Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 22-00299 - 1200 Development Code - Ordinance Amendment(208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Reason for Decision 22-00299 – Amendment to Ordinance 1200 Development Code 1. May 3, 2022, An application was received for an ordinance amendment to multiple sections of the Development Code 1200. 2. May 3, 2022, 2022, Application paperwork was completed. 3. July 15, 2022, Application was discussed at Strategic Team Meeting. 4. August 18, 2022, A joint work meeting was held. 5. September 15, 2022, A joint work meeting was held. 6. November 22, 2022, A work meeting was held. 7. December 19, 2022, Staff reviews were approved. 8. December 21, 2022, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published January 3, 2023 and January 10, 2023. 9. January 19, 2023, the application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. (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. 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 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org 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 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) (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org 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 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 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org 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. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org 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 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. 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 (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org 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: 10. February 1, 2023, the application was presented to City Council. Planning and Zoning recommendation to approve amendments to Ordinance No 1200 Rexburg Development Code. Designated as Ordinance No 1298 and considered first read if motion passes – Alan Parkinson (0:29:14) Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained he would like to concentrate on the amendments to the city’s Development Code, so that they complete the amendments correctly. He highlighted the added text in green and the text highlighted in red are changes. Council Member Flora asked the council to table the recommendation to amend Ordinance No. 1200 Rexburg Development Code to allow the Councilmembers more time to review the changes. Council Member Johnson expressed her concerns with the code not giving a definition for dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, single family detached and the removal of the definition for townhouse. On the pages that mentioned the Low Density Residential 2 Zone, it states single-family dwelling attached (except for townhomes). She said without the definitions for townhomes, single-family attached and detached dwellings, the code is unclear. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained he wanted to make sure in the LDR2 Zone a townhome is not allowed. In the LDR2 Zone, single-family attached are allowed, which are twin homes and duplex only. Council Member Johnson reiterated without the definitions of a single-family attached or detached and townhome, the code is unclear what type of structure the code would allow. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said there are standard definitions for these structures in the International Building Code (IBC) and International Residential Code (IRC) codebooks. Most of the changes, they are making to the city’s Development Code are to align with the IBC and IRC codebooks. Discussion regarding household pets and fowl in the city’s Development Code. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained the number of domestic livestock per acre allowed and number of small animals allowed per household. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Mike Glassdock expressed his concerns with the height of the allowed 80 foot commercial flag poles. He believes a reasonable height for a flag pole is 30 feet. There is an 80 foot flag pole at the Cheveron gas station on 2nd East. There have not been any issues with this flag pole; however, he believes the 80 foot pole is an eye sore. He said allowing an 80 foot flag pole does not make sense to him. Mr. Glassdock showed a picture of the flag pole near the Nittro Carwash blocking the view of the temple. Discussion regarding Mr. Wanless Southwick’s email regarding the household pets and doemestic livestock. Attached to this email are documents describing how the city staff gave misleading answers to questions asked by the city council during a discussion about livestock and hobby farm issues. Below are specific recommendations to solve those issues by modifying Rexburg's Development Code: (Revision language is shown in italics.) 1. Add definition of “domestic livestock” to Chapter 2 Definitions. Domestic Livestock: Horses, and animals generally used for human food production (including cattle, sheep, goats, rabbits, poultry, fish, and honeybees), which are raised with the intent to supply food, enjoyment, and education for those who raise them. 2. Add definition of “animal unit” to Chapter 2 Definitions. Animal Unit: A unit to measure the quantity of domestic animals at any given location, because large animals require more living space than small animals. One (1) Animal Unit is equal to a horse or a cow weighing over 700 pounds. Animal units for smaller species can be calculated by dividing the species’ average adult weight in pounds by 500. For example, sheep and goats = 0.2 AU each, rabbits and chickens = 0.01 AU each. 3. Fix the “Animals Section” in both Rural Residential 1 and Rural Residential 2 zoning codes. 