Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06.07.18 P&Z Minutes_exppdf 1 Staff: Brad Wolfe – City Council Liaison Craig Rindlisbacher – Zoning Administrator Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Scott Johnson – Economic Development Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the meeting at 6:30 pm. She welcomed all those present. Roll Call. Present: Heidi Christensen, Mark Rudd, Steve Oakey, Gil Shirley, John Bowen, Greg Blacker, Darrik Farmer. Absent: Rory Kunz, Kristi Anderson, Melanie Davenport, Bruce Sutherland. Minutes: Planning & Zoning Meeting May 17, 2018 Steve Oakey, John Bowen, and Tawnya talked before the meeting about the difficulty in managing through the documents in the Laserfiche program. It is really inefficient to go from one page to the next. Steve cannot even access the minutes. Steve Oakey supports the paperless format, but the Google format was easier to navigate through. Heidi talked to Tawnya, and asked how to help this format work better? Tawnya will look into this. Steve Oakey motioned to accept the minutes as recorded. John Bowen seconded the motion. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 5, No = 0, Abstain = 2). Yes: Darrik Farmer, Greg Blacker, Heidi Christensen, John Bowen, Steve Oakey. Abstain: Gil Shirley, Mark Rudd. Hearings: 1. 6:35PM – (18-00163) 148 S 2nd E - Conditional Use Permit for Dormitory in a MDR1 zone – Devin Durrant (postponed from May 3, 2018) (18-00206) 166 S 2nd E – Conditional Use Permit for Dormitory in a MDR1 zone – Devin Durrant Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the public hearing at 6:35PM. Devin Durrant – 2001 N Canyon Road, Provo, Utah, 84604 – He thanked Tawnya for her help in this process. 2 properties have been purchased in the last 6 months. He is requesting Conditional Use Permits for Dormitory housing. The parcels were located on the map. The properties Devin owns were identified on the map. Steve Oakey clarified the action was only for the 2 properties and the parking for those 2 properties. He was trying to get an idea for the scope of the whole project. Devin said, the long-term goal is redevelopment of this area. The short-term goal is to allow 6 students to live in Birch house. In the tri-plex 4 students/unit, which is 12 students. Parking for both properties is insufficient. He has 2 legal parking spaces for Birch House and he needs 5. The triplex has six legal stalls, but 3 more are needed for the twelve students. He has 15 surplus parking stalls in Briarwood. 6 stalls could be used in Briarwood to meet the parking need. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes June 7, 2018 2 One house is adjacent, the other is 300’ from the existing parking. The limit is 200’. He understands if this parking place is rejected. Craig and Natalie went out to look at the proximity of the houses and the parking. Steve Oakey asked if these properties are in the PED zone. When the parcels were identified on the map, the parcels are in the PED zone. Mark Rudd asked if there were any other sidewalks. He asked if Devin would put in sidewalks. How are they going to get to the parking from their home? Chairman Heidi Christensen said there was a nice picture on the application for the parking plan. Devin Durrant showed how the Birch House would use the sidewalk to access the parking. Triple House is the triplex. There is 8’ out their backyard and they are to the parking lot. Devin talked about an access between a garage and the triplex. Behind Birch house, from the backyard, there is a sidewalk right now at an adjacent property to the West. Residents would have to walk across the backyard to access this sidewalk. They could also use the city sidewalk along the street in front of the homes. Devin could put in a concrete sidewalk from the back step if needed. Bret Sampson – 175 Rosewood Drive – representing BYU-Idaho. He has come tonight to confirm the exception BYU-Idaho has made because of the need for beds and the plans in place by this developer. Normally, single-family dwellings would not be approved by BYU-Idaho housing. They are willing to take a temporary exception, given some criteria, that development be done within a 3- year period to provide additional beds that are needed. Steve Oakey talked about some homes on 2nd S where a couple of homes are for sale. Because the University has not allowed a similar action, a chain reaction has occurred to attempt to upzone. If the owner tries to sell, these homes lose their grandfather clause. What is the University’s policy? Right now, the University does this on a case-by-case basis. Bret Sampson answered, he is not aware of this situation, he cannot speak for the University on this matter. Devin has been allowed to do this arrangement, based on his future plans and the beds that will be provided currently. Chairman Heidi Christensen reminded people, who will speak, to state their name and address before beginning their comments. In Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: No written input received. Rebuttal: None Mark Rudd asked about the time frame for the temporary arrangement. The agreement with the University is 3 years. By 2020, he intends to redevelop. The University will withdraw the approval if Devin doesn’t meet the time frame, and the homes will fall back into single family housing. Devin has incentive to move forward, but there are other variables in place. Chairman Heidi Christensen closed the public hearing. 