Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES OCTOBER 25, 1995~~ t( a DATE: (102595) • Planning & Zoning 10/25/95 7:00 P. M. Those Present: Chairman: John Millar-arriving at 7:30 P. M. Members: Jim Long Mary Ann Mounts Davawn Beattie Marsha Bjornn Richard Smith City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: J. D. Hancock Engineer: Joe Laird RE: GNEITING/BELL TRAILER COURT TOPIC: (400,38,,,TRAILER COURTS,GNEITING*GAYLEN,GRANDFATHER CLAUSE) Mary Ann Mounts started the meeting. Gneiting/Bell Trailer Court- Jill Beckley from Century 21 was at the meeting to discuss this issue. At 247 and 257 North 2nd West a trailer court owned by Gaylen Gneiting adjoins a piece of property owned by Bells which has trailers on as well. It appears as one trailer court. Mrs Bell wants to sell her property to someone who will replace the trailers with new ones. This is on a LDR1 zone. Richard stated that it would not discontinue the • use just change ownership on the property. The use has existed for a number of years. Jim felt it would never be usable for anything else. Mary Ann stated that the trailers were there when we did the zoning ordinance so the use is grandfathered. The board felt it was grandfathered and told her to go ahead and and sell the property. RE: B.M.C. WEST PARKING SITE PLAN TOPIC: (400,38,,,B.M.C. WEST,SITE PLANS,PARKING,FENCES) Mike Glass, representing B.M.C. West Parking Site Plan. They have negotiated with Steiner to purchase the ground where the old grains bins were. They hope to use the ground for storage of their material, for unloading and loading of trucks and some parking. They will enter the yard from 2nd West. Right now his employees are parking over on Horkley lot on the corner. They want to extend the fence with the maximum height with barb wire tilted in on top. ,Toe stated that the problems we have is (1) fencing & paving the parking storage lot, (2) the 10~ landscaping, (3) parking on the street, and {4) sidewalk. He was told it would fall under Open Storage Area. He plans in the future to black top the lot and put in some parking. He would need to fence it {fencing will be discussed later in the meeting). Where he extends the fence he will need to post a sign no parking in the setback area. He will be required right now to have one loading space paved. He will be required to put sidewalk in on the expansion area. When the parking is put in it will have to be • screened. His other parking would be grandfathered. 3~ . RE: INTERMOUNTAIN BLOCK PROPERTY WON BE MIKE FERGUSON TOPIC: (400,39,,,C.U.P.,ZONE CHANGE,ZONING,FERGUSON*MIKE,5TH WEST, AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR) Intermountain Block Property owned by Mike Ferguson- This issue was discussed at a prior meeting. It was set up for a Zone Change and a Conditional Use Permit and was published in the paper. Mike called John Millar and said he did not want a zone change because it limits his future sale options. The Use that is proposed there is a auto repair shop which under our ordinance as it stands is not allowed in Industrial. We are planning to discuss this tonight if that is something we want to change? They also wanted to house buses at that location, which is allowed in Industrial Zone. J. D. reported he had talked to Re Nae Magee and she looked in the Standard Land Use book category charts and she said if you are going to preserve Industrial strictly as Industrial and make it attractive for Industrial users who manufacture things from raw materials that is an entirely different angle than the uses that are permitted in HBD or CBD. That was a block manufacturing business and that is why they maintained it in Industrial. Richard questioned it because buses and large trucks are permitted and also maintaining of them. John stated we would table it and go through it with the ordinance changes and modify our ordinance. • RE: DISCUSSION OF CHANGES TO ZONING ORDINANCE TOPIC: (400,39,,,ZONING ORDINANCE) (1) Table 2 Land Use Schedule-Should an automobile repair shop be allowed in an Industrial Zone? Page 28- A Motion was made by Richard Smith and seconded by Davawn Beattie to add to the table that Automobile Repair Service (6411) and Electrical Repair Service (6491} be allowed in Industrial Zone with a Conditional Use Permit. All Aye Should there be building permits for fences. In the U.B.C. a permit is not required. John did not feel it was a Zoning Issue. (discussion) This is a council decision. A motion was made by Richard Smith that we give a vote of support for Joe in his recommendation for permits for fences. Seconded by Davawn Beattie. All Aye 2. Height, type, screening and location of fences. Right now our ordinance requires in all areas a 15 foot setback. There are numerous area around town where that is not in compliance, almost all the schools, the pumping station, the college has numerous locations. Do we want to change the 15 foot requirement in quasi public areas? Richard stated that in C.B.D. and H.B.D. they fall into the same requirements as the building setback. He felt it made sense to treat them as a structure. If you can build a building there and put a wall up, it makes sense to be able to put a fence up. (discussion) • A motion was made by Mary Ann a fence can be the maximum height allowed to the front of the building and beyond the front of their building. Past the front of the building it has to drop to the height as required ~D in the ordinance in H.B.D., C.B.D. I, and N.C.D. Seconded by Richard • Smith. All Aye. Fence requirements may be altered subject to approval of the Planning & Zoning for Schools, Hospitals, Churches, quasi Public Facilities, City, County, Nursing Homes and Universities The fencing requirements may be altered however site triangles shall be maintained. Motion was made by Richard Smith. Seconded by Davawn Beattie. All Aye Discussion on the required Landscaped Area and then it turns out to be an eyesore and putting the landscaping behind the building, we need to encourage it out where it can be seen. Mary Ann left at 8:45. 