Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutREQUEST FOR NEW ZONE - Newport Investments - 559 S 4th W - Rezone from HDR to HDR2APEX DEVELOPMENT LLC Orem Office 580 South State Orem, Utah 84058 Telephone: (801) 434-8800 Facsimilc: (801) 226-1013 February 13. 2001 City of Rexburg Aun: Marilyn 12 North Center P.O. Box 280 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 VIA FACSIMILE 208-359-3022 RE: Ordinance change for new High -Density zone Dear Sir or Madam: We respectively request that you carefully consider the arguments contained in this letter for the creation of a new zone classification that will provide for the economic feasibility of the development of married student housing in Rexburg. CURRENT SITUATION As you are well aware Ricks College is now going to be a 4 -year school which will provide many new and exciting opportunities to both the students of Ricks College as well as the community of Rexburg. The key to the success of the Ricks College expansion will be the attraction of top quality juniors and seniors who wish to complete their undergraduate college education in Rexburg. The key to this success will be the ability of Rexburg to facilitate the jobs and housing necessary to provide married students with the economic possibility of coming to Ricks to complete their education. Ricks College estimates that 43% of its increased enrollment will be in the form or married students. In the attached Ricks College Housing Outlook the college has anticipated that over the next 5 years the demand for married housing of Ricks College students will increase by 1,040 apartments from 400 to 1,440. Ricks College is looking to private developers to provide the housing necessary for the increased numbers of married students. PROBLEM When performing an economic feasibility study for any project a developer must analyze cost and revenue on a per resident basis in determining if and what kind of a development to pursue. A per resident analysis is the most important aspect in determining the economics of a project. At the present time, the City of Rexburg does not have a zoning classification available that provides for the economical and feasible development of married student housing as compared to single student housing. On a per resident basis the current zoning and parking ordinances require a developer to spend much more on land, parking, and infrastructure costs on a per resident basis for a married complex than it does for a single student complex. Hence, a developer has a very hard time making the numbers work for a married student facility and caumot justify developing married housing as opposed to single student housing under the current zoning requirements. The two biggest reasons for the problem are the density limitations of the High Density Residential (HDR) zone and the parking requirements for multi -family units. HDR Limitation The current HDR zone limits the number of units that can be placed on an acre of land without discriminating as to the type of unit (multi -family or single student). In our opinion the limitation on the number of units per acre is irrelevant if a development is able to satisfy the two most important aspects of a zoning ordinance which are: Parking requirements; and, Maximum Lot Coverage. The current limit of 30 per acre does not provide for a dense enough development for a married housing complex on a per resident basis. Some people will argue that if you raise the density of HDR then single student complexes will become more and more dense thus detracting from the community. However, at the present time, it is physically impossible to put 30 single student apartments on 1 acre because of the parking and maximum lot coverage restrictions. However, it is very easy to physically place more than 30 married [nits on I acre of land and maintain adequate levels of parking and stay at the current 80% maximum lot coverage. Parking Ordinance The parking change in September 2000, that increased the parking requirements for multi -family dwellings from 2.0 to 2.5 parking spaces per unit penalizes a developer who provides married student housing because it requires more parking per married resident than is required for single resident. The effect of the change is that a multifamily unit is now required to have 1.25 parking spaces per married driver (assuming a nudti-family complex is rented primarily to families who have children under 16 and hence the only drivers are the married couple) as opposed to 1.0 parking spaces per single driver. This requires a developer to provide 25% more parking and greenspace per married resident than per single resident. This seems flawed in that intuition would indicate that on average married residents have fewer cars than single residents. A simple example of the excess noted above is as follows: A married unit is rented to two residents and a single student unit is rented to 6 residents. Hence, on one acre the ordinance allows for 60 married residents or 180 (See Attachment 43 which indicates that the maximum number of units that can be feasibly placed on I acre is 16units per acre for single students) single residents to allocate the land and infrastructure costs over. Because of the excess cost per resident no developer has been willing to absorb into profits the large additional cost per resident of building married housing as opposed to single student housing. On Attachment #1, I have prepared a simple calculation that summarizes the allocation of a single acre of land under the current HDR zone developed in married housing using following building parameters: Building 3 story units for married couples Units average 500 square feet per unit Limited to 30 units per acre 2,5 parking stalls per unit The simple calculation reveals that under the existing ordinances 40% of the acre will be in green space and 46.5% of the acre will be parking. Such large amounts of greenspace and parking