Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 20-00821 - Development Code Amend. - Transitional Ag (TAG) 1 | Page #20 00821 Ordinance Amendment – Development Code Remove TAG2, Amend TAG 1. October 13, 2020, An application was received for an Ordinance Amendment to remove Transitional Agriculture 2 (TAG2), and change Transitional Agriculture 1 (TAG1) to a single Transitional Agriculture zone (TAG). The City of Rexburg is sponsoring this application. 2. October 26, 2020, Staff reviews were completed and approved. Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on November 3rd and November 10th, 2020. 3. November 19, 2020, Alan Parkinson, City Planner, presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 6:50PM - (20-00821) – Development Code Ordinance Amendment - Remove TAG2 and amend TAG in the Development Code (action) – Alan, City of Rexburg Applicant Presentation – Alan Parkinson – When reviewing what is happening with Transitional Agriculture, he found most of this zoning in the Impact Area. The current code designates a Transitional Agriculture 1(TAG1) and a Transitional Agriculture 2 (TAG2). The only difference is the lot width: TAG1 requires 80’ and TAG2 requires 250’. Do we need two separate designations? Do we have the correct lot size? The minimum lot size is currently two (2) acres. Staff determined one zone is needed. The zones have a lot width of TAG1 80’, TAG2 250’, RR1 150’, RR2 120’, LDR1 80’. The lot widths do not seem to flow. When looking at a two (2) acre lot in the Impact Area and within the city, these are lots we do not want these lots to become blighted. Without city water, you cannot irrigate from a well for two full acres. Access to an irrigation system is needed like a canal, irrigation ditches, etc., or a large portion of the ground goes to weeds. One acre, without city water and sewer, will meet the Health Department requirements. A caretaker dwelling did not seem to fit with a change to a one acre minimum. People, who have a larger lot, can split their lot if they have enough for two one-acre lots to add another dwelling on a separate lot. The change to the Development Code will be followed by a rezone of the TAG1 and TAG2 parcels to a single TAG zoning. The change today is for just the Development Code. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Kristi Anderson says it looked like there were some additions to the residential uses. She asked about the changes shown in green. Alan answered; when the amendments were first sent out, the print was so small and we could not get the print to be larger. Municode added some of the tables and information incorrectly. Modifications were made and now the items we print should have readable-sized font. Aaron Richards likes the idea of going from a two-acre minimum to a one-acre minimum. 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 When you keep the 250’ lot width, it is like trying to fit a round peg in a square hole. This creates a lot with 250’ width and 174’ deep, which is an inverted triangle shape. It would be punitive for someone who is actually trying to build these projects because you tripled the amount of lot frontage. For a one-acre lot, the ideal width is 150’ and 290’ deep, which is a rectangle. Alan said these are the minimums, but the lots can be larger. When you create too narrow of lots, the number of driveways on roads increase. TAG1 was 80’; TAG2 was 250’ frontage and lot width. Aaron says the 80’ does not make sense, but he is not sure the 250’ is the right number either for a one-acre lot. This didn’t make sense because the RR1 goes to 150’. With a 10’ side yard, if two lots were together you could have a 20’ driveway. In his mind, the width needs to be reduced and the side yards need to be increased. Alan understands what Aaron is saying. Aaron agrees a transition is needed; he believes the geometry is off. Sally Smith asked to see the zoning map and see where the TAG areas are. Alan said there are only two areas that are TAG2 on the north side of town. Most of the TAG is located outside city limits in the Impact Area. Section 9 was reviewed, Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked about the permitted accessory uses for Caretaker Dwellings and Livestock showing in green. Alan answered; the caretaker language is being removed. The Livestock language remains the same and only applies to new livestock uses; existing livestock uses are grandfathered. Tawnya clarified some of the language in green could also be moved from one section to another. Vince Haley asked about any properties that have the caretaker dwellings. Alan could not find any property that had this situation. The only place he could see someone having a caretaker dwelling is if there was a large farm operation and built another house there for a farm hand or ranch manager. Otherwise, it would be considered a duplex, an apartment or a mother- in-law suite. Mother-in-law suites can be put in a home. Aaron asked about the mother-in- law dwellings and if they have to be connected to the dwelling. Alan said a