Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z Minutes 5.19.221 City Staff and Others: Alan Parkinson – P&Z Administrator Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant Kyle Baldwin – Planner 1 Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Spencer Rammell – Commissioner Attorney Chairperson Smith opened the meeting at 6:30 PM. Planning & Zoning Meeting: Welcome Pledge of Allegiance: Jim Lawrence Commissioner Appreciation – Mayor Jerry Merrill – He read the plaque to the audience and thanked him for his service. “In Recognition of Significant Contributions to the Betterment of the City of Rexburg” • David Pulsipher 5/15/19 – 5/19/22 (One 3-year term) Commissioner Introductions – Mayor Jerry Merrill • McKay Francis (Madison County appointed – Impact Area) – He grew up in Sandy, Utah. He found his way to school, married a Rigby girl, and fell in love with the area. McKay and his wife have lived several places and a few years ago they moved back. He lives on the south end of town, has five (5) kids under the age of twelve (12), and works in real estate development and property management. • Vanessa Johnson – City Representative – She and her husband have lived in Rexburg for seven (7) years. She was born and raised in the Mini-Cassia area originally; she is an Idahoan. She is in property management as well and has been for about ten (10) years now. Commissioner Roll Call: ROLL CALL of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. Absent: Randall Kempton, Aaron Richards. Minutes: Planning & Zoning Meeting May 5, 2022 (action) MOTION: Motion to approve the Planning & Zoning minutes as recorded for May 5, 2022. Action: Approve, Moved by Jim Lawrence, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None 35 North 1st East Rexburg, ID 83440 Phone: 208.359.3020 Fax: 208.359.3022 www.rexburg.org Planning & Zoning Minutes May 19, 2022 2 VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 0, Abstain = 3). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, and Brad Wolfe. Abstain: Sally Smith (Chairman), McKay Francis, and Vanessa Johnson. Public Hearings: 1. (22-00183) - 1174 N Yellowstone Hwy - Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1. The property is located in the Impact Area, east of N Yellowstone Hwy on the north border of the city limits. The parcel has a single-family home along the road, but undeveloped land on the east side of the property. Similarly designated properties LDR1-MDR1 are located to the south and the east. The property is four (4) acres. - Ray McDougal (action) (Video Indexing 05:11) Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – He showed the parcel on the overhead map. The piece is about four (4) acres. It is located on the N Yellowstone Hwy. This is a Comprehensive Plan Map change from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1. The Teton Drive-thru property has completed its process since this application was started and is also now LDR1-MDR1. The designation to the north is Commercial/Mixed Use. To the east and south is LDR1- MDR1. To the west, the land is designated as Industrial. Staff has looked at this application and is requesting the Commission recommend the application to City Council for approval. Commissioner Questions: Eric asked if the home on this requested parcel is owned by the Davenports. Chairperson Smith confirmed. Vince clarified the applicant’s request is to match the designations to the east and south of this parcel. He noted the applicant has arrived. Applicant Presentation: Ray McDougal – 427 Stegelmeier Lane – This is the Davenport home he has purchased. Commissioner Questions: None Chairperson Smith explained the procedures and opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:41 PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:42 PM. Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson Smith asked the Commissioners if they have a conflict of interest or if they have been approached by any parties relative to this particular 3 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: Eric said the request seems to be straight forward. It is contiguous to other properties of the same designation. This is a natural use of the property. He feels good about the change. Vince said to remember this is a recommendation to the County Commissioners. He feels this is a good use adjacent to the business park. The request seems to be a good change for the area and the surrounding Comprehensive Plan designations. MOTION: Motion to recommend the County Commissioners approve (22-00183) the Comprehensive Plan Map Change from Commercial/Mixed Use to LDR1-MDR1 at 1174 N Yellowstone Hwy, because it matches the surrounding map designations and fits within the area. Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Summary: Yes = 9, No = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. 2. (22-00182) - 1174 N Yellowstone Hwy - Annexation & Rezone from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium-Density Residential 1 (MDR1). At time of annexation, the applicant is requesting a change in zoning to MDR1. This is the same parcel requested in Hearing #1. 1114 N Yellowstone Hwy to the south was recently rezoned to MDR1. Similarly zoned parcels are located to the south of the requested parcel. The property is four (4) acres. - Ray McDougal (action) (14:32) Chairperson Smith recognized this is the same parcel as the previous hearing. It was clarified this recommendation will be to the City Council. Commissioner Questions: None Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:46 PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: None Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: None Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 6:47 PM. 4 Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson 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. Commissioner Discussion: Brad feels this request goes hand-in-hand with the Comprehensive Plan Map change. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00182) the Annexation and Rezone from Community Business Center (CBC) to Medium- Density Residential 1 (MDR1) at 1174 N Yellowstone Hwy, because it is contiguous to recent projects that are the same zone, corresponds with other projects in the area, and there does not seem to be conflicts. Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Eric Erickson. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Summary: Yes = 9, No = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. 3. (22-00092) - 302 & 260 W 3rd N - Rezone from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium- Density Residential 2 (MDR2). A Lot Line Adjustment was recently approved to combine lots south of the canal into a single piece and those north of the canal into a second piece. This separates the parcels to match the zoning boundaries. The applicant's parcel is surrounded to the east, south, and west by LDR2 and Heavy Industrial to the north. The property is 1.37 acres. - Cy Hepworth (action) (18:02) Applicant Presentation: Cy Hepworth – 295 N 2100 E – He has inherited this property as a family piece of business. He grew up in this neighborhood. His family’s business, a retread business in the Heavy Industrial zone north of the canal buffers up to Walters Ready Mix. The family has not loved owning this property due to its condition. The parcel was four different lots that crossed the canal. Recently, the property to the south has been cleaned up and combined into a single lot and the business to the north has been combined into its own lot. To the east, used to be the sawdust field, then turned into the gravel pit. It has been good to see what Depatco has done with the road; it used to be a dirt road. He wants to make this property a beautiful piece of property that is a step down from the industrial to single-family housing. Cy is proposing rezoning this property to MDR2, just like Depatco rezoned to MDR2 to the east about five (5) years ago. There is a manufactured home community to the south. He has some uncles that lives in the neighborhood still. 5 Commissioner Questions: None Staff Report: Kyle Baldwin – The parcel is currently zoned Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), and the request is to rezone to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2). Local MDR2 zones in the area were identified at 300 N 2nd W, the QuickSilver subdivision at 224 N 3rd W, and 215-225 N 3rd W. The homes at 264 N 3rd W and 264 N 3rd W are duplexes. Kyle confirmed the zoning for the requested parcel has been the same for a long time, but recently the parcel lines were adjusted. MDR2 has a maximum density of twenty (20) units per acre. Staff recommends the application to the Commission to the City Council for approval. He read the purpose and objective of the MDR2 zone in the Development Code which says, “the Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) zone is established to act as a buffer between single-family dwellings and non-single-family zones. Restoration or rehabilitation of older homes in this district shall be encouraged.” Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Smith clarified the parcel is surrounded by Low- Density Residential 2 (LDR2). For this parcel of 1.37 acres, a density for MDR2 at twenty (20) units per acre would compute to be twenty-seven (27) units maximum that could be built on the property if they can make the parking work. Chairperson Smith opened the public input portion of the hearing at 6:55PM. Favor: None Neutral: None Opposed: Paul Jamison – 240 W 3rd N – He is one of the three homes surrounded by this piece of property. His property is bounded to the west and the north of the property. He comes with heavy heart. Paul loves the Hepworth family. Six to eight months ago, he found out the two trailers on the property were going to be sold and moved off the property. Paul bought his home in spring of 2019. The applicant’s property has become unsightly with overgrown lawns and cars that did not run. He was excited to learn of this change and understood some spec houses would be built. About a month ago, he learned the plans had changed to a request for MDR2. Paul looked up the requirements for the MDR2 zone, learned the density, looked on Google Earth and found Mountain Shores Apartments, spun the building ninety degrees to determine if it would fit on the property. Mountain Shores would probably fit with some parking issues. He wondered about Planning & Zoning holding fast to the setback rules. Paul knows of another property owned by Cy that goes right up to the sidewalk. (The property he is referring to is located at 109 N 1st E in a Mixed-Use zone, which allows a smaller front yard setback.) Paul put his house on the market, because he did not want to live next to apartments. He has lived in apartments or next to apartments all his life. He was not going to come today, but he wanted to read a text from his real estate agent. A lady came by on Monday and spent an hour looking at his home. She came back on Wednesday for a second look and spent another forty-five (45) minutes. We thought she was going to make an offer. The message read,“It sounds like the person interested is not going to make an offer. They loved the house but are worried about the potential development that