Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Work Meeting Notes 4.19.231 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 5:00 Work Meeting: Development Code Amendments to Ordinance 1200 – Alan Parkinson Mayor Merrill opened the work meeting at 5:10 pm and asked Alan to begin. Alan began by explaining that he had met with citizens within the community to discuss animals but would like to put the animal discussion aside until the end. He asked if there were any questions other than animals that the Commission or Council would like to ask. Alan indicated that the development code draft document on the screen contained the modifications previously requested. Tisha commented that she had previously asked all of Cory Barnard’s submitted questions, and they were great questions to help clarify the code. She invited Cory to meet with Alan to share that same experience. Sally asked if there was going to be a public hearing. Alan explained that we are starting over in the process and there will be a public hearing before P&Z before going to the City Council. Next, he explained that in the document, that black text is original code that we have not changed, green is the proposed change, and red is proposed to remove. He further explained that some of the red text is text that we have moved to another section to consolidate the code, allowing for greater ease in finding all related information accessible in one section. Alan showed the definitions section and hit on a few that were updated, including attached single-family dwellings and modular/manufactured/mobile homes. Jordan asked if modular homes are still popular. Alan and Vince responded that yes, they are quickly regaining in popularity. Jordan asked if there were specific neighborhoods seeing modular home growth. Alan responded there is a larger development in Chester. The Mayor suggested that there should be a modular neighborhood in Rexburg to help provide affordable housing. Aaron added that commercial buildings can be modular as well, that a community center in Jackson is built that way, and that they are over built since they have to be transported via truck. Alan remarked that in a recent conference they even saw a multi-family complex built modularly. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes April 19th, 2023 2 Discussion turned to permitted accessory uses. Alan described the permitted accessory uses as not the primary use and not a residence. He gave examples such as greenhouses, sheds, garden sheds, etc. He stated that in the current code, accessory apartments are only permitted for caretakers or family, but it cannot be rented. A discussion on ADU’s (accessory dwelling units) followed. The Mayor remarked that Idaho Falls has approved ADU’s in all zones and that he thinks it is something Rexburg should look into. Alan agreed and confirmed ADU’s are on the radar and will be discussed in a future meeting, adding that people cannot afford homes or rent, and so ADUs are popular to help make the payments. Mayor Merrill volunteered that many City employees cannot afford to live in Rexburg and are having to live in other communities. McKay inquired about the restrictions of ADU’s for caretakers, asking how the code is enforced, especially after the property is sold. Alan responded that it is a challenge to track them. Duplexes are tracked as they require life safety inspections. Usually, if someone is going to rent an ADU, they need a business license and that is where it is caught. Colin shared that this happened in his neighborhood recently. Alan touched on restrictive lot covenants and placing restrictions on deeds. Jordan expressed that he feels that a casita should be able to be rented out, that there are too many restrictions against renting it. Alan responded that the right rules are needed to protect neighborhoods, owners and renters. Cory Barnard asked if there are any changes to the document since March 15th? Alan replied yes, and discussion followed on the naming format of the documents. ***Update names of documents to draft 1, draft 2, etc. and keep date. The group reviewed accessory building setbacks, heights, and distance between buildings before moving on to fencing. Colin inquired about the Administrator Approval. Alan summarized the process, adding that this is just helping property owners avoid challenges. He identified several ways to notify fence companies, HOA’s and property owners. Colin suggested contacting landscapers as well. Alan discussed agriculture being removed as a permitted usage in RR1 & RR2 because the definition of agriculture states that agriculture must be the primary use, and a house becomes the primary use. He pointed out that gardens and small hobby farms are permitted, but the products cannot be for sale or it becomes commercial. Alan touched on Household Pets being permitted in all zones, while domestic livestock is permitted in TAG – LDR3, and the definition limits the number by stating there must be adequate space available. The group examined the maximum density for each zone. Robert inquired why in LDR2 it was stated as single-family dwellings attached (except townhomes). Alan reminded the group that this was added in response to a request from the group. Robert proposed that townhomes could have a greater impact than single-family homes only, and should be allowed as a CUP. Group consensus agreed that townhomes could be allowed in LDR2 with a CUP. 3 ***LDR2 permitted uses – Allow Townhomes with a CUP. Discussion turned to CUP’s and PUD’s within higher density zones for single-family detached, twinhomes and townhomes. Aaron proposed to have a CUP for twin homes or duplexes in higher density zones and the Mayor agreed, adding that the CUP gives flexibility. Vince drew attention to the fact that he felt like the Commission was more of a zoning commission, rather than a planning commission. Colin commented that it seemed like this could defeat the purpose of the higher density zoning. Vince inquired about a way to vote against something if there is not an argument other than it doesn’t fit that satisfies legal counsel. Alan cautioned that he is not a lawyer, but that a reason could be that the item at hand is not supported by the comprehensive plan. He added that he planned to review the comprehensive plan with the group every 2-3 years, to confirm that it meets the city’s needs, or to identify potential modifications. Wanless Southwick stated that the dialog about the plan and where these areas are that are best for growth need to include the public, not just Planning & Zoning and City Council. Alan agreed and pointed out that the public is invited to work meetings, public hearings, and public meetings. The conversation turned to densities, including Manufactured Housing Communities and PUD’s. Alan pointed out the proposed changes in the CBC and Industrial zones, which included new commercial subdivision lot size requirements and building height limits. Colin asked if the parking was fixed for multi-family/PED housing. Alan responded yes, it was removed, but single-family and single student can ask for a reduction. Mikel asked if the reduction amount had been modified. Alan confirmed the reduction percentage had been increased to 75% and the multi-family reduction option had been removed. Vince asked if the parking modifications adequately addressed the issue of student housing turning into condos. Alan replied that the applicant does have to meet the parking standards to convert student housing into condo’s, and the additional parking standards to offer as a short term rental. Alan added that the visitor reduction option was also removed from the proposal. Alan moved on to the proposed changes to Short Plats, explaining that the changes were merely to clarify the number of lots divided that qualify. If a division contains three to five lots it qualifies for the Short Plat application that only requires the Zoning Administrator approval. Vince and Colin expressed concerns pertaining to the administrative approval of short plats and the lack of public involvement. Jordan questioned if there was a change in setbacks when processed this way. Cory Barnard asked if short plats must meet minimum lot areas. Alan responded that the decision is administrative and that multiple departments review the short plats to verify the plat meets the code that has been set in place, including setbacks and lot area. He added that only the clarification of the division limits was added to this section, the rest will stay the same. 4 The group discussed animals as an accessory use. Sally voiced that she feels okay with how the code currently is and doesn’t feel that LDR1, LDR2, and LDR3 are a good fit for livestock. Vince disagreed. Tish commented that chickens and rabbits have been kept in LDR2 and the neighbors didn’t care and she doesn’t think anyone would ever put a cow in their small yard. She expressed that the definition is perfect as it allows for reasonability and if there is a problem, a neighbor will come in. Robert asked how to make the arbitrary objective. Alan responded that it comes down to nuisance. He added that chickens are included in the household pets definition, so that 5 chickens are allowed. Wanless Southwick stated that the key is number 5, where whatever you have, pet or livestock, you’ve got to have adequate space. He feels the definitions of pets and livestock are sufficiently clear in the changes now that household pets are defined as being kept for comfort whereas livestock is kept for food production. He commented that he had seen a report where chickens can be kept where space is available, but not allowed in apartments or townhouses, which is exactly what Alan has done and is consistent with what others have done. Alan asked if there were any other major concerns before announcing that these changes will come before Planning & Zoning again. Work meeting ended at 6:32 pm.