Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11.18.2021 P&Z Minutes_exppdf 1 City Staff and Others: Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Kyle Baldwin – Planner 1 Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Spencer Rammell – Commissioner Attorney Chairperson Smith opened the meeting at 6:30PM. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Greg Blacker, John Bowen, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards. Absent: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Randall Kempton, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper. Minutes: Planning and Zoning meeting November 4, 2021 (action) MOTION: Motion to approve the minutes for the Planning & Zoning meeting as recorded for November 4, 2021, Action: Approve, Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion: Chairperson Smith said Attorney Zollinger said individual start times for each hearing are not needed, only a start time for the meeting to begin. She asked the Commissioners what they thought. David said he is in full support. The Commissioners are often waiting for the stated time on the agenda. Chairperson Smith said the time for the start of the meeting will be noted on the agenda in the future, but there will not be individual times set for each hearing thereafter. Discussion about holding the December 16, 2021. Tawnya stated there are no hearings scheduled for the December 16th meeting. A plat could possibly make the agenda. David clarified the December 2nd meeting has a scheduled hearing. The group will decide at the December 2nd meeting. Chairperson Smith said next year the Commission will have training meetings, so we will probably not miss any in 2022. Public Hearings: 1. 6:35PM (21-00754) Rexburg West DIV2 – Annexation & Rezone from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) & Community Business Center (CBC) to Mixed Use (MU). The parcel is in the floodplain. The development will have to follow all floodplain requirements. The parcel is 18.66 acres. (action) – Mitch Neibaur 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes November 18, 2021 2 Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – City of Rexburg – The parcel was shown on the map. Recently, the Commissioners recommended the rezone of the parcel at the corner of 12th W and Hwy 33 to Mixed Use (MU) southwest of tonight’s parcel. The Applicant is requesting annexation into the city and a rezone of Rexburg West DIV2 to Mixed Use. The Comprehensive Plan designation of Commercial/Mixed Use matches the rezone request. The land can be serviced with utilities. The Applicant is aware that the parcel is in the floodplain; he is aware of the requirements needed if the land is developed. Alan said Staff is neutral on this request. David asked is this largely due to the sewer and water service. Alan said no. The concern is meeting the requirements for floodplain; it can be done. Building the land up will be expensive. Until official grades are measured, and floodplain certificates established, it will not be known exactly what will be needed. Commissioner Questions: David asked to see the floodplain boundaries. Alan said just for your information, the accuracy of the map is approximate, erring on the side of more rather than less. The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map for the area is the most accurate. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) does not currently have a digital map. When in the floodplain, the buildings will have to be built one (1’) foot above the floodplain. Aaron asked if this requirement applies to a public right-of-way. Alan 3 said the requirement does not apply to the right-of-way; it only applies to occupied buildings. Greg knew FEMA was going to come in and expand the floodplain. Does the map show the expansion? Alan answered it was not. The map shows current measurements. Madison County is working on negotiations for the new FIRM map. It may take three to five (3-5) years before we see a digital map. Alan said there are efforts to get the area reduced. Chairperson Smith identified there is no grandfathering of structures within the floodplain. All buildings have to be brought up to the identified levels. David asked about the rate of drop from Rexburg West DIV1 to Rexburg West DIV2. Mitch Neibaur answered from the audience, the elevation would have to be raised three to four (3-4’) feet from present levels. Aaron asked about the hole of the donut; have the properties been approached to be included in the annexation. Alan answered they were contacted and chose not to be annexed at this time. The properties do not want to pay additional taxes with no added benefit. Aaron asked if the “flagpole” of the property is right-of- way. Mitch Neibaur confirmed the “flagpole” is deeded right-of-way. Greg asked if this property is adjacent to the boathouse mobile home community. Alan said there is a parcel between Rexburg West DIV2 and the boathouse mobile home community. Greg asked if the golf course and Pine Brook are in the city limits. Alan confirmed the golf course and Pine Brook are in city limits. Greg asked if the boathouse mobile home community is hooked up to city water and sewer. Alan said it is hooked up to city water and sewer, but they pay a higher fee for service. City water and sewer stops on McJon, servicing Rustin Townsend’s place (1154 McJon Ln) we recently annexed. Applicant Presentation: Mitchel C. Neibaur – 1040 S 5600 E – He is the manager of this property. Rexburg West DIV1 will extend to the north into tonight’s parcel via Sawtelle Avenue and Firehole Drive. He confirmed his aware of the floodplain measurements and he knows those accommodations would be needed for development on Rexburg West DIV2. He is not trying to circumvent this issue at all; he is prepared to meet the floodplain requirements for building. 