Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutP&Z MINUTES JANUARY 26, 2000~~~ DATE: (012600) PLANNING & ZONING January 26, 2000 7:00 p.m. Present: Chairman: Davawn Beattie Members: John Watson Bobbette Carlson Raymond Hill Gary Steiner Doug Smith LaDawn Bratsman Ted Whyte Mike Thueson Roger Muir City Clerk: Marilyn Hansen P.F.C.: John Millar Council Member: Donna Benfield Excused: Stephen Zollinger Roger Muir made a motion to approve the minutes of January 12, 2000, motion was seconded by Bobbette Carlson. All voted Aye. RE: KEN BROWN POTATO STORAGE TOPIC: (550,222,,,BROWN*KEN,IMPACT ZONE,ZONE CHANGE,HIGHWAY 33, SALEM HIGHWAY,RAILROAD CROSSING) Roger Muir owns farm ground that adjoins the property in question, he does not anticipate a conflict but wanted everyone to know. John Millar explained the request for zone change for an industrial development located just north of U. S. Steel on an extension of what would be the Moody Highway. The area is an impact zone issue and is currently zoned agriculture and the request is for a zone change to industrial. John Watson stated his conflict of .interest. He then presented the plat, plans and description of use for the property. The development will be done in phases, the first phase would consist of the frozen product building, one storage unit and landscaping. As far as utilities .there is a 12" sanitary sewer line on Highway 33, the water goes only as far as Artco. John Millar stated they would want the sewer hooked on and would like to see the water extended to serve facilities in that area. There is a water tank and booster station just east of Horkley's that would provide storage and water supply. There was some discussion on the railroad spur and the safety of the double railroad tracks. The railroad makes the decision in that area and will not allow anything that is a safety issue. The zone change needs to be looked at independent of what is anticipated. Once it is E~ changed from. agricultural to industrial and if it meets the industrial ~ classification anything can go there. ~~~ ' Discussion of traffic generated on Highway 33, Salem Highway and across the railroad tracks. Sugar City is meeting with the Madison County Commissioners on the subject of roads in that area, the Salem Highway has nearly reached its capacity, Ken was asked where he anticipated most of the traffic would be. All the outgoing product would probably be going toward the Salem Highway and the incoming would be coming from Highway 33. Mike Thueson stated his concern was the highway situation, he feels the traffic conditions need to be looked at seriously. Doug Smith made a motion to recommend that this issue be sent to Public Hearing, seconded by Roger Muir. Those voting aye: Roger Muir Bobbette Carlson LaDawn Bratsman Doug Smith John Watson. Gary Steiner Mike Thueson Ted Whyte Abstaining: John Watson John Watson ask that Ken be given some direction as to the next step. This issue will be heard at public hearing before Planning & Zoning on February 23 and the City Council on March 1. It would also be good for Ken to have the number of employees anticipated and number of potato \ loads in and out for an idea on the traffic issue. RE: AIRPORT CLEAR ZONE TOPIC: (500,223,,,AIRPORT,AIRPORT BOARD,FAA,MADISON COUNTY,ZOCO, EVERGREEN SUBDIVISION,BUILDING DEPT.,BUILDING PERMITS) John Millar presented the Airport Clear Zone issue. The Airport Board, City Council and County Commissioners met last Monday morning to discuss issues that have arisen with the airport and the nearby vicinity. Because the area involved incorporates not only the City but the County there were several members of the County Planning & Zoning Commission here to share in the discussion. Those attending were: Blair Manwaring DaNiel Jose' Boyd Cardon Bill Squires Phil Packer Kurt Clawson There are basically three issues that have been raised on the airport area. They are: 1. Imaginary air surfaces that a.:re established by FAA to define the safe operating area around the airport. In 1970 the State of Idaho through the Department of Aeronautics enacted an airport zone around the airport. In the 30 years subsequent it has pretty much been forgotten. ~~7 2. The second issue is surfaces and reporting procedures defined by Federal Air Regulations, Part 77. Involved in that is whether or not to require certain builders in and around the airport to file a 7460-1 form which notifies the FAA of construction in areas up to 20,000 feet from any part of the runway. These forms have been submitted to FAA. 3. The third issue is the request for acknowledgment of people that build adjacent to the airport that the airport is there. John explained the issues beginning with the imaginary surfaces, showing a map and explaining those surfaces. The City and County both adopted the master plan which said they would live by the requirements of FAR Part 77. The first step is for the City and County both to officially adopt airport zoning in and around the airport. That