Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 1 Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Dan Hanna Mary Ann Mounts Val Christensen – Community Development Director Nephi Allen Cory Sorensen Scott Johnson – Director of Economic Development Scott Ferguson Richie Webb Daren Spencer – Community Development Intern Jedd Walker Marilyn Rasmussen Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator Chairman Winston Dyer was excused. Dan Hanna acted as chairman. He opened the meeting at 7:04 pm. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Cory Sorensen, Richie Webb, Scott Ferguson, Mary Ann Mounts, Dan Hanna, Jedd Walker, Nephi Allen, Marilyn Rasmussen Thaine Robinson, Gil Shirley and Winston Dyer were excused. Minutes: 1. Planning and Zoning meeting - September 1, 2011 Marilyn Rasmussen motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of September 1, 2011. Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion. Nephi Allen and Cory Sorensen abstained for having not been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 7:05 pm – Rezone – City of Rexburg - 3 Blocks on 2nd South –from Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1), High Density Residential 1 (HDR1), and Central Business District (CBD) to Mixed Use 2 (MU2) Chairman Hanna stated the rezone request is for 3 specified blocks on 2nd South (All of Blocks 48, 49, and 50 in the Original City of Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho). Val Christensen presented the City of Rexburg’s rezone proposal. He reviewed the history of the issue. About a month ago in a rezone hearing before the Commission, the City requested that the block (block 48) bordered by South Center, West 2nd South, South 1st West, and West 1st South be rezoned to Mixed Use 2. The P&Z Commission recommended to deny the rezone request. Mr. Christensen then took the issue to staff to clarify what direction should be taken. The City’s Ready Team unanimously decided that the 3 blocks specified in tonight’s rezone should move forward for public hearing before the P&Z Commission and then would proceed to the City Council. Chairman Hanna asked Mr. Christensen to explain the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designation for the area of the subject proposal. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes September 15, 2011 2 Val Christensen said the Comprehensive Plan Map (Preferred Land Use Map) is the City’s planning vision for the future. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the 3 subject blocks is Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use. Consultants worked with staff, to develop the Rexburg Vision 2020 Comprehensive Plan. There were public hearings before the P&Z Commission and City Council. Through the public hearing process, input and direction from the citizens of Rexburg was taken for the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2008. There have been several changes since that time. The two western blocks in tonight’s rezone proposal were designated Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use on the 2008 Comprehensive Plan Map; the 3rd block to the east was changed to the Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use land use designation about a year ago. The Zoning map is more specific and addresses what is allowed on the land. Chairman Hanna clarified that the purpose of the hearing tonight is to request a zone change for the 3 specified blocks, to Mixed Use 2 (MU2). Val Christensen said that was correct. It would fulfill a vision of the Comprehensive Plan. Jedd Walker asked the zones allowed under the Neighborhood Commercial/Mixed Use land use designation. Val Christensen said the Neighborhood Commercial/ Mixed Use designation allows these zones to be requested: Neighborhood Business District, Professional Office, Open Space, and Mixed Use 1 and Mixed Use 2 Zones. The Mixed Use zones were created to allow a mix of uses – often called Smart Growth – to keep sprawl from occurring and to take the best advantage of utilities and infrastructure. It allows for a densification, providing pedestrian amenities and neighborhood businesses closer to residential, so that people do not have to drive so far but instead may walk. The blocks closest to campus, from a financial standpoint, may be single student housing. Mr. Christensen stated that land is at a very high cost near campus (Sunrise Apartments property was appraised at 5.5 million dollars). The more there are large projects, the more inquiries the City gets from developers wanting to do commercial development. Mixed Use would allow that type of mix. The Henderson Apartments wanted to have a hair salon in their complex, but there was no zoning at that time to allow it. The commercial component adds to the positive possibilities for redevelopment of these blocks. Jedd Walker asked for clarification of the zones that are currently in the subject area. Val Christensen pointed the areas out on the projected map, including some property already zoned as Mixed Use 2. The other zones in the subject proposal include Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1), High Density Residential 1 (HDR1), and Central Business District (CBD). Medium Density Residential allows buildings a maximum of only 30 feet in height. The staff felt it would be best to request to rezone the entire three blocks. Mr. Walker asked the density difference between HDR1 and MU2. Val Christensen said the density is the same, 30 units per acre, but Mixed Use also allows the commercial component. Richie Webb asked if the timing of this rezone request from the City is developer demand driven, or more speculative planning driven. Val Christensen said it is both. Several developers are very interested. Another big key is the University growth that will be coming in the future. 