4.01.020 Permitted Uses (RR1), B. Animals. Household pets are allowed. No more than two (2) animal units of domestic livestock for each (1) acre shall be allowed. 4.02.020 Permitted Uses (RR2), (add this missing section) B. Animals. Household pets are allowed. No more than one (1) animal unit of domestic livestock for each half (1/2) acre shall be allowed. 4. Repeal obsolete Section 9.02.050.A (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org This obsolete and livestock-hostile section was designed to remove livestock from areas of city impact in 1995. 5. Revise Section 4.00.020 Permitted Accessory Uses to accommodate citizens’ self-reliance strategies. 4.00.020.A.3 Vegetable and flower gardens, noncommercial orchards, domestic poultry (for example, chickens) and domestic animals (for example, rabbits, goats) may be raised for personal food production or education (such as 4-H projects) if the residence has sufficient space for the quantity and species kept and provided the activity does not cause egregious disturbance to neighbors. Mrs. Geddes said there is a concern with chickens being listed under household pets because people do not eat their household pets. The chickens would be better catigorized under domestic livestock. Council Member Erickson expressed his concern with the amendment below. The Ready Team, for transparency, should have a general record of the meeting created. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said one of the challenges they encounter in a Ready Team meeting is that sometimes the information being received is confedential. Until the developer applys for a permit, the information is not public record. Council Member Chambers explained he understands the Ready Team is an advisory board and the items discussed could lead up to a development agreement. Once there is a development agreement then that is public record; however, until then it is back and forth discussion. Council Member Erickson said he is concerned the Ready Team meetings could be construed as private meetings and unofficial promises could be made. City Attorney Zollinger explained the use of the word confidential when refering to Ready Team meetings is not accurate. The city is not allowed to take non-disclosure agreements without going through the formal process. Sometimes the items they discuss in a Ready Team meeting are idea concepts. He said for example, a developer may come to a meeting to ask if the city is going to allow 22 story buildings. The Ready Teams are intended to accomplish a non- formal dialog that does not commit anyone to anything. The city does not engage in confidential meetings unless it is an executive session. Council Member Johnson said city staff should not be using the term confidential when refering to Ready Team meetings. Mr. Southwick said domestic livestock and household pets are listed in the code and they are not the same. Council Member Flora asked Mr. Southwick how many livestock does he have on his property. Mr. Southwick replied he has two goats and a dozen chickens. There are residents in the city that desire more animals for food production than what the code is currently allowing. Council President Busby moved to Table Ordinance No 1298 Amendments to Ordinance No 1200 Rexburg Development Code; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora None (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council Member Johnson Council Member Chambers Council Member Erickson Council Member Walker Council President Busby The motion carried. 11. February 15, 2023, Alan Parkinson recommended to City Council that the application remain tabled. Planning and Zoning recommendation to approve amendments to Ordinance No 1200 Rexburg Development Code. Designated as Ordinance No 1298 and considered first read if motion passes – Alan Parkinson Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson recommended the tabled item remain tabled until a joint meeting with the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission is held to consider other changes to the Development Code. 12. March 15, 2023, a work meeting was held. 13. April 19, 2023, a work meeting was held. 14. June 1, 2023, the application was presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission. (22-00299) Amendment to Ordinance 1200 – Development Code – Ordinance Amendment – Proposing modifications to several sections of the Development Code, including but not limited to definitions, density, fencing, flagpoles, manufactured housing, permitted uses, and Ready Team. – Alan Parkinson (Action) Alan presented the amendment explaining that the proposed changes had been broken into sections and that individual motions for each section can be made, or the sections can be grouped into one or more motions, allowing sections without concerns to be passed and moved on. He reminded the Commission of their ability and authority to line item change any of the proposed updates. Vince stated he would prefer to vote on them all at once. Chairperson Smith opened the public hearing at 6:46 pm. Favor: none (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Neutral: none Against: Rory Kunz, 38 S 2nd E, began by thanking the Commission. He expressed that he does not have a problem with the entirety of the amendment, but that a few items caught his attention. His first concern