HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 6.16.221
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 6:30 PM.
Planning & Zoning Meeting:
Welcome
Pledge of Allegiance: Todd Marx
Commissioner Roll Call:
ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Present: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith
(Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Vanessa Johnson.
Absent: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis.
Minutes:
Planning & Zoning Meeting May 19, 2022 (action)
MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as recorded for May 19, 2022.
Action: Approve, Moved by Todd Marx, Seconded by Vince Haley
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. Yes. (Summary: Yes = 6, No = 0).
Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith (Chairperson),
Jim Lawrence, Vanessa Johnson.
Public Hearings:
1. (22-00280) – 795 S 5th W – Annexation and
Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) to
Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2).
This parcel is a Madison County Island within
the city limits. The Comprehensive Plan Map
shows this parcel in the MDR2-HDR1
designation. The parcel is adjacent to a city-
owned property to the south for future
development of a park. The property is four (4)
acres. – Will Wade (action)
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
June 16, 2022
2
Chairman Smith asked if the applicant was present. Alan said the applicant was supposed
to attend online, but he has not logged in, yet.
Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – The applicant has presented a request to annex and rezone
the Lawrence property located at 795 S 5th W. Staff would like to see this parcel come into
the city. The request matches the uses in the area and the Comprehensive Plan Map
designation. Public Works has the ability to service this area for water, sewer, and traffic.
(Applicant logged in.) Alan requested to continue the Staff Report after the applicant’s
presentation.
Applicant Presentation: Will Wade – (online) Tokyo, Japan – He would attend the
meeting in-person, but he is on government orders overseas. Will has dedicated his life to
serving our country. For the last fifteen (15) years, he has worked for the government. Three
(3) of those years have been in war zones. Living in these areas is based on trust. He
understands there are some concerns with the request; he hopes to address those concerns.
He will not explain the details of the project, but will instead focus on the land use
application. He is requesting a rezone to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) as part of
the annexation of this parcel. To the immediate north, kitty-corner to the southwest, and
further down the road there is Medium-Density. There is also some High-Density
Residential. To the immediate east, there is University property. Based on the city’s
Comprehensive Plan, the parcel would accommodate the growth the city expects to see in
this area. The Comprehensive Plan Map designation lays out four (4) options for rezone of
this property: Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1), Medium-Density Residential 2
(MDR2), High-Density Residential 1 (HDR1) and High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2). He is
seeking the second lowest density of those four options.
Will understands there is some justifiable frustration regarding density projects in Rexburg.
Developers have come in with a bait and switch – they have built tall buildings, maxed out
their densities, and then cashed their checks out-of-state, where they live. The city seems
awash with apartments; apartments are not his plan at this location. He is willing to put his
intentions in writing.
Another concern is the traffic on 5th West; with more units, there will be more cars. Part of
the parcel will be used to expand the setbacks, so the city can increase the size of the road.
Once the parcel is developed, more taxes can be levied on the parcel to fund more law
enforcement, so people think twice before speeding up on 5th W. Use the funds to create
some speed traps or other means to slow down traffic.
To the immediate south, the land has been donated for a park. Many residents wanted to
increase the size of the park by adding this parcel to the park. He does not know the
backstory of this negotiation, but he knows this did not happen. Will understands the city
had an opportunity to purchase this parcel and for whatever reason, it was unsuccessful. His
concern is the frustration with this situation that may be directed at this project. Is this fair?
Some might ask why I am seeking Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2). Why is he not
requesting Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1)? He said if we were having this
3
conversation two years ago, MDR1 would have worked, but now we have entered a time of
recession and inflation, when building costs are high and home costs are falling. The Federal
Government just kicked in the highest interest rate increase in the last twenty (20) years. This
is simple economics. The MDR1 designation would allow sixteen (16) units per acre,
allowing 64 units. Will is asking for MDR2, which will allow twenty (20) units per acre,
allowing sixteen (16) additional units. These additional units provide a buffer, so he does not
lose his shirt on this deal. This request is a good faith effort on negotiation for the property,
it serves the interest of the community and it aligns with the Comprehensive Plan.
Will has made a lot of calls about purchasing different parcels. Across the board, the prices
landowners were asking for would only make sense based on a rezone. The seller was basing
his price on the potential number of units that could be built if a rezone was achieved. He
understands when you live in a place, you do not want to see the extra density. But when you
sell your place, you do want the extra density, because it increases the value of your land.
Will noticed some of these landowners, who are selling their land, have also signed the
petition that has been submitted. He asked, how in good conscience, they have signed the
petition to block the Lawrences from doing something they would also do in their shoes.
Commissioner Questions: None
Staff Report (continued): Alan Parkinson – He showed the Comprehensive Plan Map on
the overhead screen. Alan explained the Comprehensive Plan is a tool used in the city to
plan for the future, designed to project growth for the next twenty (20) years. The
Comprehensive Plan was written in 2008. Two years ago, one of the parts of the
Comprehensive Plan, the Comprehensive Plan Map was updated. Public meetings were held,
with work meetings for the Planning & Zoning Commissioners and the City Council. Few
changes were made to the area we are discussing tonight. The city anticipates densities of
MDR1-HDR2. Those parcels under this same designation can remain as they are. The
University owns the field to the east; it may stay a field or it may develop; the city does not
know what will happen. Near the University, you want the higher densities, to allow the
students to have better accessibility to school. Often, one of the concerns that come up at
public meetings is the condition of roads. The city is currently conducting a Transportation
Plan. A firm was hired to come in and assess the problem areas of the city to guide this plan.
When developers come in, it is standard practice for the city to request the developer
dedicate land for the wider roadways. Sidewalks, curb, and gutter are required to be installed
to city standards by the developer; this cost does not come back to the tax payers. The
sidewalks create a place for children to ride their bicycles and for residents to walk on. As
the city densities grow, the city determines if stoplights or stop signs are needed at
intersections. The reason the applicant cannot discuss details about a project during a land
use application is due to the reality the group must look at the worst case scenario and the
maximum build-out within a zone. Staff has reviewed the application and discussed the
concerns of the residents. Staff recommends the application for approval to the Planning &
Zoning Commissioners to recommend to City Council.
Commissioner Questions: Vince said the Staff Report is written with the annexation and
rezone being considered together. He asked Alan if the two have to be considered together
tonight. Alan answered the applicant has requested the two be considered together; both the
annexation and rezone will either be approved or denied. Vince has noticed the road to the
4
north is currently much wider than it is at 795 S 5th W. Alan explained that regardless of
approval of this application or not, whomever develops this property will have to designate
right-of-way for the widening of the road. Vince clarified at time of road widening, some of
the houses will have to be removed. He asked if there was a representative from the
Lawrence family in the audience. (A representative is present and he will be able to speak in
the public input portion of the meeting.) Alan explained the city did approach the
Lawrences about purchasing the property. Both parties could not come to an agreement.
The city will still develop the park to the south of this property. Chairperson Smith asked
about the size of the park. Alan said it is about 3.6 acres; this is larger than the Park Street
park.
Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:55PM.
Favor:
Kerry Lawrence - 1600 S 4000 W - Thank you for the opportunity to speak. His dad was
always resistant to development in the neighborhood, starting with Hyde Park, then Mesa
Falls, Eden Apartments, and others. However, precedence has been set. He knows Will
touched on this in his presentation, but they are not requesting High-Density, the request is
for Medium-Density like several of the apartment complexes close by. As he looks around
town, growth is happening or has happened all over town. This is natural growth in an area
surrounding a university. When he was a kid growing up on this property, he saw houses
going across the street. He was not happy about it then. But they came, and Kerry has
realized that continuing change is a part of life. He and his wife toured the area near 795 S 5th
W. Within a half mile radius of this property, they found about thirteen (13) multi-unit
housing complexes, but there are probably more. Out of the thirteen (13), seven (7) were
rated High-Density Residential. Kerry is in support of this change in zoning. He hopes this
will not cause too much grief for the neighbors. In fact, this change will lend itself to a wider
street with more safety, which the neighborhood is in favor of. The University has stated
they are still in need of more student housing. My recommendation for the development of
this parcel, in close proximity to campus, is it is a great choice to assist the university with
their needs. Kerry understands a petition has been circulating with many names on it. He
wonders if those who signed the petition are certified landowners within a half mile radius of
the property. Chairperson Smith answered they probably do not all meet this criteria; she
does not believe they have to meet the criteria to sign a petition. Looking at the petition, she
found it interesting that the petition focuses on no residential development at this time and it
is really asking for a park. It has already been discussed that this negotiation did not work
out.
Commissioner Questions: Vince confirmed Kerry’s father passed away. He also
confirmed that the reason this parcel is an island within the city is at his father’s request.
Kerry is the representative of the trust and many of his siblings are attending online from
various parts of the country. Vince asked if those siblings have a different opinion than
Kerry, that those siblings speak in the public hearing. Vince has been a Commissioner long
enough, he remembers Kerry’s father coming in and adamantly opposing any further
changes to his property. Kerry’s father knew about the road and was worried about the road
going in and his house being moved. Kerry said some measurements were taken and if the
changes to the road matched the measurements to the north, the sidewalk would be about
nine (9’) feet from the home’s front door.
Neutral:
5
Timothy Davis - 802 S 5th W – His home is directly across the street from the parcel being
considered. Rexburg is going to grow. There are a lot of people who would like to be in the
community, who need a home to live in. He has neighbors that have lived in smaller
apartments, who would have continued to live in the neighborhood, if they had the
opportunity to purchase a larger home. It is a good location. Change is going to happen,
including traffic, safety, and security, etc. He will lose a significant amount of privacy. Some
things will be nicer with the change and others will be harder; he has accepted this fact. The
Lawrences were great neighbors. He and his family love them dearly and want the Lawrence
family to be happy as well.
With a new sidewalk, our request is to move mailboxes. The city agreed to move those
mailboxes, but the mailboxes have not been moved and are on the other side of the street.
An increase in traffic will significantly affect the safety of those on his side of the street in
obtaining their mail.
The trees on the Lawrences’ property, in the wintertime, provide a significant wind break for
snow from the open field next to them. The snow drifts and early morning traffic packs
down the snow. A significant number of people slide off the road due to this hazard. More
buildings could potentially help this situation.
His only notification of tonight’s meeting was via the letter sent to his home in the mail.
Timothy would have appreciated more information than he received.
Opposed:
Faith Jacobson - 806 South 5th West – Her home is also located directly across the street
from this property. She claimed decisions may have already been made and this public
hearing is only a legal formality as part of due process.
She spoke out in opposition to Mesa Falls and Eden Apartments as they have resulted in
high traffic and dangerous drivers ignoring clearly posted speed limit signs. These complexes
have taken a toll on the infrastructure. We would not be doing our due diligence if we did
not speak in opposition to more development on the road. The road has been widened and
repaired, but it was not built to bear such traffic. When the road was widened, it took several
feet from her front yard, even though the property line extended to the other side of the
road.
With every additional apartment complex that has been added, a large part of the
neighborhood has been removed. When Eden Apartments were built, the density was
changed from Medium-Density Residential. 2 (MDR2) to High-Density Residential 1
(HDR1) for even higher occupancy. Because this request is adjacent to Hyde Park, which is
Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1), this should not automatically warrant this property
to zone to a higher density. She doubts her home will sell to another single-family when
surrounded by apartments but acknowledges her home’s value may increase due to the
proximity.
Previous developers touted promises and benefits about home values increasing. The result
has been garbage blowing into her yard during the construction, roads or utilities being
inaccessible without notification, and residents walking their dogs and disregarding her
6
property. Her family has lost peace and privacy due to people walking and driving closer to
her bedroom windows. Mesa Falls’ third and fourth floor balconies can see into her
backyard. When police pull over speeders, they are pulled over almost as soon as they arrive.
She feels adequate action to pursue this parcel as a park by the city was not achieved and the
city should have offered the Lawrence’s more money for their land. The city should have
been preparing in advance for funds if this was their intention. She has concerns about safety
at the park and suggests a lower speed limit with higher punishments. It would have been
nice to know about the widening of the road when these homes were built fifty (50) years
ago.
The developer’s plans sound appealing and the potential for owned units may result in
people staying longer and investing in the community. Written documentation by the
developer, which he has offered, may give the neighbors some assurance of compliance and
trust, which has been broken in the past; she is not sure if it would be legally binding. Please
consider the impacts of this request.
Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Smith requested Alan explain the number of
units that could be built on this parcel if it were zoned MDR2. Alan said the lot is four (4)
acres. Land that would be required for road right-of-way drops the parcel to 3.78 acres
allowing a maximum build of seventy-five (75) units. The number of units is based on
whether or not all the zoning codes can be met on the parcel; very few people can do this
and meet the parking requirements. One hundred fifty parking stalls would be required.
Chairperson Smith clarified the density per acre is twenty (20) units per acre in the MDR2
zone.
Jeff Jacobson - 806 S 5th W – He also lives across the street from the Lawrences. He wishes
no harm upon the Lawrences. Jeff also noted some people he talked to accused the
Commissioners of deciding prior to the meeting on the outcome of the vote. He sees there
are developers, real estate agents, and other private interests represented on the Planning &
Zoning Commission. He suggested the Commissioners represent the city and wondered who
represents the citizens. Jeff wants to support the University, its students, and the community,
he does not feel the city has concerns about his welfare.
He understood the petition’s request was to postpone a decision on this annexation and
zone change until a more substantial evaluation can be done on the impacts to the
neighborhood. Jeff has witnessed the addition of apartment complexes to his neighborhood
and realizes that Rexburg is growing. He wonders if anyone understands the detrimental
affect of these changes to his neighborhood. Does anyone care?
He moved to this area to have a little more open space and country feel; he is not achieving
these objectives due to the changes around him.
The development in Rexburg causes problems for homeowners and families, who want to
stay in the area. In-depth analysis needs to be done prior to zoning, especially when there is
so much local opposition. Please consider the safety of children who live in the
neighborhood and those who attend school there when making your decision.
7
He believes more options to pay for the development of a park should have been explored.
Jeff believes the investment of additional park space would have been a better addition to
the neighborhood, considering the surrounding densities. The neighborhood has been hurt
enough by overdevelopment. Take your time in making your decision.
Rebuttal: Will Wade - There are some good developers out there and then some that are
not. He understands the request by Mr. Jacobson for more time. A lot of time has already
been dedicated for due diligence in making the community aware of the planned annexation.
Adequate time has been invested in gathering information for the Commissioners to make
an informed decision. Will prefers the Commission make their recommendation for or
against. He takes the traffic issue seriously and he is donating a sizable portion of the
property to increase the setback for the building and to widen the road. Will understands the
preference for a park; it sounds like this is something that has occurred in the past and the
train has left the station in that regard. He is trying to establish a more stable housing area.
He strongly requests a decision be made tonight.
He asked Alan Parkinson about the due diligence that has been done and the timeline that
has occurred for review and notification. Alan does not know how long the city was
negotiating with the Lawrences. His understanding is it occurred over several years, but this
occurred before Alan worked for the city. The decision was made by mutual agreement and
the city did not have the necessary funds to purchase the land. The Lawrences chose a
different route. The city has a responsibility to the citizens to not overspend. The process for
annexation notification is mailing notification twenty-eight (28) days prior to a hearing. For a
regular rezone, notification is mailed fifteen (15) days prior to the hearing. For both
examples, the state requires people are notified whose parcels are within three hundred
(300’) feet of the requested parcel, but the city notices everyone within three hundred fifty
(350’) feet to make sure everyone within the required proximity is notified. The notice is also
published in the newspaper. These are legal requirements for due process. The notice is
posted in multiple places on the city’s website as well. Negotiations on the park would have
been private between the landowner and the city.
Chairperson Smith asked for anyone else that would like to speak. Ted had arrived late and
heard her request. Since the public input portion of the meeting had not been closed, she
agreed to let him speak.
Additional Public Input:
Ted Whyte - 369 Eagle Court – Ted owns the parcels at 863 S 5th W, which has a home he
rents and a shop, south of the park parcel deeded to the city by the Steiners. Conversations
started fifteen (15) years ago, when he purchased the property, with the Lawrences, Steiners,
Ted, and other neighbors for a park. The discussion was about annexing all of S 5th W and
bringing it into the city so the road could be widened and infrastructure could be improved.
Ted tried to buy the Lawrences and Steiners properties, but they did not want to sell. A few
years ago, he went ahead and annexed his parcel and rezoned to a Medium-Density
Residential zone. He wanted to build two or three 4-plexes in the rear of his property. Ted
has not developed, because he did not want to be the only one paying for the widening of
the street without the rest of the street updating. To put in the 4-plexes, he would be
required to do the street improvements. Ted is in favor of the proposal.
8
Susan Foster - 740 S 5th W – Susan lives west of Hyde Park. Years
ago, her property was annexed into the city limits. She would like to
know what portion of S 5th W has been annexed into the city. Alan
identified the property that is asking to be annexed into the city. Deloy
Ward’s property and those within the red boundary shown to the right
is not annexed into the city.
Susan continued she is old and has had back surgeries. She cannot get
across the street to get her mail. She goes up to University Blvd down
to McDonald’s to get to town, because she can’t go to 7th South due to
the traffic. She has trouble backing out onto the road to go get her
groceries. Susan cannot let her grandkids and great-grandkids play in
the front yard. There are too many people on the street. She is
opposed to the request. The people in Mesa Falls all have dogs. Every
one of them walk down the street, talking on their cell phones, stop in
front of her house, and the dogs relieve themselves on her property.
Jack Bond - 1340 S 5th W – He lives further south from the property. Jack has known the
Lawrences for a long time. If you widen the street, what are you going to do with all of the
houses to the south? They will be eliminated, because there will be no place to park in front
of their garages. He wants to see the land stay the same. The property behind him is county.
If the farmer ever sells his property for apartments, he is out of here; he will leave Rexburg.
Consider raising the property price of the land. Do not allow someone in Tokyo, Japan, to
make a million. Let the people who originally settled this area enjoy their space. Jack is
against the proposal.
Lance Turman - 1219 S 5th W – As he was driving in on University Blvd, he noticed
Temple View Apartments advertising condominium units. Much of the discussion has been
about poor college students. A lot of them cannot afford the rent right now. Properties like
Brigham’s Mill and now, Temple View are turning the apartments into condominiums.
People are going to buy these condominiums and rent them out as Airbnbs at a higher price.
The developer is the one making a ton of money. Developers are sneaky; they come in and
pull at the heartstrings of the residents, saying we need house for college students and then
turn around and sell the units as condos. He is neutral but more against the request.
Bill Miller - 1207 S 5th W – He lives south of University Blvd. You guys talk about how to
make the street safer. Signs are posted at 25MPH; people do not drive that slow. He also
drives past the middle school several times a week. Today, at 2:30PM the lights were flashing
to slow down to 20MPH; school is not in, and he thinks people know school is not in, and
this is the reason they are not following the speed limit sign. Seldom are there police to
enforce the speed limits in the area. The neighborhood has posted their own signs. He is
against this proposal because pedestrian traffic is not safe. Ted calls himself a neighbor, but
he does not live down there.
2nd Rebuttal: Will Wade - Thanks for the comments, both for and against. He is
sympathetic to the views that have been stated. He agrees; he does not believe Rexburg
needs any more apartments. Will is not planning to build apartments. Again, he will put this
in writing if needed. His plan is for townhomes. Will is living in Tokyo, Japan, on
9
government orders, or he would be living in a place like Utah or Idaho. He understands his
situation makes him look like more of an outsider, but he is not like other developers; he
works hard and plays by the rules. Will supports the Commission to make fair and informed
decisions based on the full set of facts.
Written Correspondence:
10
11
12
13
Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 7:35PM.
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 asked Alan to look into the mailboxes and the
promises that were made to the residents. Alan has made a note and he will visit with Keith
Davidson tomorrow. Vince can understand walking across a busy street to get the mail.
14
Mr. Jacobson accused the Commission of having our decisions made prior the meeting.
Vince is a volunteer. He volunteered Tuesday night at a hearing with Madison County as
well for a few hours. This assignment will also be continued in July for a few hours. He will
not discuss the items he will be voting on with anyone, nor will he be accused of discussing
those items with anyone, because he does not ever want this to be true. His decision was not
decided beforehand; he tries to be open to all discussion.
Vince’s thoughts about the park are the city will not be able to compete with a developer in
terms of money. It is a nice thought to have a park twice the size of the one that was
donated. Eight (8) acres is about the size of Porter Park. Vince’s wife and kids visited Porter
Park and they commented about not being able to return to Porter Park, because of the
conduct and dress of the college students that were there. If this parcel was developed as an
eight (8) acre park, there would then be complaints about traffic, noise, about the students
and the changes ruining the neighborhood.
The city is not in the business of controlling the market; the comments about the condos are
not up to the city. The Commission does not have control over whether someone does a
single-family home, apartments, or condos, if it is allowed in the zone they have. If the
Commission had this control, the people would be in the meetings complaining about big
government. He would not want to build a single-family home on the parcel next to the
park. Vince grew up in the middle of town; his neighborhood has changed dramatically.
With any kind of change to this parcel, the road will be widened.
Chairperson Smith concurs with Mr. Hailey on several points. There is a Comprehensive
Park Plan for the city. Hours of time have been spent on the plan. The meetings have been
open to the public and there have been many opportunities for residents to participate. It is
easy to be involved when something affects your neighborhood. She told the residents there
are good opportunities to be involved. Right now, the city is working on a new
Comprehensive Plan. A year ago, the Commission, Council, and residents spent many hours
looking at the Comprehensive Plan Map and making changes to it. In about two weeks,
there will be a group of people in Rexburg, that have been hired by the city, to meet and talk
to residents for the Comprehensive Plan. The group will come to the Planning & Zoning
work meeting and a City Council work meeting the first week in July, both open to the
public. For the 4th of July, there will be a booth at Porter Park. Logan/Simpson will attend
several community events to talk to residents.
The city is very transparent in following the law with the public notices. The University is a
big part of the community, but we do not all feel sorry for the college kids; this is not our
purpose here; the Commissioners are here to try and plan the city. When Ricks College
changed to BYU-Idaho, the people closest to the University were the ones that were going
to be impacted the most. Obviously, things are going to change, and you try to keep the
development to the interior of the city, because the infrastructure is established. The city is
very aware of these things- we do have to keep up with the growing city’s population. As Mr.
Hailey said, the Commission has the public hearings to hear what the public has to say, but
the Commission has to plan for the entire population and what is happening in the city.
15
Randall echoed Mr. Hailey’s comments; other than reading the agenda before coming to the
meeting, he does not make any decisions prior to the meetings in which he will be voting.
He supports more green space and it is too bad this one didn’t work out. It is true, when he
lived back east, parks were usually established by people who were serious about donating
their land for a park, because the city cannot compete with developers. Based on land use,
the request fits the Comprehensive Plan and the zone is a good use for the area. Todd has
the same opinion; he feels this request is a good fit for the area. It is too bad, a larger park
did not go through. Vanessa sympathizes with the residents on S 5th W; it is hard to see
growth and change. With Rexburg growing as it is, there is a need for affordable housing.
She is a local apartment and a regional manager dealing with property management. Vanessa
posted some units she needed to fill and she had over one hundred (100) people respond in
need of a home. It is hard to turn people down and know she cannot give one hundred (100)
people homes. Since the request does fit the Comprehensive Plan, she feels that this is
something the Commission should move forward with. Jim has no further comments that
have not already been said. Randall thanked the City Staff and the work that they have done
in terms of checking on safety issues and road studies; he thinks Staff does a good job. He is
confident Staff have done their homework on the requests that have come before the
Commission.
MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00280) the
Annexation of 795 S 5th W into the City and Rezone it from Rural Residential 1 (RR1)
to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2), because it fits within the Comprehensive
Plan for the city, matches other zoning in the area, and the safety and road issues
brought forward by residents have been adequately addressed by the city. Action:
Approve. Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by Vanessa Johnson.
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote? YES. (Summary: Yes = 9, No =
0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith
(Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Vanessa Johnson.
No:
Attendees will have the opportunity to voice their comments at the next City Council
meeting, when an additional public hearing will be held.
Heads Up for July 7th:
1. (22-00258) Pebble Creek – Land adjacent to the east of 2332 W 2000 S – Rezone
*Reminder of work meeting to be held at 5:00PM for the Comprehensive Plan meeting with
Logan/Simpson and then there will be a hearing for the rezone at 6:30PM.
Adjournment 7:50PM