3 Mary Ann Mounts thought the University was quite anti-commercial regarding the location of commercial in relation to single student housing. Val Christensen stated that the University said they are fine with commercial next door to single student housing, but they do not want it in the same building as single student housing. Mary Ann Mounts said Mixed Use does not allow for all types of commercial. It is limited to businesses compatible to a neighborhood. Val Christensen said that is correct. Mixed Use would have commercial similar to the downtown area. Chairman Hanna asked Mr. Christensen to explain the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ) overlay and how it relates to the proposal. The Pedestrian Emphasis Zone allows a developer to have less parking spaces in return for providing specific pedestrian amenities. PEZ Zone 1 and PEZ Zone 2 were pointed out on the overhead screen map. Val Christensen said the subject blocks are directly around the campus and are in PEZ Zone 1.. PEZ Zone 2 takes in blocks south of 4th South all the way to 5th West and then to 7th South. Mrs. Mounts said the Kartchner development that is in PEZ2 has cars which are parking on the street – the two streets in the area are solid cars. The City’s Compliance Officer will be notified of this matter. The Chair asked Mr. Christensen to explain the objective of PEZ1. Mr. Christensen said the objective of PEZ 1 is to encourage redevelopment. When the PEZ Zone was created, past P&Z Administrator Gary Leikness and Richard Smith, representing the University, were key players in putting the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone together. It was to encourage redevelopment to go to these areas, to concentrate it near to the University so there would not be sprawl into other neighborhoods. The blocks right around campus were already mostly dormitory use. Many single family homes had been converted to dormitory use. It was hoped that re- development would occur in those blocks. The Chair said that the University has increased enrollment, and the demand for student housing has increased. He clarified that the purpose of the rezone request is to make those blocks compatible with that type of development. Val Christensen said in the last few years, a large percentage of vacant ground southwest of the University that was in the appropriate locations for student housing has been used. The question becomes, where does more student housing development go? The area most positive for single student housing is that which is close to the University campus. Chairman Hanna asked members of the audience if they had any questions to help them understand the proposal. An audience member asked for clarification of Mixed Use 2, what it allows, and if it prevents sprawl. Val Christensen said MU2 allows a density of 30 units per acre and would allow a commercial component along with residential. He clarified it can help the issue of sprawl. It could bring commercial services closer to the residents, within walkable distance. He said in the City’s Development Code 1026, there is an entire page of uses and a half page of conditional uses for the Mixed Use 2 Zone. The uses are similar to those allowed in the 4 Downtown Commercial zone. The uses do not include big box, automobile businesses, or other highway commercial-type businesses. Scott Ferguson said that Mixed Use allows for taller buildings, helping to control sprawl.The developer can do more on the land. Chairman Hanna opened the public input portion of the hearing. In Favor: Phil Packer, 525 South Center, representing BYU-Idaho. The University is reticent to get involved in any particular development or project. They are in favor of the requested zone change to Mixed Use for these 3 subject blocks because it is in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, and it does allow for high density housing, which is of major interest to the University. The University has their differences on mixed use and what would be allowed near single student housing. They are not discouraged with that. It may allow the opportunity of commercial that is complementary to student housing. Mixed Use fits here. The University is in favor of this rezone proposal in the long term. Steve Nethercott, 52 West 2nd South. He is in favor of the rezone. He has property