HomeMy WebLinkAboutJune 18, 2015 - PZ Draft Minutes.pdf
1
Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others:
Jedd Walker – Acting Chairman Brad Wolfe- City Council Liaison
Mark Rudd Val Christensen- Community Development Director
Steve Oakey Timothy Helferstay – Community Development Intern
Tisha Flora Darrik Farmer - Building Permit Technician
Cory Sorensen Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator
Rory Kunz
Chairman Thaine Robinson was excused. Commissioner Jedd Walker acted as chairman and
opened the meeting at 7:00 pm. He welcomed everyone.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Attending: Rory Kunz, Steve Oakey, Mark Rudd, Jedd Walker, Tisha Flora, and Cory Sorensen.
Bruce Sutherland, Melanie Davenport, Thaine Robinson, Gil Shirley, and Chuck Porter were
excused.
Minutes:
1. Planning and Zoning meeting – June 4, 2015
Steve Oakey motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of June 4, 2015. Tisha Flora
seconded the motion.
Cory Sorensen and Rory Kunz abstained for having not been present.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
1. 7:05 pm –Rezone – 228,230, 232 South 4th West; & 251, 265, 273 South 5th West – Light
Industrial (LI)and Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) to High Density Residential 1
(HDR1)
Chairman Walker explained the procedure that is followed for a public hearing. The applicant will
present the proposal. The Commission may then ask clarifying questions. Community members
will also be given the opportunity to do so. These questions would be just to better understand the
proposal; please hold expression of personal feelings until the time for public testimony.
Public input will then be heard from those in favor of, neutral to, or opposed to the proposal. The
applicant has the right of rebuttal. Staff evaluation and recommendations will be given. The
Commission will then deliberate in order to come to a decision on the proposal with a
recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision.
Several people have submitted written input letters. The Commission can take the person’s letter or
the person’s oral testimony as input, but cannot accept both, as this is seen as allowing someone
double input. If someone wishes to speak tonight who has written a letter, they may withdraw their
letter and give testimony.
35 North 1st East
Rexburg, ID 83440
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fax: 208.359.3022
www.rexburg.org
Planning & Zoning Minutes
June 18, 2015
2
Jared Sommer, 3614 North 3000 West, the applicant and one of the property owners. He presented
the proposal. The subject property was viewed on the overhead map.
3
About two years ago, four apartment buildings were completed. They house married students and
are occupied by mostly newlyweds and not many children. There are one and two bedroom units.
The intent is to construct 3 more married housing buildings exactly like those already on the
property.
Steve Oakey asked if the proposed properties tonight were purchased at the time the completed
properties were purchased. Mr.Sommer clarified that some of the subject properties would be new
purchases.
Jared Sommer indicated that one of the written input letters stated the buildings were to be 2-
stories rather than 3 stories. He clarified that 2-stories was never proposed. They did what the
zoning allowed. One complaint that was voiced at the earlier hearing several years ago was about
traffic. They wanted to wait to come back until now because they see their development as low
impact high density residential. Residents are mostly newlywed BYU-I students who stay for a
period of time and then move on. Changing the zoning to HDR1 would allow for a higher density in
completion of the units on the north end of the property.
Mr. Sommer wanted to address a comment in a written input letter to clarify that the intent is not to
tear down the existing old green cinder block building on South 5th West but to have it tie in to the
existing property, resurface it with brick and paint, and use it. The metal building behind it would be
torn down.
Steve Oakey asked Mr. Sommer for the record to describe the characteristics of the surrounding
neighborhood.
Jared Sommer stated there is a trailer court to the south. There are also apartments to the south in
an HDR2 zone. To the north there are commercial buildings and the former Squires property,
which is zoned HDR1. To the east are residences and rental homes. To the west are residences and
rental homes. The property on South 4th West that is included in this rezone request would allow an
entrance off of 4th West into the site. This would allow for some alternative traffic rather than just
on 5th West.
It was clarified that the existing four apartment buildings on the subject property were constructed
under the MDR2 requirements.
Cory Sorensen asked the number of units in each of the four buildings.
Jared Sommer stated each building has 21 units.
Chairman Walker asked how many stories are allowed under MDR2.
Community Development Director Val Christensen said to look at height rather than stories.
MDR2 allows a up to a 30 foot building height. The proposed HDR1 zoning would allow up to a 55
foot building height.
Jared Sommer stated that what they have there now is what they would build. They would have no
objection to a limitation on the height.
Mark Rudd said currently there is only one entrance/exit that is on South 5th West to the existing
complex. Would the existing bridge on 4th West that is included in the subject properties be used?
