Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES OCTOBER 20, 2005 ORM 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 planning@rexburg.org October 20, 2005 Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Rex Erickson – Council Member Nyle Fullmer - Council Member Winston Dyer– Chairman Irma Andersen - Council Member Mary Haley Randall Porter Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Kurt Hibbert – P&Z Administrator Joe Laird Charles Andersen Bethany Caufield – Secretary Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:06pm Roll Call David Stein,Thaine Robinson, Mike Ricks and were excused from the meeting. 1. Minutes: A.September 15, 2005 Corrections: -P. 1 – Paragraph where Johnny Watson is speaking – added for clarification “parking spaces” after “current design has a capacity for 270”. -P. 7 – Under Mr. Porter’s comments - changed “have industrial people put” to “have industrial people plant” Randall PorterTed Hill motioned to approve the September 15, 2005 Minutes as corrected. seconded the motion. Motion carried None opposed. . B.October 6, 2005 Corrections: - P. 10 – changed “fur trailer” to “fur trader”. Randall Porter Ted Hill motioned to approve the October 6, 2005 Minutes as corrected. seconded the motion. Motion carried. Mary Ann Mounts abstained. None opposed. 2. Unfinished/Old Business: A.Residential Business District (RBD) Chairman Dyer explained that this Residential Business District, which is a part of the proposed Bill 939, is recognized as being controversial due to the nature of its proposal and a number of misconceptions, misunderstandings, and miscommunications that have taken place. There has been disagreement among the 1 administrators and staff about this particular proposal. He explained that they [the Commissioners] want everyone to know that the Planning & Zoning Commission has this matter firmly in their hand and squarely under control according to the process that is outlined in the City Code. He explained that he would like to treat this “as new”; to take it straight up and forget about how they got here. He wanted everyone to recognize that this proposal is one of a number of general planning tools that is being considered. The Commissioners want to be able to have these tools available so that the Commission can be more proactive in their planning and less reactive. Chairman Dyer added that there have been statements, and this has been discussed from time to time as being nd applicable to E Main Street and 2 E. He explained that he would like to dispense of this notion that this zone is specifically for that area and nothing else. It is a tool in their toolbox and may have application there, but is certainly not specific to that particular area. He reported that this document has been re-written as a result of the discussion had at the last Planning & Zoning Commission meeting and is substantially different now in content than it was before. Chairman Dyer read through the new Purpose and Objective. Report on RBD: Stephen Zollinger Stephen Zollinger explained that a couple weeks ago, Commissioners were given a version that caused considerable concern. The Commission gave Kurt Hibbert and he the direction of how they would like to see that version modified. The next day, there was a revised document. There were further additional changes due to public input. Minor changes, driven by public input: -P. 2 – “Retail general such as bookstores” was taken out and simply listed as specialty retail such as o collectible stores. The reference to bakeries was taken out, although it was left in down below so it can be more o specifically addressed in the Uses rather than in the Purpose. “Post Office” was taken out, but again left Postal Services down below, assuming in the course o of this conversation, the Commission will decide what the Use list shall contain, but it did not need to be in the Purpose section. Variety stores, Limited Priced (not Department Stores) was taken out of the Conditional Use list o because there was a consensus two weeks ago among the Commissioners that that one was not going to be allowed to stand. -P. 3 No changes o -P. 4 Section 3.25.150A – “of sections 3.25.14 Rexburg City Code” was taken out and substituted o “applicable to home business” because that was his [Stephen Zollinger’s] understanding. They wanted the sign code that applied to Home Businesses to also apply in this area, namely having to be against the house and small. 2 Section 3.25.150B – Struck the language that referred to the pumping of gasoline and similar. o Section 3.25.150D - Elaborated on the storage of trash. Not only does it now say “see Rexburg o City Code” it also goes on to say “No trash containment device shall be placed in such a location as to be visible from the public right of way unless in preparation for pickup, and under no circumstance for any period greater than twenty-four (24) hours prior to and subsequent to the regularly scheduled pickup for trash.” -P. 5 After some conversation with other people at City Hall and the request from the Neighborhood o Association that 11:00pm and 6:00am created delivery service type issues that most neighborhoods would not normally experience. For consideration tonight, it has been changed to 7:00am and 9:00pm because that seemed more consistent with what a neighborhood might experience. Questions of Understanding Mary Haley asked what commercial consisted of, referring to the section under Purpose and Objectives. Stephen Zollinger explained that commercial is for profit. He added that the Purpose and Objective section is intended to be more of a guideline, which is more definitively spelled out in the lists of Permitted Uses and Conditional Uses. Randall Porter Stephen Zollinger asked what the purpose of this document was. explained that this particular document was intended to provide a missing element that would answer how houses that are not all ready to give up their houses at the same time; how corridors with two, three, four thousand cars a day will be addressed. st The first time it became apparent was 1 N. The zone thought most suitable for allowing a business in a residential home was Neighborhood Business District; however, this zone would also allow for multiple houses to be torn down and a strip mall to be built in that same neighborhood. The City recognized there was a niche that needed to be filled. Joe Laird Stephen Zollinger asked if this zone will be applicable in a single family area. replied that it could be if that particular zone happened to fall adjacent to a commercial zone [any commercial zone], an Industrial zone, a High Density Residential zone, or a Medium Density Residential zone. Kurt Hibbert asked if the four titles were referring to the Comprehensive Plan Designations or Zoning Stephen Zollinger Designations. replied Zoning Designations. Mary Haley asked if it was required law that there be a Conditional Use Permit allowed, or can it be made Stephen Zollinger strictly the way it is with no Conditional Use. explained that the statute in the Land Use Planning Act contemplates Conditional Uses, but he did not think it mandated them. Deliberation Mary Ann Mounts felt that Postal Services and Drug and Proprietary Stores should not be in the Permitted Use section. Randall Porter commented that he felt a little more comfortable when they used the example of Salt Lake with Professional Service Providers. He suggested that all of the uses in the Permitted Principal Uses be struck Mary Haley except for the Professional Service Providers. concurred. 3 Mary Ann Mounts felt it would be shortsighted of the Commissioners to not think about things that are already in homes. There already are Beauty Parlors that are in homes and Photograph services that are in homes. These should be looked at; they should be allowed somewhere. Chairman Dyer commented that there was a lot of discussion about Professional Services, being the least intrusive, but there are a number of those stores that have bookstores and hobby shops. Charles Anderson arrived at 8:00pm. Chairman Dyer commented that it might be helpful and look at the defining point as more of a matter of traffic per use, in which the first item [Bakeries and Doughnut Shops] would probably have a higher rate of traffic than some of the others. Commissioners all concurred that Professional Service Providers shall remain a Permitted Principal Use. Chairman Dyer requested from Kurt Hibbert, the Planning & Zoning Administrator, that there be a list of Professional Service Providers so that there is no confusion of what is considered a Professional Service Provider. Chairman Dyer suggested starting from the beginning of the document and moving forward. Purposes and Objectives Mary Haley directed the Commissioners to the second to the last paragraph beginning with “Multiple family dwellings”, and commented that this should be a very narrow zone and preferred not to have any Conditional Uses. Chairman Dyer referred to the same paragraph, last sentence beginning with “A broader range of uses is permitted”; he suggested changing the “ispermitted” to “may be permitted”. He also suggested changing wherever it says “designation” and change it to “zone”. Also, the first sentence of the last paragraph should change “Comprehensive Plan” to “Zoning Map”. Chairman Dyer later added to change “for commercial and service uses” to “for profit and service uses.” Permitted Uses Commissioners agreed to strike Postal Services as a Use and to move Bakeries and Doughnut Shops and possibly Drug and Proprietary Stores under Conditional Uses. Permitted Accessory Uses Commissioners agreed to change “structures are permitted in the RBD zone” to “structures may be permitted in the RBD zone”. Conditional Uses Randall PorterStephen suggested leaving it blank, allowing people to come forward and make a proposal. Zollinger did not agree with this because it allows for purely subjective requests. He did agree to the idea of including at the end “any other request may be considered but is not subject to approval unless it is consistent with the Purpose and Objectives”. 4 Commissioners agreed to change “structures are permitted in the RBD zone” to “structures may be permitted in the RBD zone”. Commissioners also agreed to scratch Meats and Fish, Police Protection and Related Activities, Branch (office only), Day Care Centers, and Dancing Schools. They also decided to change “Accessory Dwelling Unit” to “Accessory Building Unit”. Building Height Commissioners felt that chimneys, flagpoles and other similar structures should be limited even further than is written. Permissible Locations Permissible Lot Coverage will be added after Other Requirements Uses Within Buildings (B) o Commissioners felt that instead of possibly allowing business to be conducted outside with the consent of the Commission, it should not allow any business to be conducted outside of the building. Hours of Operation (G) o Commissioners agreed to exclude Sunday as an hour of operation due to typical residential conditions on that day. Randall Porter suggested changing the hours of delivery. Chairman Dyer suggested having separate hours for operation and deliveries. Commissioners agreed to establish hours of delivery from 9:00am to 3:00pm (during school hours) for the safety of the children. Commercial Lighting Standards Commissioners felt that Residential and not Commercial Lighting Standards should apply. Public Input RD Orine McCulloch– 42 S 3 E. Asked if anyone had taken into consideration anything that has to do with food has to be regulated by the State of Idaho. They just can’t be turned loosed to open whatever they want; wherever they want. nd Pat Hinton– 55 S 2 E. She was concerned that the lots are too small. She was also concerned that someone could buy up multiple lots and build one large building with several doctors in there, or a medical clinic. She was worried that it would devalue her property. rd Don Sparhawk – 37 S 3 E. He does not like the idea of mixing businesses with residential uses. He would prefer to see them separated. He, too, was concerned that the lots are too small. He felt that it would devalue his home. He had drawn on a map where this zone could be applied; where properties were adjacent to the four 5 types of zones afore mentioned. He did not feel the people of the City would want to have businesses mixed with residential use, even along the borders of residential. rd David Pulsipher – 334 S 3 E. He explained that he came mostly to be educated. He asked if homes in transition would be allowed to be torn down and build something else, or only use the home on the existing site. Stephen Zollinger explained that they would be allowed to tear down