1
City Staff and Others: Scott Johnson – Economic Development Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Natalie Powell – Compliance Officer Tawnya Grover – P&Z Administrative Assistant
Chairman Rory Kunz opened the meeting at 6:30 p.m. Roll Call of Planning and Zoning Commissioners: Present: Chairman Rory Kunz, Greg Blacker, Vince Haley, David Pulsipher, Todd Marx, Randall Kempton, Aaron Richards. Absent: John Bowen, Steve Oakey, Kristi Anderson, Sally Smith. (Some Commissioners are attending via Go to Meeting from home.) Chairman Rory Kunz stated the need to amend the agenda, due to the cancellation of the work meeting. Motion: Motion to amend the agenda to remove the work meeting item., Action: Amend, Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner discussion of the motion: None Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx. Commissioner Recognition: Steve Oakey – completion of 2nd term – served since April 17, 2014 Alan will do the commissioner recognition and introduction. We have the privilege and with a little bit of sorrow, we are letting one of our Commissioners retire. Mr. Oakey has served for 6 ½ years. We have enjoyed having Steve on the Commission. His ideas have allowed us to look at proposals differently and he has helped keep us focused on the task at hand. We want to thank him. We have a plaque to give to him to recognize his service on this Planning & Zoning Commission. Commissioner Introduction: Jim Lawrence At this time, we would like to introduce Mr. Jim Lawrence. Jim was ratified by City Council the previous evening to take serve in the position Mr. Oakey is leaving. Jim is currently working at the University as an engineering instructor. He has served on our Traffic and Safety Committee with Public Works for the last two years. Jim has been involved with other Planning & Zoning Commissions in Tooele, Utah. We welcome him to our Commission and are grateful for his willingness to serve. Chairman Rory Kunz invited Mr. Lawrence to join the Commissioners on the dais.
Minutes: Work Meeting September 3, 2020 (action) Planning & Zoning Meeting September 3, 2020 (action)
35 North 1st East
2
Motion: Motion to approve the minutes for the September 3, 2020, work meeting and Planning & Zoning meeting., Action: Approve, Moved by Greg Blacker, Seconded by Todd Marx. Commissioner discussion of the motion: None
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx.
Public Hearings: 1. 6:35 p.m. – (20-00603) – Amend the Development Code. Change the LDR3 density from 8
units/acre to 10 units/acre. Remove the Infill/Redevelopment Area and all references to this section. Amend the Pedestrian Emphasis District Map and section text. (action) – City of Rexburg
Applicant Presentation – City of Rexburg – Alan Parkinson – When he was first assigned to work on this, much time was spent on the city’s current uses and where we are going. Staff has gone through the Development Code to identify the areas within the Development Code that need to change. LDR3. The LDR3 currently says 8 units/acre or 8,000 sq. ft for a duplex. When you do the math, the two numbers don’t come out to the same result. 43560 sq.ft. = 1 acre. 43560 divided by 8 = 5,445 square feet/unit. 5,445 * 2 = 10890 sq.ft. We want to make sure the square footage matches units per acre. The density is being changed to 10 units/acre, which will match the existing square footage. 10 units/acre is 43560 divided by 10 = 4356 square feet/unit. For a duplex this would be 4356 * 2 = 8712 square feet, closer to the current square footage listed. This is the only change that is being made in the LDR3 zone at this time. Questions from Commissioners: Vince Haley asked if the math was the only change was needed. The only line changing is 4.05.070.C. Lot Configuration and Density: “The maximum density permitted in this district is ten (10) dwelling units per acre.” Alan stated the previous Zoning Administrator had been using the 10,000 square footage and told a potential client, you can use the 10,000sq.ft. When Staff looked at the information in the code, they saw the 8 units per acre and the contradiction was identified. Because the applicant had been given permission by the prior Director, Staff allowed the 10,000 square feet for a duplex. Staff realized the mistake needed to be fixed so the problem did not continue to happen. Vince Haley asked Alan what LDR2 allows in terms of units. LDR2 allows two units per lot as a duplex or twinhome. Remove the Infill/Redevelopment Overlay. The next part is removal of the Infill/Redevelopment area. The overlay was originally designed to densify the center of the city. This was in order to keep the larger apartment complexes and businesses in this area. Buildings were sitting empty. Lots were not maximized to their capacity. The ideasboundaries were so large, the infill was not encouraged to densify as hoped. Also, the University purchased a lot of the land next to them, reducing some expansion. The system has not worked well for the city. Next, we will discuss the PED, bringing some Infill items into the PED. Questions from Commissioners: None. Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED). Will Klaver stated the goal of the PED was to give people more of an opportunity to use their land and their parcels to get the most density. Another goal is to create a pedestrian-friendly area. There are less setbacks on the front, rear and side yards. Bicycles were
