Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MAY 26, 1994f ~~ DATE: (052694) Planning & Zoning Meeting 5-26-94 7:00 p.m. Those Present: Members: MaryAnn Mounts Davawn Beattie Jim Long Marsha Bjornn Richard Smith Bob Lee Jerry Jeppesen (arriving at 8:45) Councilmember: Bruce Sutherland Attorney: J.D. Hancock Engineer: Joe Laird Excused: John Millar, Johnny Watson, Jeff Walters, Rose Bagley - City Clerk Janet Williamson was present to take minutes. John Millar had asked MaryAnn Mounts to be Chairman in his absence. Linda Eames was not present at 7:00 p.m. so the first item discussed on the agenda was the request for a variance for Howard Randall at approx. 202 S. 5th W. RE: REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM HOWARD RANDALL FOR PROPERTY AT APPROX. 202 S 5TH WEST TOPIC: (300,32,,,VARIANCES,RANDALL*HOWARD,5TH WEST) Howard would like about an additional 3 feet out front for the eves so he would not have to rip down the garage that is behind where the house is to be built. If he is allowed the 3 feet it will be the same # of feet back as his neighbors to the south with the porch. Joe said there is no minimum requirements for distance between these 2 types of buildings. If he attached it to the garage a fire wall on the inside of the garage would be required. The run off would be on his own property. Davawn looked at the property and felt it would be very difficult to have a sight line with all the trees to the south. Do any of the neighbors object? Howard said Gordon Tychsen was the only close neighbor and he seemed to be okay about it. The board questioned how it met the hardship condition. Marsha felt it was because of the existing placement of the garage but Jim said he could attach the house to the garage. (Some discussion of the garage being higher then the house.) The house would be 1220 square feet. The existing building is 1200 square feet. It was felt it was a design problem caused by a building that was there before the zoning ordinance, set backs that are there, etc. Bob wanted to have it tabled and have him come back after looking at other alternatives but Bob was told this is the seconded time Mr. Randall has been here. There were mixed feelings of the board about if he qualified for the hardship ~~ condition. Richard moved that it go to public hearing. Bob seconded the motion. All aye. Howard was told that if he changed his mind he did not have to go to public hearing. He was told that even if no one shows up to object to it at the public hearing the board could still not grant him the variance if they felt he didn't meet any of the 4 conditions. RE: LINDA EAMES - REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE AT 154 N 4TH E TOPIC: (300,33,,,VARIANCES,EAMES*LINDA,4TH EAST) Linda Eames - 50 East Sunset Circle - representing Maria Kearl. Ms Kearl wants to buy the Gordon Smith property located on the west side of 3rd East next to the corner lot and by the Northtowne apartments. It is a 50 foot lot and what she wants to do is have a 40 foot house put there. In the MDR it would have a 6 foot side yard and so she needs a variance to have that changed to a 5 foot side yard. The house will be 1012 square feet. It will be a 2 bedroom home. It is a 50' x 130' lot. It is a very narrow lot. They feel the lot size is almost unusable. Mr. Smith has been trying to sell this lot for years. She will be putting in a developer series manufactured house with a garage. It is the smallest one that they make. The lot size is grandfathered in but J.D. said if she is purchasing the lot she loses the grandfather clause. Jim asked why can't we look at what is the wisest use and if the wisest use is to go back to the 5 foot side yard and put a manufactured home on it because nothing else is going to ever happen there, why can't we make that recommendation? MaryAnn said if he could prove that he couldn't do anything with that lot then that constitutes the taking. But as long as there is something else that can be done there then it is not our job to decide. That is why we have the Zoning Ordinance. Unless you can say a home cannot be built there it really isn't an undue hardship just because he can't build that particular home. Richard said that in light of the fact that there are people that might want to give public testimony, he would move that we move this to public hearing and make our decision at public hearing. Marsha seconded the motion. Linda