Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JUNE 26, 1996DATE: (062696) PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING June 26, 1996 7:00 p.m. Present: Mary Ann Mounts Doug Smith Richard Smith John Watson Davawn Beattie Mike Thueson Jim Long Roger Muir Marsha Bjornn, City Council Stephen Zollinger, City Attorney Joe Laird, City Engineer Jerry Jeppesen, County Commissioner (8:30) Janet Williamson, Minutes Excused: John Millar Ted Whyte Rose Bagley, City Clerk Mary Ann Mounts acted as Chairman in the absence of John Millar. Davawn moved to approve the minutes of June 12, 1996. Mike seconded the motion. All Aye. RE: C.U.P. FOR HOMESTEAD CONSTRUCTION FOR HOMES AT 5TH W & MAIN GRANTED. VARIANCE DISCUSSED TOPIC: (400,96,,,C.U.P.,HOMESTEAD CONSTRUCTION,5TH WEST,MAIN STREET, VARIANCES,FENCES) Lee Gagner - 2555 Field Stream Lane, Idaho Falls, Idaho, was present to represent Homestead Construction to request a C.U.P. for construction on 5th and Main to do 3 sets of 2 patio-courtyard homes. This is intended to be an affordable alternative to people who are moving out of larger homes to move into something smaller. The price range will be from $79,000 - $89,000. This property is unique in terms of the amount of City land on both the North and west side. It gives a good buffer from Main Street. It does deviate in 2 ways. There is a minimum width of 76' as shown on the original request or 38' per unit and those will be passed as a legal definition for the homeowners association. Under this deviation we would have 42~ of the front yards on the center lot and the south lot and 34o in the North lot instead of the 30o that is originally part of the zone. In trying to make the best use of the land we find that is the best layout. Our request is to be able to site these on this property in this manner. There is a 30 foot strip of City owned land that they would landscape as part of the project as well as 24' on another side that they would landscape and maintain.. The lots are 38' wide and 123' deep. Joe stated that this is similar to the Summerwood Townhouse plats that they approved a few months ago. The two things that they do need a C.U.P. on is the width of the lot - the code requires 60' and they have 17 32' and the second item is the coverage in the front yard - they have more coverage then 30~. Richard asked about the side yard requirements and Joe said they met those. Mr. Gagner explained that they looked at several alternatives to the front asphalt and what they found is they always hit conflict with the telephone poles and guide wires. Davawn asked if the corner lot that is 56' wide was going to be introduced as a common area for everyone. Mr. Gagner said yes and pointed out a couple of other areas that would be common areas and that there would not be fencing in the back but everybody would have a fence between units so they could have a private patio. The back area will be passed legal as ownership to each party but it will be declared as a common area to be used and left open. The fence between units will be 10' long. Each of the homes will range between 1168-1244 square feet. Some will have full basements, others will not. Richard asked if this property was "in common". Stephen said it is in common as per use but not per ownership. Richard asked how that worked as per sub section 5. Stephen said as long as they transfer the ownership and each unit as an ownership, what he is really describing is common maintenance. It says they shall have no property in common as to ownership. Mr. Gagner said that by defining the back area as common maintenance it doesn't give them a problem in getting someone in there to maintain it. They will all have there own individual lots but they will all agree that they will maintain that back strip. What Ted explained to Stephen was that it will be similar to condominiums where they have common area only they will have a homeowners agreement the same as Summerwood. Richard was still concerned whether this was the intent of the Council. It doesn't say common ownership it says "in common Stephen said none of them will have property in common. What they will have is a maintenance agreement. None of these people will own any portion of each others property. They will be required as part of buying into this property, to agree to a general maintenance person so that all of the landscaping is uniform throughout. It will be part of the restrictive covenants that will allow permanent access. (Discussion). John felt if you looked at it as a duplex, as far as it impacts the City, then he had no problem with the width. Mr. Gagner said they requested both a C.U.P. and deviation on 2 