Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JUNE 09, 19946 DATE: (060994) Planning & Zoning Work Meeting 6/09/94 7:00 P. M. Those Present: Chairman: John Millar Members: Richard Smith Davawn Beattie Jerry Jeppesen John Watson Jeff Walters Mary Ann Mounts Jim Long Marsha Bjornn City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: J. D. Hancock Engineer: Joe Laird RE: APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE FOR JUNE WICKSTROM, TRAILER HOUSE, 75 S 5TH WEST TOPIC: (300,49,,,VARIANCES,TRAILERS,5TH WEST) Application for a variance for June Wickstrom 75 South 5th West. We have two situations, one is it is too close to the property line and the other is the trailer sets about 6 feet out on the city right-a-way. This body does not have authority to grant a variance for the trailer to set out in the city right-a-way, that will have to go before city council. Doug Wickstrom, son of Mrs Wickstrom, explained the situation. The trailer is already in position where it is now. The main reason we put it there is, his mother is 74 and enjoys seeing the view and the kids at the school out the window. By putting the trailer there, she has a good view of everything. Being inside the fence, we thought we were in good shape. We are just about the same distance from the street as Marg Farrer's trailer which is on the other side. We didn't question it because other trailers in that court are as close as ours. If we do have to move it again it will be a financial hardship. It will cost about $1500 to move it. We would like to get a variance. It is 4 feet inside the fence that has been there for probably 20 years. It is in a trailer court and they had Granet Beardall's permission to put it that way. He would not need a building permit to put the trailer in the trailer court. John Millar stated that whole roll of trailers in the trailer court is in violation with their setbacks. This trailer is clear off the property. (copy of a letter from Joe Laird) Jim Long felt it was too bad it had gone this far without someway to check it before it was put in, however it does not require a building permit so it would not be checked by the city. John Millar stated that obviously the trailer court knew the trailer was going in and it should be their responsibility to see that it was on their property with the correct setback, so they should have some responsibility. • John Millar stated that this issue will need to be referred to the City • Council, because we cannot give them a variance for use of a public right-a-way. RE: IMPACT ZONE DISCUSSED - MOTION PASSED TO CHANGE BOUNDARIES ON THE IMPACT ZONE MAP TOPIC: (300,50,,,IMPACT ZONE) John Millar stated that one issue he did not think we covered at the last meeting was the area inside the golf course. They have requested to be zoned R1. The sub division has been preliminarily platted there and they want to stay R1. It is owned by three different parties and it is tied up with foreclosure with one of the owners. Sakotas property, we need to make a decision and move on with it, so they know and we know what our position is. At the last meeting we asked Steve Zollinger to meet with the Sakotas, Munns and Muirs and report back. Richard attended the meeting-with Steve and made a report. They met with Sakotas, Lee Munns and the Archibalds. We talked about the problem about boundaries that Sakotas had problems with and we conveyed to them the feelings of this body regarding the difference in opinion between the Sakotas and the members of this body. They talked about the abandonment clauses we had discussed a year. and half ago. We explained how it would deal with livestock and made it clear to the Archibalds and Munns, because they did not understand that but they understand that now. Sakotas position is still just as strong as it was in the meeting we had with them. Towards the end of the meeting Steve and Richard was advised to leave and the Sakotas, Munns, and Archibalds had a private meeting. Steve had a prior commitment and they did not ever convene. When they left the meeting it was very clear that Sakotas did not want to be included in the Impact Zone at a11. Lee Munns was not prepared to say at that time whether he wanted to be in or out and he did not think Archibalds gave an indication. They told Richard that they had to think about the abandonment clause because they had not understood it as this body is proposing it. He had not heard back from the Archibalds or the Munns. They had a long conversation with Roger Muir at the county planning meeting and he made it very clear that he wanted to be included down the line north of the cemetery all the way down the cemetery road including his house. Jerry Jeppesen made a motion that all the property to