HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 8.18.221
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
Commissioner Lawrence opened the work meeting at 5:04 PM. (31:50)
Those in attendance: Mayor Merrill, Colin Erickson, Mikel Walker, Robert Chambers, Jordan
Busby, Bryanna Johnson, Jim Lawrence, McKay Francis, Bruce Casper, Vanessa Johnson, Eric
Erickson, Aaron Richards, Randall Kempton, Brad Wolfe
Work Meeting: Development Code Changes to Ordinance 1200 – Alan Parkinson
The Planning & Zoning Department has looked at the Development Code and proposed some
changes. The changes presented have also been reviewed by City Staff. Alan is presenting these
changes for further input.
Ready Team
Alan explained the Ready Team meetings occur when a developer comes in with ideas on a specific
property. Staff who attend the Ready Team meetings identify development information relevant to
the property. “Ready Team” is the title that has been used internally and the proposal is to change
from Economic Development Team aligns the language.
Definitions
Dormitory - There is a part of the Development Code that indicates buildings have to comply with
the adopted City of Rexburg Building Code.
Dwelling, Single-family - In the single-family dwelling definition, duplex, twin homes and town
homes have been defined as subcategories. The definitions match the adopted City of Rexburg
Building Code.
Manufactured Homes - A manufactured home is also in the Building Code.
Modular Building has been change to Modular Home. Modular Homes can be built in sections,
built in another place, and moved to the site. Question about closed construction. Closed
construction means it is a completed home: cabinets are in place, etc. Tiny Homes can be considered
as manufactured homes or modular homes. Question about prefabricated walls for a building. This
is a different construction type. Is it just the manufacturing type we are worried about or the width
of the units? Manufactured Homes will go into a Manufactured Home Community. Many of the
existing homes are remnants of life after the flood. A question was asked about a new zone needed
for tiny homes. Alan answered no, we just need to be able to identify the type of home. Where do
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
August 18, 2022
2
tiny homes fit in the city? Maybe on a 4,000 square feet lot is where a tiny home fits. Other zones
would require larger lots, which may not be a good fit for a tiny home. Possibly, the medium-density
zones, based on density would work.
Townhome - A townhome clause was in the definition – this has been removed. None of the zones
that allow townhomes can be built adjacent to the right-of-way; a setback is required. The idea
behind the two (2’) feet above grade for townhomes was to allow some privacy, so people walking
down the sidewalk could not look directly into the windows of the townhomes.
Language for property lines have been consistently changed to “lot line”.
Accessory Buildings
Staff has run in to some challenges with accessory buildings being too close to property lines. To
maintain consistency and fairness, a suggestion was made to make a standard five (5’) feet from side
property lines. For existing buildings, accessory buildings will need to be ten (10’) feet from adjacent
buildings or structures. Closer distances may require fire rating per the Building Code.
Grandfathered situations will be looked at on an individual basis. We are mainly talking about
examples like garden sheds. Accessory buildings under two hundred square feet cannot drain onto
adjacent properties; these buildings do not require a building permit. An example would be a bully
barn.
Buffers
A clause has been added “shall be separated from the city right-of-way” to indicate there is a
difference. This is additional space and separation from adjacent neighbors with planting
requirements of trees and shrubs on buffers. The purpose is to mitigate the nuisance of an adjacent
use. It is popular for people to put their parking up next to the sidewalk. Vehicles are often parked
to hang over the sidewalk. A buffer could be required to maintain the safety of the sidewalk. In the
Development Code, certain situations require a buffer.
Should we set a standard for maintenance? Natalie notifies property owners about maintenance of
the buffers and other properties. If we have some really deteriorated properties, we may have to
address maintenance again.
Description for 3.02.100 Screening and fences within the City shall.. should be changed to Screening
and “landscaping” within the City shall…”
Fencing
Many fences have been installed, and the people are not checking about the regulations the city has
implemented. Fences have been installed too close to sidewalks, sometimes are built into the site
triangle, fences are too tall, etc. With the proposal of administrative P&Z review, people would not
have to come to a meeting to get fence approval, but Staff would like a site plan to come in for
review to show these fences. The drawings do not have to be formal, just identify where the fence
will be placed on the property and what the fence will look like. Most fences do not require a
building permit.
Barbed wire fence is only allowed in certain areas. Basically, the use would be in Transitional
Agriculture (TAG). Staff did not want people to have to come to a P&Z meeting to get permission
for a barbed wire fence or electric fence.
3
How will people know they need to come in and get administrative approval for fences? The city
will proactively contact fencing companies they have contact with to notify them of the new
requirements.
Fence height – In front yards, the code reads within fifteen (15’) feet of the property line, the fence
can either be three (3’) tall or fifty (50%) percent see-through. How many of you have driven around
a corner with a fifty (50%) percent see-through fence and looked down the side of the fence?
Visibility is limited to solid depending on the angle in which it is viewed. Three (3’) feet tall is
allowed within fifteen (15’) of the property line, allowing you to see over the fence and down the
road. Fence regulations in the site triangle will not change. Fences on corner or double-frontage lots
adjacent to each other, that do not have access or driveways on the same street through the front
yard will be allowed to have a fencing height greater than three feet (3’); these lots are considered to
have two (2) front yards and two (2) side yards.
Fences over seven (7’) feet must obtain a building permit.
If you build a fence up next to the sidewalk and you have a gate, the gate must swing inward when
open. This will make pedestrians, bicyclists, and those with disabilities safer.
Sidewalks
Sidewalks are exempt in Transitional Agriculture (TAG) right now. Rural Residential 1 (RR1) has
not been required to have sidewalks. There has been discussion about changing the requirements for
RR1 sidewalks, because the zoning is in the city and there have been adjacent zoning issues for
sidewalk connectivity.
A widening of the sidewalk area adjacent to a fence is proposed with a one (1’) foot landscape strip
allowing for passing with bicyclists. Zero scape can be used with rock and no watering, or you can
have a strip of grass. Adjacent property owners will have to keep the weeds down. This request is
exempt in Mixed Use (MU), because you typically can build right up to the sidewalk.
Flag Poles
Where have you seen tall flag poles in the city? Ray’s Car Wash. Currently, there is no limit on flag
poles in the city. Is eight-five (85’) feet too tall? These are non-advertising purpose flags. The flight
pattern will still have to be clear. Patriotic signs are the purpose. Suggestion to remove “exempt
from height restrictions” in 3.02.180. Decision was made to change the commercial height
maximum to match Nitro’s flagpole height at about sixty-seven (67’) feet? Discussion about the
American flag and the Idaho State flag only. What if both flags are flown on the same pole? Legal
consulted the flags flown in residential cannot be singled to certain types of flags. Commercial
regulations are different than residential. On city properties, the flags flown can be more restrictive.
“Non-advertising” will serve the purposes discussed. Others will fall under the sign code
requirements. Flags that are decorative next to Homestead were discussed. The flags would be
allowed; they are not advertising. A few signs are taller than the proposed flag height like
McDonald’s, Conoco, etc. The flagpole allowances could conflict with the sign ordinance,
depending on what is allowed on a flagpole. Maximum sign height allowed is twenty-four (24’) feet
in the city. Match the sign height of Nitro Car Wash, previously Ray’s Car Wash for the flagpole
height.
4
Permitted and Conditional Uses
Rural Residential 1 (RR1)
• Removed Manufactured – House on permanent foundation (>24’) wide)
• Removed “For Boarding Houses, a Review is required for Neighborhood Compatibility for
Parking, Screening, Lighting and Landscaping…” is listed also in 3.02.160.B.2.
Rural Residential 2 (RR2)
• Removed Manufactured – House on permanent foundation (>24’) wide) and Agriculture.
Alan read the current “Agriculture” definition.
“Agriculture : For land designated as agriculture use, agriculture shall be the
primary use of the parcel. To determine primary use, the use of land parcel shall be
clearly for tilling of soil, horticulture, floriculture, forestry, viticulture, raising crops,
raising livestock, farming, dairying, and animal husbandry, including uses customarily
accessory and incidental thereto, but excluding slaughter houses and commercial feed
lots. Land shall not be defined as exclusively agricultural in use when determined to be
a land development program where subdivision of land is evident for suburban
residential development lifestyle and purposes.”
Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Transitional Agriculture (TAG) allow agriculture. Those in Rural
Residential 2 (RR2) currently doing an agriculture use would be grandfathered.
• Removed “For Boarding Houses, a Review is required for Neighborhood Compatibility for
Parking, Screening, Lighting and Landscaping…” is listed also in 3.02.160.B.2.
• Animals allowed are clarified as “household pets”.
Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1)
• Removed “For Boarding Houses, a Review is required for Neighborhood Compatibility for
Parking, Screening, Lighting and Landscaping…” is listed also in 3.02.160.B.2.
• Animals allowed are clarified as “household pets”.
• A maximum indicated in the lot area has been discussed – the maximum will not be added.
Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2)
• Removed Manufactured – House on permanent foundation (>24’ wide)
• Added Townhome as permitted. What is the difference between a twin home and a
townhome? The number of units per acre does not change. Twin homes are only two units,
but with townhomes they are in a group of three (3) or more. LDR3 allows townhomes, but
the request is to add townhomes to LDR2. Townhomes are single-family homes, but they
are attached homes. Five thousand (5,000) square feet is required per unit. This change
would give builders more variability within the zone, allowing the grouping of units to create
more green space. H.O.A.s were discussed for the exterior of the townhome – Many
subdivisions have H.O.A.s to govern the buildings or shared areas. This addition as a use
would change the culture and feel of the LDR2 zone. Others feel the addition would be a
good change. Duplexes and twin homes are already allowed; these two building types are
very similar to a townhome – they share a floor/ceiling or a wall between units. The majority
5
of duplexes in the city are rental properties. Duplexes like apartments are a more transient
population. Townhomes and twin homes are usually owned by unit. Rentals are also present
in some single-family homes. The rental situation often cannot be determined by the
building’s appearance.
• Removed “For Boarding Houses, a Review is required for Neighborhood Compatibility for
Parking, Screening, Lighting and Landscaping…” is listed also in 3.02.160.B.2.
• Animals allowed are clarified as “household pets”.
• Staff would like to list densities per acre instead of square footage per lot. This will prevent
the cramming of multiple units to meet the square footage requirement. The densities should
remain low in the lower densities and higher in the high density zones. The density numbers
are still being reviewed.
Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3)
• Removed Manufactured – House on permanent foundation (>24’ wide)
• Added Manufactured Housing Communities with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) – Eight
(8) units per acre would be allowed.
• Density will remain as 10 units per acre and the square footage items will be removed.
Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1)
What do we want in our medium- and high-density zones? We want to see apartment complexes and
townhomes. The density should be maximized. Why would we allow duplexes? Single-family
homes? Twin homes?
• The proposal removes duplexes, single-family dwellings, manufactured homes on permanent
foundations, and twin homes.
• Mobile Home Courts and Subdivisions will be singular to the LDR3 zone.
• Animals allowed are clarified as “household pets”.
For consistency, let us move “townhomes” to the “Residential” section.
Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2)
(Same suggested changes as MDR1)
High-Density Residential 1 (HDR1)
(Same suggested changes as MDR1)
High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2)
(Same suggested changes as MDR1)
No townhomes.
Changes suggested:
Accessory Building & Adjacent Lot (page 10?): Make it 5’ from any property line and 10’
from any adjacent building.
Page 11: 3.02.100- remove “fences”, add “landscaping” in last sentence
Page 15 3.02.180- Remove “exempt from height restrictions” (match Nitro’s flagpole height)
Page 27 move Townhomes to Residential on permitted use table MDR’s & HDR’s
Stopped page 35 Trans Ag permitted use table Ended 6:26 PM
6
P&Z Meeting:
Commissioner Lawrence opened the meeting at 6:33 PM. (2:00:40)
Welcome
Pledge of Allegiance: Randall Kempton
Commissioner Roll Call:
ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Present: Todd Marx (online), Randall Kempton, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce
Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson.
Absent: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson).
Minutes:
Planning & Zoning Meeting July 21, 2022 (action)
Brad Wolfe stated: Page 39 says “Bennions”, should be “Benfields” (corrected) ; The city will
negotiate purchase and Donna asked, if they do not purchase, will they do eminent domain? The
answer was no – there was nothing in the minutes about this. (The discussion about eminent domain
was in the same paragraph on pg. 39 with the Bennion error.)
MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes with Brad Wolfe’s proposed
changes for July 21, 2022. Action: Approve, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by
McKay Francis.
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion carried (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 1).
Yes: Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad
Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson.
Abstain: Aaron Richards
Public Hearings:
1. (22-00520) – 742 Nina Dr -
Rezone from Low-Density
Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium-
Density Residential 1 (MDR1).
The property is located in the Ricks-
Palmer subdivision. The property is
0.2 acres. – Wendy Heder (action)
(2:04:30)
Staff Report: Alan Parkinson –
The request is for a single parcel in
the Ricks-Palmer Subdivision. The
Ricks-Palmer subdivision was
recorded in March of 1980. The current zone is Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and the
applicant is requesting Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). The parcel is contiguous to
zoning of Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) in the Mill Hollow Manufactured Home
7
Community. Staff reviewed the request and the request matches the Comprehensive Plan.
The lot is currently serviced and the request will not demand a change in utilities.
Commissioner Questions: Is the lot vacant? Alan answered, no, there is a home on the
property. Brad confirmed the agenda has an error for the current zone. Brad asked what the
current use of the home is. Alan said the home is a single-family home. Randall asked if
there was a fence line along the south side of the Ricks-Palmer properties from the LDR2
zone to the MDR1 zone. Alan believes that there is an existing fence as a buffer from the
Manufactured Home Community. The density of LDR2 will allow single-family homes and
duplexes or twin homes. The MDR1 density is sixteen (16) units per acre. The land is 0.2
acres. The maximum number of units allowed for this parcel would be two (2) units in
MDR1. There is not sufficient square footage for two units in the current LDR2 zone.
Applicant Presentation: Wendy Heder – 742 Nina Drive – She owns the home. She is
asking the committee to rezone the home to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1), so she
can do short-term rentals, and she does not have to live in her home while it is being rented.
Her husband passed away thirteen (13) years ago and left Wendy with just twenty-five,
thousand dollars in retirement. She raised six (6) children and went back to school. Wendy
finished a Bachelor’s degree and a Master’s degree and just last year, she went back to
working full-time. She is working a second job, but because she is starting back to work later
in life, at age fifty-five (55), she will not be able to pay off her home or build much
retirement. A few weeks ago, she started renting a single bedroom with Airbnb and has had
a wonderful experience.
Wendy wanted to rent her entire home and applied for a license through the city to do so,
while she lived in the home with her son. While she has followed all the rules of the business
license, the safety concerns of the Building department, and the zoning rules of the Planning
& Zoning department. Her renters were mostly parents of college-age students attending
BYU-Idaho. The renters did not want to stay in the little apartments with no air-
conditioning with their kids. The renters would come in after 10PM and leave early in the
morning. They were very kind and respectful.
Wendy has a daughter on a mission and a son, who will leave in September for his mission.
She would prefer to not be a single lady, living in a house, sharing a bathroom with Airbnb
guests. Wendy will live just five (5) minutes away. Every guest and host are rated through
Airbnb. Wendy can choose which renters she will allow in her home. Now, the renters also
have to show government ID. When Wendy’s daughter comes home for two (2) months, the
two will return and live in the home. When the kids come home for Christmas, she will not
rent the property. With approval of Wendy’s rezone, her guests will have their privacy and
Wendy will have hers.
Renting out the entire home provides more income, allowing her to pay off her home more
quickly and start building her retirement. Wendy promises to do her best to keep her
property beautiful, to take care of any concerns immediately, and choose her renters wisely.
She read a letter from Shaley Summerfield – Address? – “I have been Wendy’s for the last four
years. She has always kept her property beautiful, cared for, and been a wonderful neighbor. I believe
8
that she is totally capable of continuing this level of care, even when renting the property out. I support
Wendy 100% and believe that rezoning this property will only have a positive effect on the
neighborhood and community by bringing in more revenue. She is available for any follow-up
questions.
Commissioner Questions: None
Commissioner Lawrence opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:58 PM.
(2:15:00) He asked the Commissioners if they have had time to review the written
correspondence. Todd responded he had taken the time. The rest of the Commissioners
had not. Commissioner Lawrence asked Attorney Rammell how to proceed if the written
correspondence had not been reviewed by the other Commissioners. Attorney Rammell
suggested a short recess for the review. Commissioner Lawrence announced a ten-minute
break for letter review at 6:49 PM.
6:57 PM- return from break with attendance Roll Call (2:25:05)
Commissioner Roll Call:
ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Present: Todd Marx (online), Randall Kempton, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence,
Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson.
Absent: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson).
Commissioner Lawrence reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor:
Debra Jones – 22 S Hidden Valley Rd. – She does not live in the Ricks-Wade
neighborhood. She is at the meeting as a character reference for Wendy. She knows Wendy
very well. Deborah has been in her home on several occasions; she takes a lot of pride in her
home – the home is clean and organized. Wendy will continue to keep things repaired and
the yard looking nice. She reminded the group that in the winter, the renters would not be
able to park on the street. Wendy mentioned she would be careful about the renters coming
in; Deborah knows that this would be so. Deborah loves the part of Wendy’s testimony
where she said she has followed all the rules. Deborah knows this about Wendy; Wendy will
follow the rules and not bend them.
Paula Morrison - 728 Lupine Circle – She lives in the neighborhood of the mobile home
park, and frequests the neighborhood Wendy lives in. Paula is also a widow, and she knows
making the most of your assets is very important. Wendy is looking ahead to see what she
needs to do to provide for herself. By allowing Wendy to rezone to have this Airbnb, she
will be able to take care of her family. People come and go in an Aribnb. She does not see a
large impact to the neighborhood. Many people in the neighborhood have large families.
Paula would appreciate the Commissioners giving Wendy this opportunity.
McKenzie Bargar - 502 Mariah Ave #204 – She is a colleague of Wendy’s. Wendy is very
organized and a good fit for the management the short-term rental would require. Wendy is
prompt and shows up on time. McKenzie feels like it would be smart for this request to be
approved.
9
Ben Nelson - 376 Susan Dr. – He has known Wendy for about one (1) year. Ben runs a
small business and does handyman work. Wendy is one of Ben’s clients. Wendy has had Ben
do quite a bit of work around her home – things most people would not think of. Wendy is
very detail-oriented and wants to make the home look really nice. He cannot imagine Wendy
running an Airbnb that does not operate the same way. In addition to this, Wendy is a
manager of an apartment complex. It is in Wendy’s being, to do things right and do them
well. Wendy has gone through the proper channels. This is a woman that just wants to
improve her life. He fully supports the approval of the rezone for this purpose.
Nancy Rodrigues - 784 Barney Dairy Road – She seconds all that has been said. She
commends Wendy for being proactive in this situation of her life. Nancy feels Wendy has
come up with an excellent solution, not only for her family and herself, but for the
community. Nancy knows others in the community who also Airbnb – there is always a need
for it, especially when semesters end and begin with the college. The people she knows that
have Airbnbs have had quiet and respectful guests. Nancy hopes the Commission will vote
to allow Wendy to move forward in this manner.
Evan Bargar - 502 Mariah Ave #204 – Evan lives in the apartment complex that Wendy
manages. Ever since Wendy began working for the complex, the complex has had a huge
turnaround. He has been very impressed with the way the complex is being cared for. Evan
fully supports Wendy if the Commission decides to accept her proposal.
