Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Additional Work Meeting Notes 3.15.231 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 5:00 Work Meeting: Development Code Amendments to Ordinance 1200 – Alan Parkinson Mayor Merrill opened the meeting at 5:11 pm. While greeting everyone, he emphasized that the goal was to review the entire proposal, starting by discussing the biggest concerns first, while keeping the meeting conversational. Alan asked if there were any specific areas that needed to be addressed. Eric asked for clarification on the permitted uses at the beginning of each zone. Alan explained it was a list of what could be done in that zone; uses with a P were permitted while uses with a CUP required a Conditional Use Permit. Tisha stated that she had questions on every single page. She began with questions about the definitions of single-family dwellings, attached and detached, and allowing duplexes. Alan explained that page 2 was strictly the definition, not allowances, and that the permitted uses for each zone provided the allowed uses. Next, she asked for clarification on Manufactured vs. Modular buildings and their definitions. Alan explained that the proposed changes align with the IRC and IBC definitions. Aaron suggested adding to the definition of modular to include buildings that are assembled on site as well, such as a lego brick type assembled on slab. Alan clarified that particular style is another form of modular building and would fall under the same definition and be allowed in the same areas. Tisha stated that both types are built elsewhere and brought in and asked what the difference was between manufactured and modular. Alan responded that manufactured homes are inspected by HUD and certified to meet federal regulations while modular homes are inspected by the factory as well as City inspectors. Vince asked if modular homes could be moved. Alan answered that it was possible, but unlikely. **Mayor Merrill suggested that it might be worth putting something in parentheses to further explain. Tisha asked about definition of Single-family Dwelling, attached/detached, and asked if duplexes, twin and townhomes needed to be included in that definition. Alan answered that Single-family Dwelling attached covered all of the attached housing. Colin brought up the Ready Team changes on page 1, stating that care needs to be given so that the public does not perceive the Ready Team meetings as a private meeting without input. He worried that without notes or minutes, that staff could meet with developers as many times as they wanted 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes March 15, 2023 2 and steer the project. Alan explained that once an application is submitted, the project becomes public, and asked for Attorney Rammell’s input on open meeting and privacy laws. Attorney Rammell stated that there could be internal mechanisms, but that these meetings would not be subject to open meeting laws. Alan explained the function of Ready Team meetings noting that no approvals or official decisions are made and that the developer is able to find out what is required of them if the project moves forward, as well as the safeguards in place to keep the conversations advisory, such as having legal present. Robert suggested adding “prior to application and treated as advisory”. Colin agreed and reiterated his concerns about Ready Team meetings becoming private meetings. Alan asked the Mayor to share his perception of a few of the Ready Team meetings he has sat in on. Mayor Merrill confirmed they are advisory and lay out what the developer needs to do to meet the City’s requirements. The team is there to help facilitate their project. Wanless Southwick commented on his experience in calling these meetings Pre-Design, where the applicant learned all of the requirements they would need to comply with to accomplish an idea. He stated his support for the opportunity for the public to be involved in dialog about projects prior to the public hearings. The Commissioners and Councilmembers discussed the practicality of the request, noting the time required to fulfill the request for every inquiry. Alan asked Attorney Rammell about potential violations of open meeting law and rights. Attorney Rammell explained that such meeting would act as a defacto public meeting, which would double the required meeting from the Land Use Planning Act. He added that Planning and Zoning and City Council meetings are not open dialog but rather very structured because the law requires the meetings to be structured because every time the public comments on a project, the applicant or owner has the right to respond to each specific comment. He reiterated that the Ready Team meetings are very structured and that if the meeting gets off topic, legal will stop and redirect the meeting back to what is being discussed. **Ready Team addition: “Such discussion shall be preliminary to the application and only advisory to both parties. Eric inquired about the notice requirements for public hearings. Alan answered 15 days. Vince asked if as a citizen, he could come in and ask any question about an application or permit. Alan confirmed. Aaron commented that the public has the same access to the information as P&Z. Alan mentioned that once the meeting agenda is published, normally 48 hours prior to a meeting, anyone has access to the application information. Deb added that once an application is submitted, anyone can complete a Public Records Request and gain any information the city has on a project, with a turn around time of approximately 72 hours. Wanless acknowledged that the agendas are published ahead of the meeting but asked where the public was invited to give input prior to the meeting. Alan responded that the public could talk to Alan, but not P&Z or City Council, because that goes against the open meeting law. Tisha asked why on page 13 it states that any fencing must have an administrative review. Alan explained that fences are not always constructed in the correct spot, or to the City’s code, and that it is easier to review prior to the fence going up so the property owner doesn’t have to tear it down to correct its location or height. Bryanna mentioned safety being a concern, especially with site triangles. The Mayor commented that it might sound like a hassle, but if you are already planning on putting the fence in the right place, then it is not a big deal. Alan agreed that it is a quick review of the site plan prior to building. (video index 00:45:45) 3 Tisha asked why the proposed code changes decisions from the Planning and Zoning Commission to the Administrator. She stated that she felt some things were okay to be decided by the Administrator, but