Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES NOVEMBER 9, 1994~~~ (~ • DATE: (110994) Planning & Zoning 11/09/94 7:00 P. M. Present: Chairman: John Millar Members: Jerry Jeppesen Jim Long Mary Ann Mounts Richard Smith Brad Archibald Davawn Beattie Marsha Bjornn Excused: John Watson Jeff Walters Councilman: Farrell Young City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorneys: J. D. Hancock & Steve Zollinger Commissioner: Dell Barney John Millar welcomed the visitors. A motion was made by Jerry Jeppesen and seconded by Mary Ann Mounts to approve the minutes from 10/19/94. All Aye. A motion was made by Jerry Jeppesen and seconded by Davawn Beattie to approve the minutes of 10/26/94. All Aye RE: REVIEW OF SIGNS IN THE CITY; MOTIONS PASSED CONCERNING HEIGHT AND RIGHT OF WAY INFRINGEMENT TOPIC: (300,118,,,SIGNS,SIGN ORDINANCE,RIGHT OF WAY) John Millar told the members that last Friday a group of Planning & Zoning members went and looked at signs to try to find out how big and how tall signs are. The signs out by Wallmart and K Mart are 30 feet high. The bill board by Albertsons is about 300 square feet. The one across from B.M.C. West is 480 square feet. We need to look at what we want for the maximum height and minimum size? Jim added that we looked at some signs that over hang into the right-a-way and we decided that we don't want that. There were some on Main Street that hung over the right-a-way and the Albertson sign also hung over four or five feet. Those signs are far enough back, they are not much of a problem. The Uniform Sign Code does not deal with sizes or height. A motion was made by Jerry Jeppesen that we need to modify the sign code to not allow any intrusive signs protruding in the right-a-way because of the safety factor. Seconded by Mary Ann Mounts. All Aye A motion was made by Jim Long that the maximum height of a sign be 30 feet high, seconded by Davawn Beattie. (discussion) All Aye i• ~~ 1 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEVERAL ANNEXATIONS TOPIC: (300,119,,,PUBLIC HEARINGS,ANNEXATIONS,WALTERS READY MIX, HOGLAND,000K,SPUDS) 7:15 P. M. Public Hearing pertaining to the annexation to the City of the following property: Tract 1-Walters Property; Tract 2- South Interchange, Spuds, Piece Goods, Thompsons; Tract 3- Hogland; Tract 4-Cook, Tract 5-LDR. The said property if annexed to the city will be zoned Tract 1-Industrial; Tract 2-Highway Business District; Tract 3-Low Density Residential; Tract 4-Low Density Residential 1; Tract 5-Low Density Residential. Richard asked if this was forced annexation? Joe said the mayor had contacted everyone and there was no opposition. It started with the annexation of Spuds and their reconstruction work and went from there. John opened it up for public comment. Iris Hogland- Tract 3 was her mother's home and she and her brothers and sisters own it now. She asked if they have a choice whether they are annexed or not? It is one and half acres. They have a pasture and as she understood it if it were annexed, they would not be able to have animals. Jim Long asked who initiated the annexation. Joe told him the city initiated it. The board asked Joe for what reason did they initiate it? Joe told them we need to have contiguous property to annex the Spuds area. We would not need the Hogland property now if the Cook property is annexed. Jerry told Ms Hogland if you don't want to be annexed, you don't have to be. If you are annexed, the city would provide sewer and water. She said they just got a new well and new sewer. Jerry told her if she had animals now they could continue having animals, but if they don't have any they would not be able to have them. She said they prefer at this time not to be annexed. The board told her the city is working on an Impact Zone and there will be restrictions on animals where they have them now. She said they still don't want to be annexed. Shirl Fujimoto- Asked if their property was in the annexation? John told him they were not in the annexation. Shirl said they owned about 2/10 of an acre in front of Piece Goods. Joe told him in the property description their triangle of property is not included. Richard questioned J. D. about the Section in Title 50 saying there would be no forced annexation until the Impact Zone is in place? J. D. told it would be in effect January 2, 1995. • • Brad Archibald asked about the annexation of Walters Concrete, did they agree to this. John said it had been discussed at length with them and their attorney. They have not disagreed. Where that is Industrial Property, the city can annex them over their objection. J. D. said there has been some discussion of them only using certain streets because of the destruction to the streets. iao ~• Jerry- He is hearing these people want to be annexed, but he has not seen anything in writing that states that they have asked for this annexation. He suggested that in the future all requests for annexation be in writing and submitted to this board. The board asked if we were working off of hearsay. Rose told him that the mayor and Joe had contacted the people. Joe stated he thought that was what the public hearing was for. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie that we annex the property with the zoning as stated in the notice with the exclusion of the Hogland property, Tract 3. Seconded by Marsha Bjornn. All Aye except Brad Archibald voting nay. Jim stated that he felt the Planning Board would have felt more comfortable if they would have heard about this Public Hearing prior to the Public Hearing and had an opportunity to discuss it a little bit. John Millar said he would take some of the blame because he did know about it, but he did agree that we should have discussed and taken a good look it prior to the hearing. Rose told the board that the city council had a pre-hearing and the people came in and discussed it. The board questioned why the council had a pre-hearing, before it came to Planning & Zoning? The board felt they should have been notified of that pre-hearing. Rose told them the mayor had scheduled the people to come and discuss it at council ~ . meeting. Brad said the reason he voted nay was he had not heard anyone from High Country Potato or Thompson Rental and he was concerned that actual owners of the property know or have been informed of what all is implicated. Rose told him they came to the city council. The board