Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES SEPTEMBER 13, 1995~~ DATE: (091395) Planning & Zoning 9/13/95 7:00 P. M. • Present were: Chairman: Members: City Clerk: Attorney: Engineer: John Millar John Watson Jim Long Marsha Bjornn Mary Ann Mounts Ted Whyte Davawn Beattie-arriving at 7:50 p.m. Rase Bagley Steve Zollinger Joe Laird RE: PAVING AT PARK PLACE APARTMENTS TOPIC: (400,28,,,PAVING,SCHWENDIMAN*RANDY,APARTMENTS,LANDSCAPING, PARK PLACE APARTMENTS,MAIN STREET,SETBACKS,PARKING) Park Place Paving- Randy Schwendiman was at the meeting to discuss the paving at Park Place Apartments on East Main. John Millar told him there had been discussion about the paving where they paved the setback area and planter strip area between the sidewalk and the curb. Our ordinance requires that be in a landscaped situation. It was paved and a letter was mailed out to tell them it was in violation. Randy Schwendiman stated he guessed they should have checked before they paved it. He said they are short of parking and it was just in weeds. We looked up the street and down the street and went ahead and did it. He wanted to know if there were any alternatives. It would be hard to put landscaping in because they sterilized the ground under the paving. John Millar asked if the intent was to use part of it in parking? Randy told him that was the intent. Jim Long stated the Ordinance addresses it as it should be and for a good reason. He explained that as a Landscape Architect he designs things like that and he is also on the tree commission, so he probably looks at it at a narrow point of view from their side of the fence. He feels it was the owner that should have taken care of the weeds. The board told him he has put parking on the city right-a-way and in the setback area and the existing ordinance and previous ordinance did not allow that. Discussion on the paving at Upper Valley Industries. It is zoned C.B.D. and the apartments are in H.D.R. and requirements are different. That same zoning has been in for 30 years. It was suggested that there were some alternatives, putting planter wells in the parkway and put street trees in and do somekind of a buffer landscaping into the setback area. Randy stated that was a condominium association but most of them-are rented. There has always been just one parking place per apartment, so there is no parking for any visitors and no parking for anyone that has two cars and that is the way it has been since day one. They used to •- • park on the property next door until they put a fence up, but Randy ~ Porter owned a unit and just let them park there, but he has sold it. He said he was at the meeting to see what the alternatives were. Joe said according to the ordinance it needs to be landscaped in the 25 foot set back area. After discussion, John Millar told him this board does not have any alternatives, and suggested that he come back with an alternative, but as far as leaving it as parking that is in clear violation of the ordinance. The board told him about several times we have had to make people comply with the ordinance and sometimes they have had to take things out that they have put in. A motion was made by Jim Long and seconded by Ted Whyte to approve the minutes of August 23, 1995. All Aye RE: PAPA MURPHY'S SITE PLAN VIOLATION TOPIC: (400,29,,,PAPA MURPHYS,SITE PLANS,LANDSCAPING,PARKING) Papa Murphy's site plan. No one was at the meeting to represent Papa Murphys. Joe had done some measuring on it and showed a plan approved and one as built. As built the 10% of parking amounts to 1429 square feet, the landscaping they have amounts to 1090 leaving a deficit of about 339 square feet. That could be made up with either a four or five foot landscaped strip along the building to the south or could be two parking places square in the corner or could be a strip of landscaping along the east side of the building. The board stated that they need to comply with the ordinance. RE: (BRANDON RUDD VARIANCE FOR LOT AT 241 W 3RD NORTH DISCUSSED TOPIC: (400,29,,,RUDD*BRANDON,VARIANCES,LOT SIZES,3RD NORTH) Brandon Rudd Variance for lot approximately 241 West 3rd North. Their mother was at the meeting to address it. She said she had received a letter from Joe Laird. (copy attached) When they purchased the land the letter said that the sale to them by Gary Clements was in violation because of the lot size. As they came in town and asked about the lot about adding on or putting a double wide trailer on the lot, she was told she could, but would need a variance if the property wasn't big enough. The letter does not say anything about them selling the property. Now they sold the home and have this piece of property that they want to build a home on. (she discussed the letter she received) They purchased this property with a fence on it dividing the property for the house from this piece of property that they wanted to put the house on. It was purchased as a lot and a half, it wasn't purchased as a whole one piece of property. When we asked Rose what we could put on the lot, Rose told us what was allowed and asked if it was a full lot and if not they would need to come and get a variance. They thought that piece of land was theirs and they could do with what they wanted. They are presenting a plan for a new home and they feel they are in compliance to a variance. They have approached Mr Merrill about purchasing 18 feet of property. He is not interested in selling it to us unless he builds our home. The only other option is that he would purchase their property. At one time he was willing to purchase it but not for the market value. a'* i¢ " - John Millar told her the problem we run in to with this is we all have to live by a set of rules. There