Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JULY 26, 1995• DATE: (072695) Planning & Zoning 7/26/95 7:00 P. M. Present were: Chairman: John Millar Members: John Watson Jim Long Mary Ann Mounts Ted Whyte Davawn Beattie Brad Archibald Marsha Bjornn Excused: Eric Erickson Mary Ann took charge of the meeting until John Millar arrived at 7:40 P.M. A motion was made by Jim Long and seconded by Davawn to approve the minutes. All Aye RE: REQUEST FOR A C.U.P. FOR STUDENT HOUSING BY KEVIN ALLCOTT TOPIC: (400,11,,,C.U.P.,STUDENT HOUSING,5TH SOUTH,3RD WEST, ALLCOTT*KEVIN) • Kevin Allcott was at the meeting to request a Conditional Use Permit to develope a student housing complex containing 24 - 6 Student Apartments on the property located at the Northeast Corner of the intersection of 5th South and 3rd West. Joe had reviewed the plans and they have adequate landscaping, adequate parking, adequate setbacks and the sidewalk is back near the property line so there is a landscaped strip between the curb line and the sidewalk. {discussion) Davawn complemented him on the application. A motion was made by Ted Whyte and seconded by Jim Long to schedule it for public hearing. All Aye RE: LINEAL FOOT CHARGE AND SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS DISCUSSED TOPIC: (400,11,,,LINEAL FOOT CHARGE,SIDEWALKS,WATER,SEWER) Lineal Foot charge and Sidewalk requirements. Ted Whyte declared a conflict of interest. Adrian Baird- He is in the process of building a house on 1st South 3rd East across the street from the Kenwood Apartments. He has a concern about the Lineal foot charge for water and sewer. He is in opposition to that because it seems unfair. There is no sewer on that street. He is in the process of putting that sewer in, if he puts the sewer in does he still have to pay the lineal foot charge for sewer? He recommended that we take a look at that fee. He has 150 feet across the front that he will be assessed on. There is an alley way along the side and there is some concern as to who owns that alley. He recommended that a Dead End or Local Traffic sign be posted there. Students that go down there end up turning around in peoples yards to get out of the alley. He does • not see what the purpose of the lineal foot fee is? Joe stated if the city has put a water or sewer line in front of the property they feel they should be reimbursed for the amount they have basically put out ~- for it. He told Mr Baird in his case if there is no line in front of your property, it would not be applicable for the sewer lineal charge. Mr Baird said the water line was in there and asked if he would have to pay the lineal foot charge for that. Joe said he would unless the line was put in by a developer. Mr Baird said he assumed the water and sewer lines had been in for a number of years and it seemed that-those doing new construction are getting an unfair fee they are being assessed, where those that have been on the line are not getting that fee attached to them. Mary Ann told him she thought she understood his situation, but the Planning & Zoning does not pass the ordinances. Lee Gagner representing Homestead Construction was at the meeting. They have built about 350 homes in Eastern Idaho in the past two years. They specialize in a starter home for young people. They just finished three homes on West 1st North, one on Harvard and have two more going now. They are looking at a piece of property. They try to deal with that market and need to get the land costs low. They try to specialize on infill in cities. After reading the ordinance on the lineal foot charge, he interprets it when you talk about the $10 water fee and the $10 sewer fee for water and sewer line and it stated "If the city places stub-outs from a main sewer or water line accessible to an owner's property, the property owner shall reimburse the city for the cost of said stub-out when the property owner obtains a permit to hook-up to a city sewer or water line." On Harvard there is a sewer and • water line in the street, if we take a parcel and build on three or four lots and if we paid the $10 for sewer and $10 for water would that mean the city would go in the street and do the stub outs to the property? Joe told him_the intent of the stub out is if the city were paving a street and we had to put a water line and stub out water services so we did not have to come back and tear up a new street. The city would have a cost of those service lines that they would assess against the adjacent service lines. Mr Gagner stated that in other communities Pocatello and Idaho Falls they always pay sewer and water charges on new construction. This is the first time in Eastern Idaho where we had to pay a $10 lineal foot for water and sewer and then go into the main ourselves and put the water and sewer stubs to the property. He was concerned to what this does in this case on a 60 foot lot if they pay another $1200 and put the water and sewer lines themselves to the street it appears that they are paying double. Those that are trying to beautify the city and build on infill lots have feelings that they are concerned about building affordable housing. He asked that the city reconsider