HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.15.2021 P&Z Minutes_exppdf
1
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 6:30PM.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, Todd Marx, Randall
Kempton, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence.
Absent: John Bowen, David Pulsipher, Sally Smith.
Minutes:
Planning & Zoning Meeting April 1, 2021 (action)
Motion: Motion to approve the minutes as recorded for the Planning & Zoning meeting April 1, 2021,
Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Kristi Anderson.
Commissioner Discussion: None
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8).
Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall
Kempton, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Public Hearings:
1. 6:35PM – (21-00146) – Simply SodaVine – 1050 N 2nd E -
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Seasonal Food Sale Stand in Light
Industrial (LI). This stand is proposed to share the parking lot of
Porter’s Office Products (action) – Eric & Robyn Eastin
David Pulsipher arrived online.
Roll Call.
Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Vince Haley, Kristi Anderson, David Pulsipher, Todd
Marx, Randall Kempton, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence.
Absent: John Bowen, Sally Smith.
Applicant Presentation – Eric & Robyn Eastin – 965 Greenhaven, Rexburg - The couple thanked
the Commissioners for this opportunity to come before them to request this Conditional Use Permit.
This is a second location for Soda Vine located on the north side of town in front of Porter’s Office
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
April 15, 2021
2
Supply. Mark Porter, the owner of the property, has agreed to this shared use. Robyn said the two
have seen the rush of customers that come in to Soda Vine. Eric and Robyn are excited about their
customers and would like to bring a similar opportunity to the north side of town to help eliminate that
rush that seems to keep coming. This is an opportunity to employ more young college students and
community people. The Eastins have established a brand name that is well recognized. They will keep
their family-owned business alive and well. Robyn said she and her husband see the growth in Rexburg
and they wish to expand their business. Eric mentioned a third venue in St. Anthony as well. They are
working on relieving the congestion at their business on the south side of town.
Commissioner Questions: Chairman Kunz recognized the business will be in the parking lot of
Porters and asked if it will be a food-truck style business. Eric Eastin answered, yes, the building is
under construction and will be food safe for food preparation and delivery. There will be no internal
seating. Robyn said there will be two drive-through windows, one for ordering and the other from pick-
up. The location will allow for stacking. Milkshakes will not be served at this location to simplify the
menu and keep the customers flowing quickly through so as not to prevent the flow of traffic on the
main road. Greg Blacker asked if it will be mobile. Eric answered, the building will be partially
mobile; the 12’ x 28’ building will be on skids without wheels. The building is not a trailer at all and will
be stick built with 2’ x 4’ boards with a metal roof. Greg asked if there will be outside seating.
Chairman Kunz repeated the applicant stated this would be a drive-through only with no outside
seating.
Aaron Richards asked if arrangements had been made with Porters to allow a similar situation to their
current location, to pull through and park to allow the order to be brought out to you. Eric confirmed
this agreement, on the north side of the parking lot, there are The parking on the west side will be
removed and used for the drive-through. The owner is offering 3-4 parking spaces on the east and 3-4
spaces on the north. Randall asked if the business would run year-round. Robyn answered, right now,
the business would be seasonal due to the conditions of the city. She hopes this requirement can be
changed or lifted. Possibly the business would have to be shut down. The building cannot easily be
moved and no other location has been found for a building this size. The Eastins have owned Snoasis
for thirteen to fourteen years.
Vince Haley asked the Eastins to address the traffic Staff has concerns about on 2nd E. What have you
done to address this problem? What will you do in the future should this become a problem? Eric and
Robyn confirmed the question is directed to the new 2nd E location. Eric continued cones will be used
to guide the traffic. There will be signage on the lawn and on the building itself. There will be windows
allowing the traffic to be anticipated and seen, to allow the employees to react in a proper manner.
People can be serviced more quickly at this location. The more time-consuming items will not be served
at this location. Robyn said there will be a door on the north side for an employee to take out orders if
needed. The building has been arranged three windows on the south side of the building for employees
to see the drive thru, traffic, and the road. The Eastins understand the importance of these factors. Jim
said at the other location, during the peak time, how large does your que of vehicles line up in your
other location to give him an idea of the situation. Eric answered, the location allows the stack of four
to five cars. Eight parking spaces behind the building allow the cars to shuffle ahead for orders to be
brought out to them. Six or seven vehicles are waiting maximum at the peak time. Robyn noted the
number of employees inside the building has increased. Experienced employees will open the new
location. The employees have been practicing the taking of orders in a minute or less.
3
Kristi said on the plan there was mention people could use the grass to sit and enjoy their drink. As a
parent, she is worried about the grassy area becoming a place for kids to wait. The location is near traffic
and is worrisome if this is considered. Robyn said if it could happen, a fence would be needed. This
may be something they would ask for, but she doesn’t believe she wants to encourage that; it is just a
dream.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Staff spent quite a bit of time working with the
Eastins to discuss the different options submitted. One of the concerns was removing some of the
parking for this new, shared use. Porter’s still has adequate parking and there is the additional number
of stalls for the Eastins business. One of the reasons the Eastins are requesting a Conditional Use
Permit is food vending is allowed in Light Industrial (LI) as “Eating Places”, but requires a Conditional
Use Permit. One condition Keith requested, if stacking becomes a problem onto 2nd E, the use be shut
down. The nearest adjacent use is storage units. Staff is working toward a food vending ordinance
requiring the partnering of a mobile vendor with a brick and mortar business; this is the first
coordinated use to try the arrangement being considered. The mobile vendor will have access to
Porter’s bathrooms. The Eastins and Mr. Porter have worked out an arrangement. Staff is
recommending to the Planning & Zoning Commissioners to recommend approval to City Council of
this Conditional Use Permit.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: Vince asked who would determine the stacking problem and
who would enforce this. Alan answered the police and code enforcement with repeated appeals would
determine the continuity of the problem. Vince confirmed the Commission does not need to vet the
arrangement between the Eastins and the Porters. Greg asked for the definition of seasonal. Alan said
for six months a food vendor is allowed to stay on one lot and after that time the business must move to
a different lot or close down. The time begins from the time they start business until they finish that
business. It is up to the owner to choose when that timeframe takes place during the year. Chairman
Kunz said this requirement is in the current adopted ordinance. Aaron asked if 140’ could stack how
many vehicles? Alan said usually a car is an average of 20’ long and 22’ long for a pickup. He estimated
seven to eight cars is a safe number and still be able to keep the driveway clear for Porter’s customers.
The plan shown to Staff looks like it would work.
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 opened the public input at 6:50PM.
Favor:
Lynette Eastin – 4176 E 200 N, Rigby, ID – She is the current Soda Vine manager. We
acknowledge we have had a problem with parking. This is another solution to help alleviate some
of the traffic pressure of their in-town store. She is excited and would like to see the change
happen. We have experienced Staff she has trained herself to open up the new location.
Stephanie Ballard - 965 Greenhaven, Rexburg – This will be a great service for the north side
of town. There are a lot of people who just want a soda. They do not want to sit down or wait.
She has talked to her mom about the seating on the grassy area in the beginning. This idea has
4
faded since the first they have talked about that part of the project. Stephanie said this new
location will be a drive-through and go. She is excited.
