Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 21-00170 - Oxford - Approx. 459 W Main - Rezone from MU & MDR1 to HDR2 #21 00170 Rezone from Mixed Use and MDR1 to High-Density Residential 2 4 parcels at approx. 459 W Main March 18, 2021, An application was received for a Rezone from Mixed Use and Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2) from Rachel Whoolery. March 24, 2021, Application paperwork complete. Payment was received for the application. April 1, 2021, Staff Reviews were completed and a Staff Review Report was sent to Rachel Whoolery. At that time, she was asked if she wanted to include the Mixed Use parcel in the rezone request. April 12, 2021, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on April 23rd and April 30th, 2021. April 13, 2021, Notice was mailed to neighbors within 300’ of parcel. April 27, 2021, Notice was posted on the property. May 6, 2021, Alan Parkinson presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 6:45PM – (21-00170) – 4 parcels at Approx. 459 W Main - RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, RPRRXB10430160, RPRRXB10430100 – Rezone from Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) & Mixed-Use to High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2). The three west parcels were approved for HDR2 zoning in 2012 with a 36-month sunset clause to revert in zoning if no Building Permit was obtained and a 1:1 setback requirement. No Building Permit was obtained causing the zoning to revert to MDR1 (action) – Rachel Whoolery Applicant Presentation – Rachel Whoolery – 131 Charles Place, Rexburg – The property is a field about two (2) acres bordered on the south by the mobile home park, twinhomes on the west, Cambridge, a 3-story apartment complex on the East, and to the North across Main Street is Homestead, Senior-Living. Under the current zone, MDR1, we can build the same uses: duplexes, multi-family, residential facility for elderly persons, and mobile homes as you can in HDR2. Every use found around this property could be built on this parcel as it is currently zoned. In the MDR1 zone, 16 units can be built per acre at a height of four (4) stories. HDR2 would allow 42 units per acre and a height of five (5) stories. The current owners have had the property for over five (5) years. Rachel created a project that was amazing and beautiful, but because of the construction costs and the very, low rents the project was postponed. The developers have been waiting for rents to go up and construction costs to go down. Construction costs are not doing great right now, but they have high hopes that within this next year, it will get better. Rents have improved in Rexburg to a point they can build, but with sixteen (16) units per acre they can not pencil the project. The developer is sitting with this property that is walkable to Broulim’s, Porter Park, BYU-I, but it sits as a vacant field on the main corridor going in to Rexburg. The developer knows its an eyesore. They cut the weeds down and spray them. The land has been waiting for just the right moment. If they matched the uses of the surrounding land, the best use of the land would be residential housing. The Mixed Use zoning on the east parcel could be a commercial/residential mix. The land really isn’t commercial at this location. Having the elementary school and the walkable amenities would support housing. The cost of land, Impact Fees, and higher taxes are pushing the multi-family to the periphery of the city. This increases busing and traffic in to town to get to the amenities. Then, more parking is needed. As you are looking at the density, we want the housing near our walkable areas. The zoning of this parcel would support putting the density where it needs to be – close to downtown. One concern was traffic – Main Street is a highway with four (4) lanes. This is a place where the traffic could handle the increase. When she met with the city, Staff was very concerned about the access and the safest way to flow traffic in and out of a development. The last thing the developer wants is to see the flow of traffic be disturbed for the neighborhood  . Another concern was property value. Rachel helped to build Windsor Manor. She purchased one of the properties to build the Manor at $136,000 in 2012. A house with the same specifications across the street from Windsor Manor sold for $212,000. The only difference was Windsor Manor was built. She understands there is a concern about what happens when things change. Putting an attractive building with the required landscape buffers is far more attractive then an empty field or weed patch. The impact is already at this location – a 4-story building of multi-family housing can be built in the current zoning. The question is how many units. The parking requirements control the amount of units for the property. The situation is not how many units we can put in, but how many units can we provide the parking for. In the letter submitted, there was concern about morning sunlight and how the adjacent properties would be shaded. With a 5-story building, how would the shadow hit the homes? What it looks like, is the first three (3) hours of sunlight, it is possible the shadow would touch the property line. She appreciates neighborhood concerns. The focus is to design a beautiful place you can look at. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Sally Smith asked about the entrances and the control on Main Street. Rachel answered the State has control. Kristi asked if the State has denied accesses, because they think there are too many. Sally and Alan said the entrances are controlled by a certain distance requirement. Alan continued two (2) accesses would be required for this project. A Traffic Impact Study will also be required. Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – When the projects come in to Staff and they are located along Hwy 33, one of the first things Staff has the developer do is contact the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD). Staff also discusses the project with ITD to determine what Staff needs to be aware of. All access on to Hwy 33 has to be approved by ITD. As was stated, a while back this property was zoned as High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2). When the previous zoning was approved, there was a sunset clause, which stated if no development happened within three (3) years, the zoning would revert to the prior zone, which is Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). The change of the zone was recently discovered and reverted the zoning a few months ago. Then, Rachel came in with her request. Staff has reviewed the application. This request is in an area where we do want to see higher-density residential, because the roads are already built, and the sewer and the water infrastructure is already in place. There is minimal impact to city expenses. This development will increase the tax base that supports the County, the City, and the School Districts. The concerns submitted by the citizens will be taken in to consideration when a Lot Layout Plan is submitted affecting neighbors. A Traffic Impact Study will be needed. Staff recommends the Commissioners recommend approval to the City Council. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Kristi confirmed the current zoning of the twin homes to the West are currently in a Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone matching the current zoning of the property proposed to be rezoned. Greg asked about during the discussion of the buildings if the placement of the buildings was set back away from the houses to the west. Alan said there is a part of the Development Code that says when a High-Density Residential (HDR) zone comes up against a residential zone; there are certain setbacks that have to be met. Greg clarified the side setback of 1:1 will affect the placement of a building in relationship to the twin homes. Jim asked when the twin homes were built. A lady from the audience explained the twin homes were built in 1996 and 1997. Greg asked about the required parking. Alan said 1.5 spaces are required for 1-bedroom units 2 spaces per unit for 2-bedrooms or more. Greg confirmed the lighting would have to be shielded. Vince asked Alan about the reasoning of the sunset clause. Alan said during this time, sunset clauses were common, to encourage developers who were serious about building to develop their land and not complete land actions then let land sit idle. He encouraged the Commissioners to avoid sunset clauses; the Commission believes either the request is right or it is not. Vince restated it was an encouragement to get moving on development, not sitting on the land to wait for the highest bidder to come along. Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Sally Smith 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. Chairperson Sally Smith said a petition has been received from a number of the homeowners. She consulted Attorney Rammell about what should be done. Some of the people are probably in the audience. Should we read the letter? It is against the proposal. The people who signed the petition may not need to testify. What is the best thing to do? Attorney Rammell said the letter should be read as the signees’ written statement. Discussion about the written statement or the spoken statement being accepted – one or the other. Chairperson Sally Smith reviewed the public hearing procedures.  Favor: Jenny Campbell – 513 Boulder St, Rigby – She is the realtor that sold the property. She represents both the seller and buyer. Jenny has also brought the builder with her tonight. Rachel has already designed the Windsor Manor and did a fabulous job for the community. She has brought in a lot of revenue through the tax base. There has been multiple meetings with the City to work through the processes. They would not have moved forward on this project is they had not received positive feedback from Alan and Rachel. We want to bring money to your town. We like to see people make money. We like to see people come in and use this property. We want to utilize the community’s assets. We want to bring money to Broulims and downtown. We want to provide a walkable property. Many people live out of town and commute in. We would like to beautify the property. Neutral: None Written Correspondence: We received a petition from the homeowners in the Courtyard H.O.A in opposition of the zoning request. Chairperson Smith read the petition:   Anyone who is not found on this petition, who would like to speak, can come forward and speak in opposition. A question was spoken from the audience clarifying those who submitted the letter would not be able to also speak at the hearing. Attorney Rammell was consulted. There is nothing in the Idaho Code or Open Meeting Law that requires spoken testimony, although the City usually allows it. It is a general rule to allow one method of input or the other to reduce the amount of time to read 50 written statements. This is up to the discretion of the Chairman. Chairperson Smith said if there were anything someone would like to add to the opposition statement, he or she could be heard for reasons other than those stated on the petition. Opposed: Linda Newton – 29 S 5th W – She is the president of the Homeowners’ Association. Linda appreciates the comments shared today. The statement has been the developer does not want to impact the neighbors, but the development will impact the neighbors. This morning she looked out her back window and saw a beautiful sunrise. If the Commissioners allow a 5-story building to go on this property, she will never see this again. Seeing a sunrise is a part of life; people want to see a sunrise from the kitchen. Some of the families in these homes have small children. Parents should not have to worry if their children are going to be safe due to an apartment complex behind their home. The neighbors’ privacy is important to them. Several years ago, she feels one of the reasons for the sunset clause was the Commissioners listened to the neighbors’ concerns. Linda hopes Commissioners will listen to the neighbors again. The homeowners have concerns – they do not want a 5-story building in their backyard. She understands the property will be developed; there is not a lot that can be done about it. Impact on Main Street will happen. The condition of Main Street is already poor. More traffic on the street will only deteriorate it further. The City has a tough time filling the potholes right now. How are they going to do it then? Please do not make this property high density. Thank you. Donna Funk – 23 S 5th W – She wants to make a correction. Oxford Apartments is only 2-stories. Cambridge is east of Oxford Apartments. Homestead is across Main Street to the North. Jeanine Nelson – 19 S 5th W - If you change this to high-density, Rachel stated they can put 80 units on their two (2) acres. This will cause about 160 additional cars coming out onto Main Street. Some students walk, some do not. On Main Street or 2nd E during certain times of the day, you can see the cars lined up. Cars line up from Walmart to 7th N. People in Rexburg drive to the store. Increasing the traffic, will make it worse. Dwayne Seeley – 33 S 5th W - In four days, he will be 94 years old. His wife is 89 and she has cancer. How much longer do you think we will be at the location? If you wait this out, you may have to deal with my children. He does not want to be upset; he will go with it. Rebuttal: Rachel Whoolery – We understand there will be an impact in construction; it will be hard. We are already neighbors and we want to make the transition as easy as possible on you. One thing I was given permission to say is the project will not be 5-stories. Parking lots take a lot of room; the parking lot takes up more room than the footprint of the building. Each parking stall is 9’ x 20’. The building will be 4-story. There will not be hundreds of cars. The project is planned to comply with the current building height requirements in the MDR1 zone. The problem is the property is in the city. She lived in Hibbard for the country living. Infill and density needs to happen in the downtown. We are doing our part to infill the empty spots, which is ideal for development. It is hard when you are next to the development. I am so sorry. This is a tough meeting to hear the plans for the lot. It has been a field for a long time. When we build, it will be beautiful. She designed every aspect of Windsor Manor. To her, Windsor Manor is beautiful. We are thinking about where we are going to place the building. Many elements are taken into consideration. They are working to minimize impacts. This is what Jenny meant when she said we are talking with Staff. Chairman Sally Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:44 p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Kristi said in past meetings, we have been talking about what we are discussing about downtown living. We do want density to be located downtown. This is a good spot for high-density. She noticed in the beginning the request is for high-density next to smaller homes. Looking at land use, the application makes sense to have HDR here, because the property is walkable. What buffering could be at this location to reduce the impacts? How far would the building be set back from these homes? Alan said the parking could be placed up to the property line, but the building would be required to put a fence between the parking and the homes. You would have at least twenty (20’) feet for the depth of a row of parking stalls and a drive aisle of twenty-four (24’) feet, and possibly a row of compact stalls at sixteen (16’) feet before the building, then 6’ of sidewalk. Possibly, the building could be sixty (60’) feet from the property line. Kristi confirmed the parking would push the building farther from these homes. Alan said the minimum rear yard in the HDR2 zone would be twenty (20’) feet. Chairperson Smith said we want to know the side yard setback. Jim said, given how much parking would be needed, and the possible density, how many units could go on a 2-acre parcel with parking requirement? Alan said roughly 65 units would be the maximum. There is not enough area for parking to go higher than 65 units; this would maximize their number of units. Tawnya read the side yard setback in the HDR2 zone (4.09.080 D.) “Each lot or parcel of land in the HDR2 zone shall have a side yard of at least six (6’) feet or six (6”) inches of setback for every (1’) foot of building height, whichever is greater. Exception: A setback of ten (10’) feet shall be allowed within side yards that abut other HDR zones, MDR zones, Commercial zones, or Mixed-Use zones, regardless of building height.” Alan clarified parking could be within this setback, but the building cannot be within this distance. There is no reduced parking; the property is not in the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED) zone. Parking structure have not been proposed. Jim said we also have to consider the worst-case scenario. Potentially, they could have parking within the setback area. Alan said there is a setback