HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES APRIL 03, 2008(� Planning & Zoning Minutes
April 3, 2008
12 North Center Phone: 208.359.3020
Rexburg, ID 83440 www.rexburg.org Fax: 208.359.3022
Commissioners Attendinn;
Winston Dyer — Chairman
Charles Andersen
Mary Haley Thaine Robinson
Dan Hanna Mike Ricks
David Stein Randall Porter
C I T Y O F
REXBURG
CW-
Amaime h mily G m.wnzy
City Staff and Others:
Rex Erickson — City Council Liaison
Gary Leikness — Planning Administrator
Stephen Zollinger — City Attorney
Elaine McFerrin - Secretary
Chairman Dyer was going to be late. David Stein acted as chairman and opened the meeting at
6:35pm.
Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners:
Mary Haley, Charles Anderson, Mike Ricks, David Stein, Thaine Robinson, Randall Porter.
Mary Ann Mounts and Ted Hill were excused.
Minutes:
1. Planning and Zoning meeting— March 6, 2008
Mike Ricks motioned to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes for March 6, 2008. Mary
Haley seconded the motion.
Randall Porter abstained for not having been present.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Agenda Items Carried Over from March 20" P&Z Meeting
1. Final Plat —Willow Brook Estates, Division 4
Kirby Forbush 3800 W. 1000 N. Rexburg. He is the developer of this plat. He explained that the
Preliminary Plat for Willow Brook Estates was presented to the City in 2001 for divisions 2, 3, 4,
and 5. They have built the subdivision a phase at a time over the last four years. Tonight they are
here to finish the last phase. He explained the location and pointed to the plat on the overhead
screen. In looking at the lots, there is some discrepancy in lot size that the City pointed out to him.
Their sizes are not shown correctly; the lots need to be a least a half acre. He said they will be the
proper size. They are here tonight to get final approval on the plat, along with any changes that are
recommended.
Dan Hanna arrived at 6:38pm.
Dan Hanna commented about setbacks and hoped any problems would be addressed.
Mike Ricks was concerned with lot size.
Kirby Forbush said the lots would be of the proper size. He pointed out the 30 foot easement on
Weeping Willow Circle, which provides the City with a right -of —way for the sewer line that is there.
Dan Hanna asked if the lot size is inclusive of that right — of —way. Kirby Forbush answered that it
was .
Mary Haley asked about a stub road. Mr.Forbush said it was located at the north end of the
development.
Thaine Robinson mentioned the ditch running north and south on the far right of the subdivision.
Mr. Forbush said that in their adjustments to this final plat, that ditch would probably be removed.
Gary Leikness said the lot sizes do need to be corrected to the proper size. He said that the City
Engineer had suggested that there are unresolved issues with the subdivision as a whole, he would
suggest making a condition that any unresolved issues pertaining to City Engineering be taken care
of before the signing of the final plat.
Dan Hanna motioned to recommend to City Council approval of the Willow Brook Estates
Division 4 Final Plat, subject to lot size corrections and all other staff review concerns. Charles
Andersen seconded the motion.
Those in favor: Those opposed:
Charles Andersen Mary Haley
Mike Ricks
David Stein
Randall Porter
Thaine Robinson
Dan Hanna
Motion carried.
2. Preliminary Plat — Hartland Condominiums
David Waters, 565 Pioneer Rd. #14, Rexburg, representing the applicant, Blue Ox Development,
spoke, regarding its request for this preliminary plat that is an apartment to condominium
conversion. The apartments consist of 66 units split between 5 four-plexes and 1 six-plex. He
pointed out the proposed condominium development on the overhead screen, clarifying it from the
Sainsbury Rock Creek Hollow property that falls between Blue Ox's 2 parcels. Their intentions are,
upon final plat approval, to sell each unit individually.
Chairman Stein asked for questions or comments.
Trevor Einerson, 1105 Coyote Willow Way, Rexburg, spoke, stating he was neither for nor against
the development. He is a developer who does similar types of development. His concerns are with
the parking of this proposed development; he feels it does not currently meet the requirements. He
was told that the requirements call for two parking stalls per apartment, condominium, or
townhome, plus visitor and handicapped parking. This proposed preliminary plat falls short of this
number, and there is no visitor parking. As a developer, he is concerned that a new development or
an existing development that is being platted for a new use, maintain proper standards, including
parking and any other necessary requirements that are part of the platting process.
David Waters said Blue Ox Development is aware of these concerns being part of the Ordinance.
They feel their situation is different, as the development is already built; there is only so much that
can be done. He said there is not a use change as much as there is an ownership change — to the
individual. He does feel that Trevor Einerson's concerns are accurate. He stated that because the
development already exists, he hoped there might be a chance to avoid the extra parking space that
is called for.
Gary Leikness stated this is an existing apartment complex that wants to convert to condominiums.
Concerns, such as lack of a storage building, or lack of storage areas for boats, RVs, etc. may be
addressed in the Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs). He recommended some
conditions be included if this proposed Preliminary Plat is recommended for approval.
Mary Haley said the proposed plat is short 22 parking spaces.
Thaine Robinson said as presented the proposed development shows almost "boneyard" parking,
just solid concrete. He feels there needs to be a breakup using landscaping.
Gary Leikness said the proposal is still for single-family use, but perhaps of a different income
bracket. There may be potential ownership of boats and RVs, which should be addressed. He
recommended 4 conditions required for approval, including landscaping, review of CC&Rs, curb/
gutter /sidewalk installation along Pioneer, and internal pedestrian walkways that should be
provided to connect the sidewalks along Pioneer. An inspection should be done prior to signing of
the final plat.
Mary Haley asked, if they approve the plat with these conditions and these conditions later cannot
be met, what would happen? Gary Leikness stated he could not sign the final plat to be recorded.
Randall Porter stated this project is an issue of fairness, because a brand new condominium project
would have to hold to all requirements of the Ordinance.
The question of no building sprinklers being present in the units was brought up by Randall Porter.
David Waters said there are no building sprinklers, but there will be. He also said the renters have
the choice of staying in the units; any installation and construction would be done gradually and with
tact.
Chairman Stein asked about green space. David Waters said that at present there is not a lot of
grass.
Mary Haley asked about this developer's parking in relation to the Sainsbury property nearby it.
David Waters clarified by pointing out Hartland Condominiums' property on the overhead screen.
He compared it to the Sainsbury project's parking, saying that he lived there and that 2 parking
spaces are provided when a unit is purchased. He hoped that the Commission would take this
parking space amount into consideration in the decision for the Hartland plat before them tonight.
He said they also felt that primarily college students would be purchasing the units and most likely
would not have RVs or boats that would require storage area. Curb/ gutter on Pioneer is not
installed. He asked the Commission to consider them not having to install the sidewalk because of
cost involved.
Mike Ricks said this preliminary plat proposal is a new use; he feels strongly that the applicant must
meet all standards of the ordinance, including installation of sprinklers prior to occupancy.
Stephen Zollinger said that in general Mike Ricks was correct in his belief that a sprinkler system is
required.
Mike Ricks added that this proposed development also lacks the parking space requirements. He
feels that the plat request should be denied.
Randall Porter asked Gary Leikness to clarify the sidewalk requirement. Gary Leikness said he had
conferred with the City engineer and that sidewalks do need to go in. It now is an urban area with
high density and with the potential for high foot traffic, which calls for these to be installed.
The Commissioners discussed the issue
Thaine Robinson said he was not comfortable with the approving of this plat
Mary Haley felt there were many things lacking in this proposed project.
Mike Ricks motioned to deny the Hartland Condominiums Preliminary Plat due to space issues,
shortage of parking stalls (for condominiums the requirement is an additional 1 space for every 3
units- information in parentheses added for clarification), no required building sprinklers, and all
other ordinance requirements it is lacking. Mary Haley seconded the motion.
Stephen Zollinger clarified that the Planning &Zoning Commission would be formally denying
(rather than recommending for denial to City Council) this request, and the applicant could then
appeal this decision or resubmit the application.
None opposed. Dan Hanna abstained.
Motion carried.
Public Hearings:
7:05 — PRO Zone (Project Redevelopment Option) — Hemming Properties
Chairman Stein explained that the Project Redevelopment Option zone is a zone specific to that
particular area of the city.
Richie Webb , 133 S. 2"' W, Rexburg, represented Hemming Properties. Tonight he wanted to
share their perspective and their vision for this project and address any issues. He believes they have
fulfilled all requirements, including holding a neighborhood meeting and publishing notices in the
paper about their proposed development. He called on Reginald Richey, the project's architect, to
walk the Commission through the project.
Reginald Richey, Lincoln, New Mexico, projected the Hemming PRO Zone on the screen for the
Commission and reviewed the proposed project. He pointed out the area they plan to develop for
the fust phase of the project — surrounding 2"d South. There would be offices, retail, and women's
housing. There will be angled parking on both sides of the street. There would be a similar situation
on 1" South. A large underground garage (200 cars) with an enclosed ramp to enter it will serve
mainly the conference and hotel patrons. The area around it would be highly landscaped, with a
large green open space, with the 3 historic Hemming Properties being a main focus.
Richie Webb distributed a handout to show some of the interior spaces of the project. The
Hemming Properties representatives feel the approval of the project a phase at a time, as stated in
the Community Development - Planning Staff Report, is fine. He addressed some of their concerns
with Proposed Conditions of Approval in the Planning Staff Report. With the miscellaneous
business services listed (p.5-6, number 7 in the report), they feel they would provide a good (20% of
store frontage) mix. On page 6, number 11, building heights is a concern. They are asking for some
flexibility to design appropriately for the project. They would like to extend the residential limit of
30 feet to 40 feet. They would also like to extend the commercial buildings height from 45 feet to 52
feet. On page 6, number 12, under Permissible Lot Coverage, they would like to extend the building
size limit from 20,000 square feet to 30,000 square feet. They do want to avoid the big box image, so
each store would have a different front to break it up. Page 6-7, number 17- they are in parking
space compliance. Addressing their final issue, page 7, number 19 -- their intent is to have vehicles
go into and out of the underground garage on 2"d West, with a right turn only when exiting; they feel
that this would be more efficient for traffic flow, because at times the conference center may have
up to 200 attendees for a meeting.
Mike Ricks asked the distance of the garage's entrance/exit from the cross street and was told it is
about 125-130 feet.
Reg Richey said the garage is not a dungeon — it is a very nice garage; it will be well -lighted with wide
lanes and will be basically column -free.
Randall Porter asked for clarification on how guests would enter the hotel grounds to register; Rge
Richey pointed to the overhead screen to show the routes they could take.
` Richie Webb wanted the Commission to understand that they have some changes to make as far as
the language in their development proposal and will work diligently to do so in preparation for the
City Council meeting.
Randall Porter asked for clarification of #7 (Page 5) of Gary Leiknessproposed conditions,
regarding eliminating retail trade as a permitted use. As per his earlier discussion with Gary Leikness,
Richie Webb stated that on the following page (Page 6 number 8B), retail trade is listed as a
permitted use, to be used as part of a Mixed-use building.
Chairman Stein asked for Gary Leikness' input.
Gary Leikness briefly reviewed his staff report. The first part of the report deals with the criteria
needed for a zone change, in this case a PRO Zone. Staff recommends the proposal be approved in
a phased approach so that it progresses carefully, as this is a new zone for the City and may have
unintended consequences. The first phase would show how the mixed use really works, and from
there the development would be expanded strategically. The proposal is for a mixed use area
intended to be where people can live, work, and play. Mr. Leikness stated that this rezone request is
in conformance with the City's Comprehensive Plan. His recommendations and proposed
conditions of approval were noted. He asked the Commission to consider the questions of health,
safety, traffic flow, and the potential for nuisances of the development. He feels the Hemming
representatives are striving to enhance the property and neighborhood in which the project is
located. Mr. Leikness said he had written 73 "Proposed Conditions for Approval," some of which
are substantive and many are non -substantive (i.e. for clarifications or to eliminate redundancy). In
j regard to building heights, he recommended that the way the current City building height limitations
` be observed by this development, and that a discussion and/or hearing regarding something as
significant as building heights should involve more community members. All conditions of approval
had been discussed with the applicant.
The Commissioners discussed the conditions and their concerns. Gary Leikness said he feels as a
planner that the area is a prime spot for a mixed use project such as this one, which will likely create
a vibrant part of the community. As a planner he is in support of this type of development.
Chairman Stein opened the portion of the meeting for public input.
In Favor:
Johnny Watson. 1152 Bond Ave, Rexburg — He is a city business person and long time member of
this community. He commended the Hemmings and their team on their vision; he also
complimented the City staff and the Commission's willingness to embrace such a possibility of
growth for this city. He feels this development proposal is a great step in forwarding the process of
the revitalization issue. Mr. Watson asked the Commission to seriously consider the building heights
standards in this community; he has been told that the height standards are in relation to fire-
fighting equipment and life safety. He requested that some dialog begin with the City on how the
building heights standards can be expanded. He mentioned that his interest in building heights is
partly because as designer of the new high school, they will need to increase building heights to
accommodate the building. In his opinion, building heights for the PRO Zone could be increased.
He concluded by stating that he is definitely in favor of this Hemming Project development.
1
Trever Einerson, 1105 Coyote Willow Way, Rexburg — He stated that he is completely in favor of
the Hemming PRO Zone. He said it will be a beautiful addition to a beautiful city.
Neutral:
Diana Janson, 153 S. 1" W., Rexburg — She said that the public hearing notification letter is the first
she has heard about the proposed development. She stated her only concern was the proposed
narrowing of the street that goes from the BYU-Idaho campus to the park. She was worried about
bicycle traffic on that street. She stated she was neutral on the project .
Reg Richey said their proposed 15 foot traffic lanes are wider than the normal 11 foot lane. The
bicycle lanes would be incorporated into this street to be a part of the normal flow of the traffic.
They are hoping that this will slow the traffic down. They have a definite desire to encourage bicycle
traffic and pedestrian safety.
Opposed: None
Written Input: None
Chairman Stein closed the public input portion.
The Commissioners discussed their concerns.
Dan Hanna stated he was concerned with # 11 of the proposed conditions, the issue of building
height..