the ordinance on the basis that he did not think if the intent was to try to get infill in Rexburg it is going to be negative. The difference would be whether they would come in and build 5 or 6 houses or just let the property sit and try to create a new subdivision outside of town or build on a lot outside of town. They also have a concern about the sidewalk if it is put in prior to • construction they would be concerned about breaking it up during the construction. There is not a question about putting in a sidewalk, ~~ . the timing and when to put the sidewalk in is the question. It adds a cost to the lot of $1200 for a 60 foot lot. He stated that most cities put the water and sewer to the property line or they pay the fee, but not both. Mary Ann told him we don't handle this type of thing in Planning & Zoning but the sidewalk issue is our concern. Ted Whyte declared a conflict because he sells houses of these people. He was hoping we could get educated tonight to see the exact concerns he has addressed before. He would like someone to make a motion so city council would address the issue again. Jim said if we are dealing with infill it is a P&Z concern. J. R. Hayes-With Homestead Construction. What they were hoping on the water and sewer is a recommendation from P&Z. They have also had the experience recently on 1st North bringing water and sewer into three lots that were not there previously. If this new ordinance had been in effect then it would have cost us another $3600 plus all the other costs to hook up the city water and sewer system. They had to dig for the sewer lines 13 feet deep out in the street. They would like a recommendation from this group to the city council that if we are going to get these infill lots taken care of so we don't have weed patches here and there we need to make it affordable for everyone. • He would like to address the sidewalk issue. They are concerned from the standpoint the way the ordinance is written, you have 30 days to put the sidewalk in. They have a concern with that. They bought a lot on Cul de sac Street and had to replace the entire walk because there is houses built on both sides of it and as you build there, you start taking equipment across the sidewalk and loads of concrete and you tear the sidewalk up or if you have to go out into the street to put in services you loose the sidewalk. You are tieing their hands, you are saying get it in there and yet we know that we are going to destroy it and have to do it over. They would like the ordinance to read that the sidewalk be tied with completion of the house so it has to be put in 30 days of the time they get the certificate of occupancy, weather permitting. There are sometimes of the year you cannot pour concrete. This is the problem on an infill lot, if you build in a subdivision and there are lots that you can have access then it is a different situation. Ted stated that a lot of times people buy lots for speculation or plan to build two years down the road, with the ordinance the way it is written you buy your lot spend another $1000 pouring a sidewalk wait two years to pay it off. Then you start your construction and tear up the sidewalk. Mr Hayes stated that in Idaho Falls they are buying 35 lots at a time and if they had to go in when they buy the lots and put the sidewalks in not only would it be a big expense, but there would be a lot we • would have to replace. ~~ Mary Ann stated that a lot of the concern is that if they allow the • people to move in it would be more difficult give them their Certificate of Occupancy. Then they don't put their sidewalk in. Mr Hayes said what happens to them when the walks are not in (possibly in the winter) there is 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 times the cost of putting that walk in held by the lender and they don't get that money. This is an incentive to get the cement in as soon as possible so they can get their money. At closing that money is held up and they don't get it until all the work is done. John Watson stated that way the city of Idaho Falls handle it is they require a general contractor's license and they require that contractor to furnish a bond to the city and what it does is give the city building official some leverage. If they are not getting satisfaction from the work that is done they notify the bonding company and get it done. Davawn said one concern is someone comes in and buys a bunch of property and they build on one lot .and put a sidewalk but the next one. is vacant and has no sidewalk. So we have one spot with a sidewalk and two that don't. What we are hoping is that we will get sidewalks on streets. Davawn said he would like to see the house done and the sidewalk put in, but the property that isn't going to be developed we need to have j' sidewalks if the property changes hands. Mr Hayes said it would depend . on if we bought lots in town. It won't be worth it to come in and take these lots that are a little distressed and bring them up to speed. You can go around and see what we have done and we are trying to build on these lots and make them look nice. On 1st North it is the only sidewalk on that block. J. D. said he