Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES DECEMBER 08, 1993air . Planning & Zoning 12/08/93 7:00 P. M. Members Present: Chairman: John Millar Members: John Watson Jim Long Davawn Beattie Jerry Jeppesen Richard Smith Mary Ann Mounts Excused: Marsha Bjornn Councilman: Jim Flamm City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: Steve Zollinger A motion was made by Jerry Jeppesen and seconded by Jim Long to approve the minutes of 10/27/93 with corrections. All Aye A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts and seconded by Richard Smith to approve the minutes of the Impact Zone work session. All Aye RE: DISCUSSION OF ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY ON WEST MAIN BY FREEWAY Judy Davis was at the meeting for a Pre Annexation request for West Main. (Handout to illustrate what they are hoping to do with the project) They are requesting the annexation of a 9 acre parcel of property on West Main Street on the East end of Main Street where it abuts the Freeway on the South side. They just want to build a motel at this time. John told her we will need to go through the process of annexation and then zoning and then we will address site plans after that. (discussion if property is contiguous with city property) it was decided that it was okay without annexing anymore property) A motion was made by Richard Smith and seconded by Jim Long to go to Public Hearing for the Annexation and Zoning on January 12. A11 Aye RE: PROPERTY AT 1ST S & 4TH W - TRAILERS ALLOWED? Doug Rasmussen was at the meeting to discuss property owned by Jim Davison out of Portland at lst South and 4th West. Mr Davison asked if it would be allowed for two trailers to be put on that property. The bridge that accesses the property has rotted and caved in. Today he had taken part of the bridge out and it does need to be replaced. The person renting that home is reaching the property by using the abandon street by Squires Brick and Garnet Beardall trailer court. The property is 140 x 180 feet directly to the west is Skyline Trailer court. The home is in somewhat disrepair and will need to be taken down. Right now his interest is getting a good bridge back to access the property with the possibility of when the home comes down putting two trailers on the property to make it fit together with the trailer • park. John told him if the street was put in, the property owners would have to pay for it and it would be up to them. John told him our ordinance only allows mobile homes in trailer courts unless it is a double wide on a permanent foundation. A trailer court has to be a minimum of two acres and meet the requirements of the ordinance. Richard suggested that he work out an agreement with the trailer court and tie it into that and then they would only need a zone change. John stated that there might be a benefit to doing it that way and it would save the .cost of a bridge. You would not be able to put two trailers on the property under the current regulations unless you do it that way. RE: A VARIANCE FOR TED GARNER PROPERTY ON HARVARD & 2ND S. DISCUSSED Brent Eames was at the meeting to inquire about a variance on the Ted Garner property on Harvard and 2nd South. The property size is too small for the setback requirement. John told him we have concurred that a variance is in order for that property, but no one has followed through. Because of the setback requirements, we would need to schedule it for Public Hearing for a variance. He showed a preliminary plan to set a manufactured home on the property on a permanent foundation. Richard pointed out that in the ordinance, it says that if all the homes along there do not meet the required setbacks, he doesn't have to meet the set back either as long as he is in line with the other homes and won't have to have a variance. Brent said he would get back with us. RE: PLANS PRESENTED FOR AN ADDITION TO PARTS SERVICE BUILDING • Parts Service Addition - Dave Adams from Parts Service was at the meeting to present the plans. It is a second floor addition, for office space. It would be 5000 square feet. It is in H.B.D. and has enough parking. He suggested that he would like to put an apartment in there as well. The apartment would not be allowed in that zone. There is adequate parking. RE: VACATION OF ALLEY - DON MERRILL Don Merrill- Vacation of alley. Discussion. It has not been used for a long time. John will check it out to see if it is a dedicated city alley. RE: DISCUSSION OF BRECK BARYON PROPERTY AT CENTER & 1ST NORTH Breck Barton- He owns the property on the corner of Center and 1st North and would like to build a two tenant office building. On the parking does there have to be a buffer of a landscaped strip or a fence? It is residential use on the east and south, but not zoned residential. John stated the real question is not the buffer, but the setback. Breck said if we could go to three to five feet we would be okay. Jim Long stated that a precedence has been set with no buffer between the Telephone Company and the residence next to it. The situation we have is we have a commercial use abutting a residential use and will have to have a residential setback which is 6 feet on the • side lot line. Breck- the effect of that is you make the commercial user zone down or up to comply with residential and the overall affect ~~~? • is it discourages commercial development in an area that is totally zoned commercial so long as there might be one rental home or one residential use. Richard