items. That is what the letter requested. Stephen said they were here for a C.U.P. on the lot width but they were misinformed on the driveway (asphalt coverage); that has to be done with a variance. In the interest of time he recommended that they count this meeting as a preliminary and have a motion as to whether or not they believe it is justified to go to a public hearing on a variance. ,~ Board was confused as to why they did not fill out a C.U.P. application. They said they were not given a specific form and were unaware of one. Stephen felt that the confusion arose from the way 4.12a was written saying "first a conditional use permit must be ,~,~ `,,`` obtained from the Planning and Zoning Commission" ... The application really needed to be filled out but his legal council is that they could act upon his letter based upon what he was told by the legal government agency. The variance would need to be applied for for the over 30~ coverage. John Watson made a motion that he be allowed a Conditional Use for this project and that then opens up the avenue to permit him to fill out an application for the variance. Stephen said if he elects to reconfigure the driveway to get within the 30~ he would need no more approval or a variance. Richard seconded the motion. All Aye. (Discussion of a variance). Richard moved that they recommend that a variance go to public hearing conditioned upon the proper filling with the City of an application for a Variance with payment fees and reviewed by Joe. Mike seconded the motion. All Aye. RE: MILLHOLLOW PLAT SUBDIVISION #2 NOT APPROVED TOPIC: (400,98, „ PLATS,SUBDIVISIONS,MILLHOLLOW SUBDIVISION,STREETS, SETBACKS,RIGHT OF WAY) Next item on the agenda was the Millhollow Plat Subdivision #2. John Barnes, surveyor, was present representing the owners of Millhollow Subdivision #2. 4 lots have already been surveyed in by meets and bounds and this subdivision is to include those plus the 3 new lots to meet the requirements of the State. He is there looking for their blessing to continue with this project. On the bottom that street right of way does not comply with the 60' r_.equirement. This is pending. He has found that there is an existing road right of way there and he hasn't got it platted yet. He wants to get it legally platted before he completes lot C - the lot furthest South. Richard asked if the area marked in yellow on Millhollow was going to be considered right of way. Joe said he drew that up and the area marked in yellow is what would be the 25' front yard setback. John noted that the others are significantly out there further - less of a setback. Richard asked him then if lot A was going to have a 15 foot width house on it. He said he didn't have any objection to the subdivision. The problem is they approve these subdivisions and then the lots get sold and then somebody walks in here and says I can't build a house on this lot because I didn't know I had to have setback there. The fact of the matter is these vacant lots have been sold prior to them ever being platted. He struggles with the way it has been done because these people who have bought these lots don't ever intend to comply with any setback. Davawn said the same person has bought lots A and B. Marsha said if the City widens the road people will lose yards, mailboxes, etc. Joe said that the back of sidewalk would be within 20 feet of the garage of the southerly most house. The two middle houses will be beyond the 25' front yard set back and the northerly house will be about 20' beyond the setback. There is a problem with lots A & B in that they do not meet the 1200 square foot minimum lot area for a LDR Zone. His question is it is not in the City, how can you have it be an ~~ ~ l ~ LDR Zone. Stephen said the 3 extra lots would be Agriculture 1 in the Impact Zone. If there is common ownership in the north lots it should be platted as one lot. If the others are LDR you can not down zone the new lots. All around it is LDR. (Discussion) Mr. Sipherd created the problem himself. Those lots were big enough and then he sold 17 feet to Websters. Joe said that from the City's point of view, he doesn't think the City would be interested in that 50 foot street right of way that dead ends at a lot. Richard said there is a legal issue here. The person who Mr. Sipherd bought the ground from, Al Smith, granted a permanent easement all the way through here - through Mr. Meyers and Mickelsens and Olsens lot - to a Mr. Don Rasmussen who owns across the canyon. He has been granted a permanent easement for that ground. The easement that Don has is very wide there. All this land has been deeded without consideration of the easement. (Discussion) John