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 6:53PM.
Commissioners Discussion: Vince says his only concern is the traffic and he feels this has
been addressed. The City has their Compliance Officer, Natalie Powell. As long as those
conditions are met, with the ability to revoke the CUP based on stacking, he would approve the
request. Kristi agrees with Vince. She likes the fact the Eastins have worked with the Porters.
These two uses can work together well and she is in support. Aaron agrees; he feels the right
steps have been taken. He would like to address the City Engineer’s comment on the Staff
Report; it is a little harsh. “Permit will be revoked and operations will not be allowed to continue on this
property if there is stacking onto N 2nd E.” Obviously, they have to have the ability to protect traffic
on N 2nd E. He would like to add the words “as currently site-planned on this property.” The
property is large. The building could be pushed further back and address any type of stacking
issues. I think this makes the city-vendor relationship a little more balanced, causing the Eastins
to need to replan their site to address those stacking problems. Vince asked the Chairman if the
CUP is revoked because of stacking, would the Eastins need to apply for a new CUP. Chairman
Kunz said this depends on how the Commissioners word the conditions for the CUP. Spencer
Ramell said due to the nature of a CUP, once it is issued, the language of the CUP could be
changed at a later time. Kristi confirmed if the stacking problem was recognized, the Eastins
would have to take a Site Plan in to City Staff to get it approved. Chairman Kunz said it really
comes down to how the motion is stated; if there is a hard line of revocation, then they may have
to go through the whole process again, if we give them leniency to be able to revise their Site
Plan, the Eastins would just be working with Staff to make sure the traffic flows properly.
MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Conditional Use Permit
(CUP) at 1050 N 2nd E for with the condition that if stacking on 2nd E does occur,
business is halted and cannot be resumed until site plan issues are resolved with City
Staff., 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, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim
Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the Public Hearing procedures for those who arrived after he
had explained them.
2. 6:40PM – (21-00147) – Approx. 301 S 12th W -
Rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density
Residential 2 (LDR2) for approximately the east 1,3118 ft. &
5
Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) for the remaining land to the east to the Highway 20
right-of-way. The property is used for agriculture, but is located near rural subdivisions such as
Widdison Addition, Summerfield, and Willow Brook Estates. (action) – Brent Anderson
Applicant Presentation – Brent Anderson – 3355 W Legacy Hills, Morgan, Utah - He has
sat in the Commissions’ seat before. He thanked the Commissioners for attending tonight. He is
asking for a rezone on this property from RR2 to LDR2 and MDR1. There are properties to the
south that have the same zoning. He is trying to be congruent with the zoning to the south of
him. The land would be split into two separate zones. On the master plan, the Comprehensive
Plan showing the division between designations as being located a little farther to the West to
match up with a developed property to the south with similar designations.
Commissioner Questions: None
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Staff has reviewed the property. The
Comprehensive Plan allows both of these zones to be done in this area. The area can be
serviced with current infrastructure, sewer and water. A canal is on the frontage of the property
along 12th W. The property owner would have to work with the canal company to maintain the
ditch to allow the farmers to continue to receive their fair share of water. Farmers would have
to be able to maintain water usage. The road will need to be widened and brought up to current
standards. More than likely a Traffic Impact Study will need to be completed to determine the
impact of traffic on 12th W to see the affect on the intersections, signals, and the neighborhood.
The location of the property was shown on the map. The Meadows has the same MDR1 zoning
Mr. Anderson is requesting. Staff is recommending this rezone be recommended to City
Council to approve this rezone as it meets the conditions for a rezone.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: Kristi Anderson asked for the zoning immediately south
of the requested property. Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Rural Residential 2 (RR2) are the zones
immediately to the south of the applicant’s parcel.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor:
Eddie Pincock – 112 S Maple, Sugar City – This property is part of an estate. Dean Birch has
nine children and the property is being deeded to those children. His wife is one of those
children. The intention is to rezone to bring the land to a higher and better use for a potential
developer, who may come in and see the value of Rexburg. He is in favor and wanted to give the
Commissioners some background on the people who are rezoning this property.
Neutral:
J.W. Southwick – 375 S 12th W – He is a neighbor to this property. He lives in the RR1 section.
If he had his preference, we would like to see the property developed under the current zoning.
This is the zone of the Willow Brook Estates, which allows residential housing on ½ an acre. He
understands why a developer would want to increase the density. His main reason for offering a
neutral comment is what happens with this piece of property will have an impact on the property
immediately to the south. The piece of the property is land-locked. If this is to be an orderly
development, with a couple bridges across the canal to the south, this property to the south
would be linked. This may determine how the roads would be laid out in the end.
6
Jon Steiner – 417 S 12th W, Rexburg – He likes the lower-density. He confirmed the West end
of the property is a higher density than the East. Jon talked to Brent about the density of LDR2
as a home per 8,000 sq.ft. and in MDR1 a home per 4,500 sq.ft. Jon is worried about the lack of
planning on the city’s part to funnel where the traffic would go to get to town. Kartchner across
N 12th W cannot build fast enough. Jon attended City Council. Jon owns the property to the
south and may be before the Commissioners to rezone sometime in the future. What is the
future plan for traffic?
Chairman Kunz said the City is working on at least a 5-year traffic plan current and up-to-date.
He invited Mr. Steiner to come in and speak to City Staff. There is certainly some traffic build-
up, no question.
Opposed:
Tyler Barton – 1076 Green Willow Dr. - He thanked the Commission for the work the group
does. He is sure it is not always easy. He knows the community in the future is facing a lot of
growth; Rexburg is a desirable place to be. He understands why a proposal like this would come
before the group. He understands landowners have a right to sell their property; this is the
American way. All decisions one way or another will affect somebody.
He is concerned about traffic on 12th W. He spoke of the intersection by the high school
and 12th W. You spend a lot of time in a turn lane in order to get to work each day. Sometimes
you have to drive like a racecar driver. He is frightened at some point there will be a serious
accident. The interchange on the north by Mother Hibbards is different because it is controlled
by a traffic signal. The Meadows is a precarious place to drive. Anything on the eastern-most
plot, he hopes, should be designed to allow traffic to freely flow there. He prefers this parcel stay
in the current RR2 zoning. There is rural flavor in that area; it would be nice to keep it this way.
He is a realist. If we could mitigate that change, he would be in favor. A drastic change to
MDR1 is too much. He said he thinks the group understands why the changes are being
requested due to property market values. He would speak in favor of keeping the land at RR2.
RR2 is ½ acre to the possibility of having duplexes, twinhomes on MDR1 on 0.14 acres. The
potential for the subdivision is to be crowded, causing other effects on the neighbors’ lives.
When something is built on the land, he will miss watching the horses frolicking around on
this land. This is more a sentimental comment than a realistic one.He thanked the
Commissioners for their time.
