Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JUNE 17, 1999r' y~ DATE: (061799) Planning & Zoning 6/17/99 7:00 P. M. Present were: Chairman: Davawn Beattie Members: John Watson Marilyn Hansen Bobbette Carlson Gary Steiner Mike Thueson City Clerk: Rose Bagley Attorney: Stephen Zollinger P.F.C: John Millar Councilmember: Marsha Bjornn A motion was made by Bobbette and seconded by Marilyn Hansen to approve the minutes of 5/27/99. All Aye RE: LOREN STEGELMEIER ZONE CHANGE REQUEST TOPIC: (500,191,,,STEGELMEIER*LOREN,ZONE CHANGE,IMPACT ZONE) Loren Stegelmeier Zone Change Request in the Impact zone. John Millar explained what they wanted to do. It is the property located just South and East of the Teton View Drive In. There are two acres in front where the Veterinarian Clinic is and nine acres extending east and north. They would like to rezone that nine acres to Residential. The property that extends behind. the movie theatre would be contiguous with the residential zone. Discussion. A motion was made by Mike Thueson and seconded by Marilyn Hansen to take it to Public Hearing for a zone change. All Aye (After the meeting Stegelmeiers decided to wait for one year to change the zoning.) RE: LIBRARY DISTRICT CONSIDERING NEW LOCATION AT 426 WEST MAIN TOPIC: (500,191,,,LIBRARY,PUBLIC HEARING,C.U.P.,MAIN STREET) Public Hearing for a Conditional Use Permit for the Library- A Public Hearing regarding the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit to provide as follows: It has been requested that the following described property be granted a Conditional Use Permit to allow for a Library to be built. The property is located on West Main at approximately 426 West Main. John explained the Library would be allowed in this zone with a Conditional Use Permit. The departments have not had time to review the plan but John did not see any complications. The proposed new library is between 4th and 5th West on the North Side of Main Street. He explained the location. The zone is zoned M.D.R. with a Professional Office Overlay. The zoning would allow for the Library with a Conditional Use Permit. John Watson declared a conflict of interest. He explained the reason it is being presented now is not because they plan on starting right away. The reason they are bringing this before the Planning Board is because the Library District in their planning have been looking at a number of /~ properties. A year or so ago they looked at an expansion of the existing library, they did all they could do but still came up with some problems such as the parking issue with the Tabernacle and Beehive Clothing. At that point they started looking at different properties because they want to plan down the road twenty years or so. They met with a number of realtors and looked at a number of properties and settled on this to see if a conceptual scheme would work. They have put earnest money on the property and they feel it is a good location. They hired .John to lay out a scheme or plan to see how large a building they could put on that property, with adequate parking and to see if they could get on and off Main Street and to see how it would effectively fit on the property. That is what the drawing is trying to illustrate. He had told them the property was 1.8 acres and that they could put about a 20,000 square foot building on one level. They could easily get the required parking on this spot which is 60 parking spots. It is a generous spot for the building, parking and landscaping and there is an option for additional property in the back. They are going through this process to see if there are additional concerns and problems. One issue is it is a little low from main street so there would be some grading issues. They would be happy to put in additional fire hydrants for additional fire protection. He would go back and tell them what has come out of this meeting and they will decide if they want to proceed.. Davawn opened the hearing for public comment. Graydon Burton- 416 West Main- -. their property. He is adamant felt that should be considered investigating types of privacy felt it needed to be addressed running in and out and making their grandchildren. They have they raised the highway. He didn't object to the Library next to on drainage and privacy screening and he . For five weeks they have been fences. They are quite costly but he . They don't want to worry about people a lot of noise and also the risk for experienced problems with drainage since Tom Williams- He was concerned about the traffic flow and the cars trying to get in and out of the Library. Jill Spencer- 15 North 5th West- Her concern was getting in and out of the driveway and also the safety for the children walking to the library across the canal going to and from the library. Another concern is there are empty buildings in town and she could not understand why we always