Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES SEPTEMBER 06, 2012 1 Commissioners Attending; City Staff and Others: Winston Dyer – Chairman Val Christensen- Community Development Director Dan Hanna Thaine Robinson Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Mary Ann Mounts Richie Webb Elaine McFerrin – P&Z Coordinator Jedd Walker Scott Ferguson Darrik Farmer – Community Development Intern Mark Rudd Cory Sorensen 6:00 pm – Joint City Council and Planning& Zoning Commission meeting – Infill Policy Attending: Mayor Richard Woodland City Council: Sally Smith, Christopher Mann, Bruce Sutherland, Jordan Busby Planning & Zoning Commission: Thaine Robinson, Mary Ann Mounts, Mark Rudd, Winston Dyer, Cory Sorensen Staff: Val Christensen, Scott Johnson, Stephen Zollinger, Daniel Torres, Darrik Farmer, Elaine McFerrin Chairman Dyer opened the planning meeting to continue the discussion on the Infill Policy for the City. He asked if the City Council members had any input on the August 18th P&Z minutes, which included the last joint work session. There was not input from the City Council members. City staff, the City Council, and the P&Z Commission have been working on the topic of infill and redevelopment in Rexburg for over a year. There has been lots of discussion of philosophies, techniques, and tools, and impacts and processes. There has been significant progress made over the summer months and particularly in the last meeting on August 16th, as now the details are starting to come together in that discussion. We always welcome guests and the public and try to make them a part of the process. We want everyone to understand that tonight we are discussing a policy for infill and redevelopment that has been in discussion for some time. At the same time, there have been specific developments that have come forward that are similar to this discussion. Please understand that those specific development projects do not have and should not have a bearing on this discussion of policy. Val Christensen gave a presentation of the Draft Infill/Redevelopment Land Policy, which was viewed on the overhead screen. He reviewed a spreadsheet of properties (‘Units Available”) along with a map showing the location of the land listed on the spreadsheet. Shown are a total of 1,308 recommended units with some zone changes that could be made. This document refers to standard housing and not single student housing. Councilwoman Benfield had requested the available infill numbers at an earlier meeting. INFILL/REDEVELOPMENT LAND POLICY 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes September 6, 2012 2 Background The City of Rexburg City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Staff have been actively engaged in an effort to promote good planning principles. After a great deal of study it has been determined that whenever possible the large demand for community housing generated by a growing university be focused to areas within the City core that are close to the BYUI campus, commercial centers, community amenities (such as parks, library, pool, theaters) and job centers. Infill /Redevelopment Area The City of Rexburg City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and the City Staff have identified a focus area for Infill and Redevelopment. 3 A Geographic Information System (GIS) study showing proximity to Campus, Shopping, Parks and other amenities was later completed. The results were profound and fit very well within original focus area. Policy Statement Densification through Infill and Redevelopment will save tax dollars by reducing the cost of Streets, Infrastructure, Police, Emergency Services, Sanitation and other vital services. The purpose of the Infill/Redevelopment effort is not to change the current Comprehensive Plan Map 4 unless the change is from Light Industrial or Commercial to Residential. It is understood that for the most part, the existing Comprehensive Plan Map has been well thought out and is to be guarded as such. It is in the best interest of all of the citizens of Rexburg to locate Higher Density Housing Projects near Campus and the City Core whenever possible. Besides the savings of tax dollars, there is also net health effect and other cost savings associated with being able to walk to campus, shopping, parks and other City amenities. Identifying Infill/Redevelopment projects near the City Core and making the necessary zone changes to encourage development not only will clean up vacant weeded properties, but will also partially “level the playing field” for these projects versus the lower cost of finding cheaper agricultural ground on the periphery of the City. Infill and Redevelopment are also encouraged in other parts of the City of Rexburg besides the Focus Area. Weighting In order to facilitate the implementation of Infill and Redevelopment in the City core the City of Rexburg City Council, Planning and Zoning Commission and City Staff have identified the following items as important consideration of the process (weighted importance in parenthesis):  Protect Stable Non-Fragmented Single Family Neighborhoods (9 out of 10 Importance)  Identify Vacant Lots and Underutilized Properties (8.3 out of 10 Importance):  Location of Existing Utility Infrastructure (7 out of 10 Importance):  Distance From Significant Locations and Amenities (6.9 out of 10 Importance):  Street Access (6.9 out of 10 Importance):  Identify Existing Investment (5.3 out of 10 Importance):  Historic Preservation (5.3 out of 10 Importance): Project Scoring All Infill/Redevelopment