Charlene Evans – 2179 W 440 S – She thanked the Commission for the opportunity to speak in
behalf of the request to represent the feelings of her family. She and her husband are transplants
just short of two years from the Chicago area. Her concerns apply to the commute. They are
working in Idaho Falls but have chosen to live in this different type of community. When you
start building apartments and condominiums, the Commission is inviting a different type of
clientele into the community. She saddened by the amount of Medicaid in this community. The
schools, the type of education our children received, our businesses, and the crime will be
impacted. When she and her husband first found this area, the Meadows development was built.
The Meadows traffic is high and the access is extremely low. To tuck this behind beautiful
homes; this is appalling. This proposal has the potential to do the same where people hope to
raise families and build their dream home. She realizes she may be very opinionated about this,
but she has seen these kinds of things in other parts of the nation. She would hope the
7
Commission would consider this application in the context of what the community wants to be
as a whole, instead of how fast we can build it and how much money we can get out of the land.
Kathy Parson – 298 S 12th W, Rexburg – She lives directly west and she has a little different
impact. First of all, she has lived there for 38 years. They have landscaped and developed their
five acres. They use the canal and irrigate with that canal. A pipe does run under the road and
head gates provide access to the Parsons. Kathy spent some time with Keith Davidson today
discussing the widening of the road to a 5-lane with a turning land if all of this development
happens. The road will be 21’ from her front door and she will have to remove trees. This is a
devaluing of the Parson’s home. Measuring from the middle of road would push the road into
their house; this is not how the width of the road will be measured. The entire canal will be
covered with the road widening. The congestion itself will devalue her home. If they can keep
the integrity of the homes like Willow Brook, single-family homes, instead of going for the
money; this would be better. Another school may be needed. Summerfield is busting out at the
seams; the development has lost its integrity. She loves to hear the horses, but she understands
this will not be the case long-term. The land needs to be developed, but with integrity.
Francis South – 2130 W 440 S – She has never spoke at a hearing and this is scary. She has
children at every school in the Madison School District. As is, she works in the schools, and
because their class sizes are so large, the teachers cannot give the students the attention they need.
This is a younger couple area with starter homes and lower incomes. Some children are
becoming bored, because there is a focus on the median. She has lived in several states and they
have been in many school systems. Teachers are not available and Burton has already had an
addition. She didn’t do the math, but that is a lot of new children. It is immoral to approve an
application like this with building a new school to accommodate all of this density. Last year, 72
students moved in and the school district was scrambling before school to find kindergarten, first
and second grade teachers, because this is where those children’s school district is located.
She understands developers and there is money to be made. She doesn’t understand why
the higher density is needed. The Meadows was a poor idea in the first place, because there are
are traffic problems throughout the day. There is a lot of land in Rexburg to build on. She feels
it is a little greedy to want to build that much density in this small of an area. Think about the
families and the existing neighbors. She lives on a 2-acre lot and it has taken them a while to
accumulate that much land. The road widening eats into her neighbors’ yards where she grew up.
She doesn’t feel this is ethical either. She is in favor of homes on larger lots sizes. Kids need
space to play in the yards of their homes. Our families are our most important asset.
Colin Erickson – 1038 Widdison Lane - He lives North of the applicant’s request. He
thanked the members for sitting on the Commission board; he knows how hard this is to figure
out what is going to happen. Higher density and apartments keep coming. How far are we going
to keep pushing the higher density from the city to the rural areas? The traffic is affected.
Sometimes you cannot even get out of Widdison Lane. Possible 2nd E problems could be seen on
12th W. He bought the property in the county many years ago, because the property was in the
County, and because he could go out there and have a little bit of space. He could not afford to
be further out with more acreage, which he would like. The Meadows has given the
neighborhood a taste of the density. The community has been destroyed. The Meadows is one
avenue in and one avenue out; he feels this type of development is a mistake. He understands
along the freeway a single-family home is not ideal; a buffer is needed. However, Pine Brook has
8
these types of lots are along the freeway. Be sure to look at the traffic. More lanes will bring in
more people and higher densities. This application will influence the property to the north and
the south, whose owners which will ask for the same zoning approved tonight. A developer will
pay for their part of the road to be improved. They would improve the road to the north or to
the south. He would like to see the plan of what will be put on the property, before the change is
made in the zoning. The change influences the people in this neighborhood who want the
country feel.
Brent Harris – 1125 Widdison Lane – He appreciates the opportunity to speak. He would like
to clarify the lot size is 10,000 square feet is for a duplex. 8,000 square feet is 0.18 acres is per
unit. MDR1 is a tenth of an acre or 4,500 square feet. His concerns are similar to others tonight;
he thinks the Meadows is a mistake. He believes anyone who drives through there would agree.
The housing for young people is a good thing. However, the traffic conditions are poor. He has
lived in his home, north of the planned development, when it was annexed into the city. At that
time, they worked hard to achieve the zoning of RR1 and RR2. The reason was to maintain the
country style of living to some extent. He disagrees with Collin in one aspect, he doesn’t think
the people should wait for a detailed plan. MDR1 and LDR2 are unacceptable. If anything, the
zoning should be LDR1 for 12,000 square feet and doesn’t allow for a lot of things LDR2 does.
He is against the proposal. He doesn’t believe the traffic can be addressed short-term.
Richard Geddes – 1056 Green Willow – His property is to the South of this potential
development. He appreciates the job the Commissioners do. He came in several years ago
talking to the Commission on another property. At that time, the Meadows decision was
regretted the density in the Meadows. He would like the group to go back and look at the
Meadows situation. He thinks development is good if done right. He echoes the thoughts of
others; they would like to maintain the country feel of single-family homes.
Leon Parson – 440 S 12th W – By making the road five lanes, there will be a home seven yards
from his door to the road; the fence is lost, the trees are lost, the shed will have to be demolished.
The last time the road was widened, four feet was taken from their driveway. The proposal will
devalue his home and their neighborhood. He does not want the zone to be changed. He
supports a match to Willow Brook, not to Kartchners. When he moved there, he knew homes
would be built across the street. The growth should be controlled and planned out.
Tammy Geddes – 1056 Green Willow Dr – Her home is south of the proposed development.
This has become emotional as we talk about what can happen around us. I agree with what has
been stated. I love that these people with the nine children want to sell the land; this is amazing.
This is important for them; this is why we invest in property; this is why we invest in land. At the
same time, because they are selling the property, they don’t feel the reprecussions of rezoning the
land. A developer will not stay with the land. The land is twenty-five acres. Let’s pretend it was
20 acres for the math. If there would be ½ acre lots on 20 acres, this is 40 homes. When we go
to 1/10 of an acre per home, then this is 400 families. This is a huge increase with a significant
impact. One thing she has noticed at these meetings, a developer will ask for one standard, but
that is never guaranteed. More money can be achieved with a higher density. The density will
take some time. They have been in their home for twelve and a half years. They have watched
Summerfield develop and the full impact has still not been experienced. She also agrees with the
school situation. A bond was passed and the schools were added on to Burton and other schools
9
and the schools are filled. 30% taxes go to the school bonds. Just a few more things to consider
as you put together your thoughts. She thank the Commissioners for their time.
Mike Evans – 2179 W 440 S – Tonight, no one is opposed to development, but we need to look
at the development that will happen as being a blessing to those who are already here in this area.
