Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04.18.19 P&Z Minutes_exppdf 1 City Staff and Others: Scott Johnson – Economic Development Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Bruce Sutherland opened the meeting at 6:37p.m. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Bruce Sutherland, Melanie Davenport, Greg Blacker, Steve Oakey, John Bowen, Vince Haley, Todd Marx. Absent: Rory Kunz, Kristi Anderson, Keith Esplin. Minutes: From Planning and Zoning meeting – April 4th, 2019 (action) Motion: Approve the minutes of April 4th, 2019, Moved by Steve Oakey, Seconded by John Bowen. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 7). Yes: Bruce Sutherland, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Melanie Davenport, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Items for Consideration: 1. (#19-00115) – Summerfield PUD Master Plan Amendment div. (7) – The applicant would like to increase the density in the area directly north of the 3.73-acre central park. The previous master plan was approved for 12 units/acre. The applicant is requesting almost 14 units/acre. (action) Dan Larsen – The project started about ten years ago. The project was amended about three years ago. He identified a section of the Master Plan PUD, identifying the area for townhomes. He showed another area in the PUD that has the same kind of townhomes. These townhomes have some front-loaded one and two car garages. The amendment is requested to allow all the townhomes that will be built to be the two-car-garage style. This change allows the garages to be loaded from the alleys and are not viewed from the city streets, improving the street view and allowing more open space. 40% open space is planned. Originally there were 98 units and now will be 114 units. He identified parking stalls underneath the units, then identified guest parking spaces. The clubhouse and park area to the south are also in process. The project is lined with street trees. The retention area will have sumps. Planter beds in the front of the buildings are planned. Potentially gravel areas where the spacing is a little tighter. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes April 18, 2019 2 3 Vince Haley asked if the Park Street project is similar to the layout the applicant is proposing? The applicant is unfamiliar with the Park Street project townhomes. He has built the same project in Ammon. Georgetown Apartments on Park Street are 16 units/acres. This development was shown on the GIS map. John Bowen asked about acreage. Dan answered this phase is 8.1 acres causing an increase of 16 units. Vince Haley asked why the applicant is making the change. The applicant is changing from front -loaded garages to rear-loading garages; a couple of years ago they were building front-loading garages, but they found they liked the rear-loading garages a little better; it makes the project look better because the street scape doesn’t show all of your garage doors. Chairman Rory Kunz walked in and finished leading the project presentation. Tawnya Grover gave the staff report. Staff did not have any problems with the density change. They felt the overall density for the project was not increased . MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the change because it seems concurrent with the project and aesthetically looks more pleasing, Moved by Bruce Sutherland, Seconded by Todd Marx. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: Bruce Sutherland, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Melanie Davenport, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley, Rory Kunz. Public Hearings: 1. 6:40PM (#19-00093) – Development Code changes to PF – It is proposed to amend the current Development Code concerning substantive and non-substantive items. The proposed changes are for the Public Facilities section to allow for those government properties recently rezoned. (action)- Tawnya Grover Chairman Rory Kunz invited staff to report. Staff Report - Tawnya Grover – The Commissioners have seen the document being presented tonight; the hearing is a formality. Recently, the Commissioners have made changes to the government-owned and school-district owned properties in the city to “public facilities.” The City Council approved and first -read the rezone of these properties yesterday evening, but it will have two other reading before the action is completed. The Comprehensive Plan part of the changes has been completed. The change tonight is bringing the Development Code to align with the needs of those properties. Some uses were added to the use table. The requirements for the lot area, lot width and lot frontage have also been amended. Several of the properties are very small and just contain a lift station. Sometimes these properties are tucked behind other buildings and don’t have any street frontage. These requirements have been removed so there are no minimums. In the building height section which says, “where it exceeds twice the building height”; this part of the sentence has been removed. 4 Chairman Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they have any clarification questions for the applicant. None. Chairman Rory Kunz opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:53p.m. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Input: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak? He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:53p.m. Commission Discusses the Motion: John Bowen feels this is a good change to make. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve the changes to public facilities, Action: Recommend Approval, Moved by John Bowen, Seconded by Todd Marx. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: Bruce Sutherland, Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Melanie Davenport, Steve Oakey, Todd Marx, Vince Haley and Rory Kunz. Items for Consideration: 2. Development Code Use Lists – Steve Oakey - Steve has an argument for smaller lists within the zoning chapters. Steve referenced the public facilities use list just recommended. In public facilities, in “outdoor recreation”, several facility names were 5 added; in “entertainment”, theatres were added. These facilities have existed in Madison County for a number of years prior to the list in the Development Code. He feels we don’t need a list to ok these types of facilities. In the “manufacturing” section, small generation has a very broad definition. Steve feels the lists are useless. In the commissioner packet, the Commission was provided with Development Codes examples for Boise, Idaho Falls, Jackson, Jefferson County, Lewiston, Twin Falls and Moscow identifying the uses for each of their zones. He feels the lists can be simplified to make them more user-friendly. Moscow’s says “agriculture, forestry zoning” which are headings. If he was to say, “residential”, he doesn’t feel this would be confused with “manufacturing.” The Twin Falls example says, “Building, structures or premises shall be used and buildings and structures shall hereafter be erected, altered or enlarged only for the following uses: 1) communications and utilities a) underground and above ground transmission line s b) utility owned buildings and structures… 2) parks 3) residential…” Steve suggests starting with general headings and explain that heading. He appreciates the request to find examples of other cities. He appreciates staff providing development code examples. Why should we copy other cities? Why should we not be innovators? Sandy