Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES NOVEMBER 03, 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 November 3, 2005 Commissioners Attending: City Staff and Others: Rex Erickson – Council Member Stephen Zollinger – City Attorney Winston Dyer– Chairman Kurt Hibbert – P&Z Administrator Mary Haley Randall Porter Bethany Caufield – Secretary Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Mike Ricks Charles Andersen David Stein Thaine Robinson Chairman Dyer opened the meeting at 7:00pm Roll Call 1.Minutes: October 20, 2005 Corrections: -P. 5 – “Maurine McCullock” was changed to “Orine McCullock” -P. 5 – “Pat Hibley” was changed to “Pat Hinton” -P. 7 – Under Council Member Andersen’s comments, in the first sentence, a second “that” was taken out. Mary HaleyTed Hill motioned to approve the amended minutes of October 20, 2005. seconded the motion. Motion carried None opposed. Thaine RobinsonDavid SteinMike Ricks , and abstained due to absences. 2. Unfinished/Old Business A.Industrial Design Standards – Light Industrial Zone Kurt Hibbert reported that the intention was to amend the Development Code and put in some new language, specifically towards the end of the Light Industrial getting into the transitional development standards. There 3.19.150. F were three (3) different categories of transitions put in, which are explained in - Transitional Development Standards of the Light Industrial document provided in the packets. He commented that they need to decide whether to apply that along all of US 20, or whether different standards should apply. Chairman Dyer commented that this single’s out the US 20 Design Corridor in the document. He noted there Kurt Hibbert were three or four others and asked if it was the intention to add it to the paragraph. replied that was correct. According to where the Commissioners wanted it to happen, they would identify those and what their expectation would be; knowing they need to be different in most cases. Chairman Dyer Kurt Hibbert asked where he would envision those standards to end up. explained that they could easily be applied in the Supplementary Regulations of the Development Code, or added directly to each zone. 1 Kurt Hibbert explained the discussion was to also have it along public right of ways and within the residential zones because they are quite different. In the previous discussion, the Commissioners commented that commercial building architectural standards should apply in the Light and Heavy Industrial zones. Under Architectural Design Standards, it reads that the standards in the Supplementary Regulations shall only apply to Primary Business Offices and other Office structures located within the Light Industrial zone, this would also say Heavy Industrial zone. There was some concern that it should be applicable to more than just the Primary Office Building, or maybe not at all. Chairman Dyer added if it was adjacent to a major thoroughfare, it would be applied. Kurt HibbertChairman Dyer asked how they were defining a major thoroughfare. clarified that it would be a Mary Ann Mounts State or Federal Highway. added major roads coming into the City; entrance corridors. Kurt Hibbert asked if the Commission was comfortable to amend Section 3.19.160 Architectural Design Chairman Dyer Standards and applying them to each zone rather than Supplementary Regulations. commented that the Design Standards are already in the Supplementary Regulations, all that needs to be added is to refer the trigger mechanism; what is it that triggers the implementation of those standards. Chairman Dyer brought up the issue of landscaping. Mary Haley commented that they talked about trees as a buffer. Randall Porter added trees and berms. He suggested including language that will address the potential problem of a building using just one part of an industrial subdivision with vacant land still to be built on; what would happen to the vacant land. Kurt Hibbert commented that has been a problem in the past, but that is part of the subdivision approval, or Chairman Dyer plat approval. added that there are nuisance ordinances that do not allow weeds to grow on a lot. If it does happen, the City can step in and ask for land owner cooperation. Randall Porter commented that part of the discussion on landscaping was that Mr. Hibbert was going to try to Kurt borrow some Design Standards from other Communities to see if we could use some of those ideas. Hibbert replied that he did have some documents for the next agenda item that talks about different buffering types. Randall Porter was concerned about not having buffering between the industrial building and the highway. Kurt HibbertChairman Dyer asked if he could blend the next agenda item. gave him permission. Kurt Hibbert explained that there are several different buffering types. (He went through the different types of buffering ideas that could potentially be applied to the Industrial areas). Mike Ricks commented that if he was putting in an industrial building and had to follow the Design Standards, it would be quite a bit more expense. Referring to the landscaping, although it looks nice, it would not be the priority, which would be focused on what was going on the inside of the building. It would be very expensive to maintain the landscaping as well. If he had to spend a lot of money on the building design, he wouldn’t want to hide it behind a bunch of trees. 