Jared Sommer stated it would be used. Currently there are rental homes near the bridge.
There would also be an additional entrance added on 5th West.
Chairman Walker asked if anyone in the audience had questions to help them to understand the
proposal.
4
Questions:
1. Clarify the plans for the green (Barrick) building.
The building would be resurfaced. It might be a community building for the tenants with
some storage for tenants. They originally had wanted to tear it down, but it is a well-built
building that they want to keep.
2. Does that fall within the guidelines of a zone change?
The zone would allow that sort of use
3. If the land stays MDR2, would they still be able to resurface and beautify the green building?
Yes. It would be the developer’s choice.
It was clarified that the City has a nuisance ordinance that could address some issues.
It was reiterated that a person’s feelings about this proposal should be saved for public testimony.
Steve Oakey wondered if the green building was historic.
It was not known. Mrs. Glennis Nedrow in the audience said the building has been there for at least
60 years.
It was clarified there would be an entrance on 4th West and not 2nd South. The rezone request does
not go to 2nd South.
Chairman Walker opened the public input portion of the hearing.
In Favor:
Brad Chapple, 3928 Orrin Lane. He owns one of the pieces of property that is included in this
request. It currently is a rental property in kind of a rundown area and it would be sold to the
developer if the requested zone change is approved. This request would be an improvement to the
property. It also would give better access to the existing apartments.
Keven Snell, 3784 East 175 North, Rigby. He owns one of the subject parcels. He has watched
what Jared Sommer has done with other projects around town and has been impressed and also
surprised with the low impact of the housing Mr. Sommer has done. Because of the size of the units,
the residents are couples and possibly a small child. The impact is minor in comparison to other
projects that may have been built here. He is in favor of this rezone request.
Amy Farmer – See letter below under Written Input.
Neutral:
Annett Smith – See letter below under Written Input.
Opposed:
Mary Ann Mounts, 538 Henderson. Growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of
community character is not. The question is not whether this part of this city is going to grow and
change, but the question is how. She wanted to remind 3 Commissioners - Commissioners Rudd,
Walker, and Sorensen - who were on this Commission when she was on the Commission, that this
particular piece of ground was part of a community clean- up vacant lots project She is very happy
to hear Mr. Sommer admit that they were originally going to tear that green building down, because
it was most definitely presented that way to this Commission.
5
The whole effort was to clean up empty pieces of property. Her own family is involved in this at the
current time with property near 1st North. If they were all about making money, they would not be
doing the project they are doing. What they are concerned about is truly beautifying Rexburg.
That is why she is here to protest this, not to protest apartments, which some of her neighbors will
not agree with, but she is here to say that Mr. Sommer does not deserve another chance to beautify
Rexburg.
When Mr. Sommer built his apartments on the Yellowstone Highway by Les Schwab, Mrs. Mounts
sat on this Commission and moved to approve those apartments. She literally stated that he built a
good apartment with Nauvoo, and she felt his record spoke for itself, and that he could be trusted to
put in a nice looking apartment on the approach to BYU-Idaho. Then he built the apartments, and
she was blown away by how unattractive the building is, by how it is nothing more than prison
barracks-type apartments, with the parking all out front for everyone to see, and with minimal
landscaping that does nothing to mitigate that scene.
When Mr. Sommer came forward to get rid of the empty lots at the subject location, he said he
would get rid of the ugly lot. He has not done one thing to beautify that lot, in her opinion and her
neighbors. He left the green building. He did not start to put in any landscaping until they called the
City, and the City spoke to him multiple times. Then he put up a very minimum amount of
landscaping. She will be dead before that landscaping does anything to mitigate the obtuse nature of
those apartments. She literally woke up one night, looked out her window, the leaves had fallen off
the trees, and there was a sea of lights. It scared her. It was the front lights of all those apartments,
and that is the view she will have till the day she moves.
Why are we forcing other apartments to hide their parking and allowing Mr.Sommer to put his
parking right out to the street with no landscaping? Mrs. Mounts drove around town before coming
to this meeting. Cambridge Court on Main Street right along the canal has two buildings with nice
brick, a metal fence, mature landscaping, and with parking somewhat hidden.
Kensington Apartments on the corner of South 2nd East and East 3rd South are in another
neighborhood that was very upset about apartments going by them. The owners have now added to
that complex. The neighbors are happy with it. The apartments look so good and the landscaping is
so good. If Mr. Sommer had done something similar, she would not be here tonight. He does not do
what he says he will. It is fine to say he is doing a service by fixing up the neighborhood, but he is
not. The landscaping he uses is ridiculous. She does not understand how this Commission can make
one apartment owner hold to one standard and another apartment owner hold to another. The
Commission has been so tough on hiding parking. Northpoint Apartments has mature landscaping
that looks good. The parking structure and cars are not visible.
