Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 21-00177 - Teton River Flats - 280 Lorene St - PUD Plat #21 00177 Teton River Flats – PUD Plat 280 Lorene 1. March 24, 2021, An application was received for a Planned Unit Development for Teton River Flats from Angie Valdez with Eagle Rock Engineering. 2. March 31, 2021, Application fees were paid. 3. April 5, 2021, Application paperwork completed. Infrastructure Plan reviews were started. 4. April 19, 2021, Revisions for the Infrastructure Plans were requested. 5. April 28, 2021, Rev. (1) for the Infrastructure Plans were received. 6. May 17, 2021, Infrastructure Plan Staff Reviews were completed and a Staff Review Report was sent to Bron Leatham. 7. June 1, 2021, Plat reviews were completed and the Staff Review Report was sent to Bron Leatham. Plat was sent to the County Surveyor for review. 8. June 3, 2021, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on June 8th and June 15th, 2021. Notice was mailed to neighbors within 300’ of parcel. 9. June 14, 2021, Revisions for the Plat were requested by the County Surveyor. Revisions were received from the Applicant. 10. June 15, 2021, the Will Serve Letter was sent to D.E.Q. and the Health Department. 11. June 17, 2021, Notice was posted on the property. 12. June 21, 2021, The County Surveyor approved the Plat. 13. June 24, 2021, Bron Leatham presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission. 6:40PM – (21-00177) – Teton River Flats – 280 Lorene St – Planned Unit Development (PUD) Plat – The Applicant is seeking to increase the density for the zone with application of bonus points and reduce the setbacks for a few of the buildings required by the current zone of Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) (action) – Bron Leatham 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Reason for Decision City of Rexburg Applicant Presentation – Bron Leatham – 2535 Littletown Dr – Teton River Flats Planned Unit Development is being presented. He is hoping to get it approved to start closing loans on the units. This lot used to be zoned Community Business Center (CBC), and just a couple of years ago the commercial property with others around it were rezoned to Medium-Density Residential (MDR). Many of the units area under construction. Many of the units are already sold. The reason he requested the Planned Unit Development (PUD) to take advantage of the bonus density. He did not maximize that bonus density, because he wanted to include a park. Some leniency was requested on setbacks to break up the buildings, so that they are not all in a straight line along Lorene. He has submitted what he is proposing to get the bonus density. He feels like he will get the bonus density with the enhancements he has included. Bron feels this is a good project; there is a lot of demand for these types of units. Commissioner Questions: Chairman Kunz asked where in the development is the increased density. Bron answered the development as a whole increased about four (4) units. He originally had an additional eight (8) units he was seeking. The development was going to be a little too crowded. Aaron clarified the increased density meant four units; one extra building. Vince asked to address the developer, how many units are presold? Sixty (60) of the ninety-two (92) units are presold. Twenty-four (24) units are framed. Bron said he has developed higher-density housing. He has never had a vacancy. A lot is hitting the market. Rents are going up. The demand on these units for the investors. $175,000. Developers are trying to feed the market needs. Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – The Applicant is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD). The PUD requires the Applicant to go through some additional steps to gain the additional units. The normal density for the Medium-density Residential 2 (MDR2) zone is 20 units/acre. The maximum capability is reached by going through the applicant’s bonus point scoring sheet. The developer could be seeking a maximum of 26 units/acre. The Applicant did not want to increase his project to the maximum allowed density, even though he had qualified to go to the full 26 units/acre. The infrastructure is in place. The buildings are currently being built. The question that has come up is how are they building without a Plat. Everything can be built until the last few buildings under a single ownership. His last buildings cannot be built until this PUD is approved. He cannot sell the units until they are platted, but could rent the units. There is still an issue with the irrigation ditch coming south from Centennial Townhomes. The Applicant has shown the irrigation ditch can be resolved either way the canal company decides the outcome. An instrument of recording for the canal company resolution will have to be on the Plat. Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval by City Council. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Vince asked what are the means for making sure the canal issue is accomplished. Alan said once the instrument is in place, there has to be an agreement on the north side of that ditch that identifies how the issue will be resolved. Alan said Bron has to show how he will handle the result of the irrigation ditch possible outcomes. This will be recorded on the Plat. Vince was granted permission to address Bron out of order. How many of the units are pre-sold. Bron said sixty (60) of the ninety-two (92) units are pre-sold. Vince asked are the thirty-two (32) units still available to be sold? Bron answered only twenty-four (24) of those units are framed up. It is trying to get the units built fast enough. Vince confirmed as soon as the units are available, they are sold. Bron said he is pre-sold through seven or eight more buildings and he is just trying to get foundations in. He has developed over two hundred units of the highest-density units in married, community housing. There has not been a vacancy; not for three days. There are many units hitting the market. Rents are going up. Thankfully, so money can be made at developing someday. The demand on these units are two bed, one-bath units selling for $950 and this is still below the market. You have to build what people can afford to live in. You have to build units people want to live in. This is the cheapest thing in Rexburg and it is still $175,000 and is very expensive to build. Developers are typically trying to meet the market; they are not trying to hurt a community. Rexburg still needs a lot of housing. 