stated that it protects the residential use as a pre-existing use. As long as they have maintained a home on the property, it is considered residential and will be as long as they want it to.be. Breck showed a preliminary plan. He said if they moved the building out five feet and put a 5 foot setback on the South and a 3 1/2 foot setback on the east it would work. Question on the site triangle, do you go to the corner and measure 30 feet either way and then you connect the base? John told him it applies from the right-a-way not curb for parking or building. He told Breck that because it is C.B.D. there is no on site parking requirement. Breck felt you needed on site parking for people who come to put their cars, because it is on the corner and there is no place to park on the street unless causing the car to be parked up by the stop sign. John read from the zoning ordinance to clarify the issue (page 31) The site triangle requirements do not apply. Breck said he would go back and get a drawing and apply for a variance. Richard stated in light of the fact that he does not have a parking requirement on the property, I would believe that you should maintain the six feet and move the building. Breck said he did want to provide somekind of off street parking. There would be Norwest Financial and Breck in the office. • Norwest would have four employees and he would have four or five and himself. There will be people going in and out and it will increase the traffic flow on Center Street and he felt he needed parking on the lot. In checking the ordinance on LDR1 it shows a five foot side setback. Breck asked about the consensus of the complete board. John Watson stated he would hang tight and require the 6 feet. Jerry- He would need to see if the neighbors complained or not. {discussion) Breck said he would get it drawn up to see if it will work with the setbacks first before applying for a variance. John stated that if it is landscaped on the east and south already, we would probably go with the landscaped buffer, but we don't have the option of eliminating both. Breck asked the consensus of the group of amending the ordinance for situations like this. Richard stated that he felt that many of the ordinances as written are too restrictive. We are sitting here with a commercial zone and trying to encourage it to turn into commercial uses. He struggled being tied making people build these commercial units, trying to protect uses that are really not conforming to existing zone. In general some of these are just too restrictive. Richard stated that the variances are so hard to justify, that we need more flexibility in the statue. Jim Long stated that he really did have a hardship because he has the two residential properties on either • side of him. Steve stated that there is a hardship in that he is land locked by the two remaining uses. You are asking him to bear the burden of six foot setbacks in an area that will otherwise become commercial ~_ property completely. Steve felt that was a hardship and the board could . justify granting a variance on the fact that he as the single property owner and is the only possibly owner on that block that will be required to build a six foot setback. Richard said he did not have any problem with that reasoning because the inhabitable aren't going to be brought back as homes. Steve felt we could justify a hardship variance if Breck phrased it right, saying that he is deprived of the use of the property that will ultimately become all commercial property by virtue. If he submitted it with statements from Gwen Sutton and Don Ard that they don't have any problem with it, it would be within the boards discretion to say yes, that is a hardship. It would be property usage hardship. If Breck wants to apply for it the board will address it. RE: DISCUSSION OF IMPACT ZONE Impact Zone - Jerry had talked to some of the commercial property owners and talked to them about all the issues and went over the map with them. They came in and got an ordinance and American Potato took it to their attorney but he had not heard from them since. He had told them we would probably go to public hearing in January and that would probably be the time to come in and voice their concerns. I.F.A. wanted to be included. Richard stated that Doug Smith felt that we need to go out and include all of their development out by the Golf Course. Jim- Roger Muir wants back in the Impact Zone. He wants the advantages of the Impact Zone. Jim Flamm- There was the feeling of the council that they want to include the Cemetery Road. Mary Ann wondered if we could include the Cemetery Road but not include Archibalds. Steve- Stated that as he understood right now the city doesn't have to take the recommendation of the Planning Board they can vote on any zone they want. Richard said we have to have the Commissioners vote on it as well. Steve- The council are going to vote the Impact Zone in and if the Commissioners buck them, they will go ahead and do what they want, even if they have to stall it for a year. The council can take what the original Impact boundaries were. Richard told Steve that the statute says that the city can take it to court and then the court makes a decision not the city council. Steve stated that the city council can vote the Impact Zone in and then the county has the burden of taking it and proving it as an Impact Zone. Richard stated that then it will end up in court and it will be a court generated plan. We have got to include the Commissioners on this every step of the way. Jim Flamm said he was in agreement with that. Steve said it is nice to think that, but the statute does not require it. It doesn't require any cooperation what so ever with the county; it invites it and encourages it. He said the Commissioners have dragged their feet for a long time. Jim Flamm stated that we have made more progress with county in the last 6 months than we have six years and he did not want to blow it. John said the commissioners have pretty well bought into it as it is now. Jim Flamm stated that we need to just talk about the ~~', ~, • issues. Richard stated right now the only problem is Reo Archibald and his boys do not want to be included. (discussion) Jim Flamm suggested that we bring the line across and include Archibald and zone it however they want it zoned and then it will stay zoned that way and keep homes out of there. Steve stated that the way he understood it was the council considered Archibald their worst possible impacting area and it should be in the Impact Zone. If he decides to bring in 10,000 head of cattle, it will impact very significantly the city. Even though there is a river in between the feed lot and the Nature Park, it will impact it, with the smell. He is close enough that he can impact the city. (discussion on a zoning) Steve stated it is not just the area where the city will grow, but also the area that will have impact upon the city. Archibald already impacts the city. Richard stated that we have worked on this for two and a half years, but we have a lot of people that are believers. John stated that Steve is correct in as much that as much as anyone out there, Archibald has the capability of impacting the city. Maybe we should go ahead and take the center Cemetery road, take it straight across to 20, go up and take in Rasmussen's development and go to Public Hearing with it. Richard agreed, right now we are under that ;\~ portion of the statute, there are three councilman, three commissioners, and three appointed people that have until January 1994 to come to a consensus. (discussion) RE: MOTION TO CHANGE THE PROPOSED IMPACT ZONE A motion was made by Richard Smith to change the proposed Impact Zone as proposed at the last meeting to include that area where Dough Smith and Doug Rasmussen live by the Golf, Course and go in a straight line one quarter mile north of the cemetery road and intercept with the proposed Impact Zone Line. Seconded by Mary Ann Mounts, All members voting aye except Jerry Jeppesen who voted nay. Motion carried. Richard Smith suggested that it would be helpful for our attorney to discuss it with Sid Brown. The commissioners will listen to Sid. We need to convince them of the merits of this. Richard said he would talk to the commissioners. We need to put together an agricultural zone. We need to invite Reo Archibald in to help with work on the zone. After the Public Hearing on the 12th of January, if there is time we will have a work meeting. We will work on the Sign Ordinance at the next meeting. . RE: RICKS COLLEGE RELIGION BUILDING PARKING PLAN PRESENTED John Watson presented the Ricks College Religion Building Parking Plan. He gave a handout (attached). He showed plans and identified «~~,"~~ r "~` the amount of parking for the Religion Building. Discussion on the Service road. A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts to approve the plan and that 275 parking places is the required amount for this Religion Building. Seconded by Jim Long. John Watson declared a conflict of interest. Davawn Beattie declared a conflict of interest. All others voting aye. Meeting Adjourned. • a~~ • • • "C~ ap ~ c!~ O ~ N H H •r-I b0 ~ ~i U ~ N ~ '~p~ Hew' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ v •~+ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N 3a 0 W H +~w m WZO 4-d :--I •r-I O QO O ~ M H H d-~ O O C~ ~•rIU H R+~ ~ ~ U W H C!~ O ~•~N HQ rd ~~ wH~ a~ ~ O ~ x ~ ~ ~ - U. C 7 ~ O O W -I 'b ~ 4 ~ cd V] H ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~•~ ~ ~'~ ° a w ~ ~W H ~ xx o H O o w ~ ~ bD cn H W (~' H ~ ~ a c d N ~ ~ CJ~ H O ~ U ~o ,~ N O , •r-I }-+ 1-~ .~-~ W U •U ~ O H ( -i p.., H ~. _u ~ a a= ~ C L? p CC N ~ A rV. C'+- a~ a as as n a .Q C C m a c 0 .~ c d X u Rt C 0 c E N a `o w ti 6~? c .a ca N c a~ c a~ w ~~ ` W +~+ _ ~l [ ~ ~ ~ o U E~ C' ~.; ~ o u 1 W ,~ - c Z~~ ~ ~~ ~ m O 0 ~ ~ ~~ as ~ a m o ~ u v~ ~ v m 4f c _~ . ~ t V O. 1 ~ N `o I ~ a D . ~ a. f L 1 ~ d i ~ Z a~ m a a a C O ::. w fbA c 0 D W C O '++ a ay w c 0 w a~ a`o t~ Qi c w •`o W S~ei~ter' ~ ~~ ass RICKS COLLEGE RELIGION BUILDING 8 December 1993 PARKING REVIEW: Required By Ordinance: A. Sunday Stake Conference• Chapel Offices 1 Per 4 Persons ~ Max. Capacity 1,100 38 1,138 ; 4 = 284 B. Regular Sundaa~: 3 Sacrament Meetings x 200 600 17 Classrooms x 20 340 38 Offices 38 100 Misc. 100 1,078 ; 4 = 269 C. Typical Week Day• 11 Religions x 50 550 3 Humanities x 66 198 5 Large Spaces x 50 250 38 Offices x 1 38 1,036 ; 4 = 259 CONSIDERATIONS: 1. The new Religion Building essentially replaces functions on campus. 2. The parking demands at the North part of the campus will be lessened. 3. The majority of students who live on campus do not own automobiles. 4. The new parking lot provides for faculty parking as well as Sunday Ecclesiastical Leaders. 5. The new parking lot is designed above the minimum standard. • r~ U REC011~NDATION- That afigure of 275 spaces be identified as the amount required to comply with the ordinance at maximum capacity. •