He has lived in other places throughout the midwest. The towns have green spaces. Rexburg is a
desirable place to live. We need to determine what will Rexburg be in five, ten, and twenty years.
Will it lose its desirability because it becomes so dense? Will the ruralness or small-towness be
taken away due to profit-taking? We can develop in such a way that will allow those who want to
make some money and have that progress, while blessing those who do live here to keep what
they came her for and maintain why they are here.
Brent Morring – 1129 Golden Willow Circle – He has a few questions. Is there going to be a
Traffic Impact Study performed? How is the widening of the road already determined? Alan
addressed his question, when there is a large development comes in, the Traffic Impact Study is
conducted. The City has a 5-year Transportation Plan. The Staff is working on a complete,
citywide, Transportation Study. The five lanes has been determined prior to this request,
regardless of the growth in the area. The speed limit is a concern at 35 mph. As traffic becomes
heavier and the road widens, there are safety issues.
He has lived in his neighborhood for 6 years. The Meadows has come up as a precedence.
From what he hears, when the Meadows was changed, in some former planning of the
community; the high density was not supposed to cross the highway. To allow this to become
precedent, this just furthers previous mistakes.
We see this in all levels of government, we have zoning laws and regulations, and when you
buy a piece of property, the zoning protects you. The zoning should not be an easy thing to
change. We should have the right to request the change, but the burden should be on those
requesting the change, instead of everyone else. I should not assume I can change the zoning
when I go to sell that land. Sometimes we see concentrated groups of people trying to
accomplish something and the cost spreads out upon many people. He asks the Commission to
represent the whole community and consider these costs.
There will be a lot of people living on the inside. The higher density should not be traveling
through the lower-density. Looking at the proposal at the density along the highway; if there is
any change in zoning, it would need to be in the lower density.
Written Correspondence: None
Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 8:01 p.m.
Rebuttal:
Brent Anderson – There has been a lot of good comments tonight. He lives in a county without
a stoplight and there is a lot of growth. The county is growing. There are a lot of emotions. He
moved there to live in a rural community and now everyone is moving there just like I did. The
only way to stop this is we all stop having kids; this is not an option. He develops down in Utah.
There could be a retirement community at this location, which would not have any impact on the
schools. The change is not just about money; he doesn’t want to adversely affect his neighbors.
He likes people. People have been impacting 12th W for a long time. The roads were getting
10
busy before he came along. Widening the road would impact the neighbors. This piece of
property has some challenges; the canal would have to be addressed. The land could be
developed sensibly. The higher zone can be against the freeway. There are problems with higher
densities. At some of his developments in Utah, people have shown up to say we don’t want
those kinds of people here referring to a rental or a duplex. He does not know of anyone, who at
one time or another, did not have to rent. He was once one of those people and worked to get
out of it. He appreciates the Commissioners’ time and those comments made tonight.
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.
Commissioners Discussion: Greg thanked the neighbors for coming out; he likes to hear the
peoples’ point of view. He likes the feel of larger lots. He would like to see the zoning remain rural
residential. He would be opposed to taking the country feel away from the neighborhood. He would
not vote for this. Vince asked if the street widening would happen regardless of this development.
Alan said any development will push the road widening. The churches built on 12th were built to
accommodate the road widening. Vince continued the Planning & Zoning and can address land use
only. We do not have the knowledge to speak regarding the schools and other factors you might have
addressed. The land use can only be the decision tonight. Collin mentioned project plans; Vince prefers
not to see the project plans to sway his decision. He lives in Summerfield and he is highly aware of the
growth out there. Prior to living in Summerfield, he lived in a townhome. If someone told me they
didn’t want me to live there because I lived in a twin home or townhome, I would take offense to that.
He is not taking offense to this tonight. He does not believe twin homes and townhomes bring in a
certain kind of people he does not want around him. He would not say the Meadows is a mistake. You
can only use your knowledge on the current situation, when you make your vote. The LDR2 on the
entire parcel would be a yes vote. Per his calculations the higher density would be 3.75 acres at MDR1
allowing 60 units; this is very dense. His wife called him today and said she just about died driving past
the high school today. He brings up his feelings about traffic any chances he gets to ask Keith for a
light at the intersection of 12th W and University Blvd.
Aaron believes 12th W is off the table. If the property is not developed, the growth is already there
to widen the road. If you look at the lots developed over by the golf course, the undeveloped lots back
up to Hwy 20. It is really hard to build a home with triple-paned windows and enough trees to drown
out the sound of the cars on Hwy 20. MDR1 up against the highway is the correct land use. The
Traffic Study will determine how many points of egress that community will need; this will be done
professionally and correctly. His hesitancy is no step-down between MDR1 and LDR2 in zoning
moving west. He would have felt better about this application stepping down from MDR1 to LDR2
and LDR1. This request does follow the Comprehensive Plan. There is going to be growth. He
addressed the existing townhouse community at the Meadows. He has friends, who are professors, who
lived there while their homes were built; these are the kind of people we want in MDR1. It takes a while
to get a house; you need a nice rental in the meantime. Vince referred to the unsold lots in Pinebrook
Estates, north of the golf course. He asked Tawnya about the lots along Hwy 20 and their purchasing
status. (The lots are still showing 4U Development LLC on the map.) Pine Brook Estates has a lot of
growth to go. Rory asked about the zoning. Alan said RR2 is along Hwy 20. RR1 is close to the golf
course. Jim said one of the Commission’s responsibilities is to look at the application and the impact
on the community. There appears to be a large impact to the people who live around this area. The
impact to the rest of the community is low. In his mind, he believes those who live nearest to this are
11
those he should consider the most. He does not feel the correct density is being asked of along the
highway. For this reason, he is not in favor of this rezone. David appreciates this great process; he
appreciates the people in the community who have come out. He has appreciated listening to his fellow
Commissioners. MDR1 is many ways does make sense near the edge of the highway. On the other
hand, the problems are egress are huge. If there had been a frontage built road years ago, this would
have been ideal to help funnel the traffic. He is concerned about putting this density so far off the main
road. Similar to Commissioner Haley, he is in favor of an LDR1 or LDR2 on this property. He is
opposed to MDR1, even though it makes sense next to the highway. Rory asked about the Meadows
previous approval. How many of our current Staff were involved in the approval of the Meadows
subdivision? Mayor Sutherland was part of the City. Keith was an assistant to Jon Millar. Jon Millar
are gone. Are different processes in place regarding egress? Yes, a potential development has come in
to talk to City Staff and part of the discussion with land to the north of the Meadows was connectivity
with the Meadows to help the traffic situation, because we know this is a problem. Anything coming in
will require more than two egresses along with connectivity to the north and south. Kristi said the
capacity of schools is one of the Commissioner considerations. Is there any contact with the school
district? The superintendent of schools is aware. Alan said as far as projecting, we have no ideas about
the population within the development. Kristi said usually the schools are not built until there is a need.
This is not a reason to stop the growth.
Aaron said there was a reference to the math works for and against you. $900,000 to a million
dollars is added to the tax revenue for the schools. The city’s investment also has to be considered. 12th
W will be an investment, the water and sewer is already in place and this is investment in the ground.
