Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JANUARY 27, 1993~~1~ Planning & Zoning I/27/93 7:30 P. M. Those Present: Chairman: John Millar Members: Jerry Jeppesen Mary Ann Mounts Scott Mortensen Dave Pincock Marsha Bjornn Jim Long Richard Smith Excused: Jeff Walters Davawn Beattie City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: J. D. Hancock Councilman: Jim Flamm Councilman Farrell Young and Nyle Fullmer also attended the meeting. A motion was made by Dave Pincock and seconded by Marsha Bjornn to approve the minutes of 11/18/93. All Aye A motion was made by Dave Pincock and seconded by Jim Long to approve the minutes of ]./13/43 with the corrections. All Aye RE: DISCUSSION OF VARIANCE FOR TOM MILLER - 453 YALE - PUBLIC HEARING SET - CUL-DE-SAC SET BACKS DISCUSSED Tom Miller was at the meeting to request a variance for the setbacks for a new home he proposed to build at 453 Yale. This is zoned LDR 1. He gave the committee a letter signed by the property owners immediately surrounding that area in agreement with the variance. He presented a plot plan showing the house as it will set on the lot. It would be difficult to push the house back farther because there is a grade of 13 feet. In the 20 feet at the back of the house there would be 5 feet of elevation. The cul-de-sac, because of the radius, has cut the lot down. All the lots except a few down in the south west corner have 110 feet. Our lot has only 100 feet, if we had 110 feet we would have no problem with the setback. Jim Long suggested the house could be turned or designed to fit. Mr Miller said he had checked with an architect in Tdaho Falls where they have a lot of sub divisions and have a lot of cul-de-sacs. In the cul-de-sacs they have reduced the setback to 20 - 25 feet. Because of this problem of the radius cutting into property line, it reduces the property. It is not lining up with any house, it is the only house in the cul-de-sac. John Millar told him there are four things we have to follow according • to our ordinance to give a variance. They are listed on page 48 under 6.12. You will have to meet those four things and we will have to hold ~~~ a public hearing with fifteen days notice. There would need to be a • variance for the front and rear yard. Mary Ann suggested that maybe we should review the cul-de-sacs setbacks like Idaho Falls has done. We have to follow the ordinance and use that criteria. The hardship would be to get that house to fit on the property, but you could put a different house on the property. John Millar stated that we had a similar situation about one year ago on Millhollow, where the house did not fit by a couple of feet. He ended up changing the house plan. John told him we are not in a position to make a decision, and asked do we want to proceed and set a date for a public hearing. Jim Long asked if it was possible that the hardship is created by the two setbacks by limiting the amount of building space that a person has to build on these lots that are in this zone with a cul-de-sac? Mr. Miller said as he understood, Terry Bagley had gotten a variance to set his house back further and Bob Smead did not get a variance but his setbacks were different. He needed a variance for 2 feet in the front and 5 feet in back. Jim Long said he would like to abstain from voting because he had strong feelings about the setbacks and design from an esthetic point • of view. My feelings are esthetically this would not hurt anyone. John Millar told him technically you can't, unless you have a vested interest. Mary Ann said it makes good sense. We can give him a chance to meet the requirement for hardship for a variance. When you look at the neighborhood, are we creating a hardship. There is a certain size of house in that neighborhood. Mr Miller said the farther you bring the garage back the steeper the slope of the driveway. By bringing the house out a little, it makes the driveway not as steep. John stated that whatever we do, we have to justify for the next person that wants a variance. Discussion on changing the setback for a cul-de-sac in the ordinance. Richard suggested that we grant the variance and review the rules for cul-de-sacs and change them if necessary. The reason for the variance being the grade problem and cul-de-sac. Jim Long suggested that we need to consider it case by case. John Millar told the board that the state law does not allow that. Richard stated that there are physical limitation on the lot because of • the grade. • J. D. Hancock disagreed that they could change the design of the house. Richard stated that he had presented his feelings and has tried a number of designs and bringing the garage further to the front would take care of the grade on his driveway. (discussion) John asked if there was an Architectural Committee that governs that sub division. He was told they do have one. John told them we would have to have an official release of the setbacks, a letter from the group. John recommended. that we go to public hearing, we can't make a decision before that. A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts and seconded by Jim Long that we set it for public hearing for the next regular Planning & Zoning meeting. all aye. RE: R.V. PARKING - ANTHONY PERKINS - 86 BIRCH Anthony Perkins- 86 Birch- He was at the meeting to discuss the R.V. Parking ordinance. He stated that he is an electrical engineer licensed in the State of Idaho. He would like the Planning & Zoning to recommend this for amendment. He did not have a boat or R. V. right now, but some da.y he hoped he would. He did own a utility trailer, he used for different things and mainly to haul his bikes to and from the .t • mountains. When the city was canvassing the residents for violations, they missed him because his trailer was broke and disassembled. With no access to my back yard and steep grades on both sides of his house, he had no place to park his trailer except in front of his house. By definition. it is considered a R. V, trailer. I disagree that R. V. parking hurts th.e property value. I believe that it would enhance the value of the property. We all agree that old vehicles and garbage in the front yard does hurt the property value, some R. V's would fall under that category. The majority of people will tell you that they saved their money and finally got their dream come true. He strongly urged that the board consider this for amendment of the ordinance. That you better define what is a nuisance that could be parked in front of people's homers and what is a person's dream come true. I have grown up with the idea. that you buy a house and eventually have enough money to buy some toys and want to show them off, that is the way I grew up. It will enhance my property value. When I buy my next home it will have parking for' a R. V. I added some concrete with a long term plan of parking something there and now it is useless. John Millar told. him this was the most discussed issue in the new Planning & Zoning ordinance. Jim asked if he was in our position and one person came in, for example I don't like the speed limit, and you say you don't like the law so change it for you. Mr Perkins said he would like the law changed. He said I don't think in the long run it will help the community. Rexburg is a growing community and it might be a jumping off place for people who like the outdoors and want to I • park their R.V.'s in the front yard. (discussion on R.V. parking in Idaho Falls) ~5I Dave Pincock told him previous to this discussion was a discussion on • setbacks and the reason for setbacks is to protect the line of sight down homes and one of the reasons for this ordinance was to protect the line of sight and not obstruct the view down those homes. By having R. V.'s parked this would not happen. Mr Perkins said the way the ordinance is written, you are suppose to have the line of sight of 30 feet to each corner not the line of sight down the roadway. I see what you are saying you would like to have the line of sight down the .roadway in case children run out in the road. He said I still think it should be amended and to maybe park R.V.'s closer to the house than to the front of the property. Marsha stated if it was true that more people will be coming into town with R.V.'s, it would make it more hazardous. Mr Perkins said as time goes on, if you restrict R. V. parking, people will not move into Rexburg. John Millar told him we will take it into consideration if we get more requests. RE: ZONE CHANGE AT JACK COVINGTON PROPERTY - 407 W. 1st N. Jack Covington owning property at 407 West 1st North - I have been, for 30 years, operating a business at that location called Covington Manufacturing. During that time I did have a trucking operation and coal yard out of the same location. I hadn't heard any thing about this . zoning ordinance or the neighborhood meetings because I did not take the Rexburg paper at that time. In that shop on that lot is half of my lifetime. The property was R3 and was zoned down to R1. I was operating under a nonconforming permit. For the last 30 years I have been paying commercial taxes and thought it was zoned commercial. He talked to a Real Estate dealer and told him if he had someone interested to try to sell it. He called me back and told him he had a buyer in town, and asked Jack if he knew that his property had been zoned down to R1. Jack said if my health failed and I could not operate my business, the taxes are $1000, and there is no way my wife could pay the taxes. I have cleaned up lots around my house on 1st North and 5th West. No one in that area has done more to clean up that area. If we couldn't sell that property, the taxes would be delinquent we would loose the property. This is all I have for retirement besides Social Security. As far as being restrictive to the shop I have now, there are already two for sale in town. If it took four or five years to sell this, and especially if I couldn't sell it for anything except R1, it is worthless as R1 property especially if I couldn't sell it as anything but R1. No one would buy it to build a home and I wouldn't be able to sell it. I bought the old and new ordinance. I studied it and it looked like Squires Brick and the Block Plant is zoned as Industrial. Rowberry Trucking is across the road from us. I always clean everyone's driveways. He said there isn't very many buyers for a welding shop. If it was zoned Industrial someone might be able to use it for a truck shop for delivery trucks. He was told he could sell the property with • the existing use. He said he sold his big truck after the flood, but trucks come in and unload materials. Nyle Fullmer told them what Jack is trying to get clarified is how he is grandfathereci in and if he will have a problem selling it as commercial property, being able to maintain the existing use. Mary Ann said it was Industrial Use. Richard told him it would only maintain the present existing use. Nyle said he wants to know how broad his existing use is to know what he has to offer to sell. It could be defined as an Industrial Use but not an open Industrial Use. John said if you say you have been using the property as a welding shop and want to change it to a sawmill or a trucking operation that is not a similar use. Jack said when this zoning was done, he was over looked. I feel like my property should have been zoned Industrial. It was zoned R3 before. John told him he did not feel we could zone it open Industrial with that small of a lot in the middle of Residential. (discussion about Rowberry truck operation) Nyle Fullmer told Jack he did not think he would have trouble selling for something closely related or a similar use than what you have been doing over the years, but to come in and zone it Industrial where it allows any type of Industrial type use, that is where the problem would be. Nyle said he had been over there and he would have a pretty • big range as to what could be done and still conform to use he had been doing. Jack asked if he tried to sell it, would he have to get permission from the neighbors? He was told no if it was the same use, Light Manufactuz~ing. Nyle said he had a pretty broad use. Jack asked if it. could be changed to HDR. John told him if he got a zone change to H:DR he could still keep the existing use but also have the option of multiple housing. John told him if he wanted to change the zone to fill. out the paper work and we could go to a public hearing. Jack said even MDR would be better. He was told to check with the neighbors about changing their zoning. It would be better than spot zoning one lot. RE: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The next item wa.s the Wastewater Treatment Plan Environmental Assessment. The engineers would like a recommendation. John Millar declared a conflict of interest. Mary Ann acted as chairman. John explained the plan. The board looked at it and could see no concerns that had not been addressed. A motion was made by Dave Pincock and seconded by Richard Smith that the board would not take any action. All Aye Discussion on the Impact Zone. A copy of a letter written to the County Commissioners was reviewed. (copy attached) • Meeting adjourned.