3
allowed to park in the front of buildings. Sidewalks were widened to 8’, rather than the standard 5’. A couple of the major changes the proposal for the PED addresses are:
within the PED, you would not need to apply for a Conditional Use Permit for dormitory-style housing; this will encourage developers to focus on this area and slow the spread of multi-family residences on the edges of the city;
the number of parking spaces required for dormitory or community housing can be reduced to 75% of the required spaces with a Parking Management Plan, previously allowed in the Infill/Redevelopment Area;
the PED already required an approved Conditional Use Permit to reduce the amount of parking spaces required to as low as 60%, with a Parking Management Plan;
density was removed; parking and the height restriction for the particular zone will limit the density.
A barrier is being removed to allow greater density. Commissioner Questions: Vince Haley asked about why Staff chose the specific areas in which to expand the PED. Will answered; the red section is what is currently identified in the PED. The green is the addition to the PED. The reason these areas were chosen is that in this area Staff wants to see dormitory housing close to the University and close to downtown. Greg Blacker asked about identification of streets. The large area in green is bordered on the west of S 2nd W, north of W 4th S, East of S 4th W going north until the road intersects with the railroad tracks, then the railroad tracks are the boundary to align with the north boundary of the current PED. The small area in green east of the University was previously in the Infill/Redevelopment area and the northern boundary stops at the Downtown District border. Greg Blacker asked why the Abri Apartments are not in the PED. Will answered the Abri Apartments are already in the Downtown Boundary and the overlap with the PED could cause some problems with future projects. David Pulsipher asked about the location of the downtown boundary. The downtown boundary consists of 12 blocks. The area is bordered at approximately E 1st N is the top boundary, S 2nd W with the Cedars and Hemming Village is approximately the west boundary. All of W 2nd S over to S 2nd E and ½ of block east of 2nd E. David asked about the difference between PED and PEZ. The Pedestrian Emphasis Zone (PEZ) and the Pedestrian Emphasis District (PED) are two names for the same area. David Pulsipher confirmed the Downtown boundary overlaps with the PED designation. What impacts are there for the overlapping areas? Will answered there is no impact on the current overlapping areas. The changes proposed
4
today do not affect this overlap. These two boundaries have overlapped for some time without any problems. Alan answered the Downtown overlay came in after the PED. The object of the PED is to take care of the infill. The Downtown overlay does not trump the PED; the two work together, but the PED gives you more advantages than the Downtown overlay does right now. In form-based code, there will be some changes that address the overlapping area. Chairman Rory Kunz restated Mr. Pulsipher’s question. Why do you care if the boundary on the east side stops at the downtown district when a large portion within the PED and Downtown District overlap? The PED could include the Abri Apartments. Alan answered, the reason why we are stopping at the Downtown boundary is in preparation for another proposal coming before the Commission in the near future; this boundary allows clean lines for future adjustments. This small piece will fill in a gap that would not otherwise be covered in a future change. David thanked Rory for clarifying the question. Vince Haley Jim Lawrence confirmed there are no conflicts. Vince Haley asked if they are suggesting future applications in these areas. Alan answered no, there are no applications proposed by the city. We are running out of areas for Pedestrian Emphasis District. This allows more growth areas for housing for the University. We have infrastructure in place and roads are already built. Car traffic can be reduced because of the walking distance, allowing less stress on the city’s transportation system. Greg confirmed the big win here is for less parking required by the developer. Alan replied students could show up, walk, and attend on campus without the need for a car. The University is approving housing across 2nd W. The stoplight is on 2nd S and the HAWK signal is on 3rd providing for pedestrian safety in this area.
Staff Report: Planning & Zoning – Alan Parkinson – Public Works can service this area. Staff looked at all of the impacts for these changes. Staff recommends the Commission recommend approval to City Council for the proposed changes. Commissioner Questions for Staff: Vince Haley asked if Traffic Studies have been conducted in the proposed areas. Alan answered; Traffic Studies have been done. Each individual development will do a Traffic Study as the developers increase their footprint in these areas. An overall Traffic Study was conducted. Vince asked what is the long-term plan for 2nd E? N 2nd E will be a main artery and go up to a full width up to the temple. N 2nd E will connect to the East Parkway Corridor and become a major thoroughfare. The City is communicating the widths for the maximum width along 2nd E and the City is working on obtaining the right-of-way. Alan believes right-of-ways have already been established at time of building of Abri Apartments. Vince Haley identified by the location of the Abri Apartments, that there is more land for the right-of-way west of the center line of the road, than there is east. Greg Blacker asked who would foot the bill for an upgrade from the HAWK light to a stop light. This would be up to engineering. Developers will be called upon to help with the cost based on their increase of traffic in the area. Chairman Rory Kunz asked what impact fees pay for. Alan answered, impact fees pay for road upgrades, sidewalks, and infrastructure fixes, parks and police services in the same area of development. Chairman Rory Kunz suggested a street light might fit into this description. Greg asked about the potential for beds in the area for maximum build out. Alan does not recall the specific number of beds. Engineering ran the number and there was sufficient infrastructure for 5-10 years before upgrades would be needed. Sundance is putting in 300 beds right now. David Pulsipher returned to the discussion about N 2nd E. The road is very narrow. Abri works because their parking lot extends beyond the downtown boundary. He has concerns about development being able to develop in the narrow, eastern area designated as the PED with the needed parking and the narrowness of the current road. Are developers going to be coming in and asking us to
5
extend the PED because the area is so narrow? Do we need to push the PED further east into the residential neighborhoods? Alan answered potentially this could happen. The frontage tends to be rentals. We want to hold the line as well as we can and allow the strong neighborhoods in this area to thrive. Staff will push more development and growth in the PED and the downtown. The current PED boundary is believed to have been in place since 2008, with a clause that the boundary could not be changed for five years. Staff intends to hold strong to the boundary to encourage development within the PED borders. Vince Haley confirmed this is an all for one vote, not piece by piece. Chairman Rory Kunz says it is. Blake Willis asked how the houses on the east side would be preserved. He spoke of apartments on the west side of Harvard. Alan said we put in the boundaries we can. The only way we can preserve this area is on decision of the Commission and City Council. Chairman Rory Kunz said to keep in mind if the development is wide enough. Abri has built their buildings in the same boundary proposed for the PED on the east side of the campus. Abri-size development could allow more apartments of the same size. David stated the buildings fit, but the parking lot for Abri extends to Harvard. Chairman Rory Kunz said this is an entirely different discussion, because technically, anyone could buy land in that zone and put a parking lot on it where the zoning allows this as a permitted use. We are talking about building structure and use at this point. David Pulsipher asked about the parking spaces needed to build. Can they use land outside of this PED overlay to meet their parking requirements? Chairman Rory Kunz said to reduce parking below the 75%, they would have to provide a Parking Management Plan to Staff. The parking does not have to be on site. There was a building on the south side of the PED district, which purchased space on a vacant lot of surrounding areas for their parking needs; they are renting space from another property owner. Alan said the parking needs to be within 300’ of the building for a parking lot that is not their own. The contract has to identify the number of available spaces and the contract given to your tenants to designate to the student whether a parking space has been allowed or not; if not, the student is not to bring a car to the city. A previous approval of a low percentage of parking created a huge problem, due to the number of students who brought a car. 75% seems to work well. The C.U.P. process to go to as low as 60% will need to show in detail to the Commission how they propose to make the parking work; this was already written into the PED overlay. All of the land for the PED was in the Infill/Redevelopment area and dormitory was already allowed to reduce their parking to 75%. Neither of these parking reductions have actually been changed. Stronger verbiage has been added for the Parking Management Plan. Chairman Rory Kunz confirmed this is not really changing anything; this is just expanding where you are removing; we are removing the Infill and expanding the PED. Aland said the only change in the PED would be a right for dormitory; currently, the lots in the PED have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Bicycle parking in the front was not in the code, but this will encourage other modes of transportation. In essence, this needs to be one request, because it needs to be to cover the area that is removed. Conflict of Interest? - Chairman Rory Kunz 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. Chairman Rory Kunz reviewed the public hearing procedures. Favor: Blake Willis – 1343 Morningside Drive – He is in favor of the proposal. He understands on the concerns on the east side, but on the west side, he believes the change will clean the area up. Would the zone need to be changed from MDR to HDR to do dormitory? Alan answered;
6
the current zoning within the PED would not have to be changed to allow the permitted dormitory use. Neutral: None Opposed: None Rebuttal: None Written Correspondence: No chat comments are in place. No emails have been received. No hands are raised are on the Go to Meeting. Chairman Rory Kunz asked if anyone else would like to speak. He closed the public input portion of the hearing at 7:17p.m. Commissioners Discussion: Aaron Richards says Porter Park is one of the crown jewels of the city. The opportunity to include the north and west side in the PED and encourage redevelopment in this area makes sense. The other areas proposed also makes sense; he supports Staff’s proposal. Randall Kempton feels these areas will encourage and incentivize densification in these areas close to town. He supports this request to keep students close to the campus. Vince Haley asked if David has concerns for 2nd E. David Pulsipher feels everything that has been proposed is reasonable. He did not realize the Infill/Redevelopment area that is being removed actually includes the PED area. It is a challenging part of town where the residential area abuts areas of high-density housing. On the other hand, he is not ready to vote against the entire proposal due to his concerns. Vince asked Chairman Rory Kunz if parking outside the allowed area would require the requesters to come before the Commission. Chairman Rory Kunz said it depends on what the zone is and the permitted uses in the zones. Any change to uses not in those zones would cause the applicants to come before the Commission and then City Council. David Pulsipher learned the parking in the Infill/Redevelopment is just shifting to the PED area. The areas of concern were already included in these overlays. Any project on 2nd E will have to follow similar model to the Abri Apartments. The neighborhoods are strong on the east side. Vince Haley agrees, however, there is a much different occupancy between a dormitory and a regular rental. The LDR2 zoning on this east side would cause applicants to come before the Commission for a CUP. MOTION: Recommend to City Council to approve the recommendations to remove the Infill/Redevelopment area, amend the PED and its expanded area and amend the LDR3 density to 10 units/acre, to help our city grow and to align the items in our Development Code., Action: Approve, Moved by Vince Haley, Seconded by Aaron Richards. Commission Discusses the Motion: None VOTE: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 6). Yes: Aaron Richards, Chairman Rory Kunz, David Pulsipher, Greg Blacker, Randall Kempton, Todd Marx. The item will go to City Council Wednesday, October 7th.
Heads Up: October 1, 2020 Hearings:
1. (20-00660) – S 4th W & W 4th S– Comprehensive Plan Map Change to Medium to High Density Residential
7
2. (20-00689) – Professional Plaza St & 242 E Main – Rezone from LDR1 to CBC 3. (20-00690) – Grand Loop – Rezone from TOZ to CBC
We are trying to hold off scheduling the work meeting due to the elevated COVID numbers. No date at this time. Worst case, we will do a Go to Meeting. Alan feels the interaction works better. What is the Commission most comfortable with? Vince asked how we are looking to finish this project by the end of the year. We are not going to make the end of the year. We are working at it at the speed we can. During the end of November and December, Vince does not want to spend more time with Planning & Zoning. If the Commission is comfortable, we can plan a work meeting prior to our next Planning & Zoning meeting. Aaron Richards said the numbers could go up as you go later into the season. He would rather hit it hard in October, rather than letting it drag out. He would rather be together for this kind of meeting than on the Go to Meeting. Randall and David agreed for October 1st. Adjournment:
Commissioner Rory Kunz adjourned the meeting at 7:30PM.
Start position
button0: