Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1995 DATE: (092795} Present were: Chairman: Members: City Clerk: Attorney: Engineer: Planning & Zoning 09/27/95 7:00 p.m. John Millar John Watson Marsha Bjornn Mary Ann Mounts Ted Whyte Davawn Beattie Rose Bagley, Excused J.D. Hancock Joe Laird Janet Williamson was present to take minutes. John Millar called the meeting to order. RE: ZONING ON 5TH WEST FOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR SHOP TOPIC: (400,33,,,ZONING,5TH WEST,AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR,RICHMAN*REED, FERGUSON*ROGER,ZONING ORDINANCE) Reed Richman - 536 Chad Dr. Reed would like to open an automotive repair shop at the old block plant on 5th West between 1st and 2nd 6 ~ South. Tom Price has contacted him and wants to rent storage space from him and store his buses there. John Millar said it was zoned Industrial and storing the buses and maintaining them would be a permitted use. There was a question whether the automotive repair would be permitted. John M. asked if that was what we really intended. Davawn wondered why you could maintain trucks but not cars. Mary Ann felt that it wasn't just left off, there had to be a reason. Some times you don't have as many trucks or buses as cars to be working on. You wouldn't be working on a bus every day. (Discussion) Reed would like to start as soon as possible. It has a block fence and trees and scrubs that would hide a lot. John Watson asked if anyone was aware of why that would not be a permitted use based upon what is surrounding that area. John M. asked if anyone had any objection to an automotive shop going in there. Mary Ann said she did if it didn't fit the ordinance. We have never let anyone else not follow it. John W. said what concerns him is that this is a new ordinance and as these issues are presented to us we discover places that the ordinance does not respond to the situation and so we find that it is the ordinance that may be failing. (Legal procedures concerning a Conditional Use Permit, Zone Change and changing the zoning ordinance were discussed). Legally, to do anything it involves { • approximately 3 months. John W. felt that it was an unreasonable situation to impose upon Reed. If he could see any reason at all that 3~~f it shouldn't go there then he would think otherwise. The ordinance is what is at fault. In the Zoning Ordinance under the Land Use Schedule, under Services on page 28 there is an area called "Automobile repair services (6411)". If his shop falls in this area it would not be permitted in an Industrial Zone. On page 26, under Transportation and Utilities there is an area "Motor freight garaging and maintenance" and another "Automobile parking lots, garages (SLUG 46). If his shop falls under one of these areas it would be permitted in Industrial Zone. A search was made for the SLUG Manual to obtain the detailed definitions of these areas but the manual was not found. A decision could not be made until they see those definitions. John Millar said if the code book says automotive repairs are included in that SLUG 46 then it is a mute point. If not, he would call for a motion that they amend the ordinance to include that as a permitted use in an Industrial Area. John Watson made the motion. Davawn Beattie seconded the motion. Aye: John Watson, Marsha Bjornn, Ted Whyte, Davawn Beattie. Opposed: Mary Ann Mounts. Motion carried. John M. said we would check on it and let Reed know. RE: STORAGE UNITS IN IMPACT ZONE TOPIC: (400,34,,,STORAGE UNITS,SMITH*CONNIE,IMPACT ZONE,ZONE CHANGES) Connie Smith - 75 N. 5th W. and Robert D Hardy, 1740 E 17th Suite C, • Idaho Falls. Ms. Smith would like to build some storage rental units on some property in the Impact Zone. The area is zoned Rural Residential (RR) but there are storage units on both sides of the property where she wants to build. She also intends to put a home on the property. John M. remembered that during the Impact Zone hearings they had all kinds of objections to putting more storage units in in that strip. It would require a Zone Change from RR to HBD. It has been an issue in the past. A lot of the neighbors in the area objected to more commercialization along that strip and therefore it was zoned RR. John explained the steps for a zone change - about 2 months. The time frame was an important factor for Ms. Smith and Mr. Hardy. They will rethink the matter and see if they want to tie up their time for 2-3 months. Davawn Beattie moved to approve the minutes of 9/13/95. Mary Ann Mounts seconded the motion. All Aye. RE: DISCUSSION OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AT 158 N 1ST E TOPIC: (400,34,,,C.U.P.,1ST EAST,BYBEE*KAY,SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, MULTIPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS) Kay Bybee - 158 N. 1st E. Application for a Conditional Use Permit. He bought this home because it was large enough that they could have his mother live with them. They would like to partition off the 2 bedrooms by the garage and enclose the existing garage and make it into a kitchenette. The question was whether they needed a C.U.P. or not • F because of there not being an apartment in it before. John M. said he is making 2 separate living units. That