Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES DECEMBER 02, 2004 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 cathyw@ci.rexburg.id.us Planning and Zoning Minutes December 2, 2004 Attendance: Winston Dyer – Chairman, Mary Haley, Jerry Hastings, Ted Hill, Joseph Laird, Stephen McGary, Randall Porter, Mike Ricks, Robert Schwartz, David Stein, Stuart Wells Others Attending: Kurt Hibbert – Planning and Zoning Director, Mitch Loveland – Representative for Toyota, Brandon Jenks – Representative for Riverwoods, Bethany Caufield – Secretary Meeting was opened by Chairman Dyer at 7:06pm. 1. Minutes from October 21 and November 18, 2004 st Randall Porter made the 1 motion to table the minutes until January 6, 2004 pending further discussion and resolution. nd Mike Ricks made the 2 motion Motion carries 2. Public Hearings CUP Stone’s Town & Country Toyota Sign Mitch Loveland: My name is Mitch Loveland. We’re on 615 S. Yellowstone Highway. Reason for the new sign: Current sign put into place about 1990. They want to update their facilities/signage. Sign changes: - Current sign is 4 ft. wide and 40 ft. tall; the new sign would be 10ft. wide and 30 ft tall. - Reason for CUP The height and square footage is more than allowed in the code, so we are requesting a conditional use permit. - The only other sign available is 8 x 24 ft. - Both the current Toyota sign and the smaller sign reading “Parts & Services Entrance” will be eliminated. The smaller sign will not be implemented into the new Toyota sign. - On the picture of the potentially new Toyota sign, there is a Scion logo below the Toyota logo. That will not be there at the moment because they are not a franchise with them. In the future, if we do become a franchise, we will add that logo Kurt Hibbert: If you look at the two signs, look at just the script part of the existing sign, they actually have a net reduction in the script. Most concerned about the driveway: Staff would feel comfortable if the sign was pushed back 15 feet so it wouldn’t become a visibility problem. Kyle reviewed two sizes— the 10ft. by 30 ft. and the 8 by 24. With the 24 foot sign, that gives 196 total maximum sq ft. as far as surface, which is within the 200 sq. ft. allowed. 1 Chairman Dyer: We’ll now open the public input portion of the hearing, asking first for those in favor of this proposal to come forward. Mr. Loveland you have the right to enter positive testimony in your favor if you wish. - Anyone wishing to speak in favor? - Anyone that is neutral, neither for nor against? - Anyone wishing to input contrary to the proposal? - Seeing none, we declare public input closed. Group Discussion: - Question presented—whether or not the bottom half of the sign was counted as square footage or if it was support. - If a conditional use is put on the bottom part that they can’t put advertisement on the lower two panels, it could be used as support. - There is more room to put on the sign, but conditions can be put on the sign permit. - According to the sign ordinance, the sign cannot exceed the height of the building; but regardless of the building height, a sign can be up to 24 feet tall. - Lot line needs to be adjusted because the property that the sign will be on is not large enough. Lot line adjustment can be done at the county. th Chairman Dyer: They go clear back to 5 west. That’s well over 50,000 square feet. I’m guessing it’s going to be over 100,000 sq. ft. when we add all of the properties together. So that being the case, they would be allowed up to 200 sq. ft. Mike Ricks: In that case, we don’t need to count the bottom half as support. I move that we approve an 8x24 foot sign with a set back of 15 ft. from the lot line and create a lot line adjustment to a minimum of 125,000 sq. ft. Mary Haley: I Second that. Chairman Dyer: Moved and seconded to approve this under those conditions. Further discussion? Favor signify by aye *aye. Any opposed? Motion remains unanimous. Mr. Schwartz abstains for having come in at the middle of the hearing. 3. Tabled requests: None 4. New Business: River Wood Townhomes—Brandon Jenks Chairman Dyer: Chair would suggest you cover items distributed in the packet to make sure there is a universal understanding of what that information represents and why, and highlight differences from what we were looking at last time to what we see now. Brandon Jenks: My name is Brandon Jenks I now live at 3680 west Mountain View Drive. I am one of the owners of the proposed Riverwood Townhomes. -First page (Synopsis of a 35 page Homeowner’s Association Document): These townhomes will be sold as individual units, so we will have a homeowner in each house, and in order to maintain everything, there 2 is a homeowner association. Included in the association are the city utilities which consist of water, sewer and garbage, the association will also cover any grounds maintenance, all the lawn, sprinklers and snow removal. That is the liability policy on all the common properties. The common will consist of all the landscaping, parking areas; everything else will be considered common area that is not actually included in the Townhomes. Within the document, the exterior cannot be changed without the consent of 75% of the homeowners. Mary Haley: What about your maintenance; your homeowners decide they don’t want outside maintenance. You have no provisions of storing any maintenance equipment. Brandon Jenks: We’re going to build the maintenance building on property. Most difficult part would be the separation because it’s listed as all common property Development part of the plat: - The building will have 26 units; all will be facing the road. - They are in a neighborhood of 1200 sq ft of building, two stories up and down. - The two roads will be in and all the way across the back, so there will be two accesses all the way through. - Each home has two stalls in the back for covered parking. - 28% of the property is green space, which is double that of the requirement. - For every 3 units, there is one extra parking space. - Fire Hydrants: One on the property and another 10 feet away from the property, which fulfills the requirements. Changes: - Utilities are now shown—water and sewer lines; parking areas in the back; maintenance, and there is plenty of snow storage. - In the front, before, we had bay windows they came out 18 inches, we moved out two feet to accommodate that. - We have gables on the front of the building. (Brought a picture of what the finished product would look like.) - In the back, we discussed a little bit, every 40 feet you have to have a two foot break in the building. That has been done. Brandon Jenks: We’re working hard to get the building to look like the building standards require. There was still writing on the preliminary plat that was a hold over that did not get taken off from the previous copy of the plat and has nothing to do with the future. Chairman Dyer: For clarity and intent, this plat should then say “A Planned Unit Development” under the title. Jerry Hastings: How are you addressing your storage areas? Brandon Jenks: The way I understood that is that it does not necessarily say that’s on top of the parking, we actually have three stalls. Given the current situation, if we need to add more space, it would be no problem at all. 3 Chairman Dyer: He’s either got to provide the storage, or he’s got to assure us that there will be no need for the storage, and the only mechanism to do that would be through the covenants or the home owner’s association. Brandon Jenks: If you would include that as a condition, then I can be sure as I record that we can make sure that’s included. David Stein: I move that we should motion to approve the preliminary plat for Riverwood townhomes on the basis of a planned unit development. Stephen McGary made the second motion. Chairman Dyer: Moved and seconded to approve the preliminary plat on the basis of a planned unit development. Any further discussion? Jerry Hastings: Are we going to review their storage requirements? Chairman Dyer: motion could be made subject to that or you could direct staff to double check. David Stein: Mr. Chairman, I amend my motion to include approval of the plat is subject to review by the appropriate staff according to the code. nd Stephen McGary: I 2 that. Chairman Dyer: So amended. Any other discussion? All in favor signify by saying aye, *aye. Motion approved. 5. Non controversial Items Added to the Agenda: None 6. Unfinished/Old Business: Design Standards under 25,000 sq ft. Chairman Dyer: Our local Historic Preservation Society has expressed keen interest that they would like to get involved if it may affect them. I did invite them to make contact with the subcommittee. Kurt Hibbert: A week ago, staff and Council Member Young met with the Historical Preservation Committee and passed out the downtown design standards that we had looked at as a commission over a year ago that were part of the Oregon developmental code. They’re very concerned about maintaining some of the atmosphere in downtown. They would like to have some control, a basic level of control, of what the structures look like, particularly in the downtown elements that don’t apply in the highway district zone. Committee reviewed the seven page document passed out before, and there was a lot of discussion on whether that would meet the intent of everyone’s vision. The consensus was they wanted to go back and look at other communities and look at how they applied design standards. We want to expand this document after the committee had a chance to review this. Current design standards: (2 sections) 1. Has to do with aesthetics. 2. Has to do with layout and sight design in relationship to the surrounding community. 4 Randall Porter suggested the commission incorporate landscaping design into the design standards. Group Discussion: General Design Standards vs. Specific Design Standards General Design Standards – - Design Standards cannot be so tight that you exclude everyone who comes to town and wants to build a building. For those who want to do something like World Gym whether you like that building or not, it’s a functional building and they’ve spent the dollars they want to spend. - Some buildings were in there process of being built, and then their next phase had to have a bare minimum of the new Design Standard, but they don’t look that much better Specific Design Standards – - Contractors know what they need to build and they don’t have to come back multiple times after making changes that fit the standards. - The City of Bozeman’s design standard is tremendously different than what is in place for 25,000 sq. ft. in Rexburg. David Stein: It’s up to City Council to decide what they want and what the people of Rexburg want. If they want anything built, then that’s what will happen. There are many communities that have done it successfully the other way, and they are the communities that are most desired on the economic road. Group Discussion on having a Subcommittee: - Many feel that a subcommittee should be organized to review design standards of the building. Others felt that it would give to much power to a small group. - Stephen McGary suggested that if a subcommittee is organized, then the Design standards should remain general. - Ted Hill suggested that a design standard group put the outline together and sets the standards, and then the planning and building department would review them. Chairman Dyer: Chair would propose that we go ahead with the idea that we work in some additional requirements that are available through this document (City of Bozeman Design Standards) and put together a working document. At that point in time, if any commissioners feel that there are burdensome or onerous provisions in those design standards, we can discuss and deliberate those. Out of this document here (City of Bozeman Design Standards) are there certain things that we know of yet that we want to pull into our 7 page effort or do we want to distill? Stuart Wells: I would think that it needs to be distilled. Kurt Hibbert: We are still in committee on this. I would anticipate bringing a more formalized document back to this board as soon as we can get it ready. Chairman Dyer: We’re also saying that it’s incumbent on the commissioners that are not on the subcommittee to look through this and give your input. Further discussion? We appreciate those serving on the subcommittee; taking the extra time; making the extra effort to do that. 5 minute break Lighting Ordinance: 5 Chairman Dyer excused a couple of commissioners that had previous engagements (Mary Haley and David Stein). Kurt Hibbert: It was discussed that we look at other things that were done in other communities. This was a dark sky ordinance. This document was given to us by the representative from Intermountain Lighting whom we heard from a few weeks ago at the lighting presentation. This is in front of you to see if it looks like something we may want to work with; to adopt something similar. This ordinance primarily deals with Night Sky. Randall Porter: It seems like every community is slowly moving to these ordinances. I’m encouraged by this and would hope we move forward on it as quickly as we move forward on some of the other things so we don’t get problems we can’t undo. Chairman Dyer: I felt everything in here was appropriate and nothing was really overdone and over- burdensome. It does give a standard to go by so we can get some uniformity and some future vision out of all of this. I like the idea to get photometric layout, so you can see the light intensity. Joseph Laird: Is it your intent to have this lighting ordinance and standards written up in such a way that they will be enforced in all the subdivision streets? Kurt Hibbert: That’s in the discretion of the commission; I would like to see a lighting standard under each of the new commercial zones. I’m not sure about the residential zones. I would like to see something similar to this in our new zoning ordinance under each new commercial zone. Kurt Hibbert: It needs to be thought out in context. There’s a lot of support to have a new lighting style in neighborhoods; more historic lighting. If that does happen, I think that it needs to tie in with this. Mike Ricks: The one thing I noticed on here, right on the front page under Purpose, it says to “promote, protect, the public health, safety and welfare.” You read down a couple more and it says “to promote safety”. This should be shown to the City Council because there are not any safe intersections in the town of Rexburg; whether on the major roads or off the streets when it comes to safety for pedestrians. Chairman Dyer: that would be an expansion of this is to try and set goals or guidelines for places that ought to be lighted and to what extent. Are there any other non-controversial items that need to be brought before the commission this evening? (There are none.) As a reminder, we will not meet again in December. Report on Projects: Meeting adjourned at 9:35pm 6