HomeMy WebLinkAboutALL DOCS - 12-00099 - Development Code Ord. 1026 Amendment - MDR1'-a- -.J It
Ordinqnce Amendmenl Applicolion
Cify of Rexburg CITY OF
Phone: 208.359.3020
Fox: 208.359.3022
it to the Community Development
supporting documents.
with due diligence and urill be scheduled, dependen,
"p""
Fees Requfued: Ordinance Amendment $500.00
Publication fee $300.00
Name:
l. What section(s) of.the Development Code or orher ordinance is
,^, . i'l)"ttt'vuL, (C i&t n-< rrt-t, lC.t r^ fl.4orr*,
requested for change?
2. Please provide,the proposed amendrtory language.
Explain the purpose(s) for this amendment proposal.
what are the cumulative effects of this proposed ordinance amendment?
(,tttj/Lrr,J,r
Yl-{',
/
mxeuRG
.trirrrr;,;i .iirarilt' Co t n r.r u ti t)
(1)
ORDINANCE NO. 1084
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1026
PROVIDING FOR SUBSTANTIVE AND NON.SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES; INCLUDING: (1) AMEND CHAPTER 3, MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ONE (MDRI) BY ALLOWING I-ARGER
BUILDINGS AND (2) AMEND CHAPTER 4 TO ADD HOME
BUSINESS REQUIRMENTS TO SUBSECTION 4.108 AND
PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
BE IT ORDAINED BY the Mayor and Council of the City of Rexburg,Idaho:
SECTION I: The Development Code of the City of Rexburg, Idaho, is hereby
amended by the following with a Conditional Use Petmit for Amendment One (1) and
Amendment Two (2) to add subsection b. to Chapter 4.1'0:
A. Chapter 3 Section 7.010. Purposes and Obiectives: The MDR1 zone ls
established to protect stable neighborhoods of detached single-family dwellings on
smaller lots and multi-family housing. Restoration or rehabilitation of older homes in
this district shall be encouraged. Conditional uses shall be compatible with an
atmosphere of low building heights, low ttaffic volumes, ample off-street parking,
and low nuisance potentials at a higher density than LDR zones. New buildings may
mnge ftom single-family homes up to four (4) units per building, buildings with
more than four (4) units per building require a conditional use permit. The maximum
density permitted in this disttict is sixteen (16) dwelting units per acfe.
B. Chaptet 3 Section 7.020 - Petmitted Uses (F - Conditional Uses)
1,. More than four (4) dwelling units per building.
Amendment Two (2) Chaptet 4
A. Chaptet 4 - add subsection b. to 4.L0 Home Occupations:
b. Home Business Requitements - Home businesses must meet all the
requirements of the previous Home Occupations subsection with the following
exceptions:
(2)
1.. All Home Business applications require a Conditional Use Permit (CUP).
2. Home businesses are allowed only in the following zones: Rutal Residential 1 6.R1),
Rural Resid enial 2 ER2), Transitional Agricultute 1 (IAG1 ), and Ttansitional
Agricultute 2 GAG2).
3. A home business may be allowed in up to 25o/o of thepimary residence or100oh
of an accessory structure.
4. Up to 4 non-telated employees may be allowed.
SECTION II: Providing for other substantive and non-substantive changes in the
Development Code as recommended and approved by the Planning and Zonng
Commission of the City of Rexbug,Idaho:
SECTION III: Repeal. All other ordinances and parts of ordinances in conflict
with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION IV: The City of Rexburg, Idaho City Council shall enact this Ordinance
No. 1084 amending Ordinance 1026 otherunse known as THE DEYELOPMENT
CODE OF THE CITY OF REXBURG,IDAHO upon its passage, approval and
publication.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 1,6'h day
of Mav-2012.
Richard S. \il/oodland, Mayor
(sEAL)
ATTEST:
Blair D. IQy, City Clerk
,
STATE OF rDAHO)
/SS.
