HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 20-00603 - Dev. Code - Remove Infill; Amend PED, LDR3
1 | Page
#20 00603
Ordinance Amendment
Remove Infill/Redevelopment Overlay; Amend PED; Amend LDR3 Density
1. July 30, 2020, An application was received for a Comprehensive Plan Map change from the
City of Rexburg.
2. August 24, 2020, Staff Reviews were completed. Notice was sent to the newspaper to be
published on September 1st and September 15th.
3. September 10, 2020, Notice was posted on the property on several corners of the PED.
Documents were completed and sent to the Commissioners.
4. September 17, 2020, Alan Parkinson presented the application to the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
6:35 p.m. – (20-00603) – Amend the Development Code. Change the LDR3 density
from 8 units/acre to 10 units/acre. Remove the Infill/Redevelopment Area and all
references to this section. Amend the Pedestrian Emphasis District Map and section text.
(action) – City of Rexburg
Applicant Presentation – City of Rexburg – Alan Parkinson – When he was first
assigned to work on this, much time was spent on the city’s current uses and where we are
going. Staff has gone through the Development Code to identify the areas within the
Development Code that need to change.
LDR3. The LDR3 currently says 8 units/acre or 8,000 sq. ft for a duplex. When you do the
math, the two numbers don’t come out to the same result. 43560 sq.ft. = 1 acre. 43560
divided by 8 = 5,445 square feet/unit. 5,445 * 2 = 10890 sq.ft. We want to make sure the
square footage matches units per acre. The density is being changed to 10 units/acre, which
will match the existing square footage. 10 units/acre is 43560 divided by 10 = 4356 square
feet/unit. For a duplex this would be 4356 * 2 = 8712 square feet, closer to the current
square footage listed. This is the only change that is being made in the LDR3 zone at this
time.
Questions from Commissioners: Vince Haley asked if the math was the only change
was needed. The only line changing is 4.05.070.C. Lot Configuration and Density: “The maximum
density permitted in this district is ten (10) dwelling units per acre.” Alan stated the previous Zoning
Administrator had been using the 10,000 square footage and told a potential client, you can
use the 10,000sq.ft. When Staff looked at the information in the code, they saw the 8 units
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
per acre and the contradiction was identified. Because the applicant had been given
permission by the prior Director, Staff allowed the 10,000 square feet for a duplex. Staff
realized the mistake needed to be fixed so the problem did not continue to happen. Vince
Haley asked Alan what LDR2 allows in terms of units. LDR2 allows two units per lot as a
duplex or twinhome.
Remove the Infill/Redevelopment Overlay. The next part is removal of the
Infill/Redevelopment area. The overlay was originally designed to densify the center of the
city. This was in order to keep the larger apartment complexes and businesses in this area.
Buildings were sitting empty. Lots were not maximized to their capacity. The
ideasboundaries were so large, the infill was not encouraged to densify as hoped. Also, the
University purchased a lot of the land next to them, reducing some expansion. The
system has not worked well for the city. Next, we will discuss the PED, bringing some
Infill items into the PED.
Questions from Commissioners: None.
Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED). Will Klaver stated the goal of the PED was to
give people more of an opportunity to use their land and their parcels to get the most
density. Another goal is to create a pedestrian-friendly area. There are less setbacks on the
front, rear and side yards. Bicycles were allowed to park in the front of buildings. Sidewalks
were widened to 8’, rather than the standard 5’. A couple of the major changes the proposal
for the PED addresses are:
• within the PED, you would not need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for dormitory-
style housing; this will encourage developers to focus on this area and slow the spread of
multi-family residences on the edges of the city;
• the number of parking spaces required for dormitory or community housing can be reduced
to 75% of the required spaces with a Parking Management Plan, previously allowed in the
Infill/Redevelopment Area;
• the PED already required an approved Conditional Use Permit to reduce the amount of
parking spaces required to as low as 60%, with a Parking Management Plan;
• density was removed; parking and the height restriction for the particular zone will limit the
density.
A barrier is being removed to allow greater density.
Commissioner Questions: Vince Haley asked
about why Staff chose the specific areas in which to
expand the PED. Will answered; the red section is
what is currently identified in the PED. The green is
the addition to the PED. The reason these areas
were chosen is that in this area Staff wants to see
dormitory housing close to the University and close
to downtown. Greg Blacker asked about
identification of streets. The large area in green is
bordered on the west of S 2nd W, north of W 4th S,
East of S 4th W going north until the road intersects
with the railroad tracks, then the railroad tracks are
3 | Page
the boundary to align with the north boundary of the current PED. The small area in green
east of the University was previously in the Infill/Redevelopment area and the northern
boundary stops at the Downtown District border. Greg Blacker asked why the Abri
Apartments are not in the PED. Will answered the Abri Apartments are already in the
Downtown Boundary and the overlap with the PED could cause some problems with future
projects. David Pulsipher asked about the location of the downtown boundary. The
downtown boundary consists of 12 blocks. The area is bordered at approximately E 1st N is
the top boundary, S 2nd W with the Cedars and Hemming Village is approximately the west
boundary. All of W 2nd S over to S 2nd E and ½ of block east of 2nd E. David asked about
the difference between PED and PEZ.
The Pedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ) and the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED) are two
names for the same area. David Pulsipher confirmed the Downtown boundary overlaps
with the PED designation. What impacts are there for the overlapping areas? Will
answered there is no impact on the current overlapping areas. The changes proposed today
do not affect this overlap. These two boundaries have overlapped for some time without
any problems. Alan answered the Downtown overlay came in after the PED. The object of
the PED is to take care of the infill. The Downtown overlay does not trump the PED; the
two work together, but the PED gives you more advantages than the Downtown overlay
does right now. In form-based code, there will be some changes that address the
overlapping area. Chairman Rory Kunz restated Mr. Pulsipher’s question. Why do you
care if the boundary on the east side stops at the downtown district when a large portion
within the PED and Downtown District overlap? The PED could include the Abri
Apartments. Alan answered, the reason why we are stopping at the Downtown boundary is
in preparation for another proposal coming before the Commission in the near future; this
boundary allows clean lines for future adjustments. This small piece will fill in a gap that
would not otherwise be covered in a future change. David thanked Rory for clarifying the
question. Vince Haley Jim Lawrence confirmed there are no conflicts.
Vince Haley asked if they are suggesting future applications in these areas. Alan answered
no, there are no applications proposed by the city. We are running out of areas for
Pedestrian Emphasis District. This allows more growth areas for housing for the University.
We have infrastructure in place and roads are already built. Car traffic can be reduced
because of the walking distance, allowing less stress on the city’s transportation system.
Greg confirmed the big win here is for less parking required by the developer. Alan replied
students could show up, walk, and attend on campus without the need for a car. The
University is approving housing across 2nd W. The stoplight is on 2nd S and the HAWK
signal is on 3rd providing for pedestrian safety in this area.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Public Works can service this area.
Staff looked at all of the impacts for these changes. Staff recommends the Commission
recommend approval to City Council for the proposed changes.
Commissioner Questions for Staff: Vince Haley asked if Traffic Studies have been
conducted in the proposed areas. Alan answered; Traffic Studies have been done. Each
individual development will do a Traffic Study as the developers increase their footprint in
these areas. An overall Traffic Study was conducted. Vince asked what is the long-term
plan for 2nd E? N 2nd E will be a main artery and go up to a full width up to the temple. N
4 | Page
2nd E will connect to the East Parkway Corridor and become a major thoroughfare. The
City is communicating the widths for the maximum width along 2nd E and the City is
working on obtaining the right-of-way. Alan believes right-of-ways have already been
established at time of building of Abri Apartments. Vince Haley identified by the location
of the Abri Apartments, that there is more land for the right-of-way west of the center line
of the road, than there is east. Greg Blacker asked who would foot the bill for an upgrade
from the HAWK light to a stop light. This would be up to engineering. Developers will be
called upon to help with the cost based on their increase of traffic in the area. Chairman
Rory Kunz asked what impact fees pay for. Alan answered, impact fees pay for road
upgrades, sidewalks, and infrastructure fixes, parks and police services in the same area of
development. Chairman Rory Kunz suggested a street light might fit into this description.
Greg asked about the potential for beds in the area for maximum build out. Alan does not
recall the specific number of beds. Engineering ran the number and there was sufficient
infrastructure for 5-10 years before upgrades would be needed. Sundance is putting in 300
beds right now.