asked if there was any chance that this wouldn't pass because if it is recommended there she will buy the lot on June 1st and spend $200 to go to public hearing. She came wanting to have a yes or a no. In saying that it goes to public hearing, it says that this body recognizes that it qualifies for a variance unless we find out different things at a public hearing. Jim said that is why we should say she does or does not meet the hardship requirement. If they placed it the other way on the lot they would not need a variance. (more discussion) MaryAnn called for a vote: Bob declared a conflict and was told by Bruce he could go ahead and vote and then if there was some serious objection his vote would be thrown out. Ayes - Marsha, Richard and Bob Nays - Jim and Davawn. r1 ~~ 3~ RE: PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT - S 5TH W, 6TH S - LINDA EAMES TOPIC: (300,34,,,PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,EAMES*LINDA,5TH WEST, 6TH SOUTH) Linda is planning to build a Planned Unit Development on a piece of property on S 5th W, 6th S.. The lot is 150' x 323'. The lot is not on the street but is behind 2 matching houses. It is zoned MDR. 6th S. is there but not paved. Linda mentioned several different options she had been considering. Now she is not talking about a Planned Unit Development. Richard couldn't see a lot of difference between this and the last .time with the cul de sac. These will be 2 or 3 bedroom manufactured homes that she will rent, not sell off. She is not asking for anything but she is here because there are more then 5 units. Linda explained the requirements and felt that she met them. (Discussion of her plans} Richard said he felt they needed to see more of a plat - more of what she was saying. Bob asked if there was a serious problem with the parking? What are the "red flags" that they see. Yes, Jim felt there was a serious problem with the parking. Richard felt there would be a problem with emergency services turn around. The problem with the cul de sac before still holds. It is not a dedicated street and she would be responsible for plowing the snow, etc. Jim was still concerned about the parking in front. Joe said with this type of development where you are in a MDR zone you have to have the front yard set back which is the 25', you have to have the back yard. set back which is plenty, and you have to have the side yard which is 6'. Otherwise, it is like you had a big apartment building going down either side. Jim said you still had a percentage that had to be in landscaping. Joe said the area between the houses is all landscaped or lawn so you have more then met the landscaping requirement. Linda said she would work on the plan and be back. RE: 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT FOR THE LAIRD AND RIGBY/MORRELL PROPERTY TOPIC: (300,34,,,PUBLIC HEARING,LAIRD PROPERTY,RIGBY/MORRELL PROPERTY, ZONING) Joe Laird, one of the property owners, showed the property on the map and explained that it had been annexed in to the City but had never been zoned. They were requesting it be zoned LDR1. Marsha asked if duplexes were contained in this zoning. The answer was it would require a Conditional Use Permit to have duplexes (pg. 19 of the Zoning Ordinance) Richard asked if the Morrell property owners wanted to be zoned LDR1 also and Steve Zollinger (speaking for owners) said yes they did. It was asked if there were any height restricts because of the airport and Steve said the LDR1 restrictions were stronger than the FDA. Richard didn't view it as affecting the airport or approach. Bob asked why LDR1 instead of LDR and they said it was because you could have manufactured homes in LDR1. He then asked if there were any objections to manufactured homes in that area from area residents and was told that this hearing was where they could voice their objections if they had any. Davawn moved that they recommend to ~~ the City Council that those two pieces of property be zoned LDR1. Jim t seconded the motion. All aye. RE: DISCUSSION OF THE LAIRD PRELIMINARY PLOT TOPIC: (300,35,,,PRELIMINARY PLATS,LAIRD PROPERTY} Joe Laird handed out maps hoping to engender some discussion of the whole area. He handed out aerial photos of the area. Davawn explained collector street standards. (Preliminary plat was presented, streets and funding were discussed.) There are 12 lots and they are all 1000 to 1200 square foot lots. There will be curb and gutter and sidewalk throughout the area. Marsha mentioned that there was concern for extra traffic down Park Street. Joe felt they would go out on Sawtell. Joe feels Sawtell will be a collector street (35mph) eventually. (Size of streets were discussed.) (This item was tabled to go to the public hearing for the Randall Property scheduled at 8:30 p.m.} RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR RANDALL PROPERTY TOPIC: (300,35,,,C.U.P.,RANDALL CORPORATION,SUMMERWOOD SUBDIVISION, SUBDIVISIONS,PUBLIC HEARINGS,TOWNHOUSES,K STREET,SUNSET CIRCLE) Bruce stated that this is strictly for the Townhouses. Roger Hoopes, Rexburg Idaho, representing Randall Corporation, stated that they were here a month ago and made application for a C.U.P. for Townhouses on West side of the Golf Course. (He handed out plat plans showing location of Townhouses.) He said he wanted to clarify one point that we are here tonight just for the Conditional Use Permit for the 8 Townhouses. He explained that these are ideally situated for that area with decks that over 1_ook the golf course. They will benefit the committee and there appears to be a need for them. It is zoned LDR1. Glen Halverson, Forsgren Associates - He has done the plat work for the Randall Corp. and the Townhouses we are talking about, the low end would be about $130,000 and the high end would be what ever the people choose. This is not low income housing. Janet Goodliffe, 70 K Street - presented a petition from people on K Street opposing the C.U.P. for the Townhouses until the plat is approved. (Petition attached) We think you are getting the cart before the horse. As we were told from the City Council minutes, we don't even have a preliminary plat. We have a plat shown at the last planning and zoning meeting and said here is a drawing of what we might do but we might change it. You don't even have a preliminary plat and so we are requesting that this be delayed until some other decisions are made concerning the accesses on the plat. JaNae Clements, Sunset Circle - Personally, she does not oppose the Townhouses. Jim said he had a question for Mr. Hoopes. He says we are only here to consider the Townhouses, but, how does he expect us to consider the Townhouses without considering how the people are going to get to the ~~ Townhouses. Mr. Hoopes said this plat that is laid on the table, the 2 copies are exactly like we presented to the Planning & Zoning Commission a month ago. It is entitled the proposed plat. It is our proposed plat. We propose to develop the project that way. I think the accesses were discussed at the last meeting. The major access, of course, comes off of 5th West at the corner where it matches up with 2nd North. Last time we came with a plastic overlay that showed a street that would match up with a street going into Sunset Circle. We presented that with the sole purpose of trying to determine whether or not the City or someone was going to open up a street from Sunset Circle heading North. There appeared to be no interest in doing that. The City hasn't taken any action. It would be foolish for us to leave a dead end street some 80 feet long. There is not a street there for us to connect with so we submit the plat this way. Richard asked if he met with the City Council, and if so, regarding what? Richard asked, with respect to meeting with the City Council has this road been abandoned by the City? Roger said it was his understanding it has never been formally abandoned, it was never opened. The problem is there were some mixed up minutes, a long history that goes into this. Back into the early '60's when that was developed, Mr. Randall approached the City with a plan development. It was approved tentatively, but he had to obtain an access from the east, which he did, and then (it is not entirely clear) it was approved with a street through the Sunset Circle addition. However, nobody acted on that. The people in Sunset Circle sold the property; it has since been deeded to Mike Clements. He owns it and he and his family have planted yard and grass in there and it is part of his property. The question as I see it now, is somebody going to purchase that from Mr. Clements and put a street there or are we going to leave it there. It was asked if the original plat showed the street. Bruce said the original plat did not but there were notes on the back of the plat that stated that there