HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JANUARY 22, 2004CITY OF REXBURG
PL,~~NNING AND ZOr1ING MYNUTES
Thursday January 22, 2004
7:00 p.m.
Chairman: Winston Dyer
Members: Robert Schwartz -Excused
Mike Ricks
Mary Haley
Steve McGary -Excused
Jerry Hastings
David Stein
Joseph. Laird -Excused
Randall Porter
Portions of the meeting were recorded
Winston Dyer welcomed the Government students to the meeting.
Consent Agenda: The consent agenda includes items which require formal Planning •
Commission action, however they are typically routine or not of great controversy. Individual
Commission members may ask that any specific item be removed from the consent agenda for
discussion in greater detail. Explanatory information is included in the Planning Commission's
a enda acke~ re ardin these iterrs.
g P g g
a) ~Llinutes from the January 08`h, 2004, meeting
Winston Dyer asked to clarify the 14 percent use of the road in the minutes on page 7. "The
14% in the earlier statement relates to the amount the proposal would take of all the capacity
available on the present road."
Randall Porter asked to change his comment on page 9. "Randall Porter indicated his
concern to changing the Residential Zone to a Professional Zone. The neighbors have built and
invested in the area. They are depending on the neighborhood staying a residential
neighborhood.
David Stein moved to approve the minutes with the requested changes for January 08, 2004;
Jerry Hastings seconded the motion; all vote aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
Noncontroversial Items Added to the Agenda: None
( •
Public Hearings: None
New Business: None
Report on Proiects: None
Tabled Requests:
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for Woodshed Apartments
355 West 2nd South -Kevin Snell; STATUS: (Joe Lazrd moved to table this request
until the developer can present an appropriate survey necessary to subdivide the parcels
because there are S lots that need to be tied to a survey inside the city with reference to
the parking issue and missing plat procedures)
Winston Dyer asked for a motion to remove the Item from the table.
Winston Dyer personally apologized to the representatives of this planned development for any
personal remarks that were made the last time they came before the Planning and Zoning
Commission. He indicated that the issues the Commission spoke about were correct and true;
however, the manner in which it was communicated was inappropriate. Winston requested to go
• on record as apologizing for those remarks.
Kevin Snell - 3784 East 175 North mRigby -reviewed that changes and corrections that he has
made to the proposal for a Preliminary and Pinal Plat for 5 buildings at 355 West 2nd South in
Rexb~,~rg.
Winston Dyer reviewed the packet or the Woodshed Plat, which contains the latest drawing of
the plat and the associated Protective Covenants for the Plat.
Kevin Snell reviewed that Protective Covenants on page 5, section 4, which covers the parking
and the common areas. He indicated that the Protective Covenants should resolve the concerns
of the Commission that were raised at the last meeting on the Plat. Monthly dues are covered in
section '7.17 of the document. Kevin continued to review the document for issues of concern;
(I.e. legal descriptions, etc.). Kevin indicated that he had received compliments on the type of
structures that were being constructed from Kurt Hibbert.
Questions of the Applicant:
Kevin Snell reviewed the location of the properties on the overhead screen. Buildings #2, #3, #4
are the new buildings. Buildings # 1 and #5 are existing buildings in the project. He reviewed
the location of the City water line that goes through the project. Also, there is an easement for
adjoining properties to use the property to access the street.
• 2
Randall Porter asked if the development required a fence along the railroad track. Kevin was
unclear on the answer to that question. The previous discussions with the City Staff did not
include a fence for that location.
Kevin Snell indicated that he did intend to put a nice fence along the railroad track right-of--way.
The fence could be installed in the spring of 2004.
Jerry Hastings asked about the reference in the Protective Covenants to restrictive parking.
Those parking stalls are not identified on the drawing. Kevin referred to page 3, section 2. I~ for
the parking issues.
Kevin Snell indicated that they are still working on the best way to do that parking requirement.
After discussions with Legal Council and the realtors, they will probable assign parking stalls to
individual units.
Jerry Hastings reiterated that fact that at the current time they do not have any parking stalls
tied to property boundaries.
Winston Dyer explained that the reason for the preliminary and final plat review in this meeting
is that the preliminary plat review items were covered on the site plan review. Therefore, it was
interpreted and treated as though it was a preliminary plat review. Formally, the City is treating
this request as one step. It is normally a two step process for a preliminary and a final plat •
review.
Kul ~ Hibbert reviewed the struct-ores t'fiat are adjacent to this proposal on tfie over'riead screen.
The proposed protective covenants are under review by the City Staf£ There are some revisions
that are requested to meet the City's requirements.
Winston Dyer reviewed the changes that Staff has requested for the Plat.
1) The dedication on the Plat must be changed to the owners of the LLC Company.
2) The wording of the dedication needs to include language referring to the dedication
of the common areas.
3) The language that refers to access to the street; needs to be changed to "access
easement" because it is not a public street.
4) The ad joiners need to be shown on the final Plat.
5) A flood plain designation needs to be recorded on the final Plat.
6) Common Green space needs to be identified. (Protective Covenants)
7} An irrigation statement is required for the Plat.
8) Addressing of the Buildings.
9) Fire Department requirement to mark the no parking lanes.
10) Fire Department requirement for a fire hydrant.
r~
U
`'f ~ Kevin Snell indicated that there was a fire hydrant on site. They could not start framing the
buildings without it. Some of the requirements will need to be postponed until the weather
permits those items to be completed.
Winston Dyer indicated that this development is not being proposed as condominiums or a
Planned Residential Development. It is a five lot subdivision with dedicated common areas.
There are different Zoning rules in the Ordinance for each of those developments; therefore,
Winston made it clear that this development was a 5 lot subdivision.
Mary Haley asked if there was a minimum lot size requirement.
Kurt Hibbert reviewed the minimum lot size for a Medium Density Residential Zone (MDR).
The minimum lot size is 4500 square feet for the first unit, with an additional 2,500 square feet
required for additional units.
Discussion on the size of the lot and if the area is large enough to have five lots.
Jerry Hastings asked about the access to the public street. He indicated that in a normal
subdivision, each lot has to have access to a public street. 3erry asked if this development met
the requirements of the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
Winston Dyer asked the developer if he was willing to re-plat the development to comply with
the minimum lot size.
Kevin Snell indicated that the total area of the development justifies by City Ordinance the
apartment units that are in the development as originally approved. These buildings, obviously
do not meet the minimum 4500 square foot requirement.
Mary Haley wanted the developer to clarify what type of development he was applying for with
this request. She indicated that the development was approved for one type (apartments}; and
now the developer is seeking a PRD, or a subdivision, or what? She was unclear what type of
development was being requested by Kevin.
Kurt Hibbert indicated that the development met the allowed density for an apartment
development. Kurt did not indicate how the buildings were given credit for the space required
for a subdivision. He requested additional information from the Public Works Department.
Jerry Hastings indicated that it is on the agenda for a subdivision approval. He was concerned
with the missing requirements for a Subdivision Plat.
Kurt Hibbert referred to page two of the Subdivision Ordinance where exceptions to the
Subdivision Ordinance are delineated.
i• a
Winston Dyer mentioned that he had reviewed this issue with John Millar, who indicated that
this was not a PRD or a Condominium project; however, it was a Subdivision Plat.
Discussion on the fact that it did not comply with the Subdivision Ordinance.
Kevin Snell indicated that he has done all that the City Staff required him to do for the project.
Winston Dyer asked Kevin to be patient while the Planning Commission worked through the
issues. Winston wanted to ask John Millar more detail on the type project this application would
work under in the Subdivision Ordinance.
Mary Haley moved to table the request for a final Plat for Woodshed Subdivision; David Stein
seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
Winston Dyer indicated that the Plaru~ing Commission follows the Roberts Rules of Order for
meetings. The meetings are conducted with order and respect. Everyone has an opportunity tc
give input into the process. "That is the American Way". City Council meetings are run the
same way.
Zoning Compliance: Kurt Hibbert indicated that there are no compliance issues to report at this
meeting; however, Kurt did mention that the City is working on the installation of new software
` for the Building Department to track building permits, Ordinance violations, complaints, parcel
based information like illegal apartments, etc. This will make the enforcement process easier.
Mary Haley asked if this wouid'neip the real estate people provide accurate information to
clients on the history of the parcels.
Kurt Hibbert mentioned that "When in doubt, check it out". Some property purchases are done
by individuals who do not use a realtor.
Unfinished/Old Business:
'~~Work on the Comprehensive Plan Draft - Deferred to a future meeting
*'~ Work on the Commercial Design Standards - Deferred to a future meeting
**Work on the Planned Residential Developments (PRD) Ordinance, 854
Kurt Hibbert reviewed the changes that he has made to the Ordinance to prepare it for tonight's
discussion. He passed out a proposed revision to the Commissioners. On the 14~ of January, the
Planning Commission and the City Council reviewed some possible changes to the Ordinance.
Issues included:
,' • 1) Variation of building facades.
2) Usable open space like a small soccer field by clustering the building units.
3} Requiring garages instead of carports in a PRD project.
4} Curvilinear street designs that are designed proportionately to the size of the
development.
