1
City Staff and Others: Scott Johnson – Economic Development Stephen
Zollinger – City Attorney Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer
Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant
Chairman Rory Kunz opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call of
Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Chairman Rory Kunz,
Greg Blacker, Vince Haley, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall
Kempton, Aaron Richards. Absent: John Bowen, Steve Oakey, Kristi
Anderson, Sally Smith. (Some Commissioners are attending via Go to
Meeting from home.) Chairman Rory Kunz stated the need to amend the
agenda, due to the cancellation of the work meeting. Motion: Motion
to amend the agenda to remove the work meeting item., Action:
Amend, Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner
discussion of the motion: None Vote: Motion carried by unanimous
roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman
Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Randall Kempton, Todd
Marx. Commissioner Recognition: Steve Oakey – completion of 2nd
term – served since April 17, 2014 Alan will do the commissioner
recognition and introduction. We have the privilege and with a
little bit of sorrow, we are letting one of our Commissioners
retire. Mr. Oakey has served for 6 ½ years. We have enjoyed having
Steve on the Commission. His ideas have allowed us to look at
proposals differently and he has helped keep us focused on the task
at hand. We want to thank him. We have a plaque to give to him to
recognize his service on this Planning & Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Introduction: Jim Lawrence At this time, we would like
to introduce Mr. Jim Lawrence. Jim was ratified by City Council the
previous evening to take serve in the position Mr. Oakey is
leaving. Jim is currently working at the University as an
engineering instructor. He has served on our Traffic and Safety
Committee with Public Works for the last two years. Jim has been
involved with other Planning & Zoning Commissions in Tooele,
Utah. We welcome him to our Commission and are grateful for his
willingness to serve. Chairman Rory Kunz invited Mr. Lawrence to
join the Commissioners on the dais.
Minutes: Work Meeting September 3, 2020 (action) Planning &
Zoning Meeting September 3, 2020 (action)
35 North 1st East
2
Motion: Motion to approve the minutes for the September 3, 2020,
work meeting and Planning & Zoning meeting., Action: Approve,
Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner
discussion of the motion: None
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes =
6). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg
Blacker, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx.
Public Hearings: 1. 6:35 p.m. – (20-00603) – Amend the Development
Code. Change the LDR3 density from 8
units/acre to 10 units/acre. Remove the Infill/Redevelopment Area
and all references to this section. Amend the Pedestrian Emphasis
District Map and section text. (action) – City of Rexburg
Applicant Presentation – City of Rexburg – Alan Parkinson – When he
was first assigned to work on this, much time was spent on the
city’s current uses and where we are going. Staff has gone through
the Development Code to identify the areas within the Development
Code that need to change. LDR3. The LDR3 currently says 8
units/acre or 8,000 sq. ft for a duplex. When you do the math, the
two numbers don’t come out to the same result. 43560 sq.ft. = 1
acre. 43560 divided by 8 = 5,445 square feet/unit. 5,445 * 2 =
10890 sq.ft. We want to make sure the square footage matches units
per acre. The density is being changed to 10 units/acre, which will
match the existing square footage. 10 units/acre is 43560 divided
by 10 = 4356 square feet/unit. For a duplex this would be 4356 * 2
= 8712 square feet, closer to the current square footage listed.
This is the only change that is being made in the LDR3 zone at this
time. Questions from Commissioners: Vince Haley asked if the math
was the only change was needed. The only line changing is
4.05.070.C. Lot Configuration and Density: “The maximum density
permitted in this district is ten (10) dwelling units per acre.”
Alan stated the previous Zoning Administrator had been using the
10,000 square footage and told a potential client, you can use the
10,000sq.ft. When Staff looked at the information in the code, they
saw the 8 units per acre and the contradiction was identified.
Because the applicant had been given permission by the prior
Director, Staff allowed the 10,000 square feet for a duplex. Staff
realized the mistake needed to be fixed so the problem did not
continue to happen. Vince Haley asked Alan what LDR2 allows in
terms of units. LDR2 allows two units per lot as a duplex or
twinhome. Remove the Infill/Redevelopment Overlay. The next part is
removal of the Infill/Redevelopment area. The overlay was
originally designed to densify the center of the city. This was in
order to keep the larger apartment complexes and businesses in this
area. Buildings were sitting empty. Lots were not maximized to
their capacity. The ideasboundaries were so large, the infill was
not encouraged to densify as hoped. Also, the University purchased
a lot of the land next to them, reducing some expansion. The system
has not worked well for the city. Next, we will discuss the PED,
bringing some Infill items into the PED. Questions from
Commissioners: None. Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED). Will
Klaver stated the goal of the PED was to give people more of an
opportunity to use their land and their parcels to get the most
density. Another goal is to create a pedestrian-friendly area.
There are less setbacks on the front, rear and side yards. Bicycles
were
3
allowed to park in the front of buildings. Sidewalks were widened
to 8’, rather than the standard 5’. A couple of the major changes
the proposal for the PED addresses are:
within the PED, you would not need to apply for a Conditional Use
Permit for dormitory-style housing; this will encourage developers
to focus on this area and slow the spread of multi-family
residences on the edges of the city;
the number of parking spaces required for dormitory or community
housing can be reduced to 75% of the required spaces with a Parking
Management Plan, previously allowed in the Infill/Redevelopment
Area;
the PED already required an approved Conditional Use Permit to
reduce the amount of parking spaces required to as low as 60%, with
a Parking Management Plan;
density was removed; parking and the height restriction for the
particular zone will limit the density.
A barrier is being removed to allow greater density. Commissioner
Questions: Vince Haley asked about why Staff chose the specific
areas in which to expand the PED. Will answered; the red section is
what is currently identified in the PED. The green is the addition
to the PED. The reason these areas were chosen is that in this area
Staff wants to see dormitory housing close to the University and
close to downtown. Greg Blacker asked about identification of
streets. The large area in green is bordered on the west of S 2nd
W, north of W 4th S, East of S 4th W going north until the road
intersects with the railroad tracks, then the railroad tracks are
the boundary to align with the north boundary of the current PED.
The small area in green east of the University was previously in
the Infill/Redevelopment area and the northern boundary stops at
the Downtown District border. Greg Blacker asked why the Abri
Apartments are not in the PED. Will answered the Abri Apartments
are already in the Downtown Boundary and the overlap with the PED
could cause some problems with future projects. David Pulsipher
asked about the location of the downtown boundary. The downtown
boundary consists of 12 blocks. The area is bordered at
approximately E 1st N is the top boundary, S 2nd W with the Cedars
and Hemming Village is approximately the west boundary. All of W
2nd S over to S 2nd E and ½ of block east of 2nd E. David asked
about the difference between PED and PEZ. The Pedestrian Emphasis
Zone (PEZ) and the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED) are two names
for the same area. David Pulsipher confirmed the Downtown boundary
overlaps with the PED designation. What impacts are there for the
overlapping areas? Will answered there is no impact on the current
overlapping areas. The changes proposed
4
today do not affect this overlap. These two boundaries have
overlapped for some time without any problems. Alan answered the
Downtown overlay came in after the PED. The object of the PED is to
take care of the infill. The Downtown overlay does not trump the
PED; the two work together, but the PED gives you more advantages
than the Downtown overlay does right now. In form-based code, there
will be some changes that address the overlapping area. Chairman
Rory Kunz restated Mr. Pulsipher’s question. Why do you care if the
boundary on the east side stops at the downtown district when a
large portion within the PED and Downtown District overlap? The PED
could include the Abri Apartments. Alan answered, the reason why we
are stopping at the Downtown boundary is in preparation for another
proposal coming before the Commission in the near future; this
boundary allows clean lines for future adjustments. This small
piece will fill in a gap that would not otherwise be covered in a
future change. David thanked Rory for clarifying the question.
Vince Haley Jim Lawrence confirmed there are no conflicts. Vince
Haley asked if they are suggesting future applications in these
areas. Alan answered no, there are no applications proposed by the
city. We are running out of areas for Pedestrian Emphasis District.