the Freeway and continue on up Salem Road to the intersection U. S. 20 follow U. S. 20 back around to the Golf Course and back to intercept the existing boundary be included in the Impact Area. He then discussed that at this point he could see no reason for any legitimate reason for any of the parties to be out of the Impact Area. Motion seconded by Jim Long. Richard stated he would agree with that 100. He asked Jerry if this was something he thought the commissioners would agree with? Jerry stated he did not feel that the commissioners would agree with anything • we propose. This area is an area that will develope and as an access to the City of Rexburg it should be included. ~/ Richard agreed with Jerry and stated the map we have now was agreed to by the three county commissioners and they said they would accept those boundaries. The only reason he had agreed to draw the boundaries back was because of the input from the county. Jerry stated the issue at that point was the number of cattle and that is not an issue anymore. The reason that original boundary was decided on has been alleviated and been compromised and is in such affect that it is not a debatable point anymore, so there is no reason for that property not to be included anymore. Richard agreed with the boundaries and questioned if we would ever get a consensus out of the county commissioners to go with that. There is a good chance they have backed off from the map they originally said was okay. Jerry stated that we are here to make a legitimate decision and to have as little impact on the people in the Impact Area as possible. At this point he did not see any terrible impact on the people in the Impact Area and he lives in the Impact Area. After the education process, we have. changed things so they comply with the uses that are happening in the Impact Area and this is not detrimental to any of those uses until someone decided to change their use. If the contention is we don't want the Impact Zone because we want to change our use, that is not a legitimate reason to be out. All Aye to motion Jerry Made except .Marsha who abstained. Pole Line Road- Mary Ann made a motion to modify our boundary to include the South side of Pole Line Road from U.S. 20 to to the S. E. corner of Section 32. Seconded by Davawn Beattie. A11 Aye Richard stated that in light of the fact that we sent notices to everyone in the Impact Zone, prior to the next hearing we review the people in the expanded area that we have not included originally. Richard stated that we need to watch what we are doing and be careful. Part of the concern that the area was too big was that we were not really dealing with Impact Area, we were trying to protect County Arterials and that is not the purpose of an Impact Zone to protect county Arterials. West of the freeway over the Hibbard Road south of where we have it, that is quite a distance out. A motion was made by Jim Long that no change be made along the Hibbard Road from the map as constituted from our Public Hearing. Seconded by Richard Smith. All Aye except Marsha Bjornn voting nay and John Watson voting nay, Mary Ann Mounts voting nay, Motion carried. John Millar stated that we can review it annually. He said he would revise the map to show our modifications for the next meeting. At that meeting we need to take a vote if that is where we want to be and send it to City Council. We have gone to the river which is the obvious boundary on the north, on the south we took the section line. This can be reviewed every year. gnu Richard suggested that we need to have Jerry go to the county commissioners and try to seek their approval and tell them all the input we have had and try to get their consensus again. A motion was made by Jim Long that we include the area along Barney Dairy Road from where it now is to Sugar City Cemetery road, North boundary of the river, South boundary one quarter mile south of the road. Motion dies for lack of a second. A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts to leave the boundary as it is on the Barney Dairy road. Seconded by Jerry Jeppesen. All Aye except Jim Long opposed. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie to leave the Millhollow boundary as it is, seconded by Mary Ann Mounts. All Aye Jerry said he talked to Jeppesens and at this point he thought they would want to come in, but lets wait until the next meeting. He would like a letter of request first. RE: DISCUSSION OF THE WALL BY BEEHIVE CREDIT UNION - 65 SOUTH CENTER TOPIC: (300,52,,,BEEHIVE CREDIT UNION,BUFFER ZONES,SETBACKS) The board discussed the wall that Beehive Credit Union has built. They either need to cut it down or come in for a variance. It was questioned why they were given a certificate of occupancy with the wall • built out of compliance. The certificate was issued contingent upon them either cutting it off or getting a variance. The mayor has asked that we consider any areas around the city that we feel that needs to be annexed. RE: MOTION PASSED TO RECOMMEND ANNEXING ARGUS CLINGER PROPERTY IN CREST HAVEN SUB DIVISION TOPIC: (300,52,,,ANNEXATIONS,CLINGER*ARGUS,CRESTHAVEN SUB DIVISION) A motion was made. by Jim Long that we recommend to the city council that the Argus. Clinger property be annexed to the city. Seconded by Marsha Bjornn. (discussion that he will have to pave the street to his house and bring it up to city standards if he wants the city to maintain it.) A11 Aye RE: MOTION PASSED TO RECOMMEND ANNEXING NEW COLLEGE PROPERTY THAT WAS PURCHASED FROM DE LOY WARD TOPIC: {300,52,,,ANNEXATIONS,RICKS COLLEGE) A motion was made by Richard Smith. and seconded by Jeff Walters that we annex the new college property that was purchased from De Loy Ward. All Aye except Davawn Beattie who abstained. .~'3 RE: MOTION PASSED TO RECOMMEND ANNEXING WALTERS CONCRETE PROPERTY TOPIC: (300,53,,,ANNEXATIONS,WALTERS READY MIX) Discussion the Walters Concrete property. They are tearing up the city streets with their trucks and are on city water and don't pay taxes. A motion was. made by Jim Long to recommend to the city council that the Walters Concrete property be annexed. All Aye except., Jeff Walters abstained, Jerry Jeppesen voting nay. We are going to annex the Village Green Trailer Court and a public hearing will be at the meeting on July 13. RE: DISCUSSION OF HENDERSON SUB DIVISION OFF OF 5TH WEST & LANDSCAPING AT VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TOPIC: (300,53,,,PRELIMINARY PLATS,HENDERSON SUB DIVISION,5TH WEST, LANDSCAPING,VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER) The board questioned the property off 5th West that we had a preliminary plat on, the Henderson Sub Division. The board questioned why the Valley Medical Center did not comply with the landscaping requirement and asked Joe to check on it. RE: PLATTING OF PROPERTY TOPIC: (300,53,,,PLATS} • They discussed that plating of property should be done and a plat approved before a purchase of property is made. Meeting Adjourned. • ~/~uR ~ ` c~ 'l.~ Q ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~U.ll ll° :~ ~ ~ ~ a ~' STATE OF IDAHO ~T~eLI~EO 1~~ NILE 1. BOYLE MAYOR ROSE BAGLEY, CITY CLERK RlCNARD NORNEA, TReASUReR 6 FINANCIAL OFFICER May 25, 1994 Ms. Garnet Beardall 75 South 5th West Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Dear Ms. Beardall, ~ ~ , 'i. ,. •, ~I: P.O. BOX 280 12 NORTN CEN7ER STREET f REXBURG,IDANO 83440 PNONE {208) 359.3020 FAX {ZOS) 359.3022 This letter is to advise you-that the yellow, double-wide ~ ' manufactured home (2 spaces south of your house) was installed in such a manner that it violates the minimum building setback requirements of the Zoning Code (Ordinance #725j and Ordinance #548 regarding Mobile Home Courts. Your Mobile Home Court is in a Medium .Density Residential (MDRjZone. The Front Yard Building Setback in this zone (2dDRj is 25 feet from the street right-of-way line. 5th West Street has a 99 foot wide right-of-way; therefore, the right-of-way line is 49.5 feet (1/2 of 99 feet] east of the centerline of the street. The east back-of-curb line is 25 feet east of the street centerline; therefore, the east right-of-way line is 24 1/2 feet east of the back-of-curb line. The Building Setback Line is another 25 feet east of the right-of-way line. (Or 7.4 1//2' + 25' = 49 1/2 feet east of the back-of-curb line.j Under the "Grandfather" clause of the Ordinance, a home could be closer to the street than this if it so-existed at the time the Zoning Ordinance was passed by the City Council. The recently-placed, yellow home is actually out into the. street right-of-way and as indicated violates Ordinance #725 and must be moved. • The Mobile Home Court Ordinance #548 Section 9E indicates: E. Minimum space requirements between mobile home stands: Z. End to End; fourteen feet (14') 2. Side to Side; twenty feet (20') The distance between the newly placed, yellow home and the existing home to the east ie leas that 20 feet. This puts it in violation of Ordinance #548 also. Please call me (359-3024) if you have any questions regarding this matter. Thank you. Very Tru YouY" , l.