projects are to be scored by using the weighted categories as identified above. A. Protect Stable Non-Fragmented Single Family Neighborhoods (9 out of 10 Importance) Definition of Non-Fragmented Neighborhood - Each side of street is looked at independently. Four or more Single Family Residential Homes with up to 50% of properties allowed with non-dormitory duplex rentals are to be considered a Non- Fragmented Neighborhood. Three contiguous homes without duplex rentals can be considered a Non-Fragmented Neighborhood. A block may contain Non Fragmented and Fragmented sections. For determining contiguous lots, corner lots can be considered no matter which street they are facing. A vacant lot, dormitory rental, 5 structures with over two occupancies, and buildings with other than residential or accessory residential use may not be counted as part of a Contiguous Non-Fragmented Neighborhood Project Boundary – For the purpose of identifying a neighborhood that is affected by an Infill/Redevelopment project, properties within one hundred twenty feet (120’) of all boundaries of said project will be evaluated for determination of fragmentation. Scoring – Using the definition of Non-Fragmented Single Family Neighborhoods, identify every parcel in the 120’ boundary and evaluate as either Non-Fragmented or Fragmented. The ratio of the two is then converted to 1-10 weighting. Example: If in the 120’ boundary, the existing homes were found to be 8 Non-Fragmented and 12 Fragmented, then the ration would be 8/20 or 4/10 therefore weighted at 4. Apartments larger than a duplex, Commercial or other nonresidential properties will be counted by lot area divided by 10,000 and rounded to the nearest 10,000. B. Identify Vacant Lots and Underutilized Properties (8.3 out of 10 Importance) Vacant versus Underutilized – Underutilized properties are those with structures on them but have the potential for redevelopment due to condition, use and percentage of unused property. Vacant lots are self described. Scoring – Substantial existing investment that would need to be demolished would score low and vacant properties would score 10 out of 10. C. Location of Existing Utility Infrastructure (7 out of 10 Importance) Utility Infrastructure – Includes access to Waterlines, Sewer lines, Storm Drainage Facilities, Electrical Utilities, Gas Utilities and Telecommunication Facilities. Also takes into consideration the capacity of these utilities. Scoring – The City of Rexburg Engineering group will evaluate on a 1-10 weighting with a score of 10 being good access and capacity with all utilities. D. Distance From Significant Locations and Amenities (6.9 out of 10 Importance) Amenities Considered – For scoring the distance from the project is taken from the significant locations and amenities. They are weighted as follows: Campus (Manwaring Center) – 10 Shopping (Broulims) – 5 Parks (Smith or Porter) – 5 6 City Pool – 2 Library/Tabernacle – 2 Scoring – The distances are measured “as the crow flies” from the center of the proposed project. They are then multiplied by their weights and summed. The results are factored into a 10 point system compared to the ideal location. E. Street Access (6.9 out of 10 Importance) Items Considered – For Infill/Redevelopment projects, it is common for all projects to have adequate street access. The availability, location and feasibility of the access points are considered by the City Engineer. Weighting – Each entity is weighted as follows: Amount of Access Points in Relation to the Size of Project – 10 The Distance of the Access Points Away from Intersections – 10 Little or no Effect of the Access Points on Traffic and Neighborhoods – 10 Scoring – The three scores are averaged. F. Identify Existing Investment (5.3 out of 10 Importance) Existing Investment is taken into consideration in Section B. Identify Vacant Lots and Underutilized Properties. G. Historic Preservation (5.3 out of 10 Importance) Determination - Historic Structures are to have Historic Certification or be judged to be Historically Significant by the Rexburg City Council. Scoring – Is as follows: Historic Structure (certified) to be removed – 0 Historically Significant Structure (as identified by the City Council) to be removed – 3 No Historic Structure removed as part of the project – 10 Mitigation Infill/Redevelopment Projects that are located adjacent to existing Non-Fragmented Single Family Neighborhoods are to be held to a higher buffering and separation standard than regular 7 projects. Besides meeting all of the requirements of the City of Rexburg Development Standards, they must also be buffered by the additional requirements: Low Density Residential 2&3 to Medium Density Residential 1&2 and Mixed Use 1 a. Zones separated by a City street – Standard front yard setbacks allowed as per City of Rexburg Development Code. b. Zones separated by property lines – Follow LDR requirements and include 10 foot trees spaced at 20 foot intervals with bushes between as a buffer. Low Density Residential 2&3 to High Density Residential 1&2 and Mixed Use 2 a. Zones Separated by a street – Standard 20 foot front yard setback allowed up to 30 foot horizontal wall height. 80 foot front yard setback required for buildings higher than three stories above grade. Parking lots in front yards setbacks to be buffered with minimum 10 foot (min.) wide, 2 foot high landscape berm planted with bushes and trees. b. Zones separated by property lines – Provide largest of one to one setback versus height or applicable LDR setback and include 10 foot trees spaced at 20 foot intervals. Low Density Residential 1 to Medium Density Residential 1&2 and Mixed Use 1 a. Zones Separated by a street – Standard 20 foot front yard setback allowed up to 20 foot horizontal wall height. 