Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MAY 19, 2005 MOR F EQUEST R RAVEL T P&Z LANNING ONING M INUTES 19 E. Main (PO Box 280) Phone: 208-359-3020 x326 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Fax: 208-359-3024 www.rexburg.org comdev@rexburg.org May 19, 2005 Commissioners Attending: City Staff: Winston Dyer– Chairman Steven Zollinger – City Attorney Rex Erickson – Council Member Kurt Hibbert – P&Z Director Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Bethany Caufield - Secretary Mike Ricks David Stein Joseph Laird Thaine Robinson Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:14pm Roll Call Randall PorterDavid Stein asked to be excused. asked to be excused until later in the evening. 1. Minutes – May 5, 2005 Minutes were temporarily put on hold until after the public hearing. Mike RicksMary Ann Mounts moved to approve the minutes for May 5, 2005. seconded the Motion carried motion. None opposed. . 2. Public Hearing A. Conditional Use Permit – Basement Apartment on 446 Comanche Dr. Ben Lindsey - 446 Comanche – representing his parents, the applicants. His parents want to sell the home. The house is a little over 3800 square ft. They were renting it until they were made aware it was not allowed. They applied for a CUP so the owners could have the option of renting it out if they so please. The windows were checked and approved by the Building Department. Currently, the entrance goes through the garage. If they were to rent it out, they would construct a wall – 8 foot stud wall with sheetrock. There will be a door from the garage through the passage way constructed with the 8 foot stud wall into the doorway that was the previous entrance. Thaine Robinson asked if the parking was adequate for two family dwelling. Mr. Lindsey replied there is adequate parking. There is a two car garage, a single car garage as well as the curb parking. It would only a dual family dwelling. Multiple families in the basement would not be possible. Thaine RobinsonKurt Hibbert asked what the current zoning is for the property. replied it is LDR2 which allows a duplex with a proper size lot. This lot is large enough and the parking is 1 adequate. The Building Department did go and do a life/safety inspection. There are a couple of life/safety issues the applicant was made aware of. Mary Ann Mounts arrived. Kurt Hibbert explained that it is important to re-iterate what the applicant said, that it is indeed the case that it cannot be rented to dormitory style housing. It has to be family type housing, which means no more than two unrelated individuals in each unit. Chairman Dyer opened the public input portion of the hearing. None spoke in favor of the CUP. Chairman Dyer invited those who were neutral for the public input portion. None spoke neutral for the CUP. Bruce Barton – 288 Nez Perce Ave. He had a question: it was his understanding that the variance would be for more of a dormitory housing (i.e. roommates). He asked to clarify who would be living there and the plans for that. Chairman Dyer said they will hold that question until the public hearing input was closed. Chairman Dyer invited those who were contrary to the proposal to come forward. Gary Baird - 460 Comanche Dr. – neighbor directly across from the applicant. The information provided was new from what he thought the purpose was. His concerns were safety for the small children due to the increase of traffic, parking the way it is currently configured, the value of their homes decreasing, and that it might create an unwanted precedence. He handed a list to Chairman Dyer of 77 people in the subdivision that were in opposition of the CUP. Rick Davis – 530 Comanche. He felt that there was neglect in the want/need for apartments now. He is fine putting a couple in it. Scott Smith - 309 Mohawk. His understanding was that the zoning as is would allow a duplex. If the zoning as it is allows a duplex, why does the change need to take place in the first place? Jen Alford - 490 Comanche. She was concerned with the parking since many families have more than one vehicle. She thought it was going to be dormitory housing and is concerned that it might end up being used for dormitory housing because it is not being monitored. Pam Baird – 460 Comanche Dr. Her husband and her spent several years as married students with many financial sacrifices. They searched long and hard for a home in a family oriented neighborhood. They strongly request to deny the CUP. She is concerned it will devalue their home and will severely impact their subdivision. She is also concerned that there will be a lack of care and concern for the yard. 2 Patrick Huish – 239 Apache Ave. Over time, in his previous living area, more and more homes received CUPs and the appearance eventually looked rundown. He is afraid that will happen again. Carrie Mills used to live in a home right next to the property in question. The previous owners bought the property in 92. She is concerned that since the previous owners were unsuccessful in making an outside exit, they would be unable to create this 8 foot wall. She is concerned whether or not the commissioners, if accepting the CUP, would be staying consistent within the plans that were set forth. rd Chris Cornelius – 421 E 3 S. Ten years ago, he tried to build a house in the Randall Estate area. He went through quite a process trying to meet their covenants. He abandoned building a home because they had such stanch covenants. He decided to buy a home there because he appreciated how regulated they left those covenants and how particular they are about their homes. He is concerned with the traffic and their property values declining. Betty Davis – 530 Comanche Dr. She is against any more CUPs being issued. Sue Huskinson – 35 S Millhollow. This subdivision was done by her dad. The covenants were made so there would be limits to what went on in these homes. There is certainly enough student housing now. She feels the CUP should be rejected. nd Shawna Lewis – 440 E 2 S. She is selling her home and even after taking the sign down, she has had five phone calls for an investment to build rentals. It is a family owned neighborhood; it is not a rental neighborhood. Tom Kennel – 269 Nez Perce. He spent 40 years in the realty business and feels that the comments tonight were justified. Vacancy is high. Everything has been said well tonight. I encourage the Commissioners to deny this request. Chairman Dyer entered into the record 2 letters received: 1) Curtis & Mary Hawkins – They are opposed because the area lacks parking and it is residential in nature. There are children in neighborhood. They are concerned that it will decrease values. They are not opposed for rental couples and children; one family upstairs, one family downstairs is acceptable as long as the property is adequately maintained and parking controlled. 2) John Bowen – Tri-spur investments – Single family housing is one of the few left in Rexburg. He feels there are many other places available. He is concerned it will set a precedent and open the flood gates for other things in the area. Rebuttal Mr. Lindsey. He commented that had his parents known there would be so much opposition, they would probably not have submitted the proposal. He wanted to clarify that his parents are selling the house. Those who have taken an interest are all single families with just their families 3 staying in the unit. The reason they had applied for the CUP was because the previous owners were unable to rent any of the unit out and it was hard for them to maintain the entire house. As they checked with Planning & Zoning, they said it was possible to rent the lower unit with a CUP, so they applied for that in hopes of being able to pass that on to future owners. It would be nice for the future owners to be able to rent out the lower unit. The rental price wouldn’t be obtainable for most students or young couples; rather it would hopefully be for more mature families. Chairman Dyer declared the public input portion closed. Kurt Hibbert reviewed what is allowed under this zoning as well as the definition of family. Chairman Dyer asked Mr. Lindsey, based on his rebuttal, if he was interested in withdrawing the application. Mr. Lindsey felt that his parents wouldn’t be too upset if it was causing opposition in the neighborhood. He made a phone call to see what his parents would want to do. Chairman Dyer In the meantime, asked Mrs. Huskinson about what their covenants do and do not permit. Sue Huskinson explained that originally, the covenants were a lot stricter. Then, when the college was expanding they amended the covenants because more students needed housing. There was always a committee, which no longer exists. Chairman Dyer asked if there was anything in the covenants that would prevent them from having a duplex. Sue Huskinson commented that they did not talk about printing anything like that in the covenants. Mr. Lindsey spoke to his mother who said she would be fine if they withdrew the proposal since there is so much opposition. She also asked if they could get a refund on the application. Steven Zollinger said the City would refund his money. Chairman Dyer spoke to Mr. Lindsey, saying, “You recognize that you have the right under our Zoning Code to go ahead and make the request for a CUP and that you have dually made application according to the laws and regulations that are available to you, and that now you are indicating to the Commission that you would like to withdrawal your application. For the record is that done of your free will and choice without coercion or pressure from this group or the City in any way?” Mr. Lindsey agreed. Chairman Dyer commented that since the application was withdrawn, there was no need for a motion. He added, speaking to the public that they can apply, if they are interested, for a rezone to change from a zone that allows a duplex to a zone that does not. 4 3. Unfinished/Old Business: A. Lighting Ordinance Kurt Hibbert reported that the copy of the Lighting Ordinance before the Commissioners has comments from Jack Liebenthal. Currently, the only place there is a Lighting Ordinance is in Central Business District. Kurt Hibbert will have a packet from Intermountain Lighting so the Commission can have some options to explore what would be fitting in the various zones. He also received a packet for the tress, benches, etc. from Walgreen’s that will be submitted to the Design Review Board. The thought was, whatever Walgreens did, he and the Commissioners would try to develop a standard that could be consistently applied to downtown developments. Thaine Robinson asked if it was possible to have a standard Lighting Ordinance, maybe two or three, that can be adopted into the different zones rather than have a different lighting ordinance for each of them. Chairman Dyer commented that that was where they started, but there wasn’t an initial effort. Kurt Hibbert explained that other than having a little bit of detail on fixtures such as in downtown, many cities generally have a residential design fixture, and then a commercial/downtown fixture. Most cities have three different types of fixtures they require. Currently, Rexburg does not have any fixture criteria at all. Kurt Hibbert explained that one of the major changes Mr. Liebenthal made was instead of semi-cutoff lighting, he changed it to full cutoff; fully shielded lighting. David Stein arrived. Kurt Hibbert gave a brief overview of Articles one (1) through Article four (4) of the Lighting Ordinance Mr. Liebenthal edited. Following the overview, he read through the rest of the articles (Article 5, 6, 7, and 8). Recommendations: Chairman Dyer recommended to include the definition of a Spotlight. Chairman Dyer recommended to include information about what to do with existing lights (i.e. existing lights may continue until replaced). Mike Ricks suggested to change the wording under Article 5-4.2 C from “not to exceed Chairman Dyer the minimum standard” to something else. suggested to change it to “Shall meet the minimum standard illumination levels”. Chairman Dyer suggested to include “all new”. Commissioners agreed to change two (2) years to five (5), and seven (7) years to ten (10), in Article 6 under “Schedule of Abatement” due to difficulty of implementation. Chairman Dyer suggested that the Commission consider decorative style fixtures. Mary Ann Mounts commented that a sentence needs to be completed in Article 5-6.2. 5 Mary Ann Mounts suggested allowing search lights for certain occasions, versus not allowing them at all. Joe LairdKurt Hibbert asked if there was any discussion with Utah Power about lighting. replied that is still an issue. The Highway Department is also another issue. Joe Laird was concerned with the street light minimum of 25 feet and going to full cutoff. It is going to put a lot of light in one place, and a dark place in another, and a light area where the Kurt Hibbert next light is. There will be a poor ratio of illumination, maximum to minimum. plans to speak with John Millar and discuss the uniformity ratio. David Stein commented that the engineering gentleman came six months ago and proposed the semi-cutoff lights. It seems to be a highly controversial subject. Chairman Dyer commented that if it is too bright in one section, and too dim in another, the eye cannot adjust as quickly as needed. Mary Ann MountsChairman Dyer asked what the Design Review Board was. explained the Design Review Board to her. Thaine Robinson Due to Stuart Wells moving, has taken his place on the Design Review Board Committee. Kurt Hibbert suggested getting more input on the lighting ordinance. Thaine Robinson felt that one ordinance should be able to cover all of the commercial districts. Chairman Dyer suggested that the lighting ordinance be in a table format in the Appendix of the Development Code #926. 4. New Business: A.Master Planning & Zoning Work Item List Kurt Hibbert went through the old Work Item List, and there was nothing left to do. Every major item on that list was done. He suggested brainstorming and making a new list. The old list will be mailed to the Commissioners to help prepare them for the next meeting where they will brainstorm and create a new list. B. (added to the agenda) – Motion from City Council last night Council Member Erickson reported that there were two buildings, a 6-plex and 2-plex that had problems with their septic; it failed. There is nothing that could have been done, except last night they (the Council) approved them into the city on emergency basis due to health and safety issues. 6 C. Letter from the Floral Shop Chairman Dyer summarized the letter from the Floral Shop. They are having problems with parking in the front and they don’t have enough at the rear of their store. They feel it is a problem that needs enforcement. Council Member Erickson reported that the issue was addressed last night with the Police Department and they came to a conclusion. Nothing can be done with the back, but the Police Department will now patrol the front as well as continue to enforce the 2-hour parking. The call center has made it a problem with parking for everyone around that area. Kurt Hibbert explained that when that business went in there (the call center), he and the Commissioners made them go through a CUP. They had an option to require them to provide additional parking, and they did not. Mike Ricks commented that we should be a shepherd instead of a sheep herder and if the City could somehow find more parking spaces and be an example so that a lot of the other businesses coming in will follow. 5.Enforcement Kurt Hibbert briefly reported on some of the things Bill Hamlin, the Enforcement Officer, has been working on and how hard he has been working. Meeting adjourned at 9:47pm 7