Randall Porter mentioned traffic flow on 2"d West, #19. He said he realizes that in the future there
may be issues of getting in/out as Rexburg grows. As proposed, he said it appears there will be
plenty of width there.
Mike Ricks said he thought that traffic flow will be safer than it currently is with private home
residents pulling out in the street, because these homes will no longer be there. The traffic light will
help. He also commented that the parking garage is a great idea and that he would support their
request for increased building height for this particular PRO Zone.
Winston Dyer arrived at 8:37 pm.
The Commissioners continued to deliberate.
Thaine Robinson motioned to recommend to City Council the approval of the Hemming PRO
Zone, Phase 1, for the Hemming Properties, including the Planning staffs proposed conditions of
approval, with changes to:
#11 page 6, for building heights to increase - for residential buildings to not exceed 40 feet and
building heights for cornmercial/mixed use buildings to not exceed 52 feet, and
#12b — for buildings/ structures not to exceed a 30,000 square -foot foot- print, and
that the parking issues and parking garage access will be determined by the City engineers. In
addition, short term and long term parking standards need to be included and should be proposed,
working with planning staff, to the Council. Dan Hanna seconded the motion. Thaine Robinson
amended his motion to include directing the Hemming Project developers to delineate Phase 1 of
the PRO Zone, as understood by the Commission, for presentation to the City Council. Dan
Hanna seconded.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Gary Leikness wished for clarification, for the record, asking the Commission if it was correct that
they had approved only Phase 1 of the Hemming PRO Zone. Chairman Stein stated that was
correct.
Proposed Conditions of Approval
AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE P&Z'S RECOMENDATIONS
Substantive
1. The rezoning proposal should be limited to an area labeled as "phase 1" of a
multi -phased approach. This phase 1 should be determined by the Commission
working with the applicant. A phased approach would allow the developer to
proceed with a limited area of development as well as allow the City to find out if
there are any unintended consequences to this Hemming PRO zone category. The
area for a phase 1 should be limited to the southwest area of the proposal,
specifically to the areas of mixed-use development on both sides of W 2nd South,
and the proposed Hotel/Lodge area.
2. As the developer and the City are prepared, the applicant can come forward with
an additional to be rezoned to the Hemming PRO zone. The Hemming PRO Zone
is allowed to be extended as long as it is determined that the zone is being utilized
to create a cohesive development and neighborhood, not just to utilize the
flexibility of setbacks and parking standards. Each additional boundary
modification should be based on a specific proposal.
3. If the Hemming PRO zone is not moving forward with actual construction of
buildings and uses that are substantially the same as proposed and intended during
the rezone request, then the City shall initiate a reversion to the previous zoning
(most recent prior to the PRO Zone designation). This time limit should include
an 18 month period. The time shall begin at the adoption of the Hemming PRO
zone or at each phase. Within the 18 month period a building permit shall be
submitted that requests approval of a substantial building that is consistent with
the intent of the Hemming PRO zone. No new phases should be considered until
at least fifty (50) percent build out has occurred on previous phases.
4. For bicycle parking the proposed zone shall include short-term and long-term
parking standards. Short term parking areas would be bike racks that area located
in front of stores. Long-term parking would be for overnight parking that is
sheltered from the elements.
5. The Purpose and Objectives section needs further development. Need to address
the purpose of to zone as well as what will be accomplished through this unique
zone.
6. "Multiple Family Dwelling" should be eliminated from permitted uses along 2"d
west and 2"d South. The 2"d West street frontage is currently zoned commercial
and may be the envisioned use along that street.
7. Eliminate the following permitted uses:
a. Membership lodging
b. Retail trade
c. Religious quarters
d. Residential hotels
e. Transient lodgings
f. Travel agencies
g. Paint, glass and wallpaper
h. Residential facility for elderly persons
i. Residential facility for persons with a disability
8. Add the following permitted uses:
a. Hotels (parking in rear or side yard, and non -auto oriented, i.e. motel -
parking in front of unit)
b. Retail trade (as part of a mixed-use building, i.e. residential and/or office)
c. Office and professional services (uses must be located above first street
level floor, or below. Must be part of a mixed-use building, i.e. residential
and/or retail)
d. Disabled persons residential facility (as a part of a mixed-use building, i.e.
non-residential uses)
e. Miscellaneous business services, i.e. real estate, insurance, etc. Buildings
containing these uses may only occupy up to 20% of useable (roads,
driveways, greenstrips, or parking areas not included) frontage along a
public right-of-way per block and only on each side of the street.
