Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MAY 10, 1995~~~ DATE: (051095) [, Planning & Zoning 5/10/95 7:00 P. M. Those Present: Acting Chairman: Mary Ann Mounts Members: John Watson Davawn Beattie Ted Whyte Brad Archibald Jim Long Richard Smith Marsha Bjornn Eric Erickson Excused: John Millar City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: J. D. Hancock Engineer: Joe Laird Mary Ann Mounts acted as Chairman of the meeting in the excused absence of John Millar. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie and seconded by Ted Whyte to approve the minutes of April 26. All Aye. f• RE: REQUEST BY LOIS WEBB FOR ZONE CHANGE FOR A TRAILER COURT TOPIC: (300,191,,,WEBB*LOIS,ZONING,TRAILER COURTS,4TH SOUTH,TRAFFIC, SAFETY COMMITTEE) Lois Webb request to change the zoning for a Trailer Court. (showing plans) The property is next to Les Schwab Tire next to Pearson Trailer Court off of 4th South. There is one lot in between this lot and Les Schwab. They would like to put in eight trailers with a park to play on and do everything up to code for a trailer court, but it isn't two acres which it requires in the city ordinance. They would like to own all the trailers and rent them out to young married couples. They would buy used trailers and recarpet them and paint them and make them nice. It is now zoned at H.B.D. Richard stated that because it does not meet the acreage factor she would need both a zone change and a variance. Jim questioned why the ordinance stated they have to have 2 acres, if they comply with the square foot per trailer? The lot next to this property is owned by Lamoyne Munk and he is asking too much money for the property. They would enter the property on the west side of a big cotton wood tree. The traffic danger on that corner was discussed. They asked if they could put storage units on the property. They would need a conditional use permit for storage units. Mary Ann read the qualifications for a variance 6.12. Richard felt they qualified because number 1 they are here addressing size and they are adjacent to another mobile home park. He had a problem because it states "the need for a variance is also the physical circumstances of the property, such circumstances generally include size". To him that ~' is why they are at this meeting. They are adjacent to H.D.R, which would allow a trailer court. It was suggested to Lois that she check with the businesses across the street about their feeling of having this trailer court across from them. Discussion if they go the route of storage units. They felt that would create less traffic. With a conditional use permit we can require specific things. The Traffic and Safety Committee needs to look at it. Eric suggested that Webbs get an agreement with the adjacent trailer court for joint venture with separate ownerships. We would need a copy of the joint use contract. That way they would not need a variance. RE: FINAL PLAT OF THE BUSINESS PARK & PROTECTIVE COVENANTS PRESENTED TOPIC: (300,192,,,BUSINESS PARK,PLATS,PROTECTIVE COVENANTS,SITE PLANS, LANDSCAPING,SIDEWALKS) Glen Halverson, Forsgren Associates, to present the final plat of the Business Park and Protective Covenants. The board reviewed the plan and the protective covenants. Jim Long felt they need to be more specific about landscaping in the covenants as is stated in the zoning ordinance. Richard told Mr Halverson they need to address in the protective covenants the sidewalks as was stated in the motion that was made at the last meeting. (discussion) We have mandatory site plan review by Planning & Zoning. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie to accept the plat for the Business Park and that the Protective Covenants be brought back with the corrections mentioned above. Seconded by John Watson. All Aye Mary Ann asked Glen to bring the Protective Covenants back with the corrections. Ted questioned that there was on exit on the South of the Business Park toward Ultimate Directions. Joe told him they did not want to be part of it. RE: REVIEW OF THE PLAT FOR ARTCO TOPIC: (300, 192,,,PLATS,ARTCO,SIDEWALKS) The board reviewed the plat for Artco. After reviewing the plat because it is separate from the Business Park, Richard recommended that because the plat does not show sidewalks, we need something legal and binding as where the sidewalks will be. We need further information before we can approve this. When this board does a plan review we can check for sidewalks. • ( . RE: SALVAGE YARD NORTH OF TOWN TOPIC: (300,193,,,SALVAGE