Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 4.07.221 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 6:34 PM. 6:30 PM Planning & Zoning Meeting: Welcome Pledge of Allegiance: Aaron Richards ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, David Pulsipher, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe. Absent: Randall Kempton, Jim Lawrence. Minutes: (Video Recording 01:58) Planning & Zoning Meeting March 17, 2022 (action) MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as recorded for March 17, 2022., Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, David Pulsipher, Eric Erickson, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). Public Hearings: (02:29) 1. (22-00033) 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy (Teton Vu) – Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1. Adjacent designations: Industrial is to the west, Commercial/Mixed Use to the north, and LDR1-MDR1 to the east and south with Commercial/Mixed Use. This agenda item was returned by City Council March 2, 2022. – Brad Brown, Matt Bird (action) Applicant Presentation: Brad Brown – 719 W 4350 S, Riverdale UT – He is here for the Comprehensive Plan Map adjustment. We have been told there is a great need for housing in 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes April 7, 2022 2 the city. In this area, it looked like N 2nd E and N Yellowstone Hwy could be commercial corridors. The Comprehensive Plan map shows potential for this occurrence. Over the years it has become apparent, especially with the building of Walmart, the commercial corridor will be N 2nd E. Brad has been a commercial real estate broker for many years. In order to attract commercial units, you need traffic counts and other drivers, including other commercial uses and an anchor tenant like Walmart. You have all those components on N 2nd E. If you zoom out, you see a lot of commercial designation along N 2nd E. Initially, when he talked to Staff, everyone assumed the property was already LDR1-MDR1. It was later, the group realized a change needed to be made. He went through and added up acreage on the Comprehensive Plan map for potential commercial and he came up with 514 acres of undeveloped land. One of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan text is clustered neighborhood development; this means having similar types of housing near each other. What we are doing fits will fits with the Comprehensive Plan and the Rezone to MDR1. The rooftops can drive the commercial. He has paid attention to the concerns of the community and Staff. Besides giving up the business corridor, traffic concerns came up. The traffic concerns are being addressed. Utilities came up, but Staff has addressed these issues. Overall, we are confident this is a step in the right direction, a step toward deliberate and responsible growth. We hope this will be a benefit to the community and Rexburg as a whole. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Staff has reviewed this application and the Commissioners reviewed it before. The Applicant may be required to conduct a Traffic Impact Study. The Applicant will need work with ITD on ingress/egress as this is State Highway 33. The current sewer line is reaching capacity, but the line is also scheduled to be replaced and upgraded within the next couple of years. However, there is enough capacity to service this project at this time. Staff is recommending this application to the Commission for recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Smith confirmed the other developments in the area, which are not completely built out, are also included in the capacity calculations. Alan confirmed the approved developments in the area have been taken into consideration. Eric asked if there is a way to restrict the development, or slow down development if the sewer needs are not adequate. Alan said right now Keith is making his judgements on the current capacity of the line, not the new capacity. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:48PM. (16:58) 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 7:49PM. 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 3 should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. None. Commissioner Discussion: Aaron says obviously, this is the second time for the Commissioners to see the application. I like that the Applicant did research and pointed out there are several hundred acres of inactive commercial in the city. He likes the idea of putting multi-family on a state road and not burdening the city’s tax resources. The obligation to eventually widen the road will be the state’s responsibility. He feels like it makes sense; this is a good location for the request. Aaron likes how the request matches the adjacent land uses also. Todd also agrees with the change. David was not in attendance the first time the application came through, but in reading the Planning & Zoning minutes and the City Council minutes, and looking at the request in depth, the residential request seems to fit the area. He referred to the plans previously discussed about a potential cul-de-sac on N Yellowstone Hwy to make the intersection with the railroad safer. David is in favor. Vince reviewed his part of the previous discussion; he focused on reserving some commercial land. We can anticipate growth on the north side of town. He still thinks the Commission needs to be considerate of commercial uses going forward. Due to the Commissioners’ training, his specific vote has changed. There really are no reasons to vote against the application. N 2nd E will get really expensive, really fast, and outprice a lot of people interested in commercial property. This secondary corridor could be used for future commercial would enable some manufacturing or mechanical uses. Vince will vote in favor. Chairperson Smith said the additional information that has come forward and more training about the items Staff is taking care of has eased her mind. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the (22-00033) Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1 for 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy, because due to the fact that it is contiguous with other LDR1-MDR1 properties, and we do not feel the change will detract from other commercial uses. Action: Approve, Moved by Eric Erickson Seconded by Bruce Casper. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, David Pulsipher, Eric Erickson, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). 2. (22-00019) – 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy (Teton Vu) – Rezone from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). (19:54) In 2006, this property was rezoned from Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3 to Community Business Center. Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zoned properties are located south and east of this property. Community Business Center (CBC) is adjacent to the north and south and Light Industrial (LI) properties are to the west. The property is 10.84 acres. This agenda item was returned by City Council March 2, 2022. – Brad Brown, Matt Bird (action) 4 Applicant Presentation: Brad Brown – 719 W 4350 S, Riverdale UT - In consideration of everyone’s time, his previous comments will suffice. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Staff has reviewed the application. Staff recommends the application to the Commission to recommend to City Council for approval. Commissioner Questions: None Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:55PM. 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. 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 the City Council to approve the (22-00019) Rezone from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) for 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy, so the property can develop as multi-family, increase its values on the tax rolls, and participate in the build-out of the community. Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, David Pulsipher, Eric Erickson, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). 3. (22-00102) – Pine Brook DIV2 Blk6 Lots 16-24 – Comprehensive Plan Map change from Rural to LDR1-MDR1. The properties surrounding these parcels are all designated Rural. – Todd Webb (action) (23:18) Aaron Richards recused himself. 5 Applicant Presentation: Todd Webb – 1057 Trappers Ridge - The request is to change the properties from Rural to LDR1-MDR1, because the lots have sat for over twelve (12) years. Originally, he believes these lots were slated to be twin home lots. Aaron Richards and Refuge Homes have been working with Todd to get the lots set up for twin homes. Each lot would be split into two lots. He feels this would be a good thing for the area. The nearby golf course could benefit from the additional homes. it would be a good fit for the community. In the city, there are places where twin homes have been built next to single-family homes, which has been a beneficial relationship for both types of housing. Aaron Richards – 351 Talon Dr – He is speaking as a member of the public. Aaron comes from a background of home development. He has been looking for three years for the right place to build a twin home product. In the community, there is a tremendous demand for this type of product. Aaron is sensitive regarding what they are asking, because this is in an area where there is already a community; it is not a new development. Example 1: Harvest Heights DIV3 Harvest Heights off of Millhollow has some twin home lots that have not been built on. Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) is needed for zoning in order to build twin homes. 6 Example 2: Valley View Estates across from a twinhome. Next to the church, is a $1.4 million-dollar home faces $½ million-dollar twin homes and they all live in harmony. Example 3: Eaglewood Subdivision Aaron lives in Eaglewood and this is really what inspired him to focus on twinhomes. You have the perimeter of the community as a buffer from the adjacent High-Density Residential 1 (HDR1) and E 7th S. The twinhomes have actually proven to increase the value of the single-family homes. The twinhomes average $4,000-$7,000, which has pushed up the value of the single-family homes. In building 7 an attractive twinhome, this will not detract from the value of the single-family homes. The applicants have met with the community of Pine Brook residents. You will hear voices of opposition and support. The Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) zoning allows for a smaller lot size than the developer wants to do and what the community wants to see. Technically, the zoning would allow the lots to be split to have thirty- six (36) units. They have entered into a contractual Development Agreement limiting the replatting of the nine (9) lots into eighteen (18) lots. This is not the developer’s desire, the desire is to meet the Conditions, Covenants & Restrictions of the subdivision. The CC&Rs require a minimum 1,700 sq. ft minimum and a 2-car garage; the starting price is $500,000 per unit. The new homes in the community are in the $750,000 range. The applicant’s request would create a buffer from Hwy20 and a step-up from the single-family homes, to these twinhome units, to the freeway and what will ultimately be built on the other side of the freeway. Commissioner Questions: Eric asked who the contractual agreement is between. Aaron answered the contractual agreement is between the development partners, the two homebuilders – Hinge Point and Refuge Homes and the H.O.A. Vince asked who signed on behalf of the H.O.A. Aaron said a board member signed the agreement. Vince asked is all the board members of the H.O.A. have to agree before one can sign the agreement. Attorney Zollinger counseled it is relevant to the point they have entered into an agreement, but the agreement is between the H.O.A. and the developer; the city will not get involved. A gentleman spoke from the audience confirming a letter was written on which all members of the H.O.A. signed. The contract is in the H.O.A.’s hands with all of the developers’ and homebuilders’ signatures. Vince commented the city has nothing to do with CC&Rs. Brad Wolfe joined the meeting. Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – There is a difference between a Comprehensive Plan Map change and a Zone change. The Comprehensive Plan Map is a map designed in collaboration with the community laying out what we see will happen in the future. The map shows where growth is anticipated and is used as a guiding document in determining where to increase supporting infrastructure. The Zoning determines the parts of the code a developer or homeowner has to follow. The Comprehensive Plan map designations are tied to a group of possible zones. If this application is approved, it would allow the Applicant to ask for one of the zones allowed in that Comprehensive Plan map chart for this designation. In the following hearing, a rezone could then be considered for Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). The current Comprehensive Plan map designation of Rural does not allow a zoning to LDR2, so they have to come in and ask for the LDR1-MDR1 designation to prepare for the zoning in which the LDR2 zone would fall. This year, both the Comprehensive Plan Map and the Comprehensive Plan Text will be amended. The public has an opportunity to be a part of the rewrite this year. 8 Staff has reviewed the application. Sewer, water, and roads capacities have been reviewed. If necessary, a Traffic Impact Study will be requested. The sewer and water capacities can service the request. Multiple opportunities of ingress/egress access these parcels. Staff recommends the application to the Commission for recommendation to City Council. Commissioner Questions: Vince asked for some history of the Pine Brook subdivision. The Staff Report reads: “May 2, 2007, City Council received a heads up for the Pine Brook Annexation. In 2007, an application was received to annex Pine Brook Division 1 and the land that would be Pine Brook Division 2 into the city (07-00209) and rezoned DIV1 to Rural Residential 1 (RR1). December 19, 2007, City Council approved the annexation and rezone of Pine Brook Division 2 to Rural Residential 2 (RR2), changing the portion against Hwy 20 from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to RR2. In 2008, a Final Plat was approved for Pine Brook Division 2 (08-00116). Since 2013, several single-family homes have been built.” The preparation for the selling of lots finished shortly before the economy collapsed and sat idle until the last three or four years. The majority of lots in Pine Brook DIV2 have been sold and some have been built on. Vince asked Alan for some general statistics. Alan said four years ago, probably 40% of the lots had sold. Now, there are probably more like 80%-90% that are purchased and are built-out or are in some stage of building. Vince asked Attorney Rammell about the definition of “spot zoning.” Attorney Rammell said a definition can be read, but the courts may interpret the definition differently over what one word in the definition means. “Spot zoning commonly refers to the singling out of one lot or other small area for zoning classification that is different from that accorded to similar surrounding land, usually for the benefit of the owner and to the detriment of the community. The most widely accepted test for determining an illegal spot-zoning is sometimes stated in combination or sometimes separately as whether the zoning for the parcel in question is in accordance with the Comprehensive Zoning Plan, whether the zoning of the