5.5.I A motion was made by Jim Long to replace the word parking area with hard surface area. (page 41) Seconded by Davawn Beattie. Those voting nay: Ted Whyte, Marsha Bjornn, Richard Smith. Those voting aye: Jim Long, Davawn Beattie. Motion failed. We need to limit it to parking. Discussion on landscaping. Table issue of landscaping for a work session. A motion was made by Ted Whyte that we permit parking lots in all zones with a Conditional Use Permit. Seconded by Jim Long. All Aye (put in • table under transportation) Clarification on if the side setback is to the eves or the foundation. It was decided it should be left at the eves. Clarification on corner lot side setbacks and front yards and rear yards. A motion was made by Jim Long to add as a foot note on page 24 (10) on a corner lot with complying with two front yard setbacks eliminate the requirement for a rear yard setback and substitute it with a side yard setback. Seconded by Davawn Beattie. All Aye John Millar explained, John Bowen Development came before us and it came to our attention that we don't have anything in out ordinance that covered "0" lot line. J. D. has talked to most larger cities in southern Idaho, and there are two or three things. This development is in an L.D.R.1 Zone which has an 8000 foot minimum lot size. They have held that if you take this three acres and put 16 units on it and divided it evenly there is 8000 a piece. There is enough for every lot to have 8000. What they have said is in a development like this you can vary lot sizes but in aggregate they have to meet the requirement, therefore densities cannot increase. You have to have at least 8000. None of the cities would compromise the density requirement, but they will allow flexibility to average between all the units in a given area. It is called a footprint plan. If we apply that to John's development, it would allow 16 units as came before us and we have approved. The 16 units by this area give about 8020 square feet per • unit. The developer has drawn in 18. John Millar stated he would vote against 18 and he thought the neighbors would too, because the lots ~ti were sold with the density being there. The other thing the cities have allowed is some variation or flexibility in minimum front widths. They did not have any flexibility in side yard setbacks, no frontage setbacks. Joe said they would have a "0" side yard setback but you keep the front yard setback. You have a "0" lot line between common buildings, but from building to building you still maintain the twelve feet. The bank wants a piece of land transferred with each unit. To do 18 they are below lot size, but with 16 they could meet it with the aggregate. For example lot 2 becomes bigger than lot 11 with the aggregate, but the density is maintained. J. D. explained how the other communities do it, they say you need a subdivision plat. A subdivision plat has to be submitted with a conditional use permit. The subdivision plan says this is a Planned Development. The conditional use permit is approved by the P&Z. In the conditional use permit they have flexibility to give "0" lot lines, to wave the lot size as long as it complies with the density. The density standard is never compromised, but as far as the placement of the buildings, they feel that should be left up to the planner. In Pocatello their setbacks from the outside lines will never be compromised and the minimum lot areas will always be preserved and on the plat it shows the exact variances from what is required in the subdivision or in the particular zone. You always submit a subdivision plat and they will never compromise the density within the zone that they are in and the buildings must be built according to the footprints on the plat. All of the cities handle it with C.U.P. with all variance • indicated on the subdivision plat itself with dotted lines. This different than a regular plat. John said they have a C.U.P. for 16 units. They had a meeting with Mr Bowen and his attorney and he felt he had the boxes on the plat and that was approval and he was going to start building. Joe said he had presented it as a condominium development where you have individual buildings on one big lot, but that is not the way he wants to do it now, he wants small individual lots with each half of building. Our ordinance does not address a "0" lot line. Lot lines were never shown on the plat. J.D. said most of the cities he contacted said they allow them in all zones as long as they meet minimum lot size requirements for each unit. John suggested that we set out the criteria that is critical to us. (1) lot size (maintain aggregate density), (2) on one side we allow a variation of side yard to "0" lot line, (3) that we allow flexibility to P&Z through review process for minimum frontage, (4) that we hold all exterior setbacks to meet the zone-i.e. rear yard, front yard if on a public street, that building to building setback stay with the ordinance. Some lots may be less at 6000 but another lot would be 12000. That would allow a duplex which is all we allow in this zone anyway. (5) they have to submit a subdivision plat and an application for a conditional use permit. In the subdivision plat it will require some shifting of lot sizes. A motion was made by Richard Smith that we • recommend that these provisions be put in our zoning ordinance. These are attached single family dwelling units. Seconded by Jim Long. All voting aye except Ted & Marsha voting nay. Carried 4 to 2. discussion ~~ - We need a chapter on P.U.D. in our ordinance. • RE: B.M.C. WEST FENCE TOPIC: (400,42,,,B.M.C. WEST,FENCES) Mike Glass asked about his fence? A motion was made by Ted Whyte and seconded by Marsha Bjornn to allow businesses to have barb wire on top of fences if it is tilted in. All Aye Meeting Adjourned. •