Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPZ Minutes 1.19.231 City Staff and Others: Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator Katie Jo Saurey – P&Z Administrative Assistant Kyle Baldwin – Planner 1 Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Spencer Rammell – Commissioner Attorney Chairperson Smith opened the meeting at 6:34 PM. Planning & Zoning Meeting: Welcome Pledge of Allegiance: McKay Francis ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Jim Lawrence Absent: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Vanessa Johnson Minutes: Approval of the P&Z Minutes from January 5, 2023 (Action) MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as recorded for January 5, 2023. Action: Approve, Moved by Todd Marx, Seconded by McKay Francis. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 7, No= 0, Abstain = 1). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Eric Erickson, McKay Francis, Jim Lawrence No: Abstain: Brad Wolfe Public Hearings: (video index 0:02:14) 1. (22-00299) Amendment to 1200 – Development Code – Ordinance Amendment. Updated terminology and simplified density. -Alan Parkinson (Action) Sally asked Alan how he’d like to begin the meeting. Alan stated that he would recommend starting with questions and recommendations as the staff report then open the public portion of the meeting. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes January 19, 2023 2 Randall began with his list of questions: ▫ Pg 1 – the title needs corrected. Alan explained that the program had a glitch. ▫ Pg 9 – since the section is deleted, will the title be deleted? Katie Jo confirmed that yes, those sections in red to be removed will also remove their titles once adopted and there would be several places this will be seen in the document. ▫ Pg 15 – Flag Poles – Does this sufficiently close the loophole of billboards masquerading as flag poles? Alan talked about previous discussion and how 150’ was too much. Todd noticed that flags are exempt from height restrictions in residential if no advertising. Alan responded that is why there are restrictions that flag poles cannot be higher than the building in residential. Eric asked if “flagpole” was defined somewhere? Alan stated that per legal counsel, we have to be careful with definitions; only non-advertising flags are allowed. Recommended to add definition of flagpole. Eric asked about provision for advertising poles. Alan responded that then it becomes a sign and falls under the sign code. ▫ Pg 20 – Boarding Houses, Bed and Breakfasts, and Short-term Rentals – do these refer to Air B&B’s? Alan stated that it covers Air B&B’s, that there are specific requirements for each type, including which zone it can be located in. Alan informed the Commission that in the future a rewrite of the Short-term Rental will be brought before them, but only clarification changes were made in this amendment. Eric asked why both terms were kept? Alan responded that most people don’t understand the older terms of Boarding Houses and Bed and Breakfasts and this way they know that these are classified as a Short-term Rental. Eric suggested eliminating those terms, to which Alan replied they will be addressed in the upcoming rewrite. ▫ Pg 34 – PED – Randall asked for clarification on the lot density. Alan stated that PED does include single family homes, tied to areas close to university. These can also fall under some of the colleges regulations, of what university allows. ▫ Pg 39 – TAG/livestock – Randall asked for clarification on if this only applied to residential? Alan replied he was correct, that if someone is currently raising cattle in TAG, they are grandfathered in. If they stop raising cattle, after a certain time, they lose the grandfathered status. ▫ Pg 39 - CBC zone, do we still have that zone? Alan responded yes; this is a major zone. Eric asked about the livestock limitations, and whether that limit applied per acre, per property, per person? Randall also asked if it should that be clarified. Recommended to clarify livestock limitation per acre. Eric discussed the fact that 10 animals per acres is a lot of animals and he would recommend lowering that density in the future. ▫ Pg 42 – Parking Requirements – Randall questioned why Section B is different than rest of document, asking questions, but doesn’t give stipulations or limitations. Alan answered that this is helping staff to gather information on whether the requirements are met. Randall asked why this is part of code instead of internal processes. Alan explained that we want the applicants to know what information to gather and the requirements. Sally commented that the code references parking management plans, but never states the regulation. Alan discussed parking being called out in the Subdivision section of the code and reminded the Commission that this document contains only the changes being proposed, not the entire plan. Eric commented that in his conversations with City Council members, parking issues continue to be a problem and the PED zone is being questioned. Alan pointed out that in 3 the amendment, the option of reduced parking for multi-family housing is being eliminated and the reduced parking for dormitories was increased from 60% to 75%, explaining that the university did a survey that says 75% students are now bringing cars, and there are some parking challenges that are being worked on and a parking revision is planned to be brought in front of the commission soon. ▫ Pg 40 - Randall pointed out a spelling error parking ration should be parking ratio ▫ Pg 61 – Another grammatical error of forth instead of forty Alan explained that small grammatical/spelling errors do not need Commission/Council approval to correct, and suggested emailing those errors to the staff to be corrected. (video index 00:20:00) Todd asked about animal units that were indicated in an older draft of the amendment. Alan responded that animal units were proposed but decided against during the work meetings. Jim asked if the dwellings listed on page 3 needed defined. Alan answered that they were defined in the definitions. Eric asked for help understanding the difference between attached and detached dwellings. Alan explained the differences, giving examples and the zones where they could be located. Todd asked for clarification of what is considered substantial in relation to the vacant property definition on page 8. Alan discussed that there is not a specific time, as it can depend on the severity of what is happening with the property, it could be 6 months, or it could be immediately if there is a hazard. Sally began going through her list of questions: ▫ Sally asked how much TAG zoning was located in the city. Alan showed the map and pointed out that the majority is in the impact area and discussed the process of developing or rezoning area in the impact zone; how P&Z recommends to the County Commissioners and they have the final say on the application. ▫ Sally asked about limiting where manufactured homes can go and if that is considered discriminatory. Alan explained that within the code, trailer house and modular home were defined, and modular homes are allowed in all zones that allow single family dwellings. Sally asked about potential lawsuits with the way it is written. Alan clarified that a subdivision’s CC&R’s or HOA could limit modular homes, but the zoning would allow it. Attorney Rammell assured the Commission that legal will review the proposed changes again before it is presented to City Council to confirm it is in compliance. ▫ Sally asked for confirmation that everything now is grandfathered in unless it changes, and Alan answered yes. ▫ Sally pointed out a grammatical error in the MDR densities, where the written number did not match the number indicated (update word of number 16 in mdr1 density on pg29) ▫ Sally asked for confirmation that twin homes are allowed in LDR2, and townhomes are allowed in LDR3, to which Alan replied she was correct. ▫ Sally inquired if the upcoming PUD would be subject to the proposed changes, or the current code. Alan responded the current code, explaining that this will still need to go before City Council, and unless we ask for the 3 readings to be waived and it considered final 4 read at that time, it could be the end of March or beginning of April before the changes are adopted. Chairperson Smith opened the public hearing at 7:10 pm (video index 00:36:00) Favor: none Neutral: none Ryan Sedig 332 S 4th W Ryan asked for clarification on what the purpose of the meeting for the proposal. Alan answered that the screen is showing the certain parts of the code where changes or updates are being proposed, including some definitions, clarifications, or removal of sections. McKay added it had been presented at previous work meetings. Alan described how during the work meetings both P&Z and City Council looked at the proposed changes, discussed concerns, and made changes. This version compiles those changes and recommendations and is the official proposal of the code being presented for consideration. Ryan asked about the proposed changes to parking. Alan explained that currently multifamily housing can have a reduced parking of 75% if they have a parking management plan, but multifamily housing usually has 2+ cars per unit, and this forces them to park on street. Now, the code is proposing that the developer must put in enough parking. Parking is difficult in summer, but impossible in winter, especially when needing to plow snow, and we’re trying to make that better. Sally added that in the PED zone, developers can apply for 60% reduced parking, and this update increases that to 75%, and multifamily housing from 75% to 100%, since it isn’t currently working, and that there will not be a decrease in parking anymore. Ryan agreed with the increase of parking and suggested that he sees value in investing in alternate modes of transportation such as public transit, bikes, etc. Ryan commented that all his friends said there were no bike lanes and the sidewalks were horrible, and a car was necessary. He tries to bike where he can, but a lot of people don’t feel safe enough to do so, and feels that alternative transportation would help with parking demands. Against: Mike Glasscock 191 Millhollow (video index 00:42:28) Mike shared his concern about the flagpole height, as he feels an 80’ flag pole is pretty high, and suggested the commission reconsider. Britta Sedig 332 S 4th W Britta is a College Career Advisor in Rigby and shared that some students are forced to go to college in places that are not as car dependent, and this is effecting students coming into Rexburg. Brad commented that a lot of time was previously spent on the sign ordinance, and there were many reasons why signs were limited in height, but now flags will be allowed to go higher. Chairperson Smith closed the public hearing at 7:19 pm (video index 00:45:15) Vince asked for an example of how high is 80’ would be? Natalie gave the example of Ray’s flag being 80’ tall. Alan stated that the McDonald’s sign is 120’ tall. Sally asked if there were currently any flags at 80’ tall, and Alan answered that yes, Ray’s flag is. Vince commented that he is not 5 concerned with the height, but rather the types of flags. Alan explained that only non-advertising flags would apply, and that according to legal counsel, we have to be very careful to not discriminate against any type of flag. Vince asked if there was any regulation on how big a flag can be in comparison to the pole, other than it cannot touch ground? Alan replied that he was not aware of any. Natalie added that engineering is involved, so it doesn’t blow over, and a flag pole of that height would need a building permit and meet the building code standards. Sally commented that she likes the big flag in Rigby. Brad commented that the higher the sign, the less they are seen. Randall inquired to the motivation to add this in the code. Alan explained there was no height restriction. Randall asked why 80’ was chosen. Alan replied that it matched the existing flagpole height, and the majority was comfortable with that height. McKay added that flag poles were previously discussed during the work meetings, and they felt a precedent had been set. Vince asked the commission if anyone had noticed the flag pole and thought it was too high? Randall replied that Mike had. Sally asked if City Council would be allowed to change the proposed amendment? Alan responded yes, but he would have to check with legal to see if City Council makes any changes if it will come back to P&Z. Alan pointed out the next sections to be discussed, including Permitted uses. Sally commented that it was good to revisit the uses. Plats: None MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00299) Amendment to Ordinance 1200 – Development Code, as discussed and proposed with only the minor modifications. Action: Approve/Deny, Moved by Eric Erickson, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 8, No= 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Jim Lawrence No: Abstain: Heads Up for February 2nd: (22-00741) Riverwalk PUD Adjourned at 7:29 PM.