Cindy Lemon - 241 S 3rd East – She supports Wendy, because a change from LDR2 to
MDR1, when you are talking about 0.2 acres is very minimal. Cindy clarified the maximum
allowed on the property in MDR1 would be two (2) units. The affect of the change on the
community will be so minimal, Cindy is in support of this request.
Neutral: None
Opposed:
Mike Glasscock - 191 Millhollow – He is opposed to this request because the request is a
zone change. When an individual buys a piece of property, there is a zone attached to that
property. You might as well not have any zoning laws because the zones just get changed.
People, when they purchase their homes, make a lot of decisions based on the zoning. If a
parcel’s zoning changes, you should have a good reason. In Mike’s opinion, the only reason
to change zoning is for a reason that benefits the whole city. It does not matter if the person
is a good person or a bad person, whether they take care of their property or not.
Gary Forsgren - 629 Laleene – His concern is what happens if the property is sold. Gary
bought his home as an investment. His home is his retirement. If the property value goes
down, is Wendy going to subsidize Gary’s retirement? He agrees with Mike’s comments.
There have been other rentals in the neighborhood – one was rented by seven (7) college
students that were not respectful of neighbors, making a lot of noise at night. If this is the
situation that could happen with approval of Wendy’s request, he is not in favor.
Regan Muir - 710 Nina Drive – He would like identify a few points that could help
Commissioners make their decision for the community as a whole. It has been mentioned a
couple of times, that the applicant’s property is contiguous to adjacent property currently
10
zoned MDR1. The MDR1 zoned property is a mobile home park. The subdivision in which
Wendy’s home lies are residential, stick-built homes. In a mobile home park, the tenants rent
the space from the people who own the park. Apples are not being compared to apples.
Most of the reasoning for approval is to provide retirement for Ms. Heder to pay off her
home. Regan did some research before he came tonight, reading some articles from the
Economic Policy Institute. He could send the articles to the Commissioners. The articles
state there are negative impacts for communities that allow short-term rentals. This request
is not the only option for Wendy to bring in extra income – Airbnb is not the last resort. He
suggested Neighbor.com, a storage option for students to store their things while they are
off-track. Then, people would not have to live in Wendy’s house and the parcel would not
have to be rezoned. Regan’s parents own an apartment complex in Idaho Falls; it is zoned
appropriately to do Airbnbs out of one (1) unit. Even though the owner is rated high on
Airbnb, there have been instances where renters have come in and damaged the property.
Once this zoning is approved, what is stopping Wendy from building a second unit?
Approval of this request would create a dangerous precedent and destroys the community
feel. For these reasons, he hopes this request would be denied.
Victor Harrison - 782 Nina Drive – He loves Wendy; the two are in the same ward. He is
against the request because of Regan’s comments about setting a precedent. Wendy will
probably do an awesome job running an Airbnb. Wendy does well in her endeavors.
Wendy’s home is just one (1) in a neighborhood of ninety-six (96) homes. He claims others
in the neighborhood feel the same way, but they did not want to come tonight, because they
did not want to hurt Wendy’s feelings. He suggested Wendy sell her home and buy a
property that is already properly zoned to do Airbnb as she would like. Victor said his home
is also his retirement; he is close to paying off his home. The zone cannot be changed back
at time of sale.
Written Correspondence: (see the following)
11
Written Response #1 – Kerensa Sorensen-Stowell – 772 Nina Drive
12
Written Response #2 – Whelmar Greenland – 713 Laleene Drive
Written Response #3 – Hannah Williams – 14 N Hidden Valley Rd
13
Written Response #4 – Jeff & Kara Downs – 720 Nina Dr
14
Written Response #5 – Julie Severn – 234 Randy Dr
15
Written Response #6 – Sandra Cuttler – 274 Randy Dr
16
Written Response #7 – Makayla Austin – 628 Lilac St
Written Response #8 – Erica Mouser – 198 N Hill Rd
Written Response #9 – Heather Luthy – Address?
17
Written Response #10 – Madison Landon – 236 Susan Dr.
Written Response #11 – Mary Gillespie – 506 Laurel St.
Written Response #12 – Jessica Bruderer – 276 Susan Dr.
18
Written Response #13 – Kristi Grigg – 752 Nina Dr.
Written Response #14 – Gordon and Celia Maybee – 744 Lupine Cir.
19
Written Response #15 – Sue Price – 723 Laleene Dr
20
Written Response #16 – Danny and Heather Burrel – 231 Randy Dr
21
Written Response #17 – Chriss Kuester – 653 Mill Stream St
Written Response #18 – Mira Mangleson – 333 Susan Dr
22
Written Response #19 – Anna Dixon – 656 Hillside Drive
Written Response #20 – Mr. and Mrs. Yesenya Shipp – 742 Lupine Circle
23
Written Response #21 – Doug Drake – 294 Max Drive
Written Response #22 – Shaelee Reese (Sommerfeldt) – 602 Lilac Street
24
Written Response #23 – Barbara Pawson – 736 Lupine Street
Rebuttal: Wendy Heder – She has enjoyed this process, because she has had the
opportunity to talk to many of her neighbors to get to know their opinions. It is interesting
that some of these that are opposed have not come and talked to Wendy. One of the letters
submitted is heavily based on long-term rentals. Long-term rentals and short-term rentals are
difficult to compare; they are not the same. There are three (3) long-term rentals in the
immediate area. She had a long-term renter and in one (1) year they caused twenty-five,
thousand dollars of damage. Wendy was forced to fix the home, sell it, and lose money
because of the situation. Long-term renting is no longer an option for her. The design of her
home is not conducive for a duplex. If the request is not approved, she could rent two (2)
rooms in her home and live in one (1) room. When her daughter was home before her
mission, there were four (4) cars. Wendy has parking for four (4) cars on her property. If
Wendy was to sell the property after the zoning was approved, she believes the home would
have to be torn down and replaced to build a duplex.
The normal person is not going to rezone their property to make a request of this type. It
takes one thousand dollars to make a request for rezoning. The process takes two and one-
half months. Inspectors have come to check many items in her home to make sure the
property is safe for renting. Wendy had to hire the proper people to make GFCI changes to
the outlets in the kitchen.
This home is not her retirement. She does not want to sell her home. If Wendy sold her
home, because it was her retirement money, where would she go? Wendy wants to live and
be self-sufficient.
She spoke to the situation of the seven (7) college students. These students were in a long-
term rental. The owner of the home rented it to a single college student. Then, the student
sublet the home to six (6) other people. Wendy does not believe the owner was aware of the
situation. The owner of the home had moved out of state. Wendy is asking for a short-term
rental.
Wendy has looked into the zones. Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) is all over the city.
The MDR1 zone is not a zone just for mobile home parks.
Short-term rentals do not decrease the value of the homes in the area, they increase the
value. The reason is probably because those who do want to rent their homes take such
good care of their property to attract clients. Wendy does not want to just be a host; she
25
wants to be a super host. This means you must rent one hundred times and receive reviews
over 4.8 every single time. Wendy is doing this to survive; she is not just doing this because
she can. This is the only way she knows of making up the difference. She did not start
building interest for retirement at twenty, thirty, or forty. Wendy already works all day and all
night. She is trying to do the best she can with what she has. Please consider the written
responses – seventeen have been turned in that are all positive. Thank you to the people
who have come tonight to voice their support.
Commissioner Lawrence closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:29PM.
Conflict of Interest? – Commissioner Lawrence 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: Brad Wolfe asked Alan if a Conditional Use Permit could be
approved within the LDR2 zone for this type of short-term rental. Alan said no, not as the
code is currently written. Brad said he has been listening to this hearing and his heart is
different than his mind. He would love to help Wendy. The meeting tonight is about land
use. Is the approval of this one parcel going to set a precedent? This needs to be considered
when a commissioner makes his or her decision. He was on the City Council when a lot of
discussion occurred on short-term rentals. The decision was made to only allow this type of
rental in medium-density residential areas for all the reasons that have been spoken. Is this a
place where the zone of MDR1 fits? Eric agrees. There are a couple of issues he has. He
sees a distinction from the property to the south and the properties that face the streets,
which are LDR2. The contiguity does not make a big difference.
Eric’s concern is about “spot-zoning”. Attorney Rammell read the definitions of spot
zoning:
“The most widely accepted tests of validity, sometimes stated or applied in
combinations, sometimes separately, are whether or not the ordinance is in
accordance with a comprehensive plan of zoning . . . and whether or not it is
reasonably designed to promote the general welfare, or other objectives
specified in the enabling statutes, rather than merely to benefit individual
property owners or to relieve them from the harshness of the general
regulation as applied to their property.” 51 A.L.R.2d at 266. Dawson
Enterprises, 98 Idaho at 514, P.2d at 1265
This request matches each of the criteria for a spot zone. Legally, if the application was
approved, it would make the city vulnerable to legal action. Courts look at factual scenarios.
Eric said the approval of the rezone would certainly be a benefit to the applicant – there is
no question about that. One person would be allowed to do something that no one else in
the neighborhood could do. He does not see a benefit to the neighborhood. The zoning
request is not to change the zoning of the entire neighborhood.
26
McKay, as a developer, would look at this situation from a different viewpoint. If he saw a
neighborhood with medium-density zoning and a 0.2 acre lot, the density is not going to
provide a return on investment for a single lot. A developer would try to pick up several
properties next to one another and build a little taller. Does this possibility fit with these
single-family homes? He would like to recruit Wendy to be in his neighborhood and his
ward; she seems like a wonderful woman. He feels LDR2 is a good step-down zone from a
medium-density use. The zoning will last much longer than the current use of that home.
Aaron clarified duplexes are allowed in the LDR2 zone. Alan said duplexes are allowed with
10,000 sq ft. lots. Wendy’s property does not have the required square footage. Aaron asked
Attorney Rammell if there is such thing as a conditional approval with a sunset clause on a
zone change. Attorney Rammell answered technically, you can do it, but it is fraught with
legal liability. Aaron said we are talking about a temporary problem with a permanent
solution; he is looking for a bridge.
Attorney Rammell asked Alan about the possibility of a Conditional Use Permit. Alan said
the type of rental Wendy is requesting is not listed in the use table for the LDR2 zone. Brad
is not sure if the short-term rental configuration in place is correct. Alan clarified short-term
rentals are allowed in the LDR2 zone, but Wendy would have to live on the property.
Attorney Rammell said the practical approach may be to make some changes in the
Development Code for short-term rentals. Aaron would be supportive of changing the city’s
Conditional Use Permit ordinance. In his mind, a Conditional Use Permit is solving a
temporary problem with a temporary solution. Aaron Airbnbs his home; he loves the cottage
industry. He loves the people they meet from all over the world. He loves that his daughter
is the cleaner and this helps her earn money for college. He does not like putting a
permanent situation on a temporary problem. There is still room to expand the home into
the rear setback. This is a situation for a Conditional Use Permit. Randall feels the same
way; he would vote against the application at this point. He would love to see a CUP, but
this is above the judicial possibilities tonight. Vanessa also agrees with what has been said.
Brad suggested Wendy talk to the city Staff about other possibilities. Aaron asked if the
item could be tabled and the request be modified. Attorney Rammell said no, new public
notice would be required.
MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council to deny (22-00520) the Rezone
from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1)
at 742 Nina Drive, because it does not seem to fit in the area, for the reasons legal
counsel read regarding spot zoning, and it does not make sense. Action: Deny,
Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Todd Marx.
Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None
VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous vote. (Summary: Yes = 9, No = 0).
Yes: Todd Marx (online), Randall Kempton, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce
Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson.
No:
The application will be before City Council on September 7th .
27
Heads Up for September 1st:
1. (22-00514) Hibbard Flats – Comprehensive Plan Map change
2. (22-00489) Hibbard Flats – Annexation & Rezone
3. (22-00564) 297 E 7th N - Rezone
Adjournment at 7:49 PM