Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 20-00426 - Ferguson 53 & 55 E 1st N - Rezone to MU 1 | Page #20 00426 Rezone to Mixed Use 53 & 55 E 1st N 1. June 2, 2020, An application was received for a rezone from Low-Density Residential 2 and Mixed Use to entirely Mixed Use from Matthew Ferguson for 53 & 55 E 1st N. Legal descriptions were also requested and received from the Applicant. 2. June 9, 2020, a reminder for payment needed was emailed to Matthew Ferguson. 3. June 11, 2020, payment was received for the application. 4. June 30, 2020, The Staff Review Summary was sent to Matthew Ferguson. An incomplete Public Works review pushed the hearing date to August 6th. 5. June 29, 2020, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on July 17th and July 31st. 6. July 8, 2020, An official notice of the hearing and public hearing instructions were mailed to all adjacent property owners within 350’ of the parcel. 7. July 29, 2020, Notice was posted on the property in front of 55 E 1st N. Documents were completed and sent to the Commissioners. 8. August 3, 2020, a digital agenda was sent to Matthew Ferguson for the Planning & Zoning meeting. 9. August 5, 2020, Matthew Ferguson said he would not be able to attend the meeting and asked Staff to present. He will also send a representative to the meeting. 10. August 6, 2020, the application was presented by Alan Parkinson, City Planner, to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 6:35 p.m. – (20-00426) – 53 & 55 E 1st N – Rezone from Mixed Use and Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to completely Mixed Use (MU). (action) – Matthew Ferguson The parcels are currently split by two zoning designations. The applicant seeks to have one zoning on the two parcels. The Commission has received several written responses, but if you are here tonight and you want to speak, only one form of response will be accepted into the record. 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Reason for Decision City of Rexburg 2 | Page Applicant Presentation and Staff Report – Alan Parkinson, City Planner – The properties for the proposal are on 1st N. Both properties were shown on the overhead screen. The Applicant is requesting a change on the north portion of these lots from Low-Density Residential 2 to Mixed Use. The property currently has a Conditional Use Permit for a duplex issued in 2013 using access on both lots. The Applicant wants to make the change to put different housing on these lots. Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) completely surrounds the north parts of these properties. Charles Place is east of these parcels with single-family homes. The Comprehensive Plan supports the request. City water and sewer will meet the needs of anything that could be built on these parcels. Mixed Use would increase the density of these lots. Staff reccomends the Commission take public testimony and determine if this request is compatible with the surrounding area or in the best interest of the community. Staff has reviewed the application and found it meets the requirements for rezone. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Chairman Rory Kunz asked, the back half of these lots are not a separate lot of their own. Alan answered, no, when Mixed Use was rezoned on these lots, a demarcation line was created, splitting these two lots into two zoning designations. The idea was to keep the footprint for Mixed Use along the street. Chairman Rory Kunz asked if the change were approved, does any building have to follow development requirements. Alan answered, yes; any building would have to follow the requirements for the zone. The property is in the Infill/Redevelopment area and greater buffering would be required between the two zones. Steve Oakey asked for rental properties to be identified in the area. Alan knows on the corner of W 1st E and N 1st E, there is an 8-plex under construction between two existing homes. On the east side of N 1st E, there is a duplex and a 4-plex. Greg Blacker asked when a Traffic Study was conducted in this area. Alan did not know. He knows when Keith with Public Works did his review; he did not see a problem. Public Works, Building and Economic Development reviewed this application. A Traffic Study may be needed at a later day, depending on the application submitted for a building. Vince Haley verified the property was approved as a duplex in 2013. About ten years ago, the Mixed Use zoning was put in place. LDR2 has been in place longer than the ten years as single-family homes. The block on which the application is being requested is one of the original blocks of the city. He requested a definition of Mixed Use. Mixed Use is an area where residential is the primary use, but the zone allows an addition of commercial in the same structure. Usually, we try to keep a minimum of 10% commercial. Right now, the commercial is not required. The structure in Mixed Use can go as high as 55’ and 42 units/acre. The biggest challenge is meeting the parking requirements to service that many units. The buildings can be built up to 0’ from sidewalk with parking in the rear or buffered from the street. Aaron Richards asked when the Mixed Use was put in place, was that put in as an overlay or as a rezone? The change was made as a rezone. Has the Mixed Use zoning, since it was done, changed in depth anywhere else along this street? No, the zoning remains a uniform depth at this time. Steve Oakey said, because of the admitted arbitrariness of the dividing line between the Mixed Use and the Low-Density, looking at the existing property lines, and given the nature of tonight’s action, we should anticipate the possibility that this complication may resurface again in the future. Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular subject. If you believe your prior contact with respect to this subject has created a bias, you should recuse yourself, otherwise at this time please indicate the nature of your conversation or contact. Vince Haley works in an office 100 yards east from this property. He has no financial gain to come 3 | Page from this proposal. Chairman Rory Kunz believes that this is not a conflict of interest, but thanked Vince for his disclosure. Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures. He opened the Public Input portion of the hearing at 6:46p.m. Favor: Deborah Smith – 216 Mohawk Ave - She is speaking on behalf of her son, Matt Ferguson; he could not be here tonight. He originally bought the property eight years ago and she did not believe when he purchased the property that he was aware the parcels were in two different zones. He does not have any plans to do anything in the back right now. The original house in the front has two units. There is a small, one bedroom, bath, and kitchen on the side of the house. He has plenty of room on the property. He is a little confused, because he does not want the people around him to be totally against him. The frontage is already Mixed Use. He would like to extend the Mixed Use zone to the entirety of the property. On the east, the new apartment building will be on the street and some of the parking will be adjacent to the Ferguson property. Down the street, there is the Middletown Apartment building with eight units. There are several businesses: Brent’s Lawn and Leisure, is one example. As time goes on, and growth happens, commercial comes in and residences give way. Matt wants his property to be zoned completely Mixed Use. Neutral: None Opposed: Rich Persson – 122 N 1st E – He owns the home across the street from the proposal. The home was purchased in October of 2016. Although he and his wife are empty nesters and currently reside in California, his adult children and three grandchildren live in the home. He and his wife have a room in the basement where they get to stay when they come to visit. Their hearts reside in Rexburg, and hopefully, some day they will be able to call Rexburg their home. When he received the notice to change the zoning, he felt strongly that he needed to be at tonight’s meeting to express his objection to the proposal. Rich flew into Salt Lake City and drove to Rexburg, arriving at 2a.m. this morning. He is not against areas being rezoned from Low-Density to Mixed Use. He is concerned about the process at which it happens. He believes it makes more sense to propose the zoning to the community and hear both sides of the issue, like we are doing tonight rather than change the zoning first, allowing only the people with deep pockets to take advantage of the zoning laws with financial gains at the expense of family neighborhoods. Two years ago, he learned part of the road was zoned from Low-Density Residential 2 to Mixed Use. He was told the rezoning along the street was to help alleviate some of the traffic from Main Street and that there were plans to develop commercial property with residential above businesses. This was intriguing to him; he believed this could be a good thing for the community and add value to his property. However, he later learned the deal fell through and there were no plans at this time to do that development. Unfortunately, the rezoning, which appeared to be a good thing at first, has opened the door for construction projects he does not believe are good or do not benefit the family neighborhood and our community. Last month, he visited his kids and noticed a large hole dug across the street and kitty-corner from his home. He was curious to know what was going to be built. He was hoping for a single-family dwelling or at most, a duplex. When he contacted the city, he was told five apartments. Tonight he is being told eight apartments. Eight units include the existing homes on the property. While he was disappointed, he knew the zoning was in place to allow the change to this property. He is against the proposal for the following reasons: #1) Apartments are not compatible with the character of the family neighborhood. Many neighbors have lived in their homes for 30-40 years and in some 4 | Page cases longer. He is reminded each time he visits that this is a family neighborhood, when he sees kids running around their front yard, riding their bikes and doing those same things he did as a kid. #2) More apartments means more traffic and parking issues. #3) Apartment buildings lend themselves to a transient population. #4) The construction of multiple properties in a residential neighborhood can be chaotic and quite frankly, a real nuisance due to noise and construction. A recent example of this is when a power pole was hit by some of the construction equipment, where the hole is and neighbors lost power. #5) This land is fairly narrow and from his experience, skinny lots are more difficult to develop and outcomes are not always attractive. #6) For some homeowners in the neighborhood, they would be losing privacy and would now be staring directly into an apartment. #7) The changes on these two properties, could make the neighborhood less desirable, which would affect their home values. There are other areas in Rexburg more conducive to apartments, but definitely not our family neighborhood. Rich thanked the Commissioners for their time and the notice mailed to his address in California or he may not have known about this change in time. He asked the Commissioners to put themselves in the neighbors’ shoes and ask, is this somethings you would like in your family neighborhood? Thomas Mounts – 144 Charles Place – We walked around