subject parcel is compatible with the uses in the surrounding area, and whether the zoning of the subject property serves the public welfare or merely confers the discriminatory benefit on the owner of the property.” In 2015, the most recent court cases, the courts talk about two types of spot zoning: Type 1 is rezoning or property for a use prohibited by the previous zoning classification, Type 2 Rezoning refers to a zone change that singles out a parcel of land that is inconsistent with the permitted use and the arrested benefit of the individual property. They go on to talk about permissible uses of spot zoning. Attorney Rammell said the courts have not given us clear guidance. Typically, we talk about if the request is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan when you are trying to figure out if a request meets the types of spot zoning as defined thus far. Chairperson Smith reminded the Commissioners at this point we are talking about the Comprehensive Plan and not the zoning, yet. Attorney 9 Rammell said, yes and no, but you know where you are headed. Eric asked about the difference between the Comprehensive Plan Map of Rural and LDR1-MDR1. Alan answered the Rural designation would allow Transitional Agriculture (TAG), Rural Residential 1 (RR1), and Rural Residential 2 (RR2) potential zones. LDR1-MDR1 allows zoning of Low- Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), and Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3), and Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). There are differences in the size of lots. Low-Density zones are single-family homes like duplexes, twin homes, and townhomes. In MDR1, you are start into multi-family residences. Eric asked if sidewalks, curb, and gutter are required in all zones. Alan responded sidewalks are required in RR2 and LDR2 for connectivity. Chairperson Smith confirmed there are differences in permitted uses. Alan said in RR2 allows a single-family home on ½ acre. LDR2 requires 8,000 sq.ft. and 10,000 sq.ft. for a duplex or twin home. Either zone would allow manufactured homes that are at least twenty-four (24’) feet on a permanent foundation. (50:19) Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:20PM and explained the public hearing procedures. Favor: Brandon Winter - 580 Terra Vista Drive – He has a financial interest as a developer in the area. Fourteen (14) lots were purchased by Hinge Point for building new homes in the area. He purchased the remaining eight (8) lots that were available along the highway. The sale of these lots is contingent upon the approval of the applications by the Commission. In the development, at a meeting held this week with the neighbors, the H.O.A. stated they were told twin homes may go into the development. He believes it is stated on the sign at the entrance to the subdivision. This is the intended use for these lots along Hwy 20. Most people are happy the previous developer would be out of the equation as the subdivision concludes. Jeffrey Zollinger - 1073 Green Side Loop – Having been a previous twin home developer as a child and a teenager, he feels twin homes are great for community and we are lacking in this type of housing. Jeffrey speaks in favor of the application. Tina Leishman - 1103 Green Side Loop – Her home is the second to build in DIV2 of Pine Brook eight (8) years ago. Ever since she bought the property, and built her home, she has been a part of the approval process for the homes that have come in. She and her husband serve on the H.O.A. board in different capacities. The two have seen and experienced a lot of growth in their neighborhood. The H.O.A. has put up with a lot from the previous developer. She and her husband have worked hand-in-hand with the city to overcome a few items that have been associated with the subdivision but not completed. One of the challenges has been agreements written down as promised to Pine Brook DIV1 with Curtis Ferney. She was told in the beginning, there would eventually be twin homes along the highway. During the eight (8) years she has lived in her home, no one has expressed interest in 10 developing the lots along Highway 20 until now. Tina has noticed the developers are bringing a different building style, adding variety to the neighborhood; it is a good thing. Housing prices are going up. The homes are high-end. These builders proposing the application have a vested interest in the subdivision, because they do have lots that have not been built on either. Also, the developers have met with the H.O.A., this last Tuesday, the developers met with the subdivision and went over their plans. She understands a petition was submitted to the city with several of the homeowners’ signatures. Tina does not know the circumstances under which the petition was presented. She did speak with the individual who submitted the petition. The individual understood thirty-six (36) homes would be built. They can do 4- plexes and manufactured homes. The sewer system is not designed to support thirty- six (36) homes. The price point of these homes starts out at $300,000. There were concerns about the possibility of more kids drowning in the private pond. She feels some of these comments are valid concerns, Tina does not want thirty-six (36) homes along the highway. What was proposed to the neighborhood was nine (9) twin homes or eighteen (18) dwellings. She feels every homeowner has the right to voice their opinion on the rezoning, based on the facts, not on emotional misinformation. Tina does not feel the price point of starting of the $500,000 is correct. Homes built in the subdivision to meet the bare minimum requirements have sold in the $460,000 range. The twin homes will sell at a higher square footage for value and will increase property values of the nearby single-family homes. It will be nice to complete the subdivision. Todd Webb does a nice job on the homes he has built. She agrees to the nine (9) twin homes. Neutral: David Wills - 898 Pine Brook Ln – He lives within three hundred fifty (350’) feet of the proposal. He learned the city is not required to notify him due to his distance from the application lots. David was one of the people who walked around the neighborhood and collected signatures. However, he wants to withdraw his name from the petition. He wanted his comments to be heard in person as opposed to his words in a letter. The information shared today is pretty comprehensive and enlightening. David is not opposed to the eighteen (18) units. There are some beneficial improvements that will come with the development, including an artificial sound barrier from the highway for the neighborhood. David moved into a completed home 2 ½ years ago as the second owner. It was immediately obvious to him there is a lot of freeway noise. The twin homes as a buffer is a positive. The negatives of changing from Rural to a more controlled development style. The ramification of this approval is the forecast of what will happen across the street to the west of Pine Brook. David works as a Data Analyst, looking for trends. When he went to the builders’ meeting on Tuesday, there was some contention about whether or not twin homes would raise or lower the value of the current homes. The data shows, as long as there is a mixed value below the twenty (20%) percent mark, you can actually have an increase in property value, as long as single-family homes are the eighty (80%) majority. There are some stipulations like the building quality. It does 11 not seem like the developer will skimp on quality. Due to past experience among the neighbors, there is a stigma in the neighborhood that has created some distrust with developers. The median or average home price in Rexburg as of March 2022 is $900,000, but the size of the home is not being considered. The median listing value is $700,000. The