30 foot front yard setback required for buildings higher than 20 feet horizontal wall height. Parking lots in front yards setbacks to be buffered with minimum 10 foot (min.) wide, 2 foot high landscape berm planted with bushes and trees. b. Zones separated by property lines – Provide largest of one to one setback versus height or LDR1 setback and include 10 foot trees spaced at 20 foot intervals. High Density Residential and Mixed Use 2 is not allowed against Low Density Residential 1 Zoning. 8 Density map numbers 9 10 Discussion of the draft Infill/ Land Redevelopment Policy was led by Chairman Dyer. Points included were weighting, project scoring, and mitigation. They are looking at potential –the map is a tool. Bruce Sutherland said it would be better to specify caliper size of trees rather than height of trees in regard to landscaping requirements. It was discussed that this could be addressed at the time of Design Review for a project. Christopher Mann expressed concern about the City core and possibly playing to a certain part of the town. Cory Sorensen said it is possible that there may be more than one area of infill in the future. Create a policy and then grow into multiple areas. There may be more than one walking neighborhood. Sally Smith said they need to be careful not to make the policy too confusing and too ominous. We do not want to drive developers away from our infill and redevelopment area. Val Christensen said the intent was to determine if the City wants to make some zoning changes- the developer will not have to – it will already be done. It was decided to remove the following phrase from the draft Policy Statement: “The purpose of the Infill/Redevelopment effort is not to change the current Comprehensive Plan Map unless the change is from Light Industrial or Commercial to Residential…” Stephen Zollinger said we want to push the infill areas to better utilize infrastructure and cut down on the demands being placed on other infrastructures. Mr. Zollinger quoted from a letter written by Steve Oakey: “The purpose of the infill and redevelopment effort is to balance community good with individual choice and property rights.” Chairman Dyer said they were aiming for a September 19th City Council meeting for this Infill policy. He asked for comment from Christopher Mann. Christopher Mann said there have been great meetings and discussion. They have all been enlightened. He felt they could proceed with the scheduled items for the City Council meeting of September 19th. However, this process goes on and needs to be ongoing because this is only the beginning. Chairman Dyer said the P&Z Commissioners could study these infill documents and then discuss the issue in their meeting on September 20th, hopefully making a recommendation to the City Council. 7:00 pm – P&Z Commission meeting Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:15 pm. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Mark Rudd, Cory Sorensen, Richie Webb, Scott Ferguson, Mary Ann Mounts, Winston Dyer,Thaine Robinson, Dan Hanna, Jedd Walker Marilyn Rasmussen and Gil Shirley were excused. 11 Minutes: 1. Planning and Zoning meeting of August 2, 2012 Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of August 2, 2012. Thaine Robinson seconded the motion. Richie Webb, Cory Sorensen, Scott Ferguson, and Dan Hanna abstained for having not been present. None opposed. Motion carried. 2. Planning and Zoning meeting of August 16, 2012. Chairman Dyer stated that this meeting had a work session with City Council before the regular P&Z meeting. He noted for the record that no input from City Council was given on these minutes when they were asked for input earlier tonight. Clarifications: Page 10 - Regarding Chairman Dyer’s comment about the Kensington Apartments on 3rd North - Clarify that “… the end result represents the planning process at its best.” Page 11 – Include the “walkable map” that Craig Rindlisbacher produced and indicate that the outline of the input redevelopment focus area was put on this map. Scott Ferguson motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes of August 16, 2012 as amended. Cory Sorensen seconded the motion. Mary Ann Mounts, Richie Webb, Dan Hanna, and Jedd Walker abstained for having not been present. None opposed. Motion carried. Public Hearings: 7:05 pm - Conditional Use Permit – 237 Marianne Drive – to allow a duplex in an existing home Chairman Dyer explained the procedure followed for a public hearing. The applicant or applicant representative will present the proposal. The Commission may ask clarifying questions of the applicant and of staff. Public input will then be heard from those in favor of, neutral to, or opposed to the proposal. Staff evaluation will be given, and the Commission will deliberate in order to come to a decision on the proposal. Dale Wright, 237 Marianne Drive, the applicant, presented the proposal. He and his wife are requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a basement apartment in their home. Their children are grown, and they do not use the basement. They have the necessary parking and outside entrances and egress windows. Their property abuts the Rexburg canal. The site plan was shown on the overhead screen. Mr. Wright said the intent is for young married students to live in the apartment. A concrete stairwell access to the basement apartment has already been added. Dan Hanna asked if the Wrights have talked to their neighbors about this apartment. Dale Wright said they have done so. The neighbors have no problem with it. 12 There are two parking spaces in the garage and two parking spaces in the driveway in front of the garage. Val Christensen said this is allowable by ordinance. Scott Ferguson asked if this application meets all of the requirements for a duplex. Stephen Zollinger said the request has met all of the duplex requirements. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion of the hearing. In Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: None Chairman Dyer closed the public input portion and asked for the staff evaluation and recommendations. Val Christensen said the Comprehensive Plan land use designation here is Single Family Residential, which allows this zoning of Low Density Residential 2, and this zoning allows a duplex with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Staff recommended the Commission look at the request regarding any impacts. It was discussed that there are duplexes close by, including one on Angela Drive. Chairman Dyer declared a perceived conflict of interest. He resides in this neighborhood, and he is the Wrights’ ecclesiastical leader. There was no objection from the Commission; Chairman Dyer remained on the dais. Mary Ann Mounts felt this is one of the rare easy decisions the Commission gets. A duplex is an allowed conditional use. There are not going to be any outside changes. No one is present to oppose the request. Thaine Robinson said the process also allows for life safety inspection. Dan Hanna said the applicant indicated an access to the basement. When was it installed? The Chair said it was recently constructed. Mr. Hanna said typically the access would not be put in until approval of a CUP. Val Christensen said the access was done under a building permit. Scott Ferguson felt the process will take care of any issues. No one is here to protest. Chairman Dyer said the Standards for CUPs listed in the Development Code would be applicable. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to approve a Conditional Use Permit for a duplex in an existing home for the property located at 237 Marianne Drive. The “Standards Applicable to Conditional Use Permits” Section 6.12B in the Development Code Ordinance No. 1026, will apply. Scott Ferguson seconded the motion. Chairman Dyer abstained. Motion carried. 13 Unfinished/Old Business: None New Business: None Compliance: None Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: 1. The Lofts Apartments site plan change – South 3rd West Kurt Roland, Eagle Rock Engineering, 1083 South Railroad Ave, representing Innovative Student Housing and Westland Investors, for the Lofts Apartments. A Conditional Use Permit (CUP) was granted for the Lofts Apartments in early 2012. The CUP was to allow a lowered number of parking spaces through use of the Pedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ) Ordinance No. 1021, and there were several conditions. A new site plan on hardboard was shown. Mr. Roland said the developers are in the process of buying the Grandview Twinhomes just to the east of the original subject property and are adding it as part of the plans. Originally there was an access onto 3rd West. Now there would be two accesses on 3rd West and one on 2nd West. The parking garage will be moved to the south instead of on the east as was in the original site plan. The garage will be 5 stories - the same as originally planned. There will be 76 percent parking, which is an increase from the original 61 percent. Val Christensen thought it was important that the developer come to the Commission to show these modifications. There will be an increase in beds, acreage, and parking; there will be increased access. Would another CUP be necessary? Mr. Roland said there had been 4.42 acres; now there will be 5.5 acres. Formerly there were 810 beds; with this new site plan, there would be 998 beds. Accesses have been improved. The project is not under construction yet. The existing former Teton House buildings will be torn down. The density ratio will remain about the same. The Commissioners were concerned with “eyes to the street” and what will be visible regarding the parking garage. The garage was not previously visible to the street. Doug Sherman, of Innovative Student Housing. He said very little of the parking garage will be visible from the street. There is a drop in grade at the location. The garage will be wrapped with as much residential as possible. Chairman Dyer asked about the garage wall that is visible facing the street – what will it look like? Is there anything for relief to break up the wall? Doug Sherman said the parking garage will have a ridge. There would be a colored tint to the facade and a type of reaming. It will not be purely flat. 14 Stephen Zollinger said the project will have to get through a design review as part of the process. The Chair said the Commission is giving the developer the courtesy of knowing what the concern is now. There is serious concern about the street view. Scott Ferguson thought the Commission needs to be a little flexible. Jedd Walker said the density is similar to the original proposal, and the overall development is better. He does not see another CUP as being necessary. The design review process would address concerns. He assumes all the conditions set with the original CUP would still apply. Mary Ann Mounts agreed. Chairman Dyer read the conditions of the CUP that was granted at the February 15, 2012 City Council meeting: #12 00016 CUP Lofts Apartments 1. A site plan reflecting all conditions of approval and incorporating all City standards, e.g. landscaping, parking, snow storage, drainage, etc. to include showing that the subject property is fenced on all sides except the west, shall be submitted and approved by the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. 2. Lighting shall be cut-off lighting and shall be low (under 15-feet in height) and not create glare, and as a minimum shall adhere to the City’s lighting ordinance. 3. To encourage alternative travel options, i.e. bicycling, bike racks and hard surface must be provided. Location of racks needs to be shown on revised site plan. This requirement is identified in the PEZ Ordinance. 4. Sidewalk and pathway maintenance to be performed as per the PEZ Ordinance. 5. Parking Contracts to be approved by the City Attorney. 6. Requirements of the PEZ Zone Ordinance to be applied to this project. Including but not limited to wider sidewalks - wider sidewalks of 10 feet in width will be extended to West 5th South. Bruce Sutherland said the parties that had issue with the CUP request were those whose property is now being purchased by the developer. The Chair stated the Commission was concerned about potential new impacts. Stephen Zollinger said the factors that need to be considered are density and access to the road. Everything that has changed with the exception of how they present their parking garage, which could be covered during design review, would be a non-substantial change. Neighbors have been given the opportunity to voice concerns at the time of the original request. Consider those concerns. This issue does not constitute a substantial change that would warrant an additional hearing. The Commission can act upon this issue tonight. Mary Ann Mounts motioned that the site plan changes presented tonight for the Lofts Apartments (555 South 3rd West) are accepted - the changes are non-substantial changes and are seen as an improvement. The Lofts Apartments applicants will be held to the conditions as stated under the terms of the initial Conditional Use Permit #12 00016 (approved by City Council on February 15, 2012). Scott Ferguson seconded the motion. None opposed. Motion carried. 15 2. Cory Sorensen gave an update on the Tru North Development project on South 1st West across from the BYU-I stadium. There has been a change. The University did not like where the parking structure was planned on the north side of the block. The developer has moved the parking structure to the southwest. The University does not want shared parking of residential students and retail. The entrance to the lower level of the parking garage would be for retail. The entrance going up would be for student residents. Visitor parking would be with the retail parking. Stephen Zollinger said there is no change as to how this project impacts the adjacencies. The parking garage remains interior to the property. The accesses remain singular. No motion is necessary on this matter. Val Christensen felt the Lofts Apartment plan previously presented was a total change, including additional property. This Tru Development plan remains basically the same, with some rearranging. It was felt that further discussion is necessary in the future regarding the separated parking issue. 3. Mary Ann Mounts wanted to express two concerns. First - Design Review - who is deciding that something looks alright? Second -Why are apartments now allowed to put their parking in front? Val Christensen said the parking is addressed in the design standards, which says that if 60 percent of parking is on the rear, then the developer does not have to do certain buffering. Mrs. Mounts felt this may need to be changed. She also thought apartment signs indicating the apartment name should be attractive monument signs and not flimsy signs that blow over in the wind. She does not want a sea of parking lots, ugly apartment signs, and ugly buildings. Val Christensen said staff is open to any suggestions, and staff will work in that direction. It was discussed that design review standards may need to come back to the Commission for review. Chairman Dyer said the design review process is in the Development Code No. 1026. The Design Review Committee includes a representative from the P&Z Commission, from the City Council, and a community professional (architect, real estate agent, contractor, etc.) in the community. There is no scoring system. If something is granted that is out of the box, the developer is asked what they can do for the community in return – possibly additional landscaping or pedestrian amenities, added architectural features, etc. Thaine Robinson felt some developers do the minimal that the design standards require, and some developers go far above and beyond what is required. Stephen Zollinger said opinion of what is attractive varies greatly. Taste cannot be dictated but we can prohibit something offensive to the general public such as vast expanses of blank wall. Suggested for a future agenda item: look at additional regulations as to how apartments are identified (signs) – how they say who they are. Heads Up: September 20 - Conditional Use Permit - Approximately 51 Sage Street - to allow Veterinary Service for Livestock (totally enclosed); Livestock Services – Except Veterinary (totally enclosed); and Small Animal Veterinarian Services (totally enclosed). The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 pm.