just put a sidewalk on his property down the block and he told him Rexburg's building fees are only 3/4 of those in Pocatello. The permit fees are at a discount in Rexburg. Mr Hayes said that is not true, it cost $700 more to build right now in Rexburg than Idaho Fa11s for all the fees. J. D. argued that the U.B.C, are the fees we charge. Mr Hayes said the water and sewer are more (discussion between Mr Hayes and J. D.). Ted said it is the same thing, he has sold lots in Cresthaven, Sherwood Hi11s, Indian Hills and it is a year before they build and the way it is written they are required to put a sidewalk in, and it needs to be passed on to the person building the home at the time of completion of the structure puts the sidewalk in. Young couples save up to buy a $12000 lot and it takes 2 years to pay that off and that becomes their down payment for their construction loan. They can't afford to pay the $12,000 for the lot and put another $1000 for sidewalk and turn around and start construction after they have the lot paid off and tear up the sidewalk and turn around and put the sidewalk in again when it is completed. Ted said there are a lot of undeveloped lots. Glen Pond stated the lot across from him, the Orson Smith property, if S Lewis was to sell that property under the ordinance the council passed,. ~h . -~ • which he had objections to, people can't now buy that property without going in immediately and putting in a sidewalk all along half that block. John Millar said that would be 330 feet on one side. Glen said it would be prohibitive. How will they sell it and who would buy it if they had to put sidewalk in before they put a house on it. He said he understood what they are talking about. Ted said there is no sidewalk at all on 4th West and there are three homes for sale on that street. The way it is written the new buyers or the seller is required to put a sidewalk in. There are no other sidewalks there and the street is already narrow. • John Millar stated he could see the point, but how can we get it so we can get sidewalks? Ted stated that when we put an overlay on a street if we would notify the homeowners on each side of the street saying we are doing an overlay on lst North this summer in August save your money you will be required to put a sidewalk at that time. As we upgrade the streets then is the time to do it. John Millar said if you ask people to put in a sidewalk, they aren't going to do it, unless it is an L.I.D. Ted asked who is the policing authorities as the ordinance is written? Instead it will become an issue of the loan. Mr Gagner stated if you get the costs up too high you will not sell these infill lots. RE: PARK PLACE APARTMENT LANDSCAPING TOPIC: (400,15,,,APARTMENTS,PARK PLACE APARTMENTS,LANDSCAPING) No one from the Park Place Apartment Landscaping issue was at the meeting to comment on the asphalt they put in. Joe reported that he, the mayor and Rose went over and talked to them about the asphalt they put in instead of what was there previously. Ron Laird said he was coming to the meeting tonight to discuss it. Jim Long stated what is there to discuss he broke the law. Joe said Mr Laird felt he had made an improvement with the asphalt instead of the weeds. Brad said most of the time you know the law, but maybe these people were not informed of the law, and Mr Laird thought he was fixing his property up. RE: RICKS COLLEGE FENCE CONCERNS TOPIC: (400,15,,,RICKS,FENCES,SCHOOLS) Ricks College fence concerns. Davawn declared a conflict. Their existing fences had barb wire on the top on 2nd East, on 2nd South and a lot of other public areas close to public sidewalks and they are taking off the barb wire and cutting off the posts and staying at the 6 foot level, however they are still breaking the law in as much as they are not back as far as they should be. A good share of them are grandfathered. They are concerned because they still have a field fence on 7th South and 2nd East. Glen stated that 7th South is the College property. Davawn said near the Senior Citizens Center is city property. John Millar stated that fence was there before the street. Davawn stated that they want to be in compliance and they are doing • everything they can. They took the barb wire off the top on 2nd East and put smooth wire. On the Intermural Field south of the old trailer court, on 1st West they installed a new fence with the proper setback ,~ but they are one foot higher with that fence than the ordinance • requires, it is 4 feet high but is back 17 feet. John Millar told him it only has to be 3 feet high back to the setback line. As long as they are still farming, they would like permission to continue with the fence as they are now. John Millar thought that the fence on 2nd East has been there since it was a dirt road and would probably predate our ordinance and would be grandfathered. (discussion on fences and liability) Davawn stated another concern is the fence at the football field on 2nd South on the north end which has been there since the 1960's and they need it for crowd control but yet they want to be in compliance. He was told again it was grandfathered. They are about to develope a new baseball