Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES NOVEMBER 26, 1991~[ Planning & Zoning • 11/26/91 Members Present: Chairman: John Millar Members: Chuck Frost Mary Ann Mounts Jim Long Scott Mortensen Chris Mix Excused: Dan Hess David Pincock Councilman: Glen Pond City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: J. D. Hancock A motion was made by Chris Mix and seconded by Jim Long to approve the minutes of October 23, 1991. All Aye RE: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 91.9 - URBAN RENEWAL PLAN John Millar read Resolution 91.9 A Resolution of the Rexburg Planning & Zoning Commission relating to the North Highway Urban Renewal Plan for the City of Rexburg. (copy on file) John told the members that their purpose is not to discuss the merits of the plan but whether or not it conforms with the master plan. (Glen Pond explained) (discussion) John • Millar said he had reviewed it and it does appear in all respects to conform with the master plan. The master plan does show that area developing into commercial. A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts to adopt Resolution 91.9 as a Planning & Zoning Commission, seconded by Chris Mix. Those voting aye: Chuck Frost, Mary Ann Mounts, Scott Mortensen, Chris Mix. Those voting nay: none. Jim Long abstained because he is on the board. RE: DISCUSSION OF BUILDING BEING BUILT BY VAUN POWELL Vaun Powell was at the meeting to propose building a building behind his house. It would comply with the set backs. He was told it must be non glare metal. He would need to work with the building inspector. He would need a drawing to scale. RE: DISCUSSION OF BILL HENDERSONS PROPOSED APARTMENT COMPLEX BETWEEN 2ND EAST AND HARVARD AVENUE. The next item on the agenda is Bill Henderson proposing an apartment complex between 2nd East and Harvard Ave. It would require a conditional use permit because it is more than 23 units. Mr Henderson presented an application and new drawings. John Millar stated that he had a vested interest in this issue so he would step out and let Chuck Frost chair this issue. John did say that tonight we wanted to just gather input on the issue. The ordinance allows us 45 days to make the decision. . ~~ ~, • Bill Henderson stated that at the last meeting he presented a 57 unit apartment complex. To do that he needed five lots from the sub division. He had since had a meeting with people from the sub. division and they didn't like the idea, they were concerned about traffic on Harvard Ave. They had since hired Forsgren Associates and have come up with a plan for 31 units. They have also access to 2nd East so the traffic will not go down Harvard Ave. Mary Ann Mounts asked if there was a problem with a road being between the parking and the apartments. J. D. Hancock stated that he had talked to Ranae Magee today about this issue. He said on page 26 it talks about in HDR zone parking it must be on site and compatible with the apartments. Parking lots are not a conditional use or a permitted use in LDR1 area and are only permitted in HDR if it is contiguous with the apartment unit. It is not a compatible use in an LDR1 zone. It is not the intent of the ordinance to be in any of those areas except as shown on the chart on page 26. The only way it could be compatible is to ask for a re-zone. The property for the apartment building itself is HDR. Rich Andrus representing Bill Henderson - Referring to the ordinance -you will find that parking is neither a permitted right or a conditional use under any of the zones. Parking is treated separately within the zoning ordinance under 4.8 and 5. As they read them the plans comply completely with parking under those provisions of the ordinance. He stated that we read the ordinance as drafted. Under the • old ordinance it was zoned R3 which is compatible with HDR. He stated that up until the time of the new ordinance the area including the parking lot has been treated by the city under the comprehensive plan as HDR. You will find the building up there is not the single family building but moderate residential building with four plexes in that area. The way it has been treated and should be treated as part of the comprehensive plan, as an area where college housing could be developed. Bill believes in doing things in the right way - referring to the plan. This parking would be where there is now a weed patch in the back yard of several four plexes. We believe there is a need for student housing. (showing plans) After a discussion on the five lots left, Bill stated that he tried to buy those lots and he did propose a 30 foot buffer and the property owners did not like that. Rich Andrus said his legal opinion is the parking makes no difference. Bill said he would have excessive parking, there would be 186 parking places. Jim Long told them the P & Z's job is to try to interpret the ordinances. On the description at 3.4 or 3.5 it describes LDR. If we go any place in the United States and look at any Planning & Zoning Ordinance, you won't find any place where planning has been done with a parking lot that has been put in a residential neighborhood. Mary Ann Mounts stated as a planner, normally what you are saying is right when you have HDR you don't abut it with LDR. What happened is people from that neighborhood came into the hearing and asked to have it changed and no one else was here to oppose it. It didn't start out i, • to be LDR1. At one time part of this was divided out into another zone. ~3 Jim Green - His home faces the weed field. He had anticipated and i looked forward to homes across the street. When it was originally proposed there was just a 15 foot buffer between his front street and the parking lot, since that time they have changed it to 30 feet. He had major concerns. He did not want to watch 240 cars going in and out at mid night. He did not want 50 lights shining in his face. How often will they take care of the landscaping. He had a concern about the traffic and drainage, and noise. He said he had talked to John Porter when he was in office and he had said the city would put that area into a city park. Blair Grover, Attorney representing the property owners in the 300 Block of Harvard. He said it was too late to argue that is a good area for a parking lot, it is zoned LDR1. In the public hearings the city debated this issue before they zoned it. The zoning ordinance is fairly clear, you cannot have a parking lot in LDR1. Page 18 table 2 lists the forbidden uses for each zone. Referring to page 24 table says parking lots are not permitted in LDR1. The only way you could have a parking lot there is for a re-zone. Chuck Frost stated that the only place you could have a conditional use in LDR1 is for a church or school. Rich Andrus - Referring to page 26- there is no reference to parking under residential zone. Mr Grover argued that it is because in Residential there is not to be parking lots. Mr Grover also stated • that there are a lot more residents of Harvard that are opposed and would like to be heard at a regular hearing. Terry Bagley - He bought the 2nd lot in Sherwood Hills. It took him a year to close on that lot because one of the conditions to purchasing the lot is there had to be a street in front of his place. Since a street went in and he built his house, there have been some others homes go in. From a practical stand point if another street were put in there wouldn't be a weed patch. Dave Anderson - He would prefer a weed patch to a parking lot. Cliff Jaussi - He lives on 2nd East. He did not encourage anyone to live around a lot of college traffic. If they put the housing in you will get traffic on Harvard. We don't need to add anymore student cars in that area. It is an ideal place for nice homes. Jim Lofthouse - He works as a safety engineer. The traffic density on that street is too much. Student traffic is different than regular traffic. This would increase the safety hazard on that street. Clyde Luke - The original problem was caused many years ago when the city give up their right for 4th south between 2nd East and Harvard Ave. We have a 30 foot street on the 300 block of Harvard and it cannot be widened because there has to be a 25 foot set back. There is a concern about the flooding problems on that street. He suggested • that the apartments could be turned with a direct access from the parking lot onto 2nd East. He suggested that a barricade be put on ,_. f,• i. i~ Harvard to keep the traffic off Harvard and that would solve the problem. Joan Green - When we moved here we wondered why the intersection wasn't sanded, but now it is always sanded and we appreciate it. Lane Dearden - The difference between home owners and developers is families stay and developers come and go. The zoning laws are to protect the. home owners. Gary Aiman - page 40 - No parking shall be designed to use the public right-a-way to travel from one portion of the lot to the other. It looks like you are creating an intersection on the street. Barbara Jaussi - She lives on 2nd East. Since the widening of 2nd East it has been ruined. When you put 286 students in it will be more traffic. How much more can you put on South 2nd East? Chris Mattocks - He had just bought a house and planned to look over the area and not into a parking lot. It is not a good idea to add 130 cars to the traffic. He has buses coming up that street and we don't need more traffic. Chuck Frost - If Mr Henderson files an application for a conditional use permit, then the Planning & Zoning under section 6-15 has to have a fact finding and a public hearing and they are allowed 45 days from the filing and there is a public hearing. He told the board they need to study it carefully . It was suggested that if there was a hearing it might be held in the tabernacle because we would need a larger room. Chuck Frost turned the meeting back to John Millar. RE: DISCUSSION ON THE FEES CHARGED FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. A discussion on the fees charged for Public Hearings. A motion was made by Jim Long and seconded by Chuck Frost that all fees for Public Hearings and publishing be paid in advance. All Aye. The public hearing for Impact Zone to be held December 4 at 8:30 P. M. was discussed. RE: POSTAL SERVICE CONCERN WITH NAMING OF THE STREETS Bill Scouten from the Postal Department was at the meeting. He showed a video. They are concerned with the address system. Their concern was rather than 3rd South, 4th South etc., we have given streets the name of 350 South and 450 South. It duplicates the numbers in the county. This makes problems with the computer. They asked the board to look again at the split street numbers and change them to avenues. Chuck Frost suggested that they give us a list of the problem areas and the board would consider re-naming them. We would have to have a hearing to change the names. Chris Mix suggested that Bill come up ~,~ with a solution.. John Millar said we would have to get the public • input. There would be no meeting in December unless we need to call a special meeting far the Bill Henderson property. There would be a meeting. January 2. Glen Pond announced that there would be some changes on the Planning Board. Meeting adjourned. • • Cs$OVER L~.W OFFICE BI.AIB GEOVEB CHARTERED P. O. BOX 36 BIGBY, IDAHO 834~LL'-0036 PHONE (208 745-6653 FAX (208 745-6655 November 22, 1991 and Zoning Commission Rey>burg, ID 83440 Rexburg Planning City Hall 12 N. Center Re: City of Rexburg (• Gentlemen: E. JAME6 ABCHIBAI.D ASSOCIATE This firm represents the property owners in the 300 block of Harvard Avenue in connection with a development presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on October 23, 1991, by Bill Henderson. As we understand, the development includes a parking lot off Harvard Avenue in the Sherwood Hills Subdivision. There are many compelling reasons the residents in the 300 block of Harvard Avenue are opposed, and are prepared to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission and/or take other action if necessary. However, after reviewing the zoning ordinance, I wonder if an appearance is necessary because I do not see how a parking lot there can be allowed. As I understand, the Sherwood Hills Subdivision is zoned LDR1. That zone was "established to protect stable neighborhoods of detached single family dwellings on smaller lots. ." (3.5 Rexburg Zoning Ordinance [RZO1) Obviously, a parking lot for a major apartment complex does not protect stable neighborhoods of detached single family dwellings. Table 2 of the RZO lists the.. permitted anal conditional uses (3.18 RZO). According to the Tables, parking lots are not permitted in a LDR1 zone as either a permitted or conditional use . A variance cannot be used to make a change in land use (Variance definition, p.13 RZO). In view of the definitions and restrictions in the Zoning Ordinance, it would appear the only possibility for a parking lot in the Sherwood Hills Subdivision is to rezone it. Since the Zoning Ordinance was just adopted October 2, 1991, consistent with the comprehensive plan, and after all of the necessary hearings, rezoning makes little sense. Moreover, any such effort at this time would appear as unlawful spot zoning. ~~~ ~~ -~- J . D . Hancock ~, November 22, 1991 ~ ~ • Pacs,= 2 ----------------------- Among other things, the residents of the 300 blocl~ are concerned about the increased traffic with its attendant hazards, noise and litter. However, based on the zoning ordinance a parking lot is simply not permitted, no matter what the reasons for opposition may be. We are prepared to appear before the Planning and Zoning Commission when this matter is considered to further state our position. Yours very truly, ~,~~_J i BLAIR GROVER BG:cj cc:: Clyde Luke J.D. Hancock, Esq. •