Springs, Georgia, New York Times, and Sandy Springs, Georgia, Reason Magazine (7 min. video): The City that Outsourced Everything. In Sandy Springs, Georgia, the police and fire department are city entities, but everything else is by private contract. He invited the Commissioners read both articles and watch a 7minute video . Eva Galambos, the city’s mayor, spearheaded the effort to get their city incorporated. This example is outside of our common thinking. Innovators run up against a lot of opposition. Steve suggests there are better ways of doing things. We could follow the example of Twin Falls. Melanie Davenport was the one who asked about examples. She knows Steve is more interested in changing zoning. She wanted to see what Steve was thinking. She is for thinking outside of the box, but an example helps communicate. Rory Kunz has been giving this request a lot of thought on this matter. He doesn’t know if this kind of change would make things easier for developers. He would have to speak to some developers to know. Steve Oakey talked to the Mayor last time, and asked, does Val look at the lists and say, “well, your use isn’t on the list. You need to pay your fee and a meeting needs to be schedule to get your project on the list.” Or does Val say, “No, your business isn’t on the list, but we can work with you.” Depending on the approach, this could be a barrier to developers. He is looking for a more generalized approach for the lists. Melanie Davenport thought, what would the benefit be? She would be interested in looking at the pros and cons and their balance. John Bowen asked, is the benefit Steve to make things easier for developers to come in and do things? Steve Oakey gave an example of a public hearing; the lingo of the board can be difficult to understand when words like “Comp. Plan” are used. When John was developing, a simple code would have been appreciated. If he requested a home addition by the golf course, staff could say you are approved to put residential in this area, but you don’t need them to tell you, you can put townhomes there . The developers need some flexibility to sell a product to a customer. You don’t need a thick rule book; in which you have to hire someone to amend it. Steve is happy to make compromises. John Bowen asked if it would be a good idea, would it be good to do some mock up to determine a developer’s feedback. Steve says he believes this might help. John asked Stephen Zollinger, City Attorney, is it really that complicated? Stephen Zollinger has not had a developer make inquiries related to the list. The list has never been a barrier for developers that he knows of. Twin Falls has been misrepresented; the city has 6 general categories, but then refers back to the list book. They rely on the national publication for the specifics. Right now, Madison County is embroiled in a heated deliberation about what should and should not be allowed in Trans Ag. At one point, the list included gravel pits, but gravel pit was removed. Since it is not listed, the argument is that it is then, not allowed. If the County had stayed with the list, they may not have had these litigation problems. Form-based has a more simplified list. Right now, staff is working on form-based for the downtown. The intention is to move form -based progressively into other areas of the city. It has been a hurdle for the individual user to place something in a specific place, not the developer. Vince Haley asked why the County Commissioners removed the list. Stephen Zollinger answered, the County has tried to de- intensify their code. Trans Ag, because it starts to lean towards residential, suggests mining and gravel pits does not have a place there. The person who owns 40 acres where he planned to expand his gravel pit is being told he can no longer use the land for what he bought it for because the list was changed. There are no perfect answers. He does believe extraneous requirements of the Development Code need to be removed, but he doesn’t believe the lists are the focus. Most developers start the conversation as , “Tell me what I can do in this zone.” The reason for the lists, was to give parties a starting point. Chairman Rory Kunz asked for personal experience that has prompted Steve Oakey to focus on this property. Steve Oakey answered his interaction with the Commission and efforts to simplify the requirements are his motivation. He talked about a property in Lyman owned by Edstrom Construction that was changed to Trans Ag, he suggested perhaps a County Commissioner knew what Edstrom was going to do and changed the zoning classification. Stephen Zollinger stated, does it matter if we have the list if we don’t print the Development Code? If it helps a developer to know what we would allowed? The list also allows the developer to ask the questions why something is not allowed in a specific place in the city giving staff a chance to look at the situation and determine if it makes sense in the area suggested. Chairman Rory Kunz recognizes a benefit for the lists when people are asking where a duplex or triplex is allowed. Melanie Davenport talked to developers and they asked, why don’t you let us build wherever we want like Provo, UT does? She told them, the city has planned on purpose. She feels the city has been consistent and a very good foundation has been made. Rory Kunz asked Steve Oakey what he sees as the next step. Steve feels the health, safety and nuisances can be mitigated. Greg Blacker suggested a task force of developers and the city to come to some consensus. Bruce Sutherland feels form-based is coming and he would like to see how it works. City Councilman Brad Wolfe suggests Steve Oakey take a section in the code and work through it to give everyone an idea of what he wants to see. Steve is hesitant to go through the work without some consensus of the Commissioners. John Bowen asked, is it better to piece by piece instead of all at once? Right now, the downtown district is the current placement for the form-based requirements. Vince Haley is in support of simplifying, but he is a little hesitant, because he would like to have a safety net; he needs more research and knowledge. The Commissioners discussed an additional time when this discussion could be continued. Stephen Zollinger suggested Driggs, Idaho, is an example of simplifying their development codes. He gave an example of an auto hobbyist who then sprays the cars and disposes of the waste improperly causing government to reinsert themselves and cause them to move to a commercial district. Form-based will potentially come before this board by fall. Stephen Zollinger says the list also tells adjacent property owners what potentially can b e 7 placed on the public facilities land. Who are we protecting – the person buying the land or the person who lives adjacent to the land? There are pros and cons to keeping or simplifying the use lists. The lists can be pushed out to the Commissioners at the beginning of next week. Possibly this could be returned to Tawnya by the 16th of May. Will Klaver was introduced to the Commissioners as the Planning & Zoning intern. Heads Up: Hearings:  May 2, 2019: No hearings currently scheduled.  May 16, 2019: (19-00169) - Annexation for the properties of an island of the County within city boundaries on N. Hill Rd. and Barney Dairy Rd. and Steiner Park. Rezone of those properties on N. Hill Rd. and Barney Dairy Rd. to LDR1. Adjournment: Commissioner Rory Kunz adjourned the meeting at 7:48PM.