David Pulsipher returned to the discussion about N 2nd E. The road is very narrow. Abri
works because their parking lot extends beyond the downtown boundary. He has concerns
about development being able to develop in the narrow, eastern area designated as the PED
with the needed parking and the narrowness of the current road. Are developers going to be
coming in and asking us to extend the PED because the area is so narrow? Do we need to
push the PED further east into the residential neighborhoods? Alan answered potentially
this could happen. The frontage tends to be rentals. We want to hold the line as well as we
can and allow the strong neighborhoods in this area to thrive. Staff will push more
development and growth in the PED and the downtown. The current PED boundary is
believed to have been in place since 2008, with a clause that the boundary could not be
changed for five years. Staff intends to hold strong to the boundary to encourage
development within the PED borders. Vince Haley confirmed this is an all for one vote,
not piece by piece. Chairman Rory Kunz says it is. Blake Willis asked how the houses on
the east side would be preserved. He spoke of apartments on the west side of Harvard.
Alan said we put in the boundaries we can. The only way we can preserve this area is on
decision of the Commission and City Council.
Chairman Rory Kunz said to keep in mind if the development is wide enough. Abri has
built their buildings in the same boundary proposed for the PED on the east side of the
campus. Abri-size development could allow more apartments of the same size. David
stated the buildings fit, but the parking lot for Abri extends to Harvard. Chairman Rory
Kunz said this is an entirely different discussion, because technically, anyone could buy land
in that zone and put a parking lot on it where the zoning allows this as a permitted use. We
are talking about building structure and use at this point. David Pulsipher asked about the
parking spaces needed to build. Can they use land outside of this PED overlay to meet their
parking requirements? Chairman Rory Kunz said to reduce parking below the 75%, they
would have to provide a Parking Management Plan to Staff. The parking does not have to
be on site. There was a building on the south side of the PED district, which purchased
space on a vacant lot of surrounding areas for their parking needs; they are renting space
from another property owner. Alan said the parking needs to be within 300’ of the building
for a parking lot that is not their own. The contract has to identify the number of available
spaces and the contract given to your tenants to designate to the student whether a parking
5 | Page
space has been allowed or not; if not, the student is not to bring a car to the city. A previous
approval of a low percentage of parking created a huge problem, due to the number of
students who brought a car. 75% seems to work well. The C.U.P. process to go to as low as
60% will need to show in detail to the Commission how they propose to make the parking
work; this was already written into the PED overlay. All of the land for the PED was in the
Infill/Redevelopment area and dormitory was already allowed to reduce their parking to
75%. Neither of these parking reductions have actually been changed. Stronger verbiage
has been added for the Parking Management Plan. Chairman Rory Kunz confirmed this is
not really changing anything; this is just expanding where you are removing; we are removing
the Infill and expanding the PED. Aland said the only change in the PED would be a right
for dormitory; currently, the lots in the PED have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit
(CUP). Bicycle parking in the front was not in the code, but this will encourage other modes
of transportation. In essence, this needs to be one request, because it needs to be to cover
the area that is removed.
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. None.
Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures.
Favor: Blake Willis – 1343 Morningside Drive – He is in favor of the proposal. He
understands on the concerns on the east side, but on the west side, he believes the change
will clean the area up. Would the zone need to be changed from MDR to HDR to do
dormitory? Alan answered; the current zoning within the PED would not have to be
changed to allow the permitted dormitory use.
Neutral: None
Opposed: None
Rebuttal: None
Written Correspondence: No chat comments are in place. No emails have been received.
No hands are raised are on the Go to Meeting.
Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input
portion of the hearing at 7:17p.m.
Commissioners Discussion: Aaron Richards says Porter Park is one of the crown jewels
of the city. The opportunity to include the north and west side in the PED and encourage
redevelopment in this area makes sense. The other areas proposed also makes sense; he
supports Staff’s proposal. Randall Kempton feels these areas will encourage and
incentivize densification in these areas close to town. He supports this request to keep
students close to the campus. Vince Haley asked if David has concerns for 2nd E. David
Pulsipher feels everything that has been proposed is reasonable. He did not realize the
Infill/Redevelopment area that is being removed actually includes the PED area. It is a
challenging part of town where the residential area abuts areas of high-density housing. On
the other hand, he is not ready to vote against the entire proposal due to his concerns.