County of Madison )
I, BLr\IR D. KAY, City Clerk of the city of Rexburg, Idaho, do hereby certi$r: That
the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of the Ordinance Entitled:
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 1026
PROVIDING FOR SUBSTANTIVE AND NON.SUBSTANTIVE
CHANGES; INCLUDING: (1) AMEND CHAPTER 3, MEDIUM
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL ONE (MDRI) BY ALLOWING LARGER
BUILDINGS AND (2) AMEND CHAPTER 4 TO ADD HOME
BUSINESS REQUIRMENTS TO SUBSECTION 4.108 AND
PROVIDING FOR THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS
ORDINANCE.
PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND APPROVED BY THE MAYOR this 1,6h dav
of Mav,2072.
Blair D. Ifuy, City Clerk
(sEAL)
Findings of Foct
City of Rexburg
Phone; 208.359.3020
Fox: 208.359.3022
1.
Development Code 1'026 Amendment - MDR1
On March 9,201.2,Va1Christensen representing the City Rexburg,
presented to the Rexburg Planning & Zonng Coordinatot a Request and
Application to amend the Development Code Ordinance 1.026 as follows:
Section 3.7.020-F Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Language for Medium Density Residential
One (tvIDRl):
Change From: "five (5) and six (6) dwelting units per building"
To: "Buildings with more than four (4) dwelling units"
On March 9,2072 the City Clerk sent the Notice of Public headng to the newspaper to be
published March 15 and March 31,2072.
On April 5,20L2,the Rexburg Planning &ZoningCommission held a public headng
regarding adopting the specified changes to Development Code Ordinance 1026'
Val Christensen presented the proposal.
Thaine Robinson motioned to recommend to City Council to approve the Development
Code amendment for Medium Density Residential One (1\4DR1) as stated:
Section 3.7.020-F Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Language for Medium Density Residential
One (X,{DR1):
Change From: "five (5) and six (6) dwelling units per building"
To: "Buildings with more than four (4) dwelling units"
Dan Hanna seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion catded.
4. On April 1.8,2072 at a public hearing before the City Council City Attorney
Stephen Zollinget g ve a staff presentation on the amendment for
Development Code Ordinance No. 1026. He explained that former\ a
developer presented to the City why four-plexes are not the best method to
develop aesthetically pleasing Iarge apattment buildings. The presentation
explained that if more than four units per building were allowed, the
development project would be more favorable and aesthetically pleasing. Mr.
ZolJinger explained that at that time the process to amend the otdinance was
started. In the process of amending the ordinance it was amended to be
included in Medium Density Residential TWO ([;IDR2) but not MDR1. It
was neglected to be amended into MDR1. He explained that this is the fust
reading of the amendment. There will be a second and third reading with not
much change made to the amendment. He cladfied that the change should
be done in the first reading.
2.
J.
Mayor Woodland gave the idea to suspend the rules and move the
amendment forward thtough the ptocess if the second and third teadings
would not have any change to the amendment.
City Attomey Zollinger clarified that this can be done. He recommended
that if the decision to suspend the rules and accelerate the amendment
through the ptocess was made, then the opporrunity to voice an opinion
should be given to those in opposition to the amendment.
Council Membet Busby asked fot information tegarding procedure of
suspending the rules.
City Attotney Zollinget clarified that suspending the rules will only be
applied to this amendment only. It is to accelerate the process by eliminating
the second and third readings and amend the otdinance as soon as possible.
Teddie Steiner at846 West 7'n South, had concerns regarding the
amendments to the ordinance. She is concetned that the amendment does
not have a limit on the size of the type of building fhat can be constnrcted in
a development and it leaves an open end on the wotding of "more than fout
(4) dwelling units".
City Attomey Zollinget explained the amendments purpose. He explained
that it has no effect on the density of a development. The amendment allows
for developers to change the configuration of their development to make it
more aesthetically pleasing.
Teddie Steiner was mainly concerned with the wording of the amendment.
She gave hypothetical examples to explain her concerns. She first gave a
hypothetical example of a development on an MDR1 Zone fhat is five acres.
If the developer wants to develop this propetty and by using the new
amendment wants to build only one building with 80 units on the property,
what is there to limit the developer from doing this?
City Attorney Zollinger explained that there would be other lirnitations and
requirements that would prohibit the developer ftom constructing this
development.