living space has to be shared, so it has to be connected to the main dwelling per the building code. A separated dwelling would be considered an accessory apartment and would have to have a full foundation under them. Vince recalled the accessory unit issue about a year ago. If there are any accessory homes, will they be grandfathered? Yes. The removal of the caretaker dwelling will apply to those new, moving forward. Manufactured homes were made a permitted use; they would no longer require a Conditional Use Permit. Sally Smith says Aaron’s comment about lot geometry. There will be some minimum lots. Aaron was doing the math, 200’ wide and 217’ deep is almost a square. Possible side setback amendments were discussed of 20’. Alan said they really had not looked at this change that deep; this is a good catch. Alan asked Attorney Spencer Rammell if an amendment could be made to this request. Spencer confirmed this is a code amendment. Under 67-6509, an amendment could be made tonight. Commissioner Questions for Staff: None Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Kristi Anderson 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. None. 3 | Page Chairperson Kristi Anderson reviewed the public hearing procedures. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Kristi Anderson asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:18p.m. Commissioners Discussion: David Pulsipher says Aaron’s suggestions are good to increase side yards and reduce the lot width to 200’. Vince asked Aaron, if someone did not visualize what Aaron was saying about the one-acre minimum. 43,560/250 = 250’ wide, 170’ deep to use the minimum lot size. This is an awkward geometry. This is all road frontage; people do not want road frontage, they want privacy. At least make the lot a square, and if they want more privacy, they will need more land. 150’ to 190’ is ideal. A transition is needed. 200’ makes sense. The other issue is we do not driveways puncturing the right of ways and a change of side yard could remedy this, because the garages are always on the end of a house. Either increase the side yards or put some specific language for driveways. He has not heard anywhere there is driveway setbacks. Vince asked Alan what the county’s minimum is. Alan does not know; he tried to recall when he built. Rural Residential is the next step from TAG. Greg Blacker said the parcels in TAG right now, tend to be deeper than wider. He asked if 180’ would work. 180’ gives a depth of 242’. Kristi and Greg like 180’, giving people the privacy they are looking for. Sally said people usually do not like long, skinny lots, but she does not consider a lot with 180’ width, a long, skinny lot. Until you get down to 150’, you do not reach the long, skinny lots. She sees a lot of subdivision lots that are 200’ by 200’. 20’ side yards make this size as desirable. Sally asked if driveways would still be regulated. When they go to build, a Lot Layout Plan is submitted and Keith will look at these situations as they come up. The recent approved plats the Commission approved, the driveways did not have restrictions. The driveways could be placed right next to each other. Vince is looking at the cheat sheet. The RR1 is 1- 5 acres lot size. If TAG is taken down to 1 acre, another conflict is made. Rural Residential 1 has limitations on both ends, the minimum and maximum lot area. The only restriction on TAG is a one-acre minimum, but there is no maximum. Aaron said this places some uniformity on the zones for minimum acreage. The caretaker removal will require people to go through the proper channels to make another lot. Once you get out into the county for Ag in the County, there is a whole other set of regulations. Most of the TAG land in the Impact Area is rented land. Usually, this land is waiting for potential development. Aaron asked about someone who has five acres and they want their parents to live in a separate structure, could they do this. The land would have to be platted to put the structure on its own property. Alan said you could only do so many splits before platting is required. This would be the punitive side of increasing the side yards. 10’ side yard from your property line is required for fire code. Driveways can be shared; however, a Restrictive Lot Covenant would be needed for continued access for both lots. Vince Haley confirmed side setbacks only affect the buildings. Chairperson Kristi Anderson feels some hesitation; she has a neighbor with an apartment in a separate building above a garage. This should not be restricted with the larger acreage. The problem comes when the property sells; life safety requirements have to be met. A family occupancy has different building occupancy 4 | Page requirements, than a rental property. The problem is these structures are in areas that do not allow duplexes where they are located. Kristi feels people should know what they are buying. Alan said, some people do not. Recently, a property was purchased and advertised for dormitory use. It was not allowed to be dormitory and many changes