have to be building new buildings. She asked if they had considered the old Broulims building or the property next to it? The Librarian told the people they had looked into the Broulims Property. They don't want to sell. They only want to lease the building and their price is too high. This is the best option they have found and tonight they are just seeking public view. Close the hearing and turned it over the the board. The board discussed the traffic and safety. John Watson felt a traffic study needs to be done. John Millar told them that is a State Highway i 9,~ Department and needs to be done with coordination with Highway Department regulations. That could be a condition of the. approval. He also stated that there are sight limitations from the east with the height of the canal. Mike also indicated there would need to be adequate screening. .John Millar told them if they plan to sell the existing building, it sets partially on the right-a-way and may encumber the stale of the building. John Watson stated the immediate goal was to expand but the big issue is the tabernacle won't go away and it impacts the parking. They could only grow to the west, they can't grow to the south. It is sad that the city let them build the library on the right-a-way twenty-three years ago. They are talking about a significant expenditure to build a new building. Today with the A.D.A. Code, the Life Safety Code and the U.B.C. when you go into a building that was built twenty years ago you can spend more money remodeling it and making it meet today's code than if you build a new building. They know there is a screening requirement and he had screening in the plan. He felt it was important to look at the safety issue around the canal. They would address the drainage. It won't fix the Burton's problem but will address the site. The Burtons were concerned because there is no walkway on the bridge on lst North if they come from that direction to the library. There is also a problem with the walkway next to the canal on Main Street. Discussion. A motion was made by Marilyn Hansen to table the issue until further investigation and a traffic safety study can be made. Seconded by Mike Thueson. All Aye except John Watson who abstained. John Watson also agreed that they would do this study. RE: ASSISTED LIVING CENTER ON MAIN STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TOPIC: (500,193,,,ASSISTED LIVING CENTER,L.D.R.l,MAIN STREET,C.U.P.) Fence between Beehive Homes and the Burtons- John Millar explained that the Beehive Homes were given a Conditional Use Permit to build their complex. One of the conditions of the Conditional Use Permit was that a fence be constructed between the Beehive Homes and the Burtons. In talking with both sides the difficulty arises in what is an acceptable fence so it has come back to the board. John discussed the issues that have come up: (1) Drainage is a problem at the Burtons. Stephen explained there has been some hope with the Burtons that a fence be constructed in such a nature that it would assist in keeping the runoff from the road from getting into their property. What John and Stephen have told the Burtons is that we don't dictate the type of fence but the function of the fence so a sight obscuring fence would be something that the board would have the authority to direct. The board would have the authority to direct that the fence be maintained so if a wood fence were built they would be required to water proof it on a yearly basis. The distinction between a wood fence and a masonry fence is not something this board would generally have jurisdiction over. John `~~ Millar explained. (2) Another issue was the access road into the Beehive Homes due to site constraints it is quite elevated and the .Burton's were concerned that a car could run off the road and onto their property. They have talked about requiring a graded ditch area that would try to retain traffic on site. (3) There is a problem with some of the curb and gutter on Main Street in front of the Burtons. That is a city responsibility. The sidewalk will have to meet A.D.A. requirements however they have not come back with that plan. Melonie Iler representing Beehive Homes told them their engineer and contractor will come up with a plan. Stephen stated that the issue then is limited to the fence. On their site plan they proposed a berm right on the property line which would serve the same purpose for retaining most of the reasonable expectation of vehicles sliding off that road. Another issue is there needs to be some type of a fence and there needs to be some type of a structure whether it be a berm or a concrete footing that will assist in keeping cars from sliding into the adjoining property. A motion was made by Bobbette Carlson that if agreeable with both parties they be required to put a maintainable berm in with a six foot fence