His position is the same, he wants a more tiered density. Vince agrees you have to look at things both
ways. He likes to look at the maximum capacity, and if the developer does a lesser density, that is great.
He can only control what the future developer would not be allowed to do.
Chairman Kunz says his sentiments are very similar to Commissioner Anderson. Mr. Morrey’s
comments have swayed his thoughts more than any of the other comments. Considering when you buy
a property, you do look at the zoning in place. And the comment about driving through lower-density
to get to higher-density. This creates a situation where you affect the neighborhood. The freeway is not
a place you want your house to abut. He agrees with Commissioner Richards in he would like to see a
step-down happen a little more aggressively. Commissioner Anderson addressed the schools beautifully.
A high school has been built and the 9th graders are not in the school. It is not that we do not plan for
the growth; we just plan differently. Our school board has been very good at being creative and finding
ways to manage the people. Yes, there may be some classrooms where some students may not get the
attention they need; but the school referenced tonight still gets pretty high marks on a grading standard.
Based on these outcomes, the school district is aware of the situation and is trying to meet the needs of
the community. The town will grow. This is not just an issue for Rexburg or Idaho; it is nationwide.
As people come to our community, they bring change hopefully for the better. People will come and go
and they need a place to live.
Kristi said looking at the zoning map. She hears it is good to have the buffer against the highway.
In this area, there are a lot of RR1 and RR2 zones. The way zoning has been going the last couple of
years, the Commission has been getting a lot more requests for higher density. The community is not
seeing the single-family areas of LDR1 and LDR2. She would like to preserve the single-family zoning
within the city limits for buildable lots. She does not like the MDR1, but does not know what she
thinks about the LDR2 and LDR1 possibilities. Randall has friends on both sides of this issue. Rory’s
right, the growth is coming. Randall’s kids need housing they can afford. One day he is going to need a
smaller place too and he cannot find one right now. What feels difficult to him in this situation is there
are people actively living country lives here still. We are giving them a system shock giving them MDR1
in their neighborhood. The Meadows density feels like a wrong move without any transitional zoning.
12
Does the growth have to come so fast, intensely, and suddenly? He is leaning against the zoning
request. He would rather see single-family housing.
MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council deny the application, at approximately
301 S 12th W, for a rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2)
for approximately the east 1,3118 ft. and Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) for the
remaining land to the east to the Highway 20 right-of-way, because it does not fit this area and
is too great of a density or zone; there is too high of a jump from RR2 to MDR1, Action: Deny,
Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Jim Lawrence.
Commission Discusses the Motion: Kristi said Vince is proposing to reject the application in full. If
we wanted to give the applicant something, could we change the proposal to the lower zone. The City
Council changed a parcel out by where she lives to a lesser zone. Chairman Kunz said the City Council
may have other options, but he Commission has to take the application as presented. The applicant
would have to come back to the Commission with a different application. Vince Haley asked the
chairman if we have to address the location as noticed. Chairman Kunz asked Attorney Rammell if he
had anything to add; he did not at this time. Vince clarified the Commission must base their decision
on the application for tonight.
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9).
Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence,
Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
3. 6:45PM – (21-00079) – RECONSIDERATION - 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
By request of the City Council, this application comes back to us. The City Council was not ready to
accept the Commissioners’ recommendation as they motioned. The Commission will be reconsidering
the Development Code sign height in the interchanges to be increased to seventy feet. Chairman Kunz
wants to emphasize the Commissioners’ options. We will hear some information from City Staff. He
will allow some public input to get a good feel of what our community members think. Ultimately, the
decision need to be the Commissions’. The City Council has asked the Commission to look at some
different options.
We have the option to send the application back to City Council and say no, we were right the
first time.
13
We have the right to make changes and send the application back to City Council.
We can have Staff do further research to make sure the correct decision is made.
Please remember this is a change to the city’s Development Code. We are not talking about the
allowance of any variances. The changes will affect all interchange areas: the University Blvd
interchange, the Main Street interchange, and the interchange north of Walmart. Any change we make
will affect all those places, all of those landowners, and any potential businesses that may be developed
in those areas. Also remember, an increase of sign height was addressed exactly a year ago and a sign
height change in the interchanges from forty to fifty feet was approved with the intent to make the
signs visible from the highway and overpasses. A study was done at that time by Staff.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Staff took the recommendation from City
Council to look at the request deeper and come back to the Commission with some things that were
discovered. The change is not about Berry’s property, but it will affect them. Three interchanges will be
effected.
When Staff looked at sign height alone, signs lose their visibility with building of new buildings to
their maximum zoning heights on currently undeveloped properties, new signs on these properties to
the currently approved sign height, and potential landscape buffering along Highway 20. Each of these
items has an impact on the ability to see a sign from a distance. GIS can put mock-up signs and
buildings, and choose spots along the road to view as if you were sitting in a car. The zoning in these
areas is Community Business Center with a maximum building height of 65’. Look at the structure of
the interstate overpasses. Due to the angle and the curve in the road, one side has an advantage over the
other side, no matter what. Chairman Kunz verified the approach gives one side of the highway
advantage over the other. Alan shared an example from the South at the Thornton interchange; you
can almost see the Conoco sign not far from leaving the Thornton overpass. Chairman Kunz said is
this true of the other two intersections. On the center interchange, the angle is more of a straight angle,
but the trees affect the visibility of a sign. The current sign of Quality Inn, he thinks is about sixty (60’)
feet tall, which was grandfathered. You can not see their sign until you hit the off-ramp. When the
McDonald’s sign went in, the City said we have to do something about the signs. He thinks at that
point the sign height was set back at twenty-four (24’) feet. Later on, the sign height in the interchanges
for a 1500’ radius was changed to forty (40’) feet. The governing boards felt with the height of the
interchanges, blind spots were created for those signs. Vince would not have guessed the Quality Inn
sign was sixty (60’) feet tall. It does not matter if you have a one hundred (100’) feet sign, you still will
not see the sign if something is in front of the sign. Alan said from the south, the Quality Inn sign is
blocked due to the angle you are traveling.
Alan asked the Commissioners to ask questions during the presentation. Greg Schneider from GIS
will tell the group the actual height of the signs. GIS has created the buildings at actual height. Conoco,
Berry Oil, and the Kauer property were compared. Conoco’s sign height is 68’, Berry’s is 50’ and
Kauer’s theoretical building is at sixty-five (65’) feet. The Kauer building allows the Commission to see
what would happen if someone built to the maximum building height for that CBC zoning adjacent to
Highway 20. They backed up and followed the overpass from the north. The turnarounds are used to
assist in measuring distances from the overpasses. One hundred (100’) feet before the overpass, Berry’s
sign is not visible. Fifty (50’) feet from the off-ramp, Berry’s sign is clearly visible. The Conoco sign, as
Vince has stated, is wide open to view due to the natural curve of the road. 2640’ is ½ of a mile from
the interchange and both signs can be seen. The distance from the off-ramp to the visibility point was
measured. Even if more buildings are built along the highway. They are moving farther west as they
come farther down, so you are still able to see that sign. This works great for Berry’s, but on the
14
opposite side of the highway, those signs will be blocked. A sign at the development kitty-corner to
RMS will not be able to be seen even at seventy (70’) feet.
