Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 5.4.231 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 6:31 PM. Planning & Zoning Meeting: Welcome Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson, McKay Francis, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence Absent: Bruce Casper & Eric Erickson Minutes: Approval of the P&Z Minutes from March 16th, 2023 (Action) MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as recorded for March 16th, 2023. Action: Approve, Moved by Aaron Richards, Seconded by McKay Francis. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8 , No = 0 , Abstain = 1). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson, McKay Francis, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence No: none Abstain: Randall Kempton Plats: none Public Hearings: 1. (23-00135) Whole Child Early Education – Rezone from LDR2 to MDR1 – Located at 728 S 5th West, this property is approximately 0.319 acres. – Kearis Ochs (Action) 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes May 4, 2023 2 Sally introduced the application to rezone 728 S 5th W and invited Kearis Ochs to present. Kearis introduced herself as the director of a local daycare, and one of the locations is ran out of her home where they are allowed up to 6 children. She is asking to rezone to allow a daycare allowing up to 12 children. Sally asked if she currently has a conditional use permit for the nursey school. Alan explained that a CUP is not allowed in this area, which is why she is requesting a zone change. Sally inquired how many students were being cared for in the home. Kearis answered 3 at this time, but allowed up to 6, per the code. Sally asked about the subdivision question being checked yes on the application, to which Kearis replied it must have been a mistake. Aaron clarified that further in the application, it was stated that it autofilled that question and the system would not allow it to be changed. Alan reported that Staff had reviewed the request and at this point no upgrades to sewer or water would be required, and there will not be a change to the outside structure, and this is an allowed use in the requested zone. Vince reiterated that a CUP was not available in this zone for this use. Alan confirmed, and Vince asked for an explanation. Alan responded that it is not listed in the permitted uses in the current code and he had consulted with Attorney Zollinger about the options and was advised a CUP was not allowed in this case. Vince confirmed that the code would need to be updated to allow a CUP in the future. Alan replied yes. Aaron asked if it was being addressed in the current code amendment. Alan replied no, not in the current amendment, but it is in one of the next 10. The group had a brief discussion on nursery schools and daycares as related to the zones. Brad asked if the land was sold, how many units could someone put onto the lot if zoned MDR1. Alan stated small, maybe 3 units, he hadn’t calculated it yet, but it would have to make the parking work. Vince asked to show the zoning map and reviewed the surrounding zones. Alan confirmed the requested zone was contiguous to MDR across the street. Randall asked for the comprehensive plan designations to be shown on the map, and Alan confirmed the request was within the comprehensive plan. Alan added that there are 3 duplexes on the corner lot, right next to the property. Chairperson Smith opened the public hearing at 6:40 pm. In Favor: none Neutral: Jeff Jacobson, lives south of the Och’s at 806 S 5th W. He stated that he would have some concern if the rezone passes and the Och’s ever decided to sell to a developer. He was worried about the number of units, but doesn’t think 3 units would make a lot of difference. He commented that the neighborhood has had issues with development in the past and would like to keep it low density residential as much as possible. Alan gave clarification that after doing the calculations, it could allow 5 units, if they could make the parking work, which could be done, but it would be very expensive and hard to do. Against: Susan Foster, lives next to the Och’s at 740 S 5th W. She expressed that she is a direct neighbor to the Och’s; they have been helpful and kind and she doesn’t want to start a neighborhood dispute. 3 She believes a person should be able to do what want to do with their property, as long as it doesn’t infringe upon a neighbor. She stated she is slightly opposed to the zoning and asked if it would change her zoning, property value or tax assessments? She stated he is opposed to the extra cars on the street, and reasoned that she would be liable for backing over a child in her driveway. She expressed concern with the lack of an enclosed yard next to a pond as well as additional noise. She maintained that she is not against a larger daycare, just the zoning change. Brad commented that if the daycare moved forward, the daycare permit would probably make her fence the whole yard. Rebuttal: Kearis noted that her and Susan are good friends and she understands the concerns. She stated they will need to fully fence all 4 sides of the back yard and there will not be any children playing in the front yard, but she has no control of the kids when parents pick up. Part of their plans for the project include making 6 angled parking spots in her driveway, 2 for staff and 4 for drop off and pickup, to avoid having cars in front of other houses. She understands the concerns with noise level, and has considered taking kids out in smaller groups to mitigate the noise. Chairperson Smith closed public hearing at 6:48 pm. Commission Discussion: Sally asked Alan to clarify that the zoning request will not change Susan’s property. Alan verified that only the listed parcel zoning would change, and the taxes would also stay the same. Kearis added that they have 2 year agreement/grant with the state, so the property would not be sold or further developed for at least that long. There was a brief discussion on the permitted uses in MDR1. Vince acknowledged the property is surrounded by MDR1, but there is a row of homes that are clearly a LDR neighborhood, and he does not think the block of homes would benefit from the zone change. Aaron shared his support, based on the comprehensive plan and the probable redevelopment of larger parcels in that block and the surrounding uses, and because there seems to be disconnect that isn’t allowing the CUP and this request promotes business in a suitable location that isn’t offensive based on the surrounding uses. Brad agreed, because of the surrounding area. McKay requested this be added to a list for the second round of code revisions and feels like the jump to MDR1 for the purpose they are asking for is excessive and causes a headache for applicants. He expressed concern over putting MDR1 zoning in the middle of LDR2 zoning, even though it is contiguous across the street. Vince recalled previous conversation concerning both planning and zoning, and stated that a possibility of redevelopment does not require the commission to enable the upzone. He