to keep the water from going onto the Burton's property consistent with the Ordinance. Seconded by Gary Steiner. All Aye Mrs Ilex- Roger Derky from the Bureau of Facility Standards was here looking at their facility to approve it and he noticed the canal to the east and he is going to require they put a fence in. That would address some of the safety issues regarding the library. It will be put in the Beehive Homes property leaving a right-a-way. RE: L.I.D. SIDEWALK ISSUE ON RICKS AVENUE TOPIC: (500,194,,,RICKS AVE,L.I.D.3I,SIDEWALKS) L.I.D. Sidewalk Issues- Stephen explained these issues arose at the City Council Meeting during the L.I.D. Public Hearing. There are a couple of areas in the city that feel like the sidewalk requirements imposed by Planning & Zoning would put an undo hardship on their particular piece of property. The City Council felt they should come to this group and discuss a possibility of getting an exception and exemption from the sidewalk requirement. The council is looking to the Planning Board to give them a recommendation on it as to whether there should or shouldn't be an exception made for these properties. They are presently scheduled for construction on the L.I.D. that was approved last night. Mr Cook on Ricks Avenue- John Millar explained the problem we have with Ricks Avenue is it was built without full right-a-way and the road is 27' wide and the right-a-way as shown on the plat maps is 16 1/2 feet wide so there is no right-a-way on the Northern part of that road. The other problem is because of the sight restrictions, houses are as close as twenty feet from back of curb to the houses. The one for Mr Williams on 2nd North- They have a three foot walk on a significant portion of their property. Our current ordinance requires a /9a~ four foot minimum and five generally speaking. The one on 2nd North does have adequate right-a~-way. The question was is the three foot sidewalk adequate. It does sit adjacent to the curb and gutter.-That is the only sidewalk on that block currently. Stephen explained the current ordinance. The Williams feel the three foot sidewalk is adequate and it blends in nicely with their landscaping. They are asking to be able to keep their three foot sidewalk. John Watson- He had looked at Ricks Avenue and there are power poles in the way and overhead power lines and there is also the access to Tito's. His feeling on Ricks Avenue is that it is no different than the alley behind the jail. It is an extension almost. He does recognize that it is a street but if you look at the city map it is almost an after thought. It is like someone took an alley and made a street out of it which made it hard to do anything with. He wondered how the city could put a sidewalk in if there is no right-a-way and where would they go? Mr Cook discussed with the requirement of the 30o concrete or paving in the front yard, it would make it impossible. Stephen told the board if we don't put in a sidewalk he would recommend that we abandon the street as a liability concept. (discussion) John Watson felt that even if we have to abandon the road he did not feel they should put a sidewalk in. There are other areas in the city that have the same problem where there is not adequate right-a-way for sidewalk. Discussion on a one way street and putting sidewalk on one side of the street. (discussion) A motion was made by John Watson that the sidewalk ordinance not be enforced on Ricks Avenue and because of the liability issue we abandon the street based on the fact that it is unmaintainable as a city street. .Seconded by Gary Steiner. All aye RE: TOM WILLIAMS SIDEWALK ISSUE TOPIC: (500, 195,,,SIDEWALKS,2ND NORTH,WILLIAMS*TOM) Tom Williams property- Discussion. Stephen suggested that in this case in order to preserve the interest of the city in future. We require at both ends of their property a section be installed which would show the transition to what we intend to have happen on either side of them which would be five feet of sidewalk. We taper it out on either end of their property or turn it and take it out to the seven feet. Let them leave the three foot wide section they have but we use the ends of their property to put in sections on either end that would establish the transition. Mr Williams stated that when the other property owner along that street put sidewalks in they would probably be willing to take out the three foot sidewalk and put in the larger one. A motion was made by John Watson that we require that they put a transition piece of sidewalk on each end of their property five feet wide so that if the adjacent property owners make changes that they will tie into that five foot sidewalk and that they leave the three /9~ -~ foot wide sidewalk in as it is and authorize the engineering department to approve this recommendation. Seconded by Marilyn Hansen. All Aye Meeting adjourned. • •