Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 21-00377 - Stonebridge Townhomes - Rezone to LDR3 1 | Page #21 00377 Rezone from LDR2 to LDR3 E 7th N & Stonebridge Parcel #RPR6N40E176600 1. May 24, 2021, An application was received for a Rezone from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3) from Jeff Freiberg on behalf of the owner, Cal Kunkel. 2. June 3, 2021, Payment was received for the application. 3. June 7, 2021, Staff Reviews were completed and a Staff Review Report was sent to Jeff. 4. June 8, 2021, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on June 15th and June 22nd, 2021. Notice was mailed to neighbors within 300’ of parcel. 5. June 28, 2021, Notice was posted on the property. 6. July 1, 2021, Jeff presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission and asked for it to be tabled. (21-00377) 525 E 7th N Parcel #RPR6N40E176600 – Rezone from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3). A previous rezone request (21-00063) of Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1) for this property was tabled April 7, 2021 and denied on May 5, 2021. There is an issue with a water ditch in this area. Tabled July 1, 2021 by owner request. (action) – Jeff Freiberg Applicant Presentation – Jeff Freiberg – 946 Ox Bow Lane, Idaho Falls – Jeff asked that the application be put on hold until the next Planning & Zoning meeting. There are some ditch water issues that have not been resolved. MOTION: Motion to table this rezone application until the next available Planning & Zoning meeting in an effort to make sure the water issues are resolved., Action: Table, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion of Motion: David asked why a water issue would affect the zoning. How does this change the application? Chairman Kunz said that is a good comment. He does not believe the application would change as long as it would not be part 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 of our decision. If some of the peoples’ concerns are there will be water issues, then we would have to consider those and they would need opportunity to resolve them. Vince attended the City Council meeting about a month ago, when this application was initially presented. He attended the city council meeting where the Council voted against the application, because the water issues were not settled. If they are not settled, they need to be resolved prior to the Planning & Zoning Commission moving forward. Vince understand the Commission is a recommending body to City Council, but he feels the Commission also needs to take Council’s recommendations and figure out the water issues before we move forward. Sally asked the applicant if anything has been done toward the water issue. Jeff Freiberg answered. Centennial Townhomes is built immediately to the West of this property. This is a sister project, if you will. They are working towards a solution, but Jeff has not received the solution, so we can better talk about them. Public Works has not received the solution either; Jeff called up to talk to them today. Sally asked what will happen if there is no solution. Jeff said if there is no solution, he does not know the answer to develop this piece of property. Right now, he believes it is a good idea to wait on it as the Commission has suggested. Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Kyle Baldwin – Kyle spoke with Alan about this issue. It is Staff’s recommendation to table the application. Vince understood there was some flooding in this location within the last week. This is a public hearing and it does need to be published. If we do table this application, how long will it be until the application could be heard again? In addition, would the Applicant have to pay those republishing fees? Sally asked if we go forward with the public hearing, and we did not have sufficient information, could the vote be tabled? Moreover, the vote could come sometime in the future? Attorney Rammell said you could adjourn prior to voting. A separate notice would be needed and hearing at that time. Vince explained at least three weeks to a month would be required prior to a second hearing. Tawnya said, if tabled, August 10th, would be the next public hearing. The cost would be about $300 to republish. Randall said since is the applicant’ request, he thinks we should honor the request. David said he sees no reason not to table the request until the application is ready to be presented. Chairman Kunz explained to the audience that he is not taking public comment, because the meeting is not progressing to the public input portion of the meeting. If you cannot make the next meeting, he encouraged attendees to write a letter or email to express your voice to be read into public hearing. Reuben Miller said he would still like to express to the Commission the Idaho State Statute that is not being followed. VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 8). Yes: Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Jim Lawrence, John Bowen, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 7. August 19, 2021, the Applicant requested the item be removed from the table. MOTION: Motion to request the Stonebridge rezone be removed from the table, Action: Amend, Moved by Sally Smith, Seconded by Todd Marx. 3 | Page Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 9). Yes: Aaron Richards, Bruce Casper, Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Sally Smith, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. Applicant Presentation: Jeff Freiberg - 946 Ox Bow Lane, IF – The request is to change the parcel indicated in your packet from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3). The Comprehensive Plan lists the land as Low to Moderate Density Residential. We feel this zone change request is reasonable and request approval. Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Staff has reviewed this request. A previous request was for a higher density (MDR1) and th e request was turned down . The Applicant has come back with a lower density as requested by City Council. The request is for LDR3. The request matches the Comprehen sive Plan. There has been discussion on water on this property. Alan reminded the group water should have no bearing on a rezone. In a rezone, we are looking at the zoning to determine if the zoning meets the needs of the city. At the time of buildings and platting, infrastructure will be reviewed by Staff. This parcel can be serviced by water and sewer. The road on 7th N is being widened, including the building of sidewalks, to the church house this year. Staff recommends this proposal to the Commission for recommendation to the City Council. Commissioner Questions: Sally asked if a traffic study has been conducted for this area. Alan answered when 7th N was evaluated for the traffic light, a study was done. It is possible the developer may share in the cost of this light, and if they do, the share would be included in the applicant’s development agreement. Sally asked if the Commissioners had seen the letter in the packet. They have read the Connect Engineering letter. Vince confirmed the previous application was for MDR1, approved by Planning & Zoning, but denied at City Council. Chairman Kunz reminded the group the request is for a rezone and not a specific project. The Commissioners should consider: Is this the direction the City should grow? And how should the City grow? Chairman opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:50PM. Favor: Jeremy Westwood – 2644 Legends Circle, IF – “I would just like to say that we feel that this will be a great development for the community, and we hope that the Planning and Zoning Commission will approve the zoning request.” (Read from chat.) Neutral: None Opposed: Reuben Miller – 547 E 7th N – He lives on the 3-acre parcel just north of this proposed rezone in home built in 1976. He is repr esenting nine people; his wife is home with his seven children. Reuben has an easement and a right-of-way. The easement is the access or driveway through Mr. Jeppesen’s field to th e east of the applicant’s parcel. He has a right-of- way for drainage to put overflow water to the south onto this property proposed for rezone. 4 | Page Currently, the zoning north and south of this parcel into the Stonebridge area is the same zoning, LDR2, including his home. His house does not comply with the LDR2 zoning laws. LDR2 requires twenty (20’) of property abutting the street; he has zero feet. East of this property and his parcel is Transitional Agriculture. There are hundreds of acres that are flood irrigated there. With more people, there is more trash. In Rexburg, the wind blows the trash. Trash in the fields and ditches causes problem with flooding and mowing. 7th N at this point turns to a 50mph zone. There are tractors and combines that access these agriculture fields. All the other houses compatible to Mr. Miller’s on this street are zoned Rural Residential; he is not sure how his parcel’s zoning was changed. (Mr. Miller could be referring to the homes at the end of E 7th N on the south side of the road, 1500’ feet from his access easement.) The light on 7th N does not ever show a green arrow to turn east when you are heading south. A flashing yellow light only allows one vehicle through at a time. Part of the laws regarding natural gas, there is a lot of high-pressure gas in Sugar City and coming down on 9th. There is not a connection, yet, but it is something the residents in this area would like to have. The more densely populated areas are governed by NAHMMA (North American Hazardous Materials Management Association) and require an ACA survey. The less population you have, the less people you can feed. As we develop this area with higher and higher density, it will impact the ability to service gas. No one has gas from Stonebridge to 9th. In the City Council meeting minutes for May 5th, it was stated the water was not an issue being discussed at this time. It was mentioned MDR1 was not a good fit for the area and the current , LDR2 zoning was a better fit for this area. The area by the temple and around the college would be a better area to fill this need. Brett Jeppesen - 1013 N 9th E – He feels there is an overload of apartments out in this area. So much traffic, the people, the dogs, and the garbage. He cuts grain and he spent an hour out in his field to clear the garbage to get the grain harvested. Garbage is in the ditches. Dogs are off leashes. The west side of the church is so covered with dog feces, the children are not allowed on that side of the church. In the fall, he will bring in his livestock. There are starting to be dogs that are running the cattle. He would like to see nicer homes in this area. He does not know why we must have Rexburg as the apartment capital of Idaho. Brett does not know why we must cater to the developers who do not live in the area. He confirmed the water issues have not been resolved. The storage units were not supposed to flood, but they did. There were more people against this proposal but could not attend due to COVID. Tina Brower – 496 Woodbridge – She lives in the Stonebridge area and has lived there for four years. She has witnessed smoking in the dry fields. She agrees with what has been said. The people, who are buying the apartments, are transient. Please encourage a zoning that will encourage people to stay. Tina confirmed there is a higher density on the west side of the church. Rexburg is a beautiful, little city. Let us not have too many apartments. Dale Jeppesen – 1013 N 9th E – He asked if the water issue has been resolved? Chairman Kunz said all the water entities have been notified by email and written letter. This is the extent of the Commission’s involvement. Platting would be the time for the watermaster to speak. He agrees with what has been said. Possibly, the ag land will be devalued. 