Alan asked, At what point do we keep raising the sign height? At what point do we say what is
fair?
The sign height at the Berry Property was raised to 70’. Signage will only be allowed on the top
eight (8’) feet of the sign. What if someone builds a large commercial plaza. Do we allow one large sign
like a Jackson Junction rather than a bunch of little signs? Alan said some of these possibilities need to
be explored at a deeper level. Next, the direction was changed to drive from the North on the Main
Street interchange. Signs will be blocked at fifty (50’) feet and you will barely see them at seventy (70’)
feet. Add in buildings and both signs are blocked. Vince confirmed the Berry’s sign is at its current
location. The sign could be moved farther to the north to increase visibility. Randall said he drove the
highway yesterday, and no matter how tall the sign is, there are going to be issues. The whole property
is invisible until you get to a certain place and then, you see Conoco, but as you come to the off-ramp,
the Berry Property dominates your view. Vince said driving from the north, there are also large trees
established in the Meadows.
The Main Street interchange was looked at driving from the South. Greg Schneider said GIS is
giving you a more favorable view than reality. This is not taking into account the overpass, the trees,
etc. The rise of the overpass is not a capability in the software until they build it in the map. The
billboard and trees actually block the Quality Inn sign. Alan said we want people to get people into our
city to build and be successful. On the other side, how do we keep from becoming all signs and
billboards. On the left, a sign was added to show what it would be looked at. The theoretical sign is
located at the same place as the sign on the Ericksen property, and a theoretical sign the same height on
the opposite of the highway at fifty (50’) feet. The signs are trying to catch north and south bound with
a single angle. Are we going to allow 3-side or 4-sided signs? Staff has not looked at this type of sign in
the Development Code. Vince confirmed the Commission is only considering tonight the sign height.
The north exit has no buildings. A sixty-five (65’) building theoretical building was placed at the
interchange to show what the affect would be. A home is in one corner of this interchange. Vince
wanted to know the height of the Walmart sign. The sign is not very tall and they draw in a lot of
people. Walmart is more of a destination business. The Panda Express sign is 23.6 feet. Each off-
ramp is five (5) acres. The center of this interchange is wide-opened space comprised of about twenty
(20) acres. The massive land for the interchange pushes the signs farther from the road at this north
interchange. Fifty (50’) feet signs are blocked looking southbound, even by the shorter storage-units.
Your sign can be seen as long as no one builds a building down the highway on the left. At the ramp
where it meets N 2nd E, if someone builds in front of the sign, there will be blockage. Trees are required
for buffering, but will create some sign blockages as they grow. Depending on which direction you are
coming from, one side of the highway is favorable for signs and the other is not. The conditions make
it difficult to find solutions to benefit both the City and the community. Vince believes City Council is
going to be combing through the minutes. Please be sure to speak into the microphone. Alan said City
Council was very thorough in reading through Planning & Zoning’s minutes at the previous sign
interchange meeting. Someone has a small curved-piece of land is privately-owned, on which there is a
ditch, and could potentially build within 20’ from the right-of-way.
One suggestion at the City Council meeting was to reduce the interchange radius from 1500’ feet.
Staff does not feel this would create an advantage; they do not see a reason to reduce the interchange
radius. Staff does not see an advantage for just raising the sign height. But, Staff is willing to look at the
entire sign code to see if there would be a different situation that would have a greater benefit. Vince
confirmed McDonald’s sign height is one hundred twenty (120’) feet. CottonTree Inn is fifty (50’) feet.
Sinclair is a shorter height. Randall confirmed at time of land exchange (buying or selling), and when a
property is developed, sidewalks have to be built. Mr. Berry has a sidewalk in front of his property. The
15
tall signs are grandfathered as long as they leave the sign as is. Repair can occur, but replacement and
modifications to add to the sign, the sign would have to drop to the current code. Vince said a few
years ago, Burger King changed the skin of the sign, but they did not change the sign shape, size, etc.
Alan said Burger King requested to add to their sign, and Staff told them if they did so, they would have
to drop the sign to meet the current Code. Greg asked if the blue signs on the highway cost those
who put their businesses on those signs. Alan does not know; this is something we need to find out.
Vince asked Alan to give a summary of Scott’s findings last year on the signage. Alan said Scott
sponsored an experiment where a sign was put on a boom truck at forty (40’) feet and then at fifty (50’)
feet, and the group drove back and forth on the highway. The conclusion was a fifty (50’) feet sign
would meet the needs of the businesses, allowing a person in a vehicle to see those signs in time and be
able to exit. Greg asked how tall the elevator is at Valley Ag. The first elevator is one hundred twenty
(120’) feet tall and the second elevator is ninety (90’) feet tall. This fertilizer plant is in the County, but
also in the City’s Impact Area, causing Valley Ag to follow city code. Aaron confirmed there is no Staff
recommendation. Alan confirmed height alone is not the final answer for sign visibility. Perhaps, a
more comprehensive look of the whole sign code may be needed. Chairman Kunz said, regardless of
the decision we make, there will be more we need to research on signs. Tonight, we are only looking at
the application for a change in sign height due to the split of the City Council 50/50. The Mayor
thought it may make sense to have the Commission take a second look. Council member Johnson and
Council member Flora emphasized they did not believe the Commission made the wrong decision.
Alan said Patrick found the cost of the blue signs on the highway, which is $250 annually.
Commissioner Questions: None
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. Rory opened the hearing at
9:04p.m.
Favor:
Ryan Evans - 280 Jill Dr., Rexburg – He is the owner of Evans Hairstyling College in the
Valley Wide Business Park. This is an amazing tool, but it does not show the elevation change of
those intersections and thus is not an accurate picture. He has had a third party sign company
come in to create a sign for his business. The sign company does not believe a sign height of fifty
(50’) feet would be sufficient around the intersection. South of his property there are some
extremely large trees on the residential properties that border the business park. A week does not
go by without someone new coming in and saying we did not even know you were here. He
knows he cannot be the only business that is running in to this issue. Rexburg is located on a
major avenue that leads to one of the world’s greatest wonders, Yellowstone Park. There is so
much business income that could be brought to our community that could solve a lot of the
other issues the community is facing, Rexburg is missing. He does not run a large school. He
teaches young adults to cut hair and create a profession, but those who attend his school bring
money to Rexburg too. These students live in Rexburg housing; they buy from the local
16
supermarkets; they bring outside money to Rexburg for a time, but then leave. Something that
would make his business more visible would be life changing. He appreciates the comments
made here; there is more to it than just sign height. He does not have the answers. Taking the
right steps and doing it correctly is even more important.
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Written Correspondence:
Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 9:10p.m. Chairman Kunz anticipated more people attending tonight’s
meeting.
Rebuttal: Matt Berry does not have any more to add to his previous presentation. He knows
the Commission and he have different opinions. Matt is online to see the new information
17
presented. He was told Staff would do some GIS mock-ups to investigate the situation. Matt
appreciates the multiple viewpoints. He still stands by his opinion that his business would benefit
from a sign that is taller. He appreciates the discussion about the blue signs, which would be a
cheaper solution. Matt is asking for an equal playing field with his competition. He understands
his request affects all three interchanges.