2 Mary Ann MountsKurt Hibbert asked if this was just for Light Industrial. replied that he was thinking Heavy also, even though it is not included in the document. He did not feel there would be a need to differentiate between Heavy and Light on buffering or commercial design standards. Randall Porter felt that they should separate Heavy and Light Industrial requirements. He gave an example of the vast difference between Light and Heavy Industrial, using Walter’s Ready Mix and Arnold’s Printing Company. Chairman DyerRandall Porter asked what they would do differently. explained that in the case of Heavy Industrial, it should have a berm and trees. In the case of a 3000 square foot bakery, that could have Design Standards put into it and be set on a lot and not have anything like a tree or berm next to it. Mary Ann Mounts further suggested that Heavy Industrial should have less building design standard and a stricter landscape requirement and vice versa on Light Industrial. Ted Hill commented he was not in favor of much design standards on the Heavy Industrial. If they have some offices set out front, they should have some Design Standards apply, but other than that, leaving the building alone. As far as doing a lot of landscaping, he was concerned it would never be taken care of. On the Light Industrial, with the smaller buildings, he felt that they may want to require some landscaping around it, but not on Heavy Industrial. Chairman Dyer asked Mr. Hibbert if he had heard enough discussion and recognized enough consensuses to Kurt Hibbert be able to separate out the zones. explained that he will make some amendments, splitting out the Heavy and Light Industrial. He will try to put an increase landscape around HI, and lesser of architectural requirement other than office buildings next to the street. In the LI, lighter landscape application and leave Design standards the same way with the building is up against the street. B.Entrance Design Standards Kurt Hibbert explained that they had identified five (5) different design corridors. The most visual and the most threatened is the US 20 Corridor. There are three (3) major land use types that border the US 20 Corridor: th industrial zones, multi-family zones and single-family residential zones. Where 7 S meets US 20, there is a subdivision that has been down there quite a while, it is fully developed. It has a collection of poplar trees that buffer it from US 20. There has been a lot of development that use this as a buffer and it has been pretty well received. That could easily be put in as a buffering requirement on Single Family Residential along US 20. There is other thought that poplar trees are not a good idea; they would like to see over them. David Stein commented that those are usually requested by the property owners. He wasn’t sure why anyone would build a subdivision next to US 20 and not put up some type of buffering. Kurt Hibbert recommended that he go back to staff and have some sections drawn that would be specifically be made for the City of Rexburg and use the types of buffering as examples. Chairman Dyer agreed that Mr. Hibbert go back to staff and get those designs prepared, then coming back to the Commission. He suggested first looking at US 20 Corridor, then taking another corridor, working one at a time on them. Randall Porter commented that he talked to a gentleman who does design entrances in other communities and he is willing to put on his presentation. (That presentation will be held December 1, 2005). 3. New Business: 3 A.Preliminary Plat – Harvest Heights, Division 2 Chairman Dyer declared a direct conflict of interest and asked Mr. Robinson to assume chair for this discussion. Richard Smith explained that he was seeking approval of the Preliminary Plat for Phase 2 of Harvest Heights Subdivision which was approved about two years ago. He was seeking approval of an additional 38 lots that lie south of the existing Harvest Heights. The lots will fall under the RR2 zone and each one of the lots will have a minimum lot size of half (1/2) an acre up to seven tenths (7/10) of an acre. They have upgraded many of the requirements of the RR2 subdivision ordinance in Phase 1. They felt it necessary that a flat curb be added to the streets. They felt the roads were a little narrow, so the new division will have 42 foot roads instead of 38. thth Phase 2 will include construction of 7 S along the southern border. It will not be connected to 7 south, until th the road to the west of them develops 7 S. Questions th Richard Smithexplained, regarding the alignment of 7 S, originally it was going to come straight across the section line. The discussion he had with the City