field and a new soccer field and they want to be in compliance. (discussion on fence regulations for schools) John Millar told him any fence put in before 1968 when the original ordinance went into affect isn't even a discussion issue if it is maintained. Possibly anything before our current ordinance is probably not an issue because the old ordinance wasn't too clear. Davawn said they are going to extent the intermural field off of 7th South. They will extend it north and that is the new baseball field and soccer field and a parking lot. If they extend the fences to match the one on the east they would go right down the sidewalk on 1st west. (discussion) • A suggestion was made by Mary Ann that we need to look at an amendment dealing with fences for schools, institutions and public use facilities. It was decided at the next meeting to have a work meeting. John stated that we probably need to modify the ordinance and asked that every one go through the tables and see if we need to make some changes in the table. Mary Ann stated that she wanted to apologize if she seemed to lose her temper at the last meeting. She didn't feel she did, but she did not want to apologize for what she said. What she said was a fact not an opinion. She had called Ranae Magee to see if it was appropriate for her to make that. comment at the meeting. She told her it was appropriate. We had already made a decision that we were not going to deal with it as defined in our ordinance as a junkyard. Her purpose was to let them know they had a right to impose conditions, but did a poor job of it. Marsha- She felt as a board having a hearing meant we were there to listen. To have a verbal exchange back and forth is unprofessional and causes people to be upset. As they talk we can write notes and at a certain time after the hearing is closed or the chairman asks if-the board has comment then we bring it up, but not to go back and forth. Even tonight it places us in a bad light to be arguing with the public. We should reserve that for an appropriate time. . John Millar stated that our only rules are in the Zoning Ordinance and beyond that we should not give our personal opinions. Marsha-.there ~ "1 • were things we could have all said that night and it got out of hand. (discussion) John Millar said what we need to do, we are here to hear the public at a public hearing they have their chance to make their statement then we can ask questions to clarify what they are meaning. We need to be careful we don't raise issues that they didn't raise. We do need to close the hearing then and if we want to ask additional questions then we can do that. At another meeting only if it is on the agenda we can discuss an issue. John cautioned the board not to discuss the Tom Goe issue outside of an open meeting. It is hard not to listen to them if they come to talk to you, but you can't discuss it with them. (discussion) John Millar stated another issue we need to be careful about for lack of a better example, a year or two ago there was a proposed car wash across the street from Adams School. A lot of the discussion centered around a large pine tree that was there. In reality if it isn't in the ordinance it is none of our business. About 8:00 A.M. the next morning Dave Walters pushed the tree over with a loader. We need to be careful that we are not letting personal ideas bias or supersede the ordinance. (discussion) RE: MORE DISCUSSION ON LINEAL FOOT CHARGES TOPIC: (400,17,,,LINEAL FOOT CHARGES,WATER,SEWER,SIDEWALKS) Ted asked the board to give some input about the lineal foot issue and • the sidewalk issue. John Watson suggested that we check the charges in other cities. Glen Pond told them one of the reasons we put the lineal foot charge in was sometime someone had to contribute to the water and sewer on that section of line that no one to this point in time has paid for it except for the city or developers. (discussion including on fees and sidewalks) The feeling of the board was that it was not fair to make them put the sidewalks in and then during construction the sidewalks get broken and they have to put the sidewalk in again. When the P&Z made a recommendation to city council before that was not what they recommended. Glen stated that the sidewalk resolution was passed over his objections. He said if someone wanted to buy a vacant lot like the one across from him they couldn't buy it because of the sidewalk issue. Ted stated that is the whole issue. They are trying to buy a piece of property between Harvard and 2nd West. They probably won't build until next year but the way it is written right now, we have to put the sidewalks in now and there are five building lots and it would cost $1200 per lot plus the lineal foot charge and then digging in the street, you raise the price of the building lot $3000 each. Joe suggested that the easiest would be with an L.I.D. He did not know how he could enforce it because he does not know when a lot is sold. (discussion) A motion was made by Marsha Bjornn to recommend to the City Council that they reconsider the 30 day regulation on sidewalks. Seconded by Mary Ann Mounts. All Aye except Ted who abstained. Meeting Adjourned.