in the subject area and has been working on a student housing project. It has been a difficult challenge as a developer. There is currently a hodge-podge of zoning in this area. A developer needs to purchase individual properties from individual owners in order to have the property necessary for a project. A rezone to mixed use would be a real benefit to developers. It would give them more incentive. The reality is that the University is expanding and will continue to do so. Do they accommodate students across the street from campus, or several blocks away? It is logical to keep single student housing as close as possible to campus. Change can be hard. He understands the concerns of the residents in this area. A rezone would not require them to move out or change anything; it should make their properties more valuable. Brent McFarland, 1152 Bond Ave. He is an architect and has a client interested in the subject area. From a design point of view, being trained as a designer and planner in his education, he feels the rezone change follows the City’s 2008 Comprehensive Plan vision. It is the correct vision – helping control the growth around the campus, encouraging the University to become a pedestrian campus. Mixed Use fits and would accommodate growth. Peter Thompson, 135 South 1st West. He has lived there for 78 years. In his growing-up years, they all had pasture land and orchards in back of the homes. They had horses, cows, and chickens. Because of City Ordinance, pastures and orchards were not allowed; they had to sell their pastures and orchards to developers, and developers built apartment houses there. That was part of the development of Rexburg. Now, on South 1st West, there are probably 12 to 14 apartment houses. The area is no longer the quiet little neighborhood he grew up in and that his family grew up in. It is like living on an ant hill. The college kids are good kids, but there just are lots of them. Because of all these things, it is time for him to move on. He wants to be in a quiet neighborhood again. If the area is rezoned, he feels it would enhance the sale of his property so that he can move on. Myron Williams, 158 South 2nd East. He is in favor of the zone change. They have been trying to sell their home as a single family residence. Several families have looked at the home but will not buy it because of all the traffic on 2nd East. There are times when they cannot even get out of their driveway. A zone change would encompass the goals of what the City and the college want for the area. Students could do more walking rather than driving. He feels the value of their property would be enhanced and the ability to sell their home would be enhanced. Seth Hansen, 123 Princeton Court, representing his father Kent Hansen. They bought the Academy Apartments property last April and want to build approved student housing. Currently 5 there are a few older buildings on the property. They want to build new apartments. A rezone to Mixed Use would be positive for the redevelopment that they wish to do. Katie Jensen, 123 Princeton Court. She is for the rezone because it would bring approved student housing closer to campus, which would be helpful for the students. Jessica Bjorn, 123 Princeton Court. She stands in affirmation of this rezone change; it will bring student housing closer to the campus. Also, places like Hemming Village, where stores are brought closer to where students live and closer to campus, would be very helpful. Chase Rockwood, 123 Princeton Court. He and his wife are the managers of Academy Apartments. They are for the rezone proposal. It is good for student housing complexes to be close to campus. It will help to have restaurants and other businesses close by for their residents. It is a great idea. Rachel Whoolery, 117 East 2nd South. She is for the rezone. She owns 4 houses on the block kitty- corner from the University’s Kirkham building and across from the LDS Church. She has spoken with a lot of the owners on her block. Fourteen property lot owners signed a letter in favor of a rezone. That is a huge footprint of the block’s property owners who are for this change. Seven lot owner did not get back with her. It does not make sense to have the area zoned as it is currently – Medium Density Residential 1. A Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation change to Neighborhood Commercial/ Mixed Use has already occurred, which is great. The thought process is already there. Her 4 houses are at their maximum density – 8 units. She has little use of her land right across the street from campus. They are older homes. It makes sense logically to change to a higher density just across from campus. There are not many single family homes there. The fear of some might be that property taxes may go up if the zone is changed. Their existing use as single family would not change. It would be good if the City explained that this rezone change would give maximum options to the property owners if they want to use the zone or sell their property. The fear is often not knowing what this change