4 An artist rendition of the entrance of Rexburg West DIV1 was shown. You can see the boathouse mobile home community in the distance. He is trying to create a place that will incentivize others to come to this area to help build a neighorhood. This neighborhood would encompass the area from W Main Street to the Teton Lakes Golf Course and from N 12th W to Hwy 20. The area begs for a master planned community. The combination of houses and businesses will reduce the traffic to other areas. There is a Comprehensive Plan and a Comprehensive Plan Map. When the process begins, Mitch goes to the map to see what the city would like to see in the parcel’s area. The map shows Commercial/Mixed Use on the Rexburg West DIV2 parcel. 5 When you go back and look at our history, his family was some of the pioneers that settled in this area. He lived in Newdale but farmed in the Green Canyon area. Living in these areas allowed Mitch and his family to be a part of two communities. The Mixed Use is attractive to Mitch because resources and neighborhoods are combined. Right now, if he wants to build a home in the County, he must purchase a minimum of two (2) acres. He can build a nice home on a parcel that size, but for the same amount of land zoned Mixed Use, thirty (30) units are allowed per acre to give sixty (60) people homes to live in. One hundred twenty acres in Madison County would be needed to provide the same number of people homes. He loves Logan, Utah, and Cache Valley. Logan, Utah, developed with a long Main Street to Smithville. With this long Main Street, this is their business district. The businesses build in a single row with limited residential. You cannot exist in Logan, Utah, without a car. A closer example is 17th Street in Idaho Falls. 17th Street is another dynamic, commercial area with limited residential availability. Conditions make traffic fast with a focus on car access. Mitch’s project provides an opportunity to dine, live, and work in the same area. The developments’ benefits are it brings people together, pulls traffic off of the roads, and it will add to the city’s and county’s tax base. Mixed Use doesn’t fit everywhere, but we think this is a good place for it. Commissioner Questions: Aaron asked on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, has an engineer gone out and shot the topography. Mitch said this has not occurred, it usually happens later. On the Rexburg West DIV1 northeast corner, there is a monitoring well. The well goes down twenty (20’) feet. No reclamation was needed on Div. 1, because there is no elevation change. He realizes fill is expensive. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:54PM. Favor: Matt Griffith – 5569 W 6000 N, Rexburg – He is here this evening in support of this application. He does not have any financial tie to Rexburg West DIV2. He owns some of the land up closer to Hwy. 33 in Rexburg West DIV1. He hopes to move his dental practice to this location at one point. He is in favor of having a good plan for this area. Matt feels there is a demand for Mixed Use. People coming to the city, some of them are looking for alternatives to apartment complexes. His wife would prefer living in a mixed-use project without a yard. This kind of situation has the potential to simplify your life. Mitch Neibaur – Last night, there was a City Council meeting. Scott Johnson and Ted Hendricks shared information about some grants. Tisha Flora, in that same meeting, repeated a figure stated by a consultant for Urban Renewal who said Madison County’s population growth was anticipated to be 100,000 by 2040. This is an alarming number. He talked about the movie, Dances with Wolves. The Native Americans, who are threatened, do not know what is coming or who is coming. The wise, old, Native American Chief turns to Kevin Costner and asks how many people are coming. Kevin answers, “like the stars.” Mitch says he cannot stop the growth, but hopefully we can influence that growth. Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: 6 Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:00PM. Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Smith 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. Commissioner Discussion: Chairperson Smith said she thinks these are great projects and her only concern would be the floodplain. She asked Alan if there are a lot of businesses in the city that are located in the floodplain. Do we consider the floodplain in our 7 Comprehensive Plan planning? How has the floodplain been handled? Alan said we do have businesses in the floodplain. The floodplain is considered in the planning for the Comprehensive Plan, but we cannot restrict building in the floodplain. The floodplain exists in the center of our city. Most of these buildings were built prior to requirements to build above the floodplain. Chairperson Smith said in real estate for certain loans, they cannot be obtained for parcels in the floodplain. Alan said right now, we do not have a flood way. In a flood way, no structures can be built and the land cannot be filled. Chairperson Smith said an elevation study could identify a parcel is out of the floodplain. Alan said $1,000-$1,500 is the price to get someone to come and look at the floodplain level. Aaron said there is