would be a street there. Bob asked if the recorded plat showed a street there. Bruce said it did not, but on the back of the recorded plat there were minutes of the meeting of what was decided. Bruce said the City Council discussed and decided that 1st they agree that the street should have been put in when it was built, 25 years or so ago. 2nd the City does not have money to buy the property. Whether they do or not, or whether the property has to be returned and the Taylor estate takes care of it, the City does not intend to pursue that issue what so ever. We will not open that street because we do not have the money. We do not have the money to even pave it. As far as the City Council is concerned that street is dead. (Jerry arrived: 8:45p.m.) Roger said the discussion that seems to be surfacing has to do with the street access. You will note on the plat, that there are 3 separate access streets. In the northwest corner that street connects up with the Ricks-Wade Addition. The southeast corner has access through K Street and in the Northeast corner is the main access on to 5th West and 2nd North. Both 5th West and 2nd North are wide, major artery ~~ streets designed to handle traffic and this particular plat is designed for the major ingress and egress to be on to those two streets. It was asked what the plan was with the church. Roger said that they have purchased the property, he has seen some preliminary blue prints of the church, and it is his understanding that it will probably be built next year. Alan Palmer said that probably by the next Planning & Zoning you will have a request for a Conditional Use Permit. Bob asked what would be the impact of closing off the access from K Street on the traffic pattern? Roger felt it would probably have negligible effect because they do not expect a lot of traffic down K Street even with it open. Glen Halverson said that basically it is a good plan to have 3 accesses into that sub division. He is surprised that K Street doesn't have a turn around on the end or obviously it was designed to go on through to the next sub division the way it is set up and the way the utilities are carried out to it. It was clear that the intent was that the development would continue right on down. Jim mentioned that at the last meeting the City Engineer made some comments about the width design of the streets. Glenn said his feeling is that they do have an adequate street width. They are meeting the requirements of the Planning & Zoning. If the church is creating a parking problem they need to go back to the church and increase the parking on the church property. He thinks that to request these developers to go back and widen those right-of-ways and narrow their lots is asking something that is really not their responsibility. If Rexburg has set the parking lots for churches so small that we have problems then you need to do a revision on that. Roger asked to note that the streets are 50 feet and that was the engineers concern, but that each 50 foot street attaches to another 50 foot street or one that is smaller. The only 60 foot street shown of the plat is the main artery in the Northeast corner that connects on to 5th West and 2nd North. It was designed to handle traffic and they intend that it probably will. Paul Kotter, K Street - He agrees with the opinion that you are putting the cart before the horse in regards to the Townhouses without first taking care of the road situation. It is his contention as a neighbor to this new plat that Randall Corp. can't have it both ways - either this is the proposed plat or it isn't. I guess tonight we find that it is the proposed plat with the roads as it is. They talking of 2nd North being the main arterial into this addition and his contention is that with the proposed plat that they have presented that this is not the main arterial into the addition. His contention is that the roads should be built in order for a more direct route to 2nd North access be made. He felt that in City Council it was thought that there could be a change to make the roads better. Rather then having the road go around and to the south of the property that the roads for the Townhouses on the West end that the road comes up and connects with Marianne on the North and then goes directly East along the North end of the boundary and directly out on to 5th West. Then, a road coming up from K Street on the south end connects