others should go before the Commission. Alan responded that the group could decide whether or not to allow those changes, but in previous strategic meetings the group was okay with allowing some of the simple requests to be administrative, as they would not require a full public meeting. The Mayor added that he was reading that in a nearby city, for specific items, if they met a set a criteria (which is set and approved by P&Z and City Council), then that item did not go before P&Z nor City Council, making life simpler for the applicant. Alan mentioned that if the applicant does not like the administrator’s decision, they can appeal to P&Z and/or City Council. (video index 00:47:25) Tisha brought up Cory Barnard’s question regarding flagpoles and if political flags were considered advertising. The Mayor answered that Stephen says no, and Alan added that the wording was based on legal counsel’s recommendation. Robert stated that he is second guessing the proposed allowed height of flagpoles being 80’. The group discussed current flagpoles and if they raised any concerns, noting that tall flag poles have to be engineered and meet building code, which contributes to them being expensive. Animals (video index 00:52:12) The group discussed animals, especially chickens. Alan pointed out that chickens are included in the definition of household pets. Tisha declared she disagreed with the 5 animal limit, giving the example that having 3 geckos, 2 cats, and a dog would be breaking the law. Alan proposed to add 5 pets AND 5 chickens. Tisha expressed that by only allowing household pets, it diminishes who we are, in Idaho. McKay pointed out the other side of that idea, giving the example of if 20 dogs belonging to a neighbor come under the fence onto your property. Alan described staff research of RR1 and RR2 zones and how many large animals or visible chicken coops were counted. Alan explained that with the higher zones, the lots are smaller, and a challenge is where an animal is kept in the yard, when a neighbor doesn’t want to be involved with it, and gave an example that some cities require animal pens or coops to be at least 40’ from a property line. The Mayor commented that if a lot is 60’ wide and the pen is in the middle of a backyard with a goat, and it doesn’t bother anyone, it isn’t a problem, adding that he understands Rexburg is a City, not County nor a farm. Bruce asked the Mayor where do you draw the line? Wanless declared he had a hard time envisioning the damage the city receives from allowing animals on property if there is sufficient space and not causing egregious damage or concern to their neighbors and questioned why it was necessary to have such restrictions in the code. He went on to explain that it takes an acre to support 2 large animals, and that smaller animals don’t need as much space, and if the city adopted animal units, it would give the Administrators a way of judging if a property has sufficient carrying capacity for the animals. Wanless suggested to make the number of animal requirements state that only if there is sufficient space as defined by animal units and the law of nature. The Mayor commented that structures and hard surface take up a portion of a property and should be taken into consideration. Alan inquired if lawn and open space would be considered as available space, or just the area devoted to the animals. The Mayor replied open space, and Wanless replied the area devoted to the animal. Tisha expressed her concern over animal units for chickens, which could allow 100-200 chickens on a lot. The group discussed hobby farms versus commercial farms. Alan queried if for animals, a site plan would be presented to the Zoning Administrator with the land dedicated to the animals to determine the number of animals the person could keep. He 4 described a challenge with animal units being a variable, depending on what the land can carry, giving the example of the desert not being able to sustain 2 cows, but irrigated pasture sustaining 3. He pointed out that then staff would have to make a judgement call on if the pasture is being irrigated well enough to handle the number of animals, or if the number of animals needs to be reduced. Wanless responded that animal units are a unit of measuring. Alan suggested it would be easier for staff to have a set number of what is allowed. Discussion went on to the definition of animal units and how there are multiple definitions, none set by the federal government. The Mayor suggested that if someone wanted more animals, and had the capacity, they could apply for a CUP. Wanless responded that it would make it onerous on the property owner. The group discussion turned to egregious and the challenges the subjectiveness would create. The Mayor commented that our current code has served the city well for a long time as it is, and the system we have has worked well. Stephen weighed in with the definition of egregious. He explained that if complaints come in concerning animals, the current code is used to obtain compliance that keeps peace amongst the neighbors. Bryanna shared that she had been approached with questions of if chickens were allowed, and agrees that Alan’s proposal of adding household pets AND 5 chickens would clarify. The discussion turned to domestic livestock and if there was a definition or differentiation between large animals and medium animals. Tammy Geddes clarified previous comments concerning chickens not fitting the definition of household pets. Alan reiterated that he proposed to add household pets AND 5 chickens. Alan asked the group if Madison County, including the City of Rexburg, was Urban or Rural, and explained the classification given by the state. Tisha concluded that the major objective is to allow people to have hobbies and food production. The code can be as simple as staff can make it, but should include additional definitions. McKay added that he thinks any ambiguity should be removed. **A work meeting was scheduled for the second meeting in April. Wednesday, April 19th, at 5:00 pm, and dinner would once again be provided. Stephen suggested having a weight limit schedule, ie. 0-25 lb limit 10, 25-100lbs limit x amt, 2 per acre if 500 lbs or more, or 4 per acre if 100-500 lbs. Eric commented it would require defining usable space, not just the acre lot. Stephen reiterated defining the limit by poundage. Tisha voiced this might be a good compromise. McKay asked for clarification on documents coming from the public. Stephen responded that they can read it as long as that documentation is part of the public record. If somethings comes to a Commissioner, they need to send that to P&Z to make it part of the public record and disseminate it to everyone.