the neighborhood and had a petition signed to see how neighbors felt about the proposal, with one set of names per household. No one was found to be neutral or in favor of the proposal. The neighbors signed a petition with 50 against the proposal. He has lived in five houses on this block his entire life. He has built a home there and wants to live there the rest of his life. He does not want to see the value of his home drop. Even though the line seems arbitrary, the line is deep into the block. He feels that the line is adequate to not encroach on the single-family homes. The lots for application tonight come in to the center of the block; they are very deep. Many of these lots were made to touch each other from both sides of the block. When we built our house, we wanted to revitalize the neighborhood in the center of the city; it is a beautiful place to have a home. Scott Hancock – 125 N 1st E – His house is just north of the demarcation line. On the south side of his home, an apartment complex is to be built and if we rezone, he would have apartments on the back of his property as well. He is at the crossroads location. He has three little kids and the sheer traffic and volume would cause congestion. Last Thursday, the truck went by and clipped the line; the line broke off and hit his house. He talked about losing privacy and reducing the value of his home. This home is the first he has purchased. He is from Rexburg and he loves the family-oriented neighborhood. If apartments were allowed, this would ruin the atmosphere in place. Susannne Robbins – 138 N 1st E – Before 2013, a similar push was made to make a Residential Business District at that half of the block. This is a neighborhood that is still growing. Children are still being born, children are growing up, people are planting trees, people are building homes that are not apartments; this is a thriving neighborhood. The last thing that should happen right now is to push the downtown into this neighborhood that otherwise would be a growing, residential neighborhood. Hancocks talked about their children. There are kids running up and down the street all of the time. In just a few years, the children will be playing night games. Directly across the street from the construction, the couple has an adult disabled daughter, who lives with them periodically. They have a van she is transported in. When she was staying with them recently, her Dad could not get her into the house, because construction trucks were blocking the way. I recognize right now, the Applicant said there is not a plan. She seriously doubts this, simply because why would they be pushing for this change? I am sure there is a plan 5 | Page in the back of someone’s mind, to build something that does not fit in a residential neighborhood. Children walk to the library and having the buildings up to the street poses a safety issue. Stephen Zollinger – 707 Engleman - He is here as a property owner, not as the city’s attorney. As Thomas pointed out, this is a neighborhood that has been in his family since the late 1800s. He used to live on this block, grew tired of Thomas and had to move. There are no multi- family rentals anywhere on this block other than in the Mixed Use zone. All of the yellow LDR2 on this block, as stated by Miss Robbins, has been maintained as single-family residential units. When this transitioned a number of years ago, he spoke on behalf of Mixed Use. He believed that 1st North was in fact, a street that leant itself to a development at a higher intensity than single- family residential. He did not foresee the possibility that people would want to reinvest single- family homes on 1st N. The City did look closely at where the line and the delineation should occur. He addressed Mr. Oakey’s comment about this issue arising again. There are only five parcels that are split. He owns two properties that are longer, deeper lots; the third is the parking lot west of Charles Place and the two here for the request tonight. Stephen does not intend to try to stretch Mixed Use any further than currently zoned. To the contrary, over the course of the last seven years, people have invested approaching $2 million in single-family residential units, based on where this line was drawn. We considered this to be the demarcation for single- families. There has been added to date, seven residential units that access through Mixed Use. There are plans to use the Mixed Use area of his property as a more intense use. The property before the Commissioners tonight, could easily develop at a level that will exceed its capacity, if they stuck to the frontage. He has yet to see how to build at a higher-density that could not accommodate the parking to the back. There is no rational basis for rezoning, except to move the building of higher-density further into the property. If that is the motivation, he opposes this zone change. The single-family homes do not deserve to be encroached upon by 55’ tall buildings. While he realizes, Mrs. Smith says there are no plans. This creates a problem; there is no way to force a plan. Changing the zone allows the Applicant to build whatever Mixed Use allows and choose to put it where they want to put it. Changing the zoning would allow a building to go wherever they want to put it, at the height that they can. Families are an integral part of this neighborhood. The Mixed Use’s purpose is to intensify the streetscape, not to intensify the interior of the block. This would encroach on the single-family homes built in the last ten years. Rick Robbins – 138 W 1st E – He has been on the Traffic Safety Committee for many years, chair of that committee for six years. A full traffic study was not completed for 1st N. Captain Lewis completed