Henderson Subdivision is right across the street from this request. They are the ones who are
looking at that sea of asphalt. Remember to look at Mr. Sommer’s past record. The City has had to
contact him multiple times. He did not remove the building or beautify the lot. There is only a little
landscaping. There is a sea of utility boxes that should have been hidden by landscaping. He has
spent the last month cleaning the lot. Yes, he had the right to build 3-story buildings. He was denied
high density by the P&Z Commission and City Council. He knew from the beginning that he was
going to come back and request this again. He does not deserve to be considered again. Nothing has
changed. In fact it is worse than ever because he did not do what he said he would.
She knows her neighborhood cannot be unchanged nor would she want it to be. It may even get
apartments on the property they are discussing tonight. She would just like the Commission to
6
consider their obligation to treat all neighborhoods and developments with equanimity. Mr.Sommer
has had enough opportunity to prove himself as someone who will develop a piece of property the
way that he says he will, and his record should speak for itself.
Cleve Young, 568 Cook. He fully supports what Mrs.Mounts said. He wanted to add a couple
concerns. He has observed that there is only one dumpster for 80 households at the existing
complex. Is that a good or efficient way? He feels so bad for Mrs Nedrow who lives across the
street. She was promised that the green building would be torn down. He realizes the plans have
changed, but the building had pallets, trailers, bricks, etc. packed around it for about 2 years and
then just was cleaned up knowing this request was coming forward. Mr. Young has known the
Sommers for years. They are good solid people, but he questions their motive for what is going on
here. Off of 4th West from this proposed rezone, where is the traffic going to go? The splash park
is very busy every day – with many children, families, barbecuing, etc. When Squires Brick property
develops, where will their traffic go? The speed bumps near the park are a great addition, but they
are sometimes not paid attention to by students who come from other areas. Traffic would funnel
right past the park. It is a terrible safety hazard. He is very concerned.
Like Mrs. Mounts, he does not have a problem with development. Rexburg is a great community,
but he does not see that there is much concern for the residents in the Henderson and Starlite areas.
There are serious safety problems. Growth is good, but things like this really tear it down.
Glennis Nedrow, 270 South 5th West. She lives right across the street from Campus Courtyard
Apartments. She is very opposed and was in the beginning because she gets it all right near her
driveway. It is a speed trap with motorcycles and cars. It is ongoing and never stops. Someone is
going to get hit. She has observed some children going to school in dangerous situations. It is just
not right. They were all told the green building would be torn down and the property beautified.
Mayor Woodland is the one who broke the tie for MDR2 zoning. The next thing they see is 3
stories. She has called the City a couple of times. She has lived here for over 60 years. There is no
place for this in the neighborhood.
Becky Godfrey, 296 Mark. She withdrew her letter of written input and instead wished to speak to
the Commission.
She pointed out the location of Kennedy School on the map in relation to this request. The
properties near this request are single family homes (Henderson and Starlite Subdivisions). Medium
Density Residential 2 (MDR2) is a buffer. The Development Code states “…The MDR2 zone is
established to act as a buffer between single-family dwellings and non-single-family zones ”.
The Merriam Webster Dictionary states that the definition of the word buffer is: “any of various
devices or pieces of materials for reducing shock or damage due to contact; or, a means or device
used as a cushion against the shock of fluctuations in business or financial activity; or, something
that serves as a protective barrier.” Please keep the barrier. Please keep the buffer that is already in
place.
Think about the children walking up and down to school, working people who ride their bikes, the
students of the college, the families. There are quite a few people who will be impacted. She was
there at the meetings when the initial rezone came forward. The people were led to believe that the
apartment buildings would be 2 stories high. They were not. When they built the 3 story buildings
on part of the land and left the rest in disarray, people were led to believe that the city would have
the owner clean it up, but it was not cleaned up. The MDR2 zone is a buffer. Please honor this and
the people of who live there – keep the MDR2 buffer.
Written Input:
The letters are part of the official record of this Public Hearing:
7
1. Letter from Annett Smith, neutral to the proposal - read by Commissoner Oakey
2. Letter from Janice Tychsen, opposed to the proposal –read by Chairman Walker
3. Letter from Linda Thurber, opposed to the proposal – read by Commissioner Flora
4. Letter from Amy Farmer, in favor of the proposal – read by Commissioner Rory Kunz
8
9
10
11
12
Rebuttal:
Jared Sommer stated that he welcomes looking back at the notes from previous meetings and
rezone. A 2- story building was never part of the conversation. They anticipated all along to build
what was allowed by the zone. In regard to the green cinder block building removal, he cannot
recollect if this was said; they had thought about tearing down the building, until they reviewed it.