Engineer, grade became a problem. It was requested by Mr. th Millar that they deviate 7 S and curvature around and have it cross Millhollow at a direct 90 degree angle. Mary Haley asked if the lots on the west of the plat line up with the west lots that are already there. Richard Smith confirmed they did. Chairman Robinson asked about the comment on the Review Action, referring to 706 Harvest Drive needing to be readdressed. Richard Smith explained that the lot south of 706 Harvest Drive is going to be a quarter (1/4) acre grass area. It will be too small for the City to accept and maintain as a park. It will be a common area, maintained by the Subdivision Residents. He added that the small lot next to the grass area is going to be deeded to the lot owner of 706 Harvest because he realigned his home. His house will now face south (having a different address) and the small lot will be where his driveway connects to the street. The large lot on the east is a 1.95 acre lot that will be turned over to the City as a park. Mary Haley asked if the area next to 706 Harvest Drive will be similar to what Summerwood did. Richard Smith replied that it will be a little more heavily landscaped, possibly a double sidewalk with a walkway in there so it can be enjoyed by the Community. Richard Smith also explained that currently, the City has annexed to the orange dotted section line (about halfway through the plat) so they will be seeking annexation for the rest of it. Randall PorterKurt Hibbert asked if Mr. Smith was required to present a lighting plan for this subdivision. explained that he does, for residential lighting. It is a requirement that the Public Works Director has to approve that, which will be in the improvement plans. Richard Smith explained that in the first phase they installed ornamental light fixtures. At that time, they were not approved by Utah Power and Light, so they had been lighting those themselves. The City has started an agreement with Utah Power and Light that ornamental light poles will be approved in the City. It is their intent to get the light bulb they used in Phase 1 approved by the City and use it also in Division 2. The lights have been placed about 150 feet apart on alternating streets. They weren’t going to do this originally but the residents offered to participate financially. The lights are capped and shine a halo on the ground. 4 Randall Porter asked if they have met the requirements for landscaping. Richard Smith replied that they exceed the requirement. Kurt Hibbert reported that there were no concerns on staffs end other than the grading issues, which were being worked out with John Millar. David Stein recommended to the City Council approval for the Preliminary Plat for Harvest Heights, Division Mary Ann Mounts 2. seconded the motion. Motion carried. None opposed. B.Proposed & Recommended Rexburg Annexations Kurt Hibbert reported that they have a petition for annexation that has been submitted, Fujimoto property - Section 1 on this map (Section 5 on the map in the packet). The Council requested that he contact some of the adjacent and surrounding property owners and talk to them about the potential of them coat tailing on this request. The property is contiguous on part of the east side as well as all of the west side. If this was to be annexed, it creates a situation where areas 1 and 2 (on the map in the packet) become an island. He wanted to ask the Commissioners what they would like to see and potentially recommend any further areas. Chairman Dyer reminded the Commissioners that there is an ongoing concern about the annexations and they are trying to follow annexation plans, getting it at the beginning so there’s preliminary discussion, Council reaction and this is all in a sequential flow so that they don’t end up with a hodgepodge type of development. Charles Andersen commented that if they are looking at Sections 1 and 2 (in the packet) they ought to look at 3 and 4 as well. David Stein Kurt Hibbert asked what the time frame was for University Blvd. in terms of construction. explained that it has been funded; the design is being finalized. They have a trajectory through the property. David Stein Kurt Hibbert asked if Mr. Hibbert had talked to the owners of Sections 1 and 2 (in the packet). replied that he had not. th Chairman DyerKurt asked if the properties facing 5 west in Section 2 were all independently owned. Hibbert replied that they are. Charles Andersen felt that they should recommend taking Sections 1 through 4 (in the packet) so there is not an island created. David Stein asked who produced the map; there was a list of “Strongly Recommended” and “Recommended” suggestions according to the property. Kurt Hibbert explained that he did that; it was his feelings and recommendations. David Stein Stephen Zollinger asked about what City Council has said regarding these parcels. explained that Fujimoto property was discussed, and the possibility of approaching the owners of Sections 2 and 3 to see if they would want to be annexed. Chairman Dyer commented that there seems to be a consensus to look at 1 through 5 on the map in the packet. Mary Haley strongly recommended 6 and asked why they would leave out 6. 