Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES MAY 13, 1998DATE: (051398) Planning & Zoning 5/13/98 Work Meeting on Comprehensive Plan at 6:15 P.M. Regular Meeting 7:00 P. M. Present were: Chairman: Members: City Clerk: Engineer: Attorney: Councilmember: John Millar Mary Ann Mounts Doug Smith Jim Long Gary Steiner Ted Whyte Davawn Beattie :Roger Muir Mike Thueson ; Rose Bagley Joe Laird Stephen Zollinger Farrell Young RE: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HOUSEKEEPING TOPIC: (500,74,,,C0MPREHENSIVE PLAN) Consultant RaNae McGee was at the work meeting to discuss any housekeeping changes to the Plan. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie and seconded by Mary Ann Mounts to approve the Comprehensive Plan as corrected with the final changes and to send it to the City Council for their approval. All Aye RE: VARIANCE FOR LARRY BEESLEY APPROVED TOPIC: (500,74,,,VARIANCE,SETBACK,BEESLEY*LARRY,5TH W.) A motion was made by Jim Long and seconded by Davawn Beattie to approve the minutes of 4/22/98. All Aye Decision on the variance for setback and a sub standard lot for Larry Beesley. This was tabled from the Public Hearing held at the last meeting. Larry showed the board a new plot plan. The recommended changes from this board was for him to bring those two lots as close to the standard lot size as possible. In order to do that the lot on the south which would become the new lot would become 8052 square feet which meets the standard and the lot on the north would be a sub standard lot which would be 7194 square feet. He also clarified the setback which would approach the back lot of the property for the new home two foot closer making it 18 feet. The property line would go through the middle of that old garage that is existing and if they sold that lot they would have to get a right-of-way to use that garage. Eventually that garage would probably be torn down. The only variance he is asking for is 2 feet in the back for the new lot. The house at 50 North 5th West would be a substandard lot. Discussion by the board. Davawn stated that he went over and sighted the houses down the back yard and they are all closer to the property line. Larry stated that C] • • .~ / he had been informed that he would have to subdivide this property because the original piece of property was divided into three parcels and he would be willing to do that if this was approved. Stephen told the board the basis on which this variance can be granted is the setback is consistent with the existing structures that are there and is sort of a void in our Ordinance. We addressed the front yard setback could be lined up with the existing structure but we did not talk about back yard setbacks. It is reasonable to assume that the back yard setbacks in this type of existing neighborhood that consistency is the issue. As far as the substandard lot the fact that this was contemplated as two lots from the very beginning because there was a stub out put in for the second lot in the middle. Our zoning ordinance took effect which placed a geographic restriction as such that they can't get two lots now. The accommodation he is making is he is shifting the substandard lot from the middle lot to the end lot which addresses some of the neighbors concerns. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie to recommend that the variance be approved. Seconded by Doug Smith. All aye RE: J.D. HANCOCK PUBLIC HEARING FOR C.U.P. TABLED TOPIC: (500,75,,,PUBLIC HEARING,HANCOCK*J.D.,1ST N.) publl~ nearing regarding tho prnpngad iggUanCe Of a Condltional USE Permit to allow for the construction of a Duplex Apartment. The property is currently in an LDR1 Zone. The property is located at 58 1/2 West 1st North, Rexburg, in Madison County, Idaho. J. D. Hancock gave his presentation. Earlier this year he had purchased the lot that was formally owned by Cora Nelson as it was discussed in a previous meeting in April, this is a substandard lot and prior to the flood there was a home on that lot with sewer and water hookups. It also adjoins property he owns on the east which is Brittney Apartments. Within the last month he has purchased the lot owned by Helen Higley estate which adjoined this lot. He has taken some of that lot to add to the lot that was owned by Cora Nelson. He understands that because the original house was closer to the property line that would be grandfathered. They would like to construct a home there to be used strictly for families. In order to maximize the use of the space they wanted to rent the basement which would make it a duplex and require a Conditional Use Permit. The board reviewed the site plan. Lynn Davenport- 66 West 1st North just west of the property in question. He is speaking in behalf of a group of neighbors. He read a statement in opposition. (on file) John Millar closed the hearing and turned it over the board for discussion. A Conditional Use Permit could or could not be issued by this board because it is under eight units. Roger Muir- Questioned if there used to be a house there after the flood? What concerned him is if the house was existing before the setbacks are grandfathered in, but the house was not replaced on those ~, ' . .. _. setbacks and it has been 22 years so that grandfather right is gone. J.D. .explained the house was replaced by a mobile home, which was taken out this spring. Roger asked if the mobile home was set on a permanent foundation? It was not put on a permanent foundation. Rose explained that a couple of years after the flood we had a Mobile Home Committee study all mobile homes that had been located on property after the flood. They only allowed the mobile homes to remain on the property for elderly people or handicapped people and had to be moved after they moved or after their death. That mobile home wasn't one from the flood it was another one she had purchased to put on the property. Roger stated that brought another situation because it was designated for elderly people but the grandfather clause would not exist. Stephen stated he had been under the misconception that there was a structure there until this spring and that structure had been put on a permanent foundation. If it had existed since 1976 as a mobile home, never taking steps to declared. real property by putting it on a foundation then it does not qualify as a structure. It would be to the discretion of this committee to determine if the setback was established by the long standing presence of the mobile home or not. At the time Mr Hancock purchased the Nelson and Higley lot, one was a substandard lot and the other met the lot size requirement. His proposal was to do a lot line adjustment to take care of some of that disparity. He was going to take the two lots and have one lot not as a slAbst alld and lvt• Stephen stated what we have to decide: Are the setbacks grandfathered? The issue we discussed about structure vs trailer. He could build a single family house on that lot which is a substandard lot even if the board voted against the setback grandfathering. He would have to meet setbacks. He would then be here seeking a conditional use for the duplex. They are-two distinctly issues. (1) Can we build the house where he wants to build it. (2) Once the house is built, can it be used for a duplex? Ted felt that a trailer without a permanent foundation would not be grandfathered. Stephen stated if the grandfather was not there at the time this ordinance went into effect, there would be no grandfather clause applicable. John Millar stated that with that it would take a variance to allow the setbacks along with the conditional use permit for the duplex. Stephen stated it would need to be re-published for the variance. A motion was made by Mary Ann to table the Conditional Use Permit decision and deal with it at such time and we can address both issues at the same time. Seconded by Jim Long. Mike Thueson abstained because he did not arrive at the meeting for the discussion. Davawn Beattie also abstained from voting. A11 others voting aye. Stephen stated the one thing that would be grandfathered would be the size of the lot. If he chose to build on that very same lot that was there and assuming he did not get the variance and he built a structure that complied with the setbacks he would be allowed to do that. The effort is being made to turn what he could do without permission to a .'~ ~', t ' better situation by taking some of the Higley property and adding it to the Nelson property so you end up with a more functional parcel but still substandard. RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR VALERIE HULL FOR ZONE CHANGE REJECTED TOPIC: (500,77,,,PUBLIC HEARING,ZONE CHANCE,2ND N.,HULL*VALERIE) Public Hearing for Valerie Hull to change the zoning from L.D.R.1 to L.D.R. 2 for a parcel of property located on North 4th West across from the canal between West lst North and West 2nd North to allow for the property to be subdivided into lots with a minimum size of 6000 square feet on the property that is located in Rexburg, Madison County, Idaho. The Planning Commission will hear and consider any and all protests against or comments in favor of the Zone Change. Ted Whyte declared a conflict of interest. Valerie explained her proposal and showed a plat. They are wanting to change the zone from L.D.R. 1 to L.D.R. 2 to allow for lots of 6000 square feet. It is conducive to the area. The property on the north side has three double wide mobile homes on that property with lots of 6700 square feet which. would be L.D.R. 2. She explained her plan. Dave Pearson- There are only two mobile homes on that property to the North and one lot is 8100 square feet. He owns that lot. There was a gravel pit dug .,.. the property before the flood= It was filled in after the flood, but that is not settled ground.. Another thing he is concerned about is traffic increase. Right now they have people going down that road 45 M.P.H. and can't make that corner and some day someone is going to get killed. Mark Jaynes- 355 Cul de Sac which is right behind the property in question. Why do you have the zones and why is it zoned LDR1. John explained what that would allow and what LDR2 would allow. He did not think his lot was quite 8000 square feet and it is so jammed. To put six houses on that property it will be more congested than his street. If it is zoned for a larger lot for the quality and well being of people instead of for the dollar figure it would be better for the people. He felt it would be okay to build houses there but not that many. Duane Rubink- 351 Cul de Sac- Most of the lots along that block are quite large. He would like to see them stay the same size for the property value. With six houses there instead of possibly four there would be a lot more traffic. 