Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 2.17.22_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 5:11PM. 5:00 PM – Work Meeting – Commissioner Training – Attorney Rammell - Alan explained if any of the Commissioners have questions, to please feel free to ask them. Attorney Rammell does not want this to be a lecture, but more of a discussion. With so many new Commissioners, we need to develop a baseline of knowledge. As he prepared, he was reminded where people are a little comfortable. We have so many zone changes, we treat the other applications similarly. Specific criteria needs to be considered for each type of application. We will see growth; it is happening all around us. We are seeing more development, which will cause contention with those people opposed to change. LLUPA The longest-serving Commissioners have been on the board for just over three years. Attorney Rammell would like to focus on the practical application of the laws as they apply to applicants and their submittal applications. Aaron asked about incorporated and non-incorporated areas of the city. Attorney Rammell responded there are different rules for incorporated and non-incorporated. However, Aaron confirmed even Madison County is going to fall under the regulations of the Constitution. Attorney Rammell said one way we can look at it is the Local Land Use Planning Act (LLUPA) stems from the Constitution and provides the authority. Under LLUPA, the City needs to have a Comprehensive Plan. He asked Alan how often the Comprehensive Plan needs to be updated. Alan responded, we are supposed to review that plan a minimum of once every ten to fifteen years. Thereafter, the plan is supposed to be reviewed yearly. Attorney Rammell asked, how old is the City of Rexburg’s Comprehensive Plan? Alan answered, our Comprehensive Plan has not been reviewed since 2008. Attorney Rammell asked how many Olympics ago was this? Alan clarified there has been modifications to the Comprehensive Plan Map, but there has not been any changes or review of the text itself. Currently, there are Request for Proposals (RFPs) submitted right now, and the deadline for submittals is March 22nd. The goal is to bring a revised Comprehensive Plan text before the Commissioners and Council by this fall. Comprehensive Plan Changes - Map vs. Text Attorney Rammell asked, if someone wants to come in and change the text of the Comprehensive Plan, how long does is take? “67-6509: (d) Any person may petition the commission or, in absence of a commission, the governing board, for a plan amendment at any time, unless the governing board has established by resolution a minimum interval between consideration of requests t o amend, which interval shall not exceed six (6) months. The commission may recommend amendments to the comprehensive plan and to other ordinances authorized by this chapter to the governing board at any time .” Alan said a change in text or map requires the changes to come before the Planning & Zoning Commission, then the City Council. According to this law, the specific city has to record a waiting period if desired, not to exceed six (6) months. Tawnya confirmed, in the past, six months of Comprehensive Plan Map amendments were held, then brought to the Commission and Council, but this does not happen anymore. Perhaps, the law changed. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes February 17, 2022 2 Attorney Rammell recalled when Steve Oakey served on the Commission, he asked why we have a Comprehensive Plan. It essentially does not hold much water; the law says we are supposed to follow the Plan, but then the courts give us outs to not follow the Plan. Through the Comprehensive Plan, we have zoning districts. Eric said he sees Steve Oakey’s point, if the plan is not static to some degree. If every time someone comes in to get a zone change, they have to also change the Comprehensive Plan, then why have a Comprehensive Plan. Once the plan is established, it should be fairly static for five to ten years. Alan said let us think of it a little differently. When a Comprehensive Plan is made, the group is trying to project twenty (20) years into the future. The Plan is a vision, but it helps to guide the decisions the groups approve or not. You know as well as I do, this plan can be affected by a simple announcement on one side of town. If we do not have something that gives us an overall picture of where we want to go, then you would allow any request that comes. We can look at the plan and ask ourselves, are we making this change because it is better then what we envisioned, or should we follow what we have already laid out in our guiding document. The Comprehensive Plan is not locked in stone, but we can use it to make a judgement call. Attorney Rammell said in many instances there is a little bit of a gray area. The best example he can think of is the Constitution. The Constitution guarantees us certain rights, the things we do need to be in accordance with the document, but it could be changed. Eric said like the Constitution example, changing the Comprehensive Plan should not be based on one application, a change should come after multiple requests and be a difficult process. Attorney Rammell said if a change is being made on the Comprehensive Plan Map, this can be done by one application, but the change of the goals and objectives of the text itself, is a more lengthy, community-involved process. Eric asked if every zone changes necessitates a change in the Comprehensive Plan map. Alan responded, no, if the zone request is allowed within the designation on the Comprehensive Plan map, no change is need to the Comprehensive Plan map. For example, if my request is for RR1, RR2, or TAG in the Rural designation, I am complying with the Comprehensive Plan map. If I want to do LDR1, LDR2, or LDR3, I am not in compliance. If someone comes in and requests HDR in a Rural area, it is the Commissions’ job to look at that request and decide if this is where HDR would be a good fit. Or you may look at the parcel, see it is adjacent to other HDR, the city is growing and expanding, higher buildings are being built in this area, and it is a natural progression, requiring a change to the Comprehensive Plan map. Randall said he looks at the Comprehensive Plan as a compass, not a cage. He argued for fuzzy borders, but the rest of the group disagreed. Alan said tonight, one of the items on the agenda, is there because the parcel lines were not followed. When the Comprehensive Plan Map was amended recently, entire parcels were placed in a 3 designation, so as not to confuse the public with which designation would apply to his/her parcel. Tawnya explained that on the Comprehensive Plan map, several of the designations are a range to help you determine when you look at the map, whether you are seeing the Comprehensive Plan map or the Rezone map. For example LDR1-MDR1, MDR1-HDR1, Commercial/Mixed Use. Aaron drew the groups’ attention to the southeast corner of the Rural designation on the map. There is no way all of the land shown as Rural will be developed into one (1) acre lots. South of the Rexburg city limits there is a commercial/mixed use designation next to Rural. Aaron forsees there needing to be a buffer against the commercial. How far out is it before the land is developed? This is unknown. Rural is a place holder. As the city grows, the Rural designation will evolve with time. Alan stated much of the Rural designation is also in our Area of Impact, outside the city limits. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan text, is for the higher densities to develop within the city limits. There are qualified Staff in place, who each review different parts of the Comprehensive Plan. For example, the city has no authority over a school district, however, communication with the school is starting to happen on a monthly basis. Rezones Attorney Rammell asked Alan what applications the group mostly sees. Alan answered, rezones, then Comprehensive Plan map changes, and plats/subdivisions. Attorney Rammell said he has not seen many plats, but several rezones, Comprehensive Plan map changes, and Conditional Use Permits (CUPs) also known as Special Use permits in state law. A term he has heard the Commissioners use is “in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.” In his mind, there are specific items that need to be focused on. Alan indicated the plats are coming, there are at least six applications for plats right now. Attorney Rammell said many times in ordinances, general language is used, because precedence is difficult to overcome sometimes. “In Bone, the Idaho Supreme Court rejected a developer’s argument that he was entitled to a rezone (an upzone) because it was consistent with the comprehensive plan. The property owner had appealed the City of Lewiston’s denial of his request to rezone property from a residential zone to a commercial zone. The land use map in the comprehensive plan depicted the property to be suitable for commercial use. The Idaho Supreme Court held that the comprehensive plan map designation did not mandate that the City Council approve the request to approve the request to approve the commercial zoning of the property. Rather, the decisions of whether the requested zoning designation was in accordance with the comprehensive plan was a case-by-case factual determination. The Court remanded the City Council to adopt findings of fact and conclusions of law, reserving the right to the property owner to appeal if those findings were insufficient to support the decision.” Attorney Rammell explained, the City would be allowed to do the same thing over again, but asks the City explain why the action is being taken. This is why he stops and looks at Tawnya. He tells the group, you can make this decision, but make sure you tell us why you are making the decision. This is going to sound like a broken record. Someone makes a motion, then Tawnya says, why? The motioner says because of all of the reasons we just talked about. The law specifically states we need a reasoned decision for doing what we are doing. Tawnya says this weakens the motion, because people have to guess what the Commission based their decision upon. If the motion specifically states the reason, she does not have to go back through the conversation and guess why the decision was made. Attorney Rammell said the stance of the courts is we do not care about the decision you made, but you did not do a good job explaining why. The law for zoning essentially says the only decision consideration is the Comprehensive Plan. The law does not have specific criteria other than it must be in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Because of the general language, Attorney Rammell has asked himself, what are some specific criteria to look at for a zone change. What do we consider a zone change? In the Bone case, the Comprehensive Plan matched the zoning request and the Council denied it. If you are going to deny something, what specific things do we talk about? The laws lead you the 67-6508 commissioner’ planning duties. In 67-6508, they talk about the creation of the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Rammell asked Alan about the items he considers when determining his decision for a zone change. Alan answered: • Is it contiguous to the same type of zone? • Do we have infrastructure – sewer and water to service the request? • How are the roads affected? 4 • Ability to service with community services, like police and emergency service? In a rezone, I am not looking at building specifics. A rezone is looking at a specific area and the maximum build- out that would be allowed by the zoning requirements. Randall asked if a reasoning the request, the application does not match the neighborhood character, is a strong reason for decision. Attorney Rammell stated a decision cannot be made on a specific project. When a zone change is issued, the property can be sold and developed differently. It is often frustrating for developers to get the community on board with a zone change without revealing the details of a project. If I could just show you the picture… Attorney Rammell had Alan look at the contents of the Comprehensive Plan list, then asked what objectives he considers. The Commissioners should know the bones of the Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. The Commissioners need to be able to point to specific points of that plan. Eric said if the Comprehensive Plan says LDR1-MDR1, and someone wants to put HDR, can the zone change be approved without changing the Comprehensive Plan. Alan answered, no. Tawnya explained there are two parts to the Comprehensive Plan: 1) Future Land Use Map, 2) the objectives and goals, established by charettes with the community. We want community input to put together the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The objectives and goals are those established because that is what the community identified as important to them. When you state as your reason, “because it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan,” you may be thinking about two different things. Chairperson Smith said she has experience with many meetings and motions. The person making the motion might as well state I make the motion due the comments of all the neighbors in this room. What kind of repercussions are there for something like this? Are there any? Many people take the stance, the request would be fine in a different location but not in my backyard. Alan clarified, the item could be stated, I am making my decision, because when in listening to the public’s comments, we see that there is opposition to the request, it is causing challenges with the roads, summarizing what the people said as your reason. You voice what you heard and pass it on as your reason for making the decision. The difficulty is in weighing what the people said with the Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, and the overall community good. Ten (10) people may be in the room complaining, but most of the city had no issue with the request; those with no issue just did not show up to say they like the request. Attorney Rammell gave an example of Amazon reviews. If he gets a product from Amazon that does what he expected it to do, he is less apt to return to comment in the reviews, but if he has a negative experience, he is more likely to review an item to warn other purchasers. The Commissioners see a little bit of that. Randall recalled a hearing, where those who attended to contest the application, did not present factual information. However, the Commission based their decision on other factors like the proximity to a school, the residential character of the neighborhood, etc. Attorney Rammell also recalled this hearing: One person spoke for the group and explained the nuisances that would come with the approval of the application, saying, essentially, we do not want these types of people or this type of housing in our neighborhood. Then, the second speaker came up to the podium to speak and listed her address. She happened to live in this opposed type of housing and she was also in opposition. This situation is something the Commissioners should be able to see through; something that is persuasive but does not hold any authority. Mayor Merrill provided an example. Whenever there is an upzone, the governing bodies hear from the residents. In his neighborhood, just off of 5th W, years ago, the Providence Square apartment complex was proposed. The residents thought the traffic was going to be horrible. He went out one morning and parked in front of some nearby apartments that had just been built. Mayor sat there and did his own independent traffic study. He was tallying the apartments, and noticed he was also sitting by the entrance to the Henderson subdivision. As the tally grew, he realized, the number of cars coming out of the single-family subdivision was about 6:1. The people in the single-family subdivision may have teenagers and three or four cars per family, and those in the apartment may have more than one car, but they are riding their bicycles or walking. This opened his eyes to the rhetoric; he asks himself is this really going to happen? Take complaints from citizens with a grain of salt. 5 Special Use Permits or Conditional Use Permits (CUP) Attorney Rammell mentioned Special Use Permits, also known as Conditional Use Permits. Conditional Use Permits (CUP) have an emphasis on more specific for a use that would not normally be granted. Criteria is part of a decision for a CUP. The legislature has given the Commission eight items to consider for the “social, economic, fiscal, and environmental effects of the proposed special use: 1) Minimizing adverse impact on other development; 2) Controlling the sequence and timing of development; 3) Controlling the duration of the development; 4) Assuring that development is properly maintained; 5) Designating the exact location and nature of development; 6) Requiring the provision for on-site or off-site public facilities or services; 7) Requiring more restrictive standards than those generally required in an ordinance; 8) Requiring mitigation of effects of the proposed development upon service delivery by any political subdivision, including school districts, providing services within the planning jurisdiction.” We can specifically talk about these eight items. These items apply to the nature of a specific request. A Conditional Use Permit or Special Use Permit is essentially allowing a use but requiring specific conditions of that use. Quasi-judicial & Legislative Meetings Attorney Rammell referred to two types of meetings: 1) Quasi-judicial and 2) Legislative. Quasi-judicial hearings require specific procedures where sequence of testimony is important. An example of a quasi-judicial meetings is a public hearing. Quasi-judicial hearing items can only be discussed with Staff and city legal counsel. People can be limited to a set time to testify. Mayor Merrill said the City Council give people from 3-5 minutes for each person who wants to speak in a hearing. Attorney Rammell continued; work meetings are a legislative meeting, and people can give input as part of a discussion. A Comprehensive Plan text amendment would include a legislative process during construction and seek approval in a quasi-judicial process. Constructing a Motion Randall is looking for some training on how to word motions to pass the test of the courts. Vince talked about using the verbiage “as has been discussed” as a blanket. Attorney Rammell said you can say this but must go on to state specific reasons for the decision. The problem is the vague verbiage. Vince says often the motion is made, and there is not much discussion on the motion. He confirmed discussion could be made on the motion to strengthen a motion prior to a vote. Attorney Rammell clarified the motionee would have to amend or withdraw their motion, as appropriate, to change the motion after it has been stated. Vince said the reason the Commission does not have a lengthy discussion of the motion is to simplify the motion and prevent Tawnya from retyping the motion a dozen times. Discussion on the motion as a Commission is important. Tawnya has no qualms about changing the motion, however, she wants to be able to read the motion back to the Commission to make sure the motion written as the Commission wants it to make sure it is clear and concise. Property Rights A section on property rights can be found in the Comprehensive Plan text. The topic of property rights reminds Attorney Rammell of the ten or fifteen people who are frustrated at a hearing. Each landowner has property rights, the established business or residence and the developer; there