is that it seems that the ability to have a manufactured home on a permanent foundation is being removed. He explained that from a realtor’s perspective, these are considered Real Property, are not typically a problem, and can be a cheaper, more efficient way for homeowners to get into a home instead of new construction. He asked that this be reconsidered. Rory’s second concern is in regard to the allowance of pets and livestock within all zones. He referenced a current listing that is behind a subdivision and is not in a HOA, and a potential buyer could decide that the 1 acre lot is adequate for 20 pigs, which would not make the neighborhood happy. Rory mentioned Vince’s previous comment about the neighbor who wanted to state on the record that he had animals and did not want complaints about them. Rory brought up that there is no definition of adequate nor specification of the type and quantity of animals. He feels there should be more discussion on these topics and that they should be removed completely from the Commission’s considerations. Chairperson Smith closed the public hearing at 6:52 pm. Chairperson Smith asked for any conflicts of interest. None Commissioner discussion: Eric began by stating that this has been discussed for months and that the animals discussion relies on other sections of the code that are not presented here. He asked if the density of animals allowed was defined elsewhere in the code. Sally answered only in TAG, allowing 10 per acre. Eric asked how, after all of the discussion, the number of animals was removed. Alan stated that this was never part of the original changes. He explained that staff had no plans to change the animal standards, but someone came in and wanted it changed. He explained the thought process behind working through the suggestion including looking at acreage, square feet, and reason. Alan clarified livestock is only allowed up to the LDR3 zone. Aaron brought up that in previous discussions there have not been animal issues with animal control, the commission is not addressing an issue, and there is no one asking to increase their animal use. Alan answered there is always the potential and having a vague definition of what is pertinent to what those animals need can make it a challenge, but so far have not had any trouble with it. McKay pointed out that over the last several months, there have been work meetings trying to figure out how many acres are needed per animal; going from a vague understanding of the animal policy to exact numbers and specifics then back to super vague. Alan stated the shift was due to legal counsel advisement. Sally remarked that the code wasn’t vague, livestock just wasn’t allowed, so this is a huge change. Sally asked Attorney Rammell if the public could speak even though the public hearing was closed. Attorney Rammell advised a motion could be made to reopen the public hearing portion of the meeting. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Brad asked if it would be better to specify who is going to determine what adequate means? Alan suggested the Commission can add line similar to ‘must be cleared with the City’ or 'must have permit’. Attorney Rammell indicated that he had not been as involved in the work meetings as Attorney Zollinger, but guaranteed that lawyers, people in community, and judges would never agree on what adequate means and that sometimes lawyers like it because it is malleable based on facts and circumstances. Alan added that the nuisance and noise ordinances can stop issues as well. Randall stated that it comes down to having some level of trust in the community because you cannot legislate every detail, and the noise or nuisance ordinances can stop problems, but there is not a current problem being addressed. Eric vocalized that he thinks the animal changes should be pulled out, it should go back to what it was, and exceptions can be dealt with as they come. Sally thinks the group needs to consider that almost everyone on the dais lives in a subdivision and they have covenants that prohibit livestock but covenants are old and not always followed. She doesn’t feel that as a body, the Commission is representing the entire city. She expressed her concern with “adequate” and that with no enforcement until someone complains, it tears neighborhoods apart and becomes neighbor against neighbor. She agrees with Eric that if adequate is not defined, then livestock should be taken back out of LDR1, LDR2, and LDR3. Attorney Rammell added that its not that adequate is not being defined, Brad interrupted saying that it is leaving the door open to which Sally agreed. Attorney Rammell continued stating that it is a term that leads to a large amount of interpretation. Sally questioned who decides what is adequate. Eric asked if the current code disallows animals in any zone. Alan responded that domestic livestock is currently only allowed in TAG, RR1 and RR2. Eric voiced his support of the current code. There was a discussion concerning changes made and if City Council would send the entire amendment back to Planning & Zoning if a single motion was made. Sally mentioned that Rory brought up his concerns with manufactured homes. Alan clarified that manufactured homes are not being removed, rather we are acknowledging them similar to stick built homes and referred to preparations for tiny homes as influencing the removal of the width requirements. MOTION: Motion to reopen the public hearing to allow further public comment prior to a decision. Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 10, No= 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson, McKay Francis, Aaron Richards, No: none Abstain: none Chairperson Smith reopened the public hearing at 7:07 pm. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Ted Whyte, 369 Eagle Court, shared his gratitude for the commissioners. As a real estate agent in Rexburg and former commissioner, he is not seeing the up side to putting this into an ordinance. He believes the wording is vague. He referenced Eaglewood subdivision covenants which state that no animals are allowed except for pets which are defined as cats or dogs. He expressed that trying to put domesticated animals, besides cats and dogs, into ordinances can create additional problems for the City, enforcing covenants, and pits neighbor against neighbor. He discussed that animals eat and poop and their feed attracts rodents. He does not see the benefit of this ordinance across the town and believes LDR zones are against it. Harvest Heights covenants may limit livestock, but were written long ago and may not address pets as defined in today’s world, such as a pet chicken, pet goat, pet pig, etc.. Eric asked Ted if he was specifically against animals. Ted confirmed. Eric asked if there were any other sections Ted was concerned with and asked for Ted’s opinion on the definition of household pets. Ted agreed it was generally an okay statement. He shared that he has a friend with pot bellied pigs as pets and their back yard is atrocious from the pigs digging. He stated he can appreciate how things evolve, but with evolution creates anguish for the City and neighbors. He questioned if this a good ordinance to pass as it suits 1-2% of the public and reiterated that neighbors complaining to the City and to other neighbors causes issues. Chairperson Smith closed the public hearing at 7:14 pm. Vince shared that after hearing Teds comments his thoughts on the matter have changed. He is now thinking that there was a resident who at the beginning of the discussions had specifically requested chickens, and is not sure if the changes enable them to have chickens or if it is too much and opens a can of worms that will not make everyone happy. Discussion turned to opportunities for youth to participate in FFA and 4H programs, as well as the possibility of requiring animal permits. Attention was drawn to this part of the ordinance trying to please one person, who is already enabled to have livestock. Aaron suggested deleting the section, removing the proposed verbiage and keeping it as it remains today. Attorney Rammell advised that he would prefer that compared to a substantial change, and the section not moving forward is not a change. Vince questioned there being a hole in the development code where the permitted use jumps zones. Aaron and Alan clarified that pertained to daycares and was corrected in the proposed uses before them tonight. MOTION: Motion to recommend that City Council approve the Ordinance Amendments as presented with the deletion of all changes to domestic livestock with the reason being the changes for approval have gone through multiple public events and work meetings and the only item causing friction is the changes to domestic livestock. To clarify, the code regarding domestic livestock shall remain unchanged. Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by Brad Wolfe. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 10, No= 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson, McKay Francis, Aaron Richards, No: none Abstain: none 15. June 7, 2023, the application was presented to City Council. Planning & Zoning recommendation to amend Ordinance No. 1200 Rexburg Development Code #22-00299 concerning substantive and non-substantive items, with the exception of any domestic livestock changes being removed from the amendment. Designated as Ordinance No. 1298 if motion passes. Request to waive the rules and consider the ordinance third read – Alan Parkinson Planning & Zoning Director Parkinson indicated that there were two items that came up in Planning & Zoning: a request for CUPs for townhomes in LDR2 and a request for CUPs for Daycares in LDR2. There was also a discussion in Planning & Zoning about the animal changes, and they decided that it would be better to go back to what we already had and leave it unchanged. They struggled with defining “adequate space for an animal”. Council Member Johnson would like the request to have a CUP for townhomes in LDR2 be removed. Council Member Flora agrees with Council Member Johnson. She does not believe it is necessary to have a CUP for townhomes in LDR2 when they can use the zoning of LDR3. Council Member Chambers indicated that it was his idea to have CUPs for townhomes in LDR2 because he likes to see a variety of housing types in neighborhoods. Council Member Flora said they can use a PUD. Council Member Chambers explained that a PUD is used at the beginning of a development and a CUP is used after the development. Council Member Johnson would like to preserve the few neighborhoods that allow for unattached housing. Council Member Erickson would also like to preserve the unattached housing areas. Council Member Johnson asked about the animals. Why did they go to so much trouble just to have it left the same? Council Member Flora agrees. She liked the solution they came up with in their work meeting. If “adequate” needs to be defined later, that’s fine, but she wants to give it a year and see what happens. Most neighborhoods have their own CCR’s, anyway. There will be exceptions to the rule, but how many? Compliance Officer Natalie Powell indicated that she has never had someone ask for a horse or a cow in the city limits. Council Member Walker said if we haven’t had any problems over the past 18 years, why are we changing it to begin with. We haven’t had to define adequate before so why now? Council Member Johnson thought this would take care of the exceptions. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Attorney Rammell instructed that the ordinance would need to go back to Planning & Zoning because it is a substantial change. Just the line items for CUP for townhomes and the changes for animals would go back, the rest can be passed tonight. Council Member Johnson moved to send Ordinance #1298 section 4.04.020 Permitted Uses in LDR2 Residential-Single-family Dwelling, Attached (Townhomes) back to Planning & Zoning concerning line item regarding CUPs for townhouses in LDR2; Council Member Flora seconded the motion: Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora none Council Member Johnson Council Member Chambers Council Member Erickson Council Member Walker Council President Busby The motion carried Council Member Johnson moved to send Ordinance #1298 section 4.04.020 Permitted Uses in LDR2 Residential-Single-family Dwelling, back to Planning & Zoning to add in the one-line item regarding adequate space for domestic livestock; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora Council Member Walker Council Member Johnson Council Member Chambers Council Member Erickson Council President Busby The motion carried (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council Member Flora moved to suspend the rules to consider Ordinance #1298 third read; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a roll call vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora none Council Member Johnson Council Member Chambers Council Member Erickson Council Member Walker Council President Busby The motion carried Council Member Flora moved to approve amendments to Ordinance #1200 Rexburg Development Code #22-00299 concerning substantive and non-substantive items, with the exception of CUPs for townhomes and changes to the animal rules - Ordinance No. 1298, and consider third read; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora none Council Member Johnson Council Member Chambers Council Member Erickson Council Member Walker Council President Busby The motion carried 16. July 20th, 2023, application was represented to Planning & Zoning. Ordinance Amendment: (video index 4:31) 1. Development Code Ordinance Amendment 1298 – Livestock – City Council returned any changes pertaining to Livestock in the Development Code Ordinance Amendment to the Planning & Zoning Commission for review. Action Item Sally explained that the animal section of the ordinance amendment had been sent back to Planning & Zoning by City Council and asked the Commissioners for any discussion. Eric asked for an explanation. Sally explained that she attended the City Council meeting and there was a (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org very controversial matter on the agenda ahead of the ordinance amendment, and the draft of the minutes includes one paragraph where City Council indicated they had talked through it before and all had come to the same conclusion. The City Council meeting was only 6 days after the Planning & Zoning meeting and it seemed like the Planning & Zoning minutes were not read. She stated that the public hearing was held before Planning & Zoning, not City Council. Sally asked Attorney Rammell to explain what would happen if the same motion goes back to City Council. Attorney Rammell responded that the statute requires it to come back to the Planning & Zoning Commission since City Council wanted what would be considered a substantial change from the Planning & Zoning recommendation. He explained that as far as the process goes, the Planning & Zoning Commission makes a recommendation, if City Council proposes a substantial change it is sent back before Planning & Zoning. If Planning & Zoning makes the same proposal, then since Planning & Zoning is only a recommendation board, City Council has the ultimate determination and can pass it. Eric asked if City Council provided any instruction or reference to a specific problem. Alan explained that the City Council commented that they felt there was a consensus during previous work meetings and felt it should stay in the ordinance and asked that Planning & Zoning look at it again. Sally pointed out that Planning & Zoning held the public hearing. Spencer agreed and noted that there was not a prolonged discussion during the City Council decision. Sally restated that it was only 1 paragraph. Vince suggested that in an effort to help City Council that the Planning & Zoning Commission keep their comments short and to the point. As he started to explain that he had been thinking about this problem and possible solutions, Eric asked Vince to define the problem. Vince stated that the problem, in his mind, is that the Planning & Zoning Commission is being requested to change the ordinance, based on citizens request and concern. In his mind, what the City Council thinks should be approved actually opens up more of a can of worms than the current ordinance. He 100% agrees with the concern of having the rights of having animals within parts of the city limits, but does not agree with what is being proposed and feels the city will face more problems, when, to his understanding, the city doesn’t currently have a problem. He feels they are making an