4th. West is extremely narrow and with more houses would make more traffic and make it more dangerous along that canal. Mable Smith- 354 West 1st North - She did not like the idea of changing from R1 to R2. It would not be conducive to their property or conducive to the neighborhood. Some of them have lived in that neighborhood for 25 years and they try to keep their yards and their neighbors yards kept up to keep the value. Mark Jaynes- On the calculations that were given referring to Dave Pearson's property, there are not three manufactured homes on that property on the north. There are only two units there. D. J. Barney- 14 West 1st North- The property is just across the canal from the property in question. Right now it is a weed patch. The reason they are trying to re-zone it is to make the property more feasible financially. If they are required to keep it like it is and only put four lots on it, he felt the developer would not think it would be feasible and it would remain a weed patch. He did not think it would increase the traffic when you already have so many apartments around the property. Within the last five years he has pulled out three cars that have gone in the canal and none of them were people that lived on that street. He did not think the people living on the street are the ones that will be driving 40 or 50 m.p.h. He did not see a problem with the zone change. It would make it more economical for people to buy those houses. He has no problem with the change. Close the hearing. John Millar pointed out that the on the plat that she has presented, the two lots in the back did not meet the minimum front yard requirement. Mrs Hull stated the engineer just got those finished today and handed them to her. When she looked at it she saw that and plans on correcting that. John asked if they had contemplated that the Cul de Sac would be a dedicated road? She stated it would be a private drive. The property total square footage is 200' x 247'. If it were divided into 5 lots it would make 8000 or more per lot. John stated we need to table this hearing for a decision until later in the meeting because another Public Hearing is scheduled at 8:00 P.M. RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR TED GARNER FOR ZONE CHANGE TOPIC: (500,78,,,GARNER*TED,PUBLIC HEARING,LANDFILL,BARNEY DAIRY ROAD) 8:00 P. M. Public Hearing on the application of Ted and Edna Garner to change the zoning from L.D.R.1 TO M.D.R. Mary Ann Mounts declared a conflict of interest. Ted Garner explained his proposal. They would like to have the property zoned back to M.D.R. The reason they are asking it is for the valuation of the property. While they were away on a mission the property was re-zoned and the property value was decreased. John Millar stated that it was zoned R2 in the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1968. R2 did allow for multi-family dwelling units. Stephen stated that the R3 zone was consistent with our M.D.R. John Millar explained that this land did not extend into the landfill. John Millar read letters that were received in opposition of the Zone Change. A letter from District 7 Health Department, one from Brent and Arleen Orr, and one from Dr Robert Gerrie. (Letters on file) John turned the time over for any public comment. ~~ ~, F Phil Nye- He and Susan live at 230 North 3rd East. The east side of his property is adjacent to the property in question. He wanted to echo what Brent Orr said. He .had also talked to Brent Eaton who lives between the Orrs and himself at 236 North 3rd East and Earl Poulson that lives south of him at 226 North 3rd East and talked to Lane and Bonnie Orr that lives on East 2nd North who agree multi apartments there would detract from the property value. They feel it would be better served as single family dwelling units. There has been some concern in the past that land is lower than that on 3rd East so there would have to be some lift pumps put in. He felt, as stated in Dr Gerrie's letter, it could be better served by being utilized as part of the park and ball fields that have been planned by the school and city. The people on 3rd North and 2nd East would be better served with single family dwellings. Edna Garner- The only home owners that were there originally was Phil Nyle and Earl Poulson, so they chose to be there. There use to be bee factory and that is what they bought. For the record, what would this community would have done if Garners would not have let them fill in the pit with garbage? Where would the debris gone? They saved this city and county millions of dollars. For three years they put the debris in our pit. They did not get anything out of it. They lost money. The County got $88,000 for top soil and. the Garners ended up putting it on for $20,000. They promised them they could build anything they wanted to after eight years. Edna said they don't want the property if the city will pay us for the property and taxes they have put into it for twenty years. They would like some reimbursement for it because they have already donated all they can do. These people had their homes there when the Garners had a gravel. pit there. Everytime anyone wanted to buy any of that property, the methane gas business came up. John Millar closed the hearing and turned it over the the Planning Board. (discussion by the board) John Millar stated that most of the homes were built when the zoning was R2. There are three acres involved. Stephen stated the board has a duty to plan and, zone the property for the best use of that property and to be consistent with the community growth. If we could figure out a way to purchase the land and extend the park right up to the back of the L.D.R. ZorAe, that is the best use of the land, but the city doesn't have the money. So what we have is a strip of land that has no use. He did not see it as L.D.R. 1 use because it abuts onto the baseball diamonds and that is not recommended or a practical use. John said it would help to see a drawing of the property that they want to re-zone. Edna showed a plan of the property and explained. (discussion) The property does drop about 5 feet. According to the drawings the sewer is 7 feet deep. Mr. Garner indicated that when the zone was changed they were never notified. Stephen made the point that if you could build on a landfill then and the land to the east had been developed differently, it would be better to be zoned LDR1. The land was zoned MDR, and it has been a luxury to residents there. They have a L.D.R.1 geographic configuration. M.D.R. is probably the best zoning for that piece of property because it is not large enough for an apartment complex. (discussion) Davawn moved that a study be made of the property and the access to the property to-see what is the best use of the property. MDR may be a good buffer between the ball fields and the residents. Some of the concerns of Mr. Warner from the District 7 Health Department, is the sewer and the flood plain requirements. The flood plan issue will be required to be taken care of. (discussion) Doug moved, Roger Seconded, it that we approve the Zone Change, and for it to go to the Council for approval for it to be changed from L.D.R.1. to M.D.R. The most feasible use of property and buffer between L.D.R.l. and the ball fields all aye. Mary Ann Abstained. RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR VALERIE HULL FOR ZONE CHANGE REJECTED TOPIC: (500,80,,,PUBLIC HEARING,HULL*VALERIE,ZONE CHANGE,2ND N.) Back to Valerie Hull discussion- Doug Smith suggested that with the number of people opposed to this change of zoning we possibly need to consider that. John Millar told her with the acreage they had they would not be able to put six lots on the property. With five lots they would be close to 8000 square feet and would not need a zone change. The plan would just need to be revised. Concerns were discussed. John told them that prior to this new ordinance that entire block was zoned R3. Most of the homes were there when it was zoned R3. Most of them pre-date our current ordinance. The owner of this property wanted it zoned High Density. There was a lot of input at that time from pros rty owners that wanted that area zoned LDR1. Discussion on the safety problem on that street. A motion was made by Jim Long to reject the Zone Change and that it remain L.D.R.l. because the current zoning is the best and most practical use of the use of the land to be consistent with the neighborhood. Seconded by Mary Ann Mounts. Ted Whyte abstained because of a conflict. Roger Muir abstained because he had to leave the meeting during the discussion. A11 others voting Aye. John Millar told her she still could go to the city council with it and they will rule as they choose. Mary Ann had to leave the meeting early. RE: VARIANCE FOR A SIGN FOR MAX WADE TOPIC: (500,80,,,VARIANCE,SIGN,WADE*MAX,IST W.) Application for a variance for a sign for Max Wade at 354 South 1st West. He wants to put a sign in front of his apartments. People that try to find his apartments drive by them and still can't find them. With the size of his property, he does not come close to qualifying for the sign. He would have the setback at 30 feet from the curb and the size of the sign would be 8' x 8'. A motion was made by Davawn Beattie and seconded by Mike Thueson to proceed with the Public Hearing. All. Aye ~. ,'~~ _ ~ • RE: PLATNIUM DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR SUBDIVISION TOPIC: (500,81,,,STREETS,PLOT PLAN,HASTING*BRETT, BARNEY DAIRY RD,SEWER,WATER) Brett Hastings representing Platnium Development was at the meeting to present a plan for the Barney Subdivision. He had presented the initial plat 8 or 10 months ago. At that time there was some concerns from this body about septic systems. He had talked with District 7 Health and did an investigation of the soil and there will be some other testing done at the request of District 7 Health. According to them there is no problem in putting a septic system on each lot because each lot is an acre or more. He is now seeking approval because it is in the city impact zone. John told him Joe had prepared a list of items that need to be on a preliminary plat and this does not fill the requirements of a preliminary plat. Brett stated he understood that but the reason for coming tonight was to resolve the concerns from the last time before they proceed with anymore work. They understood there are number of items that need to be added to the plat. Questions on septic tanks and discussion. John Millar stated that District 7 does have the authority to approve septic tanks. In visiting with Joe about this, there is a plan for a road on the west side of this property as a main arterial road. The question was should there be a provision that cul-de-sac road not be a cul-de-sac but a road that would connect into that road on the west side of the property. Da~vaw^- asked about hooking !~ this subdivision up to the city sewer? John Millar stated that would be more desirable for the city to protect long term ground water supply. Brett stated they have run feasibility studies both ways. If they did run water and sewer out there they would need to subdivide the ground into smaller lots. They didn't feel that would fit. with the current neighborhood that is out there. They felt the best use was to go with acre or bigger lots, and also the cost is prohibited to run sewer and water out there. They have taken provisions to make the road wide enough and have easements so it would be very easy so that in however many years until the city grows out that far, and the utilities come out that far the houses could convert over. John stated if we decide on septic systems we would need to recommend an easement be designated for it now and the property owners put their septic tanks or drain fields in the side or front of their yard so when the time comes they won't have to tear up their whole yard. Joe stated that as far as the city departments are concerned, the water, sewer and fire department they all feel that there should be sewer extended out there so there would be no pollution to our aquafer. They have determined that directly down stream is where our city wells are. Where it is underground lava you frequently get cracks and tubes. where you can get pollution from the surface down into the aquafer. He discussed the problem that was found at Rexburg Heights. From the water point of view, the fire department is concerned because there is no fire protection in the area and unless there is a water system extended out from the city there would have to be some type of tanks or vaults or something in the area to provide the amount of fire protection needed for those homes. (discussion) Davawn asked if the city had anyway of helping the developer? John stated that city policy ,. ,M,r~ is that it is done at the developer's expense for a 8" sewer and a 6" • water line: If there is any over sizing of the lines then the city picks up the cost. Brett stated that it is not feasible with the lots at the size they are now. The only way they could make it financially effective would be with more lots, and smaller lots. He was told R.R. requires a one acre or more lot. (discussion) It was stated that it would be hard for this property to be contiguous so it could be annexed. Sheila Barney stated that they have cows and spread manure on the land near there and they would not like to have the neighbors on their neck. She asked if they could get a copy of his plan? John told him that the people need to know if they buy lots and they come to the city complaining about the manure, we will have to tell them the Barneys were there first. They need to know right up front who they are building against. John told Brett that the city would like to see this hooked to city sewer. He asked Stephen if it would be reasonable that we could discuss smaller lots if they hook to the sewer? Stephen stated that we couldn't do it by ourself because it is in the Impact Area and would require a variance. He also stated that as far as the requirement for being annexed to the city before they can hook to the city sewer the ~ity could make an exception where thorn is a aa`fety 1.ssue at stake. (discussion) Joe stated we had discussed the North South Street 1000 East. Our Comprehensive Plan Transportation plan shows bdth in the City in the County the East West Street on the Barney Dairy Road being a minor arterial and it would go onto the east so as part of this plat we need the half street right-a-way for the minor arterial which is 50 1/2 feet. Stephen suggested that on Lot 1 they hold their driveway as far north as possible because when they bring that road through it will gain elevation. He told them that it is in the long term plan. Brett stated he would look at it to see if they can run water and sewer out there. His question is what if they say it is not feasible to do it and we want to do it with septic systems. We can work some of the other things around provide for a connector street into the road running north and south and the widening of the road. If he can't get city sewer out there how are we going to address that. John told him what we need to see before we make that decision is some facts, costs, reasons and lot size. Brett stated he would take these concerns and the letter from Joe and go through them. If it is decided that they want to proceed .with the septic system, and contract with an engineering firm to come in and test the soil and the depth of the lava rock and give an opinion as to whether the septic systems are feasible, and if does not pose as a hazard to the ground water, would that be excitable if their conclusion was because of the size of the lots, and if we find out that septic • systems are fine because of the depth of the well and type of soil, etc? John told him that would go a long way.- Doug suggested there ~`" °~~- / should be a means of help for him if it is in the public interest to have this done? He felt if we are going to require the developer to running utilities to the subdividion, that it is a lot to ask without giving them help. Ted stated that it is too costly to come in and do development and come up with the up front costs. John suggested that the county could do it on an L.I.D. because it is in the county. RE: SILVERTREE PLAN REVIEW FOR RETAIL STORE TOPIC: (500,82,,,WALMART,SILVERTREE,PLAN REVIEWS,PARKING, GREASE MONKEY) Brett presented a plan for review of a retail store.. This building will be constructed just east of the building that is under construction at the present time. They are very close to finalize their commitment with a larger commercial retailer so they are submitting this plan. There were some minor changes from when they previously asked for approval of this particular section. Basically the building configuration was changed slightly and they have added some additional parking. They have talked to Joe about the drain water situation and addressed it. He explained the drain water and. the plan with the access. Joe explained the recommendations on the plan. They will need to extend the water and sewer east and put in half of the street. Brett questicned what the agreement is with Grease Mcnkey, will they be required to do the south half of the street when they do the north half for this development? Joe said not necessarily at the same time. The street is developed as each structure is built next to it. The building will require about 98 parking places and he has 133. With the amount of parking lot he has only about 3100 square feet of landscaping and he will need about 7140. There will be sidewalk contiguous. Brett asked if they do the other half of the road would they be reimbursed? Joe told him he would be reimburse when that property is developed but he would discuss it with them and see if they want to do it at the same time. Brett said he would bring the plan back with the improvements. RE: ALPINE PROPANE INC. REQUEST FOR SIGN TOPIC: (500,84,,,ALPINE PROPANE,FENCE,SIGN) • Alpine Propane Inc. - Neal Josephson was at the meeting to discuss putting in a sign 8' x 4', with a white vinal frame, white vinal sign and they are putting in a 4' high fence to comply with the state. (copy of drawing} The sign will be 24' from the edge of the pavement and they will take care of the ground in front. He started working with Alpine in December and called to find out what to do about putting in a sign and found out there was problems. So he came to this meeting to discuss the problem and get it worked out. He showed a building permit he had received from the county. There is no problem with the sign. Joe told him the question was where is the site plan. We talked to them about it before you started working there. He told .them it is in ~~Q .;'` the process of being drawn. Joe said there is a question as to if the propane-tanks were allowed in the H.B.D. zone or if it had to be in Industrial Zone. He thought the site plan and if this was the correct usage for H.B.D. zone were the two questions this board has. Mr. Josephson said he wanted to comply with the rules and as soon as he gets the paper work, he will bring it in. The plan is to break ground next spring with a new structure and the plans will be submitted prior and the building permit will be done properly. He just needed to know what the rules were. Right now the Highway Department requires a fence and he wanted to put a sign in at the same time. If it needs to be moved at a later date, they could work that out. It will take three to four weeks for the plat to be ready. Roger suggested that we postpone the issue until the plat is completed. John stated that if the sign is the proper size it does not need this group's permission. He said he had to get the fence in now as required by the State and wanted to do the sign at the same time. John told him the sign can't be on Fublic right-a-way. John stated that the problem that Joe has brought up is a Propane Gas facility an appropriate use in a H.B.D. Zone? John stated that it is not listed in the table in our book so it would require a C.U.P. and needs to go to Public Hearing. That could be done at the same time as the plan review. Meeting adjour.~ed. •