per resident makes it very unlikely that a developer will be able to economically build a married student complex due to the high cost of land and infrastructure costs associated with building ander the present ordinances. PROPOSED NEW ZONE Our proposal is that a new zoning classification be made called High High Density Residential (HHDR) that would provide the following: A maximum of 42 units per acre, Require 2.0 parking spaces per multifamily unit and 1.0 parking spaces per single student Maintain a maximum lot covering of 80%. Attachment #2 summarizes the HHDR land allocation with 42 units and 2.0 parking spaces and reveals that 52% of the space would be allocated to parking and 27% would be allocated to greenspace. Under our proposed ordinance: 1. Parking costs and capacities would be the same for a married resident as the city currently requires for a single resident; 2. The density per resident would come more in line although not catch up with single student housing; and, 3. Still provide the same maximum lot coverage as currently required by HDR. This new ordinance would make it economically feasible for the private development of the large married student complexes that will be necessary for the expansion of Ricks College into BYU-Idaho and for the city of Rexburg to capture the economic benefits of such expansion. ATTACHMENT #1 ZONING & CONSTRUCTION PARAMETERS Stories 3 Apartment Square Foot 500 Parking Per Unit 2.5 Parking Spaces Per 3 Story 7.5 Parking Space 9 By 18 Feet 162 Drive Through 9 x 24 Feet/2 108 Square Footage Per Space 270 Parking Sq Footage Per Unit 675 Parking Per 3 Story 2,025 Side Walk 20'5 100 Total Footprint, Parking, Sidewalk Per 3 Story 2,625 Units Per Acre 30 Total 3 Story 10 Total Developed 26,250 Developed Per 3 Story 60.3% SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN Building 5,000 11.5% Side Walk 1,000 2.3% Parking 20,250 46.5% Land Scape 17,310 39.7% Total 43,560 100.0% Parking Spaces Per Acre 75 Parking Spaces on 10 Acres 750 Units on 10 Acres 300 Land Su 40% Current 30Units /Acre Married Land Analysis Ruilri inn de Walk 2% ng 0 0 Building 1 ■ Side Walk ❑ Parking ❑ Land Scape ATTACHMENT #2 ZONING & CONSTRUCTION PARAMETERS Stories 3 Apartment Square Foot 500 Parking Per Unit 2.0 Parking Spaces Per 3 Story 6.0 Parking Space 9 By 18 Feet 162 Drive Through 9 x 24 Feet/2 108 Square Footage Per Space 270 Parking Sq Footage Per Unit 540 Parking Per 3 Story 1,620 Side Walk 20'5 100 Total Footprint, Parking, Sidewalk Per 3 Story 2,220 Units Per Acre 42 Total 3 Story 14 Total Developed 31,080 Developed Per 3 Story 71.3% SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN Building 7,000 16.1% Side Walk 1,400 3.2% Parking 22,680 52.1% Land Scape 12,480 28.7% Total 43,560 100.0% Parking Spaces Per Acre 84 Parking Spaces on 10 Acres 840 Units on 10 Acres 420 Land Sc 29% Proposed 42 Units/Acre Married Land Analysis Building Parking 52% de Walk 3% ® Building ■ Side Walk ❑ Parking ❑ Land Scape , ZONING & CONSTRUCTION PARAMETERS Apartment Square Foot Parking Per Unit Parking Spaces Per 3 Story Parking Space 9 By 18 Feet Drive Through 9 x 24 Feet/2 Square Footage Per Space Parking Sq Footage Per Unit Parking Per 3 Story Side Walk 20'5 Total Footprint, Parking, Sidewalk Per 3 Story Units Per Acre Total 3 Story Total Developed Developed Per 3 Story 3 1,400 6.0 18.0 162 108 270 1,620 4,860 100 6,360 16 5.333333333 33,920 77.9% ATTACHMENT #3 SQUARE FOOTAGE BREAKDOWN Building Side Walk Parking Land Scape Total Parking Spaces Per Acre Parking Spaces on 10 Acres Units on 10 Acres 7,467 17.1% 533 1.2% 25,920 59.5% 9,640 22.1% 43,560 100.0% 96 960 160 Current 30Units /Acre Single Student Land Analysis Land c---- 2 Q..Mi- ;ide Walk 1% [ibuilding *Side Walk * Parking 0 Land Scape Ricks College • In Transition For Information Contact: Housing Outlook Ricks College Housing Kimball 196 Updated January 2001 Rexburg, ID 83460-1645 Where We've Been: (208) 356-1045 Enrollment Year Male Fem. Fall Winter % Change (Fall to Winter) 1997-98 3895 4682 8277 8350 0% 1998-99 3678 4873 8551 8567 0% 1999-00 3561 5067 8628 8840 2% 2000-01 3754 5195 8949 Fall Semester Housing Availability Fall Add'tl Single Beds Total Beds Total Occup. Offset by Marrieds Not Occupied Year Men Women Avail. Empty Beds Rate by Singles Men Women Total Men Women Number Occup. 1997 3212 4577 7789 122 147 269 96.6% 20 81 370 95.3% 1998 3502 4629 8131 276 119 395 95.1% 80 92 567 93.0% 1999 3720 5028 8748 624 120 744 91.5% 42 0 786 91.0% 2000 3827 5120 8947 387 261 648 92.8% 173 12 833 90.7% Where We Think We're Headed: Year 2000 2001 2�002 2003 2004 2005 �bba�7 ��`A; �-f 1 4s'o 4 6V) Single Students 8,390 8,150 8,500 8,550 9,000 9,680 I z90 Married Students 559 1,050 1,300 1,350 1,600 1,920 Total Student Enrollment 8,949 9,200 9,800 9,900 10,600 11,600 Estimated Total Married Student Apartments Needed 400 782 987 1,012 1,194 1,440 �41L Z04' ZS IW L Z ib 1D40 BYU-Idaho's Interest in Married Student Housing: It is anticipated, based on the above figures and current plans by private developers to construct additional sin- gle student approved housing for approximately 570 students, that single students will be well served by the Oft -Campus Single Student Approved market. The deficit in housing appears to be for married students. BYU-Idaho would hope for developers to commit to building child -safe, affordable (in terms of rent and utili- ties) communities which would foster a feeling of supportiveness and friendship for married students and the community people who live there. BYU Idaho has established these projections based on the best available data. These numbers represent the most ambitious growth schedule and growth could proceed at a slower rate if facilities for growth are not available. Business decisions should not be based on these figures alone, but appropriate market surveys and data should also be obtained from other sources before committing to any business venture.