said he has a problem with these people having minimal setback and having to back out right into the lane of traffic while just across the street you have a very wide setback. Jim Long made a motion that they not approve the plat. John Watson seconded the motion. All Aye. The two real issues are that the lots are not big enough and .number 2 - someone has to answer the question on the easement. There is still a big problem with the street dead ending on a lot. That would have to be shown as a private driveway. RE: ARTERIALS & IMPACT FEES, ESPECIALLY IN COUNTY, DISCUSSED TOPIC: (400,99,,,ARTERIALS,IMPACT FEES) Joe discussed problems arterials, particularly the Barney Dairy Road and Millhollow area. - We have lost Millhollow - need some road to serve lower area - These roads may be a long way off - 50 to 100 years - Need to decide on these now while we are working on the Comprehensive plan - Need to provide major roads now rather then closing them off like at the hospital or with churches - You can move the dirt and rock less expensively then obtaining the right of way - Need to decide these roads before developers came in developing behind Millhollow, the high school, all area East of town - Keep earthquake fault lines, etc. in mind. - Need to have maps to know where roads will be so they plot subdivisions with these in mind. Richard said that it has been authorized by the legislature that a City can pass an ordinance authorizing the assessment of impact fees on /~~ developers. Joe said you could collect impact fees for roads, drainage, schools, etc., and keep it in a separate City account until it collects enough that you can so something with it. We don't want to be anti-development but we also don't want things like Millhollow happening again. They just took a county road and made it into a subdivision road and the developer was the beneficiary of that. (Discussion). Joe said the problem you get though is we are now seeing more development lining the County roads with homes then we are seeing within the City. The more you do that (charge fees} the more you are forcing people out to scatter up and down the county roads too. Richard said the county needs to address that issue. Jerry Jeppesen said that they are. John said if you have the City charging fees and the county doesn't it voids any planning because they are always going to go where it is the cheapest. The board felt it was important that Stephen look into an ordinance regarding impact fees and report back to the Planning and Zoning Board. Counties would need to have their own ordinance. It is important that the County do it now along with the City. Davawn moved that they adjourn. Doug seconded the motion. All Aye. • • >~ ~~~CBURG~ o O ~ Q ~/Jp a ° :.t:j ~ y ~, T~eCISHE~ ~ ~l~ ~ ~dll q° STATE OF IDAHO NILE L. BOYLE MAYDR ROSE BAGLEY CLERK RICHARD HORNER TREASURER 8 FINANCIAL DFFICEfi P0. BOX 280 12 NORTH CENTER STREET REXBURG, IDAHO 83440 PHONE (208) 359-3020 FAX (208) 359-3022 June 27, 1996 Mr. Lee Gagner 2555 Fieldstream Idaho Falls ID 83404 Homestead Construction J.R. Hayes, V.P. 1301 E 17th St. Suite 1 Idaho Falls ID 83401 Re: Twin Homes at the South East Corner of Main and 5th West in Rexburg ~~ i Dear Sirs, At their meeting last night, the Rexburg Planning and Zoning Commission approved the conditional use for lots smaller than the normal 60 feet width (i.e. 38; 39.5 and 56' lots vs. the normal minimum 60'width). They indicated you would need to schedule a public hearing for a variance to Section 4.8 B of the Planning and Zoning Ordinance that requires "no more than 30~ of the front yard can be in covered with concrete, asphalt, ---". Or you can cut the size of the driveway down so it is below the 30~ limit. The "Front Yard" referred to in this section of the ordinance is that 25 feet deep "front yard" immediately behind the street right-of-way-line. Section 4.12 A of the ordinance requires a regular subdivision plat for these six lots. On that subdivision plat, you would need to include an item that would say: ZONING DEVIATIONS 1. A variation to the minimum lot width size of 60 feet is approved. Approved lot widths are as shown hereon. 2. A variance to Section 4.8 B of the Zoning Code allowing more • that 30~ of the front yard to be covered with concrete, asphalt or other similar hard surfacing is herewith approved. ~t4 ! ~ J Also note that Section 4.12. C indicates that you need to file some sort of a joint-use, joint-maintenance agreement with the Madison Co. Recorder. Please send me a copy of your proposed document so I can get it approved by our City Attorney. Thanks. Very Tr y You ~ . -~ Joseph A. Laird CITY ENGINEER AND BUILDING OFFICIAL