Teddie Steiner asked what is there in the amendment that the city can do to
turn the developer down if he were to meet all the lirnitations and
requirements.
City Attotney Zollinger explained that any rational basis that the city has to
police the structure is a way for the city to turn them down. He explained
that fue suppression would be very difficult to police in a structure this large
and it would be a teason that the city could use to turn down the
development.
Teddie steiner gave another hypothetical example. she explained that what
if there was a property that was long and narrow-that -as frve actes, and adeveloper wanted to develop this with g0 units back to back? If they meet allthe requirements and limitations what could the ciw do to stoo thedevelopment?
community Development Director val christensen explained that thebuilding code would stop the development. only 16 units cun be built in a
fow.
Teddie steiner gave her opinion on pu{pose of zontng. She described that
zonrngis for the city to build and develop the communiry and the city ofRexburg in an aesrhetically pleasing *uy.1t is to build the quality of liie. Sheexplained that it is also for the purpose of telling the contractor what they areallowed to-develop. She further explained that it is also there to protect thepeople and the community fiom developers developing buildings and
sttuctures that could harm them or their property. Sh. b.li",."d that with thisamendment that rhe city may have difficulty turning down a conditional UsePermit with an ordinance that has an open ended p-hr"r" ..with more thanfour (4) dwelling units". She believed the city is priting itself at dsk with thistype of wotding and if they were to turn someone down that met all therequirements and limitations needed in a development. It also puts the
community at risk if they were to accept a devellpment like this because it
:""1d affect property values of homes in the rt.u. sh" explained that MDR2is limited by the city and High Density Residentiai one (t; is atso limited.She is concerned that the city is advocating their power io the developer
with this qpe of wording and amendment. She believed any open ended lawis bad. She is concerned mainly with the risk to the city u"a tn. residents.
Russ van Allen at 635 casper Avenue, agreed with Teddie Steiner. Headded that he considers a four-plex like a large house. He believes thatMDR1 is a transition ^te and a four-plex makes this a transitton area.
Teddie steiner felt that the pa*side development is very nice. sheexplained that they are four-unit buildings that look nice and are pleasing.
She also explained that the curtent ordinance does not need a correction andthat it is fine the way it is worded at the moment. She explained that it fitsjust fine the way it is between Low Density Residential u"a Hrgl, Density
Residential.
city Attorney stephen zollinger clarified that a conditional use permit
will not require the city to allow two forty unit buildings to be constructed
adjacent to a residential neighborhood. He explainea ti'at the city has thepower to determine where to build the stnrcture within the five acres. Thecity can push the two forty unit buildings to the middle of the 5 acres for theinterest of protecting the single family residential homes that arcnext to the5 actes. He continued to explain that one of the pou/ers given to cities is todetermine where to place a structure within a deveropm.irt prop..ay.
:.'fl *f::T"t",:*:i::]lls.1 tu,g:r crarined that there are no regar:::: l. * T :ry: end Y11 gm-e"',-,h; ;;d-;;:;J"' : tr #:l'T TruS
i,i*::tn::':'1-,-1: l:r,ftasible to _"*i_ir. the development above what hasabeady been developed.
council Member Merrill asks city Attorney Stephen zoiltngetfor hisprofessional opinion as an attorney if the .iq, _o,.ld hur," eno.rgh protectionand not be at risk with being ,..r.d'-ith this amendment if the city were todeny a development.
city Attomey stephen Zo'inger.explained that there is no easy answer tothat question but in regards t" ti" hyplthetical exarnples given by TeddieSteiner; none of those exampt", *itt *Ulect the city to [abiliry.
council President Mann asks community Development Directotchristensen and city.Atrorney zorltngeiir u a..."topl, *r""0 to deverop astructure with a 1'-plex in the nnddl;nd 6-plexs or, ,ir. .",ru. can theybuild if this amendmenr is not approved?