Vince Haley asked if Matt Berry was able to see the GIS presentation on his screen. Matt Berry
confirmed he could see the presentation.
Commissioners Discussion: Jim has been thinking about this situation a lot. Over the last
couple of weeks, he has done some research. Jim is a Civil Engineer and his expertise is transportation
engineering. His field is trying to move from putting up things that destroy the natural beauty; this is
the push in his field. Raising the signs higher violates that in his mind. The Commission just sat
through a long, public hearing with people who expressed the rural feel was important to them. Putting
a bunch of taller signs around the interchanges, you start destroying the rural feel. The rural feel is one
of the things people love about Rexburg. Rexburg is going to grow, but that growth needs to be
managed wisely. He personally thinks the fifty (50’) feet sign height is generous. Looking at the
communities with height restrictions on signs along the highway; the communities he looked at have
allowed sign heights from twenty (20’) feet to forty (40’) feet. His other thought is the change affects
two other interchanges. If we make this decision on the basis of making competition fair, the
Commission is setting a very dangerous precedent. Who is to stop someone in town coming to the
Commission from bringing up the same argument to obtain a sign as tall as McDonalds? You changed
the sign height for this person; you should do it for me. He is opposed to changing the sign height.
Chairman Kunz says the precedent is a valid point, just in the simple fact another gas station
could use the same argument. Randall said he also reviewed the Comprehensive Plan, which he feels is
his job as part of being a Commissioner. What over time has the City encoded regarding signs not only
in the Comprehensive Plan but are reflected in the ordinances of the City? This effort has taken a lot of
people, a lot of time, effort, and citizen input to create that Plan. Any business who comes and requests
an ordinance change to benefit an individual business, he feels is a backward approach. He has a
problem with this. We should be saying to businesses, this is what we can offer you; these are our
parameters, because we want our community to look and feel a certain way. We have other ways of
stimulating business. He found a lot of language about balance about aesthetics, tourists, and local
people. We need not to react to people, but be proactive. He would rather see a forest of trees rather
than a forest of signs and find other ways to bring businesses in to the community. He has thought a lot
about this request as well. He has been up late at night; he has lost sleep. He thought to himself, he has
other things to do besides thinking about sign height. He quoted Chapter 1, pg. 11, paragraph 2 in the
Comprehensive Plan document, “…it is critical for public officials to remain well-versed in the current plan to assure
that day-to-day decision-making does not in some way disrupt the policies and long-term initiatives outlined herein.” He
does not think a seventy (70’) feet sign is going to affect his quality of life; he lives in a different
neighborhood. He feels the Comprehensive Plan is already good and the ordinances are in place.
Randall would be opposed to the change in sign height.
Greg says this is interesting. About two or three years ago, he and his wife talked about different
ways to advertise. He and his wife travel a lot. The blue signs on the exits help him find where he is
going. He already knows where his hotel is, because he puts this in his GPS. The signs on the buildings
is not something he is looking for. He sees the signs on the buildings. If he has a choice of food on
one side of the highway or the other, his choice of restaurants is determined by the ease of accessibility.
As far as the arguement someone would get more business due to a taller sign; he does not agree. He
18
feels the fifty (50’) feet sign height is fine. Perhaps a tool to help people become more known as to the
location of their business would be helpful. In Meridian, Idaho, on Eagle Road, the signs for all the
businesses in a business park are on a single plaza sign. Greg is an average guy; he does not look up to
those signs out of his level of view.
Kristi said as she read through the minutes she felt it was funny the sign was at twenty-four (24’)
feet only fourteen (14) years ago. The City would not change the sign height to go up to forty (40’) feet.
We have already exceeded forty (40’) feet. She was influenced by the presentation and she felt the taller
signs stood out more. Kristi completed a trip to Boise. Sometimes she felt the taller signs did not
bother her. The taller signs do create a more commercial feel. What do we want Rexburg to feel like?
Right now, when I drive by Rexburg, the signs do not stand out. A few stand out, but mostly there are a
lot of trees and some homes along the highway. She is torn. Do we keep the sign height fifty (50’) feet?
Do we let the sign height change to seventy (70’) feet and allow those interchange areas to become a
more commercial area? She hears the Commissioners say changing the sign height does not have to be
the avenue to increase the commercial businesses. The road Greg referred to is a very commercial area,
but the signs are not tall. The road is as beautiful as possible. These are some of the thoughts she has
been thinking about.
Jim said we do not want to make the same mistake again and end up with signs we do not like.
You can not go back once the sign is in place. Vince said he bets he is the only one in this room that
fills up his vehicles at Berry Oil. The gas is $1.10 per gallon. He feels the fuel is a higher grade than at
another station. When he mentions this fact to family and friends, their comment is I did not even
know I could fill up there. Right now, there is not a lot of retail advertisement. He had an experience
on a trip two to three years ago while traveling in Utah. He drove through a community with very low
signage; he vividly remembers the place and thinking why does this community not have any tall signs?
Obviously, there ordinance did not allow the taller signs. It made a difference in that community.
Vince liked the look of the community. Councilman Busby says he goes past the Conoco sign each day
and he does not notice how tall the Conoco sign is in comparison to the other signs. If you have not
noticed, then that means it is not making that big of a difference in comparison to competitors. The
Applicant mentioned people outside of the gas and oil industry could not afford a taller sign. He
mentioned a $250,000 as a sign price. McDonalds and the hotels have taller signs as well. Many other
businesses would be interested in having a taller sign. We have received more people against the taller
signs than for the taller signs. At City Council, the question was asked, if there is so much community
support against taller signs, where is that community support? The Commission has received more
support against the ordinance change than in support of the ordinance change. Scott Johnson, the
Economic Development Administrator, did a lot of research to determine fifty (50’) is tall enough.
Scott out of others, Vince feels, would remain the most neutral, allowing Vince to trust his opinion.
Scott’s job is to bring business into the city. Vince estimated fifteen to twenty businesses at each of the
Main and South interchanges that would have the right to go to the seventy (70’) feet sign height, if the
Commission approves the application. This would create more of a Mohawk effect in sign height. He
does not support the higher sign height. The effect on peoples’ skyline is not a valid argument; other
things pollute the skyline. He is open to the whole sign ordinance discussion. He likes the Jackson
Hole sign idea. He feels the sign ordinance in place is more of a cookie-cutter approach. He is not
open to raising the sign height.
David said it is a natural impulse for businesses to want to increase their visibility. He does not
believe you make ordinance changes based on competitive equality. A zone change hearing presented
tonight and based upon what was already in place could have been justified. The Commission decided
the request was not necessarily a good situation. There are all sorts of grandfathered problems
throughout the city. Then we get in an ordinance war. This is not a sound way to set up the code for
signs. The historical minutes demonstrate there has been an arms race in sign height from twenty-four
19
(24’) feet, to thirty-five (35’) feet, to forty (40’) feet, and fifty (50’) feet. At some point, we have to
decide what is reasonable for the community. Personally, he would like to see signs lower than fifty
(50’) feet, but fifty (50’) feet is where we are. This height strikes the balance Randall talked about. Scott
Johnson’s view about fifty (50’) feet being the right height for commercial competitiveness, while trying
to maintain a certain community aesthetic, is all important. He is opposed to changing the height to
seventy (70’) feet. He is open to looking at a more comprehensive review of the sign ordinances.
Todd does not believe the ordinance needs to been changed. Aaron appreciates the comments.
Last time, he was in favor of the change. He wants to share a few of his thoughts. In Dallas, there were
municipalities that set low, sign height from day one. This precedence works when decided from day
one. We are starting today and in our community the precedent has been set. The business has to deal
with that precedent regardless of where we are today – a height spectrum. Highway 20 is a business
corridor; it is an economic corridor; it is not a view corridor - there is nothing attractive; it is an
opportunity to pull business into our community. Changing the sign height from fifty (50’) feet to
seventy (70’) feet does not move the needle at all. When people come in and make multi-million dollar
investments to put hard corners on the highway, they are going to need to protect their investment with
signage. He believes the price for the taller signs will be a barrier to entry to prevent abuse. At the end
of the day, he believes the ordinance is broken. Aaron believes there should be a conditional use permit
for a sign. The ordinance needs to talk about joint signage as a way to work around the cost of sign
height. Aaron is support of the more economic view.
Chairman Kunz wanted to address some concerns he read in the notes. He remembers hearing
the Council Members having concern with the fairness of the sign height differences. Those Council
Members recommended reducing the radius of the interchanges. Changing the radius also affects
fairness. If we are talking fairness, the businesses farther from the interchanges are only allowed to be at
fifty (50')’feet, but those closer to the highway can have seventy (70’) feet signs. Meanwhile, we are
going to allow sixty-five (65’) feet tall buildings. Reducing the interchange radius does not make any
sense. He hopes City Council will see that those businesses farther away would need the taller signs
rather than those next to the interchange. Rory Kunz read all the sign history minutes too. In 2007,
sign companies at that time were saying forty (40’) feet was adequate. Those same sign companies keep
changing the suggested sign height; sign companies might have a monetary reason for saying a taller sign
makes more sense. He appreciates Commissioner Lawrence’s opinion and view of his field. He does
not think Rexburg has grown enough in those interchanges during this time to say we need twenty more
feet than the Commission considered in 2007. He believes a holistic view of the signs is not addressed
in our current ordinance that need to be addressed. Rory does not believe sign height is one of those
sign items that needs to be changed.
Vince asked for any last comments before he makes a motion. Randall thought about Mr. Berry’s
business; he hopes Mr. Berry builds something on his property. Mr. Berry’s business is in a good
location, even though Randall is opposed to changing the sign height. Randall is glad the semi-truck
visibility has not been discussed. As Randall looked at the target audience in the Comprehensive Plan
and the target audience are tourists, local people, and a focus on educators. Long-haul drivers are not
mentioned. As a local person, sign height means nothing to him. He looks at what the business is
offering him, is the item sold at a fair price, and is the item good quality. As a tourist, the Conoco sign
communicates the presence of gas, but the blue sign on the highway tells him he has a choice. If
Randall is driving southbound, he will often choose Berry Oil, because it is an easy-on, easy-off access to
the highway. The business is very visible when taking the right, off-ramp. Whether Mr. Berry builds at
this location or someone else, the business will be successful. Semi-trucks cannot go to Conoco,
because their pumps do not accommodate them. Statistics are broad in general, but when you look at a
specific instance, you throw the statistics out the window and look at the specifics. The Commission
encourages anyone to build even though we keep the sign height the way it is.
20
MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council reject raising the sign height and keep the
ordinance as is because the current sign height fits our community, with the hope to address
the sign ordinance features in the future excluding the sign height, Action: Deny, Moved by
Vince Haley, Seconded by Jim Lawrence.
Commission Discusses the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 8, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson,
Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Vince Haley.
No: Aaron Richards.
Attorney Spencer Rammell talked previously to move down, almost as a concession to a lower
zone and amend the application pre-meeting. In his view, as the Commission looks at applications, we
are guided by 67-6509. This part of the law requires the fifteen (15) day notice requirement. City
Council is not bound by this notice requirement. If the Commission moves the goal post and changes
what is actually being voted on, then we would be in violation of that statute. Someone could say this
way I was in opposition, but had I known the request was altered, then I would have been in opposition.
I did not have the opportunity to publically oppose it, because I was not given fifteen (15) days notice.
After the application goes through the Commission, the application has been publicly posted. The City
Council does not have to do another fifteen (15) day notice before hearing the application. The
Commission is bound by the noticed requirement as a gate keeper. In the past, this may have been
allowed. It seems practical to change the request at a meeting. Attorney Rammell will look into the
matter further and talk with Attorney Zollinger. This is why he counsels the all or nothing approach.
Aaron asked if the application be tabled prior to City Council. Alan said the application could
could be withdrawn and the Applicant could reapply with a different request. Attorney Rammell
confirmed with Tawnya the biggest expense is for the public notice. There can be a new application,
but the Applicant will have to pay to notice again fifteen (15) days prior to the meeting for public input.
Someone specifically mentioned reading the notice in the Standard Journal in a written response tonight.
The statutes are in place for a reason. Attorney Rammell is not tasked with giving City Council legal
advice, this is up to Attorney Zollinger. We have talked about Attorney Rammell’s view and how four
(4) different people can have a different opinion of what a word actually means. Vince confirmed if the
applicant withdraws, the fees would need to be paid again and republication would be needed. What
would an applicant’s reasoning be to withdraw versus be rejected? Tawnya said a cost would also be
time. A month and a half delay is possible to process another application. Attorney Rammell said a
notice identifies a specific zone for a rezone request. Individuals who have an interest in their property
could be opposed. The application was not denied with prejudice. The Commission was clear in their
reasons for the decision they made on the rezone decision tonight. Alan asked Attorney Rammell if the
application goes to City Council, the Council could overrule the Planning & Zoning Commission.
Attorney Rammell said the Council could overrule the Commissions’ decision. There is a reason the
hearings are held before the Commissioners, a group of people from different perspectives of the
community. The Council will look at the comments to understand the reasoning for the decision.
Aaron confirmed a majority at City Council would be needed. Attorney Rammell said the
Commissions’ decision is advisory.
21
Heads Up:
May 6th Hearings:
1. (21-00189) – 2332 W 2000 S – Rezone adjacent portion to the church from Low-Density
Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) (action) – Brandt Monette
2. (21-00057) – Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment & Designation Chart – Reducing the
number of Comprehensive Plan Map designations to follow parcel lines and amending the
Comprehensive Plan Map to reflect those designations. (action) – City of Rexburg
3. (21-00170) – 4 parcels at Approx. 459 W Main - RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130,
RPRRXB10430160, RPRRXB10430100 – Rezone from Medium-Density Residential 1 & Mixed-
Use to High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2). (action) – Rachel Whoolery
Adjournment 9:58PM