average per square footage is $279. The median home size is 2,400 sq. ft. If you take the $270 x 1,800 sq. ft., you end up with a $502,000 home, without consideration of the property value itself. David believes at the high point, a ½ acre lot in the Pine Brook DIV2 subdivision was selling at $67,500. More importantly, he believes, if the developer can be held accountable, it will not decrease the home values. He is worried about giving his full approval, knowing what is coming. Doug Smith - 1009 Larch Drive - He sold property in 2007 to Curtis Ferney. The property sat for a long time without any home building. Doug does not have a dog in the fight anymore. He lives in Pine Brook DIV1 and has a shop in Pine Brook DIV2. Doug has watched the lots along the freeway sit idle. Even in this crazy market, the lots have not sold. Until recently, the original developer still owned eight (8) of the lots. We no longer want to deal with Curtis. Todd has built nice homes in our subdivision and has promised the residents he will take the highway lots and build twin homes. The twin homes he showed Tuesday night are some Doug would love to have as neighbors. Doug took a lot of heat from his neighbors when he built his shop, but it did not decrease the value of surrounding homes. Some neighbors had their homes appraised when Doug finished his shop, and the homes all appraise for more money than when they were built. Having nice homes along the highway will only enhance the neighborhood. The development of these lots will buffer the highway noise and get rid of some of the weeds. Cristy Priceler – (1:02:53) – Castle Pines lot 12 - 1054 Bannock in Idaho Falls - She has drafted twin homes. Twin homes are designed differently. Twin homes feel like a single-wide trailer. You can add things to make them look nice. The developer is planning on AirBnb and renting the units; very few are purchased and lived in. The person purchasing the twin homes are purchasing them to make money. The clientele of these units creates a situation where the yards are not kept as nice and other negative effects. Homeowners are putting a lot of trust in the developer, and not so much in the purchaser of the twin homes. Mary Zollinger - 1073 Greenside Loop – She was assigned to serve as the H.O.A. president. Mary loves Pine Brook. She loves the people there, the variety of homes, and she really cares about her subdivision. One of the common questions for the H.O.A. is who is going to put the sound barrier in. Who is going to take care of the noise? How will the subdivision be finished? The H.O.A board gave these questions some serious thought. Todd Webb approached the H.O.A. around the first of the year and presented what he would like to do. He would fight for the zoning. The H.O.A. can only look at the submitted building plans and compare them again the Covenants and Conditions of the subdivision. A concept has been presented, but no building plans. Today, the H.O.A. worked on a contract with the developers, because of the past history with the developer who did not follow through on his promises. The contract states the developers will follow through on their concept for eighteen (18) landscaped units. The berm will go in along Hwy 20 and plant trees. There is 12 some PTSD from being lied to over and over and over. She has faith the developers and neighbors will come through this for the better. The H.O.A. letter has been created saying they will support the developers in this stated endeavor. Not all signatures have been collected for either document. Opposed: Alexandra Holt – 862 Pine Brook Ln – Withdrew Letter. She thanked the developers for meeting with the neighbors to provide clarity for their plan. For her, the meeting communicated the developers can build beautiful homes as they shared their concept. Unfortunately, a concept is not a contract, yet. While the H.O.A members are looking to make an agreement, the twin homes are being built as a proof of concept, so the developers can purchase the sixty (60) acres to the west of the Pine Brook subdivision to build more twin homes. Alexandra is not interested in being a guinea pig of that proof of concept. She has not seen Refuge Homes’ work, yet, but concept plans have been shown by Aaron Richards. This Comprehensive Plan Map change and Rezone creates dangerous territory where the previous developer still owns these properties, he can still take the land and run. The applicant listed the purpose of the application is a better use of resources. For her, she has to look at the benefits to the community to determine the better use of resources. Alexandra believes the developers would benefit from the use of the resources. She does not see a rush to get these Hwy 20 lots built on, other than to have the subdivision completed, especially since this seems to minimize the standards established by the Rural Residential homes. In reference to spot zoning, the subdivision is right on the borders of the city. Since all the zoning around the parcels are not a similar zone, she wonders how this could not be considered spot zoning. She read “Spot zoning is when zoning classifications of comparable properties nearby are changed because those who asked for the change can develop them and it benefits them.” Alexandra believes this rezone request would be spot zoning. The homes are on ½ acre and 1 acre lots. She is against this proposal to keep the integrity of her neighborhood Rural Residential. She has been a property manager of thirty- eight (38) units and stated in her experience, renters do not take care of places they do not own. She is against the change in the Comprehensive Plan and Rezone. Chase Hendricks - 25 N 2nd E – He is an attorney in town and represents some homeowners who live directly across from the lots shown tonight at 1111 Castle Pines. His parents have lived in Pine Brook DIV1 for about twenty (20) years. Chase represents counties and cities, much like Attorney Rammell. He appreciates the work and diligence the H.O.A. has done. He has reviewed the Development Agreement signed by the current developer with the city recorded in 2008. The Development Agreement for Pine Brook was not part of the Commissioners’ packets. He believes it is because a contract can be changed at any time. An interesting provision reads, “lots that are not developed within three (3) years will have the sidewalk installed by the developer.” He bets the landowners are putting in the sidewalks. Not too long ago, Sugar City tried to enforce a contract. A new developer came in to request a change in zoning. Zoning gives you the ability to build to that zone’s standards. In Sugar City’s case, the zoning doubled the density. For this application, ownership of these properties has changed since notification. Things change. A contract is not enforceable. 13 Cooperation with all the neighbors is needed to sue the developer. Those neighbors directly affected end up shouldering the burden for the community. When the people moved in two months ago, they relied on this particular zoning, and build a $700,000 home. Chase believes this is the very definition of “spot zoning”. The sale of these lots is contingent on the Commissioners’’ decision, which is also contingent on the sale of the lots across N 12th W for the Jensen farm. The zoning is the only part that is legally binding. He appreciates the city making the Comprehensive Plan Map change first. On pg. 70 in the Comprehensive Plan text, it reads “The housing density in new areas should be located strategically around future neighborhood centers and located along collector roads”. Density should be located near the collector road. That is not how this development was planned out. The twin homes should have been built along N 12th W, because this is where you want the traffic. Now, they will be located at the back of the subdivision. In 2008, the request was for LDR1 for these lots. Utilities are all about planning. This subdivision was engineered twenty (20) years ago. This was not the density planned. A park was originally planned beside Hwy 20 was the original plan. Pine Brook DIV1 was built without sidewalks, so he would argue if sidewalks in Pine Brook DIV2 are appropriate. On pg. 12 of the Comprehensive Plan text, a question was cited, “Have conditions changed so that the plan does not reflect the city’s preferred development patterns or its current goals? If this question cannot be answered affirmatively, any amendment should be considered with caution.” Ryan Hruska - 1111 Castle Pines Rd. – His home is directly affected by these lots and any proposed changes in the Pine Brook community. The front of his home faces east, directly looks at the properties being considered for the Comprehensive Plan Map change and rezoning. The current Comprehensive Plan Map designated the Pine Brook subdivision is Rural. There is no contiguous area that would denote a change in the Comprehensive Plan Map. The zoning matches the Comprehensive Plan Map. The subdivision is currently zoned as Rural Residential. The zoning to the north and west is also Rural. Agriculture uses are located to the east and west. Pine Brook is currently zoned properly for the City of Rexburg. The highway lots have zero access to the highway. He repeated access and spot zoning concerns previously stated. The proposed changes provide no benefits to the Pine Brook community. These changes do not fit the current Comprehensive Plan Map, nor the zoning, nor any land contiguous to it. He agrees there is a housing shortage and is aware of the rise in property values both nationally and locally. Ryan understands the need to build more affordable homes at affordable prices. This is not the appropriate location. Twin Homes are more expensive than the homes in the Pine Brook community. He referred to ten (10) more acres of zoning were added today in the previous hearings. There are better areas in Rexburg that would better suit these proposed twin homes. He and his family request the Commission deny these zoning and Comprehensive Plan changes. The Idaho Land Act was discussed. He is against the higher density and buffer by going through the subdivision, feels this is a spot zone and should not be allowed. Does not fit. There is a housing shortage however this is not the appropriate place to build this type of housing. 14 Brand Mackert - 963 Pine Brook Ln – The change for these lots seems to have moved really fast. He appreciates the meeting held with the developers. The answers to the homeowners’ questions feel like the most honest they have received since he began living in the Pine Brook subdivision. In February 2023, he will have lived in the subdivision for seven (7) years. He serves on the H.O.A. board, but he has had to take a step back to keep up with other things in his life. Brand has not e-signed the contract sent to the board members today. The subdivision subwater has been a factor in the sale of the lots. The covenants state that the main floor has to have a minimum 1,700 sq.ft. He believes a nicely built, single-family home will sell just as well as a twin home. It was presented to him; a twin home would be easier for a family to get into in today’s economy. Pine Brook Ln already sees a lot of traffic, including construction traffic. Brand is opposed to this proposal because there is not a need for twin homes. He wants the developers to build eight (8) homes and be done. Brand wants to thank everyone for the additional information, but this has come way to fast. Tony Wade - 844 Pine Brook Ln – He is against twin homes being built along the highway. The developer has proven if you build it, people will come, and they do not have to be twin homes. He repeated traffic concerns for Pine Brook Ln and comments for single-family homes instead of twin homes stated by Brand. This morning he noticed his water pressure was less he fears this project will make things worse. Developers want to make money at the expense of the property owners. They want to sell million dollars homes instead of $700,000 homes. He did not attend the H.O.A. meeting on Tuesday. Travis Schwab - 1032 Larch Dr – He has lived in his home for five (5) years at a stop sign, but it causes more of a slowdown of traffic instead of a stop at the corner of Pine Brook Ln and Larch Dr. He shared concerns about the traffic. Travis did not attend the Tuesday meeting. He agreed with the time, developer’s interest, and wanted a traffic study prior to the decision. Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Aaron Richard – He lives in a community with twin homes and asked the attendees of the meeting if anyone else lived in this same situation. Two others indicated they do. Aaron stated twin homes do not generate traffic. There are twenty-four twin homes in his neighborhood. None of his kids have been run over. A Traffic Study is part of the plat process. In twelve (12) years, no one has signed up to build there $750,000 dream home on one of these lots adjacent to Hwy 20. No one wants the highway in their backyard; there is no guardrail there on this bend. He is trying to come in and create an interim, lifestyle product. The H.O.A. has agreed these units will be at a higher-dues structure, including full maintenance of the yard, snow removal and joint infrastructure, so it could be a lock-and-leave buyer. There is a lot of demand for these kinds of buyers. These lots are ½ and 1 acre lots, giving plenty of room for children to play. Aaron has worked in the industry for twenty (20) years, and he has never originated a lawsuit or been part of a lawsuit. He desires to work with the community, and this is why they worked with the H.O.A. and homeowners 15 to write a Development Agreement. The plan is to take a ½ acre lot and split it into ¼ acre lots sixty-two (62’) feet wide with a fifty (50’) feet wide product. The building itself will be one hundred (100’) feet wide. The buildings will not look like trailer or modular homes but will be attractive. No one can control rentals. Any property by state law can become a rental. If this constitutes “spot zoning”, then we have it all over town with folks living together. In his opinion, the request would not have been made if there were not already successful examples in town. The developers are coming in wanting to be creative, solve a problem, and will not replicate anything across the street. This is a stand-alone zoning request. Todd Webb – In the CC&Rs 4.1.6, it says “no accessory structure can be built upon a building lot until after a home has been built on an adjacent lot owned by the same owner.” Some of the covenants have not been followed. Todd owns three (3) of the lots as a condition to purchase the lots along Hwy 20. The only way he can make it pencil is to build the smallest house possible as inexpensively as he can. If I can build a twin home, he will build something to try to lessen the highway noise. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 8:25PM. 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. Eric asked legal counsel about how much weight can be placed on a Development Agreement and the contract between the H.O.A. and the developer. Attorney Zollinger can rely on the fact the developers cannot reduce the size of the lots smaller than ¼ acre. A re-platting will be necessary to make the changes to the size of the lots. Eric asked about the possibility the units can be resold. Attorney Zollinger stated if the contract is well-written, it will have an assigns and errors paragraph, which means if you get out of this contract, whoever buys the land from you will inherit the same obligations. The reason why the Commissioners do not have a copy of the Development Agreement is because it has nothing to do with the Planning & Zoning Commission. The developer for Pine Brook has been drug back to comply with a number of upgrades he committed to. Not all the agreements have been completed, but the city did exact on behalf of the subdivision, a number of items stated in the Development Agreement. Attorney Zollinger continued as far as spot zoning, there are spot zones and there are illegal spot zones. The difference between a spot zone and creating a zone in the middle of an area is in order for it to be illegal needs to fit the definition of the Supreme Court. In essence, it needs to be inconsistent with the adjacent properties or the surrounding area. He fails to see a difference between single-family residential living in Rural Residential and the single-family residential living in Low-Density Residential that the court would accept. Spot zoning occurred in every inch of the city when we first put a zone on it, because there was nothing around it. An example 16 would be someone is given the ability to put a commercial enterprise in the middle of a residential neighborhood. That is then inconsistent with the surrounding properties and only to the commercial enterprise’s owner only. David asked about the platting of the Pine Brook subdivision. Would this require a new plat? Attorney Zollinger stated the change would require a plat amendment of they could take the nine (9) lots and plat over the top of the nine (9) lot area. David asked how much say does the Commission have when considering a plat in determining the density of the lots? Attorney Zollinger confirmed when this plat comes before the Commission and it has more than the eighteen (18) lots, the Commission could state the request is inconsistent with the neighborhood. The Commissioners and City Council are to look to the governmental powers given to cities that restrict what the bodies are to look at. The bodies can consider infrastructure, traffic, and safety. David continued if Staff says the roads can handle thirty-six (36) lots, the roads can handle thirty-six (36) lots, and all city services can be provided, can the Commission then say, it is inconsistent with the neighborhood contract, therefore, we will not grant this plat. Attorney Zollinger will always be uncomfortable if you are relying on their contract but not if you acknowledge their contract and say everyone agreed that it would be too many lots for that particular portion of the Pine Brook DIV2 subdivision. David confirmed this would be in their policing powers. Vince asked for the Development Code Summary sheet to be shown. (Development Code Summary sheet was reviewed for accuracy and corrected as needed to show the code changes.) LDR2 allows one building with two single-family units including either a twin home or a duplex. A twin home is two units in one building and the units are configured side-by-side. Alan said a duplex is one building, usually with one upstairs and one downstairs unit, each for a single-family home. Vince says the Commission needs to omit any thinking about a project, any specifications of measurements, a contract, or the H.O.A. Frankly, he has never done business with Aaron. Look at the maximum capability of the request. It would be hard for me to have built in a subdivision, with the understanding the subdivision is all in the same zone, to have the zone changed. Vince lives in an area with some beautiful twin homes. He reminded the Commissioners of a recent presentation where this subdivision was discussed, and water had to be dumped into a canal to keep fresh water because of the lack of development. The subdivision has filled in drastically since that time. Have we given enough time for the lots to be sold as single-family homes? Eric said most of the development has not filled in. Those at the entrance will be the last ones to fill; this does not seem like a great argument. Chairperson Smith confirmed the lots have been on the market for a long time until they were purchased in January. There are homes that have been built to the south that are located very close to the highway. David is sympathetic to the project but will agree with Vince’s comments and the focus on the land use. He is concerned about the nature of changing the land use in the middle of a development designated a certain way. He is on the fence. He does not feel this is spot zoning. Inconsistent and detrimental are the two words he has learned about spot-zoning. There is a lot of leeway in inconsistency. He appreciates Mr. Zollinger’s explanation. The request is different in the designation around it. Eric says this is after the fact. He hears the 17 comments about planning twin homes against the freeway. The plat was not planned this way. The timing of the request at the conclusion of the development does not sit right with him. Chairperson Smith said the agreement with the city and the developer, does this request have anything to do with that. What was the agreement? Attorney Zollinger says the agreement was accurately related. The berm with vegetation on top of it was one of the items as presented today. Pine Brook DIV1 residents were concerned about an LDR1 zone; they felt it should continue to be made available as a rural residential development. Staff feels the request is acceptable as a look toward the future. There is nothing rural about this subdivision; it is being built to city standards on ½ acre lots. The subdivision is large in size, but the argument he feels they should have all been making is we like the space. In joking he continued, there are no cows in the subdivision; there is a pole barn with no animals. One of things the Commission should consider is are we mis-designating our Rural Residential 2. Should it be an LDR ½? We are not trying to design farm living. We are trying to preserve ½ acre lots as a neighborhood. In RR2, we required sidewalks and curbing. We turned them into large, city parcels. This is consistent with how city’s grow. The city has grown from 11,000 to 40,000. The Commissioners’ job is to make the best decision for the day you are sitting on this Commission for the future of the community. He is offended by any implication twin homes are occupied by poor people. Dr. Zollinger grew up in a twin home right next door to Attorney Zollinger in a single-family home. He calls them connected homes instead of twin homes. The discussion should be about the size of the parcels and the number of units. Brad Wolfe’s concern is what are the max number of units allowed on each lot? Attorney Zollinger said there are nine (9) lots, each with 1 building containing two (2) units equaling eighteen (18) units. Brad does not have any other questions and his is in favor. A Planned Unit Development would need to come before the Commission for any additional density with a plat. Attorney Zollinger said the contract is enforceable. The contract with the H.O.A. is valid with the developers’ signatures. Eric’s concern is the timing that he does not feel he has had enough time to make a proper decision. He would be more apt to agree if the H.O.A. also signed agreement. Vince confirmed the contract states the developers will not come back and ask for more units on smaller parcels. Attorney Zollinger said right now if you vote and there is not a contract. If you vote on the Comprehensive Plan without the contract, the next owner will not have to comply. Many voting in support are relying on the integrity of the developers. Do not split these apart. Consider them together. Vince said the Comprehensive Plan request is for LDR1-MDR1, and the granting of a zone is dependent on the appropriateness of the request. Eric is sure which way he is leaning, and he would rather feel more comfortable about an agreement between the parties. Chairperson Smith counseled the Commission to act on both requests at the same time. David feels the request is consistent, but he would be more comfortable with a more solid agreement. Bruce feels similarly. Chairperson Smith said there is a feeling from the audience that this has happened quickly. Eric feels it would be a better solution for the developers to table the applications. Vince said if we vote in favor of the applicant, this will allow the applicant to go to LDR2. Attorney Zollinger clarified the applicant would be able to build the nine structures immediately upon approval. The lot split would not come back to the Commission. 18 MOTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council to approve (22-00102) – the Comprehensive Plan Map change from Rural to LDR1-MDR1 for the Pine Brook DIV2 Blk6 Lots 16-24, because this will create an appropriate step from the highway to the rural residential density area and is, therefore, appropriate to the overall plan. Action: Approve, Moved by David Pulsipher Seconded by Sally Smith. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passes (summary: Yes = 5, No = 2). Yes: Bruce Casper, David Pulsipher, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Brad Wolfe. Against: Eric Erickson and Vince Haley (Vice Chair) 4. (22-00103) - Pine Brook DIV2 Blk6 Lots 16-24 – Rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). Adjacent properties are zoned Transitional Agriculture (TAG) across US Highway 20 and Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to the north, south, and west. The properties are 4.727 acres. – Todd Webb (action) (02:38:19) Applicant Presentation: Aaron Richards – The presentation and information he would present is identical to the previous application. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Staff has reviewed this application for rezone. The request has met all the requirements for sewer and water. Staff recommends the application to the Commission to recommend to City Council. Commissioner Questions: None Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 9:15PM. Attorney Zollinger clarified all the Commissioners were present for the previous comments and they can be considered in this application as well for purposes of deliberation. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: Chase Hendricks – 25 N 2nd E – He brings up the Development Agreement and the struggles holding the developer to as stated. He believes in contracts, but he would guess no one has vetted the contract from a legal standpoint. Chase wants to emphasize the residents of Pine Brook relied on the zoning of their neighborhood. Land should not be changed in a piece meal fashion. There is no benefit as defined in spot zoning. In the Comprehensive Plan it reads, “an existing neighborhood, consider 19 options for comparable quality design consistent with existing character. Design standards may be considered in areas where design compatibility may have an impact on the quality of neighborhoods. Explore the possibilities of requesting area studies to be prepared by the developer showing the relationship of the subdivision to the neighborhood in which it is a part. In relation to the street system, the recreation sites, and other facilities and services should be shown.” The time is too quick. A Traffic Study has been completed. You are not supposed to sell lots prior to them being split. At the end of development, it is not appropriate to change the zone. Please deny the zone change. Mitch Holt – 862 Pine Brook Ln – If we are going to consider the contract between the H.O.A. and the developer. With all of the new people who have moved into the neighborhood, this contract does not give a fair representation of the Pine Brook residents. Brand Mackert - 963 Pine Brook Ln – The contract was a Doc-U-Sign document sent to the H.O.A. members at 3:12PM today. The timing is too fast for everyone to review. He can see a few H.O.A members have signed the document. Written Response: #1 - Aaron & Dara Wells 20 Rebuttal: Aaron Richards said the contract has been signed by all parties except the H.O.A. The contract is fully executed. The zoning is the protection for the landowners. The contract has been conducted in good faith. Todd Webb - Mary sent the contract out last night too to let the H.O.A review the document. This is part of the request that came from the Tuesday neighborhood meeting. Attorney Smith asked if the H.O.A. board or all the residents are signing the contract. Only the board will sign the contract. Todd said the developers agreed to what was requested last night. Chairperson Smith closed the public hearing. 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 since we have approved the Comprehensive Plan Map change, the rezone decision needs to be made to protect the neighborhood. Todd Marx said the same arguments stand as before. David said his vote is based on regardless of the contract, the zone change makes sense to him 21 and the appropriateness of the land in this part of the city. He would encourage the developers to work with the enter into the arrangements that help people feel more comfortable with the end result. In the end, the land use makes sense. Eric says the current zoning RR2 would not be compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. Vince said the current designation is from LDR1-MDR1. Eric confirmed the RR2 zone is now not compatible with the current Comprehensive Plan Map designations. The zoning would necessarily have to change. Attorney Zollinger clarified the zone cannot change unless it is conforming with the Comprehensive Plan Map. You can have a non-conforming zone with the Comprehensive Plan, because you are directing changes for the future. David confirmed it is basically grandfathered. Brad said he agrees the contract is a great idea, but he does not see that it has any ; it is liking them to do their work. There is an article on the table on rather or not there is a contract; this has nothing to do with the Commissioners’ decision. He is in favor of the application. Vince thinks of the residents; if he was in the subdivision; he does not hate twin homes; but if he would have built a nice, single-family home and the twin homes were coming in. It is hard for him to see the other side of the coin. There are a number of houses that are not in accordance with this change. He does not feel the Commission is doing the residents justice based on what they were told when they bought land in the subdivision. If the residents were all in agreeance, he would be for the change, but he is against. Eric agrees. There has not been enough vetting with the residence; he is against. David said the Commission is a recommending body. Vince clarified to the audience the City Council meeting would not be a public hearing. MOTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council to deny (22-00103) the Rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) for Pine Brook DIV2 Blk6 Lots 16-24, because too many new homes in the area without full agreement by the residents and the residents’ unfulfilled promises , Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by ….. Attorney Zollinger said the motion could not be made this way, because it is pandering to the crowd. The motion cannot be about the individual properties. The motion has to be based on the job the Commission is charged with, which is the best interest of the community as a whole. Vince Haley rescinded his motion. MOTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council to deny (22-00103) the Rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) for Pine Brook DIV2 Blk6 Lots 16-24, based on the inconsistencies of the neighboring properties, Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Bruce Casper. Eric said he would strengthen motion based on the inconsistencies with the adjacent properties. He does not feel this would change Vince’s motion. Chairperson Smith said by recommending the Comprehensive Plan Map change, this motion leaves the parcels open to any zoning that would fit in the LDR1-MDR1 designation. Vince said the applicant could come back and request up to MDR1. Even if the zoning is approved, the applicant could make the same request. 