are lots all over town that are almost big enough for two lots and if we say it is okay you did it unknowingly with a substandard lot. He told her the only way we know is if we see a legal description and see what transpired with the property. If you bought the whole piece of property and sold off part of the property, the residual part was substandard. You basically created the violation yourself. she claimed it was already created because of the fence line. John told her a fence did not mean a property line. (discussion) A HUD trailer was on the lot. She was told that HUD trailers were put on any lot available. Mary Ann asked if the fence was there long enough would it qualify as a lot? Steve Zollinger stated that there is a thing called "lot and block" in the State of Idaho. If a lot has been divided by fences and has been that way for a long time, the lots will become lots even if they are nonconforming. 5t Anthony just had that happen. Apiece of property that has been cut up into lots either by fences or deeds that are non conforming lots even if they have been merged unless they have been technically merged in the courthouse. If this has been deeded as two separate parcels and one of them is a nonconforming parcel, then the fence is enough to keep it and maintained under certain circumstances as a lot all owned by the same person. This has to have been established and served a purpose at some point in time. Steve asked her if it was deeded to them as two pieces of property, if it was one deed then that is different. John told her the fact is a point of law that it was created as as a sub standard lot, but we would have Steve look into the "lot-block" law. John Millar stated, for the record, that he has no vested interest in that property but LaMont Merrill is his brother-in-law. RE: INTEREST IN PURCHASING THE AMDAHL BUILDING TOPIC: (400,30,,,AMDAHL,ZONING ORDINANCE,C.U.P.) Matt Smith was at the meeting. They are interested in buying the Amdahl Building for a long term residence facility. The question is what category should this fall under in the zoning ordinance? They are looking at a 42 bed facility for adolescents from 11 to 17 years of age. They will be treating a number of different issues, primarily conduct disorder type of behaviors. Average stay will be between 6 and 18 months. They would have a staff at a ration of 1 for every 6 adolescents. John Millar said we don't have anything in this ordinance to say this allowed in the HBD category. Due to the use and due to the lack of category, he felt we need to consider it as a Conditional Use and hold a public hearing and get the pulse of the community. Mr Smith was asked if it was a lock down type? Mr Smith there would be a six foot chain link fence around it. There will be a secluded room that will be locked for kids that are behavior out of control. the zoning is H.B.D. Ted Whyte declared a conflict of interest, because he is handling the transaction. Mr Smith said they have a contract with the State due October 1. In the U.B.C. it classifies that type of a facility the same as a jail or a detention lock down facility. (discussion) In Idaho Falls it is allowed in an R3 zone. John felt it ,~ ~` ! ~` was a gray enough area that we probably should go through a Conditional ~ Use Permit. They told the board they had at one time gotten a determination from the Attorney General's office on their treatment facility and it falls under a category of a hospital. Steve told them to bring that determination in and he and the chairman would review it. If there is an A.G. opinion that it is a hospital, you would have the A.G.'s blessing. They were told to bring that decision in and give it to Rose. RE: RICKS COLLEGE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT TOPIC: (400,31,,,RICKS COLLEGE) Chuck Frost was at the meeting to show P&Z a plan of Ricks College Future Development. RE: PLANS FOR HORTENSE BUILDING - ARTCO EXPANSION TOPIC: (400,31,,,HORTENSE BUILDING,ARTCO,SITE PLANS) John Watson declared a conflict of interest and presented the plans for the Hortense Building, the Artco Expansion. He had revised the plan to meet the recommendations of this Committee at the last meeting. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie and seconded by Jim Long to approve the site plan as revised and as reviewed by Joe. All Aye • Meeting adjourned. NILE L. BOYLE AIAYOfl ROSE BAGLEY CLERK RICHARD NORNER TREASURER 8 FINANCIAL OFFICEfl August 25, 1995 Mr. Brandon Ruud 75 North 5th West #13 Rexburg, Idaho 83440 P.O. BOX 280 12 NORTH CENTER STREET REXBURG, IDAHO 83440 PI10NE (208) 359-302D FAX (208) 359-3022 RE: Your application for a variance for a 41.5'x160' tract of land at approximately 241 West 3rd North Dear Mr. Ruud, The City has researched the history of the sale of the subject tract of land at the Madison County Clerk's Office.- Under Instrument Na. 2419863 f the subject tract was deeded from Gary Clements to Clifford Gough on 12/30/93. This sale was in violation of Section 4.3 - Sale of Lots Below Minimum Space Requirements and Section 8.8 - Nonconforming Lots of Record of the City's Zoning Ordinance. As the sale of the tract of land violated the Zoning Ordinance and created the below minimum size, we cannot now consider granting a variance for so--created below minimum lot size. In an LDR-1 Zone, the minimum lot area is 8000 square feet and the minimum lot width is 60 feet. You would, therefore, need to acquire an additional 18.5 feet of width to bring the tract of land up to the minimum 60 foot lot width. Very Truly Yours, ~~~, ~. ~~ ~__ Joseph A. Laird, P.E. CITY ENGINEER / BUILDING OFFICIAL JAL/jw cc: J.D. Hancoclt Rose Bagley Planning & Zoning Members 0 Q ~ ~ ~~' ~ ~Q/l lI° STATE OF IDAHO 3~ •