are two sides to the property rights coin. Vince suggested an example of the Birch property rezone applications, when within our organization, that coin can be flipped on its side. Planning & Zoning recommended approval, but the City Council denied the request. Alan had an experience with someone who had come in to talk to him. The person mentioned how bad the Meadows development was. Alan finally stopped the person and asked specifically, what do you feel is bad about the Meadows development. The response from the person was because everyone who talks to me about the Meadows tells me it is bad. Alan asked the person to tell him specifically the person had witnessed. The person continued; access is a little tough; construction is not the highest quality. Except for a few items, the Meadows is a good community. Attorney Rammell continued; often, we hear, if this developer is allowed to do this, it is going 6 to impact my property. The focus needs to be on what is good for the community as a whole. Right now, the Commissioners and citizens are in a position where they can write the core values of the Comprehensive Plan. Every community wants a different emphasis in specific areas of the Comprehensive Plan; we may need to unpack it a little bit. Randall summarized it is a balancing of the community goals or values. Attorney Rammell said when considering a change, we are not going to talk about schools, or airports, or state roads. We have to trust when Staff tells us a Traffic Impact Study will be done, that one will be done. We do talk about things we want to promote like industry or jobs if this emphasis is found in the Comprehensive Plan text. You cannot put in the Comprehensive Plan only stone hedges are allowed. Randall said an example may be language like “our community feels strongly about development that is environmental-friendly,” but our community is not monothematic. Attorney Rammell said the closest sister-county to Madison County is Latah County with Moscow, Idaho. Even though these cities are similar in size, the transit and population are highlighted differently, then they would be in Rexburg. Alan asked how many Commissioners have read the entire Comprehensive Plan. There are over a hundred pages in the current document, but the next draft is hoped to be less. Commissioners need to become familiar with the themes of the community in the Comprehensive Plan. Attorney Rammell summarized a few quick points: • Spot Zone. When there is an emphasis on a specific person vs. the community as a whole, this is a “spot zone.” • Attorney Rammell does not like items changed on the fly with a lack of notice. If there is a fundamental change to the request, a new application is needed. For example, making the request a zone less during the meeting. If we give out a notice, someone sees it, and they think I am going to go speak against that. There could be someone out there, that if they had known about a change to the request, I would have come in and spoke. • Consider Laying the Ground Rules. We do need some direction from the Commissioners. He wants to make sure we lay ground rules at the beginning of the meeting. For example: you are entitled to three minutes… When we close the meeting, we are no longer to hear more from the audience… We are not going to talk about… Vince said this educates the public to help alleviate some frustration. Chairperson Smith said there is a document sent in the mailing that outlines the hearing process. • Do not say something like “I do not know if the developer is going to build something pretty or not.” It is not project specific, for a zone change. A Conditional or Special Use Permit or a Planned Unit Development is detail specific. • Quasi-judicial hearing items can only be discussed with Staff and city legal counsel. Work meeting for the March 3, 2022, to continue discussion. Chairperson Smith opened the meeting at 6:30PM. Pledge – Commissioner Haley 6:35 PM Planning & Zoning Meeting: Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). Absent: David Pulsipher, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe. Minutes: Planning and Zoning meeting February 3, 2022 (action) 7 MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as written for February 3, 2022, Action: Approve, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). Public Hearings: 1. (22-00026) 248 Ricks Ave – Comprehensive Plan Map change from LDR1-MDR1 to Commercial/Mixed Use. (action) – City of Rexburg, Ashcrafts Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – This request is the reason the notice was stopped for the following rezone and ordinance amendment on January 20, 2022. This property needs to be changed on the Comprehensive Plan in order to rezone the property in the next hearing. Ashcrafts have asked to join in on the rezone adjacent to them. The request is to change the Comprehensive Plan map designation from LDR1-MDR1 to Commercial/Mixed Use. Staff has reviewed the request and believe the request fits with the ideals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. The request is adjacent to commercial use properties and the Ashcrafts’ desire is to eventually transition the property to a commercial use. Staff recommends the request to the Commission to recommend to City Council. Commissioner Questions: Vince asked why the change is being made. Alan answered in the following rezone, the parcel will have two zoning designations. The first step is to change the Comprehensive Plan map. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:40PM. She explained the process for the hearing. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:41PM. 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: Vince said he does not have a conflict of interest but wants to make a statement - this home was his daycare when he was five. Chairperson Smith confirmed 8 Mrs. Ashcraft had an influence on a lot of people. She believes this request is more of a housekeeping item. Aaron also believes this is a housekeeping item; it is pretty straightforward. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the change to the Comprehensive Plan Map designation from LDR1-MDR1 to Commercial/Mixed Use for 248 Ricks Avenue, because of the nature of the adjacent property uses and to align them correctly., Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Sally Smith (Chairperson). Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Vince said instead of “to align them correctly”, say “to align this property with the adjoining property uses.” Aaron amended his motion. MOTION: Motion to recommend the request to City Council to change the Comprehensive Plan Map designation from LDR1-MDR1 to Commercial/Mixed Use for 248 Ricks Avenue to align this property with an adjacent property’s use., Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Sally Smith (Chairperson). VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). 2. (21-00773) 18 N 2nd E, 220 & 248 Ricks Ave, 227 E Main - Rezone from Central Business District (CBD) and High-Density Residential 1 (HDR1) to Community Business Center (CBC). The Central Business District zone was replaced in the Downtown District with the City-Center, Form-Based code, changing most of the CBD parcels in the city. These parcels are the remaining CBD parcels outside of the Downtown District boundary. North and south of this parcel are Mixed-Use and Community Business Center zoned properties. (action) – City of Rexburg, Kristine Johanos, Travis Stroud Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – These are the only parcels left in the city that have the Central Business District (CBD) designation. The main landowners were approached for permission to make this change and they have agreed. Notice was sent out for the January 20th meeting and the Ashcrafts identified a portion of their property was also zoned Central Business District. Research was conducted and GIS found on the west side of the property, there is about ten (10’) feet that was zoned Central Business District. The request is for a rezone of 18 N 2nd E, 220 & 248 Ricks Ave, and 227 E Main from CBD and High-Density Residential 1 (HDR1) to Community Business Center (CBC). Community Business Center is our most common commercial zone. The use matches the patterns along Main Street. Most of the parcels zoned CBD were changed when form-based code was approved, 9 changing twelve (12) blocks in our downtown district. Staff recommends the Commission recommend the application to City Council for this rezone. Alan invited Kristine or Travis to speak if they are present. No one stepped forward. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Smith requested a review of zoning around this requested application. The property was located on the map. Alan explained form- based zoning was located to the west, Community Business Center (CBC) to the north, High-Density Residential 1 (HDR1) to the east, and CBC and Mixed Use (MU) to the south. Chairperson Smith confirmed there are some existing residential homes on Ricks Avenue to the north. Vince said looking at the setbacks and other requirements of the zones, the CBC actually protects the residents better than the CBD does. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:48PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:49PM. 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: Aaron confirmed the idea is to retire CBD. He says this request is clean-up work or housekeeping. Vince said the setbacks on the CBC specifically states in several requirements “when adjacent to residential” vs. there is none of this language in CBD. The only increase would be for maximum building height which is forty-five (45’) feet in CBD and fifty-five (55’) feet in CBC. CBC reads there is a maximum building height of thirty-five (35’) feet when adjacent to residential. The taller buildings in this area, like the call center, takes away the height question for him. MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council the rezone of 18 N 2nd E, 220 & 248 Ricks Ave, 227 E Main from Central Business District (CBD) and High- Density Residential 1 (HDR1) to Community Business Center (CBC) as it meets the criteria in this area for adjoining properties, will allow us to further clean up our zoning, and ultimately get rid of the Central Business District (CBD) zoning altogether., Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Randall Kempton. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). 10 3. (21-00582) Development Code Ordinance Amendment of 1200 – Remove the Central Business District (CBD) zone. The Central Business District zone has been replaced by the City-Center, Form-Based Code for the Downtown District, for which it was originally designed. (action) – City of Rexburg Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Are there any questions about removing the CBD zone? Commissioner Questions: Aaron confirmed once the parcels in the previous hearing are finally rezoned, there will be no other CBD zoned parcels in the city. Chairperson Smith clarified form-based code is only on the west side of 2nd E. She asked for the form-based zoning to be shown to the public. Alan said the area for form-based zoning is from W 1st n to W 2nd S and from S 2nd W to S 2nd E. The form-based code has four (4) different transects with code designed for interaction to the street. There is a lesser focus on the change of uses, and a greater focus on the building form and its interaction with the street. Some restrictions were removed for limiting building heights. There is an emphasis on pedestrians. Vince clarified the Downtown District was amended and used to extend past the streets and into portions of adjacent blocks. This is why some of the parcels zoned Central Business District (CBD) are outside of the current form-based area. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:56PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:56PM. 11 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: None MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council to amend Development Code 1200 by removing the Central Business District (CBD) zone as we have no more properties that are zoned in this designation, and it has been replaced by the city's form-based code., Action: Approve, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). 4. (22-00033) 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy (Teton Vu) – Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1. (action) – Brad Brown (Zoom), Cody Mitchell (In-person) Applicant Presentation: Cody Mitchell – We are applying for the Comprehensive Plan Map change at 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1. Brad Brown (Zoom) with Steward Land – 719 W 4350 S, Riverdale, Utah - We have been talking for a while with Staff about this property and its conjunction with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. During initial discussions, we though the Comprehensive Plan map showed the parcel already in the LDR1-MDR1 Comprehensive Plan designation. Staff seemed to feel this is a good fit for this parcel. He would be happy to answer any questions the Commission has. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – Staff has looked at this request and we feel it is in line with what would go well in this area. The parcel is contiguous with LDR1-MDR1 designated parcels to the east and south. North of the parcel is Commercial/Mixed Use designated, and Industrial to the west. Public Works said there may need to be a Traffic Impact Study needed. There are small concerns about sewer in this area. Actions are being put in place to rectify the sewer capacity. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Smith asked for the parcel’s history. Kyle answered, in 2006, Tom Goe changed the zone from Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3) 12 to Community Business Center (CBC). Chairperson Smith clarified the highest zone that could be requested for in the requested designation is MDR1. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:05PM. Favor: None Neutral: Ray McDougall – 427 Stegelmeier Ln – He owns the properties to the east and south of the application request. The highway frontage is being lost for businesses; we should try to preserve land along our highways for commercial. Thomson Farms, a development to the south, has preserved an area along the highway for commercial. He can see them rezoning their commercial area too. Opposed: Reed Richman – 546 Chad Dr – He has operated R&S Automotive for forty-two years. He is opposed because he feels the city is already overwhelmed with their sewer and water. It is well known the sewer system cannot handle what we have already online, due to the smell, especially in the summer time. Not only that, the City cannot sustain the water due to water rights; the City does not have enough water rights. The City already has to pump out of the Teton River. We need to back up and get the infrastructure in place. The traffic going north at the 5-stop light maze causes traffic back-ups through the next stoplight. Enough is enough. Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Brad Brown - Mr. Richman’s concerns are valid. Brad believes the City has a very capable Staff. He will work through those issues concerning the infrastructure and the Traffic Impact Study. He wants to work with the community and make sure this a positive development. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:10PM. 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. Bruce Casper is a close friend of the person, who is trying to make this change. Commissioner Discussion: Randall Kempton says this is one of the examples of a Comprehensive Plan change proposal on the border between two comprehensive plan areas. He believes it makes sense there be discussion on whether this change makes sense for this area. Randall is nervous about removing all of the commercial areas in our comprehensive plan along the highway. He realizes this parcel is adjacent to other housing areas. Where will commercial go? Vince said looking at the past, this corridor has changed dramatically towards the residential. He is assuming this area was designed to be an industrial area that would probably not fit anywhere else in our city. His concern is also removing the commercial potential here. At some point, we need to realize we are giving away our commercial designated properties. Commercial and Industrial uses have been filling in at the Rexburg Business Park, yet there is residential developing to the south. This parcel is right on the border. Randall said we are trying to drive some commercial to the downtown; this is what our form-based code is about. Is our 13 commercial area really shrinking? Is so much business going online, that commercial- zoned properties are not as needed? Vince said a lot of commercial is going in off of 2nd E within a couple hundred yards of this property. Chairperson Smith asked about a requirement for commercial along the frontage for so many feet. Alan said there was talk about N 2nd E for three hundred (300’) feet on each side of the commercial corridor, but not on the Yellowstone Highway, that he remembers. Eventually, there will be a cap of this road and Thomson Farms Rd. will connect to N 2nd E. The cul-de-sac will be located down by United Plumbing, but will depend on the State. Most of our commercial inquiries are happening on N 2nd E and the south side of town along our main corridors. Thomson Farms was approved as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). For them to modify their commercial, they would need to come before the Commissioners to ask for that change. Chairperson Smith is a realtor; she understands the need for more housing. Alan said our overall sewer capacity is adequate, but the sewer line in this area needs to be replaced; a new sewer line will be put in next year (2023). Chairperson Smith said the traffic in this area is always in question. Aaron said he likes the idea of putting the burden on the state for the road. By converting this property to a residential, he does not think we are taking anything away. Let the medium-density line up contiguously along this road and have the state widen the road as needed. Chairperson Smith said the Traffic Studies are being conducted, but she wonders what it will really take before changes are made. Aaron said it will be painful for a while; growth is always painful. He said housing in this area makes sense; it is contiguous with other housing. Alan said a Traffic Impact Study looks at the impact down the road onto N 2nd E with traffic signals, etc. The developer will share in the costs of any required upgrades to roads, lights, etc., to keep the roads safe. Staff is in the middle of a Transportation Study of the whole city. The Transportation Study will be the focus of a work meeting March 2nd. Vince said he is going to leave the sewer capacity up to Staff. He located Porter’s Storage, the Thomson Farms Rd., Madison Armory’s new building, Wal-Mart to the north, the car wash. There is so much potential for a commercial use in this area with all this other development. Residential is good at this location too. He is looking at good vs. best. He feels commercial is the better option, because there is a lot of residential already in this area. Jim said we also have active rail across the street. Vince identified the Artco Business Park, Wendy’s, and Beehive Credit Union. Todd is looking at a lot of undeveloped LDR1-MDR1 land east of this property. Vince said we also hear there are a lot of apartments, but all the apartments are full. There is no bad decision here. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council to deny the Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1 for 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy (Teton Vu) to preserve the commercial use in the area, Action: Deny, Moved by Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 1). Yes: Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). No: Aaron Richards. 14 Abstain: Bruce Casper. 5. (22-00019) – 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy (Teton Vu) – Rezone from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). In 2006, this property was rezoned from Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3 to Community Business Center. The property is 10.84 acres. Medium-Density zoned properties are located south and east of this property. Community Business Center and Light Industrial properties are to the north and west. (action) – Brad Brown (Zoom), Cody Mitchell (In-person) Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – Staff looked at this request and found it is a good fit for the area. The request is from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1), provided the Comprehensive Plan Map change is overruled. Medium-Density Residential 1 was located adjacent to the property to the west and south. Thomson Farms also has MDR1. Access will need to be worked out with the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). The sewer capacity and water capacity. As Alan has stated there are plans to replace the sewer line in this area. Staff recommends the Commission recommend the City Council approve the application, provided the Comprehensive Plan change is also approved. Attorney Rammell counseled that this board is a recommending board. The finality is not in the Planning & Zoning meeting, but will be at City Council. We must proceed to allow the applicant and citizens to speak. Applicant Presentation: Brad Brown – He was a little disappointed in the previous hearing, however, he recognizes the board is looking at what is best for the City. This is the Commissioners’ job and he appreciates it. Brad has read through the Comprehensive Plan and he feels he is adhering to it. The Plan talks about clusters of developments; the same type of development located together. The Grove apartments are similar to the south and the doors go well with Wal-mart and the commercial development to the west. He appreciates the need and desire to maintain the commercial. While there are certain characteristics that make a parcel good for commercial, there are also certain characteristics that make land good for residential. This is a prime spot for residential. There is a deficit of residential housing in town. Even if residential develops to the east, it will not have the same effect to the city. This is good planning for the city; there is a need for additional housing, and it will not change the fabric of what Rexburg is. Rexburg’s family community is growing. You have to help the City grow responsibly. He hopes the group will reconsider. Commissioner Questions: None Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:33PM. Favor: Ray McDougal – 427 Stegelmeier – He is contradicting himself. Ray honestly though the Commission would approve the Comprehensive Plan map change. He does think the highway areas need to be preserved for commercial in the general region. We 15 need both housing and commercial space. With the railroad across the street, on the other side of the road, he does not see N Yellowstone developing like N 2nd E. He does see this is more of a residential area. If the applicant is denied at City Council, he hopes the applicant would come back with an amended proposal to preserve the frontage for some small commercial and move forward with the majority of the parcel in residential. Colby Hatton – 156 W 4th S – He is in favor of being able to build out here as residential, providing more affordable housing for the community. While it is important to have commercial, he believes there is a great way the project could incorporate both. There will be challenges, but these challenges are entirely solvable. Rexburg needs to continue to provide housing as the city grows. He is excited to see the temple on the north side of Rexburg. Let us make Rexburg a more livable and walkable community. Neutral: None Opposed: Brett Jeppesen – 1013 N 9th E – He owns land to the east. He came in to previous meetings for housing along E 7th N. There is an overloading of people in the area. The dogs pollute the ground of the church. He agrees with what Reed stated. Listening to the Commission, he feels businesses need to go in there. Slow down on the housing. The area is overloaded on apartments, water, sewer, and the church system. Written Correspondence: Kendall & Yolanda Davenport 1174 N Yellowstone Hwy Rexburg, ID 83440 208-356-5036 Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission Concern for rezoning of property at: 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy Rexburg, ID 83440 February 17, 2022 Dear Commission, We, Kendall and Yolanda Davenport, have property that runs adjacent to the property at 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy. We are located on the north side of that property. Our concern is for an existing ditch between our properties that we use to water our property with. We understand that the rezoning of that property will not affect the use or possible removal of the ditch. We wish to have the Commission and the owners of the property to be aware of preservation of the ditch. It is important to us that the ditch remain intact and in good useful condition. It must not be disturbed by any new development near it that would weaken it and cause it to break down and leak. As plans are made to develop the property we would like the owners to understand that it will be their responsibility to take care of and protect the bank of the ditch on their side to ensure that it doesn’t leak onto their property by putting in place a way to protect their property from flooding. Other properties along the N Yellowstone Hwy have created ways to protect their property from any flooding. 