This allows more growth areas for housing for the University. We
have infrastructure in place and roads are already built. Car
traffic can be reduced because of the walking distance, allowing
less stress on the city’s transportation system. Greg confirmed the
big win here is for less parking required by the developer. Alan
replied students could show up, walk, and attend on campus without
the need for a car. The University is approving housing across 2nd
W. The stoplight is on 2nd S and the HAWK signal is on 3rd
providing for pedestrian safety in this area.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Public Works
can service this area. Staff looked at all of the impacts for these
changes. Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval to City
Council for the proposed changes. Commissioner Questions for Staff:
Vince Haley asked if Traffic Studies have been conducted in the
proposed areas. Alan answered; Traffic Studies have been done. Each
individual development will do a Traffic Study as the developers
increase their footprint in these areas. An overall Traffic Study
was conducted. Vince asked what is the long-term plan for 2nd E? N
2nd E will be a main artery and go up to a full width up to the
temple. N 2nd E will connect to the East Parkway Corridor and
become a major thoroughfare. The City is communicating the widths
for the maximum width along 2nd E and the City is working on
obtaining the right-of-way. Alan believes right-of-ways have
already been established at time of building of Abri Apartments.
Vince Haley identified by the location of the Abri Apartments, that
there is more land for the right-of-way west of the center line of
the road, than there is east. Greg Blacker asked who would foot the
bill for an upgrade from the HAWK light to a stop light. This would
be up to engineering. Developers will be called upon to help with
the cost based on their increase of traffic in the area. Chairman
Rory Kunz asked what impact fees pay for. Alan answered, impact
fees pay for road upgrades, sidewalks, and infrastructure fixes,
parks and police services in the same area of development. Chairman
Rory Kunz suggested a street light might fit into this description.
Greg asked about the potential for beds in the area for maximum
build out. Alan does not recall the specific number of beds.
Engineering ran the number and there was sufficient infrastructure
for 5-10 years before upgrades would be needed. Sundance is putting
in 300 beds right now. David Pulsipher returned to the discussion
about N 2nd E. The road is very narrow. Abri works because their
parking lot extends beyond the downtown boundary. He has concerns
about development being able to develop in the narrow, eastern area
designated as the PED with the needed parking and the narrowness of
the current road. Are developers going to be coming in and asking
us to
5
extend the PED because the area is so narrow? Do we need to push
the PED further east into the residential neighborhoods? Alan
answered potentially this could happen. The frontage tends to be
rentals. We want to hold the line as well as we can and allow the
strong neighborhoods in this area to thrive. Staff will push more
development and growth in the PED and the downtown. The current PED
boundary is believed to have been in place since 2008, with a
clause that the boundary could not be changed for five years. Staff
intends to hold strong to the boundary to encourage development
within the PED borders. Vince Haley confirmed this is an all for
one vote, not piece by piece. Chairman Rory Kunz says it is. Blake
Willis asked how the houses on the east side would be preserved. He
spoke of apartments on the west side of Harvard. Alan said we put
in the boundaries we can. The only way we can preserve this area is
on decision of the Commission and City Council. Chairman Rory Kunz
said to keep in mind if the development is wide enough. Abri has
built their buildings in the same boundary proposed for the PED on
the east side of the campus. Abri-size development could allow more
apartments of the same size. David stated the buildings fit, but
the parking lot for Abri extends to Harvard. Chairman Rory Kunz
said this is an entirely different discussion, because technically,
anyone could buy land in that zone and put a parking lot on it
where the zoning allows this as a permitted use. We are talking
about building structure and use at this point. David Pulsipher
asked about the parking spaces needed to build. Can they use land
outside of this PED overlay to meet their parking requirements?
Chairman Rory Kunz said to reduce parking below the 75%, they would
have to provide a Parking Management Plan to Staff. The parking
does not have to be on site. There was a building on the south side
of the PED district, which purchased space on a vacant lot of
surrounding areas for their parking needs; they are renting space
from another property owner. Alan said the parking needs to be
within 300’ of the building for a parking lot that is not their
own. The contract has to identify the number of available spaces
and the contract given to your tenants to designate to the student
whether a parking space has been allowed or not; if not, the
student is not to bring a car to the city. A previous approval of a
low percentage of parking created a huge problem, due to the number
of students who brought a car. 75% seems to work well. The C.U.P.
process to go to as low as 60% will need to show in detail to the
Commission how they propose to make the parking work; this was
already written into the PED overlay. All of the land for the PED
was in the Infill/Redevelopment area and dormitory was already
allowed to reduce their parking to 75%. Neither of these parking
reductions have actually been changed. Stronger verbiage has been
added for the Parking Management Plan. Chairman Rory Kunz confirmed
this is not really changing anything; this is just expanding where
you are removing; we are removing the Infill and expanding the PED.
Aland said the only change in the PED would be a right for
dormitory; currently, the lots in the PED have to apply for a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Bicycle parking in the front was not
in the code, but this will encourage other modes of transportation.
In essence, this needs to be one request, because it needs to be to
cover the area that is removed. Conflict of Interest? - Chairman
Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of
interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to
this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with
respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse
yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your
conversation or contact. None. Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the
public hearing procedures. Favor: Blake Willis – 1343 Morningside
Drive – He is in favor of the proposal. He understands on the
concerns on the east side, but on the west side, he believes the
change will clean the area up. Would the zone need to be changed
from MDR to HDR to do dormitory? Alan answered;
6
the current zoning within the PED would not have to be changed to
allow the permitted dormitory use. Neutral: None Opposed: None
Rebuttal: None Written Correspondence: No chat comments are in
place. No emails have been received. No hands are raised are on the
Go to Meeting. Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like
to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at
7:17p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Aaron Richards says Porter Park
is one of the crown jewels of the city. The opportunity to include
the north and west side in the PED and encourage redevelopment in
this area makes sense. The other areas proposed also makes sense;
he supports Staff’s proposal. Randall Kempton feels these areas
will encourage and incentivize densification in these areas close
to town. He supports this request to keep students close to the
campus. Vince Haley asked if David has concerns for 2nd E. David
Pulsipher feels everything that has been proposed is reasonable. He
did not realize the Infill/Redevelopment area that is being removed
actually includes the PED area. It is a challenging part of town
where the residential area abuts areas of high-density housing. On
the other hand, he is not ready to vote against the entire proposal
due to his concerns. Vince asked Chairman Rory Kunz if parking
outside the allowed area would require the requesters to come
before the Commission. Chairman Rory Kunz said it depends on what
the zone is and the permitted uses in the zones. Any change to uses
not in those zones would cause the applicants to come before the
Commission and then City Council. David Pulsipher learned the
parking in the Infill/Redevelopment is just shifting to the PED
area. The areas of concern were already included in these overlays.
Any project on 2nd E will have to follow similar model to the Abri
Apartments. The neighborhoods are strong on the east side. Vince
Haley agrees, however, there is a much different occupancy between
a dormitory and a regular rental. The LDR2 zoning on this east side
would cause applicants to come before the Commission for a CUP.
MOTION: Recommend to City Council to approve the recommendations to
remove the Infill/Redevelopment area, amend the PED and its
expanded area and amend the LDR3 density to 10 units/acre, to help
our city grow and to align the items in our Development Code.,
Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Aaron Richards.
Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by
unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards,
Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Randall Kempton,
Todd Marx. The item will go to City Council Wednesday, October
7th.
Heads Up: October 1, 2020 Hearings:
1. (20-00660) – S 4th W & W 4th S– Comprehensive Plan Map
Change to Medium to High Density Residential
7
2. (20-00689) – Professional Plaza St & 242 E Main – Rezone
from LDR1 to CBC 3. (20-00690) – Grand Loop – Rezone from TOZ to
CBC
We are trying to hold off scheduling the work meeting due to the
elevated COVID numbers. No date at this time. Worst case, we will
do a Go to Meeting. Alan feels the interaction works better. What
is the Commission most comfortable with? Vince asked how we are
looking to finish this project by the end of the year. We are not
going to make the end of the year. We are working at it at the
speed we can. During the end of November and December, Vince does
not want to spend more time with Planning & Zoning. If the
Commission is comfortable, we can plan a work meeting prior to our
next Planning & Zoning meeting. Aaron Richards said the numbers
could go up as you go later into the season. He would rather hit it
hard in October, rather than letting it drag out. He would rather
be together for this kind of meeting than on the Go to Meeting.
Randall and David agreed for October 1st. Adjournment:
Commissioner Rory Kunz adjourned the meeting at 7:30PM.
Start position
button0: