Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 9.01.22 amended1 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: Jim Lawrence Commissioner Roll Call: ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. Absent: Randall Kempton, Vince Haley (Vice Chair). Minutes: Planning & Zoning Meeting August 18, 2022 (action) MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as recorded for August 18, 2022. Action: Approve, Moved by Jim Lawrence, Seconded by Bruce Casper. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Summary: Yes = 8, Abstain = 1). Yes: Todd Marx, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson, Brad Wolfe. Abstain: Sally Smith (Chairperson) Reconsideration: 1. (22-00420) – RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low- Density Residential 2 (LDR2). This parcel was included in the impact Area of the City of Rexburg in 2002. In 2003, the property was annexed into the city as part of Area 4 and zoned as Low-Density Residential (03-00098). The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this parcel as LDR1-MDR1. The parcel for this request is 31.51 acres. In the July 21, 2022, meeting the P&Z Commission recommended City Council deny the request. This 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes September 1, 2022 2 application has been sent back from City Council for reconsideration. – Brad Brown, Jake Young (action) Vince Haley arrived. Attorney Rammell was in attendance at the city council meeting on August 17, 2022. The applicant appealed the recommendation of the Commission. The applicant’s main concerns on this appeal were based on the property rights attached to this application on current zoning and not existing conditions. Second, that the denial was based on topography, drainage, water and sewer concerns when those issues have and will be addressed through engineering and design with City Staff. At 2 hours, 27 minutes, City Attorney Stephen Zollinger discussed the appeal that was later granted by City Council, “On appeal, did Planning & Zoning exercise some authority that is not there’s: conversation about topography. You have an engineering department that deals with topography. Talking about structures below that are not legally relevant. The appropriateness of the recommendation is suspect.” There was further context given to 3. At 2 hours, 25 minutes, Councilman Colin Erickson asked City Staffmember, Alan Parkinson, “Are most of the houses zoned to the north LDR2? How big are the lots to the north of the applicant’s request?” City Attorney Stephen Zollinger interjected and states, “This is not relevant. The applicant is right. The law gives the benefit of the zone and not the restrictions of the construction.” Attorney Zollinger instructs Alan to not answer the question. As counsel for this board, he will give the same instruction to not consider that analysis. “This is an appeal from the applicant that stems from the discussion and decision that took place after the public input portion of the meeting that was closed. There was no additional information provided by City Staff or the applicant tonight. Rather, it was the information already presented at the meeting that took place on July 21, 2022.” This is a recommendation board that does not make final determinations on application such as this. This board has been tasked by City Council to reconsider this application and make another recommendation, not based on the specific items that City Council took issue with. Specifically City Council points to issues with topography and discussions regarding structures currently zoned LDR2 but are constructed as to a LDR1 structure size. Brad asked why isn’t it appropriate to ask about the lot size when considering the number of structures that can be placed on a certain lot. Attorney Rammell said the issue was with what is already existing. Aaron said you may discuss proposed units, but not existing structures. Attorney Rammell continued you are giving the rights to build within the zone, not specifying a certain type of construction within the zone. He quoted Attorney Zollinger, “the law gives the benefit of the zone and not the restrictions of the construction”. In the course of the conversation, they are referring to homes that are built adjacent to this application. Efforts should be made to give deference to the zoning alone and not the allowable construction types that are within that zone. Whether someone chooses to build to a different standard, is not relevant for the board’s consideration tonight. Eric understands; the concern about typography is what he does not understand. He 3 understands engineering thinks they can work around topography, but don’t we have to consider runoff. Attorney Rammell said we are guided by ordinance and statute. “When considering a rezone, any Development Code or ordinance change, must be approved by the governing board, and they must find that the rezone is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and not demonstrate adverse impacts on local service delivery” (I.C. 67-6511(c)). The reason Attorney Rammell did not stop the discussion on topography on July 21st, 2022, was because he gives some deference to this Commission to allow some discussion to explain “in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan”. When you are constructing a Comprehensive Plan, what are the types of things that you consider? He gives more deference that what some typically may. Because City Council took issue with the discussion, the attorney advises the Commission to give another recommendation but do not use these reasons. We can sit and argue all night about certain aspects of the law. He will give deference to Attorney Zollinger and to the City Council, the governing board. Jim said, while the public talked a lot about engineering, the topography discussed was to describe where the neighborhood was located in relation to other uses in the area. Attorney Rammell said City Council has tasked the Commission with reconsideration without considering runoff, sewer, topography, and engineering for drainage. We have trainings on allowing City Staff and the experts the City Council has employed to deal with issues regarding these topics. The applicant stated that they are aware of possible issues with these items but have worked with City Staff and believe these issues can be worked through. Attorney Rammell can relate what was discussed, but he cannot speak for Attorney Zollinger of the members of the City Council. Vince said, based on Attorney Rammell’s comments, we are to imagine all land as flat. The Commission is not to worry about topography, etc., but are to deal with land use only. Let Staff worry about everything else. Is that a fair understanding? Attorney Rammell said those are Vince’s words not his and reread legal’s quote at 2 hours, 27 minutes, City Attorney Stephen Zollinger discussed the appeal that was later granted by City Council, “On appeal, did Planning & Zoning exercise some authority that is not there’s: conversation about topography. You have an engineering department that deals with topography. Talking about structures below that are not legally relevant. The appropriateness of the recommendation is suspect.” Vince said more training for the Commission then needs to be provided. Based on training about Idaho Code 67-6508, some of the planning duties of the Commission are to consider natural resources, hazardous areas, recreation, special areas or sites. Attorney Rammell asked if Vince could see the distinction between when these things are considered. Something is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. These are to be considered when drafting a Comprehensive Plan. There is a distinction for Attorney Zollinger and City Council between creating a Comprehensive Plan and determining if something is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. Vince said it further reads it is the duty of the Commission to create a process to develop a Comprehensive Plan. Brad said it is our job to decide if a request is appropriate, but it is not our job to decide if it will work or not – that is up to Engineering to make sure it meets appropriate codes. Attorney Rammell said Brad’s statement is fair. The Commission is put in a vulnerable liability position, when the Planning 4 & Zoning Commission does not put their trust in City Staff. There is a right for legal review if everyone, who is an expert in the field, is saying the request is fine, but the Commission thinking it is not. Attorney Rammell is a big proponent of the back and forth questions and answers with City Staff. He understands the clarity questions to City Staff. At the same time, there is deference given to those professionals. Jim wants to make sure as an engineer, he understands engineering related to topography. But the topography in relation to preserving the look and feel of an area, matters; we should be able to discuss that. If you are looking at a river valley vs. a ridge, that is next to it, you may want the valley zoned differently than the ridge to preserve the look and feel of that area. In that respect, the discussion on typography does not have anything to do with the engineering aspect. Attorney Rammell can only communicate the issues the Councilmembers had upon review. Chairperson Smith asked someone to outline the differences between Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) and Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2). Attorney Rammell said this is relevant to the discussion, but that should probably be brought in on the course of the application discussion. He asked if the Commission had any more procedure discussions. The applicant has been made aware that there will not be any new substantive new information presented tonight. This is reconsideration of the information before the public hearing was closed. Applicant – Jake Young - 239 Ironside, Farmington, UT – He thanked the Commissioners for their service; he understands they have a tough job to do. Jake will summarize some of the things he and the Commissioners have discussed. The proposed rezone is approximately thirty-two (32) acres on the east side of the city. The Comprehensive Plan dictates this area is suitable for the zoning of Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), and Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1); this is one of the reasons Jake is applying for the LDR2 zone. The zone change is then in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Staff Report does provide a recommendation for rezone. He has met with City Staff a number of times and reviewed available utilities in the area: water and sewer area available to the south, will connect up on the hill and connect down the hill into Star View Drive; this is a good thing and will improve the circulation in the area. There are hills on the property with steep slopes greater than the thirty (30%) percent slope in these areas cannot be developed as per city code (10.09.010 PUD Lot Density). There were concerns about stormwater due to the valley area. During discussion, there were references to the 2014 flooding. Jake understands there have been improvements to the stormwater system in Rexburg since that date. Engineering Standards for the City of Rexburg require stormwater basins for the 100-year storm. The stormwater basins would hold the water and meter it out for a significant event. The applicants are counting on putting in the infrastructure for the stormwater. In regard to roads and transportation, City ordinance requires a minimum of two road connections – this will be on Star View Drive and along the church to the south. As part of good planning, he sees potential connectivity to the east to the East Parkway Corridor. He is not proposing a road go through anyone’s property; he did not propose this in July nor is he proposing this now. He believes this rezone will help Rexburg. There is a need for missing middle housing between single-family homes and apartments. The LDR2 is a good zone providing this type of housing. Jake appreciates the Commission listening and considering their application. 5 Brad Brown – (online) – 719 W 4350 S, Riverdale, UT – He is really excited about being a developer in Rexburg. They are excited to be a part of this town; make a beautiful project that is a win for everyone. They will work on the concerns together with City Staff. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Review of P&Z discussion and City Council Minutes: Kyle Baldwin – Jim asked Kyle to show the zoning on the overhead image. LDR2 is to the north and south of the parcel, east and west is zoned LDR1. Chairperson Smith asked for the differences in the zones between LDR1 and LDR2. Kyle stated in LDR1, single-family residences are permitted, one unit per building and per lot. There is a twelve thousand (12,000) minimum lot size, which is about 3.63 units per acre. Single-family lots in LDR2 require a minimum eight thousand 8,000 square feet lots and if you want to do a twin home or duplex, you have to have two (2) - five thousand (5,000) square feet lots or ten thousand (10,000) square feet. This works out to be about eight (8) units per acre. Brad asked about possible uses. Kyle answered in the LDR2 zone, units can be attached. Chairperson Smith asked about townhomes. Kyle said townhomes are three (3) or more units in one structure, but this is not allowed until LDR3. Brad asked about the implications of a Planned Unit Development (P.U.D.). Kyle responded, greater densities could be achieved through a P.U.D. Attorney Rammell said a P.U.D. would be a legislative decisions subject to a review of further application and future meetings. Commissioner Discussion: Aaron said Eaglewood is a blend of LDR1 and LDR2. There has been a lot of negative play against the LDR2 land use. An attorney, dean of the university, retired dean, retired business owner, local-business owner, blogger, home- designer, retired couples – these are *LDR2 property owners in Eaglewood and the kind of people he would like to live around. The applicant’s request is appropriate. Aaron has read all the correspondence. There is always talk about increased traffic. With this development, there will finally be connection to 1000 S. Aaron feels those in Hidden Valley will use this connection to University Blvd. and the freeway; traffic will go both ways. He feels this is appropriate land use to the existing landowners. (*Motion to amend 9/1/22 Planning and Zoning Meeting Minutes to add further explanation to commissioner’s intent that was not stated in 9/1/22 meeting passed during 9/15/22 P&Z Meeting.) Eric asked if it would be possible to read back the motion. P&Z Motion from July 21, 2022, was read: “Motion to recommend the City Council deny (22-00420) RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low- Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), based on the surrounding area all meeting the LDR1 zone requirements and the concerns development based on the Commissioners’ conversation. Action: Deny, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Jim Lawrence.” Eric believes there is a need for LDR2. He has not changed his vote. Eric’s concern once the precedent is set on this parcel, further to the east, there could be a very dense construction area, based on the fact this parcel is changed. This will have to be addressed at a future date. Greater density would be needed to develop this parcel. He has confidence in 6 the Engineering Department that runoff will be improved with development. Brad’s hesitation is the same – he does not have problem with duplexes and twin homes. He has a similar concern about precedent. If a zone allows for something else, this has to be considered in your decision. He would not like to see a higher density greater than the LDR2 zone on this parcel. Attorney Rammell said he does not want the board to consider specific projects. The land could be sold with a separate plan that could maximize the use of the zone. The Commission should consider the maximum the zone would allot. Brad would make a motion with conditions. Chairperson Smith said the difference between LDR1 and LDR2 is minimal. Jim said he does think a precedent will be set for this area. Right now, we have a pretty good transition from LDR2 to the TAG. On the east side there is a ridge that separates neighbors and zones. Attorney Rammell said there should not be discussion for future projects. The precedent language puts us in a legally odd situation based on another application. Language should be on the applicant’s parcel and the possibility on the applicant’s parcel. Vince said he spoke with an individual looking for a larger lot size in Rexburg; they cannot find one. There is a need for single-family homes, as well as the two- unit homes. On the edge of town, he worries about Rural Residential 2 (RR2) and Transitional Agriculture (TAG) adjacent to twin homes and duplexes. Chairperson Smith said the applicant’s parcel does not border TAG; several parcels are in between the applicant’s parcel and the TAG zoning to the east. The Rural Residential 2 (RR2) zone is in Harvest Heights, which also does not border this parcel. Aaron said did not believe there was written correspondence from Harvest Heights. Vince confirmed this fact. Attorney Rammell said the board approved MDR1 in our Area of Impact for Rachel Whoolery’s project. Vince said he voted against it. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00420) RPRXBCA0291271 (south of Star View Drive) – Rezone from Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) to Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), because of the contiguous uses of LDR2 to the north and south, and the recommendations of City Staff that topography and run-off issues can be mitigated. Action: Approve, Moved by Eric Erickson, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Brad suggested a condition the applicant would not be allowed to pursue further density with a P.U.D. Attorney Rammell said another application would be needed for a P.U.D. VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 5, No = 4). Yes: Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Eric Erickson, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. No: Vince Haley, Jim Lawrence, Brad Wolfe, Bruce Casper Public Hearings: 1. (22-00564) – 297 E 7th N – Rezone from Public Facilities (PF) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). The Comprehensive Plan Map designates this parcel as MDR1-HDR2. The parcel for this request is 0.2 acres. – Bron Leatham (action) (0:53:55) 7 Applicant Presentation: Bron Leatham – (Absent) Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – This is a rezone application for a parcel zoned as Public Facilities (PF). The parcel has been purchased from the city and the applicant is seeking for it to be rezoned to match the adjacent Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) parcel to the east. The applicant has met the requirements of the application. The parcel is currently serviced by city services. Commissioner Questions: Vince asked when the city purchased the property. Kyle said the property was zoned in 2019 as Public Facilities (PF), so the city owned the property at that time. The property is no longer needed by the city. Aaron asked do we know the surrounding land uses. Is the intention of the applicant to combine this parcel with the land to the east? Kyle said he does not know what the applicant’s intentions are. Alan said the property to the north and the east of this application is owned by Bron. The piece has been purchased to join with the adjacent property. Vince said Bron is listed on the state’s website for the property adjacent’s LLC. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:28PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:28PM. 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 approve (22-00564) the Rezone from Public Facilities (PF) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) at 297 E 7th N, to fit the surrounding zoning. Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Jim Lawrence. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Summary: Yes = 10, No = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Aaron Richards, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. 8 Aaron Richards said on March 17, 2022, he entered into a purchase agreement with an entity, where he was a partner for acquiring this asset. On June 11, 2022, the purchase was assigned to another entity, in which he no longer has affiliation. Aaron no longer has financial interest on this property. Attorney Rammell asked 67-6506, are you a business partner with the applicant. Aaron said he is not. Attorney Rammell asked do you have any economic interest in the application at hand. Aaron said no, not since June 11, 2022. Todd Marx said before the next item of business, he has a disclosure. He entered into a conversation with McKay Francis at Todd’s home. Attorney Rammell asked where the conversation took place. Todd said this happened at his home in Hibbard. Attorney Rammell asked when the conversation took place. Todd answered on approximately the 8th of August. Attorney Rammell asked for the duration of the conversation. Todd said the conversation lasted about fifteen (15) minutes. Attorney Rammell said the law prescribes Todd give a general description of the conversation, then he will have some follow-up questions. Todd said McKay came to the door; McKay was handing out flyers going door- to-door talking about his project in the neighborhood. Todd said McKay handed him a flyer. Todd told McKay, McKay would have to recuse himself from the P&Z hearing. McKay said he knew that. Attorney Rammell asked if the flyers were being handed out in relation to this application; were the same flyers being handed out to others in the area? Todd answered yes. Attorney Rammell asked Todd if he is a business partner with McKay. Todd answered no. Attorney Rammell asked if Todd had any economic interest in the application at hand? Todd said no. Attorney Rammell said ex-parte communication has actually been discussed by the Idaho Supreme Court this year in January of 2022 in S Bar Ranch v. Elmore County. “When a governing body sits in a quasi-judicial capacity, it must confine its decision to the record provided at the hearing and failing to do so violates procedural due process of law. They later state, “if ex-parte communication takes place, an outline is provided to satisfy due process. The individual, sitting on the commission board, must disclose the identity of the individual that they had that conversation with and give a general description of that conversation.” Attorney Rammell asked Todd if he has any business ties that may be impacted by this decision. Todd answered no. Attorney Rammell asked Todd if this conversation was procedural or substantive in nature. Todd said procedural. Attorney Rammell asked Todd if his impartiality has been compromised at all during his discussion with McKay. Todd said no. Attorney Rammell asked Todd if he gained any information from that discussion that has not already been provided to the general public in the agenda. Todd said no. Attorney Rammell asked Todd if the discussion influenced Todd in any way. Todd said no. Attorney Rammell asked Todd if Mr. Francis asked in any way in which way Todd intended to vote or attempted to try to skew Todd’s vote. Todd said no. Attorney Rammell asked Todd if Todd felt he could remain impartial in this proceeding. Todd said he felt he could. McKay Francis stepped off the dais to present his application. 9 2. (22-00514) – Hibbard Flats - Approx. 1175 N 12th W (RPR06N39E140900) & 1 parcel (Blk2 Lot 14) in the Copper Heights Subdivision – Comprehensive Plan Map change from Rural to LDR1-MDR1. The parcel at approx. 1175 N 12th W is in the City’s Area of Impact, but the Copper Heights Block 2 Lot 14 is not. The parcels have a combined area of 62.38 acres. – Brandon Winter, McKay Francis (action) (1:06:03) Applicant Presentation: Brandon Winter, McKay Francis – 400 W Poleline Rd. – This piece of property they are looking to annex and rezone into the City of Rexburg. Brandon and he are attempting to look at this project from all directions. The two hope to paint a clear picture of their intentions. Brandon and McKay are on their fourth subdivision in the last three (3) years. Each of the projects have been in Madison County and Rexburg, where the two live and love. Brandon and McKay will continue to invest in this great community, because there are more people that want to join citizens in living in this amazing place. They are looking for a positive recommendation. This land was purchased twenty (20) years ago to be annexed, rezoned, and subdivided into single-family homes and townhomes. The housing crash of 2008 and 2009 put a long-term hold on the project, preventing phase three (3) of Pine Brook from happening. It was originally part of the Pine Brook project. The land sits in the Area of Impact, where the city designates land the city would participate in a future annexation if the landowners would like to participate. In 2021, Brandon and McKay developed a project to the west and named the subdivision Copper Heights. At that time, they encountered many neighbors who were upset with the number of individual wells and septic systems that would be added to the area. McKay and Brandon attempted to work with the City of Rexburg on Copper Heights to connect to city utilities – water and sewer, but the distance from the utilities was too far for them to accept. Hibbard Flats has the utilities stubbed into this parcel. The original developer paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to extend the utilities up N 12th W for the sole purpose of hooking up the Pine Brook properties. The lift station and the sewer infrastructure have the ability to service much more than the parcels they are wishing to annex. Brandon and McKay have met with the Ready Team to continue with the original plans to build a mixture of twin homes, townhomes, and single-family homes. They received approval for the infrastructure and the ability of the City of Rexburg to accommodate Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) and Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3). The more due diligence they put into this project, the more they realized the density of twin homes and townhomes would not fit into the surrounding areas. High-end, single-family, stand-alone homes are a great complement to adjacent subdivisions. The subdivision Copper Heights to the west was developed with Madison County. Several steps were followed to get the project underway. They were not able to 10 annex the property. Brandon and McKay wanted to use the space to the best of their ability. Within four and one-half (4 ½) months, the majority of the lots were sold with the exception of some greenspace lots. Originally, the neighbors were using wells and septic systems for the reason to deny the Copper Heights subdivision. When the subdivision was passed, there was further discussion about whether Madison County should have allowed the developers to have less than one (1) acre lots. The recorded plat was legally binding. Some of the neighbors looked in the fine print and found there should have been sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. In the Preserve, there are lots that are less than one (1) acre. In several places in Madison County subdivisions, the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters were not built. In conjunction, there has been a major Staff change with Madison County in the Planning & Zoning Department; it was Bradley Peterson and is now Gary Armstrong. At the time Copper Heights was developed, Brandon and McKay followed Staff and Commissioners requirements. Only two (2) pieces are left in McKay’s name. Changes could not be made at this point in Copper Heights subdivision because all of the lots are individually owned. Chairperson Smith clarified the Comprehensive Plan Map change is the application being considered. Brandon Winter – 588 Terrace Dr – McKay and he spent a lot of time with Madison County and City of Rexburg Staff to understand what the future plans of the area are and how the two can work effectively towards those plans with quality land development. The two know Madison County supports the annexation of lands adjacent to city limits allowing the extension of city services. It does not get any closer with the parcel for this application, which is on the border of city limits. The parcel has been in the Area of Impact for several years now. As mentioned, the city utilities are already stubbed on the east side of this property. The three primary concerns from other projects are individual wells, septic systems, and additional traffic. The development will be able to hook up to city services. The traffic studies were conducted with the Copper Heights development. The study was done at the developer’s expense. Prior to the plat map, additional area traffic counts will be conducted. Intersections for the previous traffic study were at W 2000 N and N 2000 W at the roundabout north of this parcel, and W 2000 N and N 3000 W. This also included daily traffic counts and peak flows, trip distributions, and existing traffic. The counts were positive towards the roads being able to handle current and additional traffic. The proposed zoning is for low-density residential, which is consistent with surrounding areas with single-family dwellings. The two knocked door-to-door; they were pleasantly surprised; of those they spoke with, if the people were not in favor, they were at least neutral. Brandon and McKay included their cell phone numbers on the flyers. Brandon and McKay wanted to make sure the neighbors had correct information and wanted to know what the neighbors’ concerns were. Two people called them in opposition; the conversations were productive. There was concern about traffic that flows from Ferris Lane. Ferris Lane is located in the Sunrise Meadows subdivision. Ferris Lane is stubbed as a through road for future growth. The fire department required the connectivity with Ferris Lane. This proposal would 11 provide the connectivity for the future growth of the area. Brandon and McKay have spent time with the multiple departments, doing due diligence prior to these application requests. Commissioner Questions: Bruce confirmed the city utilities run under N 12th W, next to Lawrence Jensen’s cellars. Brandon confirmed the utilities are on the east side of the parcel. Bruce confirmed Brandon will use Ferris Lane as one connection and another road connection to N 12th W. Brandon said Ferris Lane and the connection on N 12th W will be two-way traffic. Bruce asked if there will there be individual wells and septics. Brandon said the development will be tied into city water and sewer if the Comprehensive Plan Map change, Annexation, and Rezone are approved. Chairperson Smith asked why the lot in Copper Heights was included. McKay answered the intent is for greenspace, a clubhouse, and walking area between the two developments. Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – The Comprehensive Plan Map was shown on the overhead screen. The two parcels were selected. The request is to change from Rural to LDR1-MDR1. In 2002, the parcel was added to the Area of Impact. In 2020, the road at Pine Brook was widened; the same will be required of this parcel. The recommendation of the Commission will be to the County Commissioners. Staff is requesting the Commissioners recommend the request be approved by the County Commissioners. Commissioner Questions: Eric asked if the Commission can annex outside the Area of Impact. Kyle said if the parcels are contiguous and the request is from the landowner, the parcel can be annexed. Vince clarified the two (2) parcels are being considered together. Aaron confirmed the request is for the County Commissioners. Any Area of Impact request will be finally approved by the County Commissioners, including this Comprehensive Plan Map change. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 7:58PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: Aaron Gaskill – 1729 N 3000 W – As the applicant mentioned, when the Copper Heights subdivision happened; this is why he is opposed to the current application. About a year ago, the Copper Heights subdivision was developed; it was not developed in accordance with Madison County code 115-95. When the developers learned, they made no attempt to correct the development to comply with the requirements for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks. He is happy the new development will hook up to city water and sewer; this is what the neighbors want. He wants the Commissioners to approve the development with a stipulation that the developers comply with Madison County’s requirements of 115-95 for Copper Heights prior to merging the two subdivisions. This section contains several requirements, some of which have been completed: All of the streets have been paved. All of the lots are at least an acre or larger; many of the lots are 0.7 acres or less. Without sidewalks, his 12 kids cannot walk safely to their grandparents’ house within the same subdivision. Aaron would like Copper Heights be brought up to code before tonight’s application is approved. Attorney Rammell confirmed Copper Heights was approved by Madison County. Christopher Cheney - 1716 N 3000 W – Was there mention of going to MDR1? Chairperson Smith clarified the request is for a Comprehensive Plan Map change for LDR1-MDR1. Christopher continued he would have a major issue with zoning of MDR1. The entire area is low-density. The ¾ acre lots do not fit with the other lots in the area. He has lived in his home for sixteen (16) years. He is frustrated with the growth and the impact on schools and levies. He appreciates the city infrastructure, but we have to take into account the local farming community. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. Written Correspondence: (See record for 22-00489.) Rebuttal: McKay said the person the developers worked with in Madison County is no longer in Planning & Zoning. When it came to the developers’ knowledge, the lots were too small, it was too late, with thirty-two (32) separate owners of lots. Madison County what occurred. At the time, he was going to run the utilities through the property for the Copper Heights subdivision, which is on tonight’s request. They followed the county statues as they understood them when the development occurred. The ranges for the Comprehensive Plan Map are confusing for the public. The request for rezone will be Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1) for single-family homes. He worried about people looking at the grain field and realizing change is coming. McKay and Brandon were pleasantly surprised that the townhomes and high-rises were not being built right beside them. Some of the confusion could be diffused by speaking to the neighbors. Attorney Rammell said the Commission cannot consider promises with development. McKay continued Rural and the residential range LDR1-MDR1 are good adjacent designations. Utilities are already in place. With the blessing of City Staff, he asks that he and Brandon be given the opportunity to show they can follow all the requirements needed for development. The extra lane put in on the Pine Brook DIV2 side will also be required with this development. Aaron said he understands the requirement for curb, gutter, and sidewalk with Copper Heights is water under the bridge. He confirmed LDR1 requires sidewalks and this would be required also on Copper Heights block 2 lot 14. Everything in this new development will have curb, gutter, and sidewalks per the LDR1 zone. He suggested that the Commissioners look at both the Comprehensive Plan Map change and the zone change as two related applications; they need to both pass or both fail. 13 The Comprehensive Plan Map is divided into bandwidths or ranges; it is not specific. Zoning is specific. McKay said the Comprehensive Plan Map change has to occur before the zoning can be considered. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 8:12PM. 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 feels this request would be a good addition to the city. The change makes sense in this area to change the Comprehensive Plan Map to LDR1-MDR1. Eric agrees. He thinks this will be a great neighborhood and subdivision. It would be remiss, if we do not discuss the density. RR1 is all around this parcel, which would allow about sixty (60) lots. What we are talking about is going from this density to two hundred fifty (250) lots. This is a major impact to an area. He is assuming City Staff has looked at traffic issues. The intersection to the south with Main and N 12th W. Kyle said Public Works has considered the traffic thoroughly. Attorney Rammell said Main Street with the intersection at Mother Hibbards and Valleywide is a state-controlled road. Vince said he has spoken with the state about that intersection on several occasions. Attorney Rammell how it was received. Vince said the state listened. Eric said concerning the Comprehensive Plan change, we need to determine ways to move traffic across the freeway. This request will be a great addition to the community. MOTION: Motion to recommend the Madison County Commissioners approve (22-00514) the Comprehensive Plan Map change from Rural to LDR1-MDR1 at approximately 1175 N 12th W (RPR06N39E140900) & 1 parcel (Blk2 Lot 14) in the Copper Heights Subdivision, because it meets the area, the surrounding properties mirror it, and this allows public utilities to be available. Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Vanessa Johnson. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Eric would add the extension of city services into the area. Aaron said the elimination of any additional well drilling could also be added. Vince said in the city he could drill his own well; this will not be eliminated. For septic, he has to connect. Aaron said if you have water services, you have the opportunity for connection. Vince will include comments about public utilities availability. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Summary: Yes = 9, No = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Aaron Richards, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson. 14 3. (22-00489) - Hibbard Flats - Approx. 1175 N 12th W (RPR06N39E140900) & 1 parcel (Blk2 Lot 14) in the Copper Heights Subdivision – Annexation and Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Madison County’s Residential (R) zone to Low- Density Residential 1 (LDR1). The parcel at approx. 1175 N 12th W is in the City’s Area of Impact, but the Copper Heights Block 2 Lot 14 is not. The parcels have a combined area of 62.38 acres. – Brandon Winter, McKay Francis (action) (1:50:34) Applicant Presentation: Brandon Winter, McKay Francis – Available for questions. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – LDR1 would allow twelve thousand (12,000) square feet lots with curb, gutter, and sidewalk. With infrastructure subtracted, there would be about two hundred fifty single-family homes. Commissioner Questions: Aaron clarified twelve thousand (12,000) square feet is the minimum; lot sizes could be larger. Vince asked Kyle if as a resident of the city, that he could drill his own well. Kyle said he understands this is an option. Vince asked if someone could drill a well in the city. Alan said if you want to drill a well, you can and you can maintain it. Most people do not due to the cost. Attorney Rammell said if you are annexed into the city and your septic fails, you do have to connect to city services depending on the distance to connection. Aaron said the situation is simple math: $40,000 for a well vs. $2,500 for a water meter. Chairperson Smith confirmed the Copper Heights parcel will also have to meet the infrastructure requirements. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 8:24PM. Favor: None Neutral: Ken Dunn – 2234 Ferris Ln – He is probably the person most impacted by the development of these parcels, because he lives on the current cul-de-sac. He lives in Hibbard and he knows the good growth is needed. Are the lots too small? Are we allowing too many units? 3.63 lots per acre. This is 175 lots in a mostly landlocked piece of land. Where is the traffic going to go? The road of Ferris Lane is not very wide with two curves in it. Even if there is another road and the traffic can be shared, the traffic will increase. Why can’t we have the same size of lots as Pine Brook? He cannot think of any reason except to enrich people. The smaller the lot, the bigger the problem. He hopes this much traffic will not come down these little lanes. Incorporating the Copper Heights lot will also provide connectivity for more traffic. The devil is in the details. We need to know what is really happening here. What was learned in Pine Brook is once the development reaches a certain point, it just flows. 15 Opposed: Eric Gaskell – 1729 N 3000 W – Please put a stipulation that the ordinance be followed. The devil is in the details. We have already seen what happens when you miss a detail. We see a track record here; these developers did not even try to correct the detail. Rob Wood – 2200 Ferris Lane – There are a lot of bad sides to growth. He moved from the heart of Rexburg to a more rural area on purpose. They bought a home that was already built, so he and his wife did not contribute to further development out in Madison County. Approved development takes away from our agricultural heritage. Rob has worked in farming for years, and he sees tonight’s request as further degradation of the heritage of Madison County. No more single-family homes are needed at this location. Traffic at this location is already bad. Understanding Madison County’s laws, if there is sufficient traffic to warrant the widening of Ferris Lane, Madison County can take fifteen (15’) feet from his property with an easement and they do not have to pay him for the land; he does not think this is right to do to benefit this development. He feels it is highly inappropriate a Commissioner engaged in ex-parte communications, when they know it is against the rules. And the Commissioner is the applicant for this request. Rob is not trying to impugn his character, but he feels it taints the proceedings. Christopher Cheney – 1716 N 3000 W - He seconds what has been said so far. You need to make your opinions know at the beginning or they no longer matter. Quarter-acre lots do not fit in this area. Stipulate that only one (1) acre lots would be allowed. It is great to hook up to the city infrastructure. The request should match the look and feel of Hibbard. Let’s nail down what is going to be built. Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. None. Written Correspondence: WRITTEN RESPONSE #1 – Gary Armstrong, Madison County Planning & Zoning Administrator – 16 WRITTEN RESPONSE #2 – Aaron Peterson – 1365 Meadowview Ave. WRITTEN RESPONSE #3 – Brantley Brooks – 1127 Greenside Loop 17 WRITTEN RESPONSE #4 – Shawn Jensen – 576 E 5th S WRITTEN RESPONSE #5 – Gale and Joan Francis – 4727 Columbus Ave, WA Gale and Joan Francis 4727 Columbus Ave. Bellingham, WA 98229 August 23, 2022 Rexburg City Council Attn: Tawnya Grover, Admin Asst. 35 N 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Tawnya.grover@rexburg.org Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council: We are currently residents of Bellingham, Washington. However, for many reasons, we are making plans to move to the Rexburg area, toward the northwest quarter of the city. After a number of trips to decide on the location in which to build a home, we have chosen the area which is currently under consideration for a variance request. For the following reasons, we support the concept of allowing a development of smaller lot size, and annexation into the City of Rexburg: 18 • As a retired couple, and having discussed this