Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES NOVEMBER 29, 1995DATE: (112995) Planning & Zoning 11/29/95 7:00 P. M. Those Present: Chairman: John Millar Members: Jim Long Ted Whyte Davawn Beattie Richard Smith Eric Erickson Mary Ann Mounts Roger Muir Marsha Bjornn City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: J. D. Hancock Engineer: Joe Laird RE: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING AMENDMENTS OF ZONING ORDINANCE #725 TOPIC: (400,46,,,PUBLIC HEARINGS,ZONING ORDINANCE,LOT LINES,DENSITY} 7:00 P. M. Public Hearing regarding certain proposed amendments of Rexburg City zoning Ordinance No. 725 (Planning and Zoning Ordinance), to provide as follows: (1) that the categories: "automobile repair services; electrical repair services; reupholstery and furniture repair services, painting, wallpaper decorating services be permitted uses in 'an industrial (1) zone. That finance, real estate and insurance services be listed as permitted uses in a Professional Overlay (PO) Zone. (2) that a new paragraph be added dealing with the heights, location and placement of fences for schools, churches, universities, colleges, hospitals, nursing homes, city and county. (3) that a paragraph be added defining heights and placement of fences in HBD, CBD, NCD and I zones. (4) that "separate" parking lots be listed as conditional uses in various zones. (5) that a new section be added setting forth the provisions regarding single-family attached dwellings. The mayor asked about changing the ordinance to allow Modular Homes. It was suggested that should be done with another Public Hearing. J. D. stated that we would need to comply with the State Law. John Bowen, representing Randall Corporation was at the meeting. He questioned Section 6 Item 7 in the proposed Ordinance. He asked if the board would consider changing the square foot requirement to what would be required between the MDR and the LDRl requirement? They request putting the four footage requirement in the L.D.R. requirement twin town home at more than 24,000 square feet at somewhere between 18,000 and 32,000. Richard asked are we trying to discuss the density issue as opposed to the lot line issues? It was his understanding that in other ordinances ~~ they maintain square foot density, but they allowed variances on lot lines, setbacks, rear yards and front yards. They required density of housing units per 70,000 square feet. It would remain the same in LDR1. He felt that was what the issue was. He asked if we are trying to address density or are we trying to address setbacks, lot lines and this type of issues. John Millar stated the discussion that got us to this point is we want to maintain the density at no denser than the allowed currently, but allow that to be averaged over the entire development. If you wanted to group four together or several groups together and have a large common area then it would allow that. It did maintain the same aggregate density for the development. (discussion) John Bowen asked what the advantage of having a twin town house was? Jim told him the open space would be an advantage. Richard told him we have tried to maintain the same kind of density but make allowances for different setbacks. (discussion) Ted stated that for retirement people in town houses want smaller yards, but yet we are still requiring having massive spaces that fits for a family dwelling. John Bowen stated these will be sold as homes and the open space will be maintained by an association. John Bowen referred to the development by the nursing home which is zoned MDR. Mary Ann said in LDR1 we don't want them that close together because we want to preserve the integrity of that zone. John Bowen asked why make it as stiff as a single family dwelling? If it is a twin town home why not have the requirement in between a single family dwelling and MDR so he could add one more additional unit? Richard told him we have a new zone that requires less square footage on a lot which is LDR2. If it was in LDR2, 6000 square feet would be required. John Bowen argued that they just want to add one additional unit. Richard told him in LDR2 it would be 24000 instead of 32000 and told him possibly considering a different zone. (discussion) Close Public Hearing. Mary Ann stated that this would be more like a P.U.D. which we don't address in our ordinance and she felt we need to address that in the ordinance sometime. Ted stated he was in favor of keeping the zoning that way it is, but making a provision for town houses, condominiums, and duplex apartments needs to be done. Eric felt we would be treading on thin ice if tae try to change LDR1 to allow those with that higher density because there should be a provision but to just allow it now in any LDR1 Zone people would not want that. We need to find a way to