considers this a CUP consideration. Randall asked why the comprehensive plan would designate higher density. Vince interrupted, pointing out that the comprehensive plan is so broad, and questioning how to preserve the community feel when the comprehensive plan made 10-15 years ago said what would go in that area. Sally commented about the streamlined designations and looking at the neighborhood and its proximity to the university. She would like to see more than just 1 homeowner come forth asking for the change. Todd stated he agreed with Vince and the zoning should not be changed for a single lot. 4 The group discussed nursery schools, daycares, and permitted uses. Vince asked if the lack of CUP option could be an error. Alan responded that the code was approved as is, mistakes or not. Attorney Rammell reminded the Commissioners to consider the request based on land use and what it could be, rather than focus solely on the individual project or solely on projections of it selling. McKay brought up the comprehensive plan; from a developer standpoint having to ask for a comprehensive plan change prior to a zoning meeting, he puts more weight in the comprehensive plan because it is the vision to work towards. He added that the request is at the lower end of what is projected. Brad commented that some have said they don’t want to see the neighborhood change, and if that is what was wanted, the comprehensive plan should have been changed, because he also sees the comprehensive plan as the direction for the future. Vince remarked that on the comprehensive plan, there is generally a blanket of 7-10 blocks wide and different blocks are not separate designations; there is not control or knowledge of what will go on in an area and Rexburg is different than thought it would be 10 years ago. Aaron countered that it is hard being the first one to ask for change, but based on the location and larger tracts of land that will probably sell, it does fit. Vince retorted the probably is not now. Aaron replied that the comprehensive plan is a 10 year document. Alan clarified that the comprehensive plan map was put together with input from most of the group less than 2 years ago. Brad, asked Attorney Rammell if there was any legal recourse if an applicant asked to do something in compliance with the comprehensive plan and it was denied. Attorney Rammell answered that being in compliance is not a guarantee to do things; to avoid any issues, whatever determination that is made, should include very specific reasons for the decision, despite it possibly being in accordance with the comprehensive plan. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the rezone from LDR2 to MDR1 at 728 S 5th W on the grounds that it is in compliance with the comprehensive plan, that it is across the street from existing MDR1 or HDR1, and that it is in compliance with the recommendation from the City. Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 6 , No= 3 , Abstain = 0). Yes: Randall Kempton, Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson, McKay Francis, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence No: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Sally Smith (Chairperson), Todd Marx, Abstain: none Attorney Rammell asked Sally to verbally state how many commissioners were in attendance? Sally responded 9 total. 5 2. (23-00154) Teton River Temple & Meeting House – CUP – Located at approximately 1565 N 2nd E the CUP to allow religious worship and meeting house will apply to approximately 36 of the 105 acres. - Johnny Watson (Action) Johnny Watson introduced himself as well as the project architect Ben. Johnny began his presentation by explaining the current zoning and how at this time he does not know what will be done with the rest of the property. He summarized that tonight he is asking for a Conditional Use Permit for the temple and meeting house as well as the height of the temple, as it will far exceed the 35’ allowed in TAG. He showed the approximate location of the buildings on a map, stating that the Church News had announced the location and that it would have an approximate size of 130,000 square feet and be 3 stories tall. Next, he showed a rough draft plat of the property and explained that infrastructure work on the utilities and roadways would begin this summer. He touched on the height of the temple being approximately 220’ to the spire and that they have already received approval from the FAA for the height based on lighting conditions. Vince clarified that the application was for both the meeting houses as well as a variance in height. Johnny confirmed. McKay asked the height of the current temple. Alan responded 220’. Johnny explained that the site will be built up due to the water table and from the existing ground it will be closer to 235’. Alan reported that staff has reviewed the application and requested the Planning and Zoning Commissioners consider recommending it to City Council for approval. McKay asked if the application met the Comprehensive Plan. Alan replied yes. Aaron asked if a CUP could be included in the TAG zone. Alan replied that a CUP for a religious building could be done in any zone. The group discussed Conditional Use Permits as they relate to the land and possible zone changes. Chairperson Smith opened the public hearing at 7:26 pm. Favor: none Neutral: none Against: none No rebuttal. Chairperson Smith closed the public hearing at 7:26 pm. Commissioner discussion: Vince started the discussion by saying there wasn’t much to discuss, since it was just the meeting houses and height and asked if the height variance allowed any height. Alan responded that the restricting factor is the FAA, and that they have submitted and received approval for the use. Aaron asked if the FAA report number of 240’ was the official CUP height. Alan confirmed it was and that it included the grade. 6 MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the CUP proposal at 1565 N 2nd E as well as the height variance as approved by the FAA. Action: Approve, Moved by Randall Kempton, Seconded by Vince Haley. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 9, No= 0, Abstain =0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Brad Wolfe, Vanessa Johnson, McKay Francis, Aaron Richards, Jim Lawrence Randall Kempton No: none Abstain: none Vince asked what opportunities commissioners would have to be involved in the Comprehensive Plan if they were not able to attend the work meeting. Alan explained that the draft would be online next week and that the commissioners would be emailed a copy or link, since the link was designed to leave feedback and see the comments of others. He summarized the tentative timeline and process, noting that this version is streamlined. Alan reminded the group of the June 14th Transportation Plan public meeting. Sally asked about the June 1st Planning and Zoning meeting. Katie clarified that there would be at least one plat on the agenda for the May 18th meeting. Alan gave an overview of the Development Code amendment and discussed the new format. Adjourned at 7:34 PM.