City Attorney Stephen zollingetexplained no, the developer cannot buildwith the wav the otdinance is *ritt.n ;r,"*1f"a;il;;"rf the ordinance
;:ffi*?;ff"*::roper is ..,,,.,-,ry io,."i ,o bJJ;;i;';.ur_prexes with
community Deveropment Director christensen added to the discussion
1::,1: O""eloper would still need to rrreet design standards. Thisfequfement can be considered to be used by rh; cify to Je; a developer.Design standards will also m"k. bo'dirg, more practi cal an'danything thatwill be unusual would not be done by de?.lope^ that atetryrng to makemoney.
council Member Sutherland moved to approve for frst reading the arnendmentto the Development code, ordinance xo. toze; amending Sectron 3.7.020_Fconditional use permit (cun; rang*g" f* M;;;;il,ir* Residentiar onegaDRl): change from: ..hve (s) ,"d';;Gi d_in##, n"lording,,to:"Buildings with rnore lr-"n f";; (4) d*"ill"g units,,. council Member Me*illseconded the modon;Mayor woodrand asked for a vote:
Those voting aye
Council president Mann
Council Member Benfield
Council Member Merill
Council Member Smith
Council Member Busby
Council Member Suthedand
The motion carded.
Those voting nay
None
5' on May 76' 2012 atcity council council Member Smith moved to third read ordinance1084 arnending ordinance 7026 forlarger luildings ,n uont and allowing fot subsection b.
lilJ?"".T*usiness);
council Member Merdl se"conded rhe motion; Mayor woodland
Those voting aye
Council president Mann
Council Mernber Busby
Council Member Benfield
Council Mernber Merill
Council Member Smith
Council Member Suthedand
The motion carried.
Those voting nay
None
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGTO AMEND THE CITY OF REXBURG
(pLANNr;22Hl-'-m)L*ff;No.ro26)
ilni:*jj#lTB.. crvEN that a public Hearing wiu !e heid April 0s,2072, at7:05rdaho,,oamend*.lH?#i?",Hf $fi ffi +z;X";Xi*i:re;yix:o"i.y,ORDINANCE No. 1026).
It is proposed by file #1'2000gg to review the current DEVELOPMENT CODtr, and makeamendments to the document conceming substantive and non-substantive items. Allproposed modifications to the DEVELOPMENT coDE;uy be reviewed at the offices ofPlanning and zontng.or the city clerk's office. The substantive changes include, but are notlimited to, the following:
ffi:l i;H;1T.
1026 chaptet 3, Medium Density Residential one (MDRI)
From: Five-(5) and (6) dwelling units per buildingTo: Buildings wirh more tf-rin fo"r 1+; a*.Ui"!
""i .
At such Public Hearing the Pianning and, zonngcommission will hear all persons and allobjections and recomrnendations ,iu,i.,. to thebgvELopMENT CODE that will beproposed' This notice is given to the provisions of section 67-650g,Idaho code and allamended thereof' This amend-"n, *i[ allow more "fJ."ri"r aeveropments on a case bycase basis seekinq pranning. an d lonngrecommendrtio* and-city council approvals.otherwise' the m"aximum .ir" of , r"rii"ntial dwelling wiil be tour (4) units without aConditional Use permrt.
The city council.":T.:q.j {l city residents to paracipate in the process to amendthe DEVELOPMENT COOE. Ciazen,,y_".ggo,uv"-"riao,-g.h.r"Jn";;;;:ffi 1T'#z jtr*#B*:,$"-:'fl Bfr.lJ,35 Norh 1st East in Rexdurg
lT,t'J-;f'$fi::Ttlit il'*,t;.
East, will receive written input ror this pubric Hearing
g*PoRa2
this 9th day of March,2072.
CITY OF REXBURG
Blair D. IQy, City Clerk
15, 20"12;March 31, 2012
oI2l
Staff Review
Development Code Ordinance No .1'026
Amendment- MDR1
a-ji\ ii;:
J{.FXP,IJI]G
.!ti,:r,i,^ /:ir,rilr {.oJr,)I,';iN.
I
-
P.O Box 280
35 North fst East
Rexburg, ldaho 83440
Phone (208) 359-3020
Fax (208) 359-3022Review Action
Permit Number: 12 00099
Project Name: Development code ord.1026 Amendment -MDR1
Project Type: Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Review ltem Actions Required for Approval Approved
Planning Staff Review
Development Standards Review 0312612012
Parcef #'s RPRRXBI03324I0
March 26,2012