an accident study on 1st E before his retirement. The outcome of the study was the 4-way stop was not called for. There was a higher than expected potential for accidents; many non-reported accidents were found in this family-centered neighborhood. He wants to concur with what Tom said. He is happy with the revitalization of Charles Place. His concern is that the rezone would open Pandora’s Box, because the limits would be removed. Several years ago, the City stated they were strongly against spot zoning. He feels this would be an example of spot zoning. Thank you. Jeff Hill – 210 N 1st E - He grew up in this neighborhood. When Ricks College was going to be moved to Idaho Falls, many people were ready to leave their faith, due to the possibility. He does not believe the people ready to leave their faith, were having their neighborhoods gutted as part of their fantasy for Rexburg. He has not spoken to anyone outside of the building that is happy 6 | Page with the make-up of the city. Now the town is being closed in by 5-story buildings right up against the road. The city is losing its character. This was the greatest neighborhood in the world to grow up in. High-density housing in this neighborhood is not the right place for this kind of use. Chuck Velman – 131 N 1st E – His backyard would be adjacent to the change. This area has been a vacant lot for a while. He was unsure when Charles Place went in what he would see. He has lived here for 24 years. One of the bad things is 1st E has had a couple of children hit by cars. Privacy – My home is my castle. He has lilacs around the back and have some solitude. If this proposal is accepted, we could have 13-15 units, 55’ height in his backyard; he objects. He will not be able have a garden. Where Cy Hepworth has his property, he has kept the apartments up to the front, where it would not affect the neighbors’ back yards, putting the parking behind the buildings. When Mr. Zollinger put Charles Place in, they were very considerate of the neighbors; they wanted to make sure we approved of things and talked to them beforehand. He was assured of privacy and lower building heights. With my house, and his wife’s health, and the things that she can do, this is her sanctuary; these are the things that are important to him. Dan Moore – 172 Charles Place – 18 months ago, he feel in love with the vision at Charles Place and the family vibe. It is a founding block of Rexburg with walking path connections, biking and access to downtown; he loves the location. His investment in revitalizing the neighborhood would not include his contribution; he would move, due to the change in character of the neighborhood. Lisa Jones – 175 N 1st E – She would like to echo what everyone else has said about the neighborhood. She has lived in the home for eleven years. She has seven children that she is continuing to raise. She knows everyone on the block who lives there. There is a great sense of community and safety; the children can run around and play. Another development opens up the door for a big change in our neighborhood that would be detrimental to the great feeling that is there now. Written Correspondence: 7 | Page #1 8 | Page #3 #2 9 | Page #4 #5 148 N 1st E 10 | Page #6 11 | Page 12 | Page Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Rebuttal: None Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:30p.m. Chairman Rory Kunz stated that it is evident to him that many people in the neighborhood do not understand a 55’ building could still be built on the Mixed Use zoned area of the property. Commissioners Discussion: Sally Smith was talking to Mr. Zollinger about the other lots that would be affected. She was on City Council when the Mixed Use zoning was changed. 13 | Page She is trying to remember if Stephen Zollinger had to change the zoning for his property. Stephen Zollinger answered Charles Place is a Planned Unit Development and would have been built in Low-Density Residential 2. Stephen Zollinger stated there is the possibility one of the parcels facing 1st N will become a residential/commercial building in the Mixed Use zoned area. Sally grew up in this neighborhood also. If this were to come about, the traffic would be coming out on 1st N. Except for Jeff Hill, everyone else who testified is on another street. The impact only applies to Scott Hancock and Chuck Velman, because it would be in their backyard and touching their lots. Robbins called out from the audience talking about the access too. Sally continued, the opposition on 1st E is mainly on the impact the construction is having on them right now. She wanted to make a few clarifications. Vince Haley asked if the application is denied, the property stays how it is. Furthermore, the part already Mixed Use can be developed as Mixed Use. He lives outside of this area, but he works in an office building close to this property. The power outage the other day, affected him. He understands the frustration of the construction. The person building the 5-plex did not have to come to us, because the land was already zoned to allow those units. If he could guarantee a 55’ building would not be built into the property, he might vote in favor of it. The Commission has to vote on property use, not on potential projects. He believes Charles Place is a great infill in a neighborhood that could use some infill. The properties are not currently the most maintained properties. The applicant’s property appears to be a rental. He would like to see development there to see improvement on the property. He believes we owe it to the new property owners to vote against this proposal. John Bowen appreciates the testimonies. E 1st N and Main Street are busy streets. Most people coming into town come