5 | Page Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Jeff Freiberg – He is here on Jeremy’s behalf. The Comprehensive Plan denotes this area as low to moderate density for this area. We feel it is an appropriate zoning for this parcel. Chairman asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:06PM. Conflict of Interest? – Chairman asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this 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. Commissioner Discussion: Vince asked for the Development Code Summary. Aaron said he looks at this situation differently because he is a developer. D uring development and home construction, trash is a major issue. He has communities in Texas, where he is constantly cleaning the waterways. Once the homes are completed, the trash situation improves. There is a painful period. The more rooftops, the more development comes in, there is more opportunity for natural gas to extend the service lines. The dog issue does not have bearing on zoning. Apartments are not applicable to this request, due to the fact they are not allowed in an LDR3 zone. He asked Alan for the size of the land. Alan answe red the parcel is seven (7) acres. Aaron said we are discussing up to seventy (70) units. When we talk about these two zones, you are only allowed one unit per lot with a minimum of 8,000 square feet. With a duplex, a minimum lot is 10,000 square feet. In the LDR3, no apartments are allowed, a twin home or duplex is the greatest building size. Ten (10) units per acre is the maximum density. Chairman Kunz asked for a twin home do you have to have more square feet than a duplex and townhome. A twin home in LDR2 requires two lots with a total of 10,000 square feet. With LDR3, two lots are required with a total of 8,000 square feet. Alan read 4.050.070 Lot Configuration and Density: “One (1) single-family dwelling unit may be placed on a parcel of land or lot in the LDR3 zone. No more than two (2) dwelling units in any one (1) structure. The maximum density permitted in this district is ten (10) dwelling units per acre. Increased density may only be achieved through an approved Planned Unit Development.” Vince said his point is the changes from LDR2 to LDR3 are very minimal. Setbacks, permissible lot coverage, and building height are the same. Minimum lot size is the only change. Chairman Kunz confirmed the difference is two (2) units/acre. He asked what the difference between LDR3 and MDR1. Alan answered MDR1 does allow apartments and a density of sixteen (16) units per acre. A sixty (60%) percent increase over what can be done in a LDR3. Roadways, driveways, dedicated roads, and parking will have to come out of the seven (7) acres. Very few people meet the densities without going two stories for a duplex. Aaron confirmed onsite detention requirements will be required at the platting process. Alan said the developer’s job is to come in and meet all the requirements. Sally said she does not think we have seen the impact on 7th N to the development in this area. People are not all going to Walmart, they are also going home. In LDR2, you are looking at four (4) units per acre; she does not feel the differences between LDR2 and LDR3 are minimal. She is currently not in favor of this zoning request. Another transportation route is needed. Vince said the N 2nd E is controlled by the State due to its classification as a State Highway. The State has their own configurations of the lights and control. The City has no opinion of how those lights are controlled. Beyond widening the 6 | Page road, he does not know how we could improve the traffic in this area to make it better other than say no more development, we have hit our max. According to the State’s numbers, this area has not. Sally said we have been working for over twenty years to get an alternate route across the river . The City does have some influence on the roads. She is not comfortable with higher density in this area until we come up with a solution. Randall requested to see the zoning map on the overhead screen. The zoning map was viewed by the Commissioners. Jim said as far as the traffic goes, Staff has indicated there is enough cap acity. This is not something Staff just guesses at; that is something they must look at the numbers for in this area. Todd asked if there is a need to increase the parcel to LDR3, because everything else around it is LDR2. Chairman Kunz said two units per acre would be added with an LDR3. This type of zoning was better suited for the dense areas of the downtown. If we were to make the land in a denser area of town a LDR3, instead of a HDR1, that would drastically displace a lot of high-density units, which would require more LDR3 zoning later . There was a news report recently, that stated Madison County is the 4th fastest growing county in the United S tates based on percentage. People are coming. I understand we must place them in an area that does not inconvenience neighbors too much, but it needs to be within the bounds of our vision. Greg asked when the road will be finished in this area. Alan said 7th N will be done this year. Construction has begun by having the power lines moved. Dirt is staged and construction on the actual road should commence as soon as the power company is finished. Also, the City has received funding for the road across the river from Barney Dairy to 7th N. The building of this connecting section of the East Parkway Corridor is anticipated to be built in the next two or three years. Greg says we are only increasing the density by fourteen (14) doors. Fourteen (14) units with two (2) cars per unit equals twenty-eight (28) cars. He does not think this is a big difference. He has no problem with approving this zone change. Todd agrees. Vince said a builder could move forward with development for a LDR2 without having to come to the Commission. A Plat will still be needed, of course. He confirmed only a few houses are being added. Todd said the size of the property will control the development. Sally wanted to clarify the units per acre. You must have 10,000 square feet to do a duplex. In LDR2, you can have four (4) duplexes per acre. LDR3 requires 8,000 square feet for a duplex, allowing five (5) duplexes per acre. Randall asked the Chairman about the transition of zoning. Chairman Kunz said the transitional agriculture is the step down. MOTION: Motion to recommend to City Council to approve the zone change from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low-Density Residential 3 (LDR3) for 525 E 7th N Parcel #RPR6N40E176600, because it fits with the Comprehensive Plan for expanding Rexburg., Action: Approve, Moved by Todd Marx, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 7, No = 2, Abstain = 0). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Jim Lawrence, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx, Vince Haley. 7 | Page No: Bruce Casper, Sally Smith. 8. September 1, 2021, Alan Parkinson presented the application to City Council. Planning and Zoning Recommendation to Rezone approximately 525 E 7th N, Parcel #RPR6N40E176600, from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) #21-00377. Designated as Ordinance No 1266 if Motion Passes and Considered 1st Read – Alan Parkinson Planning & Zoning Administrator Parkinson reviewed the proposed rezone at approximately 525 E 7th N (parcel #RPR6N40E176600) from LDR2 to LDR3. A zone change on this property has been brought before City Council before; however, it was for a change to MDR1. City Council did not think MDR1 was a good fit for that neighborhood. They wanted to see a lower density. The applicant is now asking for an LDR3 zone. In LDR3, no apartments are allowed but duplexes are. Each building can be individually owned and used as rentals. Council Member Flora is in favor of the LDR3 zone; however, she is concerned because the owner has not helped with the ditch issue. Administrator Parkinson indicated the ditch issue will be solved in the plat. City Attorney Zollinger explained that the city has no jurisdiction over ditches. The issue needs to be resolved between the individual property owners. Council Member Busby asked about the Centennial plat not being signed appropriately. Attorney Zollinger explained that the Centennial plat was recorded with the county without the Teton Island Canal Company signing the plat. Teton Island Canal Company has since submitted a letter stating they have no issues with the Centennial plat. Jeff Fryburg from Idaho Falls is the owner requesting the zone change. He did not know about the water issues. He is just here for his project rezone on the agenda tonight. Council Member Mann asked how many units per acre can be built in the LDR3 zone. Administrator Parkinson replied that it can have 10 units per acre whereas LDR2 can have 6 units per acre. Council Member Johnson asked what the zone is where Centennial Apartments is located. Administrator Parkinson replied that it is MDR1 zone. Council Member Flora wants to know who will resolve Mr. Millers problem with the drainage ditch that was filled in. Attorney Zollinger indicated that Mr. Miller has the option of mitigating with the adjacent proper owner who he thinks has aggrieved him. If the courts determine that Mr. Miller has the rights that he claims he has, the adjacent property owner could be required to reopen the ditch. At that time, they would come to the city for permission to cut the road or bore under the road to allow for the water drainage. Discussion about legal issues regarding the ditch. Council Member Johnson moved to approve the Rezone at approximately 525 E 7th N, Parcel #RPR6N40E176600, from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density 8 | Page Residential 3 (LDR3) #21-00377. Designated as Ordinance No 1266 if Motion Passes and Considered 1st 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 Walker Council Member Wolfe Council Member Flora Council President Busby The motion carried. 9. September 15, 2021, the application was presented to City Council for a 2nd Read. Ordinance No 1266 Rezone approximately 525 E 7th N Parcel #RPR6N40E176600 from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) #21- 00377 Council Member Walker moved to approve Ordinance No 1266 Rezone approximately 525 E 7th N Parcel #RPR6N40E176600 from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) #21-00377; Council Member Wolfe seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Johnson None Council Member Mann Council Member Walker Council Member Wolfe Council Member Flora The motion carried 10. October 6, 2021, the application was presented to City Council for a 3rd Read. Ordinance No 1266 Rezone approximately 525 E 7th N Parcel #RPR6N40E176600 from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) #21-00377. - Alan Parkinson ORDINANCE NO. 1266 Rezone Approximately 525 East 7th North from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) Zone 9 | Page 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 Johnson moved to approve Ordinance No. 1266 the Rezone approximately 525 E 7th N Parcel #RPR6N40E176600 from Low Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Low Density Residential 3 (LDR3) and consider third 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.