5 Chairman Dyer explained that there are probably about 20 individual properties in there and that development would probably be triggered in annexation if 7 were requested. The others are mostly necessary for the University Blvd. construction. th Mike Ricks asked what the sections along the east side of 5 w have that the City wants. He felt that if the residents don’t want to be annexed in, then why push the issue. Chairman DyerKurt Hibbert asked if City services extended down to Section 4 already. explained that they didn’t and won’t because they will probably come across from the west side of Section 5. Mary Ann Mounts motioned to recommend to City Council that properties 1-5 (according to the map in the Charles Andersen packet) go to public hearing to be considered for annexation. seconded the motion. David Stein asked what good planning is where there is a subdivision built out, is well established and does not Kurt Hibbert have City services coming its way, what is the pressing issue to annex that. explained that it would be totally encapsulated all the way around it if this annexation went through. David Stein explained that he was trying to be pragmatic. He asked why they would go down the path of annexing people who will be upset and not want to get annexed. He could not see a valid reason to annex the people. Charles Andersen felt that they have had a recommendation, let’s have a hearing and see what they say. David Stein said that he did not have any desire to hear people who don’t want to be annexed when I cannot find a good reason. Richard Smith commented that he would love to be a part of this public hearing to be considered for annexation. Mary Ann MountsCharles Andersen amended her motion to include Mr. Smith’s property. seconded the motion. Kurt Hibbert added that there was another parcel that wanted to be annexed and that was Rexburg Motor Sports – where there new location is now. Stephen Zollinger explained that there is an applicant before the Commission who has requested annexation. The City Council reviewed their request as a preliminary step and has referred it to the Commission to schedule it for a public hearing. What is happening now is that the Commission is referring it back to City Council with additional properties to see if they want to refer it for a public hearing. The Commission was supposed to be acting upon the City Council’s request. Chairman Dyer commented that the Commission has the responsibility to be sharp enough planners that if there are other considerations that should go along with a request, we ought to be able to have that discussion and send that up to City Council. Stephen Zollinger explained to not hesitate to send up whatever the Commission wants. What the City Council sent down does not include all of what is being discussed, so it is absolutely correct to send it back up to City Council for their informational purposes, then it would come back to the Commission to schedule for public hearing. 6 Randall Porter commented that maybe they can move this process along if they take Section 5 by itself and make a recommendation on that and then try and get a sense of what may happen after Section 5 is discussed, dealing with the rest of them at some other point. Chairman Dyer stated that the question has been called for. In favor:Opposed:Abstentions: Chairman Dyer David Stein Randall Porter Thaine Robinson Mary Haley Charles Andersen Ted Hill Mary Ann Mounts Mike Ricks Motion did not carry. Mary Haley recommended for public hearing what the City Council recommended to Planning & Zoning. Mary Haley rescinded her motion due to lack of clarification of what the City Council recommended. David Stein motioned to recommend to City Council areas 1, 2, and 5 (in the packet), the Smith Property and Randall Porter the Rexburg Motor Sports property. seconded the motion. David Stein explained that as he understood, City Council had discussed Section 5 (Fuji Moto Property) and at least brushed upon areas 1 and 2 because they asked Kurt to contact owners that might want to be annexed. His motion, he explained, was focused on voluntary annexations where the City needs to control how the vacant lots are going to be developed. Charles Andersen asked if it would be possible to include 3 and 4 with further input from those residences so that it would be petitioned versus involuntary. Mike Ricks commented that this discussion was held on those parcels about a year and a half ago before Mr. Andersen came on the Commission, and the owners said “no way”. He didn’t know if anything had changed. Chairman Dyer stated that he thought the concept was correct. If they are going to talk to the other property owners, and they want in involuntarily, then they are in and included. There is no harm in asking. In favor:Opposed: Chairman Dyer Ted Hill Mary Haley Charles Andersen Randall Porter Mary Ann Mounts Mike Ricks David Stein Thaine Robinson Motion Carried. 