YARDS,C.U.P.) Salvage Yard- Mary Ann stated as she understood it is not allowed in any zone. Eric- His opinion is if it requires a zone change to Industrial Zone, he would be against the zone change, but he would like to see us allow. the use with the existing zone. Richard said he went through the zoning ordinance and quoted page 50 it qualifies under a Conditional Use Permit under table 2 gage 27 and page 8 junk yards are defined. The front area qualified for retail. It could be qualified for a recycling center. The board had a problem with zoning it industrial. page 11 defines a recycling center. Discussion on protecting the two residents, it is zoned H.B.D. and the residents are grandfathered. The veteranan clinic is not allowed in H.B.D, but is grandfathered. Most people do not want an operation like is in Idaho Falls, but this is going to be a clean operation and he is going to turn over the cars every 20 to 30 days. Mary Ann read a letter from Sugar City Council. (on file) Ted stated he felt bad for the residents along there, but they are still in a commercial area. Discussion on if this is defined in our ordinance. Richard felt we should look at the entire table in our zoning book and review whether this body should have more discretion in granting conditional use permits throughout the whole thing. We need to look at ` • some of our definitions. We don't have a definition for his operation. It was felt it should be a Conditional Use Permit in a H.B.D. The definitions in the zoning ordinance does not fit his. operation, he is somewhere between a junk yard and a recycling center. It was felt this board should go to City Council and tell them what we are doing and why. (1) This board feels that this should fall under the definition of other. 2) Reviewing his proposed business operation, he qualifies for at least a consideration of a conditional use permit and falls under other because the business is undefined. The intent behind the junk yard definition does not address his operation. (discussion of store owners storing used appliances behind their stores) This type of an operation would help clean up used vehicles around our community, because he stated he would go pick them up and dismantle them and crush them. RE: SIDEWALK RESOLUTION DISCUSSED TOPIC: (300,193,,,SIDEWALKS,RESOLUTIONS} Sidewalk Resolution - Jim was concerned about the part that states if the city repairs your street that would open it up to enforcing an L.I.D. so they can impose a sidewalk. Brad was concerned if you buy a lot without a sidewalk, in 30 days you are required to put your (30) feet of sidewalk in and that is all the sidewalk that is on the street, he was against that. ~~ Ted was concerned because someone would buy a lot and it will be 20 or • 30 years until they build. Eric thought they should put something in that it would be required when the lot is developed. Ted- thought it should be spelled out. {discussion) Ted told the .board if the sidewalk is put in before construction, the cement trucks and other construction equipment will tear the sidewalk up. (expense of sidewalk discussed) Richard stated that it should be at least 30 days following final construction or in no event longer than two years for a vacant lot. It was also suggested that you don't want sidewalk in until construction. Ted suggested that the last few lots he has sold are to young couples that need four to five years to pay off the lot and then they have $10,000 to $15,000 equity and then they can go to the bank and ask for a construction loan. (discussion) Suggestions: (Paragraph 1) Change to 30 days following completion of construction and no event to exceed 3 years for a vacant lots or existing homes. Straw vote- 5 for - 3 against (Paragraph 2) As it reads. 8 for - 1 against (Paragraph 3} All in favor except the wording needs to be changed a • little. Ted did not feel good about requiring sidewalks on existing homes within a certain period of time, because he knew how hard couples are struggling to get into a home and if you require a sidewalk 30 days after closing, it would be hard. You should not jeopardize a young family or an older couple from getting a home. A motion was made by Ted Whyte that the city uses a L.I.D. to enforce construction of sidewalks except for new construction which will be required to be completed 30 days after completion of construction. (he said most people could afford $200 a year for an L.I.D. but can't afford it at the time they acquire ownership) Seconded by Jim Long. All Aye Meeting Adjourned •