22 VOTE: Motion denied (summary: Yes = 4, No = 3). Yes: Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). Against: Sally Smith (Chairperson), Brad Wolfe, Todd Marx. MOTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council to approve (22-00103) the Rezone from Rural Residential 2 (RR2) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) for Pine Brook DIV2 Blk6 Lots 16-24, because the change is consistent with the way the city is going and the zone change acts as a freeway buffer, Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion: David asked what happens with a tie vote. Attorney Zollinger said there are seven people. If there was a tie, the motion would consider failing. VOTE: Motion denied (summary: Yes = 3, No = 4). Yes: Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Brad Wolfe. Against: Eric Erickson, Bruce Casper, Vince Haley (Vice Chair), David Pulsipher. It goes before City Council no public comment. (5 min. break) Tabled Items: 1. (22-00100) 4 Parcels south of the Hidden Valley Subdivision PH7 & PH8 at Approx. Centennial Loop and Star View Dr. - RPRXBCA0291838, RPRXBCA0291851, and RPRXBCA0297510 – Rezone from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). These properties were annexed into the City of Rexburg as Area 4 in 2003 and zoned at that time as Low-Density Residential. The properties are a total of 95 acres. (action) *Applicant has requested this item remain tabled per email 4/4/22. (3:12:34) Aaron Richards returned to the dais. Plat: 1. (20-00899) Yellowstone Heights – Ella Ln and Yellowstone Hwy – Condominium Plat. – Aaron Jensen (action) 23 Applicant Presentation: Aaron Jensen – (address) Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – The application is for Yellowstone Heights. The intersection of N 2nd E and Yellowstone Hwy was shown on the overhead map. The property is located west of Kenneth Square. The applicant is looking for condominium plat for forty-two (42) units. The condominium plat meets all of the requirements of the Development Code. The city has capacity to service the request. Staff has reviewed this plat and recommends the plat to the Commission to recommend the plat to City Council. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Smith confirmed Staff’s comments take into consideration the other agenda items approved tonight. Eric confirmed this is new construction. Chairperson Smith confirmed the zone has been in place for some time. Alan told the Commission there are two foundations that have gone in, and they can do this without approval of this plat. The units cannot be sold as condominiums until this plat is approved. If not approved, these could be rental units. Vince clarified the old house was removed. He asked if the units at Kenneth Square are condos. Alan said no, they are just 4-plexes. Vince clarified the developers of Yellowstone Heights and Kenneth Square are different people. Attorney Rammell said does it meet the Comprehensive Plan and the preliminary plat (which is the Infrastructure Plan)? Eric asked if this limits the developers to condominiums or could the units be sold differently. Alan said it locks the development into condominiums to sell as individual units. Chairperson Smith asked about the incentive for condominiums. Alan responded it gives people the opportunity to get into a starter home and build equity. 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. 24 Commission Discussion: Eric said Rexburg needs more of these types of units to give young people a change to get started. Chairperson Smith agreed, because you can see what is happening with our high-density housing. Eric believes the location is ideal. The N 2nd E intersection is a mess. Vince said the zone is already there. The request meets the criteria Attorney Rammell stated. MOTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council to approve (20-00899) Yellowstone Heights – Ella Ln and Yellowstone Hwy – Condominium Plat, because the plat meets all the criteria of the Development Code and is in the correct zone, Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion: None. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8, No = 0). Yes: Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Brad Wolfe, Eric Erickson, Bruce Casper, Vince Haley (Vice Chair), David Pulsipher, Aaron Richards. Attorney Zollinger said in a motion you cannot address individual testimony. Do not interact specifically with what the audience says. You listen to what the audience says and do what is best for the community. Sometimes people will give emotional testimony, but you have to say we appreciate this is devastating to you, but in the long-term it is the best thing for the community. There may be times you send applications to the elected officials for them to be political. Vince clarified the Commissioners are responsible to the city as a whole. Attorney Zollinger continued this subdivision is a component of the whole. When the airport first went in, the city needed to say we need an airport and we are going to put it here, because this is where the FAA will let us. This decision wiped-out homes where people had lived for eighty (80) years. We are tasked with pure analytics. Look at the numbers and the consequences and apply a geometric application to what you believe is the best analysis. Let the City Council deal with the emotion. The City Council is elected to appeal to the emotion of the community. We do not recommend City Council hold the public hearings, because we do not want their decision to be based on who cries the hardest. Analysis and recommendation are the Commissions’ job. Chairperson Smith said Attorney Rammell is giving the Commission good training. Vince said as an appointed person by the mayor, you need to decide one way or the other. Attorney Zollinger said the only time you would abstain is if you were not present for a motion on the minutes. Or if you have a conflict of interest. If you were not present for the hearing for a tabled item, you could abstain. Attorney Rammell said it is helpful to make sure you state what we are voting for. Failure of a motion never achieves anything. Attorney Zollinger clarified in the absence of recommending approval, the motion is deemed denied. David’s purpose was to table the motion because we were at an impasse. He should have motioned to table the zone change. Attorney Zollinger said an impasse does not exist on odd numbered panels. David confirmed a substitute motion could have been made in the middle of another motion. 25 Eric asked, what mess was created by tonight’s actions. Attorney Zollinger said the group recommended the approval of the Comprehensive Plan Map change for Pine Brook DIV2 and recommended to deny the zone change. The parcel would stay RR2 as a grandfathered zone. Attorney Zollinger says the City Council wants a recommendation from the Commission. The developer has the right to submit a request to move forward with the non-recommendation to be considered as an appeal. The legal team has a problem with if the City Council approves the rezone application, because that decision would be a substantive departure from what the Commission recommended, and it comes back to the Commission as an appeal. Alan said the challenge created if the applicant waits two or three years and the Commission approves the proposal, because the request matches the Comprehensive Plan Map. Report on Projects: None Heads Up: April 21st – No Hearings Adjournment 10:08PM