johnson, the Economic Developer, came forward
with the 50’ sign height request a year ago. Vince will trust Scott’s advice, based on his research.
Randall Kempton said a decision should not be made on mistakes, but on principles. Chairman Rory
Kunz feels, as Mr. Lawrence expressed, he is trying to take his emotions and opinions out of his
decision and look at what is best for the community as a whole. He does not know if there is a fair or
best answer, but a decision has to be made. He has not made up his mind based on the discussion. Like
Mr. Richards, he sees the value in having a sign in a business that competes. On the other side, he is not
sure Berry Oil and Conoco are competing businesses. Yes, they both sell gas. Yes, they both sell food.
12 | P a g e
Yes, they both have restaurants. But, one is going to be tailored more toward trucks, it sounds like, and
the other is tailored to residents. Mr. Berry clarified the project is not a full-blown truck stop. Aaron
Richards said the city’s frontage as we come in to the city is not pretty; there is industry and tractors
with all due respect. What is a driver of economic growth? What is a driver of local business? He does
not see how 20’ on a sign would be a detriment to the industry you are driving by. David said from the
south it is ugly, but two other interchanges need to be considered. He worries this exception for the
one interchange; this changes effects the other interchanges and is not what the community has tried to
strive for. Chairman Rory Kunz asked to see the area for each interchange. Vince Haley confirmed
the interchange is a 1500’ radius from the intersections. McDonald’s would fall within the 1500’. Mr.
Berry’s parcel was identified. Rexburg Motor Sports was located. The 2nd E interchange was shown.
The radius for the north interchange does not include Walmart. The Main Street interchange veers away
from 12th W. Valley wide, Maverick, the Hotel, the Car Dealership and others would be included. Vince
said there is a lot of commercial movement in these interchanges. He does not want to see 100 signs at
70’ permitted within those locations.
MOTION: Move to recommend the City Council that they do not change the Development
Code to increase the sign height to 70' in the interchanges, based upon the fact the issue was
addressed a year ago and a full study was conducted., Action: Deny, Moved by David Pulsipher,
Seconded by Randall Kempton.
Commission Discusses the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 8, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton,
Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
No: Aaron Richards.
Items for Consideration:
1. Founder’s Square – Final Plat Div. 2 (19-00094) – April 3, 2019, City Council approved the
Final Plat, but the Plat was not recorded as per 10.03.080 and no record of an extension request can be
found. The Plat is considered expired and is presented for reconsideration. (action) – Judy Hobbs
Judy Hobbs – As indicated, the Plat was approved on April 3, 2019, by the City Council. Due to a lack
of follow-through by the developer, that Plat did not get recorded. The Plat was ready to bring to the
City for signatures and Tawnya brought to her attention they were way beyond the recording date. The
reason for the Plat was to build a twinhomes on the identified lots in phase 2. This is still the proposal.
The density is not increasing. They beg the groups forgiveness in not moving forward as it should.
Judy asks the Commission move this Plat forward to the City Council so the Plat can be reapproved.
Questions for Applicant: Chairman Rory Kunz recalled lighting in the neighborhood. Judy was not
working as an agent for the developer at that time. She could research with Tawnya regarding the
lighting. Rory recalled neighbors came forward about the neglect for street lightning. Tawnya included
the Reason for Decision in the commissioners’ packets. Rory reviewed those minutes. Alan Parkinson
knows there are lighting issues with Sky Meadows. Sky Meadows and Founder’s Square adjoin one
another. As far as he knows, there is not an issue with the lighting in Founder’s Square. Vince Haley
confirmed there are lighting issues with Sky Meadows about a year ago. Chairman Rory Kunz
apologized.
13 | P a g e
Staff Report: Stephen Zollinger stated, as Judy said, they have 6 months after the Plat is approved to
record the Plat. They did not record in this time frame. They have not changed anything. They are
here begging forgiveness and asking you to reapproved this Plat to record immediately.
Chairman Rory Kunz asked if the Plat is a hearing. Tawnya told him no, this is just a plat approval.
Tawnya explained the plat process was recently changed and now requires a Final Plat to come before
the Planning & Zoning Commission for their recommendation to City Council. We felt, even though
this application began before that change, when the Final Plat would only go to City Council, the new
process should be followed to be transparent with the Commission. This agenda item is informational
for the Commission, to allow the Founder’s Square Plat to move forward if the Commission will allow
it.
Commissioner Discussion: Kristi Anderson asked if this would be a motion. Chairman Rory
Kunz confirmed this action would be needed.
MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Founder’s Square Div. 2 Final Plat,
because it was previously approved., Action: Approve, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded
by Kristi Anderson.
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson,
Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
Heads Up:
March 18th Hearings:
1. Stonebridge St or Approx. 525 E 7th N (RPR6N40E176600) – Rezone from Low-Density
Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium- Density Residential 1 (MDR1)
Adjournment 8:21PM