have to be made to bring the building standards up to a different occupancy. The people were very upset, putting them in a bind for what they are trying to accomplish. We try to get people to come in and talk to us prior to purchasing the land. Spencer Rammell referred to problems between owners and sellers. This is especially apparent in college towns. College students sometimes live in a cardboard box; it comes down to money. Students in Colfax, Washington, has the same situation. The city removed some codes, someone sold and before you knew it, students were living in chicken coop/hostels. In more rural areas with a grandmother suite, this is a different occupancy than eight or nine students sharing one bathroom, is a situation the city would not have signed off on initially. Aaron Richards clarified accessory buildings are allowed, but not accessory apartments. A caretaker use requires a Conditional Use Permit right now and does not require a plat. Alan said by taking it away, a lot split has to be shown in case the structure is sold. Aaron Richards is backpedaling on the change in the side setbacks with the 180’. Aaron understands what Alan is saying. Vince Haley said this subject is futurisitic. Thinking agriculture, he does not see anyone in town can afford to pay ranch manger within the area. Agriculture is so tight right now, you are either doing the farming yourself or you are selling the land. You have to think in the future, the accessory buildings will be rented in the future and he would prefer they be regulated. Chairperson Kristi Anderson is not thinking of a farmer as a caretaker. Alan said a “caretaker” is a farmer and is just a person to live and manage the farm. A mother-in-law suite is a separate issue and would need to be attached to the same structure. Greg asked what the process if for a Lot Split. The request for a lot split still comes to the city for review. A lot split is administratively approved. $135 is the cost. Sally believes the group is visualizing this zone incorrectly, as country instead of city. Land is worth too much for someone to want to do a caretaker dwelling. If TAG does not fit, then a rezone may be needed. Alan said the Health Department regulates septic systems to no less than ½ acre. You cannot put two houses on one (1) acre. Jim says the discussion has been good and has covered the points he was concerned about. Vince confirmed 180’ is the width the group has settled on. Aaron does not see a change needed for the 10’ setback. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the removal Transitional Agriculture 2 (TAG2) and amend Transitional Agriculture in the Development Code, including proposed changes with the exception of the lot width of 180', Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9). Yes: Aaron Richards, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 5 | Page 4. December 2, 2020, the application was presented to City Council. Ordinance No 1243 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Transitional Agriculture Zones 1 (TAG1) and 2 (TAG2) to Transitional Agriculture (TAG) Zone #20-00821 and other substantive and non-substantive items – Alan Parkinson Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained the request to amend the Development Code Ordinance 1200 Transitional Agriculture Zone 1 (TAG1) and Transitional Agriculture 2 (TAG2) to Transitional Agriculture Zone (TAG). When they reviewed both zones, they discovered the only difference between the two zones is TAG 1 Zone has a caretaker option and the other difference is the distance in the lot size. In TAG1 the frontage is 80 feet wide and in TAG2 frontage is 250 feet wide. The zones should be transitioning into Rural Residential 1 of 150 feet wide frontage because all of the other uses and requirements are identical in both zones. He recommended the zones be combined into one. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson continued to explaine a lot size is traditionally two acres; however, two acre lots become a challenge for residents to water because only an acre and half can be watered from well water, the remaining half acre would need to be watered from a supplemental canal. He is recommending the lot size be changed to one acre with the option of having a large lot size. He said almost all of the TAG1 and TAG2 properties are in the city’s impact area. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson mentioned the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concerns with the frontage being 250 feet wide. After discussion, the P&Z Commissioners are recommending a reduction in the frontage to 180 feet wide which almost makes a square lot. The caretaker dwelling did not seem to fit with a change to a one-acre minimum. Council Member Mann expressed concerns with allowing one-acre lots in the city’s impact area. If these properties were annexed into the city, they would be required to connect to the city’s sewer system. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said when a property is annexed into the city they will be required to connect to the city’s sewer system when their septic tank fails. Council President Busby moved to approve Ordinance No 1243 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Transitional Agriculture Zones 1 (TAG1) and 2 (TAG2) to Transitional 6 | Page Agriculture (TAG) Zone #20-00821 and other substantive and non-substantive items and consider first read; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora None Council Member Johnson Council Member Mann Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe Council President Busby The motion carried 5. December 16, 2020, City Council 2nd Read the application. Ordinance No 1243 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Transitional Agriculture Zones 1 (TAG1) and 2 (TAG2) to Transitional Agriculture (TAG) Zone #20-00821 and other substantive and non-substantive items – Alan Parkinson Council Member Flora moved to approve Ordinance No 1243 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Transitional Agriculture Zones 1 (TAG1) and 2 (TAG2) to Transitional Agriculture (TAG) Zone and other substantive and non-substantive items and consider second read; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora Council Member Mann Council Member Johnson Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe 7 | Page Council President Busby The motion carried 6. January 6, 2021, City Council 3rd Read the application. Ordinance No 1243 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Transitional Agriculture Zones 1 (TAG1) and 2 (TAG2) to Transitional Agriculture (TAG) Zone #20-00821 and other substantive and non-substantive items – Alan Parkinson Council Member Mann said he is opposed to allowing septic tanks on one-acre lots so close to the city limits. There is a reason the city has an Impact Zone one reason being the properties across from the city boundaries could potentially be part of Rexburg. There has been a two-acre rule to keep subdivisions from being on septic tanks. He believe the change from two acres to one-acre lots is a mistake. The environmental impact of septic tanks should also be considered. Council Member Flora asked if septic tanks are allowed in the Impact Zone. Planning and Zoning Administrator explained property in the county that cannot be serviced by the city have a septic tank. There already are Transitional Agriculture Zone properties in the city limits. If and when there is development on these properties they will need to be rezoned. One of the challenges of having a two-acre lot is that only one acre can be watered by well water the other acre will need to be watered by canal water; therefore, two thirds of the property becomes a weed patch. Council Member Flora asked if city regulations apply to the Impact Zone. Planning and Zoning Administrator replied yes city regulations apply to properties in the Impact Zone; however, they are not required to connect to city services. The larger two-acre lots are difficult to redevelop once the property is annexed into the city. Council Member Flora said she is in favor of the one-acre lots. She asked Council Member Mann to clarify his opposition to allowing the one-acre lots. Council Member Mann said he will use the example of the west side of Valley Wide where 12th West is the dividing road between the city and county. Currently, if a developer desired to develop some of the larger plots into subdivisions, they would probably desire smaller lots and connect to city services, he is in favor of this type of growth. He said 8 | Page having two-acre lots is more difficult to develop; however, allowing the one-acre lots will cause there to be more one-acre lots in the Impact Zone on septic tanks right in the way of the progress of the city. He said another reason for the Impact Zone is so that City Council has input regarding the type of growth around the city limits. City Attorney Zollinger said Transitional Agriculture Zones (TAG) are already available to any developer. The change is taking away the option of having two-acre lots and the city will only administer the one-acre lot or TAG in the Impact Area. A developer desiring to develop a large plot will generally not use the TAG Zone; they will desire to maximize their investment by asking for half or quarter acre lots. The change will also prevent two-acre development around the perimeter of the city. He said the city could recover from one-acre lots because they are known as estate lots; however, the two-acre lots become waste areas when encapsulated into the city because they are difficult to develop. Council President Busby moved to approve Ordinance No 1243 Amend Development Code Ordinance 1200 Transitional Agriculture Zones 1 (TAG1) and 2 (TAG2) to Transitional Agriculture (TAG) Zone and other substantive and non-substantive items and consider third read; Council Member Wolfe seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye those voting nay Council Member Flora Council Member Mann Council Member Johnson Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe Council President Busby The motion carried