Parking is a huge problem in Rexburg in some apartment complexes near campus that have the
lowest amount of spaces allowed. That is very contrary to the apartments they constructed. They
never wanted to be short on parking. They have met the parking requirement as required by the
City. It does require some measure of asphalt.
Val Christensen said the parking ordinance was recently changed for the infill/ redevelopment area
to allow reduction of parking - to have 80 percent. A study was done.
Mr. Sommer said they have more than sufficient parking. His being here is not a surprise. When
they built the existing apartments here, they anticipated that at some point they would come in again
for a rezone regarding the vacant land on the north, largely because they had built the apartments
and would know the impact regarding traffic. Many married students ride bikes to the college.
There is not any married housing that has as low an impact as this development. They did it
purposely. The apartments were not built for large families. They were for newly marrieds. There are
very few children who are residents of the complex.
He respects everyone’s comments. He feels they have succeeded with their existing project in
keeping to a low impact.
Chairman Walker closed the public input portion of the hearing and asked for the staff report.
Community Development Director Val Christensen stated this rezone request would be
changing the subject property from Light Industrial and Medium Density Residential 2 to High
Density Residential 1. The size is 5.82 acres. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation is
Moderate-High Density Residential, and HDR1 is allowed under this designation. The City
Engineer did not have any concerns. The property to the north known as the “brickyard” was
rezoned to HDR1; the developer has submitted building plans to the city, but the project currently is
on hold because of complications.
If the Commission determines that the requested change is in the best interest of the City and the
adjoining neighborhoods are not adversely affected, staff is requesting that the P&Z Commission
recommend that the City Council process the requested zone change.
Chairman Walker clarified that the question before the Commission is a land use issue – a request
to change the subject property from MDR2 and LI to HDR1.
Steve Oakey said concerns were expressed tonight by those in opposition to the proposal regarding
traffic and safety. Describe the City’s proactive nature in trying to offset any traffic impact or safety
issues when densities are increased in the City.
Val Christensen stated that the City has not experienced increased traffic problems in any of the
housing areas to the level of what is considered by City Engineering as a moderate capacity. By
engineering standards, the traffic here would be considered low capacity. The City Engineer looks at
the numbers that are generated.
The Chairman asked Mr. Christensen to review the basic differences between MDR2 and HDR1.
13
Val Christensen clarified that MDR2 allows up to 20 units per acre. HDR1 allows up to 30 units
per acre.Building height would go from 30 feet in height maximum in MDR2 to 55 feet in height
maximum in HDR1. It is possible to condition height. A zone change can be conditioned. Setbacks
would be the same, but front setback for parking is different depending on whether there is a
landscape strip.
The Infill/redevelopment scoring for this requested rezone property ranks high.
It was mentioned that at one point there was discussion about a possible traffic signal being put at
5th West and 4th South. Nothing is moving forward at this time.
Rory Kunz asked if any studies have been done that indicate how traffic has increased under current
building versus previous building
Val Christensen stated there was no reason to do a new study because traffic is considered low
volume. The study recently done for the entire City indicates the area as low volume.
Steve Oakey said another issue that was brought up were the requirements imposed on other
complexes or developments. He asked if the Sommers’ previous developments have been compliant
with landscaping requirements.
Val Christensen said the portion to the north is still unfinished. Mr. Sommer has worked with the
City’s compliance officer. The land is cleaned up. There is no parking lot there. With the City’s
ordinance, the reality is that the only buffer requirements are for the parking. Landscaping is not
defined, so it goes back to the City’s nuisance ordinance.
Tisha Flora stated that one of the hardest things about being on the P&Z Commission is trying to
balance the rights of the owner/developer versus the rights of neighbors. The owner/developer has
the right to ask. The neighbors also have the right to come share how they feel. It is hard to make a
decision and try to weigh out both possibilities. What concerns her is that the neighbors are in favor
of growth, but they are telling the Commission that Mr. Sommer has not done a very good job at
keeping to what he said. A 55 foot building could bring about 240 cars. It may be low density on the
roads scientifically, but this many more cars coming out on 4th West and 5th West in not in the best
interest of Rexburg. Mrs. Godfrey had a good point regarding the current MDR2 buffer and its
definition that is stated in the Rexburg Development Code. On all other sides of this property it may
be fine to have the high density, but the Commission needs to respect that single family homes in
low density neighborhoods are on one side. The current medium density really does add the nice
buffer.
