Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRFD - 22-00741 - Riverwalk PUD 1 | Page #22 00741 Riverwalk - Planned Unit Development 301 E 7th N 1. October 4, 2022, An application was received for a Planned Unit Development from Bron Leatham. 2. October 10, 2022, Application paperwork was completed. 3. October 10, 2022, Payment was received for the application. 4. December 2, 2022, Staff Reviews were completed. 5. January 9, 2023, Notice was sent to the newspaper to be published on January 17 & January 24, 2023. 6. December 28, 2022, the Staff Report was completed. 7. January 12, 2023, Notice was mailed to all property owners within 350’. 8. January 23, 2023, Notice was posted on the property. 9. February 2, 2023, Alan Parkinson presented the application to the Planning & Zoning Commission. (22-00741) Riverwalk PUD – Located at 301 E 7th N, this property is zoned Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1). The property is approximately 1.85 acres. - Bron Leatham (Action) Alan presented the application, showing the location on the map on the screen. He explained that a PUD is different from a normal plat, as this is an entire plan of the project, including the design and layout, and the criteria needed in order to increase the density, and showed the PUD Master Plan Narrative. He pointed out that this project is close to amenities and has been designed as an apartment complex to rent; this project will eventually have connectivity to the Teton River Walking Path via a walking path that crosses both 7th North and Lorene. Being only 2 miles from the University, this will also be ideal for students. Alan explained that this project is under one ownership, which is one of the requirements for a PUD. He also pointed out a few qualifications for density bonus points, including insulation that has a higher R-factor than a normal single-family home, is energy efficient, a consistent high-end design, as well as recreation amenities. 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 Alan explained Staff’s process of reviewing a PUD and confirmed that this application has met the Staff’s requirements and therefore is recommending to P&Z to recommend to City Council for approval. Eric asked about snow storage and snow removal requirements. Alan explained our current standards. Eric stated he is concerned about a small strip of the project that is designated as snow storage but has trees. Alan replied that the trees will not take up much room, there is the additional area of the drainage area and the requirements have been met. Chairperson Smith commented on the length of the development agreement that all parties agreed to. Chairperson Smith opened the public hearing at 6:50 pm Favor: none Neutral: none Against: none Rebuttal: none Chairperson Smith closed the public hearing at 6:51. Chairperson Smith asked for any conflicts of interest: none. Commissioner Discussion: Vince asked to see the map again. He pointed out the new light at 7th N, the new development to the East, storage units to the North, Commercial Tire to the West, and the housing developments to the South. He commented that the area seems dense, but this fits, and he did not see any arguments against the density. Eric asked for help understanding what the PUD allows the applicant to do, rather than standard zoning. Alan replied that the purpose of the PUD is the ability to increase the density. Eric asked why a developer would do a PUD verses rezoning the property. Alan responded that due to the shape and layout of the parcel, the developer needs to increase the density to provide additional apartments. For the city, the PUD requires the developer to develop to a higher standard than just rezoning. Eric clarified that a PUD allows for a higher density as long as certain requirements are met. Alan replied yes, and that these types of developments are more expensive than a normal plat. Eric stated that this seems to be a way to get around the zoning. Alan discussed a main benefit to the city of a developer opting to do a PUD is that the city can see what type of development is coming in, the details of the project, and we see the quality of the amenities it will include, which makes it easier to determine if it fits within the area. Chairperson Smith asked for existing PUD examples. Alan pointed out that behind Harbor Freight and Westmark is a PUD. It increased densities, but provides better sidewalks, additional landscaping and amenities. Vince asked if the height and dimensions have to stay the same for the PUD. Alan responded yes, a PUD can either allow higher density in the same dimensions, or it could be to cluster buildings for 3 | Page additional open space, similar to Summerfield. Eric stated that this was closer to his understanding of a PUD. Alan stated that in Summerfield, the developer increased the density and decreased the setbacks in order to provide additional amenities to the residents. Eric stated he does not see any additional amenities this PUD is offering. Alan responded that the playground is a prime example of an additional amenity. Chairperson Smith stated that you