with this 2nd North from the ~~ south end and on out. There has been some discussion with the L.D.S. church whether or not they would consent to a move. Basically he is proposing that the plat would be flipped and that the church property would be placed on the south end. (Further explanation given. Basic drawing attached.) Alan Palmer, Church Area Physical Facilities Representative - The church felt that they had no opposition as long as those initiating the request for the change be willing to pay the costs incurred. Thus far the church estimates between $8,000 to $10,000 dollars. Jim asked if the costs were just those presently spent on planning. Alan said no, there has been comprehensive soil tests done on the property, the church has deeded ownership of the parcel of property, they have an agreement with Randall Corp. for development costs on streets adjacent to the property, there has been initial development costs and there are other associated costs relative to relocation, re-deeding, re-surveying, topographical surveys, etc. Basically the churches position is we will play with the game, we are not going to be opposed to a solution but we are not going to initiate and we are not going to pressure one side or the other in any way. (Some talk of traffic flow and impact of church traffic.) Leon Bleggi, Angela Dr. - He is concerned with closing off putting all the traffic down through his sub division. He need more then 2 accesses. It was explained that they are that K Street be closed. (Plat and proposed change shown Bleggi ) K Street and feels they not asking to Mr. Janet Goodliffe, acting as a spokesperson for her neighborhood stated that they have tried flip-flops, gone out and worked and done everything they could possibly think off to work on proposed plat changes so they would not impact either neighborhood. It looked today like it was not going to happen and there are some things she would like to be brought up Janet read a statement that she had prepared. (Statement attached.) Jim made a proposal that they recommend to the City Council that they appoint a task force to study this, the task force to consist of designated professional planners, members of the planning and zoning and members of the area concerned, (K Street and Sunset Circle residents} and that we, as planning and zoning, proceed no farther. MaryAnn asked if there was anymore public comment. Roger Hoopes said he was concerned with them tabling this matter. As we mentioned a month ago at this meeting and when we met with the City Council, this isn't a matter that can be continued on adinfinitum. People have contacted the developers, Randall Corp., about beginning work, the church has purchased the property and plan on presenting a C.U.P. to you at your next meeting and it simply is something we can't wait on. Another task force - 60 to 90 days - and by the time we get ready to go to work the first job will be snow removal. Secondly, it is not a fact that we are rushing in to this and need additional study. This same preliminary plat was presented to the planning & • • ~~ • zoning commission 30 days ago. The City Council has seen it. The City Council has discussed it. The City Council has had their representative on the planning and zoning commission report back to you tonight. The City is not going to do anything. Ms. Goodliffe has stated a very accurate history of what took place as the thing was developed and he has no disputes with what she says. The only fact is it wasn't followed. It wasn't that way. Mr. Clements now owns the property. We need to proceed. There is concern about their streets being narrow but that is why the plat is the way it is, to connect narrow streets with narrow streets. Also, one of the wisest comments he has heard at one of these meetings is when they were talking about "traffic flow pattern" - someone said people won't always take the shortest route, they will take the easiest route and the easiest route is going to be thru the wide street and down 5th West. You are not going to want to drive down to K Street, a 35 foot wide street, it is too narrow it is a hazard to get down there and if you think about it you are going to come out of it on to West Main, an extremely busy street. You can go down 5th West and wait your 60 seconds for the stop light and get across - not 5 minutes like you would coming down K Street. Our purpose here tonight is simple and straight forward. We have made an application for a C.U.P. for 8 Townhouses. The plat has been submitted. We would like a recommendation from this body to the City Council that a C.U.P. be granted. The change of property with the church is not new to the Randall Corp. When the plat was put together it was discussed with the church where it should be. They have talked • about having the church on the South, having it on the West, positioning it in the middle, and when everything was decided this was the most appropriate place for the church to be built. They then deeded the ground to the church and we are here where we are today. The Randall Corp. is not interested in changing it, it is wise and it is the best plan. Mike Clements, Sunset Circle - He owns part of lot 12, all of lots 13 and 14 and part of lot 15. There is a lot of confusion about this situation. There is enough confusion about the situation that if the City or someone decided they had to go through lot i4, which is right. next to my garage, it is such a financial impact to me that I have no recourse then to find out what the courts of law would say. The yard on the side which composes part of 14 and all of 15 has been taxed since 1978 as a building lot. The assessor has been asked on several occasions is that fair and he has said yes, that is a building lot. To go thru lot 14 destroys the home and the yard because it is within 6 feet of the garage. He is not interested in selling lot 15 and is not aware of what his rights are if the City should condemn that lot and want to buy it. Bruce said the City Council will look at this again June 1st but the consensus of the Council is we will not open up any road. MaryAnn asked if they could approve a C.U.P. without plat approval. J.D. felt that a preliminary plat is part of the sub division ordinance • and we do not have anything to consider because we haven't approved this sub division. Richard said that under our Zoning Ordinance we can approve a C.U.P. that is subject to our subsequent approval of a plat ~~ including ingress, egress, etc. They are here for a C.U.P. not a plat • approval. Previous motion on the table - Jim said they have a responsibility to Mike because of the lot, a responsibility to the Randall Corp., a responsibility to the citizens of the community and he does not think they can make a decision. The only way to go is to go to the task force concept so that each of these people gets represented. MaryAnn called for a second to the motion. Motion died for lack of a second. Richard moved that they grant a C.U.P. with the clear understanding that it is subject to plat approval and that plat approval will continue to consider all the provisions contained in the C.U.P. one of which is #4 "not to create a nuisance or safety hazard .which includes excessive traffic generation ." (Zoning Ordinance #725 pg. 50). Motion was seconded by Davawn. Ayes: Richard, Jerry, Bob, Marsha, Davawn. Opposed: Jim Long. MaryAnn declared the hearing closed. The plat on the table has not been approved. Bob suggested that the major players get together to try to resolve this. Jim restated his motion, that they recommend to the City Council that • through the Mayor they appoint a task force to review the plat. Richard seconded the motion. A11 aye. RE: LAIRD PRELIMINARY PLAT TOPIC: (300,40,,,PRELIMINARY PLATS,LAIRD PROPERTY) Discussion of streets in and out of the sub division. It was felt that Sawtell would be a collector and not an arterial. Jim suggested that Joe include a bike-jogging trail and use some of the ICETEA money when they get it. More discussion. J.D. said this plat does not meet all the requirements of the Sub Division Ordinance, Section 2.3, pgs. 10-14. Joe said if they want him to he will be glad to bring in all the papers that meet those requirements. Richard suggested that what they have been doing is following the Sub Division Ordinance Section 2.1-2.2. The board told Joe they basically felt his plat conforms and looked very good. Joe asked if they could make one change that seemed very unreasonable and that was it requires 175' radius cul de sac. J.D. said that had been amended by ordinance #708 and requires at least a 50' radius to a diameter of 100' cul de sac. r~ U ~~ f . When people come to Rose to be put on the agenda for a preliminary plat, it must go to Joe first and they need to have a copy of the Sub Division Ordinance and be told that their plat must comply with it. RE: SIDE WALL BY BEEHIVE CREDIT UNION DISCUSSED TOPIC: (300,41,,,BEEHIVE CREDIT UNION,BUFFER ZONES,SETBACKS) Beehive Credit Union has set up a cement wall between them and the residence north of them. The zoning requirements were that it had to be back 15' from the right-of-way or be 3' high. At the time that Joe talked to them they had concrete setting in the forms and they decided they would take a chance of coming to the planning & zoning board for a variance on the setback. Joe was told to write them a letter, tell them they have violated the zoning ordinance and to take the wall down. Joe was told to deny them an Occupancy Permit until they come in to compliance. We have an enforcement problem. Joe has the authority to tell them to stop and planning and zoning will support him. RE: SIDEWALKS TOPIC: (300,41,,,SIDEWALKS) Joe said the policy now is they write on all the building plans now that they will put sidewalk in and we have on occasion, given them a correction notice with the Certificate of Occupancy saying that they have to a certain date to get a sidewalk in. Board felt he should . continue with the policy but be sure to follow up. Question about enforcing landscaping. Joe is to check on District 7 Health, Medical 5hoppe and Job Service. B M C West is still parking their trucks in the street. The police should check on this and start ticketing them. Richard moved that they go in to executive session. Marsha seconded the motion. All Aye. • ,, ~~. 1}''N oppose ~ ,~on~ition,~l >.tse perir~it for constr~.etiorl of eight t''rrin to'~r',~rlhott:_}JS fo~~ing the ~~olf ~:o>_sr se along the ''rr~sterly portion of property at f1L~1_tr.it-r~ ~ersitla le_;s th~r1 ,31]>>•;r~=~~ s_~ni~er LDS-1 ~~~ning. T}~e 1>>cation of tl; i '_ p {t--..r~ p eryt l~ i s n}o lr~tt ~ ~nr~t t }~ et }~ e~-pp t~?r ~s T a ~a l l=Y~yr '~ s_a b ~~ i'~~ i ;~i o~yn} ~r,1 ~}-osMt ~}f t t s'e i~i71 I ~ V1_tt :=e, ,1o1at}1 o I l:~ ~. }r ,~- 51i ~U~ 'J 1_~~~~ :' IJ~ ~~11, ~~n~~ 'ii1~Jt U I I''#~i tl' C I_~ 5hl Prit ~tt-eYt, in ~e:b1_tra~, 1`~1~~i~isun ~:~unty, 11~ot-se. 4r'r'i tho~tt a pl :~t s,}1e•~''fi ny the proposed trot ti ~_ t1 o•tirr, to oppro~~ e more }i~~t1°=ii1~~ rOLlld pro~`e detrit7'sental osir neig}-s~iortlood. ~lre~3d~~, there is rvn~lern ~~bo>.at the traffic flour do„~n ~: street (see City Council meeting, ~;pri l 1'~+~,=~~ •;l;f i t }~ ,~ p os^i bl o proposed plat of this some sttbdi nisi on. There l~~~ iae~ti n~=~ iti~~i~v~~tlQtl 1t-i_lt7i t}1>; ~7''~r`il?r 1~t till ,~3i7'1~ ~Ll~~l~l'+''1~.3~n t~~ pro';•'it~>~ ;3?:1=:2pt~~i? +~~:1-~=~~:= Into utid oUt of tiiiJ ~r1_tL1dt~~is,orl e','en tho~_tyh un ~~ltf~rt;.~ti'~e pl,~t ts:3s ~f?etl :,1_tggested to the possit~]e pr~~posed plat. lJnttl ~ • • • '~ !kklGAf1UN I.nNAI .. ... ' .._:_ S U'03'S3 E .._ 707.35 ~,, Uo ~ ~ ~ I'~ ' ~ I: ''S~~n ..-4 ~ h ~` ~• ~ ~ - ~ LtARIANNE DRIVE ~ ~ o „L ~..~ ~ ~l -_4 ,'\ `Q~ 215.68 o ~ n ~ ~i ~ 3 ' \ n _.._ .. _...__ .._._... _. ... ..~ I ~ p!/~ ~ :~~ L.,.~_._... _ ~ ~ ' ~; , ;. ; ~. ~, ~~~ w cz ,v . ~ W ,,~ ~. .. .._. ,~ ; .~ R `° ~ '~ s o ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ 8 V W:. .~R~ ~ ~ _ ~ .~ f f ~ 1' 1 3DMStON + ~° I Cy ~~ ONING ~ ~ ~ i ~~~ I " ~ ~ ~~ . .1 _...---_ _...- , .. ~ _ ~ . • .m : ~. l t 1.50 ~ "K' STFtEEi O U N v' U U ~ 0 8 ~, S ~ w N N ,• ..8 ao.oo ~ v o ~ U BLOCK 2 S r 8~ 8 8, 8t • 88.84 88.00 88.00 88.00 88.00 97.50 1 t 1,50 .i....._ . ...... . • N00'UO'00"W X24.88 ~ ~ .,~ , - . ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ O Z X ~ N y a r- z ~ o ~ ~ . r c~ do ~' t t I.50 1 ~ A v, x ~ ~ ~ ~ r; ~ v~ ~ z ~ ~^ ~ b o rl ~ ~ • ri ~ v m ;~ 0 0Oi ~ ..{ i ~ ~ O ~ z ~ , _ -~-~ O A ~ ~~o ~ 111.50 I- Z ~ ~ ~ 0 2 ~ c z r ~ ~ r M ~ y ~o ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~- .. ~ ~ -~...~\V 186,50 I•' 9 N00.00'00"W :t85,00~;;.e _.. , 'H• R~ttr.E 33 EAST fl M. N00'00'00"w 168.5.00' ~ h!i ~~• . ~ - - rl~'?RTti STN ~tiEST STRFf=T ' ` ' ., "~ " ~~ • Planning and Zoning Commission Re: Proposed Randall Addition There are several things that need considered before further decisior~are made in regards to this addition. A short synopsis of those considerations: Conditional use permit- A. A conditional use permit should not be granted until after a plat is presented showing what the traffic flow would be to adjacent subdivisions. B. There is no way those directly affected by the conditional use permit • can make a judgment as to the correctness of the permit without seeing what the plat would be Like. Accesses into the new subdivision- A. The city should - at its expense- conduct a traff c study to determine the accesses that are needed into the subdivision that will not only contain houses, duplexes, but an LDS Stake Center and ball diamonds. There is enough concern on this matter that the city should conduct the traffic study since there will be large amount of traff c generated by this subdivision. B. The city is under an obligation to follow its existing subdivision ordinance which states that a loop road -such as the Taylor Subdivision- can't be longer than 1200 feet.. Sunset Circle is at Least 2200 feet. Although Sunset Circle was developed at a time the existing ordinance was not in effect, the City Council, Mayor and the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time saw the need for an additional access through the north end of the subdivision. They foresaw that the circle was just too big • to have only one access for the proper development of adjoining property. To bring the circle into compliance now would mean only following what the City Council had always intended. ~s • C. The history of the Taylor development is such that it is clearly evident the intent of the City Council was a street should be required at the north end of the property. Not only once when the property was developed but again several years Later the City Council v to ~-at the access be provided for. There are those who sa that Jack " ~~ 1"did not live u to his end of the bar ain. Y P g But as City Council minutes clearly state he annexed the property -and has been paying city taxes on it for more than 20 years- , provided a plat that was approved by City Council and also because the city required it was forced to obtain an access into the property from Fifth West at a personal cost to him. These were the conditions that were required and those are the conditions that he met. (See City Council minutes in 1974). • D. The plat recorded at the County Clerk's Off ce shows the minutes from the City Council meeting that specif es Lot 14 would be reserved for a street. The plat and the accompany City Council minutes were recorded at the same time by same person. The minutes were not added later by some unknown person, they were part of the plat. They have the same recorded number. Included in title insurance policies for those who have bought property in the addition are statements such as "per recorded plat." E. Also as part of the plat is a statement signed by the developer that all parts of the plat reserved for public use are dedicated to the city. F. It is not the city's responsibility to pay for this street. It is there responsibility to require the access to provide for the safety and smooth flow of traffic into and out of the subdivision. The city had always intended this to be a street. i~ G. The responsibility to pay for the street should remain where it has always been with the developer. Granted this lot has been sold, but the Legal responsibility here to determine who should pay for what is among the developer, the property buyer and the seller. Statements that the city authorized a building permit have no validity because the city issu~a permit based on the building's conformity to existing building and fire and "c ~, determine if the property has clear title for property purposes. F. Questions about property values declining because a through. street is allowed are questionable to say the least. Property in Sunset Circle is valued the same as K Street - $125 frontage foot .Lots on K Street are assessed at about $9,500 while Lots in Sunset Circle are appraised at $11,000. H. The question here is one of safety and traff c flow vs. providing as one Sunset Circle resident said "privacy." In summation: Sunset Circle is a city street so is K Street. We have never fought to have K Street closed off to provide far privacy. We have asked for the city to se~ the need for a smooth flow of traffic and to provide as much safety as is possible. All we are asking is for is someone to share the burden of traffic that will be forced down KStreet - a 35-foot street, with tons of children. The city has a responsibility and a Legal obligation to protect its citizens from safety hazards. Those Legal obligations will just intensify if the city does not follow its subdivision ordinance and elects to choose privacy over safety.