protects the air space in an area basically 150 feet above the airport. In the Rexburg area there are few things more than 150 feet tall so it is probably not a significant issue. (Discussion of this issue). John gave everyone a copy of the proposed Airport Zoning Ordinance that was prepared by Armstrong Consultants who did the master plan and it basically puts into verbiage the imaginary surfaces. The recommended ordinance is one that was developed by FAA as a standard defined area. It is almost identical to the one filed by the state 30 years ago but was not officially adopted by Rexburg or Madison County as an • ordinance. Either this or an ordinance similar needs to be looked at to regulate the air space in and around the airport. The 7460-1 Form states that any construction within 20,000 feet of the airport that could violate the lower level of Part 77 which comes off the airport at a slope of 100 feet to one (1) foot has to file a form notifying the FAA that this construction is taking place at a specific location and that the elevation at the top of the building will be a certain height. FAA will determine if an aeronautical study is needed, is it a non-issue or does lighting need to be placed on that structure. There is one caveat in the requirement, if the building is sheltered by other buildings of equal height then a filing is not required, or if it is out high enough that it is not penetrating then it is not required to file. Example: If you are 3 miles out and building a 15 foot tall structure, FAA does not want to know about it. If you are 2 miles and building a 100 foot radio tower then you will have to notify FAA. The question was asked if there had been any buildings or structures within that space that violate this ordinance. John Millar says the issue has been looked at on an individual basis, when Ricks College did the lights at the football stadium it was a concern. The lights were looked at, it was determined to put red lights on top of them, not that they had to but Ricks College did not want the liability. Part 77 points out that if you have a low visibility structure, radio tower or light pole, then they fall under more stringent criteria. ~~~ If the City does not take a more affirmative position on this issue, funding for the airport could be affected. If the form has to be filed with FAA, FAA inputs the latitude, longitude and elevation into their computer and it determines if an aeronautical study is required. If there is a penetration that needs a study, they will then initiate the need for warning lights on the structure. (Discussion on possible expansion of the airport and study shows it will probably never be anything more than a utility airport.) The last issue that was brought up was whether or not to try to get people to more solidly acknowledge that the airport is there. It is the individual that moves in, buys a house under the approach and then complains because there are airplanes, that is a concern to the airport. John distributed an Aviation Easement where the homeowner is granting to the City/County through the Airport Board the right to fly over their property, and acknowledging there will be noise, dust, etc. Typically an easement of this type would have to be purchased, it is an encumbrance on the property, would run with the property and gives the airport a lot of strength in being there. This second proposal is more in line with what the Commissicners and the City Council requested in that it is nothing more than the property owners signature acknowledging that they know the airport is there, they know there will be dust, they know there will be noise, they know there will be down sides by living next to the airport. If a development like ZOCO came in again, we should look at recommending this form be filed with the plat so the homeowners know it runs with the property. The Council and Mayor would like a recommendation on: Do we proceed or do we not with the zoning requirements and Part 77; is the filing of the 7460's something we should be doing through the building department and is there a need for. trying to obtain these airport acknowledgments or easements in specified areas around the airport. There was discussion of matters concerning present homes in the area, is it burdensome to the homeowner, to trio building department, is the airport in violation if we do not do anything and what are the actual mechanical procedures. Davawn ask John to reiterate the three areas that need to be considered: 1. The zoning ordinance 2. Should we be more diligent in requiring filing of the 7460 3. Do we want to procure the acknowledgments or easements Discussion on the difference between acknowledgments and easements. r~ Doug Smith made a motion to table any decision on zoning of the airport until they have had time to read and study the issue. A 0707 (p decision will be made at the next meeting scheduled for February 9. The motion was seconded by Mike Thueson. All voted Aye. i Meeting adjourned. •.