~~~ __ . Joseph A. Laird, P.E. City Engineer / Building Official JAL/jw '~ ~ cc: Planning & Zoning Doug Wickstrom ~~ ; r '1l '3: ~: ...' ~ .. . ..;_i F; • /// f 1 i C~~BURC O Q ~~ P q ~T9 ~ 1~~' ~~1SHEQ V Il. ~ o,rL IU' Q~I. ~/ STATE OE IDAHO ~~ H1lE L BOYLE AAAYOR RDSE RAGLEY, CITY CLFRK AfCHARO HDRNER, TREASURER d FINANCIAL OFFICER Ms. Garnet Beardall 75 South 5th Weat Rexburg, Idaho 83440 Dear Ms. Beardall, P.O. BOX 280 12 NORTH CENTER STREET REXBUAG.IOAHO 8340 PHONE (208) 359.3D20 fAX (208) 359.3022 June 1, 2994 Reference is made to my previous letter of May 25, 1994 regarding the recently placed yellow, double wide, manufactured home 2 spaces south of your house. `' • As shown on the attached Figure 1, the subject house, as it is presently positioned, extends 6 feet or more out into the public Eitreet right-of-way. After talking with City Attorney, J.b. Hancock, T find that the Planning & zoning Committee cannot consider a "variance" for a house extending out into the street right-of-way. The house simply cannot extend into the street right-of-way; consequently, it will have to be moved from the lot or rotated 90° and set parallel with the 5th West street right-of-way as shown on the attached Figure 2. Rotating the house so it is parallel with 5th West Street still leaves it with setback problems, namely: 1. As previously indicated, the zoning Code requires a 25 foot setback (to the house eves) from the adjacent streets}. However, if an existing home had a smaller setback at the time the Zoning Code was adopted, it would be "grandfathered" in at the closer distance. Measurements at the subject home site indicate the previous home was approximately 6 feet east of the street right-of-way {R.O.W.) line. (The street R.O.W. line is 24 1/2 feet east of the back-of-curb line.) Therefore, one could argue that under the "grandfather" condition, a new home the same size as the original one could be located 6 feet back (east) of the R.O.W. line. 2. Similarly, the setback from the 1st South Street R.O.W: line is also supposed to be 25 feet. Assuming you set the home 6' back from the 5th Weat Street R.O.W. and 8 feet back from the Interior Street of the Mobile Home Court (as required by Section 9D of Ordinance #548 on mobile homes & mobile home courts), the i i i i home would be approximately 18 feet from the 1st South Street R.O.W. line. (See Figure 2). Measurements at the site indicate that the previous home was 22 feet from the 1st South Street R.O.W. line, while an even earlier home may. have been around 9 feet from the R.O.W. line. The adjacent home to the east is 17 feet from the R.O.W. line. Other homes farther to the east are also closer that 25 feet from the R.O.W. line. Zoning Ordinance #725 - Section 4.9 - Exception to Setback Requirements, states that: "When fifty {50} percent or more of the lots on the same side of the street have been built, all buildings erected, established, or rebuilt shall be in conformity with the averaged setback of such buildings." Therefore, using the "grandfather" condition .and Section 4.9 - Exceptions to Setback Requirements, one could argue that the 18 foot setback from the 1st South Street R.O.W. line was satisfactory. ~~ ;. f' r~ ;: i .~. !` '; ~~ I~ i i' s ~: 3.A - Unfortunately, going from a single-wide to a double-wide mobile home, puts the new home 17 feet from the existing adjacent home to the east,~which is too close. Section 9 E.2 of Mobile Home Ordinance #548 states that homes must be at • least 20 feet apart (side-to-aide) 3.B - Also, Section 8.3 - Change of Use of Zoning Ordinance #725 states that: "The nonconforming use of a building or land may not be changed except to a conforming use, and where such change is made, the use shall not thereafter be changed back to a nonconforming use." This home would be nonconforming on the west {6 feet vs. 25 feet setback from 5th West}; nonconforming on the south (18 feet va. 25 feet setback from 1st South Street} and then adding a new nonconformance on the east (17 feet vs. 20 feet required between homes.) 3.G - Section 8.5 - Expansion or Enlargement states that: "Land area of a nonconforming use shall not be increased by an amount greater than fifteen percent (15~) of the acreage occupied by the use on the effective date of this Ordinance. The floor area of a building or structure occupied by a nonconforming use shall not be increased or expanded by an amount greater than fifteen percent (15~) of the occupied floor area on the effective date of this Ordinance. Going from a single-wide home to a double--wide home would expand { • the area of nonconforming use by more than the 15~ referenced in this section of the Zoning Ordinance. The above sets forth in some detail the items that the Planning & Zoning Committee would be considering if you decide to take this matter to them and ask for a "variance" to the setback requirements in the Zoning Code and the Mobile Home spacing requirements in the Mobile Home Ordinance. If you decide you want to go to the Planning & Zoning Committee for a variance, please contact City Clerk, Rose Bagley, regarding getting on the agenda for their next meeting. Very