another project in the city in the 100-year floodplain and the cost to raise the project out of the floodplain killed the project. A multi-family project could actually set the project up for success enabling a larger budget. The developer will take the land out of the 100-year flood level. The density will allow the budget to raise the land three to four (3’-4’) feet. This use is a good way to use peripheral floodplain land. This makes sense. David said he has no concerns with the floodplain. His concerns are more about the traffic and the intersection of 12th W and Hwy 33. Will this development push the intersection to failure? Alan answered a Traffic Impact Study would be needed to determine the impacts. Keith Davidson, Public Works Director, has looked at this area. Keith is working on a Transportation Study update. Traffic counts have been conducted to drive the Transportation Plan and determine our strengths and weaknesses. The interchange, a diverging diamond, will be built in 2023. This will ease the ability for people to flow in and out of the city, allowing an offset of the pressure on 12th W and Hwy 33. On Rexburg West DIV1, only a right-in, right-out is allowed on Hwy 33. Rexburg West DIV2 will access via 12th W. This will cause Staff to look at 12th W to determine if it needs to be widened. If it is required, the developer will bear their share of those changes that are determined from the Traffic Study. Mitch said the land has already been deeded to the State for another lane for this development on Hwy 33 for a 7-lane configuration. The State has already anticipated what could happen. There will be increased traffic in this area whether his development goes in or not. He is not aware of a street in Madison County that is anticipated to be wider than Hwy 33. Greg said he would love to have businesses on the west side of town. He thinks this is a good plan. John Bowen likes the idea of having Mixed Use in this area instead of having Community Business Center or Transitional Agriculture. MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council the annexation of Rexburg West DIV 2 and rezone from Transitional Agriculture (TAG) & Community Business Center (CBC) to Mixed Use (MU), because it is a good use of the property., Action: Approve, Moved by John Bowen, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx. 8 2. 6:40PM (21-00802) Mobile Vendor – Development Code Ordinance Amendment. A previous draft was presented to the Commission and City Council in response to brick-and-mortar, business complaints with mobile vendors. After receiving input from community members, it was determined a more comprehensive review of the ordinance was needed prior to approval and the previous draft was denied. This ordinance represents those changes. (action) – City of Rexburg Applicant Presentation & Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – City of Rexburg – One of the key elements Staff realized was in the previous draft there was an emphasis on food alone. Why would we limit this to food? The previous ordinance did not regulate someone who wants to sell t-shirts, hats, sculptures, etc. Now the ordinance allows mobile vendors of all types, including fireworks stands. One of the questions that came up during input with current mobile vendors, was regulations for how trailers are set up. Now, the ordinance reads the International Business Code (IBC) and the International Fire Code (IFC) requirements need to be met as they are adopted by the City. Amendments made to the map, because some of the areas identified did not fit, like one in a residential only area on 1st North. Alan asked for questions. Commissioner Questions: Aaron asked who does the inspections? Alan said the Building Department, Fire Department, and the State has inspections for the construction of the trailers. Bret, Building Official, said the Department of Health & Welfare will jump in for food services. Greg said are we in conflict with the International Building Code (IBC) already. Bret, Building Official, said the application of the IBC depends on the specifics of the structure. Electrical, water, or sewer services or connections would fall under their city, adopted codes as applicable. David asked if there is the monitoring of generators and fuels will be a city responsibility. Alan said those are all fire department regulations. This simplified the code and kept the ordinance current. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:18PM. Favor: None Neutral: Jessica Mortensen – 210 Nez Perce, Rexburg – She is neutral because there are some things she is for and some things she does not believe are necessary. Jessica appreciates the time Staff has taken to listen to the mobile vendors’ concerns. Many of those concerns were addressed in the changes presented tonight. The fifty (50’) feet rule was removed. Seasonal was changed to Private Property Vendor. The changes make sense. The concerns she has, now that she is looking for a new spot, she has to look at the potential for a mobile vending court. She is not sure a mobile vendor would be able to afford the rent a landowner would need to charge for the required developments. Jessica will not want to sign a year-round contract, because she does not want to be open year-round. Starter businesses would be paying almost as much as a brick-and-mortar business. She is not aware of more than two vendors at a location. The screening of garbage language was confusing, because a lot of brick-and-mortar food locations do not screen their dumpsters. The vendors cannot see from a profiting standpoint the benefit of using the mobile vending court option. She is finding places to cooperate with established businesses is difficult. 