is allowed in LDR-1. Mary Ann 3~ said it family is his own immediate dwelling. It is more family so it doesn't become like remodeling your house. a multiple John M. told him he as long as it is done with the understanding that that will not become a rental unit he will not need a C.U.P. In the f uture, if they should decide to rent it out they would need to come in and seek a C.U.P. and that may or may not be granted. John W. asked a hypothetical question. Were-they saying if he owned a lot, a single family dwelling, and he had a garage there that is not attached to the home, and he wanted to build it in to a little separate living unit and he could take one of his children and put them in that with out a conditional use or any other restrictions and the issue that changes it is when he turns it in to a rental and it is not his immediate family? Is that true in any zone? Mary Ann felt restrictive covenants may try to prohibit that but zoning couldn't. J.D. felt there was a distinction where John W. was talking about a separate building not just enlarging into an attached garage. RE: PARKING LOTS FOR LDS CHURCH REVIEWED TOPIC: (400,35,,,PARKING LOTS,LDS CHURCH,PRELIMINARY PLANS) John Watson presented a preliminary plan for enlarging the parking lot for the 3rd, 9th, 20th Ward Church Building on the corner of 345 South 3rd West. This lot is totally within the block. They are just extending the lot. As he sees it, the one negative is there is only one access/exit (on the NW side). There is one other access that is just East of the church and it is paved but it is very narrow. John W. explained the zoning surrounding the lot: South - HBD, Parking Lot - HBD, North - MDR. One issue is drainage. They cannot get on the storm drainage anywhere so they would propose putting in French drains and contain all the drainage on the site. They will need 10~ for landscaping which they have. They would want to light it and it would basically be "down lighting" because of the residential use on the East side. They would want to extend the lighting system that is already in the existing parking lot and extend the landscape sprinkling system on around. They would put in a 5' high chain link fence with slats from 4th South all around. Setback was reviewed. Page 32, A-2 says he would need 6' setback on the North & East side. Some discussion on whether it would be a side yard (6') or back yard (20'). The board felt 20' was unreasonable. It should be a side yard. John M. said that their intent when they did this was they wanted a buffer between parking areas and residential use. At one time it was 7' and a fence. They changed that with a modification in '93' to allow one or the other. (Discussion) John W. next showed a Preliminary Plan for the 2nd, 5th, & West Main Church at 130 West lst South. The Church has purchased land at 155 W 1st S. This property is South of the Church and across the street, not connected at all. That probably means a separate water service and meter and separate electrical service. One advantage here though is • that they do have a storm drain out in the street So they can hook in to storm drainage.. Zoning around it is: East - MDR, Southeast - HDR, ~~ West - HBD, Parking lot would be HDR except for a stripe on the West ~ side that would be HBD. John W. said the setback was 15' and his understanding is you cannot park in the setback. Can he drive thru the setback if he can get his 10% landscaping else where and there are no parking spaces there? J.D. asked what would prevent people from parking there even if it were not marked. It is closest to the church. (Discussion). Joe said it would not be allowed as a drive thru in the 15' setback. Page 34 in the Zoning Ordinance states. ."not more then 30~ of the front yard shall be covered with concrete, asphalt, or gravel...". John W would like to put a concrete block fence with a chain link fence on top of that on the East side of the lot. Does anyone interpret that as being a violation? He might do it on the West side also. John said he doesn't have to have it on the West side since there were no setback requirements because it abuts a commercial zone. Joe said he would not need a buffer on the East side either but John W. said he wants the concrete fence to stop cars from pulling forward too far on that side. He also wanted the concrete block fence to stop college students from cutting through the lot. The church is very concerned with separating their parking from the apartment complex. John M. said what they could require is a 4' buffer and/or a suitable fence otherwise in compliance with this ordinance of sufficient height and density to screen the two parcels as specified by the Planning & Zoning Commission. Recommendation was a 5 foot cinder block fence. John W. said the short cinder block fence with the chain link fence on top would be less expensive. There was some discussion and it was suggested that he have the drive thru on the East side and more parking on the West side that is closer to the Church. These are only preliminary plans and he will come in with the final plan. John M. handed out the draft plan from the County for them to review. Mary Ann Mounts moved that they adjourn. Davawn Beattie seconded the motion. All Aye. •