will be happening adjacent to home.” Paul wants the Hepworths to get the most value out of their land. He is concerned that there is impact to his property. We are short on housing, but we are also short on starter homes that young people can afford. He would support some townhouses or twin homes or duplexes that can be owner- 6 occupied. He is opposed to a twenty-seven (27) unit apartment building. This is why he made the decision to move. Heather Jamison – 240 W 3rd N – She agrees with the comments made by her husband. The two love their house. She does not love what is happening next door. Several neighbors have lived in the neighborhood for twenty, thirty, forty years. This change will change the dynamic of their neighborhood. Other neighbors did not want to attend to create fireworks between neighbors. More residences mean increased traffic on already busy roads. She is frustrated because she moved into this neighborhood under the context of the LDR2 zoning. We are not happy with a building that will tower over us, block our solar panels, and will not benefit them in any way. She is opposed. It has been a really hard decision to put their home on the market. The two would like to advocate for their neighborhood. Written Correspondence: None Rebuttal: Cy – One thing he failed to mention about this area, is that the Comprehensive Plan says that we buffer industrial zones with higher density. The road already has busy traffic, because the truck traffic accesses Walters through the neighborhood; traffic has always been an issue. Most people use this route to get to the skate park. Getting rid of the trailers on this parcel would increase the livability in the neighborhood. Chairperson Smith asked Staff to identify the requirements in the LDR2 zone. Kyle said the LDR2 zone allows eight (8) units per acre. The buildings would be duplexes or twin homes. Commissioners asked about the Comprehensive Plan designation for the area. Kyle answered the designation for the area is MDR1-HDR2. The area designation was shown on the overhead map. Brad asked about the building height requirement and setbacks adjacent to Low-Density Residential. The code provides that the solar panels will not be blocked due to the increased setback and reduced building heights. Alan said the reduced setback referred to by Paul Jameson is in a Mixed-Use zone. Vince said Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) has a reduction of building height when a Low-Density Residential zone is adjacent to another zoning, the building height is limited to thirty (30’) feet (4.07.100.B.). Kyle showed the designation of the Comprehensive Plan in this area. The majority of the area is designated as MDR1-HDR2. He failed to mention all of the infrastructure is adequate. The stormwater will be handled on site. Vince clarified the building height allowed in LDR2 is thirty (30’) feet and the building height allowed in MDR2 is also thirty (30’) feet due to the proximity of the LDR zoning. The front and rear yard setbacks do not change, but the side yard setback changes from five (5’) feet in LDR2 to the greater of six (6’) feet or six (6”) inches per one (1’) foot of building height in MDR2 (4.07.080.C). Brad clarified the change will be in types of units verses height in structure. Heather asked if there is a canal setback in the rear of the property. Kyle said the developer will have to work with the canal company. There is usually a twenty (20’) feet setback along the canal. Alan said he has never seen the irrigation company wave the setback. Vince reminded the Commissioners Mr. Muir, who attended a meeting a little while ago, said the canal company does not care what is planted along the canal, the canal company will bring in their equipment to maintain the canal. Cy said they recently cut down some trees that were along the canal. 7 Chairperson Smith asked if anyone else would like to speak. She closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:11PM. Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson 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. Commissioner Discussion: Vince asked the zoning be shown in the area and informed the Commission historically, the fairgrounds are noted as Public Facilities. The MDR2 zone in the middle of the block changed about two years ago and was approved by the Commission as the QuickSilver subdivision. The area could use some improvement. MDR2 is also to the east. He understands the concerns of the residents, especially when trying to sell their home. With the industrial to the north and west, this request makes sense. Eric concurs; the concerns are the increased density that might affect the value or desirability of the property. Any kind of new construction, in his opinion, will improve the overall look and appeal of the neighborhood. On the south side of 3rd N, the owners have made some updates to homes over the last five (5) years. The Jamison home and the neighboring homes are beautiful homes. He feels this will continue to improve the area. Twenty-seven (27) units will be difficult to place on this property with the setbacks and parking requirements. Vince agrees. Cy may take your challenge and make the density work. Jim feels for the neighbors, but he also sees the heavy industrial zone without any real buffer between it and the low- density residential. This request makes a lot of sense. Left at Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2), it may be difficult to get someone to build a new home next to the heavy industrial. He feels this is a good fit. Todd says it is hard as Rexburg grows. With the limited space and constraints on construction, he believes it will be a positive addition to the neighborhood instead of a detractor. Chairperson Smith said this designation was placed as a buffer on the Comprehensive Plan from the Industrial with a higher density. McKay said recently, he has been hearing Walters is getting down to the end of their gravel pit and he wonders what will come in in its place. The heavy industrial allows a lot of possible uses that could move in. A nice buffer makes sense. Vanessa agrees with the buffer; this will be important as the community moves forward. This change has potential to improve the curb appeal of the neighborhood. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00092) the Rezone from Low-Density Residential 2 (LDR2) to Medium-Density Residential 2 (MDR2) at 302 & 260 W 3rd N, because it matches the Comprehensive Plan, it creates a good buffer between the LDR2 and the Industrial zone, and it will improve the neighborhood in the area. Action: Approve, Moved by Jim Lawrence, Seconded by Vanessa Johnson. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes = 8, No = 1). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. No: Bruce Casper 8 Plat: 1. (22-00142) University View – Condominium Plat – 649 S 2nd W. The request is to change a dormitory-style apartment complex into condominium units that can be sold separately. The CC&Rs state there will be no short-term rentals allowed until additional parking is acquired or until changes are made to the short-term rental language in the Development Code. There are 152 units. The plat covers 5.11 acres – Beau Jaussi (action) (48:57) (PG 1 of 13) Applicant Presentation: Kindi Moosman - 2775 W Navigator Dr. Suite 210, Meridian, ID - She thanked the Commission for letting her join them remotely. She is a planner with Horrocks Engineers and is presenting on behalf of her team and their client, Beau Jaussi, who is attending the meeting in person. David McKinney, the surveyor, is also available online and he will also be able to answer any technical questions the Commissioners may have. They are hoping for a recommendation of approval to the City Council. This plat is very simple, straightforward, and is in line with all city codes and standards. The purpose of this plat is to take current apartments and change them to condominiums to be able to be sold individually. Approval will allow these units to provide affordable housing for first-time homebuyers. This will diversify the available housing in the community and around the university campus. The condominiums will provide muti-family housing that is not regulated by the university. There are one hundred fifty-two (152) units, and the project covers just over five (5) acres of land. There are no changes to the buildings themselves; they will remain as they have for several years now. Kindi referred to page 3 of the Staff Report section A; this section refers to a specific part of the city’s Comprehensive Plan. This note indicates the request in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. 9 Commissioner Questions: Jim asked about the current occupancy. Beau answered the occupancy is about fifty-one (51%) percent for the spring semester. Overall, the occupancy for housing is a little under seventy (70%) percent for the spring semester. The overall occupancy for the year is about eighty-six (86%), excluding the summer months which is about fifteen (15%) percent. Jim continued of the fifty-one (51%) percent of residents there now, do they have contracts that go to the end of the spring term? Beau answered the contracts will be honored until August. At that point, he will work on finalizing the conversion. Chairperson Smith asked about the parking situation – in the description it says some of the units will have one (1) parking stall and others will have two (2) stalls. Beau said the standard is two (2) stalls per unit, but with a Parking Management Plan the city allows a reduction of twenty-five (25%) percent in the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED). Troy, with BYU-Idaho, told him about the Plan, when Beau talked to him about not being able to meet the parking requirement. He has worked with Tawnya, Alan, Stephen, and his engineers to put together the Parking Management Plan. Three (3) stalls will need to be added to the current parking configuration. The CC&Rs state everyone will have one stall and the stalls will be assigned. There will be open parking and designated visitor parking. For enforcement, there will be towing as a first-time offense. He believes this will take a lot of parking off of the street. McKay asked about the comparison of the parking requirement for the units currently with six (6) students in them verses the units becoming family units, which has the larger demand for parking. Beau answered the students by far have a higher parking usage. He anticipates a majority of family units will have one or two cars. Chairperson Smith confirmed that six (6) people could be in a single unit, even as a single- family unit. She confirmed the short-term rentals would not be allowed. Beau said he does not have the parking for the short-term rentals. He will know who is supposed to be parking in his parking lot and who is not. Staff Report: Alan Parkinson – Most of the points have been covered that affect this project. Parking will be managed. All of the facilities are currently being serviced by sewer and water. No changes will be made to the buildings. It is just the factor of changing the units from dormitory to condominiums that the Commission is addressing tonight. A condominium plat is a newer kind of plat for the city and Staff has been working to determine the information that needs to be shown; there has been some training in response to a comment about the list of revisions. Commissioner Questions: Chairperson Smith asked the Commissioners if they have read the letter from the housing company that was in the review folder. Many had not read the letter. This request barely made the agenda deadline on Tuesday. Commissioners who had reviewed the documents prior to Tuesday did not notice this item on the agenda. Brad asked if any additional fire code changes have to be made with the change of units. Alan said no changes will need to be made to the buildings. When you purchase a condominium, you are buying the space. Even the internal parts of the walls are owned by the Homeowners’ Association. 10 Eric read the written response letter from off-campus student housing: 11 Chairperson Smith said this really does not affect the Commissioners’ decision. The units are market driven by private industry. With the approval of Brigham’s Mill, the Commission learned this is an acceptable change within the zone. It breaks her heart the bonuses given to these complexes in the PED, now will be for nothing as these complexes will not have single students anymore. Vince confirmed the PED is designed around campus, but it is not designed for campus. Chairperson Smith affirmed. Vince asked Alan if the request meets all of the Development Code’s requirements and if there are there any concerns from Staff. 12 Alan responded the request meets the Development Code requirements and Staff has no concerns with the change. Chairperson Smith asked what are the consequences if the Parking Management Plan is not managed adequately. Alan answered, in the winter if people are parking on city streets, they will be towed. The request is changing from the development meeting thirty-eight (38%) percent of the dormitory parking requirement to seventy-five (75%) percent of the condominium parking requirement. McKay asked about the stance changing from those who park in the road now vs later. Alan said people are ticketed during the winter to allow for snow removal. McKay confirmed the condominium owners could also park on the streets, except in the winter. Chairperson Smith inquired about people needing University Parking permits to park on the street in front of University View. This will all depend on if University Parking permits are required to park on that street. Commissioner Discussion: Vince said as long as the request fits the criteria of the area, then you let the market do what it does. Numbers can be swayed one way or another. In addition, he knows young married adults and college staff may enjoy walking to campus. He thinks the request will benefit the community. Eric agrees. He is hoping for this type of new development, the condominium, will show a positive change to the community. His understanding was the units could only become condominiums if the parking is adequate. This looks like a work around with the parking issue. He is not opposed to this request, but he anticipates more and more of these requests moving forward. Brad said he does not want to tell a person what they can or cannot do with their property. If the applicant wants to do this with this property, he should be able to. Vince said if we go back to the role of the Commission, the focus is on land use and the land use is not changing. Next, he considers if the request has met all the requirements. Staff has looked at the requirements and is telling the Commission the request has met all requirements. Eric said in history the Commission has made concessions for the apartment complexes close to campus to allow single students to walk to campus. Now, we are removing these complexes out of the equation. These arguments do not come into play in tonight’s decision, but long-term, as we think about the campus, he worries about the campus and their needs. He feels the changing of more of these units may push the single students to live in the outlying areas. Attorney Rammell said this may force the university into the model BYU-Provo has taken. Alan said you also have to look at allowing the younger married students the opportunity to walk to campus. He mentioned a comment Keith with Public Works made; this is an opportunity to allow land adjacent to the campus to rebuild. Vince said this is in the PED zone next to campus, not necessarily just for single students, but designed for walkability for a variety of students. Brad said we want to be helpful with the campus. He and Sally were in a meeting with the campus officials and the college does not want to be in the housing business. If there is a need, someone will fill it. Conflict of Interest? – Chairperson 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. MOTION: Motion to recommend the City Council approve (22-00142) the University View Condominium Plat at 649 S 2nd W, allowing a change from apartments to 13 condominium units, because the application does not make any apparent changes to the use of the apartments as far as quantity, quality, or negative impact to the city, allows the owner of the property to adjust to the needs of the community, and is not in conflict with any state or city codes. Action: Approve, Moved by Brad Wolfe, Seconded by Chairperson Sally Smith. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote. (Summary: Yes = 9, No = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Sally Smith (Chairperson), Jim Lawrence, Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe, McKay Francis, Vanessa Johnson. Heads Up for June 2nd: No Hearings – Meeting will be cancelled. Adjournment for 7:54PM.