9 Dave Thompson could not attend, and he asked Jessica to pass on a few points. He is worried that the bbq trucks will not be able to meet the requirements now. She and Dave have had quite a few vendors reach out to them. They are waiting to see how this ordinance goes to determine if they will come to town. Jessica has considered not reopening. Some of the landowners they have talked to are willing to put in the money and some are not. Robyn Eastin – 965 Green Haven, Rexburg – She is here to support what Jessica has said. She has similar concerns. The cost is a concern, and the movement of her mobile vending structure is more difficult. There was a part in the previous ordinance where seasonal vendors could only be located on a parcel for six (6) months at a time if the parcel was privately-owned. Alan confirmed the 6-month clause has been removed. Robyn continued, at the Porter location, she had to move due to the timing of the change of this 6-month rule. For her, it is not about her or the money, but it is about the fun, community, involvement, and opportunity to employ young people. Because it is becoming a burden to move, and find a location, it is becoming more complicated. She will not go the mobile-vendor route. She is looking for a place to set up permanently, year-round. She is also appreciative of Staff to simplify and welcome the mobile vendors into the community. She has owned Snoasis for fifteen (15) years and Soda Vine. Robyn would hate to see the mobile vendors disappear. Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:30PM. Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Smith 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. Commissioner Discussion: John asked about the how many vendors are on the piece of land the ladies are looking at. Jessica clarified there are no mobile vending courts. The property she was previously on has been sold. There are several options the mobile vendors could be a part of. Aaron clarified any kind of vendor can go on private property. And any vendor can go in the mobile vending court? Alan confirmed this is the case. The private property option is less restrictive. The opportunity of a mobile food court is being established by this ordinance. Aaron said if you go to Austin, Denton, Dallas, or Chicago have amazing mobile food courts. His grandfather was a huge advocate for a freeway system and the oil and gas companies were there biggest opponents. This ordinance is moving in the right direction. The mobile vending courts will be privately run. If someone charges too much, than the other guy will beat him by offering less; private competition will fix any inefficiencies in the market. The mobile vending court sets a situation up for the future. He appreciates the work that has been done. In every city he has seen it done correctly, it has been a homerun. Alan said the goal of the rewrite was to make things more simple and easier. Greg said operating time is from April to October. Are there any locations that operate year-round with our climate? Alan said he is not sure of one that has our same climate, many food courts are located in warmer areas to allow a longer operation time 10 period. A mobile-vending court is more of a permanent situation like a brick-and-mortar. Some screening of dumpsters are grandfathered, but new businesses are required to comply with the dumpster screening. Sewer, water, grease, and natural gas need to be monitored in a mobile vending court and inspected. Robyn asked if you are still allowing two mobile vendors on the same property. Alan said this would still be allowed, but once there are three mobile vendors, a mobile vending court set-up is needed. Greg asked how the mobile vendors are regulated in Logan, Utah. Jessica said the requirements are similar, but they do not have a mobile-vending court; they are operating in developed, parking lots. Chairperson Smith appreciates the coordination with the mobile vendors changes that have been made with this ordinance. David appreciates the time spent on this ordinance. He is glad to see some of the prohibitive requirements pulled out; this seems to be a more flexible arrangement. The challenge right now is market forces. No one has developed a mobile court, yet. He likes where this ordinance is going. John likes this ordinance; he used to own many fast-food restaurants. He agrees with Aaron, this situation is coming; this is what the city is trying to do to prepare the community for the mobile vending opportunities. This ordinance is a great concept. Let’s continue to work on it and get it going. MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council to approve the Mobile Vending ordinance as drafted, because this document captures a good deal of compromise between the vendors and the city., Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Todd Marx seconded. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx. 3. 6:45PM (21-00803) 328 N 2nd E – Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Household Good Warehousing & Storage, Truck Rental, and related retail sales. The parcel is in a Community Business Center (CBC) zone and requires a Conditional Use Permit for Household Good Warehousing & Storage. Truck Rentals are permitted but have a series of conditions. Automobile Accessories are permitted, as well as Variety Stores. (action) – Casey Jones Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – City of Rexburg – Dairy Queen was identified and Jessica Mortensen’s former location for her mobile-vending trailer. The Applicant wants to put storage on this property as part of their project and in the Community Business Center (CBC) zone, a Conditional Use Permit is required. Staff has looked at this request and we feel the application meets the requirements. The storage will have to be buffered, so it is protected from the street. A store front will be on N 2nd E. The services, water, and sewer are available. A water line goes through this property and they will have to work around it. The Applicant is working on a Site/Infrastructure Plan. Staff would recommend a pproval with the following conditions: 1. All storm drainage to be handled on -site. 2. Work with Staff on an approved Site Plan . 3. A Traffic Impact Study may be needed. 11 4. Meet with the Idaho Transportation Department for access to 2 nd East (Hwy 33). 5. Storage of vehicles on-site cannot exceed the parking allocated for the leasable floor space for the business. 6. No on-site servicing of the vehicle fleet including mechanical and wash facilities. Commissioner Questions: Aaron asked if the main egress will be off of N 2nd E. Alan said one access will be on N 2nd E, one on N 3rd E, and potentially, in the future, E 4th N. Aaron asked where will the storage be staged? Alan answered the storage is staged on the east side of the property. A final site plan has not been submitted to Staff due to changes they are making. We try not to talk about the plan. There will be a corporate U-haul store, controlled environment storage, and regular storage. David confirmed the applicant is aware of the conditions. Greg asked if the storage space would be considered for parking. Alan said the storefront and the places addressing customers will be considered for parking. Typically, the building uses per 1,000 square feet for customers will determine the number of parking spaces. Chairperson Smith said this a lot like a car lot. Applicant Presentation – Casey Jones – 11701 W Cross Slope Way, Nampa – He wants to verify this is not a typical, storage facility. Typically, you see a concrete slab with rows of storage units. There will be a row or two of these outdoor storage units. The primary product will be a multi-story, indoor climate-controlled building with a beautiful finish. Loading and unloading will occur inside the building. The inside storage will protect the customers’ belongings from the elements. On the subject of parking, as a truck comes in, an inspection will be conducted and shunted in preparation for it to go back out. Staff and he will have a discussion about this process in conjunction with the parking. This will be a beautiful product. Casey is extremely excited to come in to the community. There are some amazing neighborhood dealerships and this business will help support them with inventory. This business will help the students move in and out several times a year. At least half the students come in have to go to Victor or Idaho Falls to get an available truck or trailer. This request will help sustain the demand of the city. Commissioner Questions: None Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:51PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: DJ Barney – 440 W 1st N, Rexburg – He was referred to as one of those an amazing, neighborhood dealers by Casey. He has storage units and some U-Haul. He knows they have been trying to put a U-Haul business in the town for some time. DJ is not trying to take away any property owner’s rights. He prefers U-Haul not come to town; there are a lot of dealers in town that take care of the local need. They provide better service than any corporate store can. Casey’s comment about bringing more inventory to Rexburg. DJ does not understand how this could be. Casey, sometimes has DJ drive to all kinds of distant locations like Wyoming to bring in the trucks. There will not be more trucks unless they are building them. The vehicles come out on N 2nd E are not the same as those coming out of Dairy Queen. There are no trucks like these in this area. Ten (10’) feet, twenty (20’) feet, and 12 twenty-six (26’) feet trucks, possibly pulling trailers, will pulling out onto N 2nd E. Lots of people, who rent these vehicles, have not driven anything larger than a Toyota Camry. Their first experience will be to pull out onto N 2nd E. There is not a business on N 2nd E that will put more truck and trailer traffic out onto N 2nd E without a stoplight. DJ hopes the city looks at the types of vehicles during the Traffic Impact Study and not just the number of vehicles. He does not see the potential increase in economic development in bringing jobs to town, but more than likely, it will take away from local businesses. There are some dealers in town that do a large amount of U-Haul business that will be reduced due to the corporate U- Haul facility coming to town. Years ago, back in the late 90s, the City put a cease and desist order on his U-Haul business on 1st North, because the neighbor had taken a picture of them hooking up a trailer across the street where Homestead is now located. Their employees were supposed to bring the trailers across the street for hook-up, which cost him a U-Haul dealership at that time. He was told this is not a good fit for this area. Before buying all the property out on Airport Rd. He came into the Commissioners for a U-Haul business on Hwy 33. The Commissioners told DJ it was not a good fit for that location either and he would probably agree. Now, out on Airport Rd., he has all the room he needs. He hopes a restriction is put on the property for the number of trucks that will come in at different times of the year. There have been times he has had 150 pieces of U-Haul equipment on his property at one time. But if it comes in, they will squeeze it somewhere. If you drive to see a corporate store, you will see that the corporate store puts those pieces of equipment in every nook and cranny they possibly can. If you do not want 2nd E to look like this, you need to put conditions as to how much equipment can be located on the premise. A trick sometimes used is the building of temporary structures to accommodate units as needed after the Conditional Use Permit is issued. Temporary structures are often not regulated. He has seen this has happened in Ammon and Idaho Falls. He would love the Commission to table this request. This is the largest storage facility that has come to Rexburg at one time. He suggests the Commissioners Google U-Haul and Planning & Zoning problems. He is not against U-Haul coming, but it is not bringing anything to Rexburg. There are several storage-unit projects in and around Rexburg currently in the works. Downtown is not the best location for this building. He suggests tabling the application. John asked if the main route would be coming and going on N 2nd E. DJ says he hasn’t seen the site plan. This use is proposed on the old John Deere property. This same issue is on the Northgate mile with access. He anticipates a large amount of signage and banners. Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Casey Jones – He does not hold any ill feelings toward DJ. DJ has some legitimate concerns. The business does not want to cause any accidents on N 2nd E. The financial and inventory trade secrets will not be eluded to. He has the opportunity to see a different point-of-view. Two stores was put in Idaho Falls and Ammon and it actually improved the dealerships in the area to fill the needs of the community. Casey would like to sit down with DJ on a one-on-one basis, because he wants to support DJ’s business. He 13 doesn’t want DJ driving to Wyoming to get a truck anymore. There are some options. We can make sure when a truck is dispatched, it does not go directly out on to N 2nd E. He thought he sent in a Site Plan. The equipment will be located closer to N 3rd E. Casey will accept the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit. There are a lot of options for inventory control. We do not have to put signs up everywhere. If the City says no signs, they do not put up signs. He will comply with the city laws, be a good neighbor, and try to support the community. The climate-controlled, indoor storage is a product not currently available in Rexburg. U-Haul just received a beautification award at a store they have in Pocatello. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 8:10PM. Commissioner Discussion: John said the busiest street in this town is N 2nd E. Cars were backed up to the temple all the way past the railroad tracks. There has got to be a better location. A lot of land is open around this town. He cannot see the purpose of putting the business right in the middle of town. John is against the proposal. Aaron asked Casey if maintenance is prohibited on the site, where would maintenance be conducted. There is a shop in town for maintenance. Casey answered U-Haul has a maintenance shop in Idaho Falls. There are also outside garage vendors in Rexburg for maintenance and repair. Aaron confirmed the business would be supporting local repair shops. Casey said it is more profitable to use repair facilities within the community. Aaron said, in general, are you going to inventory the site by pulling from your local dealers or will you have new inventory you will designate to the site. Casey said there will be a mixture; there will be inventory that we dedicate and some that is exchanged. Once the store is put in like this, there is more equipment than you realize that comes into town. As a consumer, when you see a nice store like this, you are more likely to drop off the vehicle at a location like this when you are done. There is a huge demand; times have occurred when fifty (50) trucks have been brought in to help the town out. The extra inventory on-site will help with that. He does not believe DJ and himself will compete with each other. The goal is to de-centralize. Casey anticipates the number of trucks leaving the property on a given day is probably three (3) or four (4). He is wondering if having the trucks come off onto E 4th N to access N 2nd E. These are things he would like to discuss. U-Haul is a multi-dimensional business. This business will bring jobs into the community. Aaron asked is this the only climate-controlled storage facility in Madison County. Casey said other facilities of this type may be limited to a single-level by the required fire suppression system. Aaron asked what the typical, annual, property-tax bill would be. Casey does not have this information right now, but he could get it. Aaron asked, would you be able to operate the business if the egress or dispatch would be limited to N 3rd E. Casey said it would be workable. Todd asked if all the inventory available would be the larger trucks. Casey said the site has been planned for these larger trucks as well. The Site Plan has been arranged with an open plan. Parking will also have some restrictions. Model-based controls may also be utilized. The larger trucks could be limited and monitored digitally. David asked Alan about the impact. Should the Traffic Study be conducted prior to a Conditional Use Permit? Alan said the development would have to be submitted to prompt the Traffic Impact Study. David’s concern was the travel through residential neighborhoods with trucks. Alan said our traffic is going to begin to grow and some days it is bad. Alan confirmed with Casey about the percentage of storage units around about eight to ninety (80%-90%) percent of the lot, with truck rental as a small portion. Alan suggested the Commission consider Deseret Industries and Basic American truck traffic on N 2nd E. Keith, the Public Works Director, is monitoring the situation carefully. John is 14 thinking more about increased traffic verses whether a stoplight can be used. To deny someone business on the basis we might meet failure could be registered as a taking. Attorney Rammell confirmed this is the case. Aaron asked if a Site Plan could be attached to the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). He said if we need a corporate business to invest in this kind of facility, it is brilliant. A lot of these conditions could be addressed with an attached Site Plan. This sounds more like a storage facility with some truck rental verses a truck rental facility with a small portion of storage. If the truck rental is a small portion, he is more in favor. Alan said what was shown to Staff was more of a focus on storage units, rather than a large portion of truck and trailer rental. Casey said the truck and trailer rental is really an accessory to the warehousing and storage. Chairperson Smith said this is a 7-acre piece and a lot of different uses could be put there that could cause more traffic than this request. Alan said the truck rental could happen on the property as a permitted use in the zone. The Conditional Use Permit is only for the household storage. John said that is a problem allowed in our Development Code. Greg said this is a Conditional Use Permit, and we are at a disadvantage, because we do not have a Site Plan to know what conditions are needed. Attorney Rammell said City Staff has digression over the conditions. “1.04.030.D. The Planning and Zoning Commission may, without approval of the Council, grant the following Conditional Use Permits (C.U.P.): Household goods warehousing and storage.” David confirmed the Commission is the deciding body for this Conditional Use Permit. Attorney Rammell said with Conditional Use Permits, there is wide discretion in the courts. The Commission is correct in thinking a lot of the conditions are site specific. Not only can the Commission add conditions but the Commission can give leeway to Staff to look at for example, traffic impact. At another Commission meeting, there was discussion about going back at a later time and alter conditions based on findings to a Conditional Use Permit. The courts have not had recent examples concerning this situation. The Commission can say something like we reserve the right to come back in the future and place additional conditions as needed. We do not like to do that sometimes, because the landowner is put in a conspicuous spot with a situation like moving the goalpost. Instead of putting a specific number on trucks today, you could put a more generalized statement and include a condition for Staff to look at traffic conditions. The Commission may use general language today to allow City Staff to look at the submittal in the future and make the necessary changes. Alan said this is Idaho Transportation Department’s road, and they will look at the ingress/egress also. The Site Plan presented to Staff showed additional accesses on N 3rd E and E 4th N. Staff will monitor the development. John asked if he wanted to buy the property and put two hundred (200) rental storage units, could he do it. The Commissioners answered an approved Conditional Use Permit would be needed. Alan said we must let people develop their land as they need to. He listed several locations in the city for current, storage units. Todd said we are forgetting there will be a store front on N 2nd E as well. David feels this is a product we need in Rexburg. He confirmed the Traffic Study would provide a situation to consider the impact of traffic on N 3rd E. Greg asked if not following ingress/egress rules, if broken, would be ticketed. Attorney Rammell answered the ingress/egress would be controlled by the State. He said you could add a condition to have Staff consider the safest way for traffic. Aaron is leaning toward a motion to support this but to add a condition to work with the Staff work with the applicant to emphasize the egress more to N 3rd E and E 4th N. Chairperson Smith said or work with Staff on determining the safest ingress/egress. 15 Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Smith 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. MOTION: Motion to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Household Good Warehousing and Storage with the listed Staff conditions and add a condition that Staff work with Traffic Engineers to direct traffic in the safest route possible emphasizing N 3rd E and E 4th N, due to the intensity of use and because this is a good product for Rexburg., Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Sally Smith (Chairperson). Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 0). Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx. No: John Bowen. Tabled Items: None Report on Projects: None Heads Up: December 2nd Hearings: 1. (21-00860) 154 N 4th E – Rezone from LDR2 to MDR1 Adjournment