would mean to them personally. Karen Williams, 158 South 2nd East. They have lived there 12 years. They have been trying to sell their home for 4 years, before the housing crisis. A lot of people have looked at their home, but it is not marketable for a single family residence. Until the college changed their requirements, some people looked at the home with the thought of making it into single student housing; that cannot be done now with a home. She almost wants to say she is neutral on the proposal, but she is for the zone change because it is the only way they can see to market and sell their home. There seems to be no other recourse for them. It has been a good neighborhood. They have enjoyed their neighbors, but 2nd East as it is has made the choice for them. Neutral: None Opposed: Steve Herdti, 141 South 2nd East. He stated he lives opposite (east of) the subject proposal. He is quite concerned. They have tried many times to preserve and fight for their neighborhood. It has been an uphill battle; so far they have won. It greatly concerns him that traffic on 2nd East would increase with this rezone. High density housing and commercial would make it even worse. Who is going to compensate him and the other neighbors who live on this other side of the 2nd East adjacent to the subject proposal, for the loss of value of their property? Is the University? Are the developers? Is the City? Many have lived there a long time. He has lived in his home since 1949. He has seen a lot of changes on that street. If the City or the University wants to buy some of them out, they could probably do it. Without some help and guidance, what do they do? He opposes this 6 rezone change. Please realize they are losing neighborhoods in this town. Please consider those who want to preserve their neighborhood. Judy Taylor, 203 East 2nd South. Her home is on the corner of East 2nd South and South 2nd East, just across and east of the rezone proposal. She is concerned about property values going down. The block south of her home is residential. She suggests splitting the block and leaving a corridor of residential homes on 2nd East, so there are homes there instead of a huge apartment building right across from them - there goes their views and their property values. They are against this proposal at least for block 50 just west and across the street from their home. There are only apartments on the corners. There still are residential homes. They are not rentals – they are residential homes with the owners living in them. Allison Taylor, 203 East 2nd South. She is 13 years old and has grown up in this neighborhood. She does not want to look across the street and see a Maverik or a Seven-Eleven, or even an apartment building. Rexburg is America’s Family Community. It is not America’s College Community, or they would have statues of college students in the roundabout. Rexburg is not a Provo; this is Rexburg. Remember the families that live in this area. Robert Jimison, 255 Harvard. He lives adjacent to the subject area. His observation and concern is that students drive cars, and this rezone would increase the traffic and parking issues. They have talked a lot about having pedestrian areas and the idea of students walking. It is somewhat unrealistic to think the majority of students will walk to campus. He is grateful that City planning wants do the best for the community and wants to avoid urban sprawl, but he worries this may become a sprawl in itself. Rebuttal: Val Christensen addressed the expressed concern of sprawl and of more congestion on 2nd East. The proposal is actually going to create less car trips down various streets if students live next to campus. From a planning standpoint, the City has to deal with the streets. They are experiencing some growth pain. The town along with the University may double in size. The community has to build the infrastructure to meet the growth. If such development is done west of the campus, new infrastructure has to be paid for and added. As a city grows, there is going to be redevelopment. Traffic on 2nd East is bad. The Commission is looking at alternative routes. The County and City has approved the Keller traffic study’s recommendation of another route on 1000 East as growth continues to the north. The City will need another connector to get across the west portion of town. A new bio-tower just put in at the wastewater plant may last five rather than ten years. Work on the infrastructure is continual. City Engineer John Millar has done a great amount of work with the state regarding wells. The City is to have joint use on a well with the University. The City is doing a lot to try to plan for and address future growth. Chairman Hanna asked Mr. Christensen to address how property values would be affected by this rezone. Val Christensen said he cannot say if property values would go up or down. The properties in the subject area may sell with higher value because of their location. Until it happens, one cannot be sure. Written Input: None 7 Chairman Hanna closed the public input portion of the hearing. He