with a number of like-minded couples, we cannot maintain and keep up with a lot larger than ⅓ to ¼ acre. We will be building a custom home and estimate the market value/cost to be in excess of $600,000.00. The residential developments in that area are very appealing, but lots over ½ acre are simply not fit for our needs. • Because of the apparent expansion of commercial enterprise in this quadrant of the city, as well as the announcement of a second temple built by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we anticipate that friends and acquaintances who also are empty- nesters, also desire to locate in this area. Although we do not desire to encourage high- density housing in our ideal neighborhood, and loving the merging of a rural and suburban area near the Teton River (and a golf course), we hope that an accommodation for smaller lots for single-family dwellings of a similar value would be available. • Many senior couples that we have talked to, agree with our desires. Having heard of the plans of an expanded airport, commercial and cultural opportunities within Madison County, and the access to beautiful rivers, reservoirs, mountains like the ranges close to Rexburg, commercial enterprises which appear to be interested in coming to the Rexburg area also (Building supply companies, grocers, restaurants, medical facilities, etc.), added to the attractiveness of this area for many senior but independent couples. Certainly, it has piqued our interest in locating there. Therefore, we would like to encourage and support a development of single-family residences near the Teton River, the Teton River golf course, and the area west of the planned temple. We appreciate the opportunity of adding our voice to what we hope will be our final residence in the Rexburg, Idaho area. We plan to build and move in 2023. Sincerely /s/ Gale K. Francis /s/ Joan Francis Gale and Joan Francis gfrancis@xmission.com WRITTEN RESPONSE #6 – Todd Webb – 1197 Torrey Ln 19 Rebuttal: McKay Francis - Everyone wants to see the plat map ahead of time. This does not happen until later. Mr. Marx has a lot of integrity to state the conversation. The same flyer was taken to every single landowner; the same information was taken to everyone they talked to. He reminded everyone about their confidence in Staff’s ability to do their job. The roads were rated through the traffic study to be able to allow the traffic for this development. Attorney Rammell stands by his analysis. Make no mistake moving forward this was ex-parte communication and he is confident this has been addressed. Ex-parte communication should not be standard practice for any of the Commissioners. Chairperson Smith closed the public input portion of the hearing at 8:36PM. 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: Bruce believes the quarter-acre lots are too small. Most people who live in the area have at least a half-acre or one-acre lot. LDR1 is too small. Vince said McKay mentioned he spoke with a lot of people and those here can only be considered. Also, when it comes to curb, gutter, and sidewalk, Staff will work out the logistics of these requirements. The city will work with the county moving forward. Aaron said Sunrise Meadows used to be a farm; Eaglewood used to be a farm; all of Rexburg used to be a farm. What is the proper use of investment the city has made in utilities for different areas of the city? Investment by the city has been made to service the area with water, sewer, and roads in this area of the city; this is a proper application for that investment. Eric agrees with Mr. Casper; the proper transmission would be something in the area of Rural Residential 2 (RR2). The density constitutes a small city in the middle of one-acre lots. He asked if Pine Brook is RR1 or RR2. Aaron said Part of Pine Brook is Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and most is RR2. Eric is assuming the plan was for this lot to develop as RR2; this seems like a better transition. He does not know if this will sway his vote or not; Eric is on the fence. Jim said he is confused, because we just voted to change the Comprehensive Plan map to allow this zoning. Confusion is created when we approve one and deny the other when it comes to Comprehensive Plan Map changes and Rezones. Vince said do not let someone else tell you what to vote. Hibbard is growing. The city utilities are in place to support the growth. Jim appreciated some of the written correspondence from people who want to live in this area. The approval of this request would allow for lots that are more affordable than the larger lots in the area. Vince confirmed this testimony came from Todd Webb, who is a homebuilder. Aaron said even though the Pine Brook rezone failed, the lots were listed individually and no one is pursuing them; there are half-acre lots on the market with utilities and no response. What does the market need? There will never be another Pine Brook; the homes would be very expensive. Bruce says we are talking 20 an awful lot about Pine Brook and this should have no bearing on our decision. Attorney Rammell said the application should be considered on its own merits. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00489) the Annexation and Rezone from Rural Residential 1 (RR1) and Madison County’s Residential (R) zone to Low-Density Residential 1 (LDR1), Hibbard Flats, at Approx. 1175 N 12th W (RPR06N39E140900) & 1 parcel (Blk2 Lot 14) in the Copper Heights Subdivision, because it fits within the future plans of the city, in the Impact zone and with the city utilities there, it makes sense to allow this particular zone. Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Vince Haley. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None Attorney Rammell said the voting on this matter is not as clear cut as you would normally see. The county representatives on the Commission have a greater weight than the remaining Commissioners. VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 1). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Aaron Richards, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson. No: Bruce Casper Heads Up for September 15th: Work Meeting on Development Code changes 5:00PM 1. (22-00425) Shirley Subdivision Plat – Approximately 396 W Moody Rd. Adjournment