felt if they would have had a pre-annexation hearing it would have taken care of the board's concerns. RE: SIGN SIZES AND STUDENT HOUSING SIGNS DISCUSSED TOPIC: (300,120,,,SIGNS,APARTMENTS,STUDENT HOUSING) Mary Ann discussed the signs on student housing. She said she really thought just lettering on the buildings looked nice. John Millar stated that they need to have their name on the apartment somewhere either letters or a reasonable size. During a certain period of the year, they do need to be able to put up a banner, which would go under temporary signs for 30 days. Right now we have them up year around and they are not little signs, they cover half the front of the building. J. D. said when he went down to 17th street, there was no sign bigger than 24 square feet and no sign higher than 20 feet. Discussion on grandfathered signs. John stated that if they are too big they are in violation of the existing ordinance, because in residential areas there is a limit on size of signs. Mary Ann said she would like to require separate lettering on the building or very small signs in residential. Marsha suggested that the signs be part of the landscaping. Jim • suggested that part of the sign ordinance be directed to student housing in residential areas. We have addressed signs in the Zoning Ordinance for Home Occupation. John suggested that if they are going ~ a~~ C to have a free standing sign, we could require it as part of the site plan review. Richard felt the signs should be low and small. Brad asked if anyone had talked to any apartment owners for their input about signs? They might have a good idea for a recommendation. He felt we should at least find out their feelings. John suggested that maybe we need to talk to some of the property owners. The board would table the issue until the next meeting. Rose would contact the Off Campus Housing Association and the Business owners to have spokesman from both groups attend the next meeting to give their input on signs. We need to get newspaper coverage and have a good discussion on it. J. D. recommended that 2 x 4 feet should be a maximum in any residential area, not to exceed eight square feet in a residential zone and not to exceed 24 square feet in a commercial zone. That is the size of the signs on 17th Street. The board agreed that there are a lot of signs on 17th street, but they are not big signs. RE: ANNEXATIONS TOPIC: (300,121,,,ANNEXATIONS,COOK) Mr. Cook arrived late after the Public Hearing for the annexation was closed. John reviewed the recommendation on the annexation and asked Mr Cook for his comments. Mr. Cook asked how it was to be zoned? John told him it was to be L.D.R.1 and Rose gave him a copy of the ordinance to review the zoning. Jerry asked him if he had requested annexation? • Mr Cook told the board he had requested annexation because he wanted to be connected to city water and sewer and to do this he would have to be annexed. John told him there would be another Public Hearing before the City Council on November 16. That would give him time to review the zoning and make public comment at that time. RE: DISCUSSION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR BRAD LARSEN FOR A DUPLEX AT CORNELL AND 3RD SOUTH TOPIC: (300,121,,,C.U.P.,LARSEN*BRAD,APARTMENTS,CORNELL,3RD SOUTH) Discussion the conditional use permit for Brad Larson for a duplex to be built on his property. In old ordinance the property was zoned R1 Residential. R1 minimum lot area was 5500 square feet plus 1500 square feet per dwelling unit, with a minimum lot size being 7000 square feet if you are going to build on it. You can have a 5500 square feet lot, but you can't build on it. When the lot was split, it was split under the old ordinance. He is 4 1/2 square feet short on one lot and 575 short on the other lot to meet the square footage requirement. Therefore when they split the lot they were not in violation of the ordinance unless they wanted to build on it. If it were a single lot, he could ask to put one duplex on it. He divided it just prior to our new ordinance going into effect. He split the lot with no discussion with P & Z. (The board asked Joe to draft a letter to him and send copies of the minutes of previous meetings with Mr Larson.) John read a letter of opposition from the property owners in that area. (copy attached) ~~ `` • RE: DISCUSSION OF ARTERIAL ROAD ON SOUTH END OF TOWN TOPIC: (300,122,,,ARTERIALS) John explained after looking at the property South of town, Joe had put together an alternative road. It is just an idea and had not been discussed with the property owners. It is to some way develop another connection from the property on the south to the interchange. Right now this whole area is served by two roads, the one coming from the east across the railroad tracks by the school, or the one that comes up along the highway and comes in just east of the interchange on main street. This would give another alternative connecting into the south interchange. This is nothing official, just a possibility. Joe stated he just wanted some input if it were desirable. It is an isolated area without somekind of a connection. He had not discussed it with High Country Potato. Possibly they would not want it. (discussion) Richard suggested that before Joe spent a lot of time on it, he should contact High Country Potato. Mr Cook was at the meeting so he was aware of it. The board felt in the best interest to facilitate safety an alternative would be a good idea. The Cooks and High Country would need to give their input. RE: TRAFFIC VOLUME STUDY FOR NEW NURSING HOME TOPIC: (300,122,,,TRAFFIC,NURSING HOMES,2ND SOUTH) As an item of interest, Joe has prepared a traffic volume estimate for ~,, the nursing home. There has been a petition submitted to the city council to review the Planning and Zoning decision on it. (copy) RE: IMPACT ZONE WORK SESSION TOPIC: (300,122,,,IMPACT ZONE) We have a new Draft of Chapter 10 for the Impact Zone. J. D. drafted the draft based on what was presented by Richard a month ago. Richard explained he felt this was the direction we should go. Some of the provisions came out of his proposed draft. Those provisions were only for discussion purposes. The board went through the draft page by page and discussed and made any changes. Dell Barney was at the meeting and expressed areas of concern. (copy of draft and changes will be available) Meeting adjourned. •