S} Encourage an upscale look and feel to a PRD project.
6) Define the buffer placement types (scale based)
7} Mix of density (single family, twin homes, condominiums, townhouses, zero lot line
developments and apartments).
Kurt mentioned that one developer in the City has used some mixed density in their development
with twin homes and clustered town homes.
8} Lighting for the development.
9) Road widths reduced to discourage off street parking.
l0) Underground utilities
11 }Minimum number of S units per building in a PRD project.
12) Changing the MDR Zone to coincide with the PRD Ordinance.
John Millar and Kurt Hibbert recommended a maximum of 2 acres in a four plex
development in an MDR Zone.
', • Discussion on the need to cluster open space instead of using open water ways and back yards as
part ofthe total open space. Kurt read some language in the proposed PRD Ordinance that
would enlarge the minimum open space to 80 feet wide. Discussion the changes that need to be
included In the proposed PRD Ordinance.
Jerry Hastings recommended that the Planning Commission become familiar with the
particular Ordinances that have controls that regulate a specific request.
Kurt Hibbert reviewed the proposed changes to the PRD Ordinance. He indicated a need to
prepare forms that are applicable to the request in a checklist format.
Winston Dyer asked if the Ordinance should require a mixes of uses in a PRD like single
family, twin homes, condominiums, townhouses, zero Iot Line developments and apartments.
Discussion on developing a piece of ground with a mix of commercial, single family, and PRD
projects. Discussion on the process for a Land Use request to flow through the system for
review. (Example: Conceptual plan, site plan, preliminary plat, and final plat).
Ted Whyte offered a reason why developers want to go to a PRD project.
1} Break the project down into small pieces.
(Four plex developments reengineered into Condominium developments)
i ~
~ti •
a) Allows the developer to remove debt from his project by selling part of the •
project.
Jerry Hastings recommended that a PRD project be dis-allowed from changing to a different
type of project. He asked if the City could restrict by Ordinance the development from changing
to a different use.
Discussion on the need to include. and identify these items in the new PRD Ordinance.
Mary Haley indicated that some of the PRD maintenance problems could be handled in
Protective Covenants.
Ted Whyte indicated that financing is very difficult in a project when 50% or more of the units
become non-owner occupied. He mentioned that he is on his third set of buyers and the sixth
bank trying to finance two $45,000 condominium units that are in a development that started out
as apartments and then converted to single owned condominiums that have been sub-rented.
People can not get their investment back on these types of units when the 50% barrier is broken
for owner occupied units. This is the reason that developers are seeking a PRD project.
Mike Ricks mentioned the flaws that are in the Homeowners Protective Covenants. Rentals in a
PRD do not maintain the property as well as owners.
Discussion on how a PRD is a sub Community with the Community of Rexburg. Condominiums •
are the same type of development.
Discussions on requiring the whole project to be maintained as a PRD instead of letting half of
the project become a Condominium project. This would help kept the project from failing into a
state of poor repair.
The Commissioners continued discussions on the changes to the proposed Ordinance for a
Planned Residential Development. The new Ordinance will have a minimum of 5 units per
building to help keep the development in the Commercial financing area instead of allowing
buildings in the development to be financed as single family residential units.
Discussion on the financial opportunities to finance four plexes as single family units instead of
Larger Commercial units., Car ports have been replaced by the requirement for garages. The
buffering requirements for visual and aesthetic purposes for a PRD were reviewed. Vegetative
green space and hard surface fencing (concrete or block) for buffering was reviewed as an option
for the PRD projects.
Mike Ricks moved to remove the Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for Woodshed
Apartments from the table; Randall Porter seconded the motion; all voted aye, none opposed.
The motion carried.
7 •
f~/•
(Continued}
Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat for Woodshed Apartments; 35S West Znd South
Kevin Snell; STATUS: (.Toe laird moved to table this request until the developer can present
an appropriate survey necessary to subdivide the parcels because. there are S lots that need to be
tied to a survey inside the city with reference to the parking issue and missing plat procedures).
Winston Dyer reviewed two main issues for the development as a 5 lot residential subdivision.
If it is a regular residential subdivision, the following two issues need resolution:
1) Minimum lot size (4500 square feet for the first unit plus 1500 square feet for
additional units).
2) Lots do not face a public street.
John Millar reviewed the intent of the lot sizes in the Ordinance. If you run the numbers, the
reason for the lots size requirements is to coincide with the density requirements for the Zone.