can compare the PUD to Centennial, that seems very dense, where they don’t have amenities, just units. Vince asked if Eric needed clarification of the density bonus points. Eric responded no, that he thinks the amenities provided may include the upgraded construction, the efficiency and playground rather than a clubhouse and green space. Alan pointed out that the points cannot be earned all in one category, and the additional landscaping and bike parking are also amenities. Chairperson Smith asked about the parking. Alan replied that it is 2 spaces per unit; there is no reduction in parking. Chairperson Smith believes this is a nice way to use the property and the connectivity will be a great way to get back to the walking path. Leslie Peterson asked to speak from the audience. She stated that she lives on 7th North and the homeowners do not want more apartments on 7th North. She asked what has been done to prevent flooding in this area, especially in the storage units, which have had a massive flooding issue. Alan responded that the flooding happened 2 years ago and was caused by the person irrigating was not paying attention and did not shut the water down. In this case, the drainage would not have cured the flooding, and could not have handled that volume of water. His understanding is that it has been worked out; it is private between the developer and landowners. He explained that if a landowner does not manage their water and floods anybody, the landowner is responsible for that. Leslie expressed her concern about insufficient parking and referenced Teton River Flats. Alan replied that they are meeting the current code, and the parking code is currently being reviewed. Leslie restated that the majority of homeowners do not want that high of density. Chairperson Smith pointed out that the surrounding residents were notified of the meeting and could have attended. Vince clarified that the city is not the canal company, and that the canal companies were all notified of the meetings and the proposals, and it is up to the landowner and canal company to work through those details. Alan further clarified it was a private ditch that caused the flooding, not even the canal company. Leslie stated that prior to building, the area never flooded. Vince explained that the Commission asks if a proposed application meets requirements and fits in the neighborhood. Alan clarified that the canal companies are notified of all developments and have not had concerns about the projects in this area. Todd stated he thinks this fits. Brad thinks this is a perfect project for the area. That while he has heard opposition, he did not see anyone in opposition. The PUD does not hurt a thing in this particular case and it is a good fit. Plats: None 4 | Page MOTION: Motion to recommend to the City Council to approve the application for (22- 00741) Riverwalk PUD because it fits within that area in terms of surrounding development and meets the requirements the city has put forth. Action: Approved, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner Discussion on the Motion: Eric asked if this is the final say on the PUD. Chairperson Smith confirmed that every decision is a recommendation and it will go before City Council. VOTE: Motion carried. (Summary: Yes= 6, No= 0, Abstain = 0). Yes: Vince Haley (Vice Chair), Todd Marx, Chairperson Smith (Chairperson), Bruce Casper, Eric Erickson, Brad Wolfe No: none Abstain: 10. February 15, 2023, the application was presented to City Council. Planning & Zoning recommendation to approve a plat for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Riverwalk located at 301 E 7th N in Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) zone #22-00741. - Alan Parkinson Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson reviewed a map of the parcel. The parcel the city sold to the developer is included in the project. The development consist of 4-plexes and 8-plexes. The developer has requested a PUD and presented the different items they are adding to reach the minimum 100 points that they need to score. The developer has met the minimum points with each category. Some the items included an increase in insulation, increase quality of outside of the structures, park amenities such as playground equipment to make more beneficial. The developer is requesting the maximum amount of units allowed in a PUD. Council Member Erickson said he reviewed the proposed PUD and did not see any complaints from the surrounding property owners regarding the proposed development. Planning and Zoning Administrator Parkinson explained the surrounding properties are zoned Public Facilities, Medium Density Residential One and Commercial zones. 5 | Page Council Member Erickson moved to approve A Plat for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) for Riverwalk located at 301 East 7th North in Medium Density Residential 1 (MDR1) Zone; Council Member Johnson seconded the motion; Mayor Merrill asked for a vote: Those voting aye Those voting nay Council Member Flora none Council Member Johnson Council Member Erickson Council President Busby The motion carried