up that street; traffic is heavy there. He feels there is a balance of other properties throughout the city that could be used for apartments. He does not feel the use is appropriate on this property for this area, because of not only traffic, but also the people who live there. He is against this change. Aaron Richards thanked the community for their input. It is wonderful to see everyone’ involvement in the public process. He is in the residential development industry. It is not unusual or punitive to see two zoning designations based on the geometry of the properties. The Applicant has a responsibility to present a case to justify changing the existing depth of the Mixed Use. He does not see that the Applicant has cleared that hurdle regarding how these properties would fit within the surrounding community. This rezone would set an incorrect precedence and he is opposed. Kristi Anderson, while we recognize a 55’ tall building could be built on the front part of the land, it brought to her mind the Carlisle Apartments and the Stonebridge neighbors, who came in and talked about the height of the building and its impact on them, their privacy. This influences how she sees this request. She is not inclined to extend the Mixed Use zoning. Commercial could potentially go adjacent to the LDR2 and she does not like this idea. Greg Blacker walks this neighborhood and he feels it is a great place. He appreciates the family-friendly atmosphere. He does not feel the increase is good for the area and he will be voting against it. Steve Oakey has questions for Alan. Steve has taken notes on some of the major concerns expressed this evening that could be answered. The City has policies in regards to traffic and parking. How does the city handle traffic and parking? The City will look at a count for ins and outs in the neighborhood, based on current residents. Is it early in the morning or late in the evening? If it is to a level, a Traffic Study will be done. As far as parking, currently every unit should have two parking spaces. The parcels are in the Infill/Redevelopment area and the number or parking spaces required can be reduced to 75%. Steve said the Infill/Redevelopment area is a policy, and the goal of the Infill policy is what? The policy is to increase the development in the city center and downtown area. Densification is actually less costly for the City, because infrastructure is already in place. Charles Place lots were reduced to apply the Infill Redevelopment philosophy. As part of the Charles Place, Planned 14 | Page Unit Development, there was a reduction in the size of typical downtown lots. A couple of comments were made about construction accidents; construction accidents happen. Does the city have a policy that gives people an advantage if they come in as developers from outside the city? The developers have to meet the city standards, no matter who the developer is or how much money they have. Another concern presented was for children and their safety. What is the city’s policy for pedestrian access, speed limits, speed bumps, traffic safety? Keith Davidson, our Public Works Director could better address this question. Items within the lots themselves to provide for safety are written in to the Development Code. The Development Code requires a developer to create pathways that allow people to get out to roads from parking lots safely. Mr. Davidson could better answer the street focus of this question. The petition, waved by Mr. Mounts, that does not have anyone that was willing to go on record for supporting the request. Does the City take in to consideration petitions? Alan said, not that he is aware of. Steve Oakey has a great deal of sympathy for the character of the neighborhood, which is obviously strong. His primary principles still have to weigh heavily on people developing their property as they see fit, unless there are health and safety issues. He has not heard strong arguments for health and safety issues. He agrees a strong argument was not presented to support the application. Matthew Ferguson wants to have stronger input on how to develop his property in a way that he sees fit. The safety, health and nuisances should be addressed by the city. He would give freedom to Mr. Ferguson to develop his land. He would vote in favor. Sally Smith asked Alan, with the current zoning, the zone is less than ½ acre. What could the Applicant do on the property? A large building could be put on the south side of these lots. Alan said, as it is currently zoned, the densities for each zone would be added together. This is not a huge piece of property. There are limitations on the back of the property; there is an increase in setbacks in the Infill, when a Mixed Use comes up against another zone, like this LDR2. The building would have to be moved further away from the LDR2 zone. A Planned Unit Development is also a possibility. John Bowen goes back to Steve; he disagrees with Steve Oakey. Disrupting the neighborhood and adding the traffic should not happen for one project. He is against this proposal. Chairman Rory Kunz said we are not rezoning the whole lot, just the back portions of the lot. MOTION: Motion to deny the request for rezone from Low-Density Residential 2 and Mixed Use to rezone the entire parcels at 53 and 55 E 1st N to Mixed Use based on the incompatibility of the neighborhood with the potential affects a Mixed Use zone on the north end of these parcels could potentially add., Action: Deny, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commission Discusses the Motion: None Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: Greg Blacker, John Bowen, Kristi Anderson, Sally Smith, Aaron Richards, Vince Haley. No: Steve Oakey, Chairman Rory Kunz.