Mark Rudd said the biggest difference would be going from a possible 20 to 30 units and a possible
30 feet to 55 feet if the zone is changed, but Mr.Sommer had said he wanted to match the buildings
that were already there. If that is the case, it appears that the zoning of MDR2 should be adequate.
Cory Sorensen said HDR1 would double Mr. Sommer’s project; he could add about 90 units. If the
property is left at MDR2 zoning, 32 units could be added. HDR1 would allow more density and
more units. Height could be limited. No matter which, the developer is still only required to
landscape a certain percentage of the total area.
Mr. Oakey said the stated purpose of infill/redevelopment is to increase density to take advantage of
current infrastructure. In doing so, costs of development would also be diminished and make
housing more affordable for those seeking this type of housing. If density requirements are reduced,
costs of development, rent, or sale of the property would automatically increase.
14
Val Christensen clarified that a rezone may be conditioned per the City Attorney although it is not
recommended. With a rezone, the project should not be part of the discussion. The Commission
should try to discuss whether the land use and density are right for the location, and try not to
condition a rezone. That being said, it has been done. Kensington Apartments were conditioned,
and it turned out well. The neighbors had not wanted the development. Among the conditions were
landscaping, no street access to East 3rd South, etc.
Cory Sorensen said a positive example of conditioning of a landscape berm was put on the former
Squires Brick (HDR1) property along 5th West, along with a condition regarding no access onto 5th
West. Building height was conditioned.
Rory Kunz said he feels torn. He is stuck between balancing landowner developing rights and the
rights of the neighbors and what was said about MDR2 and its purpose as a buffer.
Cory Sorensen said having gone through the hearing on the Squires Brick rezone, he recalled that
one of the discussions was whether there would be a better project by allowing more density but
with conditions on it to project, rather than leaving the property as medium density. The
neighborhood came in force. The conditions that were set included that buildings should be back
from the road a certain distance, and that there would be a 5th West berm. It will be a better project
than if the zoning was left at medium density. It is a balancing act. In this case the track record is not
good per neighborhood input. That is why there has to be very strict guidelines.
Chairman Walker said ultimately the question is: is high density the right thing for the specified
property?
Rory Kunz wondered if past minutes from the earlier Sommer rezone should be looked at.
Steve Oakey stated the issue might have to be tabled for another time in order to be able to review
those minutes. That seems like a longer process just to corroborate fading recollects. For the current
discussion, he is hearing that the Commission may need to look at possible conditions for the
rezone.
Chairman Walker expressed that it seems that to be able to develop the property would be a plus.
The Commission needs to consider the neighbors’ concerns, to be addressed in conditions.
Possible conditions to put on the rezone were discussed including beautifying the green cinder block
building and incorporating it into the landscaping, limiting the building height, having a significant
landscape buffer for the neighborhood, and having an architectural design review meeting regarding
the landscaping.
Val Christensen clarified that every project goes through design review as part of the building
application process. However, there is also a Design Review Committee meeting that may be held
that is composed of a P&Z Commissioner, a City Council member, a professional from the
community, and staff. The Committee meets when there is a development issue that may deviate
from the design standards that are stated in the City of Rexburg Development Code Ordinance No.
1115, or the Committee may meet because of a specific issue, such as the landscaping.
Steve Oakey thought that Val Christensen understood the spirit of what the Commission would
like to see. He could help to direct the design review board to make that happen.
15
Cory Sorensen felt the P&Z Commissioner at the Design Review meeting in this case should be
one of the Commissioners who is at this meeting tonight.
Tisha Flora motioned to recommend to the City Council approval of a rezone from Light
Industrial (LI) and Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2) to High Density Residential 1 (HDR1),
for the property located at 228, 230, 232 South 4th West; and 251, 265, 273 South 5th West with the
four following conditions:
1. The existing green (Barrick) building on South 5th West on the subject property shall be
beautified and resurfaced as stated tonight by the applicant.
2. Buildings shall be a maximum of 30 feet in height.
3. An architectural design review meeting shall be held to address having a significant
landscape buffer, especially along South 5th West.
4. A P&Z Commissioner who was present at this meeting tonight shall be a participant in this
design review meeting to address this buffer.
Mark Rudd seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Unfinished/Old Business: None
New Business: None
Compliance: None
Non-controversial Items Added to the Agenda: None
Report on Projects: None
Tabled Requests: None
Building Permit Application Report: None
Heads Up:
July 2, 2015 P&Z meeting:
1. Conditional Use Permit – for a Hotel – at approximately 1300 South 12th West
2. Discussion – Trejo Professional Park – John Bagley – Potential land use change
Chairman Walker adjourned the meeting at 8:38 pm.