stated that letters were received from two P&Z Commissioners who were not able to attend tonight’s meeting. Written P&Z Commissioner input, to be considered during Commission deliberation – read by Scott Ferguson: Letter from P&Z Commissioner Thaine Robinson, in favor of proposal Letter from P&Z Chairman Winston Dyer, in favor of proposal 8 9 10 11 Scott Ferguson asked how many homes are in Block 51, which is adjacent and to the east of the subject proposal (2nd East). There are five homes. Richie Webb asked how many residential homes are on the Block 50 side of 2nd East. There are several residential homes. Mary Ann Mounts commended 13 year old Allison Taylor, who spoke in opposition to the rezone request. She made some good points. Mrs. Mounts is proud of her for coming to the meeting to express her thoughts and wanted to assure her that the businesses she mentioned would not appear near her home. She wanted to ease that fear, as types of businesses in Mixed Use would be more conducive to fitting into a neighborhood. This issue does play a big part in how Mrs. Mounts sees this request. She would not be for this rezone request if she thought a Seven-Eleven was going to go across the street from them. Mrs. Mounts said Mr. Thompson mentioned having pastureland and orchards in the past. In the interim, his life has been drastically changed in that neighborhood; the people here tonight may be afraid that the same thing will happen. Mr. Thompson stayed in that neighborhood, even through the many changes. Sometimes our fears of what is to come are not always played out as we would think. The Commission wants to make a wise choice for the whole city. The Commission certainly listens to and takes into consideration the feelings expressed by the residents. Everyone concerned with this change could be happy if it is done correctly and responsibly. She is in favor of the rezone. Cory Sorensen said these 3 blocks and their rezone are exactly what has been envisioned; the ability to densify makes total sense. There are many commercial entities already within walking distance of the subject area. He also thought the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone may need renaming for clarification and less confusion - it is an overlay and not a zone. Jedd Walker stated he is in favor of this rezone. He does have a concern. Testimony was heard tonight about the difficulty of selling homes on the west side of 2nd East because the street is so busy. People living on the east side of the 2nd East also expressed concerns about how the rezone would affect them. Scott Ferguson asked if City staff considered coming across the street and picking up the east side of 2nd East in this rezone. He owns a house directly behind Kensington Apartments; there is a buffer of a parking lot behind his back yard. Val Christensen said staff looked at the east side of 2nd East a while ago when the Comprehensive Plan was changed on that block. There was great concern from and strong support of the neighborhoods from the residents. Neighbors on the east side of 2nd East strongly supported their Neighborhood Associations in preserving the neighborhoods as they are. Scott Ferguson wondered if it would be in Rexburg’s best interest to reconsider the issue and to bring it back to the forefront. If residents were interested, they could do so. Mary Ann Mounts did not think this issue had anything to do with tonight’s rezone. Mr. Ferguson thought it did; he is listening to people’s concerns. Mrs. Mounts said this issue does not fit into the criteria for a rezone request. 12 Richie Webb agreed with Scott Ferguson’s point. The Commission has to consider the impact the rezone may have on Block 51(across the street to the east of the subject rezone proposal). Cory Sorensen said the rezone would decrease the amount of accesses onto 2nd East if a large development came into the area. There would be safer access because of elimination of some driveways. Mary Ann Mounts agreed. In some cases, traffic could be diverted to another street. Marilyn Rasmussen said in every university town where she has lived, the development changes the use around the university. The public and the students accommodate that use. The towns and roadways change. It is good for the public to be proactive in requesting of their leaders to get going on alternate routes so that some of the traffic can be diverted. The Commission has to make decisions that will be in the best interest of the community. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend approval to City Council for a rezone of the specified 3 Blocks on 2nd South (All of Blocks 48, 49, and 50 in the Original City of Rexburg Townsite, Madison County, Idaho) from Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1), High Density Residential 1 (HDR1), and Central Business District (CBD), to Mixed Use 2 (MU2). Marilyn Rasmussen 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: October 6 – Ordinance Amendment – request for 2 additional conditional uses to the University District The meeting was adjourned at 8:45 pm.