buffer between HDR and MDR that forces the building to be farther away. Alan said this applies to the South and West, but the density on the East is similar and no buffer is required. Chairperson Smith reminded the Commissioners, this is a rezone and we cannot consider the project. Kristi said as the building height increases, the setback also increases, and the number of units decreases. Greg asked about green space requirements for the parking lot. Alan answered; the developer will have to handle the snow. Ten (10%) percent of parking is required for snow storage. Sometimes people put in landscaping strips adjacent to their parking for a place to put the snow, but this is not a code requirement. Kristi said to address the traffic issue; the Commission rely on the State to monitor the road. Alan said not just the State, the Traffic Impact Study would determine which changes are needed. This applies to ins and outs and the distance from the stoplight. The project would not be able to move forward. The State maintains the highway. The City has tried to help this year with that maintenance. Greg confirmed the developer pays for the Traffic Impact Study. Randall said growth is coming and where to put it is the problem. One thing he knows is he lives on 5th W and he runs the road often. He has eight (8) children. He has watched apartment complexes go in – some good and some not as far as their outward appearances. Randall knows Rachel’s work; we could have worse neighbors. David expressed appreciation to the group for coming in to express their views. He is impressed with the active homeowners’ association. He is a former president of a neighborhood association. Taking away a sunset is a huge consideration. The sunset was considered in a recent hearing on signs. Sunsets are part of living in a rural community. This is a difficult situation. Jim said as a reminder as we consider this vote; consider the rezoning and not who is building on it or the promise of what will be built on the property, because things can change. Randall asked about the advantage of the zone change from MDR1 to HDR2. Alan said the benefit is density. Vince said a Cheat Sheet is in the “Commissioner docs” in the Laserfiche or Google folder. (This has been updated to match the Development Code changes within the last year.) David said the space is limited by the size of the parcels. He is concerned about the impact on the neighbors. Vince asked the Google street view of Main Street heading west at the corner of the Mixed Use zone be shown. Cambridge Court is attractive for this area. There are no single-family homes next to it or behind it. He feels the Commission may be enabling a project trying to fit a too tall building in a place that does not quite fit the neighborhood. He is not as concerned about the sunset, as he is about the height enabled by the zone change. Abri is too high at its location. This a place that does not have that much height around it. He will vote no for these reasons. Chairperson Smith asked Alan about the height of the buildings allowed in the HDR zones. Alan believes the height is fifty-five (55’) feet. Tawnya read an exception: (4.09.100 D.) “Buildings or portions of buildings within fifty (50’) feet of a residential zone other than HDR1 and HDR2 shall be limited to thirty-five (35’) feet.” Jim explained this rule to Vince into the microphone so he could here through ZOOM. Greg has driven by the property for 35 years. He watched when the houses were there, when they were torn down, and he knew something would be built. He knows he should not say this, but as far as he is concerned, he trusts Rachel and she will be a person of her word. He lives by an empty field behind his house and he has always known something like this will be built on that property in the future. Greg walks downtown to the restaurants. He believes development will encourage more pedestrian traffic. Vince reminded Greg the property could be sold. Chairperson Smith said we have gone over the limitations to the property for any developer. Jim asked about frontage distance for the property. Alan measured MOTION: Move to recommend to City Council to deny the request, because it does not fit the surrounding area., Action: Deny, Moved by Vince Haley, None seconded. Motion failed for lack of a second. MOTION: Move to recommend City Council approve the rezone these four parcels at approximately 459 W Main: RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, RPRRXB10430160, RPRRXB10430100 from Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) & Mixed-Use (MU) to High-Density Residential 2 (HDR2), because the higher- density will be located near the center of town to use the city services well., Action: Approve, Moved by Kristi Anderson, Seconded by Greg Blacker. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 6, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Kristi Anderson, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx. No: Jim Lawrence, Vince Haley. May 19, 2021, Alan Parkinson, City Planner, presented the application to City Council. Planning & Zoning Recommendation to Rezone approximately 459 W Main St and Parcels #RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, PRRXB10430160, and RPRRXB10430100 from Mixed Use (MU) and Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) zone #21-00170. Designated as Ordinance No 1259 if Motion Passes and Considered 1st Read – Alan Parkinson Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said there were concerns regarding setbacks discussed at the Planning and Zoning meeting. The setback concerns were addressed by increasing the set back if a lower density is built. Council Member Johnson asked for clarifications regarding the number of building stories allowed with the zone being requested. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained the current zone would allow for a four-story building and if the rezone is approved it would allow for a five-story building. She asked about the recommendation to complete a traffic impact study. Public Works Director Davidson replied once the traffic study is completed, generally, they make recommendations as to which improvement need to be made on the roadways to handle the added traffic. The developer would burden the costs associated with traffic improvement measures. Council Member Flora questioned whether the size of the parcel and the parking needed would accommodate a five-story building. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson said there is sufficient space to accommodate the five-story building. Council Member Walker said this property was previously zoned as it is being requested; however, there was a sunset clause and it expired. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson replied yes, the sunset clause expired due to lack of development. Council Member Johnson explained it is difficult for City Council to make these types of decisions because they know the impact these decisions will have on the residents. She believes the zone being requested fits with keeping high density closer to the city center. Council Member Mann expressed his concerns with the height the requested zone would allow. Council Member Flora moved to approve the Rezone approximately 459 W Main St and Parcels #RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, PRRXB10430160, and RPRRXB10430100 from Mixed Use (MU) and Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) Zone; 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 The motion carried June 2, 2021, the application was 2nd Read by City Council. Ordinance No 1259 Rezone approximately 459 W Main St and Parcels #RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, PRRXB10430160, and RPRRXB10430100 from Mixed Use (MU) and Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) zone #21-00170 – Alan Parkinson ORDINANCE NO 1259 Rezone Four Parcels at Approximately 459 West Main St, Rexburg, Idaho to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED DESIGNATION OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, BE CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.  Council Member Wolfe moved to approve Ordinance No 1259 the Rezone at approximately 459 W Main St and Parcels #RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, PRRXB10430160, and RPRRXB10430100 from Mixed Use (MU) and Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) Zone and consider second read; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson Council Member Mann Council Member Flora Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe Council President Busby The motion carried. June 23, the application was 3rd Read by City Council. Ordinance No 1259 Rezone approximately 459 W Main St and Parcels #RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, PRRXB10430160, and RPRRXB10430100 from Mixed Use (MU) and Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) zone #21-00170 – Alan Parkinson ORDINANCE NO 1259 Rezone Four Parcels at Approximately 459 West Main St, Rexburg, Idaho to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND CHANGING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF REXBURG, IDAHO, AND PROVIDING THAT THE ZONED DESIGNATION OF THAT CERTAIN PROPERTY HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED, SITUATED IN REXBURG, MADISON COUNTY, IDAHO, BE CHANGED AS HEREINAFTER DESIGNATED; AND PROVIDING WHEN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE.  Council Member Mann asked City Council to be mindful when the Final Platt is reviewed to provide input on the building heights and where they should be positioned. Council Member Wolfe clarified the building code restricts the height of the structure. Mayor Merrill said questions arise regarding second and third readings. Some citizens believe changes can be made during the second and third readings and that is not the case. He asked City Attorney Zollinger to explain the purpose of the second and third readings. City Attorney Zollinger explained during a Land Use Planning Act a decision is being rendered by City Council at the public hearing so there is no option for modification during the subsequent readings. The language of the statute is created at the passage of the hearing, which is one of the reasons why City Council has the option to waive the three readings. When there are legislative changes such as changes to the city’s business registration rules City Council has the option of making changes throughout readings because there is not a public hearing that locks in the concept of what is the final results. He said with Land Use Planning Act there isn’t any leeway City Council will either pass or deny the request. Council Member Flora asked if the purpose of the three reading is to inform the residents of the passage of an item. City Attorney Zollinger said the three readings is an antiquated process that has continued to be used for the legislative process when changes can be made. Council Member Walker moved to approve Ordinance No 1259 the Rezone at approximately 459 W Main St and Parcels #RPRRXB10432295, RPRRXB10430130, PRRXB10430160, and RPRRXB10430100 from Mixed Use (MU) and Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) to High Density Residential 2 (HDR2) Zone and consider third read; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson Council Member Mann Council Member Flora Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe The motion carried.