Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES OCTOBER 23, 1996DATE: (102396} Planning & Zoning 10/23/96 Present were: Chairman: Members: City Clerk: Council Woman: Engineer: Welcome to Scout John Millar John Watson Leaving at 8:30 P.M. Jim Long Ted Whyte Mary Ann Mounts Roger Muir Davawn Beattie Doug Smith Rose Bagley Marsha Bjornn Leaving at 7:30 P.M. Joe Laird A motion was made by Mary Ann Mounts and seconded by Jim Long to approve the minutes of October 9, 1996. All Aye John Millar told the board that on November 6 the county is holding a Public Hearing on their Comprehensive Plan. He suggested that as many of the board that could attend to go to that hearing and give them support. RE: TRANSPORTATION PLAN TOPIC: (400,148,,,TRANSPORTATION PLAN,ARTERIALS,SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE) Joe presented the Transportation Plan for the board to discuss and make decisions on. He gave a handout of questions that need to be answered and referred to the resolution he had passed out previously. In the back of the resolution are cross sections of streets. He referred to the arterial street plan. The cross sections show Minor Regular Street, Collector Street, Minor Arterial, and Major Arterial. He read the questions. (On file.) This map with the Arterials is looking at about 2050 or 2100 when Rexburg is the .size of Boise or Salt Lake, we will need a system of roads with major and minor arterials and collectors. These would only be basically built when the subdivision in the area are developed or if the subdivisions lay behind where the city or county eventually need arterials, they will need to acquire the right-a-way and construct it. It would be establishing what would be the needed right-a-way and then they would be developed as the subdivision occur, when businesses occur and the city expands. This would be a long range planning tool. Jim Long suggested that it would be a good idea to get some different professional people's opinion on what is the ideal width of streets. Discussion on the width between the street and the sidewalk. It was felt that we need to get the sidewalks away from the curb. Discussion a 10 foot strip between the sidewalk and curb for landscaping and -snow removal. The developers will not like that. • • John Millar stated trat he and Joe had discussed the number of houses in Madison right now that are going in the county vs the ones going in the city. Are we through the regulations and requirements driving people out of the city? Joe suggested that the county restrictions are not restrictive enough. Ted told them if you get the lots too expensive, those people that want starter homes cannot afford them, unless you are building $200,000 or $300,000 house. (discussion) Ted felt that there should be joint participation for the city to join in on the cost of the infrastructure in a subdivision. Jim stated we can't be developer driven, we have to be good planning driven. We can't do what is the cheapest. Joe discussed the development on the county roads. The county tax payers will all be paying the cost when they have to buy the right-a-way when they have to be widened after they are all home lined. It is happening in Salt Lake and Boise. On the typical sections we show a nice landscaped ten foot strip but the fact that we show a landscaped strip there does not necessarily mean it will be landscaped unless you have something in the ordinance to say it has to be. John told him the Subdivision Ordinance will have to be amended to incorporate that in the subdivision ordinance. (discussion) Joe stated we will have to add some sections to it for Rural Development without out curb and gutter for the Impact Zone. Ted explained that F.H.A. loans go up to $79,000 and the homes he had been discussing over to Sugar City go up to $89,000. It is hard to build rew homes in the $70,000 and $80,000 anymore. In order to do that you have to start with the lot cost of $12,000 or $13,000. Young couples don't have the $10,000 or $15,000 down payment. They are doing good to have $5000 and feel that is an accomplishment. John Millar asked Ted if you took the same home with the same floor plan in the City and o.ne in the County would there be a marked difference in resale value? The county has been more attractive in the last few years for a couple of reasons, (1) taxes are about 1/3 less than in city taxes, (2) and a lot of people want the space. Not having city water and sewer or natural gas is not that big of an issue. School busing is an issue. Kids living less than two miles from school in the city have to walk to school but kids living just outside of the city get picked up by the bus and dropped right at their home. That is becoming more and more an issue. (discussion) Roger discussed this requirement through subdivisions in the area of Impact. If a developer goes in and puts the required type of road and the city has no sewer or water to that subdivision, the city annexes that property and they want sewer and water so we go in and tear up a $100,000 or $200,000 road to put it in. We need to dedicate the space. John Millar stated that the. only time we require curb and gutter in these type of sections even in the Impact Zone is when you get into less than one acre lots. Roger suggested that then the wording in the second paragraph on the resolution needs to be corrected because it says "Any subdivision which is in the Rexburg Impact Zone and all lots less than one acre in size, must be insubstantial compliance with the resolution prior to being annexed or approved". John Millar stated that would need to be changed because our zoning ordinance does not require that. Roger stated some of his neighbors had talked to him about this and it concerned them because it sounds like back talking with the Impact Agreements that we have because it has changed already. John Millar told him this is a discussion and that is an ordinance. The wording will have to be clarified. Doug discussed it and wondered if we should have somekind of sewer and water requirement with this. Joe discussed the sewer problems. Joe explained the arterials, collectors, controlled access and other streets. (copy on file) (discussion) A motion was made by Mary Ann that: (1) We want 10 feet of landscaping between the sidewalk and the curb. Eliminate the center landscaping and put it on the side. (2) That on Local Street Typical Section we recommend "B" as minor local & "D" as major local. (3) That on Collector Typical Section we recommend "F" as collector. "H" modified taking out the center and adding 10' landscape to either side. (4) That on Minor Arterial Street Typical Section we recommend "H" & "J" and add the 10' landscape strip, taking out the center landscaping strip. (5) That on Major Arterial Street Typical Landscape Section we recommend "L" with the 10' landscape strip on either side. Motion seconded by Davawn Beattie. All Aye A motion was made by Jim Long that we recommend that we agree with the plan with possible modifications and recommend it to go to Public Hearing. All Aye A motion was made by Jim Long and seconded by Mary Ann Mounts to adjourn. All Aye •