Truly ours,., Joseph A. Lairti,"-P~-E~:-~--- - City Engineer / Building Official JAL/jw cc: Planning & Zoning Chairman Doug Wickstrom ~~ • 6 ~p (J e Planning & Zoning Executive Session i 6/9/94 6:30 P. M. Those Present: Chairman: John. Millar Members: Richard Smith Davawn Beattie Jerry Jeppesen John Watson Jeff Walters Mary Ann Mounts Marsha Bjornn Jim Long City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: J. D. Hancock Engineer: Joe Laird Discussion about putting the Sakota Property in the Impact Zone. They have apparently threatened a law suit if we leave them in. They have a lawyer that says it is racial discrimination. Do we fight the battle and leave them in or take them out? Marsha said he had talked to Doug the next day after they met with Richard, Jerry and Steve and he felt that it was a dictatorship and everything had been decided. All the county commissioners are on their side and it did not matter what this body decided, because the county commissioners would vote for what the Sakotas wanted and against what the Planning Commission wanted. Jerry stated that they asked him what he would do if he were County Commissioner and he told them he would vote for them to be in the Impact Zone. We talked for two hour and they discussed race discrimination and he got up and left and they brought him back in. At this point they don't care what we do, because they feel like the commissioners will support them. It was decided to leave them in and let the County Commissioners be the bad guys. Before we can act on American Potato, we need it in writing or stick to the original boundaries. The new Industrial Park will be right across from Sakotas. The city will annex that park eventually. Jerry felt that we should just move on with Sakotas and let them react the way they want to react. J. D. stated that he was with the mayor when Mr Mc Kenna from American Potato called the mayor and said they got word from California and they want to be in the Impact Zone. Possible we need to draft a letter to them and get thing in writing. Davawn. stated. one of the reasons we are going ahead with this thing is to get the county commissioners to move with it and get it done. Are the county commissioners telling us that if we leave Sakotas in they are not going to support this thing. Jerry said you have to let them make the decision and they can't make that decision until we submit what we have to City Council and then it goes to them. They are a long ways from this point from making a decision. Right now they have final veto power over a decision. Richard stated that the three county commissioners and the city council have to agree on the map and the ordinances. ~~ Richard stated that Sakotas think they have been drawn into the Impact Zone because they are Oriental. It was agreed to leave Sakotas in the Impact Zone. Richard stated that we have until November 1 to come up with the map. If it is not done by November 1, what happens is the City Council and County Commissioners select three other people and they get together and try to solve this thing. Total time frame is a period of 90 days. They have 30 days to select three people and then they have 60 days to go forward. If they stepped in and selected the three and started to move on this very quickly, the existing commissioners could make a decision prior to them leaving office. A more prudent approach is that we go through the public hearings but there is not unanimous consent by November 1,this body just stops for a period of 30 days until we get new commissioners and then we move forward. He is convinced talking to some of the possible new commissioners, that once that body goes into effect in January, the Impact Zone as we are proposing it probably will go through. We should move forward as we are doing but if we have not accomplished it, we need to just hold the reigns for 30 days or 60 days. His concern is if either party initiates it and we go into this 90 day process, once the 90 days is over it will be turned over to District Court. He is convinced that if these commissioners are a part of the city body that it will not be accomplished in 90 days and we will end up in court. There is a pretty good way to stay out of court and it will take time to back off until we have some new commissioners. The deadline is suppose to be October 1 and then you have an extra 30 days November 1, 1994 that you have to have the map and the ordinance has to be in by January 1, 1995. Any discussion regarding the ordinance, we need to make our proposal and move forward with it and if it is not acceptable to the commissioners, they will probably not be able to do anything about it, at least these commissioners won't. They will be dragging their feet all the way.