Vince asked Chairman Rory Kunz if parking outside the allowed area would require the
requesters to come before the Commission. Chairman Rory Kunz said it depends on what
6 | Page
the zone is and the permitted uses in the zones. Any change to uses not in those zones
would cause the applicants to come before the Commission and then City Council. David
Pulsipher learned the parking in the Infill/Redevelopment is just shifting to the PED area.
The areas of concern were already included in these overlays. Any project on 2nd E will have
to follow similar model to the Abri Apartments. The neighborhoods are strong on the east
side. Vince Haley agrees, however, there is a much different occupancy between a
dormitory and a regular rental. The LDR2 zoning on this east side would cause applicants to
come before the Commission for a CUP.
MOTION: Recommend to City Council to approve the recommendations to remove
the Infill/Redevelopment area, amend the PED and its expanded area and amend
the LDR3 density to 10 units/acre, to help our city grow and to align the items in our
Development Code., 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 = 6).
Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Randall
Kempton, Todd Marx.
The item will go to City Council Wednesday, October 7th.
5. October 7, 2020, the application was presented to City Council.
A. Ordinance No 1237 Amendment to Ordinance No 1200 Rexburg Development Code
Removing Infill/Redevelopment and Amending PED Requirements #20-00603 – Alan
Parkinson
Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson reviewed the request to amend Ordinance No.
1200 Rexburg Development Code Removing Infill/Redevelopment and Amending PED
Requirements. The purpose of the Infill/Redevelopment was designed to densify in the city’s center;
however, the desired out come to drive development in the city’s center was not accomplished and
has create some challenges. The amendment to the ordinance would remove the
Infill/Redevelopment as a zone and add many of its options to the Pedestrian Emphasis District
(PED). The area of the PED would be expanded. He reviewed a map of the proposed PED Overlay
Boundaries.
City Planning Assistant William Klaver reviewed the proposed changes to the PED. The building
setbacks will be reduced bring the building closer to the front. There will be no density requirements
because parking demands will drive the density. The height restrictions will also determine the
density. The developer will not have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for dormitory housing, it
will be permit use by right in the PED.
7 | Page
8 | Page
Brett Sampson, Director BYU-I Community Relations said parking tends to be a concern for
high density development. He asked if city staff has met with BYI-Idaho’s Housing Office about
parking and if there would be sufficient parking in these new developments. City Planning Assistant
Klaver replied he has not spoken with BYU-Idaho’s Housing Office Representative; however, the
reductions of parking allowed in the PED are currently in place and the amount is not being
changed. A parking management plan can reduced the parking to 75% and if the developer prefers
to lower the parking to 60% that would require City Council approval.
Council Member Mann said he in favor of enlarging the PED and encouraging students to walk to
campus; however, the more the PED moves away from campus the likelihood of students walking
to campus is less likely. Then the responsibility of making sure the apartment complex owners
follow their parking management plan falls upon the city.
Council Member Johnson asked if it’s the property owner or the city’s responsibility to have bike
rakes outside of businesses. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said the city allows the
business owners to have bike racks outside their business.
Council Member Wolfe moved to approve Ordinance No 1237 Amendment to Ordinance No
1200 Rexburg Development Code Removing Infill/Redevelopment and Amending PED
Requirements and consider first read; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill
asked for a vote:
Those voting aye Those voting nay
Council Member Wolfe None
Council Member Johnson
Council Member Mann
Council Member Walker
Council President Busby
The motion carried
6. October 21, 2020, the application was presented to City Council for 2nd Read.
a. Ordinance No 1237 Amendment to Ordinance No 1200 Rexburg Development
Code Removing Infill/Redevelopment and Amending PED Requirements #20-
00603 – Alan Parkinson
9 | Page
Council Member Flora moved to approve Ordinance No 1237 Amendment to Ordinance No
1200 Rexburg Development Code Removing Infill/Redevelopment and Amending PED
Requirements and consider second read; Council Member Johnson 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
The motion carried
7. November 4, 2020, the application was presented to City Council for 3rd Read
and final approval.
a. Ordinance No 1237 Amendment to Ordinance No 1200 Rexburg
Development Code Removing Infill/Redevelopment and Amending PED
Requirements #20-00603 – Alan Parkinson
Council Member Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No 1237 Amendment to Ordinance No
1200 Rexburg Development Code Removing Infill/Redevelopment and Amending PED
10 | Page
Requirements and consider third read; Council Member Wolfe seconded the motion; Council
Member Mann 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