16 Each year we work to maintain the ditch by burning along it and also cleaning up any branches that fall into it or around it. We require that we still have access to the ditch to do so. We appreciate your consideration and help with this, and any relevance it may have with the rezoning. Thank you, Kendall & Yolanda Davenport Owner of property 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy Rexburg, ID 83440 Rebuttal: Brad Brown said in response to the Davenports, we will work with them to make sure there are no adverse effects. In response to the need for commercial, and less housing. He was a commercial real-estate broker for a long time. Commercial is driven by rooftops. A lot of times, we wish it went the other way, but it does not. The amount of commercial in the city is based on the amount of people. He hopes they can help with filling the need for residential in Rexburg to drive the commercial. City Staff did not convey a need for more commercial. Brad is doing his best to follow the intent of the general plan for Rexburg to help the city grow as it should. Rexburg is a great place.; we would love to business here. He thanked the Commissioners. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:43PM. 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. Bruce Casper is a close friend of the person, who is trying to make this change. Commissioner Discussion: Randall said if the Comprehensive Plan change were to be changed to LDR1-MDR1, the contiguous residential does seem to fit the area. Vince asked contiguous to be defined. Randall said there are other MDR1 zoned parcels next to this parcel. Vince said on the north side it is not; the parcel also borders commercial. Randall clarified it is adjacent to other similar housing areas. Aaron said the use today is more of an appendage of commercial. It is cleaner to make the parcel MDR1. Vince says he understands Aaron’s argument, except that the N Yellowstone Highway is the center of activity in that area. The residential to the east is far from the Highway. Randall said this is the reason he argued for commercial in the previous hearing. Chairperson Smith asked Alan what the maximum build out density could be. Alan responded, a duplex would require a Conditional Use Permit, but apartments or 4-plexes could be built on MDR1 to the maximum density is 16 units per acre. Vince said there is a great example to the south in Thomson Farms. Alan clarified Thomson Farms has greater density because they have a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Vince does not feel the people impact for this density would make a big impact to this area. Chairperson Smith 17 believes it could be a big impact with the traffic caused. Vince wants to preserve the commercial use. Aaron said if you think of the current use and the property tax generated on the land, vs. the proposed use, you are leaving $10-$20 million of assessed value on the table. Vince is not worried about this and Aaron is worried. Aaron asked, who is going to pay for the roads. Who is going to pay for the bigger sewer system? The assessed value is. You have to have enough rooftops to bring in a Target. Chairperson Smith joked she thinks we are about there. Randall wants to make a motion, but he does not know how to do the language, because the Comprehensive Plan designation has not changed on the property. Attorney Rammell said the motion cannot be contingent on the City Council’s overchange of the Commission’s decision. This change either needs to be approved or denied. He explained this hearing is more about laying a record of comment as an advisory board, so City Council can look at a full review from everyone. He respects Randall for being the first one to make an attempt; Randall is not in the wrong. MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council the property be rezoned from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) for 1114 N Yellowstone Highway, because it fits with other residential housing in the neighborhood., Action: Approve, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Randall withdrew this motion. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Vince asked if he can make a recommendation to change a zone in a comprehensive plan designation that cannot be changed to fit that zone. Attorney Rammell is perplexed as well. Procedurally, it would follow that if you are opposed to the previous hearing for the Comprehensive Plan Map change, you would also be opposed to this request. The abstract is the only way this can be approved is if City Council reverses the previous decision. Vince restated, procedurally, can we vote to rezone a parcel that the Comprehensive Plan Map change designation does not allow? Attorney Rammell said the members of this board can vote in whichever manner they deem fits. Legally, there would be issues on the City Council level. Vince says we have to vote on what the Commission would do. A vote either needs to occur or the motion needs to be withdrawn. Randall Kempton said his personality thinks of all possible happenings. He withdrew his motion. First, he does not want to complicate things legally and second, he does believe this parcel needs to be preserved as commercial. On public record, he is trying to understand the process and ramifications. His vote has not been swayed. Randall is glad he did make the motion, so he could understand procedurally, the things that are happening. Attorney Rammell said procedurally, the hearing still needed to be held. It goes without saying that one cannot go without the other because they are one in the same request. Vince clarified the change in the Comprehensive Plan map enables the zone. A zone change does not enable a change in the Comprehensive Plan map. Attorney Rammell said we are laying the record for the City Council to look at. Legally, we are at an impasse. Motion: Motion to recommend City Council deny the rezone request from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) 18 for 1114 N Yellowstone Highway, to further preserve this area for commercial use., Action: Deny, Moved by Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Seconded by Jim Lawrence. Attorney Rammell apologized to the Commission for the confusion. He understands Randall’s thinking. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 1, Abstain = 1). Yes: Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). No: Aaron Richards. Abstain: Bruce Casper. Vince asked if the meeting on March 3rd would be a regular meeting or will a work meeting be held? Tawnya clarified there are no hearings scheduled, but there could be some plats to consider. Plats can go on the agenda up until the agenda for the meeting is set. Chairperson Smith confirmed the Commissioners should plan on a meeting at 6:30PM. Alan suggests the training continue. Spencer says the items in the next training will be more specific. Alan wants to take a few minutes after adjournment to discuss any training items based on today’s meeting. The Commissioners agree to meeting at 5PM. Dinner will be provided. Tabled Items: None Report on Projects: None Heads Up: No Hearings Adjournment at 8:04PM.