4. Non-controversial Items: A.Ralph Kern – Power Point Presentation on Consideration for a Zoning Variance Ralph Kern – 158 Harvard. The properties in question are his property and Steve Herdti’s property. He reported that he had initially tried to work with Bonnie Anderson with her vacant lot and other neighbors to 7 create a PRO zone. He just about got there until Mrs. Anderson’s name was in the newspaper and considered her a “bad person”. Steve Herdti wants to sell his property; Mr. Kern would like to buy it. He proposed building an up scale “Twin Home”. He would like to allow for individual ownership of each side of the “Twin Home”; however, it is not allowed in the zoning. That is the only requirement it would not fulfill for this zone. He explained that the property has remained undeveloped for an extended period of time. His reason behind this is 1) the LDR2 zoning is un-natural for the property; and 2) when development is discouraged, it encourages unreasonable speculation and increases the possibility of undesirable, incompatible future development. Mr. Kern reported that 46% of the properties on the West block of Harvard and 24% of the properties on the East block are vacant. There is also a high level of zoning violations. 79% of the homes on the West block of Harvard and 60% of the homes on the East block vary one way or another from the current zoning. He explained that is what he meant by un-natural. Only 17% of the West block of Harvard is in compliance to the current “un-natural” zoning. He went through four (4) barriers for the project: -Current zoning allows for two family homes, but only under single ownership. -Current zoning does not allow for lot splits to provide individual financing of each unit of a two family home. -Current lot size and dimensions prevent this proposal. -No provisions exist for Condominium style development. Chairman Dyer asked why he wouldn’t just proceed with the development of a PRO zone, having all the properties that were discussed originally and put together a proposal. Ralph Kern explained that he tried to do that, and he explained why Mrs. Anderson backed out. David Stein commented even those two (2) lots [Mr. Kern’s and Mr. Herdti’s], are a perfect example of the PRO zone. The benefit of the PRO zone is that it does develop a consensus. If they start with those two lots, and invite the neighbors, showing what they are going to do, that zoning is tied to that specific development agreement. He felt it was the perfect case; once it is started, others are likely to follow. Mike Ricks commented that from a planning standpoint, he would much sooner see the properties be developed that are already in the City limits instead of adding more and more to it. Ralph Kernagreed with Mr. Stein. He asked how many properties he would have to accumulate to have a PRO zone. Stephen Zollinger explained that the benefit of the PRO zone is he drafts up what he wants and come before the Commission. The Commission can set the lot size in the PRO zone as long as it does not drive the overall Kurt Hibbert density. added that densities are determined at the time of the PRO zone as well. Mary Haley commented that she liked the idea. It is a more pleasing addition; it adds to the neighborhood. Thaine Robinson added that it is better than what has been there; at least it is a start. Commissioners agreed to the concept of having a PRO zone are drafted up to present to the Planning & Zoning Commission. B.Letter from Sugar City 8 Chairman Dyer explained that he was informed by Sugar City who sent him a letter indicating that the three principal property owners in the Southeast quadroon of the North Rexburg Interchange have petitioned to Sugar City for annexation and Sugar City is willing to receive their request and begin to act on it. He pointed out the three (3) areas in question for annexation (Sandra Ball, Harris Family Trust and Mountain Gold). Thaine Robinson Chairman Dyer asked if the properties were contiguous to Sugar City’s limits. replied that they would have to be in order to be annexed. Charles AndersenChairman Dyer asked if he knew why they went to Sugar City and not Rexburg. replied that he did not know why. The property owners talked to both Rexburg and Sugar City. He did know the people made their approach on their own without Sugar City going out and soliciting. Council Member EricksonChairman Dyer asked isn’t most of that property in Rexburg’s impact zone. replied yes, about 2/3 of that. He didn’t know the legalities of being able to do that. Stephen Zollinger explained that the statue regarding that read “Any City seeking to annex must first meet the following criteria: All properties seeking annexation must lie within the City’s area of impact.” He did not believe that Sugar City’s impact area overlapped Rexburg’s. Chairman Dyer commented that two of the petitioners are not in Sugar City’s impact area. He later added that he gave this to the Commissioners for their information. Meeting adjourned at 9:30pm. 9