In a normal development, that density issue would come into effect. On any Condominium
development, lot size does not enter into the process; however, the Zozung Ordinance does not
take you to there. The City has had to read between the lines. John indicated that this proposal
is more in line with a Planned Unit Development (PUD}. John referred the Commissioners to
Chapter 5 of the Subdivision Ordinance which falls under a "Special Development". It is a little
`~_ • used development. The lots do not front onto a City street. Lot density, not lot size is the
criteria for review. This development is in an MDR Zone which allows 16 units per acre.
The developer has filed his Home Owner's Association documents. These are the primary
guidelines the City used to review this project.
Winston Dyer inquired about the other requirements for a PUD. He mentioned a storage
building and other items in the Ordinance under "Special Developments".
John Millar indicated that the review could fall back to Condominium requirements. The
Zoning Ordinance does not make the allowance for Condominiums. The City has fallen back to
State Statute for some reviews if they were not covered by the Zoning Ordinance.
Mary Haley asked for information on what type of development this one is being considered.
John Millar indicated that this type of development is not specifically defined in the Zoning
Ordinance. The City has used different City and State Codes to review the development.
John reviewed the requirements for storage areas for boats, campers and trailers, parking spaces,
and a maintenance building. The Commission may reduce the storage area if there is a showing
that the needs of a particular development are less. The maintenance building required for repair
and maintenance of all common areas and facilities. John reiterated the fact that several codes
are being used to approve this Plat for Woodshed Subdivision. John indicated that we need to
'. ~ 8
ask the question: "By approving it, is it detrimental to the City?" •
Winston Dyer was concerned with setting a precedent for future developments that will be
submitted to the City. Mary indicated her concern with the same question.
John Millar indicated that under current City codes, a developer has options to change a
development from one type of development to another. (i.e. apartments to Condominiums)
Jerry Hastings reviewed the storage building requirements in a special development.
Discussion of the Condominium requirements on page 4 of the Subdivision Ordinance and a
Planned Unit Development on page 40 of the proposed new Subdivision Ordinance.
The protective covenants for the development were reviewed.
Kevin Snell indicated that he would build a mait*~tenance building; however, there are
contractors that come and provide the necessary maintenance for common areas in
developments. Kevin reviewed the problems that are inherent with a storage building. It
becomes a location that people use to store or discard undesirable items. That is why the storage
building was precluded in the Protective Covenants for the Woodshed Subdivision. The
Protective Covenants could be amended.
Discussion on how to recommend the Woodshed Plat to the City Council for approval. •
Jerry Hastings moved to recommend the approval of the Woodshed Subdivision Preliminary
and Final Plat to the City Co~,zncil with the follov.~ir~g conditions:
1) Make known to the City Council that a maintenance building is required in a
Special Subdivision in the Subdivision Ordinance; however, the Planning
Commission is recommending that this requirement be waived.
2) The Planning and Zoning Commission recommend waiving the requirement for a
storage building as stated in the Ordinance because the building is not necessary
for housing that is primarily intended for student housing.
3) It must meet all other City reviews that have been brought to the attention of the
Planning and Zoning Commission by the Staff.
4) Protective Covenants speak to requirements # 1 and #2 above.
5) Protective Covenants speak to the requirement to disallow RV storage and
camper storage.
9 •
(~n• Mike Ricks seconded the motion; Discussion: all voted aye, none opposed. The motion carried.
Kevin Snell indicated that the Protective Covenants would be changed to comply with the
previous discussion.
Kevin Snell reviewed a concept for a development in Puget Sound on a very small piece of
property. The development was called a pie chunk development. It was a development of small
homes in a PRD type development. The homes were 500 to 800 square feet in size. They had 8
to IZ cottage homes on a 3/4 to 1 acre piece of property. The homes shared garden space and
other common areas. The homes had porches, bay windows, and other amenities to beautify the
neighborhood. Kevin indicated that Madison County recently adopted a Clustering Ordinance
for middle to lower income families in the County. He indicated that this type of development
works well for small pieces of property.
David Stein indicated his support for that type of development. He has reviewed similar
developments and thought it was a great idea.
Mary Haley responded with her experience living in a small home. She called the home the
closet. It was not a big enough home to accommodate two children in the family.
David Stein referred to the PRD Ordinance in Driggs, Idaho, that was successful due to the
developer working with the Driggs to develop the Ordinance.
•
(Continued)
**Work on the Planned Residential Developments (PRD) Ordinance 854
Kurt Hibbert reviewed the type of fence buffering to use in a PRD project with the
Commissioners. They discussed Curvilinear street designs that are designed proportionately to
the size of the development; garages instead of car ports; street dedications to the City in a PRD
project; master planning of the PRD streets in the project; offsets for building facades; vary and
offset building facades far presentation; minimum of three different building designs in a PRD
project; and maximum slope allowed in the land contour for a PRD project.
Adjourned
• 10