3 Craig Rindlisbacher talked about the staff recommendations. First, the parking being farther than 200’ from the house. Staff is looking for direction from the Commission. If the Commission feels this is temporary in nature, the Commission would have the ability to waive the requirement for farther than 200’. Second, Staff recommends bicycle parking to be provided. Third, is adjacent screening needed to single-family homes? Fourth, the sidewalk requirement has already been discussed; hardscape access to the parking stalls. Last, a building permit would need to be taken out for the change of use. These were requirements from the staff report. Steve Oakey asked about the buffer for residential. Is the house to the south single family? Staff does not know for sure. Darrik said, no single-families came tonight to ask for buffering, so for him it is a non-issue. Compliance officer Natalie Powell said she talked to the neighbors on the North side. Devin talked to the neighbors on both sides. He lives by the owners of these homes in Provo. These homes are currently being rented to families. Commission Discussion: Steve Oakey thinks we should scratch requirement “c” on buffering or screening for the motion. Chairman Heidi Christensen feels like the walk for the parking is not a reason to reject the proposal. Darrik Farmer commented 200’ is not very far. People at NorthPointe have to walk much farther to get to their parking. If Devin can make it work, Steve Oakey thinks the proposal should be accepted. The homes are in the PED zone. Scott Johnson clarified the CUP is for Dormitory, not for PED parking. The PED zone would only apply for the full development. Craig Rindlisbacher reminded the Commission they could set a sunset clause. Darrik Farmer says, if it makes sense now, why would it not make sense in three years. Gil Shirley asked is the CUP temporary? Should the time match the University’s timeline? Keith Davidson talked about support for a sunset clause would be for those vehicles which would increase backing on to 2nd East. The fewer cars backing onto 2nd East, the better. John Bowen motioned to recommend approval of the application without the buffering requirement and with a sunset clause of 3 years so it conforms with neighboring properties. Darrik Farmer seconded the motion. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Darrik Farmer, Greg Blacker, Heidi Christensen, John Bowen, Steve Oakey, Gil Shirley, and Mark Rudd. No: None. 2. 6:40PM - (18-00209) Cul De Sac block – Rezone from LDR2 to LDR3 and 1 parcel to MDR2 – Craig Rindlisbacher Craig Rindlisbacher – City Staff – There are a number of nonconforming lots along Cul De Sac street. This is creating a problem for them to make improvements. This is a proposal to rezone most of the block to LDR3. This would bring all of the lots into conformance with the code except a piece of Medium Density already there and one with Medium Density use on the southeast lot of the block. The fairgrounds at the north were located. Dan Hanna’s property is the current MDR2 lot in the middle of the block. 4 Mark Rudd talked about rezoning to LDR3 to allow the smaller size lots. LDR2 requires 8,000 square feet. The size of lots right now are 6,000 square feet and are not compliant lots in LDR2. Many of the lots do not conform to the rules. The proposal doesn’t change the use of the properties. Steve Oakey asked if this request is in anticipation of a future development. Staff answered this is not. Darrik Farmer asked about homes that rent out their basements. This use would still be allowed. Emerald West is the name of the property to the southwest, which is currently multi-family housing. Tawnya explained where Brittany Lane is already Low Density Residential 3. The change would allow the right area required for all the lots to be legal. The lots that border Cul De Sac street are too small for a Low Density Residential 2 zone. John Bowen asked what prompted this request. One lot came forward with a request to change their property. Staff looked at the area as a whole and realized there are many more properties in the area with the same problem. These people would all have to come in and make the request to do anything with their properties, including anyone who would want to create a duplex. Instead of each person coming in who has a problem with a lot, the city decided to bring this request forward. One person has their house built as a duplex already, but they can’t rent it out because they are not compliant with the zone. Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the public hearing. Please state your name. If you agree, say you agree with their testimony. Please do not repeat testimony. Testimony needs to be kept to 3 minutes. In Favor: None Neutral: Dave Pearson – 150 N 4th W – He owns 4 properties in the proposal. He doesn’t see a problem with the proposal. If there are rentals, the parking situation is his concern. Candy McFadden – 182 N 4th W – He doesn’t see a problem as it is explained. A couple of years ago, a comprehensive plan map changes was requested to protect the neighborhood and keep it single-family homes. Some concessions were made to allow 4-plexes in the area. Does changing the zoning, change the property tax value? The duplexes have been in place for years. Why don’t we grandfather the existing duplexes in? If this allows duplexes, but doesn’t allow for more density, she would be in favor of the proposal. Under Steve Zollinger’s recommendation, a neighborhood association has been put in place for the purpose of the comprehensive plan map change. Is there still protection for the neighborhood? She wants to protect what is already in place. Robert Parish – 341 Cul De Sac – He agrees with Candy McFadden. His concern is property value and taxation. How will this affect us? He is worried about parking. One of his cars was damaged. He is concerned about the parking of 6 cars when there is room for only 3 cars; this is not adequate parking. He has no problems with updating the apartment complexes. He has a nice neighborhood and would like to keep this a safe neighborhood. He would like to have their concerns addressed and not lose anything. Opposed: Robert or Bob Michaels - 350 Cul De Sac – He has lived there for 33 years. The plat boundary lines are wrong. In his opinion, in the interest of the inaccuracy of the plat, he would not like to see this zone change, thinking this would change his current property lines. Because, his neighbor would have his living room and his neighbor would have his garage on Bob’s property. By enforcing the zone change, peoples’ property boundaries would be changed. Written Input: No written input received. 5 Rebuttal: Craig Rindlisbacher responded. The City does not assess taxes, the County Assessor does, based on the value of the property due to the market. Comparison homes that have sold are used to determine this value. The zone can influence the value. Chairman Heidi Christensen closed the public hearing. Commission discussion: Steve Oakey talked about the person requesting the duplex use would have been prohibited to do so. This action would increase the value of this neighbor’s property and potentially the resale value. Gil Shirley talked about giving these people the opportunity to change the zoning of their property. The Commissioners discussed if the zoning would remain, the property values would remain the same, and the people on this block will not be allowed to make changes to their property as grandfathered lots. Tonight, Devin increased the value of his property, allowing him to rent out his property to more people. Gil Shirley said the parking compliance would fall to Natalie Powell. He asked Natalie to address the parking request. She talked about when a business registration for a duplex comes forward, the area of the lot for a duplex is checked. If something is not legal in the first place, the City helps the applicant to become legal. Parking is one of the items that are reviewed with the business registration. Without parking, a person cannot use a home as a duplex. If they are using the homes as a duplex and go over on their parking, this is when the compliance officer comes in. Greg Blacker said the parking is 2/door. Natalie said the parking must be off the street on the parcel. The City will maintain the parking compliance. Craig Rindlisbacher said plats are done by surveyors and recorded at the County. GIS is the model of what the surveyors have done. It doesn’t always represent reality. Nor do surveyors agree causing lines to overlap or gap. GIS tries to get the lines to match the photo. GIS is a model, not a public record. The zoning has no bearing on the survey. There is no staff report for this action; the staff recommends approval. Steve Oakey motioned to recommend to City Council the passage of the request based on the zone correction to bring the parcels into compliance. Gil Shirley seconded the motion. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Darrik Farmer, Greg Blacker, Heidi Christensen, John Bowen, Steve Oakey, Gil Shirley, and Mark Rudd. No: None. The people who attended were reminded that this request will be held before City Council in two weeks if they feel there needs to be more discussion. 3. 