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: None Neutral: Neil Erickson – 679 Mill Stream - He appreciates Mr. Leatham putting in the amenities he is; it shows he cares about the community. He appreciates he is putting in needed housing for Rexburg. He has a couple of questions: 1) Are the people purchasing them to live in them or to rent them out? 2) Water Issue – there has been a flood the last two days. This is a big problem. There was a flood behind the church house and the apartments along Highway 33. The storage units were flooded by Highway 33. It is all because we allowed the builder on Hope Street to build over the canals. Now there is a problem. As much as he would like to put value in what has been said, he questions it because of the problems that have occurred in the past. He would like to have that addressed. Tammy Bagley – 623 Stonebridge – She is concerned; she does not understand the map in its entirety. It looks like these units border her back yard. Is there something behind the apartments? Someone told her to be prepared to make sure the street originally goes in. Stonebridge currently has two (2) exits. There is supposed to be a third exit on the west side of the Stonebridge development. We are concerned about as the apartments go in – the sound introduced to the neighborhood. She is imagining three different people blaring their music in her back yard. Could a sound barrier be put in to protect the Stonebridge neighborhood? Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Bron Leatham – This is a condominium project. For lending reasons, you are limited to which is limited to fifty (50%) investor-owned. Otherwise, you cannot finance them. The investor-owned units sold in ten (10) days for the whole project; there is a lot of demand. Many of these units are locally owned, who want to own a part of the community. Half of the project will be investor-owned and the other half will be owner-occupied. Often, mom and dad will buy four units and the kids will occupy one unit, while renting a couple of the units. The ratio will change over time. There will be a condominium association that maintains everything, including the grounds. He wants to be cognizant of potential problems. For example, if there was forty-six different property owners. The H.O.A. will have to approve the property management companies. The individual owners will not be allowed to manage their own properties; they are managed by the H.O.A. that will eventually be comprised of owners. Limitations on short-term rentals have been place in the deed restrictions. Two years ago, Bron met with Roger Muir, Lee Munns, and Connect Engineering for Cal Kunkel’s property, the Centennial Townhomes regarding the canal issue. There are seven people on the board and most of the people on that board are not concerned about this situation. A few are, and they worry about what will happen if they forget to turn the water off; this is the only purpose for the ditches south of the Kunkel property. The ditches going South do not irrigate anything. As to what happened with Centennial Townhomes, he does not know. The gist of the meeting was if you worry about the water situation, then turn your water off. He believes they are working on a solution. The property he has and the Grover property the north have not used the ditch in the last ten years. There are still culverts that go under the road, but there is no connectivity. We are all signing a letter that say we have no interest in an irrigation ditch. The real solution is being worked out with Miller. Unfortunately, Bron is being tied to this problem. The Canal District is being required to sign the Plats. Bron said what they are trying to do is on Centennial Phase 2 , the excess water would run into their detention basin. If the farmer does not turn the water off, eventually, someone is going to get flooded. As to Tammy Bagley’s concern about connectivity. Higley owns the remaining land to the South of Stonebridge Subdivision that is platted. He has talked to Higley about purchasing the property; they have not shown any interest in developing right now. A connection is shown on the Plat. The property between Teton River Flats and Stonebridge is not being developed. The four-acre parcel is owned by Dorion, and based on conversations with him; he is not planning to develop right now. Dorion developed the Kenneth Square Condos. The Grover family sold the land to the north of Teton River Flats to Mike Wade. If I were your neighborhood, I would be talking to Dorion about solutions to ensure reduced density up against the Stonebridge subdivision with a minimum fence. Infrastructure and utilities are stubbed to the northeast corner of the Teton River property. We will end up looping it, because Bron believes it comes down Carlow as well. He will build Lorene to Carlow on the South side of the road. If Dorion develops, Carlow will most likely continue South to make the connection to the third Stonebridge access. The sound barrier is a non-issue. Bron appreciates the process; he talked a lot to the Stonebridge neighborhood a year or two ago. Alan said the city would pick up any additional width greater than the half of the road to make it a usable half and maintain the road. 5 | Page Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:41 PM. Commissioners Discussion: Vince does not see any reason to reject the application. MOTION: Motion to recommend City Council approve the Teton River Flats PUD for 280 Lorene Street, because it is an improvement for the area from the commercial to the residential., 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, Greg Blacker, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 14. July 7, 2021, The Application was presented to City Council by Alan Parkinson. Planning & Zoning Recommendation to approve the Teton River Flats Planned Unit Development (PUD) at approximately 280 Lorene St #21-00177. The zoning of the property will remain the same at Medium Density Residential 2 (MDR2). – Alan Parkinson Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson reviewed the Teton River Flats Planned Unit Development (PUD). The original request was for 100 units which would have required the maximum allowed bonus points to be met. He said the developer decided to reduce the number of units not because the bonus points couldn’t be met, it was for the purpose of adding a park. The park would be an amenity for the residents. The PUD requirements were met through the bonus points. Council President Busby asked how many units will be removed to accommodate the park and has the Canal Company been notified of this development. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson replied two buildings or a total of eight units were removed and the Canal Company has been contacted. One of the conditions of this PUD is for the surrounding land owners and farmers been notified. The ditch has not been used for 10 years. 6 | Page Council Member Flora moved to approve the Teton River Flats Planned Unit Development (PUD) at approximately 280 Lorene Street with conditions; Council Member Walker seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson None Council Member Flora Council Member Walker Council President Busby The motion carried.