allow it through the Public Hearing process. John Millar told them we do have an option to allow the density to increase with a percent of the minimum lot density as you allow "0" lot line as you allow higher density. The other option is to leave it like ~~ this and go ahead with it. He felt we need to look seriously because most of our developable property is LDR or LDRl. The only MDR is down by the college and most of that has been taken up with college housing. We don't have a real transition zone between the two. A motion was made by Mary Ann to approve it as written. Seconded by Jim Long. (discussion Mary Ann felt we should address a P.U.D later. Richard said he agreed with Eric we are walking on thin ice if we suggest reducing the density restrictions in areas that are partially built up in LDR1 with people that have relied on those zoning restrictions. We still need to address P.U.D.) All voting aye to motion. A motion was made by Richard and seconded by Mary Ann to recess for the City Council to hold their hearing. All Aye Meeting was reconvened after City Council Public Hearing. l.c dye A motion was made by Jim and seconded by Ted Whyte to approve the minutes of November 8. All°""Aye RE: DOUG LADLES REQUEST FOR VARIANCE OR C.U.P. TOPIC: (400,48,,,LADLE*DOUG,VARIANCES,C.U.P.,IMPACT ZONE,RENTALS, BARNEY DAIRY ROAD,RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONE) Doug Ladle was at the meeting to ask for a Variance or Conditional Use Permit. His property is in the Impact Zone on the Barney Dairy Road. (copy of request was mailed out) He had purchased the property from Bruce Parker. He had a work shop in the back corner. He does not plan to use it for a work shop. He has just been using it for a storage shed. He has a divorced daughter with a child living with them at present. He would like to convert the shop into an apartment for her and later use it as rental unit. This is zoned RR in the Impact Zone and our ordinance does preclude more than one unit per lot. discussion Richard after reading the zoning ordinance, it seems natural to let part of your family live on part of your property but it would take a change in the zoning ordinance to allow renting of a separate apartment in a separate building. When we set up the Impact Zone we did not allow multiple family dwellings. We did discuss letting them put their parents behind in a trailer, but did not include it in the ordinance. (discussion) Richard stated because of all the discussions we had when doing the Impact Zone he would feel good about changing the ordinance to allow a Conditional Use Permit for two family dwellings in Rural Residential. It would give you the protection of the public hearing of the proposed use before you allow the Condition Use. (discussion) ~~ ~, ~ It was felt it was basically the same issue we addressed with Mr Bowen, because we are trying to preserve the one acre density out there. If we allow another resident on the property the density and the integrity of their neighborhood will change. There is plenty of space but the density changes. People bought property in that neighborhood thinking it would be a certain way. (discussion) John Millar suggested the only option he could see is to change the ordinance. Richard suggested that since we talked about this in the Impact Zone, we could have specific language authorizing multiple dwellings for a single family by Conditional Use. We could have two units for elderly parents or family. This still would not allow rentals. A motion was made by Richard Smith that we take to a Public Hearing an additional entry in Table #2 of the Zoning Ordinance which would authorize two family dwellings for a single family as a Conditional Use in the RR Zone. Seconded by Ted Whyte. All Aye. John stated we would proceed with Public Hearing to modify the Ordinance. 8:25 P. M. Richard was excused to attend another meeting. RE: EGRESS WINDOWS AND INSPECTION ORDINANCE DISCUSSED TOPIC: (400,49,,,EGRESS WINDOWS,INSPECTIONS,EGRESS,ORDINANCES) Egress Windows and Inspection Ordinance- This ordinance is to regulate the inspection of all apartments. (Joe explained and gave a handout) (discussion) It was suggested that we see what other cities with colleges do about inspection such as Logan, Moscow and Pocatello. J. D. said he would check in to it. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie to scrap Ordinances 681 and 761 and write an ordinance that is enforceable. Seconded by Marsha Bjornn. Those voting Aye: Ted Whyte, Davawn Beattie, Roger Muir, Marsha Bjornn. Those voting Nay: Mary Ann Mounts, Eric Erickson, Jim Long. Motion Carried. RE: MODULAR HOMES TOPIC: (400,49,,,MODULAR HOMES) Video on Modular Homes. We need to change our ordinance in include Modular Homes and J. D. will check on restriction we can put on them. Meeting adjourned.