6:45PM - (18-00210) University Blvd & 258 S 2nd W – Rezone from GBD to CBC – those parcels (8 parcels) in the City General Business District rezoned to Community Business Center – Scott Johnson Scott Johnson – City Staff - In an effort to clean up zoning and reduce the zoning. The City is looking at removing General Business District (GBD). The General Business District (GBD) parcels are being rezoned Community Business Center (CBC). This is a positive change. They actually do things the same way, but the CBC has a greater height limit. The individuals have all been notified to discuss this request. Scott has even talked to some of them throughout the week and today. 6 Mark Rudd – How many parcels? 8 are in the City. The parcels were shown on the map and their location in the City. Commissioner Heidi Christensen asked for questions. Some on the North side of University Blvd. and one on S 2nd W. Staff has no clarifications. Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the public hearing at 7:28PM. In Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: No written input received. Rebuttal: None Chairman Heidi Christensen closed public hearing at 7:28PM. Steve Oakey enthusiastically motioned to recommend the approval of the combination of General Business District and Community Business Center and the removal of the zone of the General Business District from the Development Code for the purposes of streamlining the zoning. Mark Rudd seconded the motion. Gil Shirley asked about any other areas that are zoned General Business District. Scott Johnson answered, there are only the 8 shown. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Darrik Farmer, Greg Blacker, Heidi Christensen, John Bowen, Steve Oakey, Gil Shirley, and Mark Rudd. No: None. 4. 6:50PM - (18-00221) Development Code Amendments Craig Rindlisbacher – City Staff – These are actual changes to the actual Development Code. The first section is combining the components of General Business District (GBD) going in to the Community Business Center (CBC) zone. The chapter 3 items on the notice are the changes that occur as the two zones are combined. The chapter 4 item is the removal of the scoring in the Infill/Redevelopment section. There was a time when the City Council was worried about the impact on neighborhoods and they used this scoring to determine the impact. This scoring section of the code has not been used in some time. The rest of the changes are related to the engineering standards. Steve Oakey thanks the staff for the removal of the scoring section of the Infill/Redevelopment section. He feels this section was a failure from the beginning. He doesn’t like the lists in the permitted and conditional uses. The lists continue to change. Let’s figure out some verbiage to describe the uses we expect to see in each zone. This action is evidence of the management of these lists. Scott Johnson says staff is working on this request. 7 Keith Davidson – The Public Works items are also changing. Most of the changes come out of the subdivision section. Street cross sections, water & sewer line placements, electrical lines going underground, etc. The change moves things from the Development Code to the Engineering standards and cleans up the language in the Code. Changes in technology going forward will be easier to change through a resolution vs. going through an Ordinance change. Steve Oakey asked, does this make it easier to develop a project? For example, the DEQ request to approve the plat for the sewer and water main lines. Keith responded, this is just a clarification. In the past, people came in with projects and didn’t know they need DEQ approval. The approval has always been required by the state code. This change is to inform the developers of current practices. Tawnya clarified these changes clean up the requirements and allow the City to be more clear about where to look for any updates. Chairman Heidi Christensen opened the public hearing at 7:37PM. In Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: No written input received. Rebuttal: The public hearing has closed at 7:37PM. Steve Oakey asked if the request is all or nothing. Can the motion be itemized? He requested striking the first 2 sections where it itemizes acceptable uses. He would like the lists taken out. Steve recommends to consider striking the first 2 sections where it itemizes permitted and conditional uses. 3.18.020. & 3.18.025. Heidi Christensen and Scott Johnson clarified the changes he is referring to are the changes brought in from General Business District to Commercial Business Center. Some of the uses have been changed from conditional uses to permitted uses. Steve Oakey can support the action if simpler clarification is forth coming. Scott Johnson responded this is an interim action. Darrik Farmer moved to recommend to City Council to make the changes to the Development Code to simplify the Code and clarify for developers. Greg Blacker seconded the motion. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Darrik Farmer, Greg Blacker, Heidi Christensen, John Bowen, Steve Oakey, Gil Shirley, and Mark Rudd. No: None. Meeting adjourned at 7:42PM. Can we get the Google docs back? Craig agreed. Craig reminded the Commissioners that the next meeting also has a full agenda.