an existing home, just like they could any existing structure. In the General Provisions, it is allowed to have replacement of any structure provided that it complies with other provisions in that zone. In this case, if they tore down an existing home, they would have to replace it with a residential looking structure. Mr. Pulsipher then asked, if someone purchased three properties, tore down the homes and rebuilt a structure, it Stephen Zollinger would have to look like a house. replied that that was correct. rd Marsha Sparhawk – 37 S 3 E. She was concerned about the zone increasing the traffic. She felt that it would cause children to not be able to play freely because it would bring strangers into the neighborhood. She felt it will put children, teenagers and some elderly people at great risk. She was concerned about the enforcement of this law, especially any Conditional Use Permits. She felt that it would devalue her property. Larry Wickham– 310 Millhollow. He agreed with everything that Marsha Sparhawk had expressed. (No further public input) Chairman Dyer asked the Commissioners if they had any additional changes. Building Footprint Mary Haley referred to one of the concerns of purchasing multiple lots and turning it into one big building. Stephen Zollinger explained that a quick way to address that is to simply fix a maximum footprint; which will enable smaller existing lots to conform to all of the requirements. This will also prevent many dilapidated houses and help revitalize a neighborhood. Commissioners agreed to keep the minimum lot size at 8,000 square feet, and restrict the structural footprint to 2,500 square feet with a maximum of two levels in this zone. Commissioners also suggested defining “footprint” in the zone. Medium and High Density Many Commissioners felt that Medium and High Density should be taken out of the available adjacent zones to have RBD apply to. Council Member Fullmer commented that there is a home across from the University football stadium that is surrounded by HDR housing. It is an individual house all on its own. He felt that this was the area that this type of zone would be more applicable. There is a lot of traffic around that area that would be suitable for a business. Chairman Dyer suggested requiring that it be contiguous on all sides of Multi-Family. The Clinical Director of the Home Health in Rexburg commented that her boss bought the Grover Estate. Nobody bought it; nobody wanted that home. They are a business, but they do not have a lot of people coming 6 to their business. They felt they would fit very well there. Taking out HDR disallows them from being able to do that. Chairman Dyer suggested that the home Council Member Fullmer referred to could apply for Neighborhood Business District. Charles Andersen felt that High Density should be left out. He commented that residents want to live in residences. Mary Haley expressed that in working with the Comprehensive Plan, they organized it as High, Medium and then Residential. She felt that if that is where they saw the big picture, that big picture still needs to be in mind. She commented that they should gradually go up and down. If they set up these other zones, this is an exceptional zone that needs to be in compliance with the lowest zone, not the highest zone. High Density was to be used as a buffer, not a way into the residential areas. Chairman Dyer suggested allowing it next to High, but not Medium Density. Stephen Zollinger explained that his intention was that this zone would be available to buffer Single Family Residences from any type of use that Single Family Residences may not want to be up against. This is the least intrusive buffer that is available because it allows for coexistence of Single Family Residence in this zone for a period of time. It is intended to give one more option. Chairman Dyer asked for the input from the three council members that attended the meeting. Council Member Input Council Member Erickson explained that this was originally brought up for the transition around the college. He felt that there will be strong resistance from the Council if Medium and High Density Residential are taken out because it eliminates what this was originally set up to do. Council Member Andersen commented that was her vision too. What she envisioned was like the house that Council Member Fullmer described, where students pass all the time and there may be some kinds of service that may be helpful to them right there in that neighborhood. Continuation of Deliberation Mary Haley was concerned that if they pass this zone, if someone were to come in and request it, there is now way to deny it since it is in the ordinance law to grant it. Stephen Zollinger explained that over the course of the last twelve years, they have turned down dozens of zone change requests for various reasons. One of the reasons was as simple as the time just wasn’t right. Chairman Dyer recommended that due to the input from the City Council that they leave MDR and HDR in there. Mary Ann Mounts motioned that they pass this Ordinance on to the City Council with the modifications they’ve made. She recommended leaving High Density and Medium Density in there and that this becomes a Mary Haley tool they have to use for zoning. seconded the motion. Joe Laird called for the question. 7 Those in favor of the motion: Mary Haley Mary Ann Mounts Joe Laird Ted Hill Chairman Dyer Those not in favor of the motion: Charles Andersen Those who abstained from the motion: Randall Porter – he would rather see it in P&Z before it goes to City Council. Motion carried. B. Alan Cook Design Review – Aerotech Design Chairman Dyer explained that at their previous meeting, the Commission generally agreed that that was going to be okay under the circumstances with the input of the Design Review Committee. They could not make an official decision because they did not have a quorum. Ted Hill moved to approve the Design Review of Aerotech Design, allowing them to move forward with Mary Haley construction. seconded the motion. Mary Ann Mounts Motion carried abstained. None opposed. . Mary HaleyRandall Porter motioned to adjourn. seconded the motion. Those in favor: Mary Haley Joe Laird Charles Andersen Ted Hill Randall Porter Those not in favor: Chairman Dyer Mary Ann Mounts ( had left.) Motion carried. Meeting adjourned at 10:30pm. 8