effort to make sure all citizens have rights to animals, but that it would open up additional problems if this ordinance is passed. Sally pointed out that livestock is still allowed in RR1, RR2 and TAG where there is adequate space. She referenced her time on City Council, and how she had a hard time voting for another law that was difficult to enforce. Vince added if it doesn’t meet the needs of all citizens. Randall stated he had also given this considerable thought and expressed that there are zones where all of the Commission agrees that livestock should not be allowed (MDR & HDR zones) and zones where it is allowed (RR & TAG) and it is the LDR zones that is an issue. He feels that public involvement has been minimal and before changing the ordinance, he would prefer to see (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org more citizens express their interest in that change, since it will affect their lives and they don’t know because they’re not here or reading the newspapers. He agrees with Vince that if this ordinance change is passed, some neighbors will take advantage of the livestock ordinance and create conflict between neighbors, whereas now, there is not that conflict. Eric agrees. Instead of a blanket allowing poultry or certain animals in certain zones, to codify it and you can have a horse, cow, pig, which is what the commission has been asked us to do, opens a can of worms. He has no problem looking at definitions of household pets, as the definition seems to be the problem. Especially chickens, as they are not kept for company or pleasure, rather for eggs or food production. He feels that allowing domestic livestock in all LDR will open the City up to problems. Bruce thinks the Commission needs to go with what they did before. Vince and Randall specified that City Council needs to understand why the Commission is voting this way. Vanessa agrees and believes changing it will open it up to other issues, giving the example that if they are allowed in other locations, there will begin to be issues with neighbors, smells, nuisances, etc. Todd brought up that a lot of areas are controlled by HOA’s. Sally countered that there are lot of areas not controlled by HOA’s. Todd thinks this is dealing with a problem that doesn’t need to be dealt with. Jim stated he is on the same page as everyone else. Vince addressed Mr. Southwick, stating he understood Mr. Southwick’s concern and desire for those who want to have animals, but the points made have not steered him enough. Eric reasoned that this might come up again and sometimes inaction in a situation like this is the best way forward. He commented on the lack of public involvement. Randall shared that after a work meeting where Mr. Southwick expressed his views, Randall found his ideas persuasive, and agrees with the rural feel and character, and wants to have other people saying the same thing as there is not enough engagement. He resolved they should keep status quo as matter of prudence. Eric commented on the quality of arguments from both sides during the last hearing. He thought some of the arguments against having domestic livestock in LDR zones were very valid. Randall wants to make a motion, hasn’t ironed it out yet. Randall commented he is working on the wording for a motion. Alan added that the Commission can have it sent back to staff to have it rewritten and clarified. Sally asked the Commissioner’s if (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org the chicken’s aspect had been straightened out. Alan explained that animals was left out of the last ordinance. Eric asked Alan to clarify the changes made to the animals definitions. Alan replied that the Domestic Livestock had been added and that chickens had been clarified. Eric would like the changed definitions to be included in the motion to be in the ordinance to better clarify that chickens are allowed. Discussion ensued about leaving the definitions as they were, since chickens were included in fowl, which was included in the current definition, as well as other restrictions to chickens, such as HOA’s, covenants, or strict restrictions. MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council that they remove the changes pertaining to animals in the proposed development code ordinance amendment because of reasons discussed in this meeting and previous Planning & Zoning discussions. Action: Remove proposed animal changes, Moved by Randall, Seconded by Eric. 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), Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Vanessa Johnson, Jim Lawrence No: Abstain: 17. August 2, 2023, the application was presented to City Council. Planning and Zoning recommendation to not amend the Development Code, Ordinance 1200, as it pertains to Livestock #22-00299 – Alan Parkinson P & Z Administrator Parkinson explained the Planning and Zoning Commissioners recommended that they remove the changes pertaining to animals in the proposed development code ordinance amendment because of reasons discussed in this meeting and previous Planning and Zoning discussions. The Animal Unit and Domestic Livestock are defined as stated below in the proposed development code. (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Council Member Flora said there are about 12 different drafts in the Councilmembers packets so she had a difficult knowing which one was the correct draft. In the LDR2 Zone townhomes is still a permitted use in the draft that needs to be changed. P&Z Administrator Parkinson said he will need to verify the changes requested by the Councilmembers are completed correctly. City Clerk Lovejoy said the changes to the development code have been update online. The pdf documents in the Councilmembers packets are drafts. Council Member Flora mentioned she agrees with the change to list chickens in the domestic livestock section of the development code and not in the household pet section. There is a family in the LDR3 zone that have two chickens. She does not foresee that right being taken from the family. She said she understands why a resident would not want their neighbor to have cow when the space is not conducive to having a cow. The ordinance states if there is adequate space a cow is allowed. Council Member Flora said she asked city compliance officer if she has had any complaints from resident regarding a neighbor having cow in the LDR3 zone and answer was no the city has not received that type of complaint. Council Member Flora said she believes the citizens of Rexburg can govern themselves and should an issue arise with having livestock in an LDR3 zone then they could address that issue. Council Member Erickson explained city staff has worked with the public to come to a resolution to define which animals would be considered household pets and which animals would be considered domestic livestock. He believes this section of the old ordinance was more confusing. He is in favor of the changes to the ordinance. Council Member Johnson pointed out that she listened to the Planning and Zoning meeting and it was kind of insinuated that they as Councilmembers did not listen to the Planning and Zoning Commissioners. She said she takes issue with that insinuation because she listens to all of the Planning and Zoning meetings. The Councilmembers decision to make the changes after deliberation was not made in haste. She said as Councilmembers they may disagree with the commissioners; however, that does not mean the Councilmembers did not do their due diligence. Council Member Walker said he agrees with the Planning and Zoning Commissioners recommendation to not amend the Development Code, Ordinance 1200, as it pertains to Livestock. The city’s complaince officer has not had any complaints regarding livestock in the city limits and wondered why change an ordinance that has been working. Council Member Walker moved to not amend the Development Code, Ordinance 1200, as it pertains to Livestock; Council Member Chambers seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Chambers Council Member Flora Council Member Walker Council Member Erickson Council President Busby Council Member Johnson The motion tied Mayor Merrill broke the tie vote by voting nay. Council Member Erickson moved to approve Ordinance 1200, as it pertains to Livestock; Council Member Flora seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora Council Member Chambers Council Member Johnson Council Member Walker Council Member Erickson Council President Busby The motion tied Mayor Merrill broke the tie vote by voting aye. 18. August 16, 2023, the application was presented to City Council to be second read. Ordinance No 1302 Amendments to the Rexburg Development Code Ordinance No 1200 Pertaining to Animals/Livestock – Alan Parkinson CITY OF REXBURG ORDINANCE NO. 1302 DEVELOPMENT CODE ORDINANCE 1200 AMENDMENTS AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT CODE (PLANNING AND ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 1200) CONCERNING SUBSTANTIVE AND NON-SUBSTANTIVE ITEMS; THE FOLLOWING CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE: AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 2 DEFINITIONS – ADDED AND MODIFIED DEFINITIONS PERTAINING TO HOUSEHOLD PETS AND LIVESTOCK; 4.00.020 PERMITTED ACCESSORY USES; 4.00.040 HOME OCCUPATION REQUIREMENT EXCEPTIONS; AMENDMENTS TO PERMITTED USES IN RR1, RR2, LDR1, LDR2, LDR3, MDR1, MDR2, HDR1 AND HDR2 ZONES (B) ANIMALS; PROVIDING FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE; (208) 359-3020 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Rexburg.org | Engage.Rexburg.org PROVIDING FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE. Council Member Flora explained being a Councilmember is difficult because there are times when both sides of an issue make sense. When considering an ordinance, the Councilmembers approve or deny the proposed ordinance. She wondered if there could be more discussion to reach a compromise instead of either approving or denying an ordinance. Council Member Erickson said one of his main concerns regarding Ordinance No 1302 was allowing larger animals in in Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3); however, he was in favor of the animal definitions. Council Member Chamber said he voted to deny Ordinance No 1302 because why change an ordinance that is working. He said the higher density of LDR3 is protecting citizens from those out of the ordinary situations where you may have livestock conflicts in residential properties; however, the resident living in LDR3 Zone should not be excluded from having chickens. They could have limited livestock in LDR3 Zone and still allow chickens in LDR3. Council Member Johnson said if livestock in the LDR3 Zone were to become an issue change to the ordinance could be made. Council Member Flora moved to approve Ordinance No 1302 Amendments to the Rexburg Development Code Ordinance No 1200 Pertaining to Animals/Livestock and consider second read; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora Council Member Chambers Council Member Johnson Council Member Erickson The motion carried. 19. 20.