9. Eliminate the following conditional uses:
a. Spreading grounds
b. Apartments (maximum of six (6) persons per unit attached to commercial
or other non-residential use as a mixed-use project set forth in Section
3.15.160, Rexburg City Code).
c. Communications
d. Motorcycles, motor scooters, parts, accessories, and supplies
e. Antiques and second hand merchandise
10. Add the following conditional uses:
a. Dormitory housing (maximum of six unrelated persons per unit physically
attached to commercial or other non-residential uses as a mixed-use
proj ect)
b. Communications (subject to City of Rexburg Telecommunications
Ordinance, and utilizes feasible "stealth" features to disguise the towers
and antennas)
c. Motorcycles, motor scooters, parts, accessories, and supplies (as part of a
mixed-use building, i.e. residential and/or office)
11. Section 3.30.100 Building Heights Should read, "Building heights for residential
buildings shall not exceed 40 -feet. Building heights for commercial and mixed-
use buildings shall not exceed 52 -feet."
12. Section 3.30.120 Permissible Lot Coverage Should read,
a. No building or structure (parking lots included) shall not cover an area of
more than seventy (70) percent of the lot or parcel of land upon which
they are placed. If the lot or parcel has a recorded contractual agreement to
participate in a park, open space area, plaza, or similar, that is located
within seven -hundred (700) feet of the site, the lot coverage may be
increased to one -hundred percent. The park, open space area, plaza, or
similar area shall have a minimum area equal in size to the increase of lot
coverage for each participating lot or parcel, cumulatively. Required
setbacks are not related to lot coverage and therefore must still be
observed.
b. Individual buildings and connected structures shall not exceed a 30,000
square -foot foot print, regardless of lot size.
13. A dwelling density section should be added that limits dwelling densities to 42
units per acre.
14. A Section should be added regarding required setbacks. It should be noted that
corner lots are determined to have two front yards. Setbacks when adjacent or
across the street from a residential zone should be similar to most restrictive zone,
and only applicable to sides of the proposed building that are visible from
residential zone.
15. A Section should be added regarding permitted projections into required setbacks.
16. Strike Sections 3.30.130 (A) through (F). Instead, begin section by stating,
"Parking requirements of the development code shall be adhered to except as
modified in this section."
17. Under §3.30.130(G) Required number of Spaces, add "The counting of on -street
parking spaces to fulfill parking requirements shall apply only to non-residential
and lodging land uses. In addition, only those on -street parking spaces that are
within 200 -feet of the main entrance to the building for which they are to be
counted shall be allowed, and shall not be located across any public street.
18. Add section regarding parking, loading, and access, similar to §3.17.130 of the
CBC zone. This deals with parking being disallowed in required front yards,
requiring certain surfacing, etc.
19. Structured parking and parking areas for over 25 vehicles proposed to have access
on to S 2"d West, shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for feasibility and safety
prior to approval of any development.
20. Add section regarding fencing
21. Add language to §3.30.150(C) Landscaping. Include the following:
a. Surface parking lots (single level)
i. Provide ten (10) percent landscaping/snow storage for total area of
impervious surface, may be interior landscaping or perimeter.
1. Provide one (1) tree per 500 square feet (2 inch caliper
minimum).
I[1
2. Provide one (1) shrub per 50 square feet (3 gallon
minimum).
ii. Ground cover shall primarily be live plant material (e.g. grasses
versus rock)
b. Perimeter of all parking areas adjacent to public right-of-way.
i. Regardless of building setbacks, provide twenty (20) foot
landscaped strips running parallel to right -of way.
1. Provide one (1) tree per 20 lineal feet of road frontage (2
inch caliper minimum).
2. Provide one (1) shrub per 5 lineal feet of road frontage (5
gallon minimum) and/or shall be sufficient in size to create
desired screening within two years of planting.
ii. Ground cover shall primarily be live plant material (e.g. grasses
versus rock)
c. Landscaped areas shall utilize an automatic, low volume, irrigation system
to insure maturation and maintenance.
22.
Add a §3.30.150(F)(2) Walls and Fences that reads, "No wall, fence, or opaque
hedge or screening material higher than thirty-six (36) inches shall be maintained
within a required front yard.
23.
Add a §3.30.150(F)(3) Walls and Fences that reads the same as §3.17.160(2).
This requires a decorative masonry wall or other material as agreed upon by
adjacent property owner and Planning Commission.
24.
Strike §3.150.150(G) Transitional Development Standards. This issue is resolved
by an earlier amendment that requires property in the Hemming Zone to meet
certain setbacks when adjacent or across the street from a residential zone.
25.
Strike §3.30.160 Residential Standards as these proposed standards allow
increased building heights, and modifications to driveway standards that have not
been approved by the Public Works Department or Fire Department. In addition,
the standards in §3.30.160 don't appear to be necessary to accomplish the
Hemming PRO zone, and therefore default development code standards should
apply.
26.
Modify §3.30.170(A) Introduction to suggest that the Hemming PRO zone will
complement the historic downtown rather than including language that suggest
that this site is part of the historic downtown.
27.
Strike §3.30.170(C) Development Review Committee and Design Review Board
Procedures. Replace with language that suggests that development proposals will
be reviewed by the City's established Design Review Committee (DRC) or
designee.
28.
Introduction to design standards, second paragraph (precedes §3.30.170(E)). The
statement, "simple configuration and solid craftsmanship are favored over
complexity and ostentation in building form and articulation of details," appears
to conflict with the City's current design standards which promote articulation of
buildings, in order to reduce large expanses of buildings, and to add visual
interest. Specifically, the current design standards state, "Facades should be
articulated to reduce the massive scale and the uniform, impersonal appearances"
of buildings. The Hemming PRO zone introduction to design standards should
incorporate this established intent.
29. Modify §3.30.170(E)(1)(a)(4) Applicability, to not exempt buildings that do not
receive the public. All buildings should have design standards applied to them in
the PRO zone or any other commercial or multi -family zone.
30. Clarify what §3.30.170(E)(1)(b) Hemming PRO Zone Block Development intends
to accomplish. It is not clear what regulations are being described, or what figures
are being referred to.
31. Clarify what §3.30.170(E)(1)(b)(2) Provide useable pedestrian space requires.
Specifically, what amount of pedestrian space needs to be provided? A standard
might be that for every one -hundred (100) feet of street frontage a useable
pedestrian area of 100 square feet must be established. These areas should include
benches, wider sidewalks, water features, or similar.
32. Clarify what §3.30.170(E)(1)(b)(2) Building Orientation Standard means when is
states that, "Each development provides street trees or planters, space for outdoor
seating, canopies or awnings, and on -street parking (in certain areas." Is the there
a required quantity of these features to be provided by each development?
33. Modify §3.30.170(E)(1)(c)(2) Building Orientation Standard to explain how
corner lot buildings shall have "main" entrances on both street that are fronted.
They should not be allowed to have main entrances on the sides of buildings,
rather they should be encouraged to have a beveled corner entrances. This will
frame the streets together and also allow for clear vision areas to be observed.
34. Clear vision areas in the Hemming PRO zone should be reduced to 15 -feet, but
should be approved by the City Engineer prior to adoption. This reduction should
only be allowed for main building structures, not accessory structures, or
landscaping, which should both still maintain the 30 -foot clear vision area
currently adopted.
35. Strike §3.30.170(E)(1)(c) Variances. Modifications are negotiated through the
DRC. Significant deviations should follow the variance procedure currently
adopted.
36. Modify §3.30.170(E)(2)(a) Maximum building height to only allow a 35 -foot
building for residential building and a 45 -foot building for commercial or mixed-
use buildings. Also a minimum building height should be established at 18 -feet.
37. Modify §3.30.170(E)(2)(a) Maximum building height to not include roof
equipment as an exemption. Roof top equipment should be included in building
heights and should be screened by parapets or similar.
38. Modify §3.30.170(E)(3)(b)(1) Detailed Storefront Design to eliminate the
wording, "...unless an approved landscape buffer is applied." Corner buildings
need to embrace both streets on which they are located through storefront design.
39. Section 3.30.170(E)(3)(b)(1)(b) Detailed Storefront Design requires, "regularly
spaced and similar shaped windows." The intent may to prevent long expanses
of buildings that do not have windows, but the language may also promote
repeating patterns over long expanses of walls that go against currently adopted
design standards.
40. 3.30.170(E)(3)(b)(1)(c) Detailed Storefront Design requires large windows. Large
display windows are exactly what pedestrian areas need, but windows should not
12
extend from grade to ceiling height. These types of windows are more consistent
with strip commercial development rather than pedestrian downtowns, and should
therefore be avoided especially if this development intends to complement the
existing historic downtown to the northeast. A horizontal requirement for window
area should be 60 (sixty) percent as a minimum (or greater!).
41. Figure 3-2 suggests a design that deviates from historic buildings in the
downtown area. The figure appears to promote a different theme. A different
figure should be used if the intent is to create building that extend the downtown
and complement it. The figure should show more details regarding how to reduce
the massive scale of the large buildings rather than drawing attention to specific
architectural features of a particular architectural style.
42. Clarify, does §3.30.170(E)(3)(b)(2)(c)(I) Design of Large Scale Buildings intend
to incorporate all other design standards in the Hemming PRO zone as well as
these for large scale buildings?
43. Modify §3.30.170(E)(3)(b)(2)(c)(1) Design of Large Scale Buildings to provide
clear standards that quantify intent.
44. Modify §3.30.170(E)(4)(b) Guidelines and Standards to make standard based on
street frontage, number of stories, square footage of building, or other. The
proposed language only states that, "each development" shall provide these
pedestrian amenities. Each development should contribute, but larger
developments need to provide proportionately more.
45. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(a) Residential Uses. Last sentence should add, "...unless
substantial reconstruction occurs and/or expansion." It should continue,
"Substantial reconstruction shall mean that valuation of proposed improvement
exceeds fifty (50%) of assessed value for the previous calendar year. Standards
shall only apply to areas of expansion unless the gross floor area of the proposed
expansion exceeds fifty (50) percent of the existing structure's gross floor area.
46. Section 3.30.170(E)(5)(a)(1) Residential Uses may be written to allow residential
uses to dominate the Hemming PRO Zone. The PRO zone should disallow stand
alone residential uses from fronting any street within a half block from S 2"d
West. These areas, generally, were zoned and designated on the Comprehensive
Plan map as commercial. The intent of these area being commercial should be
preserved in the Hemming PRO zone.
47. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(a)(3) Residential Uses allow a maximum dwelling
density of 42 units per acre. Dwelling densities should be spelled out rather than
making them limited by other standards. This allows residents an opportunity to
understand potential impacts of development.
48. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(b) Bed and Breakfast Inns and Vacation Rentals.
Lnaguage should be included which requires owner occupancy and a maximum of
twenty-five (25) percent of home to used for B&B. In addition, B&Bs and
vacation rental dwellings should be required to register with a local management
group or as a minimum have a local contact available at all times. These land uses
should be listed as conditional uses as they often have impacts that need great
scrutiny by the Commission.
13
49. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(d) Accessory Uses and Structures. Second to last
sentence should continue with, "...provided they are incidental to, and do not
substantially alter the character of the permitted principal permitted use.
50. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(e)(2)(b) Drive up, drive-in, and drive-through facilities,
to a fifth standard that reads, "No outdoor PA system shall be located within 300
feet of a residential zone.
51. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(g)(2) Light manufacture, Location, to read, "the light
manufacture use shall be fully enclosed within a building, and shall not be located
within two -hundred (200) feet of a residential zone."
Non -substantive
52. Lot lines shall be appropriately adjusted, or a Restrictive Lot Line Covenant
(RLLC) shall be submitted as part of each development. Lot line modifications
and/or RLLC must be approved by the City, prior to County recordation.
53. Change title of zone to, "3.30(1). Hemming (PRO A B R 1) Project
Redevelopment Option Zone"
54. Strike, "Hemming Project, Location: see attached"
55. Strike §3.30.020(A) Categories...
56. Strike §3.30.020(B) Permitted Principal Uses...
57. Change §3.30.020(C) to §3.30.020(A)
58. Change §3.30.020(D) to §3.30.020(B)
59. Remove SIC code numbering system
60. Strike last sentence of §3.30.130(A) referencing the University Zone.
61. Rename §3.30.130(G) to read, "Required parking spaces."
62. Strike "Use Parking Spaces"
63. Strike all parking requirements except the requirement for "mixed use."
64. Modify sentence in §3.30.150(A) Signs, to read "All signs shall be approved by
the Planning Commission or designee prior to the issuance of a sign permit."
(italics added temporarily for emphasis)
65. Strike reference to Downtown Blueprint in §3.30.170(A) Introduction
66. Clean up figure 2-1 Building Height Diagram. Hard to read and some strike -
through is occurring on words.
67. Modify §3.30.170(E)(3)(b)(1) Detailed Storefront Design. There is a reference to
features a -e, when there are only features a -c.
68. Modify §3.30.170(E)(3)(b)(2)(c)(2) Design of Large Scale Buildings to eliminate
the language that follows the standard. The DRC can negotiate with the applicant
of a particular building if there are unusual circumstances involved.
69. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(c) Public and Institutional Uses to eliminate reference to
the "Rexburg Downtown District." Should say, "Hemming PRO zone."
70. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(d)(1) Primary use required, to continue, "...on the same
lot."
71. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(d)(2) Setback Standards, to read, "If an accessory
structure requires a building permit, all setbacks required of the principal
structure shall be observed as well. In addition, no accessory structures
shall be allowed to encroach in to a front yard. Accessory structures
14
visible from public or private rights-of-way shall be consistent in materials
as those used for the principal structure.
72. Modify §3.30.170(E)(5)(f) Sidewalk Displays to read, "A minimum clearance of
six (6) feet of walkable surface shall be maintained." Also, add "beds, appliances"
to the list of large display items.
Chairman Stein declared a five minute break.
The meeting then resumed.
New Business:
1. Preliminary Plat — Lincoln Park Townhomes
Trevor Einerson. 1105 Coyote Willow Way, Rexburg, representing Timberhawk Homes, spoke as
the developer for the Lincoln Park Townhomes Preliminary Plat. The proposed plat is located at 6"
South, between 4"' and 5" West. There are 41 units on 2.57 acres. He stated he is proud to present
this preliminary plat tonight. He stated he believes in infill projects, to revitalize the City. He showed
and clarified the plat in a PowerPoint presentation. They have tried to create a number of access
points for the plat. Mr. Einerson has talked in detail with each of the neighbors around the proposed
development area, for their input in making the development nicer. They have knocked down an
old building on the property that had been an eyesore in the area for years. The zoning is MDR1
(Medium Density Residential 1), with 16 units per acre. They are entry-level homes, priced in the
low $100,000s, to help give young families in Rexburg a chance to invest in their starter home. 82
parking spaces are required; they are providing 96 spaces, or 117%. They are providing 20' by 10'
parking spaces. Storm drainage is not in place. The development will improve drainage for 3
neighboring property owners. The development will have 37% green space, with sidewalks at 11%,
buildings 20% of the area, and parking/roads at 32%. He showed an example on the overhead
screen of how the units will look. They will meet with the Design Review Committee to make sure
design standards are met. They feel there is adequate room for snow removal. Mr. Einerson stated
that he hopes they have proven they are reliable and trustworthy developers; he feels their project
will enhance the neighborhood and that it will increase property values.
Winston Dyer the Dyer Group, 343 E.4t' N. Suite 108, Rexburg — He is the engineer for this
development. The proposed development is consistant with the zoning and the comprehensive
plan. He pointed out the area on the overhead screen. It will have 3 entrances, which should resolve
any traffic issues. There is water and sewer. They are working with the fire department and the City
ehgineer on requirements. Tonight's proposal is a land use rather than a building issue; they will
refine their site plan. He stated that the developer wants this to be a single project in one phase. No
frontage will be on the canal. They will work with the Design Review Cormnnittee on design
standards, including setbacks and building fronts.
Trevor Einerson stated that the canal may be fenced as a child safety precaution.
15
Winston Dyer said the City has indicated it would build a bridge across the canal in the future.
Gary Leikness stated that most of the items stated in his staff report will be taken care of as the plat
develops. The Commission is not necessarily approving a site plan at this time; that approval will be
done later as a building permit is sought. He said that the City's historic grid system was good
planning. This plat's location is part of the original townsite. One hundred years ago, if you would've
mentioned to someone that townhomes would be developed here and that a future road stub out to
the east would be needed, people would've said this would never happen. But, here we are all those
years later and we have the road platted and ready for a future bridge to continue to connect the
community and its neighborhoods. This is why the grid system is so important to adhere to.
The Commissioners discussed the proposal.
Thaine Robinson motioned to recommend to City Council the approval of the Lincoln Park
Townhomes Preliminary Plat, including all issues addressed in the staff review comments. Dan
Hanna seconded the motion.
None opposed. Motion carried.
Winston Dyer resumed the chair.
Unfinished/Old Business:
1. Sign Ordinance —Temporary Signs and Banners
Chairman Dyer asked about the status of the Sign Ordinance discussion. Gary Leikness requested
that he be given time to offer a quality analysis of the temporary sign and banner part of the Sign
Ordinance. He will strive to have the information in advance of the next Planning and Zoning
meeting, to be included in the Commissioner packets. The City Ordinance Officer also requested
that lights, in regard to signs, be addressed, as there may be conflicts between the Lighting
Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance. Gary Leikness said he would look at other cities' ordinances.
Thaine Robinson said he would like to see an example of a very restrictive sign ordinance, just for
the purpose of comparison.
Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda:
Mike Ricks requested that the Commission initiate an ordinance change to require bigger parking
stalls and possibly wider drive aisle widths.
Gary Leikness recommended that standard parking spaces be a minimum 9 -feet by 18 -feet and that
the two way drive aisle widths be increased to 24 -feet. He said that this language, and other concerns
the Commissioners want to address, could be included in the language of the Development Code
Ordinance 926 that is currently being updated.
Mike Ricks motioned to look at amending Ordinance 926 to include the above stated concerns and
others wherever they are located in the ordinance.
Maty Haley seconded the motion.
16
None opposed. Motion carried.
Chairman Dyer indicated to Gary Leikness that this would be carried into the "cleanup" of
Ordinance 926. Gary Leikness said he would include the parking standards increase in the 926
clean-up that the planning consultants are working on.
Chairman Dyer mentioned an electronic reader board he noticed on Highway 20 south of town at
the new RV center. He would like this issue looked into, as to whether it is a permissible sign in the
Sign Ordinance.
Thain Robinson said that on Trejo Street and Grand Loop, there is a 3 -sided piece of property
with townhomes that is allowing large recreational trailers to be parked in their parking lot. This
situation also needs to be looked into by the City Ordinance Officer.
Mary Haley also stated that New Fongs needs to be landscaped. Their dumpster should be moved
out of the public view. The Ordinance Officer will be notified of this situation.
Compliance: None
Report on Projects: None
Tabled Requests:
1. Preliminary Plat — Silver Estates
Building Permit Application Report None
Chairman Dyer adjourned the meeting at 10:01 pm.
17